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

Salvation is based on what is in your heart and only Jesus knows

Michael said,
I certainly accept your qualifier I should have said "you have already excommunicated yourself from the Catholic Church".

Mike says,
The qualifier was RC. While I believe that the true church is catholic (meaning universal). That church certainly isn't defined solely by RC. That assumption would exclude many saints of God who are not RC. The discernment given to me indicates that there are saints in denominations other than RC.

Yes, I believe those who belong to the true body of Christ on earth make up the catholic Church, catholic meaning universal. I use the small c when referring to it that way because it is not part of the name but just an adjective for the word Church. When I use the captial C I am referring to a proper name - the Catholic Church, including not just the Roman Catholic Church but all the others which are in union with Rome, such as the Eastern Catholic Church.

Michael said,
Well I suspect you mean it was His Spirit and power that baptized you, because He didn't actually physically baptize even when He was on earth.

Mike says,
Of course I meant by the Spirit. For that is the only way entrance into the church is made.

1Corithians 12:13 For by one Spirit we (christians) were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

Yes, my point was that the sacrament of Baptism is still a physical act, an outward sign of an inward grace, so it matters who does it and how it is done. But that is perhaps a topic for a different thread. Still it has its place in relation to how the bread and wine are consecrated for the Eucharist too, so who knows.

Michael said,
since the anathema does no more than what you have already done to yourself (good or bad)

Mike says,
Anathemas are never good! (in the New Testament anyway)

I disagree. The Jewish nation placed an anathema on the Christian cult (as they called it) at their Council of Jamnia where they rejected the Septuagint. That anathema to me is not a bad thing at all. They were wrong, so their anathema holds no weight of God's authority in my mind and does not bother me a bit. If you have already decided the Catholic Church is not the one true Church of Jesus, the one He built, then I would not think an anathema coming from them would bother you at all, since it is nothing more than an ex communication and you have already ceased communicating with the Roman Catholic Church.

Mike Kirby said -
Thanks for revealing your heart in this matter. I think that we can agree on this following passage and scriptural principle which I originally tried to emphasize.

"Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit"
1 corinthians 12:3

And I believe that by extension, no one speaking by the spirit calls the body (or parts therof) of Christ accursed.
That would put one under the promise and principle of receiving the curse as promised to Abraham in Genesis 12:3.

I think your extension goes too far. Do you not think Ananias and his wife could not have said "Jesus is Lord"? And yet Peter did much more than anathematize them. There are many who claim and even think sincerely they are of the body of Christ, that they are in the true Church, but if they hold to teachings and doctrines which are not part of the true Gospel or even if they hold to proper doctrines but do not follow those doctrines, then they are just fooling themselves. When Jesus comes to judge them he will separate them as goats from the sheep. I want to be clear here I am speaking in generalities and not specifically about you and your situation as I simply do not know enough about it to judge and I never will. It is what is in your heart that is important and only Jesus can judge that. But I just wanted to say that yes, there are many outside the physical confines of the Catholic Church who are indeed in the catholic Church. They truly are followers of Christ and His teachings. But there are also many who are outside both the Catholic Church and the catholic Church who think they are followers of Christ and so many important doctrines wrong that they are not really followers of Him. Similarly there are many in the Catholic Church who have a mistaken understanding of the Churches teachings and/or reject some of them and so too are not part of the catholic Church.




Advertisements