Pope Francis stirs debate on Lutheran spouses of Catholics receiving Communion [CH-UK]

[Duane1966]

Yep.

But that’s not to say the Real Presence, in the Evangelical Lord’s Supper.

Yes, you could easily read that as the saving presence of the Lord in any memorial also, as in wherever two or three are gathered in my name, His saving presence is there.

 

[GKC]

Yes, you could easily read that as the saving presence of the Lord in any memorial also, as in wherever two or three are gathered in my name, His saving presence is there.

That would be how I would read it.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, you could easily read that as the saving presence of the Lord in any memorial also, as in wherever two or three are gathered in my name, His saving presence is there.

This doesn’t seem to be the way the USCCB views it. In the Catholic / Lutheran document,
The Church as Koinonia of Salvation, the dialogue partners are speaking specifically about the validity of Lutheran orders and, therefore, Eucharist.

Catholic judgment on the authenticity of Lutheran ministry need not be of an all-or-nothing nature. The Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II distinguished between relationships of full ecclesiastical communion and those of imperfect communion to reflect the varying degrees of differences with the Catholic Church.164 The communion of these separated communities with the Catholic Church is real, even though it is imperfect. Furthermore, the decree positively affirmed:

Our separated brothers and sisters also celebrate many sacred actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, and must be held capable of giving access to that communion in which is salvation.165

Commenting on this point, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 1993 to Bavarian Lutheran bishop Johannes Hanselmann:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.166

If the actions of Lutheran pastors can be described by Catholics as “sacred actions” that “can truly engender a life of grace,” if communities served by such ministers give “access to that communion in which is salvation,” and** if at a eucharist at which a Lutheran pastor presides is to be found “the salvation-granting presence of the Lord,” then Lutheran churches cannot be said simply to lack the ministry given to the church by Christ and the Spirit. In acknowledging the imperfect koinonia between our communities and the access to grace through the ministries of these communities. **

This is not speaking of a general presence of Christ, but the bishops specifically see the Cardinal’s words as referring to the (not “a”) salvation granting presence in the sacrament, when a Lutheran pastor presides at the Mass.

Further, Cardinal Ratzinger, in his letter to Bishop Hanselmann, is responding to questions about the validity of orders, in the context of ecumenical dialogue, and the Second Vatican Council. The conversation is not about a general agreement on the presence of Christ “where two or three gathered…” in a Lutheran or Catholic parish.
Therefore, it is unlikely that that was the Cardinal’s intention, and were it so, I suspect it would have been considered, quite correctly, as condescending, given the context of the conversation, and the knowledge and mutual respect of the participants.

The letters are found in Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church in Communion.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

This doesn’t seem to be the way the USCCB views it. In the Catholic / Lutheran document,
The Church as Koinonia of Salvation, the dialogue partners are speaking specifically about the validity of Lutheran orders and, therefore, Eucharist.

Jon, even though they are talking about the Lutheran Eucharist, those comments could be applied to any denomination.

This is not speaking of a general presence of Christ, but the bishops specifically see the Cardinal’s words as referring to the (not “a”) salvation granting presence in the sacrament, when a Lutheran pastor presides at the Mass.

So, as Ratzinger writes in regards to Lutherans, could be applied to all the other denominations.

Further, Cardinal Ratzinger, in his letter to Bishop Hanselmann, is responding to questions about the validity of orders, in the context of ecumenical dialogue, and the Second Vatican Council. The conversation is not about a general agreement on the presence of Christ “where two or three gathered…” in a Lutheran or Catholic parish.
Therefore, it is unlikely that that was the Cardinal’s intention, and were it so, I suspect it would have been considered, quite correctly, as condescending, given the context of the conversation, and the knowledge and mutual respect of the participants.

Jon

Jon, with all the ifs that Ratzinger throws in there, which could be fulfilled at any denomination, how can it not be wherever two or three? I am highlighting some key lines with my comments of what he is saying. I do not think it is what you think.

Commenting on this point, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 1993 to Bavarian Lutheran bishop Johannes Hanselmann:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot** be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’

Right here he is saying it is more than just valid orders that separate us. You could substitute the words issue of the Eucharist, with the words* problems in our views of the Eucharist.*

Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.166

Here, he is specifically talking about the Lutheran Lord’s Supper. But, objectively, he could make this same comment about Anglicans also. The problems (issues) with how we view their Communion goes further than validity also. Can Christ’s saving presence be at their liturgy? Yes. As it can wherever two or three are gathered. He is not saying anything more than that.

If the actions of Lutheran pastors can be described by Catholics as “sacred actions” that "can truly engender a life of grace,

Cannot the same be true of the actions of other ministers, if the actions of those other ministers are sacred?

"** if **communities served by such ministers give "access to that communion in which is salvation,

Same if applies to denominations other than Lutherans.

and** if **at a eucharist at which a Lutheran pastor presides is to be found “the salvation-granting presence of the Lord,”

Same if can be applied to denominations other than Lutherans.

then Lutheran churches cannot be said simply to lack the ministry given to the church by Christ and the Spirit. In acknowledging the imperfect koinonia between our communities and the access to grace through the ministries of these communities.

And you can say that about any denomination that believes in some form of the Real Presence (there are some street corner churches that say they have the Real Presence, surely, if their ministers actions are sacred, how can theirs not have efficacy and yours does?) And you can say that about any memorial service, if all the qualifying ifs are fulfilled, just as they have to be fulfilled for the Lutherans.

Perhaps the key line of the statement is this:

Our separated brothers and sisters also celebrate many sacred actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, and **must be held capable **of giving access to that communion in which is salvation.165

Just because something is capable of happening, does not mean it happens. And the other denominations actions are capable, does not mean it will happen.

Jon, do you think those ifs are fulfilled at a Lutheran service, but not other denominations? Do you think Ratzinger thinks they are, seeing as he qualified his comments with all those ifs, and could he not reasonably apply them to other denominations?

Duane

 

[JonNC]

=Duane1966;13454150]Jon, even though they are talking about the Lutheran Eucharist, those comments could be applied to any denomination.

I would dispute this, Duane, based on the beliefs of most other denominations regarding the Eucharist, but it is at least as important to point out that Cardinal Ratzinger didn’t include other denominations in his comment.

Jon, with all the ifs that Ratzinger throws in there, which could be fulfilled at any denomination, how can it not be wherever two or three? I am highlighting some key lines with my comments of what he is saying. I do not think it is what you think.

Here is what he says:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.166

The word “if” isn’t in the comment. He is saying that there is no reason for Catholics (or Orthodox Christians) to deny the salvation granting presence of Christ in a Lutheran Eucharist, simply on the grounds of succession.

Right here he is saying it is more than just valid orders that separate us. You could substitute the words issue of the Eucharist, with the words* problems in our views of the Eucharist.*

I don’t think that’s what he is saying at all. He is saying that the issue of succession itself does not require a Catholic to deny the salvation granting presence of Christ in a Lutheran Eucharist.

Here, he is specifically talking about the Lutheran Lord’s Supper. But, objectively, he could make this same comment about Anglicans also. The problems (issues) with how we view their Communion goes further than validity also. Can Christ’s saving presence be at their liturgy? Yes. As it can wherever two or three are gathered. He is not saying anything more than that.

Cannot the same be true of the actions of other ministers, if the actions of those other ministers are sacred?

The fact is, however, that he didn’t.

Same if applies to denominations other than Lutherans.

Same if can be applied to denominations other than Lutherans.

And you can say that about any denomination that believes in some form of the Real Presence (there are some street corner churches that say they have the Real Presence, surely, if their ministers actions are sacred, how can theirs not have efficacy and yours does?) And you can say that about any memorial service, if all the qualifying ifs are fulfilled, just as they have to be fulfilled for the Lutherans.

Again, the Catholic Bishops didn’t say it about others. Their statement was specifically about Lutherans.
As for street corner guys, the Catholic bishops involved know the difference between communions that ordain, and those that don’t, our disagreement over the validity of presbyter ordination notwithstanding. In fact, that’s the issue that Cr. Ratzinger is talking about.

Perhaps the key line of the statement is this:Just because something is capable of happening, does not mean it happens. And the other denominations actions are capable, does not mean it will happen.

Where does it talk about other denominations, Duane? And what difference does that make to the statements of the Catholic bishops?
The bishops’ statement says: **"…then Lutheran churches cannot be said simply to lack the ministry given to the church by Christ and the Spirit." ** The statement is tradition-specific, the Lutheran tradition within the Church. It doesn’t even speak to the fact that some synods and national churches within the Lutheran tradition claim apostolic succession, and some use presbyter ordination. They make their statement about Lutherans.

Jon, do you think those ifs are fulfilled at a Lutheran service, but not other denominations? Do you think Ratzinger thinks they are, seeing as he qualified his comments with all those ifs, and could he not reasonably apply them to other denominations?

There aren’t any “ifs” there, other than the “if/then” statements where the “ifs” are reality:
"* If** the actions of Lutheran pastors can be described by Catholics as “sacred actions” that “can truly engender a life of grace,”** if** communities served by such ministers give** “access to that communion in which is salvation,” and if** at a eucharist at which a Lutheran pastor presides is to be found “the salvation-granting presence of the Lord,…”*. Note that the if’s they are speaking of are the comments made by Catholics, and not Catholic laymen, but a Catholic cardinal and official Catholic documents. The “if/then” here is more along the lines of a “since/then”.

Now, does any of this mean that Cr. Ratzinger is stating an equivalency here, that he believes that the Lutheran Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ in the same way a Catholic one is? No, I don’t think he is saying that, because I don’t think he would step outside Catholic teaching. I also don’t believe Bishop Hanselmann would have taken it that way. What he is saying, I believe, is that the Lutheran Eucharist is not a nothing, as some Catholics here occasionally describe it. He states clearly he believes that in a Lutheran Eucharist is the salvation-granting presence of Christ. And the bishops of the USCCB state they agree with him.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

I would dispute this, Duane, based on the beliefs of most other denominations regarding the Eucharist, but it is at least as important to point out that Cardinal Ratzinger didn’t include other denominations in his comment.

Because he was specifically commenting on the dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans. If he was addressing Anglicans, he could have said the exact same thing, and it would have in no way been false.

Here is what he says:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.166

No Jon, what he says is it is more than just succession that makes the Lutheran Eucharist problematic. That is what it means when you cannot narrow something down to just one issue.

The fact is, however, that he didn’t.

Because he was specifically talking about Lutherans to a Lutheran bishop. If he had been talking to an Anglican, he could have said the same thing, and the statement would be true.

Again, the Catholic Bishops didn’t say it about others. Their statement was specifically about Lutherans.

BECAUSE THEY ARE DIALOGUING WITH LUTHERANS!

As for street corner guys, the Catholic bishops involved know the difference between communions that ordain, and those that don’t, our disagreement over the validity of presbyter ordination notwithstanding. In fact, that’s the issue that Cr. Ratzinger is talking about.

Jon are you saying that Ratzinger would deny Christ’s saving presence if we applied this comment to others?

If the actions of any minister can be described by Catholics as “sacred actions” that “can truly engender a life of grace,” if communities served by such ministers give “access to that communion in which is salvation,” and if at a eucharist at which any minister presides is to be found “the salvation-granting presence of the Lord,” then any church cannot be said simply to lack the ministry given to the church by Christ and the Spirit. In acknowledging the imperfect koinonia between our communities and the access to grace through the ministries of these communities.

Where does it talk about other denominations, Duane? And what difference does that make to the statements of the Catholic bishops?

No difference Jon. But this whole conversation started when GKC and I both stated that a specific comment made by Ratzinger is really nothing more than a two or three gathered in my name statement than anything else. You have not shown it to be more than that.

The bishops’ statement says: **"…then Lutheran churches cannot be said simply to lack the ministry given to the church by Christ and the Spirit." ** The statement is tradition-specific, the Lutheran tradition within the Church. It doesn’t even speak to the fact that some synods and national churches within the Lutheran tradition claim apostolic succession, and some use presbyter ordination. They make their statement about Lutherans.

Because they are specifically
commenting on Lutherans Jon. If they were talking about Anglicans, they could have and would have said the same thing.

There aren’t any “ifs” there, other than the “if/then” statements where the “ifs” are reality:
"* If*** …Again, if those same things can be found in other denominations, does that mean the saving presence of the Lord is not there?
JonNC;13456223:

Now, does any of this mean that Cr. Ratzinger is stating an equivalency here, that he believes that the Lutheran Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ in the same way a Catholic one is? No, I don’t think he is saying that, because I don’t think he would step outside Catholic teaching. I also don’t believe Bishop Hanselmann would have taken it that way. What he is saying, I believe, is that the Lutheran Eucharist is not a nothing, as some Catholics here occasionally describe it.

And you are saying that the Anglican Eucharist is a nothing? Or that a street corner preacher who really believes he has been called by Jesus, and has a weekly supper service, where he truly believes in his blessing and breaking of the bread that Christ’s saving presence is there, that in reality there is nothing there? But in the Lutheran’s there is? No Ratzinger’s words do not imply that at all. The saving presence of Christ that Ratzinger is affording the Lutherans if asked he would apply to the others, if they fulfilled all the ifs that he qualified the statement with.

He states clearly he believes that in a Lutheran Eucharist is the salvation-granting presence of Christ. And the bishops of the USCCB state they agree with him.

Because of wherever two or three are gathered in my name saving presence.

Duane

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The letters are found in Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church in Communion.

JonNC: I enjoy your posts very much.They are excellent. Thank you.

You should study this document that builds on and adds to what you presented. It is well worth your attention and study. Your document is older; we’ve come even further, thanks be to God and to those in Rome and Germany working to build unity between Catholics and Lutherans.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/lutheran-fed-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html#Eucharist_

While I respect the dialogues in the US and they’re certainly doing important good…as a priest and retired professor, I am much more hopeful because of the great strides and developments being made by theologians in Europe; it’s occurring at the highest levels. I would urge you to focus attention on what is happening here, therefore. Especially if you read German.

The document I cite is co-published by the Holy See and the Catholic participants were Gerhard Cardinal Müller, presently Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and President of the International Theological Commission, and Kurt Cardinal Koch, presently President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

We are blessed to have two such remarkable and committed men working together on this issue in Rome. Both were brought to Rome by Pope Benedict because of their incredible work in their respective fields and so that their contributions could be global. Each has a profound theological depth. As you cite, these issues were and remain most dear to the heart of the pope emeritus.

(I should add that Cardinal Müller is a great force and advocate also for the Ordinariates established for those coming into the Roman Church from the Anglican Communion. This structure allows them to preserve their proper and distinctive patrimony which enriches the Roman Church.)

I would highlight for you the following passages of this joint declaration:

*Common understanding of the real presence of Christ
154. Lutherans and Catholics can together affirm the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Lord’s Supper: “In the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper Jesus Christ true God and true man, is present wholly and entirely, in his Body and Blood, under the signs of bread and wine” (Eucharist 16). This common statement affirms all the essential elements of faith in the eucharistic presence of Jesus Christ without adopting the conceptual terminology of transubstantiation. Thus Catholics and Lutherans understand that “the exalted Lord is present in the Lord’s Supper in the body and blood he gave with his divinity and his humanity through the word of promise in the gifts of bread and wine in the power of the Holy Spirit for reception through the congregation.”(52)

1. To the question of the real presence of Jesus Christ and its theological understanding is joined the question of the duration of this presence and with it the question of the adoration of Christ present in the sacrament also after the celebration. “Differences related to the duration of the eucharistic presence appear also in liturgical practice. Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess that the eucharistic presence of the Lord Jesus Christ is directed toward believing reception, that it nevertheless is not confined only to the moment of reception, and that it does not depend on the faith of the receiver, however closely related to it this might be” (Eucharist 52).
2. The document The Eucharist requested that Lutherans deal respectfully with the eucharistic elements that are left over after the celebration of the Supper. At the same time, it cautioned Catholics to take care that the practice of eucharistic adoration “does not contradict the common conviction about the meal-character of the Eucharist” (Eucharist 55).(53)

I think the conclusion deserves to also be quoted from:

*238. Catholics and Lutherans realize that they and the communities in which they live out their faith belong to the one body of Christ. The awareness is dawning on Lutherans and Catholics that the struggle of the sixteenth century is over. The reasons for mutually condemning each other’s faith have fallen by the wayside.

The first imperative: Catholics and Lutherans should always begin from the perspective of unity and not from the point of view of division in order to strengthen what is held in common even though the differences are more easily seen and experienced.
240. The Catholic and Lutheran confessions have in the course of history defined themselves against one another and suffered the one-sidedness that has persisted until today when they grapple with certain problems, such as that of authority. Since the problems originated from the conflict with one another, they can only be solved or at least addressed through common efforts to deepen and strengthen their communion. Catholics and Lutherans need each other’s experience, encouragement, and critique.

The second imperative: Lutherans and Catholics must let themselves continuously be transformed by the encounter with the other and by the mutual witness of faith.
241. Catholics and Lutherans have through dialogue learned a great deal and come to appreciate the fact that communion among them can have different forms and degrees. With respect to 2017, they should renew their effort with gratitude for what has already been accomplished, with patience and perseverance since the road may be longer than expected, with eagerness that does not allow for being satisfied with the present situation, with love for one another even in times of disagreement and conflict, with faith in the Holy Spirit, with hope that the Spirit will fulfill Jesus’ prayer to the Father, and with earnest prayer that this may happen.*

 

[Duane1966]

JonNC: I enjoy your posts very much.They are excellent. Thank you.

Father, is it your belief that Christ’s saving presence is more likely to be found at a Lutheran’s Lord’s Supper than at an Anglican communion service, or any other denomination that might similarly believe part of what we believe the Eucharist to be, which is the question between Jon and I? If yes, what is the criteria and basis for that belief?

 

[Padres1969]

Father, is it your belief that Christ’s saving presence is more likely to be found at a Lutheran’s Lord’s Supper than at an Anglican communion service, or any other denomination that might similarly believe part of what we believe the Eucharist to be, which is the question between Jon and I? If yes, what is the criteria and basis for that belief?

Is there really that much difference between a Lutheran and Anglican communion service? I mean they both espouse the real presence of Christ there. And both denominations are fairly ambiguous on how Christ’s presence is in the gifts beyond that he is there. I mean the ECLA and ECUSA along with other Anglican and Lutheran bodies agree that their communions are so similar that the many of those churches themselves are now in communion with each other and members of each can share communion with one another among other things.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father, is it your belief that Christ’s saving presence is more likely to be found at a Lutheran’s Lord’s Supper than at an Anglican communion service, or any other denomination that might similarly believe part of what we believe the Eucharist to be, which is the question between Jon and I? If yes, what is the criteria and basis for that belief?

First, JonNC is posting about the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue. Those theological discussions are different from the Anglican Catholic Dialogue. Lutheran theology is different from Anglican theology on the matter of the Eucharist.

Second, this is not a matter of my “belief” but the theological resolution that has been reached.

From the joint declaration:

Lutheran–Catholic dialogue on the eucharist

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–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)

 

[JonNC]

Father, is it your belief that Christ’s saving presence is more likely to be found at a Lutheran’s Lord’s Supper than at an Anglican communion service, or any other denomination that might similarly believe part of what we believe the Eucharist to be, which is the question between Jon and I? If yes, what is the criteria and basis for that belief?

Duane,
Please don’t misunderstand me. I have no doubt that the Anglican Eucharist is the true body and blood, a valid sacrament. What I am saying about others, non-sacramental communions, or those who have jettisoned ordination, is that an element of doubt is involved. So, in a Baptist worship, for example, they do not discern or confess a real presence.
Another point with some Anglicans and some Lutherans, women’s ordination has also impacted the subject.

So, in short, if I go to a continuing Anglican parish where the clergy is male, or a Lutheran synod parish where the clergy is male, there is no doubt regarding the sacrament. I also would have no doubts in a Catholic or Orthodox parish.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Duane1966;13457253]Because he was specifically commenting on the dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans. If he was addressing Anglicans, he could have said the exact same thing, and it would have in no way been false.

With Anglicans, one could easily speculate that he would say the same, female ordination aside.

No Jon, what he says is it is more than just succession that makes the Lutheran Eucharist problematic. That is what it means when you cannot narrow something down to just one issue.

I don’t agree, Duane. Look at how he progresses through the statement, considering the context of the dialogue:
I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’
This is a new insight. Catholic teaching has always been that the Lutheran sacrament is not valid because some are not in apostolic succession. He is saying here that it simply can’t be narrowed in that we.

Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper
He completes the thought that, irrespective of apostolic succession, there is no reason not to be leave there is the salvation granting presence of Christ in the Eucharist, in a Lutheran parish, presided over by a Lutheran pastor.

Because he was specifically talking about Lutherans to a Lutheran bishop. If he had been talking to an Anglican, he could have said the same thing, and the statement would be true.

Specifically with Anglicans, I would agree.

Jon are you saying that Ratzinger would deny Christ’s saving presence if we applied this comment to others?

No. I think he is saying that it is more than just “where two or three are gathered…” when it comes to a Lutheran Eucharist. He may or may not say that about others, depending on their belief and practices.
Duane, by almost any measure regarding the sacraments and ordination, other than Anglicans, Lutherans are different in terms of belief and practice.

No difference Jon. But this whole conversation started when GKC and I both stated that a specific comment made by Ratzinger is really nothing more than a two or three gathered in my name statement than anything else. You have not shown it to be more than that.

Again, look back at how he starts:I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’
"Where two or more are gathered’ is not the kind of presence that would be a new insight for him. After all, he’s German, living around Lutherans all his life. He knows Christ’s presence among Lutherans. This is different, a new insight, specifically regarding the Lutheran Eucharist.

Again, if those same things can be found in other denominations, does that mean the saving presence of the Lord is not there?

This is a different comment than Anglicans

And you are saying that the Anglican Eucharist is a nothing?

Of course not. I think, among Anglicans, it is the true and substantial body and blood of Christ.

Or that a street corner preacher who really believes he has been called by Jesus, and has a weekly supper service, where he truly believes in his blessing and breaking of the bread that Christ’s saving presence is there, that in reality there is nothing there?

How many ordained street corner guys have you seen repeat the verba over bread and wine? How many of them would confess that Christ’s words, by the power of the Spirit, mere bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ

But in the Lutheran’s there is? No Ratzinger’s words do not imply that at all. The saving presence of Christ that Ratzinger is affording the Lutherans if asked he would apply to the others, if they fulfilled all the ifs that he qualified the statement with.

But his statement is a general one. It is specifically about the Eucharist.

Because of wherever two or three are gathered in my name saving presence.

Neither a Catholic nor a Lutheran would speak of the presence in the Eucharist in this way. It is more. It is the true and substantial presence. Cardinal Ratzinger, speaking the Bishop Hanselmann, knew this, knew what he was saying.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

First, JonNC is posting about the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue. Those theological discussions are different from the Anglican Catholic Dialogue. Lutheran theology is different from Anglican theology on the matter of the Eucharist.

Second, this is not a matter of my “belief” but the theological resolution that has been reached.

From the joint declaration:

Lutheran–Catholic dialogue on the eucharist

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–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)

Amen, Father.

I might add that Anglicans have diverse views on the Eucharist. The Anglicans I hang out with are continuing Anglicans, who view it very similarly to the Lutheran view.

Jon

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Amen, Father.

I might add that Anglicans have diverse views on the Eucharist. The Anglicans I hang out with are continuing Anglicans, who view it very similarly to the Lutheran view.

Jon

Yes, thank you. I have been much more involved with the Anglican situation than the Lutheran situation – with one notable exception particular to a point relative to the Sacrament of Holy Order and the theology of its transmission as understood in history.

This is a critical point to be underscored: when you are in theological dialogue with your counterpart of another confession, the formulations the Catholic participant makes are specific to the theology held by the counterpart. Those participating at the level of the document I cited are experts in various fields: history, theology, canon law, ecclesiology and ecumenism.

It is wholly wrong to attribute to this process a mindset that says, essentially, the same answer would be given to any non-Catholic Christian who follows the Reformation. No. That is assuredly not correct.

The answer is formulated very specifically and with very exact language and on both sides – distilled almost to the precision of a scientific formula. This is certainly the case with Joseph Ratzinger, for example, who has an incredible subtlety of expression that allows him an exquisite precision in what he is saying.

Unfortunately, many do not understand or appreciate this aspect of the dialogue. Unfortunately, too, there are too many who do not know where, actually, we have already arrived – and thus there are people who speak and act as if we were in 1950 and not in 2015. The document I cited from the Holy See makes strong correctives about that point.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, thank you. I have been much more involved with the Anglican situation than the Lutheran situation – with one notable exception particular to a point relative to the Sacrament of Holy Order and the theology of its transmission as understood in history.

This is a critical point to be underscored: when you are in theological dialogue with your counterpart of another confession, the formulations the Catholic participant makes are specific to the theology held by the counterpart. Those participating at the level of the document I cited are experts in various fields: history, theology, canon law, ecclesiology and ecumenism.

It is wholly wrong to attribute to this process a mindset that says, essentially, the same answer would be given to any non-Catholic Christian who follows the Reformation. No. That is assuredly not correct.

The answer is formulated very specifically and with very exact language and on both sides – distilled almost to the precision of a scientific formula. This is certainly the case with Joseph Ratzinger, for example, who has an incredible subtlety of expression that allows him an exquisite precision in what he is saying.

Unfortunately, many do not understand or appreciate this aspect of the dialogue. Unfortunately, too, there are too many who do not know where, actually, we have already arrived – and thus there are people who speak and act as if we were in 1950 and not in 2015. The document I cited from the Holy See makes strong correctives about that point.

Thanks, Father, for your perspective. Having it here will add, I think, dramatically to the Lutheran / Catholic dialogue here at CAF.
You mentioned earlier that you think the Catholic / Lutheran dialogue in Germany seems to be stronger than here in the US. Just a question: how involved is SELK in that dialogue?

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

First, JonNC is posting about the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue. Those theological discussions are different from the Anglican Catholic Dialogue. Lutheran theology is different from Anglican theology on the matter of the Eucharist.

Second, this is not a matter of my “belief” but the theological resolution that has been reached.

From the joint declaration:

Lutheran–Catholic dialogue on the eucharist

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–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)

I did a poor job of phrasing my question, so I will reword it. Are they saying that the saving presence of Christ is there in the Lutheran Eucharist? If yes, why in the Lutheran’s, but not some non-denominational preacher who also believes he is confecting the Eucharist? What would be the criteria for differentiating between the two?

 

[Duane1966]

I don’t agree, Duane. Look at how he progresses through the statement, considering the context of the dialogue:
I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’
This is a new insight. Catholic teaching has always been that the Lutheran sacrament is not valid because some are not in apostolic succession. He is saying here that it simply can’t be narrowed in that we.

So, if he is saying Apostolic Succession is not a reason for a problem of validity, ergo, it cannot be a problem for any denomination. Correct?

Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper
He completes the thought that, irrespective of apostolic succession, there is no reason not to be leave there is the salvation granting presence of Christ in the Eucharist, in a Lutheran parish, presided over by a Lutheran pastor.

If, such is the case, what would be his reason for denying the salvation granting presence of Christ, in any denominations celebration of the Lord’s Supper? He cannot say Apostolic Succession, because in your view that has been ruled out.

No. I think he is saying that it is more than just “where two or three are gathered…” when it comes to a Lutheran Eucharist. He may or may not say that about others, depending on their belief and practices.
Duane, by almost any measure regarding the sacraments and ordination, other than Anglicans, Lutherans are different in terms of belief and practice.

Again, look back at how he starts:I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’
"Where two or more are gathered’ is not the kind of presence that would be a new insight for him. After all, he’s German, living around Lutherans all his life. He knows Christ’s presence among Lutherans. This is different, a new insight, specifically regarding the Lutheran Eucharist.

How many ordained street corner guys have you seen repeat the verba over bread and wine? How many of them would confess that Christ’s words, by the power of the Spirit, mere bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ

But his statement is a general one. It is specifically about the Eucharist.

Neither a Catholic nor a Lutheran would speak of the presence in the Eucharist in this way. It is more. It is the true and substantial presence. Cardinal Ratzinger, speaking the Bishop Hanselmann, knew this, knew what he was saying.

Jon

Jon, if he is saying Christ’s saving presence is there in the Lutheran Eucharist in a mode different than wherever two or three are gathered in my name presence, and that the Lutheran Eucharist is valid, than any denomination that so chooses to believe the same thing about the Eucharist, no matter how crazy the rest of their beliefs may be, would have to have a valid Eucharist. Their ministers would not need Apostolic Succession, it is not a criteria. Nor would intend to do what the Church intends, be a criteria. Because neither Lutherans nor Anglicans do what the Catholic Church intends.

So what in your view, should be the criteria?

 

[Duane1966]

Yes, thank you. I have been much more involved with the Anglican situation than the Lutheran situation – with one notable exception particular to a point relative to the Sacrament of Holy Order and the theology of its transmission as understood in history.

This is a critical point to be underscored: when you are in theological dialogue with your counterpart of another confession, the formulations the Catholic participant makes are specific to the theology held by the counterpart. Those participating at the level of the document I cited are experts in various fields: history, theology, canon law, ecclesiology and ecumenism.

It is wholly wrong to attribute to this process a mindset that says, essentially, the same answer would be given to any non-Catholic Christian who follows the Reformation. No. That is assuredly not correct.

Was Ratzinger saying that Christ’s saving presence can be found more in a Lutheran Eucharist, than in a certain non-denominational service, where their minister is ordained and he believes he is confecting a Eucharist? That is the question? If yes, why?

The answer is formulated very specifically and with very exact language and on both sides – distilled almost to the precision of a scientific formula. This is certainly the case with Joseph Ratzinger, for example, who has an incredible subtlety of expression that allows him an exquisite precision in what he is saying.

Unfortunately, many do not understand or appreciate this aspect of the dialogue. Unfortunately, too, there are too many who do not know where, actually, we have already arrived – and thus there are people who speak and act as if we were in 1950 and not in 2015. The document I cited from the Holy See makes strong correctives about that point.

Father, there are many who do see the differences between 1950 and 2015. But they realize that truth is truth, and does not change. The same reasons why something is not considered valid in 1950, must be addressed in 2015. If the problem was considered Apostolic Succession in 1950, and it has not been addressed in 2015, the problem does not magically go away.

If their Eucharist was valid in 1950, then why were Catholics told it was not?

 

[benjohnson]

If their Eucharist was valid in 1950, then why were Catholics told it was not?

I’m not saying my comment pertains to this particular instance, but I will note that a lot of what my Church teaches is done out of an abundance of caution in protecting us sheep of the flock.

 

[JonNC]

=Duane1966;13459714]So, if he is saying Apostolic Succession is not a reason for a problem of validity, ergo, it cannot be a problem for any denomination. Correct?

I don’t think he is disregarding AS. He can’t, and neither can you, and if a Lutheran is honest, neither can we. We use presbyter ordination as an exception to the rule (canon). A legitimate one, used by the Church prior to the Reformation, but an exception nonetheless.

If, such is the case, what would be his reason for denying the salvation granting presence of Christ, in any denominations celebration of the Lord’s Supper? He cannot say Apostolic Succession, because in your view that has been ruled out.

No, it hasn’t, as I have written above. But you are asking me to speculate on a speculation: what he didn’t say, etc. In the end, it is up to Christ where His presence is, but when Catholics and Lutherans speak of the salvation granting presence in the Eucharist, we are speaking of the real and substantial presence of His body and blood. It is the way we both talk about it. That isn’t the way many others talk about it so ISTM that the conversation with or about them is different.

Jon, if he is saying Christ’s saving presence is there in the Lutheran Eucharist in a mode different than wherever two or three are gathered in my name presence, and that the Lutheran Eucharist is valid, than any denomination that so chooses to believe the same thing about the Eucharist, no matter how crazy the rest of their beliefs may be, would have to have a valid Eucharist.

He didn’t say it was valid, in the same sense as a Catholic Eucharist, from the Catholic perspective. I think it’s better to look at what he said.

Their ministers would not need Apostolic Succession, it is not a criteria. Nor would intend to do what the Church intends, be a criteria. Because neither Lutherans nor Anglicans do what the Catholic Church intends.

Do we not agree that the intention is, ***take and eat, take and drink, His true body and true blood, given and shed for the remission of sin, as often as we eat and drink of it, in remembrance of Him ***? Is there an intention I’ve missed?
Other communions do not share that intention. They focus on the memorial. In that sense, the presence of Christ is there.

Jon