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

[SPALATIN]

Scripture tells us in a sense that the world will continue to go from Orthodox to Heterodox until the end. The world we live in is condemned and it continues to be entropic. Try as we will, we will never be able to stave off the inevitable without God on our side.

 

[KEPLER]

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...

Let's suppose there are three different teachers doing a science experiment with children:

Teacher #1 says that connecting a light bulb to the positive and negative ends of a battery will make it glow.

Teacher #2 also says that connecting a light bulb to the positive and negative ends of a battery will make it glow.

Teacher #3 says there is no need for any of this, we already have the sun.

Obviously, #3 has missed the point. But what of 1 & 2? If #1 says the bulb glows becasue of the passage of electrons through the wires, but #2 says it glows because of magic juju bits, will that cause #2's bulb to stop glowing?

OK, probably a really stupid anaolgy, and I'm everyone will jump in and point out where it breaks down, but...

Going back to the portion of the SDFC that I cited:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]32] After this protestation, Doctor Luther, of blessed memory, presents, among other articles, this also: In the same manner I also speak and confess (he says) concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, that there the body and blood of Christ are in truth orally eaten and drunk in the bread and wine, even though the priests [ministers] who administer it [the Lord's Supper], or those who receive it, should not believe or otherwise misuse it. For it does not depend upon the faith or unbelief of men, but upon God's Word and ordinance, unless they first change God's Word and ordinance and interpret it otherwise, as the enemies of the Sacrament do at the present day, who, of course, have nothing but bread and wine; for they also do not have the words and appointed ordinance of God, but have perverted and changed them according to their own [false] notion. Fol. 245.[/FONT]

I think it clear that Rome is not an 'enemy of the sacrament'. Rome elaborates beyond the words of Scripture, but does not in fact undermine them by denying Christ's Real Presence.

Rome's excessive elaborations most certainly undermine Justification, but not the sacrament.

We on our part confess that there is much that is Christian and good under the papacy; indeed everything that is Christian and good is to be found there and has come to us from this source. For instance, we confess that in the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the article of the Creed."

"The Christendom that now is under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacrament, keys, the office of the ministry, prayer, Holy Scripture, and everything that pertains to Christendom."

"So it is of no consequence when these Anabaptists and enthusiasts say, 'Whatever is of the pope is wrong,' or, 'Whatever is in the papacy we must have and do differently,' thinking thereby to prove themselves the foremost enemy of Antichrist."

"So these enthusiasts. These ought to come to the aid of Christendom, which Antichrist has in his grip and tortures. They take a severe stand against the pope, but they miss their mark and murder the more terribly the Christendom under the pope. For if they would permit baptism and the sacrament of the altar to stand, as they are, Christians under the pope might yet escape with their souls and be saved, as has been the case hitherto. But now when the sacraments are taken from them, [by the enthusiasts] they will most likely be lost, since even Christ himself is thereby taken away."

Concerning Rebaptism: A Letter to Two Pastors (1528) LW 40:225-62 (232-3)

As I said, I am 99.9% sure there is something in the BoC which echoes this, but I haven't looked for it.

K

 

[LutherNut]

I sometimes wonder if at the time of the writing of the Confessions, in particular the FC, there wasn't a certain level of understanding that was assumed when these things were written that is needed to fully understand the authors intent, but that is now unknown or lost due to time.
Both sides of this issue seem to make sense, but all in all what the FC syas seems a bit ambiguous. I doubt that Chemnitz et al would have left it so without some sort of way to support it, even if it was with some unwritten understanding that was assumed at the time.

Do I make sense... or am I just a rambling, mumbling idiot?

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Dan, et al...

I'll come back in a bit to finish where I left off. I just needed a break for a bit...and its been very busy here. Didn't want you to think I dropped this.

Luthernut...there is more to your last post than most would admit. I think you are on to something.

 

[Protoevangel]

Dan, et al...

I'll come back in a bit to finish where I left off. I just needed a break for a bit...and its been very busy here. Didn't want you to think I dropped this.

Luthernut...there is more to your last post than most would admit. I think you are on to something.

Hi Rose,

No problem. You may have been right in your previous post, that I may be "selectively understanding" the situation. The fact is, I see your point, and am proffering any reasonably plausible explanation I can find... I am not in any way married to my arguments on this subject, but I do think there must be a rational and comprehensive answer for it, it was too basic and obvious to have just slipped by. I need to mull the issue over for a time, and not make any more hasty decisions. Perhaps the issue is that we are expecting more from the confessions than they offer. I mean, even the Ecumenical councils weren't infallible...But that dosen't affect their witness overall.

 

[KEPLER]

I sometimes wonder if at the time of the writing of the Confessions, in particular the FC, there wasn't a certain level of understanding that was assumed when these things were written that is needed to fully understand the authors intent, but that is now unknown or lost due to time.
Both sides of this issue seem to make sense, but all in all what the FC syas seems a bit ambiguous. I doubt that Chemnitz et al would have left it so without some sort of way to support it, even if it was with some unwritten understanding that was assumed at the time.

Do I make sense... or am I just a rambling, mumbling idiot?

Are you advocating a Historical-Critical reading of the Book of Concord, Jay?



K

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Let's suppose there are three different teachers doing a science experiment with children:

Teacher #1 says that connecting a light bulb to the positive and negative ends of a battery will make it glow.

Teacher #2 also says that connecting a light bulb to the positive and negative ends of a battery will make it glow.

Teacher #3 says there is no need for any of this, we already have the sun.

Obviously, #3 has missed the point. But what of 1 & 2? If #1 says the bulb glows becasue of the passage of electrons through the wires, but #2 says it glows because of magic juju bits, will that cause #2's bulb to stop glowing?

OK, probably a really stupid anaolgy, and I'm everyone will jump in and point out where it breaks down, but...

Going back to the portion of the SDFC that I cited:

I think it clear that Rome is not an 'enemy of the sacrament'. Rome elaborates beyond the words of Scripture, but does not in fact undermine them by denying Christ's Real Presence.

Rome's excessive elaborations most certainly undermine Justification, but not the sacrament.



As I said, I am 99.9% sure there is something in the BoC which echoes this, but I haven't looked for it.

K

OK...you have made a good case with your Luther quotes to show that Lutherans think Rome has the Sacrament. I presume the same would hold true for the East and for the Anglicans...but I honestly don't understand how it limits others from having it.

The argument goes like this:

a. The Word causes the Sacrament
b. The Sacrament does not depend on the faith of the administrator
c. The Sacrament does not depend on the faith of the receiver
d. But there is no Sacrament for "enemies of the Sacrament".

I never could put that logic together when I tried to argue it as a Lutheran. It seems to me that the line of thinking implies an individual man's intention does not impact the Sacrament but collective intention does trump the Word.

Do you think that in a church body which is not an "enemy of the Sacrament" there could ultimately be enough abuses that they would no longer have the Sacrament? You mentioned earlier some Episcopals might not. I am curious as to how that would work. For example...in a Lutheran church where an Elder consecrates and distributes the Sacrament for a pastor who is out of town. Sacrament or not?

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Hi Rose,

No problem. You may have been right in your previous post, that I may be "selectively understanding" the situation. The fact is, I see your point, and am proffering any reasonably plausible explanation I can find... I am not in any way married to my arguments on this subject, but I do think there must be a rational and comprehensive answer for it, it was too basic and obvious to have just slipped by.

You know... I understand where you are coming from on this. They couldn't have meant what I am implying they mean because it is too basic and obvious to have slipped by without some kind of patristic or other historical support. What they meant however doesn't really matter so much if what the Lutheran church today believes and practices in accordance with what I have suggested is done and I would have to say the vast majority do hold to the understanding that Christ is no longer present in the elements upon completion of the Sacrament. It surely was what I was taught in my lay ministry classes.

Here are the other things I learned associated with that instruction.

The Eternal Light...the sanctuary light (usually a red candle hanging somewhere near the front of the church). Historically that was lit to indicate Christ's Presence in the tabernacle. No Presence after the Sacrament, no need for a tabernacle, no need for Lutherans to have this light.

Genuflecting...historically this was done in reverence to Christ's Presence in the tabernacle. No Presence after the Sacrament, no need for a tabernacle, no need to genuflect.

So...you might be right, I might be wrong, but if I am wrong so are most of the Lutherans and so is modern Lutheran college level teaching.

I don't know at what point the majority collective understandings become the official interpretation of the Confessions--but I am guessing they are getting dang close on this issue if not already there.

 

[SPALATIN]

You know... I understand where you are coming from on this. They couldn't have meant what I am implying they mean because it is too basic and obvious to have slipped by without some kind of patristic or other historical support. What they meant however doesn't really matter so much if what the Lutheran church today believes and practices in accordance with what I have suggested is done and I would have to say the vast majority do hold to the understanding that Christ is no longer present in the elements upon completion of the Sacrament. It surely was what I was taught in my lay ministry classes.

Here are the other things I learned associated with that instruction.

The Eternal Light...the sanctuary light (usually a red candle hanging somewhere near the front of the church). Historically that was lit to indicate Christ's Presence in the tabernacle. No Presence after the Sacrament, no need for a tabernacle, no need for Lutherans to have this light.

Genuflecting...historically this was done in reverence to Christ's Presence in the tabernacle. No Presence after the Sacrament, no need for a tabernacle, no need to genuflect.

So...you might be right, I might be wrong, but if I am wrong so are most of the Lutherans and so is modern Lutheran college level teaching.

I don't know at what point the majority collective understandings become the official interpretation of the Confessions--but I am guessing they are getting dang close on this issue if not already there.

Here is what I want to do for both of you. When I begin Seminary classes, I will ask some of the professors about this issue. I will then let you both know in a PM or Email.

 

[LutherNut]

Are you advocating a Historical-Critical reading of the Book of Concord, Jay?



K

Bite your tongue!!!

 

[BigNorsk]

BD,

If genuflecting is done to recognize Christ's presence, then why do you not genuflect towards each person who has communed? Do you believe that Jesus is no longer present in the person? If you do believe he is present in the person, why don't you genuflect?

Marv

 

[ByzantineDixie]

BD,

If genuflecting is done to recognize Christ's presence, then why do you not genuflect towards each person who has communed? Do you believe that Jesus is no longer present in the person? If you do believe he is present in the person, why don't you genuflect?

Marv

It is a historical fact that genuflexion was done in reverence to the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle in the Western Church (although the practice does not have it's origins in antiquity). I am merely repeating why my Lutheran professor taught that (most) Lutherans do not genuflect, supporting my point that most Lutherans do not believe Christ is present in the Elements after distribution...do you think he was wrong?

 

[SPALATIN]

It is a historical fact that genuflexion was done in reverence to the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle in the Western Church (although the practice does not have it's origins in antiquity). I am merely repeating why my Lutheran professor taught that (most) Lutherans do not genuflect, supporting my point that most Lutherans do not believe Christ is present in the Elements after distribution...do you think he was wrong?

How does that support your point? Genuflection is adiaphora and not a sign of anything else. Most Lutherans unfortunately are not catechized as to why crossing oneself (as Luther's SC suggests) is not done. It may also have to do with the anti-Roman Catholic attitude that some ministers take with their flock, but I really don't think that it supports your point at all. I think you are kind of reaching here.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

How does that support your point? Genuflection is adiaphora and not a sign of anything else. Most Lutherans unfortunately are not catechized as to why crossing oneself (as Luther's SC suggests) is not done. It may also have to do with the anti-Roman Catholic attitude that some ministers take with their flock, but I really don't think that it supports your point at all. I think you are kind of reaching here.

Alright...maybe I wasn't clear. Lemme try again.

My professor in my Lay Ministry classes told us that:

1) Prior to the Reformation people believed the Body and Blood of Christ remained present after the Sacrament and any left were stored in the tabernacle.

2) Because of this belief, that Christ was present in the Elements in the tabernacle, the people would genuflect when they came into church before sitting down...in reverence to the presence of Christ in the Tabernacle.

3) Lutherans do not have tabernacles because Lutherans do not believe Christ remains present in the Elements upon the completion of the Sacrament.

4) Therefore...the practice of genuflexion goes away because there is nothing there to revere.

I am trying to show cause and effect...you know practice reflecting doctrine. This was one of the examples the professor used for this very purpose.

Now...I am not saying all Lutherans believe this (the presence of Christ in the elements after the distribution of the Sacrament is completed). I know there are some that do not. But I use it to support my contention that most Lutherans today do not believe that the Body and Blood of Christ remain in the Elements after the Sacrament has been distributed...since even university level Lutheran classes are teaching this to DELTO students and Lay Ministers. I will admit, however...it is anecdotal support for my point.

 

[BigNorsk]

It is a historical fact that genuflexion was done in reverence to the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle in the Western Church (although the practice does not have it's origins in antiquity). I am merely repeating why my Lutheran professor taught that (most) Lutherans do not genuflect, supporting my point that most Lutherans do not believe Christ is present in the Elements after distribution...do you think he was wrong?

Here is how I see it. We know that when the Lord's Supper is done according to Christ's institution that he is present. We know this because we believe Jesus. We do not know that he is present in a tabernacle because we aren't told that he is there. Kind of goes back to who is in control. Can we just trap Jesus in the elements and parade him around or put him in a little building and teach that there is God? Where is this taught in scripture?

Now why shouldn't we genuflect to other people? I would say we do not genuflect when we meet other Christians because we would not want it to be misunderstood that we are worshipping the person, we are to worship God not his creation.

Acts 10:24-26 NET.
(24) The following day he entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting anxiously for them and had called together his relatives and close friends.
(25) So when Peter came in, Cornelius met him, fell at his feet, and worshiped him.
(26) But Peter helped him up, saying, "Stand up. I too am a mere mortal."

Revelation 19:9-10 NET.
(9) Then the angel said to me, "Write the following: Blessed are those who are invited to the banquet at the wedding celebration of the Lamb!" He also said to me, "These are the true words of God."
(10) So I threw myself down at his feet to worship him, but he said, "Do not do this! I am only a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony about Jesus. Worship God, for the testimony about Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

Now Peter had clearly communed, God lived in him, yet he gave the command as from God Himself, "Stand up".

So we don't genuflect to other people because we are directly commanded not to, we don't bow down to honor saints because we are commanded not to.

Now we could come up with some wonderful explanation that we weren't really bowing down to the person but to God who is in that person, but God tells us not to bow down to other people.

Now there is the church and the tabernacle. Are they God's house? No, God no longer lives in the temple, he lives in believers. If one genuflects towards the elements and towards a church, what are you teaching others? You would seem to be worshipping some bread and wine. Now you can explain that it isn't the bread and wine, but you don't even know that Jesus is there because he didn't tell us to put the elements on an altar and genuflect every time we went by. Same for the church itself. God doesn't live in a tabernacle.

The whole system goes beyond and indeed is contrary to what God teaches us to do.

The tabernacle was a part of the old covenant, the high priest entered each year, over and over for the people's sins. But our new high priest does not enter a tabernacle made with human hands, but the true tabernacle in heaven. See Hebrews 9.

So how are we to respond? By believing him when he says he does not live in a tabernacle built by human hands or by building tabernacles and genuflecting towards them?

Marv

 

[SPALATIN]

Alright...maybe I wasn't clear. Lemme try again.

My professor in my Lay Ministry classes told us that:

1) Prior to the Reformation people believed the Body and Blood of Christ remained present after the Sacrament and any left were stored in the tabernacle.

2) Because of this belief, that Christ was present in the Elements in the tabernacle, the people would genuflect when they came into church before sitting down...in reverence to the presence of Christ in the Tabernacle.

3) Lutherans do not have tabernacles because Lutherans do not believe Christ remains present in the Elements upon the completion of the Sacrament.

4) Therefore...the practice of genuflexion goes away because there is nothing there to revere.

I am trying to show cause and effect...you know practice reflecting doctrine. This was one of the examples the professor used for this very purpose.

Now...I am not saying all Lutherans believe this (the presence of Christ in the elements after the distribution of the Sacrament is completed). I know there are some that do not. But I use it to support my contention that most Lutherans today do not believe that the Body and Blood of Christ remain in the Elements after the Sacrament has been distributed...since even university level Lutheran classes are teaching this to DELTO students and Lay Ministers. I will admit, however...it is anecdotal support for my point.

And I would contend that most Lutherans aren't savvy enough to understand it the way you do. You were one of the fortunate people when you were Lutheran because what catechesis you didn't receive you looked up on your own. however, for most Lutheran adults their catechism was much below average up until a few years ago. I didn't even know what the Book of Concord was before 2002. So to say that they believed or didn't believe in Christ's presence after the eucharist is assuming too much.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

So to say that they believed or didn't believe in Christ's presence after the eucharist is assuming too much.

Your right, I have no idea what the average Lutheran believes. I know at my former Lutheran church the altar guild didn't believe it because of how the remaining elements were handled and I know my pastor didn't believe that because we had that discussion...but I don't know about the general population of Lutherans. That is a fair criticism.

 

[SPALATIN]

Your right, I have no idea what the average Lutheran believes. I know at my former Lutheran church the altar guild didn't believe it because of how the remaining elements were handled and I know my pastor didn't believe that because we had that discussion...but I don't know about the general population of Lutherans. That is a fair criticism.

S'okay Rose. You just gave us Lutheran's way too much credit for understanding this concept. Were they to understand like we do they may very well cross themselves all the time. I would say that any who do cross themselves had the benefit of better than usual catechesis.

 

[KEPLER]

OK...you have made a good case with your Luther quotes to show that Lutherans think Rome has the Sacrament. I presume the same would hold true for the East and for the Anglicans...but I honestly don't understand how it limits others from having it.

The argument goes like this:

a. The Word causes the Sacrament
b. The Sacrament does not depend on the faith of the administrator
c. The Sacrament does not depend on the faith of the receiver
d. But there is no Sacrament for "enemies of the Sacrament".

I never could put that logic together when I tried to argue it as a Lutheran. It seems to me that the line of thinking implies an individual man's intention does not impact the Sacrament but collective intention does trump the Word.

My point, Dixie, is that there is no logic for comprehending this. We understand a, b, and c from your list. We understand d. But HOW those both occur (they appear to contradict one another) is a mystery.

Do you think that in a church body which is not an "enemy of the Sacrament" there could ultimately be enough abuses that they would no longer have the Sacrament?

Such as an LCMS church where the pastor was molesting little children? The BoC says that even thougha knave administers the sacrament, it is stil a sacrament.

You mentioned earlier some Episcopals might not. I am curious as to how that would work.

Some (most?) Episcopalians are Reformed in their understanding of the sacrament.

For example...in a Lutheran church where an Elder consecrates and distributes the Sacrament for a pastor who is out of town. Sacrament or not?

Dicey. Who am I to say? But, personally, I would most likely skip that Sunday. Goes back to the "rite vocatus" mess that Weedon was talking about.

K

 

[KEPLER]

Bite your tongue!!!