Who believes in the True Presence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholicgolfer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholicgolfer

Guest
I have heard that some protestants believe that they actually transubstanciate (sp?) the bread and wine and turn it into the body and blood of Jesus. I have heard this from Lutherans and Methodist. What would give them this power if they aren’t ordained by the Church? Aren’t only Catholic priest able to do this since their ordination comes from the apostles? BTW, I have also heard from Lutharens and Methodist that they don’t believe in the true presence, so I am confused.
 
Only Catholics and Orthodox have the Real Presence and valid orders. The Anglicans did for a while, but I don’t think they do anymore. I think Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, which is a different concept than transubstantiation. I’m not sure if the Methodists believe in transubstantiation, but either way, they don’t have it.
 
40.png
Catholicgolfer:
I have heard that some protestants believe that they actually transubstanciate (sp?) the bread and wine and turn it into the body and blood of Jesus. I have heard this from Lutherans and Methodist. What would give them this power if they aren’t ordained by the Church? Aren’t only Catholic priest able to do this since their ordination comes from the apostles? BTW, I have also heard from Lutharens and Methodist that they don’t believe in the true presence, so I am confused.
Click to expand...
Most Lutherans, as I understand, believe in consubstatiation, which isn’t exactly the same as transubstatiation. The Methodists I know believe in neither.

Neither group has a valid priesthood and therefore no real presence in their Eucharist.
 
If I’m not mistaken, what you mean is “real presence.”

Luther believed in consubstantiation as opposed to transsubstantiation (i.e. real presence). I’ve had it explained to me a number of ways but it won’t stick because the distinction between the two doesn’t make any logical sense. I suspect Luther was just being contrary. Orthodox and, I believe, Anglicans as well believe in the real presence. The Catholic Church regards Orthodox ordinations of priests and bishops are valid but not so with Anglicans.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Only Catholics and Orthodox have the Real Presence and valid orders. The Anglicans did for a while, but I don’t think they do anymore. I think Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, which is a different concept than transubstantiation. I’m not sure if the Methodists believe in transubstantiation, but either way, they don’t have it.
Click to expand...
Actually there are several Lutherans, Anglican and a few others that do indeed have valid orders and lines so it is possible for many of those denominations to indeed consecrate. They obtained valid orders through Bishops who have left Rome, and through cross-consecration of Bishops(i.e. a group of bishops get together and each conditionally consecrate each other hoping that somewhere in the mix is a valid line)
 
40.png
gelsbern:
Actually there are several Lutherans, Anglican and a few others that do indeed have valid orders and lines so it is possible for many of those denominations to indeed consecrate. They obtained valid orders through Bishops who have left Rome, and through cross-consecration of Bishops(i.e. a group of bishops get together and each conditionally consecrate each other hoping that somewhere in the mix is a valid line)
Click to expand...
If a Lutheran had valid orders but only believed in consubstantiation, the consecration would not be valid because the intent would be missing, correct?
 
We Methodists do indeed believe in the real presence. We believe in consubstantiation, not transsubstantation, however.
 
You guys are all so funny. If you want to know what Lutherans believe, don’t spread inaccurate ideas, just go here:

www.bookofconcord.org

As for Lutherans’ belief in the real presence of our Lord’s body and blood in the elements, I believe these passages make the position crystal clear (I added the words in brackets ] ):

From the Augsburg Confession:

Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper.

1] Of the Supper of the Lord they [the Lutheran churches in the German principalities] teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

From the Defense to the Augsburg Confession:

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.

From Luther’s Large Catechism:

4] Here also we do not wish to enter into controversy [with those in Rome] and contend with the traducers and blasphemers of this Sacrament, but to learn first (as we did regarding Baptism) what is of the greatest importance, namely, that the chief point is the Word and ordinance or command of God. For it has not been invented nor introduced by any man, but with out any one’s counsel and deliberation it has been instituted by Christ. 5] Therefore, just as the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Creed retain their nature and worth, although you never keep, pray, or believe them, so also does this venerable Sacrament remain undisturbed, so that nothing is detracted or taken from it, even though we employ and dispense it unworthily. … 8] Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink… 14] But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.

There is a difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation, but the difference has nothing to do with the real presence of Christ’s body and blood. To the contrary, it has to do with the presence of the substance of the bread and wine. The question can be phrased as this: is the substance of the bread and wine turned into the substance of the body and blood, or does the substance of the body and blood join the substance of the bread and wine?

The usual Catholic response to this question is: how can the elements have two substances at once? This is impossible! My response is: how could the body of Jesus be both true God and true man. This, too, is impossible. Yet just as Jesus’ body was truly of this earth (he cried, he got hungry, he aged) it was joined with the substance of the true God. As the Athanasian Creed puts it:

For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

Lutherans believe that just as Jesus had two substances, so also do the elements of the eucharist. To deny the real presence in the eucharist is to deny the two natures of Christ.
 
As for Methodists, here is how it is explained at revneal.org/Writings/realpresence.htm

United Methodists are part of the catholic tradition in the Church which teaches that the sacraments are means of grace, not just ordinances, and that when one partakes of the elements in Holy Communion we affirm that God’s grace is communicated to the believer. In the sacramental approach it is believed that the grace of Jesus Christ falls directly upon the elements of bread and wine, and then from the elements to the believer when the believer eats and drinks them with faith. The grace which is brought with it is the manifestation of the Real Presence of Jesus, dwelling in our hearts by God’s grace acting through faith (Ephesians 3:17).

This is NOT what Lutherans believe. It is NOT consubstantiation. There is a clear distinction between the real presence of Jesus’ grace and the real presence of Jesus’ body and blood.

From the United Methodist Church’s web site:
umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1341
Do United Methodists believe the communion elements actually become the body and blood of Christ?

“No, we believe that the change is spiritual. They signify the body and blood of Christ for us, helping us to be Christ’s body in the world today, redeemed by Christ’s blood.

Call it what you want, but the official doctrine of the UMC is not one of real presence.
 
40.png
Zooey:
We Methodists do indeed believe in the real presence. We believe in consubstantiation, not transsubstantation, however.
Click to expand...
Zooey… that’s not - quite - true. Perhaps the statement from This Holy Mystery would be helpful:
The Christian church has struggled through the centuries to understand just how Christ is present in the Eucharist. Arguments and divisions have occurred over the matter. The Wesleyan tradition affirms the reality of Christ’s presence, although it does not claim to be able to explain it fully. John and Charles Wesley’s 166 Hymns on the Lord’s Supper are our richest resource for study in order to appreciate the Wesleyan understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. One of these hymns expresses well both the reality and the mystery: “O the Depth of Love Divine,” stanzas 1 and 4 (The United Methodist Hymnal, 627):
Click to expand...
O the depth of love divine,
the unfathomable grace!
Who shall say how bread and wine
God into us conveys!
How the bread his flesh imparts,
how the wine transmits his blood,
fills his faithful people’s hearts
with all the life of God!
Sure and real is the grace,
the manner be unknown;
only meet us in thy ways
and perfect us in one.
Let us taste the heavenly powers,
Lord, we ask for nothing more.
Thine to bless, 'tis only ours
to wonder and adore. - from This Holy Mystery - full text here.
Click to expand...
And for the record… more and more Lutherans (including official statements) are re-emphasizing that consubstantiation was a term never coined by Luther. More and more liturgical Protestant traditions are moving away from rationalistic terminology regarding Real Presence and instead taking more of an Eastern attitude toward defining Real Presence: it’s the body and blood of Christ. Period. No sense trying to define a mystery; that’s what makes it a mystery (remember your Latin: mysterion = sacrament).

O+
 
OK, but I have 😉 discussed this with Lutheran friends & family…We all believe the same thing, at least as far as I can tell!

But it is, of course, a:yup: mystery…I think that this is something we can agree on.
 
O.S. Luke:
Zooey… that’s not - quite - true. Perhaps the statement from This Holy Mystery would be helpful:

And for the record… more and more Lutherans (including official statements) are re-emphasizing that consubstantiation was a term never coined by Luther. More and more liturgical Protestant traditions are moving away from rationalistic terminology regarding Real Presence and instead taking more of an Eastern attitude toward defining Real Presence: it’s the body and blood of Christ. Period. No sense trying to define a mystery; that’s what makes it a mystery (remember your Latin: mysterion = sacrament).

O+
Click to expand...
Sites supporting O’s statement:

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod:
wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuItem_itemID=6600&cuTopic_topicID=60
“We do not usually describe our belief as “consubstantiation” though we do believe we receive the body and blood of Christ *with *the bread and wine…”

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod’s Christian Cyclopedia:
lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=C&word=CONSUBSTANTIATION
provides a definition of “consubstantiation” different from what is discussed above, and proceeds to reject its usage entirely:
“View, falsely charged to Lutheranism, that bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner.” I personally have never seen the word used in this manner, but if it is, it is another reason to reject its usage.

Additional Google searches support the idea that the term “consubstantiation” has been used to mean different things, and its use will lead to confusion at best. It would be best to avoid it and stick with “real presence of Christ’s body and blood”.
 
40.png
RonWI:
You guys are all so funny. If you want to know what Lutherans believe, don’t spread inaccurate ideas, just go here:
www.bookofconcord.org
As for Lutherans’ belief in the real presence of our Lord’s body and blood in the elements, I believe these passages make the position crystal clear (I added the words in brackets ] ):
From the Augsburg Confession:
Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper.
1] Of the Supper of the Lord they [the Lutheran churches in the German principalities] teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

From the Defense to the Augsburg Confession:
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.
From Luther’s Large Catechism:
4] Here also we do not wish to enter into controversy [with those in Rome] and contend with the traducers and blasphemers of this Sacrament, but to learn first (as we did regarding Baptism) what is of the greatest importance, namely, that the chief point is the Word and ordinance or command of God. For it has not been invented nor introduced by any man, but with out any one’s counsel and deliberation it has been instituted by Christ. 5] Therefore, just as the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Creed retain their nature and worth, although you never keep, pray, or believe them, so also does this venerable Sacrament remain undisturbed, so that nothing is detracted or taken from it, even though we employ and dispense it unworthily. … 8] Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink… 14] But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.

There is a difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation, but the difference has nothing to do with the real presence of Christ’s body and blood. To the contrary, it has to do with the presence of the substance of the bread and wine. The question can be phrased as this: is the substance of the bread and wine turned into the substance of the body and blood, or does the substance of the body and blood join the substance of the bread and wine?

The usual Catholic response to this question is: how can the elements have two substances at once? This is impossible! My response is: how could the body of Jesus be both true God and true man. This, too, is impossible. Yet just as Jesus’ body was truly of this earth (he cried, he got hungry, he aged) it was joined with the substance of the true God. As the Athanasian Creed puts it:For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
Lutherans believe that just as Jesus had two substances, so also do the elements of the eucharist. To deny the real presence in the eucharist is to deny the two natures of Christ.
Click to expand...
Well, that is what I was taught about the elements in the Methodist Church…Are we then like England & America?? “Two countries divided by a common language”??
 
OK, 2 things:
1.The WELS statement says (a) consubstantation=the body & blood are :yup: recieved w/ the bread & wine;(b) consubstantation :yup: means recieving the body & blood with the bread & wine;(c) Lutherans 👋 believe this;&(d):confused: they don’t call it that. (Despite the fact that that is :hmmm: what the word means (see **)…

2.And with all due respect, am I* really* expected to learn theology from the :rolleyes: hymn book??? Oy vay!!!

OK, gotta go do more research…But it sounds the same to me as what I learned growing up.
Besides, I really do:D have a life!**
 
They don’t call it that because, as both the WELS and LCMS sites point out, the same term also is used to convey an entirely different doctrine (the two substances create a third). To avoid the confusion as to what is meant by the use of the term, it simply is not used.

What is more important here is not what the doctrine is called, but what the doctrine is. The doctrine is spelled out in the Book of Concord. O is right: Neither Luther nor his contemporaries ever used the word “consubstantiation”.
 
Luther was not the first to present the position that the elements have two substances just as Christ had two natures. From Catholic Encylopedia’s entry for “Consubstantiation”:

Berengarius [1000-1088] and his modern followers have appealed chiefly to reason and the Fathers in support of their opinions. That Transubstantiation is not contrary to reason, and was at least implicitly taught by the Fathers, is shown in the article TRANSUBSTANTIATION. In the discussions of the Father about the two natures in the one Person the analogy between the Incarnation and the Eucharist was frequently referred to, this led to the expression of views favoring Impanation [impanation = consubstantiation]. But after the definitive victory of St. Cyril’s doctrine, the analogy was seen to be deceptive. (See Batiffol, Etudes d’histoire, etc., 2nd series, p. 319 sqq.) The great Schoolmen unanimously rejected Consubstantiation, but they differed in their reasons for doing so. Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure, maintained that the words, “This is my body”, disproved it; while Alexander of Hales, Scotus, Durandus, Occam, and Pierre d’Ailly declared that it was not inconsistent with Scripture, and could only be disproved by the authority of the Fathers and the teaching of the Church (Turmel, Hist. de la théol. posit., I, 313 sqq.). This line of argument has been a stumbling block to Anglican writers, who have quoted some of the Schoolmen in support of their erroneous opinions on the Eucharist; e.g. Pusey, “The Doctrine of the Real Presence” (1855).
 
40.png
RonWI:
From the United Methodist Church’s web site:
umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1341
Do United Methodists believe the communion elements actually become the body and blood of Christ?

“No, we believe that the change is spiritual. They signify the body and blood of Christ for us, helping us to be Christ’s body in the world today, redeemed by Christ’s blood.

Call it what you want, but the official doctrine of the UMC is not one of real presence.
Click to expand...
I don’t know that I agree with your statement that the official doctrine is not one of Real Presence - the official doctrine is Real Presence. I don’t know that that is the same thing as Real Substance, though. 😉

I still think Catholic scholar Edward Schillebeekx’s term transsignification is a much better phrase to use than transsubstantiation… for the simple reason that it avoids Thomistic metaphysics and puts the emphasis on the right thing. Thomism/Rationalism is the wrong discipline, in my opinion, to use where the sacraments are concerned. Rationalism to explain a mystery? Give me a break!

If I’m not mistaken, the word transubstantiation simply means “to change the meaning of.”

To the early rationalistic Greeks and Romans, substance referred to the meaning of an object and accidents referred to how the object affects our sense (Aristotelianism)… Thomas Aquinas basically said the same thing.

When we come to the table, we experience the senses of sight, taste, touch, and smell bread and wine (we even hear the wine poured into the cup). But by the power of the Holy Spirit, Christ is made real, and the bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood. The epiclesis in the UM eucharistic liturgy makes this clear: “Pour out your Holy Spirit upon us and on these gifts of bread and wine; make them be for us the body and blood of Christ, that we may be for the world the body of Christ, redeemed by his blood.”

The accidents of the bread and wine do not change; they are still the same molecules. But our experience of them, and their significance to us, has vastly changed.

The main problem with using Thomism/Rationalism is that it’s basically a foreign concept to 99.9% of people. The bread and wine become for us the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. Why explain away the mystery? As Nike says… just do it.

My denomination needs to increase the frequency of its celebration. Once a month is not faithful to the phrase “do this often in remembrance of Me.”

All of this is moot to Catholics, who don’t believe UM’s, Anglicans, or Lutherans have valid orders (actually, some may actually have valid orders, but there are a lot of unknowns). We can’t “confect” the Eucharist, in their eyes.

That was more than my :twocents: worth.

Pax,

O+
 
40.png
Genesis315:
If a Lutheran had valid orders but only believed in consubstantiation, the consecration would not be valid because the intent would be missing, correct?
Click to expand...
Intent doesn’t affect the objective truth of the transubstantiation, as long as the ordination is validly traced to the apostles. One of the Eucharistic miracles (where the Bread and Wine turned physically into Christ’s Sacred Body and Blood) involved a priest doubting the fact of the transubtantiation.
 
If the Catholic Church recognizes that a Lutheran pastor can take ordinary tap water and perform a valid baptism (which it does), what is the basis for the Catholic Church denying that a Lutheran pastor can “affect” the words of institution? In both cases, the Word is joined to the elements.

But, please, rather than tell me what makes obvious sense to you, show me where this is the Catholic Church’s teaching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top