Pastor Jonathan Fisk doesn't know the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter conRep12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spedteacherita said:
Lutherans do not believe in consubstantiation. We believe that the Word and the elements create our communion - of course the Pastor is saying the words.Through the spoken Word and the elements we receive the Presence of Christ. I know it’s a bit more technical than that but we’ll have to wait for Don or Jon to explain it better.

God bless,

Rita
Click to expand...
Do Lutherans believe that the bread becomes the Body of Christ, or do they believe that the bread has Christ in it?
 
boomerang said:
Do Lutherans believe that the bread becomes the Body of Christ, or do they believe that the bread has Christ in it?
Click to expand...
From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:
The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.
Click to expand...
Jon
 
Thanks, Jharek, and it goes the other way, as well. Catholics do not believe the mass is a “re-sacrifice”, but instead a re-presentation of the once for all sacrifice. There is no reason for a Lutheran to contend that Catholics believe other than what they say they believe.
Catholics do not believe the mass is a re-sacrifice. Lutherans do not believe in consubstantiation.
There’s the starting point.

Whether or not Pastor Fisk “knows the Eucharist” certainly cannot be determined by a 15 minute video. The man has gone through 4 years of seminary in order to ordained, after all. So the likelihood is that he knows a great deal about it, with an emphasis on the Lutheran view. I wouldn’t judge a Catholic priest’s knowledge of something based on a 15 minute conversation.

Jon
 
spedteacherita said:
Here is a link, boomerang, that may help you understand:

stpaul-amherst.org/WhatWeBelieve/SmallCatechism.html#com

God bless!

Rita
Click to expand...
Thanks Rita. I’m not trying to be difficult. I understand that Lutherans believe in the Real Presence. My question is not answered by the article you linked to. How is Jesus present? Does the bread become His body or is Jesus present along with the bread? That article doesn’t tell me anything.
 
JonNC said:
From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament…

Jon
Click to expand...
Thanks Jon, but I am very confused about what Lutherans consider the Real Presence. The confession above states that Christ is present with the bread and wine. It doesn’t say that Christ is the bread and wine. It says, to me anyway, that He’s there with the bread. The prefix “con” means “with.” How does "con"substantiation not describe Lutheran beliefs when the Confession above states that He is “with” the bread?

I’m not wanting a debate on Con vs. Trans. I’m genuinely trying to understand why consubstantiation does not describe Lutheran beliefs when it looks to me like that term perfectly describes it. :confused:

The Catechism of the CC is clearer to me:

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament.

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that ***by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ ***our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

The bread becomes Christ.

So my question for Lutherans is: Does the bread become Christ or is Christ present along with the bread? :confused:
 
boomerang said:
So my question for Lutherans is: Does the bread become Christ or is Christ present along with the bread? :confused:
Click to expand...
It is as Christ instructed : “This is my body, which is broken for you” and “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.”

Generally, Lutherans view this as a mystery of faith - and while we do attempt to describe theologically what this gift is with various meaning depending on the education of the listener, as some point we need to confess simply what Christ has told us it is.

In frustration during a debate Luther inscribed Christ’s words onto a table, and while his opponent danced and made wise argument, Luther just pointed to Christ’s words - “hoc est corpus meum”

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
benjohnson said:
It is as Christ instructed : “This is my body, which is broken for you” and “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.”

Generally, Lutherans view this as a mystery of faith - and while we do attempt to describe theologically what this gift is with various meaning depending on the education of the listener, as some point we need to confess simply what Christ has told us it is.

In frustration during a debate Luther inscribed Christ’s words onto a table, and while his opponent danced and made wise argument, Luther just pointed to Christ’s words - “hoc est corpus meum”

https://infanttheology.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/thisismybody.jpg
Click to expand...
Thanks, Ben.
 
JonNC said:
Whether or not Pastor Fisk “knows the Eucharist” certainly cannot be determined by a 15 minute video. The man has gone through 4 years of seminary in order to ordained, after all. So the likelihood is that he knows a great deal about it, with an emphasis on the Lutheran view. I wouldn’t judge a Catholic priest’s knowledge of something based on a 15 minute conversation.
Click to expand...
To clarify, as a Catholic with a Catholic point of view defending the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, when Pastor Fisk says Catholics re-sacrifice Christ in the Eucharist, that tells me in about the one second it took him to say it that he doesn’t know the Catholic Eucharist. I have no doubt that in four years of LCMS seminary he became quite well acquainted with the Lutheran view of the Eucharist. My complaint is that in all that time he seems never to have read anything but Reformation era polemics authored exclusively by Protestants to try to understand the Catholic view of the Eucharist.

My question regarding the Lutheran view of the Eucharist is not so much whether and how they believe in the Real Presence; it’s more what is happening when a Lutheran pastor says the words and through the power of God makes present the Real Presence. Catholics believe this is our participation in the once for all sacrifice of the Crucifixion, that at that moment of the Mass, the entire Church on earth and in Heaven is present at the foot of the Cross. If the Lutheran Eucharist isn’t that sacrifice or any sacrifice, what is it?
 
spedteacherita said:
Lutherans do not believe in consubstantiation. We believe that the Word and the elements create our communion - of course the Pastor is saying the words.Through the spoken Word and the elements we receive the Presence of Christ. I know it’s a bit more technical than that but we’ll have to wait for Don or Jon to explain it better.

God bless,

Rita
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing with you, but I just found three tracts on Catholic Answers that say Luther taught consubstantiation and that the Lutheran Eucharist is consubstantiation, but Lutherans do not call it that, and that term is not in any Lutheran documents, but “consubstantiation” is the best term to describe Lutheran communion. Perhaps those tracts are wrong? :confused:

When I say that my understanding of Lutheran communion is “con” substantiation, I mean “with.” Jesus is with the bread. Con=with. In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession that Jon kindly posted, it says that "the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine…

So it says Jesus is there, with the bread and wine. Isn’t that the definition of consubstantiation?
 
As a response to an earlier question , the roman church has never ruled on the validity of Lutheran orders obviously we hold them to be valid , but open up another thread on the subject , thank you . Second we believe in the real presence it’s called Sacramental Union.
Third the Church of Rome considers us separated brethren Not heretics , and I’m disappointed you would start mudslinging Fellow Christians that way , but I forgive you .
 
Starwarsfan2 said:
As a response to an earlier question , the roman church has never ruled on the validity of Lutheran orders obviously we hold them to be valid , but open up another thread on the subject , thank you .
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church has never ruled on the orders of many of the thousands of specific Protestant denominations, but the concepts of ministers, priests, pastors, orders, etc. in Protestantism, in their natures, do not even attempt to imitate the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed, the denial of orders as a sacrament would put immense doubt on the validity of the orders of those who deny it.

Also, in the interest of charity, perhaps call it the Catholic Church. Referring always to Rome without reference to the catholic mark of the Church is a tired holdover from the very anti-Catholic English Reformation.
 
conRep12 said:
The Catholic Church has never ruled on the orders of many of the thousands of specific Protestant denominations, but the concepts of ministers, priests, pastors, orders, etc. in Protestantism, in their natures, do not even attempt to imitate the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed, the denial of orders as a sacrament would put immense doubt on the validity of the orders of those who deny it.

Also, in the interest of charity, perhaps call it the Catholic Church. Referring always to Rome without reference to the catholic mark of the Church is a tired holdover from the very anti-Catholic English Reformation.
Click to expand...
The vocation is a rite , and second there may be subdivisions to the Churches such as the Lutheran church , but they are just that subdivisions. Meaning there are at the most 7 churches born from the Reformation , Lutheran, Reformed , Anabaptist , Hussite, Anglican , Weslyan, and Adventist. Third , I called it the Church of Rome because it’s accurate, the church itself has used the title before , it wasn’t meant to be rude , nor was it hateful, that was never the intention. I’ll call it the Roman Catholic Church, so to distinguish it from both the Orthodox Catholic Church and the Evangelical Catholic Churches (Protestant churches) .
 
Star Wars, perhaps I responded too defensively, but there is a different context to “Rome” and “Roman” when you’re speaking from a position of union with the pope and from a position of disunion from him. I agree that another thread is the place for the other points raised, except for possibly the sacrificial nature of the Catholic priesthood as compared to Protestant orders. That may touch more directly on the question I raise. Assuming the Real Presence in Lutheranism, what is the Eucharist in the Lutheran worship service as you might explain it?
 
boomerang said:
I’m not arguing with you, but I just found three tracts on Catholic Answers that say Luther taught consubstantiation and that the Lutheran Eucharist is consubstantiation, but Lutherans do not call it that, and that term is not in any Lutheran documents, but “consubstantiation” is the best term to describe Lutheran communion. Perhaps those tracts are wrong? :confused:

When I say that my understanding of Lutheran communion is “con” substantiation, I mean “with.” Jesus is with the bread. Con=with. In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession that Jon kindly posted, it says that "the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine…

So it says Jesus is there, with the bread and wine. Isn’t that the definition of consubstantiation?
Click to expand...
Do Catholics not see bread and wine?
What Jesus held was bread, saying, “this is my body”.
What Lutherans believe is that the bread, by the power of the Holy Spirit, is His body. The reason we believe this is He said so.
Jon
 
benjohnson said:
It is as Christ instructed : “This is my body, which is broken for you” and “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.”

Generally, Lutherans view this as a mystery of faith - and while we do attempt to describe theologically what this gift is with various meaning depending on the education of the listener, as some point we need to confess simply what Christ has told us it is.

In frustration during a debate Luther inscribed Christ’s words onto a table, and while his opponent danced and made wise argument, Luther just pointed to Christ’s words - “hoc est corpus meum”

g
Click to expand...
So in essence, what you are saying is…in a debate, out of frustration, Luther came up with SU…and this is how the Lutheran doctrine of SU was borne…not from careful deliberation…🤷:eek:
 
JonNC said:
Do Catholics not see bread and wine?
What Jesus held was bread, saying, “this is my body”.
What Lutherans believe is that the bread, by the power of the Holy Spirit, is His body. The reason we believe this is He said so.
Jon
Click to expand...
Well…Don’t you think Catholics believe the same thing?
 
Starwarsfan2 said:
As a response to an earlier question , the roman church has never ruled on the validity of Lutheran orders obviously we hold them to be valid , but open up another thread on the subject , thank you . Second we believe in the real presence it’s called Sacramental Union.
Third the Church of Rome considers us separated brethren Not heretics , and I’m disappointed you would start mudslinging Fellow Christians that way , but I forgive you .
Click to expand...
So…you are your own pope? You decided on your own?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top