Lutheran Eucharist

[mwb85611]

I’m sorry if my reasoning is askew, here, but I have to get this question out.

Why is Lutheran Eucharist considered to be invalid in the Catholic Church, when the sacraments are mediated not by man, but by Christ? By God? The Sacraments in any church should be considered perfectly valid, regardless of the state of the minister (Holy Orders).

 

[pablope]

I’m sorry if my reasoning is askew, here, but I have to get this question out.

Why is Lutheran Eucharist considered to be invalid in the Catholic Church, when the sacraments are mediated not by man, but by Christ? By God? The Sacraments in any church should be considered perfectly valid, regardless of the state of the minister (Holy Orders).

Not “in” the CC, I think you meant by the Catholic Church.

Simply, Apostolic Succession. Can you trace Apostolic succession all the way from the Apostles? When Luther separated from the CC in the 1500s, you lost your apostolic succession, your connection to the Apostles.

And when Luther and his successors got away from their roots, every generation thereafter gets further and further away from the Catholic roots.

 

[InspiritCarol]

I think you need to read this.
newadvent.org/cathen/04322a.htm
Understanding the nature of how Lutherans consider the Eucharist should stop the argument in its tracks.

I have spoken extensively with several Lutheran ministers in my community. They really just don’t get it. It’s sad for them but it’s how it is.

Perhaps someone else wants to address the whole valid “sacrament” thing but I really don’t see why when we are really talking about two entirely different things: transubstantion and consubstantion.

 

[gcnuss]

I think you need to read this.
newadvent.org/cathen/04322a.htm
Understanding the nature of how Lutherans consider the Eucharist should stop the argument in its tracks.

I have spoken extensively with several Lutheran ministers in my community. They really just don’t get it. It’s sad for them but it’s how it is.

Perhaps someone else wants to address the whole valid “sacrament” thing but I really don’t see why when we are really talking about two entirely different things: transubstantion and consubstantion.

I suggest that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not the best place to go if one wants to understand Lutheran beliefs concerning the Eucharist. If I want to know Catholic teachings about the Eucharist, I would go to Catholic sources.

From the Augsburg Confession (the basic statement of Lutheran belief):

Concerning the Lord’s Supper it is taught that the true body and blood of Christ are truly present under the form of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper and are distributed and received there.

The operative phrase is “under the form of bread and wine” which is different from “together with the bread and wine.”

No one who is truly Lutheran in his or her beliefs regarding Holy Communion would ever use the word “consubstantiation” to describe the Real Presence.

 

[SteveVH]

I suggest that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not the best place to go if one wants to understand Lutheran beliefs concerning the Eucharist. If I want to know Catholic teachings about the Eucharist, I would go to Catholic sources.

From the Augsburg Confession (the basic statement of Lutheran belief):

The operative phrase is “under the form of bread and wine” which is different from “together with the bread and wine.”

No one who is truly Lutheran in his or her beliefs regarding Holy Communion would ever use the word “consubstantiation” to describe the Real Presence.

Pastor Gary,

Your comments seem to be in line with my discussions with Lutherans concerning the real presence and I would agree with you that if one wants to know what the other believes they should go to the “horses mouth”, so to speak.

I think the Catholic issue surrounds the validity of the concecration which in turn stems from the question of the validity of ordination apart from apostolic succession. I would be interested in your comments in this regard.

 

[IowaJay]

Not “in” the CC, I think you meant by the Catholic Church.

Simply, Apostolic Succession. Can you trace Apostolic succession all the way from the Apostles? When Luther separated from the CC in the 1500s, you lost your apostolic succession, your connection to the Apostles.

And when Luther and his successors got away from their roots, every generation thereafter gets further and further away from the Catholic roots.

Many Lutheran pastors can, actually, demonstrate they were ordained by a bishop in apostolic succession. When I was ordained, for example, I was ordained by a bishop who was conscecrated by bishops who were conscrated via the unbroken line of succession found in the Anglican and Scandanavian Lutheran churches.

The issue, from the Catholic Church’s perspective, is not that we weren’t ordained by such a bishop, it is that the rite of ordination for those bishops was changed somewhere along the line, thus nullifying the validity of the holy orders.

At any rate, both Jon and I have mentioned this quote from Cardinal Ratzinger before, and I wish more on this forum would follow his lead instead of presuming to know what we do or do not receive in our Eucharist. In a 1993 letter to a German Lutheran bishop, he said:

usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml

Paragraph 107:

“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.(166)”

 

[veilofveronica]

Dear Pastor Gary;

Welcome to Catholic Answers! (I am fairly new myself, so my apologies if you are not new!)

Interfaith relationships can be tenacious and hurtful sometimes. I can imagine it must be difficult to hear the term “invalid” applied to your sacrament of the Eucharist.

The reason that the Catholic Church states this is that the Lutheran Church does not believe in transubstantiation. The Catholic Church is the only Church that professes that the bread and wine are changed completely into Christ’s Body and Blood. Martin Luther himself stated; “It is not the doctrine of transubstantiation which is to be believed, but simply that Christ really is present at the Eucharist”. There is a difference between believing in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, and that the Eucharist is Christ’s Body and Blood entirely. From my study, transubstantiation was one of the things that caused the split during the Protestant reformation. It’s my understanding that Lutherans do not call this “consubstantiation”., but rather, Sacramental Union. It’s a common misconception that this is the same as the Catholic teaching of the Eucharist. It is not.

Roman Catholics are only able to accept Holy Communion at a Catholic Mass for a couple of reasons:

1. As said, the RC Church is the only Church that teaches transubstantiation, that Holy Communion is truly Christ’s Body and Blood, not only the Real Presence. This is the center and focus of the Mass. To accept Holy Communion at another church, with the exception of very limited circumstances, would be wrong for a Catholic, because the other Churches do not teach the same thing about the Eucharist, and this is the very centre of our worship and faith.
2. Holy Communion and acceptance of it also is a celebration of Unity with our brothers and sisters in faith. Sadly, we no longer have One Church and One Unity with our Christian brethren. It would be hypocrisy for us all to stand at One table, because we don’t all believe the same things anymore. We can’t worthily all drink from one cup and share one bread until we all are unified. We pray that one day this will happen…but it hasn’t yet, and for us to take Communion at one another’s Churches would imply a unity that doesn’t exist.

You mention that it is Christ that mediated the Sacraments. Catholics believe that, too. We believe that Christ instituted the Sacraments 2000 years ago, and instituted Peter as the first Pope. We believe that Christ acts through the priests when they serve Holy Mass or administer the Sacraments. Therefore, in that way, perhaps you can see why a Catholic needs to receive the Sacrament from an ordained priest…they are the ones that are given the power to administer the Sacraments,through the succession of Peter as ordained by Christ 2,000 years ago.

Obviously, the Lutheran philosophy is different. We could argue all day about which is “right”, but not see eye to eye. I think it’s more important that we find common ground as Christians.

God Bless!

 

[InspiritCarol]

I suggest that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not the best place to go if one wants to understand Lutheran beliefs concerning the Eucharist. If I want to know Catholic teachings about the Eucharist, I would go to Catholic sources.

From the Augsburg Confession (the basic statement of Lutheran belief):

The operative phrase is “under the form of bread and wine” which is different from “together with the bread and wine.”

No one who is truly Lutheran in his or her beliefs regarding Holy Communion would ever use the word “consubstantiation” to describe the Real Presence.

Thank you Pastor Gary.

I gave the Catholic perspective of the situation because this individual (the OP) has asked the Catholic perspective. I used the Catholic Encyclopedia to present such because its authority certainly surpasses my own.

You take umbrage with the fact that “together with” is different than “under the”. Fair enough. But, may I politely ask, what does “Under the form of bread and wine” mean to you?

At this point I must relay to you a personal experience I recently had.
I have the privilege of being included in a scripture study with 4 very wise men. Two of them are retired Lutheran ministers, one is an active Lutheran minister, and the fourth is an active Presbyterian minister. Normally it is a very congenial meeting, but recently one of the retired ministers asked if I really believed the Eucharist *really *became Christ’s body. To which the only words that I was able to get out were “This *is *my body” before I was practically lynched. (Guess I unwittingly pushed a button ). It took the Presbyterian coming to my rescue to calm things down. Now, I am happy to say this does not make me an expert on the subject in any way; but it did leave a distinct impression on me.

So, now I must ask: do you feel that Lutherans believe in transubstantiation as Catholics do? Because, do you not agree, without that very significant common ground, there is no onus on the Catholic Church to say Lutheran Eucharist is the same as the sacrament of Catholic Eucharist and therefore a sacrament from our perspective.

To me, “under the form of bread and wine” is anathema. I mean no disrespect, truly. I just feel Saint Cyril, Doctor of the Church said it best when he wrote ~A.D. 347: “When He asserts and says: This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?”

Period. He does not say “not His Blood under the form of wine” which to me (please correct me if I am wrong or this is insulting in any way – I don’t mean it to be) this is another way of saying “His blood disguised as wine” or “pretending to be wine”. I’m NOT saying you think that; it’s just how it comes across to me.

So, now I’m curious where “consubstantiation” came from. Was it Luther himself? I’m anxious for our next study session in order that I may pick my friends’ brains about this. In the meantime, any enlightenment you may provide in the matter is warmly and gratefully appreciated.

Carol

 

[InspiritCarol]

I just re-read my first post and realize it comes across as insulting. I was just rushed and intended no disrespect. I apologize that it seems that way.

 

[JonNC]

Just to add what Pastor Gary and Iowa Jay have said, I am always moved to quote the Apology of the Augsburg Confession when speaking of the Lutheran view of the Eucharist, as it, briefly, expresses it so well.

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

Lutherans believe that the bread and wine **are **the body and blood of Christ, as He says in His own words, by the speaking of the words by the pastor, and the power of the Holy Spirit. What we don’t do, as both transubstantiation and consubstantiation do, is comment on the substance and accidents of the bread and wine, since Christ made no comment about them.

Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I love your screen name. I have always loved the sixth station of the Cross so much that I named my baby girl Veronica Marie. She is now 4 years old. She loves that her name is related to this lovely saint. Great name!

Dear Pastor Gary;

Welcome to Catholic Answers! (I am fairly new myself, so my apologies if you are not new!)

Interfaith relationships can be tenacious and hurtful sometimes. I can imagine it must be difficult to hear the term “invalid” applied to your sacrament of the Eucharist.

The reason that the Catholic Church states this is that the Lutheran Church does not believe in transubstantiation. The Catholic Church is the only Church that professes that the bread and wine are changed completely into Christ’s Body and Blood. Martin Luther himself stated; “It is not the doctrine of transubstantiation which is to be believed, but simply that Christ really is present at the Eucharist”. There is a difference between believing in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, and that the Eucharist is Christ’s Body and Blood entirely. From my study, transubstantiation was one of the things that caused the split during the Protestant reformation. It’s my understanding that Lutherans do not call this “consubstantiation”., but rather, Sacramental Union. It’s a common misconception that this is the same as the Catholic teaching of the Eucharist. It is not.

Roman Catholics are only able to accept Holy Communion at a Catholic Mass for a couple of reasons:

1. As said, the RC Church is the only Church that teaches transubstantiation, that Holy Communion is truly Christ’s Body and Blood, not only the Real Presence. This is the center and focus of the Mass. To accept Holy Communion at another church, with the exception of very limited circumstances, would be wrong for a Catholic, because the other Churches do not teach the same thing about the Eucharist, and this is the very centre of our worship and faith.
2. Holy Communion and acceptance of it also is a celebration of Unity with our brothers and sisters in faith. Sadly, we no longer have One Church and One Unity with our Christian brethren. It would be hypocrisy for us all to stand at One table, because we don’t all believe the same things anymore. We can’t worthily all drink from one cup and share one bread until we all are unified. We pray that one day this will happen…but it hasn’t yet, and for us to take Communion at one another’s Churches would imply a unity that doesn’t exist.

You mention that it is Christ that mediated the Sacraments. Catholics believe that, too. We believe that Christ instituted the Sacraments 2000 years ago, and instituted Peter as the first Pope. We believe that Christ acts through the priests when they serve Holy Mass or administer the Sacraments. Therefore, in that way, perhaps you can see why a Catholic needs to receive the Sacrament from an ordained priest…they are the ones that are given the power to administer the Sacraments,through the succession of Peter as ordained by Christ 2,000 years ago.

Obviously, the Lutheran philosophy is different. We could argue all day about which is “right”, but not see eye to eye. I think it’s more important that we find common ground as Christians.

God Bless!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I had a Lutheran poster explain to me on another message board that “Lutherans believe Jesus is present in the Eucharist; we just don’t believe He becomes the Eucharist.” I backed up and went “huh?” Always ends up sounding like consubstantiation no matter who explains this to me from the Lutheran angle

Just to add what Pastor Gary and Iowa Jay have said, I am always moved to quote the Apology of the Augsburg Confession when speaking of the Lutheran view of the Eucharist, as it, briefly, expresses it so well.

Lutherans believe that the bread and wine **are **the body and blood of Christ, as He says in His own words, by the speaking of the words by the pastor, and the power of the Holy Spirit. What we don’t do, as both transubstantiation and consubstantiation do, is comment on the substance and accidents of the bread and wine, since Christ made no comment about them.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Obviously, the Lutheran philosophy is different. We could argue all day about which is “right”, but not see eye to eye. I think it’s more important that we find common ground as Christians.
God Bless!

And this is already coming. From a joint Lutheran / Catholic statement;

48.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.

49.In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

50.The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

51.The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

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

Jon

 

[veilofveronica]

I love your screen name. I have always loved the sixth station of the Cross so much that I named my baby girl Veronica Marie. She is now 4 years old. She loves that her name is related to this lovely saint. Great name!

Thank you so much! I took the name of St. Veronica at Confirmation, which is where my screen name comes from. Your daughter has a beautiful name.

God Bless.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You are correct that the sacraments are truly mediated by Christ himself in the Holy Spirit “in persona Christi” via the bishop or priest.

In case of emergency “anyone” can administer the sacrament of baptism, but the ordinary is done by a bishop or priest.

You are correct again, that “valid” sacraments remain valid no matter the disposition of the minister or recipient.

When it comes to the Eucharist the Early Church Fathers both East and West teach that no Eucharist is valid unless approved by the bishop or the one whom the bishop has placed this charge.

St. Ignatius of Antioch; Let all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father, and the priests as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Apart from the bishop, let no one perform any of the functions that pertain to the Church. Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop…Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chap. 8

Here is where problems arrive from different communions, because the Catholic Church cannot and will not move from her status as Rock,

revealed from the Didache chapt. 14:1
"And on the Lord’s Day, after you have come together, break bread and offer the Eucharist, having confessed your offenses, so that your sacrifice may be pure.** But let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled,** lest your sacrifice be defiled…

The Lord said; "In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice… Malachi 1:11, 14

A clean “Valid” sacrifice offered to God in the Eucharist is one offered by the Catholic bishop and all those in communion with the bishop.

St. Jerome; "Far be it from me to censure the successors of the apostles, who with holy words consecrate the body of Christ, and who make us Christians. Having the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, they judge men to some extent before the day of judgement, and guard the chastity of the bride of Christ.

There is much more to expound upon the communion which makes for a clean sacrifice offered to God by unity with the Catholic bishop, reconciliation must be reached first and the challenge of validity has not been officially made.

This does not discount the Lutheran faith in the Eucharist, but reveals your founding father Martin Luther who was a Catholic remained in “quarrel with his neighbor”.

Thus we have two revealed oppositions; 1. reconciliation back into communion 2. What is a valid Eucharist approved by a successor to the apostles, a Catholic bishop.

I wouldn’t question the faith of a Lutheran Eucharist, those who follow Martin Luther, but there are some who teach the Eucharist as a symbol and not a true presence from protestantism.

Just a lay perspective seeking full communion with our separated brethren, as time goes on I see this gap close to disappearing as our communities learn more of our histories, and it is us the living that can make this happen. The hard knock truth is, the Catholic Church is Rock and does not move, although hope can be sought through reconciliation and a Lutheran apostolate consisting of Lutheran clergy, instead of a Lutheran independent Church apart from the Catholic bishop.

Peace be with you

I’m sorry if my reasoning is askew, here, but I have to get this question out.

Why is Lutheran Eucharist considered to be invalid in the Catholic Church, when the sacraments are mediated not by man, but by Christ? By God? The Sacraments in any church should be considered perfectly valid, regardless of the state of the minister (Holy Orders).

 

[mwb85611]

Thank you to those who have responded, especially to those who responded to the actual question I asked, haha. I should specify my question further, in the hopes for deepened growth for all who happen upon this thread.

Both Lutherans and Catholics believe fully in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Both also believe that, at some level, there is indeed a “change” of some kind in the bread and wine. Catholics call it “transubstantiation” because they believe that there is indeed a full change of substances, form bread and wine into body and blood. Lutherans call it “sacramental union” because they do not accept Aristotle’s metaphysical theories of substance and accidents, and because transubstantiation is not scripture based.

Here is how I have always understood the Lutheran (my own) position: We honestly don’t know how it happens, it just is. It looks like bread and wine, but it is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Have faith.

In response to the apostolic tradition and to the state of the ministers, I must refer back to St. Augustine, and the debate with the Donatists. In this struggle, it was asserted and accepted that the state of the minister is irrelevant when it comes to presiding in the sacraments. The power does not lie in the minister- it is God. However, Augustine argued that while the sacraments (in this case, baptism) were true sacraments, the recipient would not come into the full grace and understanding of them whilst in schism with the one true Church. That would be an acceptable argument. The other statements, no.

 

[gcnuss]

Pastor Gary,

Your comments seem to be in line with my discussions with Lutherans concerning the real presence and I would agree with you that if one wants to know what the other believes they should go to the “horses mouth”, so to speak.

I think the Catholic issue surrounds the validity of the concecration which in turn stems from the question of the validity of ordination apart from apostolic succession. I would be interested in your comments in this regard.

Steve,

I understand the Catholic position on validity of consecration as a function of validity of ordination. We Lutherans disagree that the validity of the Sacrament in Lutheran worship is dependent on meeting the Catholic Church’s requirements for validity of Holy Orders.

I hope this helps.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You just defined “transsubstantiation” from your faith. Many of the early Church Fathers describe the definition of Transsubstantiation without ever using the term, just the definition, just as you have show below.

Here is how I have always understood the Lutheran (my own) position: We honestly don’t know how it happens, it just is. It looks like bread and wine, but it is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Have faith.

 

[RyanBlack]

1. As said, the RC Church is the only Church that teaches transubstantiation, that Holy Communion is truly Christ’s Body and Blood, not only the Real Presence.

Wrong! The Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, as well as the various Catholics that are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, but are not themselves Roman Catholic all teach that in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[gcnuss]

Dear Pastor Gary;

Welcome to Catholic Answers! (I am fairly new myself, so my apologies if you are not new!)

Thank you. I have been hanging around here for some time and am blessed to join in discussions with my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.

Interfaith relationships can be tenacious and hurtful sometimes. I can imagine it must be difficult to hear the term “invalid” applied to your sacrament of the Eucharist.

I am quite used to hearing it. I don’t take offense because I realize that Catholics who say it are following Catholic teaching. I do, as I feel it is needed, give an explanation of what we Lutherans believe.

Obviously, the Lutheran philosophy is different. We could argue all day about which is “right”, but not see eye to eye. I think it’s more important that we find common ground as Christians.

I agree with you here. I, too, prefer to focus as much as possible on what holds us together as Christians – that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior.