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

[Albion]

So you say he is speaking metaphorically or 'could be' in this case (the metaphoric word being 'bread')?
The road is sharp and narrow and just because so many Christians believe that Jesus is made of bread and wine and have believed it for 1500 years does not mean that I should just be apart of it 100 percent.

No one teaches or believes that Jesus is made of bread.

 

[Josiah]

So Jesus can speak in parables but not metaphors? He is the bread of life come down from Heaven, he is explaining this to Jews... how is this meaning fixated on actual bread and wine?

AGAIN, friend, I do and have affirmed that Jesus (on very rare occasions) spoke metaphorically. No one on the planet denies that, my friend. The issue is whether one word in the Eucharistic texts is one of these very rare cases.


The "problem" dogmatically insisting that's the case with one word "is" in all the Eucharistic texts is as follows:

1. Generally, a whole TEXT is either literal or symbolic. Generally, it's NOT a case where every word (perhaps millions of them, lol) around a word are all considered literal - EXCEPT for a single word right in the middle.

2. IMO, the literal "take" is always to be taken - unless the context makes it clear a symbolic/metaphoric "take" is meant. There is NOTHING in the context to suggest Jesus (or Paul) are speaking symbolically. Zwingli rejected that "is" means Is" NOT because of the context but because he declared that if we accept what Jesus said and Paul penned, well..... then they had to be wrong because it's just not possible, it cannot be true because it conflicted with his medieval view of physics. No one suggests the context is symbolic.

3. I think we disagree on a fundamental hermenutical principle: I don't think that every single Christian (2.2 billion currently) are all individual interpreters. I think the WHOLE CHURCH (all Christians, past and present) are. Here's the reality NO ONE DENIES.... for 1500 years, Christians "read" this literally, "as is", accepting it "at face value." Universally, without even one exception, for 1500 years, every Christian on the planet Earth accepted that the meaning of "is" is "is." Christ IS present, His Body and Blood IS there. Not until the mid 16th Century did ANYONE think Jesus and Paul didn't mean what they both stressed so powerfully. His name was Zwingli, and he rejected the universal, historic view for one reason: He declared that what Jesus said and Paul penned "cannot be true". He declared that because the historic, universal view didn't jibe with his medieval (wrong) view of physics and his heretical denial of the Two Natures of Christ. Well, he was wrong.... all Christians for 1500 years (and over 75% of Christians for the past 500 years) are right: Jesus and Paul meant what they said and stressed. Even if someones' concept of physics doesn't understand it (try wrapping physics around Jesus being EVERYWHERE at the same time). IMO, the "burden" lies with those who reject the absolutely universal, ecumencial, historic view (that NOT ONE PERSON in 1500 years disagreed with).... and Zwingli fails, all he can say is "cannot be true." I resist telling God that He's wrong because "it cannot be true."




Thank you.


- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

Josiah wrote:
all Christians for 1500 years (and over 75% of Christians for the past 500 years) are right:

That is an unverified statement. You have no idea what the early church taught on this issue, especially the early Jewish believers. Gentile churches certainly began to teach literal blood and body as Rome took political/religious control over the empire, but your universal "all" cannot be verified and thus cannot be used as proof of accurate interpretation.

 

[Andrew]

No one teaches or believes that Jesus is made of bread.

Except for when they hold up the bread and say this is the body of Christ.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

AGAIN, friend, I do and have affirmed that Jesus (on very rare occasions) spoke metaphorically. No one on the planet denies that, my friend. The issue is whether one word in the Eucharistic texts is one of these very rare cases.


The "problem" dogmatically insisting that's the case with one word "is" in all the Eucharistic texts is as follows:

1. Generally, a whole TEXT is either literal or symbolic. Generally, it's NOT a case where every word (perhaps millions of them, lol) around a word are all considered literal - EXCEPT for a single word right in the middle.

2. IMO, the literal "take" is always to be taken - unless the context makes it clear a symbolic/metaphoric "take" is meant. There is NOTHING in the context to suggest Jesus (or Paul) are speaking symbolically. Zwingli rejected that "is" means Is" NOT because of the context but because he declared that if we accept what Jesus said and Paul penned, well..... then they had to be wrong because it's just not possible, it cannot be true because it conflicted with his medieval view of physics. No one suggests the context is symbolic.

3. I think we disagree on a fundamental hermenutical principle: I don't think that every single Christian (2.2 billion currently) are all individual interpreters. I think the WHOLE CHURCH (all Christians, past and present) are. Here's the reality NO ONE DENIES.... for 1500 years, Christians "read" this literally, "as is", accepting it "at face value." Universally, without even one exception, for 1500 years, every Christian on the planet Earth accepted that the meaning of "is" is "is." Christ IS present, His Body and Blood IS there. Not until the mid 16th Century did ANYONE think Jesus and Paul didn't mean what they both stressed so powerfully. His name was Zwingli, and he rejected the universal, historic view for one reason: He declared that what Jesus said and Paul penned "cannot be true". He declared that because the historic, universal view didn't jibe with his medieval (wrong) view of physics and his heretical denial of the Two Natures of Christ. Well, he was wrong.... all Christians for 1500 years (and over 75% of Christians for the past 500 years) are right: Jesus and Paul meant what they said and stressed. Even if someones' concept of physics doesn't understand it (try wrapping physics around Jesus being EVERYWHERE at the same time). IMO, the "burden" lies with those who reject the absolutely universal, ecumencial, historic view (that NOT ONE PERSON in 1500 years disagreed with).... and Zwingli fails, all he can say is "cannot be true." I resist telling God that He's wrong because "it cannot be true."




Thank you.


- Josiah




.

In post 495 I posted scripture from the gospel of John.
He brings up 'manna' to the Jews and refers to himself as the bread of life from Heaven. Jews believed death was like an empty stomach thus eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood is referring to Christ IN you, fulfilling you, the tradition the Catholic church uses is representing the same thing but its not really necessary as we in accepting Christ are part of the body of Christ.
I'll research this figure you bring up this weekend but I have never heard of this guy and have not been influenced by him.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

In post 495 I posted scripture from the gospel of John.

Yes, but it has nothing to do with Communion (it didn't even exist yet). In the opening post, I quote Jesus and Paul as they speak about Communion.


- Josiah

 

[Andrew]

Yes, but it has nothing to do with Communion (it didn't even exist yet). In the opening post, I quote Jesus and Paul as they speak about Communion.


- Josiah

I guess we see differently, the scripture you gave in your first post is telling me not to take it "any other way", implying that he is not to be obtained by practises that draw away from his original meaning.


Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

Josiah wrote:
I don't think that every single Christian (2.2 billion currently) are all individual interpreters. I think the WHOLE CHURCH (all Christians, past and present) are.

You believe that group think establishes correct and accurate interpretation? Do you see any problems with group think throughout history? Has group think changed throughout history? Does God change and evolve with the thinking of the group or does God remain the same?
We wrestle with the text to understand what God is saying. We grapple with it and we let the context define it. This means that when the group goes down a path that is inconsistent with the text, the individuals who grapple must call for...Reformation.
Josiah, do you realize you have argued against the Reformation with your statement? Perhaps you wish to restate your comment?

 

[Josiah]

I guess we see differently, the scripture you gave in your first post is telling me not to take it "any other way", implying that he is not to be obtained by practises that draw away from his original meaning.

IMO, it seems to me you are insisting (on your own) that Jesus and Paul MEANT to say something different than they did... and thus that is the "original meaning."

I start with the assumption that words are intentional and original, and so I start with the actual word. And the context hereof. And that word is "is." Which 99% of the time in Scripture, means "is." Jesus and Paul DO very, very rarely speak metaphorically (as you note) but the overwhelming majority of the time, they speak literally. So, I look at "is" "Body" "Blood" "bread" "Wine" "forgiveness" and see no contextual reason that this these 6 words MUST be metaphoric (or maybe just the ones that I want to be metaphoric, not the others - an arbitrary and personal choice that has nothing to do with the text or the context). Again, I'm not dismissing the theoretical possibility that these 6 words could be among the very rare cases where Jesus (and even more rare cases) where Paul speak metaphorically. But IMO, the "burden" is on those who insist these 6 words are examples of those very rare cases. Zwingli first came up with this "spin" - and his rationale was "what Jesus said and Paul penned cannot be true." To me, that's a WHOLLY inadequate proof. I can think of a dozen things off the top of my head that you and I would both accept as true BECAUSE Scripture says so... and some guy could equally say "this is symbolic because it can't be true."


But yes, I do look to the WHOLE church (not just in the mirror) for help with interpretation. After all, God made his covenant and promises to US (not ONLY Josiah) and God gave His Scripture to all of US (not just Josiah). And that's stunning. NOT ONE individual.... not even one.... for 1500 years..... from Jesus to Zwingli.... not one saw the 6 words of Jesus and Paul here as "metaphoric" or symbolic. Not one. That says something to me. Were ALL of them totally ignorant? Did NONE of them read the words? Did the Holy Spirit guide NO ONE on this for 1500 years? Until Zwingli in the 16th Century, who insists, "But that cannot be true!!!!" and thus invented this speculation "SOME of the 6 words are metaphoric but all the words around them - the whole context - is literal." I have a problem with that. Again, while I don't dismiss the possiblity that EVERY CHRISTIAN ON THE PLANET FOR 1500 YEARS was totally and horribly wrong and the Holy Spirit was silent on this for 1500 years, I nonetheless hold the "burden" likes with Zwingli to show that EVERY CHRISTIAN was HORRIBLY WRONG for 1500 years. But all he offered is, "Cannot be true - and thus it's not." That doesn't cut it for me.... And BTW, the reason WHY he said it cannot be true is because he rejected the Two Natures of Christ, he was a heretic on that point.


Thank you.


A blessed Pentecost to you and yours....


- Josiah



.

 

[Arsenios]

No one teaches or believes that Jesus is made of bread.

Here, you can talk to Jesus:

John 6:35
And Jesus said unto them, "I am the Bread of Life..."

I am sure the two of you caan work this out...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Here's the reality NO ONE DENIES....
For 1500 years, Christians "read" this literally, "as is",
accepting it "at face value."
Universally,
without even one exception,
for 1500 years, every Christian on the planet Earth
accepted that the meaning of "is" is "is."
Christ IS present, His Body and Blood IS there.

A stunning, overwhelming, and irrefutable argument...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

IMO, it seems to me you are insisting (on your own) that Jesus and Paul MEANT to say something different than they did... and thus that is the "original meaning."

I start with the assumption that words are intentional and original, and so I start with the actual word. And the context hereof. And that word is "is." Which 99% of the time in Scripture, means "is." Jesus and Paul DO very, very rarely speak metaphorically (as you note) but the overwhelming majority of the time, they speak literally. So, I look at "is" "Body" "Blood" "bread" "Wine" "forgiveness" and see no contextual reason that this these 6 words MUST be metaphoric (or maybe just the ones that I want to be metaphoric, not the others - an arbitrary and personal choice that has nothing to do with the text or the context). Again, I'm not dismissing the theoretical possibility that these 6 words could be among the very rare cases where Jesus (and even more rare cases) where Paul speak metaphorically. But IMO, the "burden" is on those who insist these 6 words are examples of those very rare cases. Zwingli first came up with this "spin" - and his rationale was "what Jesus said and Paul penned cannot be true." To me, that's a WHOLLY inadequate proof. I can think of a dozen things off the top of my head that you and I would both accept as true BECAUSE Scripture says so... and some guy could equally say "this is symbolic because it can't be true."


But yes, I do look to the WHOLE church (not just in the mirror) for help with interpretation. After all, God made his covenant and promises to US (not ONLY Josiah) and God gave His Scripture to all of US (not just Josiah). And that's stunning. NOT ONE individual.... not even one.... for 1500 years..... from Jesus to Zwingli.... not one saw the 6 words of Jesus and Paul here as "metaphoric" or symbolic. Not one. That says something to me. Were ALL of them totally ignorant? Did NONE of them read the words? Did the Holy Spirit guide NO ONE on this for 1500 years? Until Zwingli in the 16th Century, who insists, "But that cannot be true!!!!" and thus invented this speculation "SOME of the 6 words are metaphoric but all the words around them - the whole context - is literal." I have a problem with that. Again, while I don't dismiss the possiblity that EVERY CHRISTIAN ON THE PLANET FOR 1500 YEARS was totally and horribly wrong and the Holy Spirit was silent on this for 1500 years, I nonetheless hold the "burden" likes with Zwingli to show that EVERY CHRISTIAN was HORRIBLY WRONG for 1500 years. But all he offered is, "Cannot be true - and thus it's not." That doesn't cut it for me.... And BTW, the reason WHY he said it cannot be true is because he rejected the Two Natures of Christ, he was a heretic on that point.


Thank you.


A blessed Pentecost to you and yours....


- Josiah



.

It is funny to hear you arguing for what the meaning of the word "IS" is...

And for your opponents arguing that the word "IS" means "IS NOT"...

God Bless Ya Bro!

Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

Here, you can talk to Jesus:

John 6:35
And Jesus said unto them, "I am the Bread of Life..."

I am sure the two of you caan work this out...

Arsenios

Just one more reason why I don't think John 6 is about the Eucharist....

But in any case, no WESTERN church anyway believes that Jesus is a piece of bread. The RCC since 1551 has dogmatically insisted that the bread and wine in the Eucharist is CHANGED INTO the body and blood of Christ via a very specific process called "Transubstantiation" (an idea taken from alchemy). Luther (and to a large extent Calvin) kept the earlier view that "is" means "is" so that Christ's Body and Blood IS present ... and left all the physics questions and "how" issues alone, refusing to speculate or to dogmatize secular, pagan (and it turns out, wrong) prescience ideas. SO..... After 1551 anyway, Lutherans taught that Christ IS present in the Eucharist (cuz the meaning of is is is) - leaving all the rest alone (or perhaps as mystery). The RCC dogmatically taught that the meaning of is is "changed from one reality to another via the very specific process of an alchemic transubstantiation so that the Body and Blood are fully real but not the bread and wine." (Luther had trouble with that, but since Transubstantiation wasn't dogma yet, that really wasn't a significant issue in the Reformation). Zwingli came along with a radically new and different view, that the meaning of is is isn't. Because of his (heretical) view of the Two Natures of Chrsit and because of his medieval (wrong) view of physics, he insisted that what Jesus said and Paul penned "cannot be true" and thus he invented a brand new idea: SOME of it is metaphor. Today, I'd guess about half of Protestants have accepted Zwingli's speculation.

Now, my Greek Orthodox friend explained to me that the Orthodox view is not exactly like any Western view. It rejects Zwingli's as powerfully as Catholics and Lutherans do, but what it DOES hold is not so dogmatically defined. She feels in most ways it's closer to Lutheran in that the emphasis is solely on REAL PRESENCE and shares the same discomfort with attempts to "explain away the mystery" of Real Presence, and so, like Lutherans, is uncomfortable with the RCC's dogmatic embrace of a specific concept of Transubstantiation, and again like Lutherans, speak of Christ Body and Blood - with just no focus on the bread and wine. BUT, she explained to me, it's not identical to the Lutheran position because, while NOT a matter of dogma, the Orthodox have a very strong tradition that a "change" does happen to the elements (more than the Lutheran point that a change happens to what is present), but like Lutherans, leave all the "how" and "physics" issues alone. All-in-all, she concluded the Orthodox position is closer to the Lutheran one but not identical with it. Like me, she rejoices that Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran positions stress Real Presence - which sadly, perhaps half of Protestants eventually denounced. We three may differ about whether and "how" the bread and wine are present but we all agree the bread and wine (if there at all) aren't the point, and we differ as to "HOW" the Body and Blood got there but again, perhaps that's not so critical. For Lutherans, all the "how" questions are left alone anyway. When my Lutheran pastor placed the Host on my tongue on Sunday, his words were "Josiah - this IS the Body of Christ, broken for you for the forgiveness of sins." That's the Lutheran position. Nothing more or less. We don't dogmatically deny that bread and wine are "there" too but I FULLY agree with my Orthodox and Catholic friends, "so what?"


A blessed Pentecost to all....


- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

It is funny to hear you arguing for what the meaning of the word "IS" is...

And for your opponents arguing that the word "IS" means "IS NOT"...

God Bless Ya Bro!

Arsenios

Be careful before you bless me TOO much, my friend....

Now, my Greek Orthodox friend explained to me that the Orthodox view is not exactly like any Western view. It rejects Zwingli's as powerfully as Catholics and Lutherans do, but what it DOES hold is not so dogmatically defined. She feels in most ways it's closer to Lutheran in that the emphasis is solely on REAL PRESENCE and shares the same discomfort with attempts to "explain away the mystery" of Real Presence, and so, like Lutherans, is uncomfortable with the RCC
's dogmatic embrace of a specific concept of Transubstantiation, and again like Lutherans, speak of Christ Body and Blood - with just no focus on the bread and wine. BUT, she explained to me, it's not identical to the Lutheran position because, while NOT a matter of dogma, the Orthodox have a very strong tradition that a "change" does happen to the elements (more than the Lutheran point that a change happens to what is present), but like Lutherans, leave all the "how" and "physics" issues alone. All-in-all, she concluded the Orthodox position is closer to the Lutheran one but not identical with it. Like me, she rejoices that Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran positions stress Real Presence - which sadly, perhaps half of Protestants eventually denounced. We three may differ about whether and "how" the bread and wine are present but we all agree the bread and wine (if there at all) aren't the point, and we differ as to "HOW" the Body and Blood got there but again, perhaps that's not so critical. For Lutherans, all the "how" questions are left alone anyway. When my Lutheran pastor placed the Host on my tongue on Sunday, his words were "Josiah - this IS the Body of Christ, broken for you for the forgiveness of sins." That's the Lutheran position. Nothing more or less. We don't dogmatically deny that bread and wine are "there" too but I FULLY agree with my Orthodox and Catholic friends, "so what?"


.

Lutherans - standing with the church catholic - hold that the meaning of is is is (not is not). But (less critically) we also hold that the meaning of is is not "changed".

I (speaking as just ONE Lutheran) ..... IF I understand the Orthodox position on this (and that's questionable).... feel MUCH better about the Orthodox position than the post-Trent RCC one. Although I'd much rather just leave all the words as they are.... accept them as they are.... accept "is" as "is"..... "Body" as body.... "Blood" as blood..... "bread" as bread..... "wine" as wine.... "forgiveness" as forgiveness..... REJOICE in that, EMBRACE that, we BLESSED by that. And leave all my questions as questions.... leave all the "how" issues to God... and don't dogmatize any pagan, pre-science concepts in lieu of what Jesus said and Paul penned. I'm uncomfortable with changing any of the words, say "is" to change or "is" to undergoing an alchemic transubstantiation from one reality to another leaving behind Aristotelian accidents." If I say, "this is a desk" then we have a desk here. No need to say, "it underwent an alchemic transubstantiation from a donkey" or "it was changed from an automobile." Best to leave is as is so that we understand what is present. Lutherans like to keep it simple.

THAT SAID, to be frank..... I think the Orthodox non-doctrinal "the ELEMENTS changed" and the post-Trent RCC dogmatic insistence on alchemy and Aristotle's weird theory of accidents, while something I'm uncomfortable with because I think it undermines Real Presence since it doesn't accept the words "as is" (Necessary for Real Presence), I'm just not convinced this matters all that much. Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics (and many Anglicans, too) accept that Christ IS present..... His Body and Blood ARE present - there to richly, deeply, really BLESS us. NONE of us focus a bit on the bread and wine or give any importance to them. ALL of us reject Zwingli's "can't be true" argument stemming from his heretical ideas about the Two Natures of Christ. Frankly, I believe we share the SAME Sacrament. I think perhaps the tradition of the Orthodox is unnecessary and says too much - but it's pretty irrelevant. I have a LOT more trouble with the 1551 DOGMA of the RCC and it's dogmatization of alchemy's point of transubstantiation and Aristotles (wrong) theory of accidents - but it doesn't change the POINT (which is that JESUS is present, there to BLESS). Lutherans just keep it simple, embracing ALL that Scripture says and NOTHING it doesn't (dogmatically, anyway).

This is one of MANY, MANY points where IMO Lutherans - Catholics - Orthodox (and often Anglicans) stand on the same ground.


- Josiah

 

[Arsenios]

Just one more reason why I don't think John 6 is about the Eucharist....
Today, I'd guess about half of Protestants have accepted Zwingli's speculation.

You are right - Simply by abandoning the issue... Turning it over to science...

Now, my Greek Orthodox friend explained to me that

Now you are in heap big trubble!

the Orthodox view is not exactly like any Western view.

Explaining my struggles here!

It rejects Zwingli's as powerfully as Catholics and Lutherans do,

See?

but what it DOES hold is not so dogmatically defined.

Yup - The Latins over-dogmatize the means...

She feels in most ways it's closer to Lutheran in that the emphasis is solely on REAL PRESENCE and shares the same discomfort with attempts to "explain away the mystery" of Real Presence, and so, like Lutherans, is uncomfortable with the RCC's dogmatic embrace of a specific concept of Transubstantiation, and again like Lutherans, speak of Christ's Body and Blood - with just no focus on the bread and wine.

We simply hold that the Bread and the Wine ARE the Body and Blood of the Risen Lord... (dogma, that one...)

THAT Body (of the RISEN Lord) walked through locked doors and ate fish and honey, so you can tell right away it is not confined to the world of the physics of this fallen creation... Nor can fallen human reasoning apprehend it... Only Faith that is not so constricted even CAN apprehend it, and then only as Mystery, which YOU affirm, wisely...

BUT, she explained to me, it's not identical to the Lutheran position because, while NOT a matter of dogma, the Orthodox have a very strong tradition that a "change" does happen to the elements (more than the Lutheran point that a change happens to what is present),

Yes it changes into the Risen Body of Christ... The "elements" do not change, but the Bread and the Wine do... As Christ Himself said: "I AM the Bread sent down from Heaven..."

but like Lutherans, leave all the "how" and "physics" issues alone.

And have been doing so for 2000 years now, and counting...

All-in-all, she concluded the Orthodox position is closer to the Lutheran one but not identical with it.

Yes...

Like me, she rejoices that Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran positions stress Real Presence - which sadly, perhaps half of Protestants eventually denounced. We three may differ about whether and "how" the bread and wine are present but we all agree the bread and wine (if there at all) aren't the point, and we differ as to "HOW" the Body and Blood got there but again, perhaps that's not so critical.

I rejoice as well...

For Lutherans, all the "how" questions are left alone anyway. When my Lutheran pastor placed the Host on my tongue on Sunday, his words were "Josiah - this IS the Body of Christ, broken for you for the forgiveness of sins." That's the Lutheran position. Nothing more or less.

Faith...

We don't dogmatically deny that bread and wine are "there" too but I FULLY agree with my Orthodox and Catholic friends, "so what?"

I warned you about talking to that woman!

A blessed Pentecost to all....


- Josiah

Back at ya!

Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Jesus and Paul spoke as Jewish Rabbi's who understood the Passover and seder meal. Something the Gentile churches failed to grasp as the church moved farther and farther from Jerusalem.

IMO, it seems to me you are insisting (on your own) that Jesus and Paul MEANT to say something different than they did... and thus that is the "original meaning."

I start with the assumption that words are intentional and original, and so I start with the actual word. And the context hereof. And that word is "is." Which 99% of the time in Scripture, means "is." Jesus and Paul DO very, very rarely speak metaphorically (as you note) but the overwhelming majority of the time, they speak literally. So, I look at "is" "Body" "Blood" "bread" "Wine" "forgiveness" and see no contextual reason that this these 6 words MUST be metaphoric (or maybe just the ones that I want to be metaphoric, not the others - an arbitrary and personal choice that has nothing to do with the text or the context). Again, I'm not dismissing the theoretical possibility that these 6 words could be among the very rare cases where Jesus (and even more rare cases) where Paul speak metaphorically. But IMO, the "burden" is on those who insist these 6 words are examples of those very rare cases. Zwingli first came up with this "spin" - and his rationale was "what Jesus said and Paul penned cannot be true." To me, that's a WHOLLY inadequate proof. I can think of a dozen things off the top of my head that you and I would both accept as true BECAUSE Scripture says so... and some guy could equally say "this is symbolic because it can't be true."


But yes, I do look to the WHOLE church (not just in the mirror) for help with interpretation. After all, God made his covenant and promises to US (not ONLY Josiah) and God gave His Scripture to all of US (not just Josiah). And that's stunning. NOT ONE individual.... not even one.... for 1500 years..... from Jesus to Zwingli.... not one saw the 6 words of Jesus and Paul here as "metaphoric" or symbolic. Not one. That says something to me. Were ALL of them totally ignorant? Did NONE of them read the words? Did the Holy Spirit guide NO ONE on this for 1500 years? Until Zwingli in the 16th Century, who insists, "But that cannot be true!!!!" and thus invented this speculation "SOME of the 6 words are metaphoric but all the words around them - the whole context - is literal." I have a problem with that. Again, while I don't dismiss the possiblity that EVERY CHRISTIAN ON THE PLANET FOR 1500 YEARS was totally and horribly wrong and the Holy Spirit was silent on this for 1500 years, I nonetheless hold the "burden" likes with Zwingli to show that EVERY CHRISTIAN was HORRIBLY WRONG for 1500 years. But all he offered is, "Cannot be true - and thus it's not." That doesn't cut it for me.... And BTW, the reason WHY he said it cannot be true is because he rejected the Two Natures of Christ, he was a heretic on that point.


Thank you.


A blessed Pentecost to you and yours....


- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KauKbpL4Kbs

 

[Albion]

The RCC since 1551 has dogmatically insisted that the bread and wine in the Eucharist is CHANGED INTO the body and blood of Christ via a very specific process called "Transubstantiation" (an idea taken from alchemy). Luther (and to a large extent Calvin) kept the earlier view that "is" means "is" so that Christ's Body and Blood IS present ... and left all the physics questions and "how" issues alone, refusing to speculate or to dogmatize secular, pagan (and it turns out, wrong) prescience ideas.

Would you say, then, that the customary way that the Lutheran position is explained (and called Consubstantiation sometimes) is completely wrong? That is to say, the elements take on or acquire the true, physical, literal, carnal flesh and blood of Christ BUT, unlike Transubstantiation, the bread and wine do not cease to be. The communicant gets it all--bread, wine, body, and blood.

 

[Josiah]

Would you say, then, that the customary way that the Lutheran position is explained (and called Consubstantiation sometimes) is completely wrong? That is to say, the elements take on or acquire the true, physical, literal, carnal flesh and blood of Christ BUT, unlike Transubstantiation, the bread and wine do not cease to be. The communicant gets it all--bread, wine, body, and blood.

Some responses....


1. Lutherans do not teach Consubstantiation..... that was a medieval invention of Catholic Scholasticism (the very same folks that brought you Transubstantiation); the only proponent of that theory was a Roman Catholic. Lutherans indeed reject ALL dogmas (or even theories) about HOW or WHEN the miracle happens or any about WHERE Christ is specifically located. Lutherans, indeed, have a "problem" with pretty much everything those medieval, western, Roman Catholic "Scholastics" invented... we think they thought too much and believed too little.... For Lutherans, "is" = is. Not "symbolizes" or "changed." If I point to my new car and say "This is a Subaru" the word "is" there doesn't mean "symbolizes" or "represents" or "changed" it means "is."


2. The Lutheran position is simple: Jesus and Paul stated the truth. They said what they meant and meant what they said. IS = is. Body = body. Blood = blood. Forgiveness = forgiveness. That's it. That's all. For nearly 2000 years, this has been called "Real Presence" and Lutherans continue that. It is regarded as a "divine miracle" and like most miracles, the "dynamics" (if you will) are beyond human comprehension. The "science"... the "physics".... the "how" and "when" and "where" questions of science and physics are simply left alone (especially fitting since so do Jesus and Paul). Lutherans refer to this as MYSTERY (actually, we refer to ALL theology as "mystery")... indeed, until the late Middle Ages, so did the RCC - in fact, it once referred to all the Saraments as "the holy mysteries." Lutherans accept this as true because Jesus and Paul say so .... it has nothing to do with whether secular human philosophy or science say so.


3. In Luther's day, Transubstantiation was one of the Scholastic THEORIES floating around... albeit by far the most popular. It was NOT dogma or even official teaching. Many did not buy it... and Luther was one of those. Luther felt it was a classic case of "over-thinking" (a common criticism of Luther's) and of doubting. But his main issue was that the theory actually destroys any textual reason to believe Real Presence (which at the time WAS the official Eucharistic dogma of the RCC). After all, that whole dogma rests on the word "is" meaning "is" and on what follows the "is" as existing. If "is" doesn't mean is..... if what follows the is, well, isn't (necessarily)... then there's no textual reason to accept Real Presence. Luther was hardly alone in this view, many objected to the Scholastic theories for the same reason as Luther did. Now.... BECAUSE Transiubstantiation was popular (although not official), Luther (and others) spoke of the bread and wine AFTER Consecration - noting that Paul mentions specifically "bread" and "wine" AFTER the Consecration more than before! So Luther does not DENY them after the Consecration..... he does not impose Aristotle's absurd theory of "accidents" upon them... he does not argue that Paul misspoke.... "IS" applies there, too. This doesn't impact the "IS" fully applying the the Body and Blood - it simply means we have a multiple reality here (as we do in the TWO full, 100% realities of Jesus as BOTH God and Man.... or the THREE full realities of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Luther simply found no reason to DENY the reality of the bread and wine (is doesn't mean is there)... the bread and wine may be so insignificant to even be mentioned (Lutherans don't) but there is no dogmatic need to DENY their presence. Thus Luthers use of the words "with" "in" and "under" four times in his life (abelit one of those is in the Small Cathechism!) - it's a way to distance himself from the imposition of Aristotle's theory of accidence to DENY the reality of the bread and wine, to reject the Scholastics point that two realities cannot c0-exist (Luther noting that we believe such in the TWO natures of Christ so it IS possible). But again, Lutheran teaching on Real Presence actually says nothing about the bread and wine..... and Lutherans consider them insignificant.... BUT Lutherans reject the dogmatization of Aristotles' odd (and wrong) theory of Accidents to deny much of what follows the word "is" in the Eucharistic texts.



It should be noted that while Real Presence has been entirely buried in the RCC by it's dogmatization of Transubstantiation (it did this shortly AFTER Luther's death) - you'll find Real Presence stunningly absent from the RCC Catechism now - BUT it has never been repudiated by the RCC and in common teaching, still exists (albeit, buried). In fact, as Zwingli's position became more and more popular in the days after the RCC made Transubstantiation it's new dogma, it has responded to Zwingli's view with the classic, historic Real Presence view - often echoing perfectly Martin Luther. Transubstantiation is now the RCC's dogma BUT it never repudiated the origianl Real Presence view - and indeed is teaching it more than ever. Lutherans rejoice in this! Whereas Zwingli tossed out the Body and Blood (eliminating Jesus!), the modern RC denomination just tossed out the bread and wine.... it still has the Body and Blood and in our view a valid Sacrament. Thus, we are MUCH closer to the post-Trent RCC on this.... this must not be overlooked. But we reject both because both deny that "is" means "is" and what follows the "is" is. Both are "over-thinking".... both are subjecting Jesus and Pauls' words to their OWN philosophy, concepts of science... both are starting with "this cannot be." And that's dangerous and inappropriate.



I hope that helps.



- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

1. Lutherans do not teach Consubstantiation..... that was a medieval invention of Catholic Scholasticism (the very same folks that brought you Transubstantiation); the only proponent of that theory was a Roman Catholic.

True or not, it is usually said that the Lutheran POV is what is called Consubstantiation, and the word if broken down into its parts makes sense, just as Transubstantiation does describe the RC view.That's the only reason for me to use the word in my post.

Lutherans indeed reject ALL dogmas (or even theories) about HOW or WHEN the miracle happens

Not actually what I asked about.

3. In Luther's day, Transubstantiation was one of the Scholastic THEORIES floating around... albeit by far the most popular. It was NOT dogma or even official teaching.

It was made official teaching in the early 13th century.

I hope that helps.

Not much, honestly. I appreciate the response, but everywhere one turns, the Lutheran POV is described as I have done here and yet you have come back with essentially the Anglican POV. Something doesn't add up. Even Luther's analogy of the Eucharist and a poker in a furnace goes against what you have explained here.

Are you sure that you are not explaining a contemporary reworking of the Lutheran view, similar to the one that you say the RCC has gone for with Transubstantiation, i.e. trying to make it less Medieval and mechanical for the benefit of modern Christians?