Question for Lutherans on the Eucharist.

[Nic]

I was thinking that as a possibility. But your "Eastern Church" could be, too. Could be a lot of thing....

Entertaining Cuttlefish
Extraordinary Cacti
Eagle-eyed Cookies

Who knows in this day and age.

You seem bent on being playful, something I generally appreciate but do you have anything else? Maybe the poster will clarify in the near future?
Nic

 

[BJ Bear]

Your citation, the Book of Concord, includes a part that is explicit on the point of the second, spiritual mode being the one for Christ's body's Presence in the Last Supper's elements:

Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, according to which He neither occupies nor vacates space, but penetrates all creatures wherever He pleases [according to His most free will]; as, to make an imperfect comparison, my sight penetrates and is in air, light, or water, and does not occupy or vacate space; as a sound or tone penetrates and is in air or water or board and wall, and also does not occupy or vacate space; likewise, as light and heat penetrate and are in air, water, glass, crystal, and the like, and also do not vacate or occupy space; and much more of the like [many comparisons of this matter could be adduced]. This mode He used when He rose from the closed [and sealed] sepulcher, and passed through the closed door [to His disciples], and in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper, and, as it is believed, when He was born of His mother [the most holy Virgin Mary].​

​

​

Yes but as was pointed out it doesn't end there.

 

[BJ Bear]

You seem bent on being playful, something I generally appreciate but do you have anything else? Maybe the poster will clarify in the near future?
Nic

Nic! Welcome back!

 

[BJ Bear]

I sympathize with your answer above, because the EO Church doesn't have a dogmatic stance on whether the Lutheran or RC position is right. The RCs and Lutherans seem dogmatic in their rejection of eachothers' views.
What does EC stand for?

Evanvelical Church. The context was purgatory but in a general statement he urged that people not make articles of faith out their ideas. If they do then their faith will become a nightmare.

 

[BJ Bear]

The Synod of Jerusalem was called in 1672 by Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem. It's a local council, so it's not infallible, and strictly speaking it only applies to the territory of his Patriarchate, ie. Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Sinai. But it is still significant for Orthodoxy as those theologians' POV on the topic. In Decree 17, the Synod denied that Christ's real presence in the Eucharist was

• by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}
• 
  
• Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

Source: http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

Impanation? At best they were working with bad information if the quote is accurate.

 

[rakovsky]

EC likely means Eastern [Rite] Catholics which volitionally submit to the Western Church. 🙂

I wasn't sure if he meant Eastern Churches or Evangelical (as in ELCA) Churches. I wasn't sure if he meant the latter, because "Evangelical Churches" in the US typically refer to the Zwinglians.

 

[rakovsky]

Yes but as was pointed out it doesn't end there.

The quote below from Concord was explicit that it's the second mode that Christ's body uses in the Eucharist in the bread and wine.

Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, according to which He neither occupies nor vacates space, but penetrates all creatures wherever He pleases [according to His most free will]; as, to make an imperfect comparison, my sight penetrates and is in air, light, or water, and does not occupy or vacate space; as a sound or tone penetrates and is in air or water or board and wall, and also does not occupy or vacate space; likewise, as light and heat penetrate and are in air, water, glass, crystal, and the like, and also do not vacate or occupy space; and much more of the like [many comparisons of this matter could be adduced]. This mode He used when He rose from the closed [and sealed] sepulcher, and passed through the closed door [to His disciples], and in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper, and, as it is believed, when He was born of His mother [the most holy Virgin Mary].

What you posted did not contradict the explicit statement that it's in the second mode, but rather it counterargues against the Calvinists' claims that it's impossible for His body to be in the first mode directly on the altar table.

What you posted said that:

• 1. Luther is not denying that Christ's body has more than the three modes.
• 2. Christ's body being in the first mode is not proven to conflict with "our meaning" (ie. apparently referring to the Lutheran meaning that His body is literally Present on the table). Christ's body's first mode is not proven to conflict with the Eucharistic table food because he does not deny that God can make a corporeal body to be corporeally and comprehensibly in many places at one time.

Your quote was:

"Now, whether God has and knows still more modes in which Christ’s body is anywhere, I did not intend to deny herewith, but to indicate what awkward dolts our fanatics are, that they concede to the body of Christ no more than the first, comprehensible mode; although they cannot even prove that to be conflicting with our meaning. For in no way will I deny that the power of God may accomplish this much that a body might be in many places at the same time, even in a bodily, comprehensible way. For who will prove that this is impossible with God? Who has seen an end to His power? The fanatics indeed think thus: God cannot do it. But who will believe their thinking? With what do they make such thinking sure? Thus far Luther."

 

[rakovsky]

The context was purgatory but in a general statement he urged that people not make articles of faith out their ideas. If they do then their faith will become a nightmare.

What are you referring to? The context for what was Purgatory, and who made that general statement?

 

[rakovsky]

Impanation? At best they were working with bad information if the quote is accurate.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the Lutherans don't teach impanation's idea of a hypostatic union between Jesus' body and the bread. ("Yet the doctrines differ essentially in so far as Luther asserted that the Body of Christ penetrated the unchanged substance of the bread but denied a hypostatic union." https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07694a.htm)
In contrast, the Synod of Jerusalem misascribed this idea of a hypostatic union to Lutheranism.

Regardless of their misascription of impanation to Lutheranism teaches, their quote still goes on to teach the RC idea of the food only having the substance of His body and not of bread, and only the "accidents" of bread.

 

[BJ Bear]

The quote below from Concord was explicit that it's the second mode that Christ's body uses in the Eucharist in the bread and wine.

What you posted did not contradict the explicit statement that it's in the second mode, but rather it counterargues against the Calvinists' claims that it's impossible for His body to be in the first mode directly on the altar table.

What you posted said that:

• 1. Luther is not denying that Christ's body has more than the three modes.
• 2. Christ's body being in the first mode is not proven to conflict with "our meaning" (ie. apparently referring to the Lutheran meaning that His body is literally Present on the table). Christ's body's first mode is not proven to conflict with the Eucharistic table food because he does not deny that God can make a corporeal body to be corporeally and comprehensibly in many places at one time.

Your quote was:

The point is that he doesn't claim to know the mode because according to the sophists way of thinking it could be second or third mode or some other unknown mode.

The writing we've been discussing and quoted in the Thorough Declaration was a total destruction oc the fanatics claims through scripture, language, logic, and through the thought of the sophists.

 

[BJ Bear]

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the Lutherans don't teach impanation's idea of a hypostatic union between Jesus' body and the bread. ("Yet the doctrines differ essentially in so far as Luther asserted that the Body of Christ penetrated the unchanged substance of the bread but denied a hypostatic union." https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07694a.htm)
In contrast, the Synod of Jerusalem misascribed this idea of a hypostatic union to Lutheranism.

Regardless of their misascription of impanation to Lutheranism teaches, their quote still goes on to teach the RC idea of the food only having the substance of His body and not of bread, and only the "accidents" of bread.

The Confession of Cyril Lucaris (Eastern Otrthodox)

www.crivoice.org

If someone knowledgeable reads chapter 17 at the link above he will realize that Reformed doctrine is confessed and what was evaluated at the synod. They fell for Reformed propaganda. If you want to see similar propaganda then check out the footnotes of Schaff re the Supper at ccel.

I was just playing nice by only pointing out impanation.

 

[Nic]

Nic! Welcome back!

Thank you! To you as well!

 

[BJ Bear]

What are you referring to? The context for what was Purgatory, and who made that general statement?

I am referring to the general statement in a response to the fortieth condemnation in Ex Surge Domine. The context was purgatory and the writing itself, Defense And Explanation of All Articles, is one of four responses to the bull noted above.

 

[rakovsky]

The point is that he doesn't claim to know the mode because according to the sophists way of thinking it could be second or third mode or some other unknown mode.

The Declaration is explicitly saying that it is in the second mode. ("Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, ... This mode He used ... in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper, ") The part that you quoted suggested that the first mode would not "be conflicting" with His Presence directly in the Eucharist food. But the document is still designating His Presence as in the Second Mode.

It is like if I said: "There is 10 ounces of water in my box", and then when I was asked to explain what I meant I specified explicitly that the water was in the form of liquid, but that if it was in the form of ice it would not "conflict" with my underlined statement.

 

[rakovsky]

The Confession of Cyril Lucaris (Eastern Otrthodox)

www.crivoice.org

If someone knowledgeable reads chapter 17 at the link above he will realize that Reformed doctrine is confessed and what was evaluated at the synod. They fell for Reformed propaganda. If you want to see similar propaganda then check out the footnotes of Schaff re the Supper at ccel.

I was just playing nice by only pointing out impanation.

You are pointing to the supposed "Confession of Lucaris", which is a Calvinist document. The Synod of Jerusalem evaluated the Reformed doctrine, you are right. I'm not sure what you mean about the anti-Reformed Synod of Jerusalem falling "or Reformed Propaganda.," but I am guessing that you mean that the Reformed made propaganda against Lutheranism by accusing Lutherans of impanation and that the Synod of Jerusalem was mistakenly thinking that Lutheranism held this view.

Well, in any case, even if the Synod misunderstood the Lutheran position, the Synod of Jerusalem was still apparently ascribing to the RC view of Transubstantiation because it asserted that the Eucharist food no longer had the substance of bread, only the accidents.

 

[BJ Bear]

The Declaration is explicitly saying that it is in the second mode. ("Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, ... This mode He used ... in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper, ") The part that you quoted suggested that the first mode would not "be conflicting" with His Presence directly in the Eucharist food. But the document is still designating His Presence as in the Second Mode.

It is like if I said: "There is 10 ounces of water in my box", and then when I was asked to explain what I meant I specified explicitly that the water was in the form of liquid, but that if it was in the form of ice it would not "conflict" with my underlined statement.

Yes, they can't prove a conflict but when it comes to the possible modes it is the second and the third mode and perhaps another mode or modes he is unaware of.

 

[BJ Bear]

You are pointing to the supposed "Confession of Lucaris", which is a Calvinist document. The Synod of Jerusalem evaluated the Reformed doctrine, you are right. I'm not sure what you mean about the anti-Reformed Synod of Jerusalem falling "or Reformed Propaganda.," but I am guessing that you mean that the Reformed made propaganda against Lutheranism by accusing Lutherans of impanation and that the Synod of Jerusalem was mistakenly thinking that Lutheranism held this view.

Well, in any case, even if the Synod misunderstood the Lutheran position, the Synod of Jerusalem was still apparently ascribing to the RC view of Transubstantiation because it asserted that the Eucharist food no longer had the substance of bread, only the accidents.

The Reformed have been claiming that their view is compatible with the Evanvelical view if not *the* Evangelical view. If I didn't know any better and someone told me that was Luther's view I would also reject it. In a choice restricted to bad and worse I too would favor the bad.

 

[rakovsky]

The Reformed have been claiming that their view is compatible with the Evanvelical view if not *the* Evangelical view. If I didn't know any better and someone told me that was Luther's view I would also reject it. In a choice restricted to bad and worse I too would favor the bad.

Well, certainly the Reformed do not teach Impanation, which was what the Confession of Dositheus was mistakenly ascribing to the Lutherans. It's true that the Confession of Dositheus was aimed overall against the Reformed.

But I don't know how you see the Confession of Dositheus as falling for Reformed propaganda. The Confession of Dositheus could be falling for Reformed propaganda if the Reformed claimed that Lutherans taught impanation. But you followed up by saying that the Reformed claimed that they had the same view as the Evangelicals/Lutherans, and certainly neither the Lutherans nor the Reformed taught impanation.

I guess it's a moot point though because anyway the Confession was wrong about the Lutheran view being impanation.

This thread has been a good discussion!

Peace.