Anglian/Lutheran theology of the Eucharist

[DavidFilmer]

Some years ago (circa 1996) I had apologetical e-mail exchanges with several individuals. I really believe the Holy Spirit was guiding me in some of these exchanges. I've found some of these old messages, and wish to share some of the "better parts" (many of which I had since forgotten) with a broader community...

In one exchange, "Rob" was interested in the differences in Eucharistic theology in the Catholic/Anglican/Lutheran communities:

==================================================

Rob - You were asking about the theologies of the Anglican/Episcopal and Lutheran churches.  I am somewhat knowledgeable on the first and will give a stab at the second.

On Sept 12, 1801, the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America (PECUSA) - these are the Episcopalians - ratified the 39 Articles of the Faith; these articles can be found in the back of every Book of Common Prayer (both 1928 and 1979 editions; the BCP is the official Episcopal missal).  These articles were established by the Church of England (CoE - the “real” Anglicans) in several stages beginning in 1536 and were finalized by convocation in 1563.  Article #29, which deals with the Real Presence, was ratified but omitted in the first printing at the direction of Queen Elizabeth I.  In 1571, Article #29 was restored.  Although the Articles represent an official statement of Anglican and Episcopal doctrine, only the clergy has been under de fide acceptance (prior to the 19th Century, students and facility of Oxford and Cambridge Universities had to profess the Articles).  Since 1865, the oath of clergymen has become more lenient; it is now required only to profess that the articles are not contrary to Scripture and to agree not to teach against them.  Article #29 states:

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: inasmuch 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 reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

In current texts, the article is titled “Of the Lord’s Supper.”  In original form, it was titled, “Of the Wicked [ie, Catholics] which eat not of the Body of Christ [ie, we don’t do what we say we do].”  This article (especially paragraph 3) takes a position close to Receptionism (if you believe it’s the Body and Blood, it is; if you don’t believe, it isn’t - ie, the nature of the Sacrament is contingent on the belief of the recipient).

HOWEVER - the extreme position taken by Article 29 has long been disputed in Anglican communions.  In 1922, the Episcopal Rev. Francis J. Hall, Professor of Dogmatic Theology, published a ten-volume series titled “Dogmatic Theology” which is regarded as the most authoritative work on orthodox Anglican theology; his books are required reading for all Episcopal and Anglican seminarians (Hall is to Anglicans what Ott is to Catholics).  Hall takes a far more Roman view of the Eucharist - he supports the doctrines of "totus Christi" (Christ is fully present in even the smallest part of the Bread or Wine), and concomitance (Christ is equally and fully present in the Bread and the Wine), he supports the reservation of the Sacrament, and he supports Eucharistic adoration (“Since Christ is sacramentally present, He is sacramentally adorable; and Eucharist adoration has Christ Himself for its proper object.”).  Hall pays strong lip-service to Article #29, first stating that the term “transubstantiation” is “too hopelessly misleading” and concluding that “the nature of the elements - of the species - remains what it was” (ie, the bread and wine remain bread and wine).  But everything else he says (I could quote at considerable length) is at odds with that position.  If a Catholic were required to define his belief without mention of the substance of the Host, he would define it as Hall does (the definition would be incomplete, but in agreement with Hall).  Hall does not offer an alternative theology (he flirts with Receptionism and consubstantiation) - he sticks to the term “Real Presence” and defines it as strongly as possible within the confines of the 29th Article (which Hall had sworn a vow not to openly dispute).

In summary: The 39 Articles are an official statement of doctrine by both PECUSA and CoE, but have never been de fide for the faithful.  Those who wish to reject traditional Eucharistic theology (ie, as handed down by the Early Fathers) are free to do so.  Likewise, those who wish to take a more orthodox approach are likewise free to do so.  A layman would be free to accept the full Roman doctrine of transubstantiation; a clergyman would be free to accept it in essence but not by this title.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having never been a Lutheran, I could not say for certain what that church teaches today.  However, Luther himself taught a doctrine called consubstantiation, where the Body and Blood of Christ co-exist in union with the Bread and Wine, but the Bread and Wine remain bread and wine (the Host does not become the Body of Christ; the Body of Christ is attached somehow to the Host).  Luther used the analogy of an iron put into a fire; the fire and iron are united in the red-hot metal, but the heat and the iron are distinctly separate.  Luther’s doctrine is an affirmation of the Real Presence, but is not as strong as the Catholic position.

I once saw a picture of the front of an altar in a Catholic Church in Europe.  It was sectioned into three panels, and into each section was carved a relief sculpture.  The one on the left pictured Luther; below him were the words “Here is my Body” (consubstantiation).  On the right was John Calvin with the words “This represents my Body” (transignification).  In the center was Jesus saying, “This IS my Body.”  Below the three panels was the question, “Who do you believe?”

[Rev. Eric]

This post reminded me of an event that happened in seminary.  A Lutheran professor was invited to give a presentation on certain Lutheran beliefs to us.  This was not an apologetical debate, but an eccumenical endeavor for Christians to get to know one another.  At one point the professor spoke about consubstantiation (which David has presented above) and the presence of Christ.  She pointed out that Christ was present in the Eucharist, but she also pointed out that Christ was present everywhere in creation.

During the question and answer session I raised my hand.  Let me point out that I was not trying to argue against the belief of consubstantiation, but I asked a question simply to help me understand better what Lutherans meant by this term.  Furthermore, I was trying to understand what Lutherans believed was the significance of the reception of Communion in light of the fact that Christ was present everywhere in creation.

So here was my question:  
"Let us say that I was a Lutheran and I and some other Lutherans gathered at a Lutheran church last Sunday.  Furthermore, let us say that we prayed together in the name of Christ before the Sunday service began.  Because two or more were gathered in His name, Jesus was present among us, just as He said He would be.  Now, after this prayer session was over, let us say that the Sunday service began and I went up and received Communion.  In terms of my spirituality and my relationship with Christ, what happened to me during Communion that did not happen to me during the earlier prayer session?  Or was the experience basically the same?"

Unfortunately, the professor could not really give me an answer.  As a matter-of-fact, I was given the impression that she had never thought of it before.  She stumbled around for an answer and finally said that consubstantiation was similar to the Catholic concept of a sacramental (i.e., the Rosary, novena prayers, etc.).  Of course, this simply told me that she really did not understand our concept of sacramentals, but I decided to let the question drop.

I do not say any of this to criticize her, and I should point out that she was not a theologian (as she readily admitted).  But I asked an honest question simply from a standpoint of curiosity and David's post reminded me that I have not yet gotten an answer to my question.  Perhaps I should visit a Lutheran forum and post it there.  Of course, if Lutherans (or other Protestants) read this post then I would certainly welcome their input as well.  Like I said, I simply want to understand their beliefs.  I know how I would answer my question as a Catholic in light of transubstantiation, but obviously Protestants would approach the matter differently.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric