Should a Catholic receive a blessing at a Lutheran ecumenical service?

  • Thread starter Thread starter liseux
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would probably laugh, to be honest. The distinction between laity and clergy as it is known now is a distinctly Catholic premise. That they would claim that distinction for themselves shows how much they have unknowingly conformed to the Catholic worldview, even though they misunderstand it.
 
Glennon_P said:
Perhaps Open Communion is an area of emphasis for the entire ELCA right now?
Click to expand...
Yes the ELCA practices open communion with the idea that Christ’s table is open to all and no you are not expected to partake. While it is not Catholic communion for sure, the theology around the elements is not far off from Catholic theology. The Lutheran church teaches Consubstantiation, basically Christ is present in the elements but does not become Christ.

Thanks to those who have pointed out Lutheran Clergy for example are not simply lay people. They are not Catholic Priests for sure, but many have a similar education and of course have dedicated their lives to working for Christ as a religious leader. The Pope and Bishops certainly treat them as equals and have worked out ecumenical agreements with them for example.
 
Last edited:
While all that is true only a Catholic priest can stand in the person of Christ.
No matter how much education they have or what they believe about communion, they cannot consecrate bread and wine into the True Body and Blood of Christ.
They are treated as brothers and sisters in Christ but not equal in ordination.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
No matter how much education they have or what they believe about communion, they cannot consecrate bread and wine into the True Body and Blood of Christ.
They are treated as brothers and sisters in Christ but not equal in ordination.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the diaconate doesn’t include the privilege of consecration. It does include things like marriage, Baptism, reading the Gospel, and giving a sermon. Using consecration here is no excuse for excluding women. If we’re honest, I think it could be said including women here is not the biggest theological leap.

I saw posted here the comment that women don’t need the pulpit to essentially teach and lead with equality, which honestly is ridiculous. If there is truly equality here, I challenge someone to find a position where women are allowed to stand up, literally at a point of authority, in front of the whole congregation with the backing of theological authority. Frankly most every sanctioned action I’ve seen a woman take from the pulpit was prewritten, whether it be a song or a Bible reading. Occasionally you might see a woman make a tithing appeal, but the Priest always has some sort of short sermon in addition. I know for sure women have different and useful approaches to addressing theology and Biblical passages. I can’t see where a duly educated and formed woman implicitly can be excluded from preaching with sanctioned Church authority. There is no standing in for Christ being challenged here, just the idea that preaching with any authority depends on genes.

We gladly give a pass to Biblical passages that are clearly fantastical, clearly stuck in the culture of a previous time, or even getting into the immoral. We know unequivocally that the culture of Biblical times, and even to this day, treat men as superior to women. How many Catholics really believe this sort of thinking, that relegates women to second class treatment, remains culturally relevant today? I’d think no and a re-evaluation of this theology is worth revisiting when it comes to permanent female deacons. But that’s just my view.
 
Last edited:
PJH_74 said:
Using consecration here is no excuse for excluding women.
Click to expand...
One thing to remember, the Catholic Mass is a sacrifice. It is the sacrifice of the perfect Lamb of God. The Catholic priesthood is the fullfilment of the Levitical priesthood in the OT. In the OT priesthood, God allowed only men and then Jesus, God, chose only men when continuing this priesthood, when He chose His apostles. Women can not consecrate.
PJH_74 said:
I saw posted here the comment that women don’t need the pulpit to essentially teach and lead with equality, which honestly is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
So it may seem ridiculous to us but it is God’s decision, not ours. Also, to think that women have to have that 10 minute time frame at Mass to give a homily, so they can be equal, is ridiculous. There are so many other ways and places she can preach and teach.
PJH_74 said:
If there is truly equality here,
Click to expand...
In life, not everything is going to be equal. That is just part of life.
PJH_74 said:
I challenge someone to find a position where women are allowed to stand up, literally at a point of authority, in front of the whole congregation
Click to expand...
I pray no one ever takes that challenge because it would be in rebellion against God.
PJH_74 said:
I know for sure women have different and useful approaches to addressing theology and Biblical passages.
Click to expand...
This could be the very reason God only chooses men. It is that very difference He wanted.
PJH_74 said:
We know unequivocally that the culture of Biblical times, and even to this day, treat men as superior to women. How many Catholics really believe this sort of thinking, that relegates women to second class treatment, remains culturally relevant today? I’d think no…
Click to expand...
It isn’t about superiority but differences, as you said, women have different approaches. Not every thing between men and women will ever be totally equal, because we are different.
 
Last edited:
I’m LCMS and we practice close communion. We DON’T, however, teach consubstantiation. Please don’t take this as an attack, friend. Just as you as a Catholic point out how things are wrongly believed outside the RCC, I’m pointing out what we as Lutherans believe.

God bless, and thank you for your kind words. I continue to pray for unity of all God’s people.
 
From the LCMS website:

QUESTION: What verses in Scripture can be cited that teach “that BOTH bread and wine AND Christ’s true body and blood” are present in the Lord’s Supper?

ANSWER: All three accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the Gospels (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23) explicitly state that Jesus took BREAD, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying, “Take, eat; this [i.e., this BREAD, which I have just blessed and broken and am now giving to you] is my body.”

Jesus uses similar language in referring to “the cup” (of wine) as “His blood.” A plain and straightforward reading of these words leads to the conclusion that BOTH bread AND body, BOTH wine AND blood are present in the consecrated elements of the Lord’s Supper.

Perhaps the most explicit expression of this truth, however, is found in 1 Cor. 10:16-17, where Paul writes:

“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

Paul clearly says here that we all “partake” of “BREAD” when we receive the Lord’s Supper—even as we also partake of and “participate in” the true body of Christ. And he says we all “partake” of the wine (the cup), even as we also partake of the true blood of Christ.

Similarly, in 1 Cor. 11:26, Paul says: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”

Paul expressly states here that when we receive the Lord’s Supper we are “eating bread” and “drinking the cup” (wine), but he goes on to say those who eat this bread and drink this cup are also partaking of the true body and blood of Christ.

So “real” is this participation in Christ’s body and blood, in fact, that (according to Paul) those who partake of the bread and wine “in an unworthy manner” are actually guilty of “profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27).

(Partaking of the Lord’s Supper “in a worthy manner,” of course, is not something that we “do” or “accomplish” on the basis of our “personal holiness” or “good works.” It means receiving God’s free and gracious gifts of life and forgiveness offered in the Lord’s Supper in true repentance produced by the work of the Spirit through God’s Law and in true faith in Christ and His promises produced by God’s Spirit through the Gospel).
 
We don’t attempt to define it. It’s a sacred mystery. We don’t teach that the bread loses it’s “bread-ness” or the wine, it’s “wine-ness.” We take Jesus at His word when He says “this is my body, this is my blood.”
 
TNMan said:
I’m pointing out what we as Lutherans believe.
Click to expand...
Consubstantiation is not a universal Lutheran position, my bad. But that position is held by a large portion of the Lutheran world. I however am not cursorily attached to the Lutheran world and if there is anything Lutherans do well, it is to hold starkly contrasting views on particular theology. 😄
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
40.png
Tis_Bearself:
As several of us have explained, the Lutheran pastor cannot “give a blessing”. Only Catholic priests can “give blessings”. It is part of their special priestly power.
Click to expand...
I would like to point out that the Bible is replete with laymen giving blessings (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Caleb, David, etc.).
Click to expand...
Back then, the male head of the household was the de facto priest of the clan. Hence, his blessings were sought out. Only much later did God establish a specific class of men who would become the priests of His people.
 
Personally I’ve been away with my family in a similar situation. I tool bread and wine and was grateful.

Afterwards I spoke with the Priest a lovely young man full of peace. Obviously confession is something totally different of course. Church of England is not allowed.

When ever I go on holiday to that town I return to see Fr Edwards. He knows I am catholic and I respect him also.

I would have no issue going to any church where there is a Priest , Alter , Tabernacle & Crucifix to receive holy blessings and communion.

If the Lord did not want me to be there I wouldn’t have found the place in my humble opinion.

Remember King David was much loved by God and David took Residence among the Philistines.
 
Last edited:
Please do not lead people a stray. Opinions like this allow others to falsely accuse Catholics of wrong.
 
If any of us lived in a land where by Catholic Church did not exist , may I ask where would you go to receive holy communion ?
 
So if you lived in a land without any Catholic priests or churches you would refuse the Eucharist from another’s hand ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top