Eucharist and Lutherans

[Texan_in_DC]

dzerhusen,
Needless to say, we do not agree with the teaching of the Roman Catholic church that we do not have valid orders and, thus, cannot experience the true Body and Blood of Christ in our Holy Communion.

Peace,
Pastor Gary

Pastor Gary,

I understand this statement, but can you please explain why the Lutheran Church believes that their Preist believe they still have valid orders.

To my understanding Martin Luther was excomunicated from the Catholic Church and then eventually later started his own which he did not want it called Lutheran, His goal was to reform the Church, not to set a new one outside of the Church. But sadly this was not the case. At the point of Luther and other Priest that once were Catholic ordained new Priest into the Lutheran Church the Catholic Church where they once came from said that these new Priest are not in line with Peter.

Same for the Anglican Church, once the Anglican Church seperated from the Catholic Church because the king wanted a divorce, then the new Priest that we ordained under the new Anglican Church or Church of England were no longer in the line of Peter therefore not a valid Priesthood.

Yet I always found it intersting that even though the Eastern Orthodox Church does not recognize the Catholic Church and the Pope as the Head Bishop, they have not broken the apostolic line of Peter.

There is great work indeen today to try to restore the Lutheran Church with the Catholic Church and I hope and pray that we can be one again.

I would like to know what your thoughs are on what makes a valid priesthood from your own personal beliefs and that of your church. And like you said in your stated belief, what are the other Christian Churches with valid Priest in your eyes and does that include the Catholic Church?

My goal is not to stir things up but to learn more about your doctrine, I was raised southern baptist and prior to my conversion to the Catholic Church I considered the Lutheran Church as well as Anglican and Orthodox.

Perhaps we should start a new thread.

 

[rr1213]

Same for the Anglican Church, once the Anglican Church seperated from the Catholic Church because the king wanted a divorce, then the new Priest that we ordained under the new Anglican Church or Church of England were no longer in the line of Peter therefore not a valid Priesthood.

It wasn’t the separation that invalidated the orders (from the Catholic Church’s perspective–Anglicans of course believe that their orders are perfectly valid). It was what the Catholic Church believes to be defects of form and intent in the Anglican ordination rites during the time of King Edward. So, according to the Catholic Church, when all of the valid bishops (who had been consecrated in the Catholic Church prior to the split) died off, there was no one with valid orders who was able to pass them on.

 

[Lampo]

Pastor Gary…Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. My wife is Lutheran (MS) and I’m always interested in her beliefs. You stated that Lutherans leave the Eucharist as a mystery. So does the Catholic Church. It is not clear in my mind the difference in understanding between Lutherans and Catholics; except for valid Holy Orders - I understand that. The Catholic Church doesn’t explain HOW it changes from bread and wine to the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. That is the mystery.

 

[Contarini]

Anybody know the answer to this from the Lutheran perspective?

I’ve never really understood the question, because no one disputes that Christ’s divinity is present, and since we are not consuming dead flesh in the Eucharist belief in the bodily Presence implies the presence of Christ’s soul as well. I think Catholics get hung up on this because they don’t stop to think that it’s only the “Body and Blood” part that is controversial.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

It wasn’t the separation that invalidated the orders (from the Catholic Church’s perspective–Anglicans of course believe that their orders are perfectly valid). It was what the Catholic Church believes to be defects of form and intent in the Anglican ordination rites during the time of King Edward. So, according to the Catholic Church, when all of the valid bishops (who had been consecrated in the Catholic Church prior to the split) died off, there was no one with valid orders who was able to pass them on.

Even so.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[rr1213]

I’ve never really understood the question, because no one disputes that Christ’s divinity is present, and since we are not consuming dead flesh in the Eucharist belief in the bodily Presence implies the presence of Christ’s soul as well. I think Catholics get hung up on this because they don’t stop to think that it’s only the “Body and Blood” part that is controversial.

Edwin

It was my understanding that, from the Lutheran viewpoint,Christ’s soul divinity would be present but someone told me that this was not the case. Hence the question. Gcnuss’ explanation made perfect sense once I heard it.

 

[Sixtus]

gcnuss
Regular Member Join Date: September 6, 2006
Location: Galion, Ohio
Posts: 36

Re: Eucharist and Lutherans
dzerhusen,

Yes, Lutheran believe that in Holy Communion we receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

We don’t accept the Roman Catholic dogma (or is it doctrine) of transsubstantiation, but see the Real Presence as a divine mystery – one that we cannot fully understand – but it is real. We believe the words of our Lord, “this is my Body,” and “this cup is the new covenant in my Blood.” The elements which our human senses perceive as bread and wine are, indeed, Christ’s Body and Blood.

Needless to say, we do not agree with the teaching of the Roman Catholic church that we do not have valid orders and, thus, cannot experience the true Body and Blood of Christ in our Holy Communion.

Peace,
Pastor Gary

While I accep tthe teachings of CC, never the less when in a Lutheran church on seeing a tabernacle, genuflect or bow my head.

Who am I to judge?

Surely it is better to bow to a piece of bread than to be irreverent to the Body of Christ

 

[thistle]

While I accep tthe teachings of CC, never the less when in a Lutheran church on seeing a tabernacle, genuflect or bow my head.

Who am I to judge?

Surely it is better to bow to a piece of bread than to be irreverent to the Body of Christ

Its not a choice a Catholic has.
You are wrong to do either.

 

[Sixtus]

thistle

Re: Eucharist and Lutherans
Quote:Originally Posted by Sixtus
While I accep tthe teachings of CC, never the less when in a Lutheran church on seeing a tabernacle, genuflect or bow my head.

Who am I to judge?

Surely it is better to bow to a piece of bread than to be irreverent to the Body of Christ

Its not a choice a Catholic has.
You are wrong to do either.

So what would you do in the presence of a Lutheran Tabernacle and what they believe to be the Body of Christ?

All I will say is: Mat 7: 1-2 and on that, rest my case

 

[thistle]

Its not a choice a Catholic has.
You are wrong to do either.

So what would you do in the presence of a Lutheran Tabernacle and what they believe to be the Body of Christ?

All I will say is: Mat 7: 1-2 and on that, rest my case

Lutheran belief of the Eucharist is consubstantiation and not transubstantiation.
Consubstantiation is a heretical doctrine to which you as a Catholic cannot subscribe in any manner and most certainly not by bowing before a Lutheran tabernacle.

 

[Texan_in_DC]

It wasn’t the separation that invalidated the orders (from the Catholic Church’s perspective–Anglicans of course believe that their orders are perfectly valid). It was what the Catholic Church believes to be defects of form and intent in the Anglican ordination rites during the time of King Edward. So, according to the Catholic Church, when all of the valid bishops (who had been consecrated in the Catholic Church prior to the split) died off, there was no one with valid orders who was able to pass them on.

I understand that but my question was what do you believe makes a valid priesthood vs an unvalid preisthood?

I do understant that any church believes they are valid or they would not be a part of that particular branch of christianity.

And we also know exactly where the Catholic Church stands on each of these issues, and it is up to us personally to accept it or deny it.

 

[Sixtus]

Originally Posted by Sixtus
Its not a choice a Catholic has.
You are wrong to do either.

So what would you do in the presence of a Lutheran Tabernacle and what they believe to be the Body of Christ?

All I will say is: Mat 7: 1-2 and on that, rest my case

Thistle replied:

Lutheran belief of the Eucharist is consubstantiation and not transubstantiation.
Consubstantiation is a heretical doctrine to which you as a Catholic cannot subscribe in any manner and most certainly not by bowing before a Lutheran tabernacle.

The first time I saw a Lutheran Tabernacle I mockinly laughed [sorry].

The next time, I just walked passed with no reverence.

The next time I stopped to think it looked authentic pity it wasn’t

The next time I stopped to think and the thought occured to me: supposen it IS authentic.

The next time I stopped, thought and continued, ignoring it.

The next time I stopped and felt compelled to show due reverence. It occured to me ‘who am I to judge’?

The Lord smiles at Church- Militance’ but is displease by Church-arrogance!

 

[lumendelumine]

I think we need to sort some things out here.

First, the Lutheran Eucharistic belief seems to be quite similar to Catholic belief at first sight. Nevertheless, there are two important distinctions:
a) The Lutherans believe that bread and wine still continue to be bread and wine while becoming at the same time the Body and Blood of Christ (we Catholics believe that they cease to be bread and wine, except in outer appearance), and
b) Lutherans don’t believe Christ to be “locally present” in the Eucharist, which in some way invalidates the objectivity of Lutheran Eucharistic belief again and places it into the realm of “communion according to faith” (i. e., if you believe you have received the body and blood, you did, if you don’t believe it, you didn’t).

The second issue - the one of validity - is more important however.

In Lutheranism, ordination is not a sacrament. That’s an absolute. In some Lutheran churches, there would be apostolic succession (i. e. Sweden), but the fact that ordination is not a sacrament has ended apostolic succession. Lutheran pastors are thus not priests in the sacramental sense, neither are Lutheran bishops. They are laymen (and -women). This applies to all.

From this follows of course that the Lutheran Eucharist is absolutely invalid, no matter how close actual Lutheran Eucharistic belief is to orthodox Catholic faith.

So no, Sixtus, you really shouldn’t genuflect before a Lutheran tabernacle (never seen such a thing in my life BTW). It’s not Jesus Christ sacramentally present in there. But of course, you may and should treat a Lutheran church - including its tabernacle - with reverence. (I always cross myself upon entering a Christian church, no matter what denomination.)

I don’t think that’s arrogance, I think it’s only reasonable. We can still cherish many things about other Christians and the faith we have in common. We just mustn’t suppose that everything they do means the same thing as those things would mean to us.

 

[Texan_in_DC]

I think we need to sort some things out here.

First, the Lutheran Eucharistic belief seems to be quite similar to Catholic belief at first sight. Nevertheless, there are two important distinctions:
a) The Lutherans believe that bread and wine still continue to be bread and wine while becoming at the same time the Body and Blood of Christ (we Catholics believe that they cease to be bread and wine, except in outer appearance), and
b) Lutherans don’t believe Christ to be “locally present” in the Eucharist, which in some way invalidates the objectivity of Lutheran Eucharistic belief again and places it into the realm of “communion according to faith” (i. e., if you believe you have received the body and blood, you did, if you don’t believe it, you didn’t).

The second issue - the one of validity - is more important however.

In Lutheranism, ordination is not a sacrament. That’s an absolute. In some Lutheran churches, there would be apostolic succession (i. e. Sweden), but the fact that ordination is not a sacrament has ended apostolic succession. Lutheran pastors are thus not priests in the sacramental sense, neither are Lutheran bishops. They are laymen (and -women). This applies to all.

From this follows of course that the Lutheran Eucharist is absolutely invalid, no matter how close actual Lutheran Eucharistic belief is to orthodox Catholic faith.

So no, Sixtus, you really shouldn’t genuflect before a Lutheran tabernacle (never seen such a thing in my life BTW). It’s not Jesus Christ sacramentally present in there. But of course, you may and should treat a Lutheran church - including its tabernacle - with reverence. (I always cross myself upon entering a Christian church, no matter what denomination.)

I don’t think that’s arrogance, I think it’s only reasonable. We can still cherish many things about other Christians and the faith we have in common. We just mustn’t suppose that everything they do means the same thing as those things would mean to us.

Very nice response I look forward to any Lutheran Reply.

Also I never thought about the importance of crossing myself in any church outside of the Catholic Church, but I can see your point.

 

[GKC]

I understand that but my question was what do you believe makes a valid priesthood vs an unvalid preisthood?

I do understant that any church believes they are valid or they would not be a part of that particular branch of christianity.

And we also know exactly where the Catholic Church stands on each of these issues, and it is up to us personally to accept it or deny it.

Not meaning to cut rr1213 out, but I’ll give an Anglo-Catholic reply to the priesthood question: the same things you believe make a vald priesthood. That is, ordination by a bishop in apostolic succession, and with the proper matter, form, intent, subject and minister.

And yes, I am familiar with Apostolicae Curae. Very familiar.

GKC

 

[Sixtus]

a) The Lutherans believe that bread and wine still continue to be bread and wine while becoming at the same time the Body and Blood of Christ

places it into the realm of “communion according to faith” (i. e., if you believe you have received the body and blood, you did, if you don’t believe it, you didn’t).
.

Seems plausible to me

I have for a long time felt that if someone receives our Blessed Lord while in total denial it is Christ, then for them it probably isn’t.

Similarly if someone takes a Host with the intention of sacrilage, then I am sure God has a contingency plan, whereby His Sacred ody becomes de-consecrated.

From this follows of course that the Lutheran Eucharist is absolutely invalid, QUOTE]

A matter of belief on your part. You may well be right, but I am not going to be arrogant enough to make such a statement

no matter how close actual Lutheran Eucharistic belief is to orthodox Catholic faith.

So no, Sixtus, you really shouldn’t genuflect before a Lutheran tabernacle (never seen such a thing in my life BTW). It’s not Jesus Christ sacramentally present in there/

Again, you are probably right. But I am taking NO chances.

 

[lumendelumine]

Sixtus wrote:
I have for a long time felt that if someone receives our Blessed Lord while in total denial it is Christ, then for them it probably isn’t.

Similarly if someone takes a Host with the intention of sacrilage, then I am sure God has a contingency plan, whereby His Sacred ody becomes de-consecrated.

I’m sorry, Sixtus, but that’s not what the Catholic Church believes.

Already St. Paul is talking about receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily. Receiving the Blessed Sacrament either in state of mortal sin or as an unbeliever indeed qualifies as unworthy reception. Still, the main point is that the Blessed Sacrament is an objective reality and does not “lie in the eye of the beholder”, so to speak.

There are in fact legends from the Middle Ages of Eucharistic miracles where the Blessed Sacrament was transformed inside the mouth of non-Christians - most often Jews -, who did not know what it was, into a piece of meat, which prompted their conversion. These legends have to be taken with a grain of salt of course, but you get the idea.

And sacrilege of the Blessed Sacrament is indeed possible and is still practiced by those who hate Christ and His Church. (Ever heard about the Black Masses of Satanists?)
Priests who give out Communion indeed sometimes demand of the Communicants to swallow the Blessed Sacrament before their eyes in order to prevent possible theft and sacrilege. The Blessed Sacrament just cannot simply become bread again. (Only if it ceases to be bread chemically, i. e. in the stomach.)

A matter of belief on your part.

Actually, it’s not. Lutheranism does not have a sacramental priesthood (that’s not an opinion, that’s their own position). No sacramental priesthood, no valid Eucharist. End of story.

I don’t deny of course that the reception of the Lutheran Eucharist qualifies as an act of spiritual Communion. Still, it’s not the same as receiving the Body and Blood.

GKC wrote:

Not meaning to cut rr1213 out, but I’ll give an Anglo-Catholic reply to the priesthood question: the same things you believe make a vald priesthood. That is, ordination by a bishop in apostolic succession, and with the proper matter, form, intent, subject and minister.

And yes, I am familiar with Apostolicae Curae. Very familiar.

Anglicanism is a much more sticky question than Lutheranism (the “Dutch touch” etc.). It’s clear that an Anglo-Catholic would be of the same opinion about Apostolic Succession as a (Roman) Catholic. In the case of Lutheranism, however, the situation is pretty clear, and it’s not a matter of interpretation.

Texan in DC wrote:

Also I never thought about the importance of crossing myself in any church outside of the Catholic Church, but I can see your point.

It’s a personal decision really. I’m acknowledging with it the fact that Jesus Christ is worshipped in this place.

 

[GKC]

Anglicanism is a much more sticky question than Lutheranism (the “Dutch touch” etc.). It’s clear that an Anglo-Catholic would be of the same opinion about Apostolic Succession as a (Roman) Catholic. In the case of Lutheranism, however, the situation is pretty clear, and it’s not a matter of interpretation.

Understood and agreed, as I said (I’ll see you your Dutch touch and raise you a couple of etcs, well chosen). I replied as I did to Tex’s question because rr1213, to whom I think it was originally addressed, would be looking at the priesthood from a generally Anglican perspective. As does, of course, the undersigned.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus