Pastor Jonathan Fisk doesn't know the Eucharist

[conRep12]

Au contraire, mes frères. Lutherans do not put a period where Catholics put a comma. Or did Jesus say, “This is my body, in, with, and under this bread”? Did he say, “This is my body, sacramentally united with this bread”? Lutherans do not leave the “is” alone because it explains itself nor because it needs no explanation. Luther was quite content to expound upon his own doctrine of the Real Presence; just because he wasn’t fond of Aristotle doesn’t mean he reveled in the undefined uncertainty of the mystery. He vehemently defended the Real Presence against “this is my body, in a spiritual sense” and “this is my body, in a symbolic sense”.

Transubstantion is not an explanation of how the change occurs but of what is changed, namely the substance of the bread. The substance of the bread ceases to be and is replaced by the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. That seems to me to be the most unequivocal application of “is” you can get, and I don’t see how you can tack a comma onto the “is” that refers to the very essence (substance) of something.

 

[JonNC]

Au contraire, mes frères. Lutherans do not put a period where Catholics put a comma. Or did Jesus say, “This is my body, in, with, and under this bread”? Did he say, “This is my body, sacramentally united with this bread”? Lutherans do not leave the “is” alone because it explains itself nor because it needs no explanation. Luther was quite content to expound upon his own doctrine of the Real Presence;** just because he wasn’t fond of Aristotle doesn’t mean he reveled in the undefined uncertainty of the mystery.** He vehemently defended the Real Presence against “this is my body, in a spiritual sense” and “this is my body, in a symbolic sense”.

Transubstantion is not an explanation of how the change occurs but of what is changed, namely the substance of the bread. The substance of the bread ceases to be and is replaced by the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. That seems to me to be the most unequivocal application of “is” you can get, and I don’t see how you can tack a comma onto the “is” that refers to the very essence (substance) of something.

I think you make a valid point, and it seems to be a flaw in the west, that we feel the need to explain the word “is”, whether is be by SU or Transubstantiation. It has often seemed to me that Lutherans and Catholics are divided by our common belief in the Real Presence.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Au contraire, mes frères. Lutherans do not put a period where Catholics put a comma. Or did Jesus say, “This is my body, in, with, and under this bread”? Did he say, “This is my body, sacramentally united with this bread”? Lutherans do not leave the “is” alone because it explains itself nor because it needs no explanation. Luther was quite content to expound upon his own doctrine of the Real Presence; just because he wasn’t fond of Aristotle doesn’t mean he reveled in the undefined uncertainty of the mystery. He vehemently defended the Real Presence against “this is my body, in a spiritual sense” and “this is my body, in a symbolic sense”.

The bolded is the distinction we must keep in mind. Luther would use words like “in, with and under” as a way to defend the Real Presence against Zwinglism, Calvinism, and the like – yet even then, he would acknowledge that these words are simply feeble descriptors and that they could never capture what is ultimately a mystery. The Lutheran defends the doctrine of the Real Presence, not any dogma of Sacramental Union, or Transubstantiation, or Consubstantiation, etc.

Transubstantion is not an explanation of how the change occurs but of what is changed, namely the substance of the bread. The substance of the bread ceases to be and is replaced by the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. That seems to me to be the most unequivocal application of “is” you can get, and I don’t see how you can tack a comma onto the “is” that refers to the very essence (substance) of something.

In it’s best understanding, this is what Transubstantiation ought to teach. Unfortunately, it hasn’t always been applied that way. But even Lutherans can speak of a true change occurring. It’s comforting to know that Lutherans and Catholics are coming to a mutual convergence on how to describe the indisputable doctrine of the Real Presence.

 

[pablope]

Lutherans treat the consecrated but unused host and wine with reverence. We do not know from Scripture the precise way that the elements become His Body and His Blood, and we don’t know if or when it no longer is - so consecrated wafers are reserved separately and never re-consecrated. Normally our pastor drinks any remaining wine, or it is poured into the earth.

It’s not that I would say that transubstantiation is incorrect as a process, it just seems unnecessary to describe it in any terms other than what Jesus said - This IS my Body.

Why do you think it is unnecessary? Transub was a response to a heresy, as far as I can recall. Do you think when the RCC responded with Transub to a heresy, it was not being guided by the Holy Spirit?

And how about the Lutheran belief in SU…if as you say Transsub is unnecessary…what makes SU necessary?

 

[pablope]

Right. For all we know, transubstantiation might very well be the way that God delivers the miracle to us. But Jesus never said this, and there is no Scriptural support for this. Because the Sacraments are the vehicle through which God delivers His Grace to us, it is best to simply do as Christ instituted, neither adding nor detracting from His command to “Take, eat.”

So…what you are stating, in that by not going with Transub…not using transub…you are a better Christian for that matter since you follow Christ’s words better that way?

And RCC’s, who have used Transub…are at the bottom of the barrel…

 

[JonNC]

Why do you think it is unnecessary? Transub was a response to a heresy, as far as I can recall. Do you think when the RCC responded with Transub to a heresy, it was not being guided by the Holy Spirit?

And how about the Lutheran belief in SU…if as you say Transsub is unnecessary…what makes SU necessary?

It isn’t. Neither is. Christ’s words suffice: “This is my body.”

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So…what you are stating, in that by not going with Transub…not using transub…you are a better Christian for that matter since you follow Christ’s words better that way?

**And RCC’s, who have used Transub…are at the bottom of the barrel…:**shrug:

Where does Don say that? Where does he even imply any of this? Here’s what he said just a few posts back.

In it’s best understanding, this is what Transubstantiation ought to teach. Unfortunately, it hasn’t always been applied that way. But even Lutherans can speak of a true change occurring. It’s comforting to know that Lutherans and Catholics are coming to a mutual convergence on how to describe the indisputable doctrine of the Real Presence.

Jon