Do I understand what the "Real Presence" is

[JonNC]

I find this, from Orthodox / Lutheran dialogue to express well my view.

1. Lutherans and Orthodox take the Lord’s words “this is my body; this is my blood” (Mt 26,27f, par.) literally. They believe that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood to be consumed by the communicants. How this happens is regarded by both as a profound and real mystery. In order to approach that mystery, Orthodox and Lutherans have drawn on their respective theological traditions and developed different insights on what takes place.

a. Lutherans speak about Christ’s “real presence” in the Eucharist and describe Christ’s body and blood as being “in, with and under” the bread and wine (Formula of Concord, SD 7). By this they mean that the bread and the wine really become the body and blood of Christ, through the Words of Institution and the action of the Holy Spirit. Drawing on patristic sources, Lutherans understand Christ’s presence in the elements christologically: “Just as in Christ two distinct, unaltered natures are inseparably united, so in the Holy Supper two essences, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here on earth in the action of the sacrament, as it was instituted” (SD 7). Lutherans, however, maintain a distinction between a personal, hypostatic union and a “sacramental union”, favoring the latter in order to describe Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Lutheran theology is able to speak of a transformation (mutatio) of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (Apology X, 2; XXIV). This is not understood as eliminating the physical character of the bread and wine in the Eucharist. Lutherans emphasize that it is God’s Word which makes the sacrament (Large Catechism, 5: The Sacrament of the Altar).

b. Orthodox profess a real change (metabole) of the bread and the wine into the body and blood of Christ by the Words of Institution and the act of the Holy Spirit in the eucharistic anaphora. This does not mean a “transsubstantiation” of the substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the deified humanity of Christ, but a union with it: “The bread of communion isn’t an ordinary bread, but united with divinity” (John of Damascus). This union amounts to a communication of the deifying properties of the humanity of Christ and of the deifying grace of his divinity to the eucharistic gifts: The bread and the wine are no longer understood with respect to their natural properties but with respect to Christ’s deified human body in which they have been assumed through the action of the Holy Spirit. As in Christology the two natures are united hypostatically, so in the Eucharist Christ’s exalted human body and the “antitypes” (St. Basil, Anaphora) of bread and wine are united sacramentally through the act of the Holy Spirit.

I do have a question for you, Radical. I understand you reject the real presence. Does this mean you reject a “real, spiritual” presence? Was Christ just pseaking figuatively, metaphorical?

Jon

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Forgive me, but I have a few questions:

what does “substantial” mean? I’ve noticed that some that believe in the Real Presence state that there is a difference between a “physical” presence and a “substantial” presence? Do you believe that there is a difference, and if so, what is it? Also, is there a difference between Christ being present spiritually and Christ being present substantially? If so, what is that difference?

BYU,
Please see my response to Radical. That should answer your question.

Jon

 

[Loboto-Me]

Perhaps I was unclear. The bread is the body of Christ, by the words and the power of the Holy Spirit, not as a result of faith or because of it. In fact, it is His body despite the faith of the recipient and the celebrant. We know it is His body by faith.

Better explained?

Jon

Yes much better, so it sounds very “catholic”

 

[Loboto-Me]

Howdy Loboto-Me…shouldn’t you be down at the Stampede grounds? Would it be possible for you to answer my questions from the Conservative Catholic point of view? It would be appreciated…and if possible, keep in mind that I am looking for the answer that could be grasped by a 12 year old. Thanks.

I was at the grounds years ago for the first and last time… got the worst sunburn of my life. Crowds don’t thrill me much, although the excitement was cool.

As for answering your question, the one thing I can say is that a Conservative Catholic’s point of view will be the very same as an Eastern Catholic’s or a Liberal Catholic’s or a Maronite Catholic… Catholic is Catholic is Catholic (except for Cafeteria Catholic… now they may have a different point of view)

You’re also asking someone who was not catechised properly as a youngster and has had to learn the faith through these forums and other internet resources. I’m suspecting that Jon, although a Lutheran has it pretty down pat. I do suspect though that the form believed to be a bit different between his faith and the catholic faith (trans vs cons)

 

[hn160]

Yes much better, so it sounds very “catholic”

That is because Lutherans are very Catholic.

 

[Radical]

You would have to have someone define what is meant by “spiritual” presence.

that would be nice…I don’t know exactly (or inexactly?) what a spiritual presence would be…though I think it would be a presence by Christ in the spiritual realm. I believe I could describe coherently (at least it would be coherent to me) what I think a spiritual presence would entail…I have never been able to do so for a real bodily presence. By that I mean, could I present a coherent argument for the concept to a jury of 12 who have never been introduced to anything to do with the Lord’s Supper, but aren’t inclined to dismiss the miraculous out-of-hand? For a spiritual presence I am confident that I could…not so for a real bodily presence.

Again, we’re getting into the how. But let me suggest the following: spiritually, Christ is present in many other ways.

agreed, so this spiritual presence would have to be somehow more pronounced or of a somewhat different flavor or serving a different purpose or some such thing

Why does it cry out for an answer? He says’ “take and eat”. Physically, orally eat. He says, “drink ye all of it”. Physically, orally drink. There is no mistaking His intent or message.

It cries out for an explanation precisely b/c you say that there is no mistaking his intent. Most Christians and and a very good percentage of the devout ones think that there is no mistaking that Christ’s intent was metaphorical…so obviously, if you are right, then there is a great deal of mistaking his intent (and same deal if I am right). It also cries out for an answer b/c of the Gnostics. You will recall that they believed that Jesus did not come in the flesh, but only appeared to have a body. His was a phantom body…no accidents of a body were present, only the appearance of a body existed. That view was rightly described as being a denial that Christ came in the flesh. Now contrast that with what you say about the alleged real bodily presence at your Eucharist. As with the Gnostic phantom body, no accidents of a body were present and what is more, there is not even the appearance of a body. In that sense your real bodily presence is even more of a phantom. In the case of the Gnostic phantom you say it constitutes a denial of Christ coming in the flesh. In the case, (of what appears to be the even more phantom bodily presence) of your Eucharist, you say it constitutes a real bodily presence that enables you to literally consume the flesh of Christ. The inconsistency is startling from over here and (IMHO) cries out for an explanation…a detailed one to justify the reason for such a variation in how the phantom presence is viewed so differently from the real bodily presence.

This is my body - eat. This is a physical event. Of course it is spiritaul, but it indeed is physical.

baptism is also a physical action…but no real bodily presence is envisioned

And the more we try to explain the hows, the more disunified it becomes, I agree.

It isn’t just the “hows” that divide and it isn’t the belief in a clear intent that divides. Rather, it is the unwillingness to be in communion with a person who believes differently (wrt the hows/intent).

I do have a question for you, Radical. I understand you reject the real presence. Does this mean you reject a “real, spiritual” presence? Was Christ just speaking figuatively, metaphorical?

Christ, of course, makes no mention of a presence (either spiritual or bodily). As indicated I just can’t make sense of a real bodily presence and whenever I start to entertain the possibility of a spiritual presence (that is distinct in nature and not just degree from Christ’s presence in the Church) a discussion like this will immediately cause me to reconsider the possibility. So yes, I am convinced that Jesus was speaking figuratively at the Lord’s Supper and in the Bread of Life discourse.

BTW thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions.

 

[JonNC]

that would be nice…I don’t know exactly (or inexactly?) what a spiritual presence would be…though I think it would be a presence by Christ in the spiritual realm. I believe I could describe coherently (at least it would be coherent to me) what I think a spiritual presence would entail…I have never been able to do so for a real bodily presence. By that I mean, could I present a coherent argument for the concept to a jury of 12 who have never been introduced to anything to do with the Lord’s Supper, but aren’t inclined to dismiss the miraculous out-of-hand? For a spiritual presence I am confident that I could…not so for a real bodily presence.
agreed, so this spiritual presence would have to be somehow more pronounced or of a somewhat different flavor or serving a different purpose or some such thing
It cries out for an explanation precisely b/c you say that there is no mistaking his intent. Most Christians and and a very good percentage of the devout ones think that there is no mistaking that Christ’s intent was metaphorical…so obviously, if you are right, then there is a great deal of mistaking his intent (and same deal if I am right). It also cries out for an answer b/c of the Gnostics. You will recall that they believed that Jesus did not come in the flesh, but only appeared to have a body. His was a phantom body…no accidents of a body were present, only the appearance of a body existed. That view was rightly described as being a denial that Christ came in the flesh. Now contrast that with what you say about the alleged real bodily presence at your Eucharist. As with the Gnostic phantom body, no accidents of a body were present and what is more, there is not even the appearance of a body. In that sense your real bodily presence is even more of a phantom. In the case of the Gnostic phantom you say it constitutes a denial of Christ coming in the flesh. In the case, (of what appears to be the even more phantom bodily presence) of your Eucharist, you say it constitutes a real bodily presence that enables you to literally consume the flesh of Christ. The inconsistency is startling from over here and (IMHO) cries out for an explanation…a detailed one to justify the reason for such a variation in how the phantom presence is viewed so differently from the real bodily presence.
baptism is also a physical action…but no real bodily presence is envisioned
It isn’t just the “hows” that divide and it isn’t the belief in a clear intent that divides. Rather, it is the unwillingness to be in communion with a person who believes differently (wrt the hows/intent).
Christ, of course, makes no mention of a presence (either spiritual or bodily). As indicated I just can’t make sense of a real bodily presence and whenever I start to entertain the possibility of a spiritual presence (that is distinct in nature and not just degree from Christ’s presence in the Church) a discussion like this will immediately cause me to reconsider the possibility. So yes, I am convinced that Jesus was speaking figuratively at the Lord’s Supper and in the Bread of Life discourse.

BTW thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions.

Thanks for asking them.
Jon

 

[hn160]

that would be nice…I don’t know exactly (or inexactly?) what a spiritual presence would be…though I think it would be a presence by Christ in the spiritual realm. I believe I could describe coherently (at least it would be coherent to me) what I think a spiritual presence would entail…I have never been able to do so for a real bodily presence. By that I mean, could I present a coherent argument for the concept to a jury of 12 who have never been introduced to anything to do with the Lord’s Supper, but aren’t inclined to dismiss the miraculous out-of-hand? For a spiritual presence I am confident that I could…not so for a real bodily presence.
agreed, so this spiritual presence would have to be somehow more pronounced or of a somewhat different flavor or serving a different purpose or some such thing
It cries out for an explanation precisely b/c you say that there is no mistaking his intent. Most Christians and and a very good percentage of the devout ones think that there is no mistaking that Christ’s intent was metaphorical…so obviously, if you are right, then there is a great deal of mistaking his intent (and same deal if I am right). It also cries out for an answer b/c of the Gnostics. You will recall that they believed that Jesus did not come in the flesh, but only appeared to have a body. His was a phantom body…no accidents of a body were present, only the appearance of a body existed. That view was rightly described as being a denial that Christ came in the flesh. Now contrast that with what you say about the alleged real bodily presence at your Eucharist. As with the Gnostic phantom body, no accidents of a body were present and what is more, there is not even the appearance of a body. In that sense your real bodily presence is even more of a phantom. In the case of the Gnostic phantom you say it constitutes a denial of Christ coming in the flesh. In the case, (of what appears to be the even more phantom bodily presence) of your Eucharist, you say it constitutes a real bodily presence that enables you to literally consume the flesh of Christ. The inconsistency is startling from over here and (IMHO) cries out for an explanation…a detailed one to justify the reason for such a variation in how the phantom presence is viewed so differently from the real bodily presence.
baptism is also a physical action…but no real bodily presence is envisioned
It isn’t just the “hows” that divide and it isn’t the belief in a clear intent that divides. Rather, it is the unwillingness to be in communion with a person who believes differently (wrt the hows/intent).
Christ, of course, makes no mention of a presence (either spiritual or bodily). As indicated I just can’t make sense of a real bodily presence and whenever I start to entertain the possibility of a spiritual presence (that is distinct in nature and not just degree from Christ’s presence in the Church) a discussion like this will immediately cause me to reconsider the possibility. So yes, I am convinced that Jesus was speaking figuratively at the Lord’s Supper and in the Bread of Life discourse.

BTW thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions.

To believe in the Real or Spiritual Presence, it all starts with the doctrine of the Person of Christ. If you believe that Christ’s Body is confined to Heaven, then the Lord’s Supper is either a memorial meal or a spiritual eating ( finitum non capax infiniti ) and the Lutheran view that Christ Very Body can be everywhere at the same time ( finitum capax infiniti ), after all He is God.