Differences Between the Lutheran and Roman Catholic View of the Eucharist
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июл 2024
- Our website: www.justandsinner.org
This video discusses the sacrament of the Eucharist and differences between the Lutheran approach and the Roman Catholic one.
The beard is NOT just an accident, it is undoubtedly essence
Low sacramentology is definitely one of the biggest issues I have with the Reformed Church I attend. Reading scripture and how it was traditionally held it does seem more than just symbolic
Reformed sacramentology is lower than Lutheran or Catholic, but it is not symbolic. Reformed christians believe that we really do eat the Body and Blood of Christ in communion. Perhaps your church is particular baptist?
@@tonic-music it's not baptist just non-denominational. Looks more to Puritans like Edward, Bunyan, and Owen so more like Congregationalist without the infant baptism and high view of the eucharist
@@bradleymarshall5489strictly speaking, a nondenominational church isn’t 100% “Reformed”. Reformed more or less equates to Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed, although Reformed Baptists are very close as well. Reformed churches do not believe the Eucharist is symbolic, we believe we receive effectual means of grace spiritually through ordinary elements, and only those who are elect can receive that grace (which is why we don’t think the elements change and the presence of Christ is spiritual, as it wouldn’t make sense for a nonbeliever to take communion and receive grace from it)
@@bradleymarshall5489 Not really reformed then.
@@tonic-music maybe not full classically reformed but they still emphasize total depravity and God’s sovereignty. The Church is in downtown Seattle and is doing good at attracting a lot of different people. Might be coming at the price of being more strictly Orthodox but it’s brining people to Christ all the same
The Eucharist is why I am no longer Non-Denom, and now a Confessional Lutheran (LCMS)
Baptists/Non-Denom, for all their expositional preaching (which I respect in and of itself) simply ignore scripture. I had to leave….God called me to the truth.
Praise to lord welcome home from( Etiopian Evangelical church Mekeneyesus. a luthrean denomination)holy sprits always leads you to the truth
I was a Baptist until earlier this year and joined the LCMS as well, the main thing for me was baptism
Eucharistic adoration is a major thing that I think makes Catholicism much more difficult to accept than Eastern Orthodoxy. Catholics have very admirable moral teaching, so it seems like a glaring inconsistency that they can’t recognize the “disordered” nature of taking the sacrament meant for eating and using it for worship instead.
We worship Jesus. So if that's Jesus, we worship. If it's not, we don't. It's not complicated. We will worship even his toes.
@@Emie-f3garen’t you then worshiping the accidents of Jesus? If we were to apply your Aristotelian metaphysical view. Again, Christ tells us what the sacrament is for, and that’s eating for the forgiveness of sins. Using it for any other purpose could be considered sacrilege. At the very least, you shouldn’t cast judgment on those who don’t find it appropriate to use the sacrament in that way.
@@Emie-f3g please notice: I’m not disputing that it is the body and blood of Christ. But Christ instructed to “take, EAT….do THIS…” When you take the supper He gave and do not eat it (as with Eucharistic adoration) you are actually disobeying Christ who told you to EAT it. Catholic moral theology recognizes that the misuse of a good thing is disordered and wrong. To NOT eat the Eucharist and instead put it on display is a misuse of that good thing that comes from God and is disordered.
IF it is Christ’s body and blood indeed, then you had better EAT it like he commanded. Else you’re disobeying Him and misusing His gift.
@bruhmingo The accidents have no substance. They are impossible to worship. If we could worship them, then we'd believe in consubstantiation, not transubstantiation.
Also, we do eat the hosts. I gave a long response and it vanished it. The hosts are not thrown away when they leave the monstrance. Extra hosts are always kept in the Tabernacle and used during Mass, given to some people outside mass, for example the sick or even people who request (if the priest agrees).
@calebpearce9334 We do eat it. The host is not thrown away when it leaves the monstrance. If you've ever been to a typical mass, you'll notice that after the consecration, the priest will go to the Tabernacle and bring up already consecrated hosts and add to the ones at mass, especially if there are many more people than anticipated.
If someone sick needs to be given the Eucharist, it will come from there, too. Sometimes, you can get communion outside the mass if you're well disposed.
These hosts are kept in the Tabernacle, and we go and spend time with Jesus there all the time. A red light/candle indicates there's Eucharist in the Terbanacle. If you're ever depressed, I recommend just going into a Catholic church and sitting near a Terbanacle. The amount of life-changing miracles that happen here!
The ONLY time a host will not be eaten is if it falls onto to something that makes eating it impossible, or there's a Eucharistic miracle that makes it no longer the Eucharistic as the accidents are removed by God. Then, it must be dissolved in water and the water discarded in a respectful way, like a plant at the parish. Otherwise, the hosts are always eaten!
People too often try to define things that should best be kept to Divine mystery. Those definitions foster argument, pride, and schism, which are sins.
As Paul pointed out, "Knowledge puffs up. But love builds up."
The terminology of "transsubstantiation" was not created to answer protestants. All Christians are faced with the embarrassment of having to justify how the Lord could say "this *is* my body" over something which is bread according to all senses. So the explanation is aimed at people who either say that Christ lied or that he meant something purely symbolic. Both Lutherans and Catholics have come up with clear terminology about their belief in order to make outsiders understand. How is the Catholic answer "puffing up" and the Lutheran answer is "love"?
Imagine yourself at the time of the reformation. The faithful have been taught for centuries that that bread used in the Eucharist becomes the Body of our Lord. But it's a time of turmoil and the doubts that have always been there bubble up and are articulated. Calvin and Zwingli say that it was meant just symbolically and bread is just bread. The Catholics double down on the Real Presence, confirming the ancient belief that left-over bread of the Eucharist is still holy. Now Luther formulates his view and says: Let's leave this to Divine mystery, because definitions foster argument, pride and schism. And everybody embraced each other and just lived their own truth, however they read it in the bible. And yet, in 2024 a Lutheran makes a RUclips video, complaining that the Catholic view is idolatrous (which would be a sin) and many commentators say that low sacramentology is a big issue. Are we now going to have arguments, pride and schism?
QUESTION do Lutherans store consecrated hosts in a sacred place or do they go back into the bread bin? I thinks that is when the distinction matters most.
Lutheran's believe Christ's body and blood is only present in union at the celebration of mass for the purpose of consecration, distribution, and reception. I can not speak for all Lutheran's, however, typically the Priest or Elder will drink the rest of the blood and make sure none remains. The rest of the hosts unused are put into a gold pan, covered, and stored in another room adjacent to the alter, to be used next mass. We still show reverence to the elements of the sacrament, hence they are seperated and stored.
From my LCMS pastor:
Historical practice reserves them in a 'tabernacle" for communion of the sick, homebound or dying, or kept with respect in a separate place for future use along with wine/blood
@@charliep5139 so is that historical practiced still observed?
@@MrPeach1 in my church there is a separate room closed off beside the alter. The wine/blood is drank as to not leave any. The remaining hosts are covered in a gold dish and veil, and placed into the room beside the alter for future services or for pastoral visitations to the hospital, prisons, and so on. Basically the blood/wine is drank, and the bread/body is stored in a tabernacle. Also note that we respect the elements but we do not believe that Christ is present after the celebration of mass, only present during.
It's as comical as it is sad how RC apologists so woefully misunderstand Lutheran teaching on the Eucharist. It's as if they'd rather we simply teach "consubstantiation" than they actually understand what we mean by "Sacramental Union." It's only upon further examination that one realizes just how far "transubstantiation" (and all that it implies) stands from the biblical witness.
Lutherans get defensive about this because no other denomination understands the neich position you guys take.
@@drewpanyko5424 our institutional Catholic Church isn't really in the business of "understanding" the other sides, per se, it's more about extending verbal constructs that could serve as bridging olive branches (eg, "consubstantion") for the sake of institutional reunion
@@finp_c2857I'd generally agree. I would assert that the Lutheran position is only "niche" because it adheres most closely to the biblical witness and eschews the philosophical vocabulary of other churches. Nonetheless, Lutherans have to be more clear about their teaching on the Eucharist when engaging in theological discourse with those in other Christian church bodies.
@drewpanyko5424 That's fair, but I don't think Lutherans use less complex theological or philosophical terms when talking about the Body of Christ they seem to use more.
@@finp_c2857Part of the reason for that is that our sacramentology is deeply connected to our (Cyrillian) Christology. We use Western theo-philosophical categories, but apply them to what is for the most part a Coptic stance on questions of the two natures and the real presence. That's an unusual blend and so it can seem odd and overly complicated.
Eastern Orthodox prefer the word "Mystery" rather than the word Sacrament for some of the reasons you explained, however, I think the West sometimes gets typology backwards. Bread is not the most real food. Bread is a type of food. REAL food is Christ's body and blood. Mystical doesn't mean "hyper-real" but rather the top of the archetypal pyramid of reality. At any rate, Orthodox don't hold that they cease to have molecules of bread and wine, and have some other kind of matter hidden under "accidents" to make them palatable. Christ's body and blood are not dead meat and plasma and cellular material, they are raised AND glorified. At any rate, how Christ's glorified body and blood coexist with the atoms of bread and wine is an incomprehensible mystery.
Quick question. Is the Church the true body of Christ? Discuss
It’s the same word. Sacrament comes from the Latin word for mystery.
@@harrygarris6921 same word, different meaning and so a different impression in it's use. Sacrament is in English "Holy 'thing'", Mystery is 'mystery'
@@j.g.4942 How is baptism more "mysterious" in Orthodoxy than it is in Catholicism?
@@Emie-f3g sorry I don't understand you're question.
But to OP's question, Lutherans would understand the Church to be the true Body of Christ and His Body and Blood at the Sacrament of the Altar mysteriously consuming the participants and so incorporating them again/more into said Body/Church.
The Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox view of the Eucharist are close to identical. We, too, leave it a mystery as to how Christ's body and blood coexist with the bread and wine.
Denying it's still bread is a denial of Scripture, so it is vital. The bread is the Body of Christ. The wine is the Blood of Christ. Dual reality. You don't divide Christ into God or Man. You don't divide the Sacrament, either. You accept the mystery and don't go beyond Scripture or negate Scripture.
The english word "host" comes from the greek word referring to the victim in the offering. It does not come from "host" in the sense of the landlord or bearer of a parasite.
As a Catholic, I don't get what the problem with Adoration is. If the Eucharist really is Jesus, then worship is the only sensible response. This can be done by receiving Communion and by praying in Adoration. Why not both! The Catholic Church does not emphasize Adoration over eating, since the church has a minimum requirement for receiving the Eucharist, whereas Adoration is a optional practice. Other ancient churches like the Eastern Orthodox don't have Adoration, but they still keep the Eucharist in a Tabernacle, in addition to having It when taking Communion.
The fact that Jesus did not say to worship in Eucharistic Adoration does not mean that it's wrong. Jesus didn't say to have crosses in churches either, but is that wrong? As long as we also consume the Eucharist in a state of grace, we are doing what Jesus said. Practices like Adoration serve to strengthen our appreciation for the great gift of the Eucharist, just like crosses in churches strengthen our appreciation for what Jesus did at Calvary.
Yeah, the main concern for us is divorcing the Sacrament from Christ's institution. Christ instituted the Holy Supper to be eaten and drunk, not to just sit in a monstrance, so to consecrate the Eucharist and not eat and drink is no sacrament at all because it's not according to Christ's institution.
Now, that's not to say we shouldn't adore Christ in the Eucharist. We should and do. During the Liturgy of the Sacrament portion of the Mass/Divine Service, after consecration, it's common for the celebrant to genuflect, elevate the host and chalice for the congregation to behold, and the majority of Lutheran churches kneel at the altar to receive the Eucharist.
Just like in the EO church, some Lutheran churches may have a tabernacle or a special recepticle to reserve the Eucharist that will be brought to the sick, but in neither EO or Lutheran churches are tabernacles used for Eucharistic adoration. The exposition of the Eucharist is a uniquely Roman development that started around the 14th-15th century.
So it seems the problem is that Luther was too much in the "here and now" and didn't quite understand what "religion" actually is. I'm something of a pragmatist myself, so perhaps I would've sided with Luther if I'd been around in the 16th century and had observed that the overwhelming Effect of the transubstantiation doctrine was blatant superstition. But as a Catholic in modern times where -70% of us deny the mass anyway, it's hard to feel the force of Luther's criticism
Well the essence of transubstantiation still remains, even if the accidence of it changes lol. In seriousness, what I mean by that is that regardless of the abuses practiced because of a belief, the essential truth is what remains important.
@@theproceedings4050 my impression of Luther is that what he saw going on with Catholicism was that in practice it had become a massive "transactional" system ("do this, get that"), where basically Jesus was nowhere to be found in these transactions. So it's as if he thought, "Well, if transactional-mindedness is just an inherent part of the human condition, I could at least simplify this to one big Jesus centered transaction of "Sola Fide", and trim away some sacramental clutter so that what remains could be directly used to serve this overarching principle"...if there's any truth to my impression, then it's certainly an example of German efficiency at its finest 😂
@WayneDrake-uk1gg Fair enough. It is undeniable that Reformational forensic justification could not come about as strongly without the context/foundation of indulgences and the penitential system which was designed around remitting guilt -- whether that's a legitimate aspect of biblical and patristic theology is somewhat a secondary debate (although, I tend to think it is -- albeit not to the exclusion of medicinal/ontological models of justification).
@@WayneDrake-uk1gg That might be partly the case lol. Though in my opinion Luther only ever decided permanently on something if he was reasonably sure he could find it in Scripture, everything else he was hopelessly waffly on, to the point that others have plenty to criticize him over. Personally, I count him among the church fathers as notable and beneficial (although not perfect) theologians. If you read a good biography of him, it's easy to come to the conclusion that while flawed, the entire concern of his life was practicing the entire truth of the Gospel, and using it to renew the church and the world. One could easily see a world in which the abuses of the Catholics had not been so egregious and Luther had not been so lacking of tact (a positive and negative attribute in his case), that there were a whole monastic order founded on his justificatory occupations and belief faith. Coincidentally, this timeline too would have Lutherans lol (right alongside Franciscans).
@@theproceedings4050 on the topic of Lutheran historical counterfactuals, I'd say Luther's way of speaking would be ideally suited for today's environment of social media, where if someone says something you don't like, worst case scenario, you can just block them from your echo chamber (as opposed to Luther's day when echo chambers were national borders and the "Block" button involved a pile of wood and a spark). There's something very attractive about Luther's rhetoric. Whenever someone says, "Last night the devil came to my chamber wishing to debate with me...", what can I say? They've certainly got my attention 😂. And in today's environment it's much easier to seriously reflect on what he's saying without the looming threat of death by Inquisition simply for having his book in our hands
Yes that is correct it is fully the body and blood of Christ but it is together with the bread and the wine that is why you can still taste that stuff after it gets cubsubstantiated to the body and blood of Christ Matthew 26:26-28 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
So why is this not consubstantiation?
@@Emie-f3g it is.
@@DefenderOfChrist_ There are people here complaining that Catholics insist that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation no matter how much they are corrected. I'm confused! 🤔
Remember folks, these differences were so important that we had to fight the 30-years War.
And to excommunicate/exile, and also separate Lutheran parents from their children (the only reason 'a mighty fortress' is well known today).
@@j.g.4942 “If a man is in open rebellion, everyone is both his judge and his executioner. . . Therefore, let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog.”
- Luther
The Hapsburgs and Bourbons helped, friend. By the end of the war it was a Catholic-Protestant alliance on both sides. Not denying that it started along sectarian lines.
@@SeanusAurelius I am aware. The greatest betrayal came from Richleau who payed the king of Sweden to intervene on behalf of the protestants.
Wait. Did Luther mean to Literally stab & kill? As in, dead corpse on the ground?
@Catholic-Perennialist
Regarding Eucharistic adoration, I would simply suggest going to it yourself and sitting there in His Presence for a while, before making any judgements. 🙂
One can grant that Christ "DID NOT" say that we "CAN" worship the Host, but you should also grant the other side of the coin: Christ "DID NOT" say that we "CANNOT" worship the Host.
And Lutherans should/do worship the host, before and as they eat it.
Couple questions:
1. Do Lutherans also believe that the elements not only become Christ's body & blood, but also His soul and divinity?
2. Would you then say that, since Christ is God, the consecrated elements are God (and not just Christ's body and blood)? So, when I eat the bread, do I hold and then eat God? Do I drink God in the blood?
We don't divide the person of Christ, so yes we drink the blood of God the Son.
"Probably" to the former, but our skepticism regarding scholastics means most of us would probably shy from the explicit way you worded it.
"Without a doubt" to the latter, we consider that a primary reason for its effect. (And also a huge reason Paul warned against abuses, the reference point I use is Moses looking upon Gods body on the mountain and being so changed the Israelites couldnt look at him.)
The Bible doesn't tell us it becomes the soul and divinity of Christ so no we don't believe in that, we just believe in what the Bible tells us.
Firstly, Lutherans do not believe that the elements become Christ's body and blood -- they remain bread and wine -- but rather that they become united with Christ's body and blood. (Sacramental union rather than transubstantiation)
FWIW, the best metaphor I can think of for the Catholic devotion would be something like this: In the meditative practice, we attempt to unite to Christ by "mentally stripping away" the accidents of the fallen world and meeting at the mysterious realm of "substance". Physical eating is an "earthy" thing, but symbolically, it is indeed a picture of union (ie "you are what you eat")
I suspect the differences in understanding of the Eucharist are really stemming from differences in understanding of justification.
Nope not really
@@taylorbarrett384 Yeah I really think it does. Dr. Cooper is talking about the differences in metaphysical understanding - but why do those matter? I would think it's because the catholic church views participation in the eucharist as facilitating an ontological change internal to the human person towards righteousness and the Lutherans do not.
@@harrygarris6921 The reason why that fails is because Lutherans believe that justification/salvation involves a real internal metaphysical change towards righteousness. They simply don't think that the internal change is sufficient to form the ground of our relationship with God. The difference between the two traditions is not whether a real metaphysical/ontological change occurs. Both traditions affirm that God regenerates the soul and infuses divine charity into the hearts of the believer. The difference is that Lutheran hamartiology differs with the Catholic view in regards their legal assessment of the remaining unwilled inclinations of concupiscence.
@@taylorbarrett384 I know that Martin Luther made a distinction between justification and sanctification and taught that the former led to the latter. What I'm confused about is why modern Lutherans are so eager to claim the more historic catholic and orthodox position that justification and sanctification are both a part of the process of salvation and inseparable, because that did not seem to be the original understanding at the time of the reformation.
@@taylorbarrett384 And no imputed righteousness is not the same thing as ontological deification.
Jesus: This [bread] is my body.
The church: This [bread] is His body.
A lutheran: Too much explanation and beyond what you can read in the bible. The actual answer is consubstantiation and what he really means with "is" is that He is coming together with ...
RC church doesn't believe it's bread anymore. That's a denial of Scripture.
@@ro6ti I just quoted Jesus saying that it's not bread anymore, so the church believes what Jesus said. What do you not understand about the sentence: "This is my body"?
And even if He meant something really nuanced with it, how can you agree with Cooper, that the problem of the church is overexplanation, when it apparently is interpreting it too directly. How can the literal interpretation *contradict* scripture?
I suggest you rearticulate your beef with it.
If Christ had pointed at the sun and said: "This is my body" (let's assume this would make sense with the rest of scripture and would be prefigured in the old testament).
Would you then worship the sun as Christ's physical presence, or would you do a nuanced interpretation that when you sunbath with the correct mindset, then you participate in the Body, but otherwise it's just the regular old sun?
@@fabianagco5902
No, even Jesus said He would not drink of the fruit of the vine again until He comes into His Kingdom. It's a dual reality. Paul said we partake of bread and wine, yet it is also called Body and Blood. Dual reality. The wine is His Blood. The bread is His Body. That's all we know. Consider your own body, which is a member of Christ's own Body. It is still your body, but it is now also a member of Christ's body. Dual reality.
If the Eucharist is Jesus, it’s only right to worship. In the Mass, as long as the consecrated elements are present, the congregation bows in worship- even after they’ve taken Communion. This is a very short version of Eucharistic adoration. Hosts worshipped in longer adoration services are ultimately consumed.
I don’t see why philosophy has to be an obstacle here. The Catholic view of the Eucharist simply affirms that God speaks reality. When Jesus says of the bread, “This is my Body”, and likewise with the wine/His Blood, we take Him as His Word. “Transubstantiation” is just the way in which this has come to be described.
The priest at a given Mass always receives in both kinds on behalf of the congregation. This gets to deeper issues though, which I won’t be able to dig into on my lunch break.
If the Church is the Body of Christ, do you worship the Church?
@@ro6ti No, because the Church as the Body of Christ is a metaphor describing the sanctifying relationship between Christ and His members (Eph 5) and the relationship of the members to one another in Christ (1 Cor 12). This relationship is, as St. Paul says, “A great mystery”, and is more profound than we can imagine, but the members are never said to be God, and worship is due to God alone.
We see Jesus make similar relational statements in the Gospels- the Vine and Branches discourse in John 15 comes to mind. However, the institution of the Eucharist is unique because Jesus literally took bread and said of it, “This is my body”. Jesus never equates anything else directly with Himself in this way.
What does the Roman view of the supper lead to? Laypeople only receiving one of the elements at the mass, the body of Christ being paraded around outside of Mass, many other abuses
What does the Lutheran view of the supper lead to? Taking, eating and drinking both Christ’s body and blood given for us for the forgiveness of sins.
First of all, Catholics are routinely offered the body and blood of Christ. There were historical periods and there are regions where the blood is withheld on most occasions for practical reasons. Theologically, the Eucharist contains Christs full body blood and divinity in _both_ species. This means by taking the blood, I am taking the body, and by taking the body I am taking the blood. This is proven in Sacred Tradition _and_ Scripture when St. Paul says “whosoever drinks this eats this bread _or_ drinks this cup unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lords body _and_ blood” as you can see, taking one or the other holds you in contempt for the _whole_ because the body and blood and divinity of the Lord are inseparable.
So, what do we have? 1. Catholics can and do take both the body and the blood, especially on Corpus Christi. 2. The correct understanding of the Eucharist shows that the body and blood are both present under either species.
@@batglide5484 “Drink from it, all of you”
“Do this in remembrance of me”
Do what? Do what?
@@gumbyshrimp2606 the taking of Holy Communion :) the bread, remembered as His body, and the wine, remembered as His blood.
@@Bop10899 also that but it is says for the forgiveness of sins too in Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
The only thing you have to do is reading the Bible to agree with our theology.
@@Bop10899does he say do this in remembrance of my body? No, he says “take and eat, this IS my body given for you, do this in remembrance of me”. We remember Jesus and His promises when we eat his true body and blood.
@@DefenderOfChrist_ his blood is poured out for the forgiveness of sins yes, I wouldn’t say the taking of communion is what does that. Considering the thief on the cross did not need communion, rather the blood of Christ which was poured at the cross. Thank you for remaining civil, are you a Lutheran?
Transubstantiation too philosophical? Like how Nicea uses philosophical language like hypostatic union and substance, consubstantial with the Father. Come on, brutha! ❤
Nicea is descriptive of a doctrine made clear in scripture, transubstantiation is a theory made binding with no precedent in scripture. It’s not that it’s too philosophical, it’s that it’s unnecessary.
@@bruhmingo Transubstantiation IS descriptive. It says what we sense with our natural faculties is not what it looks like but what Christ says it is. The idea that it explains how this happens is an Eastern polemic. It is as descriptive as the Hypostatic Union.
@@bruhmingo Scripture is so "clear" that a whole Book of Concord was necessary? Every heresy is based upon the "perspicuity" of Scripture. If you're a Confessional Lutheran, you believe in quasi-transubstantiation; the only major difference between sacramental union and transubstantiation is that y'all believe the whole substance of bread/wine remains ("with, in, under"). So, basically, with all due respect, it's as if you're turning Jesus into a loaf of bread and wine, while He maintains his body and blood; "the bread and wine [ARE] truly the body and blood of Christ" (VII. The Lord's Supper). I do appreciate the BOC maintaining the Real Presence, however. But saying that transubstantiation is "unnecessary" is analogous to saying the BOC was unnecessary in teaching sacramental union.
@@fatimatriumphsNot a Lutheran just respect them but I can see the point of leaving mystery a mystery at a certain point. The Eastern Orthodox Church who claims to be the one true church and that Rome believes has apostolic succession also leaves it a mystery no? I can respect the idea of taking Christ at his word without trying to explain it to satisfy an intellectual curiosity for self.
@fatimatriumphs You have to accept Aristotelian metaphysics to accept transubstantiation.
Romans 14, let people want to believe as they wish about what Jesus meant by this is my body and this is my blood. Division over this issue is just being human and forgetting everyone is God's servant not yours.
By 2070, there will be almost no Lutherans left to split these hairs.
really? it's Catholics that are disappearing in the USA. The majority are only cultural Catholics like Joe Biden; Catholics are crying that their schools are closing and need money . Be a good Catholic and support your church
Lol, it's sad but true that whenever these "disputes over words" pop up in the Church, pretty much any attempts to work them out just build more barriers than bridges. In practice, the only way to "heal" these divides is simply to outlive the other side
@@WayneDrake-uk1gg Catholicism, for all its faults, at least doesn't practice self-gεnοcιdε by a refusal to reproduce.
Even Cooper hasn't achieved the "replacement rate," so it's doubtful that the lutheran laity fully understand the problem.
I bet the world ends before then. AI is already getting too scary, another 30 or so years and some things we can’t even imagine right now are going to be happening
@@Ben-kh7wh I'll bet the world does not end, and your attitude hastens the demise of Protestantism.