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

[MoreCoffee]

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.

I liked the song

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

I liked the song

Hoc est Corpus Meum. " This is my Body." Who cares as to the " how?" What matters is the "is." That said, I now withdraw.

 

[Josiah]

Hoc est Corpus Meum. " This is my Body." Who cares as to the " how?" What matters is the "is."

Amen! :thumbsup:

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 post-Trent modern 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."




.

.

 

[Albion]

I hate to add another consideration so late in the going, but it matters what we mean by "is." That is to say, it's "is" all right, but in what respect?

I and my church believe that it's the real presence of Christ that is conveyed in the sacrament, but the idea that this presence is literal, carnal, physical, in the way that Transubstantiation people and some others insist it must be (and offer the "But Jesus said 'is' " argument to back it up) is something we cannot agree to.

 

[Josiah]

Mystery.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hoc est Corpus Meum. " This is my Body." Who cares as to the " how?" What matters is the "is." That said, I now withdraw.

The "how" thing is largely irrelevant, I agree. I do not really know why answering "how?" became important in the middle ages. Maybe there was something going on in the universities to make people think it mattered. Anyway the Catholic Church ended up giving official support to the use of the term "transubstantiation" but I am not so sure it has any effect on the doctrine of the real presence. There was some history in the development of the theology behind transubstantiation.

The scientific development of the concept of Transubstantiation can hardly be said to be a product of the Greeks, who did not get beyond its more general notes; rather, it is the remarkable contribution of the Latin theologians, who were stimulated to work it out in complete logical form by the three Eucharistic controversies mentioned above, The term transubstantiation seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079). His encouraging example was soon followed by other theologians, as Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (1188), and Peter of Blois (d. about 1200), whereupon several ecumenical councils also adopted this significant expression, as the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), and the Council of Lyons (1274), in the profession of faith of the Greek Emperor Michael Palæologus. The Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. iv; can. ii) not only accepted as an inheritance of faith the truth contained in the idea, but authoritatively confirmed the "aptitude of the term" to express most strikingly the legitimately developed doctrinal concept. In a closer logical analysis of Transubstantiation, we find the first and fundamental notion to be that of conversion, which may be defined as "the transition of one thing into another in some aspect of being". (Catholic Encyclopedia from around 1917 AD)​

 

[Albion]

Regardless of the background, Transubstantiation remains, for loyal Catholics, the official teaching of the infallible Church, though. It cannot be "irrelevant" therefore.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Transubstantiation is relevant as an "apt expression" for explaining what happens at consecration. Beyond being apt It has no effect on the doctrine of the real presence. Besides the word "Transubstantiation" does not mean that the properties of the consecrated host and the consecrated wine change. For the purposes of observation and instrumental testing the consecrated elements of holy communion remain the same as bread and wine that is not consecrated.

 

[Albion]

Transubstantiation is relevant as an "apt expression" for explaining what happens at consecration.

Right. That's what I was referring to. It doesn't matter much what term is used, but what is believed to be happening does. FWIW, I do agree with you that the word Transubstantiation, although imposing, is apt.

Beyond being apt It has no effect on the doctrine of the real presence. Besides Transubstantiation does not mean anything about the properties of the consecrated host and the consecrated wine.

Oh yes, it does.

For the purposes of observation and instrumental testing the consecrated elements of holy communion remain the same as bread and wine that is not consecrated.

True, but you are not permitted by your church to believe that this is what it is (bread and wine).

If we're thinking about similarities among the various denominations that believe in Real Presence, all we may say is that they all believe Christ is really present in some way and in the elements themselves.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If it is the Lord's body can it be bread like other breads that are not consecrated?

 

[Albion]

If it is the Lord's body can it be bread like other breads that are not consecrated?

Certainly. But it cannot be ONLY bread.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If it is the Lord's body can it be bread like other breads that are not consecrated?

Certainly. But it cannot be ONLY bread.

That is where we differ. I say it is not bread despite its appearance - which remains exactly like bread. If we go no further and hazard no further explanation then all we have is a difference about words.

But since words are such a feature of theology and people have over the centuries laboured long and hard over words I suppose no one ought to expect the doctrine of the real presence to be immune from such disputes. Historically these matters were largely undisputed in the Latin speaking world until the ninth century. Paschasius Radbertus in the ninth century caused a dispute but it hardly extended beyond the limits of his audience and concerned itself only with the philosophical question whether the Eucharistic body of Christ is identical with the natural body he had in Palestine and now has glorified in heaven. Later on Berengarius denied transubstantiation but changed his mind and thus ended the public scandal he had given rise to; he died reconciled to the Church. Then much later came Zwingli, who reduced the Eucharist to a symbol. Calvin tried to reconcile Luther and Zwingli by teaching that at the moment of reception the efficacy of Christ's body and blood is communicated from heaven to the souls of the predestined and spiritually nourishes them. It is in that context that the Council of Trent expressed the view that Transubstantiation is an apt expression for use in describing what happens when the bread and wine are consecrated. I will not present the definition of the word transubstantiation again because it can be seen in my previous posts.

 

[Josiah]

Regardless of the background, Transubstantiation remains, for loyal Catholics, the official teaching of the infallible Church, though. It cannot be "irrelevant" therefore.

EXACTLY!


Any more than Zwingli's "symbolic" idea can be regarded as "irrelevant" to those who embrace it as de fide dogma. It is hypocritical to insist "this is a binding matter of highest importance and certainty possible..... but it's entirely irrelevant."

This was dogmatically declared at Trent - in direct response to Luther's questioning of the scholastic theory, his unwillingness (in fact, it's personal rejection) of this particular invented theory of those Roman Catholic "Scholastics" (one of several theories they invented during the middle ages). BOTH Luther and the RC Denomination at the time boldly, strongly, passionately accepted that Christ is fully present - His true Body and Blood - so that had NOTHING, absolutely nothing whatsoever, to do with the singular, individual RC Denomination dogmatically embracing Transubstantiation at Trent (now it's official Eucharistyic dogma), it was to reject Luther's embrace that the meaning of is is is, that what is is, that we should not delete anything or deny anything as not really being there, it was Luther's rejection of Aristotelian Accidents and alchemy's point of Transubstantition AS DOGMA that the RCC so boldly rejected by making it its Eucharistic Dogma. It was to make dogma that "is" here also means "is NOT" That was the whole point of dogmatizing this medieval RC invention.

Now, as I mentioned, for some time now, Catholics seem to be running from this Dogma of their denomination, some even openly reject and denounce it (meaning they are not technically "Catholics" and MAY possibly be heretics). The whole Dogma is at times "watered down" and stripped so as to become a hollow shell - just a word signifying nothing (ignoring that it is a VERY, VERY precise, technical term), others giving it a new meaning it never had and obviously didn't mean (or else the RCC would not be so boldly rejecting and repudiating the Lutheran idea that the meaning of is is is and that what is actually is). As I noted, one of the teachers in my Catholic parish's First Communion Class opening admitted that the actual RC Eucharistic Dogma hasn't been taught to Catholic laity in decades - the vocabulary is retained but entirely redefined or stripped; what is being taught is MUCH closer to the informal/non-dogmatic view of the EOC or even Lutheranism (which Transubstantiation was dogmatized to denounce and repudiate). I DO think there are knowing Catholics who WISH that this new Eucharistic view had never been dogmatized but had been left as an unofficial theory that it was until the Council of Trent (shortly after Luther's death) - it would have faded away along with the notions of alchemy and Aristotle's theories. There are Catholics (I know because I've met and discussed this with them) who agree with the Lutherans of the 16th Century that this new invention actually undermines if not destroys the very precious thing we BOTH desired to affirm: Real Presence. But here's the deal: The RCC insists that there is ONE (and just one) who CANNOT be wrong in matters of official dogma: It itself alone, exclusively, individually. To say, "We were wrong when we declared this at Trent" is to admit something it CANNOT without destroying the whole foundation and keystone on which the RC Denomination has build itself: It's own unquestionable, infallible unaccountable Authority in these matters. The RCC can err in polity and in really any other matter, but not official, formal Dogma. It's stuck with this. And it's stuck with this repudiation of Lutheranism and Lutheranism's bold Real Presence stance. I might add, it burned a bridge with Orthodoxy too.



Pax Christi


- Josiah




.

 

[psalms 91]

EXACTLY!


Any more than Zwingli's "symbolic" idea can be regarded as "irrelevant" to those who embrace it as de fide dogma.

This was dogmatically declared at Trent - in direct response to Luther's questioning of the scholastic theory, his unwillingness (in fact, it's personal rejection) of this particular invented theory of those Roman Catholic "Scholastics" (one of several theories they invented during the middle ages). BOTH Luther and the RC Denomination at the time boldly, strongly, passionately accepted that Christ is fully present - His true Body and Blood - so that had NOTHING, absolutely nothing whatsoever, to do with the singular, individual RC Denomination dogmatically embracing Transubstantiation at Trent (now it's official Eucharistyic dogma), it was to reject Luther's embrace that the meaning of is is is, that what is is, that we should not delete anything or deny anything as not really being there, it was Luther's rejection of Aristotelian Accidents AS DOGMA that the RCC so boldly rejected by making it its Eucharistic Dogma. It was to make dogma that "is" here also means "is NOT"

Now, as I mentioned, for some time now, Catholics seem to be running from this Dogma of their denomination, some even openly reject and denounce it (meaning they are not technically "Catholics" and MAY possibly be heretics). The whole Dogma is at times "watered down" and stripped so as to become a hollow shell - just a word signifying nothing (ignoring that it is a VERY, VERY precise, technical term), others giving it a new meaning it never had and obviously didn't mean (or else the RCC would not be so boldly rejecting and repudiating the Lutheran idea that the meaning of is is is and that what is actually is). As I noted, one of the teachers in my Catholic parish's First Communion Class opening admitted that the actual RC Eucharistic Dogma hasn't been taught to Catholic laity in decades - the vocabulary is retained but entirely redefined or stripped; what is being taught is MUCH closer to the informal/non-dogmatic view of the EOC or even Lutheranism (which Transubstantiation was dogmatized to denounce and repudiate). I DO think there are knowing Catholics who WISH that this new Eucharistic view had never been dogmatized but had been left as an unofficial theory that it was until the Council of Trent (shortly after Luther's death) - it would have faded away along with the notions of alchemy and Aristotle's theories. There are Catholics (I know because I've met and discussed this with them) who agree with the Lutherans of the 16th Century that this new invention actually undermines if not destroys the very precious thing we BOTH desired to affirm: Real Presence. But here's the deal: The RCC insists that there is ONE (and just one) who CANNOT be wrong in matters of official dogma: It itself alone, exclusively, individually. To say, "We were wrong when we declared this at Trent" is to admit something it CANNOT without destroying the whole foundation and keystone on which the RC Denomination has build itself: It's own unquestionable, infallible unaccountable Authority in these matters. The RCC can err in polity and in really any other matter, but not official, formal Dogma. It's stuck with this. And it's stuck with this repudiation of Lutheranism and it's bold Real Presence stance.


Pax Christi


- Josiah

That is the very teaching that they use to justify denying communion to christians of other denoms so to say it is not valid would also mean that to deny communion to any brother or sister is also wrong

 

[Albion]

That is where we differ. I say it is not bread despite its appearance - which remains exactly like bread. If we go no further and hazard no further explanation then all we have is a difference about words.

No, because no other denomination that believes in the Real Presence (with the exception of the EO which is always hard to explain) accepts the Medieval innovation you have just described--that the bread and wine miraculously or magically (depending upon how one looks at it) are completely changed into something else, leaving only the appearance of bread and wine.

Historically these matters were largely undisputed in the Latin speaking world until the ninth century. Paschasius Radbertus in the ninth century caused a dispute but it hardly extended beyond the limits of his audience and concerned itself only with the philosophical question whether the Eucharistic body of Christ is identical with the natural body he had in Palestine and now has glorified in heaven. Later on Berengarius denied transubstantiation but changed his mind and thus ended the public scandal he had given rise to; he died reconciled to the Church. Then much later came Zwingli, who reduced the Eucharist to a symbol.

You have omitted to include, in between Berengarius and Zwingli, mention of the decision of the Church of Rome in the early 1200s to adopt the doctrine that says the bread and wine cease to exist.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The early church fathers and a number of non-christian witnesses testify that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. If the word "become" means nothing then okay. No "conversion" of the bread and wine takes place. Yet "become" means something and the earl church fathers thought it meant that the real body and the real blood were there when the bread and wine were consecrated; for them the bread was not mere bread any more and the wine was not mere wine any more. The non-christian witnesses testified by their negative slurs against Christians. They accused Christians of cannibalism. They accused Christians of drinking human blood and eating human flesh. Ignatius of Antioch says that "the bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood". Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. Hippolytus speaks of '"the body and the blood" through which the Church is saved. Tertullian describes the bread as "the Lord’s body". He says that a convert from the polytheist religions of the Roman empire to Christianity "feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist". Justin says "We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

The testimony to a change effected by the consecration is common and endured through the centuries. It was not until quite late in Christian history that any significant doubt was raised. Zwingly was, as far as I know, the first to teach what amounts to "the real absence".

 

[MoreCoffee]

Here's a video with some testimony about an alleged Eucharistic miracle. What you make of it is up to you. Sceptical people will have their doubts about the testimony and the witnesses. Catholic people may see it differently but not necessarily.

 

[Albion]

Yet "become" means something and the earl church fathers thought it meant that the real body and the real blood were there when the bread and wine were consecrated; for them the bread was not mere bread any more and the wine was not mere wine any more.

This is correct. That is the apparent consensus of the early church and we call it the doctrine of the Real Presence, which is held in one form or another by Lutherans and Anglicans and, technically, by Methodists also. But it's not the official, infallible, teaching of the RCC since the 13th century--which is the reason for the wrangling that occurs whenever this subject comes up for debate. The official RCC doctrine is Transubstantiation and it does not accord with the statement I've quoted (above).

Maybe the differences don't matter so long as one isn't a Zwinglian, but if so, I wonder why Catholics accuse every other believer in the doctrine of the Real Presence of being wrong or heretical because of their belief in the Real Presence.

 

[Josiah]

Doctrine in the EOC is often difficult to clearly pin down..... the EOC doesn't share the Western obsession/passion for such things (which I admit I do); in the West we tend to define much in terms of doctrine. Not so in the East.

Anyway, I fully agree that SOME of the Christians spoke of a certain "becoming." Even the word "change" was at times used. This eventually became unofficially, non-dogmatically a part of the EOC's Eucharistic terminology. I think sometimes it was the SACRAMENT that "changed" or "became" since the SACRAMENT is different before and after; Real Presence means there's something different now. But I don't deny there was this "become" and "change" spoken of regarding the elements, too. But I would stress, this was NEVER understood as "an change from one reality to an entirely different one via the very precise physics mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mysterious combination of reality and Aristotelian Accidents." THAT was an invention of medieval, western, Roman Catholic Scholastics - just one of its many invented theories trying to explain away mystery and make Catholic Doctrine "jibe" with the pop (and wrong) prescience ideas and philosophical concepts of the day. That very intent is very foreign to the EOC.

The EOC's position is unique (and hard to very precisely pin down). It's NOT the RCC's view.... and it's not really the Lutheran one, either. It embraces Real Presence as passionately as does the RCC and Lutheranism, and like Lutheranism embraces this as MYSTERY and stays far away from dogmatizing human theories as to the HOW. But it also embraces ( NON dogmatically) there is some MYSTERIOUS, UNDEFINED "becoming" that involves the elements, the EOC does not share Lutheranism's point that the bread and wine are fully there, too (a point of stress because of Catholicism's obsession with denying that what the Eucharistic texts state isn't really true). As a Lutheran, I'm FAR more comfortable with the EOC on this than I am with the RCC or Zwinglians - but I don't claim Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodoxy are the same.

In the opening post, I very intentionally kept the conversation WESTERN. The EOC simply works within a different milieu and tends to evade the DOGMATIC discussions that we Westerners engage in.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Orthodox Christians believe in the bodily presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist. But it is right to say that their view is that this is a sacred mystery (a sacrament) which may (or may not) have deeper meanings that people can grasp.