I believe Session 13 of the Council of Trent, which covered Transubstantiation inter alia, pronounced dogmatic decrees. Some other sessions defined doctrine. Maybe a case could be made that Transubstantiation is both. Either way, it’s self defining. (At least in the Latin.)
I don’t generally have an issue with your line of thought other than without a defined doctrine there is room for error; such as tossing consecrated hosts into the trash can because they have become stale. Issues of this importance, by their very nature, require an understanding of just what happens to the bread and wine. There seems to be some confusion in the Lutheran community concerning this very thing.
Yes.
No. But I do have to answer my own phone at work.
Sort of - it can get confusing, as phrase ‘sacramental union’ does take place, but it’s there to reject the Calvinist notion of a memorial meal.SU is in your confessions…you are not bound to it?
Thanks for the correction.
That’s a fair point about Lutheran problems.
We certainly understand… Some of the first forms of Catholic/Lutheran ecumenism is when we’d stop fighting each other to go put the Sacramentarians to the test.
That’s a fair point about Lutheran problems.
We certainly understand… Some of the first forms of Catholic/Lutheran ecumenism is when we’d stop fighting each other to go put the Sacramentarians to the test.
The fact of the matter is that, just like the cases of consubstantiation and transubstantiation, the doctrine of the Incarnation is shot through with philosophy.
That is where the problem lies. You seem to think that philosophical explanations somehow diminishes the mystery. The Incarnation is a mystery, the Trinity is a mystery, yet the Creeds are shot through with philosophy.
What!? Seriously? And your denomination calls itself Lutheran?
And I’m saying that this is not Lutheran theology. That is Zwinglian.
I think there may be some misunderstanding. I’ve heard it explained this way: consecration happens just once, but the Words of Institution are still announced to the infirm.
Not only do we call ourselves Lutheran, we are one of the more conservative Lutheran denominations in the US.
Well the Epitome teaches there is no more sacrament after the use of the sacrament. Is the Epitome demonstrative of Lutheran theology?
I really do hope that steido is correct, that what the pastor does is to state the words of consecration, without actually ‘re-consecrating’ the Eucharist. I still would try to make it clear that this wasn’t a ‘re-consecration,’ which is nonsense anyway. You cannot ‘re-consecrate.’ To ‘consecrate’ means to dedicate something (in this case, to God). Once it is dedicated, it is no longer ours to give, and we cannot ‘re-consecrate’ it.
That depends on what you mean by ‘use.’ If it is consumed, it is no longer consecrated. But if it isn’t consumed, it it is, say, kept in order to get the sacrament to the infirm, then it is still consecrated, and it would be downright sacrilegious to ‘re-consecrate’ it.
Therein lies the question I’ve been getting at over the last few posts. Lutheranism teaches, even within the FC, that His Real Presence persists – that the ‘sacramental use’ is not constrained to the Mass. There’s been a crypto-Zwinglian tendency brewing within Lutheranism since the beginning, and for whatever reason that peculiar Phillipist error has become regrettably popular in American synods.
In this case, the Epitome supports our view.
We’re at an impasse then as far as this like of argument goes as I see the Nicene creed as full of God’s revelation and not Man’s wisdom. Frankly, in my opinion, the incarnation stands fully apart form our worldly expectation.
There was a time when we didn’t want to appear “too-Catholic” - I seem to find most of our recent ‘divergence’ usually stemming from that.There’s been a crypto-Zwinglian tendency brewing within Lutheranism since the beginning, and for whatever reason that peculiar Phillipist error has become regrettably popular in American synods.
The church does suffer - there’s strains of pietism, state-ownership, the reformed, and some churches even have priestess!
