Lutherans on Catholic Eucharist

[Anthony_V]

Do Lutherans (ELCA, LCMS, or both) acknowledge the real presence at the consecration in a Catholic mass as much as they do their own mass? Of course there are obvious ecclesiastical communication issues, but in a hypothetical situation where a lutheran was given the option to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic church in a dire situation, would it be licit? My curiousity arises from the fact that the Church permits the Eucharist to be administered to non-catholics in dire situations (Can. 916).

 

[Mberg3]

It seems as though, from my personal Lutheran experience (WELS), that our theology stated that any man in good standing with the [Christian] Church could consecrate and distribute communion as long as they acknowledged Christ was present in the Eucharist. While some have called the theology consubstantiation, my synod thought that Christ was present but there was no dogma saying how this was so. To answer your question then: IF the priest was a man and believed in the true presence of Christ ( like any Catholic priest should) he could distribute communion in dire circumstances.

However, due to the disagreement over the role of what the Eucharist would do, I don’t think many of my former congregation would think they would need communion in a dire situation ie eminent death.

 

[giggen83]

Question: Would the Sacrament received "be licit.?
Personaly, as an ELCA Lutheran I have travelled many places in the world and happily received the Sacrament in Catholic Churches. I have no doubts whether it was “licit” or not.—even though some authority figure might question the same. My understanding is that Christ is the Host, and it is He who invites all to, “Come., take eat…drink”. Whether the celebrant was male, female, or any other qualifier does not determine the authenticity of the giving or the receiving. Obviously, here I depart from the position of the WELS (Wisconsin Synod) responder, and likely, Catholic, as well.
Ah, we make things so complicated…and are so sure of ourselves!! Let’s be sure of Christ!

 

[bogeydogg]

Do Lutherans (ELCA, LCMS, or both) acknowledge the real presence at the consecration in a Catholic mass as much as they do their own mass? Of course there are obvious ecclesiastical communication issues, but in a hypothetical situation where a lutheran was given the option to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic church in a dire situation, would it be licit? My curiousity arises from the fact that the Church permits the Eucharist to be administered to non-catholics in dire situations (Can. 916).

As I understand it the Lutheran Church teaches that the Catholic Mass is the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ and may be freely received if offered. However we are encouraged to seek out a Lutheran Mass. However I also think that no “Church Service” which thinks the sacrament is symbolic or even dependent upon the faith of the one receiving it is legit.

God Bless

 

[bogeydogg]

It seems as though, from my personal Lutheran experience (WELS), that our theology stated that any man in good standing with the [Christian] Church could consecrate and distribute communion as long as they acknowledged Christ was present in the Eucharist. While some have called the theology consubstantiation, my synod thought that Christ was present but there was no dogma saying how this was so. To answer your question then: IF the priest was a man and believed in the true presence of Christ ( like any Catholic priest should) he could distribute communion in dire circumstances.

However, due to the disagreement over the role of what the Eucharist would do, I don’t think many of my former congregation would think they would need communion in a dire situation ie eminent death.

I have not been taught this. My Lutheran minister, if I have understood him correctly, teaches that sacraments can only be rightly administered by a rightly ordained preist. I think he would include RCC priests in this group. Those who may receive salvation apart from a rightful priesthood rightly administering the true sacraments he would call a “felicitous incongruity”.

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

Do Lutherans (ELCA, LCMS, or both) acknowledge the real presence at the consecration in a Catholic mass as much as they do their own mass? Of course there are obvious ecclesiastical communication issues, but in a hypothetical situation where a lutheran was given the option to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic church in a dire situation, would it be licit? My curiousity arises from the fact that the Church permits the Eucharist to be administered to non-catholics in dire situations (Can. 916).

My experience as both an ELCA raised Lutheran and as a member of the LCMS is that in fact the Catholic Eucharist is indeed the true body and blood of Christ.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I have not been taught this. My Lutheran minister, if I have understood him correctly, teaches that sacraments can only be rightly administered by a rightly ordained preist. I think he would include RCC priests in this group. Those who may receive salvation apart from a rightful priesthood rightly administering the true sacraments he would call a “felicitous incongruity”.

God Bless

And I would agree. The Augsburg Confession is clear when it says:

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or **administer the Sacraments **unless he be regularly called.

Only those ordained, and only males can be ordained.

Jon

 

[giggen83]

Luther said some wonderful things…and some heinous things, as well: (“kill the peasants”;“If a woman grows weary & dies from child-bearing, it does not matter. Let her die bearing children. That is all she is here for.” and many more.
Point: “New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth…”(Jas. Russell Lowell 1819-1891) Thus, for my part, “QUESTION AUTHORITY” as my daughter’s bumper sticker advised…and, do it with humility-we’ve all screwed up many times over & will continue to do so.

 

[hn160]

Lutherans believe that Roman Catholics have a valid Eucharist, what they disagree on is the Sacrifice of the Mass. LC-MS Lutherans practice closed Communion as does Roman Catholics. We also believe that only men can consecrate the elements for a valid Communion, hence we have only male pastors.

 

[Anthony_V]

Lutherans believe that Roman Catholics have a valid Eucharist, what they disagree on is the Sacrifice of the Mass. LC-MS Lutherans practice closed Communion as does Roman Catholics. We also believe that only men can consecrate the elements for a valid Communion, hence we have only male pastors.

Could you elaborate please? Eucharist and Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are synonymous to me in a strict sense of substantiation.

 

[Chiltepin]

Question: Would the Sacrament received "be licit.?
Personaly, as an ELCA Lutheran I have travelled many places in the world and happily received the Sacrament in Catholic Churches.

I am happy to find that Catholics and Lutherans share the beautiful belief in the Eucharist and I want to assure you that I mean what I am about to say in the friendliest possible way.

Do you know that you are not supposed to recieve communion in a Catholic Church if you are not a practicing Cathoilc in a state of grace(which means that not all Catholics may recieve either)? If you are aware of this teaching of the Catholic Church (you may not be) why do you choose to recieve at Mass?

 

[hn160]

Could you elaborate please? Eucharist and Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are synonymous to me in a strict sense of substantiation.

We call the Lord’s Supper by various names, the Holy Eucharist is one of them. As far as Catholics having a valid Communion in Lutheran eyes, it comes from the fact that Catholics believe in the Real Presence in the bread and wine. It is the sacrifice by the priest that give Lutherans the heebie jeebies. By the same token, when it comes to the Calvinist Churches, they do not have a valid communion because Christ’s Body is confined to Heaven.

 

[Mberg3]

I have not been taught this. My Lutheran minister, if I have understood him correctly, teaches that sacraments can only be rightly administered by a rightly ordained preist. I think he would include RCC priests in this group. Those who may receive salvation apart from a rightful priesthood rightly administering the true sacraments he would call a “felicitous incongruity”.

God Bless

I find this FASCINATING. This is because the WELS does not have priests, and they don’t really look too well on priests. They do have “ministers” although there have been times when my former pastor had gone on vacation and a lay elder of the church said the words of initiation and distributed the host and cup. I dont know if this was just poor practice though.

 

[Mberg3]

I find this FASCINATING. This is because the WELS does not have priests, and they don’t really look too well on priests. They do have “ministers” although there have been times when my former pastor had gone on vacation and a lay elder of the church said the words of initiation and distributed the host and cup. I dont know if this was just poor practice though.

Here is an exerp from The Revised This We Believe of the WELS on the Ministry

by Thomas P. Nass in which I was thinking of…

*It is no secret that there have been voices in Lutheranism and Logia who have wanted to deny to laypeople the ministry of the keys.6 One Logia writer has asserted that not only the Great Commission in Matthew 28, but the entire book of Matthew is addressed to the apostles, and then to their successors in the office of the holy ministry.7 The WELS agrees with Luther when he states that the keys were given to the whole church. Luther wrote: "The keys belong to the whole church and to each of its members, both as regards their authority and their various uses."8 The WELS recognizes that in the New Testament, "texts parallel to the Great Commission indicate that the Great Commission too is applicable to all Christians."9 Of course the Tractate also insists that “the keys belong immediately to the entire Church” (Tr 24).

  There have even been those who have maintained that the sacraments,10 absolution, and the Word of God itself11 are efficacious only when used by a called pastor, and not by a layperson.  This, to the WELS way of thinking, is a return to Romanism in conflict with the Lutheran Confessions (AC VIII; FC SD VII:24-26, 89).  The power of the means of grace is in the Word and promise of Christ, not in the office or person of the pastor.

  There are also voices that put unscriptural limits on the use of the keys by laypeople.  There are those who say that laypeople have been given the keys, but laypeople are to use them only as they collectively call pastors. They say that laypeople relinquish their use of the keys when pastors are called.  Thereafter, if laypeople use the keys, they are acting only as surrogate pastors.12  Some quote Tractate 24 for support.  *

 

[Fuelman]

you are good man ))

 

[giggen83]

Question: Would the Sacrament received "be licit.?
Personaly, as an ELCA Lutheran I have travelled many places in the world and happily received the Sacrament in Catholic Churches. I have no doubts whether it was “licit” or not.—even though some authority figure might question the same. My understanding is that Christ is the Host, and it is He who invites all to, “Come., take eat…drink”. Whether the celebrant was male, female, or any other qualifier does not determine the authenticity of the giving or the receiving. Obviously, here I depart from the position of the WELS (Wisconsin Synod) responder, and likely, Catholic, as well.
Ah, we make things so complicated…and are so sure of ourselves!! Let’s be sure of Christ!

 

[giggen83]

I am happy to find that Catholics and Lutherans share the beautiful belief in the Eucharist and I want to assure you that I mean what I am about to say in the friendliest possible way.

Do you know that you are not supposed to recieve communion in a Catholic Church if you are not a practicing Cathoilc in a state of grace(which means that not all Catholics may recieve either)? If you are aware of this teaching of the Catholic Church (you may not be) why do you choose to recieve at Mass?

SURE, I know that “you are not supposed to…” Case in point : several years ago my nieces were both married in the same Catholic Church within months of each other. First priest invited all christians to the Sacrament (even if he wasn’t “supposed to.”). Second priest declared this “is for Catholics only.” I think Christ was on the side of the first no matter what the other “authority” had to say. (BTW I can think of many other things I have done, but was not “supposed to” according to some authority, but my conscience dictated otherwise.)

 

[blueadept]

SURE, I know that “you are not supposed to…” Case in point : several years ago my nieces were both married in the same Catholic Church within months of each other. First priest invited all christians to the Sacrament (even if he wasn’t “supposed to.”). Second priest declared this “is for Catholics only.” I think Christ was on the side of the first no matter what the other “authority” had to say. (BTW I can think of many other things I have done, but was not “supposed to” according to some authority, but my conscience dictated otherwise.)

My father remarried a wonderful Lutheran after my mom past away. I’m glad she shows a lot more reverence when she’s with my father at Mass than you do. She simply crosses her arms and not accept the Eucharist… It is suppose to be for those who are in full communion with the church and you are obviously not. My father shows the same respect by not partaking while he attends the Lutheran service regardless of the invite. It would be sinful for him.

My 2 cents

 

[JonNC]

SURE, I know that “you are not supposed to…” Case in point : several years ago my nieces were both married in the same Catholic Church within months of each other. First priest invited all christians to the Sacrament (even if he wasn’t “supposed to.”). Second priest declared this “is for Catholics only.” I think Christ was on the side of the first no matter what the other “authority” had to say. (BTW I can think of many other things I have done, but was not “supposed to” according to some authority, but my conscience dictated otherwise.)

It is not a matter of what your conscience tells, it is a matter of being a good guest. If I visit someone’s house, and they ask me not to go upstairs, I don’t do upstairs. The Catholic Church invites all to come worship, but as a Lutheran, they ask us not to partake in their sacrament. It is simply good manners. What their reason is is not relevent (its the same reason the LCMS has close communion).

Just as importantly, it seems a bit surreptitious to do so. I, frankly, don’t find that to be a good foundation for receiving Christ’s body and blood.

Jon

 

[bogeydogg]

I find this FASCINATING. This is because the WELS does not have priests, and they don’t really look too well on priests. They do have “ministers” although there have been times when my former pastor had gone on vacation and a lay elder of the church said the words of initiation and distributed the host and cup. I dont know if this was just poor practice though.

We have in our orders elders and deacons and the one minister. It is the minister only who may consecrate the elements but the elders may help distribute them, although in my church the Minister only distributes the bread. As far as the title of “Priest” I think my diocese would have no problem calling the ministers priests but in general do not because some attach a negative connotation to the word. I don’t and so tend to use the words interchangeably.

As far as vacationing priests go, when our priest goes on vacation the elements are have only been distributed by another ordained priest of our diocese who will visit our congregation. I have never seen any other practice although I have been told that we do have retired priests who are called deacons in our diocese and they may consecrate the elements, but elders in our diocese are lay people and are never to do so.

We clearly distinguish between those who are ordained to consecrate the elements and those who are not and since the Body and Blood are present in the RCC mass and the Priests are rightly ordained I do not see a doctrinal reason why we may not receive communion from a RCC Priest as well. However since I do not confess certain elements of the RCC I do not do this. Although I have attended RCC mass and received the blessing but not the elements.

God Bless