Lutherans and "Receptionism"

[pablope]

N

Quote:
And finally, that Lutherans are directed to show reverence to the consecrated elements after the service does not imply a belief in Christ’s presence since the FOC likens the duration of the sacrament to the duration of baptismal water, which anyone would agree is not a sacrament outside the immediate rite of baptism. The reserved consecrated elements need only be venerated on account of their association with the Holy Supper, not because they remain Christ’s body and blood. After all, we show reverence to church buildings, but we do not think that these are God and show them the adoration due to God alone.

But…isn’t this the job of the Church…to define and give direction? If the Church has given the direction that it endures once consecrated…and Tradition bears this…so why still the doubt?

 

[JonNC]

But…isn’t this the job of the Church…to define and give direction? If the Church has given the direction that it endures once consecrated…and Tradition bears this…so why still the doubt?

I, personally, have no doubt. The Church responds to the teachings of Christ, and He doesn’t reveal to us how to deal with the reliquae. The best option is to assume it remains Christ’s body and blood, and respond accordingly, either by consuming all, or reserving the reliquae.

Jon

 

[pablope]

I, personally, have no doubt.

Good for you Jon.

But do all Lutherans share your belief? Or there is wide variety, as is apparent from this thread?

The Church responds to the teachings of Christ,

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;11643819

Good for you Jon.

But do all Lutherans share your belief? Or there is wide variety, as is apparent from this thread?

What I do know that all well catechized Lutherans believe is that the reliquae should be treated with reverence and care. The LCMS has specific practices set out for this very purpose.

Well…sure they do…both east and west…but if you are one with both…should not Lutherans respond the same way regarding the teaching on the Eucharist and there is no need to quibble on the consecrated host remaining consecrated?

Is my understanding correct that Orthodoxy does not reserve the sacrament, that they do not practice Eucharistic Adoration outside liturgy? If I am correct, this indicates that there are, indeed, differing practices within the Church Catholic. As for a quibble, the history of the concern regarding it is in the perceived abuses of the reliquae in the Church at the time of the Reformation. Current dialogue between our communions has addressed the issue, and I don’t believe it would be one that is, in the future, Church dividing.

Do you mean to say Christ has failed to guide the Church in this regard?

Of course not. You know me better than that. But no where in scripture are instructions provided for handling what is left over. That leaves it to the Church to make reverent and appropriate decisions.

Well…that begs the question…how do you know Christ did not? Does not the Tradition of both East and West, in their practices, indicate that Christ did show this?

Sure.

And as I mentioned, this is the job of Church to define this…if let us say Lutherans have not defined this…then the Lutheran church has failed to do its duty in this regard?

As I responded above, the LCMS has provided guiidelines and practices in this regard, but if they do not, then yes, I would consider that a failure to provide the appropriate leadership the Church is expected to provide.

Jon

 

[andrewstx]

What I do know that all well catechized Lutherans believe is that the reliquae should be treated with reverence and care. The LCMS has specific practices set out for this very purpose.

Is my understanding correct that Orthodoxy does not reserve the sacrament, that they do not practice Eucharistic Adoration outside liturgy? If I am correct, this indicates that there are, indeed, differing practices within the Church Catholic. As for a quibble, the history of the concern regarding it is in the perceived abuses of the reliquae in the Church at the time of the Reformation. Current dialogue between our communions has addressed the issue, and I don’t believe it would be one that is, in the future, Church dividing.

Of course not. You know me better than that. But no where in scripture are instructions provided for handling what is left over. That leaves it to the Church to make reverent and appropriate decisions.

Sure.

As I responded above, the LCMS has provided guiidelines and practices in this regard, but if they do not, then yes, I would consider that a failure to provide the appropriate leadership the Church is expected to provide.

Jon

Jon, actually every Orthodox church has a tabernacle where the Holy Gifts are reserved to give to the sick. On Wednesdays during Great Lent Holy Communion is given to the congregation in the Liturgy of the Presanctified.

But we do not have benediction. But we do prostrate our selves before the Holy Gifts.

Question? Where do Lutherans store the reserved sacrament? I have never seen a tabernacle in a Lutheran church. But OTOH I have never seen a Lutheran church without a sanctuary lamp.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, actually every Orthodox church has a tabernacle where the Holy Gifts are reserved to give to the sick. On Wednesdays during Great Lent Holy Communion is given to the congregation in the Liturgy of the Presanctified.

But we do not have benediction. But we do prostrate our selves before the Holy Gifts.

Question? Where do Lutherans store the reserved sacrament? I have never seen a tabernacle in a Lutheran church. But OTOH I have never seen a Lutheran church without a sanctuary lamp.

Thanks for the information. I was more speaking of reservation of the sacrament for Eucharistic Adoration after worship. But yes, Lutherans also reserve for later distribution to the sick and shut-in.

Reliquae, when there is some, is normally kept in an awbrey or pyx, or like vessel, kept separate from the unconsecrated, and usually in the Sacristy.

Jon

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Jon, we will have to disagree about what the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord says Keep in mind, I am trying to read what that document says rather than Luther or any other individual theologians, which I acknowledge may be at variance. I still can’t agree with you that the Formula of Concord is not saying a great deal more about the Lord’s Supper than you are saying it is saying. Nevertheless, I am happy because I prefer your teaching than what I perceive the Formula of Concord to be teaching.

And I would like to return Ben Johnson’s remarks, and thank you and the other Lutherans on this forum for putting up with us sophistical papists.

I agree that if your were to look at the confessions by themselves that it looks like we Lutherans are playing at the same word-smithing that we pretend makes us so upset with the Catholic Dogma of Transubstantiation.

However, we Lutheran hold that the confessions are a right reflection of scripture - so form a Lutheran standpoint if our understanding of the confessions leads us to anything but “This is my Body.” then the problem would be in our understanding of the confessions.

We also have to consider that the Confesions are instructive - limited to logical and rational words. And as well written at the books are, there are mere vague whispers as to what it really going on in Communion.

…

Perhaps In order to bolster by assertion that Lutherans understand that this is a Mystery - if you look at the historical debate within Lutheranism about the Body and Blood, it’s typically about timing and cessation and not about ‘what.’ The ‘what’ is as He instructed.

I agree that the most important this is the reality of the statement “This is my body,” but it is still problematic if we cannot agree on the particulars, timing especially. Should we give latria to the sacrament after consecration, at reception or not at all? Do the leftovers sacrament remain the Body of Christ after the communion of the faithful, or is it merely consecrated bread. It is enough to say that we ought to treat the elements respectfully, but to what degree? If the former, we should offer the respect of latria, and if the latter, with lesser respect. These are important questions that cannot be left to mere speculation. Furthermore, if we take receptionism in the strictest sense, it would seem to differ very little from Calvinism since all we could say about Christ’s presence is that we receive Him.

 

[benjohnson]

J
I agree that the most important this is the reality of the statement “This is my body,” but it is still problematic if we cannot agree on the particulars, timing especially.

While historically Lutherans have gone through a period of debate about the subject - as I understand it, it’s quite settled. And should be settled as Christ didn’t say “This is my body - for a few moments.”

We’re stil debating infant communion, and sadly, some of Lutheran synods are debating if baptism is necessary before communion.

Frankly, we did go through a recent period of trying not to look too Catholic and some of the lax treatment of the Body and Blood have probably stemmed for this.

If anything, I urge Catholics not to follow our mistake : I’ve seen signs of the ‘church growth’ movement in the Catholic church here in the Pacific N.W.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Jon, actually every Orthodox church has a tabernacle where the Holy Gifts are reserved to give to the sick. On Wednesdays during Great Lent Holy Communion is given to the congregation in the Liturgy of the Presanctified.

But we do not have benediction. But we do prostrate our selves before the Holy Gifts.

Question? Where do Lutherans store the reserved sacrament? I have never seen a tabernacle in a Lutheran church. But OTOH I have never seen a Lutheran church without a sanctuary lamp.

There are photos of tabernacles in Lutheran churches on the first page of this discussion. I have never seen a Lutheran pastor prostrate before the Sacrament but in some ordinations and on Good Friday prostration is done, especially in Europe.

 

[JonNC]

=QNDNNDQDCE;11648373]Jon, we will have to disagree about what the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord says Keep in mind, I am trying to read what that document says rather than Luther or any other individual theologians, which I acknowledge may be at variance. I still can’t agree with you that the Formula of Concord is not saying a great deal more about the Lord’s Supper than you are saying it is saying. Nevertheless, I am happy because I prefer your teaching than what I perceive the Formula of Concord to be teaching.

I understand. I would encourage you to keep in mind the Lutheran understanding of what is said, just like non-Catholics should always interpret Catholic teachings based on what Catholics say. I also want to express my appreciation for the charitable way you approach discussions such as this.

I agree that the most important this is the reality of the statement “This is my body,” but it is still problematic if we cannot agree on the particulars, timing especially

The dialogues between our communions have spoken on these issues, and there seems, more and more, that that are not objects that divide.

Should we give latria to the sacrament after consecration, at reception or not at all?

At all times.

Do the leftovers sacrament remain the Body of Christ after the communion of the faithful, or is it merely consecrated bread. It is enough to say that we ought to treat the elements respectfully, but to what degree?

To every degree possible.

Jon

 

[pablope]

What I do know that all well catechized Lutherans believe is that the reliquae should be treated with reverence and care. The LCMS has specific practices set out for this very purpose.

Is my understanding correct that Orthodoxy does not reserve the sacrament, that they do not practice Eucharistic Adoration outside liturgy? If I am correct, this indicates that there are, indeed, differing practices within the Church Catholic.

 

[JonNC]

Of course. Now, specific practices may vary, as “reverent and appropriate” is not necessarily limited to one approach.

Jon

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Question? Where do Lutherans store the reserved sacrament? I have never seen a tabernacle in a Lutheran church. But OTOH I have never seen a Lutheran church without a sanctuary lamp.

Lutherans traditionally do not reserve the Sacrament. Lutheran opinion about the duration of the real presence varied radically between individuals and you could find statements from Luther himself that perhaps showed an inconsistency in his position through his career. Lutheran opinions could be broadly classified by two criteria, which both pertain to the rule nihil habet rationem sacramenti extra usum a Christo institutum. The first is whether the real presence is confined to the reception of the sacrament (receptionism), or whether the sacramental act included the service from the words of institution to communion (“consecrationism”). The second is whether the real presence endures after the service (durationism), or whether the real presence ceases after communion because the sacramental act is confined only to the communion service (cessationism). All this debate really goes back to that little Latin rule because its all a debate about what the sacramental usage is. There was a Lutheran quotation earlier that said that if the consecrated host falls to the ground, Christ has not been dropped (because dropping the Lord’s Supper is not part of the sacramental use). On the other hand, the consecrationist camp will ascribe the root of the real presence to the words of institution.

Because of these controversies, the Lutherans agreed that they should not reserve the sacrament at all. This would put an end to divisions about whether the real presence endured after the service (besides, reservation is what those stupid Papists did ). Luther sums up his view in his response to the Wolferinus controversy (Wolferinus had mixed consecrated and unconsecrated elements together).

Therefore, we shall define the time of the sacramental action in this way: that it starts with the [words of consecration] 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.

Read more in this blog post: gottesdienstonline.blogspot.com/2009/08/duration-of-presence-luthers-wolferinus.html

You can see in this incident how Luther was in conflict with Melanchthon on this point, and was trying to make a compromise and reconcile Melancthon’s views (which were cessationist at the least) even to the point of putting words in his mouth, as the author notes. Again, this is all rooted in disagreements of what the “use instituted by Christ” consisted of.

This is why Lutherans do not traditionally have tabernacles. However, they are probably becoming more common today as certain Lutherans of more durationist sensibilities are moving past the polemics of the Reformation and reclaiming lost Catholic practices. Dr. Burnell Eckhardt (pastor of St. Paul’s Evangelical-Lutheran Church in Kewanee, Illinois, and a contributor to the blog) is one of these and if you look in the comments, you will see that this practice remains very controversial today. Dr. Eckhardt posted under the handle “Fr BFE.”

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

While historically Lutherans have gone through a period of debate about the subject - as I understand it, it’s quite settled. And should be settled as Christ didn’t say “This is my body - for a few moments.”

We’re stil debating infant communion, and sadly, some of Lutheran synods are debating if baptism is necessary before communion.

Frankly, we did go through a recent period of trying not to look too Catholic and some of the lax treatment of the Body and Blood have probably stemmed for this.

If anything, I urge Catholics not to follow our mistake : I’ve seen signs of the ‘church growth’ movement in the Catholic church here in the Pacific N.W.

From my reading, it appears to be a consensus among Lutherans that receptionism is the historic doctrine of the LCMS (and I think the mainstream position in American Lutheranism as a whole). Has the LCMS, WELS or ELCA or any other Lutheran group ever officially spoken in a definitive manner on this question? The most explicit statement I have found so far is from the WELS, which leaves the duration of Christ’s presence beyond reception a totally open question.

While we cannot fix from Scripture the point within the sacramental usus when the real presence of Christ’s body and blood begins, we know from Scripture and acknowledge in the Confessions that what is distributed and received is the body and blood of Christ.
wels.net/about-wels/doctrinal-statements/lords-supper

Basically, although it defines the “usus” (or “use” if we do not insist on inappropriate Latinisms) as encompassing consecration, distribution and reception, and states that Christ is present “during the usus,” it clarifies that it cannot be known whether Christ is present throughout the entire “usus” or only at the time of distribution and reception.

As for infant communion, oughtn’t Lutherans practice it? Christ after all said, “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.” My understanding is that infant communion was only suppressed in the West because the cup ceased to be administered to the laity because it is difficult to feed bread to unweaned infants. What reason do Lutherans have to not commune infants then?

I understand. I would encourage you to keep in mind the Lutheran understanding of what is said, just like non-Catholics should always interpret Catholic teachings based on what Catholics say. I also want to express my appreciation for the charitable way you approach discussions such as this.

Thanks. I appreciate dialoging with those who do not turn every discussion into polemics. I also think it is wise to be charitable about interpreting other’s beliefs according to how they teach them (e.g. not insisting that Lutherans have a Manichaean concept of original sin when the Formula of Concord explicitly rejects that their belief is Manichaean) unless there is compelling reason to believe they are mistaken. However, I think that the highest norm for interpreting a historic document like the Formula of Concord is the text of the document itself and the historical context. Since (a) cessationism was a widely-held position in the Lutheranism contemporary to the document and seems the position of Chemnitz, and (b) cessationism appears to be clearly taught in the Formula of Concord, it is hard for me to agree that the Formula of Concord does not teach cessationism. Similarly, since (a) Lutheranism contemporary to the Formula of Concord rejected transubstantiation, and (b) the Formula of Concord explicitly teaches in many places that the body of Christ is united to the “unchanged essence of the bread” (SDFC 7.35) and similar expressions in opposition to the doctrine of transubstantiation, it is hard for me to agree that the Formula of Concord is saying that “we don’t know how Christ is presence” and is not teaching a very specific doctrine that could rightly be called consubstantiation.

This is not to say that I would hold JonNC or any other Lutheran to either cessationsm or consubstantiation. On the contrary I am glad if you agree with us on the duration of the real presence and, while only admitting that transubstantiation is only one possible theory, believe that sacramental union is not opposed to transubstantiation. However, as long as Lutherans continue to hold the Book of Concord (and therefore, the SDFC) as a faithful exposition of their doctrine, it is not unfair to take what the SDFC teaches as official Lutheran doctrine.

One final question on your reading of the Formula of Concord. If it stated, “we teach that the substance of Christ is united to the substance of the bread,” would you say that the FOC is teaching consubstantiation or at least something “metaphysical” that is opposed to transubstantiation? I am trying to understand whether your position is more along the lines of (1) we know from the outset that the Formula of Concord is only trying to affirm the Real Presence, so no matter explanation it gives, it means no more than that Christ is substantially present, or of (2) the Formula of Concord does not clearly teach that the substance of Christ’s body is present together with the substance of the bread.

If you are interested in pursuing this topic further, Chemnitz wrote an “Examination of the Council of Trent,” which might shed some more light on his own positions. This might be helpful for interpreting the Formula of Concord, of which I understand Chemnitz was the principal author, but if you think the text of the Formula of Concord is unclear on the two questions I brought up (whereas I think it could not be more clear), then it would probably not be helpful. In either case, here is the Latin text.

archive.org/details/Chemnitz_Examen_1573

 

[bogeydogg]

I think the Formula is saying something dogmatic and not metaphysical. We take Christ at His word and stop there. There is no need to explain how it is that Christ is joined to the bread and wine, it is only necessary to believe that He is joined to the bread and wine. This joining, the sacramental union, endures because what God has spoken He creates, and there is nothing in Scripture to make us think it would be otherwise. Perhaps Chemnitz was a cessationist I don’t know, but I’m not and it is certainly not what I have been taught by faithful Lutheran ministers who roundly reject cessationism and receptionism and do not blush to teach Christian Doctrine from the pen of Chemnitz.

I think you are seeing what you want to see. You, being Catholic, can only envision a Sacramental union via transubstantiation and so you think that those who deny must fall into one of the Calvinist camps, but we just don’t. You see this because you only see with Roman Catholic eyes, and I am not trying to insult you or lay the charge of sophistry at your feet, I am simply saying you are not seeing things clearly because you cannot see things clearly.

But, you are also insisting on thrusting categories upon us which do not fit/apply, and we keep answering the same questions with the same answers from the same documents interpreted the same way, and you keep saying that its all well and good but we haven’t answered you fully enough, or perhaps we have failed to articulate a doctrine of transubstantiation.

We are dogmatics, and as such feel no need to formulate a rationalized explanation for a miracle. We just accept simply that Christ has spoken and He has not lied. That is enough.

God Bless

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I am not sure what you mean when you say, “You, being Catholic, can only envision a Sacramental union via transubstantiation and so you think that those who deny must fall into one of the Calvinist camps.” I certainly don’t believe that Lutherans hold to a Calvinistic doctrine. Even the Lutheran who believes that the real presence is confined only to reception in the most minimal duration possible believes that all who receive, regardless of faith or personal worthiness, receive the Body of Christ. The Formula of Concord states that the body and blood Christ are essentially present in the Lord’s Supper so it is impossible to spiritualize away the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence. However, while the sacramental union taught by the Formula of Concord is definitely not the Calvinist doctrine, it is not transubstantiation either, which teaches that the substances of bread and wine are converted into the body and blood of Christ. The doctrine of sacramental union is that the substance of the bread and the substance of Christ’s body are in some way united together. Now, I don’t think it is possible to maintain that the Council of Trent is speaking “metaphysically” and that the Formula of Concord is not speaking “metaphysically” since the Formula of Concord uses the same metaphysical terms of substance and essence and not just in a negative sense, but in a positive formulation of the Lutheran doctrine. I have not forced any categories onto the Formula of Concord which it did not explicitly take up for itself. Nor do I think it is possible to say that Lutherans confine themselves to the words of Christ, “this is my body,” since Lutherans hold additional beliefs about the Lord’s Supper, such as that the essence of the bread remains (something Christ did not state) or that Christ is not present in a “local” manner (which, while agreement with Catholic teaching, is not something Christ stated in the Gospel accounts and cannot be concluded except by philosophical argument).

Now it is true that I have not accepted the reading that the Formula of Concord’s “sacramental union” is not a form of consubstantiation. I do not see any other alternative since it explicitly states that the substance of Christ’s body is present with the substance of the bread. Regardless of whatever mode Christ is present by, this is the very definition of consubstantiation. The only way to get around this as far as I can see is to say that “substance” and “essence” when used of the bread do not have their common metaphysical definitions, but I don’t think this is possible without throwing the real presence into question, since these are the same terms they use to establish the real presence of Christ. Another thing would be to say that the Formula of Concord teaches consubstantiation, but that Lutherans are only bound to the Formula of Concord as far as (quatenus ) it is affirming the Real Presence and not the particular way in which it explains the real presence. That is close to what I think Jon was trying to say and I certainly couldn’t argue against that because it is up to the Lutherans to decide what authority they ascribe to their own confessions.

 

[bogeydogg]

From the solid declaration of the FOC

20] Dr. Luther has also more amply expounded and confirmed this opinion from God’s Word in the Large Catechism, where it is written: What, then, is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine, which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. 21] And shortly after: It is the ‘Word,’ I say, which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called. the body and blood of Christ. 22] Again: With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ? I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. Now, here stands the Word of Christ: “Take, eat; this is My body. Drink ye all of this; this is the new testament in My blood,” etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken.

35] For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also the forms: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread [the body of Christ is present and offered], are employed, is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated; 36] just as the expression, Verbum caro factum est, The Word was made flesh John 1:14 ], is repeated and explained by the equivalent expressions: The Word dwelt among us; likewise Col 2:9 ]: In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; likewise Acts 10:38 ]: God was with Him; likewise 2 Cor. 5:19 ]: God was in Christ, and the like; namely, that the divine essence is not changed into the human nature, but the two natures, unchanged, are personally united. [These phrases repeat and declare the expression of John, above mentioned, namely, that by the incarnation the divine essence is not changed into the human nature, but that the two natures without confusion are personally united.] 37] Even as many eminent ancient teachers, Justin, Cyprian, Augustine, Leo, Gelasius, Chrysostom and others, use this simile concerning the words of Christ’s testament: This is My body, that just as in Christ two distinct, unchanged natures are inseparably united, so in the Holy Supper the two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth in the appointed administration of the Sacrament. 38] Although this union of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine is not a personal union, as that of the two natures in Christ, but as Dr. Luther and our theologians, in the frequently mentioned Articles of Agreement [Formula of Concord] in the year 1536 and in other places call it sacramentatem unionem, that is, a sacramental union, by which they wish to indicate that, although they also employ the formas: in pane, sub pane, cum pane, that is, these distinctive modes of speech: in the bread, under the bread, with the bread, yet they have received the words of Christ properly and as they read, and have understood the proposition, that is, the words of Christ’s testament: Hoc est corpus meum, This is My body, not as a figuratam propositionem, but inusitatam (that is, not as a figurative, allegorical expression or comment, but as an unusual expression). 39] For thus Justin says: This we receive not as common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ, our Savior, through the Word of God became flesh, and on account of our salvation also had flesh and blood, so we believe that the food blessed by Him through the Word and prayer is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. 40] Likewise Dr. Luther also in his Large and especially in his last Confession concerning the Lord’s Supper with great earnestness and zeal defends the very form of expression which Christ used at the first Supper.

This is what I mean by dogmatism. That we use metaphysical terms in the affirmative because they give use a framework of language so that we may know what we are talking about, but it is the fine points of meaning in the words about which is the controversy.

 

[bogeydogg]

And when I say you see this controversy only as a Catholic I mean in the same way I see it as Lutheran. Augustine argued we are not what we are, but rather everything we were cobbled together unto this point so that what we are is in fact the sum of our experiences and beliefs up to this point. So I cannot help but see this question apart from all my existential baggage I bring with me.

And neither can you.

And I mean no insult in this at all and I do not “poison in jest”. All I am saying is that there is no pure point of view and your insistence that the mere presence of metaphysical terms demands a metaphysical construct, I think, speaks more to long conditioning of believing in metaphysical constructs concerning the Supper than what the FOC is actually teaching.

That is what I mean I by forcing categories. Not that you are building strawmen, but that I have read this thread I really the question has been answered but you have yet to see the answer because it does not make sense to you. Not that you are insensible, but that our logic does not make sense to you.

I have probably bungled this explanation but I hope it makes the point clear enough.

God Bless

 

[steido01]

Question? Where do Lutherans store the reserved sacrament? I have never seen a tabernacle in a Lutheran church. But OTOH I have never seen a Lutheran church without a sanctuary lamp.

See Post #3.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

And when I say you see this controversy only as a Catholic I mean in the same way I see it as Lutheran. Augustine argued we are not what we are, but rather everything we were cobbled together unto this point so that what we are is in fact the sum of our experiences and beliefs up to this point. So I cannot help but see this question apart from all my existential baggage I bring with me.

And neither can you.

And I mean no insult in this at all and I do not “poison in jest”. All I am saying is that there is no pure point of view and your insistence that the mere presence of metaphysical terms demands a metaphysical construct, I think, speaks more to long conditioning of believing in metaphysical constructs concerning the Supper than what the FOC is actually teaching.

That is what I mean I by forcing categories. Not that you are building strawmen, but that I have read this thread I really the question has been answered but you have yet to see the answer because it does not make sense to you. Not that you are insensible, but that our logic does not make sense to you.

I have probably bungled this explanation but I hope it makes the point clear enough.

God Bless

Your explanation is still not clear to me. I see my reading of the text as a logical necessity from what the text says unless the words are intended in a different sense than how they seem to be intended. For example, when the SDFC speaks of “the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated,” if the word “essence” did not mean essence as in what a thing is, then I would understand how I could have misinterpreted it, but I would need to know what the intended definition is before I could understand correctly. Unless some other idea of essence were proposed, I would have to assume that it has its common definition, especially since the word is used to distinguish sacramental union from transubstantiation where essence is used in its common sense. Furthermore, the Formula of Concord says,

Now, then, since it is the indisputable truth that everything that is, is either a substance or an accidens, that is, either a self-existing essence or something accidental in it, as has just been shown and proved by testimonies of the church-teachers, and no truly intelligent man has ever had any doubts concerning this, necessity here constrains, and no one can evade it, if the question be asked whether original sin is a substance, that is, such a thing as exists by itself, and is not in another or whether it is an accidens, that is, such a thing as does not exist by itself, but is in another, and cannot exist or be by itself, he must confess straight and pat that original sin is no substance, but an accidens.
(Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord 1.57

And in the Epitome,

But in the schools, among the learned, these words are rightly retained in disputations concerning original sin, because they are well known and used without any misunderstanding, to distinguish exactly between the essence of a thing and what attaches to it in an accidental way.
(Epitome of the Formula of Concord 1.24)

So I don’t think it is entirely fair to accuse me of “forcing categories” when the Formula of Concord deliberately makes use of them and claims that the existence of these categories is “the indisputable truth” and should be made use of among “the learned” (I guess excluding a layman like me). If the Lutheran confessions endorse (at some length) the use of these metaphysical terms according to their common (more or less) definitions, surely the most sensible hermeneutic is to read the section on the Lord’s Supper, which makes use of the same terms, as if the terms were used in their plain senses?