Real presence in Eucharist

[AugustTherese]

Lutherans reject the term and concept of consubstantiation. They always have

Not all Lutheran denominations follow the Book of Concord’s confessions and/or Luther’s theology of ‘sacramental union’.

 

[steido01]

Exactly. Establishing a definition in the negative is a bad enough abuse of logic, but pulling that negative from a false dichotomy is just beyond illogical. I will never understand why some Roman Catholics seek to do this in the first place-- much less in a bid to redefine another’s profession!

“Consubstantiation” is something that all Lutherans, regardless of whether they subscribe to the Confessions in a quia or quatenus sense, would reject because it’s explicitly rejected in Augustana, not just Smalcald. Any “Lutheran” who says otherwise either doesn’t understand what they’re saying or has been deceived by a non-Lutheran.

 

[steido01]

From some of my previous posts explaining this:

“Consubstantiation” is not Lutheran teaching. It’s a term that was made up by Crypto-Calvinists who had infiltrated Lutheran churches back in the mid-to-late 1500s. They presented themselves as if they were Lutheran, but taught something radically different. They wanted to confuse Lutherans into thinking the Lutheran position was just as Aristotelian as the Roman Catholics understanding, Transubstantiation. That way, they could snarkily say, “See, you’re just as mistaken! Obviously, ‘our’ Dr. Luther really wanted to hold a Calvinist view of the Sacraments.” But Lutherans hold to the mystical Sacramental Union, not Consubstantiation. It’s more akin to the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Mystery than to Consubstantiation.

Consubstantiation, like Transubstantiation, supposes that changes or additions happen in the ‘accidents’ and ‘substances.’ Consubstantiation essentially creates a third ‘thing’ from the combination of bread/wine with Body/Blood, while Transubstantiation essentially believes that bread/wine cease to exist altogether.

Some basics:

Transubstantiation reasons that the entire “substance” of the bread and wine is changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, until only the “accidents” of bread (taste, consistency, color, etc.) remain.

Consubstantiation reasons that the bread and the wine and the Body and the Blood are united in some way that, more or less, creates some new, third substance. I don’t know of any sect today that actually believes in Consubstantiation, though even some Lutherans have been duped into using the term (but not the beliefs behind it, thank God!). Consubstantiation has been explained as:

• As an actual creation of a third substance
• As impanation - where the substances don’t change, but Christ’s presence is substantially stored in the substance of the bread and wine
• As incorporation - where the substances don’t change, but Christ’s presence is mingled into the substance of the bread and wine
• In countless other messy, over-thought interminglings of the “substances” and “accidents” in an array of almost comical combinations.

Sacramental Union, which Lutherans actually believe, does not attempt to reason out the miracle of the Sacrament of the Altar. It simply trusts that Christ does what He says He does; that He truly, physically gives Himself for us for the forgiveness of sins in (and with/under/in every inadequate human way of understanding) the bread and the wine. Lutherans simply acknowledge that Christ is really, truly, physically present in every possible way (in, with, under, around, over, behind, whatever-- it’s real and present here, not merely spiritual and far away in heaven, like in Calvinism) and do not attempt to explain how this happens like Transubstatiationists or Consubstantiationists. Similar to the Orthodox. Or many pre-Tridentine Catholics, for that matter.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, but the Articles Of Religion denies it and their catechism is vaguely worded to appeal to Reformed and slightly Catholic (but not too Catholic) churchmen.

The articles, as I understand them as a fairly new Anglican, are not so doctrinal as, say, the Confessions are to Lutherans. Additionally, they are more or less linked to the CoE, and not Anglicanism broadly.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Lutherans reject the term and concept of consubstantiation. They always have

Not all Lutheran denominations follow the Book of Concord’s confessions and/or Luther’s theology of ‘sacramental union’.

True, but no Lutheran synod that I’m aware of confesses consubstantiation, which is what I said.

 

[RedFan]

You would be offended at knowing the object of your belief and adoration is also bread

Not at all. No more so than knowing that the object of my belief and adoration is also a human being.

These are all words that describe local movement

Not at all. I’m saying that bread or wine can be the body of Christ or the blood of Christ in the same place at the same time. The process of endowing the elements wiht the divine presence isn’t a movement of a single atom, nor of a single spiritual being.

The Hypostatic Union cannot be compared to consubstantiation ie; a substance ‘with’ a different substance. RedFan it just can’t be conceptualized in a manner common to substances and movement on earth.

Funny, I have not the slightest difficulty conceptualiziing a duality of substances (not movement; see above). I have far more difficulty conceptualizing the accidents of bread and wine as being divorced from their essence. Guess I must just be weird, huh?

 

[AlexR]

If u see, it is ridiculous to say body and blood along with bread and wine.(consubstantiation)

If you see in old testament, the sacrificed meat is only the lamb which they ate.

Jesus Christ itself beautifully explained about the eucharist. If u studied about the 4th cup theology, it is just one passover. Jesus tied a relation between eucharist and his death on cross. In upper room while celebrating eucharist he is the high priest who drunk 3 cups. In calavary he is the highest priest who drunk final 4th cup. In calavary he is the lamb to be sacrificed!!. In the upper room, the eucharist is the body and blood which is sacrificed and poured out for our remission of our sin.

Whether in calavary Jesus body consists of bread???
No!!!..then how can the eucharist even consists of bread??. Bcoz he said this is my body.

If u see, in calavary Jesus body and blood are totally separated( whether it consists of bread and wine???). In eucharistic celebration we are having separate body and separate blood.

So its all about the power of holy spirit… Which converts the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ to eat. Only body and blood of Christ!!!..bcoz in calavary there is only body and blood no alongside of bread and wine.

 

[AlexR]

If there is any Anglican, can u please explain me clearly about corporeal presence and pneumatic presence?

 

[Padres1969]

Sorry can’t help you. I’ve never heard of the first term, and the second is not something any Anglican church Ive attended professes. Rather the churches I’ve attended simply profess Real Presence that is a sacred mystery and leave it at that. No “how” required.

 

[dallas_r]

Anglicans believe in the real presence. They say that Christ is present and it really is His body and blood. Here is something my friend, a devout Anglican told me:

"Whether or not the bread, the matter of the wafer is a symbol is beside the point. Since we don’t believe in transubstantiation we are at no pains to prove that the physical corn and starch somehow are a physical Body of Christ. What we are at pains to prove is that the Body of Christ is present in the corn/starch even while the matter remains corn and starch.

Can Christ be present in an element without changing its matter? We say yes, that is the spiritual real presence. Is he actually present? Absolutely…

The material elements don’t need to determine the only way something can be present…"

Here is an article of religion, Anglican guidelines for faith. @7_Sorrows

"XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

 

[7_Sorrows]

If there is any Anglican, can u please explain me clearly about corporeal presence and pneumatic presence?

I am waiting for someone to explain those as well. I was Episcopalian/Anglican, but no
one ever told me about the Real Presence or corporeal presence or pneumatic presence.

 

[dallas_r]

Except for some Anglicans that do believe Transubstaniation.

Transubaniation (or however you spell it) is strictly condemned in the 39 Articles of Religion, AKA Anglican guidelines.

“Article XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
…Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions…”

 

[Padres1969]

Real Presence, which is what the Episcopal Church holds as its position on the Eucharist is simply that… that Christ is really and truly present in the Body and Blood of the Eucharist.

Beyond that the how is not elaborated on as it’s not really important. It’s a sacred mystery and left at that.

 

[ltwin]

Can anyone please define me these term …

Anglo-Catholics believe in a corporeal (bodily) presence. By corporeal is simply meant that the bread and wine actually become the flesh and blood of Christ.

Both Presbyterians and low church (or evangelical Anglicans) believe in the pneumatic presence or spiritual presence. What this means is that Jesus is present in the Lord’s Supper, but not bodily. He is present spiritually.

Reformed and evangelical Anglican theologian J. I. Packer explains what spiritual presence means in Taking God Seriously, p. 162:

It is the presence of the triumphant, sovereign Savior, who is there in terms of his objective omnipresence and here in terms of being always alongside each believer with a sustaining and nurturing purpose. Clarity requires us to say, then, that Christ is present at, rather than in, the Supper. Though not physical, his presence is personal and real in the sense of being a relational fact. Christ is present, not in the elements in any sense, but with his worshippers; and his presence is effected, not by the quasi-magic of ritual correctly performed by a permitted person, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, who indwells believers’ hearts to mediate Christ’s reality to them. It is not a passive but an active presence, known not by what it feels like (often it is, in any ordinary sense of the word, unfelt), but rather by what it does. For by it our risen Lord draws us close to himself and renews our assurance of possessing, either now or in days to come, all good things that he died to secure for us. And then, as a good meal energizes the body, so our Savior energizes us for renewed ventures in faith and love, faithfulness and obedience, worship and service. This is what we who believe should seek when we come to the Supper, and if we do, then we shall surely find it.

R. C. Sproul is a Presbyterian minister, and he explains spiritual presence similarly:

Yet when we commune with Christ at His table in the supper, we are not communing with His divine nature alone. We are communing with a person, and to commune with the divine person of the Son of God, because He has a truly human and truly divine nature, means that we are communing with the God-man. His human body and soul remain in heaven, but we have access to the whole Christ because we are communing in the supper with the divine person in whom both omnipresent deity and localized humanity are united. By faith, as Westminster Confession 29.7 states, we feed on Christ spiritually, and both His humanity and His deity nourish us. His presence is spiritual, but via that spiritual presence, we commune with Jesus in all His humanity and deity.

Coram Deo
When we come to the Lord’s Table, the human nature of Christ is not in the room with us but is in heaven. However, because Christ is spiritually present, we nevertheless also commune with His humanity. We are lifted up to heaven, as it were, to fellowship with the whole Christ. That is why the Lord’s Supper is such a solemn and joyous occasion.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I was deeply saddened some years ago in our Catholic Church. There was an outbreak of bird flu, and our bishops decided to withdraw the cup, presumably for health and safety reasons.

As the cup was always offered at our church, then withdrawn, I felt this to be a lack of faith in the true presence.

 

[JonNC]

Transubaniation (or however you spell it) is strictly condemned in the 39 Articles of Religion, AKA Anglican guidelines.

“Article XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.

…Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions…”

Thanks for the spelling correction.
Yes, I’ve read them. But I also know that there are Anglicans who have no problem with the term and meaning.
I, myself, prefer John of Damascus’ on the topic:
The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth a body united with divinity, not that the body which was received into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into the Lord’s body and blood. Now, if you inquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as God took on Himself the flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit… so the bread of the altar and the wine (and water) are mysteriously changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and are not two but one and the same.

 

[BartholomewB]

@AugustTherese, how old is the word ”transubstantiation”? I’ve been trying to google for it, but without much success. The Latin word ”transsubstantiatio,” with a double ss, is said to occur in a medieval work titled Expositio canonis missae, but that’s as far as I was able to get. There seem to have been several different works published under that title, one of them as early as St. Peter Damian, in or around the 1060s, and I can’t tell which of them is meant in this case.

 

[GKMotley]

Hi, there. Yep. Lots of Anglican types out there. to be sure. Including some who espouse Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1, those who would consider transubstantiation as the best guess as to how the wheels go around, in the Real Presence, those who recall C.S. Lewis’ observation that the command was “Take, eat”, not “Take, understand”, and those who do all three at once.

 

[GKMotley]

I take it you think the Articles form some sort of Anglican (generally speaking) confession. As I’ve pointed out over my posting career, they don’t. Only are applicable, legally and technically, to clergy of the Church of England, IAW the Parliamentary Act of Subscription, 1571. Any Anglican jurisdiction (Anglicans being mainly a herd of cats, in the standardization regard) may adopt what attitude they wish toward them, from burning clarified yak butter before them, to cutting them from the prayer book and using them to kindle the new fire at Easter.

Generally speaking, there is no way to generalize about Anglicans accurately.

 

[ltwin]

I was deeply saddened some years ago in our Catholic Church. There was an outbreak of bird flu, and our bishops decided to withdraw the cup, presumably for health and safety reasons.

As the cup was always offered at our church, then withdrawn, I felt this to be a lack of faith in the true presence.

The Catholic Church denied lay people the cup for centuries in the Middle Ages. I believe there is a a theological theory that it is not necessary to take communion under both kinds. If one eats just the bread, they receive Christ so it was not thought necessary to drink the wine as well.