How "quia" must one be to still remain "quia"?

[ByzantineDixie]

My connection is too shakey right now to risk typing out a long response so I will limit myself to two things right now and will come back later.

First of all...could someone link ChiRho to the Eucharistic Adoration thread?

With regard to what the Orthodox believe...quite simple...the Mysteries were given to the Church. There are no Sacraments outside of the Church. The cup cannot be divided. Of course, the Spirit blows where He wills but we have no assurances outside of the Church.

 

[Qoheleth]

Dixie, what saith the EO Church regarding what happens in a Baptist church when they "take communion"? Is there a real sacrament there, even though the Baptists (et al., I'm not picking on Baptists, just using them as an example) deny the Real Presence?

the Mysteries were given to the Church. There are no Sacraments outside of the Church. The cup cannot be divided. Of course, the Spirit blows where He wills but we have no assurances outside of the Church.

Kepler and Dixie if you dont mind me adding to this,

The Orthodox Church does not take a dogmatic stance regarding the validity of sacraments in non-Orthodox confessions.

But, since the validity of the Eucharist requires, however, among other things, a priest ordained by a bishop holding Orders in the Apostolic Succession, the Orthodox Church would not recognize as valid a Eucharist served by a church that does not even claim Apostolic Succession.

With that said...

The Orthodox recognize a distintion between grace "upon" and grace "within". Accordingly, as regards the "validity" of non-Orthodox sacraments, the Orthodox acknowledge grace working externally "upon" these sacraments ( i.e. the general work and ministry of the Holy Spirit or the "blows where He will" ) but understands that this is not the same as "ecclesial" grace or grace working internally "within" the church. This is all grounded in the ministry of the Holy Spirit.


This is a complicated way of saying exactly what Rose said...

the Spirit blows where He wills

Q

 

[ricg]

I agree with you stance on the quia subscription, at least as a matter of history. The confessors intended to only to correct abuse in the Western Church, not found a new one.

That said, however, you may be reading too much into a quia subscription in several ways. First, the Lutheran view of the Church itself was (and is) different from the RC version, which centers on papal primacy and theories of apostolic succession. Therefore, there is a qualitative difference in our respective beliefs of "what" the Church which greatly complicates the question of "where" it is. The Confessions address the content of public doctrine, the affirmation of which is a function of the Church, but the revelation of which rests with God and the "holy men" through whom He spoke.

The Confessions are further limited in that they address issues in controversy at the time the were written and not necessarily issues in controversy in succeeding times.

With all this I mean only to say that the Church exists and has always existed beyond the Confessions.

That said, I think that the quia subscription does exhibit a belief that on the controversies addressed, only the scriptural view is set forth in the Confessions, and if Scripture is unclear, the Confession do not mean to address the controversy.

As to the specific question of Jesus "leaving" the bread and wine, I don't think it's specifically addressed, because I don't think that those are the terms in which the authors addressed the issue. The basic teaching is that Jesus has promised to be (bodily)present in His meal. The Confessions seem to affirm the converse: that when there is no meal, there is no promise of Jesus. We cannot even explain "how" Jesus "is present" -- it is a mystery; therefore, we do not address how Jesus "is not present." We only say that the scope of the promise is that when we have this special meal, we eat and drink Jesus, and that Scripture provides no basis to regard bread and wine as Jesus outside that context.

I guess I don't like the "come and go," "arrived and left" terminology. It is a question of whether something "is" or "is not," not even a question of "is" vs "was." It's likely beyond all that. The point is, however, man does not "confect" God in a handy form for parading about and worshipping; that's not God's promise; it is the very definition of idolatry.

I've not looked carefully at when it came to be believed that consecrated bread is Jesus after the communion meal, so I do not have a feel for whether what the Confessions say can be called an innovation. My understanding is that they are based on clear Scripture, and that the early fathers are cited to show there was no dissent. In my experience, where there was dissent in early Christian (or psuedo-Christian) writings, the Confessions either didn't speak to the issue or took the position that the dissenters were wrong (i.e., where Scriptrue is clear). I am unaware of a situation where the fathers all disagreed with a position that the Confessions take, which is apparently what you believe is the case here.

 

[Protoevangel]

To avoid beginning upon false assumptions, could you define for me "Eucharistic Adoration" and "innovation," as they are applied specifically to this topic?

Welcome back ChiRho. You have been missed!

Eucharistic Adoration, in it's most generic sense, would be simply the Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament, as promoted by the early church fathers and Luther, Chemnitz, etc. In the Lutheran sense, that would properly be during the "action"; while He is confessed to be Present.

The Eucharistic Adoration thread is here

Innovation would be the introduction of a new teaching, formerly, unknown, alien, or rejected by the orthodox teaching of the Church catholic.

 

[Philip]

What BD and Q say is an accurate description of the EO position.

Carry on. I am enjoying this thread.

 

[Protoevangel]

Oh I could be wrong. Chemnitz was a better Lutheran than I ever was anyway. Too bad I don't have Trent 2 though so I could confirm and read what you have referenced in context...I only bought the first book before I left Lutheranism.

I still need to get my own copy of Chemnitz's writings, too. The same goes for Luther's Works, instead of always reading snippets online, and having to beg and borrow to get the contexts..

But I remind you....there are a lot of Lutherans who read that section of the Solid D and who believe Christ is no long present in the pyx. You saw that yourself in the Eucharistic Adoration thread. So if I am wrong...I am not wrong alone.

In the end...how Lutherans practice reflect what they believe anyway.

Couple of things...

Lex orandi, lex credendi...

You came to exactly the place I came to...if there is any innovation in the BoC then it would be impossible to be a "quia". And that is what I was looking for when I originally posted. As I was reading, as I was discussing (particularly in real life) I was beginning to get the sense that "nothing new" was more of an after thought (did you catch the thread in Weedon's blog...this issue came up there, too!) or "as long as it fits" than something real Lutherans needed to hang on to...which was never my understanding.

I did read it, just this afternoon, by the way... And now I have a new blog I have to add to my list: Chris Jones. I also thought Pastor Beisel's comment thought provoking.

I will say that I don't believe that there are many Lutherans who hold to the same understandings you have though, Dan. On both issues, innovation as well as the presence of Christ in the pyx. But I appreciate your need to fight for what you see as truth.

We aren't non-existent, either. I know of several Lutheran pastors (and presumably many in their congregations) who hold to these understandings. As long as there is a Weedon, a Fenton, a Society of St. Polycarp, then the Lutheran Church isn't completely sunk. Orthodox Lutherans will rise to take their place.

Thanks very much for the challenges and discussion. God grant you peace.

Oh, I haven't completely given up!

Here is Luther's answer to the debate:

"Therefore, we shall define the time of the sacramental action in this way: that it starts with the beginning the Our Father and lasts until all have communicated, have emptied chalice, have consumed the hosts, until the people have been dismissed and [the priest] has left the altar... Therefore see to it that if anything is left over of the sacrament, either some communicants or the priest himself and his assistant receive it, so that it is not only a curate or someone else who drinks what is left over in the chalice, but that he gives it to the others who were also participants in the body [of Christ], so that you do not appear to divide the sacrament by a bad example or to treat the sacramental action irreverently."
- Jena, Latin Edition, Vol 4 (quoted in "The Case of the Lost Luther Reference", Concordia Theological Seminary: here)

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Kepler and Dixie if you dont mind me adding to this, ...

Mind? Well, I shouldn't mind since you did a FAR better job explaining this than I did. Even if I would have taken the time I don't believe I would have said it as well. So...I guess I don't mind that you, a Lutheran, showed up me, an newbie Orthodox! At least I have been trying to tell my ego that!

As to the specific question of Jesus "leaving" the bread and wine, I don't think it's specifically addressed, because I don't think that those are the terms in which the authors addressed the issue. The basic teaching is that Jesus has promised to be (bodily)present in His meal. The Confessions seem to affirm the converse: that when there is no meal, there is no promise of Jesus. We cannot even explain "how" Jesus "is present" -- it is a mystery; therefore, we do not address how Jesus "is not present." We only say that the scope of the promise is that when we have this special meal, we eat and drink Jesus, and that Scripture provides no basis to regard bread and wine as Jesus outside that context.

Your post was outstanding. Thank you for your thoughts! I agree that if the Confessions would have just left things alone...left the Mystery as it is...without implying that once the Body of Christ is slipped in a monstrance for a Corpus Christi parade and adoration Christ was no longer present, that there would be nothing to argue. But that's not what the Solid D says. As I pointed out in the other thread...it's one thing to acknowledge the abuse, to correct the abuse, to prevent the abuse from recurring but to make a theological assessment and say definitively that when this abuse takes place Christ is no longer present...well, that seems to be a big leap from what was believed "everywhere, always and by all".

BTW...I don't like the "come and go" terminology as well. I hope I have not offended you by using it to make my point in the context of this discussion.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

I haven't said anything up to this point becasue my head is still reeling from the last thread on adoration... But reading the SDFC on this, a few thoughts are forming.

Dixie, what saith the EO Church regarding what happens in a Baptist church when they "take communion"? Is there a real sacrament there, even though the Baptists (et al., I'm not picking on Baptists, just using them as an example) deny the Real Presence? FOr the Lutherans, we do indeed deny that they are receiving the true sacrament:



When the sacrament is not rightly taught, Christ is not there.

HOWEVER, when the Sacrament IS rightly taught, Christ is there...but He is NOT there BECAUSE the Sacrament is rightly taught (emphasis on human action), He is there because of the Word.

I believe the BoC parses this issue in the same manner in which election is parsed: the human will causes damnation, but not salvation. The Grace of God effects salvation but not damnation.

IOW, we know why a person goes to hell; we know why another person goes to heaven, but the difference between them is a mystery unknown to us.

We know why Baptists have no true sacrament. We know why we have a true sacrament...but I think the difference between us is categorically the same kind of mystery as election/salvation. We can say it's becasue the "Word is not rightly preached" and this is true. BUt it begs the question. Baptists say the same "word" over the bread and juice that we say over bread and wine, so why is our prayer effective and theirs is not? (and we all agree that theirs is not!) I am NOT suggesting that we have "something" in addition to the Words of Institution that they don't have: that would be suggesting that the verity of the Sacrament depends on us, which (from the last thread) I think we all agree it does not.

Am I making any sense at all?

This is not innovation. This "view" of election and salvation is pretty clearly laid out in the Council of Orange, and is very Augustinian (and personally, I think there are elements of it in Chrysostom and one of the Cyrils, but it could be that I'm putting a happy spin on them).

And the "front side" view of the sacrament that I just described is also NOT an innovation: the RCs denied that the Manichaeans had a true Sacrament becasue of their gnostic views on wine.

So...

The UNpresence of the sacrament can be a result of human intention.
But the presence of the sacrament is only a result of the Word, and never a result of human intention.

How the math works out between those two positions is (just like election/salvation) known only to God: it's a mystery.

Kepler

I think this is a really good Lutheran response.

But let me ask you something...based on this response are you saying that the other church bodies (specifically the Catholics, the Anglicans, the rest of the Lutherans)that believe Christ is truly present in the Eucharist ...His Body, His Blood...because they do not teach rightly in some element of the Sacrament, for example, adoration for the Catholics, open communion for the ELCAs and the Episcopalians...these churches per the Lutheran understanding do not offer the true Body and Blood of Christ to their faithful?

 

[ByzantineDixie]

I still need to get my own copy of Chemnitz's writings, too. The same goes for Luther's Works, instead of always reading snippets online, and having to beg and borrow to get the contexts..

I already gave a number of Lutheran books away...but I have not parted ways with my CD of Luther's Works. I still like arguing with Lutherans and need that for quick research. But if I ever do decide I need to cut this out...I'll send it to you.

I did read it, just this afternoon, by the way... And now I have a new blog I have to add to my list: Chris Jones. I also thought Pastor Beisel's comment thought provoking.

Ah yes, I have been following both of their blogs for a while now. (BTW...I use SharpReader as my blog reader...anyone have anything they like better?) Chris Jones is quite unique in his Luthodox stance. If you read much of what he writes however, he does not hold a quia subscription to the Lutheran Confessions. But...that doesn't bother me!

We aren't non-existent, either. I know of several Lutheran pastors (and presumably many in their congregations) who hold to these understandings. As long as there is a Weedon, a Fenton, a Society of St. Polycarp, then the Lutheran Church isn't completely sunk. Orthodox Lutherans will rise to take their place.

Oh there ya go...make me totally defenseless. You know what a fool I am for Pastor Weedon! Do you know how hard it was to relinquish my groupie status with him once I left the Lutheran church! I mean, I would have kept it if I could have but...as we say here in the South "that just ain't ri-i-ight"

Here is Luther's answer to the debate:

"Therefore, we shall define the time of the sacramental action in this way: that it starts with the beginning the Our Father and lasts until all have communicated, have emptied chalice, have consumed the hosts, until the people have been dismissed and [the priest] has left the altar... Therefore see to it that if anything is left over of the sacrament, either some communicants or the priest himself and his assistant receive it, so that it is not only a curate or someone else who drinks what is left over in the chalice, but that he gives it to the others who were also participants in the body [of Christ], so that you do not appear to divide the sacrament by a bad example or to treat the sacramental action irreverently."
- Jena, Latin Edition, Vol 4 (quoted in "The Case of the Lost Luther Reference", Concordia Theological Seminary: here)

If the Confessions had left it at this...our discussion would be moot. And if the Lutheran church actually practiced it....oh I know...there are a few Lutheran churches around that do. Not anywhere I have ever been but..."out there"...somewhere...or so I have been told.

 

[KEPLER]

I think this is a really good Lutheran response.

But let me ask you something...based on this response are you saying that the other church bodies (specifically the Catholics, the Anglicans, the rest of the Lutherans)that believe Christ is truly present in the Eucharist ...His Body, His Blood...because they do not teach rightly in some element of the Sacrament, for example, adoration for the Catholics, open communion for the ELCAs and the Episcopalians...these churches per the Lutheran understanding do not offer the true Body and Blood of Christ to their faithful?

I'll have to look it up, but I am 99.9% sure that I am confessionally bound to respond by saying that in spite of her faults Rome nevertheless has a true sacrament. I think the same holds true for EO.

As for ECUSA and ELCA, half of them worship trees, half of them cows, and the other half may or may not believe in the Real Presence. (And they're not very good at math either!) As you say, the Spirit goes where He wills...

K

 

[KEPLER]

I already gave a number of Lutheran books away...but I have not parted ways with my CD of Luther's Works. I still like arguing with Lutherans and need that for quick research. But if I ever do decide I need to cut this out...I'll send it to you.

Isn't giving books away a sign of apostacy?

Hmm, maybe that's just the historian in me talkin'.

K

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Isn't giving books away a sign of apostacy?

Hmm, maybe that's just the historian in me talkin'.

K

At least I could give away my Lutheran books in good conscience. I have this GIGANTIC box of the most AWFUL Evangelical Christian books and tapes in my closet that I trip over everyday...I can't in good conscience give them away and I can't seem to throw them in the trash. I thought they might make a good bonfire but I can't seem to do that either. Ideas?

 

[Philip]

Isn't giving books away a sign of apostacy?

In my case, it is a sign that my wife has decided that I have once again accumulated too much 'clutter'.

 

[Philip]

At least I could give away my Lutheran books in good conscience. I have this GIGANTIC box of the most AWFUL Evangelical Christian books and tapes in my closet that I trip over everyday...I can't in good conscience give them away and I can't seem to throw them in the trash. I thought they might make a good bonfire but I can't seem to do that either. Ideas?

Do you know anyone with a pet parakeet?

 

[ByzantineDixie]

I'll have to look it up, but I am 99.9% sure that I am confessionally bound to respond by saying that in spite of her faults Rome nevertheless has a true sacrament. I think the same holds true for EO.

So...Rome...despite her incorrect teachings...still has the Sacrament? Then how does this not nullify everything you wrote in your good Lutheran response?

If the Christ is present in the Sacrament because of the right teaching of the Word and if Rome teaches wrong...

 

[Protoevangel]

I already gave a number of Lutheran books away...but I have not parted ways with my CD of Luther's Works. I still like arguing with Lutherans and need that for quick research. But if I ever do decide I need to cut this out...I'll send it to you.

Uh, that wasn't a hint... Honest.

I could get the CD on any particular payday... Worst case, I would just save up for a month... It's just that it's not high enough on the priority list yet. It's a sad but true statement that an iPod is higher on the list at the moment. In fact, I only recently bought the Book of Concord on MP3, just a month ago.

Ah yes, I have been following both of their blogs for a while now. (BTW...I use SharpReader as my blog reader...anyone have anything they like better?)

I just use Firefox. Never actually tried a specialized blog reader.

Chris Jones is quite unique in his Luthodox stance. If you read much of what he writes however, he does not hold a quia subscription to the Lutheran Confessions. But...that doesn't bother me!

I was a little dissapointed when I read Chris' reason for not going to the Orthodox Church. It sounded like saying "I think that it is right to be conservative, but I'm liberal because they love more."

Oh there ya go...make me totally defenseless. You know what a fool I am for Pastor Weedon! Do you know how hard it was to relinquish my groupie status with him once I left the Lutheran church! I mean, I would have kept it if I could have but...as we say here in the South "that just ain't ri-i-ight"

Hehe... Now I know to just drop his name whenever we disagree... Well, Pr. Weedon thinks...

If the Confessions had left it at this...our discussion would be moot. And if the Lutheran church actually practiced it....oh I know...there are a few Lutheran churches around that do. Not anywhere I have ever been but..."out there"...somewhere...or so I have been told.

I'm still not convinced that was the intention of the SDFC... Maybe, but it would be so out of character for the SDFC.

Christ promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail, not that the true Church would be everywhere at once. What about the poor individual with no Lutheran (or Orthodox) church anywhere they can hope to travel to?

 

[Protoevangel]

First, it is not a matter of negligence but evil and indeed extreme evil on the part of this deacon [Adam Besserer], who as a despiser of God and men publicly dared to regard consecrated hosts and unconsecrated as one and the same. Therefore he must by all means be expelled from our church; let him go to his Zwinglians. It is unnecessary that a man who does not belong to us be held imprisoned. He must not be believed under oath. ... As for the mixed particles [ i.e. the consecrated and unconsecrated hosts that Besserer had mixed together] it was good that they were burned, although in this situation it would not have been necessary to burn them, since outside the use nothing is a Sacrament as the water of Baptism outside the use is not Baptism. With those who eat and believe, Christ operates in the Sacrament. But on account of the offense the pastor did what was right with the burning. (Letter to Nicolaus von Amsdorf [1546], ~Lutheran Synod Quarterly~ 28:4 [December 1988], pp. 72-73 [WA Br. XI, 258])

One part of this quote really seems out of place.

We have:

• evil and indeed extreme evil
• despiser of God and men
• dared to regard consecrated hosts and unconsecrated as one and the same
• must by all means be expelled from our church
• let him go to his Zwinglians
• goodthat they were burned
• not ... necessary to burn them
• did what was right with the burning

If it was not necessary to burn them, why was it good that they were burned, and why did the pastor do right by burning that which was not necessary to be burned? If it was not necessary to burn them, what was so evil? Where was the despising of God and men? What was wrong by regarding consecrated hosts and unconsecrated as one and the same? Why must he be expelled and go to his Zwinglians (who, by the way, Luther's main objection to was that they rejected the Real Presense)? It just don't make no sense.

Of course another participant responded by pointing out that someone by the name of Peters did some work to demonstrate "no sacrament outside the use" was not the same thing as "no Body and Blood outside the use" but while this may help digest Luther's letter better it doesn't resolve the comments in the Solid D which clearly say "Christ is not present". So frankly I disagree with your assessment...I think the reformers did go that far.

Funny, I searched the entire SDFC, and never found "Christ is not present" anywhere.

Hehe! Oh, I slay me!

But seriously... Like I said in my last post, I'm not so sure that was the intention. Considering how exacting they were with all of their wording, it would have been so much easier for them to have said it exactly like that, if, of course, that is indeed what they had intended to say.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

From Doktor Luther's own Weblog (Thanks, Melethiel):

My cretinous clerical assistant has argued—persuasively for once—that it is time for Lutherans everywhere to pick up some choice Latin. While I would rather stick my head in an ox’s rectum before I would return to the sacrilege of the Latin mass, or see the Holy Scriptures sequestered in a dead tongue, I have found that there are no fit substitutes—even in my beloved German—for certain Latinisms.

Word for the day: quia, “because.” I believe the Gospel quia it is true. As opposed to quatenus, “insofar.” I believe the Gospel quatenus it is true.

The difference between the two is the difference between heaven and hell.

I will leave it to my readers to apply this lesson where appropriate. As for me … lunch. Ach! Who ate my Fritos!

 

[ByzantineDixie]

It's a sad but true statement that an iPod is higher on the list at the moment.

Oh I soooo want one of those but they are so expensive. Besides a new transmission for the van is much more exciting...

Christ promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail, not that the true Church would be everywhere at once. What about the poor individual with no Lutheran (or Orthodox) church anywhere they can hope to travel to?

Dan, I don't understand this question. Is it in reference to the point made earlier that orthodox Lutheran congregations are few and far between? That discussion is worth its own thread. Is the Lutheran church what the majority says she is or what the minority says? And all the implications therein. What does it mean that an orthodox Lutheran congregation is in communion with a heterodox majority? Weighty stuff.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

One part of this quote really seems out of place.

We have:

• evil and indeed extreme evil
• despiser of God and men
• dared to regard consecrated hosts and unconsecrated as one and the same
• must by all means be expelled from our church
• let him go to his Zwinglians
• goodthat they were burned
• not ... necessary to burn them
• did what was right with the burning

If it was not necessary to burn them, why was it good that they were burned, and why did the pastor do right by burning that which was not necessary to be burned? If it was not necessary to burn them, what was so evil? Where was the despising of God and men? What was wrong by regarding consecrated hosts and unconsecrated as one and the same? Why must he be expelled and go to his Zwinglians (who, by the way, Luther's main objection to was that they rejected the Real Presense)? It just don't make no sense.

I think it was a matter of eliminating any doubt that the Body and Blood of Christ was offered. You know that was big with Luther. The part of the quote that is missing actually touches on this very thing. (What I first quoted came from the Orthodox Lutheran Dialogue group...the full quote comes from Pastor Webber's Lutheran Theology Website and is as follows. I highlighted the part originally not quoted.)

First, it is not a matter of negligence but evil and indeed extreme evil on the part of this deacon [Adam Besserer], who as a despiser of God and men publicly dared to regard consecrated hosts and unconsecrated as one and the same. Therefore he must by all means be expelled from our church; let him go to his Zwinglians. It is unnecessary that a man who does not belong to us be held imprisoned. He must not be believed under oath. Furthermore, the one who has received the unconsecrated host [from Besserer] has sinned in nothing. His faith has saved him in that he believed that he was receiving the proper Sacrament and he relied on the Word of God. He is not cheated, just as the believing one who is baptized is not cheated even if the baptizer were to play a game or had baptized with another liquid. Moreover, on this occasion it is not imperative to dispute so severely so that simple consciences are not disturbed and provoked. It is enough that all is possible for him who believes. As for the mixed particles [i.e. the consecrated and unconsecrated hosts that Besserer had mixed together] it was good that they were burned, although in this situation it would not have been necessary to burn them, since outside the use nothing is a Sacrament as the water of Baptism outside the use is not Baptism. With those who eat and believe, Christ operates in the Sacrament. But on account of the offense the pastor did what was right with the burning. (Martin Luther, Letter to Nicolaus von Amsdorf [1546], Lutheran Synod Quarterly 28:4 [December 1988], pp. 72-73 [WA Br. XI, 258])

I'll address the final point tomorrow. It's late and I need to spend some time rereading what you wrote. I am not getting it and before I accuse you of selective understanding ...I better make a sincere effort to see what you are seeing.