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?

caritas's picture

So, you really want to know....

Mike,

Hi - My name is Lisa. I'm from Massachusetts - a single mom of a fiesty teen. No expert on anything, really. Just wandering in the door here. But I have a couple of thoughts. You say that you were "preached to" at age 29 by someone of a Protestant denomination, and lapsed from your Roman Catholic faith, and have renounced the sacraments? And so you are seriously asking if the "anathemas" of the Council of Trent apply to you? The anathemas applied to those who denied the validity of the True Presence of the actual Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, in the Eucharist at Mass. If you do - then it applies - no matter who you are. (I suppose) Is this a trick question?

I'm sorry that your early catechesis was so weak, apparently, that you could throw aside the sacraments and the beauty of the actual real presence of the Lord for anything on Earth. See - it seems to me that if anyone EVER truly believed in the actual meaning of the Eucharist, then they simply couldn't walk away from it. Therefore - either they never really understood.... so they didn't really believe.... or something else was going on I guess.

I used to teach CCD class. You might have called it Sunday School - but it was on a weekday night, LOL! I'd get kids that were in 6th, 7th, 8th grade - kids way too old to claim they didn't know stuff this basic - and they were completely clueless. We'd start them over from scratch. We'd start them over with the verses where the crowds shudder with disgust when Christ talks about "gnawing" the actual meat of his flesh, if they want to be saved, and they walk away - and he turns with sorrow to the Apostles, and asks them, "will you leave me too?" He doesn't call the people back - like you'd think He would, if there were some sort of misunderstanding - oh no! They got it! Eat my flesh, drink my blood! Gross! (The kids always laugh at that part!) Then we'll talk about Eucharistic miracles, and even watch a one of several DVD's we have. They like that because it's more fun that book work. There's a lot of information out there, so it makes for a pretty good unit. Miracle of Lanciano, and all that.

I never understood the concept of leaving the Church to have a "personal relationship with Jesus" - Jesus is by my side all the time. I think I have a pretty darn "personal" relationship with Him all the time - he's heart of my heart, center of my being. I don't have to walk away from the sacraments He gave us to be closer to him, or the Church he founded to .... well... each to his own. It just confuses me when people say that. Sorry. Hey, God bless, be well, and take care. Don't worry so much about "anathamas" - I really think that applies to people who actually knew what the Eucharist was - and then deny the reality of it. See how that works? So.... maybe it doesn't actually apply to you. Only you and the Lord actually know the answer to that question, I guess.




Advertisements