S
stefany379
Guest
Excellent answer
Why follow a religion made up by Martin Luther in 1500 and not Christ himself?
- Status
S
stefany379
Guest
your a so called Catholic, why don’t you tell him?? I’ve exhausted myself with this person, he’s having a good time with us, but it will be at his own expense…
S
Steadfast
Guest
Belief in the Real Presence is such a bedrock of Lutheranism that one cannot speak seriously of really even being Lutheran if one denies it.
W
whatevergirl
Guest
Huh…I didn’t know that…really? My brotherinlaw is Lutheran, but for some reason, I was under the impression that he doesn’t believe that the Eucharist is the true presence…I mean…who is consecrating the host? I thought that consecration was limited to priests?
Enlighten me? Thank you.
J
jmcrae
Guest
S
stefany379
Guest
Who are you to tell me I cannot tell Edwin he is being misled???
What kind of a Catholic are you? Probably not a knowledgeable one…
C
Contarini
Guest
And doing a good job too. Your post #106 in the women’s ordination thread made a compelling argument. I don’t think I buy it, but it’s worth chewing on. (Do I detect some Scott Hahn there, BTW, or is this just a similar line of thinking?)
Edwin
J
jmcrae
Guest
WOW.
C
Contarini
Guest
Not in Lutheranism. Lutherans believe that only ordained people should celebrate the Eucharist, but in principle anyone can (I basically agree). And ordination is seen as being set apart by the Christian community, rather than in terms of apostolic succession.
Of course the Lutheran view of the Real Presence is not identical to the Catholic view. For one thing, at the level of dogma the presence is only believed to be there during the liturgy. It appears that different Lutherans have different theories about what happens to “leftovers,” but the dominant view seems to be that they revert to being ordinary bread and wine. It’s not so much that the bread and wine are transformed as that Christ’s Body and Blood become present (or accessible) in them. (I believe that some Lutherans *do *believe that the Presence remains, though. As far as I know there is no official Lutheran teaching either way.)
Still, the Presence is a bodily presence, and Luther’s own way of writing about it (at least) is far more literal than that of, say, Aquinas. Luther approved of the recantation that Berengar was forced to sign in the 11th century, which said that the Body of Christ was torn with the teeth. This recantation, ironically, embarrassed the later scholastics, who did not have such a literal view of the Real Presence. Luther liked it. His view wasn’t the same as the Catholic view, but you couldn’t say that it was less literal, IMHO.
Edwin
G
gcnuss
Guest
Edwin,
You present Luther’s views very well. He was absolutely convinced that Christ’s body and blood are truly present in the Eucharist. He had one well-known exchange with Zwingli on the subject. When Zwingli insisted on a symbolic presence, Luther’s reply (paraphrased here) was that when Christ said “this is my body” the word “is” means “is,” not “symbolizes” or “represents.”
Peace,
Gary
G
gcnuss
Guest
Angiegirl,
I can’t speak for the Missuouri and Wisconsin Synods, except to say that they wouldn’t permit a woman to be ordained as a pastor, From my own poisition (ELCA), we do not ordain just anyone who wants to become a pastor, There is a process of discernment lin which the church and the individual participate and, in the end, the church must approve the individual for ordination.
Peace,
Gary
J
jmcrae
Guest
No doubt there is a certain amount of Hahn influence - he’s everywhere, after all - but I actually got that from someone on a message board much like this one, several years ago. It sounded plausible to me at the time, and it’s my “working theory” for the time being.
The bottom line on that one, of course, is that the Church chooses who She wants; so, while it’s interesting to speculate about the reasons, it’s not really up to us to decide.
We actually accept this idea everywhere else - we put up with the weirdest kinds of discrimination from much less important organizations - I once worked at a place where they only hired single women, for reasons only they themselves could understand - I’m not sure why people jump all over the Church for only hiring single men for the priesthood, yet companies like that one that I worked for when I was single seem to be given the benefit of the doubt that they know what they’re doing, and what’s best for their company.
M
Mickey
Guest
I am certain that the Orthodox would not appreciate the slang that you have used.
Brief explanation of Holy Orders according to the Orthodox Church:
The sacrament of holy orders takes its name from the fact that the bishops, priests and deacons give order to the Church. They guarantee the continuity and unity of the Church from age to age and from place to place from the time of Christ and the apostles until the establishment of God’s Kingdom in eternity. As the apostles received the special gift of God to go forth and to make Christ present to men in all of the manifold aspects of his person and work, so the clergy of the Church receive the gift of God’s Spirit to maintain and to manifest Christ’s presence and action in the churches.
It is the doctrine of the Church that the clergy must strive to fulfill the grace given to them with the gift of the “laying on of hands” in the most perfect way possible. But it is also the doctrine of the Church that the reality and effectiveness of the sacraments of the Church ministered by the clergy do not depend upon the personal virtue of the ministers, but upon the presence of Christ who acts in his Church by the Holy Spirit.
C
Contarini
Guest
But the Church doesn’t just claim that it only “hires” men for reasons of policy (the celibacy issue is on a completely different level). It claims that it is ontologically *impossible *for women to be ordained because of the nature of women and the nature of ordination. And my contention is that this appears on the face of it to be a denial of the full participation of women in God’s image and/or in the salvation brought by Christ.
The only other explanation I’ve heard that didn’t immediately self-destruct upon examination was that of Louis Bouyer. It’s mystical and complex and hard to explain (which is part of my problem with it), but basically he argues that women are images of the divine in a more intrinsic way than men (because of the nature of their role in the production of children, among other things). Men are simply “conduits”–they symbolize something that they do not actually embody. This, if I understood Bouyer rightly, was why the worship of an “earth mother” both contains a good deal of truth (as shown in the exaltation of Mary) and is a particularly dangerous form of idolatry. Women in some sense *are *earth mothers, while men are not sky fathers.
I’m garbling this because I didn’t understand it very well in the first place. I’m uncomfortable with both your explanation and Bouyer’s (perhaps because I’m too influenced by feminist egalitarianism), but they both do an end run around the issues I’ve been raising on this thread. They both need further consideration, and if I were already Catholic they would make it easier for me to take the Church’s position on faith.
Edwin
R
rr1213
Guest
Contarini,
I’ve eventually come to the conclusion that women’s ordination is not scripturally allowed. C.S. Lewis’ short commentary on “priestesses” was pertinent there. How do you address the Scriptural references to women remaining silent in Church, etc. vis-a-vis the issue of women’s ordination? If you’ve put your thoughts on-line on this issue before, could you provide me with a link? Thanks,
RR1213
M
Mickey
Guest
In all actuality, this is the only explanation–particularly in reference to Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox theology. Unfortunately, when someone hears an explanation that “it is mystical and complex” it is usually attacked as a cop out by those who are looking for rational and defined responses. Yet so much of our faith is mystical–The Real Presence, The Trinity, deification, etc. In fact the Sacraments themselves are also called “Mysteries”.
L
lrs
Guest
I was raised Baptist, well was sent on the Baptist Church Bus, to VBS, and Camp Cherith at Baptist Camp. When our children were 4,3, and new born, I went thru the RCIA classes and was Baptised by Full Immersion at Sacred Heart Church, Roseville.
What a powerful and life changing experience for me. My husband will to this day always comment, “she is a better Catholic than I am”. I firmly believe in the Sacramentals of the Catholic Faith, the real Body and BLood of Jesus in the Eucharist, The fruits of the Holy Spirit, The Beatitudes all contrary to what the world is screaming at us to believe, I love the focus on Mercy and Forgiveness, I believe in Mary and the Saints, I believe we all have the potential to rise to Sainthood if we follow God’s WIll. However, I also believe that at any level of service to mankind, no matter how small, is giving Glory to God. I Love being Catholic, I go to daily mass when offered and feel the power of the Love of God fully each and everyday.
That Said, I am sorry you did not receive a warm reception in the Catholic Church. Growing up, I felt that it was all a secret Mystery, the rituals, the who has the right to be here and doesn’t. We so need to combat that.
Peace,
Lisa
J
jmcrae
Guest
Lisa;
When I converted, I knew without the shadow of any doubt that I was doing it for Jesus and for the salvation of my soul, and not for any human approval.
When I converted, I knew without the shadow of any doubt that I was doing it for Jesus and for the salvation of my soul, and not for any human approval.
S
Steadfast
Guest
Well, if by “priests” you mean only men who have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders in your Church, then this would be your mistake.I mean…who is consecrating the host? I thought that consecration was limited to priests?
Enlighten me? Thank you.
J
jonfan
Guest
- Status