Being "Biblical" Is not Enough.

[Erose]

It seems to me, it is ambiguous: when you are dealing with a mystery, Aristotle's logic is a poor tool. Fr. Schmemann even goes further, agreeing with the Anglicans and Reformed that transubstantiation actually abolishes sacramental theology, since the bread and wine no longer participate in the Body and Blood of Christ as bread and wine, because they no longer exist.

Well on that I can’t help you. St. Ambrose didn’t use Aristotle’s logic in his definition, and you know what Aristotle‘s logic or science wasn’t used in the definition at Trent.

Anyway, perhaps another thread needs to be made on this if you want to keep this debate up.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well no where in Scripture nor in this passage does it use the language of ”in, with and under”; nor does it ever refer to the Eucharist as some type of spiritual meatloaf. AND do not forget that while Jesus was still performing His earthly ministry, He referred to Himself as the Bread from Heaven, and that His flesh is the bread from heaven. See John Ch 6.

AND the doctrine of Transubstantiation does not require Aristotelian philosophy to understand. In fact even the term Transubstantiation predates the reintroduction of Aristotle to Europe. Have there been theologians to apply AP to the definition of Transubstantiation? Yes, and they are not wrong in their application; but AP isn’t needed and hasn’t been used in any of the Ecumenical Councils teachings of the Dogma.

Nor does Scripture use the term "transubstantiation"; which is, BTW, at odds with the Scripture I quoted.

BTW, I am glad to find out that Aristotle, who originated such a logical approach as employed by Thomas Aquinas, is a Christian. Good to know.

 

[Erose]

Nor does Scripture use the term "transubstantiation"; which is, BTW, at odds with the Scripture I quoted.

BTW, I am glad to find out that Aristotle, who originated such a logical approach as employed by Thomas Aquinas, is a Christian. Good to know.

Scripture doesn't use Trinity, nor do I think it uses the term Incarnation either. So what is the point.

I'm not sure the infatuation you guys have with Aristotle. But the official documents of the Church doesn't use Aristotelian science in its definitions. The official definition of Transubstantiation is after the consecration, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, substantially. But we still only see, taste and touch what looks like bread and wine.

Session 13 of the Council of Trent provides the dogmatic understanding:

CHAPTER IV.

On Transubstantiation.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.


Aristotelian terms of substance and accidents (I prefer physical properties) are helpful in clarifying the definition in a sense, but it is not necessary.

So using Aristotelian terms at consecration the bread and wine's substance (what it is) becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, but its physical properties (accidents or what we physically experience) remains those of bread and wine. I don't have an issue with the Scholastic's definition, and not sure what all the hoopla is concerning its use, but whatever.

 

[Erose]

The Orthodox do reject that our Lord is in, with and under the species of bread and wine. Indeed I would say this is regarded as a more serious error than transubstantiation, which actually is not so much an error as not doctrine, an unpopular theolougoumemnon (theological opinion) which once held sway in some Orthodox churches due to Jesuit and pre-Jesuit contact with the Roman Catholics.

Yeah, that is what was pointed out on a previous thread a few years ago, when someone wanted to claim that the Lutheran Church and Orthodox had the exact same understanding of the Real Presence. But I'm not here to defend the Orthodox's theology, unless it coincides with my Church's position, and I know it to be the case.

Oddly enough, from my years discussing this issue with Orthodox Christians, their disagreement with the doctrine is two fold:
A) The use of a theological term, that they don't use.
B) A misguided belief that the dogma of transubstantiation explains the "how this happens"; which it doesn't; unless it is to say by the Power of the Holy Spirit, which they would agree with.

Where the Orthodox tend to agree with Lutherans rather is in the idea that the Eucharist is a sacred mystery that cannot be fully comprehended. “in with and under” falls into the same category as transubstantiation, as being inadequete, but also seems to clash with, for example, the reservation of the presanctified Eucharist.

A think all Churches that teach the Real Presence hold to the fact that the Blessed Sacrament is a mystery, just like all the other Sacraments. The Catholic Church has never assumed otherwise; and like all other mysteries, definitions only touch the surface of the doctrine. We use terms such as Trinity and Incarnation, but neither are good identifiers for what is entailed in the doctrine that they name.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Scripture doesn't use Trinity, nor do I think it uses the term Incarnation either. So what is the point.

I'm not sure the infatuation you guys have with Aristotle. But the official documents of the Church doesn't use Aristotelian science in its definitions. The official definition of Transubstantiation is after the consecration, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, substantially. But we still only see, taste and touch what looks like bread and wine.

Session 13 of the Council of Trent provides the dogmatic understanding:

CHAPTER IV.

On Transubstantiation.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.


Aristotelian terms of substance and accidents (I prefer physical properties) are helpful in clarifying the definition in a sense, but it is not necessary.

So using Aristotelian terms at consecration the bread and wine's substance (what it is) becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, but its physical properties (accidents or what we physically experience) remains those of bread and wine. I don't have an issue with the Scholastic's definition, and not sure what all the hoopla is concerning its use, but whatever.

Come on now; what kind of a fool do you take me for?? If you recall, you used the same defense against my post concerning Luther's explanation of In, With and Under the bread and wine.

I do stand by my position; Scripture calls it both, therefore it must be both. Not consubstantiation which implies the two being once substance (as in the Creed), rather it does not even attempt to explain the mystery. Aquinas, on the other hand, presumes to know the mind of God.

When you use scripture it's fine, when others use it you tell us it's wrong... Do you know the mind of God? I don't. It is and it remains a mystery.

Make up your mind.

 

[Erose]

Come on now; what kind of a fool do you take me for?? If you recall, you used the same defense against my post concerning Luther's explanation of In, With and Under the bread and wine.

I do stand by my position; Scripture calls it both, therefore it must be both. Not consubstantiation which implies the two being once substance (as in the Creed), rather it does not even attempt to explain the mystery. Aquinas, on the other hand, presumes to know the mind of God.

When you use scripture it's fine, when others use it you tell us it's wrong... Do you know the mind of God? I don't. It is and it remains a mystery.

Make up your mind.

What a strange reply. A) Aquinas did not originate the term, so I’m not sure why you are bringing him into this. B) Scripture calls it both, because substantially it is the Body and Blood of Christ, but physical perception still experiences bread and wine. C.) You are the one making a truth-claim from Scripture and claiming I’m not correctly interpreting it. Which is fine, but please don’t do the “pot calling the kettle black” routine.

On this topic I have one question though. In the case of Transubstantiation one could say something does remain of the bread and wine, which would be their physical properties, or accidents (using Aristotelian verbiage); is this what is meant by the Lutheran position? Or is the Lutheran position that there is something substantially remaining from the bread and wine?

On a side not there is few questions I’m curious about though, if you will give me just a little bit more leeway, before you loose patience with me.

A. Concerning Lutheran understanding, when does the bread and wine become the Body and Blood?
B. When does it cease being the Body and Blood if it ever does?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

What a strange reply. A) Aquinas did not originate the term, so I’m not sure why you are bringing him into this. B) Scripture calls it both, because substantially it is the Body and Blood of Christ, but physical perception still experiences bread and wine. C.) You are the one making a truth-claim from Scripture and claiming I’m not correctly interpreting it. Which is fine, but please don’t do the “pot calling the kettle black” routine.

On this topic I have one question though. In the case of Transubstantiation one could say something does remain of the bread and wine, which would be their physical properties, or accidents (using Aristotelian verbiage); is this what is meant by the Lutheran position? Or is the Lutheran position that there is something substantially remaining from the bread and wine?

On a side not there is few questions I’m curious about though, if you will give me just a little bit more leeway, before you loose patience with me.

A. Concerning Lutheran understanding, when does the bread and wine become the Body and Blood?
B. When does it cease being the Body and Blood if it ever does?

Answer to A; the exact moment is a mystery. Most would say within the context of the Mass.
Answer to B; most would agree that it does not; some may say it does, but Scripture does not.

 

[Erose]

Answer to A; the exact moment is a mystery. Most would say within the context of the Mass.
Answer to B; most would agree that it does not; some may say it does, but Scripture does not.

Thank you for the answers Mark. One follow up question and I'll leave you alone on it. What do those that say not within the context of the Mass, say?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thank you for the answers Mark. One follow up question and I'll leave you alone on it. What do those that say not within the context of the Mass, say?

To answer your question, Some are more specific about the moment, similar to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. While the use of Chancel Bells is not common it is not unheard of; more common in some rural areas is the ringing of the tower bell(s) during the "Our Father", people not in Church hear the bells, and can join in the prayer; it also is a reminder that the holy mystery of the Eucharist is following. A good book is called Heaven on Earth by the Rev. Arthur Just is about the most straight forward exposition of the Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist. One thing that we all share is that during the Mass, both time and space are transcended, and heaven and earth come together, as we all say in the prefface; "therefore with angels and archangels and all of the company of heaven we laud and magnify Your glorious Name, evermore praising you and saying....

Heaven on Earth: The Gifts of Christ in the Divine Service - Concordia Publishing House

The liturgy is not a style of worship. The liturgy is the substance of justification as it is brought through means. This book is an introduction to the liturgy and its importance. It takes the liturgy and makes it easy for the layperson to understand tha

www.cph.org

 

[BobRyan]

Now, I don’t agree with all Adventist doctrines and I do not think Adventists should classify themselves as Sola Scriptura, but I recognize Adventists as Christians

We are as Sola Scriptura in our claims, practices and doctrine as was Paul.

But I suspect you are using that term in such a way that even Paul does not qualify in your POV as a "sola scriptura" sort of Christian nor the NT church of scripture as a Sola Scriptura church. Is that the case?

If that is the case -

Then consider the alternative.

Adventists DO consider Paul and the NT church to be perfect examples of a "sola scriptura" organized church where all doctrine is tested by scripture as we see in Acts 17:11 that even Paul himself is tested by it.

Given that as context and definition for the term - it is very logical for Adventists to adopt the "sola scriptura" model where all doctrine is tested against scripture just as it was in the case of the NT church. Just as we see Christ doing in Mark 7:6-13

 

[BobRyan]

If true that’s an unintentional, indeed serendipitous, occasion . I want to challenge people to explore the history, theology and the vast array of beautiful traditions of worship and devotion that define the wonderful, uniquely ethnically and culturally diverse religion that is Christianity.


The Orthodox do not believe in Papal Supremacy (two of the Patriarchs use the style Pope, the Eastern Orthodox Pope of Alexandria and the Coptic Pope of Alexandria, because prior to the Chalcedonian Schism the Bishop of Alexandria had been called Pope since 231 AD, whereas the Bishop of Rome was not styled Pope until the mid 6th century.

The Orthodox do not have Cardinals.

The Orthodox do not pray the Rosary, but some Anglican Protestants do.

The Orthodox, like the Lutherans, believe in the Real Preaence of Christ in the Eucharist but not in the Thomistic Scholastic concept of transubstantiation, which depends on Ariatotelian categories.

But most of what you listed are things some Protestants also do, such as High Church Anglicans, Lutherans, even some Methodists.

Here is an interesting example of an Orthodox ritual where a Catholic is accepted into the Orthodox church by first condemning/renounced a string of Catholic doctrines as being heresy.

Roman Catholic teachings denounced by Orthodox groups?

starting at 35:48 and going up to 1:29:20 we see a long list of things that apparently must be "renounced" publically as in "I renounce this teaching" -- to join certain Orthodox churches. (Which suprised me somewhat). And a lot of those things are specifically stated to be Roman Catholic -...

www.christianforums.com

 

[FireDragon76]

Do you realize most Christians aren't going to be able to follow what you said without having to do a lot of Googling?
I'm talking about Catholic and Orthodox practices, beliefs, traditions and teachings that are familiar to Protestants, in their familiar terms, which they don't hold to. Things such as the veneration of Mary. The venation of saints. Praying to Mary. Lighting candles for the dead. Praying to and for the dead. The Magisterium of the Pope and Cardinals. Holy water. Confessing to a priest to receive absolution. The transubstantiation of the Eucharist. Praying with a Rosary. Basically that which Catholics and Orthodox do that Protestants don't do - because those things, as far as they're concerned, are not found in scripture.

Some Protestants do pray for the dead, such as Anglicans and Lutherans.

 

[FireDragon76]

In addition, many Protestant funerals could be said to have prayers for the dead. Protestants just aren't used to seeing it that way.