Ecumenism

[EvangelCatholic]

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.

Your argument is circular and reflects counter-ecumenism. Within the astounding context of bringing Lutherans back into the fold of St Peter, there are other discussions/ full-communions taking place across the Church. The message is that to profess the ecumenical creeds, hear the Gospel and celebrate the Sacraments one is in union with the holy catholic faith. For Lutherans who share ministries with Reformed, Methodist, Anglican the belief in the Real Presence is not necessary for holy Communion. Lutherans believe Christ is literally present on the altars of all Christian churches whether or not the denomination professes it.

This is the future of the holy Church

 

[Anhelyna]

Forgive this question but if you, as a Lutheran, believe that Christ is truly present on the Altar , how can you be in communion with someone who does not ?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Forgive this question but if you, as a Lutheran, believe that Christ is truly present on the Altar , how can you be in communion with someone who does not ?

The benefits of forgiveness of sins and eternal life are vital regardless the understanding of the communicant. For example, the ELCA also allows infant communion [host].

 

[Anhelyna]

Sorry - but I think that this is one of those times that you and I will have to agree to disagree .

I really cannot understand how two Churches which do not have identical beliefs in the Real Presence can be in communion with each other .

Let's leave it there .

 

[hedrick]

Sorry - but I think that this is one of those times that you and I will have to agree to disagree .

I really cannot understand how two Churches which do not have identical beliefs in the Real Presence can be in communion with each other .

Let's leave it there .

I suspect those churches tend to see Christ's presence as an objective fact, and to think that it's based on his promise and not the accuracy of our understanding. The requirement would then be an intent to participate in communion as instituted by Christ and described by Paul, and not any specific belief about it.

If we view it in this way, it could even be regarded as presumptuous for us to limit access to what is Christ's table, based on agreement with our particular theory.

But that's entirely based on the distinction between Christ's institution and our theory about how it work. For those who don't accept this distinction, of course other policies follow. I'm not trying to change your mind, but to help you understand how reasonable Christians could support open communion (and even consider closed communion to be offensive).

This distinction has applications beyond communion. It is obvious that we have differences spanning soteriology and the atonement. Many of us think that if our intent is to be followers of Christ, to follow his commandments and repent when we do not, that errors in theology don't affect our status as Christians. On that basis I consider even Christians who don't accept a Protestant account of justification still to be justified by faith in Christ.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Your argument is circular and reflects counter-ecumenism. Within the astounding context of bringing Lutherans back into the fold of St Peter, there are other discussions/ full-communions taking place across the Church. The message is that to profess the ecumenical creeds, hear the Gospel and celebrate the Sacraments one is in union with the holy catholic faith. For Lutherans who share ministries with Reformed, Methodist, Anglican the belief in the Real Presence is not necessary for holy Communion. Lutherans believe Christ is literally present on the altars of all Christian churches whether or not the denomination professes it.

This is the future of the holy Church

The great chasm that separates our two synods continues to widen. The caution given in Scripture regarding failing to discern Christ's body and blood and the grave consequences of failing to do so, appear to both the Confessional Synods, and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to be completely ignored by the liberal synods and the Churches that they are in fellowship with. This is only one of many issues that would need to be resolved before Altar fellowship could even be considered.

These issues are more serious than a happy, smiley photo-op or press release that to many of us seem to be no more than PR.

 

[hedrick]

The great chasm that separates our two synods continues to widen. The caution given in Scripture regarding failing to discern Christ's body and blood and the grave consequences of failing to do so, appear to both the Confessional Synods, and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to be completely ignored by the liberal synods and the Churches that they are in fellowship with. This is only one of many issues that would need to be resolved before Altar fellowship could even be considered.

These issues are more serious than a happy, smiley photo-op or press release that to many of us seem to be no more than PR.

As a non-Lutheran, I haven't been clear on the involvement of ELCA vs. LCMS in the various discussions with the Catholics? Which ones are involved, and which do you think are hopeful about some kind of communion being established? I would think that the ordination of gays and women would make that an unrealistic hope for the ELCA, but I've been unclear whether it's the LCMS that's involved.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Mark, maybe your concern is the same as mine. I'm going to agree with Anhelyna. If one believes that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, would it be a kind thing to allow it to be received by those who did not believe so? Would they not be failing to discern the Lord's Body and partaking unto condemnation? Surely no caring priest would want to do that to anyone ...

 

[MKJ]

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.

No. The Catholic Church does not accept Anglican orders as valid.

 

[GoingByzantine]

Change has to be two sided, if there was to be communion, confessional lutherans would have to make sacrifices also. I doubt either side wants to make the necessary sacrifices.

 

[hedrick]

Would they not be failing to discern the Lord's Body and partaking unto condemnation?

This isn't the place for the discussion, but you might want to look at a recent critical commentary on 1 Cor to see what the original readers would have understood that phrase to mean.

 

[~Anastasia~]

This isn't the place for the discussion, but you might want to look at a recent critical commentary on 1 Cor to see what the original readers would have understood that phrase to mean.

Sorry, no intent to derail the discussion. It just seems an important point that could prevent sharing communion among those who hold a certain theology.

I'm not sure which commentary you might mean though. I did look for opinions on this verse last year and received a very wide range of diverse opinions (not surprising since there is quite a wide range of thought about communion). I might be wrong, but it did generally appear that interpretations usually tended to align with Eucharistic theology (with the notable exception of Methodists, which was fascinating to me, but still didn't answer the question satisfactorily at that time).

 

[MKJ]

I suspect those churches tend to see Christ's presence as an objective fact, and to think that it's based on his promise and not the accuracy of our understanding. The requirement would then be an intent to participate in communion as instituted by Christ and described by Paul, and not any specific belief about it.

If we view it in this way, it could even be regarded as presumptuous for us to limit access to what is Christ's table, based on agreement with our particular theory.

But that's entirely based on the distinction between Christ's institution and our theory about how it work. For those who don't accept this distinction, of course other policies follow. I'm not trying to change your mind, but to help you understand how reasonable Christians could support open communion (and even consider closed communion to be offensive).

This distinction has applications beyond communion. It is obvious that we have differences spanning soteriology and the atonement. Many of us think that if our intent is to be followers of Christ, to follow his commandments and repent when we do not, that errors in theology don't affect our status as Christians. On that basis I consider even Christians who don't accept a Protestant account of justification still to be justified by faith in Christ.

It sounds like you are thinking of being in communion as the same thing as having open communion.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The great chasm that separates our two synods continues to widen. The caution given in Scripture regarding failing to discern Christ's body and blood and the grave consequences of failing to do so, appear to both the Confessional Synods, and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to be completely ignored by the liberal synods and the Churches that they are in fellowship with. This is only one of many issues that would need to be resolved before Altar fellowship could even be considered.

These issues are more serious than a happy, smiley photo-op or press release that to many of us seem to be no more than PR.

Yes, and why your Synod restricts holy Communion to only members of your Synod and maybe a few other small Lutheran groups. It is barrier that even the Church of Rome does not require. That is why I have suggested that most world-wide Lutherans will have intercommunion with Catholics before your and a few other ultra conservative Synods will allow holy Communion with other Lutherans.

Keep in mind that the LCMS did participate in the Dialogue but was not invited back by the Roman Catholic Church when they declined to sign the JDDJ, per my understanding.

So what is it that your Synod demands from Christians who seek a sacramental union with Christ? That they believe everything exactly the same even if it has nothing to do with salvation.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

As a non-Lutheran, I haven't been clear on the involvement of ELCA vs. LCMS in the various discussions with the Catholics? Which ones are involved, and which do you think are hopeful about some kind of communion being established? I would think that the ordination of gays and women would make that an unrealistic hope for the ELCA, but I've been unclear whether it's the LCMS that's involved.

The Lutheran World Federation representing around 90% of all Lutherans is the partner with Roman Catholics in the Dialogue and Commission on Unity.

The issue, of-course, of female clergy and same-sex marriage may be the obstacle for reunion. What Pope Francis identified as "anthropology and ethics" in his address to the LWF.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

As a non-Lutheran, I haven't been clear on the involvement of ELCA vs. LCMS in the various discussions with the Catholics? Which ones are involved, and which do you think are hopeful about some kind of communion being established? I would think that the ordination of gays and women would make that an unrealistic hope for the ELCA, but I've been unclear whether it's the LCMS that's involved.

There are talks by both groups, separately. The ELCA think that since they can have full fellowship with the Catholic Church; every one else knows that in order to do so, they would need to be received into the Catholic Church and relinquish their Lutheran faith. We as part of the ILC are having very serious discussions to understand why we differ, where we differ and where we are in concord. We are on the same page as the CC regarding same sex unions, ordination of female clergy, and we both are pro-life; theologically we are closer also because we use the same interpretive standard for scripture and the same lectionairy unlike the ELCA and Anglican communions that use a modified form of the three year lectionary; yet we know that unity is possible but no imminent, and maybe not even in this world.

Mark, maybe your concern is the same as mine. I'm going to agree with Anhelyna. If one believes that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, would it be a kind thing to allow it to be received by those who did not believe so? Would they not be failing to discern the Lord's Body and partaking unto condemnation? Surely no caring priest would want to do that to anyone ...

Yes, this is exactly why our Churches practice this; to prevent those who do not discern from sinning against Christ's body and blood.

Yes, and why your Synod restricts holy Communion to only members of your Synod and maybe a few other small Lutheran groups. It is barrier that even the Church of Rome does not require. That is why I have suggested that most world-wide Lutherans will have intercommunion with Catholics before your and a few other ultra conservative Synods will allow holy Communion with other Lutherans.

Keep in mind that the LCMS did participant in the Dialogue but was not invited back by the Roman Catholic Church when they declined to sign the JDDJ, per my understanding.

So what is it that your Synod demands from Christians who seek a sacramental union with Christ? That they believe everything exactly the same even if it has nothing to do with salvation.

Sir, you are indeed mistaken; the Catholic Church practices closed communion as we do, for the very same reasons.

We were invited to private, meaningful , formal talks that continue both in the US with the LCMS, At our Sems in St. Catherine's and Edmonton, and in Rome with the ILC.

Everyone else seems to get it.

Rome is not going to concelebrate the eucharist with a Church body that has female bishops and neither are we.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

There are talks by both groups, separately. The ELCA think that since they can have full fellowship with the Catholic Church; every one else knows that in order to do so, they would need to be received into the Catholic Church and relinquish their Lutheran faith. We as part of the ILC are having very serious discussions to understand why we differ, where we differ and where we are in concord. We are on the same page as the CC regarding same sex unions, ordination of female clergy, and we both are pro-life; theologically we are closer also because we use the same interpretive standard for scripture and the same lectionairy unlike the ELCA and Anglican communions that use a modified form of the three year lectionary; yet we know that unity is possible but no imminent, and maybe not even in this world.



Yes, this is exactly why our Churches practice this; to prevent those who do not discern from sinning against Christ's body and blood.



Sir, you are indeed mistaken; the Catholic Church practices closed communion as we do, for the very same reasons.

We were invited to private, meaningful , formal talks that continue both in the US with the LCMS, At our Sems in St. Catherine's and Edmonton, and in Rome with the ILC.

Everyone else seems to get it.

Rome is not going to concelebrate the eucharist with a Church body that has female bishops and neither are we.

The Roman Catholic Church allows Orthodox Christians to take holy Communion at a Catholic Mass. That is used as an example in the Dialogue that would allow Lutherans to also commune at Catholic altars.

I agree that female clergy may be insurmountable. But the Church of Sweden ordained its first female priest in the late 1950's followed by many other Lutheran synods including those that formed the ELCA; all the while the Dialogue continued.

 

[MKJ]

The Roman Catholic Church allows Orthodox Christians to take holy Communion at a Catholic Mass. That is used as an example in the Dialogue that would allow Lutherans to also commune at Catholic altars.

I agree that female clergy may be insurmountable. But the Church of Sweden ordained its first female priest in the late 1950's followed by many other Lutheran synods including those that formed the ELCA; all the while the Dialogue continued.

The fact that they allow one group does not mean they will allow another, unless the circumstances are the same. Which they aren't.

They see Orthodox Holy Orders and their Eucharist as valid, and unlike the Protestants, they see them as still being part of the Church in a proper institutional sense.

They will have talks with any group, pretty much - that has nothing to do with them being actually close to an agreement or similar perspective.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The fact that they allow one group does not mean they will allow another, unless the circumstances are the same. Which they aren't.

They see Orthodox Holy Orders and their Eucharist as valid, and unlike the Protestants, they see them as still being part of the Church in a proper institutional sense.

They will have talks with any group, pretty much - that has nothing to do with them being actually close to an agreement or similar perspective.

You can state whatever you want even if it doesn't reflect reality. Without reading the ecumenical declaration [JDDJ] and 'From Conflict to Communion' you are ill informed to comment in my opinion, in all due respect.

Perhaps like not attending a movie and then trying to describe it accurately to others.

 

[GoingByzantine]

The fact that they allow one group does not mean they will allow another, unless the circumstances are the same. Which they aren't.

They see Orthodox Holy Orders and their Eucharist as valid, and unlike the Protestants, they see them as still being part of the Church in a proper institutional sense.

They will have talks with any group, pretty much - that has nothing to do with them being actually close to an agreement or similar perspective.

The Catholic Church doesn't consider the Orthodox as being part of the Church but rather schismatics, while many of the Orthodox (as far as I can tell) look at Catholics as heterodox who are far from Orthodoxy.