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

[Richard_White]

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.

Well, I guess we are just not going to reach any common ground know. All I know is the Truth: that the Holy Eucharist is truly the Body, the Blood, the Soul, and the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and its entirety, and merely under the appearance of bread and wine (not of it is left over after consecration).

May God bless you abundantly and forever!

 

[Richard_White]

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.

This is not a “gotcha.” I am trying to see what this individual believe sad then I am trying to show him evidence of why he is wrong. Of course, I am getting nowhere…

In regard to what you said about the quote: when Saint Irenaeus says “earthly and heavenly,” he is simply referring to the presence of both the human nature of Jesus and the divine nature of Jesus in the Eucharist.

May God bless you abundantly and forever!

 

[Reuben_J]

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

We are not alone in finding this hard to understand. Unfortunately, Jesus did not rescind the hard teaching to explain it to our human logic and reason. He just simply said, “This” holding the bread, “is my body”.

Over the centuries some of us could not believe he would mean what he said and we would find various ways to explain it. He didn’t though nor he recanted. So the bread was his body. Everybody at that fateful dinner table could see very well that it was the same bread but the Lord now has said it is ‘his body’. Definitely something had happened to the bread, something had changed in it (to become him). It was obviously not its appearance. It was him (in substance).

 

[JonNC]

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

Hi Edwin,
I am continually searching for writings better than mine (not difficult) to explain the Lutheran view of the real presence as opposed to consubstantiation. Maybe Pastor Kellerman’s blog helps.
In it, he quotes Richard A Muller, a Reformed theologian (oddly enough:

According to the theory of consubstantiation, the body and blood of Christ become substantially present together with the substance of the bread and wine, when the elements are consecrated. This theory is frequently confused with the Lutheran doctrine of real presence. Consubstantio indicates the presence of Christ’s body according to a unique sacramental mode of presence that is proper to Christ’s body as such, and is therefore a local presence (praesentia localis, q.v.); the Lutheran view, however, argues a real, but illocal presence of Christ’s body and blood that is grounded in the omnipresence of Christ’s person, and therefore a supernatural and sacramental, rather than a local, union with the invisible elements of the sacrament….Consubstantio implies only a presence and not a union of Christ and the sacramental elements; it was taught as a possibility by Duns Scotus, John of Jandun, and William of Occam.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

Hi Edwin,
I am continually searching for writings better than mine (not difficult) to explain the Lutheran view of the real presence as opposed to consubstantiation. Maybe Pastor Kellerman’s blog helps.
In it, he quotes Richard A Muller, a Reformed theologian (oddly enough:

Jon

Muller is a fine scholar, even though I believe he did “apostasize” (he was once Lutheran but decided the Reformed position was more convincing–at least I remember him telling me that once).

It’s not at all clear to me that consubstantiation fails to teach sacramental union. But then, the problem is that I don’t know of anyone (maybe some Anglicans?) who claims to believe in consubstantiation. It’s easy to pick on late medieval theologians and say, “what we believe is quite different.”

The denial of a local presence is interesting. Did the late medieval consubsantiation-defending theologians teach a local presence? Aquinas’ version of transubstantiation is not a local presence (he explicitly denies that Christ is in the Eucharist “as in a place”). The Reformed who rejected Luther’s view did so in part because they thought Luther taught a local presence.

So I’m still not convinced that “consubstantiation” is a real alternative view rather than a straw man being set up to distinguish Lutherans from medieval scholasticism.

Edwin

 

[Picky_Picky]

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

Sorry to be picky, but that’s not normally why one adds adjectives. It’s normally why one adds adjectives as classifiers, not normally why one adds adjectives as descriptors. But you are right, be that as it may, in neither case does “not common bread” of necessity mean “not bread at all”.

 

[spedteacherita]

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

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?

There is no need to reconcile what St. Iraneus says here…we believe this - when the Pastor speaks God’s words over the elements Christ’s Real Presence is there.

God bless,

Rita

 

[Contarini]

Sorry to be picky, but that’s not normally why one adds adjectives. It’s normally why one adds adjectives as classifiers, not normally why one adds adjectives as descriptors. But you are right, be that as it may, in neither case does “not common bread” of necessity mean “not bread at all”.

Fair enough. I was thinking along the lines of “well, if the noun already conveyed the meaning of the adjective, we wouldn’t need the adjective.” But we often say things like “the bright sun” meaning “the sun that by definition is bright.” So your point is correct.

Edwin

 

[Richard_White]

There is no need to reconcile what St. Iraneus says here…we believe this - when the Pastor speaks God’s words over the elements Christ’s Real Presence is there.

God bless,

Rita

Well, although you have your certain beliefs, your denomination has broken the valid line of apostolic succession and therefore there is no possible way that the bread and wine that you “consecrate” can become the Body and Blood of Christ, especially because you do not believe in the proper way of transubstantiation. All that you consume is bread and wine.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Well, although you have your certain beliefs, your denomination has broken the valid line of apostolic succession and therefore there is no possible way that the bread and wine that you “consecrate” can become the Body and Blood of Christ, especially because you do not believe in the proper way of transubstantiation. All that you consume is bread and wine.

Are you quite sure you want to know what Protestants’ various beliefs are on the eucharist, or do you intend to post this rejoinder every time you are answered?

 

[Richard_White]

Are you quite sure you want to know what Protestants’ various beliefs are on the eucharist, or do you intend to post this rejoinder every time you are answered?

I already engaged in dialogue with the people who responded to my thread. I unfortunately got nowhere in my arguments and figured that I should close by remarking that even though the Lutherans believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (albeit in the wrong way), since they have no valid apostolic succession, there can be no transubstantiation on their altars and therefore they are just receiving regular bread and wine.

May God bless you all abundantly and forever!

 

[GKC]

I already engaged in dialogue with the people who responded to my thread. I unfortunately got nowhere in my arguments and figured that I should close by remarking that even though the Lutherans believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (albeit in the wrong way), since they have no valid apostolic succession, there can be no transubstantiation on their altars and therefore they are just receiving regular bread and wine.

May God bless you all abundantly and forever!

.

Your conclusion is what you certainly should affirm, based on the teaching of the RCC.
Lutherans, and others similarly situated, quite likely have another view of the situation.

 

[JonNC]

.

Your conclusion is what you certainly should affirm, based on the teaching of the RCC.
Lutherans, and others similarly situated, quite likely have another view of the situation.

Yep.

Jon

 

[spedteacherita]

Well, although you have your certain beliefs, your denomination has broken the valid line of apostolic succession and therefore there is no possible way that the bread and wine that you “consecrate” can become the Body and Blood of Christ, especially because you do not believe in the proper way of transubstantiation. All that you consume is bread and wine.

I am not trying to be disrespectful, but you used a quote from Irenaeus from “Against Heresies” and I replied to it because he defined communion in the way that Lutherans understand it. I understand your (Catholic) position very clearly but I hold that what I receive each Sunday in the way of Bread and Wine, does become the Real Presence within our service as well. I know that God, who is omniscient can use any means He needs to “feed His children.”

Are there any other Early Church Father before the Council of Nicene who shares his understanding of the Lord’s Supper?

Thanks and God bless!

Rita

 

[GKC]

Yep.

Jon

Got a lot of my posts from that general subject.

 

[JonNC]

=Contarini;13067434]Muller is a fine scholar, even though I believe he did “apostasize” (he was once Lutheran but decided the Reformed position was more convincing–at least I remember him telling me that once).

Turncoat!

It’s not at all clear to me that consubstantiation fails to teach sacramental union. But then, the problem is that I don’t know of anyone (maybe some Anglicans?) who claims to believe in consubstantiation. It’s easy to pick on late medieval theologians and say, “what we believe is quite different.”

I understand, except the rejection of consubstantiation exists all the way back to the Formula of Concord.

The denial of a local presence is interesting. Did the late medieval consubsantiation-defending theologians teach a local presence?

That’s what the “sacramentarians” said. And that’s what the Lutheran reformers and theologians have always refuted.

When the words in, with, under, are used, our traducers know, as well as they know their own fingers, that they do NOT signify a CONSUBSTANTIATION, local co-existence, or impanation. The charge that we hold a local inclusion, or Consubstantiation, is a calumny.

Carpsov in the 17th century understood Consubstantiation as a local inclusion.

Aquinas’ version of transubstantiation is not a local presence (he explicitly denies that Christ is in the Eucharist “as in a place”). The Reformed who rejected Luther’s view did so in part because they thought Luther taught a local presence.

I find it difficult to believe that Luther would have thought of it that way.

So I’m still not convinced that “consubstantiation” is a real alternative view rather than a straw man being set up to distinguish Lutherans from medieval scholasticism.

I don’t get the idea that 450 years worth of theologians, almost unanimously, could successfully maintain a strawman.

Jon

 

[SalusaSecondus]

I already engaged in dialogue with the people who responded to my thread. I unfortunately got nowhere in my arguments and figured that I should close by remarking that even though the Lutherans believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (albeit in the wrong way), since they have no valid apostolic succession, there can be no transubstantiation on their altars and therefore they are just receiving regular bread and wine.

May God bless you all abundantly and forever!

Where was it that you were trying to “get to” in your thread? Were you trying to ask us our understanding of the Eucharist or were you trying to get us in a “gotcha” type argument?

 

[Richard_White]

Where was it that you were trying to “get to” in your thread? Were you trying to ask us our understanding of the Eucharist or were you trying to get us in a “gotcha” type argument?

I wanted to ask you your beliefs in he Eucharist so that I could address them and try to prove that my Catholic belief is the correct one and that your Protestant view is wrong. However, although I don’t think I did too bad, j was more ready to refute the heretical idea of some Protestants that the Eucharist is merely a symbol, rather than your (still false) understanding.

May God bless you and keep you forever!

 

[Contarini]

Turncoat!

I understand, except the rejection of consubstantiation exists all the way back to the Formula of Concord.

That’s what the “sacramentarians” said. And that’s what the Lutheran reformers and theologians have always refuted.
Carpsov in the 17th century understood Consubstantiation as a local inclusion.

I find it difficult to believe that Luther would have thought of it that way.

I don’t get the idea that 450 years worth of theologians, almost unanimously, could successfully maintain a strawman.

Jon

Actually that’s what the various divided segments of Christianity have done to each other on a regular basis. And my experience from reading quite a bit of Lutheran scholarship is that Lutherans are, if anything, even better than the rest of us at setting up straw men.

I think it has something to do with the fact that Lutherans have sharp differences both with Catholicism and with other Protestants. They see themselves as something quite different from both and thus have little incentive to work hard at being fair.

Please understand that I think Lutherans are, more often than not, right in what they affirm, and right in thinking that their opponents are missing out on something. But in my opinion the possibilities of reconciliation are greater than many Lutherans are willing to admit, and because (especially for the LCMS and other conservative groups) Lutheran identity depends on maintaining sharp boundaries, there’s a lot of incentive to straw-man construction.

That being said, this particular straw man is different, because it’s a straw man constructed in order to make the term “consubstantiation” not apply to Lutherans. That is to say, it’s really the accusation that non-Lutherans are attacking a straw man when they use the ter “consubstantiation.” And if the Lutheran view isn’t “local,” then that is the case on the Protestant side. That is to say, when Calvinists and Wesleyans say they disbelieve in the Lutheran view, they have a local presence in mind. I’m not so sure that this is the case on the Catholic side, though. What Catholics object to is the idea that the bread and wine are still present alongside the Body and Blood. I’m not sure that calling it “sacramental union” makes much difference.

I suppose I have been cranky about Lutherans on this point for a couple of reasons:

1. The harsh and nasty way in which confessional Lutherans characterize Martin Bucer’s valiant efforts to reach union between Lutherans and Reformed; and
2. Hermann Sasse’s claim that Lutherans really don’t have a sacramental theology per se, because the general category of “sacrament” isn’t Biblical.

It just seems to me that Lutherans are too invested in saying “your categories don’t apply to us,” and that this often seems to be motivated by theological snootiness rather than by a substantive reason to reject the category in question.

But quite possibly I’m unfair.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I wanted to ask you your beliefs in he Eucharist so that I could address them and try to prove that my Catholic belief is the correct one and that your Protestant view is wrong. However, although I don’t think I did too bad, j was more ready to refute the heretical idea of some Protestants that the Eucharist is merely a symbol, rather than your (still false) understanding.

May God bless you and keep you forever!

In other words, “gotcha.”

I really wish the Pope would just command Catholics to stop engaging in “apologetics” on pain of mortal sin. (Well, this Pope has said some snarky things about “proselytization,” and more power to him.)

Originally I thought “apologetics” was supposed to be defending the faith from people who attack it.

Now it’s become polemic of a particularly juvenile kind.

“Tell me your beliefs so I can prove you wrong.”

At least you are honest about it.

Edwin