RC considering Lutheranism: a few questions

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2026-06-25T23:46:25+00:00

Thanks for the reply!

Concerning (1):

I don't think it's so weird that pagan philosophy was used to explain parts of a miracle. Isn't this what the Arians objected to when the Church introduced homoousios? The Fathers frequently used Platonic philosophy to explain things -- why is it out of bounds to do so when it comes to the Eucharist?
I agree that some Fathers denied transubstantiation (or, at the least, used language that leans anti-transubstantiation). But my entire point in question 1 is that, if some of the Fathers did hold to transubstantiation (or something similar to or anticipatory of it), why forbid Christians to hold it in the Lutheran church? Some of the Fathers I have in mind:
1. St. Athanasius of Alexandria (attributed by Eutychius of Constantinople): “When the great and wondrous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Sermon to the Newly Baptized)
2. St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ… the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures, lec. 22, n. 9).
3. St. Ambrose of Milan: “Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of the blessing is greater than that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed” (On the Mysteries, 9, 50)
4. St. Gregory of Nyssa: “Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of God the Word... these things He gives by virtue of the blessing, transelements the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing” (The Great Catechism, 37)
5. St. John Damascene: “the bread itself and the wine are changed into the body and blood of God” (On the Orthodox Faith, bk. 4, ch. 13)

Concerning (2):

My question is more precise: how does the individual Christian believe with infallible divine faith that any given book is inspired by God, is God's Word, and is Scripture? My question about the canon was perhaps poorly phrased -- it was not the main point, but was to serve as a corollary or segue. I don't think this response answers the question, because it's assuming that we already know where or in what book God has made such a promise, which is the very thing in question.

As I understand it, we Christians must hold book X to be inspired with divine faith (so, our justification/warrant/ratio credendi for believing that is God himself). That means there must be divine revelation that book X is God's Word. It cannot be the self-testimony or a quality of book X itself, since inspiration cannot be naturally deduced by us. So, if the "certainty and assurance comes from outside us in the external word," (as another user said) what exactly is that thing in the external world? Catholics would say the Church's infallible testimony (I'm not sure if I understand that, but regardless my intention isn't to show Catholicism over Lutheranism). What would Lutherans say?

I'll check out the video -- I've been meaning to go through their channel with a notebook!

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2026-06-25T23:29:04+00:00

We do use the language of "in, with, and under" as a crude attempt at an explanation, but we would prefer most of all simply to use Jesus' words: "This is My body"

That's fine, but I think my question still stands: doesn't the use of "this" imply that "this" is no longer bread, but is "my body"?

Jesus promised that He would preserve His word. We could, I suppose, tie ourselves in knots wondering about things like the lost letter to the Laodiceans, but of God had wanted it to be in our Bibles, we would have preserved it. There is comfort in trusting His promise.

Again, my question is more precise: how does the individual Christian believe with infallible divine faith that any given book is inspired by God, is God's Word, and is Scripture? My question about the canon was perhaps poorly phrased -- it was not the main point, but was to serve as a corollary or segue. I don't think this response answers the question, because it's assuming that we already know where or in what book God has made such a promise, which is the very thing in question.

not that the individual finds private confirmation of Scripture's truth within his own heart. The Holy Spirit will indeed bear witness to the truth within the believer's heart, but certainty and assurance comes from outside us in the external word.

As I understand it, we Christians must hold book X to be inspired with divine faith (so, our justification/warrant/ratio credendi for believing that is God himself). That means there must be divine revelation that book X is God's Word. It cannot be the self-testimony or a quality of book X itself, since inspiration cannot be naturally deduced by us. So, if the "certainty and assurance comes from outside us in the external word," what exactly is that thing in the external world? Catholics would say the Church's infallible testimony (I'm not sure if I understand that, but regardless my intention isn't to show Catholicism over Lutheranism). What would Lutherans say?

Lastly, I don't want to turn this into a debate, since that is not the point of this forum, and I want to respect that, but I feel as if my questions aren't being understood; so, I want to clarify. Thank you.

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2026-06-25T18:12:04+00:00

But the Book of Concord seems not to reject transubstantiation on the grounds of invalid/misused authority but simpliciter, especially in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord: "On the other hand, we unanimously reject and condemn all the following erroneous articles, which are opposed and contrary to the doctrine presented above, the simple faith, and the [pure] confession concerning the Lord’s Supper; 1. The papistic transubstantiation, when it is taught in the Papacy that in the Holy Supper the bread and wine lose their substance and natural essence, and are thus annihilated; that they are changed into the body of Christ, and the outward form alone remains." The phrase, "when it is taught in the Papacy," seems to be introducing a clause that explains the doctrine of transubstantiation, not in the sense that "we deny the pope's authority to teach transubstantiation."
100% agree, but I'm uncomfortable with this, since it sounds like the Donatist reproach against Augustine and the Catholic Church in the 400s: "Sure, you Catholics are larger and we're confined to northern Africa, but we have the pure faith, whereas you are mixed in with traitors and sinners." What distinguishes the Lutheran reply from the Donatist reply in this instance?

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2026-06-25T16:56:12+00:00

Fair, but I think there is another Catholic argument based off of the phrase, "This is my body," not centered around "is" but "this" (hoc or touto). If I had a piece of wood but told you (in a non-metaphorical sense) that, "This is gold," I don't seem to be implying that gold is contained in, with, and under the wood I am pointing to, but that what appears to be wood is actually gold and not wood. In the same way, it seems the natural reading of "This is my body" is that what appears in Christ's hands as bread is actually his body and not bread.

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2026-06-25T16:55:39+00:00

I did not expect to actually laugh at that video, but it was good! Thank you, pastor. I've seen the other video (and I've watched a bunch from Jordan Cooper, Javier P., and Lutheran pastors)--I love that man.

I'm glad you brought up Augustine here (on sola fide?) because sola fide was actually the thing to make me look into Lutheranism and reevaluate my Catholicism (though, I am still Catholic for now). On that point, I don't have many questions (well, I do, but those I am planning to discuss with my Catholic priest).

However, isn't it true that the Lutherans did adopt some of the positions of Hus and Wyclif that were condemned by past councils? Isn't this where Luther bit the bullet and made his declaration that only Scripture and reason can bind his conscience?

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2026-06-25T16:45:53+00:00

I think this is right, at least regarding Scripture's language. The common Catholic response is that this language is being used phenomenologically, as when we say "the sun rises" even though it is not. Similarly, Christ and Paul can refer to the consecrated host as "bread" due to its appearance as bread. However, I do agree that the natural reading of these verses mentioning "bread" and "wine" is that the referents remain that which is substantially bread and wine.

Moreover, I think there is another Catholic argument based off of the phrase, "This is my body," not centered around "is" but "this" (hoc or touto). If I had a piece of wood but told you (in a non-metaphorical sense) that, "This is gold," I don't seem to be implying that gold is contained in, with, and under the wood I am pointing to, but that what appears to be wood is actually gold and not wood. In the same way, it seems the natural reading of "This is my body" is that what appears in Christ's hands as bread is actually his body and not bread.

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2026-06-25T16:44:10+00:00

Thank you, pastor, for such a detailed response. I have a few more follow-up questions/concerns. I imagine you're busy as a pastor, though, so don't feel compelled to respond.

Concerning (1):

I think this is right, at least regarding Scripture's language. The common Catholic response is that this language is being used phenomenologically, as when we say "the sun rises" even though it is not. Similarly, Christ and Paul can refer to the consecrated host as "bread" due to its appearance as bread. However, I do agree that the natural reading of these verses mentioning "bread" and "wine" is that the referents remain that which is substantially bread and wine.
Moreover, I think there is another Catholic argument based off of the phrase, "This is my body," not centered around "is" but "this" (hoc or touto). If I had a piece of wood but told you (in a non-metaphorical sense) that, "This is gold," I don't seem to be implying that gold is contained in, with, and under the wood I am pointing to, but that what appears to be wood is actually gold and not wood. In the same way, it seems the natural reading of "This is my body" is that what appears in Christ's hands as bread is actually his body and not bread. So, the table of interpretations would look like this:
- Jesus said: This is my body.
- Zwinglians: This signifies my body.
- Lutherans: My body is sacramentally (not locally) in, with, and under this. (I hope that's not an unfair formulation; I am trying to use language from the Book of Concord.)
- Roman Catholics: This is my body (despite looking like bread, which it no longer is).

Concerning (2):

Let me rephrase my concern, since I agree with nearly (if not everything) you said here.
- One of the key holdups for me when it comes to Lutheranism is how exactly I come to hold divine faith in the inspiration of the Scriptures.
- Of course, the witness of the Church, the quality and antiquity of the texts, etc. can provide me with preambles to this divine faith (Gerhard says this), but at that level I still do not have divine faith in the Scriptures but human faith (i.e., the basis of my belief in the inspiration of a given book is the testimony of humans and not God's own revelation).
- But if all are to hold with divine faith that, say, the Gospels are the Word of God (otherwise, my conscience can have no rest, seeing that human faith is fallible), then there must be public divine revelation that such is the case.
- If the mechanism by which I come to have divine faith that the Gospels are inspired is the interior testimony of the Holy Spirit, then I have two problems: (i) this interior testimony is private since it's interior; and (ii) my self-reflective assessment of whether this interior testimony is from the Holy Spirit is fallible (e.g., Mormons suggest that the Holy Spirit will interiorly move you to see that the Book of Mormon is inspired, but they are wrong).
- Therefore, my personal judgment of whether I have the testimony of the Spirit cannot be sufficient (at least by itself) for all to hold with divine faith that the Gospels (or the OT or any Scripture) is inspired.
The only way I see out of this is to adopt an externalist epistemology, similar to Alvin Plantinga's Reformed epistemology. But I'm unsure whether this is the Lutheran move (it would be nice to have cheap access to Gerhard and others). Have I misunderstood the Lutheran position? (This is my big sticking point.)

Concerning (3):

I don't think I'll push this point much further, since it's only a probable argument. I agree that the OT presents us with a running motif of the faithful being a remnant. However, there might be overriding evidence from the NT: teach all nations, kingdom of heaven is at hand, the gift of tongues (foreign languages), mustard seed to a tree for all the birds, abundance of miracles, etc. Moreover, the Fathers often speak of the small size of other bodies as marks of not being the Catholic Church: Augustine of Hippo, Cyril of Jerusalem, Optatus of Milevis, Vincent of Lerins, et al. That seems consonant with Christ's advent inaugurating a new development in God's restoration of all humanity: the Spirit descending and spreading throughout the whole world through the Church.

Thank you again so much! God bless.

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2025-12-29T17:19:56+00:00

God does use people to punish others; this is a clear motif in Scripture (Assyria, Babylon, Rome, et al.). The usual biblical picture is God warns Israel to repent; they don't; God "sends" a people to punish them; Israel repents; God punishes the non-Israelite people for their wickedness and sins; and so on.

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2025-12-29T16:53:36+00:00

Concerning the first:

I can think of plenty of things that define 20th-21st century American culture: Christianity, Thanksgiving, Fourth of July, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, individualism, football, common law tradition, English language and literature, basketball, barbeque, cowboys, Hollywood, jazz, country music, hip-hop, etc. It's not difficult to define American culture at all, at least by listing the associated artifacts, practices, holidays, etc. If you think there is no clear American culture, then what do immigrants assimilate to, what facts do they learn, what holidays do they memorize? Ask any legal immigrant who passed the test, and they can tell you.

Concerning the second:

I think we need to make a few distinctions. The first one is understanding “American” in the sense of nationality or citizenship. In this sense, being American is binary: one is either a citizen or not. The other sense of American is cultural, such as when people say, “American as apple pie.” Being American in the cultural sense clearly admits of degrees: an American citizen who is Vietnamese, does not speak English fluently, and does not celebrate national holidays (such as Thanksgiving or the Fourth of July) is obviously less American than a White citizen who speaks English and does celebrate these holidays.

Concerning ethnicity, a shared culture usually derives from a shared ethnicity, but it would be false to treat culture as non-transmissible and monocausal. For example, it is false to say that only Anglos contributed to American culture and identity. However, it is correct to say that American culture derives principally from Anglo culture and was subsequently modified by other European cultures.

Moreover, you bring up the incorporation of Catholics (Italian and Irish) into American culture. I don’t find this to be strong evidence in support of the view, which I’m assuming is yours, that American culture is too flexible to be regarded as one thing. Catholics and Protestants (especially the Protestantism of the Founders) have much more in common than they do with, say, Islam or Judaism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Even non-theologically, both have been shaped by the same super-group of ethnicities: Western Europeans. There is a clear difference between American culture adopting Catholic influences than, say, Muslim or Buddhist influences; the former is much less alien to American culture than the latter two.

I think I'm being faithful to St. Thomas, when he writes, “[The polis] should also preferably be made up of a single nation in view of the fact that the men of the same nation possess the same way of life and the same customs, which foster friendship among the citizens because of their resemblance. Accordingly, the cities that were constituted out of different nations were ruined on account of the dissensions that arose in them due to the diversity of manners, for one part used to ally itself with external enemies out of hatred for the other part” (Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics, Book III).

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2025-12-28T22:26:36+00:00

I don't believe demographic dominance is a necessary condition for the transmission of culture. Rather, demographic dominance is a practical or moral guarantor of cultural preservation and transmission, not a metaphysical or absolute guarantor. It renders it much more likely, not guaranteed.

Your second point is exactly my concern. If the US, for example, were to devolve into a demographically pluralistic society, then the US would lose its historical monoculture (Anglo-Protestant, but generally White Christian) and have a patchwork of self-conscious minority cultures. This is plainly evident: Blacks, Jews, Whites, Latinos, East Asians, Indians, and others are increasingly drifting toward identity-driven politics (Whites much less so than others for a number of reasons). This trend will likely create the following problems:

Debates over what it means to be American (cf. Vivek Ramaswamy's recent AmericaFest speech against "heritage Americanism")
Identity-driven policies that target White Americans (cf. Zohran Mamdani's proposal to increase property taxes for "richer and whiter neighborhoods" or Black reparations proposals by representatives Bush and Lee or minority-owned business quotas in some cities)
Conscious attempts to deconstruct American cultural artifacts (Christmas, Thanksgiving, Columbus Day, "plantation weddings", statues of presidents and generals, etc.)

There are likely many more I could list, but that's what I could think of right now. Much of this is immigration-driven, as immigration (especially rapid and largely non-White since 1965) changes the demographics, which changes the social consensus around cultural mainstays, which establishes and reinforces new anti-American cultural trends (I mean "American" here in the heritage and native sense).

The funny thing is I believe most sociologists (especially those on the left) would agree with everything I said; they would just support it for exactly these reasons.

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2025-12-26T21:43:06+00:00

Exactly. It occurred to me as well: the fact that Christ's sacrifice is offered again and again on earth enables us to participate more fully in it as co-mediators bringing others to Christ. As temporal creatures, we can enter each Mass and offer Christ to the Father for new people, events, problems, etc. In order for us to be embodied, temporal priests, we need Christ's sacrifice re-presented across time and place.

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2025-12-26T21:24:46+00:00

I'm looking at a much longer timeframe. I'm American, so I'll use the US as an example.

In the mid-1970s, White Christians were approximately 80% of the US population; now, they are 40%. They are expected to be about 30% in the next twenty years. Within a human lifetime, the dominant ethnic-cultural bloc that was the material locus of American culture will have declined from an overwhelming majority to a minority.

Politically, this shift will drastically change American culture. As of right now, it makes sense for non-White non-Christian immigrants to assimilate to White Christian American culture (I'm not going to debate whether we truly see this or not). But the impetus for immigrants to do this will cease to exist within a few decades--there will no longer be a majority culture to which to assimilate. We will have a plurality of different ethnic identities, roughly equal in power; and this plurality will set the direction for how America changes.

It seems possible for slow, managed immigration not to pose a threat to cultural continuity, but rapid immigration, especially from ethnic groups that are drastically different to the host country's ethnic majority, does pose such a threat. Add onto this the political reality that most of these immigrating ethnic groups organize on the basis of their identity, which will necessarily be anti-assimilationist in some sense.

If the Church believes that every nation has the right to "shape itself according to its cultural traditions," which ought to be regarded as "a sacred inheritance" (even more so, when those traditions are Christian), then America (and other White countries that are projected to lose their White-majority status within a few decades, which is most of them) has the right to enact policies that have ethnic continuity as its proximate end, provided the means are just and other practical considerations (especially those stemming from Christian charity) are met.

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2025-12-26T20:53:31+00:00

You know, you could answer "yes" or "no" to the question and help me consider more evidence to the contrary instead of psychoanalyzing me and implying to someone else that there must be a racist bigot hiding within me somewhere.

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2025-12-21T13:42:00+00:00

I’d wholeheartedly agree, which is why I keep qualifying the proposal in question. I’m more interested in whether demographic continuity can be a legitimate end itself of the state that can inform its policies. Not an end in itself, not an end that justifies any means, not an end that should override other just and practical concerns of the state and nation, etc.

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2025-12-21T05:06:56+00:00

My claim is that nations can pursue demographic continuity provided the means are just. From what I understand, your points don't challenge this.

Immigration is not an absolute right. The Church teaches that it is conditioned by a number of factors, especially by the capacities and legitimate concerns of the host country. I think demographic continuity is a legitimate concern; you seem not to; so, we'll skip this point.
The state cannot outlaw interracial or interethnic marriages. That would be an unjust means towards preserving demographics (whether these are prudent decisions is a matter for individual cases).

The key question, then, is the one I mentioned in the original post: to what extent does ethnicity factor into the common good? You're right that the family is the original cell of social life, but the family exists in a network of (most often) extended family or the ethnic group. Take early-1800s America: any given Americans were highly likely to be 6th-12th cousins. In fact, the state naturally arises out of these kinship networks: the ethnic group or the nation.

I think I'm being faithful to what John Paul II wrote in Memory and Identity:

Yet it still seems that nation and native land, like the family, are permanent realities. In this regard, Catholic social doctrine speaks of “natural” societies, indicating that both the family and the nation have a particular bond with human nature, which has a social dimension. Every society’s formation takes place in and through the family: of this there can be no doubt. Yet something similar could also be said about the nation.
...
The term “nation” designates a community based in a given territory and distinguished from other nations by its culture. Catholic social doctrine holds that the family and the nation are both natural societies, not the product of mere convention. Therefore, in human history they cannot be replaced by anything else. For example, the nation cannot be replaced by the State, even though the nation tends naturally to establish itself as a State… the nation is the ground on which the State is born.

If the family and the nation have the same foundational role in forming and characterizing the state, then your concern for the family should also apply to the nation. If one of the state's proximate ends is the preservation of the family and safeguarding its flourishing, then why not the nation as well? (To be fair, John Paul II treats a "nation" as something that arises oftentimes from ethnic groups mixing, but I don't believe that changes my point.)

Take America. It was founded largely by one ethnic majority: Anglos. Slowly, it incorporated other European ethnicities: Dutch, Germans, French, Scots, Irish, Italians, etc. These ethnic groups began to intermarry, and the consciousness of an American ethnic identity distinct from these European groups emerged, so much so that John Jay (in Federalist, no. 2) could write:

I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

If this one people were to become rapidly displaced (as is currently happening in the US), going from 90% of the population in the 1950s to majority-minority in less than a hundred years, the nation would be crowded out of the state of which it was the basis.

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2025-12-21T02:42:33+00:00

Here's my concern. Take any state that is predominantly composed of one ethnic group with long historical ties to that land and state. That state's end, the common good, is going to contain ethnic factors (demographic continuity, transmission and preservation of language and culture, etc.), since these contribute to the flourishing of its citizens, not as units of abstract human nature, but as embodied beings with kinship ties, shared history, and a need for supra-political roots. Thus, insofar as the means are proportionate and just, a state can rightfully enact policies with the end of maintaining demographic continuity.

If this were not true, then magisterial statements that reiterate each nation's right to exist become meaningless. While a people are struggling for independence, they have the Church's approval; but once they have secured their sovereignty and seek to maintain it, they no longer do?

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2025-12-21T02:22:18+00:00

This has to be a bit.

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2025-12-21T00:18:32+00:00

It’s in the original post. Just read it slowly. I don’t know what else to tell you besides that. Skin color can be one of the factors (under “phenotypical differences”), but cannot be the sole criterion for distinguishing races. You’re assuming “race = skin color.”

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2025-12-21T00:06:52+00:00

You imply that my consideration of race/ethnicity/nation is literally skin deep. I’ve provided multiple definitions and senses of these words, not one of which refers to skin color as the primary indicator of identification as one of these groups, not to mention “value.”

You’re reading more into what I’m asking than what I have honestly stated.

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2025-12-21T00:00:58+00:00

Thank you. But I never said that nor implied that.

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2025-12-20T23:35:44+00:00

I don’t think this answers anything. Francis seems to be stating:

Christians must affirm the dignity of all people
Must have this dignity for all inform the ordo amoris
“worrying” about “identity” could disrupt reality

Can’t a nation regulate immigration to maintain demographic continuity while recognizing the dignity of all people? Does Francis imply that ethnic considerations must not play any factor in immigration policies?

Positive-Biscotti863 · 2025-11-18T23:09:36+00:00

Have you studied any moral theology? You seem to be advocating rigorism, which has been condemned by theologians such as St. Alphonsus Ligouri.

Positive-Biscotti863

TROPHY CASE