Posted on 10/12/2005 10:15:23 AM PDT by NYer
- H.G. John HIND, Bishop of Chichester (GREAT BRITAIN -ENGLAND AND WALES)
Greetings from the Archbishop of Canterbury and request for prayers for Anglicans at a difficult time. Some points concerning the theme of this Synod:
Issues of inculturation highlight the need for further discussion about diversity and unity in the Church.
When is it appropriate to share holy communion? How should we interpret the public giving of communion to the Protestant Frère Roger Schutz?
The Eucharist is not primarily a matter or rite or ceremonial but a living of the new life Christ in Christ. If it is to be truly Christian, there must be criteria for mutual recognition. No less important is the extent to which we suffer with each other.
What is the God-given dynamic of the Eucharist? The culture flowing from the Incarnation affirms our God-given humanity, including cultural diversity, but also challenges every human culture. It is only in the dialogue between the Incarnation and particular cultures, that we can identify the truly catholic.
ARCIC said that in the Eucharist in “we enter into the movement of Christ’s self-offering.” Christ’s offering was both a sacrifice to the Father for us and a “laying down of his life for his friends.” The anamnesis of his sacrifice is therefore also oriented both towards God and humanity.
This establishes three fundamental points about the Eucharist.
(a) In the Eucharist it is not our fellowship that is being celebrated, but our reconciliation with God which creates our fellowship.
(b) Also it is Christ himself who is the Lord of the Eucharist. If his Incarnation, death, resurrection and coming in glory are mysteries, if the Eucharist is itself “Mysterium fidei” then it must follow that our fellowship or communion in the Church is also a mysterion, in other words, speaking something we cannot understand by reason alone. (c) Finally, being united with Christ in his self-offering orients us not only towards God but also towards every single one of our human brothers and sisters, for whom in their amazing diversity the Son of God gave his life. “Ite, missa est” is both a statement of the completeness of Christ’s work and a charge to us to carry it forward.
[00280-02.02] [DF007] [Original text: English]
- H.E. PER LØNNING, Bishop emeritus of the Luteran Churche of Norway (NORWAY)
Warm thanks from the Lutheran World Federation, from the Church of Norway - and from myself - for inviting me as fraternal delegate and for receiving me in so open-minded and brotherly a way!
To Lutherans the holy Eucharist was and is a vital concern. Our stress on the real presence of the Lord for centuries even led us to deny eucharistic fellowship with churches of the Reformed tradition.
In order to enter into the dialogue of this Assembly, let me report a few of my experiences of promises and pains with regard to eucharistic fellowship in relation to the Roman Catholic church!
In 1971 I was for the first time invited to preach in the setting of a Roman catholic mass, which happened to be in Antwerp in Belgium. In the sacristy the young and ecumenically dedicated celebrant asked: “Of course, you will be ready to receive Holy Communion?” I quickly turned to the bishop present, about 30 years my senior: “Say, wouldn’t that be contrary to the rules of the Catholic church?” The bishop nodded, and I went on: “As a guest, I will certainly do nothing in conflict with the rules of my host.” “Thank you for your understanding attitude,” said the old bishop. And what happened? During the whole liturgy he sat next to me in the choir, and even refrained from receiving the sacrament himself. At the end he said: “Come, brother, we go to the alter and we will give the benediction together!” What a truly ecumenical experience!
1975, St.John’s Abbey, Minnesota. In a lecture on “The present state of ecumenism”, I had uttered fear that we might still have several years ahead of us before eucharistic fellowship could be formally established. It then turned out that on this place protestant students had already for some years approached the communion table, without being explicitly invited. “We had to come to terms with this,” said a Benedictine father, “and this was the outcome: Who are we, to censor the work of the Holy Spirit?” The following week I heard a similar remark from the catholic chaplain at Luther College, Iowa. His students had started to attend communion there: “I am not authorized to dissuade them from that, but as I sit there observing them, I regret one thing: that as an official catholic ambassador I cannot join”.
Ten years ago in a catholic cathedral in the southern hemisphere, I asked the officiating archbishop: “I presume you follow the official rules here, so that I remain seated during holy communion?” “Brother, it is long since we heard anything like that here, he replied. You will come and receive the sacrament right after me…”.
I hurry to my point, which is the following. The paragraphs 86 and 87 in your Instrumentum Laboris make me rather sad. Especially because I know they will make many of my catholic friends sad: bishops, professors, monastic leaders. The fact that conclusions are presented and logically championed with no reference to what has been and is going on in your own church. No attention is paid to opinions not less biblically founded than the one triumphant. Will it forward the actual ecumenical progress in case this is published as the official voice of the Roman Catholic Church?
If we really believe the presence of Christ the Saviour to be linked with the wonder of Holy Communion, how can we remain with our divided altars, and not hear the harsh question of the apostle as directed to us: “Has Christ been divided”?
[00279-02.04] [DF006] [Original text: English]
I am a Lutheran. I am baptised and with great reverence receive the body and blood of my Savior in Holy Communion and I believe in Christ's perfect sacrifice, as you do, for the forgivness of sins...Both Lutherans and Catholics know that the Holy Scriptures show that this is the path to salvation as promised by God. Do you therefore contend I am condemed because I am not Catholic or Orthodox? Please answer simply with a yes or no...thank you.
To the extent that CCM leads toward a stronger linkage with the Apostolic succession that is a good thing; it promotes good order and such order is a necessity under Augustana VII. But I am not at all sure that attaching to Anglican orders is the proper way to get there.
If the ecumenical destiny of Lutherans is reconciliation with the Bishop of Rome any and all other ecumenical relations (frankly, all issues) need to be weighed against the question "does this action lead us closer to or farther away from that reconciliation?"
I don't see much on the national level that is enabling that reconciliation...quite the opposite, in fact. And I observe that with profound sadness.
bttt
No.
It's about sacraments, not preaching. Let me get this straight: Luther was upset with some corrupt practices by some Church officials, correct? So, he decided to "reform" these bad practices and instead changed the theology, correct? In otherwords, the Church was wrong ecclesiastically and theologically for 1,500 years according to Mr. Luther. If that is true, then not only is the Catholic Church in apostasy for two millennia but so is the Orthodox Church as well.
I don't for a moment doubt that Lutherans belive with all reverence, but that doesn't mean that a church is any one, any time, any place. Remember, the devil is also a believer. So what does that make a group of demons? A "church?"
If our Lord wanted all of us to be Protestants, He would have given everyone a Bible and said "Read it!"
Belonging to a Church (administratively) is not a ticket to a salvation. But that does not make every church equally valid, MarMema. A Church is not a club one can set up as he or she pleases. Lutheran Church was born out of a desire to purge the Church of some illicit human practices -- the end result was heretical theology with equally illicit human practices. I am not sure if you realize that the Lutherans were rebuked by the EP in the 16th century for their heresy. They may be individually awesome Christians, but that does not make their church a Church as far as I am concerned.
Is that like a belief in unicorns? They forfeited their Holy Orders by joining a heretic and subscribing to a theology that is as different from the one the Church held from the beginning as night and day.
I pray for Reunion, but until that day it would be wrong to pretend.
Thank you JR.
I think I was trying to say they retained a belief in the concept, but let's not be Donatists here and say the worthiness of the minister removes the grace from the sacred mysteries.
I think Orthodoxy has a wide variety of theories regarding the
efficaciousness of non-Orthodox sacred mysteries: ranging from the neo-Cyprianists to those who believe in St. Augustine's belief that heretical mysteries could be valid.
JR, the Lutherans went on a rampage imprisoning, torturing and killing bishops who did not submit to their view. The Lutherans had no clear theology for a long time, and the end result was not exactly what Luther had in mind. Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople serves as a witness to how they were perceived -- and let me tell you they were not perceived as valid anything. Numbers don't make something right. Just because there are some 90 million Lutherans (of all shades) doesn't make it "right". They are not an Apostolic church. They have no Apostolic authority. Their theology denies any ecclesiastical authority (no wonder!). Luther denied any validity of the Councils. Yet they have their own set of rules and traditions that tell them how they should believe. And all along I thought all they needed was the Faith and the Bible. Syncretism leads to nothing. Luke-warm is not good.
1,500 years after the Church was established?
How was "sola scriptura" to be practiced with scores of illiterates and only a few books to go around? And even after the invention of the printing press, most of the population was illiterate and/or could not afford to buy a Bible. Not until the 20th century was there sufficient literacy and economical capacity for most people to afford a Bible. So, in other words the true "sola scriptura" was intended 2,000 years after Christ?
Satan knows who Christ is, granted
Well, knowing is believing, as they say.
But a true believer (i.e. a person who is in the Church) also trusts in Christ for his salvation
Yes, a person who is in the Church. That is in -- an Apostolic Church with valid priesthood and valid sacraments; not a "church" that was invented 1,500 years later based on a mix of populist, secular and political rebellion, and lots of bloodshed.
You may also find that referring to the clergy of other churches as "clowns" isn't a real conversation starter.
Sir, Apostolic succession is not something "observed." It is not a "ritual." People pretending to be Apostolic successors are not only clowns -- they are impostors.
Let me clarify this: Our Lord gave us the Scripture. He also gave us His Apostolic Church.
Why sugarcoat the truth: Protestants are our Christian brothers, but they are not in that Church. It's their choice.
Your insecurity in your faith is saddening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.