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

In another thread, Alex wrote: Alex, are you referring to DeKoven's 1880 sermon "Fullness of Joy." I hope so, as I happen to have this sermon saved on my hard drive.

DeKoven's understanding of the Eucharistic Presence is taken straight from Robert Wilberforce's classic Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (1853). Borrowing terminology from St. Augustine, Wilberforce distinguishes the sacramentum (the sacramental sign), res sacramenti (the reality signified by the sign) and the virtus sacramenti (the benefits of the sacrament). According to Wilberforce, the consecrated bread and wine sacramentally signify the Body and Blood of Christ and efficaciously make present that which they signify. The bread and wine and the Body and Blood are understood as having been joined into one compound whole and reality. Thus we may rightly speak of the consecrated elements as the Body and Blood of Christ. He calls this "sacramental identity."

This is not impanation, as he does not envision the risen Christ entering into a hypostatic union with the bread and wine. For Wilberforce, the sacramental Body and Blood is numerically identical to Christ's natural Body and Blood in heaven. But it does sound a bit like consubstantiation, though Wilberforce denies it. I think that the difference is that Wilberforce assigns to the bread and wine a sacramental significance--they effectively signify and make present the Body and Blood of Christ with which they are sacramentally united, whereas consubstantiation says that the Body and Blood of Christ are present, by divine appointment, in, with, and under the bread and wine. Perhaps it's a fine distinction. Certainly the two positions are similar, but Wilberforce's main concern is to assert that the consecrated elements simply are the Body and Blood. Apparently he believed that consubstantiation would not allow one to make such an identity statement.

Is Wilberforce's position different from transubstantiation? He did swim the Tiber only a year after his book on the Eucharist was published. Unfortunately, Wilberforce died only three years later. I think it is fair to say that he viewed his presentation as compatible with transubstantiation, as long as it is understood that the natural properties of the bread and wine are not altered by the Eucharistic consecration.

Does this make sense? Is it helpful? How compatible is this with Orthodoxy?

Fr Kimel

If I may,

I was recently in a debate with a Calvinist discussing this very topic. He contended that there were, in fact, Church Fathers who understood the Eucharist in the same way that Calvin did; that the Body and Blood of Christ are spiritually present, and that the faithful receive grace when the elements are received with faith.

I quoted many Fathers who repudiate this understanding, but was this understanding around in Apostolic times?

I apologize for butting in.

Columcille

Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel,

I think it is entirely consonant with Orthodoxy's understanding of the Eucharist, although Reader Andrew may correct me on that.

It must have been most difficult for an Anglo-Catholic saint like DeKoven to defend this view against Protestant positions!

James DeKoven did not like Eucharistic processions - but then neither does the Christian East.

In all other ways, he was most in favour of Eucharistic Adoration.

What truly impresses me about him is how he went after the Episcopal Convention for proposing that the use of the crucifix or Adoration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist might be "false doctrine."

He then responded, as you know, by saying that the forms of veneration differ, but that let no one say that the Adoration as such or the crucifix point to "false doctrine."

I think he should be venerated in Roman and Orthodox Churches!

Alex

Bless me, father Columcille!

(You're a father, are you not?)

The Calvinists held one-half of the Catholic doctrine when they said that Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist (there are High Church Reformed Christians who actually accept the full doctrine though).

They said that Christ was spiritually present in the Eucharist - and that therefore He was not "really" present.

The Catholic West responded by saying that Christ was "really" present and that, therefore, He wasn't "spiritually" present.

And the East said that both understandings are necessary.

The "symbol" partakes of the reality of what it "Re-presents" as it points to it.

And that is all very Patristic.

Alex

Alex-

Yes. I am a father of an ever growing congregation

Your post makes a couple good points which I think alot of Roman Catholics forget about.

While the Eucharist truly is the Body and Blood of our Lord, the elements themselves are symbolic as well. This is why the East uses levened bread and the wine must be red, correct?

So I guess the Christian East has this all figured out as well, Alex?

I sometimes think that if (Western)Catholics and Protestants would stop shouting at each other, we both might learn a thing or two.

Columcille

Dear father Columcille,

What was that?

I'm over here with all these loud Easterners, so I can't hear you!

But you are right.

It is interesting to reflect on how the Latin Eucharist, the form it has generally taken on today, was shaped by the SARS-like fears in the time of the Plague.

But there was also a chasm between "symbol" and "reality" and that is unfortunate.

Bless you and your congregation!

Alex

The key point for Calvin is that the risen Christ in his Body and Blood are in heaven and therefore cannot be bodily present on earth in the earthly celebrations of the Supper. Thus the important role of the Holy Spirit to unite the elected, faithful believer with Christ's glorified humanity in heaven. The symbols of bread and wine have an instrumental value in the accomplishment of this union; but they certainly cannot be identified, in any realistic way, with the Body and the Blood.

Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel,

Yes, and I also think that Calvin's Eucharistic theology was reacting to perhaps an excessive "devotional materialism" in Western Catholic Eucharistic devotion, a materialism that is absent in both Anglicanism and Orthodoxy.

Reviewing some of the liturgies of the Reformers, I was quite surprised to find one that contained the early version of the "Hail Mary" at its beginning - was that Bucer's liturgy? I don't remember.

Alex

So truth became subject to Calvin's inability to admit that there are things mysterious which cannot be understood this side of the grave. To have a doctrine, he had to be able to understand and explan it from a rational standpoint.

Sheeeeesh.

The whole thrust of Calvinism as I experienced it was the subjugation of the mysterious to the intellect. Seems like rationalism over mystagogy to me. Of course, once one starts down this slippery slope, it is not long before one could begin to question the Blessed Trinity because one cannot get one's mind around how Three can be One and One can be Three.

Better to take Jesus' words for it....

"This IS my Body, this IS my Blood..."

Says it all, quite neatly. And hopefully keeps some amount of humility about us when we see things that we cannot figure out.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Yes, it's a shame that Calvin couldn't bring himself around to a catholic understanding of the Eucharist, as he actually had some very good things to say about union with Christ in his risen humanity. But he just couldn't find a way to get the risen Jesus in heaven on to our altars on earth or get our altar on earth up to heaven. And of course, there's the problem of his double predestination. We can't have the reprobate actually partaking of Christ's Body and Blood.

I will admit that I am only really skimming this thread but something jumped out and grabed me.

Isn't it the "reprobate" that Christ died for?


In Christ,
David

I'm not comfortable accepting one constituent of the eucharist as "real" and the other as "spiritual" (as if spiritual isn't also real?). I have no trouble saying that His body and blood become present through the action of the Holy Spirit. But then to imply that they are only present spiritually? No.

If we diverge from affirming that both HIS body and blood and OUR bread and wine are present, we start to destroy the symbol that is the eucharist, which mirrors the symbol that is the incarnation. [I use "symbol" in the ancient and original sense of one real thing with two or more real constituent parts. Syn=together & volon=thrown together from vallo.]

A friend of mine has maintained SCOBA's dialogue with the Anglicans for many years. There is always something to profit from speaking with other Christians, even if that something is only "converts."

In Christ,
Andrew

Yep. That's how I understand the Gospel, and that is why I ain't no Calvinist.

And that is why a true Calvinist will deny that Christ died for all but rather only for the elect--limited atonement.

I sometimes think that it is more semantics, then real differences in theology, when people speak of these things.

Both the Calvinist, Catholic, and Orthodox will affirm that Christ's sacrifice was more then enough to save every person that ever has or ever will live. However, Christ's redemptive act will ONLY benefit those who believe on Him. In this sense, one could say that Christ died for the elect, since only they will reap the benefits of the cross. Could Christ have died for the sins of a person who will ultimately go to hell? If Christ had died to pay for the sins of that person(sorry for the use of "Western" language) would it not stand to reason that that person would necessarily go to heaven?

Interesting things to ponder.

Columcille

Columcille,
Yes very interesting.

This is my understanding.

That yes, Christ died for everyones sin, even the man that goes to hell.

That we have a responsibility in our salvation, that of accepting Christ's redemptive act. Christ did not just die for those who believe, He died for all and it is our job to believe.

I hope I explained my thoughts well enough.


In Christ,
David