A Question for Lutherans - One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic

[marywarfield]

As far as I know, the position of the Catholic Church is that Lutherans did not maintain Apostolic Succession because their ordinations were not carried out by bishops, but rather priests who broke communion with Rome, as well as because the rite of ordination itself was changed by the reformers in a manner that invalidates those “ordained” by it.

That being said, while it is good that dialogue is going on, it is misleading to suggest that Lutherans are on equal footing as Catholics and Orthodox when it comes to Apostolic Succession, at least as far as Rome is concerned.

The Lutherans maintain through Luther actually
an historic succession that is valid.
They also to an extent fall under the newer definition
of apostolic which has four parts- one, holy, apostolic,
catholic.
The difference between us is we do not differentiate
between the two- Historic and apostolic.
Not to say there are not Lutherann offshoots that
have no valid succession. There are.

The Mass- the Real Presence is maintained by the
CC as far as Lutheranism goes in most of their
denoms. The Mass however is very very different
as it contains no Offeratory, and no Canon!!!
and no forms of sacrifice.

 

[GKC]

Yes, you are correct but Catholics recommend that Lutherans maintain apostolic succession and suggest that Lutherans can commune in Catholic churches in the same manner as Orthodox

Who are these Catholics who suggest that Lutherans can commune in RC churches?

GKC

 

[christus_vincit]

The Roman Catholic Church has never questioned the validity of apostolic succession in the Lutheran Churches where the bishop/ archbishop followed Luther . Here is a quote of Pope Benedict when the prefect on Doctrine of the Faith.

This is very interesting to learn. Does this in turn necessitate that the Eucharist of these churches is valid? I don’t believe so.

My point is that it remains misleading to suggest that Catholics would feel at home in a Lutheran church, when this simply isn’t true as much as perhaps we would like it to be.

 

[christus_vincit]

Not to say there are not Lutherann offshoots that
have no valid succession. There are.

Yes, I was surprised to learn that bit about succession in certain branches of Lutheranism.

The Mass- the Real Presence is maintained by the
CC as far as Lutheranism goes in most of their
denoms. The Mass however is very very different
as it contains no Offeratory, and no Canon!!!
and no forms of sacrifice.

This is what confuses me. Of course both Lutherans and Catholics proclaim belief in the Real Presence - but only one of those beliefs can be the correct one. Christ becomes fully present only in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the hands of a catholic priest. Lutherans may profess that Christ is really and fully present at their service, and in a spiritual way He no doubt is, but not in the way He is at a Catholic mass.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

This is very interesting to learn. Does this in turn necessitate that the Eucharist of these churches is valid? I don’t believe so.

My point is that it remains misleading to suggest that Catholics would feel at home in a Lutheran church, when this simply isn’t true as much as perhaps we would like it to be.

The Dialogue/ Declaration between Lutherans and Catholic strongly suggests eucharistic hospitality but falls short of recommending Catholics commune in Lutheran churches.

The difference in the theological and ecclesiological evaluation of the episcopal office in historic succession loses its sharpness when Lutherans attribute such a value to the episcopate that regaining full communion in this office seems important and desirable, and when Catholics recognize that "the ministry in the Lutheran churches exercises essential functions of the ministry that Jesus Christ instituted in his church"269 and does not contest the point that the Lutheran churches are church.270 The difference in evaluating the historic episcopate is thereby interpreted in such a way that the doctrine of justification is no longer at stake and consequently it is also possible to advocate theologically the regaining of full communion in the episcopal.271

Even so, Catholics will have to take seriously and answer the Lutheran question. If Catholics hold that the Lord’s Supper celebrated in Lutheran churches has “because of the lack [defectusl of the sacrament of orders… not preserved the genuine and total reality [substantial of the Eucharistic mystery”,268 does that not, after all, show that they regard the episcopal office in historic succession as the regular transmitter of the ordained ministry in the church, and so indirectly as necessary for salvation? Catholics must answer that an ecclesiology focused on the concept of succession, as held in the Catholic Church, need in no way deny the saving presence of the Lord in a eucharist celebrated by Lutherans.

[/quote]

 

[christus_vincit]

The Dialogue/ Declaration between Lutherans and Catholic strongly suggests eucharistic hospitality but falls short of recommending Catholics commune in Lutheran churches.

Is this highly dependent on the branch of Lutheranism in question, or is it referring to Lutherans in general?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Is this highly dependent on the branch of Lutheranism in question, or is it referring to Lutherans in general?

The Lutheran World Federation, comprising 90% of all Lutherans, is the official partner in these talks. Some Lutherans [LCMS] participated but did not sign the Declaration.

 

[steido01]

EC, I join you in your hope for eventual reunion with Rome, but I think you may be a bit more eager than any of the dialogues of been. I also think your post misrepresents some important facts about more Confessional Lutheran bodies. I’ve responded below; hopefully, this helps a bit as you do your research.

I actually read on CAF that the LCMS was not involved in the last several Dialogues with the Roman Catholic Church because they were not invited.

Partially correct/mostly wrong. The LCMS has taken part in all but one of the rounds of dialogue. It was not invited as a full participant to Round X; it is my understanding that it sent observers. The LCMS has taken part in all the previous rounds, and is back as a full participant for Round XI.

Perhaps when the JDDJ was signed in 1999 and rejected by the LCMS; that may have ended the relationship between them and Roman Catholics. I will research this issue.

Not true. The relationship is very much alive and well; it has never ended. Not too long ago, Pope Benedict greeted our little 2.5 million specifically at an ecumenical prayer service. Many even believe that dialogue is shifting toward the LCMS and other Confessional bodies.

But the magnitude of this doctrinal agreement is considered one of the most significant ecumenical developments in over 100 years. Missouri Synod absence is troubling and reflective of their self-isolation from the larger Christian Church.

It may prove to be significant, it may prove to be simply ‘nice words.’ Time will tell. As we’ve discussed in other threads, the LCMS refrained from signing for legitimate concerns - I don’t think it’s fair to simply discount those. It should be noted the RCC didn’t even sign the JDDJ as it was originally presented; caveats and clarifications had to be added.

Regarding apostolic succession; to my knowledge only the LCMS/ WELC have not adopted this tradition within north American Lutheranism and seem to prefer a more congregation approach than episcopacy. Why?

Many Lutheran bodies do not practice AS as it is understood by Roman Catholics. The ELCA didn’t practice its form of AS until 1999. In any case, it does, officially, claim to accept presbyter ordinations, which the LCMS and WELS practice. Even the ELCA’s polity is more in-line with the LCMS than Rome - while the LCMS calls its bishops ‘presidents,’ both elect their bishops for finite, set terms and neither understands a distinction to exist between priest and bishop. If the LCMS started calling its presidents ‘bishops’ more often, would that mean we were following AS? Apostolic Succession is not a stumbling block for Lutherans of any stripe.

I don’t think the argument that the LCMS uses ‘Christian’ instead of ‘Catholic’ because they are the same holds credibility any longer. It is a rejection of the word ‘Catholic’ contrary to the practice of nearly all Christians who profess the creeds [including Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Reformed, etc]. My knowledge of the LCMS and WELS is that there is still a resistance to the very Lutheran Confessions that uphold that Lutherans are Catholic.

The word “catholic” is used in the LCMS Hymnal and the congregation I attend says it every Sunday as we profess one of the three Ecumenical Creeds.

As you do your research, feel free to look back on the times we have discussed these very topics. I wish you luck:

• Lutherans & Roman Catholics sharing catechesis
• LCMS and WELS occasional use of “Christian” rather than “catholic”
• “Lunch-counter Lutheranism”
• Roman Catholic dialogue focus shifting toward Confessional Lutherans
• Full unity between Lutherans and Roman Catholics has not yet been reached
• Why the LCMS did not sign the JDDJ
• The sad, but necessary, division between the Confessional Lutherans and the ELCA

Your brother in Christ,

 

[EvangelCatholic]

More food for thought:

This is true above all in regard to the specific formation of the ecclesial ministry of leadership (episkop�). The development of the ministry into an episcopate standing in a historic succession, i.e., the continuity of apostolic succession which occurred already very early in history250 was fully affirmed by the Lutheran Reformation and emphatically championed251 just as other church realities were affirmed and conserved which had come into being in the course of history (e.g. the biblical canon, the creeds of the ancient church). For Lutheran thinking too it is entirely possible to acknowledge that the historical development of an episcopate in a historic succession was not something purely within the sphere of history, set in motion only by sociological and political factors, but that it “has taken place with the help of the Holy Spirit” and that it “constitutes something essential for the church”.252

Thus not only does the institution of the ordained ministry not contradict the gospel as it is explicated by the doctrine of justification, but corresponds to it and in the last analysis receives its character of indispensability for the church from that correspondence. The Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue on the church’s ministry had drawn attention to this also when it stated with the Accra document of that time and with the later BEM statement246 that “the presence of this ministry in the community �signifies the priority of divine initiative and authority in the Church’s existence’”.247

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int…urch4.html#4.2

 

[christus_vincit]

More food for thought:

How do you believe the irreconcilable theological differences which are barriers to communion between Lutherans and Catholics would/could be resolved?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

How do you believe the irreconcilable theological differences which are barriers to communion between Lutherans and Catholics would/could be resolved?

To my knowledge there aren’t any “irreconcilable theological differences”. Roman Catholics can invite Orthodox to holy Communion even though the Eastern Church does not accept papal infallibility and, like Lutherans, question the dogma on Mary’s Immaculate Conception and to a lesser extent her assumption into heaven. Lutherans can accept these teachings but not consider them dogma.

 

[SyroMalankara]

To my knowledge there aren’t any “irreconcilable theological differences”. Roman Catholics can invite Orthodox to holy Communion even though the Eastern Church does not accept papal infallibility and, like Lutherans, question the dogma on Mary’s Immaculate Conception and to a lesser extent her assumption into heaven. Lutherans can accept these teachings but not consider them dogma.

With the Orthodox though, both EO and OO, these are Liturgically “dogmatized” although not explicitly in a catechism book manner. How can Catholics allow “Lutheran reception” when Lutherans do not have a unified teaching internally on these? Who speaks for “the Lutherans” and how would any Catholic clergyman know if a Lutheran is a card-carrying member of one of these or another Lutheran body?

 

[Nicea325]

Orthodox claim to be as such, but are also out of communion with the bishop of Rome. Rome even acknowledges their claim as well. Being in communion with the bishop of Rome is irrelevant to someone’s membership in the church. **Although it helps to be out of communion with him because the bishop of Rome has been teaching serious error for centuries. **

We accept the apostolic nature of all Christians, regardless of denomination.

Oh really? Kindly shows us these serious errors? And who exactly is making these charges? Lutherans? Orthodoxs?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by House Harkonnen
There is no mention of it or any denomination, there is no mention of Peter as being a bishop of Rome or anywhere. There is no mention of The Pope of Rome being the sole successor of Peter, in fact the ECFS expressly reject that view

Unfortunately, that is a lie! I have no idea what you have been reading,but I can spend days posting the exact words out of ECF’s who will soundly disagree with you.

On the contrary, I have yet to read ONE ECF who “expressly” rejects the Primacy of Rome. If so, provide one ECF who rejects it?

 

[marywarfield]

Yes, I was surprised to learn that bit about succession in certain branches of Lutheranism.

This is what confuses me. Of course both Lutherans and Catholics proclaim belief in the Real Presence - but only one of those beliefs can be the correct one. Christ becomes fully present only in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the hands of a catholic priest. Lutherans may profess that Christ is really and fully present at their service, and in a spiritual way He no doubt is, but not in the way He is at a Catholic mass.

The Real Presence is confusing in one Church much less
two different. Lol.
But key to the dialogue between Lutheran and Catholic
is the understanding of really and substantial as
opposed to say the Baptists who view the Eucharist
as symbolic only.
The Lutherans view the Real Presence as a mystery
quite properly and reject the symbolism of their
fellow Protestants.
However there is a discrepancy in completeness
which I don’t quite understand so while Lutherans
many times can receive in a Catholic Church Catholics
themselves should not receive in a Lutheran.

That’s my understanding anyway.

 

[marywarfield]

The Real Presence is confusing in one Church much less
two different. Lol.
But key to the dialogue between Lutheran and Catholic
is the understanding of really and substantial as
opposed to say the Baptists who view the Eucharist
as symbolic only.
The Lutherans view the Real Presence as a mystery
quite properly and reject the symbolism of their
fellow Protestants.

Edit to say: I have no idea who can receive where. Lol

That’s my understanding anyway.

 

[JonNC]

Hi EC,
Just a couple of comments.

=EvangelCatholic;11999075]The Lutheran Confessions proclaim that we celebrate Mass every Sunday and every holy day. If a parish does not provide for the basic sacramental needs of the faithful than it is not truly Lutheran, in my opinion. This is where I have major issues with Lutherans who still constrict the life-saving benefit of Christ’s forgiveness and eternal life. I am sure I can find an ELCA parish that restricts Mass to less than once a week but the synod bishop expects and strongly influences the congregation to be Lutheran and not Reformed in sacramental practice. For example, all parishes in my synod have weekly Eucharist.

I grew up un an LCA/ELCA parish, where, in my youth, they allowed for communion once monthly, despite Dad’s protests, and desires to celebrate weekly. Speaking of my dad, his was a presbyter ordination, and the ELCA, so far as I know, still honors as valid a presbyter ordination. If not, they are not In keeping with the Confessions. It is not so very long ago, EC, that what you hare criticizing in the LCMS was, and some cases, still is the practice in parishes in the ELCA.
Less-than-weekly communion is an American Lutheran aberration, not an LCMS one.
It is a matter of education, of catechesis, and not a matter of synodical doctrine.

The LCMS has many pastors who fully understand the mysteries of salvation and pray Mass weekly or daily in some parishes. But they are up against other LCMS pastors/ district presidents who seem to be totally out of sync with Lutheranism.

As were the local synods of the LCA, ALC, and later the ELCA up until quite recently. First, as you know, district presidents lack authority to require weekly communion, but that said, the trend is decidedly toward weekly communion, particularly true with recently ordained seminarians.

**Close communion **and limited communion deny Christ; as much a heresy as those who deny the Virgin Birth [as I understand a few bishops in the Church of Sweden admit].

I’m sure our Catholic and Orthodox siblings will take umbrage with this accusation, as I do.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

We removed “catholic” from the creeds and replaced it with “Christian”.

Now we confess “one holy Christian and apostolic church”. We are much happier that way.

Really?
Just changing the creeds on your own.
I’m glad it makes you “happier.”

(although it sounds pretty relativistic to me)

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Although it helps to be out of communion with him because the bishop of Rome has been teaching serious error for centuries.

I see. You reject Catholicism out of something that you only imagine to be true.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

The Lutheran Confessions proclaim that we celebrate Mass every Sunday and every holy day. If a parish does not provide for the basic sacramental needs of the faithful than it is not truly Lutheran, in my opinion. This is where I have major issues with Lutherans who still constrict the life-saving benefit of Christ’s forgiveness and eternal life. I am sure I can find an ELCA parish that restricts Mass to less than once a week but the synod bishop expects and strongly influences the congregation to be Lutheran and not Reformed in sacramental practice. For example, all parishes in my synod have weekly Eucharist.

The WELS follows congregational authority but there is no justification for the district president to allow if not condone limited Eucharist. The WELS does not welcome Lutherans from other synods/ diocese to holy Communion; that is almost blasphemy. But then to restrict the Holy Supper to twice a month and likely once a month in some parishes is to obstruct the Gospel. That is hardly Confessional.

The LCMS has many pastors who fully understand the mysteries of salvation and pray Mass weekly or daily in some parishes. But they are up against other LCMS pastors/ district presidents who seem to be totally out of sync with Lutheranism. Close communion and limited communion deny Christ; as much a heresy as those who deny the Virgin Birth [as I understand a few bishops in the Church of Sweden admit].

Other then the frequency, which I agree we should do it more. Your only gripe is that we practiced closed communion?

The RC practices closed communion too, and is rather strict about pulpit fellowship IIRC.

Our denomination is more in accordance with “Catholic” tradition than those denominations hat give our communion willy-hilly to anyone.