Help settle argument-valid transubstantiation in other churches

[stpurl]

You aren’t addressing what I SAID. I said the lack of valid orders would preclude their communion offering to them what WE (Catholics) understand as the True Presence.

I did not say that their prayers would be ineffective (that was you). I did not say Jesus was not present among them (that was you). For what their understanding of Jesus’ presence is, most certainly He could be present in so far as that understanding went. But their understanding is not the Catholic understanding, and it is the Catholic understanding which is truly complete.

 

[AlNg]

the Catholic understanding which is truly complete.

Lutherans and high Anglicans say that their understanding is truly complete.

 

[Dovekin]

their understanding is not the Catholic understanding, and it is the Catholic understanding which is truly complete.

Pope John Paul II and the Abp of Canterbury confirmed the opposite opinion, saying that Anglicans and Roman Catholics share a common understanding of the Eucharist.

Also, “the lack of valid orders” is a Catholic belief. We believe they do not have the orders needed to confect the Eucharist, but they believe they do. So the answer to the OP is still that they believe in the Eucharist in the same way Catholics do.

 

[annad347]

Sure. But that doesn’t mean that ‘believing’ makes it so.

Does not make it not so either.

Sure. But that doesn’t mean that ‘believing’ makes it so. Remember what Jesus said: “not all who cry out ‘Lord, Lord’…”!!

EXACTLY.

God knows the truth of what is in our mind, words and actions. I can go to church every single day, do every thing exactly as Peter or even the current Pope says I should. Be a perfect, God loving Christian and still not enter the kingdom of heaven. Why, because God knows what is valid in my heart. I could be acting like a robot, checking off boxes. I’m doing what Peter says to do. What the Pope says to do. I’m in a Catholic… I’m in the church established on the back of Peter… and not really believe a single thing I’m saying or doing.

So, part of our Christian duty – one of the “spiritual works of mercy” – is to teach those who do not know the truth! We can’t just say “well, that’s what you believe, and even though it’s different from what I believe, your beliefs are your beliefs, so it’s all good”…!!!

That is not what I said. I’m not telling you to lie to me. To teach me what you don’t believe. Why would I want you to commit a sin, we have a date to laugh our heads off in heaven.

Teach the truth, that’s what God wants us to teach..

Fair enough. And yet, by belief isn’t based on ‘proof’; it’s based on Jesus. And Jesus gave authority to teach to… the Apostles, who handed that authority on to their successors. So, my belief doesn’t come from whether a document is true – it comes from whether Jesus is true. And if He is, then the teaching that flows from Him is true, too.

So does mine, so does the members of the Lutheran church. Lutherans love, pray and worship Jesus Christ.

Its the faith they have in Jesus Christ, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ. Its that faith in Jesus’s death, spilling of Jesus’s blood that makes it valid. Catholic’s can say its not valid, that doesn’t mean its not valid to God.

Right. And so, the question isn’t “do you truly believe?”, but rather, “is what you believe, true?”.

Excellent question, what is it that I believe that isn’t true?

And don’t worry… I’m hoping we both end up in heaven, laughing all together!

I’m not worried. I know we’ll both be in heaven. I also know you and Jesus will be laughing and pointing at me making bunny ear gestures.

 

[Gorgias]

Catholic’s can say its not valid, that doesn’t mean its not valid to God.

Actually, that’s exactly what it means, IMHO, since it was only to Peter (i.e., the Catholic Church) “what you bind/loose on earth is bound/loosed in heaven.” That doesn’t go for anyone else – just the Church that Jesus founded. If you leave that Church… then you’ve left the sacraments. (We’d make an exception for baptism, but now we’re going down a different tangent…)

Excellent question, what is it that I believe that isn’t true?

Well, for starters, it seems you believe that a Lutheran minister can validly consecrate the Eucharist. That doesn’t hold true.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Sedevacantism is merely a disagreement about a present (or historical) fact — “is this man, who sits on the throne of Peter, the Pope, or a pretender?”.

Yeah, but that’s schism. See canon 751:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

They generally aren’t saying “we are part of the Catholic Church”; they’re saying “Rome is no longer part of the Catholic Church, but we still are.” Schism.

Actually, there is a stripe of sedevacantist that maintains precisely this — that the post-Vatican II Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church, but has fallen away from the Faith and is a “newchurch”, with the Pope being a pretender (because he is, according to them, not Catholic), and that a false church has taken over the Vatican and the hierarchical Church infrastructure (both material and sacramental). They maintain that they are the Catholic Church, not the Vatican institution. What they intend to do about reinstating the papacy and the hierarchy, you’d have to ask them. They really don’t know themselves. Some, as noted above, have attempted to elect their own Pope. There are several.

HomeschoolDad:

Mr Bawden did not “declare himself Pope”, there was a rump “conclave” comprised of his family and possibly a few others.

Yes, as I understand it he, and his mother and father are three of six that declared him pope, seems we are splitting hairs here.

Not sure if he voted for himself (i.e., whether he voted at all), but yes, to assemble six people who have, in their eyes, maintained the Catholic Faith when Rome has lost it, and to elect a Pope, yes, that’s pretty shaky. To say the least. And the sad thing about it, Mr Bawden actually comes across as quite intelligent and sensible. I don’t think we’re dealing with crazy here. Not at all.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

It is not a heresy to declare that oneself is Pope

SVs are the most vigorous defenders of the papacy

Please reconcile these two statements, because as I see it, some SV’s think that, they themselves have the ability to convene a “conclave” in the living room of mom and dads house and declare themselves pope.

I don’t think there’s anything to reconcile. If I am understanding the situation correctly, these people reasoned that they were a small remnant of the Catholic Church, and that being the “last survivors” of sorts, they had the authority to elect the Pope — not that there weren’t, in their eyes, other Catholics in the world, just that they made up a quorum.

I think the “reconciliation” comes from modifying @HomeschoolDad’s assertion. It’s not that “SVs are the most vigorous defenders of the papacy”, it’s that they’re “the most vigorous defenders of what they consider to be the papacy”, and that personal assessment runs counter to what the papacy itself is.

No, I think they are among “the most vigorous defenders of the papacy”. As they see it, the post-Vatican II Church hierarchy has apostasized, or has gone into something very close to apostasy. At the very least, the Pope is, in their view, not Catholic and thus not a Pope. They basically flash-freeze the papacy on the last day of the reign of Pius XII, and maintain that everything since then has gone horribly wrong.

 

[Gorgias]

No, I think they are among “the most vigorous defenders of the papacy”. As they see it, the post-Vatican II Church hierarchy has apostasized, or has gone into something very close to apostasy. At the very least, the Pope is, in their view, not Catholic and thus not a Pope. They basically flash-freeze the papacy on the last day of the reign of Pius XII, and maintain that everything since then has gone horribly wrong.

And therefore, since they are objectively mistaken, therefore what they’re defending isn’t the “papacy”, but their “flash-frozen perspective on the papacy.” Subtle, yet critical, difference…

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

No, I think they are among “the most vigorous defenders of the papacy”. As they see it, the post-Vatican II Church hierarchy has apostasized, or has gone into something very close to apostasy. At the very least, the Pope is, in their view, not Catholic and thus not a Pope. They basically flash-freeze the papacy on the last day of the reign of Pius XII, and maintain that everything since then has gone horribly wrong.

And therefore, since they are objectively mistaken, therefore what they’re defending isn’t the “papacy”, but their “flash-frozen perspective on the papacy.” Subtle, yet critical, difference…

The papacy has not changed, nor can it change. When I say “flash-frozen”, I mean that the papacy of Pius XII is the last one they recognize. (Some hard-line SVs even have difficulty with Pius XII, some will allow for John XXIII, and there is a handful of SVs who would go back to ludicrous lengths even beyond Pius XII.)

I will concede that SVs may be materially schismatic, in that they refuse communion with the Roman Pontiff, i.e., “Man X is the Roman Pontiff, but they will not have communion with Man X, even though they recognize in principle that there is such a thing as ‘communion with the Roman Pontiff’, they just deny that Man X is that Roman Pontiff”.

Good question to ask: in the history of the Church, have there ever before been schismatics who said “we will have communion with the Roman Pontiff, just not this one, because he’s not a Catholic, and therefore he can’t be Pope”? That one sentence is sedevacantism in a nutshell.

Except that, as far as I am aware, nobody’s Catholicity was being questioned, that would also describe the Western Schism and similar situations. Despite the common historical name, I would question whether the Western Schism was indeed a “schism”. However, bottom line, all of these situations were eventually resolved — you didn’t have a “spin-off group”, partisans of this antipope or that one, who created a “parallel church” claiming to be the One True Church with its own Pope, and barrelling into the future with no hope of ever having the situation remedied.

 

[annad347]

Actually, that’s exactly what it means, IMHO, since it was only to Peter (i.e., the Catholic Church) “what you bind/loose on earth is bound/loosed in heaven.”

Please explain, exactly what does that mean, and how was it ONLY meant for Peter or did you mean it applied only to the church? If so, please explain what means.

Well, for starters, it seems you believe that a Lutheran minister can validly consecrate the Eucharist. That doesn’t hold true.

Without using the Catechism of the Catholic Church, please, prove it.

 

[Gorgias]

Please explain, exactly what does that mean, and how was it ONLY meant for Peter?

Sure. First, the “Peter only” question. That’s a grammar question, so it’s easy. In Mt 16, Jesus says “what you bind on earth…” and in Mt 18 Jesus says, “what you bind on earth…”. For readers of English, there’s no difference there. That’s because we don’t have distinct words for you (singular) and you (plural), unless you live down south and say “you”, “ya’ll” (and “all ya’ll”)! But, that’s exactly what’s going on here! In Mt 16, Jesus is talking to one person (Peter), and in Mt 18, to many (the apostles). Here’s what it looks like in a couple languages, so that you can compare and see the differences:

Spanish:
Mt 16 – todo lo que ligares en la tierra será ligado en los cielos
Mt 18 – todo lo que ligareis en la tierra, será ligado en el cielo

French:
Mt 16 – tout ce que tu interdiras sur la terre sera interdit aux yeux de Dieu
Mt 18 – tout ce que vous interdirez sur la terre sera interdit aux yeux de Dieu

(The same thing happens in the Greek: δήσῃς (“you”) and δήσητε (“ya’ll”).)

So, in Mt 16, Jesus is saying “you” to Peter, and in Mt 18, Jesus is saying “ya’ll” to the apostles. That’s how we know that “the keys” and the text in Mt 16 are only directed to Peter.

Next question: why does that, then, mean that there are things that only apply to the Church Jesus founded, and which continue to hold to apostolic succession?

Well, Jesus founded a Church, not an umbrella organization of many churches and denominations. And, He gave authority to that Church and that Church alone. When denominations broke away, and no longer participated in the form of the Church that Jesus founded, they were no longer part of that Church. They were related to the Church in various ways, but they literally walked away from it. So, in walking away from the Church, they walked away from the source of teaching. And, since that authority (and the protection against error) in teaching was given divinely by Christ, therefore we have two dynamics:

• only the Church can teach authoritatively
• only the Church is divinely protected against teaching errors

So, those who left, when they created their own teachings that were in conflict with the Church’s teachings, created a conundrum. If one group says “Red” and the other group says “Black”, who’s right? In this case, it seems clear that the answer should be “the group who was given the authority to teach and the divine protection against teaching errors.” So, when there’s a difference of doctrine between Catholics and any Protestant denomination, we turn to Christ and say “He’s the one who gives us authority.” (Protestants can no longer say that, since by doing so, they’d be admitting that the Church has authority and they don’t. So, they come up with a different argument for authority, but that’s a whole 'nother conversation.)

So, Peter alone was given the ‘keys’ and the authority to lead the Church. Which Church, today, continues to have leadership from a successor to Peter? Yep, you got it: the Catholic Church!

 

[annad347]

That is not explaining exactly what it means when Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 18.

Cause it kind of sounds like you said it means, God said to Peter what you say goes… then Peter said to Pope 2 what you say goes… then Pope 2 to Pope 3, what you say goes… and so on, and so on and so on?

And if that’s the case then did, Peter change what Jesus said to John, “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me.” Mark 9:38-40, or one of the other Pope’s down the line changed what Jesus said, because by saying the Eucharist Lutherans give to their people is not valid, isn’t that like saying it is not valid or acceptable to God… yet the Eucharist they are giving in praise to God… to Lutherans becomes to them the body and blood of Christ. That’s doing a deed in God’s name.

And please dont take my question to mean everything done in Gods name is actually done in Gods name.

 

[Gorgias]

That is not explaining exactly what it means when Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 18.

Fair enough. That’s not what you asked, though.

Matthew 18, if we look at it in context, is talking about disciplinary matters: how to deal with a person whose actions are sinful and causing disruption in the Church. It would be a mistake, IMHO, to suggest that this is the limit of the authority of the Apostles, but it’s certainly a context that is more limited than the context of Peter’s authority in Mt 16.

Cause it kind of sounds like you said it means, God said to Peter what you say goes… then Peter said to Pope 2 what you say goes… then Pope 2 to Pope 3, what you say goes… and so on, and so on and so on?

If Jesus gave Peter authority that was limited only by “truth”, then yeah… why couldn’t Peter make the disciplinary decision to allow for successors to the Apostles? (Moreover, we see successors all through the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, so it’s a Scriptural dynamic, to boot!)

And if that’s the case then did, Peter change what Jesus said to John, “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me.”

Who’s the one who “does a deed of power”, such that I’m asserting that he “afterward [spoke] evil of [Jesus]”?

one of the other Pope’s down the line changed what Jesus said, because by saying the Eucharist Lutherans give to their people is not valid, isn’t that like saying it is not valid or acceptable to God…

“what you bind on earth is bound in heaven.” Jesus gave Peter that authority.

yet the Eucharist they are giving in praise to God… to Lutherans becomes to them the body and blood of Christ. That’s doing a deed in God’s name.

It’s not a “deed of power”. If it has no effect, it’s something, but it’s not the Eucharist.

And please dont take my question to mean everything done in Gods name is actually done in Gods name.

Nope. But I am saying that they’re not “doing the deed” of confecting the Eucharist, since they left the context of how that’s done.

 

[annad347]

In Your Honest Opinion.

IMHO, Jesus may have given Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, but when it came to binding and loosing Jesus told that to all of us. The key to the Church, Jesus gave to Peter is not just in the Catholic church, but all churches where Jesus is the foundation of that Church.

In you honest opinion, Peter as well as every Pope that follows him, gets to tell Jesus what to do as far as what happen in heaven. IMHO, Jesus would not give man that type of power. Matthew 7:21-23 Lord, Lord…

Who’s the one who “does a deed of power”, such that I’m asserting that he “afterward [spoke] evil of [Jesus]”?

They could not speak evil of Jesus. They never said who they were. Mark 9:39-41

It’s not a “deed of power”. If it has no effect, it’s something , but it’s not the Eucharist.

IMHO it is… For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.

 

[CathBoy1]

Not sure if he voted for himself (i.e., whether he voted at all), but yes, to assemble six people who have, in their eyes, maintained the Catholic Faith when Rome has lost it, and to elect a Pope, yes, that’s pretty shaky.

I gotta admit I got a good chuckle when I read the wiki about him:

David Bawden - Wikipedia

From the article:
Bawden was elected by a group of six laypeople, which included himself and his parents, who had come to believe that the Catholic Church had apostatized from the Catholic faith since Vatican II, and that there had been no legitimate popes elected since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.[3]

And the sad thing about it, Mr Bawden actually comes across as quite intelligent and sensible. I don’t think we’re dealing with crazy here.

On the other hand, listen to what people that knew them, have to say about the BTK killer or Ted Bundy, now I’m not putting David Bawden on even close to the same level of crazy that Ted Bundy or the BTK killer are, I am just providing an example that sometimes people can certainly comes across as quite intelligent and sensible, and yet be crazy.

 

[Gorgias]

In Your Honest Opinion.

IMHO, Jesus may have given Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, but when it came to binding and loosing Jesus told that to all of us.

He really didn’t. In Mt 16, it was to Peter. In Mt 18, it was to the apostles. Unless there’s another verse somewhere that you’re thinking of…?

In you honest opinion, Peter as well as every Pope that follows him, gets to tell Jesus what to do as far as what happen in heaven. IMHO, Jesus would not give man that type of power.

Except that, this isn’t a matter of opinion, either! It’s right there, in black and white, in Mt 16!

I appreciate that you disagree with what Jesus said on these pages, but it’s literally what He said!

IMHO it is… For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.

That just means that works result in salvation. That’s not a “deed of power” in the sense of Mark 9. There, he’s talking about “driving out demons”. Now that’s a deed of power!

 

[annad347]

Jesus said on these pages, but it’s literally what He said!

So Jesus literally gave Peter the power to tell Him what to do. Then that power was passed down to every Pope from generation to generation?

Now that’s a deed of power!

and yet the other passage was not just about sin, but about all aspects of the church?

 

[farronwolf]

I will only focus on Lutheran for this. And this is not official by any means.

One of my customers attends a Lutheran church. When he was in when all this mess started up we were discussing not being able to have mass. He had purchased a small fm trasmitter for his church and they were discussing having mass, with drive thru communion at the end for the members. He said they talked about putting the host in a small disposable cup or plate that once given to the persons in the “drive thru” communion line they people would dispose of them at their home that way there wouldn’t be an chance of transmission back to the distributor of communion.

I told him that would not be possible for our church since it is the true Body of Christ and that anything that the host touched beyond the person themselves would have to be purified, and cleaned or disposed of properly. Told him that there could be nothing disposable used because any remnant of the Eucharist which might remain on the cup/plate whatever would not allow for the proper handling of those elements.

I explained that after Mass, a process is done purifying all the articles, that the linens must be washed in a specific manner and the water can not be sent to the sewer system etc.

So after all this discussion, not certain how they went about doing their service or if they did the drive thru, but the fact we in the Catholic Church handle the Body and Blood much differently than the Lutherans do, would demonstrate to me that they do not believe in the actual transubstantiation.

 

[Gorgias]

So Jesus literally gave Peter the power to tell Him what to do.

No. Jesus literally gave Peter the power to tell the Church and its members what to do.

Then that power was passed down to every Pope from generation to generation?

Yes. Pope Francis’ right to lead the Church proceeds from his role as a successor to the apostles.

and yet the other passage was not just about sin, but about all aspects of the church?

Mt 18, you mean? It was about church governance.

the fact we in the Catholic Church handle the Body and Blood much differently than the Lutherans do, would demonstrate to me that they do not believe in the actual transubstantiation.

Not all Lutherans believe in the same thing. Missouri Synod Lutherans, IIRC, have beliefs that are closer to “Catholic” than the ELCA. (I’m not certain what – if any – doctrinal differences there are between them and the Wisconsin Lutherans).

 

[annad347]

No. Jesus literally gave Peter the power to tell the Church and its members what to do.

I think I understand… then a Pope down the line changed God’s Church to mean The Catholic Church… so if it’s not from The Catholic Church it’s not valid to God, meaning unacceptable to God?

So the Lutheran are not taking in the body and blood of Christ, it’s just bread and wine?

Mt 18, you mean? It was about church governance.

This I dont understand the difference. There are some things that can be done in God’s by other people and somethings that can only be done by the leaders of the Catholic church?