O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Obviously, I would disagree. But I would expect a Catholic to believe what you say.
- Status
J
judechild
Guest
That makes me interested in the United Methodist understanding of transubstantiation. How do you see it; and what makes it valid in your understanding? I’m I correct in saying the United Methodist community is pretty flexible in its beliefs so as to include as many people of diverse beliefs and practices as possible?
Consub is a belief far older than Luther, from what I know (could be wrong). Luther described it as a Sacramental Union. For me, I’m happy with Melanchton’s words from the Apology to the Augsburg Confession:
I personally do not find it bizarre, but instead a quite reasonable human attempt to understand the mystery. I personally do not condemn it, nor do I accept it.
Jon
This is as the Catholic Church teaches, no doubt. Yet, here is a quote from a German Cardinal named Ratzinger, written to a German Lutheran Bishop:
usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml
Jon
P
perfectpeach
Guest
If you do not need valid apostolic succession for consecration, then ANYONE must be able to consecrate bread and wine???
Not speaking for Methodists, but Lutheran clergy are ordained under divine law by presbyter ordination which has also been practiced by the Catholic Church in the past.
So no, I can’t as I am not ordained.
Jon
EDIT: Let me add that Lutherans believe that AS is good and desirable. Some Lutherans have it, and the rest would prefer it. But presbyter ordination is valid in our eyes, and by practice in the Church prior to the Reformation.
We will not agree on this issue, but I believe it is one of the easier things to resolve for unity.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
My answer would be the same as Jon’s; and the Alexandrian Precedent would apply.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
We don’t embrace transubstantiation, but we do embrace the Real Presence of Christ. As far as the Eucharist, we have official practices and doctrine as a communion/denomination.
P
PA650
Guest
Thank you Jon for presenting well reasoned posts with regard to the Lutheran belief regarding real presence in the Lord’s Supper. The attitudes of certain Catholics on CAF can be quite adversarial primarily due to ignorance of Protestantism.
L
Louie1983
Guest
Hi JonNC, This may be his personal opinion however it is definately not what the magisterium teaches. There have been many bishops (and popes for that matter) that have expressed personal opinion however this is not a binding teaching/doctrine on the church. The early church fathers have always taught that the authority to consecrate the bread and wine has been given to the catholic church only (and the orthodox).
H
Holly3278
Guest
Isn’t it true, though, that most United Methodists see the Eucharist as mostly symbolic or as a spiritual presence only?
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
I would say that some see it as primarily symbolic - but not all. It’s certainly NOT the official stance of the UMC.Isn’t it true, though, that most United Methodists see the Eucharist as mostly symbolic or as a spiritual presence only?
Many RC’s do not believe in transubstantiation (according to latest studies), but that doesn’t change the official Catholic stance.
H
Holly3278
Guest
True. What is the official stance of the United Methodist Church anyway?
That said, just because some Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation does not mean that it isn’t true. Also, those who do not believe in transubstantiation are cafeteria Catholics. You can’t pick and choose what you believe when it comes to Catholicism.
N
NDfan
Guest
Holly this is an untrue statement. In the early 19th century Roman Catholic theologians within the Vatican interpreted scripture differently than the current doctrine of transubstantiation. They proposed focusing on the meaning of the supper as opposed to the change in the elements. They did not see support within scripture to justify transubstantiation but rather wanted the church to preach when one participates in communion what does it mean. The pope at the time decided to side with the council of trent and it’s proposed definition of communion hence transubstantiation remained.
The doctrine of transubstantiation is not a valid doctrine and if you carefully study Thomistic theses coupled with physics then it’s quite easy to see why it makes no sense. I no plenty of Catholics that are hardly cafeteria ones who see the Eucharist as purely symbolic. You simply cannot make the statement that all who don’t believe in transubstantiation are cafeteria catholics. Over 50% of those professing to be catholic do not believe in transubstantiation. That’s taken right from a study group that compiles data for the Vatican all the time.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
C
churchdefender
Guest
Try to visit this site Resbak.com and see for yourself how he argues about his angel Felix Manalo who according to him re-established the true Church of Christ.
L
Louie1983
Guest
Hi Ndfan, what you said is incorrect.
Just because certain theologians or “50% of catholics” believe that the eucharist is symbolic doesn’t make it right. It’s what the magisterium proclaims to be truth that counts, not theologians nor you or i. You said it yourself, the pope sided with the council (therefore, there must have been theologians who found scriptural support of the eucharist) and there have been many other theoogians throughout history who have tried to challenge/question some teachings or determined some aspects of the faith, This is not unusual, there have been many councils throughout history. You seem surprised that some theologians would have different ideas to what the magisterium has?
If you are a Catholic you are obliged to believe in all her teachings as true full-stop. The church and many early church fathers did teach and preach of the real presence of the eucharist. The church has reapetedly said that our church and faith is founded on the eucharist (jesus). This is a catholic belief, whether you choose to believe it or not is up to the individual. But you cannot say that “i’m catholic, but i don’t believe what the church teaches about the eucharist”. otherwise your not Catholic, you are obliged to believe all her teachings as true.
Oh, I absolutely agree, which is why I said at the beginning of that post:
Still, if you read the joint statement, I think you will find once again, a convergence in thinking that did not exist even 60 years ago.
Now, this I’m not sure of, and I’d want to see some evidence. It is one thing to say that only clergy in Apostolic Succession, quite another to sat that the ECF’s limited it to those in communion with the Bishop of Rome and the Orthodox. And since presbyter ordination in the past, Cistercian abbots in the 15th century, for example, has been used by Rome, there is historic precedent for Lutheran ordination.
Jon
L
Louie1983
Guest
*Now, this I’m not sure of, and I’d want to see some evidence. It is one thing to say that only clergy in Apostolic Succession, quite another to sat that the ECF’s limited it to those in communion with the Bishop of Rome and the Orthodox. And since presbyter ordination in the past, Cistercian abbots in the 15th century, for example, has been used by Rome, there is historic precedent for Lutheran ordination.
Jon*
Hi Jon, Here are some quotes from early church fathers:
Jon*
Hi Jon, Here are some quotes from early church fathers:
- “The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth…If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).
- “Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate…” Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).
- “Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.” Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).
- “It is therefore with due care and propriety that you consult the secrets of the Apostolic office that office, I mean, to which belongs, besides the things which are without, the care of all the Churches…Especially as often as a question of faith is discussed, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should refer to none other than to Peter, the author of their name and office.” Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Mileve, 2 (A.D. 417).
P
Polaris
Guest
hehehehe you ruined my fun, I was asking him. hehehehe Yes a nature cant die but Christ did die, what kind of death, and was the murder of christ actually a bad thing? Also how is anyone ever worthy of taking the body of christ? Who is worthy of God?It is our belief that Christ, the one person with two natures, died on the cross. As for His nature… a nature cannot die, because it is not a person. A rabbit may be dying, but the fact of what it is - “rabbithood” or the rabbit’s nature - is not being harmed or destroyed. When the rabbit is dead, it’s the whole rabbit that’s dead, nature and all.
On the other hand, Christ had the power to die and then be raised again by His own power, which is spoken of by the early Church fathers as a sign of baptism. I’ll paraphrase a bit from St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Christ had the power to go down into the earth, and to rise again. We now imitate that action by going down into the earth, from which we have the power to rise again. We all just do what we can.
(Apologetics can not be limted in a real conversation these are all natural connections that are made in any conversation )
- Status