What synod are you?

[lakesidelady]

LCMS, North WI district.

was "born" into it and now that I'm older--44, I am a member because I totally agree with it.

 

[lakesidelady]

I just read the preceding page. Oops! Didn't mean to interrupt the discussion. Please continue.

 

[Qoheleth]

May I also suggest reading through Article X of the Formula of Concord-Solid Declaration. It is on page 438 of the Triglota Book of Concord available in pdf here.

Is this meant to be another attempted distortion of our Confessions? WE ARE NOT to do things in the Mass or Divine Service (if preferred) so that our intention is purposely to look as though we are RC are want to be RC or intentionally seeking reconciliation.

Secondly, we are not to require practices to be binding on ones conscience as this distorts the Gospel.

Q

 

[Protoevangel]

I just read the preceding page. Oops! Didn't mean to interrupt the discussion. Please continue.

Shame on you for reminding us about the Orginal reason for this thread!

Hi lakesidelady, and welcome!

 

[Protoevangel]

BigNorsk,

In one sense I am with you; I do not see the Mass or any other human traditions as entirely essential. On the other hand, I do think that you are reading too much into The Smalcald Articles. Let me show you why I think this:

That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious.

Show how the Lutheran Mass, now or then conflicted with the Chief Article. It simply does not and did not. How is the Lutheran Mass of now or then, “popish idolatry?” This first part sets the tone for the entire section.

For it has been held that this sacrifice or work of the Mass, even though it be rendered by a wicked [and abandoned] scoundrel, frees men from sins, both in this life and also in purgatory, while only the Lamb of God shall and must do this, as has been said above. Of this article nothing is to be surrendered or conceded, because the first article does not allow it.

Again, this continues the tone from the previous sentence, again giving the context by which we are to understand the entire article.

If, perchance, there were reasonable Papists we might speak moderately and in a friendly way, thus: first, why they so rigidly uphold the Mass.

This shows clearly and unambiguously that the article refers to the Mass of the “Papists”, and not of the Lutheran Churches.


Also, maybe you already answered and I missed it (if so, I apologize), but what about Rose's question, "Is the only issue for you, the use of the term Mass? If Lutherans have a service which is nearly the same as the RCC but call it "Divine Service", are you ok with that?"

Is it primarily the term you are having trouble reconciling?

 

[revjpw]

Rev, sorry for the confusion. As to the issue of sanctification, per the Confessions and scripture, we are given the ability to, yes enabled to participate in our restored life with Christ as He indwells us and is present in our faith. Sanctfication is not monergistic, we live and work out our new life and faith with "fear and trembling"

So yes, synergy does exists in sanctification. "Denying" ourself and "taking up our cross" requires action on our part as we are enabled by grace to grow in Christ. We can see that our sanctification is not forced but cooperative by grace through faith.




2 Cor. 7:1 - "Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us
*cleanse ourselves* from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, perfecting
holiness in the fear of God."

"In baptism we are given the grace, Spirit, and strength to suppress the old creature so that the new may come forth and grow strong" (V:76)

"Now, when we enter Christ's kingdom, this corruption must daily decrease so that the longer we live the more gentle, patient, and meek we become, and the more we break away from greed, hatred, envy and pride." (V:67)

The Formula forwards the same understanding: "It has been sufficiently explained above how God makes willing people out of rebellious and unwilling people through the drawing power of the Holy Spirit, and how after this conversion of the human being the reborn will is not idle in the daily practice of repentance but cooperates in all works of the Holy Spirit that He accomplishes through us." (SD FC II:88)


Q

The problem with the post-Vatican II RCC teaching on the Mass is that they believe it is a participation in their justification. In this sense, the Mass is not Gottesdienst.

 

[Qoheleth]

The problem with the post-Vatican II RCC teaching on the Mass is that they believe it is a participation in their justification. In this sense, the Mass is not Gottesdienst.

So does the Pre-Vatican II Mass. But what does this have to do with our (you and me) conversation regarding the point of sanctification.

I never argued that the Mass justifies us.

Q

 

[BigNorsk]

Let me say that I am entirely in agreement with the article by Preus. I am not talking just about the name "Mass" for the word means certain things and what it means is different than what would be meant by the "Lord's Supper" or even the "Sacrament of the Altar."

Martin Luther in 1534 wrote this:

From this you can readily observe that I am not contending against the sacrament but against the mass, and would like to separate the sacrament from the mass so that the mass might perish and the sacrament alone, without the mass, might be preserved in its honor and according to the ordinance of our dear Lord Jesus Christ. May God grant to all devout Christians such hearts that when they hear the word “mass,” they might be frightened and make the sign of the cross as though it were the devil’s abomination; on the other hand, when they hear the word “sacrament” or “Lord’s Supper,” they might dance for pure joy, indeed, in accordance with genuine spiritual joy, cry sweetly. For I am very fond of the precious, blessed Supper of my Lord Jesus Christ in which he gives me his body and blood to eat and to drink even bodily with my own mouth along with these exceedingly sweet and kind words: “Given for you, shed for you,” etc.

I am the more hostile and angry about the mass, because the papists have thereby arrogated the holy sacrament to themselves alone, have taken it from and robbed Christians of it, and have made a business of it and yet have woven both into one another so inseparably when they provide it for Christians at Easter time, that the common man is unable to distinguish between the mass and the sacrament. They themselves have also not been able to differentiate between the two; nor was I myself able to make the distinction; I, who was an archpapist and a more zealous reader of masses than they all are now, said mass for over fifteen years and do not know yet whether I received the sacrament in the mass or not. So completely did the devil rule. For me mass and sacrament at the altar were one and the same thing, as they were at that time for all of us. Yet they are not one and the same thing. It is the mass when I sacrifice the sacrament to God for my sins and the sins of others as a work performed by human beings (whether they be evil or godly). This they have to acknowledge. It is the sacrament when I receive from the priest the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine. Such sacrificing and reception of the sacrament the devil has mingled together so inseparably in the mass, even as dishonest innkeepers mix water and wine with one another and as deceitful minters mix silver and brass. There is need here of an acute tester and of a hot fire (which is the word of God, Psalm 17 [:3 ff.]) so that they might again be separated from one another.

Now when I am talking about the sacrament, I am truly in earnest about meaning the genuine natural body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine, regardless of who the persons are who give or receive it. For Christ, my Lord, will not lie to me; I shall venture my life on that, if God wills. This is clear, unadulterated, pure wine into which no host pours water. However, when I am talking about the mass, I am truly in earnest about meaning the loathsome business and abominable abuse of the holy sacrament, according to which they sell their sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ (as they teach) to other Christians as a satisfaction for sin. Yet the ordinance of Christ clearly declares that his sacrament should be there and should be used, not for satisfaction through our sacrificing, but for the forgiveness of sin through his blood. Let them tell [us] whether in this instance the intention of Christ is adhered to in the mass when it is performed as a work by human beings and also sold to others as satisfaction for sin; and (I say) let them defend [the contention] that according to Christ’s ordinance his body and blood are there, since it is not a sacrament but a mass. I do not want to defend it, but want to attack it and probe into their superficially profound skill.

It is plain that Luther made a distinction between the Mass and the Sacrament and that he opposed the Mass and promoted the Sacrament. I don't see how it would be consistent for Luther to write that he wanted people to so fear the word mass that they saw it as the devil's abomination and then to think that he of course meant the Catholic Mass and not the Lutheran Mass. Catholics have a Mass, Lutherans have a Sacrament. The main contention against the name is that the name will open the door for the Catholic abomination of the Mass to creep back. Based on this thread, that has already happened in some congregations.


Marv

 

[ChiRho]

Synergy never enters into Soteriology...if it does, we have a problem. If we speak of the New Adam, without notice or mind of the Old one still presently drowning inside of us, we have deceived ourselves and the truth is not in us.

I doubt Q meant this.

 

[Qoheleth]

It is plain that Luther made a distinction between the Mass and the Sacrament and that he opposed the Mass and promoted the Sacrament. I don't see how it would be consistent for Luther to write that he wanted people to so fear the word mass that they saw it as the devil's abomination and then to think that he of course meant the Catholic Mass and not the Lutheran Mass.

Marv, you are misreading this quote, it is still in reference to the ABUSES of the PAPISTS Mass.

That the title of the Service was amended to Divine Service and prefaced by the title German Mass was employed to bring a clear separation of Rome's and Wittenburgs' Mass. Luther knew the right use of the Sacrament was at stack

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/luthserv.html

The Confessions always and repeatedly affirm that as Lutherans the Mass/Divine Service are retained among us.

2. When the Confessions speak of human traditions, rites, and ceremonies invented by men they are not referring to the Mass/Divine Service, but rather to the abuses of prohibited foods, masses for the dead, masses as a means of gaining merit, required fasting and the like.
3. Variation of Masses is not divisive of unity (AC Art. VII refers to this, not to the Mass in general.)

4. The liturgy comes down to the Church from the apostles.

5. The Mass/Divine Service instructs and strengthens the faith of the people.

6. At the time of the Reformation the Mass/Divine Service always incorporated the observance of the Lord’s Supper and the terms were often used interchangeably.

7. The Mass/Divine Service should and ought to be retained among Lutherans if we subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions

The main contention against the name is that the name will open the door for the Catholic abomination of the Mass to creep back. Based on this thread, that has already happened in some congregations.

So, are you insinuating that when I worship at Mass (Lutheran), it is an abomination in the eyes of God?

Q

 

[Protoevangel]

I found an interesting quote from Luther in my readings today:

(Letter to George Buchholzer, Dean of Berlin, on Dec. 4, 1539)

“This is my advice: If your lord, the margrave and elector, etc., permits the gospel of Jesus Christ to be preached with purity and power and without human additions and the two sacraments of Baptism and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to be administered and offered according to their institution…go along in God’s name and carry a silver or gold cross and wear a cope or alb of velvet, silk, or linen. And if one cope or alb is not enough for your lord, the elector, wear three of them…Moreover, if His Grace is not satisfied that you go about singing and ringing bells in procession only once, go about seven times…If your lord, the margrave, desires it, let His Grace leap and dance at the head of the procession with harps, drums, cymbals, and bells…I am fully satisfied, for none of these things (as long as no abuse is connected with them) adds anything to the gospel or detracts from it. Only do not let such things be regarded as necessary for salvation and thus bind the consciences of men…Only what God commands is necessary; the rest is free.”

 

[revjpw]

So does the Pre-Vatican II Mass. But what does this have to do with our (you and me) conversation regarding the point of sanctification.

I never argued that the Mass justifies us.

Q

here we go....


My intital post was simply to make a statement of how the RCC views the Mass, especially after VII and the writings of Odo Casel, that they hold to the Mass being a congregational participation in the salvific work of Christ and thereby participating in the Mass was a way of working toward justification. This is false teaching.

In your response, you alluded to the notion that we indeed do 'work out our salvation' and that we do participate in our justification (which is heresy). You then made a comment on sanctification, in which we do participate in (but only through the power of the Holy Spirit). You confused sanctification with justification. We do NOT participate in our justification... at all. This is the Biblical and Confessional teaching on justification.

My original post was not about sanctification at all, but about the RC teaching that participation in the Mass is a work towards justification, and that is NOT what the Divine Service is.

 

[Qoheleth]

In your response, you alluded to the notion that we indeed do 'work out our salvation' and that we do participate in our justification (which is heresy). You then made a comment on sanctification, in which we do participate in (but only through the power of the Holy Spirit). You confused sanctification with justification. We do NOT participate in our justification... at all. This is the Biblical and Confessional teaching on justification.

The fault is with my clumsy structure and not being lucid.

I should have made it clear that, "here I am speaking of the Mass" and then "here I am speaking separately about Sanctification"

So, I agree concerning Justification. I am not confused nor intended to confuse Justification with sanctification. I am well aware of the difference.

I would appreciate if you would keep your "heresy" gun in its holster. You use it with such liberty and make insinuations that are at the least uncharitable.



Conversion is always both a miracle and a gift, a person is saved entirely by the grace of God. Our cooperation then with God in our sacntification is enabled and genuinely free. But there is nothing in our good actions that is exclusively our own. At every point our human cooperation is itself the work of the Holy Spirit.


The beginning of salvation is purely by grace through faith but the completion of the process is not by human effort.


Salvation is laid in the life of Christ as our foundation. However, our works for him don't earn us salvation, but neither are they unimportant.


Without God, I am nothing and can do nothing. With God, I can do all things through God who vivifies, illumines and strengthens me, through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in the Church, through the preaching of the Word and the celebration of the sacraments.




Are there any questions?

Q

 

[revjpw]

I would appreciate if you would keep your "heresy" gun in its holster. You use it with such liberty and make insinuations that are at the least uncharitable.

It is my job to correct false teachings when they rear their ugly heads. Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism are most certainly heresies, and I will continue to refer to them as such.

Please note that I was not refering to you personally or anyone else here as a heretic. But if anyone were to knowingly teach falsely, then I am obligated to point out such falsehoods.

If I see a duck, I cannot call it a horse.

 

[Qoheleth]

It is my job to correct false teachings when they rear their ugly heads

As defined and elucidated by the church, No problem. We should never be our own self-appointed inquisitors.


Q

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Thread closed at the request of OP.