Greetings Jon sure missed the discussions here. Blessings to you and hope our Lord who heals has helped your recovery. Happy to hear from you Jon. Peace be with youWelcome back Gabe. Your insight in this issue is always helpful.
Jon
Yes, but that is only the accidents; those things that “fool” our senses. With Aristotelian logic, the substance that changes is the whole essence of the thing. So, the entire essence is Jesus, whereas, from Luther’s perspective, because of scriptural references, some essence of the bread remains as well. I suppose the question then becomes who will look at the other person’s philosophical/scriptural stance and agree with it, and if agreement can’t come because of a change of perspective, then perhaps in the attempted definition of what happens would have to be shifted.Kliska-“there IS no more bread and wine in their thinking.”
Its admitted the physical properties of bread and wine remain.
"14. We certainly do not deny that those who are spreading these strange opinions are making a praiseworthy effort to investigate this lofty Mystery and to set forth its inexhaustible riches and to make it more understandable to the men of today; rather, We acknowledge this and We approve of it. But We cannot approve the opinions that they set forth, and We have an obligation to warn you about the grave danger that these opinions involve for true faith. "
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_en.html
No, I’m saying there are definite differences in the philosophical views on the Eucharist and what happens during consecration to the elements between Lutherans and Catholics. The key then becomes; can each view agree on the validity of the consecration (if we assume the validity of the priests/pastors, which is also a huge step) despite the different philosophical perspectives and the way they describe what happens.Did you mean you want to read more?
Actually, per the Dialogues, Lutherans and Catholics agree that Christ is truly present on the altar of both churches. And that the Eucharist is not a church-dividing issue.
I’m not trying to go against your perspective here, but have followed discussions and links on other threads; it seems like the Catholic side would only believe that IF the Lutheran priests have valid orders/were truly ordained in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Do they believe that currently Lutherans have an actual change when the Lutheran pastors speak over the elements in communion? From what I’ve read, I’d say no, they don’t agree with that yet.
Per my earlier quote; I am not sure how much more needs to be affirmed in the below statements regarding the validity of the Eucharist in both Lutheran and Catholic parishes:I’m not trying to go against your perspective here, but have followed discussions and links on other threads; it seems like the Catholic side would only believe that IF the Lutheran priests have valid orders/were truly ordained in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Do they believe that currently Lutherans have an actual change when the Lutheran pastors speak over the elements in communion? From what I’ve read, I’d say no, they don’t agree with that yet.
Those points speak to the definitions and views of the Eucharist, not whose Eucharist is valid or not. If I were to ask a Catholic priest if I’m receiving the true body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus if I go to a Lutheran communion service, I’m assuming he’d say no. If I asked a Lutheran if they believe that they, Lutherans, receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity, they would say yes.
The area I did not put in bold is: ** “They [Lutheran and Catholic] also agree that the efficacy of believers reception of the Lord cannot be measured by human standards but belongs to the sphere of the free and humanly uncontrollable action of God”.**
The way I read most conversations, it winds up pointing back to this papal encyclical to answer the question; vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html
Maybe, maybe not.
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html
You raise a valid point. If both Lutherans and Catholics firmly believe in the Real Presence in the Sacrament but don’t agree with who can validly preside in the Mass, then we are separate.
My interpretation of the statement that “these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation” is, like with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, not that we have two different ways of saying the same thing, but rather that the controversy does not justify sundering the unity of the Church. That does not mean we are saying the same thing. It does not deny that the two doctrines are opposed, only that they are not opposed in a certain way. It does not mean that the debate will not have to be resolved, but it should have been resolved within the unity of the Church. Remember, transubstantiation was never a primary justification for the Lutheran schism, which was justified with issues like justification and the authortity of the Church.
Correction the protestant reformers have separated themselves from valid holy orders and the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that includes Peter’s successor in the popes and all bishops from antiquity. The Catholic CHURCH REMAINS Rock and can never be put asunder what God has joined together. Men has moved away from her. The Catholic Church remains divinely united as one undivided faith in one body in one Lord in one baptism. A valid baptism outside the Catholic Church falls under the umbrella of the Catholic church, yet are out of communion with the apostolic successors of Jesus Christ. Christ gave the power and authority to administer His Sacraments to Peter and His apostles not Martin Luther and the reformers… THE CHURCH was not given the keys of the kingdom of God. They were given to Peter and the apostles who handed them on to their successors. That said, the true presence faith is never in question for those holding to the true presence. What is debated is the 2000 year old Catholic teaching of the true presence by those who have introduced heretical opinions, or never before believed in terminology of the Eucharist such as consubstantiations or other unapproved opinions that would conflict with the early church Fathers and biblical faith Traditions. Transubstantiation never conflicts with either. Cardinal Ratzinger book God is with us gives good teachings and discussions that expose and answer why the Catholic Church cannot adopt these late opinions and new terminology’s on the true presence.