How did Protestants get so far from what the Reformation was intended to do?

[heart4home]

I’d really like for NON-Catholics to answer this if possible.

I understand how the reformation happened and what Luther was upset with etc.

But how did it end up that after 1500 years of believing in things like the Real Presence, that when looking back in History seems to have just been always assumed and accepted, and that Lutherans still also believe in, did that slowly just get taken away by so many denominations.

How do so many Protestants figure that everything from the Original Church that was started right after Jesus’ life should just be scrapped and they should just basically start all over dismissing every single thing that had happened over those 1500 -1700 years?

I understand how some have problems with dogma that was added in/revealed as time went by, but that’s not what I’m addressing here.

 

[Belisarius777]

An Eastern Orthodox Response: The Protestant ship is “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14) is because they cut off the anchor of Holy Tradition. Replacing an objective standard by which to judge the ideas that come into one’s head while reading the Bible and replacing it with a subjective feeling of affirmation which you think is the Holy Spirit means, ultimately, you can believe anything you want to believe regardless of what the first Reformers taught.
After all, they were just men still bound by some of their former Romish ideas and you are following the leading of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Operalan]

I have some of the same wonderment at the discarding of so much “history”. Basically, it seems that as much as 75% of Church belief and history has been abandoned. If you abandoned an equal amount of history as it relates to the founding of the USA and its subsequent decades, it would mean that you’d abandon everything that happened from 1492 until 1881–abandoning the history that included the Pilgrims coming to America, The Declaration of Independence, The Revolutionary War, The Signing of the Constitution, The Louisiana Purchase, War of 1812, Westward Expansion, and The Civil War—all the way up to the Presidency of James Garfield. Again, that’s a lot of history to abandon.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by heart4home
Real Presence, that when looking back in History seems to have just been always assumed and accepted, and that Lutherans still also believe in

I was raised and confirmed as a lutheran and we were taught, by a minister in catechism, that the bread and wine are only symbols- definitely NOT the actual body and blood of Christ.
Understanding The Eucharist was one main reason I came into HMC.

 

[heart4home]

I was raised and confirmed as a lutheran and we were taught, by a minister in catechism, that the bread and wine are only symbols- definitely NOT the actual body and blood of Christ.
Understanding The Eucharist was one main reason I came into HMC.

Hmm, not sure you were taught correctly. My understanding is that Lutheran’s beleive in the real presence, they just don’t acknowledge how it happens. That is left as a mystery but taken as truth. Perhaps somebody else will show me I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure I’m not.

"The ELCA also confesses that the fullness of God is given through the real presence of Jesus Christ in the sacraments"

 

[rico]

If you abandoned an equal amount of history as it relates to the founding of the USA and its subsequent decades, it would mean that you’d abandon everything that happened from 1492 until 1881-

One could argue we in the States have abandoned about 75% of what founded our country. The Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize the US as anything they intended. I’m not trying to make a political comment as much as I am trying to make the comparison. It’s in many ways the same phenomenon.

As to the OP’s question, I ask the same question all the time. And it’s that question that has me leaning back towards Rome or Constantinople. I’ve been a life-long Lutheran, and pretty well educated in the faith and Lutheran history, through a long string of Lutheran schools. Considering Luther is the one who cut the “anchor line” mentioned before, he’s the logical place to start. When you compare much of Luther’s work to today’s Lutheran Church, it often doesn’t look like the same body.

The most basic and obvious answer to the question is that when anyone can develop doctrine based on their own interpretation of Scripture, you are bound to have an endless string of doctrine. You can’t get 100 people to read a newspaper article and agree on what’s written. Start with a basic doctrine, The Real Presence. All it took was one person to say, "Well, that’s impossible! He must have just meant ‘represents.’ " And so begins the long string. Luther never intended there to be thousands of interpretations of Scripture or sets of doctrine, nearly 40 of them claiming his name. But yet how could it have possibly turned out any different when based on whatever someone can read in Scripture and rationalize in their own mind?

Even within the “familial lines” of the reformation bodies, just as in our US history, distance from the original founders/Fathers is another cause of the drift. The US is again a perfect example. When they wrote it, the Second Amendment to the Constitution made perfect sense in their minds. Now no one can agree on what they meant even though the language itself is pretty direct, and that’s only been 200+ years. Same in the religious bodies. You can find countless post-1517 citations from Luther where he references Mary’s perpetual virginity, her veneration, the “Mass”, private confession, and even still today in his Catechism used to teach children he usually begins his prayers by saying “Make the sign of the holy cross and say…” And yet, those are all things that you will be hard pressed to find in most modern Lutheran congregations. People start to rationalize and say, “Well, Luther was raised and trained as a Catholic. Those are just left-overs from his Catholicity.” And so they begin to drop what they perceive as the “Catholic things.” The next generation does it a little more, the next generation again and viola’, 500 years later and Lutherans in many cases appear more Baptist than Catholic. Although I will concede in many congregations Lutherans have been drifting back the other direction.

The third reason, I believe, is the general drift to a secular society and it’s influence within religion. Like it or not, religious bodies are made up of people. And those people have their own influences. As the people evolve socially, even if it’s in the wrong direction, those influences are going to make their way into the belief and teaching of the church. Take the gay issue for example. There have been gays in society nearly since man was capable of sinning. But society was never/rarely accepting of the act. Society evolves and today people not only tolerate that gay behavior exists, they accept it as a completely normal, and some even say God-created, condition. It’s no surprise then that you have religious bodies openly accepting gays in marriage and as clergy. The people have translated their socially numbed sense into their religious sense and you end up with additional drift from Truth.

I believe these are the three general causes of the vast drift and variety the reformation eventually took over the last 500 years. These three can be discussed in nearly countless specific doctrinal cases, but I believe it all comes back to these three general explanations. I firmly believe where we are now was not the intent of Luther and I KNOW it is not the intent of our LORD.

 

[rico]

I was raised and confirmed as a lutheran and we were taught, by a minister in catechism, that the bread and wine are only symbols- definitely NOT the actual body and blood of Christ.
Understanding The Eucharist was one main reason I came into HMC.

If that’s what you were taught as a Lutheran, your teacher was pretty far from Lutheran doctrine. Lutherans have always believed and taught the Real Presence. Reference Luther’s Small Catechism, Section VI, THE SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR. In the very first sentence Luther writes… “What is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: Instituted by Christ Himself, it is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, given to us Christians to eat and to drink.” He goes on further to repeatedly state the Real Presence. The Real Presence is confirmed throughout the Lutheran Confessions.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by rico
If that’s what you were taught as a Lutheran, your teacher was pretty far from Lutheran doctrine. Lutherans have always believed and taught the Real Presence. Reference Luther’s Small Catechism, Section VI, THE SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR. In the very first sentence Luther writes… “What is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: Instituted by Christ Himself, , given to us Christians to eat and to drink.” He goes on further to repeatedly state the Real Presence. The Real Presence is confirmed throughout the Lutheran Confessions.

As I stated, the catechism was taught by the lutheran minister of our church so I highly doubt he was “pretty far from lutheran doctrine”.
Luther, himself, may have written that “it is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine” (which is still incorrect), but that does not mean that his declaration survived 500 years into the 20th century lutheran church. I do know that the missouri synod teaches this “under the bread and wine” doctrine but the mainline evangelicals do (or did) not in my church of the 1960’s.
In any case, Luther still did not adhere to the 1500 year old doctrinal belief that the bread and wine are consecrated, by a priest, to become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Nor do the 21st century lutherans. I guess if they did, they would no longer be lutherans and would reunite with The One Holy Catholic Church.

 

[rico]

As I stated, the catechism was taught by the lutheran minister of our church so I highly doubt he was “pretty far from lutheran doctrine”.
Luther, himself, may have written that "it is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine" (which is still incorrect), but that does not mean that his declaration survived 500 years into the 20th century lutheran church. I do know that the missouri synod teaches this “under the bread and wine” doctrine but the mainline evangelicals do (or did) not in my church of the 1960’s.
In any case, Luther still did not adhere to the 1500 year old doctrinal belief that the bread and wine are consecrated, by a priest, to become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Nor do the 21st century lutherans. I guess if they did, they would no longer be lutherans and would reunite with The One Holy Catholic Church.

Your response is a great example of the original poster’s question. Real Lutheran doctrine hasn’t changed since it was compiled in the Lutheran Confessions. What you just explained is how your synod/pastor/congregation had drifted from Lutheran doctrine. Lutherans have never believed in the Catholic view of transubstantiation, as you point out. But any body following Lutheran doctrine most certainly DOES believe in the Real Presence.

 

[Operalan]

And here you have a good example of the problem–different synods of the Lutheran Church may teach different things. There are so many differing teachings throughout Protestantism–different statements of beliefs, different doctrines. They can’t all be right. The Catholic Church has a magisterium and history that has been consistent.

 

[JonNC]

=catsrus;7610094]As I stated, the catechism was taught by the lutheran minister of our church so I highly doubt he was “pretty far from lutheran doctrine”.

It is incredibly far from Lutheran doctrine. It is an absolutely heterodox position, not found in any part of the Lutheran Confessions. It would not be Lutheran if it were even thought of as a reasonable alternate view.
Luther’s Small Catechism, the basis for Lutheran Catechetical teaching, has been quoted, but the Lutheran Confessions as a whole, NEVER veer from the historic, universal Church teaching that the bread and wine, when consecrated by the words of the pastor, and the power of the Holy Spirit, are indeed the body and blood of Christ. The following is from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, inwhich Melanchthon writes:

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

Luther, himself, may have written that "it is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine" (which is still incorrect), but that does not mean that his declaration survived 500 years into the 20th century lutheran church.

I can tell you that, even in the ELCA, of which there are members here, confessional Lutherans will confess the true and substantial body and blood of Christ. The bread and wine ARE His body and blood, not mere symbols.

I do know that the missouri synod teaches this “under the bread and wine” doctrine but the mainline evangelicals do (or did) not in my church of the 1960’s.

If they are evangelicals in the American sense, then they are not Lutherans, on a number of issues.

In any case, Luther still did not adhere to the 1500 year old doctrinal belief that the bread and wine are consecrated, by a priest, to become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Source, because this just isn’t the case. Lutherans even today recognize that requirement of a properly called and ordained pastor for the sacrament, and that in fact we recognize that Catholic priests are also valid in this way.
continued

 

[JonNC]

Nor do the 21st century lutherans. I guess if they did, they would no longer be lutherans and would reunite with The One Holy Catholic Church.

The 2000 year old teaching of the Church Catholic is that of the real presence. If you are speaking of Transubstantiation, perhaps this would be of interest to you:

Eucharistic Presence

48.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.

49.In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

50.The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

51.**The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.**36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

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

Apparently, these Catholic and Lutheran theologians seem to believe the positions regarding Transubstantiation and Sacramental Union are not so far apart as some believe.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

And here you have a good example of the problem–different synods of the Lutheran Church may teach different things. There are so many differing teachings throughout Protestantism–different statements of beliefs, different doctrines. They can’t all be right. The Catholic Church has a magisterium and history that has been consistent.

That are Catholics today that do not believe in Transbustantiation, or the real presence. There are Lutherans today that have veered from Lutheran doctrine. The confessions remain consistent, even when individual Lutherans, or even Lutheran synods, decide to no longer be Lutheran in doctrine.

Jon