How "quia" must one be to still remain "quia"?

[ByzantineDixie]

I was doing some reading earlier today and got to thinking about "quia" subscription to the confessions...and what that really means.

Do you believe the Confessions put forth absolutely no novelty...that everything supported by the Confessions can be supported by the practices of the early church or is this an area that is not so critical? Is it possible to be a "quia" subscriber and accept innovation so long as that novelty agrees with Scripture or at a minimum does not conflict with Scripture. In essence, are the statements regarding "nothing new" also being subscribed to when one claims "quia" or is that a lesser issue that shouldn't be used to invalidate someone's "quia" subscription.

What fuels this question is the not-so-recent discussion on Eucharistic Adoration. I am of the opinion that the Lutheran understanding of the Body and Blood of Christ, no longer remaining in the elements upon the conclusion of the Sacrament is a novelty. I can't find where this was ever believed in the Church prior to such a statement in the BoC.

So it occurred to me...maybe the issue of novelty isn't the important aspect of the Lutheran Confessions...maybe such a claim wasn't meant to be all inclusive of the whole of the BoC. Maybe a person could accept some innovation and still be "quia"?

Anyway...I'd be interested in your thoughts.

 

[SPALATIN]

I was doing some reading earlier today and got to thinking about "quia" subscription to the confessions...and what that really means.

Do you believe the Confessions put forth absolutely no novelty...that everything supported by the Confessions can be supported by the practices of the early church or is this an area that is not so critical? Is it possible to be a "quia" subscriber and accept innovation so long as that novelty agrees with Scripture or at a minimum does not conflict with Scripture. In essence, are the statements regarding "nothing new" also being subscribed to when one claims "quia" or is that a lesser issue that shouldn't be used to invalidate someone's "quia" subscription.

What fuels this question is the not-so-recent discussion on Eucharistic Adoration. I am of the opinion that the Lutheran understanding of the Body and Blood of Christ, no longer remaining in the elements upon the conclusion of the Sacrament is a novelty. I can't find where this was ever believed in the Church prior to such a statement in the BoC.

So it occurred to me...maybe the issue of novelty isn't the important aspect of the Lutheran Confessions...maybe such a claim wasn't meant to be all inclusive of the whole of the BoC. Maybe a person could accept some innovation and still be "quia"?

Anyway...I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Well You don't take any subscription to them any longer so your question puzzles me. Did you take quia subscription prior to swiming the Bosphorous? You amuse me Dix, in that you spend more time here now than when you were Lutheran. That's okay, I like ya.



Maybe I should wait for good old filo to respond to this one.



{Edited by SLS to avoid anyone thinking that he runs this forum in any way shape or form.}

 

[Jim47]

Deleted post so peace may reside.

 

[SPALATIN]

EDITED per request of Jim

I have edited his response and am deleting my own response to him. This is water under the bridge now.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Why should something like this occur to someone who doesn't take any subscription to them any longer? It amuses me Dix, that you spend more time here now than when you were Lutheran.

Maybe I should wait for good old filo to respond to this one.

Well, it isn't quite true that I spend more time here than before...I actually spend far less time on CF than I ever did. But I probably spend equal time between here and TAW. I still like the Lutherans...is that a bad thing?

I ask these things because Lutherans still figure prominently in my personal life. My husband is a diehard Lutheran. Both my sons remain Lutheran. My best friend is Lutheran. I spent the weekend with my old pastor at an out of town wedding...with a bunch of other Lutherans. The questions I have are questions that never occurred to me when I was Lutheran. In this particular case, once I discovered the confessions and confessional subscription, I just assumed that "nothing new" was key. Maybe it isn't? Maybe I put to much emphasis on it.

So...when I talk to my Lutheran friends and I explain my concerns about novelties and some of the reasons I left...if they look at me like "what's the big deal?" I'll understand that perhaps my view and expectations were skewed. It doesn't change things for me but it may help me understand them better.

I hope my questions don't annoy you, Scott. If they do, please feel free to report them to a moderator. I understand.

 

[Protoevangel]

I for one appreciate both the questions that our sister Dixie poses, as well as the humble and respectful manner in which she presents those questions.

I also appreciate Spalatin's lighthearted ribbing (even before the edit).

As far as I am concerned, "...our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons..." means exactly what it says.

Now, to see this in the example of Eucharistic Adoration. It is clear that nowhere in Scripture are we required to worship the Sacrament. But, nowhere in Scripture are we told not to worship Christ when He is present. If we look to the witness of the early Church, it is clearly a practice that is neither new nor novel, and in no way can worshiping Christ, while He is truly present, be considered "contrary to the intent of the Canons." So, should it be a practice that is required? No. Is it a practice that should be honored and encouraged? Absolutely!

 

[SPALATIN]

Well, it isn't quite true that I spend more time here than before...I actually spend far less time on CF than I ever did. But I probably spend equal time between here and TAW. I still like the Lutherans...is that a bad thing?

I ask these things because Lutherans still figure prominently in my personal life. My husband is a diehard Lutheran. Both my sons remain Lutheran. My best friend is Lutheran. I spent the weekend with my old pastor at an out of town wedding...with a bunch of other Lutherans. The questions I have are questions that never occurred to me when I was Lutheran. In this particular case, once I discovered the confessions and confessional subscription, I just assumed that "nothing new" was key. Maybe it isn't? Maybe I put to much emphasis on it.

So...when I talk to my Lutheran friends and I explain my concerns about novelties and some of the reasons I left...if they look at me like "what's the big deal?" I'll understand that perhaps my view and expectations were skewed. It doesn't change things for me but it may help me understand them better.

I hope my questions don't annoy you, Scott. If they do, please feel free to report them to a moderator. I understand.

Dix, not at all. I am sorry for coming on so strong. I forget how entrenched you are with Lutheran all around you and I admire you for staying true to what you believe. I apologize for making fun of you. It seems like you are here a lot and the only thing that would be better is if you changed your mind and came back. I know though that isn't going to happen. I won't use humour anymore like this with you. And you have every right to ask the question you did. My answer is that I don't know and defer to either DaRev or Filosofer.

As for the rest of you, if you think that I think I run this forum you are mistaken and I have never assumed that for any reason. I have been here for almost 2 years now and have thought of many of you as family. Just because I want to be a pastor doesn't mean that I don't still have the ability to Sin. I make mistakes all the time and your Pastor makes them as well. To even insinuate that I have to be above it all at this point is ludicrous. I haven't even entered Seminary yet and you are already putting me into a mold. Please don't put me, or any pastor for that matter on any pedestal. Quite frankly when that happens I become afraid of heights and the fall could be devastating.

Scott

 

[Jim47]

Deleted by Jim so healing may take place

 

[ByzantineDixie]

As far as I am concerned, "...our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons..." means exactly what it says.

Yes...that is exactly how I understood it when I was Lutheran. Have you checked yesterday's discussion on Weedon's blog? One commenter stated that without this understanding Lutheranism no longer attempts to be the catholic church of the West rightly reformed but just another interpretation of Scripture...just another Protestant sect.

Now, to see this in the example of Eucharistic Adoration. It is clear that nowhere in Scripture are we required to worship the Sacrament. But, nowhere in Scripture are we told not to worship Christ when He is present. If we look to the witness of the early Church, it is clearly a practice that is neither new nor novel, and in no way can worshiping Christ, while He is truly present, be considered "contrary to the intent of the Canons." So, should it be a practice that is required? No. Is it a practice that should be honored and encouraged? Absolutely!

I didn't get into specifics about the novelty discussed in the Eucharistic Adoration thread because I didn't really want it to overshadow the main question in this thread but I also don't want to leave a misunderstanding as to what I saw as the innovation. It wasn't adoration. It was this:

"For apart from the use, when the bread is laid aside and preserved in the sacramental vessel [the pyx], or is carried about in the procession and exhibited, as is done in popery, they do not hold that the body of Christ is present." (Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, VII, The Lord's Supper, 15)

Basically, the understanding that Christ leaves the elements sometime after the Sacrament. That "leaving"...that's where I can not find any historical link. I find that a bit intriguing because...well...for a lot of reasons not worthing going into here.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[SPALATIN]

Yes...that is exactly how I understood it when I was Lutheran. Have you checked yesterday's discussion on Weedon's blog? One commenter stated that without this understanding Lutheranism no longer attempts to be the catholic church of the West rightly reformed but just another interpretation of Scripture...just another Protestant sect.



I didn't get into specifics about the novelty discussed in the Eucharistic Adoration thread because I didn't really want it to overshadow the main question in this thread but I also don't want to leave a misunderstanding as to what I saw as the innovation. It wasn't adoration. It was this:

"For apart from the use, when the bread is laid aside and preserved in the sacramental vessel [the pyx], or is carried about in the procession and exhibited, as is done in popery, they do not hold that the body of Christ is present." (Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, VII, The Lord's Supper, 15)

Basically, the understanding that Christ leaves the elements sometime after the Sacrament. That "leaving"...that's where I can not find any historical link. I find that a bit intriguing because...well...for a lot of reasons not worthing going into here.

Thanks for your reply.

Dix,

In the past there have been threads regarding unused 'blood' and it's disposal after the service is over. Last week, my wife and I set up Holy Communion in our church. Afterwards we picked up the little cups (no common cup at this church) and the wine from the used glasses that had not been consumed was put into a special container in which the lady who took care of scheduling the assistants to help with Communion said she took it out and emptied it in the ground. From what I understood of the discussion here, was that it was the proper thing to do. The wine which was left over and had not been touched was kept in the refridgerator covered by celophane for use in next weeks service.

Is it then called wine again? or would it still be consecrated for use in visiting the infirm?

 

[LutherNut]

Is it then called wine again? or would it still be consecrated for use in visiting the infirm?

You can still call it wine, because it never stops being wine after the consecration.

As for use in visiting the infirm, it doesn't matter whether it's consecrated or not, the words of the verba should be repeated for the sake of the infirm anyway. To simply give "preconsecrated" elements to the infirm without their hearing the words of Christ would not necessarily equate to the Sacrament. Remember, faith comes by hearing.

In our church, the individual disposable mad shot glasses are rinsed in plain water before they are tossed, and the water is then poured out onto the ground. There is at least that much reverence in place.

 

[Protoevangel]

Yes...that is exactly how I understood it when I was Lutheran. Have you checked yesterday's discussion on Weedon's blog? One commenter stated that without this understanding Lutheranism no longer attempts to be the catholic church of the West rightly reformed but just another interpretation of Scripture...just another Protestant sect.

This is what I am troubled about myself.
I'm not giving up yet... I simply can't. But this does trouble me greatly.

I didn't get into specifics about the novelty discussed in the Eucharistic Adoration thread because I didn't really want it to overshadow the main question in this thread but I also don't want to leave a misunderstanding as to what I saw as the innovation. It wasn't adoration. It was this:

"For apart from the use, when the bread is laid aside and preserved in the sacramental vessel [the pyx], or is carried about in the procession and exhibited, as is done in popery, they do not hold that the body of Christ is present." (Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, VII, The Lord's Supper, 15)

Basically, the understanding that Christ leaves the elements sometime after the Sacrament. That "leaving"...that's where I can not find any historical link. I find that a bit intriguing because...well...for a lot of reasons not worthing going into here.

Thanks for your reply.

While I was driving back to my hotel in Detroit today, I thought about this thread; your OP and my reply. I immediately realized I had totally missed the point of your post with my reply. Why I didn't realize it last night, I have no idea! Sorry about that.

Now to the point...

We know the reformers were guarding against Roman error, but I don't think they went quite as far as you (and most) think they are going. It would have been so easy for them to state it in positive terms, "they hold that the body of Christ is not present", but they don't go that far. I think they leave that alone quite intentionally. The fact that Luther urged the excommunication of a assistant pastor who mixed the consecrated Blood with unconcecrated wine, saying, "First, it is not a case of negligence but of intense wickedness on the part of this assistant pastor who as a despiser of God and man has publicly dared to esteem consecrated and non-consecrated hosts as the same thing. Hence he must simply be thrown out of our churches. Let him go to his Zwinglians," bears that out

Now, admitedly, it was not Luther who wrote the SDFC, but Chemnitz, in his "Examination of the Council of Trent", vol 2, page 260, compares God’s presence in the ark to His presence in Holy Communion. God's presence was never declared to be gone, but when the Ark was used outside of it's intended purpose (i.e. taken to battle without God's command), not only was God's presence not beneficial to the Israelites, but disaster struck... And hard. In addition, it is clear that the theological faculty of Wittenberg held similar thought on the Sacrament. In Thesauri Conciliorum of 1671, the faculty discussed whether it is right for a pastor to take the remaining consecrated wine home for common use. The faculty answered that no, that this would not be proper use of the consecrated elements. If the Body and Blood were absolutely declared to no longer be present, there would be no basis for this decision.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

This is what I am troubled about myself.
I'm not giving up yet... I simply can't. But this does trouble me greatly.




While I was driving back to my hotel in Detroit today, I thought about this thread; your OP and my reply. I immediately realized I had totally missed the point of your post with my reply. Why I didn't realize it last night, I have no idea! Sorry about that.

Now to the point...

We know the reformers were guarding against Roman error, but I don't think they went quite as far as you (and most) think they are going. It would have been so easy for them to state it in positive terms, "they hold that the body of Christ is not present", but they don't go that far. I think they leave that alone quite intentionally. The fact that Luther urged the excommunication of a assistant pastor who mixed the consecrated Blood with unconcecrated wine, saying, "First, it is not a case of negligence but of intense wickedness on the part of this assistant pastor who as a despiser of God and man has publicly dared to esteem consecrated and non-consecrated hosts as the same thing. Hence he must simply be thrown out of our churches. Let him go to his Zwinglians," bears that out

Now, admitedly, it was not Luther who wrote the SDFC, but Chemnitz, in his "Examination of the Council of Trent", vol 2, page 260, compares God’s presence in the ark to His presence in Holy Communion. God's presence was never declared to be gone, but when the Ark was used outside of it's intended purpose (i.e. taken to battle without God's command), not only was God's presence not beneficial to the Israelites, but disaster struck... And hard. In addition, it is clear that the theological faculty of Wittenberg held similar thought on the Sacrament. In Thesauri Conciliorum of 1671, the faculty discussed whether it is right for a pastor to take the remaining consecrated wine home for common use. The faculty answered that no, that this would not be proper use of the consecrated elements. If the Body and Blood were absolutely declared to no longer be present, there would be no basis for this decision.

hmm....that's very interesting. Makes you wonder why the pastor says the words of institution again over the bread and wine again when he communes the infirmed. Maybe he just uses a new host. THough I saw it one time but maybe I'm wrong. That was years ago.

 

[Protoevangel]

hmm....that's very interesting. Makes you wonder why the pastor says the words of institution again over the bread and wine again when he communes the infirmed. Maybe he just uses a new host. THough I saw it one time but maybe I'm wrong. That was years ago.

No, you're right. I see one reason for saying the words of institution again. As it was stated above, by LutherNut, faith comes by hearing... It is beneficial for the person to hear the words of institution.

 

[LilLamb219]

No, you're right. I see one reason for saying the words of institution again. As it was stated above, by LutherNut, faith comes by hearing... It is beneficial for the person to hear the words of institution.

Also, in the words of institution the person gets to hear the words "for you" which are the very words that Luther himself looked forward to hearing.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Now to the point...

We know the reformers were guarding against Roman error, but I don't think they went quite as far as you (and most) think they are going. It would have been so easy for them to state it in positive terms, "they hold that the body of Christ is not present", but they don't go that far. I think they leave that alone quite intentionally. The fact that Luther urged the excommunication of a assistant pastor who mixed the consecrated Blood with unconcecrated wine, saying, "First, it is not a case of negligence but of intense wickedness on the part of this assistant pastor who as a despiser of God and man has publicly dared to esteem consecrated and non-consecrated hosts as the same thing. Hence he must simply be thrown out of our churches. Let him go to his Zwinglians," bears that out

Now, admitedly, it was not Luther who wrote the SDFC, but Chemnitz, in his "Examination of the Council of Trent", vol 2, page 260, compares God’s presence in the ark to His presence in Holy Communion. God's presence was never declared to be gone, but when the Ark was used outside of it's intended purpose (i.e. taken to battle without God's command), not only was God's presence not beneficial to the Israelites, but disaster struck... And hard. In addition, it is clear that the theological faculty of Wittenberg held similar thought on the Sacrament. In Thesauri Conciliorum of 1671, the faculty discussed whether it is right for a pastor to take the remaining consecrated wine home for common use. The faculty answered that no, that this would not be proper use of the consecrated elements. If the Body and Blood were absolutely declared to no longer be present, there would be no basis for this decision.

Sometimes it freaks me out how much you and I think alike. I was on this track too until someone (I believe it was Pastor Webber on the Orthodox Lutheran dialogue) posted the rest of the letter...

First, it is not a matter of negligence but evil and indeed extreme evil on the part of this deacon [Adam Besserer], who as a despiser of God and men publicly dared to regard consecrated hosts and unconsecrated as one and the same. Therefore he must by all means be expelled from our church; let him go to his Zwinglians. It is unnecessary that a man who does not belong to us be held imprisoned. He must not be believed under oath. ... As for the mixed particles [ i.e. the consecrated and unconsecrated hosts that Besserer had mixed together] it was good that they were burned, although in this situation it would not have been necessary to burn them, since outside the use nothing is a Sacrament as the water of Baptism outside the use is not Baptism. With those who eat and believe, Christ operates in the Sacrament. But on account of the offense the pastor did what was right with the burning. (Letter to Nicolaus von Amsdorf [1546], ~Lutheran Synod Quarterly~ 28:4 [December 1988], pp. 72-73 [WA Br. XI, 258])

Of course another participant responded by pointing out that someone by the name of Peters did some work to demonstrate "no sacrament outside the use" was not the same thing as "no Body and Blood outside the use" but while this may help digest Luther's letter better it doesn't resolve the comments in the Solid D which clearly say "Christ is not present". So frankly I disagree with your assessment...I think the reformers did go that far.

The faculty thing you reference was explained to me as keeping holy things holy...not that Christ's Body and Blood remained but that having been touched by Christ they were now holy and should be treated with special reverence.

(You did some great research here!)

Anyway...you have (and I had) the same understanding regarding innovation. I don't think many (any?) of the Lutherans in my personal life think this way at all. Continuity with the historic church is not an issue for them. You would be surprised how many have told me that there is no perfect church. That each of the divisions has some error. So...of course, it is very difficult for them to understand my move. "Why trade one set of errors for another?", they ask. I would have been far happier for their sakes to deal with "How could you abandon the Truth?"

 

[Protoevangel]

"...our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons..."

"For apart from the use, when the bread is laid aside and preserved in the sacramental vessel [the pyx], or is carried about in the procession and exhibited, as is done in popery, they do not hold that the body of Christ is present."

Honestly Rose, if you are correct in how you understand the SDFC quote... That would make it impossible to be "quia" confessional.

Your understanding really seems inconsistent with what I have read of Chemnitz, as well. Not only that, but the inconsistency is way too glaring; I have a hard time thinking that they just glossed over it... The authors were much too good of scholars, and way too exacting in their research and writing to let something so obvious to just slip by...

I know that's not a strong argument, but it's all I've got. I don't know what else to say.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Honestly Rose, if you are correct in how you understand the SDFC quote... That would make it impossible to be "quia" confessional.

Your understanding really seems inconsistent with what I have read of Chemnitz, as well. Not only that, but the inconsistency is way too glaring; I have a hard time thinking that they just glossed over it... The authors were much too good of scholars, and way too exacting in their research and writing to let something so obvious to just slip by...

Oh I could be wrong. Chemnitz was a better Lutheran than I ever was anyway. Too bad I don't have Trent 2 though so I could confirm and read what you have referenced in context...I only bought the first book before I left Lutheranism.

But I remind you....there are a lot of Lutherans who read that section of the Solid D and who believe Christ is no long present in the pyx. You saw that yourself in the Eucharistic Adoration thread. So if I am wrong...I am not wrong alone.

In the end...how Lutherans practice reflect what they believe anyway.

Couple of things...

You came to exactly the place I came to...if there is any innovation in the BoC then it would be impossible to be a "quia". And that is what I was looking for when I originally posted. As I was reading, as I was discussing (particularly in real life) I was beginning to get the sense that "nothing new" was more of an after thought (did you catch the thread in Weedon's blog...this issue came up there, too!) or "as long as it fits" than something real Lutherans needed to hang on to...which was never my understanding.

I will say that I don't believe that there are many Lutherans who hold to the same understandings you have though, Dan. On both issues, innovation as well as the presence of Christ in the pyx. But I appreciate your need to fight for what you see as truth.

Thanks very much for the challenges and discussion. God grant you peace.

 

[ChiRho]

I was doing some reading earlier today and got to thinking about "quia" subscription to the confessions...and what that really means.

Do you believe the Confessions put forth absolutely no novelty...that everything supported by the Confessions can be supported by the practices of the early church or is this an area that is not so critical? Is it possible to be a "quia" subscriber and accept innovation so long as that novelty agrees with Scripture or at a minimum does not conflict with Scripture. In essence, are the statements regarding "nothing new" also being subscribed to when one claims "quia" or is that a lesser issue that shouldn't be used to invalidate someone's "quia" subscription.

What fuels this question is the not-so-recent discussion on Eucharistic Adoration. I am of the opinion that the Lutheran understanding of the Body and Blood of Christ, no longer remaining in the elements upon the conclusion of the Sacrament is a novelty. I can't find where this was ever believed in the Church prior to such a statement in the BoC.

So it occurred to me...maybe the issue of novelty isn't the important aspect of the Lutheran Confessions...maybe such a claim wasn't meant to be all inclusive of the whole of the BoC. Maybe a person could accept some innovation and still be "quia"?

Anyway...I'd be interested in your thoughts.

To avoid beginning upon false assumptions, could you define for me "Eucharistic Adoration" and "innovation," as they are applied specifically to this topic?

 

[KEPLER]

I haven't said anything up to this point becasue my head is still reeling from the last thread on adoration... But reading the SDFC on this, a few thoughts are forming.

Dixie, what saith the EO Church regarding what happens in a Baptist church when they "take communion"? Is there a real sacrament there, even though the Baptists (et al., I'm not picking on Baptists, just using them as an example) deny the Real Presence? FOr the Lutherans, we do indeed deny that they are receiving the true sacrament:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]32] After this protestation, Doctor Luther, of blessed memory, presents, among other articles, this also: In the same manner I also speak and confess (he says) concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, that there the body and blood of Christ are in truth orally eaten and drunk in the bread and wine, even though the priests [ministers] who administer it [the Lord's Supper], or those who receive it, should not believe or otherwise misuse it. For it does not depend upon the faith or unbelief of men, but upon God's Word and ordinance, unless they first change God's Word and ordinance and interpret it otherwise, as the enemies of the Sacrament do at the present day, who, of course, have nothing but bread and wine; for they also do not have the words and appointed ordinance of God, but have perverted and changed them according to their own [false] notion. Fol. 245.[/FONT]

When the sacrament is not rightly taught, Christ is not there.

HOWEVER, when the Sacrament IS rightly taught, Christ is there...but He is NOT there BECAUSE the Sacrament is rightly taught (emphasis on human action), He is there because of the Word.

I believe the BoC parses this issue in the same manner in which election is parsed: the human will causes damnation, but not salvation. The Grace of God effects salvation but not damnation.

IOW, we know why a person goes to hell; we know why another person goes to heaven, but the difference between them is a mystery unknown to us.

We know why Baptists have no true sacrament. We know why we have a true sacrament...but I think the difference between us is categorically the same kind of mystery as election/salvation. We can say it's becasue the "Word is not rightly preached" and this is true. BUt it begs the question. Baptists say the same "word" over the bread and juice that we say over bread and wine, so why is our prayer effective and theirs is not? (and we all agree that theirs is not!) I am NOT suggesting that we have "something" in addition to the Words of Institution that they don't have: that would be suggesting that the verity of the Sacrament depends on us, which (from the last thread) I think we all agree it does not.

Am I making any sense at all?

This is not innovation. This "view" of election and salvation is pretty clearly laid out in the Council of Orange, and is very Augustinian (and personally, I think there are elements of it in Chrysostom and one of the Cyrils, but it could be that I'm putting a happy spin on them).

And the "front side" view of the sacrament that I just described is also NOT an innovation: the RCs denied that the Manichaeans had a true Sacrament becasue of their gnostic views on wine.

So...

The UNpresence of the sacrament can be a result of human intention.
But the presence of the sacrament is only a result of the Word, and never a result of human intention.

How the math works out between those two positions is (just like election/salvation) known only to God: it's a mystery.

Kepler