Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit
3,189
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16:
Line 16: + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Specific Eucharistic Doctrines
[[Baptist]]/Evangelical/Pentecostal/Fundamentalist: While the theologies of these traditions are different, their view on the Eucharist is generally the same- it is simply a symbolic memorial of the Last Supper and a recollection of Christ's body and blood given up on the Cross, but not a re-presentation or literal sharing in His body or blood.
[[Baptist]]/Evangelical/Pentecostal/Fundamentalist: While the theologies of these traditions are different, their view on the Eucharist is generally the same- it is simply a symbolic memorial of the Last Supper and a recollection of Christ's body and blood given up on the Cross, but not a re-presentation or literal sharing in His body or blood.
==Real Presence gradations of understanding within the Catholic and Orthodox traditions==
The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstatiation has been formulated by the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas taught that after the prayer of consecration or blessing at the Altar, the bread and wine were no longer bread and wine, though they appear to be so to the senses. His teaching is based on the distinctions that Aristotle made between essense or substance of things, and the appearance of things. Every thing has an essence and an outer manifestation which he called the "accidents". Thus. according to Aquinas, though after the prayer of "invocation" or calling on the Holy Spirit on the elements of bread and wine, these elements still taste, feel, smell, like bread and wine, they are in reality, because of the word of Christ and the Scripture, His body and blood.
The Orthodox and Aramaic Churches, as well as some modern derivatives, hold to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist but do not ascribe to transubstantian, or, consider transubstantian to be only one possibility for explaining His presense.These Churches formulate their position in this manner:
It is clear from Scripture and the way the earliest Christians after the New
Testament, that His life is imparted at the Eucarist in a real way. They most often point out, that Chirst said "This is my body" and "This is my blood". Further, it is pointed out that John Chapter six, "eat my flesh" and "drink my blood" is to be understood "eucharistically" as is shown by the non inclusion of the Last Supper and "words of institution" This is my body..." and "This is my blood", in the Gospel of John, in distinction from their presense in the other three Gospels. There was no need to include them as it had already been dealt with in John Chapter six.
Some of the Orthodox and Aramaic Churches understand the Real Presence of Christ in assumptionist terms rather than by transubstantion. The assumptionist understanding is analogous to the way the Son of God took on human flesh. When the Son of God became man, He did so, not by obliterating the humanity by His divininity but rather "taking up" or assuming humanity into Himself. Thus He became truly the Son of God and the Son of Man - a true unity of Deity and Humanity. They hold similarly in the Eucharist. After the consecration of the bread and wine, Jesus' real presence is there, His body and blood with all the attendant life, strength and grace, and this has been done without the obliteration of bread and wine, but, as in the words of Ireaneaus, plain bread has become "heavenly bread" by being assumed into the more dominant flesh of the Son of God, and so with blessed wine.
[[Category:Christian Theology]]
[[Category:Christian Theology]]