Where did Luther or major Lutherans explain how the "Reformed" exaggerate the role of Reason?

rakovsky · Feb 12, 2016

Lutheran Communion

I read in several works that Lutherans criticized the Reformed (Calvin and Zwingli) for basing their exegesis too much on modern Reason.

One website notes:

As to the other text concerning Christ’s ascension, Luther argues that Zwingli is too literal in his understanding of “right hand of God.” It refers not to some place in heaven but to God’s “almighty power” which makes it possible for Christ’s body to be present anywhere he chooses. Zwingli’s argument concerning the necessity of a body to be circumscribed by place and time Luther rejects as an offspring of that harlot, Reason.
https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/zwingli-and-luther/

Calvin's and Zwingli's belief were that since Jesus' body was up in heaven, it could not be in the bread, while Luther took the view that Christ's body and heaven were not circumscribed in some physical separate place, and thus Luther concluded that Christ could be in the Eucharistic bread:

[LUTHERAN FORMULA OF CONCORD]
"Secondly: That the right hand of God is everywhere; and that Christ, in respect of his humanity, is truly and in very deed seated thereat, and therefore as present governs, and has in his hand and under his feet, as the Scripture saith (Eph. 1:22), all things which are in heaven and on earth. At this right hand of God no other man, nor even any angel, but the Son of Mary alone, is seated, whence also he is able to effect those things which we have said.

[CALVIN'S INSTITUTES]
"(18) ... Though Christ withdrew his flesh from us, and with his body ascended to heaven, he sits at the right hand of the Father; that is, he reigns in power and majesty, and the glory of the Father. This kingdom is not limited by any intervals of space, nor circumscribed by any dimensions. Christ can exert his energy wherever he pleases, in earth and heaven, can manifest his presence by the exercise of his power, can always be present with his people, breathing into them his own life, can live in them, sustain, confirm, and invigorate them, and preserve them safe, just as if he were with them in the body, in fine, can feed them with his own body, communion with which he transfuses into them. After this manner, the body and blood of Christ are exhibited to us in the sacrament.
(19) The presence of Christ in the Supper we must hold to be such as neither affixes him to the element of bread, nor encloses him in bread...

Killian McDonnell writes in John Calvin, the Church, and the Eucharist:

"Against [the Lutheran] Westphal, who had said that Calvin was so bound to reason as to be unable to grant to God other than a power proper to the order of nature, Calvin answered that his solution was also not without an element of the incredible: "There is nothing more incredible than that things severed and removed from one another by the whole space between heaven and earth should not only be connected across such a great distance..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZTfWCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=cavinism+OR+calvin+reason&source=bl&ots=YhqcT0NCIT&sig=_o0Jl-Gpo9thvpAjICMhbyL06so&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijtYOjvvDKAhUFzRQKHc-aDe0Q6AEIhAEwEQ#v=onepage&q=cavinism OR calvin reason&f=false

Would you know where we can find more information on how the Lutheran view of Calvinism or Zwingliism includes the idea that their Reformed position is too much reliant on Reason?

Nota Bene: The Lutheran Church and EO Church are in agreement that the bread itself in the Eucharist is in some real way Christ's body. However the EO Church does not take a clear, decisive position on whether the Catholic or Lutheran churches' more detailed definitions of this are correct.

Thank you!

MarkRohfrietsch · Feb 14, 2016

The Bible itself speaks of the wisdom of men being foolishness.

The bottom line is when Logic or Reason is used to support or oppose a particular teaching, and in doing so, adds or takes away from Scripture it is wrong. This is the reason that we speak of the real presence of Christ's body and blood as a "sacramental union"; we find the Bible calling the Eucharist both body and blood and bread and wine (we reject consubstantiation, because it is a mystery to us of how this is so). This is not so much a "more detailed definition" but rather a reiteration of Scripture. Likewise, this is why Lutherans reject Transubstantiation; Scripture is clearer about both bread and body and wine and blood being present than being completely changed. The idea of the retention of the accidents are the result of something having to be added to scripture in order for the logic to work.

Zwinglian and Calvinist thought that it is impossible for Christ to be in two places at once is just as logically absurd; and limits omnipresence and omnipotence of God.

rakovsky · Feb 14, 2016

Thanks for your reply, Mark!
I agree when you say: "The Bible itself speaks of the wisdom of men being foolishness."
In fact, I cited this verse myself on one thread when discussing the reasoning that Calvin used to debunk the Lutheran claim of Christ's presence in the Eucharist bread.

As you said:

The bottom line is when Logic or Reason is used to support or oppose a particular teaching, and in doing so, adds or takes away from Scripture it is wrong. This is the reason that we speak of the real presence of Christ's body and blood as a "sacramental union"; we find the Bible calling the Eucharist both body and blood and bread and wine (we reject consubstantiation, because it is a mystery to us of how this is so). This is not so much a "more detailed definition" but rather a reiteration of Scripture. Likewise, this is why Lutherans reject Transubstantiation; Scripture is clearer about both bread and body and wine and blood being present than being completely changed. The idea of the retention of the accidents are the result of something having to be added to scripture in order for the logic to work.

Zwinglian and Calvinist thought that it is impossible for Christ to be in two places at once is just as logically absurd; and limits omnipresence and omnipotence of God.

According to Einstein, a body actually can be in two places at once:
Einstein was right, you can be in two places at once
www.independent.co.uk › News › Science , The Independent, Dec 16, 2010

I also agree that if we demand that Christ's body obey the "ordinary laws of nature", as Calvin put it when rejecting the Lutheran view, that this limits the omnipresence of God, as you said. Calvin was going against the plain meaning of scripture and his basis for doing so was Natural Law.

According to Luther, when Christ is in the bread, He is in the same mode of being as He was when He passed through walls and was invisible to the apostles. Therefore, if Reformed reject the presence of Christ in the bread due to natural laws, this same reasoning can lead them to also reject the passing through walls and invisibility. Indeed, Calvin next argued in his Institutes that Christ was not "invisible", but only "disappeared."

If one continues on this path, denying invisibility, denying that Christ's body could be outside of heaven in a transfigured form, per Natural Law, then the logical trajectory is to eventually conclude that Christ's body didn't do other "incredible" or "absurd" things (Calvin's terms), like resurrect, incarnate, ascend, etc. In that case, the rationalization when addressing scripture would be that these are also "symbols". Under this logic, just as Christ's body doesn't go anywhere during the Eucharist, yet the Eucharist affects "spiritual" benefits, partaking, etc. so modern critical "spiritualists" have concluded that Jesus' body didn't go up to heaven but that there was a "spiritual" resurrection, as a result of which Jesus' followers on earth achieve spiritual "salvation". Perhaps one example of this "spiritualist" way of thinking is that of Rev. Marcus Borg, who taught that Jesus' resurrection was a "true" story, but that you couldn't film his appearances with a camera if you were there.

I made a thread about this in the General Theology section.
One of the commenters, Hedrick, wrote:

hedrick said:
How do we decide whether to understand words literally or as metaphor? Generally we understand metaphor when a literal reading would be absurd. E.g. Jesus saying he was the door for the sheep. That seems obviously to be the case here.
...
While I think it’s unquestionable that “this is my body” is metaphorical, I do believe that Christ is really present in communion. In the same way that he is present wherever two or three are gathered. But I accept the Reformed concept that communion was instituted specifically as a way to make this presence visible, and as a vehicle to help believers experience it. So when we offer the bread to someone it is appropriate to say “Christ’s body,” because the sacrament really does help bring Christ to them. But this is probably more a statement of Christian experience than the original intention of Jesus’ words. Whether you call this “real presence” isn’t so critical to me, though I think the term would fit if it hadn’t been used in other ways.

It’s cleat that the discussion with rakovsky is going on circles, so I don’t see much point to continuing it. I would be interested if any informed Lutherans wanted to comment.
http://www.christianforums.com/goto/post?id=69223529#post-69223529

Perhaps you would be interested in writing a bit there.

Peace.

MarkRohfrietsch · Feb 14, 2016

rakovsky said:
Thanks for your reply, Mark!
I agree when you say: "The Bible itself speaks of the wisdom of men being foolishness."
In fact, I cited this verse myself on one thread when discussing the reasoning that Calvin used to debunk the Lutheran claim of Christ's presence in the Eucharist bread.

As you said:

According to Einstein, a body actually can be in two places at once:
Einstein was right, you can be in two places at once
www.independent.co.uk › News › Science , The Independent, Dec 16, 2010

I also agree that if we demand that Christ's body obey the "ordinary laws of nature", as Calvin put it when rejecting the Lutheran view, that this limits the omnipresence of God, as you said. Calvin was going against the plain meaning of scripture and his basis for doing so was Natural Law.

According to Luther, when Christ is in the bread, He is in the same mode of being as He was when He passed through walls and was invisible to the apostles. Therefore, if Reformed reject the presence of Christ in the bread due to natural laws, this same reasoning can lead them to also reject the passing through walls and invisibility. Indeed, Calvin next argued in his Institutes that Christ was not "invisible", but only "disappeared."

If one continues on this path, denying invisibility, denying that Christ's body could be outside of heaven in a transfigured form, per Natural Law, then the logical trajectory is to eventually conclude that Christ's body didn't do other "incredible" or "absurd" things (Calvin's terms), like resurrect, incarnate, ascend, etc. In that case, the rationalization when addressing scripture would be that these are also "symbols". Under this logic, just as Christ's body doesn't go anywhere during the Eucharist, yet the Eucharist affects "spiritual" benefits, partaking, etc. so modern critical "spiritualists" have concluded that Jesus' body didn't go up to heaven but that there was a "spiritual" resurrection, as a result of which Jesus' followers on earth achieve spiritual "salvation". Perhaps one example of this "spiritualist" way of thinking is that of Rev. Marcus Borg, who taught that Jesus' resurrection was a "true" story, but that you couldn't film his appearances with a camera if you were there.

I made a thread about this in the General Theology section.
One of the commenters, Hedrick, wrote:

Perhaps you would be interested in writing a bit there.

Peace.

Theological development tends to be reactive. For most Orthodox theologians this is not much of an issue or concern because without being confronted by Zwingli and the other radical reformers, the Orthodox position remained unchanged and unchallenged. We Lutherans had no choice, and neither did our Catholic brothers and sisters. Why the differences between Lutheran and Catholic sacramental theology? (Not all that different really) Well, Lutherans use Scripture as the measure of all theology including tradition. Catholics give similar weight to both Scripture and Tradition, and one such tradition is Scholasticism.

I still scratch my head knowing that Transubstantiation was influenced by the logic of Aristotle; a pagan.

KEPLER · Feb 16, 2016

MarkRohfrietsch said:
I still scratch my head knowing that Transubstantiation was influenced by the logic of Aristotle; a pagan.

It's actually a bit stronger than that Mark. (Mind you, I'm not saying you are incorrect; I am saying that you are actually even more right than your statement above implies).

As you rightly note, Transubstantiation got its current definition during the high middle ages, and specifically because of the scholastic influence on RC theology. Thomas Aquinas created the current definition, utilizing Aristotle's concept of hylomorphism to explain where and when exactly the miracle took place (the miracle being the change from bread/wine to body/blood). HOWEVER, at the time, Thomas's definition was merely the best probable explanation for this event. The Aristotelian definition was NOT YET doctrine.

Fast forward to the Council of Trent (1545-1563), where the RC church was reacting to the hot mess north of the Alps. It was here that Thomas's definition was elevated to the level of doctrine: Aristotelian physics became permanently entwined with RC theology. It is STILL a requirement that good RCs must believe this doctrine (which makes it necessary for a RC to believe in Aristotelian physics!!)

Of course, only 40 years after Trent ended, Galileo came along and destroyed Aristotelian physics.... Oops.

Cheers,

Eric

Athanasias · Feb 19, 2016

KEPLER said:
It's actually a bit stronger than that Mark. (Mind you, I'm not saying you are incorrect; I am saying that you are actually even more right than your statement above implies).

As you rightly note, Transubstantiation got its current definition during the high middle ages, and specifically because of the scholastic influence on RC theology. Thomas Aquinas created the current definition, utilizing Aristotle's concept of hylomorphism to explain where and when exactly the miracle took place (the miracle being the change from bread/wine to body/blood). HOWEVER, at the time, Thomas's definition was merely the best probable explanation for this event. The Aristotelian definition was NOT YET doctrine.

Fast forward to the Council of Trent (1545-1563), where the RC church was reacting to the hot mess north of the Alps. It was here that Thomas's definition was elevated to the level of doctrine: Aristotelian physics became permanently entwined with RC theology. It is STILL a requirement that good RCs must believe this doctrine (which makes it necessary for a RC to believe in Aristotelian physics!!)

Of course, only 40 years after Trent ended, Galileo came along and destroyed Aristotelian physics.... Oops.

Cheers,

Eric

We should dialog on this in a ecumenical way in another forum because Thomistic metaphysics in no way was destroyed by empirical science (physics) as metaphysics is a non empirical study of reality that is above physics. In fact Thomistic philosophy and metaphysics is making a come back even in non Catholic circles today in some areas and is used in harmony with empirical science and its data in many ways, just ask Dr. William Lane Craig. It still just as logical today as it always was. At least I see no problem with it and I studied this at a graduate level. In Fact the Eastern Orthodox Church and many of her theologians and some of the High Church Anglicans and their clergy recognize the truth of transubstantiation and even use the term in their formal writings admitting it best explains the change that happens in the Eucharist albeit its still mystical and it is still mystical according to Catholic theology.

I think alot of people can easily get bent out of shape because they tend not to understand the reasons why we hold to this. I also think alot of non-Catholics innocently do not like St. Thomas or his metaphysic because they have never studied him in any depth. In my experience with good hearted traditional separated brothers and sisters of the Lord I find a distrust and a extreme prejudice and caution with anything Thomistic. Surely this reaks of Ockams influence on Dr. Luther in some ways. But you got to read St. Thomas and understand he is heavily systematic in quoting the early Church fathers especially St. Augustine. In fact a Augustinian patristic scholar I know even admitted to me that St. Thomas was the best commenter on St. Augustine in his opinion. So you got to read and understand St. Thomas the patristic tradition as a whole to see the connections and developments organically. Thomas has a whole Patristic study and commentary on all 4 Gospels called the "Catena Aurea" or golden chain and Thomas used to submit himself to Jesus in prayer daily before the tabernacle begging Christ for wisdom. So this was not all head knowledge from philosophy but systematic prayerful reflections on the apostolic tradition, sacred scripture and Aristotelian philosophy.

But even if Scholastic theology never happened Catholics would still hold to this view we just would not have a more developed view that Thomas gave us that the Holy Spirit allowed us to have. There is a good long lecture series by Dr. William Marshener on the patristic sources and the medieval developments and the Greek and Latin terms used by many of the Fathers of the Church to explain this change .

Remember Orthodox and Anglican Christians are not huge fans of Scholastic Philosophy/theology unfortunately. Nor are they Papist! Yet I can show you books and official Websites of whole Diocese that are non-Catholic and use the term. You see there are huge patristic and miraculous and negative evidence reasons for the approval of St. Thomas definition that the Church looks at but many people are unaware of this.

At any rate I will not dialog here because I do not want to go against the thread or its purpose or my Lutheran brethren forums but hit me up and we can at least prayerfully talk about it in the formal dialog forum in a ecumenical prayerful way even if it means agreeing to dissagree. God bless you!

In Christ the King through Mary the Queen Mother,

Athanasias

rakovsky · Feb 20, 2016

Athanasias said:
We should dialog on this in a ecumenical way in another forum because Thomistic metaphysics in no way was destroyed by empirical science (physics) as its a non empirical study of reality. In fact its making a come back even in non Catholic circles today and is used in harmony with empirical science and its data in many ways, just ask Dr. William Lane Craig. It still just as logical today as it always was. At least I see no problem with it and I studied this at a graduate level. In Fact the Eastern Orthodox Church and many of her theologians and some of the High Church Anglicans and their clergy recognize the truth of transubstantiation and even use the term in their formal writings admitting it best explains the change that happens in the Eucharist albeit its still mystical and it is still mystical according to Catholic theology.

I think alot of people can easily get bent out of shape because they tend not to understand the reasons why we hold to this. Even if Scholastic theology was not there we would still hold to this we just would not have a more developed view . Remember Orthodox and Anglican Christians are not huge fans of Scholastic Philosophy/theology unfortunately. Nor are they Papist! Yet I can show you books and official Websites of whole Diocese that are non-Catholic and use the term. You see there are huge patristic and miraculous and negative evidence reasons for the approval of St. Thomas definition that the Church looks at but many people are unaware of this.

At any rate I will not dialog here because I do not want to go against the thread or its purpose or my Lutheran brethren forums but hit me up and we can at least prayerfully talk about it in the formal dialog forum in a ecumenical prayerful way even if it means agreeing to dissagree. God bless you!

In Christ the King through Mary the Queen Mother,

Athanasias

Hi Athanasius.
I think very many Catholics don't know the details of Thomist and Aristotelian physics by name so in practice I would find it unlikely that accepting these systems was a required belief of all Catholics. I don't even know the details about that myself.
I think Luther tended to be very sympathetic to Catholicism and inherited some of its scholastic mentality, but some things he could not handle any more.
It would be hard to agree that Orthodox teach transubstantiation. I don't rule it out, but would need numerous authorities to agree.
The problem is that it is not an official term in our councils, etc. Lopukhin is a major theologian and accepts transubstantiation, but he did not go into tons of detail, he just seemed to lump the Protestant views together, maybe not understanding that Lutherans do teach jesus body is actually there, just in a different mode of being.
Personally I am more sympathetic to Lutheran view because the bread still looks like bread, but I don't feel a need fortunately to pick between Lutheran and catholic views on this. I like to just have a teaching that Jesus is directly in the bread and not to pick over it harder.

If you ask Orthodox, the most official position is that they just teach it is a mystery but that they think jesus is really there. I think some of them get a bit nervous about the Lutheran position because they don't want to be just calling jesus body "bread", even though sometimes Orthodox do call the Eucharist bread in practice. I think by calling it bread they tend to unintentionally support the Lutheran view.

Thanks also for chiming in to the thread.

Athanasias · Feb 20, 2016

rakovsky said:
Hi Athanasius.
I think very many Catholics don't know the details of Thomist and Aristotelian physics by name so in practice I would find it unlikely that accepting these systems was a required belief of all Catholics. I don't even know the details about that myself.
I think Luther tended to be very sympathetic to Catholicism and inherited some of its scholastic mentality, but some things he could not handle any more.
It would be hard to agree that Orthodox teach transubstantiation. I don't rule it out, but would need numerous authorities to agree.
The problem is that it is not an official term in our councils, etc. Lopukhin is a major theologian and accepts transubstantiation, but he did not go into tons of detail, he just seemed to lump the Protestant views together, maybe not understanding that Lutherans do teach jesus body is actually there, just in a different mode of being.
Personally I am more sympathetic to Lutheran view because the bread still looks like bread, but I don't feel a need fortunately to pick between Lutheran and catholic views on this. I like to just have a teaching that Jesus is directly in the bread and not to pick over it harder.

If you ask Orthodox, the most official position is that they just teach it is a mystery but that they think jesus is really there. I think some of them get a bit nervous about the Lutheran position because they don't want to be just calling jesus body "bread", even though sometimes Orthodox do call the Eucharist bread in practice. I think by calling it bread they tend to unintentionally support the Lutheran view.

Hi Ravosky,

Nice to meet you. What Catholics must accept by faith and reason with divine Catholic faith is the principle that by a mystery and miracle of Christ command the bread and wine become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ after consecration and no more bread or wine remain only its appearance, taste, smell etc. This is mystery indeed. So it is required to know and believe but most Catholics do not know the inns and outs of he Philosophy they just take Christ and His Church at His word. However saying that in the late 90's it was polled that 60% of Catholic do not hold to this personally and many view it as a symbol. So there needs to be alot of Catechesis and formation today. Most Catholics also think contraception and sometimes abortion and homosexual relationships are ok too but that is not what the Christ or His Church teaches. I teach adult Catholics so I know this.

I am not saying that the EO's dogmatize the term. They do not. What I am saying is many of them use the term and I can show you a whole EO Diocese(Eparchry) that their official website used the term transubstantiation and says it best explains the mystery but its still a mystery and it not dogmatized. Some Eo's use the term "Meta- ousia" which means "change of substance" which is the exact same meaning as transubstantiation. So its no wander they use the term even if they do not hold infallibly to it like Catholics do. I mean it makes patristic and biblical and miraculous sense. Catholic believe its also a mystery first and formost. We cannot ever fully penetrate a divine mystery but with the Holy Spirits help we can know more about it. That is what Catholic believe about all doctrines in history. So Mystery Yes we teach that too, Popes have even come out with encyclicals on the mystery calling it that. Hope that helps. God bless you!

rakovsky · Feb 20, 2016

Athanasias said:
Hi Ravosky,

Nice to meet you. What Catholics must accept by faith and reason with divine Catholic faith is the principle that the bread and wine become the body, blood,

Orthodox will also say that. The bread becomes the body. But the nature of this same change as you said in greek META is considered a mystery and in practice they sometimes still call it bread.
It is harder for me to give a more definite answer than that.
I think Lutherans are also forced to accept that in Lutherism the object that they eat is also jesus body because they say jesus is present in it.

But do Orthodox and Lutherans and Catholics all agree that the physical substance of bread changes?
What is on the table has changed so that in some sense it is no longer "ordinary bread", the fathers say. And yet in some sense I think it is still bread because the fathers still call it bread too. And it still has physical properties of bread.
That is why you are getting into a confusing area for me.

I think Orthodox might feel more confident about catholic bread because it's super important to accept that you are really eating the body. But at the same time Orthodox strongly and openly teach that our feast is not " bloody." If we start teaching that we are eating actual human flesh and blood, there could be cause for concern about that too.
As a matter of bible and early fathers, my reading is that Jesus hands believers an object and says this what he hands them is the body. Both Catholics and Lutherans accept that what is given in the hand is actually the body. As my personal interpretation, it is hard to be more definite.

As a matter of Orthodoxy, the church writers today tend to be more sympathetic to Catholic view. And we do teach that what is the bread on the table becomes body. But some writers support Lutheran style view instead.
If I tell you catholic side is right, I will fail to give you the official viewpoint, which officially doesn't take sides.

soul, and divinity of Christ after consecration and no more bread or wine remain only its appearance, taste, smell etc. This is mystery indeed. So it is required to know and believe but most Catholics do not know the inns and outs of he Philosophy they just take Christ and His Church at His word. However saying that in the late 90's it was polled that 60% of Catholic do not hold to this personally and many view it as a symbol. So there needs to be alot of Catechesis and formation today. Most Catholics also think contraception and sometimes abortion is ok too. I teach adult Catholics so I know this.

I am not saying that the EO's dogmatize the term. They do not. What I am saying is many of them use the term and I can show you a whole EO Diocese(Eparchry) that their official website used the term transubstantiation and says it best explains the mystery but its still a mystery and it not dogmatized. Some Eo's use the term "Meta- ousia" which means "change of substance" which is the exact same meaning as transubstantiation. So its no wander they use the term even if they do not hold infallibly to it like Catholics do. I mean it makes patristic and biblical and miraculous sense. Catholic believe its also a mystery first and formost. We cannot ever fully penetrate a divine mystery but with the Holy Spirits help we can know more about it. That is what Catholic believe about all doctrines in history. So Mystery Yes we teach that too, Popes have even come out with encyclicals on the mystery calling it that. Hope that helps. God bless you!

Athanasias · Feb 20, 2016

rakovsky said:
Orthodox will also say that. The bread becomes the body. But the nature of this same change as you said in greek META is considered a mystery and in practice they sometimes still call it bread.

I think Orthodox might feel more confident about catholic bread because it's super important to accept that you are really eating the body. But at the same time Orthodox strongly and openly teach that our feast is not " bloody." If we start teaching that we are eating actual human flesh and blood, there could be cause for concern about that too.
As a matter of bible and early fathers, my reading is that Jesus hands believers an object and says this what he hands them is the body. Both Catholics and Lutherans accept that what is given in the hand is actually the body. As my personal interpretation, it is hard to be more definite.

Thanks for this. I want to state that Catholic Agree with Orthodox Christians that this is a change or meta and is also a mystery first and formost. Mystery in our understanding is something that cannot be fully fathomed but can be understood in part by God revealing to us.So this in no may takes away from the mystery of it. In fact how God changes bread and wine into himself is pure mystery. His power and commands as God directs it and it happens. We cannot fully fathom how he does it that we just fall to our knees and say My Lord and God. But we can understand some things about it.

Catholic also teach that Mass is a unbloody sacrifice so no contradictions there with EO's on bloody. I would argue along with many Eo's and Anglicans that the "meta" or change is a real change and in fact ousia means "substance" so its "transformed" into a real different "substance" or "supernatural flesh". This is not the same as natural flesh. Catholics teach this is supernatural, mystical, and metaphysical, sacramental, and real change and becomes the real supernatural body, blood, soul, divinity the whole Christ. There are times in scripture and tradition when an object is referred to its former state or when its referred to what appears to be what actually is not. The sun rises(Psalm 113) in passages yet that really does not happen we know from empirical science but appears to seem that way. This is a type of descriptive language used but it does not mean that a change in substance did not happen. I hope that helps.

rakovsky · Feb 20, 2016

Athanasias said:
Thanks for this. I want to state that Catholic Agree with Orthodox Christians that this is a change or meta and is also a mystery first and formost. Mystery in our understanding is something that cannot be fully fathomed but can be understood in part by God revealing to us.So this in no may takes away from the mystery of it. In fact how God changes bread and wine into himself is pure mystery. His power and commands as God directs it and it happens. We cannot fully fathom how he does it that we just fall to our knees and say My Lord and God. But we can understand some things about it.

Catholic also teach that Mass is a unbloody sacrifice so no contradictions there with EO's on bloody. I would argue along with many Eo's and Anglicans that the "meta" or change is a real change and in fact ousia means "substance" so its "transformed" into a real different "substance" or "supernatural flesh". This is not the same as natural flesh. Catholics teach this is supernatural, mystical, and metaphysical, sacramental, and real change and becomes the real supernatural body, blood, soul, divinity the whole Christ. I hope that helps.

Personally I think if we say the bread has totally become supernatural in substance, we violate church fathers teaching that bread had still earthly reality but now also heavenly reality. With earthly reality, I think that in some sense it still has bread substance . So I tend to think that not all substance changed, if any. In Greek church Orthodox, the priest says for bread to become or change into body. But he doesn't say for bread substance to change. It's a confusing topic for me.

I think to discuss the differences between catholic and lutheran views further you are right we should go to Catholic threads. For this thread let's only focus on common good points of Lutheran view against reformed view that we don't eat jesus body even though jesus said we do.

Athanasias · Feb 20, 2016

rakovsky said:
Personally I think if we say the bread has totally become supernatural in substance, we violate church fathers teaching that bread had still earthly reality but now also heavenly reality. With earthly reality, I think that in some sense it still has bread substance . So I tend to think that not all substance changed, if any. It's a confusing topic for me.

I think to discuss the differences between catholic and lutheran views further you are right we should go to Catholic threads. For this thread let's only focus on common good points of Lutheran view against reformed view that we don't eat jesus body even though jesus said we do.

We should discuss this sometime. There is a great lecture given by a Scholar who was a Lutheran at one time who goes through the Fathers and the Greek and Latin words used and meanings to show real change from 2nd to 4th century and hits on scholastics as well. If your interested hit me up I send it to you. But your right I am sorry for derailing this thread and apologize. I will shut up now.

rakovsky · Feb 20, 2016

Athanasias said:
We should discuss this sometime. There is a great lecture given by a Scholar who was a Lutheran at one time who goes through the Fathers and the Greek and Latin words used and meanings to show real change from 2nd to 4th century and hits on scholastics as well. If your interested hit me up I send it to you. But your right I am sorry for derailing this thread and apologize. I will shut up now.

CARM website has quotes from early church fathers to prove that Catholic side was wrong about eucharist. Funny thing is that the same quotes to me ALSO disproved the Reformed side and proved Lutherans are right against Reformed, eg. CARM.
Maybe church fathers are divided between Lutheran and Catholic views. I don't know, but for us church fathers on individual level are fallible, so even if some fathers in 450 ad taught transubsntiation, it might not be dogma. Augustin ideas about guilt for original sin are not part of Orthodox main teaching. Main point in all this is that there are no church fathers who openly teach that the bread is not actually body.

Athanasias · Feb 20, 2016

rakovsky said:
CARM website has quotes from early church fathers to prove that Catholic side was wrong about eucharist. Funny thing is that the same quotes to me ALSO disproved the Reformed side and proved Lutherans are right against Reformed, eg. CARM.
Maybe church fathers are divided between Lutheran and Catholic views. I don't know, but for us church fathers on individual level are fallible, so even if some fathers in 450 ad taught transubsntiation, it might not be dogma. Augustin ideas about guilt for original sin are not part of Orthodox main teaching. Main point in all this is that there are no church fathers who openly teach that the bread is not actually body.

The solution here is just to read the fathers in context when they speak on the Eucharist and not just quotes. This can takes years of study but it is also a fun study and I know a seminarian who is doing just that. May God bless you!

rakovsky · Feb 20, 2016

Athanasias said:
The solution here is just to read the fathers in context when they speak on the Eucharist and not just quotes. This can takes years of study but it is also a fun study and I know a seminarian who is doing just that. May God bless you!

If before the change it was totally bread but now it has jesus real body in transformed divinized form and also bread in bread form, this seems to make most sense to me and it's the lutheran view.
This is my personal conception, and if I need years to study church fathers under catholic instruction to come to full conclusion that church fathers teach catholic version, then I think it isn't very clear whether catholic side is right after all.
My request to you is to join the thread I linked to above in general theology , because that is where the most crucial debate and difference is.
Peace, Athanasius.

MarkRohfrietsch · Feb 20, 2016

rakovsky said:
Personally I think if we say the bread has totally become supernatural in substance, we violate church fathers teaching that bread had still earthly reality but now also heavenly reality. With earthly reality, I think that in some sense it still has bread substance . So I tend to think that not all substance changed, if any. In Greek church Orthodox, the priest says for bread to become or change into body. But he doesn't say for bread substance to change. It's a confusing topic for me.

I think to discuss the differences between catholic and lutheran views further you are right we should go to Catholic threads. For this thread let's only focus on common good points of Lutheran view against reformed view that we don't eat jesus body even though jesus said we do.

rakovsky said:
If before the change it was totally bread but now it has jesus real body in transformed divinized form and also bread in bread form, this seems to make most sense to me and it's the lutheran view.
This is my personal conception, and if I need years to study church fathers under catholic instruction to come to full conclusion that church fathers teach catholic version, then I think it isn't very clear whether catholic side is right after all.
My request to you is to join the thread I linked to above in general theology , because that is where the most crucial debate and difference is.
Peace, Athanasius.

Rakovsky, you have a great grasp of the Lutheran understanding, which as you noted, is not so different from the EO teachings. Luther sums it up well in this excerpt from the Small Catechism:

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

Where is this written?

The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.

After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.

Athanasias said:
We should discuss this sometime. There is a great lecture given by a Scholar who was a Lutheran at one time who goes through the Fathers and the Greek and Latin words used and meanings to show real change from 2nd to 4th century and hits on scholastics as well. If your interested hit me up I send it to you. But your right I am sorry for derailing this thread and apologize. I will shut up now.

No worries Athanasias, your input is always appreciated.

Certainly, when we look at the reformation (many Lutherans and Catholics would would disagree with me, but I think history speaks for itself) the nature of the Eucharist, transubstantiation vs. the definition from the catechism above was one of the least divisive issues. I'm certain that Luther agreed with this as well for he wrote "I would sooner drink Christ's blood with the Pope than wine with Zwingli. In fact I would go so far as to say and Luther certainly agreed with this as well, that it is what it is.

The more divisive issues surrounding the Eucharist were how it was used (memorial masses for the dead, communion in one kind only were the big two). Were it not for these, it may have been a non issue. As we all know, the two fundamental issues were Papal supreme authority and infallibility.

rakovsky said:
CARM website has quotes from early church fathers to prove that Catholic side was wrong about eucharist. Funny thing is that the same quotes to me ALSO disproved the Reformed side and proved Lutherans are right against Reformed, eg. CARM.
Maybe church fathers are divided between Lutheran and Catholic views. I don't know, but for us church fathers on individual level are fallible, so even if some fathers in 450 ad taught transubsntiation, it might not be dogma. Augustin ideas about guilt for original sin are not part of Orthodox main teaching. Main point in all this is that there are no church fathers who openly teach that the bread is not actually body.

You nailed it with this post; and the bolded portion is correct and does extend to the Popes as well.

rakovsky · Feb 20, 2016

The Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Orthodox Church
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orth...of-transubstantiation-in-the-orthodox-church/

The author argues that Transubstantiation means something different in Orthodoxy, based on various statements involving it. He even begins by quoting a tract by Dunn saying that we don't believe in Transubstantiation.

In a sense, it is impossible to draw a true comparison between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox viewpoints on this issue, since only one communion has dogmatically ruled on the question.

rakovsky · Feb 20, 2016

It's just a vague issue for Orthodox. Church fathers are not clear on which side to pick, ikons don't help (except very rare ones where Baby Jesus is literally shown in the cup), modern theologians in US/UK are probably more sympathetic to Lutheran idea because we are in Protestant society, Russians and Greeks are probably more disposed (my guess) to pick RC over Protestants as a general matter bc in practice Orthodox care more about Tradition and apostolic succession than Protestants, we have local Synod of Dositheus in Jerusalem openly rejecting the Lutheran view, and Peter of Mogila writing in his confession that bread becomes body and it remains body only in appearance. Then we have Bp. Kallistos Ware (major theologian) in UK trying to downplay these kinds of statements as crucial to Orthodoxy.

So the position is not really more defined I think. Bread actually becomes body, but that is not factual in every sense because obviously it doesn't look that way, and there is not more I can say definitively for Orthodox views.

Interestingly, I think that if you just read Jesus' words and hear in liturgy that the bread becomes the body, and then you don't care at all about following Reformed materialism, you end up with imagining that you have a cup with Jesus' straight blood (not wine) in it with taste of blood. But you know firsthand that this is not tasting like blood, so you must say like RCs that there is not the appearance/"accidents" of blood. BTW, we don't have cases AFAIK of wine turning into scientifically provable nonwine like RCs have in one of their miracle jars of Eucharistic ex-wine. So with these bare facts and statements RC-style Transubstantiation would be the default "simple" impression.

However, a lot more can be said on this, like the fact that we don't have Eucharistic adoration. Also, the idea of hypostatic union of two substances shows that Lutheran view of two substances or essences present in the food is at least rationally conceivable for an Orthodox mind. And if Church fathers really do sometimes pick the Lutheran side, then it means Lutheran side is clearly one idea that can be part of Orthodoxy itself. It's an undefined area, I think. I think it's better that way though. If I keep ruminating on Lutheran v RC Eucharist I will take it over to EO section of Forum.

Athanasias · Feb 21, 2016

rakovsky said:
The Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Orthodox Church
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orth...of-transubstantiation-in-the-orthodox-church/

The author argues that Transubstantiation means something different in Orthodoxy, based on various statements involving it. He even begins by quoting a tract by Dunn saying that we don't believe in Transubstantiation.

Hey Rav,

Thanks for the good article. I read it and appreciate it. But I am not sure how it differs from the Catholic teaching. I think the author may have a confused idea about what transubstantiation means if he thinks it means to Catholics anything else besides the change of substance from bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. So it puzzled me a bit because just about everything that article taught I can agree with and do. So I am just not seeing how that differs outside of the different views of when the change happens (East V West) on the Epiclesis Vs words of consecration. But the Catholic Church acknowledges that possibility in her Eucharistic doctrine as well because we have multiple Eastern Catholic Churches and at least one of the Eastern Catholic Churches does not even use the words of consecration in the mass at all. All they use is the epiclesis. So I just do not see any problem or contradiction between what many Eo's scholar use the term transubstantiation or meta- ousia and when Latin Christians use it. The only difference I suspect is a fear of using the term because it came from Thomistic latin theology/philosophy. I could be wrong but that is my hunch because doctrinally I do not see any difference here. Can you maybe explain? Thanks God bless you!

rakovsky · Feb 21, 2016

Please start a thread in the EO section of the forum to discuss these differences further. When you do so, I recommend quoting what we have already discussed.

Where did Luther or major Lutherans explain how the "Reformed" exaggerate the role of Reason?

Newbie

Unapologetic Apologist

Newbie

Unapologetic Apologist

Crux sola est nostra theologia

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Unapologetic Apologist

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Similar threads