Difference between Catholic/Lutheran communion?


#1

What is the difference between Catholic and Lutheran communion? As a Lutheran, we believe in the real presence, but I’ve been told not in the sam way as Catholics do-or is it just that (Lutherans_ don’t have apostolic succession in the way Catholics do so Catholics believe the bread and wine isn’t really blessed?
As a WELS Lutheran we believe in the real presence and are not allowed to throw away the wafers once they’ve been blessed nor the wine.

Hubby and I have been reading the CCC


#2

Catholics believe in transubstantiation.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass, so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. While the faith behind the term was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development. With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was meta-ousiosis “change of being”; the Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiatio, “change of substance,” which was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Council of Trent, in defining the “wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood” of Christ, added “which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation” (Denzinger 1652). After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + substantia, substance: transubstantiatio, change of substance.)

Lutherans believe in consubstantiation.

CONSUBSTANTIATION. The belief, contrary to Catholic doctrine, that in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ coexist with the bread and wine after the Consecration of the Mass. John Wyclif (1324-84) and Martin Luther (1483-1546) professed consubstantiation because they denied transubstantiation.


#3

=Vanny;11018179]What is the difference between Catholic and Lutheran communion? As a Lutheran, we believe in the real presence, but I’ve been told not in the sam way as Catholics do-or is it just that (Lutherans_ don’t have apostolic succession in the way Catholics do so Catholics believe the bread and wine isn’t really blessed?
As a WELS Lutheran we believe in the real presence and are not allowed to throw away the wafers once they’ve been blessed nor the wine.

Hubby and I have been reading the CCC

Our God: Jesus Christ is "really, Truly and Substanually PRESENT in Catholic Holy Communion BUT only a reminder for our Luthgern Brethern. This is because of Luthers Schism with the RCC removing their DIRECT Apostolic Succession.

Actually comparing the TWO, it IS the Catholic Holy Communion that IS Bless and NOT the Luthern. This is what we term [theologically] Transunstanuation.

From Fr. hardon’s Catholic Dictionary

“TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass, so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. While the faith behind the term was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development. With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was meta-ousiosis “change of being”; the Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiatio, “change of substance,” which was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Council of Trent, in defining the “wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood” of Christ, added “which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation” (Denzinger 1652). After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + substantia, substance: transubstantiatio, change of substance.)”

Yours is a pious act that God appreciates. BUT it is NOT Christ Himself in your Host.:rolleyes:
God Bless you both!
Patrick PJM here on CAF


#4

Thanks, both of you. I’ve always had trouble understanding consubtantiation.
I’ll have to dig up my old Lutheran Catechism.


#5

=Vanny;11018386]Thanks, both of you. I’ve always had trouble understanding consubtantiation.
I’ll have to dig up my old Lutheran Catechism.

Again from Fr Hardons’s Catholic Dictionary

CONSUBSTANTIATION. The belief, contrary to Catholic doctrine, that in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ coexist with the bread and wine after the Consecration of the Mass. John Wyclif (1324-84) and Martin Luther (1483-1546) professed consubstantiation because they denied transubstantiation"

God Bless you both!


#6

Vanny:
Let me know if the Lutheran Catechism uses the word Consubstantiation.


#7

As a former Lutheran, there is not much that separates Catholic Communion and Lutheran communion…other than the fact that one is valid.

As for transubstantiation and consubstantiation…I don’t see consubstantiation anywhere in the Book of Concord…so that’s a grey area…and just because Luther taught it, doesn’t mean Lutherans believe in it…remember Protestantism comes with changing views…just as why you don’t see any Lutherans burning down synagogues…just because Martin Luther said it, doesn’t mean Lutherans follow it.


#8

That’s like saying that there’s not much difference between the QE2 and the Titanic other than the fact that one happens to be afloat.
:wink:


#9

Well Lutherans are taught that Christ is present in the bread and wine…and grapejuice :stuck_out_tongue:


#10

Is that true of all WELS congregations, or just yours? I realize that WELS and ELCA differ from each other in some belief and practice, but I was told by an ELCA pastor that Lutherans do not believe that the communion elements remain the Body and Blood of Jesus at the conclusion of the service – which is why they have no “small-t” tradition of reservation in tabernacles (or eucharistic adoration for that matter).

If JonNC finds this thread, he will bring an LCMS perspective.


#11

=BobDanners;11018803]As a former Lutheran, there is not much that separates Catholic Communion and Lutheran communion…other than the fact that one is valid.

As for transubstantiation and consubstantiation…I don’t see consubstantiation anywhere in the Book of Concord…so that’s a grey area…and just because Luther taught it, doesn’t mean Lutherans believe in it…remember Protestantism comes with changing views…just as why you don’t see any Lutherans burning down synagogues…just because Martin Luther said it, doesn’t mean Lutherans follow it.

As a FY::slight_smile:

“valid” in this sense means that Catholics do Have the Reall Presence [Christ “IS Really, Truly and substanually Present”]

I’m confused by the synoggues comment:o

God Bless and pray for Unity please:D


#12

Catholics believe that at the time of the Consecration the substance of bread and wine is annihilated and is replaced with the substance of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, while retaining only the accidents (physical form and characteristics) of bread and wine. After the Consecration it is no longer bread and wine at all. This is called transubstantiation.

To understand this you really need to understand the concept of substance versus accidents. The substance of dog is “dogness.” The accidents of dog are varied and are color, size, shape, etc.

Consubstantiation is an (erroneous) belief that the substance of bread and wine continues on/alongside (con-, with) the substance of Jesus. Consubstantiation holds that the bread and wine remain bread and wine, but are also Jesus.


#13

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!

Lutherans do not -and never have- believed in consubstantiation. Thistle, your information is simply plain wrong. We Lutherans profess Sacramental Union. See each of these threads where this has been corrected:

[LIST]
*]forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=559028&highlight=lutheran+transubstatiation

*]forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=439977&highlight=lutheran+transubstatiation

*]forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=116496&highlight=lutheran+transubstatiation
[/LIST]

Other useful reads:
[LIST]
*]blogstuhl.blogspot.com/2008/05/lutherans-deny-consubstantiation.html

*]patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2010/06/why-lutherans-dont-believe-in-consubstantiation/
[/LIST]

Heck, even the Wiki is more accurate:
[LIST]
*]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_union
[/LIST]

Not to be particularly confrontational, but perhaps my greatest pet peeve is when people mischaracterize the Lutheran understanding of the Holy Eucharist.


#14

Don
I’m aware of the consubstantiation viewpoint from you and JonNC but the problem is there are Lutherans themselves that have used that term; so in all fairness that’s why the term is tossed about sometimes.

Mary.


#15

Lutherans don’t use grapejuice,we use wine only! You are confusing us with other protestant denominations, those who don’t believe communion is a sacrament(as Lutherans believe) but an ordinance only. In my WELS congregation(and former LCMS I attended years ago)
Wine only is used.


#16

Thanks for the informative links.


#17

Luther did not teach consubstantiation. His whole opposition to Transubstantiation was its use of the metaphysical construct. Consubstantiation is also a metaphysical construct, but I. Appreciate your understanding that Lutherans are bound to scripture and the confessions, not Luther. :thumbsup:

Jon


#18

I would think that someone like Fr. Hardon would know better.

Jon


#19

. II. Consubstantiation. The charge that the Lutheran Church holds this monstrous doctrine has been repeated times without number. In the face of her solemn protestations the falsehood is still circulated. It would be easy to fill many pages with the declarations of the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and of her great theologians, who, without a dissenting voice, repudiate this doctrine, the name and the thing, in whole and in every one of its parts. In the “Wittenberg Concord,” (1536,) prepared and signed by Luther and the other great leaders in the Church, it is said: “We deny the doctrine of transubstantiation,** as we do also deny that the body and blood of Christ are locally included in the bread**.”

Charles Porterfield Krauth

Jon


#20

While I have read much here on the nature of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, I have not seen any discussion here on the sacrificial nature of the Mass. The Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the re-presentation (not representation, but re-presentation) of not only the events of Maundy Thursday (especially the Last Supper), but of Good Friday (especially the Crucifixion) and Easter (the resurrection). Thus, when we are at Mass, we are also present at the last Supper, Calvary and the empty tomb. Christ’s redemptive Act is removed from the context of time (i.e., past history) and is made present for the faithful of all ages. The Church Militant on earth, the Church Suffering/Expectant in purgatory and the Church Triumphant in heaven are all joined at each offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, irrespective of time and place.

That is an extremely different teaching from anything found in Lutheranism. :tiphat:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.