Lutheran intercommunion

  • Thread starter Thread starter camkutz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

camkutz

Guest
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/11/01/vatican-cardinal-explains-limits-of-eucharistic-sharing/

I read this article where it says there is a difference between eucharistic communion and eucharistic “hospitality” and in some cases lutherans in a mixed marriage may receive communion at a Catholic Mass??? That is what I have gathered from this article.

I thought to receive Communion you have to be in a state of grace which lutherans won’t be as such because they can’t confess??
 
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/11/01/vatican-cardinal-explains-limits-of-eucharistic-sharing/

I read this article where it says there is a difference between eucharistic communion and eucharistic “hospitality” and in some cases lutherans in a mixed marriage may receive communion at a Catholic Mass??? That is what I have gathered from this article.

I thought to receive Communion you have to be in a state of grace which lutherans won’t be as such because they can’t confess??
As I explained on another thread on this very same topic, what the head of PCPCU is speaking about is a provision, clearly made and which I have certainly used many times, of Canon 844 §4.

I should think it goes without saying that Christians other than Catholics assuredly can be – and are – in the state of grace. Otherwise it would be rather tragic.
 
Could you link me to the thread please? 😃
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1030304

if you are asking for the text of the canon, I did not post it. It is:

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
 
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1030304

if you are asking for the text of the canon, I did not post it. It is:

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
So that would mean that non-Catholics cannot receive Catholic communion in the circumstance as set out in the original question.
 
Ah I see thank you for clearing that up for me. However what would properly disposed particularly mean?
 
So that would mean that non-Catholics cannot receive Catholic communion in the circumstance as set out in the original question.
No. What you write is not what it means at all.

As a priest, if the person is – by my estimation – in danger of death, then the decision is mine.

If the person is not in danger of death, I follow either what my bishop has decreed or our conference of bishops has decreed as to what constitute a “grave necessity.” Presuming the Holy See does not object, the decision of “grave necessity” by the bishop/conference stands.

The original case is cited by the President of PCPCU, which speaks clearly to both the bishops and the conferences.
 
I honestly think that the Catholic Church should allow other non-catholic Christians who were baptized to receive catholic communion. Are we not all Christians? Are we not all children of G-d? Can’t we all just set aside our differences and be one in Christ? Why hatred? Why division? How are we to fight against the world when we are busy fighting ourselves?

“One Lord, one faith, one baptism” -Ephesians 4:5-

“that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” -John 17:21-
 
I honestly think that the Catholic Church should allow other non-catholic Christians who were baptized to receive catholic communion. Are we not all Christians? Are we not all children of G-d? Can’t we all just set aside our differences and be one in Christ? Why hatred? Why division? How are we to fight against the world when we are busy fighting ourselves?

“One Lord, one faith, one baptism” -Ephesians 4:5-

“that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” -John 17:21-
That would imply doctrinal agreement that implicitly simply does not exist. I respect the Catholic Church and the other churches who restrict Holy Communion to those who share their Confessions. The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ should be reserved for those who understand and are in concord with what is happening at the Sacrament of the Altar, otherwise the souls of those who receive are in jeopardy ( it is possible to receive condemnation unto oneself through improper reception). One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism means exactly what is implied. The One Lord, Jesus Christ, gives us the One Faith, which is shared by all the congregation that receives corporately as the Body of Christ, which is activated ( generally) by the One baptism, which inducts one into the life of faith, usually as an infant. If one receives the Body and Blood, let all things be done decently and in order… let them receive proper instruction and declare their faith before the congregation ( let them be baptized and confirmed, if they had not been so previously). The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is no trivial matter and to restrict the Sacrament is done in the name of hospitality and for the spiritual safety of the guest.Division is a sad fact in the life of the church, but it’s a fact, nonetheless. Would a Reformed Christian be anything less than a hypocrite if he received in a church that acknowledged the Real Presence of Our Savior in the Bread and Wine of Holy Communion? Would not such a reception imply adherence to the doctrine of the church he received at? Would a Lutheran not be in a similar way if he received in a church that taught memorialism?
 
That would imply doctrinal agreement that implicitly simply does not exist. I respect the Catholic Church and the other churches who restrict Holy Communion to those who share their Confessions. The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ should be reserved for those who understand and are in concord with what is happening at the Sacrament of the Altar, otherwise the souls of those who receive are in jeopardy ( it is possible to receive condemnation unto oneself through improper reception). One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism means exactly what is implied. The One Lord, Jesus Christ, gives us the One Faith, which is shared by all the congregation that receives corporately as the Body of Christ, which is activated ( generally) by the One baptism, which inducts one into the life of faith, usually as an infant. If one receives the Body and Blood, let all things be done decently and in order… let them receive proper instruction and declare their faith before the congregation ( let them be baptized and confirmed, if they had not been so previously). The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is no trivial matter and to restrict the Sacrament is done in the name of hospitality and for the spiritual safety of the guest.Division is a sad fact in the life of the church, but it’s a fact, nonetheless. Would a Reformed Christian be anything less than a hypocrite if he received in a church that acknowledged the Real Presence of Our Savior in the Bread and Wine of Holy Communion? Would not such a reception imply adherence to the doctrine of the church he received at? Would a Lutheran not be in a similar way if he received in a church that taught memorialism?
I do respect other denominations and their beautiful traditions with all my heart. The problem is not whether you believe in transubstantiation or whether you believe that they are merely symbolic, or maybe some other beliefs that exists out there. The real key point of the holy communion is about remembering the holy sacrifice as Christ is present in the communion. Everyone has their own interpretation and understanding of the scripture and I don’t understand how our own understanding of G-d’s mystery can possibly put our soul in jeopardy. No human can possibly understand G-d’s mystery because it is far too great for a human to comprehend. We only have the Holy Scripture, and it is us humans who sets up interpretation and traditions to somehow reach the understanding and knowledge of G-d almighty, which is not possible. Going to another church of different denomination is a sign or an act of fellowship and re-affirming Christian unity, and it does not make us a hypocrite. It does not show that we are going against our own beliefs or doctrines. A real hypocrite is those who tries to isolate themselves from other Christians and care only for themselves. Pope Francis also emphasized the importance of unity, peaceful dialogue, and one baptism under Christ, and thus re-affirms one L-rd, one faith, one baptism. Everyone has their own belief, their own doctrine, traditions, customs, and etc. Our job here is in this world is to focus on unity as brothers and sisters in Christ, and fight against the world instead of ourselves, and bring sinners to repentance.
 
I do respect other denominations and their beautiful traditions with all my heart. The problem is not whether you believe in transubstantiation or whether you believe that they are merely symbolic, or maybe some other beliefs that exists out there. The real key point of the holy communion is about remembering the holy sacrifice as Christ is present in the communion. Everyone has their own interpretation and understanding of the scripture and I don’t understand how our own understanding of G-d’s mystery can possibly put our soul in jeopardy. No human can possibly understand G-d’s mystery because it is far too great for a human to comprehend. We only have the Holy Scripture, and it is us humans who sets up interpretation and traditions to somehow reach the understanding and knowledge of G-d almighty, which is not possible. Going to another church of different denomination is a sign or an act of fellowship and re-affirming Christian unity, and it does not make us a hypocrite. It does not show that we are going against our own beliefs or doctrines. A real hypocrite is those who tries to isolate themselves from other Christians and care only for themselves. Pope Francis also emphasized the importance of unity, peaceful dialogue, and one baptism under Christ, and thus re-affirms one L-rd, one faith, one baptism. Everyone has their own belief, their own doctrine, traditions, customs, and etc. Our job here is in this world is to focus on unity as brothers and sisters in Christ, and fight against the world instead of ourselves, and bring sinners to repentance.
Fine. If you choose to fellowship with other Christians and worship with them, then you would be prepared to accept their rules, yes? Definition of hypocrisy noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary:

*hypocrisy noun
BrE /hɪˈpɒkrəsi/ ; NAmE /hɪˈpɑːkrəsi/ (pl. hypocrisies)uncountable, countable
Add to my wordlist
behaviour in which somebody pretends to have moral standards or opinions that they do not actually have * oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/hypocrisy. If you were to take Communion in a Greek Orthodox Church, it would be widely understood that you accepted Greek Orthodox doctrine. We should focus and work toward real unity, as Jesus prayed and we should welcome all who would worship with us, as is appropriate for Christians to do. We should also accept the fact that there are boundaries.

I find it ironic that there are those who vehemently disagree with Catholic doctrine and yet utterly insist that it’s their right to commune with them. Why take Communion with a part of the Christian family one believes is in error? Is it herd instinct? Everybody else is doing it, so why not you? Most people who pray in Catholic or Russian Orthodox Churches are Catholics and Russian Orthodox ( generally in good standing) themselves. They know what their Church expects of them and they assent and abide by those expectations. We should be united and in the Kingdom of Heaven we* will* be united in Christ in a Communion that will doubtlessly make what we experience now look like a faint shadow. Until then, we pray and follow the rules. My mother’s a Baptist and I’m an LCMS Lutheran. Per the rules of my own Synod, I don’t partake in her church’s Communion services and unhappily, she can’t participate in mine unless she affirms the RP, which she isn’t prepared to do at this time. Until then, we will visit and pray at one another’s services ( Mom likes our Advent and Christmas services. You really can’t beat a Lutheran Divine Service at Christmastime), while accepting each other’s differences.
 
Fine. If you choose to fellowship with other Christians and worship with them, then you would be prepared to accept their rules, yes? Definition of hypocrisy noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary:

*hypocrisy noun
BrE /hɪˈpɒkrəsi/ ; NAmE /hɪˈpɑːkrəsi/ (pl. hypocrisies)uncountable, countable
Add to my wordlist
behaviour in which somebody pretends to have moral standards or opinions that they do not actually have * oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/hypocrisy. If you were to take Communion in a Greek Orthodox Church, it would be widely understood that you accepted Greek Orthodox doctrine. We should focus and work toward real unity, as Jesus prayed and we should welcome all who would worship with us, as is appropriate for Christians to do. We should also accept the fact that there are boundaries.

I find it ironic that there are those who vehemently disagree with Catholic doctrine and yet utterly insist that it’s their right to commune with them. Why take Communion with a part of the Christian family one believes is in error? Is it herd instinct? Everybody else is doing it, so why not you? Most people who pray in Catholic or Russian Orthodox Churches are Catholics and Russian Orthodox ( generally in good standing) themselves. They know what their Church expects of them and they assent and abide by those expectations. We should be united and in the Kingdom of Heaven we* will* be united in Christ in a Communion that will doubtlessly make what we experience now look like a faint shadow. Until then, we pray and follow the rules. My mother’s a Baptist and I’m an LCMS Lutheran. Per the rules of my own Synod, I don’t partake in her church’s Communion services and unhappily, she can’t participate in mine unless she affirms the RP, which she isn’t prepared to do at this time. Until then, we will visit and pray at one another’s services ( Mom likes our Advent and Christmas services. You really can’t beat a Lutheran Divine Service at Christmastime), while accepting each other’s differences.
I don’t think taking communion from another church necessarily changes your denomination. Back in the time when I was a Presbyterian protestant way long time ago, I remember how lots of Catholics always received communion from that church. No one had problems with Catholics taking our communion, and they didn’t seem to have any problems whatsoever (although I don’t think they’re allowed to receive communion from other denomination). I still think that was truly a beautiful scene of unity and fellowship to witness. Our Messianic Jewish congregation still practices open communion to emphasize our belief that all Christians, regardless of denomination or doctrine, are all same and equal brothers and sisters in the Messiah. It’s sad to see that Catholics (along with other denominations such as the Orthodox church) are still practicing closed communion and I feel very left out during their mass. It feels like they’re not considering us as genuine Christians and more like heretics. Yes, we will all be partaking the same communion in the Kingdom of heaven (and I pray that day will come quickly), but if we are same up there, why not same down here? I do respect that their expectations and therefore, I still do not take communion in Catholic churches (because I still respect their rules and expectations). I just simply hope that one day, they will somehow revise some of their doctrines and accept other baptized Christian brothers and sisters. I still look forward to that day and until then, I can only pray.
 
Protestants and Anglicans often have a fairly open approach to communion and would usually have no problem giving communion to Catholics or any other group of baptised Christians. They do not understand receiving communion as being any form of doctrinal acceptance (barring perhaps that you accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour, something all Christians of any denomination should be able to accept). Far too much emphasis is placed on what denomination someone is, intercommunion is really a misnomer. There is one communion, one Body of Christ, one church. As a line in the old second translation of thew Mass said “Though we are many, we are all one body, because we all share in the same bread.” Allowing Lutherans to receive communion is good. Anglicans next hopefully. Let’s get over this false distinction.
 
Protestants and Anglicans often have a fairly open approach to communion and would usually have no problem giving communion to Catholics or any other group of baptised Christians. They do not understand receiving communion as being any form of doctrinal acceptance (barring perhaps that you accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour, something all Christians of any denomination should be able to accept). Far too much emphasis is placed on what denomination someone is, intercommunion is really a misnomer. There is one communion, one Body of Christ, one church. As a line in the old second translation of thew Mass said “Though we are many, we are all one body, because we all share in the same bread.” Allowing Lutherans to receive communion is good. Anglicans next hopefully. Let’s get over this false distinction.
How so? We are not one body, so we should not share in the same bread
 
The church is really just one entity, with different organisations but really collectively existing as the body of Christ. See for instance Colossians 1:18 amongst numerous other passages of scripture “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”
 
There is one communion, one Body of Christ, one church. As a line in the old second translation of thew Mass said “Though we are many, we are all one body, because we all share in the same bread.” .
To take communion with a those that you are not in union with would be a misnomer. Where there is no union, there can be no communion.

If one says that Catholic, Anglican and Lutherans are in full union, well, that would be an untruth. Ergo, any attempt at institutional communion where there is no union would likewise be a falsehood. And thus contrary to God, who is Truth itself.
 
Protestants and Anglicans often have a fairly open approach to communion and would usually have no problem giving communion to Catholics or any other group of baptised Christians. They do not understand receiving communion as being any form of doctrinal acceptance (barring perhaps that you accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour, something all Christians of any denomination should be able to accept). Far too much emphasis is placed on what denomination someone is, intercommunion is really a misnomer. There is one communion, one Body of Christ, one church. As a line in the old second translation of thew Mass said “Though we are many, we are all one body, because we all share in the same bread.” Allowing Lutherans to receive communion is good. Anglicans next hopefully. Let’s get over this false distinction.
We have from the Catholic Magisterium that the Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century “do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church.” Also that the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church have true Apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist – but “since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
 
To take communion with a those that you are not in union with would be a misnomer. Where there is no union, there can be no communion.

If one says that Catholic, Anglican and Lutherans are in full union, well, that would be an untruth. Ergo, any attempt at institutional communion where there is no union would likewise be a falsehood. And thus contrary to God, who is Truth itself.
Well said, Brendan and quite true, indeed. Doctrine is important, faith is important and let’s face it… Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans work from three different paradigms in their understandings of grace and what actually happens during the Consecration. The distinctions might be fine ones, but they are vital ones that should be acknowledged.
 
The church is really just one entity, with different organisations but really collectively existing as the body of Christ. See for instance Colossians 1:18 amongst numerous other passages of scripture “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”
Sounds very Anglican not Catholic or Orthodox. The only organizational differences acceptable within collective Catholicism are Eastern or Western.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top