How do you eat a symbol?

[KjetilK]

KjetilK, just a point of interest. What was the arrangement for those Catholic Bishops that you mentioned? I am unfamiliar with the church you mentioned but it is interesting to know they retained their apostolic succession.

The bishops in question were bishops when the Scandinavian Reformation started, and many of them continued as bishops.

One problem is that Lutheranism, at least on this forum (since most here are from North America), is seen through American eyes. In Europe, and especially in Northern Europe, it was more of a nationalistic move. The national churches (the Church of Sweden; the Church of Denmark-Norway, later the Church of Denmark and the Church of Norway; the Church of England, etc.) broke from Rome. That may have been wrong, but there is no principled difference, in these specific cases, between this and the breach from Rome by the Church of Russia, the Church of Constantinople, etc.

And this is one of the points I keep mentioning on this forum: the Lutheran tradition is just that, a tradition, and not a Church. You cannot talk of ‘the Lutheran Church,’ just as you cannot talk of ‘the Byzantine Church.’ The bare minimum of the Lutheran tradition is an adherence to the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Augsburg Confession, and Luther’s Small Catechism (and the latter only as a catechetical tool). There are other writings too, that some people claim is part of the Lutheran tradition (such as the Smalcald Articles or the Formula of Concord), but a text doesn’t become a confession just because some theologian in a given tradition chooses to write it. It becomes confessional by ecclesial decree, and these writings were rejected by most Lutheran churches in Europe. Luther is not a ‘pope.’ He was a pastor, yes, but not a bishop.

The same way we could extract a bare minimum that unites the various churches of the Byzantine tradition. But that is exactly my point. Lutheranism is a tradition, not a Church, and you must evaluate each Church for itself, with her liturgy, Canon Law, confessions, episcopal rulings, etc.

This may sound weird, but that is because America is ecclestiastically weird. While it was perfectly natural to have a national Church in a European country (in or our of communion with Rome), this doesn’t seem to work in the US. So naturally most churches seem very ‘low.’

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks for the clarification. Yes…Luther was also tying in his movement with the nationalistic movements within Germany, as was also the case with England.

A bishop keeps the faithful together.

I attended a Missouri synod Lutheran church and they recited the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed…but changed wording a little in the part, ‘we believe in one holy Catholic Church’ for one Christian church’…

Again…Church reduced to more arbitration…I looked into catechism and there are many doctrines referring to what is church, how it is defined…

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, but we baptise, we confirm, we celebrate the Eucharist, we have confession, we (the bishops) ordain/consecrate, we marry, and we anoint the sick.

Let me ask you this, Kj: if someone in your church decided to anoint his son as King of Norway, would that make it so?

 

[KjetilK]

I attended a Missouri synod Lutheran church and they recited the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed…but changed wording a little in the part, ‘we believe in one holy Catholic Church’ for one Christian church’…

I agree that this is not good, but it merely reflects the German heritage of the LCMS. In Germany, the latin word for ‘catholic’ was translated ‘Christian’ (christliche) long before the Reformation, by the Roman Catholics.

 

[KathleenGee]

I think yours is the first I have read where you refer to as a tradition rather than as another church…

 

[KjetilK]

I think yours is the first I have read where you refer to as a tradition rather than as another church…

Do you mean Lutheranism as such? Because that has always been seen as a tradition (with different churches, not all in communion with one another),* rather than a Church as such. Just as Byzantinianism is a tradition (with different churches, not all in communion with one another),** and not a Church as such.

• The Church of Norway is part of the Lutheran tradition, but is in communion with the Church of England (which is part of the Anglican tradition), and not in communion with WELS (which is part of the Lutheran tradition).

** The Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church is part of the Byzantine tradition, but is in communion with the Roman Pontiff (who is part of the Latin/Roman tradition), and not in communion with The Russian Church, Moscow patriarchate (which is part of the Byzantine tradition).

 

[Reuben_J]

The bishops in question were bishops when the Scandinavian Reformation started, and many of them continued as bishops.

One problem is that Lutheranism, at least on this forum (since most here are from North America), is seen through American eyes. In Europe, and especially in Northern Europe, it was more of a nationalistic move. The national churches (the Church of Sweden; the Church of Denmark-Norway, later the Church of Denmark and the Church of Norway; the Church of England, etc.) broke from Rome. That may have been wrong, but there is no principled difference, in these specific cases, between this and the breach from Rome by the Church of Russia, the Church of Constantinople, etc.

And this is one of the points I keep mentioning on this forum: the Lutheran tradition is just that, a tradition, and not a Church. You cannot talk of ‘the Lutheran Church,’ just as you cannot talk of ‘the Byzantine Church.’ The bare minimum of the Lutheran tradition is an adherence to the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Augsburg Confession, and Luther’s Small Catechism (and the latter only as a catechetical tool). There are other writings too, that some people claim is part of the Lutheran tradition (such as the Smalcald Articles or the Formula of Concord), but a text doesn’t become a confession just because some theologian in a given tradition chooses to write it. It becomes confessional by ecclesial decree, and these writings were rejected by most Lutheran churches in Europe. Luther is not a ‘pope.’ He was a pastor, yes, but not a bishop.

The same way we could extract a bare minimum that unites the various churches of the Byzantine tradition. But that is exactly my point. Lutheranism is a tradition, not a Church, and you must evaluate each Church for itself, with her liturgy, Canon Law, confessions, episcopal rulings, etc.

This may sound weird, but that is because America is ecclestiastically weird. While it was perfectly natural to have a national Church in a European country (in or our of communion with Rome), this doesn’t seem to work in the US. So naturally most churches seem very ‘low.’

Thanks. Sound interesting. I am still not sure if you were explaining how the priests retained apostolic succession. You mentioned they broke away from the Catholic Church. I was asking about faculty. If I did not miss anything, you probably wanted to say that the broke away Bishops were given permission to have the faculty and therefore continue to administer the Sacraments licitly (even though they broke away, a recognition that they were still recognized by the Catholic Church as still licit); but if you wanted to say that, I could not find it in your post. Or I could have misunderstood you.

 

[spedteacherita]

I agree that this is not good, but it merely reflects the German heritage of the LCMS. In Germany, the latin word for ‘catholic’ was translated ‘Christian’ (christliche) long before the Reformation, by the Roman Catholics.

When I joined the LCMS in 1978 the Apostles’ Creed still contained the word “catholic” but it was used with a small “c” and when I asked the pastor about it he said that it meant universal. Not sure when they changed - perhaps with the change from the red hymnal to the blue one.

Blessings,

Rita

 

[KjetilK]

Thanks. Sound interesting. I am still not sure if you were explaining how the priests retained apostolic succession. You mentioned they broke away from the Catholic Church. I was asking about faculty. If I did not miss anything, you probably wanted to say that the broke away Bishops were given permission to have the faculty and therefore continue to administer the Sacraments licitly (even though they broke away, a recognition that they were still recognized by the Catholic Church as still licit); but if you wanted to say that, I could not find it in your post. Or I could have misunderstood you.

Following Roman Catholic teaching, they broke off from Rome and therefore celebrated the sacraments validly, but ilicitly.

Of course that presupposes the universal jurisdiction of Rome.

 

[KjetilK]

When I joined the LCMS in 1978 the Apostles’ Creed still contained the word “catholic” but it was used with a small “c” and when I asked the pastor about it he said that it meant universal. Not sure when they changed - perhaps with the change from the red hymnal to the blue one.

AFAIK, there is differences within the LCMS on this, mainly based on cultural heritage, but some also do it for more ‘evangelical’ reasons.

And as to the ‘small c’ / ‘big C’ distinction: that is mainly an english thing, and doesn’t change the meaning. The latin word catholicus, being an adjective, is written with a small c.

You might see that I have a big c in my religious definition, but that was due to a discussion a while back.

 

[KathleenGee]

Tradition, not Church…this has great impact and changes course of discussion,…but time is of the essence so will have to spend most of my time reading.

John Paul II resigned to saying we cannot achieve the communion we wish…there will always be other traditions of Christianity…

 

[KjetilK]

Tradition, not Church…this has great impact and changes course of discussion,…but time is of the essence so will have to spend most of my time reading.

John Paul II resigned to saying we cannot achieve the communion we wish…there will always be other traditions of Christianity…

I’m not sure you understand me. Is there a problem for your Church that she has many different traditions; the Latin, the Melkite, and the Byzantine, to mention a few?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure you understand me. Is there a problem for your Church that she has many different traditions; the Latin, the Melkite, and the Byzantine, to mention a few?

The doctrines are all the same, Kj. So, no, it’s not a problem to have different traditions as long as the doctrines/beliefs/teachings remain the same.

 

[Cybophonia]

The doctrines are all the same, Kj. So, no, it’s not a problem to have different traditions as long as the doctrines/beliefs/teachings remain the same.

I always thought that the beliefs between the RCC and Eastern Catholic(Byzantine) were a bit different. I thought that EC retains more of the Orthodox than it adapted of the RCC.

 

[PRmerger]

I always thought that the beliefs between the RCC and Eastern Catholic(Byzantine) were a bit different. I thought that EC retains more of the Orthodox than it adapted of the RCC.

Perhaps you could give some examples of doctrines which are not Catholic but are Orthodox in the Eastern Catholic rites?

 

[Reuben_J]

Following Roman Catholic teaching, they broke off from Rome and therefore celebrated the sacraments validly, but ilicitly.

Of course that presupposes the universal jurisdiction of Rome.

Thanks, I mean, to having hearing it from a Lutheran POV.

Growing up as a Catholic, apostolic succession, is to be understood as that uninterrupted line of succession being identified with the founding apostles. I have not studied this subject much and in depth, and so in a personal opinion, that made sense - to keep the faith (belief, teaching and practices) unchanging and one. Thus a priest could only practice if he is given a faculty by his bishop, who in turn was appointed through a line that could be traced back to an apostle. Should a priest differs with the bishop and so on, if it is very significant, that faculty may be withdrawn and he could not continue to function licitly. Perhaps that is a protection against the introduction of different theology and practices within the one Church.

I am not too sure, but as I said, present days Protestants may find apostolic succession be quite problematic, as tracing the line to an apostle might be hampered by interruption. But of course, I am only saying it through the Catholic perspective and much less that I thought Protestants could be so bothered with this issue.

I thought Luther was a priest when he broke with the Catholic Church, but then, I do not have enough knowledge on what he did to really make an informed comment.

 

[Cybophonia]

Perhaps you could give some examples of doctrines which are not Catholic but are Orthodox in the Eastern Catholic rites?

Since you insist…

The Eastern Catholics have the Orthodox liturgy.

The priests in the Eastern Catholic Church are married as in the Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholics use leaven bread at communion as Orthodox do.

The Eastern Catholics have the same understanding of Ancestral Sin as Orthodox do.

The Eastern Catholics practice Hesychasm as Orthodox do.

St Gregory of Palamas is a saint in the Eastern Catholic Church as in the Orthodox.

The Eastern Catholics it’s ambiguous concerning Purgatory and refrain from using the word Purgatory in their theology (according to the Treaty of Brest), the Orthodox deny it.

The Eastern Catholics have the same vestments as Orthodox.

Baptism, Christmation and Communion all take place at once in the Eastern Catholic Church as in the Orthodox Church.

The question is besides being in communion with the Pope, what else do the Eastern Catholics retain from the Roman Catholics?

 

[In_His_Grace]

On personal note, I think the Eucharist is the single most privilege any person can have, to a relationship with Jesus because it is his Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

However as it is known, not all Christians believe in the Real Presence and thus my query. If the bread is just a symbol, does it make sense to eat and ingest a mere symbol?

Thoughts?

MJ

If the bread is just a symbol, does it make sense to eat and ingest a mere symbol?

Sure. What is the bread symbolic of to those who don’t believe in the Real Presence? That should answer you question.

Blessings

 

[MartinJordan]

Sure. What is the bread symbolic of to those who don’t believe in the Real Presence? That should answer you question.

Blessings

Loving the memory of Jesus’s work of Salvation? Like eating a type of cake that someone people loved who died used to make? (The latter PRMerger) spoke about. They loved this person wholeheartedly.

To me, this is sharing a collective memory of someone loved dearly. However Jesus went deeper and many of his own walked away.

MJ

 

[PRmerger]

Since you insist…

The Eastern Catholics have the Orthodox liturgy.

The priests in the Eastern Catholic Church are married as in the Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholics use leaven bread at communion as Orthodox do.

The Eastern Catholics have the same understanding of Ancestral Sin as Orthodox do.

The Eastern Catholics practice Hesychasm as Orthodox do.

St Gregory of Palamas is a saint in the Eastern Catholic Church as in the Orthodox.

The Eastern Catholics it’s ambiguous concerning Purgatory and refrain from using the word Purgatory in their theology (according to the Treaty of Brest), the Orthodox deny it.

The Eastern Catholics have the same vestments as Orthodox.

Baptism, Christmation and Communion all take place at once in the Eastern Catholic Church as in the Orthodox Church.

The question is besides being in communion with the Pope, what else do the Eastern Catholics retain from the Roman Catholics?

Ummm…what just happened?

Are you retracting this post that you made earlier?

It was just an opinion as i am mostly ignorant of both. You can disregard it / delete that post, whatever you please.

Are you now wanting to dig in your heels for your position?

Incidentally, none of the differences you posted are theological/doctrinal.

I mean, really,* vestments?* That’s what you want to point out as a difference?

You might as well say: Eastern Orthodox churches have their light switches at 4 feet but Roman Catholic churches have their light switches at 5 feet.

Okey dokey, then.