Lutheran View of Sacraments

  • Thread starter Thread starter guanophore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KjetilK said:
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)
Click to expand...
What you wrote, Father, has always been my understanding - a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. None of what you wrote seems outside Lutheran teaching.

Jon
 
benjohnson said:
Lutherans profess this too - just without the dogma of Transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
Yes and therein lies the difference. We Catholics believe that we receive the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion and we believe that you don’t. We believe you are just not. Therein lies the fundamental difference between Catholics and Protestants. We believe different from you.
 
JonNC said:
What you wrote, Father, has always been my understanding - a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. None of what you wrote seems outside Lutheran teaching.

Jon
Click to expand...
Why are you Protestants on a Catholic website trying to make excuses as to why you are so similar to Roman Catholics? You are close but not there yet. I do foresee a day when all Protestant religions will come back to the Church and it just appears to me from all your posts that you are talking yourselves into what will someday happen. Come on now, you have been on this website enough to hear what you need to hear already. What is the problem? The Pope? What are your misgivings? I’m sure we can resolve them.
 
mayogirl25 said:
Yes and therein lies the difference. We Catholics believe that we receive the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion and we believe that you don’t. We believe you are just not. Therein lies the fundamental difference between Catholics and Protestants. We believe different from you.
Click to expand...
While it’s no surprise that Catholics take a dim view on the Lutheran Blessed Sacrament, we Lutherans don’t. We profess what we eat and drink is as He said: “This is my body” and “This is my blood.”
 
benjohnson said:
While it’s no surprise that Catholics take a dim view on the Lutheran Blessed Sacrament, we Lutherans don’t. We profess what we eat and drink is as He said: “This is my body” and “This is my blood.”
Click to expand...
You have your belief and I have mine. I believe you are wrong and hopefully, someday our churches will reunite. I do hope for that day.
 
Per_Crucem said:
Code: 
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?
Click to expand...
This is a strawman arguement. I have never claimed that the use of oil was connected to the casting out of demons.

I am asking why Lutherans do not believe that Christ instituted/commanded the use of annointing with oil to heal the sick.
Per_Crucem said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do all Lutherans believe that the disciples of Christ just made this ritual up for themselves (without direction from Christ?)

Where in the OT is there an example of the anointing with oil connected to prayers of healing for the sick?

If this was an OT tradition, where is the evidence?

Since Jesus set aside the “traditions of men” that were contrary to the Gospel, if this is one of them, why did He not put a stop to it?

Do you honestly believe that James, the brother of the Lord, would give an Apostolic direction about the use of oil for healing that did not come from Christ?
 
KjetilK said:
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)
Click to expand...
Thank you for that! What a treat.

It seems that your views are more “Catholic” than most of Lutherans, especially modern American Lutherans.
 
Per_Crucem said:
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?
Click to expand...
In the continual practice of the Church from the time the 70 were sent out until the present day.
 
JonNC said:
What you wrote, Father, has always been my understanding - a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. None of what you wrote seems outside Lutheran teaching.

Jon
Click to expand...
How do you understand the nature of the anamnesis?
 
guanophore said:
I am asking why Lutherans do not believe that Christ instituted/commanded the use of annointing with oil to heal the sick.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that Catholics don’t typically use the practice to heal the sick, but rather to prepare the dying. 🤷

So is the Catholic use of that rite/sacrament correct?
 
KjetilK said:
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)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the interesting read, Father. Its refreshing to see Ratzinger read, essentially, compatible with Lutheranism (Though I disagree with your understanding of Consub. vs. SU in footnote 255…).

I think if any eventual solution is to be found between the existing sacramental views of Lutherans and Catholics, it will come from what you note on page 109 – that we read the fathers together. So much of what the ECFs wrote can be interpreted as Lutheran or Catholic, depending on who reads it. Maybe we need to turn the clock back to doctrine that hasn’t been so “developed?”

Just my musings…
 
guanophore said:
This is a strawman arguement. I have never claimed that the use of oil was connected to the casting out of demons.
Click to expand...
Well, I asked if casting out demons is a sacrament. You said,

"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."

So it seemed to me that you were. But that wasn’t my point. If anointing with oil is the institution of a sacrament in the passage about the 70, then why isn’t that true of exorcism?
I am asking why Lutherans do not believe that Christ instituted/commanded the use of annointing with oil to heal the sick.
Click to expand...
Is there a comparable passage to Baptism or the Lord’s Supper dealing with anointing with oil? i.e., one which is commanded to be carried out by the church until the second advent?
Do all Lutherans believe that the disciples of Christ just made this ritual up for themselves (without direction from Christ?)
Click to expand...
No.
Since Jesus set aside the “traditions of men” that were contrary to the Gospel, if this is one of them, why did He not put a stop to it?
Click to expand...
Who made the argument that it was contrary to the Gospel?
Do you honestly believe that James, the brother of the Lord, would give an Apostolic direction about the use of oil for healing that did not come from Christ?
Click to expand...
No, but we would not separate it from the prayer of faith/absolution, as opposed to a separate sacrament.
 
JonNC said:
Originally Posted by JonNC View Post
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.
Click to expand...
Then, why woud you say it is something not Church Dividing? For you to say that is not Church dividing…then it follows that there was indeed a division in the Church caused by Lutheran actions, is it not?

Or is it…you do not choose to see it that way…even though facts would show there was indeed a division caused by the Lutheran action of redefining the sacraments?

With the discussion seen here in this thread…you do not see the division?

Father K says the annointing of the sick is a sacrament…and there are Lutherans who disagree…🤷
Click to expand...
 
Per_Crucem said:
Th

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.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that there are parts of the Bible that are not from God or Christ? How do you determine which is which and by what standard?
 
pablope said:
So you are saying that there are parts of the Bible that are not from God or Christ? How do you determine which is which and by what standard?
Click to expand...
No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that not everything that was part of earlier Jewish tradition was/is a New Testament sacrament.
 
pablope said:
Do you agree absolutely 100% with what is written in your link?

And who is correct…Luther who says it is not or Father K who says it is?
Click to expand...
Our confessions dogmatically define two. Therefore, everyone who abides by the Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism are required to accept Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments. Anything beyond that is an issue of conscience. If Fr K wants to accept it as a sacrament and Luther does not, that’s between Luther and Fr K (though the latter won’t get an immediate reply from the former 🙂 )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top