Real Presence- Lutheranism, Anglicans?

[st_felicity]

TO BE CLEAR…Since Jesus does have “accidents” of the human part of his nature…I got this from Catholic Encyclopedia.

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#3

the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ. Lastly, we have the commune tertium in the unchanged appearances of bread and wine, under which appearances the pre-existent Christ assumes a new, sacramental mode of being, and without which His Body and Blood could not be partaken of by men. That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii).

Also worth posting (from the same source)…specific to the Real Presence:

Consequently, together with His Body and Blood and Soul, His whole Humanity also, and, by virtue of the hypostatic union, His Divinity, i.e. Christ whole and entire, must be present. Hence Christ is present in the sacrament with His Flesh and Blood, Body and Soul, Humanity and Divinity,

 

[Stone]

st_felicity:

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.

Sorry, but no “tone” intended. What I meant was RC’ism doesn’t just say He is “present” in some spiritual way above and below the bread and wine, but insists that the bread itself becomes, in actuality, Jesus Christ. “Go figure” simply means, now does that work if there is absolutely no change to the sight, smell, feel or taste of the “consecrated bread?” Can anyone explain this? How does some “thing” change not only into some “thing” else but actually into a “Someone?” And yet a young girl who is allergic to the wheat by which the bread was originally made, still has an allergic reaction after the “transubstantiation” occurs. You say it’s something and Someone at the same time.

When I said “presence” is not a Biblical term I meant in respect to the bread and wine. Jesus said, “This is My body,” He did not say I will be “present” in the bread. Nor did He say of the wine, “This is My blood,” but instead, “This is the CUP of the New Covenant…” And He did not say I will be “present” in the cup. So one can only conclude that Jesus was speaking either literally or symbolically (figuratively). The fact that He was standing right there in His body He was born with, and blood was running through His veins, I can only opt for the latter. And also the fact that He said “do this” (referring to eating the bread and drinking the wine) in “remembrance of Me.” Not that you may “eat” Me.

The Jews put the blood on the door posts and lintel only that one Passover. Never again. The subsequent Passovers were done in remembrace of that tragic, yet at the same time, glorious night. Even so, our Passover Lamb was sacrificed only once, His blood shed only once for the salvation of those who subsequently believe in Him. And like the subsequent Passovers, now we partake of the bread and wine in “remembrance” also.

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…???

But the Lutherans say He’s “present” but the elements do not “become.” There’s the difference in what you say “presence” is, and what they say “presence” is.

God’s “presence” was with the Israelites in the Shekinah glory, but the cloud and fire were not God. The “presence” of God filled the Temple, but the smoke was not God. God was present at the burning bush which was not consumed, but the bush was not God. So I do not understand your terminology of “presence.”

 

[Stone]

Jim B:

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

Why do you people here insist on large fonts!!??. It’s difficult to quote your message. I won’t reply again if large fonts are used.

Paul is not necessarily being literal here. In fact I do not believe he is being literal. In 1 Cor. 11:23-26 he also states that it is to be done “in remembrance” of Him.

 

[JPrejean]

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.

That’s encouraging, and it gives some corroboration to the notion that the Anglican understanding of the Real Presence is, at least on average, far more compatible with the Catholic view than the Lutheran view is. My concern is that, while the belief may be common, it is far from required dogma. This, plus the anti-sacrificial rhetoric of (I believe) Cranmer, seems to have led to the belief losing strength among Anglican theologians as a whole. But I do not wish in any way to slight the efforts of Anglo-Catholics who are striving to maintain the dogma in the face of such adversity. Those efforts are admirable.

 

[GKC]

JPrejean:

That’s encouraging, and it gives some corroboration to the notion that the Anglican understanding of the Real Presence is, at least on average, far more compatible with the Catholic view than the Lutheran view is. My concern is that, while the belief may be common, it is far from required dogma. This, plus the anti-sacrificial rhetoric of (I believe) Cranmer, seems to have led to the belief losing strength among Anglican theologians as a whole. But I do not wish in any way to slight the efforts of Anglo-Catholics who are striving to maintain the dogma in the face of such adversity. Those efforts are admirable.

You put your finger on a far more salient point about Anglicanism than the idea of a monolithic doctrine on the Real Presence. There is very little in historic Anglicanism that is dogma, outside of the Creeds. And in contemporary Anglicanism, there is not even that much. But Anglo-Catholics soldier on.

Cranmer we Anglo-Catholics call the silver tongued heretic.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[ak_mike]

According to Dictionary.com (you can decide whether it is a reputable source or not) says:

Regarding Consubstantiation:
The doctrine, proposed by Martin Luther, that the substance of the body and blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist.-Though I don’t know what modern Lutherans think of this doctrine.
Regarding Consubstantiation:
the doctrine of the High Anglican Church that after the consecration of the Eucharist the substance of the body and blood of Christ coexists with the substance of the consecrated bread and wine
*-*This would indicate that the Anglican Church does accept the doctrine of consubstantiation.

If anyone has any insights as to whether modern Lutherans accept Luther’s doctrine of consubstantiation, as well as if the Anglican Church truly teaches this doctrine (something I’ve never heard happened before), please share.

ak_mike:tiphat:

 

[Darrel]

Stone:

Paul is not necessarily being literal here. In fact I do not believe he is being literal. In 1 Cor. 11:23-26 he also states that it is to be done “in remembrance” of Him.

When Christ said do this in remembrance of me he was laying down instructions on the new and everlasting covenant. These instructions were literal and of massive importance. The way this is set up by Christ at the last supper says to me that he was saying the covenant of the Law is about to end. The new covenant is about to begin and this is what you will do. And he never said it should be done every once in a while he just said do it. I’m glad the Catholics recognize this and do it at every mass.

With regards to real presence, it’s actual pretty simple to prove. The fact that it can be taken unworthily which will bring about ones destruction kind of speaks volumes. I dont see anything about saying the Lords prayer unworthily he gave us that as well… Why is that?

-D

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

Sorry, but no “tone” intended. What I meant was RC’ism doesn’t

Just two quick things here…I know your pretty new on the forums so it’s just FYI…As you can see I’m no the only one that thought there was a dismissive tone to the “go figure” comment, but Ill take your word you didn’t mean it that way. Please consider how you might have taken such words if used in regard to something you held sacred. Also–many Catholics find the abbreviated form “RC” also a bit offensive, sometime’s depending on how it’s used–agian imagine if blanket statements were being made about “Ps”, Pism, or “Prots.”–you can decide for yourself if you want to continue writing that way, I’m just telling you, it will be interpreted as hostile by some.

just say He is “present” in some spiritual way above and below the bread and wine, but insists that the bread itself becomes, in actuality, Jesus Christ. “Go figure” simply means, now does that work if there is absolutely no change to the sight, smell, feel or taste of the “consecrated bread?” Can anyone explain this? How does some “thing” change not only into some “thing” else but actually into a “Someone?” And yet a young girl who is allergic to the wheat by which the bread was originally made, still has an allergic reaction after the “transubstantiation” occurs. You say it’s something and Someone at the same time.

Did you read my explanation of it above? What specifically is it you don’rt understand, and I’ll try to be clearer.

When I said “presence” is not a Biblical term I meant in respect to the bread and wine. Jesus said, “This is My body,” He did not say I will be “present” in the bread. Nor did He say of the wine, “This is My blood,” but instead, “This is the CUP of the New Covenant…”

What does “is” mean?

“…of my blood which will be shed…” what is your point? that either it is a memorial act OR actual act? What prevents it from being both?

Even so, our Passover Lamb was sacrificed only once, His blood shed only once for the salvation of those who subsequently believe in Him.

Catholics do not RE-DO Christ’s sacrifice–it is re-presented–it is one and the same sacrifice in that time is trancsended and we are present at his crucifixion because it is our sin that he died for also. I’m sure you do not deny that Christ died for all sin until the end of the world–thus his sacrifice was transcendant. Why then is it hard to accept that the memorial act of his crucifixion is also transcendant–and actually THE one death of Jesus for the sin of all in all time?

And like the subsequent Passovers, now we partake of the bread and wine in “remembrance” also. But the Lutherans say He’s “present” but the elements do not “become.” There’s the difference in what you say “presence” is, and what they say “presence” is.

No. There’s a difference in the first part of out different words that specify in what manner the bread is present or not–not whether God is present.

God’s “presence” was with the Israelites in the Shekinah glory, but the cloud and fire were not God. The “presence” of God filled the Temple, but the smoke was not God. God was present at the burning bush which was not consumed, but the bush was not God. So I do not understand your terminology of “presence.”

Look over my “essence, nature, substance” post–I’m not sure of the difference you are suggesting…please clarify.

 

[teresas1979]

Taken from the Articles of Faith of the Church of England:

**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.

 

[GKC]

teresas1979:

Taken from the Articles of Faith of the Church of England:

**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.

Greetings, teresas1979,

The XXXIX Articles are not binding on any Anglicans, except in a very limited sense on ordinands of the Church of England, due to the Erastian nature of the CoE. They are historical, and reflect a part of what was known as the Elizabethan Compromise, politics stated as theology, how Elizabeth I chose to control her fractious Church, at a point in time. Some Anglicans still affirm them, some affirm parts and ignore other parts, some cut them from the Prayer Book and use them to kindle the new fire, at Easter.

Anglicanism is creedal, not confessional, and the Articles are in no sense binding on Anglicans in general.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Jim_B]

STONE SAID - Paul is not necessarily being literal here. In fact I do not believe he is being literal.

Dear Stone,
How much more literal can Paul be? He states it explicitly. If you are of the opinion he is not being literal, then on what authority is your opinion backed up?
We can’t both be right here Stone. I have no authority to interpret scripture. Instead I take security in following the teachings of the Catholic Church / founded by Jesus Christ as he empowered the apostles to baptize and forgive sins in his name(John 20:20+).
The beauty of Catholicism is that we all believe in the same thing
(unity) which is what Jesus prayed for on the night of the Last Supper - “that they may all be one.” As long as protestants continue to splinter into more denominations (there are now more than 20,000), with each person rendering their own interpretation to scripture, the more “popes” we will have. How ironic that Luther sought to eliminate the single Pope, and now there are millions of them - each with their own self-proclaimed infallibility. Is this what Christ desired?
Forgive me for my straightforward manner, Stone. But I think you appreciate some candid feedback. In the end, every religious debate boils down to authority. There are two options:
There is an authentic authority (established by Jesus Christ),or here is no established authority - which means everyone is free to believe whatever they want. I believe the former to be reality.
Let Us Pray For All,
Jim B

 

[Maccabees]

GKC:

Greetings, teresas1979,

The XXXIX Articles are not binding on any Anglicans, except in a very limited sense on ordinands of the Church of England, due to the Erastian nature of the CoE. They are historical, and reflect a part of what was known as the Elizabethan Compromise, politics stated as theology, how Elizabeth I chose to control her fractious Church, at a point in time. Some Anglicans still affirm them, some affirm parts and ignore other parts, some cut them from the Prayer Book and use them to kindle the new fire, at Easter.

Anglicanism is creedal, not confessional, and the Articles are in no sense binding on Anglicans in general.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

Meaning Anglicans can believe whatever they want to believe.
No wonder I get dozens of different takes from Anglicans on doctrinal issues. Very confusing to those on the outside.

 

[jurist12]

As a member of the Reformed Episcopal Church I can say that we most certainly believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is from the REC itself as it’s essential position on the Real Presence.

“Scripture clearly teaches what has traditionally been called the Doctrine of the Real Presence. In short, Jesus Christ is really, truly, and uniquely Present in the Eucharistic celebration in which the dominical elements of bread and wine serve as focus. Our Lord’s Presence is also to be celebrated in the whole life of the Church militant and triumphant. of which the Eucharistic Community is the local manifestation. Anglicans have been loath to go beyond this basic definition, except to reject as dogmatic the theory of Transubstantiation. and to stress the role of the Holy Ghost in the celebration of the Sacrament. In the words of the Anglican divine, John Cosin, “as to the manner of the Presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, we do not search into the manner of it with perplexing inquiries; but, after the example of the primitive and purest Church of Christ, we leave it to the power and wisdom of Our Lord.” It is also affirmed that the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper was instituted by Christ to be a true partaking of His Body and Blood, a Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, and a pledge of our communion with Him and with each other as members of His mystical body. There is but one sacrifice for sin, the one oblation of Christ once offered, upon the Cross. This one offering is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. Thus, the Eucharist cannot be said to be a propitiatory sacrifice to God the Father. Finally the medaeval doctrine of Transubstantiation, as stated in Article XXVIII, “cannot be proved by Holy Writ”, nor can any dogmatic definition comprehend the mystery of The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The mystery of the Real Presence can only be affirmed by faith.”

This is the official position of the Reformed Episcopal Church… In Christ, jurist12

 

[GKC]

Maccabees:

Meaning Anglicans can believe whatever they want to believe.
No wonder I get dozens of different takes from Anglicans on doctrinal issues. Very confusing to those on the outside.

Nope. Meaning Anglicans are not required to affim the XXXIX Articles. Anglicanism is creedal, scriptural and, to an extent, based on the Councils of the undivided Church. It is *not * confessional, hence the Articles are not normative.

But I have no doubt Anglicans are confusing to others.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Stone]

st_felicity:

Please consider how you might have taken such words if used in regard to something you held sacred.

I will certainly watch my wording in the future. However, please let me know if the discussion of this topic becomes too much for you. I do realize for a Catholic (I will also refrain from using abbreviations) the sacrament of the Mass, based on your belief of what it is, is held most sacred. I too consider partaking of Communion extremely sacred, however, my personal faith is rooted in what WAS accomplished by God through the historic death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago so, therefore, I might have less emotional attachment to the discussion than you. If it becomes too overbearing for you just tell me you’re backing off and I’ll understand completely.

Did you read my explanation of it above? What specifically is it you don’rt understand, and I’ll try to be clearer.

Yes, I did read the explanation and I believe I “understood” it as well as anyone can. But you must admit, even this explanation must be accepted by faith, right? One must accept by faith their reasoning regarding “substance” and “accidents” and the miraculous exchange that’s suppose to take place at the time specific words are spoken by one who has the authority to speak them. So it begs the question: Wouldn’t this transformation process, which is so confidently asserted by the Magesterium, require the endorsement, the sanction, of Divine revelation? Who could possibly know such a transformation actually takes place in the manner in which it is explained since none of it is experienced by/through human senses? Case in point: The Disciples had no idea that when they looked at Jesus upon the cross that at that moment He was actually bearing the sins of the world. This fact had to be Divinely REVEALED to them after His bodily resurrection. Only then could Peter confidently proclaim “…and He Himself bore our sins in His body” (1 Pet. 2:24) Point being, the explanation presented would also require Divine revelation. For no man could possibly know such things through human reasoning or the science of observation (since it is claimed that the “accidents” remain the same). The explanation you furnish is not drawn from Scripture, nor do the Apostles render any teaching on this matter; so I must ask, to whom did God personally reveal the details of this alleged, miraculous process?

 

[Maccabees]

GKC:

Nope. Meaning Anglicans are not required to affim the XXXIX Articles. Anglicanism is creedal, scriptural and, to an extent, based on the Councils of the undivided Church. It is *not *confessional, hence the Articles are not normative.

But I have no doubt Anglicans are confusing to others.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

Actually Anglicans are increasingly confusing even to each other thus the likelyhood of even more church splits.
There is wide variety of belief from one Anglican church to another.
While I am sure you have a better grasp on how this can be reconciled we see how this was priorly seen as a strength in Anglicansim as it held together a wide variety of beliefs now that this is carrying over to homosexuality and women bishops the African church is having a cow and the Episcopal church and the Canadian church wants to push the issues thus more splits in the future.
I think we will agree that good old King Henry VIII would not recognize his church today which he thought would remain catholic. A few anglo-catholic parishes keep his faith alive and you might be apart of that but I am sure you will have to admit you are in the minority.

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

I will certainly watch my wording in the future. However, please let me know if the discussion of this topic becomes too much for you. … If it becomes too overbearing for you just tell me you’re backing off and I’ll understand completely.

Oh…how very gracious of you…my poor Catholic heart could hardly take it, I am so releived… Would you LIKE it if I backed off?

Hey–I told you as a favor so people don’t jump down your throat–take it or leave it.

This fact had to be Divinely REVEALED to them after His bodily resurrection. Only then could Peter confidently proclaim “…and He Himself bore our sins in His body” (1 Pet. 2:24) Point being, the explanation presented would also require Divine revelation.

Yeah…umm…Pentecost? Oh…the problem here is that you only believe in the Bible and Catholics consider three modes of Divine Revelation…Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Interpreting Body: the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Church). There’s plenty of threads out there on the topic–go find 'em if you’re interested.

The explanation you furnish is not drawn from Scripture, nor do the Apostles render any teaching on this matter; so I must ask, to whom did God personally reveal the details of this alleged, miraculous process?

You are mistaken. It is Biblical. I will not further hijack this thread…were discussing it here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=502487#post502487

 

[GKC]

Maccabees:

Actually Anglicans are increasingly confusing even to each other thus the likelyhood of even more church splits.
There is wide variety of belief from one Anglican church to another.
While I am sure you have a better grasp on how this can be reconciled we see how this was priorly seen as a strength in Anglicansim as it held together a wide variety of beliefs now that this is carrying over to homosexuality and women bishops the African church is having a cow and the Episcopal church and the Canadian church wants to push the issues thus more splits in the future.
I think we will agree that good old King Henry VIII would not recognize his church today which he thought would remain catholic. A few anglo-catholic parishes keep his faith alive and you might be apart of that but I am sure you will have to admit you are in the minority.

Agree with every word.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[cmu]

Does anyone know if there has ever been any reported/confirmed Eucharistic miracles in the other denominations?

 

[John_Yurich]

Lutherans believe in consubstantiation which is not that much different than transubstantiation. There is not that much difference between the Catholic and Lutheran Churches because when Luther started the Lutheran Church he retained the majority of Catholic doctrines. The Lutheran Church practices Infant Baptism, First Holy Communion and Confirmation and the Lutheran Church believes that the Virgin Mary remained ever virgin and the Lutheran Church has a liturgical worship service that is not that much different than the Mass. In fact some Lutheran Churches call the liturgical worship service the Mass.

John