The Real Presence in the Eucharist...

[Pixie_Dust]

There seems to be a bit of confusion about what happens and why the Church declares something - in this case, Transubstantiation - a dogma. I’ve seen the Council of Trent mentioned a couple of times as well. The word Trinity wasn’t officially used in reference to God until 325 but that doesn’t mean that nobody believed it as truth before that! Things became dogma only when heresies concerning certain things were brought up. It’s not like nobody anywhere ever believed that Mary was assumed into Heaven until someone told us in 1950!

In latter years in the Church a dogma is declared because someone has muddled the Truth given to us from the Apostles, and the faithful weren’t sure anymore if the Eucharist was Really His Body, sorta His Body, or symbolized His Body. During the Protestant Revolt, several ideas about what happened at the priest’s words of consecration were circulating. Regarding this, the Council of Trent said (PD Paraphrase here): “OK people, THIS is what the Church believes about it. We call it Transubstantiation because that word best embraces the meaning that we wish to communicate to the faithful regarding what happens at the altar.”

The point of contention between Catholics and Orthodox seems to be that Orthodox like to just say, “It’s a mystery” and Catholics say, “It’s a mystery, which we refer to as transubstantiation.” It’s not LESS of a mystery in the Catholic Church, we just happen to have a word some deep thinker came up with that kinda sorta explains what happens within the mystery.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

If I may offer a personal observation,
the difficulty is that the above three questions “Are you talking about Real Presence? Or the dogma of Transubstantiation? Or the concept of the Presence remaining?” appear to be separate concepts. This is understandable since the dogma’s date appears to be the divisive point.

What is actually happening is that Trent erroneously is made to act as a wedge to divide the truth of Jesus into disposable sections.

On the contrary, the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, Presence remaining is one Jesus, True God and True Man.

Blessings,
granny

Jesus is the loving Savior for all.

Two are separate teachings. The other is a concept - not a doctrine anywhere.

Real Presence is a doctrine from the earliest church. It is the teaching that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ IS present: literally, physically, “for reals” as kids would say, lol. Or as I put it, “the meaning of is is is.” This is doctrine in the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Lutherans, Catholics and while not denominational doctrine, it is widely embraced among Anglicans and some Methodist.

Transubstantiation is a unique dogma of The Catholic Church - embraced only there. It was first suggested in the 10th century, had some official embrace in the 13th and was made dogma in the 16th. It has nothing to do with the Body and Blood or the presence of Christ or the Sacramental nature of teh Eucharist, it is focused on HOW a certain “change” happens and what is “left behind”, the focus is on metaphysics of the remaining “bread and wine” and in how to understand the terms “becomes” “change” "converts’ and “transmutates” in the Eucharistic texts (which, all others note, are terms that don’t exist in any Eucharistic text).

There is an entirely separate issue of whether Christ remains after the Mass. While modern Catholics see this is an implication of Transubstantiation, it’s not a part of it (at least, not that I’ve ever been able to discover, and not according to my several Catholic teachers). Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglicans that accept Real Presence don’t have any doctrine on this either - although, as I understand it, it is generally embraced in the East that His Body and Blood remain after the Mass. Lutherans simply have no formal view on this, although most hold to a “sacramental union” concept. But again, as far as I know, no one has a doctrine on this, Catholics (like Orthodox) tended to embrace this simply as pious opinion, but after 1551, Catholics increasingly saw this as an implication of Transubstantiation.

This thread is about ONE of those things: Real Presence.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Yes, when the scriptures use the term “is” to equate the bread and wine to Christ’s body and blood, that means they must BE Christ’s body and blood.

How then, to account for the fact that the accidents of bread and wine remain? The doctrine of transubstantiation says that the accidents of bread and wine remain but they do not inhere in any subject. They cannot inhere in Christ, as he has his own proper accidents.

IMHO, all this is not only entirely unbiblical and untraditional, but unnecessary…

Who the the world CARES about the tasteless wafer and cheap wine, LOL? Honestly, I think the whole world wonders WHY the extreme fasination with the wafer and wine?

Yes, the word “is” means BEING, existence, presence. It has nothing whatsoever to do with conversion, change, transmutation, or any alchemic transubstantiation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Aristotle’s odd (and long ago rejected) theory of accidents. Is just mean is (which is the Doctrine of Real Presence). “This is a Toyota” means it is a Toyota. It has nothing to do with alchemy or transmutation or Aristotle, it jsut means here we have a Toyota. Somethings things aren’t rocket science - and don’t need to be forced into some complex, odd thing that simply detracts us from the reality of Christ’s presence and creates numerous textual (and, as one with a degree in physics, scientific) problems…

Why is it not enough to say what Jesus said and what Paul pinned, affirming (clearly and boldly) Real Presence? Just as The Catholic Church did until 1215 or 1551, just as the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and many Anglicans still do? Why impose two long ago rejected pre-science theories - that contributes nothing but division and distraction and textual difficulties?

I’m honestly and sincerely at a complete loss to understand the new Catholic extreme concern about the bread and wine after the Consecration - to the point of needing DOGMA on this, dogma that further divides the church? It’s textually and theologically unnecessary and frankly, I just don’t have a clue why it matters. At all. Much less dogmatically.

The reality is this: The text says IS. And Real Presence affirms that the meaning of is is is. CHRIST is present!!! Literally, fully, completely, physically, “for reals” (lol). With all His mercy and grace and strength. THAT’S the point, THAT’S what the texts say.
Now, yes, Jesus speaks of the elements AFTER the Consecration - and He does so with no distinction whatsoever from how he spoke of them before. Who cares. And yes, Paul actually writes of the bread and wine FAR, FAR MORE after the Consecration than he does before. Yes, that’s undeniable. And he does so WITHOUT DISTINCTION - exactly, precisely, in the same way as he wrote of them before the Consecration. So, unless you want to ignore the texts and just impose an entirely foreign and arbitray “split interpretation” just as Zwingli did ( and be guilty of the same hermeneutical problem Catholics accuse Zwingli of doing - an arbitrary, untextual, split interpretation), then why not just accept what Jesus said and Paul penned? Just as we did to embrace Real Presence? Why place Real Presence in jeoprody by insisting on a view that they are speaking and writing in a less-than-literal way? SOMEHOW, bread and wine still there TOO. How so? Who knows - and who cares? Bread and wine are “there” for one simply obvious reason: the texts say so. Now, friend, if you want to THEORIZE some Aristotelian concept there (and since his views on that were rejected centuries ago, I wouldn’t suggest that), that’s fine with me. Heck, I have a pious theory about darn near everything. I think that’s ALL those original Catholic Scholastics coming up with all those theories about all this intended, and why they were all so debated for centuries - it was just one of several possible THEORIES. But, at Trent (well, MAYBE at the Second Laterin Council), all that changed.

Now, IMHO, Catholicism has made dogma of two prescience theories long ago rejected, and it has to try to skirt around that. It has made all this focus on the bread and wine - distracting from the presence of Christ. It has opened a “pandora’s box” exactly as Zwingli did of saying that Jesus and Paul did not mean why they said and wrote in the Eucharistic texts and insist on a SPLIT “half is, half kinda isn’t” entirely arbitrary interpretation placing Real Presence in jeoprody and giving credence to the Zwinglian Protestants (you two both now agree the texts are not literal - you just disagree on what is and what is not literal, and you both do so as dogma). We Lutherans are left scratching our heads…

That’s my perspective…

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Josiah,

Any help regarding:

your quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia?

Or who uses the term “ghost physics”?

Or your assertion that Aristotle thought that thunder was an “accident” of lightning and could exist without an underlying substance?

VC

 

[JimG]

The reality is this: The text says IS. And Real Presence affirms that the meaning of is is is. CHRIST is present!!! Literally, fully, completely, physically, “for reals” (lol). With all His mercy and grace and strength. THAT’S the point, THAT’S what the texts say…

Yes, He is truly present. So much so that St. Paul says that if we eat and drink unworthily we are guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. That’s why Catholic parishes keep the consecrated elements in a locked tabernacle following Mass. Because it IS Jesus.

Of course transubstantiation is “unbiblical” in the sense that the texts do not discuss transubstantiation. They also do not go into detail on Christology, which the Church found necessary to do to combat various heresies about who and what Christ is.

If one elects not to try to define the mystery any further, that’s all right. But inevitably, somebody else will. They will say, well, obviously that IS not Christ, no matter what the text says, because it feels and looks and tastes like bread and wine. And in doing so they will deny the Real Presence.

As for transubstantiation and metaphysics: Aristotle’s and Aquinas’ theory of accidents and substance has nothing to do with science or with physics. It is merely an acknowledgement that our perceptions are not reality. Perceptions vary by the instrument used. (natural light, infrared, microwave, xrays, ultrasound, will all perceive the same thing differently, even while the underlying reality does not change.) When you come down to it, science deals only with accidents, in the Aristotelian sense, as it must.

 

[grannymh]

the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, Presence remaining is one Jesus, True God and True Man.

Jesus is the loving Savior for all.

According to The American Heritage College Dictionary, the word substantial is defined: “2. True or real; not imaginary.”

In John Chapter 6, Jesus Christ, True God and True Man was not imaginary. He was substantially present. The Catholic Eucharist is not an imaginary symbol. It is the real substantial presence of Jesus Christ, True God and True Man.

In John Chapter 14, Jesus Christ says plainly: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.”

This promise is accomplished in Mathew 26: 26-28. First, Jesus took the substantially real bread. “Take and eat; this is My Body.” What looks like bread is really the substantially presence of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

What did Jesus do in order to be really substantially present under the signs of bread? Jesus said “the blessing.” Describe what happened when the blessing was said. Is that description the way Jesus keeps His promise to truly remain substantially with us?

Once you have the answers, look again at the word Transubstantiation in two sections. The base word is substantial which refers to the real bread Jesus was holding and to His own Divine Presence.

According to The American Heritage College Dictionary, the prefix trans- is defined:
"2. Change; transfer.

Transubstantiation is the description of Jesus’ blessing. It is the Divine Jesus’ substantial presence which replaces or changes the substance of Bread.

What the Council of Trent described goes all the way back to Jesus, Himself, as the authority.

Blessings,
granny

Please share these websites with family and friends.

 

[JonNC]

=JimG;6193335]
Of course transubstantiation is “unbiblical” in the sense that the texts do not discuss transubstantiation.

And, simply because it is “unbiblical” doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. It just makes it a human expression of what most of the Church Catholic accepts - the real presence. But its lack of explicit biblical support also should not be something that binds the conscience of the believer.

If one elects not to try to define the mystery any further, that’s all right. But inevitably, somebody else will. They will say, well, obviously that IS not Christ, no matter what the text says, because it feels and looks and tastes like bread and wine. And in doing so they will deny the Real Presence.

And even though, or despite the fact that the Church defined it in this was, people - even some Catholics - still deny the real presence.

Jon

 

[JJHIII]

For those that believe in Jesus Christ’s Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, how do you know for sure? I know there are certain passages in Scripture such as John 6 that sounds like the Real Presence but, if your interpretation is wrong, everybody who worships the Eucharist is guilty of idolatry. This is something I would want to make sure I was 100% correct on, you know? What convinced you unequivocally that Jesus Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are Present in the Holy Eucharist?

~Curtis

I am in the same shoes you are in. Protestant considering Catholicism. My grandparents took me to Mass one time and I had a sore throat that morning. At this time I had studied the Real Presence and began to believ in it. I asked my grandpa, I knew grandma wouldn’t , to bring me back part of the Host. I know technically that’s wrong but I was proparlly baptized and knew what the Eucharist was. I received it and instantly, my sore throat was gone! They touched His garnment and were healed. Why can’t taking Him in do the same? This is my proof of the Real Presence

-JJ

 

[joe370]

For those that believe in Jesus Christ’s Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, how do you know for sure? I know there are certain passages in Scripture such as John 6 that sounds like the Real Presence but, if your interpretation is wrong, everybody who worships the Eucharist is guilty of idolatry. This is something I would want to make sure I was 100% correct on, you know? What convinced you unequivocally that Jesus Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are Present in the Holy Eucharist?

~Curtis
Reply With Quote

Curtis, the first question I had to ask myself was:

If every Christian in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century (including the men who were disciples of the apostles) - believed in the real presence in the holy Eucharist (and they all did) - then logically, that means that all Christians for the first 1000 years were guilty of Eucharistic idolatry, including the Apostles.

Curtis, would the holy spirit, the spirit of truth, Who is suppose to be guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, in perpetuity, (which includes the truth of the Eucharist) - right from the word GO, (pentecost) - allow Jesus’ established church to fall into the hands of the evil one, by worshiping a mere piece of bread or a mere cup of wine (idolatry) - as opposed to bread that becomes real food (Jesus’ flesh) - and the wine that becomes real drink (Jesus’ blood) - of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?

The real presence in the Eucharist was a crystal clear and unanimous teaching of the Early Church Fathers, all those early church leaders, Bishops, immediate successors of the Apostles, and the Christian believers in general, for the first several centuries of Christianity. The evidence for the Catholic belief in the Eucharist is simply overwhelming. It wasn’t until the 11th century (with Berengarius of Tours) that this belief was challenged in the Catholic Church. Many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who hold the purely “symbolic” view are not aware of this overwhelming testimony for the literal and realist view, or they simply turn a blind eye.

I just cannot believe that the Holy spirit waited 1600 years to finally guide a church established by man as opposed to God, into all truth regarding the Eucharist (the thanksgiving)? What are your thoughts?

 

[joe370]

Of course transubstantiation is “unbiblical” in the sense that the texts do not discuss transubstantiation. And, simply because it is “unbiblical” doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. It just makes it a human expression of what most of the Church Catholic accepts - the real presence. But its lack of explicit biblical support also should not be something that binds the conscience of the believer. And, simply because it is “unbiblical” doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. It just makes it a human expression of what most of the Church Catholic accepts - the real presence. But its lack of explicit biblical support also should not be something that binds the conscience of the believer.

Jon, I agree. The lack of explicit biblical support for a doctrine (such as the the Trinity for example) - is not an impediment to the infallibility/veracity of a doctrine. Jon, if transubstantiation simply means: the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, then explicit biblical support for transubstantiation is available? The word transubstantiation is merely a Catholic expression of a biblical fact - right? The word seems harmless to me, just as the word Trinity seems harmless to me, even though explicit biblical support for that doctrine is unavailable; the bible never says that the holy spirit and Jesus are one, or that the Father and the holy spirit are one, just that the Father and Son are one, but there is certainly no reason not to believe it - right?

 

[tim_vasquez]

For the unbelieving heart no amount of explanation suffice.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Yes, He is truly present. So much so that St. Paul says that if we eat and drink unworthily we are guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. That’s why Catholic parishes keep the consecrated elements in a locked tabernacle following Mass. Because it IS Jesus.

I agree. That’s the doctrine of Real Presence.

But this thread seems to have morphed into a discussion of a new, unique dogma of The Catholic Church - Transubstantiation (1551).

Of course transubstantiation is “unbiblical” in the sense that the texts do not discuss transubstantiation.

I never remotely suggested that it is “unbiblical.” What I said is that it is entirely without support from Scripture or Tradition - it is Abiblical, IMHO. The whole issue is to explain what is meant by the words “change” “convert” “transmutate” “becomes” in the Eucharistic texts. Of course those that have actually read the Eucharistic texts note that those words never once appear there. This is a dogmatic “answer” to a question never asked.

If one elects not to try to define the mystery any further, that’s all right.

… not from the perspective of The Catholic Church. It took this theory from western, medieval, Catholic “scholasticism” - one of several theories, and made it DOGMA in 1551, proclaiming anathemas upon Luther (albeit after his death) for not embracing it dogmatically. It choose to divide Christianity on THIS point. It chose to NOT embrace it as a pious opinion but to declare it as Dogma.

They will say, well, obviously that IS not Christ, no matter what the text says, because it feels and looks and tastes like bread and wine. And in doing so they will deny the Real Presence.

IMHO, the new, unique dogma of The Catholic Church opens the door wide open for that. The Catholic Church joined Zwingli in denying that the Eucharistic texts mean exactly what they say, joining with Zwingli in a “half is/ half really isn’t” split interpretation of the texts. “Sometimes it means what it says, but mostly it doesn’t.” From my perspective, it’s the very same hermeneutic - you two just disagree on which words are literal and which words are less-than-literal. You both open the word WIDE to the questioning of Real Presence.

As for transubstantiation and metaphysics: Aristotle’s and Aquinas’ theory of accidents and substance has nothing to do with science or with physics. It is merely an acknowledgement that our perceptions are not reality.

I agree. Science as we think of it today didn’t exist then, which is why I called it “prescience.” But the terms “transubstantiation” and “accidents” were very precise, technical terms used by those western, medieval, Catholic “scholastics” - and I doubt by accident. They were embracing the very technical, precise meaning of the very precise words they chose.

IMHO, all this is textually baseless, theologically unnecessary, and it detracts from the point of the Eucharist - that it is Christ. It places all the emphasis on the bread and wine after the Consecration and on a medieval attempt to use secular “pop” ideas of the day to explain away the Mystery, to “explain” HOW what Jesus said and Paul penned is in fact the case. AS PURE THEORY, I have no issues with it. IF it had been left as just one of many theories about such, as I suspect those medieval “scholastics” intended as revealed by how controversal and freely debated it was for centuries, then I sincerely doubt any of us here would have even heard of it. It would have faded away - along with alchemy and Aristotle’s odd theory of accidents. A few theological historians would relate it in a footnote - and that’s about it. But, for reasons that truly allude me (and my Catholic teachers, btw), it somehow got embraced in some (unclear) sense in 1215. That it was made dogma at Trent may simply have been a political move to add one more anathema at Luther - but alchemy and "accidents’ were still pop ideas in the 16th century, so maybe there were other reasons, too.

.

 

[JimG]

But the terms “transubstantiation” and “accidents” were very precise, technical terms used by those western, medieval, Catholic “scholastics” - and I doubt by accident. They were embracing the very technical, precise meaning of the very precise words they chose. .

Well yes. And the words are still used theologically for the sake of precision. Without bothering to look up the formal definition, I can say that accidents are our perceptions, substance is the reality. In the Eucharist it IS all Jesus. You have made the point that use of the word “is” means being. There is no “half is / half really isn’t” about it. It’s all Jesus. I don’t see why stating that dogmatically is a problem.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I agree. The lack of explicit biblical support for a doctrine (such as the the Trinity for example) - is not an impediment to the infallibility/veracity of a doctrine.

Hi Joe,
I would dispute the contention that Trinity is not explicit, as I distinguish between explicit and verbatim. But that’s off topic.

Jon, if transubstantiation simply means: the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, then explicit biblical support for transubstantiation is available?

As you’ve heard from Josiah and me, and the Lutheran confessions, Lutherans agree with the term “change”. And to that extent, scripture is explicit. So far, we agree.

The word transubstantiation is merely a Catholic expression of a biblical fact - right? The word seems harmless to me, just as the word Trinity seems harmless to me, even though explicit biblical support for that doctrine is unavailable;

It is a Catholic expression that now binds the conscience of the believer, so it is more than a mere expression. As I’ve said, real presence is and should be doctrine. Our human expressions of it - sacramental union, Transubstantiation, consubstantiation should not.

the bible never says that the holy spirit and Jesus are one, or that the Father and the holy spirit are one, just that the Father and Son are one, but there is certainly no reason not to believe it - right?

Again, explicit compared to verbatim. But you are right, no reason not to believe it, especially since it has been the belief of the Church Catholic since the earliest centuries.
Transub, OTOH, does not date back nearly that far. The real presence does, but not Transub.

All that said, remember that I do notcondemn Transub., if it is a human expression of the reality of the real presence. I just view the requirement to believe that expression as wrong and Church dividing.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe,

I would dispute the contention that Trinity is not explicit, as I distinguish between explicit and verbatim. But that’s off topic.

OK…

As you’ve heard from Josiah and me, and the Lutheran confessions, Lutherans agree with the term “change”. And to that extent, scripture is explicit. So far, we agree.

OK…

It is a Catholic expression that now binds the conscience of the believer, so it is more than a mere expression.

The definition of transubstantiation:

1. To change (one substance) into another; transmute.
2. Christianity To change the substance of (the Eucharistic bread and wine) into the body and blood of Jesus.

Jon, is the preceding an accurate definition/reflection of the doctrine of the Eucharsit as per the Lutheran Confessions?

It doesn’t tell us how the miracle takes place, for the CC does not know; it simply tells us what happens, upon the words of consecration. Even the word transmutation would be an accurate description:

"To change from one form, nature, substance, or state into another; transform’ of course through the power of the HS.

As I’ve said, real presence is and should be doctrine. Our human expressions of it - sacramental union, Transubstantiation, consubstantiation should not.

A sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace, and that is exactly what happens with the bread and wine upon the words of consecration, through the power of the HS. Seems like a harmless word to me. Again, Transubstantiation is an accurate definition of the real presence in the bread and wine, without stating how it takes place. I understand that Lutheran teachings reject any attempt to explain philosophically the means by which Jesus is present in the Eucharist. Catholics are in agreement and transubstantiation does not attempt to explain the means by which Jesus is present in the Eucharist. They believe it to be a mystery. The way in which God affects the change in the bread and wine is considered an unknowable, ineffable miracle of God, to the CC, and the word transubstantiation reflects that and does not attempt to explain how the change occurs. Are we in agreement on this point? BTW, I have discovered that some Lutherans do use the term “consubstantiation” to refer to this belief. ML illustrated his belief about the Eucharist *“by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged,” *a concept which he called sacramental union. What about ML’s expression of it; was he wrong to do this? You mentioned that there are some Christians belonging to the CC that do not believe in the real presence. To whom are you referring???

Again, explicit compared to verbatim. But you are right, no reason not to believe it, especially since it has been the belief of the Church Catholic since the earliest centuries.
Transub, OTOH, does not date back nearly that far. The real presence does, but not Transub.

The Trinity was an unknown term for the first 300 years of Christianity, and many rejected it once defined. The Church had the true faith for more than 300 years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned the word Trinity. What’s the difference? ML said: "Moreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation — certainly, a monstrous word for a monstrous idea — until the pseudo-philosophy of Aristotle became rampant in the Church these last three hundred years. During these centuries many other things have been wrongly defined…"Why should I take ML’s word on the transubstantiation and the “other things wrongly defined” when he was patently wrong for attempting to remove 4 critical books of the NT? If he was wrong about the removal of those books, then certainly he could have been wrong about the transubstantiation, and the “other things wrongly defined”? Perhaps both the CC and ML are wrong for expressing their view; where does that leave us? I wonder why the CC even decided to call it transubstantiation (other than the fact that it is an accurate definition) - as opposed to simply calling it a mystery? I am gonna look into that.

All that said, remember that I do notcondemn Transub., if it is a human expression of the reality of the real presence. I just view the requirement to believe that expression as wrong and Church dividing.

I know that you do not condemn Transub; you are a uniter, not a divider! Jon, what about the binding requirement of all Christians to believe the expression of the Trinity? Do you view the requirement to believe that expression as wrong? if not, why not? After all, It is a Catholic expression that binds the conscience of the believer, and it too is more than a mere expression, rejected by many when it was first defined.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6197983]

The definition of transubstantiation:

1. To change

(one substance) into another; transmute.
2. Christianity To change the substance of (the Eucharistic bread and wine) into the body and blood of Jesus.

Jon, is the preceding an accurate definition/reflection of the doctrine of the Eucharsit as per the Lutheran Confessions?
Lutherans certainly can use #2.

A sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace, and that is exactly what happens with the bread and wine upon the words of consecration, through the power of the HS. Seems like a harmless word to me. Again, Transubstantiation is an accurate definition of the real presence in the bread and wine, without stating how it takes place. I understand that Lutheran teachings reject any attempt to explain philosophically the means

by which Jesus is present in the Eucharist. Catholics are in agreement and transubstantiation does not attempt to explain the means by which Jesus is present in the Eucharist. They believe it to be a mystery. The way in which God affects the change in the bread and wine is considered an unknowable, ineffable miracle of God, to the CC, and the word transubstantiation reflects that and does not attempt to explain how the change occurs. Are we in agreement on this point?
I think recent talks on the Eucharist between Lutherans and Catholics would support this.

BTW, I have discovered that some Lutherans do use the term “consubstantiation” to refer to this belief. ML illustrated his belief about the Eucharist *“by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged,” *

a concept which he called sacramental union. What about ML’s expression of it; was he wrong to do this?
Luther would not have termed this description consubstantiation: Luther;

… we do not make Christ’s body out of the bread … Nor do we say that his body comes into existence out of the bread . We say that his body, which long ago was made and came into existence, is present when we say, “This is my body.” For Christ commands us to say not, “Let this become my body,” or, “Make my body there,” but, "This is my body

Consub. is Aristotelian in a way similar to that of Transub., and Lutherans (should) view it with the same skepticism. For us, the mystery is we see bread and wine, but it is, in fact, His body and blood.

You mentioned that there are some Christians belonging to the CC that do not believe in the real presence. To whom are you referring???

Oh, polls and surveys showing that a some Catholic laity don’t really believe in the real presence. I’m sure it is a problem in some Lutheran circles, as well.

The Trinity was an unknown term for the first 300 years of Christianity, and many rejected it once defined. The Church had the true faith for more than 300 years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned the word Trinity. What’s the difference? ML said: "Moreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation — certainly, a monstrous word for a monstrous idea — until the pseudo-philosophy of Aristotle became rampant in the Church these last three hundred years. During these centuries many other things have been wrongly defined

…"Why should I take ML’s word on the transubstantiation and the “other things wrongly defined” when he was patently wrong for attempting to remove 4 critical books of the NT? If he was wrong about the removal of those books, then certainly he could have been wrong about the transubstantiation, and the “other things wrongly defined”? Perhaps both the CC and ML are wrong for expressing their view; where does that leave us? I wonder why the CC even decided to call it transubstantiation (other than the fact that it is an accurate definition) - as opposed to simply calling it a mystery? I am gonna look into that.
Actually, I disagree with Luther’s phrasing it as montrous (though it is the Aristotelian aspects of Transub we disagree with), and I certainly do not think it was or is wrong for them or us to express their views. For me, Sacramental Union is a marginally better human expression, but it is still just that. I always look to the Apology’s description as the best description of real presence: “we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament.”

I know that you do not condemn Transub; you are a uniter, not a divider! Jon, what about the binding requirement of all Christians to believe the expression of the Trinity? Do you view the requirement to believe that expression as wrong? if not, why not? After all, It is a Catholic expression that binds the conscience of the believer,

and it too is more than a mere expression, rejected by many when it was first defined.

What you say about me may be true, but not to a fault. The early Creeds and councils support scripture’s explicit references to the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Trinity is more than a Catholic expression, it is a *catholic *expression.

Jon

 

[Verbum_Caro]

For us, the mystery is we see bread and wine, but it is, in fact, His body and blood.

Jon,

That is very interesting! But, I have to ask: what is “it” that is in fact His Body and Blood?

I always look to the Apology’s description as the best description of real presence: “we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament.”

Again, very interesting to me! I think, provisionally, I could get behind that description, so long as I can finesse it a bit. The “those things which are seen”, for a Catholic, would have to be something that is only seen, and not substantially there.

VC

 

[djeter]

The New Testament word for invoking the Holy Spirit is epikalein, “to call upon/to call down.” “Calling upon” or “calling down” is an Epiklesis . Imagine ourselves now at Mass. During the celebration, there are at least eight moments when we explicitly or implicitly call upon the Holy Spirit of God, the Spirit who sets us free and who renews the face of the earth.

Francis Cardinal George on the Eucharist:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/01/18/the-eucharist-in-the-church-and-the-world/

dj

 

[joe370]

The definition of transubstantiation:

1. To change (one substance) into another; transmute.
2. Christianity To change the substance of (the Eucharistic bread and wine) into the body and blood of Jesus.

Jon, is the preceding an accurate definition/reflection of the doctrine of the Eucharsit as per the Lutheran Confessions?
Lutherans certainly can use #2.

Maybe that is what I am missing. The Lutheran church does not believe that the bread and wine (one substance) - are changed into Jesus’ flesh and blood (another substance)?

A sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace, and that is exactly what happens with the bread and wine upon the words of consecration, through the power of the HS. Seems like a harmless word to me. Again, Transubstantiation is an accurate definition of the real presence in the bread and wine, without stating how it takes place. I understand that Lutheran teachings reject any attempt to explain philosophically the means by which Jesus is present in the Eucharist. Catholics are in agreement and transubstantiation does not attempt to explain the means by which Jesus is present in the Eucharist. They believe it to be a mystery. The way in which God affects the change in the bread and wine is considered an unknowable, ineffable miracle of God, to the CC, and the word transubstantiation reflects that and does not attempt to explain how the change occurs. Are we in agreement on this point?
I think recent talks on the Eucharist between Lutherans and Catholics would support this.

Me too.

The early Creeds and councils support scripture’s explicit references to the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Could you provide explicit scriptural proof that says the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit are one; perhaps I have overlooked those verses?

Trinity is more than a Catholic expression, it is a catholic expression.

Agreed…What about the binding requirement of all Christians to embrace the Trinity with docility? Do you view this requirement as wrong? if not, why not? After all, It is a catholic expression defined by the CC, that binds the conscience of the believer, (just as the word transubstantiation does) - and it too is more than a mere expression, rejected by many when it was first defined. It is a decree that must be accepted with docility, to use one Aj’s favorite words.

Jon, is the Trinity exempted for the simple fact that the council that defined the Trinity was ecumenical (including both the East and the west)? Is that the difference? Semantics aside, the bottom line is that the Lutheran church and the CC believe that a change of the substance of (the Eucharistic bread and wine) into the body and blood of Jesus, does indeed take place. But I shall digress because AJ is right when he said: this thread seems to have morphed, to which I have contributed.

However, I do not agree with Aj when he says that it morphed into a discussion of a new, unique dogma of The Catholic Church - Transubstantiation (1551). It’s the same dogma always believed, since the 1st century, only clarified and defined. The CC did the same thing with the Trinity 300 years after Jesus walked the earth. There is no difference, but again, I digress.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

What about the binding requirement of all Christians to embrace the Trinity with docility? It is a decree that must be accepted with docility, to use one Aj’s favorite words.

To “accept” with docility, as unaccountable, is to simply accept. No, I don’t think any (other than The Catholic Church and all the cults, and the LDS until about a century ago) demand that people accept anything “with docility.” When I studied Lutheranism, the doctrine was normed by Scripture and under that Tradition - revealed to be true, and we were asked to believe BECAUSE of the evidence and support, not because Martin Luther taught it and he was infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error, exempt from norming, whatever he says is what God says. It’s a very different epistemology.

Semantics aside, the bottom line is that the Lutheran church and the CC believe that a change of the substance of (the Eucharistic bread and wine) into the body and blood of Jesus, does indeed take place. But I shall digress because AJ is right when he said: this thread seems to have morphed, to which I have contributed.

No. The new, unique dogma of The Catholic Church is all about in what sense do the bread and wine continue (it has nothing to do with the Body and Blood - you seem to be confusing the doctrine of Real Presence - with an historic, ecumenical embrace - with the new, unique, Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation) AND how this reality comes about. Lutherans, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, many Anglicans and some Methodist just don’t regard such issues to have any importance and don’t regard any speculation about such to be dogma.

No. Lutherans just aren’t interested in the proper hermeneutic of the terms “change” “become” “convert” “transmutate” in the Eucharistic texts - to the point of declaring dogma concerning the interpretation of one about those terms. In fact, we’d note that none of those words even appear in any Eucharistic texts. You are forming dogma over the exclusive interpretation of ONE (self) of words that don’t even exist.

However, I do not agree with Aj when he says that it morphed into a discussion of a new, unique dogma of The Catholic Church - Transubstantiation (1551). It’s the same dogma always believed, since the 1st century, only clarified and defined, but again, I digress.

1. You disagree with all my Catholic teachers (and with history). This theory was first mentioned in the 9th century, in some sense embraced by The Catholic Church exclusively in the 13th and made dogma in the 16th.
2. Since the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox - both AT LEAST as old as The Catholic Church - do not embrace this theory and never have, that alone makes your view impossible - unless you can prove that they both ONCE held to this dogma and at some point officially rejected it (that would need to be after 1054), if you can document an official rejection of Transubstantiation by both groups since 1054, I’d drop this point but I know you can’t. The reality is: This is a view unique to The Catholic Church alone, and according to all of my Catholic teachers, FIRST was suggested in the 9th century (some Catholics suggest 11th century). That doesnt’ make it wrong, of course, but it makes your view wrong.

.