Eucharist?

[LutheranDK]

And so I’m back
Hope y’all had a great weekend/beginning of the week before Easter.
If anyone asked me something before I left, please give me a link to the thread, and i will answer as soon as I can

Now, I myself have a question:
I stumbled upon this answer:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=139872

And this was all news to me! I thought that the views of the Roman church on Holy Communion was that the elements only APPEARS to be bread and wine after the consecration; they are in fact not - they have physically transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ, hence “transsubstantiation”, and not the Lutheran “real presence”.

So…am I correct in assuming that the “only” (although a HUGE one!) difference between the Lutheran view on Communion, and the Roman view, is the idea of “perpetual sacrifice”?

 

[bpbasilphx]

**they have physically transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ, hence “transsubstantiation”, and not the Lutheran “real presence”.
**

**Not quite. Were it a physical transformation, the accidents (physical appearances) of the bread and wine would change as well.

Involved in the doctrine of Transusbstantiation is the Aristotelian distinction between “accidents” (what can be perceived by the senses) and “substance” (that which makes something what it is). (Substance and accidents are here used in a technical philosophical sense.)

Applied to the Eucharist, it means that the SUBSTANCE of Bread and Wine is replaced by the SUBSTANCE of the Body and Blood of Christ.

To put it another way (however crude) “breadness” is replaced by “body-of-Christness”.

I repeat, its i NOT a “physical” translformation.

I might add that Orthodoxy doesn’t define the manner of change (which the term transubstantiation does) and simply called it “The Change.”**

 

[Claire_from_DE]

And so I’m back
Hope y’all had a great weekend/beginning of the week before Easter.
If anyone asked me something before I left, please give me a link to the thread, and i will answer as soon as I can

Now, I myself have a question:
I stumbled upon this answer:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=139872

And this was all news to me! I thought that the views of the Roman church on Holy Communion was that the elements only APPEARS to be bread and wine after the consecration; they are in fact not - they have physically transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ, hence “transsubstantiation”, and not the Lutheran “real presence”.

So…am I correct in assuming that the “only” (although a HUGE one!) difference between the Lutheran view on Communion, and the Roman view, is the idea of “perpetual sacrifice”?

No, the elements appear to our senses as bread and wine but they are in actuality the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. We know that Jesus’ body after the resurrection is changed, glorified, a real physical body taken to a new level. We know that the bread, contrary to appearances, becomes His body. It is only He who is present, not bread.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

(continued)
In general conversation, when we say someone is physically present we mean he is really there. It is the person who stands before us, not a video representation, a photograph, a hologram, or an illusion. You are probably using the term ‘physical’ in that way. To say that Christ is sacramentally present doesn’t mean He is less than physically there. He is ‘there’ but not his physical body compressed into the size and shape of a round host. Yet that host is Jesus in all His glory. I think this is different from the Lutheran view.

 

[LutheranDK]

(continued)
In general conversation, when we say someone is physically present we mean he is really there. It is the person who stands before us, not a video representation, a photograph, a hologram, or an illusion. You are probably using the term ‘physical’ in that way. To say that Christ is sacramentally present doesn’t mean He is less than physically there. He is ‘there’ but not his physical body compressed into the size and shape of a round host. Yet that host is Jesus in all His glory. I think this is different from the Lutheran view.

What is your idea of the Lutheran view?
Because from what I read here, and from the answer I linked to, there is no difference that I can see.
Also if you compare with the article on Holy Communion in the Book of Concord, Art X

“Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are
distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.”

The exact same wording as in the Confessio Augustana, and the article on Communion is actually one of the articles in the CA that is not rejected in the Roman confutation.

 

[geekborj]

And so I’m back
Hope y’all had a great weekend/beginning of the week before Easter.
If anyone asked me something before I left, please give me a link to the thread, and i will answer as soon as I can

Now, I myself have a question:
I stumbled upon this answer:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=139872

And this was all news to me! I thought that the views of the Roman church on Holy Communion was that the elements only APPEARS to be bread and wine after the consecration; they are in fact not - they have physically transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ, hence “transsubstantiation”, and not the Lutheran “real presence”.

So…am I correct in assuming that the “only” (although a HUGE one!) difference between the Lutheran view on Communion, and the Roman view, is the idea of “perpetual sacrifice”?

First off, you need to know that the Eucharist IS TRULY the body and blood of Christ only in the appearance of the bread and wine, respectively. If you want to expound on that, so be it but in the end, it is TRULY as in like REALLY! The only answer to the question in the above thread unfortunately defended the fasting rather than the reality of Christ’s presence. Christ presence in the Eucharist is the most important truth and fasting (not eating other meats) is a devotion as a consequence of this same truth.

Now, going back to the question of the linked thread. It asked why we could eat the body (meat) of Christ when “against our duty to abstain from meat”? This is actually an absurd question because the primary reason of abstaining from meat is to cleanse ourselves in order to meet and receive Christ! Thus, we eat (munch) His Body like It is what we want not any other meat. Lent is an opportunity to clean our body FOR RECEIVING CHRIST’s BODY. Thus, why not eat the Body of Christ during Lent?!!

The question appears to come to an individual who does not realize the real meaning of fasting during Lent. Fasting is there to clearly point the way to Christ in the Eucharist NOT AWAY FROM HIS BODY and BLOOD.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I dont think its the Roman Catholics who have a problem with the true presence, I think it is the many views taken and believed by different protestants different Lutherans to which some I have come across as believing technically symbolic.

I would just add, The Catholic church has held the true presence for 2 millenium. Protestants seperated themselves from the Apostolic succession and a valid Priesthood, and a valid Eucharist. So no matter how you add it up from a protestant view true presence or symbolic Jesus, they still do not have a valid Eucharist.

Now Martin Luther was a Catholic and seperated himself from these sacraments. Why would Lutherans still want what the Roman Catholic church believes, after rejecting her sacraments, and her authority to confect the Eucharist.

I dont want to come across negative, but someone has to state the truth about our Lord Jesus and his words to eat and drink his body and blood to his Apostles. I don’t think Jesus was kidding or guessing about what he meant, Non Catholics do that. The Roman Catholic church Knows what she believes the consecrated bread and wine, become the body,blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholics are in full (communion with each other on earth and in heaven) unity on this for this is the summit of our faith.

Peace be with you

 

[Claire_from_DE]

What is your idea of the Lutheran view?
Because from what I read here, and from the answer I linked to, there is no difference that I can see.
Also if you compare with the article on Holy Communion in the Book of Concord, Art X

“Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are
distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.”

The exact same wording as in the Confessio Augustana, and the article on Communion is actually one of the articles in the CA that is not rejected in the Roman confutation.

I guess I thought that Lutherans believe that Jesus is there and so is the bread and Catholics believe that Jesus is there under the appearance (accidents) of bread and his presence remains as long as the appearance of bread remains. A subtle difference. Perhaps I am misinformed.

I venture a guess that the average Catholic or Lutheran receives communion believing ‘this is Jesus’ and doesn’t get into theological nitpicking.

I have been told that Presbyterians believe that when they eat the bread they really receive Jesus. But after the service the bread and wine remain bread and wine and are reverently disposed of. There is a greater difference in understanding of the sacrament in this case.