B
Bill_Pick
Guest
please tell us what you think
Protestants: Do you believe that Christ is truly present in the communion elements of bread and wine?
- Status
N
NDfan
Guest
Yes but not by transubstantiation.
G
gcnuss
Guest
Absolutely.
J
JeanneH
Guest
How then?
S
spoiltvictorian
Guest
Yes, I do. I am not sure whether it is by transubstantiation. My church, LCMS Lutheran like JonNC, believes it is by consubstantiation and not permanent.
T
TobyLue
Guest
I think this should have been worded a little different. Jesus is NOT present IN the elements of bread and wine. The Bread and Wine are no longer bread and wine but are the Body and Blood of Jesus, UNDER, the appearance of bread and wine.
The elements remain but they are no longer bread and wine.
The above seems to indicate that there is bread and wine and that Jesus is in them. That would be consubstantiation which is NOT a Catholic believe but Luthern, if I’m not mistaken.
When Catholics go to receive communion we are not receiving bread and wine. We are receiving Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
The elements remain but they are no longer bread and wine.
The above seems to indicate that there is bread and wine and that Jesus is in them. That would be consubstantiation which is NOT a Catholic believe but Luthern, if I’m not mistaken.
When Catholics go to receive communion we are not receiving bread and wine. We are receiving Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
R
Robertwilliam
Guest
Our Lord Jesus Christ is both Perfect God and Perfect Human. If the Bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, then the elements of bread and wine remain, or as the Roman Catholic Church says, the ACCEDENTS remain, the substance is changed. It Looks, tastes, feels, like bread and wine, but it truly is the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ.
S
sacristan1
Guest
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.
J
JeanneH
Guest
Yes.
N
NDfan
Guest
I believe in a spiritual presence.
N
NDfan
Guest
Actually the church teaches that the substance changes but not the accidents. So what you can’t see which is the substance of bread, like the flour, water, salt etc. are now the flesh of Christ. The accidents or the outward appearance that you can perceive are still bread. Aristotle used this same philosophy describing a chair. That the substance can’t be seen only the accidents. This shows the influence Greek philosophy had on the church.
N
NDfan
Guest
Wrong Jeanne. It’s a resounding no sacristan. That’s why transubstantiation makes no sense. Wheat is part of the substance of bread. The part you can’t see. The accidents are the outward things your senses pick up on. The smell of bread, the taste, look etc. etc.
According to the doctrine of transubstantiation the whole substance changes to the flesh of Christ so the wheat would exist no more. The same for the wine. The alcohol which is part of the substance you can’t see would also be gone. Even though you can taste it. The taste comes frrom the accidents still being in place. So if you have an allergy to wheat then after consecration you have no worries. If you’re an alcoholic then again no worries. The substance of alcohol is now blood.
P
Publisher
Guest
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?
N
NDfan
Guest
The accidents don’t retain wheat properties. Wheat is part of the substance that gets changed to flesh. The accidents are or solely the outward appearance. So again the smell, the taste, the look etc. etc. But you are not eating the substance of bread you are eating Christ’s flesh. Therefore you are not taking wheat into your body.
The official teaching of the church is as follows:
The Council of Trent defined transubstantiation as “that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation”
The church makes no official statement that food or alcohol issues become exempt when partaking of communion. Again that’s why it’s such a ridiculous teaching. Wheat and alcohol are part of the substance of bread. Not the accidents. You may be tasting alcohol but you are not drinking alcohol. You are drinking blood.
Point of fact in the early 20th century some Roman Catholic theologians interpreted it as referring to a change of meaning rather than a change of substance. That the substance is still bread and wine and you are physically eating bread and wine instead of the literal body and blood of Christ. But the meaning of eating the bread and wine meant that you were eating the body and blood of Christ. A more symbolic view. But in 1965 Paul VI called for retaining the original dogma. Quite interesting huh??
PEACE
P
Publisher
Guest
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.
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
I’m not Catholic, but I don’t believe that is the claim of the CC. I’ll let a Catholic explain it, though.
Jon
N
NDfan
Guest
Publisher I’m not speaking for the church with regards to the allergen issues. But I can tell you that transubstantiation teaches that the substance becomes Christ’s flesh. If the church states that you shouldn’t eat the bread or drink the wine because of allergen dangers then they are contradicting transubstantiation. Hence the substance still has to be literal bread and wine. If you study Artistotelian physics the accidents always have to inhere to a substance. This presented a problem initially for the church because the color red of wine can’t exist without a substance. Likewise for the bread. Thomas Aquinas answered this by saying that the accidents were held by a miracle. This then would imply that the flesh of Christ has the substances of bread and wine. Meaning HIS flesh has wheat, flour etc. etc. and HIS blood has alcohol, tanins etc.
Aristotle would counter this by saying whatever the substance is the accidents would represent that. So if the bread became flesh the accidents would look like skin, hair, nails etc. Same for the wine. If the substance changed to blood then the accidents would be that of blood.
The bottom line is the teaching makes no sense and is why I believe last year when Roman Catholics were surveyed only like 30% stated they still believed in transubstantiation. My Aunt is a devout Catholic and she thinks it’s a ridiculous teaching. Her exact words were “common sense tells you Christ was speaking symbolically”.
PEACE
N
NDfan
Guest
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?
N
NDfan
Guest
Jon as I understand no one claims that the bread and wine, after the consecration, are chemically and physically different from what they were before the consecration. In that case it’s not transubstantiation and the substance hence does not change. But according to the Council of Trent and Thomas Aquinas, the entire substance changes. Aquinas stated the accidents were held by a miracle. Accidents don’t include wheat and alcohol. Kind of sheds new light on it doesn’t it? I don’t think the RC even understands what they are trying to teach.
In the mid-20th century, some Roman Catholic theologians interpreted it as referring to a change of meaning rather than a change of substance, but in 1965 Paul VI called for the retention of the original dogma.
Right now the RC is considering changing the teaching again to the term Transignification.
- Status