Inseparable Truths: Christ’s Eucharistic Presence is Rooted in the Mystery of the Incarnation

“Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue;) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one."

The text you have just read is the infamous “Black Rubric” first placed into the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer in 1552 (the text above is from the 1662 edition). It was not a part of the original submission of the Prayer Book to Parliament, but was added at the last minute. Because it was done in haste, and nobody notified the printers, this particular rubric (rule of conducting the service) was printed in black ink instead of the customary red. The name stuck, and to this day the mention of the Black Rubric to any liturgical student will immediately hearken back to this passage. The name is apt, however, for very different reasons – for it was with the implementation of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer that Anglican Eucharistic theology was forever placed under suspicion by Lutheran and Roman divines, as well as by the Orthodox.

Today, the Black Rubric holds little sway among English churchgoers, or among those who partake of the Anglican patrimony, except in some of the jurisdictions of Anglican heritage which align more closely with the theology of the Genevan Reformation. But with the suggestion that the 1662 could be the baseline liturgy considered in the nascent Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), the historic Anglican position concerning the Eucharist is once again coming under a degree of scrutiny, at least in certain quarters.

In keeping with the Black Rubric, Article 28 of the Articles of Religion affirms a rejection of any local presence of Christ’s body and blood, using these words: “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 classical defense of this position, as explained in the Black Rubric, is tied to the ‘truth of Christ’s natural Body’, which the text says can only be in one place at one time. There is a serious flaw, however, with such an argument, and it is laid out starkly in the twentieth chapter of St. John’s Gospel:

“On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them…” John 20:19 (ESV)

The disciples are meeting in a closed room, the door is not only shut, it is locked. The text does not say that Jesus spoke to them and that they opened the door. It does not say that Jesus stood at the window and conversed with his followers. It says, simply, that Jesus came and stood among them. This would, it seems, require Jesus to pass through the wall, the door, the roof, or some other structural element of the room where the disciples were meeting. I have, on several occasions in my life, attempted to walk through a door or a wall (usually not on purpose). I have never once been successful. I’ve had the bruised arms and stubbed toes to prove it. My natural body is completely and utterly incapable of walking through a wall and leaving both my body and the wall intact.

The Black Rubric, and indeed much of Reformed Eucharistic theology (as it is practiced, at any rate) misses out on this one key point. Christ’s natural body has been glorified. It has been fundamentally changed, just as our bodies will be fundamentally changed on the Last Great Day. As a result, the limitations on Jesus’ natural body are non-sequitor arguments against a real Eucharistic presence. What limited his natural body has no bearing on his glorified body, and thus on his presence in the Eucharist.

Both the Articles and the Black Rubric hold an element of truth – the very real substances of bread and wine remain in the celebration of the Eucharist. They have to, in fact, for two reasons: first, because St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11 identifies the Sacrament in both terms (bread and wine as well as body and blood), and second – perhaps most importantly – because to deny that Christ can indwell within the Sacrament is to deny the fundamental central truth that sets Christianity apart from every other religion on the face of the planet – the Incarnation itself.

You see, God is omniscient, immortal, immutable, infinite, omnipresent (and a bunch of other big terms!). It is contrary to the nature of God, one would therefore think, for God – or any member of the Godhead – to be otherwise; yet Jesus Christ, the Son of God, became mortal, finite, and located in a specific physical construct at a particular point in the history of our universe. The one whom the whole world could never hope to contain was somehow united with our humanity and born among us in time and in flesh. In the mystery of the Incarnation and Nativity of our Lord, the core of the historic teaching of the Church on the Eucharistic Mystery is found; and we echo it each and every time we recite the Nicene Creed.

In the Creed we confess that Christ is ‘of one essence’ or ‘substance’ with the Father, and that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, he was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, becoming man. To behold Jesus, one could not tell that this son of Mary was anything special. Isaiah prophesied that much:

“Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” Isaiah 53:1-3 (ESV)

Only once before his death did the physical body of Jesus reveal in any way his Divine nature: at his Transfiguration. Though many external signs pointed to his divinity, and through in him humanity and divinity were united, it was only the brief moment of the Transfiguration when Christ’s glorified nature was revealed to anyone – then to Peter, James, and John. In the wake of the Resurrection, however, the glorified body of Christ, revealed at the Transfiguration, becomes the permanent body of the Savior… and it is of this Body that we receive and of this Blood that we drink in the celebration of our Lord’s Holy Supper.

If we reject the idea that Christ’s body and blood can be made present under the forms of bread and wine, we must – if we are logical – reject the Incarnation itself. For just as it is against the truth of human nature (specifically man’s natural body and blood) to be present in multiple places at once, it is against the truth of God’s divine nature to be limited in time and space. If we reject Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, we reject his incarnation, his redemptive work, and his eternal kingship – as well as our own resurrection and glorification at the last great day.

The ancient faith of the Christian Church can easily be summarized with these words, “This is my body; This is my blood”. Christ has promised that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are his body and blood. If we deny this fundamental truth, we deny the ability to take Christ at his word which, in turn, undermines the totality of Scripture, and leaves us cast adrift and hopeless in a sea of doubt and despair.

One need not adopt Roman theories of Transubstantiation and practices of adoration to receive in the Eucharist the grace, peace, and mercy that God has promised in his Word to all who participate in the Sacrament. One needs to simply accept that Christ is faithful to what he has spoken, and that he will bring it to pass. Indeed, many abuses which were occurring in the Roman Church at the time of the Reformation needed to be addressed and corrected, and the use of the Eucharist was one of them. However, rejecting the Real Presence does not simply reject Transubstantiation… it rejects the Incarnation itself, especially when it is couched in language like the Black Rubric or the text of Article 28.

I encourage all of my Christian brothers and sisters to give serious consideration to what a rejection of the Doctrine of Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist does to the rest of our Christology, indeed to the totality of our theology, before persisting in an irrational rejection of one of the most precious comforts afforded to believers, being united with Christ’s body and blood in the Sacrament of the Holy Supper.

Indeed, there were many who, even in Christ’s time, could not accept the idea that Christ could give his flesh for food and his blood for drink…

“When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?" Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” John 6: 60-69 (ESV)

Interesting Take on the Verba and the Epiclesis

Pastor Peters over at Pastoral Meanderings has put up a post today concerning the use of the Verba, comparing and contrasting Roman, Lutheran, and Reformed (and, to some extent, Eastern) usages of the Lord's Supper.  It is an interesting article worth reading, but I quote a snippet here for consideration:

For Lutherans the Spirit always works through the Word (written, spoken, or visible). Therefore, the words of Christ always include the agency and effect of the Spirit. The Spirit is at work in the presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament because the Spirit works in and through the Word. The Spirit is partner in this Word as He is always partner in the work of the Word (such as creation when the Word speaks and the Spirit effects what the Word proclaims -- working together). In the end this is surely very Trinitarian.

- Pastor Peters

Same Words, Different Hearers, for Different Purposes

Now, I am still not the biggest fan of having no explicit epiclesis; I believe strongly that the Liturgy needs to catechize people, and confessing our belief that the Holy Spirit descends upon ordinary bread and wine to effect the Sacramental Presence in the context of the worship service only serves to reinforce both that reality, as well as reinforce the entire concept of the Incarnation and the doctrine known as the Hypostatic Union. That being said, Pastor Peters makes an excellent point on the Word of God itself - that it is never devoid of the Spirit when it is rightly proclaimed.

Interesting post!

The Trinity...

Someone recently asked a question in an online forum about where the Word of God teaches the word of the Trinity. I thought I would share my answer.

The Trinity, as others have shared, has a long and storied (and perhaps sordid) history. The term Trinity does not begin to appear until the latter part of the third century, though the writers are clearly struggling to understand the concepts revealed in Scripture, for better or for worse.

One of the key supports for the concept of Jesus' divinity is found in the Gospels. The prologue of John's Gospel specifically tells us:"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." and later "...the Word became flesh and lived among us..." (see John 1). John 1:1 literally teaches that God took on flesh and pitched his tent (tabernacled, dwelt) among us in the person of Jesus Christ. This can and has been interpreted in many different ways over the centuries.

No matter how you interpret it, it clearly teaches that in some fashion, in the person of Jesus Christ, God and man have been united. To the Trinitarian, it is inconceivable that the Father ceased to exist when Christ was made incarnate, as witnessed by the fact that Jesus prayed to the Father often during his earthly ministry.

Trinitarians will also point out the nature of the word Elohim, present in Genesis 1:1, as being plural and singular at the same time, as well as the mention of the Spirit in the creation narrative. As a result, the best explanation is that God is one, while possessing three different persons. (Sidenote: If Elohim is properly understood as singular and plural at the same time, than does not the choice of words teach us the concept of the Trinity? It is not an insinuation if, in fact, Elohim is as Biblical scholars accept it to be.)

Is this the best or most adequate explanation? Surely not. In fact, no explanation we offer can be perfect. Modalism fails us... Arianism fails us... every attempt to define the nature of the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit fail us as Christians, because our limited human comprehension and language simply cannot get wrapped around the true majesty of God and his nature.

So in the end, while Councils and Creeds have mandated the Trinitarian belief in the mainline Church, those of us on the margins who who accept the Trinity accept it because it is the best explanation we can come up with for what we see in the Scriptures. At the same time, we must admit that we fall short in even this description and acknowledge that the true nature and depth of God is a mystery far too great for us to understand or comprehend on this side of eternity.

Anglican Bishop Challenges Beliefs on Heaven

I suppose that most wouldn't be shocked if I stated that the Church of England's Bishop of Durham, N. T. Wright, has called into question the traditional view of the afterlife that Christians have adhered to for the better part of the last few hundred years. I know I wasn't. What did shock me was just how ancient his take on what happens to us after death is. This week, Time magazine ran an article outlining his views of the New Testament, and how it deals with the question of our life after death.

It is definately worth a read. You can the online edition at this link.

Transubstantiation Unsubstantiated

In a recent series of postings on a mailing list I am a part of, a discussion got started on the topic of Transubstantiation, a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the way in which Christ is present in the Eucharist. In the process, an article from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was quoted. One portion of the document really got my dander up...

That portion, and my response, follow.

Does the bread cease to be bread and the wine cease to be wine?
Yes. In order for the whole Christ to be present—body, blood, soul, and divinity—the bread and wine cannot remain, but must give way so that his glorified Body and Blood may be present. Thus in the Eucharist the bread ceases to be bread in substance, and becomes the Body of Christ, while the wine ceases to be wine in substance, and becomes the Blood of Christ. As St. Thomas Aquinas observed, Christ is not quoted as saying, " This bread is my body," but "This is my body" (Summa Theologiae, III q. 78, a. 5).

This is just plain lousy theology. First, it limits God based on our understanding. Second, it works against reinforcing the Dogma of the Incarnation because it promotes displacement theology - the idea that when God moves in, humanity (or, in this case, breadanity) moves out. This is in direct conflict with the Dogma of the Hypostatic Union, which states that God united with Man in the Incarnation. Jesus Christ is true God and true Man. The man did not have to move out to make room for God, and if he had, then Jesus Christ couldn't bridge the gap between God and us.

A theology of Transubstantiation, as explained above, does far more violence to Christological truth than most any other dogmatic view concerning the Eucharist - except possibly the concept of blessed memorial (a concept that denies the plain words of Jesus).

Further, whoever prepared this particular response, while rightly quoting Thomas Aquinas, missed the boat... namely Saint Paul. Paul was able to speak of the consecrated Eucharist as bread and cup... heck, the modern Roman liturgy does too, paraphrasing Paul (When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death Lord Jesus, until you come again). Thomas Aquinas may have been a learned, pious, and holy man, but he really overstepped what was needed and appropriate with much of his writing. This is one glaring example of that fact.

How Should Christians View the Old Testament?

"We further affirm our belief that the Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for in both the Old and New Testaments eternal life is offered to mankind through Christ." from Article Four: The Scriptures (CC-SST)

Indeed, the statement from the Synod of St. Timothy's Articles of Religion (which is drawn from the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion) is true and accurate. But what does it mean? This is a matter that many Christians study and discuss. I'd like to share some of my views with you today.

1) The Old Testament is a reliable source of historical information.
In spite of the many contemporary scholarly assaults on the reliability of the historical information contained in the Old Testament, I accept its historicity as genuine and valid. Far from disproving the Old Testament, science has an uncanny knack for proving the truth of Scripture (including many Old Testament 'fables') more often that it disproves them.

2) The Old Testament is a reliable source of prophecy.
Obviously, as a Christian believer, I see the Old Testament as the prophecy of Christ. From Christ's presence in the Creative act (see Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew), to the promise of a redeemer in Genesis 3, to the Burning Bush, the Prophetic voices, and even the visitor in the Firey Furnace, Jesus Christ is testified to throughout the Old Testament.

3) The New Testament is the fufillment of the Old Testament.
Let's take a look at this concept more deeply. The New Testament takes Old Testament principles and morphs them into something greater. While the New Testament is not contrary to the Old, the New Testament supercedes the Old in matters of faith and morals. As a result, things that we see in the Old Testament do not set precidence for Christians of the New Testament. War, a common occurance in the Old Testament between Israel and other nation-states, is transformed into a spiritual reality. Christians are not to care for the changes and chances of this world's nations, for they are soldiers of God's Kingdom against the forces of Satan. We have a different battle to fight. The Death Penalty, once demanded for many immoral and sinful acts, was commuted by Christ himself when he pardoned the woman caught in the act of adultery. The genuine death penalty that exists is no longer a civic concern but a spiritual one - the ultimate separation of the evil from God's eternal love at the day of Judgement.

4) The New Testament and its covenant supercedes the Old Testament and its covenant.
The Church is the Israel of God. No DNA lineage or national identity can lay claim to being God's Chosen People. Only the Church, called by Christ's name, washed by Water and the Spirit, and earnestly seeking Christ the Savior can rightly be called the Israel of God. This belief, often called supersessionism or replacement theology, is an integral part of the message of the New Testament. This is not a form of anti-Semitisim, though sadly many people have twisted it to become anti-Semitic. All people, Jew and Gentile, have access to God through Christ Jesus.

Indeed, the Old Testament is not contrary to the New; it is a foreshadowing of it; but its morals and practices have been given new and deeper meaning by Jesus Christ in the Gospels and throughout the New Testament.

Apostolic Succession

The following is a posting of a response to a question on "Primitive Catholic Fellowship", an e-group I moderate on Yahoo! Groups. The question, in a nutshell, is "Why bother to have Apostolic Succession?"

Apostolic Succession is composed of two very important elements.

1) Apostolic Truth
2) Apostolic Recognition

As you have already stated, Apostolic Truth is vital for any community of faith.

Apostolic Recognition (or the historic Episcopate), referring to the laying on of hands as a means of transmitting authority for mission and ministry is a second matter. While there are several citations in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, one only really needs to read the Scriptures in this instance to find a strong case for it.

First, the fact that there is at least a two-fold ordained ministry in Apostolic times is attested to in the Acts of the Apostles. At first, the Apostles operated as the only 'set apart' ministers of the Church. The twelve quickly replaced Judas (and the Greek word episcopos is used in Acts 1:20 to describe his vacated position) and after Pentecost they began to minister. After a time, the selected seven to serve the Church, laid hands upon them, and they became the first deacons (Acts 6: 1-7). It becomes clearly obvious, however, that they had a different ministry than the apostles/overseers. For example, they could baptize, but they could not impart the Holy Spirit (resuting in James and Peter having to go to Samaria to pray over those baptized by Philip (Acts 8: 14-17).

Now we come to the case of the Apostle Paul. For many, Paul is the absolute proof that Apostolic Succession is un-necessary. In fact, he states in the introduction to 1 Corinthians that he is, "chosen by the will of God to be an apostle of Jesus Christ." This man, the great Apostle to the Gentiles was unquestionably chosen to minister as an Apostle by Jesus Christ directly...

So it's funny that the Holy Spirit moves in Acts 13, commanding the prophets and teachers of the Church of Antioch to 'dedicate Barnabas and Saul for the special work to which I have called them." Jesus alrady called him to be an Apostle to the Gentiles... to preach the good news of repentance and mercy... so why the prayer? Why the setting apart?

The leaders of the Church at Antioch were established themselves by the apostles. They, in turn, recognized the call of God on Paul and sent him forth to lead a missionary effort. The Church participated in the ministry set in motion by God. Paul, a man who stated he was beholden to no man for his authority, submitted to the laying on of hands in obedience to the Holy Spirit's calling, in order to do the will of God.

Why? We'll probably never know. At the risk of sounding like I am trying to cop out of the discussion, it is something we simply cannot understand.

Are there Ante-Nicene references to Apostolic Succession, both doctrinally and through the laying on of hands? Yes. Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Origen, and even the Apostolic Constitutions speak of the practice. But if you don't accept it on this Scriptural basis (as well as the other Scriptures that could be brought into play on the topic), then there really isn't a point in quoting the ANF, is there?

Now, to take a moment to debate the merits and long-term effects of Succession...

Obviously the tacticle succession hasn't been effective against preventing heresy. Plenty of people have the historic episcopate and are wallowing in the bog (so to speak). When the Church got split up, first in the Montanist and Donatist eras, and later in the politicization of the Church, the episcopate was comprimised. Thus, all kinds of people claim (and do have) the tactile succession, but have erred greviously in their manner of living or in the content of the faith they profess. The laying on of hands is not an insurance policy against heresy, mainly because it has been used as a weapon since the early 300's.

On the other hand, while I'd take the Apostolic Faith over any mere line of bishops any day, we would be absolutely foolish if we refused to accept the laying on of hands if it was offered to us. Why intentionally deprive ourselves of both sides of Apostolic Succession?

Let us also remember, we cannot take the ministry upon ourselves. As a child I felt a calling to the priesthood, but I couldn't ordain myself. Someone has to examine candidates, train them, and then recognize them through some means... if one could simply delcare themselves ordained, then Simon Magus would have needed nothing other than to be a faithful Christian in order to recieve the apostolic power to confer the Holy Spirit. Or, even more to the point, the Samaratans of Acts 8 wouldn't have needed Peter and John to lay hands on them... or even Philip to baptize them. All they should have needed to hear was the preaching by Philip, and then they could have handled the rest of it themselves.

In closing, is someone outside of the historic episcopate doomed? Surely not. However, why would someone want to refuse the gift of continuity through the laying on of hands to compliment the apostolic teachings of the early Church? God raised up Paul, but Paul still allowed himself to submit to the Church's earthly means of being set apart for ministry.

Who are we to argue with God... or Paul?