Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: NYer
Since, Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as we do, they do not discern or recognize that Jesus’ body is present under the appearance of bread and wine.

I think there is more to it than this... for instance while many low church Anglicans believe in the Real Presence of Christ but deny it is carnal, there are many high church Anglicans who believe in transubstantiation exactly as the Roman Catholics. And remember, Anglicans are the world's third largest denomination! There are other non-Catholics who also hold this belief... and I am fairly certain they would not be given communion either. I know Catholics that have all sorts of varied beliefs on communion -- I understand they shouldn't -- are they then drinking to their damnation? Because if so it doesn't seem to concern them or their priests as much as it perhaps should. Similarly, what about the early Christians that had an incomplete understanding of the Eucharist (as I think we can all agree that church thought has evolved on this subject in the past two thousand years)?

Personally I think this question of specific beliefs is a red herring; I honestly think it has more to do with not being in full communion with the Roman Catholic church than any specific belief.

There are a couple of documents that I think are somewhat related to this post that may be of interest:

One Bread, One Body (Bishops' Conference of England & Wales -- sorry! I could only find a cached-version)

The Eucharist: Sacrament of Unity (an Anglican response)

I think the biggest problem comes when there are families that are divided between Catholics and non; particularly at services such as weddings. I don't really mind not participating when I attend Roman Catholic services; but I think it is a legitimate concern when families can not partake together. I'm glad to see it is also a concern of church leadership on both sides.

-paridel
32 posted on 12/27/2008 3:25:20 PM PST by Paridel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Paridel; NYer; PAR35
for instance while many low church Anglicans believe in the Real Presence of Christ but deny it is carnal,

Most Reformed Christians also believe in the real presence that is not carnal. Christ is truly albeit spiritually present in the sacrament.

Although, on one hand, Calvin denies the descent of Christ's body to us (absentia localis), he paradoxically speaks of such a descent by the Holy Spirit as the source of real presence (praesentia realis) in the Supper. Calvin would only allow the word "real" (reali) to be used if it meant that which was not fallacious and imaginary or the opposite of that which was deceptive and illusory. On the whole he preferred the word "true" (vero) to describe Christ's presence. In normal speech "real" connotes something that is existent, objective, and in the external order. When used with reference to the Supper, "real presence" implies "local presence," and, of course, this is denied by Calvin. So then, Calvin would allow the phrase praesentia realis only if "real" was used for "true" as is sometimes the case in common or vulgar parlance. As for the mode of "descent" (modum descensus) Calvin maintains that it is the Holy Spirit who descends but not alone. Christ "descends" by His Spirit. But again Calvin employs paradoxical language when he maintains that the manner of descent is that "by which he lifts us up to himself. There is, so to speak, a simultaneous descent and ascent. What is in view, here, is sacramental "proximity" effected by the Spirit upon the ground of the mystical union of Christ and His people.

Calvin maintains that the sacrament's effect is more than a mere stimulation of the intellect, imagination, and emotions at the sight of the portrayal of the spectacle of the Cross. It is this and more. "In participation in the Supper faith connects itself with something outside of itself and other than a mere idea, and, in so doing, effects in the spiritual realm a real communication between itself and the earthly reality such as that figured in the act of eating the bread." Calvin distinguishes between eating and believing. Faith or belief receives Christ and the promises, but eating implies more. Eating is the result or consequence of faith. The spiritual transaction which occurs possesses the nature of nourishment or vivication. "...the flesh of Christ is eaten by believing because it is made ours by faith..." Hence, the eating (nourishment) follows from believing (appropriation). Or, in other words, faith is a vessel that receives something from outside -- the benefits of Christ's flesh and blood which nourish the believer and impart to him eternal life. (Calvin's Doctrine of the Spiritual Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper)


44 posted on 12/27/2008 3:37:27 PM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: Paridel
I think the biggest problem comes when there are families that are divided between Catholics and non; particularly at services such as weddings. I don't really mind not participating when I attend Roman Catholic services; but I think it is a legitimate concern when families can not partake together. I'm glad to see it is also a concern of church leadership on both sides.

This was a concern for my wife and I at our wedding. We are Roman Catholic, however many of our family are not. We discussed this with our priest and during the wedding rehearsal, he explained to the family in attendance what the rules are. Everything went very well.

470 posted on 12/29/2008 12:14:29 PM PST by Crolis (Kill your television!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson