From Luther’s Small Catechism: “What is the sacrament of the Altar? It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and drink.” So, yeah, we believe in the real presence.That’s not very likely. A Lutheran who “discerns the real and substantial body and blood of Christ,” would not be a Lutheran for long. They would become Catholic.
You can believe whatever you wish. The fact remains that Lutherans do not have apostolic succession. So there cannot be a valid Eucharist in the Lutheran Church.From Luther’s Small Catechism: “What is the sacrament of the Altar? It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and drink.” So, yeah, we believe in the real presence.
If you say so:shrug:You can believe whatever you wish. The fact remains that Lutherans do not have apostolic succession. So there cannot be a valid Eucharist in the Lutheran Church.
It’s not what I say. It’s historical fact. Consult a history book, or Luther’s own writings concerning what he considered apostasy happening in the church. You will see that he not only removed books from the bible, but conferred upon himself the consecrated right to ordain bishops and priests.If you say so:shrug:
Thank you - the name of our chuch having the word “Lutheran” is a curiosity of history. Indeed, we profess on holy, catholic, and apostolic church.That’s not very likely. A Lutheran who “discerns the real and substantial body and blood of Christ,” would not be a Lutheran for long. They would become Catholic.
If you say so:shrug: I happen to BE a Lutheran. So, I would know what my church teaches. The Lutheran Church is the valid continuation of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We reformed the errors before Trent. So, our orders are valid. our Eucharist is valid. If you disagree, that’s fine. We’re allowed that. But, since you and Papa Paul seem to dead set on the myth of Luther removing books from the bible, I highly suggest that you both do a whole lot more research. I’ve read and am reading lots of Luther’s writings. Yes, there are books he disagreed with. But, he never, ever, removed any. That, is a fact.It’s not what I say. It’s historical fact. Consult a history book, or Luther’s own writings concerning what he considered apostasy happening in the church. You will see that he not only removed books from the bible, but conferred upon himself the consecrated right to ordain bishops and priests.
Really? I never would have guessed.If you say so:shrug: I happen to BE a Lutheran.
So do I. Luther removed books from the bible and gave himself the (false) ability to ordain bishops and priests.So, I would know what my church teaches.
Of course it is, according to a man who tossed out apostolic succession and decided to make up his own theology.The Lutheran Church is the valid continuation of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
No, it’s called heresy. Unless someone starts making up their own theology and starts their own church… I wonder who that brings to mind.We reformed the errors before Trent. So, our orders are valid. our Eucharist is valid.
I wonder then, how these books mysteriously disappeared, all at the same time as the Protestant reformation. Hmmm…I’ve read and am reading lots of Luther’s writings. Yes, there are books he disagreed with. But, he never, ever, removed any. That, is a fact.
It’s not a curiosity at all, it was founded by Martin Luther, hence the name “Lutheran.” Profess whatever you like. It is a church without valid holy orders or apostolic succession founded by a heretic who presumed to speak for Jesus Christ.Thank you - the name of our chuch having the word “Lutheran” is a curiosity of history. Indeed, we profess on holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
Are you sure you are Catholic? The reason I ask is that all the Catholics I have had the pleasure to meet in person have been treated me kindly, have been quite thoughtfull, and have have wisdom to add to any conversation.It’s not a curiosity at all, it was founded by Martin Luther, hence the name “Lutheran.” Profess whatever you like. It is a church without valid holy orders or apostolic succession founded by a heretic who presumed to speak for Jesus Christ.
As you continue to maintain the falsehood that Luther removed books from his bible in this tread as well, let me copy what I posted in nother thread about it:I wonder then, how these books mysteriously disappeared, all at the same time as the Protestant reformation. Hmmm…
Yea , I’m sure.Are you sure you are Catholic?
I’m not trying to be unkind, I’m just telling you the truth. Luther was a heretic .It would be unkind to tell you otherwise.The reason I ask is that all the Catholics I have had the pleasure to meet in person have been treated me kindly, have been quite thoughtfull, and have have wisdom to add to any conversation.
Be honest with yourself. He did just that. He started his own “church” and “ordained” his own Bishops and Priests.Thait said, You are right to proclaim that from the Catholic point of view we lack proper apolstolic sucession and indeed Father Luther was excommunicated, but to think that for a moment that he presumed to speak for Jesus Christ is perposterous.
He did do it though. Any history book will tell you that.Luther for all his many faults was a well trained Catholic monk, and he would have never done such a thing.
You can’t even recognize what you’re doing. Everything you’re saying is I am catholic, my church is catholic, my beliefs are catholic, and you’ll do anything to try and justify that except admit the fact that you are not catholic.I’ll point out the proper name of our origional church is “Evangelisch Kirche” and we profess not Luther but the origional catholic creeds and the Confessio Augustana.
I disagree with the comment that Lutherans of ALL stripes are on the same page regarding the doctrine of justification.Well, if one looks at the Reformation and its major dispute - justification - Lutherans of all stripes are on the same page. This is also the case with the sacraments. My problem with the ELCA is that, as is typical with liberals, they feel that doctrine and practice ought to bend to the current whim of the times. Women in the clergy, open and practicing gay in the clergy, and open communion.
There are and have previously been numerous ELCA members on this board, and I have found rare disagreement with them, except in the areas I mentioned. Pastor Gary (gcnuss) I would have as my pastor anytime.
Jon
Mary: The LCMS Eucharist specificially states Jesus’ body and blood are presentYou can believe whatever you wish. The fact remains that Lutherans do not have apostolic succession. So there cannot be a valid Eucharist in the Lutheran Church.
Mary: The Lutherans need to reform the errors in their own Lutheran Church. The Church is gravely divided into synods with HUGE variations in doctrine. As I have noted the LWF signed the Doctrine of the Joint declaration on the doctrine of Justification with Rome. That is a MAJOR issue.If you say so:shrug: I happen to BE a Lutheran. So, I would know what my church teaches. The Lutheran Church is the valid continuation of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We reformed the errors before Trent. So, our orders are valid. our Eucharist is valid. If you disagree, that’s fine. We’re allowed that. But, since you and Papa Paul seem to dead set on the myth of Luther removing books from the bible, I highly suggest that you both do a whole lot more research. I’ve read and am reading lots of Luther’s writings. Yes, there are books he disagreed with. But, he never, ever, removed any. That, is a fact.
Yes, that is troublesome. I do insist on at least basic creedal orthodoxy. If the theological radicals won on that, I would have to move on.I do have a question for you though, aren’t you bothered at all by the more radical elements of the Episcopal Church and ELCA? I mean some of their bishops don’t even believe Jesus is God.
It doesn’t matter what you do or do not insist upon. Jesus Christ created *one * church.Yes, that is troublesome. I do insist on at least basic creedal orthodoxy. If the theological radicals won on that, I would have to move on.
I thought it was the Calvinists that removed them, and later Lutherans followed them. Albeit Luther wanted to remove some more. :twocents:I wonder then, how these books mysteriously disappeared, all at the same time as the Protestant reformation. Hmmm…
I think he was saying from a Catholic perspective Lutherans don’t have a valid Eucharist.Mary: The LCMS Eucharist specificially states Jesus’ body and blood are present
IN WITH AND UNDER the bread and wine. Now One or two Pastors on line call this Consubstantiation ;however apparently there is no official teaching on this issue.
However, I took the new members class for people intersted in learning more and the LCMS Pastor that led this class could not disagree more with the Catholic Teaching of the Eucharist so it’s false to think these are remotely the same.
While Lutherans don’t have the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in their Communion like Catholics do in a Catholic Mass, I think it is worth noting what Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said regarding Lutheran Communion:You can believe whatever you wish. The fact remains that Lutherans do not have apostolic succession. So there cannot be a valid Eucharist in the Lutheran Church.
Well, that kind of contradicts the last 500 years. And the issue of validity isn’t the issue in the matter of whether or not Lutherans confess the true and substantial body and blood of Christ.That’s not very likely. A Lutheran who “discerns the real and substantial body and blood of Christ,” would not be a Lutheran for long. They would become Catholic.