Difference between Catholic/Lutheran communion?

[Erich]

As a side note, both start with “Credo” which is first person singular. This was recently “fixed” in the English Mass.

I don’t read Greek, but according to Wikipedia,

All ancient liturgical versions, even the Greek, differ at least to some small extent from the text adopted by the First Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. The Creed was originally written in Greek, owing to the location of the two councils.[9]

But though the councils’ texts have “Πιστεύομεν … ὁμολογοῦμεν … προσδοκοῦμεν” (we believe … confess … await), the Creed that the Churches of Byzantine tradition use in their liturgy has “Πιστεύω … ὁμολογῶ … προσδοκῶ” (I believe … confess … await), accentuating the personal nature of recitation of the Creed.

So, I suppose “accentuating the personal nature of recitation of the Creed” is why the Roman Missal uses “Credo” (and why it is now translated correctly at Mass).

 

[Erich]

We could fill five hundred threads with a discussion on catholicity of non-Roman churches. I suspect we would eventually find Rome and Wittenberg to mostly agree, but also disagree. If you want to start a new thread, I’ll meet you there. But with respect to the OP, I’ll respond just briefly.

And the Athanasian Creed says that “anyone who wishes to be saved must, above all, hold the catholic faith.” If your point is that the creeds define what is catholic, I agree. My church professes all three of the Ecumenical Creeds. We are catholic.

The OP asks what the difference is between Catholic and Lutheran communion, so a discussion of catholicity is certainly relevant to this thread.

From What “Catholic” Means:

The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term “Catholic” in reference to the Church. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.

The term “Catholic” is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, and many Protestants, claiming the term for themselves, give it a meaning that is unsupported historically, ignoring the term’s use at the time the creeds were written.

Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: “As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).

Thus people who recite the creeds mentally inserting another meaning for “Catholic” are reinterpreting them according to a modern preference, much as a liberal biblical scholar does with Scripture texts offensive to contemporary sensibilities.

Simply reciting the Ecumenical Creeds (or even just using some of the same words that are found in those creeds) is not enough. For example, the differences between the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead and that of Trinitarianism have set Mormonism apart, with the result that some Christian denominations reject Mormonism as being a branch of the Christian Faith!

With regard to communion… some (including ELCA and LCMC) would say that open communion is the preferred option because the Holy Supper is a source of unity—a means by which unity among Christians can be achieved. Others (including LCMS and WELS) believe that one condition for receiving Holy Communion in another Church is unity of faith in the Real Presence (however they define it). Still others – Catholics included – hold that sharing Holy Communion is only proper between Churches which have a historical succession of bishops and true priesthood. For real (valid) Eucharist, you need real priesthood.

Communion is not only a source of Christian unity (for example, at a Eucharistic Congress), but it is also a sign of unity—real unity, existing now. “Strengthened in holy Communion by the body of Christ, [the faithful] manifest in a concrete way the unity of the people of God that this sacrament aptly signifies and wondrously causes” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 11).

To the extent that the various Lutheran bodies have changed or retracted any of their officially held beliefs, they’re not even in communion with their forebears. How is that “catholic”?

 

[JonNC]

Originally posted by Erich

With regard to communion… some (including ELCA and LCMC) would say that open communion is the preferred option because the Holy Supper is a source of unity—a means by which unity among Christians can be achieved. Others (including LCMS and WELS) believe that one condition for receiving Holy Communion in another Church is unity of faith in the Real Presence (however they define it). Still others – Catholics included – hold that sharing Holy Communion is only proper between Churches which have a historical succession of bishops and true priesthood. For real (valid) Eucharist, you need real priesthood.

In the bolded, close communion requires more than unity regarding the doctrine of the real presence. For there to be altar and pulpit fellowship, full doctrinal agreement is required. That is, historically, what the Church has done.
“However we define it” is that in the Eucharist, we receive the true and substantial body and blood of Christ, as He tells us in His testament.

Jon

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Well, I would disagree. No where do the confessions make the statement that both bread and body co-exist in the bread. That is consubstantiation.

Here is the key, ISTM. While Catholics speak of become, the Lutheran view is is. Luther makes the comment at one point that, after all, when we receive, we are receiving His true and substantial body and blood, God deals with the bread and wine as He wills.

The problem in all of this is the fact that Catholics think in terms of substance/ accident, while Lutherans do not, and the two modes of thought are very different. Recently, it seems, however, Lutheran and Catholic theologians seem to be breaking through this in dialogue statements.

I don’t know if the FOC states that the “Christ and bread” coexist in the bread, but that seems like the implication of what it does say. I recall it affiriming that the substance of the bread continues to exist during communion, but I will have to re-check that. Like I said, I can’t say I fully understood what I read, so I hope to post excerpts tomorrow, which you can comment on if you have time. For now, what I read is nonsensical to me.

And the Athanasian Creed says that “anyone who wishes to be saved must, above all, hold the catholic faith.” If your point is that the creeds define what is catholic, I agree. My church professes all three of the Ecumenical Creeds. We are catholic.

I don’t think the Orthodox would call the Athanasian Creed an ecumenical creed because it states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

 

[Aramis]

One of the things ice learned here in my years at CAF is that it is always best to listen to what others say they believe, and accept that as what they believe.

The fact is that Lutherans reject consubstantiation, both in the term and the meaning. If you,take the time to read the links I’ve provided, you will see this to be the case.

Oddly enough, the definition of consubstantiation you provided below from Newadvent is precisely what we reject about consubstantiation.

Jon

The heresy, as defined by the Catholic Church, of Consubstatiation, is the claiming the real presence but denial of transubstatiation.

There is no “positive deifition” - if it’s not Transubstatiation and claims the real presence, it’s consubstantiation.

To not be consubstantialist, you must either deny the real presence or accept transubstantiation.

What you call it matters not - you fall into the defined heresy of consubstantiation.

 

[steido01]

I don’t think the Orthodox would call the Athanasian Creed an ecumenical creed because it states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

It’s my understanding that they simply consider the Filioque in the Nicene to be an addition of the Western church (which, to be fair, has some merit). The other two creeds are not in wide use in Orthodoxy - but only as I understand it. Perhaps an Orthodox friend could clarify.

 

[steido01]

There is no “positive deifition” - if it’s not Transubstatiation and claims the real presence, it’s consubstantiation.

Ah, the old “If not 1, than 2!” fallacy, and we aren’t allowed to count to 3. That’s a rather limited way of thinking. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us - and you’re heretics, to boot!” What does our Lord say about this kind of thinking in Luke 9:50?

Why not allow those who hold a belief to define it, rather than oversimplify the belief and group it with something else that is rejected by both parties?

 

[JonNC]

The heresy, as defined by the Catholic Church, of Consubstatiation, is the claiming the real presence but denial of transubstatiation.

There is no “positive deifition” - if it’s not Transubstatiation and claims the real presence, it’s consubstantiation.

To not be consubstantialist, you must either deny the real presence or accept transubstantiation.

What you call it matters not - you fall into the defined heresy of consubstantiation.

Huh? Consubstantiation is a specific metaphysical construct. One does not have to accept Aristotelian metaphysicals of any sort, which is the case in Lutheranism. We do not use metaphysical contructs to understand the mystery of the real presence.

Now, you can claim that we believe consubstantiation, and I could claim you worship Mary as a goddess. Both claims are wrong precisely because you don’t worship the Blessed Virgin, and I don’t confess consubstantiation. And if either of us continues in our false claim, it just makes us look polemical.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The heresy, as defined by the Catholic Church, of Consubstatiation, is the claiming the real presence .

Aramis,
Do you have a source you can link to for your statement above. I checked on NewAdvent, and it provided the following:

. This heretical doctrine is an attempt to hold the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist without admitting Transubstantiation. According to it, the substance of Christ’s Body exists together with the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine. Hence the word Consubstantiation. How the two substances can coexist is variously explained. The most subtle theory is that, just as God the Son took to Himself a human body without in any way destroying its substance, so does He in the Blessed Sacrament assume the nature of bread. Hence the theory is also called “Impanation”, a term founded on the analogy of Incarnation.

(Emphasis mine)

This isn’t saying what you’ve claimed here, as evidenced by the use of the term “an”. It doesn’t say that any claim of the real presence that excludes Transubstantiation is consubstantiation. In a general sense, I agree with the above definition.

Jon

 

[ProVobis]

Now, you can claim that we believe consubstantiation, and I could claim you worship Mary as a goddess. Both claims are wrong precisely because you don’t worship the Blessed Virgin, and I don’t confess consubstantiation.

Depends on the translation, it seems. The Vatican website indeed translates “colere” as “worship,” but that (mis)translation occurs only in the English. However it does leave Anglophone Catholics very vulnerable to Protestant attacks.

 

[Erich]

In the bolded, close communion requires more than unity regarding the doctrine of the real presence. For there to be altar and pulpit fellowship, full doctrinal agreement is required. That is, historically, what the Church has done.

What I said was, “Others (including LCMS and WELS) believe that **one **condition …” I know that LCMS and WELS require full doctrinal agreement, but I also know that other denominations have even stricter requirements… for example, communion is restricted to only those who hold membership in the local congregation (i.e. members from other congregations in the same denomination are excluded). I was only trying to illustrate a broad spectrum of existing communion beliefs/practices, not “tell you what you believe.”

“However we define it” is that in the Eucharist, we receive the true and substantial body and blood of Christ, as He tells us in His testament.

I suppose I could have worded it better, but I was only trying to convey the idea that Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans all believe they are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ (i.e. Catholic communion, for a Catholic, is “the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ”; Lutheran communion, for a Lutheran, is “the true and substantial body and blood of Christ”; etc.) I wasn’t trying to make any statement about transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation vs. whatever.

Hope this clarifies.

 

[JonNC]

What I said was, “Others (including LCMS and WELS) believe that **one **condition …” I know that LCMS and WELS require full doctrinal agreement, but I also know that other denominations have even stricter requirements… for example, communion is restricted to only those who hold membership in the local congregation (i.e. members from other congregations in the same denomination are excluded). I was only trying to illustrate a broad spectrum of existing communion beliefs/practices, not “tell you what you believe.”

I suppose I could have worded it better, but I was only trying to convey the idea that Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans all believe they are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ (i.e. Catholic communion, for a Catholic, is “the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ”; Lutheran communion, for a Lutheran, is “the true and substantial body and blood of Christ”; etc.) I wasn’t trying to make any statement about transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation vs. whatever.

Hope this clarifies.

Thanks, Erich. Both paragraphs clarify your thoughts well.

Jon