Under the leadership of Martin Sommer and Theodore Graebner, the Lutheran Witness developed a strongly anti-Roman Catholic feel. Most of the articles discussing Roman Catholicism were frankly polemical and sometimes bigoted, but they could be amusing on occasion as well. The opening several lines of this article are a good example. The rest of the article I found interesting in light of the great respect shown to Pius X by Roman Catholics, culminating in his canonization. He even has a group of Lefebvrists named after him .
"A few days ago the Roman Catholic Church found itself without a head; the Pope had died. Romanists continually tell us Protestants that the Pope is an absolute necessity for the Church, yet at this writing they are still without a head, but seem to be getting along fairly well in this decapitated condition. The Pope who has just died, known as Pius X, did not cut much of a figure. He was personally a kind of uninfluential old man, who, when he was elected to what the Roman Catholics claim is the highest place in Christendom, declared that he would much rather have remained quietly in his diocese of Venice. It is generally conceded that he had little ability. It is certainly remarkable that in the eleven years of his pontificate he accomplished so little, and yet managed to work so much havoc. In spite of the fawning adulation which he received from subordinates, there was heaped upon him much contempt and opposition from many quarters. Upon his entering the Vatican, the press generally lauded his attempts at reforming that worst of all European courts, the Vatican household, a court that is supposed to be spiritual, but imitates the vices of the vilest courts, and generally proceeds to a vulgarity which they know how to avoid. If he was in earnest about this reformation of the papal household, he seems not to have applied any more severe methods than did Eli in the case of his sons, nor had he any better success.
"By his Ne Temere decree he again attracted the attention of all who will see to the tyranny and presumptuousness of Rome. By his encyclical on the reformation he aspersed the character and the work of a man whose very shoe's latchet he was unworthy to unloose. Think of an old man who waddles about his palace, spending his time in putting on gorgeous robes, and in lifting up hands to mumble stereotype benedictions, uttering a few weak denunciations against such a spiritual and mental giant, such a mighty man of God as Martin Luther!
"With all the idle priests, monks, and officials at his command it is surprising to see what a failure he made of his negotiations with the French government; it is pitiable to note that with all the wealth, influence, and men at his disposal he failed to conciliate Spain and Portugal, two of the most Catholic countries of the globe. As far as we know, he had not the courage even to take up the tangle in which his predecessor had left the affairs of the curia with the Italian government. . . .
"The Catholics themselves seem to feel that the dead Pope will have a hard time at the judgment-seat of Christ, for we read in one of our Catholic exchanges; 'Now that he is gone before the final judgment-seat to give an account of the great stewardship committed to him, all his children of every clime and nation and tongue will join in prayer that God may be merciful to him.'
"It is too late to pray for poor Pius X, but we pray that God may be merciful and grant light to those whom the Pope left in darkness."
Quoted from The Lutheran Witness, Vol. 33, No. 19 (September 8, 1914), p. 146.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Friday, December 5, 2014
The Missouri Synod Not Liturgical?
In the mid-1800s, the Missouri and Buffalo Synods were considered offensively liturgical by their Eastern Lutheran counterparts, with accusations of "Romanism" regularly thrown their way, but as the General Synod began to recover more aspects of the traditional Mass (ultimately resulting in the publication of the Common Service), those perceptions began to change, as can be seen from the following quote:
"Many of our good people have the erroneous idea that liturgik and symbolik are necessarily concomitant [this perception still lingers today]. Facts disprove that assumption [as, again, they still do today]. Not a few of our General Synod men who are not suspected of strong confessional leanings are still ardent supporters of the liturgy, and the Missourians, who are distinguished for their symbolism, have little or no liturgy as we understand the word. Their altar service is more simple than that of most of our own unliturgical churches."
Nevertheless, the Missouri Synod still persisted in retaining certain liturgical aspects which were uncommon in the General Synod. These include the use of crucifixes, candles, statues, and the black clerical gown.
"The use of the clerical gown has not become general [in the General Synod], and the most of those [General Synod] churches in which it is worn by the minister, introduced it with their origin. There are very few indeed which have adopted it as a new element, after they had been in existence for some years without it. It is an innovation which few would sanction, and it has never been considered of sufficient importance to awaken much interest in the church."
Both of the above quotes are from John G. Morris, Fifty Years in the Lutheran Ministry (Baltimore, 1878), 351).
"Many of our good people have the erroneous idea that liturgik and symbolik are necessarily concomitant [this perception still lingers today]. Facts disprove that assumption [as, again, they still do today]. Not a few of our General Synod men who are not suspected of strong confessional leanings are still ardent supporters of the liturgy, and the Missourians, who are distinguished for their symbolism, have little or no liturgy as we understand the word. Their altar service is more simple than that of most of our own unliturgical churches."
Nevertheless, the Missouri Synod still persisted in retaining certain liturgical aspects which were uncommon in the General Synod. These include the use of crucifixes, candles, statues, and the black clerical gown.
"The use of the clerical gown has not become general [in the General Synod], and the most of those [General Synod] churches in which it is worn by the minister, introduced it with their origin. There are very few indeed which have adopted it as a new element, after they had been in existence for some years without it. It is an innovation which few would sanction, and it has never been considered of sufficient importance to awaken much interest in the church."
Both of the above quotes are from John G. Morris, Fifty Years in the Lutheran Ministry (Baltimore, 1878), 351).
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Do Lutherans Teach Consubstantiation?
Despite what many people – Lutheran, Protestant, and Roman Catholic alike – believe, the Lutheran Church does not teach consubstantiation. The following quotes clearly demonstrate that the Lutheran Church in fact rejects and condemns consubstantiation.
Note: I will continue to add to these quotes as I come upon further references to consubstantiation from Lutheran sources. I may also end up putting together a second article of quotes from major non-Lutheran sources which incorrectly ascribe consubstantiation to the Lutheran Church.
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 3 (1920, 1953)
Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Ev. Luth. Church (1876, 1899)
"Other erroneous conceptions are guarded against by [Abraham] Cal[ov(ius)] (IX, 307), as follows: 'We maintain that the body and blood of Christ are present in the Supper, not . . . by substantial transmutation, as the Papists hold; nor by . . . consubstantiation, which the Calvinists calumniously charge upon us. . ." (p. 579).
(Quoting from Matthew Hafenreffer, Compendium Locorum Theologicorum (1610), 517): "The sacramental union is not . . . a consubstantiation or commixture of the substances, but in both the bread and wine the substance of the body and blood of Christ remains unmixed" (p. 587).
"The late Dr. Krauth has given the following tabular statement, which will show how the Lutheran doctrine has often been mistaken for consubstantiation. . . . Consubstantiation, impanation, as held by John of Paris and Rupert; falsely charged on the Lutheran Church" (Third Ed. (1899), p. 571).
John G. Morris, Life Reminiscences of an Old Lutheran Minister (1896)
"CONSUBSTANTIATION. We have for many years been surprised, and somewhat vexed also, because very respectable and intelligent writers continue to charge us, as a church, with holding the doctrine of consubstantiation. We have repudiated it over and over again, and have quoted the absolute denial from many of our old theologians, but it all seems to be of no service. The imputation is repeated again and again, notwithstanding our proofs to the contrary. Even such a learned and respectable writer as Dr. Schaff, who knows better, allows the false accusation to appear in some of his books. The learned Prof. —— repeats it, and the minor writers follow the lead of their superiors without any further investigation, blindly assuming that it is all right. (Morris, John G., Life Reminiscences of an Old Lutheran Minister (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1896), 263).
Leander S. Keyser, Election and Conversion (1914)
"We Lutherans ought to know by experience how trying it is to be charged with a doctrine which we have always rejected with all our vigor, namely, the error of Consubstantination (sic) in the Lord's Supper; for, in spite of our oft-repeated denials, there are men even today who allege this error to be ours." (Keyser, Leander S., Election and Conversion: A Frank Discussion of Dr. Pieper's Book on "Conversion and Election," with Suggestions for Lutheran Concord and Union on Another Basis (Burlington: German Literacy Board, 1914), 8).
George Henry Gerberding, The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church (1917)
"The very same proofs that convince us that the divine Word does not teach Transubstantiation, also convince us that it does not teach Consubstantiation. The simple fact that the earthly elements are called bread and the fruit of the vine, before, during and after consecration and distribution satisfies us that they remain plain, simple bread and wine, without physical change or admixture. Consubstantiation is not the teaching of the Word; neither is it, nor has it ever been, the teaching of the Lutheran Church. It often has been and is still called the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, but it is found in none of her confessions. It was never taught by a single recognized theologian of our Church. One and all, they have repudiated it and repudiate it still." (Gerberding, G. H., The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church (Philadelphia: General Council Publication House, 1917), 123-124).
John G. Morris, Life Reminiscences of an Old Lutheran Minister (1896)
"CONSUBSTANTIATION. We have for many years been surprised, and somewhat vexed also, because very respectable and intelligent writers continue to charge us, as a church, with holding the doctrine of consubstantiation. We have repudiated it over and over again, and have quoted the absolute denial from many of our old theologians, but it all seems to be of no service. The imputation is repeated again and again, notwithstanding our proofs to the contrary. Even such a learned and respectable writer as Dr. Schaff, who knows better, allows the false accusation to appear in some of his books. The learned Prof. —— repeats it, and the minor writers follow the lead of their superiors without any further investigation, blindly assuming that it is all right. (Morris, John G., Life Reminiscences of an Old Lutheran Minister (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1896), 263).
Leander S. Keyser, Election and Conversion (1914)
"We Lutherans ought to know by experience how trying it is to be charged with a doctrine which we have always rejected with all our vigor, namely, the error of Consubstantination (sic) in the Lord's Supper; for, in spite of our oft-repeated denials, there are men even today who allege this error to be ours." (Keyser, Leander S., Election and Conversion: A Frank Discussion of Dr. Pieper's Book on "Conversion and Election," with Suggestions for Lutheran Concord and Union on Another Basis (Burlington: German Literacy Board, 1914), 8).
George Henry Gerberding, The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church (1917)
"The very same proofs that convince us that the divine Word does not teach Transubstantiation, also convince us that it does not teach Consubstantiation. The simple fact that the earthly elements are called bread and the fruit of the vine, before, during and after consecration and distribution satisfies us that they remain plain, simple bread and wine, without physical change or admixture. Consubstantiation is not the teaching of the Word; neither is it, nor has it ever been, the teaching of the Lutheran Church. It often has been and is still called the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, but it is found in none of her confessions. It was never taught by a single recognized theologian of our Church. One and all, they have repudiated it and repudiate it still." (Gerberding, G. H., The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church (Philadelphia: General Council Publication House, 1917), 123-124).
Andrew George Voigt, Biblical Dogmatics (1917)
"In the Lord's Supper there is an earthly material, bread and wine, and a celestial material, the body and blood of Christ. The doctrine of transubstantiation identifies these; that of consubstantiation or impanation confuses and mingles them; the symbolic doctrine separates them; the Lutheran doctrine of real presence unites them. The Lutheran Church holds to a sacramental union. . . ." (Voigt, A. G., Biblical Dogmatics (Columbia: Lutheran Board of Publication, 1917), 214-215)
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 3 (1920, 1953)
"The union of the materia coelestis with the materia terrena is not a natural or local, but a supernatural union (no localis inclusio, impanatio, consubstantio)" (Pieper, Francis, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 3 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953; originally published in German in 1920), 362).
The Abiding Word, Vol. 2 (1947)
The Abiding Word, Vol. 2 (1947)
"The words 'in, with, and under' are used to safeguard ourselves and our church against three false teachings that have been imputed to us, those of transubstantiation, impanation, and consubstantiation" (Zucker, F. R., "The Lord's Supper" in Laetsch, Theodore, ed., The Abiding Word, Vol. 2 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947) , 432).
Lutheran Cyclopedia (1954), Christian Cyclopedia (1975)
"The bread is not transubstantiated into Christ's body (Roman Catholic doctrine), nor is there any consubstantiation or mixture of bread and body (a teaching of which the Reformed accused the Lutherans)" (Luecker, Erwin, ed., Lutheran Cyclopedia (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1954), 428).
"The bread is not transubstantiated into Christ's body (Roman Catholic doctrine), nor is there any consubstantiation or mixture of bread and body (a teaching of which the Reformed accused the Lutherans)" (Luecker, Erwin, ed., Lutheran Cyclopedia (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1954), 428).
"Consubstantiation: View, falsely charged to Lutheranism, that bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner."
Lutheranism 101 (2010)
"Another theory is called consubstantiation, and teaches that Jesus' body is present along with the bread. Both are there, and together they form a third substance. Many think that this is what Lutherans believe, but this is not the case. Jesus didn't say, "My body is now with this bread." He said, "This is My body." Holding strictly to the words He spoke, Lutherans believe that they receive both bread and His body, because the bread is His body. It's not two different things making a third" (Kinnaman, Scot A., ed., Lutheranism 101 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2010), 151).
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (2013)
"Martin Luther rejected transubstantiation and consubstantiation on philosophical grounds."
"Martin Luther rejected transubstantiation and consubstantiation on philosophical grounds."
The Blogosphere, Etc.
After gathering the above quotes, I found several Lutheran blogs which have already covered this topic, some of them quite extensively (go on, check the last one. It has an amazing amount of information).
After gathering the above quotes, I found several Lutheran blogs which have already covered this topic, some of them quite extensively (go on, check the last one. It has an amazing amount of information).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)