The Eucharist: Symbolic, Real Presence, Transubstantiation

[packermann]

.


There's also no dogma concerning the interpretation of that specific word appearing in Scripture.... The new, unique, RCC Dogma of Transubstantiation is the imposition of two long-rejected, pagan theories to help understand the word "CHANGE" in the Eucharistic texts. Thing is: the word never once is used.

Neither the word “Trinity” is used. In fact, our Trinitarian creeds are also very Aristotelian.


For example, Aristotle taught that the body and soul constitute a composite unity. The physical body was like matter to the soul, but it was the soul that constituted the actual “form” which the body had taken. Further, Aristotle taught that the “soul” is immortal, and “self-moving” (i.e. self perpetuating)...he believed the soul was the source of motion itself. Aristotle contributes to the doctrine of Christ as the Pre-Incarnate God, a self-moving, self-perpetuating deity, through whom the worlds were “formed” or created. Quoting again from the Athanasian Creed:

“But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such is the Father, such is the Son: and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated: the Son uncreated: and the Holy Ghost uncreated...The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal...for as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man: so God and Man is one Christ.”

Greek Philosophy and the Trinity

So would you then say that the concept of the Trinity is pagan and there for we reject the Trinity? After all, the Athanasian Council took terms from Aristotle to explain the Trinity.

No. You entirely evaded the point. Peter said, "You ARE the Christ, the Son of the living God." He used the EXACT SAME VERB that Jesus and Paul used in the Eucharistic texts: "this is....." When this verb appears in the Eucharistic texts, the RC Denomination (uniquely and dogmaticly since 1551) says the verb means "Has undergone an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accidents." And that this happens at the proclaimation of the verb. Okay. So, that means that when Peter proclaimed the exact same verb, Christ underwent an alchemic transubstantiation (CHANGING into the Son of the Living God; "is/are" = undergone alchemic transubstantiation) leaving behind an Aristotelian accident - the ghost APPEARANCE of something that is not "real" (so that Jesus is no longer human, He only has the Aristotelian ACCIDENT of being human, a ghost image). Are you aware of the heresies concerning the Two Natures of Christ?

But Jesus always was Christ. The bread was not always the body of Christ. It is simple logic.

1. The bread before consecration is not the body of Christ.

2. The bread after consecration is the is the body of Christ

If you accept both of these premises, then there had to have been a change – a change from not-being-the-body-of-Christ to being-the-body-of-Christ.

Nowhere - including in the Bible, INCLUDING IN REFERENCE TO JESUS, does is/are = undergone an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind an Aristotelian accident. Is just means is. Are means are. That's the specific word Jesus said and Paul by inspiration penned. Not "changed - having undergone an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind an Aristotelian Accident." Lutherans accept what Jesus said and Paul penned. Just as we do when Peter says, "You are the Christ."

First, transubstantiation did not come from alchemy. You offered no evidence. The burden of proof is on you to prove it. The burden of proof is not on me to prove that it did not come from alchemy. I cannot prove a negative. So far, you have not presented any evidence that alchemy influenced the Catholic doctrine.

Second, the Bible did use the teaching of Greek philosophers. John 1:1 used the word “logos” – In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and logos was God.

The Stoics taught that God was “dynamic reason” (logos), and that God was the “active principle” which forms matter. The “active principle” or “logos” (i.e. God), exists in reality as “mind,” or “consciousness,” and dwells within the human body. These characters were like new Age religions today. It would be the same as the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that says God is the “active principle” or the “life force.” Catholic theologians would later use some of the Stoic language to refer to Jesus as, “the logos of God,” who, as the “mind” or “conscious thought” (logos) of Deity, was incarnated into a human body of flesh. This is where the concept of Jesus being “God” in “human form” came from.

Greek Philosophy and the Trinity
So does this mean that the Bible got its ideas from pagan philosophy and not from God. Although many atheists would argue this way, I would deny this. Paul talked of being all things to all me. The NT writers would borrow pagan terms and christianise them.

In every culture and each period in history, we Christians need to learn how to communicate the gospel in term that the people in that place and time could understand. So when the apostles preached to the Jews, they communicated the gospel in ways they could understand. When the apostles preached to the Gentiles, they communicated the gospel in ways they could understand, which they packaged the gospel in pagan concepts. But this does not mean that they compromised God’s truth to their pagan culture.

In the same way, the Church throughout the ages would communicate the gospel to people who could understand it at that time. The people in the Middle Ages were into Aristotle, so they communicated the Eucharist in term they could understand. But if this does not communicate to you, that is fine. You are not obligated to use “transubstantiation”. My wife would have no idea what transubstantiation means, and most Catholic would not know what is meant by this. That is fine, as long as they believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.
So I have no objections to you not using the term. If you would rather not use the term, that is fine. But what I object to is calling the Church pagan because it tries to communicate the gospel in terms that pagans could understand.

You yourself did the same thing by using your computer analogy. Did I object to your computer argument on the ground that the word “computer” is not in the Bible? No, of course not! I understand that we need to communicate ancient truths in our modern times. Just because you used a modern invention to illustrate a point does make you a modernist. And just because the Catholic Church, and even the New Testament writers, use pagan concepts to explain God’s truth does not mean they are pagan.

Nor did Peter say, "You have CHANGED into the Christ, the Son of the Living God." He said, "You ARE...." Same verb used here.... The verb NOWHERE- on the Bible, in reference to Christ or anything or anyone else, means, "Has undergone an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind an Aristotelian Accident."

Your analogy breaks down because Jesus was always the Christ. Are you saying that the bread is always Christ? If that is the case, then we should never eat bread again except within the sacrament. PANERA BREAD and SUBWAY would go out of business!

Yes. Going to the bathroom after receiving the Sacrament has some HUGE implications for Catholics, and could easily be seen as sacrilege. I know. The RCC LOVES to explore such issues. We don't.

The Catholic Church teaches that the bread only remains the body of Christ as long as it still retains the appearance of bread. The Church can say this, because believe that it has an infallible magisterium.
The problem I am having is that the Lutherans say one thing but their actions show they do not really believe it. You say the Real presence is in the Sacrament. OK. But why do you not treat the sacrament as if it is so? The only ones whose actions match their beliefs are the Catholics. They kneel in front of the Eucharist when they enter the Church. They place the Lord of the host in a beautiful tabernacle in a prominent place in the chapel. At my Opus Dei meeting, the priest asks for permission from the Lord in the Eucharist to preach a sermon in His presence. We have 24-hour Eucharistic adorations where people come in around the clock to keep our Lord company. We have processions whereby the priest leads the way holding high the Eucharist. Is not this the way we would treat our Lord Jesus if He was to be bodily among us. If Jesus was to knock on the door of your church, would you not kneel at His feet and adore Him? Would you not give him the best place to sit in your church? Would you not come and visit him and keep Him company throughout the night? And yet, even though you say that the Real Presence is in the host, your church would not think twice in throwing him out with the rest of the garbage. And you do care if they do! You are not sure if He is still present, but you do not care if He is. You just don’t go there!

I am relieved for your sake that your Eucharist is not a valid Eucharist. If it was, I cannot see how God would not be gravely offended at how you treat him. You treat it as mere bread because I think deep down you know it is just bread. And I thank God for your sake it is just mere bread. I mean no offense by this.

NO offense intended at all, but I often remember a comment made by a Greek Orthodox friend of my back in college. She said, "The biggest problem with the Roman Catholic Church is that it has never learned how to shut up." I wouldn't put it quite like that, but I think there is some validity in the comment.




.

No offense taken. As I said before, the Catholic Church would prefer to shut up. But throughout history, the Church has not had that luxury. It has to deal with heresy. The Church has only officially defined doctrine when it was threatened by heresy. As you pointed out, consubstantiation was first taught with the Catholic Church – but it was a heresy, which was condemned by the Church. The Church also had to explicitly define what is the truth – transubstantiation.

Imagine if the Church did it the way you want - “Consubstantiation is the wrong way to think of the Eucharist. But we will not tell you the right way to think of the Eucharist. We just do not know. It is a mystery”. Somehow I do not think that would work. People need to know not only what not to think, but what to think. Imagine if Arianism was condemned but the Nicene creed was not formulated.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

No. You entirely evaded the point. Peter said, "You ARE the Christ, the Son of the living God." He used the EXACT SAME VERB that Jesus and Paul used in the Eucharistic texts: "this is....." When this verb appears in the Eucharistic texts, the RC Denomination (uniquely and dogmaticly since 1551) says the verb means "Has undergone an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accidents." And that this happens at the proclaimation of the verb. Okay. So, that means that when Peter proclaimed the exact same verb, Christ underwent an alchemic transubstantiation (CHANGING into the Son of the Living God; "is/are" = undergone alchemic transubstantiation) leaving behind an Aristotelian accident - the ghost APPEARANCE of something that is not "real" (so that Jesus is no longer human, He only has the Aristotelian ACCIDENT of being human, a ghost image). Are you aware of the heresies concerning the Two Natures of Christ?


.

But Jesus always was Christ. The bread was not always the body of Christ. It is simple logic.

1. "Simply logic" that "IS" means "an alchemic transubstantiation has occured leaving behind Aristotelian Accidents?" IF so, then Peters' confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" equates to heresy (even if from the first pope).


2. You still seem to be missing the verb. You assume the verb is "CHANGE." It's not. You have an extremely weird, ENTIRELY abiblical theory about what the word "change" might mean in this singular case, you just don't seem to notice, that word never once appears in any Eucharistic text. Ever.


3. You accept (I know- you just won't admit it) that when Peter says "You ARE the Christ" (using the identical verb), he does NOT mean that at the pronouncement of those words, Jesus underwent an alchemic transubstanciation, leaving behind the Aristotelian ACCIDENT of humanity: he LOOKS like a human but actually that's an ACCIDENT, He was CHANGED into God. You accept that Peter is simply using the word "is" and the meaning of is is is. Peter is speaking of REALITY - without speaking to "change" (or perhaps he would have said "change?") and without denying anything. Sometimes it's simple. Sometimes words just mean what they mean. You don't need to change them - and then impose two very odd, long-rejected, pagan theories, make them DOGMAS, and then try to "explain" the word you substituted. Sometimes, you can just accept what Jesus said and Paul penned.

Nowhere - including in the Bible, INCLUDING IN REFERENCE TO JESUS, does is/are = undergone an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind an Aristotelian accident. Is just means is. Are means are. That's the specific word Jesus said and Paul by inspiration penned. Not "changed - having undergone an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind an Aristotelian Accident." Lutherans accept what Jesus said and Paul penned. Just as we do when Peter says, "You are the Christ."


.

the Bible did use the teaching of Greek philosophers. John 1:1 used the word “logos” – In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and logos was God.

That you think the authors may have alluded to some pagan idea ELSEWHERE is irrelevant to whether the word "change" here means transubstantion-leaving-Aristotelian-accidents.

The people in the Middle Ages were into Aristotle, so they communicated the Eucharist in term they could understand.

It may be that those medieval, western, Catholic, "scholastics" meant this theory (one of several they invented) to be nothing more than a POSSIBLE explanation - designed for those who embraced some pop pagan ideas of the day. I would not deny that. But your denomination made it all DOGMA in 1551. It's no longer a possible theory, one possible explanation for those into weird, long-rejected, pagan ideas. If your denomination had left it all where those medieval guys perhaps meant it, I suspect neither of us would have heard of it. It would have vanished along with alchemy and Aristotles' very odd idea of Accidents.

Nor did Peter say, "You have CHANGED into the Christ, the Son of the Living God." He said, "You ARE...." Same verb used here.... The verb NOWHERE- on the Bible, in reference to Christ or anything or anyone else, means, "Has undergone an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind an Aristotelian Accident."


.

Your analogy breaks down because Jesus was always the Christ

No. The meaning of is is is, not "a change happened that was an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind an Aristotelian Accident."

Yes. Going to the bathroom after receiving the Sacrament has some HUGE implications for Catholics, and could easily be seen as sacrilege. I know.

The RCC LOVES to explore such issues. We don't.


.

The Catholic Church teaches that the bread only remains the body of Christ as long as it still retains the appearance of bread.

... your denomination says LOTS of things on this point (and every other point, too).

IF we are to buy this particular opinion, then what's the theological difference? You are saying Christ is not forever present. That's more than the Lutheran church says - becuase Lutheranism doesn't say (officially anyway). A common OPINION is that His presence is connected to the SACRAMENT, so when the Sacrament is concluded, so is the promise. But this is not dogma among us. If you want to say, "Hey, when I chew it - I can't see it's bread so Jesus leaves" Okay. You are talking out of your hat, of course - but you've philosophically just surrendered your whole point.

The problem I am having is that the Lutherans say one thing but their actions show they do not really believe it. You say the Real presence is in the Sacrament. OK. But why do you not treat the sacrament as if it is so?

We do.

But just as you embrace one particular RCC opinion and so don't worry about using the toilet afterward (embracing that His presence is not forever), so we also don't worry about the elements after the Sacrament is over (whether at the toilet or otherwise). You may disagree with this, and that's okay - some Lutherans disagree with it too (my congregation doesn't destroy any of the elements - the leftover wine is consumed and the hosts are kept separately and used next week). But this is not DOGMA among us. We are not as quick at the RC Denomination is to declare a theory or invention or opinion a DOGMA. IMO, you saying, "His presence doesn't continue" surrenders your whole philosophical point; how can you rebuke Lutherans who (as a matter of opinion) agree with you?

I am relieved for your sake that your Eucharist is not a valid Eucharist.

Your documentation from Scripture, please....

NO offense intended at all, but I often remember a comment made by a Greek Orthodox friend of my back in college. She said, "The biggest problem with the Roman Catholic Church is that it has never learned how to shut up." I wouldn't put it quite like that, but I think there is some validity in the comment.

No offense taken. As I said before, the Catholic Church would prefer to shut up.

It had its chance in 1551, on this point.

Instead, it became the only denomination on the planet to declare this medieval theory of Transubstantiation to be DOGMA.

Yes, it could have left this theoretical explanation of the middle ages for those who accept Aristotle's odd theory just that. It didn't. It made it DOGMA. Why it needed to make DOGMA out of its rejection of the words "bread" and "wine" AFTER the Consecration in the Eucharistic texts, why it wanted to make these two very weird ideas (transubstantiation and accidents) into DOGMA, why it even cared (to the extent of DOGMA) about the bread and wine - I don't have a clue. But it did what it did. And now not even it can do a thing about it. But those of us not mandated to "docilicly embrace" whatever that denomination says cuz it says it, we don't have to embrace these long rejected, very odd, pagan ideas and call them DOGMA. Jesus said what He said. Paul penned what he penned (by inspiration). Proclaiming that (literally and verbatim) is proclaiming Real Presence. It has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with alchemy's transubstantiation or Aristotle's "ghost" concept of "accidents." There's no need to dogmatically explain the verb "change" in a unique, abiblical, pressed, pagan way because that word was never used - by Jesus or Paul - in any Eucharistic text. Lutherans affirm that the verb is means is. Not that the word "change" (never used) means "has undergone an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accidents, but ONLY in Eucharistic texts and in no other place in biblical or nonbiblical literature."





I hope that helps.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[packermann]

It did not help at all.

I feel that we are talking at each other but not communicating at all. I am not finding this fruitful. I asked you to show me evidence that transubstantiation came from alchemy, but you seem to just re-assert that did. I challenged you to explain how bread that was once not the body of Christ can then be the body of Christ and yet did not change and you still did not explain it. You cannot explain to me how you can be content to the possibility of throwing our Lord in the garbage. Until you respond to this I do not see any point in going on.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I challenged you to explain how bread that was once not the body of Christ can then be the body of Christ

1. I never claimed to now HOW.

2. I don't have a clue why it matters if anyone knows HOW.

3. Jesus and Paul never said. Scripture never says. Lutherans don't say.

yet did not change

Yes, you seem to think the Eucharistic texts say "change." Yes, in 1551, your denomination (exclusively) made DOGMA a medieval theory (a matter of speculation) about what is meant by the word "CHANGE" in the Eucharistic texts. But as I noted, the word never exists in any Eucharistic texts. At all. Concerning anything.

You cannot explain to me how you can be content to the possibility of throwing our Lord in the garbage.

... or you with putting the Lord in the toilet.

As I explained, Lutherans have no dogma on WHEN or HOW Christ becomes present (good reason: we're not told), and nor if and/or when the Sacramental Presence is no longer. I can't give you "the answer" because we don't have one. I gave you a common OPINION - but you ignored it.

We both agree it's likely Christ does NOT remain forever - thus your rebuke about not acting as though Christ remains forever seems, well, odd. You rejected the whole premise of your rebuke.




.

 

[packermann]

1. I never claimed to now HOW.

2. I don't have a clue why it matters if anyone knows HOW.

3. Jesus and Paul never said. Scripture never says. Lutherans don't say.

I wrote:

I challenged you to explain how bread that was once not the body of Christ can then be the body of Christ and yet did not change

I was not asking how it changed, I was asking how you can explain that bread which was once not the body of Christ and then is body of Christ without it in some sense changing. I am not asking you to explain how it changed. I am asking you to explain how you say that we cannot even mention a change occurred when you agree that the bread at one time was not the body of Christ and then was the body of Christ. If the bread at one time was not the body of Christ and then was the body of Christ that means the bread became the body of Christ. That means that in some sense a change occurred. I am not asking what kind of change occurred. Only that a change occurred.

But maybe you are saying that the bread remains bread, and Christ is above, within, and under the bread. This really sounds like consubstantiation, and Aristotelian, to me. But neither Christ is above, within, and under the bread, or consubstantiation, is in the Bible. All it says is “This is my body”. Even in your doctrine, you have to inject your own tradition into your interpretation of scripture. Not only that, but since you used the Incarnation has an analogy. If that they case, then that means that Christ is above, within, and under Jesus, but Jesus is not actually the Christ.

Also, you say you believe that the Real Presence is in the Sacrament. So do I (but, of course not in the LC sacrament, just as you probably do not believe the Real Presence is in the Catholic sacrament). But where is that in the Bible? You say we cannot go beyond what is in the Bible. But you go beyond the Bible and say that the Real Presence is in the sacrament. Why do you not just say this is Christ’s body, and that’s it? Why do Lutherans talk of Christ being over and under and within the sacrament when that is not in the Bible? Why not just say that this is Christ’s body and leave it at that? Why not just say “All we know that this is Christ’s body. We do not know what that means. We do not know its implications in our walk with Christ. It is all just a mystery”?

This is what I find frustrating. You remind me of the atheist who says that there is absolutely no absolute truth. You tell us Catholics that we should not define the sacrament beyond what is said in scripture. But then you define the sacrament beyond what is said in scripture, when you talk of the Real Presence. We do not know, just from scripture itself, that the living Christ is present in the sacrament. All we know is that this is His body. Anything more than that is dogma.

As I explained, Lutherans have no dogma on WHEN or HOW Christ becomes present (good reason: we're not told), and nor if and/or when the Sacramental Presence is no longer. I can't give you "the answer" because we don't have one. I gave you a common OPINION - but you ignored it.

But there is nothing in scripture about Sacramental Presence, either. In fact, the word “sacrament” is not even scripture. There is nothing in scripture that Christ is present in the sacrament. It only says His BODY And BLOOD is there. For all we know, based on scripture alone, it could only be His dead body. You assume that it is His risen body, which scripture never says. Now, I believe it is His risen body, but I know this by tradition, not scripture.


We both agree it's likely Christ does NOT remain forever - thus your rebuke about not acting as though Christ remains forever seems, well, odd. You rejected the whole premise of your rebuke.

I never said that Christ does not remain forever. I said that that as long as the host remains in the appearance of bread, it is the body of Christ. We have host from 500 years ago that are on display because they are associated with miracles. They are still the body of Christ.

When the host is eaten and digested, it no longer retains the appearance of bread. This is about 15 minutes after it is eaten. This is why I remain in communion with Christ 15 minutes after Mass, which strongly recommended by the Church.
But the host that is not eaten and digested remains the body of Christ, and should be adored and retained with much reverence, in the same way you would treat Christ Himself.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. I never claimed to now HOW.

2. I don't have a clue why it matters if anyone knows HOW.

3. Jesus and Paul never said. Scripture never says. Lutherans don't say.

I wrote:

I challenged you to explain how bread that was once not the body of Christ can then be the body of Christ and yet did not change

I know.

And I said I don't know how.
And that you seem to be assuming that the word in the Eucharistic texts that must be dogmatically explained by your denomination alone is the key word "CHANGE." I noted it doesn't exist in any of the texts. At all. Your continued focus on the meaning and implications of that as the keyword seems to ignore that reality.

I don't mind, at all, discussing the meaning of words in the text, but it seems fruitless going on and on and on about all the various medieval theories and speculations concerning words that aren't there. I'm sure you agree.

since you used the Incarnation has an analogy. If that they case, then that means that Christ is above, within, and under Jesus, but Jesus is not actually the Christ.

No.

Again, you are imposing MUCH. Peter said to Jesus, "You ARE the Christ, the Son of the Living God." The Greek verb there is esti .The same verb that's in "this is my body." Does the verb mean "change by undergoing an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian Accidents?" So that when Peter said these words, His human nature was transubstantiated into His divine nature - leaving behind a "ghost image" of His humanity? Or is Peter simply using the word "is" to mean is? "Is" has to do with reality, it has nothing to do with alchemy or Aristotle - or even change. Can you show that this is the meaning of "is" in the Bible?

you say you believe that the Real Presence is in the Sacrament. So do I (but, of course not in the LC sacrament, just as you probably do not believe the Real Presence is in the Catholic sacrament).

You did not document that Christ is not present in the Eucharist if such is in the Lutheran Church. You made that very bold-face statement of fact - but left it ENTIRELY unsubstantiated and when I asked for the documentation, you ignored the request. Proving your shocking statement of Christ's inadequacy suggests some proof, IMO. I AM waiting for that (in fact, it's the sole reason I came back to this thread - to see your proof)

Why do you not just say this is Christ’s body, and that’s it?

That IS the doctrine. Christ's blood, as well.

Now, we don't DOGMATICALLY deny it that Jesus spoke and Paul penned of bread and wine also... AFTER the Consecration. We see nothing Scriptural and certaintly nothing theologically necessary to call out Jesus and Paul on that point, for denying what they said. It's totally irrelevant, I agree (and have stressed repeatedly); they deserve no attention (much less a DOGMA to deny what Jesus said and Paul penned). I can buy much better bread and wine, lol. Again, when my Lutheran pastor placed the Host on my tongue on Sunday, his verbatim words to me where, "Josiah - this is the Body of Christ, given for you." His focus, my focus, the Lutheran focuses is on CHRIST and all the blessings that go with that. He didn't say, "Josiah - now I know this SEEMS like bread, but it is actually an Aristotelian ACCIDENT, a ghost image, of what I converted into the Body of Christ via an alchemic transubstantiation so that it's not bread." I honestly don't know why the RCC decided to focus on the bread and wine - even to dogmatically deny what Jesus said and Paul penned, but it did. A few years after Luther's death. Anyway, we don't join the RCC in that (Most of our Confessions had already been written anyway), our focus is entirely on the Real Presence of Christ.

Why do Lutherans talk of Christ being over and under and within the sacrament when that is not in the Bible?

AGAIN, Luther used the expression "in" and "under" once I believe. I think the Confessions somewhere use the expression "with" on one occasion. As I've explained repeatedly (and have others), it was Luther's way of affirming Real Presence without dogmatically DENYING what Jesus and Paul said AFTER the Consecration. I don't know (obviously) but I doubt the bread and wine would have been mentioned AT ALL (they BEARLY are now) had it not been for 500 years of your denomination DENYING them (although that wasn't dogma during Luther's lifetime).

But there is nothing in scripture about Sacramental Presence, either.

You seem SO very interested in that word "CHANGE" and pagan philosophies that might be involved there.
You seem VERY, VERY interested in the bread and wine.
I honestly don't know why.

You wanted to get into discussions about the elements AFTER the Sacrament is over. IMO, whatever point you MAY have had there was surrendered when you said that Christ doesn't remain.

I gave you common OPINION regarding a PRACTICE. Opinion is not dogma. Practice is not dogma.

I didn't say that ANY of this is in Scripture. I said it WAS NOT. A good reason to not have dogma concerning it.

But again, it's all irrelevant since you said more than Lutherans do: You said, specifically (as a dogmatic fact) that Christ is not present. Therefore, I have no clue what your concern is....

In fact, the word “sacrament” is not even scripture.

.... a point Lutherans often make. Which is why all those (literal) wars over how many Sacraments there are were between Catholics and Calvinists.

Now, since you don't seem to know much about the Lutheran Confessions (and that's understandable), you may find some Catholic anti-Protestant site that notes that in the Small Catechism, Luther says there are "two." He doesn't say "only." The Small Catechism was a wall chart of SIMPLY things parents are encouraged to teach their children. It's only about 8 pages long - and mostly not about doctrine. For the sake of little children, it's maybe okay they know about two. Lutherans, however, have never numbered them. Your denomination didn't either for centuries, my Catholic teachers taught us.



I hope this helps.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Rick Otto]

.... perhaps I can help, my respected friend.


Lutherans and Modern Catholics disagree....


The Lutheran position of Real Presence is an embrace of the Eucharistic texts "as is" - with nothing added or deleted, nothing "explained," nothing seen as a metaphor. It's ALL taken "as is" just as God wrote it. It is not a "spit interpretation" where some is taken literally and some metaphorically. I know some PROTESTANTS disagree, and I understand (and respect) their view, but again, the Lutheran Real Presence view is simply the embrace of words (all of them) God put there: as is.


Where this differs from the new, unique, RCC Eucharistic dogma is that it goes far, far beyond what the text says, it IS based to deleting much and explaining away much, on inserting all that is key to the teaching. It's all based on a very extensive explainnation of the word "CHANGE(D)" in the Eucharistic texts, dogmatically defining that CHANGE as an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian Accidents (meaning the words "cup" and "bread" AFTER the Consecration are to be taken symbolically in a split interpretation hermeneutic). Thing is: this HUGE effort to explain the word "CHANGE" by dogmatically embracing alchemy's central concept of transubstantiation and Aristotle' theory of "accidents" is entirely unnecessary. The word "CHANGE" never appears in any Eucharistic text. Not once. In any of them. The word is "is."


Real Presence accepts that the meaning of is is is (I love to type that, lol). It embraces that Jesus said and Paul penned EXACTLY what they mean to say and pen. Verbatim. ALL of it (including when they speak of bread, wine, blood and body AFTER the consecration). And such leaves it all EXACTLY where God does. Nothing added. Nothing deleted. Nothing "explained." No imposed prescience theories (now long rejected). No imposed pagan philosophies (now long rejected). Just what Jesus said and Paul penned (by inspiration). Nothing more. Nothing less.


See the opening post.


I HOPE this helps.


Pax


- Josiah




.

Well sure, but for me, when "is" is used between two things that aren't each other, we have metaphor.
For me, it is a normal figure of speech used no differently elsewhere in scripture except circumstantialy.
For me, it is only with great effort resisting intuition & reasoned logic, to disregard the mtaphor on the one hand, & then a total leap into the irrational to establish miracle.
And to what end?
I hear exhoes of experiencing something semi-ecstatic, & I don't say that derisively, I think that emotion has its place. But in the heat of that moment, I see the power of that moment being co-opted.
Color me a jaded cynic, but give me props for the IWT factor. (I Was There.) Growing up RCC was not easy.
But they were great for instilling self discipline & they gave me my own piano class senior year of HS where I basicaly jammed with the band teacher, him on upright bass, teaching me turnbacks on the blues pogression.
And the Economics teacher got together with the English/Lit & World Religions teacher & synchronized their syllabus to chronologicaly view the history of each subject from start to end, Fall to Spring. It was pretty intense, but it was fascinating & they gave us lots of discussion time.
Lotta good memories, except for the soteriology thing.
Amazing how much it affected me. Most people never consider it very much, but I could never rest on having been saved, but still damnable.
So I was "on the Works Wagon" with chronic failure until I got online in 2000 & found the Reformed version of Reform Theology.

 

[virgilio]

[FONT=&quot]Hi All greetings,
This are my spiritual opinion about eating the flesh, Jesus has instituted to us.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Exodus 12:8 " They shall eat the flesh this night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread on bitter herbs shall they eat, " and " Eat not of it raw, nor sodden with water, but roast with fire; the head with the feet and the entrails; you shall not set any of it apart till the morning, and a bone thereof you shall not break. The sentence, " A bone of it you shall not break, " John appears to have made use of in his Gospel, as applying to the transactions connected with Christ, and connecting with them the occasion spoken of in the law when those eating the sheep are bidden not to break a bone of it. He writes as follows: " The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they broke not His legs, but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and straightway there came out blood and water. And he that has seen has borne witness and his witness is true, and he knows that he says truth that you also may believe. And these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled, " A bone of Him you shall not break. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Let us study if what is the spiritual significance of flesh/bread that Jesus instructed in the night of Passover that we must “do in remembrance” of him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

In John 1:1

[/FONT]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.
And the tempter came and said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:3-4
And he `is' arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Revelation 19:13
Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy words were unto me a joy and the rejoicing of my heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD, God of hosts. Jeremiah 15:16

[FONT=&quot]But on the other hand we have to say that if the Word became flesh, and the Lord says, John 6:53 " Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood, has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him, "[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
—then the flesh thus spoken of is that of the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world; and this is the blood, some of which was to be put on the two side posts of the door, and on the lintels in the houses, in which we eat the passover. Of the flesh of this Lamb it is necessary that we should eat in the time of the world, which is night, and the flesh is to be roast with fire, and eaten with unleavened bread; [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
For the Word of God is not flesh and flesh only. He says, in fact, Himself, John 6:48-50 " I am [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the bread of life, " and " This is the bread of life which came down from heaven, that a man should eat of it, and not die. I am the bread of life that came down from heaven; if a man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. "John's saying, " And the bread which I will give is My flesh, for the life of the world. " Behold, I have made My words in your mouth like fire, " and let us see that the flesh of the Lamb be well cooked, so that those who partake of it may say, as Christ speaks in us, " Our heart burned by the way, as He opened to us the Scriptures. " Luke 24:32 Further, if it is our duty to enquire into such a point as the roasting of the flesh of the Lamb with fire, we must not forget the parallel of what Jeremiah suffered on account of the words of God, as he says: " And it was as a glowing fire, burning in my bones, and I am without any strength, and I cannot bear it.

[/FONT]Sigh, but not aloud, make no mourning for the dead; bind thy headtire upon thee, and put thy shoes upon thy feet, and cover not thy lips, and eat not the bread of men. Ezekiel 24:
And in Jesus forewarned us in Luke 12:1 In the mean time, when the many thousands of the multitude were gathered together, insomuch that they trod one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

[FONT=&quot]" But when the night is passed, and the day which succeeds it is at hand, then we shall have bread to eat which has nothing to do with the leavened bread of the older and lower state of things, but is unleavened, and that will serve our turn until that which comes after the unleavened bread is given us, the manna, which is food for angels rather than men. [/FONT]

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Well sure, but for me, when "is" is used between two things that aren't each other, we have metaphor.

Understood....

While I disagree with the interpretation that insists we have a metaphor, I DO accept it as "valid" in the sense that it is a possible interpretation of the actual words.

Hermeneutically, I find that superior to the new, unique RCC hermeneutic of taking HALF literally and HALF metaphorically - imposing two long rejected, very odd, pagan theories upon the word "is" (but ONLY when that word is used in a FEW places in the eucharistic texts).


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Standing Up]

.

 

[Standing Up]

Well sure, but for me, when "is" is used between two things that aren't each other, we have metaphor.
For me, it is a normal figure of speech used no differently elsewhere in scripture except circumstantialy.-snip-

Of course. Wow.

 

[Standing Up]

Well sure, but for me, when "is" is used between two things that aren't each other, we have metaphor.-snip-

To follow up, we know Jesus says "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. "

Yet by the Traditional way of understanding the eucharist, though they are gathered, they are yet waiting for the priest to "bring Christ down" into the bread and change it so that Christ's sacrifice is present again and the priest may offer Him.

To the contrary, when we gather to give thanks the eucharist and remember He is already present, the bread/wine being metaphors of His offering and Covenant. The priesthood of believers.

 

[Rick Otto]

Redundancy is usualy a red flag. Maybe only a pink flag, lol.
Compromise can be practical for the duration of a meal, but it isn't completely reliable as a tool for articulating definitions, to my understanding.
There are functions of a priesthood of believers in my opinion of greater practical & spiritual significance than officiating ritual , much less the power of consecration. It simply indulges an strongly, emotionaly gratifying experience of identifying with God which is a good thing in itself, but it can be used as a way to shield oneself from on's one contradictions. Of course you can think of thiat as a worst case scenario, not a blanket condemnation.

 

[Rick Otto]

I think the safest accusation you could make is that he said your eucharistic doctrine is pagan influenced. Globalizing an implied accusation is rarely accurate.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

MOD HAT...

I just did a cleanup, please be mindful of the rule (noting what i highlighted in red):

Flaming and Harassment
● Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.
● Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.
● Those who do not adhere to the Statement of Faith are welcome as members and participants in discussions, but you are required to respect these beliefs, even if you do not share them.
● Do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes, making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
● Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.

Mark
Staff Supervisor

 

[Rick Otto]

Good job, Mark. You gonna drink all them beers yourself, buddy?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Good job, Mark. You gonna drink all them beers yourself, buddy?

Grab one or two... and enjoy!

 

[Rick Otto]

"Sin Boldly" is a little bit provocative for my taste. Guinness Stout or a Grolsch will do.
But for something witha redeeming aftertaste, try Hebrew - The Chosen Beer.