Protestants' Understanding of Sacraments

[SteveVH]

It’s a symbol in so far as there is no physical or observable change to the elements. We do not partake of Christ by eating a wafer and slurping down a fluid. We partake of Him by faith. He reveals and communicates Himself to us by faith. In that moment of the proclamation of His death, we can by faith appropriate the provisions of His grace, healing of infirmities and strength to live. By faith, we know and perceive that Christ is giving Himself to us for our nourishment.

Itwin, please understand that I have no doubt that you participate in a spiritual communion and that it s a real communion, not illusory, in which you acknowledge and commemorate his sacrifice and death. And I believe that you receive grace because of your faith. But it is not the Eucharist.

You made an interesting comment: 'We do not partake of Christ by eating a wafer and slurping down a fluid. We partake of Him by faith."

If you do not partake of Christ by eating a wafer and “slurping down fluid” then why do you do it? What is the point? Could not you and I sit down together, in faith, and just “remember” what he has done for us and give him thanks and praise for his great sacrifice? Why did he command us to eat something? And why did he call it his body and blood?

 

[ltwin]

Itwin, please understand that I have no doubt that you participate in a spiritual communion and that it s a real communion, not illusory, in which you acknowledge and commemorate his sacrifice and death. And I believe that you receive grace because of your faith. But it is not the Eucharist.

I understand. I disagree about it not being the Eucharist, but i agree that it is a spiritual communion. I’m reading a book right now for a course on the Radical Reformation by George Huntson Williams. It’s fascinating because I’m reading about the idea of spiritual communion that was prevalent in many different forms throughout Europe on the Eve of the Reformation. Some embraced spiritual communion because they did not believe in the Real Presence. But others practiced spiritual communion because they had an incredibly high respect for the Real Presence and for a variety of reasons stemming from fear of partaking unworthily avoided physically partaking.

Anyway, a Dutch Sacramentist from the 1400s and friend of Thomas a Kempis named Wessel Gransfort wrote what I think sums up evangelical views. Remarking that “Those who are able to believe on him are able to eat his flesh,” Gransfort gives the example of the first hermit, Paul of Thebes, saying that he:

did eat of the flesh of the Son of Man even during the time when he did not see a single human being, not to speak of a priest celebrating the sacrament. But he did eat of it because he believed; and because he believed he frequently remembered; because he remembered he carefully considered; because he considered he ruminated; because he ruminated he tasted that it was sweet; because he tasted that it was sweet he desired; because he desired he hungered and thirsted; because he hungered and thirsted he knew that it was sweeter than honey and the honeycomb, he panted for it, he esteemed it, he loved it, he pined with love; he was wounded by love for it. (The Radical Reformation, 3rd ed. pages 102-103)​

You made an interesting comment: 'We do not partake of Christ by eating a wafer and slurping down a fluid. We partake of Him by faith."

If you do not partake of Christ by eating a wafer and “slurping down fluid” then why do you do it? What is the point? Could not you and I sit down together, in faith, and just “remember” what he has done for us and give him thanks and praise for his great sacrifice? Why did he command us to eat something? And why did he call it his body and blood?

We should do it for:
First reason: obedience.
Second reason: remembering him in the specific way he told us to remember and commemorate him
Third reason: part of that is to do as Paul described, “proclaim his death.”
Fourth reason: to do this together as the body of Christ

I would also add that one reason actually doing Holy Communion is important is that in Holy Communion we use physical objects as signs and types of Christ’s body and blood. They are “points of contact.” In setting them apart for holy purposes, in touching them and in consuming them, we focus our faith on His broken body, His shed blood, His passion, and His suffering for us. In contemplating this as we partake, we are reminded once again in a tangible, physical way what He has done for us. We are reminded of His love, His mercy, His promises, His provision, and His healing.

As a result, faith is released: faith for healing, faith for deeper intimacy with God, faith that the lost will be found, faith in the midst of suffering and tribulation. With faith, comes renewed hope, strength, joy, and so much more.

 

[SteveVH]

I understand. I disagree about it not being the Eucharist, but i agree that it is a spiritual communion. I’m reading a book right now for a course on the Radical Reformation by George Huntson Williams. It’s fascinating because I’m reading about the idea of spiritual communion that was prevalent in many different forms throughout Europe on the Eve of the Reformation. Some embraced spiritual communion because they did not believe in the Real Presence. But others practiced spiritual communion because they had an incredibly high respect for the Real Presence and for a variety of reasons stemming from fear of partaking unworthily avoided physically partaking.

All good Catholics will avoid receiving the Eucharist if they are not in a state of grace. This is no indication that they think a “spiritual” communion is equivalent to receiving the precious body and blood.

Anyway, a Dutch Sacramentist from the 1400s and friend of Thomas a Kempis named Wessel Gransfort wrote what I think sums up evangelical views. Remarking that “Those who are able to believe on him are able to eat his flesh,” Gransfort gives the example of the first hermit, Paul of Thebes, saying that he:

did eat of the flesh of the Son of Man even during the time when he did not see a single human being, not to speak of a priest celebrating the sacrament. But he did eat of it because he believed; and because he believed he frequently remembered; because he remembered he carefully considered; because he considered he ruminated; because he ruminated he tasted that it was sweet; because he tasted that it was sweet he desired; because he desired he hungered and thirsted; because he hungered and thirsted he knew that it was sweeter than honey and the honeycomb, he panted for it, he esteemed it, he loved it, he pined with love; he was wounded by love for it. (The Radical Reformation, 3rd ed. pages 102-103)​

This is Gransfort’s conclusion, not St. Paul of Thebes. Gransfort also believed some other things such as:

"The idea that God must be addressed as both Father and Mother (based on his reading of Psalm 25:6);

An analysis that Exodus 3:14, rendered in Latin as “Ego sum qui sum”, should be translated as “Ero qui ero” (thereby undermining much of scholastic theology in which God is the supreme Being); and,

The understanding based upon his reading of Isaiah 8:3 that Christ came not only to save human beings but also the animals." (From Wiki)

Just sayin’.

St. Paul of Thebes is a Catholic saint. You don’t become a Catholic saint by promoting Granfort’s view of the Eucharist.

We should do it for:

First reason: obedience.

Okay. But why did Christ command us to eat his body and drink his blood? Why didn’t he tell us to throw salt over our shoulder and turn around three times?

Second reason: remembering him in the specific way he told us to remember and commemorate him

Again, why, in this specific way? Doing it because he told us to do it is enough. But there is a reason he told us to do this. It was not just an arbitrary command. Why didn’t he tell us to come together and hold hands while contemplating the cross and remember and give thanks for what He has done for us? Wouldn’t that make more sense if we are just talking about a spiritual communion? Why must we eat?

Third reason: part of that is to do as Paul described, “proclaim his death.”

Can we not proclaim his death without eating bread?

Fourth reason: to do this together as the body of Christ

This is true, but he never told us to come together and eat bread and drink wine as the body of Christ. He told us to eat his body and drink his blood.

You know, I just wonder why one would think that Catholic theologians and exegetes for the last 2000 years have misunderstood Christ’s words so dramatically. And this would have been right from the start, as evidenced by the New Testament and the ECF’s. The Church had it wrong right out of the shoot and the entire Church continued the error for 1500 years until set straight by the wisdom of the “reformers”. What is more is that the Church’s legitimacy and very reason for being rest on this doctrine. How do you explain the Church, from the days of the Apostles to present, making such an error? Because if you are right, then every Catholic for the last 2000 years is guilty of idolatry.