Lutheranism is the "pure" Church?

[JonNC]

Not exactly. You might be interested in this article, entitled Metousiosis (emphasis mine).

b. Orthodox profess a real change (metabole) of the bread and the wine into the body and blood of Christ by the Words of Institution and the act of the Holy Spirit in the eucharistic anaphora. This does not mean a “transsubstantiation” of the substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the deified humanity of Christ, but a union with it: “The bread of communion isn’t an ordinary bread, but united with divinity” (John of Damascus). This union amounts to a communication of the deifying properties of the humanity of Christ and of the deifying grace of his divinity to the eucharistic gifts: The bread and the wine are no longer understood with respect to their natural properties but with respect to Christ’s deified human body in which they have been assumed through the action of the Holy Spirit. As in Christology the two natures are united hypostatically, so in the Eucharist Christ’s exalted human body and the “antitypes” (St. Basil, Anaphora) of bread and wine are united sacramentally through the act of the Holy Spirit.

c. Orthodox and Lutherans agree, whether they use the language of “metabole” or of “real presence”, that the bread and wine do not lose their essence (physis) when becoming sacramentally Christ’s body and blood. The medieval doctrine of transsubstantiation is rejected by both Orthodox and Lutherans.

Bolding is mine

helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html#myst

Erich,
Perhaps we should wait for someone who is Orthodox to clarify.

Jon

 

[Erich]

In general terms, many of the things we dispute are disputed or rejected by Orthodoxy - indulgences, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, universal jurisdiction, etc.

Maybe a “real-world example” might help… imagine your teenager just did something that got him/her grounded for a month. Now imagine that about halfway through the “grounding” you decide, based on his/her actions, that the penalty should be reduced to “time served”. You’ve effectively just granted an indulgence, since the temporal punishment was for a full month!

 

[Erich]

Perhaps we should wait for someone who is Orthodox to clarify.

I suspect that most Orthodox on CAF are likely not going to peek in on a thread that asks if Lutheranism is the “pure” Church

 

[Peter_J]

I suspect that most Orthodox on CAF are likely not going to peek in on a thread that asks if Lutheranism is the “pure” Church

How so?

… the penalty should be reduced to “time served”.

I’ll accept that. You are guilty, Father Moore. And you are free to go.

Sorry got carried away.

 

[fhansen]

I have been told by Lutherans where I live (Lutheran heavy upper Midwest) that the Lutheran Church is the pure form of Catholicism that has not been perverted. They claim that the Lutheran Church is the church of the Gospel and the way Christ intended the Church to be. Many have gone on to say that the Lutheran faith is THE One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church rather than the Catholic Church. They believe that the Lutheran faith preaches the Gospel and the Catholic Church has ventured away from doing so. Basically, they are stating that they are the true Church established by Christ.

Are they wrong or spot on according to Lutheran teachings? The Lutherans here are very anti Catholic Church so it may just be a geographical thing and no Lutheranism as a whole. Please enlighten me because this is a tad disturbing.

Logically and historically they have no claim to apostolic succession or a continuous legacy stretching to the beginnings of Christianity-except thru the CC. The CC, OTOH, has such a logical and historical connection.

Their assertions are simply self-serving, to support the quasi-heretical beliefs they’re so convinced of.

 

[concretecamper]

The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, “This is My body,” not, this is a figure of My body: and “My blood,” not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eats Me, shall live John 6:51-55…John of Damascus

Notice union with the bread or wine is not taught.

“In the type of bread is given thee the Body, in the type of wine the Blood is given thee”; but they do not remain in their original condition, they have been changed, though the senses cannot tell us this: “Do not think it mere bread and wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ, according to the Lord’s declaration”. “Having learned this and being assured of it, that appears to be bread is not bread, though perceived by the taste, but the Body of Christ, and what appears to be wine is not wine, though the taste says so, but the Blood of Christ . . . strengthen thy heart, partaking of it as spiritual (food), and rejoice the face of thy soul”…St Cyril of Jerusalem

It is difficult not to see the whole doctrine of Transubstantiation in these explicit words

Where is sacramental union taught in the bible … book …chapter …verse please.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[concretecamper]

Perhaps you will say, “I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?” And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed…St Ambrose

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[rinnie]

I have been told by Lutherans where I live (Lutheran heavy upper Midwest) that the Lutheran Church is the pure form of Catholicism that has not been perverted. They claim that the Lutheran Church is the church of the Gospel and the way Christ intended the Church to be. Many have gone on to say that the Lutheran faith is THE One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church rather than the Catholic Church. They believe that the Lutheran faith preaches the Gospel and the Catholic Church has ventured away from doing so. Basically, they are stating that they are the true Church established by Christ.

Are they wrong or spot on according to Lutheran teachings? The Lutherans here are very anti Catholic Church so it may just be a geographical thing and no Lutheranism as a whole. Please enlighten me because this is a tad disturbing.

How can they be the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH if they are Lutheran and not CATHOLIC?

Should they not claim to be ONE HOLY LUTHERAN APOSTOLIC CHURCH?

 

[benjohnson]

How can they be the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH if they are Lutheran and not CATHOLIC?

Should they not claim to be ONE HOLY LUTHERAN APOSTOLIC CHURCH?

We’ve gotten used to ‘Catholic’ being a name for those Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Catholic is also the English translation for the Greek adjective καθολικός - meaning ‘universal.’

From the Lutheran standpoint, we don’t think it odd at all.

 

[rcwitness]

All denominations which hold fast to the gospel of Our Lord are within the OHCAC!

They may not have full Teaching (Lutherans do not have FULL Teaching) even from their own perspective, they do not claim to have it…but they are still a part. Even a great part. But many are a part. And this is sometimes for the good…for reaching individuals, that is. Like our good friend JonNC! Amen!

When even individuals in our own Catholic Church serve themselves or false spirits and their teachings, we should not be anxious to reject brothers and sisters in separated communions who do honor God according to the Gospel given to them.

This is a plea to individuals to lift up the genuine ones who have a saving faith greater than many who claim to be in the One Church.

 

[hn160]

The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, “This is My body,” not, this is a figure of My body: and “My blood,” not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eats Me, shall live John 6:51-55…John of Damascus

Notice union with the bread or wine is not taught.

“In the type of bread is given thee the Body, in the type of wine the Blood is given thee”; but they do not remain in their original condition, they have been changed, though the senses cannot tell us this: “Do not think it mere bread and wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ, according to the Lord’s declaration”. “Having learned this and being assured of it, that appears to be bread is not bread, though perceived by the taste, but the Body of Christ, and what appears to be wine is not wine, though the taste says so, but the Blood of Christ . . . strengthen thy heart, partaking of it as spiritual (food), and rejoice the face of thy soul”…St Cyril of Jerusalem

It is difficult not to see the whole doctrine of Transubstantiation in these explicit words

Where is sacramental union taught in the bible … book …chapter …verse please.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

By the same token show where Transubstantiation is taught in the Bible, Transubstantiation comes from Arisotelianism thought to explain how it happens. Lutherans just Christ at His Word when He saiid IS that it means is.

 

[JerryZ]

By the same token show where Transubstantiation is taught in the Bible, Transubstantiation comes from Arisotelianism thought to explain how it happens. Lutherans just Christ at His Word when He saiid IS that it means is.

Actually Transubtantiation comes from the use of LOGIC.

John 6:55 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
6:56 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
6:57 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Matthew 26:26 Now while they were eating the meal, Jesus took bread, and he blessed and broke and gave it to his disciples, and he said:** “Take and eat. This is my body.”** 26:27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks. And he gave it to them, saying: “Drink from this, all of you.
26:28 For this is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many as a remission of sins.
We see bread and wine with our senses and yet we are informed that they are no longer bread and wine.

Consubstantion is a rejection of what Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church Fathers taught. For if the substance of the bread and wine remain it negates logic and truth.

So either the substance changed (TRUE FLESH and TRUE BLOOD) and yet the accidents (the external appearance) remain or the whole teaching is FALSE.

It also cannot explain the Eucharistic Miracles that have happened throughout Church history.
If God allows the TRUE substance to show there must be a valid motive for this.
When God chooses, our senses are then able to SEE the reality of the “Transubstantion” that occurs at the mass.

 

[MaryT777]

Actually Transubtantiation comes from the use of LOGIC.

John 6:55 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
6:56 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
6:57 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Matthew 26:26 Now while they were eating the meal, Jesus took bread, and he blessed and broke and gave it to his disciples, and he said:** “Take and eat. This is my body.”** 26:27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks. And he gave it to them, saying: “Drink from this, all of you.
26:28 For this is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many as a remission of sins.
We see bread and wine with our senses and yet we are informed that they are no longer bread and wine.

Consubstantion is a rejection of what Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church Fathers taught. For if the substance of the bread and wine remain it negates logic and truth.

So either the substance changed (TRUE FLESH and TRUE BLOOD) and yet the accidents (the external appearance) remain or the whole teaching is FALSE.

It also cannot explain the Eucharistic Miracles that have happened throughout Church history.
If God allows the TRUE substance to show there must be a valid motive for this.
When God chooses, our senses are then able to SEE the reality of the “Transubstantion” that occurs at the mass.

Well said.
Mary.
There’s also a thread on Consubstantiation/Lutherans in the non Catholic forum.

 

[Peter_J]

… IS that it means is.

 

[Peter_J]

We’ve gotten used to ‘Catholic’ being a name for those Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Catholic is also the English translation for the Greek adjective καθολικός - meaning ‘universal.’

From the Lutheran standpoint, we don’t think it odd at all.

A reasonable answer. But I’d like to throw in something else here: people generally don’t challenge the Orthodox when they call themselves “the Orthodox” (with some exceptions, naturally, just as there are exceptions to just about everything), yet people often do challenge the Catholics when we call ourselves “the Catholics”.

 

[rcwitness]

All denominations which hold fast to the gospel of Our Lord are within the OHCAC!

They may not have full Teaching (Lutherans do not have FULL Teaching) even from their own perspective, they do not claim to have it…but they are still a part. Even a great part. But many are a part. And this is sometimes for the good…for reaching individuals, that is. Like our good friend JonNC! Amen!

When even individuals in our own Catholic Church serve themselves or false spirits and their teachings, we should not be anxious to reject brothers and sisters in **separated communions **who do honor God according to the Gospel given to them.

This is a plea to individuals to lift up the genuine ones who have a saving faith greater than many who claim to be in the One Church.

Correction: partial communion

Pope Francis is not focussing on the doctrinal differences. He is sharing Jesus

 

[aidanbradypop]

All denominations which hold fast to the gospel of Our Lord are within the OHCAC!

They may not have full Teaching (Lutherans do not have FULL Teaching) even from their own perspective, they do not claim to have it…but they are still a part. Even a great part. But many are a part. And this is sometimes for the good…for reaching individuals, that is. Like our good friend JonNC! Amen!

When even individuals in our own Catholic Church serve themselves or false spirits and their teachings, we should not be anxious to reject brothers and sisters in separated communions who do honor God according to the Gospel given to them.

This is a plea to individuals to lift up the genuine ones who have a saving faith greater than many who claim to be in the One Church.

RC…these Lutherans where I live do not claim to be PART of the OHCAC but rather THE OHCAC. They claim to be the “pure Catholic Church that preaches the Gospel they way Christ intended” is how one pastor stated it. That is a bit different than saying you are part of the OHCAC.

We’ve gotten used to ‘Catholic’ being a name for those Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Catholic is also the English translation for the Greek adjective καθολικός - meaning ‘universal.’

From the Lutheran standpoint, we don’t think it odd at all.

Ben…I suspect that we are not talking about the “c” but rather the “C” correct? As I stated above in another post, this could simply be just the area I live in but it seems that Lutherans believe they are the reformed "C"atholic Church right?

 

[concretecamper]

hn160:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, “This is My body,” not, this is a figure of My body: and “My blood,” not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eats Me, shall live John 6:51-55…John of Damascus

Notice union with the bread or wine is not taught.

“In the type of bread is given thee the Body, in the type of wine the Blood is given thee”; but they do not remain in their original condition, they have been changed, though the senses cannot tell us this: “Do not think it mere bread and wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ, according to the Lord’s declaration”. “Having learned this and being assured of it, that appears to be bread is not bread, though perceived by the taste, but the Body of Christ, and what appears to be wine is not wine, though the taste says so, but the Blood of Christ . . . strengthen thy heart, partaking of it as spiritual (food), and rejoice the face of thy soul”…St Cyril of Jerusalem

It is difficult not to see the whole doctrine of Transubstantiation in these explicit words

Where is sacramental union taught in the bible … book …chapter …verse please.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

By the same token show where Transubstantiation is taught in the Bible, Transubstantiation comes from Arisotelianism thought to explain how it happens. Lutherans just Christ at His Word when He saiid IS that it means is.

Christ say it IS His flesh. Christ says it IS my body. How do you get in, within, under out of Christ’s word?

The word trans… was first used much later. But that does not mean the belief started with the use of the word. Ambrose is clear when he say “nature” is changed. Sacramental union does not mean a change in nature as Ambrose describes.

Please, where is in, within, under even contemplated in the bible or by the Church Fathers.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[rcwitness]

RC…these Lutherans where I live do not claim to be PART of the OHCAC but rather THE OHCAC. They claim to be the “pure Catholic Church that preaches the Gospel they way Christ intended” is how one pastor stated it. That is a bit different than saying you are part of the OHCAC.

I see, that’s true.
Maybe the way to approach that is to draw to their attention the split in belief even among their Lutheran “banner”…?

But I agree, that is a claim only the Catholic Church can make.

 

[JonNC]

Actually Transubtantiation comes from the use of LOGIC.

John 6:55 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
6:56 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
6:57 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Matthew 26:26 Now while they were eating the meal, Jesus took bread, and he blessed and broke and gave it to his disciples, and he said:** “Take and eat. This is my body.”** 26:27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks. And he gave it to them, saying: “Drink from this, all of you.
26:28 For this is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many as a remission of sins.
We see bread and wine with our senses and yet we are informed that they are no longer bread and wine.

Consubstantion is a rejection of what Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church Fathers taught. For if the substance of the bread and wine remain it negates logic and truth.

The bolded may or may not be true. Since Lutherans don’t teach consubstantiation, its kind of irrelevant.

So either the substance changed (TRUE FLESH and TRUE BLOOD) and yet the accidents (the external appearance) remain or the whole teaching is FALSE.

Lutherans would not dispute this, since it is in the confessions, that when we receive, we receive the true body and true blood of Christ. What we don’t go into as a matter of doctrine is the substance and accidents of the mystery. By the power of the Holy Spirit and the speaking of the verba by the celebrant, the bread and wine ARE the body and blood of Christ. Does this mean that a change has taken place? Yes. They are no longer mere bread and mere wine, but the real and substantial body and blood of Christ.

So, what of the substance of bread and wine? Don’t know, since Christ doesn’t go into a metaphysical description of what happens. Suffice it to say that we receive His body and blood, under the forms of bread and wine.

…the evangelists write that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ in the form of a dove at the river Jordan. Again, he came upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost, in the form of wind and tongues of fire. Again, upon Mt. Tabor in the form of a cloud. Here [John] Wycliffe and the sophists may play wise men and say, “This dove is present without the Holy Spirit,” or, “The Holy Spirit is present without the dove.” We say, in opposition to both parties, that as one points to the dove, he rightly and properly says, “This is the Holy Spirit,” in virtue of the fact that here the two diverse beings, Spirit and dove, in some degree are also a single being, though not naturally or personally. Well, it may be called a “formal union,” because the Holy Spirit has deigned to manifest himself in such a form. Here the Scripture says precisely that he who sees this dove sees the Holy Spirit, e.g. John 1:33], “He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain,” etc.
Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, “This is my body,” even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word “this” indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a “sacramental union,” because Christ’s body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but it is also assuredly a sacramental union.
Therefore, it is entirely correct to say, if one points to the bread, “This is Christ’s body,” and whoever sees the bread sees Christ’s body, as John says that he saw the Holy Spirit when he saw the dove, as we have heard. Thus also it is correct to say, “He who takes hold of this bread, takes hold of Christ’s body; and he who eats this bread, eats Christ’s body; he who crushes this bread with teeth or tongue, crushes with teeth or tongue the body of Christ.” And yet it remains absolutely true that no one sees or grasps or eats or chews Christ’s body in the way he visibly sees and chews any other flesh. What one does to the bread is rightly and properly attributed to the body of Christ by virtue of the sacramental union. (Martin Luther, [Great] Confession concerning Christ’s Supper, Luther’s Works 37 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961], pp. 299-300)

It also cannot explain the Eucharistic Miracles that have happened throughout Church history.
If God allows the TRUE substance to show there must be a valid motive for this.
When God chooses, our senses are then able to SEE the reality of the “Transubstantion” that occurs at the mass.

Eucharistic Miracles may indeed be the way that God chooses to show wayward priests and others the truth of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament. If you and other Catholics see this as support for Transubstantiation, all well and good. If transubstantiation helps you discern His true and substantial body and blood in the sacrament, Amen.

Jon