Lutheran Eucharist

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . 1) As said, the RC Church is the only Church that teaches transubstantiation, that Holy Communion is truly Christ’s Body and Blood, not only the Real Presence. This is the center and focus of the Mass. To accept Holy Communion at another church, with the exception of very limited circumstances, would be wrong for a Catholic, because the other Churches do not teach the same thing about the Eucharist, and this is the very centre of our worship and faith.

veilofveronica,

I hope you are enjoying the forums. CAF is really the best of online Christian forums.

Your statement regarding the “RC Church” being the only Church that teaches transubstantiation is not entirely accurate.

Some High Church Anglicans believe in the Real Presence as defined by transubstantiation, and will actually use the word.

Some Anglicans believe there is no need to apply Aristotelian logic to explain the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist-yet believe during the Divine Liturgy, the bread and wine do become, both Spiritually and in substance, the Body and Blood of Christ, while under the appearance of bread and wine. The Sacrament is presented as the “Body of Christ, the Bread of Heaven” and the “Blood of Christ, the Cup of Salvation.” This is the case in my Church. So, I do actually believe in transubstantiation. It took some time. I had to shake those Baptist roots --not an easy thing to do.

This, of course, disregards the “39 Articles”–but that is nothing new within the Anglican Communion. Many Anglicans have reverted back to Catholic roots, stopping just short of Communion with the Roman Pontiff, though more are headed in that direction.

Our Church has strong roots in Catholic doctrine, and some Orthodox leanings, with just a hint of Protestantism.

Peace,
Anna

 

[mwb85611]

Gabriel of 12:

You just defined “transsubstantiation” from your faith. Many of the early Church Fathers describe the definition of Transsubstantiation without ever using the term, just the definition, just as you have show below.

That’s actually the portion of a definition of eucharist in what we both agree on. That’s not the definition of transubstantiation, but just a part of it. Just like it is just a part of the sacramental union. Transubstantiation is literally a change of essence, of inner reality. Lutherans and Catholics can both agree that there is a change; Catholics and some other organizations, however, believe it to be a total metamorphosis.

St. Augustine was not the only saint that refuted unbelievers in the Eucharist and sacraments. The state of the minister is dealing with the disposition of the validly ordained priest, never invalidates the sacrament confected by an validly ordained priest. In other words Augustine and other saints as well argue, that though a priest be of faulty character, this quality of disposition never invalidates a valid sacrament.

My apologies for only using one example. Anyways, you are correct- St. Augustine and other early church Fathers did argue that faulty character does not affect the validity of a sacrament. Cyprian argued that schismatics did not hold valid sacraments (sacraments as they knew them, and as we know them); Augustine argued that they did. He even conceded that the Donatists held valid baptism- those who were united in the common Christian faith, but were separate from the Catholic church, had valid sacraments. That’s what I’m getting at. I would highly recommend reading “De baptismo contra Donatists” and the earliest of the tractates on the Gospel of John for further reading.

I think what you argue and hold to here, is not what the Catholic Saints are revealing about a minister and sacraments?

It’s both- it’s all interconnected in this current discussion. The whole point of my bringing up the Donatist debate was to point at that as an example in which apostolic line was also broken, but valid sacraments were still to be had in the Donatist church.

Peace be with you as well, friend!

 

[ProVobis]

Need to dissect/parse the Latin:

Consubstantial

con {“with, together”}

• sub {“under, inferior, secondary, less than, in place of, secretly”}
• stantis (past participle of stare {“to stand as, to be”})
• vernacular ending

Transubstantial:

trans {“across, over, beyond, through”}

• sub {“under, inferior, secondary, less than, in place of, secretly”}
• stantis (past participle of stare {“to stand as, to be”})
• vernacular ending

 

[InspiritCarol]

Both Lutherans and Catholics believe fully in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Both also believe that, at some level, there is indeed a “change” of some kind in the bread and wine. Catholics call it “transubstantiation” because they believe that there is indeed a full change of substances, form bread and wine into body and blood. Lutherans call it “sacramental union” because they do not accept Aristotle’s metaphysical theories of substance and accidents, and because transubstantiation is not scripture based.

There are two problems with this:

1. Transubstantiation most certainly is “scripture based”. See (John 6:48-51,53-56,63; Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20). In all three synoptics, Jesus says unambiguously “This is my body”. If he had said “This bread is my body”, or had some sort of qualifier whatsoever, I’d say non-transubstantion holders had a leg to stand on but Jesus, did not, the Gospel writers are precise about this. Further, in John, Jesus said (more than once) “I am the bread of life”); not “I am under or with the bread”.
2. Lutherans are not Sola Scriptura. So even if all four gospels explicitly, unapologetically (remember- Jesus lost a lot of disciples over this John 6:66) spell out transubstantiation; the Church has always been very clear on her views regarding it.

Here is how I have always understood the Lutheran (my own) position: We honestly don’t know how it happens, it just is. It looks like bread and wine, but it is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Have faith.

Sometimes it helps to step outside the emotionally charged contention to look at a different, but hopefully close enough metaphor to make the point. Here I’ll use marriage and conveniently quote a recent article written on the subject:
In marriage, there may only be a 1% difference between a 98% and 99% commitment. But there is a total difference between 99% and 100%. Because it’s not just a difference in level of commitment, but the kind of commitment. It’s an entirely different kind of relationship. That’s one of the things that makes marriage special. It’s not just a contract or a mutually beneficial partnership. It’s an “all in” kind of deal. Either you’re all in for the long haul no matter what, or you’re not. If you’re not, it ain’t marriage.
Just hoping you can make it work until “death do us part”, is not good enough. That’s not a marriage. A real marriage is a covenant. A commitment that goes beyond any promise to “feel” a certain way about somebody for any length of time. It’s a life-long bond we are bound to no matter what.From: fallibleblogma.com/index.php/how-long-is-a-marriage/

The sanctity of marriage is also scripture based: (Matthew 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16. 18)

Now, here we are talking about a relatively minimal difference in definitions: Eucharist IS the real presence vs. Eucharist is the real presence under bread and wine. The Catholic Church has not backed down on the sanctity of marriage: if a Catholic feels compelled to get a divorce, they must get an annulment before re-marrying. How much more important, then is the real presence to us? Vastly.

Aristotelian suppositions may have been some argument an apologist pointed to at some point; but, honestly, whatever physical explanation one may come up with could never be complete. We do not look to Aristotle as a foundation for our faith. You say Lutherans go as far as they do based on faith: 99% of the way. We, Catholics, go all the way: Eucharist IS His body.

(cont.)

 

[InspiritCarol]

In response to the apostolic tradition and to the state of the ministers, I must refer back to St. Augustine, and the debate with the Donatists. In this struggle, it was asserted and accepted that the state of the minister is irrelevant when it comes to presiding in the sacraments. The power does not lie in the minister- it is God. However, Augustine argued that while the sacraments (in this case, baptism) were true sacraments, the recipient would not come into the full grace and understanding of them whilst in schism with the one true Church. That would be an acceptable argument. The other statements, no.

There are two major differences between the Donatists and the Lutherans.

1. The Donatists were not protesting any established church doctrine.
2. In a way it could be argued that the Donatists were more Catholic in that they were the ones that did not back down from imprisonment and martyrdom; let alone betray other Christians. They wanted to set standards for being a member of the Church “higher”, than what ended up being established.

I honestly don’t know what I will do if I am faced with betraying my religion to save my life. I hope I will follow the examples of the Saints, but I have not plumbed the depths of my weakness.

On the other hand; Luther, though a brilliant man, clearly and unrepentantly advocated heresy, and while I think, on one hand, we can appreciate the “wake-up call” he gave to the Church, many of his espoused ideas were then and still are very clearly heresy.

Do you see the difference? The Donatists wanted to add to the Church; Luther very much took away from the church. I wish you knew what you were missing without the Deuterocannon, for example.

And just to compound the issue, Eucharist goes way beyond being the “Body of Christ”. It is acknowledgement of being in Communion with the Catholic Church. When I said earlier Lutherans “just don’t get it”; while I regret my succinct phrasing, I do still believe that that is fact. I would also regretfully apply this to most who profess to being “Catholic”… heck, even I don’t “get it” on the level I would like to.

If you ask about validity via sanctity of person then your answer is: the man is irrelevant. If a fallen priest (i.e. one who has unrepentantly committed grave sin) performed the sacrament of marriage, the marriage is still a valid sacrament. The point is not about the man, but the role he fills. God can and does work outside the rules, but he expects us to abide by them. The role of the Lutheran priest is as one who knowingly stands in open defiance (still) of established Church dogma. The role not only, is *not *filled, it is disdained. To therefore call the product of his hands “sacrament” for a Catholic is asking us to disdain our own priests as well.

That is NOT to say that God is not present in the Lutheran Church. God is greater than the Church. Isn’t it wonderful? And I want to emphasize that I adore our local Lutheran pastor. He gives wonderful sermons and I don’t doubt that he is bringing people to God.

Nonetheless, validity of orders aside; the much greater question must be: are we even talking about the same thing here? While it’s nice to see that some Ecumenical discussions have found hope in the fact that Lutherans perceive true presence in the Eucharist, it still remains that Catholics perceive true presence as the Eucharist and further, communion itself reflects even more than consumption of the Holy Presence, it is acknowledgement that the communicant is in a state of grace (all confessed up) and further is in full compliance with and acceptance of Church dogmas.

If the Catholic Church calls the Lutheran Eucharist a “sacrament”, then where is the line drawn? Even the Mormons and the JWs have “communion”. From a valid Christian perspective, Assembly of God followers believe in the true presence at communion also. I’ve found God to be present in the AOG church. He truly *is *great. But even in that place where He is present and working actively in people’s lives, the Church can and should not say that those places that even openly mock what we are, are somehow still in communion with us. Do you see?

The elephant in the room of a question is: why do you care? Your very question implies that you are concerned about Church authority. I would like to reassure you that Church authority is no big deal, but I can not; both from personal experience and from studying the saints, submitting to authority by means of humble obedience lays a smooth road for obedience to God and so brings us closer to Him. Also, from a Spiritual Warfare perspective, the Church Authority is huge, I’m not exaggerating. Fortunately God is vastly greater even than the Church he founded.

I wish there were words to describe the Eucharist taken as itself and only itself; uncorrupted by artifices and explanations. I can’t even explain it to my toddlers who take (most) everything I say as gospel. That’s what I mean when I say; I wish Lutherans could “get it”. I wish everyone could. BUT … Maybe you do… God *is *that great.

Peace and Blessings.

 

[mwb85611]

InspiritCarol,

It swings both ways. Saying to an audience of Lutherans that you wish we could “get it” is probably not the best way to go about in a dialogue. It is through this that we each attempt to come to a deeper understanding of the other’s position.

Why do I care? I care because I hate the divisions within Christianity. It’s interesting to think of it in this way: the Church IS universal; we are all united in Christ. Let’s start from that standpoint, and not lose sight of it. Now, we are dealing with the little details that have arisen from several thousand of people having a lot of thoughts about what the mystery of God is.

Luther must first be appreciated as a theologian. In this category, one must include Erasmus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Origen, Ambrose, Paul, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Rahner, Julian of Norwich, Nestorius, Pelagius, and so on, and so forth. A theologian can be right or wrong. Lutherans who see Luther as a man who “set everything right once and for all” know nothing about Luther. At the same time, Catholics who dismiss him as a heretic (no matter how brilliant) fail to see the theological insights he actually had. There is truth to be found in everything, even in a lie. A true scholar just has to find it. Luther’s explanation of grace would do you much good in some areas.

Also, Luther started out trying not to create reform, but to stop abuses which he thought were local, which the pope was unaware of. When he was ignored, and abuses continued, his struggle escalated to his excommunication. Was it Luther who took away from the Church, or was it the corrupt authority within the Catholic Church that led to the schism?

Does a Lutheran pastor stand openly in opposition, or does a Catholic priest teach continuous heresy? Neither is true. Think outside of the box you keep your thoughts within. You are right to think of how great God is; even the term “God” is limiting, for it is a word, a signifier, attempting to communicate that which is beyond language because He is beyond everything we even begin to understand. He is beyond even the Catholic Church, and the entire Christian Church. There is more depth to God than can be known.

By the way, we have the Deuterocanon… we call it the apocrypha. The story of the Maccabees might be my favorite story from the Septuagint.

And those passages on the Eucharist prove both theories. Those are used to justify real presence, not transubstantiation or sacramental union. Transubstantiation and sacramental union are about the process.

 

[mwb85611]

Peace, friend.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The two concerns I have about the Lutheran Eucharist are:

The lack of apostolic succession/episcopacy involved in the confection of the Sacrament

The Lutheran idea that the Host somehow goes back to being mere bread after communion is over. This seems so super ahistorical and innovative, not grounded in Scripture as sola scriptura would advise…

 

[InspiritCarol]

It swings both ways. Saying to an audience of Lutherans that you wish we could “get it” is probably not the best way to go about in a dialogue.

Definitely. Perhaps my less gentle approach comes from the open and loving dialog I am privileged to experience with the local ministers. They know I’m not being so much dismissive as I am trying to force them to show me what I am lacking in the subject. Face to face dialog does not translate well into quickly worded blurbs.

Why do I care? I care because I hate the divisions within Christianity. It’s interesting to think of it in this way: the Church IS universal; we are all united in Christ. Let’s start from that standpoint, and not lose sight of it. Now, we are dealing with the little details that have arisen from several thousand of people having a lot of thoughts about what the mystery of God is.

Ah but when you ask the church to bow to your wishes from without, you are only adding ice to the cracks that already exist. I admittedly may be delusional, but I sometimes wonder if we wouldn’t now have married priests and other concessions IF we didn’t have a convenient place for people who have a different heart to run to.

Luther must first be appreciated as a theologian. In this category, one must include Erasmus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Origen, Ambrose, Paul, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Rahner, Julian of Norwich, Nestorius, Pelagius, and so on, and so forth. A theologian can be right or wrong. Lutherans who see Luther as a man who “set everything right once and for all” know nothing about Luther. At the same time, Catholics who dismiss him as a heretic (no matter how brilliant) fail to see the theological insights he actually had. There is truth to be found in everything, even in a lie. A true scholar just has to find it.

No, no, no I’m not dismissing him. I do admire a good many insights he had. And I am astounded by how truly prolific he was. Wow. Before I read some pretty … distasteful… things he wrote, I once suggested to a priest friend of mine that Luther should be a saint. ~lol~ No. From the perspective of the Catholic Church (which is what you asked for, now) by the very definition of the word and through many attempts by the Pope to reconcile Luther with the Church, Luther chose the path of “heretic”… ~sigh~ I guess we are not reading the same history books.

Luther’s explanation of grace would do you much good in some areas.

I don’t doubt it, perhaps you could provide a link… and perhaps you could be a little more forgiving in your judgment of me.

Also, Luther started out trying not to create reform, but to stop abuses which he thought were local, which the pope was unaware of. When he was ignored, and abuses continued, his struggle escalated to his excommunication. Was it Luther who took away from the Church, or was it the corrupt authority within the Catholic Church that led to the schism?

There were abuses; they were rectified (alas too late). Luther was not ignored. In his time and after. The Council of Verms comes to mind (do I need to look it up? - I’m pretty busy).

Does a Lutheran pastor stand openly in opposition, or does a Catholic priest teach continuous heresy?

What would a Lutheran consider heresy from a Catholic? I can’t imagine?

Neither is true. Think outside of the box you keep your thoughts within.

Oops, there you go judging me. Is that the Holy Spirit convicting you, or me? … Maybe it’s both.

You are right to think of how great God is; even the term “God” is limiting, for it is a word, a signifier, attempting to communicate that which is beyond language because He is beyond everything we even begin to understand. He is beyond even the Catholic Church, and the entire Christian Church. There is more depth to God than can be known.

Amen brother. Thank you God that we can agree on the important things.

By the way, we have the Deuterocanon… we call it the apocrypha. The story of the Maccabees might be my favorite story from the Septuagint.

Yay, Maccabees kicks butt. Sirach holds some amazing wisdom … and then there’s well “Wisdom”. Have you read the “extra” Daniel stories? The added prayers in Esther are quite good also. The reality is there are hundreds of “Apocryphal” texts and bits of text that truly aren’t included in scripture: the Protoevangelium of James and the Gospel of Thomas leap to mind. So the term apocrypha is misleading, additionally, they are not scripture to you, correct? Hey, at least you know of them. I can’t tell you how frustrating it is to be accused of “adding” books to the Bible, “like the Mormons”.

And those passages on the Eucharist prove both theories. Those are used to justify real presence, not transubstantiation or sacramental union. Transubstantiation and sacramental union are about the process.

Is it possible that *you *understand the Eucharist despite the Lutheran explanation, not because of it? Because, I’m sorry, but *I *just don’t see the reverence given the Eucharist that Catholics do. This is not to insult you, it is me relaying my experience: the onus and expectation is now for you to correct me. If I didn’t tell you my misunderstandings out of fear of offending you, how could you ever have the opportunity to correct me? Hmmm?

 

[InspiritCarol]

Peace, friend.

And you too. I do regret that I may have upset you.

 

[mwb85611]

InspiritCarol,

The laity in both Catholicism and Lutheranism do not give the Eucharist the reverence it deserves. There are those who take it seriously in both traditions. It differs from parish to parish. My home Lutheran parish takes the Eucharist much more seriously than any Catholic parish I’ve attended in the past three years. I’d never have believed that it was possible to eat the Eucharistic meal and twitch a sign of the cross out in less than 3 seconds, but it most certainly is at the parishes I’ve seen. To be honest, it might be because the Church considers the age of reason to be so incredibly low; most parishes in the United States still have first communion at such a young age, and then confirmation many years after first communion. I was confirmed upon my reaching high school, and only then did I receive the Eucharist. We were taught to meditate and pray every time we approached for Eucharist. I don’t see that often enough in the Catholic cathedrals and churches I attend frequently with my girlfriend. At the same time, I’m sure that there are Lutheran parishes that don’t take the Eucharist seriously enough, either. The ELCA has open table for just anyone; the Eucharist loses its importance to partakers in instances like that.

Also, I’m not asking the church to bow to my wishes from without; my sincere hope is for both churches to bow to each other and discover the truth from each other. Lutheran’s believe that some points in Catholicism are wrong, Catholics believe that some points in Lutheranism are wrong. From my perspective, both of those beliefs are right; I believe that the Church can be wrong, and that one can never “cling” to old teachings if truth appears that makes sense but involves change. I don’t agree completely with Luther or Melanchthon on some points.

As to Luther being a heretic, most of the “efforts” to resolve with Luther involved him simply recanting everything he differed on. Luther became a heretic when his hopes for justice were thrown back in his face. The Diet of Worms wasn’t a council or anything of the sort; Luther was summoned and asked to recant, and he said that he would not unless he could be proven wrong, and that he couldn’t respect the authority of the pope and of the councils because they contradicted each other in his eyes. They did; that era of corruption is despicable. He would have been burned at the stake like many of his contemporaries had he not been “kidnapped” for a while. I think we are reading the same history books. Luther was heretical in some ways, but he was most certainly dead on in others.

The Holy Spirit convicting? That makes no sense. I’m not judging you. I’m asking you to widen your perspective. You seem too educated to be close-minded.

As to the comment of whether or not I understand the Eucharist “despite” the Lutheran explanation of it, I have to say that I never said that I agree completely with sacramental union. There IS Real Presence. Either way, it “goes all the way.” The Eucharist IS His body in sacramental union and transubstantiation.

 

[JonNC]

Need to dissect/parse the Latin:

Consubstantial

con {“with, together”}

• sub {“under, inferior, secondary, less than, in place of, secretly”}
• stantis (past participle of stare {“to stand as, to be”})
• vernacular ending

Transubstantial:

trans {“across, over, beyond, through”}

• sub {“under, inferior, secondary, less than, in place of, secretly”}
• stantis (past participle of stare {“to stand as, to be”})
• vernacular ending

This is quite true, but I’m not sure of, and would like to know your thoughts as to the relevence, since neither of our communions confess consubstantiation.

Jon

 

[InspiritCarol]

InspiritCarol,
…
There IS Real Presence. Either way, it “goes all the way.” The Eucharist IS His body in sacramental union and transubstantiation.

Peace.

Thank you for the the good insights. I’ll mull on them a bit and apologize again for both my ignorance, and the way I came across. Sometimes I forget I’m not in the company of friends when I’m in a rush.

Ah… to have more time!