transubstantiation

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;12584122]When the disciples left Jesus at the well in Samaria to get something for him to eat and returned with food finding Jesus speaking with a Samaritan Woman, Jesus informed the disciples that He had already eaten.

When we consume the Eucharist doing the Works of God, our thirst and hunger for all things natural we no longer thirst or hunger for. Our thirst and hunger for Truth that our flesh yearns for is fulfilled and quenched in the Spirit and Truth in Eucharist, in God’s presence.

In Eucharist fulfills and exceeds that which the flesh thirst and hungers for which pertains to the flesh, which avails nothing, when it is the Spirit which truly is He who sustains and gives life to our mortal bodies in present with the promise of eternal life.

For that thirst and hunger which pertains to the flesh returns to dust, that life which pertains to the spirit removes the thirst and hunger with eternal life.

Our humanity thirst’s and hungers in search for his creator God who is life. The Eucharist quenches our thirst and hunger pains, when we enter God’s true and real body and blood presence, in Spirit and Truth. Our Eucharistic faith no longer thirst or hungers, when the consuming of the Eucharist removes our thirst and hunger for God, when we are in God and it is God himself who actually consumes us to himself, when we do the work God commands of us; to eat his flesh and drink his blood, who is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Peace be with you

 

[rinnie]

Regarding all of the responses; must we believe then that a taker in the Eucharist can never become hungry or thirsty?

Correct. Jesus said unless you eat and drink the Son of Man you have no life in you. But whoever eats and drinks will live forever.

Just wondering do you think Jesus left something out?

 

[dronald]

Correct. Jesus said unless you eat and drink the Son of Man you have no life in you. But whoever eats and drinks will live forever.

Just wondering do you think Jesus left something out?

He said you will never hunger or thirst. Therefore it should be known that no Catholic ever gets hungry or thirsty if Jesus wasn’t speaking figuratively.

When I visited mass I watched many kids take the Eucharist and seem uninterested; shall they never hunger or thirst?

 

[Randy_Carson]

He said you will never hunger or thirst. Therefore it should be known that no Catholic ever gets hungry or thirsty if Jesus wasn’t speaking figuratively.

If Jesus had wanted to give us mere food for our bodies, had he not just fed the 5,000 at the beginning of John 6? The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, and this is nourishment for our souls.

And it was never meant to be a one-time thing; Jesus said “Do this”. Since the disciples to whom He said those words, “did it” right then in the upper room, it can be understood that it was to be an ongoing thing. Of course, the fact that Paul mentions it 20 years later in Corinthians is a bit of a give-away, too.

One other point, John wrote his gospel 60 years after Jesus spoke those words; if there had been any misunderstanding regarding the figurative nature of what Jesus said, John certainly could have taken the opportunity to correct it. He didn’t. Instead, John 6 STRENGHTHENS the literal Catholic understanding.

When I visited mass I watched many kids take the Eucharist and seem uninterested; shall they never hunger or thirst?

Second time today someone has referenced bored kids at mass. Weird.

 

[billcu1]

If Jesus had wanted to give us mere food for our bodies, had he not just fed the 5,000 at the beginning of John 6? The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, and this is nourishment for our souls.

And it was never meant to be a one-time thing; Jesus said “Do this”. Since the disciples to whom He said those words, “did it” right then in the upper room, it can be understood that it was to be an ongoing thing. Of course, the fact that Paul mentions it 20 years later in Corinthians is a bit of a give-away, too.

One other point, John wrote his gospel 60 years after Jesus spoke those words; if there had been any misunderstanding regarding the figurative nature of what Jesus said, John certainly could have taken the opportunity to correct it. He didn’t. Instead, John 6 STRENGHTHENS the literal Catholic understanding.

Second time today someone has referenced bored kids at mass. Weird.

He’s also said “my words are life”. I have seen some of those words and unfortunately they seem to have been selectively culled. Some of those words had me for an entire day and if I remember a little more absolutely not hungry that day at all. So that is true.

Bill

 

[Geocacher]

What is the effect of an “illicit” Eucharist? Would it harm those taking the body and blood or just not be valid as in effect? This is a good question I think. Would the participants be receiving death?

Bill

About an “illicit Eucharist”, it should always be read word for word, from the official Mass, to be valid, it is so easy for the person to slip up, or to intentionally change the wording, also I believe that it must be read with faith by the priest.

---

With the parishioner having faith in Transubstantiation, could they be healed by just touching the outside of the chalice(having perfect faith), when they are sick, and can not partake of the Sacrament ??

• I have always wondered if that was possible, since I can not partake of the Sacrament.

Been a very long time since I last posted, been somewhat lurking recently

 

[KjetilK]

A Catholic priest who leaves ministry loses his faculties

No, he does not. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a priest is priest forever. You seem to conflate liceity and validity.

 

[KjetilK]

And some Anglicans hold to requiring confirmation by a bishop, in apostolic succession, to receive. Though my late rector used to say that the altar rail was no place for an inquisition.

And I would expect the idea of a blessing at the rail (cross your arms in a St. Andrew’s cross) would be more or less commonplace. But you know what they say about Anglicans.

They are a motley crew…

 

[KjetilK]

I was listening to a Journey Home radio program from this year and the convert said that his Lutheran (parish?, Independent church?) held to Transsubtantiation, exactly the way the RC does. The host said he had never heard of that before. Pretty soon it will be motley, those Lutherans are.

Well I believe in transubstantiation, and I am a Lutheran priest.

I think I can also make the case that Confessio Augustana does indeed teach transubstantiation or is at least compatible with it. But first, a little history. I am a priest in the Church of Norway. Way back in the 1580s we, along with many other Lutheran churches in Europe, rejected the Formula of Concord. That document rejects transubstantiation directly, substituting what they call ‘sacramental union.’ It is my opinion that this actually contradicts the 10th article of Confessio Augustana (on the Eucharist). That article states that “the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present [in the Eucharist]” (Latin version) or that “the true Body and Blood of Christ is truly present under the form (Ger. Gestalt) of the Bread and Wine in the Supper” (German version). Gestalt have many different meanings in German. One of them is what is called ‘accidents.’ This is not incompatible with transubstantiation, but is also open to sacramental union. But since the latter isn’t mentioned in Confessio Augustana, I have no obligation to hold it.

But the interesting part comes when we read the conclusion of the dogmatic section of Confessio Augustana (articles 1-21). It states that these articles contain “nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome.”

That means that the confession is at least open to, if not embracing, transubstantiation, since that has been taught definitively by ‘the Church of Rome’ well before the Reformation. It was taught at the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215. Last time I checked, that council would qualify as a function of ‘the Church of Rome.’ Note that this does not mean that I have to regard that council as ecumenical. The dictinction of Confessio Augustana is between ‘the Church Catholic’ (Ecclesia Catholica) and ‘the Church of Rome’ (Ecclesia Romana) Ecumenical councils would, in my opinion, fall under ‘the Church Catholic.’ But the article doesn’t merely appeal to the universal Church, it appeals, directly, to ‘the Church of Rome.’ The claim made, in article 21, is that there is nothing in the doctrinal section (art. 1-21) “that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome.”

That means that there is nothing, not a single thing, in article 10, that varies from what is taught not only by Scripture and ‘the Church Catholic’ but also from what is taught by ‘the Church of Rome.’ But if Confessio Augustana 10 does not teach transubstantiation, then there IS something there that “varies from … the Church of Rome.”

I am thus not saying that the Fourth Lateran Council is ecumenical, and thus binding on the whole Church. I am saying that when Confessio Augustana claims that art. 10 does not vary from what is taught by ‘the Church of Rome,’ we must take it at its word. And since transubstantiation is taught as a dogma by ‘the Church of Rome,’ and had been so for at least 315 years when Confessio Augustana was published, the logical move would be to say that Confessio Augustana does teach transubstantiation, or at least that it doesn’t contradict it.

 

[GKC]

They are a motley crew…

Can I get an “Amen”?

GKC

 

[Duane1966]

Can I get an “Amen”?

GKC

You’re preachin’ to the choir.

 

[GKC]

You’re preachin’ to the choir.

Bless you, Brother. My work seems not to be in vain.

GKC

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No, he does not. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a priest is priest forever. You seem to conflate liceity and validity.

Can a Lutheran priest celebrate a Eucharist independently, apart and out of communion from his bishop?

 

[Duane1966]

Well I believe in transubstantiation, and I am a Lutheran priest.

I think I can also make the case that Confessio Augustana does indeed teach transubstantiation or is at least compatible with it. But first, a little history. I am a priesthood in the Church of Norway. Way back in the 1580s we, along with many other Lutheran churches in Europe, rejected the Formula of Concord. That document rejects transubstantiation directly, substituting what they call ‘sacramental union.’ It is my opinion that this actually contradicts the 10th article of Confessio Augustana (on the Eucharist). That article states that “the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present [in the Eucharist]” (Latin version) or that “the true Body and Blood of Christ is truly present under the form (Ger. Gestalt) of the Bread and Wine in the Supper” (German version). Gestalt have many different meanings in German. One of them is what is called ‘accidents.’ This is not incompatible with transubstantiation, but is also open to sacramental union. But since the latter isn’t mentioned in Confessio Augustana, I have no obligation to hold it.

But the interesting part comes when we read the conclusion of the dogmatic section of Confessio Augustana (articles 1-21). It states that these articles contain “nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome.”

That means that the confession is at least open to, if not embracing, transubstantiation, since that has been taught definitively by ‘the Church of Rome’ well before the Reformation. It was taught at the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215. Last time I checked, that council would qualify as a function of ‘the Church of Rome.’ Note that this does not mean that I have to regard that council as ecumenical. The dictinction of Confessio Augustana is between ‘the Church Catholic’ (Ecclesia Catholica) and ‘the Church of Rome’ (Ecclesia Romana) Ecumenical councils would, in my opinion, fall under ‘the Church Catholic.’ But the article doesn’t merely appeal to the universal Church, it appeals, directly, to ‘the Church of Rome.’ The claim made, in article 21, is that there is nothing in the doctrinal section (art. 1-21) “that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome.”

That means that there is nothing, not a single thing, in article 10, that varies from what is taught not only by Scripture and ‘the Church Catholic’ but also from what is taught by ‘the Church of Rome.’ But if Confessio Augustana 10 does not teach transubstantiation, then there IS something there that “varies from … the Church of Rome.”

I am thus not saying that the Fourth Lateran Council is ecumenical, and thus binding on the whole Church. I am saying that when Confessio Augustana claims that art. 10 does not vary from what is taught by ‘the Church of Rome,’ we must take it at its word. And since transubstantiation is taught as a dogma by ‘the Church of Rome,’ and had been so for at least 315 years when Confessio Augustana was published, the logical move would be to say that Confessio Augustana does teach transubstantiation, or at least that it doesn’t contradict it.

Thank you. You explained it very well.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well I believe in transubstantiation, and I am a Lutheran priest.

I think I can also make the case that Confessio Augustana does indeed teach transubstantiation or is at least compatible with it. But first, a little history. I am a priest in the Church of Norway. Way back in the 1580s we, along with many other Lutheran churches in Europe, rejected the Formula of Concord. That document rejects transubstantiation directly, substituting what they call ‘sacramental union.’ It is my opinion that this actually contradicts the 10th article of Confessio Augustana (on the Eucharist). That article states that “the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present [in the Eucharist]” (Latin version) or that “the true Body and Blood of Christ is truly present under the form (Ger. Gestalt) of the Bread and Wine in the Supper” (German version). Gestalt have many different meanings in German. One of them is what is called ‘accidents.’ This is not incompatible with transubstantiation, but is also open to sacramental union. But since the latter isn’t mentioned in Confessio Augustana, I have no obligation to hold it.

But the interesting part comes when we read the conclusion of the dogmatic section of Confessio Augustana (articles 1-21). It states that these articles contain “nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome.”

That means that the confession is at least open to, if not embracing, transubstantiation, since that has been taught definitively by ‘the Church of Rome’ well before the Reformation. It was taught at the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215. Last time I checked, that council would qualify as a function of ‘the Church of Rome.’ Note that this does not mean that I have to regard that council as ecumenical. The dictinction of Confessio Augustana is between ‘the Church Catholic’ (Ecclesia Catholica) and ‘the Church of Rome’ (Ecclesia Romana) Ecumenical councils would, in my opinion, fall under ‘the Church Catholic.’ But the article doesn’t merely appeal to the universal Church, it appeals, directly, to ‘the Church of Rome.’ The claim made, in article 21, is that there is nothing in the doctrinal section (art. 1-21) “that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome.”

That means that there is nothing, not a single thing, in article 10, that varies from what is taught not only by Scripture and ‘the Church Catholic’ but also from what is taught by ‘the Church of Rome.’ But if Confessio Augustana 10 does not teach transubstantiation, then there IS something there that “varies from … the Church of Rome.”

I am thus not saying that the Fourth Lateran Council is ecumenical, and thus binding on the whole Church. I am saying that when Confessio Augustana claims that art. 10 does not vary from what is taught by ‘the Church of Rome,’ we must take it at its word. And since transubstantiation is taught as a dogma by ‘the Church of Rome,’ and had been so for at least 315 years when Confessio Augustana was published, the logical move would be to say that Confessio Augustana does teach transubstantiation, or at least that it doesn’t contradict it.

In light of all that you have written here as well as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and other dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics, what is the opinion of Lutherans in Norway about possible or eventual re-unification with Rome?

Specifically, what would be the major obstacles from your point of view?

Thanks.

 

[KjetilK]

Can a Lutheran priest celebrate a Eucharist independently, apart and out of communion from his bishop?

Yes, and the same goes for (former) Roman Catholic priests. A priest can (validly) celebrate the Eucharist apart from, and out of communion with, his (former) bishop. But he may not (necessarily) do that licitly. This is an important distinction.

 

[KjetilK]

In light of all that you have written here as well as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and other dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics, what is the opinion of Lutherans in Norway about possible or eventual re-unification with Rome?

Specifically, what would be the major obstacles from your point of view?

Well, I would first say that the major differences are in matters of ecclesiology and canonicity, especially the question of who can, and may, preside at the liturgy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, I would first say that the major differences are in matters of ecclesiology and canonicity, especially the question of who can, and may, preside at the liturgy.

And if the Catholic Church permitted Lutheran pastors to serve as Catholic priests as has been the case with some Anglican priests who converted, do you think the Lutherans of Norway in general would desire to return to full communion with Rome?

 

[GKC]

And if the Catholic Church permitted Lutheran pastors to serve as Catholic priests as has been the case with some Anglican priests who converted, do you think the Lutherans of Norway in general would desire to return to full communion with Rome?

After ordination absolute, of course.

GKC

 

[billcu1]

This is a very interesting thread. I’ve never met a Lutheran and always wanted their point of view of Lutheranism. This is what I’ve always been told in the RCC. Martin Luther of course as a priest could forgive sins via the holy spirit but not being a Bishop couldn’t pass down to others the ability to forgive as the Bishops ordain. So he couldn’t pass down the lineage. What do Lutherans say about this?

Bill