The Protestant Communion

[Randy_Carson]

The thing is, Randy, if the CC were to say, we believe that Transub. expresses for us the totality of the real presence - body, blood, soul and divinity. Sacramental union, OTOH, leaves us feeling a bit short. However, we recognize in Lutheran belief a belief in the real presence that is felt as strongly as ours, that we both confess, “this is my body”.
Therefore, let us not be divided by a mutual doctrine.
I suspect most Lutherans wouldn’t care less if you believed Transub., because we in turn know of your love for the Eucharist.

Jon

Which suggests that we are a LOT closer than is commonly thought.

So, about that Joint Declaration…

 

[cheezey]

Which suggests that we are a LOT closer than is commonly thought…

wouldn’t that be nice…

This is a most interesting thread; I am getting quite the education.



Carry on…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I would recommend Professor Paul Bradshaw’ and Maxwell Johnson’s books on Eucharistic Liturgies as a brilliant overview of the development of Eucharistic Liturgies. There is also his Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. There are loads of articles in the journal Studia Liturgica. The other references were Harald Buchinger Jewish and Christian Liturgy in Worship and William Schneemelcher New Testament Apocrypha II.

Thanks.

So no Early Church Fathers?

 

[liturgyluver]

Thanks.

So no Early Church Fathers?

A quick reply as I am off to a wedding (yippee!). I referenced some in my earlier posts but on the specific issue of diversity of practice you only need to to compare the writings of Tertullian in Apologeticum, Cyprian, Origen, and the prayers in the Acts of Thomas and the Acts of John, with the Didache to see that there really was no consensus in this very early period.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

A quick reply as I am off to a wedding (yippee!). I referenced some in my earlier posts but on the specific issue of diversity of practice you only need to to compare the writings of Tertullian in Apologeticum, Cyprian, Origen, and the prayers in the Acts of Thomas and the Acts of John, with the Didache to see that there really was no consensus in this very early period.

Enjoy the wedding!

I’ll wait for the exact references then. There is a consensus as clearly shown from the ECF’s I provided you with. That was in the 2nd century, anything after would be a separation from the practice and not the norm. A dissenting voice hardly demonstrates an absence of consensus but our very own humanity, we have had dissenters since Cain.

 

[RyanBlack]

Sources please?

How about St. Justin Martyr himself? In his First Apology, he writes, “Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability…” The phrase “according to his ability” suggests that Eucharistic prayers varied from bishop to bishop, and may even have been ad-libbed. This, of course, could lead to the problem of heresies being introduced into the anaphora. This problem was likely the cause, or at least one of the most important causes, of the standardization of liturgies.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

How about St. Justin Martyr himself? In his First Apology, he writes, “Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability…” The phrase “according to his ability” suggests that Eucharistic prayers varied from bishop to bishop, and may even have been ad-libbed. This, of course, could lead to the problem of heresies being introduced into the anaphora. This problem was likely the cause, or at least one of the most important causes, of the standardization of liturgies.

Yes, this is from the chapter following the Eucharist:

CHAPTER LXVII – WEEKLY WORSHIP OF THE CHRIS- TIANS.

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

While we are discussing the belief of what the Eucharist was considered by the Early Church - this refers to the prayers done during this part of the worship - it does not go into details about what it is because St. Justin already explained it in the preceding chapter.

Also, it mentions “prayers” - not “prayer”, so more than one prayer is involved - making it difficult to pin down to what and how many prayers are referred to exactly. And not only “prayers” but “thanksgivings”, again in plural without a list of any of them.

The belief is clearly and explicitly explained in Chapter LXVI.

 

[SteveVH]

How about St. Justin Martyr himself? In his First Apology, he writes, “Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability…” The phrase “according to his ability” suggests that Eucharistic prayers varied from bishop to bishop, and may even have been ad-libbed. This, of course, could lead to the problem of heresies being introduced into the anaphora. This problem was likely the cause, or at least one of the most important causes, of the standardization of liturgies.

Sorry, but he is describing exactly what we do today when we bring the gifts to the altar. The “thanksgivings” of which he speaks would be the monetary offerings and that is why he says “according to his ability”. It has nothing to do with a variation in Eucharistic prayers among different bishops.

 

[O.S.Luke]

There are no ways to “explain” a mystery - which is what a sacrament is, mysterion - so why try to use philosophical arguments like Thomism and Aristotelianism to describe the epiclesis? By the power of the Holy Spirit - supernatural means - the bread and wine become of the Body and Blood of Christ. They’re still bread and wine too. God can handle both/and - yet we humans seems to want to limit God to either/or.

It’s the body and blood of Christ. For those without faith, we will never convince them. For those with faith, it can be nothing else.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

There are no ways to “explain” a mystery - which is what a sacrament is, mysterion - so why try to use philosophical arguments like Thomism and Aristotelianism to describe the epiclesis? By the power of the Holy Spirit - supernatural means - the bread and wine become of the Body and Blood of Christ. They’re still bread and wine too. God can handle both/and - yet we humans seems to want to limit God to either/or.

It’s the body and blood of Christ. For those without faith, we will never convince them. For those with faith, it can be nothing else.

No argument from this evangelical catholic

 

[ufamtobie]

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

Jon,

You are saying both bread and the Body of Jesus Christ is present in your Lutheran Eucharist? If this is true, I believe this to be blasphemy, Because Jesus Christ and the earthly bread don’t go hand in hand.

When you partake / eat of your Lutheran Eucharist, how do you differentiate which is the earthly bread and which is the Lords Flesh and Blood?

Here is an Example: If man or woman being in the state of Grace, they both have the Lord with them and in them, am I correct in saying so? So this being true, Jon, since Christ is in them though we can not see Him can I kneel at their feet and worship the Lord that is in them? NO! The same goes for your Lutheran Eucharist, because it is both bread and Christ.

JonNC, so when you go to your Lutheran Eucharist adoration you are worshiping both earthly bread and Jesus Christ. Then it must come down to you having faith that a part of the bread has changed into Jesus Christ and the other still remaining bread

Regarding Transubstantiation The bread is no longer bread, the wine is no longer wine, but 100% the Body Blood Soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, Himself right before me in the Eucharist. Amen

It seems to me that the Lutheran Eucharist, Jesus Christ could only perform 50% of the Eucharistic Miracle, and could do no more thus it being both bread and Jesus together in your Lutheran Eucharist. As for the Catholic Eucharist, Jesus Christ Could perform 100% of the Eucharistic Miracle, thus 100% His Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Amen

At one point earthly bread, at one point earthly wine, then no more but Jesus Christ Himself in the Most Holy Eucharist:thumbsup:

Ufam Tobie

 

[JonNC]

=ufamtobie;11137478]Jon,

You are saying both bread and the Body of Jesus Christ is present in your Lutheran Eucharist? If this is true, I believe this to be blasphemy, Because Jesus Christ and the earthly bread don’t go hand in hand.
No. I am saying that the bread and wine are the body and blood.

When you partake / eat of your Lutheran Eucharist, how do you differentiate which is the earthly bread and which is the Lords Flesh and Blood?

I don’t. I receive His body and blood, how this happens is a mystery.

Here is an Example: If man or woman being in the state of Grace, they both have the Lord with them and in them, am I correct in saying so? So this being true, Jon, since Christ is in them though we can not see Him can I kneel at their feet and worship the Lord that is in them? NO! The same goes for your Lutheran Eucharist, because it is both bread and Christ.

To my knowledge, neither the man nor the woman are the body and blood of Christ.

JonNC, so when you go to your Lutheran Eucharist adoration you are worshiping both earthly bread and Jesus Christ. Then it must come down to you having faith that a part of the bread has changed into Jesus Christ and the other still remaining bread

No. I am worshipping Christ. When you go to Eucharistic Adoration, are you worshipping both the body and blood of Christ and the accidents of bread and wine?

Regarding Transubstantiation The bread is no longer bread, the wine is no longer wine, but 100% the Body Blood Soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, Himself right before me in the Eucharist. Amen

If you find it easier to understand the mystery of the Eucharist using Aristotelian metaphysics, that is fine.

It seems to me that the Lutheran Eucharist, Jesus Christ could only perform 50% of the Eucharistic Miracle, and could do no more thus it being both bread and Jesus together in your Lutheran Eucharist.

That’s because you are attempting to describe our understanding of the Eucharist in metaphysical terms. Our understanding intentionally avoids metaphysics, be it Transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Instead, we are bound to Christ’s words: “He took bread. After giving thanks, He broke it and gave it to them saying, ‘this is my body.’” The bread, Ufam, is His body. Christ does not explain how this happens. He didn’t speak of substances and accidents. He said, “this (bread) is my body.” That is what we believe.

As for the Catholic Eucharist, Jesus Christ Could perform 100% of the Eucharistic Miracle, thus 100% His Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Amen

Amen.

At one point earthly bread, at one point earthly wine, then no more but Jesus Christ Himself in the Most Holy Eucharist:thumbsup:

Amen.

Jon

 

[ufamtobie]

That’s because you are attempting to describe our understanding of the Eucharist in metaphysical terms. Our understanding intentionally avoids metaphysics, be it Transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Instead, we are bound to Christ’s words: “He took bread. After giving thanks, He broke it and gave it to them saying, ‘this is my body.’” The bread, Ufam, is His body. Christ does not explain how this happens. He didn’t speak of substances and accidents. He said, “this (bread) is my body.” That is what we believe.

Jon

Jon, Jesus Christ does not explain how this miracle actually happens, but through His Holy Catholic Church Jesus Christ gave the term Transubstantiation, How Jesus performs this Miracle is a mystery, yes, nothing is impossible to Him. Amen

JonNc, here is a difference between Catholicism and Lutheranism Catholicism has the Authority to say it is Transubstantiation because the Holy Spirit guide the Catholic Church in such matters. Your Lutheran Church has no authority to term anything in such matters there for you are correct in saying “He said, “this (bread) is my body.” That is what we believe.”

JonNC, which do you lean towards more Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation there has to be one that you lean towards or are you trying to be “politically” correct and have no stance?

Being bound to Christ words as you say then you should know He only established One Church.

Ufam Tobie

 

[JonNC]

=ufamtobie;11139306]
Jon, Jesus Christ does not explain how this miracle actually happens, but through His Holy Catholic Church Jesus Christ gave the term Transubstantiation, How Jesus performs this Miracle is a mystery, yes, nothing is impossible to Him. Amen

And the term works fine for Catholics, if it helps them believe in the real presence.

JonNc, here is a difference between Catholicism and Lutheranism Catholicism has the Authority to say it is Transubstantiation because the Holy Spirit guide the Catholic Church in such matters. Your Lutheran Church has no authority to term anything in such matters there for you are correct in saying “He said, “this (bread) is my body.” That is what we believe.”

Sure we do. While the HS certainly leads the CC, He is also busy leading Holy Orthodoxy and, frankly Lutheranism, as well as others. So, whether you accept it or not, we have authority just fine.

JonNC, which do you lean towards more Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation there has to be one that you lean towards or are you trying to be “politically” correct and have no stance?

Sure, pinned down to respond in metaphysical terms I would clearly lean toward Transubstantiation.

Being bound to Christ words as you say then you should know He only established One Church.

And we are both members.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

And the term works fine for Catholics, if it helps them believe in the real presence.

Jon, you make a good point here, maybe unknowingly. I don’t believe in the real presence because of how it is defined in the doctrine of Transubstantiation. I believe it because Jesus told us so through his Church which is also backed up by Scripture. The definition itself was given to leave no doubt as to the Catholic understanding, but the Church believed the same thing before it was ever defined. The doctrine helps define our belief but is not the reason for our belief.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, you make a good point here, maybe unknowingly. I don’t believe in the real presence because of how it is defined in the doctrine of Transubstantiation. I believe it because Jesus told us so through his Church which is also backed up by Scripture. The definition itself was given to leave no doubt as to the Catholic understanding, but the Church believed the same thing before it was ever defined. The doctrine helps define our belief but is not the reason for our belief.

Yes, actually, I did know that. Poster Gabriel of 12 and I have had some good chats about it. But the reasons you gave for belief in the real presence are precisely the same that Lutherans hold, though perhaps reversed - Jesus told us through scripture, backed up by His Church.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, actually, I did know that. Poster Gabriel of 12 and I have had some good chats about it. But the reasons you gave for belief in the real presence are precisely the same that Lutherans hold, though perhaps reversed - Jesus told us through scripture, backed up by His Church.

Jon

Okay. Our Church believed it before we had the Scripture so we didn’t have much choice.

 

[ufamtobie]

And the term works fine for Catholics, if it helps them believe in the real presence.

JonNC, We believe just the same as you, because Jesus Christ said so re: His Real Presence. But through The Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit we have the term Transubstantiation.

Sure we do. While the HS certainly leads the CC, He is also busy leading Holy Orthodoxy and, frankly Lutheranism, as well as others. So, whether you accept it or not, we have authority just fine.

 

[concretecamper]

Okay. Our Church believed it before we had the Scripture so we didn’t have much choice.

AMEN :bowdown:

 

[jimkhong]

No. I am saying that the bread and wine are the body and blood.

I don’t. I receive His body and blood, how this happens is a mystery.

To my knowledge, neither the man nor the woman are the body and blood of Christ.

No. I am worshipping Christ. When you go to Eucharistic Adoration, are you worshipping both the body and blood of Christ and the accidents of bread and wine?

If you find it easier to understand the mystery of the Eucharist using Aristotelian metaphysics, that is fine.

That’s because you are attempting to describe our understanding of the Eucharist in metaphysical terms. Our understanding intentionally avoids metaphysics, be it Transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Instead, we are bound to Christ’s words: “He took bread. After giving thanks, He broke it and gave it to them saying, ‘this is my body.’” The bread, Ufam, is His body. Christ does not explain how this happens. He didn’t speak of substances and accidents. He said, “this (bread) is my body.” That is what we believe.

Amen.

Amen.

Jon

Thanks for the very logical and emotionally-balanced response and explanation.

So, is there any different between your views & the Catholic teachings and between your views and conventional Lutheran teachings (no offense intended here).

You seem to indicate that you are indifferent to the term ‘consubstantiation’ and I understand that the Lutheran convention seems to be moving slowly away from that term. As such, would it be possible to drop that term if it causes so much conflict with the Catholic position?

(Actually, I think the conflicts with Catholics is not so much because of what you believe but simply because you are not in communion with Rome )