Transubstantiation

[RileyG]

I am thinking of studying Augustine right now.

Ok! God bless and feel free to ask as many questions as you like!

 

[RileyG]

One thing to think about. At the last supper, Jesus took the bread and said, "This is my body". Then He took the wine and said, "This is my blood of the New Covenant, drink ye all of you." Now if Jesus wanted to eat His body and drink His blood while He was there in person with them, does that mean that He was going to slice off a bit of His body and merge it with the bread, and cut His wrist and merge His blood with wine? Wouldn't that sound loopy tunes to you?

And during the Mass, how does a wafer miraculously change into human flesh while still being a wafer? And how does the wine change into human blood when it remains wine? To a normal common sense person it would be koo koo bananatown stuff!

The substance changes. The actual chemistry and biology of the bread and wine remain. We are not eating his skin or toenails. The Eucharist itself is a miracle.

 

[Clare73]

Yes. We connect the Mass with a sacrifice. The Mass IS a sacrifice.

But that is not in agreement with NT apostolic teaching which presents Jesus sacrifice as once for all (Romans 6:10; Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12, 26, 28, Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18), and
does not permit any other sacrifice.

 

[The Liturgist]

But that is not in agreement with NT apostolic teaching which presents Jesus sacrifice as once for all (Romans 6:10; Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12, 26, 28, Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18), and
does not permit any other sacrifice.

I fear you are not fully informed on the nuances of Eucharistic theology. The bloodless and rational sacrifice of the Divine Liturgy or Mass or Holy Communion service is an anamnesis, a word often translated as “remembrance” but which really means something closer to “recapitulation”, in which the congregation participates in the Last Supper and the one all-sufficient Sacrifice of our Lord.

Thus, celebrations of the Mass or Divine Liturgy are not novel sacrifices, but rather, liturgical celebrations of, and participations in, the sacrifice of our Lord. This is why we say that when we partake of the Eucharist, we are in communion with the entire Church Militant and Triumphant.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I fear you are not fully informed on the nuances of Eucharistic theology. The bloodless and rational sacrifice of the Divine Liturgy or Mass or Holy Communion service is an anamnesis, a word often translated as “remembrance” but which really means something closer to “recapitulation”, in which the congregation participates in the Last Supper and the one all-sufficient Sacrifice of our Lord.

Thus, celebrations of the Mass or Divine Liturgy are not novel sacrifices, but rather, liturgical celebrations of, and participations in, the sacrifice of our Lord. This is why we say that when we partake of the Eucharist, we are in communion with the entire Church Militant and Triumphant.

Lutherans would agree with our Orthodox brethren that the anamnesis of the Eucharist is a partaking of the once-and-for-all sacrifice; this is why there is forgiveness of sins here in the Supper. For us the emphasis is always God-come-down. Thus it is never a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice upward; but is the sacrifice given downward from God to us. It is in this God-come-down, in the giving of Christ's perfect sacrifice as we partake of His true flesh and true blood that we have forgiveness and grace in the Supper.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

Lutherans would agree with our Orthodox brethren that the anamnesis of the Eucharist is a partaking of the once-and-for-all sacrifice; this is why there is forgiveness of sins here in the Supper. For us the emphasis is always God-come-down. Thus it is never a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice upward; but is the sacrifice given downward from God to us. It is in this God-come-down, in the giving of Christ's perfect sacrifice as we partake of His true flesh and true blood that we have forgiveness and grace in the Supper.

-CryptoLutheran

Indeed; I find this nicely summarized by the German word for Lutheran church services, Gottesdienst. This phrase, literally translated, means “God’s Service.”

I myself feel obliged to reject this model, however, because the epiclesis of the ancient liturgies reflects a synergistic rather than a monergistic model of Eucharistic action, for example, when in the Byzantine Rite the celebrant intones “Thine Own of Thine Own, we offer unto Thee, on behalf of All and for All.”

It is only really in the most subtle details like this where I find myself disagreeing with normative Lutheranism, and the tragedy seems to be that the early Lutheran theologians thought they were precisely reverting to the Patristic Orthodox model, and were unpleasantly surprised when Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople informed them of certain errors in their doctrine.

However, I have to stress my disagreement with normative Lutheranism is extremely subtle, and it does not even extend to all Lutheran churches; there have been some Lutheran churches in the Evangelical Catholic tradition whose worship and ideas on Eucharistic theology represent those of Rome before the Great Schism. For example, the early years of the Church of Sweden following its conversion to Lutheranism.

Indeed, there are some Lutheran churches in existence even now that I could see myself working for, if I left my current ministry. Although Anglo Catholicism, Old Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Church of the East, a sacramental Methodist church, or a conservative revitalization of the Moravian church (which unfortunately at present is, in the United States, entirely under the control of liberal theological elements, despite the discontent of many members, and there is no confessional movement or alternative Moravian church) would be an easier fit.

Lutheranism is a bit like Roman Catholicism in that I agree with nearly everything; certain subtle aspects of the Eucharistic doctrine of the Lutheran church, and Papal Infallibility in the Roman Catholic Church, represent obstacles, frustrating obstacles, I should add (I can only salivate at the idea of being a Roman Catholic priest with multi-ritual faculties).

 

[Clare73]

I fear you are not fully informed on the nuances of Eucharistic theology.

I am responding to the statement that the Mass IS a sacrifice, which according to the NT it is not.

The bloodless and rational sacrifice of the Divine Liturgy or Mass or Holy Communion service is an anamnesis, a word often translated as “remembrance” but which really means something closer to “recapitulation”, in which the congregation participates in the Last Supper and
the one all-sufficient Sacrifice of our Lord.

The Lord's Supper is a participation in the benefits of the once-for-all sacrifice.

But hopefully you agree that the Mass is not an act of sacrifice as the statement "the Mass IS a sacrifice" indicates.

Thus, celebrations of the Mass or Divine Liturgy are not novel sacrifices, but rather, liturgical celebrations of, and participations in, the sacrifice of our Lord. This is why we say that when we partake of the Eucharist, we are in communion with the entire Church Militant and Triumphant.

We participate in, partake of its benefits, right?
We do not participate in sacrificing, only Christ participated in sacrificing. . .once for all.
(Romans 6:10; Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12, 26, 28, Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18)

 

[The Liturgist]

I am responding to the statement that the Mass IS a sacrifice, which according to the NT it is not.

The Lord's Supper is a participation in the benefits of the once-for-all sacrifice.

But hopefully you agree that the Mass is not an act of sacrifice as the statement "the Mass IS a sacrifice" indicates.

I can’t agree with that because the Eucharist is literally the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in 33 AD. When we partake of the Eucharist, we are actually in that moment, in communion with our Lord, the Apostles, and all true Christians who have lived or will live, the Communion of the Saints referred to in the Apostles’ Creed.

To put it another way, if the Eucharist is not a sacrifice, the New Testament text you refer to could not exist, because the once-for-all sacrifice it refers to is the Eucharist, or Divine Liturgy, or Mass, or Holy Communion (I prefer not to call it the Lord’s Supper due to the association of that term with extremely low church denominations, and due to a lack of Patristic use of the term.

We participate in (share in, partake of) its benefits, right?

Yes. That is literally the whole point of celebrating the Eucharist.

 

[Clare73]

I can’t agree with that because
the Eucharist is literally the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in 33 AD.

Is it a meal on the literal sacrifice already made, or is it an act of sacrifice, contrary to NT apostolic teaching in Romans 6:10; Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12, 26, 28, Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18?

When we partake of the Eucharist, we are actually in that moment,

We are in that moment when the meal on the already-sacrificed (slain) flesh and blood is eaten,
as it was in the OT sacrificial meal, which was the pattern for the NT sacrificial meal.

in communion with our Lord, the Apostles, and all true Christians who have lived or will live, the Communion of the Saints referred to in the Apostles’ Creed.

It doesn't have to be the act of sacrifice (taking the life) in order to be in communion with all of the above in the sacrificial meal on the actual already-sacrificed (slain) flesh and blood.
The OT sacrificial meal was not an act of sacrifice, it was a meal on the slain flesh already sacrificed.
The act of sacrifice (offering of physical life) and the meal on the already-sacrificed flesh and blood (that was offered) are two different things.

To put it another way, if the Eucharist is not a sacrifice, the New Testament text you refer to could not exist, because the once-for-all sacrifice it refers to is the Eucharist,

The sacrifice referred to in the above texts is the once-for-all act on Calvary of 2,000 years ago.

or Divine Liturgy, or Mass, or Holy Communion (I prefer not to call it the Lord’s Supper due to the association of that term with extremely low church denominations, and due to a lack of Patristic use of the term.
Yes. That is literally the whole point of celebrating the Eucharist.

We participate in its benefits by feeding on the already-sacrificed (life-taken) offering, not by sacrificing it (taking its life) again.

 

[concretecamper]

I think I believe in transubstantiation despite being Protestant.

Is that bad?

it is not bad. It is conforming to Christ's words and to Christian teaching for close to 2000 years.

 

[The Liturgist]

Is it a meal on the literal sacrifice already made, or is it an act of sacrifice, contrary to NT apostolic teaching in Romans 6:10; Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12, 26, 28, Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18?

We are in that moment when the meal on the already-sacrificed (slain) flesh and blood is eaten,
as it was in the OT sacrificial meal, which was the pattern for the NT sacrificial meal.

It doesn't have to be the act of sacrifice (taking the life) in order to be in communion with all of the above in the sacrificial meal on the actual already-sacrificed (slain) flesh and blood.

Indeed, that’s why the Eucharist is called “bloodless and rational.” It is a sacrificial meal, of the one sacrifice of our Lord. The priest does not re-sacrifice Christ each time he celebrates the Liturgy.

The OT sacrificial meal was not an act of sacrifice, it was a meal on the slain flesh already sacrificed.
The act of sacrifice (offering of physical life) and the meal on the already-sacrificed flesh and blood (that was offered) are two different things.

The sacrifice referred to in the above texts is the once-for-all act on Calvary of 2,000 years ago.

We participate in its benefits by feeding on the already-sacrificed (life-taken) offering, not by sacrificing it (taking its life) again.

I have already explained this doctrine to you from the perspective of high church Anglicans, Moravians, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians and Roman Catholics, and ViaCrucis provided additional commentary on the Lutheran concept, and I am not prepared to go in circles explaining sacramental theology and the concept of anamnesis. Nor, alas, can I recommend a good introductory text on Eucharistic theology because I learned this so long ago in seminary, all the liturgiological texts I have are much more high-level. Perhaps the Lutheran Study Bible or Orthodox Study Bible would fit the bill.

 

[Clare73]

Indeed, that’s why the Eucharist is called “bloodless and rational.” It is a sacrificial meal, of the one sacrifice of our Lord.
The priest does not re-sacrifice Christ each time he celebrates the Liturgy.

I think some actually think of it is a re-sacrifice.

I have already explained this doctrine to you from the perspective of high church Anglicans, Moravians, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians and Roman Catholics, and ViaCrucis provided additional commentary on the Lutheran concept, and I am not prepared to go in circles explaining sacramental theology and the concept of anamnesis. Nor, alas, can I recommend a good introductory text on Eucharistic theology because I learned this so long ago in seminary, all the liturgiological texts I have are much more high-level. Perhaps the Lutheran Study Bible or Orthodox Study Bible would fit the bill.

I think we are using the word "sacrifice" differently.
You use it as a noun, while I use it as a verb.
I use "the sacrifice" as the noun.

I understand you, by sacrifice, to be referring to the act of sacrificing (verb), whereas it appears you are referring to that which was sacrificed (noun).

 

[concretecamper]

I think some actually think of it is a re-sacrifice

Only protestants who have been taught this lie about the Church.

 

[Clare73]

Only protestants who have been taught this lie about the Church.

I have had Roman Catholics tell me this.

 

[concretecamper]

I have had Roman Catholics tell me this.

I doubt it.

 

[Clare73]

I doubt it.

Your loss. . .

 

[Jipsah]

I think I believe in transubstantiation despite being Protestant.

Is that bad?

Nope.

 

[Jipsah]

Good Day,

Believing a physical contradiction is both irrational and illogical, so no not good at all IMHO.

In Him,
Bill

"Take, eat, this is My Body." 'Nuff said.