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

An anathema is not the same as calling Jesus accursed

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.

Michael said,

I think your extension goes too far.

Mike says,

Your opinion doesn't change the scripture.

No but your extension is not scripture. The actual scripture does not support your point that no one could call part of the Church (the body of Christ) accursed. You can only get to that conclusion by extending scripture, and in my opinion extend it beyond what it actually intends. If placing an anathema on someone was the same as cursing them, and if cursing a member of the body was the same as calling Jesus accursed, then Paul would not have recommended the anathema as a possible option.

This argument is not only wrong because of your erroneous extension of scripture, but is also a mute point because an anathema is not a curse. So just placing an anathema on someone who has denied a doctrine of the Gospel is not the same as cursing them, and it is certainly not the same as calling Jesus accursed.

Michael said,
Do you not think Ananias and his wife could not have said "Jesus is Lord"? And yet Peter did much more than anathematize them.

Mike says,
Peter didn't anathemize anyone or do anything but ask 2 questions and make a statement. V4. Simply and crudely said, God killed them.

The power always comes from God, but the authority does rest with men, and the authority to have these two fall dead at his feet was Peter's just as his declaration of an anathema would within his authority if they refused to hear the Church.




Advertisements