Lutheran's

[Montalban]

Consubstantiation is why i an NO longer a lutheran ( one of the main reason anyway)

Christ said This IS my body… NOT This CONTAINS my body…
Thus I am a Catholic today ( and a traditional one at that! )

Without wishing to defend a Catholic interpretation/doctrine, Christ also said that his Body is REAL FOOD.
John 6:25ff He says “I am the Bread” and He is comparing Himself to the heavenly manna that the Jews actually did eat.

And He repeats this further on
53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Could Jesus have stated this more forcefully then with saying “I tell you the truth… unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood…”

 

[devotus]

Devotus,

We do NOT accept Consubstantiation…that would make a combined, singular third substance after consecration, not both together and unaltered.
Chris Heren

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.
—Luthers Small Catechism…

Consubstantiation: A doctrine of the Eucharist affirming that Christ’s body and blood substantially coexist with the consecrated bread and wine
-----Encyclopædia Britannica

Consubstantiation is a lutheran doctrine… even if you do not use the word. If not - I do not see the difference, please explain.

Here are some writing from the early Church supporting “IS” …

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.” St. Ignatius of Antioch (“Epistle to the Romans,” c. 105 A.D.)

“Not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of that incarnated Jesus.” St. Justin Martyr (“First Apology,” c. 150 A.D.)

“If the Lord were from other than the Father (and thus capable of performing miracles), how could He rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be His Body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is His Blood? When, therefore, the mixed cup (wine and water) and the baked bread receives the Word of God and ******becomes the Eucharist, the Body of Christ, ******and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is nourished by the Body and Blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of Him?” St. Irenaeus (“Against Heresies,” 189 A.D.)

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

About sola fide which is supposedly contrary to the historical church: St. Paul: “For it is by GRACE you have been SAVED through FAITH, and THIS NOT OF YOURSELF, it is the GIFT OF GOD - not by WORKS, so that no one can boast.”-Ephesians 2:8-9.
Chris Heren

James 2:3-6

St Paul is talking about works of Mosaic Law, not Divine Law.

 

[devotus]

What is to stop the church from saying a six-pence will gain you ten years out of Purgatory and suffering for your own sins

An indulgence of “X number of years/days” does not mean years out of purgatory but rather the equivalent of “X number of years/days” of Penance… A very common misunderstanding

There was a time in the church were penance was many days even years of begging for forgiveness outside the church. Remember the church sees most sin as effecting both the horizontal ( Man to Man ) and the Vertical ( Man to God)

 

[Cross-checking]

I have a brief question to any Lutheran’s.

Do you observe Lent? If not, why?

I’m just curious because I have heard both yes and no.

 

[rr1213]

I have a brief question to any Lutheran’s.

Do you observe Lent? If not, why?

I’m just curious because I have heard both yes and no.

Lutherans observe Lent. Many, if not all, Protestant Churches observe Lent.

 

[Paleolutheran]

An indulgence of “X number of years/days” does not mean years out of purgatory but rather the equivalent of “X number of years/days” of Penance… A very common misunderstanding

There was a time in the church were penance was many days even years of begging for forgiveness outside the church. Remember the church sees most sin as effecting both the horizontal ( Man to Man ) and the Vertical ( Man to God)

Devotus,

Am I incorrect in connecting the dots and saying that since an indulgence of “X number of years/days” out of Penance leads to days out of having to be purified of actual/venial sins on earth…which eventually will translate to less time in Purgatory? There is the possibility of a place after death and before the foretaste of Heaven and the final earthly judgement where the souls of believers will be fully sanctified, but they do not suffer in this purification any more than the child who is baptised and cleansed of sins suffers the fires of the Holy Spirit entering him/her. I may be misunderstanding the teaching NOW, but at one point that was the teaching, plain and simple, or are you not familiar with Tetzel’s jingle of “when the coin clinks in the chest, a soul flies up to Heavenly rest.” The Orthodox as well teach there is a state before entering Heaven where one undergoes the remainder of their deification, but the individual DOES NOT SUFFER in a purging fire, but a purifying fire. The question still needs to be addressed what Christ meant when he told the still sinful theif “TODAY you will be with me in paradise,” seemingly indicating that faith in Christ is what allows one to enter Heaven and the time in purgatory or amount of penance is fulfilled by Christ’s sacrifice and simple repentance and faith makes this real in the life of the Christian.

We do not dismiss at all the cruciform relationship between God to man and man to man. In fact our view as to why different denominations exist is the limitation of the sinful flesh and sin not allowing us as humans to see all God has said to us.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[Paleolutheran]

I have a brief question to any Lutheran’s.

Do you observe Lent? If not, why?

I’m just curious because I have heard both yes and no.

Yep! Many people either love it or hate it. We’re encouraged to give up something for Lent to truly get into the spirit of penance that the season calls for, but we don’t mandate it. I do have a question for other Lutherans though. My understanding of Lent is that as a season of penance and preparation, we don’t perform marriages during this season, but my church did the first Saturday in Lent…I’m pretty sure we’re wrong to do that, but what is the procedure about that???

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[devotus]

Lutherans observe Lent. Many, if not all, Protestant Churches observe Lent.

Depends on local Pastor… My wife works at a lutheran church and they have Taco night fridays during lent.

 

[Paleolutheran]

James 2:3-6

St Paul is talking about works of Mosaic Law, not Divine Law.

“That if you CONFESS WITH YOUR MOUTH, “Jesus is Lord,” and BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART GOD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD, YOU WILL BE SAVED.”- Romans 10:9.

That seems to me to say that you are saved by your belief in the heart and what you confess with your mouth, which is what St. Paul is saying throughout all of his epistle…that true faith of a Christian WILL bear fruit, but the fruit bore is not what saved you…for Abraham was justified by his faith, not by any sacrifices or work he did.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[Paleolutheran]

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.
—Luthers Small Catechism…

Consubstantiation: A doctrine of the Eucharist affirming that Christ’s body and blood substantially coexist with the consecrated bread and wine
-----Encyclopædia Britannica

Consubstantiation is a lutheran doctrine… even if you do not use the word. If not - I do not see the difference, please explain.

Here are some writing from the early Church supporting “IS” …

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.” St. Ignatius of Antioch (“Epistle to the Romans,” c. 105 A.D.)

“Not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of that incarnated Jesus.” St. Justin Martyr (“First Apology,” c. 150 A.D.)

“If the Lord were from other than the Father (and thus capable of performing miracles), how could He rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be His Body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is His Blood? When, therefore, the mixed cup (wine and water) and the baked bread receives the Word of God and ******becomes the Eucharist, the Body of Christ, ******and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is nourished by the Body and Blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of Him?” St. Irenaeus (“Against Heresies,” 189 A.D.)

Devotus,

There are slight problems here.

1. Lutherans believe that there are two groups of substances, wine/bread and blood/body and that after consecration both are together with one another, but NOT MIXED INTO A 3RD SUBSTANCE…that is what Consubstantiation teaches, that there is a mixing of substances…We teach all substances are there not affecting each other.
2. Your use of church fathers who use the word “substance” fails because you are defending the understanding of transubstantiation which wasn’t truly defined until St. Thomas Aquinnas used Aristotelian philosophy to explain the mystery…why else do you think the Orthodox (who we are very similar to on this issue) who use the EXACT SAME CHURCH FATHERS disagree with St. Thomas’s theology??? The substance the church fathers are using CANNOT be simply interpreted in light of a theology developed almost 1000 years later using similar words but in possibly a different context! “Substance” is a very spurious word and Aristotle’s philosophy just so happens to use the word…that doesn’t mean that is what St. Basil the Great or St. Augustine actually meant…they would probably have been upset that pagan scholasticism had been applied to the blessed Sacrament!
3. The Encyclopedia Brittanica is wrong and even scholars get the deffinition of consubstantiation wrong. Salmasius (~1653): “Consubstantiation, or fusion of natures, is the commixtion of two substances as it were into one; but it is not this which the followers of Luther believe; for they maintain the co-existence of two substances distinct in two subjects. It is the co-existence, rather, of the two substances than their consubstantiation.” In other words we believe that both substances of bread/body and wine/blood are not mixed in substance. Another term Lutherans would use aside from Real Presence is Sacramental Union.
4. Commingling has still not been explained to me using the very words of Christ of which Lutherans are somehow asserted to not believe, where he says “take eat, this is my body and take drink, this is my blood.” Nowhere does he say “Take eat, this is my body and blood and take drink, this is my blood and body.” Lutherans believe both the words of Christ AND the words of St. Paul. We do not cherry pick from the Word of God.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[rr1213]

Depends on local Pastor… My wife works at a lutheran church and they have Taco night fridays during lent.

That just means that they don’t follow the Catholic Church’s discipline of no meat on Fridays during Lent, not that they don’t recognize Lent. Two different things. I’ve spent a significant amount of time in Episcopal and Lutheran Churches. All recognized Lent, all had Ash Wednesday services and all encouraged you to give up something in the way of a Lenten discipline. None of them, to the best of my knowledge, required or suggested that you give up meat on Fridays during Lent.

 

[devotus]

Devotus,

Am I incorrect in connecting the dots and saying that since an indulgence of “X number of years/days” out of Penance leads to days out of having to be purified of actual/venial sins on earth…which eventually will translate to less time in Purgatory

Close… Indulgence are in place of penance – you need to do something ( Ie reading scripture and gain you an indulgence). Yes… It will eventually will translate to less time in Purgatory

There is the possibility of a place after death and before the foretaste of Heaven and the final earthly judgment where the souls of believers will be fully sanctified

correct… for Revelation 21:27, "But nothing unclean shall enter it [Heaven]

, but they do not suffer in this purification any more than the child who is baptised and cleansed of sins suffers the fires of the Holy Spirit entering him/her.

A water Baptized child … before the age of reason… is guiltless and would go straight to heaven

I may be misunderstanding the teaching NOW, but at one point that was the teaching, plain and simple, or are you not familiar with Tetzel’s jingle of “when the coin clinks in the chest, a soul flies up to Heavenly rest.”

The selling of Indulgences are no longer practices because of the abuse ( its still with in the churches right to do so)

The Orthodox as well teach there is a state before entering Heaven where one undergoes the remainder of their deification, but the individual DOES NOT SUFFER in a purging fire, but a purifying fire.

do you wonder why both catholic and orthodox churches ( the orginal church ) believe this and lutherans don’t? When did the early church go wrong in your view?

The question still needs to be addressed what Christ meant when he told the still sinful theif “TODAY you will be with me in paradise,” seemingly indicating that faith in Christ is what allows one to enter Heaven and the time in purgatory

The Good thief was said to be baptized by desire - in that if he could he would have been baptized with water -but could not ( he was hanging from a cross ) and thus guiltless of his sins (due to baptism) and no need for Purgatory

or amount of penance is fulfilled by Christ’s sacrifice and simple repentance and faith makes this real in the life of the Christian.

Why did the early church pray for the dead?

It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." - 2 Maccabees 12:43-46

“Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice (Job 1:5), why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.” St. John Chrysostom (“Homilies on 1 Corinthians” c. 392 A.D.)

 

[Cross-checking]

That just means that they don’t follow the Catholic Church’s discipline of no meat on Fridays during Lent, not that they don’t recognize Lent. Two different things. I’ve spent a significant amount of time in Episcopal and Lutheran Churches. All recognized Lent, all had Ash Wednesday services and all encouraged you to give up something in the way of a Lenten discipline. None of them, to the best of my knowledge, required or suggested that you give up meat on Fridays during Lent.

It is nice to see that you understand that abstaining from meat on Fridays in Lent is a discipline and not a doctrine for Catholics. I have had several occasions where Protestants have tried to “teach” me that abstaining from meat in Lent is a doctrine of the Catholic Church but then won’t listen when I try to explain it’s a discipline.

 

[devotus]

That just means that they don’t follow the Catholic Church’s discipline of no meat on Fridays during Lent, not that they don’t recognize Lent. Two different things. I’ve spent a significant amount of time in Episcopal and Lutheran Churches. All recognized Lent, all had Ash Wednesday services and all encouraged you to give up something in the way of a Lenten discipline. None of them, to the best of my knowledge, required or suggested that you give up meat on Fridays during Lent.

True…

But what is Lent with out Penance?

 

[rr1213]

True…

But what is Lent with out Penance?

I don’t think that Protestants and Catholics understand penance in the same manner. Protestants would give up something for Lent since denial is a way to focus yourself on your own sin and Christ’s saving grace. It is a form of devotional, at least for many Protestants. As way of example, I’ve “given up” something for Lent on which I tend to obsess to my detriment. I’ve also “picked up” something for Lent…I’m reading St. Augustine’s Confessions.

 

[Paleolutheran]

Close… Indulgence are in place of penance – you need to do something ( Ie reading scripture and gain you an indulgence). Yes… It will eventually will translate to less time in Purgatory

correct… for Revelation 21:27, "But nothing unclean shall enter it [Heaven]

A water Baptized child … before the age of reason… is guiltless and would go straight to heaven

The selling of Indulgences are no longer practices because of the abuse ( its still with in the churches right to do so)

do you wonder why both catholic and orthodox churches ( the orginal church ) believe this and lutherans don’t? When did the early church go wrong in your view?

The Good thief was said to be baptized by desire - in that if he could he would have been baptized with water -but could not ( he was hanging from a cross ) and thus guiltless of his sins (due to baptism) and no need for Purgatory

Why did the early church pray for the dead?

It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." - 2 Maccabees 12:43-46

“Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice (Job 1:5), why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.” St. John Chrysostom (“Homilies on 1 Corinthians” c. 392 A.D.)

Devotus,

That clarifies things concerning Purgatory and indulgences…I am not as far off as I thought. The Lutheran Confessions say prayers for the dead are NOT worthless (there is a whole list of what the Lutheran Confessions teach that would be good for Lutherans AND Catholics to read here and here). Apology XXIV (XII), paragraph 96 indicates that prayers for the dead are not worthless, but Masses do not work ex operre operato…but need faith or else it is a mass unto condemnation. If the dead are not present at the Mass, they cannot have faith in it.

Instead we teach that Christ completes sanctification in all Christians after their death and even if there were a location that the dead go to, the reckoning of time is unknown to us, but as again, with the theif, Christ says “TODAY you will be with me in paradise.” As such the dead Christians most likely have been sanctified in some location immediately after their death and are present in the Mass as fellow worshippers of the Lamb of God. The ancient church did not necessarily “get it wrong”, it merely seems to forget that Christ is the author and PERFECTER of our faith (Hebrews 12:2).

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

“That if you CONFESS WITH YOUR MOUTH, “Jesus is Lord,” and BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART GOD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD, YOU WILL BE SAVED.”- Romans 10:9.

That seems to me to say that you are saved by your belief in the heart and what you confess with your mouth, which is what St. Paul is saying throughout all of his epistle…that true faith of a Christian WILL bear fruit, but the fruit bore is not what saved you…for Abraham was justified by his faith, not by any sacrifices or work he did.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

Yes, WILL BE, this is not to mean that once you confess you cannot LOSE salvation by denying these facts later or committing serious sins.

St Paul says in Philippians 2:20

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Your belief is contrary to Scripture. James 2:21 states:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

WORKS St Paul talks about are the “works” of the Pharisees and such. This is what most Protestants mean when they talk about works, and Catholics believe these types of works do nothing for you as well. Catholics don’t believe works save you, that is heresy. We believe that works and faith are both necessary for Christian deification and sanctification.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Devotus,

There are slight problems here.

1. Lutherans believe that there are two groups of substances, wine/bread and blood/body and that after consecration both are together with one another, but NOT MIXED INTO A 3RD SUBSTANCE…that is what Consubstantiation teaches, that there is a mixing of substances…We teach all substances are there not affecting each other.
2. Your use of church fathers who use the word “substance” fails because you are defending the understanding of transubstantiation which wasn’t truly defined until St. Thomas Aquinnas used Aristotelian philosophy to explain the mystery…why else do you think the Orthodox (who we are very similar to on this issue) who use the EXACT SAME CHURCH FATHERS disagree with St. Thomas’s theology??? The substance the church fathers are using CANNOT be simply interpreted in light of a theology developed almost 1000 years later using similar words but in possibly a different context! “Substance” is a very spurious word and Aristotle’s philosophy just so happens to use the word…that doesn’t mean that is what St. Basil the Great or St. Augustine actually meant…they would probably have been upset that pagan scholasticism had been applied to the blessed Sacrament!
3. The Encyclopedia Brittanica is wrong and even scholars get the deffinition of consubstantiation wrong. Salmasius (~1653): “Consubstantiation, or fusion of natures, is the commixtion of two substances as it were into one; but it is not this which the followers of Luther believe; for they maintain the co-existence of two substances distinct in two subjects. It is the co-existence, rather, of the two substances than their consubstantiation.” In other words we believe that both substances of bread/body and wine/blood are not mixed in substance. Another term Lutherans would use aside from Real Presence is Sacramental Union.
4. Commingling has still not been explained to me using the very words of Christ of which Lutherans are somehow asserted to not believe, where he says “take eat, this is my body and take drink, this is my blood.” Nowhere does he say “Take eat, this is my body and blood and take drink, this is my blood and body.” Lutherans believe both the words of Christ AND the words of St. Paul. We do not cherry pick from the Word of God.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

An Orthodox believer is free to express his view of the Eucharist as transubstantiation. When there was a Calvinist problem in the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox held a local council and stated that they believed in transubstantiation.

Patriarch Gennadius, as a Greek layman and representative to the Fourth Lateran Council and later appointed Patriarchate of Constantinople, in his Homily on the Sacramental Body of our Lord Jesus Christ uses the word TRANSUBSTANTIATION in his Homily. I suggest you read his work.

 

[Paleolutheran]

Yes, WILL BE, this is not to mean that once you confess you cannot LOSE salvation by denying these facts later or committing serious sins.

St Paul says in Philippians 2:20

Your belief is contrary to Scripture. James 2:21 states:

WORKS St Paul talks about are the “works” of the Pharisees and such. This is what most Protestants mean when they talk about works, and Catholics believe these types of works do nothing for you as well. Catholics don’t believe works save you, that is heresy. We believe that works and faith are both necessary for Christian deification and sanctification.

Semper,

Lutherans don’t accept “once saved, always saved.” That’s the Calvinists. Lutherans believe that one must perservere in faith till the end and that the grace given in the Eucharist and Penance keep one in the true faith as well as sanctify them, but salvation is assured through faith which justifies a person. Look also at the words of Hebrews which speak to the James 2:21 passage. “By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going” Hebrews 11:8. Also, Galatians 3 seems to speak of the entire law condemning us and we follow the law because of faith, not to save us, but out of a RESPONSE to true faith. I think we might be speaking over each other but similar. Suffice it to say that the Roman church at one time taught that you were justified by faith and works using the language for faith in James, but has somewhat ammended it to include the salvation promised to simply faith which in itself leads to works as in Romans, Galations, Ephesians, and Hebrews.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren