M
Memaw
Guest
Without Apostolic Succession and the Sacrament of Holy Orders you can’t have Transubstantiation. wishful thinking doesn’t do it. God Bless, Memaw
Pope Francis stirs debate on Lutheran spouses of Catholics receiving Communion [CH-UK]
- Status
L
Louie1983
Guest
Agree with this.
I try not to be pessimistic but this is troubling, The Holy Father said “He’ll leave it to the theologians”…
He should know the answer to this.
G
GKC
Guest
Anglicans think a number of things, on a number of topics. It’s why I have that neat word “motley” in my tool box. It depends on what topic you ask what Anglican about.
S
steido01
Guest
:bigyikes: That’s disturbingly un-Lutheran! They are subscribing to the error of Receptionism. Sometimes this happens when people misunderstand why Lutherans typically don’t reserve the Sacrament (though some do).
Lutherans who do not practice reservation of the Sacrament do not refrain from doing so because of any particular doctrine against it, but because they take very seriously Christ’s command to “Take, eat. Take, drink.” Christ doesn’t say anything about “Take, eat some now, and save some for later,” so in typical Lutheran fashion, they don’t put a comma where they understand God to have put a period. Instead, they simply avoid having any leftover altogether. Churches I’ve worshiped at have a simple practice - the elders count how many members are present so no more bread or wine than necessary is consecrated. At churches where I’ve worshiped that do not reserve the Sacrament, any remaining Blood in the chalice is either consumed by the pastor or properly disposed, and anything remaining of His Body is either stored separately from the unconsecrated hosts or properly disposed.
From The Altar Guild Manual: Lutheran Service Book Edition (wording unchanged, emphasis mine):
And from Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper, as prepared by the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations:
Lutheran reverence isn’t limited to how we handle the Remnants. We generally kneel at the altar rail when receiving, bow our heads at approach, and make the sign of the cross after reception. Congregations that have kneelers use them, and all sing hymns in adoration of the Lord’s Presence. If a member is in the hospital or otherwise unable to make it to the Divine Service, the pastor typically visits and consecrates the elements on-site, both so as not to subject His Body and Blood to being rather unceremoniously carted around all day as they visit shut-ins (and potentially spilled or dropped!
), and so that the consecration takes place in the presence of the communicant. This is thought to be more in line with Christ’s command, not to mention more pastoral (who doesn’t like a one-on-one visit from their pastor? 
).And if this isn’t clear enough, there is the historic precedent of an elderly Luther lapping up the spilled Blood like a dog as the congregation was moved to tears, and another example where, in keeping with the ancient tradition, he cut out and burned a piece of the altar when purificators could not remove a stain.
L
Louie1983
Guest
Agree with you Phil…
However, something tells me even if you did have this situation the different interpretations would probably cause another argument/discussion/confusion as many within would want the law to reflect what they want it to mean and not what the church is actually teaching.
Pray, pray a great deal.
It’s one of Satan’s great tricks, to confuse and divide! (not accusing of The Holy Father of doing something evil, but confusion reigns at the moment).
S
steido01
Guest
That’s been the Roman Catholic opinion. That’s also why I asked in my first post:
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Uh, both, maybe. Does that work for you?
I am ok with the former personally - but who knows what’s up; we are just speculating. I think it’s all tied to the Kasper proposal and the conscience as your guide argument. Laying the groundwork. But, hey, I see no reason for baby steps here.
L
Louie1983
Guest
It’s a good question Steido,
My personal opinion is it is both, trying to move towards a recognition of those churches because of all the pluralistic stuff.
P
Padres1969
Guest
I wonder, can you have cosubstantiation if you don’t have what Catholics view as apostolic succession or holy orders?
G
GKC
Guest
I’d say the reply is likely to be “no”. That is, you can’t confect a valid sacrament, for which valid orders are required for a valid minister, without valid orders.I wonder, can you have cosubstantiation if you don’t have what Catholics view as apostolic succession or holy orders?
My take.
P
Padres1969
Guest
It was meant more as a joke
But to further the line of thinking. If the RCC position is that the perfect sacrament of the Eucharist is at it’s core an act of transubstantiation, enabled through what the RCC views as valid apostolic succession and valid holy orders.
It would seem to me that anything other than a transubstantiated Eucharist would not be a perfect valid sacrament from a Catholic sense. As the Catholic Church views non-Catholic Christian religions as varying levels of imperfect understandings of the original Christian faith, isn’t it possible that an non-Catholic Eucharist, such as a co-substantiated or Sacramental Union is an equally imperfect attempt by those religions?
G
GKC
Guest
That would assume that a non RC Eucharist was, in any sense, a manifestation of the Real Presence. Otherwise, it is not consubstantial, or a sacramental union: nothing to be con, nothing to be in union. It is a mere memorial, not a validly sacramental action. And what form that non-confection of the sacrament is thought to take, by those attempting the action, would not be at issue.It was meant more as a joke
But to further the line of thinking. If the RCC position is that the perfect sacrament of the Eucharist is at it’s core an act of transubstantiation, enabled through what the RCC views as valid apostolic succession and valid holy orders.
It would seem to me that anything other than a transubstantiated Eucharist would not be a perfect valid sacrament from a Catholic sense. As the Catholic Church views non-Catholic Christian religions as varying levels of imperfect understandings of the original Christian faith, isn’t it possible that an non-Catholic Eucharist, such as a co-substantiated or Sacramental Union is an equally imperfect attempt by those religions?
My take.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
But don’t you think this must be similar to the effect Jesus had on the orthodox Jews? Everytime he opened His mouth, something seemingly heterodox came out of it! Jesus gave the Church the huge privilege and responsibility to ‘bind and loose’ on earth and that means that it’s not out of the realms of possibility that Gods will might seem extremely confusing to us if we get too comfortable with the earthly forms and structures.
P
Padres1969
Guest
Sure why not.
S
steido01
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
S
steido01
Guest
If the criteria is, “in any sense,” a “saving presence,” what sort of Presence among the baptized can save, save the Real Presence?
Or did Christ institute two Suppers? What, exactly, is this ‘saving’ Presence? Is it an illegitimate, yet Real, Presence? Or an invented, legitimate ‘lesser’ Presence? The latter doesn’t make much sense, since Tradition has no such pseudo-sacrament – after all, we’re no Donatists – even wicked priests can speak the Verba with authority, and Lutherans would never dare to alter the Words of Institution. The situation is further muddied when Lutherans are recognized as Separated Bretheren; that familial bond necessitates some sort of communion.
Stirring the pot, I know. But sometimes I wonder if that was (the very German) Benedict’s intention.
- Status