transubstantiation

[GKC]

It is rare, but not unheard of. In fact, there is a Lutheran poster here, who is a priest in the Church of Norway, that tends to lean toward Transubstantiation.

Further, in Lutheran - Catholic dialogue there have been statements by Lutheran and Catholic theologians that believe the two expressions (Transubstantiation and Sacrament Union) should not be considered Church- dividing.

Jon

I wonder what (then Bishop) Gladfelter might have said on the subject.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

I wonder what (then Bishop) Gladfelter might have said on the subject.

GKC

Oh, his group had essentially jettisoned any Lutheran teaching that was contrary to the Catholic Catechism. Not speaking for him, but my hunch is that he would have defended Transub.

Jon

 

[GKC]

Oh, his group had essentially jettisoned any Lutheran teaching that was contrary to the Catholic Catechism. Not speaking for him, but my hunch is that he would have defended Transub.

Jon

Probably so. Last I heard, His Grace was a layman in the RCC. Or rumors to that effect.

GKC

 

[billcu1]

What Anglicans believe depends on which Anglican you are asking, the variety range from those who believe exactly as Catholics to those who believe the same as evangelicals.

I’m pretty much sure they will all agree that The Queen and the archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the church.

Bill

 

[GKC]

I’m pretty much sure they will all agree that The Queen and the archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the church.

Bill

I figure all Anglicans might agree that, with respect to the Church of England, particularly in light of the 1559 Parliamentary Act of Supremacy, that the Monarch was the supreme governor of both Church of England, and the State, in the realm. But not the supreme head; that was Henry, IAW the 1534 Supreme Head Act.

But all Anglicans are not part of the Church of England.

Reminds me of the first post I ever made, anyway, back around 15 years ago.

GKC

 

[benjohnson]

So even if Jesus wanted, he couldn’t make himself present in an Anglican or Lutheran communion? ,

Take heart!

There’s a rather orthodox Catholic that eventually became Pope Benedict XVI that wrote this:

“that the issue of the Eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of “validity.” Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such that holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in an evangelical [Lutheran] Lord’s supper”

 

[SyroMalankara]

Probably so. Last I heard, His Grace was a layman in the RCC. Or rumors to that effect.

GKC

Was he considered a bishop among mainstream Lutherans? From my understanding, for all intents and purposes, this groups was strictly online and didn’t exist with a real congregation.

 

[GKC]

Was he considered a bishop among mainstream Lutherans? From my understanding, for all intents and purposes, this groups was strictly online and didn’t exist with a real congregation.

No, I doubt he was accounted a bishop, in the Lutheran mainstreams.

He posted here, a number of times, and I often disagreed with or quizzed him on some historical points. His group was this one:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Lutheran_Catholic_Church

No idea how things stand with them now.

GKC

Added: I see you had some comments on him back a couple of years ago, too.

GKC

 

[Gorgias]

The Catholic church believe that after consecration there is no more bread and wine it changes into the body and blood even if we see bread and wine. Not only does the substance change so does the bread and wine the matter or accidents.Anglicans believe the bread and wine remains but the substance changes into the body and blood.Elements are a short way of say bread and wine.

Yes… and no.

Yes, the Church teaches that, following consecration, what is present is no longer ‘bread and wine’, but the True Presence of Christ, “even if we see bread and wine.”

No, the Church doesn’t teach that the matter or accidents change. If you have celiac disease, then consuming the Eucharistic host will cause a negative physical reaction. If you drink sufficient quantities of the Precious Blood, you may get drunk.

When the Church says that they are no longer ‘bread and wine,’ it is meant in a metaphysical sense. That’s what ‘transubstantiation’ means: the substance has been changed (but the accidents have not). (On the other hand, if the accidents were changed, but the substance not changed, it would be ‘transformation’.) So, with the substance changed, we cannot say that it remains ‘bread’ and ‘wine’, even though it continues to have the appearances of bread and wine.

Your definition of ‘elements’ as ‘bread and wine’ are insufficiently precise (in a philosophical context) to work in this discussion; breaking down ‘elements’ into their ‘substance’ and their ‘accidents’ is what’s in play here.

What you assert is the Anglican belief – and I think that you’re correctly identifying one of many that are believed – is actually ‘consubstantiation’: both the substance of bread and wine and the substance of Christ is present, while only the accidents of bread and wine are present.

 

[Gorgias]

Are Apostolic Letters inspired by God?

I think you’re really asking a question not about ‘inspiration’, but about a ‘guarantee of truth’; it’s easy to get the two confused.

Scripture is true because it is inspired by God. ‘Inspiration’ is the means by which Scripture is guaranteed to be true.

Apostolic letters – or, more to the point, ‘magisterial teaching’ – is likewise true; but, the mechanism by which it is true differs. Magisterial teaching is not “inspired by God,” per se; rather, it is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

So, both Scripture and magisterial teaching are true; but the mechanisms by which they are able to express truth differ.

 

[GKC]

Yes… and no.

Yes, the Church teaches that, following consecration, what is present is no longer ‘bread and wine’, but the True Presence of Christ, “even if we see bread and wine.”

No, the Church doesn’t teach that the matter or accidents change. If you have celiac disease, then consuming the Eucharistic host will cause a negative physical reaction. If you drink sufficient quantities of the Precious Blood, you may get drunk.

When the Church says that they are no longer ‘bread and wine,’ it is meant in a metaphysical sense. That’s what ‘transubstantiation’ means: the substance has been changed (but the accidents have not). (On the other hand, if the accidents were changed, but the substance not changed, it would be ‘transformation’.) So, with the substance changed, we cannot say that it remains ‘bread’ and ‘wine’, even though it continues to have the appearances of bread and wine.

Your definition of ‘elements’ as ‘bread and wine’ are insufficiently precise (in a philosophical context) to work in this discussion; breaking down ‘elements’ into their ‘substance’ and their ‘accidents’ is what’s in play here.

What you assert is the Anglican belief – and I think that you’re correctly identifying one of many that are believed – is actually ‘consubstantiation’: both the substance of bread and wine and the substance of Christ is present, while only the accidents of bread and wine are present.

I’d be the last to deny that any specific thing was held by some Anglican. But I’ve never met an Anglican who formally espoused consubstantiation. Real Presence is commonplace; as to how that is manifest “mystery” is most often held. Some will affirm transub.

As to the bulk of your post, I wondered if a RC would make those corrections to those assertions made.

GKC

 

[mark_carr]

Yes… and no.

Yes, the Church teaches that, following consecration, what is present is no longer ‘bread and wine’, but the True Presence of Christ, “even if we see bread and wine.”

No, the Church doesn’t teach that the matter or accidents change. If you have celiac disease, then consuming the Eucharistic host will cause a negative physical reaction. If you drink sufficient quantities of the Precious Blood, you may get drunk.

When the Church says that they are no longer ‘bread and wine,’ it is meant in a metaphysical sense. That’s what ‘transubstantiation’ means: the substance has been changed (but the accidents have not). (On the other hand, if the accidents were changed, but the substance not changed, it would be ‘transformation’.) So, with the substance changed, we cannot say that it remains ‘bread’ and ‘wine’, even though it continues to have the appearances of bread and wine.

Your definition of ‘elements’ as ‘bread and wine’ are insufficiently precise (in a philosophical context) to work in this discussion; breaking down ‘elements’ into their ‘substance’ and their ‘accidents’ is what’s in play here.

What you assert is the Anglican belief – and I think that you’re correctly identifying one of many that are believed – is actually ‘consubstantiation’: both the substance of bread and wine and the substance of Christ is present, while only the accidents of bread and wine are present.

I don’t understand they’re almost the same belief why so much mid understandings?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Take heart!

There’s a rather orthodox Catholic that eventually became Pope Benedict XVI that wrote this:

“that the issue of the Eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of “validity.” Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such that holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in an evangelical [Lutheran] Lord’s supper”

Pope Benedict XVI has opened a window for reconciliation for full communion to those who are holding to a real presence of the Lord in the Lord’s supper. He does not discount the validity, nor Apostolic succession. But removes these in a way so as not to become an obstacle to ones unorthodox faith in a real presence of the Lord’s supper.

The Pope opens an ecumenical dialogue to those who continue in the apostolic faith of the real presence “in the Lord’s supper,” “cannot be narrowed to the problem of validity”. The Pope does not remove what constitutes a valid Eucharist, nor should the theology from both Catholic and Orthodox, who hold to what is a confirmed Apostolic Succession, The former,should not become “in any way” an obstacle which denies the salvation of one’s faith in the real presence of their celebration of the Lord’s supper.

For the ecumenical dialogue to reach reconciliation, transubstantiation properly understood and believed by the Church. When she teaches a substantial change has occurred describes the substantial change by a Tran substantial change, at the Word of God alone.

For a reconciliation to occur, one who possesses the gift of faith in the real presence need not have the full spiritual understanding of the mystery existing in the change of substance into the real presence described in spiritual terms by transubstantiation. Which points to a spiritual reality that supersedes all carnal knowledge grounded in any one philosophical concept.
In short, one cannot reject the Church’s properly understood transubstantiation either, especially he/she who does not have the Church’s spiritual understanding of the change that takes place in transubstantiation and holds to their own description of a change that rejects or places doubt to a substantial change in the real presence. When Transubstantiation removes all doubt that a change has occurred.

Transubstantiation is the faith of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith which proclaims that a change has occurred, that never denies or doubts anything of the real substantial presence of Jesus body and blood.

The Pope states faith in the real presence should not be narrowed down to validity", Pope Benedict XVI does not remove the problem of validity, only that such subjects should not be a “narrow” hindrance that cannot deny anyone’s faith of salvation -granting presence of the Lord.

One cannot reject, object or compete with the Church’s definition of transubstantiation, with one’s own definition or interpretation of real presence and pretend to speak for all ages of Christendom. At the same time Transubstantiation never questions anyone’s faith in the real presence.
Transubstantiation defends and removes all doubt from the Apostolic faith in the true and real substantial presence, that a change has occurred and God dwells with the human race. Transubstantiation does not leave faith suspended to raise a doubt in the mystery of the real presence. Transubstantiation emphatically declares that a change has substantially occurred, and a real presence exist in the blessed Sacrament at all times.

One should never object to transubstantiation on the doubts one has in the authority of Peter’s Chair. When Transubstantiation calls to faith in the real presence that a change has taken place in the substance of bread and wine by the Word of God who raises them to a Sacramental real and substantial presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity.

For clarification in regards to holy orders. A valid Bishop is an Apostolic successor who is the Ordinary minister of the Eucharist. The Bishop is the one who gives permission for a priest to become an extra-ordinary minister of the Eucharist. No priest has this privilege to confect the Eucharist on his own. The priest requires an ordinary minister (Bishop) of full communion to properly celebrate the Eucharist in liturgy.

The infant Church’s faith in the real presence is without question. So should those holding to a faith in the real presence be without question. When it comes to defending the real presence, one’s faith need not object to transubstantiation, which the Church uses to defend anyone’s faith in the real presence (properly discerning the body and blood of Jesus Christ).

Peace be with you

 

[SyroMalankara]

Anglicans have what they call “broad” beliefs. Beyond some underlying basics, most everything is up to the individual’s perception and understanding on how to understand Christian Revelation. Sometimes the fringe of this leads to those who claim to be Anglican but hold views extremely close to Catholicism, while the person in the pew next to them is extremely close to evangelical fundamentalism, and the person over the other side is a pretty much a unitarian, and the lady in the corner a theosophist. How this works out in usual practice is, usually a like-minded individual joins a parish with other like-minded folks, and those who are of another view go to the parish that practices/teaches similar to what they believe.

Catholicism has these extremes in smaller doses, but for the most part Catholics are required to believe more uniformly on doctrine, although there is sometimes much more room for expression (Eastern, Oriental, Assyrian - Eastern Churches, Anglican Use, etc).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t understand they’re almost the same belief why so much mid understandings?

Consubstantiation has real bread and wine co-existing with a faith suspended in the real presence, no change has occurred. Consubstantiation calls ones faith to a remembrance of a past sacrificial event, without ever participating in the eternal sacrificial event for our salvation.

Transubstantiation describes the substances of bread and wine has taken on a change by the Word of God himself; into the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Only the accidents of bread and wine remain to our flesh, when the flesh is of no avail here, when it is the Spirit who gives life. Transubstantiation emphatically confirms one faith that real and substantial presence of Jesus body and blood are truly and substantial present.

Transubstantiation calls our faith to participate in a once and for ALL eternal sacrifice that never ends, when the Holy Spirit recalls our remembrance in the presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Transubstantiation describes an act of God who makes real a past event present to all ages and for all ages to celebrate our communion with the real substantial presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity.

Peace be with you

 

[GKC]

Anglicans have what they call “broad” beliefs. Beyond some underlying basics, most everything is up to the individual’s perception and understanding on how to understand Christian Revelation. Sometimes the fringe of this leads to those who claim to be Anglican but hold views extremely close to Catholicism, while the person in the pew next to them is extremely close to evangelical fundamentalism, and the person over the other side is a pretty much a unitarian, and the lady in the corner a theosophist. How this works out in usual practice is, usually a like-minded individual joins a parish with other like-minded folks, and those who are of another view go to the parish that practices/teaches similar to what they believe.

Catholicism has these extremes in smaller doses, but for the most part Catholics are required to believe more uniformly on doctrine, although there is sometimes much more room for expression (Eastern, Oriental, Assyrian - Eastern Churches, Anglican Use, etc).

Yep. My Anglo-Catholic parish was specifically formed as such, and has varied, in how extreme it is, over the years, as less A-C types have joined the mix, or as priests have changed. Still solidly Anglo-Catholic, though perhaps a click lower since the last rector died, 5 years ago yesterday.

GKC

 

[benjohnson]

Pope Benedict XVI has opened a window for reconciliation for full communion to those who are holding to a real presence of the Lord in the Lord’s supper. He does not discount the validity, nor Apostolic succession. But removes these in a way so as not to become an obstacle to ones unorthodox faith in a real presence of the Lord’s supper.

…]

Peace be with you

Gabriel, what you have written is a rousing and truly Christian exposition on the intent, care, and discipline of the dogma of Transubstantiation. Understood in the light you have given, very few Lutherans could object and some may even applaud.

I appreciate the time you took, and the charity and grace you have shown in steadfastly defending your faith while making a bridge between us.

God bless you and keep you.

 

[GKC]

Gabriel, what you have written is a rousing and truly Christian exposition on the intent, care, and discipline of the dogma of Transubstantiation. Understood in the light you have given, very few Lutherans could object and some may even applaud.

I appreciate the time you took, and the charity and grace you have shown in steadfastly defending your faith while making a bridge between us.

God bless you and keep you.

I make no particular comment on the 1st para; I have no interest in consubstantiation. But the 2nd and 3rd paras are an echo ( I can hear him now) of what my late rector (observed his 5th year mind yesterday) would say, to explicate the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist, which he was about to celebrate: the intersection of time and eternity, at the altar, at the hands the alter Christus as the One Sacrifice, eternally offered is made present before us, there kneeling.

Anglicans (some of them) are like that.

GKC

 

[steido01]

No, I doubt he was accounted a bishop, in the Lutheran mainstreams.

He posted here, a number of times, and I often disagreed with or quizzed him on some historical points. His group was this one:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Lutheran_Catholic_Church

No idea how things stand with them now.

GKC

Added: I see you had some comments on him back a couple of years ago, too.

GKC

I wish someone had knowledge of how that whole thing turned out. Odd situation populated by odd persons, but it still would’ve been informative on how the RCC actually, currently, understands validity in ordinations, consecrations and just how “church” an “ecclesial community” is capable of being. Or not.

 

[dronald]

Yes… and no.

Yes, the Church teaches that, following consecration, what is present is no longer ‘bread and wine’, but the True Presence of Christ, “even if we see bread and wine.”

No, the Church doesn’t teach that the matter or accidents change. If you have celiac disease, then consuming the Eucharistic host will cause a negative physical reaction. If you drink sufficient quantities of the Precious Blood, you may get drunk.

When the Church says that they are no longer ‘bread and wine,’ it is meant in a metaphysical sense. That’s what ‘transubstantiation’ means: the substance has been changed (but the accidents have not). (On the other hand, if the accidents were changed, but the substance not changed, it would be ‘transformation’.) So, with the substance changed, we cannot say that it remains ‘bread’ and ‘wine’, even though it continues to have the appearances of bread and wine.

Your definition of ‘elements’ as ‘bread and wine’ are insufficiently precise (in a philosophical context) to work in this discussion; breaking down ‘elements’ into their ‘substance’ and their ‘accidents’ is what’s in play here.

What you assert is the Anglican belief – and I think that you’re correctly identifying one of many that are believed – is actually ‘consubstantiation’: both the substance of bread and wine and the substance of Christ is present, while only the accidents of bread and wine are present.

So it is still bread and wine in the physical sense? Or is it not at all bread or wine anymore in any way? Thanks, I actually don’t quite understand this myself.