Transubstantiation...Your Take?

[hapaxparadidomi]

I think they have pretty much taken the position that it is a mystery and they leave it at that. The Catholic Church was challenged and really had no choice but to define the process. The Lutherans have never been put into that postition.

I think that just reasoning this out, they really don’t have much choice but to accept Transubstantiation. They agree there is a change. At least that is what two on this discussion have affirmed when they said it is no longer bread and that it is now the body. They agree that there is no change in what they see. I think this one should be obvious.

So what is left if not the substance? Do they disagree that that there is a substance?

 

[SteveVH]

There are four or five major views of the Eucharist, and think it should not be an issue in which Christians should divide over. After-all, nobody can prove their view over another. The elements do not change before your eyes, do they?

christianityinview.com/eucharist.html

CU, I have said this before and have never received a response concerning the fact that the source and summit of the Catholic faith is the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Do you understand that this doctrine is so important that the Catholic Church would not exist without it? How in the world do you conclude that this is not an issue over which Christians should divide when you have Christians rejecting the very doctrine that is essential for Christian belief?

You say “After-all, nobody can prove their view over another.” Really? Please read the New Testament and the writings of early Church Fathers on this subject. The Church can provide mountains of evidence that prove that the doctrine of the real presence has been believed and taught by the Church since the beginning. So please, do not attempt to give moral equivalancy to the opposing views of those who have no authority whatsoever to define Christian doctrine. The same authority that discerned and defined the canon of Sacred Scripture, defined the Christian doctrine of the real presence. You inexplicably reject one and accept the other, yet you have no more right to reject the Eucharist than you do to reject the Bible.

 

[benjohnson]

I think that just reasoning this out, they really don’t have much choice but to accept Transubstantiation. They agree there is a change. At least that is what two on this discussion have affirmed when they said it is no longer bread and that it is now the body. They agree that there is no change in what they see. I think this one should be obvious.

So what is left if not the substance? Do they disagree that that there is a substance?

We Lutherans can be a stubborn lot

We say that “this is my body, and this is blood.” And leave the details to God.

That’s not to say that Lutherans don’t have theories about a particular process or even that we don’t instruct our children on what to expect - but when you try to pin a Lutheran down to what is happening, we eventually come to the explanation of “I don’t know! It’s a mystery!”

If you say that Lutherans believe in the results of Transubstantiation then I say “thank you!” And agree vigorously!

But it’s not that we have any particular problem with the decryption of Transubstantiation, in fact it’s quite good and instructive. It’s just that we have reservations about any descriptive process no matter how sound it is.

 

[benjohnson]

There are four or five major views of the Eucharist, and think it should not be an issue in which Christians should divide over.

Frankly, from a Lutheran standpoint, I would say that this is probably a major issue that separates what we would think of as Christianity.

If you’ll forgive the crude 16th century German, this is what Luther has to say about those that somehow fail to grasp the language in the Bible about the Eucharist:

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that ‘my body’ is the same as the ‘sign of my body’? or, that ‘is’ is the same as ‘it signifies’? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

 

[SteveVH]

We Lutherans can be a stubborn lot

We say that “this is my body, and this is blood.” And leave the details to God.

That’s not to say that Lutherans don’t have theories about a particular process or even that we don’t instruct our children on what to expect - but when you try to pin a Lutheran down to what is happening, we eventually come to the explanation of “I don’t know! It’s a mystery!”

If you say that Lutherans believe in the results of Transubstantiation then I say “thank you!” And agree vigorously!

But it’s not that we have any particular problem with the decryption of Transubstantiation, in fact it’s quite good and instructive. It’s just that we have reservations about any descriptive process no matter how sound it is.

That’s pretty much what I thought was your position and I actually applaud the Lutherans for not attempting to define something they are not sure of. As a Catholic, we also have reservations about descriptive processes unless and until it is defined by the Church, which we believe possesses the authority to bind and loose; i.e. to legislate. Once it has been defined we are obligated to believe it as if it were spoken to us by Christ.

 

[hapaxparadidomi]

We Lutherans can be a stubborn lot

We say that “this is my body, and this is blood.” And leave the details to God.

That’s not to say that Lutherans don’t have theories about a particular process or even that we don’t instruct our children on what to expect - but when you try to pin a Lutheran down to what is happening, we eventually come to the explanation of “I don’t know! It’s a mystery!”

If you say that Lutherans believe in the results of Transubstantiation then I say “thank you!” And agree vigorously!

But it’s not that we have any particular problem with the decryption of Transubstantiation, in fact it’s quite good and instructive. It’s just that we have reservations about any descriptive process no matter how sound it is.

Well as far as pinning you down goes, you believe it is a change of something else other than the appearance but you are not, as you would have it, able to tell me what that something else is. Beyond us referring to that something as a substance I don’t think we can say much more except that the substance is the flesh of Christ and that it ceases to be bread.

But in your view, is ‘what ever was changed’ changed into the flesh and blood of Christ? (Soul and divinity included) And if so, then in what way is that significant? For example, is it salvific? If not, then wouldn’t that be a denigration of the flesh of Christ?

Or are all these mysteries too?

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe,
How are you?

The problem with “transformed” is it implies substance / accidents. Here is what we know: that Christ says the bread and wine ARE His body and blood. Luther indicates that, based on Pauls testimony in 1 Corinthians, there’s no reason to deny the existence of bread and wine. I personally believe there is a danger if this is taken out of context, the context being that the bread and wine are His body and blood. It isn’t a mix, or a third substance. It isn’t even a joint local presence of some sort. We confess that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.

Jon

Oops. I overlooked your post. Sorry! I’m doing pretty good. Sadly, (college) I do not have as much time these days to converse via CAF. How are you doing brother?

I see that others have addressed my question. I might add: Of course I understand your (Lutheran) concern with using terms like accidents. However, using a word like transform seems absolutely suitable, if in fact the bread and wine become Jesus’ Flesh and Blood i.e. "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink".

You said: “It isn’t a mix, or a third substance. It isn’t even a joint local presence of some sort. We confess that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.”

So the Eucharist, upon the words of consecration, is not a blend of both bread/wine and Jesus’ Flesh and Blood? I thought that Martin Luther (the present-day Lutheran Church), believed the following: Consubstantiation holds that during the sacrament, the fundamental substance of the Body and Blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present?

%between%

 

[jrtrent]

I want this thread to be a free for all when it comes to Transubstantiation. If your denomination is against this then please explain why.

Well, I don’t have a lot of detail to offer, but at the Anglican church I attend, we simply go by article 28:

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

In looking for information for another thread, I came across the Declaration on Kneeling which was part of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (my church uses the 1928 version). The declaration is a precaution to avoid misconstruing what the act of kneeling to receive the elements means:

WHEREAS it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue); yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians); and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.

 

[dshix]

I see that others have addressed my question. I might add: Of course I understand your (Lutheran) concern with using terms like accidents. However, using a word like transform seems absolutely suitable, if in fact the bread and wine become Jesus’ Flesh and Blood i.e. "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink".

I’m sorry, but that is not correct.

You do not understand the difference between transubstantiation and transformation. To say something is transformed is to say that it actually visually changes. The bread changes into a visible chunk of ripped flesh, and the wine changes into a chalice of actually bad tasting blood.

Transubstantiation means that the form of the bread and wine remains; the accidents remain, only the substance itself changes, which means that the bread and wine become, in substance, Jesus body and blood, but they still appear to us to be bread and wine.

 

[benjohnson]

But in your view, is ‘what ever was changed’ changed into the flesh and blood of Christ? (Soul and divinity included)

Yes! It is true food, and is the body and blood of Christ!

And if so, then in what way is that significant?

Penultimately significant - we are dead without it.

For example, is it salvific?

Yes! Good Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has said that the Lutheran Lord’s Supper is ‘salvation granting’ an we move vigorously concur!

 

[hapaxparadidomi]

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

cannot be proved by Holy Writ = By what standard? The protestant idea of how something is proved by scripture alludes me.

but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture = Meaning?

overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament = Meaning?

and hath given occasion to many superstitions = Ummmm, what doesn’t give occasion to superstition? Superstitions are formed of one’s own imagination regardless of the subject matter.

 

[hapaxparadidomi]

Yes! It is true food, and is the body and blood of Christ!

Penultimately significant - we are dead without it.

Yes! Good Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has said that the Lutheran Lord’s Supper is ‘salvation granting’ an we move vigorously concur!

Ben thanks for your answers. I appreciate the clarifications.

 

[joe370]

I’m sorry, but that is not correct.

You do not understand the different between transubstantiation and transformation. To say something is transformed is to say that it actually visually changes. The bread changes into a visible chunk of ripped flesh, and the wine changes into a chalice of actually bad tasting blood.

Transubstantiation means that the form of the bread and wine remains; the accidents remain, only the substance itself changes, which means that the bread and wine become, in substance, Jesus body and blood, but they still appear to us to be bread and wine.

Of course. I suppose I was thinking of a mystical transformation that cannot be definitively understood. Obviously the bread and wine do not literally transform so that all can witness the transformation.

 

[dshix]

Of course. I suppose I was thinking of a mystical transformation that cannot be definitively understood. Obviously the bread and wine do not literally transform so that all can witness the transformation.

Right. That “mystical transformation that cannot be definitively understood” is transubstantiation! The Church made a nice fancy word for us to explain what is impossible to understand.

 

[PRmerger]

There are four or five major views of the Eucharist, and think it should not be an issue in which Christians should divide over. After-all, nobody can prove their view over another. The elements do not change before your eyes, do they?

christianityinview.com/eucharist.html

Agggghhh!

So this is exactly my problem with your position, CU!

You reserve for yourself the right to say, “I don’t think [doctrine A*] should be a divisor!”

But you also reserve for yourself the right to say, “I do think [doctrine B**] should be a divisor!”

This is hypocritical and arbitrary and unfair.

Examples:
A = the Real Presence
B = the Incarnation

IOW: You get to say that if someone doesn’t believe in Doctrine B (i.e. the Incarnation), you cannot compromise with this.

But you tell us that we cannot say: since you don’t believe Doctrine A (i.e. the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist) that we Catholics cannot compromise with this.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure, if we are just basing our evidence on what you see with your eyes. But as catholics we base our evidence on scripture and on tradition.

Nobody could see that Jesus is God. Ought we to follow your logic and conclude that ‘wether He is divine or not’ is something that we should not divide over?

'zactly.

For some reason CU believes that we can exclude Muslims from unity with us because, while, like us, they believe in One God who is just and merciful, they deny that Jesus is divine.

But that we Catholics ought not exclude him from unity with us because, while, like us he believes in Christ’s divinity, he denies that Jesus is present Body,. Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Agggghhh!

So this is exactly my problem with your position, CU!

You reserve for yourself the right to say, “I don’t think [doctrine A*] should be a divisor!”

But you also reserve for yourself the right to say, “I do think [doctrine B**] should be a divisor!”

This is hypocritical and arbitrary and unfair.

Examples:
A = the Real Presence
B = the Incarnation

IOW: You get to say that if someone doesn’t believe in Doctrine B (i.e. the Incarnation), you cannot compromise with this.

But you tell us that we cannot say: since you don’t believe Doctrine A (i.e. the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist) that we Catholics cannot compromise with this.

I professed Christ at 18 and I just turned 52. I made my rounds through many of the various Christian circles. I have had many Catholic friends, and my college roommate just became a Catholic Priests a few years ago. His twin brother has been a Catholic Priest for about 30 years…so I do understand the Catholic faith for a non-catholic. IMO… all churches know in part and most like to dig in their war bunkers to claim that their theological distinctive is exclusively right, and everyone else is wrong. Well, I think the grass is not greener on the other side of any particular church denomination, and we all know in part and believe something in error. Issues like this should never divide the body of Christ… but I do understand the Catholic position is extremely important for the Catholic Church’s view to be the One True Church. - Peace

 

[PRmerger]

I professed Christ at 18 and I just turned 52. I made my rounds through many of the various Christian circles. I have had many Catholic friends, and my college roommate just became a Catholic Priests a few years ago. His twin brother has been a Catholic Priest for about 30 years…so I do understand the Catholic faith for a non-catholic. IMO… all churches know in part and most like to dig in their war bunkers to claim that their theological distinctive is exclusively right, and everyone else is wrong. Well, I think the grass is not greener on the other side of any particular church denomination, and we all know in part and believe something in error. Issues like this should never divide the body of Christ… but I do understand the Catholic position is extremely important for the Catholic Church’s view to be the One True Church. - Peace

I appreciate all you said, CU, but it is a non-sequitur.

You cannot reserve for yourself the right to have divisions in your theology, while denying Catholics this right also.

Justice demands that you apply your paradigm equally.

 

[TimothyH]

As an Anglican my views are not much different from the Lutheran and Catholic views. I agree that it is a Mystery and that Christ is Present in the bread and the wine.

You agree with a Catholic belief which Catholics don’t believe.

Catholics don’t believe that Christ is present in the bread and wine but that the bread and wine cease to exist and are replaced by the substance of Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity. Only the appearance of bread and wine exist.

It ceases to be bread. It ceases to be wine. It becomes Jesus. It looks, smells, tastes and feels like bread and wine but it is not. It is Jesus. It is the Lord.

-Tim-

 

[JonNC]

Oops. I overlooked your post. Sorry! I’m doing pretty good. Sadly, (college) I do not have as much time these days to converse via CAF. How are you doing brother?

I see that others have addressed my question. I might add: Of course I understand your (Lutheran) concern with using terms like accidents. However, using a word like transform seems absolutely suitable, if in fact the bread and wine become Jesus’ Flesh and Blood i.e. "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink".

You said: “It isn’t a mix, or a third substance. It isn’t even a joint local presence of some sort. We confess that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.”

So the Eucharist, upon the words of consecration, is not a blend of both bread/wine and Jesus’ Flesh and Blood? I thought that Martin Luther (the present-day Lutheran Church), believed the following: Consubstantiation holds that during the sacrament, the fundamental substance of the Body and Blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present?

%between%

No. Luther never referred to it as consubstantiation, since consubstantiation is a metaphysical construct just like transubstantiation is. Luther didn’t like Aristotelian philosophy.

What we believe is what Christ said, “this [bread] is my body.” Whether or not the substance of the bread and wine remain the substance of bread and wine are unknown. That’s for God to know. Paraphrasing Luther, God does with the bread and wine as He wills. We receive His body and blood.

Jon