Consubstantiation

[JoabAnias]

I can make this simple. Does the said poster's post have any credibility? That's where this started.

Basing my answer from what the Church teaches about the requirements for a valid Eucharist, and what I know of the East, I have to say no, the heretical teaching of consubstantiation is not held by any of the apostolic Church either East or West.

If some individuals or sects may hold to a heretical teaching, it is not official.

And certainly the matter of valid ordination that comes into play is important.

The traditions of the East are valid and licitly apostolic.

There may be sects outside of that norm in both East and West that are not representing the orthodox teaching of the apostolic Church.

From "An Online Orthodox Catechism" on; the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate:

The Eucharist

You might find more here: A Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church Regarding the Bari Document U.S. Theological Consultation, 1988 | Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishop

 

[Athanasias]

The Greek and Russian orthodox sources I found admit to the Eucharist being a mystery but also admitted that some of their orthodox theologians in the past have used the term "transubstantiaton" to describe the change. The also site the Eucharist as being "substantially" Christ blood and Body" which in essense is the Catholic understanding of trasnsubstantiation or "change of substance" and not consubstantiation.

Here are the Orthodox sources that speak of this.

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia — Holy Eucharist


Russian Orthodox Church in Australia - Holy Eucharist

 

[JoabAnias]

Transubstantiation is a scientific explanation. Not a required one, though some reasoned it out nevertheless. Such as St. Aquinas for example.

This scientific explanation isn't necessary for one to believe in the real presence as through the explanation itself though it does ease inquiring minds that may be so disposed to wonder.

I would judge a faith to be stronger without requiring such explanation though not all receive the same measure of faith and not all who are interested in such scientific explanations necessarily do so because of doubts either.

Valid apostolic orders are imperative for the consecration or there is no consecration and its reduced to a symbol and is neither valid or licit.

For example; a laity can mimic a priest verbatim all he likes but there will be no Eucharist. Most likely, only a sacrilege.

Valid orders are apostolic in both the East and West.

What one may mistakenly believe about the Eucharist can be incidental.

With valid orders and the proper liturgical formula the Eucharist is valid even if otherwise illicit regardless.

For example; even a disbelieving or otherwise disobedient priest even when in a state of sin, who is validly ordained, consecrates the Eucharist by the correct means the Eucharistic real presence results.

This is why I can feel secure in getting the "real" Jesus at any parish, regardless of how progressive or modernist the priest may be, and of personal initiative, depart from the norms of the celebration so long as he follows the Eucharistic liturgy.

If he changes that which is strictly forbidden then there is a more serious problem.

 

[Athanasias]

Transubstantiation is a scientific explanation. Not a required one, though some reasoned it out nevertheless. Such as St. Aquinas for example.

This scientific explanation isn't necessary for one to believe in the real presence as through the explanation itself though it does ease inquiring minds that may be so disposed to wonder.

I would judge a faith to be stronger without requiring such explanation though not all receive the same measure of faith and not all who are interested in such scientific explanations necessarily do so because of doubts either.

Valid apostolic orders are imperative for the consecration or there is no consecration and its reduced to a symbol and is neither valid or licit.

For example; a laity can mimic a priest verbatim all he likes but there will be no Eucharist. Most likely, only a sacrilege.

Valid orders are apostolic in both the East and West.

What one may mistakenly believe about the Eucharist can be incidental.

With valid orders and the proper liturgical formula the Eucharist is valid even if otherwise illicit regardless.

For example; even a disbelieving or otherwise disobedient priest even when in a state of sin, who is validly ordained, consecrates the Eucharist by the correct means the Eucharistic real presence results.

This is why I can feel secure in getting the "real" Jesus at any parish, regardless of how progressive or modernist the priest may be, and of personal initiative, depart from the norms of the celebration so long as he follows the Eucharistic liturgy.

If he changes that which is strictly forbidden then there is a more serious problem.

Actually if the priest does not consecrate the Eucharist with the intention the Church then the sacrament is invalid. 3 things make a valid sacrament 1) proper matter(wheat bread and wine) 2). Proper form(This is my Body etc) 3). Proper intention(To consecrate the host, and allow Christ to transform the elements and give the real transubstantiated Christ to the congregation.

 

[JoabAnias]

Actually if the priest does not consecrate the Eucharist with the intention the Church then the sacrament is invalid. 3 things make a valid sacrament 1) proper matter(wheat bread and wine) 2). Proper form(This is my Body etc) 3). Proper intention(To consecrate the host, and allow Christ to transform the elements and give the real transubstantiated Christ to the congregation.

Yes, thats what I meant by "correct and proper means". Validly ordained. Thanks for explaining that better.

As you probably know, we get some from all camps, for what ever reasons, attempting to consecrate the Eucharist but who aren't able because they don't meet those criteria.

 

[Br. Xavier]

Thanks all for clarifying.

While we're all here, what is the term for those who believe the Eucharist is only present during mass? That's what I confused with con.

 

[JoabAnias]

what is the term for those who believe the Eucharist is only present during mass?

Don't know a specific term but this might help:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Actually if the priest does not consecrate the Eucharist with the intention the Church then the sacrament is invalid. 3 things make a valid sacrament 1) proper matter(wheat bread and wine) 2). Proper form(This is my Body etc) 3). Proper intention(To consecrate the host, and allow Christ to transform the elements and give the real transubstantiated Christ to the congregation.

Athanasias,

Thank you. That is is indeed the bottom line. Pure and simple.

 

[JoabAnias]

Athanasias,

Thank you. That is is indeed the bottom line. Pure and simple.

That bottom line however isn't to be taken to infer just anyone can consecrate the Eucharist:

Holy Eucharist
#13. The power of consecration resides in a validly consecrated priest only.

The true presence is lost by not meeting #13 above.

For further reading:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Consubstantiation
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The change of bread and wine into the Body and ...

 

[Athanasias]

That bottom line however isn't to be taken to infer just anyone can consecrate the Eucharist:

Holy Eucharist
#13. The power of consecration resides in a validly consecrated priest only.

The true presence is lost by not meeting #13 above.

For further reading:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Consubstantiation
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The change of bread and wine into the Body and ...

Yes I am sorry I forgt to add that there is also a 4th category for validity of the Sacraments. That category is Proper minister. IE.. only a validly ordained "ministerial" priest or Bishop can confect the Eucharist. Different sacraments have different ministers. Marriage for example is confected by the couple and the priest just acts as a witness to God and the Church.

The ordinary minister of Baptism is a Bishop, Priest or Deacon. But in life and death emergencies lay people can baptize give the 3 criteria of Matter, form, and intention are there.

The Sacrament of Holy Orders is confected by the Bishop. Therefore a priest and Deacon cannot ordain another priest. They would be considered improper ministers and the sacraments would not be valid. So Minister is a proper category for validation of the sacraments too!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

That bottom line however isn't to be taken to infer just anyone can consecrate the Eucharist:

Holy Eucharist
#13. The power of consecration resides in a validly consecrated priest only.

The true presence is lost by not meeting #13 above.

For further reading:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Consubstantiation
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The change of bread and wine into the Body and ...

Yes I am sorry I forgt to add that there is also a 4th category for validity of the Sacraments. That category is Proper minister. IE.. only a validly ordained "ministerial" priest or Bishop can confect the Eucharist. Different sacraments have different ministers. Marriage for example is confected by the couple and the priest just acts as a witness to God and the Church.

The ordinary minister of Baptism is a Bishop, Priest or Deacon. But in life and death emergencies lay people can baptize give the 3 criteria of Matter, form, and intention are there.

The Sacrament of Holy Orders is confected by the Bishop. Therefore a priest and Deacon cannot ordain another priest. They would be considered improper ministers and the sacraments would not be valid. So Minister is a proper category for validation of the sacraments too!

Yes, I do understand this doctrine held by the RCC, and do respect it.

Your friend,

Mark

 

[JoabAnias]

Yes, I do understand this doctrine held by the RCC, and do respect it.

Your friend,

Mark

Proverbs 9: 1 – 6
1 Wisdom has built her house, she has set up her seven pillars. 2 She has slaughtered her beasts, she has mixed her wine, she has also set her table. 3 She has sent out her maids to call from the highest places in the town, 4 “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!” To him who is without sense she says, 5 “Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed. 6 Leave simpleness, and live, and walk in the way of insight.”​

Psalms 34: 2 – 7
2 My soul makes its boast in the LORD; let the afflicted hear and be glad. 3 O magnify the LORD with me, and let us exalt his name together! 4 I sought the LORD, and he answered me, and delivered me from all my fears. 5 Look to him, and be radiant; so your faces shall never be ashamed. 6 This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles. 7 The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and delivers them.​

While I respect you as well, we believe #13 from above to be true because Jesus instituted it as so and its my heart felt wish that everyone could believe that too.

Jesus chose 12 men to complete revelation and pass on His salvation to the world.

John 6: 51 – 58
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”​

But as we know, unfortunately, John 6:66 remains a sad fact that continues to be commemorated. Even more sad to me, is unknowingly being duped into accepting only a symbol as salvific when the real Eucharistic Christ is timelessly available to all who come to the Lord.

Ephesians 5: 15 – 20
15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, 16 making the most of the time, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, 20 always and for everything giving thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father.​

​

 

[Athanasias]

Yes, I do understand this doctrine held by the RCC, and do respect it.

Your friend,

Mark

Mark I appreciate your dialog. You seem to understand alot about us and our theology and are very respectful despite some of our doctrinal differences. Its refreshing to talk to another brother in Christ from a different denomination and get their understanding too. What is the official Lutheran position on the validity of the sacraments?

In Jesus love through Mary's intercession,
Athanasias

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Proverbs 9: 1 – 6
1 Wisdom has built her house, she has set up her seven pillars. 2 She has slaughtered her beasts, she has mixed her wine, she has also set her table. 3 She has sent out her maids to call from the highest places in the town, 4 “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!” To him who is without sense she says, 5 “Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed. 6 Leave simpleness, and live, and walk in the way of insight.”​

Psalms 34: 2 – 7
2 My soul makes its boast in the LORD; let the afflicted hear and be glad. 3 O magnify the LORD with me, and let us exalt his name together! 4 I sought the LORD, and he answered me, and delivered me from all my fears. 5 Look to him, and be radiant; so your faces shall never be ashamed. 6 This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles. 7 The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and delivers them.​

While I respect you as well, we believe #13 from above to be true because Jesus instituted it as so and its my heart felt wish that everyone could believe that too.

Jesus chose 12 men to complete revelation and pass on His salvation to the world.

John 6: 51 – 58
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”​

But as we know, unfortunately, John 6:66 remains a sad fact that continues to be commemorated. Even more sad to me, is unknowingly being duped into accepting only a symbol as salvific when the real Eucharistic Christ is timelessly available to all who come to the Lord.

Ephesians 5: 15 – 20
15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, 16 making the most of the time, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, 20 always and for everything giving thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father.​

​

Hey Joab, thanks for the hug, and back at ya!

By your quotes above, it would seem that you and I both made it to Mass today! It would seem that our Lectionarys are very similar.

Our readings today were:
Psalm 34:12-22
OT lesson Prov. 9:1-10
Epistle lesson Eph. 5:6-21
Gospel Lesson John 6:51-69.

Pastor preached on the Gospel lesson.

We are on the same page more often than not.

God bless,

Mark.

 

[JoabAnias]

Hey Joab, thanks for the hug, and back at ya!

By your quotes above, it would seem that you and I both made it to Mass today! It would seem that our Lectionarys are very similar.

Our readings today were:
Psalm 34:12-22
OT lesson Prov. 9:1-10
Epistle lesson Eph. 5:6-21
Gospel Lesson John 6:51-69.

Pastor preached on the Gospel lesson.

We are on the same page more often than not.

God bless,

Mark.

Actually I went yesterday on the vigil to recieve the one real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist because it was also the feast of the assumption of my heavenly mother and I wanted to celebrate that too as it fell on Saturday this year.

I believe the real presence is mortally to important to miss.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Mark I appreciate your dialog. You seem to understand alot about us and our theology and are very respectful despite some of our doctrinal differences. Its refreshing to talk to another brother in Christ from a different denomination and get their understanding too. What is the official Lutheran position on the validity of the sacraments?

In Jesus love through Mary's intercession,
Athanasias

Thanks for asking.

We believe that the validity of the sacraments is given by God, instituted by our Lord, and administered on his behalf through the Church. Our Confessions, which we hold to be a true explanation and exposition of Scripture tell us that "Word and Sacrament remain efficacious even when administered by evil men".

We believe that the authority to administer the sacraments lies exclusively with the Church. This authority is conveyed to divinely called men who are ordained by the Church. If the Church deems it proper that this authority be conveyed through and Episcopacy, be it valid Apostolic succession or not, that is fine. If the Church decides to do this through a Congregationalist polity, through a Synodical Structure, that is Ok also. That is providing that what ever form of polity is in force, does not operate outside of the precepts of Scripture.

In the case of the Eucharist, called and ordained clergy administer this sacrament which is made valid by the use of bread and wine, and the Verba. As I stated above the power of the sacrament comes from the Lord, so the faith of the recipient, and the faith of the celebrant have no bearing on the real presence.

In the case of Baptism, any one can administer this sacrament in the case of emergancy but under most circumstances we believe that it should be administered by a properly ordained Pastor. It is valid providing water is used in conjunction with the invocation of the trinity. I understand that the RC Church accepts Lutheran baptism as valid, as do we yours.

Confession and Absolution, are also administered on our Lord's behalf, on behalf of His Church by those properly ordained. Part and parcel with this; Excommunication and Reconcilliation are also.

Of the other four "Sacramental Acts", confirmation is again done by the Chruch through ordained Clergy. The rest are normally done by Clergy, but may be administerd by Deacons or Elders at the discretion of the Chruch, in cases of necessisity.

Now, regarding Apostolic Sucession; there are some Lutheran Synods that can indeed trace their episcopacy, as can the Orthodox Church, back to St. Peter. However, many of these Synods are very liberal and ordain women. Since such is in direct defiance of Scripture, there are questions as to wheather their Sacraments are valid, even though bread and wine are used and are consecrated with the Verba, since no authority was give by our Lord to ordain women, and therefore the Church does not posess such authority either.

These are the basics.
Respectfully,

Mark.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Actually I went yesterday on the vigil to recieve the one real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist because it was also the feast of the assumption of my heavenly mother and I wanted to celebrate that too as it fell on Saturday this year.

I believe the real presence is mortally to important to miss.

Indeed it is.

Luther once wrote that if one does not desire the Sacrament, "...he should first pinch himself, to make sure that he is still in this world...".

God bless you Joab!

 

[JoabAnias]

Indeed it is.

Luther once wrote that if one does not desire the Sacrament, "...he should first pinch himself, to make sure that he is still in this world...".

God bless you Joab!

As we are both painfully aware my friend, we have an unfortunate division.

As you mention Luther here are some other quotes from him:

30 May 1518 (Letter to Pope Leo X) Therefore, most holy father, I prostrate myself at your feet, placing myself and all I am and have at your disposal, to be dealt with as you see fit. My cause hangs on the will of your Holiness, by whose verdict I shall either save or lose my life. Come what may, I shall recognise the voice of your Holiness to be that of Christ, speaking through you.

17 October 1518 I humbly implore your Reverence to deign to refer this case to our Most Holy Lord Leo X, that these doubts may be settled by the Church, so that he may either compel a just withdrawal of my propositions or else their just affirmation. I wish only to follow the Church.

7 January 1519 For when I have learned my mistakes, I will gladly withdraw them, and do nothing to impair the honor and power of the Roman Church.

3 March 1519 I testify that I have never wanted, nor do I today want, to touch in any way the authority of the Roman church . . . or demolish it by any craftiness. On the contrary I confess the authority of this church to be supreme over all, and that nothing, be it in heaven or on earth, is to be preferred to it, save the one Jesus Christ who is Lord of all.

5 March 1519 I was never of a mind to desert the Apostolic See . . .

30 May 1519 Therefore, Holy Father, I lay my work at your feet in all confidence. Whatever your decision may be, it will in any case have its origin in Jesus, without whom you cannot propose or speak anything. If you condemn my book to be burned, I will say: As it has pleased the Lord, so it has happened. If you command that it be preserved, I will say: Praise be to God! . . . all well-meaning readers may know with what pure intentions I have sought to fathom the nature of ecclesiastical power and what reverence I hold toward the power of the keys. . . . Therefore, Most Holy Father, I cast myself at your feet with all that I am and possess. Raise me up or slay me, summon me hither or thither, approve me or reprove me as you please. I will listen to your voice as the voice of Christ reigning and speaking in you.

13 October 1520 But, to say yet more, even this never entered my heart: to inveigh against the Court of Rome or to dispute at all about her.

17 April 1521 (Diet of Worms) [W]hy may not a worm like me ask to be convicted of error from the prophets and the Gospels? If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. I have been reminded of the dissensions which my teaching engenders. I can answer only in the words of the Lord, "I came not to bring peace but a sword." . . .


I could go on but as you know, things didn't turn out as Luther had hoped.

As it stands, and dispite much common ground, that same Church to whose authority Luther confesses to be supreme in the quote of 3 March currently holds the Lutheran episcopacy as invalid and I am sure you realize what that entails as far as a real presence from a Catholic perspective.

I wish it weren't so. I really do. Maybe one day.

 

[Athanasias]

Thanks for asking.

We believe that the validity of the sacraments is given by God, instituted by our Lord, and administered on his behalf through the Church. Our Confessions, which we hold to be a true explanation and exposition of Scripture tell us that "Word and Sacrament remain efficacious even when administered by evil men".

We believe that the authority to administer the sacraments lies exclusively with the Church. This authority is conveyed to divinely called men who are ordained by the Church. If the Church deems it proper that this authority be conveyed through and Episcopacy, be it valid Apostolic succession or not, that is fine. If the Church decides to do this through a Congregationalist polity, through a Synodical Structure, that is Ok also. That is providing that what ever form of polity is in force, does not operate outside of the precepts of Scripture.

In the case of the Eucharist, called and ordained clergy administer this sacrament which is made valid by the use of bread and wine, and the Verba. As I stated above the power of the sacrament comes from the Lord, so the faith of the recipient, and the faith of the celebrant have no bearing on the real presence.

In the case of Baptism, any one can administer this sacrament in the case of emergancy but under most circumstances we believe that it should be administered by a properly ordained Pastor. It is valid providing water is used in conjunction with the invocation of the trinity. I understand that the RC Church accepts Lutheran baptism as valid, as do we yours.

Confession and Absolution, are also administered on our Lord's behalf, on behalf of His Church by those properly ordained. Part and parcel with this; Excommunication and Reconcilliation are also.

Of the other four "Sacramental Acts", confirmation is again done by the Chruch through ordained Clergy. The rest are normally done by Clergy, but may be administerd by Deacons or Elders at the discretion of the Chruch, in cases of necessisity.

Now, regarding Apostolic Sucession; there are some Lutheran Synods that can indeed trace their episcopacy, as can the Orthodox Church, back to St. Peter. However, many of these Synods are very liberal and ordain women. Since such is in direct defiance of Scripture, there are questions as to wheather their Sacraments are valid, even though bread and wine are used and are consecrated with the Verba, since no authority was give by our Lord to ordain women, and therefore the Church does not posess such authority either.

These are the basics.
Respectfully,

Mark.

Thanks Mark for your beautiful explanation. I love talking to you! God bless you brother. We are not to far off in our understanding on many things regarding the sacraments. We agree with you that the the act of consecration is a work or act of Christ himself and therefore whether the congregation believes it to so or not Christ changes the bread and wine into his body and blood. We also hold that even a priest in grave sin(God help us) can confect the sacraments by the virrtue of Christ actions in persona Christi if the 3 conditions(matter, form, intention) are met .


St. Francis of Assisi was a Catholic reformer who did a lot of good and faught against the corruption of the time and was once was asked by a person tryign to trip him up this question. I will paraphrase: They asked him something like "Francis what would you do if you knew that a priest who had multiple lovers was consecrating the Eucharist in your mass."

He answered: " I would gladly go recieve My Lord and Savior from the blessed consecrated hands of this priest." Francis said this to show that even priest in in grave sin can still consecrate by the power of Christ in virtue of the sacred sacerdotal office they held and not based upon thier own action but based upon the power of Christ and the priestly office he establsihed. This is key to our Catholic understanding of Office vs Person and immpeccabillty Vs Infallibilblity. To a Catholic the offices of Bishop and Priest and deacon were founded by Christ and have real authority because Christ the Priest acts through them "in persona Christi" in the sacrament. We understand that Christ gave us the offices and certain powers to each. For example he gave the bishop the teaching Authority as successors to the Apostles to advance the Church and the Gospel throughout the ages.

He did promise them that when they taught in Council or with the Authority he gave them he would be with them and speake through them guiding them. Now what he didn't opromise was they would always be perfect and Judas and Peter are great example of that. Judas a handpicked ordained priestly apostle of Christ commited the worst mortal sin and betrayed him. Peter who we view as the first Pope historically also commited mortal sin several times and denied him 3 times. Peter also had a cussing problem. So our understandning of office Vs Person also pertains to the sacraments.

We jokingly say that even a bad priest by virtue of his office can absolve sins if the three conditions are met. It's like getting medicine from the doctor who is sick himself. Just because the doctor is sick does not mean he still doesn't have the authority to proscribe medicine for us. St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a first century Bishop and taught by the apostle John, writing around 107 A.D.called the Eucharist "The Medicine of Immortality".

I have heard of certain Lutheran groups of Bishops and Priest outside of the USA (perhaps Scandinavian or Sweedish or Norwegian but I could be wrong) that were ordained by Eastern Orthodox Bishops and that do have true apostolic succession and hence validilty to consecrate the Eucharist and hear confessions. I confess I do not know much about them but we were told they are outside for the USA for the most part. It s shame they are liberal as you say.

The Catholic Church would agree with you 100% in saying that if these Lutheran Bishops who are validly ordained try to ordain women, then the women ordination itself is invalid and the women have no real priestly or Episcopal authority at all. That is of course as you point out because Christ never ordained women so the church has no authority to do so. In Catholic speak, the matter( a women herself) would invalidate the sacrament.

It's funny because in the US liberal radical feminist Catholic women and Their dissenting left wing bishops disobey the Vatican all the time and try to ordain women. It's fun to play pretend for them! Faithful Catholics rightly argue that if Jesus wanted his Church to have women priest he would have ordained the most sinless and Holy women out their first..ie... Blessed Virign Mary who in our understanding holds a very high place in the Christian economy and to Christ.


Well that is all for now. I love rtalkigjn to to you anmd hope to do it some more. Have a great blessed night!


Your friend in Christ,

In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasias

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

As we are both painfully aware my friend, we have an unfortunate division.

As you mention Luther here are some other quotes from him:



I could go on but as you know, things didn't turn out as Luther had hoped.

As it stands, and dispite much common ground, that same Church to whose authority Luther confesses to be supreme in the quote of 3 March currently holds the Lutheran episcopacy as invalid and I am sure you realize what that entails as far as a real presence from a Catholic perspective.

I wish it weren't so. I really do. Maybe one day.

Me too.

I have heard of certain Lutheran groups of Bishops and Priest outside of the USA (perhaps Scandinavian or Sweedish or Norwegian but I could be wrong) that were ordained by Eastern Orthodox Bishops and that do have true apostolic succession and hence validilty to consecrate the Eucharist and hear confessions. I confess I do not know much about them but we were told they are outside for the USA for the most part. It s shame they are liberal as you say.




Well that is all for now. I love rtalkigjn to to you anmd hope to do it some more. Have a great blessed night!


Your friend in Christ,

In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasias

Yes, there have been some instances of Orthodox bishops doing such.

In some of the Scandinavian Churches the transition from Rome to Augsburg was so smooth, that their Episcopacy remained in tact, and does so to this day. But again, most are very liberal.

Thank you both, my friends for sharing, and allowing me to share.

Pax Domini.

Mark