SACRIFICE of the Mass - Lutheran and Catholic Dialogue

Joe Heschmeyer and James White just had a debate over whether the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. However, many magisterial Protestants rightly lament Mr. White's blatantly "Reformed" Baptist rejection of not only the mass as a sacrifice, but also the real presence. In this video, Peyton @disputatiodehomine9217 and Joe @shamelesspopery discuss what they see as the dividing line between the Catholic and confessional Lutheran perspectives.
▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃

☩ Share this video with a friend ☩

▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃

[timothybrooks]

I was LCMS for a few years and am going to be confirmed in the RCC on Easter vigil. I think the Lutheran seminarian represented the LCMS view very well. The differences between Roman and Lutheran were well represented.

[ThomasSimmons-ux]

I attended church with Peyton at Messiah Lutheran in St. Louis. He struck me as an intelligent and sincere young man with an open heart. I was raised Lutheran in north St. Louis with tons of Catholic friends. Always had a real respect for the Roman Church. The notion of a Catholic - Lutheran
dialogue is music to my ears.

Via con Dios, Hermanos!

PS: I, too, make the sign of the cross after receiving the Eucharist.

[MotherLovingChristian]

Can you host Sips with Serra and your seminarian friend? Since he’s a former Lutheran, it could be a fruitful discussion!

[disputatiodehomine]

I look forward to our next one on the topic!

[jamesb]

It would be great to see a discussion between Joe and Joshua Schooping. He’s a former Orthodox Priest who is now a Lutheran pastor.

[ora_et_labora]

Recently joined a Confessional Lutheran church, glory to God! This was very interesting. Thank you.

[ninalove]

Insanely good discussion. Please do another one (Lutherans and RCatholics) where they discuss apostolic succession. Or any other subject for that matter. 👍👍

[PuzzlesCM]

The Lutheran has great hair but a very confusing theology.

[LukeBowman]

On the doctrine of ubiquity which was briefly brought up around 1:17:00
The omnipresence of Christ according to His human nature and the way Christ is present in the Supper are different. We distinguish between at least three modes in which Christ can be present according to His human nature in the Formula of Concord (Solid Declaration) Article 7. First is the local mode of presence as He has as any other human, the second is the Sacramental mode in the Supper similar to the way He was present when walking through the closed room, and lastly would be omnipresence. Often omnipresence is misunderstood in a crude way like Christ's local dna filled flesh is stretched out across the universe which is flatly denied here, "That the human nature of Christ is locally extended to all places of heaven and earth, which should not be ascribed even to the divine nature." - Formula of Concord (Epitome) Article 8. The analogy we continually give is that of fire and iron and is also used repeatedly in the patristics. It goes; a fire heats a piece of iron in a similar way the Divine attributes are communicated to the human nature of Christ. Because the fire and iron are in such a close union, the fire communicates properties of glowing, giving off heat, change in color, and ect. The fire doesn't trade off and leave any properties, but rather communicates them to the iron. The Iron still retains its essential properties of being iron, but now as these fire-like properties given through it. The human nature in Christ similarly has divine attributes communicated through it such as power, glory, ability to give life, omniscience, and omnipresence. In the case of omnipresence we would say that now Christ is also omnipresent through His human nature in some mystical way. I'd be happy to give a Scriptural and patristic defense of this if you're curious. I made a yt video on the topic but have just decided to keep it private to try and get my craft down a little better lol.

[ccwill]

I love this so cordial and respectful. One of my all time favorites.

[thewiseandthefoolish]

Peyton, if not already aware, can google Will Weedon and Sacrifice of the Mass, and he debates with Paul McCain about the representation of Christ. Weedon also cites a prayer of Gerhard that presents Christ to the Father.

[stcolreplover]

The Lutheran position seems to be “Come guys, we’re not as bad as the Evangelicals!”

[colinjames]

The Lutheran distinction becomes clearer when understood through the rejection of merit and the treasury of merit. The propitiatory sacrifice was accomplished at Calvary, and its benefits are proclaimed and delivered in the Mass for believers to receive through faith. The Lutheran Mass is not a propitiatory re-offering of that sacrifice—since Christ’s work is complete—nor is it a work that confers merit, as it is God’s gift of grace.

Consubstantiation is an unnecessary philosophical definition, rooted in Aristotelian terms, that is unhelpful, confusing, and rejected. The sacramental union, while mysterious, is appropriate.

Using ‘Christian’ instead of ‘catholic’ in the creed may be a translation issue, but it’s dumb and should be changed. If we are going to the sources (ad fontes), we should translate from the original.

[AnUnhappyBusiness]

The apology openly states that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice if we consider the whole Mass and not just the canon of the Mass. Unfortunately Luther and others frequently refer to the Mass and mean specifically the canon of the Mass, that one specific prayer, not the whole Mass. That distinction takes a few readings of the Lutheran confessions to pick up on.

[MortenBendiksen]

I consider myself sort of Lutheran, but I do think that participating in the Eucharist is indeed beneficial for others. I believe it gives life, and life flows into the world through it. It indeed forgives sin, and thus enables living. But the purpose of living is to share it with others, to work for others, to love others, etc. which really is possible only through grace. And the Eucharist is the main means of partaking of this and being a conduit of this into the world. If there doesn't follow a outflowing of the benefits from the person who received it, then there was no purpose. It's not that this would merit something. No, it's that the very purpose of it all IS the easy going and carefree sharing of life that follows. That IS Life, and to partake in Life, is salvation. There is no great reward other than that.

I think faith, i.e. trust, can be shared. It's not an individualistic thing. I think on this the reformers were simply wrong. What they were not wrong on is that it's the individual that must be part of the act which constitutes the Eucharist. You can't bring the host to someone else later. No, it's the coming together for the act that is the Eucharist. It's the meal, together, in trust and humility. It's a communal act of souls, not a magic trick.

[jimmydavid]

Amazed by the depth of Lutheran Eucharistic theology. I know this may be my Catholic lense, it almost seems to me that we both are in perfection agreement. However, Lutheran just did not philosophise their position to the point of using transubstantiation or any similar concept.

The main difference I picked is that the priest does not have the same role

[j.g.]

On 1:47 and the creed.
It was the translation rather than transliteration into German 500-1000 years ago.
With the forced Anglicisation during WW1&2 Lutherans either translated from the German or picked up the Anglican service book

[TheWrecker]

Where can we watch Peyton's sermons that he said about the 5 Wounds of Christ?

[janestclair]

Joe is so friendly and likeable always . Not arrogant...the young Mon is also delight
We need more friendly discussions like this.

[MortenBendiksen]

The non participating in the eucharist did eventually trigger the end of my world and a revelation of Christ, and His subsequent return into my life. I couldn't point and say "there he is", but He did return.