Literal or Symbolic?...

[wmscott]

Because if you read all last supper accounts, there was no mention of a lamb. If you go by John’s Gospel, Christ was crucified at the time that they were slaughtering the passover lamb. Therefore this would have happened before the legal passover so there would not have been lamb at the table at the last supper.

Which is what makes the last supper truly amazing. There was no lamb because in eating the bread, the apostles were in fact eating the Lamb of God, the Lamb that was to be sacrificed the following day. It is as if the Last Supper was somehow outside of time and yet in time.

And this is the same thng that happens at every Mass - heaven and earth meet at the altar, time and eternity converge.

Christ made the sacrifice once but it continues. We have a priest in heaven in Christ? What does a priest do? Offer sacrifice, the same sacrifice that He offered on earth - once only but unending.

To make the point, I am reminded of the joke where a man was told by his doctor that in order to lose weight he must eat only once a day. When the doctor checked up on him after a week, he put on even more weight. He ate only once a day but he never stopped.

The Eucharist is both communion and sacrifice. The table is also an altar.

It is Eucharist because it is a Todah. Todah is one of the many sacrifices of Israel. There is an old rabbinical saying that all sacrifices will cease except the Todah. Todah is hebrew for “Thanksgiving”. The Todah is a Thanksgiving Sacrifice.

Thanks for addressing these points with David.

 

[JonNC]

That may be what gcnuss believes, but based on what Luther himself expressed, you believe in consubstantiation. You cited it yourself a few posts back: Luther said Christ is in, with, under the bread. Phrased liked that, that is not in accord with what GCNuss has written. That phrasing means 'consubstantiation" - Christ presence is with the bread but Christ is NOT the bread. It would be like Christ saying " In this bread is my body" not " This is my body".

Ok, Cory. The phrasing is clear, that it is not consubstantiation. No Lutheran document anywhere, anytime, states we believe in consubstantiation. It seems you must have a metaphysical, philsophical construct. Lutheranism does not have one, and does not use of them in terms of the Eucharist.

Is there bread and wine? Yes. After consecration, is the true body and blood of Christ distributed and orally received? Yes. If you believe that to be consubstantiation, you are entitled to your belief, but it is in fact your belief about Lutherans, not the belief of Lutherans. Beyond telling you what we believe, I don’t know what more I can do. But I will tell you this, if you can find one official Lutheran document which claims that what we believe is consubstantiation, then I will concede that my belief is not the teaching of the Lutheran Confessions.

Jon

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

David Ruiz:

But again, I would say God was guiding Luther and Wycliffe and Tyndale and Calvin and …

Key words: I would say…

To bad those words did not come out of the mouth of Jesus,so your words weigh far less than Jesus’ Words.

God guiding Luther and et al…what nonsense!

 

[benedictus2]

Ok, Cory. The phrasing is clear, that it is not consubstantiation. No Lutheran document anywhere, anytime, states we believe in consubstantiation. It seems you must have a metaphysical, philsophical construct. Lutheranism does not have one, and does not use of them in terms of the Eucharist.

Is there bread and wine? Yes. After consecration, is the true body and blood of Christ distributed and orally received? Yes. If you believe that to be consubstantiation, you are entitled to your belief, but it is in fact your belief about Lutherans, not the belief of Lutherans.

Is that not like saying I do not believe in democracy but I believe in the rule of the people?

Well then if you do not believe what Luther believes why are you Lutheran?

Luther said that the Body and Blood of Christ exist WITH, IN, UNDER the bread. THAT is consubstantiation even when you don’t give it that name. That, is NOT “This is my body”. That, is “IN THIS bread is my body”.

Another would be like someone saying I don’t believe in divorce but I believe that a married couple can seperate, have the state declare them so and be allowed to marry another.

Beyond telling you what we believe, I don’t know what more I can do.

Perhaps what you need to do is acknowlege that you do not believe the true Lutheran belief about the Eucharist. If gcnuss believes what you do, then neither does he.

But I will tell you this, if you can find one official Lutheran document which claims that what we believe is consubstantiation, then I will concede that my belief is not the teaching of the Lutheran Confessions.

You cited it yourself from Luther. He did not call it consubstantiation but that is what it is.

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;8557673] Well then if you do not believe what Luther believes why are you Lutheran?

First, Cory, what Luther said is not necessarily what Lutheranism teaches. But that said,
what Luther teaches regarding theEucharist is what I believe, what all of Lutheranism believes (or should believe), and that isn’t consubstantiation.

Luther said that the Body and Blood of Christ exist WITH, IN, UNDER the bread. THAT is consubstantiation even when you don’t give it that name. That, is NOT “This is my body”. That, is “IN THIS bread is my body”.

Actually it is. You are projecting a metaphysial construct on something that is not metaphysical. Lutherans and Luther don’t go that far. When Luther speaks of “in, with and under”, he isn’t making a statement about substances and accidents. Think of it this way, where God spoke creation into existence, He also speaks bread and wine into body and blood. How this happens is a mystery, so in with and under what our senses define as bread and wine IS the body and blood of Christ.

Another would be like someone saying I don’t believe in divorce but I believe that a married couple can seperate, have the state declare them so and be allowed to marry another.

I have no idea how this compares, Cory.

You cited it yourself from Luther. He did not call it consubstantiation but that is what it is.

Luther, and the Lutheran reformers all deny this. The Book of Concord denies this. To believe this is to place a metaphysical construct where none exists or is implied.

Jon

 

[benedictus2]

First, Cory, what Luther said is not necessarily what Lutheranism teaches.

Okay.

But that said, what Luther teaches regarding theEucharist is what I believe, what all of Lutheranism believes (or should believe), and that isn’t consubstantiation.

And that is exactly what you just don’t see. You don’t believe what Luther believes.

Luther said that the presence is IN, WITH, UNDER (IWU). That is NOT the same as “This is my body”. Don’t you get that? Luther is saying that the bread and Christ CO-EXIST.

Very early on you specifically said that you don’t believe that Christ is - IWU either. Which means that you don’t believe what Luther believes. If the Lutherans teach that the bread is now Christ, then they don’t teach IWU either which is what Luther taught.

Actually it is. You are projecting a metaphysial construct on something that is not metaphysical.

What? You are saying that there is nothing metaphysical in what happens at the Eucharist? If that is so then everything there is just physical? Well then, bread is just bread because that is what our senses tell us. How then can you say it is the Body of Christ?

Lutherans and Luther don’t go that far. When Luther speaks of “in, with and under”, he isn’t making a statement about substances and accidents.

Whether he is speaking or not of substances or accidents, Luther has gone that far when he said of Christ that He exists IWU the bread. That statement pertain to metaphysics - beyond the physical.

THAT is what consubstantiation means even though they do not call it that.

Think of it this way, where God spoke creation into existence, He also speaks bread and wine into body and blood. How this happens is a mystery, so in with and under what our senses define as bread and wine IS the body and blood of Christ.

If the Body and Blood is IWU the bread and wine, then these elements are neither the Body and Blood of Christ, They merely exist as receptacles of the Body and blood of Christ. Christ did not say "In, With, Under this Bread is my body. Christ said This IS my body.

I have no idea how this compares, Cory.

The only thing missing is the term itself (marriage / consubstantiation) but what the definition or understanding is there. You may not want to call it that, but in effect, that is what it is. Avoiding the metaphysical aspects will not get you out of it because the metaphysical aspect is there.

Your position is not the same as the orthodox. The orthodox rightly said it is the body of Christ and that’s that. Luther did not leave it at that. He said Christ is IWU the bread.

Luther, and the Lutheran reformers all deny this. The Book of Concord denies this. To believe this is to place a metaphysical construct where none exists or is implied.

They may deny this but I am afraid it is inescapable if you really think about it.

Good theologies go beyond the physical. Read Luther’s statement again.

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes to an extent every Christian, if they are truly Christian is founded on the Apostles. And there’s the catch. Somewhere along the way aroudn 1500 they eschewed some of the teachings of the apostles and decided to go their own way.
And while they were called Christians at Antioch, there never was a reference to a Christian Church. This body of Christians, of the followers of Jesus Christ was never called a Christian Church but rather the Catholic Church.

And the people of the way belonged to the Catholic Church because there was only one Church then.

Naah! It was always Catholic once they branched out of Jerusalem becaues that is what the Lord commanded them. From the beginning there was only one Church as Christ intended.
The Christians at Antioch, the people of the Way - they all belonged to the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not the Church that came 1500 years later.
You know what is interesting, once they seperated from the Church they never came up with a new doctrine.
You see, prior to the separation the Eastern Church was besset by heresies. So my theory is that they realized how easily they could err, so in fear of making further errors they stopped seeking reason for their faith. They can’t anyway because doctrines have to be signed by the Pope. So they are wise to not come up with their own doctrines.

So you think to encase the Body and Blood of The Lord of Heaven and Earth in gold is far too much? Perhaps we should use that cheap tin foil. Obviously you think gold is far too extravagant to be used to honor God.

No it is a sign of great faith that you believe Christ and what He said. It is a sign of little faith when you don’t believe what Christ said and what Christ promised.

No but not quite as disharmonious as you try to portray which is why the blacklist was lifted. The first major challenge to the Real Presence was that of Berengarius.

Considering that the RP is what has always been believed by Christians form the beginning, then it is anathema.

Not at all. You said the Catholic Church is Apostolic and you said that it comes with baggage for having been around for so long. I affirmed both.

Just a quick note to your “nahs”. There was always a pope even though “pappa” wasn’t coined till when ? and there was no head bishop of Rome till when ? No mention of it in Acts or subsequent Scripture. No mention of Peter the rock interpretation for head bishop till 3-4th century .But, according to CC there was always a pope …Then the term "catholic’ . CC says it has always been there .Well you say that , don’t know if CC has decreed that. The term Catholic was used first when ? 100 ad ? Several more times the next century ?.. No, You have no term "Catholic Church " in the book of Acts nor any other holy book. But I suppose if your focus is on “church”, then you will see it. I see a body , The Body, and the church, at Ephesus, Corinth, united by their faith in Christ and the foundation of the Apostles. The name designated whom they followed (Jesus) - “Christian”, and He lead them on the “Way”. These are the main things. Only later , much later, when the church spread , was it seen as a "universal " movement, of the Holy Spirit. Gradually she became known as the Catholic Church.

 

[david_ruiz]

David Ruiz:

Key words: I would say…

To bad those words did not come out of the mouth of Jesus,so your words weigh far less than Jesus’ Words.

God guiding Luther and et al…what nonsense!

Hi Nicea- You have your “I would say” roots also .You say Luther was not guided by God…Somewhere around 3-4 th century , the bishop of Rome , and his supporters would say for the first time , "We, I , have primacy over all other bishops, because of Matt16:18 ". Well, they had to say it, cause Jesus certainly didn’t.

 

[benedictus2]

Just a quick note to your “nahs”. There was always a pope even though “pappa” wasn’t coined till when ?

Yes. The pope is nothing more than the successor of Peter. Pope does not detract from the fact that from the beginning, the apostles had an office and as such there is a successor. If you don’t want to call him Pope you can just refer to him as successor of Peter. We call him Pope because he is our spiritual father.

and there was no head bishop of Rome till when ?

Till Peter got to Rome which is actually the foundation of the Christian community in Rome.

Read up on Christianity and its historical background.

No mention of it in Acts or subsequent Scripture.

Obviously you have this silly notion that the Church must have died after Acts.

No mention of Peter the rock interpretation for head bishop till 3-4th century .

Well hello. If you want to find out how Peter is rock then all you have to do is open your Bible to Matthew 16. But it seems you pass over Biblical passages that challenges your myopic perception.

But, according to CC there was always a pope …

Because there was always the primacy of Peter’s office. We have the Lord to “blame” for that you know. Actually, not just the Lord. It seems His Father too .

Then the term "catholic’ . CC says it has always been there .Well you say that , don’t know if CC has decreed that. The term Catholic was used first when ? 100 ad ?

Try as you may you will not find a reference to the Christian Church. There is no such thing. The earliest mention of a Church was the Catholic Church which happens to be the very same Church that started at Pentecost and branched out from Jerusalem.

 

[benedictus2]

Several more times the next century ?.. No, You have no term "Catholic Church " in the book of Acts

Since there was only one Church then and the term Catholic became applied to this SAME Church, then obviously that Church was always Catholic just not called so. It was never referred to as the Christian Church even though the members were called Christians.

While we are at it, can you tell me when your Church started and who started it? Can you see anywhere in the Bible where Jesus said every Tom, Dick and Harry can start a church if they feel like it?

nor any other holy book.

What other book would you call holy apart from the Bible and what authority do they have over the validity or invalidity of the Catholic Church?

But I suppose if your focus is on “church”, then you will see it.

Of course the focus has to be on “Church” because that is Christ’s focus. If it was not necessary He would not have established one. This is the one thing that you ignore completely - Christ’s will. Why would your focus not be on what Christ deemed important. Do you really want to focus on things apart from what Christ willed?

That you are in a different church other than the one He founded was never Christ’s intention or will.

If you are serious about being Christian, you should focus on what Christ has willed.

I see a body , The Body, and the church, at Ephesus, Corinth, united by their faith in Christ and the foundation of the Apostles.

Which all happens to be part of the infant Catholic Church. And reality check - you don’t belong to this.

The name designated whom they followed (Jesus) - “Christian”,

Yes, that is true. The followers are called Christians but the Christians did not refer to their church as the Christian Church but the Catholic Church.

and He lead them on the “Way”.

Indeed He did. And this “Way” He showed through His Church.

These are the main things.

Completely agree. And if you go through these main things. You will find your Church alien to it. You will find your teaching alien to it. Because all these things are part and parcel of the Catholic Church.

Only later , much later, when the church spread , was it seen as a "universal " movement, of the Holy Spirit.

Helloo, straight after Pentecost the Church spread! They broke out of Israel and went to gentile territory. From that moment on, it was Catholic. The Churches at Ephesus, Corinth, etc, belonged to the same Church. It was universal because it was no longer limited to the Jews as the Lord has commanded, as the Lord has willed.

Gradually she became known as the Catholic Church.

She first came to be referred to as the Catholic Church in Ignatius’s Letter to the Smyrneans in AD107.
But, she was always Catholic because that is what the Lord intended when He told his apostles to make disciples of all nations. Christ’s WILL was for a Catholic Church.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Nicea- You have your “I would say” roots also .You say Luther was not guided by God…Somewhere around 3-4 th century , the bishop of Rome , and his supporters would say for the first time , "We, I , have primacy over all other bishops, because of Matt16:18 ". Well, they had to say it, cause Jesus certainly didn’t.

Please show where the bishop of Rome said “I have the primacy.”

Open your Bible. There you will find that it was Christ who gave Peter that primacy. If that is an issue for you, take it up with Christ.

And by the way, you quote Matthew 16:18. Can you please show where in that Jesus said He will build his Church on all the apostles? Can you please show where in that Jesus said the keys are given to all of the apostles? You must have some other kind of “Bible”.

And yes, definitely Luther was not guided by God. It would be totally stupid to say that God willed it when at the last supper her prayed for unity. The devil guided Luther but God allowed it because He can make something good even out of that.

 

[ufamtobie]

[QU

OTE=JonNC;8560476]First, Cory, what Luther said is not necessarily what Lutheranism teaches. But that said,
what Luther teaches regarding theEucharist is what I believe, what all of Lutheranism believes (or should believe), and that isn’t consubstantiation.

JonNC

Above you are not making sense: “what Luther said is not necessarily what Lutheranism teaches”? To me they should go hand in hand, why even call it Lutheranism. and If not consubstantiation, what then do you believe transubstantiation?

Actually it is. You are projecting a metaphysial construct on something that is not metaphysical. Lutherans and Luther don’t go that far. When Luther speaks of “in, with and under”, he isn’t making a statement about substances and accidents. Think of it this way, where God spoke creation into existence, He also speaks bread and wine into body and blood. How this happens is a mystery, so in with and under what our senses define as bread and wine IS the body and blood of Christ.
Jon

Jon, think of it this way Re: (IWU) Jesus is “IN” me, Jesus is “WITH” me and Jesus is “UNDER” and all around me, but I do not become the body and Blood of Christ, do I? NO! Jesus Christ says “This is my Body”! Jesus did not say I am (IWU) this bread.

Ufam Tobie

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;8561749] And that is exactly what you just don’t see. You don’t believe what Luther believes.

Luther said that the presence is IN, WITH, UNDER (IWU). That is NOT the same as “This is my body”. Don’t you get that? Luther is saying that the bread and Christ CO-EXIST.

Again, Cory, you are reading it metaphysically.

Very early on you specifically said that you don’t believe that Christ is - IWU either. Which means that you don’t believe what Luther believes. If the Lutherans teach that the bread is now Christ, then they don’t teach IWU either which is what Luther taught.

Where did I say that I don’t believe in Sacramental Union? What I have said is that even SU isn’t particularly necessary. But I’ve never denied it. I’ve only denied that it is consubstantiation. Duns Scotus taught consubstantiation. Consubstantiation was a 9th to 12th century Catholic construct, which I don’t believe any communion today teaches.

What? You are saying that there is nothing metaphysical in what happens at the Eucharist?

No. What I’m saying is 1) Christ doesn’t tell us the metaphysical, and neither does St. Paul. Christ says, “This is my body”. 2) As a result, the Lutheran understanding does not include a metaphysical explanation regarding the mystery. There may very well be a metaphysical event, and it may very well be Transubstantiation, but Christ doesn’t tell us.

Well then, bread is just bread because that is what our senses tell us. How then can you say it is the Body of Christ?

Because Christ says so, Cory. For the same reason you can say it is the body and blood of Christ - because Christ says so.

Whether he is speaking or not of substances or accidents, Luther has gone that far when he said of Christ that He exists IWU the bread. That statement pertain to metaphysics - beyond the physical.

THAT is what consubstantiation means even though they do not call it that.

Only if you misconstrue it as consubstantiation, or refuse to accept the explanation of those who believe it. He’s my question to you, Cory: Have you known me to accuse you of believing something you say you don’t? Have you known me to calim that the CC teaches something that it does not? If not, why are you doing so to me here? I asked you to show me an official Lutheran document that claims that SU is akin to consubstantiation. If you cannot, and if all Lutheran documents reject consubstantiation, why would you, in all charity, continue to state that we do believe it

If the Body and Blood is IWU the bread and wine, then these elements are neither the Body and Blood of Christ, They merely exist as receptacles of the Body and blood of Christ. Christ did not say "In, With, Under this Bread is my body. Christ said This IS my body.

And He also did not say, "Taske and eat, this substance of bread is now transubstantiated into my body, leraving only the accidents of bread.
The point is either expression of the doctrine of the real presence is merely that: an expression.

Your position is not the same as the orthodox. The orthodox rightly said it is the body of Christ and that’s that. Luther did not leave it at that. He said Christ is IWU the bread.

Yep, he was a western Christian, and we western Christians feel compelled at times to explain this that need no explanation.

They may deny this but I am afraid it is inescapable if you really think about it.

It is only inescapable if one locks their frame of reference in one position.

Good theologies go beyond the physical. Read Luther’s statement again.

I have read it many times. He and we do not teach consubstantiation, for the exact same reason we do not teach Transubstantiation.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=ufamtobie;8562476]
JonNC
Above you are not making sense: “what Luther said is not necessarily what Lutheranism teaches”? To me they should go hand in hand, why even call it Lutheranism.

We didn’t call it Lutheranism, you did!! And like Catholics who accept the name “Roman Catholic”, we just took the name Lutheran as our own. Look at the Book of Concord. That is what we teach. But even Luther was subject to the final norm.

and If not consubstantiation, what then do you believe transubstantiation?

Thank you, Ufam. You have made my point better than I’ve been able to. For you, and Cory, it seems these are the two choices. If one doesn’t believ Transub, then one must believe consub. We don’t teach either!! We teach what Christ said: This [bread] is my body". Somehow, by the power of the Holy Spirit, at the time the priest/pastor speaks the words of institution, Christ’s own words, bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. Our senses see, taste, smell, touch bread and wine, but in, with, and under what our senses detect, we receive and eat and drink His true body and blood.

Jon, think of it this way Re: (IWU) Jesus is “IN” me, Jesus is “WITH” me and Jesus is “UNDER” and all around me, but I do not become the body and Blood of Christ, do I?

Of course not. You are not bread and wine. Christ never said His words while holding you in His hands. I’m not sure what you are saying here.

Jesus Christ says “This is my Body”! Jesus did not say I am (IWU) this bread.

And he also didn’t say, “Take and eat, this substance of bread is now transubstantiated into my body, leraving only the accidents of bread.”

Jon

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .No. What I’m saying is 1) Christ doesn’t tell us the metaphysical, and neither does St. Paul. Christ says, “This is my body”. 2) As a result, the Lutheran understanding does not include a metaphysical explanation regarding the mystery. There may very well be a metaphysical event, and it may very well be Transubstantiation, but Christ doesn’t tell us. . . .

. . . .Thank you, Ufam. You have made my point better than I’ve been able to. For you, and Cory, it seems these are the two choices. If one doesn’t believ Transub, then one must believe consub. We don’t teach either!! We teach what Christ said: This [bread] is my body". Somehow, by the power of the Holy Spirit, at the time the priest/pastor speaks the words of institution, Christ’s own words, bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. Our senses see, taste, smell, touch bread and wine, but in, with, and under what our senses detect, we receive and eat and drink His true body and blood. . .

Jon,

The Anglican view of the Real Presence of the Eucharist is the same–We believe in the Real Presence—without the need to define this mystery using Aristotle’s Metaphysics. The Eastern Orthodox also yield to the mystery of the Holy Eucharist.

No sure why you are getting so much grief over this.

Peace,
Anna

 

[benedictus2]

Again, Cory, you are reading it metaphysically.

Because it is! You cannot say it without seeing the metaphysical imiplication. If it is not metaphysical then you are talking in purely physical terms which would be quite ludicrous because we are talking about something that is totally beyond the physical.

Where did I say that I don’t believe in Sacramental Union?

You did not phrase it quite like that. You said that you believe that bread is Christ’s Body and that Christ is NOT in, with, under the bread.

Therefore you do not believe what Luther believes.

What I have said is that even SU isn’t particularly necessary.

I wasn’t referring to SU.

But I’ve never denied it. I’ve only denied that it is consubstantiation. Duns Scotus taught consubstantiation. Consubstantiation was a 9th to 12th century Catholic construct, which I don’t believe any communion today teaches.

No, Consubstantiation is when you say that the bread exists along with Christ. And that is exactly what you say when you say that Christ is IWU the bread.

No. What I’m saying is 1) Christ doesn’t tell us the metaphysical, and neither does St. Paul. Christ says, “This is my body”. 2) As a result, the Lutheran understanding does not include a metaphysical explanation regarding the mystery. There may very well be a metaphysical event, and it may very well be Transubstantiation, but Christ doesn’t tell us.

But don’t you see that that is all beside the point because Luther himself has made a metaphysical claim by saying that Christ is IWU the bread.

If you really want to avoid any metaphysical statement, then you should not say Christ is IWU. And you did make such a statement but that is contrary to what Luther taught.

And I am sure that a lot of Lutherans still believe in IWU presence. If that formulation is there, then you believe in consubstantiation even though you may deny it.

Sacramental Union is consubstantiation. When you speak of Sacramental Union there are two “elements” that unite but the each element remains distinct. One element does not nihilate the the other. Therefore in sacramental union, it is still a case of IWU which all boils down to consubstantiation.

As I have said before, you deny the word but to all intents and purposes - and in practice - you affirm the definition.

Because Christ says so, Cory. For the same reason you can say it is the body and blood of Christ - because Christ says so.

Exactly. If is His Body because He said so. He did NOT say My Body is IWU the bread. That is the part that you are trying to avoid having to acknowledge.

So I repeat that: He said :This IS my Body, and NOT “In, With, Under this bread is my Body”. Can you not even see the stark difference there?

Only if you misconstrue it as consubstantiation, or refuse to accept the explanation of those who believe it.

Those who believe it refuse to acknowlege that it is so that is why I gave you that analogy before: It is like saying you don’t believe in democracy but you believe in the rule of the people.

Or like this quip: If you take medication when you have a flu, it will last only a week. But if you don’t take medication it will last seven days.

He’s my question to you, Cory: Have you known me to accuse you of believing something you say you don’t? Have you known me to calim that the CC teaches something that it does not? If not, why are you doing so to me here?

It is not an accusation Jon. It is a clarification. I am trying to get you to see somethig that you refuse to see but it is staring you right in the face.

You are trying to avoid getting embroiled in metaphysical definitions when Luther has already landed you there with his IWU statement. You are already deep in it but you don’t see it. IWU is metaphysical. Sacramental Union is metaphysical and yet you keep saying that this is not about the metaphysical.

What I don’t understand is how you can fail to see that?

 

[benedictus2]

I asked you to show me an official Lutheran document that claims that SU is akin to consubstantiation.

Don’t you even see that that is beside the point. They may deny that it is the same as consubstantiation but it is. It is like they don’t believe in sunrise but they believe that at around 6am the darkness fades and light slowly seeps in.

It does not matter whether they declare it officially because the definition is there.

That would be like a government official declaring he does not believe in nepotism when he’s got his children, uncles and auntie and friends all working with him at the municipal hall.

If you cannot, and if all Lutheran documents reject consubstantiation, why would you, in all charity, continue to state that we do believe it

As I said above, SU and IWU both point to consubstantiation. You just don’t use the term. Non use of the term does not mean that this is not what you believe.

And He also did not say, "Taske and eat, this substance of bread is now transubstantiated into my body, leraving only the accidents of bread.

But that is precisely what “This is my body means”. If the bread is still there then obviously it is not his body; it is just bread which happens to hold his body. Which is exactly what Luther and what SU means. Bread is there. Christ is there. SU. Consubstantiation.

The point is either expression of the doctrine of the real presence is merely that: an expression.

No. One of them is wrong based on what Christ said.

Yep, he was a western Christian, and we western Christians feel compelled at times to explain this that need no explanation.

Who says it does not need explanation? Why did we go to all the trouble with the Trinity and the hypostatic union.
What is all this “consubstantial” with the Father bit about? Is that not metaphysical? Why would you think it is okay to use such language there but then deny its legitimacy in this instance.

And by the way, you just admitted that Luther did make a metaphysical explanation.

It is only inescapable if one locks their frame of reference in one position.

It is inescapable because it is evident in what Luther said and in what you have written and explained as Lutheran belief.

I have read it many times. He and we do not teach consubstantiation, for the exact same reason we do not teach Transubstantiation.

No Jon, what you do not do is use the word “consubstantiation” but you do teach what it means.

 

[benedictus2]

Jon,

The Anglican view of the Real Presence of the Eucharist is the same–We believe in the Real Presence—without the need to define this mystery using Aristotle’s Metaphysics. The Eastern Orthodox also yield to the mystery of the Holy Eucharist.

No sure why you are getting so much grief over this.

Peace,
Anna

And that would have been all fine except that Luther said that Christ is In, With, Under the bread. THAT is not the same as the Orthodox belief.

As for not defining it, well that is of course up to you. But we were given the intellect by God and that is a normal projection when you come in contact with the mystery. It is normal, healthy human endeavour for faith to seek understanding.

And if we believe that Christ kept the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in her understanding, then she is right to seek understanding. Faith and reason must go together.

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;8563316]Because it is! You cannot say it without seeing the metaphysical imiplication. If it is not metaphysical then you are talking in purely physical terms which would be quite ludicrous because we are talking about something that is totally beyond the physical.

No Cory. It is in sacramental terms.

You did not phrase it quite like that. You said that you believe that bread is Christ’s Body and that Christ is NOT in, with, under the bread.

Not in the way you are implying it - a co-mixing, and impanation, or something.
In the Lutheran understanding, yes.

Therefore you do not believe what Luther believes.

Yes, I do.

I wasn’t referring to SU

Of course you are. That is what Luther taught.

No, Consubstantiation is when you say that the bread exists along with Christ. And that is exactly what you say when you say that Christ is IWU the bread.

But don’t you see that that is all beside the point because Luther himself has made a metaphysical claim by saying that Christ is IWU the bread.

Luther:

… we do not make Christ’s body out of the bread … Nor do we say that his body comes into existence out of the bread . We say that his body, which long ago was made and came into existence, is present when we say, “This is my body.” For Christ commands us to say not, “Let this become my body,” or, “Make my body there,” but, "This is my body
Luther’s Large Catechism

It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not

mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ. For it is said: Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. If the Word be joined to the element, it becomes a Sacrament. This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well put that he has scarcely said anything better. **The Word must make a Sacrament of the element, else it remains a mere element. **11] Now, it is not the word or ordinance of a prince or emperor, but of the sublime Majesty, at whose feet all creatures should fall, and affirm it is as He says, and accept it with all reverence, fear, and humility.

12] With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, **How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ? etc., I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. 13] Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. 14] But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive. **

If you really want to avoid any metaphysical statement, then you should not say Christ is IWU. And you did make such a statement but that is contrary to what Luther taught.

Luther’s is not a metaphysical statement.

And I am sure that a lot of Lutherans still believe in IWU presence. If that formulation is there, then you believe in consubstantiation even though you may deny it.

It isn’t a matter of denying it. It is a matter of understanding what we believe, even when those around us do not.

Sacramental Union is consubstantiation. When you speak of Sacramental Union there are two “elements” that unite but the each element remains distinct. One element does not nihilate the the other. Therefore in sacramental union, it is still a case of IWU which all boils down to consubstantiation.

Citation, please. An offical Lutheran document that states this. Otherwise you are expressing your mere opinion on the matter.

Exactly. If is His Body because He said so. He did NOT say My Body is IWU the bread. That is the part that you are trying to avoid having to acknowledge.

And He did not say transubstantiated, either. So, we are back to mere human expressions of what we cannot, do not know about the mystery.

So I repeat that: He said :This IS my Body, and NOT “In, With, Under this bread is my Body”. Can you not even see the stark difference there?

There is no difference, if one recognizes the intent. The intent is not to philosphically explain what happens. "It is the Word which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ"

continued

 

[JonNC]

Those who believe it refuse to acknowlege that it is so that is why I gave you that analogy before: It is like saying you don’t believe in democracy but you believe in the rule of the people.

Well, actually I would say this, being an American. But the analogy does not stand up, for it has not the mystery and miracle of the Power of the Holy Spirit, which overrides anything we can know or explain or fathom. Christ’s words say it is His body, and it is.
It is not mere bread and wine, but is the body and blood of Christ.

It is not an accusation Jon. It is a clarification. I am trying to get you to see somethig that you refuse to see but it is staring you right in the face.

No, Cory, you are trying to get me to acknowledge an Aristotilean construct in our belief where there is none. I know what consubstantiation is. I know what Transubstantiation is. And neither particularly describes our understanding of the real presence.

You are trying to avoid getting embroiled in metaphysical definitions when Luther has already landed you there with his IWU statement. You are already deep in it but you don’t see it. IWU is metaphysical. Sacramental Union is metaphysical and yet you keep saying that this is not about the metaphysical.

That’s because it isn’t.

What I don’t understand is how you can fail to see that?

Because, Cory, we don’t see it like you do. We don’t couch it in philosophy. We wish to leave it in the words of Christ, and allow the mystery to remain (which it does regardless of what any communion says about it). So when we say IWU the forms of bread and wine, we echo the words of Christ while He held bread, “This is my body”.

Jon