Question for Lutherans on the Eucharist.

[BJ Bear]

I don't understand what what part of what I wrote you object to. I have read Luther repeatedly on the topic because he was opposed to both the Catholic view and Calvin's view. Calvin's idea that Luther rejected was that Jesus' body stayed in heaven but that the Eucharist was as if Jesus was in the bread.

Luther wrote that Christ's body had a Spirit mode, like when it went through the door in John 20. Luther taught that when Christ said "This is my Body" and held up the bread, it was literally true, and that the substance of Christ's body is literally being held up. At the same time, Luther believed that the substance of bread remained. Physically it was bread.

I said:

Let's break my statement down.
- Luther taught that Jesus held up physical food, ie. physical bread. But Luther did not believe that Jesus' body was in physical form in the bread. - Luther did not believe that Jesus holding up physical food contradicted Jesus' body being in that bread. As a result, when Jesus held up the bread, Jesus was also holding up Jesus' body that was in that bread.
- Luther taught that "This is My body" was a literally true statement and was referring to Jesus' body.
- Luther taught that Jesus' body was in Spirit form in the Eucharist.
- He taught that the body was directly located in the bread, and not just stuck up in heaven like Calvin said.



Next, you quoted Augsburg on St. Cyril. I have also read Cyril's writings on the topic, and Yes, Cyril was in conflict with Luther's idea. Cyril's wrote that the Eucharist food no longer had the substance of bread, but rather that it only had the substance of Jesus' body. This is the Roman Catholic view. Pope Gelasius on the other hand in the 6th century taught that both substances were present- bread and Jesus' body. This was Luther's view.

Augsburg's complaint about "corporeally present" that you cited needs to be unpacked. When Augsburg complained about Cyril's idea of Christ being offered "corporeally", Augsburg meant the idea that Christ's body was physically or materially present like a normal living human body before it has died. Certainly Augsburg was not complaining that Christ's "corpus" or "body" was present, because Luther believed that Christ's body was literally present. Luther opposed Calvin because Calvin taught that Jesus' body was literally absent from the Eucharist and literally only in heaven.

The rejected terminology was omitted. It was, "Jesus' body was directly there in spirit mode." In addition to our Symbols not speaking in this way there are Sacramentarians who would speak that way. Article VII of the Formula of Concord touches on this beginning at 3]. https://bookofconcord.org/formula-of-concord-epitome/article-vii/

I have access to much of what is contained in the WA. If you post the title of the work of Luther you are thinking of l will check it out.

The quote of Cyril was used affirmatively in the Apology.

I am not familiar with the site you posted.

 

[rakovsky]

The Lutheran idea is that when Christ said This is My body and held up the physical food in his hand, the "This" that he was referring to was His body in spirit form that is directly in the food.
That is not correct. We believe that Jesus' true body is found in, with, and under the bread, yet it is also still bread. We do not attempt to explain it. We just accept it.

Luther's idea was that the bread was "still bread" but that Jesus' body was also "in" the bread, as you said: "found in, with, and under the bread".

 

[rakovsky]

The rejected terminology was omitted. It was, "Jesus' body was directly there in spirit mode." In addition to our Symbols not speaking in this way there are Sacramentarians who would speak that way. Article VII of the Formula of Concord touches on this beginning at 3]. https://bookofconcord.org/formula-of-concord-epitome/article-vii/

I have access to much of what is contained in the WA. If you post the title of the work of Luther you are thinking of l will check it out.

The quote of Cyril was used affirmatively in the Apology.

I am not familiar with the site you posted.

I say that Jesus' body was there on the table "directly" to differentiate Luther's position from the Calvinist view that Jesus' body is only on the table indirectly, ie. the Calvinist idea that Jesus' body stays up in heaven and is only in the Eucharist in some indirect, "virtual" sense like only having a spiritual effect on the communicant.

When I said that Christ was there on the table in "spirit" mode, I was referring to the second of the three "modes" that Luther numbered Christ's body as existing in. Maybe it would be better to say "spirit-like", "definitive", or "uncircumscribed" mode. Luther uses the latter two terms and says that this is the mode of spirits.
The three modes are:
1. His body's normal state after the incarnation like when He was crucified. 2. His spirit or spirit-like state when His body went through the door of the tomb. 3. His body's omnipresent or ubiquitous state.

The article "Martin Luther’s Personal Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper" gives quotations for each of these three modes:

Luther maintains that the body of Christ has a threefold existence. These three modes of being are principally concerned with Christ’s presence.
First, Christ can be present in a “circumscribed corporeal” mode. This is “when he occupied and yielded space according to his size.”[47]
Secondly, Christ can be present in an uncircumscribed, spiritual way. Here he neither “occupies nor yields space but passes through everything created as he wills.”[48] He is “present in and with created things in such a way that they do not feel, touch, measure, or circumscribe him.”[49] Luther explicitly links this second mode of presence with the Lord’s Supper.
Finally, the third mode of presence is “the divine, heavenly mode.”[50] This is when Christ is “present in all created things…where they cannot measure or circumscribe him but where they are present to him so that he measures and circumscribes them.”

The article cites Martin Luther Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper in Luther’s Works, American Edition

Egil Grislis writes about the second mode in his article "The manner of Christ's eucharistic presenceaccording to Martin Luther".

• The second, definitive presence, describes an object which is uncircumscribed and “can occupy either more room or less.” Such is the presence of angels and spirits. A case in point is Mt.8:28 ff. where an entire legion of devils enter into one man.“ That would be about six thousand devils,” notes Luther (L.W.37:215). But definitive presence should not be associated exclusively with evil spirits: “This was the mode in which the body of Christ was present when he came out of the closed grave, and came to the disciples through a closed door...” Of these two modes of presence Christ has experienced both— local presence before his resurrection and definitive presence after the resurrection. It is according to the definitive presence, thinks Luther, that Christ“ can be and is in the bread” (L.W.,37:216).
• https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2212&context=consensus

According to Wikipedia, the "Sacramentarians" were those who took the Calvinist view in opposition to the Lutheran and Catholic view that Christ's body was directly and objectively present on the Communion table.

You cited from the Formula of Concord, which is relevant. It describes the Calvinist type of Sacramentarians here:

4 Others, however, are subtle Sacramentarians, and the most injurious of all, who partly speak very speciously in our own words, and pretend that they also believe a true presence of the true, essential, living body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, however, that​

​

5 this occurs spiritually through faith. Nevertheless they retain under these specious words precisely the former gross opinion, namely, that in the Holy Supper nothing is present and received with the mouth except bread and wine. For with them the word spiritually means nothing else than the Spirit of Christ or the power of the absent body of Christ and His merit, which is present; but the body of Christ is in no mode or way present, except only above in the highest heaven, to which we should elevate ourselves into heaven by the thoughts of our faith, and there, not at all, however, in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper, should seek this body and blood [of Christ].​

​

I am not saying that Christ's "Spirit" alone is present or that the body is only taken "spiritually". I am saying that in Luther's idea, Christ's actual body was directly there on the physical table at the Eucharist in the mode that a Spirit has, ie. Luther's 2nd "mode" of Christ's body that Luther says that Christ's Body has in the Eucharist sacrament.

Thanks for clearing up Cyril's quote. Your excerpt did not use quotes clearly enough to show where Cyril's quote ended, so I took Augsburg as saying "But" Augsburg "denies" Cyril's idea. Now I see that it is Cyril who wrote this and that Augsburg was agreeing with Cyril: "But we entirely deny that we have no mode of connection with him according to the flesh."

Cyril is using a double negative to say that we DO have a mode of connection to Christ according to the flesh. So Augsburg here is actually going along with the idea that the physical act of eating the host with our physical mouths is making a direct mode of connection with his natural body. It quotes: “Therefore we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, but also by natural participation,”... So it's not just Christ connecting to us in some purely spiritual way like love, but in some direct natural way, eg. one that involves the inherent nature of Christ's body.

I am curious whether this refers to both Christ's "human" nature or only his "divine" nature being communicated in the physical eating. I am guess that it's basically a non-issue though because Christ's flesh took on divine properties as shown by the Ascension.

In any case, although in the quote above Cyril is talking in a general enough way that it accommodates both the Lutheran and Catholic views, elsewhere Cyril wrote specifically enough on the topic that he endorsed the RC view in particular. To clarify, there are more than one Cyril, but the one who wrote a commentary on John's Gospel who came up in an online search was Cyril of Alexandria.
St Cyril of Alexandria writes:

"We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ..."

This is in line with the RC view.
Personally, I find the RCs and Lutherans more dogmatic than the Fathers were on the question collectively. Collectively, different Fathers can be found to express the Lutheran and RC views. Pope Gelasius had the Lutheran idea of both substances being present.

 

[rakovsky]

The rejected terminology was omitted. It was, "Jesus' body was directly there in spirit mode." In addition to our Symbols not speaking in this way there are Sacramentarians who would speak that way. Article VII of the Formula of Concord touches on this beginning at 3]. https://bookofconcord.org/formula-of-concord-epitome/article-vii/

I have access to much of what is contained in the WA. If you post the title of the work of Luther you are thinking of l will check it out.

The quote of Cyril was used affirmatively in the Apology.

I am not familiar with the site you posted.

Now I have a better idea what you meant, because Calvinists use the idea of "spiritual eating" in agreement with their idea that Christ's body has only an effectual or virtual presence but is actually absent. Still, "Spirit mode" is a term that I am using to try to get at Luther's second "mode" that is shared by spirits.

 

[rakovsky]

That is not correct. We believe that Jesus' true body is found in, with, and under the bread, yet it is also still bread. We do not attempt to explain it. We just accept it.

I think that BJ Bear and I have about the same idea on the topic of understanding Luther's idea now.

 

[BJ Bear]

Luther's idea was that Jesus took the bread and said "This is my body."
But his idea was also that when Jesus said "This is my body," Jesus held the body.

This was a key part of Luther's debate with Zwingli. The Lutheran Rev. Stephen Preus writes about this:

SOURCE: lutheranreformation.org/history/the-marburg-colloquy/

This is actually a classic case of the use of Luther's Sola Scriptura emphasis vs. the materialist or Rationalist idea of the "natural order" in Reformed Theology.

Luther in the debate is trying to use what he called the plain words of scripture to prove the meaning. Luther's idea was that the Bible should speak for itself. And in this case, the plain meaning of the Bible are that "This" (what Jesus was holding in his hands) is Christ's body. The conclusion is that Jesus was holding His body in His hands, although it's also true that Jesus was holding bread.

Zwingli emphasized the natural order. He said that Jesus could not be really holding His body because His body went to heaven. For a Body to be in two places would conflict with the natural order.

Elsewhere Luther disputed this naturalistic objection by saying that Jesus, as God, could in fact have His body everywhere- His body could have omnipresence. One could imagine that Jesus could visit a person in prison in Africa at the same time as He could visit a sick person in America.

But in this debate, Luther was not so much trying to address Zwingli's materialistic or modern Skeptical objections to the Real Presence, but rather emphasizing the meaning of scripture by itself. In Luther's view, if you forget about scientific materialistic restrictions, the normal meaning of "This is my Body" means that Jesus was literally holding His body in His hands even though He was also holding bread in His hands.

We're back to who stands on scripture and who stands outside of scripture. For Luther reason is one of God's greatest gifts to man. By it we know that a noun is not a verb, two plus two is four and a cow is not a pig, etc. It is great for what is beneath us.

When it comes to what is above us it is only a handmaiden or servant. Trying to apply it to the Christian revelation of things above us in such a way as to negate that revelation is a gross and egregious error. In modern terms some might say that the second text is overriding the first text. In other words, what a person brings to the text is overriding the first text.

 

[Bonnie]

Luther's idea was that the bread was "still bread" but that Jesus' body was also "in" the bread, as you said: "found in, with, and under the bread".

But you said "in spirit form", did you not?

 

[rakovsky]

But you said "in spirit form", did you not?

Bonnie,
Please read my Message #43 to BJ Bear above. I said "Spirit mode", meaning the mode that Spirits have, not that his mode was bodyless. Luther said that Christ in the Eucharist was in the second of the three modes that His body takes.

I think you, BJ and I have about the same understanding of Luther on the topic.

 

[BJ Bear]

Now I have a better idea what you meant, because Calvinists use the idea of "spiritual eating" in agreement with their idea that Christ's body has only an effectual or virtual presence but is actually absent. Still, "Spirit mode" is a term that I am using to try to get at Luther's second "mode" that is shared by spirits.

Yes, I recognize your effort but it is a way of speaking that isn't accepted. Bonnie's reply bottom lined it as to why we don't speak that way even before Calvin's error was on the scene.

I was just pointing out how some Sacramentarians distorted and misused our words.

 

[rakovsky]

We're back to who stands on scripture and who stands outside of scripture. For Luther reason is one of God's greatest gifts to man. By it we know that a noun is not a verb, two plus two is four and a cow is not a pig, etc. It is great for what is beneath us.

When it comes to what is above us it is only a handmaiden or servant. Trying to apply it to the Christian revelation of things above us in such a way as to negate that revelation is a gross and egregious error. In modern terms some might say that the second text is overriding the first text. In other words, what a person brings to the text is overriding the first text.

Right.
Calvin's underlying reasoning on the topic was that the Bible was true, and that Jesus's body being in the bread would violate the Natural Order and would thus be "ridiculous", and so therefore the Bible doesn't mean that Christ's body is really in the bread.

A related issue was Calvin's strong version of Cessationism. Things that violated the "natural order" like Elisha's bones reenlivening a youth could happen in Biblical times in his view, but he thought that relics being used in healings were ridiculous in his time, which was after the Biblical period. So from Calvin's POV, Jesus could multiply the loaves in 30 AD, but ongoing Eucharistic changes would conflict with his idea that those kinds of miracles didn't happen anymore.

 

[BJ Bear]

I say that Jesus' body was there on the table "directly" to differentiate Luther's position from the Calvinist view that Jesus' body is only on the table indirectly, ie. the Calvinist idea that Jesus' body stays up in heaven and is only in the Eucharist in some indirect, "virtual" sense like only having a spiritual effect on the communicant.

When I said that Christ was there on the table in "spirit" mode, I was referring to the second of the three "modes" that Luther numbered Christ's body as existing in. Maybe it would be better to say "spirit-like", "definitive", or "uncircumscribed" mode. Luther uses the latter two terms and says that this is the mode of spirits.
The three modes are:
1. His body's normal state after the incarnation like when He was crucified. 2. His spirit or spirit-like state when His body went through the door of the tomb. 3. His body's omnipresent or ubiquitous state.

The article "Martin Luther’s Personal Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper" gives quotations for each of these three modes:

The article cites Martin Luther Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper in Luther’s Works, American Edition

Egil Grislis writes about the second mode in his article "The manner of Christ's eucharistic presenceaccording to Martin Luther".

• The second, definitive presence, describes an object which is uncircumscribed and “can occupy either more room or less.” Such is the presence of angels and spirits. A case in point is Mt.8:28 ff. where an entire legion of devils enter into one man.“ That would be about six thousand devils,” notes Luther (L.W.37:215). But definitive presence should not be associated exclusively with evil spirits: “This was the mode in which the body of Christ was present when he came out of the closed grave, and came to the disciples through a closed door...” Of these two modes of presence Christ has experienced both— local presence before his resurrection and definitive presence after the resurrection. It is according to the definitive presence, thinks Luther, that Christ“ can be and is in the bread” (L.W.,37:216).
• https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2212&context=consensus

According to Wikipedia, the "Sacramentarians" were those who took the Calvinist view in opposition to the Lutheran and Catholic view that Christ's body was directly and objectively present on the Communion table.

You cited from the Formula of Concord, which is relevant. It describes the Calvinist type of Sacramentarians here:

4 Others, however, are subtle Sacramentarians, and the most injurious of all, who partly speak very speciously in our own words, and pretend that they also believe a true presence of the true, essential, living body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, however, that​

​

5 this occurs spiritually through faith. Nevertheless they retain under these specious words precisely the former gross opinion, namely, that in the Holy Supper nothing is present and received with the mouth except bread and wine. For with them the word spiritually means nothing else than the Spirit of Christ or the power of the absent body of Christ and His merit, which is present; but the body of Christ is in no mode or way present, except only above in the highest heaven, to which we should elevate ourselves into heaven by the thoughts of our faith, and there, not at all, however, in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper, should seek this body and blood [of Christ].​

​

I am not saying that Christ's "Spirit" alone is present or that the body is only taken "spiritually". I am saying that in Luther's idea, Christ's actual body was directly there on the physical table at the Eucharist in the mode that a Spirit has, ie. Luther's 2nd "mode" of Christ's body that Luther says that Christ's Body has in the Eucharist sacrament.

Thanks for clearing up Cyril's quote. Your excerpt did not use quotes clearly enough to show where Cyril's quote ended, so I took Augsburg as saying "But" Augsburg "denies" Cyril's idea. Now I see that it is Cyril who wrote this and that Augsburg was agreeing with Cyril: "But we entirely deny that we have no mode of connection with him according to the flesh."

Cyril is using a double negative to say that we DO have a mode of connection to Christ according to the flesh. So Augsburg here is actually going along with the idea that the physical act of eating the host with our physical mouths is making a direct mode of connection with his natural body. It quotes: “Therefore we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, but also by natural participation,”... So it's not just Christ connecting to us in some purely spiritual way like love, but in some direct natural way, eg. one that involves the inherent nature of Christ's body.

I am curious whether this refers to both Christ's "human" nature or only his "divine" nature being communicated in the physical eating. I am guess that it's basically a non-issue though because Christ's flesh took on divine properties as shown by the Ascension.

In any case, although in the quote above Cyril is talking in a general enough way that it accommodates both the Lutheran and Catholic views, elsewhere Cyril wrote specifically enough on the topic that he endorsed the RC view in particular. To clarify, there are more than one Cyril, but the one who wrote a commentary on John's Gospel who came up in an online search was Cyril of Alexandria.
St Cyril of Alexandria writes:

This is in line with the RC view.
Personally, I find the RCs and Lutherans more dogmatic than the Fathers were on the question collectively. Collectively, different Fathers can be found to express the Lutheran and RC views. Pope Gelasius had the Lutheran idea of both substances being present.

You covered a lot of ground so this reply will only cover a few points.

I didn't recognize what you were saying regarding a spirit presence or definitive presence as Luther's teaching or faith because it is not. He was pointing out that by way of the sophists (Occamists) that there is more than the one mode of presence Zwingli was insisting upon, corporeal presence.

That is something Luther had already done through scripture. He summed up the quotes in your post with this, 'All this I have related in order to show that there are more modes whereby an object may exist in a place than the one circumscribed, physical mode on which the fanatics insist." LW, V37, P216, AE, ( c)FP

The quotes in your post were also framed by Luther stating his teaching and belief in his words. There were no terms of the sophists used as he didn't use or rely upon sophistry for his understanding or teaching of the faith.

Yes, the quote was from Cyril of Alexandria. Do you have a primary source reference? Context matters.
In the meantime here is Cyril in context regarding the Supper, "20. After this ye hear the chanter inviting you with a sacred melody to the communion of the Holy Mysteries, and saying, O taste and see that the Lord is good44 . Trust not the judgment to thy bodily palate45 no, but to faith unfaltering; for they who taste are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the anti-typical46 Body and Blood of Christ."

You can read the whole thing here: https://www.andrews.edu/~toews/classes/sources/early/Cyril Lecture XXIII.htm

 

[rakovsky]

I didn't recognize what you were saying regarding a spirit presence or definitive presence as Luther's teaching or faith because it is not. He was pointing out that by way of the sophists (Occamists) that there is more than the one mode of presence Zwingli was insisting upon, corporeal presence.

That is something Luther had already done through scripture. He summed up the quotes in your post with this, 'All this I have related in order to show that there are more modes whereby an object may exist in a place than the one circumscribed, physical mode on which the fanatics insist." LW, V37, P216, AE, ( c)FP

The quotes in your post were also framed by Luther stating his teaching and belief in his words. There were no terms of the sophists used as he didn't use or rely upon sophistry for his understanding or teaching of the faith.

BJ,
I remember reading Luther's debate with a theologian who denied the objective Presence in the Eucharist. It might have been Calvin. I remember reading Luther's argument in that document that Christ was present in the Eucharist in the same mode that he passed through the tomb stone and the locked house's door. I would have to dig up the document.

The LCMS FAQ quotes the Formula of Concord as using the kind of words that I used:

In the Sacrament, our Confessions further teach the same Jesus who died is present in the Sacrament, although not in exactly the same way he was corporeally present when he walked bodily on earth.

With Luther, the Formula of Concord speaks of "the incomprehensible, spiritual mode of presence according to which he neither occupies nor yields space but passes through everything created as he wills ... He employed this mode of presence when he left the closed grave and came through closed doors, in the bread and wine in the Supper ..." [FC SD VII, 100; emphasis added].

Doctrine - Frequently Asked Questions - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Frequently asked questions about LCMS doctrine.

www.lcms.org

 

[rakovsky]

Yes, the quote was from Cyril of Alexandria. Do you have a primary source reference? Context matters.
In the meantime here is Cyril in context regarding the Supper, "20. After this ye hear the chanter inviting you with a sacred melody to the communion of the Holy Mysteries, and saying, O taste and see that the Lord is good44 . Trust not the judgment to thy bodily palate45 no, but to faith unfaltering; for they who taste are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the anti-typical46 Body and Blood of Christ."

You can read the whole thing here: https://www.andrews.edu/~toews/classes/sources/early/Cyril Lecture XXIII.htm

That is an on-point quote from St. Cyril of Alexandria. If he is saying that you are bidden to taste not bread but antitypical Body, then it sounds more like the Catholic position than the Lutheran one, since in the latter, the communicant puts in their mouth both bread and body.

You also gave good advice about checking the source for my St. Cyril quote, because it turns out that my St. Cyril quote was actually from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, even though the Catholic source I got the quote from misattributed it to St. Cyril of Alexandria.
The quote in more context is:

Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengthens man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil , strengthen your heart, by partaking thereof as spiritual, and make the face of your soul to shine. And so having it unveiled with a pure conscience, may you reflect as a mirror the glory of the Lord 2 Corinthians 3:18, and proceed from glory to glory, in Christ Jesus our Lord:— To whom be honour, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

SOURCE: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310122.htm

Here is where I found it misattributed:

Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

The Early Christians actually took the Real Presence for granted. It doesn't even seem as if there was much debate. I could not find anyone who denied the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament beforethe year 500 A.D.

www.therealpresence.org

 

[BJ Bear]

That is an on-point quote from St. Cyril of Alexandria. If he is saying that you are bidden to taste not bread but antitypical Body, then it sounds more like the Catholic position than the Lutheran one, since in the latter, the communicant puts in their mouth both bread and body.

You also gave good advice about checking the source for my St. Cyril quote, because it turns out that my St. Cyril quote was actually from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, even though the Catholic source I got the quote from misattributed it to St. Cyril of Alexandria.
The quote in more context is:

Here is where I found it misattributed:

Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

The Early Christians actually took the Real Presence for granted. It doesn't even seem as if there was much debate. I could not find anyone who denied the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament beforethe year 500 A.D.

www.therealpresence.org

Thanks for clearing up the quote. Where have you been? ☺️ We've had all kinds of fun on this board over the years clearing up misused and otherwise abused quotes. It's great to meet another kindred spirit.

The Apostles explicitly referred to the bread in the Supper. At worst Cyril tacitly admits to the bread when he exhorts others to not taste it with their pallette as going to the Supper for some yummy bread is to miss the point of the Supper.

 

[rakovsky]

Thanks for clearing up the quote. Where have you been? ☺️ We've had all kinds of fun on this board over the years clearing up misused and otherwise abused quotes. It's great to meet another kindred spirit.

Well, you told me to check it, so I cited the correction.

The Orthodox church does not have a dogmatic position on whether the RC or Lutheran position is right, but the 17th century "Local Council" of Jerusalem rejected the Lutheran view. That council would hold as a non-infallible authority for the EOs in what is today Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and the Sinai.

The most important practical idea that the Biblical writers seemed to want to convey was that Jesus' body is actually on the altar table. In my reading of John 6, Jesus says that the faithful need to "chew" his body and it says that some left Christianity over this issue. If Jesus just wanted to say that they only needed to "eat" it in some allegorical way like the Calvinists claimed, then it seems that He would have cleared up that he meant it only allegorically instead of chewing on Jesus' body ending up being some kind of "faith test." I should note that in contrast to my understanding of John 6, which can be found in EO interpretations of that chapter, Augustine considered John 6 to be referring to a non-physical spiritual "eating", and Luther, being in the Augustinian Tradition, followed Augustine on this. But despite their interpretation of John 6, they still taught the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The issues in John 6 are one of about 10 reasons that I found why the Bible writers meant to convey the objective Presence. I am having trouble finding my list that I put on https://www.christianforums.com

If we are going to treat the Bible as literature and use literary analysis to understand the meaning that its writers saw in its words, then when Jesus talked about eating his "flesh" in John 6, a consistent reading of the chapter suggests that Jesus was referring to his literal "flesh" there. The chapter includes Jesus' words:

51

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

The term "flesh" in verse 51 refers to his actual flesh, and if as a matter of interpretation this term is to be used consistently, then in verse 53 it again refers to his actual flesh. So in that chapter, Jesus was not just saying that they will need to eat his allegorical flesh or something like that. He was referring to his actual flesh.

Also in John 6, Jesus says not only eat (phagon), but also chew (trogon) his flesh, and the only other place John's gospel uses "chew" (trogon) is John 13, where it says Judas "chews" his" bread" at the last supper. So when Jesus says that they will need to both "eat" and "chew" His flesh, literary analysis suggests that he is referring to actual chewing with the physical mouth, and not just some kind of purely spiritual or "metaphorical eating."

 

[BJ Bear]

BJ,
I remember reading Luther's debate with a theologian who denied the objective Presence in the Eucharist. It might have been Calvin. I remember reading Luther's argument in that document that Christ was present in the Eucharist in the same mode that he passed through the tomb stone and the locked house's door. I would have to dig up the document.

The LCMS FAQ quotes the Formula of Concord as using the kind of words that I used:

Doctrine - Frequently Asked Questions - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Frequently asked questions about LCMS doctrine.

www.lcms.org

I think the quote you are referring to Luther's confession regarding the Supper, the one we have been discussing. In his discourse through the thought of the sophists he affirms the second and third mode. Some later Sacramentarians focused on that third mode, the ubiquity of Christ.

Elsewhere, same writing, referring to Christ and the stone wrote, "But if it be present in this uncircumscribed manner, it is beyond the realm of material creatures and is not grasped or measured in their terms. Who can know how this takes place?" LW, V37,P217,(c)FP

There is a correction to a previous post that I would like to make. After Luther's discourse into sophist thought he does descriptively use the terms second and third uncircumscribed mode. The second with reference to the grave and the door. ibid 218

 

[rakovsky]

...

OK

 

[HillsboroMom]

What was incorrect about it?

"Our Lord's God" and "Bonnie" have gone back and forth a bit. I would like to try to answer "Our Lord's God"'s question.

Initially, OLG said:

Lutherans take Jesus' words "This IS my body" to mean this IS NOT his body but that he would be WITH his body.

This is incorrect. Lutherans take Jesus' words "This is my body" to mean "This is my body." They believe that Jesus' body IS there, in, with, and under the earthly elements of bread and wine.

This had been stated several times earlier in this thread, so I think Bonnie was wondering why you said Lutherans believed Jesus' body was not present, when several Lutherans pointed out that Brother Martin specifically said it WAS present.

You may be confused, because many other protestant denominations -- Methodists, Presbyterians, and I think pretty much everyone else except for Anglicans (and we can discuss them in a different thread, perhaps) -- believe that it's more of a symbolic presence, or that Jesus is just there in the same way Jesus is always present with everyone, like, there is no place you can go where God can't get, yada yada, so of course Jesus would be at the communion table, but that's less literal than what Lutherans believe. We believe it is Jesus' actual body and blood.

We differ slightly from the Roman Catholic (and I believe also Orthodox) view, in that we believe it is ALSO bread and wine. Body, blood, bread, wine, it's all in there.

RCCs believe that it is no longer bread and wine, but that it "magically" becomes body and blood only. The term "hocus pocus" in fact comes from the mass, "hoc es corpus," this is the body. One minute it's bread and wine, but you say a few words, ring a few bells, and presto-chango, it's no longer bread and wine, but now it's 100% certified Jesus.

The $100 theological word for what Catholics believe is "transubstantiation" -- "trans" indicating a change from one thing into something else. The $100 word for what Lutherans believe is "consubstantiation" -- "con" meaning "with." As in Via Con Carne. Go with meat. Wait. That's not it.

Anyway, I hope that explains it to both parties sufficiently.

FWIW, and WRT the whole "mystery" thing, I've never had a problem believing that bread and wine can be the actual body and blood of Jesus.

However, it does challenge my faith just a little too much to believe that those dang plastic wafers can possibly be bread. That much faith I just can't muster.

 

[rakovsky]

"Our Lord's God" and "Bonnie" have gone back and forth a bit. I would like to try to answer "Our Lord's God"'s question.

Initially, OLG said:


This is incorrect. Lutherans take Jesus' words "This is my body" to mean "This is my body." They believe that Jesus' body IS there, in, with, and under the earthly elements of bread and wine.

This had been stated several times earlier in this thread, so I think Bonnie was wondering why you said Lutherans believed Jesus' body was not present, when several Lutherans pointed out that Brother Martin specifically said it WAS present.

You may be confused, because many other protestant denominations -- Methodists, Presbyterians, and I think pretty much everyone else except for Anglicans (and we can discuss them in a different thread, perhaps) -- believe that it's more of a symbolic presence, or that Jesus is just there in the same way Jesus is always present with everyone, like, there is no place you can go where God can't get, yada yada, so of course Jesus would be at the communion table, but that's less literal than what Lutherans believe. We believe it is Jesus' actual body and blood.

We differ slightly from the Roman Catholic (and I believe also Orthodox) view, in that we believe it is ALSO bread and wine. Body, blood, bread, wine, it's all in there.

RCCs believe that it is no longer bread and wine, but that it "magically" becomes body and blood only. The term "hocus pocus" in fact comes from the mass, "hoc es corpus," this is the body. One minute it's bread and wine, but you say a few words, ring a few bells, and presto-chango, it's no longer bread and wine, but now it's 100% certified Jesus.

The $100 theological word for what Catholics believe is "transubstantiation" -- "trans" indicating a change from one thing into something else. The $100 word for what Lutherans believe is "consubstantiation" -- "con" meaning "with." As in Via Con Carne. Go with meat. Wait. That's not it.

Anyway, I hope that explains it to both parties sufficiently.

FWIW, and WRT the whole "mystery" thing, I've never had a problem believing that bread and wine can be the actual body and blood of Jesus.

However, it does challenge my faith just a little too much to believe that those dang plastic wafers can possibly be bread. That much faith I just can't muster.

You made a good answer in general, Hillsboro Mom.

The Methodist position is basically the same as the Anglican one, which is split between the Lutheran and Calvinist (eg. Presbyterian, Sacramentarian) views on the topic. This is because the Methodists came from Anglicanism and I remember that their formal position on the Eucharist is practically repeated from the Anglican "articles" on the topic. The Anglican articles at one point affirm the Lutheran view, but in a separate "article" they affirm the Calvinist view. In the Anglican Church though there has developed the "Anglo-Catholic" movement that would naturally incline to the Lutheran view over the Calvinist one.

The EO Church is overall open to both the Lutheran and Catholic views. A 17th century EO synod in Jerusalem that holds authority in Israel/Palestine, Sinai, and Jordan rejected the Lutheran view. It's not treated as "infallible", but it's still important for EO theology in that region of the world.

The Orthodox term for the change is usually Metabole in Greek, Prelozhenie in Russian, meaning change or etymologically "translation". But on occasion in EO writings the term Metaousis in Greek and Presyschestvlenie in Russian has been used. This etymologically means "Trans-substantiation" or "Change of Substance" or "Change of Essence." But the EO term does not carry the same specific meaning that the Catholic term does. In the EO use, to say that the food has a "change of substance" does not inherently mean the Catholic position that as a result of this change, the food no longer has any "substance" of bread.

AFAIK, the Lutheran Church does not officially accept the term "consubstantiation" and Luther IIRC rejected it. But it seems to me an approximation for the Lutheran view nonetheless.

Peace.

 

[HillsboroMom]

You made a good answer in general, Hillsboro Mom.

The Methodist position is basically the same as the Anglican one, which is split between the Lutheran and Calvinist (eg. Presbyterian, Sacramentarian) views on the topic. This is because the Methodists came from Anglicanism and I remember that their formal position on the Eucharist is practically repeated from the Anglican "articles" on the topic. The Anglican articles at one point affirm the Lutheran view, but in a separate "article" they affirm the Calvinist view. In the Anglican Church though there has developed the "Anglo-Catholic" movement that would naturally incline to the Lutheran view over the Calvinist one.

The EO Church is overall open to both the Lutheran and Catholic views. A 17th century EO synod in Jerusalem that holds authority in Israel/Palestine, Sinai, and Jordan rejected the Lutheran view. It's not treated as "infallible", but it's still important for EO theology in that region of the world.

The Orthodox term for the change is usually Metabole in Greek, Prelozhenie in Russian, meaning change or etymologically "translation". But on occasion in EO writings the term Metaousis in Greek and Presyschestvlenie in Russian has been used. This etymologically means "Trans-substantiation" or "Change of Substance" or "Change of Essence." But the EO term does not carry the same specific meaning that the Catholic term does. In the EO use, to say that the food has a "change of substance" does not inherently mean the Catholic position that as a result of this change, the food no longer has any "substance" of bread.

AFAIK, the Lutheran Church does not officially accept the term "consubstantiation" and Luther IIRC rejected it. But it seems to me an approximation for the Lutheran view nonetheless.

Peace.

Thank you for your insight on the EO view.

I can assert that, at least as of the 1990s when I was in Lutheran seminary (ELCA), the professors there had no problem accepting the term "consubstantiation." Yes, we know Luther (and Zwingli) both hated the term, but as you say, it fits.

I can't answer to what LCMS, WELS, or other alphabet-soup Lutherans may do, let alone Evangelische/Lutherans in other countries.

Thank you again for your EO education. I am fascinated by the Eastern churches.