. . . to the weblog of
jon p. amos, hollie's
husband & dad of
ethan, levi, finn,
ellie, marley,
& sullivan

My Photo

my complete profile
theology pintnight
hollie's xanga
kids' photos

blog roll
formerly powered by

bible gateway
daily office

Seminary, etc
Why "A minor"?
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
October 2008
November 2008
January 2009
July 2009
August 2009
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011

A minor


Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Receptionism, Consecrationism & Realism
I'm still working out my theology of the Eucharist, and I'm hoping your comments will help me clarify my thoughts.

Receptionism is the Protestant view that only the faith of the recipient enables the bread and wine to be the body and blood of Christ. As such, I am not a receptionist. I think the faith of the recipient is wonderful, but I think the bread and wine are the body & blood of Christ regardless of what the recipient may think or feel or believe.

Consecrationism is the Catholic view that the bishop or priest sets apart (consecrates) the bread and wine from common use to become the body and blood of Christ. As the celebrant prays the prayer of consecration, specifically at the epiclesis, the bread and wine are mysteriously, sacramentally, really changed into the body and blood of Christ. After the celebration, the bread and wine are still sacramentally the body and blood of Christ, and as such may be reserved for communion visitation (for the sick and shut-in, etc). Likewise, all reserved sacrament is to be eaten because it has been consecrated, and to throw it away would be sacrilege. As such, I am not a consecrationist, because I cannot follow its implications, which, for all its talk of mystery, strike me as superstitiously thin and overly simplistic.

Realism (or virtualism, as it is sometimes called), the theology of the real presense of Christ in the Eucharist, is the Reformational Catholic view that the bread and wine are mysteriously and spiritually - yet really - the body and blood of Christ. It does not depend on the faith of the recipient or the consecration of the priest. The Holy Spirit and the Lord Christ Himself make it so in the ritual action of the liturgy. I'm reminded of the passage, "for wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of you." I think this is especially true when the Eucharist is celebrated. We commune with the body of Christ, which is present both in the bread and wine and in the gathered saints. As with receptionism, after the liturgy, any remaining bread and wine are just bread and wine again; they are only the body and blood of Christ during the ritual action of the liturgy. And even then, of course, they are still bread and wine. This is a both/and position, not a false dichotomy of either/or. However, as a eucharistic realist, I would be less inclined to call the sacrament a means of grace, but rather Grace Himself - less inclined to call it a sign or a symbol, but rather the body and blood of Christ.

jon :: link :: comment ::

This page is powered by Blogger.
Site Meter