Differences Lutherans vs Catholics

[Dave_Noonan]

One Church was established by Jesus and promised by the Holy Spirit to be guided into all truth. I’m going with that Church when it comes to the canon of scripture.

Of those Churches, there is only one that was established by Jesus and has always been called Catholic. Those eastern churches can’t get around that fact. That tells me which Church is guided into all truth. Including deciding the canon of scripture.

Thanks for the advice. Not all that I have read was strictly apologetic. Actually, most were not. I have never heard once what you claim. That the vast majority of Catholics in the 4th century disagreed with the Church when she infallibly determined the canon of scripture. If what you say is true, then Jimmy Akin, Patrick Coffin, Patrick Madrid, Tim Staples, Fr. Serpa, Fr. Corapi, Scott Hahn, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, etc., are all either very ignorant of the history of the bible or are liars. What do you say? They are ignorant or liars?

This topic has all been discussed and debated on many threads here, so I’m very surprised you’ve never heard about the varying biblical canons among the churches. All of the authors you list above I would consider to be Catholic apologists and I would have no idea whether they are ignorant or lying or whether it’s a combination of the two. I do think, though, that you should ask yourself why the people you list never disclosed (if that is indeed the case) the fact that these biblical canons differ–information that’s available on Wikipedia and pretty common knowledge. Apologists can be sort of like defense attorneys–they give you all the information they have to support their claim, but they rarely tell you the ways in which their claims are weak or what contrary evidence is out there. They often don’t use footnotes in their published work and don’t disclose where they are getting their information–and if they do, sometimes the sources are questionable.

I do find catholic apologists such as the ones you list (generally speaking) to be pretty well versed in the history of the Western Church and in things like canon law and the history of liturgy in West, but also fairly ignorant of the history of other churches, other religions, and generally speaking, of the Bible. I think they have a good understanding of what Protestant fundamentalists believe, but generally don’t know much about or misstate other views within Protestantism. (I have spent a great deal of time at Catholic seminaries and I have seen the poor education on all these topics first hand–so in a way it doesn’t surprise me.)

The reason I came to this site to begin with was one day I was flipping radio stations and Jimmy Akin was on Catholic Answers Live. Some of the things Jimmy Akin was saying on the show I knew to be absolutely false (they were discussing “thou shalt not kill”) and I was so surprised at how readily people just seemed to accept whatever Jimmy had to say. I guess because the listeners don’t know any better either?

Certainly you’re free to believe that ONLY the Roman church was correct on the biblical canon and that all the other churches in the world in the fourth century were wrong. Since many of the Orthodox churches also claim apostolic founding and succession (which isn’t challenged by the Roman Catholic Church), this claim seems problematic to me. So Jesus only promised to guide Peter and his successors into all truth and NOT the other apostles? Which church is “that church”? I also think that most Catholics would have some problems with the idea that ONLY the Western Church was “guided into all truth” and ALL of the Orthodox churches were somehow left out in the cold by the Holy Spirit. To me this seems inconsistent with the fact that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the validity of their orders and sacraments.

 

[Lampo]

Dave Noonan,

I think we know where we both stand on this and have come to a dead end.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Certainly you’re free to believe that ONLY the Roman church was correct on the biblical canon and that all the other churches in the world in the fourth century were wrong. Since many of the Orthodox churches also claim apostolic founding and succession (which isn’t challenged by the Roman Catholic Church), this claim seems problematic to me. So Jesus only promised to guide Peter and his successors into all truth and NOT the other apostles?

Dave, the fact that the schismatic Churches of the East have a valid succession does not prevent them from falling in error or heresy. The keys were given to St. Peter, and the Roman Church alone has the Grace to “bind and loose”. Protestant and Orthodox are outside the fullness of that truth.

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, profession of faith, Dec. 18, 1208:

“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

Which church is “that church”? I also think that most Catholics would have some problems with the idea that ONLY the Western Church was “guided into all truth” and ALL of the Orthodox churches were somehow left out in the cold by the Holy Spirit. To me this seems inconsistent with the fact that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the validity of their orders and sacraments.

This is a false dichotomy Dave, I would argue that - with the exception of the Eastern Catholic Churches - it would be obvious that the Eastern Orthodox have been outside of the fullness of truth by the simple fact that they are not in communion with the Holy Sea in Rome. Would you say that the Assyrian Church of the East was “guided into all truth” because they have a valid succession? I feel that you are confusing “ALL” truth with “partial” truth.

 

[IowaJay]

This really isn’t that hard.

Fact # 1 - The Eastern and Western Churches were in communion with each other until 1054.

Fact #2 - The OT canons of Scripture are different in the Eastern and Western Churches.

Fact # 3 - The different canons of the East and West developed while they were still united and in communion with each other.

The only logical conclusion is that the undivided One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church accepted some differentiations in the biblical canon. It simply was not a church dividing issue.

 

[JonNC]

This really isn’t that hard.

Fact # 1 - The Eastern and Western Churches were in communion with each other until 1054.

Fact #2 - The OT canons of Scripture are different in the Eastern and Western Churches.

Fact # 3 - The different canons of the East and West developed while they were still united and in communion with each other.

The only logical conclusion is that the undivided One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church accepted some differentiations in the biblical canon. It simply was not a church dividing issue.

And I suspect, Jay, that were East and West to reconcile, it still wouldn’t be, the Council of Trent notwithstanding.

Jon

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Dave, the fact that the schismatic Churches of the East have a valid succession does not prevent them from falling in error or heresy. The keys were given to St. Peter, and the Roman Church alone has the Grace to “bind and loose”. Protestant and Orthodox are outside the fullness of that truth.

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, profession of faith, Dec. 18, 1208:

“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

This is a false dichotomy Dave, I would argue that - with the exception of the Eastern Catholic Churches - it would be obvious that the Eastern Orthodox have been outside of the fullness of truth by the simple fact that they are not in communion with the Holy Sea in Rome. Would you say that the Assyrian Church of the East was “guided into all truth” because they have a valid succession? I feel that you are confusing “ALL” truth with “partial” truth.

The issue at hand is where these churches stood in relation to Rome in the fourth century (before they were recognized to be schism), not where they stood vis-a-vis Rome later (say, in 1208). Lampo was arguing that at that time only the Roman church could be the depository of “all truth” (and not with the orthodox churches because their biblical canons were different) and I didn’t see how this could be internally consistent with Catholic theology or the Catholic understanding that all apostles received this charism. But maybe you can explain it.

Personally, it doesn’t matter to me whether these churches have valid succession or not–and I don’t understand John 16:13 the same way anyway.

 

[Lampo]

Lampo was arguing that at that time only the Roman church could be the depository of “all truth” (and not with the orthodox churches because their biblical canons were different)

My argument is that the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was and is the depository of all truth or fullness of truth, as promised by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Lampo]

Personally, it doesn’t matter to me whether these churches have valid succession or not–and I don’t understand John 16:13 the same way anyway.

There’s another difference between Lutherans and Catholics. Private, fallible, personal interpretation of scripture. Catholics are encouraged to read and interpret scripture, but must always do so in the light of the teaching of Church. There is no one to tell a Lutheran he/she is wrong in their interpretation of scripture. Why would one’s interpretation be any better than another’s? Isn’t that a tenant of sola scriptura? As Christians, we are all entitled to read and interpret the Bible as we see fit (in Protestant theology).

 

[JonNC]

There’s another difference between Lutherans and Catholics. Private, fallible, personal interpretation of scripture. Catholics are encouraged to read and interpret scripture, but must always do so in the light of the teaching of Church. There is no one to tell a Lutheran he/she is wrong in their interpretation of scripture. Why would one’s interpretation be any better than another’s? Isn’t that a tenant of sola scriptura? As Christians, we are all entitled to read and interpret the Bible as we see fit (in Protestant theology).

No, Lampo, it isn’t a tenant of sola scriptura. You are describing solo scriptura. Sola scriptura is the practice of using the scriptures as the final norm, holding all teachers and teachings accountable. Hermeneutics is the work of the Church, not individuals. Lutherans are encouraged to read and study scripture in light of Church teaching, as well, but in matters of doctrine, we are held to the scriptures, and those things that rightly reflect it; the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, the Small Catechism, etc, and the early councils and creeds. To be Lutheran, one must confess what Lutheranism teaches. That’s what it means to be a confessional Lutheran. Those who claim to be Lutheran, but do not confess these things (and we have our share, just like “cafeteria” Catholics), are not confessional Lutherans in the proper sense.

Martin Chemnitz:

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. **Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church. **

Jon

 

[agent_grey]

Lutherans reject Gods authority to delegate authority Catholics do not.

 

[IowaJay]

**Lutherans reject Gods authority to delegate authority **Catholics do not.

Nope.

From Luther’s Small Catechism:

VI. The Office of the Keys
What is the “Office of the Keys”
It is that authority which Christ gave to the Church to forgive the sins of those who repent and to declare to those who do not repent that their sins are not forgiven
What are the words of Christ?
Our Lord Jesus Christ said to the disciples: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (St. John 20:23)
“Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (St. Matthew 18:18)

st-francis-lutheran.org/Keys.html

 

[Lampo]

No, Lampo, it isn’t a tenant of sola scriptura.

So would the Lutheran church tell a Lutheran that he/she is wrong in their interpretation of scripture? Does the Lutheran church claim to be right in its interpretation of scripture without the possibility of being wrong?

Lutherans are encouraged to read and study scripture in light of Church teaching, as well, but in matters of doctrine, we are held to the scriptures, and those things that rightly reflect it;

Could the Lutheran church be wrong in all of its interpretations of scripture? Is it possible that the Lutheran church could have doctrines that are contrary to the Bible and/or doctrines of the early Church?

 

[Augsburg1530]

So would the Lutheran church tell a Lutheran that he/she is wrong in their interpretation of scripture? Does the Lutheran church claim to be right in its interpretation of scripture without the possibility of being wrong?

If I “interpret” Scripture to say that Christ is not present in Holy Communion, then yes, the Lutheran Church would tell me I am wrong.

It claims to be right in its interpretation of Scripture without the probability of being wrong.

 

[Lampo]

If I “interpret” Scripture to say that Christ is not present in Holy Communion, then yes, the Lutheran Church would tell me I am wrong.

It claims to be right in its interpretation of Scripture without the probability of being wrong.

Wow! I’ve never heard of another faith tradition that claims infallibility. There’s always a first.

 

[Augsburg1530]

Wow! I’ve never heard of another faith tradition that claims infallibility. There’s always a first.

It doesn’t claim infallibility. We believe our confessions are inerrant, not infallible.

 

[guanophore]

It doesn’t claim infallibility. We believe our confessions are inerrant, not infallible.

I think she just mistread “probablility” for “possiblity”. I did the same thing too, I had to read it again,

 

[Augsburg1530]

I think she just mistread “probablility” for “possiblity”. I did the same thing too, I had to read it again,

Probably, guan

 

[Lampo]

I think she just mistread “probablility” for “possiblity”. I did the same thing too, I had to read it again,

Yep, I misread it.

 

[guanophore]

I’m sure you’ll get some Lutherans to chime in here, but…

As far as the Marian dogmas go, I think Lutherans would say that you’re free to believe them or not–which I wouldn’t say is the same as rejection.

As I recall, Luther felt sort of the same ambivalence about praying to saints and on behalf of the dead. I know Lutherans who pray the rosary.

Definitely no purgatory.

I think the Lutherans would define the magisterium of the church much more narrowly than catholics would.

I think Luther prayed his rosary and was devoted to Mary up until his death. I think Luther would be quite alarmed at the number of beliefs that have been jettisoned as a result of his work.

 

[Augsburg1530]

I think Luther prayed his rosary and was devoted to Mary up until his death. I think Luther would be quite alarmed at the number of beliefs that have been jettisoned as a result of his work.

Incidentally, at least among Lutherans, they weren’t. It’s more a question of the effects of the Enlightenment and liberalism, along with revivalism, that American Lutherans ignore what our confessions state about the Blessed Virgin.