Denominations which allow Women Pastors.

[EvangelCatholic]

I disagree with you. I believe there are many things in the RCC that people don’t truly understand, and Christ never said we have to understand everything we just have to obey.

Like when he explained the Eucharist, he said unless you eat and drink my body and blood you have no life in you, many left saying he was crazy. Do you think Peter understood what Christ was saying?

He was like the rest and it is still a mystery to us, but we don’t leave because we have not the wisdom given to us by God to understand everything. We are like Peter to whom shall we go?

No one understands the many mysteries of the RCC. But how could we, if we never had it revealed to us by God?

So we don’t understand, but instead of disagreeing we have trust in God and his Church to lead us, and we RC are like Peter, where would we go?

There is no where for us to go without separating ourselves from Christ and his true Communion in his Church.

So we have faith and put it in Christ and his teachings in his Church. There are many things we cannot explain.

But it comes down to do you believe what Christ taught and are you going to obey, or go? And where can you go to get the true Eucharist, Confession, all of the Sacraments outside of the house of Christ?

Lots of emphasis on “obey” rather than trust in God. Are you suggesting that other Christians don’t have the “true” eucharist? I think Orthodox and many Protestants would question this assertion and rightly so.

 

[stewstew03]

… [A] woman pastor found me after I had wandered in the darkness for many years. I would not have listened to a priest or a man.

And apparently you would not have listened to anyone without a certain title?

Would you have listened to a faithful Catholic?

For anyone to say that women have no place in the leadership of a church, shows a complete breakdown of Christ’s concepts of reaching everyone for the glory of God.

Who said women have no place in leadership?

And are you saying men cannot carry out the Great Commission?

…What is required is a balance. …

Where is this in scripture?

 

[stewstew03]

Lots of emphasis on “obey” rather than trust in God.
…

Why would you separate “obedience to God” from “trust in God?”

 

[Brophius]

And apparently you would not have listened to anyone without a certain title?
Would you have listened to a faithful Catholic?
Who said women have no place in leadership?
And are you saying men cannot carry out the Great Commission?
Where is this in scripture?

Only humanity needs titles. It is an ego thing similar to how men read helpmate to me property and Scriptures on how women are to submit but seldom read the parts about what the man’s part of the bargain is. It always comes down to power for men. We want to own it, control it and if we cannot do either then we will destroy it. Only through Jesus Christ do we have any hope for our brokenness.

We get hung up on denominational monikers… The question you should be asking is “Would I have listened to anyone that had a heart for Christ?” A non-believer looks at a Catholic with the same contempt as a Protestant and depending on the level of hypocrisy they have experienced at the hands of either groups, they may be apt to be more comfortable with one or the other.

Only men that fear keep women from leadership. If God calls a woman to minister, who are we to second guess?

I never mentioned that men could not carry out the Great Commission. If you took that from what I wrote, I apologize, it was not where I was headed…

B

 

[stewstew03]

Only humanity needs titles.

Then we are agreed women do not need titles to spread the gospel, yes?

It is an ego thing…

Is this why women want the title of pastor or priest?

It always comes down to power for men. We want to own it, control it and if we cannot do either then we will destroy it.

Does this include women? Or are you being misandric?

Only through Jesus Christ do we have any hope for our brokenness.

Jesus was a man, too.

We get hung up on denominational monikers…

No, I’m trying to figure out what it is that you are saying here.

Only men that fear keep women from leadership.

Are you saying Jesus was fearful of women? The apostles were fearful…?

If God calls a woman to minister, who are we to second guess?

As you said, it comes down to ego, doesn’t it? “Ego says, ‘Must Have Title To Serve God’”

I never mentioned that men could not carry out the Great Commission. If you took that from what I wrote, I apologize, it was not where I was headed…

What about my other questions, to wit:

• Who said women have no place in leadership?
• Where is this notion that “balance in the priesthood is required” found in scripture?

 

[Telstar]

By my faith, which is all too weak and fallible.

This is precisely my point. Any argument for infallibility, which you clearly consider the sine qua non of defensible Christianity, is at some point going to have to be accepted by a fallible human being. You are building upon sand.

So, you won’t admit that you rely on the Catholic Church, that chose which Scriptures belong in the Bible; the Church that Jesus founded on Rock, that’s been in existence for 2000 years through the power of the Holy Spirit; Who Jesus sent to the Apostles to lead them, and all who would follow them, into all truth, for that very purpose; the same Church which Jesus also promised to remain with until the end of time, when He returned to Judge the whole world? Instead, you claim to make your own decisions based on, “By my faith, which is all too weak and fallible.”? Are you serious? I’m sorry, but that makes absolutely no theological sense to me, whatsoever. So, if you think PR is “building upon sand” for believing in what the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years, then I’d have to say, you might just be up to your neck in quicksand, if that’s how you make your own choices about what you should believe. But, if that’s the way you want to do it, who am I to argue?

 

[SteveVH]

Only men that fear keep women from leadership. If God calls a woman to minister, who are we to second guess?

We have many wonderful ministries in our Church that are headed by women. I think we are all called to minister in some sense. But ministering to the homebound, or to single mothers, or leading the RCIA program are not the same as being ordained and administering the sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

And how does one know that God has called a woman to the ministerial priesthood? Because she says so? Christ had plenty of opportunities to appoint women, even his own mother, the model of Christian holiness. It has nothing to do with fairness or that men are somehow superior to women. I will guarantee you that no priest feels superior to Mary, the mother of God.

Here is a portion of St. Pope John Paul, II’s Apostolic Letter “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” which is now Catholic doctrine, which explains better than I:

*"In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”(5)

In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God’s eternal plan; Christ chose those whom he willed (cf. Mk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70), and he did so in union with the Father, “through the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:2), after having spent the night in prayer (cf. Lk 6:12). Therefore, in granting admission to the ministerial priesthood,(6) the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord’s way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church (cf. Rv 21:14). These men did not in fact receive only a function which could thereafter be exercised by any member of the Church; rather they were specifically and intimately associated in the mission of the Incarnate Word himself (cf. Mt 10:1, 7-8; 28:16-20; Mk 3:13-16; 16:14-15). The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers(7) who would succeed them in their ministry.(8) Also included in this choice were those who, throughout the time of the Church, would carry on the Apostles’ mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer.(9)

1. Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.

The presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable. As the Declaration Inter Insigniores points out, “the Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church.”(10)

The New Testament and the whole history of the Church give ample evidence of the presence in the Church of women, true disciples, witnesses to Christ in the family and in society, as well as in total consecration to the service of God and of the Gospel. “By defending the dignity of women and their vocation, the Church has shown honor and gratitude for those women who-faithful to the Gospel-have shared in every age in the apostolic mission of the whole People of God. They are the holy martyrs, virgins and mothers of families, who bravely bore witness to their faith and passed on the Church’s faith and tradition by bringing up their children in the spirit of the Gospel.”(11)

Moreover, it is to the holiness of the faithful that the hierarchical structure of the Church is totally ordered. For this reason, the Declaration Inter Insigniores recalls: “the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is love (cf. 1 Cor 12 and 13). The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the saints.”(12)

1. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.

From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate"*.

 

[stewstew03]

We have many wonderful ministries in our Church that are headed by women. I think we are all called to minister in some sense. But ministering to the homebound, or to single mothers, or leading the RCIA program are not the same as being ordained and administering the sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

And how does one know that God has called a woman to the ministerial priesthood? Because she says so? Christ had plenty of opportunities to appoint women, even his own mother, the model of Christian holiness. It has nothing to do with fairness or that men are somehow superior to women. I will guarantee you that no priest feels superior to Mary, the mother of God.

Here is a portion of St. Pope John Paul, II’s Apostolic Letter “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” which is now Catholic doctrine, which explains better than I:

*"In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”(5)

In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God’s eternal plan; Christ chose those whom he willed (cf. Mk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70), and he did so in union with the Father, “through the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:2), after having spent the night in prayer (cf. Lk 6:12). Therefore, in granting admission to the ministerial priesthood,(6) the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord’s way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church (cf. Rv 21:14). These men did not in fact receive only a function which could thereafter be exercised by any member of the Church; rather they were specifically and intimately associated in the mission of the Incarnate Word himself (cf. Mt 10:1, 7-8; 28:16-20; Mk 3:13-16; 16:14-15). The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers(7) who would succeed them in their ministry.(8) Also included in this choice were those who, throughout the time of the Church, would carry on the Apostles’ mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer.(9)

1. Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.

The presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable. As the Declaration Inter Insigniores points out, “the Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church.”(10)

The New Testament and the whole history of the Church give ample evidence of the presence in the Church of women, true disciples, witnesses to Christ in the family and in society, as well as in total consecration to the service of God and of the Gospel. “By defending the dignity of women and their vocation, the Church has shown honor and gratitude for those women who-faithful to the Gospel-have shared in every age in the apostolic mission of the whole People of God. They are the holy martyrs, virgins and mothers of families, who bravely bore witness to their faith and passed on the Church’s faith and tradition by bringing up their children in the spirit of the Gospel.”(11)

Moreover, it is to the holiness of the faithful that the hierarchical structure of the Church is totally ordered. For this reason, the Declaration Inter Insigniores recalls: “the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is love (cf. 1 Cor 12 and 13). The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the saints.”(12)

1. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.

From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate"*.

Thank you for posting this – here’s to hoping folks will actually read it.

And there’s more information here: jimmyakin.com/library/womens-ordination-its-infallible#ordinatio

 

[Novocastrian]

So, you won’t admit that you rely on the Catholic Church, that chose which Scriptures belong in the Bible; the Church that Jesus founded on Rock, that’s been in existence for 2000 years through the power of the Holy Spirit; Who Jesus sent to the Apostles to lead them, and all who would follow them, into all truth, for that very purpose; the same Church which Jesus also promised to remain with until the end of time, when He returned to Judge the whole world? Instead, you claim to make your own decisions based on, “By my faith, which is all too weak and fallible.”? Are you serious? I’m sorry, but that makes absolutely no theological sense to me, whatsoever. So, if you think PR is “building upon sand” for believing in what the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years, then I’d have to say, you might just be up to your neck in quicksand, if that’s how you make your own choices about what you should believe. But, if that’s the way you want to do it, who am I to argue?

You misunderstand me. I believe in the Catholic Church, and the Church attests to the canon. But this is the fallible faith of a human being. My point is that even if the Church were infallible, my faith in it would be fallible, because I am! For this reason, PR’s argument, with particular reference to apologetics, is meaningless.

 

[rfournier103]

I grew up in a Catholic environment. I am sorry to say that this environment did not bring me closer to knowing God or accepting Jesus Christ as my Savior.

Sorry to hear that. Many Catholics that have fallen away from the Church utter that same thing. Fortunately, the vast majority of Catholics are able to accept Jesus not only as Savior, but as King of the Universe without having to go elsewhere to do so.

I’ve never been able to see how some have so much trouble doing just that. You either make up your mind to know Christ, or you don’t. Maybe I’m over-simplifying… Faith, like EVERYTHING else, is what you put into it.

A woman pastor found me after I had wandered in the darkness for many years. I would not have listened to a priest or a man. They would have just tried to make me a conquest or simply not give me the time of day.

So because you were badly treated by men/priests you wouldn’t listen to them? You seem to have a low opinion of priests, sir. Did you ever find out why you were treated so badly? I’m curious as to if you ever did. Do you still hold those negative attitudes today? Do you paint the entire priesthood with that brush, or just the ones that were mean to you?

This pastor loved me and showed me the love that Christ had for me. My wife and I will never forget how she started us on the path with God. For anyone to say that women have no place in the leadership of a church, shows a complete breakdown of Christ’s concepts of reaching everyone for the glory of God.

Happy to hear that someone was able to help you. It can be hard sometimes…

Has anyone here said that women have no place of leadership? The parish council at my parish is dominated by women. That does NOT mean that women can be priests. Since you’re a Methodist you may not know this; but at mass when the priest (through Christ) changes the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ; the priests stands “In Persona Christi”. A woman cannot stand “In Persona Christi”. That’s just the way it is. Political Correctness doesn’t trump Truth.

We do not live in the same time period of Paul. What is required is a balance. This was how God created us. We have turned it into something dark and incorrect. Perhaps it is time for all of us to look at how we can work together help promote God’s Kingdom to those that have yet to hear of it?

No we don’t, but Scripture says what it says, no? How can women be priests? Women have a long and glorious history as teachers of both secular and religious education. People get very upset because the Church won’t ordain them. There’s plenty of balance here. To say otherwise is just not correct. And yes, men and women work very hard TOGETHER to promote God’s Kingdom in the Catholic Church very bit as well as our separated Protestant brethren (or “brothers and sisters”, if you prefer…)

Only humanity needs titles. It is an ego thing similar to how men read helpmate to me property and Scriptures on how women are to submit but seldom read the parts about what the man’s part of the bargain is. It always comes down to power for men. We want to own it, control it and if we cannot do either then we will destroy it. Only through Jesus Christ do we have any hope for our brokenness.

What about the titles of:

~Savior?
~Redeemer?
~King of the Universe?
~Son of Man?

Most Christians think these titles are pretty important…

We get hung up on denominational monikers…

Do we?

The question you should be asking is “Would I have listened to anyone that had a heart for Christ?”

I know I would. Thanks for helping us out with that!

A non-believer looks at a Catholic with the same contempt as a Protestant and depending on the level of hypocrisy they have experienced at the hands of either groups, they may be apt to be more comfortable with one or the other.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Depends on the non-believer…

Only men that fear keep women from leadership. If God calls a woman to minister, who are we to second guess?

B

God does not call women to minister. He didn’t do it in the time of Jesus, He didn’t do it in Acts, didn’t do it between the Apostolic Age and the Schism, didn’t do it between the Schism and the Reformation, and He doesn’t do it today. The only “fear” on the part of the Church is the fear of going against God.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Why would you separate “obedience to God” from “trust in God?”

Interestingly, the Greek term for faith in the NT, could more accurately be translated as “obedience (to God) rooted in trust (in God),” rather than simply “trust.”

 

[Novocastrian]

A woman cannot stand “In Persona Christi”.

I’m yet to hear a convincing argument as to why this is the case. I say this as someone whose instincts have always been against the ordination of women, but who has never been able to come up with a plausible, coherent theological argument for the reservation of holy orders to men. And believe me, I’ve tried.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I’m yet to hear a convincing argument as to why this is the case. I say this as someone whose instincts have always been against the ordination of women, but who has never been able to come up with a plausible, coherent theological argument for the reservation of holy orders to men. And believe me, I’ve tried.

Entirely agree. The attempt to argue against female holy orders is feeble on theological grounds and irrelevant to the Gospel. This is an issue of preference that has nothing to do with the Faith. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous, in my opinion.

 

[Novocastrian]

Entirely agree. The attempt to argue against female holy orders is feeble on theological grounds and irrelevant to the Gospel. This is an issue of preference that has nothing to do with the Faith. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous, in my opinion.

I’m not 100% sure that’s true, either. The Church has a divine constitution. Her ministry is ordained of God. I’m torn as to whether the sex of clergy is adiaphora or not; it seems possible to be that God could actively will the existence of female clergy. Such would not be a mere issue of preference.

 

[PRmerger]

You misunderstand me. I believe in the Catholic Church, and the Church attests to the canon. But this is the fallible faith of a human being. My point is that even if the Church were infallible, my faith in it would be fallible, because I am! For this reason, PR’s argument, with particular reference to apologetics, is meaningless.

Firstly, the Catholic way is not simply “We believe by faith!”

The Catholic way is Fides quaerens intellectum. Fides et ratio.

Never by faith alone.

Now, you are correct in that our faith and reason are fallible. And that what we apprehend we apprehend through our own fallible reason. But that does NOT equate to: therefore the truths proclaimed by Christ can never be said to be infallible.

You are mixing up the factors in the equation.

Either it is infallibly true that Jesus died and rose, and you know this is without error, or your faith is in vain.

Without this infallible truth that you can apprehend, your ability to evangelize is inutile.

For all a person has to say is: well, your Church that told you this is fallible–and you can’t know for certain that Jesus rose from the dead. So I’ll just stay and read my Koran, thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

Lots of emphasis on “obey” rather than trust in God.

Catholics are quite capable of doing both. There need not be any dichotomy.

Are you suggesting that other Christians don’t have the “true” eucharist?

Yes. Some do not. That is incontrovertible.

I think Orthodox and many Protestants would question this assertion and rightly so.

Well, if any Catholic claims the Orthodox do not have the Real Presence, then he would be in need of further catechesis.

And if any Catholic claims that any Protestant does have the Real Presence, then he would also be in need of further catechesis.

 

[Novocastrian]

Firstly, the Catholic way is not simply “We believe by faith!”

The Catholic way is Fides quaerens intellectum. Fides et ratio.

Never by faith alone.

Don’t put words into my mouth. I didn’t say ‘faith alone’, and I wouldn’t set up faith against reason.

Now, you are correct in that our faith and reason are fallible. And that what we apprehend we apprehend through our own fallible reason. But that does NOT equate to: therefore the truths proclaimed by Christ can never be said to be infallible.

I’m willing to say that Christ is infallible. What good Christian isn’t? But this is of relatively little use in your apologetic argument outlined above! Why would a non-Christian accept the testimony of an infallible Christ; if they accepted Him as infallible, they’d already be Christians! Likewise your argument re: the Church, above.

You are mixing up the factors in the equation.

Either it is infallibly true that Jesus died and rose, and you know this is without error, or your faith is in vain.

What do you mean by infallibly true? Do you mean that I must know it with absolute epistemic certainty? I’d go so far as to say that that’s impossible. At least with regard to natural faculties; the testimony of the Holy Spirit might be considered infallible. But even if that were the case, I’m not sure one could infallibly know that one were listening to the testimony of the Spirit. Bottom line: humans are irreducibly fallible.

Without this infallible truth that you can apprehend, your ability to evangelize is inutile.

Are you a fallible person? Do you evangelise fallible people? If so, do you expect them infallibly to accept that the Church is infallible? How can this be?

For all a person has to say is: well, your Church that told you this is fallible–and you can’t know for certain that Jesus rose from the dead. So I’ll just stay and read my Koran, thank you.

This bears absolutely no relation to any argument I have made.

 

[Telstar]

You misunderstand me. I believe in the Catholic Church, and the Church attests to the canon. But this is the fallible faith of a human being. My point is that even if the Church were infallible, my faith in it would be fallible, because I am! For this reason, PR’s argument, with particular reference to apologetics, is meaningless.

Then, I apologize. I guess I did misunderstand your point. We’re all in the same boat when it comes to the fallibility of our own decisions regarding faith. But, isn’t the Catholic Church infallible in it’s teachings on faith and morals? I know that Pope is, but it was my understanding that the Church, also, cannot teach error on either of those subjects. That’s the reason Roman Catholics look to the Church if we have any questions about what to believe, or do, when it comes to the subjects of faith or morality. If we didn’t have Her to look to for the correct answer to our questions, where else would we go? How else could we be sure what answer was correct?

 

[Novocastrian]

Then, I apologize. I guess I did misunderstand your point. We’re all in the same boat when it comes to the fallibility of our own decisions regarding faith. But, isn’t the Catholic Church infallible in it’s teachings on faith and morals? I know that Pope is, but it was my understanding that the Church, also, cannot teach error on either of those subjects. That’s the reason Roman Catholics look to the Church if we have any questions about what to believe, or do, when it comes to the subjects of faith or morality. If we didn’t have Her to look to for the correct answer to our questions, where else would we go? How else could we be sure what answer was correct?

I think that the Holy Spirit guides the Church to teach the truth, but not infallibly so; i.e. the Church and her members retain the free will to disobey the Holy Spirit and teach error. The supposed charism of infallibility seems to be (a) inconsistent with what we know about God’s respect for human freedom, and (b) historically untrue.

On the other hand, I don’t believe that the true faith will ever completely disappear; the orthodox Christians will always survive somewhere within the Church to preserve and hand on the true faith. I don’t believe in any kind of great apostasy within Christian history.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Catholics are quite capable of doing both. There need not be any dichotomy.

Yes. Some do not. That is incontrovertible.

Well, if any Catholic claims the Orthodox do not have the Real Presence, then he would be in need of further catechesis.

And if any Catholic claims that any Protestant does have the Real Presence, then he would also be in need of further catechesis.

If you actually read the position of the Roman Catholic Church you may find your statement lacking. The validity of the Lutheran Eucharist has never been denied by Rome but rather the role of episcopacy/ apostolic succession requiring validity of the ministry.

LUTHERAN—ROMAN CATHOLIC DIALOGUE
TEACHING AUTHORITY AND INFALLIBILITY IN
THE CHURCH

1. A step in this direction was taken by Vatican II, which permitted limited Eucharistic sharing between Catholics and Orthodox, even though the latter do not normally accept (and even at times explicitly reject at least one or more of) the dogmas in question. The situation of the Orthodox and Lutherans, though different in many ways, is similar at least in the following: both find themselves for the most part unable to accept one or more of these teachings as part of the deposit of faith. If this inability on the part of the Orthodox does not preclude all Eucharistic sharing with Catholics, the same inability on the part of Lutherans should not of itself do so either.
   ts.mu.edu/readers/content…0.1/40.1.5.pdf

48.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist.

56.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together recognize that in the Eucharist Jesus Christ “is present as the crucified who died for our sins and rose again for our justification, as the once-for-all sacrifice for the sins of the world”.42

62.Lutheran and Catholic Christians confess together that in the Eucharist the body and blood of the Lord are really received, either for salvation or for condemnation (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29). They confess that the believing reception of the eucharistic bread and wine gives personal union with Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior They also agree that the efficacy of believers reception of the Lord cannot be measured by human standards but belongs to the sphere of the free and humanly uncontrollable action of God.
raadvankerken.nl/fman/3246.pdf

1. The question of the reality of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Lord’s
   Supper is not a matter of controversy between Catholics and Lutherans.
   The Lutheran–Roman Catholic dialogue on the eucharist was able to
   state: »The Lutheran tradition affirms the Catholic tradition that the
   consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but rather
   by the power of the creative word are given as the body and blood of
   Christ. In this sense Lutherans also could occasionally speak, as does
   the Greek tradition, of a change« (Eucharist 51).50 Both Catholics and
   Lutherans »have in common a rejection of a spatial or natural manner
   of presence, and a rejection of an understanding of the sacrament as
   only commemorative or figurative« (Eucharist 16).51
   Common

1. A step in this direction was taken by Vatican II, which permitted limited Eucharistic sharing between Catholics and Orthodox,122 even though the latter do not normally accept (and even at times explicitly reject at least one or more of) the dogmas in question. The situation of the Orthodox and Lutherans, though different in many ways, is similar at least in the following: both find themselves for the most part unable to accept one or more of these teachings as part of the deposit of faith. If this inability on the part of the Orthodox does not preclude all Eucharistic sharing with Catholics, the same inability on the part of Lutherans should not of itself do so either. Lack of Christian faith would and should so preclude.