Lutherans on Catholic Eucharist

[Eric_Hilbert]

Please do not respond to spammers, just report them.
Thanks.

 

[GKC]

I’m still a little confused here. For a Catholic, the Holy Sacrifice of the mass is, in fact, the Lord’s supper, because it is a re–presentation (not representation) of the sacrifice at Calvary, which is the completion of the Passover as the paschal sacrifice. It is the Real Presence that folds time on itself as the paschal sacrifice is present, and thus we are present at Calvary. So, not a new sacrifice being offered, but Christ offering the same sacrifice of himself to God on our behalf through the priest who is acting in Persona Christ (the person of Christ). Think of things in a sense that they are devoid of time. The substance of the Eucharist is not restricted in time.

Precisely how my late (Anglican) rector used to speak of the Sacrifice. And how I do so, myself: the intersection of time and eternity, the One Sacrifice, not repeated.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GaryTaylor]

Question: Would the Sacrament received "be licit.?
Personaly, as an ELCA Lutheran I have travelled many places in the world and happily received the Sacrament in Catholic Churches. I have no doubts whether it was “licit” or not.—even though some authority figure might question the same. My understanding is that Christ is the Host, and it is He who invites all to, “Come., take eat…drink”. Whether the celebrant was male, female, or any other qualifier does not determine the authenticity of the giving or the receiving. Obviously, here I depart from the position of the WELS (Wisconsin Synod) responder, and likely, Catholic, as well.
Ah, we make things so complicated…and are so sure of ourselves!! Let’s be sure of Christ!

I find this thinking facinating. And yes we do make much complicated as humans. Christs words on “religion” itself stand out in my mind, they reverberate for sure. {Matthew 15:13-14; 23:13-24}

Peace and Merry X-Mass.

 

[bogeydogg]

Oy vey.Thanks for your efforts at chastisement. I am not going to address all of your rules/comments, other than to state that whereas the Formula of Concord repeatedly states, “we reject and condemn” and that it is “A Thorough, Pure, Correct, and Final Restatement…etc.” I will not give such credit. The times they are a-changin’ and so am I as I quoted James Russell Lowell in a previous post.
." I consider the ELCA to be a “Big Tent”-big enough for both you and me and my/your fellow congregants… For e.g. I supported the right to ordination for women & gays long before the ELCA decided it was right and proper. Was I therefore out of order? Apparently, according to your take, but I saw it as part of my mission to work for the same.You may see this another way, and I can live with that.(probably would not be a good thing for you to be my Pastor!)
Bottom line, for me: Keep my eyes wide open, critique everything, and seek to follow Christ, and “be ready for whatever comes…” (Luke 12:35)…I think I have stated where I
am in the Faith and any further posts would be just going 'round & 'round. So, be my Guest and have the last word… Again, "The Lord Be With Y’all.!!

Yes Lowell was wrong to support women and gays being ordained. When the ELCA came around to his line of thinking they ceased to be a church. To embrace and ordain what flatly contradicts Scripture is not merely to change with the times, it is declare war upon the Church and to value to world over the Church. This is rank treachery to Christ and an abandonment of the Christian Faith altogether. The ELCA should immediately repent or at least have the decency to stop calling themselves Lutheran as I am sure Luther would have excommunicated every single person who voted for or supported this move.

Please note I said the ordaining of women of gays, I did not in any way say Christ is closed off to women and gays. All may come to Christ and all sin is mediated in Christ but penitence must precede the mediation. However women may not be priests, and openly, unrepentant gays cannot be in communion much less ordained to be priests.

God Bless

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

I’m still a little confused here. For a Catholic, the Holy Sacrifice of the mass is, in fact, the Lord’s supper, because it is a re–presentation (not representation) of the sacrifice at Calvary, which is the completion of the Passover as the paschal sacrifice. It is the Real Presence that folds time on itself as the paschal sacrifice is present, and thus we are present at Calvary. So, not a new sacrifice being offered, but Christ offering the same sacrifice of himself to God on our behalf through the priest who is acting in Persona Christ (the person of Christ). Think of things in a sense that they are devoid of time. The substance of the Eucharist is not restricted in time.

To put it simply, as one Lutheran pastor told me-

For Catholicism, “sacrifice” is a verb. That is to say, the Holy Mass is the Unbloody Sacrifice of the New Covenant, which is offered up the Father as propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead.

For Lutheranism, “sacrifice” is a noun. That is to say, the Holy Mass is the Body and Blood of Christ that was offered up to the Father on Calvary, and which the power of the Holy Spirit makes present for us to partake for our forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.

In Lutheran theology, the Eucharist is not the same sacrifice of Calvary that we offer to God. It is the same sacrifice of Calvary, which God offers us.