The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. 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.
To translate this into colloquial terms, on the one hand the Articles reject the “Memorialist” view first espoused by Swiss Reformer Huldrych Zwingli. This is what I like to call the “real absence” model. Nothing spiritual or supernatural is thought to be happening here. Churches that hold this theology go out of their way to communicate that absence too. It is seen merely as a visual aid in contemplating Christ’s death in this view.
But for Anglicans that view is simply out of bounds. We hold that the Sacrament of the Table is definitely more than just a mere token. It is a Sacrament – so there is, by definition, an invisible grace being imparted. It is a true partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ – an experience of spiritual union not only with one another but with our Lord. Yet, the Roman Catholic idea of Transubstantiation[1] goes too far in the other direction. Here again, as the Article says this view, “overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament.” The means by which we receive is faith, it is spiritual food, the substance of bread and wine does not change. So, both memorialism must be rejected on the one extreme and transubstantion likewise rejected on the other. Both though are rejected for the same reason, they do violence to what a sacrament means by definition.
Anglicanism on the other hand seeks to preserve that definition and fit our understanding of the Sacraments to it. Anglicans espouse what I prefer to call the Buffalo Springfield view, “There’s somethin’ happenin’ here. What it is ain’t exactly clear…”[2] Do you see the theme of known unknown reemerging here? We know what the Sacrament is not – it’s not real absence, and its not transubstantiation. We know it is a means of communicating spiritual grace in some way. But as Anglicans we consciously choose not to define it any further than that. This theological view is most often called, the “Real Presence” view. Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist. We know not how, we simply receive it as a mystery and partake of it by faith.
This view leads to a great deal of freedom and several valid sacramental sub-theologies within the Anglican view. There are “high church” subscribers who hold the actual substance of the sacrament in higher regard for they feel that the Presence of the Spirit is somehow attached to the bread and the wine itself. This view, high though it is still distinguishes itself from Transubstantiation because the high church Anglican should still maintain that the Presence is a spiritual and not a literal one.
On the other hand there are those who hold to a more receptionist model. In this view the Presence comes to the heart of the believer as they are receiving the Sacrament. This emphasized the work of the Spirit in the heart upon reception (thus the name) rather than attaching the Presence in a tangible way to the elements themselves. Here too they do not go to the extreme of Zwinglian “real absence.”
[1] This is the view first proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas and it is based on the Aristotelian metaphysics which divide the essence of a thing from the accident. In other words, the essence of the bread and wine is changed though the accident, or form, appears unchanged. Through this view the Roman Catholic holds that they are actually eating the literal flesh of the Lord and literally drinking his blood because though the elements still appear as bread and wine, their essence is changed into the actual Body and Blood.
[2] From the sixties protest song, For What It’s Worth by the band Buffalo Springfield.
This specific "via media" is one of the most sensible and attractive features of taking part in an orthodox Anglican communion. Still, I don't like the tendency to contrast the term "literal" with "spiritual," as if somehow "spiritual" means "figurative." Even the language of the 39 articles gives me pause: "only after a heavenly or spiritual manner." Only spiritual? The semantic connotation almost mitigates the significance, but in a sense the invisible world is the ultimately real insofar as it serves as the origin and sustenance of all things visible.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, what is matter but some nigh inexplicable principle held together by the equally inexplicable force called energy? Is not Christ the Logos in whom all things hold together? If so, what then is the point of insisting (not you, but Catholics mostly) that there is a change in "substances" when the Lord of physics is the binding glue of every particle in the universe? Truly the food is spiritual and heavenly; it is the model for all food: our daily nourishment joyously pointing toward eternal sustenance. It does not therefore become less impressive by failing to satisfy some concept of the "physical" or "bodily."
My two cents. Great blog.