Well, it may be morbid curiosity, but I’m a subscriber to his YouTube channel. He expounds upon the difference between Catholic and Lutheran doctrines of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Now, we both believe in the Real Presence, but Lutherans accuse us of re-sacrificing Jesus. I know it’s the same sacrifice, but “where/when” do Lutherans get their Real Presence?
I believe they have the idea of the eucharist as the real presence when all the believers are together . Scriptures state that when two or three is gathered in my name I am there . I forget though what they call it though .
Lutherans don’t have valid holy orders. So whether it’s Lutheran pastor he/she …, they really can’t make the real presence in the Eucharist happen.
Protestantism regardless of stripe, is just one of the Great Heresies in history**.** As a suggestion, for the growth and wellbeing of your own soul, drop the morbid curiosities you describe and instead develop a hunger for solid Catholic materials and resources.
Steve, I was joking about the morbid curiousity. I’m very much attached to my Catholicism and spend most of the day listening to Catholic apologetics at work. I do think it behooves us as evangelists to know what our separated brethren believe, so I’ve subscribed to a couple Protestant channels; of the two, Pastor Fisk’s more often touches on the Church, and when it does, he’s often quite mistaken and quite uncharitable in his mistake. Hence my question. I do not believe Lutherans can confect the Eucharist, but they do, so I’m asking what they believe it is and how they explain it differently than our participation in the one sacrifice. If they believe it’s the Real Presence but not a re-presentation of the one sacrifice, then what is it?
Yes, they don’t have valid Holy Orders and yes, their Eucharist is invalid.
But you must be fair. They DO believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist and you cannot contradict them if they state that this is something they actually believe.
The Real Presence in the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass, while related, are two distinct apologetical topics. The point the OP raised is a valid one, and this post does not address the point raised; it only attacks Protestantism and does nor further this thread’s discussion. Open a new thread if you must if you want to discuss/debate Protestantism as a heresy. But do not condescend to them or to the OP for wanting to know how to address their objections. This is nothing more than a variation of the ad hominem fallacy, only directed towards a particular group.
Lutherans believe in something called “consubstantiation.” This means Jesus is *with *the bread, as if He is accompanying the bread and wine. When you get communion, you receive ordinary bread and wine, but Jesus is there alongside the bread and wine. The bread does not literally become His body, but His body (or soul, I’m not sure which) is there as well as the bread. So you are getting two things: bread and Jesus.
The danger with consubstantiation is that if the bread is just bread, and Jesus is there as a secondary part of the bread, then He can just as well not be there also, because after all, the bread is just bread, and it’s not Our Lord’s flesh. This is a slippery slope that can lead to the belief that the bread is just a symbol. I am not an expert, but this is my understanding.
I always believed the Anglicans, Episcopalians and Lutherans viewed the Eucharist in the same way, but distinct ftom the Catholic understanding of the Euchsrist and that is what sets them apart from the Catholic church among other things.
You agree they
*]don’t have valid holy orders
*]their Eucharist is invalid
[/LIST]So how do they have the real presence of Christ in their Eucharist?
There are 2 points the op raised[LIST=1]
*]Pastor Jonathan Fisk doesn’t know the Eucharist (the topic)
*]a noisy 15 min video youtu.be/mw5CEAPexno
[/LIST]I addressed the broad issues in the video. And that’s fair
These are the substantive points you made.
*]don’t have valid holy orders
*]their Eucharist is invalid
[/LIST]So instead of attacking me, I turn this around and ask you,
How do they have the real presence of Christ in their Eucharist when they don’t have
*]valid holy orders,
*]nor a valid Eucharist?
[/LIST]Where is YOUR answer to THAT?
The point was you have to deal with what they believe on the grounds of what they believe and try to understand it from that perspective. Otherwise it’s unproductive to dialogue with other Christians. My wife does not agree with Catholicism’s view of the Papacy and neither do her family (not that they are insulting about it or regularly bring it up mind you) but to understand why involves thinking about it from their standpoint rather than using a variation on the ipse dixit fallacy. It especially doesn’t help people attracted towards apostolic Churches like the poster who pointed out how it turns off those potentially attracted towards Catholicism when the word heretic starts been used. I used to use the word heretic myself at times, the older I get the less I do, I like to think it’s wisdom, although some might say I have become apathetic. Mileage will vary on such a subject as is the usual case.
Q. What is the Holy Eucharist?
A. The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament commanded by
Christ for the continual remembrance of his life, death,
and resurrection, until his coming again.
Q. Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice?
A. Because the Eucharist, the Church’s sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is
made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering
Q. By what other names is this service known?
A. The Holy Eucharist is called the Lord’s Supper, and
Holy Communion; it is also known as the Divine
Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offering.
Q. What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
A. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread
and wine, given and received according to Christ’s
Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the
A. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion
is the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people, and
received by faith.
Q. What are the benefits which we receive in the Lord’s
A. The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins,
the strengthening of our union with Christ and one
another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet which
is our nourishment in eternal life.
Q. What is required of us when we come to the Eucharist?
A. It is required that we should examine our lives, repent
of our sins, and be in love and charity with all people.
from that link. There are some definitional understandings given
What Is Heresy? (all emphasis mine)
"Heresy is an emotionally loaded term that is often misused. It is not the same thing as incredulity, schism, apostasy, or other sins against faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same**;** apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (CCC 2089). To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic. A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism. Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary). "
If we look at the definition of heresy and look at the following from Paul, it makes sense.
“As for a man who is [FONT=Comic Sans MS]factious ( [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]αἱρετικὸν[/FONT] heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”
Paul is saying correct a man who is wrong, if he won’t be corrected, then he is perverted, sinful and self condemned, … iow a heretic
Note also, A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.
The Lutheran view on the Lord’s Supper is Sacramental Union, not Consubstantiation…SU is the real and physical presence of Christ in, with, and under the elements at communion.
From the Lutheran Christian Cyclopedia,
Consubstantiation was falsely charged to Lutheranism, that bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner."
20th century Lutheran theologian Hermann Sasse describes it this way:
It is impossible to define Luther’s doctrine as consubstantiation. Even the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say
You are getting neither my point nor that of the OP. Yes as Catholics we must affirm that the Lutheran Eucharist is invalid. But that is not what the OP raised. Lutherans DO believe in the Real Presence and that is a point we cannot dispute.
So for proper argument, we address the premise raised. The point of contention was the sacrifice of the Mass. You responded by raising Protestantism in general as a heresy. Even if you are correct, your approach to the debate is incorrect because you did not address the premise. Rather you attacked their belief system as a whole. This is variation of ad hominem and is a logical fallacy.
For the purposes of THIS argument, the point of the Real Presence CAN be conceded. Therefore the real point can be argued: is the Mass a sacrifice? This is debating 101. Part of this includes laying down as much common ground as possible.