8 people Left?

[SteveVH]

It is only in reception that they become the body and blood (according to Lutherans).

That’s the heresy of Receptionism, and Lutherans reject it.

Now, you are both Lutherans. Wouldn’t it be nice if you had an authority upon which you could rely for an answer?

 

[Thorolfr]

Now, you are both Lutherans. Wouldn’t it be nice if you had an authority upon which you could rely for an answer?

I’m a pretty new Lutheran and Ben probably knows more than me about what Lutherans believe.

But I’ve been reading Luther’s Large Catechism and based on what Luther says there along with the words of the Wittenburg Concordia, it appears to me that it is only in reception that the bread and wine become the true body and blood. And based on my reading of what Luther says in the Catechism, it depends on the person receiving them believing that they are indeed the body and blood “given for you” and “shed for you” for the bread and wine to indeed become those things. But I could be wrong…

 

[SteveVH]

I’m a pretty new Lutheran and Ben probably knows more than me about what Lutherans believe.

But I’ve been reading Luther’s Large Catechism and based on what Luther says there along with the words of the Wittenburg Concordia, it appears to me that it is only in reception that the bread and wine become the true body and blood. And based on my reading of what Luther says in the Catechism, it depends on the person receiving them believing that they are indeed the body and blood “given for you” and “shed for you” for the bread and wine to indeed become those things. But I could be wrong…

I hope so.

Peace.

Steve

 

[benjohnson]

What do you make then of the Wittenburg Concordia signed by Luther which specifically says that it is only in reception that it becomes the body and blood?

What book and what quote?

 

[benjohnson]

I’m a pretty new Lutheran and Ben probably knows more than me about what Lutherans believe.

I’m a new Lutheran too (10 years now) - so we’re in the same boat

There has been a strain of receptionist within American Lutheranism in the last 100 years or so as a way of trying to be more rational (or less Catholic.)

The primary trouble as I underwent it is that it turns God’s word and God’s promise to us into a conditional.

It would also permanently separates God’s Body and Blood from those that lack the intellectual capacity to understand.

From and inclusive viewpoint - those of limited mental capacity are truly loved by God and it isn’t right to erect a man-made barrier to separate them from God’s promise.

 

[Thorolfr]

What book are you talking about? And what’s the quote?

I’m referring to the Wittenburg Concordia. According to Wikipedia:

Wittenberg Concord, is a religious concordat signed by Reformed and Lutheran theologians and churchmen on May 29, 1536[1][2] as an attempted resolution of their differences with respect to the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist.[2]** It is considered a foundational document for Lutheranism**[3] but was later rejected by the Reformed.

The Reformed signers included Martin Bucer,[4] Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, Matthäus Alber, Martin Frecht, Jakob Otter, and Wolfgang Musculus. The Lutherans signers included Martin Luther,[4] Philipp Melanchthon,[4] Johannes Bugenhagen, Justus Jonas, Caspar Cruciger, Justus Menius, Friedrich Myconius, Urban Rhegius, George Spalatin. This document defined the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist as the Sacramental Union and maintained the real eating of the body and blood of Christ by “unworthy communicants” (manducatio indignorum).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittenberg_Concord

The Wittenburg Concordia is quoted in Charles P. Arand, Robert Kolk and James Nestingen, The Lutheran Confessions: History and Theology of the Book of Concord (Fortress Press, 2012). The portion in question says:

They confess in the words of Irenaeus, that in this sacrament there are two things, one heavenly and one earthly. Therefore they hold and teach that with the bread and the wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, are distributed and received. Although they do not believe in a transubstantiation, that is, in an essential transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood, and they do not hold that the body and blood of Christ are localiter, that is, spatially enclosed in the bread or are permanently united in some other way apart from reception in the sacrament, they nevertheless admit that through the sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ, etc. For apart from reception – for example, when the bread is laid aside and kept in the tabernacle or carried about and put on display in the procession, as happens in the papacy – the body of Christ is not present.

 

[benjohnson]

I’m referring to the Wittenburg Concordia. According Wikipedia:

The Book of Concorde is so large, that it’s useful to reference the individual books included in it to narrow it down.

Form what I can see - I don’t think that’s an actually quote of any of the book contained the the Book of Concord, but comes from the ‘sort of tenuous’ agreement between Luther and Bucer. That agreement isn’t binding on Lutherans as far as I know.

That aside, quote you have compares Lutheran idea is the Body and Blood with the Catholic idea of Transubstantiation, and goes on to speculate what is the status of the the Body and Blood after reception (or communion.) within the Lutheran communion.

It is not however describing that the individual person receiving can somehow extinguish God’s promise to us, only that there is some speculation after on the reliquie after we remember Christ’s words to ‘take and eat’ - and even those Lutherans that hold that it’s no longer the Body and Blood typically dispose of them with reverence.

 

[benjohnson]

Now, you are both Lutherans. Wouldn’t it be nice if you had an authority upon which you could rely for an answer?

That still wouldn’t work with us Lutherans - we’d have to quibble just out of tradition.

 

[KjetilK]

Form what I can see - I don’t think that’s an actually quote of any of the book contained the the Book of Concord, but comes from the ‘sort of tenuous’ agreement between Luther and Bucer. That agreement isn’t binding on Lutherans as far as I know.

AFAIK, there isn’t a single Lutheran Church that regards the Wittenberg Concordat as binding on any level.

IMHO, it may represent Luther’s private theological opinions (at a given time), but it does not represent Lutheran teaching. And IMNSHO, it is a false doctrine, if not outright heresy.

 

[SteveVH]

That still wouldn’t work with us Lutherans - we’d have to quibble just out of tradition.

 

[benjohnson]

And IMNSHO, it is a false doctrine, if not outright heresy.

Thanks for the confirmation enough the document, and I heartily agree.

.

 

[Thorolfr]

AFAIK, there isn’t a single Lutheran Church that regards the Wittenberg Concordat as binding on any level.

IMHO, it may represent Luther’s private theological opinions (at a given time), but it does not represent Lutheran teaching. And IMNSHO, it is a false doctrine, if not outright heresy.

According to Charles P. Arand, Robert Kolb and James Nestingen, *The Lutheran Confessions: History and Theology of the Book of Concord *(Fortress Press, 2012), p. 231:

In 1536 Bucer led a delegation of like-minded south Germans to Wittenburg and there negotiated an agreement with Luther and his colleagues. Composed by Melanchthon, the “Wittenburg Concordia” found language to bring Luther and Bucer together on the critical text phrases for the affirmation of the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Supper…Although Bucer and Luther may not have understood this formulation of the doctrine of the true presence in the same way, they were content to have come close enough, and they accepted the position of the other. Lutherans such as Johann Marbach, Nikolous Selnecker, and the other Concordists, believed its text reflected Luther’s position faithfully.

On pp. 169-170, Arand et al. say:

Bucer had played a mediating role in the earlier disputes over the true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament between Luther and Zwingli, the Wittenburgers and the Swiss. The climax of his efforts to bridge the difference between the two came with his journey to Wittenburg in 1536 and the Wittenburg Concord, which his group of south German theologians and the Wittenburgers had formulated in their meeting. The Concord left itself open to interpretation in the critical question of the reception of the body and blood by those who receive it without faith, and [Nikolaus von] Amsdorf had criticized Bucer sharply in print at that time.

So it does seem that Luther and some other Lutherans such as Melanchthon, Johann Marbach, Nikolous Selnecker and others did subscribe to the views in the the Wittenburg Concord. Can we really consider all of these people including Luther himself to be Lutheran heretics?

 

[benjohnson]

So it does seem that Luther and some other Lutherans such as Melanchthon, Johann Marbach, Nikolous Selnecker and others did subscribe to the views in the the Wittenburg Concord. Can we really consider all of these people including Luther himself to be Lutheran heretics?

The Wittenberg Concord don’t advocate at all for Receptionism: I had a bit of time to read portions of it - and in fact it specifically calls out that the unworthy eater (manducatio indignorum) does eat the body and blood.

That said, not everything that Luther said represents the historic western church and is not necessarily binding on Lutherans.

 

[Thorolfr]

The Wittenberg Concord don’t advocate at all for Receptionism: I had a bit of time to read portions of it - and in fact it specifically calls out that the unworthy eater (manducatio indignorum) does eat the body and blood.

That said, not everything that Luther said represents the historic western church and is not necessarily binding on Lutherans.

Isn’t this statement from the Wittenburg Concord a case of “Receptionism”:

For apart from reception – for example, when the bread is laid aside and kept in the tabernacle or carried about and put on display in the procession, as happens in the papacy – the body of Christ is not present.

This was specifically denounced at the Council of Trent:

The 16th-century Council of Trent condemned this teaching , declaring that “if any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptionism

The issue of whether the recipient being worthy or unworthy or believing or not believing would have any effect seems to be a slightly different but related issue. It’s all a little confusing since I’m not sure what the exact definition of “receptionism” is or all what it entails.

P.S.: Maybe we should start a new thread on this issue.

 

[KjetilK]

“…Lutherans such as Johann Marbach, Nikolous Selnecker, and the other Concordists, believed its text reflected Luther’s position faithfully…”

Yes, and so? When did Luther’s personal beliefs become the measuring rod?

And if Luther said something heretical, he was a heretic. That doesn’t mean he didn’t backtrack. And Melanchthon, well, let’s just say that on this particular point he advocated false doctrine. He said that adoration of the consecrated species was ‘bread worship.’

But then again, he was only a theologian. He had no formal authority. AFAIK, he wasn’t even ordained. That gives him just as much authority as any other theologian.

 

[Thorolfr]

And Melanchthon, well, let’s just say that on this particular point he advocated false doctrine. He said that adoration of the consecrated species was ‘bread worship.’

Interesting comment. I actually might have agreed with Melanchthon and didn’t realize that some Lutherans practice Eucharistic adoration since I’ve never seen it before in any Lutheran or other Protestant church I’ve been in. I was even more surprised to learn that Luther himself favored adoration and wrote a treatise The Adoration of the Sacrament. So I learn new things every day here in CAF even about other flavors of Lutheranism than the ones I’m familiar with.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, and so? When did Luther’s personal beliefs become the measuring rod?

Isn’t this a discussion about the teachings of Luther? Surely he taught according to his personal opinions, in which case, they are of central importance.

And if Luther said something heretical, he was a heretic.

On this, we agree.

 

[KjetilK]

Interesting comment. I actually might have agreed with Melanchthon and didn’t realize that some Lutherans practice Eucharistic adoration since I’ve never seen it before in any Lutheran or other Protestant church I’ve been in. I was even more surprised to learn that Luther himself favored adoration and wrote a treatise The Adoration of the Sacrament. So I learn new things every day here in CAF even about other flavors of Lutheranism than the ones I’m familiar with.

Even if most Lutherans don’t have separate services of Eucharistic adoration, they adore in the context of the liturgy.

 

[Tarquin]

The other interesting thing about haplogroups is that if Noah belonged to haplogroup A which he must have been since all other haplogroups descend from haplogroup A, he was most likely a black man from Africa. Africa is the most likely place of origin of haplogroup A.

Characteristics of haplogroups - DNA, everything - will have evolved as much as everything else in that period of time. A new haplogroup is born when a very specific new mutation occurs. So I doubt anyone knows what existed that far back in the way of haplogroups - probably the proto-haplogroup Urhaplo from which are descended all modern happy groups.

 

[Ignatius]

Could someone from a more strict non denominational church or strict Lutheran or whatever denomination that’s strict please pm me to tell me how you came to believe only 8 people survived the Flood? I mean give me the science perspective you’ve learned to back it up.

From what I know about science, no fewer that 10,00" people or so have ever been on the planet and I’d like to know how to understand this scientifically from your perspectiv

That is not correct. Actually, at some point there were 0 human beings on the planet.