A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF

[PJM]

=House Harkonnen;11439472]1. No.

1. I have a different understanding of it than Catholics. I believe in the real presence, but reject Transubstantiation in favor of Sacramental Union.

Thanks dear friend

I wish to keep this dialog both friendly and ongoing, but am compelled to ask:
“On what authority” is this done?

And could you PLEASE explain “Sacramental Union” for us? It’s a new term for me at least.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[aidanbradypop]

Thanks dear friend

I wish to keep this dialog both friendly and ongoing, but am compelled to ask:
“On what authority” is this done?

And could you PLEASE explain “Sacramental Union” for us? It’s a new term for me at least.

God Bless you,
Patrick

by what authority is what done? trying to follow along lol

 

[PJM]

=Stilldreamn;11440344]1.) No

2.) Real Presence - “This IS my Body” “This IS my Blood”
Thankfully, my understanding of the process is not necessary for the efficacy of the Sacrament.

THANKS for sharing my friend!

So what did Jesus [our Good and Perfect God] mean as related by to them by Jesus:

Matt. 26: 26-28
Mark 14: 22-24
Luke 22:19-21
John 6: 40-60
St. Paul 1st. Cor. 11: 23-29

I’m not being difficult here; just trying to FULLY understand your position

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[aidanbradypop]

In the sacramental union the consecrated bread of the Eucharist is united with the body of Christ and the consecrated wine of the Eucharist is united with the blood of Christ by virtue of Christ’s original institution with the result that anyone eating and drinking these “elements”—the consecrated bread and wine—really eats and drinks the physical body and blood of Christ as well.

Thanks wiki lol

 

[Publisher]

Publisher, it’s been awhile [too-long] since we’ve shared thoughts.

What is your position on the authority of the bible?

God Bless you!
Patrick

The BIble is more about how humans have come to understand God than a “God breathed without error document”. The unfolding revelation of God is not confined to the pages of a book…the Word of God is experienced in our lives.

The scriptures ‘contain’ the word of God…but not the word itself.

The Bible has it’s place, but it is not the final authority on things religious…The Light Within is our True Teacher and Guide. Each of us are “Living Scripture” for the world to read…each of us shares with the world thru our lives our experience with God and by this experience our live are transformed…the Bible can attest to this.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Thanks dear friend

I wish to keep this dialog both friendly and ongoing, but am compelled to ask:
“On what authority” is this done?

And could you PLEASE explain “Sacramental Union” for us? It’s a new term for me at least.

God Bless you,
Patrick

I wish to keep this dialog both friendly and ongoing, but am compelled to ask:
“On what authority” is this done?

On what authority is what done? I am afraid I don’t understand the question.

And could you PLEASE explain “Sacramental Union” for us? It’s a new term for me at least.

Sacramental Union is the Lutheran explanation of the Real Presence. That Sacramentally Christ’s body and blood are present in with and under the bread and wine, so when we receive it we are partaking of Christ’s body and blood substantially.

Read more:

steadfastlutherans.org/?p=9492

 

[PJM]

=Publisher;11441618]The BIble is more about how humans have come to understand God than a “God breathed without error document”. The unfolding revelation of God is not confined to the pages of a book…the Word of God is experienced in our lives.

The scriptures ‘contain’ the word of God…but not the word itself.

The Bible has it’s place, but it is not the final authority on things religious…The Light Within is our True Teacher and Guide. Each of us are “Living Scripture” for the world to read…each of us shares with the world thru our lives our experience with God and by this experience our live are transformed…the Bible can attest to this.

So how do you understand 2ND. Tim. 3:16-17?

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

=House Harkonnen;11441687]On what authority is what done? I am afraid I don’t understand the question.

Sacramental Union is the Lutheran explanation of the Real Presence. That Sacramentally Christ’s body and blood are present in with and under the bread and wine, so when we receive it we are partaking of Christ’s body and blood substantially.

Read more:

steadfastlutherans.org/?p=9492

So check out my understanding here:

You DO believe in the “Real Presence”, but choose to call it something else?

There are MANY passages giving authority to Peter and the CC. Mt. 10: 1-8; Mt. 16:15-19;
John 17:14-20; John 20:19-23; Mark 16:14-15 and Mt. 28:16-20 for example.

I’m unaware of Jesus granting similar authority to anyone else outside of His
One God
One set of Faith beliefs
In His One Church [Eph.4:1-8]

So that is the basis for my asking on “what authority”

God Bless you!
Patrick

 

[JonNC]

Dear friend in Christ,

My question is in TWO parts. I’m trying to better understand your beliefs.

[1] Are you a member of a “bible only belief church?”

[2] What are your views of the Catholic Sacrament of “Holy Communion”/ Eucharist/ The Real Presence"?

God Bless you!
Patrick

1. No. While Lutheranism is sola scripturist, I wouldn’t characterize it as a “Bible only belief church”
2. An excerpt from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

** we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. **
This is most certainly true.

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

So check out my understanding here:

You DO believe in the “Real Presence”, but choose to call it something else?

There are MANY passages giving authority to Peter and the CC. Mt. 10: 1-8; Mt. 16:15-19;
John 17:14-20; John 20:19-23; Mark 16:14-15 and Mt. 28:16-20 for example.

I’m unaware of Jesus granting similar authority to anyone else outside of His
One God
One set of Faith beliefs
In His One Church [Eph.4:1-8]

So that is the basis for my asking on “what authority”

God Bless you!
Patrick

And this is where I make my exit! Have fun

 

[House_Harkonnen]

So check out my understanding here:

You DO believe in the “Real Presence”, but choose to call it something else?

There are MANY passages giving authority to Peter and the CC. Mt. 10: 1-8; Mt. 16:15-19;
John 17:14-20; John 20:19-23; Mark 16:14-15 and Mt. 28:16-20 for example.

I’m unaware of Jesus granting similar authority to anyone else outside of His
One God
One set of Faith beliefs
In His One Church [Eph.4:1-8]

So that is the basis for my asking on “what authority”

God Bless you!
Patrick

You DO believe in the “Real Presence”, but choose to call it something else?

No. I call it the Real Presence too. I define it by sacramental union. Just as Catholics call it the real presence, and define it by Transubstantiation.

There are MANY passages giving authority to Peter and the CC. Mt. 10: 1-8; Mt. 16:15-19;
John 17:14-20; John 20:19-23; Mark 16:14-15 and Mt. 28:16-20 for example.

I’m unaware of Jesus granting similar authority to anyone else outside of His
One God
One set of Faith beliefs
In His One Church

I don’t believe that the Catholic Church is “His one Church”. I believe his one church is the body of believers everywhere, including Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, and Canterbury and all who obey the ancient creeds, etc. I accept that Peter had a unique authority in the early church.

 

[JonNC]

So check out my understanding here:

You DO believe in the “Real Presence”, but choose to call it something else?

There are MANY passages giving authority to Peter and the CC. Mt. 10: 1-8; Mt. 16:15-19;
John 17:14-20; John 20:19-23; Mark 16:14-15 and Mt. 28:16-20 for example.

I’m unaware of Jesus granting similar authority to anyone else outside of His
One God
One set of Faith beliefs
In His One Church [Eph.4:1-8]

So that is the basis for my asking on “what authority”

God Bless you!
Patrick

Hi Patrick,

We, as Lutherans, believe in the real presence, and call it exactly that, the real presence. The descriptive device we use is, indeed, Sacramental Union, but we are not calling it something else. It is the real presence. We call it what Christ Himself called it: His body and His blood, given and shed for the forgiveness of sins.

We also recognize that Peter’s authority and the authority of the apostles is not exclusive to or limited to one apostolic see of St. Peter, be it Rome or Antioch. The Church is not only and exclusively those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, though it is a significant and central portion of the Church Militant. Nor is the Church only and exclusively those who are in communion together in what is known as Eastern Orthodoxy, though they are a significant part of it, as well.
We recognize the Church where the word is preached and the sacraments administered, so certainly it is in the CC, as well as the EO, and clearly others including ourselves. As such, we have the authority of the Apostles as an apostolic Church, which we claim when we confess the ancient creed.

Jon

 

[PJM]

=JonNC;11441721]1) No. While Lutheranism is sola scripturist, I wouldn’t characterize it as a “Bible only belief church”

1. An excerpt from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

** we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. **
This is most certainly true.

Jon

Jon MY FRIEND

Thanks!

But this leads to another question.

How is it that Lutheran’s are able to “Transubstant” the Eucharist, having left the CC?

Continued Blessings Jon,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

=House Harkonnen;11441742]No. I call it the Real Presence too. I define it by sacramental union. Just as Catholics call it the real presence, and define it by Transubstantiation.

OK

And THANKS!

But as I just asked Jon on a different thread, HOW is it possible for ANYONE outside the CC to “confect” the Eucharist? The authority was removed from all those lacking DIRECT Apostolic Succession. Yes?

I don’t believe that the Catholic Church is “His one Church”. I believe his one church is the body of believers everywhere, including Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, and Canterbury and all who obey the ancient creeds, etc. I accept that Peter had a unique authority in the early church.

This is a common non-Catholic position. But it’s not historical or biblical. The ONLY Church to exist for about 1,000 years, [until The Great Eastern Schism in 1010 AD] is today’s Catholic Church, which “alone” holds the authority for valid and licit Sacraments.

Therefore every reference to “church” in the bible is speaking ONLY of today’s CC, as the bible was fully authored by the end of the First Century; or early Second Century.

God Bless you!
Patrick

 

[Novocastrian]

This is a common non-Catholic position. But it’s not historical or biblical. The ONLY Church to exist for about 1,000 years, [until The Great Eastern Schism in 1010 AD] is today’s Catholic Church, which “alone” holds the authority for valid and licit Sacraments.

Bad history and bad theology. Even by your own communion’s standards; the Roman Church teaches that the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are valid, and illicit only insofar as they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Regarding the first thousand years: what about the Copts? The Syrians? The St. Thomas Christians? It is only when you make communion with Rome the single, over-arching criterion of existence as a Church that you can reach such a conclusion. The essence of the Church is not Romanitas. It is baptism into the faith.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Bad history and bad theology. Even by your own communion’s standards; the Roman Church teaches that the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are valid, and illicit only insofar as they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Regarding the first thousand years: what about the Copts? The Syrians? The St. Thomas Christians? It is only when you make communion with Rome the single, over-arching criterion of existence as a Church that you can reach such a conclusion. The essence of the Church is not Romanitas. It is baptism into the faith.

 

[Ragamuffingirl]

I used to go to a sola scriptura church, so I think I get to answer.

I don’t know that I believe that the elements are the literal body and blood of Christ. However, I think that scripture is clear that we’re supposed to treat it as if it is. I think many Protestant Churches are positively cavalier in how they treat communion in their head long rush to not be like Catholics in excluding people from communion. I mean - letting toddlers take communion - really? A toddler has no understanding of the significance of communion.

 

[PJM]

=Novocastrian;11442456]Bad history and bad theology. Even by your own communion’s standards; the Roman Church teaches that the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are valid, and illicit only insofar as they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Regarding the first thousand years: what about the Copts? The Syrians? The St. Thomas Christians? It is only when you make communion with Rome the single, over-arching criterion of existence as a Church that you can reach such a conclusion. The essence of the Church is not Romanitas. It is baptism into the faith.

DARN This happens every time I mention One God; One Faith and One Church
[Eph. 4:4-8]

I don’t discount the Eastern churches, which fall into two BROAD catagories.

Those “In-Communion” with Rome

Those NOT “In-Communion” with Rome

The first group is a PART OF the CC
The second group used to be, but SADLY, is not at present a part of the CC.

They do have the sacraments VALIDLY; but not licitly.

As to your desired position:

It’s neither biblical, historical or logical. “One” has to mean “One” The Key’s [means all of the] were given by our Perfect God to Peter [singular].

I PRAY for a unification!.
God Bless you!
Patrick

 

[RyanBlack]

I used to go to a sola scriptura church, so I think I get to answer.

I don’t know that I believe that the elements are the literal body and blood of Christ. However, I think that scripture is clear that we’re supposed to treat it as if it is. I think many Protestant Churches are positively cavalier in how they treat communion in their head long rush to not be like Catholics in excluding people from communion. I mean - letting toddlers take communion - really? A toddler has no understanding of the significance of communion.

Do you realize that Eastern Catholics administer communion to infants? Furthermore, it was once the practice of the entire Church.

 

[PJM]

=Ragamuffingirl;11442525]I used to go to a sola scriptura church, so I think I get to answer.

I don’t know that I believe that the elements are the literal body and blood of Christ. However, I think that scripture is clear that we’re supposed to treat it as if it is. I think many Protestant Churches are positively cavalier in how they treat communion in their head long rush to not be like Catholics in excluding people from communion. I mean - letting toddlers take communion - really? A toddler has no understanding of the significance of communion.

Sincere THANKS for posting!

The Bible shows FIVE separate Bible authors testimony.
Mt. 26:26-28
Mk. 14: 22-24
Lk. 22:19-21
John 6: 40-60
Paul 1st. Cor. 11: 23-29

Plus the evidence that this was known, accepted and practiced in the Early Church. [First termed “Breaking of the Bread”]

Then add to this the numerous Eucharistic Miracles & 2,000 years of practice and belief, and I find it difficult [IMO] to not believe it.

Check out www,realpresence.org

God CAN DO any Good thing:thumbsup:

Giving us Himself; the greatest source of GRACE possible when rightly received, seems a natural desire of God who endured His PASSION for us. Catholic Holy Communion is the single greatest possible “Good” from God; besides permitting man’s salvation.

I’m curious: Why are you no-longer “Sola scriptura?”

God Bless you!
Patrick