"one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"

[FrDavid96]

Not sure the Dialogues would take your position, Fr David

Well, it’s certainly the position found in Vatican II in Unitatis Redintegratio and Bl John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint.

I think that it is the position of the Catholic participants in the dialogue as well.

The dialogue paragraphs just aren’t saying what you think they are saying. As a Catholic (trained in this sort of thing) I can read through them as see the subtleties of the wording and recognize the differences.

Let me give you a situation as an illustration:

Someone might say “Catholics accept that Muslims believe that Mohamed was a prophet.”

Someone else reads that and thinks “Catholics accept that Mohamed was a prophet!”

Not so. Catholics only accept that Muslims believe it–we don’t believe it ourselves.

Catholics can make all kinds of statements wherein we accept that fact that a different community believes something—but that certainly does not mean that we Catholics share the belief.

 

[FrDavid96]

I ask again, how can a consecration where both the Catholic and Lutheran churches affirm Christ’s Real Presence in the Sacrament be invalid? That is not what the Dialogue is proclaiming.

You are mis-reading the text. The question of Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist is not in dispute. Again, this is merely Catholics saying “Lutherans say this, and we accept that they say it, but we do not agree with them that it actually happens.”

That’s very different from saying that there is the presence of Christ in Lutheran Supper–meaning in the bread itself.

The very reason why the Catholic representatives there were able to accept that statement is because it does not say that Catholics believe that Christ is present in the Lutheran elements. Catholics believe that Christ is present in the community when Lutherans gather for the Supper–present in the community, not present in (or with, or whatever else) the bread and wine.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Sorry Father David but I don’t agree with your assessment since the Dialogue clearly states that the belief in the Real Presence is not “church dividing”. The entire scope of the Dialogues and summary per ‘From Conflict to Communion’ is to identify what we believe in common and how we can live with our minor differences.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

EC, the Dialogue is speaking about abstract doctrine. What it is saying is that Catholics and Lutherans agree that Christ is substantially present in “the Lord’s Supper.” This id
S an abstract statement. This is not the same thing as saying, "Catholics belive Christ is substantially present in the Divine Service at Holy Trinity Lutheran Church at 9:00 a.m. on Sunday, January, 19. Catholic doctrine is that priestly orders are necessary to confect the
Eucharist, and it is necessary for validity, among other things, that priestly orders be administered by a bishop. Lutherans don’t agree and accept ordination by presbyters as equally valid. Because of this, a Lutheran priest could not be assumed to be a priest in Catholic eyes. Therefore, Christ would not be presen in particular services celebrated by him. They simply would not be true “Lord’s Suppers.”

All that this part of the Dialogue is saying is that Catholics and Lutherans agree on the doctrine of the Real Presence considered in itself and considered abstractly. However, it is not saying that they agree about everything related tomthe Real Presence. The Dialogue acknowledges that the two parties disagree on the very mode of the real presence (transubstantiation vs. sacramental union). If we were to apply your logic, we would have to say that the Dialogue is contradicting itself. Much less is your quotation saying that Lutherans and Catholics have a common doctrine of holy orders. What the quotation is saying is that Catholics (and Lutherans) believe that Christ is present in the validly celebrated Eucharist. Catholics would contest the validity of Lutheran Eucharists as a general rule, but that is a juridicial question, not a doctrinal one.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry Father David but I don’t agree with your assessment since the Dialogue clearly states that the belief in the Real Presence is not “church dividing”.

The fact that Lutherans are not permitted to join us at the Table is testament to the error in the above statement.

As is the fact that Catholics are not permitted to receive communion at the Lutheran liturgy.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Sorry Father David but I don’t agree with your assessment since the Dialogue clearly states that the belief in the Real Presence is not “church dividing”. The entire scope of the Dialogues and summary per ‘From Conflict to Communion’ is to identify what we believe in common and how we can live with our minor differences.

It’s not church dividing because we believe the same thing. No division. Whether it is currently happening in Lutheran churches is not addressed.

But if it was, I could take the Eucharist in a Lutheran church when a Catholic Church was unavailable as I can do with orthodox churches.

But I can’t. And that’s testament to what Fr David said.

 

[Peter_J]

I ask again, how can a consecration where both the Catholic and Lutheran churches affirm Christ’s Real Presence in the Sacrament be invalid? That is not what the Dialogue is proclaiming.

Forgive me if this is slightly off-topic from what you want to discuss … but it strikes me that, if we accept your logic, then we would also have to conclude that Catholics and Orthodox don’t share a common faith in the Eucharist, inasmuch as the Orthodox do not “recognize” Catholic sacraments.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Forgive me if this is slightly off-topic from what you want to discuss … but it strikes me that, if we accept your logic, then we would also have to conclude that Catholics and Orthodox don’t share a common faith in the Eucharist, inasmuch as the Orthodox do not “recognize” Catholic sacraments.

Peter,

Does the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist differ from Roman Catholics? Since Lutherans and Catholics agree on the primary issue [Real Presence] as not church dividing but may differ on validity of ministry, Orthodox may also view Lutheran Orders as questionable.

The Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue affirm catholic sacramental belief. Do Orthodox accept this belief in the RP yet still do not recognize Catholic sacraments?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Peter,

Does the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist differ from Roman Catholics? Since Lutherans and Catholics agree on the primary issue [Real Presence] as not church dividing but may differ on validity of ministry, Orthodox may also view Lutheran Orders as questionable.

The Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue affirm catholic sacramental belief. Do Orthodox accept this belief in the RP yet still do not recognize Catholic sacraments?

Yes orthodox hold an identical belief to Catholics on the real presence. We can take the Eucharist in Orthodox Churches if we can find no Catholic Church.

The Orthodox however are automatically excommunicated if they take the Eucharist in a Catholic Church.

The orthodox seem to believe Catholics have lost their apostolic lineage by being in schism with orthodoxy. So they view us similarly to how Catholics view Lutherans.

We believe the same truth, but hold that the Eucharist is not truly present in the Lutheran Church and the Orthodox view the Catholic Church the same way.

I am certain if the orthodox feel this way about Catholics they would not even entertain the Lutheran orders as potentially valid.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Does the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist differ from Roman Catholics?

The Orthodox view is not necessarily transubstantiation. It’s more similar to the Lutheran view. Here’s how Dr. David J. Dunn explains it in the blog post “Ten Things Every Protestant Should Know about Eastern Orthodoxy”:

“The Eucharist? We call that Jesus. We believe it is actually the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine, but we do not believe in transubstantiation. That is a Catholic thing. We believe it is a mystery. In other words, ‘It’s the body of Christ. Now stop asking so many stupid questions, and open your mouth!’”

Since Lutherans and Catholics agree on the primary issue [Real Presence] as not church dividing but may differ on validity of ministry, Orthodox may also view Lutheran Orders as questionable.

I believe that the Orthodox view all Sacraments other than their own as invalid. Hence, the automatic excommunication an Orthodox incurs upon himself by receiving anywhere other than an Orthodox parish.

The Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue affirm catholic sacramental belief. Do Orthodox accept this belief in the RP yet still do not recognize Catholic sacraments?

As far as I know, yes.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Yes orthodox hold an identical belief to Catholics on the real presence. We can take the Eucharist in Orthodox Churches if we can find no Catholic Church.

The Orthodox however are automatically excommunicated if they take the Eucharist in a Catholic Church.

The orthodox seem to believe Catholics have lost their apostolic lineage by being in schism with orthodoxy. So they view us similarly to how Catholics view Lutherans.

We believe the same truth, but hold that the Eucharist is not truly present in the Lutheran Church and the Orthodox view the Catholic Church the same way.

I am certain if the orthodox feel this way about Catholics they would not even entertain the Lutheran orders as potentially valid.

But Catholics do not believe that Christ is not present in Lutheran masses [double negative]. If Orthodox believe that Christ is not present in Catholic masses than I have a huge issue with the Orthodox Church.

 

[Jon_S_1]

But Catholics do not believe that Christ is not present in Lutheran masses [double negative]. If Orthodox believe that Christ is not present in Catholic masses than I have a huge issue with the Orthodox Church.

Orthodox do not believe Christ is present in Catholic masses. Catholics do not believe Christ is present in Lutheran masses.

At least not in the consecrated elements.

Mystically present in another way sure, but not in the elements.

I don’t think orthodox even believe that though. It seems they believe Christ only works in the Orthodox Church.

I started a thread on Catholic / Orthodox interactions. Check it out. I’m learning a lot more about orthodoxy.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11625975#post11625975

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Orthodox do not believe Christ is present in Catholic masses. Catholics do not believe Christ is present in Lutheran masses.

At least not in the consecrated elements.

Mystically present in another way sure, but not in the elements.

I don’t think orthodox even believe that though. It seems they believe Christ only works in the Orthodox Church.

I started a thread on Catholic / Orthodox interactions. Check it out. I’m learning a lot more about orthodoxy.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11625975#post11625975

Can you cite an example of Catholics not believing in the Real Presence of Christ on Lutheran altars? And the same question to Orthodox regarding Catholic altars.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Can you cite an example of Catholics not believing in the Real Presence of Christ on Lutheran altars? And the same question to Orthodox regarding Catholic altars.

For the Orthodox. Go to the link I provided and read the posts.

I will look something up for you.

The core is that in order to have a valid and canonically licit Eucharist one must be in full communion with Rome and follow a liturgy approved by the Vatican.

So that’s valid and licit (legal).

Then there are orthodox who, having apostolic succession and true holy orders have a valid Eucharist, although it is not generally licit.

The same is true for wayward priests and Bishops. SSPX for example have true holy orders and apostolic succession so they have a valid Eucharist but not a licit one (although I don’t know their exact ever changing current canonical status).

The same may be true for an Anglican if he can trace his orders through the bishops continuously through the break with Rome. It seems though that they lost valid succession at some point so as a rule their Eucharist is both illicit and invalid. When Anglicans come home to Rome they are reordained properly.

Lutherans, do not have proper holy orders or apostolic succession. Luther was a priest and once a priest always a priest, but he was not a bishop. Holy orders are passed through the bishops only and so Lutherans had a valid but illicit Eucharist under Luther and any if his priest followers. But after that the Eucharist was both invalid and illicit as it is today.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Can you cite an example of Catholics not believing in the Real Presence of Christ on Lutheran altars? And the same question to Orthodox regarding Catholic altars.

On Catholics and Lutheran Eucharist.

catholic.com/quickquestions/as-a-catholic-may-i-witness-my-grandsons-lutheran-first-communion

ewtn.com/expert/answers/intercommunion.htm

In keeping with the sacramental meaning of the Eucharist this canon reserves the sacraments to Catholics, that is, those who are in communion with the Church. It then addresses the question of Catholics receiving the sacraments from non-Catholics. It sets the following strict conditions:

a. necessity or genuine spiritual advantage
b. when the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided
c. it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister
d. a church which has valid sacraments

This last condition is the key one, since it eliminates ALL the Reformation churches (Anglican, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist etc.), none of whom have valid sacred orders, and therefore, a valid Eucharist. The possibility of a Catholic receiving from the minister of another church, when the first three conditions are fulfilled, is limited to the Orthodox Churches, other Oriental Churches, Old Catholics, Polish National and others whose sacraments are recognized by the Holy See. As paragraph 3 notes, the members of those churches may likewise receive from a Catholic minister, when they ask and are disposed.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter,

Does the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist differ from Roman Catholics? Since Lutherans and Catholics agree on the primary issue [Real Presence] as not church dividing but may differ on validity of ministry,
…

Therein lies my point. [Roman] Catholics and Orthodox agree on the Real Presence, but not on the question of Who has “validity”? … so it isn’t all that surprising to me that Catholics and Lutherans agree on the Real Presence, but not on the question of Who has “validity”? despite how disappointing that can be to you Lutherans.

P.S. See that Jon S has already said much the same in his response:

The orthodox seem to believe Catholics have lost their apostolic lineage by being in schism with orthodoxy. So they view us similarly to how Catholics view Lutherans.

We believe the same truth, but hold that the Eucharist is not truly present in the Lutheran Church and the Orthodox view the Catholic Church the same way.

 

[Peter_J]

… Orthodox may also view Lutheran Orders as questionable.

The Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue affirm catholic sacramental belief. Do Orthodox accept this belief in the RP yet still do not recognize Catholic sacraments?

But Catholics do not believe that Christ is not present in Lutheran masses [double negative]. If Orthodox believe that Christ is not present in Catholic masses than I have a huge issue with the Orthodox Church.

Can you elaborate on that?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Can you elaborate on that?

Please forgive my ignorance in the validity of the sacraments. Do Orthodox accept baptism in Catholic/ Lutheran/ Anglican/ Reformed/ Christian?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Please forgive my ignorance in the validity of the sacraments. Do Orthodox accept baptism in Catholic/ Lutheran/ Anglican/ Reformed/ Christian?

No they do not.

They may have their church in some way recognize a previously done baptism and through their process the grace of baptism will be given to the person. Only once the church says so.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

No they do not.

**They may have their church in some way recognize a previously done baptism and through their process the grace of baptism will be given to the person. ** Only once the church says so.

Is there a liturgy attached to recognizing a baptism performed outside the Orthodox Church?