But, I feel that the argument, however flawed you may feel it, that the reformers had was that the ancient church did not teach transubstantiation. Depending on what sources from the very ancient church you look at, you can draw that conclusion, though I know the Roman Catholic church believes this to be heresy.
Well, sure. Luther was convinced that it was consubstantiation (Christ present with or in bread and wine) while the Church taught the Eucharist IS Christ, under the appearance of…
I hadn’t laughed hard today until I read this.
But the Lutherans and Anglicans don’t think Catholics are going to hell so at least in one perspective, I have a bit more respect for them. :hug1: They also have a belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and recognize more sacraments. But they don’t get off easy! :knight2: But we love our Southern Baptist brothers in Christ none the less.:hug3:I’ve been known to snark at some sorts of Anglicans, myself, 'round these parts. Motley crew, us Anglicans.I hadn’t laughed hard today until I read this.
Some of us LCMSers believe confession/Absolutio as a sacrament, but you are right about the very narrow view of a physical element.
It isn’t that marriage isn’t valid. The Lutheran view was NT - Christ established. Marriage comes from the OT. And frankly, I have never gotten he feeling that the issue of what is or is not a sacrament was Church-dividing from a Lutheran POV.
Perhaps the Spirit will use him to continue the rebirth of auricular confession in American Lutheranism.
Jon,
I wasn’t talking about the catholic answers forums… More so the catholic answers staff/ apologists like staples, akin, etc. It’s frustrating because it seems like they don’t even know we exist! As if the entire Protestant world is totally out of touch with history etc. In my opinion Lutherans and Anglicans have just as much a claim on history as the Catholic church. The Roman Catholic Church has the longest succession of names back to Christ but that is irrelevant as they do not have the longest succession of ideas and truth! There is an enormous disconnect between the Church today and the Church, at say, the council of Nicea. I could show you quote after quote in every age of patristic giants teaching explicitly the opposite of current catholic doctrine and you’ll all explain them away as “private theologians”… Then when they agree with Catholic dogma those same people become" the unanimous consent of the fathers". If we can use those rules for history I can make a patristic case for any major protestant denomination.
You friend is mistaken. The words “in, with, and under” are intended to speak of Sacramental Union, not consubstantiation. Think of it; Transubstantiation was rejected by the reformers becaus eof its philosphical/metaphysical construct. Consubstantiation also uses that construct. The reason for the historic rejection of Transubstantiation (and consubstantiation) is the philosophical construct, not that we don’t recognize Christ’s words - this [bread] is my body. Ask your friend where he finds any Lutheran theologian or any of the reformers speaking of consubstantiation.
Notice the context here - First - the bread and wine ARE His body and blood. Secondly, - we do not presume to understand how this takes place. Finally, we recognize physical elements - that somehow, in, with and under physical elements - God gives us His true body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
The LCMS’ers I know refuse to use the word consubstantiation. So are the Missouri Synod themselves split on that word. ELCA? Ha, I am surprised that they still even celebrate Eucharist.
To my knowledge, there is no split whatsoever from various Lutheran synods regarding the confessional understanding of the Eucharist. Its not that there aren’t modernists around. Its just that they’ve had no sway in changing the doctrine, except to broaden what definitions of real presence they are willing to be in communion with - UCC, Moravians, Presbyterians, etc.
Jon, thank you. She readily says in, with and under and refers to this as consubstantiation. I’ll have her ask her pastor for clarification and see what he says to her. I’ll keep reading and see if I can understand this more myself. Do you understand where and how Luther came up with the theology of in, with and under?
My understanding of “This is My Body” is much the same as “God created…”
It’s as C.S.Lewis once wrote: We were told “take, eat” not “take, understand”.
It’s not an either/or. The Reformed tradition had many prominent theologians. Zwingli himself had less direct influence than his successor Bullinger, who had an influence in much of Europe in the sixteenth century roughly equivalent to that of Calvin.
They argued that transubstantiation was not supported by Scripture or by the teachings of the early Church.
The specific point where the Reformed tradition most clearly breaks with patristic Eucharistic teaching is adoration.