Transubstantiation v. Consubstantiation

[brumano]

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

Well, rather strange to my mind then and I’m sure you know more of the history of reformation theology than I, but I think it was this exact error from which Luther refused to recant that he was ultimately excommunicated for, no? I’ve not read Melanchthon’s Apology and I’m not trying to denigrate it; but he states the obvious if he states both the Roman and Orthodox confess the real presence, I don’t see what the import of this statement argues for or against as to the truth about the permanence or impermanence of the Holy Eucharist. Again, we have to recall faith first then reason; it is faith and reason not reason then faith, this is what we feel Luther should have done.

I’ve read quite a few of your posts on a number of threads with great interest you build pretty tight bulwarks around your LCMS position room, but I think you"ll agree the water of the Tiber keeps seeping relentlessly through, Why not just discount all the polemics of the past and return to the first and everlasting church, believe you me we sure need you.

 

[JonNC]

Well, rather strange to my mind then and I’m sure you know more of the history of reformation theology than I, but I think it was this exact error from which Luther refused to recant that he was ultimately excommunicated for, no? I’ve not read Melanchthon’s Apology and I’m not trying to denigrate it; but he states the obvious if he states both the Roman and Orthodox confess the real presence, I don’t see what the import of this statement argues for or against as to the truth about the permanence or impermanence of the Holy Eucharist. Again, we have to recall faith first then reason; it is faith and reason not reason then faith, this is what we feel Luther should have done.

He is stating the obvious, but remember that there were those who were speaking out against the real presence. A symbolic view was a position the Lutheran reformers fought desperately against as false doctrine, both the attempts to bring it into Lutheranism, and the false accusations that the attempts had succeeded.

Here it is:

Article X: Of the Holy Supper.
54] The Tenth Article has been approved, in which 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.

I’ve read quite a few of your posts on a number of threads with great interest you build pretty tight bulwarks around your LCMS position room, but I think you"ll agree the water of the Tiber keeps seeping relentlessly through, Why not just discount all the polemics of the past and return to the first and everlasting church, believe you me we sure need you.

You are very kind.

Jon

 

[brumano]

He is stating the obvious, but remember that there were those who were speaking out against the real presence. A symbolic view was a position the Lutheran reformers fought desperately against as false doctrine, both the attempts to bring it into Lutheranism, and the false accusations that the attempts had succeeded.

Here it is:

You are very kind.

Jon

Okay fine we agree to what is obvious; if there were those already speaking out against the real presence within the church that does not damage the authenticity of the Eucharistic doctrine of the one true church anymore than the detractions against the Lord that are recorded in the Gospels could truly damage the person of Christ Himself. What it should clarify is the need in the church for a primary and yes infallible authority to speak on any question of Faith and Morals with absolute certainty, whether all the individual members concur concientiously or in every detail completely or not. That’s of course the Successor of Peter whom a very well known Anglican, John Henry Neumann could not escape through thousands of hours of Scriptural, Theological and Spiritual searching to recognize as his Pope.

We agree to what is obviously true about the real presence; who is it that is really present? Is He temporal only or needing any other being for His own continued life, or is He eternal and free in and of Himself freely giving of Himself as the Eucharistic Lord, by His means to those who recieve Him in truth? The consecrated bread and wine are transsubstantiated Him.

 

[JonNC]

=brumano;8367134]Okay fine we agree to what is obvious; if there were those already speaking out against the real presence within the church that does not damage the authenticity of the Eucharistic doctrine of the one true church anymore than the detractions against the Lord that are recorded in the Gospels could truly damage the person of Christ Himself. What it should clarify is the need in the church for a primary and yes infallible authority to speak on any question of Faith and Morals with absolute certainty, whether all the individual members concur concientiously or in every detail completely or not. **That’s of course the Successor of Peter **whom a very well known Anglican, John Henry Neumann could not escape through thousands of hours of Scriptural, Theological and Spiritual searching to recognize as his Pope.

And this, not the doctrine of transubstantiation, that keeps me from becoming Catholic, for nothing in the early councils, which I accept as a right reflection of the truth of the faith, defines the role of the pope in this manner. Not without a general council of all the patriarchates.

We agree to what is obviously true about the real presence; who is it that is really present? Is He temporal only or needing any other being for His own continued life, or is He eternal and free in and of Himself freely giving of Himself as the Eucharistic Lord, by His means to those who recieve Him in truth? The consecrated bread and wine are transsubstantiated Him.

The consecrated bread and are His body and blood, because He says so. It is a mystery how this happens.

Jon

 

[brumano]

QUOTE=JonNC;8367479]And thisa general council of all the patriarchatest the doctrine of transubstantiation, that keeps me from becoming Catholic, for nothing in the early councils, which I accept as a right reflection of the trut, no manner. Not without h of the faith, defines the role of the pope in this.

The consecrated bread and are His body and blood, because He says so. It is a mystery how this happens.

Jon

Well have it your way if you must but the earliest councils are in the Scriptures; in Acts. We see St. Peter is clearly the final authority to rule on the the first major controversey of the the early Christian Church that was whether or not Gentiles could be baptized and whether they could be baptized without first undergoing circumcision and training in the Mosaic Law. St. James defers to his decision.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Brumano:

That’s of course the Successor of Peter whom a very well known Anglican, John Henry Neumann could not escape through thousands of hours of Scriptural, Theological and Spiritual searching to recognize as his Pope.

It’s Newman not Neumann. Otherwise, what exactly does that mean? Newman always believed in the infallibility of the Pope.

 

[brumano]

It’s Newman not Neumann. Otherwise, what exactly does that mean? Newman always believed in the infallibility of the Pope.

Thanks for the correction on both points.

 

[JonNC]

Well have it your way if you must but the earliest councils are in the Scriptures; in Acts. We see St. Peter is clearly the final authority to rule on the the first major controversey of the the early Christian Church that was whether or not Gentiles could be baptized and whether they could be baptized without first undergoing circumcision and training in the Mosaic Law. St. James defers to his decision.

Actually, I don’t want it my way. I want it Christ’s way. You mentioned, in a cryptic way, you saw in me the influence of Catholicism, and that’s true. Nothing would please me more than to see a resolution of the dispute about Rome’s primacy, and a reconciliation between east and west. I would be in RCIA the next day.

But I don’t see, at this point, how the deference to St. Peter in Acts, or the primacy afforded to Rome by the early Church equates to the idea of supremacy we see claimed by Rome today. And this, my friend, is the true issue for me - ecclesiology.

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Actually, I don’t want it my way. I want it Christ’s way. You mentioned, in a cryptic way, you saw in me the influence of Catholicism, and that’s true. Nothing would please me more than to see a resolution of the dispute about Rome’s primacy, and a reconciliation between east and west. I would be in RCIA the next day.

But I don’t see, at this point, how the deference to St. Peter in Acts, or the primacy afforded to Rome by the early Church equates to the idea of supremacy we see claimed by Rome today. And this, my friend, is the true issue for me - ecclesiology.

Jon

You must learn to distinguish between a genuine development and a corruption. Just because something doesn’t resemble primitive Christianity, doesn’t mean it is corruption. Does an acorn resemble an oak tree?

After all, Primitive Christianity didn’t preach the Trinity the way we now hold that doctrine. Do you therefore deny the Trinity as taught in the Nicene and Athanasian creed?

BTW, as a Lutheran, (although you carefully avoid that word in your religious affiliation) you must realize that many things are no longer the way Martin Luther originally taught or intended. He developed his doctrine in his own lifetime. Early Lutheranism is not the same as later Lutheranism.

Read Newman’s book “Development of Doctrine” to gain insight in how to distinguish the one from the other.

 

[JonNC]

You must learn to distinguish between a genuine development and a corruption. Just because something doesn’t resemble primitive Christianity, doesn’t mean it is corruption. Does an acorn resemble an oak tree?

After all, Primitive Christianity didn’t preach the Trinity the way we now hold that doctrine. Do you therefore deny the Trinity as taught in the Nicene and Athanasian creed?

BTW, as a Lutheran, (although you carefully avoid that word in your religious affiliation) you must realize that many things are no longer the way Martin Luther originally taught or intended. He developed his doctrine in his own lifetime. Early Lutheranism is not the same as later Lutheranism.

Read Newman’s book “Development of Doctrine” to gain insight in how to distinguish the one from the other.

The issue is not development of doctrine. As you say, Lutheran teachings has its development also. The JDDJ is a development for both of our communions, in a way.

The issue is, regarding the primacy of the papacy, is how it resembles the teaching of the early Church, both east and west, and how it resembles the early councils, which universal jurisdiction does not.

As for my profile, I do not deny being Lutheran. The title comes out of a previous discussion of accuracy and clarity in profiles, in repsonse to the “Christian” or “Protestant”
profiles. For most of my time here, my profile read Lutheran.

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The issue is not development of doctrine. As you say, Lutheran teachings has its development also. The JDDJ is a development for both of our communions, in a way.

The issue is, regarding the primacy of the papacy, is how it resembles the teaching of the early Church, both east and west, and how it resembles the early councils, which universal jurisdiction does not.

As for my profile, I do not deny being Lutheran. The title comes out of a previous discussion of accuracy and clarity in profiles, in repsonse to the “Christian” or “Protestant”
profiles. For most of my time here, my profile read Lutheran.

Jon

Something to consider:

The Church in communion with Rome has both Eastern AND Western particular churches. Does the Orthodox church? Why not?

Although they have a true Catholic Church, their breach with Rome is an open wound. Because it concerns the very point you are questioning, you must be very careful in evaluating their doctrine when discerning the Truth of this matter. Remember, it wasn’t always this way. The admixture of the secular power with the ecclesiastical hierarchy in the East, was always at the bottom of their issues with Rome, much the same as it was in Reformation Europe.

 

[JonNC]

Something to consider:

The Church in communion with Rome has both Eastern AND Western particular churches. Does the Orthodox church? Why not?

Although they have a true Catholic Church, their breach with Rome is an open wound. Because it concerns the very point you are questioning, you must be very careful in evaluating their doctrine when discerning the Truth of this matter. Remember, it wasn’t always this way. The admixture of the secular power with the ecclesiastical hierarchy in the East, was always at the bottom of their issues with Rome, much the same as it was in Reformation Europe.

It is an open wound, this breach between Rome and Orthodoxy. It is an open wound that affects the ministry of the Church.
As for being very careful, I am. I’m neither Orthodox nor Catholic. “Here I stand.” My response regarding this was about the statement to have it my way. Lutherans can be held accountable, equally with Rome, for our division. Rome and Orthodoxy, 1,000 years later, ISTM can held equally accountable.

Jon

 

[brumano]

Actually, I don’t want it my way. I want it Christ’s way. You mentioned, in a cryptic way, you saw in me the influence of Catholicism, and that’s true. Nothing would please me more than to see a resolution of the dispute about Rome’s primacy, and a reconciliation between east and west. I would be in RCIA the next day.

But I don’t see, at this point, how the deference to St. Peter in Acts, or the primacy afforded to Rome by the early Church equates to the idea of supremacy we see claimed by Rome today. And this, my friend, is the true issue for me - ecclesiology.

Jon

Right , I believe you and ideally that is the way that we all want, but we all do have a tendency to try to substitute our way for Christ’s way; and even though I think this happens subtley more often than overtly, there is still in this realization another strong recomendation for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
By saying the resoloution of the primacy issue is a very important concern I think you might have a proposed soloution in mind, but all we can tell you is that all the modern Popes, Pope Paul IV and especially the present and the late Pope, Pope John Paul II have devoted extensive, and some might say exhaustive efforts in attempting to bring about the full reunification with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I say full, because great progress has been, and is being made and also because doctrinally we are restored to communion with them (unlike some of the separated churches as mentioned in the previous posts) but what else can anyone say; it is a process and it is likey to be a very long and protracted process, so is the life of the church that we know in the end will be One.

I think some of the reinforcing of the primacy and supremacy of Rome that you might see as flexing of muscle is really more of a reaction than it is proaction on the part of the Roman Catholic Church, and I’m sorry to say that the mainstay of challenges to Papal authority are coming from within and from outside of the RCC on every possible doctrinal front.

For pure ecclesiastics I would take you back again to the council in Acts; St. Peter ruled on this question but he was in at that time Jerusalem, St James is thought of as the Bishop of Jerusalem and as was stated he does conform his judgement to that of St. Peter, but he stipulates on the matter that the Gentiles are to “keep themselves from things strangled and from eating meat sacrificed unto idols”. St. Peter adds nothing else and the chapter closes; this silence on the part of St. Peter signifies he is in accord with the prohibition St. James has provided. You have there a fully pronounced and defined Church Doctrine on an extremely important issue of the early and only Church.

 

[brumano]

Right , I believe you and ideally that is the way that we all want, but we all do have a tendency to try to substitute our way for Christ’s way; and even though I think this happens subtley more often than overtly, there is still in this realization another strong recomendation for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
By saying the resoloution of the primacy issue is a very important concern I think you might have a proposed soloution in mind, but all we can tell you is that all the modern Popes, Pope Paul IV and especially the present and the late Pope, Pope John Paul II have devoted extensive, and some might say exhaustive efforts in attempting to bring about the full reunification with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I say full, because great progress has been, and is being made and also because doctrinally we are restored to communion with them (unlike some of the separated churches as mentioned in the previous posts) but what else can anyone say; it is a process and it is likey to be a very long and protracted process, so is the life of the church that we know in the end will be One.

I think some of the reinforcing of the primacy and supremacy of Rome that you might see as flexing of muscle is really more of a reaction than it is proaction on the part of the Roman Catholic Church, and I’m sorry to say that the mainstay of challenges to Papal authority are coming from within and from outside of the RCC on every possible doctrinal front.

For pure ecclesiastics I would take you back again to the council in Acts; St. Peter ruled on this question but he was in at that time Jerusalem, St James is thought of as the Bishop of Jerusalem and as was stated he does conform his judgement to that of St. Peter, but he stipulates on the matter that the Gentiles are to “keep themselves from things strangled and from eating meat sacrificed unto idols”. St. Peter adds nothing else and the chapter closes; this silence on the part of St. Peter signifies he is in accord with the prohibition St. James has provided. You have there a fully pronounced and defined Church Doctrine on an extremely important issue of the early and only Church.

correction to 1st para above, Pope PaulVI not IV

 

[brumano]

correction to 2nd para above Pope Paul VI not IV.