Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic and Lutheran Churches Pledge to Work for Shared Eucharist
Crux ^ | October 31, 2016 | Austen Ivereign

Posted on 10/31/2016 8:26:42 AM PDT by ebb tide

At the conclusion of a historic ecumenical celebration in Lund, Sweden, Pope Francis and the general-secretary of the world's Lutheran churches agreed to work together for a shared Eucharist.

Pope Francis and the global Lutheran leader have jointly pledged to remove the obstacles to full unity between their Churches, leading eventually to shared Eucharist.

They made the commitment in a joint statement signed before a congregation of Catholic and Lutheran leaders at the conclusion of a joint service in Lund, Sweden, to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the start of the Reformation.

The statement was signed by Pope Francis and Bishop Munib Younan, who is president of the Lutheran World Federation (LWF), which was founded in Lund in 1947. After they finished signing, the congregation stood for a long round of applause as the two leaders hugged each other.

The two leaders appeared to single out married couples where one partner is Catholic and the other Lutheran. “Many members of our communities yearn to receive the Eucharist at one table, as the concrete expression of full unity,” they noted.

“We experience the pain of those who share their whole lives, but cannot share God’s redeeming presence at the Eucharistic table,” they said, adding: “We acknowledge our joint pastoral responsibility to respond to the spiritual thirst and hunger of our people to be one in Christ.”

“We long for this wound in the Body of Christ to be healed,” they continued. “This is the goal of our ecumenical endeavors, which we wish to advance, also by renewing our commitment to theological dialogue.”

In their statement, the leaders acknowledged that “Lutherans and Catholics have wounded the visible unity of the Church.”

“Theological differences were accompanied by prejudice and conflicts, and religion was instrumentalized for political ends,” they said, adding later: “Today, we hear God’s command to set aside all conflict. We recognize that we are freed by grace to move towards the communion to which God continually calls us.”

As well as pledging to work towards intercommunion, the leaders prayed that Catholics and Lutherans will be able to witness together to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and work for justice and peace.

“We urge Lutherans and Catholics to work together to welcome the stranger, to come to the aid of those forced to flee because of war and persecution, and to defend the rights of refugees and those who seek asylum,” they said, adding that their “joint service” must also extend to God’s creation.

“We recognize the right of future generations to enjoy God’s world in all its potential and beauty,” they continued. “We pray for a change of hearts and minds that leads to a loving and responsible way to care for creation.”

The Pope and Lutheran leader ended by calling on their respective parishes and communities to be “bold and creative, joyful and hopeful in their commitment to continue the great journey ahead of us.”

They concluded: “Rooted in Christ and witnessing to him, we renew our determination to be faithful heralds of God’s boundless love for all humanity.”


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ecumenism; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS: apostasy; francischurch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

1 posted on 10/31/2016 8:26:42 AM PDT by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

Roman Catholics and Lutherans can work on some projects together, but no, we cannot participate in Holy Communion together because our churches teach different things about it! The Lutherans willing to enter into this arrangement are not paying attention to the teaching of their own church on this matter.


2 posted on 10/31/2016 8:31:28 AM PDT by freemama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide
The two leaders appeared to single out married couples where one partner is Catholic and the other Lutheran.

One of my great-grandmothers was Lutheran. The Catholic Church always treated her like crap. Despite the fact that she married in the Catholic Church and raised her kids Catholic. The tales of petty humiliations foisted on her by the Church are the stuff of legend in my family.


3 posted on 10/31/2016 8:32:43 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

The only possible way a person could want this is if their religion is ecumenism. Logical people on both sides understand that their is a gulf of difference between Catholic and Lutheran theology, especially on the Eucharist. Anyone willing to ignore the irreconcilable differences doesn’t care that much for the truth, but wants to put faux unity ahead of everything else.


4 posted on 10/31/2016 8:33:02 AM PDT by Wyrd bið ful aræd (Flag burners can go screw -- I'm mighty PROUD of that ragged old flag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide
"Catholic and Lutheran Churches Pledge to Work for Shared Eucharist"

Maybe Roman and Lufauxran churches, like the Church of Sweden or some in the Lufauxran World Federation.

But, no. No Lutheran churches would pledge open communion with the Roman Church as it exists today, especially since the Council of Trent.

5 posted on 10/31/2016 8:37:38 AM PDT by Carl Vehse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

What stopped your great-grandmother from converting to Catholciism? Is that in your “legend”?


6 posted on 10/31/2016 8:38:24 AM PDT by ebb tide (We have a rogue curia in Rome.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

I guess when you treat a potential convert like horsh** they have to question whether you are really Christian, and whether they want to join your church.

This started with her Catholic wedding being held in private in the sacristy because as an infidel she was not allowed to stand on the holy ground of the altar.

Would ultimately not let her be buried with her Catholic husband either.

In fairness the Catholic Church has come a long way in that regard since her day. They even play Away in a Manger in Catholic churches at Christmastime now.


7 posted on 10/31/2016 8:50:52 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Why would she raise her kids in a church she did not want to join? It was good enough for them, but not for her?


8 posted on 10/31/2016 8:58:10 AM PDT by ebb tide (We have a rogue curia in Rome.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

Because the Catholic Church will not marry you unless you first agree to raise the kids Catholic.

I presume if you were Catholic you would not have to ask.


9 posted on 10/31/2016 9:04:32 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd

Do I dare ask what the Lutheran theology is on the Eucharist?

This is just one more thing that is very troubling about this Pope. And he doesn’t seem to care - anyone who wants to keep the tradition is a ‘deplorable’ in his eyes.


10 posted on 10/31/2016 9:48:22 AM PDT by MichaelCorleone (Jesus Christ is not a religion. He's the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

**One of my great-grandmothers was Lutheran. The Catholic Church always treated her like crap. Despite the fact that she married in the Catholic Church and raised her kids Catholic. The tales of petty humiliations foisted on her by the Church are the stuff of legend in my family.++

I was Lutheran, crossed the Tiber, and became the Pariah of my German Lutheran Family. More backlash than if I had been arrested for bank robbery, and sent to Prison.


11 posted on 10/31/2016 11:00:19 AM PDT by sockmonkey (Donald Trump will ban auto-correct with an Executive Order. Go Trump!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

No. Way.

Won’t happen in my lutheran denomination.

If people,do not believe the same thing, why such a push for phony union? It’s phony.


12 posted on 10/31/2016 11:01:30 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichaelCorleone

*** Do I dare ask what the Lutheran theology is on the Eucharist? ***

Consubstantiation vs Transubstantiation. Jesus spiritually mixed in with host vs Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus under the appearance of host/wine.

Lutherans believe the spiritual presence is time limited.


13 posted on 10/31/2016 11:04:41 AM PDT by sockmonkey (Donald Trump will ban auto-correct with an Executive Order. Go Trump!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide; Chode

This won’t end well


14 posted on 10/31/2016 2:03:23 PM PDT by Morgana ( Always a bit of truth in dark humor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
in a very few years there won't be enough Catholic Swed's to fill one church
15 posted on 10/31/2016 2:48:49 PM PDT by Chode (You Owe Them Nothing - Not Respect, Not Loyalty, Not Obedience, NOTHING! ich bin ein Deplorable...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

THEN: a sacred sacrifice, on an altar, holy communion, sanctifying grace, body of Christ, present upon a cross, divine love given to us in form of bread, blessed sacrament. Ave verum corpus!

NOW: Celebration of God’s love, community gathering, worship space, holding hands around a “table,” no divine action, no big words, no sacrificial lamb. Have fun!


16 posted on 10/31/2016 6:42:55 PM PDT by opus1 (God bless America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opus1

I don’t think Bergoglio even believes in the Divine Presence.

He does not genuflect as he consecrates the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. But he will kneel for “blessings” from protestants or to wash the feet of Islamists on Holy Thursday.

Upon returning from his World Yute Day in Rio, he boldly walked up to the altar of a Catholic Church, without even a bow, and placed a cheap beach ball against the tabernacle.


17 posted on 10/31/2016 6:57:11 PM PDT by ebb tide (We have a rogue curia in Rome.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: freemama
Roman Catholics and Lutherans can work on some projects together, but no, we cannot participate in Holy Communion together because our churches teach different things about it! The Lutherans willing to enter into this arrangement are not paying attention to the teaching of their own church on this matter.

I wouldn't think they would cotton to being in subjection to the Pope of Rome, either. That's usually what is expected when "unity" is the goal with Roman Catholicism.

18 posted on 10/31/2016 6:59:44 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: opus1; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
Having shown the language used in the gospel accounts of the Lord's supper and John 6:29-66 (which does not mention the Lord's supper) is metaphorical, let us look at the evidence of how the Lord's supper was understood in the rest of the New Testament.

Considering the emphasis and doctrine of Catholicism on the Lord's supper, then this should be easy to find in the life of the NT church, from Acts to Revelation, and which teachings are interpretive of the gospels. For according to Catholicism (I speak more specifically of the Roman version which produces more material on it), the Lord's supper is:

"the source and summit of the Christian life," around which all else revolves, as all the "other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it;" (CCC 1324

"the cause of that communion in the divine life," (CCC 1325) and the work of our redemption is carried out;" (CCC 1364)

"through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man;" (MYSTERIUM FIDEI, 39)

"the same sacrifice with that of the cross...a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious;” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent)

and that the active duty priest is "most of all to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice;" (Pastoral Reflections on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Cardinal John J. O'Conner)

Canon law states that it is the duty of parents that children who have attained the age of reason "are nourished by this divine food as soon as possible" after their first sacramental confession.(Can. 914)

Canon law requires that Catholics receive holy communion at least once a year, (Can. 920) and the Council of Trent wished "that at each Mass the faithful who are present, should communicate." (Catholic Encyclopedia>Frequent Communion)

With this centrality and importance then surely the practice and doctrine of the Catholic Eucharist with its NT priests would be clearly and often described in the life of the NT church, especially in the light of the many descriptions, teachings and exhortations and commendations and criticisms and solutions for problems which are given it. But what does the record of Acts and the teaching of the rest of the NT tell us?

In the entire books of Acts we have no clearly manifest description of the Lord's supper, much less of the Catholic Eucharist, the sober formal ritual sacrifice administered by a sacerdotal class of clergy distinctively titled "priests." Instead, what is recorded is only that of the disciples breaking bread together which is mentioned 4 times, and that it was communual meal eaten with gladness and singleness of heart

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:42)

And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (Acts 2:46) , apostles or any other clergy church

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7)

When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. (Acts 20:11)

To reiterate, if all these refer to the Lord's supper then it only describes it as a communal meal, and not as a distinct ritualized centerpiece of church life. And nowhere are the apostles or other clergy - much less any being called "priests" - even mentioned as conducting this breaking of bread or otherwise even distinctly being involved in distributing food , much less described as ritually effecting a change in the elements as sacerdotal priests, all of which Catholics must read into such texts if they claim this describes the Catholic Eucharist.

Moreover, the apostles expressed that their ordained function was not serving food but to give themselves "continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." (Acts 6:4)

In addition, nowhere in the life of the church is the means of obtaining spiritual life and growing in grace said to be by literally physically consuming the Lord Jesus, but spiritual life is obtained by hearing the gospel and truly believing it. (Acts 2:38; 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13)

And it is by preaching the word of grace that pastors foster growing in grace, by drinking "the sincere milk of the word," (1 Pt. 2:2) and ingesting its "meat," (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:12,13) being "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up by the word, (Acts 20:32) and with feeding the flock thereby being the primary active function of pastors. (Acts 20:32)

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (1 Peter 2:2)

I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. (1 Corinthians 3:2)

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)

If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)

Nowhere does any apostle charge pastors with feeding the church via the Lord's supper. That the Lord was charging the apostles with doing so in the gospel accounts is what Catholicism presumes, but which is the very thing that needs to be established in the life of the NT church, but which simply is not manifest.

Moving on from Acts we come to one of the most doctrinal books of the New Testament, the book of Romans, with 11 chapters of doctrine and 5 of exhortation, which the apostle Paul provides for the "obedience of faith," and prays that God would grant them to be "likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus." (Romans 15:5)

However, any mention of the Lord's supper is utterly absent in any of its 16 chapters, despite teaching such things as justification by grace, (Rm. 1-5) baptism, (Rm. 6) overcoming sin, (Rm. 7-8) the predestination and glorification of true believers, (Rm. 9-11) and their duty of sacrifice (their own bodies as living instruments of service), and the complimentary cohesive nature of the body of Christ, the church, and the operations of gifts regarding that, exhortations to holiness, service and love in the faith, as well as obedience to authority, (Rm. 12; 13) and not to abuse personal liberty to the hurt of the church body, including in eating, (Rm. 14, 15) and greetings and benediction to the church. (Rm. 16).

But while preaching and spiritual gifts are set forth a instrumental means of conveying grace, yet there is nothing at all about the Lord's supper, of the importance of the Eucharist, even about it being a source of grace, nor of pastors having a special function or gift regarding that.

Moving on to the next book, herein we have the only manifest descriptions of the Lord's supper in the life of the church, outside of the brief mention of it as the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12 which communal gathering some unholy vessels were defiling. Here, besides the possible inference in 1 Corinthians 5:7,8,11 of the Lord's supper as the commemorative passover feast which excludes willfull impenitent persons (though the body is the church, out of which the old leaven is to be purged), we have 1 Corinthians 10:16-21, parts of which are invoked by Catholics as teaching the Catholic Eucharist, particularly vs. 16,17: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." However,in context the Catholic interpretation this is simply not the case.

For instead, what is taught is that this manner of communion, which is described as spiritual union, is what pagans also signify and realize in communally taking part in their own dedicatory feast, and thus believers are warned against being part of it: But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20-21)

To either be partakers of the Lord's table or that of devils is to have fellowship with the entity to whom the feast is dedicated to, and with the other participants, partakers of the same altar. But it is certain that pagans were not having fellowship with devils by literally physical consuming the flesh and blood of devils.

In the next chapter the Lord's supper is once again addressed, (1Cor. 11:17-34) and once again Catholics suppose that this support their Eucharistic theology, especially vs. 28,29:

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. (1 Corinthians 11:28-29)

However, once again this is not what is being contextually taught, for instead of "not discerning the Lord's body" referring to not discerning the nature of the elements that are consumed in the Lord's body, instead the sin of the Corinthians was that of not effectually discerning/recognizing the nature of the body of Christ, the church, because they were treating other members as if they were outcasts.

The reproof of the Corinthians here is that while they were physically coming together to eat the Lord's supper, they really not coming together to eat the Lord's supper (When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper), not because of some failure to perceive the nature of what they were eating, but because while they were supposed to be showing/declaring the Lord's death for the church (For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come), they were selfishly eating independently, even to the full (for in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken), while ignoring other blood-bought saints who thus went hungry, and which thus was to "shame them that have not." (1Cor. 11:20-22,26)

Therefore they were effectually not recognizing the church which Christ bought with His own sinless shed blood (Acts 20:28) as actually being the body of Christ (thus Paul was persecuting the Lord by persecuting His body, the church: Acts 9:4). And thus they were not remembering/showing the Lord's death (which command Paul uniquely provides as being the purpose: v. 26), by treating members of it as outcasts. Paul the pastor elsewhere reproves Christians for harming brethren, "for whom Christ died (Rm. 14:15; 1Cor. 8:11) Therefore the rank hypocrisy here of these Corinthians left them guilty of the body and blood of the Lord by which He bought the church, as they were acting utterly contrary to its purpose and what it did, and the love behind it. Therefore some were even chastened unto death.

And since the problem was that of selfishly eating independently, even to the full while ignoring other blood-bought saints, thus the given solution was not that of recognizing a supernatural nature of the elements consumed, which souls could do while eating independently (though contrary to the meaning of "communion"), but the solution was to effectually recognize each other as members of the corporate body, to "tarry one for another," and to eat at home so that they do not come to the Lord's supper and do as before due to lust for food. (Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. Vs. 33,34)

Consistent with this focus on the corporate nature of the body of Christ, the next chapter gives further exhortation and correction regarding this.

Next we come to Galatians, with its rebukes for following Judaizers, and theology on salvation, and mention of baptism, and exhortations to walk in the Spirit, and warnings about falling from grace and making Christ of no effect, but nothing about the Lord's supper, but with supporting those who preach the word being instructed.

Then we come to Ephesians, and which speaks of how souls received the Spirit by faith, and are accepted in the Beloved, and sit with Him in the heavens, and the teaching about the one new man, the church.

And in the light of such grace, it provides various exhortation to grow in grace. However, once again the Lord's supper is utterly absent, and the means of obtaining spiritual life and growing in grace is never said to be by physically consuming the Lord Jesus, nor is there any reminder to take part in this, but life and growth is by hearing and believing the word of grace.

Likewise in Colossians, though this is the most metaphysical type book, and which mentions baptism and much exhorts growth in grace, but with the only internal ingestion in so doing being that of the word of Christ dwelling richly in them. (Col. 3:16)

Moving on to the next books, we have 1+2 Thessalonians, an active and much commendable church, but for whom Paul provides much eschatological light for, and desires that "To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints." (1 Thessalonians 3:13) But once again there is no mention of the Lord's supper or reminder of the importance of the Eucharist.

Then we have 1+2 Timothy and Titus, instructing and exhorting these pastors in carrying out the word of the ministry, including giving attention to reading and doctrine and to preach the word, which is what is said to "nourish" believers. (1Tim. 4:6) Yet once again there is no mention of the Lord's supper.

Neither — despite this being apostolic instructions and exhortations to pastors — is there any charge, exhortation or reminder to these pastor regarding carrying out that which in Catholicism is the centerpiece of her worship and sacramental system, and the primary activity of NT pastors.

And — despite instructions and requirements on choosing pastors (and which are normatively married: 1Tim. 3:1-7) — NT pastors are never called "priests" (distinctive from the general priesthood of all believers), despite the use of the exclusive words for priests or high pries (“hiereus” or “archiereus") being used over 280 times in the NT, and the words used for NT pastors, presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), being used approx 65 times for them, and whom Titus 1:5-7 (cf. Acts 20:17,28) shows as referring to those in the same office.

Nor are they described as having a unique sacerdotal Eucharistic function, but which Catholicism came to read into their office. See here for more substantiation on this issue, by God's grace.

Passing over the short letter to Philemon which also says nothing about the Lord's supper, we come the book of Hebrews, which like Romans, is another major doctrinal book. This book (by an anonymous God-inspired writer certainly not by Paul) is an exhortation to believers to continue in the faith, and warnings about falling away (Heb. 3,6,10) in the light of systematic eloquent exposition of the New Covenant vs. the Old, with the key word of this epistle being "better."

However, while expounding on the better hope, covenant, promises, sacrifices substance, dwelling, resurrection, and things of the New Covenant, once again nothing is manifestly said about the Lord's supper, nor is there any manifest theology on it, the only thing close to that being the warning not to forsake assembling together by falling into sin.

Yet even when describing the fundamentals of the faith then there is nothing said about Eucharistic theology, but,

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:1-2)

As incongruous as the previous omissions about Eucharistic theology are if the NT church held to the place and belief of Catholic Eucharistic theology, it is most inconceivable here, as if any book should expound, however briefly, about Eucharistic theology it would seem to be here, with its emphasis upon the superior grace of the New Covenant, and priestly ministry. Yet the Catholic Eucharist is one of many things missing in the NT church.

Moving on, we come to James, with his exhortations to practical faith, and teaching on intercessor prayer by the pastors/elders (not distinctive priests), as well as all believers. (James 5:14-20)

Yet even here the Lords supper is not mentioned, while in Catholicism this is exhorted if a Catholic is sick and it is a duty given to her unScriptural priests to provide. (Can. 911) But instead the only action besides prayer is anointing with oil.

Due to time and energy needs i am going to skip James and the epistles of Peter and John, none of which describe the Lord's supper, much less Catholic Eucharistic theology, and go to Jude 1:12, this book being the only other letter to the churches which which manifestly mentions the Lord's supper besides 1Corintians.

And it does so here simply as a "feast of charity," which communal feast unholy souls were "crashing," which type of persons Jude is warning about. And which is consistent with the nature of the participants being the focus, not the elements that are consumed by them.

Finally we come to Revelation, which also does not mention the Lord's supper, and its absence in the Lord's critiques and counsel tot he representative churches in Rv. . 2+3, either as a commendation for keeping it, or censure for not, or exhortation as means of grace, is also incongruous, leaving extrapolative Catholics to one again resort to reading into it what they desire if they will use it to support their distinctive Eucharistic theology.

Thus neither the Catholic Eucharist is manifest in the New Testament church nor her distinctive sacerdotal priesthood which offer it.

Instead, Catholics must read their Eucharistic liturgy into these texts, or at least, as with other traditions, argue that since the text does not exclude the Eucharistic liturgy then it is justified in teaching this was what was taking place.

For in reality, the veracity of Catholic teaching does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation from the only substantive wholly inspired body of Truth, but it rests upon the novel unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity.

19 posted on 11/01/2016 5:06:55 AM PDT by daniel1212 ( Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned and destitute sinner+ trust Him to save you, then follow Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sockmonkey
Consubstantiation

No, good you crossed the Tiber, you got that part right.

20 posted on 11/01/2016 5:13:53 AM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson