The Protestant Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
From the below website, I think this definition to be brief and accurate, so fitting into this conversation.

stand-firm.blogspot.com/2012/06/lutheran-view-on-consubstantiation-and.html

Jon
Click to expand...
Thanks…Jon.

Maybe you can explain what is meant here…“so the natural bread and Christ’s true natural body are united (likewise the wine and the blood).”

Are united…does this mean…the real presence unites with the bread and wine? The bread and wine does not become but goes along with the real presence?..This is the sense I am getting.
 
JonNC said:
No. Sacramental Union. We choose not to express the real presence in metaphysical terms.

Jon
Click to expand...
Jon-

As you know, Luther was a Catholic priest at one point…why do you suppose he felt the need to change to doctrine as he had learned it in seminary?

Also, does one have to be an ordained priest in the Lutheran Church to celebrate the sacrament? It certainly seems like that would be necessary…
 
liturgyluver said:
I recently attended a series of talks about the Eucharist given at a Catholic seminary where they emphatically disagreed with the assertion that early Christians believed in the real presence. Research by Paul Bradshaw and Fr Ignatio indicates that the opposite is true. The doctrine developed with the church. The mainstream protestant reformers all believed in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but not in the way that had developed with Catholic teaching. It was the brilliant scholar Brylioth who showed there was more unity in understanding across denominations and paved the way for the common western Eucharistic pattern we have today.
Click to expand...
so they probably say that Saint Tarcisius died for nothing? He was carrying the “holy mysteries” to christians in prison when he was attacked and later died of his injuries. Its scary that a Catholic seminary would teach something contrary to the Catholic church.
 
40.png
jediliz:
Quote:

Originally Posted by liturgyluver

I recently attended a series of talks about the Eucharist given at a Catholic seminary where they emphatically disagreed with the assertion that early Christians believed in the real presence. Research by Paul Bradshaw and Fr Ignatio indicates that the opposite is true. The doctrine developed with the church. The mainstream protestant reformers all believed in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but not in the way that had developed with Catholic teaching. It was the brilliant scholar Brylioth who showed there was more unity in understanding across denominations and paved the way for the common western Eucharistic pattern we have today.

so they probably say that Saint Tarcisius died for nothing? He was carrying the “holy mysteries” to christians in prison when he was attacked and later died of his injuries. Its scary that a Catholic seminary would teach something contrary to the Catholic church.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you will say, “I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?” And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed…St Ambrose

evidently those guys putting on the seminar never heard of St Ambrose either.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
Randy_Carson said:
So, both Jesus and the bread are present? whereas for Catholics, the substance of bread is no longer present with only the accidents remaining.
Click to expand...
Yes, but not in the sense of consubstantiation - comingling or mixing, or encapsulating, etc.

Herman Sasse:
For Luther, the bread is the body in an incomprehensible way; the union between the bread and the body cannot be expressed in terms of any philosophical theory or rational explanation; it is an object of faith, based solely on the words of Christ. The question which was put to him, not only by Zwingli, but also by his older adversaries, as to how the bread could be called the body of Christ if it still remained bread, was answered by Luther in pointing out the mode of speech called synecdoche. In his great controversy with Carlstadt he had already explained the words ‘This is my body’ as synecdoche. ‘This’ referred to what Jesus held in his hands, the bread, not (as Carlstadt’s impossible exegesis would suggest) to the body to which Jesus pointed. As a mother, pointing to the cradle in which her baby lies, says, ‘This is my child’, or as a man, pointing to a purse, may say, ‘Here is a hundred dollars’, so we say of the bread in a similar way, “This is the body of Christ’. This is a common mode of speech called synecdoche, an abbreviated speech in which the containing vessel is mentioned instead of its content. The objection, especially by Zwingli, that thus Luther himself did not understand the sacramental words literally, but figuratively, was refuted by Luther as not being to the point, because the reality of the body was not denied. In all other figures of speech, the words ‘body’ and ‘blood’ are understood figuratively; the synecdoche takes the reality of the elements as well as the reality of body and blood seriously.
Click to expand...
and
…the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say.
Click to expand...
Jon
 
=Randy Carson;11079159]Jon-
Click to expand...
As you know, Luther was a Catholic priest at one point…why do you suppose he felt the need to change to doctrine as he had learned it in seminary?
Click to expand...
One thing I do know is that Luther was no fan of human philosophy to describe the mystery, hence his rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics - Transub. and consub.
Also, does one have to be an ordained priest in the Lutheran Church to celebrate the sacrament? It certainly seems like that would be necessary…
Click to expand...
The Augsburg Confession makes it clear that no one should preach or administer the sacraments unless he be rightly called and ordained.

Jon
 
SteveVH said:
Both you and GKC have been given the divine gift of patience. Forgive us for we know not what we do. 🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks for the kind words, Steve. Of course, about myself I know this:

Romans 7:19 For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do. :o

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Yes, but not in the sense of consubstantiation - comingling or mixing, or encapsulating, etc.

Herman Sasse:

and

Jon
Click to expand...
Jon-

Our interactions have always been cordial, and I realize from a few posts here and elsewhere that this is a sore subject for Lutherans because you are constantly being forced to repudiate a doctrine to which you do not ascribe. Kinda like “Mari-olatry” for us.

That said, I’m not satisfied with Sasse’s explanation. It’s plain bread and Jesus is not there before the consecration, but after the consecration, the bread is still there and Jesus is now there, too, but we can’t really say for sure as to how this is so, and we reject any attempts to explain it.

That could be WAAAAAY off the mark, but that’s about all I’m understanding.

Maybe this is one of those rare occasions when Catholic theology is simpler than non-Catholic theology? Gee, how often does that happen?

😛

Kidding aside, if you want to let this drop due to topic fatigue, I’m okay with that. But if you want to help me understand, I really am interested.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Jon-

Our interactions have always been cordial, and I realize from a few posts here and elsewhere that this is a sore subject for Lutherans because you are constantly being forced to repudiate a doctrine to which you do not ascribe. Kinda like “Mari-olatry” for us.

That said, I’m not satisfied with Sasse’s explanation. It’s plain bread and Jesus is not there before the consecration, but after the consecration, the bread is still there and Jesus is now there, too, but we can’t really say for sure as to how this is so, and we reject any attempts to explain it.

That could be WAAAAAY off the mark, but that’s about all I’m understanding.

Maybe this is one of those rare occasions when Catholic theology is simpler than non-Catholic theology? Gee, how often does that happen?

😛

Kidding aside, if you want to let this drop due to topic fatigue, I’m okay with that. But if you want to help me understand, I really am interested.
Click to expand...
In many ways, my life would be easier had Luther let the mystery alone, and not gone into an attempt to repudiate both Transubstantiation and the sacramentalists. For me, John of Damascus says it best, “… 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”.

So, here’s a website that has some good comments by Lutherans faaaaaar smarter than me.
stand-firm.blogspot.com/2012/06/lutheran-view-on-consubstantiation-and.html

Jon
 
JonNC said:
In many ways, my life would be easier had Luther let the mystery alone, and not gone into an attempt to repudiate both Transubstantiation and the sacramentalists. For me, John of Damascus says it best, “… 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”.

So, here’s a website that has some good comments by Lutherans faaaaaar smarter than me.
stand-firm.blogspot.com/2012/06/lutheran-view-on-consubstantiation-and.html

Jon
Click to expand...
The command was “take, eat”, not “take, understand”.

As a friend of mine once wrote.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Sure. It’s from Lewis’ LETTERS TO MALCOLM.

GKC
Click to expand...
The title of the thread is The Protestant Communion. I was wondering, my good friend, if you might be willing to venture into a description of the Anglican belief in the Eucharist, the question of whether or not Anglicans are protestant aside. And I do understand the motley crew aspect of such a discussion.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
The title of the thread is The Protestant Communion. I was wondering, my good friend, if you might be willing to venture into a description of the Anglican belief in the Eucharist, the question of whether or not Anglicans are protestant aside. And I do understand the motley crew aspect of such a discussion.

Jon
Click to expand...
Well, pick a position on the Eucharist. That’s likely an Anglican one.

GKC
 
liturgyluver said:
Rubbish! We spent a whole morning looking at Justin Martyr. New evidence doesnt negate church teaching but is a inconvenient irritation to people who think they know what the message should be. Never let the facts get in the way, eh!
Click to expand...
So I guess you covered this:

CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top