E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Good points and surprisingly, I am in agreement with you.
Lutherans need the Apostolic blessing at confirmation. Again, aside from emotional impulses, Lutherans want to return to Rome, our home.
- Status
Lutherans need the Apostolic blessing at confirmation. Again, aside from emotional impulses, Lutherans want to return to Rome, our home.
What we believe is the the bread and wine are the body and blood, as He clearly says in His own words, “This [bread] is my body.” How this happens is not explained, and is therefore a mystery.
Jon
T
Thinkingaloud
Guest
Thanks for the clarification
M
Michael57
Guest
Well, it was rather late last night when I read your excerpt of the article, and having just read the article in full at the website (had to search for it, got a “404 Error” on the link), I think it gives a much different picture than was presented in the excerpt.
It was very disturbing to me last night.
I think that the perspective given by the author may be one that is at odds both with those Lutherans that respect closed communion, and is certainly at odds with the Catholic position on the Eucharist, as was pointed out by a Catholic priest that posted a thoughtful response. The author received a lot of feedback on it from all sides, including Lutherans who disagreed with him.
When I read the full article, I was struck by the author’s apparent lack of desire to inquire too deeply about the longevity and conditions of the permission that he received from the Bishop. He even alludes to it. He is completely up front about it.
It’s like the old saying that “it’s easier to apologize than to ask permission”. Or the logic of a young boy who in his heart he knows his father would never permit an activity, yet he does it anyway thinking, “well, no one said I couldn’t do it”. May have used that once or twice myself, always to poor result.
I think that the author probably thinks he is justified in what he is doing, however, to me this seems to be a false ecumenism, as it flies in the face of what the CCC teaches Catholics about the Eucharist. He even presented a “checklist” of common doctrines, and he couldn’t find 100% agreement on his own checklist. I found that a bit amusing. And telling as it kind of tears apart his own assertions made earlier in the article about being in one accord in order to justify what seems to be abuse of the Eucharist.
He may not mean to scandalize, but even if he doesn’t (and I can by no means judge his intent), he is creating it in people that are sensitive to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
I’m not even sure if it is in accord with Lutheran instruction. I have Luther’s Small Catechism somewhere, perhaps I will try to find it.
I find his disregard for the feelings of Catholics that venerate and respect the Eucharist as the Blood and Body of our Savior by a Lutheran Pastor to be shocking and somewhat callous.
I also find it hard to believe that his Catholic relatives would not know that this is against the teachings of the Catholic Church and would invite him to communion any time he felt like it. I don’t believe they have the authority in the Catholic Church to make such an offer, unless the offer was contingent on his going through the RCIA successfully, and being received into the Catholic faith.
His approach seems pretty sneaky to me, even if he claims (or brags?) otherwise.
I hope this satisfies your question.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Brother, I respect and must agree with you. But the application of restictions is minimal. And why is that so?Well, it was rather late last night when I read your excerpt of the article, and having just read the article in full at the website (had to search for it, got a “404 Error” on the link), I think it gives a much different picture than was presented in the excerpt.
It was very disturbing to me last night.
I think that the perspective given by the author may be one that is at odds both with those Lutherans that respect closed communion, and is certainly at odds with the Catholic position on the Eucharist, as was pointed out by a Catholic priest that posted a thoughtful response. The author received a lot of feedback on it from all sides, including Lutherans who disagreed with him.
When I read the full article, I was struck by the author’s apparent lack of desire to inquire too deeply about the longevity and conditions of the permission that he received from the Bishop. He even alludes to it. He is completely up front about it.
It’s like the old saying that “it’s easier to apologize than to ask permission”. Or the logic of a young boy who in his heart he knows his father would never permit an activity, yet he does it anyway thinking, “well, no one said I couldn’t do it”. May have used that once or twice myself, always to poor result.
I think that the author probably thinks he is justified in what he is doing, however, to me this seems to be a false ecumenism, as it flies in the face of what the CCC teaches Catholics about the Eucharist. He even presented a “checklist” of common doctrines, and he couldn’t find 100% agreement on his own checklist. I found that a bit amusing. And telling as it kind of tears apart his own assertions made earlier in the article about being in one accord in order to justify what seems to be abuse of the Eucharist.
He may not mean to scandalize, but even if he doesn’t (and I can by no means judge his intent), he is creating it in people that are sensitive to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
I’m not even sure if it is in accord with Lutheran instruction. I have Luther’s Small Catechism somewhere, perhaps I will try to find it.
I find his disregard for the feelings of Catholics that venerate and respect the Eucharist as the Blood and Body of our Savior by a Lutheran Pastor to be shocking and somewhat callous.
I also find it hard to believe that his Catholic relatives would not know that this is against the teachings of the Catholic Church and would invite him to communion any time he felt like it. I don’t believe they have the authority in the Catholic Church to make such an offer, unless the offer was contingent on his going through the RCIA successfully, and being received into the Catholic faith.
His approach seems pretty sneaky to me, even if he claims (or brags?) otherwise.
I hope this satisfies your question.
B
bben15
Guest
Some do, maybe. I used to be a Lutheran of the ELCA not too long ago. I remember my Lutheran pastor telling me that it was Christ’s Body and Blood along with it being bread and wine. This implies consubstantiation.
Does the Missouri Synod reject consubstantiation? What do they believe in?
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
J
jmcrae
Guest
The Church makes its laws known to us through a variety of means, such that most people are aware of what the Church teaches, including most literate non-Catholics.
We are presumed to be adults, and we are presumed to be people of good will who will voluntarily do what we know we are supposed to do. When in doubt consult a good and holy priest.
What some people do is, they shop around until they find a priest who agrees with them, or else they phrase the question in a way that is deceptive, in order to be able to say “Well, Father So-and-so said it was okay.” They will answer to God some day. You can deceive a priest, and you can even deceive yourself, but you cannot deceive God.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Yes, Worth repeating. The Catholic laity have NO authority to invite any non Catholic to Communion any time they want to or even once. That should be a priest and it’s an exception not the norm and certainly is not meant to be “the priest told me once I could so anytime I can.” Maybe that’s misunderstood.Well, it was rather late last night when I read your excerpt of the article, and having just read the article in full at the website (had to search for it, got a “404 Error” on the link), I think it gives a much different picture than was presented in the excerpt.
It was very disturbing to me last night.
I think that the perspective given by the author may be one that is at odds both with those Lutherans that respect closed communion, and is certainly at odds with the Catholic position on the Eucharist, as was pointed out by a Catholic priest that posted a thoughtful response. The author received a lot of feedback on it from all sides, including Lutherans who disagreed with him.
When I read the full article, I was struck by the author’s apparent lack of desire to inquire too deeply about the longevity and conditions of the permission that he received from the Bishop. He even alludes to it. He is completely up front about it.
It’s like the old saying that “it’s easier to apologize than to ask permission”. Or the logic of a young boy who in his heart he knows his father would never permit an activity, yet he does it anyway thinking, “well, no one said I couldn’t do it”. May have used that once or twice myself, always to poor result.
I think that the author probably thinks he is justified in what he is doing, however, to me this seems to be a false ecumenism, as it flies in the face of what the CCC teaches Catholics about the Eucharist. He even presented a “checklist” of common doctrines, and he couldn’t find 100% agreement on his own checklist. I found that a bit amusing. And telling as it kind of tears apart his own assertions made earlier in the article about being in one accord in order to justify what seems to be abuse of the Eucharist.
He may not mean to scandalize, but even if he doesn’t (and I can by no means judge his intent), he is creating it in people that are sensitive to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
I’m not even sure if it is in accord with Lutheran instruction. I have Luther’s Small Catechism somewhere, perhaps I will try to find it.
I find his disregard for the feelings of Catholics that venerate and respect the Eucharist as the Blood and Body of our Savior by a Lutheran Pastor to be shocking and somewhat callous.
I also find it hard to believe that his Catholic relatives would not know that this is against the teachings of the Catholic Church and would invite him to communion any time he felt like it. I don’t believe they have the authority in the Catholic Church to make such an offer, unless the offer was contingent on his going through the RCIA successfully, and being received into the Catholic faith.
His approach seems pretty sneaky to me, even if he claims (or brags?) otherwise.
I hope this satisfies your question.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
However one may speculate, reality is that change occurs. The Church is in transition as we all pray for Francis.
M
MaryT777
Guest
I have had an ELCA pastor use the term consubstantiation not to be minute. That’s where I first heard it. I never heard that term before then so I just assumed (which is always a mistake in my young and immature days LOL ) that it was a rejection of and replacement to transubstantiation.
Maybe it’s used by some Lutherans to explain the concept of the Lutheran understanding to Roman Catholics.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
We do agree on some things
M
Michael57
Guest
Simply put? The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) is the means for those individuals outside the Catholic faith to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church.
I know no other way.
It was the path that I took, and that of many that desired to be in full communion before me.
RCIA.
For someone of another faith to simply show up to take communion in a Catholic Mass on the sly, neither makes them Catholic, nor in full communion with the Catholic Church no matter how much they think they have in common.
They have not the authority, or office to determine that. To do so usurps the authority of the Church. It is fundamentally flawed logically and disordered thinking. Prideful even.
Can you agree with that? I pray that you do.
This is not a small thing, for the closer one looks, the larger it gets. At it’s very center is Christ looking out at us.
The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life,
so that one may avoid the snares of death. (Prov. 14.27)
M
MaryT777
Guest
Of course!We do agree on some things
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
The people pounding on the door to commune with Christ. As if access to Christ must be protected. Catholics evangelize to bring people to Christ not fear them.
J
jmcrae
Guest
We are not “protecting” Christ. He is fully capable of protecting Himself. That’s what some of these scofflaws forget - they are not just rebelling against a bunch of old men, but against Christ Himself - and we know that His patience, though vast, is not infinite.
We are protecting those who would receive “not discerning the Body and the Blood” as the Apostle warns us, and we are protecting those who are not yet in a state of grace, or in full communion with His Church, so that they don’t come face to face with His wrath.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
How do you explain this?
I**. The Status of the Nicene Creed as Dogma of the Church (1965)
II. One Baptism for the Remission of Sins (1966)
III. The Eucharist as Sacrifice (1968)
IV. Eucharist and Ministry (1970)
V. Papal Primacy and the Universal Church (1973)
VI. Teaching Authority & Infallibility in the Church (1978)
VII. Justification by Faith (1983)
VIII. The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary (1990)
IX. Scripture and Tradition (1995)
X. The Church as Koinonia of Salvation: Its Structures and Ministries (2004)
XI. The Hope for Eternal Life (2010)**
J
jmcrae
Guest
These are hopeful steps, but unity has not yet been achieved.
Lutherans are still not in full communion with Rome. That’s why they are still called “Lutherans.”
M
Michael57
Guest
Except this isn’t a simple, earthly meal, is it?
This is the Eucharist, the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This is not trivial.
I have been at Mass with my father and mother, both non-Catholic, and I explained that the Holy Communion was for Catholics only, and those in proper disposition to receive.
They were not offended, they were happy to see that much of what they were told about the Catholic Mass was not true, but that is another story.
J
jmcrae
Guest
What if she isn’t your mother-in-law, but is a stranger to the family who has a remote ancestral connection from 500 years ago, who is showing up uninvited for family meals?
- Status