One of the joys of this blog has always been that we can come together here from our various traditions and discuss calmly and rationally both the things that bring us together and those that keep us apart. As Chalcedon said yesterday, our Anglican contingent (all three of them) are missed greatly–not least because they, more than most of us, tend to be a uniting faith. Indeed that was one of the reasons Jessica founded this blog, to foster that very discussion. And I think we have done well (so far) with the mission she gave us.
That does not mean, nor has it ever, that we compromise our core beliefs, or expect others to do so.
In a few weeks we, like so many others will confess our faith, on Trinity Sunday, in the words of the Athanasian Creed, instead of the more commonly used Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed. In doing so we will say this:
This is the catholic faith; whoever does not believe it faithfully and firmly cannot be saved.”
We like our Anglican brothers and sisters have been doing this for five hundred years. But, I hear often, you are Lutheran, not Catholic. But if you think that, you are wrong,we are although we are not Roman, we are Catholic, believing in the Real Presence, and Baptismal Regeneration, amongst others. In fact, in the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon declares:
“The churches among us do not dissent from the catholic church in any article of faith.There is nothing here that departs from the Scriptures or the catholic church, or from the Roman Church, insofar as we can tell from its writers.”
True then, true now, true always. In the twentieth century Herman Sasse would write: “It was no mere ecclesiastico-political diplomacy which dictated the emphatic assertion in the Augsburg Confession that the teachings of the Evangelicals were identical with those of the orthodox Catholic Church of all ages,” he writes. “The Lutheran theologian acknowledges that he belongs to the same visible church to which Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux, Augustine and Tertullian, Athanasius and Ireneaus once belonged.”
But how do we get there? Mathew Block writing in First Things had some thoughts.
Lutherans have long confessed faith in the “invisible” Church—that is to say, we confess that the Church is “properly speaking, the assembly of saints and those who truly believe,” as Philip Melanchthon puts it in the Augsburg Confession. Belief then is what makes one a member of the Church, not denominational affiliation—contra Roman Catholic doctrine which equates the invisible Church with a visible churchly institution. (This distinction, by the by, is why I’ve written elsewhere that I’m too catholic to be Catholic.)
Belief in the invisible Church does not, however, mean that denominational affiliation is unimportant […]
The universality of the Church is, through God’s grace, a reality despite doctrinal disagreements; but it is not a license for the downplaying of these doctrinal differences. The Church catholic is also the Church apostolic—which is to say, it is the Church which “stands firm and holds to the traditions” which have been taught through the words of the Apostles (2 Thessalonians 2:15). And this teaching—which is truly the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:19-21)—has been passed on to us today in its fullness through the Scriptures.
To be catholic, then, is to be heirs of the apostolic faith. It is to be rooted firmly in the Apostle’s teaching as recorded for us in Scripture, the unchanging Word of God. But while this Word is unchanging, it does not follow that it is static. The history of the Church in the world is the history of Christians meditating upon Scripture. We must look to this history as our own guide in understanding Scripture. To be sure, the Church’s tradition of interpretation has erred from time to time—we find, for example, that the Fathers and Councils sometimes disagree with one another—but it is dangerous to discount those interpretations of Scripture which have been held unanimously from the very beginning of the Church.
For me, at least that sums it up pretty well, and from what I have seen, it likely does for most Anglicans as well, and should for Rome as well.
The lectionary tells us that the lesson for today comes from:
1 John 3:16-24 King James Version (KJV)
16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
17 But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
And the Hymnody gives us this as well:
Hello Neo. Very nice post. Now, if you could get Rome to agree…………..God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A good post and there is always hope at reconciliation at some point in the future between some of these more Catholic churches.
It seems that besides the rejection of the Pope and the OT Septuagint and full Canon of the Scriptures that were adopted by the Church circa AD 400 we still have serious problems regarding other serious issues of the faith which will be hard to mend.
First would be the apostolic priesthood, women in the priesthood, the necessity of a male consecrated priesthood to instill the apostolic blessing upon these priests.
Second, the Eucharist, the elements used for the Eucharist and the theology which, what is called a belief in the Real Presence which varies in theological understanding from transubstantiation: such as consubstantiation, trans-signification or trans-finalization etc.
These things affect deeply the other sacraments of the RC faith as well. Such things will not be easily solved I’m afraid. But, as you say, we do hold many of the same traditions . . . and it is wonderful to see names acclaimed such as Thomas Aquinas, Bernard of Clairvaux, Augustine and Tertullian, Athanasius and Ireneaus. Let us pray for unity and if that becomes impossible perhaps a drawing closer to unity in the coming the years.
LikeLike
Yep, as soon as you fix those, you can rejoin the true church. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Once you imitate fully believe the teachings of the saints you hold in esteem it will be solved, my friend. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m so sorry, but we don’t imitate anyone, except Christ, of course. That comes from being authentic. We do however cooperate with others.
LikeLike
Strange that one would honor saints that are not authentic in their faith and beliefs then.
LikeLike
They are as authentic as we are, they are of the same church as we are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Smile. They were indeed . . . and when you believe as they did, you too will be not just Catholic but Roman Catholic. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do, and I am a reformed Catholic, in other words, a Lutheran. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
So you improved upon the thinking of Aquinas and the Church, which reforms itself through validly called Councils and magisterial pronouncements, and started your own improved version? Sounds like the Confederates were merely reforming the Union and the Constitution then. Sadly, they didn’t end well. But they are indeed Americans today and darn good ones at that. But the Confederacy didn’t last. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, we stripped out the corrupt practices that had grown up around Rome, shortly thereafter so did Rome. but as always, actions have consequences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed they do and a corrupting effect on everyone as we see we have hirelings in the RCC today who wish to follow the lead of the reformers by instituting women clergy and recognizing homosexual marriage and erasing the sin of contraception etc. etc. Actions are indeed filled with consequences and the whole world is in meltdown because of it. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, and you know that for the most part, I refrain from commenting on internal matter in churches other than my own, although sometimes our experiences can be helpful, and in that sense I’ll contribute a bit. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes it is a good point NEO. I guess what we see so much of today is an eagerness to reform and reform again ad infinitum to adjust all of Christianity to our wonderful selves. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a lot of it. many want the acclaim of the world, and would conform the churches to obtain it. Our job as conservatives is in large measure to slow them down enough to allow it to be thought through.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dependent of course as if there is any real thought left to allow them them to think through.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good post, Neo. As someone who has spent (wasted?) too many years in ecumenical endeavours, only to watch the Anglicans walk further away from the table, and the Orthodox insist their table is the only one, and the RCC saying that everyone has the faith in some degree, but none as much as we do, I have come to the conclusion that all we can do is to discuss what unites us. What divides us is clear enough – in the end our own carnal minds, as Paul puts it. There are things on which we just have to agree to disagree, but I have found the presence here of Rob and Geoffrey a great help in understanding a tradition I have no experience of.
I, too, miss Jess, Struans and Malcolm, and hope we may yet hear from them again. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks, C. I find little to disagree with in what you say. And as you and I have found over the years, what unites us is about 95% of the faith, the rest matters, but they are not fighting words. In large measure, I think, what divides us is no more or less than pride, in ourselves and our churches.
They are all, indeed, sorely missed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An addition, because i missed it the first time around. I too found Rob and Geoffrey to be a window on a part of the faith that I have little experience of, and very helpful to my understanding of their tradition. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s take a moment on this 3th Sunday after Easter to wish Jessica all the blessings of Our Lord Jesus Christ that she will make a full recovery and may from time to time pop in to visit.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Always a good thing to do, Steve. Last i heard, she is recovering nicely, although it has been, and will be a long road.
LikeLike
I shall pass that on Steve. As Neo will confirm, at long last her strength is returning. She was very close to death, and whilst her survival is a miracle, the cancer took its toll, and she has needed lots of time and rest. But she is on the mend and is, I know, grateful for our prayers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very happily confirmed. Both on the recovery and on her appreciation of the prayers. i would add that she tells me she is praying for us all, as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen, my friend, let us not forget our brothers and sisters who stand in need of our prayers and our love.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neo – you raise interesting points about a common heritage. They are indeed something we have in common. It reminds me of little the Western churches (the RCC included) has made of the rich heritage of the Cappadocian Fathers, St Cyril of Alexandria and St John of Damascus.
It is interesting to me to note the way in which the hymn books in my church use the hymns of Charles Wesley. This seems good common-sense stuff. The man was a God-inspired poet/hymn writer, and few have done it better.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And that was my main point. We do have a common heritage. I’ve seen Catholic services use a Luther hymn as well, and of course we still use the traditionally Catholic forms as well. I think we fool no one but ourselves when we assume that we (for any given value of we) are the one true church. That hymn that I used is also an example, it came from the hymnody that goes with the common lectionary, but the video was selected because of the people in it.
We need to focus on our common heritage more than on our differences, I think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Catholics, of course, are required by the Church to believe that it is the one, true Church, but that Church also recognises the Orthodox Church as a ‘valid’ Church, and the other ‘ecclesial communities’ as having particular gifts. Some, of course, found such language ‘offensive’, but I see it rather as an honest statement of what the RCC believes. It requires no one outside of it to agree – and since it stopped burning people who didn’t, and its opponents did likewise, things have improved a good deal 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know, and I respect the belief, although not surprisingly i disagree. I also agree that we are getting much better at it. That it is a major improvement that we are no longer burning each other and for that matter trying to settle these things by war.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That seems to me absolutely the right approach. If you agreed, you’d be a Catholic, and if I want to hold fellowship with you as a fellow Christian (which I do) then I need to be as respectful of that, as you are of the fact of my belief. Gets us off on the right foot. As the Duke put it, we can all tend to be long on tongue and short on ears 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
That we surely can! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems to me singularly useless to address a fellow Christian in a way almost designed to get his or her blood up. Anyone starting with a Catholic by telling them they worship Mary is wasting their breath; anyone starting with an Anglican by saying they are in a made-up Church founded by a fat adulterer, is similarly wasting their time; and so on and so forth.
Of course, it is required of no one that they engage in dialogue, but here, where we do, it is good to start in a place of mutual respect.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly, and the one that starts on Mary finds that he makes opposition of many Protestants too. Some don’t believe everything that Rome teaches about Her, although many of us do, it is hardly novel teaching, but surely we should all respect the Mother of God!
Similarly when we attack others churches, we should expect them to defend themselves vigorously, or they wouldn’t be there. And so if we want the fellowship of others, we would be wise to respect them, and hope they would us. And that is why this place works, we all (well, almost all) of us do respect each other, and it shows.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hear, hear! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
LikeLike
Hello Neo. I’ve intentionally stayed out of this one but it does provide some insight into the various positions of some who come here. I am grateful to know these things so as not to step on toes, etc. I can come on too strong and in the land of the Blogosphere, this seems strangely magnified. Haven’t figured that one out yet, but I will in time.
What I’d like to say is yes, we do need to focus on the areas in which we agree, but that doesn’t mean to ignore our differences. No, reasonable discussion of our differences is what we also need to do so as to help others “cross the Tiber” so to speak. That is the heart of the new evangelization and the true reason for all ecumenical efforts, to heal the wounds to ecclesial communion that sin and division have caused. If the Truth isn’t professed by those who have it so as to simply speak politely to those of our separated brothers and sisters in Christ, then the Truth is no longer served but becomes the elephant in the room we are trying not to talk about. Love has to guide all of these efforts, for Jesus loves all of us, both those who maintain full participation in the One True Church, and those who are considered our separated brothers and sisters in Christ.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, I agree. And when done rationally it’s valuable. When we simply yell at each other, it’s most hurtful.
LikeLike
Hahahahahahahaha. religions. each one thinks they are right. Haaahahahahahaha. I cannot away with then. Every Saturday I have to deal with the jehovas. they are the true church. Good brother Creflow needs a new Gulfstream jet.
LikeLike
And they all agree, Bosco, which for the most part we do, with each other, with the Apostle’s, and with the Bible, and not least with Jesus, but not with you. It’s really amazing that you think you are right compared to what we have all believed always.
LikeLike
Its all one big fat group hug eh? the cathols in here speak comfortably to you because they are nice, and you speak gently to them because you are a nice person. But Catholicism says you are going to hell. cathols are supposed to believe it. If they don’t, its because they don’t even believe their own religion. or, they become politically correct…change with the times. Its not nice to say someone is going to hell because they don’t belong to their church.
LikeLike
No, Bosco, it doesn’t. You have read neither the article, nor the comments, again.
LikeLike
I read ssome of the comments. And I skimmed thru the article. You stab the CC in the back and then say,….ooops, did I do that? Lutheranism and catolicism cant both be right. but they can both be wrong. They claim to be vehicles of salvation. just ask any survivor of priestly abuse. The truth is, salvation is for the asking. You don’t need to leave your room for that.
LikeLike
do I hear a Ahmen? I do have confirmation.
LikeLike
Hello Bosco. Will it make you feel better if I say Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus? There ya go. It is still true. You aughta know best of all who is going to Hell. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
You laugh at religion yet God Himself was the author of the Jewish Faith and then the Fulfillment of the Faith in Christ; what we know today as Christianity. Go ahead and laugh and belittle the work of God and how he has led us to be part of a flock that hears His voice . . . obeys His Commandments . . . imitates Him, carry their crosses in life and follow Him. Laugh at those who suffer for the love of Christ or die a martyr’s death. Mock these fools who do what Apostles did, gathering together and building up the Body of Christ. That is religion; that is the True Religion that Christ bought with suffering and death upon a Cross. Wickedness despises the Good.
LikeLike
Go ahead and laugh and belittle the work of God and how he has led us to be part of a flock that hears His voice . . . obeys His Commandments . .
zthe 2nd commandment. Oops…not that one. we love graven images
LikeLike
They don’t all agree. Where have you been? jehovas think Jesus is an angel and the devil is his brother.
Mormons think Smith is the new prophet of the ages, among other mad ideas.
Lutherans think they have reformed Catholicism. catholics don’t think their religion needs reforming, even though it morphs as much as the monkey to man flow chart.
LikeLike
And that’s why, if true, they, like you, are not Christians. but you see, because you lie about us, we can’t take your word on them, either.
LikeLike
A lie is something told by someone who knows its not true. I have no need to make up anything about any religion. they have enough wacky stuff to make fun of.
LikeLike
So is your excuse your ignorance of not knowing the Truth? It is probably true and might be the only way that you might actually be saved.
There you go defending mocking and making fun of other when you do not even have the slightest understanding about the people, their beliefs, their worship and practices nor why these practices exist. It is all to you wacky . . . because you don’t do it. Education, prayer and humility are my prescription for your ignorance and arrogance. Please take a large dose of each before you defile yourself, God and others by opening your mouth by scoffing at all things that you don’t do.
LikeLike
I cant change my stand on graven images.
LikeLike
Hear, Hear!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cheerio
LikeLike
C, I would like to make a motion that we ban Bosco (at least) on Sundays because we all need a day of rest. Is there anybody that would like to second this motion?
LikeLike
Steve, while I understand, and sympathize, we discussed why we tolerate Bosco yesterday, and I would oppose the motion, although it is purely C’s decision. 🙂
LikeLike
the Lords day is Saturday.No one wants to hear “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” on sunday.
And I second that motion.
LikeLike
It changed to Sunday in the time of the Apostle’s Bosco.
And because you do, is why I oppose, it’s always what you like, and you haven’t earned it.
LikeLike
I need some help now. I ask a favor of you scholar catholics. Tell good brother Neo when the Sabbath was changed to sunday from satruday. The apostles were jews and wouldn’t even think of changing the Sabbath. Good brother Steve, can you give good brother Neo a hand on this one?
LikeLike
Come on folks! I’m flapping in the wind here. I need some votes. It may be a losing cause, but you need to stand up and be counted or forever hold your peace! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I seconded it
LikeLike
Yes Steve, I second this. I find the endless uninteresting, uninformed, pointless, and adolescent jabbering irritating and interrupts an otherwise thought-provoking post. If not banned, then don’t give it any airtime. The comments are disruptive.
LikeLike
Thank you! Very aggressive and appropriate use of adjectives. Well done.
LikeLike
Hear hear! Well put.
LikeLike
I guess much of the discussion is about minimalist and maximalist positions. Some say that you only need believe in Jesus to belong to His Church, others say that you must do certain things and/or hold certain doctrines. It is always interesting to listen to discussions that try and draw a line (which often feels rather arbitrary and limited by language).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quiav the great, I agree with you 100%
LikeLike
So, are you in the Ark or out of it Bosco?
LikeLike
Im interested to know who is that a pic of at th top
LikeLike
Philipp Melanchthon, a German Protestant scholar/theologian. NEO would know more about him than I.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hope he died a natural death. I pray the CC didn’t have their way with him.
LikeLike
Yep, a very good one, and a good friend of Luther’s as well.
LikeLike
It was filthy then and its filthy now.
LikeLike
If the early Church really had changed to Sunday worship, the Apostles would have been instructed to do so by God and yet no such instruction exists. And absolutely all scriptures relating to worship in the Church would be on Sunday in the book of Acts if this were true, which would be many scriptures. So how many verses are there in the
book of Acts showing Christians worshipping in the Synagogue (Church) on the first day of the week? Zero! There is not one single scripture! How many scriptures are there that show both Jew and Gentile worshipping in the synagogue on the Sabbath? Every single one of them and more than you can count on both hands!
http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/did_constantine_change_sabbath.html
LikeLike
Bosco – why do you bother with weirdo sites – other than the obvious attraction of like to like? The change happened long before Constantine and was agreed to be the Church which also told you there was a Bible and what was in it.
LikeLike
NEO “To be catholic, then, is to be heirs of the apostolic faith”
Yes Protestants think so and hold to the holy catholic church(small c*) but the RC’s don’t accept us if we don’t belong to the Catholic (big C*) Church. Oh yes, they do have these little condescending remarks about Protestants being misguided and hope we will someday get smart and see the light of the alleged only true church, the RCC. They think that the door of the Kingdom is locked to us. They will be quite surprised when they learn we have the Keys. Matter of fact, a key is given to each and all true believers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s rite. Each true believer has certain powers, and a key. Religion rob their devotees of the power of god. All true believers are saints. Religion tells them they cant be saints. its robbery.
LikeLike
Some do as you say, Carl. But that is not there actual teaching, which is a C. has described it in comments here. They do believe that the only guaranteed church is Rom,
LikeLike
Rome , that killed the Christians. Now they kill by false tteaching
LikeLike
“On the Venerable Day of the Sun [“venerabili die Solis”–the sacred day of the Sun] let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost–Given the 7th day of March, [A.D. 321], Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them for the second time.”
The First Sunday Law of Constantine 1, in “Codex Justinianus,” lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. in Phillip Schaff “History of the Christian Church,” Vol. 3, p. 380.
LikeLike
Where does that mention the Church and the Sabbath? I do wonder if you can read at all, in the sense of having a thought, reading about it, and following it though to a conclusion.
LikeLike
😀
LikeLike
This was a very topical post for me. I just had a discussion with a friend the other day and I posed the question “what is a Christian?” At first blush it might seem easy, but it can get quite complex. Put the standard at God loving, and Muslim’s make the cut. Put the standard too high and only one denomination can properly be Christian. Reading the Athanasian creed was quite useful – thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like that creed myself, although it seems pretty long when reading in unison. But there are things it defines better than the others.
LikeLike
So much for thoses damnable Lutherans.
LikeLike
I admire Quiav the Great for his uncompromising stand for the catholic faith. The rest of you are sniveling little groveling Koran kissing jew loving maggots.
LikeLike
Yet more witness to whom you serve, Bosco? If you think that is the language of Jesus, you are wrong.
LikeLike
QVO, am wondering how you would respond to the post NEO referenced? https://achristianthing.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/too-damn-catholic/
Is this some of the same trouble SSPX has with Vatician II? Thanks.
LikeLike
Many Lutherans are not consubstationists, and those that are have a theology quite different from what most people think about when they think about consubstantiation. In fact, most Lutherans affirm Luther’s teaching on this without being sure of that teaching’s exact meaning. That is, Lutherans do not really have a philosophical theory to explain how Christ is in the Eucharist. It is something that is just taken on faith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Precisely. We, like the Orthodox, feel no real need to explain every jot and tittle, it is, because Christ and the Apostles say so, and we believe Them. He is “in, under, and around it,” and that’s all that’s needed.
LikeLike
And what of St. John of Damascus? His position on this is basically Luther’s.
John of Damascus says, “Since it is customary for men to eat bread and drink wine, God has wedded his deity to them, and made them his body and blood.” He also says “The bread of communication is not simple bread, but is united to God.”
LikeLike
His doctrine, as I understand it, is very similar to Luther’s, and he did not abandon it, as far as I am aware.
More germane to this thread though, is the simple fact that St. JoD’s understanding of the Eucharist is theologically legitimate, even Aquinas thought so, as he says in the Summa (of course Aquinas took the term “wed” to mean something differently than JoD, I think. But Aquinas’ understanding of the meaning of wed was Luther’s as well). And Luther’s understanding of the Eucharist is more or less identical to JoD’s. So that cannot be the doctrinal point on which Luthernism diverges from Roman Catholicism, as you claimed earlier.
Roman Catholicism can accommodate Luther’s understanding of the Eucharist, because it already does.
LikeLike
But that is exactly my point: there is nothing erroneous about it, which is why the Church has not declared it erroneous. As I say, even Aquinas thought the doctrine theologically permissible.
And if JoD’s doctrine is licit, then so is Luther’s.
LikeLike
NML: Why would we go back and declare John of Damascus wrong when transubstantiation was not actually used as a description until the Fourth Lateran Council in beginning of the 13th Century? The first mention of transubstantiation known was the Archbishop of Tours in the 11th century some 200 years after John. I think that today with all the different ways speak of the Real Presence this is making that expression meaningless to some degree. We used to and still do use the term but it was always meant among Catholics that the Real Presence was a substantial presence requiring a change in the substance of the bread. But today with consubstantiation, trans-signification and trans-finalization all of these can be loosely fitted with this ‘spiritual rather than substantial’ presence of God. I think that the Catholic Church was careful to make sure that when Christ said that He was flesh indeed and drink indeed and then said that This is My Body and This is My Blood, no other theological subset fits the Scriptural words of Christ. He did not say that the significance changes or that the final result is a spiritual dwelling of me in the bread or that I am within the bread or within the wine. He said that it was Him, Body and Blood. To me, since the visual accidents of bread and wine are visible it was only a matter of time that the Church would come to hold that the substance is what changes entirely leaving the accidents alone. That is why, more and more, I am starting to avoid the words Real Presence when speaking to folks other than Catholics who already accept the teaching of transubstantiation. Hope that made sense to you. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Fair point.
LikeLiked by 2 people
How is Aquinas not material if it is based on his work?
I agree that Aquinas agreed with transubstantiation but, in my mind, so did Luther in much the same way that JoD did.
LikeLike
In its understanding of the Eucharist. Luther’s understanding of the Eucharist can be accommodated, I think.
LikeLike
Hello NoMan’s. Please note that St. John is NOT making a statement of doctrinal worth, but is only speaking sentimentally and the purpose is to elucidate on and not teach difinitively the absolute only way to speak of the Divine Mystery of Transubstantiation. In fact, the word transubstantiation wasn’t used by St. John, but was used after the development of doctrine at the 4th Lateran Council in 1215 and even further, in the Council of Trent in 1551. So be careful so as not to read a doctrinal definition in St. John’s words. Yes, indeed, Jesus did wed His Divinity to the everyday in many ways, not just by choosing bread and wine to come to us as food for our starving souls. He though He was in the form of God did not deem equality with God something to be grasped. Rather He took the form of a slave……..you know the rest.
There are many examples of the preserved words of the Church Fathers whose writing styles, linguistic differences, translational difficulties and mere sentimental expostulations can be misused to make those of this ages’ mindset to see in their words something that isn’t. it happens all the time and everyday. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person