"one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"

[Peter_J]

Working my way backward, I’ve taken a brief look at the Dialogue concerning papal primacy and Lutherans. The amazing Catholic effort to find unity is humbly/ gratefully received. Anyone following other Dialogue between Rome and Anglicans, Orthodox, Reformed?

Yes, some of them.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Yes, some of them.

Are the other discussions with Catholics as affirming as the Lutherans? Anglican-Catholic agreements?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Any Anglicans/ Episcopalians acquainted with the Anglican-Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission? I’ve scanned through the Dialogue and found this report. Pope Paul VI description of the Anglican Church as “our beloved Sister Church” suggest considerable agreement but the ecumenical talks seem more subdued than the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue. I am not sure why.

The Vatican Response published in December 1991 gave a warm welcome to The Final Report and commended its achievements, but it was not able to endorse the affirmation that substantial agreement on the eucharist and ordained ministry had been reached.

We here acknowledge that there has been a widespread disappointment with the official Roman Catholic Response to The Final Report, and we note the concern of some theologians about the language and methodology of the Response. And yet we also note and underline that in its Response the Vatican acknowledges that ‘notable progress’ has been achieved in The Final Report in respect to Eucharistic doctrine and that ‘significant consensus’ has been achieved on the understanding of ordained ministry. And above all we rejoice that the Response reaffirms the ecumenical goal of our two Churches as ‘the restoration of visible unity and full ecclesial communion’.

Concern has been expressed that we have said nothing about intercommunion, though claiming to have attained a substantial agreement on eucharistic faith. The reason is that we are agreed that a responsible judgement on this matter cannot be made on the basis of this Statement alone, because intercommunion also involves issues relating to authority and to the mutual recognition of ministry. There are other important issues, such as the eschatological dimension of the eucharist and its relation to contemporary questions of human liberation and social justice, which we have either not fully developed or not explicitly treated. These are matters which call for the common attention of our churches, but they are not a source of division between us and are therefore outside our mandate.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/ecumenical-documents-and-news-releases.cfm#CP_JUMP_106433

 

[GKC]

Any Anglicans/ Episcopalians acquainted with the Anglican-Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission? I’ve scanned through the Dialogue and found this report. Pope Paul VI description of the Anglican Church as “our beloved Sister Church” suggest considerable agreement but the ecumenical talks seem more subdued than the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue. I am not sure why.

Many things have changed since Paul VI and ++Ramsey were good friends, and the ARCIC was first established, going on 50 years ago.

Those things that have changed are why you see a more…subdued may be a useable word… in the actions of the group, and any reactions to them.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

More remarkable convergence of Lutherans and Catholics on the issue of prayers for the dead with the conclusion, once again, “that need not be a church-dividing or communion-hindering issue for Lutherans and Catholics”.

THE HOPE OF ETERNAL LIFE (2010)
238. If Lutheran and Catholic liturgy and piety moved apart in their attitude to the dead during the sixteenth century, they have significantly converged over the last 100 years. Since the question in relation to prayer for the dead is precisely how the church prays, this liturgical convergence is of great significance.
239. Both Catholic and Lutheran funerals emphasize the continuing communion of the living and the dead. While Lutheran funeral rites in the past were generally modeled on the pre-Reformation Office for the Dead, recent rites have called for the celebration of the Eucharist. The Eucharist celebrates the communion that binds together those on the two sides of death. Prayers in both of our liturgies call to mind the overarching communion of saints. In the Catholic Church, the Opening Prayer at the Vigil for the Deceased, for example, addresses God saying, “But for those who believe
in your love death is not the end, nor does it destroy the bonds that you forge in our lives.”332

Catholics and Lutherans agree that:

1. there is communion among the living and the dead across the divide of death;
2. Christians pray for one another and believe that such prayer is heard by God and
   aids those for whom we pray;
3. at the very least Scripture does not prohibit prayer for the dead;
4. prayerful commendation of the dead to God is salutary within a funeral liturgy;
5. insofar as the resurrection of the dead and the general final judgment are future
   events, it is appropriate to pray for God’s mercy for each person, entrusting
   that one to God’s mercy because such mercy is and remains God’s gift;
6. even as a good work, prayer is an appeal to the divine mercy and not a purchase of
   spiritual goods.
7. Thus, we agree that prayer for the dead, considered within the framework of the
   communion of saints, need not be a church-dividing or communion-hindering issue for
   Lutherans and Catholics.
   usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/upload/The-Hope-of-Eternal-Life1.pdf

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Can you elaborate on that or provide a link?

Hi Peter J, sure an ecumenical dialogue is an effort made from a common ground to reach clarity and remove any hindrances that prevent the two parties from full communion, in order to reach full communion.

Lutherans and the Orthodox church’s do not share the same foundation with each other to enter a ecumenical dialogue to reach for a full communion. The Lutheran dialogue hopes to find common ground with the Orthodox church’s so to be added in the confederation of protestant church’s, which the Orthodox Church could never do, less they fall into heresy.

The Orthodox church’s are already a federation of Church’s, sometimes out of communion among themselves, thus ecumenical dialogue between them is attainable. If they remain Orthodox, cannot reach an ecumenical dialogue towards communion with the Lutheran church.

The dialogue becomes an effort of evange
Sizing, or conversion, never ecumenical.

 

[Peter_J]

Thank you for that elaboration, Gabriel of 12. I have, in fact, heard the you-have-to-be-Orthodox-first-for-us-to-have-an-ecumenical-dialogue-with-you view from some Orthodox (on the internet) but I have never placed very much importance in it. I don’t think very many Catholics do.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thank you for that elaboration, Gabriel of 12. I have, in fact, heard the you-have-to-be-Orthodox-first-for-us-to-have-an-ecumenical-dialogue-with-you view from some Orthodox (on the internet) but I have never placed very much importance in it. I don’t think very many Catholics do.

The Roman Catholic Church is always Orthodox without the moniker. For one she has never taught or fallen into heresy, as did all the other apostolic see’s, at one time or another and have returned to Orthodoxy.

The Orthodox title was given to those (Greek Byzantine) Catholic Church’s in the East to identify them from those heterodox Catholic Church’s that mirrored them.

The title Orthodox was never dubbed to separate or divide them from communion with the bishop of Rome. That is a topic most Orthodox are not made aware of.

While I agree with you, I found myself guilty of using that term ecumenical with a loose definition not used by the church. Until my priest interpreted an apostolic letter from Pope Benedict XVI to our new local bishop in regards to ecumenical dialogue between the Orthodox, and reconciliation with our separated brethren to Evangelization and conversion with other faiths in our diocese, which our previous bishop had a wonderful rep ore with the Jewish, Indian, Muslim, and native Indian tribal communities in our diocese, who were all in attendance at the reception of our new Bishop, a few years ago.

So I try not to use the term ecumenical out of context. It can be used when applied to an effort being made, but difficult to use when the two faith’s do not have the same foundation to apply an ecumenical dialogue.

I believe the Church’s definition of ecumenical dialogue is true and honest , which removes the grey areas of dialogue without any false pretenses that would prove damaging in the end if both parties went into such a dialogue with false pretenses of converting the other or evangelizing the other to join the other.

A Roman Catholic should never try and convert an Orthodox, or vice versa, they do not need converting one another, they need an ecumenical dialogue without trying to make one Greek and the other Latin. Vatican I and II cleared this up already, we both need to catch up with the councils including our separated brethren who are Christian with all of the Catholic Church.

The Orthodox need not fear, we the Roman Catholic Church do not want to make you Catholic, you already are, nor do we want to make you Latin. We desire communion with you as with our separated brethren. With the Orthodox the dialogue is ecumenical, with our separated brethren the dialogue is reconciliation.

Any/how sorry for the long answer.

Peace be with you

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Evidently there has been extensive dialogue between Lutherans and Orthodox and some close relationships, particularly in Europe.

The Mystery of the Church:
The Nature, Attributes, and Mission of the Church

1. Orthodox and Lutherans refer to the Church also as the communion of saints. This communion of saints reflects the koinonia of the Holy Trinity. The Church is brought into communion with the Holy Trinity who is thesource of life for the Church and its members.

As the body of Christ, the Church is holy and sinless, and its members are being sanctified in spite of their sins. We both emphasize that in this life, daily repentance and forgiveness of our sins (John 20:23) are constantly needed for us in the Church to grow into Christ.

1. Believers are made one body in the Church through the sacraments/mysteries. This is particularly evident in the Eucharist in both traditions. In the Eucharist, unity with Christ and with each other is renewed and nourished. “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (I Corinthians 10:17).
2. The Eucharist, as the proclamation of and participation in the mystery of Christ, is rightly called the focal point of the Church’s life in Christ, “for as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (I Corinthians 11:26). At the same time the Church encompasses the whole reality of human experience, embracing daily life, animating its members to serve their neighbors and communities, and drawing the entire created world into the sanctifying presence of God. The Church’s diakonia, mission, and evangelization are important examples of that reality.
   jkarblog.wordpress.com/category/theological-dialogue-between-lutherans-and-orthodox/

 

[Bklynguy]

it is catholic with a little “c”, meaning universal

This is correct, it is little “c,” universal. If you look at the Nicene creed, catholic is not capitalized. Whenever catholic refers to the Church in Rome, it is capitalized as “Catholic.”

 

[GKC]

This is correct, it is little “c,” universal. If you look at the Nicene creed, catholic is not capitalized. Whenever catholic refers to the Church in Rome, it is capitalized as “Catholic.”

As in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Below is from the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue on the Mass:

“The Mystery of the Church: The Holy Eucharist in the Life of the Church.”

Orthodox and Lutherans recognize the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist as the “fulfillment of the Christians’ participation in the life of Christ and his church through eating his body and drinking his blood in the Holy Eucharist” (Duràu Statement §11). They also affirm that the Eucharist and the believers’ participation in it remain a mystery that transcends human understanding. The Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament of the New Covenant instituted by Christ himself (Mt 26, 27f; par.). As such it is an indispensable part of the life of the Church, which is the body of Christ. Through Baptism the believer is born again and sealed with the Holy Spirit (for Orthodox, the seal is given through Chrismation). In the Eucharist, the believers receive the body and blood of the Lord as a healing and spiritual nourishment of their souls and bodies and experience their membership in the Body of Christ. In this way, believers receive forgiveness of their sins and the gift of eternal life. The Eucharist presupposes the confession of the one faith of the church and strengthens the believers’ union with Christ and their union and communion with each other both locally and universally (Mk 14,22-26; 1Cor 10,16f).

d. Orthodox and Lutherans agree that the Eucharist is also a gift of communion granted to us by Christ. In this communion we are fully united with Him and with the members of His Body. The “how”of the mystery remains inexplicable, but the “what” is clearly confessed in faith and thanksgiving. As John of Damascus says, “… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4, 13).

1. Lutheran and Orthodox traditions each stress proper preparation for participation in the Eucharist. For both this involves preparatory prayers and Confession and forgiveness of sins, which for Orthodox is the sacrament of penance. For Orthodox, preparation also includes fasting; for Lutherans fasting is not required but often practiced. Both agree that the Eucharist must be administered properly/canonically and only by ordained ministers.

1. Lutherans and Orthodox take the Lord’s words “this is my body; this is my blood” (Mt 26,27f, par.) literally. They believe that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood to be consumed by the communicants. How this happens is regarded by both as a profound and real mystery. In order to approach that mystery, Orthodox and Lutherans have drawn on their respective theological traditions and developed different insights on what takes place.

a. Lutherans speak about Christ’s “real presence” in the Eucharist and describe Christ’s body and blood as being “in, with and under” the bread and wine (Formula of Concord, SD 7). By this they mean that the bread and the wine really become the body and blood of Christ, through the Words of Institution and the action of the Holy Spirit. Drawing on patristic sources, Lutherans understand Christ’s presence in the elements christologically: “Just as in Christ two distinct, unaltered natures are inseparably united, so in the Holy Supper two essences, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here on earth in the action of the sacrament, as it was instituted” (SD 7). Lutherans, however, maintain a distinction between a personal, hypostatic union and a “sacramental union”, favoring the latter in order to describe Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Lutheran theology is able to speak of a transformation (mutatio) of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (Apology X, 2; XXIV). This is not understood as eliminating the physical character of the bread and wine in the Eucharist. Lutherans emphasize that it is God’s Word which makes the sacrament (Large Catechism, 5: The Sacrament of the Altar).

c. Orthodox and Lutherans agree, whether they use the language of “metabole” or of “real presence”, that the bread and wine do not lose their essence (physis) when becoming sacramentally Christ’s body and blood. The medieval doctrine of transsubstantiation is rejected by both Orthodox and Lutherans.

1. Orthodox and Lutherans believe that the changes that take place in the Eucharist are accomplished by the Holy Spirit. In the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist, the Orthodox explicitly include the entire economy of salvation, which culminates in the Words of Institution, Anamnesis, Epiclesis and Holy Communion. For Lutherans, the totality of the work of Christ is also presupposed and is liturgically enacted in the eucharistic worship service as a whole, although less elaborately. Both Lutherans and Orthodox believe that the Eucharist cannot be isolated from the entire mystery of salvation.

1. Lutherans and Orthodox agree that the relation of the Eucharist to the ordained ministry/priesthood (hierosyne) requires full discussion at a later stage. Lutherans and Orthodox both hope and pray for a day when they may celebrate the Eucharist together and work together as the one Body of Christ for the life and the salvation of the world.
   ecupatria.org/DIALOGUES/LUTHERAN/bratislava2006.htm

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

A couple of observations on the Orthodox-Lutheran Dialogue. First, in (4c), it states that both Lutherans and Orthodox reject transubstantiation, believing that the bread retains its essence. I quoted the Eastern Orthodox Confession of Dositheus earlier, which explicitly taught transubstantiation: “Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.” One other interesting thing about this part is that it clarifies “essence” as “physis.” While I do not have much of philosophical background, my understanding is that physis corresponds not to essence but to “nature” (which can signify essence, but not always). If that is so, it calls the precision of (4c) into question and renders it unclear what exactly is meant.

Second, you can see from (5) that the same issue of the the necessity of valid holy orders between Lutherans and Catholics is also an issue between Lutherans and Orthodox: “Lutherans and Orthodox agree that the relation of the Eucharist to the ordained ministry/priesthood (hierosyne) requires full discussion at a later stage.”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Below is from the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue on the Mass:

Those are beautiful words, but it all fell apart for me when your item no,3 states two distinct traditions , Lutheran tradition and the Orthodox tradition.

Tradition is a word that is not taken too lightly in Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

There is only one Tradition that both Catholics and Orthodox hold too. How does your Tradition measure up to Orthodoxy? With out the capital T Tradition ,there is no “both” Traditions in the Church.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

A couple of observations on the Orthodox-Lutheran Dialogue. First, in (4c), it states that both Lutherans and Orthodox reject transubstantiation, believing that the bread retains its essence. I quoted the Eastern Orthodox Confession of Dositheus earlier, which explicitly taught transubstantiation: “Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.” One other interesting thing about this part is that it clarifies “essence” as “physis.” While I do not have much of philosophical background, my understanding is that physis corresponds not to essence but to “nature” (which can signify essence, but not always). If that is so, it calls the precision of (4c) into question and renders it unclear what exactly is meant.

Second, you can see from (5) that the same issue of the the necessity of valid holy orders between Lutherans and Catholics is also an issue between Lutherans and Orthodox: “Lutherans and Orthodox agree that the relation of the Eucharist to the ordained ministry/priesthood (hierosyne) requires full discussion at a later stage.”

I was surprised over the statement on transubstantiation since I assumed the Orthodox accept that explanation [transubstantiation] of the Eucharist. In-fact, I was not even aware of the ecumenical talks between Lutherans and Orthodox until I googled the subject yesterday.

On the issue of the holy orders, my understanding is that episcopacy and apostolic succession is the standard that both Orthodox and Catholic expect Lutherans to fully restore in order to assume full communion. My reading of the Anglican-Catholic talks suggest that the issue of holy orders is less a concern aside from the Apostolicae Curae. So it is interesting that Lutherans and Anglicans have established full communion by recognizing the importance of the three-fold order of the historic priesthood. The move toward reunion of all Catholics [Roman, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran] includes acceptance and implement of apostolic succession.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I came across this video of Orthodox joining Lutherans in worship:
youtube.com/watch?v=D6hKiY7FCHY&list=PLB1BD77546A27C95F

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I’m passing these on as find them. Lutherans dialogged with Orthodox in the 1500’s:
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutheran-orthodox.html

What follows is an anthology of direct quotations from the writings of the Fathers, arranged topically, that appear in the official Lutheran Confessions of the sixteenth century. These Fathers – Latin and Greek, Ancient and Medieval – are in a very real sense pre-Reformation contributors to the Reformation theology of the Book of Concord. The presence of these patristic excerpts in the Book of Concord validates the Confessional claim that there is nothing in orthodox Lutheran teaching “that departs from the Scriptures or the catholic church or the church of Rome, insofar as the ancient church is known to us from its writers,” and that Lutherans “dissent from the church catholic in no article of faith but only omit some few abuses which are new.” (Augsburg Confession, epilogue to XXI,1, p. 47; prologue to XXII,1, p. 48)
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.catholic.html

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I am curious how Catholics react to the quote that Lutherans **“dissent from the church catholic in no article of faith but only omit some few abuses". **

If I am reading correctly the Dialogues between Lutheran, Catholic and Orthodox, it appears that theological differences are no longer considered “church dividing”; that Luther was merely objecting to abuses that no longer occur.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I am curious how Catholics react to the quote that Lutherans **“dissent from the church catholic in no article of faith but only omit some few abuses". **

If I am reading correctly the Dialogues between Lutheran, Catholic and Orthodox, it appears that theological differences are no longer considered “church dividing”; that Luther was merely objecting to abuses that no longer occur.

Your quote is from the Augsburg Confession and reflects only a Reformation-era Lutheran perspective. It does not have any Catholic endorsement. The “abuses” corrected by the Augsburg Confession include celebrating mass daily and the entire institution of monasticism, not even getting into the more primary concerns. Even if the Lutherans said that they were not departing from the Catholic faith, they did acknowledge a departure between what they taught and what the Catholic Church of their day believed, so they would say that it was the Catholic Church (under the pope) that was dissenting from the Catholic faith. As it stands now, the Catholic Church has not repented of its so-called abuses. The Catholic Church still offers private masses, there are still monks, there are still masses where communion is only given under one kind, indulgences are granted, pilgrimages are made, the pope is not acknowledged to be the very Antichrist, and so on.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Your quote is from the Augsburg Confession and reflects only a Reformation-era Lutheran perspective. It does not have any Catholic endorsement. The “abuses” corrected by the Augsburg Confession include celebrating mass daily and the entire institution of monasticism, not even getting into the more primary concerns. Even if the Lutherans said that they were not departing from the Catholic faith, they did acknowledge a departure between what they taught and what the Catholic Church of their day believed, so they would say that it was the Catholic Church (under the pope) that was dissenting from the Catholic faith. As it stands now, the Catholic Church has not repented of its so-called abuses. The Catholic Church still offers private masses, there are still monks, there are still masses where communion is only given under one kind, indulgences are granted, pilgrimages are made, the pope is not acknowledged to be the very Antichrist, and so on.

Thanks for the additional info. BTW, Lutherans celebrate daily Mass when there are communicants who desire it [large parishes or seminaries]. Are “private masses” still celebrated in Catholic churches? Also, there are monks/ nuns in Lutheran religious communities, though their numbers are quite small. Communion under one kind is allowed in Lutherans churches though it is generally limited to those who have an allergic reaction to wine or infants. There are saints buried in old Lutheran cathedrals in Europe; St Brigitta, for example has a following among Lutherans.

Otherwise what you identify are non-church-dividing issues between Catholics and Lutherans.