Differences Lutherans vs Catholics

[gurneyhalleck1]

I know. You’re correct. It’s too bad these Reformers went in “stages.” Look at Thomas Cranmer, the Anglican chief architect. The guy started off being a fan of transubstantiation. Then later a real presence. then later a spiritual presence. Then later, no presence. It’s the nature of men trying to decide things of God in a vacuum from Scripture outside of tradition and councils, etc.

One thing I surely appreciate about Lutheranism over Anglicanism where my butt is currently parked right now is that Lutheranism is CONFESSIONAL. Anglicans can’t agree on the weather… The 39 Articles were the closest formularies of confession they ever had but even many today refute or ignore them. Anglo-catholics ignore them completely and some even scorn them.

Not many Lutherans follow the later Melanchthon, but his original 1530 Augsburg Confession (as explained further by the Apology) remains the primary document of the Lutheran faith, along with Luther’s Small Catechism.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’ve been studying the history of the gnesio-Lutherans vs. Phillipists so it’s timely that you mention that, Jon! I concur that I agree with the former rather than the latter as well. It’s fascinating how Lutheranism developed. I never realized the huge contributions of men like Chemnitz. Catholics in here tend to think all of Lutheranism was nothing but Martin Luther and his beliefs and memoirs as the new gospel. Hardly…

Certainly, in other matters regarding the Eucharist, I would tend to side with gnesio-Lutherans than with phillipists, so on that point I would agree. All said, however, his statement in the Apology, for me, has the most sound description of the real presence.
In it, he references scripture, the ECF’s and the Church universal to support his statement that, we receive His body and blood with that which is seen, bread and wine.

Jon

 

[Esdra]

My first question might be what is the promise of grace attached to it?

Would that count as promise of grace?:

“Peter said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, **“If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” **” (Jn 13:8)

My second thought would be that, as Iowa Jay has stated, a broader definition of sacrament could include of acts not often defined as sacrament.

Jon

Jon

I find this thought very interesting. So you can say “nearly everything is a Sacrament in the broader sense”. (exaggerating )
That’s convinient, isn’t it?

 

[JonNC]

Interesting.

I was brought up LCMS Lutheran and was taught all the way through that there were only two…and I thought that I paid pretty close attention.

Honestly, N2, I was too. I suspect in catechesis there is a tendancy to be cautious, for lack of a better term, in the matter. It is only later on, when reading the Apology, and considering the scriptural nature of confession/Absolution, have I come to the position of 3, rather than 2.
Iowa Jay may disagree, but it has always seemed to me that the numbering of the sacraments has never been a particularly contentious issue for Lutherans, whether it be 2, 3, or as the Orthodox say, any number, depending on the definition of sacrament.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Would that count as promise of grace?:

“8 Peter said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, **“If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” **”

I find this thought very interesting. So you can say “nearly everything is a Sacrament in the broader sense”. (exaggerating )
That’s convinient, isn’t it?

Very exaggerated. Well, it would only be convenient if we were all over the map with what is or isn’t a sacrament.

Jon

 

[Esdra]

My first question might be what is the promise of grace attached to it?

Jon

Or what about Verse 14?

"If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. " (Jn 13:14)

Esdra

 

[JonNC]

Or what about Verse 14?

"If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. " (Jn 13:14)

Esdra

I don’t see a promist of grace here. Verse 8 might be better contended in that way.

Jon

 

[Esdra]

I don’t see a promist of grace here. Verse 8 might be better contended in that way.

Jon

Yeah, you’re probably right. - Verse 8’s better.

But when I think of it: Jn 13:14 sounds somehow like “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”” (Lk 22:19) to me, doesn’t it?

Esdra

 

[JonNC]

Yeah, you’re probably right. - Verse 8’s better.

But when I think of it: Jn 13:14 sounds somehow like “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”” (Lk 22:19) to me, doesn’t it?

Esdra

Looking at what we’re doing in remembrance of Him: Taking and eating - His body and His blood. and in Matthew 26, He says “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Poured out for many. As often as you drink of it. Seems the command is for all.
Others might be able to give a better response to His call that the disciples wash which other’s feet, but this seems more like a call that we serve one another, while the Eucharist is His gift to us.

Jon

 

[IowaJay]

Honestly, N2, I was too. I suspect in catechesis there is a tendancy to be cautious, for lack of a better term, in the matter. It is only later on, when reading the Apology, and considering the scriptural nature of confession/Absolution, have I come to the position of 3, rather than 2.
Iowa Jay may disagree, but it has always seemed to me that the numbering of the sacraments has never been a particularly contentious issue for Lutherans, whether it be 2, 3, or as the Orthodox say, any number, depending on the definition of sacrament.

Jon

I also grew up thinking there were two sacraments. I think that is probably because the Small Catechism is the primary teaching tool of Lutherans, and only baptism and communion are mentioned during the discussion about sacraments. It was only a few years ago when I started reading the Book of Concord that the Reformers were open to the idea that other things might properly be called sacraments. In that respect, I’m kind of partial to the way some Anglicans have dealt with this issue by calling baptism and communion the major sacraments, and calling the others minor sacraments.

 

[Genesius]

I guess I’m missing Melanchton’s logic. If he defines a sacrament as something explicitly commanded by Christ as recorded in Scripture, I don’t see how he could discount Holy Orders since Jesus explicitly sent out the apostles giving them authority to bind and loose on earth and in heaven, as well as gives the “keys to the Kingdom of God” to at least Peter, if not, by some other interpretation the other apostles as well.

I don’t know how much more explicit a “sacrament” has to be according to his definition, nor do I understand how this does NOT fit into his definition of a sacrament?

 

[Newbie2]

Honestly, N2, I was too. I suspect in catechesis there is a tendancy to be cautious, for lack of a better term, in the matter. It is only later on, when reading the Apology, and considering the scriptural nature of confession/Absolution, have I come to the position of 3, rather than 2.
Iowa Jay may disagree, but it has always seemed to me that the numbering of the sacraments has never been a particularly contentious issue for Lutherans, whether it be 2, 3, or as the Orthodox say, any number, depending on the definition of sacrament.

Jon

I also never heard of private confession in the LCMS until I looked into it. I’d been Lutheran for 32 years and ever heard a word of it.

I’d agree that the numbering of the sacraments were/are not really an issue in Lutheranism; the teachings seem to be more concerned about what is not sacramental, probably “leftover” thinking from the reformation.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I also grew up thinking there were two sacraments. I think that is probably because the Small Catechism is the primary teaching tool of Lutherans, and only baptism and communion are mentioned during the discussion about sacraments. It was only a few years ago when I started reading the Book of Concord that the Reformers were open to the idea that other things might properly be called sacraments. In that respect, I’m kind of partial to the way some Anglicans have dealt with this issue by calling baptism and communion the major sacraments, and calling the others minor sacraments.

In one way, that isn’t a bad way of looking at it. While the Church doesn’t make this distinction, think about this…Baptism is the first sacrament of initiation. Without baptism, no other sacrament can be received, making baptism the doorway to the sacramental life…something about being born anew. The Eucharist is called the “source and summit of the Christian life.” While Catholics put more importance on the other five sacraments (particularly confession) than our protestant brethren, the two major liturgical protestant traditions (Anglican and Lutheran) have a ceremonial for all seven, in many ways copying the Church’s ceremonies (logical as the Reformers were all Latin Rite Catholics to start).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It exists in Anglicanism but go around my parish and you won’t talk to one person that has taken advantage of it! The Anglican addage is “all may, some should, none must” and trust me, those Anglicans take advantage of that “none must” category!

So I hear ya!

I also never heard of private confession in the LCMS until I looked into it. I’d been Lutheran for 32 years and ever heard a word of it.

I’d agree that the numbering of the sacraments were/are not really an issue in Lutheranism; the teachings seem to be more concerned about what is not sacramental, probably “leftover” thinking from the reformation.

 

[Senecus]

The absence of the family of Holy Orders is another major difference between the Catholic/Orthodox and the various Lutheran Synods, Churches, etc. Luther, partly in reaction to his negative experience with the Augustinians, decided to throw out the baby with the bath water.

This is resulting in negative consequences for much of the Lutheran Church. First, the practices and liturgies start changing in the majority of churches within the ELCA, followed by a changing theology (e.g., no longer considering same sex activity as immoral and sinful). Yet other changes follow, such as moving from a Liturgical, reverent service to the “feel-good” entertainment of the mega Protestant “Community Churches”.

There are exceptions to the above, mainly within the Wisconsin (WELS) & Missouri Synods (LCMS), but they still don’t have the mechanism of the full range of Holy Orders (and miss the affiliated works and effects thereof).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Holy Orders isn’t the answer to peace and unity. the Old Catholics, Polish National Church, Episcopal Church, and Anglican Church in general has holy orders, and real deep issues. The Anglican Communion is in a total crisis and they have holy orders. The Lutherans are suffering like most other churches. The Catholics have had a rough decade of child abuse scandals, financial issues as a result, and a public credibility gap they need to close. The devil is doing his overtime in all of Christendom…sadly Good thing we already know the outcome of Christ and Satan

The absence of the family of Holy Orders is another major difference between the Catholic/Orthodox and the various Lutheran Synods, Churches, etc. Luther, partly in reaction to his negative experience with the Augustinians, decided to throw out the baby with the bath water.

This is resulting in negative consequences for much of the Lutheran Church. First, the practices and liturgies start changing in the majority of churches within the ELCA, followed by a changing theology (e.g., no longer considering same sex activity as immoral and sinful). Yet other changes follow, such as moving from a Liturgical, reverent service to the “feel-good” entertainment of the mega Protestant “Community Churches”.

There are exceptions to the above, mainly within the Wisconsin (WELS) & Missouri Synods (LCMS), but they still don’t have the mechanism of the full range of Holy Orders (and miss the affiliated works and effects thereof).

 

[Genesius]

Holy Orders isn’t the answer to peace and unity. the Old Catholics, Polish National Church, Episcopal Church, and Anglican Church in general has holy orders, and real deep issues. The Anglican Communion is in a total crisis and they have holy orders. The Lutherans are suffering like most other churches. The Catholics have had a rough decade of child abuse scandals, financial issues as a result, and a public credibility gap they need to close. The devil is doing his overtime in all of Christendom…sadly Good thing we already know the outcome of Christ and Satan

Actually, I had heard somewhere from a reliable source that Anglicans have not had valid holy orders for some time now, although they used to. But they changed some of the way in which they do it from the traditional Catholic method, therefore, unfortunately losing a vital sacrament.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Actually, I had heard somewhere from a reliable source that Anglicans have not had valid holy orders for some time now, although they used to. But they changed some of the way in which they do it from the traditional Catholic method, therefore, unfortunately losing a vital sacrament.

In 1896 Pope Leo XIII released sa bull saying that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void”

concern “Differences Lutherans vs Catholics” I’ve seen epic flame wars erupt when someone bring up On the Jews and Their Lies of which Chapter 15 reads like a how to guide for Nazis, but that is invalid because Lutheranism connected to Martin Luther except by name it seems. Needless to say it never ends well…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

After Pope Leo XIII issued Apostolicae Curae declaring Anglican orders “absolutely null and utterly void,” a series of things took place in the twentieth century. The “Dutch Touch” and “Polish Pat” took place, consecrations with the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht and the PNCC. Both of these were breakoff groups from the Catholic Church in the 19th century. They broke off because they disagreed with papal infallibility and wanted a conciliar form of the faith. But even by the Catholic Church’s admission, the Old Catholics and PNCC retained their apostolic succession. The Anglican Communion had co-consecrations with their bishops re-infusing apostolic succession into the Anglican Church all over the world. It’s hard to find a bishop in the Anglican Communion who doesn’t have a line from the Dutch Touch or Polish Pat. So when posters quote Apostolicae Curae from Leo XIII, they ignore the subsequent developments that followed and complicated what seems to Catholics to be a slam dunk. The Catholic Church has not commented on Anglican orders since Leo because these ordinations change the game field greatly.

GKC, our Anglican expert poster, could speak to this with more detail and substance than I have.

Actually, I had heard somewhere from a reliable source that Anglicans have not had valid holy orders for some time now, although they used to. But they changed some of the way in which they do it from the traditional Catholic method, therefore, unfortunately losing a vital sacrament.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Please see my post above regarding Leo. It’s not fair to try to bring up Luther’s statements against the Jews. The Catholic Church by its own admission and apologies has had its own polemics and violence toward Jews. Lutherans don’t read Luther as an infallible pope and they don’t look even at every theological statement the man made as gospel and required dogma. He was a spark that started a fire, not the entire fire.

In 1896 Pope Leo XIII released sa bull saying that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void”

concern “Differences Lutherans vs Catholics” I’ve seen epic flame wars erupt when someone bring up On the Jews and Their Lies of which Chapter 15 reads like a how to guide for Nazis, but that is invalid because Lutheranism connected to Martin Luther except by name it seems. Needless to say it never ends well…