Lutherans: Why are the Following Rites not Sacraments?:

[Tomyris]

Maybe I missed it, but why is it important that some things be called sacraments and other things not be called sacraments?

And I am all in favor of sacramental living: living my life as an offering and sacrifice to God, if you ask. I know you didn’t, but I caught a remark earlier about sacramental living that I thought I would respond to.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

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 The other documents in the Book of Concord are important historical documents, but they are just the theological opinions of their respective authors (one of whom turned out to be or become a sacrilegious heretic).

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 Apology, art. XXIV, 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.

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.

He ( melanchthon the reformer ) is heterodox not a heretic

 

[KjetilK]

He ( melanchthon the reformer ) is heterodox not a heretic

When he denied that we could worship Christ in the Eucharist, he denied the Lutheran view of the sacramental presence of Christ. That teaching is a application of the )communicatio idiomatum, which Melanchthon denied (see this book, p.91ff). The communicatio idiomatum flows forth from the Christology of the Chalcedonian definition, that Christ is “acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ.”

So yes, he was a heretic.

 

[exnihilo]

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.

Is it common practice to have private confession in Norway? Is it taught that one needs to confess to a priest? Is confession offered regularly. It seems from what I read from American Lutherans, who can correct me if I’m wrong, that while private confession is not denied it is not widely practiced. Or maybe it is better to say not widely promoted by the church.

 

[KjetilK]

Is it common practice to have private confession in Norway? Is it taught that one needs to confess to a priest? Is confession offered regularly. It seems from what I read from American Lutherans, who can correct me if I’m wrong, that while private confession is not denied it is not widely practiced. Or maybe it is better to say not widely promoted by the church.

It is promoted, but not manditory. Therefore it is not widespread, especially since the Church of Norway is a large church (in relation to the population), and not every member is that active.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

When he denied that we could worship Christ in the Eucharist, he denied the Lutheran view of the sacramental presence of Christ. That teaching is a application of the ‘communication of properties’ (communicatio idiomatum), which Melanchthon denied (see this book, p.91ff). The communicatio idiomatum flows forth from the Christology of the Chalcedonian definition, that Christ is “acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ.”

So yes, he was a heretic.

So according to your definition of heretic the reformed , Anabaptist, etc would count , denying the real presence is wrong but it is not a denial of Chalcedon as you seem to paint it , ( i.e. NOT heretical)

 

[KjetilK]

So according to your definition of heretic the reformed , Anabaptist, etc would count , denying the real presence is wrong but it is not a denial of Chalcedon as you seem to paint it , ( i.e. NOT heretical)

Yes, anabaptists are heretics. That is clear from a Lutheran perspective. But my point was more specific. By denying the communicatio idiomatum, Melanchthon was denying the Chalcedonian definition.

 

[steido01]

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.

I can’t find a history of the use of the term as it pertains to Lutherans, so I’ve no way to refute or confirm your suspicions. Nor would I care to. Assigning motives to others based on my own presumptions seems a violation of Luther’s explanation of the 8th Commandment, which can be found in the Small Catechism. But I’ll pose my rather simple question again. What else would you call a group which adheres strictly to a set of beliefs outlined in a series of Confessions and Confessional documents?

The other documents in the Book of Concord are important historical documents, but they are just the theological opinions of their respective authors

Are they merely that? Or were they accepted by entire kingdoms, principalities, nations, dioceses and church bodies as correct explanations of Biblical Truth?

(one of whom turned out to be or become a sacrilegious heretic).

Ad hominem, and a strange one, at that. Why would you imply that Melancthon’s later well-meaning but misguided toleration (and perhaps genuine endorsement) of heterodox and heretical beliefs somehow retroactively affected his ability to write truthfully? Especially when he was the chief author of the sole Lutheran Confessional document to which you subscribe?

The results are the same. If someone would point out an error, would you simply say ‘no, it doesn’t err’?
…
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, I’d simply restate what I had already stated in a past post; in matters outlining the faith, the Confessions do not err. The “gotcha” example you cite is an historical aberration which has no effect on faithful doctrine (same for any manuscript error in Holy Scripture). As to this particular example, I think you are familiar with the Reformers’ efforts to find an ally in the Orthodox Church; their expectation that Jeremias II would confirm their beliefs can hardly be held against them. Even if they were mistaken, they did at least find a friendly pen pal. In any case, the Confessions require a robust hermeneutic (in a similar way to Holy Scripture), with preference and deference given to the clearer statements (Confessio Augustana and the Formula) – the Apology is not the Athanasian Creed.

Also see this excellent lecture by Bishop Kallistos Ware (on YouTube).

Thanks for sharing. I was sad to hear the good bishop list Christ last in his ‘four things received’ in the Eucharist, almost an obligatory forgotten memory… but that’s for another thread.

I haven’t said that there are only seven. But I have said that there are (at least) seven. There could be more.

Nor have I given a number at all. Depending on how we define a ‘sacrament,’ there could be two or three (narrow definition) or seven (traditional definition) or more (broad “non”-definition). This does not at all effect the purpose they serve. There is no need to quibble over the number; it is enough to use them.

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.

If we’re going to discuss the laws of debate, we’ll also need to be mindful of debate fallacies. The fallacy of the excluded middle applies here. You’ve discounted the existence of anything but a binary choice. The simpler truth is that there exists a misunderstanding of definitions. For example: a shape that is narrowly-defined as a square is also traditionally defined as rectangular and, even more broadly, as quadrilateral. It is not either a square or rectangle, and does not cease being a quadrilateral.

 

[KjetilK]

I can’t find a history of the use of the term as it pertains to Lutherans, so I’ve no way to refute or confirm your suspicions. Nor would I care to. Assigning motives to others based on my own presumptions seems a violation of Luther’s explanation of the 8th Commandment, which can be found in the Small Catechism.

This is my experience with the so-called ‘confessional’ Lutherans (not counting you), both in the US, and here in Norway, where we have a minority of Lutherans who claim that the entire Book of Concord is binding. They do claim that you cannot be confessional and still reject anything in the Book of Concord. Which ties to your question:

But I’ll pose my rather simple question again. What else would you call a group which adheres strictly to a set of beliefs outlined in a series of Confessions and Confessional documents?

The problem is that the term is then meaningless. Because every Lutheran denomination adheres to a set of beliefs outlined in a series of Confessions and Confessional documents. Some are bad at it, ELCA being my prime candidate, but ask anyone who use the term confessional Lutheran, and ask him if it is permissible for a so-called ‘confessional’ Lutheran to reject, say, the Formula of Concord or the Smalcald Articles, and still be seen as a confessional Lutheran.

Are they merely that? Or were they accepted by entire kingdoms, principalities, nations, dioceses and church bodies as correct explanations of Biblical Truth?

They are, of course, confessions within the churches that adhere to them, but they are not confessions of Lutheranism as such.

Ad hominem, and a strange one, at that. Why would you imply that Melancthon’s later well-meaning but misguided toleration (and perhaps genuine endorsement) of heterodox and heretical beliefs somehow retroactively affected his ability to write truthfully? Especially when he was the chief author of the sole Lutheran Confessional document to which you subscribe

The Treatise is Melanchthon’s private theological opinion, elevated to the status of confession by, and within, certain churches, but not a confession of Lutheranism as such. And it is misleading to say that he is the author of Confessio Augustana. He did write it, yes, but he wrote it together with, and on behalf of, the various Lutheran churches in Germany. So the authorship belongs to that group (author being the one who has authority over his text). And we see that later, he changed it. But it is the unaltered - i.e. the Lutheran, and not the Philipist - version which is binding.

No, I’d simply restate what I had already stated in a past post; in matters outlining the faith, the Confessions do not err. The “gotcha” example you cite is an historical aberration which has no effect on faithful doctrine (same for any manuscript error in Holy Scripture). As to this particular example, I think you are familiar with the Reformers’ efforts to find an ally in the Orthodox Church; their expectation that Jeremias II would confirm their beliefs can hardly be held against them. Even if they were mistaken, they did at least find a friendly pen pal. In any case, the Confessions require a robust hermeneutic (in a similar way to Holy Scripture), with preference and deference given to the clearer statements (Confessio Augustana and the Formula) – the Apology is not the Athanasian Creed.

I would say that the example I gave is very central. Whether or not the Mass is sacrificial, and if so, in what way, is central.

And I know that there is a hierarchy. In the Church of Norway, for example, the Nicene Creed is more important than Confessio Augustana. But would, say, the LCMS ordain a priest who publically rejected the Apology or the Smalcald Articles? And if not, would it be because he didn’t adhere to the LCMS, or because he (supposedly) didn’t adhere to Lutheran teaching?

If we’re going to discuss the laws of debate, we’ll also need to be mindful of debate fallacies. The fallacy of the excluded middle applies here. You’ve discounted the existence of anything but a binary choice. The simpler truth is that there exists a misunderstanding of definitions. For example: a shape that is narrowly-defined as a square is also traditionally defined as rectangular and, even more broadly, as quadrilateral. It is not either a square or rectangle, and does not cease being a quadrilateral.

If two persons mean the same by ‘sacrament,’ then they presumably also mean the same by ‘lesser sacrament.’ The point is that you cannot both say that something is, and is not, a sacrament.

 

[benjohnson]

If two persons mean the same by ‘sacrament,’ then they presumably also mean the same by ‘lesser sacrament.’ The point is that you cannot both say that something is, and is not, a sacrament.

My hunch is that we need a better term for those sacraments that are available and optional other than ‘lesser.’

 

[steido01]

This is my experience with the so-called ‘confessional’ Lutherans (not counting you), both in the US, and here in Norway, where we have a minority of Lutherans who claim that the entire Book of Concord is binding. They do claim that you cannot be confessional and still reject anything in the Book of Concord.

I understand, and I’m sorry to say that there are some who do think in such dogmatic either/or dichotomies. And while the effect is sometimes that the Confessions are seemingly-elevated to a dogmatic, quasi-Scriptural role, that mindset is not native to Confessional (Quia) Lutheranism. The mindset is less dogmatic and more rational; “If the Confessions are authoritative because they are faithful to Scripture, then why wouldn’t one follow them entirely?” This way of thinking makes sense. If we are to think of ourselves as the Reformed Catholics, why would we believe differently about the faith than the Reformers?

I’d be lying if I said I didn’t see the appeal of your quatenus subscription. It’s appealing not because I want to jettison any portion of the Confessions, but because being married to an authoritative, unchanging enumeration of one’s faith is a daunting concept; there’s little wiggle room for change. And perhaps that the biggest strength of Confessional Lutheranism; it can never be abused by Progressives and their causes. The danger of their slippery-slopes are manifest; “If the Confessions are only authoritative insofar as they agree with my/the party’s/the Zeitgeist’s] interpretation of Scripture, then we can dispense with Article XIV, Article XIII, and Article V – heck, let’s rid ourselves of that closed-minded Article III to appeal to our Muslim friends, too.” The saddest part is that I’m not exaggerating. This has happened, without exception, to each and every Lutheran body to travel the quatenus route (Surely, and sadly, you have even witnessed this within your own church body). Look around; the only Lutheran bodies to survive the assault of Progressivism/Postmodernism/Liberalism/Vapid-kumbaya-style-ecumenism have been those who hold steadfast to the Confessions.

The problem is that the term is then meaningless. Because every Lutheran denomination adheres to a set of beliefs outlined in a series of Confessions and Confessional documents. Some are bad at it, ELCA being my prime candidate,

By that definition, any Christian who subscribes to the Ecumenical Creeds could be considered ‘confessional’ and the term would be useless. But we’re talking about a specific sub-group of Christians called Lutherans. Within that subgroup, some Lutherans have accepted additional Confessions. The term used here isn’t useless; it’s specific. The ‘Confessional’ moniker applies to the Confessional Lutherans who hold the Lutheran Confessions to be authoritative.

but ask anyone who use the term confessional Lutheran, and ask him if it is permissible for a so-called ‘confessional’ Lutheran to reject, say, the Formula of Concord or the Smalcald Articles, and still be seen as a confessional Lutheran.

The answer is no, because that individual would be rejecting the Confessions from which the ‘Confessional’ moniker comes. Again, it’s not referring to the Ecumenical Creeds, but these specifically Lutheran confessions. The question is less, ‘Is this permissible to reject?’ and more, ‘Why would one want to reject it?’

They are, of course, confessions within the churches that adhere to them, but they are not confessions of Lutheranism as such.

Sure. They are confessions to the ‘Confessional’ subgroup of Lutheranism. I hope I’ve been clear that I’m not denying your claim to call yourself Lutheran.

The Treatise is Melanchthon’s private theological opinion, elevated to the status of confession by, and within, certain churches, but not a confession of Lutheranism as such. …] But it is the unaltered - i.e. the Lutheran, and not the Philipist - version which is binding.

Indeed.

I would say that the example I gave is very central. Whether or not the Mass is sacrificial, and if so, in what way, is central.

With regard to the divergence between Roman Catholics and Lutherans, yes. But not to the authority of the Confessions.

And I know that there is a hierarchy. In the Church of Norway, for example, the Nicene Creed is more important than Confessio Augustana. But would, say, the LCMS ordain a priest who publically rejected the Apology or the Smalcald Articles? And if not, would it be because he didn’t adhere to the LCMS, or because he (supposedly) didn’t adhere to Lutheran teaching?

Obviously, he would not be ordained. Church bodies have an ecclesial responsibility to maintain good order, and in the LCMS that means holding pastors to the Confessions. Since the LCMS (naturally) views itself as the purest existing bastion of Lutheranism, there would probably be some who would say that it is for both reasons. Frankly, I’d applaud his honesty and wish him well elsewhere. Too many of his kind take false oaths just to be ordained (another Progressive tactic).

If two persons mean the same by ‘sacrament,’ then they presumably also mean the same by ‘lesser sacrament.’ The point is that you cannot both say that something is, and is not, a sacrament.

See, I’m not sure two people are meaning the same thing by ‘sacrament.’ I think the “Confessional” Lutherans here have tried to be clear that our (usual) definition is a narrow one, and we’ve also been clear that however they are numbered does not matter.

My hunch is that we need a better term for those sacraments that are available and optional other than ‘lesser.’

You may be right.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

My hunch is that we need a better term for those sacraments that are available and optional other than ‘lesser.’

I’ll try this out

Sacraments
Baptism
Eucharist
Holy Absolution

Rites / Lesser / Possible Sacraments
Vocation
Marriage
Anointing of the sick
Confirmation

 

[steido01]

I’ll try this out

Sacraments
Baptism
Eucharist
Holy Absolution

Rites / Lesser / Possible Sacraments
Vocation
Marriage
Anointing of the sick
Confirmation

See, the problem with this is the same problem with my use of “lesser.” It’s better to just use these rites of the church than try to number them. In teaching about the sacraments, it’d be better to speak of “the two or three most important Sacraments” and leave it at that. :twocents:

 

[KjetilK]

By that definition, any Christian who subscribes to the Ecumenical Creeds could be considered ‘confessional’ and the term would be useless. But we’re talking about a specific sub-group of Christians called Lutherans. Within that subgroup, some Lutherans have accepted additional Confessions. The term used here isn’t useless; it’s specific. The ‘Confessional’ moniker applies to the Confessional Lutherans who hold the Lutheran Confessions to be authoritative.

But my point is exactly about Lutheranism. The documents in the Book of Concord outside the three ecumenical creeds, Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism, have never been universally held as confessions, as documents binding on all Lutherans. They are binding on members of certain churches within the Lutheran tradition, but they are not binding on Lutherans as such.

To illustrate my point, consider this scenario. The Russian Orthodox Church writes a confession of faith, similar to, say, Confessio Augustana, and it is ratified by their entire communion. Some would say that this is a Byzantine confession. But that would be wrong. Yes, it is a confession made by churches within the Byzantine tradition, in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (or Byzantium), but it is not binding on all Byzantine churches, including the Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church (which is in communion with Rome) and thus cannot be said to be a confession of Byzantianism as such.

Outside the three ecumenical confessions, there are only two documents which have been universally held as confessions, and that is Confessio Augustana and Luther’s Small Catechism. My point is that I am a confessional Lutheran, because I adhere to the Lutheran confessions, of which there is only two.

The answer is no, because that individual would be rejecting the Confessions from which the ‘Confessional’ moniker comes.

Which confirms my point. The people who misuse that moniker does so partly to exclude traditional Lutherans who do not recognise these documents as binding confessions.

The question is less, ‘Is this permissible to reject?’ and more, ‘Why would one want to reject it?’

Well, I would reject them as confessions for at least two reasons:

(1) The word ‘confession’ is a very specific term, denoting what is binding. The Treatise, for instance, is not binding on Lutheranism as such.

(2) They make claims that aren’t true, for example that the Roman Pontiff (either the office or the person) is the Anti-Christ.

Sure. They are confessions to the ‘Confessional’ subgroup of Lutheranism. I hope I’ve been clear that I’m not denying your claim to call yourself Lutheran.

No, but you are practically denying me the right to call myself a confessional Lutheran. And I won’t accept that. I am a confessional Lutheran. But the point I am making is that there are only two Lutheran confessions – Confessio Augustana and Luther’s Small Catechism.

With regard to the divergence between Roman Catholics and Lutherans, yes. But not to the authority of the Confessions.

My point is that the Apology contains an error on faith.

 

[KjetilK]

My hunch is that we need a better term for those sacraments that are available and optional other than ‘lesser.’

Yes, we can just call them sacraments, since they are, and have always been regarded as such.

 

[Tomyris]

I think there can be an error in over-analyzing mysteries. My :twocents:

 

[benjohnson]

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

I would also add that the excluded middle apples to reason and logic, but not to what God has revealed to us.

 

[KjetilK]

I would also add that the excluded middle apples to reason and logic, but not to what God has revealed to us.

I have a hard time believing that you actually mean that. In fact, I’m pretty sure you don’t.

There are three basic laws of logic - the law of identity, the law of excluded middle, and the law of non-contradiction - and they apply also to God’s revelation, especially since he reveals himself through language and through our understanding. Yes, we believe in mystery, but we do not claim to possess some esoteric wisdom only accessible to the initiated.

 

[benjohnson]

I have a hard time believing that you actually mean that. In fact, I’m pretty sure you don’t.

There are three basic laws of logic - the law of identity, the law of excluded middle, and the law of non-contradiction - and they apply also to God’s revelation, especially since he reveals himself through language and through our understanding. Yes, we believe in mystery, but we do not claim to possess some esoteric wisdom only accessible to the initiated.

I actually do believe this - I can’t parse “death leads to eternal life” otherwise.

 

[KjetilK]

I actually do believe this - I can’t parse “death leads to eternal life” otherwise.

Yes, you can. You posit that God raises you. Nothing illogical by that.

The big question, really, is why you bother to take part in a discussion forum if you claim not to believe in basic laws of logic.