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

[MoreCoffee]

sorry, I didn't delete it fast enough.
(taking a time out)

Can't say i blame you.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Thanks, but again, I wasn't really questioning the HOW of God's workings, but the WHEN of the transformation, from wafer to body of Christ.

I understand these are difficult questions for us all, and I'm not intending to be judgemental, critical, insulting in asking, and if I come across seeming that way, I apologize. Some of it does seem a little far out to me, personally, but what do I know, and sometimes I feel like the more I learn, the less I know, and that's in life in general, and sometimes in Christ/church too.

But we're called to grow in grace, and the knowledge of Jesus, and these things are all part of helping me learn and grow. I find it interesting how different meanings/traditions have sprung out concerning what some call the taking of communion.

So, if for now, to avoid any debate on it, we just say that it's some sort of miracle, and the wafer is transformed into the physical body and blood, or the spiritual, or both, let's just say it's so for now, my question was WHEN does this take place, whether in RC, Lutheran, or some other churches. Is it before or during the services, or just always is, (which I guess now that I think of, wouldn't make sense).

And I just realized that with all the 'convos' I've had with JW's at the door and elsewhere, I've never asked what their view is on this subject.
I guess I could just read things on the net, but Jesus also calls us to reason together, fellowship, pray, encourage each other in the faith, come into unity as saved believers in Him, and let brotherly love continue.

So how we see, understand, and partake of some of these traditions or religious things may be important in achieving that. Or maybe not so much, idk, that's what I'm hoping to learn.

It takes place during the Eycharistic prayer. The first epiclesis is often regarded as "the moment" but that is speculative. The whole prayer is an invocation of the Blessed Trinity to be with the faithful in communion. Post #128 mentions the epiclesis. http://www.christianityhaven.com/sh...tholic-Lutheran-Evangelical&p=83006#post83006

 

[Tigger]

'Is' is always 'is' and 'is' is never isn't.

Not sure who first said this quote.

 

[TurtleHare]

Is a piece of bread shed for us?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Is a piece of bread shed for us?

No. What is the reason for your question?

 

[Josiah]

.


Let's very carefully look at the Eucharistic texts, noting carefully the words - what Jesus said and Paul penned, and equally what they did not.


Matthew 26:26-29

26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."


First Corinthians 11:23-29

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24. and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25. In the same way, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.



There are three basic "takes" on this in modern Western Christianity.....





One might summerize the 3 common views this way:


LUTHERAN: Is.... Body..... Blood..... bread..... wine....... All are true, all are affirmed. It's mystery.


ROMAN CATHOLIC: Body.... Blood..... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the bread and wine actually aren't, they are Aristotelian Accidents instead. It's an alchemic Transubstatiation.


ZWINGLI: Bread.... Wine.... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the Body and Blood actually aren't, they are symbols instead. It's metaphor.




- Josiah



.

Personally, I rejoice that the singular RC Denomination did not officially reject Real Presence in 1551.... it actually STILL accepts that Christ's Body and Blood are/is. I rejoice in that. For while I reject its new, unique Eucharistic Dogma of Transubstantiation, it still accepts that Christ is present. And that (IMO) is the point.

On the other hand, I find this new unique dogma to be not only abiblical and with zero support but dangerous.

The fundamental assumption of this new dogma is that Jesus misspoke, Paul wrongly penned, that we should not accept the word 'is', that is can't mean is. You may read the words but may not believe them. IS actually should be deleted and replaced with "changed from one reality into another via the precise physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation". And because IS doesn't mean IS, what comes after the IS isn't necessarily. You must not accept (fully anyway) what comes after the "IS" because 'is' doesn't mean 'is." Accept HALF of what comes after the "is" - since the Council of Trent of the RC Denomination in 1551 tells you to (NOT because the text says it) but you can't believe Jesus when He says "is".... Accept when HE says "body" and 'blood" but not when He says "bread" or "wine" because the text is only half right.

The premise, then, is that what comes after the "IS" isn't necessarily.... it MAY be, it may NOT be.... Thus, it is equally acceptable to say that the body and blood is what isn't, after all "is" doesn't mean that in this case, what comes after the "is" ain't necessarily. The whole premise of the new, unique RC Dogma actually makes Zwingli's view equally acceptable, it becomes a matter of choice as to what in this text after the 'is" isn't. According to the RCC's destruction here, Zwingli's new view is just as valid as the RCC's new view since "is" doesn't mean is here.

I find it ironic to see these two new dogmas - from the RCC's meeting at Trent and from Zwingli - trying to denounce each other when they are founded on the identical point: Jesus doesn't mean "is"..... what follows the "is" ain't. They just argue over which part of what Jesus said "IS" and Paul penned "IS" isn't. Both are entirely atextual, entirely arbitary but identical in the premise. In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend, both could not leave well enough alone. Neither could let Jesus' and Paul's words just stand.



A blessed Easter to all....



- Josiah

 

[IACOBVS]

'Twas God the Word that spake it;
He took the Bread and brake it,
And what the Word did make it,
That I believe and take it.

Solid Anglican theology on the Real Presence (supposedly from Queen Elizabeth I of England)

 

[IACOBVS]

I find it presumptuous for a person of one denomination to take it upon himself or herself to state the beliefs of another denomination as if he or she were an authority on such things. It is better to let those of their own denominations to state what they actually believe. I am an Anglican who attends a Lutheran church; I know what I believe as an Anglican, and I am not about to get into the nuances of the faith of my Lutheran brothers and sisters.

 

[Josiah]

Personally, I rejoice that the singular RC Denomination did not officially reject Real Presence in 1551.... it actually STILL accepts that Christ's Body and Blood are/is. I rejoice in that. For while I reject its new, unique Eucharistic Dogma of Transubstantiation, it still accepts that Christ is present. And that (IMO) is the point.

On the other hand, I find this new unique dogma to be not only abiblical and with zero support but dangerous.

The fundamental assumption of this new dogma is that Jesus misspoke, Paul wrongly penned, that we should not accept the word 'is', that is can't mean is. You may read the words but may not believe them. IS actually should be deleted and replaced with "changed from one reality into another via the precise physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation". And because IS doesn't mean IS, what comes after the IS isn't necessarily. You must not accept (fully anyway) what comes after the "IS" because 'is' doesn't mean 'is." Accept HALF of what comes after the "is" - since the Council of Trent of the RC Denomination in 1551 tells you to (NOT because the text says it) but you can't believe Jesus when He says "is".... Accept when HE says "body" and 'blood" but not when He says "bread" or "wine" because the text is only half right.

The premise, then, is that what comes after the "IS" isn't necessarily.... it MAY be, it may NOT be.... Thus, it is equally acceptable to say that the body and blood is what isn't, after all "is" doesn't mean that in this case, what comes after the "is" ain't necessarily. The whole premise of the new, unique RC Dogma actually makes Zwingli's view equally acceptable, it becomes a matter of choice as to what in this text after the 'is" isn't. According to the RCC's destruction here, Zwingli's new view is just as valid as the RCC's new view since "is" doesn't mean is here.

I find it ironic to see these two new dogmas - from the RCC's meeting at Trent and from Zwingli - trying to denounce each other when they are founded on the identical point: Jesus doesn't mean "is"..... what follows the "is" ain't. They just argue over which part of what Jesus said "IS" and Paul penned "IS" isn't. Both are entirely atextual, entirely arbitary but identical in the premise. In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend, both could not leave well enough alone. Neither could let Jesus' and Paul's words just stand.



.

IMO, this topic is amazingly simple: Accept what Jesus said and Paul penned.... accept that the meaning of is is is.... and leave it at that. IMO, this is OFFICIALLY anyway what all Christians did for 1500 years (Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox still do). There's a reason it was commonly referred as the "MYSTERY of Real Presence" and the "MYSTERY of the Eucharist." We accept the Trinity - without question or explanation or subjecting that to (wrong) prescience theories of physics. We accept the Two Natures of Christ - without question, no dogmatic rejections since something CANNOT be 100% God and 100% man, no complaints that this doesn't "answer" all OUR science questions, the Bible says it and thus so do we. IMO, we have the same situation with Holy Communion. It IS His Body and His Blood. Leave all your physics questions, all your modern doubts, all your skepticism and "can't" thoughts at the door. Jesus said it, Paul penned it (both with considerable emphasis) - and thus we accept it. LOTS in Christianity is mystery.... LOTS in Christianity is accepted because Jesus and Scripture said it (rather than our science or philosophy).... sometimes it is best to just leave well enough alone, sometimes it is wise to be bold where Scripture is bold and silent where Scripture is silent.


Calvin's view is complex (I think he WANTED to fully embrace Real Presence but....). But Zwingli and the RC Denomination both in the 16th Century let their theories overwhelm Scripture and 1500 years of Christian acceptance. As I note in the quote above, IMO Catholicism didn't dogmatically reject Real Presence (I honestly think it THOUGHT it was protecting it while actually destroying it). Today, Transubstantiation is the dogma but in reality, it's VERY rarely taught in Catholicism anymore. One of the First Communion teachers in my former Catholic parish publicly ADMITTED that - stating that for decades, what is actually taught in First Communion classes and curriculum is more the Eastern Orthodox and even Lutheran position - but with the VOCABULARY of Catholicism retained. When I read Catholics, I see that confirmed: they seem to have no idea what Transubstantiation even is, they actually are holding to Real Presence (the Lutheran view), perhaps borrowing the Eastern Orthodox NON-DOGMATIC word "change" (a word that appears in no Eucharistic text but again, isn't dogmatic), and simply calling this "Transubstantiation" (which it isn't). In any case, both Zwingli and the RCC at Trent dogmatically denied that is means is, dogmatically denied that what Jesus said and Paul penned is actually true. They imposed their doubts and "physics" to deny different parts (Zwingli: The Body and Blood CAN'T be present.... RCC: The bread and wine CAN'T be present.....), both dogmatically deleted the word "is" and replaced it (Zwingli: "symbolizes"..... RCC: "Changed from one reality to an entirely different one via the precise technical mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation leaving behind reality plus Aristotelian Accidents") I think the best approach is simply to accept what is, and leave it at that. Realizing we have a mystery here - just as we do with the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, inspiration and so much of what we accept and hold as precious.



Thank you.


Pax Christi


- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

"is" doesn't mean "in with and under"

:smirk:

 

[Josiah]

"is" doesn't mean "in with and under"

I agree. But variations of this expression, used 3 times in Luther's entire life (the zillions of other times, Luther simply said "is") is not an imposition of a dogmatic view to deny that is means is. It was to note his disagreement with the RCC's teaching of Transubstantiation, his way (3 times in all his life) to personally express that "is" doesn't mean "is not", that "is" does not mean something has disappeared and doesn't exist in any full sense. Three times in all his life, he used these words to note that the Body/Blood exists WITH, ALONG WITH, IN ADDITION TO, the bread and wine. They co-exist while NOT embracing the Catholic teaching of consubstantiation (another physics theory of medieval Catholic Scholasticism, the same folks who invented the RCC physics dogma of Transubstantiation). Those 3 times in all his life when he used those words were simply to distance himself from the RCC denial of is meaning is, the RCC's denial of the reality of the bread and wine, something he had to address because Catholics were (rightly) accusing him of questioning the RCC's replacement of Real Presence with Transubstantiation. BTW, Luther was FAR, FAR more direct in distancing himself from Zwingli's denial than the RCC's denial and address that far more than the 3 times he used words such as "with" "in" or "under."

But I'm glad you are numbered among most Catholics known to me who reject Transubstantiation and accept that is means is - not "completely changed from one reality to different one via the precise mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation leaving behind a mysterious combination of both full realities and Aristotelian Accidents." Especially rejecting that as dogma. Welcome to Real Presence and to the Lutheran side on this. In my experience, it's where most Catholics are.



- Josiah

One might summerize the 3 common views this way:


LUTHERANS: Is.... Body..... Blood..... bread..... wine....... All are true, all are affirmed, "as is". It's mystery.


ROMAN CATHOLIC: Body.... Blood..... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the bread and wine actually aren't really, they are Aristotelian Accidents instead. It's an alchemic Transubstatiation.


EVANGELICALS: Bread.... Wine.... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the Body and Blood actually aren't, they are symbols instead. It's metaphor.


.

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So many words and so little content.

Is does not mean "in with and under"

Is means is.

This is my body. This is the new covenant in my blood.

 

[Albion]

So many words and so little content.

Is does not mean "in with and under"

Is means is.

This is my body. This is the new covenant in my blood.

I disagree, but it takes a careful reading of Josiah's post to appreciate it.

I had already prepared a reply that did not agree when I decided that I should re-read what he had written before I posted. Upon doing that, I realized that I'd read too quickly and assumed something wrongly.

Real Presence was the faith of the ancient church and of the Medieval church until the High Middle Ages when Transubstantiation was substituted for it. The original and unadulterated concept ought to be given more consideration than it usually gets in these debates.

 

[Josiah]

Is means is.

I agree. Welcome to the Lutheran position (you are among most Catholics known to me that reject their own denomination's dogma here; and that's fine)


I agree, all the dogmatic words of Catholicism here to deny that is means is are .... at least unfortunate. Best to do just accept that is means is - and stop the words there (and certainly the imposition of new dogma), Transubstantiation is not only a pagan thought and theory but hard to spell; best to stick with the word both Jesus and Paul so carefully chose and used: is. As my Greek Orthodox friend says, "The Catholic Church can't seem to shut up."


As for the 3 times in his entirely life that Luther used the word "in" "with" and/or "under" in this context, again - it was to share his rejection of the RCC's teaching of Transubstantiation. I'll state again what you missed above:

variations of this expression, used 3 times in Luther's entire life (the zillions of other times, Luther simply said "is") is not an imposition of a dogmatic view to deny that is means is. It was to note his disagreement with the RCC's teaching of Transubstantiation, his way (3 times in all his life) to personally express that "is" doesn't mean "is not", that "is" does not mean something has disappeared and doesn't exist in any full sense. Three times in all his life, he used these words to note that the Body/Blood exists WITH, ALONG WITH, IN ADDITION TO, the bread and wine. They co-exist while NOT embracing the Catholic teaching of consubstantiation (another physics theory of medieval Catholic Scholasticism, the same folks who invented the RCC physics dogma of Transubstantiation). Those 3 times in all his life when he used those words were simply to distance himself from the RCC denial of is meaning is, the RCC's denial of the reality of the bread and wine, something he had to address because Catholics were (rightly) accusing him of questioning the RCC's replacement of Real Presence with Transubstantiation. BTW, Luther was FAR, FAR more direct in distancing himself from Zwingli's denial than the RCC's denial and address that far more than the 3 times he used words such as "with" "in" or "under."


.

Luther's attempt (these 3 times in his life) to affirm that "is" always means "is" in the Eucharistic texts is not the imposition of a new Eucharistic dogma to deny that "is" means "is" but rather should be replaced by "symbolizes" or "undergone a fundamental physical change from one reality to a different one via the precise physics mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation leaving behind a mysterious combination of full reality and Aristotelian Accidents." Luther - these 3 times in his life - was simply distancing himself from the RCC dogma that "is" doesn't mean "is here, and that what is stated isn't really there (at least in any normal or full sense). These 3 times, he was simply responding to the context of his day, which was this invention of Medieval Catholic Scholasticism: Transubstantiation.



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Transubstantiation is a word to explain the real presence it is not a replacement for it nor a substitute for it. The Church teaches that "transubstantiation" is an apt description of what happens when the bread and the wine are consecrated.

Transubstantiation

by Frank J. Sheed

Besides the Real Presence which faith accepts and delights in, there is the doctrine of transubstantiation, from which we may at least get a glimpse of what happens when the priest consecrates bread and wine, so that they become Christ's body and Christ's blood.

At this stage, we must be content with only the simplest statement of the meaning of, and distinction between substance and accidents, without which we should make nothing at all of transubstantiation. We shall concentrate upon bread, reminding ourselves once again that what is said applies in principle to wine as well.

We look at the bread the priest uses in the Sacrament. It is white, round, soft. The whiteness is not the bread, it is simply a quality that the bread has; the same is true of the roundness and the softness. There is something there that has these and other properties, qualities, attributes- the philosophers call all of them accidents. Whiteness and roundness we see; softness brings in the sense of touch. We might smell bread, and the smell of new bread is wonderful, but once again the smell is not the bread, but simply a property. The something which has the whiteness, the softness, the roundness, has the smell; and if we try another sense, the sense of taste, the same something has that special effect upon our palate.

In other words, whatever the senses perceive-even with the aid of those instruments men are forever inventing to increase the reach of the senses- is always of this same sort, a quality, a property, an attribute; no sense perceives the something which has all these qualities, which is the thing itself. This something is what the philosophers call substance; the rest are accidents which it possesses. Our senses perceive accidents; only the mind knows the substance. This is true of bread, it is true of every created thing. Left to itself, the mind assumes that the substance is that which, in all its past experience, has been found to have that particular group of accidents. But in these two instances, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the mind is not left to itself. By the revelation of Christ it knows that the substance has been changed, in the one case into the substance of his body, in the other into the substance of his blood.

The senses can no more perceive the new substance resulting from the consecration than they could have perceived the substance there before. We cannot repeat too often that senses can perceive only accidents, and consecration changes only the substance. The accidents remain in their totality-for example, that which was wine and is now Christ's blood still has the smell of wine, the intoxicating power of wine. One is occasionally startled to find some scientist claiming to have put all the resources of his laboratory into testing the consecrated bread; he announces triumphantly that there is no change whatever, no difference between this and any other bread. We could have told him that, without the aid of any instrument. For all that instruments can do is to make contact with the accidents, and it is part of the doctrine of transubstantiation that the accidents undergo no change whatever. If our scientist had announced that he had found a change, that would be really startling and upsetting.

The accidents, then, remain; but not, of course, as accidents of Christ's body. It is not his body which has the whiteness and the roundness and the softness. The accidents once held in existence by the substance of bread, and those others once held in existence by the substance of wine, are now held in existence solely by God's will to maintain them.

What of Christ's body, now sacramentally present? We must leave the philosophy of this for a later stage in our study. All we shall say here is that his body is wholly present, though not (so St. Thomas among others tells us) extended in space. One further element in the doctrine of the Real Presence needs to be stated: Christ's body remains in the communicant as long as the accidents remain themselves. Where, in the normal action of our bodily processes, they are so changed as to be no longer accidents of bread or accidents of wine, the Real Presence in us of Christ's own individual body ceases. But we live on in his Mystical Body.

This very sketchy outline of the doctrine of transubstantiation is almost pathetic. But like so much in this book, what is here is only a beginning; you have the rest of life before you. ​

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

That's why we have Closed Communion.. Of course "is means is." That's why the Lutherans and the Zwinglians couldn't agree to a common Communion at the Colloquy of Marburg.. they weren't in agreement about the bodily Presence of Jesus Christ in the bread and Wine. Scripture states that those who eat and drink without discerning the Body and Blood of the Lord eat and drink to their own judgment. A very scary proposition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM9BR55nA2U

 

[MoreCoffee]

Heh heh heh friend Confessional Lutheran, it is amusing to watch the Lutherans make such a hash of Protestantism outside of their faith tradition

:smirk:

PS: Francis can be a rather confusing chap at times when newspapers translate his Italian words into English ... mind you, he might be confusing in Italian too. Benedict XVI was more precise in his words. I wonder who will be the next pope. Francis may not last a lot longer, he is in his 80s.

 

[Albion]

Heh heh heh friend Confessional Lutheran, it is amusing to watch the Lutherans make such a hash of Protestantism outside of their faith tradition

How is that any different from your church bashing Protestant churches or, for that matter, the other Catholic ones? You talk as though Lutherans and every other "non-Catholic" are part of some mystical superchurch that is rent with internal divisions, when the fact is that most of the churches loosely described as Protestant have almost no historic connection with each other.

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

Heh heh heh friend Confessional Lutheran, it is amusing to watch the Lutherans make such a hash of Protestantism outside of their faith tradition

:smirk:

PS: Francis can be a rather confusing chap at times when newspapers translate his Italian words into English ... mind you, he might be confusing in Italian too. Benedict XVI was more precise in his words. I wonder who will be the next pope. Francis may not last a lot longer, he is in his 80s.

I was just trying to offer up my agreement that " is" does mean " is," while adding that this doctrine is so vital to the life of the Church, it determines who may participate in the Sacrament of the Altar and who may not. For some of us, this is the pinnacle of the Christian experience.

 

[Josiah]

Back to the topic....


Questions are okay..... appointing self to correct Jesus isn't.


I think these Medieval Roman Catholic "Scholastics" asked a valid question: How can the Eucharist be BOTH fully His Body and Blood and also fully bread and wine? Valid question, I guess.... Although, I think they should have left it a question (all mysteries involve questions!). They COULD have asked the same question of Jesus: How can Jesus be BOTH fully God and also fully man? There are LOTS of mystery in Christianity. Mysteries tend to raise questions (usually best left unanswered). In each case, "is" was just accepted. The Bible says that Jesus IS God - so He is. The Bible says Jesus IS man - so He is. No (wrong) pre-science theories or (wrong) pagan philosophies need be imposed to deny that "is" means "is" or to deny anything as really being. The Bible says that the Father IS God, the Son IS God, the Holy Spirit IS God yet the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit and there IS one God. Well, the meaning of is is is. What we have is a mystery. No need to replace it with some (wrong) prescience thought or some (wrong) pagan philosophy to dogmatize that is doesn't mean is and that what is spoken of actually isn't the case.

I agree with MoreCoffee: the problem with Catholicism here is that rather than accepting the Mystery and embracing the word Jesus and Paul so carefully chose and used - the simple word "is" (easy to spell, too!), they invented pages and pages of pagan and prescience theories and throughts - much, many, endless words - all serving to destroy the whole point: IS. If "is" doesn't mean is, then there's no reason to accept that anything actually "is." The new dogma actually destroys the whole basis of Real Presence. I'm sure that wasn't the intent, but that's the consequence. Why believe that "is" means "is" if it doesn't, why accept that what the Eucharistic texts indicates is really there actually isn't but only SEEMS like it? I agree, they should have left well enough alone rather than dogmatize this invention of Medieval Roman Catholic Scholastics. In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend, "The Roman Church can't seem to shut up."


Thank you.


- Josiah




.