Lutheran's

[Paleolutheran]

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.

Semper,

This is wrong. “The Orthodox Church” does not alter over the pronouncements from a local council, only that which the ecumenical councils decides upon is doctrine. The rest MAY be allowable, but not infallibly. Also, I do not deny the fact that the Orthodox have used the term “transubstantiation” in their explanation of the Eucharist, but it isn’t the Roman explanation…or perhaps I should quote to you Bishop Kalistos Ware on the subject:
“Today a few Orthodox writers still use the word transubstantiation, but they insist on two points: first, there are many other words which can with equal legitimacy be used to describe the consecration, and, among them all, the term transubstantiation ENJOYS NO UNIQUE OR DECISIVE AUTHORITY: secondly, it’s use DOES NOT COMMIT THEOLOGIANS TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF ARISTOTELIAN PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS” (The Orthodox Church 2nd ed., pg. 284)

He then goes on to quote the Large Catechism by St. Philaret as the general position of Orthodoxy: “Question: How are we to understand the word transubstantiation?” Answer: …The word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord" (The Orthodox Church 2nd ed. pg. 285).

With these statements I again submit that regardless of what you think personal opinions are regarding individual Orthodox members, they are using the word “substantially” as the fathers are, with no concern for Aristotelian metaphysics and are only saying that the bread and wine become the body and blood mysteriously. The book continues with a quote by St. John of Damascus wherein he says that it is a mystery we are not meant to know.

While this is not identical it is similar to the Lutheran position that there is a Real Presence “substantially” but we differ in that the bread and wine still remain. This is not consubstantiation as has been brought up, nor is it exactly the Eastern Orthodox view. Regardless, the Roman term does not seem to be validated by the fathers according to the Orthodox nor is it validated when the context is placed on the fathers regarding the word “substantially.”

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[Paleolutheran]

Again, I ask in the spirit of this dialogue, how Christ’s words of institution of “this is my body” and “this is my blood” allow for the Roman church to teach commingling of the body and blood in the elements. I have responded to several assertions regarding sola fide and the Lutheran view of the Eucharist, yet I have not heard a response concerning one of my questions on the Roman view of the Eucharist of which I have, with this question, asked three times.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[AlegreFe]

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.

(emphasis added)

We also “deny” ourselves in “giving something up” and/or making sacrifices. We look to our sins so that we can Confess them. That is called penance. You just put a different word to your meaning, which is very similar to ours as Catholics.

Lent for us is about penance. We pray, fast, and give alms during lent. You can read more about Lent for Catholics here. There are other links there also.

 

[AlegreFe]

Again, I ask in the spirit of this dialogue, how Christ’s words of institution of “this is my body” and “this is my blood” allow for the Roman church to teach commingling of the body and blood in the elements.

The only thing that I could say is that Catholics believe that the WHOLE Jesus is there at the altar after consecration. The bread now is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Since we cannot separate Jesus’ Body from His Blood then how can you say that the bread alone only contains Jesus’ Body and that the wine alone only contains the Blood of Jesus? You can’t say that, just as much as you cannot separate His Blood from His Body.

Since Jesus was alive when He gave us His Body (at the Last Supper) it still contained His Blood, correct? And since Jesus is Risen He is still alive right now when we receive His Body. So a body that is alive has the blood right along with it. So Jesus didn’t mean, “This is my Body alone without my Blood” did he? No, of course not. His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are all together and have now replaced the bread.

I’m no scholar, so someone else, I’m sure, can explain this better than I could. And somehow I don’t think I’ve answered your question anyway, so perhaps someone else can give it a shot.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

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

Romans, Galatians, Hebrews and James must all agree with each other since they are all Divinely Inspired Sacred Scripture.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

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

Yes, I know it’s the Calvinists that are OSAS.

I think you’re confusing salvation and justification. Salvation is a life long process in the Catholic’s eyes, beginning at baptism, be it baptism by water, baptism by blood or baptism by desire.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Again, I ask in the spirit of this dialogue, how Christ’s words of institution of “this is my body” and “this is my blood” allow for the Roman church to teach commingling of the body and blood in the elements. I have responded to several assertions regarding sola fide and the Lutheran view of the Eucharist, yet I have not heard a response concerning one of my questions on the Roman view of the Eucharist of which I have, with this question, asked three times.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

Jesus Christ is fully present Body, Blood Soul & Divnity in the smallest particle of the Host or the smallest drop of the Cup.

 

[Paleolutheran]

Yes, I know it’s the Calvinists that are OSAS.

I think you’re confusing salvation and justification. Salvation is a life long process in the Catholic’s eyes, beginning at baptism, be it baptism by water, baptism by blood or baptism by desire.

Semper,

St. Paul does not distinguish between the law of Moses and the “Divine Law” as you seem to call it, for the law of Moses isn’t just the Levitical laws, but the Ten Commandments, which are summed up as “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength” and “love your neighbor as yourself.” What James is saying is that true justifying faith, given to us freely and totally by God will lead to works…without works, that is an indication that the justifying faith is dead.

In Lutheran theology, justification is being “born again through water and the Word” and if you perservere (“work out your salvation through fear and trembling”) till the end, you will be saved…but in time, now, at the time of this breath because I have faith, I am justified and saved…if I do fall away at the end of my life and die, I have rejected that faith and lose my justification before God. We are perhaps speaking the same thing with different language, but perhaps “divine law” as it was mentioned earlier is unknown to me and I think you are talking to the summation of the commandments, which St. Paul in Romans mentions in chapter 13 and talks about the one who fulfilled it for our sakes, Jesus Christ.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[Paleolutheran]

Jesus Christ is fully present Body, Blood Soul & Divnity in the smallest particle of the Host or the smallest drop of the Cup.

Semper,

I am confused. How is transubstantiation justified and sacramental union rejected by the words of Christ “this IS my body” and “this IS my blood,” rather than “this CONTAINS my body” and “this CONTAINS my blood,” yet commingling is defended even though Christ said “take and EAT, this is my BODY (in reference to the bread)” and “take and DRINK, this is my BLOOD (in reference to the blood).” This is a committing of the same supposed error that Lutherans are doing…adding to the words of Christ.

The body and blood of our Lord are present in each element and that is why He instituted the supper as BOTH KINDS being distributed. My question would be if this belief is not in Scripture, when and with whom did it originate? Was it St. Aquinas over 1200 years after Christ instituted the Supper? Or did St. Augustine institute this teaching much closer to the time of our Lord? The teaching to me seems to add to Christ’s words, and thus the justification of the Middle Ages practice of lay and priestly communion, that I would be more willing to respect the opinion of St. Augustine or St. Basil rather than St. Aquinas.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[ctos]

Dear Lutherans:

Please give a one-sentence summary of why you are not Catholic. Thank you.

(Here is my one-sentence summary of why I am not a Lutheran. I am not a Lutheran because in faith there is no reason to look further than one faith, one baptism, and one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.)

I simply do not understand how someone can get near to religion, and somehow fail to conclude that the Catholic Church is the true One. All help is welcome.

 

[AlegreFe]

Please give a one-sentence summary of why you are not Catholic. Thank you.
(Here is my one-sentence summary of why I am not a Lutheran. I am not a Lutheran because in faith there is no reason to look further than one faith, one baptism, and one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.)
I simply do not understand how someone can get near to religion, and somehow fail to conclude that the Catholic Church is the true One. All help is welcome.

That’s a good question. The reason why I’m not Luteran or any other Protestant denomination is because I have Jesus Christ right here in the Eucharist and no other denomination (aside from Eastern Orthodox) can say that they have Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. I would starve to eternal death without Jesus Christ.

 

[Paleolutheran]

Dear Lutherans:

Please give a one-sentence summary of why you are not Catholic. Thank you.

(Here is my one-sentence summary of why I am not a Lutheran. I am not a Lutheran because in faith there is no reason to look further than one faith, one baptism, and one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.)

I simply do not understand how someone can get near to religion, and somehow fail to conclude that the Catholic Church is the true One. All help is welcome.

Wow…only one sentence to say what needs several. Technically I do claim to be Catholic…just Evangelical, not Roman. Don’t get me wrong, we have our disagreements but I hold great respect for Roman Catholics since they have not lost the Sacraments or the traditions of the church. I guess I would say: “I am not a Roman Catholic because I do not believe any one disciple was more important than the other in the case of authority, since when Jesus was asked who was the best, he went over and talked about children.” In other words I agree with the equality of Bishops rather than one head one.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[ctos]

I see, thank you Paleo. In other words you have a reason. Can you think of a friend or two of yours, and vicariously coin their hypothetical sentences?

I guess with something like how an aspect of Scripture, or of the nature of the Church, should be perceived, I consider it true that we should believe what has always been believed. I don’t see how something major like that can be ‘discovered’ in the 1500s, as if Christians had been misguided for a 1000 years or 1500 years.

Anyway, it’s just difficult for me to understand not being Catholic, because to me it just seems so obvious. Nothing else could possibly qualify. When I contemplate those who have come into contact with the Church and not wanted to become Catholic, I believe that they would prefer not to examine their consciences in light of Church teachings, or, that they are uncertain that there could be Truth that we can feel certain about. I think those are the two points that really keep people away. Plus scandals I guess. It’s as if people say interiorly, ‘How can it be true? I’d have to ___’ or, ‘They’re guilty of ___’ or, ‘In my work in humanities or sciences I’ve seen too many cases of metanarratives crashing to the ground.’

I appreciate all help you can provide me with this, because I hope to be a Catholic priest someday, and I have to learn to understand “other Christians”.

 

[Paleolutheran]

I see, thank you Paleo. In other words you have a reason. Can you think of a friend or two of yours, and vicariously coin their hypothetical sentences?

I guess with something like how an aspect of Scripture, or of the nature of the Church, should be perceived, I consider it true that we should believe what has always been believed. I don’t see how something major like that can be ‘discovered’ in the 1500s, as if Christians had been misguided for a 1000 years or 1500 years.

Anyway, it’s just difficult for me to understand not being Catholic, because to me it just seems so obvious. Nothing else could possibly qualify. When I contemplate those who have come into contact with the Church and not wanted to become Catholic, I believe that they would prefer not to examine their consciences in light of Church teachings, or, that they are uncertain that there could be Truth that we can feel certain about. I think those are the two points that really keep people away. Plus scandals I guess. It’s as if people say interiorly, ‘How can it be true? I’d have to ___’ or, ‘They’re guilty of ___’ or, ‘In my work in humanities or sciences I’ve seen too many cases of metanarratives crashing to the ground.’

I appreciate all help you can provide me with this, because I hope to be a Catholic priest someday, and I have to learn to understand “other Christians”.

ctos,

I understand. I myself wish to be a Lutheran priest and believe it or not I did at one time look at the Roman Church and the Eastern Church. On my blog I vehemently defend Roman Catholics as Christians and gave quite a long diatribe against John MacArthur’s sermon about the Pope. My reasons for not joining the Roman Church in as succinct a way as I can (and with no windy explanations):

1. Equality of the sucessors of the Apostles, approved by the whole church in the appropriate region.
2. Tradition is used in many things, but cannot trump Holy Scripture.
3. Justification as entrance into Heaven and sanctification as a life-long process no one finishes this side of death. Salvation is based upon justification, but one must perservere till the end.
4. Acceptance of saving faith through grace provided by God’s grace. No synergism in salvation, only in sanctification.
5. Election of grace.
6. Christ not offered up again during the Eucharist. Christ offered His spirit into the Father’s hands at Calvary, and we partake in the gift without the sacrificial act.
7. Invoking the saints is not mandatory in the liturgy (but some such as myself privately practice the Eastern understanding of intercession of the saints).

Many of my Lutheran friends who have left Lutheranism for the East or Rome left because of theological liberalism’s recent affect or some other reason, have all thought of these reasons. Most don’t treat the scandals as anything more than what they are in their context. We realize all denominations have had their dark days in the past. I hope this helps.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[AlegreFe]

Wow…only one sentence to say what needs several.

I don’t think you need several sentences. If you do need several sentences to state why you are not Catholic then I don’t think your faith is enough because it seems you would have to convince yourself with more than one sentence, or you feel you have to prove to us Catholics that our Church is not the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ built on Peter the Rock. My “one sentence” is that I would not have Jesus Christ in the Eucharist if I was not Catholic.

Paleolutheran:

Technically I do claim to be Catholic…just Evangelical, not Roman.

Do you know that the word “evangelical” comes from the Catholic Church? And how is it that you claim to be Catholic with a big “C” and not just in the “universal” sense? Or is that what you mean?

Many things that many of the Protestant churches have come from the Catholic Church. Stephan Ray puts it cleverly as he describes (paraphrasing) - the Catholic Church as the “mother ship” and many people on the “mother ship” (Catholic Church) get sick of “listening” to the “captain” (the Pope) so they decide to “jump ship.” As they do this they take several items that they would need from the “mother ship” so they can at least stay afloat until they get to their “final destination” (Heaven of course). There are several “rafts” (protestant churches) out there in the big sea trying to stay afloat as they make their way to the “promised land.” But with only a few things from the “mother ship” many of them sink before they get across (the Tiber). They forgot one thing though, Jesus Christ. These people that “jumped ship” were also sick of the same ol’ food (the Eucharist). So they didn’t take the most nutrisious food they could’ve had. - Steve Ray’s conversion story is a good one. He used to be Baptist but now is Catholic. Steve uses more of that “analysis” in his conversion story.

Paleolutheran:

Don’t get me wrong, we have our disagreements but I hold great respect for Roman Catholics since they have not lost the Sacraments or the traditions of the church.

You say that as if we were the ones that left the one true Church that Jesus Christ built but we still held on to the Sacraments or the Traditions.

If you believe that Jesus Christ built the Catholic Church and that at some point the Church was corrupt so then Luther came along to “save” what was left of the Church to then start his own “version” of the church, then you don’t believe Jesus when he said that the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church, the Catholic Church.

Paleolutheran:

I guess I would say: “I am not a Roman Catholic because I do not believe any one disciple was more important than the other in the case of authority, since when Jesus was asked who was the best, he went over and talked about children.”

Jesus loves children so of course He would say “let the children come to me” and He would bless them.

When was Jesus asked who “the best” was? And what does “best” mean as opposed to “first” or something else? It is obvious from Scripture that Peter was mentioned more times in the Bible than all of the other Apostles put together.

Jesus did not tell the children what He told Peter, “you are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail.” And Jesus did not give any keys to the children either. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

more in next post…

 

[AlegreFe]

…cont

Paleolutheran:

In other words I agree with the equality of Bishops rather than one head one.

So you don’t believe in the President’s position either? There has to be one “head of the Church” here on earth.

Jesus was only speaking to Peter when He asked Peter if he loved Him more “than these.” And so Jesus told Peter, “feed my lambs… tend my sheep,… feed my sheep…”

Jesus and Peter - John 21:15-19 (ESV)
15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus
said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John,
do you love me more than these?” He said
to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.”
He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16 He said to him a second time, “Simon,
son of John, do you love me?” He said to
him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.”
He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son
of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved
because he said to him the third time, “Do
you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you
know everything; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.
18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were
young, you used to dress yourself and walk
wherever you wanted, but when you are old,
you will stretch out your hands, and another
will dress you and carry you where you do
not want to go.”
19 (This he said to show by what kind of
death he was to glorify God.) And after
saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”

The Primacy of Peter

 

[rr1213]

I don’t think you need several sentences. If you do need several sentences to state why you are not Catholic then I don’t think your faith is enough because it seems you would have to convince yourself with more than one sentence, or you feel you have to prove to us Catholics that our Church is not the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ built on Peter the Rock.

God used an entire book, the new and old testaments, to reveal himself to his people. The Catholic Church has a quite large Catechism, as well as numerous upon numerous papal and councilar documents. The Luthern Churches have the Book of Concord. The Anglican Churches have the Book of Common Prayer. If you can reduce your theology to a sound bite more power to you, but I don’t think that the inability of other people to do so reveals more than that they have nuanced viewpoints on the question.

 

[seeker_b]

Please note that the Missouri synod Lutherans did not sign the document of justification. It was the Evengelical Lutheran Church of American that did.

 

[GKC]

PL,

RE: your list of reasons, above.

I think you will find that the RC position on the sacrifice of the Eucahrist is not that it involves offering Christ again, if by that you mean a repeated sacrifice. Rather, we are brought before the one, singular sacrifice, that of Calvary, as history and eternity intersect at the foot of the cross, at the altar. Not a re-offering, but the same offering made present again, as it is eteranlly present before the Father, unbound by the contraints of His creation, time.

And as an Anglo-Catholic, I can match a couple of your points, myself.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Please note that the Missouri synod Lutherans did not sign the document of justification. It was the Evengelical Lutheran Church of American that did.

Yes, the Lutheran church which isn’t really Lutheran.