The Eucharist - Consubstantiation? Symbolic? I don't think so

[artist3189]

His book is the Bible - the sacred scriptures are FIRST among equals when it compares to sacred traditions - ask the priest…Real Prescense as the eucharsit is one of the “Mysteries” . Many mainline denominations believe it is a real prescence - metaphysically and spiritually, though. metaphysically and spiritually, though. No one actually knows one Jesus gave us His word before he left and provided us the Holy Spirit after he departed. All we interpret should be done with this in mind. All things Jesus taught in his parables and lessons were on several levels at once - not always literal - go look at his parables and see…The bottom-line is we must participate in the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper, etc) - as long we we do that come to a mood of discerning ourselves etc like Paul - it matters a whit what honest godly men honestly disagree about…

brownjt

Firstly, this post was not direct for you to answer, secondly, I have no idea what the heck you’re even saying here. And quote “*metaphysically and spiritually, though. No one actually ***knows.” **You may not know, but the Church knows. So does St. Paul. We all know the prominence the bible holds within the tradition OF THE CHURCH. But if you don’t believe what is written in the book, then, it’s just a book. Burn it, rip it to shreds, toss it in the trash with all the left over bread and grape juice that Rightlydivide says is ‘so much garbage’. That was the point here. Either believe whats written, or not. There is no in-between. It’s clear. If you show that passage to 10 non Christians that are not familiar with St Paul’s passage, then tell them the Last Supper story, and then ask them what they thought St Paul believed was happening with the Body and Blood, the answer they would give would be clear… he believed it was supernatural… the real Presence. Only a person that has a conflicting religious upbringing would think otherwise. That upbringing impedes them from accepting the truth out of fear for the consequences it implies to their belief system. The text is clear.

 

[grannymh]

I Post 151

Hello Jack The Lutheran,

I’m at that awkward age where I know I know something but can only remember 63% of the details. Thus, I was glad to read about consubstantiation and your recounting of some of Eucharistic history.

Your references to scholastic thought and a council other than Trent definitely relate to this thread. They are also part of that 37% that I’m trying to revive.

Comments: You might be interested in a related thread in the philosophy forum which is under apologetics titled: Does Catholicism offer anything to Modern Science? submitted by another new member, TheAtheist. In his opening post he talks about the relationship between reason and faith.

Regarding this thread’s discussion of disposing bread used in services, it seems to me there is now a third viable option, i.e., to inhume it. Placing bread reverently in sacred soil (like outside a church) can be appropriate for the simple reason that the bread can decompose naturally without being disturbed. I do admire your pastor for taking the time to do this.

It would be up to the religious group to determine if inhuming is appropriate considering their beliefs. It is rightly their business.

It seems logical to me that It is also up to religious groups to determine how they approach the use of symbolism. I am not saying that religious groups should ignore outside suggestions when they are made respectfully. Some may be very useful, etc.
But at the end of the day, the religious group has the right to accept or decline.

One question and it is o.k. for you to laugh. Does the real reason that Luther finally departed from the Catholic faith have to do with the way the Real Presence is definied, i.e., transubstantiation and not because of the selling of indulgences?
The indulgence scandal which was big then always seemed to me that it belonged on the front page of the check-out counter tabloids.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[brownjt]

You are correct, although it is difficult to find Southern Baptists in particular who will admit it.

Both Methodism and Fundamentalism arose within the temperance movement. Welch, the man who invented the pasteurization process which made grape juice sustainable, was a devout Methodist

.

Ahaaaa.

 

[brownjt]

brownjt

Firstly, this post was not direct for you to answer, secondly, I have no idea what the heck you’re even saying here. And quote “*metaphysically and spiritually, though. No one actually ***knows.” **You may not know, but the Church knows. So does St. Paul. We all know the prominence the bible holds within the tradition OF THE CHURCH. But if you don’t believe what is written in the book, then, it’s just a book. Burn it, rip it to shreds, toss it in the trash with all the left over bread and grape juice that Rightlydivide says is ‘so much garbage’. That was the point here. Either believe whats written, or not. There is no in-between. It’s clear. If you show that passage to 10 non Christians that are not familiar with St Paul’s passage, then tell them the Last Supper story, and then ask them what they thought St Paul believed was happening with the Body and Blood, the answer they would give would be clear… he believed it was supernatural… the real Presence. Only a person that has a conflicting religious upbringing would think otherwise. That upbringing impedes them from accepting the truth out of fear for the consequences it implies to their belief system. The text is clear.

yeah - I misplaced it. It is supernatural. I think that symbolic is not superanatural. There are faiths I believe that the the supernatural part is represents maybe an in-dwelling of the Lord into the Body and Bread. That is what i believe "high episcopalians believe. Conflicting religious upbringing here hopefully does not mean - different. The lay persons of any faith would probalby accede to your interpretation of what Paul said if there clergy would let in some dissenting opinions. The partaking of the Eucharist is the important part.

Question: If I partake in all the sacraments of the Catholic Church, but still reserve judgment in my mind re: the menaing of the presence…how does that affect my overall walk as you were in the Catholic Church?

 

[MarcoPolo]

The dogma of Transubstantiation was formulated under influence from Aristotelian philosophy…Luther decided to make things less complicated

Could you clarify this statement? If not for Aristotle, are you saying the Church never would have named “Transubstantiation”? And we should presume Luther was influenced by the Holy Spirit, is that correct?

 

[NotWorthy]

I that might be a misrepresentation of consubstantiation. Luther thought that the body and blood of Jesus Christ were physically present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. He was operating under the philosophical assumptions of Augustine, who was more of a Platonist. The dogma of Transubstantiation was formulated under influence from Aristotelian philosophy, like many of the medieval scholastics were (Aquinas etc.). When the Fourth Lateran Council made a distinction between essence and substance, Luther decided to make things less complicated by declaring that the visible vessel of the body and blood of Christ was physically present because it looks that way. But he also asserted that Jesus was physically present because he said so. Besides, being Lutheran, my pastor will bring deacons to consume the leftovers of the wine, and puts the bread into the soil outside the church. It’s not that we’re irreverent about it.

Jack the Lutheran

What do you do with the homebound, i.e. sick and elderly? If the bread becomes normal bread after the church service, what becomes of the bread brought to the homebound?

 

[dbaseII]

I that might be a misrepresentation of consubstantiation. Luther thought that the body and blood of Jesus Christ were physically present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Jack the Lutheran

Not according to what Luther wrote here:

>>>>> As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10, 16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11, 28: Let him so eat of that bread. <<<<<<

That being said, from my various readings, it appears that Luther went back and forth on this issue and may have believed in the transubstantiation toward the end of his life.

It also appears that the beliefs may differ among the different Lutheran denominations.

 

[IAGladfelter]

What do you do with the homebound, i.e. sick and elderly? If the bread becomes normal bread after the church service, what becomes of the bread brought to the homebound?

I can’t speak for Jack the Lutheran, but many Lutheran Pastors do reserve the consecrated Hosts in Tabernacles or Aumbries to take to the ill and home-bound. This is more common in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America than in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. The Wisconsin Synod does not permit this at all, to my knowledge.

As a rule, with some exceptions as noted above, the Pastor will bring a small sick-call set to the hospital or home and actually celebrate a very short, abbreviated but nontheless complete celebration of Holy Communion right then and there.

“Painting with a very broad brush,” the theological rationale is that the Eucharist involves not only the words of institution but also the acts of taking, breaking, and eating, all of which must be present for the Blessed Sacrament to be validly administered. There is also no firm agreement as to when the actual real presence of Christ occurs. Some, especially in the Missouri Synod will say that it is only then the third act, the eating" actually occurs, and then it is gone. IMHO this version of the Sacramental Union (not consubstantiation, per se - that is taught by the Eastern Orthodox,) is but a hairsplit from John Calvin’s own “Spiritual Real Presence,” refined by later Calvinist theologians and Confessions into a Spiritual Presence.

The Wisconsin Synod, like the Eastern Orthodox neither “fixes the moment” and duration of the real presence nor gets precise as to the mechanism through which it occurs other than that to affirm that it does.

Hope this helps.

(As as aside, I and my Church teach exactly the same thing about the Mass as does the Roman Catholic Church, right out of its Catechism and various pertinent Magisterial documents. The Lutheran confessions notwithstanding, we believe, teach, and confess transubstantiation, not “sacramental union” or consubstantiation, and do reserve the Blessed Sacfament in Tabernacles on our altars.)

Blessings,
IAGladfelter
Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church

 

[IAGladfelter]

I can’t speak for Jack the Lutheran, but many Lutheran Pastors do reserve the consecrated Hosts in Tabernacles or Aumbries to take to the ill and home-bound. This is more common in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America than in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. The Wisconsin Synod does not permit this at all, to my knowledge.

As a rule, with some exceptions as noted above, the Pastor will bring a small sick-call set to the hospital or home and actually celebrate a very short, abbreviated but nontheless complete celebration of Holy Communion right then and there.

“Painting with a very broad brush,” the theological rationale is that the Eucharist involves not only the words of institution but also the acts of taking, breaking, and eating, all of which must be present for the Blessed Sacrament to be validly administered. There is also no firm agreement as to when the actual real presence of Christ occurs. Some, especially in the Missouri Synod will say that it is only then the third act, the eating" actually occurs, and then it is gone. IMHO this version of the Sacramental Union (not consubstantiation, per se - that is taught by the Eastern Orthodox,) is but a hairsplit from John Calvin’s own “Spiritual Real Presence,” refined by later Calvinist theologians and Confessions into a Spiritual Presence.

The Wisconsin Synod, like the Eastern Orthodox neither “fixes the moment” and duration of the real presence nor gets precise as to the mechanism through which it occurs other than that to affirm that it does.

Hope this helps.

(As as aside, I and my Church teach exactly the same thing about the Mass as does the Roman Catholic Church, right out of its Catechism and various pertinent Magisterial documents. The Lutheran confessions notwithstanding, we believe, teach, and confess transubstantiation, not “sacramental union” or consubstantiation, and do reserve the Blessed Sacfament in Tabernacles on our altars.)

Blessings,
IAGladfelter
Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church

 

[jackthelutheran]

Actually the Fourth Lateran Council speaks on essence and substance quite a bit, especially in the relationship within the Trinity. Ultimately what Luther was objecting to in transubstantiation was the fact that the church was placing something mysterious and ineffable into a philosophical category aside the Bible. Consubstantiation is also a philosophical label used to describe the Lutheran view. Luther acknowledged two things: Jesus said that the bread and wine of communion were truly his body and blood. But Luther also realized that the elements of communion looked, smelled, tasted, and felt like bread and wine. Luther is only being true to two things, and attempting not to be philosophical about it. If he was trying to be philosophical, he would have come up with another philosophical principle, like transubstantiation. Luther’s rejection of transubstantiation was focused on one thing: the sacrifice of the mass, an invention that developed after the writing of the New Testament. In short, Luther is different from everyone by not trying to create extra-biblical logical principles to explain some of the paradoxes of the faith. That’s why Lutheranism is neither Calvinistic nor Armenian.

 

[jackthelutheran]

Not according to what Luther wrote here:

That being said, from my various readings, it appears that Luther went back and forth on this issue and may have believed in the transubstantiation toward the end of his life.

It also appears that the beliefs may differ among the different Lutheran denominations.

I would have to agree. Luther changed his position on many things many times, communion being one of them. According to the Catechism, a true presence view is endorsed. Most of the writings of Luther are not binding for church theology and rather the confessions present a better representation for Lutheran theology in many cases than Luther himself.

 

[grannymh]

Quick note to Jack the Lutheran,

Re: post 167,

I’m hoping you will clarify consubstantiation and transubstantian descriptions from your point of view. It looks to me that the Martin Luther quote may have suffered in translation because the metaphysical basis seems slightly off.

Granted that all of this may be considered “sophistical subtley” (see the Martin Luther quote in #167), it is important that church leaders or those directly responsible for the body of faith have a clear understanding of what the real presence of Jesus means.

It is also important that religious groups who hold “symbolic” views have a clear understanding of the basis for their view.

It is my humble observation that once there is wishy-washy
attitudes toward basic beliefs, the trickle down effect is wishy-washy moral judgements.

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving you all.
See you on the weekend following.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[grannymh]

Thank you Jack the Lutheran.

Your reply to my post was swift. Our posts crossed in the mail so to speak. However, if you want to add more clarification as to definitions, etc., go ahead.

By the way, metaphysics was my favorite subject, especially the concept of substance and accidents.

Best wishes to all this week…

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[jackthelutheran]

Let me clarify. I don’t endorse transubstantiation or consubstantiation. They are philosophical categories. Let me also say that I don’t have a whole lot of trouble with what the Fourth Lateran Council does say about communion. If I may quote: “Jesus Christ Himself, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the figures of bread and wine…” In essence, I don’t have any disagreement with that. I as a Lutheran only attempt to be faithful to the fact that Jesus declared communion to be his body and blood; I also want to say that the elements of communion appear to be ordinary, but are in some way the physical body and blood of Jesus. I actually have come to realize that perhaps the disagreement between official Lutheran teaching and the teaching of the Catholic Church is a straw man; perhaps it’s a created controversy not worth mentioning in reality. In terms of definitions, I personally would be closer to the view of transubstantiation than anything else, but what I have been getting at is that categorizing things is the wrong approach. I would say that Luther taught many things; contradictory things. Depending on who he was debating, his positions would change and mold to his needs. I try to recognize the flaws in Luther, but what needs also to be recognized is the thing that Luther tried to point out all his adult life: that even though things in the church come and go, the Bible is always the only infallible authority to establish doctrine.

 

[NotWorthy]

I try to recognize the flaws in Luther, but what needs also to be recognized is the thing that Luther tried to point out all his adult life: that even though things in the church come and go, the Bible is always the only infallible authority to establish doctrine.

And where does the Bible make this claim? I’m familiar with the Bible making the claim that the Church is the only infallible authority to establish doctrine, but I’m not familiar where the Bible says that about the Bible.

 

[jackthelutheran]

Let me also assert my position that is reinforced by newadvent. What I said this morning was that under Aristotelian philosophy, transubstantiation was developed. What I also said was that Luther was influenced by Augustine, hence his shyness towards transubstantiation. Let me now quote the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Augustine was deprived of a clear conception of Transubstantiation, so long as he was held in the bonds of Platonism…” This clearly supports the definition between the assumptions held by the medieval theologians verses those of the early church and in this case, Luther.

“All scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching and reproof.” 2 Timothy 3:16. I think that might sum things up pretty well.

I can also think of a few places that authority is placed in the hands of the Apostles. I don’t deny the authority of the church. I just don’t see any support in the New Testament for an infallible pope.

It can’t be wrong if it’s God-breathed.

So if the Bible talks about the infallibility of the church, but the Bible itself isn’t infallible, how do you know it’s right? That’s right you don’t.

 

[NotWorthy]

jackthelutheran:

“All scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching and reproof.” 2 Timothy 3:16. I think that might sum things up pretty well.

I don’t equate “profitable” with “only infallible authority”. Especially when the Bible gives this authority to the Church.

jackthelutheran:

So if the Bible talks about the infallibility of the church, but the Bible itself isn’t infallible, how do you know it’s right? That’s right you don’t.

I never claim that the Bible was fallible. Where did you get that notion?

jackthelutheran:

I can also think of a few places that authority is placed in the hands of the Apostles. I don’t deny the authority of the church. I just don’t see any support in the New Testament for an infallible pope.

So, you admit that authority is placed in the hands of fallible men. Where is that authority in your church today?

 

[jackthelutheran]

I actually think that if something is God-breathed then it has to be infallible. I don’t thing you would deny that. Besides, if the Bible isn’t infallible, then how do you know that it’s right when it says that the church is infallible?

I the Bible is infallible as you admit, then why have the “infallible” popes done some of the most sinful acts imaginable? Take for instance the Borgia popes. One of them decided to invite prostitutes to the Vatican. Perhaps the next day he got up and gave a homily on anything relating to faith. Is that man infallible? I’m inclined not to think so.

NotWorthy:

So, you admit that authority is placed in the hands of fallible men. Where is that authority in your church today?

Yah, every person who ever contributed to the writing of the Bible was fallible, and yet authority was placed in their hands. Sounds okay to me.

Authority is placed in the hands of the church, but it isn’t infallible. God placed the fallible Apostles ahead of everyone else. Didn’t he. The Apostles also passed down their offices, giving at least some of their authority to bishops succeeding them.

 

[NotWorthy]

I actually think that if something is God-breathed then it has to be infallible. I don’t thing you would deny that. Besides, if the Bible isn’t infallible, then how do you know that it’s right when it says that the church is infallible?

Who claims that the Bible is fallible?

Its like you’re arguing that the sun is coming up tomorrow. No one disagrees.

jackthelutheran:

I the Bible is infallible as you admit, then why have the “infallible” popes done some of the most sinful acts imaginable? Take for instance the Borgia popes. One of them decided to invite prostitutes to the Vatican. Perhaps the next day he got up and gave a homily on anything relating to faith. Is that man infallible? I’m inclined not to think so.

Who claims that the Pope is an infallible man? No one makes that claim.

Was Peter, the first Pope, infallible? No.

 

[jackthelutheran]

Fine. My point is that the Bible is the only infallible authority that we can use to determine doctrine. The New Testament never gives any indication that the church will carry out further revelation. If we thought that, we’d be Pentecostals.