Lutherans: Why are the Following Rites not Sacraments?:

[exnihilo]

Remember that Lutherans typically define a “Sacrament” in a very narrow sense. Christ didn’t command the Anointing of the Sick, as he did Baptism or the Eucharist. Some Lutherans probably do consider it a Sacrament. It may help to understand the Lutheran position of the other four major rites as “lesser sacraments,” because they lack one or more of the attributes already stated. (Whew. I’ve been spending too much time around Anglicans.)

What are the requirements for a sacrament to be considered commanded by Christ? Must there be what is viewed as an explicit command in the Gospels? Must it be recorded as the word’s of Jesus?

I’m sorry, friend, but I’m not sure I understand your question. Can you re-phrase it?

I’ve got a feeling that my original answer might have come across somewhat muddled because of the ‘amount’ bit. I was simply meaning that the rite of marriage does not, of itself, do for the soul what Baptism and Communion do.

Maybe it would help to start with explaining the Lutheran view of what exactly Baptism and Communion do for the soul. I imagine the view regarding Baptism would mostly be the same as the Catholic view. For marriage the Catholic view would be that you receive actual grace to help you to live within your marriage. Would Lutherans believe this?

 

[benjohnson]

What are the requirements for a sacrament to be considered commanded by Christ? Must there be what is viewed as an explicit command in the Gospels? Must it be recorded as the word’s of Jesus?

The Lutheran definition is just stricter - another side effect of this strict definition is that we can draw a line between what a Christian needs to do to be part of of the Body of Christ (Baptism, Communion, Absolution) and what is augments grace (Marriage, Ordination, et al).

Maybe it would help to start with explaining the Lutheran view of what exactly Baptism and Communion do for the soul. I imagine the view regarding Baptism would mostly be the same as the Catholic view. For marriage the Catholic view would be that you receive actual grace to help you to live within your marriage. Would Lutherans believe this?

Baptism transforms someone in new life with Christ Jesus, and Communion is a nourishment to the soul in the most profound and mysterious way.

 

[Alex_H]

Question: Are there any scriptures that indicate that Eucharist is a means of grace? Just curious.

 

[icamhif]

You’re very welcome.

Could you do me a favor and ask your Orthodox priest about the number of Sacraments acknowledged by your church? In his responses to Lutheran overtures for fellowship, Patriarch Jeremias II said that there are “at least seven Sacraments.” I’m wondering what else could be considered a Sacrament?

According to Bishop Kallistos Ware:

“…when we talk of ‘seven sacraments,’ we must never isolate these seven from the many other actions in the Church which also possess a sacramental character, and which are conveniently termed sacramentals. Included among these sacramentals are the rites for a monastic profession, the great blessing of waters at Epiphany, the service for the burial of the dead, and the anointing of a monarch. In all these there is a combination of outward visible sign and inward spiritual grace. The Orthodox Church also employs a great number of minor blessings, and these, too, are of a sacramental nature: blessings of corn, wine, and oil; of fruits, fields, and homes; of any object or element. These lesser blessings and services are often very practical and prosaic: there are prayers for blessing a car or a railway engine, or for clearing a place of vermin (‘The popular religion of Eastern Europe is liturgical and ritualistic, but not wholly otherworldly. A religion that continues to propagate new forms for cursing caterpillars and for removing dead rats from the bottoms of wells can hardly be dismissed as pure mysticism’ (G. Every, The Byzantine Patriarchate, first edition, p. 198)) Between the wider and the narrower sense of the term ‘sacrament’ there is no rigid division: the whole Christian life must be seen as a unity, as a single mystery or one great sacrament, whose different aspects are expressed in a great variety of acts, some performed but once in a man’s life, others perhaps daily.”

(The Orthodox Church, New Edition; Page 275-6)

Hope that helps.

 

[steido01]

According to Bishop Kallistos Ware:

…

Hope that helps.

It helps a great deal, actually! Surprisingly, I think it is not far at all from what Lutherans believe.

To everyone else - no, I am not neglecting your posts. I’m with my wife in the hospital as we ready for kiddo #2 to join us out here in world. I’ll get to it this week.

 

[Vanny]

As I was taught, Lutherans define sacrament narrowly, while acknowledging the sacred or holy elements of the other rites.

• A sacrament has been commanded by God (“Baptize all nations”; “This do—”)
• A sacrament offers forgiveness
• A sacrament has a sign, or visible element (water, bread, wine).

What I was taught as well.
However, count me as another nutty Lutheran who would have no problem with the other 4 being counted as sacraments.

 

[JonNC]

It helps a great deal, actually! Surprisingly, I think it is not far at all from what Lutherans believe.

To everyone else - no, I am not neglecting your posts. I’m with my wife in the hospital as we ready for kiddo #2 to join us out here in world. I’ll get to it this week.

Prayers for happy and healthy, Don.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

According to Bishop Kallistos Ware:

“…when we talk of ‘seven sacraments,’ we must never isolate these seven from the many other actions in the Church which also possess a sacramental character, and which are conveniently termed sacramentals. Included among these sacramentals are the rites for a monastic profession, the great blessing of waters at Epiphany, the service for the burial of the dead, and the anointing of a monarch. In all these there is a combination of outward visible sign and inward spiritual grace. The Orthodox Church also employs a great number of minor blessings, and these, too, are of a sacramental nature: blessings of corn, wine, and oil; of fruits, fields, and homes; of any object or element. These lesser blessings and services are often very practical and prosaic: there are prayers for blessing a car or a railway engine, or for clearing a place of vermin (‘The popular religion of Eastern Europe is liturgical and ritualistic, but not wholly otherworldly. A religion that continues to propagate new forms for cursing caterpillars and for removing dead rats from the bottoms of wells can hardly be dismissed as pure mysticism’ (G. Every, The Byzantine Patriarchate, first edition, p. 198)) Between the wider and the narrower sense of the term ‘sacrament’ there is no rigid division: the whole Christian life must be seen as a unity, as a single mystery or one great sacrament, whose different aspects are expressed in a great variety of acts, some performed but once in a man’s life, others perhaps daily.”

(The Orthodox Church, New Edition; Page 275-6)

Hope that helps.

Great quote, whatever those nutty Lutherans might say.

 

[KjetilK]

1. Confirmation
2. Anointing the Sick
3. Holy Matrimony
4. Holy Orders

I know that you practice these rites, but I’m just asking why you don’t consider them “Sacraments.”

Disclaimer: I’m only asking for the Lutheran perspective. I’m not starting a debate.

As a Lutheran priest and pastor,* I can assure you that although it is true that many Lutherans do not regard these as sacraments, some - including myself - do.

In Confessio Augustana, the chief Lutheran confession,** no mention is made of the number of sacraments, and if we follow the confession, there is no reason to stop at the Eucharist (article 10), and ignore the next one on the list, confession (article 11).

But the main argument from some Lutherans, as we see in Starwarsfan2’s answer, is that the rites you mention do not confer grace. But that is not necessarily the case, at least not for all of them. But first it needs to be said that by ‘grace’ we mean the Holy Spirit, cf. 5Confessio Augustana: “For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given…” In confirmation, we call down the Spirit upon the candidates, as did the Apostles. When we anoint the sick, as commanded through James, we pray that the recipient receives healing and forgivness. When we perform Holy Matrimony, we pray God to give them the grace to endure. And when Paul himself talks of ordination, he says that the ordinand receives a grace. Note that many translate this as ‘gift,’ while the greek word is chárisma, a gift of grace (Gk. cháris).

The bottom line for me, however, is that the Church didn’t pop into existence in 1537 (when my Church, the Church of Norway, broke from Rome). If calling these things sacraments was good enough for St. John Chrysostom or St. Augustine, it is good enough for me.

• I say pastor because I am a vicar for, or priest-in-charge over, six (very small) parishes (with six parish councils).

** In the Lutheran tradition, there are five universally held confessions, the three ecumenical creeds (the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed), Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism. In addition to these, some churches also claim that the rest of the Book of Concordhave confessional status. Many of these self-label as ‘confessional,’ claiming that to reject any of these, for instance, the Formula of Concord, makes you a bad Lutheran. That is interesting, since that work has never been universally held as a Lutheran confession. Bur I digress.

 

[benjohnson]

Many of these self-label as ‘confessional,’ claiming that to reject any of these, for instance, the Formula of Concord, makes you a bad Lutheran. That is interesting, since that work has never been universally held as a Lutheran confession. Bur I digress.

Lutheran digressing follows…

Most that use the moniker of Confessional do so in contrast to more secular Lutherans on their march toward discounting historic Christianity as a whole - not for other Lutherans that while disagreeing on important theology we would defiantly recognize as members in the tradition of Western Church and appreciate their steadfastness.

 

[KjetilK]

Lutheran digressing follows…

Most that use the moniker of Confessional do so in contrast to more secular Lutherans on their march toward discounting historic Christianity as a whole - not for other Lutherans that while disagreeing on important theology we would defiantly recognize as members in the tradition of Western Church and appreciate their steadfastness.

That might be true for some, or perhaps for most, in the ‘confessional movement,’ but I have talked with numerous people in that movement that claims that I cannot call myself ‘confessional,’ because I refuse to grant the status of (binding) confession to the Apology of Confessio Augustana, the Smalcald Articles, Melanchthon’s Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Luther’s Large Catechism, and the Epitomeand the Solid Declarationof the Formula of Concord. Which is interesting, since none of these have ever been universally held as confessions, as documents binding on all Lutherans. One five such documents exist: the three ecumenical creeds (the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed), Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism (the last only as a catechetical tool), and they are binding insofar as (lat. quatenus) they are compatible with Scripture, and with Apostolic Tradition (cf. the conclusion of Confessio Augustana, art. I-XXI). If we claim that they are binding because (lat. quia) they are compatible with Scripture, and with Apostolic Tradition, we have insulated them from critique, and we have made nothing of the distinction between norma normans and norma normata.

 

[KjetilK]

Remember that Lutherans typically define a “Sacrament” in a very narrow sense.

Yes, Luther did, and many Lutherans followed (and follows) him. But such ‘narrowness’ is found in neither the three ecumenical creeds, the Augsburg Confession, nor Luther’s Small Catechism.* (* Yes, I know that Luther wrote the last one, and it could be said that Luther perhaps had his narrow definition of sacrament in mind (though we cannot know that for sure). But we shouldn’t read Luther’s private theology into the Catechism as confession.)

Christ didn’t command the Anointing of the Sick, as he did Baptism or the Eucharist.

That is highly debatable. Christ did command us to heal (Matt 10:8, Luke 9:1-2), and saidthe Apostle: “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” What we see, then, is that Christ commanded us to heal, and through his apostle, he gave us the means of that healing – the Anointing of the Sick.

Some Lutherans probably do consider it a Sacrament.

Yes, including me. And many others. And about every Christian prior to the Reformation.

It may help to understand the Lutheran position of the other four major rites as “lesser sacraments,” because they lack one or more of the attributes already stated. (Whew. I’ve been spending too much time around Anglicans.)

Either something is a sacrament, or it is not, as we know from the law of excluded middle. If Confirmation, Ordination, Holy Matrimony and the Anointing of the Sick are ‘lesser sacraments’ (in that they, perhaps excluding Confirmation, are not as universal as the first three), then they are still sacraments. If they are not sacraments, they aren’t ‘lesser sacraments’ either.

But, as we know from Confessio Augustana XXI, the Lutheran faith is that faith of the Church Fathers, the Catholic Church, and even of the Roman Church. Here, there are seven sacraments. And if that was good enough for St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas, it is good enough for me.

 

[exnihilo]

As a Lutheran priest and pastor,* I can assure you that although it is true that many Lutherans do not regard these as sacraments, some - including myself - do.

What is the most common opinion in the Church of Norway? Can you speak to the opinion of other Scandinavian churches? Has the opinion on this issue changed over time?

 

[Peter_J]

That might be true for some, or perhaps for most, in the ‘confessional movement,’ but I have talked with numerous people in that movement that claims that I cannot call myself ‘confessional,’ because I refuse to grant the status of (binding) confession to the Apology of Confessio Augustana, the Smalcald Articles, Melanchthon’s Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Luther’s Large Catechism, and the Epitomeand the Solid Declarationof the Formula of Concord. Which is interesting, since none of these have ever been universally held as confessions, as documents binding on all Lutherans. One five such documents exist: the three ecumenical creeds (the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed), Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism (the last only as a catechetical tool), and they are binding insofar as (lat. quatenus) they are compatible with Scripture, and with Apostolic Tradition (cf. the conclusion of Confessio Augustana, art. I-XXI). If we claim that they are binding because (lat. quia) they are compatible with Scripture, and with Apostolic Tradition, we have insulated them from critique, and we have made nothing of the distinction between norma normans and norma normata.

God bless you.

Either something is a sacrament, or it is not, as we know from the law of excluded middle.

How western.

 

[KjetilK]

What is the most common opinion in the Church of Norway? Can you speak to the opinion of other Scandinavian churches? Has the opinion on this issue changed over time?

The Church of Norway’s position is that of Confessio Augustana, that there is at least three. No number has been set in stone. But since Confessio Augustana XXI states that the Lutheran faith is that faith of the Church Fathers, the Catholic Church, and even of the Roman Church, sans the abuses, and since all these held that there were (at least) seven sacraments, I think we can deduce that there are seven sacraments in the Church of Norway.

And even if we didn’t call them sacraments, they would still be sacraments. To illustrate this, I can say that the Roman Catholic Church do not recognise the orders of most Lutheran priests (though I have argued before why I have them). In most of the churches of these priests, marriages are performed. And even though many of them do not call marriage a sacrament, the Roman Catholic Church recognises their marriages as sacramental. Therefore you will hear a Roman Catholic dogmatist or Canon Lawyer say that Protestant churches have two sacraments - not baptism and the Eucharist, but baptism and Holy Matrimony.

 

[KjetilK]

How western.

Truth is truth everywhere. And last time I checked, Aristotle was from Greece.

 

[steido01]

What are the requirements for a sacrament to be considered commanded by Christ? Must there be what is viewed as an explicit command in the Gospels? Must it be recorded as the word’s of Jesus?

Ben did a fine job explaining, and I think the Apology to the Augsburg Confession explains better than either he or I could: bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php

Maybe it would help to start with explaining the Lutheran view of what exactly Baptism and Communion do for the soul. I imagine the view regarding Baptism would mostly be the same as the Catholic view.

Yep. Same for Baptism, and same for the sustaining power of the Real Presence. The link above should help clarify, but the Large Catechism is always good too: bookofconcord.org/lc-6-baptism.php

For marriage the Catholic view would be that you receive actual grace to help you to live within your marriage. Would Lutherans believe this?

Here’s where we use differing language, and I’m not certain whether it’s for substantive reasons. The rite itself is merely the celebration and public confirmation of the marriage that has taken place. So no grace is gained through the rite itself. Now, a married couple would, naturally, need God’s grace to endure. So we would agree that the Grace initially received at Baptism is obviously deepened for the necessary arrangement that comes with being married – to “live within your marriage,” as you said.

 

[steido01]

That might be true for some, or perhaps for most, in the ‘confessional movement,’ but I have talked with numerous people in that movement that claims that I cannot call myself ‘confessional,’ because I refuse to grant the status of (binding) confession to the Apology of Confessio Augustana, the Smalcald Articles, Melanchthon’s Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Luther’s Large Catechism, and the Epitomeand the Solid Declarationof the Formula of Concord. Which is interesting, since none of these have ever been universally held as confessions, as documents binding on all Lutherans. One five such documents exist: the three ecumenical creeds (the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed), Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism (the last only as a catechetical tool)

It’s merely the name of a party. I favor democracy, and in that sense I am a democrat, but do not call myself one in my country because it mistakenly leads other to think I support abortion or gay “marriage.” We hold the Confessions to be more authoritative than your ecclesial body. Frankly, so what do you care? And what would you have a group of Christians who base their belief on certain confessions called, if not Confessional? It’s just a descriptive, working name, Father. Let it go.

and they are binding insofar as (lat. quatenus) they are compatible with Scripture, and with Apostolic Tradition (cf. the conclusion of Confessio Augustana, art. I-XXI). If we claim that they are binding because (lat. quia) they are compatible with Scripture, and with Apostolic Tradition, we have insulated them from critique, and we have made nothing of the distinction between norma normans and norma normata.

Not so. A quia subscription does not mean the Confessions cannot err, only that they do not. In matters pertaining to the faith, they are Scriptural - so Scripture is still the sole rule and norm.

 

[steido01]

Yes, Luther did, and many Lutherans followed (and follows) him. But such ‘narrowness’ is found in neither the three ecumenical creeds, the Augsburg Confession, nor Luther’s Small Catechism.* (* Yes, I know that Luther wrote the last one, and it could be said that Luther perhaps had his narrow definition of sacrament in mind (though we cannot know that for sure). But we shouldn’t read Luther’s private theology into the Catechism as confession.)

No argument here.

That is highly debatable. Christ did command us to heal (Matt 10:8, Luke 9:1-2), and James the Apostle said: “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” What we see, then, is that Christ commanded us to heal, and through his apostle, he gave us the means of that healing – the Anointing of the Sick.

That’s a reasonable view.

Yes, including me. And many others. And about every Christian prior to the Reformation.

Good. Depending on how we define a the word, I might agree too.

Either something is a sacrament, or it is not, as we know from the law of excluded middle. If Confirmation, Ordination, Holy Matrimony and the Anointing of the Sick are ‘lesser sacraments’ (in that they, perhaps excluding Confirmation, are not as universal as the first three), then they are still sacraments. If they are not sacraments, they aren’t ‘lesser sacraments’ either.

No, you’re offering a false dichotomy. Bishop Kallistos seems to have no issue with leaving sacraments undefined. Why the need to number? Just use them.

But, as we know from Confessio Augustana XXI, the Lutheran faith is that faith of the Church Fathers, the Catholic Church, and even of the Roman Church. Here, there are seven sacraments. And if that was good enough for St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas, it is good enough for me.

A reasonable view. And entirely within Lutheran confessional orthodoxy.

 

[KjetilK]

It’s merely the name of a party. I favor democracy, and in that sense I am a democrat, but do not call myself one in my country because it mistakenly leads other to think I support abortion or gay “marriage.” We hold the Confessions to be more authoritative than your ecclesial body. Frankly, so what do you care? And what would you have a group of Christians who base their belief on certain confessions called, if not Confessional? It’s just a descriptive, working name, Father. Let it go.

No, it is chosen precicely to produce in people the idea that if you do not subscribe to, say, the Formula of Concord, you are not a confessional Lutheran. But I am. The point is that there are only five Lutheran confessions – three of which weren’t written by any Lutheran – namely the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism. The other documents in the Book of Concord are important historical documents, but they are just the theological opinions of their respective authors (one of whom turned out to be or become a sacrilegious heretic).

Not so. A quia subscription does not mean the Confessions cannot err, only that they do not. In matters pertaining to the faith, they are Scriptural - so Scripture is still the sole rule and norm.

The results are the same. If someone would point out an error, would you simply say ‘no, it doesn’t err’?

And there is at least one clear mistake in the Apology (which, by the way, was written by Melanchthon on his own behalf). For this, I need to ‘plagiarise’ myself (from my Master’s Thesis, pp.107). In western Christianity the whole Eucharistic prayer (of which the words of institution is a part) has traditionally been called the Canon of Mass and the Roman Canon, and in the Catholic Church this is indeed seen as a sacrificial act. But this is even more explicit in the title given to this prayer in in Eastern Christianity. There, the Eucharistic Prayer is called the Anaphora (Gk. anaphorá). In Greek, this has the meaning of ‘offering, carrying, lifting up.’ It is related to the verb anaphérō. In the Septuagint, the Greek verb prosphérō (meaning ‘offer, present, bring along’) denotes bringing along something to offer, while anaphérō denotes the offering up of the sacrifice on the altar.

Now, this tells us that the Eastern churches, the Orthodox churches, did indeed teach a sacrifice of the Mass as the Roman Catholic Church, yet for some reason Phillip Melanchthon favorably cites the Eastern liturgical tradition in his argument against the Roman Catholic doctrine, in the , art. XXIVApology, esp. no. 88.93-95. He claims that the Greeks do not offer Christ in the Eucharist, which is plainly false, as can easily be shown by actually reading their liturgy (emphasis added in bold):

No one ound by worldly desires and pleasures is worthy to approach, draw near or minister to You, the King of glory. To serve You is great and awesome even for the heavenly powers. But because of Your ineffable and immeasurable love for us, You became man without alteration or change. You have served as our High Priest, and as Lord of all, and have entrusted to us the celebration of this liturgical sacrifice without the shedding of blood. For You alone, Lord our God, rule over all things in heaven and on earth. You are seated on the throne of the Cherubim, the Lord of the Seraphim and the King of Israel. You alone are holy and dwell among Your saints. You alone are good and ready to hear. Therefore, I implore you, look upon me, Your sinful and unworthy servant, and cleanse my soul and heart from evil consciousness. Enable me by the power of Your Holy Spirit so that, vested with the grace of priesthood, I may stand before Your holy Table and celebrate the mystery of Your holy and pure Body and Your precious Blood. To you I come with bowed head and pray: do not turn Your face away from me or reject me from among Your children, but make me, Your sinful and unworthy servant, worthy to offer to You these gifts. For You, Christ our God, are the Offerer and the Offered, the One who receives and is distributed, and to You we give glory, together with Your eternal Father and Your holy, good and life giving Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen. (…)

Also see this excellent lecture by Bishop Kallistos Ware (on YouTube). To state that the Greeks do not offer Christ in the Eucharist is an error in the text, a rather important one, in my estimation, yet the ‘confessional’ Lutherans claim that the Apology, being a confession, is without error.

No, you’re offering a false dichotomy. Bishop Kallistos seems to have no issue with leaving sacraments undefined. Why the need to number? Just use them.

I haven’t said that there are only seven. But I have said that there are (at least) seven. There could be more. But the law of excluded middle is never untrue. If something is a ‘lesser sacrament,’ it cannot also not be a sacrament. If it is a sacrament, it is a sacrament. If it isn’t a sacrament, it isn’t a sacrament.