www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Anglican Real Presence

Dear father Columcille,

Yes, Calvinist predestinationism has always been a "mystery" to me .

Christ died to destroy the sins of all.

But, and here's the rub, we need to appropriate His Salvation ourselves and for ourselves to "implement it" in our lives.

And this is where the Calvinist would have difficulty, since it smacks too much of a theology where the human will actually does have independence and is capable, in conjunction with Divine Grace, to make spiritual choices and accomplish "works" (which the Eastern Church understands as "virtues.")

But when Christians in the West were arguing over faith and works, the East went beyond this to say that there is a third aspect of salvation without which the other two would never come to fruition - union with Christ and the resulting Divinization in Him by the Spirit.

Alex

When Anglo-Catholics like DeKoven say that Christ's Body and Blood are really but spiritually present, the term "spiritually" or "heavenly" contrasts with "materialistically." The concern here is to assert a strong conviction in the Real Presence, while at the same time distinguishing the Anglo-Catholic view from the Latin formulation of transubstantiation, which had been explicitly rejected by Article XXVIII as overthrowing "the
nature of a sacrament." It was the popular Anglican (mis)understanding that Catholicism taught a materialistic, physical change of the bread and wine.

Actually, it's not just semantics, because how one understands the universality of the atonement directly affects how one shares the Gospel with another human being.

A limited atonement evangelist cannot say to another person "Christ died for YOU, and if you believe in him you will be saved," because the evangelist cannot know if the person he is evangelizing is in fact one of the elect. The evangelist is only authorized to say "Christ died for sinners, and if you believe in him, you will be saved." In the final analysis, therefore, the limited atonement evangelist is not authorized to declare God's love directly and personally to any given individual. It's an indirect Gospel, in other words--or perhaps no Gospel at all. Limited Atonement is in direct conflict with Martin Luther, whose major concern was the bestowal of God's unconditional, transforming forgiveness in the preaching of the Gospel.

If you'd like to read a good short article defending Limited Atonement, see this piece by J. I. Packer [soundofgrace.com] . It might be especially fun to get some Orthodox responses to Packer's piece.

Fr Kimel+

in the immortal words of John McLaughlin: "WRONG!"

This is a very common misconception about late medieval Eucharistic theology and praxis, but as Francis Clark has definitively shown, it has NO basis in historical reality. It's a myth, pure and simple -- popular among Oxford Movement Divines and apparently still persistent on Internet BBSes. :p

Please read Fr. Clark's Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation. It is documented out the wazoo. It examines both the Eucharistic theology of the late-medieval Schools and the popular Eucharistic piety exemplified in sermons and missions. And it shows -- I think beyond reasonable doubt -- that the late-medieval period (which provided the backdrop and seedbed for the Reformation) held to an entirely orthodox conception of the Eucharist.

AfterbFr. Clark published his research, even Protestant scholars had to concede that he had proved his case (and revolutionized the subject). Henceforth, I think, the burden of proof rests entiely upon anyone who continues to insist that late-medieval Eucharistic theology was hopelessly wrped and that the Reformers were merely reacting against its excesses. Father Clark has made it virtually impossible to subscribe to this myth with a straight face.

Please pardon the typos -- my keyboard's acting up, and I can't fix 'em.

Blessings,

Diane

Hi, Father Kimel!

Don't you think, also, that this Anglican reaction against Catholic "gross materialism" reflects a sort of residual Docetism?

When Newman read up on Docetism, he realized with horror that Protestantism itself was at least semi-Docetistic -- not merely in its rejection of Transubstantiation but also in its rejection of the Church in her theandric fullness.

The Incarnation is at the heart of all Catholic theology and ecclesiology. While orthodox Protestants and Anglicans would never dream of rejecting the doctrine of the Incarnation, their views on key subjects like the Eucharist show that they are, perhaps, uncomfortable with all the implications of the Incarnation.

Blessings,

ZT, ex-Anglican

P.S. One thing I've always wondered about Calvin's view that Christ's physical presence at the Right Hand of the Father means He can't be physically (substantially) present in the Elements: How the heck does Calvin know that? Where does Scripture say any such thing? And more to the point, if God is so "sovereign," per Calvin's view, then why can't He do whatever He darn pleases? As I'm sure you'd agree, Calvin's "virtualist" theology of the Eucharist puts strict limits on the sovereignty of God...which of course means, that from a Calvinist POV, it's self-contradictory.

No.

Historically, I think that the major concern was that transubstantiation, (mis)understood in a materialistic manner, violated the sacramental order. In the words of the Articles of Religion, transubstantiation "overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament." By Anglican definition, a sacrament is an "outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." Even an Anglo-Catholic like Wilberforce maintained this definition, though making clear that in the case of the Eucharist the consecrated elements (the bread and wine) effect and contain the grace that they signify (the Body and Blood). By its insistence that the bread and wine are effectively replaced by the Body and Blood--the bread and wine are no longer there!-- transubstantiation was heard by Anglicans as saying that the Blessed Sacrament in fact ceases to be a sacrament: By the consecration Christ is now naturally and carnally present amongst us (Capharnaitism).

Of course, properly understood, transubstantiation does not say that Christ is present in his natural form in the Blessed Sacrament. He is present, rather, substantially and sacramentally. Christ's natural body is "restricted" to heaven.

Anglicans typically appeal to the Incarnation to support its criticism of transubstantiation. Just as the Incarnation respects and maintains the integrity of human nature, so the Eucharistic consecration respects and maintains the integrity of the bread and wine. The bread and wine are not annihilated by the consecration; rather, they are elevated and become the effective sacramental signs of our Lord's glorified humanity. The sacramental union of bread and wine with the Body and Blood is thus analogous to the hypostatic union of human nature and divine nature.

This critique of transubstantiation is by no means unique to Anglicanism. It is also the most common critique offered by Orthodox theologians. In a very recent email, one well-known Orthodox theologian recently criticized the materialism of the Catholic understanding and reiterated the more mystical approach of Orthodoxy. Another Orthodox seminary professor emailed me the following two months ago: So the docetism argument can be run both ways ...

Dear ZoeTheodora,

Where have you been lately?

First of all, I NEVER said that Catholic sacramentalism was wrong or heretical.

I was simply juxtaposing it to the Eastern Church's perspective.

The perfectly legitimate, though distinct, emphasis in Catholicism is on the "material" aspects of the Eucharist.

Before you start quoting more articles for me to read, what I mean by this is that Western Catholicism focuses on the material aspects of the Eucharist in its devotion.

Eucharistic Adoration is one such example.

The East simply doesn't have it but focuses on the "dynamic process" aspect of the Eucharist, that through Communion we are united with Christ and the Trinity in Heaven.

It is a devotional, liturgical difference, not one of faith.

And I've seen enough of EWTN to know that such truly is the emphasis in Roman Catholicism .

Alex