Know church history well but stay protestant

[The Liturgist]

Reject the word, but not the mystery.

Indeed, this is my position. To quote the Coptic Divine Liturgy of St. Basil,

Amen. Amen. Amen.

I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath; that this is the Life-Giving Body that Your Only-Begotten Son, our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ took from our Lady, the Queen of us all, the holy Theotokos Saint Mary.

He made it one with His divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration.

He witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate. He gave it up for us upon the holy wood of the cross, of His own will, for us all.

Truly, I believe that His divinity parted not from His humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye; given for us for salvation, remission of sins and eternal life to those who partake of Him.

I believe, I believe, I believe that this is so in truth.

Amen.

Now while I love Thomas Aquinas and appreciate the effort he made to explain how the Real Changes happens, frankly, I don’t need to know; I also don’t much care for the Words of Institution vs. Epiclesis debate. What I care about is partaking of the body and blood of our Lord on the altar.

 

[The Liturgist]

So, then, tell me how Christ becomes truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in your Eucharist?

I don’t know. I have read books full of interesting theories: for example, Theodore of Mopsuestia argued that the gifts became the dead body and blood of our Lord in the Liturgy of Preparation and the Epiklesis.

I think Thomas Aquinas was close, but transubstantiation doesn’t go far enough, because when people see the actual flesh, this should be impossible without transaccidentiation.

So I don’t know - if you forced me to guess, I would say that the omnipotent Holy Spirit when the priest says the words of institution or prays the epiklesis, when the priest in other words intends the change to happen, to quote the poetry of the beautiful Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic liturgy, takes flight and hovers over the elements, changing them into the body and blood of our Lord, and that this change ordinarily is accompanied by the preservation of a set of perceptual attributes that cause the appearance and taste of bread and wine to be mostly maintained, but these attributes are variable, and the body and blood if willed by the Spirit can be revealed in their actual form, or any other form that suits the specific requirements of that moment for the salvation of souls.

I also believe we are mystically present with our Lord in the Jordan during Baptism and at the last supper during the liturgy; that anamnesis, which means something like recapitulation, means that we through our faith enter into that moment. These views are fairly widespread among Eastern Christians I believe, and also some Western Christians.

 

[The Liturgist]

Neither of them (neo-Aristotelian metaphysics of substance and accidents, and medical ideas of "humours") are the way that people in our culture think about what they experience in the world, the physical properties of the objects around them, etc. Outside very particular and rarefied niches in philosophy and theology, they are irrelevant.

Amusingly enough, a colleague of mine and I myself use the Humours when discussing how we are feeling. The last time we spoke I was Sanguine and he was Phlegmatic.

 

[The Liturgist]

By the way @Root of Jesse my faith in the real presence is such that I perform the Ablutions, but I use a sponge in the Byzantine manner rather than a purificatory. I also don’t discuss what I am doing with the laity because many people who would go to a Congregationalist church aren’t ready to hear that...yet.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Sorry for resurrecting this thread, I've been in the hospital for a week. Recuperating now, and a bit of a road to get better, but with the feast of Corpus Christi coming up, I thought I'd present this:

Corpus Christi - Eucharist, The Body of Christ - Crossroads Initiative

On Holy Thursday, the night before he died, the Lord Jesus made some startling changes in the ritual of the Passover meal. Instead of being content with the traditional Jewish table blessing over the bread, Jesus proclaimed “take and eat for this is my body.” Over the third cup of wine, known as the cup of blessing, he said “take and drink for this is my blood.” Then he commanded the disciples “do this in memory of me.”

CORPUS CHRISTI & THE EUCHARIST
Obedient to the wishes of the savior, we remember and reenact this solemn moment in a special way each Holy Thursday and Feast of Corpus Christi, but more frequently in every Mass. Indeed the Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation — namely, that in the Eucharist, the communion wafer and the altar wine are transformed and really become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Have you ever met anyone who has found this Catholic doctrine to be a bit hard to take?

If so, you shouldn’t be surprised. When Jesus spoke about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6, his words met with less than an enthusiastic reception. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (V 52). “This is a hard saying who can listen to it?” (V60). In fact so many of his disciples abandoned him over this that Jesus had to ask the twelve if they also planned to quit. It is interesting that Jesus did not run after his disciples saying, “Don’t go – I was just speaking metaphorically!”

THE EARLY CHURCH’S UNDERSTANDING
How did the early Church interpret these challenging words of Jesus?


Here’s an interesting fact. One charge the pagan Romans lodged against the Christians was cannibalism. Why? You guessed it. People heard that this sect regularly met to feast on the flesh and blood of a man called Jesus. Did the early Christians say: “wait a minute, it’s only a symbol!”? Not at all.

When trying to explain the Eucharist to the Roman Emperor around 155 AD, St. Justin did not mince his words: “For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him . . . is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

REAL PRESENCE – TRANSUBSTANTIATION
Not many Christians questioned the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist till the middle ages. In trying to explain how bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, several theologians went astray and needed to be corrected by Church authority.

Then St. Thomas Aquinas came along and offered an explanation that became classic. In all change that we observe in this life, he teaches, appearances change, but deep down, the essence of a thing stays the same. Example: if, in a fit of mid-life crisis, I traded my mini-van for a Ferrari, abandoned my wife and 5 kids to be beach bum, got tanned, bleached my hair blonde, spiked it, buffed up at the gym, and took a trip to the plastic surgeon, I’d look a lot different on the surface. But for all my trouble, deep down I’d still substantially be the same ole guy as when I started.

St. Thomas said the Eucharist is the one instance of change we encounter in this world that is exactly the opposite. The appearances of bread and wine stay the same, but the very essence or substance of these realities, which can’t be viewed by a microscope, is totally transformed. What was once bread and wine are now Christ’s body and blood. A handy word was coined to describe this unique change. Transformation of the “sub-stance”, what “stands-under” the surface, came to be called “transubstantiation.”

TRANSFORMATION BY SPIRIT & WORD
What makes this transubstantiation happen? The power of God’s Spirit and Word. After praying for the Spirit to come (epiklesis), the priest, who stands in the place of Christ, repeats the words of the God-man: “This is my Body, This is my Blood.” Sounds to me like Genesis 1: the mighty wind (read “Spirit”) whips over the surface of the water and God’s Word resounds. “Let there be light” and there was light. It is no harder to believe in the Eucharist than to believe in Creation.

But why did Jesus arrange for this transformation of bread and wine?

Because he intended another kind of transformation. The bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ which are, in turn, meant to transform us. Ever hear the phrase: “you are what you eat?” The Lord desires us to be transformed from a motley crew of imperfect individuals into the Body of Christ (Corpus Christi), come to full stature.

PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS
Evangelical Christians speak often of an intimate, personal relationship with Jesus. But I ask you, how much more personal and intimate can you get? We receive the Lord’s body into our physical body that we may become him whom we receive!

It is this astounding gift that we remember and celebrate on the first day of the sacred Triduum, Holy Thursday, and on the feast traditionally celebrated on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday, Corpus Christi.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Glad you are doing well! There is a thread I started in the Traditional Theology section about different views of the Real Presence in case you are interested.

Doctrines of "The Real Presence" in the Eucharist

 

[The Liturgist]

Sorry for resurrecting this thread, I've been in the hospital for a week. Recuperating now, and a bit of a road to get better, but with the feast of Corpus Christi coming up, I thought I'd present this:

Corpus Christi - Eucharist, The Body of Christ - Crossroads Initiative

On Holy Thursday, the night before he died, the Lord Jesus made some startling changes in the ritual of the Passover meal. Instead of being content with the traditional Jewish table blessing over the bread, Jesus proclaimed “take and eat for this is my body.” Over the third cup of wine, known as the cup of blessing, he said “take and drink for this is my blood.” Then he commanded the disciples “do this in memory of me.”

CORPUS CHRISTI & THE EUCHARIST
Obedient to the wishes of the savior, we remember and reenact this solemn moment in a special way each Holy Thursday and Feast of Corpus Christi, but more frequently in every Mass. Indeed the Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation — namely, that in the Eucharist, the communion wafer and the altar wine are transformed and really become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Have you ever met anyone who has found this Catholic doctrine to be a bit hard to take?

If so, you shouldn’t be surprised. When Jesus spoke about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6, his words met with less than an enthusiastic reception. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (V 52). “This is a hard saying who can listen to it?” (V60). In fact so many of his disciples abandoned him over this that Jesus had to ask the twelve if they also planned to quit. It is interesting that Jesus did not run after his disciples saying, “Don’t go – I was just speaking metaphorically!”

THE EARLY CHURCH’S UNDERSTANDING
How did the early Church interpret these challenging words of Jesus?


Here’s an interesting fact. One charge the pagan Romans lodged against the Christians was cannibalism. Why? You guessed it. People heard that this sect regularly met to feast on the flesh and blood of a man called Jesus. Did the early Christians say: “wait a minute, it’s only a symbol!”? Not at all.

When trying to explain the Eucharist to the Roman Emperor around 155 AD, St. Justin did not mince his words: “For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him . . . is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

REAL PRESENCE – TRANSUBSTANTIATION
Not many Christians questioned the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist till the middle ages. In trying to explain how bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, several theologians went astray and needed to be corrected by Church authority.

Then St. Thomas Aquinas came along and offered an explanation that became classic. In all change that we observe in this life, he teaches, appearances change, but deep down, the essence of a thing stays the same. Example: if, in a fit of mid-life crisis, I traded my mini-van for a Ferrari, abandoned my wife and 5 kids to be beach bum, got tanned, bleached my hair blonde, spiked it, buffed up at the gym, and took a trip to the plastic surgeon, I’d look a lot different on the surface. But for all my trouble, deep down I’d still substantially be the same ole guy as when I started.

St. Thomas said the Eucharist is the one instance of change we encounter in this world that is exactly the opposite. The appearances of bread and wine stay the same, but the very essence or substance of these realities, which can’t be viewed by a microscope, is totally transformed. What was once bread and wine are now Christ’s body and blood. A handy word was coined to describe this unique change. Transformation of the “sub-stance”, what “stands-under” the surface, came to be called “transubstantiation.”

TRANSFORMATION BY SPIRIT & WORD
What makes this transubstantiation happen? The power of God’s Spirit and Word. After praying for the Spirit to come (epiklesis), the priest, who stands in the place of Christ, repeats the words of the God-man: “This is my Body, This is my Blood.” Sounds to me like Genesis 1: the mighty wind (read “Spirit”) whips over the surface of the water and God’s Word resounds. “Let there be light” and there was light. It is no harder to believe in the Eucharist than to believe in Creation.

But why did Jesus arrange for this transformation of bread and wine?

Because he intended another kind of transformation. The bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ which are, in turn, meant to transform us. Ever hear the phrase: “you are what you eat?” The Lord desires us to be transformed from a motley crew of imperfect individuals into the Body of Christ (Corpus Christi), come to full stature.

PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS
Evangelical Christians speak often of an intimate, personal relationship with Jesus. But I ask you, how much more personal and intimate can you get? We receive the Lord’s body into our physical body that we may become him whom we receive!

It is this astounding gift that we remember and celebrate on the first day of the sacred Triduum, Holy Thursday, and on the feast traditionally celebrated on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday, Corpus Christi.

Glad you are doing well! There is a thread I started in the Traditional Theology section about different views of the Real Presence in case you are interested.

Doctrines of "The Real Presence" in the Eucharist

It would be splendid @Root of Jesse if you were to post this in Traditional Theology.

 

[East of Eden]

I believe that for most people the history in no way influences their selection of a denomination. People who spend time analyzing different denominational beliefs make their selection based on what is most compatible with their personal beliefs. Most people do not even get into that depth.

Agreed, the average non-Christian doesn't care about history either, and I was a history minor in college. Meanwhile, my pastor, father and wife are former Catholics, now Protestant. They cared much more about a relationship with the person of Jesus Christ than history.

 

[East of Eden]

I don't know what sort of responses you're looking for, but it might be encouraging for you to hear someone else say that I feel similar. I've studied a fair bit of church history (including the early church) and feel more deeply rooted as an Anglican as a result.

There aren't much theological differences between the early church and a conservative Anglican, unlike the RCC.

 

[East of Eden]

I looked at the Episcopalian church and they have way too much weirdness going on.
Cat in the Hat Eucharist

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[Albion]

Agreed, the average non-Christian doesn't care about history either, and I was a history minor in college. Meanwhile, my pastor, father and wife are former Catholics, now Protestant. They cared much more about a relationship with the person of Jesus Christ than history.

Many people who come to Protestantism from Catholicism are doing so for their own reasons, which often have nothing to do with which church's doctrines are correct.

To know the errors of Catholicism and what that church's members are told about the early church in order to make them believe their church's version of history really requires an inquiring person to KNOW history, not the opposite.

Otherwise such a person is likely to be taken in by historic myths taught to them by one side or the other--or both.

 

[The Liturgist]

So this thread gets on my nerves because people have a right to join whatever church they want, and Hank Haanegraaf, who had cancer, was treated so horribly by John MacArthur when he joined the Greek Orthodox Church to the point where I will never purchase new one of his books. And I am sick of people smearing Catholics and liturgical Protestants (Anglicans, Lutherans, Moravians, Methodists, high church Calvinists, etc).

 

[The Liturgist]

Many people who come to Protestantism from Catholicism are doing so for their own reasons.

To know the errors of Catholicism and what that church's members are told about the early church in order to make them believe the church's version of history really requires an inquiring person to KNOW history, real history, not ignore it as unimportant.

Otherwise an inquiring person would likely be taken in by historical myths not unlike the mythology that many cults teach their people.

Protestantism inherited the two main Roman Catholic errors, the filioque and a hyper-Augustinian forensic conception of sin distilled by Anselm of Canterbury, further distilled by St. Aquinas, and turned into something quite toxic by some of the Calvinists.

Fortunately, since John Wesley reintroduced Orthodox soteriology to the West, there has been a steady increase in a medicinal approach to sin. Fewer Christians would be impressed by the likes of Jonathan Edwards these days. And likewise, one positive to come out of Vatican II is a similar approach to sin. Also, happily, some Protestant churches are removing the filioque from their creeds. Unhappily, use of Quincunque Vult, aka the “Athanasian Creed” is disappearing in many Protestant churches, and the non-filioque version of it most Protestant divines are unaware of.

 

[Albion]

Those are some of the issues, but not the ones I would put towards the top of my list or which I had in mind when writing my previous post.

Rather, I had in mind such teachings as that Christ created one denomination in particular (the Roman Catholic Church, and that it is the "one true church"), that Peter was made the first Pope by Christ, that Tradition trumps Scripture, the Assumption of Mary, and such latter-day inventions as Purgatory, Indulgences, Transubstantiation, and Papal Infallibility.

 

[East of Eden]

So this thread gets on my nerves because people have a right to join whatever church they want, and Hank Haanegraaf, who had cancer, was treated so horribly by John MacArthur when he joined the Greek Orthodox Church to the point where I will never purchase new one of his books. And I am sick of people smearing Catholics and liturgical Protestants (Anglicans, Lutherans, Moravians, Methodists, high church Calvinists, etc).

Good luck finding an author who never made a mistake.

 

[The Liturgist]

Good luck finding an author who never made a mistake.

There is a difference between making a mistake and engaging in deliberately unkind behavior to a terminally ill man simply because he joined a denomination you dislike. I abhorr sectarianism and I find any kind of cruelty whether talking ugly to someone on a personal, ad hominem level (i.e. “You joined denomination X, and everyone in denomination X will not inherit eternal life”) based on whether they are Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, or a specific variety therein, or, on a darker and more serious scale, sectarian violence, such as we have seen in Northern Ireland and the Balkans, which is by virtue of its mere existence all the required justification to push forward with ecumenical reunification. And if the old churches will not reunite, create new, otherwise identical churches which will.