- Nov 26, 2019
- 11,180
- 5,708
- 49
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Generic Orthodox Christian
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Following in the path of the Holy Apostles, the Early Church Fathers, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East, the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran churches, and High Church Anglicans that our Lord is not merely spiritually present in the Eucharist, as John Calvin taught (and he was half right - the Calvinist position represents what I regard as the minimum acceptable Eucharistic theology for ecumenical purposes), but that He is physically present, so that when we partake of the Eucharist, we truly partake of His precious body and blood, in a sacred mystery that is beyond human comprehension (hence the problems with the transubstantiation theory of St. Thomas Aquinas and the “in, with and under” theory of Blessed Martin Luther), and when we partake of the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord, because our Lord is fully human and fully divine, his humanity and divinity hypostatically united without change, confusion, separation or division, and thus communicatio idiomatum applies, we partake zoetically from both natures. Thus we become, as St. Peter wrote, Partakers of the Divine Nature.
While I can accept to a certain extent the idea that our Lord is only physically present, as this Calvinist view, while contradicting the Early Church Fathers, does not completely contradict Sacred Scripture, I regard the Zwinglian and Memorialist doctrines as scripturally unjustifiable.
If, as Zwingli proposed, the sacraments were mere outward signs of an inward grace, our Lord would have said “This bread is a symbol of my body, which is broken for you and for many, for the remission of sins,” and likewise, “This wine is a symbol of my blood of the New Covenant”, and He would not have alienated most of his followers in John chapter 6 by declaring that the only way to obtain salvation is to eat His flesh and drink His blood, and if these were mere symbols, or a memorial, he could have prevented the temporary alienation of his followers by saying as much.
Memorialism furthermore rests on a misunderstanding based on the use of the English word “remembrance.” The Greek word Anamnesis is closer to recapitulation, but even that fails. I think an ideal English translation would just use the original Greek word, as that would provide more accuracy. Anamnesis literally means “put yourself in this moment” and reflects the belief of the Early Church, the Orthodox, and many High Church Anglicans that we participate in the One Baptism of Christ in the Jordan during Baptism, and in the Eucharist, we participate in the Last Supper, in communion with Our Lord, the eleven faithful disciples, and every Christian who has ever received the Eucharist. In other words, “I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins” means both that we are to be baptized only once if our baptism was valid, and also there has only ever been one Baptism with the Holy Spirit, and we participate in that. Likewise, there has only been one Eucharist, and as oft as we celebrate Holy Communion, we do so in anamnesis of Jesus Christ at the Last Supper, offering Himself proactively as a sacrifice for the remission of sins and life everlasting, in anticipation of His passion and resurrection.
Here is a video by Hank Haanegraaf, the Bible Answers Man, which thoroughly discusses this subject:
I would enjoy the input of my friends @chevyontheriver @dzheremi @Pavel Mosko @prodromos @Ignatius the Kiwi @ViaCrucis @MarkRohfrietsch @hedrick and @Shane R
While I can accept to a certain extent the idea that our Lord is only physically present, as this Calvinist view, while contradicting the Early Church Fathers, does not completely contradict Sacred Scripture, I regard the Zwinglian and Memorialist doctrines as scripturally unjustifiable.
If, as Zwingli proposed, the sacraments were mere outward signs of an inward grace, our Lord would have said “This bread is a symbol of my body, which is broken for you and for many, for the remission of sins,” and likewise, “This wine is a symbol of my blood of the New Covenant”, and He would not have alienated most of his followers in John chapter 6 by declaring that the only way to obtain salvation is to eat His flesh and drink His blood, and if these were mere symbols, or a memorial, he could have prevented the temporary alienation of his followers by saying as much.
Memorialism furthermore rests on a misunderstanding based on the use of the English word “remembrance.” The Greek word Anamnesis is closer to recapitulation, but even that fails. I think an ideal English translation would just use the original Greek word, as that would provide more accuracy. Anamnesis literally means “put yourself in this moment” and reflects the belief of the Early Church, the Orthodox, and many High Church Anglicans that we participate in the One Baptism of Christ in the Jordan during Baptism, and in the Eucharist, we participate in the Last Supper, in communion with Our Lord, the eleven faithful disciples, and every Christian who has ever received the Eucharist. In other words, “I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins” means both that we are to be baptized only once if our baptism was valid, and also there has only ever been one Baptism with the Holy Spirit, and we participate in that. Likewise, there has only been one Eucharist, and as oft as we celebrate Holy Communion, we do so in anamnesis of Jesus Christ at the Last Supper, offering Himself proactively as a sacrifice for the remission of sins and life everlasting, in anticipation of His passion and resurrection.
Here is a video by Hank Haanegraaf, the Bible Answers Man, which thoroughly discusses this subject:
I would enjoy the input of my friends @chevyontheriver @dzheremi @Pavel Mosko @prodromos @Ignatius the Kiwi @ViaCrucis @MarkRohfrietsch @hedrick and @Shane R