Lutheran Real Presence vs. Catholic


#1

OK, I want to be clear as to what I’m looking for:

I’m discussion theological matters with a Lutheran minister-in-training in the next month or so, a longtime friend.

What I’m looking for is documentation, is such exists, that the RC Church believes***specifically Lutheran ***Communion is invalid and the explanation, in light of the fact that their belief is in the real presence while denying transubstantiation.

I don’t want opinion, please. I don’t want references where this is not stated crystal-clearly i.e. “Their ministers are not validly ordained, so consecration cannot occur”. That doesn’t help me, I already know that. Same with “If someone doesn’t believe in transubstantiation, anathama sit”. Yes, I know such things prove my point, but I’m looking for writings, and not just opinions or inferences no matter how relevant.

I expect that there is not such a document available, specifically stating this, but there may be an obscure writing somewhere that someone knows about.


#2

I think the Church would argue that Lutheran Communion is invalid because they don’t have apostolic succession and thus cannot confect the Eucharist.

I know you say you don’t want opinion, but I am suggesting where you should be looking.


#3

So what part of that was hard to understand? :stuck_out_tongue: I’m basically lazy and want others to look for me. :smiley: :wink:


#4

Then you must be Lutheran…:smiley: :rolleyes: :eek:

Sorry, had to say it.

But the confection of the Eucharist requires a valid form, a valid matter, and a valid priest, in persona Christi

Catholics (and Orthodox) believe that the valid ordination is only valid because it leads, through the valid succession of Catholic (and Orthodox) bishops right back to Christ.

It may be that you want to “prove” something. But your friend will be the one making the claim that he can offer the Eucharist.

All the pressure is on him… so put it on him. He must prove he has the valid authority from his seminary or whoever, who then in turn has the valid authority… etc etc etc.

Their communion service is just that… a service. It is not the Sacrament of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.

They will claim that Jesus in “only present” during the service, after which the bread again becomes bread.

Nope… is, was, and always will be no more than bread.

.


#5

Hehe.

Actually I used to be Lutheran. :smiley:

And actually, that isn’t actually what they claim; they claim that although the bread and wine are not changed into the body and blood of the Lord, they receive him through the sacrament in a way that is not understood.

Really, they’re really close to Catholics in terms of Eucharistic Theology, transubstantiation being one of the disagreements, possibly closer than any other Protestant denomination.

But I’ll keep asking for a specific reference. :thumbsup:


#6

Yep, I know. One of my wonderful daughters-in-law is Lutheran. Yet she refers to herself as Catholic-Lite.:rolleyes:

I just tell her I love her, and someday she will see the Catholic Light:cool:

again:

Originally Posted by MrS forums.catholic.com/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
It may be that you want to “prove” something. But your friend will be the one making the claim that he can offer the Eucharist.

All the pressure is on him… so put it on him. He must prove he has the valid authority from his seminary or whoever, who then in turn has the valid authority… etc etc etc.

Their communion service is just that… a service. It is not the Sacrament of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.

The Church does not specifically discount Lutherans when it comes to the source and summit of the faith… the Eucharist. Rather the Church believes that ONLY the valid ordination in the Catholic Church (and Orthodox) makes that Real Presence possible.


#7

Ta da boom. Thank you, thank you. MrS will be here at the Tropicana all week. :smiley:


#8

This may or may not help.

Some years ago I attended the funreal of an aunt who was Lutheran, God rest her soul.

After the funeral there was a luncheon. There was one seat left in the dining room. It was next to me and the minister came in and sat there.

He seemed like a very nice snincere man. He found out I was Catholic and of course that meant I had to hear what his beef is with Catholicism. First up, he said that he was very disappointed that Pope JPII declared that women can not be ordained. His reasoning was that this would make reunion with Lutherans impossible. I did not respond. I just kind of nodded. Yeah, that does make reunion tougher. This was not a place for a theological debate.

Then he said that he was disappointed that JPII denied a request from Lutherans for intercommunion, made during the beginning of his papacy. He wanted to know what I thought about it. I wanted to answer, but not get into it. So I said, “It is a matter of Orders”.

He thought about that and said that within his Lutheran synod whenver the topic of Holy Orders comes up, people become “apoplectic”. Some see the need and others deny they exist.

Some time before this a woman Lutheran minister was outraged that anyone (read Catholic) would question the validity of someone else’s Orders.

The male minister realized what I was saying. No sacrament of Holy Orders equals no Eucharist. He got it. Nevertheless, his own denomination does not agree on the need or existance of Orders. He did not make any argument along the lines of they can have a valid Eucharist without Orders, which I thought was coming and I wanted to avoid anyway.

How are Catholics supposed to react? Are we supposed to believe they have valid Orders when they do not believe it themsleves? If all of a sudden Lutherans become clear on this does that mean all their ministers have valid Orders after not believing in this sacrament?

Rome will never recognize Lutheran ordinations, because of his opening statement. They have been ordaining women who preside over their communion services. Women can not be priests. John Paul II wrote Priesly Ordination to settle this once and for all. The pope has spoken.

Lutherans can believe what they like. They should not expect Catholics to agree with them. They separated themselves and went their own way and persist in their doctrines.


#9

THeir Eucharistic belief is not the same as ours.

They believe in consubstatiation (jesus present with and in the bread…which makes me wonder hmmm which crumbs are jesus and which crumbs are bread)

We beleive in Transubstatiation…which is somthing completely different.


#10

try this chnetwork.org/journals/authority/authority_10.htm


#11

This isn’t really on point, but I’ll be brief, and I think its amusing. Don’t know where I first heard it.

Transubstansiation means the Christ who is present in the Eucharist is True man and True God.

Consubstansiation means the Christ who is present in the Eucharist is True man, True God.

And True pastry.

Which is a bit on point, after all: the Lutheran God is a Holy Quadralogy: Father, Son, Spirit and Gluten.


#12

It is on point. If consubstantiation is what happens in the sacrament of the Eucharist then everyone present on their knees is worshipping a mixture of God and cooked bread.


#13

That would be transubstantiation, which doesn’t happen in a Lutheran church.

This is a misrepresentation of Lutheran theology. Let’s get it straight, they’re worshiping God, not bread.

So, anyone have any references or documentation? That’s really what I’m looking for.


#14

I think if the document you’re looking for exists it’ll be on the Vatican’s website. Here might be a good place to start looking.


#15

#16

It’s obvious when non-Catholic Christians don’t really believe in the Real Presence (body, blood, soul, divinity, a work of the power of God)…leftover Jesus in the trash.

I’ve seen it over and over and it would be really hurtful to me if Jesus were really present.

So what’s in the trash can? Jesus, or bread?


#17

I haven’t seen Luther’s quote on that, but if that’s the case, your’e correct. But there’s not way you can be as lazy as me. :smiley:

This is what the Missouri Synod Lutherans use to explain it:

“The word “under” in the phrase “in, with and under” used to express the Lutheran understanding of the sacramental union serves as a reminder that Christ’s true body and blood in the Lord’s Supper are “hidden under” the earthly forms of bread and wine (like a “mask” hiding someone’s face–the face is “under” the mask). In fact, Luther often used the term “mask” to describe how God “hides” his work under humble, earthly, external means (sacramental and otherwise).”

Well, if they don’t believe in the real presense, or if they cannot consecrate the wine or host, there’s no need to worry about desecrating it as it’s really just bread or wine, right?

And that’s what I’m looking for, referenced from the RCC to support that.


#18

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.