Transubstantiation v. Consubstantiation

[AlanFromWichita]

I learn things every day I participate in these forums. Just the other day I learned that Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, but their belief is “consubstantiation,” as opposed to the Catholic belief, “transubstantiation.”

As I understood, the former implies that the Body of Christ actually enters the Eucharist. The latter, that the Eucharist is actually changed into the Body of Christ, and that it is no longer a piece of bread.

After thinking about it some, I can’t understand why we would say it is no longer a piece of bread. I’m not here to debate whether Jesus actually becomes present in the host; that is an article of faith that I’m not calling into question right now. But “no longer a piece of bread?” I hope someone can help me figure out what that is supposed to mean – or tell me I’m wrong about it no longer being bread.

Our language is a funny thing; words mean different things to different people, but whether something does or does not cease being bread, when all of its observable and measurable characteristics are exactly the same before and after the change, to me it sounds like a bit of a word game.

After consecration, the host weighs the same, breaks down into the same elements, casts the same shadow, remains the same color, etc. The gluten in it is still dangerous to those allergic to gluten, and it is served to vegetarians and those who are observing Lenten fast.

So in a physical sense, I don’t even see how it can be argued that it is no longer bread – and not only that, but objectively so, to the point where others who do not share this belief (or at least who don’t admit they disagree with it) are told they are wrong. :tsktsk:

In a mystical sense, if it becomes the Body of Christ, then what was it before it got changed? Was it really bread, or was it just a non-entity?

I’m not looking to anger anyone or to be called names. I have my problems with certain aspects of the Church, as some may have seen me express on other threads, but I defend the Church against those who unfairly put her down or claim she is wrong – when it is they who are misinformed or who are obviously driven by their emotions or anti-Catholic agenda. But at this point if a Lutheran challenged me on this, I’d have to just scratch my head and say, “gee, I haven’t a clue.” So I’m looking to get a clue here how I can honestly defend this, if I can put aside my “logic” long enough to understand it myself.

Thanks in advance,
Alan

 

[Tomster]

I learn things every day I participate in these forums. Just the other day I learned that Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, but their belief is “consubstantiation,” as opposed to the Catholic belief, “transubstantiation.”

As I understood, the former implies that the Body of Christ actually enters the Eucharist. The latter, that the Eucharist is actually changed into the Body of Christ, and that it is no longer a piece of bread.

After thinking about it some, I can’t understand why we would say it is no longer a piece of bread. I’m not here to debate whether Jesus actually becomes present in the host; that is an article of faith that I’m not calling into question right now. But “no longer a piece of bread?” I hope someone can help me figure out what that is supposed to mean – or tell me I’m wrong about it no longer being bread.

Our language is a funny thing; words mean different things to different people, but whether something does or does not cease being bread, when all of its observable and measurable characteristics are exactly the same before and after the change, to me it sounds like a bit of a word game.

After consecration, the host weighs the same, breaks down into the same elements, casts the same shadow, remains the same color, etc. The gluten in it is still dangerous to those allergic to gluten, and it is served to vegetarians and those who are observing Lenten fast.

So in a physical sense, I don’t even see how it can be argued that it is no longer bread – and not only that, but objectively so, to the point where others who do not share this belief (or at least who don’t admit they disagree with it) are told they are wrong. :tsktsk:

In a mystical sense, if it becomes the Body of Christ, then what was it before it got changed? Was it really bread, or was it just a non-entity?

I’m not looking to anger anyone or to be called names. I have my problems with certain aspects of the Church, as some may have seen me express on other threads, but I defend the Church against those who unfairly put her down or claim she is wrong – when it is they who are misinformed or who are obviously driven by their emotions or anti-Catholic agenda. But at this point if a Lutheran challenged me on this, I’d have to just scratch my head and say, “gee, I haven’t a clue.” So I’m looking to get a clue here how I can honestly defend this, if I can put aside my “logic” long enough to understand it myself.

Thanks in advance,
Alan

Alan,

Simply put, Jesus did not say this is my body mixed with bread. He simply said this is my body. We take it on faith that this is what He meant.

Besides, simple bread together with Jesus was not offered on the Cross.

Hope this will get you started in the right direction.

God bless!

 

[jeffryan]

It is the substance of the bread that is transformed while the species or accidents (color, texture, taste, shape, etc.) remains.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consecration

 

[DavidFilmer]

A seminary instructor described consubstantiation by saying that Jesus is handcuffed to the host. They remain two distinct entities, but are joined together.

Catholics don’t believe that. We believe “This IS my Body” - not “Here is my Body,” or “My Body is in there somewhere.”

Many Catholics seek an understanding of Transubstantiation using a philosophical framework developed by Aristotle which recognizes that things have a “substance” which is distinct from its properties (“accidents”).

Bread has a substance - a “breadness” if you will. But you can’t provide a satisfactory definition for what “breadness” is. Bread may be white or black, hard or soft, hot or cold, sweet or savory, fresh or stale. It is usually made with wheat flour, but it could be other grains. Yet, it is “bread” and we know it when we see it.

Everything has a substance which is apart from its properties. Chairs have a “chair-ness.” No scientific instrument can detect the “chair-ness” of a chair.

In the Eucharist, it is this substance that is changed. The properties (accidents) remain.

 

[JonNC]

I learn things every day I participate in these forums. Just the other day I learned that Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, but their belief is “consubstantiation,” as opposed to the Catholic belief, “transubstantiation.”

As I understood, the former implies that the Body of Christ actually enters the Eucharist. The latter, that the Eucharist is actually changed into the Body of Christ, and that it is no longer a piece of bread.

After thinking about it some, I can’t understand why we would say it is no longer a piece of bread. I’m not here to debate whether Jesus actually becomes present in the host; that is an article of faith that I’m not calling into question right now. But “no longer a piece of bread?” I hope someone can help me figure out what that is supposed to mean – or tell me I’m wrong about it no longer being bread.

Our language is a funny thing; words mean different things to different people, but whether something does or does not cease being bread, when all of its observable and measurable characteristics are exactly the same before and after the change, to me it sounds like a bit of a word game.

After consecration, the host weighs the same, breaks down into the same elements, casts the same shadow, remains the same color, etc. The gluten in it is still dangerous to those allergic to gluten, and it is served to vegetarians and those who are observing Lenten fast.

So in a physical sense, I don’t even see how it can be argued that it is no longer bread – and not only that, but objectively so, to the point where others who do not share this belief (or at least who don’t admit they disagree with it) are told they are wrong. :tsktsk:

In a mystical sense, if it becomes the Body of Christ, then what was it before it got changed? Was it really bread, or was it just a non-entity?

I’m not looking to anger anyone or to be called names. I have my problems with certain aspects of the Church, as some may have seen me express on other threads, but I defend the Church against those who unfairly put her down or claim she is wrong – when it is they who are misinformed or who are obviously driven by their emotions or anti-Catholic agenda. But at this point if a Lutheran challenged me on this, I’d have to just scratch my head and say, “gee, I haven’t a clue.” So I’m looking to get a clue here how I can honestly defend this, if I can put aside my “logic” long enough to understand it myself.

Thanks in advance,
Alan

Hi Alan,
Just a point. Lutherans reject consubstantiation, in large measure because of what Tomster said, Christ did not say “mixed with”. He said, This (bread) IS my body. This is what Lutherans believe.

Jon

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Thank you all for your help. :tiphat:

In a way, I think I know what y’all are saying, but I’m not quite on board with it yet …

I’m kind of paraphrasing because if I try to paraphrase rather than parrot, I’m more likely to get feedback on where I have gaps.

I think you’re saying that the substance changes, while the species remains bread. But to the physical senses, those senses in philosophical terms can detect the “species” through direct observation, and thus whatever the “substance” is cannot be directly observed but it known as true through our faith in the interpretation of the words at the last supper, as a matter of faith and morals, which are therefore defined by Rome.
:bible1:

Hmmm. My first reaction is that I’m still not lined up with it – not necessarily with the truth of what’s going on, but with the way we are putting it into words that we use to describe this to the general population, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. I’m going to wait a while to let it sink in before trying to get too specific.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Hi Alan,
Just a point. Lutherans reject consubstantiation, in large measure because of what Tomster said, Christ did not say “mixed with”. He said, This (bread) IS my body. This is what Lutherans believe.

Jon

Do I understand you to say Lutherans share our view of transubstantiation?

I thought the primary reason we weren’t supposed to have Communion with Lutherans is that we don’t both believe we are receiving the true Body and Blood of Christ?

Alan

 

[Evan]

I can look at my arm and say: This is my arm.

But if it were cut off, it would still have the same appearance, the cells would still be alive (for a short period), however, I would say ‘That was my arm’. No longer would it be part of ME.

I think that would be the difference between accidents (what it is as a THING) and substance (what it really is).

In both cases, the external matter is the same arm.

However the non-physical, the spiritual reality, is different. That is the true REALITY.

 

[ThePharmacist]

Do I understand you to say Lutherans share our view of transubstantiation?

I thought the primary reason we weren’t supposed to have Communion with Lutherans is that we don’t both believe we are receiving the true Body and Blood of Christ?

Alan

Lutherans believe in “sacramental union”.

From my understanding, Catholics shouldn’t have communion with Lutherans for the simple fact that Lutherans are out of communion with Catholics, and they don’t have apostolic succession (according to Catholic teaching), hence no valid Eucharist.

 

[joshrp]

I learn things every day I participate in these forums. Just the other day I learned that Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, but their belief is “consubstantiation,” as opposed to the Catholic belief, “transubstantiation.”

As I understood, the former implies that the Body of Christ actually enters the Eucharist. The latter, that the Eucharist is actually changed into the Body of Christ, and that it is no longer a piece of bread.

After thinking about it some, I can’t understand why we would say it is no longer a piece of bread. I’m not here to debate whether Jesus actually becomes present in the host; that is an article of faith that I’m not calling into question right now. But “no longer a piece of bread?” I hope someone can help me figure out what that is supposed to mean – or tell me I’m wrong about it no longer being bread.

Our language is a funny thing; words mean different things to different people, but whether something does or does not cease being bread, when all of its observable and measurable characteristics are exactly the same before and after the change, to me it sounds like a bit of a word game.

After consecration, the host weighs the same, breaks down into the same elements, casts the same shadow, remains the same color, etc. The gluten in it is still dangerous to those allergic to gluten, and it is served to vegetarians and those who are observing Lenten fast.

So in a physical sense, I don’t even see how it can be argued that it is no longer bread – and not only that, but objectively so, to the point where others who do not share this belief (or at least who don’t admit they disagree with it) are told they are wrong. :tsktsk:

In a mystical sense, if it becomes the Body of Christ, then what was it before it got changed? Was it really bread, or was it just a non-entity?

I’m not looking to anger anyone or to be called names. I have my problems with certain aspects of the Church, as some may have seen me express on other threads, but I defend the Church against those who unfairly put her down or claim she is wrong – when it is they who are misinformed or who are obviously driven by their emotions or anti-Catholic agenda. But at this point if a Lutheran challenged me on this, I’d have to just scratch my head and say, “gee, I haven’t a clue.” So I’m looking to get a clue here how I can honestly defend this, if I can put aside my “logic” long enough to understand it myself.

Thanks in advance,
Alan

No where in the Bible does Jesus say he didn’t mean it when He said “This is My Body, this is My Blood.” Why would anyone assume He means anything differently than what He says.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

No where in the Bible does Jesus say he didn’t mean it when He said “This is My Body, this is My Blood.” Why would anyone assume He means anything differently than what He says.

Not meaning to be argumentative here, but I don’t think I’m to the point where I can sell this yet, based on that alone. He did not say, “this is no longer bread, but My Body…” in which case we wouldn’t even need this discussion. For one, I don’t know in His native language or culture whether what He said is “precisely” translated into modern times. In modern times, people hand each other photos and say, “this is my brother and me, getting ready for a fishing trip.” They normally don’t say, “this is a photo of him and me,” but everyone knows what it means through common usage of the language and the context.

In general, I find it uncomfortable to come to major conclusions about the precise wording of a single passage in scripture, when a) much of what Jesus said was unquestionably figurative or hypothetical, b) different translations – even different Catholic translations – offer very different meanings of scripture, and c) I’ve seen on these very forums, heated if not bitter arguments among posters who are clearly more learned than I about Church teachings and scripture readings, about what entire sections of the Bible mean.

I think I’m starting to understand the part about substance v. species, but I still think that by saying, “it is no longer a piece of bread,” at least in today’s vernacular, it is misleading in the sense that it sounds like we are contradicting the obvious – that the host retains its physical characteristics.

Actually, if we are saying the “substance” of something is beyond any observable or measurable characteristic, then we can call anything we see as anything else “in essence” and what really matters is whose authority are we to align ourselves with – when affixing those labels?

I can call a horizontal branch in a tree a “chair,” or a smooth rock a “chair,” or maybe something that has legs a “chair” then to me it has something that makes me consider it essentially a chair, but to someone who thinks differently these are not “chairs” at all because they are not made by humans, or whatever it is that gives it “chairness” in the opinion of the person opining.

Again, I thank you all for your time and energy on these points. I think I understand what we are supposed to say, but it is still hard for me to claim that as my own personal belief. At this time, unless there is something new to say, I’m not expecting to debate it any further because, after all, it is an article of faith so I may never have an explanation that makes sense to me, and if that’s the Church’s official teachings, so be it. For now, though, I don’t feel equipped to be an apologist on this issue. Good thing I’ve concerned myself more with the “touch-feely” aspects of what Jesus came to teach, because I have a hard time with some of this scholarly stuff. The Body of Christ has many members, so I guess it’s OK that I can’t speak about these things as if they were my own.

Alan

 

[yablabo]

In a mystical sense, if it becomes the Body of Christ, then what was it before it got changed? Was it really bread, or was it just a non-entity?

Hi, Alan,

The Council of Trent has taught us explicitly what must be believed in respect of Transubstantiation:

In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant, - that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of
existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that
our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which, - recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that
proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers, - it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognising, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ.
…
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

The fact that the bread and wine are no longer present is not disqualified by what we physically observe there. The appearances (size, smell, taste, feel, etc.) remain in no substance (the bread is gone) as a veil, and the substance of Christ is really and truly present. There is no change here, Christ does not become present by means of corruption of bread and generation of Christ. The substance of the bread is converted, that is, removed from this place, and now the whole substance of Christ takes the place of the whole substance of bread.

What was the host before the conversion? It was bread, altar bread specifically.

Here are some of the canons from Trent regarding the Holy Eucharist:

Canon I. If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

We cannot deny that the whole Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are in the Eucharist, for real, not merely a sign, figure or virtue. It’s truly, really and substantially Christ!

Canon II. If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

This canon most explicitly condemns the notion of Luther’s consubstantiation. If we say what is above, and deny Transubstantiation, we are anathema!

Canon III. If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

This means that when a host, whether bread or wine, is consecrated, Christ is there wholly under each species, even if they do not sit together on the altar or are not mixed by intinction.

Canon IV. If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.

This means that every particle that drops onto the corporal during purification is a veil for the whole Christ, and he is in fact there, whether it be miniscule to the point that we can no longer see it easily or at all, until the accidents/species corrupts. This also means that the hosts which are reserved in the tabernacle also veil the whole Christ…and that Christ is truly, really and substantially present there.

– Nicole

 

[JonNC]

Do I understand you to say Lutherans share our view of transubstantiation?

I thought the primary reason we weren’t supposed to have Communion with Lutherans is that we don’t both believe we are receiving the true Body and Blood of Christ?

Alan

No Alan, but the reason is not related to whether or not we believe in the real presence. Both of our communions confess that the Eucharist IS the true body and blood of Christ. Lutherans have always had a reluctance to express it in terms of substance and accidents, that is metaphysics. We agree that there is a change, but that it is a mystery how this happens.

All this said, there is growing convergence over the last 50 years regarding our differing ways of expressing the real presence. I pray that continues.

Jon

 

[Evan]

I see the most glaring difference between Lutheran and Catholic theology concerning the elements of consecration is found in the disposition of remnants left after the service.

Catholics teach and believe a change has been made so the elements are the Body and Blood of Christ so must be revered as such.

The options given by a Lutheran pastor (xrysostom.blogspot.com/2008/12/leftover-communion-elements.html) include putting wine back in the bottle, bread back with the unused bread, scattering the bread on the ground for birds or giving it to children of the congregation. The Lutheran church does not have a definitive stand, it depends on the beliefs of the Pastor or congregation concerning what the remnants are considered to be (body of Christ or bread and wine).

 

[JonNC]

I see the most glaring difference between Lutheran and Catholic theology concerning the elements of consecration is found in the disposition of remnants left after the service.

Catholics teach and believe a change has been made so the elements are the Body and Blood of Christ so must be revered as such.

The options given by a Lutheran pastor (xrysostom.blogspot.com/2008/12/leftover-communion-elements.html) include putting wine back in the bottle, bread back with the unused bread, scattering the bread on the ground for birds or giving it to children of the congregation. The Lutheran church does not have a definitive stand, it depends on the beliefs of the Pastor or congregation concerning what the remnants are considered to be (body of Christ or bread and wine).

I can promise you this, the idea of mixing consecrated with unconsecrated is outrageous, and Luther would spin in his grace at the very idea. The idea of putting the consecrated body on the ground, or giving it to children is equally outrageous. As an elder, I would protest this vocally to the point of leaving a parish.

Jon

 

[Evan]

I can promise you this, the idea of mixing consecrated with unconsecrated is outrageous, and Luther would spin in his grace at the very idea. The idea of putting the consecrated body on the ground, or giving it to children is equally outrageous. As an elder, I would protest this vocally to the point of leaving a parish.

Jon

I would agree with you Jon. The difficulty lies not in what the elements are, but that there is no central authority or over-riding theology that can determine what they are for ALL Lutherans. If that were every settled in Lutheran theology, then the proper action for all Lutheran communities would become evident.

From this lack comes the various Lutheran branches (LCMS, ELCA, WELS, and I think there is a new coalition forming) which teach quite divergent things.

 

[JonNC]

I would agree with you Jon. The difficulty lies not in what the elements are, but that there is no central authority or over-riding theology that can determine what they are for ALL Lutherans. If that were every settled in Lutheran theology, then the proper action for all Lutheran communities would become evident.

From this lack comes the various Lutheran branches (LCMS, ELCA, WELS, and I think there is a new coalition forming) which teach quite divergent things.

I can’t disagree with this regarding pan-Lutheranism, that it is a problem. However, within our synod, of which the blogger you mention appears to be a member, the CTCR has been quite clear as to appropriate practices regarding the reliquae, and mixing consecrated with unconsecrated is not it. The sad part is that someone like you feels the need to say that you “see the most glaring difference between Lutheran and Catholic theology concerning the elements of consecration is found in the disposition of remnants left after the service.” For you to see this as the most glaring, something easily remedied by simple reverent, historic practices is, frankly, embarrassing to me.

Jon

 

[Road2Damascus]

It’s hard to pin down among the Lutherans who believes in Consubstantiation but the LCMS seems to deny it.

Consubstantiation is generally rejected by Lutherans and is explicitly rejected by the LCMS as an attempt to define the holy mystery of Christ’s presence.[12]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Church%E2%80%93Missouri_Synod

But for all practical purposes, it seems their believers do think they believe in it or at least, it is a split opinion.

For the record, there are other theories out there by other people suggested, Transignfication, the Wine and Blood stay the same, Christ changed what his words were, not, that’s not it I don’t think, I could not understand it, it must not be important and the related Transfinalization I believe.

 

[MarcoPolo]

As I understood, the former implies that the Body of Christ actually enters the Eucharist. The latter, that the Eucharist is actually changed into the Body of Christ, and that it is no longer a piece of bread.

The Lutheran tradition does not include a description of Christ “entering” the Eucharist. He is merely present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine. The other common description used by Lutherans historically unto today is that it is a “sacramental union” of Christ and the bread/wine. Although there is no explanation of “how” this occurs, Luther was known to attempt to explain the metaphysics of the situation by analogy to the fusion of iron and fire. He once wrote:*And why could not Christ include his body in the substance of the bread just as well as in the accidents? In red-hot iron, for instance, the two substances, fire and iron, are so mingled that every part is both iron and fire. Why is it not even more possible that the body of Christ be contained in every part of the substance of the bread. ( (Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 2.29-30))*He also claimed to explain some of the physical characteristics of Christ getting through the closed door in John 20:19,26 as a parallel to the Eucharist. More can be read at this article: Substances: Comparing the Catholic and Lutheran Eucharist.

Lutherans have always had a reluctance to express it in terms of substance and accidents, that is metaphysics. We agree that there is a change, but that it is a mystery how this happens.

Jon, I must contend this assertion. Luther himself sometimes used the term “substance” to refer to both Christ and the bread and wine (see above quote). Also, in Transubstantiation, there is no compromise to “how this happens.” Transubstantiation merely asserts that what was bread is after the consecration Christ’s body entirely and ontologically. There is no explanation of “how” the mystery occurs, and it remains a mystery. The extent of the philosophical terms of substance and accident are useful in expressing the mystery, not explaining it.

 

[Evan]

The sad part is that someone like you feels the need to say that you “see the most glaring difference between Lutheran and Catholic theology concerning the elements of consecration is found in the disposition of remnants left after the service.” For you to see this as the most glaring, something easily remedied by simple reverent, historic practices is, frankly, embarrassing to me.
Jon

Jon

On the theology concerning the elements of consecration

I call the disposition of the elements glaring because it is visible. It can be seen by any onlooker. It would blind me to any serious consideration that the pastor believes, as you have expressed, that the consecrated elements take on or are in contact with the divine. And that is what a glaring light does, blinds you to other things that may be more important.

I believe the disposition comes from the deeply held beliefs concerning the truth of what happens during the service. It is the outward sign of the theology of the pastor and/or parish.

A pastor/parish the treats the elements with the respect you believe they are due would allow me to enter into a discussion concerning what they believe. But if no respect is offered, I would not be compelled to inquire further into their beliefs.

In Christ