Protestants: Do you believe that Christ is truly present in the communion elements of bread and wine?

[JonNC]

Jon as I understand it Luther literally froze the first time he said mass when he reached consecration. That’s how against it he was. Transubstantiation that is. Can you shed any light on that?

He froze with fear, not because he rejected the real presence, and I don’t believe his questioning of transub came until later. And even at that, it was not as big a deal to him as one might think. I’d have to look for the quote, but he said something along the lines that the disposition of the bread and wine was not nearly as important as the body and blood.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Right now the RC is considering changing the teaching again to the term Transignification.

Since Transub is set dogma, I don’t think they can “change” it. They can certainly develop its meaning as the HS reveals it to the pope and Magisterium. Catholics: did I explain this right?

Jon

 

[NDfan]

He froze with fear, not because he rejected the real presence, and I don’t believe his questioning of transub came until later. And even at that, it was not as big a deal to him as one might think. I’d have to look for the quote, but he said something along the lines that the disposition of the bread and wine was not nearly as important as the body and blood.

Jon

I didn’t say he rejected the real presence just that he rejected Transubstantiation. Luther didn’t use the substance vs accidents argument. He said Christ was present in the bread along with the substance. Same for the wine.

 

[NDfan]

Since Transub is set dogma, I don’t think they can “change” it. They can certainly develop its meaning as the HS reveals it to the pope and Magisterium. Catholics: did I explain this right?

Jon

Yes you are correct on this Jon. I was Catholic or over 40 years. They can add clarification to the teachings by using a different word. Clearly transubstantiation is incorrect based on the claims.

 

[Napsack]

Yes but not by transubstantiation.

Ditto.

 

[Robertwilliam]

So if someone is allergic to wheat for instance, the wheat still remains in the host and the person should not consume it, correct? Also, if one is an alcoholic or cannot consume red wine for medical reasons, the elements of the wine is still there and they still should not consume it, correct? Just want to be clear on this.

You are wrong, if it truly is the body and blood of Christ our God, then no harm can come to one who consumes the Holy Gifts. Besides, in the Orthodox Church, the Sacred Elements are so small, a drop or two of wine, and a crumb of bread, no harm can come to those allergic to alcohol or wheat glutin. Where is your faith? It is Jesus we receive.

 

[JonNC]

I didn’t say he rejected the real presence just that he rejected Transubstantiation. Luther didn’t use the substance vs accidents argument. He said Christ was present in the bread along with the substance. Same for the wine.

Yeah, NDfan, the way I stated the first sentence wasn’t well phrased. I knew what you meant. Although it was later that he began speaking in terms of sacramental union.

Jon

 

[spoiltvictorian]

For clarification. Lutherans do not use the term consubstantiation for a number of reasons. What Lutherans do believe is that the true and substantial body and blood of Christ are given and received along with that which is seen - the bread and wine. The term usually used is sacramental union, or “in, with, and under”.

The body and blood is permament, particularly for the use that Christ instituted - eating and drinking. This can and does extend to use at a later time, including for sick and shut-in. My personal feeling is that to believe it is nolonger Christ’s body and blood after the celebration leads to hideous practices regarding disposal of the remaining elements. Properly, they should be consumed, though the bread can (and should) be reserved in a separate vessel for later use.

Jon

You are right we do not use that term. But I don’t think the LCMS believe the Body and Blood is permanent. At my church we set the extra wine and wafers that were consecrated aside out of respect, since they “once housed the Body and Blood of our Lord.” If you meant that you personally believe it’s permanent, sorry for misunderstanding.

 

[JonNC]

You are right we do not use that term. But I don’t think the LCMS believe the Body and Blood is permanent. At my church we set the extra wine and wafers that were consecrated aside out of respect, since they “once housed the Body and Blood of our Lord.” If you meant that you personally believe it’s permanent, sorry for misunderstanding.

Had a nice chat with my pastor, fresh out of sem, who holds to the permanent nature, insofar as it’s use within the celebration, including taking to the sick and shutins, w/o the need for re-consecration. I know the LCMS is very careful on the matter of what we do after the celebration because of incidents of carelessly, often and rightly sited here by others, in disposing of the elements afterwards.
Your church does a proper thing in reserving. My personal belief is it is the body and blood, and I’m leery of timelines.

Jon

 

[spoiltvictorian]

Had a nice chat with my pastor, fresh out of sem, who holds to the permanent nature, insofar as it’s use within the celebration, including taking to the sick and shutins, w/o the need for re-consecration. I know the LCMS is very careful on the matter of what we do after the celebration because of incidents of carelessly, often and rightly sited here by others, in disposing of the elements afterwards.
Your church does a proper thing in reserving. My personal belief is it is the body and blood, and I’m leery of timelines.

Jon

Well, right on. As I said earlier, i am confused about it myself, so I’m happy to merely hold to “this is My Body” and “this is My Blood.”

Your pastor is fresh out of seminary too, eh? Fort Wayne?

 

[Zooey]

So, just for clarification…if a person has a deadly wheat allergy and ate a consecrated host…there would be no wheat allergy reaciton because the bread is now flesh? Is that what you are saying…even though the “accidents” retain wheat properties…they really aren’t wheat so there would be no allergic reaction?

If one has a deadly alchohol allergy are you saying that with the words of consecration the “accidents” no longer have the physical properties of wine…so they would not effect a food allergy…is this what you are saying and does the Catholic church make official statement to that effect?

:nope: That is NOT waht the Catholic Church teaches. The poster you replied to, seems to have a serious misunderstanding of the Real Presence.

If the church indeed is claiming that the allergens of wheat no longer effect the recipient…or the allergens of alcohol no longer effect the recipient…it is…interesting…and dangerous for the recipient…IMO…if that is what is being said.

The Church is not claiming that; I know that much! The poster is mistaken.

I’m not Catholic, but I don’t believe that is the claim of the CC.

:nope: I know that is wrong!

JonNC:

I’ll let a Catholic explain it, though.
Jon

:sad_yes: :sad_yes:

 

[JonNC]

Well, right on. As I said earlier, i am confused about it myself, so I’m happy to merely hold to “this is My Body” and “this is My Blood.”

Your pastor is fresh out of seminary too, eh? Fort Wayne?

St. Louis.

 

[Peter_J]

If the church indeed is claiming that the allergens of wheat no longer effect the recipient…or the allergens of alcohol no longer effect the recipient…it is…interesting…and dangerous for the recipient…IMO…if that is what is being said.

Hi Publisher,

Keep in mind that Transubstantiation says that the substance of bread and wine (including the substance of wheat, the substance of alcohol, etc.) are changed into the body and blood of Christ.

The accidents remain unchanged. Even if you looked at it under a microscope, you could not detect that any change had taken place.

 

[Peter_J]

Since Transub is set dogma, I don’t think they can “change” it. They can certainly develop its meaning as the HS reveals it to the pope and Magisterium.

Well, technically, I believe that Transubstantiation has never been dogmatically defined. But since Trent anathematized the contrary theory, it basically comes to the same thing (for our purposes anyhow): namely, Transubstantiation is a necessary belief for anyone who wants to be Catholic.

Catholics: did I explain this right?

Hmm … I suppose we can let you off with warning.

 

[LilyM]

Hi Publisher,

Keep in mind that Transubstantiation says that the substance of bread and wine (including the substance of wheat, the substance of alcohol, etc.) are changed into the body and blood of Christ.

The accidents remain unchanged. Even if you looked at it under a microscope, you could not detect that any change had taken place.

The ‘substance’ changes, hence ‘transubstantiation’.

But the ‘substance’ of a thing, if you read Aristotle who came up with the idea and Aquinas who applied it to the elements of the Eucharist, does NOT comprise the physical characteristics of a thing - which includes its allergens (for the Host), alcoholic content or potential to get you drunk if you were to have a bottleful (for the Precious Blood). Those physical characteristics do NOT change.

Let’s explain it this way. Imagine I cloned my cat. In all physical respects the clone would be exactly like my cat, right down to the DNA. And if I was allergic to my cat (I mean specifically to that particular cat, not to its breed or to cats in general), you can be sure I would be allergic to the clone too.

Does the fact that I am allergic to both cats, and that the two are indistinguishable from each other physically, mean that they are the SAME cat? No. One is clearly the cat, the other the clone - a separate creature who happens to be an identical physical replica of the original.

 

[Peter_J]

I loved The Prestige.

 

[JonNC]

Hmm … I suppose we can let you off with warning.

I gave it the old Lutheran try.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Jon as I understand it Luther literally froze the first time he said mass when he reached consecration.

Ouch!

 

[mmmcounts]

If truly means literally, then no.

I believe Jesus meant it when He said “I tell you the truth, if you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you.”

Just like when He said “I tell you the truth, you must be born again.”

I don’t believe there’s a “real presence” of a giant uterus, though. I also don’t believe there’s a “real presence” of flesh and blood in the bread and wine- nor was there when Jesus handed the bread and wine to His disciples.

Jesus had a body. He was sitting there with His disciples. He didn’t put his body or blood in the bread or wine. It was still in one piece sitting with them.

And you know something else? It’s weird to think about, but Jesus still has a body. He was resurrected and then “taken up.” I don’t think His body was destroyed. I assume He was wearing clothes. And He was taken up. Maybe the clothes were destroyed and He got new ones. I’d buy that theory. But I don’t think His body was.

It’s a little weird to think about someone’s body ceasing to occupy our space and time and being taken away to some unseen destination. But apparently, that’s what happened. And unless you can give me some reason to think Jesus’ body was destroyed at some point, I think I have to assume it continues to exist incorruptible.

Food for thought? Maybe. I don’t know. Do with it as you please.

Anyway, Communion is something we do in remembrance of Jesus. That sounds pretty straightforward to me. But hey, agree to disagree. I don’t think this will make you think twice about transubstantiation, but maybe you’ll get something out of my musings about His body being taken up.

 

[Bill_Pick]

If truly means literally, then no.

I believe Jesus meant it when He said “I tell you the truth, if you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you.”

Just like when He said “I tell you the truth, you must be born again.”

I don’t believe there’s a “real presence” of a giant uterus, though. I also don’t believe there’s a “real presence” of flesh and blood in the bread and wine- nor was there when Jesus handed the bread and wine to His disciples.

Jesus had a body. He was sitting there with His disciples. He didn’t put his body or blood in the bread or wine. It was still in one piece sitting with them.

And you know something else? It’s weird to think about, but Jesus still has a body. He was resurrected and then “taken up.” I don’t think His body was destroyed. I assume He was wearing clothes. And He was taken up. Maybe the clothes were destroyed and He got new ones. I’d buy that theory. But I don’t think His body was.

It’s a little weird to think about someone’s body ceasing to occupy our space and time and being taken away to some unseen destination. But apparently, that’s what happened. And unless you can give me some reason to think Jesus’ body was destroyed at some point, I think I have to assume it continues to exist incorruptible.

Food for thought? Maybe. I don’t know. Do with it as you please.

Anyway, Communion is something we do in remembrance of Jesus. That sounds pretty straightforward to me. But hey, agree to disagree. I don’t think this will make you think twice about transubstantiation, but maybe you’ll get something out of my musings about His body being taken up.

why do people try to put limits on Our Lord ?