Catholic and Lutheran Eucharist, Revisited

[JonNC]

I guess another way of asking my question would be, what is the (Lutheran) theological basis for believing that the Presence is still present after the conclusion of the liturgy for elements to be taken by lay persons to shut-ins, but not otherwise?

It is still part of the sacramental act, and the intention is still there, to eat and drink. As I said, my personal view is that, is is is, so I think the consecrated host should be reserved.

Jon

 

[ndismyhome]

It is still part of the sacramental act, and the intention is still there, to eat and drink. As I said, my personal view is that, is is is, so I think the consecrated host should be reserved.

Jon

I agree. Luther did not believe in receptionism, i.e. the notion that Christ is only in the act of consuming the host. Jesus is in the bread and wine and Lutherans should treat them accordingly. As a Lutheran, it makes me cringe every time I see a Lutheran congregation not treat the Body and Blood of Christ as such. It leads me to wonder if my fellow Lutherans take this doctrine seriously!

 

[JonNC]

I agree. Luther did not believe in receptionism, i.e. the notion that Christ is only in the act of consuming the host. Jesus is in the bread and wine and Lutherans should treat them accordingly. As a Lutheran, it makes me cringe every time I see a Lutheran congregation not treat the Body and Blood of Christ as such. It leads me to wonder if my fellow Lutherans take this doctrine seriously!

I absolutely agree. American Lutheranism needs to be cleansed from the effects of pietism, and Protestantism!!

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Also, Transubstantiation is a metaphysical explanation of how Communion “works” based on the metaphysics of Aristotle. Luther rightly points out that in any substantial change, the accidents would change (at least somewhat) as substances directly impact their accidental expression. Luther surmised that it was more pious to say that Christ is truly present in the Bread and Wine, but he tried to not give another metaphysical postulation of how this happened. Does any of this make sense?

In Christ,
ND

There appears to be an error from your Orthodox and or Lutheran understanding of the Catholic interpretation and definition of transubstantiation pertaining to the Eucharist.

I must disagree with your understanding here calling “how communion works on the metaphysics of Aristotle” I cannot express enough disagreement from your incorrect Orthodox/Lutheran interpretation of transubstantiation.

Partaking of communion is never by transubstantiation as you wrongly interpret here.

My good friend, Jon above attached “nature” to your false interpretation of “metaphysical science”. What metaphysical nature?** there is no metaphysical nature in Transubstantiation;** Let me clarfiy here that transubstantiation does not define any nature, the term defines a change of substance only never a nature.

IF the word Transubstantiation could speak it would reveal the following; “At the Words of God”, the substance of bread and wine have (transubstantiated) changed into the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, while at the same time the bread and wine will appear to be that bread and wine to our flesh, but to our soul the substance of bread and wine are or have “transubstantiated” into those of the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ at the Word of God.

Transubstantiation is a term used to describe only a change has taken place, thus transubstantiations definition has nothing to do with describing or defining the nature of either the accidents nor the substance, transubstantiation only states that a change has taken place, let me repeat this again transubstantiation only defines a change has taken place, transubstantiation never defines the nature or substance being changed.

Please note that their is a huge difference between “holy communion” and what takes place at the consecration and confecting of the Eucharist in Apostolic Catholic biblical Tradition and teachings. Your definition has incorrectly combined the two, they are not the same.

I am confused by Luther’s claim of the true presence because his definiton negates Jesus Words “for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink”, “This IS my body”, “This IS my blood” when Jesus instituted His Eucharist at the last supper, Jesus did not place His presence anywhere else in the air or next to the bread and wine, Jesus began his passion and death at the institution, using bread and wine which transubstantiated (CHANGED) and became his body and blood in the “This is”. Any thing outside of this change (transubstantiation) results in only a symbolic spirit or symbolic Jesus which never exist.

The Catholic definition of transubstantiation deciphers between what appears to our flesh in bread and wine is of no avail, and that what has transubstantiatiated at the words of consecration to our Spirit/Soul/Physche/Pneuma is Life. Just as Jesus describes his eucharist teachings in conclusion from John 6, hear read it for your self.

John 6… 61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail.

Iam greatful for your incorrect understanding of Catholic interpretation of transubstantiation, so that one can hear the true Catholic interpretation of transubstantiation. Thank you

In summary metaphysical is not a chrstian term applied to these mysteries. Christians from antiquity and today call it supernatural or divine.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There appears to be an error from your Orthodox and or Lutheran understanding of the Catholic interpretation and definition of transubstantiation pertaining to the Eucharist.

I must disagree with your understanding here calling “how communion works on the metaphysics of Aristotle” I cannot express enough disagreement from your incorrect Orthodox/Lutheran interpretation of transubstantiation.

Partaking of communion is never by transubstantiation as you wrongly interpret here.

My good friend, Jon above attached “nature” to your false interpretation of “metaphysical science”. What metaphysical nature?** there is no metaphysical nature in Transubstantiation;** Let me clarfiy here that transubstantiation does not define any nature, the **term defines a change **of substance only never a nature.

IF the word Transubstantiation could speak it would reveal the following; “At the Words of God”, the substance of bread and wine have (transubstantiated) changed into the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, while at the same time the bread and wine will appear to be that bread and wine to our flesh, but to our soul the substance of bread and wine are or have “transubstantiated” into those of the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ at the Word of God.

Transubstantiation is a term used to describe only a change has taken place, thus transubstantiations definition has nothing to do with describing or defining the nature of either the accidents nor the substance, transubstantiation only states that a change has taken place, let me repeat this again transubstantiation only defines a change has taken place, transubstantiation never defines the nature or substance being changed.

Please note that their is a huge difference between “holy communion” and what takes place at the consecration and confecting of the Eucharist in Apostolic Catholic biblical Tradition and teachings. Your definition has incorrectly combined the two, they are not the same.

I am confused by Luther’s claim of the true presence because his definiton negates Jesus Words “for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink”, “This IS my body”, “This IS my blood” when Jesus instituted His Eucharist at the last supper, Jesus did not place His presence anywhere else in the air or next to the bread and wine, Jesus began his passion and death at the institution, using bread and wine which transubstantiated (CHANGED) and became his body and blood in the “This is”. Any thing outside of this change (transubstantiation) results in only a symbolic spirit or symbolic Jesus which never exist.

The Catholic definition of transubstantiation deciphers between what appears to our flesh in bread and wine is of no avail, and that what has transubstantiatiated at the words of consecration to our Spirit/Soul/Physche/Pneuma is Life. Just as Jesus describes his eucharist teachings in conclusion from John 6, hear read it for your self.

John 6… 61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail.

John 3:6
What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.

Iam greatful for your incorrect understanding of Catholic interpretation of transubstantiation, so that one can hear the true Catholic interpretation of transubstantiation. Thank you

In summary metaphysical is never a christian term applied to these mysteries. Christians from antiquity and today call it supernatural or divine.

Peace be with you

 

[Erich]

As a Lutheran, it makes me cringe every time I see a Lutheran congregation not treat the Body and Blood of Christ as such.

My wife was the same way.

It leads me to wonder if my fellow Lutherans take this doctrine seriously!

She took it so seriously that, shortly after an incident at our (Lutheran) niece’s First Communion, she entered our parish’s RCIA program – though I suspect that’s not the sort of answer you were looking for

 

[Erich]

It is still part of the sacramental act, and the intention is still there, to eat and drink. As I said, my personal view is that, is is is, so I think the consecrated host should be reserved.

Thanks for that explanation. After a brief Google search I found this link – which confirms that that’s what Luther had in mind also.

 

[JonNC]

She took it so seriously that, shortly after an incident at our (Lutheran) niece’s First Communion, she entered our parish’s RCIA program – though I suspect that’s not the sort of answer you were looking for

Not speaking for ndismyhome, but that answer neither surprises nor bothers me. I’ve said before that it is more likely that Lutheranism (or the false practice of it) would push me to conversion, than any attraction from another communion.

Jon

EDIT: BTW, Erich, thanks for the link.

 

[Erich]

…than any attraction from another communion.

In my wife’s case at least, there had been “attractions” to the Catholic Church for nearly 20 years, not just issues with Lutheran congregations not treating the Body and Blood of Christ as such. It may have started – or come to the surface at least – with sanctity-of-life issues (beginning with when her synod, the ELCA, provided for abortions in the medical health coverage for its employees) and the “five non-negotiables.” She knew, of course, of “cafeteria Catholics” who didn’t always follow Church teaching, but she *liked *the idea that there was an “official Catholic position” on these issues – and that, in an ideal world, the Church acted as a “moral thermostat” not a “moral thermometer.”

She also liked the fact that the Catholic Church had a Pope who served as the visible head of the Church on Earth – and remarked how Pope John Paul II, especially as his health was failing, became the “world’s pope” (in much the same way that Rudy Giuliani became the “nation’s mayor” after 9/11). Of all the things she has told me over the years about everything that cumulatively attracted her to the Catholic Church, I always found the papacy aspect the most interesting… especially given that whole “the pope is the antichrist” thing in Lutheranism’s founding documents.

BTW, Erich, thanks for the link.

http://attilahypnotist.com/cardtrick/images/genie.gif

 

[Mikeoffaith]

“My 2 Cents” only…but I beg to differ with you…Christ did say more…something critically important…that only “…this is my Body…my Blood…” in this mystery of the Eucharist and in all other mysteries also:AND…

**AND…**FROM PAUL…So, there is only one doctrine/dogma on the Eucharist…and it can come from only one source…Jesus himself…and his Church (One Head and One Body)…who made Peter his Church’s rock foundation with Jesus himself as the cornerstone. Thus Saint Peter (and his successor…the Pope)…is the guardian of the Truths of Christ in his Holy Spirit who continues to lead the Chruch into all truth…in faith and morals.

Somethings in dogma/doctrine – subjects/issues --there might be some opening for some discussions/nuances…but the dogma and doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament…the Eucharist…which is Our Lord Jesus Christ himself…is not one of them! Christ’s Church led by his Holy Spirit has defined the dogma of the Eucharist…and nuances and other definitions are completely unacceptable…because they are theologically wrong or inaccurate (not precise).

Therefore…

So the Lutheran understanding although sincere and close…in this case,said another way… “close” only counts in horseshoes…but not in the dogma of the Eucharist!

Again, my “2 Cents”…for your consideration…
Pax Christi

I don’t know that the Orthodox buy into transubstantiation either, so does that mean that their Eucharist is only close but not the real deal? And I know some people have stated that in order to have a valid Eucharist on must also have elements that are only grape wine and unleavened bread. So does that also leave out the Orthodox again since I’m certain they use leavened bread?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

All these matters are the product of how the human mind tries to grasp the infinite. The quote from the Orthodox statement on transubstantation is most pertinent.

. Because Orthodox are claiming “themselves” that transubstantiation defines or tries to define, the mystery of the Eucharist, this is never the case with the definition of transubstantiation.

Its almost comical when ever I see this false pretense rendered here from the Orthodox position, because when ever this false argument is given it is done without the accurate definition or lack of definition in transubstantiation attached to their false arguments against transubstantiation, and only give their one sided argument of the mystery of the Eucharist which no Catholic nor the definition of transubstantiation argues against, just as you have posted here.

In summary their is no difference of belief in the mystery of the Eucharist between Catholics and Orthodox. Transubstantiation protects and defends against those opposed to the True presence and never ever defines the mystery of the Eucharist as is falsely claimed by some Orthodox who refuse to understand it because of authority issues, not the doctrine.

Peace be with you

Hi Gabriel-

I’m fascinated by what your are saying. Could you actually give the definition and explanation of transubstantiation? it has always been my understanding that transubstantiation has always been a definition of the Eucharist using Aristotelian philosophy and it’s notions of substance and accidents. And how would defining the Eucharist presence as transubstantiation work to defend the true presence of Christ as opposed to defining it as mystery or, in the case of Lutheranism, sacramental union?

Mike

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

[Hi Gabriel-

I’m fascinated by what your are saying. Could you actually give the definition and explanation of transubstantiation? it has always been my understanding that transubstantiation has always been a definition of the Eucharist using Aristotelian philosophy and it’s notions of substance and accidents. And how would defining the Eucharist presence as transubstantiation work to defend the true presence of Christ as opposed to defining it as mystery or, in the case of Lutheranism, sacramental union?

If you dare enter into deep waters and where angels fear to tread, I would be happy to entertain your thoughts here;

Here is a scripture to contemplate and reflect upon this mystery of the Eucharist “Transubstantiated” from bread and wine.

Hebrews 11:1
1 Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence 2 of things not seen.
3
**By faith **we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, 3 so that what is visible came into being through the invisible.

(All paranthesis mine below)
"Transubstantiation; The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass (Ordered by the Word of God) so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain (the evidence of things not seen, what is visible (bread and wine) came into being through the invisible the body and blood Christ)

(What contradicts the Orthodox arguments against transubstantiation is that the Eastern Fathers themselves developed a definition) called "Metaousiosis = change of being. The Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiation “change of substance”, in defining the “wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of bread into the body, and whole substance of wine into the blood of Christ, Which **CONVERSION **THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CALLS TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
After Transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make -believe, they are sustained in existence by divine power”. pg. 438-439 Catholic dictionary (John A.Hardon, S.J.)

Aristotle’s definition of transubstantiation never describes a nature it defines an action taken place by a conversion that cannot be seen with the (flesh) eyes except with the eyes of faith from the Spirit. The flesh is of no avail to us which senses bread and wine in the Eucharist, but to our Catholic (hearts) faith and our invisible souls since apostolic times by the Word of God, become truly present to our invisible souls (transubstantiated) the body and blood of Jesus Christ which is visible in the (confected bread and wine) Eucharist. It is here when the Spirit gives life as Jesus states while the flesh is of no avail.

No one can ever exhaust the definition of the Eucharist that is why it is mysterion= sacrament. We can only hope to grasp at words and meanings that point us to the True presence. Once you arrive at the presence, one should come in “Awe” to witness the high price paid for our sins. Again we have not discussed communion, wedding feast, Supper of the Lamb, “To the victor I will give the Hidden manna”, " and I will come and dine with him". These are just a few subjects into this mystery of the Eucharist which the Catholic Church and early Church Fathers expound upon.

Transubstantiation never enters into these myteries of the Eucharist, it only introduces that a change has occurred at the Words of God.

We have not touched on the mystical aspects of the Eucharist yet, we have only dealt that a change has occurred by the Word of God. Shall we continue treading into deeper waters?

Peace be with you

[/QUOTE]

 

[JonNC]

If you dare enter into deep waters and where angels fear to tread, I would be happy to entertain your thoughts here;

Here is a scripture to contemplate and reflect upon this mystery of the Eucharist “Transubstantiated” from bread and wine.

Hebrews 11:1
1 Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence 2 of things not seen.
3
**By faith **we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, 3 so that what is visible came into being through the invisible.

(All paranthesis mine below)
"Transubstantiation; The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass (Ordered by the Word of God) so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain (the evidence of things not seen, what is visible (bread and wine) came into being through the invisible the body and blood Christ)

(What contradicts the Orthodox arguments against transubstantiation is that the Eastern Fathers themselves developed a definition) called "Metaousiosis = change of being. The Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiation “change of substance”, in defining the “wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of bread into the body, and whole substance of wine into the blood of Christ, Which **CONVERSION **THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CALLS TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
After Transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make -believe, they are sustained in existence by divine power”. pg. 438-439 Catholic dictionary (John A.Hardon, S.J.)

Aristotle’s definition of transubstantiation never describes a nature it defines an action taken place by a conversion that cannot be seen with the (flesh) eyes except with the eyes of faith from the Spirit. The flesh is of no avail to us which senses bread and wine in the Eucharist, but to our Catholic (hearts) faith and our invisible souls since apostolic times by the Word of God, become truly present to our invisible souls (transubstantiated) the body and blood of Jesus Christ which is visible in the (confected bread and wine) Eucharist. It is here when the Spirit gives life as Jesus states while the flesh is of no avail.

No one can ever exhaust the definition of the Eucharist that is why it is mysterion= sacrament. We can only hope to grasp at words and meanings that point us to the True presence. Once you arrive at the presence, one should come in “Awe” to witness the high price paid for our sins. Again we have not discussed communion, wedding feast, Supper of the Lamb, “To the victor I will give the Hidden manna”, " and I will come and dine with him". These are just a few subjects into this mystery of the Eucharist which the Catholic Church and early Church Fathers expound upon.

Transubstantiation never enters into these myteries of the Eucharist, it only introduces that a change has occurred at the Words of God.

We have not touched on the mystical aspects of the Eucharist yet, we have only dealt that a change has occurred by the Word of God. Shall we continue treading into deeper waters?

Peace be with you

Gabriel,
Thanks for this, nad so as not to truncate your post, the word count limit makes me divide it into 2 post.
I’m moved to (again) reference this Catholic / Lutheran document.
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Regards Transubstantiation and its Lutheran counterpart, Sacramental Union, it says in part:

48.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.

49.In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

50.The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

continued:

 

[JonNC]

51.The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

The whole document is worthy of reading, but I thought this was interesting in its direct relationship to the discussion of Transubstantiation.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The whole document is worthy of reading, but I thought this was interesting in its direct relationship to the discussion of Transubstantiation.

Jon

Thank you Jon. This ecumenical council does not speak for the Catholic church “Yet”? It cannot be accepted as an official Catholic church teaching from Apostolic Tradition, while in its “ecumenical stage”. Thus far this document only places itself in an ecumenical spirit of dialogue which is subject to change if it ever reaches the magisterium (world wide Bishops) in unity with the Pope for it to be an official teaching binding upon all Christians. I respect its findings but without reading its entirety I cannot give an adequate position to this ecumenical document in dialogue.

Thus far from what I gather here from your document is that it does not give mention of the faithful. When the faithful are presented to receive the Eucharist it is proclaimed “The body of Christ”, the faithful response is “Amen” (I believe). There is no other recourse of definition outside this Sacred Tradition of acknowledgement from the faithful to ever think or believe other than this Valid Eucharist is nothing other than the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. No ecumenical council will ever change this no matter the volume of ink spent writing or dialogue presents itself.

Your document comment 36,37 conflicts with the CCC and is never a Catholic teaching and understanding of Transubstantiation by an official Catholic document;

36 The concept of transubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37

Here is Paragraph 1413 of the official CCC; “By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner; his Body and his Blood, with his Soul and his Divinity”

I must present that your document 36 and 37 is never an official Catholic teaching in the definition of “conversion” “change” “brought about”, “into” = transubstantiation as described by the CCC and other “nihil obstate” Catholic teachings. That said,

I think item 36, can be interpreted to a Catholic understanding but Iam not sure of its interpretation here as it presents itself. By face value without the disposition of its authors, it conflicts with the definition of Transubstantiation not only in its original Aristotle definition, but it appears to conflict with the Catholic Church’s interpretation of transubstantiation which does not attach a confession, or describe a mystery character of Jesus presence, but that transubstantiation brings about a “conversion” change into the body, blood of Jesus Christ. If I read my understanding into item 36 it comes away clean with my Catholic understanding, only when I take in the whole of the liturgy taking place does item 36 comes into focus. But at face value when it stands by itself, it contradicts with the CCC.

In other words item 36 does not define transubstantiation as presented here in any official capacity, only commentary.

Peace be with you