Why is Jesus never on the cross in a Protestant church?

[moondweller]

No, Lutherans don’t believe it is a spiritual presence. We believe that the true body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present in the Eucharist. Nothing ambiguous, the true, real body and blood of Christ.

That’s true. But it’s not quite transubstantiation. It’s taught that the bread and wine remain what the are, but there is in the Lord’s Supper nevertheless a mysterious and miraculous real presence of the whole Person of Christ, body and blood, in, under, and along with, the elements.

Both transubstantiation and consubstantiation must be accepted by faith since nothing of what each claim can be realized by the senses. And both introduce into Christianity an element of faith that was never required by Christ. He never said “believe” that this bread becomes My body, blood, soul and divinity, or “believe” that My body and blood are, in, under and along with the elements. He simply said, “do this in remembrance of Me.”

 

[Huguenot]

In Bavaria, right? That part of Germany pretty much remained Catholic.Paris?Yes, it’s more involved but they don’t go as far as the Catholics.Well, in a way. My house sits on the side of a place called “Moon Mountain.” Hence, “Moondweller.”

Not in Bavaria, the name of the “state” ( Germany is a federal country too ) is Baden-Württemberg, it’s close to the French border … and now I live in Alsace, in France, close to … the German border … ( because it’s easy to find Protestants there … I moved voluntarily to this part of my country because I was “isolated” where I was before …)

 

[kalt]

I totally understand, and I’m not offended by that at all. You are right, the CC does not find our Eucharist valid, even though we believe yours is. I just wanted the poster to know what we believe, as he was misinformed. It is like when noncatholics get on here and accuse Catholics of worshipping Mary, a few of which I have corrected, not because I agree with all Catholic Mariology (I happen to agree with much of it), but because they are wrong in their interpretation of your belief.
Jon

The last I heard, our churches were very close to unity. I hope that’s not just talk.

 

[JonNC]

That’s true. But it’s not quite transubstantiation. It’s taught that the bread and wine remain what the are, but there is in the Lord’s Supper nevertheless a mysterious and miraculous real presence of the whole Person of Christ, body and blood, in, under, and along with, the elements.

Both transubstantiation and consubstantiation must be accepted by faith since nothing of what each claim can be realized by the senses. And both introduce into Christianity an element of faith that was never required by Christ. He never said “believe” that this bread becomes My body, blood, soul and divinity, or “believe” that My body and blood are, in, under and along with the elements. He simply said, “do this in remembrance of Me.”

I believe Luther’s quote was, “Ist ist ist.” Is is is. As in, This is my body… this is my blood. This is a point of divergence between Lutherans and many other non-catholics.

 

[JonNC]

The last I heard, our churches were very close to unity. I hope that’s not just talk.

Hi Kalt,
Saying “close to unity” is probably wishful thinking on both our parts. But certainly since Vatican II there have been profitable talks to that end. It is, however, my prayer. And I think, if our leaders allow themselves to be lead by the Holy Spirit, something that can happen. As I said before, wouldn’t it be a joyous day if we could share the Eucharist in either of our churches, since they both would be the same again? In the meantime, I will pray for you in your Eucharist, and hope, if you can, that you will pray for me in mine.

Jon

 

[moondweller]

I believe Luther’s quote was, “Ist ist ist.” Is is is. As in, This is my body… this is my blood. This is a point of divergence between Lutherans and many other non-catholics.

He did not agree that the elements actually “transubstantiated” into His actual body, blood, soul and divinity as RC’ism asserts and requires its devotees to believe. In consubstantiation the elements REMAIN AS THEY ARE. In RC’ism the host actually becomes Jesus and is worthy of worship: Its practice of “Eucharistic Adoration.”

 

[moondweller]

Hi Kalt,
Saying “close to unity” is probably wishful thinking on both our parts. But certainly since Vatican II there have been profitable talks to that end. It is, however, my prayer. And I think, if our leaders allow themselves to be lead by the Holy Spirit, something that can happen. **As I said before, wouldn’t it be a joyous day if we could share the Eucharist in either of our churches, since they both would be the same again? ** In the meantime, I will pray for you in your Eucharist, and hope, if you can, that you will pray for me in mine.

Jon

The same? How could this be possible if RC’ism believes that only its ordained priests can transubstantiate the bread into Christ by uttering the formula: "hoc est corpus meum? It would seem to me that your Lutheran synod would have to convert to RC’ism and your “Pastors” would have to become ordained “Priests.”

May I ask, why haven’t you personally converted? Why wait?

 

[JonNC]

He did not agree that the elements actually “transubstantiated” into His actual body, blood, soul and divinity as RC’ism asserts and requires its devotees to believe. In consubstantiation the elements REMAIN AS THEY ARE. In RC’ism the host actually becomes Jesus and is worthy of worship: Its practice of “Eucharistic Adoration.”

You are right. “In, with, and under”. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession states, " …the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present and are truly offered with those things that are seen." My point in all this, Moondweller, is that Lutherans do not consider it a “spiritual” presence, as you had said in an earlier post. BTW, while Luther didn’t like the Feast of Corpus Christi, he was not necessarily opposed to adoration. At least that is my understanding.

 

[JonNC]

The same? How could this be possible if RC’ism believes that only its ordained priests can transubstantiate the bread into Christ by uttering the formula: "hoc est corpus meum? It would seem to me that your Lutheran synod would have to convert to RC’ism and your “Pastors” would have to become ordained “Priests.”

May I ask, why haven’t you personally converted? Why wait?

In Him, all things are possible. I suspect that there are many who, 50 years ago, could never have predicted the movements of today, as in Justification. As I said, it is wishful thinking right now, but I believe the Holy Spirit can lead to unity. I deny Him no possibilties.

What have I said that makes you think I’m ready to leave the Lutheran Church? Have I said anything about my faith that contradicts what the Lutheran Church believes, or Luther himself believed?
That I pray for the day of unity? Isn’t that what Christ wants?
That I speak with respect for the Catholic Church? Why not?

Jon

 

[moondweller]

In Him, all things are possible. I suspect that there are many who, 50 years ago, could never have predicted the movements of today, as in Justification. As I said, it is wishful thinking right now, but I believe the Holy Spirit can lead to unity. I deny Him no possibilties.

What have I said that makes you think I’m ready to leave the Lutheran Church? Have I said anything about my faith that contradicts what the Lutheran Church believes, or Luther himself believed?
That I pray for the day of unity? ** Isn’t that what Christ wants?**

Not that I know of.

That I speak with respect for the Catholic Church? Why not?

Jon

I’m not trying to draw offense. I’m just wondering what keeps you Lutheran?

 

[flameburns623]

Just wondering why Christ is never hung on a cross in a Protestant church? Are they simply ignoring the Passion? After all, He died for all and to focus on just the Resurrection is not right at all. The way He died and suffered, I would think you might emphasize it a little more. Yes, He did come back and it is great, but not to focus on His suffering is awful.

Somehow, for reasons I am not clear about, crucifixes became most-closely identified with Roman Catholics, while bare crosses became most-closely identified with Protestantism. As noted: Anglicans, Lutherans, and other historic Reformational churches still make common use of crucifixes. The biggest issue with respect to crucifixes probably has to do with the fact that Protestant worship does not focus so intensely on the moment of Christ’s death as does Catholic worship: after all, the Mass itself is a re-presentation of the death of Christ in an unbloody form. Protestant worship, even when it is liturgical and has the form of the Mass, puts a more even-handed emphasis upon the work of the Risen Christ at work in the lives and hearts of Christians today. That is NOT to suggest that Roman Catholics DENY that Christ is risen from the dead, nor that Protestants gloss over the importance of Christ’s death. It simply points to a difference in emphasis between the two. A difference probably more pointed and obvious prior to the Novus Ordo Mass, and the shift in focus in the RCC towards worship as a ‘communal celebration’. Nowadays I think the differences are less sharp, hence such questions arise. Pre-Vatican II, I think no one would have asked. The Tridentine Mass–like the 1928 and earlier forms of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer–was much more penitential and focused on Christ’s work on the Cross. Just my thoughts.

 

[graceandglory]

They spend too much time listening to/watching a preacher “hoot-an-holler” (quoting my Southern grandma) at the pulpit, looking at a matching choir that lines the area behind the preacher, and comparing what everyone is wearing. That emptiness is what started me looking elsewhere.

There is a vast difference between a Fundamentalist service and one in a Catholic or even an Orthodox Church. There is a solemness, a knowledge that Christ is there in the flesh. Being Catholic, I can honestly say that I’ll never go back. Praise be to God.

I lived “hoot an holler” for 20 years. I was in the black gospel choir (only I’m not black ). I lived a rich, spirit-filled life as an evangelical.
I am now a committed Catholic. I can never go back.:nope:
Knowing what I know now, even the foot stompin, sweltering, hot summer nights of praising and worshiping, will never compare to the Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. Once you’ve made it to Home plate, there is no looking back.

The sadness that fills my heart, is that I traded the FULLNESS of the True Church, for a partial truth, for a glimpse, a shadow, a myopic faith, and lost 20 years of my life when I could have been Catholic. I have a lot of time to make up.

There is great entertainment value in the protestant places I’ve been. I had a really good time. But there…is…so…much…more…
I couldn’t give up what I have now, to visit my old places of worship. It would be so empty.

The Lord will restore the years the locusts have eaten…"

 

[JonNC]

Not that I know of.I’m not trying to draw offense. I’m just wondering what keeps you Lutheran?

Not offended, though the “why wait?” comment did irritate.
The biggest issue for me is the power and primacy of the Papacy.
In addition, I have been Lutheran all my life. I know some non catholics change denoms without great thought. It would be a huge change in my life. There is a greater chance that I would be “pushed” into a change by an “evolving” Lutheranism.

 

[elt1956]

amen

Can’t say never because I saw an empty cross in a Catholic Church at least once in my life. Quite refreshing. A nice change. Different, but nice.