.
Quote from a Church Father that says the Eucharist returns to mere bread and wine.
As a Lutheran you do not have the Real Presence. You do not have a valid priesthood. When your priest says the words of consecration it remains mere bread and mere wine.
Actually, what you seem to miss is the fact that the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine is attested to, first of all, by the words which the Savior Himself used promising the Eucharist. “Take and eat, this is my Body which shall be given for you. All of you drink of this; for this is my Blood of the new Covenant, which is being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sin. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Wrong.
Generally speaking, in the history of the doctrines of the Church three stages be distinguished. There is first a period of during which the truth is in serene and undisputed possession; then follows a period of discussion when the truth is attacked by heretics, a period which usually culminates in a solemn definition of the Church by which the meaning of revelation is put beyond all possibility of misunderstanding. The doctrine of the Real Presence had indeed been attacked before the sixteenth century, but never had it been so fundamentally and categorically denied as it was by the heretics of the Reform. Already St. Paul had pointed out that the Eucharist is the symbol and the cause of ecclesiastical unity (1 Corinthians 10:17); St. Ignatius of Antioch appealed on the same grounds to the Docetists of the first century to avoid schisms, and “to use one Eucharist, for one is the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one the chalice unto the communion of his blood; one is the altar, and one its bishop together with the priests and deacons.” It is not surprising, therefore, that the great schism of the Protestants should have been inaugurated by a vehement attack upon the sacrament of our Lord’s Body and Blood. The Council of Trent in condemning the errors of the Reformers have given us a clear and unequivocal statement of the Eucharistic dogma.
“In the first place the holy Synod teaches . . . that in the precious (almo) sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, really and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things.” The three words, “truly, really and substantially,” are used by the Council with a definite purpose of rejecting three Protestant views concerning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Zwingli held that his presence was only figurative: “Just as a man about to set out on a journey might give to his wife a most precious ring upon which his portrait is engraved, saying, 'Behold your husband; thus you may keep him and delight in himeven though he is absent,” so our Lord Jesus Christ, as He departed, left to his spouse the Church his own image in the sacrament of the supper." As opposed to this figurative presence, the Church describes the presence of Christ as “true”. Others taught that Christ is present by faith; the sacraments, they held, have no other effectthan that of arousing faith in Christ, especially, however, the Eucharist, since it is a memorial of what Christ did on the last night before his death. The Council excludes this view by calling the presence of Christ “real”, i.e. independent of the faith of the recipient of the sacrament. Finally Calvin taught that Christ is present in this sacrament virtually, that is, inasmuch as he exercises his sanctifying power in the Eucharist. As against this doctrine the Council teaches that Christ is “substantially” present in this sacrament.
Agreed.
The New Testament doesn’t use terms like “Trinity” and “hypostasis” either. That doesn’t mean these terms cannot be legitimately used to express what Christians believe.
That’s a non sequitor. Matters of faith will always “not be enough” for those who lack faith. Dumbing down to their level in accommodation. In a tradition with a Magisterium, I would think that embracing a mystery without using Scholasticism would be more than sufficient. It certainly is for the Orthodox.
So, would you have no issue with people following wolves in sheep’s clothing do their own demise?
\
The subject may be best approached by considering the plain signification of the words of our Lord at the Last Supper. “This is my body.” He held in His hands something which to all appearances was bread, but in reality was not bread. “The seeming bread,” says St. John Chrysostom, “is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the body of Christ; and the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the blood of Christ.” What, then, had happened? All the indications of sense pointed to the presence of bread as before; all thatin the bread which is perceptible to the senses - what we call for the sake of convenience the “appearances” of bread - remain unchanged. Yet something was changed, something which lies deeper than the appearances, the “thing” which normally has those appearances, which through those appearances normally manifests its presence, which is the subject of the qualities and activities, the chemical and physical properties and reactions which we associate with bread, this “thing” - which we call the substance - has been changed into another substance, that of the body of Christ, the appearances alone of the bread remaining. This is what is meant by Transubstantiation. No other conclusion is consonant with the words of Christ. That he did not speak figuratively is abundantly clear from what has been said: nor is the theory of Luther reconcilable with the truth of the words “This is my body.” If, as Luther claimed, the effect of the words of consecration is to render the substance of the body of Christ present in the bread (impanation) or side by side with the bread (consubstantiation) , it is no longer true that “this” is the body of Christ; rather, in such an hypothesis, Christ should have said “here is the body Christ.” Rightly, therefore, does the Council of Trent present Transubstantiation as the logical outcome of the words of Christ at the Last Supper.
Of course, that’s absurd.
Don’t get me wrong. I do not completely disagree with you. In fact, it is more like 70-30 with you. However, just look at some of the view that people hold on the Real Presence.Of course, that’s absurd.
I think to allow people to think they are cannibals would be unwise when it comes to the Real Presence. However, using metaphysics to prevent people from thinking something is just symbolic or to calm fears about cannibalism is a bit over the top… unless the average Joe and Jane in the parish has had significant education in Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy. Then I might at least see the point. I notice that the Orthodox don’t have this problem of embracing the mystery without the explanation.
By the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. It’s a sacrament. A mysterion. Why does that need further explanation? Indeed, can it be further explained?
Hi Tomster
Transubstantiation and consubstantiation are both Thomistic terms, and they are not opposite terms. Neither the Lutheran Church nor Luther himself ever used the word consubstantiation in talking about the Real Presence.
I think these are the wrong questions. The bottom line is can something supernatural be explained? Philosophically, you can’t use ontology (which involves things and their relationships to this world) in describing something eschatological (which transcends time and space). The Aristotelian and Thomistic thought of Scholasticism which birthed the notion of transubstantiation is dependent on ontology and cannot work in matters eschatological. That is, unless I missed a class somewhere.
“Transubstantiation” is no more an “explanation” of the Eucharistic mystery than the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is an “explanation” of the mystery of the Holy Trinity. In neither case does the terminology do away with the fundamental mystery.
The use of the term transubstantiation predates Thomas and the reintroduction and popularization of Aristotle’s philosophy in the West. But even if it did not, so what? There is nothing wrong with using philosophical terms to communicate. Otherwise we should reject the term “homoousion.”
You’re using metaphysical terms yourself, i.e. terms that attempt to convey “what is.” Any answer to the question “What is the Eucharist?” inevitably employs metaphysical terms.
Agreed. The term “transubstantiation” does not explain, nor attempt to explain, how God changes what’s present, rather that he does.
If you agree with the real presence, why are you Lutheran? As far as I know, Its strictly Catholic.
Hardly. It is Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and Methodist.
Yep. It’s why we traditional Anglicans don’t use EEMs. No one not in holy orders may touch the consecrated sacrament. And why we do other things, like honoring the tabernacle, where the Body is reserved. Also why we occasionally do Benediction of the sacrament. And also, etc