communion

[d0c markus]

what makes communion symbolic? What exactly does transubstantiation mean. (i ask here because i want to be able to examine and post in light of scripture. not really debate)

 

[Lotar]

As far as I know, there are 4 major views on this; transubstantiation, consubstantiation, Calvin's view of spiritual presence (don't know the name), and purely symbolic.

Consubstantiation:
That the body and blood of Christ coexists with the bread and wine. So it is the body and blood of Christ, but it is also bread and wine.

Transubstantiation:
The bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ. It is no longer bread and wine, but it still appears to be.

Calvin's view:
I have no idea

Symbolic:
The bread and wine symbolize the body and blood of Christ.

 

[d0c markus]

Con was luthers view no? He rejected trans because he thought it was pagan, and i think i read something about metaphysics... anybody know what this is?

 

[Lotar]

Luther believed in consubstantiation, though neither he nor Lutherans call it that. Anglicans also believe it. I believe that Luther rejected the adoration, I don't think he ever said anything about transubstantiation being pagan. The reasoning behind consubstantiation is that the bible doesn't say that it represents Him or that it changes into Him, it says that it is Him.

 

[d0c markus]

Luther Categorically rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, which he saw as unduly tied to Aristoelian- and therefore pagan-metaphysics

The Story of Christianity: Vol 2 The Reformation to the Present Day by Justo Gonzalez.

 

[d0c markus]

Aristoelian is a fancy word meaning a follower of aristotle. And Metaphysics explained as per Dictionary.com (gotta love that site)

metaphysics
\Met`a*phys"ics\, n. [Gr. ? ? ? after those things which relate to external nature, after physics, fr. ? beyond, after + ? relating to external nature, natural, physical, fr. ? nature: cf. F. m['e]taphysique. See Physics. The term was first used by the followers of Aristotle as a name for that part of his writings which came after, or followed, the part which treated of physics.] 1. The science of real as distinguished from phenomenal being; ontology; also, the science of being, with reference to its abstract and universal conditions, as distinguished from the science of determined or concrete being; the science of the conceptions and relations which are necessarily implied as true of every kind of being; phylosophy in general; first principles, or the science of first principles.

 

[Lotar]

Learn something new every day

 

[d0c markus]

Well in any case, we will figure luthers beef later.

As i am reading Matthew 26

MT 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

MT 26:27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

it seems like you would take it literally until you get to v.29 where he specifically identifies the drink, it is wine, the fruit of the vine, which hadn't transformed at all. This to me indicates that it is symbolic therefore you would also have to take the body as being symbolic to be consistent. Also Jesus instructs the disciples to "drink from it all of you" which is something the catholic church (in my experience) denies its people.

 

[Lotar]

it seems like you would take it literally until you get to v.29 where he specifically identifies the drink, it is wine, the fruit of the vine, which hadn't transformed at all. This to me indicates that it is symbolic therefore you would also have to take the body as being symbolic to be consistent.

Or it could mean it is both

Also Jesus instructs the disciples to "drink from it all of you" which is something the catholic church (in my experience) denies its people.

Catholics drink the wine.

 

[d0c markus]

Not at the masses i attended.. You were given the communion waffer the wine was reserved for the preists.

 

[JVAC]

The reason Luther so opposed the transubstantiation was, firstly he viewed it as an abuse by the Church of Rome. Thomas Aquinas used 'Aristotelian' logic to try and reason out his theory of 'transubstantiation'. The Church forced everyone to believe this doctrine, even though it was at best a theory. It can't be proven or disproven, and Luther wanted that to be recognized. He delves into this in the "Babylonian Captivity" writing.

Also Luther had problems with transubstantiation because he thought it was wrong. He preferred what he called "consubstantiation" (even though that wasn't the name he was naming it, he was merely playing with words, like Aquinas). Luther reasoned consubstantiation through mistranslations. He shows in the "Babylonian Captivity" this in greater detail. If you want me to post it, let me know.

The main fight here was, even though Luther held the consubstantiation to be most true, he didn't want the Church dictating what people ought to believe, when it cannot be proven. "Real Pressence" is the important thing and how that presence is manifested will remain conjecture and at best, theory.

Luther just had big beef with Aquinas. I want to check out Aquinas' logic more, but Luther holds it to be very falicious, and he even claims that Aquinas doesn't even rightly understand Aristotle who he was emulating.

The Lutheran Church holds to "Real Presence" and will not limit the believer to how that is manifested, yet as Lotar said, most if not all Lutherans view it more like consubstantiation, however, we will not say transubstantiation is wrong, for they are both good theories (which cannot be proven or unproven) of the manifesting of the "Real Presence".

 

[d0c markus]

Very Interesting, and yes please post more.. dont withhold for the sake of truth... also where can i get a copy of the babylonian captivity

 

[JVAC]

Catholics can drink from the Chalice, but most refrain because of germs.

 

[d0c markus]

Learn something new every day

 

[JVAC]

You can either get a copy from the local book store or library. I don't know if it is on the internet. Most of the time you will find it compiled with other Luther writings. I will quote him later tonight, give me an hour and a half.

 

[Andrew]

dOc markus,

you may want to check this out:
http://sg.geocities.com/saltandlight5/communion.html

 

[d0c markus]

No Problem, i will be in bed by then but will definitly check it after my psychology class.. (which is so boring )

 

[JVAC]

I type here for Consubstantiation, I will type later about his argument with Aquinas which precedes this.



For consubstantiation:

But let us not carry on our dialectics too long: does it not seem that Christ used plain words in anticipation of these curious ideas? He did not say of the wine, “This substance is my blood, but “This is my blood”. It was still clearer when He introduced the word “cup” and said, “This is the cup of the new testament in my blood.” Does he not seem to have wished us to continue in simple faith, and believe only that His blood was in the cup. When I fail to understand how bread can be the body of Christ, I, for one, will take my understanding prisoner and bring it into obedience to Christ; and, holding fast with a simple mind to His words, I will firmly believe, not only that the body of Christ is in the bread, but that the bread is the body of Christ. My warrant is in the words which say, “He took bread and gave thanks and brake it, and said, Take, eat, this” (i.e., this bread which He had taken and broken) “is my body”. Paul says: “The bread which we break, is it not participation in the body of Christ?” He does not say: “It is in the bread”, but, “this bread is participation in the body of Christ.” What if the philosophers do not grasp it? The Holy Spirit is greater than Aristotle. How can the Romanists maintain that their fine doctrine of transubstantiation is comprised in any system of philosophy at all, when they themselves confess that here all philosophy falls short? However that may be in Greek or Latin, the possessive adjective “this” is linked to “body” by identity of gender; in Hebrew, which has no neuter gender, “this” refers to the bread. The meaning in Hebrew is: “This (bread) is my body”, when Jesus said: “This is my body”. The idiom of the language and also common sense show that the subject indicated by Jesus was the bread, and not His body, i.e., when Jesus said, “This is my body”, He meant, “this bread is my body”

Excerpt “Babylonian Captivity” Martin Luther

 

[JVAC]

Upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation enforced by the Church:

The second shackle imposed on this sacrament is less serious as regards our conscience, but far more perilous to discuss and yet worse to condemn. Here I shall be called a Wycliffite and six hundred times a heretic. But what does it matter? Now that the Romish bishop has ceased to be a bishop and has become a dictator, I fear none of his decrees at all; for I know that he has no power to make a new article of faith, nor has a general council. Some time ago, when I was studying scholastic theology, I was greatly impressed by Dr. Pierre d’Ailly, cardinal of Cambrai. He discussed the fourth book of the Sententiae very acutely, and said it was far more likely, and required the presupposition of fewer miracles, if one regarded the bread and wine on the altar as real bread and wine, and not their mere accidents – had not the church determined otherwise. Afterwards, when I saw what was the kind of church which had reached this conclusion, namely, the Thomist, or Aristotelian church, I gained more courage. At last, after hesitating between conflicting opinions, I found peace in my conscience in accepting the earlier opinion, viz., that the true flesh and the true blood of Christ were in the true bread and true wine, and this not otherwise, nor less, than the Thomists regard them as under the accidents. I adopted this view, because I saw that the pinions of the Thomists, even though approved by pope and council, remained opinions still, but is not to be believed of necessity. This opinion of Thomas’s, being without a basis in Scripture or reason, is so uncertain that it seemed to me as if he understood neither his philosophy nor his logic. Aristotle speaks of accidents and their subject very differently from St. Thomas. I feel we ought to be sorry for so great a man, not only for drawing his views from Aristotle in matters of faith, but also for attempting to found them upon a man whom he did not understand, thus building an unfortunate superstructure on an unfortunate foundation.

I would therefore allow anyone to hold whichever opinion he prefers. The only thing I aim at for the Present is to banish scruples of conscience, so that no one may fear being called a heretic if he believes tha the bread and wine on the altar are real bread and real wine. Let him understand that, without endangering his soul’s salvation, he may believe and think and opine either the one or the other, because no particular view is a necessary article of faith.



…



2. Moreover, they can neither prove their own contentions, nor disprove the opposeite, nor do other than say: “That is Wycliffite, Hussite, or heretical.” They carry this feeble objection always on the tip of their tongues, but nothing else. If you ask for a scriptural proof, they reply: “That is our opinion, and the church (i.e. ourselves) has decreed it so.” That shows the extent to which men of reprobate faith, unworthy to be believed, not only propound to us their own imaginations as articles of faith, but do so under the authority of the church.

There is very good reason, however, for my standpoint. Firstly, that the word of God does not need to be forced in any way by either men or angels. Rather, its plainest meanings are to be preserved; and, unless the context manifestly compels one to do otherwise, the words are not to be understood apart from their proper and literal sense, lest occasion be given to our adversaries to evade Scripture as a whole. This is why Origen was rightly repudiated long ago; he made allegories out of the trees and all else described in Paradise, and ignored the plain, literal sense. One might have inferred from what he said that God had not created trees. Similarly, in the second place, in regard to our special subject, the evangelists plainly record that Christ took bread and blessed it; the book of Acts and the apostle Paul call it bread; therefore we are intended to understand it means real bread; and so also true wine, and a true chalice. Even our opponents do not say that the chalice is changed. Since, therefore, it is not necessary to assume that divine power effected a transubstantiation , this must be regarded as a human invention, because it is not supported by Scripture or reason, as we shall see.



…



For over 1,200 years the church remained orthodox. On no transubstantiation – monstrous whether as a locution or as an idea – until the specious philosophy of Aristotle took root in the church, and attained a rank growth in the last 300 years. During this time, many other perverse conclusions were arrived at. Examples are: “That the divine Being is not begotten, nor does it beget”; “That the soul is the form to which the human body corresponds as the substance”; and the like. These assertions are made without any reason or ground, as the cardinal of Cambrai himself acknowledges.



Excerpt “Babylonian Captivity” Martin Luther

He continues on this at great length, I do not wish to type more, nor do I feel it appropriate. I hope this tantalized you to seek to read more.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Also Jesus instructs the disciples to "drink from it all of you" which is something the catholic church (in my experience) denies its people.

d0c markus: Do you really have to slam Catholics every chance you get? I see a lot of that from you and it really is uncalled for. There was not a need to mention what they do at mass when the discussion is about the substantiation doctrines. It is was off topic and a cheap shot. And yes, they do offer wine at communion for their parishoners.

I find myself being on the symbolic side of things here with a strong leaning towards consubstantiation. The problem is that I cannot decide which makes more sense scripturally! This is one I have been debating with myself for a long while now and will probably continue for another long while.