Do Lutherans save themselves?

[AugustTherese]

I suspect Lutherans are not moved by the opinion.

Fine, then maybe they should not call their ‘services’, Mass; it will only confound Lutheran parishioners in contrast with Catholic/Eastern Church Masses. If Lutheran ministers want to borrow that term and use it colloquially, sure, I guess. But, perhaps they should refer to their services as Lutheran Masses, because, as mentioned before, the liturgical elements needed for a Mass to be what it is in the Apostolic and Catholic understanding, viz. the Sacrifice of the Mass, are entirely missing; not void, or empty, or a generic replica, but completely non-existent.

I see, again and again, Protestant denominations trying so hard to cherish and implement Christian orthodoxy and antiquity by borrowing terms and actions from the Catholic Church (which is not inherently wrong) without knowing why those terms and actions are used, especially in the liturgy of the Mass. For example, if you are a Protestant minister and you wear priestly garments and ‘consecrate’ over an altar, but do not believe in the Eucharistic sacrifice, then you have no idea what you are doing and why you are performing those liturgical actions and words; those Protestant ministers are either ignorant to their intentions or they are performing a near-sacrilegious parody of the Holy Mass. Either way, the Holy Mass is not some mere term used to ‘send forth’ the faithful after giving a sermon and singing a few hymns; rather, it is the actualized, realized, and re-presented Paschal Mystery of the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Our Blessed Lord in which we have the privilege to share in its fruits - which can only be offered through valid rites by validly ordained priests. And when you (not you personally), such as Luther did, reject the Sacrifice of the Mass you are left with minimal amounts of truth and sanctification.

 

[guanophore]

you wear priestly garments and ‘consecrate’ over an altar, but do not believe in the Eucharistic sacrifice, then you have no idea what you are doing and why you are performing those liturgical actions and words; those Protestant ministers are either ignorant to their intentions or they are performing a near-sacrilegious parody of the Holy Mass.

I think you are making some inaccurate assumptions about Lutherans. Perhaps @JonNC can clarify, but the Lutheran clergy most certainly believe in the Real Presence and follow the liturgy that was derived from the Latin (Roman Catholic) Mass.

, it is the actualized, realized, and re-presented Paschal Mystery of the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Our Blessed Lord in which we have the privilege to share in its fruits - which can only be offered through valid rites by validly ordained priests.

This is what Lutherans believe.

And when you (not you personally), such as Luther did, reject the Sacrifice of the Mass

Where did you get this idea?! Luther never rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass, and continued to pray his rosary all his life!

 

[JonNC]

Fine, then maybe they should not call their ‘services’, Mass; it will only confound Lutheran parishioners in contrast with Catholic/Eastern Church Masses.

That’s really none of your concern.
The confessions refer to it as the mass do properly catechized Lutherans will not be confused.

But, perhaps they should refer to their services as Lutheran Masses, because, as mentioned before, the liturgical elements needed for a Mass to be what it is in the Apostolic and Catholic understanding, viz. the Sacrifice of the Mass, are entirely missing; not void, or empty, or a generic replica, but completely non-existent.

Again, I’m not convinced the average Lutheran will be influenced by what a Catholic says about it. They recognize Christ’s once for all sacrifice, their sacrifice of thanks and praise, the real,true presence, given and shed for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[AugustTherese]

but the Lutheran clergy most certainly believe in the Real Presence and follow the liturgy that was derived from the Latin (Roman Catholic) Mass.

The ‘Real Presence’ is not the Sacrifice of the Mass.

This is what Lutherans believe.

They do not believe in the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary, among many other things.

Luther never rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass

Luther on the Canon of the Mass: “that abominable concoction drawn from everyone’s sewer and cesspool” - WA 12, 206; LW 53,20

“The Mass is the greatest blasphemy of God, and the highest idolatry upon earth, an abomination the like of which has never been in Christendom since the time of the Apostles” - Martin Luther [Alexander Chalmers (1857). “The Table Talk of Martin Luther”, p.69]

 

[JonNC]

For example, if you are a Protestant minister and you wear priestly garments and ‘consecrate’ over an altar,

A Lutheran priest who celebrates at the altar probably knows more about it than you do. A triumphalistic, condescending tone does not serve the goals of ecumenism

 

[AugustTherese]

A Lutheran priest who celebrates at the altar probably knows more about it than you do

They do not sacrifice a victim! How can you use the term ‘Lutheran priest’!? To be a priest of Jesus Christ, the Eternal High Priest offers His living Body and Blood through his validly called and ordained, priestly ministers on the altar of sacrifice, hence the term PRIEST.

A triumphalistic, condescending tone does not serve the goals of ecumenism

I agree!

 

[JonNC]

They do not sacrifice a victim! How can you use the term ‘Lutheran priest’!? To be a priest of Jesus Christ, the Eternal High Priest offers His living Body and Blood through his validly called and ordained, priestly ministers on the altar of sacrifice, hence the term PRIEST.

You’re asking a question that isn’t relevant. They do refer to their clergy as priests. They do believe they are validly called and ordained.

 

[AugustTherese]

You’re asking a question that isn’t relevant. They do refer to their clergy as priests. They do believe they are validly called and ordained.

This proves my initial point. If a priest does not have a victim, or the fruits of that victim, to sacrifice, i.e. the unbloody oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ, then he is not a priest. ‘Lutheran priests’ do not sacrifice anything on their ‘altars’; why they have altars, baffles me to this day.

Our Blessed Lord is the Eternal High Priest because He sits at the right hand of the Father interceding for us by offering Himself to the Father, and, through his ministerial priests on earth. The typology of the Priesthood of the New and Eternal Covenant was prefigured in the Levitical Priesthood where the High Priest would kill a sacrificial victim (bloody sacrifice.) and then offer the fruits of that sacrifice by sprinkling the blood on the altar (unbloody sacrifice) for the forgiveness of sin. Jesus Christ did this by offering Himself once-and-for-all by shedding His Blood at Calvary (bloody sacrifice). However, that timeless and eternal event is mystically re-presented in time in the Mass where the Eternal High Priest offers the fruits of Calvary, i.e. His living Body and Blood (unbloody sacrifice), through his earthly, ministerial priests on earth. That is why priests wear priestly attire, consecrate over an altar, and sacrifice the living Body and Blood to the Father for the propitiation of committed sins.

Lutherans do not believe in this ^. That is why understanding what the Holy Mass is and how it has developed is of vital importance. And, to omit the Sacrifice of the Mass is to not have a Mass at all.

 

[guanophore]

“The Mass is the greatest blasphemy of God, and the highest idolatry upon earth, an abomination the like of which has never been in Christendom since the time of the Apostles” - Martin Luther [Alexander Chalmers (1857). “The Table Talk of Martin Luther”, p.69]

Let us not stoop to the level of certain anti-Catholics who, for the sake of blaming the CC, will twist words, or as in this case, leave out words that change the meaning. The original quote says “the private Mass…”
One must keep in mind that Luther spent YEARS in Catholic monasteries, and traveled to Rome. He saw firsthand priests celebrating the Mass alone ALL DAY, over and over BY THEMSELVES. Now we will agree that the Mass is valid even if there are no others present, but this was not the intention of the Sacrament. The documents of Vatican 2 support Luther’s assessment, though his hyperbole goes far beyond how the council characterized the role of the laity in Mass.

 

[JonNC]

This proves my initial point. If a priest does not have a victim, or the fruits of that victim, to sacrifice, i.e. the unbloody oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ, then he is not a priest. ‘Lutheran priests’ do not sacrifice anything on their ‘altars’; why they have altars, baffles me to this day.

This statement on your part, irrespective of what is said below, leads me to believe that you don’t believe His once for all sacrifice was sufficient, that the priest needs to sacrifice Christ over and over.
My understanding is that this is not Catholic teaching. I suggest you talk to your priest about this.

 

[GKMotley]

This caught my attention, earlier. Would gladly learn more.

 

[AugustTherese]

This statement on your part, irrespective of what is said below, leads me to believe that you don’t believe His once for all sacrifice was sufficient, that the priest needs to sacrifice Christ over and over.

My understanding is that this is not Catholic teaching. I suggest you talk to your priest about this.

Okay, let us take this slow; and, no, I do not mean that in a ‘condescending’ or ‘triumphant’ manner.
First of all, I do believe that His once-for-all sacrifice was sufficient! What I do not believe in, is this 16th century notion of this once-for-all sacrifice objectively forgiving sins or objectively justifying all men.

Second, do you understand the nature and elements of an Old Testament sacrifice consisting of two parts; i.e. the killing of the victim, and then the offering up of the fruits of that victim? If so, or not, here is a verse that might help:

“The bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall offer the blood, dashing the blood against all sides of the altar that is at the entrance of the tent of meeting.” Leviticus 1:5 NRSVA

Notice the two distinguishable elements of the sacrifice: 1.) the killing of the victim, i.e. “the bull shall be slaughtered” (bloody sacrifice); and, then, 2.) the offering up of the fruits of the victim, i.e. “shall offer the blood” (unbloody sacrifice).

Do you understand? Do you agree so far?

 

[JonNC]

Okay, let us take this slow; and, no, I do not mean that in a ‘condescending’ or ‘triumphant’ manner.

First of all, I do believe that His once-for-all sacrifice was sufficient! What I do not believe in, is this 16th century notion of this once-for-all sacrifice objectively forgiving sins or objectively justifying all men.

Are you uncomfortable with someone telling you what you believe?

 

[AugustTherese]

Are you uncomfortable with someone telling you what you believe?

No one will ever make me ‘uncomfortable’ by telling me what they think I believe or do not believe.

I truly hope, for your sake, that you do not completely ignore that latter part of my post regarding the two elements of the sacrifice.

 

[JonNC]

Are you uncomfortable with someone telling you what you believe?

No one will ever make me ‘uncomfortable’ by telling me what they think I believe or do not believe.

I truly hope, for your sake, that you do not completely ignore that latter part of my post regarding the two elements of the sacrifice.

That’s too bad, because I think it practice that normally ends in greater dispute than necessary.
Wasn’t it Sheena who said something to the effect that few people don’t like what the Catholic Church teaches but there many who disagree with what they think, incorrectly, that the CC teaches?

My point is simply we should ask what others believe, not tell them.

To the issue of the sacrifice of the mass, it is important that Lutherans tell you what they believe, why they believe that their priesthood validly celebrates His once for all sacrifice at the altar and through the power of the Holy Spirit thereby distribute and receive the real body of Christ.

The argument Lutherans made during the Reformation era had much more to do with what they perceived as the abuses of the mass : private masses, etc.

**The Lutherans have feared that the understanding of the Eucharist as propitiatory sacrifice is contrary to the uniqueness and complete sufficiency of the sacrifice of the cross and calls in question Christ’s exclusive mediation of salvation (cf. the appendix The Mass as propitiatory sacrifice). According to the interpretation of the Lutheran Reformation, the celebration of the Eucharist is wholly directed to imparting to the gathered community the gift of the sacrifice of the cross made present as the effective means of salvation, and this in such a way that the community may receive it in faith. The diminution in practice of congregational communion was regarded as scandalous, and the primary blame for this was placed on the idea of the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. It was thought that this idea allowed for a view which made unnecessary the reception in faith of eucharistic grace and attributed an autonomous sacrificial power to the priest (cf. the Reformation polemic against the Mass as opus operatum). Therefore the Lutheran tradition avoids even today any mention of “sacrifice of the Mass”.
**

http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Continued

 

[JonNC]

"On the other hand, the Lutheran Reformation affirms the understanding of the Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice of thanksgiving in return for the sacrifice of the cross present in the sacrament. This sacrifice is an expression of faith and happens in such a way “that we offer with Christ, that is, that we cast ourselves upon Christ with unwavering faith in His testament and we do not appear otherwise before God with our prayer, praise and sacrifice than through Him and His means (of salvation) and that we do not doubt that He is our own Pastor and Priest before God’s face in heaven”.46 The "eucharistic sacrifice"47 thus understood is performed by those reconciled in faith, and is expressed in thanks and praise, in invoking and confessing God, in suffering and in all the good works of believers. These are the offerings which are particularly emphasized in the Reformation teaching in connection with 1 Peter 2:5 and Romans 12:1.48"

 

[AugustTherese]

Second, do you understand the nature and elements of an Old Testament sacrifice consisting of two parts; i.e. the killing of the victim, and then the offering up of the fruits of that victim? If so, or not, here is a verse that might help:

“The bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall offer the blood, dashing the blood against all sides of the altar that is at the entrance of the tent of meeting.” Leviticus 1:5 NRSVA

Notice the two distinguishable elements of the sacrifice: 1.) the killing of the victim, i.e. “the bull shall be slaughtered” (bloody sacrifice); and, then, 2.) the offering up of the fruits of the victim, i.e. “shall offer the blood” (unbloody sacrifice).

Do you understand? Do you agree so far?

@JonNC (16 characters are my friend!)

 

[JonNC]

Do you believe the priest re-sacrifices Christ, or in fact the power of the Holy Spirit makes His once for all sacrifice present among the congregation?

 

[AugustTherese]

Do you believe the priest re-sacrifices Christ, or in fact the power of the Holy Dpirit makes His once for all sacrifice present among the congregation?

I am really trying here, @JonNC. Can you please just answer my two questions before asking me a question?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Do you believe the priest re-sacrifices Christ, or in fact the power of the Holy Dpirit makes His once for all sacrifice present among the congregation?

I am really trying here, @JonNC. Can you please just answer my two questions before asking me a question?

Did you read the excerpt from the document?