That this passage does not yield the desired goal can be demonstrated both grammatically and contextually. Williams and Kenneth Wuest. It thus becomes clear that the consumption of his body and blood are the equivalent of ingesting his sacred instruction — the former is a figurative expression.
The latter is literal. The accumulation of evidence is quite irresistible. With all due respect to sincere people, it is a crassly materialistic methodology that turns the sacred memorial Supper into a cannibalistic ritual.
Jackson, Wayne. Access date: November 11, Topical Index. About Contact. Transubstantiation is the process in which the wafer and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Consubstantiation in Lutheran belief, is that the substance of the bread and wine coexists with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.
I guess the short answer is, Catholics believe in Transubstantiation, which is Christ coming into the wafer and wine during Mass, and Lutherans believe in Consubstantiation, which is that all bread and wine is a symbol of His body and blood. Substance is an attempt to refer to the underlying reality, that is, what lies behind the physical appearance.
Are we more than our flesh and blood? You might say being a parent is more that donating your sperm or ovum to a baby. So beyond the physical, what really makes us human or a parent. Erlandson commented further: "Catholics may not be able to articulately define the 'Real Presence', and the phrase [sic] 'transubstantiation' may be obscure to them, but in their reverence and demeanor, they demonstrate their belief that this is not just a symbol".
During the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation was heavily criticised as an Aristotelian "pseudophilosophy"[30] imported into Christian teaching and jettisoned in favor of Martin Luther's doctrine of sacramental union, or in favor, per Huldrych Zwingli, of the Eucharist as memorial.
In the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation became a matter of much controversy. Martin Luther held that "It is not the doctrine of transubstantiation which is to be believed, but simply that Christ really is present at the Eucharist" What Luther thus called a "sacramental union" is often erroneously called "consubstantiation" by non-Lutherans. Anglicanism: Elizabeth I, as part of the Elizabethan Religious Settlement, gave royal assent to the 39 Articles of Religion, which sought to distinguish Anglican from Roman Church doctrine.
The Articles declared that "Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
Indeed, for many years it was illegal in Britain to hold public office whilst believing in transubstantiation, as under the Test Act of Archbishop John Tillotson decried the "real barbarousness of this Sacrament and Rite of our Religion", considering it a great impiety to believe that people who attend Holy Communion "verily eat and drink the natural flesh and blood of Christ.
And what can any man do more unworthily towards a Friend? How can he possibly use him more barbarously, than to feast upon his living flesh and blood? In the Church of England today, clergy are required to assent that the 39 Articles have borne witness to the Christian faith. Lutheranism: Lutherans explicitly reject transubstantiation believing that the bread and wine remain fully bread and fully wine while also being truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Lutheran churches instead emphasize the sacramental union not exactly the consubstantiation, as is often claimed and believe that within the Eucharistic celebration the body and blood of Jesus Christ are objectively present "in, with, and under the forms" of bread and wine cf.
Book of Concord. They place great stress on Jesus's instructions to "take and eat", and "take and drink", holding that this is the proper, divinely ordained use of the sacrament, and, while giving it due reverence, scrupulously avoid any actions that might indicate or lead to superstition or unworthy fear of the sacrament.
By faith those "in Christ" partake of the body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit who pours the life of Christ into them. There is spiritual nourishment John and union 1 Cor as believers participate by faith in the Lord's Supper. Christ is present with believers at the Table spiritually, not physically. So, this view assists us in understanding that the Lord's Table is a rich symbolic covenantal meal, but not another sacrifice. This view is the correct view of the Lord's Table.
Answer by Dr. Joseph R. Nally, Jr. Advanced Search Go. Search Term Type any of these words all of these words exact phrase. Results should display: full details author names only. More search tips. Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation vs. Memorialism vs Reformed? Transubstantiation This is the view of the Roman Catholic Church. However, this is incorrect for a number of reasons: 1 Moses wrote, "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood" Gen.
Consubstantiation This is generally accepted as the Lutheran belief on the Lord's Supper, though all Lutherans are not pleased with the phraseology.
0コメント