|
A note to my loyal (or even rebellious) readers: As that logo to the left indicates, I have been nominated for Best Religious Blog in the 2006 Canadian Blog Awards. Starting Nov. 15th you can vote here. The religious blogs are a ways down the page, and mine is listed as Aaron's Head (the name of my mirror blog site, over at Blogger.com). As a tip of the hat to the opening of the polls, I'll try to maintain a religious tenor for this post.
Pusey, like most Anglicans, stakes out turf between Memorialists (who claim that the Eucharist is only a memorial) and the Roman Catholic position of (say it with me) Transubstantiation. On the one hand, Pusey rejected the notion that the Eucharist is just a light snack to recall something done in the past - he knew that in the sacrament of body and blood we are truly encountering Christ. On the other hand, anyone can see that the bread and wine remain bread and wine after they are consecrated. Well, so can the Roman Catholic Church, but that doesn't stop them from subscribing to Transubstantiation because they have a nuanced understanding, thanks to Lanfranc and Thomas Aquinas, of the difference between substance and accident. Substance is what a thing is, the way you just are human. Accident is a physical property; thus no two humans look identical (not even twins) although we're all human. The same goes for trees and cats and fish and rocks and whatnot. The idea here is that, after consecration, the elements retain the accidents of bread and wine, while taking on the substance of the body and blood of Christ. OK, that was a detour. The point is, Pusey found ample evidence in scripture for the bread and wine as body and blood. To quote from the "Obvious" category, Jesus says of the bread, "This is my body," and of the wine, "This is my blood." In Pusey's words, "All things combine to make us take our Lord's words solemnly and literally." So do we disagree with Jesus? Do we not believe him? Do we try and put a metaphorical spin on these words? The Reformers were pretty unified in their assertion that scripture is God's Word, so why not take God at his word? It's funny what a Biblical literalist will accept as absolute, literal fact and what s/he will insist be interpreted. So Pusey argues that when we take communion we are taking the true body and blood of Christ. But Pusey also insisted that the bread and wine are bread and wine, even after the consecration. Again, he turns to scripture - Jesus, after blessing the cup, said "I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God." (Mark 14:25) See, the cup has been blessed and the "words of institution" spoken, yet Jesus is still calling it wine! So what we take in communion is bread and wine. And it's body and blood. Pusey suggests that we read all of scripture and discern the truth in that way. He argues that scripture tells "at one time, one side of Divine truth; at another, another". He suggests that scripture needs to be read as a whole, seeking the balance of "sides" of truth "in order that our finite human minds may grasp, in their degree, truth after truth, and each may sink more deeply in our souls." And so Pusey approaches the doctrine of the Real Presence from both "sides" of scripture, finding evidence to support both body and bread, blood and wine. He is rigorous in his exegesis, defining both angles on the issue...and then he steps back. He lays out the boundaries and then leaves them be. He acknowledges the mystery at the centre of the Eucharist, a mystery unsearchable by human minds. "How He bringeth it to pass," says Pusey, "we may leave to His Omnipotency." That, to me, is the essence of Anglicanism. Work out what you can, leave the mysteries to God. |
For class today I read a sermon by 