P
- Status
C
concretecamper
Guest
I cannot understand how someone can read John 6 and NOT believe is Transubstantiation. That is unless they pull a Bill Clinton and start debating what the meaning of the word is…is.
We should not get hung up on the the word and when it was used. Rather, we should compare the meaning of transsubstantiation and compare it with what was taught in the past by the church fathers. John’s gospel teaches it. John’s diciple Ignatius of Antioch taught it.
BTW…where in scripture does it say sacramental union? Or at best…describe it???
I don’t have to believe Transubstantiation to believe is. In fact, that is what we believe.
Christ’s words are clear enough - this is my body. I frankly have no way of knowing how this happens, but it does. By the power of the Holy Spirit, at the speaking of the verba, it is His body and blood. I don’t know about accidents, or substances, sacramental union, or any other human explanation. If Transubstantiation helps you understand the mystery, Amen, and so be it.
Your first two sentences are contradictory. First you say we should not get hung up on the word or when it was used. Then you want to go back to the word. What the Fathers taught was the real presence. They taught that it is the body and blood of Christ. And the Lutheran Confessions reference them in this regard: Vulgarius, Cyril, Justin, Augustine, Chrysostom to name some.
And from the Augsburg Confession on, the teaching of the doctrine of the real presence is clear:
Augsburg Confession
Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.
Apology of the Augsburg Confession
The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament.
Smalcald Articles
Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians.
Small Catechism
What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.
As Luther said, “Ist ist ist”.
Jon
Where does scripture, or the Fathers, say “Transubstantiation”? Sacramental Union has its roots in Paul, where he interchangeably uses bread and body. So, to say, “under the bread”, or “in and under the bread”, or “in with and under the bread”, means simply the use of the physical elements, bread and wine. The doctrine is, however, we receive is true and substantial body and blood, spiritually, yes, and also orally by the mouth.
C
concretecamper
Guest
Where in Paul does it say the reality of Christ in “under” or “in” or “with” the bread and the wine??? I have read Paul’s letters and nowhere do I remember this teaching.
My first two statements are simple. First, do not get hung up on the fact that the word transubstantiation was not used by the early church. Focus on the meaning of the word. From your response, it seems you have a clear understanding of the word. Now, look at the early church and John, and Ignatius, etc. The words they used, the context in which they used them SCREAMS transubstantiation. So to follow the RCC is easy. In my mind anything but transubstantiation is refusing Christ’s truth for the simple reason “we cannot understand it”. But Lord, the bread is still there, the wine is still there, therefore this really isn’t flesh…it has to be mystically connected. Please take Christ at His word.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I see what you mean. Try looking at it from a traditional Lutheran perspective though. From their perspective, it is not the Reformers who broke away from the Catholic Church; it is what is known today as the Roman Catholic Church which broke away from the Reformers, who in their opinion were the true Catholic Church. They, being descended from the Reformers, thereby believe themselves to be the Catholic Church, and not the Roman Catholic Church to be the Catholic Church.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Granted, Martin Luther was excommunicated from the RCC; but by-and-large I think both sides should be able to agree that it was more the Reformers than the RCC that initiated the schism. (Whether or not they were justified in doing so, and whether the RCC was justified in excommunicating Luther and whoever else, is of course another question, on which we may never agree.)
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
That’s probably true of all schisms where both sides survive to this day.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Touche.
I appreciate your effort here, to be sure, but I’m not completely comfortable with this approach. Maybe its the ecumenist in me, but I’ve not been taught the “THE Catholic Church” approach. “We’re it and they’re not” language. Rather, I do see it as a schism, and I do not deny the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome their place, even a central place in terms of his primacy of honor, in the OHCAC. What I would deny is that it is only and exclusively the OHCAC. You, and we, are also in the OHCAC.
Jon
M
MaryT777
Guest
That’s because you’re Lutheran!
Which part, Mary? That we’re part of the OHCAC, or that you are?That’s because you’re Lutheran!
Jon
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Which part, Mary? That we’re part of the OHCAC, or that you are?
Jon
M
MaryT777
Guest
You’re a Lutheran and part of the OHcAC…Which part, Mary? That we’re part of the OHCAC, or that you are?
Jon
E
Erich
Guest
Not to derail the thread, but scripture is *abundantly *clear on the matter!
There are only four brethren of Jesus named in the Gospels: **Matthew 13:55 ** “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
**Mark 6:2-3 ** - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”
Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less: Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and ** Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph,** and Salome.” (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve: Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! * Alphaeus* is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.
Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion: John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, *** Mary the wife of Cleophas***, and * Mary Magdalene*.” (emphasis added)
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”
Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!
So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude: Acts 1:13 ** "…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and ** Jude the brother of James…" (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! *** Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle: Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ *** and brother of James…" (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ! Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and ** Simon who was called the Zealot," (emphasis added)
Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and ** Simon the Cananaean**…” (emphasis added)
Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!
We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there. So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding. Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’.
Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’
Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…
So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.
We now return to our regularly-scheduled thread.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Great post, Erich. As I said, I believe in the sempre virgo, and most Lutheran theologians historically did. And the Formula of Concord confirms it.
Jon
M
MaryT777
Guest
small c as in universal Church; albeit separated.
Mary.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
I will give you this round lol
M
MaryT777
Guest
LOL…Ok then serving the balls back to the Lutherans.
I’m sure they’d agree they are not part of the Church specifically that is in Communion with Rome.
Now how’s that Dustin?
Better worded I assume
E
Erich
Guest
- Status