tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post2947551424815072283..comments2024-03-29T04:31:15.219-05:00Comments on Pastoral Meanderings: Consubstantiation, Receptionism, and Other Myths about LutheransPastor Petershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10653554256101480140noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-14339737449125294982010-11-25T20:55:17.366-06:002010-11-25T20:55:17.366-06:00From the LCMS web page -
4. Elements in the Sacra...From the LCMS web page -<br /><br />4. Elements in the Sacrament. The heavenly elements in the Sacrament are the true body and the true blood of Christ; the earthly elements are true bread and true wine, for which no substitutes should be used, since the use of any substitute makes void, or at least renders uncertain, the Sacrament (Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25; Lk 22:18; 1 Co 11:21). Jesus used not unfermented grape juice but wine, used in the OT on festive occasions (Gn 14:18; Jb 1:13; Is 5:12). Bread and wine are received in a natural manner; the body and blood of Christ, though received orally, are received in an incomprehensible, supernatural manner (no Capernaitic* eating; FC SD VII 64). The Sacrament should be received by all communicants sub utraque specie (“under both kinds”), acc. to Christ's instit. In RC practice the celebrating priest receives the bread and wine, other communicants usually only bread (sub una specie, “under 1 kind”).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-82557556909035168862010-11-25T07:31:47.359-06:002010-11-25T07:31:47.359-06:00By intention I do not mean intent of the heart but...By intention I do not mean intent of the heart but that they have rejected the plain and usual sense of Christ's Word to believe something foreign to the Supper and to the Christian tradition -- intent in that they do not depart from the Real Presence by accident but by intent -- rejecting the accepted teaching that it is Christ's Body and Blood and choosing a symbolic or vague spiritualized presence.Pastor Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10653554256101480140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-53653557101871648092010-11-24T19:38:39.416-06:002010-11-24T19:38:39.416-06:00Anon,
The "They" to whom you refer are ...Anon,<br /><br />The "They" to whom you refer are not Lutherans but the party of Martin Bucer, the opinion of whom is noted but not adopted. Bucer did not understand the so-called "Wittenberg Concord" in the same way as Luther did. The sacramental <i>actio</i> or <i>usus</i> consists of the consecration and distribution as well as the reception. (FC SD Art VII, 86ff)<br /><br />Receptionism is contrary to the Lutheran Confessions.<br /><br />Pr. Peters,<br /><br />Is it that the Zwinglians have no <i>intention</i>? I have always understood the Confessions to say that Zwinglians do not have the Supper, and therefore do not have the Real Presence, because they have attached different meanings to the <i>words</i> in Christ's institution by means of their public doctrine.<br /><br />I have a hard time seeing how the notion of "intention" is not an intrusion of human willing and working into what is the sole work of Christ.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09360602965070109675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-59625161663280180732010-11-24T12:41:37.867-06:002010-11-24T12:41:37.867-06:00Pieper's Dogmatics Volume 3
Page 354, Footnot...Pieper's Dogmatics Volume 3 <br />Page 354, Footnote 95 reinforces <br />what LCMS seminarians have been <br />taught in the classroom:<br />"If a wafer happens to fall to the<br />floor during the distribution or some<br />of the wine is spilled, Christ's <br />body does not fall to the ground,<br />nor is Christ's blood spilled."<br /><br />Receptionism is the teaching of our<br />Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-24445459859754096082010-11-24T12:36:39.940-06:002010-11-24T12:36:39.940-06:00The Lutheran Confessions speak to
Receptionism in ...The Lutheran Confessions speak to<br />Receptionism in the Formula of <br />Concord, the Solid Declaration, <br />Article VII Lord's Supper Paragraph<br />15 "They (The Lutherans) do not <br />hold that the body of Christ is <br />present apart from reception." <br /><br />Wengert/Kolb page 575Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-49491920273227293472010-11-24T09:30:09.698-06:002010-11-24T09:30:09.698-06:00Ja und amen to the substance (boom-boom!) of this ...Ja und amen to the substance (boom-boom!) of this post. <br /><br />I must add, though, that the little ditty attributed variously to Queen Bess, John Donne, and various others in between, is understood on these shores (UK) to make a different point: <br /><br />"I believe what Christ meant. Just don't ask me what that was."<br /><br />In other words, it teaches a sly sort of receptionism, a eucharistic <i>fides carbonarii</i>. The great commentator on the 39 Articles, E.J. Bicknell, a defender of just such Anglican ambiguity, described these lines as follows: "Indifferent verse, admirable theology."<br /><br />However, I would be the first to celebrate if we could co-opt the "indifferent verse" for the Lutheran, nay biblical, cause.Tapani Simojokihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06050897388566829272noreply@blogger.com