Ecumenism

[EvangelCatholic]

My quote function is not working.

MJK; you are 100 % correct.

The rest may dream on. Catholic altars are closed to non Catholics. Period. That is the pure and simple truth.

Confessional Lutheran altars are closed to both Catholics and liberal Lutherans, and everyone else for that matter.

Joint declarations and on going dialogues are not going to change this. Catholic theology, teaching, practice and belief are clear; so is ours. It's great to be optimistic, but optimism is not always healthy when it leads to delusion.

Thankfully your characterization is not shared by the majority of Lutherans and Catholics, particularly the Lutheran World Federation and the Vatican. How one can come to your conclusion is not supported in documentation and suggests an unwillingness to accept the reality of ecumenical efforts between Lutherans and Catholics.

I think it is telling when those opposed to the Commission on Unity between Catholics and Lutherans are from denominations that may also be opposed or uncomfortable with the ramifications of JDDJ.

I welcome citations/ references to the contrary in order to gauge if one is acquainted with the Dialogue of Catholics and Lutherans or just reacting to the development.

I know Lutherans who will never take holy Communion in a Catholic church and reject the primacy of the pope. But the prospects of intercommunion are very real and promising. Lutherans [LWF] are leading the way, in my opinion but the work of every pope since John 23rd, especially John Paul and Benedict also indicates a very serious desire to reunite the holy Church.

 

[MKJ]

Thankfully your characterization is not shared by the majority of Lutherans and Catholics, particularly the Lutheran World Federation and the Vatican. How one can come to your conclusion is not supported in documentation and suggests an unwillingness to accept the reality of ecumenical efforts between Lutherans and Catholics.

I think it is telling when those opposed to the Commission on Unity between Catholics and Lutherans are from denominations that may also be opposed or uncomfortable with the ramifications of JDDJ.

I welcome citations/ references to the contrary in order to gauge if one is acquainted with the Dialogue of Catholics and Lutherans or just reacting to the development.

I know Lutherans who will never take holy Communion in a Catholic church and reject the primacy of the pope. But the prospects of intercommunion are very real and promising. Lutherans [LWF] are leading the way, in my opinion but the work of every pope since John 23rd, especially John Paul and Benedict also indicates a very serious desire to reunite the holy Church.

Nothing you have posted says that Lutherans, or Anglicans, or any other Protestants, are able to partake in Catholic churches. They really just don't.

There is no need to provide anything to disprove what you have posted, because it doesn't say what you think it does. I really am perplexed that you think it is allowed or that is what it means.

This says nothing but that some Catholic people involved in studying the matter think that the proper authorities in the Catholic Church should think about whether or not the Lutheran Eucharist is valid, or whether it could be valid under some circumstances.

 

[MKJ]

And in fact the Anglican Communion, and the Lutherans associated with them, are actually moving farther away from the possibility of recognition of even a valid Eucharist because of the introduction of women bishops. And then there is this business in allowing non-ordained ministers to preside at a eucharist, which makes it very clear that the Catholic view of the priesthood is fundamentally different.

And of course even recognizing validity doesn't mean admitting to communion. Even the rules for allowing the Orthodox to commune in Catholic Churches are not completely free.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Nothing you have posted says that Lutherans, or Anglicans, or any other Protestants, are able to partake in Catholic churches. They really just don't.

There is no need to provide anything to disprove what you have posted, because it doesn't say what you think it does. I really am perplexed that you think it is allowed or that is what it means.

This says nothing but that some Catholic people involved in studying the matter think that the proper authorities in the Catholic Church should think about whether or not the Lutheran Eucharist is valid, or whether it could be valid under some circumstances.

The position of the Catholic Church is that Lutheran Eucharist is invalid, and Lutheran Clergy are illicit (those in Apostolic succission) and invalid for those who are not.

BTW, they also do not accept the Apostolic Succession claimed by the ELCA/ELCIC (Anglican) as valid either. Why? go to their forum and ask them.

In this forum, we accept our differences; we do not shove false ecumenism in any one's face either.

Thankfully your characterization is not shared by the majority of Lutherans and Catholics, particularly the Lutheran World Federation and the Vatican. How one can come to your conclusion is not supported in documentation and suggests an unwillingness to accept the reality of ecumenical efforts between Lutherans and Catholics.

I think it is telling when those opposed to the Commission on Unity between Catholics and Lutherans are from denominations that may also be opposed or uncomfortable with the ramifications of JDDJ.

I welcome citations/ references to the contrary in order to gauge if one is acquainted with the Dialogue of Catholics and Lutherans or just reacting to the development.

I know Lutherans who will never take holy Communion in a Catholic church and reject the primacy of the pope. But the prospects of intercommunion are very real and promising. Lutherans [LWF] are leading the way, in my opinion but the work of every pope since John 23rd, especially John Paul and Benedict also indicates a very serious desire to reunite the holy Church.

BTW, they also do not accept the Apostolic Succession claimed by the ELCA/ELCIC (Anglican) as valid either. Why? go to their forum and ask them.

In this forum, we accept our differences; we do not shove false ecumenism in any one's face either.

In this forum we deal with reality, not fairy tails.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

And in fact the Anglican Communion, and the Lutherans associated with them, are actually moving farther away from the possibility of recognition of even a valid Eucharist because of the introduction of women bishops. And then there is this business in allowing non-ordained ministers to preside at a eucharist, which makes it very clear that the Catholic view of the priesthood is fundamentally different.

And of course even recognizing validity doesn't mean admitting to communion. Even the rules for allowing the Orthodox to commune in Catholic Churches are not completely free.

Yes; and while the ILC and the Catholic Church are not only on the same page on moral/ethical/social/and most theological issues; we are both very aware of te theological differences that continue to separate us. I have posted this before, but in truth for a Lutheran to commune in a Catholic Church, it would require conversion; for a Catholic to commune in a Confessional Lutheran Chruch, they would have to convert; or the Pope would have to sign on to the unaltered 1580 edition of the Book of Concord.

This is unlikely to happen in our life time.

 

[GoingByzantine]

And of course even recognizing validity doesn't mean admitting to communion. Even the rules for allowing the Orthodox to commune in Catholic Churches are not completely free.

They are pretty much the same that a Catholic in communion with Rome must adhere to.

E. Canon 671 §3. Likewise Catholic ministers licitly administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to Christian faithful of Eastern Churches, who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask for them on their own and are properly disposed.

You have to ask for it and you need to be properly disposed, those are the same things that a Catholic must do.

 

[Michie]

I really have no issues within the Body of Christ with ecumenism. I have issues when we try to blend with those outside of it. Please do not confuse that as shutting them out completely... not what I mean. I just don't like giving confusing witness when it comes to faith.

I just do not feel comfortable as some people do saying other Christians that follow Christ are in danger of hell fire because they are of a different tradition of Christianity. That is God's job to judge eternal destination. I realize there are differences in thought & practice in Christianity but if they follow Christ & His Gospel then who is to say? I often wonder what Jesus meant exactly when He prayed that all His believers be as one. Does it really mean worshipping under the same roof? Or is it something else?

Unless it is a different Gospel than the one that was originally taught, I just don't see the differences all that important as long as we are all standing on the same foundation of belief.

My issues with ecumenism come when it comes to beliefs outside of Christianity. This would not include culture however.

 

[Rhamiel]

They are pretty much the same that a Catholic in communion with Rome must adhere to.

E. Canon 671 §3. Likewise Catholic ministers licitly administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to Christian faithful of Eastern Churches, who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask for them on their own and are properly disposed.

You have to ask for it and you need to be properly disposed, those are the same things that a Catholic must do.

and it should only be done if the person is not able to go to one of their own churches for a serious reason, like they are in a country that has no Eastern Orthodox Church close by and it is an emergency
it is not something done lightly

during the first Gulf War, Catholic service men in the US military were invited to receive communion in at least a few of the Coptic Orthodox Churches in Egypt while they were stationed there

 

[MoreCoffee]

My quote function is not working.

MJK; you are 100 % correct.

The rest may dream on. Catholic altars are closed to non Catholics. Period. That is the pure and simple truth.

Confessional Lutheran altars are closed to both Catholics and liberal Lutherans, and everyone else for that matter.

Joint declarations and on going dialogues are not going to change this. Catholic theology, teaching, practice and belief are clear; so is ours. It's great to be optimistic, but optimism is not always healthy when it leads to delusion.

I am not completely sure what you intended by "Catholic altars" but Catholics will receive Orthodox christians at communion when permission is given by the bishops concerned. I am not sure about having an Orthodox priest preside at a mass.

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't see GoingByzantine's reply until after writing the above. GoingByzantine is correct.

 

[Anhelyna]

GB is correct , but it has to be said that, though members of the Orthodox Church are welcome to Receive in a Catholic [ meaning here the traditional meaning of Catholic Church - i.e. Roman(Latin) or Eastern ] they are also expected to take regard of the traditions of their Respective Church - and Orthodoxy does not permit their members to Commune outside of Orthodoxy.

One other thing - which comes from MC's comment above

I am not sure about having an Orthodox priest preside at a mass.

You won't see that Though you may see a priest in what you think are Orthodox Vestments at the Altar of an RC Church , he is likely to be Eastern Catholic [ the vestments are the same ] Many EC Priests serve small Missions outside their own parishes and it's common then to make arrangements to use/borrow an RC Church for that.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I am not completely sure what you intended by "Catholic altars" but Catholics will receive Orthodox christians at communion when permission is given by the bishops concerned. I am not sure about having an Orthodox priest preside at a mass.

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't see GoingByzantine's reply until after writing the above. GoingByzantine is correct.

Coffee, I'm not disputing the exceptions/special circumstances that arise from time to time and the resulting examples of "Pastoral Discretion" by Pastors, Priests, Bishops, Synods and Churches. What I am talking about is the Status Quo.

The "warm and fuzzy" tone on the part of some Liberal Lutherans is more of case of wishful thinking, considering the move away from the traditional and conservative position of the Catholic Church.

The fact is that the Cardinal Kurt Koch, Chairman of the Pontifical Council on Christian Unity, is presently exploring a "Lutheran Ordinature"; which, in and of itself indicates that the only way to have altar and pulpit fellowship with Lutherans is to assimilate them.

See this article: ?A Lutheran ordinariate? That?s a bad sign? - Vatican Insider

 

[MoreCoffee]

In winter warm and fuzzy is lovely

 

[GoingByzantine]

GB is correct , but it has to be said that, though members of the Orthodox Church are welcome to Receive in a Catholic [ meaning here the traditional meaning of Catholic Church - i.e. Roman(Latin) or Eastern ] they are also expected to take regard of the traditions of their Respective Church - and Orthodoxy does not permit their members to Commune outside of Orthodoxy.

One other thing - which comes from MC's comment above


You won't see that Though you may see a priest in what you think are Orthodox Vestments at the Altar of an RC Church , he is likely to be Eastern Catholic [ the vestments are the same ] Many EC Priests serve small Missions outside their own parishes and it's common then to make arrangements to use/borrow an RC Church for that.

Yes Anhelyna that is an important point! Even though Orthodox may receive, they need to keep in mind what their church would think of their choice. If an Orthodox parishioner did receive at a Catholic church, it would probably be pretty scandalous.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Yes, it really does. You can't somehow suspend the ontological nature of ordination.

If a Lutheran or other minister who has not been reordained comes to preside at a Eucharist at an Anglican parish, according to this view that person is not in fact a priest and there is no Eucharist, or certainly it isn't a dependable claim that there is one, any more than if some guy off the street did it.

That is a serious problem - by making the agreement work that way, they have totally undermined a significant and historic Anglican understanding of Holy Orders.

You are right, it did not start with the Lutherans, but it is all part and parcel of the same theological sloppiness.

And what is most ironic is they do this sort of thing while still wanting to claim valid holy orders to the Catholics and Orthodox based on the traditional understanding.

Its a total mess.

There is a fatal flaw to your argument regarding holy orders and why it is an obstacle to Roman Catholics accepting Anglicans as a "sister" church. Historic apostolic succession has been maintained among Anglicans and I don't think Catholics question this as they also accept the uninterrupted AS of Scandinavian Lutherans. But in 1897 Rome took papal action against the Anglican Church when Pope Leo issued 'Apostolicae Curae' stating that Anglican Orders were "absolutely null and utterly void".

I believe the issue for Roman Catholic ecumenists is the theological uncertainty allowed within the Anglican Communion concerning the 'Real Presence' of Christ in the Eucharist and a willingness among Anglicans to accept a variety of positions that can include not only Catholic understanding but also Protestant Reformed thought. The developments in the Anglican Church in Australia perhaps illustrate this when there is consideration of lay presidency at the altar. If a layman can consecrate the Eucharist and the 'seal of the confessional' is eliminated as the archbishop of Sydney suggests then the question of eucharistic validity is undermined, as I see it.

Anglicans have also been in dialogue with Roman Catholics; the accords on the blessed Virgin Mary are an excellent example of consensus. Pope Benedict reasserted the Catholic position of a personal ordinariate for Anglican reunion. This is quite different, however, from the Lutheran-Roman Catholic relationship. The papal and magisterial declaration of JDDJ sets the way for Lutherans to become a sister communion under the shepherd of the pope. Lutheran insistence in Confessio Augustana was the foundation of the Dialogue with Roman Catholics.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes Anhelyna that is an important point! Even though Orthodox may receive, they need to keep in mind what their church would think of their choice. If an Orthodox parishioner did receive at a Catholic church, it would probably be pretty scandalous.

If an Orthodox parishioner received the Eucharist at a Catholic (or any other non-Orthodox) Church, they would be essentially declaring themselves in full agreement with that Church, severing their agreement with the Orthodox Church and excommunicating themselves. (Not being excommunicated by the Church but voluntarily removing themselves.) They should NOT go forward for communion at an Orthodox Church in this condition. Restoration would be accomplished through the sacrament of confession and absolution.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Coffee, I'm not disputing the exceptions/special circumstances that arise from time to time and the resulting examples of "Pastoral Discretion" by Pastors, Priests, Bishops, Synods and Churches. What I am talking about is the Status Quo.

The "warm and fuzzy" tone on the part of some Liberal Lutherans is more of case of wishful thinking, considering the move away from the traditional and conservative position of the Catholic Church.

The fact is that the Cardinal Kurt Koch, Chairman of the Pontifical Council on Christian Unity, is presently exploring a "Lutheran Ordinature"; which, in and of itself indicates that the only way to have altar and pulpit fellowship with Lutherans is to assimilate them.

See this article: ?A Lutheran ordinariate? That?s a bad sign? - Vatican Insider

I've grown rather fond of my Lutheran brethren (sisters included) but I know that unity is still a long way away and inter-communion is just as far since the former really is needed for the latter. Nevertheless we enjoy one another's company and rejoice in one another's faith and faith-life. That seems a positive step to me. Not a perfect and complete union but a kind of union that comes from acknowledging that Christ is in each of us even if our doctrine and practise is not the same.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The position of the Catholic Church is that Lutheran Eucharist is invalid, and Lutheran Clergy are illicit (those in Apostolic succission) and invalid for those who are not.

BTW, they also do not accept the Apostolic Succession claimed by the ELCA/ELCIC (Anglican) as valid either. Why? go to their forum and ask them.

In this forum, we accept our differences; we do not shove false ecumenism in any one's face either.



BTW, they also do not accept the Apostolic Succession claimed by the ELCA/ELCIC (Anglican) as valid either. Why? go to their forum and ask them.

In this forum, we accept our differences; we do not shove false ecumenism in any one's face either.

In this forum we deal with reality, not fairy tails.

Please, if you would, provide a citation on your assertion related to the validity of the Lutheran Eucharist by Roman Catholics.

Building on these and other insights, the Roman Catholic participants
offer additional affirmations as part of their concluding
statement in bold-face type. They acknowledge in the “spirit of the
Second Vatican Council that the Evangelical-Lutheran communities
with which we have been in dialogue are truly Christian churches,
possessing the elements of holiness and truth that mark them as organs
of grace and salvation”
From Conflict to Communion. Lutheran Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017. Report of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity (2013)

3. Unity in Reconciled Diversity. This is an ecumenical model advanced by the
Lutheran World Federation (LWF) that finds its theological basis again in Article VII
of the Augsburg Confession:
“It is not necessary for the true unity of Christ’s Church that ceremonies, instituted
by people, should be observed uniformly in all places.” The key concept here is not
uniformity, but diversity.
It is the Anglicans who in the past have claimed to be the bridge church, as a rallying
point for all other churches. But is it possible that the Evangelical-Lutherans, just by
being confessionally Evangelical-Lutheran, have now earned this title?



1. The satis est of the Augsburg Confession. Article VII of this historic statement of
faith (from 1530) that is regarded as normative by all Evangelical-Lutherans worldwide
says that “for the true unity of the Church it is enough (satis est) to agree concerning the
teaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments.”
Critics might call the ecumenical application of this principle Gospel reductionism.
I suggest that it is Gospel centralism, and those who deny its intended potential for
fostering unity with other Christians have, in effect, altered the Unaltered Augsburg
Confession.

http://www.koed.hu/vocation/johngeorge.pdf

The express purpose of the Augsburg Confession is to bear witness to the faith of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Its and concern is not with peculiar doctrines nor indeed with the establishment of a new Church (CA 7,1), but with the preservation and renewal of the Christian faith in its purity in harmony with the Ancient Church, and "the Church of Rome," and in agreement with the witness of Holy Scripture.3 This explicit intention of the Confessio Augustana is also still important for our understanding of the later Lutheran confessional documents.

Joint studies by Catholic and Lutheran theologians4 have shown that the contents of the statements of the Augsburg Confession in large measure fulfill this intention and to this extent can be regarded as an expression of the common faith.

http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int...onechrist.html

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Please, if you would, provide a citation on your assertion related to the validity of the Lutheran Eucharist by Roman Catholics.

Here is a very in depth article regarding the Catholic position on the invalidity of Anglican orders and Anglican Eucharist; and since the ELCA/ELCIC's apostolic succession is through Anglican Bishops, it applies to those Synods as well: https://frstephensmuts.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/do-anglicans-have-a-valid-eucharist/

An agreement in principal or wishful thinking is not going to change what is intrenched in history and Papal declaration.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I've grown rather fond of my Lutheran brethren (sisters included) but I know that unity is still a long way away and inter-communion is just as far since the former really is needed for the latter. Nevertheless we enjoy one another's company and rejoice in one another's faith and faith-life. That seems a positive step to me. Not a perfect and complete union but a kind of union that comes from acknowledging that Christ is in each of us even if our doctrine and practise is not the same.

Me too. We live in great times; and even an agreement to agree on somethings and an agreement to disagree on others is still agreement; way more agreement that we have had for a few hundred years, and it feels good!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Me too. We live in great times; and even an agreement to agree on somethings and an agreement to disagree on others is still agreement; way more agreement that we have had for a few hundred years, and it feels good!

It's good to witness as well.