Real presence

[PJM]

=JonNC;7849426]No offense taken. This is the teaching of your communion, and you are correct to professing it. Pardon us if we disagree. Further, a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger:

While no one would say tha Cr. Ratzinger here was disputing the teaching of the CC regarding Holy Orders, what he is saying that Chrsit’s presence in the Lutheran sacrament cannot be discounted. Even to him, what we do is not a nothing.

Jon

Certainly NOT!

Nor is it the actual and very REAL Presence of Jesus.As it is [or ought to be] for Catholics.

Any and ALL reverence towards God is a GOOD THING!

God Bless you Jon,

Pat

 

[JonNC]

=Geremia;7850139] Yes, it sounds similar, besides the fact that Lutherans do not have validly ordained priests, as another poster on this thread respectfully pointed out.So the accidents are Christ? How can that be? The accidents can change—e.g., they can be big, small, right here, over there, broken into many parts, in one piece, etc.—but Christ, who is immutable, cannot.

I think sometimes the Orthodox explain better than the west. They seem better able to resist metaphysics.
What we receive at the Eucharist is His body and blood. John of Damascus says, “… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit”

You seem to believe in consubstantiation, which says that consecrated bread or wine is both Christ and bread or wine.

Certainly not!! If I am going to type here the Lutheran criticism of Catholic usage of metaphysical language, why would I turn around and claim the same metaphysics? No. Lutherans do not accept consubstantiation. We accept a literal understanding, that is that Christ’s words mean what they say, “This is my body”, etc. “He didn’t say this is my body and bread”.

Jon

 

[Geremia]

John of Damascus says, “… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit”

I think St. John of Damascus is here comparing the power of God in an act of consecration to that of the Incarnation; he is definitely not equating consecration with the Incarnation. Consecration is not a reincarnation of Christ. Christ’s body is not an addition to Christ; it is Christ.

If I am going to type here the Lutheran criticism of Catholic usage of metaphysical language, why would I turn around and claim the same metaphysics?

I’m sorry, but I didn’t know you were not going “to type here the Lutheran criticism of Catholic usage of metaphysical language.” I did not know he was critical of it, either. I will read about that on my own, then.

No. Lutherans do not accept consubstantiation.

But Luther did, didn’t he?

We accept a literal understanding, that is that Christ’s words mean what they say, “This is my body”, etc. “He didn’t say this is my body and bread”.

Right

 

[Holly3278]

You know, I had forgotten the definition of Transubstantiation until I visited this thread. I had become confused as well. However, the other day, I did have my faith in the Real Presence and in Transubstantiation reaffirmed. I witnessed a Eucharistic Miracle.

 

[JonNC]

=Geremia;7856213]I think St. John of Damascus is here comparing the power of God in an act of consecration to that of the Incarnation; he is definitely not equating consecration with the Incarnation. Consecration is not a reincarnation of Christ. Christ’s body is not an addition to Christ; it is Christ.

My understanding of the quote is that he is saying that the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, because He said so, and further explanation is probably unnecessary. With this, I agree.

I’m sorry, but I didn’t know you were not going “to type here the Lutheran criticism of Catholic usage of metaphysical language.” I did not know he was critical of it, either. I will read about that on my own, then.

This is the main disagreement of the Lutheran reformers with Transubstantiation.

But Luther did, didn’t he?Right

Luther and the reformers were quite adament that they were not teaching consubstantiation. This was a charge made against us by the Calvinists.

Jon

 

[dnar]

You know, I had forgotten the definition of Transubstantiation until I visited this thread. I had become confused as well. However, the other day, I did have my faith in the Real Presence and in Transubstantiation reaffirmed. I witnessed a Eucharistic Miracle.

Would you care to share this Eucharistic Miracle experience? I would love to hear it.