Saturday, April 8, 2017

The 4 Views of the Lord's Supper Simplified


Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.

Hebrews 13:9
 
"The fundamental disagreement over the Lord’s Supper focuses on four distinct views. These views include:
first, the view of transubstantiation articulated by the Roman Catholic communion;
second, the doctrine of consubstantiation articulated by the Lutheran community;
third, the Reformed and Anglican affirmation of the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper;
and fourth, the memorial-sign view of the sacrament espoused by Ulrich Zwingli and by the majority of those in the Baptist communities.

*Historically, the Roman Catholic Church has articulated her view of the Lord’s Supper in terms of the doctrine of transubstantiation. This doctrine was clearly affirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Trent in the sixteenth century and was reaffirmed as recently as the papal encyclical issued by Paul VI in 1965, entitled Mysterium Fide. Transubstantiation uses language that was borrowed from the philosopher Aristotle. In defining the nature of objects in the world, Aristotle distinguished between the “essence,” or “substance,” of an object and its external, perceivable qualities that he called the “accidens.” Therefore, Aristotle distinguished between substance and accidens of all beings in the created world. By use of this terminology, the Roman Catholic Church teaches the miracle of the Mass, in which the substance of the bread and wine that is used in the Lord’s Supper is miraculously changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ.
This miracle, however, contains two aspects. While the substance of the bread and wine are changed to the body and blood of Christ, nevertheless, the accidens of bread and wine remain the same. That
is, before the miracle occurs, the bread and wine look like bread and wine, taste like bread and wine, and feel like bread and wine. After the miracle of their transformation occurs, they still look like bread and wine, feel like bread and wine, and taste like bread and wine. That is because after the miracle occurs, the substance of bread and wine has changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, while the accidens of bread and wine remain. Therefore the miracle is twofold.

*Martin Luther saw a frivolous use of the word miracle in Rome’s understanding of transubstantiation and said that it is not necessary to talk about the substance of one and the accidens of another when we can just affirm the true corporeal presence of Christ “in, under, and with” the elements of bread and wine. Luther didn’t use the word consubstantiation. It was the Reformed church’s attempt to faithfully articulate Luther’s view by using the term consubstantiation, which means that Christ is substantively present with the substantive presence of bread and wine. In both the Roman and Lutheran view of the
matter, for Christ to be present in His human nature in more than one place at the same time requires that some kind of communication of divine attributes takes place between God and the human Jesus. This was the chief objection that Calvin and the other Reformers launched against both Luther and Rome, because they saw in it a violation of the Council of Chalcedon, which taught that the two natures of Christ are united without confusion or without mixture.

*John Calvin insisted, as did the Anglicans, on the true presence of Christ, but he also insisted that the presence of Christ is through His divine nature.

 *Zwingli, who wanted to reduce the sacrament to a mere symbol and memorial." LM/RCS
P.S.- Zwingli was right...