P
Per_Crucem
Guest
All dressed up and yet no One is home
- Status
B
bogeydogg
Guest
SyCarl,
I think you are blending the teaching of transubstantiation with the teaching of the literal presence. Lutherans believe firmly in the literal bodily presence of Christ upon the Altar but they do not in fashion confess a transubstantiation neither do they confess a consubstantiation. So I think first off it would be helpful to separate those doctrines.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not fully articulated until the medieval Church which was long after the ECF and was believed as the Church as orthodoxy long before any teaching of the transubstantiation.
So when the radical reformers rejected the bodily presence they threw the baby out with the bath water as it were. If you desire to protest the doctrine of transubstantiation there are plenty of threads on here to do so, but there are (I can think of four off the top of my head) many Churches that confess the bodily presence of the Lord on the Altar and do not confess the doctrine of transubstantiation.
God Bless
I think you are blending the teaching of transubstantiation with the teaching of the literal presence. Lutherans believe firmly in the literal bodily presence of Christ upon the Altar but they do not in fashion confess a transubstantiation neither do they confess a consubstantiation. So I think first off it would be helpful to separate those doctrines.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not fully articulated until the medieval Church which was long after the ECF and was believed as the Church as orthodoxy long before any teaching of the transubstantiation.
So when the radical reformers rejected the bodily presence they threw the baby out with the bath water as it were. If you desire to protest the doctrine of transubstantiation there are plenty of threads on here to do so, but there are (I can think of four off the top of my head) many Churches that confess the bodily presence of the Lord on the Altar and do not confess the doctrine of transubstantiation.
God Bless
S
steido01
Guest
Your last sentence says it all. An altar ought not be shared with a body that differs doctrinally, an certainly cannot be shared with an heterodox body that doesn’t confess the Real Presence of Christ in/with/under/behind/ahead and in every other conceivable and inconceivable way transformed into presence in the Eucharist.
“I would rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with the Enthusiasts.” -Martin Luther
B
bogeydogg
Guest
And so Jon hits on the thing perfectly. The Presbyterian response is (and I am paraphrasing but I do not think unfairly so) “All the visible elements of the Eucharist are present, elevation, proper dress, Altar, so we are all doing and believing the same thing.”
Nothing could betray the faulty thinking of a symbolic presence any more clearly.
The Lutheran position (speaking as a former Lutheran) is that because Christ is present on the Altar we will therefore have all of the accompanying accoutrements to celebrate the solemnity of the presence of our God.
The Presbyterian position (based on what EC said) is that so long as we have the symbols of solemnity then the elect may receive their symbolic bread and wine Christ is symbolic but not (by our own confession) actually present.
Of course the problem with the Presbyterian position is that a bunch of satanists could dress up properly and offer the symbols of the Christ and the elect would still receive them.
Just think about it…
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Isn’t unbelief like St Thomas, a delayed revelation? So a Christian must believe in order to receive forgiveness and eternal life?
“He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Is not being saved essentially forgiveness of sin? Now, to be sure, baptism for an infant is the start of faith, but there remains the danger of receiving the sacrament without discerning the body and blood of Christ.
Jon
R
rcwitness
Guest
In my understanding,
There are the two elements of God coming to us; Sacrament… and belief/faith.
“Whoever believes and is baptized, will be saved.”
He comes, not because we believed, but because we did not believe and were in need of His belief! His belief was tested to the fullness of the Spirit, and the Spirit rested on the flesh produced through Mary, even to death.
Thomas was saved through grace. Yet His faith was not deep. We are all lacking faith without depending on our brothers and sisters. Peter was given a grace to strengthen his brothers. Judas did not let his brothers strengthen him. I admire some Evangelical Free faith very very much! There is a desire to seek a relationship with Jesus… But when the image of Jesus ALONE separates Jesus from His Mystical Body, there is a misunderstanding about who Jesus is, in the Church. There is a rejection of things from God just because they came through men.
When we receive our Lord in the Eucharist, we are receiving Him alone to us personally. But we are receiving Him through the hands of a Minister.
There are the two elements of God coming to us; Sacrament… and belief/faith.
“Whoever believes and is baptized, will be saved.”
He comes, not because we believed, but because we did not believe and were in need of His belief! His belief was tested to the fullness of the Spirit, and the Spirit rested on the flesh produced through Mary, even to death.
Thomas was saved through grace. Yet His faith was not deep. We are all lacking faith without depending on our brothers and sisters. Peter was given a grace to strengthen his brothers. Judas did not let his brothers strengthen him. I admire some Evangelical Free faith very very much! There is a desire to seek a relationship with Jesus… But when the image of Jesus ALONE separates Jesus from His Mystical Body, there is a misunderstanding about who Jesus is, in the Church. There is a rejection of things from God just because they came through men.
When we receive our Lord in the Eucharist, we are receiving Him alone to us personally. But we are receiving Him through the hands of a Minister.
R
rcwitness
Guest
great minds think alike! Also, your baptism of infants regarding Thomas gave me the thought of Thomas (and the others) as being infants in the New Faith of Jesus.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Jon
From personal experience; infant right up to Ist Communion have been baptized into the Body of Christ. My pastor communes infants. Fully understanding the Real Presence may be obscured by immaturity or impairments. Lutherans believe that an unbeliever who takes holy Communion receives Christ and perhaps to damnation.
Lutherans want all Christians to acknowledge the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue as a statement of faith and to join us in reunion.
S
steido01
Guest
So why in God’s Merciful and Just name would you permit someone who doesn’t profess the Real Presence (like, say, a Presbyterian) to take part in Holy Communion - much less co-preside over it? Is the aim to speed them to damnation?
I jest, but only partly. I do not see any wisdom in permitting those who do not profess at least the Real Presence to His Table. Baptized infants are an entirely different matter.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Per the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue on the Mass:
Any question of Christ’s Real Presence as a gift from God can not be defined by man.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I agree up to a point. I think there’s a difference between someone who doesn’t fully articulate a belief in the Real Presence and someone who actively proclaims a ‘real absence’. The latter borders on blasphemy.
K
Kliska
Guest
To the Lutherans on here who do tend to focus on Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, instead of in John 6 for support of the Real Presence, I have a question. Luther famously carved his graffiti on the table top to try to underscore his position that the bread is Jesus’ Body and the wine is Jesus’ Blood… So, here is my question; what would Luther make of the famous commercial in the 80’s that showed us an egg, and the VO said, “This is your brain.” Then showed us a frying pan, cracked the egg and we watched it fry, “This is your brain on drugs… any questions?”
I guess what I’m asking is; does the Greek words chosen at the Last Supper preclude a direct metaphor? If we watched the commercial with the idea that it had to be taken literally, we would come away thinking the narrator was nuts, as we clearly see that is an egg, not a human brain. However, we also clearly get the meaning, and it is teaching a clear truth, and serves its purpose.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Don’t know if Aquinas has been linked on this thread, but here it is just in case:
Summa Theologia Question 75. The change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
Summa Theologia Question 75. The change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
B
bogeydogg
Guest
Speaking as former Lutheran I can tell you that as a matter of doctrine the Lutheran Diocese to which belonged frst took Christ at face value since he himself did not insert a simile into his own wordings. It is clear that no matter how you may want to interpret his words, what is undeniable is that he chose different language than he used in his parables where, as I said earlier, he comparison as a way of teaching again and again.
To the Lutherans on here who do tend to focus on Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, instead of in John 6 for support of the Real Presence, I have a question. Luther famously carved his graffiti on the table top to try to underscore his position that the bread is Jesus’ Body and the wine is Jesus’ Blood… So, here is my question; what would Luther make of the famous commercial in the 80’s that showed us an egg, and the VO said, “This is your brain.” Then showed us a frying pan, cracked the egg and we watched it fry, “This is your brain on drugs… any questions?”
I guess what I’m asking is; does the Greek words chosen at the Last Supper preclude a direct metaphor? If we watched the commercial with the idea that it had to be taken literally, we would come away thinking the narrator was nuts, as we clearly see that is an egg, not a human brain. However, we also clearly get the meaning, and it is teaching a clear truth, and serves its purpose.
For example “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a rain of mustard seed…”
However having taken Christ at his word (and that three Gospel writers and St Paul all say it exaclt ythe same way) the Lutheran Church then goes on to cite verses such as John 6 which very clearly show how we are to understand what Jesus meant by his words.
However there is one more thing that I is very important about this. I have heard many times R C Sproul say, “When The Lord God opens his holy mouth and unequivocally speaks; then, beloved, the issue is settled.” And I wonder how it is that this man (who is a Calvinist) could be so clear about this principle and stll be part of a religious group (protestantism at large) that presumes to correct the Lord in his word usage.
As if God almighty could have somehow fumbled his words.
If the merest of second glances is given to what the protestants are actually saying about the real presence, it should stop the mouths of all those who dare to correct Jesus when he was speaking about his own body and bloood and the institution of the new covenant.
God Bless
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
I’ve thought about your remarks. Not fully understanding/ accepting the Real Presence and outright rejecting are two different things. So if a Presbyterian takes holy Communion not knowing/ acknowledging the Real Presence but doesn’t actually denounce the belief it is not blasphemy?
It is quite common to read what Lutherans believe about the Real Presence in the parish bulletin, clearly pointing out the sacramental union with Christ and inviting baptized Christians to take holy Communion if they also believe the same. Of-course, some Lutherans don’t extend eucharistic hospitality to others, even other Lutherans if the Real Presence isn’t completely embraced.
S
steido01
Guest
Absolutely. If I gave the impression that those who are unable to ‘fully articulate’ the Real Presence (the mentally handicapped, the dying, baptized infants in the Eastern Churches, etc.), then I might as well exclude myself as well - for what human can ‘fully’ comprehend the workings of a Sacrament?
But sharing the Table with a communion that openly either denies the Real Presence or professes a Calvinistic Real Absence (or worse, doesn’t have a statement on what it believes) must not be tolerated. The Body and Blood should not be so profaned.
K
Kliska
Guest
But that doesn’t answer my question. He also said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” So, that argument doesn’t hold unless there is a specific reason in the Greek to take it literally. Also, what would Luther make of the commercial I cited? Obviously I’m using that as an example and don’t expect anyone to actually be able to tell me what Luther would have said, but I believe the question makes my point; just because we call something another thing does not actually mean it is in a literal sense. An egg is not my brain, yet a man can show an egg and say, “This is your brain.” Also just as in the commercial I cited, Jesus put action along with words to show the word picture more clearly. This is My body; and He broke the bread. This is my blood, which was poured. The bread and wine were explicitly chosen as visual symbol as well as for the other symbolic values attached to those particular items.
This is your brain, this is your brain on drugs… yet again we clearly see the teaching intent and none of believe it literally.
- Status