"Christ Himself": Jewel and Anglican-Lutheran Eucharistic Agreement
Consider the relevant statements from each of these Anglican-Lutheran agreements:
In the Lord’s Supper, Jesus Christ, true God and true man, crucified, risen and ascended, is truly present in his body and blood under the elements of bread and wine - Helsinki Report, 1982;
We believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, distributed and received under the forms of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper - Niagara Report, 1987;
We believe that the body and blood of Christ are truly present, distributed and received under the forms of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) - Porvoo Common Statement, 1993.
These statements do indeed cohere with the Augsburg Confession, Article X:
Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.
This affirmation, however, is a basic declaration of catholic Christianity, of what Jewel termed the doctrine of the "old Catholic fathers". Augsburg's Article X does not itself go beyond this: it is not an explicit declaration of subsequent Lutheran definitions or clarifications. At the same time, this is also the case with the fundamental affirmation contained in Article 28 of the Articles of Religion: "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ [quoting the Apostle, as does the Apology of the Augsburg Confession] ... The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper". The secondary definitions and clarifications (including Article 29) do not detract from the key affirmation but seek to interpret it in a particular Augustinian context.
It was this primary, fundamental affirmation to which Jewel turned when he sought in the Apologia Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ to define the eucharistic doctrine of the Reformed Catholicism which the reformed ecclesia Anglicana shared with the churches of the Lutheran kingdoms and the Reformed commonwealths:
Panem et Vinum dicimus esse sacra et cælestia mysteria corporis et sanguinis Christi; et illis Christum ipsum, verum panem æternæ vitæ, sic nobis præsentem exhiberi, ut ejus corpus, sanguinemque per fidem vere sumamus.
The various translations of this passage over the centuries are suggestive of how Anglican-Lutheran eucharistic agreements, far from signalling the ascendancy of Lutheran confessions, echo Jewel's Reformed Catholic vision:
We affirm that bread and wine are holy and heavenly mysteries of the body and blood of Christ, and that by them Christ Himself, being the true bread of eternal life, is so presently given unto us as that by faith we verily receive his body and his blood - Lady Ann Bacon's translation 1564, re-issued by the Parker Society;
We say that the breade and wine are holy and heauenly misteries of the bodye and bloode of Christe: and that in them Christe himselfe, the true breade of eternall lyfe, is so presently deliuered vnto vs, yt we do truly receaue his body and bloode through faith - Matthew Parker's 1562 translation;
The Bread and Wine, we affirm to be Holy and Heavenly Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ; and that in Them, Christ himself, the True Bread of Eternal Life, is so present with us, that, by Faith we do Verily and Indeed Take and Receive his Body and Blood - 1719 translation;
We consider the Bread and Wine as the sacred and heavenly Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ; and that by them, Christ himself, being the true Bread of Eternal Life, is in such a measure administered to us, that, through faith, we actually receive his Body and Blood - 1825 translation.
'By them', 'in them'; 'given unto us', 'delivered unto us', 'present with us', 'administered to us'; 'verily receive', 'truly receive', 'verily and indeed take and receive', 'actually receive'; and crucially, 'Christ Himself'. Is not this the teaching of Article X of the Augsburg Confession? It is the primary, fundamental eucharistic affirmation of the Lutheran Churches and the ecclesia Anglicana.
What, however, of Jewel's per fidem? Is not this the classic Reformed insistence against which the Lutheran tradition reacted, and which is absent from the Anglican-Lutheran eucharistic agreements?
The answer is 'no' - a definitive and robust 'no'. Luther himself is abundantly clear that faith is required of those who partake of the Holy Supper. In the words of the Small Catechism:
Whoever believes these words has exactly what they say: "forgiveness of sins" ... that person is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: "Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins".
The Large Catechism is even more explicit:
Whoever believes it has what the words declare and bring. For they are not spoken or proclaimed to stone and wood, but to those who hear them, to whom He says: Take and eat, etc. And because He offers and promises forgiveness of sin, it cannot be received otherwise than by faith. This faith He Himself demands in the Word when He says: Given and shed for you. As if He said: For this reason I give it, and bid you eat and drink, that you may claim it as yours and enjoy it. Whoever now accepts these words, and believes that what they declare is true, has it. But whoever does not believe it has nothing, as he allows it to be offered to him in vain, and refuses to enjoy such a saving good. The treasure, indeed, is opened and placed at every one's door, yea upon his table, but it is necessary that you also claim it, and confidently view it as the words suggest to you.
This is reflected in the declaration of the Porvoo Common Statement regarding the fruit of our partaking of the Eucharist:
we receive the body and blood of Christ, crucified and risen, and in him the forgiveness of sins and all other benefits of his passion.
Our salvific partaking of Christ in the Eucharist is entirely dependent on being received by faith and through faith.
Rather, therefore, than interpreting Anglican-Lutheran eucharistic agreement as Anglican capitulation to Lutheran confessional statements, perhaps we might more productively view it as an outworking - after the manner of Jewel - of the shared, primary eucharistic affirmation of these catholic Churches of the Reformation. It is the doctrine of the holy Eucharist, in the words of Jewel, "confirmed by the words of Christ, by the writings of the Apostles, by the testimonies of the Catholic fathers, and by the examples of many ages".
Thank you for another thoughtful and thought-provoking piece on Anglo–Lutheran relations.
ReplyDeleteI would like to comment on two nuances which, it seems to me, you have not addressed here. When Article X of the Augsburg Confession says that "the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present", it seems to say something more than what a strictly Reformed interpretation of Article XXVIII of the Thirty-Nine Articles says – when read in light of Article XXIX and, in particular, the Black Rubric. If you read carefully, none of the Anglican formularies talk about 1) corporal presence, or 2) oral consumption of Christ regardless of faith.
While Reformed Anglicans and Confessional Lutherans can agree on Real Presence (without qualifications), the Reformed understanding is that Christ's corporal presence is confined to heaven and we must ascend thither in faith to enjoy him. The Black Rubric makes this quite clear. The Lutheran understanding, on the other hand, is that Christ comes down to earth to be "in, with, and under" the elements of bread and wine – and therefore we eat and drink orally not just the signs but the thing signified.
It is true that obtaining the benefits of the sacrament does require faith also according to the Lutheran understanding. But eating and drinking, per se, does not. So here is the difference: the Anglican's faith is directed not at what the elements of the Supper *are* but at what he will *receive* via those elements, when taken in faith; whereas the Lutheran's faith is directed at what the elements actually *are*. Because they *are* more than just bread and wine, it follows as a matter of course that he receives something more, too. That no longer requires faith. The Lutheran act of faith is therefore in a sense prior to the Anglican's.
Another difference which follows naturally from the above Lutheran understanding is manducatio impiorum, which Article XXIX specifically rejects. In both traditions, the unfaithful eat and drink to their condemnation, but only the Lutherans uphold that even the unfaithful still do orally receive Christ himself and not just the signs of his Body and Blood.
Should that matter? In my opinion, no. Agreement on Real Presence and on the faithful truly eating and drinking Christ's Body and Blood, these are the most important things. But Calvinist eucharistic theology does come with a few problems, which I shall set out below. I have to post separately because of limitations on comment length.
Apologies for yet again only having time for a very quick response. I cannot think that any mainstream divine in the Church of England during the 16th, 17th, or 18th centuries - adhering to a broadly Reformed eucharistic theology - would deny the Augsburg's declaration "truly present".
DeleteOn the issue of Article XXIX, surely the key issue is the Porvoo eucharistic agreement did not require Anglicans to abandon that Article. It was not deemed to be an obstacle to Lutherans and Anglicans sharing in the Eucharist.
First of all, it severs the crucial link with the theology of Paschal Supper in Judaism, where the Passover lamb is truly there, physically and corporally on the table, and truly eaten, orally and not just in faith. It is that very real lamb which God commanded Israelites to eat at every Paschal meal. Therefore, the institution of the Lord's Supper came with a heavyweight allegory that only a realist eucharistic theology is able to sustain.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, it is my understanding that despite what early Anglican Divines may have thought, patristic sources available to us nowadays clearly bear witness to such a realist understanding of the Lord's Supper. The Rev. Ben Jefferies demonstrated this a couple of years ago in a trilogy of articles, the first of which includes a full payload of citations from the Fathers dismantling any notion of merely spiritual Real Presence: https://northamanglican.com/is-the-eucharistology-of-the-anglican-reformation-patristic-part-1/. Dave Armstrong, the Catholic apologist, has done the same by quoting Protestant (!) theologians expounding the patristic understanding: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/06/patristic-eucharistic-doctrine-nine-protestant-scholars.html. This was the faith of the undivided Church. The Lord's Supper never gave rise to internal theological disputations until the Middle Ages – although it certainly was a source of controversy to outsiders, who accused Christians of cannibalism. (This, some scholars claim, is the reason for secrecy surrounding the Lord's Supper in the early church – the reason why catechumens were driven out before the Eucharist could begin.) One wonders if such controversy could have taken place had the explanation been: Oh, we only consume flesh and blood spiritually, not corporally.
Thirdly, to my understanding, even Augustine's own writings attest to a realist understanding of Real Presence if one explores a bit further than just the notoriously ambiguous text referred to in Article XXIX. There are a couple of citations from him, too, among the ones Fr. Jefferies lists in his article. Despite his language of "signs" and "things signified", he seemed to accept the realist position prevalent at the time.
That said, I don't think the Calvinist understanding is unbiblical. I think the actual Biblical passages on the Lord's Supper leave enough wiggle room for a doctrine of spiritual Real Presence. It would be myopic to deny that. But unfortunately, patristic sources simply do not seem to support such an interpretation, and it is for that reason that I prefer the Lutheran one.
One final caveat: If one discards the argument from "Christ's body is in heaven and not here", I think it is philosophically plausible to argue that there is no coherent distinction between "corporal" and "spiritual" presence. Both refer to something that cannot, even in theory, be perceived by the senses. But the Lutheran has trouble explaining exactly why he insists on saying "corporal" if it denotes something that means essentially the same as "spiritual". (As a matter of fact, a full-fledged doctrine of transubstantiation would seem to overcome the difficulty, with its use of the concept of "substance" possibly allowing for an understanding of "corporal-in-a-meaningful-sense-but-nevertheless-imperceptible". But I'd rather not venture there in this post!)
Apologies for the long comment. Any thoughts you may have on the topic would be much appreciated.
Apologies but I do not have time for anything more than a quick response. I will leave aside the idea that those of us who hold to a classical high Reformed view of the Eucharist are not aware of patristic teaching. As for Ben's comments that "The Fathers taught that the Real Body and Blood of Christ Jesus are Really and Objectively present under the form of Bread and Wine, following upon consecration", this begs numerous questions: what is meant by 'Real'? 'Really'? 'Objectively'? What is more, there are numerous studies of Calvin's eucharistic theology which would state that he affirmed Christ's real and objective presence in the Supper.
DeleteAs for the Armstrong article, it is simply impossible to take seriously an article with the line "Berengar is the first Christian of any prominence at all that we know of who denied the Real Presence": a statement which suggests a quite staggering ignorance of serious studies of the issue.
The point of the post, however, was not at all to convince Lutherans. Lutheran eucharistic theology is for Lutherans to determine. Rather, the post sought to demonstrate that Anglican-Lutheran eucharistic agreement cohered with the classical Anglican high Reformed eucharistic theology.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I hope you noticed my post was but the second part of a longer comment – taken alone like this, it sounds far more combative than I ever intended. My apologies if it came across like that.
DeleteI realise your post was not meant to convert anyone to high Reformed eucharistic theology; I wished to lay out my reasons for preferring the Lutheran one simply because I desired to hear the high Reformed defence of someone knowledgeable in the subject.
Antti, no apologies required whatsoever. And thank you for setting out a Lutheran view. Some discussion is required more broadly about how Porvoo reconciled Anglican and Lutheran eucharistic understandings. For me, the key thing is that shared affirmations were agreed that both Anglicans and Lutherans regarded as cohering with their respective confessions, and allowing eucharistic fellowship.
Delete