Talk Elections

For me, at least, sacramental union seems to make the most sense, though my opinions in the matters that make it different to consubstantiation are not particularly strong.

I'll take "Webster's" for $200, Nathan.

Transubstantiation of course. Though I'm not sure there's actually any difference between that and the Orthodox one. The word the Orthodox use is often translated as "transubstantiation" even. I suppose someone who's Eastern Orthodox would need to explain the difference to me.

I'm sorry, you're right, jmfcst. I should have defined these terms.

Transubstantiation is the Catholic theology. The bread and wine literally become the Body and Blood. The remnants of their original physical form are, essentially, held over from the bread and wine and become the physical form of the Body and Blood. So the Body and Blood take the physical form of the bread and wine, but it is not in any sense blood and wine any more.

The second option is the Eastern Orthodox theology, which is similar to the Catholic theology and uses several different terms. TJ, I put this option in for anybody who might hold with this concept but feel more comfortable with Orthodox than Catholic language for whatever reason. We probably don't have many (or even any) of such people on the Forum, but I wanted to be completist about this. The Orthodox discuss it in markedly different terms, even when the language differences are taken into account.

Consubstantiation was originally a Lollard idea in the late Middle Ages and is believed in by some Anglicans and other 'mainline' Protestants. The Body and Blood exist alongside the physical forms of bread and wine.

Sacramental union is the theology of most Lutherans and many other mainline Protestants, including many Anglicans. It's substantially the same as consubstantiation but doesn't physically 'limit' the presence of the Body and Blood to the bread and wine, instead casting them as a general spiritual pall (this is the part that I don't have particularly strong feelings about).

Pneumatic presence is a Calvinist idea and hinges upon the idea that Jesus being 'seated at the right hand of the Father' means that His literal, physical Body and Blood are not present but that a spiritual essence of them, something like a Platonic Form, is.

Memorialism is a Baptist/charismatic/Evangelical/historically Dissenter theology that essentially has the Eucharist as a rite done in memory of Jesus' Body and Blood rather than including them in any real sense.

Memorialism

if it wasn't the literal body and blood at the last supper, it surely wasn't after the last supper

Good point, and part of why I adhere to a consubstantiationist/sacramental union theology rather than a transubstantiational one.

Now, I'm no theologician, but I believe the physical properties of the bread and wine after the consecration (if that's the correct term in English) aren't illusory, they just belong to another substance now. That is to say: where the qualities of whiteness/rondness/... before consecration belonged to the bread and wine, they now belong to the body and blood of christ. Very Aristotelic obviously.

Memorialism. Always felt this way despite my Lutheranism.

Thank you! I'll correct the post.

Transubstantiation.

Memorialism, of course.

Part of my old anti-Catholicism was that I was always bothered greatly by transubstantiation, offended might even qualify, based on two things:

1-There's nothing Biblical about it, unless you inexplicably insist on a completely literal reading of a metaphor that even the standard Biblical literalists (like jmfcst) don't and...
2-The idea that it can only happen if someone who was "properly" ordained (oh and they have to be male too) says some Latin words over the elements. Really that strikes me as incredibly contrived and reminiscent of this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HandWave

What I find pretty odd is that the people insisting on things like Young Earth Creationism and speaking in tongues are also more reasonable and logical here with the memorialism.

I'm curious as to who voted for the Orthodox understanding.

"Pneumatic Presence"

Communion certainly acts as a means of grace to those who partake penitently, not because of anything in the bread and wine per say, but rather through Christ using the bread and wine to spiritually connect with the Church. The blessing and presence of Christ are in the partaking of the bread and wine, not so much in the bread and wine themselves. I think the Westminster Confession gets it right....

Memorialism

My church uses wine and crushed saltines.

they don't even use unleavened wafers?  figures

That's ghetto. You could at least spring for pita or something.

They started as a house church so it might be sort of a "tradition" thing from back then.

I can't vouch for this as it's anecdotal, but I've heard of very, very, VERY poor churches doing things like using Wonderbread and Zima. That doesn't seem to be the situation that your church is in, but considering the ethos of your church I probably shouldn't be surprised regardless.

It's purely symbolic, but symbolism has a certain reality of its own. Or something like that.

Martin Laws (the crazed cultist and implicit demon in the Red Riding quartet) used processed bread and undiluted ribena.

Memorialism :anglican:

"Do this in 'remembrance' of me" - just little cubes of bread and what tastes like a nice claret....

I guess part of the idea of sacramental union is what Al said--that symbolism itself has a reality to it, that can transcend the brute fact of the matter. 'This is my Body and Blood', yet also 'Do this for the remembrance of me'.

My church uses traditional Catholic/Anglican wafers and tawny port, which can be got cheaper and at a higher quality than most wines, at least in my area.