When you recieve communion in a Protestant Commmunity, you are implicity accepting what they believe. (i.e. Christian Relativism, which should be condemned). This is why I could never receive Communion in a Protestant Church.

Recently I engaged some fellow catholics who accept the fact that Lutherns have a notion of the real preasance. My view was that they believe in the real presence only immediately after receiving the bread. In other words they consecrate the hosts within their body, there is no consecrated hosts in the tabernacle as in a catholic church. The lutherns do not consecrate having no real presencence in a tabernacle.

I have been convicted myself, not to receive communion in a non-Catholic church. My daughter and her husband belong to a Beth Judah, Christian Jewish church. They have a communion service every Friday evening, and my son in law says a couple of prayers over the bread and wine. I use to partake with them out of respect, but the Holy Spirit convicted me that to do so is to deny what I believe which is in the true presence of Jesus I had to tell my daughter and son in law this, and they were very angry with me. My daughter still will ask me to come over for their shabot dinner, and I tell her why I can't come. This seems to be an on going thing. I hate to hurt them, but I would rather hurt them, if it is the only way for me to be true to my Lord.

The Swedish Lutheran church can actually name everyone back in the apostolic succession to Peter. LCMS apparently can't, but things have always been done such, that it is impossible for it to be otherwise. It appears to be very important to Lutherans that they not be Protestant, but the most true faction of the Catholic Church. Laugh if you want, I would understand, but that is their self-understanding.
There are various Lutheran synods. Some are so liberal as to be practically ECUSA. Others (Wisconsin) are so conservative that one has to subscribe even to the -exegesis- of the 16th century. Some are actually low church (which surprised me) and some, like the LCMS range from more Catholic than Rome in their liturgy (since VII) to Willow Creek rite, depending on the congregation. That one will probably split before too long.
What I meant to communicate, regarding Trent, is that the Reformers would have agreed strongly with condemning many of the things that Trent condemned the Reformers for allegedly teaching. I.e., the mistake was on what it actually was the Reformers were saying, not on what was right and wrong doctrine. In the specific matters I was speaking of.
I do think, like Melancton, etc. that the schism should not have happened. There was so much miscommunication. Both sides are guilty in this. There are differences, and they all derive, as near as I can tell, not from Christ alone, not from grace alone not from faith alone (rightly understood), but from Scripture as final authority or magisterial exegesis plus orally transmitted material not part of the canon of Scripture as the final (available) authority. Now that -is- significant, and may have led to schism. But there aren't nearly as many disagreements as Protestants and Catholics have imagined to be the case for the last half-millenium. Some are false notions passed on from generation to generation, some are differing uses of words.
Michael, I was raised an Arian heretic in the United Methodist Church, then have been a low-church evangelical since then. Is Lutheran worse? I don't know of any other Bible-believing denominations which believe in the Real Presence or worship via the ancient liturgy.

Possibly an error in judgement on my part, but prior to this, I had never heard of Lutherans claiming or even desiring Apostolic succession and a validly ordained priesthood. As you may have speculated, I'm particularily prejudiced against Lutherans. This predominately relates to an attempted conversion after my parents' divorce. As an adult I've seen many varieties of Lutheranism and understand that Lutherans can vary considerably in their beliefs.
This is not to say that I haven't revised my views on Lutherans since adulthood. Growing up I saw Lutherans very weak morally and just another religion trying to feel good about their immorality. That was unfair on my part, but it lasted into my church shopping when my wife and I were married.
In regards to my short remark above, the issue 'confused' is having has absolutely nothing to do with ignorance as I suspected. I am not a 16th century Jesuit formulating arguments against the Reformation. The Council of Trent is the Church's response to the reformation. You can argue that the Council was based on a misunderstanding or any number of things, but once the Church has spoken you can either assent or dissent. Even if you don't agree with the idea of a papal office, you still are put in the position of being in or out of communion with the majority of the bishops. If the issue is as minor as you describe than scism would seem grossly inappropriate.
As far as asking questions regarding a Lutheran conversion, I would be the wrong person to ask. If you were looking at becoming a non-denom or Baptist I would have plenty for you. My decision to return to the Catholic Church was based in large part on Bible study and recognizing that the Catholic position was not unacceptable in the Bible's light as I had been led to believe. Once I recognized that reasonable arguments could be made about various things in the Bible, I had to choose my teacher. In a rare act of humility, I knew that the teacher wasn't me. All other churches could be traced to a man except one, and that was the Roman Catholic Church. (Apologizes to the Orthodox, but I only knew who they were and that their separation had mostly to do with geography.) Granted, I needed some time to assent to various things like social welfare and war.
Sorry for the exceedingly long post. I wish you gentlemen (or ladies if applicable) the best of luck on your journeys.

And, how is it that the 'Lutherans' who had an archbishop and several bishops, not have valid orders and apostolic sucession?
Seriously, I want to know why you said that, so I can ask Pastor.
I apologize that Mr. Forrest's attitude got my hackles up.

I've got like three weeks before LCMS reception. So, why is it that we aren't receiving what we believe we are? I want to run several questions past Pastor. This is your chance.

Mr. Forrest, your beligerant attitude seems designed to drive people away. You will catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar.
Trent was mistaken about what the Evangelical movement taught. Trent condemned things that they thought that they taught, that the Evangelical movement would also have condemned.
That doesn't mean that that synodical council inaccurately defined what that synod taught, just that they didn't understand what the Evangelical movement taught and teaches.

Approaching this from another perspective (I'm Lutheran), one can generally say that one should pause before taking communion in another denomination. Lutheran churches at least theoretically (but not always in practice) preach close communion, in which the participant must agree to the beliefs of the Lutheran Church before taking communion. Thus a practicing Roman Catholic, or a practicing United Methodist (who believes that the whole thing is symbolic) would not WANT to take communion in a Lutheran church.

You don't seem puzzled at all. If you are interested in the topic, it is addressed by the council of Trent. Needless to say, the faculties are not present amongst Lutheran brethern to perform this miracle, hence transubstantiation has not occured.

Just out of curiosity, if a priest is validly ordained in the Catholic Church but breaks away from the Church and becomes a Protestant, can he still validly perform the Sacraments if he so intends?

The Augsburg Confession makes plan that it is only the -form- of the bread and wine that remain. The substance is the body and blood of Christ.
As to the rest, pous gegrapsai?

If I remember correctly the Evangelical Church (of America I've more often heard it referred) is one of many dissident groups claiming Apostolic Succession. A convert from there on the Journey Home stated that the claim comes from a fallen away Brazillian bishop. If you are referring to the Episcopal Church (Anglican), Rome has infalliable denied any current claim to Apostolic Succession. Ministers in that church would have to receive holy orders upon conversion. I'm not aware of any Lutherans that claim, let alone have, apostolic succession. Lutherens have always rejected the priesthood.
As far as the body and blood are concerned, it is not a matter of belief. The sacraments require intent, substance, and faculties. The bread and wine either become Jesus Christ or they remain bread and wine. The state of the recepient does not reflect this miracle. The power of the Holy Spirit to perform the Eucharistic miracle is given by ordained bishops who have received the same from prior bishops and ultimately Jesus Christ.
BTW, consubstantiation is the belief that Jesus is present in bread and wine. Catholic teaching is that there no longer is bread and wine, only the appearances (accidents) of each.

How is Lutheran mass invalid? The Evangelical Church (aka Lutheran) continued with validly ordained archbishop, bishops and priests. We receive the true body and blood of Jesus Christ under the form of bread and wine. (nothing in there about "consubstantiation" not clear where that rumor got started)

Thanks Jimmy. This recently came up on an interdenominational Tolkien fandom list that I belong to. (There are other Catholics on the list besides myself, though I'm the most active, and we also have a Russian Orthodox lady whom I had the pleasure to meet, along with her daughter, this summer.)
I'm not quite sure how to break this information to these nice folks, so I'd appreciate prayers/advice in that regard.

Having had to sit through a Protestant service today where they had the "Lord's table", I can appreciate this. In the end, I'm constantly reminded that we aren't in communion. This is not a matter of mutual agreement, and then we'll have an Evangelical rite or a Luthern rite. As far as the Anglicans are concerned I'm pretty sure that communion would require the dissolution of their church. Though not ecumenical on my part, these well intentioned groups are all heretical whose members (if they are obstinate in opposition to the Church and her teachings) are in mortal sin. A passage on the well intentioned that I think is explicit in this manner is Acts 13:13-16.

StephenL,
I imagine one reason would be out of respect for non-Catholics who might not want people not in communion with them taking it. In addition, a Catholic might be giving it implicit validity when in the Catholic opinion it isn't valid.
For example, traditional Catholics often refer to Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury) as "Archbishop" Williams because in their opinion he is not really a bishop.

Help me more on this. It would seem to me that in a Protestant church their eating of bread and grape juice is in fact not a Sacrement and in no way are they even calling it the actual body and blood of Christ. So, why are we supposed to not partake in it?