On the Eucharist: Yes, Anglicans Believe in the Real Presence

Eucharist-Meme-1Anglicans today have a variety of perspectives on the Holy Eucharist. The Anglican formularies allow a certain latitude for this, but it is not inexhaustible. Broadly speaking, Anglican eucharistic theology and piety is wide enough that Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin can all have a seat at the table. Whether or not they would actually wish to sit at the same table is another matter entirely, as is the question of whether or not this degree of breadth on something so central is a good idea. But even given that breadth, there are limits. While Calvin might be able to take a seat (though not all who followed him and use the name Calvinist, let the reader understand), poor Zwingli is left out. Whatever else can be said about classical Anglican eucharistic theology, it is certainly a theology of Christ’s real and objective presence. Any notions of stark memorialism are excluded by the formularies.

Not everyone today agrees though. In a recent blog post called “Do Anglicans believe in ‘real presence’?“, the Rev. Ian Paul argues that Anglicanism is receptionist, meaning that while the bread and the wine are mere symbols, the person who receives those symbols with faith also receives Jesus, though it is not entirely clear how receiving Jesus in this context is any different from receiving Him in our own private prayers, away from the community, with no bread and wine present at all. In other words, the bread and wine do not really matter. They’re incidental to what’s really going on which is something internal, abstract, and potentially different for every person in the room. The bread and wine may be helpful symbols but they are not the Body and Blood of Christ.

Paul rests his argument upon the Anglican formularies and Holy Scripture. I have dealt with some of the relevant Scripture before here and therefore will not reinvent the wheel. But what of this claim that the formularies deny the Real Presence? That we can take up presently to show definitively that this claim is false. To do so, let us look at three things: the sentence of administration in the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the Catechism.

This or That

The words of administration–the words spoken by the priest as he gives Communion to the faithful–caused some controversy in the early period of the Anglican Reformation. Thomas Cranmer’s 1549 Book of Common Prayer had the priest offering the consecrated bread while saying, “The Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.” Similarly, the wine was offered with the words, “The Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.” The Reformed party found these words suspect and rightly so. Here was affirmation that what the priest was giving to the faithful was Jesus’ own Body and Blood, offered once upon the cross but made present for us now in the concrete action of receiving bread and wine. Cranmer himself seems to have agreed that this was a problem. In 1552, the offending words were replaced. Now the priest said instead, “Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on Him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving” and “Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.” While there is nothing in either phrase that rules out the Real Presence, there is also nothing there that explicitly affirms it. Drink “this” and eat “this” without any further explanation leaves open a whole realm of possibilities for what this might actually be.

The Elizabethan Settlement changed that, and Queen Elizabeth I herself seems to have been one of the chief instigators of the change, precisely because she wished to preserve the language of Real Presence. The 1559 BCP included both the sentence from 1549 and the sentence from 1552 together, which continues on in the 1662 BCP and other prayer books based upon it ever since. By restoring the 1549 language and placing it alongside the 1552 language, the latter was effectively modified so that this now refers to the Body and Blood. Along with the removal of the Black Rubric, this move ensured that whatever we think might be going on in Holy Communion, it is clear that when the priest gives the consecrated elements to the faithful he is giving them not merely bread and wine but the very Body and Blood of Our Lord.

Signs, Signs, Everywhere Signs

The prayer book is not, however, the only formulary to address the matter. Paul argues that Article XXVIII settles the matter in a memorialist direction. The article begins:

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 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…

First things first, the Article begins by explicitly denying memorialism in almost as stark a way as it will go one to deny transubstantiation. The Eucharist is not only a sign of love between Christians as Anabaptists were arguing. It is rather the “Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death.” How so? Because when we receive it in faith, we partake of the Body and Blood of Christ. This does not mean that it is only the Body and Blood for the faithful though. On the contrary, Article XXIX states:

THE Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

Those who are evil or who lack faith are not partakers of Christ even though they do receive Christ’s Body and Blood. Rather, by receiving the Sacrament, they receive condemnation, which would be a strange result if all they were doing was munching on a light snack.

Article XXVIII goes on to say:

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.

Again, there is nothing here that precludes the elements from being truly Christ’s Body and Blood. I have dealt before with what it means to eat and drink spiritually. Suffice it to say that no Catholic would ever suggest that faith is not the means by which we receive the Body of Christ. The Catholic’s only caveat, if there be any, would be that it is not only by faith, or rather more plainly that faith is part and parcel of what happens when we actually do eat and drink. The two realities cannot be separated from one another as receptionism posits.

“You Got Grace in My Sign!” “You Got a Sign in My Grace!”

The Catechism also helps to make this clear. The Catechism draws a distinction between the “outward part or sign” and the “inward and spiritual grace” that take place in each Sacrament. Yet while we can speak in the abstract about these two different dimensions of a Sacrament, they are not any more separable than the human and divine natures within Our Lord. The Catechism defines a Sacrament as “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof” (Emphasis mine). The Sacrament contains both a sign and the thing signified. A Sacrament is not only a reminder, not only a symbol, but the actual means through which the thing that is signified is made manifest. To draw an analogy, a stop sign signifies to us the action of stopping and encourages us to make an internal decision to stop. But the stop sign cannot actually stop us. If the stop sign were sacramental, it would be as if the stop sign simultaneously reminds us of stopping and stops us. The sign would become the action.

With respect to Holy Communion, the Catechism says that the outward part is bread and wine while the inward part is “The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.” The bread and wine feed our bodies even as the Body and Blood nourish our souls. They cannot be experienced apart from one another. If a Hindu or an atheist were to walk into one of our churches and receive the Holy Communion, what he would chew and swallow would be the Body and Blood of Christ as much as what the Christian chews and swallows, though he would not truly partake of Christ but may very well do himself some degree of harm if done with intention to deceive.

Mystery Loves Company

None of this is to say that the Anglican formularies give us the fullest possible picture of Catholic eucharistic theology. The purpose of the formularies, much like the creeds, is not to say all that can be said but to create the fence within which the conversation is to be held. Once the Real Presence is abandoned, we are outside of that fence. Lancelot Andrewes, writing in opposition to Cardinal Bellarmine, put it this way:

We believe no less than you that the presence is real. Concerning the method of the presence, we define nothing rashly, and, I add, we do not anxiously inquire, any more than how the Blood of Christ washes us in our Baptism, any more than how the Human and Divine Natures are united in one Person in the Incarnation of Christ.

What we need, in my opinion, is a fully formed Catholic theology, grounded in the Scriptures and the historic teaching of the Church, that goes along with a bold Evangelical witness and proclamation of the Word to give us the fullest, deepest, richest possible expression of what Christ has given us in the magnificent gift of the Sacrament of His Body and Blood. Anglicanism has the capacity for this and the formularies provide us with a wonderful starting point. But until we can say without flinching that “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood” mean exactly what they sound like they mean, we will never do more than spin our wheels.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in On The Eucharist and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to On the Eucharist: Yes, Anglicans Believe in the Real Presence

  1. Matt Marino says:

    Thank you, Jonathan, for doing the lifting on this. I read Ian Paul’s article and was going to weigh in. You beat me to the punch and with a much funnier hashtag to boot!

  2. kiwianglo says:

    Certainly, Fr.Jonathan, you have a supporter on this side of the world (ACANZP). Even the ‘Sola Scriptura’ fans (like Ian Paul ?) have to admit to the power of the words of Jesus: “This IS my Body; This IS my blood”. And, of course, there is always the affirmation of Queen Elizabeth I:
    “And what the Word doth make it; I do believe and take it!”

  3. Ian says:

    Fr. Jonathan,

    Thanks for demonstrating how Article XXIX can be used against receptionism rather than for it; you don’t see that everyday! I think I need just a bit more help with that one, though. What I understand you to be saying is that the article says the wicked do eat and drink the Body & Blood of Christ, but that they are not partakers of Him due to an absence of faith. But the title of the article is “Of the wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper.” How can the title of the article say that the wicked “eat not” the Body of Christ, while the article itself (as you’re expounding it) says that they “do eat” It? Is the word “eat” being used in multiple senses, meaning to visibly press with one’s teeth when used in the body of the article (does this correspond to what you mean when you say “Those who are evil or who lack faith … do receive Christ’s Body and Blood”), but meaning to “partake” (in the sense you use that word, and as it’s used in Article XXVIII) when used in the title? Also, does the phrase “in the use of” in the title mean anything in particular? Lastly (as far as Article XXIX goes), I believe I’ve heard that this article was suppressed for a while under Elizabeth I. If this was the case, does it not suggest that it was believed there was something the matter with it as far as orthodox doctrine was concerned?

    Where you talk about the second part of Article XXVIII, which says “the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith”, you say, “The Catholic’s only caveat, if there be any, would be that it is not only by faith…” When you say “not only” are you referring to the fact (assuming I’ve understood you correctly) that the faithless, as well as the faithful, receive and eat the Body of Christ, or are you saying that the means by which the Body of Christ is received and eaten is faith plus something else? If the answer is “faith is part and parcel of what happens when we actually do eat and drink”, I don’t quite understand what you mean by that; could you explain, please?

    Finally, when you talk about the realist words of administration, you say, “The Reformed party found these words suspect and rightly so.” Why do you say “rightly so”? I thought the point was that these words simply expressed the truth? Or are you referring to the fact that the Reformed party didn’t believe in the Real Presence?

    • Ian says:

      I’m really trying to sort out all these words (i.e. receive, eat, partake) and get it straight in my own mind when, to what and to whom they each apply and when, to what and to whom they don’t.

    • Fr. Jonathan says:

      Hi Ian,

      Thanks for the great questions and engagement.

      The titles of the articles, much like the titles of the homilies, can be a bit tricky. They were added after the fact and aren’t always as straight forward as what’s described in the article in question. But you’re moving along the right lines when you ask what is meant by “eat,” which takes on a different meaning in the title than in the body of the article and which is contingent on that other phrase, “in the use of.” In the article itself, we’re told that the wicked are condemned because they “eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.” So they eat, but they don’t partake. In the title, it’s just the opposite. They don’t eat in the fullest sense of the word – they don’t receive the nourishment or benefits – because they are merely going through the motions, not approaching with faith. This, as you say, would be to make “eat” in this context synonymous with “partake” in the previous article, even though in the body of Article XXIX eat will not mean “partake.” It’s all a bit clunky, but that’s sometimes how these things go.

      There’s also a slightly different way of reading the title, which would be that the wicked eat not because they are barred for their faithlessness from receiving. This interpretation has the benefit of corresponding to the prayer book liturgy and its exhortations not to receive faithlessly. In that case, the title really says nothing about the nature of the Sacrament itself, but merely speaks to who is and isn’t permitted to receive it. While I think this interpretation is grammatically possible, I think the previous interpretation is a little closer to the truth.

      It’s also helpful to note that neither Newman nor Pusey were concerned enough about this title to even mention it as a problem. And if we can agree that Newman’s Tract 90 is probably the most extreme form of a Catholic interpretation of the Articles that is available, the fact that he doesn’t even bother to address this should be informative.

      In regards to faith being the “means” by which we eat, the Catholic caveat that I mention would be that the definition of faith has to be such that it doesn’t exclude the action that goes with it. In other words, a Catholic has no problem saying the means by which we receive the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is by faith, but that cannot mean that faith is in any way separable from the concrete action of eating and drinking. To use a crude analogy, if I were to eat an ice cream cone right now, I might do so for two separate purposes, to satisfy my taste buds and to give me calories so that I can keep on with my day. I can talk about those things as separate, but I can’t actually separate them. I can’t enjoy the taste of the ice cream without the calories, nor gain the calories without tasting the ice cream. Faith is trust in God, rendered possible in our hearts by God’s own grace. It would be impossible for us simultaneously to have faith in the Body of Christ in the Eucharist and not eat it. Faith is made manifest in the eating.

      In regards to saying it was “rightly so” that the Reformed party found the 1549 words of administration troubling, I meant rightly so from their perspective. If you don’t believe that the bread and wine really do become Christ’s Body and Blood, then that sentence of administration should trouble you.

  4. Jeff Felter says:

    Thank you,Father. I came into the Episcopal Church from the Methodist ministry just because of the understanding of the Eucharist that you have presented here. All the current difficulty in TEC not withstanding, to kneel at the altar and have some sense of receiving Jesus is a blessing difficult to put into words. For me, the real presence is the only way to make sense of bread and wine.

  5. Jeffrey Bell says:

    There is something more to the the taking of bread and wine in the remembrance of our Lord during the Last Supper. That is what it is that Christ wants us to remember! Debating over whether or not bread and wine are more than symbolic, as important as that is, is somewhat missing the point in my opinion, perhaps due to my Episcopal upbringing!? Anglicans and Catholics, others as well I’m sure, I am not a theologian by any means, have debated over the issue of ‘transubstantiation.’ That is, whether the bread and wine taken in remembrance of Christ transforms into the actual physical body and blood of Christ once taken into our bodies! While a profound and deeply emotional, perhaps spiritual, idea, it seems to me that it is the Spirit of Christ, the meaning, the purpose of His presence far exceeds any physical manifestation? In my understanding of what occurred at the Last Supper there is support for the idea that the emphasis should be on what Christ asked of us, rather than on the physical aspects. That idea centers on Christ’s washing of his disciples feet and Peter’s refusal. It is the very idea that Christ came here to serve, not to be served. It is no less than what he asks of us, and His very purpose for his coming. It is the very way in which we are saved when done in His name. That being, that through faith in Christ, serving rather than being served, will save us! This idea is so utterly counterintuitive to the human mind it seems absurd from a logical stand point! But we know through receiving Christ in faith that it is truly the only way, and understand this only through faith by bringing the very Spirt of Christ into our spirits. Certainly a true communion!

    • Jereme says:

      Hi Jeffrey. I may be misunderstanding a couple of your points, and I am attempting to respond graciously. Let’s hope I do :)

      The Lord’s Supper centers around Him serving us. He serves us His very body and blood. You mentioned that He came not to be served, but to serve. He serves us in His Holy Supper. He says of this meal in Matt 26:28, “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” In the Divine Service, in which He serves His people, we receive the blood of the New Testament which actually gives us forgiveness. We receive this in His blood, the wine (and presumably also by His body, the bread). So how do we know that we are actually receiving forgiveness in the Eucharist? We receive the bread and wine. How do we know that we are actually receiving His body and blood in the elements, that He is actually serving us there? Because He said so, saying “this is my body,” and “this is my blood.” The Lord’s Supper is not about us, and what we do or feel or think. It’s about Christ, for us. When the Pastor or Priest says, “here is Christ,” and places Christ in your hands or in your mouth, you know you have Christ objectively, and you have a dying, rising, and forgiving Christ for you and for the forgiveness of your sins. That is why it matters. Otherwise we are left to wonder (doubt?) whether we really have Jesus in our hearts. When Christ says “here I am, for you, in the bread and wine,” faith says I believe and joyfully receives Christ.

      What does Christ ask of us in His Supper. He simply says, “take,” and “eat.” What He asks for is faith. It is not our faith that brings Christ to us in Communion, it is the bread and the wine. We receive Christ in our mouths, our faith merely says “Thank You,” which is what the term Eucharist means. You can wrestle with what it means to be “truly”, “really”, “bodily”, or “mystically” present. But if we are tempted to wonder if we are really and objectively receiving Christ in the bread and wine then we leave the door open for doubt. And we, as people, tend to be really good at this. That is why it matters.

      Furthermore, I hope you agree and find it comforting to know that we are not saved by serving rather than being served, even through faith. We are in fact saved by Christ and by His service. By His life and His death and His resurrection. We are saved by grace, through faith. We are saved Solus Christus, by Christ alone. The German Reformers said that saying we are saved by faith alone was just another way of saying we are saved by Christ alone. Our service, even in faith, does not save us. Our service is simply a way of praising Christ, an act of thanksgiving. It is what saved people do.

      I apologize if I have misunderstood you, but there were some words in your post that are very often red flags.

      And I apologize to Father Jonathan for hijacking his blog for a moment. And I enjoyed the post Fr. J. Receptionism is a nasty little blighter of a false teaching. It was, as you may know, rather prevalent in Lutheranism for quite a while. Thankfully it seems to be a dwindling teaching, at least in the LCMS.

      • Jeffrey Bell says:

        I have to admit that some of things you talk about are a little mystifying to me in that what I’ve said contradicts them? My point simply is that men spend a great deal of time debating over the subjective meanings of something like transubstantiation… Bottomline for me, and I think most would understand, is that accepting Christ is a spiritual event, the communion of your spirit with Christ, and a letting go of your human will to serve His will in turn God’s will in the trinity. The physical is etherial and temporary, where the spirit is eternal. Although, I have been schooled in the importance of a blood covenant in the time of Christ, an understanding largely lost to today’s times. So, perhaps the emphasis on the spiritual aspect might have more meaning in our present world!?
        Also, I did not mean to say that one is saved by works, as in ‘serving’ others, or God. But as Christians joined to Christ by faith and in spirit we would be compelled to serve as it seems it is central to being a Christian and what Christ desires from us. My understanding is that the spiritual communion with Christ is what transforms us, our physical bodies being nothing but vessels and temporary, as such, not having the same importance. Also, I’m not denying that transubstantiation occurs, but would only exist to foster the outcome of spiritual communion, the important thing, if you will!
        Certainly, these are aspects that men have been talking about since the beginning of Christianity and will until Christ returns. I admit have a very limited knowledge of theology but it seems that certain denominations emphasize various aspects to varying degrees. It is my hope, that regardless of what denomination a person may be, that they become part of the body of Christ through faith and love. This is what I understand most clearly!

  6. Rako says:

    I am glad that you find the real presence biblical, but I think that the Articles contradict themselves internally, which is not a surprise since people of two views wrote them.

    I disagree with this part of the essay : “Suffice it to say that no Catholic would ever suggest that faith is not the means by which we receive the Body of Christ. The Catholic’s only caveat, if there be any, would be that it is not only by faith, or rather more plainly that faith is part and parcel of what happens when we actually do eat and drink. ”

    By saying faith is THE means of receiving the body in the eucharist ritual in the singular, and not A means of reception, then it suggests that it is the only means, which is what both Catholics and Lutherans object to.

    If people debate whether I studied two subjects in college as majors and I reply that Biology was THE subject that I studied, it implies that it’s the only one I did.

    If people are debating about the church’s status or what people claim the throne, and I say THE Anglican Church is THE Church of England or Henry the VIII was THE claimant to the throne, and not a claimant or the main claimant, it means in both examples as a matter of grammar that they were the only ones. And so on.

  7. Rako says:

    At one point the Articles say that the bread partakes of Jesus’s body, so that supports the Lutheran view, because in Article 29 it says that only the faithful partake of Christ, and that means that partaking must mean a true spiritual union, not just a symbol or effect.

    Yet we also know that this bread that shares in Christ is eaten by unbelievers, and yet article 29s title is that the unworthy do not “eat” the body if christ.

    Yet in the book of Concord, Luther made a big argument that the unworthy do eat the body of Christ l. And in your own essay you wrote:
    “The bread and wine feed our bodies even as the Body and Blood nourish our souls. They cannot be experienced apart from one another. ”

    Yet this is what the title of article 29 claims happens when the unworthy physically eat the bread yet do not eat Christ’s body.

    Bishop Cheney who taught the real presence rejected both Transubstantiation AND Article 29, and he was excommunicated for that. That doesn’t sound like the Articles represent a legitimate consensus.

    The Anglican Articles are broken and contradictory. Yet it appears that many Anglicans have an intense wish to see themselves in conformation with the statues set down by the English Reformation, rather than find themselves in conflict with them.

    Being Eastern Orthodox and baptized Lutheran, it has never been a problem with me. I prefer to imagine Anglicans’ rules as teaching real presence, but it’s more important to me to be objective.

  8. Perry Butler says:

    It is interesting that the sacramental questions in the BCP catechism added in the early 17c and usually attributed to Bishop Overall restores the threefold understanding of the Eucharist taught by the Scholastics…the outward sign, the inward grace AND the benefits. ..This undoubtedly safeguarded the objectivity of the gift which which is then appropriated by faith for worthy reception…The worrying thing about Paul ( a member of General Synod, the Archbishops Council and involved in seminary education, is that the ecumenical convergence on the Eucharist ( much of which the C of E has deemed consonate with its doctrine ,seems to have passed him by.

  9. What a wonderful piece Father Jonathan. I can’t think of a more highly elegant defense of Anglican eucharistic theology

  10. Helen Farrell says:

    I am married to a Catholic and a source of deep division between us is that he tells me I have never received the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Anglican Church. I have walked out of yet another presentation by a Catholic priest this week who insists that communion in the Anglican church is presided over by priests whose ordination God does not recognise. What should be my response to this? I was ‘received’ into the Catholic Church unwillingly and simply for the sake of harmony in my marriage and consistency for our children, yet I struggle with so much of the Catholic Church’s teaching and its clergy’s disdain for the Anglican Church. Was I wrong to do so?

    • kiwianglo says:

      Dear Helen, there is none so blind as one who will not see! The understanding of the priest you mention is defective – but consonant with the official Roman Catholic line. I think you would find that Pope Francis may think differently. I have R.C. clergy friends who recognise my Anglican priesthood as valid.

    • Jeff says:

      Jesus Christ is the way and the light, not any church, faith or man, period! Your faith is between you and He, let no one tell you anything different! The idea that you are required to find salvation through a priest is antiquated and just wrong! Christ never said anything of the kind. Only He and you know what is in YOUR heart and soul and body…

    • rako says:

      Helen,
      FYI, I am Orthodox and I don’t think the Eastern Orthodox Church has a single official position on whether Anglican orders or communion are valid or not.
      I think among non-Anglican priests and theologians you are going to get a range of opinions, even probably among some Catholic priests.
      And remember, non-Anglican Reformed Protestants don’t even believe that Anglicans should have priests at all. Evangelicals dismiss the whole concept of “Sacerdotalism”.

      So I would recommend not getting too offended by what you heard, it is just something that mainstream Christian scholars have different opinions about. Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, Catholics, etc. all have different opinions on what orders are valid and not valid. I would really not get too worried about this. They are different churches and so simply being realistic it is not a big surprise if some of these churches’ priests don’t think that the other churches have valid services and orders.

      Maybe one priest believes something and another disagrees.
      Take for example the Articles of Religion of the Anglicans. They teach that RC Communion is not just invalid like you heard from your RC priest, but that RC Transubstantiation is “repugnant” and “overthrows the sacrament”. That’s even worse. Many times in Anglican writings from the Reformation we hear derisive comments about “Romish” teachings and “papism”. There is a lot worse out there.

      If you want a really ecumenical sect, you might as well pick Quakers or UCC. But then you are going to get a host of new theological problems of a different kind.

      So just relax and enjoy the ride and don’t get too worried when you hear some opinions you disagree with by some priests, even if they are in your church.

      peace

  11. Aaron Munn says:

    The real issues… is the Anglican Eucharist a Word of unconditional promise for me? I find in some Anglican circles, it’s all so vague what the Supper does for us… if it is really “for me” (In the Lutheran sense), or just if its dependent on my faith. We can talk about the metaphysics all we want, but in the end, it’s the role of the sacrament that really shows the differences between Lutherans and Reformed. As usual, Anglicans seem all over the place.

Comments are closed.