Replies

***If you wouldn't mind rephrasing it, I would appreciate it. Obviously, there's no necessity to do so. X.**

Maybe me proof reading it would have helped :)

Regarding the reformed strong stance on Transubstantiation :

We are studying The Westminister Catechism on Wednesday prayer meeting Interesting that you used the term mysticism in relation to the Eucharist . One of the commentaries on it spoke to mysticism and some of the men started to say "think of the increase of mysticism since this was written".
I told them the largest mysticism was present to those writers and I believed it was the Catholic belief in the Eucharist.

Eyes lit up and they all agreed.

It is mysticism, a man with special powers, whispers secret words over bread and calls down God and makes God become bread.
One of the "official" reasons I have seen as originally given for priestly celibacy is that hands that caress a wife should not be holding that bread at the altar.

I see this sacrament as central to the Catholic church as it is what holds many that have repented and believed to salvation as demanded by scripture in that church.
They fear never being able to have Christ truly present to them, so in-spite of a denial of many Catholics it is the doctrine that the bread is Christ holds them in that church.

The belief in that "magic power "residing in one church and only one. And then only with "special "men, that are closer to God than the layman and so they have had that magical power passed on to them, is pure mysticism .

Do we as Reformed believers have a strong negative reaction to a doctrine that brings men to their knees in from of a piece of bread, or that makes them believe that, the bread makes Christ MORE present to them in the bread than He is in those He indwells, answer is of course yes.

Why ? Scripture is clear that the manna is a typology of Christ and thus remains a type in the Passover meal. So if Protestants are correct and transubstantiation is a false teaching we abhor men and women kneeling down and worshiping a false God ( the host), as it is a violation of the 1st commandment.

If the teaching that Christ is present in that bread until it meets your stomach (and then it is converted back to bread) denies that fact that Christ dwells in his fulness inside a saved man at all times.
It makes Christ's presence in men subject to the whims and practices and actions of other men,temporary and only possible through a third party and by the magic of whispered words.
Think of how it is really viewed within the church itself . A Child going to Communion for the first time is treated like a lottery winner. They are dressed up in princess like clothing ( the girls) and then a big party is held, not to celebrate Christ with men, but that "rewards the Child that went to communion as now WORTHY to be rewarded . It is a celebration and reward of acting correctly, not the cross of Christ

Think of the fact that the "grace" is in the object, not falling from the hand of God as undeserved merit . No matter who consumes that bread Christ is in it, so it must be locked in a box to protect it (man protecting God ?). The sin of the one saying the magic words have no impact, it is the ritual, the kind of bread the exact reading of the words in a specific order that has the power.

Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.