S
steido01
Guest
:bigyikes:
I don’t know anything about Koehler, but here’s hoping he left our Synod at Seminex!
- Status
I don’t know anything about Koehler, but here’s hoping he left our Synod at Seminex!
D
dcointin
Guest
He taught at my alma mater! His book “A Summary of Christian Doctrine” was first written in 1952.
“Edward W. A. Koehler (1875–1951) was a faculty member at Concordia Teachers College in River Forest, Illinois, from 1909 to 1951.”
logos.com/product/21073/a-summary-of-christian-doctrine
“Edward W. A. Koehler (1875–1951) was a faculty member at Concordia Teachers College in River Forest, Illinois, from 1909 to 1951.”
logos.com/product/21073/a-summary-of-christian-doctrine
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
I don’t know about Koehler either but the book was written in 1952; approximately 30 years before the Missouri Synod purged the seminaries. It is offensive to me that you mention Seminex [Christ Seminary] in a detrimental way. I must remind you that it was the “Catholics” who left Concordia Seminary and one of the reasons the LCMS struggles to this day with heresy concerning the Real Presence!
S
steido01
Guest
I apologize for the perceived slight. I wasn’t referring to Seminex detrimentally, necessarily; I was simply acknowledging the fact that many unorthodox Lutherans left the LCMS because of it. My initial impression of the author was that he was similarly unorthodox (his views on the Sacrament are in contradiction with Lutheran teaching, after all). In any case, it’s anachronistic; the author was obviously writing well before that time.
I vehemently disagree. The LCMS is decidedly more catholic when it comes to doctrine and practice; namely, combating the heresies of female clergy, defending the life of the unborn and maintaining Christian viewpoints on homosexual issues, to name a few. It’s also worth noting that the LCMS is not the Synod which shares full fellowship with Reformed churches (which deny the Real Presence altogether) or ecclesiastical bodies that commune the non-baptized or animals - it seems defending the Real Presence is a pan-denominational issue.I must remind you that it was the “Catholics” who left Concordia Seminary and one of the reasons the LCMS struggles to this day with heresy concerning the Real Presence!
B
benjohnson
Guest
The LCMS has all sorts of issues!
But… it’s doesn’t have this:
I think men are longing for a return to the Goddess and want their worship to be focused on Her. –Steve
I am so very grateful for and excited about what your church is doing! Bringing the Goddess deeper into my life will help heal my pent up anger … and to resolve my feelings of despise toward the “male God” figure I was brought up with. – Mary
I minored in religion at college and have a great interest in all religions. I have been a feminist since 1972 and find patriarchal language at church to be very offensive. I look forward to reciving the rosary. - Mary
From ELCA Herchurch herchurch.org/id8.html
http://www.herchurch.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/mural.jpg.w180h713.jpg
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Frankly, I don’t think any Missouri Synod Lutheran has credibility on issues that they probably know nothing of concerning the Concordia Seminary crisis; the seminary I attended and left with nearly all students and facility to form Seminex in the 1970’s.
The LCMS makes up less than 10% of all Lutherans worldwide and continues to see membership declines like all Christian denominations.
To suggest that the LCMS is the most “catholic” of Lutherans is ludicrous and highly misinformed. The issue to “Receptionism” is essentially a Missouri Synod heresy and reflects the anti-Lutheran stance of the Synod. The church growth movement toward Protestantism is also mainly a LCMS problem.
Unlike the overwhelming bulk of Lutherans, the Missouri Synod does not have episcopacy and apostolic succession. The LCMS left the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue and did not endorse the Joint Declaration on Justification. Nearly all the ecumenical work by Lutherans with Anglicans and Catholics was without the LCMS. The list goes on!
I am a cradle Lutheran from the Missouri Synod, went to its schools and was planning to enter the ministry in the Synod. That all changed when the Missouri Synod took on an isolationism and became the most Protestant of nearly all Lutherans.
The LCMS makes up less than 10% of all Lutherans worldwide and continues to see membership declines like all Christian denominations.
To suggest that the LCMS is the most “catholic” of Lutherans is ludicrous and highly misinformed. The issue to “Receptionism” is essentially a Missouri Synod heresy and reflects the anti-Lutheran stance of the Synod. The church growth movement toward Protestantism is also mainly a LCMS problem.
Unlike the overwhelming bulk of Lutherans, the Missouri Synod does not have episcopacy and apostolic succession. The LCMS left the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue and did not endorse the Joint Declaration on Justification. Nearly all the ecumenical work by Lutherans with Anglicans and Catholics was without the LCMS. The list goes on!
I am a cradle Lutheran from the Missouri Synod, went to its schools and was planning to enter the ministry in the Synod. That all changed when the Missouri Synod took on an isolationism and became the most Protestant of nearly all Lutherans.
B
benjohnson
Guest
If you’re happy to commune with pagan goddess worshipers, I’ll take any insult you can give me and call it a blessing as a reminder of what I could have wound up had I not taken off the blinders when it came to the ELCA.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Do you want me to post photos and articles about LCMS parishes that look and worship like Baptists? That throw the holy Elements into the trash can? It’s ironic that I posted photos of Missouri Synod parishes with tabernacles just to show that there are indeed ‘catholics’ in your Synod. Perhaps I should stop being cordial and really try to embarrass you and the other LCMS Lutherans!
The hypocrisy and self-righteousness of some Lutherans is very troubling.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Speaking as someone from a Church broad enough to have many of the problems mentioned thus far, I think it’s fair to say that while one Lutheran body may tend towards one particular error, we are all suffering from a collapse in the doctrinal integrity of the Western Church in general. We have reached a critical mass of clergy who are not only heterodox, but don’t really believe in doctrine at all…
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Jon
You are a forum elder who is highly respected on CAF. You welcomed me to the forum even though I am a member of a different Lutheran synod and for that I am deeply grateful.
At times, I become very discouraged by posters who distort blessed Martin Luther or attack the Lutheran faith. But it is very frustrating when fellow Lutherans feel justified in castigating other Lutherans in an unprovoked and deliberate manner that only creates conflict and hurt feelings.
I can ignore and not challenge posters like Don and Ben [who actually worships in an ELCA parish], get nasty and produce examples of embarrassing Missouri Synod parishes or just quit the forum altogether.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
I think your belief is a possible interpretation of the phrase extra usum, but I don’t think it is consistent with what the FOC says. Again, the FOC authoritatively states,
Accordingly, with heart and mouth we reject and condemn as false, erroneous, and misleading all errors which are not in accordance with, but contrary and opposed to, the doctrine above mentioned and founded upon God’s Word, such as…
The papistic transubstantiation, when it is taught that… the body of Christ is present even apart from the administration of the Holy Supper, when the bread is enclosed in the pyx…
-Solid Declaration of the FOC vii.107-108
Maybe I’m missing something, but I’m having a hard time understanding how an explicit denial that the real presence lasts when the host is carried out in a pyx for communion of the sick after a service is reconcilable with a belief that the real presence endures after the service until the reception by the sick (as you, Ben Johnson and Jon believe). Remember, the FOC is not talking about reserving the Sacrament for display in monstrance or adoration here (it mentions that afterward). A pyx is simply a container used to carry the Eucharist to the sick, i.e. for “eating and drinking.” The FOC, therefore, cannot have reception outside the service in mind as being part of the usus a Christo institutus. Does anyone disagree with my reading of the Formula of Concord on this point? If so, what basis is there in the words of this passage for an alternative reading?
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
We should qualify what is meant by “Eucharistic Adoration” first. Presumably, what Luther was not opposed to was to reverence the sacrament with latria such as the common practice of thinking, “my Lord and my God,” at consecration. This is certainly adoration of the Eucharist, but not what is commonly called “eucharistic adoration.” Luther was probably opposed to eucharistic processions and placing the host in a monstrance for adoration. If not, I would be interested to see writings stating otherwise. That would be a useful fact to remember.
My source for Luther’s rule to consume all elements during a single service is from his directions to Wolferinus, which you brought up earlier.
Therefore we shall define the time or the sacramental action in this way: that it starts with the beginning of the [Words of Institution] and lasts until all have communicated, have emptied the chalice, have consumed the Hosts, until the people have been dismissed and [the priest] has left the altar. In this way we shall be safe and free from the scruples and scandals of such endless questions. Dr. Philip [Melanchthon] defines the sacramental action in relation to what is outside it, that is, against reservation of and processions with the Sacrament; he does not split it up within [the action] itself, nor does he define it in such a way that it contradicts itself. Therefore see to it that if anything is left over of the Sacrament, either some communicants or the priest himself and his assistant receive it, so that it is not only a curate or someone else who drinks what is left over in the chalice, but that he gives it to the others who were also participants in the Body [of Christ], so that you do not appear to divide the Sacrament by a bad example or to treat the sacramental action irreverently. This is my opinion, and I know that it is also Philip’s opinion.
lutheranwiki.org/How_Long_are_Christ’s_Body_and_Blood_Present_in_the_Consecrated_Bread_and_the_Wine_of_Communion%3F#The_Confessions
Perhaps this thread is an example of what Luther had in mind.
The LCMS’s directives for communion of the sick, true, do not explicitly say that reconsecration is “necessary.” However, they do say, “Such worship is to be a miniature of the congregational Communion service, with… consecration…” Now, if the formerly consecrated bread was truly the Body of Christ, it would be sacrilege to reconsecrate it. This would be exactly like rebaptism. The Lutheran defense I have heard is that, because Lutherans insist strongly on the point that consecration is an effect of the Word pronounced by Christ, it is important for the communicant to hear the words of institution. However, if this were so, wouldn’t that be just as devastating an argument against infant baptism. How can Christians have assurance in their baptism, which is effected by the word of Christ, when they cannot remember the baptismal words pronounced in their infancies? Perhaps some thing just need to be taken on faith. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.
As for your proposal that the Lutheran confessions do not seek to define the duration of the real presence on way or another, I do not (for now) think this is a tenable reading of the FOC. Remember our discussion earlier about the confessional Lutheran view of transubstantiation? You said that Lutherans simply wish not to define “how the change occurs” (which, I would argue, is not an accurate representation of the doctrine of transubstantiation). However, a careful examination of the FOC condemns the belief that the bread does not retain its natural essence as a “diabolical, popetastical fiction.” I think this might be another one of those cases.
I found some Lutheran blog posts about this subject and its historical context, which had some interesting information. The author claims that Melanchthon was a receptionist, for instance. I’ll post some links later when I’m finished reading them.
O
Oldtimer_7
Guest
This post affected me in a peculiar way last Sunday. I was on the way to church last Sunday morning and wrecked on black ice. I had the bread I had baked for Holy Communion and a communion kit I had not returned from the previous Sunday. As I was picking things off the ground, I found the communion kit had come open and some hosts were lying on the ground. After a moment’s reflection, I picked them up and ate them, as they had been consecrated. The bread had not and we had some of it with dinner last night. My conscience us clear on both counts, and if I have sinned, I know I only have to ask forgiveness.
What I did have a concern about was that the glasses for the wine were also on the ground and they look remarkably like shot glasses. I hoped that none of the law enforcement officers noticed as I scooped them up. We live in a very Protestant area and the explanation would have been tedious.
What I did have a concern about was that the glasses for the wine were also on the ground and they look remarkably like shot glasses. I hoped that none of the law enforcement officers noticed as I scooped them up. We live in a very Protestant area and the explanation would have been tedious.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Receptionism is basically a Protestant watering down of the Real Presence that has found followers in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Lutherans, in general, do not define the Real Presence as only during the act of receiving.
B
benjohnson
Guest
That’s awesome to hear! If it’s ok, can I share your story with others in my church?
O
Oldtimer_7
Guest
No problem, Ben. Share if you will.
B
bogeydogg
Guest
OK I have not read all the way through but I want to comment here. What Lutheran Churches do not do, at least within my Synod, is have a reliquary. That is those elements of the Sacrament that have been blessed are not blended with those that are not, and the blessed wine is not poured in with the unblessed wine so that no elements will be blessed twice and so create confusion as to whether or not the elements once blessed were blessed enough. To accomplish this our priest eats and drinks all the remaining elements at the altar because Christ was totally consumed on the Cross. However, if those elements had not been consumed they would continue to be the body and blood under and with the elements of bread and wine. Which is why in our Church we genuflect toward the Altar because Christ is REALLY present on the Altar.
As for the sick and shut ins our priest takes a small amount of the elements and delivers a short homily and blesses the elements there and communes the sick and the shut ins there so that nothing is left over. But the purpose of this is not because the blessing may wear off but because the desire is that the holy will not be profaned by being placed with the common.
God Bless
B
bogeydogg
Guest
My priest will pick up dropped wafers and drink spilled wine off the Altar because nothing of Christ is ever to left to sopped up or swept away because the holy is always holy. Period.
B
bogeydogg
Guest
OK first off Luther cut the knot about transubstantiation. There is no formula taught about trans or con substantiation in my synod (which is not WELS/LCMS/ELCA btw) but that since Christ has spoken these elements to be His Body and Blood they therefore are. The Lord has spoken and thus it is so.
So do not mix teaching against transubstantiation (which Lutherans do not teach) with teachings about the actual presence (which Lutherans do teach). So what is being said in 107-108 in the FOC is that those elements in the pyx which have not been blessed on the Altar are not the Body and the Blood. That is what they mean when they are speaking of those elements being apart from the Sacrament. They don’t mean once they are carried out the Church the blessed elements cease to be the Body and Blood they mean that simply adding more elements to the blessed elements apart from the Sacrament does not automatically make those elements also blessed.
In other words it the words of institution spoken by Christ that makes the Sacrament the Sacrament not the mere presence of bread and wine. But no orthodox Lutheran that I know of (and again my Synod is small) would teach that once consecrated the elements lose their blessing or cease to be holy because they have left the building of the Church.
- Status