Which Church??

[Randy_Carson]

Where were Mr. and Mrs. ordained (assuming Mrs. can even be ordained)?
Is the use of grape juice keeping in accord with Christ’s ordinance?

Our clergy are indeed called and ordained and, in accordance to Christ’s ordinance, celebrate in truth His Eucharist, that our clergy are valid to do so under divine law.

I’m going to take all that as a “No, the body and blood of Jesus are not truly present at Harvest Bible Fellowship.”

Further, it appears that you look for valid ordination as an important factor in determining where a valid Eucharist may be found.

To use an extreme example, a group of Satanists cannot confect the sacrament merely by saying the words of consecration in order to subsequently profane the elements, can they? No.

But neither can unordained laymen - even if he or she is acting as the pastor of his or her own church - cause the bread and the wine to become the body and blood of Christ by repeating those words and by mere belief, can they?

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;12649596]I’m going to take all that as a “No, the body and blood of Jesus are not truly present at Harvest Bible Fellowship.”

Further, it appears that you look for valid ordination as an important factor in determining where a valid Eucharist may be found.

It isn’t so much that I look for it, but my communion does, as the CA states. That is in keeping with the historic Church, our disagreement about presbyter ordination notwithstanding.

To use an extreme example, a group of Satanists cannot confect the sacrament merely by saying the words of consecration in order to subsequently profane the elements, can they?

One would hope not, even if the leader of that group of Satanists had been ordained a Catholic (or Lutheran) priest at a previous time.

No. But neither can unordained laymen - even if he or she is acting as the pastor of his or her own church - cause the bread and the wine to become the body and blood of Christ by repeating those words and by mere belief, can they?

I would agree, again, our disagreement about presbyter ordination notwithstanding.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It isn’t so much that I look for it, but my communion does, as the CA states. That is in keeping with the historic Church, our disagreement about presbyter ordination notwithstanding.

One would hope not, even if the leader of that group of Satanists had been ordained a Catholic (or Lutheran) priest at a previous time.

I would agree, again, our disagreement about presbyter ordination notwithstanding.

If you struck up a conversation with Mr. Harvest at a coffee shop and the topic of the Lord’s Supper came up, would it be possible that he might be offended to learn that you, a Lutheran, consider his communion services to be deficient because Jesus is not really and truly present in the sacrament?

(And please don’t skirt the issue by saying that you would go out of your way to avoid controversial subjects which I know is your preference. I’m asking whether Mr. Harvest might be taken aback by your Lutheran rejection of his communion as valid.)

Catholics openly state that we do not consider the communion of other churches to be valid, and consequently, we are not permitted to receive communion in these churches and we ask non-Catholic visitors not to receive ours.

Are you permitted to receive communion at a Baptist service when you know without question that the belief of the congregation and pastor is that the bread and wine are mere symbols?

 

[joe371]

It isn’t so much that I look for it, but my communion does, as the CA states. That is in keeping with the historic Church, our disagreement about presbyter ordination notwithstanding.

One would hope not, even if the leader of that group of Satanists had been ordained a Catholic (or Lutheran) priest at a previous time.

I would agree, again, our disagreement about presbyter ordination notwithstanding.

Hey Jon, how can one know if a non-Catholic Church (excluding the Eastern Orthodox Church) truly possesses apostolic succession, required to confect the Eucharist, if in fact you believe that apostolic succession is necessary? My apologies if you already answered this a long time ago; I’m getting old brother. LOL…

 

[joe371]

Randy Carson;12649666]If you struck up a conversation with Mr. Harvest at a coffee shop and the topic of the Lord’s Supper came up, would it be possible that he might be offended to learn that you, a Lutheran, consider his communion services to be deficient because Jesus is not really and truly present in the sacrament?

Probably. :yup:

(And please don’t skirt the issue by saying that you would go out of your way to avoid controversial subjects which I know is your preference. I’m asking whether Mr. Harvest might be taken aback by your Lutheran rejection of his communion as valid.)

Catholics openly state that we do not consider the communion of other churches to be valid, and consequently, **we are not permitted to receive communion in these churches and we ask non-Catholic visitors not to receive ours.
**

True.

Are you permitted to receive communion at a Baptist service when you know without question that the belief of the congregation and pastor is that the bread and wine are mere symbols?

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;12649666]If you struck up a conversation with Mr. Harvest at a coffee shop and the topic of the Lord’s Supper came up, would it be possible that he might be offended to learn that you, a Lutheran, consider his communion services to be deficient because Jesus is not really and truly present in the sacrament?
(And please don’t skirt the issue by saying that you would go out of your way to avoid controversial subjects which I know is your preference. I’m asking whether Mr. Harvest might be taken aback by your Lutheran rejection of his communion as valid.)

I think Mr. Harvest would perhaps be more offended if I referred to his office as “priesthood”, and implied that, in his communion, the real and substantial body and blood of Christ were present.
That said, perhaps it would be “possible” for him to be offended. He might not expect that I as a Lutheran would sound so, um, Catholic about the issue.

Catholics openly state that we do not consider the communion of other churches to be valid, and consequently, we are not permitted to receive communion in these churches and we ask non-Catholic visitors not to receive ours.

And I absolutely honor and respect that position. In fact, the LCMS position of “close communion” is similar to that of the CC.

Are you permitted to receive communion at a Baptist service when you know without question that the belief of the congregation and pastor is that the bread and wine are mere symbols?

From the LCMS:

“In accordance with the confessional nature of participation in the Lord’s Supper, and in agreement with Lutheranism’s historic position, it is inappropriate to attend the Lord’s Supper at non-Lutheran altars. Since participation in Holy Communion, scripturally and confessionally understood, entails agreement in the Gospel and all its articles, it would not be appropriate to attend the Lord’s Supper in a church with which such agreement is not shared.”

Jon

 

[spedteacherita]

ben-

I can understand why you want to believe this is true, but it is patently false.

There is no disconnect between what the Catholic Church of the 1st, 10th or 20th century has taught.

Doctrines have developed as later theologians “stood on the shoulder of giants” and saw further, but the teaching of the Church is essentially unchanged.

Hi, Randy,

What is the difference between “later theologians standing on the shoulder of giants” and those that rose in the era of the Reformation? Luther had no intention of causing the rift that happened. He wanted to bring out a discussion of practices that he saw problematic at that time - ie., the granting of indulgences for money.

I know that catholic theologian felt he went too far but what would have happened if they would have sat down and actually had a debate with Luther about the 95 theses?

Be gentle with me…

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon, how can one know if a non-Catholic Church (excluding the Eastern Orthodox Church) truly possesses apostolic succession, required to confect the Eucharist, if in fact you believe that apostolic succession is necessary? My apologies if you already answered this a long time ago; I’m getting old brother. LOL…

As a former Lutheran, you know that apostolic succession from a Lutheran POV is not only a laying on of hands (while it is that, too). It is also a succession of apostolic teaching and belief. We believe that apostolic succession, the laying on of hands of a bishop is desirable, and important, we also recognize the historic practice of presbyter ordination. Many Lutherans today do claim succession through the laying on of hands by a bishop, and can even point to the lines of succession, Catholic rejection of those lines and ordinations notwithstanding.

Jon

 

[dcana]

Jon,

All I can say is God bless you, brother. I find your constant presence here, and even your constant persistence, most admirable. I’ve spent the last seven hours reading through the first half of this thread and I’m exhausted. How do you find the time and energy?

David

 

[joe371]

As a former Lutheran, you know that apostolic succession from a Lutheran POV is not only a laying on of hands (while it is that, too). It is also a succession of apostolic teaching and belief. We believe that apostolic succession, the laying on of hands of a bishop is desirable, and important, we also recognize the historic practice of presbyter ordination. Many Lutherans today do claim succession through the laying on of hands by a bishop, and can even point to the lines of succession, Catholic rejection of those lines and ordinations notwithstanding.

Jon

I know Jon vis-a-vis Lutheranism. :thumbsup:My question, as a former Lutheran: how can one know if a non-Catholic Church (excluding the Lutheran Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church) truly possesses apostolic succession, required to confect the Eucharist?

 

[joe371]

Jon,

All I can say is God bless you, brother. I find your constant presence here, and even your constant persistence, most admirable. I’ve spent the last seven hours reading through the first half of this thread and I’m exhausted. How do you find the time and energy?

David

Wow, 7 hours without a break; that’s commitment; my eyes would be bleeding from the strain. LOL.

 

[GKC]

I know Jon vis-a-vis Lutheranism. :thumbsup:My question, as a former Lutheran: how can one know if a non-Catholic Church (excluding the Lutheran Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church) truly possesses apostolic succession, required to confect the Eucharist?

GKC

 

[JonNC]

Are you permitted to receive communion at a Baptist service when you know without question that the belief of the congregation and pastor is that the bread and wine are mere symbols?

If I may expand on this just a bit more: Even if there was no restriction from the synod, I would not commune at said Baptist Church, for at least two reasons:

1. I would consider it disrespectful to their beliefs regarding the real presence (or lack thereof) for me to receive, believing in the RP.
2. It is an issue so profound to me personally, as you probably already know, that if a communion cannot make the statement, “Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord;…”, then I could never be a part of it.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi, Randy,

What is the difference between “later theologians standing on the shoulder of giants” and those that rose in the era of the Reformation?

Typically, when one thinks of seeing further because they stand on the shoulders of giants, it is in the context of building upon and remaining in conformity with what those giants saw.

In the case of the Reformation, Luther rejected much of what the giants saw - though to be fair, he also retained a good portion, also.

Ironically, modern day Protestants of all stripes seem to have rejected doctrines such as the Perpetual Virginity of Mary which Luther and Calvin had no problem accepting.

Luther had no intention of causing the rift that happened. He wanted to bring out a discussion of practices that he saw problematic at that time - ie., the granting of indulgences for money.

I know that catholic theologian felt he went too far but what would have happened if they would have sat down and actually had a debate with Luther about the 95 theses?

Be gentle with me…

Luther ultimately rejected the teaching authority or Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Consequently, he, like all Protestants, remains his own final interpretive authority, because he knows of nothing that can bind his conscience regarding the interpretation of Scripture. But when a person finds the Magisterium, and recognizes it for what it is, he immediately ceases to be his own final interpretive authority. He recognizes that his interpretation of Scripture ought to be conformed to the teaching and interpretation of the Magisterium, and that to reject the teaching of the Magisterium would be to reject Christ, just as Jesus said to the Apostles:

The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me. (Luke 10:16)

The Protestant epistemological stance, by contrast, is exemplified in the words of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms:

Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason — I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the Word of God.

Luther’s statement captures the very essence of Protestant religious epistemology. All Protestants who followed Luther’s example took this very same stance, subjecting the Church’s teaching, councils, and interpretive tradition to the standard of their own interpretation of Scripture, picking and choosing from them as though they were mere advice.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

All I can say is God bless you, brother. I find your constant presence here, and even your constant persistence, most admirable. I’ve spent the last seven hours reading through the first half of this thread and I’m exhausted. How do you find the time and energy?

David

You are very kind, David. Thank you. I am truly sorry that you went through that 7 hour ordeal.

Jon

 

[joe371]

Typically, when one thinks of seeing further because they stand on the shoulders of giants, it is in the context of building upon and remaining in conformity with what those giants saw.

In the case of the Reformation, Luther rejected much of what the giants saw - though to be fair, he also retained a good portion, also.

Ironically, modern day Protestants of all stripes seem to have rejected doctrines such as the Perpetual Virginity of Mary which Luther and Calvin had no problem accepting.

Luther ultimately rejected the teaching authority or Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Consequently, he, like all Protestants, remains his own final interpretive authority, because he knows of nothing that can bind his conscience regarding the interpretation of Scripture. But when a person finds the Magisterium, and recognizes it for what it is, he immediately ceases to be his own final interpretive authority. He recognizes that his interpretation of Scripture ought to be conformed to the teaching and interpretation of the Magisterium, and that to reject the teaching of the Magisterium would be to reject Christ, just as Jesus said to the Apostles:The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me. (Luke 10:16)The Protestant epistemological stance, by contrast, is exemplified in the words of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms:Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason — I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the Word of God.Luther’s statement captures the very essence of Protestant religious epistemology. All Protestants who followed Luther’s example took this very same stance, subjecting the Church’s teaching, councils, and interpretive tradition to the standard of their own interpretation of Scripture, picking and choosing from them as though they were mere advice.

I suppose it comes down to a simple choice: am I bound by scripture alone or the leadership of Jesus Church, as it relates to discerning dogma/doctrine and resolving doctrinal matters. For the first 400 years of Christianity, the answer was Jesus’ church e.g. the catholic church settled doctrinal differences.

 

[JonNC]

Typically, when one thinks of seeing further because they stand on the shoulders of giants, it is in the context of building upon and remaining in conformity with what those giants saw.

In the case of the Reformation, Luther rejected much of what the giants saw - though to be fair, he also retained a good portion, also.

Ironically, modern day Protestants of all stripes seem to have rejected doctrines such as the Perpetual Virginity of Mary which Luther and Calvin had no problem accepting.

Luther ultimately rejected the teaching authority or Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Consequently, he, like all Protestants, remains his own final interpretive authority, because he knows of nothing that can bind his conscience regarding the interpretation of Scripture. But when a person finds the Magisterium, and recognizes it for what it is, he immediately ceases to be his own final interpretive authority. He recognizes that his interpretation of Scripture ought to be conformed to the teaching and interpretation of the Magisterium, and that to reject the teaching of the Magisterium would be to reject Christ, just as Jesus said to the Apostles:

The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me. (Luke 10:16)

The Protestant epistemological stance, by contrast, is exemplified in the words of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms:

Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason — I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the Word of God.

Luther’s statement captures the very essence of Protestant religious epistemology. All Protestants who followed Luther’s example took this very same stance, subjecting the Church’s teaching, councils, and interpretive tradition to the standard of their own interpretation of Scripture, picking and choosing from them as though they were mere advice.

This is a sound, reasoned perspective, from a Catholic POV.

It kind of circles us back around to the original question I responded to. This Catholic view notwithstanding, we as Lutherans are bound to the teachings of the CA, which we believe to be a right reflection of the true faith, where doctrine is concerned.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think Mr. Harvest would perhaps be more offended if I referred to his office as “priesthood”, and implied that, in his communion, the real and substantial body and blood of Christ were present.

Jon, are you saying that the bread and wine at Harvest Bible Fellowship becomes the body and blood of Christ merely because Mr. & Mrs. Harvest believe it to be true?

Let me take another try at this…

If a man and a woman come to you and say, “Jon, we want to get married. Here is a copy of some wedding vows we made up ourselves. Would you take a moment now to perform the ceremony?”, would the marriage be valid even if you and they all believed that it was?

Or is it first necessary for some other authority (ie, church or state or both) to confer upon YOU the ability to perform a valid marriage ceremony?

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;12649784]Jon, are you saying that the bread and wine at Harvest Bible Fellowship becomes the body and blood of Christ merely because Mr. & Mrs. Harvest believe it to be true?

Not necessarily. But if a communion or a church doctrinally denies the real presence, why would you or I beieve it is there against their will. Again, it is far easier to know where His presence is, than where it is not.

Let me take another try at this…

If a man and a woman come to you and say, “Jon, we want to get married. Here is a copy of some wedding vows we made up ourselves. Would you take a moment now to perform the ceremony?”, would the marriage be valid even if you and they all believed that it was?

No.

Or is it first necessary for some other authority to confer upon YOU the ability to perform the marriage sacrament?

An authority. Here, from Charles P. Krauth:

To the end that God may be glorified in the salvation of men, our Lord Jesus Christ, in his Divine Unity with the Father and the Holy Ghost, has instituted the ministry; to teach the pure Gospel, and to administer the Sacraments rightly in the Church. (Acts xiii. 26, xvi. 17; Rom. i. 16; 2 Cor. v. 18; Eph. i. 13.) … This divinely instituted ministry is a sacred public office, conferred by legitimate vocation, on suitable men. (Rom. xii. 7; 2 Cor. iv. 1; Eph. iv. 12; Col. iv. 17; 1 Tim. i. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 5.) … This ministry is distinguished in the New Testament from all other offices borne by men. It has distinctive names, endowments and duties, separating the teachers from the taught, the pastors from the flock, and those that have rule from those who are obedient to that rule. (Acts xiii. 2; Rom. i. 1; Acts xiii. 1; 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29; Eph. iv. 1; Acts xx. 28; 1 Pet. v. 2; Rom. xii. 8; 1 Thess. v. 12; 1 Tim. v. 17.) … The ministry is necessary as the ordinary instrumental medium ordained of God, whereby the Word and Sacraments which are the only means of grace in the strict and proper sense, are to be brought to men. (Phil. i. 24; Heb. v. 12; 2 Cor. v. 19; Eph. i. 13; 1 Thess. ii. 13.) … Though God is the perpetuator of the ministry, as he is its author, He continues it on Earth, by means of his Church; through which He exercises his power of appointing teachers of the word. (Acts i. 23, 24; Titus i. 5; Acts xiv. 23, xx. 28; 1 Tim. iv. 14, v. 22; 2 Tim. i. 6; 1 Cor. xii. 28.) … A minister, New Testament Bishop, Presbyter, Elder, or Evangelical Pastor, is a man legitimately called by God, through the Church, to teach the word publicly in the Church; to administer the sacraments, and to maintain sound discipline and good government. (1 Cor. iii. 5; 2 Cor. iii. 6, vi. 4; Rom. xv. 16; 1 Cor. iv. 1; Acts xx. 28; Phil. i. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 2; Titus i. 7; 1 Tim. iv. 14; 1 Tim. v. 17; Eph. iv. 11.)

I am not called by the Church to do these things, as I am not ordained in the Church to do so.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not necessarily. But if a communion or a church doctrinally denies the real presence, why would you or I beieve it is there against their will. Again, it is far easier to know where His presence is, than where it is not.

No.

An authority. Here, from Charles P. Krauth:

I am not called by the Church to do these things, as I am not ordained in the Church to do so.

Jon

Okay. So, a valid governmental agency would have to confer upon you the authority to perform a valid civil wedding ceremony, and a valid Church would, in theory, need to confer ordination upon you in order for you to join a man and woman as husband and wife in a valid, sacramental wedding. Correct?

Now, these days, we’re getting pretty lenient about who can and can’t perform wedding ceremonies and the state will recognize just about anyone who wants to perform them. But it seems to me that orthodox Christians must exercise a bit more of its authority when it comes to who can conduct the liturgy in which Christ’s own body and blood are said to be present.

Do you agree?