Lutheran View of Sacraments

[Topper17]

Hi guano,

Thanks for your response.

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

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 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

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

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper: I would like to toss my two cents in about the Lutheran view of the Sacraments from what Luther said as I understand that modern Lutherans have a slightly different view depending which Lutheran one speaks to.
Luther's doctrines of Baptism and communion is to understand his theology of the sacraments. he numbered the sacraments at two; Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Luther said " Hence it follows that there are, strictly speaking, only two Sacraments in the Church of God: baptism and the Bread... For the sacrament of penance is... nothing but a way and a return to Baptism." ( Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, "Three Treatises, second revised edition, A.T.W.Steinhil, P.258.) This is a good example of Luther's polemical writing. Luther's title refers to the authoritarianism of the CC over the laity. The document goes through the 7 traditional sacraments and refutes them, arguing against the CC at other points as he proceeds. This then shows why modern Lutheran's believe in only two sacraments instead of 7 sacraments to which the CC says that the objective character of the sacraments as producers of grace whereas Luther with Philipp Melanchthon saw it as subjectivism of grace.

 

[JonNC]

=spina1953;12330030]Hi Topper: I would like to toss my two cents in about the Lutheran view of the Sacraments from what Luther said as I understand that modern Lutherans have a slightly different view depending which Lutheran one speaks to.

What you’ve provided is Luther’s view. Many Lutherans, then and now, subscribe to the two-sacrament (penance is a return to Baptism) view, and some, then and now, hold to the view that the sacrament of Absolution is instituted by Christ as a sacrament of itself. Either stance recognizes the sacramental grace available to us in Holy Absolution.

This is indicative of what I said earlier, that for Lutherans, the counting is not as important as the grace bestowed.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Hi Jon: yes, of course its Luther’s view, but it is his doctrine and theology and I also understand many modern Lutheran’s hold penance to be a sacrament, yet, that was not Luther’s doctrine or teaching as he did not believe Absolution to be a sacrament instituted by Christ. The Apology of Augsburg Confessions, sacraments are defined as: "If we believe the sacraments as rites, which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to determine what the sacraments are, properly speaking. For humanly instituted rites are not sacraments, properly speaking, because human beings do not have the authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without the command of God are not sure signs of grace, even though the perhaps serve to teach or admonish the common folk. (Article XIII)
As a Catholic I do not hold to that view and so far as I understand for some 1500 years till the time of Luther there were or are 7 sacraments that the CC says were instituted by Christ and that is why the CC continues to teach that and has never since the time of the Apostles changed that teaching. The problem as I see it is how one understands sacraments and whether the Church has the authority to minister them and whether or not sacraments impart grace or not. Luther had one view and the CC has another. The answer lies in the proper understanding of sacraments.

 

[Tomster]

What you’ve provided is Luther’s view. Many Lutherans, then and now, subscribe to the two-sacrament (penance is a return to Baptism) view, and some, then and now, hold to the view that the sacrament of Absolution is instituted by Christ as a sacrament of itself. Either stance recognizes the sacramental grace available to us in Holy Absolution.

This is indicative of what I said earlier, that for Lutherans, the counting is not as important as the grace bestowed.

Jon

Unexpectedly, Lutheran symbolic books are not clear on the exact number of the sacraments, which are defined as “rites which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has ben added;” (1) or as signs of the New Testament, i.e., signs of the remission of sins." (2) First, in general, it is said the number of sacraments is unimportant. According to the Apology for the Augsburg Confession, “We do not believe it to be of any consequence if, in teaching, different persons count (the number of sacraments) differently.” (3) However, in Luther’s large catechism baptism and the Lord’s Supper are considered essential, since they were “instituted by Christ,” and therefore “without them there cannot be a Christian.” (4) Melancthon’s Apology inclines to fix the number at three, popularly so-called, saying that “Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly sacraments.” (5) In the same way, the term “Sacrament” is conceded to “Holy Ordination,” by the Apology and the Smalcald Articles. While denying that priests in the New Law are “called to offer any sacrifice,” the Apology admits that “if Order is understood thus, neither will we refuse to call the imposition of hands a Sacrament.” (6) With reservation, even matrimony is described as sacramental in the Apology. Older than the New Testament, marriage and its promises “pertain to the life of the body. Wherefore, if anyone wants to call it a Sacrament, he ought still to differentiate it from the preceding ones.” (7) The objection to this use, that, “calling Holy Matrimony a Sacrament opens the way to calling other vocations which have God’s command, e.g., the magistry, Sacraments,” (8) indicates how vague the term “Sacrament” is in the Lutheran Confessions. Finally confirmation and extreme unction are denied any sacramental quality, being only “rites received from the Fathers which even the Church does not require as necessary to salvation because they do not have Christ’s command.” (9) Most Lutherans, however, would allow them to be called sacraments, but “only in an improper sense.”

(1) Arthur C. Piepkorn, What the Symbolic Books of the Lutheran Church Have to Say about Worship and the Sacraments, “Apology of the Augsburg Confession,” St. Louis, Concordia, 1952, p. 16.

(2) Loc. cit.

(3) Ibid. The Catholic doctrine on the sacraments was vindicated by the Council of Trent in a series of propositions directed against the innovators of Luther and his followers.

(4) Ibid., Luther’s Large Catechism," p. 17.

(5) Ibid., “Apology” p.17

(6) Loc. cit.

(7) Ibid., p. 18

(8) Loc. cit.

(9) Loc. cit.

 

[spina1953]

Unexpectedly, Lutheran symbolic books are not clear on the exact number of the sacraments, which are defined as “rites which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has ben added;” (1) or as signs of the New Testament, i.e., signs of the remission of sins." (2) First, in general, it is said the number of sacraments is unimportant. According to the Apology for the Augsburg Confession, “We do not believe it to be of any consequence if, in teaching, different persons count (the number of sacraments) differently.” (3) However, in Luther’s large catechism baptism and the Lord’s Supper are considered essential, since they were “instituted by Christ,” and therefore “without them there cannot be a Christian.” (4) Melancthon’s Apology inclines to fix the number at three, popularly so-called, saying that “Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly sacraments.” (5) In the same way, the term “Sacrament” is conceded to “Holy Ordination,” by the Apology and the Smalcald Articles. While denying that priests in the New Law are “called to offer any sacrifice,” the Apology admits that “if Order is understood thus, neither will we refuse to call the imposition of hands a Sacrament.” (6) With reservation, even matrimony is described as sacramental in the Apology. Older than the New Testament, marriage and its promises “pertain to the life of the body. Wherefore, if anyone wants to call it a Sacrament, he ought still to differentiate it from the preceding ones.” (7) The objection to this use, that, “calling Holy Matrimony a Sacrament opens the way to calling other vocations which have God’s command, e.g., the magistry, Sacraments,” (8) indicates how vague the term “Sacrament” is in the Lutheran Confessions. Finally confirmation and extreme unction are denied any sacramental quality, being only “rites received from the Fathers which even the Church does not require as necessary to salvation because they do not have Christ’s command.” (9) Most Lutherans, however, would allow them to be called sacraments, but “only in an improper sense.”

(1) Arthur C. Piepkorn, What the Symbolic Books of the Lutheran Church Have to Say about Worship and the Sacraments, “Apology of the Augsburg Confession,” St. Louis, Concordia, 1952, p. 16.

(2) Loc. cit.

(3) Ibid. The Catholic doctrine on the sacraments was vindicated by the Council of Trent in a series of propositions directed against the innovators of Luther and his followers.

(4) Ibid., Luther’s Large Catechism," p. 17.

(5) Ibid., “Apology” p.17

(6) Loc. cit.

(7) Ibid., p. 18

(8) Loc. cit.

(9) Loc. cit.

Hi Tomster: Well done!!

 

[Tomster]

Hi guano,

Thanks for your response.

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

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

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

Upright Protestants who have inherited the Lutheran patrimony may certainly be in possession of authentic Christian values, but the purity of these values will be compromised by them in the precise measure in which, whether in formulating them or in living them, they give way to the vertigo of the primitive Lutheran experience. And it will be safeguarded, contrariwise, in the measure in which they are freed from it by the inner power of the Holy Spirit, who breathes wheresoever He will.

 

[Tomster]

Hi Jon: yes, of course its Luther’s view, but it is his doctrine and theology and I also understand many modern Lutheran’s hold penance to be a sacrament, yet, that was not Luther’s doctrine or teaching as he did not believe Absolution to be a sacrament instituted by Christ. The Apology of Augsburg Confessions, sacraments are defined as: "If we believe the sacraments as rites, which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to determine what the sacraments are, properly speaking. For humanly instituted rites are not sacraments, properly speaking, because human beings do not have the authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without the command of God are not sure signs of grace, even though the perhaps serve to teach or admonish the common folk. (Article XIII)

          As a Catholic I do not hold to that view and so far as I understand for some 1500 years till the time of Luther there were or are 7 sacraments that the CC says were instituted by Christ and that is why the CC continues to teach that and has never since the time of the Apostles changed that teaching. The problem as I see it is how one understands sacraments and whether the Church has the authority to minister them and whether or not sacraments impart grace or not. Luther had one view and the CC has another.  The answer lies in the proper understanding of sacraments.

And, if I may add, to have a proper understanding of the sacraments, one must also have a proper understanding of divine authority in the Church.

 

[spina1953]

And, if I may add, to have a proper understanding of the sacraments, one must also have a proper understanding of divine authority in the Church.

Hi Tomster: True enough! The CCC is always a great place to start in understanding what the CC teaches and I also think that it is very easy to understand. It points to how the Sacraments give the grace God gives freely through them.

 

[spina1953]

Since the time of Martin Luther and the reformation in the 16th Century, many Catholic teachings have been rejected by the Reformists with the accusation that they are mere traditions of men that are contrary to biblical teachings and the practice of the early Christians. Luther decided that there were only two sacraments and the rest were not supported by Scripture. Other reformers believed that other than Baptism the other sacraments were not supported by Scripture. For Luther it seemed that other than Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the rest of the sacraments were just mere traditions of men and therefore did not convey grace or even the promise of grace.

   Some felt the sacraments are mere rituals, while others feel they are a means of salvation. But Sacraments are not a method by which one earns God's grace. Instead, the Sacraments are a way in which Christ shares His grace with one. There is no possible way or manor to earn God's grace that is offered and freely shared. Christ shares the Sacraments with one as a way of showing one His awesome love. Sacraments are a way in which one connects with Him and develops a deeper relationship through faith. Sacraments allow one to have a real, substantial  connection to Christ in a way that would not be possible otherwise, as Sacraments are a gift from God in which he transmits or conveys His grace.

   The effects of the Sacraments is not based on the personal faith and moral character of the clergy and good will of the recipient, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. Sacraments derive their power to freely transmit grace from God and not from man; they are not merely human inventions. Sacraments are divine institutions., and can be found in Scripture in support CC teachings on Sacraments.  Just check Scripture to see; Conformation, Acts 8:14-17, 19:1-6, 2Cor. 1:21-22, Penance, Ex.32:20, Num.14:19-23, Jn.20:23, Acts 19:18, 2 Cor. 2:6-11, Jas. 5:16, Matrimony, Gn.2:18-25, Matt.19:1-9, Mk.10:2-12, Rom.7:2-3, 1Cor.7:1-24, Anointing of the Sick, Mk.6:5, 12-13, Acts, 9:17-18, Jas. 5:14-15, Holy Orders, Matt.18:18, Lk. 22:19, Acts 18:18, 1 Tim.3:1-7, 5:17, Pt. 5:1. Baptism in Jas. 3:5, Acts 2:38, 16:15, and the Eurcharist, Mk 14:22-24,Lk.22:19-20,1Cor.10:16, 11:23-30, Jn.6:53-57. It seems to me that Luther either did not understand or did not choose to not understand or believe that all 7 sacraments are actually Sacraments, except two.

   How is it that only Luther could see this while for some 1500 years the ECF's and the Apostles did not? How is it that only he was correct while the CC was wrong for the 1500 years till Luther came along to set the matter right? The answer I think lies in that Luther decided on his personal interpretation s instead of the deposit of faith that had been handed down through the ages from the Apostles onwards.

 

[JonNC]

=Tomster;12331258]Unexpectedly, Lutheran symbolic books are not clear on the exact number of the sacraments, which are defined as

I don’t think its unexpected at all.

“rites which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added;” (1) or as signs of the New Testament, i.e., signs of the remission of sins."

Correct, and not contradictory at all.

(2) First, in general, it is said the number of sacraments is unimportant. According to the Apology for the Augsburg Confession, “We do not believe it to be of any consequence if, in teaching, different persons count (the number of sacraments) differently.”

As I said earlier.

(3) However, in Luther’s large catechism baptism and the Lord’s Supper are considered essential, since they were “instituted by Christ,” and therefore “without them there cannot be a Christian.”

I would add to that Holy Absolution. But yes, and the comment above in #2 is clearly in relation to the other four.

(4) Melancthon’s Apology inclines to fix the number at three, popularly so-called, saying that “Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly sacraments.”

As I said earlier.

(5) In the same way, the term “Sacrament” is conceded to “Holy Ordination,” by the Apology and the Smalcald Articles. While denying that priests in the New Law are “called to offer any sacrifice,” the Apology admits that “if Order is understood thus, neither will we refuse to call the imposition of hands a Sacrament.”

Correct. As I mentioned before.

(6) With reservation, even matrimony is described as sacramental in the Apology. Older than the New Testament, marriage and its promises “pertain to the life of the body. Wherefore, if anyone wants to call it a Sacrament, he ought still to differentiate it from the preceding ones.”

Yep.

(7) The objection to this use, that, “calling Holy Matrimony a Sacrament opens the way to calling other vocations which have God’s command, e.g., the magistry, Sacraments,”

Not a particular worry of mine.

(8) indicates how vague the term “Sacrament” is in the Lutheran Confessions. Finally confirmation and extreme unction are denied any sacramental quality, being only “rites received from the Fathers which even the Church does not require as necessary to salvation because they do not have Christ’s command.”

And yet, still practiced (even though Luther didn’t like Confirmation), because it is a holy rite from the Fathers and the Church.

(9) Most Lutherans, however, would allow them to be called sacraments, but “only in an improper sense.”

Well, there you are. As I said, I don’t see the specific numbering of the sacraments as being something Lutherans are overly strident about. And with a few, the line has always seemed blurred to me.

(1) Arthur C. Piepkorn, What the Symbolic Books of the Lutheran Church Have to Say about Worship and the Sacraments, “Apology of the Augsburg Confession,” St. Louis, Concordia, 1952, p. 16.

Originally Posted by JonNC
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
An interesting viewpoint:

weedon.blogspot.com/search?q=marriage+a+sacrament

 

[pablope]

Hi guano,

Thanks for your response.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper: I would like to toss my two cents in about the Lutheran view of the Sacraments from what Luther said as I understand that modern Lutherans have a slightly different view depending which Lutheran one speaks to.

              Luther's doctrines of Baptism and communion is to understand his theology of the sacraments. he numbered the sacraments at two; Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Luther said " Hence it follows that there are, strictly speaking, only two Sacraments in the Church of God: baptism and the Bread... For the sacrament of penance is... nothing but a way and a return to Baptism."  (Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, "Three Treatises, second revised edition, A.T.W.Steinhil, P.258.)  This is a good example of Luther's polemical writing. Luther's title refers to the authoritarianism of the CC over the laity. The document goes through the 7 traditional sacraments and refutes them, arguing against the CC at other points as he proceeds. This then shows why modern Lutheran's believe in only two sacraments instead of 7 sacraments to which the CC says that the objective character of the sacraments as producers of grace whereas Luther with  Philipp Melanchthon saw it as subjectivism of grace.

The number of Sacraments might not be a huge deal to some Protestants, but I think that is only an indication of how much more important they are to Catholics.

“**Originally Luther had abolished all sacraments but one: the faith producing Word. ** On this he had grounded two symbols, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which received their meaning from the Word and man’s faith. But the Anabaptists made him anxious to give these symbols an objective supernatural validity. In his desire he fell back upon a great deal of scholastic thought, which he had otherwise excluded from his mind. He defended this new conception of the sacraments with such passionate tenacity as to make co-operation between German and Swiss Protestantism impossible. But even more was involved. The search for objective sources or props of faith led him to emphasize strongly the continuity that existed between his religion and the Church of the first seven centuries.” Holborn, “A History of Modern Germany, The Reformation”, pg. 184-5

Luther’s uncertainty about the Sacraments is reflected in Lutheranism today, where it appears that not even all Lutherans agree, on even the number.

Amazingly it was the ultra anti-Sacramental stance of the Anabaptists which caused Luther to turn back from the brink (Sacramentally).

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

What you’ve provided is Luther’s view. Many Lutherans, then and now, subscribe to the two-sacrament (penance is a return to Baptism) view, and some, then and now, hold to the view that the sacrament of Absolution is instituted by Christ as a sacrament of itself. Either stance recognizes the sacramental grace available to us in Holy Absolution.

This is indicative of what I said earlier, that for Lutherans, the counting is not as important as the grace bestowed.

What would you suggest we do Jon? Should we care as little about the Sacraments as Lutherans do? Is that the best pathway to reconciliation, that Catholics should care less about the means by which God conveys his graces upon us? As I have suggested, maybe you should care more.

Protestant Paul Tillich makes comments critical of his own Protestantism, and speaks of a ‘loss of living substance’, making an excellent comparison to Catholicism.

**“The gift of freedom, including religious freedom, is paid for by a loss of living substance. **The loss of spiritual substance since the end of the Middle Ages, both intellectual and religious, has been tremendous; and some day that substance might be completely exhausted. Few are the springs of life that are left and that are uncontested. The springs of the past are almost exhausted – the substance has almost wasted away.

The Catholic Church, however, has manifestly been able to preserve a genuine substance that continues to exist, although it is encased with an ever hardening crust. But whenever the hardness and crust is broken through and the substance becomes visible, it exercises a peculiar fascination; and we see what was once the life-substance and inheritance of us all and what we have now lost, and a deep yearning awakens in us for the departed youth of our culture.

It is not surprising that the Catholic Church exercises a powerful influence upon the modern man, since it both provides an emancipation from the burden of autonomous responsibility and offers to the man of today the age-old life-substance that was once his.………**The situation is rather that the man who enjoys autonomy – however feeble and empty it may be – has experienced something that he cannot easily surrender even if he wished to respond to the appeal of the Catholic Church. **The “something” which unites the Protestants and those who live in secular autonomy must be examined and understood. Upon it depends the religious and also the intellectual integrity of our day.” Dr. Paul Tillich, “The Protestant Era (abridged)”, 1948, pg. 194-5

“All sacramental realities depend upon a tradition which cannot be abandoned arbitrarily or exchanged with some other tradition. But it can be destroyed by prophetic criticism. **Most of the sacramental features of the Catholic tradition have been radically questioned by Protestantism; indeed, they have been abandoned on Protestant soil. **And the process of reduction has not stopped by this. ** In the course of its history Protestantism has become so indifferent to sacramental thinking that even the two remaining sacraments have lost their significance, with the result that only the word has retained a genuinely sacramental character. ** In the revival of Reformation theology in our day, the word plays an immense role, whereas the sacraments play no role whatsoever. It is fairly evident that the Protestant sacraments are disappearing.” Tillich, pg. 111

In my previous post we learned that in the beginning Luther had ‘abolished all Sacraments but one - the Word’. Now we see that even though Luther pulled back (to two Sacraments), those who have followed in his tradition(s) are gradually moving towards that position. Again we need to remember that Tillich wrote this in 1948 and Protestantism has become even more like what he was warning about since then.

Jon, you are right to be concerned about the secularization of marriage and of culture in general. We have seen the connection between secularism and the lack of Sacramentalism. We also know that there are many Protestants who are even less ‘concerned’ about the Sacraments than are Lutherans.

Do you think that Christian ‘culture’ would benefit from an increased emphasis on the Sacraments or do you think that Protestantism should continue to trend towards a lack of Sacramentalism?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[pablope]

Here is your answer from the Apology itself:

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

 

[Tomyris]

Do you agree with the assessment in this article:

 

[Tomster]

Since the time of Martin Luther and the reformation in the 16th Century, many Catholic teachings have been rejected by the Reformists with the accusation that they are mere traditions of men that are contrary to biblical teachings and the practice of the early Christians. Luther decided that there were only two sacraments and the rest were not supported by Scripture. Other reformers believed that other than Baptism the other sacraments were not supported by Scripture. For Luther it seemed that other than Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the rest of the sacraments were just mere traditions of men and therefore did not convey grace or even the promise of grace.

   Some felt the sacraments are mere rituals, while others feel they are a means of salvation. But Sacraments are not a method by which one earns God's grace. Instead, the Sacraments are a way in which Christ shares His grace with one. There is no possible way or manor to earn God's grace that is offered and freely shared. Christ shares the Sacraments with one as a way of showing one His awesome love. Sacraments are a way in which one connects with Him and develops a deeper relationship through faith. Sacraments allow one to have a real, substantial  connection to Christ in a way that would not be possible otherwise, as Sacraments are a gift from God in which he transmits or conveys His grace.

   The effects of the Sacraments is not based on the personal faith and moral character of the clergy and good will of the recipient, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. Sacraments derive their power to freely transmit grace from God and not from man; they are not merely human inventions. Sacraments are divine institutions., and can be found in Scripture in support CC teachings on Sacraments.  Just check Scripture to see; Conformation, Acts 8:14-17, 19:1-6, 2Cor. 1:21-22, Penance, Ex.32:20, Num.14:19-23, Jn.20:23, Acts 19:18, 2 Cor. 2:6-11, Jas. 5:16, Matrimony, Gn.2:18-25, Matt.19:1-9, Mk.10:2-12, Rom.7:2-3, 1Cor.7:1-24, Anointing of the Sick, Mk.6:5, 12-13, Acts, 9:17-18, Jas. 5:14-15, Holy Orders, Matt.18:18, Lk. 22:19, Acts 18:18, 1 Tim.3:1-7, 5:17, Pt. 5:1. Baptism in Jas. 3:5, Acts 2:38, 16:15, and the Eurcharist, Mk 14:22-24,Lk.22:19-20,1Cor.10:16, 11:23-30, Jn.6:53-57. It seems to me that Luther either did not understand or did not choose to not understand or believe that all 7 sacraments are actually Sacraments, except two.

   How is it that only Luther could see this while for some 1500 years the ECF's and the Apostles did not? How is it that only he was correct while the CC was wrong for the 1500 years till Luther came along to set the matter right? The answer I think lies in that Luther decided on his personal interpretation s instead of the deposit of faith that had been handed down through the ages from the Apostles onwards.

And, as we all know, personal interpretation of the Scriptures is one of the chief doctrines Dr. Luther promoted, until the real life experience of putting that doctrine into practice showed the good doctor how terribly wrong it was and still is. Dr. Luther really lamented over that decision, but, as time went on and he saw the devastating consequences of his man-made doctrine it was too late. The toothpaste was out of the tube and he couldn’t put it back in.

 

[spina1953]

And, as we all know, personal interpretation of the Scriptures is one of the chief doctrines Dr. Luther promoted, until the real life experience of putting that doctrine into practice showed the good doctor how terribly wrong it was and still is. Dr. Luther really lamented over that decision, but, as time went on and he saw the devastating consequences of his man-made doctrine it was too late. The toothpaste was out of the tube and he couldn’t put it back in.

Hi Tomster: I have to agree with you. I was reading about Luther’s first translation of the NT and of all the glosses he put in the margins and also how many mistranslations there were, something like over 3500 errors. In the first edition or September of 1522 he in the margins his glosses were about how to self interpret Scriptures so that the common man could interpret it in the way that Luther wanted. later, it seems that many of the publishers and printers decided to leave out many of Luther’s comments and glosses. However, while the Bible’s of Luther were quite expensive, it helped to spread Luther’s reformation, yet, in the end people came to their own ideas of how to interpret Scripture that did not sit well for Luther. Luther also in his glosses made the Sacraments non void issue in that they were not real Sacraments but man made inventions.

 

[Tomster]

Hi Tomster: I have to agree with you. I was reading about Luther’s first translation of the NT and of all the glosses he put in the margins and also how many mistranslations there were, something like over 3500 errors. In the first edition or September of 1522 he in the margins his glosses were about how to self interpret Scriptures so that the common man could interpret it in the way that Luther wanted. later, it seems that many of the publishers and printers decided to leave out many of Luther’s comments and glosses. However, while the Bible’s of Luther were quite expensive, it helped to spread Luther’s reformation, yet, in the end people came to their own ideas of how to interpret Scripture that did not sit well for Luther. Luther also in his glosses made the Sacraments non void issue in that they were not real Sacraments but man made inventions.

So, we could say,then, that Luther:

(a) considered himself the only legitimate interpreter of Scriptures, and

(b) since he considered the Sacraments man made inventions, he placed them on par with his man made interpretation of Scriptures.

 

[spina1953]

So, we could say,then, that Luther:

(a) considered himself the only legitimate interpreter of Scriptures, and

(b) since he considered the Sacraments man made inventions, he placed them on par with his man made interpretation of Scriptures.

Hi Tomster: Yes, I think that is correct. From all my research into Luther the man, one of the things that stand out is that Luther thought himself the only one who could interpret Scripture correctly and that the CC did not and had not for the previous 1500 years. it also seems that the more people disagreed with his interpretations and doctrines and teachings the more he reacted ion the most violent manor to those against him. Much of it seems to stem from both his early childhood upbringing and his severe scrupulosity.