Help settle argument-valid transubstantiation in other churches

[JonNC]

I’m guessing @JonNC is the resident Lutheran expert?

No where near an expert. I know what I’ve been taught, and I have a good grasp of what the Confessions say.

 

[JonNC]

Catholics believe the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ but the bread and wine remains.
Lutherans believe the body and blood of Christ is present in the Eucharist, but the bread and wine remains.

bread and wine becomes Jesus Christ – Jesus Christ is present in bread and wine. I don’t know that seems like a minute difference to me.

Apparently more of a difference with apologists than with theologians.

Eucharistic Presence

1. Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist.
   There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.
2. in order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that “Christ whole and entire”34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.
   35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an
   attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.
3. The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine—but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not
   do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.
4. The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept
   of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs 37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”)

Highlight is mine.

 

[Gorgias]

did you really if Jesus Christ and His Word the foundation of your Church?

That sounds like ‘code’ for “I believe in the Bible”, which really means “I believe in my interpretation of the Bible.” One could easily say that and then hold to the assertion that he never left the church. And yet, since the Church is an institution founded by Christ, the only way to hold to that stance is to suggest that the Catholic Church was the one who “left the church.” (And, in fact, many Reformation communities take exactly that move, in order to justify their existence as ‘church’.)

And yet, that is problematic. If Jesus made particular promises to Peter – and He did! – and those promises included a grant of authority by proxy (which he exercised in creating apostolic succession, as seen in Scripture), as well as a promise that “the gates of hell will not prevail” against the Church He founded… then how might we reason our way to the conclusion that “it was the Catholic Church who ‘left the church’”? After all, that would make Christ’s promise naive at best and provably false at worst!

So, it seems, it’s not reasonable to make the claims the Reformers make and still have those hold up to scrutiny. At best, we do what JonNC suggest – we continue to talk. In the meantime, you’ve got two groups, both of whom claim to be “church”, but by virtue of different ways of understanding what that means. It’s a real quagmire, eh?

 

[Gorgias]

Should we accept what those in authority say or do as gospel, even if what they say or do goes against Gospel?

That’s a straw man argument: the Catholic Church doesn’t teach things that “go against the Gospel.” They certainly teach things that individual non-Catholics assert to go against the Gospel, but that’s another thing entirely. (Not to mention that it begs the very question of authority!)

As Christians isn’t it important for us to keep the moral integratory of the Church, to keep it true to the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

By whose authority are we saying that the Catholic Church isn’t doing exactly that?

Another similarity, though one I don’t believe either would be to proud to brag about. Which just creates another question about divine authority.

Infallibility only covers statements of doctrine, not prudential judgement. Everyone can (and does!) get the latter ones wrong, to a greater or lesser extent! The fact that this happens, doesn’t weaken the case for “divinely-granted authority”.

All I said is that Lutherans believe in the Eucharist the same as Catholics. You said they don’t based on what’s written in Catechism of the Catholic Church, not the Bible.

How would you know what belongs in the Bible, if the Catholic Church hadn’t created the canon of the Bible? Therefore, the Bible proceeds from the apostolic teaching of the Church… not the other way around.

Apparently more of a difference with apologists than with theologians.

To be fair, you then quote a document which discusses theology, not apologetics.

The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation.

Right. The positions remain in opposition, of course. The hope is that there can be found sufficient common ground to allow for the separation to cease.

 

[GKMotley]

And, find the right Anglicans, and the Eucharist is a representation of the One Sacrifice. Thus, propitiatory.

 

[JonNC]

To be fair, you then quote a document which discusses theology , not apologetics .

Exactly. I find the theologians to be remarkably ahead of apologists of all sides.

Right. The positions remain in opposition, of course. The hope is that there can be found sufficient common ground to allow for the separation to cease.

That’s not the way I read it. I read it as a recommendation that they not be considered in opposition, that these theologians have already found sufficient ground. And that’s a two way street. Lutherans would need to drop strident condemnation of the language of transubstantiation.

 

[joecaro]

The point is . . .this responds directly to you inquiry

 

[JonNC]

Lutherans may profess their belief that they are the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, and from their perspective I’m sure they believe that they are.

Lutherans do not believe they are the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Lutherans believe they are a continuation of said Church, a tradition within it. This one Holy Church is the congregation of believers gathered around word and sacrament.

 

[annad347]

So, it seems, it’s not reasonable to make the claims the Reformers make and still have those hold up to scrutiny. At best, we do what JonNC suggest – we continue to talk. In the meantime, you’ve got two groups, both of whom claim to be “church”, but by virtue of different ways of understanding what that means. It’s a real quagmire, eh?

Exactly the need to talk is essential… but it’s a real quagmire…soft squishy land that sinks when stepped upon, quick sand? Why is not something that needs to continue to be built on the solid foundation of Jesus Christ, a blessing, hope, something good and solid for all of us?

And while you’re at it, please explain a straw man argument… what I said has nothing to do with what we are discussing?

 

[joecaro]

Most ALL Christian church denominations believe (wrongly) that their Holy Communion represents actual transubstantiation. You must understand that, other than the Catholic church founded by Jesus Christ himself, all others were man made. These true church spin-offs want you to believe they maintain most all of the sacraments of the Catholic parent church, but they don’t. If they offer a bread and wine communion, it can only be SYMBOLIC and not an actual transubstantiation of the body and blood of Christ. If Christians wish to bring Jesus into their being with Holy Communion, they will have to return to the Catholic church where it is found, and in none other. Analogy - there are many imitations of Rolex watches of which their owners believe are real and authentic. Only those made by Rolex will be honored by Rolex. The various Christian variations of the Catholic church are also man-made and structured imitations of the church that Jesus Christ founded. The facts are the facts - whether you agree with them or not. You can’t get your Rolex repaired at the Rolex factory, unless it actually came from there. You can’t actually receive Jesus by Holy Communion unless you are a member of His own flock, and not that of another well meaning shepherd.

 

[GKMotley]

For any who accept your basic premise (and basically, all RCs should, at the appropriate level of theological certainty), it would possibly appear that you’re shorting those Churches not in communion with the RCC (as I read this), whose orders and sacraments the RCC does accept as valid (without considering the issues of validity/liceity).

For those Churches who do not accept the basic premise, as to validity of orders, etc, this line of assertions is less effective. Though you should, as said, maintain and affirm it.

 

[joecaro]

Thank you for your thoughtful considerations. Many of your theological points are valid in today’s RC church which has changed considerably since Vatican II. Yes, there is much confusion among the laity and liberal RC church teachers as what the RC church is today. I believe my observations are directed at what the RC church was for 2,000 years. If off-shoots of the RC church (including Lutherans- which has become very liberal in so many ways) continue to state commonality with the RC church they are deceiving their parishioners. AFTER Vatican II several RC church leaders have attempted a joining of separatist Christian churches. This is and was not a good thing.
The RC church has a basic logic that kept it whole over all these years; She is the Universal church formed by Jesus and continued by the Apostles and continue to faithfully ascribe to its fundamental teachings taught by Jesus. Martin Luther, is one of many that “protested” RC church beliefs and many “Protested” the changes that he ascribed to -and struck-out with their own “man-made” variations.
As Jesus Christ is the “WORD” OF God, anything less is false, no matter the level of “goodness” of intentions - it is not the Word of God through Jesus Christ, now is it? It may be gold but still not a Rolex, therefore not authentic.

 

[GKMotley]

I was primarily referring to the Churches that, before Vat II had raised its head, the RCC had recognized and still does recognize as possessing valid sacramental orders/sacraments, though not in communion with the Holy See. The issue is where the orders are valid, as well as the other requisite sacramental factors, for valid confection.

Folks differ on these things. But the RCC has not just post Vat II decided that other Churches possess valid sacraments, even though not in communion with Rome.

What Rome teaches on this, all faithful RCs should affirm, at the appropriate level of theological certainty. This is a basic definition of a faithful RC.

Other folks may have different views on the matter (or the intent, or the form).

 

[Gorgias]

Why is not something that needs to continue to be built on the solid foundation of Jesus Christ, a blessing, hope, something good and solid for all of us?

Because we disagree on what that “solid foundation” is. Or, at least, how to interpret the “solid foundation”. That’s the “quicksand” – or, perhaps, the illusion of quicksand.

And while you’re at it, please explain a straw man argument… what I said has nothing to do with what we are discussing?

No, that would be a “red herring”. A straw man is an argument that doesn’t really address the issues at hand, but rather, sets up another argument that’s easy to knock down.

You’ve made the assertion that “those in authority” (i.e., the Catholic Church) does things that go against the Gospel. That’s problematic on two counts:

• first, you’d have to demonstrate that the Catholic Church’s actions are unscriptural, as a Church, and not just as individuals taking individual actions. You’d then have to demonstrate that other denominations never take those actions, for your argument to hold up. (After all, if they, too, do mess up, then the question becomes “is it ok to leave the Church and form a new body, if your leaders are sinners?” 'Cause… we’re all sinners. )
• second, to leave the Church, you’d have to show that the Church taught unscriptural teachings. That would make Jesus’ grant of authority null and/or His promise of protection “against the gates of hell” a lie.

So, you’re raising arguments that do not rise to the level of justification for leaving a Church. That’s why it’s a “straw man” that you then knock down.

 

[annad347]

Because we disagree on what that “solid foundation” is. Or, at least, how to interpret the “solid foundation”. That’s the “quicksand” – or, perhaps, the illusion of quicksand.

We don’t agree the solid foundation of the Church is Jesus Christ?

first, you’d have to demonstrate that the Catholic Church’s actions are unscriptural, as a Church , and not just as individuals taking individual actions . You’d then have to demonstrate that other denominations never take those actions , for your argument to hold up.

Again I never said one denomination was better than the other and they all have issues… but when it comes to “divine authority” how can one church have it over the another church if at one point the person in leadership should never have been in the position that holds the “divine authority” that was given to the leader of the church… BUT you are correct, I am not an expert and it is a topic for another thread.

The only reason I asked the questioned here is because you stated that valid transubstantiation can only be valid in the Catholic church because of “divine authority”.

second, to leave the Church, you’d have to show that the Church taught unscriptural teachings. That would make Jesus’ grant of authority null and/or His promise of protection “against the gates of hell” a lie.

I didn’t say the Church… I asked about the Catholic Church. To me, they are not one in the same, to you they are… BUT again, I’m not an expert on the subject, all I can do is ask more questions on the subject and it is off topic for this thread.

 

[Gorgias]

We don’t agree the solid foundation of the Church is Jesus Christ?

We do… but we mean different things.

That’s what gets us into quicksand.

how can one church have it over the another church if at one point the person in leadership should never have received the position that holds the “divine authority” that was given to the leader of the church

Umm… pardon? What does “the person in leadership should never have received that position” mean? And, how can you substantiate that assertion, let alone think it’s provably true? At best, you might be able to say, “I never liked that guy”, but that doesn’t mean that he “should never have” become the leader!

The only reason I asked the questioned here is because you stated that valid transubstantiation can only be valid in the Catholic church because of “divine authority”.

Yep. And I still hold to it. (As does the Catholic Church. Which is the Church founded on apostolic and Petrine authority, by Jesus.)

 

[annad347]

annad347:

We don’t agree the solid foundation of the Church is Jesus Christ?

We do… but we mean different things.

That’s what gets us into quicksand.

that sounds like a new thread.

Umm… pardon? What does “the person in leadership should never have received that position” mean? And, how can you substantiate that assertion, let alone think it’s provably true? At best, you might be able to say, “I never liked that guy”, but that doesn’t mean that he “should never have” become the leader!

Only from what I learned in my Catholic Bible study class… it just seem some people who were in charge of the church should not have been there, based on their history… but the Catholic church excuses that fact with there is sin in the church, there will always be sin in the church, that doesn’t change the the one with authority in the church… IMO, I think it does, or rather should. and if I’m banned for my opinion so be it.

but I never said the Catholic church was wrong and another church was right, I just say any church where Jesus Christ is the foundation and head of the Church is the Church founded on the back of Peter… but alas its just my opinion.

 

[Gorgias]

it just seem some people who were in charge of the church should not have been there, based on their history… but the Catholic church excuses that fact with there is sin in the church, there will always be sin in the church,

Two thoughts: is this “it shouldn’t have been that way” something that could have been foreseen and prevented, or is it hindsight? Also, is it not a fact that we are all sinners? If so, then is it incorrect that “there are sinners in the church and there will always be sinners in the church”?

that doesn’t change the the one with authority in the church… IMO, I think it does, or rather should

The Puritans tried that once – the whole “sinners can not be in a position of authority!!!” thing. Didn’t turn out too well. All you ended up with was lots of finger-pointing and everyone throwing everyone else out of office. I mean, it’s a nice idea… but given our flawed nature, it’s unrealistic.

I just say any church where Jesus Christ is the foundation and head of the Church is the Church founded on the back of Peter

…including the ones who turned their back on Peter???

 

[Dovekin]

Dovekin:

Also, “the lack of valid orders” is a Catholic belief.

It’s a fact, solemnly declared by the Roman Pontiff. It is not up for debate

It is not a belief among Anglicans or Lutherans. It certainly can and should be debated in conversations with them, since it is an important Aspect of their belief. In fact, when he Pope meets with the Abp of Canterbury, or any RC bishop celebrates with any Anglican bishop, they all dress as bishops. If we do not discuss the differences in our beliefs, big problems come up.

Is it a fact? The most I can say is that you and I believe it is a fact. Others do not share that belief.

 

[GKMotley]

All faithful RCs should affirm all teachings of the RCC, at the appropriate level of theological certainty.

Anglicans/Lutherans need not do so, and thus may question such teachings.

What Anglicans/Lutherans cannot deny is that all RCs should affirm, etc, as stated. And that the RCC made a definitive statement with respect to Anglican orders. Which would be one of those teachings that all faithful RCs should affirm, as noted.