The Eucharist is

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeusExMachina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a false poll. Numbers 1 and 2 are the same thing.

1 is acknowledgement of the Real Presence. 2 is simply a restating that 1 is correct; it is never merely bread or wine - it is the true Body and Blood of our Lord.

Can I un-vote?
 
DeusExMachina said:
The true body and blood does not just refer to transubstantiation, just FYI :)🙂
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I was reading that as a strong statement toward Transubstantiation. I personally have felt for some time that the Anglican position that sacraments are outward signs of inward grace as applied to the Eucharist is appropriate. In that the Eucharist is an outward sign of bread and wine, but as an inward grace it is Christ’s holy body and blood. And I find this is expressed in the communion statement by the priest every week at our mass as the body and blood are provided to the congregation, “the body of Christ, the bread of heaven”. And of course the “how” remains that mystery of faith.

Now which of the poll results you’d feel that applies to I’ll let you decide. But to my mind it’s not quite Lutheran Sacramental Union, but it’s not quite entirely the first option either.
 
Padres1969 said:
Fair enough. I was reading that as a strong statement toward Transubstantiation. I personally have felt for some time that the Anglican position that sacraments are outward signs of inward grace as applied to the Eucharist is appropriate. In that the Eucharist is an outward sign of bread and wine, but as an inward grace it is Christ’s holy body and blood. And I find this is expressed in the communion statement by the priest every week at our mass as the body and blood are provided to the congregation, “the body of Christ, the bread of heaven”. And of course the “how” remains that mystery of faith.

Now which of the poll results you’d feel that applies to I’ll let you decide. But to my mind it’s not quite Lutheran Sacramental Union, but it’s not quite entirely the first option either.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but you seem to be implying that Sacramental Union is necessarily opposed to Transubstantiation. But these academic words are use to explain different, yet overlapping things.

Transubstantiation says that the bread and wine are replaced entirely with the Body and Blood, excepting the accidents. Sacramental Union merely notes that Christ’s true Body and Blood are really, truly, and actually present, but does not pretend to explain how this miracle happens. It’s just a more mystic “explanation.”

Argh. Why was I so quick to click “vote?”
 
steido01 said:
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but you seem to be implying that Sacramental Union is necessarily opposed to Transubstantiation. But these academic words are use to explain different, yet overlapping things.

Transubstantiation says that the bread and wine are replaced entirely with the Body and Blood, excepting the accidents. Sacramental Union merely notes that Christ’s true Body and Blood are really, truly, and actually present, but does not pretend to explain how this miracle happens. It’s just a more mystic “explanation.”

Argh. Why was I so quick to click “vote?”
Click to expand...
Hence why I believe it’s a mystery of faith. If we try to explain it we end up going round in circles and wanting to vote twice in online polls because of the overlap in philosophies 😃

But seriously many if not most who subscribe to sacramental union would be opposed to transubstantiation as a description for what happen during the Eucharist.
 
Padres1969 said:
Hence why I believe it’s a mystery of faith. If we try to explain it we end up going round in circles and wanting to vote twice in online polls because of the overlap in philosophies 😃
Click to expand...
Indeed. 😃
Padres1969 said:
But seriously many if not most who subscribe to sacramental union would be opposed to transubstantiation as a description for what happen during the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
I think that’s hard to believe. When this Sacramental ?Unionist receives, he isn’t contemplating bread and water – he’s focused solely on the Body and Blood. For all I care, the bread and wine no longer exist. There is only Christ. Does that make me a quasi-Transubstantiationist? 😃
 
GNM1999 said:
Protestant officially. Wannabe Catholic. Chose the first one. Even if one abides by the Sola Scriptura doctrine, the excuse of it merely “represents the blood and body of Christ” is false from the start.

Matthew 26:26 (KJV)
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Jesus doesn’t say (I know this is a common argument, forgive me) this represents. He says this is.
Click to expand...
Jesus also said he was the vine. He also said he was “the Light”.

How do you determine when he was speaking figuratively and when He wasn’t?
 
DeusExMachina said:
You’re right. What I meant by choice 1 is the body, blood, soul, and divinity ONLY, choice 2 is meant to reflect Martin Luther’s terminology
Click to expand...
Luther’s terminology means this:
**It is the Word, I say, that makes this a sacrament and distinguishes it from ordinary bread and wine, so that it is called and truly is Christ’s body and blood. **For it is said, “Accedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum,” that is, “When the Word is joined to the external element, it becomes a sacrament.” This saying of St. Augustine is so appropriate and well put that he could hardly have said anything better. The Word must make the element a sacrament; otherwise, it remains an ordinary element. … It is true, indeed, that if you take the Word away from the elements or view them apart from the Word, you have nothing but ordinary bread and wine. But if the words remain, as is right and necessary, then by virtue of them the elements are truly the body and blood of Christ. For as Christ’s lips speak and say, so it is; he cannot lie or deceive. (Large Catechism, Martin Luther]
Click to expand...
Jon
 
steido01 said:
Indeed. 😃

I think that’s hard to believe. When this Sacramental ?Unionist receives, he isn’t contemplating bread and water – he’s focused solely on the Body and Blood. For all I care, the bread and wine no longer exist. There is only Christ. Does that make me a quasi-Transubstantiationist? 😃
Click to expand...
Actually that sounds a lot like consubstantiation. But again that’s a term Lutherans typically don’t like as I understand it.

I’m sticking with mystery of faith. Trying to explain the way God works in the Eucharist is like trying to explain how many stars are in the sky. You can try and do it, but you’ll just end up losing count and likely a splitting headache. Only thing I’ve ever cared about is that Christ and his grace are there and he calls us to his table to partake in his presence.
 
Then there is the recent history of Lutheran and Catholic theologians coming to a level of understanding :
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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”.
Click to expand...
**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”).
Click to expand...
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html
Jon
 
DeusExMachina said:
I’m just curious to see what people believe; if you could please state your denomination when you reply
Click to expand...
As a Pentecostal, I believe the following:
We believe in the 4commemoration and observing of the Lord’s supper by the sacred use of the broken bread, a precious type of the Bread of Life, even Jesus Christ, whose body was broken for us; and by the juice of the vine, a blessed type which should ever remind the participant of the shed blood of the Savior who is the true vine of which His children are the branches; that this ordinance is a glorious rainbow that spans the gulf of years between Calvary and the coming of the Lord, when in the Father’s kingdom, He will partake anew with His children; and that the serving and receiving of this blessed sacrament should be ever preceded by the most solemn heart-searching, 5self-examination, forgiveness and love toward all men, that none partake unworthily and drink condemnation to his own soul.
Click to expand...
Scripture References
4. “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” (1 Cor. 11:26) “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” (1 Cor. 11:28)
5. “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves.” (2 Cor. 13:5)
Click to expand...
From the Declaration of Faith of the Foursquare Church.
 
The Eucharist is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I am an Orthodox Christian.
 
I meant to vote and post here last week. Apparently I didn’t at the time, but now I have. 🙂

Matthew 26: 26-28,
“Take, eat; this is My body.” … “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.”
Click to expand...
seems pretty clear to me.
 
I don’t know. That’s my honest answer. He said take and eat not take and discuss and I’d be fine with that.

I don’t believe it is “just” bread and wine, and am more leaning somewhere a step closer to the Orthodox way of describing it which is a symbol (with literal reality, not as most of many of my protestant kind describe it) and a mystery.

I bulk more at “transubstantiation” than I do “Real Presence.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top