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

You did not say some - you said none.

Dan Fugett said -
The gentleman to whom I was replying pointed out that transubstantiation was not a doctrine most people would accept who are considering it on the basis of scripture alone. I agree.

Oh "most"? I thought we were talking about "none"

After all you said -

Dan Fugett said -
I appreciate your insight and for the courage to acknowledge that no person, on the basis of scripture (singular and in total), apart from the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, would accept these ideas.


I agree some people might not be able to accept this on the basis of scripture, but that could be explained on the basis that they do not have a deep enough understanding of scripture.

I do not accept that NO person, on the basis of scripture (singular and in total), apart from the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, would accept these ideas. And I think I have proven that is not true as well based on my examples.

Dan Fugett said -
If you read my posts, I'm not denying that some Protestant denominations teach a real presence but not transubstantiation. At least the Lutherans dont. Do Anglicans and Orthodox teach transubstantiation?????

Transubstantiation is a term for theologians to debate. The lay person need not even worry about such technicalities if they believe Christ is truly present - or as scripture puts it - if they do not fail to discern the body of our Lord.

The Orthodox and Anglicans (I think) accept the concept of the underlying reality of the bread and wine being fully converted to the body and blood - but they do not use the term transubstantiation.

The Lutherans teach consubstantiation, which differs from transubstantiation in the sense that the underlying reality of the bread and wine becomes the body and blood but also retains the underlying reality of the bread and wine as well.

In essence they all agree in the real presence of the Lord, one just holds that the bread sticks around as well.

This is not just the outward appearances of the bread (as all of these including the RCC hold that the outward appearance of the bread and wine remain). It is only the underlying reality (what Aquinas and philosophers call the substance) which is changed. The outward appearances (which philosophy refers to as the accidents) is unchanged - which is why chemistry cannot distinguish between a consecrated and unconsecrated host, but yet some saints have been able to.




Advertisements