Why can't Lutherans accept the Eucharist as a RC mass?

[GKC]

Oh come on, GKC. Following the rules of the church body you belong to or seek to commune with? Why, that’s so dreadfully conservative and Christian. Get with the times man! Don’t you know these are the days when all that boring stuff is relative and meaningless? It’s all about love.

So I’ve heard.

In places where I don’t listen.

GKC

 

[findingmyself08]

Lutherans cannot take the Eucharist at an RC church, nor can an RC accept the Eucharist at one of our confessional Lutheran churches.

That is because we are divided on the real presence. We both believe in it, but disagree as to “how” the real presence is well present. RC goes with Transubstantiation, that only the accidents of bread and wine remain post consecration. Lutherans go with sacramental union, that bread wine, and Jesus body and blood are present, but without the substance/accidents division.

We are also divided on other things, such as justification, sanctification, purgatory, the power and primacy of the pope etc. Taking communion means you are in communion with that particular church. Communion means you are in unity, that is total agreement with all doctrine. Since Lutherans and Catholics are not in total agreement, it’s better that our tables remain separate for now. It may even be that our tables remain separate until the Second Coming. That would be unfortunate, but I am not willing to compromise one bit on any issue of doctrine. And I would never want anyone else, especially the RC to compromise any of their doctrine for the sake of unity. That would be doing both of us a disservice.

I guess I need to re-look at how I thought I understood the difference between Catholics and Lutherans. Thanks everyone for pointing out my mistake. I’ll have to read more about it.

 

[FrDavid96]

Sorry Father David, but what you write seems to be contrary to the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue where the Eucharist is much of the focus. In-fact, Lutherans “could” commune at a Catholic Mass, per the proposal in Dialogue, just as Orthodox are welcomed. The issue of the Real Presence at Lutheran altars is not as you state and I will gladly provide citations from the Roman Catholic Church, if you are unfamiliar with ‘From Conflict to Communion’.

No. It is consistent with the beliefs of the Catholic Church. It is consistent with the Catholic positions, including those in the dialogue.

Vatican II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Code of Canon Law and (what is commonly called) the Ecumenical Directory (vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_25031993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html)

What I’ve tried to explain to you in the past (and we’ve been here before) is that the dialogue document does not overturn Catholic doctrine. The Catholic participants in the dialogue never meant for it to do that—that’s what you are trying to make it out to be.

 

[FrDavid96]

This paragraph by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical *Ecclesia de Eucharistia *
expresses the Catholic belief on this matter and also explains the proper application of canon 844.2

The text in red is my own emphasis.

1. In my Encyclical Ut Unum Sint I expressed my own appreciation of these norms, which make it possible to provide for the salvation of souls with proper discernment: “It is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid”.

These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_eccl-de-euch_en.html

 

[GKC]

No. It is consistent with the beliefs of the Catholic Church. It is consistent with the Catholic positions, including those in the dialogue.

Vatican II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Code of Canon Law and (what is commonly called) the Ecumenical Directory (vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_25031993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html)

What I’ve tried to explain to you in the past (and we’ve been here before) is that the dialogue document does not overturn Catholic doctrine. The Catholic participants in the dialogue never meant for it to do that—that’s what you are trying to make it out to be.

I’ve been there before with EC myself - Anglican that I am.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

No. It is consistent with the beliefs of the Catholic Church. It is consistent with the Catholic positions, including those in the dialogue.

Vatican II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Code of Canon Law and (what is commonly called) the Ecumenical Directory (vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_25031993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html)

What I’ve tried to explain to you in the past (and we’ve been here before) is that the dialogue document does not overturn Catholic doctrine. The Catholic participants in the dialogue never meant for it to do that—that’s what you are trying to make it out to be.

I understand what you are getting at, Fr David. But as we have discussed in the past, the Catholic Church never says what you propose in denying the Real Presence in a Lutheran Mass, But the Catholic Church does affirm is this:

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

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

62.Lutheran and Catholic Christians confess together that in the Eucharist the body and blood of the Lord are really received, either for salvation or for condemnation (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29). They confess that the believing reception of the eucharistic bread and wine gives personal union with Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior They also agree that the efficacy of believers reception of the Lord cannot be measured by human standards but belongs to the sphere of the free and humanly uncontrollable action of God.
raadvankerken.nl/fman/3246.pdf

 

[FrDavid96]

I understand what you are getting at, Fr David. But as we have discussed in the past, the Catholic Church never says what you propose in denying the Real Presence in a Lutheran Mass, But the Catholic Church does affirm is this:

Not true. What you are posting is untrue, and (at this point) outright deceptive.

1. The document does not say what you misrepresent it as saying.
2. The document does not speak with any authority to over-turn Catholic doctrine.

Again, you are taking a document that has no teaching authority and trying to claim that that document overturns 500 years of Catholic teaching and practice, including very recent documents that do speak with authority.

Catholics can say that “Lutherans believe it” but cannot agree with the statement itself, that Lutherans actually have a valid Eucharist. It’s a distinction I’ve tried to explain to you over and over again, but you consistently deny.
I can say all day long “he thinks he’s the reincarnation of Napoleon” but that won’t mean that he actually is that.

I could “prove” that the Catholic Church recognizes that Lutheran ecclesial communities do not have Apostolic Succession, and do not have a valid Eucharist. That would be the theological equivalent of “proving” that the sun rises in the morning.

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church
30. The Catholic Church’s teaching on the relationship between priestly ministry and the Eucharist and her teaching on the Eucharistic Sacrifice have both been the subject in recent decades of a fruitful dialogue in the area of ecumenism. We must give thanks to the Blessed Trinity for the significant progress and convergence achieved in this regard, which lead us to hope one day for a full sharing of faith. Nonetheless, the observations of the Council concerning the Ecclesial Communities which arose in the West from the sixteenth century onwards and are separated from the Catholic Church remain fully pertinent: “The Ecclesial Communities separated from us lack that fullness of unity with us which should flow from Baptism, and we believe that especially because of the lack of the sacrament of Orders they have not preserved the genuine and total reality of the Eucharistic mystery. Nevertheless, when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and they await his coming in glory”.

Bl. Pope John Paul II, 2003
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_eccl-de-euch_en.html

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Not true. What you are posting is untrue, and (at this point) outright deceptive.

1. The document does not say what you misrepresent it as saying.
2. The document does not speak with any authority to over-turn Catholic doctrine.

Again, you are taking a document that has no teaching authority and trying to claim that that document overturns 500 years of Catholic teaching and practice, including very recent documents that do speak with authority.

Catholics can say that “Lutherans believe it” but cannot agree with the statement itself, that Lutherans actually have a valid Eucharist. It’s a distinction I’ve tried to explain to you over and over again, but you consistently deny.
I can say all day long “he thinks he’s the reincarnation of Napoleon” but that won’t mean that he actually is that.

I could “prove” that the Catholic Church recognizes that Lutheran ecclesial communities do not have Apostolic Succession, and do not have a valid Eucharist. That would be the theological equivalent of “proving” that the sun rises in the morning.

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church
30. The Catholic Church’s teaching on the relationship between priestly ministry and the Eucharist and her teaching on the Eucharistic Sacrifice have both been the subject in recent decades of a fruitful dialogue in the area of ecumenism. We must give thanks to the Blessed Trinity for the significant progress and convergence achieved in this regard, which lead us to hope one day for a full sharing of faith. Nonetheless, the observations of the Council concerning the Ecclesial Communities which arose in the West from the sixteenth century onwards and are separated from the Catholic Church remain fully pertinent: “The Ecclesial Communities separated from us lack that fullness of unity with us which should flow from Baptism, and we believe that especially because of the lack of the sacrament of Orders they have not preserved the genuine and total reality of the Eucharistic mystery. Nevertheless, when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and they await his coming in glory”.

Bl. Pope John Paul II, 2003
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_eccl-de-euch_en.html

The Dialogue is what it clearly states in the recommendation that Lutheran and Catholic bishops/ pastors go on retreat together, that Lutheran and Catholic laymen have catechism together and attend each other’s synod/ diocese assemblies.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

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

 

[FrDavid96]

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

Which means that Christ is present in some way with the community: not present in any way in the bread.

Again, you are taking quotes out of context and misrepresenting them in an attempt to say that they mean what they do not mean.

It’s deception, plain and simple.

The Catholic Church’s teaching and position is summarized again here:
FIFTH QUESTION

Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE
According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

Signed by Cardinal Levada and personally approved by Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Here’s the full quote:

See his quote in the following passage from Round X of the Lutheran-Catholic dialogues (usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml):

1. 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)

 

[FrDavid96]

Here’s the full quote:

It changes nothing.

You are still taking quotes and manipulating them in an attempt to say that which they are not saying.

It is exactly this type of misrepresentation that prompted the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to issue this clarification.

The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.
…
According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[EvangelCatholic]

In the absence of consensus, convergence is acceptable. The Dialogue suggests Lutherans accept the papacy and Magisterium, by the way. And most north American Lutherans have reclaimed episcopacy/ apostolic succession from the Church of Sweden/ Church of England.

1. The Roman Catholic Church has preserved the succession of episcopal consecrations; this succession was broken in continental Lutheranism, maintained in parts of Nordic Lutheranism, and has been reclaimed by the ELCA. What is the significance of either preserving or breaking this succession? That question must not be isolated and made to bear the entire weight of a judgment on a church’s ministry. Whether a particular minister or church serves the church’s apostolic mission does not depend only upon the presence of such a succession of episcopal consecrations, as if its absence would negate the apostolicity of the church’s teaching and mission.135 Recent ecumenical discussions of episcopacy and succession do not remove our former disagreements, but they do place them in a richer and more complex context in which judgments made exclusively on the basis of the presence or absence of a succession of consecrations are less possible.

 

[JonNC]

Which means that Christ is present in some way with the community: not present in any way in the bread.
Again, you are taking quotes out of context and misrepresenting them in an attempt to say that they mean what they do not mean.

It’s deception, plain and simple.

The Catholic Church’s teaching and position is summarized again here:
FIFTH QUESTION

Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE
According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

Signed by Cardinal Levada and personally approved by Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

While I contend that Cardinal Ratzinger meant something more than Christ’s presence within the community. He was writing to a Lutheran bishop, after all, and this would have appeared almost patronizing. OTOH, I don’t believe that the Cardinal was attempting to draw an equality between our Eucharist and yours, as that would be counter to Catholic teaching, as you’ve said.

All of that said, Father, you are not the only one who has tried to counsel EC, that while our communions have made great strides since Vatican II, we are not in communion, do not share our altars with each other, and pray sincerely for the day that happens.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

While I contend that Cardinal Ratzinger meant something more than Christ’s presence within the community. He was writing to a Lutheran bishop, after all, and this would have appeared almost patronizing. OTOH, I don’t believe that the Cardinal was attempting to draw an equality between our Eucharist and yours, as that would be counter to Catholic teaching, as you’ve said.

All of that said, Father, you are not the only one who has tried to counsel EC, that while our communions have made great strides since Vatican II, we are not in communion, do not share our altars with each other, and pray sincerely for the day that happens.

Jon

Not all of which of which have been toward each other. (Did someone say women’s ordination in the LWF? )

 

[JonNC]

Not all of which of which have been toward each other. (Did someone say women’s ordination in the LWF? )

And I’ve mentioned that to EC, also, that women’s ordination is a step away from unity, though, while not intending to speak for him, he seems to think Pope Francis and the Catholic Church will somehow catch up to this enlightened view.

I love his passion for unity, and pray for it fervently, but we are not there yet.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

While I contend that Cardinal Ratzinger meant something more than Christ’s presence within the community. He was writing to a Lutheran bishop, after all, and this would have appeared almost patronizing. OTOH, I don’t believe that the Cardinal was attempting to draw an equality between our Eucharist and yours, as that would be counter to Catholic teaching, as you’ve said.

All of that said, Father, you are not the only one who has tried to counsel EC, that while our communions have made great strides since Vatican II, we are not in communion, do not share our altars with each other, and pray sincerely for the day that happens.

Jon

Did you say “patronizing”?

 

[JonNC]

Did you say “patronizing”?

Yes. I think Cr. Ratzinger knew who he was talking to, and if he had meant only a general presence in his comment to the bishop, it would have appeared patronizing, given his knowledge of Lutheran Eucharistic belief. Hence, I believe he meant more than that

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

And I’ve mentioned that to EC, also, that women’s ordination is a step away from unity, though, while not intending to speak for him, he seems to think Pope Francis and the Catholic Church will somehow catch up to this enlightened view.

I love his passion for unity, and pray for it fervently, but we are not there yet.

Jon

I wonder why EC is not Catholic.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I wonder why EC is not Catholic.

Pro-Life, Women Ordination, Closed Communion.