Most of the time we are accustomed to the questions about how the bread can be the Body of Christ and the wine His Blood. It is then that we add up one and one and come up with but one, the great mystery of the Eucharist. Bread and Body come to us as one. Luther bemoaned the attempts to explain this presence. He preferred to let the mystery stand as it was than try to explain it. This is why he rejected Transubstantiation and all other attempts to explain the unexplainable. I am not sure what he would do with the little graphic to the right of this picture. Apparently some enterprising company has infused the host with wine (or grape juice) and thus has made the ultimate two in one -- eliminating the need for a chalice and its messy questions or the individual cups and their, well, mess. But surely this is one more reasonable idea which is contrary to the mystery. Oh well, it won't be the last... though it is clearly one of the weirder ones.
Lutherans have always trained to explain the Eucharist in categorical terms. In fact, one of the many reasons why Patriarch JEREMIAS II grew frustrated in his dialogue with the Lutheran theologians at Tuebingen was their insistence of putting the Eucharist into categorical terms which he could not do. The two Greek words he did use were metabole and metapoiesis, neither of which imply material change, but definitely preserve the mystical nature, hence why he did not use metaousiosis which is the Greek calque for transubstantiatio.
ReplyDeleteAnd despite complaints from Lutherans, consubstantiation is exactly what you teach. Body and Blood in and under bread and wine. How much mystery remains?
Lutherans, novus ordo Romans, Orthodox, et. al., have a picnic with your interpretive debates. The simplist explanation suffices and calls only for child-like faith: This IS My Body; this IS My Blood. Period.
ReplyDeleteWow. Now the Episcopalians won't even have to dip the host! Intinction done for you!
ReplyDelete