Which Church??

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

I already do, but thanks for the thought.

Jon

People make a lot of claims that they believe to be true Jon, but that are not.

We are both quite aware of the position of the Catholic Church on the validity of the Lutheran Eucharist.

BTW, my question from post tonight question stands. After everything that has been revealed about the Augsburg Confession, including its formulation and defense, will you be portraying it in the future in the same way you have in the past?

 

[benhur]

There can only be ONE church. Thousands of churches with “different truths” as in Protestantism is anti biblical.

JW’s do the same. All Christendom is wrong, except for themselves. Only they truly, fully speak for God today. The CC also says they are the one, fully true church, and the Orthodox or P’s are not the fully true church though any grace in them stems from CC.

 

[benhur]

.

Working for God’s favor is what all other religions of the world do. Didn’t the Cross change anything?

Remember as per CC view, that the sacraments, even church obligations, are not works of righteousness that Paul says *don’t *save us

 

[benhur]

It uses the same root word, with the masculine and feminine forms of the word.

That is right. The female produces the fruit. The bigger immovable rock(petra) can produce smaller rocks(petros), coming forth from it. Petra can produce a petros. We all agree that Peter,came from,stands upon, Christ. Jesus is both petro and petras.

 

[joe371]

JW’s do the same. All Christendom is wrong, except for themselves. Only they truly, fully speak for God today. The CC also says they are the one, fully true church, and the Orthodox or P’s are not the fully true church though any grace in them stems from CC.

It simply does not matter that JW’s do the same. Jesus is not the founder of that church. If the fullness of truth cannot be found in the church founded by Jesus, thanks to Jesus’ guidance, then I agree with you: it does not matter which church one belongs to, and I suppose anyone, based on that premise, can just start a church and teach, based on their understanding of scripture?

Again, the CC would never say that All of Christendom is wrong, except for themselves; thought we covered this:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[benhur]

If I don’t have the name of the church founded by Jesus how in the world am I suppose to go there and worship.

Really ? Sounds like straw man. You know we can and do plenty together . There are plenty of activities, even corporal works, that are cross denominational. There are many intentions and prayers and admonitions and witnesses that are cross denominational. After 9-11 the whole country prayed together, all religions. Did you separate yourself not just from the Buddhists, Hindu’s but O’s and P’s ? Your praise music is not only Catholic as mine is not all Protestant or Orthodox. Not sure if your biblical study resources are all Catholic as mine are not all Protestant or Orthodox.

You do not deny that, “where two or three are gathered in my name , there am I in the midst of them”. We both want that fellowship to be as full and rich as possible. Why I am sure even Catholics in larger communities sometimes choose the priest or service that they feel is most enriching. A “name” can not help you there. So if Catholics are familiar with a variation on feeding experiences within herself why would it be improbable to have something equal or close under a different “name” ? Even Vat 2 says there is salvation in these “other” churches, even grace. WE are all part of the same “ecclesia”.

We all share in this responsibility, choice, opportunity, to seek Him out, and be led by Him to His desired pasture for us.

Don’t recall true Jews in OT having your “name” problem, of being “lost” unless God specifically revealed which sect within Judaism was the fully true one . He said salvation was of the Jews then as it is from the church today , both proclaiming a saving Christ.

Jesus founded one church and said he would guide His church into all truth until the end of time which means His establish ekklesia is still here; where can I find that church today in view of the fact that there are many churches such as the Baptist, Presbyterian Anglican church etc. etc.? The alternative: Jesus’ one church eventually became an amalgam of all the isolated and divided churches we see in the world today. Is this getting close to what you contend?

That is right . We should be united, not divided and isolated. But our unity should not be coercive, compromising, or with error. I like the the idea you espouse of direct link to original, but can not accept your errors. These errors we see as "corrected’ by promised “guidance”, which you now call these “other” ecclesia.

 

[benhur]

Again, the CC would never say that All of Christendom is wrong, except for themselves; thought we covered this:

Joe , I was careful with my words and even italicized my emphasis on the word “fully”. Of course you don’t say everybody else is wrong. I reiterate more than any one here that indeed CC calls us brothers now and we also have grace and salvation in our churches.
But you do say the CC is the only One True, Holy, Apostolic church that Christ founded,and not the Orthodox Church and certainly not any Protestant Church. These latter do not have the *full *union with the *full *truth as the CC does. Again, JW’s also do this.

 

[benhur]

Citation for where they disagreed over Peter being the rock.

Are you sure ? You really think they think like Catholics today on this interpretation ?

 

[benhur]

So the original Aramaic was two completely different words, and the Holy Spirit inspired the gospel writer to translate those words as the same word but in masculine and feminine form? Is this really what you are arguing is possible?

And the question is still left unanswered, why does Jesus change his name? What happened to others who had their name changed by God? Did the name change relate in any way to the mission God had for them?

When did he change his name? In the rock discourse orearlier in the gospel ?

 

[joe371]

Joe , I was careful with my words and even italicized my emphasis on the word “fully”. Of course you don’t say everybody else is wrong. I reiterate more than any one here that indeed CC calls us brothers now and we also have grace and salvation in our churches.
But you do say the CC is the only One True, Holy, Apostolic church that Christ founded,and not the Orthodox Church and certainly not any Protestant Church. These latter do not have the *full *union with the *full *truth as the CC does. Again, JW’s also do this.

Yes, I have faith that the CC is the church founded by Jesus i.e. the CC is the only One True, Holy, Apostolic church that Christ founded (disagree with you on the Orthodox Church) as opposed to all of the man-made Protestant Churches. If I did not belive this I would not belong to the CC. Of course I respect and love all churches and all of their wonderful contributions to the world.

 

[joe371]

=benhur;12648473]Really ? Sounds like straw man. You know we can and do plenty together . There are plenty of activities, even corporal works, that are cross denominational. There are many intentions and prayers and admonitions and witnesses that are cross denominational. After 9-11 the whole country prayed together, all religions. Did you separate yourself not just from the Buddhists, Hindu’s but O’s and P’s ? Your praise music is not only Catholic as mine is not all Protestant or Orthodox. Not sure if your biblical study resources are all Catholic as mine are not all Protestant or Orthodox.

Agreed. However, If I don’t have the name of the church founded by Jesus how in the world am I suppose to go there and worship.

You do not deny that, “where two or three are gathered in my name , there am I in the midst of them”.

Nope, I do not deny it.

We both want that fellowship to be as full and rich as possible.

Yup, as per John 17.

Why I am sure even Catholics in larger communities sometimes choose the priest or service that they feel is most enriching. A “name” can not help you there.

Yup, but irrelevant to this: If I don’t have the name of the church founded by Jesus how in the world am I suppose to go there and worship?

So if Catholics are familiar with a variation on feeding experiences within herself why would it be improbable to have something equal or close under a different “name” ? Even Vat 2 says there is salvation in these “other” churches, even grace. WE are all part of the same “ecclesia”.

We do not belong to the same ekklesia. I belong to the CC. I still do not know which church you belong to???

We all share in this responsibility, choice, opportunity, to seek Him out, and be led by Him to His desired pasture for us.

Don’t recall true Jews in OT having your “name” problem, of being “lost” unless God specifically revealed which sect within Judaism was the fully true one .

Jesus said: I will build my church; he did not say: I will build many churches. I simply wanted to belong to that church.

He said salvation was of the Jews then as it is from the church today , both proclaiming a saving Christ. That is right . We should be united, not divided and isolated.

And yet we are, sadly.

But our unity should not be coercive, compromising, or with error.

Agreed.

I like the the idea you espouse of direct link to original, but can not accept your errors.

How can I know that you are right and that the CC teaches erroneously?

These errors we see as "corrected’ by promised “guidance”, which you now call these “other” ecclesia.

So, the Holy Spirit, who failed to guide the CC into all truth, doctrinally speaking, proceeded to guide the other ecclesia communities i.e. they were “corrected by promised guidance”/ OK.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Topper,
Just some thoughts about some of the things you’ve posted in this thread.

The fact is that the Ausgburg Confession is entirely incomplete and as a profession of faith, completely inadequate. If it had actually been adequate, Lutheranism would not have found it necessary to write the various portions of the Forumla of Concord, in which the anti-Catholicism of Lutheranism and insults to the Church came very much more to the surface.

Regarding your charge that the Formula of Concord posted here.

The Formula of Concord was written in 1576, well over forty years after the presentation of the CA at Augsburg. It was written in response to certain controversies within Lutheranism, and was not directed at the Catholic Church.

Controversy

For over thirty years (1546 - 1577) Lutheranism was plagued with bitter controversy. Interestingly, these controversies centered primarily on the very doctrines that the Reformation had sought to establish against the errors of the Papacy: Sin and grace, justification by faith, good works, and the Lord’s Supper. Like today, both sides maintained that the Bible was the final authority, and that the Word was the foundation for their teaching, but allowed reason to re-interpret it. How often devil uses such treachery to lead people away from Christ! So let us learn from the errors of others and turn to God’s Word alone for truth. We will consider each of these controversies chronologically, which is different from the order presented in the Formula of Concord.

• The Antinomistic Controversy (1527-1560) was, in a way, a natural by-product of the reformation which sought to emphasize the Gospel. John Agricola went so far as to state: “the 10 commandments belong in a courtroom, not the pulpit.” He taught that the Law is not needed by Christians. Many others also adhered to this teaching in the years after Luther’s death. This is answered in Articles V and VI in the Formula of Concord which discuss the difference between the Law and the Gospel and the use of the Law as a guide for Christians (the so-called third use).

• The Adiaphoristic Controversy (1548 - 1555) was occasioned by the re-institution of Roman Catholic ceremonies in Lutheran churches by Elector Maurice. This action was supported by the Philippists who claimed that it was adiaphora, and opposed by the Gnesio-Lutherans who said that is was an offense to the weak and must be rejected. This is addressed in Article X.

• The Osiandristic and Stancarian Controversy (1549 -1566) was brought about by Andrew Osiander who taught that sinners are made righteous by an infusion of the divine nature of Christ. Even though he was opposed by almost all Lutherans, Francesco Stancaro asserted that Christ justified us through His human nature alone. Both of these teachings are condemned in Article III.

• The Majoristic Controversy (1552-1577) concerned the role of good works in our salvation and emerged as a result of Melanchthon’s statement: “Good works are necessary for salvation.” This teaching was championed by one of Melanchthon’s students, George Major. Nicholas Amsdorf, replied with the false statement that “good works are detrimental to salvation.” The proper teaching on the role of good works is declared in Article IV.

• The Synergistic Controversy (1555-1560) dealt with the doctrine of conversion. This was one of the largest controversies during these years, because of the vast number of people involved. The Philippists held that man cooperates in his conversion by his own natural power. The opposing Lutherans held that unregenerate man is spiritually dead in sin and can in no way cooperate in conversion. This dispute was addressed in Article II.

• The Flacian Controversy (1560-1575) was a result of the synergistic controversy. Matthias Flacius went so far as to say that original sin is not an accident but the very substance of fallen man. He continued to adhere to this teaching until his death and was deposed because of it. The Formula discusses this error in Article I where it states that human nature and original sin are distinct.

• The Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy (1560-1574) was the result of the intrusion of Calvin’s teaching within Lutheranism. Melanchthon had gradually been won over to Calvin’s rational understanding of the nature of Christ and His bodily presence in the Lord’s Supper. Already in 1550, Melachthon’s followers began to introduce such Calvinistic phraseology into their teachings. Articles VII and VIII point out these “secretly Calvinist” teachings.

• The Hamburg Controversy was a local controversy involving Christ’s descent into hell. John Aepinus taught that Christ’s descent into hell was part of his suffering and humiliation instead of his exaltation. This is addressed in Article IX.

• The Strasburg Controversy dealt with the doctrine of predestination, and the false teaching of “once saved, always saved.”

continued

 

[JonNC]

Further, it was written well after the deaths of Luther and Melanchthon.

The Formula of Concord was originally formed from two separate confessions: The lengthy Swabian-Saxon Formula written by Jacob Andreae, and the shorter Maulbronn Formula written by Luke Osiander and Balthasar Bidembach. These two documents were combined into one by Andreae and Chemnitz and called the Torgau Book (the Epitome is a summary of this document).

After additional review by other Lutheran theologians the Torgau Book was re-worked and elaborated by Andreae, Chemnitz, Selneccer and others at the Bergen Cloister (thus receiving the title Bergen Book). This became the Solid Declaration.

So to say that the Formula of Concord finally revealed some secret deception perpetrated by Luther and Melanchthon simply doesn’t square with the facts of history.

clclutheran.org/atlanta/bibleclass/bookofconcord/formulaofconcordstudy.html

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon, it was an attempt deceive people as to the WHOLE of what Lutherans believed. It would be the same if the CA simply stated that Lutherans believed in the Trinity, and then stated nothing else. That is NOT a complete profession of Lutheran belief and neither was the CA. Are you really going to state that Melanchthon’s statement that they had no dogmas that were different than the Church was NOT dishonest?

---

Let me ask you a question Jon. Specifically and exactly Jon, why do you think that the CA did not address the following issues:

“the authority of the Pope, predestination, the priesthood of all believers, indelible sacramental ordination, the number of sacraments, and purgatory, nor of his condemnation of all Masses as public or private”, among others

In fact, many of these issues were discussed during the colloquies at Augsburg between Eck and Melanchthon.

"
On the mass, the marriage of priests, and vows there was no agreement. The Protestants offered to restore to the bishops their authority and jurisdiction, but wanted them to act in accordance with God’s word in the discharge of the duties of their office. Even the pope was to be recognized, not indeed as instituted by divine, but by human authority. They said: Even if he is Antichrist, we can nevertheless live under him as formerly the Jews did under Pharaoh and Caiaphas." - The history of the Augsburg Confession: from its origin till the adoption of the Formula of Concord
By John Henry Wilbrandt Stuckenberg
pg 121

To claim that these issues were not present at Augsburg, or that Eck and others did not know about these differences in belief does not square with the historical facts. Melanchthon was not deceiving anyone, nor was he trying to.

Further, it is clear from historical facts that there was no attempt by Luther and Melanchthon to deceive or hide what the reformers believed. There was no conspiracy to hide beliefs. In fact, there was disagreement amongst the Lutherans regarding Melanchthon’s willingness to concede in order to acquire reconciliation.

His letters to Augsburg written in August and September are full of warning not to concede too much to their enemies. He was beset by the Nuremburgers and others to oppose the concessions of his Augsburg friends.The conditions of peace proposed by the committees he would not accept even if an angel from Heaven were to announce them. “I almost burst with wrath and indignation,” he continues. '" I pray you, desist from conferring and go home. They have the Confession, they have the Gospel; if they desire these let them accept them; if they refuse them, then let them go." - ibid. pg 132

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

Peter says some of Paul’s are(scripture) or vice versa. Paul also says when he speaks(writes) of an admonition as when it is not of the Lord but from himself. He lays the assumption that unless he says otherwise, it is authentically from the Lord.

2 Peter 3:16
*“speaking of this[a] as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”
*
Protestant scholarship (mainly), has called into question many of St. Paul’s letters, debating whether they were actually were written by St. Paul or not. Michael Gorman in his book, Apostle of the Crucified Lord, states that:

1 Timothy: “the vast majority of scholars reject Pauline authorship of this letter” (p 532).
2 Timothy: “the majority of scholars reject the Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy” (pg 535),
Titus: “Titus is routinely dismissed as a pseudonymous work by a ‘disciple’ of the apostle” (pg 572).
Ephesians: “perhaps 20-30% of New Testament scholars think that Paul actually wrote Ephesians” (pg 502).

Gorman also states that the majority of scholars argue that the letter were written either after the death of the apostle to the middle of the 2nd century! One may wonder why for example the Pauline epistles are so highly questioned? Some of the reasons cited are below:

• Hard to reconcile with Acts (geographic locations and peoples)
• Vocabulary (300 vocabulary words that don’t appear elsewhere)
• Official church offices are named, not found in other letters (Church positions of: deacon, presbyter/ prosbyterios)
• Consolidation vs. dynamic (letters appear to be less dynamic: he’s not talking about the gospel or end times. Rather he is preserving what has been established; it’s more pro-law; rather than refuting false doctrine point by point he is just condemning it without explanation)
  Of course there are Catholic answers for the objections above….

But, my point is this: when St. Peter says St. Paul’s letters are scripture, many are uncertain today which letters were definitively written by St. Paul. So then, what specific letters of St. Paul’s, was St. Peter referring to? St. Peter certainly can not be referring to letters that were written after Paul’s death.

So the answer again to “what is scripture” comes back to the authority of the Catholic Church to have said so based on Tradition, not scripture itself. Even when scripture says “Paul’s letters are scripture”, uncertainty abounds and there is implicit trust in the Catholic Church to have discerned “what is scripture”. It’s also quite circular to point to scripture to determine what is scripture.

Note: I do recommend reading Gorman’s book above.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I already do, but thanks for the thought.

Suppose that a young couple (he’s a plumber and she works part-time at her mom’s beauty parlor) is flipping through the channels on TV one night, and they come across some evangelist preaching - maybe it’s Kenneth Hagin, maybe its Joyce Meyer - doesn’t matter. At first they are kind of chuckling and commenting on how silly the program is, but by God’s grace, something is said that convicts one or both of them. They begin to pray and to read the Bible.

Fast forward a few months and this couple is really on fire for God. They’ve invited a few neighbors over to the house for a bible study.

Fast forward a couple of years, and now this couple and their greatly expanded Bible study group have rented out an empty store front in a run-down strip mall across town.

Fast forward another five years, and the Harvest Bible Fellowship is building a gleaming new facility that seats several thousand. Big screen TV’s, a hip worship leader and an eight-piece band, parking lot attendants, coffee bar in the lobby, programs for the kids, the works.

Mr. and Mrs. have upscaled their home, they drive a very nice automobile, and they are dressed to the nines every time they appear on stage. They’ve been honored by both the mayor and the governor for various contributions to the community (and to re-election campaigns), and Christianity Today has listed them as #9 in its annual “10 Fastest Growing Churches in America” rankings. (They are planning some new outreach programs and hoping to move up to the top five next year.)

Needless to say, he hasn’t done any plumbing in quite awhile, and the only time she goes to the beauty parlor is when she is having her hair and nails done.

Pretty neat how God works, huh?

Just one question, Jon Jon: when Harvest Bible Fellowship has a communion service (four times a year), is Jesus really and truly present in the bread cubes and juice cups?

Why or why not? Please be specific. Thanks.

 

[JonNC]

I hope that you now have a different understanding of the Augsburg Confession and the manner in which it was written and defended. In fact, I would hope that you will not portray it in the future in the same way you have in the past.

I would appreciate your comments.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Hi Topper,

My understanding of the CA has not changed one iota. The Augsburg Confession in articles I through XXI give a clear and concise reflection of the Catholic Christian faith. And to each and every one of those articles, I say without reservation or reluctance, “this is most certainly true.” You have provided no reason for me to change that view.
You see, Topper, you’ve provided no evidence that those articles are not “most certainly true”. You’ve provided no alternative to those articles, and why you think those alternatives speak more decisively the Gospel. Without that, Topper, your posts, so lengthy and highlighted with quotes, so seemingly filled with research, do nothing to convince any Lutheran to even consider a transfer of membership to communion with the Bishop or Rome. Why? Because a transfer of membership must be a positive event, one that looks to something better. Topper, you’ve provided nothing better.

Nobody changes, (or nobody should change), their views of the teachings of their communion based on attacks from the outside. This is where the likes of Jack Chick fail.
I would think that few if any Catholics have become whatever Chick is because of the cartoons he has written.
In a similar way, though by no means placing you in a category with Chick, I don’t believe or disbelieve what the Augsburg Confession teaches because of your claims regarding it. With your posts, I consider the source, plain and simple.

If Melanchthon had a flaw during the colloquies and committees at Augsburg, it was not his desire to seek reconciliation. That desire should be applauded! It was his belief that reconciliation can be won through concession and compromise.
We see this today in efforts toward unity. Some are willing to compromise, and honestly believe doing so will bring a lasted reconciliation. It will not. They are not bald faced liars for it. They’re just wrong. Instead, and as Pope Benedict said when he visited the Lutheran Church in Rome in 2010, unity is only possible through the efforts of the Holy Spirit. We should and must work toward such an end, not through compromise, but through the earnest and respectful dialogue of our leaders.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon, this is all so so so … Catholic of you to say so.

Thanks, Pork. And yet, or maybe as a result, it is so, so, so Lutheran, as well.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,
People make a lot of claims that they believe to be true Jon, but that are not.

We are both quite aware of the position of the Catholic Church on the validity of the Lutheran Eucharist.

Absolutely aware the Catholic teaching on the Lutheran Eucharist. And you are right to believe and confess that teaching as a Catholic.

BTW, my question from post tonight question stands. After everything that has been revealed about the Augsburg Confession, including its formulation and defense, will you be portraying it in the future in the same way you have in the past?

Yes, I plan to continue to speak what I understand to be the truth of the Augsburg Confession and its teachings. As I said, regarding Article I through XXI, each and every one, “this is most certainly true.”

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Suppose that a young couple (he’s a plumber and she works part-time at her mom’s beauty parlor) is flipping through the channels on TV one night, and they come across some evangelist preaching - maybe it’s Kenneth Hagin, maybe its Joyce Meyer - doesn’t matter. At first they are kind of chuckling and commenting on how silly the program is, but by God’s grace, something is said that convicts one or both of them. They begin to pray and to read the Bible.

Fast forward a few months and this couple is really on fire for God. They’ve invited a few neighbors over to the house for a bible study.

Fast forward a couple of years, and now this couple and their greatly expanded Bible study group have rented out an empty store front in a run-down strip mall across town.

Fast forward another five years, and the Harvest Bible Fellowship is building a gleaming new facility that seats several thousand. Big screen TV’s, a hip worship leader and an eight-piece band, parking lot attendants, coffee bar in the lobby, programs for the kids, the works.

Mr. and Mrs. have upscaled their home, they drive a very nice automobile, and they are dressed to the nines every time they appear on stage. They’ve been honored by both the mayor and the governor for various contributions to the community (and to re-election campaigns), and Christianity Today has listed them as #9 in its annual “10 Fastest Growing Churches in America” rankings. (They are planning some new outreach programs and hoping to move up to the top five next year.)

Needless to say, he hasn’t done any plumbing in quite awhile, and the only time she goes to the beauty parlor is when she is having her hair and nails done.

Pretty neat how God works, huh?

Just one question, Jon Jon: when Harvest Bible Fellowship has a communion service (four times a year), is Jesus really and truly present in the bread cubes and juice cups?

Why or why not? Please be specific. Thanks.

Specificity:

Thus I again confess here before God and all the world that I believe and do not doubt, and shall also with the help and grace of my dear Lord Jesus Christ adhere to this confession until the last day, that where mass is celebrated according to Christ’s ordinance, be it among us Lutherans or under the papacy or in Greece or in India, even if it is also only under one kind – which is nonetheless wrong and an abuse – as is the case under the papacy at Easter and otherwise during the year when they provide the sacrament for the people, nevertheless, under the form of bread, the true body of Christ, given for us on the cross, [and] under the form of wine, the true blood of Christ, shed for us, are present; furthermore, it is not a spiritual or imagined body and blood but the genuine natural body and blood derived from the holy, virginal, true, human body of Mary, conceived without a human body by the Holy Spirit alone.

-Luther

Further:

Now the fanatics believe [according to their publicly-confessed faith] that nothing but bread and wine are present, hence it is surely so [in their churches]. They have as they believe, and so they eat nothing but bread and wine, and partake of the Lord’s body neither spiritually nor physically. It is very good and useful that our possession should not be scattered among the unworthy but kept holy and pure among the humble alone.

• Luther

Finally:

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.

• Augsburg Confession

Where were Mr. and Mrs. ordained (assuming Mrs. can even be ordained)?
Is the use of grape juice keeping in accord with Christ’s ordinance?

**My point would be that I do not know where His presence is not. I do know where His presence is. ** But I suspect that where the Supper is celebrated and His real presence is not desired, bread is bread and grape juice is grape juice, as they wish.

Our clergy are indeed called and ordained and, in accordance to Christ’s ordinance, celebrate in truth His Eucharist, that our clergy are valid to do so under divine law.

Jon