Transubstantiation

[JonNC]

From the LCMS site:

“In view of these (scripture) passages as well as the words of Jesus when He instituted the sacrament, we have concluded that while we eat bread and drink wine in the sacrament we–in, with, and under these forms–receive the body and blood of our Lord. How? That is the mystery.”

Of course, when we eat and drink, that is when we receive it (we haven’t received it until then). When it becomes the body and blood of Christ is at the time of consecration.

The mystery is how it is changed. Yes, Lutherans express the mystery as “in, with, and under”. Catholics express it as Transubstantiation. The fact that it is changed at the time of consecration is not an issue between us.

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”).

 

[toaslan]

It’s called the “Sacrament of the Altar”. Whether or not there are priests or not in the (Lutheran church, specifically) is a rather moot point, since they don’t believe in transubstantiation.

It certainly is not a moot point.

The sacrament must be confected. Only a priest validly ordained inside the Apostolic Succession has the ability to confect.

It doesn’t matter if somebody believes a non-validly-ordained priest can confect; or if he believes a consubstantiation occurs at some point. Bread/wine ONLY becomes Flesh/Blood of Jesus when a validly-ordained priest confects.

Reality is, no validly-ordained priest, no Real Presence.

 

[jbrewer]

I realize this is a very late post to this topic, but I’d like to add a bit.

When an adolescent and preparing for Confirmation in the Episcopal Church in Cleveland, TN at St Luke’s parish, I was taught transubstantiation occurirng with Communion. I discussed this in detail with our priest and with my step-father. It was thoroughly explained to me, and it made perfect sense to me, despite my Presbyterian upbringing as a child. Years later, when I converted to Catholicism in Denton TX at Immaculate Conception, the Episcopal parish across the street also taught transubstantiation, in accordance and agreement with the Catholic Church. Again, I discussed this in detail during Cathechism and later after another Baptism (the asst priest didn’t like Presbyterian Baptisms- sprinkling) and Catholic Confirmation by the Ft Worth Bishop of the time I talked about this with Father Jerry, our pastor, who discussed how he was good friends with the Episcopal priest and one of their points of friendship and endearment to each other was transubstantiation.

I think despite denominational differences, there are sometimes specific priestly or parish differences that may affect belief. However, I don’t think it would change the recommendation to avoid communion with another denomination in order to avoid bringing judgment down upon yourself.

John