Differences Lutherans vs Catholics

[Dave_Noonan]

That’s not true, JonNC. The charism of infallibility is in place when all the bishops, in union with the pope, make a declaration. This is precisely the case when the councils or Rome, Hippo and Carthage decided the canon of scripture in the late 4th Century.

If you do some research, you’ll find that Rome, Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical councils at all, but actually synods of bishops. Since the Byzantine bishops either did not participate or had only limited participation in these synods–much less the Churches of the East who had no representation at ALL (and who all have their own varieties of biblical canons that differ from the Latinate canon), the gatherings you refer to don’t qualify as “all bishops in union with the pope.” And if the question of canon had been indisputably settled in the West, the declarations of Trent would not have been necessary.

For the councils recognized as ecumenical by the Catholic Church (and other groups) see

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council

As far as I know, the article is fairly accurate.

 

[Lampo]

If you do some research, you’ll find that Rome, Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical councils at all, but actually synods of bishops. Since the Byzantine bishops either did not participate or had only limited participation in these synods–much less the Churches of the East who had no representation at ALL (and who all have their own varieties of biblical canons that differ from the Latinate canon), the gatherings you refer to don’t qualify as “all bishops in union with the pope.” And if the question of canon had been indisputably settled in the West, the declarations of Trent would not have been necessary.

For the councils recognized as ecumenical by the Catholic Church (and other groups) see

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council

As far as I know, the article is fairly accurate.

I have heard that objection before. That question has been posed to Jimmy Akin on Catholic Answers Live and I forget the details, Jimmy gave an explanation as to why those councils in the late 4th Century were indeed infallible. I will do more research on this.

 

[Genesius]

Although I am not Catholic anymore, I think Lampo ment that Luther rejected the one and other dogma or so, and so became a heretic.

Considering Luther’s Canon, I guess, from the Catholic perspective, he acted outside the CC by calling the Deuteros Apocrypha and put them in the end of the OT. And that there are also Luther’s Bibles that don’t contain them (I have a Luther Bible with and without Deuteros!)

Well, and maybe that Luther also wanted to remove i.e. Hebrew and James as “Apocrypha”. (At least this is what I have read the one or other time here in CAF!

I guess this is partially what I was getting at. The Apocrypha and the DC ***ARE ***distinct, and should not be confused with each other. When one refers to both as “Apocrypha” it’s a train wreck waiting to happen. Again, although Esdra may have known that fact, and maybe even SOME other Protestants (that there are 2 “Apocrypha’s” according to Protestants), I’m not sure that all the people who view these posts do. I think that is a consideration when posting. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, Esdras. I actually did learn something from yours.

Oh, and BTW, MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL, AND TO ALL…well, you know…

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

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.

“Of the Jews and Their Lies” is a particularly dark moment for Luther, and one Lutherans totally reject. Yet without making excuses, it is well to point out that, like most things Luther, he was a product of his time, and anti-judaism was a constant within the Church at that time. Johann Eck, who famously debated Luther, also wrote some rather disturbing anti-judaism things.
I would contend that Lutherans and Catholics join together in condemning both the anti-judaism of Eck’s and Luther’s time, as well as the anti-semitism of the 20th century, and its reimmergence in some quarters today.

Jon

Let reiterate “but that is invalid because Lutheranism connected to Martin Luther except by name it seems”!

 

[Esdra]

“The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [ie., 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,…lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee … Nahum … Habacuc … Sophonias … Aggeus … Zacharias … Malachias … Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books.” Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382).

One question then: If the deuterocanonical Books are canonic, why then are they called DEUTEROcanonical, which means the 2nd Canon?
Why are they not called simply canonical like all the others?

And why in the councils none talked about

Tobit​

Judith​

Wisdom​

Sirach, also called Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus​

Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah​

1 Maccabees​

2 Maccabees​

being DEUTEROcanonical? What happened? I would guess that they later on (some centuries AFTER the three “Canon building” Councils) WERE already considered kind of apocryphal… - And therefore the canon was again approved in the Council of Trent.

By the way: Except Wisdom I’ve never heard any readings in mass. Just to consider…

Esdra

 

[Esdra]

I guess this is partially what I was getting at. The Apocrypha and the DC ***ARE ***distinct, and should not be confused with each other. When one refers to both as “Apocrypha” it’s a train wreck waiting to happen. Again, although Esdra may have known that fact, and maybe even SOME other Protestants (that there are 2 “Apocrypha’s” according to Protestants), I’m not sure that all the people who view these posts do. I think that is a consideration when posting. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, Esdras. I actually did learn something from yours.

Oh, and BTW, MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL, AND TO ALL…well, you know…

Don’t mention it! It was a pleasure to me.

But actually, you are right, except Lutherans, I guess really no other protestant knows that there are “2 different sorts of Apocrypha”.

I have been talking to a brother in Christ (also a Baptist - but from birth on) and he was bewildered, as I mentioned the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books.
He had never heard of the term deuterocanonical books and when I talked about the apocrypha (since he didn’t know anyway what deuteros are) he thought I was talking about the apocrypha of the NT (i.e. The Gospel of Thomas or The Gospel of Peter, which are certainly Gnostic, and therefore not Christian writings!).
I guess he even didn’t know that the Septuagint contained more books than our (Protestant) OT and that some of them are included in EO and CC Bibles as Deuterocanonical Books or are (in the case of the Psalms and Odes of Solomon) Apocrypha.

So, yes, Luther would have done better by not calling the deuterocanonical scriptures Apocrypha… There would be much less confusion among Protestants and Orthodox and Catholics.

Esdra

 

[Genesius]

By the way: Except Wisdom I’ve never heard any readings in mass. Just to consider…

Esdra

I’m not sure how often you go to a Catholic mass, but I have heard readings from Sirach, Wisdom, and one or another of the Maccabees at one time or another. Granted, they don’t show up all that often, but occassionally. However, in all fairness, consider ALL the books in the entire canon, particularly the OT since they are usually (though not always) put in the place of the OT reading (1st reading of the day), and it’s easy to see why only 7 books out of however many other OT books there are that Protestants use (46 Catholic books including the DC), are not used as often as the other 39 throughout the liturgical year.

 

[Esdra]

I’m not sure how often you go to a Catholic mass, but I have heard readings from Sirach, Wisdom, and one or another of the Maccabees at one time or another. Granted, they don’t show up all that often, but occassionally. However, in all fairness, consider ALL the books in the entire canon, particularly the OT since they are usually (though not always) put in the place of the OT reading (1st reading of the day), and it’s easy to see why only 7 books out of however many other OT books there are that Protestants use (46 Catholic books including the DC), are not used as often as the other 39 throughout the liturgical year.

hi

yes it could be that Ben Sirach was also read during mass in our parish.
Concerning the Book of Maccabees I am not sure - At least I haven’t heard them been read…

Well, to answer your question: in the meantime I go seldom to Catholic mass (only when there is no service on Sunday in my Baptist Church I usually go to mass on Saturday evening…; as I am living only 3 minutes away from our parish-Church. )

I have (as I am studying Russian) a Russian Bible at home and there is a liturgical Calendar in the appendix. They definitely read Wisdom and Ben Sirach (and that quite often!)
But, if I remember correctly, the other Deuterocanonical books are not read [the Russian Orthodox have 4 deuterocanonical books (+1) more (Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Esdras, Psalm 151, 3 Maccabees and 2 Esdras)] in mass.

Esdra

 

[Genesius]

hi

yes it could be that Ben Sirach was also read during mass in our parish.
Concerning the Book of Maccabees I am not sure - At least I haven’t heard them been read…

Well, to answer your question: in the meantime I go seldom to Catholic mass (only when there is no service on Sunday in my Baptist Church I usually go to mass on Saturday evening…; as I am living only 3 minutes away from our parish-Church. )

I have (as I am studying Russian) a Russian Bible at home and there is a liturgical Calendar in the appendix. They definitely read Wisdom and Ben Sirach (and that quite often!)
But, if I remember correctly, the other Deuterocanonical books are not read [the Russian Orthodox have 4 deuterocanonical books (+1) more (Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Esdras, Psalm 151, 3 Maccabees and 2 Esdras)] in mass.

Esdra

Well, there’s your problem…you’re going to an EO or Eastern Rite Catholic instead of a Western Rite (or Latin Rite) Catholic Parish…

Just kidding. I know they have a different DC, but it’s really not that much different. They still retain most of the books in the Latin Rite canon, and if I recall, 1st & 2nd Esdras is in the Latin DC as well.

 

[Esdra]

Well, there’s your problem…you’re going to an EO or Eastern Rite Catholic instead of a Western Rite (or Latin Rite) Catholic Parish…

Just kidding. I know they have a different DC, but it’s really not that much different. They still retain most of the books in the Latin Rite canon, and if I recall, 1st & 2nd Esdras is in the Latin DC as well.

There are no Eastern Catholic parishes in the West of Austria!
Only Roman Catholic, Latin Rite therefore.

Actually I guess that the Eastern Catholic AND the Eastern Orthodox use the same Deuterocanon with the addition in the above.
So I don’t think anything was removed by them.

Did you know that the Greek Orthodox Church uses ALL books of the Septuagint in their Old Testament (except the Psalms and Odes of Solomon which have been dismissed already at the Council of Rome 382; although actually, I don’t really know WHY they were dismissed as pseudoepigrapha…)

Esdra

 

[Genesius]

There are no Eastern Catholic parishes in the West of Austria!
Only Roman Catholic, Latin Rite therefore.

Actually I guess that the Eastern Catholic AND the Eastern Orthodox use the same Deuterocanon with the addition in the above.
So I don’t think anything was removed by them.

Did you know that the Greek Orthodox Church uses ALL books of the Septuagint in their Old Testament (except the Psalms and Odes of Solomon which have been dismissed already at the Council of Rome 382; although actually, I don’t really know WHY they were dismissed as pseudoepigrapha…)

Esdra

My mistake…I didn’t notice the region you were from. That is interesting how they reject the Psalms as pseudoepigrapha?? I don’t know what you mean by the Odes of Solomon. Is that an extrabiblical text or is it just another name for the Song of Solomon that Protestants and Catholics have in our Bibles? :ehh:

 

[Esdra]

My mistake…I didn’t notice the region you were from. That is interesting how they reject the Psalms as pseudoepigrapha?? I don’t know what you mean by the Odes of Solomon. Is that an extrabiblical text or is it just another name for the Song of Solomon that Protestants and Catholics have in our Bibles? :ehh:

Nono, they are not David’s Psalms like you and I know them. Neither have they anything to do with the Song of Solomon

The “Psalms of Solomon” are a collection of Psalms ascribed to King Solomon.

Same thing with the “Odes of Solomon” which are also ascribed to King Solomon.

But the council of Rome (and the 3 before that) judged that these two parts of the LXX (Septuagint) are pseudoepigrapha and therefore they are not contained in ANY Christian Canon.

But atually, I don’t know WHY they were rejected as pseudoepigrapha, since they were (and are) included in the Septuagint which was “the Bible” of the First Christians.

Esdra

 

[Esdra]

My mistake…I didn’t notice the region you were from. That is interesting how they reject the Psalms as pseudoepigrapha?? I don’t know what you mean by the Odes of Solomon. Is that an extrabiblical text or is it just another name for the Song of Solomon that Protestants and Catholics have in our Bibles? :ehh:

My dear friend Genesius,

as you seem to be very intersted in the Deuterocanonical Books vs. The Apocrypha, please have a look for this thread.

I have just started it and I guess it will be very useful for many of our Protestant friends.

Esdra

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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

Hi Jon-

Sorry to be so late in responding. A lot has been going on in my life and my church life. Currently, I’m the president of a congregation without a pastor and we are waiting on an interim. So my team and I have been doing some double duty to make sure that everything is getting covered.

The ELCA definitely has a liberal leadership, but based on my experience with the polity of the ELCA, it should be a direct reflection of what is in the pew. If it truly isn’t, then there is a whole segment of the pew population that has given up it’s responsibility and allowed the entire left side to speak for them. But my experience in my own congregation that while politically conservative my group of blue haired old ladies are liturgically and socially liberal. Go figure, it’s a paradox that I gave up trying to reason years ago.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

Really when did the Orthodox lose their Orders? I was under the impression that even though not in Communion with Rome, their Holy Orders were still valid, therefore all their sacraments are valid as well. Or am I mistaken?

Realistically speaking, I reject your reality of the reality of our sacraments.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

Fred-

I think you have got this wrong. There are not two substances. There is only one. When Christ tells us, “This is” that is exactly what we believe is there in the consecrated host. What the Roman Church believes and what we believe are one in the same. The fact that the Roman Church defines the action or change as transubstantiation is where we disagree. Any good Lutheran will tell you that the bread is the body and that the wine is the the blood, but we can not explain how when we receive the body that we taste, smell and feel bread, or when we drink the blood what we are tasting is a nice merlot. How this is possible is a mystery. But we know that it is true because Christ tells us that “This is…”. We reject any attempt at trying to define this mystery in human terms. Anything we put to trying to explain it or define it in human terms as substance and accidents falls short of what has actually taken place.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

In the strict sense if you add the need to have a physical element, with the command, and promise of grace then yes, we would only limit it to two. And if you eliminate the need for a physical element then that opens the door to Confession and Absolution.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

It’s been a long time since I have read it, but isn’t Confession covered in the Large Catechism?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

Well put Gurney.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Which begs the question then, why couldn’t Baptists or Presbyterians or even Pentecostals call themselves “Lutheran”? Not that they would want to probably. If you name your group after a man who had certain theological ideals, and then toss out some, many, or even all of those ideals, why then would you not just switch denominations, or start following another person and rename your denomination?

Lutheran wasn’t a name we chose, it’s a name we were stuck with. Sure the Baptists, and Presbyterians could call themselves Lutherans or Rome could certainly stick them with the name of Lutheran, but the fact that these bodies would have to ascribe to the Lutheran Confessions may be a problem for them. The point that makes Lutherans Lutheran is the fact that we hold to the Lutheran Confessions (The Augsburg Confession, et al).