It is said that fools step in where Angels fear to tread, and for me writing on this theme smacks of that. I am so grateful to C451 for his help here, both in helping focus my reading, and also in marshalling my thoughts. It seemed to me a model of supervision, and I envy his research students. What follows is entirely mine, and I know he has his reservations as a Roman Catholic, which means I am even more grateful for his generosity in not pressing me down the path he follows. Now to plunge in!
I believe in the ‘Real Presence.’ What do I mean? I mean that in ways not to be described, or even understood by sinful men and women, Jesus is present in the consecrated bread and wine. This agrees, up to a point, with what the Roman Catholic Church believes, but only up to a point. The Catechism states:
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”
If I have understood correctly (and if not please correct me) this is based in part on Aquinas’ idea of “accidents”, that is that although the bread and wine look the same, they have been changed into the actual blood and flesh of Christ. In this view, the natural elements have been abolished and replaced by the body and blood of Christ. Why does this cause me, and other Anglicans, a difficulty?
Across the first five centuries of the Christian faith’s history there is one golden thread which runs, and that was to do with how to understand the Incarnation. First there were arguments about docetism. Was Christ’s human body real, or did it just seem to be real. Was he not, in fact, Spirit, and the flesh merely an image for our eyes? No, the Church decided that was not the case. Christ was fully human and fully divine. That also put an end to the debate about whether he had a real human mind and soul. But if he was fully human, what about original sin? He was like us in all things save sin. Aquinas put it best (thank you C451): ‘grace does not abolish nature, but perfects it.’ That being so, why are we to hold that the bread and wine cease to be bread and win but become something else?
Hooker (again, thank you C451) pointed out that the eucharist was ‘the sacrament of continuing santification,’ a key part of what the Eastern Orthodox call theosis – God became man so that man could become God, as St Athansius put it. The purpose of the Eucharist isn’t to change the bread and wine, it is to change us, again, to quote Hooker: ‘we are not to doubt but that they really give what they promise and are what they signify’. The change effected in us is ‘a true change both of soul and body, an alteration from death to life.’ This, thankfully, takes us away from old controversies over the manner in which Christ is present in the eucharist, which, frankly, we cannot and do not need to know (oh how our pride in our own ingenuity can lead us into controversy), and it restores to us the idea that the eucharist is a dynamic action of Grace leading us to fuller participation in the life of Christ.
I am with Hooker here. The ultimate location of Christ’s body and blood is not to be sought in the sacraments but ‘in the worthy receiver … only in the heart and soul of him which receives him’. I know from what I experience when I receive the eucharist (which is I twice a month) that Christ is there, the manner in which he is there is a mystery beyond me, neither do I seek to know what is not knowable – except what I know – that he is in me, and I am in him, and the whole world is thereby set to rights.
All Along the Watchtower 
If you can believe that Christ is with us when 2 or 3 gather in His name what difficulty might you have that Christ is not seen with the eye but truly exists as the substance of the consecrated bread and wine? Augustine was not the first to believe this but codified that belief in a theological explanation.
https://www.churchpop.com/2015/05/14/what-changed-this-protestants-mind-about-the-eucharist/
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I am not a Protestant, I have no idea why that piece should be of interest. I believe in the real presence, I don’t believe in a semi-Manichaean theory whereby material things are magically transformed into something else. As I say, we do not know, or need to know, how he is in the bread and the wine, just that he is. I am not sure that you know very much about Anglicanism Scoop, especially if you think it is Protestant. If Protestant is everyone who protests against the Pope …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, Christ did not say, “This is a mysterious presence of my body” or that “This is a symbol of my body” and likewise with the cup. The words are clear: “This IS my body . . . etc.” I take it on faith, just as I take His discourse in John where the unbelievers walked and He let them go their way. He never nuanced His words to the Apostles which He previously did with difficult parables.
This is as much a matter of faith as it is to claim that the One God is a Trinity of Persons or that Christ had two natures or that eternity exists (that God always existed and will exist forever). Though they are mysteries it does not mean that we cannot speak of these things (or even to attempt to speak of them in a theological or philosophical way to increase understanding. But we are to accept these things in faith because of the words of Scripture and the Teachings of the Church which have been passed down from the time when He walked amongst us. Peasants believed it as did scholars.
As far as Protestantism goes, why do you care that a former protestant wrote it? Its usefulness was primarily the reasons by which he came to have faith in transubstantiation: the words of the early father’s alone were worth leaving the link.
LikeLike
You, again, misunderstand, perhaps because of your ignorance of Anglicanism? Christ nowhere says that in the Eucharist the bread and wine will look like bread and win but these are the accidents. I believe in the real presence, I just lack the need, or the prideful ness, to have to define it and then criticise others who don’t. It’s called humility, it’s why I don’t spend my time criticising my church leaders. Try it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suppose you call it humility though that might be a “tell”. When I look at the Holy Species I say to myself what Christ told us in “plain speak”: “This is the body of Christ and This is the Blood of Christ”. It is simple to the max. Christ did not mislead us. A definition that encompasses that truth from the lips of Christ is nothing to make fun of.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree, it is the body and the blood. My church sees no need to stick with a medieval definition which serves no useful purpose, if it helps your church, splendid.
LikeLike
An excellent exposition of the ( I think) Anglican position. I need to distill out the Lutheran one, which while not the Catholic one, is not quite the Anglican either.
But in truth, the real importance of the Real Presence is that the Eucharist is not a symbol, it is the real thing, the sacrifice of God for the creatures he created.
Well done, dearest friend xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thoughtful article. In the 39 Articles it states: XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
THE Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ- and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance re- served, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
But I think, over the years, I have come to believe in the True Presence. “Facts don’t care about your feelings” – but I feel different after receiving Communion and that’s a fact. There is something very much strengthening in receiving the Body and the Blood; our souls are revived; we feel a freshness and newness (if there is such a word!) after having partaken at the rail. If that’s ‘superstition’, well, I guess I’m guilty.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for that, Audre, I have always thought that Article got it right xx
LikeLike
… well, I’m glad to hear that, having received the sacrament that the whole world is set to rights for you.
It wasn’t like that in the movie `Nattvardsgästerna’ (by Ingemar Bergman) where Max von Sydow commits suicide shortly after receiving communion from Gunnar Björnstrand.
By the end of the movie, Gunnar Björnstrand doesn’t seem to believe very much any more.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I can’t speak to the movie, Jock; this is the first time I’ve even heard the title.
What happens to me – and others – is what happens for us. What happens for or to others is a matter that only they and God understands.
But you are quite right in this – “… having received the sacrament that the whole world is set to rights for you.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s the difference between me and Ingmar – well, one of them 😳 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s difficult to see why Ingemar Bergman became so anti-Christian. My Swedish teacher told me that she had been baptised by his father. According to her, his father was a charming gentleman – and, in fact, quite liberal – absolutely the opposite of the portrayal of the bishop in the movie `Fanny and Alexander’ …..
I don’t see the whole world being set to rights – I can take communion, but (for example) Julian Assange is still being held in Belmarsh in conditions which are inhuman, for the `crime’ of doing some excellent journalism.
So the world isn’t set to rights – the problem of radical evil isn’t solved.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since this is a multi-confessional Christian blog, I thought I’d introduce a post describing the Orthodox position on the Real Presence of our Lord in the sacraments, here: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/08/14/the-doctrine-of-transubstantiation-in-the-orthodox-church/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you SO much. I am with that. I know it is his body and blood I receive, the how I don’t need to know, the effect I also know. It is so good to read that link. I hope what I write about thesis makes sense from that point of view?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve been following, and on occasion, commenting, for years, and you and the contributors here write in a clear and concise way. The body and blood of Christ is a mystery. Human words will never come close to getting to the essence of this mystery. Intellectualizing it cheapens its power.
Your view makes sense to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are very kind. I think we agree 😊 x
LikeLike
“the manner in which he is there is a mystery beyond me, neither do I seek to know what is not knowable – except what I know – that he is in me, and I am in him, and the whole world is thereby set to rights.” That is beautifully put, and something, I think, even a Catholic person could agree with in a way and take comfort in.
I wonder if the Catholic view of transubstantiation was a response to another heresy? I don’t know my church history well enough to say, but maybe you or someone else on this blog knows. I know there are other more defined doctrines that Catholics have than others because they had to be forged in response to something that was a little off. Just a thought.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s a good suggestion and Scoop might know the answer.
LikeLike