- Status
F
FCEGM
Guest
No, Mandy; Catholics may not participate in the communions of non-Catholic churches (and vice-versa). Also, you should seriously consider not attending this wedding since she is still married (not having been granted a declaration of nullity).
Chesster,
Let me expand on this just a little more so there is no misunderstanding. When I say, No. It is the body of Christ. He says it is. That is the mystery of the sacrament,
it is not a statement that I believe in Transubstantiation. In fact, neither is it a denial of it. I am not moved to claim I know how His presence comes to be, or what happens to the substance of the bread and wine. It is a statement that I believe the words of Christ.
He said it is His body and blood. So, it is His body and blood.
I find both Transub. and Sacramental Union to be speculative, though neither is unreasonable. Therefore, I simply accept the mystery: once consecrated, it is not mere bread and wine, it is the body and blood of Christ. Where Vulgarious says it is truly changed into the body and blood, I believe he is right.
Further, were I to convert, Transub. would not be a stumbling block for me.
Further still, some Lutherans are intent to believe that sacramental union is a statement that the substance of the bread and wine remain, even as the humanness of Christ remains in the Hypostatic Union. I do not speak for them.
Jon
C
Chesster
Guest
Okay, so for those Lutherans this is not just a matter of semantics - It is incompatible with Catholic teaching.
N
Nita
Guest
Hi Jon,
I do pray that we may all soon be one. I have often read your posts and found them uplifting.
In regards to this thread, I have a several questions:
- Am I correct in assuming you represent a rather conservative Lutheran outlook?
Do your views regarding the Eucharist express the current official teaching of the Lutheran churches as a whole?
Would you say they reflect the understanding professed by the majority of Lutherans? - After a service with Communion, how are left over consecrated hosts taken care of?
Are they reserved in something similar to our tabernacles?
Would people show the same signs of reverence (genuflect/bow/adore/speak) to the Eucharist as they would to Jesus - since it truly is Him? - I have not yet read the entire document you referenced. I noticed the date was 1979.
I am wondering if it was ever officially approved by the Church (by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and/or Pope John Paul II)?
Unless it received their sanction, it wouldn’t be accurate to say that the Catholic Church upholds the positions expressed in the document. (For example, the originally signed Joint Declaration on Justification had to carry amendments before it received Papal approval.)
L
lutherlic
Guest
So many things in this thread…
First, consubstantiation is incompatible with transubstantiation. It is not a matter of semantics. Catholics of course believe that transubstantiation occurs at consecration.
Second, we Catholics shouldn’t claim what Lutherans believe (not saying anyone in this thread is doing so, just making a point). We are on shaky ground if we say “Lutherans believe in consubstantiation” for instance (and it is indeed more nuanced than that). I know that I always hate when non-Catholics tell us what we believe!
Third, – and I mean this as charitably as possible – regardless of what Lutherans believe happens in their consecration, we do not believe any change takes place as they lack valid holy orders.
First, consubstantiation is incompatible with transubstantiation. It is not a matter of semantics. Catholics of course believe that transubstantiation occurs at consecration.
Second, we Catholics shouldn’t claim what Lutherans believe (not saying anyone in this thread is doing so, just making a point). We are on shaky ground if we say “Lutherans believe in consubstantiation” for instance (and it is indeed more nuanced than that). I know that I always hate when non-Catholics tell us what we believe!
Third, – and I mean this as charitably as possible – regardless of what Lutherans believe happens in their consecration, we do not believe any change takes place as they lack valid holy orders.
N
Nita
Guest
Finished reading the Joint Document on the Eucharist. It “sort of” answered Question 2) above. For any interested, here is the text:
52. Differences related to the duration of the eucharistic presence appear also in liturgical practice. Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess that the eucharistic presence of the Lord Jesus Christ is directed towards believing reception, that it nevertheless is not confined only to the moment of reception, and that it does not depend on the faith of the receiver however closely related to this it might be.
53. According to Catholic doctrine the Lord grants His presence even beyond the sacramental celebration for as long as the species of bread and wine remain. The faithful are accordingly invited to “give to this holy sacrament in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God”.38
54. Lutherans have not infrequently taken exception to certain of the forms of eucharistic piety connected with this conviction. They are regarded as inadmissibly separated from the eucharistic meal. On the other hand, Catholic sensibilities are offended by the casual way in which the elements remaining after communion are treated sometimes on the Lutheran side, and this indicates a discrepancy which is not yet overcome (cf. appendix The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist 2).So far, I have been unable to find a link that would show the Church had reviewed and officially accepted the document.
Thank you.
Conservative Lutheran outlook? Most definitely. I am one of those who use the term “Evangelical Catholic”, though more “protestant” Lutherans might use the term “Romanized”, and perhaps not as a compliment.
This is a huge issue for me, because there is a range of practices within Lutheranism, ranging from reservation of the host in an ambry or even monstrance, to what I would consider a hideously casual discarding or storing of the consecrated host.
Not that I am aware of, but my understanding of these documents is that they are part of the ongoing Lutheran Catholic dialogue. The JDDJ, from what I know, is unique in that it received papal blessing free standing. Certainly, however, those involved in the document were assigned representatives. This isn’t an apolegetics document, or something ad hoc.
Jon
Well said.
My problem with consubstantiation is the same that I have with all of these expressions, that we end up clinging to human expressions, instead of Christ’s words on the matter. I have read Orthodox writings that are critical of the west (all of us) in general for being unwilling to accept the truth of His presence as a mystery.
I thank you for this. JonNC’s personal first rule of dialogue here: try not to tell others what they believe. Instead, allow them to tell you what they believe, and actually listen.
This, of course is the Catholic teaching, and you are right to holdthe view as a Catholic. I wouldn’t expect otherwise. Nothing to get mad about. We simply disagree, and as a foundation for future dialogue, I point to Cardinal Ratzinger’s words in my signature.
I also don’t believe that this, in the end, would be a major stumbling block to unity, at least for Lutherans who have actually read the confessions support for AS.
Jon
Nita,
Just a couple of other reflections on your questions. In a way similar to Anglicans, Lutherans are a diverse bunch, though we seem to hold to doctrine stridently, while they seem to hold to liturgy. Some American Lutherans have been influenced (sadly) by other protestant groups. In some circles, Lutherans are reclaiming their catholicity, as I mentioned above with reserving the host, a return to private confession/Absolution, even the use of bells and incense in isolated settings.
As for whether or not I represent majority Lutheranism, probably not, at least here in America. I stand on what Augustana and the Apology say.
Jon
G
gcnuss
Guest
I’m just catching up with this thread and am not at all surprised that Jon has explained the Lutheran belief in the Real Presence very well. Indeed, one cannot be a faithful Lutheran without understanding that our Lord’s body and blood are really and substantially present in the Eucharist. For us, the Real Presence is an article of faith: how it comes to be is a mystery beyond our human power to understand or to explain.
Although Jon and I represent different Lutheran traditions (LC-MS and ELCA, respectively) there is much that we share including our identification as Evangelical Catholics. As such, we find ourselves in agreement with much that the Catholic Church teaches – as did the early Lutherans as stated in the Augsburg Confession – and we are committed to the effort to restore the unity of our Lord’s flock, at least as far as Lutherans and Catholics are concerned.
I thank God for all of our Catholic brothers and sisters who are so gracious in our discussions of matters of Christian faith.
Although Jon and I represent different Lutheran traditions (LC-MS and ELCA, respectively) there is much that we share including our identification as Evangelical Catholics. As such, we find ourselves in agreement with much that the Catholic Church teaches – as did the early Lutherans as stated in the Augsburg Confession – and we are committed to the effort to restore the unity of our Lord’s flock, at least as far as Lutherans and Catholics are concerned.
I thank God for all of our Catholic brothers and sisters who are so gracious in our discussions of matters of Christian faith.
G
Genesius
Guest
See the Diet…I mean…can of worms I have opened…LOL 
G
Genesius
Guest
JONNC Wrote: Actually, first, no Lutheran worth his salt would describe Lutheran belief as consubstantiation
My Response: At the risk, with other sentiments in here of other people speaking for Lutherans, I admit ignorance. I can’t remember where I had heard the term Consubstantiation, but I was sure it was related to the Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence. I could be wrong. Can you clarify for me? It sounds like perhaps some Lutheran groups would hold to this, while others may not?
Having said all that, although I am Catholic, I never have truly understood the mystery that is the Eucharist, but simply respond as St. Peter, “Lord, I may not fully understand this, but you have taught it and I humbly accept your Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.” [paraphrase, of course]. It sounds like that may be close to your sentiment as well.
However, no offense, but I still hold to the fact that unless there is a Lutheran pastor who is a defected Catholic priest (in which case it would then be valid, though not proper), there can be no valid consecration outside the Catholic Church.
My Response: At the risk, with other sentiments in here of other people speaking for Lutherans, I admit ignorance. I can’t remember where I had heard the term Consubstantiation, but I was sure it was related to the Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence. I could be wrong. Can you clarify for me? It sounds like perhaps some Lutheran groups would hold to this, while others may not?
Having said all that, although I am Catholic, I never have truly understood the mystery that is the Eucharist, but simply respond as St. Peter, “Lord, I may not fully understand this, but you have taught it and I humbly accept your Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.” [paraphrase, of course]. It sounds like that may be close to your sentiment as well.
However, no offense, but I still hold to the fact that unless there is a Lutheran pastor who is a defected Catholic priest (in which case it would then be valid, though not proper), there can be no valid consecration outside the Catholic Church.
G
Genesius
Guest
It seems you gave a really long explanation just to say that the substance and accidents or appearance cannot exist apart from each other; that they are co-dependent upon each other. If that explanation is correct, then how could the bread and wine literally transform into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ without the accidents transforming as well? *
*
G
Genesius
Guest
Thank you gcnuss. I came from a very diverse background starting at The Salvation Army, backslidden, to Fundamental Baptist, Non-Denom, Southern Baptist, back to Conservative Baptist, Presbyterian, ELCA Lutheran, and finally home to Rome. I also graduated from a Bible College that was supported by the Christian Church/Disciples Of Christ. As I was moving through these different denoms I used the denom I knew the best (Baptist) as a guide to compare with other denoms, including Lutheran. For instance, I equated the liberal branch of Lutherans (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) to liberal branch of Baptists (American Baptist), etc. Missouri Synod = Conservative Baptist; Wisconsin Synod = Fundamental Baptist (are you confused yet…LOL
). Of course, in some ways they are radically different, otherwise they wouldn’t be “Baptist” and “Lutheran”. I must say, though, I have never heard the term “Evangelical Catholics” before.I have read that John Dun Scotus is credited with the concept. He was a Catholic who lived in the late 13th and early 14th centuries.
I would speculate that the reason you hear consubstantiation at times in some Lutheran circles is 1) its easy to explain, 2) its counter-position to Transubstantiation, and 3) perhaps some poor catechesis, something rather familiar to Catholics, if what I’ve read at CAF is any measure.
No offense taken. We simply disagree that apostolic succession, while desirable, is a neceesity It is my understanding that the CC also recognizes the orders of Othodoxy, Old Catholics, PNCC etc.
Jon
C
croix_de_fer
Guest
It seems you gave a really long explanation just to say that the substance and accidents or appearance cannot exist apart from each other; that they are co-dependent upon each other. If that explanation is correct, then how could the bread and wine literally transform into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ without the accidents transforming as well? *
Actually he is saying substance and appearance do exist apart from each other. At least the substance has an intrinsic existence separate from appearance and not required to have an appearance, at least an appearance that is processed by human senses. Substance can exist without rendering appearance. Appearance results from substance, therefore it is dependent on the substance but the two are not intrinsically connected. This is my understanding but I could be completely wrong.
C
croix_de_fer
Guest
Actually Catholics can participate in Orthodox Holy Communion because the Vatican recognizes the Orthodox Church as having Apostolic Succession, therefore their Holy Communion is valid and authentic. However, a Catholic may only attend an Orthodox Church if no Catholic Mass is available, location is inaccessible, etc.
Chesster,
I did not mean to skip over this, sorry for the late response.
I think you are right about this. For some Lutherans will be tied to a Sacramental Union explanation in such a way that they will consider it incompatible with Transub.
For example, there are those in the LCMS who reject documents such as the one I mentioned in this thread. They will see it as a compromise
. And while I reject compromise, I don’t see what is written as compromise, but rather convergence.Some see Sacramental Union as virtually consubstantiation, thinking that it means that, contrary to the annihilation of the substance in Transub, the substance of bread and wine remain. They, too, would say that SU and Transub are incompatible. For me, this is also attempt to explain the mystery.
And finally, we have our fair share of triumphalists, too.
They have no intention of ever seeing a real convergence of beliefs brtween our communions. I see that faction as not only anti-catholic, but anti-Lutheran (in the sense that their view is contrary to the Confessions), and worst of all counter to Christ’s call that we be in unity, even here in the Church Militant.Jon
Well, I for one thank you for the thread. It has been a breath of fresh air, in that the participants have been charitable, firm in their beliefs, and yet open to listen to the possibility that what we believe may not be so different afterall.See the Diet…I mean…can of worms I have opened…LOL
Jon
- Status