Lutheranism is the "pure" Church?

[JonNC]

Christ say it IS His flesh. Christ says it IS my body. ** How do you get in, within, under out of Christ’s word?**
The word trans… was first used much later. But that does not mean the belief started with the use of the word. Ambrose is clear when he say “nature” is changed. Sacramental union does not mean a change in nature as Ambrose describes.

Please, where is in, within, under even contemplated in the bible or by the Church Fathers.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Herman Sasse: It is impossible to define Luther’s doctrine as consubstantiation. Even the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say**.**

Sacramental union is an expression, “this is my body” is the doctrine.

Again, Herman Sasse:

***For Luther, the bread is the body in an incomprehensible way; the union between the bread and the body cannot be expressed in terms of any philosophical theory or rational explanation; it is an object of faith, based solely on the words of Christ. **The question which was put to him, not only by Zwingli, but also by his older adversaries, as to how the bread could be called the body of Christ if it still remained bread, was answered by Luther in pointing out the mode of speech called synecdoche. In his great controversy with Carlstadt he had already explained the words ‘This is my body’ as synecdoche. ‘This’ referred to what Jesus held in his hands, the bread, not (as Carlstadt’s impossible exegesis would suggest) to the body to which Jesus pointed. As a mother, pointing to the cradle in which her baby lies, says, ‘This is my child’, or as a man, pointing to a purse, may say, ‘Here is a hundred dollars’, so we say of the bread in a similar way, “This is the body of Christ’. This is a common mode of speech called synecdoche, an abbreviated speech in which the containing vessel is mentioned instead of its content. The objection, especially by Zwingli, that thus Luther himself did not understand the sacramental words literally, but figuratively, was refuted by Luther as not being to the point, because the reality of the body was not denied. In all other figures of speech, the words ‘body’ and ‘blood’ are understood figuratively; the synecdoche takes the reality of the elements as well as the reality of body and blood seriously. *

And Paul does this, as well, using the term bread when discussing Christ’s body.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

There is also a thread on Lutherans /Consubstantiation for those wanting more in depth information on that topic.
Mary
(I know because I started it! The topic comes up so often that it’s a good place to
put it all in once place so to speak )

 

[aidanbradypop]

There is also a thread on Lutherans /Consubstantiation for those wanting more in depth information on that topic.
Mary
(I know because I started it! The topic comes up so often that it’s a good place to
put it all in once place so to speak )

Trouble maker lol

Ok back to Melchizedek

 

[MaryT777]

Trouble maker lol

Ok back to Melchizedek

I’m an expert in efficiency No need to discuss consubstantiation on every thread when we can have one for just that
Mary

 

[JonNC]

I’m an expert in efficiency No need to discuss consubstantiation on every thread when we can have one for just that
Mary

But it happens anyway, as there are now three threads I am responding to on the issue.

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

But it happens anyway, as there are now three threads I am responding to on the issue.

Jon

Don’t thread yourself thin now. lol

I m currently speaking with an LCMC guy about this topic. I will keep you posted.

 

[MaryT777]

But it happens anyway, as there are now three threads I am responding to on the issue.

Jon

I’ve advertised the consubstantiation thread now even on
Will the Church of England die thread; Ben responded to that one.

 

[concretecamper]

JonNC:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

Christ say it IS His flesh. Christ says it IS my body. How do you get in, within, under out of Christ’s word?
The word trans… was first used much later. But that does not mean the belief started with the use of the word. Ambrose is clear when he say “nature” is changed. Sacramental union does not mean a change in nature as Ambrose describes.

Please, where is in, within, under even contemplated in the bible or by the Church Fathers.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Herman Sasse: It is impossible to define Luther’s doctrine as consubstantiation . Even the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say.

Sacramental union is an expression, “this is my body” is the doctrine.

Again, Herman Sasse:

For Luther, the bread is the body in an incomprehensible way; the union between the bread and the body cannot be expressed in terms of any philosophical theory or rational explanation; it is an object of faith, based solely on the words of Christ. The question which was put to him, not only by Zwingli, but also by his older adversaries, as to how the bread could be called the body of Christ if it still remained bread, was answered by Luther in pointing out the mode of speech called synecdoche. In his great controversy with Carlstadt he had already explained the words ‘This is my body’ as synecdoche. ‘This’ referred to what Jesus held in his hands, the bread, not (as Carlstadt’s impossible exegesis would suggest) to the body to which Jesus pointed. As a mother, pointing to the cradle in which her baby lies, says, ‘This is my child’, or as a man, pointing to a purse, may say, ‘Here is a hundred dollars’, so we say of the bread in a similar way, “This is the body of Christ’. This is a common mode of speech called synecdoche, an abbreviated speech in which the containing vessel is mentioned instead of its content. The objection, especially by Zwingli, that thus Luther himself did not understand the sacramental words literally, but figuratively, was refuted by Luther as not being to the point, because the reality of the body was not denied. In all other figures of speech, the words ‘body’ and ‘blood’ are understood figuratively; the synecdoche takes the reality of the elements as well as the reality of body and blood seriously.

And Paul does this, as well, using the term bread when discussing Christ’s body.

Jon

so, if I understand it correctly the bread remains, and the wine remains and are “vessels” for the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[Peter_J]

Trouble maker lol

Bah. There nerve of her, trying to keep the thread on-topic!

J/k.

 

[JonNC]

so, if I understand it correctly the bread remains, and the wine remains and are “vessels” for the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Not making that claim either. What we are saying is that in an incomprehensible way, the bread is His body, the wine is His blood.

Jon

 

[concretecamper]

JonNC:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

so, if I understand it correctly the bread remains, and the wine remains and are “vessels” for the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Not making that claim either. What we are saying is that in an incomprehensible way, the bread is His body, the wine is His blood.

Jon

OK, wasn’t “vessel” used in your prior post?

Was there anyone in the early church Luther was influenced by when he devised this explanation?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[JonNC]

OK, wasn’t “vessel” used in your prior post?

Was there anyone in the early church Luther was influenced by when he devised this explanation?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

I’m not sure which of the early Church fathers influenced him on this, other than the ones we typically look at on the Eucharist. Cyril, Chrysostom, etc. And while a Catholic will claim that the ECF’s taught Transub., I think in either case it is unhelpful to project back to them lines of thought they were not aware of. Lutherans and Catholics together believe that the ECFs in their writings without exception describe and teach the real presence.

Jon

 

[concretecamper]

JonNC:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

OK, wasn’t “vessel” used in your prior post?

Was there anyone in the early church Luther was influenced by when he devised this explanation?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

I’m not sure which of the early Church fathers influenced him on this, other than the ones we typically look at on the Eucharist. Cyril, Chrysostom, etc. And while a Catholic will claim that the ECF’s taught Transub., I think in either case it is unhelpful to project back to them lines of thought they were not aware of. Lutherans and Catholics together believe that the ECFs in their writings without exception describe and teach the real presence.

Jon

OK…indulge me one last time and I will not bug you about this topic again.

We can all agree the Real Presence in incomprehensible, it’s a mystery, a miracle. Lutherans attempt to describe the Real Presence but that is where is stops. It is just a description of the Great Mystery of the Eucharist.

So by admitting it is unexplainable, and even if we agree that scripture and the fathers do not describe trans…, how can you be so sure the Catholic Church’s teaching is wrong. Don’t you at least have to say it has a chance of being correct, albeit a small chance?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[JonNC]

OK…indulge me one last time and I will not bug you about this topic again.

We can all agree the Real Presence in incomprehensible, it’s a mystery, a miracle. Lutherans attempt to describe the Real Presence but that is where is stops. It is just a description of the Great Mystery of the Eucharist.

So by admitting it is unexplainable, and even if we agree that scripture and the fathers do not describe trans…, how can you be so sure the Catholic Church’s teaching is wrong. Don’t you at least have to say it has a chance of being correct, albeit a small chance?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Of course it is possible, as are all things by Him. Listen, I consider Transub. to be even a reasonable human expression of the truth of the real presence. If cornered into either accepting Transub. or consub, I would tend toward Transub. Transub., for me, is not a deal breaker for unity, though I would be uncomfortable with a requirement to confess it de fide.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Of course it is possible, as are all things by Him. Listen, I consider Transub. to be even a reasonable human expression of the truth of the real presence. If cornered into either accepting Transub. or consub, I would tend toward Transub. Transub., for me, is not a deal breaker for unity, though I would be uncomfortable with a requirement to confess it de fide.

Jon

I bet you’re unique in that it wouldn’t be a deal breaker for I was under the impression that most Lutherans vehemently REJECT consubstantiation.

I’ll look it up again in the Concord book later.
Mary.

 

[Peter_J]

OK…indulge me one last time and I will not bug you about this topic again.

We can all agree the Real Presence in incomprehensible, it’s a mystery, a miracle. Lutherans attempt to describe the Real Presence but that is where is stops. It is just a description of the Great Mystery of the Eucharist.

So by admitting it is unexplainable, and even if we agree that scripture and the fathers do not describe trans…, how can you be so sure the Catholic Church’s teaching is wrong. Don’t you at least have to say it has a chance of being correct, albeit a small chance?

I find this ^^ post rather … strange. Would we be required to accept transubstantiation if there were merely “a chance of [it] being correct”? (I tend to think not.)

 

[JonNC]

I bet you’re unique in that it wouldn’t be a deal breaker for I was under the impression that most Lutherans vehemently REJECT consubstantiation.

I’ll look it up again in the Concord book later.
Mary.

Here’s what Luther says in the Smalcald Articles:
*As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11:28: Let him so eat of that bread. *

It is true, we reject the metaphysical construct that is Transubstantiation and consubstantiation. I’m just think that, were we that close to unity, language would be worked out. Heck, there’s lots of dialogue out there that tells us it has already begun.

Jon

 

[concretecamper]

I find this ^^ post rather … strange. Would we be required to accept transubstantiation if there were merely “a chance of [it] being correct”? (I tend to think not.)

Of course not.

 

[MaryT777]

I think ConcreteCamper was just inquiring if Jon felt we could be right on this one -if transubstantiation could be possible.
Mary.

Of course we’re right LOL,
Come on Jon you know that

 

[JonNC]

I think ConcreteCamper was just inquiring if Jon felt we could be right on this one -if transubstantiation could be possible.
Mary.

Of course we’re right LOL,
Come on Jon you know that

Huh? Know what?

Seriously, Peter makes a good point, and it is the point we make about Transubstantiation. It isn’t that its definitely not true. It is the point that scripture isn’t specific enough to warrant binding the conscience of the believer to it.

Jon