Yes, but I was taught as a Lutheran to believe that the communion of saints is like the invisible church and it certainly didn’t include any saints in heaven. If you do some research you will see that there is a different definition of communion of saints. (I was educated in Lutheran schools and am a convert).
Jon, you may be a different type of Lutheran, but I was raised LCA and in Missouri Synod schools later before I converted to the Church because I just didn’t see the reason for having a separate church after the Reformation was such ancient history and I started reading the church fathers and realized I had been mistaught a lot of things. In MS high school, and by my family, it was made clear to me that the corpus on the cross was a horrible thing. When you say crucifix, I am assuming you mean a cross with a corpus - I don’t think most Lutherans would agree with you in embracing it.
This is true, but what difference would it make since Lutheranism does not recognize absolution as a sacrament? (I am Lutheran convert to Catholic Church).
And frustrated when I meet with some inflexible people that tell me I don’t know what I believe. All the best to all!That it lacks a physical element does not mean it isn’t important, even vital. The Lutheran Confessions make that clear. In addition, Lutherans are not dogmatic about whether or not Confession/Holy Absolution is a sacrament. In fact, one can make the argument from Augsburg that it is, and some Lutherans do.
I was raised LCA by an LCA pastor. The truly sad thing about American Lutheranism is, as Triune Unity said earlier, heavy influence of Protestantism, evangelical to reformed (union churches).
And I was taught the the Communion of Saints is both the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant.
I actually like the reception part!
In Anglicanism many would say that the Body and Blood are there objectively, but we receive them by faith. So like any sacrament, we must assent to participate in it to the level we are able to offer assent and understanding.
Don’t Catholics believe that it is not actually the power of the Priest forgiving you but GOD?
The Augsburg Confessions was not the exclusive writing of Luther, neither was it’s Apology. The Small and Large Catechisms, and the Smalkald Articles are Luther’s. We hold to Augsburg because we believe it to be a true reflection of scripture.
The comment about " a book of straw" was in his first preface to James, but not in later ones. In addition, the comment is only half correct. He said: “In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.”
I agree with it. As cradle catholic I was poor catechisis. And many catholic don’t believe that Holy Eucharist is real Jesus there. Some of them said that only symbolic. And many catholic go to the mass for only as “obligation”. They don’t really understand what the mass really means. Only with God’s grace I can understand my catholic faith more. and I’m always proud of being catholic.
The Augsburg Confessions was not the exclusive writing of Luther, neither was it’s Apology. The Small and Large Catechisms, and the Smalkald Articles are Luther’s. We hold to Augsburg because we believe it to be a true reflection of scripture.
Greetings Jon and blessings to you this season of Lent; I was following Bluegoats post and tried to grasp a Lutherans perspective here; What I don’t understand is Augustine or Thomas, or any other Catholic Theologian never set out to invent his own Church community of believers outside of the Catholic Church, as Luther did? So I would have to disagree with Bluegoats analogy, it does not fit Luther’s case in any respect to the other Catholic theologians who never seperated themselves from the Magisterium as Luther did.
My brother Jon I must respectively disagree on the grounds that Luther introduced his new theology of christianity practice and interpretation which conflicted with the Apostolic Catholic Traditional teachings, such as “Sola scriptura” which denies Apostolic Oral Traditional teachings that were practiced prior to the bible books being canonized. In other words Luther’s Sola Scriptura denies any Apostolic Tradition, when scripture specifies both Apostolic Tradition and Scripture.
Lutherans holding to a new Sola Scriptura is an invention from Luther himself. This is Lutheran’s foundation built upon Sola Scriptura. I learned recently today that now Sola Scriptura carries with it different view points, teachings and understandings other than the one introduced by Luther himself. In any case Lutheran’s follow this new teaching from Luther himself. I don’t understand why Lutherans deny following Luther’s new interpretations of the bible, from a new theology of Sola Scriptura and the others which followed Sola fide, Sola Gratia.
Can you help me understand this dilema? Luther introduced an new way of biblical interpretations which never existed until Luther revealed them, of which Lutherans today call a “biblical interpretation” of Luther (augsburg confessions for example) to be biblical, but do not meet the orginal Apostolic Oral or Written biblical interpretations.
Peace be with you
What do you understand sola scriptura? Luther did not understand this in the same way some more modern Protestants do, which seems to cause confusion sometimes.My brother Jon I must respectively disagree on the grounds that Luther introduced his new theology of christianity practice and interpretation which conflicted with the Apostolic Catholic Traditional teachings, such as “Sola scriptura” which denies Apostolic Oral Traditional teachings that were practiced prior to the bible books being canonized. In other words Luther’s Sola Scriptura denies any Apostolic Tradition, when scripture specifies both Apostolic Tradition and Scripture.
Lutherans holding to a new Sola Scriptura is an invention from Luther himself. This is Lutheran’s foundation built upon Sola Scriptura. I learned recently today that now Sola Scriptura carries with it different view points, teachings and understandings other than the one introduced by Luther himself. In any case Lutheran’s follow this new teaching from Luther himself. I don’t understand why Lutherans deny following Luther’s new interpretations of the bible, from a new theology of Sola Scriptura and the others which followed Sola fide, Sola Gratia.
Can you help me understand this dilema? Luther introduced an new way of biblical interpretations which never existed until Luther revealed them, of which Lutherans today call a “biblical interpretation” of Luther (augsburg confessions for example) to be biblical, but do not meet the orginal Apostolic Oral or Written biblical interpretations.
Peace be with you
Hi Gabriel,
As a matter of fact, Lutherans (at least at one time) were very scrupulous about not receiving unless they felt they were minimally worthy of it.
I won’t receive if I’ve missed the order of public confession / Holy Absolution.