How well can you answer this question?

[O.S.Luke]

The Orthodox don’t have a “word” for transubstantiaion (T.), and it conflicts with the Eastern understanding of “mystery.” T. is a concept that requires some knowledge of Thomism, rationalism, and Aristotelianism. Easterners would say that using a rational approach to a mystery is a non sequitur. Mysteries are mysteries, and even in the West the words sacramentum and mysterion were used interchangably.

Luther certainly embraced the Real Presence; the Marburg Colloquy was about this very subject, and it separated Luther from Calvin and Zwingli.

As far as the Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, and Anglicans, the Real Presence is certainly embraced and practiced. But the need for the explanation of a mystery simply isn’t an issue. The bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Period.

Explaining a mystery devalues the mystery… and using rationalism and Aristotelianism to explain a supernatural event seems odd (and inadequate). I certainly respect the dogma of T. But it seems to devalue the mystery of the sacrament.

O+

 

[Pax]

I do not see a devaluation of the mystery by the definition of the word transubstantiation. The word merely clears up a few misconceptions. It is particularly useful in delineating between the Lutheran explanation of “consubstantiation” and the Catholic view. It is likewise helpful in defending the mystery against those that argue that nothing happens because we cannot see a physical change.

The terminology of transubstantiation really doesn’t explain or remove the mystery of the real presence. It simply gives us some insight into what it is our senses perceive versus the actuality of Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity. Even with the word transubstantiation the entire sacrament remains a great and beautiful mystery to me.

 

[O.S.Luke]

It is particularly useful in delineating between the Lutheran explanation of “consubstantiation” and the Catholic view. It is likewise helpful in defending the mystery against those that argue that nothing happens because we cannot see a physical change.

And that brings up the other problem: the Lutheran church never has embraced “consubstantiation.” Duns Scotus of Oxford was the one who “coined” consubstantiation in the 1300’s, as did the followers of Lollardly. Luther embraced the Real Presence in terms of sacramental union, which is the official Lutheran doctrine. Lutherans, as do many other communions, simply think that philosophy is the wrong discipline to use when dealing with a mystery; for Christians, the Eucharist is the Mystery of Faith.

Even with the word transubstantiation the entire sacrament remains a great and beautiful mystery to me.

Just makes it too neat and easily explained - which is why many communions rejected T. as a dogma or doctrine.

O+

 

[Pax]

I would disagree…the word transubstantiation does not make it too neat and easily explained. Moreover, I do not believe that this is the reason why other communions rejected it. The Reformation and the desire to distance oneself from the Catholic Church is what enlivened most of the objections.

The doctrine of Transubstantiation simply seems to be the best insight into the mystery. The insight, however, only goes so far. This is true with all of the mysteries including the Trinity and the incarnation. The bread and wine either are the body and blood of Christ or they are not. Transubstantiation thoroughly supports the former and does so in such a way as to remove any wiggle room. IMHO any other definition leaves room for debate as to whether or not we are to take Jesus words literally.

 

[O.S.Luke]

IMHO any other definition leaves room for debate as to whether or not we are to take Jesus words literally.

And IMHO, such definition attempts to “define” a mystery. Mysteries, by definition, are supposed to be… mysterious.

We will disagree, my friend. I hope amicably.

O+

 

[Pax]

Amicably? Absolutely!

I have some friendly questions for you. How much effort should we put into trying to reflect upon something for the purpose of understanding it? Have we gone too far in any other areas besides “transubstantiation”? Where do we draw the line?

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Argh Luke Pax

dont you guys fight! (I know your not, your both amicable.)

you guys are some of the few who actually have discussion on the topic, rather than cut and paste answers.

This weekend I was speaking to a friend about all this. We decided we like the mystery part but it was frusterating to try to explain it to someone. But then again if we could explain everything about God then He wouldnt be God then, would He? But, understanding why you believe is important.

The whole thing does sorta circle a bit doesnt it?

We did come up with we are remembering Christ on the Cross and His sacrifice without which none of the rest would matter. We can offer our lives back to Him and try to do what He would have us do whatever the personal sacrifice to us.

Perhaps Im talking with nowhere to go. If I am, sorry about that. should go to sleep, just drove 5 hrs. nite.

 

[Pax]

Kitty,

I’m glad you had a safe drive. I appreciate your thoughts; reflection is a good thing, but explanations are, indeed, difficult.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Pax

I guess I see 2 people whom I think well of, kinda arguing, over something sensitive to me. And I guess it brings out the next question Im going to have to face. Which is where do I go?

I do like the mystery deal and I thought Catholics liked mystery cant explain everything right?

Im going to keep looking at things, I even ordered the study guide on the orothodox site. If Im going to look at things I may as well look at a few.

Im afraid Im going to come to a conclusion though, Im going to like some parts of each of the different churches, but not all parts. Because after going to these different ones over the years, I can appreciate something in them all. And have found God in most of them. Ive also gone to traveling non dem tent services, Easter services at a outside venue, even church in a bar, they let the pastor speak on Sundays.

I may be like Kane and have to wander the earth not belonging. Which really isnt as sad as it sounds. and I guess I have some company to keep in that. There are a few of us wanderers.

One set of wanderers, put the situation perfectly in lyrics.

Home… hard to know what it is if you’ve never had one.

 

[Pax]

Kitty,

You have an open mind and heart. Pray as you search out the truth that is from God. Seek guidance from the Holy Spirit, and be careful when it comes to feelings for they can decieve us. Take your time and pray always. Remember, God is on your side and if we are humble, faithful, and sincere in loving and seeking Him we will not be disappointed.

God Bless.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Pax

Yet again thank you. You are a great encouragement, I totally appreciate your honesty. If its ok I may bug you more, but Im sure we’ll be floating around these boards. And yes, I seek guidance from the Holy Spirit and actually try not to trust my feelings just so you know. Besides if Im patient, the answers come, sometimes from unconvential sources, I just have to be ready to listen, we all should.

I used to believe various things, strange phenonomna, paranormal etc, and when I found the Truth of who exactly Jesus is, I could no longer believe in those. In fact I discovered our Lord likes us to test all things. So I take that as a invitation to debunk things, I consider it, almost a hobby.

Actually, I realised in all that searching I was actually looking for Jesus, only He has answered my questions. (and I cant find anything to debunk either in regards to Him) He stands alone and the rest falls away.

You are right when you say those that seek Him will not be disappointed, thanks. I pray you continue in your walk as well, you too have a good heart and a open mind, touched with patience.

 

[Pax]

Thanks for the kind words.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Coming late to this discussion. Still, really, all I wanted to respond to was not the whole thread, but the OPs opening remarks:

Now all those Reformers who broke off from the Catholic Church.

Martin Luther was a monk. He could not ordain.

King Henry viii was a king. He could not ordain.

John Calvin was a lawyer. He could not ordain.

Thank-you for your view.

My view is that whereever two or three are gathered in Christ’s name, Christ is also present. And thus even in those ecclesiastical bodies that the Catholic church does not recognize as the Church, I find that Christ is present in them. And because Christ is present, it is not the bishop or any other person, but Christ acting through the administration of those bodies who actually ordains.

I don’t expect a Catholic to agree with that view. But I thought you might be interested in knowing that what you object to in protestant ordinations just completely misses the point as far as I am concerned. I don’t even think that in the Catholic church that it is the bishops who ordain. Even there it is Christ who does the ordaining. So, we all have exactly the same ordination. But I grant you that some play a pretty good game of tag. And as far as tag goes, I think that Anglicans and Methodist are it just as much as Catholics, whether you recognize it or not is again not all that important to me, as I only seek the recognition of Christ, which I believe I have received.

 

[Pax]

Coming late to this discussion. Still, really, all I wanted to respond to was not the whole thread, but the OPs opening remarks:

Thank-you for your view.

My view is that whereever two or three are gathered in Christ’s name, Christ is also present. And thus even in those ecclesiastical bodies that the Catholic church does not recognize as the Church, I find that Christ is present in them. And because Christ is present, it is not the bishop or any other person, but Christ acting through the administration of those bodies who actually ordains.

I don’t expect a Catholic to agree with that view. But I thought you might be interested in knowing that what you object to in protestant ordinations just completely misses the point as far as I am concerned. I don’t even think that in the Catholic church that it is the bishops who ordain. Even there it is Christ who does the ordaining. So, we all have exactly the same ordination. But I grant you that some play a pretty good game of tag. And as far as tag goes, I think that Anglicans and Methodist are it just as much as Catholics, whether you recognize it or not is again not all that important to me, as I only seek the recognition of Christ, which I believe I have received.

Catholics give recognition to your belief in Christ. We are separated brothers and sisters in Christ, but we are still siblings in Christ. Likewise, we would agree that when two or three are gathered in Jesus name that he is in their midst. That is purely scriptural and we believe it.

The presence of Jesus spoken of in Matthew 18:20, and to which you refer, is not the same as His presence in the Eucharist. The true presence of Jesus body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist can only occur at a Catholic mass through the actions of an ordained priest. Non-Catholic congregations other than Anglicans, Lutherans, and to a lesser extent Methodists make absolutely no claims concerning their communion services that involve the true presence described by Catholics.

It is in this sense and a few others that ordination differs between Catholics and non-Catholics. This is an important distinction that is completely separate from the meaning and intent of Matthew 18:20.

There is no game of tag here. If one examines the NT and all of the passages associated with the “laying on of hands” one sees that there is a transmission of power and authority. This transmission will not occur between just anyone who wants to try it. This is something that comes from others that are properly ordained in an unbroken line from the apostles. If this were not so, numerous problems would occur.

Even though the transmission of Holy Orders is through men by the laying on of hands, I would agree that the action and power are through Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

I hope this helps.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Pax, I appreciate your view. Even understand it. I just don’t happen to hold to it. That’s all.

The reference I made to “playing tag” was because the OP had spoken of it that way. I probably should have included that part of his post as well in quoting him in my post. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Pax]

No confusion…you’re intentions and position are clearly stated, and I can appreciate that.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

If you want to see some interesting discussion on ordination plus some other things, check out this thread. Read the whole thing it’s pretty good.

Go here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2853457#post2853457

Just make sure you go to the beginning of thread and read everything.

 

[O.S.Luke]

The presence of Jesus spoken of in Matthew 18:20, and to which you refer, is not the same as His presence in the Eucharist. The true presence of Jesus body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist can only occur at a Catholic mass through the actions of an ordained priest. Non-Catholic congregations other than Anglicans, Lutherans, and to a lesser extent Methodists make absolutely no claims concerning their communion services that involve the true presence described by Catholics.

The problem is that the Orthodox make no such “claims” either… yet the Catholic church acknowledges their eucharists as “valid.” I obviously don’t think the Catholic Church has a monopoly on the Holy Spirit, but I certainly appreciate why it has to make such a claim if it claims to be the One True Church.

It is in this sense and a few others that ordination differs between Catholics and non-Catholics. This is an important distinction that is completely separate from the meaning and intent of Matthew 18:20.

There is no game of tag here. If one examines the NT and all of the passages associated with the “laying on of hands” one sees that there is a transmission of power and authority. This transmission will not occur between just anyone who wants to try it. This is something that comes from others that are properly ordained in an unbroken line from the apostles. If this were not so, numerous problems would occur.

You already have that problem with the Alexandrian Precedent. In fact, it was this precedent that John Wesley used to justify ordaining presbyters. I can trace my own ordination to Bishop Thomas Coke, whose ordination can be traced to before the Church of England’s separation. Certainly not to be viewed as just a whim of a few folks.

Of course, it matters little to Anglicans, Methodists, or anyone else that the Catholic Church thinks their ordinations are invalid and thus cannot confect the Eucharist. It is the action of the Holy Spirit and the prayers of the gathered that “confects” the ordinary into the Extraordinary (confect is a strange word; implies that the Eucharist is a confection ).

Pax,

O+

 

[Pax]

Actually, the Orthodox make the same claim as the Catholic Church except for their statements concerning transubstantiation. They believe in the real presence in their Eucharist. Catholics admit to and recognize the true presence in the Orthodox Eucharist.

I would disagree with you concerning ordination. Acts 8:18:21 makes it clear that the laying on of hands by the “apostles” was the way in which the power of ordination was transmitted. Likewise, this power was then transferred to others in a chain as evidenced by Paul’s remarks about and to Timothy[Read all of 1 Tim chapter 3, then see 1 Tim 4:14,1 Tim 5:22, 2 Tim 2:2, also see the instruction to Titus in 1 Titus 1:5].

Obviously, the Holy Spirit is the power behind every Christian action including ordination. This fact does not negate the necessary actions on the part of the Church that scripture calls for. They go hand in hand.

So the word “confect” bothers you? Perhaps you are allowing our modern usage and the derivation of “confection” color your thinking. We have the same problem when people read the words in the creed which say, “He[Jesus] descended into hell and on the third day he arose and ascended into heaven.” Modern usage makes it appear that Jesus descended into the abyss of the damned when we all know, or should know, that the reference is to the abode of the dead that were waiting until the gates of heaven were opened.

Words can certainly generate responses within us because of our personal exposure to them in our everyday usage. We have to be careful because of the multiplicity of meanings, including the denotation and connotations, and the context in which they are employed. Puns are a great example of how words can be used in different ways and how a common serious word can be made to cause laughter. I wouldn’t make too much of the term confect; it comes from the Latin and simply means “prepare.” It does not even have to refer to food. One can, for example, confect rules. The word confect is good in the sense that it does relate to the food that is the bread of life. If you have a better and more suitable term to use, I’d like to hear it.

 

[Pax]

…
…
You already have that problem with the Alexandrian Precedent. In fact, it was this precedent that John Wesley used to justify ordaining presbyters. I can trace my own ordination to Bishop Thomas Coke, whose ordination can be traced to before the Church of England’s separation. Certainly not to be viewed as just a whim of a few folks.

…
…

O+

There is an answer to this point but it would take some time and space to develop and explore from both sides. Perhaps you would like to start a thread on the subject of valid orders. I think it has already been done a couple or more times on these forums. Researching some threads on this one might save a lot of time and discussion.

That said, I do appreciate your point. I don’t think you would be where you are if your were not otherwise confident in your own ordination.