A Lutheran church on Eucharistic Adoration and the Corpus Christi feast

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi PJM,

You are thinking from an Orthodox/Cypriatic point of view. Cyprian, like the Orthodox, viewed apostolic succession and the ability to consecrate the Eucharist/convey sacraments was uncertain or all-out gone when someone left the Holy Catholic Church. Outside the Church sacraments were wine, bread, and worthless to Cyprian.

The Roman Catholic Church has always gone by the Augustinian view. That view says that the sacramental powers and priestly succession remains even in a renegade. Grace CAN come from a sacrament conveyed by a renegade. However, from the Catholic point of view, such a sacrament, though truly the Body and Blood of Christ, is illicit.

Think about it, the Orthodox were excommunicated by Rome and yet Catholics always believed they had valid sacraments. And yet the Orthodox didn’t feel the same way in reverse. Again, Cyprian and Augustine all over again.

The Anglicans re-infused apostolic succession into their orders through the Old Catholic Church. The Old Catholic Church in Europe was a brotherhood of bishops and priests who broke off from the Catholic Church after Vatican I when the pope declared himself infallible. They maintained their lines of succession and then passed it on to Anglicans in the early 1900’s. It’s jokingly referred to as the “Dutch Touch.”

Some Lutherans kept the same church polity as Catholics in Sweden, etc. They kept bishops, priests, deacons, the threefold ministry while most Lutherans didn’t.

Have a great day and may god bless, PJM!

PJM:
My friend,

I’m always open to learn someting I don’t know.

Can you explain to me please, how either the Church of Egland or Lutherns who I beleive were excommunicated, maintain apolostolic succession?

THANKS

 

[DV56]

What about the Orthodox Church, Anglican Church (who by and large have apostolic succession re-infused into their priesthood thanks to the Utrecht co-consecrations with the Old Catholic Church), and Lutheran Churches in Europe that kept apostolic succession as well as the Old Catholic Church, etc?
The difference is then not in belief, **but what actually takes place **in Catholic Holy Communion, that DOES NOT take place anywhere else.

This most Awesome Sacrament is only valid, and licit in His Church ALONE; and it is the CC alone that Christ permits His Catholic Priest to call down His real Presence. There is no greater reason to be a Catholic.

But the CC does recognize the Orthodox Eucharist (and all it’s sacraments) as completely valid.

Whooops, I didn’t have time to read your next post which addresses this.

 

[JonNC]

I just wanted to back up and talk about something that JonNC brought up, and that’s the fact that Lutherans practice adoration during their Eucharistic liturgy, but not outside of it. The implication seemed to be that Lutherans view Eucharistic adoration as oriented toward the reception of the Eucharist by eating and drinking, whereas Catholics looked at the consecrated host as being completely independent of the Eucharistic celebration. I wanted to make a clarification, because it is Catholic teaching that Eucharistic adoration is to be oriented toward the reception of Holy Communion, as well.

From what I’ve read, you are correct, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise, though I can see why you might have thought so. My apologies. I was really trying to express Lutheran Eucharistic practice and piety, not express Catholic Eucharistic practice and piety.
But in the one document I linked, it does speak precisely to this issue here:

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

52.Differences related to the duration of the eucharistic presence appear also in liturgical practice. Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess that the eucharistic presence of the Lord Jesus Christ is directed towards believing reception, that it nevertheless is not confined only to the moment of reception, and that it does not depend on the faith of the receiver however closely related to this it might be.

53.According to Catholic doctrine the Lord grants His presence even beyond the sacramental celebration for as long as the species of bread and wine remain. The faithful are accordingly invited to “give to this holy sacrament in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God”.38

54.Lutherans have not infrequently taken exception to certain of the forms of eucharistic piety connected with this conviction. They are regarded as inadmissibly separated from the eucharistic meal. On the other hand, Catholic sensibilities are offended by the casual way in which the elements remaining after communion are treated sometimes on the Lutheran side, and this indicates a discrepancy which is not yet overcome (cf. appendix The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist 2).

55.In order to remedy this situation, it would be good “for Catholics to remember, particularly in catechism and preaching, that the original intention in preserving the eucharistic gifts was to distribute them to the sick and those not present”, and for the Lutherans “the best means should be adopted of showing respect due to the elements that have served for the celebration of the Eucharist, which is to consume them subsequently, without precluding their use for communion of the sick”.39 Regarding eucharistic adoration, Catholics should take care that their practice does not contradict the common conviction of the meal character of the Eucharist. They should also be aware of the fact that in the Orthodox Churches, for example, there exist other forms of Eucharistic piety without Eucharistic faith being questioned for this reason. Lutherans for their part should consider “that adoration of the reserved sacrament” not only “has been very much a part of Catholic life and a meaningful form of devotion to Catholics for many centuries”,40 but that also for them "as long as Christ remains sacramentally present, worship, reverence and adoration are appropriate".41

I agree with this point that Lutherans should be respectful of Catholic Eucharistic piety, and not be quick to condemn Eucharistic adoration. In fact, perhaps we can learn a great deal from it.

Jon

 

[SonofMonica]

From what I’ve read, you are correct, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise, though I can see why you might have thought so. My apologies. I was really trying to express Lutheran Eucharistic practice and piety, not express Catholic Eucharistic practice and piety.
But in the one document I linked, it does speak precisely to this issue here:

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

I agree with this point that Lutherans should be respectful of Catholic Eucharistic piety, and not be quick to condemn Eucharistic adoration. In fact, perhaps we can learn a great deal from it.

Jon

I know you wouldn’t mean to make the implication, JonNC, I’ve followed your posts for a long time. I just wanted to make sure that someone didn’t think the wrong things

 

[Mikeoffaith]

I applaud my Lutheran brothers for their work on on trying to open up an ecumenical dialogue in the hopes that through exploring and discussing our differences with our Roman bothers and sisters that we might come to a place of understanding.

These discussion are always pointless and meaningless when the discussion ends up as “you’re wrong, because only we can be right.” So the question needs to be asked, why do you think you are right?

My fellow Lutherans have been correct in everything that have stated about the theology of the Lutheran Church or Lutheran Ecclesiastical Community as the Romans may prefer. However, the discussion quickly turns into, “how is that Lutherans believe they have the True Presence, when they can not possibly, because they are outside of true church since they have invalid orders and no apostolic succession?”. Rather than going back to Lutheran documents and to joint declarations from our churches that according to some on this thread are full of error since they are not ex cathedra, we should really examine apostolic succession and it’s validity.

To those of the Roman church, the question is simple, if Apostolic Succession is of such great importance why is it that most bishops and therefore most priests and the Bishop of Rome himself can only trace their lineage back as far as Scipione Rebiba, a post-Reformation bishop? From all of my reading it seems that no one can locate any documents linked to the consecration of the good Cardinal Rebiba. And as the form of the rite matters significantly, see Apostolicae Curae, how do we know that the correct form of episcopal consecration was used? I would ask our brothers of the Roman church to produce the necessary proof. I’m sure that it must be available. If this is truly important for all the eucharist ever celebrated to be truly sacramental, it seems that the episcopal genealogies should be in tip top shape from Benedict to Peter. After all if the church is able to keep track of the Epistles of Clement, which are of minor importance, then we should be able to locate documents verifying the consecration of every bishop even those prior to the Reformation going all the way back to Peter. It only stands to reason. So if our Roman brothers want to play, my apostolic succession is bigger than yours, I say whip it out and show me.

The second question that needs to be asked of our Roman brothers, is this really important? Do you really think Christ cares? Do you really think that when Christ comes again, he is going to look at Bishop Hanson and say, “I’m sorry but if you had only followed apostolic succession with the correct form approved by Pope Leo XIII, you and all those under your care are may not have been permanently removed from grace and God’s love.”? Or do you think Christ is going say, “Oh you Roman Catholics are all so silly and in a state of disgrace because Rebiba was never really consecrated? And all this time you thought you were really receiving My True Body and Blood and you weren’t at all!”

Now may the peace of God, which passes all human understanding, keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

 

[JonNC]

PJM:
My friend,

I’m always open to learn someting I don’t know.

Can you explain to me please, how either the Church of Egland or Lutherns who I beleive were excommunicated, maintain apolostolic succession?

THANKS

Hey PJM,
I don’t recall being excommunicated.

Jon

 

[PJM]

=Mikeoffaith; My fellow Lutherans have been correct in everything that have stated about the theology of the Lutheran Church or Lutheran Ecclesiastical Community as the Romans may prefer. However, the discussion quickly turns into, "how is that Lutherans believe they have the True Presence, when they can not possibly, because they are outside of true church …

These discussion are always pointless and meaningless when the discussion ends up as “you’re wrong, because only we can be right.” So the question needs to be asked, why do you think you are right?

***Both The Late GREAT John Paul II and our current Pope; Pope Benedict have found it prudent and timely to speak of a “single truth.” Logic clearly affirms this position.

In his first homily as our newly elected Pope; Benedict XVI spoke these profound words***:

**“There cannot be your truth and my truth or there would be no truth.” **

This is a concise explanation of understanding God’s Holy Writ; God’s One Church and what the CC teaches and holds as the single truth on all matters of Faith and Morals. John 14:16-17 and 17: 14-19 provide evidence that God Himself remains ever-present in HIS ONE Church, and that the Holy Spirit is available and active “forever” in guiding the CC; in short, the single truth’s articulated by the CC are guaranteed to be “the single truth” by BOTH Jesus Christ Himself, and the ever Present Holy Spirit.

Thus any denial by Catholics or the CC that we alone DO possess the Single Truth on Faith and Moral issues would require us to deny God and God’s truth. NOT POSSIBLE.

Because there can only be “the truth,” and God himself places it in His CC, debate becomes near impossible. What is; is. It is because non-Catholics “cannot” [or chose not to] understand and accept this fact; because to do so nullifies your faith beliefs; that assures us that God is speaking quietly, like He did with Elisha in the cave; and telling all of us, what is His Will, His desire.

John 10:16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

The difficulty of actually communicating with non-Catholics is that God frankly has either blocked or limited there understanding. This is a direct response from God for abandoning Him. WHAT! You say, we never abandoned God! Perhaps? But Luther, Calvin, Smith Et. All clearly did. And while the degree of guilt is lessened with the passage of time; guilt nevertheless remains.

There are nearly 100 references to either “the [SINGULAR] Church,” or “One [SINGULAR] Church” in the NT. So that point is objectively mute.

Eph. 2:19 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [SINGULAR] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [SINGULAR in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

**Heb.6 Verses 4 to 10: “For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, [taught by God chosen men… "hearing of the WORD, NOT reading it] who have tasted the heavenly gift, Catholic Holy Communion] and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, [Sacrament of Confirmation] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they [like Luther, Calvin Ect.] then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned. “

If “limited understanding” is a punishment from God [it is], and you consider it too severe for a loving God; I would remind you what God did to Moses for “his lack of faith” demonstrated by “hitting the rock twice; not ONCE. God withheld the Promised Land from him.

The second question that needs to be asked of our Roman brothers, is this really important? Do you really think Christ cares? "

In reply, I would ponit out your poition is that God does not. WRONG. How many times in the OT did God inflict corrective and just payment for unbelief, and not obeying? This is God’s desire, and YES he cares a GRAET deal.

Eph. 4: 4 “There is one body [One Church] and one Spirit, [One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, [One God] one faith, [One set of doctrine and dogma] one baptism, By water in the Trinity] one God and Father of us all,[one Bible] who is above all and through all and in all.** But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. **

[/QOTE]Now may the peace of God, which passes all human understanding, keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

AMEN! Mike, Amen