While I agree that it would be inappropriate for a Lutheran to expect to receive the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood in a Roman Catholic parish and inappropriate for a Roman Catholic to receive the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood in a Lutheran parish, the part I find curious is Lutherans don't believe what Catholics believe about the Eucharist. Period. Well, what part of what Roman Catholics believe do Lutherans reject? The Real Presence? No, Lutherans are adamant about that. The bread is Christ's body and the wine is His blood. Christ's body and blood are distributed and can be taken to your harm when received without faith or repentance.
Do we disagree about Transubstantiation? Yes, but part of that disagreement has to do with the fact that some in Rome insist that the Real Presence REQUIRES Transubstantiation while Lutherans insist it is a philosophical explanation of something Scripture does not explain. Everyone agrees that the Sacrament is called bread as well as the body of Christ. Lutherans wonder what is the big deal.
Do we disagree about how the Sacrament is effected? Perhaps. While Rome insists that priests are given more than simply the faculty but also the power to effect Christ's presence, Lutherans insist that this remains with the Word -- although the Word is not magic in the mouth of whomever but the Word spoken through him whom the Lord has, through the Church, set apart for this ministry.
Do we disagree about what is received? Probably not. The Word is clear. For the forgiveness of sins. Both Lutherans and Roman Catholics are pretty big on sin and absolution and the healing power of this Sacrament to forgive our sins as well as nurture, nourish, strengthen, and sustain the Christian (worthy through repentance and faith) does not seem so much in dispute.
My point is NOT that Lutherans and Roman Catholics ought to be visiting each other's altars. Rather, my point is that here even a former Lutheran seems to lump Lutherans in with those who have no Real Presence, who believe it is merely symbolism, and who give to the bread and wine no power except whatever marginal food value may lie in them (everything else in the Sacrament being done by the person receiving!). That Lutheran has either forgotten what Lutherans believe, teach, and confess OR never knew it in the first place!
And, so it seems, Pope Francis is also confused. Perhaps he does posit more trust in what Lutherans believe about the Sacrament but he certainly appears ready to ignore where Rome and Lutherans disagree when it comes to Eucharistic hospitality. Flying back from Romania, the Pope Francis told reporters in off the cuff remarks that “there is already Christian unity,” that there is no need to “wait for the theologians to come to agreement on the Eucharist,” thereby implying that Eucharistic hospitality is ready to begin. Recall the fact that this is the Pope who seemed to imply that spouses who are not Roman Catholics might be granted special dispensation to commune at Roman altars. This appears to go a big step further. If this is indeed what Francis meant — and he has a history of being vague, of saying radical words that were later walked back — then it is not only Lutherans who need to regroup but all of Rome. Though some are scratching their heads in wonder, what did he mean and what else could he have meant, it is clear that Rome has as much need to get its ducks in order as Lutherans do!
For now the gates of the rail are still closed but it would help if at least we would state each other's positions accurately. Strangely enough, one of the fruits of ecumenical dialog is that we have to figure out what we believe in order to say it to those with whom we disagree.
I very much agree with your analysis of the meaning of the Real Presence. The problem that we all experience in our mutually sacramentally oriented churches is the face their is the doctrine on one hand and the very divergent interpretations within each. There is a big difference, at times, between the ElCA and Mo. Synod on the ways in which they address the issue. God Knows that Roman Catholicism is a mess in many quarters with reference to the Real Presence. Even in the Orthodox Church there are some who hold to a view not consistent with how the Fathers taught. As an Orthodox priest, while I lean toward Transubstantiation as opposed To the classic Lutheran position, it is just an over attempt to use philosophy to box in Grace when the term becomes a dogmatic statement. In reality when the Holy Spirit comes He changes all that He descends upon so that the bread becomes the True Body of Christ and the wine His true Blood. More than that is not necessary and can cause more problems that it seeks to explain.
ReplyDeleteAnd to remind ourselves what THE critical difference is, it is all about regarding the Mass as a representation of Christ's sacrifice, offered again to the Father, as a meritorious act of devotion, piety, sacrifice, etc.
ReplyDeleteRome regards the Mass as a perpetual re sacrifice and representation of the sacrifice of Christ, offered to the Father.
The Scriptures teach the Lord's Supper is a distribution of the benefits of the once-for-all Sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world.
That's the key difference.
In his Christian Dogmatics: A Handbook of Doctrinal Theology for Pastors, Teachers, and Laymen (St. Louis: CPH, 1934), J.T. Mueller stated (p. 531):
ReplyDelete"Because it is solely the institution and command of Christ which makes the Lord's Supper a Sacrament, a means of grace, it follows also that neither the papists nor the Calvinists have that true Holy Communion which our Savior instituted. Their 'supper' lies entirely outside the institution of our Lord (extra usum a Christo institutum) since it is neither based upon it nor is in accord with it."
The Roman Catholic Church does have the true body and blood of Christ in their celebration of the Lord's Supper, this we do not deny. Mueller is guilty of overstating his case against Rome.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said:
ReplyDeleteRome regards the Mass as a perpetual re sacrifice and representation of the sacrifice of Christ, offered to the Father.
No. You represent all that is flawed in Protestantism. What you don't or refuse to understand is that Catholics (and Orthodox, correct me if I am wrong Fr. Gregory) believe that the Sacrifice, once for all on Calvary is Eternal not temporal. So what we believe is that at the words of Consecration (or Epiclesis in the Divine Liturgy), what is Eternal crosses the divide into the temporal so that we who attend Mass or Divine Liturgy are present at the Foot of the Cross. So yes, the mass is sacrificial but we don't re-crucify Christ. What happens is see what I said above. Furthermore, if Lutherans do not believe in the sacrificial nature of Mass or Divine Liturgy, then why have an altar in your sanctuary? An altar presupposes sacrifice or it is just a piece of stone.
Anon @7:37 AM,
ReplyDeleteYou are totally clueless about the Lutheran view of the Roman Mass. Mueller is correct in that and other related statements, which are congruent with the Lutheran view of the Roman Mass in the Smalcald Articles, one of the Symbols to which Lutherans hold a quia subscription.
Mr. Strickert,
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, you rely on strictly on your Smalcald Articles, Augsberg Confession, etc. which are basically personal reflections on an erroneous view of Church History, the Fathers and Scripture. You rely strictly on those while we go by the witness of the Early Church, Ecumenical Councils, Sacred Tradition (again the witness of the Early Church) and Sacred Scripture. So no, I am not clueless of the Lutheran view of the Roman Mass.
And as always, your whole reason of existence is to denigrate the Roman Church without which your existence is without, ahem, justification.
Remember, your "church' began in 1517 and was started by Luther and you know the rest.
No, Mueller is wrong, that's why using him as your "go to" source for Lutheran systematic theology is a very, very poor choice. And compounding the problem, Vehse, is your well documented inability to make proper distinctions, to consistently misunderstand what you read, and to make assertions out of ignorance because you have only the most thin grasp of orthodox genuine Lutheran theology and history.
ReplyDeleteThe Lutheran Church does not deny that Rome has the Real Presence in its Mass. That they horribly abuse/misuse it with extra usus ceremonies is roundly condemned, and that they make it an abomination via the so-called "Sacrifice of the Mass" is the main point of contention.
But, as Luther said...
I would rather have pure blood with the Pope, than drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts. (Luther’s Works, 37, 317)
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteorthodox Christians believe that during the Divine Liturgy "we set aside all earthly cares." The veils of time are lifted mystically and we enter in the eternal time of God, no past no future but the eternal present. We receive the Risen Christ during communion. We have limited words beyond this great Reality of God. The Orthodox Church tends not to define or nail down so much as we seek to enter into the Presence of the Lord with fear and trepidation. Perhaps the better way to understand this is to be in awe of the Lord of Glory. "That we may receive the King of Glory who is uplifted upon the wings of the angelic hosts."
Fr. Greg,
ReplyDeleteI guess you are confirming what I said that when we are at Mass or Divine Liturgy, we step into Eternity, no?
I know that the Othodox's emphasis is on the mystery; that is, there is no need to define it. By Christ's words through the priest, what is IS, enough said. And since it IS, the elements are no longer bread and wine period. I don't see that in Lutheran theology. Christ is present along with the bread and wine or "in, with, and under." To Catholics, then, they are not receiving Christ substantially.
The Orthodox and Lutheran Church are actually quite in agreement that we do not, nor can we, explain the "how" of Christ's presence, we simply confess it and rejoice in it.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
ReplyDeleteThe Orthodox and Lutheran Church are actually quite in agreement that we do not, nor can we, explain the "how" of Christ's presence, we simply confess it and rejoice in it.
Be that as it may, theologically speaking, you are not in agreement since for Lutherans, the bread and wine are still bread and wine with Christ alongside it. That is in contradiction to what Christians had believed up until Luther's revolt. And since the revolt, Catholics and Orthodox still believe that Who they receive is Jesus Christ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity WHOLEY not ALONG with bread and wine.
All the arguments are meaningless and to no avail. There is no Eucharist outside of the Church and there is only one Church.
ReplyDeleteTransubstantion is a theory intended to explain how Christ is present. It is Scholastic nonsense. It requires one to believe bread that looks, feels, tastes like bread is not, etc. etc. It's just a silly theory.
ReplyDeleteYou don't really know much about the Lutheran Confession concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, but that's pretty common among Papists.
Anonymous said:
ReplyDeleteTransubstantion is a theory intended to explain how Christ is present. It is Scholastic nonsense. It requires one to believe bread that looks, feels, tastes like bread is not, etc. etc. It's just a silly theory.
It is a theory to explain a reality. Lutherans still believe that they are consuming bread and wine with Christ present along with the species not that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ wholly and substantially. That is in contradiction to Christ's own words that, "This IS my Body and this IS my Blood." So no longer are they bread and wine but The Body and Blood of Christ. So transubstantiation is trying to explain a Mystery that eludes us in our finite minds.
You are stuck in human reasoning while Catholics and Orthodox accept the reality without questioning it. For God all things are possible but what Lutherans are doing is limiting God.
Again, you don't understand what Lutherans confess about the Lord's Supper. We believe what Jesus says about the bread and wine in the Eucharist. Period. They are His body and His blood, given to us Christians to eat and drink. Period.
ReplyDelete"Transubstantion is a stupid theory trying to explain a mystery."
There, fixed it for you.
If that is the case then why did you say this:
ReplyDelete. It requires one to believe bread that looks, feels, tastes like bread is not, etc. etc.?
Seems to me that you don't believe what Christ said but still believe you are consuming bread and wine with Christ "in, with and under them." What you are really saying that Christ does not have the power to change bread and wine into his Body and Blood. Shame on you.
You are wrong, again. There, I fixed it for you.
1 Cor 10:16. Pretty clear that there is both bread and body, as well as cup (wine) and blood. But don't let the scriptures confuse man-made theories.
ReplyDeleteI marvel at any attempt to "explain" Holy Communion. Ahh, the arrogance of men.
Sacramental Union is the only explanation one needs.
"... we do not make Christ's body out of the bread ... Nor do we say that his body comes into existence out of the bread [i.e. impanation]. We say that his body, which long ago was made and came into existence, is present when we say, "This is my body." For Christ commands us to say not, "Let this become my body," or, "Make my body there," but, "This is my body."
In other words, don't try to explain it, but believe it.
It's a nice theory, Transubstantiation, but it directly conflicts with the Apostle Paul's teaching on the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians.
ReplyDeleteThe BREAD .... the CUP ... is a participation in the body and blood of Christ. A "koinonia"
And the Lutheran Confessions state that the bread is the body of Christ and the wine is the blood of Christ.
GIVEN AND SHED....FOR YOU....
Now THAT is the point of the Eucharist.
It is my understanding that Lutherans believe that Christ's body and blood are present because he promised this as often as Christians celebrate communion according to his institution. Calvinists celebrate communion using the words of institution, as do Catholics. Well, I assume Catholics do too. By this logic, Calvinists AND Catholics would both also have body and blood, unless you are going to distinguish what THEY believe about it, rather than what God does. Lutherans have no grounds for interpreting "blood with Catholics vs. wine with Calvinists" as meaning Catholics receive the body of Christ and Calvinists don't. What Luther meant was that he would rather believe in the real presence with Catholics, who screw up and add to the institution, than believe in wine only, which screws up the institution as well.
ReplyDeleteA correct Lutheran view is that NEITHER have the real presence, because they do not celebrate communion according to the institution and command of Christ. This is why Mueller speaks as he does, which is not hyperbole. It is not the faith of the communicant or words of the minister that makes the real presence, but doing what Christ says to do. His promise that when we do this he gives us his body and blood, "makes" the real presence. This is why Melanchthon vigorously opposed any attempts to introduce additional Eucharistic prayers into the communion rite. Melanchthon understood the Lutheran view. Our neo-Romanists should take note.
Anon...11:20
ReplyDeleteWrong. Lutherans have never denied that the Romanists have the actual presence of Christ's body and blood in the Mass. They condemn Romanism for abusing that presence, etc.
The Formula of Concord makes it clear that Calvinists do NOT have the body and blood of Christ because they reject and deny Christ's Word about it.
Mueller is wrong. Luther is correct.
Father Gregory wrote: "orthodox Christians believe that during the Divine Liturgy "we set aside all earthly cares." The veils of time are lifted mystically and we enter in the eternal time of God, no past no future but the eternal present. We receive the Risen Christ during communion. We have limited words beyond this great Reality of God. The Orthodox Church tends not to define or nail down so much as we seek to enter into the Presence of the Lord with fear and trepidation. Perhaps the better way to understand this is to be in awe of the Lord of Glory. "That we may receive the King of Glory who is uplifted upon the wings of the angelic hosts."
ReplyDeleteWho could find fault with anything here written? That's the Lutheran understanding/approach as well, no? Luther never wanted to engage in any philosophical arguments regarding the "how?" His sole focus was on what was given and received: The very Body and Blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
With all due respect, whatever way Lutherans want to define their Eucharistic theology, the fact remains that they are incorrect both historically and theologically. Lutherans only receive bread and wine period. That's it. Yes, Christ is among you when you preach and pray for, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them." But you don't have the fullness of the faith, It is and always will be truncated no matter how much you quote from Smalcald, Augsberg and your personal interpretations of Sacred Scripture. You lack substance. Fervor you do have but substance you don't.
ReplyDeleteAnon, you are making the real presence contingent on what Calvinists BELIEVE, not the Word.
ReplyDelete"For the Word, by which it became a sacrament and was instituted, does not become false because of the person or his unbelief. For He does not say: If you believe or are worthy, you will receive My body and blood, but: "Take, eat and drink; this is My body and blood"; 26] likewise: "Do this" (namely, what I now do, institute, give, and bid you take). That is as much as to say, No matter whether you be worthy or unworthy, you have here His body and blood, by virtue of these words which are added to the bread and wine. This mark and observe well; for upon these words rest all our foundation, protection, and defense against all error and temptation that have ever come or may yet come."
It is not the bare Word alone, but the entire institution, speaking and doing, that makes the sacrament. As a side note, any confessional Lutheran should as a result wholeheartedly support both consecrationism and receptionism, even though neither is a satisfactory term for the Lutheran view, which demands the entire institution be observed.
"After this protestation, Doctor Luther, of blessed memory, presents, among other articles, this also: In the same manner I also speak and confess (he says) concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, that there the body and blood of Christ are in truth orally eaten and drunk in the bread and wine, even though the priests [ministers] who administer it [the Lord's Supper], or those who receive it, should not believe or otherwise misuse it. For it does not depend upon the faith or unbelief of men, but upon God's Word and ordinance, unless they first change God's Word and ordinance and interpret it otherwise, as the enemies of the Sacrament do at the present day, who, of course, have nothing but bread and wine; for they also do not have the words and appointed ordinance of God, but have perverted and changed them according to their own [false] notion. Fol. 245."
ReplyDeleteBoth Catholics and Calvinists change Gods Word and ordinance, and have bread and wine as a result.
Luther and Mueller are both correct.
Correct according to whom? Certainly not in light of the Apostolic Fathers and Church. Also not in light of Sacred Scripture. Amazing the lengths of self delusion you go to in order to advance your heresy.
ReplyDeleteLutherans believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms" of consecrated bread and wine (the elements),[5] so that communicants eat and drink both the elements and the true Body and Blood of Christ himself[6] in the Sacrament of the Eucharist whether they are believers or unbelievers.[7][8]
ReplyDeleteSo is it bread and wine or the Body and Blood of Christ? It can't be both because Christ did not say, "This bread is my Body and this wine is my Blood." Btw, sacramental union = consubstantiation whether or not you say it isn't so. When Christ says something is, then by virtue of the fact that he is God Incarnate, what he say is he means it; in other words, it just is, period. He is God or do you not believe that.
"Catholics ... change Gods Word and ordinance, and have bread and wine as a result. Luther and Mueller are both correct."
ReplyDeleteWRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
Luther and the Lutheran Confessions **never** anywhere say that, teach that or confess that.
Please stop with the stupid defense of J.T. Mueller, a second rate LCMS theologian whose dogmatics pales in comparison to that of Francis Pieper, who never anywhere in his work says this either. Not to mention any Orthodox Lutheran dogmatician.
Egads....are there really Lutherans who believe the Roman Catholic Church does not have the real presence? Lord have mercy. The depth of ignorance is astounding.
ReplyDeleteI hope Pr. Peters chimes in.
Jack
Daniel G., could you answer a question? Is the flesh of Jesus Christ the human flesh or the flesh of the Son of God? Is His blood human blood or the blood of the Son of God? As a Lutheran I believe they are both. Likewise, what I partake of in sacrament is both bread and body and wine and blood. They are not alongside each other in a Nestorian way, but rather, because there is a real communion of the body and bread and blood and wine. Jesus has said, "This is My body... this is My blood..." Therefore, I partake of that body and blood which was given and shed for me due to the the real, sacramental union of Christ's body and blood with the bread and wine.
ReplyDeleteJDB, that question is a bit off. Jesus is both God and Man so to deny that his Flesh is human would be ludicrous. And yes you are correct about his being of human flesh and the flesh of the Son of God since he is the Son of God and he is incarnate; that is, of human flesh and blood. There is no such thing as sacramental union; that is one of Luther’s or Lutheranism’s heresies. Christ did not say, his body was alongside the bread and likewise, his blood was alongside the wine. Rather, the operative word is IS. The bread and wine cease to be so and become his Body and Blood yet to our senses taste like bread and wine otherwise and scholastically referred to as the “accidents” of bread and wine. So in effect, Christ was saying that what was bread and wine to our senses is now his Body and Blood. In his mercy, I imagine, this is so since eating his flesh and blood as we perceive it on ourselves would be tortuous.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_and_rubrics_of_the_Roman_Canon
ReplyDeleteDoes this read like Christ's institution?
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteYES. Does Luther’s sacramental union theology square with the words of institution of Christ? That is, “This is my Body, united to the bread but separate, given to you.” And, “This is my blood united to the wine, shed for you and for many for the remission of sins?” Because that is what sacremental union presupposes.
Or does this sound like Luther’s translation: or by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
ReplyDeleteWhere is the word “alone” in this verse?
Or what about this:
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Daniel G, Lutherans do not say that Christ's body and blood are alongside the bread and wine. That would be Nestorian. The words we use, "in, with, and under" are used to say that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ on account of a real communion of the bread and body of Christ and the wine and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10: 16- 17). The elements do not cease to be bread and wine, but are the body and blood of Christ.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJDB, Jesus Christ said° this IS my Body and Blood °not, °my Body and Blood commune with this bread and wine and given for you, etc.°
ReplyDeleteSo no, sacramental union is just a way of saying that, ° I don’t believe that I could possibly be eating the Body and Blood of Christ because I taste bread and wine and surely bread and wine couldn’t possibly be turned into flesh and blood now could they” In effect, you nullify the words of Christ because you lack faith that Christ being God can really change bread and wine into his Body and Blood and still taste like bread and wine.
Daniel G. .... wow, your ignorance of what Lutherans believe, teach and confess about the real, substantial, essential, true presence of our Lord's actual body and His actual blood in the bread and wine of the Eucharist is really just inexcusable.Nobody should even bother responding to you any further so invincible is your ignorance.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, your lack of faith in Christ's word is even more inexcusable. Besides we have, as I have said before, the witness of the Early Church and Apostolic Fathers to verify that what Catholics (and Orthodox) believe about the Eucharist is the only true and correct belief. Yours is a skeptical belief in that you can't get past the fact that the bread and wine do not remain bread and wine after the words of consecration (by a validly ordained ministerial priesthood btw). You should cry out to Christ as that poor sinner did, "I believe, help my unbelief."
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
ReplyDeleteWe simply take God at His word when He tells us that we eat bread when we receive Christ's body.
Mr. Gray,
ReplyDeleteWould you kindly refer me to the scripture quote that says what you just said because I don't see it stated that way in any of the accounts of the last supper.
What I have read is, " Take, eat for this is my Body given for you."
I don't read him saying when you eat this bread you are receiving my body. What he said is, "This is my body." And for 1500 years before Luther, we understood that to mean, because of his words, that we partake not of bread but of his VERY Body and likewise not wine, but His VERY Blood. His words are efficacious because he is God.
If God's creation was created from nothing and we accept that, then why is it hard to believe that he can change bread and wine into his Body and Blood substantially yet retain the appearance, feel, and taste of bread and wine?
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
ReplyDeleteFor as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
(1 Corinthians 11:26-28)
And you misrepresent the history of the church on the matter of transubstantiation, which was dogmatized after more than 1000 years had passed. There is no Zwinglianism in the Fathers but there is some variety. Some sound more like Transubstantiation some sound more Lutheran. But the Fathers do not, en masse, teach transubstantiation.
ReplyDeleteMr. Gray,
ReplyDeleteNice quote from Corinthians but it doesn't prove your point. It just reiterates the fact that if you partake of the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily then you are guilty of profaning said Body and Blood.
As far as misrepresenting history, while it may have been "dogmatized" or put into writing, the word transubstantiation just defined or put into words what was believed and is still believed by Apostolic Christians; that is, Catholic and Orthodox. But for the Orthodox, they don't define it as such as it is a mystery how the bread and wine change their substance but that it just does on account of Christ's words.
It is a nice quote and it says "eat this bread."
ReplyDeleteDo you ever read the Fathers?
Mr. Gray said:
ReplyDeleteIt is a nice quote and it says "eat this bread."
And Christ said, "This IS my Body, etc. " So while Paul says, "bread" and "cup" it makes no difference because he knows that the "bread" and "cup" are really the Body and Blood wholly and substantially otherwise people who ate "bread" and drank the "cup" would not be blaspheming the Body and Blood if they partook unworthily of the "bread" and the "cup."
Yes, I have perused the quotes of the Fathers on the Eucharist but have not read entire volumes of them. I do have the Logos Software for Catholics "Verbum" which includes the Fathers and when I have the time I will definitely read through them. One good thing about Google is that you can go directly to quotes of the Fathers when you're in a pinch so to speak.
Daniel G. there is absolutely nothing in Paul's words to suggest that the theory of transubstantiation holds any water. In fact, quite the opposite, if it was merely bread and wine nobody could possible offend against the body and blood of Jesus. But there's nothing to suggest the whole "disappearing bread and wine act" of Medieval Scholasticism.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteWrong. There is also nothing in the bible that says Trinity yet we believe that God is one in three and three in one.
Transubstantiation is just a way to explain a reality that was and is still believed but members of the Roman Catholic Church.
Besides, John 6's Eucharistic discourse should clear the matter up if you truly believe the scriptures.
It seems you really have a hard time believing the words of Christ.
Lutherans do not teach that John 6 is a Eucharistic discourse. If they did, it would mean that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. Faith alone in Christ is all that is necessary for salvation. See John 3:16 and a second rate theologian below:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/MuellerNotesonLuthersInterpretation.pdf
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteA catholic approach would affirm both things that the Bible teaches, this is my body, and it is bread. Which is what Lutheranism teaches.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteOf course Luther would teach, in opposition to what preceded him, that John 6 is not a Eucharistic Discourse just as he wanted to get rid of the Letter of James which is the only place in the bible that mentions faith alone but in opposition to his erroneous faith alone, grace alone, etc. You see, Luther was like a little child who will say that black is blue because he doesn’t like the color black. Just because you don’t like something, it doesn’t mean it is wrong or untrue. Luther among other things was not only super scrupulous but also a bit on the crazy side but I digress....
So, again, and to reiterate, it is no longer bread but the Body and Blood of Christ but only in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. You are correct that you consume bread and wine in the Lutheran Church because that is all it is.
Daniel apparently thinks he knows better than Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Paul says we eat bread. I believe him. Jesus says "this is my body." I believe him.
ReplyDeleteDaniel G. are you a convert to the Roman Catholic Church? I ask with all due respect. I admire your passionate defense of your Church's doctrine. I diagree, of course, but I've found it is often the converts who are the real "tigers" for their church's doctine. We welcome such in our church and are invigorated by people who embrace wholeheartedly the doctrine and practice of the Lutheran Church, as articulated in the Book of Concord of 1580.
ReplyDeleteCheers.
Cordially, in Christ,
Rev. Paul McCain, LCMS
As for John 6, in light of how Zwingli used this text to trash the Lord's Supper, of course Luther explained how it was NOT a "proof text" for the Blessed and Most Venerable Sacrament of the Altar, but ... in Luther practice and devotional piety, as displayed throughout the age of Orthodox Lutheran devotional works and hymns, John 6 was used to praise and adore the true Body and Blood our Lord Jesus in his Holy Sacrament. If John 3 is a reference to Baptism, it is, in my private opinion, not to regard John 6 as John's Lord's Supper text.
ReplyDeleteFWIW.
Cordially, in Christ,
Rev. Paul T. McCain, LCMS
Correction:
ReplyDeleteIf John 3 is a reference to Baptism, it is, in my private opinion, clearly John's Lord's Supper text. I have spent many years studying this closely, and I refuse to let the heretic Zwingli's false teaching to deprive me of the powerful text of John 6.
From one of Missouri's brightest theologians, Philip Hale:
ReplyDelete"Luther, when he makes his “either-or” argument about John 6 being sacramental, is accused of being “purely Zwinglian.” This disrespect of Luther is shameful. Luther was not backed into a corner by this text, rather his exegetical position on John 6 was firmly fixed from 1520, before the sacramentarian controversy [52; The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, LW 36:19]"
https://steadfastlutherans.org/2014/09/twice-more-to-john-6-an-analysis-of-the-sacramental-interpretation/
Philip Hale?? LOL
ReplyDeletePastor Peters wrote:
ReplyDelete"Rather, my point is that here even a former Lutheran seems to lump Lutherans in with those who have no Real Presence....."
This "lumping the Lutherans in" with all other Christian denominations that are not Roman Catholic (RCC) nor Eastern Orthodox (EO) should make every Lutheran very angry.
Because the Lutheran understanding of both Baptism and of the Eucharist is so radically different than all other non-RCC and non-EO Christian denominations, Lutherans cannot therefore be labeled "Protestant."
Hi Anonymous/Carl Gerhard:
ReplyDeleteInstead of being a clown online, try reading some books and engaging in meaningful comments.
Good morning Reverend McCain,
ReplyDeleteNo, I am a cradle Catholic who like most people in my generation was a victim of the Novus Ordo Church. I had my “issues” with the Church and its teachings and so I tried other denominations, Lutheran included but found that they were much like Catholic churches at least in the externals. For me to experience that I asked myself why did they leave the Catholic Church in the first place. After that, I just said it was me and Jesus and of course you know how that goes. Funny thing though, through my journey, the seeds of faith planted first in the home and then In Church never left. I never threw out the baby with the bath water. For instance, I would occasionally attend Mass but never go up to communion. After all, if it was just me and Jesus and Jesus forgives, why don’t you just go up? Well I didn’t and that was providential.
I returned home to the Church back in 2004 after basically reading my way back in and during that reading phase, I found out that my catechesis back in those crazy days of the 70”s was just plain crap. I read some of the documents of Vatican 2 and what the actually said versus the baloney that was fed to us from the progressives who were hell bent on destroying every semblance of Catholicism pre V2. EWTN was also instrumental in me returning and finally, there is St. Clement’s Eucharistic Shrine in Boston which has perpetual adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Listening to the Oblates pray the Divine Office, praying before Christ in the Tabernacle or in the Monstrance and some serious reading as well as some life experiences with tragedy led me home.
I am no saint and I struggle with same sex issues but I have hope. What I realized and what the Church has taught from the beginning is that God created and that his creation is good. I am not dung covered over by snow but I have my issues due to the effects of Original Sin. I do have a part to play in my salvation as I must cooperate with God’s grace and I struggle but I don’t lose hope. I have free will to choose good over evil. I have a part to play. I am redeemed but I must work out my salvation in fear and trembling. That is part and parcel of taking up the Cross but God’s grace is sufficient and I have to respond to that grace. And that is why I remain Catholic amongst other reasons.
I found this blog by accident and began reading the Pastor’s posts and there is much I agree with except, of course, where we differ theologically. I have learned some very good things from his postings about life in general, spirituality and, of course, Lutheranism.
Ok, I will stop rambling. God bless.
Thanks David, for sharing a bit more about yourself. Nice to "meet"you here. Take care and God bless.
ReplyDeletePaul McCain
That is Daniel not David. Thank you.
ReplyDelete"Because the Lutheran understanding of both Baptism and of the Eucharist is so radically different than all other non-RCC and non-EO Christian denominations, Lutherans cannot therefore be labeled "Protestant."
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, the Lutheran Church is the "mother church of Protestantism," as your grandfather's church rightly put it in the Lutheran Witness in 1917. Lutherans were called Protestants in 1529 for protesting the rolling back of allowing the cup at communion and the marriage of priests. Lutherans will always be arch-Protestants. We're the ones who were labeled such, for protesting the abuses of Rome.
Anonymous @ 4:33 PM wrote:
ReplyDelete" Lutherans will always be arch-Protestants. We're the ones who were labeled such, for protesting the abuses of Rome."
I respond:
Lutherans were the original reformers. Martin Luther came to reform the Roman Catholic church - not to start a new one. And yet because of Calvin and his followers, the label "Reformed" has been taken away from the Lutherans. Consequently, for a Lutheran to be called "Reformed" in the 21st century is a grave insult.
Lutherans were the original Evangelicals. The label "Evangelical" was, in Germany, called "Evangelisch," aka "Lutheran." And yet because of the Baptists, Pentecostals, and other revivalist-style, "Theology of Glory" church bodies, the label "Evangelical" has been taken away from the Lutherans.
Lutherans were the original Protestants. Every single Christian denomination that is not Roman Catholics nor Eastern Orthodox has been lumped into this category. Tullian Tchividjian, before the adultery scandal and his fall from the ministry, raved about Lutherans in a positive light. That earned him public scorn and got him kicked out of the Gospel Coalition. Please tell me why the Baptists accepted the Presbyterians as Protestant brothers and sisters but have continued to deride the Lutherans as "(Roman) Catholic-lite" and "Romans without a Pope."
https://www.tullian.net/
When the Gospel Coalition starts admitting confessional Lutherans to their organization to complement the Evangelicals and Calvinists already among their ranks, then I will believe you that Lutherans are truly "Protestants."
It used to be called "The Reformation." Now, it is common to hear "The Protestant Reformation." Such a "Protestant" label is dangerous for Lutherans, as it implies that Luther was another Jan Hus whose purpose was simply to initiate the break from Rome so that the Calvinists and Baptists can complete the work of the Church that Luther and Hus initiated.
If you are confessional Lutheran and remember Catechesis classes, you will remember your pastor writing three columns on the dry erase board: Baptist, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic/EO. I proudly belong to the middle column. We have always been the authentic Third Way. Go ahead and call yourself "Protestant" all you want. I want nothing to do with those Evangelical preacher frauds - And neither should any good confessional Lutheran.
James,
ReplyDeleteWhy let a bunch of contemporary Southern hicks hijack the words "Evangelical" (which is on the cornerstone of nearly every LCMS church) and "Protestant" from the largest Protestant denomination in the world?
Are we going to abandon "faith alone" next?