Communion/Eucharist

Loutzenhiser's picture

* "Transubstantiation" — the substance (fundamental reality) of the bread and wine is transformed in a way beyond human comprehension into that of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, but the accidents (physical traits, including chemical properties) of the bread and wine remain; this view is that taught by the Roman Catholic Church and by the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem, and is held by many Anglicans, especially in Anglo-Catholic circles.
* "In, with and under the forms" — the body and blood of Jesus Christ are substantially present in, with and under the substance of the bread and wine, which remain. This is the view held by most Lutherans, and some Anglicans. Lutherans and non-Lutherans refer to this view as 'consubstantiation'. Although, for some, this term is difficult to understand, it remains the confessed understanding of the Lutheran faith.
* "Objective reality, but pious silence about technicalities" — the view of all the ancient Churches of the East, (including the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Catholic Churches) and the Assyrian Church of the East as well as perhaps most Anglicans. These, while agreeing with the Roman Catholic belief that the sacrament is not merely bread and wine but truly the body and blood of Christ, and having historically employed the "substance" and "accidents" terminology to explain what is changed in the transformation, usually avoid this terminology, lest they seem to scrutize the technicalities of the manner in which the transformation occurs.
* "Real Spiritual presence", also called "pneumatic presence", holds that not only the Spirit of Christ, but also the true body and blood of Jesus Christ (hence "real"), are received by the sovereign, mysterious, and miraculous power of the Holy Spirit (hence "spiritual"), but only by those partakers who have faith. This view approaches the "pious silence" view in its unwillingness to specify how the Holy Spirit makes Christ present, but positively excludes not just symbolism but also trans- and con-substantiation. It is also known as the "mystical presence" view, and is held by most Reformed Christians, such as Presbyterians, as well as some Methodists and some Anglicans, particularly Low Church Reformed Anglicans. See Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. 29. This understanding is often called "receptionism". Some argue that this view can be seen as being suggested — though not by any means clearly — by the "invocation" of the Anglican Rite as found in the American Book of Common Prayer, 1928 and earlier and in Rite I of the American BCP of 1979 as well as in other Anglican formularies:

And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us, and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood.

* "Symbolism" — the bread and wine are symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and in partaking of the elements the believer commemorates the sacrificial death of Christ. This view is also known as "memorialism" and "Zwinglianism" after Ulrich Zwingli and is held by several Protestant and Latter-day Saint denominations, including most Baptists.
* "Suspension" — the partaking of the bread and wine was not intended to be a perpetual ordinance, or was not to be taken as a religious rite or ceremony (also known as adeipnonism, meaning "no supper" or "no meal"). This is the view of Quakers and the Salvation Army, as well as the hyperdispensationalist positions of E. W. Bullinger, Cornelius R. Stam, and others.

What is your position on this subject and how do you support it scripturally?

michael_legna's picture

Anathemas do not apply to those outside the Church

Michael said,

"First because sin implies knowledge and intent and if you have not accepted the true meaning of these verses you are acting out of ignorance and not knowledge - and of course knowledge is needed to have intent."

Mike says,
My understanding of sin dosn't give ignorance as an excuse.

Then we disagree on that. Sin can be simply missing the mark (its technical definition) but we are not held accountable for that if we did not purposely mean to miss the mark.

If we run over someone with our car and kill them it is not a sin if we do it accidentally . It is not a sin unless we do it with the intent to harm them. So intent is necessary for us to be held accountable for our sins.

Mike said -
If I can be a spirit filled believer and not believe in the "real presence" and be non RC, why would the council of Trent place a curse on me for not believing in such things.

Where did you get the idea there is a curse placed on you, or anyone else outside the Catholic Church by a Council of the Catholic Church? I think you are referring to the anathemas in the declarations of the Council.

There are two anathema from the Council of Trent relating to the Eucharist I know of, they are:

"If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 1).

"If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 8).

Neither of these apply to those outside the Catholic Church. That is because the meaning of anathema is described as follows -

"In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful."

"Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two. A Council of Tours desires that after three warnings there be recited in chorus Psalm cviii against the usurper of the goods of the Church, that he may fall into the curse of Judas, and "that he may be not only excommunicated, but anathematized"

Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity.

The above is from the Catholic Encyclopedia where you can read the whole article

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

So the pronouncement of an anathema does not apply to those outside the Catholic Church (just as an excommunication does not apply to someone outside that particular Church).

Mike said -
Or is that (Council of Trent) not in effect anymore?

No the Council of Trent is still in effect (as are all the declarations of all Councils throughout all of history.

Mike said -
Why does the current pope say that non RC churches are "sick" brothers? Is that statement made based on
1 Corinthians 11:30?

Not really. It goes back to the idea that the Church serves as a doctor or hospital to heal the sinner. In this way it is more like Matt 9:12

Mat 9:12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

Those who are not following the correct doctrines (not following Christ perfectly) are sick. The Church is on earth to help heal these people by leading them to Christ. All Churches do this, some better than others. Those who follow Churches which have a less perfect understanding of the correct doctrines are less likely to be healed and so are considered sick - because they are not whole.




Advertisements