Protestants and The Eucharist

[subject97]

Quick question, if protestants did believe in the true presence, would they be able to actually consecrate The Eucharist, or would they need to be in communion with The RCC in order to do so?

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

You need an ordained priest. Lay Catholics even cannot consecrate.

 

[subject97]

Okey dokey, (that’s what i thought) just checking.

 

[nitesnake]

Quick question, if protestants did believe in the true presence, would they be able to actually consecrate The Eucharist, or would they need to be in communion with The RCC in order to do so?

From what I understand, some protestant churches do believe their church has a valid Eucharist. Anglicans and some Lutherans for example. But the real thing only exists in the catholic and orthodox churches.

 

[aicirt]

From what I understand, some protestant churches do believe their church has a valid Eucharist. Anglicans and some Lutherans for example. But the real thing only exists in the catholic and orthodox churches.

How exactly does this break down? There were consecrated priests and bishops who left the Catholic Church and became Lutherans same Anglicans. If they are not in union with Rome does this invalidate their orders?

 

[benjohnson]

How exactly does this break down? There were consecrated priests and bishops who left the Catholic Church and became Lutherans same Anglicans.

The Catholic church has held that the apostolic succession in Anglican churches has been broken, and while the Church has said nothing about Lutheran Bishops, I imagine their apostolic succession would be considered broken as well.

If they are not in union with Rome does this invalidate their orders?

Do consider the Orthodox - Catholics consider their Eucharist valid. It’s not the lack of communion with the Bishop of Rome per se, but the lack of apostolic succession.

As for me, I come from a Lutheran church where we confess that we have the “True Body and True Blood” of Christ. We prohibit others from communion with us that don’t profess this and also profess our faith. Amazingly enough Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger stated that our Eucharist is “salvation granting.” - I don’t know if this is still his thinking now that he is Pope.

 

[nitesnake]

How exactly does this break down? There were consecrated priests and bishops who left the Catholic Church and became Lutherans same Anglicans. If they are not in union with Rome does this invalidate their orders?

I’m not certain of that either. I think Pope Leo XIII said that they were invalid, but I’m sure the issue is more complicated than that.

what I am certain of, is that I can only receive communion in the catholic church (or I guess in an orthodox church in an emergency) because those are the only two churches with apostolic succession.

 

[RyanBlack]

I’m not certain of that either. I think Pope Leo XIII said that they were invalid, but I’m sure the issue is more complicated than that.

what I am certain of, is that I can only receive communion in the catholic church (or I guess in an orthodox church in an emergency) because those are the only two churches with apostolic succession.

That is a very common misconception. There are actually four ancient churches that the Catholic Church holds to have Apostolic Succession: the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East. In addition, there are also some other churches that are not ancient, but still have Apostolic Succession, such as the Polish National Catholic Church.

 

[nitesnake]

That is a very common misconception. There are actually four ancient churches that the Catholic Church holds to have Apostolic Succession: the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East. In addition, there are also some other churches that are not ancient, but still have Apostolic Succession, such as the Polish National Catholic Church.

I learn something new every day. I was thinking all those made up the orthodox church in general. Accept for the Polish National Catholic Church, this is the first I’ve heard about it.

 

[RyanBlack]

I learn something new every day. I was thinking all those made up the orthodox church in general. Accept for the Polish National Catholic Church, this is the first I’ve heard about it.

The Assyrian Church of the East broke from the Church around the year 424, under pressure from the Sassanid emperor, who did not want Christians in his empire to be influenced by Rome. The Oriental Orthodox broke communion following the Council of Chalcedon, as they were unable to reconcile the Tome of Leo with their understanding of christology, which was based on the teachings of the St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Council of Ephesus. Then, the Eastern Orthodox broke communion with Rome much later. Generally, the year 1054 is given as the date of the Great Schism, but historians generally do not view the state of schism as being fixed until a few centuries later.

 

[Vico]

How exactly does this break down? There were consecrated priests and bishops who left the Catholic Church and became Lutherans same Anglicans. If they are not in union with Rome does this invalidate their orders?

Anglican orders lack validity because the rite was not correctly worded from about 1547 A.D… Pope Leo XIII gave the detailed reason that Anglican orders were invalid. It is because the Anglican ordinal removed every reference to sacrifice and true priesthood in the traditional liturgy of ordination so is not the same rite. The next priests to be ordained by those bishops with valid holy orders did not receive holy orders. All later ordinations are null and void. This is also true of Lutherans and other Reformation churches.

 

[dje101]

Quick question, if protestants did believe in the true presence, would they be able to actually consecrate The Eucharist, or would they need to be in communion with The RCC in order to do so?

They would need to have a priest with valid orders. Think of the Orthodox Church: they are not in communion with the CC, but they still have priests with valid orders and, in special circumstances, a Catholic may partake of the Eucharist there.

 

[liturgyluver]

Anglican orders lack validity because the rite was not correctly worded from about 1547 A.D… Pope Leo XIII gave the detailed reason that Anglican orders were invalid. It is because the Anglican ordinal removed every reference to sacrifice and true priesthood in the traditional liturgy of ordination so is not the same rite. The next priests to be ordained by those bishops with valid holy orders did not receive holy orders. All later ordinations are null and void. This is also true of Lutherans and other Reformation churches.

The incorrect Ordinal was in use between 1550 until 1662, but Pope Leo argued that in yhat period Apostolic Succession was lost. The Ordinal since 1662 has been correctly worded. Member GKC will explain better than anyone.

 

[nitesnake]

The incorrect Ordinal was in use between 1550 until 1662, but Pope Leo argued that in yhat period Apostolic Succession was lost. The Ordinal since 1662 has been correctly worded. Member GKC will explain better than anyone.

I’m wondering if the Episcopal Church and Anglican are the same? If so, would the recent decisions by the Episcopal Church (in the U.S.A. anyway) to ordain women, condone same sex marriage and permit abortion invalidate their Holy Orders as well?

 

[philial]

Intent is an important aspect, also. Lutherans do not ’ intend’ the Eucharist as catholicism does. luther invented ‘consubstantiation’ to replace transubstantiation. The 39 articles of the Church of England also detract the full, catholic understanding of the change that takes place.

Agreed, certain clergy of both Anglicanism & Lutheranism now would claim to be ‘catholic’ in their intent, but several centuries of non-apostolic sucession have happened…

 

[benjohnson]

luther invented ‘consubstantiation’ to replace transubstantiation.

Just a small point:

Luther and the Lutheran Confessions deny the description of both consubstantiation and transubstantiation in that they attempt to define, in human terms, the mystery of God. We feel that once you ‘put God in a box’, you are no longer describing God.

Lutherans profess that our Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ crucified. Nothing less.

Of course, Catholic teaching about the Lutheran Eucharist is different.

 

[philial]

Just a small point:

Luther and the Lutheran Confessions deny the description of both consubstantiation and transubstantiation in that they attempt to define, in human terms, the mystery of God. We feel that once you ‘put God in a box’, you are no longer describing God.

Lutherans profess that our Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ crucified. Nothing less.

Of course, Catholic teaching about the Lutheran Eucharist is different.

Possibly because catholic teaching is based on what luther himself said, rather than lutheran revisionism? But I agree that we shouldn’t put God in a box. well, to the same extent that we shouldn’t squeeze Him between the pages of scripture and “there he is!”

 

[benjohnson]

Possibly because catholic teaching is based on what luther himself said, rather than lutheran revisionism?

I’m sure Catholic teaching on Lutheranism wouldn’t make the mistake of thinking Lutherans follow all of Martin Luther’s teaching. But from the begining Luther taught this:

*“Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.”
*

But I agree that we shouldn’t put God in a box. well, to the same extent that we shouldn’t squeeze Him between the pages of scripture and “there he is!”

We Lutherans most vigorously agree!