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

[Peter_J]

• When Francis says “talk to the Lord” he is saying the same as when he spoke on the plane of those who “are seeking the Lord” and when in the square he said “listen to the Holy Spirit”. **He always means through the appropriate authority.
  **

Interesting take on it. Do you mean that in the sense of to-Jesus-through-Mary? (I heard that phrase a lot growing up – as, I imagine, did a lot of other cradle Catholics. Didn’t really hear “talk to the Lord” too often.)

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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?

The first part of the question, I am going to let the document speak for itself. It is clear and precise.

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.”

The second part of the question presupposes that we are looking for a one size fits all answer to any hypothetical situation. That is beyond the scope of the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. This dialogue is about Catholic-Lutheran relations. It is not speculative. It involves analyzing specific history and specific claims in light of the history. It examines specific and concrete theological thought. It requires a focused analysis of how the theological conclusions were arrived at by each confession.

The matter at hand is the Eucharist respectively celebrated by Catholics and by Lutherans. One should not introduce every situation of a claim of Eucharistic Real Presence; each permutation requires its own unique analysis and response. That is simply a fundamental principle of theological dialogue.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I believe Pope Benedict gave the Eucharist to his brother, who is a Lutheran minister.

This is assuredly not correct. Pope Benedict’s elder brother is Mgr. Georg Ratzinger…a Catholic Priest who was the conductor of the Regensburger Domspatzen.

Both Georg and Joseph were ordained priest on the same day…June 29, 1951. The pope emeritus had one other sibling…a sister who died in 1991.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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?

Three paragraphs from the document essentially answer your question about what has happened between 1950 and 2015

*26. The Second Vatican Council, responding to the scriptural, liturgical, and patristic revival of the preceding decades, dealt with such themes as esteem and reverence for the Holy Scripture in the life of the church, the rediscovery of the common priesthood of all the baptized, the need for continual purification and reform of the church, the understanding of church office as service, and the importance of the freedom and responsibility of human beings, including the recognition of religious freedom.

1. The Council also affirmed elements of sanctification and truth even outside the structures of the Roman Catholic Church. It asserted, “some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church,” and it named these elements “the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too” (UR 1).(6) The Council also spoke of the “many liturgical actions of the Christian religion” that are used by the divided “brethren” and said, “these most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation” (UR 3). The acknowledgement extended not only to the individual elements and actions in these communities, but also to the “divided churches and communities” themselves. “For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation” (UR 1.3).
2. While the Council of Trent largely defined Catholic relations with Lutherans for several centuries, its legacy must now be viewed through the lens of the actions of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). This Council made it possible for the Catholic Church to enter the ecumenical movement and leave behind the charged polemic atmosphere of the post-Reformation era. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), the Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae), and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) are foundational documents for Catholic ecumenism. Vatican II, while affirming that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, also acknowledged, “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity” (LG 8). There was a positive appreciation of what Catholics share with other Christian churches such as the creeds, baptism, and the Scriptures. A theology of ecclesial communion affirmed that Catholics are in a real, if imperfect, communion with all who confess Jesus Christ and are baptized (UR 2).*

That is why Cardinal Ratzinger said that the previous paradigm, looking only to validity, is no longer adequate and that the paradigm must be broader to account for where theology is at today. It is a consequence of what Vatican II taught and where fifty years of theological dialogue have brought the two confessions.

The quote of Cardinal Ratzinger:
“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”

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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

My apologies, Jon. I meant to circle back to this and close this loop with you and I failed to do so.

Your compliment is too kind but I thank you.

“Stronger” is not perhaps the best qualifier…although I am myself searching for a better one. More intense? If it would not be taken in a pejorative sense, I would say it is at a higher level. There is more deployable, and being deployed, on the European side of the Atlantic than on the American side of the ocean. I mean absolutely no offence at all by that. The problem originated in Europe and I personally believe ultimately it will be resolved by Europeans in Europe. The German theologians are quite remarkable, for those who have been blessed to work with them. There is a tradition of theological excellence there, of course, but there is also a special gift, if I may say it thus.

The three greatest minds in our times on the issues considered in the dialogues are Joseph Ratzinger, Gerhard Müller and Kurt Koch. That is not to take away from all those who are engaged in this dialogue and who are doing remarkable work. The Pope Emeritus brought these two Cardinals to Rome before he retired from the papacy…for good reason and to good purpose.

In answer to your question, allow me to say that I remember the visit of SELK to the Vatican some brief years ago and the dialogues that ensued as a result…but I really cannot tell you the person(s) now involved or what precisely is happening with that thread. I am just a retired professor. I do not know the ins and outs of these finer points, not at this point.

There is one area in the dialogue that keenly overlaps with an area of my academic interest and that concerns an aspect of the dialogue on ministry. From your comments, I venture that you know the issue concerning the transmission of ministerial office as it relates to Luther and his thought as also what happened in Wittenberg; it is the ordinations apart from the office of bishop because of the Sitz im Leben prevailing at a critical moment in history of these developments.

And, most likely, you also know of his thought and reliance on the articulations as regards Peter Lombard in the Sentences and an understanding of Order that had a particular concept of the episcopate. This approach ultimately derived from Patristic thought, with the thread traced through Jerome and his letter, and ultimately resting on the pastoral epistles. It also touches the Decretals of Gratian.

My interest is tangential to this specific area in that a focus in my sphere of interest was on a different historical occurrence, so obscure that I won’t delve into it here – it is not of this era nor is it German – but the areas do overlap in some interesting ways and I try to stay somewhat aware of that topic in the dialogue, for that reason.

German is an important theology language also for Catholics but it is my weakest, alas. If you are able to read it, as a Lutheran, I was merely indicating that there are things which are happening that one will not see in English but will see in German print.

With that I will say auf Wiedersehen and best to you.

 

[Memaw]

Well I think that’s a certainty. Francis has been pretty clear that a primary concern for the Catholic Church is spreading the Gospel to as many as they can. Particularly while helping the indigent and forgotten. It’s always easier to do that when you come at someone with an air of welcome rather than a wall of difference. I mean take this Lutheran woman. He didn’t outright tell her she could receive as per Catholic teaching that would be wrong, but at the same time he didn’t outright tell her she couldn’t receive as what would be her motivation to come into a Catholic church and perhaps learn more? And mind you he was talking one on one with a woman about her particular circumstance. I think everyone is so used to more, shall we say, polished Popes of the past, namely Benedict and John Paul II of late, that they forget Francis is clearly a far more informal pontiff.

I mean for Benedict a simple walk in his own gardens was a production for both himself and his security. Everything was delicately choreographed to ensure no one would see the Pontiff in a casual moment. Compare that with Francis who from day one has been giving his security and the Vatican establishment fits as he just appears at the Vatican gates with little or no warning to speak one on one with random people or who continues to jump out of still moving cars to embrace, speak with and bless people he sees on the street. If his message seems a little muddled or ambiguous on occasion it’s not surprising. He’s far more often a holy guy speaking his off the cuff mind rather than expressing thoughts that went through a gamut of canon lawyers and cardinals. Is it challenging for some Catholics, especially with the media then taking that ambiguity and trumping it up, absolutely, but don’t think of it always as Francis speaking to everyone. Think of it for what it likely is, Francis speaking to individuals one on one about their lives.

Just me :twocents: as an outsider.

Very well said!! No one is an “outsider” with Our Lord. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Duane1966]

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.

Where did the Church use it prior to the Reformation?

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

Would not then any other denomination simply have to say: “We believe our intent in the memorial to be the same as Lutherans, or Catholics”, to have Christ’s saving presence there?

 

[Duane1966]

The first part of the question, I am going to let the document speak for itself. It is clear and precise.

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.”
Don Ruggero;13462657:

The second part of the question presupposes that we are looking for a one size fits all answer to any hypothetical situation. That is beyond the scope of the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. This dialogue is about Catholic-Lutheran relations. It is not speculative. It involves analyzing specific history and specific claims in light of the history. It examines specific and concrete theological thought. It requires a focused analysis of how the theological conclusions were arrived at by each confession.

We all understand that this is beyond the scope of the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. You are not saying anything that is not already known. But the question was introduced about a comment that Ratzinger made, and how it pertains to other Christians. And that is how this discussion came about. Since we do not have a Ratzinger comment on this specific topic pertaining to other denominations, the discussion between Jon and I, must become speculative.

The matter at hand is the Eucharist respectively celebrated by Catholics and by Lutherans. One should not introduce every situation of a claim of Eucharistic Real Presence; each permutation requires its own unique analysis and response. That is simply a fundamental principle of theological dialogue.

Are these high level negotiations going on in this discussion by Jon and I? So if a permutation does get introduced between he and I, will it change the course of Lutheran-Catholic dialogue on a worldwide scale? Permutations have been introduced in past discussions with him, and the conversation was interesting.

 

[Duane1966]

Three paragraphs from the document essentially answer your question about what has happened between 1950 and 2015

*26. The Second Vatican Council, responding to the scriptural, liturgical, and patristic revival of the preceding decades, dealt with such themes as esteem and reverence for the Holy Scripture in the life of the church, the rediscovery of the common priesthood of all the baptized, the need for continual purification and reform of the church, the understanding of church office as service, and the importance of the freedom and responsibility of human beings, including the recognition of religious freedom.

1. The Council also affirmed elements of sanctification and truth even outside the structures of the Roman Catholic Church. It asserted, “some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church,” and it named these elements “the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too” (UR 1).(6) The Council also spoke of the “many liturgical actions of the Christian religion” that are used by the divided “brethren” and said, “these most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation” (UR 3). The acknowledgement extended not only to the individual elements and actions in these communities, but also to the “divided churches and communities” themselves. “For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation” (UR 1.3).
2. While the Council of Trent largely defined Catholic relations with Lutherans for several centuries, its legacy must now be viewed through the lens of the actions of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). This Council made it possible for the Catholic Church to enter the ecumenical movement and leave behind the charged polemic atmosphere of the post-Reformation era. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), the Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae), and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) are foundational documents for Catholic ecumenism. Vatican II, while affirming that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, also acknowledged, “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity” (LG 8). There was a positive appreciation of what Catholics share with other Christian churches such as the creeds, baptism, and the Scriptures. A theology of ecclesial communion affirmed that Catholics are in a real, if imperfect, communion with all who confess Jesus Christ and are baptized (UR 2).*

That is why Cardinal Ratzinger said that the previous paradigm, looking only to validity, is no longer adequate and that the paradigm must be broader to account for where theology is at today. It is a consequence of what Vatican II taught and where fifty years of theological dialogue have brought the two confessions.

The quote of Cardinal Ratzinger:
"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"**

Yes, this quote has been commented on before. But he is NOT saying that validity is not an issue, he is saying it is not the only issue. When you cannot narrow a problem down to one thing, it means that there is more than one problem with an issue. If validity is not an issue, wouldn’t he just come out and say validity is not an issue? But he doesn’t.

The second part that of Ratzinger’s comment, the part in bold is where the speculative part of this discussion began. We know he is commenting on the Lutheran-Catholic dialogues, but would he basically say the same thing if talking about other denominations?

The question really becomes, do Lutheran priests have the power to confect the Eucharist? If no, then Christ’s saving presence is not there in a mode any different than any other denominational service. If yes, then Christ’s saving presence is there in a mode not present in other denominations. But if yes, all any other denomination would have to do is have their ministers intend to do in their communion service what the Lutherans do, as their ministers are just as valid as Lutherans, if Apostolic Succession is not a criteria.

But even Apostolic Succession is only one criteria. We know that the bishops must intend to do, what the Church intends. If the intention does not matter, then people who are going to the new female priests who call themselves Catholic, are surely getting Christ’s saving presence in their Eucharist.

 

[JonNC]

=Duane1966;13465087]Where did the Church use it prior to the Reformation?

The Cistercian Abbots in the 1400’s.
cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=APOSTOLICSUCCESSION

Would not then any other denomination simply have to say: “We believe our intent in the memorial to be the same as Lutherans, or Catholics”, to have Christ’s saving presence there?

I think it would be fabulous if others first discerned the true and substantial presence of Christ’s body and blood given and shed for the forgiveness of sin, and secondly ordained their ministers.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

The Cistercian Abbots in the 1400’s.
cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=APOSTOLICSUCCESSION
Jon

Jon, you do agree that there is a difference in doing something with a higher authority’s permission, and doing the same thing without said permission, especially knowing said permission would not be given? One would be viewed as acceptable, the other, a grave sin correct? You need a papal indult for a priest to ordain others, such was given to the Cistercians, and it can be withdrawn.

the requisite power of consecration is contained in the priestly power of consecration as “potestas ligata”. For the valid exercise of it a special exercise of Papal power is, by Divine or Church ordinance, necessary" (Ott, 459)

 

[JonNC]

Jon, you do agree that there is a difference in doing something with a higher authority’s permission, and doing the same thing without said permission, especially knowing said permission would not be given? One would be viewed as acceptable, the other, a grave sin correct?

Sure, but your question assumes that the Bishop of Rome has universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church on Earth, an assumption that we are in disagreement over, an assumption not evident in scripture or the early councils (Nicaea canon 6). In fact, were that particular issue resolved, Church unity would be far greater than it is today.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Sure, but your question assumes that the Bishop of Rome has universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church on Earth, an assumption that we are in disagreement over, an assumption not evident in scripture or the early councils (Nicaea canon 6). In fact, were that particular issue resolved, Church unity would be far greater than it is today.

Jon

Precisely. Though the Lutheran Reformers did recognize the seriousness of their actions, and how regrettably necessary they were. From the Treatise:

To dissent from the agreement of so many nations and to be called schismatics is a grave matter. But divine authority commands all not to be allies and defenders of impiety and unjust cruelty.

 

[JonNC]

Precisely. Though the Lutheran Reformers did recognize the seriousness of their actions, and how regrettably necessary they were. From the Treatise:

I agree. I think they saw this as a temporary use of a legitimate exception to the rule.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

Precisely. Though the Lutheran Reformers did recognize the seriousness of their actions, and how regrettably necessary they were. From the Treatise:

Do you know of any party that causes a serious breakup that does not consider their actions as regrettably necessary? Many is the person who has committed grave sin that viewed their actions as regrettably necessary at the time. This, unfortunately, can be an excuse for a wide range of questionable actions. That quote from the treatise can be a catchall for any action.

 

[Duane1966]

Sure,…Jon

I think a solid case can be made that the Reformers, before the Reformation, accepted the pope’s universal jurisdiction, and would have continued to do so, if he acquiesced to their wishes.

You totally misread Nicaea canon 6. From unamsanctamcatholicam

This teaches that as per “ancient custom,” there have been three major Sees, each retaining certain jurisdictions. The main ‘controversy’ surrounding Canon 6 is whether it is envisioning a ‘trio of Patriarchs’ rather than a Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Preferring the former interpretation are obviously the Protestants [2] and the Eastern Orthodox. While a quick reading seems to lend weight to the the former reading, a more careful second look reveals that is not the case. Informed Catholics throughout the ages have pointed to a few key details as to why any reading other than that of Papal Primacy doesn’t work.

First of all, from a grammatical point of view, the Canon says nothing about a jurisdiction in reference to the Bishop of Rome. Thus, the idea that Alexandria governs Egypt and Libya, while the Bishop of Rome governs some “Roman” land like Italy is projected onto the Canon, effectively putting words into it’s mouth. This does not prove the Roman primacy, but it does help to remind us that this Canon does not deny a Roman primacy either, since no “Roman territory” is explicitly mentioned.

Second, in terms of the Canon making a logical argument, an interpretation that renders the Canon something to the effect, “Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule Egypt since it is customary for the Bishop of Rome to rule Italy” is a non-sequitur fallacy. In other words, it’s irrelevant if the Bishop of Rome governs Italy, since that says nothing about who should rule elsewhere and especially what land they should govern. The same can be said if it is taken to mean “since it is customary for the Bishop of Rome to be a Patriarch,” which brings out the logical fallacy all the more. For a Council that just got done addressing one of the most pernicious heresies of all time, including using precise and deliberate language for the Creed, we should expect a far more reasonable argument in Canon 6 than what Protestants and Eastern Orthodox have to offer.

If Canon 6 excludes some kind of “territory of Italy” over which Rome has primacy, what is the correct interpretation? The Catholic interpretation understands the Canon as follows:

“Let the Bishop of Alexandria continue to govern Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, since assigning this jurisdiction is an ancient custom established by the Bishop of Rome and reiterated now by this Nicene Council.”

All of the sudden, this Canon has some “teeth”. The appeal of the Council is to an ancient custom, which surely must have originated on some solid basis (i.e. not accepted simply “because it’s old”), and this basis is none other than the delegation of the Bishop of Rome. Without question, only the Catholic interpretation of this Canon satisfies the intellect and confirms the Faith, especially when we look at it in the context of the Canons of the councils immediately following Nicaea which sought to expound upon Canon 6.

Council of Constantinople Canons 2 & 3

The Second Ecumenical Council, held in 381 (55 years after Nicaea), gives further credence to the Catholic position on the Papacy. Here are Canon 2 and Canon 3 from this Council:

Canon 2: The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nicaea, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nicaea. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.

Canon 3: The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

Notice that Canon 2 clearly references Canon 6 of Nicaea in regards to the jurisdiction and prerogatives of Alexandria and Antioch, yet no mention is made of an alleged “Patriarchate” or “jurisdiction of Italy” of the Bishop of Rome. This is quite odd if, in fact, Canon 6 was meant to be interpreted in the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant manner. But such makes perfect sense with the Catholic understanding of Canon 6. No jurisdiction of Italy is mentioned because one did not exist. If it did exist, surely it would have been mentioned, along with those of Pontus, Thrace, Antioch and Alexandria. While the Bishop of Rome is properly Bishop of the Roman Diocese, as Successor of Peter he also has a final jurisdiction over all the local churches as well.

And if that wasn’t enough, Canon 3 says the Bishop of Rome is of first rank, and that Constantinople being “New Rome” is thus to receive second rank among all the Bishops. This is utterly absurd if, indeed, there was an equality among the bishops, particularly an equality among Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch (i.e. the alternate reading of Canon 6). This only makes sense if Rome truly was of first rank and that this was universally understood this whole time. In other words, Canon 3 establishes that everybody already agreed that Rome was ranked first; Canon 3 simply establishes that Constantinople would now comes second.

 

[Duane1966]

I agree. I think they saw this as a temporary use of a legitimate exception to the rule.

Jon

It’s amazing how temporary abuses , I mean uses, rarely stay temporary.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

We all understand that this is beyond the scope of the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. You are not saying anything that is not already known. But the question was introduced about a comment that Ratzinger made, and how it pertains to other Christians. And that is how this discussion came about. Since we do not have a Ratzinger comment on this specific topic pertaining to other denominations, the discussion between Jon and I, must become speculative.

Are these high level negotiations going on in this discussion by Jon and I? So if a permutation does get introduced between he and I, will it change the course of Lutheran-Catholic dialogue on a worldwide scale? Permutations have been introduced in past discussions with him, and the conversation was interesting.

Then I have misunderstood you and your intent. If you are engaged in a speculative discussion that is detached from where we are in the theological dialogue, there is no point in my making further posts. When I discuss this matter, it is only as to what really is – not idle speculations.

JonNC, I hope you and I have occasion to continue our exchange. You have an excellent knowledge of the issues. Best to you.

 

[Duane1966]

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

Jon, in an answers on this blog, which is discussing that Ratzinger quote,weedon.blogspot.com/2007/01/most-interesting-statement.html is what I have been trying to communicate what Ratzinger was saying.

This statement is from a former Lutheran pastor, now Catholic.

Schütz said…

I can help here. I can, firstly, absolutely assure you that Benedict was not admitting that Lutherans "have the supper" in all its fullness. He was pointing out, quite rightly, that where the word of the Lord is present, and the intention to do what the Lord commanded is also present (even if the "potestas" may not be) one is forced to admit that the Evangelical Gottesdienst is **"not nothing".

Indeed, Christ is present there, with his saving grace, because his word and name is present there, and his baptized people are present there.** But I think you would be pushing it to far to say that mode of presence Benedict/Ratzinger was conceding was that the bread and wine of the Lutheran Abendmahl are the true substantial body and blood of Christ. For that is definitely dependent upon the fullness of the apostolic ministry, which Lutheran pastors do not have.

Notice the part I italicized is basically what I have been saying Ratzinger was saying.

Again, you can say that about any communion service. They all believe they are intending to do what the Lord intended, do they not?

 

[JonNC]

Hi Duane,
Will Weedon’s response to Schutz is what I’ve been saying:

.Shütz,

Interesting, but if so, it seems that the then Cardinal used language that may indeed have been prevaricating. Of course, Lutherans do not for a second for acknowledge that the loss of episcopal succession was the loss of apostolic succession. You were a Lutheran, so you remember the arguments from the Tractatus on this. A while back on the blog I posted Piepkorn’s evaluation:

…the existence of eucharistic devotion in the Lutheran communion must, it would seem to me, be accounted for by Roman Catholics in one of four ways:

1. It is a blasphemous, idolatrous sham and a diabolical deception.
2. Or, it is a response of an exceptional and uncovenented grace which a superabundantly compassionate God gives to people who would like to have a valid Eucharist but cannot because their clergymen are not able to confect valid Eucharists. (One might think of St. Augustine’s Crede et manducasti.)
3. Or, it is the result of valid Eucharists which a superabundantly compassionate God validates in an exceptional and uncovenanted manner in spite of the intrinsic incompetence of the celebrants to confect valid Eucharists.
4. Or, Lutheran Eucharists are valid because Lutheran clergymen possess the authority of order through presumptively valid orders. That Lutherans choose the fourth option is obvious. There may even be a basis in Roman Catholic theology for this explation. It ill becomes me to speak on this point, I know, but it seems to me that if I were a Roman Catholic I might be moved to ask if, on the basis (a) of 1 Tim. 4:14, (b) of St. Jerome’s Commentary on the Letter to Titus, I, v. 9-13, (c) of the bulls Sacrae religionis (Feb 1, 1400) and Apostolicae Sedis providentia(Feb. 6, 1403) of Boniface IX, (d) of the bull Exposit (April 9, 1489) of Innocent VIII, (f) of the stipulations of Canon 951 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and (g) of the analogy with confirmation, it may not be true that at his ordination a priest receives the power to confer holy orders, and if it may not be remotely conceivable that Lutherans possess through irregular presbyteral succession the power to confer orders and to confect valid sacraments. I am not, however, Roman Catholic and know of no Roman Catholic who has seriously pursued this line of argument.

–Piepkorn, The Church pp. 132, 133

It seems to me that the pope’s words seem to fall more in line with 3; obviously he does not grant 4.

Pax!

Jon