"one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"

[PRmerger]

Not sure I follow you on the Gospel/ Apostle John comparison.

The Dialogues can be found on the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/koinonia-of-salvation.cfm

And clearly the Dialogue speaks for the Roman Catholic Church.

I am saying that you are incorrect to speak of “Catholic willingness to accept Lutheran-Catholic communion”.

What you mean is: some Catholics are willing to do this.

But not the magisterium.

 

[benjohnson]

(Aside: Now that I think about it, I wonder if it also scandalizes a lot of Lutherans, but they’re too polite to say so.)

We’re stingy with communion, so we understand. I will say that when I’ve asked Orthodox to commune and regardless of the answer given, they’ve been exceedingly kind to me and my family.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I am saying that you are incorrect to speak of “Catholic willingness to accept Lutheran-Catholic communion”.

What you mean is: some Catholics are willing to do this.

But not the magisterium.

That is not the case, my friend, unless you consider the Catholic Conference of Bishops as “incorrect”. Notice “mutual magisterium”?

 

[PRmerger]

That is not the case, my friend, unless you consider the Catholic Conference of Bishops as “incorrect”. Notice “mutual magisterium”?

Again,you are confusing Catholic clergy with the magisterium.

Even when the Pope speaks, as he did in professing that the Gospel of John was not written by the Apostle John, it is his theological opinion ONLY.

Similarly, when Catholic bishops speak, it ought not be interpreted as speaking for the Catholic Church.

If it were, then why are you not able to receive communion at our Table?

The dialogue merely represents the hope for unity.

And there is no one here on the CAFs who ought to be opposing that.

 

[Peter_J]

I am not referring to Catholic laity since the Dialogue is the work of the Vatican. I read a statement how Pope John Paul 2 pushed to get the Joint Declaration on Justification approved and we all know that his successor, Benedict was quite interested in bringing Lutherans into the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[GKC]

Again,you are confusing Catholic clergy with the magisterium.

Even when the Pope speaks, as he did in professing that the Gospel of John was not written by the Apostle John, it is his theological opinion ONLY.

Similarly, when Catholic bishops speak, it ought not be interpreted as speaking for the Catholic Church.

If it were, then why are you not able to receive communion at our Table?

The dialogue merely represents the hope for unity.

And there is no one here on the CAFs who ought to be opposing that.

Not me.

Now, what would it take to get there?

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Again,you are confusing Catholic clergy with the magisterium.

Even when the Pope speaks, as he did in professing that the Gospel of John was not written by the Apostle John, it is his theological opinion ONLY.

Similarly, when Catholic bishops speak, it ought not be interpreted as speaking for the Catholic Church.

If it were, then why are you not able to receive communion at our Table?

The dialogue merely represents the hope for unity.

And there is no one here on the CAFs who ought to be opposing that.

In all due respect, I think you are confused since the Dialogue is an effort of the Vatican. You may, in-fact, have issues with how the Catholic Church is summarizing the conclusions of these talks with Lutherans.

 

[livingwordunity]

I think the real question should be regarding the word one, as opposed to Catholic. When this creed was formulated there was indeed one church. There is still one church today, and I would think one should look at historical evidence for which church that is.

 

[PRmerger]

In all due respect, I think you are confused since the Dialogue is an effort of the Vatican. You may, in-fact, have issues with how the Catholic Church is summarizing the conclusions of these talks with Lutherans.

Then I and all the other folks here are confused and you are expressing the lone correct view?

I think not.

Not to mention this most trenchant point: if it represents the opinion of “the Vatican”, then why are you not yet permitted to join us at the Communion Table?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Then I and all the other folks here are confused and you are expressing the lone correct view?

I think not.

Not to mention this most trenchant point: if it represents the opinion of “the Vatican”, then why are you not yet permitted to join us at the Communion Table?

It might be helpful if you acquainted yourself with the Dialogue by accessing the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. The recommendation that has yet to be implemented is for Eucharistic sharing between Lutherans and Catholics. Here it is again:
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/koinonia-of-salvation.cfm

Or perhaps you may want to access the discussions on the Vatican website:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Again, you and some others may not agree with these conclusions but that is an issue you may have with your own Church.

 

[Topper17]

Hi steido,

It’s good to see you here.

The validity of Lutheran orders (and all the “form” and “intent” language usually associated with that sort of thing) will forever remain the dividing question from the Catholic perspective. But these dialogues only confuse the issue with muddied language: either Lutheranism is a true church with valid orders, or it is an ecclesiastical community without valid orders. How can an issue be considered “not church-dividing” if it is between a church and an ecclesiastical community? For the first time, I see what EC has been driving at but, sadly, I think this only reflects the useless vagueness of dialogue when it is not doctrine-centered, however well-intentioned it may be.

If you see what EC is driving at could you please explain it to me so that I can at least begn to understand it? While I would LOVE to see our two communions make real progress, I don’t see anything as having been done yet on the tough issues.

Furthermore, I don’t see how the RCC can ‘accept’ (whatever that word means) a meaningful intercommunion with Lutherans when the F of C portrays the Church as being NOT Christian and the Pope as being antichrist. There is also the issue of the Church not accepting Lutheran churches as being fully part of the Church (in the Catholic sense of the term ‘Church’). There is also the issue of the lack of Apostolic Succession, orders, the Real Presence of the Holy Eucharist, etc. etc.

Again, I would LOVE to see those issues resolved, but I do not think that pretending that there has been much more progress than there actually has been is any way to move forward.

God Bless You steido, Topper

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Hi steido,

It’s good to see you here.

If you see what EC is driving at could you please explain it to me so that I can at least begn to understand it? While I would LOVE to see our two communions make real progress, I don’t see anything as having been done yet on the tough issues.

Furthermore, I don’t see how the RCC can ‘accept’ (whatever that word means) a meaningful intercommunion with Lutherans when the F of C portrays the Church as being NOT Christian and the Pope as being antichrist. There is also the issue of the Church not accepting Lutheran churches as being fully part of the Church (in the Catholic sense of the term ‘Church’). There is also the issue of the lack of Apostolic Succession, orders, the Real Presence of the Holy Eucharist, etc. etc.

Again, I would LOVE to see those issues resolved, but I do not think that pretending that there has been much more progress than there actually has been is any way to move forward.

God Bless You steido, Topper

It is getting to the point of absurdity. You can have whatever opinion you chose but that means ignoring your own Church as summarized in the Dialogues.

 

[Per_Crucem]

It is getting to the point of absurdity. You can have whatever opinion you chose but that means ignoring your own Church as summarized in the Dialogues.

So, not to take over for PR in reiterating her point or anything, but if what you’re saying is true, re: the USCCB, then why can I still not receive communion in the Catholic Church? I know why. Their magisterium has said that we can’t.

 

[PRmerger]

So, not to take over for PR in reiterating her point or anything, but if what you’re saying is true, re: the USCCB, then why can I still not receive communion in the Catholic Church? I know why. Their magisterium has said that we can’t.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

So, not to take over for PR in reiterating her point or anything, but if what you’re saying is true, re: the USCCB, then why can I still not receive communion in the Catholic Church? I know why. Their magisterium has said that we can’t.

As stated over and over again, the Dialogues have concluded that the Lutheran position of the Eucharist is the same as the Roman Catholic Church. Per the Dialogue, there is unity of belief with the conclusion that Lutherans and Catholics could share the Eucharist

1. Thus, Lutherans and Catholics are able jointly to conclude, »Therefore
   regarding Scripture and tradition, Lutherans and Catholics are in such
   an extensive agreement that their different emphases do not of them-
   selves require maintaining the present division of the churches. In this
   area, there is unity in reconciled diversity« (ApC 448).82

1. The question of the reality of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Lord’s
   Supper is not a matter of controversy between Catholics and Lutherans.
   The Lutheran–Roman Catholic dialogue on the eucharist was able to
   state: »The Lutheran tradition affirms the Catholic tradition that the
   consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but rather
   by the power of the creative word are given as the body and blood of
   Christ. In this sense Lutherans also could occasionally speak, as does
   the Greek tradition, of a change« (Eucharist 51).50 Both Catholics and
   Lutherans »have in common a rejection of a spatial or natural manner
   of presence, and a rejection of an understanding of the sacrament as
   only commemorative or figurative« (Eucharist 16).51
   Common

48.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist.

56.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together recognize that in the Eucharist Jesus Christ “is present as the crucified who died for our sins and rose again for our justification, as the once-for-all sacrifice for the sins of the world”.42

62.Lutheran and Catholic Christians confess together that in the Eucharist the body and blood of the Lord are really received, either for salvation or for condemnation (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29). They confess that the believing reception of the eucharistic bread and wine gives personal union with Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior They also agree that the efficacy of believers reception of the Lord cannot be measured by human standards but belongs to the sphere of the free and humanly uncontrollable action of God.

1. A step in this direction was taken by Vatican II, which permitted limited Eucharistic sharing between Catholics and Orthodox,122 even though the latter do not normally accept (and even at times explicitly reject at least one or more of) the dogmas in question. The situation of the Orthodox and Lutherans, though different in many ways, is similar at least in the following: both find themselves for the most part unable to accept one or more of these teachings as part of the deposit of faith. If this inability on the part of the Orthodox does not preclude all Eucharistic sharing with Catholics, the same inability on the part of Lutherans should not of itself do so either. Lack of Christian faith would and should so preclude. But the operative presumption is that Christian faith sufficient for Eucharistic sharing exists in the case of Catholics and Orthodox despite the inability of the latter to accept all these particular dogmas. We believe that this presumption regarding Christian faith should be extended also to Lutherans. If so, it would not thereby follow that limited Eucharistic sharing was justified in their case too. But it would follow that such sharing ought not to be ruled out because of Lutheran failure to accept these three teachings.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

1. This, to be sure, is not yet full agreement. Catholics, as well as many Lutherans, regret the absence in Lutheranism of a universal magisterium (i.e., of effective means of speaking to and for the whole Church), while Lutherans, as well as many Catholics, believe that the doctrine and practice of papal teaching authority and infallibility are not yet sufficiently protected against abuses. Catholics look upon the papacy, in view of its high responsibilities and the promises given to Peter, as especially assisted by the Holy Spirit. Lutherans think that Catholics have overconfidently identified the locus of the work of the Spirit with a particular person or office. Nevertheless, in the new context each side finds itself compelled to recognize that the other seeks to be faithful to the gospel. Further, given the convergence on the wider questions of authority and certainty in the Church, it becomes possible to hope that the two communions will be able to enter into further degrees of fellowship, while continuing to develop together their respective positions on infallibility.

1. For Catholics, papal infallibility is now commonly discussed in the context of the infallibility of the Church and in relation to confidence in the faithful transmission of the gospel. As a consequence, the infallibility of the Church takes on greater importance than papal infallibility. Catholics, for whom the understanding of papal infallibility, though secondary, is important, should not therefore regard the Lutheran rejection of papal infallibility as equivalent to a denial of the central Christian message. What is more, the unresolved differences between Lutherans and Catholics on this matter need not, of themselves, preclude a closer union than now exists between the two churches.

1. Should not creative efforts be made to discover a form of institutional relationship between the Catholic and the Lutheran churches which would express magisterial mutuality and would correspond to the converging state of their traditions? The present Catholic authorization of some sacramental sharing with the Orthodox, who do not acknowledge papal infallibility, shows more flexibility in Catholic thought and practice than was anticipated a few decades ago. Should the current developments in our two churches lead to analogous authorizations regarding sacramental sharing between Catholics and Lutherans?

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)

 

[EvangelCatholic]

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.

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.

 

[PRmerger]

As stated over and over again, the Dialogues have concluded that the Lutheran position of the Eucharist is the same as the Roman Catholic Church. Per the Dialogue, there is unity of belief with the conclusion that Lutherans and Catholics could share the Eucharist

So why can’t you?

Why are you not saying Lutherans CAN share the Eucharist at our Table?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

So why can’t you?

Why are you not saying Lutherans CAN share the Eucharist at our Table?

Ultimately it is in the hands of Pope Francis and I have already cited the holy Father’s statement after receiving the most recent report, ‘From Conflict to Communion’.

 

[GKC]

Ultimately it is in the hands of Pope Francis and I have already cited the holy Father’s statement after receiving the most recent report, ‘From Conflict to Communion’.

And you expect the Pope to do what, with reference to this subject?

GKC