Protestant Communion?

[steve_b]

We are following Christ , the church wasn’t founded on Peter, and we haven’t left our Savior.

It’s sooooooo tempting to dive in, but I don’t want to get us off topic.

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/quote.gif​

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by Starwarsfan2
He is literally in with and under the elements.

The Scriptures don’t say “in with and under” the Scriptures say IS.

Mary.

Originally posted by Theropod
They don’t give an Aristotelian-Thomist explanation either…

And yet, almost 40 years ago, a group of Lutheran and Catholic theologians (as opposed to apologists) said the following about this debate:

**Eucharistic Presence **

Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.

In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

**The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”). **

Bolding and sizing mine, to emphasize that, while other communions condemn those of us who believe Christ’s words, “this is my body”, it seems counterproductive to disagree about what these theologians say we, for all intents and purposes, agree on.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

They ARE following Luther. He started their beliefs. If they were following Christ they wouldn’t have left Him, by leaving the only Church he established on Peter.

Nope. We preach Christ crucified. We confess all three of the ancient creeds. None of them even mention Luther.
There’s lots that Luther said that we reject.

Jon

 

[pablope]

We are following Christ , the church wasn’t founded on Peter, and we haven’t left our Savior.

If not Peter…then who? Martin Luther perhaps…

 

[pablope]

And yet, almost 40 years ago, a group of Lutheran and Catholic theologians (as opposed to apologists) said the following about this debate:

Bolding and sizing mine, to emphasize that, while other communions condemn those of us who believe Christ’s words, “this is my body”, it seems counterproductive to disagree about what these theologians say we, for all intents and purposes, agree on.

Jon

Yet, Jon…your confessional documents condemn Transsub as a heresy…if my memory serves me right, from reading some of the previous posts on the matter.

 

[theropod]

Yet, Jon…your confessional documents condemn Transsub as a heresy…if my memory serves me right, from reading some of the previous posts on the matter.

I believe the Orthodox have said the same. But not because they disagree with the truth of Christ’s presence. Rather, that the explanation by Aristotelian metaphysics is inadequate, and has lead to some bizarre beliefs and superstitions based on its misunderstanding.

 

[JonNC]

I believe the Orthodox have said the same. But not because they disagree with the truth of Christ’s presence. Rather, that the explanation by Aristotelian metaphysics is inadequate, and has lead to some bizarre beliefs and superstitions based on its misunderstanding.

The Lutheran Reformer’s also complained that Transub. was a required belief, binding the conscience of the faithful.

I certainly do not believe it to be heretical.

Jon

 

[pablope]

I believe the Orthodox have said the same. But not because they disagree with the truth of Christ’s presence. Rather, that the explanation by Aristotelian metaphysics is inadequate, and has lead to some bizarre beliefs and superstitions based on its misunderstanding.

What is wrong with using Aristotelian metaphysics? Is there anything wrong with it use?

And how is Transub explaining the Real Presence using Aristotelian metaphysics?

 

[theropod]

What is wrong with using Aristotelian metaphysics? Is there anything wrong with it use?

Nothing. I have a lot of respect for it, actually. I think to require the acceptance of it is going too far.

 

[pablope]

The Lutheran Reformer’s also complained that Transub. was a required belief, binding the conscience of the faithful.

I certainly do not believe it to be heretical.

Jon

Welll…what is wrong with binding the conscience of the faithful to the teaching?

Is it a bad thing that the person seating next to me in Mass believes the same thing?

Or would you prefer that the person seating next to you in your service has a difference belief than you…and the 3rd person on his other side believes differently than both of you…is this a good thing then?

 

[pablope]

Nothing. I have a lot of respect for it, actually. I think to require the acceptance of it is going too far.

Okay…I will post the same question I asked Jon:

Welll…what is wrong with binding the conscience of the faithful to the teaching?

Is it a bad thing that the person seating next to me in Mass believes the same thing?

Or would you prefer that the person seating next to you in your service has a difference belief than you…and the 3rd person on his other side believes differently than both of you…is this a good thing then?

Well…further let me ask…you have bound yourself to believe that transsub is going to far…how is this any different in binding the faithful to believe in Transsub?

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;13299484]What is wrong with using Aristotelian metaphysics? Is there anything wrong with it use?

Nothing wrong with it, though Christ didn’t use it.

And how is Transub explaining the Real Presence using Aristotelian metaphysics?

If Catholics believe that Transubstantiation is simply a way of expressing the fact that, in the Sacrament upon consecration and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread is His body, and the wine is His blood, we have full agreement, as the document I cited earlier proposes.

Jon

 

[theropod]

And how is Transub explaining the Real Presence using Aristotelian metaphysics?

OK. I hope I don’t murder this. So Aristotelian metaphysics says that “things” are composed of “substances” and “accidents”. Substance in Aristotelian philosophy doesn’t mean what we typically use the term for in modern English. The thing you are sitting on now; it is a “chair” in substance. It’s accidents are that it is wooden or plastic, has 4 legs, etc. The components that make up the whole substance are the accidents. In the example of the chair, different components can be used, but you recognize the chair as a chair.

In the case of Transubstantiation, the “accidents” of bread and wine don’t change. The “substance” changes to the body and blood of Christ.

Personally, I find this explanation inadequate for what occurs, if not just plain unnecessary. I think it’s kind of like calling a chair an airplane, while acknowledging nothing physically changed with the chair. I think Aquinas was making an apologetic argument to people of his day using terms they would understand.

 

[JonNC]

OK. I hope I don’t murder this. So Aristotelian metaphysics says that “things” are composed of “substances” and “accidents”. Substance in Aristotelian philosophy doesn’t mean what we typically use the term for in modern English. The thing you are sitting on now; it is a “chair” in substance. It’s accidents are that it is wooden or plastic, has 4 legs, etc. The components that make up the whole substance are the accidents. In the example of the chair, different components can be used, but you recognize the chair as a chair.

In the case of Transubstantiation, the “accidents” of bread and wine don’t change. The “substance” changes to the body and blood of Christ.

Personally, I find this explanation inadequate for what occurs, **if not just plain unnecessary. ** I think it’s kind of like calling a chair an airplane, while acknowledging nothing physically changed with the chair. I think Aquinas was making an apologetic argument to people of his day using terms they would understand.

Yep. Plain unnecessary, though I believe there may have been good reasons at the time. But that said, I find Sacramental Union also plain unnecessary.

I’m partial to John of Damascus on the point:
** “If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit … we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable”. **

Jon

 

[JonNC]

If not Peter…then who? Martin Luther perhaps…

Goodness no!
Christ built His Church on Peter, and notably his confession of faith: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”.
Where we differ is in what that means in terms of the role of the Bishop or Rome.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Nothing wrong with it, though Christ didn’t use it.

Okay…so what is wrong if Christ did not use it? Do you think we should not avail of it?

Do you thank Aristotelian metapysics are from God or from the satan?

If Catholics believe that Transubstantiation is simply a way of expressing the fact that, in the Sacrament upon consecration and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread is His body, and the wine is His blood, we have full agreement, as the document I cited earlier proposes.

 

[pablope]

Goodness no!
Christ built His Church on Peter, and notably his confession of faith: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”.
Where we differ is in what that means in terms of the role of the Bishop or Rome.

Jon

His confession of faith only? And Christ left the personhood of peter on the side?

Or is it both, you cannot have one and disregard the other?

 

[JonNC]

His confession of faith only? And Christ left the personhood of peter on the side?

Or is it both, you cannot have one and disregard the other?

The latter. I think it is theological gymnastics to separate the two.

Jon

 

[pablope]

OK. I hope I don’t murder this. So Aristotelian metaphysics says that “things” are composed of “substances” and “accidents”. Substance in Aristotelian philosophy doesn’t mean what we typically use the term for in modern English. The thing you are sitting on now; it is a “chair” in substance. It’s accidents are that it is wooden or plastic, has 4 legs, etc. The components that make up the whole substance are the accidents. In the example of the chair, different components can be used, but you recognize the chair as a chair.

In the case of Transubstantiation, the “accidents” of bread and wine don’t change. The “substance” changes to the body and blood of Christ.

Personally, I find this explanation inadequate for what occurs, if not just plain unnecessary. I think it’s kind of like calling a chair an airplane, while acknowledging nothing physically changed with the chair. I think Aquinas was making an apologetic argument to people of his day using terms they would understand.

I will provide what I provided Jon:catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3013

• It is not the purpose of the dogma of transubstantiation to explain the mystery of the presence of Christ, but to give a logical explanation of the words of institution which safeguard the dogmas of the Resurrection of Christ’s humanity, His Ascension and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. What appears to be bread is truly Christ by reason of a profound change which touches the very being of the earthly reality and which is unobservable to the senses. This doctrine will influence no one who does not believe in the dogmas of the Resurrection, Ascension and real presence. *

So…where does the use of Aristotelian metaphysics come into play…if as explained above, transsub does not explain the mystery of the RP, but deals with the words of institution?

 

[pablope]

Yep. Plain unnecessary, though I believe there may have been good reasons at the time. But that said, I find Sacramental Union also plain unnecessary.

I’m partial to John of Damascus on the point:
** “If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit … we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable”. **

Jon

Could this be a reason for the rejection of Transsub by Lutherans:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3013

There seems to be no good reason for the Lutheran denial of transubstantiation, which can be drawn from the objections just mentioned. The real source of opposition to this dogma may possibly be found, as Karl Rahner points out, in the refusal to accept the possibility of a "miracle of change."35 In our day we recognize a tendency altogether foreign to the patristic and primitive Christian mentality which seeks to relegate God’s activity to the divine sphere, to divorce his action from the things of this world. God is in heaven and we are on earth. In consequence of this concept, it is inconceivable that God should act upon creation in a way out of step with His ordinary Providence. The bread and wine remain bread and wine.