From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Real Presence
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 01:32:39 GMT

In article <9209262113.AA15761@pegasus.com> "(Len Howard)" <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:
>
>John O'Callaghan then sayeth:
>|I do not know very much about the Episcopal liturgy, but as these
>|statments are presented, they strike me as expressions of doubt
>|about the RC doctrine of the real presence which is Christ's
>|sacrifice.  "Take them in remembrance that Christ died for you;"
>|why?  Because the sacrifice of Christ in His death
>|is not really present to you in this Eucharist.  "Feed on Him in
>|your hearts by faith;" why?  Because you cannot receive Him really
>|on your tongue and in your stomach.  This is not meant to be a
>|flame on Episcopalians, but there might be very good reasons for
>|Catholics to find these statements, thought very poetic and
>|beautiful in that sense, less than spiritually satisfying.
>>
>>Amanda's post continues:
>>This, to me, is much more evocative than "Happy are those who are
>>called to his supper"...
>>Given what I wrote above, if goes without saying why Catholics
>>might cringe at the translation into English, and rejoice at the
>>Reality signified.
>>
>  [comment on another topic deleted]
>|Peace,
>|John O'Callaghan
>
>Shalom, John,
>     I wonder if taking these words at face value only without
>looking at the deeper meaning is not clouding your understanding of
>the Episcopal liturgy.  I assume you are implying that there is no
>Real Presence of Christ in the Episcopal liturgy.  If I am
No I am not implying that.  Perhaps I should have been clearer.  There
are certainly Episcopalians out there who could enlighten me on the
meaning of real presence for Episcopalians.  The question is more a matter
of whether the language used in the Episcopalian Liturgy is a result of 
differences with Roman Catholics about what is believed in believing in
the real presence.
>     First, since you seem to make your primary point about it, the
>doctrine of the eucharist..If we look at Owen Thomas' "Introduction
>to Theology" we read "Although during the patristic period there
>was almost no argument over the doctrine of the eucharist,
>controversy broke out in the ninth century and increased in the
>medieval and reformation periods."  The controversy was and is over
>the doctrine of the real presence of Christ.  We have either the
>Thomistic doctrine of transubstantiation or the Lutheran doctrine
>of consubstantiation.  Trans makes use of Aristotelian terminology
>to say the substance changes, while the accidents remain.  Con says
>the substances are additive so after consecration both are present
>at the same time.
The doctrine of transubstantiation is not a matter of a Thomistic doctrine.
It could hardly be, since the term "transubstantiation" was used to describe
or express the mystery of Christ's presence in the Eucharist at the Fourth
Lateran Council in 1215, fully twelve years before the birth of Thomas Aquinas.
No doubt Aquinas has things to say about a theological understanding of the doctrine of transsubstantiation, but the doctrine is the Church's, not his.
Also, we must be clear that again the Church does not advocate any philosophical
understanding of the terms it choose.                     
>     In Anglican Doctrine, the doctrine of transubstantiation isls
>condemned in Article XXVIII on the grounds that it cannot be proven
>from Scripture, that it is repugnant to Scripture, that it
>overthrows the nature of the a sacrament, and that it has given
>rise to superstition.  If the substance of bread is removed, then
>it is no longer bread and its accidents thereby veil rather than
>manifest its reality and thus the reality of the Body of Christ.
>     The three main views of the presence of Christ in the
>eucharist which have been held in Anglicanism are called real
>presence, receptionism and virtualism.  Real presence holds that
>the bread and wine really become the Body and Blood of Christ
>regardless of the metaphysics of how this happens. Receptionism
>affirms that the presence of Christ is found in the hearts of the
>faithful rather than in the elements prior to reception.
>Virtualism holds that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood
>of Christ not in substance but in spiritual effect, power, or
>virtue.  It is characteristic of Anglicanism to affirm the real
>presence of Christ in the eucharist while avoiding any official
>declaration of some particular metaphysical interpretation of this
>presence.
But the Catholic Church does not, I repeat Does NOT make "any official
declaration of some particular metaphysical interpretation of this presence."
This seems to be an instance where people are more than willing to give the 
Church an authority it never claims
>"The gifts of God for the people of God."  The gifts given to the
>disciples in the upper room were the Body and Blood of Christ.
>"Take them in remembrance that Christ died for you"  The Gospel of
>Luke and 1 Cor 11 make mention of the memorial, which provides our
>primary understanding of the term remembrance.  There is, however,
>an additional concept of restoring the unity of the Body of Christ,
>the re-membering, as opposed to dis-membering.  There would be no
>sense in this if the real presence is not there in the eucharist.
>"And feed on Him in your hearts, with thanksgiving."  Now John, we
>certainly don't have any way of getting anything to the heart from
>the mouth, so you must admit that this is speaking metaphorically
>and refers to _not only_ feeding on Him in our stomachs in the
>bodily sense of the consubstantiation, but in our hearts, the
>spiritual center of the body.  When we use the doctrine of con-
>substantiation, we get used to two things happening at the same
>time involving the same substances.
>     So, finally, and I am sorry this has been so long but there is
>no way to explain it quicker, I look on the invitation as affirming
>the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, and, in fact, find it
>to represent almost action for action what was directed for us to
>do in that upper room.  I hope you find the words to be more
>spiritually satisfying now, John.
>     And my thanks to Amanda for initiating this cognitive process
>in me.  I rarely spend so much time on a post, but feel this gets
>at the core of Anglican doctrine, and needed to be presented.
I thank you for the explanation, I now feel I understand a little more
the Roman Catholic differences with Anglicans.
Peace,
John