I
- Status
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
There is still one monthly in St Louis. I can’t remember the name of the Church.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Okay, what is a Traditionalist Lutheran? Are they a body unto themselves? You have priests, are they ordained? Can only the priests consecrated the bread and wine? I believe a Lutheran LCMS told me that their pastors have no special powers like our priests do.
D
Deacon_Latif
Guest
Christine:
Traditionalist Lutheranism is not a separate jurisdiction, or ecclesial body. My parish is part of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. The LCMS has a wide variety of practices, from the traditional to the modernist, feminist, charismatic, you name it. Modernism, feminism, disdain for traditional liturgy, these unfortunately are cross denominational phenomena, which can be found in RC, Lutheran, virtually all churches today. God help us. Anyway, my own parish is rather traditional. We have Mass every day. Monday through Saturday it is usually low Mass, and on Sunday we have two sung Masses, one English, and one Spanish. Once in a while we also have Mass in Latin. Luther wisely said that we ought to preserve Latin in the Liturgy as much as possible, especially in urban churches, and where there are students. So once every few months we do that. We are working toward having Latin Mass more frequently. But most of the time, it is in English, but a good traditional form of the English, with lessons in the King James Version, etc.
To answer your other question, indeed, only an ordained priest can celebrate the Holy Mass. The Lutheran Confessions are clear on this. And to be clear, that could never be a woman.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Wow, that is very interesting. My dad (may he rest in peace) was a very devout LCMS. He wanted to become Catholic when the split happened in the '70’s. I never heard him talk about priests and mass, although the service was very much like a Catholic mass. And they took the blood in dixie cups, which I found rather profane. He died before he could convert.
I must say, I’m glad I’m Catholic because of Authority. You are correct about modernism in the Catholic Church, but luckily it’s more a belief of some Catholics rather than practiced in our parishes.
D
Deacon_Latif
Guest
The Precious Blood of Christ is, it is true, served in many parishes by means of tiny little individual cups, in some cases they are glass, in some plastic. Either way, you are right, it is profane; it is also disgusting and irreverent. The practice came in to many Lutheran churches via the 19th century influence of Methodist churches. It is believed by many that it is a safer, more healthy way. oops, just noticed the time. Must go to work. later. Be assured, though, that many of us, like at my church, still insist on using only the chalice, of precious silver or gold.
D
Deacon_Latif
Guest
If I may, I would like to comment not only on your question, but also on the general question of Luther’s use of the Bible. First, we must always bear in mind that it is the Vulgate that Luther used most. He quotes it often in the classroom, and in his preaching, and I must add what will sound startling at first to some, namely, Luther knew the Vulgate so well, that he in fact had the entire Bible memorized in that version. This is not mere legend. This is the conclusion of thoughtful Luther scholars, such as Franz Posset. The first part of scripture he had memorized was the Psalter, for this becomes natural in traditional monastic life, wherein the entire Psalter is prayed through every week. He soon moved on from there, and took it quite seriously when his superior, Johann von Staupitz, told him to study the Bible for the doctorate. He became what one might call a mental concordance, before the age of concordances. This level of knowledge of the Text is even more astounding when you consider that the Bible was at that time not yet chopped up into verses. So Luther could quote whole sections at a time.
Second, he soon learned the Greek tongue, and then the Hebrew, aided as he was by humanists like Melanchthon and Reuchlin. It was his keen understanding of the way Hebrew idiom works, as well as Greek, along with his highly sensitive grasp of the way German flows, and the way Germans think and speak, along with his concern for the spiritual meaning of the Text, that led him to the great literary achievement of his German translation.
Soon after his translation was out there, others used it as a guide in their own translating efforts. For example, Miles Coverdale, in his monumental English Bible (1535), relied heavily upon both the Vulgate and Luther’s German. This, in turn, via the Great Bible of 1539, influenced in many ways the King James Version of 1611.
Are there 20th or 21st century translations that are close to Luther’s translation? That is a tricky question. And I do not condemn per se all modern Bibles. I will tell you, however, that in my opinion, the KJV is, over all, an excellent Bible to use in English. It is influenced, as I say, by Luther in many ways. It is based on the textus receptus. And it employs a beautiful and classic form of the language, which elevates our minds, and befits the Sacred Word.
J
jessep28
Guest
I can see using cups as an option if say one was sick with a cold but outside of that I don’t see a good reason the chalice isn’t offered. My parish is rather large (pushing 3,000 members) and we use little cups exclusively. A more traditionalist parish I like to go to occasionally (my mother and sister were baptized there) still uses the chalice but usually the cups come by me first and I don’t go often enough to know how to signal to defer.
Don’t get me started on why the Sacrament of the Alter isn’t offered weekly!
P
Philena
Guest
That is why I became a Catholic and converted from the WELS.
Either it is or it isn’t the body and blood of Christ. Not it is, then it isn’t.
I had this epiphany when I witnessed our Pastor pouring the consecrated wine down the drain in the kitchen after the communion service. There was just something so wrong with that.
D
Deacon_Latif
Guest
I’m sorry, Spoiltvictorian, but it is absolutely not true that Lutheran doctrine teaches a time limit to Christ’s presence in the Sacrament. You have been misled. Most Lutherans do not reserve the sacrament, but that is not because of any notion that the Real Presence has a time limit. Our Lord in His Word never gives us such a time limit, and therefore we shouldn’t either.
D
Deacon_Latif
Guest
Dear Philena:
You can hardly be blamed for feeling compelled to flee the irreverent practices which you describe. I must tell you however, to be sure, that your former WELS pastor was not being faithful to Lutheran doctrine, or to Lutheran practice. He was engaged in great and ungodly irreverence. Let me relate, briefly, a story from the life of the Reformer. A Lutheran priest by the name of Besserer was celebrating Mass, and dropped one of the consecrated hosts on the floor. He may have gotten flustered or acted out of confusion, but what he did was take an unconsecrated host, so he would have enough for all the communicants. When it was discovered that he thus mixed consecrated hosts with unconsecrated, he was arrested, and word was sent to Luther for his advice. Luther wrote on the matter in January of 1546, and said that this man clearly despises both God and man; he should be defrocked, and sent to the Zwinglians. That is how serious Luther, and his followers by and large took the Real Presence of our Lord’s Body and Blood in the Blessed Sacrament. Many Lutheran churches still treat the Sacrament with great reverence. Sadly, the irreverence toward the Sacrament can be found today in some Lutheran as some Catholic churches. And I don’t say this triumphantly, but with sadness, namely, there are catholic churches where genuflection and kneeling before the Sacrament is openly mocked as “cookie worship.” Such an attitude is cross-denominational, and betrays the teachings on the Real Presence that is part of the heritage of both Rome and the Lutheran Confession.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
See this is so wrong. We are to drink of the ONE cup, as did Jesus and his Disciples at the Last Supper. The cup should not be divided into little paper cups. (Do you see where this is leading)?
What do you do with the vestiges of the blood in the cups? Do you just throw them away?
In our parish, many do not take of the cup, but only the host, as Jesus is present Body, Soul, and Divinity under both forms. During the Swine flu scare, many parishes did not even offer the cup. Usually it is only offered on Sundays, not daily masses.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
.
I think it would be helpful to read the words in the Eucharistic texts…
While a case might be made that it "IS’ what Scripture says when it says it “IS” - we might agree as to WHEN Christ’s Body and Blood are present - there is simply nothing on the other “end” of the time frame, one way or the other.
As far as I know, not only is Scripture silent on that point, but so are The Lutheran Confessions. There is no Lutheran doctrine on this.
Now, that does not eliminate the possibility of opinions. But opinions is not binding dogma.
As I understand it, many Lutherans did (and still do) hold to “Sacramental Union.” It’s not a well-defined position, and not doctrine. BASICALLY, it holds that the Body of Blood of Our Lord are in “union” with the bread and wine IN THE SACRAMENT. I add the emphasis on the last point, because it seems to be the centerpiece of the discussion here. Sacramental actions are ACTIONS. The effects of such are eternal, but the action itself is not. I was baptized (with an eye dropper) within seconds of my birth, with one drop of water. Water is still not dropping from my head - indeed, that water was probably whipped off and only God knows where it is now (water is rarely destroyed, nearly all of the water on the planet 4.6 billion years ago is still here - in some form). I think SOME Lutherans would say that a Sacrament is not ONLY the Promise but also the ACTION - and thus it is what it is as it is done, given, received. Thus, when the Mass is complete, and the Sacrament ENDED, the issue is moot. In the same way as it is moot what became of the drop of water God connected with His promise in Baptism. For these Lutherans, a Sacrament is not a stagnate and eternal reality but is an ACTION - a blessing, a giving. For them, while the elements should be treated with respect (I see this as similar to the respect we give Our Lady), it is simply no longer a Sacrament and so the Sacramental Union is no longer. I’m not SURE I agree with that - but I think it is a common Lutheran pious opinion.
BTW, I DO NOT want to be disrespectful to the Holy Sacrament or to our Catholic brothers and sisters here, but I think this concept is not entirely absent in Catholicism. My Catholic teacher and I had a goodly number of discussions about Real Presence and Transubstantiation - and we got into this point. She WELCOMED my frank questions (knowing my heart) and this point - does CHRIST remain - lead me to wonder about the digestive process. When we urinate, for example, are we placing Jesus in the… you know? Her words to me were this (I can paraphrase this, I think), “Of course, like you, we find that unthinkable. When we receive the Eucharist, we receive Christ in our heart and soul, so that what is eliminated is just bread and wine.” ASSUMING that is a valid Catholic position (I don’t know), then in Catholicism, there is also some sense of “Sacramental Union” - perhaps less defined than even in Lutheranism. There is a sense IN TIME where Christ is no longer “present” but only Aristotelian accidents of bread and wine (or we would argue, bread and wine). OTHERWISE, there would need to be the same care of our biological excretments for 24 hours after the Mass as there is in dealing with the same percentage of elements not consumed at the Mass. To me, all this is frankly mystery and probably LEFT ALONE - and that’s largely my response to this issue: DOES Christ, in any sense, cease to be “present” in the Holy Eucharist? To me, there are questions best left unasked. It’s not the point. The issue is singular: Christ IS present as we receive the Holy Eucharist - present with all His grace, mercy and transforming power. Accept THAT. Leave the rest where Scripture does - ALONE. Lutherans are pretty good at that, btw, at least in terms of dogma.
.
I think it would be helpful to read the words in the Eucharistic texts…
While a case might be made that it "IS’ what Scripture says when it says it “IS” - we might agree as to WHEN Christ’s Body and Blood are present - there is simply nothing on the other “end” of the time frame, one way or the other.
As far as I know, not only is Scripture silent on that point, but so are The Lutheran Confessions. There is no Lutheran doctrine on this.
Now, that does not eliminate the possibility of opinions. But opinions is not binding dogma.
As I understand it, many Lutherans did (and still do) hold to “Sacramental Union.” It’s not a well-defined position, and not doctrine. BASICALLY, it holds that the Body of Blood of Our Lord are in “union” with the bread and wine IN THE SACRAMENT. I add the emphasis on the last point, because it seems to be the centerpiece of the discussion here. Sacramental actions are ACTIONS. The effects of such are eternal, but the action itself is not. I was baptized (with an eye dropper) within seconds of my birth, with one drop of water. Water is still not dropping from my head - indeed, that water was probably whipped off and only God knows where it is now (water is rarely destroyed, nearly all of the water on the planet 4.6 billion years ago is still here - in some form). I think SOME Lutherans would say that a Sacrament is not ONLY the Promise but also the ACTION - and thus it is what it is as it is done, given, received. Thus, when the Mass is complete, and the Sacrament ENDED, the issue is moot. In the same way as it is moot what became of the drop of water God connected with His promise in Baptism. For these Lutherans, a Sacrament is not a stagnate and eternal reality but is an ACTION - a blessing, a giving. For them, while the elements should be treated with respect (I see this as similar to the respect we give Our Lady), it is simply no longer a Sacrament and so the Sacramental Union is no longer. I’m not SURE I agree with that - but I think it is a common Lutheran pious opinion.
BTW, I DO NOT want to be disrespectful to the Holy Sacrament or to our Catholic brothers and sisters here, but I think this concept is not entirely absent in Catholicism. My Catholic teacher and I had a goodly number of discussions about Real Presence and Transubstantiation - and we got into this point. She WELCOMED my frank questions (knowing my heart) and this point - does CHRIST remain - lead me to wonder about the digestive process. When we urinate, for example, are we placing Jesus in the… you know? Her words to me were this (I can paraphrase this, I think), “Of course, like you, we find that unthinkable. When we receive the Eucharist, we receive Christ in our heart and soul, so that what is eliminated is just bread and wine.” ASSUMING that is a valid Catholic position (I don’t know), then in Catholicism, there is also some sense of “Sacramental Union” - perhaps less defined than even in Lutheranism. There is a sense IN TIME where Christ is no longer “present” but only Aristotelian accidents of bread and wine (or we would argue, bread and wine). OTHERWISE, there would need to be the same care of our biological excretments for 24 hours after the Mass as there is in dealing with the same percentage of elements not consumed at the Mass. To me, all this is frankly mystery and probably LEFT ALONE - and that’s largely my response to this issue: DOES Christ, in any sense, cease to be “present” in the Holy Eucharist? To me, there are questions best left unasked. It’s not the point. The issue is singular: Christ IS present as we receive the Holy Eucharist - present with all His grace, mercy and transforming power. Accept THAT. Leave the rest where Scripture does - ALONE. Lutherans are pretty good at that, btw, at least in terms of dogma.
.
P
Philena
Guest
I have heard other Protestants speculate on the bodily functions of elimination in regards to the Eucharist… perhaps they are following in the footsteps of Martin Luther who seemed to have an obsession with bodily functions?
At any rate, the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist nurish us physically and most importantly, spiritually. It is ours to accept it by faith.
D
Deacon_Latif
Guest
Dear AmericanJosiah:
If you don’t mind, I’d like to jump into the conversation here, and as respectfully as I can, take issue with your view of the matter. The Lutheran position on the Eucharist is often defined by many to be that the Body and Blood of our Lord is “in, with, and under” the bread and wine. This is not entirely false, but not an entirely sufficient description of Lutheran teaching either. Unfortunately, for example, it leads many to inaccurately conclude that Lutherans believe in Consubstantiation, which is not Lutheran at all. Rather, the most Lutheran way of characterizing our belief in the Real Presence in a concise manner is by saying that we believe in the Sacramental Union. It is not true that this terminology or concept is not well defined. It is in some ways analogous to the Personal Union of the two natures in Christ, two natures united in such a way that they are distinct, yet inseparable. We do not believe that it is necessary for the substance of bread and wine to be annihilated, as Transubstantiation teaches. We simply take our Lord’s all powerful Words seriously, when He says, “This is My Body,” etc, and we do not feel the need for Aristotle to help. Human philosophy, as helpful as it may seem, sometimes just overcomplicates things.
However, neither the Roman nor the Lutheran doctrine puts a time limit on our Lord’s presence. Saint Augustine said, “Accedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum.” This is quoted by Luther in the Large Catechism, and nicely sums up the fact that it is the union of the Word with the element that makes for a sacrament. After that union has taken place, no one has the authority to say that at some point that consecrated host is no longer the Body of Christ. If Luther, and his followers, did not believe that the consecrated bread and wine remained Christ’s Body and Blood after the Mass, when there is reliquiae, then they would not have treated it so extremely reverently. Luther’s reverence toward the Eucharist rivals any of his Roman opponents of his day. Several stories and testimonies can be produced as proof, if we have space for it. It is absolutely against Lutheran rubrical tradition to do things like dispose of what is left in the chalice down the sink in the kitchen, or to ever mix remaining consecrated hosts with the supply of unconsecrated bread in the sacristy. Luther had a Lutheran priest thrown out of the church for doing this. Even a tiny residue droplet left in the chalice is our Lord Himself, and must be handled with great care and reverence. That is why the traditional ablutions and purifications at the altar still take place in many Lutheran churches, like mine.
How long is the Body of Christ present, some might insist on asking. Okay, to borrow a phrase from Luther at the diet of Worms, “you want a simple answer, here it is.” The Body and Blood of Christ is present, beginning with the consecration, by which our Lord Himself speaks His Word over the bread and wine, until it all has been consumed into the body of the communicant, and if for some ungodly reason, a host remains sitting around too long, we must trust that it is the Body of Christ as long as it is still characteristically bread. If it is discovered in a corner somewhere, and is no longer edible, then it must be disposed of reverently, that means by burning, and thoroughly cleansing the area where it was found. There is ample Lutheran precedent for this, and it befits our doctrine of the venerable presence of our Lord’s Body and Blood in the Most Holy sacrament.
D
Deacon_Latif
Guest
The Lutheran answer is quite simple: It is.
D
Deacon_Latif
Guest
Dear Philena:
The Blessed Reformer was obsessed with the Word of God, but it is unfair to perpetuate sophomoric talk of him being fixated on bodily functions. I deeply respect my Catholic friends, but too many modern Catholics all of a sudden are Freudian experts, which they think makes then experts on Luther. Please. Was Luther’s language at times earthy? absolutely. Was it sometimes scatological? yes, for that is how he chose at times to characterize the devilish abuses he opposed. Sometimes it is useful to draw a picture with your words. But let us resist the temptation to fling this sort of filth around when speaking of Dr. Luther. (Admittedly, he would have used a different word than “filth.”) And it is especially inappropriate when considering Luther’s great reverence for the Most Holy Sacrament.
P
Philena
Guest
Facts are facts. Martin Luther did use unnecessary “earthy” language.
He also was very anti-Semitic and believed the pope was the anti-Christ. Luther wasn’t a saint, that’s for sure.
As for Lutherans, when they say they are “Sola Scriptura” that is misleading because they also rely on the traditons of the Augsberg and Lutheran Confessions. So Lutherans also rely on scripture and tradition as the Catholics do, only they are not upfront about acknowledging it.
He also was very anti-Semitic and believed the pope was the anti-Christ. Luther wasn’t a saint, that’s for sure.
As for Lutherans, when they say they are “Sola Scriptura” that is misleading because they also rely on the traditons of the Augsberg and Lutheran Confessions. So Lutherans also rely on scripture and tradition as the Catholics do, only they are not upfront about acknowledging it.
- Status