"one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"

[Peter_J]

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

To borrow a comment made recently by another poster, we **do **want full communion; we just want it on our terms, not yours. (The other poster who said that is Orthodox, I’m Catholic, but it still works nicely. )

 

[EvangelCatholic]

To borrow a comment made recently by another poster, we **do **want full communion; we just want it on our terms, not yours. (The other poster who said that is Orthodox, I’m Catholic, but it still works nicely. )

Peter,

Who do you mean by “we”? What “terms” are you referring to?

Based on the submitted documents, it appears both Catholics and Lutherans want the “terms” to be church-uniting.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

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.

I think from what you’ve posted you can see what I’m getting at. The Lutheran complaints about “papistic abuses” sound absurd to Catholic ears. The Lutheran practices you are getting at are a departure from the opinions expressed in the Lutheran confessions and are not universal from Lutheranism. For example, if I recall correctly, the LCMS forbids communion under one kind even in the case of alcoholics. The Catholic Church still has retained for the most part all the doctrines and practices that Lutherans complained about (at least to the extent that the Lutheran complaints reflected reality) including private masses. The only difference is that the passage of time has given Lutherans and Catholics room to evaluate the other parties claims in a more sober and objective manner.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I think from what you’ve posted you can see what I’m getting at. The Lutheran complaints about “papistic abuses” sound absurd to Catholic ears. The Lutheran practices you are getting at are a departure from the opinions expressed in the Lutheran confessions and are not universal from Lutheranism. For example, if I recall correctly, the LCMS forbids communion under one kind even in the case of alcoholics. The Catholic Church still has retained for the most part all the doctrines and practices that Lutherans complained about (at least to the extent that the Lutheran complaints reflected reality) including private masses. The only difference is that the passage of time has given Lutherans and Catholics room to evaluate the other parties claims in a more sober and objective manner.

Can you specify what “Lutheran practices” as identified in the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue are a departure from the Lutheran Confessions and “not universal” of Lutheranism? I am not aware of the LCMS forbidding communion under one kind.

 

[steido01]

Can you specify what “Lutheran practices” as identified in the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue are a departure from the Lutheran Confessions and “not universal” of Lutheranism? I am not aware of the LCMS forbidding communion under one kind.

Because it hasn’t had to address the issue; it is unanimously understood by Lutherans that although Christ is entirely present in either of the kinds, communion ought to be administered in both kinds, so as to conform with Christ’s command to both “Take, Eat,” and “Take, Drink.” So the Eucharist is always offered in both kinds in the Lutheran Divine Service.

The LCMS agrees with the Confessions. From the 1983 Commission on Theology and Church Relations “Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper:”

1. Is Communion in which the communicant receives only the bread or only the wine an adiaphoron in the church?
   No. The Lord invites us to partake of both His body and His blood in the bread and wine. The Confessions speak directly to this question…

Confessio Augustana (to which one must subscribe in whole order to be Lutheran) is quite clear on the subject:

Article XXII: Of Both Kinds in the Sacrament.

To the laity are given Both Kinds in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, because this usage has the commandment of the Lord in Matt. 26:27: Drink ye all of it, where Christ has manifestly commanded concerning the cup that all should drink. And lest any man should craftily say that this refers only to priests, Paul in 1 Cor. 11:27 recites an example from which it appears that the whole congregation did use both kinds. And this usage has long remained in the Church, nor is it known when, or by whose authority, it was changed; although Cardinal Cusanus mentions the time when it was approved. Cyprian in some places testifies that the blood was given to the people. The same is testified by Jerome, who says: The priests administer the Eucharist, and distribute the blood of Christ to the people. Indeed, Pope Gelasius commands that the Sacrament be not divided (dist. II., De Consecratione, cap. Comperimus). Only custom, not so ancient, has it otherwise. But it is evident 9] that any custom introduced against the commandments of God is not to be allowed, as the Canons witness (dist. III., cap. Veritate, and the following chapters). But this custom has been received, not only against the Scripture, but also against the old Canons and the example of the Church. Therefore, if any preferred to use both kinds of the Sacrament, they ought not to have been compelled with offense to their consciences to do otherwise. And because the division of the Sacrament does not agree with the ordinance of Christ, we are accustomed to omit the procession, which hitherto has been in use.

The Defense of the Augsburg Confession leaves no room for dissent:

It cannot be doubted that it is godly and in accordance with the institution of Christ and the words of Paul to use both parts in the Lord’s Supper. For Christ instituted both parts, and instituted them not for a part of the Church, but for the entire Church. For not only the presbyters, but the entire Church uses the Sacrament by the authority of Christ, and not by human authority; and this, we suppose, the adversaries acknowledge. Now, if Christ has instituted it for the entire Church, why is one kind denied to a part of the Church? Why is the use of the other kind prohibited? Why is the ordinance of Christ changed, especially when He Himself calls it His testament? But if it is not allowable to annul man’s testament, much less will it be allowable to annul the testament of Christ. And Paul says, 1 Cor. 11:23, that he had received of the Lord that which he delivered. But he had delivered the use of both kinds, as the text, 1 Cor. 11, clearly shows. This do [in remembrance of Me], he says first concerning His body; afterwards he repeats the same words concerning the cup [the blood of Christ]. And then: Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. [Here he names both.] These are the words of Him who has instituted the Sacrament. And, indeed, he says before that those who will use the Lord’s Supper should use both. It is evident, therefore, that the Sacrament was instituted for the entire Church. And the custom still remains in the Greek churches, and also once obtained in the Latin churches, as Cyprian and Jerome testify. For thus Jerome says on Zephaniah: The priests who administer the Eucharist, and distribute the Lord’s blood to the people, etc. The Council of Toledo gives the same testimony. Nor would it be difficult to accumulate a great multitude of testimonies. Here we exaggerate nothing; we but leave the prudent reader to determine what should be held concerning the divine ordinance [whether it is proper to prohibit and change an ordinance and institution of Christ].

The adversaries in the Confutation do not endeavor to [comfort the consciences or] excuse the Church, to which one part of the Sacrament has been denied…

bookofconcord.org/defense_21_lordssupper.php

The Dialogues, for all their sincerely great efforts, have not solved this issue yet. There is still work to be done if we are to reunite the fragments of the OHCAC.

Edit: The LCMS has addressed the issue in a 1983 document. Added quote.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I am thinking of a document called “Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper” (1983), which Steid01 quoted from.

In the oft-cited pastoral circumstance of an alcoholic communicant, the counsel of foregoing Communion for a period of time or the action of diluting the wine with water (perhaps done at the Lord’s Supper itself) are preferable. In the extreme situation where even greatly diluted wine may lead to severe temptation, no fully satisfactory answer, in the opinion of the CTCR, can be formulated. The counsel of completely foregoing Communion is clearly unsatisfactory. In this situation, too, the actions of diluting the wine with water or intinction would be preferable. The substitution of grape juice raises the question of whether the Lord’s instruction is being heeded. Luther’s openness to Communion in one kinds is difficult in view of confessional texts which strongly urge the Biblical paradigm of both kinds, though the Confessions do not address the extreme situation.

A similar pastoral problem is posed by those rare instances where a severe physical reaction is caused by the elements (as, for example, when the recipient is concurrently taking certain medications, or is simply allergic to one or the other of the elements). The pastor, in such cases, will surely stress the Gospel’s power and total effectiveness in the individual’s life and patiently seek a practical solution that both honors Christ’s word and satisfies the desire to partake in the Lord’s Supper.
lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=421

It does not explicitly forbid communion in one kind, the document is hesitant to say it is permissible and, acknowledging the pastoral difficulties, strongly advises against it. Interestingly, it intimates that Luther was open to communion in one kind (I wish they would cite a source). Nevertheless, the LCMS affirm that the practice is contrary to the Lutheran confessions. Since Lutherans bind the real presence solely to the “use instituted by Christ,” and compounded by the receptionist tendencies within the LCMS, it is questionable whether it would be universally accepted that Christ was present in the Lord’s Supper if it were only distributed under one kind.

 

[steido01]

It does not explicitly forbid communion in one kind, the document is hesitant to say it is permissible and, acknowledging the pastoral difficulties, strongly advises against it. Interestingly, it intimates that Luther was open to communion in one kind (I wish they would cite a source). Nevertheless, the LCMS affirm that the practice is contrary to the Lutheran confessions. Since Lutherans bind the real presence solely to the “use instituted by Christ,” and compounded by the receptionist tendencies within the LCMS, it is questionable whether it would be universally accepted that Christ was present in the Lord’s Supper if it were only distributed under one kind.

I think both Q and EC are partially correct here. The LCMS hasn’t outright condemned the practice (and neither do the Confessions, which oppose communion in/with/under/of one kind if the other is deliberately being withheld from the laity) because, as Q noted, the question does not really exist in Lutheran theology. Lutherans avoid it altogether (as we similarly do in regard to reserving the sacrament - generally). We just keep it simple and do as Christ commands - “Take Eat,” and “Take Drink.” We must keep in mind that the Lutheran opinions were written in reaction to the Roman practice of deliberately withholding the cup, which itself was a reaction to the idea that one had to receive both in order to receive the full Christ. Christ is truly present in the Body, and He is truly present in the Blood. That does not mean that we should only take one or the other - He commanded us to take both.

In short, the major issue for Lutherans wouldn’t be whether Christ was truly present in one kind or another (for He is entirely present in both), but rather whether the rubric He gave for the Sacrament is correctly being followed. While Lutherans would bristle at what we would characterize as ignorance of Christ’s command for the Sacrament, I do not think many (any?) Lutherans would deny Christ’s presence if communion were distributed in one kind. Perhaps convergence on this topic is possible after all.

Bottom line is, there still isn’t enough shared understanding between Roman Catholics and Lutherans for shared communion under normal circumstances.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I will look through the documents of the Commission on Church Unity between Lutherans and Catholics for ‘comunion in one kind’. But my sense is that it is not considered an abuse or ‘church-dividing’ especially since Catholics offer both holy Elements in the Mass.

And I disagree that the Dialogue between the 2 historic churches of the Reformation has not resolved eucharistic teaching. Lutherans and Catholics are in such agreement on the Eucharist to suggest innercommunion. Below is some more from the document on the Mass as Sacrifice.

A. The Mystery of the Real Presence
22.
Lutheran and Roman Catholic Christians hold in common the mystery of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as taught in Scripture. Our churches stress the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist to highlight the central purpose of the sacrament, viz. that the crucified, risen, and exalted Lord gives himself to us fully, draws us to himself, and shares with us his saving work and glorious life. These purposes are achieved by him when he gives us his body and blood by means of and in the eucharistic bread and wine. We hold that this is the mutual confession of our churches.
23.
There are three aspects which both churches profess concerning this mystery of the real presence:
(a)
The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is grasped by faith. Behind the variety of statements made by our traditions on the Eucharist lies the same faith in this God-given reality, held in common by Roman Catholics and Lutherans.
(b)
This common faith is in the presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. Our shared faith concerning this presence is that it is the physical presence of the glorified Christ; therefore this physical presence is not to be understood in a crass way. It is the spiritual presence of the glorified Christ, but not in a way which denies his physical reality (1 Cor. 15:42-50; Phil. 3:20-21). It is certainly more than a merely moral presence. It is not natural in the way that human beings are usually present to each other. The presence of which we speak is a special kind of presence, unique to this particular God-given sacrament. Our churches have traditionally called this a sacramental presence.
(c)
This presence of our Lord in the Eucharist is real. ‘Real’ might be understood in a number of different ways: it could mean physically real, scientifically real, chemically real, psychologically real. All of these levels of reality could be tested by experiment and observation. The reality of which we speak is only discernible by faith. Faith affirms that the crucified, risen, and exalted Lord is present in the Eucharist with a special kind of reality, unique to this particular sacrament. It can therefore be called sacramental reality.

Both Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches confess together that in the eucharistic bread and wine the gift of Christ’s very presence in body and blood is given. We believe that there is essential agreement between our two churches concerning the doctrine of the real presence. We believe that this agreement is sufficient for unity between our churches in this aspect of eucharistic faith.

 

[Peter_J]

The Lutheran complaints about “papistic abuses” sound absurd to Catholic ears.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The Eucharist: Lutheran/Roman Catholic Joint Commission

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”).

In order to remedy this situation, it would be good “for Catholics to remember, particularly in catechism and preaching, that the original intention in preserving the eucharistic gifts was to distribute them to the sick and those not present”, and for the Lutherans “the best means should be adopted of showing respect due to the elements that have served for the celebration of the Eucharist, which is to consume them subsequently, without precluding their use for communion of the sick”.39 Regarding eucharistic adoration, Catholics should take care that their practice does not contradict the common conviction of the meal character of the Eucharist. They should also be aware of the fact that in the Orthodox Churches, for example, there exist other forms of Eucharistic piety without Eucharistic faith being questioned for this reason. Lutherans for their part should consider “that adoration of the reserved sacrament” not only “has been very much a part of Catholic life and a meaningful form of devotion to Catholics for many centuries”,40 but that also for them “as long as Christ remains sacramentally present, worship, reverence and adoration are appropriate”.41

Catholic and Lutheran Christians confess together that Jesus Christ joins together all those who arc joined to him.

According to Catholic conviction this holds also for the eucharistic communion with Christ. In this are included those who have passed away in the peace of the Lord. Intercessions for the dead are therefore a part of the Catholic eucharistic celebration. The Catholic Church also remembers those departed from this life who have gone into heavenly joy. It thanks God for the grace granted them and commends itself to their intercession and protection.

The Lutheran celebration of the Eucharist also gives expression in thanksgiving and in intercession to the communion of the heavenly and earthly congregation. The Reformation rejected the invocation of the saints, but did not deny the intercession of the saints in heaven.58 A doctrinal reticence regarding the fate of the dead also hinders Lutherans from interceding for them.
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

 

[Topper17]

Hi FrDavid

What you aren’t seeing here is that the Dialogue does not represent the totality of the teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter.

Yes, the Catholic representatives do indeed legitimately represent the Church (it is, after all, a “Pontifical Commission”). Yet, they can only speak the teachings of the Church, they have no authority to change that teaching—nor are they attempting to do so.

What you are doing, though, is ascribing much more to their words than they are actually saying. I keep repeating this point, but it’s just not getting through. They can say “Catholics accept that Lutherans believe this” but that is not the same thing as saying “Catholics also believe that what Lutherans say is accurate.” Those 2 sentences do not mean the same thing. They simply do not mean what you are trying to make them mean.

One must read the words of the Dialogue very carefully to see the subtle difference.

Catholics accept that both Catholics and Lutherans believe in a “Real Presence” of Christ in Communion. However, Catholics do not believe that in the Lutheran commemoration of the Lord’s Supper, Christ is present in/with the bread, but rather that Christ is present with the community of believers.

When I saw your comments (above) I knew that this was the kind of post where the reaction of a lot of people would be “Man do I wish I had NOT seen THAT!” Then I skimmed through the subsequent posts and was NOT surprised to see that there is no evidence that anybody even read your post, much less challenged it or responded to it in any way.

In my opinion, one of the ‘talents’ of Protestantism is the ability to 'read into" various texts (like Scripture for example) whatever is ‘desired’ to be found in that text. I guess it really doesn’t surprise me that this is happening in regards to the text of the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. What is discouraging to me though is the unwillingness to ‘be corrected’ on the facts, or even to dialogue with an opposing point of view.

God Bless You FrDavid, Topper

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I sense dismay from some posters. I also respect pride and loyalty to our Churches. Ecumenism is the major formation of my faith and like most posters; I love the Bride of Christ, our Catholic Faith.

In the last Dialogues, the message strengthens the desire for closer relationships between Lutherans and Catholics.

The Church as Koinonia of Salvation: Its Structures and Ministries

1. We recommend that our churches recognize the real but imperfect communion among our ministers and encourage appropriate forms of pastoral collaboration between our ministries. Specifically, we propose:

that common activities among Lutheran and Roman Catholic bishops be promoted in order to signify the level of communion that exists between them, such as regular joint retreats, co-authored pastoral letters on topics of mutual concern, and joint efforts on matters of public good;

that mutual activities be intensified among ordained ministers, such as regular retreats, homily or sermon preparation study, participation in non-eucharistic prayer services and weddings, and common sponsorship of events or services in the life of the church, including as appropriate other leadership ministries;

that the faithful, in light of their common baptism into the people of God, engage together in catechesis, evangelization, peace and justice ventures, social ministry, and attendance at each other's diocesan and synodical assemblies; and

that social ministry organizations, educational institutions, chaplaincies, and other church agencies engage together in activities that further the gospel and the common good.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/koinonia-of-salvation.cfm

 

[GKC]

I sense dismay from some posters. I also respect pride and loyalty to our Churches. Ecumenism is the major formation of my faith and like most posters; I love the Bride of Christ, our Catholic Faith.

In the last Dialogues, the message strengthens the desire for closer relationships between Lutherans and Catholics.

What you should sense is that what you think you are seeing in the Dialogues is not what you believe it to be. FrDavid, IMO, is correct.

GKC

 

[Kliska]

What you should sense is that what you think you are seeing in the Dialogues is not what you believe it to be. FrDavid, IMO, is correct.

GKC

From someone who perceives herself as having no dog in this “fight,” I agree with GKC and FrDavid here.

 

[GKC]

From someone who perceives herself as having no dog in this “fight,” I agree with GKC and FrDavid here.

Again, IMO, there is considerable wishful thinking, channeled by certain theological assumptions, involved. But it doesn’t resemble reality, to me.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

What you should sense is that what you think you are seeing in the Dialogues is not what you believe it to be. FrDavid, IMO, is correct.

GKC

Yes, I agree that inter-communion between Lutherans and Catholics has not occurred as reference in the most recent citation. This is directly conveyed in the Dialogue. Caution seems to be the wise approach per Francis.

But Catholics are sort of threading the needle between recognizing Lutheran Orders and pointing to what is defective.

1. These realizations and our theological understanding of them, however, are not symmetrical in our two churches. As already noted, Lutheran and Catholic ecclesiologies differ on which realizations may actually be called a “church.” In addition, Lutherans, unlike Catholics, have no worldwide body that is itself a church. Roman Catholics do not have national churches in the same sense as Anglicans, Lutherans, or Orthodox. These differences in ecclesiology involve parallel differences in evaluations of ministry. For example, Catholics consider the bishop to possess the "fullness of the sacrament of order,"43 while Lutherans follow the teaching of Jerome that there is no difference other than jurisdiction between a presbyter and a bishop.44 In Catholicism the ministry of worldwide communion is exercised by the college of bishops, inclusive of the bishop of Rome as member and head, who also can act on the college’s behalf. While various ministries occur among Lutherans on a global level, there is no formally recognized minister of worldwide communion.

1. Consistent with this confessional Lutheran understanding, the ELCA is characterized throughout its structures by the interdependence between the assembly and the ordained ministry. The congregation is served by a pastor; the synod is served by a bishop; the ELCA as a whole is served by a presiding bishop. This structure is typical of Lutheran churches and some Lutheran theologians have seen in this structure a normative expression of the Lutheran understanding of the church.79

1. Lutherans also affirm the role of the episcopacy in linking regional churches to the universal church. The ELCA constitution stipulates that the synodical bishop shall provide "leadership in strengthening the unity of the Church."110 This responsibility is affirmed by the ELCA-Episcopal Church agreement “Called to Common Mission:” "By such a liturgical statement [entrance into the episcopate through the laying on of hands by other bishops] the churches recognize that the bishop serves the diocese or synod through ties of collegiality and consultation that strengthen its links with the universal church."111 Similarly, in the Northern European “Porvoo Common Statement,” the participating Lutheran and Anglican churches "acknowledge that the episcopal office is valued and maintained in all our churches as a visible sign expressing and serving the Church’s unity and continuity in apostolic life, mission and ministry."112

Lutherans and Catholics agree that “apostolic succession” in this comprehensive sense is essential to the church’s being. Such succession is continuity with both the past and the future, both with the apostles as witnesses of the resurrection two thousand years ago and with the apostles whose names will be on the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14). Such continuity is an element of "the Church’s communion which spans time and space, linking the present to past and future generations of Christians."126

33 In 2001, the ELCA entered a new relation with The Episcopal Church, committing both to "share an episcopal succession that is both evangelical and historic."134 Similar Lutheran-Anglican agreements in Canada and Northern Europe in which Lutherans have affirmed episcopal succession put Lutheran-Catholic relations in a new context.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/koinonia-of-salvation.cfm

 

[GKC]

Yes, I agree that inter-communion between Lutherans and Catholics has not occurred as reference in the most recent citation. This is directly conveyed in the Dialogue. Caution seems to be the wise approach per Francis.

But Catholics are sort of threading the needle between recognizing Lutheran Orders and pointing to what is defective.

Do let me know when Lutheran orders are recognized as valid, or when that requirement for confecting a valid Eucharist is abrogated, and especially when there is inter-communion, explicitly, officially, offered, with RCs receiving from Lutheran clergy and Lutherans from RC, the Body and Blood being jointly confected.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Do let me know when Lutheran orders are recognized as valid, or when that requirement for confecting a valid Eucharist is abrogated, and especially when there is inter-communion, explicitly, officially, offered, with RCs receiving from Lutheran clergy and Lutherans from RC, the Body and Blood being jointly confected.

GKC

I think even a casual read of the Dialogue strongly affirms eucharistic teaching as the same among Lutherans and Catholics. An earlier post even pointing out how Lutherans could accept the Papacy if infallibility is optional. That is the argument for inviting Lutherans to a Catholic Mass, as is afforded the Orthodox. To my knowledge,the suggestion of eucharistic sharing is limited, however for Catholics to take holy Communion in a Lutheran church.

 

[GKC]

I think even a casual read of the Dialogue strongly affirms eucharistic teaching as the same among Lutherans and Catholics. An earlier post even pointing out how Lutherans could accept the Papacy if infallibility is optional. That is the argument for inviting Lutherans to a Catholic Mass, as is afforded the Orthodox. To my knowledge,the suggestion of eucharistic sharing is limited, however for Catholics to take holy Communion in a Lutheran church.

I await report of any further action, along the lines I suggested above.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

1. The Roman Catholic Church has preserved the succession of episcopal consecrations; this succession was broken in continental Lutheranism, maintained in parts of Nordic Lutheranism, and has been reclaimed by the ELCA. What is the significance of either preserving or breaking this succession? That question must not be isolated and made to bear the entire weight of a judgment on a church’s ministry. Whether a particular minister or church serves the church’s apostolic mission does not depend only upon the presence of such a succession of episcopal consecrations, as if its absence would negate the apostolicity of the church’s teaching and mission.135 Recent ecumenical discussions of episcopacy and succession do not remove our former disagreements, but they do place them in a richer and more complex context in which judgments made exclusively on the basis of the presence or absence of a succession of consecrations are less possible.