Class Notes and Videos for Inquirers - St. Matthew's Anglican Catholic Church

Added to my sidebar.  Highly recommended for people curious about the Anglican Way.

Comments

[Roger du Barry]

This is not the Anglican Way. It is the Lutheran Way. The Supper was the only issue between Luther and the Reformed, and this ACC take on the Supper is pure Lutheranism. See Jewel's Apology. Therefore the ACC is Lutheran. Their take on the Real Presence is flatly contradicted by the Black Rubric, which states in clear terms that Christ is not in the Supper because he is in heaven.

[Embryo Parson]

Hi Roger. While it's true the Black Rubric asserts that Christ's body is in heaven, the question of how the Eucharist effects union with Christ must nevertheless be reflected upon theologically, for both Holy Scripture (e.g., I Cor. 10:16) and the Prayer Book indicate that the Eucharist in fact unites us to the God-man Jesus Christ. As you are well aware, Anglicans have generally rejected the memorialist view. That being acknowledged, there is a range of belief in classical Anglican divinity as to the mode of Christ's presence in the elements He refers to as his "body" and "blood". Here are several articles that discuss Anglican eucharistic theology:

Transubstantiation and the Black Rubric

The Black Rubric

The Biblical and Patristic Foundations of Anglican Sacramentalism as Understood by the English Reformers

On The Eucharist: Defanging the Black Rubric

Anglican Eucharistic Theology

[Roger du Barry]

Hello EP. The Black Rubric does not require an empty sign theology, far from it. It simply rejects the Roman and Lutheran positions. Christ's body and blood are truly communicated to us in the Supper, otherwise it would not be a sacrament. However, and this is where the Reformed view differs from Luther and the Pope, Christ is not present in, with, or under the elements, because his body is in heaven, nowhere else.

This is why the Anglos are actually Lutherans. They talk as if their position is Anglican and Catholic, when in fact it is neither. They are Lutherans plain and simple. The mystery to me is why no-one has seen this.

[Roger du Barry]

BTW, in the link Defanging the Black Rubric, that man simply claims that it is an embarrassment. He does not defang it, he just waves it away. He is a Lutheran passing himself off was an Anglican. I am always amazed at the way men like him simply disregard Anglican theology when it does not suit.

Have another read of Jewel's Apology. He states that it is only the Supper that separates the Lutherans and there Reformed, and expresses the sincere hope that an agreement could soon be found. He is right about the Supper being the only substantial issue.

You can't have a Real Presence while rejecting transubstantiation, and claim that you are catholic. Certainly you cannot be an Augustinian, because Augustine rejected a personal presence of Christ in the elements, while insisting on a real communication of the body and blood.

[Embryo Parson]

Several responses:

1) My point in posting these articles was partly to show that Anglican theological reflection on the nature of the Lord's Supper did not begin and end with the Edwardian phase of the English Reformation. While Cranmer's and Jewell's reflection on the Eucharist was clearly Reformed in orientation, a view that some scholars have dubbed "dynamic symbolism", later Anglican divinity entertained understandings of the Supper that are more realist in nature. I don't believe that the Bible, the Articles or the Prayer Book adjudicates the matter in either view's favor;

2) The range of opinion in Anglican theology mirrors that of the patristic era. The Fathers weren't of one mind about this, and the debate that arose out of this lack of unanimity came to a head in the Western church with Rome's decision at the Fourth Lateran Council in favor of the theology of Radbertus over that of Ratramnus et al., which would later receive a philosophical basis in the theology of Thomas Aquinas. However, aside from the rejection of memorialism on one end and transubstantiation on the other, Anglicans have taken more of a "live and let live" approach. All of us agree that the Eucharist actually unites us mystically to Christ. We simply allow differing theologoumena concerning how that happens, summed up I think in the words attributed to QE I:

"Christ was the word that spake it.
He took the bread and break it;
And what his words did make it
That I believe and take it."

3) You say that it is impossible to "have a Real Presence while rejecting transubstantiation", but I think this begs the question, especially since it is apparent that Anglican theologians seem to mean more than one thing by the term "real." Some of them do indeed lean heavily in a Lutheran direction, and it should be noted that the Lutheran theology involves neither a theory of transubstantiation nor requires adoration; other Anglican scholars by the term "real" actually seem to be saying something like, "real in a mystical or spiritual sense", but not "real" as Radbertus and Rome understand it. Anglican sacramental realism clearly comprehends more than one theory as to how Christ is "really present" in the sacrament.

In closing, I will reiterate that both dynamic symbolism (the Reformed view) and certain varieties of realism (including the Lutheran view) harmonize with the Bible, the Articles and the Prayer Book. Ergo, we can be sure that we won't be led away from the Anglican Way by St. Matthew's inquirer's class materials.

Anglican Eucharistic Theology

[Roger du Barry]

What I actually said, dear EP, is the you can't reject transubstantiation while claiming a real presence, AND CALL YOURSELF CATHOLIC. (Upper case for emphasis, not emotion). We all know what the Anglos mean by the word catholic, and it is not Lutheranism.

While I understand what you are saying by referring to a range of Anglican thought, and acknowledge that, you are not seeing my point, which is that Anglican theology does not grow and evolve, for the simple reason that it is established in law. It is unchangeable of that simple reason. Until the Act of Parliament is changed, Anglican theology is fixed. Individual Anglicans may have their private opinions, but the religion exists objectively and independently of their views because it is written down in black and white.

As an American living outside of the England this point may not be immediately obvious, no offence my friend. The doctrine of the CoE is established in law here in the UK, which means that the bishops can have all the talks they wish with Rome and the Lutherans, but until Parliament changes the law nothing changes. The English Parliament is the supreme synod of the English Church. This is what a Christian country looks like.

Coming back to the Black Rubric, I am afraid that you are just wrong that it makes room for Lutheranism. It makes NO room for a real presence in, with, or the under the forms. Christ's body is in one place only because it is a human body, and he is in heaven. This is the exact point of difference between the Reformed on the one hand, and Lutheranism and Rome on the other, even if Luther rejected transubstantiation.

[Embryo Parson]

Hello again, Roger. First off, could you point out the section or sections of the St. Matthew ACC inquirer materials that you believe reflects a Lutheran understanding of the sacrament? We should have cleared this up at the beginning of the exchange.

Next, re:

"What I actually said, dear EP, is the you can't reject transubstantiation while claiming a real presence, AND CALL YOURSELF CATHOLIC. (Upper case for emphasis, not emotion). We all know what the Anglos mean by the word catholic, and it is not Lutheranism."

Sorry if I'm being dense here, but your attempt to clear up your statement has not succeeded in removing its opacity for me. If you're saying that you can't reject transubstantiation while claiming a real presence, and call yourself a ROMAN Catholic, well, sure. However, while Anglo-Catholics do stress the objective presence of Christ in the sacrament, they believe neither in transubstantiation nor the Lutheran view, assuming they are faithfully following the Tractarians. As William Crockett writes in The Study of Anglicanism, "In their theology of the Eucharist, the Tractarians saw a closer connection between the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the elements than did the earlier Anglican tradition. For the Tractarians, there is a strict identity between the earthly body of Christ, his risen body, and his sacramental body. The only difference us in the manner or mode of presence. While connecting the eucharistic presence of Christ more closely to the elements than did the earlier Anglican theologians, the Tractarians were entirely at one with them in insisting that the manner of the presence is spiritual and not physical or local. It is a presence in the order of grace and not a presence in the order of nature. Christ is present in the Eucharist, however, in a specific way: namely, by means of sacramental signs. There is nothing here which goes essentially beyond what can be found in the older seventeenth-century Anglican writers, except by way of emphasis." (p. 314, bolded emphases mine.)

Yes, for the Church of England, I do understand that her theology is subject to certain parameters set by Parliament. We can discuss the pros and cons of Erastianism some other time. For now, my question to you is whether or not you believe English law requires a particular understanding of the Eucharist, or whether there is some room for at least some difference of opinion as to the nature of that sacrament. I'm not defending theological "evolution", BTW. I'm simply asking if you believe English law allows for some theologoumena on the matter. C.B. Moss writes, "The Anglican Communion is not committed to any particular doctrine of the Eucharist. . .", except that of the various "speculative theories", Anglicans reject mere memorialism on one end of the spectrum and transubstantiation on the other, while they also tend to reject the Lutheran understanding as well. Other than that, there does seem to be room for other such "speculative theories." Again, I'd like to know whether you think English Law requires only one understanding.

Regarding your last paragraph on Black Rubric, what I actually said was this: "Both dynamic symbolism (the Reformed view) and certain varieties of realism (including the Lutheran view) harmonize with the Bible, the Articles and the Prayer Book." I was referring to our principal sources of theology, not the Black Rubric per se, and I will stand by my assertion here. I am essentially agreeing with Moss' characterization of these theories as somewhat "speculative" in nature, while at the same time pointing out that there are a lot of nuances in these theories, so much so that as I noted previously, it's oftentimes difficult to discern what a writer means when he refers to the "real" presence. Context is obviously always important. I do believe that the Bible, Articles and Prayer Book rule out mere memorialism. Transubstantiation on the other hand not only "overthrows the nature of a sacrament", it is easily undone theologically with the application of Occam's Razor. In between those extremes, however, are more than one viable way of explaining how the Eucharist effects "participation" in the Body and Blood of Christ.

[Roger du Barry]

Thanks for a thoughtful and thought-provoking reply. Before I continue, I want to assure you that I am finding this exchange useful and enjoyable. The spirit of a conversation can easily be lost in internet discussions.

My point is about an objective presence of Christ in the elements, specifically, that Anglican theology properly speaking explicitly rejects it. Christ's resurrected body is in heaven only and nowhere else. That is the unambiguous meaning of the Black Rubric.

The argument that what is meant by a real presence is a spiritual presence, not a bodily presence, makes no sense to me. Paul teaches us in 1 Corinthians 15 that Christ's risen body is a spiritual body, not meaning at all that it is ephemeral or ethereal, but meaning incorruptible, not of this earth, but from God. This spiritual body is a body of flesh and bone, not ghostly, as he demonstrated to Thomas.

Since this immortal body of flesh and bone, described as spiritual by Paul, is in heaven and nowhere else at present, I don't know what is meant by a spiritual presence. Either he is objectively present or he is objectively absent. Does he have two modes of being human, one physical and the other ephemeral? I say no.

On memorialism, I think that it is a real misconception that denying the real presence implies it. I am certainly not arguing for it. We certainly and truly participate in the body and blood of Christ, or there is no sacrament. However, the absence of Christ in the elements of the sacrament is the precise point of difference between the Reformed and the Lutherans. On every other point we agree, but on the presence we differ. That is a matter of historical fact, and it is impossible to credibly argue otherwise.

Erastianism is neither here nor there. Anglicanism is defined by the Act of Conformity, which makes the BCP 1662 the faith of the English Church. That is a plain fact, and whether it is Eurasian or not is entirely beside the point. Points of doctrine have been decided in the courts of England on this basis, and rightly so. Theologians are welcome to say whatever they wish, but where they differ from the 1662 they cease to speak for Anglicanism.

Speaking personally, I cannot find the Anglican Faith anywhere on earth at present. Some have this aspect of it, and others have that, but the whole package seems to elude most. The present CoE is certainly a stranger to it.

[Roger du Barry]

Report at Virtueonline regarding conversations between confessional ACNA and confessional Lutherans. Turns out they agree on the real presence now, because the Black Rubric has been removed from the ACNA's formularies. There are issues, but in essence the ACNA is now Lutheran, but the Lutherans are being asked to accept episcopacy in the ACNA way.

[Embryo Parson]

"Report at Virtueonline regarding conversations between confessional ACNA and confessional Lutherans. Turns out they agree on the real presence now, because the Black Rubric has been removed from the ACNA's formularies. There are issues, but in essence the ACNA is now Lutheran, but the Lutherans are being asked to accept episcopacy in the ACNA way."

Interesting times. As I indicated over at the Facebook discussion you and I have joined:

"The fact of the matter is that modern orthodox Anglicanism has largely moved past the Edwardian phase of the English Reformation. That will indeed be "troubling" to those of you who hanker for the Reformed heyday, but it is what it is, and there is little possibility that you all are going to be able to talk this more sacramentalist trajectory of orthodox Anglicanism back to the Reformed way. The Caroline Divines, and to a certain extent the Tractarians, have won the day. I would find a way to make peace with them via an appeal to historic Anglican comprehensiveness."

Of course, that will be easier for North American Anglicans, whose prayer books do not contain the Black Rubric, though one complicating factor there is that the 1662 prayer book is accepted as one of the formularies by both ACNA and AMiA. I personally don't find the move back toward realism as troubling as you do, but I do understand your reasoning. Thanks for your comment about how useful and enjoyable this exchange has been. I feel the same way as to your contributions to it.