No idea. But whatever the intent, it seems to me to carefully not imply a Presence truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ.
I can’t disagree. But maybe we are more aware with this Pope than with others because of the availability of news in modern times.
Baptized Christians don’t have to go through RCIA. Being baptized they just need to be received into the Church, which would include confirmation. But you are right the unclear statement could lead folks to think they don’t need to reconcile with the Church before receiving.
I know most Lutherans deny Consubstantiation and many Catholics claim they hold to Consubstantiation. I’m not sure where the confusion comes from. But what is the difference in Sacramental Union and Consubstantiation? Without knowing exactly what is meant by either they seem similar.
I couldn’t agree more. Why the ambiguity? Why never any clarity?
I’ve seen it attributed to his Jesuit background.
Maybe he sees ambiguity in things that past pontiffs saw with more monolithic certainty. I mean he’s not unlike almost every Catholic priest I’ve ever met in that regard Jesuit or otherwise. I’ve never met a priest who sees things in black and white.
Fair enough - on naturally occurring ambiguity but I worry sometimes that the Church has opted for a path of “willed” ambiguity, chosen it. The more the merrier.
Well I think that’s a certainty. Francis has been pretty clear that a primary concern for the Catholic Church is spreading the Gospel to as many as they can. Particularly while helping the indigent and forgotten. It’s always easier to do that when you come at someone with an air of welcome rather than a wall of difference. I mean take this Lutheran woman. He didn’t outright tell her she could receive as per Catholic teaching that would be wrong, but at the same time he didn’t outright tell her she couldn’t receive as what would be her motivation to come into a Catholic church and perhaps learn more? And mind you he was talking one on one with a woman about her particular circumstance. I think everyone is so used to more, shall we say, polished Popes of the past, namely Benedict and John Paul II of late, that they forget Francis is clearly a far more informal pontiff.
Again - fair enough - there is much to like about Pope Francis from the Episcopalian perspective. I am not an Episcopalian.
I am coming from a different perspective. (to speak your language 
)The term has its roots in the Crypto-Calvinist movement. The Crypto-Calvinists were Calvinists who pretended to be Lutheran so they could teach in Lutheran universities and essentially hijack the Lutheran Reformation and drive it into Calvinism. They knew that Lutherans didn’t like explaining the Mystery of the Sacrament by any philosophical term (that was the Lutheran objection to “Transubstantiation,” after all), so the Crypto-Calvinists started calling the Lutheran “non-explanation” by the term “Consubstantiation,” in order to sew confusion among the young Lutheran pastors. When the Gnesio-Lutherans (real Lutherans) expelled the Crypto-Calvinists, the Calvinists and Catholics continued to use the term, unfortunately.
Sacramental Union is simply an acknowledgement that the Lord is in/with/under/over/around/between/physically/spiritually/substantially/really --in other words, truly present-- when we partake of the Bread and Wine. It does not try to explain how this happens, by insisting that the original elements cease to exist (Transubstantiation) nor does it “imagine either an impanation or consubstantiation or a physical confinement or a local presence or the hiding of a particle underneath the bread or the conversion of the essence of the bread into the body or the permanent joining of the body to the bread outside the use of the supper or a personal union of the bread and the body,” as Lutheran dogmatician Johann Gerhard explains. Sacramental Union is, simply, the acknowledgement of the Real Presence.
Similar to Orthodoxy, Lutherans simply accept that the Sacrament of the Altar is a mystery. Lutherans just tend to be more bullish against what we understand to be Aristotelian attempts to explain away the mystery that God really hasn’t explained. Transubstantiation makes fine sense, but why do we need to make sense of a miracle?
Exactly how I have always felt. This is going in the right direction.
To be honest, I don’t think any of them sound all that different. Eucharist = Real Presence. Full stop. This whole debate is a great example of the serious limitations of excessive reliance on a philosophical/theological approach to the most precious sacrament in the Christian faith. IMHO.
Fair point. I mean with Transubstantiation is a form of Real Presense as is Sacramental Union. The only thing with Transubstantiation that seems to set it apart as I understand it, is the idea that while Christ is present, it is very specific in that the bread and wine no longer are there. What you’re receiving is entirely Christ, not Christ along with bread and wine, more Christ that appears as bread and wine.
:yup: Yes, exactly. I agree with you - especially about the niggling over the details. I am ok with bread and wine and body and blood or just body and blood but the former makes more sense to my limited little unphilosophical mind.
Also with you on No to just a “sign.”
And that it would be very “Christian” is in the highest sense of the word to decide we could all agree on Real Presence and leave it at that. We can hope I guess. Lastly, I am fine with those who want to believe in a particular philosophical explanation of course but don’t see why it has to be mandatory…Not quite. The Anglican 39 Articles are rather explicit that:
Yep, as to the status of the Articles.
Well yes and no. The 39 articles as you say are not always binding. And the modern COE and Episcopal Church have skewed more toward the Lutheran view of Christ’s presence in that they don’t try to limit it’s definition to just a spiritual presence as defined by the 39 articles. Indeed some Anglicans do believe in Transubstantiation today despite it being rejected by Anglicanism initially. So that is something the COE, ECUSA and Lutheran Churches do share is that somewhat detail un-oriented take on Christ’s presence beyond saying he’s there.
