The Eucharist: Symbolic, Real Presence, Transubstantiation

[Standing Up]

I think that the church for the most part takes a neutral position upon this when it comes to Lutheran and traditional Anglican Eucharist. Why? I think it falls to they are not sure, but lean toward hoping it is valid and assuming that the presence of Christ is there in their Eucharist. Where it becomes an issue is only when a Lutheran or Anglican priest/minister converts to Catholicism and want to remain in the priesthood. At this point the Church, if it is decided by the Vatican to give them an exception, will give them the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Well, you've given it a good shot. I mean it's a tough one. Of which priesthood are Lutheran priests. and of which priesthood are Roman Catholic priests.

For my part, since I agree with Peter, John, Paul, and the others (did you like that?), then the answer is simple. They're the same. IOW, there's no such thing as a NT priest. The question rests on a false distinction that was created c400.

Take care ... and see you around.

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by Rick Otto Sorry to interrupt(Mr. Polo), but if you mean Hebrews 8 speaks of Adam being an antetype of Jesus, I have to tell you it isn't anywhere mentioned in Hebrews 8 in the KJV. I haven't checked the Douay-Rheims.

I didn't say it did. Heb. 8 is an example of typology regarding OT sacrifices being inferior to NT.[/

QUOTE]
Sure ya did, Mr. Polo. You said:

You see Paul speak of this in Romans 5 when he identifies Jesus as the superior antetype of Adam.

...& I replied; "Anyway, "superiority" does not abridge or augment the rules of speech"

That's fine. But types are always inferior in OT vs. NT. And none of my prior argument violates grammar and figure of speech of the text. Your response confronts neither the Biblical text in question, nor the text of what I wrote. To refute what I said, one has to explain why it's ok to understand the NT bread of life be of inferior origin to the OT manna when no other Biblical type between OT and NT have that quality. Not to mention the whole part of the audiences' reaction....

& I told you why your assesment of the eucharist as "just" a metaphor is yet superior to manna.
I told you,"Just a symbol" is "superior" because it's origin doesn't matter (any bread will do)& it feeds us spiritualy where manna did not.

 

[Erose]

Well, you've given it a good shot. I mean it's a tough one. Of which priesthood are Lutheran priests. and of which priesthood are Roman Catholic priests.

I cannot attest to the Lutheran priests (if they use that term), but I can attest to the Catholic Priests who are of the priesthood of Jesus Christ or New Covenant take your pick of terminology.

For my part, since I agree with Peter, John, Paul, and the others (did you like that?),

Regretfully for you they don't agree with you.

then the answer is simple. They're the same. IOW, there's no such thing as a NT priest. The question rests on a false distinction that was created c400.

The Bishop, Priest (Presbyter) and Deacon are all found in the NT and in the very early writings of the ECF. So these three offices have been around much earlier than 400ad.

Take care ... and see you around.

Surely not.

 

[Erose]

I didn't write any philosophy or reference any such.

I guess you are a philosopher and didn't know it.

Again, "with" and "under" are not doctrine. Luther used that (twice in his life, I believe) to not DENY what Jesus said and Paul by inspiration penned - the bread and wine. It's not meant to be locative or philosophical (I don't know of any "with" philosophy, anyway - or that that term is definitively assoicated with a specific philosophical school).

Twice? And not doctrine? CJ these terms are used in his catechisms. The small uses just "under" and the large uses both "in" and "under". These are in your catechisms! Can't get much more serious than that. You ask me where the words "change" or "transubstantion" are used in the Bible in reference to the Eucharist and I challenge you to show me where "under" or "in" are used in the Bible in reference to the Eucharist. If Luther is following explicitly the Bible then surely this won't be difficult for you.

Yes. And at the uttering of those magical words, Jesus did not cease to be a human but instead He underwent an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind the Aristotelian ACCIDENT of the appearance of a human - thus denying that Jesus is BOTH God and man.

So you are saying that in John 6 that bread was "under" and "in" Jesus?

It became dogma in one denomination a few years after his death.

Wrong my friend the doctrine of transubstantiation has been around much longer than Luther. It was already doctrine for centuries before Luther. Its definition is found in the creed of the 4th Lateran Council in 1215. It is also found in the early church fathers as well. It is a teaching that has always been there albeit the term transubstantiation wasn't coined until the 10th century, but its definition that the bread and wine "change" into the body and blood of Christ. So the fact is simple, if anyone is coming up with a new doctrine about the Eucharist it is Luther. Like I said in my previous post no one before Luther that I know of used his language.

 

[Erose]

Thanks. My original statement is now amended as follows: Why would anyone in their right mind want to swim the Tiber? It is a dirty, stinking river filled with the spiritual sewage of a religious system.

Yes, but when you get to the other side of that river filled with all the spiritual sewage that has washed off of those that have swimmed this river you will find the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Trust me it is worth the swim.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I guess you are a philosopher and didn't know it.

What is this philosophy of "in?"

Twice? And not doctrine? CJ these terms are used in his catechisms.

Yes. Luther used these expressions. In the Small, he used "under" and the Large he used "in" and "under". In both cases, once. As noted before, these two instances (and there seem to be only two) were times when he used these as ways to not DENY anything in the Eucharistic texts - to not deny anything as the RCC would do dogmatically at Trent (a bit after his death) and as some were already also doing. While the entire point is the real presence of Christ, Luther did not dogmatically deny the presence of bread and wine.

You ask me where the words "change" or "transubstantion" are used in the Bible in reference to the Eucharist and I challenge you to show me where "under" or "in" are used in the Bible in reference to the Eucharist.

1. "In" and "under" are not dogmas or philosophies. That there is a "change" and it's via "Transubstantiation" leaving behind "accidents" is DOGMA (since 1551 in one denomination - yours).

2. "Bread" and "wine" ARE mentioned in the Eucharistic texts - including AFTER the Consecration. Read the opening post where this is discussed at length and Scriptures verbatim quoted.

So you are saying that in John 6 that bread was "under" and "in" Jesus?

No, I'm saying that while you affirm that Jesus IS the Bread of Life (God), does that mean as a point of greatest importance and highest certainty of truth that ERGO at the utterance of these words, Jesus underwent an alchemic "Transubstantiation" leaving behind the Aristotelian "Accident" of a human being so that He does NOT have two natures but ONE transubstantiated one?

Wrong my friend the doctrine of transubstantiation has been around much longer than Luther.

Well, the view has. I never said otherwise.

My Catholic teachers taught us that it was created in the 10th century as a part of western, Catholic, medieval "Scholasticism" - one of several Eucharistic theories to be so developed. It gained in popularity. It gained some status at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 - but that status is an issue of considerable debate (it was simply mentioned). It was made DOGMA at the Council of Trent a bit after Luther's death. Perhaps they were wrong (Catholic teachers not infrequently are, I've learned).







.

 

[Rick Otto]

Terminology Technicality Gridlock is inevitable whenever a literal interpretation of figurative speech is attempted.

 

[Standing Up]

I cannot attest to the Lutheran priests (if they use that term), but I can attest to the Catholic Priests who are of the priesthood of Jesus Christ or New Covenant take your pick of terminology.

No, it doesn't surprise me. Yet for every other Christian, it remains an issue, albeit perhaps not considered, but there.

Regretfully for you they don't agree with you.

Sure they do! Priesthood of believer. Paul addressed his instructions about the eucharist to brethren, not to priests because to the next point-

The Bishop, Priest (Presbyter) and Deacon are all found in the NT and in the very early writings of the ECF. So these three offices have been around much earlier than 400ad.

Surely not.

The distinction of a unique NT priest did not exist at the time. Even RC admits it. As does EO. As does P. But, we got a huge edifice built thereon, so it's tough to climb down to the roots. This might help.

"This word (etymologically "elder", from presbyteros, presbyter) has taken the meaning of "sacerdos", ... "
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Priest

Has taken ... which is to say wasn't originally.

Later.

 

[Rick Otto]

The accomodation of developmental redefinitions is a testimony to the enthusiasm for religious devotion, but like Chinese take - out, appetite revisits us sooner than the promise of MSG satisfaction lingers, & the superficial profundity of the traditional fortune cookie lasts only about as long as an average peristaltic wave.

...that should bypass just about every filter & do an end-run around any censorship rules, eh?
Mercy!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I guess you are a philosopher and didn't know it.

Twice? And not doctrine? CJ these terms are used in his catechisms. The small uses just "under" and the large uses both "in" and "under". These are in your catechisms! Can't get much more serious than that. You ask me where the words "change" or "transubstantion" are used in the Bible in reference to the Eucharist and I challenge you to show me where "under" or "in" are used in the Bible in reference to the Eucharist. If Luther is following explicitly the Bible then surely this won't be difficult for you.

So you are saying that in John 6 that bread was "under" and "in" Jesus?

Wrong my friend the doctrine of transubstantiation has been around much longer than Luther. It was already doctrine for centuries before Luther. Its definition is found in the creed of the 4th Lateran Council in 1215. It is also found in the early church fathers as well. It is a teaching that has always been there albeit the term transubstantiation wasn't coined until the 10th century, but its definition that the bread and wine "change" into the body and blood of Christ. So the fact is simple, if anyone is coming up with a new doctrine about the Eucharist it is Luther. Like I said in my previous post no one before Luther that I know of used his language.

Mankind wants tangible answers just like St. Thomas. Transubstantiation was a feeble attempt to explain the unexplainable using pagan reason (using pagan reason to explain Holy Scripture in the first place is an oxymoron); Luther's explanation was an attempt to explain what Scripture tells us, no more than it does, not at the expense of ignoring other Scripture.

Be mindful that the reformed protestants used reason (Christ could not be in two places at once, there fore He can not be present in the Sacrament), and they too pick and choose to support this position... while claiming to be Sola Scriptura.

The Doctrine has been held by various early Christians and Saints; some see Calvin and Zwingli as such also; yet Scripture (when taken as a whole) does not support their teachings either.

While some members of the EO accept Transubstantiation, the EO like Luther (regardless of how he tried to explain it to undo past misconceptions) consider this a Divine mystery.

I like Luther's other explanation better; "It is what It is"; on faith, this is more of an explanation than I need.

 

[Rick Otto]

"It is what It is";

ROFL!
The structural formula for the figure of speech known as metaphor is to say something IS which it literaly IS NOT; A is B

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

ROFL!
The structural formula for the figure of speech known as metaphor is to say something IS which it literaly IS NOT; A is B

...Except, you see a "metaphor" where none is.

Reformed Protestants expend way more time and effort trying to convince us (and themselves) that our Lord did not mean what He said, than we do in support of what our Lord said... after all we have Scripture on our side; He said it is, so, it is.

 

[Rick Otto]

...Except, you see a "metaphor" where none is.

Reformed Protestants expend way more time and effort trying to convince us (and themselves) that our Lord did not mean what He said, than we do in support of what our Lord said... after all we have Scripture on our side; He said it is, so, it is.

...Except, you deny reality (metaphor) in its figurative face, & I in no way implied He did not mean what He said, rather I assert He in no way didn't mean what YOU are asserting He didn't.
Reality deniers spend more time & energy trying to convince everyone (themselves included) that Jesus didn't use a metaphor, than I do accepting Scripture only, for what it says.
Scripture is on the side of truth, not its denial.

The fact of it being metaphor in no way automaticaly diminishes the erroroneous literalization of it. In fact much of God's truth is true on more than one level &/or in more than one sense.

But just because all things are possible with God, everything we delight in imagining about Him isn't necessarily true.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

...Except, you deny reality (metaphor) in its figurative face, & I in know way implied He did not mean what He said, rather I assert He in no way didn't mean what YOU are asserting He didn't.
Reality deniers spend more time & energy trying to convince everyone (themselves included) that Jesus didn't use a metaphor, than I do accepting Scripture only, for what it says.
Scripture is on the side of truth, not its denial.

The fact of it being metaphor in no way automaticaly diminishes the erroroneous literalization of it. In fact much of God's truth is true on more than one level &/or in more than one sense.

But just because all things are possible with God, everything we delight in imagining about Him isn't necessarily true.

It seems then that you and I both must wait until we stand in Heaven to have our "truths" confirmed.

In the mean time, may God continue to bless us all.

 

[Erose]

Mankind wants tangible answers just like St. Thomas. Transubstantiation was a feeble attempt to explain the unexplainable using pagan reason (using pagan reason to explain Holy Scripture in the first place is an oxymoron); Luther's explanation was an attempt to explain what Scripture tells us, no more than it does, not at the expense of ignoring other Scripture.

This is something I find very interesting Mark. You and CJ attack the position of the Catholic Church called Transubstantiation because it uses the "pagan" discipline called philosophy and yet as far as I know your church accepts the traditional dogmas of the Incarnation and Trinity which in both cases the church fathers used "heavily" philosophical terminology in their definitions of both dogmas. It seems to me that your position is very hypocritical in that you accept the usage of philosophy when it comes to the Incarnation and the Trinity and reject its usage when it comes to something that Luther rejected based upon his own philosophical views.

While some members of the EO accept Transubstantiation, the EO like Luther (regardless of how he tried to explain it to undo past misconceptions) consider this a Divine mystery.

Really? I have not heard or read of any Orthodox theologian using the same terminology used by Luther in using "in" and "under". If you have evidence I would like to see it.

I like Luther's other explanation better; "It is what It is"; on faith, this is more of an explanation than I need.

You may like it better, but you can't go back and whitewash what Luther wrote in his catechisms. You accuse us of using philosophical terminology and yet so did Luther to explain his position.

 

[Erose]

What is this philosophy of "in?"

You tell me. What does "in" mean in the mind of Luther? Obviously he didn't mean it in the case that our Lord's flesh was mixed with the bread or inclosed in the bread did he? So what does he mean?

Yes. Luther used these expressions. In the Small, he used "under" and the Large he used "in" and "under". In both cases, once. As noted before, these two instances (and there seem to be only two) were times when he used these as ways to not DENY anything in the Eucharistic texts - to not deny anything as the RCC would do dogmatically at Trent (a bit after his death) and as some were already also doing. While the entire point is the real presence of Christ, Luther did not dogmatically deny the presence of bread and wine.

But their usage adds his view to the Eucharistic texts.

1. "In" and "under" are not dogmas or philosophies. That there is a "change" and it's via "Transubstantiation" leaving behind "accidents" is DOGMA (since 1551 in one denomination - yours).

They are not doctrines of Luther? Then why are they in his and your catechism? Are you saying that Luther was trying to lead Lutherans astray by telling them something he did not believe? Even I wouldn't make that claim.

2. "Bread" and "wine" ARE mentioned in the Eucharistic texts - including AFTER the Consecration. Read the opening post where this is discussed at length and Scriptures verbatim quoted.

I have and I understand why they are used in this way which has been discussed too frequently in this thread.

Well, the view has. I never said otherwise.

Then why have you said that it was invented at Trent if you don't believe it?

My Catholic teachers taught us that it was created in the 10th century as a part of western, Catholic, medieval "Scholasticism" - one of several Eucharistic theories to be so developed. It gained in popularity. It gained some status at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 - but that status is an issue of considerable debate (it was simply mentioned). It was made DOGMA at the Council of Trent a bit after Luther's death. Perhaps they were wrong (Catholic teachers not infrequently are, I've learned).

They are wrong, which doesn't surprise me at all. One of the things I have learned as a convert is that there has been a concerted effort on the part of progressive and liberal Catholics to undermine the teachings of the Church. Thank God that they are finally being weeded out and it is getting better. But the damage has been done and it will and is taking time to repair.

 

[Erose]

CJ,

We have been hotly debating each other on this subject and I hope that we both have learned something from each other and others as well. But I feel that for the sake of charity that we should take a moment to celebrate our commonalities in belief on this subject.

The Lutheran-Catholic joint statement provides these commonalites which we should celebrate:


I. THE EUCHARIST AS SACRIFICE2 With reference to the eucharist as sacrifice, two affirmations have not been denied by either confession; four aspects of the problem have been major points of divergence.

1. 1. Lutherans and Roman Catholics alike acknowledge that in the Lord's supper "Christ is present as the Crucified who died for our sins and who rose again for our justification, as the once-for-all sacrifice for the sins of the world who gives himself to the faithful."3 On this Lutherans insist as much as Catholics, although, for various reasons, Lutherans have been reticent about speaking of the eucharist as a sacrifice.
   2. The confessional documents of both traditions agree that the celebration of the eucharist is the church's sacrifice of praise and self-offering; or oblation. Each tradition can make the following statement its own: "By him, with him and in him who is our great High Priest and Intercessor we offer to the Father, in the power of the Holy Spirit, our praise, thanksgiving and intercession. With contrite hearts we offer ourselves as a living and holy sacrifice, a sacrifice which must be expressed in the whole of our daily lives."4

II. THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE LORD'S SUPPER
Here, too, there are areas in which this group believes that Roman Catholics and Lutherans can make the same affirmations, and others in which our agreement is not yet complete.

1. 1. We confess a manifold presence of Christ, the Word of God and Lord of the world. The crucified and risen Lord is present in his body, the people of God, for he is present where two or three are gathered in his name (Mt. 18:20). He is present in baptism, for it is Christ himself who baptizes.12 He is present in the reading of the scriptures and the proclamation of the gospel. He is present in the Lord's supper.13
   2. We affirm that in the sacrament of the Lord's supper Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is present wholly and entirely, in his body and blood, under the signs of bread and wine.14
   3. Through the centuries Christians have attempted various formulations to describe this presence. Our confessional documents have in common affirmed that Jesus Christ is "really," "truly" and "substantially" present in this sacrament.15 This manner of presence "we can scarcely express in words,"16 but we affirm his presence because we believe in the power of God and the promise of Jesus Christ, "This is my body. . . . This is my blood..."17 Our traditions have spoken of this presence as "sacramental,"18 "supernatural" and "spiritual."19 These terms have different connotations in the two traditions, but they have in common a rejection of a spatial or natural manner of presence, and a rejection of an understanding of the sacrament as only commemorative or figurative.20 The term "sign," once suspect, is again recognized as a positive term for speaking of Christ's presence in the sacrament.21 For, though symbols and symbolic actions are used, the Lord's supper is an effective sign: it communicates what it promises; " . . . the action of the Church becomes the effective means whereby God in Christ acts and Christ is present with his people."22
   4. Although the sacrament is meant to be celebrated in the midst of the believing congregation, we are agreed that the presence of Christ does not come about through the faith of the believer, or through any human power, but by the power of the Holy Spirit through the word.23
   5. The true body and blood of Christ are present not only at the moment of reception but throughout the eucharistic action.24

I just figured that we needed to take a deep breath and see what we do have in common, so that our debate may be put in perspective that it is an act of Christian charity on both sides.

God Bless

 

[Standing Up]

CJ,

We have been hotly debating each other on this subject and I hope that we both have learned something from each other and others as well. But I feel that for the sake of charity that we should take a moment to celebrate our commonalities in belief on this subject.

The Lutheran-Catholic joint statement provides these commonalites which we should celebrate:





I. THE EUCHARIST AS SACRIFICE2 With reference to the eucharist as sacrifice, two affirmations have not been denied by either confession; four aspects of the problem have been major points of divergence.

1. 1. Lutherans and Roman Catholics alike acknowledge that in the Lord's supper "Christ is present as the Crucified who died for our sins and who rose again for our justification, as the once-for-all sacrifice for the sins of the world who gives himself to the faithful."3 On this Lutherans insist as much as Catholics, although, for various reasons, Lutherans have been reticent about speaking of the eucharist as a sacrifice.
   2. The confessional documents of both traditions agree that the celebration of the eucharist is the church's sacrifice of praise and self-offering; or oblation. Each tradition can make the following statement its own: "By him, with him and in him who is our great High Priest and Intercessor we offer to the Father, in the power of the Holy Spirit, our praise, thanksgiving and intercession. With contrite hearts we offer ourselves as a living and holy sacrifice, a sacrifice which must be expressed in the whole of our daily lives."4

-snip-

Ahhh, this speaks to what we've been saying about the priesthood of believer versus the separate office of NT priest per EO, OO, RC.

IOW, if we establish a NT office of priest, then the paradox of being a priest partly, whereby a believer may offer your own body a living sacrifice, all believers may not, however, offer Christ's.

This paradox is further seen by the inability to answer of what priesthood is Roman Catholic priests versus Lutheran priests?

So, instead, if we simply go by how elder/bishop was defined in the NT that speaks solely to the priesthood of believers, we all (brethren) may practice the sacrifice of praise and offer our own bodies living sacrifices, and we may all also "do this (Lord's supper) in remembrance".

The relationship, the commonality of belief between brothers in the Lord is there for any to recognize, if we but return to how things were.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

This is something I find very interesting Mark. You and CJ attack the position of the Catholic Church called Transubstantiation because it uses the "pagan" discipline called philosophy and yet as far as I know your church accepts the traditional dogmas of the Incarnation and Trinity which in both cases the church fathers used "heavily" philosophical terminology in their definitions of both dogmas. It seems to me that your position is very hypocritical in that you accept the usage of philosophy when it comes to the Incarnation and the Trinity and reject its usage when it comes to something that Luther rejected based upon his own philosophical views.

Thank you for your reply. The difference is that from our POV of Sola Scriptura regarding the Eucharist that Scripture talks not only about Christ's body and blood but bread and wine. If we assume that bread and wine is only in reference to the outward appearance of Christ's body and blood, then the assumption is no different than the reformed protestants who say body and blood are figurative, and bread and wine are the only thing present.

While we need philosophy to explain transubstantiation, the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity are derived from Scripture; yes some have used philosophical reason to try and explain these things, but the Doctrines themselves are gleaned directly from Scripture, unlike transubstantiation.

Really? I have not heard or read of any Orthodox theologian using the same terminology used by Luther in using "in" and "under". If you have evidence I would like to see it.

It was the Divine mystery I was speaking about, not in and under.

You may like it better, but you can't go back and whitewash what Luther wrote in his catechisms. You accuse us of using philosophical terminology and yet so did Luther to explain his position.

Neither can we witewash Aquinas's transubstantiation.

It is what it is, body and blood and bread and wine; no more, no less.

Pax Domini

 

[MrPolo]

Twice? And not doctrine? CJ these terms are used in his catechisms. The small uses just "under" and the large uses both "in" and "under". These are in your catechisms! Can't get much more serious than that. You ask me where the words "change" or "transubstantion" are used in the Bible in reference to the Eucharist and I challenge you to show me where "under" or "in" are used in the Bible in reference to the Eucharist. If Luther is following explicitly the Bible then surely this won't be difficult for you.

He also used "with" in Word and Sacrament III.