Differences Lutherans vs Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Esdra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dave_Noonan said:
If the Catholic standard of infallibility is “the pope teaching in union with all the bishops” then I would say these “councils” (Rome, Hippo and Carthage, if I recall the earlier post) fall very far short of the Catholic standard–but I guess that would be an in-house discussion for Catholics. (What I’m saying is that it seems to me that EVEN by standards internal to the Catholic Church, they don’t qualify as infallible. But not being Catholic, you can correct me on this if I’m misstating the Catholic position on what constitutes an infallible teaching.) I think a restatement of the Roman Catholic canon at Trent further supports that the bishops at Trent didn’t think they were infallible either, since (as far as I know) the decrees don’t even refer to or acknowledge these earlier decisions.

The majority of Christians of the time (ie., non-Roman: Byzantine and the Churches of the East) apparently didn’t accept the decisions of Rome, Hippo and Carthage–if they were even aware of them–but I think it’s reasonable to think they probably were not. If they by some chance they did know about such decisions, then it’s clear that the patriarchs, bishops and the faithful in the Byzantine Church and the Churches of the East rejected such decisions or simply ignored them, since they had biblical canons that differed from the Roman church.
Click to expand...
You very well could be right. I still haven’t found where JA said the early 4th Century Councils were infallible. Maybe I imagined it. Honestly, does it matter if those councils were infallible? The Council of Trent re-affirmed those earlier councils, neither adding or subtracting books from the canon, in determining the canon and did so infallibly.

Are you asserting a fallible determination of the Canon of Scripture?
 
Lampo said:
The word transubstantiation doesn’t attempt to explain *how *this happens. It’s a word to show *what *happens.

Instead of saying, “The bread is no longer bread, but it is Christ’s body. The wine is no longer wine, but it is Christ’s blood.”, the Church says transubstantiation. Similar reasons for the term hypostatic union.
Click to expand...
OK, Lampo, that’s fine. And it is the same for sacramental union. It is an expression of the doctrine of the real presence, reflective of the Hypostatic Union. The mystery remains. We do not know how, upon the words of institution and the power of the Holy Spirit, that bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, but we know they are.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
OK, Lampo, that’s fine. And it is the same for sacramental union. It is an expression of the doctrine of the real presence, reflective of the Hypostatic Union. The mystery remains. We do not know how, upon the words of institution and the power of the Holy Spirit, that bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, but we know they are.

Jon
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like this is an area of agreement between Lutherans and Catholics.
 
Lampo said:
You very well could be right. I still haven’t found where JA said the early 4th Century Councils were infallible. Maybe I imagined it. Honestly, does it matter if those councils were infallible? The Council of Trent re-affirmed those earlier councils, neither adding or subtracting books from the canon, in determining the canon and did so infallibly.

Are you asserting a fallible determination of the Canon of Scripture?
Click to expand...
No, it certainly doesn’t matter to me, except to the extent that if someone’s asserting that councils spoke infallibly on the biblical canon in the fourth century, then that’s really a misrepresentation–unless I misunderstand the Catholic idea of infallible teaching, which as I said, you are certainly free to correct if I’m misstating it. And of course, even if someone were to assert that Rome, Carthage and Hippo were infallible, I would disagree, since representation from the Byzantine Church was spotty at best and representation from the Churches of the East was non-existent. There simply wasn’t a consensus–either then or now.

I guess I often see the rhetoric here at CAF and among Catholic apologists simply reduced to: 1) the early church universally/infallibly agreed on the biblical canon in the fourth century and 2) 1100 years later, Martin Luther “removed books.” (I’m not saying that’s YOUR position, but this seems to be the general gist of the way things go.) To me, this seems to gloss over a lot of facts pretty blithely–to the point where it’s just not correct. The infallible teaching early and prior to Luther seems to often be the linchpin to claims that the contemporary Catholic Church somehow has the “right” biblical canon and those who don’t hold to the Catholic canon are “wrong.” However, this argument is typically applied only to Protestant groups, which to me makes the whole thing come across more like “bashing” than positions of people really interested in finding out the truth. Christians who hold and have always held to a different biblical canon (other than Protestants) don’t often come into the picture at all, even though they constituted the vast majority of the church in the fourth century.

So, from my own perspective, since the universal church has never agreed on a biblical canon (the canon was never “catholic,” in the small-c sense) I’d say that fallibility/infallibility as categories for the biblical canon don’t come into play. Each church has historically chosen what’s sacred to them and for the most part they are in agreement. That’s fine with me. Perhaps someday the universal church will agree on this issue, but I don’t think it will ever happen. But if it would, I would say that that would be an infallible decision.
 
Lampo said:
Sounds to me like this is an area of agreement between Lutherans and Catholics.
Click to expand...
I think that, when we cut to the chase, Lutherans and Catholics are trying to say the same thing. What gets in the way is our insistence (on both sides) that our terms and definitions are the only correct way to express the Real Presence and, so, we end up talking past one another.

I suspect that more important than the terminology describing the Real Presence is the issue of apostolic authority and who defines who is able to confect the Eucharist.
 
Mikeoffaith said:
I actually think we have had three this church year so far.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Revised Common Lectionary (the most commonly used lectionary among Protestant groups that follow a lectionary) has more readings from the deuterocanon than does the Roman Catholic Lectionary. Of course churches may chose alternates, but they are there.
 
JonNC said:
OK, Lampo, that’s fine. And it is the same for sacramental union. It is an expression of the doctrine of the real presence, reflective of the Hypostatic Union. The mystery remains. We do not know how, upon the words of institution and the power of the Holy Spirit, that bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, but we know they are.

Jon
Click to expand...
Hi Jon,

Just a follow up question from Lampo that you may have overlooked.

After the Lutheran service, is it still your belief that whatever is left remains the Real Presence, thus requiring care in handling for the next service? I think you already know the Catholic belief so I will not mention it here.

Pablope
 
pablope said:
Hi Jon,

Just a follow up question from Lampo that you may have overlooked.

After the Lutheran service, is it still your belief that whatever is left remains the Real Presence, thus requiring care in handling for the next service? I think you already know the Catholic belief so I will not mention it here.

Pablope
Click to expand...
Hi, my friend.

Yes, I do know the Catholic view. 🙂

Lutherans hold to the view that the purpose of the Eucharist was stated by Christ, that is, to eat and drink His body and blood for the forgiveness of sins. So, the issue of duration of is not so much “does it change back”, as it is “what is the purpose outside the sacramental act”, which does include reservation for the sick and shut ins.

Some Lutherans do reserve the Relique, but the usual best practice is the consumption by pastor/elders at the end of the service to avoid any issue regarding it. I read a blog recently that I totally agree with on this point. The writer stated:
Even in the light of extra usum nullum sacramentum, I cannot comprehend the idea that the Body and Blood of Christ in His Holy Sacrament has a shelf life or an expiration date. Unless I am persuaded by Scripture that this is indeed so, I prefer to err by reserving the Relique rather than to err by assuming that the Real Presence expires at the end of Mass. Without proof, I will not impose limits upon the word and power of Christ.
Click to expand...
writ-in-red.blogspot.com/2008/06/rubrics-reservation-mass.html

Christ said, “this is my body”. He didn’t add, “for a while”.

Jon
 
Dave_Noonan said:
Actually, the Revised Common Lectionary (the most commonly used lectionary among Protestant groups that follow a lectionary) has more readings from the deuterocanon than does the Roman Catholic Lectionary. Of course churches may chose alternates, but they are there.
Click to expand...
Hi

thanks for that information. Interesting. Can you, Dave, or Mike provide a link with the Lutheran lectionary, please?

I have always thought that Lutherans think that they are worth reading (the Deuterocanonicals) but are not used for preaching and teaching.
 
JonNC said:
Hi, my friend.

Yes, I do know the Catholic view. 🙂

Lutherans hold to the view that the purpose of the Eucharist was stated by Christ, that is, to eat and drink His body and blood for the forgiveness of sins. So, the issue of duration of is not so much “does it change back”, as it is “what is the purpose outside the sacramental act”, which does include reservation for the sick and shut ins.

Some Lutherans do reserve the Relique, but the usual best practice is the consumption by pastor/elders at the end of the service to avoid any issue regarding it. I read a blog recently that I totally agree with on this point. The writer stated:

writ-in-red.blogspot.com/2008/06/rubrics-reservation-mass.html

Christ said, “this is my body”. He didn’t add, “for a while”.

Jon
Click to expand...
Thanks, Jon. I am glad Catholics and Lutherans are of the same mind as this, and one more path towards unity.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
So, from my own perspective, since the universal church has never agreed on a biblical canon (the canon was never “catholic,” in the small-c sense) I’d say that fallibility/infallibility as categories for the biblical canon don’t come into play.
Click to expand...
But the Church *did *agree on the canon in those early Church councils. The Council of Trent then had to infallibly reiterate those earlier councils because the disputes of the canon were at a fever pitch because of the Reformation. The exact same canon that was approved at the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage is the exact same canon the Catholic Church uses today.
Dave_Noonan said:
Each church has historically chosen what’s sacred to them and for the most part they are in agreement. That’s fine with me.
Click to expand...
If there is one iota of disagreement between those churches, then someone must be wrong. The Catholic Church has the promise of the Holy Spirit to be guided into all truth.
Dave_Noonan said:
Perhaps someday the universal church will agree on this issue, but I don’t think it will ever happen. But if it would, I would say that that would be an infallible decision.
Click to expand...
You are breaking your neck to avoid calling the universal church the Catholic Church. It’s one and the same. The universal, Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ was given the name Catholic in the year 107AD by St. Ignatius of Antioch and the name has stuck.

If the canon of scripture was not decided infallibly, that means books can be added and taken away. Maybe there are no inspired writings. How would we know for sure without an infallible source or teaching authority?
 
Lampo said:
If the canon of scripture was not decided infallibly, that means books can be added and taken away. Maybe there are no inspired writings. How would we know for sure without an infallible source or teaching authority?
Click to expand...
Are you saying that for 1500 years the Church did not know which books were inspired until the Council of Trent?
 
Augsburg1530 said:
Are you saying that for 1500 years the Church did not know which books were inspired until the Council of Trent?
Click to expand...
No. The Church knew starting at the Council of Rome in 382AD. Because the canon was not challenged to the extent it was by the Reformers, it wasn’t necessary to address the issue for nearly 1,100 years.
 
Lampo said:
No. The Church knew starting at the Council of Rome in 382AD. Because the canon was not challenged to the extent it was by the Reformers, it wasn’t necessary to address the issue for nearly 1,100 years.
Click to expand...
Then that would seem to contradict your statement that we cannot know which books are inspired unless we have an infallible statement, because this didn’t take place until the Council of Trent.
 
Augsburg1530 said:
Then that would seem to contradict your statement that we cannot know which books are inspired unless we have an infallible statement, because this didn’t take place until the Council of Trent.
Click to expand...
I might need to retract that statement after further thought. Since Catholics accept the teaching authority of the Church, not everything the Church teaches needs to be infallibly defined. For instance, we believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ, but this hasn’t been infallibly declared.

I guess the gist of this argument is that non-Catholics accept an authority outside of the Bible if they accept the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God.
 
Lampo said:
I might need to retract that statement after further thought. Since Catholics accept the teaching authority of the Church, not everything the Church teaches needs to be infallibly defined. For instance, we believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ, but this hasn’t been infallibly declared.

I guess the gist of this argument is that non-Catholics accept an authority outside of the Bible if they accept the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God.
Click to expand...
This would only be germane to those Christians who view the Bible as the only authority within the Church. Since practicing Lutherans are, by nature, confessional Christians, it means we don’t view Scripture that way. Our confessions of faith are authoritative for us because they contain the systematic interpretations of Scripture which are considered faithful to apostolic teaching. We simply view Scripture as the only infallible authority to which all others are subject to.

Therefore, we do not require an infallible church body in order to have epistemological certainty about what we believe. The church did, in fact, declare what was and was not canonical. However, that we are certain the church got it right is not based on any charism given to the church, but rather, that it was God’s will that the church received His revelation and so it did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top