i am just curious why many protestants/fundamentalists take everything in the bible so direct and literal....except the oly eucharist.. when the bible is very direct and literal about it....
at what point (or what denomination) decided that it no longer became christ's body through faith???
2007-03-20 05:30:35 · 5 answers · asked by ya ok....sure 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
pardon the typos...
2007-03-20 05:32:55 · update #1
Sir...(the answerer right above me - Mr. Bombadil)
Do you actually have even the slightest clue as to what the Greek word, weakly translated in the KJV as "remembrance", truly means?
The word is "anamnesis" - a calling forward through time and space to make truly and really present here and now. It has a deep theological and philosophical meaning.
Τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν...
Much more than a mere "remembering".
You really oughta go back to Sunday School - and this time - try to stay awake.
2007-03-20 05:39:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I just got finished studying this. It happened during the time of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc).
The reason they were able to make the leap to denying the eucharist really had a lot to do with the lack of liturgical theology and spirituality in the church in the middle ages.
As Latin was used more and more with a people that did not speak latin and the liturgy became more and more clerical, the spirituality of the people began to immitate the liturgy because they could not follow it... for example 150 hail mary's in 10 decades of the rosary in immitation of the 150 psalms prayed by the monks... or looking at the mass as a time to meditate on the life of Christ and thus seeing the liturgy as only an allegory.
Later on, though, a new movement of spirituality beginning with German mysticism in the 14th century began, which sought to have one's devotion take the form of private mediation. This gave rise to what is called the Devotio Moderna which was eventually heavily propogated by the Jesuits. Devotio Moderna looked to do liturgy in order to get it done with and to then focus one's spiritual life on meditation and contemplation only, further reducing the role of the liturgy and the importance of the sacrament.
These tendencies put together allowed the reformers to think of the mass as only an allegory and to say that the only value of eucharist was that it strengthened one's faith, not that the Blessed Sacrament itself was in anyway a conveyor of grace or in anyway truly the body and blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Carlstadt, and Chemnitz were all agreed that the eucharist was not the body of Christ, even thought they had different takes on what it was and what function eucharist played in the community.
2007-03-20 05:47:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Do this in REMEMBRANCE of me." It's symbolic. do you really believe the eucharist changes at the molecular level to the literal body of Jesus? Do you REALLY believe that?
As for Father K below, I teach Sunday School. The basic Protestant belief is that communion is symbolic, not the Catholic belief that the bread and wine actually become the body & blood of Jesus. We could argue all day here; only one of us is right. We'll find out in the end, won't we?
2007-03-20 05:34:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The view i like to see it in is the country side on a summers day
2007-03-20 05:34:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
some thing we do in remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins. that's symbolic. whilst Jesus grew to become water in wine, if examined it would be wine. whilst the bread and the fruit of the vine characterize Christ physique that grow to be sacrificed that's no longer literal, that's symbolic, substantial yet symbolic. The Apostles did it as quickly as a week. For this I remark the RCC. My Christian church does additionally. ALL ought to. †
2016-10-02 11:01:23 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋