Can a faithful Christian be damned for not being baptized?
- General Theology
- 143 Replies
Not at all. Most Protestant denominations believe that the scripture verses regarding communion define a non literal translation since Jesus was still wearing His body and still had His blood going through Him. For most Protestant denominations there is no real presence or transubstantiation.
But that’s what @Ain't Zwinglian just said - most Protestant denominations do not interpret those verses literally, for the reasons you cited, but to Lutherans and others such as myself, such a non-literal interpretation is in this case problematic, since it involves at least a partial contradiction of what our Lord just said, and in the case of Memorialism, multiple contradictions based on an anachronistic interpretation of the words “anamnesis” which as I cited above is only used in the manner favored by the specific Memorialist argument we encountered in 1 Corinthians, with 1 Luke using the phrase only in reference to the Body, and St. Mark and St. Matthew not using it at all, which creates a paradox.
That said, of the three largest groups of Protestants - the Anglicans, while lacking a formal defined doctrine, very frequently believe in the Real Presence or something close to it, the Lutherans do believe in the real presence, and the Calvinists historically believed in the spiritual presence of Christ in the elements, that he is present in spirit if not physically in the bread and wine.
This latter position, the popular doctrine of spiritual presence, is, I would argue, superior to Zwinglianism, because the statements of our Lord, “this is my Body” and “this is my Blood” are not immediately contradicted, nor is the spiritual interpretation taken to the extreme of the Quakers who deny the phyiscal celebration of the sacrament in any form.
Thus in my view, Zwinglianism, Memorialism and Receptionism are not only wrong but uneccessary, for if one does not believe in a physical presence, there exists an alternative doctrine in the form of Calvinist spiritual presence in which the words of our Lord can still be interpreted literally. Additionally this spiritual interpretation has the added benefit of being compatible with most ancient liturgical texts, and some scholars believe it was widespread in the early church, which it may have been, although it appears that belief in a real physical presence was more widespread.
Now regarding the specific Roman Catholic concept of trans-substantiation, I don’t know of anyone denomination outside of the RCC and certain related Western denominations (some Anglo Catholics, some Old Catholics, basically anyone who regards the work of St. Thomas Aquinas as essential) who officially adopts that exact doctrine, even if they use the word in an attempt to demonstrate their belief in the physicality of Christ’s presence. Transubstantiation is basically the specific idea that the accidents of bread and wine, that is to say, the perceptual attributes remain the same, while the substance changes. It is a more complex belief, therefore, than merely asserting that the gifts become the actual Body and Blood of Christ our True God (the most common approach from antiquity being to believe this was literally true without presuming to know how; the means by which this happened being regarded as a sacred mystery in the Western sense of mystery, while the sacrament was also called a Sacred Mystery in the Eastern sense, that is to say, as a Holy Sacrament.
Thus, my position is that the Calvinist view of a spiritual presence of Christ in the bread and wine is an acceptable interpretation, whereas the Zwinglian and Memorialist and Receptionist positions are not (even if the Receptionist believes that on reception, they are partaking of the actual physical body and blood of our Lord), the problem being that all three of those positions require a non-literal interpretation that can be regarded as contradictory, as being our Lord saying one thing, and then contradicting it, and which is furthermore contradicts Communicatio Idiomatum, because, while those who advocate for Memorialism and Zwinglianism are correct that it would be impossible for a mortal man to be in one place with his body and blood in other places, what is impossible with man is possible with God, and in the person of Christ His deity and humanity are united without confusion, change, separation or division, and thus, as God, Christ can give us as much of his Body and Blood, in which both His humanity and divinity are united, thus making us partakers of the dvine essence, as we might require. But for those still uncomfortable with that, or with the idea of partaking of our Lord physically, it is not fundamentally incompatible to insist on a spiritual presence only, that is to say, that the bread and wine spiritually become the Body and Blood of our Lord while physically remaining bread and wine, and this view, favored by Calvinists, offers the escape being sought without recourse to symbolism or memorialism.
Regarding receptionism, the idea that appears to drive it is a discomfort with the idea of the Real Change and a misguided fear of idolatry; receptionists tend to be the sort of people who regard Eucharistic adoration or even the reservation of the consecrated gifts for purposes of communing the sick or the celebration of a presanctified liturgy during Lent or Holy Week, as being somehow idolatrous, which it clearly is not. Now in Orthodoxy we do not engage in Eucharistic adoration, but I have no objection to the practice, rather, its specifically a Western devotion, that said, some argue that there is a problem with Eucharistic adoration, that being our Lord said “take, eat” without reference to static adoration; there is also the fact that only the Body and not the Blood are being adored in that context seems a bit limiting, although in my view this argument amounts to a form of the Regulatory Principle of worship favored by some Calvinists, Baptists and others, that if left unchecked leads to things such as a capella exclusive psalmody, and is also an appeal to silence. Clearly, there is no obligation to engage in Eucharistic adoration even within the Roman Catholic Church (even less so among Anglicans who engage in the practice), but there is also no basis for saying such an activity is inadmissible, for we do many legitimate things that are not expressly commanded by Scripture (there is also the argument that if it is the Body and Blood of our Lord it is deserving of adoration on the basis of non-Nestorianism, to which I would agree, but also say, such adoration occurs adequately in the context of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy or the Western Mass or Divine Service (Gottesdienst). Thus, like i said, I myself have no qualms about Eucharistic adoration and would willingly engage in it; it seems a good opportunity for sacred silence and contemplation of the passion of Christ on the Cross.
But at any rate, if one is uncomfortable with the idea of that, then there is still an option which avoids non-literal interpretation while also avoiding the physicality that many are uncomfortable with, that being a real spiritual presence that is spiritual but not physical. Thus, I respect that position even as I disagree with it.
Upvote
0
