Differences Lutherans vs Catholics

[Mikeoffaith]

On AS, the confessions demonstrate a desire that it be continued, but you are correct, not crucial, as we consider it a human tradition. On the Eucharist, I share your concern. To say that Christ’s intent for the Eucharist is clearly stated - to eat and drink - that should not leave us with the impressionn that His presence comes and goes. Lutheran practice, as far as I can tell, is moving toward being certain that all of the consecrated elements are consumed during the sacramental act, except what is reserved for the sick and shut-ins.

Hi Jon-

In my congregation (ELCA) the practice has always been to consume anything left over. And even when I was growing up and serving as an acolyte in my home congregation (ALC), the practice was always to consume anything left and I remember it always being very reverent and really sort of a special moment.

 

[Genesius]

Mikeoffaith, ELCA was my last stop before converting. That’s saying a lot considering that in my formidable years I was basically raised Baptist.

To Jon, I have a question about Consubstantiation. For some reason I had the impression that “in, with, and under” was a phrase somehow associated with the Lutheran view. It may have been Luther himself that defined it that way, I can’t remember. If it’s not associated with Lutheranism I wonder how I got that impression? I had heard it somewhere from a pretty reliable source.

It’s also important to note the different Lutheran Synods. ELCA is a more liberal branch, whereas Missouri Synod is conservative (or perhaps moderate), and Wisconsin Synod are the fundamentalists. I’m sure that in some ways they all share similar beliefs, but in other ways they are worlds apart.

It really helped me in my journey to understand the Lutheran denomination by comparing it to my Baptist brethren. Same with Baptists. They have the liberal branch (i.e. American Baptist), Conservative or moderate Baptists, and the Fundamental Baptists (most call themselves Independent Fundamental Baptist). I had explored each one of them. I visited all three branches of Lutherans, and although I am more of a conservative I landed in the ELCA mostly just because I liked the pastor there. I know…not a real good reason, but it wasn’t just me involved in the decision. I was buried…er…I mean married at the time…LOL

 

[Genesius]

sola fide. We are justified by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone.

Not to start a debate, Jon, but that statement somehow seems contradictory. “Alone” by virtue of it’s nature cannot be accompanied by anything else. We cannot be justified by grace ALONE through faith ALONE because it’s faith accompanied by grace, even from a sola fide standpoint. This is one of those issues that I believe comes down to a simple matter of semantics, though some of my Catholic brethren would argue the point. I can’t think of one non-Catholic Christian I have ever known that would reject the idea that works play a significant part in the life of the believer; how one relates to one’s God and fellow human being is the pinnacle of Christ’s message.

I think some would say we disagree on the justification issue. Again, not sure we do. Think it’s all just misconceptions and semantics. Just my humble opinion.

 

[JonNC]

Mikeoffaith, ELCA was my last stop before converting. That’s saying a lot considering that in my formidable years I was basically raised Baptist.

To Jon, I have a question about Consubstantiation. For some reason I had the impression that “in, with, and under” was a phrase somehow associated with the Lutheran view. It may have been Luther himself that defined it that way, I can’t remember. If it’s not associated with Lutheranism I wonder how I got that impression? I had heard it somewhere from a pretty reliable source.

It’s also important to note the different Lutheran Synods. ELCA is a more liberal branch, whereas Missouri Synod is conservative (or perhaps moderate), and Wisconsin Synod are the fundamentalists. I’m sure that in some ways they all share similar beliefs, but in other ways they are worlds apart.

It really helped me in my journey to understand the Lutheran denomination by comparing it to my Baptist brethren. Same with Baptists. They have the liberal branch (i.e. American Baptist), Conservative or moderate Baptists, and the Fundamental Baptists (most call themselves Independent Fundamental Baptist). I had explored each one of them. I visited all three branches of Lutherans, and although I am more of a conservative I landed in the ELCA mostly just because I liked the pastor there. I know…not a real good reason, but it wasn’t just me involved in the decision. I was buried…er…I mean married at the time…LOL

Hi Genesius,
I was born and raised in the LCA/ELCA, and only transferred membership to an LCMS congregation abot 10 years ago. So I feel like I have at least a basic knowledge of our differences. So, with Mike’s help if I stray, let me just say that in most doctrines, we are not world’s apart. The differences often relate to how we view scripture, with the ELCA taking a bit more of a nuanced view of inerrancy, and similarly the confessions. This has led the them to things like ordination of women, and full altar and pulpit fellowship with non-Lutheran groups, such as Moravians and the Episcopal Church. The LCMS’s view on that is the necessity of complete doctrinal agreement before full altar and pulpit fellowship can take place.

Beyond these main issues of contention, both groups - most Lutheran synods - share confession of the Augsburg Confession, it’s apology, and the Small and Large Catechisms, which leads to nearly complete doctrinal agreement, save what I’ve mentioned above.
I might also add, and again Mike and Pastor Gary can correct me if they have a different view, that the liberal presentation by the ELCA leadership is not necessarily held be its members. My dad, an LCA/ELCA pastor, used to complain about the ELCA being a conservative Church with a liberal leadership.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Genesius;7376074]Not to start a debate,

Not a debate, but a spirited and charibable dialogue of our differences, to understnad each others’ positions, and seeking to overcome those differences, with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Jon, but that statement somehow seems contradictory. “Alone” by virtue of it’s nature cannot be accompanied by anything else. We cannot be justified by grace ALONE through faith ALONE because it’s faith accompanied by grace, even from a sola fide standpoint. This is one of those issues that I believe comes down to a simple matter of semantics, though some of my Catholic brethren would argue the point. I can’t think of one non-Catholic Christian I have ever known that would reject the idea that works play a significant part in the life of the believer; how one relates to one’s God and fellow human being is the pinnacle of Christ’s message

The issue, then, seems to be semantics. How do Lutherans use the term “alone” in regards to faith? When we say we are justified by faith alone it is simply to state that not by any efforts on our part, or works we do, or merit we may claim, do we come to justification, but only by grace through faith.
What kind of faith, then? A living faith that works through love. Luther’s preface to Galatians says:

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. *Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. *To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

And the Formula of Concord says:

1. We believe, teach, and confess also that good works should be entirely excluded, just as well in the question concerning salvation as in the article of justification before God, as the apostle testifies with clear words, when he writes as follows: Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin, Rom. 4:6ff And again: By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast, Eph. 2:8-9.

1. We believe, teach, and confess also that all men, but those especially who are born again and renewed by the Holy Ghost, are bound to do good works.

---

1. Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins.

We are justified by faith alone, but that faith cannot be alone. It cannot be a simple statement of belief that does not, in turn, obey the commands of Christ, and work acts of charity and love to our fellowman.

I think some would say we disagree on the justification issue. Again, not sure we do. Think it’s all just misconceptions and semantics. Just my humble opinion.

I think there are some serious discussions that need to take place between our communions regarding justification, and while I don’t mean to make light of the issues that need to be discussed, I do agree with your opinion here.

Jon

 

[gcnuss]

Hi Genesius,
Beyond these main issues of contention, both groups - most Lutheran synods - share confession of the Augsburg Confession, it’s apology, and the Small and Large Catechisms, which leads to nearly complete doctrinal agreement, save what I’ve mentioned above.
I might also add, and again Mike and Pastor Gary can correct me if they have a different view, that the liberal presentation by the ELCA leadership is not necessarily held be its members. My dad, an LCA/ELCA pastor, used to complain about the ELCA being a conservative Church with a liberal leadership.

Jon, you’re right about a disconnect between the ELCA’s leadership and the folks in the pews (and in many of its pulpits). That disconnect is evident in the number of congregations (and individual members and clergy) that have elected to leave the ELCA as a result of the Church-wide Assembly’s decisions on sexuality issues. There are probably many more who simply choose to ignore the ELCA’s policies on those issues and to continue to focus their ministries within their own congregations and communities.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, you’re right about a disconnect between the ELCA’s leadership and the folks in the pews (and in many of its pulpits). That disconnect is evident in the number of congregations (and individual members and clergy) that have elected to leave the ELCA as a result of the Church-wide Assembly’s decisions on sexuality issues. There are probably many more who simply choose to ignore the ELCA’s policies on those issues and to continue to focus their ministries within their own congregations and communities.

Exactly. And this is the experience of my family. My brother, for example, has elected to remain a member of his ELCA congregation (though he designates his offering as excluding any contribution to the synod), and my mother, after 80 plus years a member of ELCA predecessor bodies, back to the ULCA, has resigned her membership.
It is truly a sad circumstance, and those of us who are Lutherans in other synods need to keep our Lutheran siblings in the ELCA in our hearts and prayers.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Genesius;7376063] To Jon, I have a question about Consubstantiation. For some reason I had the impression that “in, with, and under” was a phrase somehow associated with the Lutheran view. It may have been Luther himself that defined it that way, I can’t remember. If it’s not associated with Lutheranism I wonder how I got that impression? I had heard it somewhere from a pretty reliable source.

I neglected to respond to this earlier. “In, with, and under” is the phrase connected to the Lutheran view, called Sacramental Union. It is not, however, consubstantiation. Lutherans reject consubstantiation on similar grounds to our historic rejection of Transubstantiation, as a metphysical attempt to explain the mystery of the real presence.
For me, the best explanation of Lutheran belief regarding the real presence is from the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, which states in part:

we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh.

In other words, Lutherans would say the bread IS the body of Christ. We can and do speak of a change, that the bread is no longer mere bread, but we don’t usually pseak of the bread and “becoming” the body of Christ.

Hope that helps.

Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t see the difference between “in, with, and under” and “consubstantiation?” Con means “with.” So if Jesus’s physical sacramental Body is cohabitating with the bread and under the form of bread and in it, how is “in, with, and under” not the same as consubstantiation? I see no real difference and yet I always notice Lutherans reject the term and seem not to take offense to it but genuinely disagree with the characterzation despite my feeling they are the same? Maybe Jon can address this as he’s far more knowledgable anyday than yours truly about Lutheran beliefs.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t see the difference between “in, with, and under” and “consubstantiation?” Con means “with.” So if Jesus’s physical sacramental Body is cohabitating with the bread and under the form of bread and in it, how is “in, with, and under” not the same as consubstantiation? I see no real difference and yet I always notice Lutherans reject the term and seem not to take offense to it but genuinely disagree with the characterzation despite my feeling they are the same? Maybe Jon can address this as he’s far more knowledgable anyday than yours truly about Lutheran beliefs.

Consubstantiation teaches that the body and blood are alongside the substances of bread and wine. We reject this on a number of grounds, including its metphysical nature. Lutherans teach that the bread and wine ARE the body and blood of Christ. “Sacramental Union” is an attempt to express the nature of the mystery.

Jon

 

[LCMS_No_More]

There are similarities.

They hold the Marian dogmas as adi ofera. One is free to believe them or not. They do not consider it a none factor for salvation.

They do reject the primacy/infallibility of the pope.

The praying of the saints again is more a matter of adi ofera.

They have a invalid priest hood. This leads to a invalid Eucharist. Lutherans would obviously disagree.

Lutherans do not hold all seven sacraments. They if I remember correctly hold three Baptism, the Lords Supper, and confession.I don’t think they hold Marriage as a sacrament. I would have to dig out the Lutheran catechism and check.

If I missed anything or misrepresented I’m sure it will be pointed out. Maybe JohnNC will find this thread as he is very knowledgeable.

I was a member of LCMS which still holds that the Pope is antichrist (which is, of course, false).

As to the sacraments, officially, Lutherans believe in two (Baptism and the Communion) but one is free to believe in the “half-sacrament” of Confession and Absolution. In reality, they (and all other non-Catholic or Orthodox Christians) only have two valid Sacraments: Baptism and Matrimony.

 

[Genesius]

Hi Genesius,
I was born and raised in the LCA/ELCA, and only transferred membership to an LCMS congregation abot 10 years ago. So I feel like I have at least a basic knowledge of our differences. So, with Mike’s help if I stray, let me just say that in most doctrines, we are not world’s apart. The differences often relate to how we view scripture, with the ELCA taking a bit more of a nuanced view of inerrancy, and similarly the confessions. This has led the them to things like ordination of women, and full altar and pulpit fellowship with non-Lutheran groups, such as Moravians and the Episcopal Church. The LCMS’s view on that is the necessity of complete doctrinal agreement before full altar and pulpit fellowship can take place.

Beyond these main issues of contention, both groups - most Lutheran synods - share confession of the Augsburg Confession, it’s apology, and the Small and Large Catechisms, which leads to nearly complete doctrinal agreement, save what I’ve mentioned above.
I might also add, and again Mike and Pastor Gary can correct me if they have a different view, that the liberal presentation by the ELCA leadership is not necessarily held be its members. My dad, an LCA/ELCA pastor, used to complain about the ELCA being a conservative Church with a liberal leadership.

Jon

Thanks for clarifying things a bit for me, Jon.

 

[Genesius]

Just to further clarify the definition I remember, “in, with, and under” referred to the idea that the bread and wine were still present, but were somehow intermingled with the body and blood. Again, can’t remember where I heard that, but I remember it to be a fairly reliable source. And again, it may have been Luther’s own thoughts. But then, I also remember as a Lutheran that they believe theology is ever evolving so if they didn’t hold to all of Luther’s original teachings that’s how it was justified. I can understand that considering that at one point Luther actually wanted to remove some of the letters from the NT that Lutherans recognize today as inspired Scripture. In fact, I remember one Lutheran bible that still included the Deuterocanon. Veeeery interesting (in the words of Laugh-In’s famous German…uh, oh…am I giving away my age…LOL).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But the bread is still bread, not transubstantiated so it seems like splitting hairs to me, respectfully. It seems that if the bread is still bread and not wholly Christ and yet also Christ, and the saying you use includes the word “with” then it is “con?”

Consubstantiation teaches that the body and blood are alongside the substances of bread and wine. We reject this on a number of grounds, including its metphysical nature. Lutherans teach that the bread and wine ARE the body and blood of Christ. “Sacramental Union” is an attempt to express the nature of the mystery.

Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m sure guys like Jon can address this but I was of the understanding that they no longer use such polemics that were characteristic of high spirits and a polemical age (the Reformation). I thought they basically just have serious disagreements with the notion of the papacy, infallibility, universal supremacy, and the notion that one must, in order to be a good Christian, be in union with said papacy? I could be wrong…wouldn’t be the first time!

I was a member of LCMS which still holds that the Pope is antichrist (which is, of course, false).

As to the sacraments, officially, Lutherans believe in two (Baptism and the Communion) but one is free to believe in the “half-sacrament” of Confession and Absolution. In reality, they (and all other non-Catholic or Orthodox Christians) only have two valid Sacraments: Baptism and Matrimony.

 

[Genesius]

I think also the “in, with, and under” thing is perhaps just another way of saying the accidents remain?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Exactly. So if the accidents remain and the substance of Christ is present we have consubstantiation?

I think also the “in, with, and under” thing is perhaps just another way of saying the accidents remain?

 

[IowaJay]

I was a member of LCMS which still holds that the Pope is antichrist (which is, of course, false).

As to the sacraments, officially, Lutherans believe in two (Baptism and the Communion) but one is free to believe in the “half-sacrament” of Confession and Absolution. In reality, they (and all other non-Catholic or Orthodox Christians) only have two valid Sacraments: Baptism and Matrimony.

The limit on the number of sacraments which you mention is one of the great misconceptions among Lutherans about what our church “officially” teaches. The Book of Concord does not definitively limit the number of sacraments. If you read Melanchthon’s Apology to the Augsburg Confession, for example, you will see that Lutherans do emphasize those three, but do not necessarily limit the number of sacraments to those three, as he indicates the sacramental nature of ordination, for example, as well as other things. In this respect, I would analogize the Lutheran position on the number of sacraments to Eastern Orthodoxy, which recognizes 7 sacraments, but does not definitively limit the number of sacraments.

 

[JonNC]

But the bread is still bread, not transubstantiated so it seems like splitting hairs to me, respectfully. It seems that if the bread is still bread and not wholly Christ and yet also Christ, and the saying you use includes the word “with” then it is “con?”

The difference in thinking is, Scott, you say the bread is still bread because it is not transubstantiated. That’s an approach to hte mystery we don’t use. We generally don’t say the bread “becomes” the body. We say the bread is His body. Melanchthon says we receive the true and substantial body and blood of Christ with “that which is seen”, the bread and wine. And that’s what you see, taste, feel, smell at a Catholic or Anglican or Lutheran or Orthodox Eucharist. But it is the body and blood of Christ. How is bread and wine body and blood? Christ didn’t say. He only said it is. It is a mystery.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

First,
Let me offer my prayers to you, that you are truly blessed in word and sacrament as a member of the Catholic Church.

=LCMS_No_More;7377912]I was a member of LCMS which still holds that the Pope is antichrist (which is, of course, false).

I agree that the polemic found in the confessions that the papacy is anti-christ is dated, and a stumbling block to unity. That’s not to say that there aren’t still harsh condemnations of the other side, too.

As to the sacraments, officially, Lutherans believe in two (Baptism and the Communion) but one is free to believe in the “half-sacrament” of Confession and Absolution.

Here is what the Apology of the Augsburg Confession says:
“If we define sacraments as ‘rites which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added,’ we can easily determine which are sacraments in the strict sense. By this definition, rites instituted by men are not sacraments in the strict sense since men do not have the authority to promise grace. Hence signs instituted without God’s command are not sure signs of grace, even though they may instruct or admonish the simple folk. The genuine sacraments, therefore, are Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and absolution (which is the sacrament of penitence), for these rites have the commandment of God and the promise of grace, which is the heart of the New Testament.”

Confession/Absolution is not a half-sacrament. Don’t know where you got that language when you were Lutheran.
As Iowa Jay said, the numbering of the sacraments is not the high profile division with Rome that some - even Lutherans - might claim it is.

In reality, they (and all other non-Catholic or Orthodox Christians) only have two valid Sacraments: Baptism and Matrimony

This is the Catholic position regarding those of use who are of communions resulting from the Reformation. As a Catholic, I would not expect you to state otherwise. It will not surprise you when I say that, as a Lutheran, I respectfully disagree.
Your statement regarding Orthodoxy is, from my understanding, incorrect. Rome recognizes the validity of their orders, and therefore their sacraments.

Jon