No doubts about converting from LCMS

[steido01]

I don’t think it’s a question of whether Lutherans have mistaken the teaching of the Catholic Church for the last 5 centuries, which seems very unlikely. But rather WHY have they PERSISTED in this mistaken notion. That, at least, would be my question as a thoughtful Lutheran.

IOW, I would ask myself, with all of the published Catholic teaching on the Mass, since (and before) the Reformation, HOW could the Lutheran church have been so wrong?

Then I would ask myself, was this error deliberate or just negligent?

Why does fault lie exclusively with the Lutherans? Rather than: Why don’t others understand the RCC? The question, it seems, could just as easily be phrased: Why can’t the Roman Catholic Church properly explain itself to others? Isn’t it possible that poor practice and catechesis by/within the RCC contributed to the continuation of the mutual misunderstanding? Both communions have their share of cafeteria catholics.

Or I would ask myself, has Lutheran teaching itself changed, yet retaining the old calumny?

Lutheran teaching regarding the perceived errors of the Roman ‘Sacrifice of the Mass’ have not changed. I think that’s pretty clear from my post and from Rev. Dr. Preus’s. Most intriguing is that, according to this thread, the RCC would also condemn the errors to which Lutherans object. It appears, at least on this singular issue, that our respective communions do have the potential for doctrinal agreement. Why not focus on this remarkable point on the path toward real corporate reunion based in doctrine instead of meaningless ‘unity in diversity?’

And most importantly:
Would I be willing to go wherever the Truth led?

May we all be receptive to His clear Truth. Amen.

 

[JonNC]

Hi bb,

Every Easter I get extremely emotional when I see the RCIA candidates take their first Holy Eucharist. I was you 20 years ago and I know what it has meant in my life.

In my small faith community there are 6 couples, each couple but one HAD a cradle Catholic and a convert. One was a ‘split marriage’. Now they are not. The funny thing though about the 6 and virtually all of the 100 or so converts I know - we ALL converted because we came to recognize the Church is what it claims to be. Of the dozen or so that I know who have left the Church, NONE of them left seeking an ‘improved’ doctrine. They all left for something more ‘welcoming’ or better music - you know, the really CRUCIAL stuff.

When I began my search for the Truth about 25 years ago, the LAST thing I wanted to be was a Catholic, and at the time, the idea of being a Catholic faithful to the Church was pretty unfathomable.

Topper

I asked you a while back to post something positive about the Catholic Church. Thanks be to God that the CC has served your needs this well. May you continue to be blessed there.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Why does fault lie exclusively with the Lutherans? Rather than: Why don’t others understand the RCC? The question, it seems, could just as easily be phrased: Why can’t the Roman Catholic Church properly explain itself to others?

Well *that *doesn’t sound like much fun.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

steido01:

Why does fault lie exclusively with the Lutherans? Rather than: Why don’t others understand the RCC? The question, it seems, could just as easily be phrased: Why can’t the Roman Catholic Church properly explain itself to others?

I never considered this the sort of reasoning a thoughtful Lutheran would seriously consider.

Lutheran teaching regarding the perceived errors of the Roman ‘Sacrifice of the Mass’ have not changed.

I’m not sure what you are saying here. Is your faith based on false perceptions? I know Lutherans don’t claim infallibility, but do they claim constancy in their errors as a mark of the Lutheran Church?

 

[Topper17]

I asked you a while back to post something positive about the Catholic Church. Thanks be to God that the CC has served your needs this well. May you continue to be blessed there.

Jon

Thank you My Brother, May God Continue to Bless You, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Luther and the Mass, Justification and the Joint Declaration, by Daniel Preus (continued)

…………………Luther did not equate the office of priest with that of pastor. Luther perceived that the pope possesses his own priesthood. He spoke of a “holy popish priesthood,” a “papal priesthood,” and “the pope’s pseudo-priesthood.” In his assessment of the papal mass, Luther did speak about priests, but he viewed them as “mass priests.” They are “godless priests” and the “devil’s priesthood.” Never did Luther refer to them as priests of Christ, much less as pastors….

Luther often denied that the popish priests hold any Christian office, but his challenge to their possession of a Christian priestly office is most often found in his writings that deal with the mass. The sacrifice of the mass is an attack on the only priestly sacrifice that can ever have any merit before God, that of the great High Priest himself. The very term “priest” replaced that of “minister” in order that the concept of sacrifice might be reinforced in the papal mass. The title “priest” is not an appropriate one to describe him who holds the pastoral office and should be used only in reference to a Christian.

(Topper: Wow, that’s pretty ‘direct’. There nothing to suggest that Preus disagrees.)

Luther saw the pope’s priesthood as completely inimical to the Christian priesthood of believers. So you see that Christ’s priesthood has less chance of existing with the pope’s pseudo-priesthood than death has with life or heaven with hell. Verily, verily, the pope is a regent of Christ: he has driven out Christ and expelled him and put himself in Christ’s place as a ruler, and instead of the priesthood of the Spirit, he has set up a childish and grotesque priesthood.

Since the pope’s priesthood has nothing to do with Christ, much less with the office of a Christian minister, Luther denied that the consecration or ordination of such priests has any validity in the church of Christ…….

They do not preach. They do not baptize. They do not administer the sacrament. They do not absolve. They do not pray (except to intone badly and hiss the words of the Psalter). They do not exercise the office of the care of souls, nor do they do anything with the dying; rather, they are a useless, lazy, idle crowd….

Luther wondered what kind of priesthood it is that performs none of the duties of a pastor and even “forbids public preaching in the church and parish ministry . . . without a special new order and call.” As far as Luther was concerned, consecration to such a priesthood has nothing in common with “ordination or a call to the public Christian office of preaching and the parish ministry.” Such a priesthood has no authorization from the Scriptures and is therefore a perverted priesthood, instituted not by Christ, but by antichrist. Wissløff summarizes Luther’s view of this papal “ministry.”

‘The sacrifice of the mass is viewed from the standpoint of preaching. It does not speak of grace and faith, but of works and merit. The only priestly ministry the New Testament knows anything about is the ministry of the Spirit. But the ministry of the priest in the mass has to be characterized as one of the letter, of the law, of works. Therefore it is a “ministerium perditionis.” “Therefore as the priesthood is, so is the sacrifice, so is the ministering. The priest, the law, the work - all are nothing but the laws of Satan.” ……

Luther was convinced that the use of the terms “mass” and “sacrament” interchangeably has resulted in great confusion, and that the only way to provide a clear understanding of the nature of the Lord’s Supper is to stop calling it the mass. “Indeed, I wish and would very much like to see and hear that the two words ‘mass’ and ‘sacrament’ would be understood as being as different as darkness and light, yes, as different as devil and God.” …

Lutherans tempted to use “mass” as a synonym for the Lord’s Supper should take seriously Luther’s observations on the difference between “mass” and “sacrament.” The same confusion may very well result today when a term frequently used in reference to a sacrificial act performed by a priest is used carelessly by Lutherans in reference to the Lord’s Supper. It is not without justification that a charge of “Roman Catholic” is brought against those who refer to the Lord’s Supper as “the mass.” ……It is ill advised for Lutherans to do so today. Confusion will almost necessarily result unless Rome reforms its doctrine on the mass, which is hardly likely.”

In spite of the soothing tones that we Catholics hear here on CA, Pautz sets the record straight. The term ‘Roman Catholic’ is apparently an accusation. Again, we hear that Lutherans have absolutely no intention of ‘adjusting’ their doctrinal beliefs for the sake of reunion with Catholics. If a reunion is to happen it will be because the Catholic Church (1.1 billion members) will have placated the LCMS with their 2.2 million.

“Indeed it is at least arguable that, save for one early disputation, which he mentioned in his memoir but which has been lost, he did not even think about the church as such until he was forced to it in 1519 by the impending debate with Johannes Eck at Leipzig.” Lutheran Professor James Nestingen, ‘The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther’, pg. 262

It would have been ‘nice’ if Luther would have thought about the nature of the Church before he blew it up and replaced it with one of his ‘own design’.

Unfortunately there is more

 

[pablope]

Why does fault lie exclusively with the Lutherans?

Is there a reason why it should not be? Are Lutherans then trying to deflect blame or are you trying to rationalize your misunderstanding?

Rather than: Why don’t others understand the RCC?

 

[steido01]

I never considered this the sort of reasoning a thoughtful Lutheran would seriously consider.

My point was that misunderstandings are often a result of poor communication by both parties, the RC catechism says as much (“Men of both sides were to blame…”). Am I to believe that the RCC never suffers from poor catechesis or practice - however localized or widespread? Or that you would not entertain even the hypothetical?

I’m not sure what you are saying here. Is your faith based on false perceptions? I know Lutherans don’t claim infallibility, but do they claim constancy in their errors as a mark of the Lutheran Church?

Of course not! I made my understanding clear in my last post, particularly in the portions you omitted when quoting me. I don’t think restating myself would be anymore effective in communicating this.

 

[Topper17]

“Luther and the Mass, Justification and the Joint Declaration”, by Daniel Preus (continued)

As Luther viewed it, the one responsible for this weaving together of the mass and the sacrament is none other than Satan himself.

Such sacrificing and reception of the sacrament the devil has mingled together so inseparably in the mass, even as dishonest innkeepers mix water and wine with one another and as deceitful minters mix silver and brass……… Just as the devil has constructed his own chapel next to the church of God, so he has imitated also God’s sacrament and established the mass as its substitute. And just as the church of antichrist is a hypocritical and false church, so his mass is an idol and an abomination. For since the false church of antichrist attacks the church of Christ by robbing it of the gospel, the false “sacrament” of antichrist must also deprive the church of her inheritance….

The doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was not simply an ancillary issue when considering Luther’s understanding of the nature of Antichrist and the eschatological struggle of the church. ….Thus the battle between Christ and antichrist rages nowhere more intensely than in the struggle between sacrament and mass when two conflicting soteriologies confront each other, one of grace and one of works.

It is because Luther saw the contention between the mass and the sacrament as a struggle between two mutually exclusive soteriologies, and therefore, the site of battle between the true church and the false church, that he viewed the mass as crucial to the survival of the papal office. Since the mass is a denial of the atonement, its loss would have a profoundly significant impact upon the office of the antichrist, whose chief objective is to suppress the gospel and destroy faith in Christ. Just as Luther believed that the entire gospel is encompassed within the sacrament of the altar, so he viewed the sacrifice of the mass as, “the basis of all blasphemy in the papacy.” Every celebration of the mass is a proclamation of the central doctrine of the antichrist, that is, salvation by works.** To remove the mass would be to topple antichrist from his throne. Therefore, said Luther, it is not possible for the papists to yield on the article of the mass. “The papists are well aware that if the mass falls, the papacy will fall with it” **(SA ii ii, 10; Tappert, 294).

Already in 1522, foreshadowing his later distinction between the words “mass” and “sacrament,” Luther recognized how essential the mass is to papal soteriology. He declared in a treatise against Henry VIII: “After the mass has fallen, I believe that we will have triumphed over the entire papacy. For upon the mass, as upon a rock, the entire papacy is founded.” In 1524 Luther confessed that he had even been tempted to interpret the words of institution symbolically in order deal a greater blow to the papacy.

(Topper: I could not make this stuff up. That Luther, out of his hatred of the Church, would think, for even a moment to misrepresent the Eucharist is astonishing.)

Thus, Luther’s view that the pope was to be identified as antichrist was formed not only by those passages of Scripture that deal with the coming antichrist and with a description of his kingdom. It was also shaped substantially by the teaching of justification that permeates Scripture. Certainly it is the specific passages that predict the coming “man of sin” and describe his activity that bring to attention the existence of this eschatological figure. But for Luther it was the Scripture’s message of justification and his recognition that the pope lives to destroy this doctrine, and thus to destroy Christianity, that was instrumental in causing Luther to see that the pope is indeed this antichrist. And at the heart of Luther’s assessment of the papacy as the antichrist lies the sacrifice of the mass.

If, as indicated earlier, the sacraments are the central teaching of justification by faith, and if the Lord’s Supper is the gospel, it is surely disingenuous for Lutherans to declare convergence with Roman Catholics on the article of justification without even mentioning the Lord’s Supper. Yet this is precisely what the Joint Declaration does. Though the document contains a number of references to baptism, it makes no mention of the Lord’s Supper whatsoever, except obliquely when it concedes the need for further clarification on a number of topics such as "the relationship between the Word of God and church doctrine, as well as ecclesiology; ecclesial authority, church unity, ministry; the sacraments, and the relationship between justification and social ethics.”

To avoid completely discussion of a locus that is absolutely central to the theology of both Lutherans and Roman Catholics, and particularly to their understanding of the article of justification, can hardly create confidence in the integrity of the participants. Or is it possible that Lutherans and Roman Catholics have come closer together during recent years in their understanding of the sacrament of the altar?

The best is yet to come. (actually its the worst)

 

[pablope]

“Luther and the Mass, Justification and the Joint Declaration”, by Daniel Preus (continued)

As Luther viewed it, the one responsible for this weaving together of the mass and the sacrament is none other than Satan himself.

To avoid completely discussion of a locus that is absolutely central to the theology of both Lutherans and Roman Catholics, and particularly to their understanding of the article of justification, can hardly create confidence in the integrity of the participants. Or is it possible that Lutherans and Roman Catholics have come closer together during recent years in their understanding of the sacrament of the altar?

The best is yet to come. (actually its the worst)

Topper…thanks for the info.

I looks like that one the causes of the Reformation was based on a false belief…and becomes more and more evident…

Anyway, Luther was involved in debates…have you come across if he had debated a Catholic on the Eucharist?

 

[spina1953]

“Luther and the Mass, Justification and the Joint Declaration”, by Daniel Preus (continued)

As Luther viewed it, the one responsible for this weaving together of the mass and the sacrament is none other than Satan himself.

Such sacrificing and reception of the sacrament the devil has mingled together so inseparably in the mass, even as dishonest innkeepers mix water and wine with one another and as deceitful minters mix silver and brass……… Just as the devil has constructed his own chapel next to the church of God, so he has imitated also God’s sacrament and established the mass as its substitute. And just as the church of antichrist is a hypocritical and false church, so his mass is an idol and an abomination. For since the false church of antichrist attacks the church of Christ by robbing it of the gospel, the false “sacrament” of antichrist must also deprive the church of her inheritance….

The doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was not simply an ancillary issue when considering Luther’s understanding of the nature of Antichrist and the eschatological struggle of the church. ….Thus the battle between Christ and antichrist rages nowhere more intensely than in the struggle between sacrament and mass when two conflicting soteriologies confront each other, one of grace and one of works.

It is because Luther saw the contention between the mass and the sacrament as a struggle between two mutually exclusive soteriologies, and therefore, the site of battle between the true church and the false church, that he viewed the mass as crucial to the survival of the papal office. Since the mass is a denial of the atonement, its loss would have a profoundly significant impact upon the office of the antichrist, whose chief objective is to suppress the gospel and destroy faith in Christ. Just as Luther believed that the entire gospel is encompassed within the sacrament of the altar, so he viewed the sacrifice of the mass as, “the basis of all blasphemy in the papacy.” Every celebration of the mass is a proclamation of the central doctrine of the antichrist, that is, salvation by works.** To remove the mass would be to topple antichrist from his throne. Therefore, said Luther, it is not possible for the papists to yield on the article of the mass. “The papists are well aware that if the mass falls, the papacy will fall with it” **(SA ii ii, 10; Tappert, 294).

Already in 1522, foreshadowing his later distinction between the words “mass” and “sacrament,” Luther recognized how essential the mass is to papal soteriology. He declared in a treatise against Henry VIII: “After the mass has fallen, I believe that we will have triumphed over the entire papacy. For upon the mass, as upon a rock, the entire papacy is founded.” In 1524 Luther confessed that he had even been tempted to interpret the words of institution symbolically in order deal a greater blow to the papacy.

(Topper: I could not make this stuff up. That Luther, out of his hatred of the Church, would think, for even a moment to misrepresent the Eucharist is astonishing.)

Thus, Luther’s view that the pope was to be identified as antichrist was formed not only by those passages of Scripture that deal with the coming antichrist and with a description of his kingdom. It was also shaped substantially by the teaching of justification that permeates Scripture. Certainly it is the specific passages that predict the coming “man of sin” and describe his activity that bring to attention the existence of this eschatological figure. But for Luther it was the Scripture’s message of justification and his recognition that the pope lives to destroy this doctrine, and thus to destroy Christianity, that was instrumental in causing Luther to see that the pope is indeed this antichrist. And at the heart of Luther’s assessment of the papacy as the antichrist lies the sacrifice of the mass.

If, as indicated earlier, the sacraments are the central teaching of justification by faith, and if the Lord’s Supper is the gospel, it is surely disingenuous for Lutherans to declare convergence with Roman Catholics on the article of justification without even mentioning the Lord’s Supper. Yet this is precisely what the Joint Declaration does. Though the document contains a number of references to baptism, it makes no mention of the Lord’s Supper whatsoever, except obliquely when it concedes the need for further clarification on a number of topics such as "the relationship between the Word of God and church doctrine, as well as ecclesiology; ecclesial authority, church unity, ministry; the sacraments, and the relationship between justification and social ethics.”

To avoid completely discussion of a locus that is absolutely central to the theology of both Lutherans and Roman Catholics, and particularly to their understanding of the article of justification, can hardly create confidence in the integrity of the participants. Or is it possible that Lutherans and Roman Catholics have come closer together during recent years in their understanding of the sacrament of the altar?

The best is yet to come. (actually its the worst)

Hi Topper: Well you have done it again, great information on Luther! More and more I see that not only did Luther become unstable but has lost his mind and went off the deep end!

 

[Topper17]

Topper…thanks for the info.

I looks like that one the causes of the Reformation was based on a false belief…and becomes more and more evident…

Anyway, Luther was involved in debates…have you come across if he had debated a Catholic on the Eucharist?

Hi pab,

I apologize in advance or the length here pab. I don’t seem to be able to write short answers. It’s a problem. I need an editor.

I think you are right. Every doctrinal departure from Historic Christianity has involved an overemphasis of one aspect of the Gospel at the expense of other aspects. This typically evolves (devolves actually) from an overemphasis, to an actual false belief, which became necessary in order to protect the thing being overemphasized. In this case, with Luther, everything revolved around Salvation by Faith Alone. What Luther didn’t realize was that in order to ‘protect’ SBFA, SO MUCH of Christian Doctrine had to go by the wayside. A better Theologian would have recognized that ‘going in’.

I am not aware of any formal debate between Luther and a Catholic on the Holy Eucharist. Of course, the most famous debate, at Leipzig against Eck was a loss for Luther, and not so much because people thought Eck had won (although they did), but because Luther’s understanding of Christian history and the teachings of the Fathers was revealed as being faulty. In other words, the very beliefs that Luther ‘used’ at this critical juncture, were based on a false understanding of the facts of history.

As to the Eucharist, it is important to understand why, (specifically and exactly of course) Luther rejected the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. First there was the fact that it was a Catholic teaching, confirmed and more fully defined by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). Luther’s hatred of the Church and his desire to defeat it caused him to challenge virtually everything he could think of. As we have read from Preus, he even considered teaching a ‘spiritual only’ understanding in order to ‘deal a greater blow to the papacy’. Can you imagine even contemplating teaching something THAT IMPORTANT differently than what you actually believe in order to deal a greater blow to your opponent? I think that is very telling.

The ‘driver’ of his doctrinal beliefs, Salvation by Faith Alone, which absolutely HAD to be protected with extreme vehemence so HE could believe it. The fact that other people came to believe this never before taught doctrine was a huge bonus for Luther, but the most important thing was that by believing it himself he escaped his massive fears about his everlasting salvation.

Since the Catholic Church had rejected his radical doctrines, and because he HAD to believe in his own authority (to devise a ‘different system’ for Salvation), then the Church HAD to be EVIL. Since it was the hierarchy of the Church that had rejected him (personally it felt to him), then that hierarchy also HAD to be evil and it had to be brought down, and the more people who understood it that way, the more ‘secure’ Luther felt. His was an life long battle against his fears.

Since he had to battle EVERYTHING that was in addition to Faith as being associated with Salvation, he had no choice but to jettison the Sacraments. In fact, I am surprised that he didn’t throw away all 7 instead of just 5.

“Luther’s evolution forced him to consider the sacraments. Of these the most important was the Eucharist, with its daily, invisible miracle, the transformation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.” Marius, pg. 226

“By Luther’s time, received dogma held that the Eucharist was a sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ and that it was also a good work in that masses offered for the living and dead were assumed to aid the progress of the Christian pilgrim from earth through purgatory and on to paradise. To become a spectator to the sacrifice constituted a good word, even if one did not take communion. At the very least, the notion of the Eucharist as sacrifice gave enormous power to priests as mediators of this essential transaction between Christians and God………Luther resurrected the difficulties with a fierce rhetoric. The conception of the Eucharist as sacrifice created ever higher-levels of ceremony for observance. By eliminating the sacrificial quality of the Eucharist and by making it a more personal communion with God, he struck at elaborate ceremonies and at the power of the priests who officiated at these ceremonies.” Marius, pg. 252

 

[Topper17]

“Luther’s version of the Holy Eucharist “has been accurately labeled ‘consubstantiation’ although Luther did not use that term. In the Eucharist, thought he, God was physically present, an in the liturgy of the Mass the believer could share an encounter with Christ, present in the same bodily world in which the Christian must live, and foretelling the resurrection of the body that would come at God’s pleasure.” Marius, pg. 251

Luther once said: “I would rather drink blood with the papists as drink wine with the enthusiasts.” This should not be read as an ‘endorsement’ of anything ‘papal’, but simply as an expression of his hatred (caused by fear) of the ‘spiritual only’ crowd, led by Zwingli. One of the things that caused Luther to doubt is that the ‘other Protestants’ (represented by Zwingli), could somehow misunderstand the Scripture regarding the Eucharist, in spite of it being ‘so clear’. What really disturbed Luther was that the ‘enthusiasts’ used the same Scriptural verses as he did to make their point, which was really the opposite point of course. Luther hated Zwingli for the doubts he caused him, to the point that he was overjoyed when he learned that he had fallen in battle.

“There was also much that was personal and arbitrary in the doctrine of the Sacrament of the Altar as shaped anew and established by Luther. For one thing, he dwelt far too exclusively on this sacrament being the pledge of the forgiveness of sins. Again, in his desire to counter Zwingli, he put forward theories on the sacrament, which embody all sorts of disadvantages and contradictions not to be found in the teaching of the earlier Church. He, indeed, denied Transubstantiation, but the “Swiss (Zwingli) could not for the life of them see why he did, since he admits that a stupendous miracle takes place in the Supper.”

For the Church s ancient doctrine of Transubstantiation he substituted Impanation, and even this he admitted only in the actual celebration and reception." The awkward part was," says Harnack, “that, according to Luther, the Body and Blood of Christ were present in the Supper only for the purpose of reception, though they might be partaken of even by an unbeliever or a heathen. The concomitance (presence of both Body and Blood under either kind) taught by the olden Church, which, indeed, was a natural corollary of the Real Presence, he set aside, urged thereto by his theory that in Communion both kinds must be received; the only result was to introduce a new and uncalled-for miracle. To this must be added what Harnack calls the “crazy speculations on the ubiquity of the Body of Christ,” which furnished Melanchthon his principal reason for giving up Luther s doctrine of the Supper, and, like Zwingli and Bucer, denying the Real Presence. According to Luther, the ubiquity of the Body of Christ rested on the supposed " real communication of the Divine idiomata (and consequently of the Divine omnipresence) to the humanity of Christ.” Nor does the Real Presence, according to Luther, begin at the consecration; as to when it does, he leaves the faithful in the dark; nor does he enlighten them as to when it ceases in the remains left over after communion; in the latter regard his practice was full of contradictions. In allowing communion to be carried to the sick in their own houses he was again unfaithful to his tenets.* To any processions of the sacrament he was averse, because Christ was only present at the time of reception.” *Grisar, Vol. pg. 463-64

I have heard, (but do not know if it is true), that once the Lutheran non-Mass is over, the elements are discarded, because they again do not contain anything other than bread and wine. As a Catholic I am horrified. Could a Lutheran please address this.

Luther was not successful in having his #2 guy buy into his version of the Eucharist:

“Luther had remained faithful to Christ’s words of treating the Lord’s Supper (this is according to Lutheran Kolb), but Melanchthon ‘had not remained faithful to his initial position.’ He had ‘deviated from Luther’s position,’ and had failed to condemn those who erred on the sacrament. Instead, he had agreed with the Reformed theologians such as Heinrich Bullinger. The bishop continued by showing how Melanchthon and Luther disagreed in one respect or another on the freedom of the will, the distinction of law and gospel, justification though faith, and papal ceremonies – the core of the controversial issues which had divided Gnesio-Lutherans and Philippsts.” Robert Kolb, “Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero”, pg. 110, Kolb is a Professor of Systematic Theology at the LCMS Concordia Seminary of St. Louis.

 

[Topper17]

Luther’s radical theory of consubstantiation is actually questioned by the famed Lutheran Theologian Paul Tillich. As part of Tillich’s criticism of the way in which Protestantism has deemphasized the Holy Sacraments, he actually takes aim on Luther’s theory of the Eucharist:

“It seems to me as if Luther’s (logically absurd) theory of the ubiquity of the body of Christ was an attempt to give expression to that idea.

It is a more difficult question if we try to determine the precise significance of the secondary elements, the bread and wine. The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, is the simplest answer to the question. Through transubstantiation, the bread and the wine – the secondary elements – are in substance annulled and replaced; there remains only one element, the body of Christ, which by means of the transubstantiation, assumes the bread and wine into its own mode of being. Among Protestants (meaning Lutherans), on the other hand, the independence and separate character of the secondary elements are maintained. Hence the question as to their significance is all the more difficult, and especially the question as to the reason for the choice of just these elements. The command would be responsible for the linking-together of the primary with the two secondary elements, and thus the association of the body of Christ with bread and wine would be explained as the mere accident of a historical situation. But this interpretation would practically eliminate the primary element of the Lord’s Supper, the exalted body of Christ….” Paul Tillich, “The Protestant Era’, pg. 97-8

It is pretty shocking to see a noted Lutheran Theologian describe Luther’s specific explanation of the Eucharist as being ‘logically absurd’, that Catholic doctrine is the ‘simplest answer’, and then go on to point out how the Lutheran doctrine is inherently self-contradictory. I don’t think that Tillich ever ‘swam anything’, but I think that this text is evidence of the kind of deeper thinking that actually does result in Lutheran conversions.

As with all other issues, the historical facts are only the beginning. A valid understanding of those facts require an understanding of the motives of the participants. On this issue, as in virtually all others, Luther’s NEED was to protect Salvation by Faith Alone. Challenges to that radical doctrine brought out more and more vehemence, and then hatred if ‘the other’ insisted on maintaining their positions.

Lutherans often prefer to downplay Luther’s ‘influence’ on modern day doctrine, but as we have seen, Luther is still ‘alive and well’. He is much more than some guy who has been dead for 400+ years. His anti-Catholicism has been embedded into the DNA of official Lutheranism (not to mention Protestantism). He is ‘ever present’ in their Confessions, in the ‘never compromise’ stance of the LCMS, and in the statements of Pastor Fisk and First VP Preus.

I think that the best way to work successfully towards reunion would be to understand the actual reasons for our division, and that means understanding Martin Luther, the man.

God Bless You pab, Topper

The last of the Preus article will be tomorrow.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spi,

Hi Topper: Well you have done it again, great information on Luther! More and more I see that not only did Luther become unstable but has lost his mind and went off the deep end!

Thanks. Suffice it to say that the “Luther” that I learned about as a Protestant kid, does not look much like the Luther of actual history. I understand how biographers and historians make mistakes, but what is odd is that in every instance where the real Luther is different than the “Legend of Luther” (and there are a lot of them), the Legend looks better than the actual real Luther, often a LOT better.

God Bless You Spi, Topper

 

[Lion_Heart]

As with all other issues, the historical facts are only the beginning. A valid understanding of those facts require an understanding of the motives of the participants. On this issue, as in virtually all others, Luther’s NEED was to protect Salvation by Faith Alone. Challenges to that radical doctrine brought out more and more vehemence, and then hatred if ‘the other’ insisted on maintaining their positions.

Greetings in Christ Topper17,

HOW TO READ THE NEW TESTAMENT By Etienne Charpentier

Nihil obstate: Father Anton Cowan
Imprimatur: Monsignor John Crowley, VG Westminster, 28 May 1985

Quote: “There is ONE CENTRAL QUESTION here: how can we become righteous and be saved?

We are NOT justified by what we do (works, observing law) but by FAITH IN CHRIST.

Salvation is NOT a matter of achieving but RECEIVING IT FREELY from God hands, in faith.” End quote. (Emphasize mine.)

JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church

4/25 We confess together that sinners are JUSTIFIED BY FAITH in the saving action of God in Christ. WHATEVER in the JUSTIFIED PRECEDES or FOLLOWS the free gift of FAITH is NEITHER THE BASIS of justification NOR MERITS it.

4/27.The Catholic understanding also sees FAITH as FUNDAMENTAL in justification. FOR WITHOUT FAITH, NO JUSTIFICATION CAN TAKE PLACE. Thus justifying grace never becomes a human possession. While Catholic teaching emphasizes the RENEWAL OF LIFE by justifying grace, this RENEWAL in FAITH, HOPE, LOVE is always dependent on God’s unfathomable grace and CONTRIBUTES NOTHING TO JUSTIFICATION.

CONDITIONS THAT OUR WORKS COUNT FOR ANYTHING
The Catholic Church clearly teaches that one MUST be in a STATE OF GRACE, MUST be a member of the BODY OF CHRIST, MUST be SAVED, MUST be already JUSTIFIED before we do a SINGLE WORK that counts for anything.

Further conditions MUST BE PRESENT to make SUPERNATURAL merit possible:

“The meritorious work must be morally good, that is, in accordance with the moral law in its object, intent, and circumstances.

It MUST be done FREELY, WITHOUT any EXTERNAL COERCION or INTERNAL NECESSITY.

It MUST be SUPERNATURAL, that is, AROUSED and ACCOMPANIED by ACTUAL GRACE, and proceeding from a SUPERNATURAL motive.

Strictly speaking only a person in the STATE OF GRACE can merit, as defined by the Church.” (Denzinger 1576, 1582)

Rom.4:5 (Jerusalem Bible)
“When a man has NOTHING to show EXCEPT FAITH in the one who justifies sinners, than his faith is COUNTED AS JUSTIFYING HIM.”

Rom.4:5 corresponding with 1 Cor.3:15; If anyone’s WORK is burned (NOTHING to show EXCEPT FAITH), he will suffer loss; but he himself will be SAVED, yet so as through fire (no work, no reward). – If work would be a condition of salvation, those whose work burned, they would end up in hell.

Work MUST be done FREELY, WITHOUT any EXTERNAL COERCION or INTERNAL NECESSITY.

If we would have to work in order to maintain a living faith, that would PUT us into an EXTERNAL COERCION and INTERNAL NECESSITY, and we would have to work to purchase our salvation not for love and for the Glory of God, and ALL our work would go up in smoke at the judgment. In reference 1 Cor.3:11-15.

With other words: If we would have to work to maintain a living faith, then work would be compulsory for our salvation and then NO ONE could work for out of SHEER LOVE and for the GLORY OF GOD!!!

God’s gift of faith for us is a LIVING and FORMED FAITH, and it is a LIVING and FORMED FAITH before God as well.

But it is a DEAD FAITH before our neighbors if we don’t work and our neighbors wouldn’t believe we are saved!!! – This is what James talking about in: James 2:14-26.

Paul’s teaching is: Our relationship and our salvation/justification before God.
James teaching is: Our relationship and our salvation/justification before the eyes of our neighbors.

To mix the two teachings together is LACK of knowledge and the CORRUPTION of the heart of the Gospel.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE by James Akin
Quote: “In fact, in TRADITIONAL WORKS OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, one regularly encounters the statement that FORMED FAITH IS JUSTIFYING FAITH. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period. End quote. Emphasize mine.

With love in Christ
LH.

 

[Topper17]

Luther and the Mass, Justification and the Joint Declaration, by Daniel Preus (continued)

Mass as sacrifice is certainly evident in the canons of the Council of Trent (1545-1563). “If anyone says that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, or that to be offered is nothing but that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema” “If anyone says that the Mass is merely a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the cross, not however a propitiatory sacrifice, or that it benefits him only who eats and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema.” Rome has not recanted the canons of the Council of Trent. What Rome affirmed shortly after Luther’s death is her official doctrine still today.

But can one really say that Rome’s position has not changed in light of the fact that today in Roman Catholic churches the sacrament can be received in both kinds and Christ’s words of institution will be heard in the native tongue of the communicant? Yes! On the nature of the mass as sacrifice Rome’s position has not changed.

Luther abhorred the mass as sacrifice precisely because it denied the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement and thus robbed sinners of comfort. That mass and sacrament would be observed together he saw as tragic because sinners were confined and left in doubt as to the inheritance that was theirs in the sacrament. Such confusion is truly a tragedy because the Christian’s inheritance in the Lord’s Supper is the forgiveness of sins-and where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation. But as in Luther’s day this inheritance was denied by the teaching on the mass, so today also the teaching on the mass deprives Christians of the true comfort the Lord’s Supper is meant to give. …

It is difficult to look seriously at the official teachings of the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church and come to the conclusion that the formulators of the Joint Declaration have attempted to be honest with their respective churches. To declare convergence on the article of justification when there are “diverse understandings of merit, reward, purgatory, and indulgences, Marian devotion and the assistance of the saints in the life of salvation, and the possibility of salvation for those who have not been evangelized” is indeed nonsense. To speak of consensus on the doctrine of justification and ignore the soteriological conflict between the Roman mass and the Lord’s Supper is to make a mockery of the meaning of consensus.

One can hardly escape the conclusion that the signers of the Joint Declaration are more interested in the illusion of peace and harmony than they are in the truth. In his Preface to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Philip Melanchthon stated that he wrote it
to testify to all nations that we hold to the Gospel of Christ correctly and faithfully. We take no pleasure in discord, nor are we indifferent to our danger, its extent is evident from the bitter hatred inflaming our opponents. But we cannot surrender truth that is so clear and necessary for the church (AC Pref. 15 - 16; Tappert, 99).

True Lutherans will never take pleasure in discord. But neither will they surrender truth that is so clear and necessary for the church. If the Lutheran Church today wishes to hold to the gospel of Christ correctly and faithfully, she cannot afford to ignore actual differences in doctrine, especially when those differences impinge so directly on the gospel itself. The Roman and Lutheran teachings on the Lord’s Supper not only divide us in our understanding of the sacrament of the altar. They represent two differing soteriologies, and no less in our day than in Luther’s. It is difficult to know what long-term effect the Joint Declaration will have on Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches. One thing is sure we have no consensus now on the doctrine of justification, nor will there ever be consensus as long as the Roman mass remains a sacrifice.

Daniel Preus is a contributing editor for Logia. Formerly director of the Concordia Historical Institute, he is First Vice President of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod.

Here we have the First VP of the LCMS stating that there will never be consensus between Lutherans and Catholics as long as the Catholic Mass remains a sacrifice. OK – I GET IT! If that isn’t an ‘Official Statement’ we are probably not going to get one. There is not ever going to be communion between the two, unless you count attending some prayer service or sitting next to each other at a Congressional hearing.

I think that these comments, and those of Pastor Fisk, show that the literal interpretation of the Lutheran Confessional documents are in fact, the official position of at least the LCMS. Those documents and the comments of Fisk and Preus place them squarely into the ‘anti-Catholic’ sphere. A square peg in a round hole so to speak.

While I very much appreciate the ecumenical attitudes of the majority of the LCMS posters here, it is blatantly obvious that they are out of step with both the Lutheran Confessional Documents and the teachings of their hierarchy. I would suggest that if they are really interested in achieving unity with the Catholic Church, meaning in their lifetimes, they are going to have to do it from a ‘different platform’, because it is very clear that the LCMS will never reunify with the Catholic Church.

 

[Topper17]

Hi LH,

Greetings in Christ Topper17,

HOW TO READ THE NEW TESTAMENT By Etienne Charpentier

Nihil obstate: Father Anton Cowan
Imprimatur: Monsignor John Crowley, VG Westminster, 28 May 1985

Quote: “There is ONE CENTRAL QUESTION here: how can we become righteous and be saved?

We are NOT justified by what we do (works, observing law) but by FAITH IN CHRIST.

Salvation is NOT a matter of achieving but RECEIVING IT FREELY from God hands, in faith.” End quote. (Emphasize mine.)

JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church

4/25 We confess together that sinners are JUSTIFIED BY FAITH in the saving action of God in Christ. WHATEVER in the JUSTIFIED PRECEDES or FOLLOWS the free gift of FAITH is NEITHER THE BASIS of justification NOR MERITS it.

4/27.The Catholic understanding also sees FAITH as FUNDAMENTAL in justification. FOR WITHOUT FAITH, NO JUSTIFICATION CAN TAKE PLACE. Thus justifying grace never becomes a human possession. While Catholic teaching emphasizes the RENEWAL OF LIFE by justifying grace, this RENEWAL in FAITH, HOPE, LOVE is always dependent on God’s unfathomable grace and CONTRIBUTES NOTHING TO JUSTIFICATION.

CONDITIONS THAT OUR WORKS COUNT FOR ANYTHING
The Catholic Church clearly teaches that one MUST be in a STATE OF GRACE, MUST be a member of the BODY OF CHRIST, MUST be SAVED, MUST be already JUSTIFIED before we do a SINGLE WORK that counts for anything.

Further conditions MUST BE PRESENT to make SUPERNATURAL merit possible:

“The meritorious work must be morally good, that is, in accordance with the moral law in its object, intent, and circumstances.

It MUST be done FREELY, WITHOUT any EXTERNAL COERCION or INTERNAL NECESSITY.

It MUST be SUPERNATURAL, that is, AROUSED and ACCOMPANIED by ACTUAL GRACE, and proceeding from a SUPERNATURAL motive.

Strictly speaking only a person in the STATE OF GRACE can merit, as defined by the Church.” (Denzinger 1576, 1582)

Rom.4:5 (Jerusalem Bible)
“When a man has NOTHING to show EXCEPT FAITH in the one who justifies sinners, than his faith is COUNTED AS JUSTIFYING HIM.”

Rom.4:5 corresponding with 1 Cor.3:15; If anyone’s WORK is burned (NOTHING to show EXCEPT FAITH), he will suffer loss; but he himself will be SAVED, yet so as through fire (no work, no reward). – If work would be a condition of salvation, those whose work burned, they would end up in hell.

Work MUST be done FREELY, WITHOUT any EXTERNAL COERCION or INTERNAL NECESSITY.

If we would have to work in order to maintain a living faith, that would PUT us into an EXTERNAL COERCION and INTERNAL NECESSITY, and we would have to work to purchase our salvation not for love and for the Glory of God, and ALL our work would go up in smoke at the judgment. In reference 1 Cor.3:11-15.

With other words: If we would have to work to maintain a living faith, then work would be compulsory for our salvation and then NO ONE could work for out of SHEER LOVE and for the GLORY OF GOD!!!

God’s gift of faith for us is a LIVING and FORMED FAITH, and it is a LIVING and FORMED FAITH before God as well.

But it is a DEAD FAITH before our neighbors if we don’t work and our neighbors wouldn’t believe we are saved!!! – This is what James talking about in: James 2:14-26.

Paul’s teaching is: Our relationship and our salvation/justification before God.
James teaching is: Our relationship and our salvation/justification before the eyes of our neighbors.

To mix the two teachings together is LACK of knowledge and the CORRUPTION of the heart of the Gospel.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE by James Akin
Quote: “In fact, in TRADITIONAL WORKS OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, one regularly encounters the statement that FORMED FAITH IS JUSTIFYING FAITH. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period. End quote. Emphasize mine.

With love in Christ
LH.

Thanks for posting this information. I would agree that Akin does a really good job of explaining the differences between Protestant and Catholic Salvation. Of course, there are a lot of different versions within Protestantism, so Akin identifies which ones are more in line with Catholic teaching.

That excellent article is at:

catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/justification-salvation/justification-by-faith-alone-by-james-akin/

God Bless You LH, Topper

 

[MaryT777]

Greetings in Christ Topper17,

HOW TO READ THE NEW TESTAMENT By Etienne Charpentier

Nihil obstate: Father Anton Cowan
Imprimatur: Monsignor John Crowley, VG Westminster, 28 May 1985

Quote: “There is ONE CENTRAL QUESTION here: how can we become righteous and be saved?

We are NOT justified by what we do (works, observing law) but by FAITH IN CHRIST.

Salvation is NOT a matter of achieving but RECEIVING IT FREELY from God hands, in faith.” End quote. (Emphasize mine.)

JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church

4/25 We confess together that sinners are JUSTIFIED BY FAITH in the saving action of God in Christ. WHATEVER in the JUSTIFIED PRECEDES or FOLLOWS the free gift of FAITH is NEITHER THE BASIS of justification NOR MERITS it.

4/27.The Catholic understanding also sees FAITH as FUNDAMENTAL in justification. FOR WITHOUT FAITH, NO JUSTIFICATION CAN TAKE PLACE. Thus justifying grace never becomes a human possession. While Catholic teaching emphasizes the RENEWAL OF LIFE by justifying grace, this RENEWAL in FAITH, HOPE, LOVE is always dependent on God’s unfathomable grace and CONTRIBUTES NOTHING TO JUSTIFICATION.

CONDITIONS THAT OUR WORKS COUNT FOR ANYTHING
The Catholic Church clearly teaches that one MUST be in a STATE OF GRACE, MUST be a member of the BODY OF CHRIST, MUST be SAVED, MUST be already JUSTIFIED before we do a SINGLE WORK that counts for anything.

Further conditions MUST BE PRESENT to make SUPERNATURAL merit possible:

“The meritorious work must be morally good, that is, in accordance with the moral law in its object, intent, and circumstances.

It MUST be done FREELY, WITHOUT any EXTERNAL COERCION or INTERNAL NECESSITY.

It MUST be SUPERNATURAL, that is, AROUSED and ACCOMPANIED by ACTUAL GRACE, and proceeding from a SUPERNATURAL motive.

Strictly speaking only a person in the STATE OF GRACE can merit, as defined by the Church.” (Denzinger 1576, 1582)

Rom.4:5 (Jerusalem Bible)
“When a man has NOTHING to show EXCEPT FAITH in the one who justifies sinners, than his faith is COUNTED AS JUSTIFYING HIM.”

Rom.4:5 corresponding with 1 Cor.3:15; If anyone’s WORK is burned (NOTHING to show EXCEPT FAITH), he will suffer loss; but he himself will be SAVED, yet so as through fire (no work, no reward). – If work would be a condition of salvation, those whose work burned, they would end up in hell.

Work MUST be done FREELY, WITHOUT any EXTERNAL COERCION or INTERNAL NECESSITY.

If we would have to work in order to maintain a living faith, that would PUT us into an EXTERNAL COERCION and INTERNAL NECESSITY, and we would have to work to purchase our salvation not for love and for the Glory of God, and ALL our work would go up in smoke at the judgment. In reference 1 Cor.3:11-15.

With other words: If we would have to work to maintain a living faith, then work would be compulsory for our salvation and then NO ONE could work for out of SHEER LOVE and for the GLORY OF GOD!!!

God’s gift of faith for us is a LIVING and FORMED FAITH, and it is a LIVING and FORMED FAITH before God as well.

But it is a DEAD FAITH before our neighbors if we don’t work and our neighbors wouldn’t believe we are saved!!! – This is what James talking about in: James 2:14-26.

Paul’s teaching is: Our relationship and our salvation/justification before God.
James teaching is: Our relationship and our salvation/justification before the eyes of our neighbors.

To mix the two teachings together is LACK of knowledge and the CORRUPTION of the heart of the Gospel.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE by James Akin
Quote: “In fact, in TRADITIONAL WORKS OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, one regularly encounters the statement that FORMED FAITH IS JUSTIFYING FAITH. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period. End quote. Emphasize mine.

With love in Christ
LH.

No all Lutherans are part of the Lutheran World Federation. The LCMS and WELS did not agree with the signing of the JDDJ and put out strong statements against it stating it was a step back for Lutheranism.
Mary.

 

[betsybug354]

It is pretty shocking to see a noted Lutheran Theologian describe Luther’s specific explanation of the Eucharist as being ‘logically absurd’, that Catholic doctrine is the ‘simplest answer’, and then go on to point out how the Lutheran doctrine is inherently self-contradictory. I don’t think that Tillich ever ‘swam anything’, but I think that this text is evidence of the kind of deeper thinking that actually does result in Lutheran conversions.

Hi Topper,

The phrase “in, with, and under the bread and wine” never sat too well with me when I was attending Lutheran services regularly. After all, if Sola Scriptura is a major guiding principle of Protestantism, then why can’t I find consubstantiation in the Bible? Because it’s not there. Please allow me to quote some early church fathers at this juncture regarding the Eucharist (courtesy of Karl Keating’s book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”):

Ignatius of Antioch - “They [those who are heterodox] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.”

Justin Martyr - “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink, do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, 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 the blood of the incarnated Jesus.”

Irenaeus of Lyons - “Christ has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow, and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our own bodies.”

Athanasius - “So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Ambrose - "You may perhaps say: ‘My bread is ordinary.’ But that bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; where the consecration has entered in, the bread becomes the flesh of Christ.

As Keating aptly notes, “There is no record in the early centuries of any Christian doubting the Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist.”