Doctrines of "The Real Presence" in the Eucharist

[The Liturgist]

This year we did the Vigil on Saturday night; it was a long service but very beautiful; the transition from darkness to light was very moving. Good Friday was the Adoration of the Holy Cross, followed by the stripping of the altar.

Dude you have the best Lutheran parish in North America...

 

[The Liturgist]

While not every Church does this, it is not uncommon for more traditional Lutheran Churches to consecrate bread and wine on Maundy Thursday to be used at a pre-consecrated Mass on Good Friday. We may do this next year as we have a black and gold veil, burse and pall to match our black and gold paraments.
View attachment 300394

How do you do a presanctified liturgy in the LCMS? I would really love to see your rubrics for that. If the wording is akin to that of the Roman Presanctified Mass prior to Pius XII ruining it in 1955 with the changes to the text and to red vestments, it is the same liturgical text that is also used as the basis for the Eastern Orthodox service, and it is attributed to St. Gregory the Great. In the Eastern churches there is also an older text, that was in antiquity used by the Oriental and EO churches, which the Russian Orthodox monastery and seminary in Jordanville celebrated a few years ago.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

How do you do a presanctified liturgy in the LCMS? I would really love to see your rubrics for that. If the wording is akin to that of the Roman Presanctified Mass prior to Pius XII ruining it in 1955 with the changes to the text and to red vestments, it is the same liturgical text that is also used as the basis for the Eastern Orthodox service, and it is attributed to St. Gregory the Great. In the Eastern churches there is also an older text, that was in antiquity used by the Oriental and EO churches, which the Russian Orthodox monastery and seminary in Jordanville celebrated a few years ago.

Well; Lutheran Church Canada, not LCMS LOL.
I have not seen the Rubrics either, but Extra elements would be consecrated at the Maundy Thursday Service, and would be placed veiled, on the Creedence Table for the next day. The service would likely follow the patern of the Good Friday service including black paraments, and veiled Crucifix and processional Cross; before the service the consecrated elements would be veiled and placed on the Altar. Prayers follow the sermon, with the Service of the Sacrament following that without the Verba; Distribution as normal; following which possibly the Reporaches and the Adoration of the Holy Cross. We have black veil, pall and burse:

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Dude you have the best Lutheran parish in North America...

Thanks, but our Parish has issues just like every Parish.

We are blessed with a great young Pastor though!

Christmas Eve Vespers 2019:

 

[Albion]

deleted

 

[hedrick]

But does it mean anything? I’m not convinced that the language points to any actual meaning. The first half of Paul VI’s explanation quoted above is just fine. It’s when he tries to translate into metaphysics that the problem occurs.

 

[zippy2006]

But does it mean anything? I’m not convinced that the language points to any actual meaning. The first half of Paul VI’s explanation quoted above is just fine. It’s when he tries to translate into metaphysics that the problem occurs.

Well, how could something take on a new finality without being ontologically changed? If the substance is bread it will nourish our body. If the substance is Christ it will nourish our soul and our life of faith. The Catholic point is that the reason it does something different is because it is something different. This is all very Biblical.

 

[Albion]

Well, how could something take on a new finality without being ontologically changed? If the substance is bread it will nourish our body. If the substance is Christ it will nourish our soul and our life of faith. The Catholic point is that the reason it does something different is because it is something different. This is all very Biblical.

It's only "Biblical" to the extent that it is one of several different interpretations of the same wording we find in the Bible. And there are indeed other interpretations that make just as much or more sense when compared with Transubstantiation.

 

[zippy2006]

It's only "Biblical" to the extent that it is one of several different interpretations of the same wording we find in the Bible. And there are indeed other interpretations that make just as much or more sense when compared with Transubstantiation.

"This is all very Biblical" = "The Bible affirms that 1) It is a new thing, and 2) It does something different."

What I said in post #47 has nothing to do with Transubstantiation. Orthodox believe the same thing, as do many Lutherans and Anglicans. The logic of a new finality does not need to imply the complete eradication of the natural elements.

 

[Albion]

What I said in post #47 has nothing to do with Transubstantiation.

Okay. It was not clear to me from the post; and you know that the difference between Transubstantiation and Real Presence can easily be misstated or misunderstood.

The logic of a new finality does not need to imply the complete eradication of the natural elements.

Then you WERE NOT explaining the Roman Catholic teaching about the Eucharist, which is what I thought was your intention.

 

[zippy2006]

Okay. It was not clear to me from the post; and you know that the difference between Transubstantiation and Real Presence can easily be misstated or misunderstood.



Then you WERE NOT explaining the Roman Catholic teaching about the Eucharist, which is what I thought was your intention.

I was answering @hedrick's contention that Catholic metaphysical postulates make no sense or convey no actual meaning. The fact is, metaphysical postulates not only make sense, they go far beyond Catholicism and Transubstantiation, which is why I did not even have to reference Transubstantiation in #47. Of course Transubstantiation highlights the metaphysical postulate most strongly, but any church which sees consecrated elements as irreversibly changed and reserves them in a tabernacle is making the same sort of metaphysical claim.

Even a church which holds to "consubstantiation" sees the consubstantiated elements as ontologically different from mere bread and wine.

 

[Albion]

Of course Transubstantiation highlights the metaphysical postulate most strongly, but any church which sees consecrated elements as irreversibly changed and reserves them in a tabernacle is making the same sort of metaphysical claim.

How can a purely spiritual change be considered to fit that description?

 

[zippy2006]

How can a purely spiritual change be considered to fit that description?

How can it not? Why would a "purely spiritual" change not be a real, metaphysical change?

Either the bread and wine are different or else they are not. If they are different we put them in a tabernacle. If they aren't different we can take them back to the grocery store for a refund. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Albion]

Either the bread and wine are different or else they are not.

Maybe the issue concerns the meaning of "different."

If they are different we put them in a tabernacle.

Not necessarily, and the rubrics for worship in Lutheran and Anglican churches both call for a respectful disposal of the unused but consecrated elements.

 

[zippy2006]

Not necessarily, and the rubrics for worship in Lutheran and Anglican churches both call for a respectful disposal of the unused but consecrated elements.

You're just passing the buck. Now instead of reserving them in a tabernacle you are disposing of them respectfully. But why are you more respectful of this piece of bread than that piece of bread? The same question holds. In any case, above I explicitly claimed that many--not all--Lutherans and Anglicans commit to a metaphysical claim.

"Agere sequitur esse" is a commonsense truth, and it can never be fully suppressed. Going back to the original point, of course metaphysical postulates have actual meaning. Metaphysical claims about consecrated elements do not have meaning qua natural science, but they do have meaning qua faith, the spiritual life, and common sense. The metaphysical claim is corollary to the finality claim, and the finality claim is corollary to the metaphysical claim.

If something acts differently than mere bread and wine, then it must be something other than mere bread and wine.

 

[Albion]

You're just passing the buck.

No, I'm not doing that. I'm flatly saying that what you claimed concerning the use of tabernacles is incorrect.

Now instead of reserving them in a tabernacle you are disposing of them respectfully. But why are you more respectful of this piece of bread than that piece of bread?

Let's not sidestep the issue. Churches which believe in the Real Presence but not Transubstantiation do not necessarily put the consecrated elements into a tabernacle for later use. What you said there was not correct. Why this matters is that you had made the use of a tabernacle be evidence of a certain view of the sacrament when it actually isn't.

If something acts differently than mere bread and wine, then it must be something other than mere bread and wine.

IMO, that would require a lot more discussion than we should do now.

 

[seeking.IAM]

For what it's worth, our Episcopal parish uses a tabernacle with a presence lamp for the reserved sacrament. (Or rather, as Wikipedia has just corrected me, an aumbry, since it's a recessed area in the wall. I've learned a new word today.)
...

Mine does as well.

 

[hedrick]

I'm intrigued by the idea that the Sacraments are God acting through created, material elements to convey grace to us. With this in mind, a metaphysical model that allows the bread to still be bread, but now also something beyond just bread, makes more sense to me that a metaphysical model that requires the bread to give up its bread-ness when it becomes the body of Christ for us. But, as I said, this is guesswork.

Right. My problem isn't with the real presence (though whether it's actually true is a matter for a different discussion), but with the absence of the bread. "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" I'm fine with the idea that the bread isn't just bread or some way in which it is identified with Christ. My issue is with it not being bread anymore.

 

[zippy2006]

Right. My problem isn't with the real presence (though whether it's actually true is a matter for a different discussion), but with the absence of the bread. "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" I'm fine with the idea that the bread isn't just bread or some way in which it is identified with Christ. My issue is with it not being bread anymore.

My guess is that the exclusion of the substances of bread and wine is based on the Aristotelian-Thomistic thesis that a substance can have only one substantial form. The Dominicans won out over the Franciscans in the debate over the unicity of form in the Medieval period.

In other words, for a Thomist something can't be bread and Christ at the same time, so it must be Christ and not bread. Which is weird, because it sure looks like bread.

 

[hedrick]

My guess is that the exclusion of the substances of bread and wine is based on the Aristotelian-Thomistic thesis that a substance can have only one substantial form. The Dominicans won out over the Franciscans in the debate over the unicity of form in the Medieval period.

In other words, for a Thomist something can't be bread and Christ at the same time, so it must be Christ and not bread. Which is weird, because it sure looks like bread.

That's sort of odd, since we have the example of the Incarnation.