Real Presence Apologetics

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m.more confused than ever. Seems I’ve been confused on CAF a lot lately.

I’m so sorry

 

[benjohnson]

From a Lutheran standpoint, there really is no “apologetics” needed. Christ told us “This is my body.” You either trust and follow Christ, or you don’t.

From Wikipedia:

Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus’ ability to be in more than one place at a time but Luther stressed the omnipresence of his human nature. According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational. Citing Jesus’ words “The flesh profiteth nothing” (John 6.63), Zwingli said, “This passage breaks your neck”. “Don’t be too proud,” Luther retorted, “German necks don’t break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland.” On his table Luther wrote the words “Hoc est corpus meum” (“This is my body”) in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/uploads/pics/zwing.1_01.jpg

 

[Kliska]

From a Lutheran standpoint, there really is no “apologetics” needed. Christ told us “This is my body.” You either trust and follow Christ, or you don’t.

From Wikipedia:

Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus’ ability to be in more than one place at a time but Luther stressed the omnipresence of his human nature. According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational. Citing Jesus’ words “The flesh profiteth nothing” (John 6.63), Zwingli said, “This passage breaks your neck”. “Don’t be too proud,” Luther retorted, “German necks don’t break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland.” On his table Luther wrote the words “Hoc est corpus meum” (“This is my body”) in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/uploads/pics/zwing.1_01.jpg

Yes, I’m aware, but scripture and the simple direct phrase “this is my body” is a far cry from what theologians attempt when defining what He meant. Apologetics is needed for the theology inferred from the differing positions when it comes to the application and deeper meaning to His words. Luther obviously meant something different than the Pope when he was writing “this is my body” in reference to what Jesus said. Hence, the apologetic is needed, unless we can simply meet together and break bread in the same manner Christ did and just assume we mean the same thing.

 

[benjohnson]

Luther obviously meant something different than the Pope when he was writing “this is my body” in reference to what Jesus said.

Are you sure about that?

Luther said concerning the body and blood - "I’d Rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with the fanatics”

 

[7_Sorrows]

Somatic as in the actual literal body of Christ. Somatic means “of or relating to the body.” There are those that believe in the Real Presence that don’t believe it is a bodily presence.

thank you for your explanation. what kind of presence do they think the Real Presence is then if it is not a bodily presence?

 

[steido01]

thank you for your explanation. what kind of presence do they think the Real Presence is then if it is not a bodily presence?

A “real absence.”

 

[7_Sorrows]

A “real absence.”

okay, smartie!!!

the poster said they believe in the Real Presence, but not a bodily presence.

yes, a “real absence” was very clever.

 

[Kliska]

Are you sure about that?

Luther said concerning the body and blood - "I’d Rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with the fanatics”

I am sure about that. Luther took offense at anyone trying to peg exactly what happens during communion service; the RCC specifically describes the event as transubstantiation which Luther did not agree with. Both views espouse a somatic real presence, but they don’t agree in description.

Luther used specific lines from scripture and just basically said “accept it.” So, when the bread and cup are referred to as the bread and cup AFTER the words are spoken over it, Luther accepts that too, the RCC does not.

the poster said they believe in the Real Presence, but not a bodily presence.

Many mistakenly think that Calvin and Zwingli believe the same thing about communion; they don’t. Calvin says there is a real presence as well, but it is not a bodily presence, but rather a Spiritual presence. So, it is put thus in the WC, “Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Fr Hardin archieves.

therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist.htm

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

I liked Dr. Hahn’s series of books “The Lamb’s Supper", “Letter & Spirit”, and “Consuming the Word”. Each book speaks to the Eucharist. And, each book compliments the other.

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

Fr Hardin archieves.

therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist.htm

Great resource! Tons of info. Thanks for sharing

 

[JonNC]

=Kliska;11617177]I am sure about that. Luther took offense at anyone trying to peg exactly what happens during communion service; the RCC specifically describes the event as transubstantiation which Luther did not agree with. Both views espouse a somatic real presence, but they don’t agree in description.

True, though more and more, Lutheran and Catholic theologians are seeing our differing expressions as not so different, as their meanings are to express the truth of the real presence, and hence not Church dividing.

Luther used specific lines from scripture and just basically said “accept it.” So, when the bread and cup are referred to as the bread and cup AFTER the words are spoken over it, Luther accepts that too, the RCC does not.

Oh, he says far more than “accept it”. Additionally, Luther and Lutherans accept the use of the terms “bread and cup” after the consecration in the same way that St. Paul uses them. Not speaking for Catholics here, but I do not think they would flinch at that usage.

From a Lutheran POV, it is in the confessions where what we believe, teach, and confess are stated. I recommend Luther’s Large Catechism, bookofconcord.org/lc-7-sacrament.php
but more succinctly, from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

Jon

 

[Kliska]

Oh, he says far more than “accept it”.

In short though, he doesn’t. Which, to me, makes a more compelling case. When arguing over it, that is why he repeatedly emphasizes the phrase said by Jesus.

Additionally, Luther and Lutherans accept the use of the terms “bread and cup” after the consecration in the same way that St. Paul uses them. Not speaking for Catholics here, but I do not think they would flinch at that usage.

This is where I would bow to your greater knowledge on it, but it seems, though, that Luther’s careful use of the bread and cup language is why it is taught that the substance of bread also remains. Some have erroneously tried to term it “consubstantiation.” This does, however, highlight a difference in explanation of the RP that the RCC seems to wholeheartedly reject; there IS no more bread and wine in their thinking.

Thank you for your links, I found the other Lutheran book mentioned upthread on Amazon that compiles the topic together. I’m in the middle of Hahn’s book someone else recommended, and then want to check out the Lutheran perspective closer.

Luther’s view appeals to me because again, it is more kin to the “duty or mutiny” idea; Jesus stated it and you can receive it based on faith in His words over man’s explanations.

 

[JonNC]

=Kliska;11617440]In short though, he doesn’t. Which, to me, makes a more compelling case. When arguing over it, that is why he repeatedly emphasizes the phrase said by Jesus.

Well, yes. “Ist ist ist.” “Is is is.”

This is where I would bow to your greater knowledge on it, but it seems, though, that Luther’s careful use of the bread and cup language is why it is taught that the substance of bread also remains.

The teaching that the bread and wine remain is, again, connected to Paul, “this cup of blessing which we bless…” . We also understand Christ’s words, “This is my body,” the this referring to the bread. So, we recognize that the bread is His body, orally received, in a miraculous and supernatural way.

Some have erroneously tried to term it “consubstantiation.”

:clapping: Thank you.

This does, however, highlight a difference in explanation of the RP that the RCC seems to wholeheartedly reject; there IS no more bread and wine in their thinking
Thank you for your links, I found the other Lutheran book mentioned upthread on Amazon that compiles the topic together. I’m in the middle of Hahn’s book someone else recommended, and then want to check out the Lutheran perspective closer.

Luther’s view appeals to me because again, it is more kin to the “duty or mutiny” idea; Jesus stated it and you can receive it based on faith in His words over man’s explanations.

That isn’t to say, however, that man’s explanations are sometimes, perhaps even often valuable. Take for example, the quote I provided from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. It quotes Vulgarius and Cyril in support of the real presence, and I believe that the** idea** of transubstantiation can influence believers in a positive way (not that it should be dogma, however).

Jon

 

[Kliska]

The teaching that the bread and wine remain is, again, connected to Paul, “this cup of blessing which we bless…” . We also understand Christ’s words, “This is my body,” the this referring to the bread. So, we recognize that the bread is His body, orally received, in a miraculous and supernatural way.

That is why I tend to be able to grasp Luther’s view better; he does balance the approach with all relevant scripture.

:clapping: Thank you.

lol You’re welcome. :curtsey:

That isn’t to say, however, that man’s explanations are sometimes, perhaps even often valuable. Take for example, the quote I provided from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. It quotes Vulgarius and Cyril in support of the real presence, and I believe that the** idea** of transubstantiation can influence believers in a positive way (not that it should be dogma, however).

Jon

I agree to some extent. But as CS Lewis was fond of pointing out; sometimes it is better to stick with what came out of Jesus’ own mouth as far as how we humans try to understand something. In short, all of the philosophical disagreement can get in the way of someone being able to simply state that what Jesus said and how He said it is good enough.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue: Eucharist and Ministry

48.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist.

56.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together recognize that in the Eucharist Jesus Christ "is present as the crucified who died for our sins and rose again for our justification, as the once-for-all sacrifice for the sins of the world".42

62.**Lutheran and Catholic Christians confess together that in the Eucharist the body and blood of the Lord are really received, either for salvation or for condemnation (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29). **They confess that the believing reception of the eucharistic bread and wine gives personal union with Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior They also agree that the efficacy of believers reception of the Lord cannot be measured by human standards but belongs to the sphere of the free and humanly uncontrollable action of God.
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

 

[GKC]

That is why I tend to be able to grasp Luther’s view better; he does balance the approach with all relevant scripture.

lol You’re welcome. :curtsey:

I agree to some extent. But as CS Lewis was fond of pointing out; sometimes it is better to stick with what came out of Jesus’ own mouth as far as how we humans try to understand something. In short, all of the philosophical disagreement can get in the way of someone being able to simply state that what Jesus said and how He said it is good enough.

In this respect, his words in LETTERS TO MALCOLM (placed in a fictional character’s mouth), "The command was ‘Take, eat’, not ‘Take, understand’ ", might be applicable.

GKC

 

[Kliska]

In this respect, his words in LETTERS TO MALCOLM (placed in a fictional character’s mouth), "The command was ‘Take, eat’, not ‘Take, understand’ ", might be applicable.

GKC

This is one of the many reasons I love Lewis.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Somatic as in the actual literal body of Christ. Somatic means “of or relating to the body.” There are those that believe in the Real Presence that don’t believe it is a bodily presence.

Maybe the discussion should be addressing the difference between the true essence of God compared to the true and real substantial presence of Jesus body,blood,soul and divinity example the burning bush that did not burn before Moses. The Catholic doctrine is the true presence. Transubstantiation confirms a substance change has occurred which confirms the doctrine of the true presence by the faithful see Hebrews 11:1-3 (faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen…by faith we understand that the Universe was ordered by The WORD of God, so that what is visible came through the invisible).
See also 1Cor.2:11-16 for a Catholic biblical faith practice. Somatic is never a catholic term nor a faith practice of the early Church Christians in the true presence which Catholics have held too for 2000 years, Peace be with you

 

[JonNC]

Maybe the discussion should be addressing the difference between the true essence of God compared to the true and real substantial presence of Jesus body,blood,soul and divinity example the burning bush that did not burn before Moses. The Catholic doctrine is the true presence. Transubstantiation confirms a substance change has occurred which confirms the doctrine of the true presence by the faithful see Hebrews 11:1-3 (faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen…by faith we understand that the Universe was ordered by The WORD of God, so that what is visible came through the invisible).
See also 1Cor.2:11-16 for a Catholic biblical faith practice. Somatic is never a catholic term nor a faith practice of the early Church Christians in the true presence which Catholics have held too for 2000 years, Peace be with you

Welcome back Gabe. Your insight in this issue is always helpful.

Jon