Catholic and Lutheran Churches pledge to work for shared Eucharist Austen Ivereigh October 31, 2016 Contributing Editor Pope Francis hugs Rev. Martin Junge, General Secretary of the Lutheran World Federation, as Lutheran Archbishop Ante Jackelen, Primate of the Church of Sweden, is seen in the background at right, during an ecumenical prayer at Lund's Lutheran Cathedral, in Sweden, Monday, Oct. 31, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini) At the conclusion of a historic ecumenical celebration in Lund, Sweden, Pope Francis and the general-secretary of the world's Lutheran churches agreed to work together for a shared Eucharist. Pope Francis and the global Lutheran leader have jointly pledged to remove the obstacles to full unity between their Churches, leading eventually to shared Eucharist. They made the commitment in a joint statement signed before a congregation of Catholic and Lutheran leaders at the conclusion of a joint service in Lund, Sweden, to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the start of the Reformation. The statement was signed by Pope Francis and Bishop Munib Younan, who is president of the Lutheran World Federation (LWF), which was founded in Lund in 1947. After they finished signing, the congregation stood for a long round of applause as the two leaders hugged each other. The two leaders appeared to single out married couples where one partner is Catholic and the other Lutheran. “Many members of our communities yearn to receive the Eucharist at one table, as the concrete expression of full unity,” they noted. “We experience the pain of those who share their whole lives, but cannot share God’s redeeming presence at the Eucharistic table,” they said, adding: “We acknowledge our joint pastoral responsibility to respond to the spiritual thirst and hunger of our people to be one in Christ.” Click here for the rest of the article: https://cruxnow.com/papal-visit/2016/10/31/catholic-lutheran-churches-pledge-work-shared-eucharist/
Thomas Arnold, wrote in 1832, to summarise the situation the he saw, "The Church as it now stands no human power can save." I have no doubt that there are mountains between what is and what may be envisaged, however I would also remind you that 50 years ago the image above would have been inconceivable. Lutheran Eucharistic Theology - Consubstantiation whilst clearly way outside of anything envisaged by Trent or Vatican I, may well be a lot closer to passing muster in a post Vatican II Catholic Church. I am not disagreeing with Jay and Aidan in terms of probability, however I have a feeling that God is not a fan of the Never word.
Any belief other than transubstantiation is heterodox at the very least. Transubstantiation was inaugurated by Christ with the words " This is my body", our Saviour did not say "this represents my body". There can be no compromise on truth
Hello Aidan. I was originally Orthodox before becoming Anglican, and I must beg to disagree with you. The Eastern Churches (Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox) advocate the Real Presence, but will not attempt to define it as the Western Church did using Aristotelian metaphysics. Transubstantiation is a problematic term, and an attempt to explain a mystery which, like the Trinity, cannot be adequately explained to human understanding.
I've received a message from admin saying my comment is inappropriate. I fail to see how, can anyone please enlighten me?
Aidan, ask the admin. He will tell you. It could be your use of the word heterodox. The Roman Catholic belief in Transubstantiation is not an accepted or an orthodox belief. Anglican, some Presbyterians, Lutherans and the Orthodox Churches hold to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is not a belief held by the early church as our Orthodox brothers and sisters clearly show us. Therefore Anglicans for one reject it as it does not follow the definition of Catholic and as the 39 Articles tell us, there is no support for it in Scripture. You are correct, Jesus did institute the Sacrament of the Eucharist. He did say this is my body and this is my blood. He did not define the mystery. St Paul in his letter to the Corinthians only spoke about the Real Presence. Again the mystery was not defined in Scripture. The Dogma of Transubstantiation was not created and approved by Rome until the Council of Trent. Which is a local council not recognized by the Orthodox, Lutherans or any branch of Christianity outside of Rome. It a way, transubstantiation could be considered heterodox to Christians who are not Roman Catholics. Also, I do believe Eastern Rite Catholics who are in communion with the Pope do not have to recognize Transubstantiation, the Filioque or Purgatory. They are not heterodox, but good Catholics. According to Rome. So not every one of the Rites within the Roman Catholic Church accept Transubstantiation. I believe it is only the Latin Rite Roman Catholics. My take on it, but I would ask the admin just to make sure. Blessings Fr. Mark
The picture alone will tell you why. The Swedish Bishop in the background to the right. This is a reason why the Orthodox and Anglicans can never come together. The Orthodox will never accept the novelty of female "clergy". Why the Continuing Churches will never join with the ACNA. I wish Christianity could be one in practice. But you know, the Church was never united under one Apostle who had final authority like what has developed in Rome with the Bishop of Rome. The Ecumenical Councils of the first 1000 years tell us no one Bishop wielded power over the other Bishops to the point of absolute power. Fr. Mark
Hi Aidan. The Continuing bodies (ACC, APA, ACA, DHC, APCK, et al ) originated when the Episcopal Church began ordaining women in the 1970's. The ACNA came about over the issue of gay marriage and ordaining homosexuals who are in active relationships. Some of the dioceses of the ACNA ordain women, which none of the Continuing bodies allow. As a result, ACNA is normally not referred to as one of the Continuing churches, but instead as part of the Anglican Realignment movement. Hope this helps.
No, ACNA intends to be the replacement Province for the Episcopal Church. The continuing churches never aimed at that, nor could they, being disunited. ACNA is one thing, and any talk of schism or division within its ranks isn't held to be tenable. I think that's said too strongly. It depends on whether or not ACNA forbids or approves women's ordination, which is currently in review. For the Continuing jurisdictions, WO is an absolute non-starter and what led to their secession from the Episcopal Church in the 70s in the first place. I am of the same mind as well, but if ACNA rules correctly in banning all WO, the Continuers will just merge right into it, since they never pretended to a title of a Province. I have heard Bishop Hewett himself say that they will be ready to do that.
Yes, lack of unity is the biggest problem facing the Continuing bodies. And there is no valid reason that I can see for it. On the other hand, if ACNA ever rejects women's ordination, I suspect that some of the Continuing groups will get on board with them.
Stalwart, you are correct, never is strong. Let's say I seriously doubt it will happen. The College of Bishops in the ACNA, they will not rule against WO. If they did too many of the neo-Anglicans would bolt. Further dividing the Anglicanism in the States. The Bishops have been studying and talking about this issue since the ACNA began. We are Anglicans. Scripture is our foundation. It is not hard to see that Scripture forbids WO. I just finished reading a book on the Apostolic Fathers, many letters to Churches. When they mentioned clergy they always started with a Bishop, maybe a priest, always a Deacon is mentioned. They all, yes all, tell the church the clergy is male only. I understand being pastoral. I also know we have to stop kicking the can down the road because some do not want to accept the truth. Virtue on Line has an article about homosexuals who were affirmed in their sin by their respected churches. No one ever wanted to tell them they were wrong, so not to hurt their feelings. When the homosexuals heard the truth they were upset with those who let them continue in their sin on the path to hell. WO is a deviation from the Christianity handed down to us from the Apostles and Christ. It takes scripture and twists it for personal gain. What is worse, to allow someone to continue in sin and be separated from God...but their feelings were not hurt. Or give them the truth gently or as harshly as the situation dictates so they are not separated from God. Alice Linsey is a good example of a woman who, as she said thought she was a priest, who when presented with the Biblical proof of her error renounce WO. She is now a teacher and I believe Old Testament scholar. I have learn much from her over the last few years. Women do have great gifts to give to the Church, Ms Alice proves it. The ACNA Bishops have had more than enough time. The pro-wo supports want to drag this out in hopes it is finally accepted. I do know some of the REC Bishops I have talked with, well they see it and are not happy. I pray the Bishops end WO throughout Anglicanism, but especially in the ACNA. I think the Continuing Churches joining the ACNA would benefit both the Continuing Churches and the ACNA. In my area, most of the ACNA parishes have no clue what it means to be Anglican. Some think it is just puttin a candle or two on a table and presto Anglican. I know a couple of ACC priest who can gentle school them on their error. Who knows maybe they will go to the baptist churches and stop trying to make Anglican parish Baptist. yes, I am frustrated. Please pray. Blessings, Fr. Mark
"Some think it is just putting a candle or two on a table and presto Anglican." Very true, Fr. Mark. The ACNA has way too many Calvinists in copes and Baptists playing dress up. So few real Anglicans.
It appears to me that so many over-emphasise Anglican to the detriment of Catholic. If as non-Anglican I in all humility be allowed to state an opinion, I feel that the Anglican Catholic Church is closest to being apostolic and its worldwide membership testifies to this. I stress that this is merely opinion and I in no way maintain it to be fact nor do I proselytise on its behalf