Literal or Symbolic?...

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabe,
In further response to your question;

blogstuhl.blogspot.com/2008/05/lutherans-deny-consubstantiation.html

In the following, the pastor points out the fact that it isn’t the old Lutherans who believed in consubstantiation, but some more modern Lutherans who mistakenly accepted the term.

saintlukes-cs.org/sermons/sermons-2008/Corpus_Christi_08.shtml

Hope these help.

Jon

Well Jon, with the short time I spent on these sites only confused me more:shrug:

Lutherans today reject the following definitions; consubstantiation and impanation, or also incorporation to describe what takes place at the consecration of the Eucharist. Lutherans also reject Transubstantiation which defines the bread and wine remain these to our senses( flesh) “which availeth nothing” but to our souls the substance of bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in his confected Eucharist, “when it is the Spirit that gives life” here.

What is confusing is that Martin Luther’s writings on the Eucharist are interpreted by later Lutherans who reject consubstantiation, impanation, incorporation which was held by earlier Lutherans and some Lutheran literature’s.

I can understand Martin Luthers Catholic faith in the Eucharist via sacramental. Your first site attempts to define the Lutherans position by rejecting consubstantiation being held by some Lutherans, by never really removing its position from consubstantiation, because the site still has the bread and wine still present with the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

This site does well to include the sacrament terminology which I was able to follow the rejection of consubstantiation with the site, but yet it confused me, because the site moved away from the sacramentality understanding by still having the bread and wine remaining present with the body and blood of Jesus.

This makes it confusing to me, is it a sacrament to Lutherans or not? Does the bread and wine “substance” ever change into the body and blood of Jesus Christ or not? The Lutherans view from this site never answers my question?

The site only refutes “consubstantiation” which some Lutherans are being put on notice later who are holding to a consubstantiation understanding of the Eucharist.

I am very impressed that Lutherans today are seeking to remove themselves from “Consubstantiation”, Impanation and incorporation definitions of the Eucharist. If Lutherans today are leaving what happens to the bread and wine at the consecration suspended on faith without having to adopt any reformers definition of a symbolic or consubstantiation presence. Sacrament would be the definition Martin Luther held to, as always been held in the Catholic Church.

Now that the founder Martin Luther is passed, by what authority does Lutherans have to add or change to its founders faith in the Eucharist later? See the confusion Iam having viewing and comparing historical Lutherans to Later Lutherans who are interpreting what the earlier Lutherans believed?

Should not have this pinnacle Christian faith in the Eucharist been handed down from the founders of Lutheranism traditional practice and teaching unchanged to Lutherans today without ever questioning the Lutheran faith in the Eucharist, by later Lutherans?

From the Lutheran descriptions from the first site you provided Jon, these are not very far from Transubstantiation because your site tries to define the bread and wine remaining with the True presence of Jesus body and blood, but remains reserved in not proclaiming in “faith” the substance of bread and wine have changed into the body and blood of Christ.

Sacramental language “for me” best fits your Lutheran position today which removes you from all the other protestant definitions. I don’t think you should be to adamant about rejecting “Trans.” because your sites definition is just a breath away, if you take Martin Luther’s understanding of the blessed sacrament in sacramental terms.

Thank you Jon, now I know “the rest of the story”.

Peace be with you

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by david ruiz
Why don’t you show his writings that definitely show figurative ? Anyways, I can understand how you see RP in them, as you see RP in Scripture. We differ on exact words in scripture , we will differ on Augustine also.

After you show us the early Christians rejected a literal Eucharist and taught a symbolic Eucharist? You made the claim and obviously present it as a fact,thus show us the sources supporting your 16th century novelty?

As for Augustine and your position like Radical’s are NOVEL and no amount of words will ever change what Augustine taught and believed: The Catholic position…period! It is very simple:

People who are so confident about a symbolic Eucharist basically are guilty of one thing:

You are trying so eagerly to inject an “ought” into an “is” in the text. The word “is” is not an “ought to be” plain and simple.

 

[david_ruiz]

After you show us the early Christians rejected a literal Eucharist and taught a symbolic Eucharist? You made the claim and obviously present it as a fact,thus show us the sources supporting your 16th century novelty?

As for Augustine and your position like Radical’s are NOVEL and no amount of words will ever change what Augustine taught and believed: The Catholic position…period! It is very simple:

People who are so confident about a symbolic Eucharist basically are guilty of one thing:

You are trying so eagerly to inject an “ought” into an “is” in the text. The word “is” is not an “ought to be” plain and simple.

I don’t want you to agree with myself or Radical, but it is interesting how it takes a “Radical” to give Augustine’s figurative quotes that you won’t post. No wonder you think we are NOVEL, by simply discussing quotes most Catholics have not seen.

 

[david_ruiz]

The quotes I posted are sufficient for understanding his view of the Eucharist.

Here’s another quote from Augustine that you might enjoy:

“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

Again, you dodge the quotes that may be deemed figurative, but you are right, your quotes are only sufficient for CC RP. “Therefore, since we are to weak to find truth by pure reason, and for that cause we needed the authority of Holy Writ, I now began to believe that in no wise would you have given such surpassing authority throughout the whole world to that Scripture, unless you wished that both through it you be believed and through it you be sought…it it easy for everyone to read…and accessible to all men.” Augustine Confessions Ch. 11:8

 

[david_ruiz]

Could you please provide a prayer that your presbyter says when he offers a sacrifice of thanksgiving at your altar during your service? Thanks.

As you know we do not always have “liturgical” -canned prayers, so it may vary .What does not vary is the universal quoting of the Lord’s words from the Passover/Last Supper before the elements are passed out.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8404414:

In other words, you can’t.

Food for thought:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

Quickly ,I believe you left out the other parts of Ignatius quotes ,and Martyr’s that shed the full light on the matter . I know it is sufficient for CC RP ,but does not help any other view out.

 

[david_ruiz]

Aren’t you Changing Christ’s Present Tense Word MEANINGIS in ‘Perhaps’, I suppose’?

No

the Eucharist Is The Paschal Lamb which Is Eaten: Jn 1: 29 - Jesus called “Lamb of God”

                                                                                                                          !  Cor 5 : 7  -  Jesus  called "paschal  lamb  who  has  been sacrificed"

This is universal, to all views on RP and figurative

I respect your profound Philosiphications and opinions against Many of us Knowledgeable Of Church Teaching Of Christ/Church, David, but We have Evidence of The Truths In the Word of God and The Apostles: 1 Timothy 3 : 15 _Truth on Earth is In the Apostles, And First Church Council: Council of Jerusalem, Later the “Magesrium”, Which Lives, Never conflicts in Dogma/Basics With The Word of God.

        Yes, I understand your dogma and it's foundation and claims. Actually reformers also were very aware of them.

Presence is Lived, Visibly Proven in The Obvious Piety EFFECT Receiving The Eucharist HAS on virtually everyone

Thank-you .Understand very well the claim and dogma that CC sacraments are effectual. Reformers were also well informed and experienced, but found other truth’s to be equally, and in their opinion, more effectual.

 

[david_ruiz]

You have said that over and over again and yet when pressed fail to give support. When are you going to get down to actually coming up with facts? I have asked you this several times and here you are again, claiming to have read something and yet unable to cite exactly where you got the information.

I will get back to you ,after I look up the threads out of 1200, where they were introduced. We can continue to reintroduce, for it is worth it ,but in time please.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

david ruiz;8408207]
Quickly ,I believe you left out the other parts of Ignatius quotes ,and Martyr’s that shed the full light on the matter . I know it is sufficient for CC RP ,but does not help any other view out.

Common sense david reveals St.Ignatius a Catholic “Bishop” celebrated Mass when the Catholic Church was under persecution, St.Augustine another Catholic “Bishop” celebrated Mass when the persecution was lifted in the real presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist.

St. Justin Martyr including St.Ignatius went to their matrydoms believing in the real presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist, These Catholic Saints and many more like them went to their deaths for their Catholic faith.

And you david want to discredit these Catholic Christian heavy weights as heretics for believing in a symbolic or figurative presence of Jesus in their Eucharistic celebrations?

By reading their letters and mutilating their context to misinterpret them into believing in a symbolic or figurative Jesus? Your semantics and misinterpreting the mind of a Catholic Saint does not work.

Now there were known heretics during these times, and even the heretics held to a real presence in the Eucharist. You will be hard pressed to try and refute a heretic during these time periods holding to a real presence in the Eucharist. Yet you are trying to interpret a Catholic martyr or Catholic Bishop Saint to hold to your figurative symbolic Jesus, I don’t think so?

If these Catholic Saints would of believed in a symbolic or figurative presence of Jesus, I don’t think they would of went to their deaths for a symbolic Jesus? Only for a real presence of Jesus that they knew, believed in and practiced in their Mass celebrations when these Saints died for their Catholic faith. Common sense is needed here, not viewing letters from a far to misinterpret a Saints Catholic faith. Look to the Saints Catholic faith then read their letters, you will be surprised these Saints were zealot Catholics.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

CHESTERTONRULES;8404434:

Quickly ,I believe you left out the other parts of Ignatius quotes ,and Martyr’s that shed the full light on the matter . I know it is sufficient for CC RP ,but does not help any other view out.

Common sense david reveals St.Ignatius a Catholic “Bishop” celebrated Mass when the Catholic Church was under persecution, St.Augustine another Catholic “Bishop” celebrated Mass when the persecution was lifted in the real presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist. St. Justin Martyr including St.Ignatius went to their matrydoms believing in the real presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist, These Catholic Saints and many more like them went to their deaths for their Catholic faith.

And you david want to discredit these Catholic Christian heavy weights as heretics for believing in a symbolic or figurative presence of Jesus in their Eucharistic celebrations?

By reading their letters and mutilating their context to misinterpret them into believing in a symbolic or figurative Jesus? Your semantics and misinterpreting the mind of a Catholic Saint does not work.

Now there were known heretics during these times, and even the heretics held to a real presence in the Eucharist. You will be hard pressed to try and refute a heretic during these time periods holding to a real presence in the Eucharist (Marcion and Arius come to mind here). Yet you are trying to interpret a Catholic martyr or Catholic Bishop Saint to hold to your figurative symbolic Jesus, I don’t think so?

If these Catholic Saints would of believed in a symbolic or figurative presence of Jesus, I don’t think they would of went to their deaths for a symbolic Jesus? Only for a real presence of Jesus that they knew, believed in and practiced in their Mass celebrations when these Saints died for their Catholic faith. Common sense is needed here.

 

[david_ruiz]

Huh?! You are confusing Matthew 16 with John 6.

I believe it was you that introduced them together with a common theme.

So now in giving credit to the Father you are discrediting Jesus? It was He who said it after all.

 

[benedictus2]

Greetings benedictus, I am still trying to comprehend how historians record Martin Luther holding to “consubtantiation” and Lutherans today do not?

Jon graciously gave us this quote from Martin Luther, and as I read it, it still reveals Martin Luther holding to some sort of “consubstantiation”, see the underlined below;

“Let it (Christ’s blood) be with the wine”, reveals to me that Luther is saying the wine co-habits (remains) with the blood. Luther agrees with the pope that there is only blood, at the same time, **according to Luther, the blood is “with the wine as God wills.” **Yet, God’s Word reveals “This is my blood.”

Yes, I think Luther believes in consubstantiation as well. The last bit about there being only blood is a second option. He would rather believe it is only blood than take the other extreme position that it is only wine. But clearly by saying as “God wills it”, then he believes that Jesus’s blood is in and with the wine,

**

I like your post here, because you make it clear according to our Catholic faith “bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ”

**

when trans. defines the substance of bread and wine have taken on change. As you Compared that Catholics do not believe that Jesus presence is never in the bread or under the bread nor with the bread, Jesus IS the bread and wine. This exchange definitely separates Catholicism from all others and proves that the Catholic position on the True presence never contradicts Jesus teachings and commandments to “eat my flesh and drink my blood”.

If a Lutheran believes that it IS indeed Body and Blood, then whether they like it or not they believe in transubstantiation. It is the same with the Orthodox who claim they do not believe in transubstantiation when in fact it is just a case of refusing to define the how of it.

So I say to Jon, I will be saving a space in the pew for you . It’s okay, you may take your time.

 

[benedictus2]

again ,you only have half his quotes,ala cafeteria style.

No David, it is you who only have ity bity bits of Augustine’s quotes which is not even cafeteria style. It is less than that.

I cited a long one and here it is again.

When Augustine was having trouble with the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ He heard a Voice say to him.

Eat Me.
I am the bread of the srong.
But you will not transform me and make me part of you.
Rather, I will transform you and make you part of Me.

Chesterston and Nicea cited many more. If you look at the stack of evidence alone, yours is piddly compared to what we have presented…

And another thing, it is not only St Augustine who hold to the Real Presence, the other Church Fathers did as well.

 

[mwok]

CHESTERTONRULES;8404434:

Quickly ,I believe you left out the other parts of Ignatius quotes ,and Martyr’s that shed the full light on the matter . I know it is sufficient for CC RP ,but does not help any other view out.

So please, show us the full quotes and enlighten us!

 

[benedictus2]

I believe it was you that introduced them together with a common theme.

When I related them they made sense. I said that Peter’s reply to Jesus’s in John 6 was John’s version of Peter’s confession of faith.

However, in John 6 there was no mention of the Father revealing this to Peter. That is where your exegesis went awry.

To use a catholic ideom(/), it is not “either or” but "both /and "

In that case your post was pointless as a rebuttal.

Well, Acts talks of what happens when you act out and are in accordance with Jesus’ own words.We don’t have to talk about them if you don’t want.

If that is the case then you are not acting according to Jesus own words because you are not “drinking His Blood” or “eating His flesh”.

So, what does Acts have to say about people who do not act according to Jesus’s own words?

It seems a passerby might think I, and those like me, are ignorant of scripture, like John 6, or ECF’s, or history, or tradition or claimed sacramental effectualness etc. The fact is we are very learned on such matters,

Let’s have the evidence then.

by his grace, and continue to learn, partially through our dialogues here, iron sharpening iron . I have read John 6, many times. In fact, reformers even more were learned, and experienced in “effectualness”. Differences in RP are not due to ignorance, or lack of passion (to read Scripture, ECF’s etc) before the Lord, or some sort of rebelliousness. To think otherwise is to have pride in one’s own way , actually one’s Church’s way…I have read John 6, thank-you .I would encourage all passerbys to read it , the whole chapter, and seek the Lord for guidance ,

And that advice I have given to you.

Read it, slowly. Pick a quiet place and prepare yourself for the reading. Don’t mine it for information. When you read, try to see yourself as part of the scene. Imagine that you are one of the disciples. Hear Jesus hammer it in, not budging an inch. And hear His plaintive address to His apostles: Will you leave me too?

Over the centuries, it is those who have kept with the apostles who have held to the Real Presence of Christ. Over the years as farther and farther away the denominations removed themselves from the Barque of St Peter, the less and less they believed in the Real Presence. If anyone wants to know what Christ meant, one must follow those whom He chose – those who stayed.

for as Augustine teaches , yes the Church is pillar of truth, and has authority, AND “He is the beginning and He teaches us”, to pray for understanding. And I would propose there are more than one Church ,one magisterium, to choose from.Truth has been preserved by the blood of the saints , on both sides of the aisle.

Do you realize that in effect you are disagreeing with the Lord? He built only one Church. Where did He say that He will build many? Besides, Christ has long ascended before these churches started sprouting. You have a very short history. Most likely your church cannot even be traced to the 15000s. It is very likely a twenties century invention.

As for the saints who preserved the Truth, they are are Catholic saints.

Yes, thank God you are not like us “disbelievers”.

Well you don’t have to be a “disbeliever”. All you have to be is to be honest with yourself. I think you know deep inside that your arguments do not have a leg to stand on but you have decided that you will soldier on no matter what. At one point, you have to acknowledge Truth. Go on, take my advice and read John 6. Meditatively and in complete silence where it is only just the Lord and you.

 

[The_Cappadocian]

If a Lutheran believes that it IS indeed Body and Blood, then whether they like it or not they believe in transubstantiation.

I would say that such a conclusion seems like a pretty rash suggestion. Luther says in his large catechism “It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink”. But in addition to this he also uses the expression “bread and wine *comprehended * in, and connected with, the Word of God”. Now, neither the word “comprehended”, nor the original word “gefaßt” that Luther used, is considered synonymous with either “transformed” or “transubstantiated”, is it?

Concerning the original lutheran view upon RP, it is alltogether obvious that consubstantiation is a true lutheran understanding of the mystery of the holy eucharist. To me it is as perfectly clear as anything.

 

[benedictus2]

Again, you dodge the quotes that may be deemed figurative, but you are right, your quotes are only sufficient for CC RP. “Therefore, since we are to weak to find truth by pure reason, and for that cause we needed the authority of Holy Writ, I now began to believe that in no wise would you have given such surpassing authority throughout the whole world to that Scripture, unless you wished that both through it you be believed and through it you be sought…it it easy for everyone to read…and accessible to all men.” Augustine Confessions Ch. 11:8

The stack of evidence of proves you wrong.

 

[benedictus2]

I would say that such a conclusion seems like a pretty rash suggestion. Luther says in his large catechism “It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink”. But in addition to this he also uses the expression “bread and wine *comprehended * in, and connected with, the Word of God”. Now, neither the word “comprehended”, nor the original word “gefaßt” that Luther used, is considered synonymous with either “transformed” or “transubstantiated”, is it?

Concerning the original lutheran view upon RP, it is alltogether obvious that consubstantiation is a true lutheran understanding of the mystery of the holy eucharist. To me it is as perfectly clear as anything.

How is my comment " If a Lutheran believes that it IS indeed Body and Blood, then whether they like it or not they believe in transubstantiation " rash?

Notice my premise: IF a Lutheran believes…

If a Lutheran believes that it IS the Body and Blood of our Lord and NOT that the Body and Blood is in, under, with the bread and wine, then whether they acknowledge it or not they believe in transubstantiation. That is the only “substantiation” that explains how the bread and wine BECOME the Body and Blood of Our Lord. The other “substantiations” just don’t quite get there.

Of course, they may go for not defining it at all but it still remains that “Transubstantiation” is still the only doctrine that captures how the bread IS the Body and how the wine IS the Blood.

 

[david_ruiz]

No David, it is you who only have ity bity bits of Augustine’s quotes which is not even cafeteria style. It is less than that.

I cited a long one and here it is again.

When Augustine was having trouble with the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ He heard a Voice say to him.

Eat Me.
I am the bread of the srong.
But you will not transform me and make me part of you.
Rather, I will transform you and make you part of Me.

Chesterston and Nicea cited many more. If you look at the stack of evidence alone, yours is piddly compared to what we have presented…

And another thing, it is not only St Augustine who hold to the Real Presence, the other Church Fathers did as well.

Point still stands.I have agreed that many of your quotes could be interpreated literal .I have also said some hold on strong that all are figurative .I have stated Augustine is not “either /or” as you do, but quite possibly “both/and”. I acknowledge yours, but you won’t acknowledge ANY hint of figurative from Augustine, and won’t post those. But why should you , you are making your case .

 

[benedictus2]

Point still stands.I have agreed that many of your quotes could be interpreated literal .I have also said some hold on strong that all are figurative .I have stated Augustine is not “either /or” as you do, but quite possibly “both/and”. I acknowledge yours, but you won’t acknowledge ANY hint of figurative from Augustine, and won’t post those. But why should you , you are making your case .

The point is: given that there are more quotes from St Augustine that points to the literal, then we may conclude that it is literal.

And as I have already stated, St Augustine is only one of the Church Fathers who hold to the Real Presence. So we go back to this: find out what the early Christians believed and there you will find what the apostles believed - those who stayed with Christ.