A Lutheran church on Eucharistic Adoration and the Corpus Christi feast

[peary]

What the heck gave you the idea that I’m attempting to be a victim?

“perhaps some of the Catholic posters might want to consider how it feels to have one’s beloved Sacrament constantly insulted and dismissed.”

I’m sure we have.

 

[blazerdave]

If so, then it’s all the more surprising to find it taking place towards another on this thread.

 

[DV56]

It’s sad to see this thread has gone from mostly charitable, to a few being uncharitable. I’m not so sure that the disrespect will do much for the Glory of God. We are brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[peary]

If so, then it’s all the more surprising to find it taking place towards another on this thread.

Again, and although I cannot speak for what others post, it is not a matter that we are not promoting charity or goodwill among Christians. Rather, as the bible says, the truth will set you free. And keeping quiet about it, or not bringing it up does a great disservice to our separated brethren.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Our beloved Sacrament has been continually insulted and dismissed for over two-thousand years. It also was dismissed and insulted by the vast majority of protestant denominations, even to this day, so don’t attempt to be the victim here. The fact remains that the Church (and myself) believe what the earliest of Christians in the Church believed, and that there is a valid ministerial priesthood. When these began to be questioned and readily dismissed, then so did the validity of orders.

It is not a matter that we are not promoting charity or goodwill among Christians. Rather, as the bible says, the truth will set you free. And keeping quiet about it, or not bringing it up does a great disservice to our separated brethren.

And of the Protestants who have posted on this thread, every one of them also believes what the Church has believed for 2000 years about the Sacrament. When the conversation involves those who deny the Real Presence, then that particular issue can be debated. Until then, “most protestants” is irrelevant.

 

[peary]

And of the Protestants who have posted on this thread, every one of them also believes what the Church has believed for 2000 years about the Sacrament. When the conversation involves those who deny the Real Presence, then that particular issue can be debated. Until then, “most protestants” is irrelevant.

Then, if they believe what the Church has taught for the past 200 years, then why aren’t they Catholic? And why not be humble enough to admit that they are in error because their communions are invalid?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Then, if they believe what the Church has taught for the past 200 years, then why aren’t they Catholic? And why not be humble enough to admit that they are in error because their communions are invalid?

Obviously because we don’t believe our communion is invalid. Judging from the USCCB document, neither do they. Agreement with the real presence does not mean becoming Catholic. But the eucharist is the topic of the thread, not justification or apostolic succession, et al.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Man, we have one thread about Lutherans with Eucharistic Adoration, another thread about Lutheran rosaries, sheesh, next thing we’ll have Marian Apparitions at a Missouri Synod Convention! If too many more Catholic things get included, they might as well come back to Rome

Myself and a friend of mine were discussing the progress made towards unity between Anglicans and Catholics and he was hopeful that similar progress could be made regarding Lutherans and Catholics. At the time, I thought it would be much more difficult. However, with the various recent threads regarding certain similarities between Lutheran beliefs and Catholic beliefs, perhaps the road isn’t as daunting (although perhaps still more daunting than the Anglican reunion).

 

[peary]

Obviously because we don’t believe our communion is invalid. Judging from the USCCB document, neither do they. Agreement with the real presence does not mean becoming Catholic. But the eucharist is the topic of the thread, not justification or apostolic succession, et al.

You cannot have a proper discussion of the Eucharist without understanding its true validation and authenticity. The USCCB is not the total teaching Magisterium of the Church and thereby subject to error. The USCCB does not speak for the entire teaching Magisterium of the Church and, if this is what they seemingly have agreed to, then they are wrong. Just because a person ‘thinks’ he or she has the Real Presence outside of the Catholic Church (if that were possible), does not make it so. Rule of thumb: if the conclusions any organization comes to is in keeping with the teachings of the whole Church, then the conclusions are valid. If not, they are wrong.

The notion of relativism has no place in the Eucharistic Presence (“I believe it to be so; therefore, it is”). How absurd. Suppose someone believes that the moon is made out of green cheese. Therefore, that makes it so. Again, absurdity. Only the Catholic Church has been blessed with the gift of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - His body, blood, soul, and Divinity (including the Orthodox. Why? Because they have a valid priesthood with valid sacraments - when protestants rejected the ministerial priesthood, they rejected the Real Presence, though they may have retained an understanding of it in some way.).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s complicated and it seems that Lutherans and Catholics and Anglicans and Catholics have different commonalities IMO. Lutherans and Catholics are closer on the Eucharist than Anglicans if we’re talking about Anglicans who follow the 39 Articles. But for Anglo-Catholics with a high church sensibility coupled with Utrecht Dutch-Touch consecrations, Catholics and Anglicans are closer. When it comes to justification, I think Anglicans are closer than Lutherans as Lutherans focus more on imputation than an Anglo-Catholic or middle-of-the-road Anglican. Also, we have to define “progress” here. Many Lutherans and Anglicans feel that “progress” from the Catholic point of view means “progress in becoming Catholics.”

Myself and a friend of mine were discussing the progress made towards unity between Anglicans and Catholics and he was hopeful that similar progress could be made regarding Lutherans and Catholics. At the time, I thought it would be much more difficult. However, with the various recent threads regarding certain similarities between Lutheran beliefs and Catholic beliefs, perhaps the road isn’t as daunting (although perhaps still more daunting than the Anglican reunion).

 

[WetCatechumen]

Jon,

I’ve been reading the Common Statement of the Tenth Round of the U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue that you provided. I’m blown away at how open it is to the grace, presence, and love of Christ that is received in the Lutheran Eucharist. I think there are a lot of hard-core Catholics in here who would not want to read that document, especially paragraph 107 that you referenced earlier, because it is not the exceptionalism and triumphalist tone I hear around here sometimes. It’s actually very open, charitable, and hopeful in Catholic-Lutheran dialogue while at the same time shedding some light on and hope to Lutherans. It makes it clear that the Lutheran (and presumably Anglican) Holy Communion is not some silly, empty, cold wafer with nothing within.

Thanks for sharing that document. I’ve read large sections of it and will continue to read more. Thanks again, Jon!

We, as Latin Rite Catholics, have a strong tendency towards legalism. I freely admit that as the letter of the law goes, the Lutherans cannot have valid sacraments, save baptism and marriage. They had no bishops in their initial schism, and they have slightly changed the meaning of sacrifice of the Mass.

However, I recall reading what an Orthodox bishop had to say about the validity of Catholic Holy Orders. He held that we were heretics and schismatics, but the question of validity made no sense. He said that since we are separate from the church, we are devoid of the fullness of grace granted by the Holy Spirit. However, that being the case, he did not deny that grace was present in other churches.

Likewise, the Lutherans do not match the criteria for having “real” priests and a “real” Eucharist, but consider this:

When a Lutheran priest calls down the Holy Spirit to consecrate the gifts, when he recites the Words of Institution, and his whole congregation prays with him, who are we to say that God does not grant his request? They long for the physical presence of Christ and their prayer ascends to heaven. God is merciful, and while having “valid” sacraments is important, if God so deigns to become present under the appearances of bread and wine, how can we deny him that?

Lutheran sacraments are not valid, but I have no doubt that they have grace.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is the problem I’ve had as a Catholic is how the argument is laid out. Whenever something doesn’t sound right, a Catholic apologist will dismiss it as not being infallible or magisterial. It makes for the win-win argument but is it really valid? Why is the USCCB document heterodox or defective? It is assembled prayerfully by an army of U.S. bishops and if the Pope were disgusted by it I’m sure it would’ve been retracted?

You cannot have a proper discussion of the Eucharist without understanding its true validation and authenticity. The USCCB is not the total teaching Magisterium of the Church and thereby subject to error. The USCCB does not speak for the entire teaching Magisterium of the Church and, if this is what they seemingly have agreed to, then they are wrong. Just because a person ‘thinks’ he or she has the Real Presence outside of the Catholic Church (if that were possible), does not make it so. Rule of thumb: if the conclusions any organization comes to is in keeping with the teachings of the whole Church, then the conclusions are valid. If not, they are wrong.

The notion of relativism has no place in the Eucharistic Presence (“I believe it to be so; therefore, it is”). How absurd. Suppose someone believes that the moon is made out of green cheese. Therefore, that makes it so. Again, absurdity. Only the Catholic Church has been blessed with the gift of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - His body, blood, soul, and Divinity (including the Orthodox. Why? Because they have a valid priesthood with valid sacraments - when protestants rejected the ministerial priesthood, they rejected the Real Presence, though they may have retained an understanding of it in some way.).

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…Many Lutherans and Anglicans feel that “progress” from the Catholic point of view means “progress in becoming Catholics.”

That would be an accurate statement as that is how I as a Catholic view progress. The hope is that we will all become one. Can there be compromise? We have seen that to some degree as some concessions have been made to some Anglicans who are now coming into the Catholic church. Although the Anglicans do not have their own rite perse, it appears to be heading that way. Perhaps a similar arrangement can be made with Lutherans (I have no idea what that might look like).

I could be wrong, but I believe Lutherans desire unity of the Christian church as well. Perhaps most Lutherans desire the Catholic Church to look more Lutheran than Catholic at this point in history. Agreements have been made between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church. We aren’t making these agreements merely to make us feel good about ourselves. They aren’t useless exercises. I understand some Lutheran synods may disagree regarding the point of having such agreements (i.e. WELS & LCMS did not sign the joint declaration on justification).

 

[TriuneUnity]

You cannot have a proper discussion of the Eucharist without understanding its true validation and authenticity. The USCCB is not the total teaching Magisterium of the Church and thereby subject to error. The USCCB does not speak for the entire teaching Magisterium of the Church and, if this is what they seemingly have agreed to, then they are wrong. Just because a person ‘thinks’ he or she has the Real Presence outside of the Catholic Church (if that were possible), does not make it so. Rule of thumb: if the conclusions any organization comes to is in keeping with the teachings of the whole Church, then the conclusions are valid. If not, they are wrong.

So then, the teaching authority of Bishops is only valid when it is in line with what individual Catholics believe regarding the validity of non-Catholic sacramental observation? This seems to run right into the same relativism that Catholics often accuse Protestants of. As gurney pointed out, if a document that is compiled by all of the United States Bishops, wherein the current Pontiff is quoted, and the papacy seems to have no major disagreements with it, yet it is rejected by individual Catholics, then what is the purpose of the episcopate, exactly?

I agree that, by Catholics standards, it would not carry the charism of infallibility, however, does that mean it carries no weight whatsoever?

 

[peary]

This is the problem I’ve had as a Catholic is how the argument is laid out. Whenever something doesn’t sound right, a Catholic apologist will dismiss it as not being infallible or magisterial. It makes for the win-win argument but is it really valid? Why is the USCCB document heterodox or defective? It is assembled prayerfully by an army of U.S. bishops and if the Pope were disgusted by it I’m sure it would’ve been retracted?

Rule of thumb, again: if it agrees and upholds the magesterial teachings of the Church, it is a valid document. If it doesn’t agree and uphold the magesterial teachings of the Church, it is an incomplete document and might even be considered defective. A lot of documents have been assembled ‘prayerfully’ by bishops of various countries but that means little if the documents do not uphold the Church’s teachings. It just makes for confusion and chaos in the Church. Even the Novus Ordo was said to have been assembled ‘prayerfully’ and yet it caused untold fracturing in the Liturgy for the past forty years.

The whole purpose of bishop conferences in each country is to address problematic and ministerial areas of the Church in each of those countries. They were not to become their own Vatican. Personally, it is not a concern of mine to insist on ecumenism. What is a concern of mine is that the Eucharistic presence in the way the Church believes it is upheld, irregardless of what other denominations believe. This goes for the ministerial priesthood too.

 

[JonNC]

Rule of thumb, again: if it agrees and upholds the magesterial teachings of the Church, it is a valid document. If it doesn’t agree and uphold the magesterial teachings of the Church, it is an incomplete document and might even be considered defective. A lot of documents have been assembled ‘prayerfully’ by bishops of various countries but that means little if the documents do not uphold the Church’s teachings. It just makes for confusion and chaos in the Church. Even the Novus Ordo was said to have been assembled ‘prayerfully’ and yet it caused untold fracturing in the Liturgy for the past forty years.

The whole purpose of bishop conferences in each country is to address problematic and ministerial areas of the Church in each of those countries. They were not to become their own Vatican. Personally, it is not a concern of mine to insist on ecumenism. What is a concern of mine is that the Eucharistic presence in the way the Church believes it is upheld, irregardless of what other denominations believe. This goes for the ministerial priesthood too.

Ok, so what the USCCB, Cr. Ratzinger, and the CCC says in that document doesn’t matter. Maybe this document is better.

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Eucharistic Ministry

65.Catholic and Lutheran Christians are of the conviction that the celebration of the eucharist involves the leadership of a minister appointed by the church.

66.According to Catholic doctrine every licit eucharistic celebration is "regulated by the bishop, to whom is committed the office of offering the worship of Christian religion to the divine Majesty and of administering it in accordance with the Lord’s commandments and with the Church’s laws."50 “Only those Eucharists are lawful which are performed by the bishop or a person charged by him”.51 The ordination of a bishop or priest is accordingly an essential prerequisite to their presiding at the Lord’s Supper: even in exceptional cases there can be no eucharist celebration without an ordained priest. In so far as the sacrament of ordination is lacking, the Catholic Church regards the ecclesial communities separated from it as not having “preserved the genuine and total reality (substantia) of the eucharistic mystery”.52

67.According to Lutheran doctrine as well, the Eucharistic service is led by ordained ministers.53 It is “the task of the ministerial office to proclaim the gospel and administer the sacraments in accordance with the Gospel, so that in this way faith is awakened and strengthened”.54 For Lutherans the ecclesial office is a divine institution although ordination is not usually characterized as a sacrament.55

68.**The dialogue between our two traditions has already been able to ascertain significant convergences on the question of the Ministry. These convergences have to do with the understanding of the basis and function of the Ministry as well as the manner of transmission through the laying on of hands and the invocation of the Holy Spirit;56 and they have led to the suggestion that the possibility of mutual recognition of ecclesial ministries be submitted “for serious examination”.**57 In carrying out this recommendation, it must be asked, among other things, how the Lutheran churches regard a Eucharist celebrated without an ordained minister. It must also be asked, in view of the Lutheran interpretation and practice of ordination, how the Catholic Church evaluates the Eucharist celebrated in the Lutheran Church. What needs to be clarified, in sum, is the importance and ecclesiological role of the Ministry, and what consequences it has for the structure of the Church.

IOW, while the CC stands by its conviction that it is the leadership of the Bishops in succession thatmake the sacraments licit, those individuals charged by the** Vatican **to dialogue with Lutherans claim there is sufficient convergence of belief on the subject of the ministry to seriously consider mutual recognition of ministry.

Jon

 

[peary]

When a Lutheran priest calls down the Holy Spirit to consecrate the gifts, when he recites the Words of Institution, and his whole congregation prays with him, who are we to say that God does not grant his request? They long for the physical presence of Christ and their prayer ascends to heaven. God is merciful, and while having “valid” sacraments is important, if God so deigns to become present under the appearances of bread and wine, how can we deny him that?

Lutheran sacraments are not valid, but I have no doubt that they have grace.

I do not have doubt that there is a spiritual connection with grace in their performance -“Where two or more are gathered there I am in their midst.” I do believe that Christ is present in a spiritual sense but not in full communion of the Real Presence where the body, blood, soul and Divinity are there.

The reason as to why God does not grant the request of a Lutheran priest when reciting the words of Institution is that he does not have valid Orders and cannot consecrate. Lutherans are separated from the Church. As for grace, that is up to God. I believe that, because they have a valid Baptism, Lutherans *can *be saved and are effected by sanctifying grace. As such, they can share in the good works of the Church.

So, it is not we who deny the Real Presence in a Lutheran communion; it is the Lutherans who are incapable of establishing the Real Presence amongst themselves (as are all other protestant denominations) because, first, invalid Orders of their priests, and second, separation from the Church founded by Christ through His apostles. There is no use in reciting the Creed where it says “We believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” when the separation from that Church is quite real.

 

[Third_Day]

Sure,
It was in the link I provided in that post. Paragraph 107.

usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml

Jon

I have read the documents and from my reading of it, you are making more out of this than is there. First the document is called the “Common Statement of theTenth Round of the
U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue”

This is simply ecumenical “dialogue”. There is nothing binding here. It is all theological speculation. Cardinal Ratzinger is simply commenting on an “insight” presented to him. None of this will ever become part of the infallible Magesterium.

When a Lutheran priest converts to the Catholic Church he must be “ordained”. Why is that? Because his ordination is invalid. His Eucharist is invalid

I would say that Lutherans can receive Christ in a “spiritual” sense in their communion just as a Baptist can receive Christ in a spiritual sense when they pray. Because both are done in good faith and because of a love for Christ they can receive grace.

Haven’t you admitted that Lutherans do not have "apostolic " succession?
You said this :

Lutherans instead used presbyter ordination, which we defend by divine law

Why have a spiritual Eucharist when you can have the the fullness of Christ in the Eucharist by a priesthood that comes from "apostolic " succession?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Novus Ordo Mass of Vatican II was a huge Catholic council with the pope presiding and yet you claim it called untold fracturing for forty years? What higher authority can we have in Catholicism than the papacy at the helm of a major, major council? And at what point can we trust huge councils/synods of bishops? The USCCB is a huge body and their meetings are not small-scale shindigs at the Comfort Sweets Motel. What good are such synodal meetings and what good are major papal-summoned councils if we can arbitrarily toss them? Vatican II’s legacy is written throughout the catechism. It’s fine to not agree with the councils or catechism but I’m afraid that is what makes one not Catholic. I don’t consider these sedavecantist and SSPX’ers to be part of the Church or Catholic anymore.

And, respectfully, ecumenism should be a high priority for ALL OF US as Christ admonished us to “all be one” and we should care for our Protestant brothers and sisters as much as ourselves, hoping for union and common purpose. God bless!

Rule of thumb, again: if it agrees and upholds the magesterial teachings of the Church, it is a valid document. If it doesn’t agree and uphold the magesterial teachings of the Church, it is an incomplete document and might even be considered defective. A lot of documents have been assembled ‘prayerfully’ by bishops of various countries but that means little if the documents do not uphold the Church’s teachings. It just makes for confusion and chaos in the Church. Even the Novus Ordo was said to have been assembled ‘prayerfully’ and yet it caused untold fracturing in the Liturgy for the past forty years.

The whole purpose of bishop conferences in each country is to address problematic and ministerial areas of the Church in each of those countries. They were not to become their own Vatican. Personally, it is not a concern of mine to insist on ecumenism. What is a concern of mine is that the Eucharistic presence in the way the Church believes it is upheld, irregardless of what other denominations believe. This goes for the ministerial priesthood too.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Maybe we need six party talks like with North Korea and the U.S.!! I think the Catholic Church needs to reach out especially to the Orthodox but when Benedict calls their Church “defective” because it lacks the papacy, that isn’t the greatest starting point olive branch-wise I think the Anglican thing could’ve been handled a little better too. I think Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is a bit of a goober and a member of LaLa Land, but it would’ve been better to contact him about it and make the ordinariates phenomenon known to him and do it with a bit more tact. He felt blind-sided and I somewhat can’t blame him.

At this point, I think if the Catholic Church can’t reconcile with the Orthodox and are failing on that front, then good luck with Lutherans who have far different views with Rome than Constantinople does. Ecumenism is the goal and I, like Jon, am a big fan of it. I feel it’s a must to TRY at least until the end of time. Christ admonishes us to do so. I’ve always felt that Rome and the East Orthodox reconciling is the huge elephant in the room that would have to happen first to inspire the other churches to follow suit. The two lungs of Christendom, for 1,000 years have been divorced. A remarriage of these two might bring home more to roost. The USCCB document Jon presented earlier is positive progress with Lutherans. We need more work with Orthodoxy as well.

That would be an accurate statement as that is how I as a Catholic view progress. The hope is that we will all become one. Can there be compromise? We have seen that to some degree as some concessions have been made to some Anglicans who are now coming into the Catholic church. Although the Anglicans do not have their own rite perse, it appears to be heading that way. Perhaps a similar arrangement can be made with Lutherans (I have no idea what that might look like).

I could be wrong, but I believe Lutherans desire unity of the Christian church as well. Perhaps most Lutherans desire the Catholic Church to look more Lutheran than Catholic at this point in history. Agreements have been made between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church. We aren’t making these agreements merely to make us feel good about ourselves. They aren’t useless exercises. I understand some Lutheran synods may disagree regarding the point of having such agreements (i.e. WELS & LCMS did not sign the joint declaration on justification).