X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 11:13:27 HST
From:         "(Len Howard)" <tas@PEGASUS.COM>
Subject:      Real Presence

>From CATHOLIC@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU  Fri Sep 25 13:37:02 1992
From: "(john ocallaghan)" <jocallag@VYASA.HELIOS.ND.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A question of intercommunion

In article <199209251457.AA13685@intercon.com> amanda@INTERCON.COM
(Amanda Walker) writes: [in a comment to an earlier post (>>)]
>
>> I am rather fond of the line from Episcopal liturgy that states
>> "The gifts of God for the people of God."
>> just before Communion.
>
>I like the rest of the passage, which continues: "Take them in
>remembrance that Christ died for you, feed on Him in your hearts
by faith, and be thankful."

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
misreading your comment, forgive me.  Let's talk a bit about some
of the theological concepts at work in the above discussion.
     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.
     In Anglican Doctrine, the doctrine of transubstantiation is
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.
     Modern liturgical understanding of the eucharist sees the real
presence of Christ mediated through the whole liturgical action of
offertory, consecration, fraction and communion and as focussed in
but not limited to the elements and their reception.
     With that basis of understanding of Anglican theology, let us
look at the invitatory phrases.
"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.

Shalom,                            Len Howard
                                   tas@pegasus.com