Lutheran View of Sacraments

[guanophore]

You can see how the modified criteria would more support the Lutheran line of argument. If Christian marriage is the same as all other marriages, then it really was instituted in the beginning and it would not be called a sacrament.

Yes, I do, and it does seem that Christ elevated the nature of marriage, as we can see through His own words as well as the Apostle Paul.

The revelation that marriage is to be a symbol of the relationship of Christ with his Bride could not have pedated Christ.

 

[JonNC]

I guess I am not seeing that there is a difference.

A sacrament must meet three tests:

Commanded by God
Uses a material or earthly element
Connected with a Divine promise (forgiveness and salvation)

It seems to me that Catholic sacramental marriage meets all these criteria, so that must mean that Lutherans have redefined these criteria so that they don’ t mean what I think they mean.

Instituted by Christ. We see the three - baptism, Absolution, Eucharist as specifically instituted by Christ. We see in these three the promise of grace for everyone. As Melanchthon says, none of the others are required even by the Church.
OTOH, as I said earlier, there is no doubt in my mind that I have received grace through my Confirmation and marriage, and the mere presence of the ministerial priesthood in my life in the Church offers grace.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

I brought this post over from another thread because it seemed more on topic here.

This, it seems to me, is the far better argument for Catholics, the charge that intent is different, considering our differing views of the sacrifice of the Mass.

Jon

So one of my confusions is about the intent. I just read a series of quotes in the “Who was Luther” thread about how the Mass is a wicked believe, etc.

So do Lutherans not consider the Mass a sacrifice, and that is why the Lutheran priest intends to do something “differing” from what a Catholic priest would do?

 

[guanophore]

This post was taken from another thread because it seemed to be getting off topic.

The Catholic Bishops, after the excommunication of Luther and the publishing of the Augsburg Confession, refused (or were directed to refuse by the Pope) to ordain Lutheran Clergy.

Lutherans organized themselves so that the priests ordained one another.

My esteemed brother JonNC here is saying that Lutherans were not in “rebellion” against the CC, and that it was wrong for Catholic Bishops to withhold ordination.

They weren’t. they were of the church that Christ Himself instituted on Pentecost, and to withhold ordination was wrong.

Jon

So my question is, how does the Lutheran understanding of the sacrifice of the Mass differ to such an extent that the Catholic Bishops thought the 'intent" of Lutherans was so divergent as to create conditions of invalidity of Holy Orders? In other words, Catholic priests are ordained primarily to cathect the Sacraments, and it seems that the CC did not believe the intention of Lutheran pastors was to do that which the CC intends.

 

[guanophore]

Instituted by Christ. We see the three - baptism, Absolution, Eucharist as specifically instituted by Christ. We see in these three the promise of grace for everyone. As Melanchthon says, none of the others are required even by the Church.
OTOH, as I said earlier, there is no doubt in my mind that I have received grace through my Confirmation and marriage, and the mere presence of the ministerial priesthood in my life in the Church offers grace.

Jon

Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16(Jas 5:14–16)

When He sent out the 70 they engaged in this practice:

12 So they went out and preached that men should repent. 13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them. (Mk 6:12–13)

Yes, but the practice is not one commanded by Christ to His apostles to be carried out by the church.

My question here is, do Lutherans believe that Jesus did not command this practices? If not, why do you think the disciples engaged in them?

Also, if the instructions He gave to the 70 and those given by Paul in his letters are not from Christ to the Church, then what is their origin? Are the 70 not considered the fledgling Church?

 

[Per_Crucem]

I brought this post over from another thread because it seemed more on topic here.

So one of my confusions is about the intent. I just read a series of quotes in the “Who was Luther” thread about how the Mass is a wicked believe, etc.

So do Lutherans not consider the Mass a sacrifice, and that is why the Lutheran priest intends to do something “differing” from what a Catholic priest would do?

Yes and no. Yes, if the primary understanding of the sacrifice is that it is a good work that the priest/people do. i.e., the sacrifice is one performed by the priest.

No, if the understanding is that the sacrifice of Calvary is sacramentally present and the benefits thereof are received by the congregation.

Here is a good perspective on this: stpaullutheranchurchhamel.org/Revisiting_the_Sacrifice_.htm

 

[Per_Crucem]

When He sent out the 70 they engaged in this practice:

12 So they went out and preached that men should repent. 13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them. (Mk 6:12–13)

I can’t imagine they did that on their own!

Surely this was a practice in which they had been trained or instructed by the Lord.

Is casting out demons a sacrament?

 

[pablope]

Is casting out demons a sacrament?

It done by one ordained sacramentally under the sacrament of Holy Orders…a 2000 year tradition of both east and west…a sacrament redefined/reduced as secondary by Lutherans.

 

[Per_Crucem]

It done by one ordained sacramentally under the sacrament of Holy Orders…a 2000 year tradition of both east and west…a sacrament redefined/reduced as secondary by Lutherans.

The topic is what we consider a sacrament. This would basically mean that you cannot take how you define a sacrament and then expect us to explain our definition according to how you define it.

 

[pablope]

The topic is what we consider a sacrament. This would basically mean that you cannot take how you define a sacrament and then expect us to explain our definition according to how you define it.

But your redefinition was based or taken from how a sacrament has been defined by both east and west…and what they both consider as sacraments…

 

[pablope]

Hi guan,
I think the best source for a brief understanding on the Lutheran view of the sacraments is Melanchthon’s writing in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

I continue to be believe that, for Lutherans at least, the numbering is not a significant issue, one that for us is Church dividing.

Jon

Well…are you then saying, Jon…that what Lutherans did with the sacraments 500 yrs ago…caused a division in the Church?

And that because of what Lutherans did…you essentially defined a new faith that deviated from the Apostolic Churches?

 

[guanophore]

Yes and no. Yes, if the primary understanding of the sacrifice is that it is a good work that the priest/people do. i.e., the sacrifice is one performed by the priest.

Then what is being “sacrificed”?

 

[JonNC]

Well…are you then saying, Jon…that what Lutherans did with the sacraments 500 yrs ago…caused a division in the Church?

And that because of what Lutherans did…you essentially defined a new faith that deviated from the Apostolic Churches?

No… And no.

Jon

 

[Per_Crucem]

Then what is being “sacrificed”?

Could you clarify?

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;12318245]Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16(Jas 5:14–16)

So, which saves the man? The anointing or the prayer? Is prayer then a sacrament?
Perhaps it should be, as there is command and promise attached to it, in christ’s own words.

When He sent out the 70 they engaged in this practice:

12 So they went out and preached that men should repent. 13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them. (Mk 6:12–13)

Whether or not one designates these holy rites of the Church as sacraments, while important, is not so nearly as important as the practice itself.

My question here is, do Lutherans believe that Jesus did not command this practices? If not, why do you think the disciples engaged in them?

Also, if the instructions He gave to the 70 and those given by Paul in his letters are not from Christ to the Church, then what is their origin? Are the 70 not considered the fledgling Church?

The call for these to be a practice within the Church is obvious. Are they sacraments?
I have always found the lines to be blurred.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

Is casting out demons a sacrament?

It results from the Sacrament - the prayer and annointing with oil.

It is part of the rite of excorcsim, but when the prayer of the sick is done, most of the time demonic posession is not a factor.

If they did not receive this instruction directly from Christ, is it thought that they came up with it on their own?

 

[Per_Crucem]

It results from the Sacrament - the prayer and annointing with oil.

They cast out demons and anointed with oil to heal the sick; where is the anointing with oil connected to casting out demons in the Scripture? Specifically in the verse you cited. If using oil to heal the sick from the passage indicates a sacrament is being instituted, why is that not the case for demonic exorcism?

If they did not receive this instruction directly from Christ, is it thought that they came up with it on their own?

If you’re referring to the passage from James, there’s no indication it came directly from Christ but could have been based on previous usages of oil from OT tradition.

 

[KjetilK]

Yes and no. Yes, if the primary understanding of the sacrifice is that it is a good work that the priest/people do. i.e., the sacrifice is one performed by the priest.

Then what is being “sacrificed”?

Could you clarify?

Maybe I can chime in. In my master’s thesis, where I analysed and discussed the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist in the systematic theology of Lutheran theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg and Catholic theologian Joseph Ratzinger (better known as pope Benedict XVI), I concluded (pp.114-119) that a ‘sacrifice of the Mass’ is acceptable, on a Lutheran understanding. I summarised my point in six points (p.118):

If we hold (1) that Christ is actually present in the Eucharistic elements, (2) that Christ is offering himself in the heavenly sanctuary, presenting himself on our behalf, (3) that the Church offers her Eucharistic sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in and through Christ who is presenting himself on our behalf, (4) that the priest, as he presides in the Eucharistic celebration, is acting in persona Christi, (5) that we participate in the ‘heavenly liturgy’ through the Eucharistic celebration, and (6) that the anamnesis, the Eucharistic prayer, the center of which is the institution narrative, is primarily directed towards God, it follows quite coherently that the Eucharist is a sacrifice that is offered unto God in the Eucharistic celebration.

These are the points that needs to be adressed. Because if each of these are true, then it follows that the Mass is a sacrifice as in a participating in Christ’s ongoing, perpetual offering in the heavenly sanctuary (cf. Heb. 8:1-3)

 

[KjetilK]

If you’re referring to the passage from James, there’s no indication it came directly from Christ but could have been based on previous usages of oil from OT tradition.

Yes, but why assume so, when that reading is completely novel in Church history? Do we not claim, in Confessio Augustana, to follow the Church Fathers? That is one of the reasons I, as a Lutheran, have concluded that this IS a sacrament.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Yes, but why assume so, when that reading is completely novel in Church history? Do we not claim, in Confessio Augustana, to follow the Church Fathers? That is one of the reasons I, as a Lutheran, have concluded that this IS a sacrament.

You may view it as such (in the sense that no one prevents that view from being held within the Lutheran church). However, which fathers are you referring to, which councils that declared it a sacrament? Wherein is there unanimous consent that extreme unction is a sacrament?