The Real Presence in the Eucharist...

[JonNC]

=Verbum Caro;6198296]Jon,
That is very interesting! But, I have to ask: what is “it” that is in fact His Body and Blood?

His body and blood, of course. And I don’t mean that flippantly. I mean that just as Christ did. We see, feel, taste, bread and wine, but it is His body and blood. With the words of institution from the pastor/priest acting in persona christi, and the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine are His body and blood. Why? Because He said (promised) so. Do we know how? Can we explain what actually happens? No. He didn’t tell us. Is there a metaphysical change? I guess it is possible, but He didn’t tell us so, leading me to quote John of Damascus, “… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit.”

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.

And I think the convergence is somewhere near here between Lutherans and Catholics, in that a Lutheran would say whether or not it is not substantially there is irrelevent, in that it is the body and blood that are important. It sometimes just seems like simply something to argue about when we argue about the substance of the bread and wine.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6198838]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)?

You probably noticed I avoided the term transmute. When Lutherans talks about change, we’re not willing to step into what we consider the speculation over the metaphysical. Does the bread “turn into” or “become” His body, in a physical sense? Don’t know. We do know that when consecreated, it is His body, it is His blood. Certainly there is a change. It isn’t simply mere bread or mere wine anymore.

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.

I don’t know about docility, but here is what the Anthanasian Creed says,
In the second sentence: ***And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. ***
And the last sentence,
**This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved. **

It is most certainly true, and I accept it.

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?

The bottom line is always scripture, but you know how I feel about what you state here.

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.

There certainly is a change. At consecration, the bread and wine are His body and blood, true and substantial. Is that a substance change? All I know is that when I recieve this blessed sacrament I receive His body and blood.

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.

Here’s what I’ll ask you, Joe; in the ECF’s, in the early Church and councils, where is the descriptions of substances and accidents, that are peculiar (not in the negative sense) to the Roman see? Trinity is explicit and even verbatim in the early Church. Is Transubstantiation explicit, or verbatim? (Remember, I’m not saying the expression is wrong, simply that it is a human expression of what truly is a mystery.)
Jon

 

[LilyM]

There certainly is a change. At consecration, the bread and wine are His body and blood, true and substantial. Is that a substance change? All I know is that when I recieve this blessed sacrament I receive His body and blood.

You bet ya it is!

It’s not like His ‘true and substantial’ presence exists on the altar BEFORE the Consecration, after all. The only ‘true and substantial’ presence that exists there before the Consecration is that of bread and wine.

The one, clearly, changes into the other, because without that change the two are entirely separate and you WOULDN’T receive His body and blood by receiving Communion.

How can you say you don’t know whether it’s a substance change? Plain as the nose on your face it is.

 

[JonNC]

You bet ya it is!

It’s not like His ‘true and substantial’ presence exists on the altar BEFORE the Consecration, after all. The only ‘true and substantial’ presence that exists there before the Consecration is that of bread and wine.

The one, clearly, changes into the other, because without that change the two are entirely separate and you WOULDN’T receive His body and blood by receiving Communion.

How can you say you don’t know whether it’s a substance change? Plain as the nose on your face it is.

I guess the debate surrounds the metaphysical speculations regarding this. I think the level of “disagreement” is expressed well here:
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

49.In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

50.The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

51.The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

Jon

 

[Michael_Forrest]

This is an issue with which I struggled, even after becoming Catholic (I was raised Baptist). I wrote the following article for New Oxford Review some time ago and you may find it of some help:

Kneel: A Eucharistic Healing

 

[JonNC]

This is an issue with which I struggled, even after becoming Catholic (I was raised Baptist). I wrote the following article for New Oxford Review some time ago and you may find it of some help:

Kneel: A Eucharistic Healing

Quite a remarkable story of God’s blessing. Thank you for sharing it.

Jon

 

[MariaG]

This is an issue with which I struggled, even after becoming Catholic (I was raised Baptist). I wrote the following article for New Oxford Review some time ago and you may find it of some help:

Kneel: A Eucharistic Healing

WOW!!!

Thank you for sharing that miracle!!!

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

=joe370;6198838]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)?
You probably noticed I avoided the term transmute. When Lutherans talks about change, we’re not willing to step into what we consider the speculation over the metaphysical. Does the bread “turn into” or “become” His body, in a physical sense? Don’t know. We do know that when consecreated, it is His body, it is His blood. Certainly there is a change. It isn’t simply mere bread or mere wine anymore.

I understand. However, if, once consecrated, a change takes place in the bread, then transmutation, transubstantiation does in fact takes place, if my understanding of these 2 words is correct. The bread and wine have been transubstantiated (a change (one substance) into another. If you believe that a change of the bread and wine from one form, nature, substance, or state into another - takes place, then the word transmute or transubstantiation is aptly applied - right? When Catholics talk about change, we too are not willing to step into what we consider the speculation over the metaphysical; we have know clue how the miracle takes place, (nor did the apostles know) - and the word transubstantiation does not attempt to explain how the change takes place. It merely says that a change takes place, upon the words of consecration. Of course I am not trying to change your mind; just trying to merge a bit, regarding the language employed by the CC.
Quote:

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.
I don’t know about docility. but here is what the Anthanasian Creed says,
In the second sentence: And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.
And the last sentence,
This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

It is most certainly true, and I accept it.

To be docile, as you know, simply means that a member of the church, regardless of denomination, must be readily teachable. If Christians reject the Trinitarian dogma, then they are not readily teachable, and cannot be a member of the Lutheran church or the CC, any church for that matter, or can they be a member of the Lutheran church? Forgive me if you already answered this question.

Quote:
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?
The bottom line is always scripture, but you know how I feel about what you state here.

Yeah, I know how you feel. What do you mean: “The bottom line is always scripture?” Sacred scripture cannot arbitrate or evaluate whether or not a teaching is true or false; only people can do that. That is really my main problem with sola scriptura. For example, SS cannot determine whether or not Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist; if it could then everyone would believe it, but they don’t and many adamantly insist that you and I are dead wrong on this point. Arbitration outside SS is absolutely necessary, wouldn’t you agree? I think you already answered that question as well: the Lutheran Confessions - correct? Like Curtis said: “For those that believe in Jesus Christ’s Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, how do you know for sure?” Clearly SS is not helping him find resolution, for SS says something different to each Christian, in many cases, especially in the case of the Eucharist.

 

[joe370]

Quote:
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.
There certainly is a change. At consecration, the bread and wine are His body and blood, true and substantial. Is that a substance change? All I know is that when I recieve this blessed sacrament I receive His body and blood.

So, what was once mere bread and wine changes into Jesus’ flesh and blood, but remains, to the senses, mere bread and wine? Sounds like an invisible substance change to me. I can certainly understand why many Protestants find this hard to believe.

Quote:
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.
Here’s what I’ll ask you, Joe; in the ECF’s, in the early Church and councils, where is the descriptions of substances and accidents, that are peculiar (not in the negative sense) to the Roman see? Trinity is explicit and even verbatim in the early Church. Is Transubstantiation explicit, or verbatim? (Remember, I’m not saying the expression is wrong, simply that it is a human expression of what truly is a mystery.)

Good question! Firstly, where is the description of the Trinity (the Christian doctrine of the Trinity that teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead) - in the writings of the ECF’s prior to the 4th century? Tertullian, a Latin theologian, in the late 3rd century, is the only person that I can find that was credited with using the words “Trinity”,“person” and “substance” to explain that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “one in essence, not one in Person”. But it wasn’t until a century later, in 325 that the first Council of Nicaea established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and this doctrine would have been foreign to Christianity in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century. Also, where is the Trinity spelled out explicitly in the bible?

You are right; the ECF’s make no mention of accidents, just as the apostles and their successors, as well as church leadership for the first couple hundred years of Christianity, made no mention of the word Trinity or sola scriptura. Sola scriptura was unheard of until the 16th century. Regarding accidents, this word is used to simply state that all that is accessible to the senses (accidents) remains as before, which in fact is the truth, isn’t it? The squabble over the Trinitarian doctrine (just as was the case with the transubstantiation in the 16th century) - was intense and many people in the church rejected it, but you and I believe it today, because we believe that the church founded by Jesus was guided by the Holy spirit to resolve the matter, just as I believe that the holy spirit continues to guide Jesus’ church. Certainly we can only be sure that these dissenters were in fact wrong, if we believe that the Infallible HS guided these very fallible people - right?

As time passes the church has developed and clarified their doctrines, no doubt about that, and that is what the CC did with the Eucharistic doctrine. In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as “transubstantiated” into the body and blood of Christ: *“His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God’s power, into his body and blood.” *As a former Lutheran I would have had no problem with that statement. Again, the CC didn’t/doesn’t say how the bread and wine are transubstantiated! They simply do not know!!!Consecration changes only the substance - right? The accidents (the whiteness, roundness, softness and the smell of the bread and the sense of taste that effect upon our palate remain in their totality - right? That which was wine and is now Christ’s blood (transubstantiated) - still has the smell of wine, the intoxicating power of wine, but I think your point is: no need to use a word such as “accidents” or “transubstantiation” to explicate the mystery, and I respect that.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

And I think the convergence is somewhere near here between Lutherans and Catholics, in that a Lutheran would say whether or not it is not substantially there is irrelevent, in that it is the body and blood that are important. It sometimes just seems like simply something to argue about when we argue about the substance of the bread and wine.

Jon

Jon,

I need a bit of assistance regarding the nuances of this position. I’m not sure why when you say the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ you would not also say (as a corollary) that the bread and wine do not remain? You’ve said “what looks like bread and wine” remain. . . I take that as implying that there is actually no bread and wine, on some deeper level.

Am I misunderstanding? Thanks!
VC

 

[CentralFLJames]

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 have not read the entire thread but if our belief in Real Presence were wrong we’d never know it since it would mean that all of Christianity is a lie and a sham and there is no hope of salvation. Eucharist is core to true apostolic Catholic Teaching and was always historically been practised in the early church.

In fact in my readings of scripture I see belief in Eucharist as a ratification of Faith in Jesus. It is the ultimate test of faith. I have also found conclusive evidence that a “faith in Christ alone” is impossible without also believing in Eucharist. So sola fide systems are so highly deficient and inadequate since they deny faith in all Jesus told us we must do and really are a lack of faith in His Gifts. The opposite condition would be believing in real-presence but seeing Christ where he is not. For example seeing Christ in an illicit and invalid mass confected by a non-apostolically ordained “minister” wearing vestments that might look like a priest but is not really apostolically ordained to confect the sacraments (i.e. Anglican, Lutherans, and Presbyterian ministers for example). These later are at real and substantial risk of inciting their congregation to enter into both a sacrilege and idolatry.

More thoughts:

This is why I am now certain that Eucharist is the one sure and normative thing that Jesus will use to definitively judge who KNEW HIM and RECOGNIZED HIM (ref. **Luke 24:35 They began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread. **).

Here is more scripture evidence about recognizing Jesus in Eucharist:

*Luke 24:28-31
And they approached the village where they were going, and He acted as though He were going farther. 29 But they urged Him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is getting toward evening, and the day is now nearly over.” So He went in to stay with them. 30 When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight. *

If the above does not sound like Eucharist I don’t know what else it would take to convince someone - this is why faith too is gift.

Here’s more:

FAITH AND EUCHARIST ARE BOTH INSEPARABLY LINKED TO SALVATION.

*John 6:34 They [the “lipservice followers”] said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

John 6:35-40
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But **I said to you that you have seen me **and yet do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” *

Salvation requires BOTH Faith AND SEEING Christ in Eucharist. Eucharist is the ultimate test of faith

And finally this:
Here is something else to observe - Peter tried to “blend in” with Jesus’ enemies while Christ was being interrogated and bullied (and denies Christ). Notice how the apostle John goes out of his way to link and contrast the denial of Christ to a recognition of Christ in the Eucharist by using the imagery a charcoal fire in each account?. This can’t be coincidental. In the first image (Jhn 18:25), Peter is trying to blend-in with Christ’s enemies and sharing their warm charcoal fire as if one of them. In the second image (John 21:9-13) the apostles are gathered together and brought into an awareness of Christ in the recognition of the presence of the bread. The linkage to Eucharist is popping up all over the NT - its a central and core teaching for Christians.

Peter’s Denial of Jesus
John 18:25 Meanwhile, as Simon Peter was standing by the [ref. John 18:18 - "charcoal fire"] warming himself, they asked him again, “You’re not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it, saying, “No, I am not.”
…
Jesus Appears at the Sea of Galilee (after resurrection)
John 21:9 So when they got out on the land, they saw a charcoal fire already laid and fish placed on it, and bread.
…
John 21:10-13 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples ventured to question Him, “Who are You?” knowing that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and the fish likewise.
…
Math 4:19 “… I will make you fishers of men”.

Mat 13:11b “…To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them [false teachers/pharisees] it has not been granted.”

If one can not see Eucharist screaming out at them “Here I AM” from NT one better pray, pray, pray for the faith to see it!

James

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6206078]Hey Jon…

I understand. However, if, once consecrated, a change takes place in the bread, then transmutation, transubstantiation does in fact takes place, if my understanding of these 2 words is correct. The bread and wine have been transubstantiated (a change (one substance) into another. If you believe that a change of the bread and wine from one form, nature, substance, or state into another - takes place, then the word transmute or transubstantiation is aptly applied - right? When Catholics talk about change, we too are not willing to step into what we consider the speculation over the metaphysical; we have know clue how the miracle takes place, (nor did the apostles know) - and the word transubstantiation does not attempt to explain how the change takes place. It merely says that a change takes place, upon the words of consecration. Of course I am not trying to change your mind; just trying to merge a bit, regarding the language employed by the CC.

There is clearly a change. If one reads the Lutheran - Catholic document I posted, there seems to be a convergence of sorts on much of this. The Eucharist is a miracle, and a mystery . On the words of institution, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine “are” the body and blood. It still looks, feels, tastes like any bread and wine, but it is not mere bread and wine. It is the body and blood of Christ.

To be docile, as you know, simply means that a member of the church, regardless of denomination, must be readily teachable. If Christians reject the Trinitarian dogma, then they are not readily teachable, and cannot be a member of the Lutheran church or the CC, any church for that matter, or can they be a member of the Lutheran church? Forgive me if you already answered this question.

I think by the Book of Concord listing the three creeds first, before the Augsburg Confession, it is clear that to be Lutheran - to be Christian - one must believe in the Trinity.

Yeah, I know how you feel. What do you mean: “The bottom line is always scripture?” Sacred scripture cannot arbitrate or evaluate whether or not a teaching is true or false; only people can do that. That is really my main problem with sola scriptura. For example, SS cannot determine whether or not Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist; if it could then everyone would believe it, but they don’t and many adamantly insist that you and I are dead wrong on this point. Arbitration outside SS is absolutely necessary, wouldn’t you agree? I think you already answered that question as well: the Lutheran Confessions - correct? Like Curtis said: “For those that believe in Jesus Christ’s Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, how do you know for sure?” Clearly SS is not helping him find resolution, for SS says something different to each Christian, in many cases, especially in the case of the Eucharist.

What I mean is that all teachers and teachings are subject to scripture. Arbitration is necessary outside scripture, yes. And the Catholic Church uses its three-legged stool for that arbitration - to determine if teachings and teachers are true. Lutherans just don’t put tradition and teachers on the same level of scripture.

As for Curtis, he shouldn’t look to the practice of SS to determine the real presence, but instead look at the long history of the teaching of the Church, east and west, which as been for nearly 2,000 years that the Eucharist is the true and substantial body and blood of Christ. Then, measure that teaching of the real presence with the words of scripture -“Take and eat. This ***is ***my body. …” Then look at Paul’s Epistle, and see those words again. Tradition, teachers and teachings are so important in helping the believer understand the Truth of scripture, but even they are subject to it.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6206079]So, what was once mere bread and wine changes into Jesus’ flesh and blood, but remains, to the senses, mere bread and wine? Sounds like an invisible substance change to me. I can certainly understand why many Protestants find this hard to believe.

But they can readily accept a virgin birth, and a physical ressurection?

Good question! Firstly, where is the description of the Trinity (the Christian doctrine of the Trinity that teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead) - in the writings of the ECF’s prior to the 4th century? Tertullian, a Latin theologian, in the late 3rd century, is the only person that I can find that was credited with using the words “Trinity”,“person” and “substance” to explain that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “one in essence, not one in Person”. But it wasn’t until a century later, in 325 that the first Council of Nicaea established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and this doctrine would have been foreign to Christianity in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century. Also, where is the Trinity spelled out explicitly in the bible?

At least the spelling out of it might have been, but I think scripture makes the case, though not in a verbatim way.

You are right; the ECF’s make no mention of accidents, just as the apostles and their successors, as well as church leadership for the first couple hundred years of Christianity, made no mention of the word Trinity or sola scriptura. Sola scriptura was unheard of until the 16th century. Regarding accidents, this word is used to simply state that all that is accessible to the senses (accidents) remains as before, which in fact is the truth, isn’t it?

The squabble over the Trinitarian doctrine (just as was the case with the transubstantiation in the 16th century) - was intense and many people in the church rejected it, but you and I believe it today, because we believe that the church founded by Jesus was guided by the Holy spirit to resolve the matter, just as I believe that the holy spirit continues to guide Jesus’ church. Certainly we can only be sure that these dissenters were in fact wrong, if we believe that the Infallible HS guided these very fallible people - right?

As time passes the church has developed and clarified their doctrines, no doubt about that, and that is what the CC did with the Eucharistic doctrine. In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as “transubstantiated” into the body and blood of Christ: *“His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God’s power, into his body and blood.” *As a former Lutheran I would have had no problem with that statement. Again, the CC didn’t/doesn’t say how the bread and wine are transubstantiated! They simply do not know!!!Consecration changes only the substance - right? The accidents (the whiteness, roundness, softness and the smell of the bread and the sense of taste that effect upon our palate remain in their totality - right? That which was wine and is now Christ’s blood (transubstantiated) - still has the smell of wine, the intoxicating power of wine, but I think your point is: no need to use a word such as “accidents” or “transubstantiation” to explicate the mystery, and I respect that.

Correct. And thank you. I have no problem with anything that you have said regarding Catholic expression of the miracle and mystery of the Eucharist. If you say to me that you believe that the bread and wine are, after consecration, the true and substantial body and blood, then I agree. If you say that there is, as a result of the power of the HS, a change, I agree. And if you wish to express this, the great gift in terms of accidents and transubstantiaiton, I totally respect that.
To paraphrase Luther, before agreeing to a symbolic Eucharist with the Zwinglians, I would agree with Transubstantion with the pope.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

I need a bit of assistance regarding the nuances of this position. I’m not sure why when you say the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ you would not also say (as a corollary) that the bread and wine do not remain? You’ve said “what looks like bread and wine” remain. . . I take that as implying that there is actually no bread and wine, on some deeper level.

Am I misunderstanding? Thanks!
VC

Because I don’t know, honestly. I see, feel, taste bread and wine, but I know it is His body and blood. It is a mystery. Is there actually no bread and wine? Does it really matter? I think you’d agree that we’re not interested in the bread and wine. So, if you wish to say the only accidents remain, ok. Many Lutherans talk about Sacramental Union. And that’s ok. I simply believe His words, as I know you do.

Jon

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Because I don’t know, honestly. I see, feel, taste bread and wine, but I know it is His body and blood. It is a mystery. Is there actually no bread and wine? Does it really matter? I think you’d agree that we’re not interested in the bread and wine. So, if you wish to say the only accidents remain, ok. Many Lutherans talk about Sacramental Union. And that’s ok. I simply believe His words, as I know you do.

Jon

Hi Jon,

First, I want to express my appreciation for that last clause in your response: “as I know you do.” And second, thank you for continuing to assist me in understanding some of the nuances in your view.

I’ve great respect for the theological caution (perhaps “restraint”, in the best sense of the term, might even be a better description) exemplified by the East in regard to the Eucharistic conversion. I’m of the opinion that the Catholic Church shows a similar restraint, especially when one pays careful attention to distinctions between speculative theology and dogma. But at the same time, I think some questions and their answers can matter a great deal.

I’m curious, for instance, about your view regarding the two species. Would you (and other Lutherans) hold that the bread is the body and the blood of Christ? If so, why?

Thanks,
VC

 

[JonNC]

=Verbum Caro;6217794]Hi Jon,

First, I want to express my appreciation for that last clause in your response: “as I know you do.” And second, thank you for continuing to assist me in understanding some of the nuances in your view.

I’ve great respect for the theological caution (perhaps “restraint”, in the best sense of the term, might even be a better description) exemplified by the East in regard to the Eucharistic conversion. I’m of the opinion that the Catholic Church shows a similar restraint, especially when one pays careful attention to distinctions between speculative theology and dogma. But at the same time, I think some questions and their answers can matter a great deal.

Thank you for the kind words.

I’m curious, for instance, about your view regarding the two species. Would you (and other Lutherans) hold that the bread is the body and the blood of Christ? If so, why?

Well, what Christ said was, the bread “is my body”, and the wine “is the new covenant in my blood”. Scripturally, He makes this distinction.

Lutherans object to the offering of the Eucharist under one species, as that was not how our Lord offered it. However, if, for example, I was no longer able to drink wine, I would be quite content that I have received Christ fully if I received only the bread. Does that respond to the point of your question?

Jon

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thank you for the kind words.

You are welcome.

JonNC:

Lutherans object to the offering of the Eucharist under one species, as that was not how our Lord offered it. However, if, for example, I was no longer able to drink wine, I would be quite content that I have received Christ fully if I received only the bread. Does that respond to the point of your question?

Yes, somewhat, but also makes me wonder a bit. What if another Lutheran said “well, no actually, you haven’t received Christ’s blood. . . only His body.”? Would you say it was just a contrary opinion? And if they countered that their view is the only one consistent with the biblical words and your view has no basis. . . what then? How does one resolve something like that?

Thanks,
VC

 

[Carlan]

I have not read the entire thread but if our belief in Real Presence were wrong we’d never know it since it would mean that all of Christianity is a lie and a sham and there is no hope of salvation. Eucharist is core to true apostolic Catholic Teaching and was always historically been practised in the early church.

In fact in my readings of scripture I see belief in Eucharist as a ratification of Faith in Jesus. It is the ultimate test of faith. I have also found conclusive evidence that a “faith in Christ alone” is impossible without also believing in Eucharist. So sola fide systems are so highly deficient and inadequate since they deny faith in all Jesus told us we must do and really are a lack of faith in His Gifts.

Salvation requires BOTH Faith AND SEEING Christ in Eucharist. Eucharist is the ultimate test of faith
If one can not see Eucharist screaming out at them “Here I AM” from NT one better pray, pray, pray for the faith to see it!

James

Thanks for your excellent post James. For me pondering all of John6:51-69 does it. And my favorite scripture of all Luke 24: 13-35 “On the Road to Emmaus” God Bless us all. Carlan

 

[JonNC]

You are welcome.
Yes, somewhat, but also makes me wonder a bit. What if another Lutheran said “well, no actually, you haven’t received Christ’s blood. . . only His body.”? Would you say it was just a contrary opinion? And if they countered that their view is the only one consistent with the biblical words and your view has no basis. . . what then? How does one resolve something like that?

Thanks,
VC

Hi VC,
I’m not sure, since I’ve not come accross that situation. I have looked on the LCMS website regarding your question, and have yet to find an answer. Perhaps another Lutheran can direct to a link. My sense is, however, that while the Christ- prescribed practice is to eat and drink, extenuating circumstances - an allergy to wheat, or a health reason not to drink wine - that require reception under one species wouldn’t restrict God’s grace which we receive through the Eucharist.
I would even say that in those Catholic parishes where it is still offered only under the bread, the laity still receive His grace, as the issue is with the parish not offering, but that’s my own opinion.

But as you can see by even the nature of my answer, we would turn to the Church to resolve the issue.

Jon

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks Jon.

In some way, though, it seems to me that there could be cases where you develop doctrine, and perhaps this is one of them? (I.e. that when you receive the Body of Christ you receive more than just the Body). Of course, I’m not familiar with the nuances in this area, so I might be off base.

It just causes me to wonder. I understand, I think, the approach that says it doesn’t matter if someone believes either a)the appearances of bread and wine are appearances only or b)the appearances of bread and wine indicate that the bread and wine are really there too. (Although one must be right and the other wrong). Catholics, however, think it can have repercussions on one’s spiritual life if one were to get that bit wrong. What I am wondering is if there are theological conclusions that you feel similarly about, i.e. that you can’t bear your fellow pilgrims to be mistaken on.

If that is the case, perhaps what we disagree about is what is at stake in getting a particular thing right or wrong.

Thanks for the discussion. You’ve given me some food for thought.
VC