For Non-Catholics who believe in the Real Presence...

[Believe_85]

To those members who are non-Catholic but believe in the Real Presence while believing Catholics have it wrong on one issue or another, do you believe only your church/faith/organization has the Real Presence?

I’m curious because I wonder how Catholicism can be in error (in some non-Catholic perspectives) but still have the Real Presence.

If you do believe Catholics (and even other non-Catholic groups) also have the Real Presence, how could a group exist in error and still be blessed with the Real Presence?

 

[Will_B]

To those members who are non-Catholic but believe in the Real Presence while believing Catholics have it wrong on one issue or another, do you believe only your church/faith/organization has the Real Presence?

I’m curious because I wonder how Catholicism can be in error (in some non-Catholic perspectives) but still have the Real Presence.

If you do believe Catholics (and even other non-Catholic groups) also have the Real Presence, how could a group exist in error and still be blessed with the Real Presence?

I am going to assume you mean “Roman Catholic”

Our Church is Catholic, but not Roman…

We follow the magisterium of the Church in all things necessary for salvation.

We look to Roman for guidance, much like the first apostles.

http://communionofcorpuschristi.org/live/index.php?c=faith&p=sof

Read our statement of faith… (click the above) Hope this helps.

Maybe the only thing we disagree on is the closed communion table of the Roman Catholic Church…

Personally, I see the first twelve apostles as equals… Peter was given a leadership position, but not the final answer… If you look at the first ecumenical council in Jerusalem ( found in the book of Acts) … You will see that Peter lead, but there was a consensus among the others on doctrine.

 

[JonNC]

To those members who are non-Catholic but believe in the Real Presence while believing Catholics have it wrong on one issue or another, do you believe only your church/faith/organization has the Real Presence?

I’m curious because I wonder how Catholicism can be in error (in some non-Catholic perspectives) but still have the Real Presence.

If you do believe Catholics (and even other non-Catholic groups) also have the Real Presence, how could a group exist in error and still be blessed with the Real Presence?

While not WELS, I found this on their website, and it makes general sense to me as an LCMS Lutheran.

wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=19&cuItem_itemID=4371

Jon

 

[Our_Refuge]

I am going to assume you mean “Roman Catholic”

Our Church is Catholic, but not Roman…

We follow the magisterium of the Church in all things necessary for salvation.

We look to Roman for guidance, much like the first apostles.

http://communionofcorpuschristi.org/live/index.php?c=faith&p=sof

Read our statement of faith… (click the above) Hope this helps.

Maybe the only thing we disagree on is the closed communion table of the Roman Catholic Church…

Personally, I see the first twelve apostles as equals… Peter was given a leadership position, but not the final answer… If you look at the first ecumenical council in Jerusalem ( found in the book of Acts) … You will see that Peter lead, but there was a consensus among the others on doctrine.

There is no such thing as the “Roman” Catholic Church. There is only One Catholic Church guided by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. Your Church website says this:
“As an ecclesial body, it is our desire to walk alongside of and to eventually enter into communion with the historic Catholic Church. We believe it is the will and heart of God to answer the prayer of Jesus in John 17 that His Church be one”
What is your Church waiting for? Your Church does not have valid sacraments. That is a serious defect.

Your statement of the Council of Jerusalem is false. Peter stood up and made the final decision. No one argued. No one contridicted. Peter had spoken

 

[TriuneUnity]

To those members who are non-Catholic but believe in the Real Presence while believing Catholics have it wrong on one issue or another, do you believe only your church/faith/organization has the Real Presence?

I’m curious because I wonder how Catholicism can be in error (in some non-Catholic perspectives) but still have the Real Presence.

If you do believe Catholics (and even other non-Catholic groups) also have the Real Presence, how could a group exist in error and still be blessed with the Real Presence?

I believe that Roman Catholics, as well as Eastern Orthodox have the Real Presence. The Real Presence is not based on every aspect of doctrine being correct but whether the sacrament is being celebrated as Christ instituted it. In the same way that baptism is not dependent on every other aspect being correct.

Now, as Lutherans, we would say the Supper in the RCC and EO is illicit, it is still valid.

 

[Believe_85]

I don’t understand the concept of “illicit, but still valid” when it crosses denominations. For example, I’ve heard about Catholic sacraments being illicit but still valid when there was some sort of problem with how the sacrament was performed (like a priest not believing in the Real Presence but having Holy Orders, he can still perform the sacrament and it’s valid, but illicit…or something like that…it’s all rather foggy to me).

Now I don’t mean this to offend, but only to understand the other side of the coin: I can’t see how Jesus would be present in other denominations because they don’t have valid Holy Orders (Catholic, that is). So I don’t believe there is any presence of Jesus in non-Catholic Communion other than spiritual.

So why do some non-Catholics believe Catholics can have the Real Presence rather than just a spiritual presence? Does it come down to validity of Holy Orders?

I guess then my question for non-Catholics would be how can Catholics have valid Holy Orders and the Real Presence without also having true Apostolic succession and the protection of the Holy Spirit, since that is where valid Holy Orders come from?

Thanks for your replies

 

[JonNC]

I don’t understand the concept of “illicit, but still valid” when it crosses denominations. For example, I’ve heard about Catholic sacraments being illicit but still valid when there was some sort of problem with how the sacrament was performed (like a priest not believing in the Real Presence but having Holy Orders, he can still perform the sacrament and it’s valid, but illicit…or something like that…it’s all rather foggy to me).

Now I don’t mean this to offend, but only to understand the other side of the coin: I can’t see how Jesus would be present in other denominations because they don’t have valid Holy Orders (Catholic, that is). So I don’t believe there is any presence of Jesus in non-Catholic Communion other than spiritual.

So why do some non-Catholics believe Catholics can have the Real Presence rather than just a spiritual presence? Does it come down to validity of Holy Orders?

**I guess then my question for non-Catholics would be how can Catholics **have valid Holy Orders and the Real Presence without also having true Apostolic succession and the protection of the Holy Spirit, since that is where valid Holy Orders come from?

Thanks for your replies

I assume you meant here how can non-catholics have valid orders…

Luther in Smalcald:

X. Of Ordination and the Call.

1] If the bishops would be true bishops [would rightly discharge their office], and would devote themselves to the Church and the Gospel, it might be granted to them for the sake of love and unity, but not from necessity, to ordain and confirm us and our preachers; omitting, however, all comedies and spectacular display [deceptions, absurdities, and appearances] of unchristian [heathenish] parade and pomp. 2] But because they neither are, nor wish to be, true bishops, but worldly lords and princes, who will neither preach, nor teach, nor baptize, nor administer the Lord’s Supper, nor perform any work or office of the Church, and, moreover, persecute and condemn those who discharge these functions, having been called to do so, the Church ought not on their account to remain without ministers [to be forsaken by or deprived of ministers].

3] Therefore, as the ancient examples of the Church and the Fathers teach us, we ourselves will and ought to ordain suitable persons to this office; and, even according to their own laws, they have not the right to forbid or prevent us. For their laws say that those ordained even by heretics should be declared [truly] ordained and stay ordained [and that such ordination must not be changed], as St. Jerome writes of the Church at Alexandria, that at first it was governed in common by priests and preachers, without bishops.

Jon

 

[Believe_85]

I assume you meant here how can non-catholics have valid orders…

Jon

No, I mean how is it non-Catholics can believe Catholics have the Real Presence and valid Holy Orders without Apostolic succession? I don’t know if non-Catholics believe any of the above, but that was the line of thought in my second post. Sorry if I’m confusing…

What I’m trying to say is, do people believe Catholics have valid Holy Orders and the Real Presence without also having true Apostolic succession and the protection of the Holy Spirit (since that is where valid Holy Orders come from)?

If that’s still unclear, let me know. I’m sorry, I just am intrigued by non-Catholics believing in the Real Presence and remaining non-Catholic. I’ve never really heard that explained.

 

[Hilde89]

Hi:wave:

I’m a member of The State Church Of Norway(Lutheran-Evangelical), and I feel like every priest that has talked about Communion has taught Real Presence. They’ve said that it IS the body and blood of Christ that we receive with the traits of wine/bread. I’m actually kind of confused here. They’ve never said when this transformation takes place.
**
do you believe only your church/faith/organization has the Real Presence?**

Nope:nope:

 

[TriuneUnity]

No, I mean how is it non-Catholics can believe Catholics have the Real Presence and valid Holy Orders without Apostolic succession? I don’t know if non-Catholics believe any of the above, but that was the line of thought in my second post. Sorry if I’m confusing…

What I’m trying to say is, do people believe Catholics have valid Holy Orders and the Real Presence without also having true Apostolic succession and the protection of the Holy Spirit (since that is where valid Holy Orders come from)?

If that’s still unclear, let me know. I’m sorry, I just am intrigued by non-Catholics believing in the Real Presence and remaining non-Catholic. I’ve never really heard that explained.

The problem here (and I don’t mean you have a problem, I mean, the problem in the dialogue) is that you’re operating under the presupposition that Holy Orders have to be valid via Apostolic Succession in order to “consecrate” the Eucharist. It is, of course, fine to use that as a presupposition, but we do not share it so we can’t address it from that perspective. In order to attempt to show that Lutherans possess valid Holy Orders I’d have to try and prove something that I don’t adhere to.

 

[JonNC]

What I’m trying to say is, do people believe Catholics have valid Holy Orders and the Real Presence without also having true Apostolic succession and the protection of the Holy Spirit (since that is where valid Holy Orders come from)?

I know Catholics believe they have apostalic succession, but as a Lutheran, I don’t see that as necessarily required to have a valid priesthood. So, I would say Catholic priests have a regular call and are ordained, so when they have the proper elements and properly use the words Christ himself instituted, the real presence is in the Eucharist.

Jon

 

[Steadfast]

The problem here (and I don’t mean you have a problem, I mean, the problem in the dialogue) is that you’re operating under the presupposition that Holy Orders have to be valid via Apostolic Succession in order to “consecrate” the Eucharist. It is, of course, fine to use that as a presupposition, but we do not share it so we can’t address it from that perspective. In order to attempt to show that Lutherans possess valid Holy Orders I’d have to try and prove something that I don’t adhere to.

Thanks, something was gnawing at me.

You expressed it for me.

 

[Believe_85]

Ok!

So, if I am understanding this, any group who says they have the Real Presence has it…true?

My next question is how do you have a valid priesthood (as in those who can perform sacraments) without Apostolic succession?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Ok!

So, if I am understanding this, any group who says they have the Real Presence has it…true?

My next question is how do you have a valid priesthood (as in those who can perform sacraments) without Apostolic succession?

First you’d have to establish that apostolic succession is necessary to have sacraments. We don’t claim that. The sacrament is valid if it is practiced as Christ instituted it.

 

[VARC]

First you’d have to establish that apostolic succession is necessary to have sacraments. We don’t claim that. The sacrament is valid if it is practiced as Christ instituted it.

I’ll try to field this one as a protestant. Anglicans do believe that apostolic succession is necessary for valid orders. St. Paul refers to the grace of God that is in Timothy by the imposition of his hands. Even Paul himself had to receive the laying on of hands before he began his ministry even though he was chosen by Christ personally. Tradition interprets this to mean that one must receive the laying on of hands from an ordained minister before one can be a minister. One cannot ordain himself, not even Paul.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’ll try to field this one as a protestant. Anglicans do believe that apostolic succession is necessary for valid orders. St. Paul refers to the grace of God that is in Timothy by the imposition of his hands. Even Paul himself had to receive the laying on of hands before he began his ministry even though he was chosen by Christ personally. Tradition interprets this to mean that one must receive the laying on of hands from an ordained minister before one can be a minister. One cannot ordain himself, not even Paul.

That may be the case vis a vie ordination and most liturgical, and even non-liturgical traditions, ordain by laying on of hands by a superior elder or pastor. That establishes that this is the tradition of ordination that comes from the apostles; but it goes a long way from showing apostolic succession in the sense that one must be able to trace ordination back to a particular one of the twelve+Paul.

It establishes that one must be ordained by an ordained elder.

Off-topic, but which Continuing Anglican church do you attend?

 

[VARC]

That may be the case vis a vie ordination and most liturgical, and even non-liturgical traditions, ordain by laying on of hands by a superior elder or pastor. That establishes that this is the tradition of ordination that comes from the apostles; but it goes a long way from showing apostolic succession in the sense that one must be able to trace ordination back to a particular one of the twelve+Paul.

It establishes that one must be ordained by an ordained elder.

Exactly. One cannot ordain oneself. The question is what constitutes an ordained elder. Was Martin Luther an ordained elder? If so who ordained him so?

If you trace back the succession of every ordained minsters you will eventually get back to the Apostles who were ordained by Christ. It is impossible to have it otherwise.

Off-topic, but which Continuing Anglican church do you attend?

Anglican Catholic Church

 

[Believe_85]

First you’d have to establish that apostolic succession is necessary to have sacraments. We don’t claim that. The sacrament is valid if it is practiced as Christ instituted it.

How can sacraments confer grace without apostolic succession?

How can Communion be practiced as Christ instituted it without apostolic succession?

It seems to me you are saying that all anyone would have to do is follow a formula and voila! Real Presence. I don’t think that’s what you believe, so I hope you will expound! Otherwise, I am left to guess.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Exactly. One cannot ordain oneself. The question is what constitutes an ordained elder. Was Martin Luther an ordained elder? If so who ordained him so?

If you trace back the succession of every ordained minsters you will eventually get back to the Apostles who were ordained by Christ. It is impossible to have it otherwise.

Anglican Catholic Church

An ordained elder is one who has received a call to the gospel ministry and been duly ordained in the church. I agree with your statement that every ordained minister would eventually be able to trace their ordination to one of the apostles, since I doubt any Hindu’s ever ordained a bishop

to the Anglican Catholic Church

 

[TriuneUnity]

How can sacraments confer grace without apostolic succession?

How can Communion be practiced as Christ instituted it without apostolic succession?

It seems to me you are saying that all anyone would have to do is follow a formula and voila! Real Presence. I don’t think that’s what you believe, so I hope you will expound! Otherwise, I am left to guess.

Where does it state in Scripture that the efficacy of the sacraments is dependent upon apostolic succession?