Whether or not disbelief in the real presence started after the Reformation is irrelevant in a discussion of Lutheranism, since we’ve always confessed His real presence.
Jon
- Status
Jon
M
MaryT777
Guest
The Concord book rejects transubstantiation completely. I wouldn’t get the impression from reading the Concord book the differences between Rome and Lutherans were insignificant and the real presence alone is all the matters.
Mary.
Take a look again at how much time and ink is spent in the Formula against the, Zwinglians, Calvinists and the crypto-Calvinists. The reformer rejected Transubstantiation, that’s obvious, but they kept a lot of their powder dry for the Sacramentarians.
[bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#VII. The Lord’s Supper](http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#VII. The Lord’s Supper)
Jon
S
steido01
Guest
How did you come to that conclusion from my answer? I said that history tells us the exact opposite. People had, wrongly, denied or questioned the Real Presence long, long, loooong before the Reformation. Those who deny the Real Presence are as connected to the Lutheran Reformation as a fish to a bicycle.
Anyone who, wrongly, denied the Real Presence in the 1500 years before the Reformation. Berengar in the early 1000’s, for example.
Seems to me that you are blaming Abraham Lincoln for the fall of Yuan Dynasty. These things have nothing to do with each other. Denial of the Real Presence was (and is), sadly, a false teaching that has plagued the Church since the early days. As Jon noted, Lutherans have always professed the Real Presence.
Nope.
Meanwhile, back at the thread, Lutherans continued to proclaim the Real Presence.
P.S. - Jon, always feel free to speak for me on matters regarding the Eucharist. You’ve got the right idea, and you share it much more patiently.
M
MaryT777
Guest
That’s my main point. Luther rejected transubstantiation. He never implied “it’s close enough for unity.”
Mary.
It’s not.
“Before I will drink mere wine with the Swiss, I will drink blood with the pope.” - Luther
My point, Mary, was not that the Reformers did not reject Transub. as a doctrine, but that they spent more time and effort rejecting the “real absence” as espoused by the sacramentarians.
As for Luther’s quote above, on this issue alone, I would sooner be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, than be virtually any other kind of protestant, the possible exception being Anglo-Catholic.
Jon
M
MaryT777
Guest
S
sodak
Guest
As heresies arise, they must be countered and publicly refuted. It is often very long, hard work with a tremendous amount of attention to detail. The details absolutely matter. A lot. Once a small wedge is inserted, it is very easy to start opening the crack of deception over the years. I often wonder if that’s where the phrase “the devil is in the details” comes from.
I am very appreciative that the Church defines it’s Doctrine, Dogma, and is unafraid to refute heresy publicly and in writing. I’m sure that Jesus would appreciate his Church doing just that, as it has done with defining Transubstantiation, and settling many other matters over the last 2,000 years.
M
MaryT777
Guest
T
tdgesq
Guest
I think what confuses Catholics about Lutheran claims against consubstantiation, and that includes me, are statements like this in the Book of Concord:
22] 1. The papistic transubstantiation, when it is taught in the Papacy that in the Holy Supper the bread and wine lose their substance and natural essence, and are thus annihilated; that they are changed into the body of Christ, and the outward form alone remains.
Leaving aside for the moment that the RCC doesn’t teach that the substance of the bread and wine are annihilated (destroyed), it does strongly suggest the belief that the bread and wine do not lose their substance and essence. This seems to lead inevitably to consubstantiation, and most RCC teachers of dogmatic theology I’ve seen also interpret it this way.
I’m not about to tell Lutherans here what they really believe and teach today, but the historical record isn’t so clear from my perspective.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Exactly
Mary.
P
pablope
Guest
Let me clarify…the widespread disbelief began being exported after the Reformation.How did you come to that conclusion from my answer? I said that history tells us the exact opposite. People had, wrongly, denied or questioned the Real Presence long, long, loooong before the Reformation. Those who deny the Real Presence are as connected to the Lutheran Reformation as a fish to a bicycle.
Anyone who, wrongly, denied the Real Presence in the 1500 years before the Reformation. Berengar in the early 1000’s, for example.
Nope.
Meanwhile, back at the thread, Lutherans continued to proclaim the Real Presence.
P.S. - Jon, always feel free to speak for me on matters regarding the Eucharist. You’ve got the right idea, and you share it much more patiently.
If there were disbelievers…it was relegated to a few…which did not necessitate a Church council.
The widespreading of the disbelief started after the Reformation…and all the arguments, which GCNuss posted about…all the arguments about Transsub, consub…SU…all were borne from the REformation…which was what I was driving at…which you (as a beleiver in the Reformatin)seem to not have accepted a partial responsibility for…
B
benjohnson
Guest
You found the “Epitome of the Formula of Concord” - it’s a bit too condensed to sus out Lutheran thoughts.
You really want the “The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord” - it’s much more verbose.
Yes it’s confusing!
108] 1. The papistic transubstantiation, when it is taught that the consecrated or blessed bread and wine in the Holy Supper lose entirely their substance and essence, and are changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ in such a way that only the mere form of bread and wine is left, or accidentia sine subiecto (the accidents without the object); under which form of the bread, which nevertheless is bread no longer, but according to their assertion has lost its natural essence, the body of Christ is present even apart from the administration of the Holy Supper, when the bread is enclosed in the pyx or is carried about for display and adoration. For nothing can be a sacrament without God’s command and the appointed use for which it is instituted in God’s Word, as was shown above.
If you wondering why we objecting - here’s why: (From cyberbrethren.com/2009/10/25/the-lords-supper-in-the-book-of-concord/#sthash.s6sDVfTY.dpuf)
The doctrine of the Lord’s Supper should be grounded on a simple understanding of the words of institution; these may not be interpreted by reason.
986.45 – FC SD VII.45 – “We are therefore bound to interpret and explain these words of the eternal, truthful, and almighty Son of God, Jesus Christ, our Lord, Creator, and Redeemer, not as flowery, figurative, or metaphorical expressions, as they appear to our reason, but we must accept them in simple faith and due obedience in their strict and clear sense, just as they read.” Tappert, 577.45.
**
The Verba are to be interpreted literally, not figuratively**.
797.7 – FC Ep VII.7 – “We believe, teach, and confess that the words of the testament of Christ are to be understood in no other way than in their literal sense, and not as though the bread symbolized the absent body and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that because of the sacramental union [sakramentlicher Einigkeit, sacramentalem unionem ] they are truly the body and blood of Christ.” Tappert, 482.
B
benjohnson
Guest
Perhaps take into consideration the Cathars - they were a large movement with and much earlier than the reformation.
P
pablope
Guest
But they did not disbelieve in the Real presence…The essential characteristic of the Catharist faith was Dualism, i.e. the belief in a good and an evil principle, of whom the former created the invisible and spiritual universe, while the latter was the author of the material world. A difference of opinion existed as to the nature of these two principles. Their perfect equality was admitted by the absolute Dualists, whereas in the mitigated form of Dualism
newadvent.org/cathen/03435a.htm
It seems Berengar did not doubt the Real presence…all he did was…Considerably greater stir was provoked by Berengar, who denied that any material change in the elements was needed to explain the Eucharistic Presence.[1]…when the Synod of Tours declared itself satisfied by Berengar’s written declaration that the sacramental bread and wine after consecration were the body and blood of Christ.
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berengar_of_Tours)
P
pablope
Guest
Jon…who were the Lutheran reformers arguing for the belief in the RP? They could not be Catholics or Orthodox…
If they were neither Catholics or Orthodox…then could these ones the Lutherans were arguing with were from breakaway groups from the Reformers themselves?
Jon…they took their cue from Luther…to say you cannot blame Luther for their actions, which took a cue from Luther…is covering one’s eyes and ears…to the resultant confusion of beliefs that resulted from the reformation…
B
benjohnson
Guest
Really?!?!
I’m pretty sure the Cathars we heretical in their view of the Eucharist… in that by denying God they have to be denying God’s gift to us.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Could you explain how you came to that conclusion (seeing as you have posted it on a public forum)?
I know Wikipedia isn’t always right, but I believe they are right when they say “The Cathars also refused the Catholic Sacrament of the eucharist saying that it could not possibly be the body of Christ.”
G
GKC
Guest
I wish I could find my books on the Cathars/Albigensians. But they did seem to deny the Real Presence, if the Inquisitor Bernard Gui’s account is accurate:
“Then they attack and vituperate, in turn, all the sacraments of the Church, especially the sacrament of the eucharist, saying that it cannot contain the body of Christ, for had this been as great as the largest mountain Christians would have entirely consumed it before this. They assert that the host comes from straw, that it passes through the tails of horses, to wit, when the flour is cleaned by a sieve (of horse hair); that, moreover, it passes through the body and comes to a vile end, which, they say, could not happen if God were in it”.
GKC
- Status