Lutheran Church Question

[annad347]

Do not have faith in YOUR prayers, have faith in God himself… that is precisely the problem there. Instead of trusting God you trust your interaction with God and you trust that you understand your interaction with God.

I keep reading what you posted… and it makes no sense. Don’t have faith in my prayers but have faith in God? Please explain.

How would I speak to God except through prayer… and yes I trust my interaction with God because I trust God.

Once again though, I do not wish to derail the thread. I think we either understand each other now or we won’t.

I don’t think we will understand each other.

You believe my relationship with God should be the same as your relationship with Him and I don’t.

 

[Padres1969]

That was another very Catholic thing the church I mentioned did, I’d never heard the Hail Mary in an Anglican service before, never mind 5 of them.

 

[otjm]

I thought this would be a problem for me until I learned in my RCIA class that there is a large percentage of Catholic’s don’t believe in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine.

One needs to be very careful of what one says in RCIA.

There was a poll or so a few years ago, and it created quite a stir at the time. Jimmy Akin did an analysis of the uproar, and the net of it was that it depended on how the poll questions were asked as to what they actually showed.

It is far less that the polls showed that Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation than it showed that Catholics were poorly catechized.

Prior to Vatican 2, the main textbook for catechesis was the Baltimore Catechism, and having been “raised” on it, I can tell you that people learned the philosophical term “transubstantiation” for the miracle of the Eucharist.

Post Vatican 2, the BC was abandoned as (in part, at least) too oriented to doctrine and not enough to kerygma. The net result is that two generations of Catholics grew up being taught that Christ was in the Eucharist, but not taught the philosophical answer as to “how”.

So any poll asking about transubstantiation was asking a question with a word they did not know and could not identify the word. Hence the poll(s) results.

Guess what? If you could go back in time to say, the 9th century and ask a Catholic about transubstantiation, you most likely would get a blank look, as it appears the term did not come into use until some time in the 11th century, and became popular in use in the 12th century.

And so the urban myth that “Catholics don’t believe in transubstantiation” or variations on the theme continue to make the rounds to imply (or outright assert) that a whole lot of Catholics don’t believe in the True Presence.

One can believe in the True Presence without ever having heard the word “transubstantiation”, since that was the status of the Catholic Church for about 10 centuries.

And if one cannot identify what the word “transubstantiation” means, or that it refers to the Eucharist, that is not proof they do not believe in the True Presence.

 

[JonNC]

83] However, this blessing, or the recitation of the words of institution of Christ alone does not make a sacrament if the entire action of the Supper,…

None of this supports your misunderstanding about the Lutheran belief of the sacrament.

You believe Luther’s interpretation, no? We both believe in Christ, so how do we account for the difference in doctrine?

We both believe in the doctrine of the real presence. Our traditions have different views on how the mystery can be, but we agree on the mystery: we receive His true and substantial body and blood, given and shed for the forgiveness of sin.

See paragraph 51

There is a hint of relativism here.

No. It is a recognition that if one claims to be Catholic, they should be Catholic.

I disagree with the implication that we cannot argue against doctrines we think are erroneous.

I didn’t say that we can’t discuss our differences. I’ve been here a long time doing just that. What I won’t do is tell you what you believe. Please don’t do that to me.
I can site theologians throughout the history of our tradition within the Church that we do not confess consubstantiation, impanation, and kind of conjoining or co-mingling. It is not a Lutheran teaching.

If @Hodos is describing what Lutherans currently believe then it seems you have moved closer to Catholic doctrine and I am glad about that. I certainly do not want to discourage you

It is what the Lutheran tradition has always taught, but I agree that it is good for us to see the our unity of belief in the doctrine of the real presence

 

[JonNC]

But The Book of Concord in the Lutheran Confessions explicitly state the Mary’s virginity remained nevertheless " inviolate" after Christ’s birth. That has to make it doctrine, no? Look it up. It explicitly states that Mary remained ever-Vrigin, so it’s not a matter of debate.

I agree with you, but since perpetual virginity is not explicit in scripture, Lutheranism does not bind the conscience of the believer to it. I can say Lutherans should believe it, but not must believe it.

 

[GKMotley]

How about a sung Angelus? Or a Mary Shrine?

 

[Padres1969]

Yessir, both. In fact reading their newsletter they have a Society dedicated to Mary who meet monthly for a special Eucharist.

 

[GKMotley]

Nothing wrong with that.

 

[annad347]

If I could go back in time that would be the last place I’d go.

 

[Crocus]

And if one cannot identify what the word “transubstantiation” means, or that it refers to the Eucharist, that is not proof they do not believe in the True Presence.

I was taught from the Baltimore Catechism, though I don’t remember actually reading it.

I was prepared for my First Communion at the age of six, by religious sisters who told me “You are going to receive Jesus.” That was it. I believed. Only much later I learned or became aware of the word, transubstantiation, a meaning which ultimately can only be an attempt at explaining the supernatural miracle that occurs.

 

[Hodos]

You believe Luther’s interpretation, no? We both believe in Christ, so how do we account for the difference in doctrine?

The Scholastic movement if you are referring specifically to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

If @Hodos is describing what Lutherans currently believe then it seems you have moved closer to Catholic doctrine and I am glad about that. I certainly do not want to discourage you.

Our view of the Sacraments hasn’t changed. This has been our stated view since 1518 informally when the Babylonian Captivity of the Church was written, and formally in 1529 when the Augsburg Confession was written. We would say our view on this topic has always been the catholic view.

 

[Shasta-Rose]

When my husband and I wanted to get married, we went and talked with my Lutheran pastor. He had us come in so he could have a half-dozen or so sessions with my husband-to-be, and then he married us in a small family service and, voila!, my new husband was a Lutheran.

 

[annad347]

Cool, I dont think Lutheran’s as many of the traditions Catholic have to become Catholic, though they share many traditions.

I wonder if the Litherans have a tradition that Catholics don’t.

 

[Hodos]

I wonder if the Litherans have a tradition that Catholics don’t.

It depends on what you consider to be tradition. So for example, we have the Book of Concord, which is our repository of doctrinal confessions and statements. These would be uniquely Lutheran in the sense that they norm our doctrine and Catholics don’t follow it, although we would say the teachings contained within the Book of Concord are catholic in source and practice.

As far as practices and worship goes, I would say we have a bit more of an emphasis on hymnody, which the Catholic Church actually sort of adopted off our practices after Vatican II. We also had more of a focus on the proclamation of the Word in the divine service (homiletics), which Vatican II has placed a greater emphasis on in the formation of priests.

We also have some things we celebrate that are uniquely Lutheran, such as celebrating Reformation Day on October 31st.

Overall though, there has always been an exchange and borrowing of tradition and practices common between Catholics and Lutherans. Examples are vestments, very similar structures of liturgy, lectionaries, liturgical seasons, etc. The main differences tend to be more differences in emphasis rather than radically different substance.

 

[JonNC]

Neithan:

You believe Luther’s interpretation, no? We both believe in Christ, so how do we account for the difference in doctrine?

The Scholastic movement if you are referring specifically to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

If @Hodos is describing what Lutherans currently believe then it seems you have moved closer to Catholic doctrine and I am glad about that. I certainly do not want to discourage you.

Our view of the Sacraments hasn’t changed. This has been our stated view since 1518 informally when the Babylonian Captivity of the Church was written, and formally in 1529 when the Augsburg Confession was written. We would say our view on this topic has always been the catholic view.

Our view of the sacrament goes back much further than 1518.
John of Damascus:

And now you ask how the bread becomes the body of Christ, and the wine and the water become the blood of Christ. I shall tell you. The Holy Spirit comes upon them, and achieves things which surpass every word and thought… Let it be enough for you to understand that this takes place by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Hodos]

About view of the sacrament hoes back further than 1518.

Very true. What I meant to say is that transubstantiation was the actual new comer on the doctrinal scene rather than anything Luther said about the Real Presence.

Very little of what Luther said was an innovation. Luther was conservative in his nature. He almost always referred back to the writings and thoughts that came before him.