Differences Lutherans vs Catholics

[Genesius]

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

No, what I was getting at, is that I believe although in reality there probably is little difference between trans and con, the proper understanding is trans since that definition came prior to con and came from the very Church that developed the understanding. But again, it’s all a mystery. Even as a Catholic convert, everytime I approach the blessed blood and body I pray, “Lord, I’m with Peter. I don’t fully understand this mystery. But you have taught it and I accept it by faith. May your grace empower me through this blessed sacrament.”

 

[LCMS_No_More]

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

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.

On this I heartily agree. I think both sides were rather heavy handed in their ways of handling problems and we’re still dealing with the fallout. Frankly, I think Luther’s calls for reformation were important, but I also think that there is a problem with poor catechesis in the Church. Either what Luther understood about original sin, how one sins and the power of sacramental confession were wrong before his change of heart or he was suffered an extreme, almost pathological form of scrupulosity that only his change of beliefs could relieve.

Imagine that. Having read Luther’s own words on the matter, I, who also suffer scrupulosity, can completely understand where Luther was coming from. He would question whether his confession really “took” because he wasn’t sure he was penitent “enough” or that he could mortally sin without consent of the will. Those are all symptoms of scrupulosity.

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.

That’s how I understood it from the people I knew at the time. I was personally ready to accept it as a full Sacrament when I was Lutheran and celebrated it frequently with my pastor using the old Red Hymnal’s confession service format (TLH pages 46-49).

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.

Considering the liturgical protestants have ceremonials for all seven Sacraments, while calling Matrimony, Confirmation, Orders, Confession/Absolution and Anointing of the Sick something else, they are all recognized as important in one form or another. When I became Lutheran, I could not receive communion until after I was confirmed.
Going from Lutheran to Catholic, I was ready rather quickly to accept all seven as sacraments once they were explained to me properly.

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

Of course, you are right about Orthodox Sacraments being considered valid by Catholics. I knew that and didn’t word it right, my mistake.

 

[fred_conty]

Aha intersting.
So it is indeed very similar to the real presence in the CC.?

Except that a consecrated host itself is not the real presence? At least this is what I read here somewhen somewhere here in CAF. (So there is no monstrance where you can pray in front of etc).

Esdra

The CC believes in a real change from wheat bread into the body of Jesus and calls it transubstantiation (substance change). The LC believes in a real addition of the body of Jesus to the wheat bread and calls it consubstantiation (substance added). So CC believes that only one substance is present after the words and LC believes that two substances are present after the words. But the real question is by what authority does anyone have to make Christ present in the Eucharist? Does anyone have this power? If not anyone then how is this power obtained and on whose authority? This is the most important point of this discussion if we are to know whether Jesus is really there. This open up a whole new discussion.

 

[Genesius]

The CC believes in a real change from wheat bread into the body of Jesus and calls it transubstantiation (substance change). The LC believes in a real addition of the body of Jesus to the wheat bread and calls it consubstantiation (substance added). So CC believes that only one substance is present after the words and LC believes that two substances are present after the words. But the real question is by what authority does anyone have to make Christ present in the Eucharist? Does anyone have this power? If not anyone then how is this power obtained and on whose authority? This is the most important point of this discussion if we are to know whether Jesus is really there. This open up a whole new discussion.

Right…a whole new discussion…perhaps for a whole new thread? This is a thread about the differences between Catholics and Lutherans…not necessarily debating the reasons for those differences as that could turn into many many subthreads. I see this thread simply as information exchange. I could be wrong, though.

Not that I disagree with you on your point, though. I just am not sure this is the place to debate it.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Hi folks,

yesterday I had a very intersting discussion with my dad about the Lutherans.
My dad is so to speak a cafeterian Catholic who is strongly influence by protestant (especially Luther’s) theology.

We were discussing about the main differences between Lutherans and Catholics and came to the conclusion that the differnces are in fact, astonishingly, small:

Lutherans:

reject the primacy of the pope,

reject Mary’s dogmas,

reject invoking (asking them to help them) saints and Mary,

and have a completely different view of death: no purgatory, no praying for the saints;
a Lutheran funeral is more for the people leaving behind and not for the dead (like it is among Catholics) -* By the way: this is also true for my “Baptist” Church (EFKI *- “Evangelical Free Church”). ****

What else could be added to my list?
Please feel free to participate!

Esdra

Does the Luthern believe in OSAS(once save always save

 

[IowaJay]

Does the Luthern believe in OSAS(once save always save

No. Article XII of the Augsburg Confession, among other Lutheran documents, reject OSAS.

 

[Esdra]

Does the Luthern believe in OSAS(once save always save)?

No, this is typical of Reformed Evangelical Churches (like the Presbyterians).

This is so because Calvin/Zwinglis first Reformed Evangelical Church in Switzerland had been persecuted quite severly by the Catholic Church ( I have heard once on a documentation about Calvin on TV).

Esdra

 

[Newbie2]

I am not sure about confession.
At least this sacrament isn’t like the Catholic’s.

To Lutherans:
Confession and the Lutheran Church would really interest me!

Esdra

Confession in the LCMS is very much like the CC. The biggest difference is that it is done face to face with the pastor instead of in the confessional. At least that is how it was when I was a LCMS member and went to confession.

Yep, Lutherans have two sacraments: Lord’s Supper/Communion and Baptism. Confession/Reconciliation is not a Sacrament in Lutheranism.

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.

However, “they” don’t consider marriage to be a Sacrament.

As well, it’s the “office of the Pope” that is considered to be the AntiChrist, not the Pope himself who happens to be occupying the office at any particular time. Yeah, that’s confusing to me too; we’re used to the AntiChrist being a “being” rather than an “office” or “organization”.

Tricky definition; if Catholics follow the Magisterium, by Lutheran definition we are following the AntiChrist, yet few if any Lutherans I know would consider Catholics as Satan-followers.

 

[IowaJay]

Yep, Lutherans have two sacraments: Lord’s Supper/Communion and Baptism. Confession/Reconciliation is not a Sacrament in Lutheranism.

However, “they” don’t consider marriage to be a Sacrament.

I don’t blame Catholics for misunderstanding the Lutheran teaching on the number of sacraments wrong when the vast majority of Lutherans don’t know what our confessional documents teach regarding the number of sacraments.

Here’s a link to the relevant portion of Melanchthon’s Apology (or Defense) of the Augsburg Confession:

bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php

Confession is definitively labeled as a sacrament.

Marriage is discussed, and while he does not list it among the “big 3” (baptism/communion/confession), he does not rule it out as a sacrament, either. His point is two-fold: (1) The case for the sacramental nature of marriage is not as strong as the “big 3”, and (2) The sacramental qualities of marriage can be found in other things beyond the 7 defined sacraments. So if the list of sacraments is going to include things beyond the “big 3”, he implies that other things beyond the list of 7 recognized Catholic sacraments should be considered sacraments as well.

 

[JonNC]

=fred conty;7384655]The CC believes in a real change from wheat bread into the body of Jesus and calls it transubstantiation (substance change). The LC believes in a real addition of the body of Jesus to the wheat bread and calls it consubstantiation (substance added). So CC believes that only one substance is present after the words and LC believes that two substances are present after the words.

I’m not convinced that I weould describe the real presence the way you say we do. Melanchthon in the APology to the Augsburg Confession does not refer to it in this way, and we certainly don’t call it Consubstantiation.

…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.

But the real question is by what authority does anyone have to make Christ present in the Eucharist? Does anyone have this power? If not anyone then how is this power obtained and on whose authority? This is the most important point of this discussion if we are to know whether Jesus is really there. This open up a whole new discussion.

On this I absolutely agree. The words of Christ in the accounts of the Last Supper are quite clear, in which He states that the bread is His body, and the wine is His blood. Regardless of how humans choose to explain or express it - Consubstantiation, impanation, Transubstantiation, or Sacramental Union - Christ’s words tell us - “this is my body”.

JOn

 

[pablope]

I don’t blame Catholics for misunderstanding the Lutheran teaching on the number of sacraments wrong when the vast majority of Lutherans don’t know what our confessional documents teach regarding the number of sacraments.

as the “big 3”, and (2) The sacramental qualities of marriage can be found in other things beyond the 7 defined sacraments.

So if the list of sacraments is going to include things beyond the “big 3”, he implies that other things beyond the list of 7 recognized Catholic sacraments should be considered sacraments as well.

If there are additional things that should be considered sacraments beyond the 7 Catholic Sacraments, what would these be? Could you cite or provide examples?

And if there are, why where these not made part of the Lutheran sacraments, even if considered minor ones?

 

[JonNC]

If there are additional things that should be considered sacraments beyond the 7 Catholic Sacraments, what would these be? Could you cite or provide examples?

And if there are, why where these not made part of the Lutheran sacraments, even if considered minor ones?

The Lutheran definition of “sacrament” is narrower. From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

“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.”

Instituted by God, with a promise of Grace attached. Some Lutherans will even look for a physical element, such as water in Baptism, and bread and wine in the Eucharist, and by that definition you will see some Lutherans speak of only 2, including confession/Absolution as part of Baptism.

Jon

 

[IowaJay]

If there are additional things that should be considered sacraments beyond the 7 Catholic Sacraments, what would these be? Could you cite or provide examples?

And if there are, why where these not made part of the Lutheran sacraments, even if considered minor ones?

The Melanchthon document I linked above indicates that things like prayer would also be sacraments if a broader definition of a sacrament is used.

Essentially, what the Reformers were saying is that the “big 3” are explicity commanded by the Lord in the New Testament, so those are the things that can truly and undeniably called sacraments.

His second point, regarding the possible greater number of sacraments, is related to the underlying purpose of the Augsburg Confession and the Apology to the AC. The AC, out of all the Reformation-era documents, is intentionally the most conciliatory and the most “Catholic” - it was drafted in order to convince the Holy Roman Emperor that the faith of the Lutheran Reformers was not outside of the boundaries of Catholicism. That is why there was much discussion in the 1970s within the RC Church (including none other than Joseph Ratzinger) about recognizing the AC as an authentic expression of the Catholic faith.

So, in an effort to reunite the church, Melancthon was indicating that there was a willingness among the Reformers to acknowledge the existence of a broader definition of the word “Sacrament” which would encompass more than the “big 3.” Melanchthon’s follow-up point, though, is that if a broader definition is used, there is no reason to limit the number of sacraments to 7. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, that is analagous to the Eastern Orthodox position - they recognize 7 sacraments, but have not dogmatically limited the number of sacraments to 7.

As we all know, the AC did not succeed in reuniting the Reformers with Rome in 1530. Subsequently, Lutherans have not gone with the possible broader definition of a sacrament alluded to by Melanchthon, and have traditionally gone with the more narrow definition of a sacrament, which leads to 2 or 3 sacraments (depending on whehter absolution is combined with baptism, as JonNC mentioned).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not a Melanchton fan. If I were Lutheran, his forumularies and opinions would probably weigh little with me. His slight departures from Luther’s formulations on the Eucharist are troubling to me. I think I could identify with Luther’s frustration and anger over Melancthon’s change of the Augsburg Confession wording in the 1540 variata edition that dropped the description of the Eucharist from “substantially present” and changed “shown forth” to “distributed.” Melancthon, on the plus side, wanted a united Protestant Church, but on the negative was willing to sell some Lutheran key doctrine away to make nice with guys like Bucer. Anyone associated with Martin Bucer (like Thomas Cranmer!) always seem to come out less pious and catholic than before. The guy was not a good influence.

I’m not convinced that I weould describe the real presence the way you say we do. Melanchthon in the APology to the Augsburg Confession does not refer to it in this way, and we certainly don’t call it Consubstantiation.

On this I absolutely agree. The words of Christ in the accounts of the Last Supper are quite clear, in which He states that the bread is His body, and the wine is His blood. Regardless of how humans choose to explain or express it - Consubstantiation, impanation, Transubstantiation, or Sacramental Union - Christ’s words tell us - “this is my body”.

JOn

 

[Esdra]

The Lutheran definition of “sacrament” is narrower. From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

Instituted by God, with a promise of Grace attached. Some Lutherans will even look for a physical element, such as water in Baptism, and bread and wine in the Eucharist, and by that definition you will see some Lutherans speak of only 2, including confession/Absolution as part of Baptism.

 

[IowaJay]

I’m not a Melanchton fan. If I were Lutheran, his forumularies and opinions would probably weigh little with me. His slight departures from Luther’s formulations on the Eucharist are troubling to me. I think I could identify with Luther’s frustration and anger over Melancthon’s change of the Augsburg Confession wording in the 1540 variata edition that dropped the description of the Eucharist from “substantially present” and changed “shown forth” to “distributed.” Melancthon, on the plus side, wanted a united Protestant Church, but on the negative was willing to sell some Lutheran key doctrine away to make nice with guys like Bucer. Anyone associated with Martin Bucer (like Thomas Cranmer!) always seem to come out less pious and catholic than before. The guy was not a good influence.

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.

 

[JonNC]

Hi

I have written to a SDA lately here on CAF and he stated that the washing of feet is also a sacrament (together with baptism and the Lord’s Supper) as it is to be found in the Bible and he quoted John 13:1-16.

He said that all these are found expilictely in the Bible (all others from the 7 Catholic ones aren’t).

I mean, I can agree on Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as a sacrament, but washing of feet? → No.

What do you think of that?

Esdra

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

 

[Newbie2]

I don’t blame Catholics for misunderstanding the Lutheran teaching on the number of sacraments wrong when the vast majority of Lutherans don’t know what our confessional documents teach regarding the number of sacraments.

Here’s a link to the relevant portion of Melanchthon’s Apology (or Defense) of the Augsburg Confession:

bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php

Confession is definitively labeled as a sacrament.

Marriage is discussed, and while he does not list it among the “big 3” (baptism/communion/confession), he does not rule it out as a sacrament, either. His point is two-fold: (1) The case for the sacramental nature of marriage is not as strong as the “big 3”, and (2) The sacramental qualities of marriage can be found in other things beyond the 7 defined sacraments. So if the list of sacraments is going to include things beyond the “big 3”, he implies that other things beyond the list of 7 recognized Catholic sacraments should be considered sacraments as well.

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.

 

[Esdra]

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.

Hi

yeah, me too. I’ve also read/learned that there are only 2 sacraments…

I was wondering myself (see post above!).

Could that be that there are differences in the Lutheran Churches themselves? * (I only got to know that by the way [that there is more than one Lutheran Church] through this forum! )*

Esdra

 

[JonNC]

I’m not a Melanchton fan. If I were Lutheran, his forumularies and opinions would probably weigh little with me. His slight departures from Luther’s formulations on the Eucharist are troubling to me. I think I could identify with Luther’s frustration and anger over Melancthon’s change of the Augsburg Confession wording in the 1540 variata edition that dropped the description of the Eucharist from “substantially present” and changed “shown forth” to “distributed.” Melancthon, on the plus side, wanted a united Protestant Church, but on the negative was willing to sell some Lutheran key doctrine away to make nice with guys like Bucer. Anyone associated with Martin Bucer (like Thomas Cranmer!) always seem to come out less pious and catholic than before. The guy was not a good influence.

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