A Lutheran reflection on Eucharist and Ministry.

In relation to the theme of Round X of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue USA, "The Church as Koinonia of Salvation: Its Structures and Ministries," (1) of the three documents previously published (Eucharist and Ministry, (2) Facing Unity, (3) and The Porvoo Common Statement (4)), I find Eucharist and Ministry particularly helpful. In what follows, (5) I highlight some of the essential points in Eucharist and Ministry in relation to the critical question of a valid Ministry. I do so by relying on direct quotations so that the text speaks for itself.

I am keenly aware that, since 1970, when Eucharist and Ministry was published, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, through two of its predecessor church bodies--The American Lutheran Church (ALC) and the Lutheran Church in America (LCA)--has been ordaining women into the Ministry of Word and Sacrament. (6) This now poses the question of who can be validly ordained, in conjunction with the question of what constitutes a valid ordination. For the ELCA, the practice of ordaining women into the Ministry of Word and Sacrament is not open to renegotiation.

The focus of Eucharist and Ministry is on the "valid Ministry in relation to the eucharist." (7) In the Foreword, Paul C. Empie and T. Austin Murphy note that after the "remarkable advance in convergence toward a common understanding" of "The Eucharist as Sacrifice," (8) "It seemed natural to take up as the next point the question of intercommunion.... A weekend of conversation on this subject quickly revealed that one could not even discuss the matter without considering the key question of a valid Ministry in relation to the administration of the eucharist" (p. 3; emphasis added).

On the mission of the church, in which all share, both lay and ordained, and the distinction between the ministry and the Ministry, paragraph #9 of the statement "Eucharist and Ministry: A Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement," "Common Observations on Eucharistic Ministry," reads:

The church has, then, the task of proclaiming the gospel to all,
believers and unbelievers. This task or service of the whole church is
spoken of as "ministry" (diakonia). In the course of this statement, we
employ the term ministry (lower case m, with or without the definite
article) in this sense. The ministry of the church, thus defined, will
be distinguished from the (or a) Ministry, a particular form of
service--a specific order, function or gift (charism) within and for
sake of Christ's church in its mission to the world. The term Minister
in this document refers to the person to whom this Ministry has been
entrusted. We are convinced that the special Ministry must not be
discussed in isolation but in the context of the ministry of the whole
people of God. (p. 9; emphasis added)

The reader needs to keep in mind the clear and unambiguous declaration in the foregoing that both the ministry and the Ministry are fundamentally and inextricably bound up with the church's "task of proclaiming the gospel to all, believers and unbelievers," and "Christ's church in its mission to the world." In the pursuit of visible unity of the church, this evangelical and missional commitment undergirds the dialogue itself.

On the question of the Special Ministry, its peculiar character and function, the statement adds, in paragraphs #12 and #13:

Just as the church is to be seen in the light of God's love, his act in
Christ, and the work of the Spirit, so also the Ministry is to be seen
in light of the love of God, his saving act in Jesus Christ, and the
ongoing activity of the Holy Spirit. This Ministry has the twofold task
of proclaiming the gospel to the world--evangelizing, witnessing,
serving--and of building up in Christ those who already
believe--teaching, exhorting, reproving, and sanctifying, by word and
sacrament. For this twofold work, the Spirit endows the Ministry with
varieties of gifts, and thus helps the church to meet new situations in
its pilgrimage. Through proclamation of the word and administration of
the sacraments, this Ministry serves to unify and order the church in a
special way for its ministry.

The Ministry stands with the people of God under Christ but also speaks
in the name of Christ to his people. On the one hand, the Ministry as
part of the church's ministry stands under the Word and the Spirit,
under judgment as well as under grace. But it also has a special role
within the ministry of the people of God, proclaiming God's Word,
administering the sacraments, exhorting and reproving. (pp. 10f.)

In the "common observations" it is noted, also, that both the Lutheran stress on "succession in apostolic doctrine" and the Roman Catholic understanding of "apostolic succession" are well grounded. "Historical studies have shown that in the New Testament and patristic periods there was stress on doctrinal succession; there also arose an emphasis on succession in apostolic office as a very important way of ensuring doctrinal succession and thus providing a sign of unity and defense against heresy" (p. 12).

In the "Reflections of the Lutheran Participants," the centrality of the gospel in determining when and where the church truly exists, and the consequent need for the office of ministry are given the place of prominence. Of special note is the positive appraisal of the Roman Catholic Church's Ministry and sacraments. In paragraphs #24 and #25, the Lutheran participants state:

On the basis of their confessional writings, Lutherans also affirm the
churchly character of the Roman Catholic community and the validity of
the Roman Catholic Church's Ministry and sacraments. For Lutherans the
church exists wherever there is a community of believers among whom the
gospel of God's grace in Christ is responsibly proclaimed and applied
and the sacraments are administered in accordance with our Lord's
intention. The responsible proclaiming and applying of the gospel and
administration of the sacraments require that persons be set aside for
this office and function.

Some Lutherans have had misgivings in the area of Roman Catholic
commitment to the gospel. Nevertheless, Lutherans have always held that
as long as the gospel is proclaimed in any Christian community in such a
way that it remains the gospel and as long as the sacraments are
administered in that community in such a way that they are channels of
the Holy Spirit, human beings are through these means reborn to
everlasting life and the church continues to subsist in these
communities. We believe that the Roman Catholic church meets these
criteria. (pp. 17f.; emphasis added)

Notwithstanding these positive affirmations, the Lutherans are sanguine about some remaining obstacles to "pulpit and altar fellowship." Thus in paragraph #33, we read:

Although we see our common statement as removing some of the obstacles
that separate Roman Catholics and Lutherans, there are still problems to
be discussed before we can recommend pulpit and altar fellowship. The
common statement that precedes these reflections does not provide an
adequate basis for the establishment of such a fellowship. Nor does it
constitute approval by either community of every practice fostered or
tolerated by the other community. (p. 21f.)

The concluding paragraph (#35) of the statement by the Lutheran participants is instructive. (9) There are no grounds for not recognizing the Roman Catholic Church as "an authentic church of Jesus Christ" or its ordained Ministers as fully valid. Authenticity and validity are unequivocally stated.

As Lutherans, we joyfully witness that in theological dialogue with our
Roman Catholic partners we have again seen clearly a fidelity to the
proclamation of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments
which confirms our historic conviction that the Roman Catholic church is
an authentic church of our Lord Jesus Christ. For this reason we
recommend to those who have appointed us that through appropriate
channels the participating Lutheran churches be urged to declare
formally their judgment that the ordained Ministers of the Roman
Catholic church are engaged in a valid Ministry of the gospel,
announcing the gospel of Christ and administering the sacraments of
faith as their chief responsibilities, and that the body and blood of
our Lord Jesus Christ is truly present in their celebrations of the
sacrament of the altar. (p. 22)

In appraising the "Reflections of the Roman Catholic Participants," the critical question that is before us is: Do Roman Catholics consider Lutheran eucharistic Ministry "to be deficient in what Catholics have hitherto regarded as essential elements"? (see p. 23). In paragraph #36, the Roman Catholic participants write:

At first glance the Roman Catholic attitude toward the Lutheran
eucharistic Ministry would seem easily determinable. A simplified
expression of the traditional Roman Catholic outlook is that those who
preside at the eucharist do so in virtue of being ordained by a bishop
who stands in succession to the apostles who received from Christ the
commission, "Do this in commemoration of me." (p. 23)

After examining the problem, the RC participants in the dialogue conclude that "our traditional objections to the Lutheran eucharistic Ministry were seen to be of less force today, and reasons emerged for a positive reappraisal" (pp. 23f.).

In the section titled "Historical Arguments," RC participants show a keen awareness of the ambiguity in determining on the basis of the New Testament who were "qualified" to preside over the eucharist and how the presiders were appointed. The RC participants write in paragraph #38:

It is impossible to prove from the New Testament that the only Ministers
of the eucharist were the apostles, their appointed successors, and
those ordained by their successors. Modern biblical investigations have
shown that there were several different concepts of "apostle" in the New
Testament. While Luke-Acts is representative of a strain of New
Testament thought that would equate the apostles with the Twelve and
hence with those whom Jesus commanded, "Do this in commemoration of me,"
Paul is representative of a wider (and perhaps earlier) view whereby
men, like himself, could be apostles even though they had not been
disciples of Jesus during his lifetime. There is no clear biblical
evidence that the Twelve were the exclusive Ministers of the eucharist
in New Testament times or that they appointed men to preside at the
eucharist. (On the other hand, we may add that neither is there evidence
that all Christians were eligible Ministers of the eucharist.) ... We
must insist, however, in face of this silence, how difficult it is to
make affirmations about what is necessary in the eucharistic Ministry.
(p. 24)

While recognizing the ambiguity in the history of the emergence of the episcopate as a separate and higher office than that of the presbyterate (the bishop was preeminent over the presbyters), that Trent had not wished to go against Jerome, who had maintained that difference between the two was not by divine ordination, and that "in the history of the church there are instances of priests (i.e., presbyters) ordaining other priests, and there is evidence that the church accepted and recognized the Ministry of priests so ordained," it is clear that the RC participants see the latter (italicized here) as exceptions that do not constitute sufficient grounds for recognizing Lutheran practice of ordination as "normal" (p. 25).

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Without doubt, the "almost exclusive practice" has been that "the only Minister of the eucharist was one ordained by a bishop who had been consecrated as heir to a chain of episcopal predecessors." Yet, the RC participants go on to give a positive summation of Lutheran practice of ordination, noting that "in this long history there are lacunae, along with exceptions that offer some precedent for the practice adopted by Lutherans" (p. 25). In short, there are openings that may facilitate overcoming the historical negative appraisal.

In this vein, the RC participants admit to shortcomings in the past, and under the heading "Theological Arguments" they show an admirable openness: "The negative appraisal of the Lutheran eucharistic Ministry that has been traditional among Catholics was not based solely or even chiefly on an analysis of the historical evidence favoring episcopal ordination. Theological factors entered prominently into this appraisal. Here again, however, as we Catholic participants in the dialogue examined the difficulties, we found that they no longer seemed insuperable" (p. 26).

Rejecting the "dubious" notions of apostolicity that lead to the objection that "while the Lutheran communities do constitute churches, they are defective churches in an essential note that has ramifications for the eucharistic Ministry, namely, apostolicity," the RC participants conclude that "despite the lack of episcopal succession, the Lutheran church by its devotion to gospel, creed, and sacrament had preserved a form of doctrinal apostolicity" (pp. 26f.). In addition, "while there are differences of emphasis and phrasing in the theologies of our respective churches, there is also a gratifying degree of agreement as to the essentials of the sacred Ministry" (p. 27).

In response to the question "Do Lutherans see the sacred Ministry as something beyond or distinct from the general ministry of all believers?" the RC participants note that "it is quite clear that the Lutherans have a concept of a special Ministry in the church" (p. 28). But fundamental differences remain that need further work. They continue,

... we do find the statement by the Second Vatican Council that the
common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood differ
from one another in essence and not only in degree. On the Lutheran
side, there is the affirmation "We say that no one should be allowed to
administer the word and the sacraments in the church unless he is duly
called" [AC, 14]. Theologians of both churches need to clarify further
the relation between clergy and laity and to analyze the biblical
concept of the royal priesthood of God's people in order to see if that
concept really tells us anything about eucharistic ministry. (pp. 28f.)

The RC participants are heartened by the Lutheran voices in the dialogue who spoke to the question of the "sacredness" of the ordained Ministry.

Despite the difference of terminology in reference to the sacramentality
of ordination, we have heard our Lutheran partners in the dialogue
affirming what to us would be the essentials of Catholic teaching on the
subject, namely, that ordination to a sacred Ministry in the church
derives from Christ and confers the enduring power to sanctify. We heard
the affirmation that "The church has the command to appoint
Ministers.... God approves the Ministry and is present in it." [In a
footnote added here, reference is made to "Reumann ('Ordained Minister
and Layman in Lutheranism,' in Eucharist and Ministry) section 26,
238."] "All three American Lutheran churches understand the Ministry of
clergymen to be rooted in the Gospel." [In a footnote here, reference is
made to Reumann ("Ordained Minister and Layman in Lutheranism," in
Eucharist and Ministry) "section 73, 265."] Like the Roman Catholic, the
Lutheran too sees ordination as conferring a spiritual authority on the
recipient in a once-for-all fashion--namely, the power to sanctify
through proclamation ... of the word of God and the administration of
the sacraments. (p. 29) (10)

The RC participants suggest a way of adhering to the "binding" doctrine of Trent (regarding those who were not ordained by bishops) by pointing to the changed context of the twentieth century vis-a-vis the sixteenth century:

... we have found in the course of our dialogue with the Lutherans that
in the twentieth century there is a much broader agreement on
theological questions related to the eucharist than there seems to have
been in the sixteenth. Thus the whole context of the discussion of
Lutheran Ministry has changed. There is indeed something of permanent
value for the church in Trent's rejection of abuses; but, without
settling the question of the past, one might well conclude that the
abuses Trent rejected are not present now. (p. 31)

The heart of the RC statement, paragraph #54, which appears in bold print in the original text, reads thus:

As Roman Catholic theologians, we acknowledge in the spirit of Vatican
II that the 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. Furthermore, in our
study we have found serious defects in the arguments customarily used
against the validity of the eucharistic Ministry of the Lutheran
churches. In fact, we see no persuasive reason to deny the possibility
of the Roman Catholic church recognizing the validity of this Ministry.
Accordingly we ask the authorities of the Roman Catholic church whether
the ecumenical urgency flowing from Christ's will for unity may not
dictate 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. (p. 31f.)

In the explanatory statement immediately following this paragraph, the RC participants add that they do not think that solving the problem of Lutheran orders is necessary in order to make the statement in paragraph #54. The sentence that then follows is curious--not because in it they state their refusal "to decide" but because of the use of "constitutive" and "confirmatory": "Nor do we attempt to decide whether recognition by the Roman Catholic church would be constitutive of validity or merely confirmatory of existing validity" (p. 32).

The RC participants are clear that the "age-old" practice of ordination by a bishop as well as episcopacy remain normative. The proposed deviation is only a temporary step.

In speaking of the recognition of a Lutheran Ministry not ordained by
bishops, we are not in any way challenging the age-old insistence on
ordination by a bishop within our own church or covertly suggesting that
it be changed. While we believe that the church of Jesus Christ is free
to adapt the structure of the divinely instituted Ministry in the way
she sees fit (so long as the essential meaning and function of apostolic
Ministry is retained), we affirm explicitly that the apostolic Ministry
is retained in a preeminent way in the episcopate, the presbyterate, and
the diaconate. We would rejoice if episcopacy in apostolic succession,
functioning as the effective sign of church unity, were acceptable to
all; but we have envisaged a practical and immediate solution in a
de facto situation where episcopacy is not yet seen in that light.
(pp. 32f.).

The proposal is in relation to the Lutherans only. Before any recommendation concerning the Ministries and eucharistic celebrations of other church communities might be made, the latter would have to be studied in a manner similar to what has been done with respect to the Lutherans.

Why this openness to the Lutherans? The long and intensive dialogue between Lutherans and Roman Catholics had led the latter to say, "Our outlook on the possibilities of accepting the Lutheran eucharistic Ministry has been greatly determined by our increasing awareness that so much of Lutheran doctrine, practice, and piety is sound from the Catholic viewpoint, particularly in the areas of the church, Ministry, and eucharist" (p. 33).

The closing paragraph (#59) includes both caution and encouragement. There is also ambiguity.

We caution that we have not discussed the implications that a
recognition of valid Ministry would have for intercommunion or
eucharistic sharing. Obviously recognition of valid Ministry and sharing
the eucharistic table are intimately related, but we are not in a
position to affirm that the one must or should lead to the other. At the
same time, we note that the Ecumenical Directory, promulgated by the
Vatican Secretariat for Christian Unity, states that Catholics in
circumstances involving sufficient reason or urgent cause may receive
the sacraments of the holy eucharist, penance, and the anointing of the
sick from one who has been "validly ordained." (p. 33)

Where does the foregoing discussion point us? At the very least we need to return to the question of the mission of the church and how lay and ordained participate in it. In this age of increasing religious pluralism, are we being challenged to understand the Ministry in ways that recognize the variety for the sake of the church's mission? In fact, would consideration of missio Dei, in which the church participates, press us in unprecedented ways to find the way toward intercommunion? The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification certainly is a major step forward. Indeed, it is a foundational consensus on the gospel that was not there in Rounds I-IX of the L-RC Dialogue. (11)

Winston D. Persaud

Professor of Systematic Theology

Wartburg Theological Seminary

Dubuque, Iowa

1. The Church as Koinonia of Salvation: Its Structures and Ministries, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue--X, ed. Randall Lee and Jeffrey Gros, FSC (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2005). The official statement was finalized at the April 2004 meeting of Round X of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue USA, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

2. Eucharist and Ministry. Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue IV. New York: U.S.A. National Committee of the Lutheran World Federation, and Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1970.

3. Facing Unity. Models, Forms and Phases of Catholic-Lutheran Church Fellowship. Roman Catholic/Lutheran Joint Commission. Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 1985.

4. The Porvoo Common Statement. Conversations between The British and Irish Anglican Churches and The Nordic and Baltic Lutheran Churches. First published by the Council for Christian Unity of the General Synod of the Church of England, 1993.

5. A version of this essay was originally presented at a meeting of the L-RC Dialogue USA, Round X, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2-5 November 1999. This version contains a few necessary and critical emendations.

6. In its constitution (adopted on 3 December 1976), The Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (AELC), which joined the ALC and LCA in forming the ELCA, in 1988, made it clear that women were eligible for ordination.

7. Eucharist and Ministry, 10.

8. This was the focus of Round III. See Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue I-III, ed. Paul C. Empie and T. Austin Murphy (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1965).

9. Here already we see a positive openness that would contribute to the "harvest" which the Joint Declaration, signed on 31 October 1999, represents. See The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000).

10. The reference here is to Arthur Carl Piepkorn, "A Lutheran View of the Validity of Lutheran Orders," in Eucharist and Ministry, 215.

11. See my article, "JDDJ and Christian Mission in the Context of Multi-Cultural and Multi-Faith Realities," Dialog 45 (Spring 2006): 83-91.