Lutheran Communion

[jimkhong]

Hi Jon,

Yes, Christ’s true and substantial body and blood are present in a Lutheran Eucharist.

Grace was asking for the Catholic view. And the Catholic view is that Lutherans do not have valid orders and therefore do not have a valid eucharist. Should you not have written that you are a Lutheran and that you are expressing the Lutheran point of view?

Verbum

Execellent points from Jon and Grace. I have always found Jon’s views to be well balanced and his understanding of Catholic positions in many areas could well exceed mine.

Verbum’s answer is technically correct and usually satisfy Catholic inqueries in this matter. There was a time when lay-people’s role in the Church is to accept the formulation in Canon Law/etc and not query them. And saying that Protestant orders are not valid usually terminates that line of inquiry as for most lay Catholics, anything stemming from something invalid would be invalid. And, that confirms their understanding that all Protestant actions are invalid. But Grace is not Catholic - not yet, anyway.

The theological position is of course more nuanced than that. If the validity of Lutheran orders trumped anything else, then all doctrinal discussions will have to deal with that issue before anything else: there is no point talking about Lutheran sacraments if you don’t sort out the validity of the orders which performs those sacraments. The reality is that the discussions ddi not proceed like that.

(Jon can correct me here). Lutherans do accept the Real Presence but did attempt to differentiate their position from the Catholic position. That is how we ended up with concepts like consubstantiation as opposed to the Catholic transubstantiation. Consubstantiation is not part of the Lutheran theology today and I am not exactly sure why. I am sure there are some theological technical reason but as I understand it today, Lutherans prefer to leave it as a more mystical understand that is moved by faith (I am not sure if I have worded it correctly but most Catholics would just simply call it vague).

I am not suggesting that there is no difference between Catholic and Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence. I am just not sure if there is sufficient common language for us, non-theologians, to differentiate them without using polemics.

Reasons for the difference
This is similar to the Orthodox position (Lutherans did have theological exchanges with Orthodox early in their history but the Orthodox concluded there wasn’t sufficient commonality of doctrines to mutualy recognise orders & sacraments - I would like to think that this had an influence on Lutheran thinking).

One way Western Catholicism differs from Eastern Orthodoxy is that Western Catholicism tends (note the word: there will always be exceptions and there are no absolutes here) to be juridical in these types of matters - meaning that doctrines are defined to answer every question, every situation and every exception. So, Western Catholicism has a unitary body of doctrines which everyone can use irrespective of their culture and situation but it does get very complicated & can be legalistic in language.

Eastern Orthodoxy (and I understand Lutheran thinking on the Real Presence) have a very simple statement of faith and leaves it to the Holy Spirit to inform the individual Christian based on his/her culture, understanding and situation. From Western Catholic perspective, this is frustratingly vague and open to misinterpretation & abuse.

In short, at the risk of oversimplification: to understand Catholic concepts of Real Presence, you need to read Catholic catechism. To understand Lutheran (and Orthodox) concepts of Real Presence, you need faith.

 

[poche]

Don’t make a profession of faith in something you do not believe in.

 

[JonNC]

=jimkhong;11600912]Execellent points from Jon and Grace. I have always found Jon’s views to be well balanced and his understanding of Catholic positions in many areas could well exceed mine.

You are very kind.

Verbum’s answer is technically correct and usually satisfy Catholic inqueries in this matter. There was a time when lay-people’s role in the Church is to accept the formulation in Canon Law/etc and not query them. ** And saying that Protestant orders are not valid usually terminates that line of inquiry **as for most lay Catholics, anything stemming from something invalid would be invalid. And, that confirms their understanding that all Protestant actions are invalid. But Grace is not Catholic - not yet, anyway.

If one understands that a Catholic must make this assertion, one can then accept the assertion without offense…and disagree with it in the same way.

The theological position is of course more nuanced than that. If the validity of Lutheran orders trumped anything else, then all doctrinal discussions will have to deal with that issue before anything else: there is no point talking about Lutheran sacraments if you don’t sort out the validity of the orders which performs those sacraments. The reality is that the discussions ddi not proceed like that.

I think it is one of the issues that our leaders must work out, and, based on how our confessions state a preference for apostolic succession, will work out.

(Jon can correct me here). Lutherans do accept the Real Presence but did attempt to differentiate their position from the Catholic position. That is how we ended up with concepts like consubstantiation as opposed to the Catholic transubstantiation. Consubstantiation is not part of the Lutheran theology today and I am not exactly sure why. I am sure there are some theological technical reason but as I understand it today, Lutherans prefer to leave it as a more mystical understand that is moved by faith (I am not sure if I have worded it correctly but most Catholics would just simply call it vague).

Consubstantiation never was a part of Lutheran theology. The Lutheran Reformers tended to reject any philosophical, metaphysical expression of the real presence. While
Luther spoke of Sacramental Union, it isn’t intended to convey anything other than Christ’s affirmative and literal statement, “this is my body”. Hence, that is what we believe.

I am not suggesting that there is no difference between Catholic and Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence. I am just not sure if there is sufficient common language for us, non-theologians, to differentiate them without using polemics.

I think there is less disagreement on the topic among our theologians than apologists on either side prefer to acknowledge, as there is too much fun to be had in the argument.
From the linked Lutheran/Catholic dialogue statement:

Reasons for the difference
This is similar to the Orthodox position (Lutherans did have theological exchanges with Orthodox early in their history but the Orthodox concluded there wasn’t sufficient commonality of doctrines to mutualy recognise orders & sacraments - I would like to think that this had an influence on Lutheran thinking).

48.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.

49.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.

50.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”.

51.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 occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

continued

 

[JonNC]

One way Western Catholicism differs from Eastern Orthodoxy is that Western Catholicism tends (note the word: there will always be exceptions and there are no absolutes here) to be juridical in these types of matters - meaning that doctrines are defined to answer every question, every situation and every exception. So, Western Catholicism has a unitary body of doctrines which everyone can use irrespective of their culture and situation but it does get very complicated & can be legalistic in language.

Eastern Orthodoxy (and I understand Lutheran thinking on the Real Presence) have a very simple statement of faith and leaves it to the Holy Spirit to inform the individual Christian based on his/her culture, understanding and situation. From Western Catholic perspective, this is frustratingly vague and open to misinterpretation & abuse.

In short, at the risk of oversimplification: to understand Catholic concepts of Real Presence, you need to read Catholic catechism. To understand Lutheran (and Orthodox) concepts of Real Presence, you need faith.

And for the Lutheran, read our Confessions.

Thanks for a positive post,
Jon