Replies

No idea what precisely is meant by "spiritually present," or whether they would consider this the same as "real presence."

From Bromlow's exposition on Westminster:

"This paragraph, in order to be properly understood, must be read in the context in which it was written. This article is simultaneously and intermittently avoiding two fallacies: first (the Zwinglian), ignoring Christ’s real, bodily, supernatural presence in the Lord’s Supper; and second (the Lutheran), confusing the manner in which his body and its benefits are communicated to us in the Lord’s Supper. This article then affirms completely that Christ is really, bodily present in the Lord’s Supper and that when we receive it worthily, we truly feed on his physical, glorified body and blood. It also affirms that the manner in which the body and blood of Christ and its benefits are communicated to us is not through some physical means as the Lutherans claim (that in the elements, that which is symbolized is actually contained: the universally present, but localized, invisible body of Christ) but through the powerful ministry of the Holy Spirit."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2024925/posts

Greetings:

For me, post #266 is my last post on the subject,with respect to the Catholic and Orthodox position [based on their on writings, not my explanations only].

As for the various Confessional Protestant understandings of the Eucharist, I gave it my best shot as to How I understand it but I am not going to try to define what Traditional Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed, either Calvinst or Zwinglian theology says on the Eucharist. Too many people here try to define other peoples theology whithout ever reading what those Churches teach. I am somewhat familiar what confessional Protestantism teaches [much in it is true and orthodox, i.e. all of you affirm the same Nicene and Apostles Creed that we Catholics do, perhaps with a few slight different interpretations of a few phrases]

Now, with respect to the Eucharist, if you want to explain the confessional protestant theology of the Eucharist in a non-polemical post, I will read it and see which one I think is the closest to the Catholic and Orthodox theology and therefore which one is closest to “what I believe” to be the most orthodox understanding of the Eucharist.

My general belief and understanding [which might not be correct] has in the past been that that the Lutheran position and the position held by some of the more catholic-Anglicans [the ones influenced by the Oxford movement] is the closest to the Catholic position with the Reformed-Calvinist probably the next one that I believe does express a notion of sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Now, my basic reading of Zwinglian theology is that it reflects no concept of sacramental theology at all and at that point you are moving purely to a notion of “ordinance” view found in most Baptist circles, those that label themselves non-denominational and Pentecostal. Again, I am not saying I have it correct with respect to the “Protestant(s) theology on the Eucharist”, I am only expressing my understanding of the various theologies.

The article you cite from Bromlow I assume is a Reformed-Calvinist exposition on the Eucharist given its connection to the Westminister Confession and is a well written concise summary. It sort of confirms what I thought, the Reformed view of the Eucharist is more sacramental than the Zwinglian view which is no “presence”. I most admit, I have a little more difficulty parsing out the Calvinist-Reformed view vs. the Lutheran view, although my gut feeling is that Luther’s view is somewhat closer to the Catholic view.