Luther and James

[JonNC]

Do Lutherans understand the Mass as a sacrifice at all?
Yeah, those differences seem to be pretty meaningless to all but the intellectual elite and hardly worthy of the split over them.
I find it interesting that you didn’t mention Sola Scriptura

A sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Christ’s once for all sacrifice.
Sola Scriptura is related to authority, therefore the papacy

Jon

 

[Philthy]

A sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Christ’s once for all sacrifice.
Sola Scriptura is related to authority, therefore the papacy

Jon

I don’t understand your definition of your first use of the word sacrifice above.
How are praise and thanksgiving a sacrifice? I don’t get it. Praise and thanksgiving of the sacrifice I would get, but you chose to call the Lutheran mass a sacrifice…did Luther ever call it a sacrifice?

 

[Angainor]

Because St James destroys his theology of, faith, alone by itself, is sufficient to attain salvation.

That sentence is not an accurate characterization of sola fide. The subject, verb, and objects are mixed up, particularly the verb “attain.” If you want to talk about who attained your salvation, the answer is Jesus alone.

In the discussions of Purgatory in the confessions, and from what I understand, by Luther, the issue is always centered around masses for the dead, indulgences, etc., as the document shows. And the Lutherans state here, exactly, that the existence of Purgatory is not dogmatically denied.

Jon

The part of Purgatory that is “a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, …have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions” denies that Jesus’ suffering and death fully redeems people from sin. There is still a leftover debt to be paid for by our suffering. That particular idea is dogmatically denied all over the confessions.

If there is a Purgatory that is not denied in the confessions, it is significantly different from the Purgatory Roman Catholics talk about.

 

[Philthy]

The part of Purgatory that is “a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, …have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions” denies that Jesus’ suffering and death fully redeems people from sin.

No it doesn’t you simply don’t understand the Catholic teaching on Purgatory.

There is still a leftover debt to be paid for by our suffering. That particular idea is dogmatically denied all over the confessions.

I’m sure - it’s not uncommon to have people argue and stand in opposition against things that the Catholic Church doesn’t actually teach.
Here’s “what you believe”: “If people realize that they have complete forgiveness through Christ, they will see why there can be no purgatory for Christians.”
Really? What if Purgatory is, in fact, part of that forgiveness? Then it would make perfect sense. That’s what I believe Purgatory is and what the Catholic Church teaches that it is.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t understand your definition of your first use of the word sacrifice above.
How are praise and thanksgiving a sacrifice? I don’t get it. Praise and thanksgiving of the sacrifice I would get, but you chose to call the Lutheran mass a sacrifice…did Luther ever call it a sacrifice?

17] Theologians are rightly accustomed to distinguish between a Sacrament and a sacrifice. Therefore let the genus comprehending both of these be either 18] a ceremony or a sacred work. A Sacrament is a ceremony or work in which God presents to us that which the promise annexed to the ceremony offers; as, Baptism is a work, not which we offer to God, but in which God baptizes us, i.e., a minister in the place of God; and God here offers and presents the remission of sins, etc., according to the promise, Mark 16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. A sacrifice, on the contrary, is a ceremony or work which we render God in order to afford Him honor.

19] Moreover, the proximate species of sacrifice are two, and there are no more. One is the propitiatory sacrifice, i.e., a work which makes satisfaction for guilt and punishment, i.e., one that reconciles God, or appeases God’s wrath, or which merits the remission of sins for others. The other species is the eucharistic sacrifice, which does not merit the remission of sins or reconciliation, but is rendered by those who have been reconciled, in order that we may give thanks or return gratitude for the remission of sins that has been received, or for other benefits received.

More here: bookofconcord.org/defense_23_mass.php

Jon

 

[bsroufek]

From “Martin Luther’s View of The Epistle of James” found here: lessonsonline.info/LutherandJames.htm

I quote: “As of greatest value Luther regarded the Gospel of John, then the epistles of Paul and First Peter, and after them the other gospels. He placed Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation in a clearly subordinate position.”

Basically, Luther made the scriptures compete against themselves, with some being better than others rather than a collective whole. The Word of God is not divided against itself but is rather a collective whole. “Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”. You can’t discount scripture, because there is better scripture.

 

[JonNC]

From “Martin Luther’s View of The Epistle of James” found here: lessonsonline.info/LutherandJames.htm

I quote: “As of greatest value Luther regarded the Gospel of John, then the epistles of Paul and First Peter, and after them the other gospels. He placed Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation in a clearly subordinate position.”

Basically, Luther made the scriptures compete against themselves, with some being better than others rather than a collective whole. The Word of God is not divided against itself but is rather a collective whole. “Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”. You can’t discount scripture, because there is better scripture.

Luther practiced the same liberty that every Catholic had until Trent. Luther didn’t invent the disputes regarding the Antilegomena. He didn’t invent the word Antilegomena. That happened over a thousand years before him.
Luther makes it clear these are his opinions, and Catholics were allowed these opinions!!
He doesn’t set scripture against itself, and the “subordinate” position of these books came long before Luther. Three basic definitions: attested, disputed, rejected. Not Luther’s. The early Church’s.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

That sentence is not an accurate characterization of sola fide. The subject, verb, and objects are mixed up, particularly the verb “attain.” If you want to talk about who attained your salvation, the answer is Jesus alone.

The part of Purgatory that is “a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, …have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions” denies that Jesus’ suffering and death fully redeems people from sin. There is still a leftover debt to be paid for by our suffering. That particular idea is dogmatically denied all over the confessions.

If there is a Purgatory that is not denied in the confessions, it is significantly different from the Purgatory Roman Catholics talk about.

Significantly different, from apparently the way Catholics used to talk about it, as Father Tavard and Pope Benedict seem to talk about it differently. I found it interesting that, not just the ELCA signed on (they will pretty much sign on to anything), but the LCMS signed on (with, I believe, 3 caveats). That to me means there is something actually to this.

Jon

 

[bsroufek]

Regarding Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, which is an ongoing dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans and my comments are not dogma, scripture (Paul) also has this: Christ suffered as the Head, while we suffer in the Body. Redemption is cooperative between Christ and the Body, both participating in Christ’s single sacrifice and our ongoing sacrifices.

I think your stress on “once-for-all” sacrifice denies the actions of the faithful in their own salvation, another area where you believe faith alone saves while James states that faith and works save. We differ here.

 

[JonNC]

Regarding Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, which is an ongoing dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans and my comments are not dogma, scripture (Paul) also has this: Christ suffered as the Head, while we suffer in the Body. Redemption is cooperative between Christ and the Body, both participating in Christ’s single sacrifice and our ongoing sacrifices.

I think your stress on “once-for-all” sacrifice denies the actions of the faithful in their own salvation, another area where you believe faith alone saves while James states that faith and works save. We differ here.

What have I said to make you think this?

Jon

 

[bsroufek]

What have I said to make you think this?

Jon

Not you, per se, but Lutheran teachings about the Mass as I understand them. I could be wrong, as I’m still learning Lutheran teachings.

 

[MaryT777]

Sorry, Jon, Luther and Calvin both rejected purgatory as a “diabolic invention”.

Thanks for stating the obvious.

 

[TertiumQuid]

From the document:
181. The most explicit discussion of purgatory in the Confessions comes in the 1537 Smalcald Articles, II, 2, which addressed the mass as sacrifice. Besides being itself a violation of the Gospel, the mass as sacrifice “has produced many noxious maggots and the excrement of various idolatries” (§11), the first of which is purgatory. Purgatory, “with all its pomp, requiem Masses, and transactions, is to be regarded as an apparition of the devil for it obscures the chief article…” (§12). Behind Luther’s typically extreme language, however, a more nuanced understanding is elaborated. “Concerning the dead we have received neither command nor instruction. For these reasons, it may be best to abandon it [derhalben man es mocht wohl lassen], even if it were neither error nor idolatry” (§12). In a revised version of the article, Luther added a discussion of the authority of Augustine claimed for the doctrine. “When they have given up their purgatorial ‘Mass fairs’ (something Augustine never dreamed of), then we will discuss with them whether St. Augustine’s word, lacking support from Scripture, may be tolerated and whether the dead may be commemorated at the sacrament. It will not do to formulate articles of faith on the basis of the holy Fathers’ works or words” (§14f). The existence of purgatory is not dogmatically denied. Rather, 1) the existence of purgatory is not taught by Scripture and thus cannot be binding doctrine, and 2) belief in purgatory is now hopelessly bound up with unacceptable practices. A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations.
In the discussions of Purgatory in the confessions, and from what I understand, by Luther, the issue is always centered around masses for the dead, indulgences, etc., as the document shows. And the Lutherans state here, exactly, that the existence of Purgatory is not dogmatically denied.Jon

Hi Jon,

I don’t claim to have a complete understanding of the history of Lutheranism, or even how such things as purgatory are understood in certain branches of Lutheranism today. However: I did take the time to look up the Luther quotes cited in the link you provided, “The Hope of Eternal Life.” According to the authors of the link, Luther believed:

-Purgatory isn’t taught in Scripture, but yet may exist.
-Purgatory is only to be avoided because of its associations with “unacceptable practices.”
-If these practices were removed, a proper discussion on purgatory could occur.

According to this article here is Luther’s view of purgatory: “A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations.” In other words, purgatory, for Luther, was an open question. Get rid of what Luther considered to be the abuses attached to it, and then it could be discussed. Certainly such an interpretation could be within the realm of possibility, because, In regard to the Smalcald Articles, LW states, “Under these circumstances the elector of Saxony instructed Luther in a letter of Dec. 11, 1536, to prepare a statement indicating the articles of faith in which concessions might be made for the sake of peace and the articles in which no concessions could be made.”

I would direct people to actually read the statements in context of the Smalcald Articles. Luther states most emphatically:

“Consequently purgatory and all the pomp, services, and business transactions associated with it are to be regarded as nothing else than illusions of the devil, for purgatory, too, is contrary to the fundamental article that Christ alone, and not the work of man, can help souls.”

The reading given to this statement and then the second one about Augustine’s view by “The Hope of Eternal Life” downplays the first explicit rejection of purgatory, and sees the real Luther in his willingness to discuss what Augustine meant (after “purgatorial masses” were abolished). The problem as I see it, is this reading of the Smalcald Articles isolates these statements from Luther’s total written corpus, particularly any writings after the Smalcald Articles. In his later commentary of Genesis, Luther makes very similar points to those in the Smalcald Articles about purgatory. He calls purgatory “a lie of the Devil” and that Augustine’s comment is so obscure, that it doesn’t prove anything. This isn’t an isolated statement either. If you search through Luther’s writings, you’ll find explicit statements from his later writings that he did not embrace purgatory, even a version of it with what Luther considered attached abuses.

JS

 

[Tomster]

Hi Jon,

I don’t claim to have a complete understanding of the history of Lutheranism, or even how such things as purgatory are understood in certain branches of Lutheranism today. However: I did take the time to look up the Luther quotes cited in the link you provided, “The Hope of Eternal Life.” According to the authors of the link, Luther believed:

-Purgatory isn’t taught in Scripture, but yet may exist.
-Purgatory is only to be avoided because of its associations with “unacceptable practices.”
-If these practices were removed, a proper discussion on purgatory could occur.

According to this article here is Luther’s view of purgatory: “A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations.” In other words, purgatory, for Luther, was an open question. Get rid of what Luther considered to be the abuses attached to it, and then it could be discussed. Certainly such an interpretation could be within the realm of possibility, because, In regard to the Smalcald Articles, LW states, “Under these circumstances the elector of Saxony instructed Luther in a letter of Dec. 11, 1536, to prepare a statement indicating the articles of faith in which concessions might be made for the sake of peace and the articles in which no concessions could be made.”

I would direct people to actually read the statements in context of the Smalcald Articles. Luther states most emphatically:

“Consequently purgatory and all the pomp, services, and business transactions associated with it are to be regarded as nothing else than illusions of the devil, for purgatory, too, is contrary to the fundamental article that Christ alone, and not the work of man, can help souls.”

The reading given to this statement and then the second one about Augustine’s view by “The Hope of Eternal Life” downplays the first explicit rejection of purgatory, and sees the real Luther in his willingness to discuss what Augustine meant (after “purgatorial masses” were abolished). The problem as I see it, is this reading of the Smalcald Articles isolates these statements from Luther’s total written corpus, particularly any writings after the Smalcald Articles. In his later commentary of Genesis, Luther makes very similar points to those in the Smalcald Articles about purgatory. He calls purgatory “a lie of the Devil” and that Augustine’s comment is so obscure, that it doesn’t prove anything. This isn’t an isolated statement either. If you search through Luther’s writings, you’ll find explicit statements from his later writings that he did not embrace purgatory, even a version of it with what Luther considered attached abuses.

JS

And, in “The Lutheran Dictionary” by Walter Lieder, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1962, there is a short entry on purgatory.

“According to Roman Catholic teaching,” (not Lutheran teaching), "a place in which the souls of the pious are, by suffering, purged from impurities before being admitted to heaven. But see Luke 23:43; Revelation 14:13. Herein, at least, we have a Lutheran at least willing to give a Scriptural reference for a Lutheran tradition.

 

[MaryT777]

Jon,

This is a learning to me. Is this clear to most LCMS attending church regularly on Sunday? I honestly don’t know… my sense is that this would surprise my wife’s family members. I’ve never heard them say this.

TGIF,

Pork

It shocked the Pastor LCMS I know.
They REJECT purgaory for the reasons stated by Jon.
They don’t say “if and if and if” then it might be OK.

Mary.

 

[TertiumQuid]

It shocked the Pastor LCMS I know.
They REJECT purgaory for the reasons stated by Jon.
They don’t say “if and if and if” then it might be OK.Mary.

As I see it, what needs to be kept in mind in regard to the materials Jon posted (and I commented on) is the ecumenical movement. Within different ecclesiastical bodies there is always a wide spectrum of opinion. There are countless books written on ecumenism.

Within my own tradition, one will find those who see the most important aspect of Christendom to be the following:

I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

And then one will also find those who consider this to be the most important aspect of Christendom:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel which is really no gospel at all… If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

There are those within my own tradition that will try to minimize differences between ecclesiastical bodies (or at least come up with language to accommodate seemingly different theological views) in order to affirm unity.Then there are those within my own tradition that see such accommodations as a denial of Paul’s comment from Galatians.

I simply mention this as a possible explanation as to why those people Mary mentioned reacted the way they did, hopefully without offense.

JS

 

[pablope]

That sentence is not an accurate characterization of sola fide. The subject, verb, and objects are mixed up, particularly the verb “attain.” If you want to talk about who attained your salvation, the answer is Jesus alone.

The part of Purgatory

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I don’t claim to have a complete understanding of the history of Lutheranism, or even how such things as purgatory are understood in certain branches of Lutheranism today. However: I did take the time to look up the Luther quotes cited in the link you provided, “The Hope of Eternal Life.” According to the authors of the link, Luther believed:

-Purgatory isn’t taught in Scripture, but yet may exist.
-Purgatory is only to be avoided because of its associations with “unacceptable practices.”
-If these practices were removed, a proper discussion on purgatory could occur.

According to this article here is Luther’s view of purgatory: “A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations.” In other words, purgatory, for Luther, was an open question. Get rid of what Luther considered to be the abuses attached to it, and then it could be discussed. Certainly such an interpretation could be within the realm of possibility, because, In regard to the Smalcald Articles, LW states, “Under these circumstances the elector of Saxony instructed Luther in a letter of Dec. 11, 1536, to prepare a statement indicating the articles of faith in which concessions might be made for the sake of peace and the articles in which no concessions could be made.”

I would direct people to actually read the statements in context of the Smalcald Articles. Luther states most emphatically:

“Consequently purgatory and all the pomp, services, and business transactions associated with it are to be regarded as nothing else than illusions of the devil, for purgatory, too, is contrary to the fundamental article that Christ alone, and not the work of man, can help souls.”

The reading given to this statement and then the second one about Augustine’s view by “The Hope of Eternal Life” downplays the first explicit rejection of purgatory, and sees the real Luther in his willingness to discuss what Augustine meant (after “purgatorial masses” were abolished). The problem as I see it, is this reading of the Smalcald Articles isolates these statements from Luther’s total written corpus, particularly any writings after the Smalcald Articles. In his later commentary of Genesis, Luther makes very similar points to those in the Smalcald Articles about purgatory. He calls purgatory “a lie of the Devil” and that Augustine’s comment is so obscure, that it doesn’t prove anything. This isn’t an isolated statement either. If you search through Luther’s writings, you’ll find explicit statements from his later writings that he did not embrace purgatory, even a version of it with what Luther considered attached abuses.

JS

Hi James,
Your (name removed by moderator)ut is always helpful. One must remember about Hope for Eternal Life that both the ELCA and LCMS were approving of it (the LCMS had a few caveats). My point is simply that Lutheran theologians today, not me by any stretch of the imagination, seem to receive modern Catholic theological thought about Purgatory in a new light. Pope Benedict seems to shed a different light than what Luther was exposed to. I leave it to them to work out the details of whether or not the doctrine of Purgatory remains Church-dividing.

Jon

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi James,
Your (name removed by moderator)ut is always helpful. One must remember about Hope for Eternal Life that both the ELCA and LCMS were approving of it (the LCMS had a few caveats). My point is simply that Lutheran theologians today, not me by any stretch of the imagination, seem to receive modern Catholic theological thought about Purgatory in a new light. Pope Benedict seems to shed a different light than what Luther was exposed to. I leave it to them to work out the details of whether or not the doctrine of Purgatory remains Church-dividing.

Jon

I would be interested in seeing the LCMS caveats on Hope For Eternal Life, particularly if they have anything to say about Luther’s comments in the Smalclad Articles.

JS

 

[Philthy]

I don’t understand your definition of your first use of the word sacrifice above.
How are praise and thanksgiving a sacrifice? I don’t get it. Praise and thanksgiving of the sacrifice I would get, but you chose to call the Lutheran mass a sacrifice…did Luther ever call it a sacrifice?

17] Theologians are rightly accustomed to distinguish between a Sacrament and a sacrifice. Therefore let the genus comprehending both of these be either 18] a ceremony or a sacred work. A Sacrament is a ceremony or work in which God presents to us that which the promise annexed to the ceremony offers; as, Baptism is a work, not which we offer to God, but in which God baptizes us, i.e., a minister in the place of God; and God here offers and presents the remission of sins, etc., according to the promise, Mark 16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. A sacrifice, on the contrary, is a ceremony or work which we render God in order to afford Him honor.

19] Moreover, the proximate species of sacrifice are two, and there are no more. One is the propitiatory sacrifice, i.e., a work which makes satisfaction for guilt and punishment, i.e., one that reconciles God, or appeases God’s wrath, or which merits the remission of sins for others. The other species is the eucharistic sacrifice, which does not merit the remission of sins or reconciliation, but is rendered by those who have been reconciled, in order that we may give thanks or return gratitude for the remission of sins that has been received, or for other benefits received.

More here: bookofconcord.org/defense_23_mass.php

Jon

This is confusing to me. First because he starts by stating that “Theologians are rightly accustomed to distinguish between a Sacrament and a sacrifice.” and then he fails to distinguish them as far as I can tell. What is the distinction exactly?? In what sense are theologians “right” in distinguishing them? Is it that a sacrament effects that which it represents and a sacrifice does not? One might think so.
In addition, the sense of the term Sacrifice seems somewhat distorted - it’s distorted from it’s OT roots in which an actual sacrifice occurs and which effects something. But that is not what Luther’s explanation of the word means at all.
Furthermore, one would undoubtedly conclude that the Eucharist is *not *a Sacrament according to his definition since it does not effect the remission of sins.

“the eucharistic sacrifice…does not merit the remission of sins or reconciliation” According to the definition presented: "A Sacrament is a ceremony or work in which God presents to us** that which the promise annexed to the ceremony offers**; as, Baptism is a work, not which we offer to God, but in which God baptizes us, i.e., a minister in the place of God; and God here offers and presents the remission of sins, etc., according to the promise, Mark 16:16
And so I would be left with the sense that he considered the Eucharist a sacrifice but not a sacrament. But the Defense 0f the Augsburg Confession section you quoted begins with, "

… among us masses are celebrated every Lord’s Day …in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it …

And so I remain entirely confused by not only the definitions, but the entire thrust of his attempt at differentiating them. Rather than “rightly distinguishing them” they appear muddled and indistinct. I see in the totality of his comments nothing to suggest that the Eucharist is a Sacrament - God does not effect remission of sin or anything else through it; nor is it a sacrifice in the Jewish, biblical or Catholic sense (where else would he have legitimately derived his definitions?).