The Eucharist: Symbolic, Real Presence, Transubstantiation

[patricius79]

Try again, then. Show that 1 Cor. 11 teaches the unique RCC Eucharistic Dogma of Transubstantiation.
.

so would you say that the Scriptures don't teach Consubsantiation, since there is no explicit text?

I know that the fathers unanimously taught that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ

Cyril of Jerusalem:

Having learned these things, and being fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the apparent Wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so... (22 [Mystagogic 4], 9)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

so would you say

Conversations work best when you read what WAS actually said.
By you and by me.
They CANNOT happen otherwise.

YOU quoted a verse.
I noted it doesn't teach the RCC Eucharistic Dogma of Transubstantiation.
You claimed it did - but have neglected to discuss your point.

Did you want to discuss your point or not?




.

 

[patricius79]

Conversations work best when you read what WAS actually said.
By you and by me.
They CANNOT happen otherwise.

YOU quoted a verse.
I noted it doesn't teach the RCC Eucharistic Dogma of Transubstantiation.
.

how so?

I think it is no more absent from the literal text than the other interpretations of 1 Cor 11, such as symbolic only, Consubstantiation, etc.

St. Irenaeus says that the Lord's Supper is a Sacrifice and that:

When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD...receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST... (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

how so?

I think it is no more absent from the literal text than the other interpretations of 1 Cor 11, such as symbolic only, Consubstantiation, etc.

I never mentioned the Catholic theory of "consubstantiation."

You are defending the new Eucharistic DOGMA of your denomination, "Transubstantiation."

You quoted a section from 1 Corinthians 11. I noted the obvious (and undeniable) - a point you seem to be admitting - it says NOTHING in support of your denomination's Eucharistic DOGMA.

Did you want to try again, showing how it teaches Transubstantiation? Or are you admitting it teaches no such thing?





.

 

[patricius79]

I never mentioned the Catholic theory of "consubstantiation."

You are defending the new Eucharistic DOGMA of your denomination, "Transubstantiation."

You quoted a section from 1 Corinthians 11. I noted the obvious (and undeniable) - a point you seem to be admitting - it says NOTHING in support of your denomination's Eucharistic DOGMA.
.

where does the Bible say that?

I know Jesus takes bread, blesses it and then says "this is my Body" and says to "offer this" then Paul reiterates that it really is His Body

St. John Chrysostom:

Homilies on Matthew 82:4)
Take care, then, lest you too become guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ [1 Cor 11:27]. They slaughtered His most holy body; but you, after such great benefits, receive HIM into a filthy soul. For it was not enough for Him to be made Man, to be struck and to be slaughtered, but He even mingles Himself with us; and this NOT BY FAITH ONLY, but even in every DEED He makes us His BODY. How very pure, then, ought he not be, who enjoys the benefit of this SACRIFICE? (ibid 82:5)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

where does the Bible say that?

That IS the question you keep evading...

YOU said that 1 Corinthians 11 teaches the new RCC Eucharistic Dogma. So, you quoted it. I noted it says NOTHING about it (which is obvious). You didn't disagree, you just returned to your point that it teaches it. (Discussions with you ARE difficult! It's okay).

Alright. Quote the Scriptures. VERBATIM. Note where Transubstantiation is taught.

I know Jesus takes bread, blesses it and then says "this is my Body"

Thank you for that ringing endorsement of the previous Catholic dogma, but we're not talking about Real Presence, we're talking about Transubstantiation.

St. John Chrysostom

Is not 1 Corinthians chapter 11, as you know. BTW, thanks for that ringing affirmation of the former Catholic dogma, too. But you didn't say that St. John Chrysostom taught the former dogma, you said that 1 Corinthians 11 teaches Transubstantiation. You understand the difference, I'm SURE.






.

 

[patricius79]

That IS the question you keep evading...

YOU said that 1 Corinthians 11 teaches the new RCC Eucharistic Dogma. So, you quoted it. I noted it says NOTHING about it (which is obvious). \

I didn't say that. and I don't agree that it says "Nothing about it"

the passage clearly calls for interpretation. the early Church's unanimous interpretation was that the bread and wine "become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ"

--------------

St. John Chrysostom:

Not in vain was it decreed BY THE APOSTLES that in the awesome Mysteries remembrance should be made of the DEPARTED. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. For when the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome SACRIFICIAL VICTIM is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have DEPARTED in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf. (Homilies on Philippians 3:4)

 

[Erose]

Joshiah,

Here is some issues with your assertion that the bread and wine do not change into the body and blood of Christ and I think that you will end up having to accept one of these issues as fact.

If the bread and wine do not change into the body and blood of Christ then either

1.) They have always been the body and blood of Christ, which would lead to Pantheism.
2.) That during the Eucharistic celebration that Jesus comes down and "possesses" the bread and wine.
3.) That they are symbolic only and as such are not the body and blood of Christ only a symbol of his body.

Which of these do you accept?

Another thing. To continually add your opinions to the doctrine of transubstantiation by using terms that are not within the definition of that doctrine is being disingenious at best. Catholics do not believe in alchemy. It has never been part of our doctrine nor will it ever. The Scholastics where using accepted philosophical terms and alchemical terms.

Our doctrine is simple. We believe that at the consecration the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. It still looks, smell, feel, and tastes like bread and wine, but it has in some mysterious way become the actual body and blood of Christ. This is an act of faith on our part. As witnessed in the passage in John 6, even the Apostles did not understand how they could eat Jesus' body and blood. But what answer did Jesus give them? When you see me ascending to where I came from you will understand. What does this mean and what was he trying to tell them? When you fully understand that I am God, you will understand that there is nothing that I cannot do.

You keep asking where is the word change at in any of these passages? Well why would you need it? Jesus picks up the bread and says this is My Body. He picks up the cup of Wine and says this is My Blood. In none of the passages does it say that this only symbolizes my body and blood or that I will possess this bread and wine or that this bread and wine has always been my body and blood.

 

[Erose]

Hi tsr...thats an interesting comment. When you say it is your opinion, what is the reasoning behind your opinion? In other words for me to see the worth of your opinion, it would be helpful to see how you arrived at it and how valid your opinion is.

Yep, I can see that this sort of subject can go on and on...that's not a bad thing, sometimes somebody throws something up that really causes one to reflect...and sometimes even dig deeper than before.

Be careful about asking protestant pastors that used to be Catholic something about the Catholic church. I truly doubt you will get a legitimate answer. I had a "former Catholic" pentecostal minister once try to convence me that my Church taught reincarnation. Reincarnation, can you believe that? What I have learned is most people that leave the Catholic church do not truly know what they are leaving for they normally did not take their faith seriously enough to learn it and live it. So when some protestant comes along able to quote scripture passages from memory and tells them that what the Catholic church teaches is false, it is very easy to get them to convert. Trust me I used to be one of those people that was involved in doing just that.

Scott Hahn is a very good resource so you chose well, but I would also recommend the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There are online versions or you can simple buy the book. It is a very easy book to read with many references and it covers the fundamental teachings of the Catholic church. Anyway this Catechism is the official teachings of the Catholic Church and not someone's biased opinion or belief. What is in it is completely our doctrine and faith.

God bless you on your journey of trying to understand us a little better.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Joshiah,

Here is some issues with your assertion that the bread and wine do not change into the body and blood of Christ and I think that you will end up having to accept one of these issues as fact.

The "issue" is not what CHANGES or not, the issue is what First Corinthians 11 and the other Eucharistic texts STATE. THAT is our little discussion at this point...

If the bread and wine do not change into the body and blood of Christ then either

1.) They have always been the body and blood of Christ, which would lead to Pantheism.

Texts don't say that.

2.) That during the Eucharistic celebration that Jesus comes down and "possesses" the bread and wine.

The texts never say that.

3.) That they are symbolic only and as such are not the body and blood of Christ only a symbol of his body.

POSSIBLE, since metaphors are abundant in Scripture, but I don't see any textual reason to conclude a metaphor is being used HERE.

IF you have a "problem" with taking words metaphorically or symbolically or nonliterally - I understand. Take that up with the RCC (since Trent), not me.

Which of these do you accept?

None.

I accept what Jesus said and Paul penned by inspiration. Which is why I conclude the new RCC Eucharistic DOGMA to be both moot and baseless.

The Scholastics where using accepted philosophical terms and alchemical terms.

Yup. Terms loaded with and associated with those meanings.

Jesus picks up the bread and says this is My Body. He picks up the cup of Wine and says this is My Blood.

I agree. "IS" has to do with existence, it has nothing to do with alchemy or Aristotle, and it NEVER means "change." Look up the word in any common English dictionary. Look of "Bread" and "Wine" too (words Paul uses MORE often after the Consecration than before).






.

 

[patricius79]

.

Our doctrine is simple. We believe that at the consecration the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. It still looks, smell, feel, and tastes like bread and wine, but it has in some mysterious way become the actual body and blood of Christ. This is an act of faith on our part. As witnessed in the passage in John 6, even the Apostles did not understand how they could eat Jesus' body and blood. But what answer did Jesus give them? When you see me ascending to where I came from you will understand. What does this mean and what was he trying to tell them? When you fully understand that I am God, you will understand that there is nothing that I cannot do.

You keep asking where is the word change at in any of these passages? Well why would you need it? Jesus picks up the bread and says this is My Body. He picks up the cup of Wine and says this is My Blood. In none of the passages does it say that this only symbolizes my body and blood or that I will possess this bread and wine or that this bread and wine has always been my body and blood.

amen.

all of the various interpretations of these passages require words not in Scripture

historically, the Trinitarian Church has always believed that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus


ST. HILARY OF POITIERS (c. 315 - 368 A.D.)
When we speak of the reality of Christ's nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously -- had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: "My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in Him." As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God. (The Trinity 8:14)

 

[Erose]

The "issue" is not what CHANGES or not, the issue is what First Corinthians 11 and the other Eucharistic texts STATE. THAT is our little discussion at this point...

Well what does it state? Let us look at it in more detail along with some of the other passages:

1Cor 11: [23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. [24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. [25] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

Luke 22: [19] And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. [20] In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

John 6: [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. [60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

In the first two passages it tells us before the "is" that we have bread and wine. After the "is" it tells us we have the body and blood of Jesus. It doesn't say anywhere that this symbolizes my body and blood nor does it say that we are receiving Jesus only spiritually. Jesus uses very explicit language that denotes a change.

For example if I pick up a rock off the ground and tell you that it is a piece of bread, well at the end of the day it is either still a rock or it has in fact become a piece of bread. So the questions I ask you is this. Is the bread bread before the use of the verb "is"? And what is it that you consume afterwards, bread or the body of Jesus. It can only be one of those two, I would think even in your theology.

I accept what Jesus said and Paul penned by inspiration. Which is why I conclude the new RCC Eucharistic DOGMA to be both moot and baseless.

What do you accept? I haven't seen what you have accepted yet? All I have seen is that the Catholics are wrong and you are not. I have also seen in the first post that you think that those who think it is symbolism is wrong as well. What are you receiving when you receive the Eucharist? Are you receiving bread that symbolizes the body of Christ? Are you receiving His true body? Or are you receiving Him Spiritually? What is your belief? You say real presence but in your mind what does that trully mean?

For me I also accept what Jesus and Paul said. They tell me very explicitly that what was once bread and wine have become trully the body and blood of my Lord and I accept them at their word.

I agree. "IS" has to do with existence, it has nothing to do with alchemy or Aristotle, and it NEVER means "change." Look up the word in any common English dictionary. Look of "Bread" and "Wine" too (words Paul uses MORE often after the Consecration than before).

Since my last post I have done a little research on your foolish claims. 1st Transubstantiation is not an alchemical term. In fact I have not been able to find any place where that term was every used in Alchemy. In fact, I think that in their minds transubstantiation would be a usless venture at best. Transmution is the alchemical word that you are confusing transsubstantion with. That is what alchemist where looking for. To transmute one substance, with its properties into something else. Probably for them they would be happy with changing the properties of a substance over its substance alone anyday. Lead that looks and feels like gold would I bet be just a valuable as gold in their mind.

As far as I can tell the term is exclusively a Catholic theological term and I have not been able to find it use anywhere else except for attempts to attack the Catholic position. So unless you can show me where an alchemist used the term you need to get over it. If you haven't notice the shock factor that you are seeking is not working here.

Now concerning some of the terms used in the definition of transubstantiation such as substance and properties or accidents where used in school of Aristotle no doubt and he seems to be the individual that has defined for the most part what the modern views of these terms in science are based upon albeit these terms have developed from long centuries of knowledge growth. But for the most part these terms are still used in the modern branches of science and philosophy. Substance is still defined as what something is and properties or accidents are still the characteristics of that substance. So I think it is safe to say that we are more than justified to use these terms in they way there were used.

So let us look at the Eucharist. We as Catholics as well as the Orthodox believe simply that during the consecration of the Eucharist bread and wine become truly the body and blood of Christ. As you said before the term "is" denotes existence and as such after the consecration the bread is no longer bread but IS the body of Christ and the wine is no longer wine but IS the blood of Christ. Now obviously when we look at the consecrated host and chalice physically we notice something. They still look, taste, and smell like bread and wine and do not look like human flesh and blood.

So theologically we believe what Christ tells us this is His flesh and His blood. But physically all we see is bread and wine. So from this observation and revelation we determine simply that the host must be Christ's flesh as revealed to us but still looks like bread as our eyes tell us. Substance changed, properties remain the same.

I guess the problem that people have with the Eucharist is that of faith. God is all powerful. He can do anything and is not limited to the restraints of physical laws. This is shown in Scripture from "transmuting" the water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana, to changing the "properties" of an axe to allow it to float in water as in 2Kings 6 or making in multiplying the loave and fish. All of these go against the teachings of science and are matters of faith for us.

If you believe he can do all of these things what is so hard in believing in the Eucharist?

 

[Bryne]

Rejecting transubstantiation is not the same as rejecting the fact that the Body and Blood of Christ really IS present in the Eucharist. When Christ said of the bread, "This is my Body", we believe that he meant exactly that.

 

[Erose]

Rejecting transubstantiation is not the same as rejecting the fact that the Body and Blood of Christ really IS present in the Eucharist. When Christ said of the bread, "This is my Body", we believe that he meant exactly that.

In what way? Is the consecrated host Jesus' true flesh, symbolizes His flesh or He is spiritually present in the host?

 

[Bryne]

Lutherans do not believe in symbolic or spiritual presence. We believe in real, true presence of the Body and Blood.

 

[Erose]

Lutherans do not believe in symbolic or spiritual presence. We believe in real, true presence of the Body and Blood.

In what way? Is His body and blood truly physically present?

 

[Mark_Sam]

In what way? Is His body and blood truly physically present?

To quote Luther's Small Catechism:

"What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself."


So to answer your question; yes.


Here are some more quotes from the Book of Concord (a collection of Lutheran confessions).


The Epitome of the Formula of Concord, VII. The Lord's Supper:

​

"1. We believe, teach, and confess that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, and are truly distributed and received with the bread and wine."
[...]

1. [We unanimously reject] The papistic transubstantiation, when it is taught in the Papacy that in the Holy Supper the bread and wine lose their substance and natural essence, and are thus annihilated; that they are changed into the body of Christ, and the outward form alone remains.
2. The papistic sacrifice of the Mass for the sins of the living and the dead.
[...]

6. [we unanimously reject] That the bread and wine in the Holy Supper are nothing more than [symbols or] tokens by which Christians recognize one another. 7. That the bread and wine are only figures, similitudes, and representations of the far absent body and blood of Christ."


Here we see how Lutheran Eucharistic theology differs from other Eucharistic theologies.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Well what does it state? Let us look at it in more detail along with some of the other passages:

1Cor 11: [23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. [24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. [25] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

Luke 22: [19] And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. [20] In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

John 6: [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. [60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

In the first two passages it tells us before the "is" that we have bread and wine. After the "is" it tells us we have the body and blood of Jesus. It doesn't say anywhere that this symbolizes my body and blood nor does it say that we are receiving Jesus only spiritually. Jesus uses very explicit language that denotes a change.

I FULLY agree with the Scriptures and with all you said....until the last sentence.

In NO dictionary known to me does the word "is" = has undergone an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accident(s)." Or even "change." "Is" has to do with being, existence. Not alchemy or ghosts.

And, oddly, you didn't seem to notice that Jesus and Paul both speak of bread and wine AFTER the Consecration (Paul FAR more than before the Consecration). Why the absolute, total shift from literal interpretation to symbolic interpretation? Why this agreement with Zwingli and Calvin that Jesus and Paul are not speaking literally but metaphorically?


When we refer to Jesus, we accept what Scripture says: fully, at face value, nothing added or subtracted. He is the Son (the second person of the Trinity incarnate) AND He is man. BOTH. Never converted into the other, "Is" NEVER meaning an alchemic transubstantiation. Rather BOTH are true. One "nature" we can see and experience physically, the other we cannot - but both are equally true. God BECAME man does not mean God ceased to exist as God underwent a alchemic transubstantiation. God became incarnate in the God/Man Jesus. Is = is. God = God. Man = Man.

What are you receiving when you receive the Eucharist?

Yesterday, as my Lutheran pastor placed the Host on my tongue, his EXACT, verbatim words were, "Josiah - this IS the Body of Christ, broken for you." When the Assistant gave me the Cup, his exact and verbatim words to me were this: "Josiah - this IS the Blood of Christ, shed for you."

Now, Father did NOT say, "Josiah - this sure looks and tastes like bread and if you examined it scientifcally, as you might, haha, it physically is bread, but it's not bread because my words at the Consecration performed the alchemist's dream and transubsubtantiation happens so that the bread converted into the Body of Christ - leaving behind Aristotelian accidents which your body wrongly senses as bread."

Are you receiving His true body?

IMO, I'm receiving what Jesus said and Paul penned.
I honestly don't know WHY that is so very, very, very difficult for modern Catholics.

For me I also accept what Jesus and Paul said. They tell me very explicitly that what was once bread and wine have become trully the body and blood of my Lord and I accept them at their word.

Then quote them...

NOTHING you've offered so far say anything about anything changing into anything. Much less Transubstantiating or any Aristotelian accidents.

All you've done is ignore the word "is" and the words "bread" and "wine" (well, after the Consecration).

As you said before the term "is" denotes existence and as such after the consecration the bread is no longer bread but IS the body of Christ and the wine is no longer wine but IS the blood of Christ. Now obviously when we look at the consecrated host and chalice physically we notice something. They still look, taste, and smell like bread and wine and do not look like human flesh and blood.

Nice (and obvious) contradiction.

And a nice endorsement of Zwinglian and Calvin hermeneutics of the Eucharistic texts.

we determine simply that the host must be Christ's flesh as revealed to us but still looks like bread as our eyes tell us. Substance changed, properties remain the same.

Yes. It's speculation of western, medieval, Catholic "Scholasticism." Inventing a unique Catholic DOGMA.

It's pretty much the same as Zwingli's view and hermeneutic - you guys just don't agree on where Jesus and Paul don't mean what they say and where they do, the same subjecting Jesus and Paul to the same medieval, prescience theories of "physics." And, it seems to me, the same "logic" that lead earlier to speculate that Jesus is EITHER God or Man (explaining away as metaphoric any Scriptures that state the opposite).

I guess the problem that people have with the Eucharist is that of faith.

I agree. Paul and Jesus COULD not mean what they said....

"Is" doesn't mean is. "Bread" doesn't mean bread. "Wine" doesn't mean wine. "Body" doesn't mean body. "Blood" doesn't mean blood. AND they have to subject Jesus and Paul to THEIR pagan philosophies (such as accidents) and pre-science theories (such as transubstantiation). "Jesus CANNOT mean what He said."

IMO, Jesus and Paul likely DID mean what they said/penned. And I'm good leaving well enough alone. Not insisting that they must be subject to pagan, ancient and medieval speculations and that they CANNOT mean what they said/penned. yeah. Probably does have to do with faith.

This is shown in Scripture from "transmuting" the water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana

Bad example. The word in the text is "change." That word is NEVER found in ANY Eucharistic text. And the people sensed WINE - not water.

A better example is the two natures of Christ. He IS God. He IS Man. Yes, "become" is used there (a word NEVER used in any Eucharistic text) but we all accept it doesn't mean "an alchemic transubstantiation happened leaving behind an Aristotelian ACCIDENT." We accept that a mystery is here: He is equally both - even though our senses can only process one of those.

, to changing the "properties" of an axe to allow it to float in water as in 2Kings 6 or making in multiplying the loave and fish.

None of those involve ANYTHING remotely like Transubstaniation or Aristotle's Accidents.....

If you believe he can do all of these things what is so hard in believing in the Eucharist?

The question is yours....

Why doesn't "is" = is? "Bread" = bread? "Wine" = wine? "Body" = body? "Blood" = blood? Why force Jesus and Paul to agree with pagan philosophies, prescience theories and medieval speculations that OBVIOUSLY they never said? Is it a lack of faith? Is it the insistence that God agree with my speculations? Or is it just following Zwingli and Calvin in their "half is/ half isn't" split metaphorical hermeneutic (or maybe they copied the RCC on this)?




Thank you.


May all His Eucharistic blessings be yours....


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[Erose]

To quote Luther's Small Catechism:

"What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself."​

So to answer your question; yes.​

Here are some more quotes from the Book of Concord (a collection of Lutheran confessions).​

The Epitome of the Formula of Concord, VII. The Lord's Supper:​

"1. We believe, teach, and confess that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, and are truly distributed and received with the bread and wine."
[...]

1. [We unanimously reject] The papistic transubstantiation, when it is taught in the Papacy that in the Holy Supper the bread and wine lose their substance and natural essence, and are thus annihilated; that they are changed into the body of Christ, and the outward form alone remains.
2. The papistic sacrifice of the Mass for the sins of the living and the dead.
[...]

6. [we unanimously reject] That the bread and wine in the Holy Supper are nothing more than [symbols or] tokens by which Christians recognize one another. 7. That the bread and wine are only figures, similitudes, and representations of the far absent body and blood of Christ."


Here we see how Lutheran Eucharistic theology differs from other Eucharistic theologies.

I won't lie here I am genuine confused here. Am I understanding this correctly that the body and blood of Jesus is present in the bread and wine, but the bread and wine remain? If so how is it present?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I won't lie here I am genuine confused here. Am I understanding this correctly that the body and blood of Jesus is present in the bread and wine, but the bread and wine remain? If so how is it present?

I'm going to let the poster to whom you are directing this answer it, but let me add on thing....

Lutherans embrace mystery. We do NOT regard ourselves as equal to or above God. Questions are good! Speculations are permitted. But just because a speculation makes sense doesn't mean God teaches it or that it's Dogma.

What I would invite you to do is this: READ the Eucharistic texts. Just READ them. Pay close attention to the words God chose. Consider their typical, usual meaning. THAT is the Lutheran position. It's not rocket science.... Now, does it answer every question that every human might ponder? No. Lutherans don't regard this to be God's problem (or even ours).

As for our speculations, consider what I posted about the two natures of Christ, and how you regard it heresy to say that the human nature was transubstantiated into the divine nature (so as to deny the reality of his humanity) and that it's also heresy to deny his divine nature and insist that such was transubstantied into His human nature. Scripture is RIGHT when it says Jesus IS God. And Scripture is RIGHT when it says Jesus IS Man. I'm not "connecting" any dots between the two concepts - only that the approach you give in one might help you with the other.


But you ARE beginning to understand a point: Lutherans still embrace the concept of mystery. In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend I had in college, "My biggest complaint about the Roman Catholic Church is that it has never learned how to shut up." I wouldn't word it like that, but I DO get it. God is greater than we are. He is not subject to our "box." I have two Catechisms on my desk at home. My Catholic one and my Lutheran one. One has 800 pages in it, the other 12. It's NOT "apples and oranges" - I freely admit, but it does tell you something, lol.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.






.