Lutheran belief - Sacramental Union (not Consubstantiation)

[Peter_J]

Sorry ECFs , early church fathers. My iPad tends to put all abbreviations in caps.

Yes I thought so … well, a few minutes after I posted.

Anyhow, it seems clear to me that there’s no significant difference between us on that point. And you know what that means: time for all Lutherans to join Catholicism.

 

[Stilldreamn]

Yes I thought so … well, a few minutes after I posted.

Anyhow, it seems clear to me that there’s no significant difference between us on that point. And you know what that means: time for all Lutherans to join Catholicism.

We would be an asset to your congregational singing, for sure. It’s what we do.

Along with superior hotdish making.

Oh, and look for us to whine about bringing back receiving the Eucharist kneeling.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Indeed, this was a major point of contention in Augsburg in 1530. The Lutheran delegation refused to parade around or even bow down towards the procession. Emperor Charles took it as a major act of sedition.

House Harkonnen

FYI
I understand that you are a Lutheran convert and that your Synod is Wisconsin. That may explain your resistance to the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament. Here are two photos of tabernacles in LCMS parishes [a synod closely aligned to the WELC]. The first is the Village Church across from Concordia College - Bronxville, the parish church for the college. When a student a long time ago, the tabernacle was behind the altar on a raised retable. Years later the tabernacle was moved to a side altar, per the common practice. The other photo is a parish in the nearby Bronx; the tabernacle is still behind the altar. When the clergy approach the tabernacle they genuflect or bow deeply. When the ciborium is moved outside the chancel, such as on Maundy Thursday a procession into the nave can be done so all can reverence the Body of Christ.

Can you expand on the Augsburg 1530 citation?

 

[steido01]

House Harkonnen

FYI
I understand that you are a Lutheran convert and that your Synod is Wisconsin. That may explain your resistance to the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament. Here are two photos of tabernacles in LCMS parishes [a synod closely aligned to the WELC]. The first is the Village Church across from Concordia College - Bronxville, the parish church for the college. When a student a long time ago, the tabernacle was behind the altar on a raised retable. Years later the tabernacle was moved to a side altar, per the common practice. The other photo is a parish in the nearby Bronx; the tabernacle is still behind the altar. When the clergy approach the tabernacle they genuflect or bow deeply. When the ciborium is moved outside the chancel, such as on Maundy Thursday a procession into the nave can be done so all can reverence the Body of Christ.

Can you expand on the Augsburg 1530 citation?

Hi EC and House,

I just wanted to clear something up. Regarding the 1530 Protest, the Lutherans refused to participate in the Corpus Christi procession because the local rite required submitting to the papal legate, Cardinal Campeggio - the refusal had nothing to do with any opposition to Eucharistic Adoration, so far as I know.

That said, I think we should keep in mind that the Lutheran understanding of how best to observe the Sacrament (and Christ’s command to “take, eat!”) is a little more nuanced than it is being presented by the two of you. Yes, Lutherans can reserve the unconsumed Sacrament against the next communion (separately from unconsecrated elements, of course!) - it may be within our Christian freedom to do so. But Christ’s command was to “take, eat,” not to “take, eat and save some of Me for later.” Without clear command from Christ about what to do with what remains, all we can do is be reverent toward the Body and Blood. I’ve written a few posts on this before: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11579483&postcount=3

Beautiful churches, by the way.

 

[JonNC]

Hi EC and House,

I just wanted to clear something up. Regarding the 1530 Protest, the Lutherans refused to participate in the Corpus Christi procession because the local rite required submitting to the papal legate, Cardinal Campeggio - the refusal had nothing to do with any opposition to Eucharistic Adoration, so far as I know.

That said, I think we should keep in mind that the Lutheran understanding of how best to observe the Sacrament (and Christ’s command to “take, eat!”) is a little more nuanced than it is being presented by the two of you. Yes, Lutherans can reserve the unconsumed Sacrament against the next communion (separately from unconsecrated elements, of course!) - it may be within our Christian freedom to do so. But Christ’s command was to “take, eat,” not to “take, eat and save some of Me for later.” Without clear command from Christ about what to do with what remains, all we can do is be reverent toward the Body and Blood. I’ve written a few posts on this before: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11579483&postcount=3

Beautiful churches, by the way.

Thanks for this, Don.

From the LCMS Altar Guild guide:

“If any of the Lord’s body and blood remains, they can be disposed of in a number of ways. The best way is to consumer the remaining elements, since the Lord said, “Take and eat … Take and drink,” and did not provide for anything that was left over. There is historic precedent for reserving the remaining elements against the next communion. The hosts can be stored in a pyx or ciborium (apart from unconsecrated hosts), the blood of the Lord in a suitable cruet or flagon (apart from unconsecrated wine). What remains in the chalice, however, should either be consumer or poured into the piscine or onto the ground, since there may be crumbs or other foreign matter in it. The reserved elements may then be kept in the sacristy or placed on the altar or credence and covered with a white veil. It is un-Lutheran and irreverent to place unused elements in the trash or to pour the remainder of what is in the chalice or flagon into the common drain. “

Notice, first, the guide refers to the reliquae as His body and blood.
Secondly, the reserved elements may be placed on the altar.

Jon

 

[House_Harkonnen]

House Harkonnen

FYI
I understand that you are a Lutheran convert and that your Synod is Wisconsin. That may explain your resistance to the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament. Here are two photos of tabernacles in LCMS parishes [a synod closely aligned to the WELC]. The first is the Village Church across from Concordia College - Bronxville, the parish church for the college. When a student a long time ago, the tabernacle was behind the altar on a raised retable. Years later the tabernacle was moved to a side altar, per the common practice. The other photo is a parish in the nearby Bronx; the tabernacle is still behind the altar. When the clergy approach the tabernacle they genuflect or bow deeply. When the ciborium is moved outside the chancel, such as on Maundy Thursday a procession into the nave can be done so all can reverence the Body of Christ.

Can you expand on the Augsburg 1530 citation?

I am not as concerned with having a tabernacle in a church.

I don’t believe that the real presence persists outside of the use of the sacrament which is to take and eat. Therefore no Eucharistic parades are necessary, or supported in scripture.

I am open to correction on the issue. Also, I know that Lutherans come down on either side of this issue, so its not like I am going to nail theses to a door or anything.

 

[steido01]

I am not as concerned with having a tabernacle in a church.

I don’t believe that the real presence persists outside of the use of the sacrament which is to take and eat. Therefore no Eucharistic parades are necessary, or supported in scripture.

I am open to correction on the issue. Also, I know that Lutherans come down on either side of this issue, so its not like I am going to nail theses to a door or anything.

Two questions worthy of reflection for all Lutherans:

1. If Christ’s Presence departs from the sacrament outside of sacramental use (a view neither implied nor denied in scripture), then shouldn’t we still deal reverently with where He was?
   1b. Does this view bring us too close to the error of Receptionism?
2. Does the ‘sacramental use’ end when all have communed? When the Divine Service ends? When the Body and Blood are entirely consumed - even if at a later time? Or is Christ’s presence simply a fleeting union that comes and goes?

Just food for thought. I, personally, hold the opinion that we should simply avoid the question altogether by following Christ’s simple command; “take and eat.”

 

[pablope]

I am not as concerned with having a tabernacle in a church.

I don’t believe that the real presence persists outside of the use of the sacrament which is to take and eat. Therefore no Eucharistic parades are necessary, or supported in scripture.

I am open to correction on the issue. Also, I know that Lutherans come down on either side of this issue, so its not like I am going to nail theses to a door or anything.

If Scripture is vague, should you not then look to the Church for guidance? Is this not what the Bible said…take it to the Church?

Do you believe that the HS guides the Church?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I am not as concerned with having a tabernacle in a church.

I don’t believe that the real presence persists outside of the use of the sacrament which is to take and eat. Therefore no Eucharistic parades are necessary, or supported in scripture.

I am open to correction on the issue. Also, I know that Lutherans come down on either side of this issue, so its not like I am going to nail theses to a door or anything.

Appreciate your response and understand that Lutherans place the eucharistic emphasis on the actual act of receiving holy Communion. That position is supported theologically by the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue [considered a contempory catholic confessional statement, by the way].

** . . . it would be good “for Catholics to remember, particularly in catechism and preaching, that the original intention in preserving the eucharistic gifts was to distribute them to the sick and those not present”, and for the Lutherans “the best means should be adopted of showing respect due to the elements that have served for the celebration of the Eucharist, which is to consume them subsequently, without precluding their use for communion of the sick”.39 Regarding eucharistic adoration, Catholics should take care that their practice does not contradict the common conviction of the meal character of the Eucharist. They should also be aware of the fact that in the Orthodox Churches, for example, there exist other forms of Eucharistic piety without Eucharistic faith being questioned for this reason. Lutherans for their part should consider “that adoration of the reserved sacrament” not only “has been very much a part of Catholic life and a meaningful form of devotion to Catholics for many centuries”,40 but that also for them "as long as Christ remains sacramentally present, worship, reverence and adoration are appropriate.

Differences related to the duration of the eucharistic presence appear also in liturgical practice. Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess that the eucharistic presence of the Lord Jesus Christ is directed towards believing reception, that it nevertheless is not confined only to the moment of reception, and that it does not depend on the faith of the receiver however closely related to this it might be.
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html**

Lutherans and Catholics confess the Real Presence in a way that no other Protestants define. In their focus on the liturgy, Anglicans worship the Real Presence.

More from : The Eucharist: Lutheran/Roman Catholic Joint Commission [1970]

The eucharistic presence is connected with all these models of presence and is, at the same time, of a special character. “Christ is present and active, in various ways, in the entire eucharistic celebration. It is the same Lord who through the proclaimed word invites his people to his table, who through his minister presides at that table, and who gives himself sacramentally in the Body and Blood of his paschal sacrifice”.9
In the sacrament of the Lord’s supper Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is present wholly and entirely, in his body and blood, under the signs of bread and wine.

“Through the centuries Christians have attempted various formulations to describe this presence. Our confessional documents have in common affirmed that Jesus Christ is �really’, �truly’ and �substantially’ present in this sacrament. This manner of presence �we can scarcely express in words’, but we affirm his presence because we believe in the power of God and the promise of Jesus Christ, �This is my body … This is my blood…’. Our traditions have spoken of this presence as �sacramental’, �supernatural’ and �spiritual’. These terms have different connotations in the two traditions, but they have in common a rejection of a spatial or natural manner of presence, and a rejection of an understanding of the sacrament as only commemorative or figurative”.10
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

 

[GKC]

What defines a “contemporary catholic confessional statement”? And who declares something to be such?

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

What defines a “contemporary catholic confessional statement”. And who declares something to be such?

GKC

Oops contemporary

There are many on the Holy See website: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/lutheran-fed-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html

I am now studying the Provoo Common Statement, ‘Together in Mission and Ministry’ of full communion between Anglicans and Lutherans and will share info soon. It upholds the Catholic faith.

The Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue is quite specific and thorough in affirming the Catholic faith as a statement of consensus leading to, at least, eucharistic hospitality. There is nothing new regarding Church teaching but it is articulated in contemporary time.

 

[GKC]

Oops contemporary

There are many on the Holy See website: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/lutheran-fed-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html

I am now studying the Provoo Common Statement, ‘Together in Mission and Ministry’ of full communion between Anglicans and Lutherans and will share info soon. It upholds the Catholic faith.

The Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue is quite specific and thorough in affirming the Catholic faith as a statement of consensus leading to, at least, eucharistic hospitality. There is nothing new regarding Church teaching but it is articulated in contemporary time.

So the RCC declares those to be “contemporary catholic confessional statements”? Officially where do they declare that? What do they mean by that? And why a small “c”?

And what does the RCC mean by “eucharistic hospitality”? And where do they state it?

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

So the RCC declares those to be “contemporary catholic confessional statements”? Officially where do they declare that? What do they mean by that? And why a small “c”?

And what does the RCC mean by “eucharistic hospitality”? And where do they state it?

GKC

I put the small ‘c’ by mistake.

GKC

I must attend to some duties; perhaps I can provide citations later. A read of the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue will answer your specific questions. I have quoted the documents extensively in different threads.

 

[GKC]

I put the small ‘c’ by mistake.

GKC

I must attend to some duties; perhaps I can provide citations later. A read of the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue will answer your specific questions. I have quoted the documents extensively in different threads.

No, the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue doesn’t my specific questions. Which all hark back to the first points I made to you about the magisterium, and what is and is not encompassed in it, back when I first saw you asserting that you were about to be able (and other Lutherans, too) receive the Eucharist in RC settings, and that doubtless right soon, based on the mutual truths agreed to in the dialogues. But I await your specific citations, and answers to the specific questions.

As to a small “c”, yeah, stuff like that happens.

GKC

 

[House_Harkonnen]

If Scripture is vague, should you not then look to the Church for guidance? Is this not what the Bible said…take it to the Church?

Do you believe that the HS guides the Church?

I do. I follow the instructions of the church on this issue.

 

[MaryT777]

I do. I follow the instructions of the church on this issue.

I just wanted to let you know you are a real asset to the board. I have always appreciated the Lutheran POV and it’s good to have a WELS poster as well.

Blessings,
Mary.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

No, the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue doesn’t my specific questions. Which all hark back to the first points I made to you about the magisterium, and what is and is not encompassed in it, back when I first saw you asserting that you were about to be able (and other Lutherans, too) receive the Eucharist in RC settings, and that doubtless right soon, based on the mutual truths agreed to in the dialogues. But I await your specific citations, and answers to the specific questions.

As to a small “c”, yeah, stuff like that happens.

GKC

One source that may be helpful is the book “A Lutheran – Roman Catholic Initiative
in the United States Dialogues” by John George Huber, a LCMS pastor. I have ordered this book since it summarizes the Dialogues.

Some of these quotes come directly from the Dialogue or summarized in Huber’s commentary. The issue of the magisterium is partly alluded to but I will find direct quotes from the Dialogue/ ‘From Conflict to Communion’.

Scripture and tradition
209. Today, the role and significance of the Holy Scripture and tradition are
therefore understood differently in the Roman Catholic Church than
they were by Luther’s theological opponents. Regarding the question
of the authentic interpretation of Scripture, Catholics have explained,
»When Catholic doctrine holds that the ›judgment of the church‹ has a
role in authentic interpretation of Scripture, it does not attribute to the
church’s magisterium a monopoly over interpretation, which adherents
of the Reformation rightly fear and reject. Before the Reformation, major
figures had indicated the ecclesial plurality of interpreters . … When
Vatican II speaks of the church having an ›ultimate judgment‹ (DV 12)
it clearly eschews a monopolistic claim that the magisterium is the sole
organ of interpretation, which is confirmed both by the century-old
official promotion of Catholic biblical studies and the recognition in
DV 12 of the role of exegesis in the maturing of magisterial teaching«
(ApC 407).
210. Thus, Lutherans and Catholics are able jointly to conclude, »Therefore
regarding Scripture and tradition, Lutherans and Catholics are in such
an extensive agreement that their different emphases do not of them-
76 Chapter IV
selves require maintaining the present division of the churches. In this
area, there is unity in reconciled diversity« (ApC 448).82
lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/From%20Conflict%20to%20Communion.pdf

Building on these and other insights, the Roman Catholic participants
offer additional affirmations as part of their concluding
statement in bold-face type. They acknowledge in the “spirit of the
Second Vatican Council that the Evangelical-Lutheran communities
with which we have been in dialogue are truly Christian churches,
possessing the elements of holiness and truth that mark them as organs
of grace and salvation”. Furthermore, they report having found
“serious defects in the arguments customarily used against the validity
of the Eucharistic ministry of the Evangelical-Lutheran churches”,
and add that they “see no persuasive reason to deny the possibility of
the Roman Catholic Church recognising the validity of this ministry”.
The Roman Catholic dialogue group then appeals to the authorities
of their church to “recognise the validity of the Evangelical-Lutheran
ministry and, correspondingly, the presence of the body and blood
of Jesus Christ in the Eucharistic celebrations of the Evangelical-Lutheran
churches”.49
koed.hu/vocation/johngeorge.pdf

The Evangelical-Lutherans propose a “ministry serving the unity
of the Church universal”; a primacy which would be “more pastoral
than juridical”; “so structured …] that it clearly serves the Gospel
and the unity of the Church of Jesus Christ”; the “possibility of reconciliation,
which would recognise the self-government of Evangelical-
Lutheran churches within a communion”; “acknowledge the Evangelical-
Lutheran churches …] as sister churches, which are already
entitled to some measure of ecclesiastical communion”; “affirm a
new attitude towards the papacy ‘for the sake of peace and concordin the Church’ and …] for a united witness to Jesus Christ in the
world”; a “renewed papacy would in fact foster faithfulness to the
Gospel and truly exercise a Petrine function within the Church”.78

There is a realisation that Evangelical-
Lutherans will “presumably not be in a position to adopt the same
relationship to the see of Rome that is currently held by Roman
Catholics”. But they suggest that a “distinct canonical status may be
worked out by which Evangelical-Lutherans could be in official communion
with the church of Rome. Such a restoration of communion,
we believe, would be of great benefit to Roman Catholics, and
to Evangelical-Lutherans, enabling them both to share in a broader
Christian heritage.”79

 

[GKC]

One source that may be helpful is the book “A Lutheran – Roman Catholic Initiative
in the United States Dialogues” by John George Huber, a LCMS pastor. I have ordered this book since it summarizes the Dialogues.

Some of these quotes come directly from the Dialogue or summarized in Huber’s commentary. The issue of the magisterium is partly alluded to but I will find direct quotes from the Dialogue/ ‘From Conflict to Communion’.

What you will need to find is not a reference to the magisterium, but a reference in the magisterium. Which the Dialogue is not. A reference specifying that intercommunion with (for example) Lutherans)is permissible, by the definitive teaching of the RCC.

Also, there are those other questions I am curious about, back up there.

GKC

 

[steido01]

:hypno:

:banghead:

 

[EvangelCatholic]

What you will need to find is not a reference to the magisterium, but a reference in the magisterium. Which the Dialogue is not. A reference specifying that intercommunion with (for example) Lutherans)is permissible, by the definitive teaching of the RCC.

Also, there are those other questions I am curious about, back up there.

GKC

Can you cite a Magisterium decision related to Lutherans that hasn’t been eliminated since the Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification? Otherwise, I am confused.