The Real Presence in the Eucharist...

[JJ59]

And I’ll also add this quote from socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/12/counter-reply-to-protestant-take-on.html on the Eucharist as idolatry:

**"1) Catholics believe in transubstantiation.

1. Transubstantiation means, literally, “change of substance.”
2. In this instance the substance change involves bread and wine being transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
3. Therefore, Catholics believe that bread and wine are no longer present; only the Body and Blood of Christ.
4. And the adoration of the host and eucharistic worship takes place after the consecration and change of substance in the Mass.
5. Nevertheless, we will accuse Catholics of worshiping bread and wine instead of Jesus Christ, which is gross idolatry, and no part of legitimate Christianity.

Obviously, #6 doesn’t follow, based on the premises of #2-#5. So how is it we get accused of idolatry, when the very word that describes the practice being so critiqued proves that it is not taking place at all?"**

God bless,

 

[grannymh]

Thanks, Granny, I’ll be reading over your advice a few times. So it sounds like there is no problem with bring 1 Cor 15:44 into the discussion of Mass.

Before figuring out the relationship of verse 44 to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it looks to me that it refers to us and not specifically to Christ. I get this sense from reading the verses above and below it. Go back to verse 12 and following and check the footnotes.

The difficulty with Paul is that he uses a variety of styles when writing as well as changing subjects in mid-air. In my Bible, Chapter 15 is titled both A. The Resurrection of Christ and B. The Resurrection of the Dead. The footnote to verse 35 reads: Paul imagines two objections that the Corinthians could raise: one concerning the manner of the resurrection (how?), the other pertaining to the qualities of the risen body (what kind?). These questions probably lie behind their denial of the resurrection [see verses 12-28] and seem to reflect the presumption that no kind of body other than the one we now possess would be possible. Paul deals with these objections in inverse order…"

My brain cells may be dying, but my imagination is ready for any marathon. Once you step into Paul’s shoes through meditation on the whole chapter, it will be easy to imagine different discussions concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Going back to CARM and its objection regarding the Levitical Law, it is easy to point out Christ as the last Adam.
See 1 Corinthians 15:45-49. A reverse order is possible because one can give as an example (in other words) the preceding verse 44, which you like

The actor side of my personality would hold the bible stretched out before me and say in my triumphant voice – “Where, O death, is your victory?..” (verses 54 -56)
and then add something like – Christ, You are the Victor over death. You truly live today in the Catholic Eucharist, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Seriously, I am not qualified to say use this or that verse. Nonetheless, when planning to bring in a single verse into a discussion about Holy Mass, try to use as much of the chapter as support. Bring in Paul with his ardent desire to share the Good News. It is not necessary to use a lot of Scripture quotes. It is necessary to get across Scripture’s message any which way you can. Serious hint – a real apologist once said that when you are referring to a particular passage, hand the Bible to the other person so that he or she can hold it while reading from it.

Blessings,
granny

Let the Holy Spirit inspire.

 

[grannymh]

Although I understand Luther twice in his life used the word “consubstantiation,” he did not mean it in the western, medieval, Catholic, “Scholasticism” sense.

Luther (passionately and dogmatically) accepted the biblical and traditional view of Real Presence. Lutherans accept the Eucharistic texts very literally, and that the meaning of is is is (as I like to put it, excuse the grammar). When my Lutheran pastor places the host on my tongue, his verbatim words are, “Josiah - this IS the Body of Christ.” That’s our position.

Now, a few years after Luther’s death, The Catholic Church declared Transubstantiation as dogma. It is a new and unique dogma of that singular denomination, embraced by no other (before or after). Lutherans, included.

.

The Lutheran services which I have attended with friends were at a Missouri Synod Church in St. Louis. I was immediately informed that it was a closed Communion. My apology, but after all these many years, my memory can’t quite sort out what I learned then and what I have learned from Episcopal and Methodist friends.

The Lutheran service I attended was a beautiful liturgy similar in structure to the Catholic Mass. As I recall, it used an old time Latin liturgical word like “collect” in the program for the service. It seemed like special words or maybe a formula was said before giving Communion, but it did not seem the same as the Catholic Eucharistic Prayer. If this is in your church, would you please describe the prayer or formula?

One of the things I would like to know is when the Real Presence takes place. One person explained that Jesus becomes real only when He is received. Would this be Lutheran?

It is my understanding that the concept of substance in regard to the Eucharist was discussed in Catholic circles long before the Council of Trent. It would help me to know how Martin Luther described substance or rather how Luther described the how. Both consubstantiation and transubstantiation describes how.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[patricius79]

The actor side of my personality would hold the bible stretched out before me and say in my triumphant voice – “Where, O death, is your victory?..” (verses 54 -56)
and then add something like – Christ, You are the Victor over death. You truly live today in the Catholic Eucharist, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Seriously, I am not qualified to say use this or that verse. Nonetheless, when planning to bring in a single verse into a discussion about Holy Mass, try to use as much of the chapter as support

Ha! Good stuff. Good advice. I especially empathize with teh part about the actor. I usally want to say, “Do you want to go to heaven or hell? It’s up to you. Let’s cut tot he chase”.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The Lutheran services which I have attended with friends were at a Missouri Synod Church in St. Louis. I was immediately informed that it was a closed Communion. My apology, but after all these many years, my memory can’t quite sort out what I learned then and what I have learned from Episcopal and Methodist friends.

The Lutheran service I attended was a beautiful liturgy similar in structure to the Catholic Mass. As I recall, it used an old time Latin liturgical word like “collect” in the program for the service. It seemed like special words or maybe a formula was said before giving Communion, but it did not seem the same as the Catholic Eucharistic Prayer. If this is in your church, would you please describe the prayer or formula?

One of the things I would like to know is when the Real Presence takes place. One person explained that Jesus becomes real only when He is received. Would this be Lutheran?

In Lutheranism…

Scripture is silent on this point. While some of the Lutheran Church Fathers expressed personal thoughts, there is nothing doctrinal on this.

The CLOSEST you might come to this is the thought of “Sacramental union” - something the Lutheran Church Father’s sometimes embraced. Basically, it is that Real Presence is Sacramental - intimately tied to the Eucharist itself as it is given/received. Thus, some Lutherans were of the view that when the Sacrament has ended, the Mass concluded, so is the Presence. Again, this is not dogma or doctrine or official teaching or even pious opinion - just a position of some Lutheran Fathers. But, it seems to ME (a fairly recent convert from Catholicism to Lutheranism), it FUNCTIONALLY is largely embraced. While Lutherans are as passionate about Real Presence as are Catholics, AFTER the Mass, the elements tend to be treated with special reverence but as bread and wine.

Lutherans are simply less dogmatic about such matters, more willing to embrace things as “mystery” (a term they use a LOT more than Catholics), less willing to “tell God what He thinks” (as my Lutheran pastor - also a convert from Catholicism - puts it). Lutheran theologians seem to have no hesitation at all to say, “we don’t know.”

Continues in the next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

**Continues for the post above…
**

It is my understanding that the concept of substance in regard to the Eucharist was discussed in Catholic circles long before the Council of Trent. It would help me to know how Martin Luther described substance or rather how Luther described the how. Both consubstantiation and transubstantiation describes how.

Actually (ironically) most of my insight on this comes from my Catholic teachers. Maybe Jon would be more knowledgeable of the Lutheran Church Fathers. But let me share what I have learned so far…

It seems Real Presence was embraced very early and very universally - in fact, it was largely undisputed. It is, essentially, that (as I like to put it - forgive the grammar), the meaning of is is is in the Eucharistic texts. We take the institution very literally - all of it, in every verse. When my Lutheran pastor places the Host on my tongue, his exact, verbatim words are, “Josiah - this IS the Body of Christ.” That’s the Lutheran view…

But Lutheranism embraces all this as “mystery.” We speak of the MYSTERY of Real Presence. We just don’t get into the physics of this and see no need to humanly theorize HOW God does what He promises (it just doesn’t matter).

The ECF did - at times - speak of “change.” Not as dogma, but as affirmation. Lutherans speak of “change” too. But “change” does not imply alchemic transubstatiation or Aristotelian accidents. I filled up my old Toyota will gas this morning, changing my car (it no longer was running on fumes, lol) but there was no alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accidents. Change, but not atomic transubstantiation. IF NOTHING ELSE, before the Consecration - there’s only bread and wine. Nothin’ worth our attention (side note: Lutherans are profoundly puzzled WHY Catholics are sooooooooooo focused on the bread and wine), but after it, CHRIST is present!!! Is that not change? The ONLY change that matters! We embrace that there is a “change” - and use the term. Not as a point of dogma, but simply as a result of affirming Real Presence.

As my Catholic teachers explained to me, in the WEST (and ONLY in the West), there developed an interest in HOW this happens, especially since the weight and volumn of the contents do not increase at the Consecration. Western Catholic Scholasticism (which was pretty much about giving human, popular “explanations” to things) took this up with special interest. Lots of theories were put forth - simply as possible theories. ONE of these was transubstantiation (an application of the fundamental principle of alchemy, which was all the rage at the time). It was very controversal and largely rejected at the time, but slowly, gained popularity and became widely used as the best theory about HOW Real Presence comes about. In 1215, it gained some official status (the exact nature of that status seems to ME to be very unclear). But it was still regarded simply as a theory about all this. The Catholic Church made it dogma in 1551, a bit after Luther’s death, and then anathematized him for not accepting it.

Luther regarded the whole issue as moot. Who CARES about the bread and wine when CHRIST is present? The POINT is Christ. And the texts say NOTHING remotely to the issue. In fact, the texts don’t use the term “change” or “convert” at all - they consistently and frequently and solely use the term “IS”. IS concerns existence, not conversions. If I point to my rabbit and say, “This is a rabbit” that’s entirely unrelated to what he was prior to such or to alchemy or to Aristotle’s theory of accidents (as if he has all the accidents of a rabbit but he is actually an elephant). The meaning of is is is - nothing less, nothing more. And it’s all we need to know. And it’s all that matters. Transubstantiation was not embraced by Luther simply because it was unnecessary and unfounded by Scripture and Tradition.

Luther is occasionally associated with “consubstantiation.” Lutherans reject this (in spite of him using that term twice in his life) becuase this is yet another of those 10th century western, Catholic, scholasticism theories. Lutherans reject ALL theories, simply embracing what Scripture clearly says - no less, no more. NOTHING more is needed. But yes, Luther - being consistent - argues that in the Eucharistic texts, “bread” = bread EVERY TIME. “Wine/cup” = wine EVERY TIME. “Body” = body EVERY TIME. “Blood” = blood EVERY TIME. “Is” = is EVERY TIME. Paul actually mentions bread and wine far, far more often AFTER the consecration than before it. With the Church Fathers, he reads the texts literally - ALL the text. Thus, he didn’t dogmatically DENY what the text says or apply a split “half real, half not” or “half literal, half symbolic” interrpretation. He rejected that in Zwingli just as he did in Transubstantiation. But (and this is important) while TODAY we stress that, Luther did not. Luther simply regarded the bread and wine as moot. ANYTIME, I can eat bread (a lot better bread than those tasteless waffers we use at my new church), and I can enjoy wine anytime (a LOT better wine than that stuff my church buys - I’ll bet on sale). That’s NOT why I participate in the Holy Eucharist! It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with bread and wine. It’s all about Christ. When my pastor says, “Josiah - this IS the Body of Christ,” he doesn’t go on to state, “bread has undergone an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind an Aristotelian Accident of bread but bread is no here is any substantial sense.” Nope. Who cares? He says, “Josiah - this IS the Body of Christ.”

BTW, Lutherans regard the Catholic Eucharist as totally valid. It’s just not mutual.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[grannymh]

In Lutheranism…

Scripture is silent on this point. While some of the Lutheran Church Fathers expressed personal thoughts, there is nothing doctrinal on this.

The CLOSEST you might come to this is the thought of “Sacramental union” - something the Lutheran Church Father’s sometimes embraced. Basically, it is that Real Presence is Sacramental - intimately tied to the Eucharist itself as it is given/received. Thus, some Lutherans were of the view that when the Sacrament has ended, the Mass concluded, so is the Presence. Again, this is not dogma or doctrine or official teaching or even pious opinion - just a position of some Lutheran Fathers. But, it seems to ME (a fairly recent convert from Catholicism to Lutheranism), it FUNCTIONALLY is largely embraced. While Lutherans are as passionate about Real Presence as are Catholics, AFTER the Mass, the elements tend to be treated with special reverence but as bread and wine.

Lutherans are simply less dogmatic about such matters, more willing to embrace things as “mystery” (a term they use a LOT more than Catholics), less willing to “tell God what He thinks” (as my Lutheran pastor - also a convert from Catholicism - puts it). Lutheran theologians seem to have no hesitation at all to say, “we don’t know.”

Continues in the next post…

.

Thank you so much. I will take your posts with me on the bus tomorrow to see some of my kids.

I remembered another experience at a Lutheran Church up north. I attended a service with one of my kids. I think there was open Communion, but I did not partake. As you know there are no kneelers. Yet, in the row ahead of me, an older woman knelt briefly on the floor when she returned from Communion. She kind of leaned against the seat in reverend prayer. After the service, I told this woman how much I admired her love for Jesus that she would kneel on the floor. She said that kneeling after Communion was a custom when she was a child. I will always remember her as an example of true faith.

You have explained a number of key Lutheran concepts which will help me to address transubstantiation. This is the particular line in Post 112 . “The divisive issue is that a bit after Luther’s death, The Catholic Church (alone, exclusively) embraced Transubstantiation.” I don’t intend to be confrontational; however, I consider transubstantiation a key issue for Catholics. If I slip, please remind me.

I do like to use source material. This is my favorite book:
*In the Presence of Our Lord, *
*The History, Theology, and Psychology *of Eucharistic Devotion
by Father Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R., and James Monti.
ISBN 0-87973-920-7

My original copy was full of highlighted passages and paper clips marking important sections. But, I gave it away. This new copy is too pristine to be of immediate use. Coincidentally, regarding your mention of mystery, the first page I opened was titled: “The Mystery of Faith” The first sentence is “Finally, an overlooked spiritual benefit of Holy Communion is that it confronts the believer with mystery.” Please note, I approach a book by starting toward the middle and working outwards.

While I am visiting family, I will probably check in with CAF. However, the computer where I am staying is definitely granny-unfriendly so it may be awhile before I can write a half-way sufficient post.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

In Lutheranism…

Scripture is silent on this point. While some of the Lutheran Church Fathers expressed personal thoughts, there is nothing doctrinal on this.

The CLOSEST you might come to this is the thought of “Sacramental union” - something the Lutheran Church Father’s sometimes embraced. Basically, it is that Real Presence is Sacramental - intimately tied to the Eucharist itself as it is given/received. Thus, some Lutherans were of the view that when the Sacrament has ended, the Mass concluded, so is the Presence. Again, this is not dogma or doctrine or official teaching or even pious opinion - just a position of some Lutheran Fathers. But, it seems to ME (a fairly recent convert from Catholicism to Lutheranism), it FUNCTIONALLY is largely embraced. While Lutherans are as passionate about Real Presence as are Catholics, AFTER the Mass, the elements tend to be treated with special reverence but as bread and wine.

Lutherans are simply less dogmatic about such matters, more willing to embrace things as “mystery” (a term they use a LOT more than Catholics), less willing to “tell God what He thinks” (as my Lutheran pastor - also a convert from Catholicism - puts it). Lutheran theologians seem to have no hesitation at all to say, “we don’t know.”

Continues in the next post…

.

Thank you so much. I will take your posts with me on the bus tomorrow to see some of my kids.

I remembered another experience at a Lutheran Church up north. I attended a service with one of my kids. I think there was open Communion, but I did not partake. As you know there are no kneelers. Yet, in the row ahead of me, an older woman knelt briefly on the floor when she returned from Communion. She kind of leaned against the seat in reverend prayer.

1. The praxis of who is and is not welcomed and/or forbidden to the Holy Eucharist is not an issue of dogma among Lutherans - so there is some variance in polity there. In my congregation, Catholics are welcomed and they all do participate. MY policy about this was simple: REGARDLESS of what anyone or anything may say, I personally email or better yet phone the presiding officient BEFORE I visit - and ask what he recommends for me, what is his counsel to me. I answer any and all his questions. And I follow his advise, taking no offense if it is to not participate. But that’s just me.
2. There is no “standard” church architecture in Lutheranism. Older buildings tend to look very much like older Catholic ones - and yes, kneelers are present. Newer ones are less likely to have them. It’s jsut not an issue of dogma for us. It’s true for crucifixes, too. Older Lutheran churches tend to use the Crucifix with the Corpus, newer more modern structures do not (here’s where my former Catholicism really shines - I kinda bothers me when Christ and the Cross are separated. And the Cross is SUPPOSE to be bloody, messy, a bit disturbing!). BTW, this varience goes for much. For example, about half in my church Cross ourselves at all the typical points (although Lutherans do it in the Eastern way, from right to left, lol), and half do not. No one notices, no one cares. We call this “adiaphoron” - an issue where there is no requirement.

You have explained a number of key Lutheran concepts which will help me to address transubstantiation. This is the particular line in Post 112 . “The divisive issue is that a bit after Luther’s death, The Catholic Church (alone, exclusively) embraced Transubstantiation.” I don’t intend to be confrontational; however, I consider transubstantiation a key issue for Catholics.

Thank you! If we can all serve to advance mutual understanding among us, then a GREAT (and I think Christian) service as been extended…

Yes, in Catholicism, Transubstantiation IS a key issue. It was made dogma in 1551 (a bit after Luther’s death). Dogmas are certainly key, critical issues. MY point is that it is not in Lutheranism (remember: it wasn’t a dogma in those sad days of the split) and obviously it wasn’t always a key issue for The Catholic Church (it wasn’t even suggested until the 9th century - when it was very controversal - and not made dogma until the 16th). I didn’t mean to imply that it’s not “key” for The Catholic Church today; it most certainly is. It is one of the things that divides it from all others.

Blessings,

… and also to you. I enjoyed our chat. I hope we can share our hearts and thoughts again.

Enjoy your time with family.

.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you! If we can all serve to advance mutual understanding among us, then a GREAT (and I think Christian) service as been extended…

I enjoyed our chat. I hope we can share our hearts and thoughts again.

This brief computer time gives me the chance to share the direction of my thoughts. While John, Chapter Six and Luke 24:13-35 are key to the Real Presence, in order to advance mutual understanding, we should look at how the early Church acted toward the Eucharist. We should look at the problems in Corinth, etc. Sometimes actions speak louder than words. Couldn’t resist that cliche.

“I will not leave you orphans…” John 14: 15-21 like many of the words of Jesus, can have more than one layer of meaning. I am now seeing it as another promise of the Real Presence because this is part of the Last Supper discourses. Since I have always taken those words personally, it does deepen the understanding of the Real Presence as personal presence–His and mine together.

My heart keeps returning to your sentence – Is is is. Could it be that we should be discussing the Real Presence six ways to Sunday?

I am sure we will find a variety of reasons why Jesus is truly present. Catholicism would call that substantially present as opposed to symbolic. Practically speaking, we both believe in Mystery. The fork in the road comes in explaining Mystery. While philosophical explanations of Mystery help, the individual’s faith is essential.

Blessings,
granny

Humanity is the apple of God’s eye.

 

[rep140]

Lutherans are simply less dogmatic about such matters, more willing to embrace things as “mystery” (a term they use a LOT more than Catholics),

I think the key here is ROMAN Catholics. Everything in the Roman (my) Church has to be defined. A pastor of an Eastern Rite Church (in full communion with Rome) that I know says that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is a mystery which is a good explanation to me. I took a Foundations in Theology class at the local Catholic seminary and the question of “real presence” came up. The cahechism’s response was quoted, but the question then became “what does it really mean”.

The ROMAN approach to matters of faith is well illustrated by the catechism. It is so dense and rambling that in 2005 the Church issued the compendium.

 

[Ignatius]

For those that believe in Jesus Christ’s Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, how do you know for sure?

Because Jesus said so. Jesus said it, I believe it, end of argument!!!

If you would like to learn more about the teachings of Jesus Christ, please contact the folks at chnetwork.org/. I promise, if you unite yourself to Jesus Christ through His Church, you will experience the great gift the He has promised to those who follow Him. As Jesus said, “He who eats My body and drinks My blood lives in Me and I in him and I will raise him up on the last day.” And He is faithful and sure to keep His promises. Repent, turn to the Gospel and be saved and you will have everlasting life.

Grace and peace be with you.

Your servant in Christ.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Those are some great verses…Thanks for posting that…I’m not here to question anybody that believes in the Real Presence…I’m Protestant but looking into the Catholic faith…I was just seeing what made others believe 100% that Jesus Christ is Present in the Eucharist. If anybody posting has converted from a Protestant church (I attend a Bible church now which is associated with the Baptist churches) and became Catholic, I’m sure they know what I’m going through. God bless.

You rang? Once upon a time, I was an independent, fundamental, KJV-only Baptist. I was told that we took the Bible literally. If it said in Genesis that God created the world in 6 days, that’s exactly what it meant. If it said that Jesus would return and we would reign with him for 1000 years, that’s precisely what it meant. I could go on…

THEN, I ran into passages like in John’s Gospel, where Jesus plainly says, “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” and “This is my body…this is my blood.” and suddenly we weren’t taking Jesus at His Word. For some reason, THAT is symbolic, yet contextually there is no indication that Jesus is using symbolic language.

There were other passages that began to trouble Baptist Me, such as “Why do you delay, get up and be baptized, washing away your sins” or “Be baptized, every one of you, for the forgiveness of your sins and receive the Holy Spirit” when everyone knew that baptism didn’t do any such thing.

Bless you on your journey. Feel free to PM me with any questions you may have. I do know precisely what you’re going through.

 

[ccolley]

These are all such great contributions! Thanks all who have responded thus far and I am going through the Scripture right now. Just one more question about this though. **If the Bread and Wine are really Christ’s Body and Blood, how could He be giving it to the Apostles before His Death? ** His Death on the Cross is what saves us…This all happened before He died on the cross.

Funny, this is exactly what the disciples that abandoned Jesus said right before He turned to the Apostles and said, “Will you leave me, too?” And Peter says, “and to whom else shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life.”

How can he give us His body and blood AND at the same time BE present there at the Last Supper? Simple, He was God. God can do whatever He wants to.

CC

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I am sure we will find a variety of reasons why Jesus is truly present. Catholicism would call that substantially present as opposed to symbolic. Practically speaking, we both believe in Mystery. The fork in the road comes in explaining Mystery. While philosophical explanations of Mystery help, the individual’s faith is essential.

Blessings,
granny

Yes. Lutherans, like the OO and EO and the RCC before 1551 (or maybe 1215) see no reason to “explain” the Mystery - much less to make such a dogma.

We agree on Real Presence. We disagree on Transubstantiation (at least as dogma, at least since Trent).

Thank you!

Blessings!

• Josiah

.

 

[grannymh]

Yes. Lutherans, like the OO and EO and the RCC before 1551 (or maybe 1215) see no reason to “explain” the Mystery - much less to make such a dogma.

We agree on Real Presence. We disagree on Transubstantiation (at least as dogma, at least since Trent).

Thank you!

Blessings!

• Josiah

.

Before we get to the fork in the road, it may be interesting to explore Scripture’s verses regarding the importance of “presence” beginning with the three wise men adoring Christ as an infant.

Also, could it be that because the Apostolic Age and early Christian Centuries were so close to the time of Christ, that discussions and prayers were centered on the Presence before them? I am trying to step back in time. It seems to me, that the actions of the early Christians would have demonstrated their beliefs.

Blessings,
granny

Jesus, present today in the Eucharist, is the same Jesus
Who, in the garden of His agony, asked,
“Could you not keep watch for one hour?” Mark 14: 32-42

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Before we get to the fork in the road, it may be interesting to explore Scripture’s verses regarding the importance of “presence” beginning with the three wise men adoring Christ as an infant.

Also, could it be that because the Apostolic Age and early Christian Centuries were so close to the time of Christ, that discussions and prayers were centered on the Presence before them? I am trying to step back in time. It seems to me, that the actions of the early Christians would have demonstrated their beliefs.

Blessings,
granny

Jesus, present today in the Eucharist, is the same Jesus
Who, in the garden of His agony, asked,
“Could you not keep watch for one hour?” Mark 14: 32-42

Lutherans, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, many Anglicans and some Methodist all agree on Real Presence. It’s the unique, 1551 dogma of Transubstantiation that we find ourselves in division. The Catholic Church alone has a dogma there, the rest of us do not.

.

 

[grannymh]

Lutherans, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, many Anglicans and some Methodist all agree on Real Presence. It’s the unique, 1551 dogma of Transubstantiation that we find ourselves in division. The Catholic Church alone has a dogma there, the rest of us do not.
.

As I mull over the word unique, I am not entirely convinced that the rather recent date of the Transubstantiation Dogma is the issue though it certainly contributed to it in the 16th century.

In my humble opinion, the current issue or difference centers around this question – Does Jesus Christ remain substantially present under the signs of bread and wine after the service?

Blessings,
granny

The Holy Eucharist Is The Light, Strength, And Life Of Our Souls.

 

[MariaG]

You rang? Once upon a time, I was an independent, fundamental, KJV-only Baptist. I was told that we took the Bible literally. If it said in Genesis that God created the world in 6 days, that’s exactly what it meant. If it said that Jesus would return and we would reign with him for 1000 years, that’s precisely what it meant. I could go on…

THEN, I ran into passages like in John’s Gospel, where Jesus plainly says, “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” and “This is my body…this is my blood.” and suddenly we weren’t taking Jesus at His Word. For some reason, THAT is symbolic, yet contextually there is no indication that Jesus is using symbolic language.

There were other passages that began to trouble Baptist Me, such as “Why do you delay, get up and be baptized, washing away your sins” or “Be baptized, every one of you, for the forgiveness of your sins and receive the Holy Spirit” when everyone knew that baptism didn’t do any such thing.

Bless you on your journey. Feel free to PM me with any questions you may have. I do know precisely what you’re going through.

Sounds familar!

I was in an Evangelical Church. We had just got done with a bible study on Genesis. World is Young, God created it in 6 literal days etc.

After that, we were doing a study on John. And just as you found, suddenly it was symbolic.

Earth is young because the bible says 6 days. Communion is symbolic because Christ says This IS my Body

God Bless,
Maria

 

[AmericanJosiah]

As I mull over the word unique, I am not entirely convinced that the rather recent date of the Transubstantiation Dogma is the issue though it certainly contributed to it in the 16th century.

In my humble opinion, the current issue or difference centers around this question – Does Jesus Christ remain substantially present under the signs of bread and wine after the service?

Blessings,
granny

The Holy Eucharist Is The Light, Strength, And Life Of Our Souls.

Transubstantiation IS unique to The Catholic Church alone. And it is dogma in only The Catholic Church (declared so at Trent in 1551).

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, many Anglicans and some Methodist all agree that Christ is literally, physically, substantially present. We are all declared heretics by The Catholic Church. Again, where the “division” is at is with the unique, 1551 dogma of The Catholic Church on Transubstantiation.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[grannymh]

Transubstantiation IS unique to The Catholic Church alone. And it is dogma in only The Catholic Church (declared so at Trent in 1551).

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, many Anglicans and some Methodist all agree that Christ is literally, physically, substantially present. We are all declared heretics by The Catholic Church. Again, where the “division” is at is with the unique, 1551 dogma of The Catholic Church on Transubstantiation.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

May we avoid that sentence about heretic. There is so much bad information about what a heretic is or is not, when or when not, why or why not plus some people use it like a four-letter word. Thank you.

Regarding the year 1551. I have only done a very brief search on change which was the actual operative word in the discussions at Trent. I have found a reference to the Greek metapoieisthai (change) in the period of Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom. One of the key figures in the change issue is Berengar of Tours, 11th century. However, it is hard for me to separate him from all the politics so I am not sure what his final position was. Berengar’s various and different positions on the Real Presence would be known in the years leading to the Reformation.

My observation is that the simple faith of the Apostles, taught by the Church Fathers faced serious challenges. The Nicene Creed is one example of an answer to challenges. As time passed, challenges increased in complexity especially when the translations of Aristotelian texts reached Europe accompanied by the development of rational analysis. The Renaissance was in place. What pushed Trent was that the original teaching of Jesus regarding His Presence was in serious danger. Transubstantiation was chosen as the Catholic position.

As you rightly say, the Dogma of Transubstantiation is unique to the Catholic Church.
I agree.

I recently read a Protestant essay giving the reasons why this particular author thinks that Transubstantiation is an error. One of the points sounded like a modern form of Arianism. Another point reminded me of some of the presumptions held by Corinthians before Paul set them straight. In other words, the author of this essay apparently collected all kinds of possibilities from different religious sources and put them into a creative list. In my humble opinion, this whole list boils down to one issue of division.

Today, the real division which makes the Catholic position unique is not only the nitty-gritty of Trent.

The actual issue is –

Does Jesus Christ remain substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine after the service?

The Catholic Church is unique in that it answers this question with a firm yes.
Once the bread and wine is validly consecrated, the true, real presence of Jesus Christ continues to remain under the appearances of the bread and wine which were not consumed during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Blessings,
granny

Recommended reading.
*In the Presence of Our Lord, the History, Theology, and Psychology *
of Eucharistic Devotion
by Father Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R., and James Monti.
ISBN 0-87973-920-7