Unity in the Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteveVH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jrtrent said:
It’s nice to know I’m not alone in that.

Yes, that was my understanding of the Catholic teaching, too. That it may look and feel like bread and wine, but after consecration it is no longer bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ. His presence is real not just spiritually, but in the body and blood that is right there in front of you, and that the priest presents and gives to you.

Thanks for the articles you provided links to. I found another that presents several different Eucharistic theological understandings. Their simple definition is what I had always assumed to be true:

Transubstantiation refers to the fact that the substance of bread and wine are annihilated and cease to exist at the moment of consecration. The substance of the bread and wine disappears and is replaced by the substance of Jesus Christ’s body and blood. The Eucharistic elements are no longer bread and wine, and are really the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

They do not appear to be anything other than bread and wine, however. This appearance is referred to as the accidents.

The important points to note about transubstantiation are that;

The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ
Jesus Christ is really present in a physical way
The substance of bread and wine are not there any longer
catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/2b.htm

In searching out information on the topic, I found a few similar statements from Catholic sources saying that Christ is present in a physical way. However, as GKC has pointed out, it’s not as simple as it seems. In opposing the charge that the Eucharist is tantamount to cannibalism, one of the articles you linked to said, “On the contrary, this objection assumes the error of reducing the Eucharistic reception to a purely physical process. In the Eucharist Christ is not received physically, but spiritually and sacramentally . . .”

Now, being received “spiritually and sacramentally” sounds like my Anglican view of the Lord’s Supper, and appeared to be a flat denial of everything that preceded it in the article, but there was a link provided for further information that said, “The substance of the host has been changed into the risen Body of Christ which although fully corporeal and real, does not physically belong to this universe.” calledtocommunion.com/2009/03/real-presence-does-it-mean-cannibalism/

Out of the realm of my understanding, for sure.
Click to expand...
As Lewis had his protagonist say, in LETTERS TO MALCOLM, the command was “Take, eat”, not “Take, understand”.

Which is fortunate for us humans.

Remember, what is received is the Body and Blood, received sacramentally, not physically. The part about not physically of this universe relates to what I’ve said several times. It is not bound by our limitations of contingent creations of space and time.

Glad you’re reading. I knew you would. I used the cannibalism charge, speaking with a 5-point Calvinist, many years ago.

GKC
 
jrtrent said:
The excerpt from the rubric on kneeling, which is part of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, that I posted a page or two back gives what I believe on adoration. Here is that rubric in its entirety.

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 acknowledgement 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 here 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. churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/book-of-common-prayer/the-lord’s-supper-or-holy-communion.aspx

The last parts of Article XXVIII that you posted earlier also touches on this:

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.
Click to expand...
Your stance is what I see a lot. Within Anglicanism, some are pro adoration and some are against it. I have even found that with in Lutheranism there are some synods that are for adoration. LCMC would probably be the ones most against it.

For Catholics, once the host becomes for us the Body and Blood of Christ, it remains such. Is that your belief?

It is nice to find some unity among Lutherans and Anglicans on the issue of Adoration. 🙂
 
If I may, to help clearify a point.

The Catholic teaching is that when the words are said by the priest, “this is my Body”,the substance of bread is actually and really changed into the body, flesh, of Christ. And in addition, the substance of the bread is no longer existent, and completly gone. Just like at the miracle of Cana when the water was turned into wine. The water no longer existed, but in its place was the wine.

The church calls this TRANSsubstation, trans meaning “changed into”, “passing over into”.
This is in contrast to CONsubstation, CON meaning “along with”, “together with”.
Consubstation then in referring to the real presence means that two substances are present, that of bread and that of Christ. Bread then still exists, along with, together with, Christ.

What this means is, if a christian would adore this real presence by genuflecting to it, is that they may also be genuflecting to the real presence of bread as well. And so this type of worship of the Eurcharist is discuraged fully. The interest in the Eucharist is only and singularly as food. For the presence of bread cannot be separated from the body of Jesus, and adoring one might be adoring the bread as well for the two cannot be physically distinquished.

Whereas the catholic adores the Eucharist because the substance and presence in it is Jesus himself and only Jesus, therefore the Eucharist can be adored as the blind man adored Jesus falling down on his face before Him.

Just some thoughts.
 
fred_conty said:
If I may, to help clearify a point.

The Catholic teaching is that when the words are said by the priest, “this is my Body”,the substance of bread is actually and really changed into the body, flesh, of Christ. And in addition, the substance of the bread is no longer existent, and completly gone. Just like at the miracle of Cana when the water was turned into wine. The water no longer existed, but in its place was the wine.

The church calls this TRANSsubstation, trans meaning “changed into”, “passing over into”.
This is in contrast to CONsubstation, CON meaning “along with”, “together with”.
Consubstation then in referring to the real presence means that two substances are present, that of bread and that of Christ. Bread then still exists, along with, together with, Christ.

What this means is, if a christian would adore this real presence by genuflecting to it, is that they may also be genuflecting to the real presence of bread as well. And so this type of worship of the Eurcharist is discuraged fully. The interest in the Eucharist is only and singularly as food. For the presence of bread cannot be separated from the body of Jesus, and adoring one might be adoring the bread as well for the two cannot be physically distinquished.

Whereas the catholic adores the Eucharist because the substance and presence in it is Jesus himself and only Jesus, therefore the Eucharist can be adored as the blind man adored Jesus falling down on his face before Him.

Just some thoughts.
Click to expand...
Very good thoughts…Thanks for jumping in!
 
aidanbradypop said:
Your stance is what I see a lot. Within Anglicanism, some are pro adoration and some are against it. I have even found that with in Lutheranism there are some synods that are for adoration. LCMC would probably be the ones most against it.

For Catholics, once the host becomes for us the Body and Blood of Christ, it remains such. Is that your belief?

It is nice to find some unity among Lutherans and Anglicans on the issue of Adoration. 🙂
Click to expand...
The dichotomy amongst Lutherans about Eucharistic Adoration outside the sacramental act (all Lutherans practice Eucharistic adoration during the sacramental act when they kneel for the consecration or reception, whether they know it or not), goes back to Luther and Melanchthon. Luther was not opposed to Eucharistic adoration as Catholics practice it, except for the Corpus Christi Procession, while Melanchthon was opposed to it.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
The dichotomy amongst Lutherans about Eucharistic Adoration outside the sacramental act (all Lutherans practice Eucharistic adoration during the sacramental act when they kneel for the consecration or reception, whether they know it or not), goes back to Luther and Melanchthon. Luther was not opposed to Eucharistic adoration as Catholics practice it, except for the Corpus Christi Procession, while Melanchthon was opposed to it.

Jon
Click to expand...
Why was Melanchthon opposed if you happen to know?
 
aidanbradypop said:
For Catholics, once the host becomes for us the Body and Blood of Christ, it remains such. Is that your belief?
Click to expand...
My belief is that the bread and wine remain bread and wine throughout, that there is no physical, substantial, or con-substantial change of the elements into the body and blood of Christ. Boettner quotes The Christian Heritage Series, Book No. 1, page 52 and 53, as saying:

Reformed congregations understand the words of Christ metaphorically. ‘This is (that is, signifies) my body.’ Along with this metaphorical understanding of the elements, however, is the idea that Christ is present virtually, or as Dr. Hodge put it: ‘the virtues and effects of the sacrifice of the body of the Redeemer on the cross are made present and are actually conveyed n the sacrament to the worthy receiver by the power of the Holy Ghost, who uses the sacrament as His instrument according to His sovereign will.’

I have to scurry out the door, but my recent readings of several commentaries on the 39 Articles leads me to believe that this “reformed” approach to the Lord’s Supper is consistent with Anglican belief, at least as posited by some. I’ll re-read those sections later and post additional information if I need to correct myself on my memory of what they said.
 
jrtrent said:
My belief is that the bread and wine remain bread and wine throughout, that there is no physical, substantial, or con-substantial change of the elements into the body and blood of Christ. Boettner quotes The Christian Heritage Series, Book No. 1, page 52 and 53, as saying:

Reformed congregations understand the words of Christ metaphorically. ‘This is (that is, signifies) my body.’ Along with this metaphorical understanding of the elements, however, is the idea that Christ is present virtually, or as Dr. Hodge put it: ‘the virtues and effects of the sacrifice of the body of the Redeemer on the cross are made present and are actually conveyed n the sacrament to the worthy receiver by the power of the Holy Ghost, who uses the sacrament as His instrument according to His sovereign will.’

I have to scurry out the door, but my recent readings of several commentaries on the 39 Articles leads me to believe that this “reformed” approach to the Lord’s Supper is consistent with Anglican belief, at least as posited by some. I’ll re-read those sections later and post additional information if I need to correct myself on my memory of what they said.
Click to expand...
Your last para is correct. Some Anglicans believe that.

GKC
 
jrtrent said:
My belief is that the bread and wine remain bread and wine throughout, that there is no physical, substantial, or con-substantial change of the elements into the body and blood of Christ. Boettner quotes The Christian Heritage Series, Book No. 1, page 52 and 53, as saying:

Reformed congregations understand the words of Christ metaphorically. ‘This is (that is, signifies) my body.’ Along with this metaphorical understanding of the elements, however, is the idea that Christ is present virtually, or as Dr. Hodge put it: ‘the virtues and effects of the sacrifice of the body of the Redeemer on the cross are made present and are actually conveyed n the sacrament to the worthy receiver by the power of the Holy Ghost, who uses the sacrament as His instrument according to His sovereign will.’

I have to scurry out the door, but my recent readings of several commentaries on the 39 Articles leads me to believe that this “reformed” approach to the Lord’s Supper is consistent with Anglican belief, at least as posited by some. I’ll re-read those sections later and post additional information if I need to correct myself on my memory of what they said.
Click to expand...
That helps out a lot! Thanks 👍
 
More Anglican perspectives…

++Bramhall, (1594-1663)

From Answer to M. de la Milletiere

‘I find not one of your arguments that comes home to Transubstantiation, but only to a true Real Presence; which no genuine son of the Church of England did ever deny, no, nor your adversary himself. Christ said This is My Body; what He said we do steadfastly believe. He said not, after this or that manner, neque trans, neque sub, neque trans. And therefore we place it among the opinions of the schools, not among the Articles of our Faith. The Holy Eucharist, which is the Sacrament of peace and Unity, ought not to be made the matter of strife and contention.’

+Lancelot Andrewes, (1555-1626)

From Responsio ad Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini

‘Christ said “This is My Body.” He did not say, “This is My Body in this way.” We are in agreement with you as to the end; the whole controversy is as to the method. As to the “This is,” we hold with firm faith that it is. As to the “This is in this way” (namely, by the Transubstantiation of the bread into the Body), as to the method whereby it happens that it is, by means of In or With or Under or By Transition, there is no word expressed. And because there is no word, we rightly make it not of faith; we place it perhaps among the theories of the school, but not among the articles of the faith…We believe no less than you that the presence is real.’

+William Forbes, (1585-1634)

From Considerationes, De Eucharistia

‘The Sacrifice which is offered in the Supper is not merely of thanksgiving, but is also propitiatory in a sound sense, and is profitable to very many not only of the living but also of the departed.’
 
Symphorian said:
More Anglican perspectives…

++Bramhall, (1594-1663)

From Answer to M. de la Milletiere

‘I find not one of your arguments that comes home to Transubstantiation, but only to a true Real Presence; which no genuine son of the Church of England did ever deny, no, nor your adversary himself. Christ said This is My Body; what He said we do steadfastly believe. He said not, after this or that manner, neque trans, neque sub, neque trans. And therefore we place it among the opinions of the schools, not among the Articles of our Faith. The Holy Eucharist, which is the Sacrament of peace and Unity, ought not to be made the matter of strife and contention.’

+Lancelot Andrewes, (1555-1626)

From Responsio ad Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini

‘Christ said “This is My Body.” He did not say, “This is My Body in this way.” We are in agreement with you as to the end; the whole controversy is as to the method. As to the “This is,” we hold with firm faith that it is. As to the “This is in this way” (namely, by the Transubstantiation of the bread into the Body), as to the method whereby it happens that it is, by means of In or With or Under or By Transition, there is no word expressed. And because there is no word, we rightly make it not of faith; we place it perhaps among the theories of the school, but not among the articles of the faith…We believe no less than you that the presence is real.’

+William Forbes, (1585-1634)

From Considerationes, De Eucharistia

‘The Sacrifice which is offered in the Supper is not merely of thanksgiving, but is also propitiatory in a sound sense, and is profitable to very many not only of the living but also of the departed.’
Click to expand...
You’re a good man to have around.

GKC
 
Symphorian said:
From Responsio ad Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini

'Christ said “This is My Body.” He did not say, “This is My Body in this way.” We are in agreement with you as to the end; the whole controversy is as to the method. As to the “This is,” we hold with firm faith that it is. As to the “This is in this way” (namely, by the Transubstantiation of the bread into the Body), as to the method whereby it happens that it is, by means of In or With or Under or By Transition, there is no word expressed. And because there is no word, we rightly make it not of faith…
Click to expand...
Except that the Church to which Christ gave his own authority did express it, in no uncertain terms, just as she expressed that the texts within the Bible are the inspired word of God and just as she expressed the doctrine of the Trinity. I don’t know how one can accept the Church’s judgment on Scripture and fundamental doctrines such as the Trinity, and then reject the judgment of the Church on Transubstantiation.
 
aidanbradypop said:
Your stance is what I see a lot. Within Anglicanism, some are pro adoration and some are against it. I have even found that with in Lutheranism there are some synods that are for adoration. LCMC would probably be the ones most against it.

For Catholics, once the host becomes for us the Body and Blood of Christ, it remains such. Is that your belief?

It is nice to find some unity among Lutherans and Anglicans on the issue of Adoration. 🙂
Click to expand...
Pop,

Not addressed to me, but I’ll jump in.

There is a wide variation of beliefs among Anglicans when it comes to Transubstantiation. Some claim it as Catholics in Communion with Rome do. Some deny it citing The 39 Articles.

Some simply yield to the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist feeling no need to define how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. This is where I stand, at this point in time. I have no objection to Transubstantiation. I simply yield to the Mystery as the Eastern Orthodox do.

I believe the bread and wine do spiritually and materially/physically become the Body and Blood of Christ, as one cannot separate the Divinity of Christ from the Humanity of Christ.

As for Eucharistic Adoration, that came about for me before I realized it. Apart from consuming the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist; there is no place in which I feel closer to Christ than when I am praying and meditating in the Chapel in the presence of the Reserved Sacrament.

Peace and blessings,
Anna
 
JonNC said:
The dichotomy amongst Lutherans about Eucharistic Adoration outside the sacramental act (all Lutherans practice Eucharistic adoration during the sacramental act when they kneel for the consecration or reception, whether they know it or not), goes back to Luther and Melanchthon. Luther was not opposed to Eucharistic adoration as Catholics practice it, except for the Corpus Christi Procession, while Melanchthon was opposed to it.

Jon
Click to expand...
Jon,

Very helpful comment.

It seems that many Lutherans, Anglicans, and Catholics are so close in belief and practice regarding the Holy Eucharist.

While we are not partaking along side one another at the Altar Rail, we do find unity in our beliefs.

I pray for the day when we can receive the Holy Eucharist side by side.

Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
Crazzeto,

No one could accuse you of being too subtle. :rotfl:That would be a fast track to unity; and there is an Anglican Ordinariate here in Houston. Just can’t get past the Pope issue (topic for another thread, and there have been many.)

Glad you are back on the forums. 😃

Anna
Click to expand...
What more signs do ya need? Lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top