The ‘merely’ and ‘simply’ were used to highlight the fact that this was not a change in canon law. It was not an ordinance. A motion cannot change practice or law. A motion by nature expresses an opinion.
Unfortunately some of my response I was working on was eaten Robert, so I’ll just post some pertinent discussion on the “real presence” from another forum (which is also presently discussing the lay presidency issue) for the moment:
Ould quoted the following:
“The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.”(Article XXVIII)
It should be noted Rev. (or, Deacon?) Ould, what Bishop Guest (who was a primary author of this particular portion of the 28th Article and who was also one of the Bishops who revised the 1552 BCP to the standard 1559 BCP) states regarding this Article:
“I told him plainly that this word only in the foresaid Article [Article 28] did not exclude ye presence of Christ’s Body from the Sacrament, but only ye grossness and sensibleness in ye receiving thereof: For I said unto him though he took Christ’s Body in his hand, received it with his mouth, and that corporally naturally really substantially and carnally as ye doctors do write, yet did he not for all that see it, feel it, smell it, nor taste it.”
“Then ye may saye it in ye Sacrament His very Body is present yea really that is to saye, in deede, substantially that is in substance, and corporally carnally and naturally, by ye wich words is ment that His verye Bodye His very flesh and His very humane nature is there not after corporall carnall or naturall wise, but invisibly unspeakeably supernaturally spiritually divinely and by waye unto Him onlye knowen.”
Now, Bishop Guest initially objected to the later inclusion (almost 10 years later) in the 39 Articles of St. Augustine’s statement on the wicked not feeding on Christ in the Sacrament (in the newly added Article 29)--because of the concern of a possible denial therein of Christ’s “spiritual, heavenly” presence in the Consecrated Elements--but within a few days he withdrew his initial objection.
Of course, Article 29 does not deny the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Rather, it simply affirms with St. Augustine and others that regardless of whether the Sacramental presence of Christ may be said to come in judgment with the Sacrament into the wicked or not, yet His Sacramental presence is not truly feed upon, that is, in the soul/heart or “inwardly” (as St. Augustine says--on the authority of the Gospel of John iteself:
“He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.” This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], but rather does he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man takes worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” Matthew 5:8
And St. Augustine states further (and the BCPs words “...feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving” seem to have likely been derived from the following statements of St. Augustine).
“This, then, is the bread that comes down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die.” But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he that eats within, not without; who eats in his heart, not who presses with his teeth.)).
11...Moses ate manna, Aaron ate manna, Phinehas ate manna, and many ate manna, who were pleasing to the Lord, and they are not dead. Why? Because they understood the visible food spiritually, hungered spiritually, tasted spiritually, that they might be filled spiritually. For even we at this day receive visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament another. How many do receive at the altar and die, and die indeed by receiving? Whence the apostle says, “Eats and drinks judgment to himself.” 1 Corinthians 11:29
As for Cranmer it was the historic witness of the Monk/Priest Rathumnus in the 9th century (and apparently--in particular--the teaching of the Church Fathers which Rathumnus brought forward) that was foundational in his later understanding of Holy Communion (now one might validly question whether Cranmer always applied the Church Fathers accurately on the Eucharist--but he made it clear to the end of his life that his intention was to teach no other doctrine than the Church Fathers themselves had taught (explicitly submitting himself to the testimonty of the Church Fathers on the Eucharist to the end of his life), and that the Church Fathers--drawn to his attention most notably by Rathrumnus--were foundational in coming to his later views on the Eucharist).
Rathumnus’ excellent exposition on the Sacrament can be read here (though a number of Anglicans interpreted him in a more “receptionist” or “virtualist” sense, in my opinion his views accord better with the presence of Christ being in the Consecrated Elements (after a “heavenly or spiritual manner”) held by a number of the Anglican Divines):
http://books.google.com/books?id=we8CAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=bertram+“concerning+the+body+and+blood”#PPA1,M1
Blessings in Christ.
William Scott
p.s. The “receptionist”/”virtualist” position itself is actually similar to some of the views maintained among Eastern Orthodox on the presence of Christ in the Holy Communion.
Yes it is true that Bishop Guest manipulated article 28, but he was very upset by article 29 which he felt undermined it.
He wrote to Elizabeth’s chief minister, Cecil in 1571:
“If this article be confirmed and authorised by the Queen’s grace, it will cause much business, because it is quite contrary to the Scripture and to the doctrine of the Fathers, for it is certain that Judas , as evil as he was , did receive Christ’s body, because Christ said to him, Take , eat this is my body. “ it is not said, “ if thou be a good or faithful man, take, eat , this is my body, but simply, without such condotions, take eat, this is my body.”
Archbishop Parker made sure that Convocation passed article 29.
At the Reformation it was acknowledged by all that a real Objective presence and the wicked Christains receiving Christ’s body stand or fall together. Article 29 was formulated to condemn the idea of a real objective presence.It follows that the Elizabethan Reformers in condemning this corollaly by passing article 29 condemned the idea of a real objective presence.
Article 29 was passed by the Bishops and formally approved by the Supreme Governor, Queen Elizabeth and imposed upon all the clergy..and thus there is no doubt that this represents the authentic teaching of the Church of England.
Yes it is true that Bishop Guest manipulated article 28, but he was very upset by article 29 which he felt undermined it.
He wrote to Elizabeth’s chief minister, Cecil:
I"f this article be confirmed and authorised by the Queen’s grace, it will cause much business, because it is quite contrary to the Scripture and to the doctrine of the Fathers, for it is certain that Judas , as evil as he was , did receive Christ’s body, because Christ said to him, Take , eat this is my body. “ it is not said, “ if thou be a good or faithful man, take, eat , this is my body, but simply, without such condotions, take eat, this is my body.”
Archbishop Parker made sure that Convocation passed article 29.
At the Reformation it was acknowledged by all that a real Objective presence and the wicked Christains receiving Christ’s body stand or fall together. Article 29 was formulated to condemn the idea of a real objective presence.It follows that the Elizabethan Reformers in condemning this corollaly by passing article 29 condemned the idea of a real objective presence.
Wrong Robert. Bishop Guest was the primary author of the above quoted portion of Article 28 (which was added to the earlier Article on the Lord’s Supper in the 42 Article)--it is absurd to claim that he is manipulating Article 28.
As for your later statement--it was not acknowledged by all that the presence after a “heavenly and spiritual” manner was denied in the 29th Article (besides, you would have to deny that St. Augustine held any objective presence if it was this was case--given that it is St. Augustine’s teaching which is enshrined in the passage).
Blessings in Christ,
William Scott
p.s. I’m gone for the next while--but I’ll plan on responding to any follow up posts when I get the chance.
The quote from Augustine is also deliberately taken out of context,as are the Fathers throughout Cranmer’s writings. It is not Augustine’s teaching enshrined in the article.please quote Ausgustine’s statement in is original and in its full context. His blief that we receive the spiritual body , does not exclude his belief taht Chris’s natural body is alos present.
See the article by Porteille in Dictionary of catholic theology , and the Catholic Encyclopedia.He also affirms that infants receive the actual body of Christ..Augustine sermon 174, 7....
A text without a context is always a pretext.
This is what they do with Augustine and justification..they try and make out he believed in justifcation by faith alone...which he most certianly did not.
There is no doubt that Augustine taught an objective real presence and the propitiatory nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice.
You make no attempt to answer Guest’s objections to Cecil.
The late Anglican patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly concerning St. Augustine --
“If Ambrose’s influence helped to mediate the doctrine of a physical change to the West [we’ll cover this exhaustively later], that of Augustine was exerted in a rather different direction. His thought about the eucharist, unsystematic and many-sided as it is, is tantalizingly difficult to assess. Some, like F. Loofs, have classified him as the exponent of a purely symbolical doctrine; while A. Harnack seized upon the Christian’s incorporation into Christ’s mystical body, the Church, as the core of his sacramental teaching. Others have attributed receptionist views to him.
“There are certainly passages in his writings which give a superficial justification to all these interpretations, but a balanced verdict must agree that HE ACCEPTED THE CURRENT REALISM. Thus, preaching on ‘the sacrament of the Lord’s table’ to newly baptized persons, he remarked [Serm 227],
‘That bread which you see on the altar, sanctified by the Word of God, IS CHRIST’S BODY. That cup, or rather the contents of that cup, sanctified by the Word of God, IS CHRIST’S BLOOD. By these elements the Lord Christ willed to convey HIS BODY AND BLOOD, which He shed for us.’
“‘You know,’ he said in another sermon [Serm 9:14], ‘what you are eating and what you are drinking, or rather, WHOM you are EATING and WHOM you are DRINKING.’ Commenting on the Psalmist’s bidding that we should adore the footstool of His feet, he pointed out [Enarr in Ps 98:9] that this must be the earth. But since to adore the earth would be blasphemous, he concluded that the word must mysteriously signify the FLESH which Christ took from the earth and which He gave to us to EAT. Thus it was the EUCHARISTIC BODY WHICH DEMANDED ADORATION.
“Again, he explained [Enarr in Ps 33:1:10] the sentence, ‘He was carried in his hands’ (LXX of 1 Sam 21:13), which in the original describes David’s attempt to allay Achish’s suspicions, as referring to the sacrament:
‘CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE OFFERED HIS VERY BODY AND SAID “THIS IS MY BODY“‘.
“One could multiply texts like these which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements WITH THE SACRED BODY AND BLOOD. There can be NO DOUBT that he shared the REALISM held by almost ALL his contemporaries and predecessors.”
Matthew 26:
26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Mark 22:
22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Luke 22:
‘14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’
1 Corinthians 11:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Folks,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I find no warrant in scripture for anything other then for ‘lay presidency’. So in accordance with scripture I am under obligation to Christ to remind my family at each and every meal of Christ’s sacrifice for us.
Unlike ‘the Passover meal, that occurred once a year, Christ instituted a replacement that covers each and every meal we partake of. In other words, remembrance and proclamation of Christ’s sacrifice is not limited to what we do in a formal ‘Church’ setting, and only if we have someone present with a dog collar!
Christ is Lord of all of Life, so his commands cover all of life, not just when we are in a ‘special building, on one day a week, and with ‘specially’ designated people there.
You’re up against a pretty powerful union there, Hugh. 2,000 years old with branches in every denomination. I wouldn’t fancy trying to cross the picket-line in this demarcation dispute.
You’re up against a pretty powerful union there, Hugh. 2,000 years old with branches in every denomination. I wouldn’t fancy trying to cross the picket-line in this demarcation dispute.
No problems, to quote Paul:
In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me.
Man’s tradition, no matter how strongly held, or no matter for how long followed, is no match for God’s sovereignty.
