cb@hlwpc.UUCP (Carl Blesch) (02/21/85)
>> I will leave it to a Catholic >> to explain why they do not practice open Communion. ..... >From: wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) >It's because of the doctrine of transubstantiation, which states that >the consecrated bread or wine represents the body and blood of the >living Christ, eternally giving his life for our salvation. ..... As I understand it, transsubstantiation means that the bread and wine ARE ACTUALLY the body and blood of Christ. Churches that do not subscribe to the doctrine of transsubstantiation believe that the bread and wine REPRESENT (but are not one in substance with) the body and blood of Christ. I believe the reason many protestant denominations do not subscribe to transsubstantiation is that Jesus said he would not be on earth bodily between the time he ascended into heaven and his second coming. Therefore the host cannot be his body. However, when the host representing Christ's body is partaken as directed in the sacrament, Christ is present spiritually with the partaker and the congregation. Carl Blesch
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (02/22/85)
In article <486@hlwpc.UUCP> cb@hlwpc.UUCP (Carl Blesch) writes: >As I understand it, transsubstantiation means that the bread and wine >ARE ACTUALLY the body and blood of Christ. Churches that do not >subscribe to the doctrine of transsubstantiation believe that the >bread and wine REPRESENT (but are not one in substance with) the >body and blood of Christ. Actually, there is a third position, subscribed to by Anglicans and Lutherans (and, I believe, by the Eastern churches). This is "real presence", which I've never heard explained much further than that. It's sort of a less "magical" version of transubstantiation; the bread and wine remain bread and wine, yet Christ is present in them. Charley Wingate