Catholic vs. Lutheran: Mass

[JonNC]

=Pixie Dust;6355394]Lutherans and Catholics have much in common. I was addressing the idea of schaick “explaining” to his/her Catholic friends something that shouldn’t need to be explained.

Again, I was addressing schaick’s “never letting Jesus … off the cross” comment. The Lutheran church I attended had a crucifix on the wall that one of their parishioners made. I know that Lutherans aren’t opposed to the crucifix as violently as other non-Catholic Christians are.

I was kind of addressing schaick’s comments as well, or at least trying to express my understanding of orthodox Lutheranism. Lutherans should not / cannot be opposed to the crucifix at all, for we, too, preach Christ, and Him crucified.

It was kind of tongue-in-cheek, wishing US a Happy Reformation Day. It was all in good fun. At least, I think it was. My pastor was laughing about it. This was from the same congregation that welcomed my becoming-less-Baptist-by-the-minute self into their midst and showed me what Christian love really looks like. Very different from the judgmental legalism I was used to.

Good. Good-natured fun is a sign of continued healing between our communions.

Jon

 

[TriuneUnity]

[All from Luthers own Statements concerning His Teachings and its Results

all statements taken from Luther’s German and Latin works.

Actually, taken from O Connor, who quotes them horribly out of context and the first is from a letter written against King Henry VIII, which, of course, you fail to provide any context for, either.
[/quote]

 

[schaick]

You do see your fair share of Lutheran churches who do get it and have a crucifix at the alter vs. an empty cross. Some, at least in the LCMS, even practice private Confession and Absolution. I wish my perish did so. Canned corporate confession doesn’t carry the same power as kneeling and confessing your sins individually and receiving absolution.

I bet you could make a confession to your Pastor just make an appointment.

 

[JonNC]

Gabriel of 12;6356077]
Then, Lutherans are not true Lutherans, then; according to Luthers teachings; Here are some quotes from Luther given by a poster crazze in post #82 from the thread “the reformation was based on pride” thread.

“Whoever teaches differently from what I (Luther) have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God and must be a child of Hell.”

and

“I (Luther) will not allow it to be judged by anybody, not even by any of the Angels. For, since I am certain of it, I intend, by means of it, to be your judge and also, that of the Angles; so whoever does not accept my teaching can-not be saved”.

So who is one to believe Luther himself, Lutherans or Lutherans of late? that do not follow Lutherans teachngs?

Hello Gabriel,
No Lutheran worth his salt would ever claim to be held to Luther. We are held to scripture, and the Lutheran Confessions. Luther’s beliefs were his own. The hyperbole expressed here must be understood within the time in which it was written, and his tendency to “stick a finger in the eye”, as it were, of the pope.

Do you believe in the communion of Saints as taught by the Ex Cathoilc-monk (Priest) Martin Luther, or do you have a different understanding of the 2000 year old Catholic teaching of the Communion of Saints? Being that you do believe Lutherans do not follow Luther. Is this an oxymoron?

Lutherans believe in the communion of saints, all believes through time, in both the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant. It is not an oxymoron, as evangelical Catholics (Lutherans) have never “followed” Luther.

The Op metioned his/her understanding of Transubstantiation and the True presence. But you mention something different here. What is the difference between the Lutherans belief in the true presence of today in con-substantiation from the Catholic teaching of Transubstantiation?

First, Lutherans do not believe in consubstantiation, or impanation. Lutherans believe in the real presence. We believe that in the Eucharist, we receive the true and substantial body and blood of Christ, with those things that are seen, bread and wine. We make no claim as to the disposition of the accidents and substance of the bread and wine. It is a mystery, and we accept it as such.
Lutherans sometimes use the term Sacramental Union, or “in, with, and under” the bread and wine a an expression of the Truth of His presence, just like Catholics express it with Transubstantiation. But either way, the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, and in no way mere bread and wine.

Jon

 

[schaick]

Then, Lutherans are not true Lutherans, then; according to Luthers teachings; Here are some quotes from Luther given by a poster crazze in post #82 from the thread “the reformation was based on pride” thread.

“Whoever teaches differently from what I (Luther) have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God and must be a child of Hell.”

Luther taught that Scripture was the final authority, so his teaching does end up right back squarely at the Holy Bible.

“I (Luther) will not allow it to be judged by anybody, not even by any of the Angels. For, since I am certain of it, I intend, by means of it, to be your judge and also, that of the Angles; so whoever does not accept my teaching can-not be saved”.

Which is a reference to Bible verse which I posted on that thread.

 

[schaick]

Hello Gabriel,
No Lutheran worth his salt would ever claim to be held to Luther. We are held to scripture, and the Lutheran Confessions. Luther’s beliefs were his own. The hyperbole expressed here must be understood within the time in which it was written, and his tendency to “stick a finger in the eye”, as it were, of the pope.

Absolutely!!!

First, Lutherans do not believe in consubstantiation, or impanation. Lutherans believe in the real presence. We believe that in the Eucharist, we receive the true and substantial body and blood of Christ, with those things that are seen, bread and wine. We make no claim as to the disposition of the accidents and substance of the bread and wine. It is a mystery, and we accept it as such.
Lutherans sometimes use the term Sacramental Union, or “in, with, and under” the bread and wine a an expression of the Truth of His presence, just like Catholics express it with Transubstantiation. But either way, the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, and in no way mere bread and wine.

Jon

My understanding is that the whole process includes consuming the Bread/Body and Wine/Blood.

In other words if the Eucharist falls to the ground it is simply the bread and wine and not the Body and Blood of Jesus.

 

[JonNC]

=schaick;6357354]

My understanding is that the whole process includes consuming the Bread/Body and Wine/Blood.

In other words if the Eucharist falls to the ground it is simply the bread and wine and not the Body and Blood of Jesus.

I find receptionism, as you express it here, to be a most worrisome misunderstanding of sacramental union, because it leads to irreverence of the consecrated elements. Luther would certainly not have considered a dropped host simply bread!! In fact, history reports him dropping to his knees to “lap up” spilled consecrated wine.

Christ did not say “this will be my body when you eat it”. He said, “this IS my body.”
In many ways, we have not stuck with the catholic Luther enough!

Jon

 

[TriuneUnity]

Absolutely!!!

My understanding is that the whole process includes consuming the Bread/Body and Wine/Blood.

In other words if the Eucharist falls to the ground it is simply the bread and wine and not the Body and Blood of Jesus.

We would say that the entire process includes consuming the elements. Without a reception of the elements the sacrament is not being celebrated validly. So, for example, we would not consider the consecration of the host to be valid if it’s done for the sole purpose of eucharistic adoration without eating and drinking. However, that is different than saying the real presence isn’t there.

As to dogmatically stating when the presence is there or how long it remains is beyond our confessions. We are satisfied with simply observing the Lord’s command. Receptionism is troubling, in that it makes the presence dependent on the actions of the communicant, rather than on the promise of the Word.

 

[mark_a]

My understanding is that the whole process includes consuming the Bread/Body and Wine/Blood.

Can you fill in the blanks for me? Bread/Body, Wine/Blood, (blank)/Soul, (blank)/Divinity.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The couple of times I went to an LCMS Lutheran service, I thought it was so odd how they say “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” and they don’t make the sign of the Cross on their heads? I was thinking, “what is objectionable about that?” I suppose it was just an effort by some to ‘de-catholicize’ the Lutheran church. Just an observation. And the other time I went and a lay elder ‘consecrated’ the host, that was indeed strange?

 

[TriuneUnity]

The couple of times I went to an LCMS Lutheran service, I thought it was so odd how they say “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” and they don’t make the sign of the Cross on their heads? I was thinking, “what is objectionable about that?” I suppose it was just an effort by some to ‘de-catholicize’ the Lutheran church. Just an observation. And the other time I went and a lay elder ‘consecrated’ the host, that was indeed strange?

That’s definiely a result of the American evangelicalizing of the Lutheran church. Of course, we would say it isn’t required to make the sign of the cross. However, tis always been strongly encouraged. Elders, yeah… Elders are fine to do it. Usually has to be a situation like the pastor being out of town/sick, etc. It wouldn’t ordinarily happen.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And I suppose you say it’s “fine” because of the “where two or three are gathered in my name there I am” Scriptural reference? Just curious. I have spoken with Lutherans, several actually, who said, “under no circumstances ever can an elder consecrate the host. Only an ordained, accepted pastor do so.” Different strokes for different Lutheran folks

That’s definiely a result of the American evangelicalizing of the Lutheran church. Of course, we would say it isn’t required to make the sign of the cross. However, tis always been strongly encouraged. Elders, yeah… Elders are fine to do it. Usually has to be a situation like the pastor being out of town/sick, etc. It wouldn’t ordinarily happen.

 

[TriuneUnity]

And I suppose you say it’s “fine” because of the “where two or three are gathered in my name there I am” Scriptural reference? Just curious. I have spoken with Lutherans, several actually, who said, “under no circumstances ever can an elder consecrate the host. Only an ordained, accepted pastor do so.” Different strokes for different Lutheran folks

Then they were misinformed as to what our confessions teach on the subject. I would say it’s fine because the validity of the sacrament is based on the promise of Christ to be present when His sacraments are administered according to His institution. An elder shouldn’t do it if a pastor is there. That is an issue of proper church order, however.

 

[jessep28]

You do see some Lutherans make the sign of the cross during the Invocation but it isn’t a widespread practice. There are a lot of things that us Lutherans don’t do because apparently it’s “too Catholic.” Making the sign of the cross and Holy Communion every week are just two examples.

In the LCMS itself, there is a battle I think that’s looming between the conservatives who want to protect the Evangelical Lutheran tradition and more moderate forces who want to adopt a more corporate, megachurch concept. Here are two examples:

Traditional - [youtube.com/watch?v=6qo0V57(name removed by moderator)A](

(name removed by moderator)A) - Grace Lutheran Church in Tulsa

Megachurch - lakepointefamily.com/ - LakePointe Lutheran (?) Church in Hot Sprigs, AK.

This is a good article I ran across yesterday regarding varying doctrine in three LCMS congregations in the Omaha area: reclaimingwalther.org/articles/mjg00001.htm

The couple of times I went to an LCMS Lutheran service, I thought it was so odd how they say “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” and they don’t make the sign of the Cross on their heads? I was thinking, “what is objectionable about that?” I suppose it was just an effort by some to ‘de-catholicize’ the Lutheran church. Just an observation. And the other time I went and a lay elder ‘consecrated’ the host, that was indeed strange?

 

[TriuneUnity]

You do see some Lutherans make the sign of the cross during the Invocation but it isn’t a widespread practice. There are a lot of things that us Lutherans don’t do because apparently it’s “too Catholic.” Making the sign of the cross and Holy Communion every week are just two examples.

Which is ironic, given that the Lutheran reformers themselves were adamant about weekly communion in both kinds and it was the Catholics who usually only received communion twice a year! What a difference anabaptistic American revivalism makes.

 

[RCSoCal]

My, this thread is a bit light on the Lutheran side, and I think some of the implied beliefs that the Catholic posters have suggested for Lutherans are probably incorrect.

Lutherans of course also believe in the Real Presence, and are expected to have confessed and repented of their sins; the latter is not of course done in the same way.

Lutherans also believe in the Body of Christ and the Communion of saints. I’ll have to leave it to a Lutheran to explicate how they are seen to be present in the Eucharist.

I love Prairie Home Companion. The sketch about the Lutheran’s Guide to the Orchestra is also wonderful and hilarious.

Please note that as a convert from Lutheranism to the Church, I learned that although Lutherans refer to the “Communion of Saints” they have a different definition of it. I think it’s in the links provided here.

 

[RCSoCal]

the Lutherans do not celebrate Mass because they reject the entire notion of Mass as a sacrifice and the notion of priesthood to carry out the sacrifice. The celebrate a rite of the Lord’s Supper but outside the context of the Catholic definition of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as participation and making present the sacrifice of Calvary and with it of course the transubstantiation of the substance of bread and wine sacramentally into the substance of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

As a convert from Lutheranism to the Church, I was taught as a Lutheran that the mass as a sacrifice is “wrong” because the sacrifice already occurred on Calvary and we don’t need to “do it again” and “having a person do the sacrifice Jesus already made”. This shows how Lutheranism does not understand the concept of time referenced by the Church. The mass is not “doing the sacrifice again” nor “a person doing the sacrifice Jesus already performed”. As a previous poster indicated, the concept is, in general terms, that all of time is happening at once, and we are present at the original sacrifice made by Jesus. In my research, I have found that this is like the Jewish “memorial” of Passover, in which the seder is a memorial of all past Passovers - and this made sense to me since Jesus was Jew and he would have instituted the Eucharist and explained it in Jewish terms. In my experience, the Lutheran teachers like to be very simple, and this is too complex for them to understand. They have told me that I am wrong, that I do not really believe this because it is impossible to believe this. I have found this simplistic attitude with many of the doctrines. For example, I have explained to Lutheran pastors that I do not “worship” Mary, I show her reverence, and they have told me that I cannot believe this because there is no difference between worship and reverence. As I say, they like to simplify a lot.

 

[RCSoCal]

I may not have the best understanding, but my ears work just fine. When I hear a Catholic bishop talking over and over about the power priests have to heal you physically, spiritually and even to reach into heaven to bring Christ unto the altar–at that point, I’ve heard enough and it was time to leave! I’ve heard similar from other priests in this diocese.

Hi, I think I can shed some light here. As a former Lutheran, I was steeped in the obsession of avoiding having a priest ever doing anything to “interfere” between you and God as an intercessor which was seen as close to idolatry, since it made the priest like God. As a convert to the Church, one of the reasons I converted was that the Lutheran services seemed to me too focused on the personality and preaching ability of the pastor and the mass really does minimize the personality of the priest, in reverence to God. As a Lutheran it wasn’t explained to me that the Church doesn’t think the priest as a man has this power, but that he is an instrument of God’s grace. To me a lot of the disagreements between these 2 churches are just semantics and people trying to justify their position as having left the Church. I don’t know what it is, but all the Lutherans I knew in Lutheran high school and in my family are very anti-Catholic and I think it may be because there is this sense that Catholics are making themselves like little God substitutes. This is not the case at all and I think this all comes from centuries of politically based arguments that somehow got turned into the Lutherans REALLY believing that Catholics think they can play a part in their own salvation that is just as important as God is. You can’t simplify a discussion on justification by faith, grace, works etc.

 

[RCSoCal]

No Communion of Saints isn’t praying to the saints but the celebration of our faith with all the Christians no matter where they are.

LOL!! So yes whether you like it or not we are butting in on everyone’s Mass, Church service and joining in with you in that celebration of our Saviour Jesus Christ!! Think of all those voices praising GOD.

Nope all of us can be saints and sinners!

Yes, as a convert from Lutheranism to the Church, I was taught that when one dies, and is in heaven, he or she cannot see what is going on on Earth. Of course, that is directly in conflict with the scriptures so I guess it contradicts Sola Scriptura .

On the saints thing, I was taught that “we are all saints”. I think you may be confusing that with persons having gone through the canonization process, which the Lutherans would reject. Except of course, there were saints that had been canonized before the Reformation. Another problem! Just like the Bible tells us that the Church will always exist and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, but I was taught that the Church was OK for a while, then got corrupted and so it did kind of become invalid before Luther pointed out those errors but this contradicts scripture too. Anyway, I just saw too many illogical points and that is why I converted. I mean no disrespect to those who still call the Lutheran church their home - I respect their right to do so.

 

[RCSoCal]

Yes, this I think is the biggest difference.

Lutherans believe once is enough.

Please see my other post explaining that the Church does not think it is more than once - it is us being present at Calvary, like “all of time happening at once”. This has its antecedents in the Jewish concept of “memorial” demonstrated at the Passover, which is the basis for the Eucharist. I make such a big deal of explaining this because it really screwed me up and turned me off on religion a bit because many things didn’t make sense and that turned out to be because in my Lutheran education they had very deliberately left a lot of the Church teachings out, both current statements and almost all history prior to the Reformation, and most certainly anything that would make the Lutheran church sound Jewish in any way.