The Eucharist and Protestants

[Biggie]

I was recently in a two hour discussion with a Lutheran friend over a family issue that lead into questions of belief and religious practice. As I left I realized we had discussed all of the seven Sacraments (of which he, as a Lutheran he professed two). And I thought how amazing it is that the Sacraments are so irrevocably linked.

Clearly Luther began with a rejection of the Priesthood in response to abuses within the Church to which he objected.Remove the Priesthood, and Consecration has to mean something entirely different. Likewise Reconciliation. Etc. To be sure he had constructed a theology that overlays this obvious fact, a theology that also necessitated a rescission of sacred scripture, but in a very practical way, a belief in Transubstantiation implies much more than Luther and subsequent Protestants are able to accept.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

This is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to, especially as regards the priesthood. Luther knew that the Mass was a sacrifice, (as he was a priest himself), and that particular offering (according to the papists) needed a priesthood, but he denied that the priesthood was biblical (sola scriptura). The best his theology could do was to say that if one believed (sola fide), then Jesus sort of *moves in *with the bread and wine. Jesus is present WITH the bread and wine, spiritually. Consubstantiation as opposed to transubstatiation. Luther viewed transubstantiation as idolatry.

The standard formulation you will hear is that Christ exists “in, with and under” the bread. Luther’s doctrine was termed “sacramental union.” Of course, the big problem is the word “with” since the Catholic faith holds that the bread and wine are transformed into Christ’s body and blood. Therefore, the substances of bread and wine do not remain, but only lingering “accidents” (i.e. the sensible appearance). The Lutheran Reformers all disagreed with this doctrine although there was some dispute about how a counter-definition should be formulated. The definition arrived at in the Formula of Concord, while denying that the substance of bread is converted, affirms that Christ is present substantially together with the substance of the bread (hence why the doctrine is termed “consubstantiation” by non-Lutherans). I think it is fair to say that the Lutherans at least wanted to preserve the doctrine of a real (substantial) presence. This is not to say we should not be critical of their doctrines, but credit should not be denied where it is due.

Luther may have viewed transubstantiation as idolatry, but very few things that Luther wrote should be taken seriously. Nearly everything he wrote is filled with sarcasm, hyperbole and distortions. He is like a Nietzsche in many respects. Remember that everything Catholics do (for Luther) is idolatry or an attempt to merit justification. Furthermore, even our own St. Thomas Aquinas said that if the Lutherans were correct, then the Church’s practice would be idolatrous: “it would be opposed to the veneration of this sacrament, if any substance were there [in the Eucharist], which could not be adored with adoration of latria” (see ST 3.75.2).

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Biggie, while the Lutherans denied the (Catholic) mass, they continued to affirm the reality of the sacrament. In doing away with the sacrificial character, they characterized it chiefly as a meal or, if it were sacrificial, merely a “sacrifice of praise,” denying any propitiatory character.

 

[onceuponatimei]

thanks for this string-- and as you alll demenstrated – it depends of hat you have been taught – which will determine what you will believe and have faith for–

all of the explainations – are based on the “natural” man understanding –

so every one quotes some commentary and some study or – some scripture-- because obviously-- with this additional info-- it will change some body’s opinion or religious view–

i have about 50 years experience – of going to mass and it is rare that – there is a spiritual manafestation- of any kind-- i suppose – this is whay many catholic go to a Benny Hinn healing crusade-- and as benny hinn says catholic’s are the easest to get healed – because they have been trained and educated to develop some belief and faith–

 

[babs57]

thanks for this string-- and as you alll demenstrated – it depends of hat you have been taught – which will determine what you will believe and have faith for–

all of the explainations – are based on the “natural” man understanding –

so every one quotes some commentary and some study or – some scripture-- because obviously-- with this additional info-- it will change some body’s opinion or religious view–

i have about 50 years experience – of going to mass and it is rare that – there is a spiritual manafestation- of any kind-- i suppose – this is whay many catholic go to a Benny Hinn healing crusade-- and as benny hinn says catholic’s are the easest to get healed – because they have been trained and educated to develop some belief and faith–

I’ve never heard of a Benny Hinn healing crusade. What exactly does that mean?

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve never heard of a Benny Hinn healing crusade. What exactly does that mean?

Benny Hinn is a TV preacher who apparently has a gift of healing. Thousands of people approach him on his TV show for healing. It’s within the Pentecostal tradition, and involves being “slain in the Spirit” etc. Very theatrical.

 

[MartinJordan]

Benny Hinn is a TV preacher who apparently has a gift of healing. Thousands of people approach him on his TV show for healing. It’s within the Pentecostal tradition, and involves being “slain in the Spirit” etc. Very theatrical.

He came to my part of the woods. One of my Catholic friends, asked me whether I would join him to go for the session. I convinced him not to go for it.

MJ

 

[abucs]

If the Eucharist is biblical, why do Protestants ignore it?

When you ‘protest’ against the Catholic church you are protesting against the authority of its priesthood.

It is by authority that the Catholic church claims priests celebrate the mass and creates the Eucharist.

Some early forms of Protestantism tried to transfer authority to their own bodies but this has largely been rejected in these churches themselves.

Later forms of Protestantism didn’t even bother with transferring authority to their created bodies. The Bible alone became their authority which is very individualistic and with respects not workable in the long term.

For these Christians, if there is no authority in priesthood then there can be no Eucharist with regards to the real presence.

I think it is not so much a rejection of the Eucharist but a necessary theological outworking of the rejection of the authority in a physical priesthood handed down from one generation to another on the authority of Christ.

It is very difficult to accept that priests can celebrate and create the Eucharist by authority when you have rejected that authority.