Lutheran View of Sacraments

[JonNC]

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?

Here is your answer from the Apology itself:

But here they bid us also count seven sacraments. We hold that it should be maintained that the matters and ceremonies instituted in the Scriptures, whatever the number, be not neglected. **Neither do we believe it to be of any consequence, though, for the purpose of teaching, different people reckon differently, provided they still preserve aright the matters handed down in Scripture. Neither have the ancients reckoned in the same manner. [But concerning this number of seven sacraments, the fact is that the Fathers have not been uniform in their enumeration; thus also these seven ceremonies are not equally necessary.] **

The reformers saw it as of little consequence how they are numbered, so long as they are preserved. That’s why I say they are not what would continue to divide, assuming other matters between us solved.

Father K says the annointing of the sick is a sacrament…and there are Lutherans who disagree…

And I think Father K makes a good argument for it.

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

What you wrote, Father, has always been my understanding - a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. None of what you wrote seems outside Lutheran teaching.

Don’t agree to much, now. Note that this does involve an actual offering of Christ in the Eucharistic celebration. Not merely a participation in Christ’s sacrifice of Calvary, but an actual offering of Christ. Because what we partake of is the heavenly Christ, as he offers himself (cf. Heb. 8:1-3).

 

[KjetilK]

Do all Lutherans believe that the disciples of Christ just made this ritual up for themselves (without direction from Christ?)

No.

 

[KjetilK]

Seems to me that Catholics don’t typically use the practice to heal the sick, but rather to prepare the dying.

The dying are often also sick, you know. But no, they do not merely use it on the dying.

So is the Catholic use of that rite/sacrament correct?

Seems so to me.

 

[KjetilK]

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?

Father K, of course.

 

[guanophore]

Maybe we need to turn the clock back to doctrine that hasn’t been so “developed?”

Just my musings…

While I don’t believe this will happen, I do think that there are possibilities. The CC accepts the Eastern perception of the Real Presence as Apostolic, even though it has never been consistent with “transubstantiation”. In the same way, I think it is possible to accept the understanding of the Real Presence without embracing Western philosophical perceptions of it.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I did not express myself well. What I meant is that excorcism does sometimes occur during the administration of any sacrament. Bringing grace in drives evil out.

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 sure I could not say. The prayer for the sick, anointing them with oil, has bee practiced from that time until this, and has been considered a sacrament of the Church. I am not aware that this is the case with excorcism.

What would be the proper form, ,matter, and intention if excorcism were a sacrament? We can see that demons are driven out by many methods, including the preaching of the Word, use of sacramentals, the Rite of excorcism…

I am not trying to address those rites that have never been considered sacraments, but why Lutherans reject those that the Apostolic Churches have accepted since the time of Christ.

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?

I am befuddled why the Apostolic command from James is considered insufficient.

No, but we would not separate it from the prayer of faith/absolution, as opposed to a separate sacrament.

Well, that makes sense. Yes, the prayer of faith and absolution are included in the Sacrament of Holy Anointing. However, James is clear that this particular sacrament applies to the sick (as also referenced in the Gospel) where absolution is more focused on sickness (sin) of the soul.

 

[guanophore]

And who is correct…Luther who says it is not or Father K who says it is?

Lutherans don’t agree with a lot of what Luther wrote. Their faith is based upon the Augsburg confession, and the Apology to it.

JonNC:

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 would really rather not drag Luther into this thread.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I agree, but where do you find this practice in an earlier Jewish tradition?

 

[guanophore]

Here is your answer from the Apology itself:

Thank you Jon.

Apology:

But here they bid us also count seven sacraments. We hold that it should be maintained that the matters and ceremonies instituted in the Scriptures, whatever the number, be not neglected. Neither do we believe it to be of any consequence, though, for the purpose of teaching, different people reckon differently, provided they still preserve aright the matters handed down in Scripture. Neither have the ancients reckoned in the same manner. [But concerning this number of seven sacraments, the fact is that the Fathers have not been uniform in their enumeration; thus also these seven ceremonies are not equally necessary.]

I can see how there is room for people to either consider them sacraments, or not. What jumps out to me here is the abrogation (again) of the authority of the Church. In every and all things where the Fathers have been in disagreement in an area that was critical to faith and morals, the Church ruled. This was the case on infant baptism, sacrament of reconciliation, etc, etc. In this case, it appears that the Apology is just ignoring the Church’s authority to determine the number and nature of the Sacraments.

I can see how this would be the case with Rome, since there was a hostile and rejecting attitude toward the Papacy at the time, but how can this explain the EO?

The reformers saw it as of little consequence how they are numbered, so long as they are preserved.  That's why I say they are not what would continue to divide, assuming other matters between us solved.

It is hard for me to grasp this from a Lutheran perspective, but after so many years of reading your posts, I think I can wrap my head around the idea that it would be easy for a Confessional Lutheran to be comfortable in the Catholic practices, even if they were not accustomed to calling them sacraments.

And I think Father K makes a good argument for it.

Jon

I think Father K’s congregation is much more traditional than most American Lutherans. A great majority of modern evangelicals would say that Luther and Lutherans did not go far enough. I have been told by Reformed Christians here on CAF that Lutherans are still too “contaminated” by Catholicism. :bigyikes:

 

[Per_Crucem]

I agree, but where do you find this practice in an earlier Jewish tradition?

Not from the OT itself with respect to healing per se, although the OT is replete with examples of the spiritual effects of oil. However, within Jewish tradition, myrrh, frankincense, hyssop and a few others were commonly used for both physical and spiritual ailments.

 

[Topper17]

The reformers saw it as of little consequence how they are numbered, so long as they are preserved. That’s why I say they are not what would continue to divide, assuming other matters between us solved.

Hi Jon,

You say that the number isn’t important to you and so it is not something that should divide us. We on the other hand say that the number of sacraments IS important and the very fact that you think it isn’t important HAS divided us.

Given that we think that it IS important and you say it ISN’T, then in move towards reconciliation, why don’t you simply conform on this matter that isn’t important to you?

We after all, say that they have NOT been ‘preserved’. In the past you have said that you ‘practice’ all seven but don’t consider them all to be Sacraments (in the Catholic Sense). I practice my putting from time to time but don’t consider it to be a Sacrament In other words, there is a HUGE difference between simply ‘doing something’ and doing it AS A Sacrament.

Rather than suggest that the number of Sacraments COULD be resolved if the more difficult issues had been decided first, why don’t you make the first move on this thing that you don’t think is really that big a deal? That would be an excellent show of ‘good faith’ and would actually demonstrate to the Church that you are serious about reconciliation.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[guanophore]

Not from the OT itself with respect to healing per se, although the OT is replete with examples of the spiritual effects of oil. However, within Jewish tradition, myrrh, frankincense, hyssop and a few others were commonly used for both physical and spiritual ailments.

I agree. I don’t think there is a basis in Jewish tradition for the joining of anointing with oil with prayers of healing. I think it is distinctly Christian.

 

[guanophore]

We after all, say that they have NOT been ‘preserved’. In the past you have said that you ‘practice’ all seven but don’t consider them all to be Sacraments (in the Catholic Sense). I practice my putting from time to time but don’t consider it to be a Sacrament In other words, there is a HUGE difference between simply ‘doing something’ and doing it AS A Sacrament.

This is very true. If a person is not conscious and cooperative with the grace of the sacrament, they will not benefit as much. A person must be properly disposed to get the most benefit.

I think your observation is most salient with regard to marriage. We can see the damage to society as a whole that has come from the rejection of the the traditional Christian understanding of sacramental marriage. As Moses observed, and Jesus re-iterated, human beings suffer from hardness of heart. A sacramental marriage is not guaranteed to succeed, but the chance of one succeeding without God’s grace is very low.

 

[JonNC]

This is very true. If a person is not conscious and cooperative with the grace of the sacrament, they will not benefit as much. A person must be properly disposed to get the most benefit.

I think your observation is most salient with regard to marriage. We can see the damage to society as a whole that has come from the rejection of the the traditional Christian understanding of sacramental marriage. As Moses observed, and Jesus re-iterated, human beings suffer from hardness of heart. A sacramental marriage is not guaranteed to succeed, but the chance of one succeeding without God’s grace is very low.

I in many ways agree with this. From the moment we planned our marriage, we have viewed it as sacramental, that is, that we receive His grace through it. And by example and through words, we encouraged our children to view it in the same way.

I might, however, argue that the damage to marriage has come more from secularism, and those opposed to faith-based marriage in the first place.

Jon

 

[Stilldreamn]

I have been watching the news concerning the Louisiana priest and diocese that have been caught up into a civil suit over maintaining the seal of the confessional. Apparently the next step is to request a hearing before the US Supreme Court - and I find the notion that a secular court may rule on the conduct of a Sacrament to be alarming.

I also think that the LCMS may want to speak out on this matter as we did on abortion because this will affect us as well, whether we officially number confession and absolution as a sacrament or not.

 

[guanophore]

I have been watching the news concerning the Louisiana priest and diocese that have been caught up into a civil suit over maintaining the seal of the confessional. Apparently the next step is to request a hearing before the US Supreme Court - and I find the notion that a secular court may rule on the conduct of a Sacrament to be alarming.

I also think that the LCMS may want to speak out on this matter as we did on abortion because this will affect us as well, whether we officially number confession and absolution as a sacrament or not.

This is very true Stilldream. You and JonNC are right that the new religion of secularism is slowly and surely eroding the basic tenents of our faith. If we don’t fight these issues, our faith will once again be ruled by Ceasar.

The idea that the court can order a priest to break the seal of the confessional is a modern form of being thrown to the lions. The same is true for those who are punished for a belief that marriage is the union between one man,and one woman (sacramental or not!).

 

[Tomster]

Hi Jon,

You say that the number isn’t important to you and so it is not something that should divide us. We on the other hand say that the number of sacraments IS important and the very fact that you think it isn’t important HAS divided us.

Given that we think that it IS important and you say it ISN’T, then in move towards reconciliation, why don’t you simply conform on this matter that isn’t important to you?

We after all, say that they have NOT been ‘preserved’. In the past you have said that you ‘practice’ all seven but don’t consider them all to be Sacraments (in the Catholic Sense). I practice my putting from time to time but don’t consider it to be a Sacrament In other words, there is a HUGE difference between simply ‘doing something’ and doing it AS A Sacrament.

Rather than suggest that the number of Sacraments COULD be resolved if the more difficult issues had been decided first, why don’t you make the first move on this thing that you don’t think is really that big a deal? That would be an excellent show of ‘good faith’ and would actually demonstrate to the Church that you are serious about reconciliation.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Well said Topper.

If I might add, the fact that the list of the seven sacraments, once formally determined, was unanimously accepted by the theologians and immediately accepted throughout the Catholic world tends to prove that the list was merely an expression of what the Church had been always practicing and explicitly teaching.

Such practice and doctrine are efficaciously supported by the ancient and heretical sects (Nestorians, Monophysites, Jacobites, etc.) who, though separated from the Catholic Church from the 5th and 6th centuries, professed the sacramental septenary.

Therefore, even in those remote times, the Tradition of the seven sacraments was deep rooted, for, had there been any doubt about the Apostolic origin of such doctrine, the heretics would have capitalized on such doubt by abandoning the sacramental septenary in order to create a deeper moat between them and Rome.

Luther did create that deeper moat by denying five of the seven sacraments.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I don’t want to get too involved with this discussion, but I would like to offer two points.

First, the question has been raised whether and why Lutherans would reject the sacrament of extreme unction as coming from Christ. I couldn’t explain any such doubts on the part of Lutherans in general, but it is perhaps relevant that Luther individually had a rather liberal view of Scripture. In the piece linked by Per Crucem, Luther casts doubt on the Apostolic origin of James, suggesting he theopinion that it carries no divine authority.

I, however, say that if folly has ever been uttered, it has been uttered on this subject. I pass over the fact that many assert, and with great probability, that this epistle was not written by the Apostle James, and is not worthy of the apostolic spirit; although, whosesoever it is, it has obtained authority by usage.

And we know the many things he said elsewhere about this New Testament book (to say nothing of certain other books). However, I would suppose that most Lutherans would diverge from Luther here and accept the inspiration of James. If the inspiration of James is accepted, I could see no reason to reject the sacrament as being of anything other than instituted by Christ.

Second, in regard to Per Crucem:

Not from the OT itself with respect to healing per se, although the OT is replete with examples of the spiritual effects of oil. However, within Jewish tradition, myrrh, frankincense, hyssop and a few others were commonly used for both physical and spiritual ailments.

That a sacrament resembles rites practiced before Christ does not mean that those rites are identical to Christian sacraments. Before Christ, there were ritual washings, sacrifices (including those of bread and wine), marriages, priestly ordinations and so on. However, any rites of the Old Testament did not have any power in themselves to communicate grace, whereas the opposite is true of the New Testament sacraments. These older ceremonies were shadows of the grace that was later to come, not the same thing.

It cannot be said that the sacraments of the Old Law conferred sanctifying grace of themselves, i.e. by their own power: since thus Christ’s Passion would not have been necessary, according to Galatians 2:21: “If justice be by the Law, then Christ died in vain.”

But neither can it be said that they derived the power of conferring sanctifying grace from Christ’s Passion. For as it was stated above, the power of Christ’s Passion is united to us by faith and the sacraments, but in different ways; because the link that comes from faith is produced by an act of the soul; whereas the link that comes from the sacraments, is produced by making use of exterior things. Now nothing hinders that which is subsequent in point of time, from causing movement, even before it exists in reality, in so far as it pre-exists in an act of the soul: thus the end, which is subsequent in point of time, moves the agent in so far as it is apprehended and desired by him. On the other hand, what does not yet actually exist, does not cause movement if we consider the use of exterior things. Consequently, the efficient cause cannot in point of time come into existence after causing movement, as does the final cause. It is therefore clear that the sacraments of the New Law do reasonably derive the power of justification from Christ’s Passion, which is the cause of man’s righteousness; whereas the sacraments of the Old Law did not.

Nevertheless the Fathers of old were justified by faith in Christ’s Passion, just as we are. And the sacraments of the old Law were a kind of protestation of that faith, inasmuch as they signified Christ’s Passion and its effects. It is therefore manifest that the sacraments of the Old Law were not endowed with any power by which they conduced to the bestowal of justifying grace: and they merely signified faith by which men were justified.

 

[Topper17]

Hi guano,

Thanks for your response.

This is very true. If a person is not conscious and cooperative with the grace of the sacrament, they will not benefit as much. A person must be properly disposed to get the most benefit.

I think your observation is most salient with regard to marriage. We can see the damage to society as a whole that has come from the rejection of the the traditional Christian understanding of sacramental marriage. As Moses observed, and Jesus re-iterated, human beings suffer from hardness of heart. A sacramental marriage is not guaranteed to succeed, but the chance of one succeeding without God’s grace is very low.

I agree that society has been damaged by the rejection of the Catholic concept of a Sacramental marriage, meaning Sacramental with a capitol ‘S’, rather than a small ‘s as in the way that we consider holy water to be a ‘sacramental’, and not a Sacrament.

Of course we know from the history of the Reformation where this rejection of marriage as a Sacrament:

**“Turning away now from the three sacraments which he would retain, Luther goes on to show why he rejects the remaining four. **He does not condemn the seven sacraments, but he denies that they can be established from Scripture. All that is left of the apostolic laying on of hands is the sacrament of confirmation, which has been devised in order to add to the prestige of the office of bishop. What is a bishop other than an idol, if he does not preach or care for souls? Confirmation is only a form of sacramental ceremony, not a sacrament itself. Similarly he finds no scriptural authority for the sacrament of marriage. **The heathen have a true and valid marriage, and likewise the unbelievers who dwell among Christians.” **Robert Herndon Fife, “The Revolt and Martin Luther”, pg. 535

I in many ways agree with this. From the moment we planned our marriage, we have viewed it as sacramental, that is, that we receive His grace through it. And by example and through words, we encouraged our children to view it in the same way.

I might, however, argue that the damage to marriage has come more from secularism, and those opposed to faith-based marriage in the first place.

Hi Jon,

I am glad that you seem to have, right from the very beginning, formed a marriage more along the lines of the Catholic concept of a marriage. You mention the secularization of marriage and the literature is chocked full of references.

“Of any sacrament of matrimony he refused to hear. To him marriage was really a secular matter, however much he might describe it as of Divine institution : “Know, that marriage is an outward, material thing like any other secular business.”, ** " Marriage and all that appertains to it is a temporal thing and does not concern the Church at all, except in so far as it affects the conscience. - Marriage questions do not concern the clergy or the preachers, but authorities; theirs it is to decide on them "** Grisar Vol. III, pg. 263

**“His description of marriage “as an outward, material thing, like any other worldly business, 3 was certainly not calculated to raise its repute **; and in the same passage he proceeds : " Just as I may eat and drink, sleep and walk, ride, talk and do business with a heathen or a Jew, a Turk or a heretic, so also I may contract marriage with him.” **Matrimonial cases had formerly belonged to the ecclesiastical courts, but Luther now drives the parties concerned to the secular judge, **telling them that he will give them " a good hog," i.e. a sound trouncing, for having sought to " involve and entangle him in such matters " which " **really concerned the secular authority.", “Marriage questions,” he says, " do not touch the conscience, but come within the province of the secular judge." **Previously, parties whose rights had been infringed were able to seek redress from the ecclesiastical tribunals, the sentences of which were enforced by Canon Law under spiritual penalties, to the advantage of the injured party. Luther, on the other hand, after having secularised marriage, finds himself unable to cope with the flood of people clamouring for justice : “I am tired of them [the matrimonial squabbles] and I have thrown them overboard ; let them do as they like in the name of all the devils.” Grisar, Vol. IV, pg. 144-5

Well said Topper.

If I might add, the fact that the list of the seven sacraments, once formally determined, was unanimously accepted by the theologians and immediately accepted throughout the Catholic world tends to prove that the list was merely an expression of what the Church had been always practicing and explicitly teaching.

Thanks Toms.

The rejection of much of the Catholic Sacramental ‘system’ has advanced the cause of secularism, which we ALL (hopefully) agree has been detrimental to Christian culture.

“**The phenomenal growth of secularism in Protestant countries can be explained partly as a result of the weakening of the sacramental power within Protestantism.” **Paul Tillich, “The Protestant Era”, pg. 112

I would suggest that Tillich would be stunned at how much worse it has gotten since he wrote this in 1948.

“For three centuries the gulf between Catholic and Protestant remained and grew wider in the course of time. And it was this schism, which was cultural and political as well as religious and ecclesiastical, that was ultimately responsible for the secularization of Western culture.” Christopher Dawson, “The Dividing of Christendom”, pg. 160

"In reducing marriage to a civil contract, he (Luther) took a long step towards the secularization of life." Preserved Smith, The Age of the Reformation, pg. 73

God Bless You, Topper