COMMUNION: Does "is" mean "is?" Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical

[Arsenios]

What do you say in response to the near-universal description of the Orthodox POV, which is that it is indeed Transubstantiation, except that the church does not sign on to the RC approach of explaining/defining the mechanics of how the change from bread and wine occurs?

The Consecrated Bread and Wine ARE the Body and Blood of our Lord...

Trans-substantiation does not have much Eastern Orthodox historical traction...

The transformation of the Gifts does not change the bread and the wine into something that is NOT bread and wine, but instead the bread and the wind BECOME the Bread and the Wine that ARE the Body and Blood of our Lord... So that the Bread and the Wine ARE still bread and wine, AND are much more...

ANYONE who tries to account for HOW this happens is suffering serious delusional distortions!

Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

The transformation of the Gifts does not change the bread and the wine into something that is NOT bread and wine, but instead the bread and the wind BECOME the Bread and the Wine that ARE the Body and Blood of our Lord... So that the Bread and the Wine ARE still bread and wine, AND are much more...

ANYONE who tries to account for HOW this happens is suffering serious delusional distortions!

Arsenios

While I'm uncomfortable abandoning the word "is" and substituting the word "become" , I very much agree with your point. This is why Lutherans passionately embrace Real Presence. It's why, each Sunday, the Lutheran pastor places the host on my tongue with the words, "Josiah - this IS the Body of Christ.' We take that fully and "at face value"

ANYONE who tries to account for HOW this happens is suffering serious delusional distortions!

Lutherans refuse to get into the issues of "HOW" and explainations in view of whatever "science" concepts exist in the secular world at the time. It's true because God says so (sees adequate) and not because some pagan pre-science theory says so.

Trans-substantiation does not have much Eastern Orthodox historical traction...

It was made dogma uniquely in the RCC a few years AFTER the death of Luther. Luther passionately embraced Real Presence but rejected Transubstantiation as not only a baseless pagan prescience idea but also as something that undermines Real Presence, after all, if we are NOT to fully believe what the text says (because there is no Bread or Wine) then why believe SOME of what it says are there (body and blood)? Either we accept the texts as true or as false, this "HALF right" view jeoprodizes the other half.




.

 

[MennoSota]

While I'm uncomfortable abandoning the word "is" and substituting the word "become" , I very much agree with your point. This is why Lutherans passionately embrace Real Presence. It's why, each Sunday, the Lutheran pastor places the host on my tongue with the words, "Josiah - this IS the Body of Christ.' We take that fully and "at face value"






Lutherans refuse to get into the issues of "HOW" and explainations in view of whatever "science" concepts exist in the secular world at the time. It's true because God says so (sees adequate) and not because some pagan pre-science theory says so.




It was made dogma uniquely in the RCC a few years AFTER the death of Luther. Luther passionately embraced Real Presence but rejected Transubstantiation as not only a baseless pagan prescience idea but also as something that undermines Real Presence, after all, if we are NOT to fully believe what the text says (because there is no Bread or Wine) then why believe SOME of what it says are there (body and blood)? Either we accept the texts as true or as false, this "HALF right" view jeoprodizes the other half.




.

Is the "host" made at the Hostess twinkie factory?
My church often uses motza bread, but God doesn't magically turn it into Jesus flesh on the way down.

 

[Andrew]

He said it 'is' but then he said to do this in remembrance of him, symbolic I believe because if it were actually him you wouldnt have to remember if he is right there as bread and wine. Bread is his flesh (that he came in the flesh) and the wine his is blood (the gospel/the lifeline). It's not literally him probably was preparing them if they began to doubt his return i dunno. Hadnt really thought about it much.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

Lutherans refuse to get into the issues of "HOW" and explainations in view of whatever "science" concepts exist in the secular world at the time. It's true because God says so (sees adequate) and not because some pagan pre-science theory says so.

However, such is not what Lutherans do, regardless of what they think they do. By holding that the carnal, physical body of Christ becomes present in the elements along with the bread and wine, almost everything that is wrong about the Medieval doctrine of Transubstantiation is preserved--except for the (RC) claim that the bread and wine are not actually there any longer.

 

[Josiah]

However, such is not what Lutherans do, regardless of what they think they do. By holding that the carnal, physical body of Christ becomes present in the elements along with the bread and wine, almost everything that is wrong about the Medieval doctrine of Transubstantiation is preserved--except for the (RC) claim that the bread and wine are not actually there any longer.

I disagree. By simply affirming the word "is" (rather than deleting it and replacing it with the key word of alchemy), Lutherans are affirming what is said. I agree with Luther, there's no TEXTUAL reason to believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are there AT ALL if the word "is" is deleted, or (as in the case of modern Catholicism), half the time "is" means is and half of the time "is" means "is not."

Like the EOC and like the RCC prior to 1551, Lutherans simply hold that the words of the Eucharistic texts are true. They HOW is left entirely to mystery - NO "explanations" to replace the mystery is imposed, NO pre-science pagan (and wrong) ideas are substituted - "is" simply means "is". And left there. Like the EOC, Lutherans are very opposed to attempts to change what Jesus and Paul stated by dogmatically imposing (wrong) pre-science theories of the middle ages. Luther opposed this not only because it denies Scripture but (I think more importantly to Luther) because it destroys any reason to accept Real Presence which he (and Lutherans) firmly embrace.

 

[Josiah]

My church often uses motza bread, but God doesn't magically turn it into Jesus flesh on the way down.

You are confusing the new RCC dogma of Transubstantiation with the ancient, historic, ecumenical position of Real Presence. Real Presence holds that what the Eucharistic texts say is true (and so no words need to be deleted and correct substitutions made) and that the meaning of "is" is "is." Lutherans hold to the ancient, historic, ecumenical position that it's true because it's true - and in that same way, simply leave alone all the questions that God does in Scripture, namely issues of HOW and WHEN, issues, etc.

Calvin also accepted Real Presence, but of course Calvinists who followed him changed the theology to a fairly unique view since they had real problems with the doctrine of the Two Natures of Christ. Later, Calvinists abandoned that as well and simply absorbed Zwingli's view (in many ways, the opposite of what Calvin believed). Following the "lead" of the Catholic Church, Zwingli too felt a need to delete and disbelieve several things Jesus and Paul stress in the Eucharistic texts, but while the Catholic Church dogmaticly denied that the "is" applies to the Bread and Wine, Zwingli had a felt need to deny that the "is" applies to the body and blood (same/same) - the later day Calvinists simply joining with the later-day Catholics in denying the texts. Lutherans - like all Christians for over 1500 years - simply believe what Jesus and Paul so powerfully state with no felt need to deny or change it. I know you disagree, but that is the Lutheran stance (and that was the universal Christian stance, accepted also by Calvin, until Zwingli and the RCC changed it in the 16th Century - the RCC because it dogmatized alchemy and Zwingli because he insisted that what Jesus said and Paul penned just can't be true).

 

[Lamb]

However, such is not what Lutherans do, regardless of what they think they do. By holding that the carnal, physical body of Christ becomes present in the elements along with the bread and wine, almost everything that is wrong about the Medieval doctrine of Transubstantiation is preserved--except for the (RC) claim that the bread and wine are not actually there any longer.

What do you mean by "everything that is wrong about the Medieval doctrine of Transubstantiation"? Lutherans don't believe in transubstantiation.

 

[Albion]

What do you mean by "everything that is wrong about the Medieval doctrine of Transubstantiation"? Lutherans don't believe in transubstantiation.

But they believe in most of what Transubstantiation entails. There is a mechanical explanation for how a mystery occurs. And there is the belief--borrowed from the Medieval church, not the Apostolic church--that there is a literal, carnal, fleshy, physical presence of Christ in the elements. All of that is an unwarranted holdover from the Church as it had become during or just before Luther's lifetime.

 

[Josiah]

But they believe in most of what Transubstantiation entails.

Lutherans renounce ALL of Transubstantiation.

See the opening post.

 

[pinacled]

Eating and drinking in an worthy manner is what stood out to me.
Also what hasnt been stated.
Who was it that betrayed the Lord and is called a son of perdition!

Recently I have witnessed The near unspeakable.
The administration of the communion is the responsibility of the Leaders,..

And if a congregation offers the cup to soak the bread in.
Do not partake of it.

A Warning to all who ahavah the Lord with all their Hearts.

 

[psalms 91]

JUust one point, we are called to be kings and priests so I dont buy that only certain clergy can do communion. I abide by it withinn the church but if I want to serve communion at home there is nothing wrong with this at all. I really dont like the idea of seminaries rather than the Holy Spirit teaching, if you want examples just look ata couple of the threads on here and I defy anyone to say that hey would reach the masses in church or out. Personally I think it would confuse many and one thing I learned was to preach to and not at an audience, if they dont comprehend then it is just hot air.

 

[Lamb]

JUust one point, we are called to be kings and priests so I dont buy that only certain clergy can do communion. I abide by it withinn the church but if I want to serve communion at home there is nothing wrong with this at all. I really dont like the idea of seminaries rather than the Holy Spirit teaching, if you want examples just look ata couple of the threads on here and I defy anyone to say that hey would reach the masses in church or out. Personally I think it would confuse many and one thing I learned was to preach to and not at an audience, if they dont comprehend then it is just hot air.

You don't believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood so it makes sense that you wouldn't have any qualms about administering just bread and wine at home.

 

[MennoSota]

You don't believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood so it makes sense that you wouldn't have any qualms about administering just bread and wine at home.

Unleavened or leavened bread? White wine, Red wine, Pinot Noir? Which type changes to real presence? What percentage of alcohol is too much? Can we use rye bread? Must it be organic with no modern presevatives? What works and what doesn't in the magical mystery tour of changing into Jesus real flesh and real blood? Can someone use Ritz crackers in a pinch, with grape kool-aid? Is there a secret formula passed down by the apostles?

 

[pinacled]

Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,

2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;

12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

 

[Lamb]

Unleavened or leavened bread? White wine, Red wine, Pinot Noir? Which type changes to real presence? What percentage of alcohol is too much? Can we use rye bread? Must it be organic with no modern presevatives? What works and what doesn't in the magical mystery tour of changing into Jesus real flesh and real blood? Can someone use Ritz crackers in a pinch, with grape kool-aid? Is there a secret formula passed down by the apostles?

Did Jesus use a lot of those things you mentioned? If not, then why would we?

 

[Arsenios]

Unleavened or leavened bread? White wine, Red wine, Pinot Noir? Which type changes to real presence? What percentage of alcohol is too much? Can we use rye bread? Must it be organic with no modern presevatives? What works and what doesn't in the magical mystery tour of changing into Jesus real flesh and real blood? Can someone use Ritz crackers in a pinch, with grape kool-aid? Is there a secret formula passed down by the apostles?

Fr. Arsenii in the Russian Gulag managed a Communion Service once with held-back bread and smuggled grape juice, with the Zeks (prisoners) remembering the entire hour and a half Service by rote, and doing it when sleep was desperately needed... For the Pascha Service, I believe... Nobody was killed for it... Many there were Servants of the Body of Christ, and they put it together... But God always superabounded in the atheist gulag encampments, and this one was where one's identity was destroyed when you were sent there, because all were there to die in hard labor, and none were to survive... So all identity papers were burned...

Christianity 101 - Persecutions...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Did Jesus use a lot of those things you mentioned? If not, then why would we?

Are we still using the same bread and wine Jesus used at the last supper?

 

[Arsenios]

Are we still using the same bread and wine Jesus used at the last supper?

We bake ours for every Communion Service...

I want to think Christ had baked bread for the Passover meal...

Bread is baked daily in households in middle-eastern communities to this day...

Arsenios

 

[Lamb]

Are we still using the same bread and wine Jesus used at the last supper?

They were celebrating the Passover before Jesus instituted His Supper, so Lutherans use unleavened bread and wine in Holy Communion. If you're looking to be legalistic about it such as percentages of wheat or whatever, Jesus didn't make such commands. He took the bread...He took the cup (wine)...so bread and wine are sufficient for Communion.