I was intrigued years ago to try to nail down Cranmer's eucharistic thought and am always interested in what others say on the matter.
One summation of Reform thought was, 'real presence in the believer', with the implication (in the Articles of Religion it's explicit) that "the wicked" do not partake of the Body and Blood but are guilty of abusing the sign of so great a thing.
One of the less important reasons I love this topic is that it touches on basic philosophical questions. What is "real"? What is "spiritual"? What is the difference between what a thing is, what it's made of, and what it's used for? Like that.
Anyway Merry Christmas to you.
>> One summation of Reform thought was, ‘real presence in the believer’, with the implication (in the Articles of Religion it’s explicit) that “the wicked” do not partake of the Body and Blood but are guilty of abusing the sign of so great a thing. <<
And herein lies the distinction of the Catholic belief: that the presence of God depends not on the beliefs of the human who partakes in the Eucharist. The bible says: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”
See, it doesn’t say that the Lord isn’t there because the person was a sinner. It says the unworthy doesn’t discern the Lord’s body, and he is damned.
What does one do if one is unworthy? How may he receive Christ? By acknowledging his sins: “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup.”
Is judging one’s own sins sufficient? No, Paul goes on to say that when we judge ourselves we aren’t judged: “For if we would judge ourselves, we are not judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.” So judgment (in this sense) is beneficial, for it allows our chastisement and our betterment.
So, the unrepentant sinner and the repentant sinner both may eat of the flesh of Christ. The repentant sinner is saved by having consumed the body of the Lord, and thus being made more like God; the unrepentant sinner is damned by having desecrated the body of the Lord. But the Lord is present to each, not only to the repentant.
How could the alternative be true? How could the Lord be present and not present? (All things are possible with God, but where is there mention of such a thing in the bible?) This, then, is what “Catholic” means: that truth is universal, not subjective.