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?

jwmcmac's picture

Jeff said: quoting

Jeff said:

quoting jwmcmac:

"I know you don't Believe this . . . about the Pope . . . but then you turn around and give to yourself even more authority than any Pope who has ever lived or who will ever live."

Jeff continues:

"Your statement is spoken in ignorance. I have never placed myself where Christ alone belongs in that I haven't presumed upon God's prerogatives to act as the conscience of men nor to think to change God's law. And, I have never decreed that men should be put to death for heresy. Nor do I allow other men to render adoration to me, to bow to the ground and kiss my feet, or kiss my ring. Nor have I paraded myself around the world as the spiritual leader of the world. I live a pretty humble life apart from the pomp and circumstance which surrounds the Pope, and free of the exorbitant lifestyle he enjoys from the proceeds of the offering plate."

jwmcmac comments:

Oh, but you have placed yourself in these places of honor . . . while you also having wrongly placed the Pope, and all those with him, in the worst possible places at the same time . . . giving him attributes which no Pope has or ever has had and never will have.

It is your inability to separate the meanings of religious and political powers on earth that is your bane in this and your unfairness in your analysis of these things.

You do not see the parallels and the natural strife which the Church has had to endure and which She has had to overcome in Her struggle with Her 'being in but not of the world.'

She has had to exist and Live in this environment . . . but She not being the cause of its conflicts or sins . . . but rather the cure . . . but you believing that She is guilty by association, anyway, with the powers that be with which She has had to contend with while She walks upon this earth, passing through this Veil of Tears.

This attitude of yours toward our Mother, the Church, speaks more of your own failings and falsity and unfairness than of Her Faith and Fidelity and Holiness in spite of all of the struggles which She has had to endure in Her battle against the world, the flesh and the devil . . . in Her Saving men from the clutches of the devil and from the clutches of themselves and other rulers upon the earth . . . She Saving men through means of Her joining them Sacramentally to Her LORD and SPOUSE, JESUS CHRIST . . . joining them to HIM in SPIRIT and in Truth . . . under the guidance by and overshadowing of the HOLY SPIRIT, the Power from on High.

The Protestant Reformation was more a political battle than a religious one . . . and the Protestants, in most instances, took on political rulership all over the kingdoms of earth in those days . . . for the most part.

When I speak of the Church . . . although She has had some political powers associated with Her at times, by necessity . . . these have never been that part of Her make-up which has been 'the Church'. The Church consists of the Faith and the Sacraments which make men Holy through Uniting them to Her LORD and Saviour.

You are disingenuous in saying otherwise . . . and in ascribing 'only' wrong purpose to Her . . . instead of ascribing to Her that existence and purpose for which She was built upon men . . . as Built by CHRIST upon men . . . that purpose of 'making men Holy'.

I do not expect that you have any ability to overcome this disingenuousness nor any ability to see it otherwise as you have subscribed to this in your mind for so long a time now . . . though you have had ample opportunity to be fair and to cease to be hypocritical . . . yet . . . you having chosen none-the-less to never ever see the Church in any other light then as 'evil men' bent on subjugating the world and limiting freedom of conscience.

I sort of wonder what GOD thinks of that attitude in you . . . if, as I purport to you . . . She is HIS primary agent on earth for the means of joining men to HIS SON.

I suppose that since you can't seem to help yourself in this attitude . . . you may not be fully culpable in the matter of rejecting Her. I don't know.

Contrary to your way of thinking and believing as to the Church, the Saints and Martyrs and Doctors of the Church stand very boldly in stark witness against your wrong mindedness toward the Church.

But you continue to see Her as you like . . . and as you are bent.

As to pomp and circumstance . . . you have no direct knowledge which supports your attitude in this . . . though you believing that you do . . . since you view things as men see things . . . with their own built-in prejudices.

If you were speaking of some 'tv-evangelist' . . . I might be inclined to agree with you . . . but then I can't be sure in this . . . but only seeing by appearances.

An example:

GOD is both the most Adorned and the most humble . . . and HE will be forevermore. What will you say of HIM?

The Angels are adorned . . . some having gone bad and some remaining good . . . as if the Pomp and circumstance having very little to do with their overall humility or lack there-of.

You do not believe that the Pope can be thus . . . adorned to his state in Life on this earth . . . and yet be humble? No . . . you do not so believe that this is a possibility for men . . . but . . . you are wrong . . . as you seem to me to be so wrong in many things.

You say you are humble.

Is it humble to put other men, who actually have a position of Authority, down to where you want them to be . . . and yet . . . to lift yourself up to where you say that they cannot be? This is what you do when you make yourself the sole authority in Faith matters . . . and you are your own sole authority . . . though you claim it to be the book and the HOLY SPIRIT guiding you in your private interpretation there-of.

These are my opinions of what you do in your placing yourself in full charge of things of Faith concerning yourself and others . . . though I know you can't even begin to see what the heck I am talking about.

I am not really ascribing to you bad motive or intent . . . I thinking that you just don't know any better . . . and although I think your analysis of the Church to be a very unfair evaluation of the Church . . . this unfairness of analysis being the result of your wrong directions and false assumptions in these matters of Faith.

I mention these in order to clarify to you and to me what you absolutely cannot see or accept by your own private evaluation and interpretation.

I know that I cannot convince or convict you in these matter, but only the HOLY SPIRIT . . . so I continue to pray for you and for me too.

GOD Bless you and us all.




Advertisements