T
thistle
Guest
There are no Protestants which accept Transubstantiation.
According to Protestants who believe in the Real Presence, what makes for a valid Eucharist?
- Status
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
There are some Anglo-Catholics who do so. Of course, they wouldn’t call themselves Protestant, but Roman Catholics would. And “Real Presence” does not necessarily imply transubstantiation. Plenty of Protestants believe that Christ’s body and blood are physically present in the bread and wine without the bread’s and wine’s becoming his body and blood.RealisticCatholic:
There are no Protestants which accept Transubstantiation.
T
thistle
Guest
That’s true but the thread title includes what is a valid Eucharist.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
The thread asks for Protestant views on a valid Eucharist. I’m really not sure why people are struggling with that part of the question. This thread is not asking for the Catholic view of the Eucharist.HopkinsReb:
That’s true but the thread title includes what is a valid Eucharist.
T
thistle
Guest
Okay. There is no such thing then as a valid Eucharist other than within the Catholic Church.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Thank you for your unsolicited view on a thread dedicated to trying to better understand Protestant views. You have been so incredibly helpful.HopkinsReb:
Okay. There is no such thing then as a valid Eucharist other than within the Catholic Church.
Oh, by the way, your post disagrees with the Catholic position, which is that the Orthodox Churches have valid Eucharists.
Last edited:
M
MiserereMei
Guest
I do not know the exact numbers, but that is the case for the largest Lutheran bodies in the world. Even in the EKD (a union of Lutheran and Calvinist churches in Germany), the Lutheran churches have an episcopal polity, while the Calvanist and Prussian Union churches tend towards congregationalism or presbyterianism.
The lack of bishops seems more an American “Confessional” Lutheran thing (and their ally churches around the world).
T
thistle
Guest
Sarcasm??!! I will let it slide this time but any more and I will report you.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
HopkinsReb:
Sarcasm??!! I will let it slide this time but any more and I will report you.
T
thistle
Guest
The Orthodoxy are a schismatic part of the Catholic Church. They have Apostolic succession and so the Eucharist is valid.
L
ltwin
Guest
I tend to agree with Luther in his more radical phase when he said, “Now, if Christians have the Word of God and are anointed by Him, they are in duty bound to confess, preach and spread this Word.”
I also agree with his logical conclusion that "Therefore, the man to whom has been committed the office of preaching has committed to him the highest office in the Christian Church. He may then also baptize, say mass, and take full charge of the care of souls. "
“The Right and Power of a Christian Congregation or Community to Judge all Teaching and to Call, Appoint, and Dismiss Teachers, Established and Proved from Scripture”
I also agree with his logical conclusion that "Therefore, the man to whom has been committed the office of preaching has committed to him the highest office in the Christian Church. He may then also baptize, say mass, and take full charge of the care of souls. "
“The Right and Power of a Christian Congregation or Community to Judge all Teaching and to Call, Appoint, and Dismiss Teachers, Established and Proved from Scripture”
G
GKMotley
Guest
My, yes. All over the place on this and other things.
Over here, amongst the motley crew, you will find valid form, matter, minister and intent requisite. Words of institution, unleaven wheaten bread, grape wine, priest validly ordained in apostolic succession, intent facere quod facit ecclesia. Which results in the confection of the sacrament: truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ.
Over in other places you may find other things. Doubtless.
Over here, amongst the motley crew, you will find valid form, matter, minister and intent requisite. Words of institution, unleaven wheaten bread, grape wine, priest validly ordained in apostolic succession, intent facere quod facit ecclesia. Which results in the confection of the sacrament: truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ.
Over in other places you may find other things. Doubtless.
L
ltwin
Guest
Are there not Catholic theologians who are not priests who also effectively exercise a teaching ministry within the church? Didn’t Mother Angelica exercise a teaching/preaching ministry?
Regardless whether they do so in a pulpit?
Regardless whether they do so in a pulpit?
Last edited:
L
ltwin
Guest
So, one can be qualified to preach and teach the Gospel but unqualified to perform the sacraments established by that very same Gospel.
In my tradition, there is no such distinction. Only a question of proper order. As a church, the ministers should administer not because they have any special grace or capacity to consecrate the Eucharist, but rather because they are the shepherds and ministers to the body. If we were thinking of a home-made Lord’s Supper, there might be a theological argument for the husband to administer since he is the spiritual head of the wife, etc.
In my tradition, there is no such distinction. Only a question of proper order. As a church, the ministers should administer not because they have any special grace or capacity to consecrate the Eucharist, but rather because they are the shepherds and ministers to the body. If we were thinking of a home-made Lord’s Supper, there might be a theological argument for the husband to administer since he is the spiritual head of the wife, etc.
If one believes in a quia subscription to the Confessions as a right reflection of scripture , no you can’t, even in a pinch, not according to AC article XIV.
No one should, unless he is regularly called.
H
Hodos
Guest
Right, and this is where the definition of what is considered a call comes into play. There has been lots of debate on this subject over the last several years, particularly where you had deacons or trained Eucharistic ministers filling in as interim ministers to smaller churches where a pastor was unavailable to serve. Deacons or Eucharistic ministers have administered the sacrament, usually under the authority of a priest or district president who maintains oversight. St. Louis has chosen to solve this issue by taking deacons who were called to serve by congregations and putting them through the colloquial program, to ordain them as pastors. I think this is a proper way of dealing with the issue that upholds the office of pastor. Again, though, this goes back to maintaining good order, not an apostolic doctrinal statement.
Last edited:
I don’t think there was any definitional dispute amongst the reformers. The regular call includes the preparation and sending by the Church (ordination).JonNC:
Right, and this is where the definition of what is considered a call comes into play. There has been lots of debate on this subject over the last several years, particularly where you had deacons or trained Eucharistic ministers filling in as interim ministers to smaller churches where a pastor was unavailable to serve. Deacons or Eucharistic ministers have administered the sacrament, usually under the authority of a priest or district president who maintains oversight. St. Louis has chosen to solve this issue by taking deacons who were called to serve by congregations and putting them through the colloquial program, to ordain them as pastors. I think this is a proper way of dealing with the issue that upholds the office of pastor. Again, though, this goes back to maintaining good order, not an apostolic doctrinal statement.
Article XIV was written by Melanchthon in direct response to Eck’s accusation that the Evangelical Catholics intended to allow the laity to preside over the sacraments. It was a false accusation that we should not make true today.
I have no problem with deacons and the like, as long as consecration is celebrated in advanced by an ordained pastor and properly reserved.
J
jschwartz
Guest
I don’t know if you would consider my perspective Protestant really, but for me, as an Episcopalian of the Anglo-Catholic bent, I certainly believe in the Real Presence. I’m not sure how exactly that happens, and I’m of the same opinion generally as the Orthodox, who say that it’s a Mystery. The bread and wine have to be consecrated by a priest ordained by a bishop in apostolic succession. For some Anglo Catholics, that means only a male priest ordained by a male bishop. Most Eucharistic canons in the BCP do contain an explicit epiclesis; the priest prays that the gifts become the Body and Blood of Christ, or the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. I’d receive from a Lutheran or Methodist, since they have ordination by bishops. I would participate in communion at another Protestant church, but wouldn’t be sure that it is really the Body and Blood.
L
ltwin
Guest
But don’t Methodist bishops lack apostolic succession in the sense that Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans mean by the term? The first Methodist bishop was ordained by John Wesley (who was a CofE presbyter not a bishop), and he didn’t even want Methodists to call them bishops. The first Methodist bishop, Thomas Coke was appointed to be a “superintendent” by Wesley. Once Coke got to America, he convinced the Methodist conference to call him a bishop. Still to this day, British Methodists do not have bishops.
Last edited:
J
jschwartz
Guest
Probably you’re right. However, Methodists do affirm the Real Presence, and there is a relatively High Church Methodist parish here in NYC (Christ Church on Park Avenue).
- Status