I became Lutheran after God led me to the great truth of the Lord's supper. Before that I had a reformed view on the sacraments. Everytime I take the communion I experience a huge blessing for my faith and life.

@bobtaylor170

3 жыл бұрын

❤

@jerseyjim9092

2 жыл бұрын

What "reformed" view was that?

@matthewbroderick6287

Жыл бұрын

Elias, I am a Catholic Christian who is so grateful to God for the Truth of the Last Supper, as Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body ". Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@hexahexametermeter

Жыл бұрын

I wonder if you could distinguish the two.

@Magnulus76

Жыл бұрын

The Reformed view is the innovation. The Lutheran view is more or less what the medieval and ancient church believed. What St. Francis said about the Eucharist, that God sublimely is "hidden under bread", is compatible with the Lutheran belief that matter can be diaphanous to the divine, just as St. Francis experienced.

Baptist pastor here... I came to do exactly what you’re talking about. I want to hear a Lutheran explain it to me. Appreciate you taking the time on the video 👍

Catholic here. "In reality it's not that important whether the bread and wine are there. Right? It's more important that we confess the body of Christ is there and the blood of Christ." I think that this is an excellent point. Thank you for sharing this video.

@karlkunze7172

Жыл бұрын

The Bible does not present the real presence of Christ as consubstantiation. The Biblical exposition, of the Lord's Supper, speaks of a Sacramental Unity. 1 Corinthians 11: 29-30 refers both to Christ’s physical body “Under(Present in a hidden way)” the Elements of bread and wine or grape juice, which includes the Church (Body of Christ) - See 1 Corinthians 12: 13, 27. 1 Corinthians 11: 24-25 is Christ Himself speaking. “In” indicates that the body and blood of Christ are in the bread and wine. “With” indicates that we receive Christ’s body and blood(Bread and wine). This is not consubstantiation or the idea that Christ is present alongside bread and wine. In Biblical context, the bread (Christ’s body) and wine (Christ’s blood) are one (Sacramental unity). The Apostle assures us, in Hebrews 13: 10, that We (The followers of Christ) have an altar, whereof they (Jewish priests and Levites) have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. Jewish priests and Levites, who remained in the service of the temple (Jerusalem) and the tabernacle (Wilderness), and who partook of the sacrifices of the Ceremonial Law (Ordinance), chose not to take part in the great sacrifice made by the Son of God. The Lord's supper is the feast of the gospel passover, and keeping to the Levitical law would, according to its own rules, keep men from the Christian altar. Our meat, which we by faith spiritually eat, is the body of Christ, and not a literal eating, of the sacrifice of Christ, in the Lord's Supper, but a spiritual eating is meant, which contrasts to the typical ceremonial meats, and the two cannot be combined (Galatians 5: 2). Compare Hebrews 13: 9 (With grace, not meats) with Hebrews 13: 10. The sacrifice made by Christ, is much greater than the sacrifices offered under Jewish Law. Christ is both our Altar and our Sacrifice.

@pixelprincess9

Жыл бұрын

@@karlkunze7172 You’re telling me that Polycarp disciple of John the Apostle didn’t have a biblical understanding of the Eucharist? Okay…

@karlkunze7172

Жыл бұрын

@@pixelprincess9 If Polycarp was not understanding the Scriptures, the way God caused Luther to understand, then Luther accepted the truth and he also had to expose any errors by Polycarp. Luther accepted only those areas that remained consistent with the meaning of Scripture, and with regards to the Lord's Supper, Luther, in his day, seemed to be the only reformer who was able to understand that the Bible presents the Lord's Supper as a Sacramental unity. The LCMS, that you are a member of, Miss Truncate, has come to think that just because one of their pastors can refuse earthly elements, that they have accomplished refusing the body of Christ, but Christ is not refusing us, because the true communion is devotion to Christ with Worship and prayer, when there is doubt whether there is true Christian fellowship in your institution. Christ has authority to give us His fellowship, so stop denying Him by imposing elements.

@karlkunze7172

Жыл бұрын

Your understanding of "Sacrament" is not the Bible in understanding, as Luther came to understand. Instead your understanding of Baptism and Communion involves physical (Water) elements from a human distributer, who sits in an office of pastor, but denies the authority of Christ's words to him. How do we answer to elements when a pastor decides to refuse what God gave to a pastor and the other divine congregational offices of the church? How we answer to this is to accept that it is fellowship with the Word of Christ alone, which is the foundation of fellowship and communion with Christ. So, it must be accepted that those who truly confess their sins to Christ, and repent (Turn from their evil way), receive God's forgiveness through Christ with the power (Baptism) of the Holy Ghost (No indication of element of water), and people are in fellowship (Communion) with Christ, and all His benefits are imputed to people, including communion without elements, though elements could be included, depending on which pastor does not deny Christ's authority.

@Magnulus76

Жыл бұрын

@@pixelprincess9 Polycarps views are consistent with Lutheran beliefs.

What I like to say is that what was on the cross, namely Christ’s true body and true blood, is on the altar and goes into my mouth. The Supper is what I long for each week and it is the greatest gift God gives us. No greater intimacy with Christ on earth can be found.

@bobtaylor170

3 жыл бұрын

❤

The Lutheran take of the Lord’s supper is so amazingly profound and clear that no other has made any sense completely to me as much as this. Even to admit that it goes beyond our reason is a great confession!

@matthewbroderick6287

Жыл бұрын

Villarreal, The Catholic Church has always taught what Jesus Christ teaches, that the bread ,WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body ". ( Matthew 26:26). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@villarrealmarta6103

Жыл бұрын

@@matthewbroderick6287 they/ Catholics actually offer it back up to God as their sacrifice to him.

@matthewbroderick6287

Жыл бұрын

@@villarrealmarta6103 The Catholic Church continually offers up the once and perfect Sacrifice of Jesus Christ to the Father as Jesus commanded. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@villarrealmarta6103

Жыл бұрын

@@matthewbroderick6287 where is it said to offer the body and blood up to the Lord?

@matthewbroderick6287

Жыл бұрын

@@villarrealmarta6103 Where in Holy Scripture does Jesus Christ teach the bread remains bread after the blessing? Yet, Jesus Christ teaches the bread and wine, when Blessed, "is My Body and Blood " that is broken and shed for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus Christ then commands His disciples to do as He did. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

I personally like the Orthodox answer of “Idk, it’s a mystery. It’s the body and blood of Christ because 1) Jesus said it was so, and 2) He is God and he can do anything. It’s not up to me to explain a mystery because I can’t- that’s why it’s called a mystery.”

@tracygriffin4439

7 ай бұрын

Orthodox do not completely reject the term "transubstantiation". It just isn't our most PREFERRED term. It can be used correctly to describe the reality of the Eucharistic transformation. But it is not intended to explain HOW this change in the elements occurs.

The command is, "Take, Eat" not "Take, Understand". So people who want to try figuring it out and expressing it in human language should do that, but not force everyone else to the same expression. For my own part, I'd go even further and say that the act of obedience is what's important and any of a wide range of understandings will do.

Dr. Cooper, as one in the Wesleyan tradition, "consubstantiation" is the term that I have always heard used to describe the Lutheran view. I would agree with you that it is not fair or appropriate to use a term that is not used (or worse, rejected) by those in that tradition, themselves. As one who teaches Worship, I have taken note of this and have adjusted the terminology that I use when talking about Lutherans. - However, I would challenge the idea that the use of the term should "shut[s] down the conversation" or that it shows that they know "nothing" about the Lutheran view. Instead, I would suggest that it may indicate that they don't understand the historical implication of the term or that Lutherans reject the term, but not that they don't understand the Lutheran view. In my studies, when that term has been used to identify Lutherans, the explanation given sounds very much like your own explanation. Perhaps it is an inappropriate term, but what the user means by the term seems (in what I have read) to be exactly what you are describing. To say it another way, if, instead of dismissing them, you asked what they mean by that, I think that you would find that their explanation would fit Lutherans. You could then explain why that should not be called consubstantiation. - Just my thoughts for whatever it is worth.

@obscuredictionary3263

Жыл бұрын

Yeah secondary school religious studies books in the UK call it consubstantiation. This should probably be changed but I dont think it would shut down the conversation. One can know a lot about Lutheranism and have happened to pick up that term.

Great presentation, a "review" on this precious sacrament for Holy-Maundy Thursday. As Catholic Priests would say at Concecration, "Let us celebrate the mystery of faith." God's Blessings to you. From a WELS member.

“It’s possible to be two things at once”…isn’t that consubstantiation?

@nathanjstoic

4 ай бұрын

It’s not that it isn’t consubstantiation, but it would have to be a specific type which is why we tend to avoid that term

As a Catholic this was a very informative video, thank you.

Thank you for the explanation and honesty. Thomas Aquinas doesn't have the only Catholic explanation of the Eucharistic mystery. It's this mystery that we're all trying to comprehend.

Bernhard Lohse states that "sacramental unity" (unio sacramentalis) is better than consubstantiation as a conceptual description of Luther's view on the Lord's Supper, one which also reflects best the Wittenberg Concord of 1536. What say ye? ;) What I enjoy most about Luther, as you've methodologically captured here and elsewhere, is that he has practical-theological concerns regarding doctrine - a concern that is virtually the same as the development of John Wesley's practical theology. Both contextualized their doctrine through the prism of their everyday ministerial activities, with congregational edification through preaching to be the primary concern for his theological development. Sidenote, something a little ironic is that you've spoken of Wesley as professing a 'perfectionism' and that to me, as one coming from a Wesley-Holiness tradition, signals a view from "comes from outside the traditional but inside the tradition." Entire sanctification is more nuanced, especially as we see the development of Wesley's thought throughout his early, middle, and late (or mature) periods. If you're interested in Wesley's theology, then I would recommend Randy Maddox's book "Responsible Grace: John Wesley's Practical Theology." The word "responsible", perhaps for a Lutheran and/or Calvinist, might make the hair on the back the neck stand up straight, but the emphasis, interestingly, for Wesley is to insist on holiness of heart and life (without notions of "infused grace") as he faced, like Luther, the strong cultural voices of antinomianism. Wesley's "orienting concern" is to maintain the practical-theological tension between "Apart from me [Christ] you can do nothing” and "I can do all things through him [Christ] who strengthens me." I'm guessing this is the reasoning you turn comments off on some of your videos. :)

Lmao. How come my Lutheran pastor told me that consubstantiation is the Lutheran view?

@hexahexametermeter

7 ай бұрын

The Lutheran view is the most clumsy articulation of Christ's presence in the Lords Supper. They want to say it's a mystery and then say its "in with and under". If it's not in with and under then dont say it. And then want to claim that is the same as the meaning of "This is my body". If you want to stress the plain words of "this is my body", IN does not mean IS, WITH does not mean IS, nor does UNDER mean IS. I think they are caught in a trap of their own tradition and cant wiggle themselves out of it. Would be better to abandon those words. "In with and under" is nowhere in the Bible.

@davidw.5185

Ай бұрын

Probably because he's not one of the more talented Lutheran pastors. Sadly there are many "Lutheran" pastors who are lazy or not able to teach

@TruthHasSpoken

Ай бұрын

@@hexahexametermeter Lutheran's are inconsistent ... on one hand objecting to the Catholic Church articulation of transubstantiation, that it is not scriptural, then articulating their own belief as a doctrine: "in with and under," which is found no where in scripture.

Can you do a video on impanation? This is the definition I get from the internet. "Christ is present as the substance of bread."

We have to agree on common terms, not blindly use someone else their language, if you extend that logic, we should use terms like "CIS gender" and "persons with a uterus", which is wrong and concedes half of the debate.

@hexahexametermeter

7 ай бұрын

For real. For a Lutheran to say, no, you cant use that language is EXACTLY how the woke like to control your language. You are not allowed to use your own words but have to operate in their vocabulary. If you cant articulate a view independently with different words, then its probably not true.

Follow up to my comment, it was not my intent to defend calvin’s position but to be descriptive of his position. I believe that helps ensue understanding. There is certainly a mystery with the Eucharist.

Brother Cooper, could you recommend some books on Lutheran theory of Eucharistic presence? I believe in the real presence, but I'm not sure if I should understand it in Reformed or Lutheran terms.

@Mygoalwogel

4 жыл бұрын

Have you read Luther's Catechisms? They are the most indisputably Lutheran treatment. After that, _Luther's Two Catechisms Explained by Himself_ It's free on archive.org

@docmitchel6742

4 жыл бұрын

bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#sacrament

@kasondamien9895

2 жыл бұрын

Sorry to be off topic but does anyone know a trick to get back into an Instagram account? I was stupid lost my login password. I love any help you can offer me!

@yusufdustin5038

2 жыл бұрын

@Kason Damien instablaster :)

@kasondamien9895

2 жыл бұрын

@Yusuf Dustin i really appreciate your reply. I got to the site through google and I'm waiting for the hacking stuff now. Takes a while so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.

You're right the point is not to come up with how... but it sure is a great way to excercise the noodle

I’m genuinely curious: so in the Catholic Church in order to perform transubstantiation you have to be officially ordained; does the same go for Lutheran’s? Does a lay person, like myself, have the authority to perform the Eucharistic prayers etc.?

@crosscastle100

2 жыл бұрын

If you are a believer-if in Covid lockdown,you can give yourself communion

@mgeiman6331

2 жыл бұрын

Ah. No

@hexahexametermeter

Жыл бұрын

@@crosscastle100 Nope.

I always understood "consubstantiation" to simply mean that the sacrament is truly bread and wine, and truly the flesh and blood of Christ. But, in light of this discussion, I can see why Lutherans would not use that terminology.

Dr. Cooper affirms that the body of Christ is with,in, and under the bread yet rejects the term consubstantiation which means just that. So I am confused by that. He is also mischaracterizes calvins view of the Eucharist. Calvin did believe that Christ body and blood is objectively present in the Eucharist not just in the subjective partaking. He nuances this differently than Luther but he did not believe in a sole subjective presence. Also the remaining presense of the bread and wine is important. The Zwingli error is the denial of the grace but the Roman error is the denial of the sign. Both are necessary in order to be a sacrament.

@CalebMaSmith

2 ай бұрын

The Lutheran view is that the Bible says the body and blood of Christ and that it’s far from the point to get caught up in the legalistic terms. It could be that, but it’s not important to discuss how this happens or works. I know you commented years ago but this is for other readers or if you are still waiting for an answer. Cheers!

Yes this has been discussed in many church Lutheran circles. I asked one day when certain people were adamant it WAS the actual body and blood as if it actually changed I wondered then why do we have to offer gluten free options? Why do we need non alcoholic wine then? Because it actually changes , right? I think your on point.

@WaterMelon-Cat

6 ай бұрын

We don't offer gluten free options or grape juice

@TruthHasSpoken

Ай бұрын

@@WaterMelon-Cat From the LCMS website: _In the LCMS, we have generally commended the question of gluten-free wafers to the realm of individual pastoral judgment._

I know William Lane Craig spoke of the Lutheran view as cosubstantiation. Maybe he just thought that was the closest philosophical understanding to what you just explained. But anyway, I was intrested in some other things he claimed, and want to know how you respond. For example, he says when the communicate is chewing on and drinking the elements, it's really Christ even though you can't see him. So they are together. This is done he says by the communication of divine properties to the human nature ( like a red hot fire poker). So would that mean the flesh of Christ became omnipresent? Thanks

I agree that transubstantiation is not a significant error, but not sure how consubstantiation explains the mystery any more than in, with, and under. Now the carnal eating distinction in contrast to the Lutheran view does make sense.

John Williamson Nevin, The Mystical Presence. Thanks 👋

Dawn French did a great joke on this at the end of one of the Vicar of Dilby episodes

Everything about us in relation to Christ is spiritual, definitely our faith in Him is spiritual or else we deny His Divinity. The whole point of the Eucharist (as was with the Passover) is for the physical to be our touchstone to the spiritual. Though Calvinism is generally deficient as regards predestination, the view that Christ's presence in the Eucharist is spiritual is the best definition that there can be unless one does believe in transubstantiaion, consubstantiation or "just" some kind representation (which, wouldn't "representation" be spiritual, if in faith?) of Christ's body and blood.

@Magnulus76

Жыл бұрын

That presupposes a "spiritual" category that is opposition to the physical. I think that's the problem that Lutherans have with that. But "spiritualizing" is very frequent in the Reformed tradition. Calvin seems to have a real problem with embodiment in general. Reformed churches don't involve much honoring of physicality.

@tracygriffin4439

7 ай бұрын

Bingo! @@Magnulus76

@hexahexametermeter

7 ай бұрын

@@Magnulus76 You forget that it is the HOLY SPIRIT who makes one. Even in the Trinity. You cannot overemphasize the roll of the Holy Spirt when it comes to what makes two things one. That's not "spiritualizing". That's at the very core of Trinitarian Christianity. And your charge against the physicality is nonsense. All physicality is created by the Holy Spirit. And physicality without the Spirit is nothing. "It is the Spirit that gives life--The flesh profits nothing." And the Holy Spirit is a PERSON, not a CATEGORY as you say.

The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord - VIII. The Person of Christ: "We believe, teach, and confess that the Son of God, although from eternity He has been a particular, distinct, entire divine person, and thus, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, true, essential, perfect God, nevertheless, in the fulness of time assumed also human nature into the unity of His person, not in such a way that there now are two persons or two Christs, but that Christ Jesus is now in one person at the same time true, eternal God, born of the Father from eternity, and a true man, born of the most blessed Virgin Mary, as it is written Rom. 9:5: Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. 7] We believe, teach, and confess that now, in this one undivided person of Christ, there are two distinct natures, the divine, which is from eternity, and the human, which in time was assumed into the unity of the person of the Son of God; which two natures in the person of Christ are never either separated from, or mingled with, one another, or changed the one into the other, but each abides in its nature and essence in the person of Christ to all eternity. 8] We believe, teach, and confess also that, as both natures mentioned remain unmingled and undestroyed in their nature and essence, each retains also its natural, essential properties, and does not lay them aside to all eternity, neither do the essential properties of the one nature ever become the essential properties of the other nature. 9] Accordingly, we believe, teach, and confess that to be almighty, eternal, infinite, to be of itself everywhere present at once naturally, that is, according to the property of its nature and its natural essence, and to know all things, are essential attributes of the divine nature, which never to eternity become essential properties of the human nature.", see bookofconcord.org/sd-person.php

How about "Conensubstantiation" for us Lutherans? 🤔

This is frustrating because I talked to a Reformed tradition pastor (UCC) and they seemed to think Lutherans believed in consubstantiation, maybe even a kind of Capernaitic eating. I would almost say "transfiguration" is a better way to describe the Lutheran doctrine. We don't go up to heaven to feast with Christ (as the Reformed believe), it's not a subjective mystical experience like that, but the Word transfigures the bread and wine with the whole person of Christ. d. It is part of a deeply sacramental worldview that Christians always had until Zwingli came along and insisted that the finite cannot contain the infinite. I would be curious if any Lutheran have ever looked at this in terms of Whitehead's metaphysics. If the basis of reality is ultimately events rather than substance, this is indeed possible for bread and wine to be something else at the same time. The Methodist theologian John Cobb has actually written a paper on this, in fact, and it is ultimately more convincing than the traditional Reformed explanation. The problem is that Greek metaphysics that underpinned the Middle Ages and informs so much of classical Christian theology really cannot contain such a notion, because it's so based around substance dualism.

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

If you look up "Sacramental Union" in wikipedia, it correctly says, first thing, that it's the Lutheran view. If you look up "Consubstantiation" in wikipedia, the first Church it mentions is the Lollards. So the meme is slowly losing its popularity.

Historically, when did people start believing the Lord's Supper was only symbolic? Did any of the early fathers believe that?

@alhilford2345

4 жыл бұрын

Uly Cer: All Christians, who were also Catholic of course, believed in the miracle of Transubstantiation until the time of the Protestant Reformation. This is a dogma of the Catholic Church. This was just one of the doctrines that the protesting dissidents regected, and now we have over 30,000 different Protestant denominations, all with different beliefs but all claiming to receive inspiration from the same Holy Spirit. Confusing? You bet! Who's right? The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!

@reformedcatholic457

4 жыл бұрын

@@alhilford2345 I'm no expert in the fathers but I think not all fathers held to a transubstantiation, if they did they held an early view of it. Some don't mention a change of the substance.

@ninjacell2999

4 жыл бұрын

@@alhilford2345 transubstantiation was not developed until later, and was only made dogma at the 4th Lateran council in 1215. Pretty much everyone before that held to Christ being present in the sacrament in some form though

@BachClarinet

4 жыл бұрын

@@reformedcatholic457 don't feed the troll.

@mynameis......23

Жыл бұрын

Debunking catholicism I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen _________________________ CHRIST alone John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus _________________________ Work of God = John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” _________________________ 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul. Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop _________________________ Jesus said Matthew 23:9 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father. Sad _________________________ Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God Use this to defeat the argument. Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Matthew 12:46-50 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”. Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” John 19:26-27 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards). By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26. _________________________ We should not pray to apostles Romans 1:25 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Acts 10:25-26 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” Acts 14:15 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, Revelation 19:10 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 22:8-9 8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Colossians 2:18 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26 26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Hebrews 7:25 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles _________________________ There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. _________________________ Apostles are allowed to marry, 1 Corinthians 9:1-5 1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry? _________________________ The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic). 1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple 2)He sank down while walking on water 3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan 4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times 5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven 6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear 7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles. 8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land), 9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit), 10)King Soloman messed up, 11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11). Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up) 12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up. 13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20 14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9 If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up. ____________________________________ Galatians 4:21-26 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Sarah is mother of all, Not mary. _________________________ Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics. _________________________ Also, if the apostles didn't wrote it, I don't want it.

The best phrase is "Sacramental Union". It's not even Real Presence because the Reformed define that differently. In, with and under are also easily misunderstood or abused as philosophical terms. Sacramental Union is the way...

@TruthHasSpoken

Ай бұрын

The LCMS website says: _Regarding Holy Communion, the LCMS believes in the doctrine of the Sacramental Union, Real Presence, that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present “in, with, and under” the elements of bread and wine._ Sacramental Union itself is defined as _the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present “in, with, and under” the elements of bread and wine._

❤❤Love,,this is my body, this is my blood!!! Amen

With respect this tells me what Lutherans don't believe about the supper not what they do. In an intellectual world is it sufficient just to quote Jesus words and leave it at that?

really

What is the problem of saying that Christ is present to the faith of worthy receivers while the body of Christ is at the right hand of the Father in heaven?

So remaining bread and wine, it becomes the body and blood of Christ

How would the Lutheran view then differ on the Orthodox view ?

@bethanyann1060

4 жыл бұрын

As an LCMS Lutheran that has somewhat studied the Orthodox view, in my humble opinion, I don't really see much of a difference between the two views.

@tracygriffin4439

7 ай бұрын

Lutherans can be vague about the PERMANENT nature of the Eucharistic transformation. Orthodox believe that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and that the Wine is changed into His Blood. The Orthodox Liturgy is very clear on this. It is called the Epiclesis. Once the Eucharist is consecrated in the Orthodox tradition, it remains the Body and Blood of Christ forever. It does not revert back to mere bread and wine.@@bethanyann1060

Thank you for this clear explanation (of lack of clear explanation, haha; but genuinely, thank you). I think the main concern is that the Lord said to do it in remembrance of Him, so the spiritual essence is in remembering that which is spiritually significant. To try to say that it's not spiritual unless something beyond that is happening, is to minimize the spiritual significance of the remembrance, but it is the Lord Himself who said "do this in remembrance of me". He did not merely say "this is my body" "this is my blood" without further explanation, but instead He also said "do this in remembrance of me" and that is plenty spiritual and leaves nothing to be desired. The remembrance aspect is significant, because the Lord was sacrificed once and we remember His sacrifice. If it is more than a remembrance of the one-time sacrifice, then He is sacrificed again, which is an egregious error. Now, to be self-contradictory is not such an egregious error, but it is still an error, and in our humility we ought to be correctible. If we are not correctible, have we said "I am of Calvin, and you are of Luther, and he is of Apollos, and she is of Paul"? If we are not correctible, have we left father and mother and sisters and brothers and wife and children and house and lands? Maybe you (whosoever may be reading this) are easily corrected, so please don't be insulted by the previous paragraph, but rather please be corrected by the paragraph preceding it.

How does one answer the objection that the bread and wine can’t be the actual body and blood because when Jesus distributed these at the Last Supper, he was still very much in his own body with blood coursing through his veins. Wouldn’t there then be TWO bodies and bloods?

@TruthHasSpoken

Ай бұрын

God is outside of time and space. Thus, he can make present his resurrected body and blood even before his death and resurrection.

@Martinus1483

Ай бұрын

@@TruthHasSpoken The rejoinder would be: Of course he CAN make present his resurrected body and blood. But how do you know he DOES?

@TruthHasSpoken

Ай бұрын

@@Martinus1483 "how do you know he DOES?" Because the Church - the pillar of truth - where the manifold wisdom of God is made known - which Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead it to ALL TRUTH - and from which scripture comes - says he DOES. This is based not only on the Written Word of God but the faith passed down orally. Note, St Thomas Aquinas addressed this topic in the Summa ... Question 81. He quotes St Jerome ~850 years earlier saying: _“The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself the guest and banquet, is both the partaker and what is eaten.”_

@Martinus1483

Ай бұрын

@@TruthHasSpoken Not to step on any toes...but the Church has erred before, because in this present life it's filled with fallible, erring (albeit sanctified and holy) human beings. Would you say that the disciples at the Last Supper would have knelt down in worship before the Sacrament--or would they rather have knelt in worship before Jesus, who's reclining at table right there in front of them?

@TruthHasSpoken

Ай бұрын

@@Martinus1483 No toes stepped on. :). To your question, its not either, or but both. Both are Christ. "the Church has erred before" Not on doctrine / dogma. What is true can not be false. Why? Because Jesus PROMISED to send the Holy Spirit to lead his Church to ALL truth AND he PROMISED the gates of hell would not prevail. It is protected by him from teaching error. Trust him. That said, practices and disciplines can and do change.

If we make a parallel with the Incarnation, then the Lord should have used a personal pronoun showing the Sacrament, as one must use a personal pronoun pointing to Jesus and say "This man is God", one cannot say "This human nature is God", because the union between God and man in the Incarnation is only personal. When God says, in the Transfiguration, "This is my Son", the greek word is "outos", which is personal, but when Jesus says "This is my body", we read "touto", which is not personal. So the Incarnation is not a good parallel, and then, we must not use too deep explanations, unless there is no other way of escaping a contradiction, as it would be a contradiction in saying that the human nature of Christ is Omnipotent: we can only say that Christ is Omnipotent. But Christ Himself says "this (touto) is my body", and so, there is a contradiction if it keeps being bread.

Sacramental Union is what I've seen

At the baptist church we seem to kind of understand it represents blood and body, but before we take it we hold up the bread ave say “Christ’s body broken for you.” How am I to change my mindset and belief that it’s really blood and body and not just a symbol?

@LeoRegum

4 жыл бұрын

It is proper to call the elements the body and blood regardless of view of Real Presence, as Paul does in 1 Cor 11, and the Baptist Second London Confession does in 30.8. Regarding the elevation of the host, I'm surprised this is practised in your Baptist church, it is generally seen as a key point in the Roman liturgy, the point at which the miracle of Transubstantiation takes place if I am not mistaken, where bells are rung three times etc. Elevation of the host is explicitly condemned in the Baptist confession 30.4. If you want a more historical view from your current standpoint probably Barcellos' More than a Memory would be a good place to begin. Grace to you.

@tracygriffin4439

7 ай бұрын

Those bells are lovely and so reverent. Such a spirit of prayer and devotion when they are rung. @@LeoRegum

It’s not hard to express. Impossible to understand how, but not impossible to express. The Body is not within bread. The Body doesn’t just look like bread. The Bread doesn’t just symbolize Body. Here it is, don’t miss it: >>>The Body IS the bread.

@holinessofthebride1935

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, This is a very good way to express it. The simpler and closer to Scripture the better.

Brett Salkeld wrote a really helpful book about this called 'transubstantiation'

How is it you can speak of "tradition" and yet say we dont say that anymore. What does tradution even mean then? How far back are you going? "In, with and under", if not to mean transubstantiation HAVE TO mean "with" or "con"- substantiation. Has to. What other option is there, if your goingbto say this IS the body and blod of our Lord?!. Here it comes.....youre wrong when you say "this is the body/blood of the Lord" because "is" is an identifier denoting EQUALITY. Its more appropriate to say "this is the body/blood our Lord AND bread and wine". If the substances of bread/wine do not mix with the substance of Christ, then the above proposition HAS TO BE true. If im understanding something wrong please show me.

Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body ", ( Matthew 26:26). The Catholic Church has always taught what Jesus Christ teaches! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

The Romans accused the early Christians of being cannibalism just because of that ideologically

The Lutheran error is that it is no longer bread when Blessed. Not both and. Paul, like Jesus, teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED, is Christ's Body. No longer bread! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

What's great is that real Lutherans simply accept what God's Word tells us about the sacriment. Jesus says it is . . . He says it does . . . He says be careful . . . He says do it.

@TruthHasSpoken

Ай бұрын

" real Lutherans simply accept what God's Word tells us about the sacriment." Jesus: THIS IS MY BODY Scripture doesn't say anything about "in, with, under" That's adding to the text that which is not there.

@ralf547

Ай бұрын

@@TruthHasSpoken NO, it's not adding to the text, because saying "in with and under" is just a phrase. It's not a doctrine or dogma and not every Lutheran says it and I haven't heard it in ages. It's not an attempt to explain how the bread and wine are truly Jesus' Body and Blood, it's not some dogma Lutherans must accept to be saved, like Transubstantiation, or that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven, or that the Pope speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra.

@TruthHasSpoken

Ай бұрын

@@ralf547 " simply accept what God's Word tells us " "in with and under" is not in the text. Scripture says nothing about it. " It's not a doctrine " Sure sounds like it. :) The LCMS website says: _Regarding Holy Communion, the LCMS believes in the doctrine of the Sacramental Union, Real Presence, that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present “in, with, and under” the elements of bread and wine._

❤❤😃🙏

So... Is the Host completely the Body of Christ, or part-Christ part-bread? Is it completely Divine or only partially Divine? If it's only partially Divine, does that mean Roman Catholics are committing idolatry by worshiping the whole Host? Do Lutherans only worship part of the Host?

@mathewlowrey2734

3 жыл бұрын

Lutherans don't "worship" the host, per se...at least, not in the way a Catholic would understand that term. There are no corpus christi festivals. To some extent, more or less (depending on the church and even the individual), Lutherans could be said to be "reverential" or "serious" or "solemn" or, you know, personally pious towards, the Host....but they do not "worship" the host. And specifically and particularly broke from the Catholic church's "worship" of the Host. The Lutherans also do not hold that the Host is being re-presented as a sacrifice, TO the father, each time the Eucharist is celebrated. Lutherans would say that the Body and Blood are the very same body and blood sacrificed, ONCE, for all, on the cross, and NOW being distributed to the communicants for their good, not presented to the Father again and again.

Hello. I would find your belief unsatisfactory.

Great to hear!

The Bible does not present the real presence of Christ as consubstantiation. The Biblical exposition, of the Lord's Supper, speaks of a Sacramental Unity. 1 Corinthians 11: 29-30 refers both to Christ’s physical body “Under(Present in a hidden way)” the Elements of bread and wine or grape juice, which includes the Church (Body of Christ) - See 1 Corinthians 12: 13, 27. 1 Corinthians 11: 24-25 is Christ Himself speaking. “In” indicates that the body and blood of Christ are in the bread and wine. “With” indicates that we receive Christ’s body and blood(Bread and wine). This is not consubstantiation or the idea that Christ is present alongside bread and wine. In Biblical context, the bread (Christ’s body) and wine (Christ’s blood) are one (Sacramental unity). The Apostle assures us, in Hebrews 13: 10, that We (The followers of Christ) have an altar, whereof they (Jewish priests and Levites) have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. Jewish priests and Levites, who remained in the service of the temple (Jerusalem) and the tabernacle (Wilderness), and who partook of the sacrifices of the Ceremonial Law (Ordinance), chose not to take part in the great sacrifice made by the Son of God. The Lord's supper is the feast of the gospel passover, and keeping to the Levitical law would, according to its own rules, keep men from the Christian altar. Our meat, which we by faith spiritually eat, is the body of Christ, and not a literal eating, of the sacrifice of Christ, in the Lord's Supper, but a spiritual eating is meant, which contrasts to the typical ceremonial meats, and the two cannot be combined (Galatians 5: 2). Compare Hebrews 13: 9 (With grace, not meats) with Hebrews 13: 10. The sacrifice made by Christ, is much greater than the sacrifices offered under Jewish Law. Christ is both our Altar and our Sacrifice.

Why is Transubstantiation a philosophical explanation that "goes too far". Why is it a "problem" much less an "error"? Isn't it just a Scholastic explanation? Why would the Lutheran Scholastics object? Don't Lutheran Scholastic's use such methodology to analyze other theological questions we can't perfectly understand? I've never understood the objection other than - we prefer to leave it a mystery. Which seems more consistent with Eastern Orthodoxy than Lutheran Scholasticism.

@Mygoalwogel

4 жыл бұрын

Paul continues to call it bread after consecration. We follow Paul.

@lorenzomurrone2430

4 жыл бұрын

Mygoalwogel has already partially replied. The problem with transubstantiation is that the bread stops being bread (tho it looks like it), something Lutherans don't believe, since it is called bread even after the consecration (1 Cor 10:17). However, the biggest issue imo with the RC view is that it claims that transubstantiation is THE explanation par excellence, but the aristotelian categories implied have nothing to do with biblical or patristic language

@toddvoss52

4 жыл бұрын

@@lorenzomurrone2430 I didn't bother to reply to the first argument. Hopefully you can both see how weak that one is. Transubstantiation is easily reconciled with that. The accidents don't stop being the accidents. We would say he isn't referring to the essence/substance which is Christ's body (unless he isn't speaking of the common understanding of the word "bread"). I don't see why your understanding is any less "problematic" - you believe it is the Body of Christ and yet you believe it is still bread. Any explanation is not going to ultimately penetrate a mystery. Your second argument I am more sympathetic to. I would have to see how this was resolved with the EO (at least from Rome's point of view) at the brief Union of Florence. Later , in the 17th century there was a period when the EO were battling certain Calvinistic ideas themselves and they started using a greek term in a more widespread way (they had developed it during those discussions with Rome at Lyon/Florence) that they defined in a way essentially the same as the Latin understanding (see Confession of Dosithei and Confession of Peter Moghila). However, Modern EO has backed off and does not closely define the nature and exact manner of the Eucharistic Presence of Our Lord's Body and Blood . The significance of the greek term they developed is substantially weakened even if it is not rejected. It would be interesting to see what Rome/Orthodoxy would require on this point for Union with Orthodoxy today - I don't think it would be a sticking point like the Filioque and especially the office of the Papacy.

@Mygoalwogel

4 жыл бұрын

@@toddvoss52 Well it's not the biggest sticking point for us either. Lots of Lutherans err on the side of transubstantiation rather than trivial symbolism when discussing with obstinate presbyanabapticostals. When that isn't the case, we'd rather be "weak" with scripture than strong against it.

@Mygoalwogel

4 жыл бұрын

@@toddvoss52 Your own newadvent.org acknowledges that Transubstantiation is an invented doctrine. www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3 Lutherans don't believe in invented doctrine. "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."

No- but a great deal of the stuff from CPH says otherwise!

Hello damn sick.brother phd.

No use trying to twist your way out of it, Because When Jesus says In the new testament (“Truly Truly”) in John 6:53 you better believe it, The Eucharist in Malachi 1:11 only happens only in the Catholic Church

I'm a Baptist and even I cringe when I hear people describe the Lutheran view that way.

Basically: Ehh, we don’t know. Because the Bible doesn’t say so. So stop saying we know.

I don’t like the Lutheran words in/with/under because it sounds like the body is in a container made of bread. The bread IS the body. Dual reality.

Too long winded just get to the point it would make for a much better educational video.

The peace and happiness you seek can only be found in the Catholic Church. "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

@Mygoalwogel

4 жыл бұрын

The church that sold forgiveness of sins and the papacy for money?

@GeorgePenton-np9rh

4 жыл бұрын

@@Mygoalwogel The Church never sold forgiveness for sins. And only three or four popes bought the papacy.

@Mygoalwogel

4 жыл бұрын

@@GeorgePenton-np9rh False. Exsurge Domine* *Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520* In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors *we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:* 19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the *remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.* bookofconcord.org/exsurge-domine.php *An indulgence granted by authority of the Pope by Johann Tetzel in 1517.* The text reads: _"By the authority of all the saints, and in mercy towards you, _*_I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds and remit all punishments for ten days."_* academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Indulgence

The whole thing is code for “eat magic mushrooms”

Our heretic Lutheran tradition of Prussian background often describes it as follows, as the blessed bread enter your body, the spirit receives the Lord. No further explanation needed.

the bread and and wine are symbolic, no true presence.

@TruthHasSpoken

Ай бұрын

All sacraments involve symbols, but not symbols only, of a greater spiritual reality. Trust Jesus: THIS IS MY BODY

@donhaddix3770

Ай бұрын

@TruthHasSpoken carrying a spiritual truth does does not make them spiritually real.

@TruthHasSpoken

Ай бұрын

@@donhaddix3770 Trust Jesus: THIS IS MY BODY

@donhaddix3770

Ай бұрын

@TruthHasSpoken as a symbolic remembrance. 1 Corinthians 11:24 Verse Concepts 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.”

@TruthHasSpoken

Ай бұрын

@@donhaddix3770 Scripture doesn't say it is a symbolic (only) remembrance. You are adding to the text that which is not there. Trust Jesus: THIS IS MY BODY. That is exactly what scripture says. - It was a hard saying - Who could take it - The crowds left him for what he said - The Jews then wanted to kill him.

As a Lutheran you can believe whatever you want

Boy the Lutherans really run circles around this one, don't they? One moment they are so adamant on "real flesh". The next moment they are careful to not think of it as "a fleshly eating." Then he says "its a spiritual reality" (Then why is he not a Calvinist?) Oh wait, then he says it's "in our mouths" and at the same time it's not "non bodily". And at the end of the day, really, if you confess Christ's body is WITH (syn- or con-) his body (which is a substance) how is that not CONSUBSTANTIAL? It's like fighting a descriptor that is exactly what you are talking about.

@tracygriffin4439

7 ай бұрын

The real question comes with what would you do about a Eucharistic accident? The elderly Martin Luther once accidentally spilled the Chalice. He got down on the floor and licked it up. He did that because he believed it was the very Blood of Christ. What would happen in a Calvinist church if the Chalice were spilled? Would you get down on the floor and lick it up? Or would you mop it up? Your answer shows whether or not you believe in the Real Presence.

@hexahexametermeter

7 ай бұрын

@@tracygriffin4439 LOL Even Thomas Aquinas who basically articulated the Roman Catholic doctrine of "real presence" clarifies that it is not a LOCAL presence. Augustine says that tho believers partake of Christ, the wicked do not; but only partake of the sign. So in no way is the body and blood of Christ unequivocally connected with the sacrament. Let alone "replacing" the bread and wine that is there.

@tracygriffin4439

7 ай бұрын

What on earth are you talking about? It most certainly IS a local presence and the wicked DO indeed partake of it, but to their damnation instead of their salvation. The Lutherans refer to this as the "oral manducation." Every one partakes of Christ physically in the Sacrament. Some to their benefit and salvation and others to their judgment and damnation. This is BASIC Lutheran doctrine. Where did you get your education?@@hexahexametermeter

@hexahexametermeter

7 ай бұрын

@@tracygriffin4439 Looks like you need to read both Augustine and Aquinas or you would know this.

@hexahexametermeter

7 ай бұрын

@@tracygriffin4439 Aquinas, Summa III, question 76: "I answer that, As stated above Christ's body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of [philosophical] substance . Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place . . . hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body. . . . the substance of Christ's body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place THROUGH THE MEDIUM of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located body. Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament."

Calvin is the best.

This to me is like trans logic. You're just calling it something different but saying the same thing. Sacramental union is just a better sounding word than consubstantiation. For what its worth, Anglicans affirm consubstantiation and we have the same views as you.

@sameash3153

9 ай бұрын

The same views as in: 1) it's a mystery; consubstantiation does not explain how it happens. 2) it affirms that the bread is both true bread and is the true body of christ simultaneously. 3) the mystery occurs under a sacramental rite, it does not just happen because we believe or affirm it. Does consubstantiation imply cannibalism? Every real presence doctrine can be jokingly dismissed as cannibalism. If you truly believe in Christ's body in the eucharist, then yes, you are eating his body. But obviously consubstantiation affirmers would still claim that they are eating bread. It would be the catholic who would have to explain how he is not eating pure flesh.

@hexahexametermeter

7 ай бұрын

Anglicans don't affirm constubstatiation, but one may accept it. Other views are also acceptable. For example, Thomas Cranmer's view of true presence: "figuratively he is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine; but really, carnally, and corporally he is only in heaven, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and dead."

@sameash3153

7 ай бұрын

@@hexahexametermeter Thank the Lord that Cranmer was not bestowed infallibility by the church.

@hexahexametermeter

7 ай бұрын

@@sameash3153 LOL "infallible"....the most useless and meaningless term ever.

@sameash3153

7 ай бұрын

@@hexahexametermeter not interested in the axe you're trying to grind