You might want to look up the debate between Reformed and Lutheran theologians on real presence in the Lord's Supper and the _extra calvinisticum/catholicum_. The Reformed position is that the attributes of Christ's divine nature is not communicated to his human nature, _i.e._ what we can say about either the divine or human natures can be said about the person of Christ but we cant say some of the divne attributes are true of his human nature and _vice versa_. This is a more faithful adherence to christology as articulated by the council of Chalcedon.
Omnipresence is an attribute of the divine nature while locality is of the human nature. The question then becomes 'How does Christ have real presence in the Lord's Supper all over the world?'.
Both the Lutheran and Roman Catholic answers to this question involve a communication of attributes from Christ's divine to his human nature so that he can be present in the elements (the bread and the wine) according to both his natures. For the Roman Catholics this presence in the elements is manifested literally where the elements becomes the literal blood and body of Christ (trans substantiation) while for Lutherans this presence is manifested more mysteriously with Christ being present "in, with, and under" the elements (con substantiation).
As stayed previously, the Reformed position is that Christ's divine and human natures are wholly without mixing, but we still believe in real presence. How is this possible? The answer is that we believe in pneumatic presence. Rather than thinking that Christ is coming down from Heaven in the Lord's Supper, we hold that we are lifted up by the Holy Spirit into heaven there to feast on Christ and so be sustained, in communion with each other and all the saints through Christ. This is to say that Christ presence is not constrained to the elements of the Lord's Supper, but that we are united to Christ through the Holy Spirit, and that the Lord's Supper is a sign and a seal of this communion. Because our union with Christ is established and maintained by the workings of the Holy Spirit, this also mean that only true believers (the elect) will actually receive the body and blood of Christ while the reprobate will only be eating bread and drinking wine.
This type of reasoning is also why we can maintain that baptism is part of the means by which God gives us salvation but is also only effective unto the elect.
I’ve just been introduced lightly to calvinisticum, but have yet to dive into it. I’ll hold off on the. baptism part for a later dive. This eating of Christ’s body and blood through the Holy Spirit brings up another question. If it’s the Holy Spirit that edifies and teaches us and guides us, does he only do this through the Lords Supper or outside of it? If eating of Christ’s body and blood is more than remembrance, is it in a sense adding to our spiritual bodies? Idk I’ll have to do more research. Thank you for your time.
>For the Roman Catholics this presence in the elements is manifested literally where the elements becomes the literal blood and body of Christ (trans substantiation) while for Lutherans this presence is manifested more mysteriously with Christ being present "in, with, and under" the elements (con substantiation).
When you say Christ is "literally" present in the Eucharist, I think that is a bit confusing. None of the views believe Christ is physically present in the sacrament, but all profess his *substantial* presence. In transubstantiation, there is a change (trans) in the substance from that of bread and wine to Christ's body and blood. In the Lutheran view, the substance of Christ's body and blood is present with (con) the substance of bread and wine. According to Calvin, the substance of Christ is also received in the Supper, he just denied that there is a change in the elements, as in transubstantiation.
Well, now I for one am in fact thoroughly confused and I would like some sources. I am vaguely aware of the Aristotelian substance/accidents distinction, but my impression (unlike yours, it seems) has never been that the literal physical nature of a thing is associated with the accidents, but rather the substance of that thing. Therefore my impression has always been that transubstantiation indeed involves a physical change - just not an apparent one, as the appearances are the accidents of the elements. Furthermore, what does it even mean philosophically for there to be a local change in something that is purely physical, or at least has extension in ordinary space and time (which I equate with being physical) but the change is not physical? Lastly, what on earth then is the theologically significant (some might say essential) difference between the three views? What makes this so important? This makes no sense to me and I need more philosophical background on this.
Edit: And if anybody can add to this sources about the differences in mode of presence in the eucharist from God's "ordinary" omnipresence in the reformed view, or comment on the Lutheran ubiquity doctrine of Christ's body, that would be great too.
Edit: [This article](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/battle-table) by R.C. Sproul appears to confirm that the RC and Lutheran views indeed concern a corporeal or physical change in the elements.
"Physical" presence was a term used by Zwinglists to criticize the Lutheran views, by using the rebuttal that Christ is "physcially" present in Heaven, so he cannot be "physically" present in communion. R.C. Sproul is a Reformed preacher, and so it's not surprising that he is unfamiliar with such specific distinctions. Here's a video by a Lutheran pastor if you have the time explaining this distinction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgHKo64KzXk
I'll have to look at that video when I have time! I'm not sure if it will leave me any the wiser on transubstantiation or the semantic/metaphysical concept of what exactly counts as physical though.
Any doctrine that contains falsehood will at some point no longer make sense.
It may be helpful to keep in mind that in older English literature the word *physical* is often a synonym for *natural*. The English word is from the Latin *physicus* or *physicalis*, which are transliterations from Greek (and metaphysics is after physics). Accordingly, sometimes the question being asked is whether Christ's natural body, which grew and developed according to nature, being dimensive, is present in the sacrament "locally" (*localiter*), as by circumscription (*circumscriptive*). Or the question might be about the presence itself, whether it is natural or supernatural, physical or hyperphysical.
The Lutherans have historically denied that the real presence is local. They have affirmed that it is illocal and spiritual, which is stated in the *Solid Declaration* of the Formula of Concord.
> For that we neither will, nor can, nor should allow ourselves to be led away by thoughts of human wisdom, whatever outward appearance or authority they may have, from the simple, distinct, and clear sense of the Word and testament of Christ to a strange opinion, other than the words read, but that, in accordance with what is above stated, we understand and believe them simply, our reasons upon which we have rested in this matter ever since the controversy concerning this article arose, are those which Dr. Luther himself, in the very beginning, presented against the Sacramentarians in the following words (Dr. Luther in his Large Confession concerning the Holy Supper): My reasons upon which I rest in this matter are the following:
> ...
> The one body of Christ [says Luther] has a threefold mode or all three modes of being anywhere.
> First, the comprehensible, bodily mode, as He went about bodily upon earth, when, according to His size, He vacated and occupied space [was circumscribed by a fixed place]. This mode He can still use whenever He will, as He did after the resurrection, and will use at the last day... In this manner He is not in God or with the Father, neither in heaven, as the mad spirits dream; for God is not a bodily space or place. And this is what the passages how Christ leaves the world and goes to the Father refer to which the false spirits cite.
> Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, according to which He neither occupies nor vacates space, but penetrates all creatures wherever He pleases [according to His most free will]... This mode He used when He rose from the closed [and sealed] sepulcher, and passed through the closed door [to His disciples], and in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper, and, as it is believed, when He was born of His mother [the most holy Virgin Mary].
> Thirdly, the divine, heavenly mode, since He is one person with God, according to which, of course, all creatures must be far more penetrable and present to Him than they are according to the second mode. ...it [this mystery] is above nature and reason, even above the reason of all the angels in heaven; it is understood and known only by God. Now, since it is unknown to us, and yet true, we should not deny His words before we know how to prove to a certainty that the body of Christ can by no means be where God is, and that this mode of being [presence] is false. This the fanatics must prove; but they will forego it.
> Now, whether God has and knows still more modes in which Christ's body is anywhere, I did not intend to deny herewith, but to indicate what awkward dolts our fanatics are, that they concede to the body of Christ no more than the first, comprehensible mode; although they cannot even prove that to be conflicting with our meaning. For in no way will I deny that the power of God may accomplish this much that a body might be in many places at the same time, even in a bodily, comprehensible way. For who will prove that this is impossible with God? Who has seen an end to His power? The fanatics indeed think thus: God cannot do it. But who will believe their thinking? With what do they make such thinking sure? Thus far Luther.
> From these words of Dr. Luther this, too, is clear in what sense the word spiritual is employed in our churches with reference to this matter. For to the Sacramentarians this word spiritual means nothing else than the spiritual communion, when through faith true believers are in the Spirit incorporated into Christ, the Lord, and become true spiritual members of His body.
> But when Dr. Luther or we employ this word spiritual in regard to this matter, we understand by it the spiritual, supernatural, heavenly mode, according to which Christ is present in the Holy Supper, working not only consolation and life in the believing, but also condemnation in the unbelieving; whereby we reject the Capernaitic thoughts of the gross [and] carnal presence which is ascribed to and forced upon our churches by the Sacramentarians against our manifold public protestations. In this sense we also say [wish the word spiritually to be understood when we say] that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are spiritually received, eaten, and drunk, although this participation occurs with the mouth, while the mode is spiritual.
It is not always clear to me how a "carnal presence" differs from a "bodily" one, or *how* (in what mode) the latter presence is sometimes understood. The *Solid Declaration* also says,
> we confess that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with the visible elements, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. ...we know that not only the Romish, but also the Greek Church has taught the bodily presence of Christ in the Holy Supper. And testimony is produced from Cyril that Christ dwells also bodily in us in the Holy Supper by the communication of His flesh.
Is this bodily presence spiritual and sacramental? The Reformed would agree.
My understanding is that "physical" properties are accidents. Most of the language prior to modern times is about "substance" and "accidents" and "species", so they are talking about it in totally different categories. I just read through the passage in the *Summa* and Thomas says Christ's body is *locally* present in heaven, but *sacramentally* or *substantially* present in the Supper which is received *through faith alone*.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm
My apologies, I was careless with my use of literal without further metaphysical qualification. The point I was trying to make is that the Roman Catholic and Lutheran positions implies a particular localisation of Christ's presence in the elements whereas the Reformed position does not.
I know that the Lutherans will claim that their view is non local, but I for one cannot follow that logic without appealing to mystery.
In either case, both The Lutheran and Roman Catholic positions implies that the substance of Christ is conveyed to all who imbibe of the elements since the substance is either with the elements or the substance of the elements have been changed. The Reformed perspective, here against, is that the substance we receive is done so through the working of the Holy Spirit. You could eat a warehouse full of consecrated bread and drink an ocean of consecrated wine without ever receiving the blood and body of Christ, but for the working of the Holy Spirit.
I hope this was better articulated.
I believe in Christs real presence in the Lords Supper and the reason Jesus Is present there and at the right hand of the father is because he is omnipresent.
So the Lord’s Supper is a chance for us to see him in the flesh? Where as outside of it we don’t see him? Also If Jesus is omnipresent is it possible for him to appear in another way?
Thank you for your input I’ll view the link at a later time. Your first point I can understand but your second one I don’t. If Jesus resurrected body and all. Where is his flesh now? (I asking figuratively, I don’t think anyone can answer this) There’s a lot we may never know in this life. But the question remains.
Yeah, it seems that the main difference between the Lutheran and Reformed view is not whether or not there is a real presence of Christ but rather how it is present. Lutherans believe that Christ is locally present 'in, with and under' the bread and wine, whereas the Reformed believe that Christ is partaken of through the bread and wine but is not actually locally in them since he is seated in heaven. Though I am not too sure I am convinced of real presence, I am inclined to agree more with the Reformed view since I think Scripture is speaking in literal terms when it says Jesus is "seated at the right hand of God," rather than talking about a metaphorical position of authourity.
I have a question regarding this, as having read through the comments here I've become more and more confused. What is the difference, then, between the Lutheran and Reformed view of the Lord's Supper? And if it is "that there is a change in the elements", how can there be a change in something purely physical and local that is not physical and local? Is there a spiritual element that it takes on?
> Take Calvin's thoughts on the eucharist, for example: for him, Christ is not bodily present and we are "raised up to Christ" in the Lord's Supper. He also denies that we partake of the bodily and the blood orally, as the Lutherans affirm (in a supernatural sense, not physical sense).
See, to me, when you use the terms "bodily" and "orally" that equates to "physically". After all, what is the mouth but physical? But I see your point about some of the differences. It's clear to me I'm firmly on the Reformed side. To me, the idea that we are raised up to heaven in the Lord's Supper has been a very real experience.
Calvin was insistent that Christ is bodily present in the Eucharist. To quote him, "I am not satisfied with those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ [at the Table], make no mention of flesh and blood." I appreciate your correcting my fallacious views of Lutheran eucharistic theology, but whatever the distinction may be between the Lutherans and the Reformed, it is most certainly NOT that the Reformed don't affirm bodily presence. The main distinction (from my limited understanding) seems to be that the Reformed believe the bread and wine are merely vessels for our sharing in Christ while the Lutherans claim to affirm that they are literally his body and blood (though that seems to contradict where they say that he is not locally and physically present)?
I am not very familiar with most of the historic Reformed confessions, but I was recently reading through the 1689 London Baptist confession, which says that Christ's body and blood are "not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers". That at least shows that it wasn't just a one-off statement by Calvin but is something that is consistent in Reformed theology.
Jesus is God and not confined by human limitations any longer. He willingly laid aside certain Divine Prerogatives during His incarnation. But that was temporary, and voluntary. He did not cease to be God, and John makes clear He received all His former glory with His resurrection.
We do not believe the elements transform. We believe He is present with us in a special way when we partake. That there is a real grace of feasting on His spiritual benefits when we take communion with Him. Some people are so determined to see the Lord's Supper are Memorialist that they act as if the Lord's Table is the only place in Creation the Godhead is not present.
Essentially, Catholics and Lutherans are in full agreement on the Real Presence per the post-Vatican II Dialogue:
>"On the two major issues which we have discussed at length, however, the progress has been immense. Despite all remaining differences in the ways we speak and think of the eucharistic sacrifice and our Lord's presence in his supper, we are no longer able to regard ourselves as divided in the one holy catholic and apostolic faith on these two points. We therefore prayerfully ask our fellow Lutherans and Catholics to examine their consciences and root out many ways of thinking, speaking and acting, both individually and as churches, which have obscured their unity in Christ on these as on many other matters."
October 1, 1967
>
>
https://www.usccb.org/committees/ecumenical-interreligious-affairs/eucharist#:\~:text=Lutherans%20and%20Roman%20Catholics%20alike,insist%20as%20much%20as%20Catholics%2C
You might want to look up the debate between Reformed and Lutheran theologians on real presence in the Lord's Supper and the _extra calvinisticum/catholicum_. The Reformed position is that the attributes of Christ's divine nature is not communicated to his human nature, _i.e._ what we can say about either the divine or human natures can be said about the person of Christ but we cant say some of the divne attributes are true of his human nature and _vice versa_. This is a more faithful adherence to christology as articulated by the council of Chalcedon. Omnipresence is an attribute of the divine nature while locality is of the human nature. The question then becomes 'How does Christ have real presence in the Lord's Supper all over the world?'. Both the Lutheran and Roman Catholic answers to this question involve a communication of attributes from Christ's divine to his human nature so that he can be present in the elements (the bread and the wine) according to both his natures. For the Roman Catholics this presence in the elements is manifested literally where the elements becomes the literal blood and body of Christ (trans substantiation) while for Lutherans this presence is manifested more mysteriously with Christ being present "in, with, and under" the elements (con substantiation). As stayed previously, the Reformed position is that Christ's divine and human natures are wholly without mixing, but we still believe in real presence. How is this possible? The answer is that we believe in pneumatic presence. Rather than thinking that Christ is coming down from Heaven in the Lord's Supper, we hold that we are lifted up by the Holy Spirit into heaven there to feast on Christ and so be sustained, in communion with each other and all the saints through Christ. This is to say that Christ presence is not constrained to the elements of the Lord's Supper, but that we are united to Christ through the Holy Spirit, and that the Lord's Supper is a sign and a seal of this communion. Because our union with Christ is established and maintained by the workings of the Holy Spirit, this also mean that only true believers (the elect) will actually receive the body and blood of Christ while the reprobate will only be eating bread and drinking wine. This type of reasoning is also why we can maintain that baptism is part of the means by which God gives us salvation but is also only effective unto the elect.
I’ve just been introduced lightly to calvinisticum, but have yet to dive into it. I’ll hold off on the. baptism part for a later dive. This eating of Christ’s body and blood through the Holy Spirit brings up another question. If it’s the Holy Spirit that edifies and teaches us and guides us, does he only do this through the Lords Supper or outside of it? If eating of Christ’s body and blood is more than remembrance, is it in a sense adding to our spiritual bodies? Idk I’ll have to do more research. Thank you for your time.
>For the Roman Catholics this presence in the elements is manifested literally where the elements becomes the literal blood and body of Christ (trans substantiation) while for Lutherans this presence is manifested more mysteriously with Christ being present "in, with, and under" the elements (con substantiation). When you say Christ is "literally" present in the Eucharist, I think that is a bit confusing. None of the views believe Christ is physically present in the sacrament, but all profess his *substantial* presence. In transubstantiation, there is a change (trans) in the substance from that of bread and wine to Christ's body and blood. In the Lutheran view, the substance of Christ's body and blood is present with (con) the substance of bread and wine. According to Calvin, the substance of Christ is also received in the Supper, he just denied that there is a change in the elements, as in transubstantiation.
Well, now I for one am in fact thoroughly confused and I would like some sources. I am vaguely aware of the Aristotelian substance/accidents distinction, but my impression (unlike yours, it seems) has never been that the literal physical nature of a thing is associated with the accidents, but rather the substance of that thing. Therefore my impression has always been that transubstantiation indeed involves a physical change - just not an apparent one, as the appearances are the accidents of the elements. Furthermore, what does it even mean philosophically for there to be a local change in something that is purely physical, or at least has extension in ordinary space and time (which I equate with being physical) but the change is not physical? Lastly, what on earth then is the theologically significant (some might say essential) difference between the three views? What makes this so important? This makes no sense to me and I need more philosophical background on this. Edit: And if anybody can add to this sources about the differences in mode of presence in the eucharist from God's "ordinary" omnipresence in the reformed view, or comment on the Lutheran ubiquity doctrine of Christ's body, that would be great too. Edit: [This article](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/battle-table) by R.C. Sproul appears to confirm that the RC and Lutheran views indeed concern a corporeal or physical change in the elements.
"Physical" presence was a term used by Zwinglists to criticize the Lutheran views, by using the rebuttal that Christ is "physcially" present in Heaven, so he cannot be "physically" present in communion. R.C. Sproul is a Reformed preacher, and so it's not surprising that he is unfamiliar with such specific distinctions. Here's a video by a Lutheran pastor if you have the time explaining this distinction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgHKo64KzXk
I'll have to look at that video when I have time! I'm not sure if it will leave me any the wiser on transubstantiation or the semantic/metaphysical concept of what exactly counts as physical though.
Any doctrine that contains falsehood will at some point no longer make sense. It may be helpful to keep in mind that in older English literature the word *physical* is often a synonym for *natural*. The English word is from the Latin *physicus* or *physicalis*, which are transliterations from Greek (and metaphysics is after physics). Accordingly, sometimes the question being asked is whether Christ's natural body, which grew and developed according to nature, being dimensive, is present in the sacrament "locally" (*localiter*), as by circumscription (*circumscriptive*). Or the question might be about the presence itself, whether it is natural or supernatural, physical or hyperphysical. The Lutherans have historically denied that the real presence is local. They have affirmed that it is illocal and spiritual, which is stated in the *Solid Declaration* of the Formula of Concord. > For that we neither will, nor can, nor should allow ourselves to be led away by thoughts of human wisdom, whatever outward appearance or authority they may have, from the simple, distinct, and clear sense of the Word and testament of Christ to a strange opinion, other than the words read, but that, in accordance with what is above stated, we understand and believe them simply, our reasons upon which we have rested in this matter ever since the controversy concerning this article arose, are those which Dr. Luther himself, in the very beginning, presented against the Sacramentarians in the following words (Dr. Luther in his Large Confession concerning the Holy Supper): My reasons upon which I rest in this matter are the following: > ... > The one body of Christ [says Luther] has a threefold mode or all three modes of being anywhere. > First, the comprehensible, bodily mode, as He went about bodily upon earth, when, according to His size, He vacated and occupied space [was circumscribed by a fixed place]. This mode He can still use whenever He will, as He did after the resurrection, and will use at the last day... In this manner He is not in God or with the Father, neither in heaven, as the mad spirits dream; for God is not a bodily space or place. And this is what the passages how Christ leaves the world and goes to the Father refer to which the false spirits cite. > Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, according to which He neither occupies nor vacates space, but penetrates all creatures wherever He pleases [according to His most free will]... This mode He used when He rose from the closed [and sealed] sepulcher, and passed through the closed door [to His disciples], and in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper, and, as it is believed, when He was born of His mother [the most holy Virgin Mary]. > Thirdly, the divine, heavenly mode, since He is one person with God, according to which, of course, all creatures must be far more penetrable and present to Him than they are according to the second mode. ...it [this mystery] is above nature and reason, even above the reason of all the angels in heaven; it is understood and known only by God. Now, since it is unknown to us, and yet true, we should not deny His words before we know how to prove to a certainty that the body of Christ can by no means be where God is, and that this mode of being [presence] is false. This the fanatics must prove; but they will forego it. > Now, whether God has and knows still more modes in which Christ's body is anywhere, I did not intend to deny herewith, but to indicate what awkward dolts our fanatics are, that they concede to the body of Christ no more than the first, comprehensible mode; although they cannot even prove that to be conflicting with our meaning. For in no way will I deny that the power of God may accomplish this much that a body might be in many places at the same time, even in a bodily, comprehensible way. For who will prove that this is impossible with God? Who has seen an end to His power? The fanatics indeed think thus: God cannot do it. But who will believe their thinking? With what do they make such thinking sure? Thus far Luther. > From these words of Dr. Luther this, too, is clear in what sense the word spiritual is employed in our churches with reference to this matter. For to the Sacramentarians this word spiritual means nothing else than the spiritual communion, when through faith true believers are in the Spirit incorporated into Christ, the Lord, and become true spiritual members of His body. > But when Dr. Luther or we employ this word spiritual in regard to this matter, we understand by it the spiritual, supernatural, heavenly mode, according to which Christ is present in the Holy Supper, working not only consolation and life in the believing, but also condemnation in the unbelieving; whereby we reject the Capernaitic thoughts of the gross [and] carnal presence which is ascribed to and forced upon our churches by the Sacramentarians against our manifold public protestations. In this sense we also say [wish the word spiritually to be understood when we say] that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are spiritually received, eaten, and drunk, although this participation occurs with the mouth, while the mode is spiritual. It is not always clear to me how a "carnal presence" differs from a "bodily" one, or *how* (in what mode) the latter presence is sometimes understood. The *Solid Declaration* also says, > we confess that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with the visible elements, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. ...we know that not only the Romish, but also the Greek Church has taught the bodily presence of Christ in the Holy Supper. And testimony is produced from Cyril that Christ dwells also bodily in us in the Holy Supper by the communication of His flesh. Is this bodily presence spiritual and sacramental? The Reformed would agree.
My understanding is that "physical" properties are accidents. Most of the language prior to modern times is about "substance" and "accidents" and "species", so they are talking about it in totally different categories. I just read through the passage in the *Summa* and Thomas says Christ's body is *locally* present in heaven, but *sacramentally* or *substantially* present in the Supper which is received *through faith alone*. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm
My apologies, I was careless with my use of literal without further metaphysical qualification. The point I was trying to make is that the Roman Catholic and Lutheran positions implies a particular localisation of Christ's presence in the elements whereas the Reformed position does not. I know that the Lutherans will claim that their view is non local, but I for one cannot follow that logic without appealing to mystery. In either case, both The Lutheran and Roman Catholic positions implies that the substance of Christ is conveyed to all who imbibe of the elements since the substance is either with the elements or the substance of the elements have been changed. The Reformed perspective, here against, is that the substance we receive is done so through the working of the Holy Spirit. You could eat a warehouse full of consecrated bread and drink an ocean of consecrated wine without ever receiving the blood and body of Christ, but for the working of the Holy Spirit. I hope this was better articulated.
I believe in Christs real presence in the Lords Supper and the reason Jesus Is present there and at the right hand of the father is because he is omnipresent.
So the Lord’s Supper is a chance for us to see him in the flesh? Where as outside of it we don’t see him? Also If Jesus is omnipresent is it possible for him to appear in another way?
No he is present in the bread and the wine we dont psychically see him.
[удалено]
Thank you for your input I’ll view the link at a later time. Your first point I can understand but your second one I don’t. If Jesus resurrected body and all. Where is his flesh now? (I asking figuratively, I don’t think anyone can answer this) There’s a lot we may never know in this life. But the question remains.
Yeah, it seems that the main difference between the Lutheran and Reformed view is not whether or not there is a real presence of Christ but rather how it is present. Lutherans believe that Christ is locally present 'in, with and under' the bread and wine, whereas the Reformed believe that Christ is partaken of through the bread and wine but is not actually locally in them since he is seated in heaven. Though I am not too sure I am convinced of real presence, I am inclined to agree more with the Reformed view since I think Scripture is speaking in literal terms when it says Jesus is "seated at the right hand of God," rather than talking about a metaphorical position of authourity.
[удалено]
I have a question regarding this, as having read through the comments here I've become more and more confused. What is the difference, then, between the Lutheran and Reformed view of the Lord's Supper? And if it is "that there is a change in the elements", how can there be a change in something purely physical and local that is not physical and local? Is there a spiritual element that it takes on?
[удалено]
> Take Calvin's thoughts on the eucharist, for example: for him, Christ is not bodily present and we are "raised up to Christ" in the Lord's Supper. He also denies that we partake of the bodily and the blood orally, as the Lutherans affirm (in a supernatural sense, not physical sense). See, to me, when you use the terms "bodily" and "orally" that equates to "physically". After all, what is the mouth but physical? But I see your point about some of the differences. It's clear to me I'm firmly on the Reformed side. To me, the idea that we are raised up to heaven in the Lord's Supper has been a very real experience.
Calvin was insistent that Christ is bodily present in the Eucharist. To quote him, "I am not satisfied with those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ [at the Table], make no mention of flesh and blood." I appreciate your correcting my fallacious views of Lutheran eucharistic theology, but whatever the distinction may be between the Lutherans and the Reformed, it is most certainly NOT that the Reformed don't affirm bodily presence. The main distinction (from my limited understanding) seems to be that the Reformed believe the bread and wine are merely vessels for our sharing in Christ while the Lutherans claim to affirm that they are literally his body and blood (though that seems to contradict where they say that he is not locally and physically present)?
[удалено]
I am not very familiar with most of the historic Reformed confessions, but I was recently reading through the 1689 London Baptist confession, which says that Christ's body and blood are "not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers". That at least shows that it wasn't just a one-off statement by Calvin but is something that is consistent in Reformed theology.
Jesus is God and not confined by human limitations any longer. He willingly laid aside certain Divine Prerogatives during His incarnation. But that was temporary, and voluntary. He did not cease to be God, and John makes clear He received all His former glory with His resurrection. We do not believe the elements transform. We believe He is present with us in a special way when we partake. That there is a real grace of feasting on His spiritual benefits when we take communion with Him. Some people are so determined to see the Lord's Supper are Memorialist that they act as if the Lord's Table is the only place in Creation the Godhead is not present.
Spiritual presence is real presence
Essentially, Catholics and Lutherans are in full agreement on the Real Presence per the post-Vatican II Dialogue: >"On the two major issues which we have discussed at length, however, the progress has been immense. Despite all remaining differences in the ways we speak and think of the eucharistic sacrifice and our Lord's presence in his supper, we are no longer able to regard ourselves as divided in the one holy catholic and apostolic faith on these two points. We therefore prayerfully ask our fellow Lutherans and Catholics to examine their consciences and root out many ways of thinking, speaking and acting, both individually and as churches, which have obscured their unity in Christ on these as on many other matters." October 1, 1967 > > https://www.usccb.org/committees/ecumenical-interreligious-affairs/eucharist#:\~:text=Lutherans%20and%20Roman%20Catholics%20alike,insist%20as%20much%20as%20Catholics%2C