Protestants: What Are Your Various Beliefs on the Holy Eucharist?

[SalusaSecondus]

Oh, I thought consubstantiation and sacramental union were the same thing…

No. Consubstantiation was the teaching of a group called the Lollards, if I recall correctly.

Anyway, in regard to the quotes, what about this one, from Saint Irenaeus in Against Heresies:

“For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”

How can you reconcile your ideas with this one from the very early Church?

This quote is actually from Justin Martyr, not Irenaeus.

LOL. Actually our Lutheran confession the Formula of Concord Solid Declaration quotes THIS exact quote from Justin to illustrate the Lutheran view! Perhaps Justin was actually a Lutheran, and the early church was Lutheran!

bookofconcord.org/sd-supper.php#para35

 

[Richard_White]

This quote is actually from Justin Martyr, not Irenaeus.

LOL. Actually our Lutheran confession the Formula of Concord Solid Declaration quotes THIS exact quote from Justin to illustrate the Lutheran view! Perhaps Justin was actually a Lutheran, and the early church was Lutheran!

bookofconcord.org/sd-supper.php#para35

Actually it IS from Saint Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, as re-published on the New Advent website: newadvent.org/fathers/0103418.htm

And how can your denomination say that when he clearly says that the Eucharist “is no longer common bread”?

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Actually it IS from Saint Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, as re-published on the New Advent website: newadvent.org/fathers/0103418.htm

Looks like you’re right. I was thinking of a Justin quote that was essentially saying the same thing using similar words “not as common bread”. Sorry about that, my mistake.

And how can your denomination say that when he clearly says that the Eucharist “is no longer common bread”?

Because we don’t believe the Eucharist is common bread.

 

[Richard_White]

Looks like you’re right. I was thinking of a Justin quote that was essentially saying the same thing using similar words “not as common bread”. Sorry about that, my mistake.

Because we don’t believe the Eucharist is common bread.

Don’t worry about the confusion over the quote! Haha there are so many that its only natural that we mess them up sometimes

Now, doesn’t “no longer common bread” mean that there is no more regular bread left in the Eucharist? Not just that the Eucharist is something more than bread, but not bread at all?

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Now, doesn’t “no longer common bread” mean that there is no more regular bread left in the Eucharist? Not just that the Eucharist is something more than bread, but not bread at all?

Not at all. I think “common bread” would be like the loaf you buy at the Safeway and make sandwiches. Not common bread as the Eucharist as it has been consecrated with the word of God and made into the body of Christ via sacramental Union. Otherwise we would be receiving communion every time we ate a sandwich. The key word is “common” not “bread”. As we can all agree it’s bread (even if we hold that it’s just the appearance of bread), even Paul says as much.

I could hand you a glass of water and say “this isn’t common water”. Would you infer that there is no water at all, or that there is something different about THIS water as compared to say tap water.

 

[KnitNut]

Now, doesn’t “no longer common bread” mean that there is no more regular bread left in the Eucharist? Not just that the Eucharist is something more than bread, but not bread at all?

You know, I’m not sure why you’re still working on a big “gotcha” with S.S. - s/he’s not denying there’s some mystical change, not denying the presence of the divine. But do read the quote you’re hammering him/her with, fully, not just the bit you want to prooftext:

“For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”

Right there, it SAYS it’s both. If you’re determined to prove her/him “wrong” (which is a weird standard for something so subjective), this is probably not the logical tack you want to take.

 

[truetofaith]

Why are you people racking your brains over this

Theologians have been arguing for centuries over this and never come to a conclusion…how can you?

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Why are you people racking your brains over this

Theologians have been arguing for centuries over this and never come to a conclusion…how can you?

Because it’s fun and enlightening to discuss, and we are all theologians.

 

[Contarini]

I’m not a protestant, but thought I would answer anyways.

The Lord’s Supper, as described in the Bible, is the symbolic taking of Christ’s Body and Blood. It is something I do every week, with great reverence and remembrance of Him.

I respect that Catholics view things differently, but that is how I feel.

By any normal, historical definition of the word, you are clearly a Protestant.

I do my best to respect what people want to call themselves, and I understand why radical free-churchers sometimes don’t like to be called “Protestants.”

But I worry that there’s a certain historical denial involved in this, as if you just got your doctrines straight from Scripture without any tradition shaping you.

Your views have obviously been shaped by Protestant tradition, whether you claim the label or not. You don’t represent some pristine alternative.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by SalusaSecondus View Post
No. I don’t believe in transubstantiation. Our doctrine is called Sacramental Union.

Okay. Now, why do you believe in “sacramental union” rather than complete transubstantiation? Do you have any information that can lead to this conclusion? Because I think not.

How about this?

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”).

Jon

 

[Contarini]

Don’t worry about the confusion over the quote! Haha there are so many that its only natural that we mess them up sometimes

Now, doesn’t “no longer common bread” mean that there is no more regular bread left in the Eucharist? Not just that the Eucharist is something more than bread, but not bread at all?

No, that doesn’t follow at all.

And the reasoning required for you to make this argument is so tortuous as almost to drive one to despair.

There might of course be plenty of good reasons why a person might say “not common bread” when they meant “not bread at all.” But the burden of proof is on you to show this.

At first glance (recognizing that first glances are often deceiving), it looks as if the reason one would add an adjective “common” (koine, I think, in Greek, but I don’t have the text in front of me) would be to distinguish one kind of bread ('not common") from another. That is normally why one adds adjectives.

Edwin

 

[jane_doe]

Now, I don’t know which Bible you use in your denomination

King James Version

where is it evident anywhere in the Bible that the Holy Eucharist is a symbol?

Reading the 4 Gospel’s accounts, and Paul’s later discussion on it gives me that distinct impression. It is also specifically discussed as a symbol in other Mormon-specific scripture volumes.

Again, this is my view on the matter and I am by no means trying to convince you of it,

 

[Reuben_J]

Not at all. I think “common bread” would be like the loaf you buy at the Safeway and make sandwiches. Not common bread as the Eucharist as it has been consecrated with the word of God and made into the body of Christ via sacramental Union. Otherwise we would be receiving communion every time we ate a sandwich. The key word is “common” not “bread”. As we can all agree it’s bread (even if we hold that it’s just the appearance of bread), even Paul says as much.

I could hand you a glass of water and say “this isn’t common water”. Would you infer that there is no water at all, or that there is something different about THIS water as compared to say tap water.

You are right in that ‘not common bread as the Eucharist as it has been consecrated with the word of God and made into the body of Christ’. Not sure what is ‘sacramental union’ though.

I differ though in in your explanation that the bread of the Eucharist is not common bread anymore but merely consecrated bread, meaning it is still a bread, though not ‘common bread’. I hope I understand you correctly.

I would say during the consecration, the bread is now has been changed into the substance of the Lord’s Body and Blood, and that is why it is not common bread anymore, thus transubstantiation has taken place. Only the appearance is bread, but it is no more the common bread that we normally eat during our meal; only the appearance appears so but its substance has been changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[Contarini]

King James Version

Reading the 4 Gospel’s accounts, and Paul’s later discussion on it gives me that distinct impression. It is also specifically discussed as a symbol in other Mormon-specific scripture volumes.

Again, this is my view on the matter and I am by no means trying to convince you of it,

Ah, you’re a Mormon.

I give your claim not to be a Protestant a bit more credence, since most Protestants don’t want to claim you.

Although from my perspective Mormons are, if anything, more Protestant than they are Christian. That is to say, you guys take the claim of “apostasy” to a logical conclusion. If the claim were true, a new revelation would, in fact, be the only way to deal with the situation. I don’t see evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet. i see lots of evidence that his movement took its rise from the chaotic situation of 19th-century Protestantism and was a serious attempt to answer the hopeless mess in which Protestants had landed themselves in terms of unity and authority. (I got excoriated by a Protestant student once for putting Mormonism in this context–he wanted me just to condemn it as a “cult” and vilify Joseph Smith.)

Edwin

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You are right in that ‘not common bread as the Eucharist as it has been consecrated with the word of God and made into the body of Christ’. Not sure what is ‘sacramental union’ though.

I differ though in in your explanation that the bread of the Eucharist is not common bread anymore but merely consecrated bread, meaning it is still a bread, though not ‘common bread’. I hope I understand you correctly.

I would say during the consecration, the bread is now has been changed into the substance of the Lord’s Body and Blood, and that is why it is not common bread anymore, thus transubstantiation has taken place. Only the appearance is bread, but it is no more the common bread that we normally eat during our meal; only the appearance appears so but its substance has been changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

And that may well be true. I just have trouble understanding why someone who says “it’s not common bread any more, because it is the Body and Blood of Christ” is unorthodox because they still want to describe it as [uncommon] bread.

As for consubstantiation vs. sacramental union, no Lutheran has so far ever explained to my satisfaction what the difference is. As far as I can see, Lutherans just don’t like the scholastic sound of consubstantiation. And that’s their prerogative. I don’t use the term at their request, but it’s hard for me to give meaning to the phrase “we don’t believe in consubstantiation” as opposed to “we don’t like the term consubstantiation as a description of what we believe.”

Edwin

 

[SalusaSecondus]

You are right in that ‘not common bread as the Eucharist as it has been consecrated with the word of God and made into the body of Christ’. Not sure what is ‘sacramental union’ though.

I differ though in in your explanation that the bread of the Eucharist is not common bread anymore but merely consecrated bread, meaning it is still a bread, though not ‘common bread’. I hope I understand you correctly.

I would say during the consecration, the bread is now has been changed into the substance of the Lord’s Body and Blood, and that is why it is not common bread anymore, thus transubstantiation has taken place. Only the appearance is bread, but it is no more the common bread that we normally eat during our meal; only the appearance appears so but its substance has been changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

I can see the argument, but I think it strains scripture and what Justin and Irenaeus are saying.

If someone handed me a glass and said “this is not common water”.

I would assume that it’s still water just something different about it. As in some sort of flavor added in, or fancy bottled water.

I would not assume that whatever is in the glass is not water, but has the appearance of water. That strains logical reasoning IMO.

 

[pianistclare]

Hmmm.
The OP asked “what”.
I wonder does he really want all the why’s? And why? Amateur apologist?
Or just being contentious?
This thread is making me very uncomfortable.
I myself, would very much hesitate to say everyone is a theologian.
That’s terribly misleading.

 

[Reuben_J]

I can see the argument, but I think it strains scripture and what Justin and Irenaeus are saying.

If someone handed me a glass and said “this is not common water”.

I would assume that it’s still water just something different about it. As in some sort of flavor added in, or fancy bottled water.

I would not assume that whatever is in the glass is not water, but has the appearance of water. That strains logical reasoning IMO.

Yes, that’s it. The appearance of water but not its substance.

 

[Reuben_J]

If someone handed me a glass and said “this is not common water”.

I would assume that it’s still water just something different about it. As in some sort of flavor added in, or fancy bottled water.

If something is added, strictly speaking it is not water anymore. It would be just another fluid. Again you are right in saying it would not be common water, speaking simply.

In ‘transubstantiation’, the bread is still bread, nothing added or taken away from it. Only the ‘substance’, thing’s deepest being, what it is in and of itself, is changed from that of a bread to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the risen Jesus becomes truly present in the Eucharist.

 

[Richard_White]

Hmmm.
The OP asked “what”.
I wonder does he really want all the why’s? And why? Amateur apologist?
Or just being contentious?
This thread is making me very uncomfortable.
I myself, would very much hesitate to say everyone is a theologian.
That’s terribly misleading.

Yes, you are right in that I more want to know the why the various Protestants believe the ways that they do regarding the Eucharist in opposition to us and our Truths as Catholics.