Lutheranism

[benjohnson]

How much can they really be AS oriented when they have introduced unbiblical and ungodly doctrines such as female pastors and openly practicing gay and lesbian ministers? Seems like their claim of AS is not really.

The church has suffered from the beginning - Corinthians attests to that. While I agree that it’s shameful - I also can attest that the church will survive derivations. Those that are righting the wrong need our love, support, and prayers.

 

[billcu1]

The church has suffered from the beginning - Corinthians attests to that. While I agree that it’s shameful - I also can attest that the church will survive derivations. Those that are righting the wrong need our love, support, and prayers.

And most certainly still does in some places.

Bill

 

[KjetilK]

The “unity”, as it were, is in Christ’s testament: “This [He is speaking here of what He held in His hand - bread] is my body.” But even when it is said that we receive His body and blood in, with, and under bread and wine, that is not a statement regarding bread and wine. As the article says, the underlying message is: the natural bread IS His body, because He said so.

Sorry for my late reply.

I must say that this answer has me scratching my head. You say “unity” (thus seemingly implying that there is no unity). Again: What is the subject of the unity between the bread and Christ’s body and the wine and Christ’s blood? If there is no subject, then the analogy (or rather simily) with the hypostatic union fails.

It seems to me that you either have to say that there is a subject that keeps these two united, and which takes on their nature (which, it seems to me, leads to impanation), or that the bread and body aren’t united at all, but that you receive one together with the other, or that what Christ held up was simply his body under the species, the appearance, of bread and wine (i.e. transubstantiation). The last option, it seems to me, is the only one who captures the words of Christ: “This is my body.” And this, I maintain, is what is actually taught in Confessio Augustana.

This, of course, implies some kind of Aristotelian and/or Thomistic metaphysic, but I have no problem with that.

 

[JonNC]

=KjetilK;12987014]Sorry for my late reply.

Hi Father. Not a problem.

I must say that this answer has me scratching my head. You say “unity” (thus seemingly implying that there is no unity). Again: What is the subject of the unity between the bread and Christ’s body and the wine and Christ’s blood? If there is no subject, then the analogy (or rather simily) with the hypostatic union fails.

It seems to me that you either have to say that there is a subject that keeps these two united, and which takes on their nature (which, it seems to me, leads to impanation), or that the bread and body aren’t united at all, but that you receive one together with the other, or that what Christ held up was simply his body under the species, the appearance, of bread and wine (i.e. transubstantiation).

Or, one can be certain that when Christ said, “This is my body”, it is what He meant, and that His undisclosed method of accomplishing this, while fine to speculate about, isn’t a major concern. That’s the position I take. To paraphrase Luther, I receive His true body. God does with the bread as He wills.
And St. John of Damascus says:

• If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit… We know nothing more than this, that the Word of God is true, active and omnipotent, but in the manner of operation unsearchable.*

The last option, it seems to me, is the only one who captures the words of Christ: “This is my body.” And this, I maintain, is what is actually taught in Confessio Augustana.

This, of course, implies some kind of Aristotelian and/or Thomistic metaphysic, but I have no problem with that.

I don’t have any problem with people using that, either. The Catholic Church employed this, as I understand it, to help build faith and certainty that it is His true body and blood.
I’m just not particularly fond of the dogmatic definition of transubstantiation, which Augsburg does not do.

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

Or, one can be certain that when Christ said, “This is my body”, it is what He meant, and that His undisclosed method of accomplishing this, while fine to speculate about, isn’t a major concern. That’s the position I take. To paraphrase Luther, I receive His true body. God does with the bread as He wills.

But that wasn’t what was said in the article you cited. Scott Diekmann, the author of the article, made an explicit simile between the unity of the bread and the body of Christ, the wine and the blood of Christ: “Just as Christ’s unchanged human and divine natures are inseparably united, so the natural bread and Christ’s true natural body are united (likewise the wine and the blood).” Unless there is a subject that keeps these united, and takes on their natures (that is, becomes the subject both of the bread/wine and the body/blood of Christ), then that simile fails. If Diekmann wants to hold on to this simile – that the bread/wine and the body/blood of Christ is united just as “Christ’s unchanged human and divine natures are inseparably united” – then he must either affirm impanation or say that someone or something else than Christ is the subject of Christ’s body and blood. (At least as long as the sacrament is in existence.)

Of course the sane thing would be to just trash the simile.

And St. John of Damascus says:

• If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit… We know nothing more than this, that the Word of God is true, active and omnipotent, but in the manner of operation unsearchable.*.

And the same is true of the incarnation, yet I would be very surprised if Diekmann has a problem with the use of ousia/homoousious in the Nicene Creed. Transubstantiation has never been an explanation of how the Eucharist comes into being.

I don’t have any problem with people using that, either. The Catholic Church employed this, as I understand it, to help build faith and certainty that it is His true body and blood. I’m just not particularly fond of the dogmatic definition of transubstantiation, which Augsburg does not do.

But why, exactly? And why was it OK to dogmatise philosophical language in 325, yet not so in 1215?

 

[JonNC]

=KjetilK;12988545]But that wasn’t what was said in the article you cited. Scott Diekmann, the author of the article, made an explicit simile between the unity of the bread and the body of Christ, the wine and the blood of Christ: “Just as Christ’s unchanged human and divine natures are inseparably united, so the natural bread and Christ’s true natural body are united (likewise the wine and the blood).” Unless there is a subject that keeps these united, and takes on their natures (that is, becomes the subject both of the bread/wine and the body/blood of Christ), then that simile fails. If Diekmann wants to hold on to this simile – that the bread/wine and the body/blood of Christ is united just as “Christ’s unchanged human and divine natures are inseparably united” – then he must either affirm impanation or say that someone or something else than Christ is the subject of Christ’s body and blood. (At least as long as the sacrament is in existence.)

Of course the sane thing would be to just trash the simile

Perhaps it would, Father. Its his simile. My view is that how the bread and body are somehow united is the fact that Christ used bread. He says this [the "this’ is the bread]
is my body. He doesn’t say mixed with, consubstantiated with, or even transubstantiated. He say it is. That’s all

And the same is true of the incarnation, yet I would be very surprised if Diekmann has a problem with the use of ousia/homoousious in the Nicene Creed. Transubstantiation has never been an explanation of how the Eucharist comes into being.

And neither is SU. In fact, there are those who see the two as not necessarily Church dividing:

The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

But why, exactly? And why was it OK to dogmatise philosophical language in 325, yet not so in 1215?
Why, exactly, doesn’t CA, when Lutherans can accept the 325 AD language. Rome’s dogmatic language is their’s, and I’m one Lutheran that doesn’t have a problem with it. But 1215 AD didn’t speak for all of the Church. Perhaps a full truly ecumenical council might change my mind.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Perhaps it would, Father. Its his simile. My view is that how the bread and body are somehow unite

But why, exactly? And why was it OK to dogmatise philosophical language in 325, yet not so

in 1215?

Do you think the Holy Spirit was not guiding the Church in 1215 in response to a heresy?

And if you claim to be a valid continuation of the western church…why cannot you accept what happened in 1215?

 

[pablope]

But that wasn’t what was said in the article you cited. Scott Diekmann, the author of the article, made an explicit simile between the unity of the bread and the body of Christ, the wine and the blood of Christ: “Just as Christ’s unchanged human and divine natures are inseparably united, so the natural bread and Christ’s true natural body are united (likewise the wine and the blood).” Unless there is a subject that keeps these united, and takes on their natures (that is, becomes the subject both of the bread/wine and the body/blood of Christ), then that simile fails. If Diekmann wants to hold on to this simile – that the bread/wine and the body/blood of Christ is united just as “Christ’s unchanged human and divine natures are inseparably united” – then he must either affirm impanation or say that someone or something else than Christ is the subject of Christ’s body and blood. (At least as long as the sacrament is in existence.)

Of course the sane thing would be to just trash the simile.

And the same is true of the incarnation, yet I would be very surprised if Diekmann has a problem with the use of ousia/homoousious in the Nicene Creed. Transubstantiation has never been an explanation of how the Eucharist comes into being.

But why, exactly? And why was it OK to dogmatise philosophical language in 325, yet not so in 1215?

A history question, Father k…what was the reasoning or impetus behind SU?

Was it because some lutherans did not like transub? Animosity towards the roman church? The pope?

 

[JonNC]

pablope:
Do you think the Holy Spirit was not guiding the Church in 1215 in response to a heresy?

And if you claim to be a valid continuation of the western church…why cannot you accept what happened in 1215?

Hi Pablope,
If you read what I’ve said, I’ve said that I recognize the reasons for the CC’s use of Transubstantiation, and I do not disapprove of it. I believe that Transub. can be understood as expressing the truth of the doctrine of the real presence. What I disapprove of is setting a dogma without an ecumenical council.
So, I can accept the use of the teaching, even if it isn’t the expression my tradition uses.

Jon