Transubstantiation v. Consubstantiation

[AlanFromWichita]

Everyone, thank you for your participation in this thread. I’m reading all of this, but I don’t have anything particularly new to say.

I am enjoying it, so please keep it up as long as you wish…

I’ll jump in if I have anything interesting to add or ask. Otherwise I’ll take a lesson from my brother – when I don’t have anything to say, I’ll not say it.

Alan

 

[Road2Damascus]

I thought this was an interesting line that I am still wrestling with to understand:

Some Anglicans, however, implicitly or explicitly adopt the Eucharistic theology of consubstantiation, first articulated by the Lollards, or Sacramental Union, first articulated by Martin Luther Fact|date=May 2008. Luther’s analogy of Christ’s Presence was that of the heat of a horseshoe thrust into a fire until it is glowing. In the same way, Christ is present in the bread and the wine.

en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/2464456

Respectfully, if ML used this analogy, I would not be quite in agreement with this, this seems to state something that is not there but again, perhaps it is for purposes of illustration. Again, Luther/this line of thinking seems to say “IS with” which the RCC would say “IS” This IS. Has anyone else heard this with the horseshoe?

 

[RaphaelJ]

Hmm… If Jesus says that: This is My Body and This is My Blood, then I’ll take it at face value. It is my opinion that if the Sacrifice of the Mass is Christ Himself, then it makes sense that the bread and wine are fully the Body and Blood of Christ… save for its outward properties. I must agree that it seems strange if there was still the substance of Bread and Wine mixed in there. After all, when Christ gave Himself to us and told us to eat His flesh, He didn’t say that we were to eat it with bread. And I suppose that the Flesh and Blood of Christ is not partly made of bread and wine.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Luther’s analogy of Christ’s Presence was that of the heat of a horseshoe thrust into a fire until it is glowing. In the same way, Christ is present in the bread and the wine.

See Luther quote in post 19.

 

[JonNC]

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

I can understand why you’d feel this way. OTOH, the issue has not gone unnoticed in Catholic-Lutheran dialogue.

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”).

52.Differences related to the duration of the eucharistic presence appear also in liturgical practice. Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess that the eucharistic presence of the Lord Jesus Christ is directed towards believing reception, that it nevertheless is not confined only to the moment of reception, and that it does not depend on the faith of the receiver however closely related to this it might be.

53.According to Catholic doctrine the Lord grants His presence even beyond the sacramental celebration for as long as the species of bread and wine remain. The faithful are accordingly invited to “give to this holy sacrament in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God”.38

54.Lutherans have not infrequently taken exception to certain of the forms of eucharistic piety connected with this conviction. They are regarded as inadmissibly separated from the eucharistic meal. **On the other hand, Catholic sensibilities are offended by the casual way in which the elements remaining after communion are treated sometimes on the Lutheran side, and this indicates a discrepancy which is not yet overcome **(cf. appendix The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist 2).

55.In order to remedy this situation, it would be good “for Catholics to remember, particularly in catechism and preaching, that the original intention in preserving the eucharistic gifts was to distribute them to the sick and those not present”, and for the Lutherans “the best means should be adopted of showing respect due to the elements that have served for the celebration of the Eucharist, which is to consume them subsequently, without precluding their use for communion of the sick”.39 Regarding eucharistic adoration, Catholics should take care that their practice does not contradict the common conviction of the meal character of the Eucharist. They should also be aware of the fact that in the Orthodox Churches, for example, there exist other forms of Eucharistic piety without Eucharistic faith being questioned for this reason. Lutherans for their part should consider “that adoration of the reserved sacrament” not only “has been very much a part of Catholic life and a meaningful form of devotion to Catholics for many centuries”,40 but that also for them “as long as Christ remains sacramentally present, worship, reverence and adoration are appropriate”.41

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Jon

 

[JonNC]

More can be read at this article: Substances: Comparing the Catholic and Lutheran Eucharist.

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.

I see and understand your point, and BTW, enjoyed the blog you linked, particularly this part:

It is also worth mentioning the following. If it were true that Catholics threatened the mysterious pedigree of the Eucharist if it is described as changing into the body of Christ, then why would not the Lutheran description of “sacramental union” or “in, with, and under” not do the same? After all, Luther wrote, " the bread and wine in themselves remain unaltered and unchanged" and “out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place.” I submit that these descriptions are no more or less an “explanation” of the Eucharist or a threat to the mystery of the Eucharist than transubstantiation.

I absolutely agree with the contention, though I suspect other Lutherans might not. I personally much prefer Melanchthon’s statement in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, which avoids the “explanations” all together, where he writes:

we confess that 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. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, 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. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

In the document Ilinked to in my last post, one of the things the dialogue responds to is the growing understanding of the languages of our traditions, and what the writers seem to point to as a better understanding between us, thus that they write: The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation.

Lutherans need to respond to this by recognizing that Christ’s words, “this is my body”
do not denote a time frame for that presence, even while we profess the main reason for that presence is as He commanded, that we eat and drink, and that we properly reserve the reliquae.

Jon

 

[MarcoPolo]

In the document Ilinked to in my last post, one of the things the dialogue responds to is the growing understanding of the languages of our traditions, and what the writers seem to point to as a better understanding between us, thus that they write: The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation.

Thanks. Although I think if the issue of “bread with or not with” is not a way to separation, probably the teaching of whether or not it is truly a sacrifice would be.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks. Although I think if the issue of “bread with or not with” is not a way to separation, probably the teaching of whether or not it is truly a sacrifice would be.

I think, yes, at this point, it may still be a dividing factor, though the document goes into this as well, from paragraph 58 on through 61, and seems to indicate that our expressions of sacrifice are closer than once thought.

Jon

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What I never can understand is this: Protestants have no problem believing that their own souls which cannot be seen are in their own bodies and then find it impossible to believe that Jesus’ body is what the host really is.

Substances are like souls in this respect–you can’t see them.

Why is that so hard to understand?

If Jesus told me that the bread was really an aircraft carrier I’d believe Him–Jesus doesn’t lie–just because I don’t understand how it could be an aircraft carrier wouldn’t mean that it couldn’t be an aircraft carrier.

The challenge of the eucharist is this do you believe what you sense or what Jesus who is God says?

Consubstantiation was created by the devil so people wouldn’t believe what Jesus said and would say to themselves that he was present with the bread and wine.

Who gives anyone the authority to not entirely believe Jesus?

The little personal spiritual only Protestant realtionship with Christ isn’t anything compared to the REAL body, blood, soul, and divinity relationship with jesus that Catholic have with the Eucharist.

Jesus may be spiritually present at protestant communion services but He isn’t body, bood, soul, and divinity substantially present there because Protestants don’t have valid priests.

Now what i don’t understand about Protestants and Martin Luther is this: the Catholic church led by the holy spirit for 1500 years proclaims that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ at the consecration.

Are you going to tell me that God let his church believe what is false for 1500 years?

Who believes that?!

Get REAL–the body and bood ARE CHRIST!!!-- and He isn’t MIXED with bread and wine or WITH them like the Lutherans say either!

 

[JonNC]

What I never can understand is this: Protestants have no problem believing that their own souls which cannot be seen are in their own bodies and then find it impossible to believe that Jesus’ body is what the host really is.

Substances are like souls in this respect–you can’t see them.

Why is that so hard to understand?

If Jesus told me that the bread was really an aircraft carrier I’d believe Him–Jesus doesn’t lie–just because I don’t understand how it could be an aircraft carrier wouldn’t mean that it couldn’t be an aircraft carrier.

The challenge of the eucharist is this do you believe what you sense or what Jesus who is God says?

Consubstantiation was created by the devil so people wouldn’t believe what Jesus said and would say to themselves that he was present with the bread and wine.

Who gives anyone the authority to not entirely believe Jesus?

The little personal spiritual only Protestant realtionship with Christ isn’t anything compared to the REAL body, blood, soul, and divinity relationship with jesus that Catholic have with the Eucharist.

Jesus may be spiritually present at protestant communion services but He isn’t body, bood, soul, and divinity substantially present there because Protestants don’t have valid priests.

Get REAL–the body and bood ARE CHRIST!!!-- and He isn’t MIXED with bread and wine or WITH them like the Lutherans say either!

Lutherans don’t say “mixed with”. That would be consubstantiation - con-substantial. And when we say “with”, it is not the intention to claim anything other than what Christ said, which is, “this (bread) is my body.” The Apology of the Augsburg Confessions uses the phrase, " that which is seen, bread and wine", and later references Vulgarius, when he says, the “bread is not a mere figure, but is truly changed into flesh.”

Now what i don’t understand about Protestants and Martin Luther is this: the Catholic church led by the holy spirit for 1500 years proclaims that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ at the consecration.

Are you going to tell me that God let his church believe what is false for 1500 years?

Who believes that?!

I don’t know about protestants, but Lutherans would say that the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy have it right. Again from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ.

The difference is not in the belief that the bread and wine, when consecrated, are the body and blood of Christ. We agree on this. The difference is in how we express the fact that the bread is the body of Christ. Catholics use the term Transubstantiation. I’ve seen the term metabole from the Orthodox. And Lutherans express it as Sacramental Union. We all agree, however, that the bread IS His body, the wine IS His blood, as He tells us in His own words.

Jon

 

[john_portis]

For me this all goes to the Gospel of John in CH 6 v-48-58 now read those verses and think about all that it fits to me I not getting into the science of it just fits good like that Peace be unto you

 

[ekenny]

The point is actually explained by Jesus in John 6:63:

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

There was no transfusions then, so how could they drink this blood? He’d have to be dead to eat him. He is saying Moses gave you bread from heaven and now that he is the bread from heaven.

The point is, most following Jesus were blinded by their laws on handling blood and were actually only following Jesus for what he could give them.

John 6:2 and a great crowd of people followed him because they saw the signs he had performed by healing the sick.

They were not interested in the giver. Instead they were interested in what they were given. Jesus wanted to be king of there lives, not just for the fleshy things.

They ask what they must do:
John 6:29: Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
Then they ask him for a sign, because they don’t believe him.

They weren’t interested in who he was, if they were, they would have asked him to show them how to eat his body, and hung around for the answer.

Spiritual things cannot be discerned from those they are hidden from. As Jesus says, the “flesh counts for nothing” and this is explained later in scripture by the eating of all types of animals in the vision to Paul, and regarding eating food sacrificed to idols (addressed also by Paul).

The point is to abide in Jesus daily as you do by eating food on a daily basis.

John 6:35 and 36 sum it up best, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe."

If the statement was to be taken literally then how do you drink the everlasting water mentioned in John 4?

 

[john_portis]

So why did disciples murmur Jesus ask if they were offened and some left? Peter stayed on ? So how do we abide in JESUS if it is by spirit only with out doing vain works anything we would do such has helping poor visit sick feeding hungry could not be done in spirit only unless somone used their hands.Why did the LORD make such a bold statment even the early reformers wouldnt touch this.So are the flames of hell real or not? I consider it a mystery all things are possibble with GOD Why did he go to the trouble of breaking the bread at last supper ?Why did he tell the disciples to eat and drink ?Seems like waste of time if this is all spirital? I like Acts C-4 v-13

 

[brumano]

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

The question I would raise for the Lutheran communions; there are quite a number of them as you know that are not expressly Lutheran but that the Lutheran Church holds to be in communion with them, would not be how the Lutherans could belive in the real presence it would be how they could have communion with churches who do not? These are churches who, by doctrine believe in a symbolic aspect of the Eucharist only, there are others who again by doctrine state that the bread and wine were consecrated and given once and only once to the twelve and that it was not intended to be carried on in the priesthood of the Catholic or any Church beyond that day, still others disregard it completely in favor of their own spoken word which is presumed to be either directly or secondarily inspired by The Holy Spirit. These are abjectly heretical, sacriligious, and blasphemous doctrines against the Holy Eucharist which the Lutheran has inculcated;either willingly or against his better judgement which should have warned and still does for a full faith return to the Roman Catholic Church.

The use of the words accidents and metaphysics concerning substances have only limited value in expression of truth and so create semantical confusion that is somewhat unavoidable; ie; no it is no way an accident that The Eucharist is real, it is not accidental that the Lord took Bread, He chose the bread He didn’t choose some other substance, nor the wine… He took the cup…He says what it is and what it becomes… of course there is an ineffable mystery here and that’s why our priests lead us at the beginning of every Mass to pray in order to prepare to celebrate these Sacred Mysteries; and here’s where the mystery deepens, by calling to mind our sins.

 

[JonNC]

=brumano;8354973]The question I would raise for the Lutheran communions; there are quite a number of them as you know that are not expressly Lutheran but that the Lutheran Church holds to be in communion with them, would not be how the Lutherans could belive in the real presence it would be how they could have communion with churches who do not?

It is a concern I share with those Lutheran synods who do so. The LCMS holds to close communion, not unlike the Catholic view. I certainly would not receive in a UCC Church, for example.

These are churches who, by doctrine believe in a symbolic aspect of the Eucharist only, **there are others who again by doctrine state that the bread and wine were consecrated and given once and only once to the twelve and that it was not intended to be carried on in the priesthood of the Catholic or any Church beyond that day, still others disregard it completely in favor of their own spoken word which is presumed to be either directly or secondarily inspired by The Holy Spirit. **These are abjectly heretical, sacriligious, and blasphemous doctrines against the Holy Eucharist which the Lutheran has inculcated;either willingly or against his better judgement which should have warned and still does for a full faith return to the Roman Catholic Church.

Well, I’m not sure how confessional Lutherans have inculcated this, but, perhaps some might see it this way regarding Lutheran synds who have joined into altar and pulpit fellowship with communions who hold those views.
The bolded view is unfamiliar to me. Which communions hold to this?

The use of the words accidents and metaphysics concerning substances have only limited value in expression of truth and so create semantical confusion that is somewhat unavoidable; ie; no it is no way an accident that The Eucharist is real, it is not accidental that the Lord took Bread, He chose the bread He didn’t choose some other substance, nor the wine… He took the cup…He says what it is and what it becomes… of course there is an ineffable mystery here and that’s why our priests lead us at the beginning of every Mass to pray in order to prepare to celebrate these Sacred Mysteries; and here’s where the mystery deepens, by calling to mind our sins.

I agree.

Jon

 

[ekenny]

So why did disciples murmur Jesus ask if they were offened and some left? Peter stayed on ? So how do we abide in JESUS if it is by spirit only with out doing vain works anything we would do such has helping poor visit sick feeding hungry could not be done in spirit only unless somone used their hands.Why did the LORD make such a bold statment even the early reformers wouldnt touch this.So are the flames of hell real or not? I consider it a mystery all things are possibble with GOD Why did he go to the trouble of breaking the bread at last supper ?Why did he tell the disciples to eat and drink ?Seems like waste of time if this is all spirital? I like Acts C-4 v-13

To sort out the men from the boys. Jesus is not looking for lukewarm nominal believers. He wants people how believe him for miracles and for who he is, but firstly for who he is. He cares for the sick more than we can imagine or understand but if you die from a sickness without believing in him you are lost. As he said, don’t fear the one who kills the body, but him who kills both body and soul. As for flames of hell, don’t know if they are real, might be a way of explaining the most horrible of torment. My own feeling is that flames are too good since they are a distraction from the reality of a life that could have been spent with Jesus. Imagine being in Hell and knowing you have no way back across the abyss. It would be a living hell in itself, with perfect remembrance of every chance you had to change. I find it scary… As for your comment about waste… 100 years on earth in the physical as opposed to an eternity in the spiritual. I’d be sowing. We need habitual things to reinforce our learning. Jesus gave us a great gift in communion because we can do it at every meal.

 

[john_portis]

I figure if one trys to obey the two commands Matt c12 v-29-31 he is not going to get sprayed out I would think he also belived in Jesus as the Christ ,How do we let our lightn shine before men? Jesus also said everyone who says LORD LORD isnt getting in?I can go for days and find NT passages dealing with putting ones faith to work taking action If Abraham hadnt took Issac up the hill wouldnt prove anything, So back to the begining of this JESUS took bread and broke and likewise took the cup and told them what it was and told them to eat and drink,make of it as you wish? It works for me ,It is words of Jesus from Bible It is by faith I belive in him and his words so by faith I try to be a good disciple knowing I can do nothing as far as savining myself but because of him his death resurrection his grace I have hope in him of everlasting life.

 

[Glennonite]

Lutherans don’t say “mixed with”. That would be…

…I don’t know about protestants, but Lutherans would say… that the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy have it right. Again from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

The difference is not in the belief that the bread and wine, when consecrated, are the body and blood of Christ. We agree on this. The difference is in how we express the fact that the bread is the body of Christ. Catholics use the term Transubstantiation. I’ve seen the term metabole from the Orthodox. And Lutherans express it as Sacramental Union. We all agree, however, that the bread IS His body, the wine IS His blood, as He tells us in His own words…

Jon

Nice. Thanks, I learned a lot.

Glennonite

 

[brumano]

It is a concern I share with those Lutheran synods who do so. The LCMS holds to close communion, not unlike the Catholic view. I certainly would not receive in a UCC Church, for example.

Well, I’m not sure how confessional Lutherans have inculcated this, but, perhaps some might see it this way regarding Lutheran synds who have joined into altar and pulpit fellowship with communions who hold those views.
The bolded view is unfamiliar to me. Which communions hold to this?

I agree.

Jon

Plainly though you must also agree that since the matter is concerning the Holy Eucharist, we can’t simply say that it’s just a concern if we considered ourselves to be in communion with a church you agree cannot be a valid church; the UCC, The United Church of Christ, is it? No they are seperated, we pray for them and all well intentioned people but we in no way can join our assent of belief to sacriligious communion practices, or churches which hold heretical doctrines. To get directly to the question, if some part of the Catholic Church adopted a sacriligous Eucharistic practice they would be excommunicated.

I think you have in more of a retrograde post reformation backwash from protestantism that grew and spread with more and more objections to Catholicism, the doctrines about Mary are also good examples of this phenomena, anything anti Catholic was to be propagated by the schismatics in attempting to erect their own “new” church as being the true one.

Some Baptists, granted this does depend somewhat on which ones you talk to, Pentecostals, 7th Day Adventists, some Evangelicals there’s many more really who, when you really get down to the question " If the substances of bread and wine are not by priestly consecration and elevated offering, the body and blood of Christ, then why does He say that they are? And why does He command (I’m sure you well know the Scripture references) they continue it for all time if He does not want it to be continued? But to bring this back to the thread subject as it has to do with Lutheranism, how and why did Luther think to alter in anyway the true prescence in the Eucharist which was from the beginning given by the Lord, not by men, to the Church?

 

[JonNC]

Plainly though you must also agree that since the matter is concerning the Holy Eucharist, we can’t simply say that it’s just a concern if we considered ourselves to be in communion with a church you agree cannot be a valid church; the UCC, The United Church of Christ, is it? No they are seperated, we pray for them and all well intentioned people but we in no way can join our assent of belief to sacriligious communion practices, or churches which hold heretical doctrines. To get directly to the question, if some part of the Catholic Church adopted a sacriligous Eucharistic practice they would be excommunicated.

I think you have in more of a retrograde post reformation backwash from protestantism that grew and spread with more and more objections to Catholicism, the doctrines about Mary are also good examples of this phenomena, anything anti Catholic was to be propagated by the schismatics in attempting to erect their own “new” church as being the true one.

Some Baptists, granted this does depend somewhat on which ones you talk to, Pentecostals, 7th Day Adventists, some Evangelicals there’s many more really who, when you really get down to the question " If the substances of bread and wine are not by priestly consecration and elevated offering, the body and blood of Christ, then why does He say that they are? And why does He command (I’m sure you well know the Scripture references) they continue it for all time if He does not want it to be continued? But to bring this back to the thread subject as it has to do with Lutheranism, how and why did Luther think to alter in anyway the true prescence in the Eucharist which was from the beginning given by the Lord, not by men, to the Church?

Speaking from my POV, I believe Luther didn’t think he was altering in anyway the real presence. Nor did he think his position was an alteration from the historic Church. I would say he viewed Transubstantiation as an alteration. And one must remember that Melanchthon in the Apology clearly states that both Rome and Orthodoxy confess the real presence.

More importantly, however, is the nature of the discussion between our communions today, which seem to be brushing off the old polemics and actually listening to each other regarding our expressions of the RP.

Jon