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

Mike posted: "jw said, The

Mike posted:

"jw said,

The Pope has no Authority to 'change' any Teachings . . . which have preceded he entering office . . ."

Mike says,

"Popes" surely do change doctrines and this one is of them.

The first council of Jerusalem ruled that we should not eat blood ..."

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

jwmcmac comments:

That is a restriction of practice . . . not a doctrine . . . and practices change through time as is necessary. The principle may be doctrinal . . . not to eat things which have been offered to idols.

Mike said:

"And so it seems clear to me that transubstantiation developed in later years within a sect of christianity."

jwmcmac comments:

So you say and believe . . . but you are wrong in this.

TranSubstantiation is merely the formal definition by the Church of what has always been believed as to the Entire SubStance of CHRIST replacing the entire substance of the Bread and the Wine. This definition became necessary . . . because of those who questioned the LORD's Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament.

Mike said:

"Also, who changed the way the Lord's supper is to be celebrated? from partakng of the bread and wine to partaking of bread only?"

jwmcmac comments:

This also is a Practice only change . . . as the LORD being fully Present under either form . . . either the Bread or the Wine . . . HE Being fully Present under either form . . . the Church in Her Wisdom and by Her Authority thought it wise for the Faithful to Receive under the One form . . . under normal circumstances.

This practice . . . for the time being . . . has changed . . . and may develop further in years to come . . . but the Teaching that CHRIST is Fully Present in either form of Bread alone or of Wine alone . . . has never changed and never will.

Although the Consecration must be done under both forms and the Priest must Receive for the People under both forms . . . by Practice if not by Doctrine.

Mike said:

"This is very clearly a change from the New Testament. (whatever one believes about the substance of the elements)

Mike "

jwmcmac:

No, it is not a change of Doctrine on any level from the New Testament . . . though it appears to be so to you. You do not understand or accept what the Church Teaches . . . and that is that . . . you preferring your own understanding to that of the Church. I cannot help you with that . . . other than to pray for you and me.

GOD Bless you and us all.




Advertisements