The Protestant Communion

[Randy_Carson]

As best I can figure it, Lutherans believe the same thing about the Eucharist that Catholics believe (ie, the real presence is there), but they refuse to make any effort to explain the mystery. Why they don’t is a mystery to me.

The best I can come up with is that due to the super-heated environment in which Lutheranism was forged, the desire to be “NOT Catholic” was greater than the desire to retain certain doctrines. IOW, in his push to separate himself from the papists, Luther threw quite a few babies out with the bath water, and modern-day Lutherans are stuck with trying to justify his impulses.

Frankly, given their understanding, it would take little for Lutherans to be allowed to receive Communion in a Catholic Church since they already believe that Jesus is present.

Unfortunately, and this will rub many the wrong way, Catholics will not be allowed to receive in a Lutheran Church because Jesus is not actually present in the Lutheran sacrament due to the invalidity of their priesthood.

Still, reunion is possible for those few who can accept those terms.

IMHO.

 

[JonNC]

=jimkhong;11140656]Thanks for the very logical and emotionally-balanced response and explanation.

You are very kind. Thank you.

So, is there any different between your views & the Catholic teachings and between your views and conventional Lutheran teachings (no offense intended here).

No offense taken. I think when one gets past the metaphysical aspect of Catholic teaching, there is scant little difference between our views. While I tend to not use the language of Sacramental Union, my beliefs are in line with the Lutheran doctrine, which is real presence.

You seem to indicate that you are indifferent to the term ‘consubstantiation’ and I understand that the Lutheran convention seems to be moving slowly away from that term. As such, would it be possible to drop that term if it causes so much conflict with the Catholic position?

The Lutheran position has never been consubstantiation (see my profile at the bottom). Consubstantiation was a false charge made against us by the Calvinists.
My sense is that as we continue in dialogue, our differences in expression will become less an issue that divides.

(Actually, I think the conflicts with Catholics is not so much because of what you believe but simply because you are not in communion with Rome )

I think there is something to be said for this view. And both sides would do well to better see the Holy Spirit in the other.

Jon

 

[kmcarl56]

Some Protestants perform Communion based on Jesus telling the Disciples to eat the bread and drink the wine in “rememberance” of Him, not that He is going to become present in the bread and wine.

It is a matter of interpretation, not heresy. Both ways honor and praise the Lord Jesus, giving Him glory for what He has done for humanity. Eating of the bread represents Jesus’ body, and drinking of the wine represents Jesus’ blood. By doing so, one is giving the Lord Jesus thanks as well as becoming blessed and pure in heart.

Both ways are doing what Jesus instructed us to do. Different interpretations of the words Jesus spoke are sadly a human trait. Rejoice in the Lord. Give praise to His name. Give Him the glory, honor, and love He deserves and so freely gives to us.

 

[rinnie]

The earliest Christians believed that the bread and wine distributed at communion become the body and blood of Jesus. This belief can be found in both scripture as well as in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. If you disagree on this point, I can provide ample evidence and explanation, and I would like to see some evidence from scripture and from the ECF’s in support of your view. You’ll need more than a snippet or two taken out of context to convince me.

However, if you do agree that this is what was taught and believed by the apostles and the early Church, then my questions are these:

1. Given that the Catholic Church has maintained from the beginning that the Eucharist IS the actual body and blood (and soul and divinity) of Jesus, is it really correct for someone to say that the Catholic Church has gone “off the rails” on this doctrine?
2. Given that Protestants (almost) unanimously teach that Jesus IS NOT really and truly present in the communion they receive, would it be correct to say that they are actually the ones who have deviated from the earliest teachings of Christianity?

These arguments can be stated briefly as follows:

1. The early Christian church taught that Jesus was really and truly present in the Eucharist.
2. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharist.
3. Therefore, the Catholic Church has not “gone off the rails” with respect to early Christian teaching.
4. The early Christian church taught that Jesus was really and truly present in the Eucharist.
5. The Protestant churches teach that Jesus is NOT really and truly present in the Eucharist.
6. Therefore, the Protestant churches have “gone off the rails” with respect to early Christian teaching.

Given that Jesus told us that unless we eat His body and drink His blood we will have no life in us, how do Protestants obey Jesus’ clear command to “do this in memory of me” without transubstantiation?

Boy did I get into alot of trouble over this one!! I am told by so so many protestants that the Eucharist is just a SYMBOL. Okay.

Then by other Protestants it is indeed the true body and blood of Christ. Okay.

Then I ask how can a Preacher do this without Holy Orders. I mean then I could do this also right? Anyone could. No authority needed?

Then I said t his is really really how I got into horrible trouble, And I wasn’t even trying this time, I said it has to be considered a symbol because only a Priest who has Holy Orders can do this.

Anyway boy did I get into the DOG house. They came after me like a pack of wolves.:bigyikes:

 

[rinnie]

Some Protestants perform Communion based on Jesus telling the Disciples to eat the bread and drink the wine in “rememberance” of Him, not that He is going to become present in the bread and wine.

It is a matter of interpretation, not heresy. Both ways honor and praise the Lord Jesus, giving Him glory for what He has done for humanity. Eating of the bread represents Jesus’ body, and drinking of the wine represents Jesus’ blood. By doing so, one is giving the Lord Jesus thanks as well as becoming blessed and pure in heart.

Both ways are doing what Jesus instructed us to do. Different interpretations of the words Jesus spoke are sadly a human trait. Rejoice in the Lord. Give praise to His name. Give Him the glory, honor, and love He deserves and so freely gives to us.

But forgive me for being blunt but are you not then denying Christ in the Eucharist? Not heresy you say?

See this is where I truly get into the doghouse.

See Jesus said this IS my body this IS my blood. Not this Represents my Body this Represents my blood. Is it a matter of interpretations of the words or changing the words?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

As best I can figure it, Lutherans believe the same thing about the Eucharist that Catholics believe (ie, the real presence is there), but they refuse to make any effort to explain the mystery. Why they don’t is a mystery to me.

It is my fallible opinion that we try to explain too many things…

Some things are better left at simplicity.

Bottom line - Is there any other more compelling reason than Christ saying it is what it is?

Before any fellow High Riding Brethren jumps on me - I abide by the Church’s Teachings

 

[steido01]

As best I can figure it, Lutherans believe the same thing about the Eucharist that Catholics believe (ie, the real presence is there), but they refuse to make any effort to explain the mystery. Why they don’t is a mystery to me.

I wouldn’t necessarily object to your summary; our communions share the true belief in the Real Presence. As for why we don’t attempt to make an explanation for the miracle, well, that question answers itself, in our view. Why explain a miracle?

We Lutherans have a habit of “not putting a comma where God has placed a period.” When Christ says, “This is my body,” we believe him - we don’t try to explain ‘how’ because he never tells us how the bread and wine become His Body and Blood. Lutherans typically don’t reserve the Eucharist for a similar reason - He says, “Take, eat. Take, drink,” not, “Take, eat, and save some for later.” So we try to consume all the consecrated elements. For very seriously taking Jesus at his word, some accuse Lutherans of being hyper-Christocentric. We don’t mind.

The best I can come up with is that due to the super-heated environment in which Lutheranism was forged, the desire to be “NOT Catholic” was greater than the desire to retain certain doctrines. IOW, in his push to separate himself from the papists, Luther threw quite a few babies out with the bath water, and modern-day Lutherans are stuck with trying to justify his impulses.

See above. I don’t think it was a deliberate attempt to be “not Catholic.” Rather, it stems from a simple understanding of our Lord’s words.

Frankly, given their understanding, it would take little for Lutherans to be allowed to receive Communion in a Catholic Church since they already believe that Jesus is present.

This is true, and I can attest to this first-hand.

Unfortunately, and this will rub many the wrong way, Catholics will not be allowed to receive in a Lutheran Church because Jesus is not actually present in the Lutheran sacrament due to the invalidity of their priesthood.

Confessional Lutherans wouldn’t allow a Roman Catholic to commune under normal circumstances, anyway.

In all seriousness, what do you make of the Cardinal Ratzinger quote that Jon has posted on other threads? It would seem that Rome does not deny that Christ is present in the Lutheran Eucharist.

Side note: I understand the reasoning behind Rome’s understanding of “valid orders” via Apostolic Succession, and I give thanks to God that it has served as a [largely] successful means to maintain true Apostolic Teaching, but it has always seemed a flimsy argument to me. “Your priests aren’t really priests because they aren’t in communion with Rome,” seems almost like a modern-day form of Donatism to me. Maybe I’ll start a thread…

Still, reunion is possible for those few who can accept those terms.

Reunion is possible. It will take humility from both sides to acknowledge the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding His people.

 

[kmcarl56]

You have given me a view that I really haven’t thought of before. I was raised a non-Catholic, so my understanding was given to me by my teachers and pastors since I was a child. I simply did not have a true and complete understanding. Please forgive me because I do think Catholics are right about Christ becoming embodied in the Holy Eucharist (Communion).

 

[rinnie]

You have given me a view that I really haven’t thought of before. I was raised a non-Catholic, so my understanding was given to me by my teachers and pastors since I was a child. I simply did not have a true and complete understanding. Please forgive me because I do think Catholics are right about Christ becoming embodied in the Holy Eucharist (Communion).

Its funny you would say that. My Husband said the same exact thing. And just to let you know I believe in my heart just because you were never taught true understanding of Christ in the Eucharist I believe you were still taught much truth in the Protestant Church.

We in the Catholic Church recognize the truth taught in all Church’s. The true difference between the Protestant and Catholic Church is the fullness of the Truth.

I wonder how we all got so separated through the years when we all carry Christ so close in our hearts. I guess you could call this the same as we call the Eucharist. A MYSTERY of our faith.

 

[concretecamper]

Some Protestants perform Communion based on Jesus telling the Disciples to eat the bread and drink the wine in “rememberance” of Him, not that He is going to become present in the bread and wine.

It is a matter of interpretation, not heresy. Both ways honor and praise the Lord Jesus, giving Him glory for what He has done for humanity. Eating of the bread represents Jesus’ body, and drinking of the wine represents Jesus’ blood. By doing so, one is giving the Lord Jesus thanks as well as becoming blessed and pure in heart.

Both ways are doing what Jesus instructed us to do. Different interpretations of the words Jesus spoke are sadly a human trait. Rejoice in the Lord. Give praise to His name. Give Him the glory, honor, and love He deserves and so freely gives to us.

Please research what “remeberance” means. A lot gets lost in the translation. To a Jew…remembrance means soooooo much more than us western people living in the 21st century. I am not going to go into any detail…you should find this out for yourself. God Bless

 

[cmodrmac]

These are arguements that really never in our earhtly lives can be proven-I at times share the frustration of many who feel that once a Roman catholic “appeals to Authority” = Catechism or the Teaching of the Magisterium or a Papal proclamtion- the discussion is essentially over from the RC point of view. That is fine -it is what it is-

Lutherans and many members of my Church believe in " the Real Presence" but of course as regarding my Church-there is a Papal leter rendering the validity of Anglican Orders as “null and void”-We disagree but the appeal to Authority occured i.e. Pope Leo’s ruling

So I personally read the responses -some are interesting some are not some are kind some are mean spiritied

As regarding “Protestant Communion” why did you bother with the thread if you feel that only Roman Catholics and various Independent catholics (PNCC) and the Orthodox have valid holy orders-this Roman Catholic Church teaching renders the rest vis a vie communion moot.

We do not agree -but it is what it is

 

[benjohnson]

Please forgive me because I do think Catholics are right about Christ becoming embodied in the Holy Eucharist (Communion).

You don’t have to trust Catholics (or Lutherans) - trust Jesus!

Luke 22:19

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

 

[gazelam]

The earliest Christians believed that the bread and wine distributed at communion become the body and blood of Jesus. This belief can be found in both scripture as well as in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. If you disagree on this point, I can provide ample evidence and explanation, and I would like to see some evidence from scripture and from the ECF’s in support of your view. You’ll need more than a snippet or two taken out of context to convince me.

FWIW, Edwin Hatch states "it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ. (The Influences of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, page 308)

 

[benjohnson]

FWIW, Edwin Hatch states "it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.

Actually, it’s even weirder than that!

The first person to equate the bread and wine with the Body and Blood of our Lord was this really young rabbi.

This is where it get’s really weird! This young jewish rabbi had a Puerto Rican name! I think it was “Jesus” or “Carlos”. I’m pretty sure it was the first one though, but I’ll have to check.

 

[jimkhong]

These are arguements that really never in our earhtly lives can be proven-I at times share the frustration of many who feel that once a Roman catholic “appeals to Authority” = Catechism or the Teaching of the Magisterium or a Papal proclamtion- the discussion is essentially over from the RC point of view. That is fine -it is what it is-

Lutherans and many members of my Church believe in " the Real Presence" but of course as regarding my Church-there is a Papal leter rendering the validity of Anglican Orders as “null and void”-We disagree but the appeal to Authority occured i.e. Pope Leo’s ruling

So I personally read the responses -some are interesting some are not some are kind some are mean spiritied

As regarding “Protestant Communion” why did you bother with the thread if you feel that only Roman Catholics and various Independent catholics (PNCC) and the Orthodox have valid holy orders-this Roman Catholic Church teaching renders the rest vis a vie communion moot.

We do not agree -but it is what it is

How does the Anglican Church justify communion (in the ‘being in communion’ sense of the word) in the situation I encountered where the Low-church pastor had more in common (including on the point of the Real Presence) with the Presbyterian church down the road than with his High-church Bishop of London? How does anyone, more precisely Anglicans, ascertain the intention of the person and his/her common faith when consecrating the person for orders and episcopate?

Not trying to start a fight here but the Anglican Communion is confusing to many outsiders like me. The Episcopal Church in US is small but the Church of England is a very big broad church. In reality many of the pastors hold views at wide divergence from what seems to be the official teachings until we don’t really know what the CoE teaches anymore. Remember the Bishop of Durham’s assertion that Mary may not have been a virgin during his Christmas homily and following it up with that Jesus may not have resurrected for his Easter homily.

Laying aside the manner of worship which is secondary to me, I see Anglo-Catholics who have same (or more) reverence for the Blessed Sacrament than Catholics, while at the other end of the scale Evangelical Anglicans sees Holy Communion as a once-a-month memorial-type service, not a sacrifice. How does one be in communion in cases like that? If there is a reunion of churches, which part of the faithful would we be reuniting with?