Is anyone on the fence?

[mgoforth]

Sure never heard of Banjo the Clown. I know about Roddy Mac, Capt’n Ernie, Grandpa Happy, Mr. Mustache, Mr Greenjeans, none of whom were divine. I have also heard of Jesus Christ who IS divine and also human but unlike the above characters is or was quite real and not just some made-up character! I heard just yesterday that Jesus is exactly who He claims to be or the biggest hoax ever foisted upon the human race. That would be very sad if the latter were the case because the whole of western civilization has been built upon Him and what He taught and did during his life on earth as well as his death and resurrection. (Which BTW the world will be observing in just a couple days)

I heard that too. Good Vortex episode yesterday!

 

[mgoforth]

I am not on the fence at all (going to be baptized on sat!) but I just wanted to chime in that this explanation is great. It makes a lot of sense when you put it this way thank you

I appreciate the kind words. Congratulations on your upcoming baptism!! Very exciting to read about someone joining the Church.

This video expresses my wishes for you better than I could myself: youtube.com/watch?v=Eop0GtDmDfE&list=UUsUgCCaaOfESPA4REUfZ33g&index=5&feature=plcp

God bless you, Samantha!

 

[mgoforth]

To the OP, thank you for this opportunity.

Like Jon discussed in previous posts, I share concerns about the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. It is not insurmountable for me, but is something I find difficult.

The other concern is the Eucharist and Confession. As a Lutheran I believe in the Real Presence of Christ, although I was taught that we cannot know the “how” of it - it simply IS what Jesus said it is. I cannot participate in the Lord’s Supper without confession, either privately to our pastor (as I have sometimes done) or corporately. So far, pretty smooth.

What stops me cold, is knowing I will go nearly a year without the blessing of Christ’s Body and Blood while I go through RCIA. I don’t think I could do that.

I should thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you about the Catholic Church.

The authority of the Pope is certainly one of the most common objections to the Church…and not just from non-Catholics. Many so-called “faithful” Catholics refuse to honor his role as earthly leader of the Church as well!

I was literally just reading an article by Jimmy Akin called “Why Be Catholic” before I popped over to check on this thread which examines the scriptural basis for the Pope among other things. A sign from God perhaps?? Anyway he is a wonderful apologist, and I would invite you to read his presentation and see if it strikes a chord with you. I’d love to continue to discuss the issue with you after that, but Jimmy’s logic is so well thought out, that I just have to share it with you first. Please let me know what you think.

As far as the Eucharist, I have to say something that may come off as rude or arrogant. Please don’t take it that way. I respect you and where you are right now, as well as your choice to remain a Lutheran or convert to Catholicism…or anything else you might decide to do. But realize that what you currently see as the Real Presence of Christ within the Eucharist of the Lutheran Church cannot truly be the Body and Blood of our Lord. Let me explain if I can…

I don’t need to tell you about the history of your own church, I’m sure you already know it. However, when Martin Luther formed his own group of Christians, separate and distinct from the Catholic Church, he severed the ties between the priesthood that had existed since the time of Christ and his own followers who he would ordain himself. By founding a new church and saying it was equally valid compared to the Church that Christ founded, Luther tried to do something on his own authority that was frankly outside and above his power.

I have great hope that you’ll see what I’m trying to say after reading the article above about the Pope, but the answer I have to give you is this: Without a valid order of priests (valid because they are in full communion with the Church Jesus founded Himself and the authority of the Pope), there is no Real Presence within the bread and wine offered in a Lutheran church. That is the very reason that Catholics are not permitted to receive the Eucharist if they go with a friend or relative to a Lutheran church. To do so would be saying that we believe the same things…that our orders of priests are equally valid and that the Body of Christ is what we’re actually receiving. Unfortunately, it can’t be true.

Again, my intention is not to offend you, but only to point out that you wouldn’t need to feel like you’re giving up Christ’s Body and Blood if you had to spend a year in RCIA before joining the Catholic Church. You’re not giving it up, because you don’t truly have it at this time. I’m sorry to say a thing as harsh as that, as I can see from your post that Christ’s Body means a lot to you. My hope is that perhaps if the Holy Spirit moves you to understand this and you decided to join the Catholic Church, then what I’ve said would actually be some comfort to you.

God bless you, and I hope to hear from you again soon.

 

[LegoGE1947]

I heard that too. Good Vortex episode yesterday!

I see we have another fan of The Vortex! If you haven’t seen it yet take about 3 1/2 minutes and check out today’s episode. It is about the Last Supper and the institution of the Eucharist as proof that God loves his people so much he wanted to be present with them til the end of time. Lots of content for just a bit over 3 minutes!

 

[LegoGE1947]

I should thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you about the Catholic Church.

The authority of the Pope is certainly one of the most common objections to the Church…and not just from non-Catholics. Many so-called “faithful” Catholics refuse to honor his role as earthly leader of the Church as well!

I was literally just reading an article by Jimmy Akin called “Why Be Catholic” before I popped over to check on this thread which examines the scriptural basis for the Pope among other things. A sign from God perhaps?? Anyway he is a wonderful apologist, and I would invite you to read his presentation and see if it strikes a chord with you. I’d love to continue to discuss the issue with you after that, but Jimmy’s logic is so well thought out, that I just have to share it with you first. Please let me know what you think.

As far as the Eucharist, I have to say something that may come off as rude or arrogant. Please don’t take it that way. I respect you and where you are right now, as well as your choice to remain a Lutheran or convert to Catholicism…or anything else you might decide to do. But realize that what you currently see as the Real Presence of Christ within the Eucharist of the Lutheran Church cannot truly be the Body and Blood of our Lord. Let me explain if I can…

I don’t need to tell you about the history of your own church, I’m sure you already know it. However, when Martin Luther formed his own group of Christians, separate and distinct from the Catholic Church, he severed the ties between the priesthood that had existed since the time of Christ and his own followers who he would ordain himself. By founding a new church and saying it was equally valid compared to the Church that Christ founded, Luther tried to do something on his own authority that was frankly outside and above his power.

I have great hope that you’ll see what I’m trying to say after reading the article above about the Pope, but the answer I have to give you is this: Without a valid order of priests (valid because they are in full communion with the Church Jesus founded Himself and the authority of the Pope), there is no Real Presence within the bread and wine offered in a Lutheran church. That is the very reason that Catholics are not permitted to receive the Eucharist if they go with a friend or relative to a Lutheran church. To do so would be saying that we believe the same things…that our orders of priests are equally valid and that the Body of Christ is what we’re actually receiving. Unfortunately, it can’t be true.

Again, my intention is not to offend you, but only to point out that you wouldn’t need to feel like you’re giving up Christ’s Body and Blood if you had to spend a year in RCIA before joining the Catholic Church. You’re not giving it up, because you don’t truly have it at this time. I’m sorry to say a thing as harsh as that, as I can see from your post that Christ’s Body means a lot to you. My hope is that perhaps if the Holy Spirit moves you to understand this and you decided to join the Catholic Church, then what I’ve said would actually be some comfort to you.

God bless you, and I hope to hear from you again soon.

On this subject I have heard it said that Orthodox Christians have a valid priesthood even though they separated from Rome in the year 1000 AD and that it is valid for Catholics to take communion in an Orthodox assembly if needed. How does this come?

 

[JonNC]

I should thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you about the Catholic Church.

The authority of the Pope is certainly one of the most common objections to the Church…and not just from non-Catholics. Many so-called “faithful” Catholics refuse to honor his role as earthly leader of the Church as well!

I was literally just reading an article by Jimmy Akin called “Why Be Catholic” before I popped over to check on this thread which examines the scriptural basis for the Pope among other things. A sign from God perhaps?? Anyway he is a wonderful apologist, and I would invite you to read his presentation and see if it strikes a chord with you. I’d love to continue to discuss the issue with you after that, but Jimmy’s logic is so well thought out, that I just have to share it with you first. Please let me know what you think.

As far as the Eucharist, I have to say something that may come off as rude or arrogant. Please don’t take it that way. I respect you and where you are right now, as well as your choice to remain a Lutheran or convert to Catholicism…or anything else you might decide to do. But realize that what you currently see as the Real Presence of Christ within the Eucharist of the Lutheran Church cannot truly be the Body and Blood of our Lord. Let me explain if I can…

I don’t need to tell you about the history of your own church, I’m sure you already know it. However, when Martin Luther formed his own group of Christians, separate and distinct from the Catholic Church, he severed the ties between the priesthood that had existed since the time of Christ and his own followers who he would ordain himself. By founding a new church and saying it was equally valid compared to the Church that Christ founded, Luther tried to do something on his own authority that was frankly outside and above his power.

I have great hope that you’ll see what I’m trying to say after reading the article above about the Pope, but the answer I have to give you is this: Without a valid order of priests (valid because they are in full communion with the Church Jesus founded Himself and the authority of the Pope), there is no Real Presence within the bread and wine offered in a Lutheran church. That is the very reason that Catholics are not permitted to receive the Eucharist if they go with a friend or relative to a Lutheran church. To do so would be saying that we believe the same things…that our orders of priests are equally valid and that the Body of Christ is what we’re actually receiving. Unfortunately, it can’t be true.

Again, my intention is not to offend you, but only to point out that you wouldn’t need to feel like you’re giving up Christ’s Body and Blood if you had to spend a year in RCIA before joining the Catholic Church. You’re not giving it up, because you don’t truly have it at this time. I’m sorry to say a thing as harsh as that, as I can see from your post that Christ’s Body means a lot to you. My hope is that perhaps if the Holy Spirit moves you to understand this and you decided to join the Catholic Church, then what I’ve said would actually be some comfort to you.

God bless you, and I hope to hear from you again soon.

Stilldreamn is new here (and I already like him ), and I don’t intend to speak for him, but I as a Lutheran do not take offense when a Catholic says our Eucharist lacks the RP. It is what your communion teaches, and I respect your sticking to your faith. I hope, in the same way, you’ll respect our stance that, like yours, our sacrament is valid, that the power of the Holy Spirit makes Christ body and blood truly present. Stilldreamn, I’m sure, shares with me the experience of the certain knowledge of His presence in our Eucharist. Even if the day came when I came into communion with the Bishop of Rome, I would never be able to deny His presence that I have received since I was young.

In closing, I offer this from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, **need not in any way deny the salvation-granting **presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper

The salvation-granting presence of the Lord!

Pretty remarkable statement from a Catholic Cardinal, now pope. And a sign of the growing closeness of our communions.

Jon

 

[mgoforth]

On this subject I have heard it said that Orthodox Christians have a valid priesthood even though they separated from Rome in the year 1000 AD and that it is valid for Catholics to take communion in an Orthodox assembly if needed. How does this come?

You make a good point, and I was unclear in what I said previously. To quote Canon Law:

Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the [Catholic] Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid
(canon 844 §2).

Lutheran ministers are not on the “approved” list for these sacraments, though Orthodox and certain other ministers are. The Orthodox Church is considered to have a valid order of priests and valid sacraments because they hold true to the ancient forms and believe the same things about the sacraments that Catholics do. We are said to be in “partial communion” with them. On the other hand, Martin Luther changed many forms and certainly took it upon himself to create his own interpretations and beliefs, so sadly we no longer have a communion there at all.

 

[LegoGE1947]

You make a good point, and I was unclear in what I said previously. To quote Canon Law:

Lutheran ministers are not on the “approved” list for these sacraments, though Orthodox and certain other ministers are. The Orthodox Church is considered to have a valid order of priests and valid sacraments because they hold true to the ancient forms and believe the same things about the sacraments that Catholics do. We are said to be in “partial communion” with them. On the other hand, Martin Luther changed many forms and certainly took it upon himself to create his own interpretations and beliefs, so sadly we no longer have a communion there at all.

So basically are you saying that the only major difference between Orthodox and Catholic is that Orthodox are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Near where I live there is a Lutheran Church that has a statue of Martin Luther with the inscription “Martin Luther Redeemer of the Church” About makes me want to throw up when I see it. I thought Jesus was the Redeemer of the Church!

 

[mgoforth]

Stilldreamn is new here (and I already like him ), and I don’t intend to speak for him, but I as a Lutheran do not take offense when a Catholic says our Eucharist lacks the RP. It is what your communion teaches, and I respect your sticking to your faith. I hope, in the same way, you’ll respect our stance that, like yours, our sacrament is valid, that the power of the Holy Spirit makes Christ body and blood truly present. Stilldreamn, I’m sure, shares with me the experience of the certain knowledge of His presence in our Eucharist. Even if the day came when I came into communion with the Bishop of Rome, I would never be able to deny His presence that I have received since I was young.

In closing, I offer this from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

The salvation-granting presence of the Lord!

Pretty remarkable statement from a Catholic Cardinal, now pope. And a sign of the growing closeness of our communions.

Jon

Thanks, Jon. Two things:

1. I certainly respect Stilldreamn’s beliefs and yours. I know that in your eyes you’ve received the Body of Christ. As you say, I’m a Catholic and can’t fully agree with that because not just anyone is given the divine authority to transform bread and wine into Christ. There is a defined “form” of consecration and a “form” to ordaining priests that Luther changed, among other things. He had no authority to make those changes.
2. I don’t read “salvation-granting presence” as saying that our two forms of the Eucharist are the same. If that was the case, then Catholics would be allowed to receive Communion in a Lutheran church and we would welcome Lutherans to our Communion. Consider that if a Catholic priest strays beyond a certain point from the wording of the Roman Liturgy, the Eucharist in that case could be deemed invalid. Logically, if Catholic priests must follow the defined form of Consecration, then any other minister or priest would have to. I spoke about this a few replies ago when I agreed that the Orthodox Eucharist is seen as valid by Catholics because they use a valid form.

Honestly, I don’t know what then-Cardinal Ratzinger meant by this. I’d have to read the entire letter to understand the context. Can you point me to a source online?

I’m glad to see him reaching out to Lutherans, but I don’t view one quote in a letter as superceding hundreds of years of division. It seems to be a start (again I’d have to read the full letter to know for sure), but at this point I’m not aware of any official Catholic teaching that redefines our relationship with Lutherans in the way you seem to be suggesting.

 

[mgoforth]

So basically are you saying that the only major difference between Orthodox and Catholic is that Orthodox are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Near where I live there is a Lutheran Church that has a statue of Martin Luther with the inscription “Martin Luther Redeemer of the Church” About makes me want to throw up when I see it. I thought Jesus was the Redeemer of the Church!

I’d say we’re in 95% agreement with the Orthodox Church. Canon Law allows for inter-communion for the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist, and Annointing of the sick. This implies that the Catholic Church views the Orthodox priesthood as valid, although I’m sure it’s probably stated explicitly somewhere else in the Canon. I’m not a Canon Law expert.

Besides the primacy of Rome, the other dividing issue I’m aware of is the Filioque. Basically, Catholics profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. Some Orthodox churches profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, while I believe others have the same belief as Catholics.

 

[JonNC]

=mgoforth;9145761]Thanks, Jon. Two things:

1. I certainly respect Stilldreamn’s beliefs and yours. I know that in your eyes you’ve received the Body of Christ. As you say, I’m a Catholic and can’t fully agree with that because not just anyone is given the divine authority to transform bread and wine into Christ. There is a defined “form” of consecration and a “form” to ordaining priests that Luther changed, among other things. He had no authority to make those changes.

I don’t believe the form of consecration has changed much, as its heart is the words of institution, Christ’s words. As for the form of ordination, I assume you mean presbyter ordination. It isn’t incidental that presbyter ordination has been practiced in the Catholic Church in the past.

1. I don’t read “salvation-granting presence” as saying that our two forms of the Eucharist are the same. If that was the case, then Catholics would be allowed to receive Communion in a Lutheran church and we would welcome Lutherans to our Communion. Consider that if a Catholic priest strays beyond a certain point from the wording of the Roman Liturgy, the Eucharist in that case could be deemed invalid. Logically, if Catholic priests must follow the defined form of Consecration, then any other minister or priest would have to. I spoke about this a few replies ago when I agreed that the Orthodox Eucharist is seen as valid by Catholics because they use a valid form.

I’m not saying he thought it was the same, either. Of course, the Cardinal was addressing the differences in our apporachv to ordination, not consecration.

Honestly, I don’t know what then-Cardinal Ratzinger meant by this. I’d have to read the entire letter to understand the context. Can you point me to a source online?

the entire letter is in his book, “Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion”.

I’m glad to see him reaching out to Lutherans, but I don’t view one quote in a letter as superceding hundreds of years of division. It seems to be a start (again I’d have to read the full letter to know for sure), but at this point I’m not aware of any official Catholic teaching that redefines our relationship with Lutherans in the way you seem to be suggesting

The only suggestion I am making is the one he suggested; that simply being tied to succession is not a reason to deny the salvation-granting presence. And there is significant dialogue between our communions that suggests a growing understanding and convergence. Not there yet, but growing.

nccbuscc.org/seia/koinonia.shtml

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

Jon

 

[didymus]

On some things my attitude is “you say so” i.e. I’ll take the Church’s word for it.

The filioque: who knows how the three Persons proceed? Who cares? Isn’t accepting the Trinity a big enough leap for people to accept? The rest is angels dancing on a pin.

Mary’s virginity which I DON’T question in the sense that she never had relations but I’ve seen here that the Church teaches her physical virginity was preserved throughout & after Jesus’s birth. Just plain weird.

Usury. Come on, just admit that when capitalism took over you had to change previous teachings.

But, again, I leave this stuff up to the experts.

I’m skeptical of most apparitions and almost all private revelations but that’s something the Church requires.

 

[mgoforth]

I don’t believe the form of consecration has changed much, as its heart is the words of institution, Christ’s words. As for the form of ordination, I assume you mean presbyter ordination. It isn’t incidental that presbyter ordination has been practiced in the Catholic Church in the past.

Here are a few excerpts from the Formula of Concord that I think highlights at least part of the reason that the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize the Lutheran Eucharist as valid (emphasis mine):

Likewise, [we reject and condemn] the doctrine that it is not the words and the omnipotence of Christ but faith that achieves the presence of the body of Christ in the Holy Supper, whence some omit the words of institution in the administration of the Supper. For while we justly criticize and condemn the papistic consecration which ascribes to the word and work of the priest the power allegedly to effect a sacrament, the words of institution cannot and should not in any case be omitted in the administration of the Supper, as shown above in a previous exposition.

The Confessions do not permit us to place the universal priesthood as a divine institution over against the public ministry as a human institution. The idea of a transfer of the rights of the universal priesthood to the person of the pastor is foreign to the Confessions. The church does not transfer its office of preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments to individuals in its membership, but it fills this office entrusted to it by God, it calls into this office instituted by God. In this office the pastor therefore acts in the name and at the direction of God and in the stead of Jesus Christ. He acts with authority not on the basis of an arrangement made by believers but on the basis of the divine institution.

I read all the underlined sections as implicit, or in the first case explicit, rejection of the Catholic requirement of a valid order of priests for the Eucharist to also be valid.

I’m glad to hear that the form of consecration hasn’t changed much, and agree that Christ’s words taken from the Gospel are critical to the validity of the sacrament. But again, let’s think about why the form was changed at all - even if the changes were only very minor. They were changed by Martin Luther on his own “authority”, in his rebellion against the true authority given to St Peter by Christ to lead His Church. And even if it wasn’t Luther himself who changed the formula, his successors are also acting under a false premise…that the “universal church” is invisible and not connected to a central earthly shepherd, the Holy Father.

I believe Pope Benedict, at the time he wrote that letter, did say that there was “salvation-granting presence” in the Lutheran Eucharist. I respect his judgment enough to take him at his word. Does this phrase mean the same thing as the “Real Presence”, the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ? I still don’t see that equivocation being made here. If it were the same, we’d have inter-communion…or at least the allowance to receive in extraordinary situations like we have with the Orthodox. Since we don’t, then they’re not the same and I would continue to urge you and anyone else who’s willing to seek the fullness of the Truth contained only in the Catholic Church.

I’m glad that our two churches are seeking to reconcile. That is the Catholic Church’s wish for everyone in the world. But I will wait until I hear a definitive statement from the Magesterium before I agree that the Real Presence is contained in the Lutheran Eucharist.

 

[mgoforth]

Usury. Come on, just admit that when capitalism took over you had to change previous teachings.

I’m skeptical of most apparitions and almost all private revelations but that’s something the Church requires.

On usury: I’m not sure if the teaching was ever officially changed or not? If you have a source on that I’m interested to learn more myself.

On apparitions and private revelation: Did you mean to say “that’s not something the Church requires”? Because it doesn’t require us to believe in those.

 

[djd83]

My iffy thing is the kissing of the crucifix/Jesus statue. Just seems a bit…idolatrous.

 

[JonNC]

=mgoforth;9151244]

I read all the underlined sections as implicit, or in the first case explicit, rejection of the Catholic requirement of a valid order of priests for the Eucharist to also be valid.

I think you are misreading, or maybe not.

Likewise, [we reject and condemn] the doctrine that it is not the words and the omnipotence of Christ but faith that achieves the presence of the body of Christ in the Holy Supper, whence some omit the words of institution in the administration of the Supper. For while we justly criticize and condemn the papistic consecration which ascribes to the word and work of the priest the power allegedly to effect a sacrament, the words of institution cannot and should not in any case be omitted in the administration of the Supper, as shown above in a previous exposition.

Let me ask you, because I don’t pretend to undestand completely Catholic teaching. This is saying that it is by the pastor/priest’s words and the power of the Holy Spirit that makes Christ present. The pastor does not have the power in and of himself. Does the Catholic church disagree with that stance?

The Confessions do not permit us to place the universal priesthood as a divine institution over against the public ministry as a human institution. The idea of a transfer of the rights of the universal priesthood to the person of the pastor is foreign to the Confessions. The church does not transfer its office of preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments to individuals in its membership, but it fills this office entrusted to it by God, it calls into this office instituted by God. In this office the pastor therefore acts in the name and at the direction of God and in the stead of Jesus Christ. He acts with authority not on the basis of an arrangement made by believers but on the basis of the divine institution.

This is in regards to the nature of the priesthood, and of orders. So, that would refer not to consecration, but orders. God calls and ordains.

I’m glad to hear that the form of consecration hasn’t changed much, and agree that Christ’s words taken from the Gospel are critical to the validity of the sacrament. But again, let’s think about why the form was changed at all - even if the changes were only very minor. They were changed by Martin Luther on his own “authority”, in his rebellion against the true authority given to St Peter by Christ to lead His Church.

Actually, they were not changed by Martin Luther. You give him too much credit. And the fact is the nature of divine liturgy is different in different places. Are the liturgies of the EO the same as that of Rome (not a rhetorical question)?

And even if it wasn’t Luther himself who changed the formula, his successors are also acting under a false premise…that the “universal church” is invisible and not connected to a central earthly shepherd, the Holy Father.

Now we are in a discussion of the nature of the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of rome. And yes, like all other Christians not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, we question that he has said jurisdiction, by both scripture and Tradition (nicea canon 6). That’s not to say the he doesn’t hold a central place, even among his equals, the Bishops. He does.

I believe Pope Benedict, at the time he wrote that letter, did say that there was “salvation-granting presence” in the Lutheran Eucharist. I respect his judgment enough to take him at his word. Does this phrase mean the same thing as the “Real Presence”, the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ? I still don’t see that equivocation being made here. If it were the same, we’d have inter-communion…or at least the allowance to receive in extraordinary situations like we have with the Orthodox. Since we don’t, then they’re not the same and I would continue to urge you and anyone else who’s willing to seek the fullness of the Truth contained only in the Catholic Church.

Rmemeber, I didn’t say or even imply anything more than what he said, that there is, in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper, the salvation-granting presence of Christ. We agree that Christ said that unless we eat his body and drink his blood, we have no life in us. So, by saying there is the salvation-granting presence, it seems he is saying we have life in us.
Of course, he is not drawing an equivalency here. Ecumenism hasn’t come that far yet.

But all that said, I don’t need the pope to say that to know His real body and blood are present. I’d like him to, in the same way we acknowledge Christ’s real presence in your Eucharist.

I’m glad that our two churches are seeking to reconcile. That is the Catholic Church’s wish for everyone in the world. But I will wait until I hear a definitive statement from the Magesterium before I agree that the Real Presence is contained in the Lutheran Eucharist

And wait you should! You are Catholic, and I highly honor and respect your faith in the teachings of your communion.

Jon

 

[didymus]

On apparitions and private revelation: Did you mean to say “that’s not something the Church requires”? Because it doesn’t require us to believe in those.

Yes, sorry for the typo.

 

[mgoforth]

My iffy thing is the kissing of the crucifix/Jesus statue. Just seems a bit…idolatrous.

I totally understand the feeling. To overcome it, you need to understand clearly what idolatry means. Idolatry is worshiping a creature, false god or created image as if it was actually God. If you kiss a statue of Jesus because you think His Spirit lives in the statue, that would be idolatry. If you’re praying to the statue itself and attributing Christ’s power to the stone, that’s idolatry. But if you kiss a crucifix while having the full knowledge that what you’re kissing is only a piece of wood, it’s not idolatry. If you’re only using statues and crucifixes to remind you of Jesus or the Saints and then directing your prayers to them in Heaven, then you have nothing to worry about.

Think about this: In order to “blow a kiss” to someone, you have to kiss your hand first, right? By this action are you expressing love toward your hand, or toward the person you’re blowing the kiss to? The hand, the statue and the crucifix are not the objects of our love, they’re just “tools” we use to pass on our love.

If it continues to bother you, then certainly don’t do it. There are other Church-approved devotional practices - you’re free to use any of them and aren’t obligated to use the ones that aren’t helpful.

 

[mgoforth]

Let me ask you, because I don’t pretend to undestand completely Catholic teaching. This is saying that it is by the pastor/priest’s words and the power of the Holy Spirit that makes Christ present. The pastor does not have the power in and of himself. Does the Catholic church disagree with that stance?

The Catholic priest does have the power, because he stands In Persona Christi. The power does not originate with the priest, but it is certainly given to him by Christ when the priest receives valid ordination. See Luke 10:19 for an example where Christ gave power to specific individuals. Did everyone else have the power to cast out demons in that chapter? Clearly not, because the disciples were surprised when it worked for them.

This is in regards to the nature of the priesthood, and of orders. So, that would refer not to consecration, but orders. God calls and ordains.

I included it because both are involved. A validly ordained priest who follows the valid form of the sacrament is what’s required. God does call and ordain, but He does so through the Church He instituted and using the order of priests He established.

Let me ask you: Do I have the authority to ordain a priest in the LCMS? If not, why not…if it’s God who calls and ordains, not me?

Actually, they were not changed by Martin Luther. You give him too much credit.

Not at all. I give him credit for all the heresies that followed from his initial set of heresies. He paved the way for the sins of others.

And the fact is the nature of divine liturgy is different in different places. Are the liturgies of the EO the same as that of Rome (not a rhetorical question)?

They are similar enough to be considered valid.

Now we are in a discussion of the nature of the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of rome. And yes, like all other Christians not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, we question that he has said jurisdiction, by both scripture and Tradition (nicea canon 6). That’s not to say the he doesn’t hold a central place, even among his equals, the Bishops. He does.

…

I don’t want you to think that I’m ignoring the rest, but we’ve been over these other issues already, Jon, and I’ve given you the answers I have. My intention isn’t to keep debating the same things in this thread. And I’m not saying “agree with me or go away”…not at all. Just saying that the point of this thread was to offer any help I can to those with questions about the Catholic Church and then let the Holy Spirit do the rest. I would suggest you read the article from Jimmy Akin that I linked to previously, as he covers all the Scriptural bases on this subject. If you still don’t agree that the Pope should have central authority, that’s your choice.

 

[JonNC]

=mgoforth;9152290]The Catholic priest does have the power, because he stands In Persona Christi. The power does not originate with the priest, but it is certainly given to him by Christ when the priest receives valid ordination. See Luke 10:19 for an example where Christ gave power to specific individuals. Did everyone else have the power to cast out demons in that chapter? Clearly not, because the disciples were surprised when it worked for them.

I don’t see this as radically different from our belief. Our pastor stands in Persona Christi to absolve, and to consecrate.

I included it because both are involved. A validly ordained priest who follows the valid form of the sacrament is what’s required. God does call and ordain, but He does so through the Church He instituted and using the order of priests He established.

Again, not a radical difference, at least the way I understand it.

Let me ask you: Do I have the authority to ordain a priest in the LCMS? If not, why not…if it’s God who calls and ordains, not me?

No, and neither do I. It is God who calls and ordains, but it is done through the Church. In the same way, while the pastor speaks the words, and holds up the bread and wine, it is God who makes present His body and blood.

Not at all. I give him credit for all the heresies that followed from his initial set of heresies. He paved the way for the sins of others.

then you must also give credit to Pope Leo X, John Tetzel, and the corruption in Rome and in Germany for making these things come to pass.

They are similar enough to be considered valid.

So, it isn’t whether or not they are the same, just whether or not they are similar. Interesting.

I don’t want you to think that I’m ignoring the rest, but we’ve been over these other issues already, Jon, and I’ve given you the answers I have. My intention isn’t to keep debating the same things in this thread. And I’m not saying “agree with me or go away”…not at all. Just saying that the point of this thread was to offer any help I can to those with questions about the Catholic Church and then let the Holy Spirit do the rest. I would suggest you read the article from Jimmy Akin that I linked to previously, as he covers all the Scriptural bases on this subject. If you still don’t agree that the Pope should have central authority, that’s your choice.

You have dialogued with integrity and charity, and I appreciate that.

Jon