P
phil19034
Guest
Or an Orthodox Church… but it’s relatively easier to steal from a Catholic Parish because the Orthodox don’t have Divine Liturgy every day.
- Status
I have no problem with leave the bread out of it. Who cares about bread, except that Christ was holding bread when He said, “this is my body”. Therefore, the bread is His body. How? No one knows.
Then you have to include Transubstaniation in your list of “disgraces”, because it does essentially the same thing as consubstantiation: it uses Aristotelian metaphysics to describe it - substances and accidents.
But I’ll leave the comparison to theologians, Catholic and Lutheran- again!
Continued
"Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.
In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.
The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.
The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”)."
http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html
In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.
The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.
The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”)."
http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html
Last edited:
What do you suppose He was holding in His hands?
D
De_Maria
Guest
After the consecration, He was holding His Body and Blood, in the Holy Eucharist.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Before or after consecration?
Yes… so, at that moment the bread is the body.
The bread and wine, by the power of the Holy Spirit, are bestowed as the true and substantial body and blood of Christ.JonNC:
Before or after consecration?
A
AugustTherese
Guest
No, he wasn’t! He was holding His Body hence his words, “This is my body”, not “This is my body and bread”, or, “This is my body in, with, and under the bread”.
So, you are okay with the Church using “Aristotelian metaphysics” to define and promulgate the Dogma of the Trinity using philosophical terms and definitions, but just not when it comes to the Eucharist?
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Says you, not Christ. “This is my Body”: hang on to those words and not “the bread is the body”.
Whois saying that is what He said? He also didn’t say this is My body and the accidents of bread.
I’m okay with it in either case, but with the Trinity nobody is claiming something is annihilated, and only accidents remain.
Again, look at the document I posted. Your real argument is with the Catholics who wrote that the differences should not be Church dividing.
This what? Why deny He is holding bread when He says it?
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Because He is holding what he says He is holding: “This is my Body”.
So, it was never really bread to start with?JonNC:
Because He is holding what he says He is holding: “This is my Body”.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
AugustTherese:
Whois saying that is what He said? He also didn’t say this is My body and the accidents of bread.
You are saying it with “the bread is the body”. You are claiming that is what Christ alluded to when He said, “This is my Body”.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Of course it was. “He took bread”. Is it really that hard to believe that Our Lord has the power to change the entire substance of bread into His Body?AugustTherese:
So, it was never really bread to start with?JonNC:
Because He is holding what he says He is holding: “This is my Body”.
And there’s the difference. Lutherans don’t talk about substances and accidents. Why? Because Christ didn’t talk about it that way.
Does that make Transubstaniation wrong? No, in my view. But neither is the Lutheran view of SA.
I agree with those theologians who claimed years ago that they both express the same truth: This is My body.
As for me, I’ll stick with John of Damascus on the topic
S
steve-b
Guest
“Do this in the Greek Lk 22:19JonNC:
Also, we have the verb in the imperative: “Do this in memory of me.” Do this, not analyze this, rationalize this, argue about this, or quarrel about this. Just do it.
ποιεῖτε= do this
Definition
(a) I make, manufacture, construct, (b) I do, act, cause, to appoint or ordain one
Jesus is ordaining them (His apostles) to do exactly what He did. That is, they can change bread and wine into His body and blood. And they can ordain others to do that as well.
This is why valid ordination is required. No valid holy orders, then no valid ordinations, and no valid Eucharist
That identifies all of Protestantism regardless of stripe.
Last edited:
Of course not. He can do whatever He wants. But He didn’t say
That is the Catholic view.
- Status