Why Can’t Lutherans Take Catholic Communion?
October 25, 2012
Russell E. Saltzman
No, I have never snuck into a Catholic mass for Holy Communion. Not the first time anyway. I politely asked, and when I communed I had the permission of the archbishop of Washington, D.C. 
That was 1978 when I was one of the chaplains at a Scout summer camp in Virginia and still a Lutheran seminarian. There was a Catholic priest on staff, and I approached him for communion. He thought it would be okay but he first had to check. The archbishop didn’t blink, the priest told me, and up I went during the distribution.
I don’t remember any time restriction attached to the archbishop’s permission (probably best not to ask) so I have comfortably communed with Roman Catholics a number of times, usually on vacation visiting Catholic relatives. I’m discreet; I don’t have the archbishop’s permission in writing so I can’t exactly flaunt it.
It works the other way too. Roman Catholics have received from my hand at funerals, at weddings, at Christmas, and on ordinary Sundays.
Intercommunion for us is no big deal, though it used to be. Beginning in 1875 and for about a century thereafter, we had the Akron-Galesburg Rule: Lutheran pulpits for Lutheran pastors only; Lutheran altars for Lutheran communicants only. It was directed against Protestants who did not accept the doctrine of the Real Presence, but it probably discouraged a Catholic or two as well.
Those Lutheran church bodies that still have a “closed” altar nonetheless offer many exceptions, although on a case-by-case, congregation-by-congregation basis. Yet even Lutherans with “open” altars mostly couch their invitations in Real Presence terms. The point is: on most Sundays, in most places, Catholics may commune with Lutherans.
Yet—notwithstanding the accommodating archbishop—Roman Catholics cannot welcome anyone but Roman Catholics. Roman Catholic intransigence on eucharistic hospitality is regarded by some Lutherans as at best misguided, or worse, a scandal.
Carl Braaten, for example, a Lutheran systematics theologian, in his latest book Essential Lutheranism suggests that in light of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ), nothing should impede a formal declaration of Roman Catholic-Lutheran intercommunion. A closed altar post-JDDJ “has insufficient theological warrant from Scripture.”
Regarding JDDJ as “a miracle of divine grace,” Braaten asks:
If Christians and Churches that have been divided for generations can come together and greet each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, then who among them has the authority or audacity to divide those whom Christ calls into his fellowship of grace?
In short, the Lord’s Supper is the Lord’s, and we are but poor stewards of the mystery.
The check-list of agreements between Rome and Wittenburg is near comprehensive:
Justification by grace? Check.
Apostolic, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds? Check.
Baptismal regeneration unto salvation? Check.
The true body and blood of Jesus Christ truly given in communion? Check.
The sacrament of confession and absolution? Check.
Petrine primacy? As a ministry of service, no sweat. Check.
Papal infallibility? Evangelically understood, we could live with it. Check.
Ordination for life by the laying on of hands? Check.
Ordination of women? Oops.
Braaten thinks infallibility is the real bug. But it isn’t. More than any other question, the ordination of women is the real elephant squatting in the ecumenical room with Lutherans and Roman Catholics. Braaten’s book says nothing about women’s ordination. For many Lutherans, it is simply a given.
While Lutherans tend to think pastor, not priest, we understand our ministry as a vocational calling to preach Christ’s gospel and administer the sacraments accordingly, a call through the Holy Spirit confirmed by the church through ordination. Understood in reference to the Word we will happily call it a sacrament. The Word comes and “makes” a pastor, and ordination is an indelible once-in-a-lifetime event. Catholic theologians noted all this, concluding in the “Eucharist and Ministry” dialogue:
We see no persuasive reason to deny the possibility of the Roman Catholic Church recognizing the validity of this [Lutheran] Ministry. Accordingly we ask . . . that the Roman Catholic Church recognize the validity of the Lutheran Ministry and, correspondingly, the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic celebrations of the Lutheran churches.
But that was 1970, before Lutherans in America ordained women. The Church of Sweden began ordaining women in the late 1950s and among world Lutherans today, women’s ordination is common.
I do not see any theological reason preventing ordination of women. Nor do I believe the practice reflects a “grave teaching error,” one that, unlike ordination of active homosexuals, is finally anti-gospel. The witness of Scripture is mixed but, I believe, leans toward permission. Yet I question its historical wisdom.
I do not wish to take anything away from the many Lutheran women clergy I know and respect as colleagues and friends who serve faithfully and well. Still I have to ask, was it worth jettisoning Christian rapprochement as a result?
Russell E. Saltzman is dean of the Great Plains Mission District of the North American Lutheran Church, an online homilist for the Christian Leadership Center at the University of Mary, and author of The Pastor’s Page and Other Small Essays. His previous On the Square articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
Essential Lutheranism
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
10.25.2012 | 1:50am
Chrysostom says:
One difference which remains is, of course, the doctrine of whether the Mass is a sacrifice; whether is is the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, offered in an unbloody manner. This has remained a point of contention since the Reformation. Another point is whether the Apostolic succession renders the Mass valid. These two points still need to be resolved, but I pray that one day they shall.
10.25.2012 | 7:01am
A Reader says:
Here is an ordinary Catholic understanding of the Eucharist: When the Catholic priest, acting in persona Christi, offers the consecrated host to a communicant, announcing that this is "The Body of Christ", and when the communicant responds, "Amen", this represents assent to the whole teaching of the Church on the nature of the priesthood.
In "The Catholic Priest as Moral Teacher and Guide", Dr. John Haas writes on "The Sacral Character Of The Priest." This small book contains essays by other eminent teachers, including a reflection on the priesthood by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
My question to Pastor Saltzman concerns the sacramental nature of the priesthood. Are the Lutheran and the Roman Catholic teachings the same?
In "The Catholic Priest as Moral Teacher and Guide", Dr. John Haas writes on "The Sacral Character Of The Priest." This small book contains essays by other eminent teachers, including a reflection on the priesthood by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
My question to Pastor Saltzman concerns the sacramental nature of the priesthood. Are the Lutheran and the Roman Catholic teachings the same?
10.25.2012 | 7:39am
Pr. Dan Biles says:
When traveling, I have often attended RC churches, mainly because I knew it would be the Mass. One cannot be sure of this in Lutheran churches anymore. And I would commune, if invited. But I stopped that practice some years ago. It did not make sense to me to be communed in one RC church and denied (ex-communicated?) in another. One is either all in, or not.
I often am in the position of explaining why RCs practice a closed communion, and that I understand their logic.
In my church, we invite guests who are baptized and commune in their churches to commune in ours.
I often am in the position of explaining why RCs practice a closed communion, and that I understand their logic.
In my church, we invite guests who are baptized and commune in their churches to commune in ours.
10.25.2012 | 8:44am
Michael Root says:
Regular communion across church divisions functions, I think, as a kind of ecumenical anesthesia; it softens the pain but does nothing about the underlying problem. The reality is that Catholics and Lutherans are divided and so, on issues such as the ordination of men and women, we make independent decisions that only make the division worse. Our differences over the ordination of women are less a cause of division than an effect. Division begets division.
10.25.2012 | 8:52am
Pr. Dan Biles says:
When I travel, I have often gone to RC churches to worship. Mainly, because I know I will get the Mass. One cannot depend on this in Lutheran churches these days. I used to commune, if invited. But I stopped the practice. It does not make sense to me to be communed in one RC church and denied (ex-communicated?) in another. I apply the same logic to Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, in which Church I have relatives.
I often find myself explaining the RC position on this to people, even understanding its logic. I remember an article by Neuhaus on this (www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/getting-along-at-the-altar-33).
In our church, we invite those who are baptized and receive communion in their church to the table.
I often find myself explaining the RC position on this to people, even understanding its logic. I remember an article by Neuhaus on this (www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/getting-along-at-the-altar-33).
In our church, we invite those who are baptized and receive communion in their church to the table.
10.25.2012 | 9:10am
Danny says:
I agree with Chrysostom–the authority by which one can administer the Eucharist is another point of contention. A validly ordained episcopacy is paramount. The Church does not, and should not according to their paradigm as expressed, accept the authority of Lutheran ministers, not that Lutheran ministers in and of themselves are insufficient, but they broke with, or lost, Apostolic Succession in the 16th century, and therefore are not able to offer a true Mass with the authority of Jesus Christ. This is the Catholic understanding. This is why communion with the Orthodox Churches is, in reality, much closer.
10.25.2012 | 9:22am
Stuart Koehl says:
Nobody "takes" communion: he "receives" it from the hand of another. For that reason, communion is a gift extended, not a right someone can demand.
10.25.2012 | 9:32am
Fr. Leonard Klein says:
A very Lutheran approach, Russ, almost stereotypically so. You check off a list of doctrines in which Lutherans and Catholics have found agreement or near-agreement. But this approach misses the ecclesial and moral divisions.
In the Eucharistic prayer every day I pray in communion with Benedict our pope and Francis our bishop. To receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church is to affirm what that prayer implies, the full magisterial authority of the Catholic hierarchy and of Catholic teaching. Thus it would seem that most non-Catholics would in good conscience need to abstain from receiving Communion in a Catholic mass, for they cannot affirm the ecclesial assumptions of the celebration.
Moreover, as former members of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, we are both well aware of the way in which moral teachings can mar and rupture communion and of the erosion of doctrine that enables such errors and is in turn aggravated by them. To be sure, in the past Lutherans have managed to establish "pulpit and altar" fellowship among themselves by doctrinal check lists. But no other communion thinks quite like that, and the erosion of the classical moral consensus in mainline Protestantism has added a new list of obstacles.
In the Eucharistic prayer every day I pray in communion with Benedict our pope and Francis our bishop. To receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church is to affirm what that prayer implies, the full magisterial authority of the Catholic hierarchy and of Catholic teaching. Thus it would seem that most non-Catholics would in good conscience need to abstain from receiving Communion in a Catholic mass, for they cannot affirm the ecclesial assumptions of the celebration.
Moreover, as former members of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, we are both well aware of the way in which moral teachings can mar and rupture communion and of the erosion of doctrine that enables such errors and is in turn aggravated by them. To be sure, in the past Lutherans have managed to establish "pulpit and altar" fellowship among themselves by doctrinal check lists. But no other communion thinks quite like that, and the erosion of the classical moral consensus in mainline Protestantism has added a new list of obstacles.
10.25.2012 | 10:17am
tony says:
Communion without doctrinal consensus is illusory at best and, at worst, dishonest.
The ordination of women leads, inevitably, to the eventual acceptance of abortion (in its pro-choice euphemism), same-sex "marriage," and ordination of active homosexuals. One cannot reject the teaching authority of the Church, Christian doctrinal history, and basic anthropological reasoning while at the same time resisting the antinomian pressures that accompany the assertion of doctrinal independence. Once the barn door is open, it stays open.
The ordination of women leads, inevitably, to the eventual acceptance of abortion (in its pro-choice euphemism), same-sex "marriage," and ordination of active homosexuals. One cannot reject the teaching authority of the Church, Christian doctrinal history, and basic anthropological reasoning while at the same time resisting the antinomian pressures that accompany the assertion of doctrinal independence. Once the barn door is open, it stays open.
10.25.2012 | 12:04pm
Fr Jay Scott Newman says:
Two things occur to me:
1. Except for extraordinary situations, true ecclesial communion (To what Church do you belong?) must come before sacramental Communion (May I receive the Holy Eucharist?)
2. Catholics may never receive Holy Communion in a Protestant church (and this includes all Lutherans and Anglicans) because the Catholic Church believes that five of the seven sacraments were lost to those ecclesial communions in the 16th century, and the only sacraments that remain to them are Baptism and Marriage. For this reason, whatever Lutheran worship is (And it is an instrument of grace for those who enter it with sincerity), it is not the Holy Eucharist celebrated by a bishop or presbyter in apostolic succession. And for this reason, no Catholic may -- under any circumstances -- lawfully receive sacramental Communion in an act of Protestant worship. Even the Joint Declaration cannot supply what was lost with the end of Apostolic Succession. Only the restoration of apostolic Orders of undoubted validity can do that.
1. Except for extraordinary situations, true ecclesial communion (To what Church do you belong?) must come before sacramental Communion (May I receive the Holy Eucharist?)
2. Catholics may never receive Holy Communion in a Protestant church (and this includes all Lutherans and Anglicans) because the Catholic Church believes that five of the seven sacraments were lost to those ecclesial communions in the 16th century, and the only sacraments that remain to them are Baptism and Marriage. For this reason, whatever Lutheran worship is (And it is an instrument of grace for those who enter it with sincerity), it is not the Holy Eucharist celebrated by a bishop or presbyter in apostolic succession. And for this reason, no Catholic may -- under any circumstances -- lawfully receive sacramental Communion in an act of Protestant worship. Even the Joint Declaration cannot supply what was lost with the end of Apostolic Succession. Only the restoration of apostolic Orders of undoubted validity can do that.
10.25.2012 | 3:57pm
Russell Belding says:
What a mess this discussion could lead one into. By sampling views from readers as Russell S. has done, the responses here show the need of careful consideration of long standing questions for our sake. How can we discuss deeply held beliefs with one who does not hold them while showing the wisdom of God and His love to each other?
For those Catholics who feel pastoral responsibility for fellow Christians not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, there needs to be a plan to participate I such discussions. The necessity of such a plan follows from the charge Jesus has given his disciple to feed His sheep. Ponder this before using any final weapon such as “You guys left the team following Martin Luther and forfeited your privileges long ago. If you want to restore privileges here is a list of things you need to do …”
For those Christians not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, such as me a Baptist, there needs to be another plan, equally serious but different. We do not work under the belief that we have the only franchise to announce the forgiveness of God through the sacrifice of Christ for all who are willing. So the shameful disunion of Christians is workable but still shameful.
Our current disunity is cause for tears. But there is unity in Christ now. His sacrifice has covered our stupidity. There is work to be done to recover from past mistakes.
For those Catholics who feel pastoral responsibility for fellow Christians not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, there needs to be a plan to participate I such discussions. The necessity of such a plan follows from the charge Jesus has given his disciple to feed His sheep. Ponder this before using any final weapon such as “You guys left the team following Martin Luther and forfeited your privileges long ago. If you want to restore privileges here is a list of things you need to do …”
For those Christians not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, such as me a Baptist, there needs to be another plan, equally serious but different. We do not work under the belief that we have the only franchise to announce the forgiveness of God through the sacrifice of Christ for all who are willing. So the shameful disunion of Christians is workable but still shameful.
Our current disunity is cause for tears. But there is unity in Christ now. His sacrifice has covered our stupidity. There is work to be done to recover from past mistakes.
10.25.2012 | 4:19pm
Adam Baum says:
Carl Braaten, for example, a Lutheran systematics theologian, in his latest book Essential Lutheranism suggests that in light of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ), nothing should impede a formal declaration of Roman Catholic-Lutheran intercommunion. A closed altar post-JDDJ “has insufficient theological warrant from Scripture.”
So?
So?
10.25.2012 | 5:19pm
Jason Sharbaugh says:
The fact is that in matters of the Sacrament of Communion, we are not as a body in communion in those differing traditions. The reception of which, as all forms of non-verbal communication are, is a form of stating something that is not actual. Anyone can by present at Mass, but the nature of that relationship may be different. It is the relationship to the Real Presence, the Communion of the Catholic Church, the authority of the Bishops and Priests to confect the Eucharist, and the intimate nature of Communion that is conveyed.
10.25.2012 | 5:41pm
Don Roberto says:
The Holy Eucharist is commonly approached by those who are not in a state of grace (most Catholics, I fear, given the small number one sees at Confession). This is tragic, because it offends the Lord and adds to the weight of sin on the souls of those who say, "Lord, Lord," but do not folow His commandments to the best of their ability. Most of our priests rarely discuss the issue, and I worry that the most likley explanation is not a good one. †
10.25.2012 | 9:58pm
Sharon says:
You claim that you, a Lutheran, received permission to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic church with the permission of an archbishop. Actually you received permission to receive Holy Communion from a priest who said that the archbishop gave permission. I seriously doubt if an archbishop gave permission for you to receive Holy Communion because he would be contradicting Code of Canon Law 844 number 4.
Canon law explains the parameters: "If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed" (CIC 844 § 4).
It is important to remember that, under the rubrics specified above, even in those rare circumstances when non-Catholics are able to receive Communion, the same requirements apply to them as to Catholics.
Catholics are not permitted to receive Holy Communion in a Lutheran church even if the Lutheran minister and the Catholic wish to do so.
Canon law explains the parameters: "If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed" (CIC 844 § 4).
It is important to remember that, under the rubrics specified above, even in those rare circumstances when non-Catholics are able to receive Communion, the same requirements apply to them as to Catholics.
Catholics are not permitted to receive Holy Communion in a Lutheran church even if the Lutheran minister and the Catholic wish to do so.
10.26.2012 | 1:42am
Rick says:
I was at a loss for awhile to find a way to explain why some of the above postings, with their quotations from canon law and erudite ecclesial explanations of who may and may not receive Jesus, leave me cold.
And then I remembered a painting I saw many years ago that struck me deeply. The scene was inside a mighty cathedral. Up front, a very high mass was in progress, complete with a panoply of priests and bishops. The congregation was clustered up front, near the action. But in the foreground, far to the rear of the sanctuary, a woman was on her knees, collapsed in grief and tears, too ashamed to even approach the altar. And through an open side door just behind, the unmistakable figure of Jesus was stepping towards her, hands outstretched, just about to embrace her in loving consolation.
The central issue, of course, is just how one receives Jesus, and whether priests in the approved apostolic line of succession are an essential element. You can probably guess my position on it, because I was that woman.
And then I remembered a painting I saw many years ago that struck me deeply. The scene was inside a mighty cathedral. Up front, a very high mass was in progress, complete with a panoply of priests and bishops. The congregation was clustered up front, near the action. But in the foreground, far to the rear of the sanctuary, a woman was on her knees, collapsed in grief and tears, too ashamed to even approach the altar. And through an open side door just behind, the unmistakable figure of Jesus was stepping towards her, hands outstretched, just about to embrace her in loving consolation.
The central issue, of course, is just how one receives Jesus, and whether priests in the approved apostolic line of succession are an essential element. You can probably guess my position on it, because I was that woman.
10.26.2012 | 1:47am
Fr. John Morris says:
The Lutherans seem to forget that to Catholics and Orthodox Christians sharing Communion means the sharing of a common Faith. Until complete agreement is reached on all doctrinal matters sharing Communion between two different groups who differ on doctrine does not serve the advancement of ecumenism. In fact it prevents progress because it ignores the differences which divide Christians. We will only make real progress towards Christian unity if we honestly discuss and seek resolution to our differences. If we pretend that the differences do not exist, we will not make any real ecumenical progress or we will water down doctrine to the point that it does not matter what we believe. The reality is that there are major differences among Christians on the meaning of the Eucharist and who is qualified to preside over the Eucharist. Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches believe that only a Priest be ordained by a Bishop in Apostolic Succession who is himself in communion with the other Bishops of Apostolic Succession can preside over the Eucharist. We also believe that only a man can be ordained to the Priesthood. Lutherans disagree on both these issues. That is a major difference that directly touches on the doctrine of the Eucharist. Both Orthodox and Catholics do not believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are "in, over and with" the bread and wine." They believe that the bread and wine are changed into the actual Body and Blood of Christ. It is important that Christians be intellectually honest with each other and do not pretend that a unity exists that does not really exist. That is if we we are really serious about a Christian unity that is real and not just a facade.
10.26.2012 | 8:01am
Jason says:
Why would a Lutheran want to pretend to be in full sacramental communion with Christ and His Church in the first place? A Lutheran is be definition a protestant; by definition and choice a protestant is protesting against full sacramental communion with Christ and His Church. Why would a protestant want to pretend he is not in fact protesting?
10.26.2012 | 11:42am
Mark Gordon says:
With all those "checks," there really is no reason for you or any Lutheran to persist in schism. Time to come home. Dinner is served at the table, inside, not out on the front lawn.
10.26.2012 | 11:51am
Mary says:
Lutherans are welcome to take Communion on the same terms as everyone else. Make your profession of faith at the Easter Vigil and be received.
If you think your differences from us are too big for that, they are too big for you to receive.
If you think your differences from us are too big for that, they are too big for you to receive.
10.28.2012 | 9:01am
Michael says:
Non-Christians listen to conversations like this and walk away with a strengthened conviction that Christians are deeply hypocritical and betray their God’s own beliefs. Where is the love and fellowship that should rise above sectarian impulses? Didn’t Jesus live and die in part in order to erase the divisions that separate people? How can people who profess the same core beliefs engage in such divisive conversations?
10.29.2012 | 10:55am
Jordan says:
"We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined," St. Justin the Martyr, ~A.D. 150.
The denial of the Eucharist to those outside the Catholic Church is much older than the 500 year divide between Catholics and Protestants. It is present in the very beginning of what was handed down to the Apostles, and their teaching has said that only those who are baptized, the way that the Catholic Church baptizes, are allowed to partake of this meal. If there is a question on where the authority of this denial lies, it is with the Apostles and their disciples, who dealt with the very same question.
The denial of the Eucharist to those outside the Catholic Church is much older than the 500 year divide between Catholics and Protestants. It is present in the very beginning of what was handed down to the Apostles, and their teaching has said that only those who are baptized, the way that the Catholic Church baptizes, are allowed to partake of this meal. If there is a question on where the authority of this denial lies, it is with the Apostles and their disciples, who dealt with the very same question.
11.2.2012 | 1:56am
Padre Dave Poedel, STS says:
As a Christian who was baptized and confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church, and is now an Ordained priest/pastor in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod I read this article with more than a little conflict. I am also a professed member of the Society of the Holy Trinity. Our Rule contains a provision that we seek and work toward reunion with the Bishop of Rome. While I would bet that I am one of a VERY small minority in the LCMS, that Rule also compels me to respect the Church over which the Bishop of Rome presides. While earlier in my Ordained ministry I found myself in situations where I was vested, at the altar with a Roman Catholic priest as we presided together over a wedding or funeral and where we communed each other as well as the mixed congregation of Roman and Evangelical Catholics.
Some years later I studied at the Centro Pro Union in Rome, studying Ecumenical Theology from a Roman Catholic Perspective. During our residence in Rome, the Feast of SS Peter and Paul occurred and we were seated in the dignitary section (where this Polish Catholic kid from Milwaukee saw the only Polish Pontiff in my lifetime....and probably a few more lifetimes too) and my wife and I exercised proper Eucharistic hospitality and refrained from communing. The next class meeting our faculty thanked us for our restraint, which I expressed as one of the saddest moments of my life.
What changed that day, however, was my own respect for and discipline regarding Eucharistic hospitality. I exercise a pastoral approach for non-LCMS visitors and admission to the Eucharist, as that is my prerogative, though I believe I am being more faithful to the discipline of my own Synod.
This issue is incredibly painful for me, and is an issue that drew me to the Society of the Holy Trinity. Whether there will be a Lutheran equivalent to the Anglican Personal Prelature, and whether I would be called to such a movement or not, I find this reality to be a cause for prayer and pastoral love.
Some years later I studied at the Centro Pro Union in Rome, studying Ecumenical Theology from a Roman Catholic Perspective. During our residence in Rome, the Feast of SS Peter and Paul occurred and we were seated in the dignitary section (where this Polish Catholic kid from Milwaukee saw the only Polish Pontiff in my lifetime....and probably a few more lifetimes too) and my wife and I exercised proper Eucharistic hospitality and refrained from communing. The next class meeting our faculty thanked us for our restraint, which I expressed as one of the saddest moments of my life.
What changed that day, however, was my own respect for and discipline regarding Eucharistic hospitality. I exercise a pastoral approach for non-LCMS visitors and admission to the Eucharist, as that is my prerogative, though I believe I am being more faithful to the discipline of my own Synod.
This issue is incredibly painful for me, and is an issue that drew me to the Society of the Holy Trinity. Whether there will be a Lutheran equivalent to the Anglican Personal Prelature, and whether I would be called to such a movement or not, I find this reality to be a cause for prayer and pastoral love.
11.10.2012 | 9:47pm
Bob says:
Arguments can proceed ad infinitum without resolution. Even the requirement of Apostolic Succession falls on its face, when one recalls that the State Church of Sweden (Lutheran) practices "Succession." Perhaps hubris and authority remain the big bugaboo in religious identity?
12.19.2012 | 5:22pm
Daniel says:
Saltzman asserts that there is no good reason that the Catholic Church should not welcome Lutherans to their communion table. But I suppose that Methodists are beyond the pale. A major reason I joined the Methodist Church is its practice of open communion. As our pastor says when she serves communion, "All are welcome who want to come to the table where Jesus is host." That the Catholic Church imposes other restrictions is, as Saltzman suggests, a scandal and belies the Church's catholicity.
I would go even further and ask why only those who are ordained may give communion. After all, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name..."
I would go even further and ask why only those who are ordained may give communion. After all, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name..."
2.10.2013 | 3:13pm
Tuan says:
I would like to know more deeply about the Holy Communion ( Eucharist ) in the Protestant Church? How to understand ?
And to compare and contrast between Catholic Church and Protestant Churches about the Holy Eucharist ( communion. )
Thanks
And to compare and contrast between Catholic Church and Protestant Churches about the Holy Eucharist ( communion. )
Thanks
2.28.2013 | 12:06am
Patrick says:
To be perfectly frank, a Lutheran is never welcome at a Roman Catholic altar, nor is a Catholic ever permitted to set foot in a protestant church.
Decet Romanum Pontificem in no uncertain terms excommunicated all Lutherans. According to this Papal bull, a Catholic who is in any sort of communion (Eucharistic or otherwise) with a Lutheran invites the wrath of God. It also condemns us Lutherans to fiery torture for all eternity, which we know is complete malarkey anyway.
The point here is that the Catholic church would have to formally pardon all Lutherans, including Martin Luther, before we could even speak on the subject of taking communion together. And it'll take a new Pope to do that. Fortunately, we'll have one shortly, so let's see how it goes.
Decet Romanum Pontificem in no uncertain terms excommunicated all Lutherans. According to this Papal bull, a Catholic who is in any sort of communion (Eucharistic or otherwise) with a Lutheran invites the wrath of God. It also condemns us Lutherans to fiery torture for all eternity, which we know is complete malarkey anyway.
The point here is that the Catholic church would have to formally pardon all Lutherans, including Martin Luther, before we could even speak on the subject of taking communion together. And it'll take a new Pope to do that. Fortunately, we'll have one shortly, so let's see how it goes.
4.7.2013 | 2:16pm
Walter E says:
This is a fascinating discussion and one, I believe, that our Lord Jesus Christ would scoff at. If you believe in the Holy Trinity, that Jesus died for our sins and that salvation lies through him: would these differences of doctrine and Papal law (a mortal interpretation of God's will) have any validity at all? Jesus threw the priests from the temple for just that.
