Lutheran Practices

[Chotki]

Hello :wave:,

Do Lutherans celebrate the Lord's Supper each service? Do you reserve the left over elements in a Tabernacle?

Thanks,
Chotki

[RedneckAnglican]

A) yes...
B) No...

I'll let the more knowledgable Lutherans tell you why...Because...quite frankly...i don't know either...

[Qoheleth]

Do Lutherans celebrate the Lord's Supper each service? Do you reserve the left over elements in a Tabernacle?

Thanks,
Chotki

As for my Parish, yes.

Of the "left over" elements, they are consumed by the Pastor.

Q

[Chotki]

Thanks, I never knew that. I thought it was celebrated once or twice a month like in the Presbyterian Church.

[Qoheleth]

Thanks, I never knew that. I thought it was celebrated once or twice a month like in the Presbyterian Church.

Mass is celebrated 7 days a week at my parish.

Q

[ByzantineDixie]

Fortunately, we do celebrate the Eucharist at every service...2 on Sunday's, one on Wednesday evening.

Regarding the remaining elements...oh, it hurts to even talk about it. In my church (and I am in no way saying my church's practices are orthodox) the remaining consecrated wine is returned to the Manischewitz bottle and comingled with the unconsecrated wine. The remaining consecrated hosts are returned to the Tupperware container housing the unconsecrated hosts.

I have taken my concern over these practices to the highest authority in my congregation. When challenged I offered documents all the way from Luther, to Walther, to modern day theologians which oppose to this kind of comingling. (Lest anyone think I was ignored because of the manner and tone in which I approached this topic...I assure you I approached this very cautiously and from a position of "I am concerned"...not "you need to".) I was accused of being legalistic.

For you see, my guys are smarter now...have their 21st century sensibilities in order. They got this all figured out. Luther, Walther...they just didn't know what my guys know...:sigh:

:cry: Rose

(BTW...the rare times I am permitted to clean the Table after service I empty all the wine on the ground outside...no comingling. We do not have one of those sinks that drain to the ground. I take all of the consecrated hosts and store them in the pyx...not the tupperware container. And I rinse out all the individual cups, the chalice and the carafe and empty that water on the ground as well. It's all I can and know to do.)

[AngelusSax]

Comingling? I don't think that's something I've seen done with consecrated wine... my church has a bottle of wine that is blessed, and they keep using that same bottle of blessed wine until it is gone, then get more....

Any other parishes comingle? That's a new one to me.

[KagomeShuko]

Hello :wave:,

Do Lutherans celebrate the Lord's Supper each service? Do you reserve the left over elements in a Tabernacle?

Thanks,
Chotki
As long as we have a pastor to consecrate the bread and wine. . .there are some Sundays we don't, unfortunately.

1st, the wine and bread is taken to the shut-ins and homebound for communion.
The bread is usually eaten or broken onto the ground.
I do not know if they comingle the wine or if it is poured out on the ground.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[SemStudent08]

Hello :wave:,

Do Lutherans celebrate the Lord's Supper each service? Do you reserve the left over elements in a Tabernacle?

Thanks,
Chotki

Ok, I am an ELCA Lutheran, so I will give you that perspective. Traditionally within the ELCA frequency of Eucharist is dependent upon the Pastor. Most churches I know of alternate, one Sunday being a Service of the Word and the next being a service which includes the Eucharist. However, there is a growing trend within the ELCA to move to weekly Eucharistic celebration. The history behind the whole frequency debate is, of course, Luther's emphasis upon both Word and Sacrament and not just Sacrament. Unfortunately this emphasis swung rather hard the other direction, and early Lutheran churches began to focus a great deal upon the Word portion of worship, hence infrequent celebrations of Eucharist. In this day and age it often ends up depending on the pastor and their focus. It can become difficult for a pastor to have a Eucharist service and a good sermon (at leat 15 minutes for a well-developed sermon, though it can vary upon the text, pastor, and time the pastor is able to devote to study, ie the week when a pastor has 3 funerals and a wedding might not have as great a sermon on Sunday is my point) in the same service (just dependent on most people's attention span), so often sermons are shorter on Communion Sundays and lengthier on Sundays where a Service of the Word is celebrated. But, like I said, that is changing. Take a look at the Lutheran liturgy, you might see how things can start going long some times. Ok, some of that was practical and some historical, and probably isn't representative of Lutherans or the ELCA as a whole, but it has been MY experience.

Ok, now that I wrote all of that I found a website which expresses ELCA policy on the matter, so...check this (http://www.elca.org/dcm/worship/faq/communion/print/frequency.html) out.

As for the treatment of left over elements. That is a question of the understanding of what is happening in the Sacrament of Bread & Wine. As Lutherans, we believe in con-substansiation as opposed to trans-substansiation. There are all sorts of websites on the differences between the two and I would also recommend checking out Luther's Large Catechism for his discussion of Eucharist.

[KagomeShuko]

Comingling? I don't think that's something I've seen done with consecrated wine... my church has a bottle of wine that is blessed, and they keep using that same bottle of blessed wine until it is gone, then get more....

Any other parishes comingle? That's a new one to me.
Mine might be that way, too. Oh, wait, yes, I think it is come to think of it. . .it's been awhile since I've helped with altar care.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[ByzantineDixie]

As Lutherans, we believe in con-substansiation as opposed to trans-substansiation. There are all sorts of websites on the differences between the two and I would also recommend checking out Luther's Large Catechism for his discussion of Eucharist.


:scratch: Is that an ELCA thing? LCMS Lutherans do not believe in consubstantiation.

[revjpw]

Hello :wave:,

Do Lutherans celebrate the Lord's Supper each service? Do you reserve the left over elements in a Tabernacle?

Thanks,
Chotki

In my parish we celebrate the Lord's Supper each Sunday, but that is not a common practice in the LCMS. Many congregations alternate weeks or services when the Sacrament is celebrated.

We do not have a tabernacle (although my home congregation does). Any leftover consecrated elements are stored in the sacristy is seperate containers. The wine/blood of Christ that is left over in the flagon is kept in a seperate bottle from the unconsecrated wine. The left over hosts/body of Christ is kept in the Ciborium (pyx). Any left over wine/blood of Christ in the chalice I usually drink at the altar following distribution. If there is any left in the individual cups, they are consumed by the altar guild people after the service. They don't pour unused cups into the bottle.

The chalice and the used individual cups are rinsed into a small pail and it is poured out on the ground. Our altar guild did not used to do this before my arrival. They used to throw out the individual cups without rinsing them, thus throwing the Blood of Christ into the garbage. Also, we don't have a piscina either (a sink or basin that drains directly into the ground) although we are moving to either re-plumb the current sacristy sink or even construct a new sacristy.

[SemStudent08]

:scratch: Is that an ELCA thing? LCMS Lutherans do not believe in consubstantiation.

Yes, it seems that is true on the LCMS website. All I can find is reference to the Real Presence. But I won't go into that, because I'm sure someone who is actually LCMS could do a better job. I'll talk about con-substansiation instead.

Luther never used the term con-substansiation in his writings, but Melanchthon did in reffering to the ideas Luther expressed. One of the more famous examples would be Luther's illustration of consubstantiation by the analogy of iron put into fire: Iron and fire are united in red-hot iron; yet the two substances remain unchanged.

[SemStudent08]

Ok, after checking my history textbooks, some later Lutheran scholars rejected the term "consubstantiation" because they felt it was too ambiguous and had been adopted by other doctrines to mean different things. Which is probably why when I check the ELCA website the term "consubstantiation" is always used in the phrase "the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament through consubstantiation."

[Chotki]

So it varies, I see? The only Lutheran Church in the county is an ELCA parish, I'm guessing it would be every other week then.

As for the view on Communion; This also varies? I didn't know that.

(Do you practice private confession?)

[SemStudent08]

Ok, found a link on what the ELCA says should be done with left over elements.

http://www.elca.org/dcm/worship/faq/worship_space/lights_elements.html

[Qoheleth]

(Do you practice private confession?)

Yes, most definately.

Q

[SemStudent08]

So it varies, I see? The only Lutheran Church in the county is an ELCA parish, I'm guessing it would be every other week then.

Depends a lot on the Pastor too.

As for the view on Communion; This also varies? I didn't know that.

No, I erred in using an ambiguous term and not being specific enough in explaining it. Check the Book of Concord (http://www.bookofconcord.org) (specifically the Large Catechism) and you will find what Lutherans as a whole believe when it comes to Eucharist, which is Real Presence (but not transubstantiation).

(Do you practice private confession?)

I know that Occaisional Services has a service of private confession. And private confession can be a very powerful act and is perfectly valid within the Lutheran chuch. Lutherans do not believe Confession/Absolution (RCC calls it Reconciliation I believe) to be a Sacrament however, though many scholars have said that Luther would have liked to have been able to call it such, but it just didn't fit with Luther's definition of sacrament.

[Qoheleth]

Lutherans do not believe Confession/Absolution (RCC calls it Reconciliation I believe) to be a Sacrament however,

Unbelievable. This is a complete falsehood. How can you say this.

From the Lutheran Confessions:


1] Of Confession they teach that Private Absolution ought to be retained in the churches,
(AC Art. XI)

4] Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. (Apology Art. XIII [VIII] )

2] For we also retain confession, especially on account of the absolution, as being the word of God which, by divine authority, the power of the keys pronounces upon individuals. (Apology Art. VI)

1] Since Absolution or the Power of the Keys is also an aid and consolation against sin and a bad conscience, ordained by Christ [Himself] in the Gospel, Confession or Absolution ought by no means to be abolished in the Church, especially on account of [tender and] timid consciences and on account of the untrained [and capricious] young people, in order that they may be examined, and instructed in the Christian doctrine. (SA Art. VIII)


Q

[SemStudent08]

Unbelievable. This is a complete falsehood. How can you say this.

From the Lutheran Confessions:


1] Of Confession they teach that Private Absolution ought to be retained in the churches,
(AC Art. XI)

4] Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. (Apology Art. XIII [VIII] )

2] For we also retain confession, especially on account of the absolution, as being the word of God which, by divine authority, the power of the keys pronounces upon individuals. (Apology Art. VI)

1] Since Absolution or the Power of the Keys is also an aid and consolation against sin and a bad conscience, ordained by Christ [Himself] in the Gospel, Confession or Absolution ought by no means to be abolished in the Church, especially on account of [tender and] timid consciences and on account of the untrained [and capricious] young people, in order that they may be examined, and instructed in the Christian doctrine. (SA Art. VIII)


Q

Ok...well, if I'm wrong then every Lutheran denomination in the US that I know of is too.

ELCA website - "Lutherans accept two Sacraments as God-given means for penetrating the lives of people with his grace. Although they are not the only means of God's self-revelation, Baptism and Holy Communion are visible acts of God's love."

LCMS website - "The LCMS teaches that there are two sacraments."

WELS website - "The WELS catechism defines a sacrament as "a sacred act that Christ established for his church, in which an earthly element is used together with God's Word, as a means of offering, giving, and sealing the forgiveness of sins and thus also life and salvation." Only Baptism and the Lord's Supper fit that definition of a sacrament."

Its also interesting to note that Luther in his Small Catechism speaks only of the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar. And in the Large Catechism only calls Baptism and Eucharist Sacraments.

Oh...and specifically from the Large Caqtechism..."We have now finished the three chief parts of the common Christian doctrine. Besides these we have yet to speak of our two Sacraments instituted by Christ." Large Catechism - Baptism.

Not sure what Melanchthon was doing adding absolution to the list of Sacraments. But Luther clearly defined a Sacrament as needing a "physical or material element." The only way absolution falls into this is our understanding of the two Sacraments (Baptism and Eucharist) effecting absolution of sins. I guess in a way its Sacramental, but only in conjunction to Baptism or Eucharist in which a "physical element" (ie Water, Bread & Wine) is used.

[SemStudent08]

I will grant you that Luther included Confession in the Sacraments in his early writings, but later he reversed this understanding and narrowed it down to two - Baptism and Eucharist. He had a great deal of respect for Confession and Absolution, but in the end he couldn't call it a Sacrament, even though he may have wanted to.

[Qoheleth]

Ok...well, if I'm wrong then every Lutheran denomination in the US that I know of is too.

This is the disgusting infection in Lutheranism that can not be tolerated. This is yet another reason why Lutheranism is suffering a slow death.

What I offered is from our Book of Concord which is what defines our interpretaion of scripture.

Its also interesting to note that Luther in his Small Catechism speaks only of the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar. And in the Large Catechism only calls Baptism and Eucharist Sacraments.


So student, how do you explain this below?????

http://www.bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.html#confession

This is Luther:

"I will let no one take away private confession and would not exchange it for all the wealth of the world, for I know what strength and comfort it has given me."

"I know the devil well. If you had known him as well as I, you would not have thrown private confession so quickly to the wind."

"We keep this method that a penitent relates certain sins that bother him the most. Even if thousands and thousands of worlds belonged to me, I would lose everything rather than give up the smallest part of confession in the church.

Q

[Qoheleth]

I will grant you that Luther included Confession in the Sacraments in his early writings, but later he reversed this understanding and narrowed it down to two - Baptism and Eucharist. He had a great deal of respect for Confession and Absolution, but in the end he couldn't call it a Sacrament, even though he may have wanted to.

And you completely misinterpret Luthers reason and that by the definition offered, it did not fit as Baptism and the Eucharist yet still remained sacramental.

Further if you care to look at our Confessions at all, you will see that the Confessors allow, by definition more than 3 sacraments. If you would bother to look.

Q

[revjpw]

Ok, found a link on what the ELCA says should be done with left over elements.

http://www.elca.org/dcm/worship/faq/worship_space/lights_elements.html

That is an interesting article.

[SemStudent08]

This is the disgusting infection in Lutheranism that can not be tolerated. This is yet another reason why Lutheranism is suffering a slow death.

Wow...way to alienate your audience. Thanks for calling my church and the churches of most of the members here in TCCL infected.

What I offered is from our Book of Concord which is what defines our interpretaion of scripture.

Hey, wow...what I offered was from the same source...however, I offered quotes from the sections written by Luther, you quoted the Apology...written by Melanchthon. Not that there is anything wrong with Melanchthon, but hey...we call ourselves LUTHERans, right?




So student, how do you explain this below?????

http://www.bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.html#confession



Luther took Confession very seriously. But if you will note, not once in the Small Catechism (or the Large Catechism either) does he refer to Confession as a Sacrament. Whereas the titles of the very sections he wrote on Baptism and Eucharist are "The SACRAMENT of Baptism" and "The SACRAMENT of the Altar."



This is Luther:

"I will let no one take away private confession and would not exchange it for all the wealth of the world, for I know what strength and comfort it has given me."

"I know the devil well. If you had known him as well as I, you would not have thrown private confession so quickly to the wind."

"We keep this method that a penitent relates certain sins that bother him the most. Even if thousands and thousands of worlds belonged to me, I would lose everything rather than give up the smallest part of confession in the church.

Q

Once again, Luther had a great deal of respect for Confession. But it is only in "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church" that he refers to it as a Sacrament, one of his early writings. He later clarifies this and states that there are only TWO Sacraments. I've already shared one such quote of Luther's - "We have now finished the three chief parts of the common Christian doctrine. Besides these we have yet to speak of our two Sacraments instituted by Christ." Found here (http://www.bookofconcord.org/largecatechism/6_baptism.html).

[SemStudent08]

And you completely misinterpret Luthers reason and that by the definition offered, it did not fit as Baptism and the Eucharist yet still remained sacramental.

Further if you care to look at our Confessions at all, you will see that the Confessors allow, by definition more than 3 sacraments. If you would bother to look.

Q

Thanks for dismissing my reading and understanding of the Book of Concord. That always makes me feel good. I understand that you are reffering to elsewhere in the Apology where Melanchthon says that in a cerain way ordination is also a Sacrament.

"rites which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added." On this basis Melanchthon counts baptism, the Lord's Supper, and absolution among the sacraments and is willing to consider ordination a sacrament. Then Melanchthon adds, "Ultimately, if we should list as sacraments all the things that have God's command and a promise added to them, then why not prayer, which can most truly be called a sacrament? It has both the command of God and many promises. If it were placed among the sacraments and thus given, so to speak, a more exalted position, this would move men to pray."

Once again, this is Melanchthon, I'm not sure how he got by Luther with this, because Luther quite clearly states that a Sacrament involves a physical element. Luther often reffered to Augustine's axiom ("The sacraments are the visible word") in this understanding as God working through physical elements (Water, Bread & Wine).

[SemStudent08]

The great Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586) writes: “Our teachers have publicly professed in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession that they do not greatly wrangle about the term “sacrament” or about the number of sacraments, since this term is not found in Scripture. It was also understood and defined in various ways by the ancients, at times in a wider, at other times in a narrower sense. This only must be preserved, that those things which have a command and have promises of God in Scripture, whether with special rites or without them, are retained and are treated and used as they are taught in the Word of God, regardless whether they are called sacraments or not.”

“In the second place, that those rites which have an explicit command of God in Scripture, and added to them the clear promise of grace which peculiar to the New Testament, are carefully distinguished from other matters which indeed have a command of God but do not have specific and divinely instituted rites. They also have a promise, but not the promise that through them the gratuitous reconciliation is bestowed and sealed.”

“In the third place, also the rites which have explicit command and clear promise of grace in the Scripture of the New Testament, but were either received from the fathers or instituted by other men, are to be distinguished from those about which we have just spoken.”

“In the fourth place, that a distinction be preserved between the promise of grace, which offers and bestows on believers the benefits of redemption, promised in the Gospel, solely and only through the Word, and that same promise when it is clothed in rites or ceremonies divinely instituted in the Word of God.”

“If in this manner the true teaching and the necessary distinction about the matters themselves were established from the teaching of Scripture, it would afterward be possible to reach agreement without great difficulty on the term, and on the number of sacraments, if the contentions concerning unwritten terms had been removed.”

“But when confusion and corruption is sought through the designation and number of sacraments, then it is no longer a strife about words, but a necessary contest about the matters themselves. And it is vain, yes it is deceitful and destructive, to attempt a reconciliation about terms which is connected with danger to and corruption of the matters themselves” [Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part II. translated by Fred Kramer (St. Louis Concordia Publishing House, 1978) p. 21-22]

Chemnitz rejected the idea that ordination is a sacrament like Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: “Now the ministry of the Word and sacraments has divine promises, and the prayer at ordination rests on these, but these promises are not tied to the rite of imposition of hands, about which there is neither a command of Christ nor such promise as there is about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This reminder must be added, because the papalists contend that ordination is truly and properly a sacrament of the New Testament, just as are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper" [Ibid. p. 695].

Luther put it more strongly: “Ordination – Of this sacrament the church of Christ knows nothing; it is an invention of the church of the pope. Not only is there nowhere any promise of grace attached to it, but there is not a single word said about it in the whole New Testament. Now it is ridiculous to put forth as a sacrament of God something that cannot be proved to have been instituted by God. I do not hold that this rite, which has been observed for so many centuries, should be condemned; but in sacred things I am opposed to the invention of human fictions. And it is not right to give out as divinely instituted what was not divinely instituted, lest we become a laughingstock to our opponents. We ought to see every article of faith of which we boast is certain pure, and based on clear passages of Scripture. But we are utterly unable to do that in the case of the sacrament under consideration” [Martin Luther, “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” Luther’s Works, American Edition, vol. 36, p. 106-107].

Although for a time during the Reformation some Lutherans called absolution a sacrament, the term ultimately was reserved in Lutheran circles for Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. We operate with this definition: “A sacrament is a sacred rite, instituted by Christ, in which an earthly element is used together with God’s Word, as a means of offering, giving, and sealing to us the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation.” Only Baptism and the Lord’s Supper fit that definition. To speak of other things as sacraments would only cause confusion and could ultimately lead to false doctrine.

[Qoheleth]

Wow...way to alienate your audience. Thanks for calling my church and the churches of most of the members here in TCCL infected.

What is alien is your intepretation and any others who decide to dismiss this or that of our Confessions.

Hey, wow...what I offered was from the same source...however, I offered quotes from the sections written by Luther, you quoted the Apology...written by Melanchthon. Not that there is anything wrong with Melanchthon, but hey...we call ourselves LUTHERans, right?

You completely show your ignorance. So, Semstudent here decides what is and what is not Lutheran. I suppose you believe that our Confessions are not even necessary. You cant pick and choose student.


4] Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. (Apology Art. XIII [VIII] )

Please refute this as being part of our faith. Tell us all that this was a mistake and or a lie. Let us all know what we should subscribe to and not subscribe to in the Confessions and then feel rested in the fact that it is people like you who are the sickness infecting the Lutheran church.

Thanks for dismissing my reading and understanding of the Book of Concord. That always makes me feel good. I understand that you are reffering to elsewhere in the Apology where Melanchthon says that in a cerain way ordination is also a Sacrament.

You dismiss yourself with the garbage you offer.

Once again, this is Melanchthon, I'm not sure how he got by Luther with this, because Luther quite clearly states that a Sacrament involves a physical element. Luther often reffered to Augustine's axiom ("The sacraments are the visible word") in this understanding as God working through physical elements (Water, Bread & Wine).

Once again this Student tells us that he believes parts of our Confessions should not be there. Unreal.

We operate with this definition: “A sacrament is a sacred rite, instituted by Christ, in which an earthly element is used together with God’s Word, as a means of offering, giving, and sealing to us the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation.” Only Baptism and the Lord’s Supper fit that definition. To speak of other things as sacraments would only cause confusion and could ultimately lead to false doctrine.

The pulse slows, breathing is shallow, the pupils become fixed and dialated...The disease has taken its course.

Q

[ByzantineDixie]

Semstudent, if you do a little more digging you will find that there is more than one definition for "sacrament"...even the LCMS website infers this when it discusses the number of sacraments.

No confessional Lutheran would deny that Confession / Absolution is a sacrament. Study a little further and you'll see this. Read Sasse's Word and Sacrament, Preaching and the Lord's Supper, July 1956. He makes the case that the confessions do not limit the number of the sacraments nor establish a definition of the nature of the sacraments--which is in keeping with the early church.

[AngelusSax]

The pulse slows, breathing is shallow, the pupils become fixed and dialated...The disease has taken its course.

Just to be fair, I'm sure there were many a Catholics who felt the same way about the whole "we don't need to pay indulgences" thing. Again, just to be fair.

[SemStudent08]

Ok, please allow me to navigate through all of your underhanded insults towards my intelligence and understanding and respond to the ONLY argument you have to offer (even after I handed you one on a platter with regards to what Luther says in "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church").


4] Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. (Apology Art. XIII [VIII] )


Once again, you cite Melanchthon's Apology. And once again let me refer you to Luther's Large Catechism at the VERY BEGINNING of his explanation to Baptism and Eucharist we find "We have now finished the three chief parts of the common Christian doctrine. Besides these we have yet to speak of our two Sacraments instituted by Christ." (Once again, you can find this here (http://www.bookofconcord.org/largecatechism/6_baptism.html)) I'm not picking and choosing...I'm trying to reconcile Luther vs Melanchthon on this, and I'm sorry, when Luther and Melanchthon differ I will side with LUTHER. Anyone who has studied Luther's works and Melanchthon's will identify that Luther is the one who stands firm and Melanchthon (esp. in later writings) will soften his language when in debate with other theologians (ie Calvin).

Read ANY Lutheran Systematic Theology in regards to the Sacraments and you will find that there are 3 things to the Lutheran understanding of Sacraments.
A - Instrument of God's Grace
B - Scriptural basis (Implemented by Christ specifically)
C - The use of an "earthly element"
Luther recognizes that there are only TWO Sacraments based on this definition - Baptism and Eucharist. You are using ONE quote from Melanchthon to try and refute what Luther himself and Lutheran theologians since Luther say about the Sacraments. I am not the one picking and choosing here, I have Luther's (and Lutheran theologians since Luther) well developed systematic theology on this issue...

Now, I am leaving these forums for a while. This is suposed to be a place free of insults and personal attacks. But that has not been the case in this discussion. I will come back and will gladly take this discussion back up with you after a "cooling down" period for myself (no more than a day, don't worry), I don't want to resort to insulting others and I am currently angry enough that the temptation to do so would be too great if I were to stick around right now. In the mean time, read Luther's Large Catechism. I'll be back...

[SemStudent08]

Semstudent, if you do a little more digging you will find that there is more than one definition for "sacrament"...even the LCMS website infers this when it discusses the number of sacraments.

No confessional Lutheran would deny that Confession / Absolution is a sacrament. Study a little further and you'll see this. Read Sasse's Word and Sacrament, Preaching and the Lord's Supper, July 1956. He makes the case that the confessions do not limit the number of the sacraments nor establish a definition of the nature of the sacraments--which is in keeping with the early church.

From the LCMS website -
L. The no. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.NO) of sacraments depends either on arbitrary listing or on definition of “sacrament.” RCs (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.RCS) list 7 sacraments, without defining “sacrament.” Ap (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.AP) XII 41: “Absolution* (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=a&word=ABSOLUTION) may properly be called a sacrament of penitence”; this must be understood in the sense of LC (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.LC) IV 74: “Baptism … comprehends also the 3d sacrament, formerly called Penance, which is really nothing else than Baptism.” “If we define sacraments as 'rites which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added,' we can easily determine which are sacraments in the strict sense.… The genuine sacraments, therefore, are Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and absolution (which is the sacrament of penitence).… If ordination is interpreted this way, we shall not object either to calling the laying on of hands a sacrament.… Ultimately, if we should list as sacraments all the things that have God's command and a promise added to them, then why not prayer, which can most truly be called a sacrament?” (Ap (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.AP) XIII 3, 4, 12, 16). Luther: “A sacrament must have 2 things for sure: God's Word and the instituted external sign [or means, or element; Ger. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.GER) Zeichen]; these we find only in the 2 sacraments [Baptism and Communion].” (WA (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.WA) 11, 454) ES

Sorry if I go by the definition of Sacrament and not just on arbitrary listing, to use the language of this exerpt.

I know, I know, I'm not gone yet, but I will be soon. Confession / Absolution is a RITE, but since it does not fulfill Luther's defintion of a Sacrament (once again, "earthly element," but also its Implmentation by Christ) it is not a Sacrament. Luther was quite good about talking about the SACRAMENT of Baptism and the SACRAMENT of the Altar, and if he wanted to he could have easily spoken of the SACRAMENT of Confession, but he doesn't!!! I am not denying that Luther thought a great deal of Confession / Absolution, but in the end, though he may have wanted to, he could not call it a Sacrament. Hence his refferal to it as a Sacrament in early writings, but his reversal of that in later writings.

Thats it, I'm off for real this time...be back in a day or so....

[Qoheleth]

Once again, you cite Melanchthon's Apology. And once again let me refer you to Luther's Large Catechism at the VERY BEGINNING of his explanation to Baptism and Eucharist we find "We have now finished the three chief parts of the common Christian doctrine. Besides these we have yet to speak of our two Sacraments instituted by Christ." (Once again, you can find this here (http://www.bookofconcord.org/largecatechism/6_baptism.html)) I'm not picking and choosing...I'm trying to reconcile Luther vs Melanchthon on this, and I'm sorry, when Luther and Melanchthon differ I will side with LUTHER. Anyone who has studied Luther's works and Melanchthon's will identify that Luther is the one who stands firm and Melanchthon (esp. in later writings) will soften his language when in debate with other theologians (ie Calvin).

Read ANY Lutheran Systematic Theology in regards to the Sacraments and you will find that there are 3 things to the Lutheran understanding of Sacraments.
A - Instrument of God's Grace
B - Scriptural basis (Implemented by Christ specifically)
C - The use of an "earthly element"
Luther recognizes that there are only TWO Sacraments based on this definition - Baptism and Eucharist. You are using ONE quote from Melanchthon to try and refute what Luther himself and Lutheran theologians since Luther say about the Sacraments. I am not the one picking and choosing here, I have Luther's (and Lutheran theologians since Luther) well developed systematic theology on this issue...

Now, I am leaving these forums for a while. This is suposed to be a place free of insults and personal attacks. But that has not been the case in this discussion. I will come back and will gladly take this discussion back up with you after a "cooling down" period for myself (no more than a day, don't worry), I don't want to resort to insulting others and I am currently angry enough that the temptation to do so would be too great if I were to stick around right now. In the mean time, read Luther's Large Catechism. I'll be back...


1] Since Absolution or the Power of the Keys is also an aid and consolation against sin and a bad conscience, ordained by Christ [Himself] in the Gospel, Confession or Absolution ought by no means to be abolished in the Church, especially on account of [tender and] timid consciences and on account of the untrained [and capricious] young people, in order that they may be examined, and instructed in the Christian doctrine. (SA Art. VIII)

Luther, even here says that it is "ordained" by Christ. Do you have a problem with that. No Melanchthon here.

Melanchthon was Luthers close-friend and communicated daily the progress of the Confession. Did you ever read anything of Luther condemning the Augsburg Confession? NO, Luther approved the Confession wholeheartedly.

You can not pick and choose, in the Confessions, what you believe to be correct.

Do you understand this or not. What kind of instructors do you have.

Fine, youre getting upset. You need to learn a lesson about what it means to subscribe (quia) to the Confessions as that which defines the Faith.

Where do you get off dismissing the Apology in any Article. Who made you the editor in chief. This is extreme arrogance. Are you kidding or something.

Q

[ByzantineDixie]

Sorry if I go by the definition of Sacrament and not just on arbitrary listing, to use the language of this exerpt.

It is true Semstudent that if you define a sacrament as requiring 3 things:

1) instituted by Christ
2) Word
3) Physical means

then there are two in the Lutheran church. BUT...our confessions clearly speak of Confession as a Sacrament...yet we will all agree that it offers no "physical means". So...if the confessions say it is a sacrament what does this mean...

1) there is more than one legitimate definition for sacrament?
2) the Confessions are wrong.

If your answer is 2) then maybe you might be happier as a Presbyterian minister. If your answer is 1) then you would be right in line with a group of orthodox Lutheran pastors I follow in a listserv...just yesterday one commented that no pastor in his right mind would deny that Confession is a sacrament.

Watch out for those systematic theology books, Semstudent. In my own studies (at one time I was pursuing a lay ministry degree) I found they all error in one way or another and tend to reflect the thoughts of the age and not always the thoughts of the Church through the ages.

Now I challenge you...take this discussion back to your professors and see what they say about the sacraments, their definition and their number. Then let us know what they say. I need to know whether or not I have to go buy a sympathy card.....R

[SPALATIN]

It is true Semstudent that if you define a sacrament as requiring 3 things:

1) instituted by Christ
2) Word
3) Physical means

then there are two in the Lutheran church. BUT...our confessions clearly speak of Confession as a Sacrament...yet we will all agree that it offers no "physical means". So...if the confessions say it is a sacrament what does this mean...

1) there is more than one legitimate definition for sacrament?
2) the Confessions are wrong.

If your answer is 2) then maybe you might be happier as a Presbyterian minister. If your answer is 1) then you would be right in line with a group of orthodox Lutheran pastors I follow in a listserv...just yesterday one commented that no pastor in his right mind would deny that Confession is a sacrament.

Watch out for those systematic theology books, Semstudent. In my own studies (at one time I was pursuing a lay ministry degree) I found they all error in one way or another and tend to reflect the thoughts of the age and not always the thoughts of the Church through the ages.

Now I challenge you...take this discussion back to your professors and see what they say about the sacraments, their definition and their number. Then let us know what they say. I need to know whether or not I have to go buy a sympathy card.....R

Make sure you pass the sympathy card around. I want to sign it too. ;)

[CrossWiseMag]

Wow.

First the higher-critics started throwing out Paul because he wasn't Jesus. Now they're throwing out Melancthon because he's not Luther. Anything goes with these people.

LUTHERANS confess the Book of Concord. All of it. To confess something less than the Book of Concord is to remove yourself from Lutheranism. The Book of Concord says Confession & Absolution is a sacrament (by one definition), and thus is it. If you're Lutheran. If you're not, it's really easy to deny it. And apparently similarly easy to get into certain seminaries that bear the name Lutheran.

[SPALATIN]

Wow.

First the higher-critics started throwing out Paul because he wasn't Jesus. Now they're throwing out Melancthon because he's not Luther. Anything goes with these people.

LUTHERANS confess the Book of Concord. All of it. To confess something less than the Book of Concord is to remove yourself from Lutheranism. The Book of Concord says Confession & Absolution is a sacrament (by one definition), and thus is it. If you're Lutheran. If you're not, it's really easy to deny it. And apparently similarly easy to get into certain seminaries that bear the name Lutheran.

I know a lot of people will throw out some of Melanchthon based on his allegiances after Luther died and that he re-wrote some of the confessions to be in line with his new ideals. So the point then is the Abridged BOC or Unabridged BOC?

[AngelusSax]

You know, this is just an off-hand observation, but...

For a Church founded on the basis of reformation, there seems to be a lack of want to see if the current church needs reforming today. I'm not saying it absolutely does, but I'm also not saying it absolutely does not.

And why, pray tell, does every little issue that isn't "Jesus rose from the dead and saves us all by His Grace" have to be so church-dividing? Why can't we get past the smaller tenets and strive to be as one, as Jesus and the Father are one (as her Jesus' goodbye-prayer in the Gospel of John)?

Why do we focus so much on differences that, in reality, don't matter... since we're either saved by the free Grace of God or we're not saved at all (whether we think there are 2 or 3 or 8000 Sacraments)?

[SPALATIN]

You know, this is just an off-hand observation, but...

For a Church founded on the basis of reformation, there seems to be a lack of want to see if the current church needs reforming today. I'm not saying it absolutely does, but I'm also not saying it absolutely does not.

And why, pray tell, does every little issue that isn't "Jesus rose from the dead and saves us all by His Grace" have to be so church-dividing? Why can't we get past the smaller tenets and strive to be as one, as Jesus and the Father are one (as her Jesus' goodbye-prayer in the Gospel of John)?

Why do we focus so much on differences that, in reality, don't matter... since we're either saved by the free Grace of God or we're not saved at all (whether we think there are 2 or 3 or 8000 Sacraments)?


I think that just because you consider them small tenets doesn't mean that they are so to anyone else. You think it a small matter on women's ordination whereas I do not. I abide by the word of God first and by the confessions as the true exposition of the word. I don't just give lip service to the confessions but I do give them more weight than you do. So this is why we have church division. That which consider a minor is a major to someone else. These differences do matter to many of us. If we are not in doctrinal unity on these issues it can bring judgement on us in the sacraments.

To us you would sacrifice some of the truth to gain unity. We would sacrifice none because that is not what Christ would have us do. I know it sounds like a "my way or the highway" motto, but until Christ comes that is what I will hold to.

[Tetzel]

Mass is celebrated 7 days a week at my parish.

Q

You gotta tell me where I can find one of these parishes. We only have Sunday and Wednesday

[Qoheleth]

You gotta tell me where I can find one of these parishes. We only have Sunday and Wednesday

As requested

http://www.ziondetroit.org/index.php

Q

[Tetzel]

For the record, I'd like to claim that Lutherans believe in 2.5 sacraments with Confession and Absolution being the Schroedinger's Sacrament that is superpositioned between the possibilities of non-sacramental and sacramental status.

[Qoheleth]

For the record, I'd like to claim that Lutherans believe in 2.5 sacraments with Confession and Absolution being the Schroedinger's Sacrament that is superpositioned between the possibilities of non-sacramental and sacramental status.


Not sure if that was a joke but in any case, try again.

4] Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. (Apology Art. XIII [VIII] )
Q

[Protoevangel]

On the one hand, we have the definition of Sacrament that SemStudent08 offered. Thank you SemStudent08 for your scholastic approach to this discussion.

On the other hand, we have someone attacking SemStudent08, insulting him in many personal ways.

On the third hand, we have Rose offering a suggestion that there may be more than one valid definition of the term Sacrament. Thank you Rose, that was a helpful concept considering the direction this discussion has been going.

I would like to suggest that for the purposes of this discussion, we define exactly what our definition of a sacrament is, before we level personal attacks.

Sacrament, or Sacramentum means something to be kept sacred. The definition which includes "an earthly element" is certianly a valid definition, but it seems incomplete somehow, and certianly less than the church had intended since at the latest, the time of Tertullian. Now, another definition, from the Apology reads, a Sacrament is a rite which has the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added. This certianly seems to be a more rich, consistent, and less arbitrary definition. What is it that makes the Sacrament? Is it the earthly element that makes the Sacrament? or is it the Word, Command and Promise of Grace by God that makes the Sacrament? Anything commanded by God, with the Promise of Grace attached cannot be less than a Sacrament, whatever label you want to put on it. Confession/Absolution certianly is not but a "rite", rites can be changed. Like the very definition of sacramentum suggests, Confession/Absolution is something to be kept sacred.

[BigNorsk]

SemStudent answered correctly, there are two Sacraments in the Lutheran Churches. Now we can thrash about and say the Confessions list three, but SemStudent gave the answer to it already. The two Sacraments are:

1. Baptistism/Absolution and

2. Communion

Now Baptism isn't normally written that way, but that the third sacrament is present in the first is clearly stated in the Large Catechism IV 74.

The difficulty has come from linking Private Confession to Absolution and then trying to use the statements that Absolution is a Sacrament to "prove" that Private Confession is a Sacrament. I don't believe there is anywhere in the Confessions that it would be stated that Private Confession definitely is a Sacrament though we can certainly change the definition of a Sacrament to include Private Confession. We could also include prayer, preaching, reading, etc. but to what purpose but to create confusion?

Why should we create confusion in a matter that is settled? I am not aware of a single Lutheran synod out there that has other than the two Sacraments. Certainly that at the least is true of the majority. Now how did every Lutheran synod come to the same conclusion from Scripture and the Bible? I would say it must be because it is pretty clear, so let us not muddy the waters now.

So with something so settled, so uniform across Lutheranism, what is the benefit of attacking someone that holds to this uniform belief? SemStudent was in no way incorrect in his position yet he was attacked for holding the clearly orthodox Lutheran position, even told he should leave the Lutheran church because he was in complete agreement with the Lutheran church.

Shameful.

Marv

[Chotki]

Leave it to a papist to stir up controversy, sorry guys! ;)

[ByzantineDixie]

Now, another definition, from the Apology reads, a Sacrament is a rite which has the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added. This certianly seems to be a more rich, consistent, and less arbitrary definition. What is it that makes the Sacrament? Is it the earthly element that makes the Sacrament? or is it the Word, Command and Promise of Grace by God that makes the Sacrament? Anything commanded by God, with the Promise of Grace attached cannot be less than a Sacrament, whatever label you want to put on it. Confession/Absolution certianly is not but a "rite", rites can be changed. Like the very definition of sacramentum suggests, Confession/Absolution is something to be kept sacred.

Dan--you are such a sharp guy. Do you realize what you did here? You resolved the issue the only place the issue could have been resolved...with in the Confessions.

On the surface this discussion appeared to be about Confession / Absolution (I apologize Marv...I used the word Confession alone a shortcut not to separate it from Absolution) but it seems to me the real, underlying discussion was about faithfulness to the Confessions.

I don't know about the rest of you but I have been instructed in several things (in my classes, by clergy) which I only later found to be contrary to the Confessions. That can be very frustrating to spend all that time learning something only to find out it was half right.

Anyway...I appreciate this forum and those in it who are committed to remaining faithful to the Confessions. I have learned much from them.

Peace

[BigNorsk]

Rose,
You are correct, and the point is that having Baptism and Communion as the two Sacraments (actually containing three Sacraments) is in agreement with both the Bible and the Book of Concord. To say it must be otherwise is to say that all of Lutheranism has failed to comprehend the truth.

So where does confession belong, it belongs with the office of the keys, a church office.

From the Smalcald Articles Section VIII 2.

2] But the enumeration of sins ought to be free to every one, as to what he wishes to enumerate or not to enumerate. For as long as we are in the flesh, we shall not lie when we say: “I am a poor man [I acknowledge that I am a miserable sinner], full of sin.” Rom. 7, 23: I see another law in my members, etc. For since private absolution originates in the Office of the Keys, it should not be despised [neglected], but greatly and highly esteemed [of the greatest worth], as [also] all other offices of the Christian Church.

Rose, I would not encourage you to jump to conclusions that what you were instructed was contrary to the Book of Concord. Take this thread for example, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that something isn't correct because of your understanding, when all the time it is.

Marv

[Protoevangel]

Leave it to a papist to stir up controversy, sorry guys! ;)Chotki,

Don't worry about it, we thrive on this stuff! :D

[revjpw]

Holy Absolution is directly tied to our Baptism. We are Baptized in the Name of the Triune God. So now the question begs to be asked: Can someone confess and be forgiven in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit if they have never been Baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?
:confused:

[Qoheleth]

Sacrament, or Sacramentum means something to be kept sacred. The definition which includes "an earthly element" is certianly a valid definition, but it seems incomplete somehow, and certianly less than the church had intended since at the latest, the time of Tertullian. Now, another definition, from the Apology reads, a Sacrament is a rite which has the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added. This certianly seems to be a more rich, consistent, and less arbitrary definition. What is it that makes the Sacrament? Is it the earthly element that makes the Sacrament? or is it the Word, Command and Promise of Grace by God that makes the Sacrament? Anything commanded by God, with the Promise of Grace attached cannot be less than a Sacrament, whatever label you want to put on it. Confession/Absolution certianly is not but a "rite", rites can be changed. Like the very definition of sacramentum suggests, Confession/Absolution is something to be kept sacred.

Said better than I ever could. Thank you.

Q

[Qoheleth]

Now we can thrash about and say the Confessions list three, but SemStudent gave the answer to it already. The two Sacraments are:

Well, does it list Private Absolution as a Sacrament, specifically or not??


The difficulty has come from linking Private Confession to Absolution and then trying to use the statements that Absolution is a Sacrament to "prove" that Private Confession is a Sacrament

That is your own personal conclusion and not that of our Confessions.


I don't believe there is anywhere in the Confessions that it would be stated that Private Confession definitely is a Sacrament though we can certainly change the definition of a Sacrament to include Private Confession.

ooops...see below

4] Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. (Apology Art. XIII [VIII] )


Now how did every Lutheran synod come to the same conclusion from Scripture and the Bible? I would say it must be because it is pretty clear, so let us not muddy the waters now.

And Private Absolution was held and made use of as a Sacrament in the church for several hundred years before falling into disuse. Who then began to muddy the waters?

Even in the Lutheran church, heterodox teaching and practice is present.


SemStudent was in no way incorrect in his position yet he was attacked for holding the clearly orthodox Lutheran position

By which standard, yours or the Confessions??

Q

[Qoheleth]

Holy Absolution is directly tied to our Baptism. We are Baptized in the Name of the Triune God. So now the question begs to be asked: Can someone confess and be forgiven in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit if they have never been Baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?


And Holy Communion is directly tied to Baptism also. The implications of this is manifold.

Q

[Protoevangel]

Holy Absolution is directly tied to our Baptism. We are Baptized in the Name of the Triune God. So now the question begs to be asked: Can someone confess and be forgiven in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit if they have never been Baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?
:confused:Well, Scripture never suggests that Jesus had everyone Baptized before He forgave them. Also, when Jesus breathed on the Apostles the Holy Spirit, He told them, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them" "Any" means any. It is this very offering of Grace that brought many to faith. Were we not reconciled to God, through the death of His Son, while we were still His enemy? (Rom 5:10)