question for evangelical Protestants..

[BreadAlone]

I never said it was ONLY accomplished through Communion. But it is ONE of the Means that the Holy Spirit uses to strengthen His Church, and it's a Means that's been used since Day 1 of our Religion.

So, its more about the service than communing with God on a daily basis. (It is about communion)

We have to partake of communion in order to show Christ residing in us. (unity with Christ) Both to the world, and our brothers and sisters. (with our brothers and sisters )

Rather than having the Spirits testimony of us, we need the communions testimony of us. (It is a physical proclamation that we are one in spirit with each other under the Lord. Yes, where two or three are gathered Christ is there. But this is the acknowledgement that Christ is within us, moreover, we are within Christ as One.)

All this is only accomplished though communion.


ahuh.

Ok if you say so.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[BreadAlone]

A change, more or less. But not in the physical sense. The Bread and Wine do not "become" anything. They are always Bread and Wine.

(looking at your faith icon) However, Lutheran churches do hold, with Luther, that a change does happen, and the Real Presence in the bread and wine does occur.

 

[Albion]

how? and then, do we get in to the affirmation of Jesus' presence in this object, or that object.... isn't that animism? (I'm not accusing of that, btw. I'm just trying to explain my woefully inadequate thought processes.)

Well, animism (the idea that inanimate objects contain the spirits of living beings and deserve worship for that reason) has nothing to do with anything either of us is saying, so I think we ought to leave that alone. What I'm saying is simple--we can, logically, observe the Lord's Supper on a regular basis and not deny, even implicitly, the presence of God with us always and everywhere.

It's simply a special experience of his presence, just as we are thankful for loved ones all the time but still do make a special occasion of their birthdays. BUT I also think that this is somewhat off the subject, being mainly a matter of logic. The Bible's rendition of what Jesus said at the Last Supper should settle it. I'm open to differing view of that meaning, but he did say to those assembled to DO THIS after he was gone, do it AS OFT AS..., and that it would have a special meaning when they did this.

Well... making the safe assumption that a Roman Catholic would be speaking of transub when referring to RP, is all. an assumption, yes... but a pretty safe one!

Right. I realized whtat you meant after I thought on it for a few moments.

 

[Albion]

A change, more or less. But not in the physical sense. The Bread and Wine do not "become" anything. They are always Bread and Wine.

Well...the Lutheran position is that they do become Christ's flesh and blood in the same way as Catholics think EXCEPT THAT--as you noted--the bread and wine do not cease to be. There is, therefore, no change-over, which is Transubstantiation. It is not, however, the same kind of presence as with "Where two or three...."

It is not my place to tell you what you believe, but it is somewhat important to me to note for this discussion that probably most Evangelical Protestants DO (quite to the contrary of what the OP suggested) believe in the RP. Either that or the author of the OP meant to confine the term used (evangelical) to Baptists. (that's a partial joke, folks.)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Originally Posted by DeaconDean

In post #2 of this thread, the OP stated:



How does the bread and wine turn into the real presence?

And for the deleted reasons I mentioned previosly, I reject it. Yes, they taught wrongly.

God Bless

Till all are one.
​

It's the "turn into" that is what the RCC dogma is all about. For roughly 1000 years, Christians affirmed Real Presence. They embraced that in the Eucharistic Scriptures, the meaning of is is is. Christ IS present in the Holy Eucharist in SOME sense physically, literally - although they rejected that were were "cannibals" (an early persistent accusation toward Christians) or "drinking blood." Christ's Body and Blood is "there" in some literal, "real" sense. But CLEARLY there is mystery. For nearly 1000 years, the mystery was embraced. It is called "Real Presence." And it is still the position of the Orthodox and Lutheran churches (as well as some Anglicans and Methodists). I agree with the opening poster that this position is widely affirmed by the Catholic Church's "fathers." It is by the Orthodox and Lutheran "fathers" too.

But in the West, among Catholics, there arose a movement to merge secular knowledge with theology, and to try to explain away mystery (the RCC has always been very uncomfortable with mystery although it still uses the term). ONE question for Catholic Scholasticism was this mystery of Real Presense, especially why the mass (volumn, weight) of the elements does not increase at the moment of teh consecration and why the elements don't change in their appearance and taste. The East considered this question SILLY and wanted nothing to do with this, but this was the "stuff" of western, medieval Catholic "Scholasticism."

According to my Catholic teachers, beginning around the 9th century, ONE of the many theories Catholic Scholasticism developed was to combine two common secular, pagan ideas of the day (both long ago rejected and forgotten today) to develop a theory. This theory came to be known as Transubstantiation. It was pretty controversal at first, but became widely embraced in time. It was formally accepted in the 13th century and made dogma in the 16th.


These were the two secular theories that the western, medieval Catholic "Scholastics" embraced:

1. Alchemy. You'll recall from your high school chem class that this was a pre-science concept that elementary matter (we'd call it elements) can be changed from one to another via the use of magic and chemicals/herbs/etc. You'll recall changing lead into gold was the typical objective. This alchemy eventually gave birth to what we think of as chemistry today. Well, the fundamental idea in alchemy was called, "transubstantiation." It was a very specific, precise, technical term at the time to refer specifically to this alchemic concept. These Catholic Scholastics theorized that perhaps by some special power of the priest, by the words he pronounces and the jestures he does, there is an alchemic transubstantiation that happens - so that the bread undergoes this alchemic change and is now Body. Same with the bread. The RCC dogma gets its name and title from alchemy.

2. Aristotle. But there's still the appearance and taste problem! According to alchemy, it SHOULD have the properties of Body and Blood - so why doesn't it? Here, these western Catholics looked to a completely unrelated pagan idea popular at the time. Aristotle lived some centuries before Christ and was known for several of his ideas - one of which was "accidents." An "accident" is what we PRECEIVE in reality. Aristotle believed that what we PRECEIVE (we'd call this "properties") is not necessarily related to what actually is. ONE aspect of this is his theory that "accidents" could continue after the actual reality ceases. His illustration was lighting and thunder: we hear the sound after the lightening has actually ceased to exist. A person might look in a clear pool and see the reflection of a dead person (and not self) in which case the accident of the dead person is continuing after the person has ceased. Well, this is what happens in the Eucharist, these "Scholastics" theorized. The "accidents" of bread and wine continue after they cease to exist. Evidently, forever. And oddly, the accidents of bread and wine don't ever exist. Today, Catholics are apt to substitute other words for "accident" since this theory has long sense been rejected by modern science and very few today know Aristotle's concept and vocabulary for it. Terms like "symbol" or "substance" or "appearance" are used rather than the actual embrace (and eventually dogmatized) theory: Aristotelian Accidents.


AS A PURE MEDIEVAL THEORY, the concept might have some value, although I stand with the Orthodox in rejecting any need to explain away the mystery. I accept what Jesus said and Paul wrote as true because they said so - not because some Spanish monks looked to alchemy and Aristotle and found some interesting aspects to their theories. IF it had been left as these Catholic Scholastics intended - as just one theory - it likely would have disappeared right alone with the alchemy and Aristotelian theory that it embraced, and today the only ones that would have even heard of it would be church historians. But, the RCC didn't leave it as it was intended. It formally embraced it in 1215. And it couldn't leave it at that, it formally dogmatized alchemy and accidents in 1551 (largely as an tool to further anathmatize Luther who did not accept transubstantiation as doctrine but DID passionately accept Real Presence as mystery).


I hope that helps.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

So, its more about the service than communing with God on a daily basis. (It is about communion)

We have to partake of communion in order to show Christ residing in us. (unity with Christ) Both to the world, and our brothers and sisters. (with our brothers and sisters )

Rather than having the Spirits testimony of us, we need the communions testimony of us. (It is a physical proclamation that we are one in spirit with each other under the Lord. Yes, where two or three are gathered Christ is there. But this is the acknowledgement that Christ is within us, moreover, we are within Christ as One.)

He didn't say that, you know. What he was saying is that it is a unique experience of closeness to the Savior that being aware that he is always in charge, always caring about us, etc. is not. This is entirely understandable, IMO.

All this is only accomplished though communion.

I don't remember that being said, but this is the unique and only worship format that Jesus established for his followers to use, other than prayer, praise, and singing taken separately.

 

[BreadAlone]

You are correct, that is the Lutheran position.

I am just not so quick to jump to any conlcusions regarding what exactly - or how exactly - the actual presence of Christ all entails.

Well...the Lutheran position is that they do become Christ's flesh and blood in the same way as Catholics think EXCEPT THAT--as you noted--the bread and wine do not cease to be. There is, therefore, no change-over, which is Transubstantiation. It is not, however, the same kind of presence as with "Where two or three...."

It is not my place to tell you what you believe, but it is somewhat important to me to note for this discussion that probably most Evangelical Protestants DO (quite to the contrary of what the OP suggested) believe in the RP. Either that or the author of the OP meant to confine the term used (evangelical) to Baptists. (that's a partial joke, folks.)

 

[Anoetos]

Aren't we getting a bit far afield here?

Leaving aside for the moment disquisitions about the differences and similarities in mode between the various views of the real presence, the OP asked if those Protestants who disbelieved the RP believed that the ECF's were mistaken in their apparently unanimous belief that in the Eucharist believers receive the true Body and Blood of Christ.

Numerous quotations were given from prominent ECF's demonstrating their assent to the same.

This is, really, the only question the OP asks, but it does give rise to a couple connected questions as well.

[Since the mode of this Real Presence was not something that became an issue until much later than the period we are surveying for evidence, it becomes a tangent and a distraction.]

The central question:

1. Were those who believed in the Real Presence mistaken?

The attendant questions appear to be:

1. Is the claim of unanimity in the early church if not demonstrable at least worthy of honest assumption?

And,

2. If not, can it be demonstrated that there were prominent voices from the era who dissented?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Let's look at what Jesus said (read the words):



"Now as they were eating , Jesus took BREAD (what does He say here? Does bread mean bread?) and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take and eat, this is (what did He say here? Did He say "converted?" Did He say, "an alchemic transubstantiation just happened?" To quote President Clinton, it all depends on what the meaning of is is. Does is mean is here?) My Body.(does body mean body?)' And He took the cup (cup means wine. Does it say, "an Aristotelian Accident of wine continued?") and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them saying, "Drink of this cup all of you, for this is (what did He say here? Did He say "just converted into?" Did He say, "an alchemic transubstantiation just happened?) My Blood (does he mean what he said?) which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you the truth, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (this means wine) again until that day when I drink it (referring back to "fruit of the vine") in my Father's Kingdom."


Some notes:

1. BEFORE the consecration, Jesus speaks of bread and wine. Catholics agree bread means bread and wine means wine.

2. Jesus then speak of "is." He does NOT say "converts" or "changed into" or "an alchemic transubstantiation happened" rather He says "is." Historically, Christians have affirmed that the meaning of is is is. OBVIOUSLY a mystery exists here - but for many Christians, that's okay. For Medieval, western Catholic Scholastics, some "explanation" in accord with popular secular concepts of the day was needed, thus "transubstantiation" was developed.

3. AFTER the consecration, Jesus speaks of Body (which Catholics understand as body), Blood (which Catholics understand as blood) and wine (which Catholics oddly now entirely and completely shift gears. To this point, they have taken the words literally and "at face value." But now they entirely shift gears BUT ONLY FOR THIS SINGLE WORD - not any of the other words before or after. This "wine" doesn't mean wine, it means the Aristotelian accident of wine - a very symbolic interpretation of a single word ripped out of a sentence where every other word is taken literally and. It is a "half real, half not" split interpretation.





Now, let's look at what St. Paul penned by divine inspiration in First Corinthians 11:23-29:

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you. That the Lord Jesus Christ on the night when He was betrayed , took bread (Catholics agree that bread = bread) and when He had given thanks, He broke it (bread) and said, "This is (note He said "is" not "converted into" not "changed into" not "an alchemic transubstantiation just happened) My body (Catholics agree that body = body) which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me. In the same manner, He also took the cup (which Catholics agree means wine) after supper saying, "This cup (wine) is (is, not just converted, an alchemic transubstantiation just happened) my blood (Catholics agree blood = blood). Do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as you eat this bread (note Jesus said BREAD - the exact same word He used before that Catholics teach means bread, but now they again suddenly and radically shift gears, all has been literal so far but now a single word is ripped out and given a symbolic "non real" interpretation using Aristotle's theory of accidents to dismiss what Jesus said. NO! Jesus said bread, Catholics agree, but that's not what He meant to say, what He MEANT to say was, "this BODY still has the Aristotelian Accident of bread but it's not bread so I don't know why I said bread, I didn't mean to") and drink this cup (Catholics told us that cup = wine, but now they've changed it - it really means blood) you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread (notice: Paul refers to BREAD more often AFTER the Consecration than he does before it!!!!! Same word. But Catholics insist Paul really MEANT to say "Body with the mere Aristotelian Accident or appearance or specie of bread but not really bread") or drinks this cup (earlier Catholics insisted that cup = wine) in an unworthly manner will be guilty of profaning the body (Catholics now entirely abandon all efforts to interpret things symbolically and via Aristotle's Theory of Accidents and arbitrarily completely shift all gears, and insist that body = body) and blood (Catholics are back to literalism and have forgotten all about Aristotle, we're back to blood = blood) of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread (Catholics now forget about being literal and suddenly remember Aristotle again!!! OBVIOUSLY bread does not mean bread, when Jesus says bread He means the mere Aristotelian accident of bread cuz it's not bread) and drink of the cup (Catholic are back to the Aristotelian symbolic meanings now) . For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body (Actually, this isn't about symbolic Aristotelian accidents and appearance or species - Jesus means what He says! Body - body!") eats and drinks judgement on himself."


Notes:

1. Paul speaks FAR MORE of bread and wine AFTER the Consecration than he does before it.

2. Paul says NOTHING about "change" or alchemy or Aristotle or transubstantiation. He speaks of 2 things before the consecration, 4 things after it.



The Lutheran, Orthodox, and pre 1215 Catholic position simply accepts what Jesus actually said and Paul specifically penned. Literally, at "face value." And leaves all the questions alone since the texts simply don't answer them. What results is the Mystery of Real Presence. One denomination just couldn't do that - and so invented Transubstantiation.




I hope that helps.



.

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

Hi

this is a question for any Protestants here, especially if you don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

do you consider it important/significant that the early Church believed in the Eucharist? or do you hold the opinion that the early Church was mistaken? Just wondering. thanks

i believe what i have is every bit as genuine and real as what the apostles had -- regardless of whether i believe in transubstantiation. Jesus is just as 'real' to me through communion as he is to you.

go cards

 

[Albion]

Aren't we getting a bit far afield here?

Leaving aside for the moment disquisitions about the differences and similarities in mode between the various views of the real presence, the OP asked if those Protestants who disbelieved the RP believed that the ECF's were mistaken in their nearly unanimous belief that in the Eucharist believers receive the true Body and Blood of Christ.

I get you, but in fact the OP did NOT ask that. It asked how evangelical Protestants feel about the view of the early "Church." Some may identify the Apostolic Church or "early Church" with the comments of a handful of vaguely-defined early commentators, but I am sure that the evangelical Protestants, to whom the question was asked, do not.

The central question:

1. Were those who believed in the Real Presence mistaken?

Do you actually mean to ask about Transubstantiation? It is our conclusion that this is what the OP intended when using the term Real Presence. It does matter a great deal to the question which of these the inquiry concerns.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Aren't we getting a bit far afield here?

No. We're getting to the core of the situation. Actually, the RCC's dogma that is NOT in accord with even it's OWN "fathers."

IF your implication is correct and it's wrong to go against the RCC's own "fathers" then the RCC is just as wrong as those "Evangelical Protestants." BOTH have dogmas that the RCC denomination's "fathers" never taught. IMHO, your attempt to somehow rebuke "Evangelicals" equally rebukes the RCC (well, since 1551 anyway).




.

 

[Anoetos]

I get you, but in fact the OP did NOT ask that. It asked how evangelical Protestants feel about the view of the early "Church." Some may identify the Apostolic Church or "early Church" with the comments of a handful of vaguely-defined early commentators, but I am sure that the evangelical Protestants, to whom the question was asked, do not.

Then I may have misunderstood it. It did seem from the original tenor of the conversation, which the author of the OP was guiding that this was the intent.

Do you actually mean to ask about Transubstantiation?

No, because I do not see that the OP or the quotes from the ECF's marshalled to substantiate the position the OP asks about either mention or imply that particular view. The first mention of "Transubstantiation" appears to have arrived with Josiah's turgid defense of the Lutheran perspective as "something other and yet what more capable of reconciling what the ECF's meant with Scripture" and this despite an attempt by Catholics to present Transubstantiation as a later attempt to cast the belief in philosophical terminology.

 

[Uphill Battle]

i believe what i have is every bit as genuine and real as what the apostles had -- regardless of whether i believe in transubstantiation. Jesus is just as 'real' to me through communion as he is to you.

go cards

 

[Anoetos]

No. We're getting to the core of the situation. Actually, the RCC's dogma that is NOT in accord with even it's OWN "fathers."

IF your implication is correct and it's wrong to go against the RCC's own "fathers" then the RCC is just as wrong as those "Evangelical Protestants." BOTH have dogmas that the RCC denomination's "fathers" never taught. IMHO, your attempt to somehow rebuke "Evangelicals" equally rebukes the RCC (well, since 1551 anyway).




.

Only if you assume beforehand that the importation of Aristotelian philosophical categories is "wrong" because Paul didn't introduce them.

Theological repristination, here, as is usually the case is something of a double edged sword; how much does the Lutheran church do in its praxis which represents a development over time?

 

[Albion]

We've struggled a bit with terms, etc. but I think we're getting close to an answer now.

If we take the OP to mean Transubstantiation, evangelical Protestants of course feel no disconnect from the early Church because that church did not believe in Transubstantiation any more than they do. The question logically should be asked of Catholics rather than Protestants because the former believe in a doctrine that the early Church had no knowledge of.

But if the question were taken at face value: "Evangelical Protestants, what do you think about the RP?" the response has to be "Sure, we -- the majority of evangelical Protestants, that is -- agree to that just as the ECFs quoted have said they did themselves." None of ECFs endorsed Transubstantiation, just the Real Presence.

 

[Anoetos]

And how much of the entire Protestant theological outlook represents a (perhaps self-consciously unconscious) outworking of traditional theological themes and loci according to Nominalist understandings common among educated Northern Europeans in the 16th century?

 

[Trento]

We've struggled a bit with terms, etc. but I think we're getting close to an answer now.

If we take the OP to mean Transubstantiation, evangelical Protestants of course feel no disconnect from the early Church because that church did not believe in Transubstantiation any more than they do. The question logically should be asked of Catholics rather than Protestants because the former believe in a doctrine that the early Church had no knowledge of.

But if the question were taken at face value: "Evangelical Protestants, what do you think about the RP?" the response has to be "Sure, we -- the majority of evangelical Protestants, that is -- agree to that just as the ECFs quoted have said they did themselves." None of ECFs endorsed Transubstantiation, just the Real Presence.

patristic scholar Philip Schaff wrote about the Ante-Nicene patristic period:

In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim . . .

The realistic and mystic view is represented by several fathers and the early liturgies, whose testimony we shall further cite below. They speak in enthusiastic and extravagant terms of the sacrament and sacrifice of the altar. They teach a real presence of the body and blood of Christ, which is included in the very idea of a real sacrifice, and they see in the mystical union of it with the sensible elements a sort of repetition of the incarnation of the Logos. With the act of consecration a change accordingly takes place in the elements, . . ."

(History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, A.D. 311-600, rev. 5th ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rep. 1974, orig. 1910, 492-495)
​

Schaff continues in his next section:

The Catholic church, both Greek and Latin, sees in the Eucharist not only a sacramentum, in which God communicates a grace to believers, but at the same time, and in fact mainly, a sacrificium, in which believers really offer to God that which is represented by the sensible elements. For this view also the church fathers laid the foundation, and it must be conceded they stand in general far more on the Greek and Roman Catholic than on the Protestant side of this question."

(§ 96. "The Sacrifice of the Eucharist")
​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And how much of the entire Protestant theological outlook represents a (perhaps self-consciously unconscious) outworking of traditional theological themes and loci according to Nominalist understandings common among educated Northern Europeans in the 16th century?

:o
LLOJ once again heads for the dictionary........

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Only if you assume beforehand that the importation of Aristotelian philosophical categories is "wrong" because Paul didn't introduce them.

Were did I say Aristotle was wrong? The point is, in 1551, the RCC made his theory a dogma. Now, did the RCC's own "fathers" teach this theory as dogma? Or at all in reference to the Holy Eucharist? Because, if not, then the RCC is just as "wrong" for dogma never taught by the RCC's own "fathers" as Evangelical Protestants are.

It seems absurd to ME to rebuke Protestants for a dogma the RCC's own "fathers" didn't teach in refernce to the Eucharist while defending the RCC for a dogma that the RCC's own "fathers" never taught.


Lutherans have no dogma about the mystery. We simply embrace the mystery of Real Presence. The same is true of pre-1215 Catholicism and of current day Orthodoxy. The Catholic Church (since 1551) is unique and singular in its new dogma of Transubstantiation. It's own "fathers" never taught it (as they never taught symbolic presense).

The opening poster, in his attempt to rebuke Evangelical Protestants, actually ended up equally rebuking the RCC.





.