Doctrines of "The Real Presence" in the Eucharist

[GreekOrthodox]

This is a discussion about the Real Presence in Traditional Theology, not memorialist views!

Difference churches have various beliefs on the Real Presence:

Roman Catholic - Transubstantiation

Lutheran - Sacramental Union, which is NOT for the love of Pete, CONsubstantiation

Anglican (Oxford Movement) - Consubstantiation

Reformed, low-church Anglican (?) - Spiritual presence

Eastern Orthodox - Metousiosis, there is a change but we're not going to define that change

What are the strengths and weaknesses of each of these doctrines or theories?

 

[seeking.IAM]

The weakness of these doctrines as a whole is the degree to which we have allowed them to divide Christianity. I know that's not exactly what you were looking for, but this was my first reaction to reading your post. Forgive me.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

As a confessional Lutheran, the "Sacramental Union" idea works, but still falls short describing a mystery like the Eucharist. Be mindful, that this description is a result of the Catholics accusing us of protestant teaching and abolishing the Mass, and the Protestants like Zwingli teaching that there was no real presence. In lighe of these circumstances, I can live with Sacramental Union; in reality the EO position is as correct as we can get in this world, and this life. It is a mystery.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The weakness of these doctrines as a whole is the degree to which we have allowed them to divide Christianity. I know that's not exactly what you were looking for, but this was my first reaction to reading your post. Forgive me.

Actually, our position and our practice of closed communion unifies and solidifies our Synod; refreshing when warm and fuzzy compromise and the popular view of universalism seems to be the way of the world. I'm sure that the OP would agree in this point.

 

[Bob Crowley]

There's a fairly good article on Transubstantiation in this link.

Transubstantiation

The following paragraph was lifted from the article.

Our belief in the Holy Eucharist is rooted in Christ Himself. Recall the beautiful words of our Lord in the Bread of Life Discourse in the Gospel of St. John: "I myself am the living bread come down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread he shall live forever; the bread I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. The man who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the Father who has life sent me and I have life because of the Father, so the man who feeds on me will have life because of me" (John 6:51, 53-57). Note that none of this language is symbolic-- Jesus meant what He said. Moreover, even when there was grumbling and objections, and even after some disciples abandoned our Lord because of this teaching, Jesus no where said, "Oh please, stop. I really meant this symbolically." Our Lord stood by His teaching.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

There's a fairly good article on Transubstantiation in this link.

Transubstantiation

The following paragraph was lifted from the article.

Morning (well good evening Bob),
So what are the strengths and weaknesses of transubstantiation? As a Catholic, I expect you to defend it as doctrinal, but from your personal perspective do you see issues with it?

For me, I did come from a Lutheran background so although I do believe in the Orthodox view of "there is a change but we're not going to ever definitively say what that change is", a part of me does have some empathy for the Sacramental Union perspective because at least it does say something

 

[Bob Crowley]

I used to be Protestant (Presbyterian). Long story so I won't go into that now.

Their attitude was that it was symbolic, and we had communion only every three months. Mind you it was a solemn occasion. One of the hymns we sang as part of it was one of the most beautiful that I've heard in church ("Here Now O Lord, I See You Face to Face." There's a choir here singing the song, but there seems to be a bit of echo due to the hard surfaces).

Since becoming Catholic I've grown to accept that somehow when we take the bread and wine (but only after it's been blessed by the priest who asks the Holy Spirit to come upon these gifts and make them holy - before that it's just bread and wine sitting in the cupboard), we partake of Christ's flesh and blood. There's a spiritual force at work.

There have been some miraculous instances where the wafer has taken on elements of human flesh, and specifically heart tissue.

Eucharistic Miracle | Reason To Believe

It's more than just symbolic. When Christ made that statement way back in the upper room, He was God in the flesh. Anything He said echoes right down through eternity ("My words will never die away").

As to exactly what happens I don't know. It's still mysterious, as is just about everything else God does - creating heaven and earth out of nothing; maintaining this sum-zero energy universe so it retains both it's existence and it's nothingness; reading the thoughts, words and actions of nearly 8 billion people similtaneously and forgetting none of them; looking into the future, and into the past; monitoring heaven, hell and purgatory; all the while working towards some colossal plan; while keeping the whole thing hidden etc. etc.

 

[fhansen]

This is a discussion about the Real Presence in Traditional Theology, not memorialist views!

Difference churches have various beliefs on the Real Presence:

Roman Catholic - Transubstantiation

Lutheran - Sacramental Union, which is NOT for the love of Pete, CONsubstantiation

Anglican (Oxford Movement) - Consubstantiation

Reformed, low-church Anglican (?) - Spiritual presence

Eastern Orthodox - Metousiosis, there is a change but we're not going to define that change

What are the strengths and weaknesses of each of these doctrines or theories?

As long as they recognize that a real change takes place, supernaturally, of course, that Jesus is really present in the bread and wine after that, then they're on the same page to begin with. Some definitions seek to explain how it occurs more exhaustively and some less so, but the main point remains the same. One difference still involves whether or not the acting minister is at all involved, as an agent, in realizing the change, and whether or not that agent must necessarily trace this charism back through a continuously connected priestly relationship to the beginnings of the church.

 

[hedrick]

I’ll comment on the Reformed view. As I understand Calvin’s view, it is that Christ’s body can only be in one place, so the Spirit unites us to it.

The Westminster Confession says “Worthy receivers outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.”

Recent writers, even conservative ones, have disagreed on specific ways of describing it. Indeed Westminster is not so clear on just how we receive and feed upon Christ.

It’s not clear to me that “real presence” is a natural expression of this. I think “real experience” might be better. The point being that we actually experience Christ, including his body, in some way. As such it goes further than memorialism.

For Protestants, when you talk about advantages you have to be asking how how well it expresses what is in Scripture. That relates primarily to how you understand Jesus’ “this is my body” and Paul’s discernment of the body. I think “this is my body” is obviously metaphorical, but Paul is describing something more than a memorial. So the sort of intermediate view represented by Reformed seems right.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Morning (well good evening Bob),
So what are the strengths and weaknesses of transubstantiation? As a Catholic, I expect you to defend it as doctrinal, but from your personal perspective do you see issues with it?

In an Aristotelian philosophical framework all transubstantiation means is that what was once bread and wine is now the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Really not much more than that. Outside of an Aristotelian philosophical framework the Aristotelian concept is pretty incomprehensible. So for people who do not have an Aristotelian philosophy, they need another explanation. Transubstantiation just doesn't make sense to a non-Aristotelian.

For me, I did come from a Lutheran background so although I do believe in the Orthodox view of "there is a change but we're not going to ever definitively say what that change is", a part of me does have some empathy for the Sacramental Union perspective because at least it does say something

I think they/we should lock up representatives of all the various real presence theories in a room until they agree. We are close, but in our own little silos.

 

[seeking.IAM]

...I think they/we should lock up representatives of all the various real presence theories in a room until they agree. We are close, but in our own little silos.

Amen.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

In an Aristotelian philosophical framework all transubstantiation means is that what was once bread and wine is now the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Really not much more than that. Outside of an Aristotelian philosophical framework the Aristotelian concept is pretty incomprehensible. So for people who do not have an Aristotelian philosophy, they need another explanation. Transubstantiation just doesn't make sense to a non-Aristotelian.

I think they/we should lock up representatives of all the various real presence theories in a room until they agree. We are close, but in our own little silos.

Once we get that solved, then there are the other issues of "Authority" "Justification" "the third use of the law".......

I'ts going to be a very long lock-down. LOL.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Well at the rate this thread is going, the Second Coming will have come and gone

 

[chevyontheriver]

Once we get that solved, then there are the other issues of "Authority" "Justification" "the third use of the law".......

I'ts going to be a very long lock-down. LOL.

Catholics and Lutherans ‘supposedly’ already solved justification.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well at the rate this thread is going, the Second Coming will have come and gone

I don’t hold out much hope on anything sooner than that. I wish I could ... but it just isn’t there.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

In an Aristotelian philosophical framework all transubstantiation means is that what was once bread and wine is now the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Really not much more than that. Outside of an Aristotelian philosophical framework the Aristotelian concept is pretty incomprehensible. So for people who do not have an Aristotelian philosophy, they need another explanation. Transubstantiation just doesn't make sense to a non-Aristotelian.

I think they/we should lock up representatives of all the various real presence theories in a room until they agree. We are close, but in our own little silos.

So is a Aristotelian framework required and is that the only way it had to be defined?

From my reading of Wikipedia, the term began being used in the 12th century and more formally defined at the Fourth Lateran Council. But it was nailed down first by Aquinas and at Trent.
Transubstantiation - Wikipedia

 

[GreekOrthodox]

As long as they recognize that a real change takes place, supernaturally, of course, that Jesus is really present in the bread and wine after that, then they're on the same page to begin with. Some definitions seek to explain how it occurs more exhaustively and some less so, but the main point remains the same. One difference still involves whether or not the acting minister is at all involved, as an agent, in realizing the change, and whether or not that agent must necessarily trace this charism back through a continuously connected priestly relationship to the beginnings of the church.

The Lutheran definition is from Luther's Small Catechism
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.

 

[fhansen]

The Lutheran definition is from Luther's Small Catechism
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.

Yes, as I understand it Lutheranism teaches that Jesus is truly present in the bread and wine.

 

[PloverWing]

Outside of an Aristotelian philosophical framework the Aristotelian concept is pretty incomprehensible. So for people who do not have an Aristotelian philosophy, they need another explanation. Transubstantiation just doesn't make sense to a non-Aristotelian.

Yes, this is where I get stuck on transubstantiation. I'm not persuaded that things have "substance" (beyond just the atoms they're made of and the language we use to describe them), so it's not meaningful to me to talk about whether the substance changes.

I think they/we should lock up representatives of all the various real presence theories in a room until they agree. We are close, but in our own little silos.

That's an idea!

 

[Albion]

As long as they recognize that a real change takes place, supernaturally, of course, that Jesus is really present in the bread and wine after that, then they're on the same page to begin with. Some definitions seek to explain how it occurs more exhaustively and some less so, but the main point remains the same.

Yes. That probably is the way to put it; and we call the concept "Real Presence."

As for all the "divisions" that were speculated about in the Original Post, we're best off to say they all officially believe in the Real Presence...just as you were saying here.