Tags
Servus Fidelis has asked a question posed by many of Pusey’s contemporaries – what does he mean by ‘Real Presence’? Our difficulty is that Pusey’s method is more common in Orthodox theology, where the apophatic method tends to prevail; there, rather than define God by what He is, the mode is to define Him by what He is not. For Pusey, Jesus was really, but not carnally, present in the bread and the wine once they were consecrated:
I believe the consecrated elements tp become, by virtue of His Consecrating words, truly and really, yet spiritually, and in an ineffable way, His Body and Blood.
There was, he insisted:
no physical union of the Body and Blood of Christ with the bread and wine. Yet where the consecrated bread is, there, sacramentally, is the Body of Christ; where the consecrated wine is, there sacramentally, is the Blood of Christ.
Christ was present, really and truly, but not in any way the sense could apprehend – or comprehend. Transubstantiation, consubstantiation were all, to him, the results of ‘carnal, sensual thoughts’, and the desire of sinful man to ‘understand the mysteries of God’. This was not possible. Transubstantiation was, for him, a presumptuous attempt to penetrate the mysteries of God, but it was better by far than the Protestant insistence on it not being a Sacrament; there was, for Pusey, no change in the elements, but Christ was there – truly and really, although the ‘how’ was a deep mystery which, to him, required naught but humble acceptance:
He who is God and Man, is with us as God only, except that in some way known to Himself, He, while abiding in Heaven in His natural mode of being, causes His body sacramentally to be with us.
Pusey took literally Our Lord’s words: “This is My Body … This is My Blood”. “Reverence for the word of God’, he wrote, ‘requires that we should should not tamper with its apparent meaning in any preconceived notions of our own.’ Well aware that at times Our Lord talked in metaphor – He was not, obviously literally a door – Pusey cited the number of instances in the New Testament where the Lord insisted on the literal meaning of the words, and where St Paul did the same. The Patristic evidence supported this claim.
Pusey’s real problem was that his own claims were inconsistent with any plain reading of the Anglican XXXIX Articles, but here he simply chose to reinterpret them to suit his beliefs. Pusey could not bring himself to convert, and, having proved to his own satisfaction that the Anglican Church was catholic, he saw no need to. Not all of us have been able to do that, so, however much we admire Pusey, not all of us have been able to follow his path – even if we have followed his beliefs and found they led elsewhere.
All Along the Watchtower 
Very interesting. When Pusey talks about ‘carnal’ thoughts and ‘carnal’ presence, is he referring to carnality in the sense that Saint Paul often gives it – i.e.; the way that the purely natural man sees things – or is he denying any corporeal presence in the Sacrament (or perhaps both)?
LikeLike
I think he is using it in a Pauline way – but I think he is also saying that we should not think of the bread as literally flesh.
LikeLike
Interesting thoughts C. I would say that the Catholic Church has always stated certain things that totally agree with Pusey: 1) that ‘transubstantiation’ or any attempt to explain the mystery of the sacramental presence is still a mystery and thereby is unexplainable in carnal thought or word and 2) that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is not the carnal flesh and blood (except, by a secondary mystery which are called Eucharistic miracles) but is the flesh and blood of our Risen and Glorified, Spiritual Redeemer. Christ in this ineffable condition that is God Himself, is not being re-crucified and the ‘carnal’ Flesh and Blood that He took upon Himself is now but a spiritual reality above any earthly thought or understanding.
But all churches that believe in a real presence, did indeed owe it to this Eucharistic belief to try to explain in carnal language what it is asked by the non-believers or doubters. Transubstantiation has lasted a long time and does answer why we continue to believe that Christ remains present in the species until the ‘accidents’ of the bread and wine are no longer present. It gives us assurance as to the when Christ is present and to when Christ is not present in the Consecrated bread and wine. But it remains forever a mystery.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree. What is interesting is the way Pusey convinced himself that his views were compatible with the 39 Articles
LikeLike
Indeed, it seems that it wouldn’t have taken much to have him fully compliant with the Roman Church as well. In some ways, like C.S. Lewis, such fellows seem to create a bridge between the two churches that can allow one to cross without much violence being done to one’s soul.
LikeLike
I think his reasons for not converting were mostly cultural. I recognise the signs – having suffered from them myself 🙂
LikeLike
It caused no lack of pain for Newman as well. It is very understandable. 🙂
LikeLike
In the end though, the appeal of the Truth overrides everything else – as I am sure you know 🙂
LikeLike
It does indeed, C. Some however are willing to equivocate the divine calling with the carnal callings and therein lies the consternation that can persist, alas for some, an entire lifetime. 🙂
LikeLike
Some do, and some, I think, do not hear it – and that’s the puzzle. I know there was a time when I was that person – but prayer and study and more prayer brought me, with His Grace, home.
LikeLike
And with me, it was like a lightening bolt that threw me from my haughty intellectualism thrust my way by the most sublime words of St. John of the Cross. I could either accept the truth or try to deny it no more. I could be Catholic or be nothing at all. For Christianity it seemed at that moment was only one reality – the same reality that John had embraced.
LikeLike
A good exemplar my friend. We all need one, I think, and for me, it was Newman.
LikeLike
I thought it might be and good model he was.
LikeLike
It is interesting the way these Blessed Souls are able to help guide us – and most wonderful to think of.
LikeLike
I know. And it amazes me that folk think we are daft or heathens to offer our prayers and supplications through them. God gave them to us, seemingly, to guide us through this vale of tears and they work for us long after they have left our company.
LikeLike
Yes, here is one of the many places where people like Bosco miss out.
LikeLike
They do indeed. Saints are one of the most remarkable handiworks of the Holy Spirit and a gift to all of mankind for our betterment and for our salvation. To honor them is to give thanks to God Almighty for examples of how He will gladly transform us if only we would abandon ourselves to His Divine Will.
LikeLike
Very true my friend – and I hope and pray others will open themselves to this mercy and gift of God.
LikeLike
As do I my friend – God sent them to help us and they are there as a gift to be used. Seems a shame to ignore any gift that God has willed for us to have.
LikeLike
Okay. In response (to Pusey) I would say something broadly along the lines of what Servus has written here, especially wrt the fact that Transubstantiation is a doctrine that is more concerned with preservation (of the belief that it is the whole Christ present – body, blood, soul and divinity) than explanation.
As an aside, did Pusey (assuming that he believed Christ’s glorified flesh, as part of the whole Christ, to be in some way present in the Sacrament) make clarifications of any kind as to the different manner in which Christ is present, versus His local presence in Heaven – i.e.; did he elaborate at all on what it means for Christ to be really present in a sacramental sense as opposed to the ‘natural’ and local sense?
LikeLike
Not that I have found. I would have thought it would have run counter to his apophatic method.
LikeLike
Yes, I see what you mean. A further question, re the apophatic method itself – did he take this directly from the Orthodox way of doing things, or is it just coincidental to some extent (and also, did he base his eucharistic theology overall on the Orthodox view)?
I only ask because, from the little I have read on the Orthodox view of the Eucharist, they are not quite as reluctant to use corporeal language in describing the change, or speak of the elements no longer substantially existing, but only appearing to. In fact, I believe the Jerusalem Council of 1672 actually used the word ‘transubstantiation’ to outline what occurs in the consecration.
LikeLike
I think it is a coincidence. There is no evidence I have seen that EBP had any contact with Orthodoxy. I think it derives from his reading of the Fathers.
LikeLike
Ah okay – that would make more sense. I am fascinated by the Anglican-Orthodox dialogue though, especially as it seems to go back quite a long way. In the same way that it is interesting that Pusey was able to convince himself that his views were reconcilable with the 39 Articles, I have often encountered arguments claiming that Anglicanism (classical Anglicanism that is) is far closer to Orthodoxy than is the case in reality.
LikeLike
The non-Jurors were especially interested in Orthodoxy. In my own case I went from Anglican to Orthodox before crossing the Tiber.
LikeLike
Yes that is true (and I had read before on here that you were an Orthodox for a while). I can certainly see the appeal of it – being part of an historic, apostolic Church with deep roots and an integrated approach to Tradition, but without having to accept the especial authority of the Pope – and can see how it is in some ways an easier move to make from Anglicanism (given that Anglicanism is in some respects defined by its opposition to papal authority). However, I’ve never been able to see that Anglicanism and Orthodoxy have quite as much in common as some people claim – the approach to Tradition, for starters, is very different.
LikeLike
As Orthodoxy isn’t one system, and has quite close ethnic roots, that’s partly where the similarities lie – it is also what makes it difficult for a non-Greek/Russian
LikeLike
P.S. Don’t wish to imply though that these were your reasons for converting to Orthodoxy! 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, I can certainly see that the national character thing being a good meeting point, although ironically this similarity between the two often acts as a barrier, given that it is, as you say, hard to leave those cultural attachments behind. In terms of theological foundations though, and their respective approaches to Tradition, I’ve never been able to see the validity of those arguments which see them as being close – in fact, I’d say that apart from the issue of the Pope, Anglicanism has much more in common with Catholicism. Some Anglicanism that is – part of the problem of course is that, whilst with Orthodoxy you are dealing with several different cultural expressions but one common conception of the Faith, with Anglicanism there are many different ideas about the Church, the sacraments, etc, all under the same roof!
LikeLike
I agree, and when one thinks about it, it is bound to be so, because Anglicanism derived from the attempt to ‘reform’ Catholicism. I think the difficulty is, as SF says, with that question of authority. What they actually have in common is a refusal to recognise the authority of the successor of St Peter!
LikeLike
Yes, I think that’s about the size of it! 🙂
LikeLike
I think Mike hits on the point obliquely that always rears its ugly head in such matters. For it seems that the Orthodox and the Anglicans could quite easily iron out some of the Eucharistic problems with Roman Catholicism. The sticky point to Eucharistic and Sacramental theology is really the same old problem; one of authority. The Orthodox only in regards to the Pope but the Anglicans in regards to valid ordination (priests, bishops and pope). There is where the trip to the Anglican side of the Tiber would prevent me from going (and the same is true to a lesser extent of the Orthodox). We do want to make sure that our Sacraments are fully valid and that (for instance) if we take the Eucharist to the sick or dying that it is the Sacrament and will remain the Sacrament though Communion (properly speaking) has ended. It seems that all sacraments must be guarded and subjected to a valid authority to preserve their licit and valid character. Otherwise, their is not a great deal of difference between the ideas of Pusey and many great Catholic writers and teachers of the faith.
LikeLike
In the end, yes, it is the question of authority – by what authority do you do and say these things? For me, in the end, it is either by the authority of the successor of St Peter, or it is my own!
LikeLike
It is, it seems to me, the great divide that has yet to find a means of being overcome by argument. In the end, it seems that it is purely a matter of faith and the very literal understanding of Christ’s words in scripture. You either have faith in it or you divide every kind of mental gymnastics to avoid it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A good summary my friend, a very good one.
LikeLike
Agreed – a very good summary indeed 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks Mike and your comment was on the money which hit upon this matter. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person