It's also clear that he rejects the "memorial" view. Paul, who calls it bread, not only before, but likewise after, the consecration nd accordingly these elements are called by the Fathers, "the images, the symbols, the figure, of Christ's body and blood." 1 O such change of the bread into the body of Christ can be inferred from his words, "This is my body." hat they are not to be taken literally is manifest form the words of St. Writingsįirst of all, John Wesley explicitly rejected transubstantiation: John Wesley favored the spiritual presence view, as demonstrated primarily through his writings, but also in his hymns. A good answer will include direct quotes from Wesley. My question is, which of these did John Wesley believe? I suppose it's possible that he would be hard to categorize here if that's the case, I'll be satisfied with an answer stating which view he's closest to, and how his views differ from that one. If you're unfamiliar with any of these views, please research them for yourself.)
Please don't get too hung up on any of these definitions. (If you feel any of these descriptors are inaccurate, you're probably right. Sometimes a fifth view is considered, that of the Orthodox, who are close to Catholicism but don't like to explain it in Aristotelian terms. When the elements are blessed, they become Christ's body and blood. The Catholic view ("transubstantiation"). The Lutheran/"consubstantiation"/"in, with, and under"/sacramental union" view. Christ's body and blood are spiritually consumed by the communicants as they physically partake of the bread and wine. The Calvinist/reformed/"spiritual presence" view. Jesus is not present in the elements, but believers reap a spiritual benefit from partaking because they remember his death. In the usual schema, there are four views of the Lord's Supper:
0 kommentar(er)
