Consubstantiation/Lutherans

[JonNC]

=pablope;11092150]

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?

No. They were a different movement. Marburg was an attempt to bring these two different groups, of separate origin, together. Zwingli and Luther were never “together”.

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…

This is what I call “The Lemming Argument”, which postulates that Zwingli, and later Calvin, and separately the anabaptists, were little more than lemmings who followed Luther
but didn’t really follow him. I have dramatic disagreements with Zwingli and Calvin, but I don’t believe they were unintelligent men, who were easily duped to do something by someone they did not agree with. That simply doesn’t make sense. Luther was responsible for Luther, and Zwingli for Zwingli.

Jon

 

[steido01]

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?

Lutherans defended the Real Presence against groups that had splintered from the Roman Catholic church.

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…

Pablope, it seems that you consider all Lutheran and Reformed churches to share the same origin - that each is simply a “spinoff” of a mythical “Protestant Church” that was “founded” by Martin Luther. This is inaccurate. The Reformed churches that deny the Real Presence have nothing to do with Lutheran churches; more than that, each group has a separate origin. Yes, the conditions in the Roman Catholic church at the time were enough to spark reformations across Europe, but the movements started by Calvin, Zwingli, etc. were independent from the Lutheran Reformation and always remained so.

But just for the sake of discussion, let’s pretend that your assertion is true, and that one German monk is the source of all the groups that splintered from the Roman Catholic church in the 1500’s. Shouldn’t we also, then, hold Rome responsible for the views of all subsequent denominations? Here’s what the Forum Rules say about that kind of thought:

Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

This thread was about the Lutheran view of the Eucharist. We Lutherans cannot possibly defend views that we do not hold.

 

[JonNC]

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.

Understood. Consubstantiation teaches either a local co-presence of the substances of body /bread, and wine / blood, or that there is a co-mingling of substances forming a new substance. This, of course, requires that one is speaking in metaphysical terms.

Lutherans specifically deny a co-presence or co-mingling of substances. In fact, we don’t even think about it that way. Sacramental union simply claims that upon consecration the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. We don’t deny the substances bread and wine, neither do we say they are removed, because Christ does not go into the metaphysics. He simply holds bread in His hands and says “this is my body”. Whether our senses simply observe the accidents of bread and wine, or bread and wine itself is not explained and we can not know. It is His body and blood. He said so. And therefore, when we receive the Eucharist, we receive His true body and blood.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Pablope, it seems that you consider all Lutheran and Reformed churches to share the same origin - that each is simply a “spinoff” of a mythical “Protestant Church” that was “founded” by Martin Luther. This is inaccurate.

I was just going to say something about how some people – some who like him and some who don’t – tend to paint Lutheran in mythical proportions. But seeing as you used the same word I feel like I’d be copy-catting.

 

[steido01]

I was just going to say something about how some people – some who like him and some who don’t – tend to paint Lutheran in mythical proportions. But seeing as you used the same word I feel like I’d be copy-catting.

Great point! Roman Catholics and Lutherans alike could do well to remember 1 Corinthians 3 now and then. I appreciate your willingness to look at the man for what he was - a man.

 

[pablope]

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.”

From here…newadvent…newadvent.org/cathen/03435a.htm

Catharist principles

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 the beneficent principle alone was eternal and supreme, the evil principle being inferior to him and a mere creature. In the East and the West these two different interpretations of Dualism coexisted. The Bogomili in the East professed it in its modified form. In the West, the Albanenses in Italy and almost all the non-Italian Cathari were rigid Dualists; mitigated Dualism prevailed among the Bagnolenses and Concorrezenses, who were more numerous than the Albanenses in Italy, though but little represented abroad. (For an exposition of absolute Dualism, see ALBIGENSES; on the mitigated form, see BOGOMILI.) Not only were the Albanenses and Concorrezenses opposed to each other to the extent of indulging in mutual condemnations, but there was division among the Albanenses themselves. John of Lugio, or of Bergamo, introduced innovations into the traditional doctrinal system, which was defended by his (perhaps only spiritual) father Balasinansa, or Belesmagra, the Catharist Bishop of Verona. Towards the year 1230 John became the leader of a new party composed of the younger and more independent elements of the sect. In the two coeternal principles of good and evil he sees two contending gods, who limit each other’s liberty. Infinite perfection is no attribute even of the good principle; owing to the genius of evil infused into all its creatures, it can produce only imperfect beings. The Bagnolenses and Concorrezenses also differed on some doctrinal questions. The former maintained that human souls were created and had sinned before the world was formed. The Concorrezenses taught that Satan infused into the body of the first man, his handiwork, an angel who had been guilty of a slight transgression and from whom, by way of generation, all human souls are derived. The moral system, organization, and liturgy of absolute and mitigated Dualism exhibit no substantial difference, and have been treated in the article on the Albigenses.

The Cathari and the Catholic Church

The Catharist system was a simultaneous attack on the Catholic Church and the then existing State. The Church was directly assailed in its doctrine and hierarchy. The denial of the value of oaths, and the suppression, at least in theory, of the right to punish, undermined the basis of the Christian State. But the worst danger was that the triumph of the heretical principles meant the extinction of the human race. This annihilation was the direct consequence of the Catharist doctrine, that all intercourse between the sexes ought to be avoided and that suicide or the Endura, under certain circumstances, is not only lawful but commendable. The assertion of some writers, like Charles Molinier, that Catholic and Catharist teaching respecting marriage are identical, is an erroneous interpretation of Catholic doctrine and practice. Among Catholics, the priest is forbidden to marry, but the faithful can merit eternal happiness in the married state. For the Cathari, no salvation was possible without previous renunciation of marriage. Mr. H.C. Lea, who cannot be suspected of partiality towards the Catholic Church, writes: “However much we may deprecate the means used for its (Catharism) suppression and commiserate those who suffered for conscience’ sake, we cannot but admit that the cause of orthodoxy was in this case the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to prove disastrous.” (See Lea, Inquisition, I, 106.)

I could not find that they opposed the Real Presence…unless you can point me additional sources…the I stand corrected.

 

[benjohnson]

I could not find that they opposed the Real Presence.

I think the idea is that if they make a mockery of God, they would mocking the Real Presence of God.

 

[sodak]

=pablope;11092150]
No. They were a different movement. Marburg was an attempt to bring these two different groups, of separate origin, together. Zwingli and Luther were never “together”.

Here’s what the Forum Rules say about that kind of thought:

This thread was about the Lutheran view of the Eucharist. We Lutherans cannot possibly defend views that we do not hold.
In response to the bold, no. The Catholic church has always had very consistent teachings. Subsequent denominations chose to reject some of those views, and this was in direct disobedience to Rome. As I noted above, when leaders of a splinter group causes others to splinter, they do indeed bear some responsibility.

 

[benjohnson]

The Catholic church has always had very consistent teachings.

Lutherans would say that were acted in accordance with those constant teachings and rejected the novel ideas of paid indulgences, works based salvation, and building mighty temples.

I’m very happy that the Catholic church in communion with the Bishop of Rome has maintained a level of constancy in these times, but from the Lutheran standpoint the question wasn’t so easy 500 years ago.

 

[JonNC]

=sodak;11093909]
Not quite. They were among the first and most public/vocal reformers. They will bear responsibility for leading people for many generations away from the Church. Those people obviously bear some of the responsibility, but so do Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, et. al.

Putting aside for a moment my belief that we are of the Church, and not “led away from it”, on what grounds is anyone responsible for the actions of another (speaking of adults here)?

In response to the bold, no. The Catholic church has always had very consistent teachings. Subsequent denominations chose to reject some of those views, and this was in direct disobedience to Rome. As I noted above, when leaders of a splinter group causes others to splinter, they do indeed bear some responsibility.

There are scant few groups who have “splintered” from Lutheranism. Our biggest problem is getting those who claim to be Lutheran to acting like it, but it seems the CC Catechism holds Rome accountable as well.
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."

I think, regardless, we have different conversations when we talk about learned people making choices, as compared to “the masses”. Personally, however, I am no more impressed when protestants blame the pope for “keeping people from being saved” than I am when Catholics blame Luther, or Zwingli, in the same way.

Jon

 

[steido01]

In response to the bold, no. The Catholic church has always had very consistent teachings. Subsequent denominations chose to reject some of those views, and this was in direct disobedience to Rome. As I noted above, when leaders of a splinter group causes others to splinter, they do indeed bear some responsibility.

My question was rhetorical. Of course it’s foolish to blame a given group for bodies that have broken with it. Your own Catholic Answers Forum notes this, as I posted earlier. My point was that if you entirely blame Lutherans for the existence of all protestant denominations, then -logically- you have to entirely blame Rome for the existence of Lutherans (and even then, it’s a faulty comparison, since the Lutheran Reformation developed independently of the Reformed movement). As they say in my favorite animated vegetable show, “Stop being so silly!”

Meanwhile, back at the “Consubstantiation/Lutherans” thread…:hammering:

 

[MaryT777]

Putting aside for a moment my belief that we are of the Church, and not “led away from it”, on what grounds is anyone responsible for the actions of another (speaking of adults here)?

There are scant few groups who have “splintered” from Lutheranism. Our biggest problem is getting those who claim to be Lutheran to acting like it, but it seems the CC Catechism holds Rome accountable as well.
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."

I think, regardless, we have different conversations when we talk about learned people making choices, as compared to “the masses”. Personally, however, I am no more impressed when protestants blame the pope for “keeping people from being saved” than I am when Catholics blame Luther, or Zwingli, in the same way.

Jon

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by pablope View Post
But they did not disbelieve in the Real presence…

From here…newadvent…newadvent.org/cathen/03435a.htm

Catharist principles

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 the beneficent principle alone was eternal and supreme, the evil principle being inferior to him and a mere creature. In the East and the West these two different interpretations of Dualism coexisted. The Bogomili in the East professed it in its modified form. In the West, the Albanenses in Italy and almost all the non-Italian Cathari were rigid Dualists; mitigated Dualism prevailed among the Bagnolenses and Concorrezenses, who were more numerous than the Albanenses in Italy, though but little represented abroad. (For an exposition of absolute Dualism, see ALBIGENSES; on the mitigated form, see BOGOMILI.) Not only were the Albanenses and Concorrezenses opposed to each other to the extent of indulging in mutual condemnations, but there was division among the Albanenses themselves. John of Lugio, or of Bergamo, introduced innovations into the traditional doctrinal system, which was defended by his (perhaps only spiritual) father Balasinansa, or Belesmagra, the Catharist Bishop of Verona. Towards the year 1230 John became the leader of a new party composed of the younger and more independent elements of the sect. In the two coeternal principles of good and evil he sees two contending gods, who limit each other’s liberty. Infinite perfection is no attribute even of the good principle; owing to the genius of evil infused into all its creatures, it can produce only imperfect beings. The Bagnolenses and Concorrezenses also differed on some doctrinal questions. The former maintained that human souls were created and had sinned before the world was formed. The Concorrezenses taught that Satan infused into the body of the first man, his handiwork, an angel who had been guilty of a slight transgression and from whom, by way of generation, all human souls are derived. The moral system, organization, and liturgy of absolute and mitigated Dualism exhibit no substantial difference, and have been treated in the article on the Albigenses.

The Cathari and the Catholic Church

The Catharist system was a simultaneous attack on the Catholic Church and the then existing State. The Church was directly assailed in its doctrine and hierarchy. The denial of the value of oaths, and the suppression, at least in theory, of the right to punish, undermined the basis of the Christian State. But the worst danger was that the triumph of the heretical principles meant the extinction of the human race. This annihilation was the direct consequence of the Catharist doctrine, that all intercourse between the sexes ought to be avoided and that suicide or the Endura, under certain circumstances, is not only lawful but commendable. The assertion of some writers, like Charles Molinier, that Catholic and Catharist teaching respecting marriage are identical, is an erroneous interpretation of Catholic doctrine and practice. Among Catholics, the priest is forbidden to marry, but the faithful can merit eternal happiness in the married state. For the Cathari, no salvation was possible without previous renunciation of marriage. Mr. H.C. Lea, who cannot be suspected of partiality towards the Catholic Church, writes: “However much we may deprecate the means used for its (Catharism) suppression and commiserate those who suffered for conscience’ sake, we cannot but admit that the cause of orthodoxy was in this case the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to prove disastrous.” (See Lea, Inquisition, I, 106.)

Is there something in that text that says that Cathars believed in the Real Presence?

I could not find that they opposed the Real Presence…unless you can point me additional sources…the I stand corrected.

What the …? Are you saying that your claim that Cathars believed in the Real Presence is based on the fact that a certain text doesn’t say that they didn’t believe in it? Seriously??

 

[GKC]

Is there something in that text that says that Cathars believed in the Real Presence?

What the …? Are you saying that your claim that Cathars believed in the Real Presence is based on the fact that a certain text doesn’t say that they didn’t believe in it? Seriously??

Anyone read my post on Gui’s statement?

Six-eight years ago I did a small, in-depth run at the Cathars/Albigensians, in a prolonged dispute I was having with another traditional Anglican. My memory, reinforced by what I posted, says they had no use for any of the sacraments, the Real Presence in particular, substituting their sole sacrament, the Consolamentum.

Wish I knew where my books on all that were.

GKC

 

[tdgesq]

Understood. Consubstantiation teaches either a local co-presence of the substances of body /bread, and wine / blood, or that there is a co-mingling of substances forming a new substance. This, of course, requires that one is speaking in metaphysical terms.

Right. It is natural that many RC’s introduction to Lutheran Eucharistic theology comes through the study of transubstantiation and the objections to it; at which point we try to identify the competing belief. If I understand you correctly below though, then it seems some of these objections are unwarranted.

Lutherans specifically deny a co-presence or co-mingling of substances. In fact, we don’t even think about it that way. Sacramental union simply claims that upon consecration the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. We don’t deny the substances bread and wine, neither do we say they are removed, because Christ does not go into the metaphysics.

From everything I’ve read in this thread (especially the very informative article provided by benjohnson, thank you) there isn’t any positive attempt made by Lutherans to explain how the elements of bread and wine are also the body and blood of Christ, other than to state that there is a sacramental union between them; which I understand goes no further than what Christ declares at the Last Supper. The most we can say, or so the argument goes, is that we can’t know what happens. My only criticism is that this seems inconsistent with the objections to transubstantiation.

Consider these:

452.5 – SA III.Sacrament of the Altar.5 – “As for transubstantiation, we have no regard for the subtle sophistry of those who teach that bread and wine surrender or lose their natural substance and retain only the appearance and shape of bread without any longer being real bread, for that bread is and remains there agrees better with Scriptures, as St. Paul himself states, ‘The bread which we break’ (I Cor. 10:16), and again, ‘Let a man so eat of the bread’ (I Cor. 11:28). Tappert, 311.

983.35 – FC SD VII.35 – “In addition to the words of Christ and of St. Paul (the bread in the Lord’s Supper, ‘is true body of Christ’ or a ‘participation in the body of Christ’), we at times also use the formulas ‘under the bread, with the bread, in the bread.’ We do this to reject the papistic transubstantiation and to indicate the sacramental union between the untransformed substance of the bread and the body of Christ.” Tappert, 575.

The objections here aren’t that the RCC is wrong because it “can’t know what happens” when the bread and wine are consecrated. Instead, the metaphysical theory of transubstantiation is challenged by the Lutherans’ own metaphysical commitments, ie. the substance of the bread remains untransformed.

He simply holds bread in His hands and says “this is my body”. Whether our senses simply observe the accidents of bread and wine, or bread and wine itself is not explained and we can not know. It is His body and blood. He said so. And therefore, when we receive the Eucharist, we receive His true body and blood.

If this is true, then I don’t see how Lutherans can reject transubstantiation on the grounds listed above. It would be consistent to assert that the RCC shouldn’t teach transubstantiation as what actually happens to the elements of bread and wine because we cannot know - other than the stipulation that it is Christ’s body and blood. It does not preclude the possibility though that transubstantiation is what actually occurs.

 

[sodak]

Lutherans would say that were acted in accordance with those constant teachings and rejected the novel ideas of paid indulgences, works based salvation, and building mighty temples.

I’m very happy that the Catholic church in communion with the Bishop of Rome has maintained a level of constancy in these times, but from the Lutheran standpoint the question wasn’t so easy 500 years ago.

There are still indulgences, nothing wrong with that. Works based salvation has long been anethema in the Catechism, so that’s incorrect as well. The Church builds Cathedrals and Churches, nothing wrong with that either.

Putting aside for a moment my belief that we are of the Church, and not “led away from it”, on what grounds is anyone responsible for the actions of another (speaking of adults here)?

There are scant few groups who have “splintered” from Lutheranism. Our biggest problem is getting those who claim to be Lutheran to acting like it, but it seems the CC Catechism holds Rome accountable as well.
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."

I think, regardless, we have different conversations when we talk about learned people making choices, as compared to “the masses”. Personally, however, I am no more impressed when protestants blame the pope for “keeping people from being saved” than I am when Catholics blame Luther, or Zwingli, in the same way.

Jon

Bold 1
For someone who claims to not be a follower of Luther, I’ve noticed that you quote him a lot. Any charismatic leader who leads people away from Christ has a LOT to answer for, as well as those who allow themselves to be led away.

Bold 2
No doubt. Men on both sides are probably to blame, but the Catholic Church remains as Christ’s Church, no matter how much Satan stirs up trouble.

Let’s be very clear here.

1. Catholic means being part of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome. There are many rites within the Catholic Church, the Latin rite (commonly called “Roman Catholic”) being one of them.
2. catholic means “universal”.

Personally, I find the use of “Catholic” with meaning number 2 to be deceptive. This is a Catholic forum, last time I checked.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Right. It is natural that many RC’s introduction to Lutheran Eucharistic theology comes through the study of transubstantiation and the objections to it; at which point we try to identify the competing belief. If I understand you correctly below though, then it seems some of these objections are unwarranted.

From everything I’ve read in this thread (especially the very informative article provided by benjohnson, thank you) there isn’t any positive attempt made by Lutherans to explain how the elements of bread and wine are also the body and blood of Christ, other than to state that there is a sacramental union between them; which I understand goes no further than what Christ declares at the Last Supper. The most we can say, or so the argument goes, is that we can’t know what happens. My only criticism is that this seems inconsistent with the objections to transubstantiation.

Consider these:

452.5 – SA III.Sacrament of the Altar.5 – “As for transubstantiation, we have no regard for the subtle sophistry of those who teach that bread and wine surrender or lose their natural substance and retain only the appearance and shape of bread without any longer being real bread, for that bread is and remains there agrees better with Scriptures, as St. Paul himself states, ‘The bread which we break’ (I Cor. 10:16), and again, ‘Let a man so eat of the bread’ (I Cor. 11:28). Tappert, 311.

983.35 – FC SD VII.35 – “In addition to the words of Christ and of St. Paul (the bread in the Lord’s Supper, ‘is true body of Christ’ or a ‘participation in the body of Christ’), we at times also use the formulas ‘under the bread, with the bread, in the bread.’ We do this to reject the papistic transubstantiation and to indicate the sacramental union between the untransformed substance of the bread and the body of Christ.” Tappert, 575.

The objections here aren’t that the RCC is wrong because it “can’t know what happens” when the bread and wine are consecrated. Instead, the metaphysical theory of transubstantiation is challenged by the Lutherans’ own metaphysical commitments, ie. the substance of the bread remains untransformed.

If this is true, then I don’t see how Lutherans can reject transubstantiation on the grounds listed above. It would be consistent to assert that the RCC shouldn’t teach transubstantiation as what actually happens to the elements of bread and wine because we cannot know - other than the stipulation that it is Christ’s body and blood. It does not preclude the possibility though that transubstantiation is what actually occurs.

Thank you for an informative post. I have wondered why some Lutherans object to terms like “consubstantiation” when some comments from Lutheran theologians of past generations seem to point quite strongly to such a theory. Nevertheless some modern Lutherans object to the term and claim that Lutherans never taught it.

 

[Peter_J]

Anyone read my post on Gui’s statement?

I did, and it seemed fine to me.

OTOH, I wanted to know what pablope’s basis was for claiming the opposite (i.e.

But they did not disbelieve in the Real presence…

).

 

[GKC]

I did, and it seemed fine to me.

OTOH, I wanted to know what pablope’s basis was for claiming the opposite (i.e.
).

Can’t say.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

What I find puzzling is that some posters exclaim positions that are no longer considered relevant. As others have posted, the Lutheran/ Catholic Dialogue concluded long ago that the issue of the Real Presence unites us not divides us. I understand academic discussions on the difference between transubstantiation, consubstantiation and sacramental unity as an interesting topic of the nuances of sacramental theology.

Aside from the Orthodox, Lutherans most closely resemble Catholics in eucharistic theology and practice. That is not the case among the vast majority of other Christians.

O Sacrament most holy, O Sacrament divine, All praise and all thanksgiving be every moment Thine!