Do all of the Christians who account themselves "Traditional" in their theology accept that the real presence is a physical reality?

[ViaCrucis]

While I won't say that they can't participate here, I do think belief in the Real Presence, and more generally, a sacramental view, is a major point of demarcation which traditional churches are aligned, in contrast with other types of churches.

I think a belief in the realness of grace in the Sacraments is worth fighting for; because the sacramental is more than just a "perspective on doctrine", it's a world-view that shapes the entire scope of how we practice and engage with our faith--and even how we look at and engage the broader world at large. The God has vested in His creation a sacramental quality whereby created things can share in God's life and divinity by grace.

I was listening to Pastor Jordan Cooper's podcast "Just and Sinner" the other day in which he was speaking about one of the hallmarks of Lutheran Orthodoxy in our affirmation of the Communicatio Idiomatum, the Communication of Attributes between the two natures of Christ; whereby by the union of humanity to Christ's divinity in His Incarnation we affirm and believe that the Divinity communicates attributes with the humanity. The podcast went into a lot of deep Christology, but one of the points Pastor Cooper brought up was that from the Lutheran perspective, in contrast to the Reformed perspective, we believe the finite really can contain, bear, the Infinite: Thus "the fullness of Deity in bodily form" means that the humanity is so fully united to His Divinity that His eternal attributes, such as Majesty, Omnipotence, and Omniscience are truly communicated to His humanity. Here the Lutheran perspective comes into close contact with the Eastern view of the Essence/Energies distinction; such that we do not believe that there is a confusion between the Deity and humanity, but Christ's humanity is fully "deified" by the Divine Energies. This being in sharp contrast of the modern Kenoticist view wherein Christ lost His Divine attributes in the Incarnation, we argue Christ has His Divine attributes even in and through His humanity by the assumption of humanity and the union of humanity to His Divinity.

And, all of this, just to say that this means that, yes, creatures can partake and share in God's life by grace, and the Sacraments mean this very thing, as they are Means of Grace. God's Operative Self is fully present and Self-giving in the Sacraments, and thus His life is diffused into ours. The Infinite God, united to finite humanity; now giving His Full Person, the entire God-Man, to us that we might share and have life in Him, through Him, and by Him.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

As a former Lutheran, Lutherans would also argue for a Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ "with, in, and under" the bread and wine. These are two quotes from the Formula of Concord - Epitome

VII. The Lord's Supper.

1 Although the Zwinglian teachers are not to be reckoned among the theologians who affiliate with [acknowledge and profess] the Augsburg Confession, as they separated from them at the very time when this Confession was presented, nevertheless, since they are intruding themselves [into their...

bookofconcord.org

2. We believe, teach, and confess that the words of the testament of Christ are not to be understood otherwise than as they read, according to the letter, so that the bread does not signify the absent body and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that, on account of the sacramental union, they [the bread and wine] are truly the body and blood of Christ.

6. We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles; for it is written Mark 14:23: And they all drank of it. St. Paul likewise says, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? that is: He who eats this bread eats the body of Christ, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, unanimously testify.

Yep. Luther famously scratched into the table at Marburg when he met with Zwingli the Latin words "hoc est", "this is". That it is His body and blood, was a firm and solid line on which there could be no compromise. Jesus said "this is", that's that, He said it, on this we either believe Him or else we deny Him. If Zwingli rejected that, then there could be no unity between them.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Regarding Christ's omnipresence, the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is present in a unique and special way in the Eucharist, which is considered to be the real presence of his body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine. This is based on the belief that at the Last Supper, Christ instituted the Eucharist and commanded his disciples to "do this in memory of me" (Luke 22:19).

However, Catholic theology also recognizes that Christ is present in other ways, such as through his word in Scripture, in the sacraments, and in the Church community. While Christ is not physically present in all places at all times, Catholics believe that he is spiritually present everywhere, sustaining and guiding the universe through his divine power.

Now I need to give some consideration to the proper way to understand the last paragraph.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Okay, I have given it some thought and have this to add by way of explanation.

• The Catechism states that Christ is present in the Eucharist in a unique and substantial way: "In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist 'the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained'" (CCC 1374).
• "Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2: "In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say... because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ, and by living with the desire for some other novelty." (CCC 65).
• There will be no further Revelation: (CCC 66-67).
• The Catechism affirms that Christ is present in the sacraments, which are "efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church" (CCC 1131). The sacraments confer grace through the action of the Holy Spirit and signify the presence of Christ, who is the source and summit of the Church's life.
• The Catechism also teaches that Christ is present in the Church, which is his Body: "The Church, in Christ, is like a sacrament - a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all people. The Church's first purpose is to be the sacrament of the inner union of men with God. Because men's communion with one another is rooted in that union with God, the Church is also the sacrament of the unity of the human race. In her, this unity is already begun, since she gathers men 'from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues'; at the same time, the Church is the 'sign and instrument' of the full realization of the unity yet to come" (CCC 775). Christ is the Head of the Church, and the Church extends his saving mission to all people.

 

[hedrick]

Regarding Christ's omnipresence, the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is present in a unique and special way in the Eucharist, which is considered to be the real presence of his body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine. This is based on the belief that at the Last Supper, Christ instituted the Eucharist and commanded his disciples to "do this in memory of me" (Luke 22:19).

However, Catholic theology also recognizes that Christ is present in other ways, such as through his word in Scripture, in the sacraments, and in the Church community. While Christ is not physically present in all places at all times, Catholics believe that he is spiritually present everywhere, sustaining and guiding the universe through his divine power.

Now I need to give some consideration to the proper way to understand the last paragraph.

This and your next post would be acceptable to many Protestants. It’s not Christ’s presence that is controversial, but the absence of the bread and wine.

 

[concretecamper]

Not a spin I have ever seen either a Catholic or an Orthodox put on their participation in the Lord's supper.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, however wayward or odd it is.

 

[concretecamper]

Christ said "is". He didn't say "in the bread" or "under the bread" or "overshadowing the bread" or any other possibility.

He said "This IS My Body". The substance changes. Believe what Jesus said. It is what has been taught by the Church since the beginning.

 

[hedrick]

Christ said "is". He didn't say "in the bread" or "under the bread" or "overshadowing the bread" or any other possibility.

He said "This IS My Body". The substance changes. Believe what Jesus said. It is what has been taught by the Church since the beginning.

Something can be two things at once. Calvin saw an analogy with the Incarnation.

 

[concretecamper]

Something can be two things at once. Calvin saw an analogy with the Incarnation.

or, something can appear to be what it is not.

Your answer can be true, but imo, it is not consistent with what Jesus said.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This and your next post would be acceptable to many Protestants. It’s not Christ’s presence that is controversial, but the absence of the bread and wine.

The real absence of bread & wine?

 

[FireDragon76]

The problem with that is that by "participating" in Christ's sacrifice in any way, you are earning merit for your forgiveness, thereby sharing in and diminishing Christ's role in your redemption. . .contra-NT.

We only receive, through faith alone, we do not participate in its merit in any way, unless by "participating" you mean "receiving," which is confusing.

If you don't participate in the chief sign of Christ's sacrifice, how are you receiving the benefits of his sacrifice?

It's much more tangible than simply saying "your sins are forgiven". Sure, one doesn't make the other one untrue or unreal, but human beings are not merely "heads on sticks".

 

[Clare73]

If you don't participate in the chief sign of Christ's sacrifice, how are you receiving the benefits of his sacrifice?

It's much more tangible than simply saying "your sins are forgiven". Sure, one doesn't make the other one untrue or unreal, but human beings are not merely "heads on sticks".

Participate can be in the performance of, or in the benefits of.

We participate in the benefits of in the same way you receive the benefits of food by participating in a meal.

 

[Paidiske]

It's hard to see how participating in the benefits (by God's grace) automatically equates to earning merit.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Is Jesus' body and blood OBJECTIVELY present in the bread and wine?

This question can be answered by posing this question: Do the unworthy (unbelievers) receive the body and blood of Jesus if they participate in the Lord's Supper? If the answer is "Yes" then the words of Scripture are objectively true. If on the other hand, when MY FAITH makes the body and blood present in the Sacrament, then Christ's bodily presence "ain't 'dar."

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

IMO the real controversy here is: WHAT KIND OF FIGURE OF SPEECH IS JESUS USING when he says "This is my body." It is not a metaphor nor metonymy. It is Synecdoche where a part is substituted for the whole and vise versa. The "this" which is bread is substituted as the whole of Christ. Simple.

In all cases, the real presence remains intact due to this figure of speech.

 

[hedrick]

Is Jesus' body and blood OBJECTIVELY present in the bread and wine?

This question can be answered by posing this question: Do the unworthy (unbelievers) receive the body and blood of Jesus if they participate in the Lord's Supper? If the answer is "Yes" then the words of Scripture are objectively true. If on the other hand, when MY FAITH makes the body and blood present in the Sacrament, then Christ's bodily presence "ain't 'dar."

The distinction may not be so clear. You can say the body is there but unbelievers don’t receive it.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The distinction may not be so clear. You can say the body is there but unbelievers don’t receive it.

I do not understand the statement. Please clarify.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Something can be two things at once.

Something can be two things at once. Calvin saw an analogy with the Incarnation.

Wrong. The Incarnation is not TWO PERSONS AND TWO NATURES. This would be two things at once. The Incarnation is ONE PERSON AND TWO NATURES which is NOT two things at once.

 

[hedrick]

I do not understand the statement. Please clarify.

The posting to which I responded says you judge whether someone believes in the objective presence of Christ by asking whether nonbelievers receive him. I pointed out that one can believe that Christ is objective present but still think that non-believers don't receive him.

If Christ is physically present and reception is limited to physically eating him, then I suppose non-believers receive him. But not everyone believes both of those things.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I pointed out that one can believe that Christ is objective present but still think that non-believers don't receive him.

If Christ is physically present and reception is limited to physically eating him, then I suppose non-believers receive him.

Receptionism can lead to a dark place. Unbelief=non presence. Belief=actual presence.

The question is begged: Are the words of Jesus true regardless of faith?