10d_lordsSupper

The Church has historically observed the Lord's Supper with various understandings. Cyprian emphasized the need for baptism before partaking. Augustine believed sacraments were necessary for salvation. Paschius Ribertus affirmed the real presence of Christ in the elements. Aquinas supported transubstantiation. Luther rejected transubstantiation and proposed consubstantiation. Zwingli viewed it as a memorial. Calvin believed in a spiritual presence. Anabaptists emphasized baptism before partaking. The Council of Trent reaffirmed transubstantiation. Baptists practiced closed communion. Wesley saw it as a means of conversion and sanctification. Landmarkism restricted participation to their own members. Some Baptists replaced wine with grape juice. Denominations still have different views on the Lord's Supper. Chapter 29, The Lord's Supper, key terms transubstantiation, consubstantiation, memorial, spiritual presence, ex operato, substance, accidents, concomitance, communion in one kind, Marlberg, colloquy, closed communion, landmarkism. Key people Cyprian, Augustine, Paschius, sorry, Paschacius, Robertus, Rotomnus, which is his own guy, so Rotromnus, Rotromnus, Berengar of Tours, Berengar of Tours, Griepmund of Eversa, Rolando Bondinelli, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, John Huss, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Helwes, John Wesley. The Church has historically been faithful to it by the Lord's command to observe the Lord's Supper. However, it has been done with so many various understandings of the meaning, purpose, and results of its observation, however it has done so with various understandings. Cyprian emphasized the necessity for an individual to be a baptized believer before he is eligible to partake of the meal, and believers were not welcome to partake in communion until they became Christians and were baptized. Augustine believed that God's grace was communicated through the sacraments, no matter who dispenses them, no matter where they are dispensed. Thus, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper are necessary for salvation. Paschius Ribertus affirmed the real presence of Christ in the elements. Before consecration, the elements are simply a figure of their bread and wine. However after the consecration, the elements are in reality the very body and blood of Jesus Christ. Thomas Aquinas presented a strong theological and philosophical explanation to support transubstantiation. In doing so, Aquinas set forth the definitive Roman Catholic perspective on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Aldrich Zwingli would face off with Martin Luther at the Marburg Colloquium in 1529. The debate included 15 points of discussion. The two men were able to agree on 14 of the points. However, the one point of disagreement served to widen the divide. John Wesley believed the Lord's Supper to be a means of conversion for unbelievers and a means of sanctification for believers. Baptists practiced closed communion, restricting participation to only those who had been immersed in baptism. Chapter Summary The Church has historically been faithful to obey the Lord's command to observe the Lord's Supper. However, it has done so with various understandings of the meaning, purpose, and results of observation. The rite is observed by some according to a view called transubstantiation. Another group celebrates the Supper according to a view called consubstantiation. Others celebrate communion as a memorial of the death of Jesus Christ. While others observe the Lord's Supper with a belief in the spiritual presence of Jesus Christ, numerous other differences exist among Christians in terms of how the Lord's Supper is celebrated. The early church On the night Jesus was betrayed, Jesus commemorated the Passover with his disciples, instituting a new celebration. The Apostle Paul gave further instructions as to how the Supper is to be properly carried out. According to the New Testament account, all the early churches observed the Lord's Supper. The Didache gives evidence that the early church continued observing the Lord's Supper after the Apostolic period. It further speaks of how the Supper was to be reserved for baptized believers. The deacons were responsible for distributing the meal to those who were present and even to those who were sick or unable to attend. Cyprian further emphasized the necessity for an individual to be a baptized believer before he is eligible to partake of the meal. Believers were not welcome to partake in communion until they became Christians and were baptized. Furthermore, the Christian had to be in proper relationship to Jesus and to his church if he was to partake. The celebration was observed every week as part of the gathered worshiping church. Cyprian spoke of the rite consisting of bread and a cup of wine mixed with water. The early church interpreted the significance of the Lord's Supper in a number of ways. First, as the Didache and Justin Martyr indicate, the Supper was understood as a sacrifice. Second, their understanding of the nature of the sacrifice is not fully clear. Irenaeus spoke of the sacrifice as the bread and the cup of wine, the first fruits of the divine creation. He further spoke of the Lord's Supper in terms of the actual body of Christ. Cyprian drew a parallel between Jesus Christ, the high priest, and the church's ministers as priests. As Christ, the high priest, offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father, the priests offer a real sacrifice to God when celebrating the Lord's Supper. Third, they believed in the reality of the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Ignatius argued for the real presence of Christ against the docetists. Justin Martyr also argued for the real presence of Christ attributing the change in the elements to the Holy Spirit. Fourth, this belief in the reality of Christ's presence was tied to the act of commemoration. Fifth, the Supper was viewed by some in symbolic terms. Several early writers spoke of the benefits of participation in the Lord's Supper. Ignatius mentions that the Supper is the medicine of immortality. Irenaeus thought that it encourages believers to give thanks and serve God. Origen spoke of the fact that participants have a symbol of gratitude to God in the Supper called the Eucharist. Furthermore, Clement of Alexandria spoke of the Supper in terms of its sanctifying benefits for Christians. Augustine defined the Supper as an outward and visible sign of an invisible yet genuine grace. Moreover, the Supper is effective in communicating grace ex opera operato. This perspective stood against those such as the Donatists who believed that sacraments were not valid unless they were observed inside the church. However, Augustine believed that God's grace was communicated through the sacraments no matter who dispenses them and no matter where they are dispensed. Thus, the sacraments of baptism in the Lord's Supper are necessary for salvation. Augustine also argued that Christ is truly present in the elements. He also held a symbolic view, denying that the body and blood of the Lord's Supper are identical with Christ's historical body. He further challenged Christians to live with the Lord's Supper communicates the unity of the body of Christ. Middle Ages Augustine's perspective was accepted for several centuries. In the 9th century, a controversy broke out over the nature of the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Paschius Radbertus affirmed that the real presence of Christ in the elements before consecration, the elements are simply a figure of the bread and wine. However, after consecration, the elements are in reality the very body and blood of Jesus Christ. So maybe Radbertus was the first religious guy to go in the trajectory of the Catholic Church. Radbertus. Radbertus. In parenthesis, Rabonis Marus strongly opposed the identification of Christ's body in the Eucharist with the incarnate body of the Lord. Rabonis Marus was a small figure. Radbertus's key opponent, however, was Retromnus. So he is the key hero here. Retromnus. He considered the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be a figure because the Eucharistic mystery demonstrates one thing outwardly, this is Retromnus, to the human senses and proclaims another thing inwardly to the minds of Christians. In the end, Retromnus denied that the historic body of Christ was present in the Eucharist. What is present in the supper is the figure of the body and the blood and not the reality of the empirical body and blood of the historical Jesus. Nevertheless, Paschius Radbertus's perspective of the real body and blood of Jesus was adopted. Berengar of Tours offered another critique of the real presence view. He appealed to the early church fathers, specifically he pointed to Ambrose who believed Christ's body to have been resurrected and ascended into heaven and it exalted in an unchangeable state. Therefore, Christ cannot once again become a suffering victim in the Eucharist. Ultimately, he was forced by the church to repudiate his view. Berengar of Tours, ladies and gentlemen. This development led to the discussion of how the elements became the body and blood of Jesus. Some argued for incarnation, the view that the substance of the bread and the wine remain, but the body and blood are contained there in a manner that is true but hidden. This perspective was rejected by the church. Instead the church believed that the elements are nothing but bread and wine before they are consecrated. However, after they are consecrated, they are converted into the nature and substance of the flesh of Christ. Instead of the Holy Spirit being invoked, as was believed in the early church, the words of institution became the turning point in the celebration of the sacrament by the medieval church. At this point, the understanding of the word substance became important to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Aristotle's use of the term as the essence or defining nature of a thing was adopted. He further spoke of accidents, the characteristics of a thing that can be perceived by the senses, such as appearance, taste, smell, texture, and sound. Guetmond of Aversa used both terms to define the Eucharistic transformation. While the accidents remained the same, their substance was transformed into the body and blood of Christ. Rolando Bondinelli coined the term transubstantiation to refer to this change in substance. This would become the official position of the church at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. After the official decree at the council, Thomas Aquinas presented a strong theological and philosophical explanation to support transubstantiation. In doing so, Aquinas set forth the definitive Roman Catholic perspective on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Though the church's position on the Lord's Supper became standardized during the latter part of the Middle Ages, some changes did occur. One development had to do with the practice of giving communion to infants immediately after baptism. One change was to give infants the cup only and not the bread. Previously this was the view called concomitance, that the entirety of Christ exists in each of the elements. Thus taking only one of the elements provides the infant with all of Christ. During the 13th century, the church practiced communion of one kind, giving the bread and not the cup to the laity. This was probably Martin Luther's whole thing. Again, the motivation for this practice had to do with the view of concomitance. This change took place out of fear that frequent serving of the cup to the laity would result in spilling the wine, thus desecrating the blood of Christ. To prevent this, only the priest in charge of the mass would partake of the cup. John Wycliffe attacked Rome's view of the Lord's Supper, charging them with a lack of biblical and historical support. He further doubted the consistency of transubstantiation with man's empirical and sensory observation. He also charged Rome with idolatry, as those who worship bread. John Huss questioned Rome's practice of communion in one kind, arguing from the conviction that the church should not follow custom, but rather the example of Christ, the Reformation and post-Reformation. Martin Luther attacked Rome's Eucharistic practices, firstly opposed the practice of withholding the cup from the laity, and suggested that the cup should be drunk by all of Jesus' disciples. Luther further rejected the idea that transubstantiation is the only legitimate view of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He pointed out that Aquinas' argument was not biblical, and founded it on a misinterpretation of the misinterpreted Aristotelian philosophy. Luther also disagreed with Rome's view of the Lord's Supper as a good work and a sacrifice. Rome's position led to the abuse of the Supper and ultimately turned it into a profit-making business. For Luther, access to the Supper could not be gained by one's works or merits, but by faith alone. Thus, the Supper was valid only for believers. Blessings could not be applied to others. Thus, masses for the dead were worthless. Luther rejected transubstantiation and offered his own view, consubstantiation, interpreting Christ's words, This is my body, literally. Luther continued to uphold the view that Christ is truly and completely in the elements, understanding Christ's seat at the right hand of the Father to mean that Christ rules everywhere and is thus present everywhere. Luther believed that Christ could simultaneously be physically present in heaven and on earth. He thus understood Christ to be physically present in, with, and under the substance of the bread. Holger Zwingli also opposed the Roman Catholic perspective, arguing the possibility that Christ's body could be physically present both in heaven and on earth at the same time. For Zwingli, Christ's body can only be in one place. Thus, he concluded that Christ's body is physically located at the right hand of the Father. He opposed both transubstantiation and consubstantiation and argued instead for a memorial view, one in which the Christian should consider the bread as a figure of Christ's body and remember what Christ accomplished on the cross. Zwingli's view changed slightly as his position developed. He would come to understand the supper as a believer's pledge or demonstration of allegiance to Christ in the church. Zwingli would face off with Luther at the Marburg Colloquium in 1529. The debate included 15 points of discussion. The two men were able to agree on 14 of the points. However, the one point of disagreement about the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper served to widen the divide. John Calvin added yet another perspective to the debate concerning the Lord's Supper, the spiritual presence view. Calvin agreed with Zwingli and strongly disagreed with Luther that the glorified body of Christ is physically seated at the right hand of the Father. Yet Calvin agreed with Luther that Christ reigns everywhere. Therefore, Christ can be present to give his body and blood in the supper. Through the power of the Spirit, Christians are able to soar up to heaven, quote, to be with Christ in communion. Furthermore, Christ descends to man both by the outward symbol and by his spirit. Whether in ascent or descent, this communion is a mystery. The Anabaptists emphasized the need to be baptized as a believer before partaking of the supper. As a result, all the Reformers denounced their beliefs. As a result, all the Reformers denounced the Anabaptists' beliefs. In opposition to the various Protestant perspectives, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the traditional Roman Catholic position of transubstantiation and pronounced anathemas on those who held to other perspectives. Thomas Helvus of the Baptists believed the Lord's Supper to be an outward manifestation of the spiritual communion between Christ and the faithful mutually to declare Christ's death until he comes. John Wesley believed the Lord's Supper to be a means of conversion for unbelievers and a means of sanctification for believers. Anabaptists practiced closed communion, restricting participation to only those believers who had been immersed in baptism. This, of course, excluded Pater Baptists. Some Baptist churches and priests embraced the isolationist movement of landmarkism and restricted participation to their own members only. In response to the American Temperance Movement, which aimed at the complete prohibition of wine, Baptists replaced the element of wine with unfermented grape juice. While some believed Jesus' command to require wine, others thought the use of wine to be a stumbling block for alcoholics. The Baptist faith and message described the elements as the bread and the fruit of the vine. While the ecumenical movement has sought to address the centuries-old divide that has separated Christians, the various denominations continue to affirm that theology and practice of the Lord's Supper of their respective churches.