Mea Culpa. I do go here to see what new and remarkable, previously unknown Lutheran theology can be gleaned from the site. Kiddies’ pool theologically, and on the occasions I do offer comments, I end the comments. But it’s a diversion.
After properly spanking Hess and sending him to his room, and linking a Sonntag quote now set aside for later reading, the writer (Beaumains?) lifts a bunker buster from the AC, which demolishes this almost sacramental worship of adiaphora that abounds today:
[W]e teach that in these matters (i.e., adiaphora) the use of liberty is to be so controlled that the inexperienced may not be offended, and, on account of the abuse of liberty, may not become more hostile to the true doctrine of the Gospel, or that without a reasonable cause nothing in customary rites be changed, but that, in order to cherish harmony, such old customs be observed as can be observed without sin or without great inconvenience. And in this very assembly we have shown sufficiently that for love’s sake we do not refuse to observe adiaphora with others, even though they should have some disadvantage; but we have judged that such public harmony as could indeed be produced without offense to consciences ought to be preferred to all other advantages [all other less important matters]. (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, XVI, 51-52)
As good as that one is, the following – which they linked from Gottesdienst, precipitated another sinus cavity beer flush:
Here’s a theological tribute to Primer Martinus et Alter Martinus from the Rev’d Dr. D. Richard Stuckwisch…
It is also clear and straightforwardly obvious, that Walther and Pieper, following the 17th-century Lutheran scholastics, were “receptionists.” That is to say, they taught that the Body and Blood of Christ were present only in and with the actual eating and drinking, and neither before nor after nor apart from that eating and drinking. This “receptionist” teaching follows from the emphases of Melanchthon, which stood in tension with Luther’s emphases while both men were still alive, but which developed and sharpened in Melanchthon, in his students and beyond, in the years following Luther’s death. Resulting controversies over a right understanding of the axiom, that “nothing has the character of a Sacrament outside of its intended use,” were addressed by the Formula of Concord. However, in spite of the Formula’s clarification, and in spite of Luther’s and Chemnitz’s understanding and explanation of the axiom in question, subsequent generations of Lutheran scholars adopted and taught a “receptionist” interpretation of the axiom, and, therefore, of the Sacrament. This view was fostered and solidified by a reliance on Aristotelian philosophy, or, rather, on a misunderstanding and misuse of Aristotle’s “four causes.” Walther and Pieper followed the Lutheran scholastics in this vein, and read back into Luther and Chemnitz and the Formula of Concord that “receptionist” view, which came to predominate.
What a smack down on the tripe and crap being bantered about how everything under the sun can be classified as adiaphora, all the while putting forth the true and proper understanding of what happens when the Words of Institution are pronounced!
And the clear distinction made between Martys I & II, and Walther and Pieper . . . doesn’t that border on the heretical, and worthy of being defrocked in the LCMS? Hilarious!
Okay – said my piece. I’m hooked!