Real Presence- Lutheranism, Anglicans?

[ak_mike]

Does the Lutheran Church accept Luther’s doctrine of consubstantiation. If so, it would seem we Catholics are closer to Lutherans than Lutherans are to most other denominations. (On the issue of the Eucharist) Also, what does the Anglican Church believe about the Real Presence, and does the extend to the Episcopalian Church in America?

Thank You for you answers!
ak_mike

 

[GKC]

ak_mike:

Does the Lutheran Church accept Luther’s doctrine of consubstantiation. If so, it would seem we Catholics are closer to Lutherans than Lutherans are to most other denominations. (On the issue of the Eucharist) Also, what does the Anglican Church believe about the Real Presence, and does the extend to the Episcopalian Church in America?

Thank You for you answers!
ak_mike

Anglicans differ on the subject, as they do on other questions. Most Anglicans, except those on the far evangelical/reformed side of the spectrum, will affirm the Real Presence as both scripturally and Traditionally supported, including by the ECFs. Thus, in my parish, the Body is reserved, in a tabernacle placed on the main altar, the Presence is reverenced, the Body and Blood are handled only by those validly ordained (yes, I’m familiar with Apostolicae Curae), etc.

Not all Anglicans try to dogmatize about the exact manner in which the Real Presence is brought about, and thus some consider transubstantiation, as an explanation of the process, to be a pious opinion. And some, such as myself, affirm Canon I of Session XIII of the Council of Trent. and think Canon 2 a perfectly reasonable explanation of what is going on.

This range of opinion is found in ECUSA, as in Anglicanism generally.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[ak_mike]

…and Lutherans?

 

[ak_mike]

…Does anyone know?:yawn:

 

[ak_mike]

I’ve checked the website of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. I can’t find an answer. Does anyone know?

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Yes, when I went through Lutheran Catechism as a youngun’, we had to declare as an article of faith that the “Body and Blood of Christ are present in and under the bread and wine”, or something to that effect.
Yes, Lutherans are at least supposed to believe in “consubstantiation”.

 

[Kotton]

whowantsumadebo:

Yes, when I went through Lutheran Catechism as a youngun’, we had to declare as an article of faith that the “Body and Blood of Christ are present in and under the bread and wine”, or something to that effect.
Yes, Lutherans are at least supposed to believe in “consubstantiation”.

Well. the Lutherans I know don’t believe that ‘Consubstaniation’ is the proper term to use. However, ‘in and under the bread and wine’ is the way it is explained.

Kotton

 

[JPrejean]

In my opinion, the account of the Real Presence given by Martin Chemnitz in The Two Natures of Christ and The Lord’s Supper is based on the heretical Lutheran understanding of the communicatio idiomatum, which confuses the natures of Christ in violation of the decrees of Chalcedon and Constantinople. I’ve explained it elsewhere this way:

Chemnitz says:“On the basis of the doctrine of the personal union, therefore, this axiom is very true and sure, and all the gates of hell cannot overturn it, namely, that the Logos, can be present with His assumed human nature wherever, whenever, and however He wills, not only in some place with His essential attributes but also according to and on account of the secret and ineffable personal union of the humanity with deity. When He wishes His body or assumed nature to be present, sought, apprehended is to be decided and judged not by our own argumentation, although it may have the appearance of form of rational logic, but only on the basis of the sure Word of God revealed in Scripture.

For this presence of Christ’s assumed human nature, of which we are now speaking, is not a natural or essential presence, but a voluntary and wholly free presence which depends only on the will and power of the Son of God, that is, on His promises and assertions to us whereby with definite word He assures us of His will to be present with His human nature.”
…
Now, the notion seems to be that the divine will can give the human nature, Christ’s Body, a kind of presence that it does not have naturally; namely, the voluntary or willed presence. That strikes me as a straight confusion or mixing of the natures, which can never happen under Chalcedon (viz., the fact that it happens only under the special circumstances of the sacrament doesn’t make it any more permissible than would be a temporary annihilation of the human nature). I think that the difficulty is fundamentally Christological because of the use of the patristic analogy drawn between the Eucharist and the hypostatic union, and in this case, it seems that the problem is Monothelete in character, since the divine will overrides even the properties of the human nature.
…
The Lutherans seem to have had quite a poor understanding of the patristic concept of theosis, and in particular, their account of the deification of the will used to explain the aforementioned communion of the wills in all actions appears to flatly contradict St. Maximus’s account. This sloppy handling of the communicatio idiomatum with respect to the wills could certainly explain why they didn’t perceive the contradiction with the patristic writings in their account of the Lord’s Supper.

So to put it simply, I believe that the Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence is completely implausible from the Catholic perspective. The Anglican view is much more acceptable, even though we deny the validity of their orders.

 

[Stone]

Rc’s believe that the Eucharist actually becomes the body, spirit, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Lutherans and Anglicans use the term “real presence.” I believe neither teaching. But what does “real presence” actually mean? He spiritually attaches Himself to the elements?

 

[JPrejean]

But what does “real presence” actually mean? He spiritually attaches Himself to the elements?
In the Anglican case, transubstantiation was originally a relatively common belief, but the later denial of the sacrificial quality of the Eucharist led to the belief being undermined. It’s hard to sustain belief in the Real Presence and to simultaneously deny that the Eucharist is connected to the sacrifice of Calvary. That tension ultimately was too much for the Anglican notion of the Real Presence to bear. However, I don’t think that the Anglican understanding was formed based on a blatantly defective Christology, while I believe the Lutheran understanding was.

Edit – Incidentally, the Catholic belief is usually described as transubstantiation. The substance of the bread and wine is replaced by the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, while the accidents (most notably, all tangible, physical properties of the bread and wine) remain present.

 

[GKC]

As I posted above, Anglican views on this vary. And it is quite common among Anglicans, particularly among Anglo-Catholics, to affirm the Eucharistic sacrifice as identical with the One Sacrifice of Calvary, as time and eternity intersect, at the altar, before the *alter Christus *. Dix’s SHAPE OF THE LITURGY is the exemplar of Anglican thought on these lines, AFAIK. But there is no single Anglican view. There are Anglicans and then there are Anglicans.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

But what does “real presence” actually mean? He spiritually attaches Himself to the elements?
In the Anglican case, transubstantiation was originally a relatively common belief, but the later denial of the sacrificial quality of the Eucharist led to the belief being undermined. It’s hard to sustain belief in the Real Presence and to simultaneously deny that the Eucharist is connected to the sacrifice of Calvary. That tension ultimately was too much for the Anglican notion of the Real Presence to bear. However, I don’t think that the Anglican understanding was formed based on a blatantly defective Christology, while I believe the Lutheran understanding was.

Edit – Incidentally, the Catholic belief is usually described as transubstantiation. The substance of the bread and wine is replaced by the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, while the accidents (most notably, all tangible, physical properties of the bread and wine) remain present.

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

Rc’s believe that the Eucharist actually becomes the body, spirit, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Lutherans and Anglicans use the term “real presence.” I believe neither teaching. But what does “real presence” actually mean? He spiritually attaches Himself to the elements?

To Catholics “Real Presence” means the following:

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."199 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."200 "This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."201

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. the Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. the priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.202

and St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. the power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed… Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.203

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."204

 

[Stone]

OK, but can anyone here explain what is meant by “real presence.” The key word: “presence.” RCism gets around it by stating that the “host” actually becomes Christ, yet at the same time the “accidents” don’t change (go figure). But what does “presence” mean? This is not a Biblical term, but theological, so in the mind of men, what are they thinking?

 

[Arwen037]

As far as Lutheranism, Jesus is “In, With, and Through”. And the way it was explained to me sounds exactly like what Catholics believe. But I do have to say (please don’t jump on me) that Catholics in general don’t do a good job of explaining their beliefs on the Eucharist. The best way I’ve heard it explained is that Jesus becomes bread and wine.

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

OK, but can anyone here explain what is meant by “real presence.” The key word: “presence.” RCism gets around it by stating that the “host” actually becomes Christ, yet at the same time the “accidents” don’t change (go figure). But what does “presence” mean? This is not a Biblical term, but theological, so in the mind of men, what are they thinking?

Do I detect a certain “tone” here…"(go figure)" ?..Please, a little courtesy if you can’t muster respect! Catholics believe when the host is consecrated it IS Jesus–so to me, you’re being disrespectful to Jesus–not to my beliefs.

What might 'presence" mean if it doesn’t mean actually present…really there…wholly and completely in attendance…He’s here!..at hand…among us…occupying the same general vicinity…the big Guy’s really and truly in 'da house…???

 

[Church_Militant]

Stone:

OK, but can anyone here explain what is meant by “real presence.” The key word: “presence.” RCism gets around it by stating that the “host” actually becomes Christ, yet at the same time the “accidents” don’t change (go figure). But what does “presence” mean? This is not a Biblical term, but theological, so in the mind of men, what are they thinking?

Stone:
First, lemme ask you to tone down your remarks… Just because you don’t comprehend a belief is no reason to use words like “RCism gets around it” and “(go figure)”.

I would also point out that the term Presence is indeed a Biblical term since it is used in the OT to speak of the presence of God etc, and this is indeed the way we mean it.
The “accidents” as you call them do not change appearance, but do change miraculously into the body and blood, soul and divinity of the risen Lord Jesus.

A good example of this from the OT is the burning bush which God certainly made to appear as one thing and yet was indeed something else was it not?

As to the NT case for the real presence, I find it very easy to understand and to show from scriptures. (I am aware that Lutherans/Anglicans reject this. I feel that they are wrong in doing so.)

You could just check out the thread on here called “The Eucharist Is Scriptural”, which deals with all of this.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=40172
There’s a long and explicit list of NT passages about all this there.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[st_felicity]

Arwen037:

Catholics in general don’t do a good job of explaining their beliefs on the Eucharist. The best way I’ve heard it explained is that Jesus becomes bread and wine.

No… that does not accurately reflect Catholic belief…Jesus does not become bread and wine, there is no longer bread and wine–it is Jesus. The accidents (the appearnces that we apprehend with our senses–sight, smell, taste, touch) remain while the essence the SUBSTANCE)–what makes bread-bread, and wine-wine TRANSform (thus TRAN-SUBSTANsiation).

I will try to find an analogy or a succinct explanation that is easy to understand and will post it later.

 

[GKC]

Church Militant:

As to the NT case for the real presence, I find it very easy to understand and to show from scriptures. (I am aware that Lutherans/Anglicans reject this. I feel that they are wrong in doing so.)

Greetings, Church Militant,

I’m an Anglican and I fiind it easy to understand and show the idea of the Real Presence from Scriptures, too. Many Anglicans believe the same, including affirming the definition of the Real Presence in the sacrament as defined by the Council of Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1. See my posts in this thread, above. Some Anglicans, the minority, pehaps, have a strictly memorial sense of the Eucharist. But there are other sorts of Anglicans.

GKC

traditional Anglican

 

[st_felicity]

st_felicity:
I will try to find an analogy or a succinct explanation that is easy to understand and will post it later.

This is as succinct as I can put it…especially since I’m no Aristotelian philosopher…

God’s essence–the reality that is God–is his nature. He IS–“I AM WHO AM” There is no “substance” that is part of his being to make him complete. God is the same as his essence or nature.

The essence/nature of his creatures–we humans–is expressed through our substance. For example, I am a “human being” not a “canine being”. But also my substance has unique characteristics–my gender, my race, my coloration, my height, etc…these are the “accidents” of my substance.

So…the nature of bread and wine is expressed in its substance which is what kind it is…let’s say wheat and grape–and the accidents are how is looks, smells, tastes, its texture, etc…

Through the miracle of transubstantiation, the bread and wine BECOME God whose substance is the same as his essence. Because God’s substance is the same as his essence the bread and wine are changes from their nature to God, but the accidents remain–since God is incorporeal and has no “accidents”. He appears under the form of bread and wine–but no bread and wine remains–only Jesus.

 

[Jim_B]

Stone:

Rc’s believe that the Eucharist actually becomes the body, spirit, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Lutherans and Anglicans use the term “real presence.” I believe neither teaching. But what does “real presence” actually mean? He spiritually attaches Himself to the elements?

Dear Stone,
So you do not believe either teaching. Would you believe St. Paul?
" I speak to you as sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup we use in the Lord’s supper and for which we give thanks to God; when we drink from it we are sharing in the blood of Christ. And the bread we break: when we eat it, we are sharing in the body of Christ." 1 Cor 10:15-16

*St. Paul is quite clear. He believes in the ‘real presence’, not a symbol. If you still have a problem with this, you’ll have to argue with St. Paul. *Did you ever stop to think, what is the greatest gift God could give us this side of heaven? Jesus Christ himself - let’s not limit God’s generosity. He said, “This is my body…this is my blood.” And when people took him literally(John 6), some walked away and some believed. Which group do you want to subscribe to?
I pray you will have a change of heart, as St. Paul did while riding a horse to Damascus . . .