What did Luther "throw out"

[fbl9]

What sacrements did Martin Luther leave out when he left the CC?
Today i just learned that Luther taught the faithful must confesss their sins to the pastor.

 

[Juliebug108]

here’s what the Lutheran church teaches about sacraments:

in Luther’s Small Catechism, a sacrament is defined as an act or rite which is:

1. instituted by God;
2. in which God Himself has joined His Word of promise to the visible element;
3. and by which He offers, gives and seals the forgiveness of sin earned by Christ.

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession says this about sacraments:

" If we define the sacraments as rites, which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to determine what the sacraments are, properly speaking. For humanly instituted rites are not sacraments, properly speaking, because human beings do not have the authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without the command of God are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps serve to teach or admonish the common folk."

Lutherans have two Sacraments: Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. Confession is important, but it is only broadly considered a Sacrament.

I would refer to these websites:
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-boc.html#ac
lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2636
lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2635

 

[fbl9]

Thank you Juliebug108.
Catholic sacrements
Baptism
Confirmation.
Holy Eucharist
Extreme Unction.(annointing of the sick)
Holy Orders (priesthood)
Penance/reconcilation. (confession)
Matrimony

 

[Juliebug108]

you’re welcome.

Confirmation, anointing of the sick, Holy Orders, confession/absolution, and matrimony, are “non-sacramental” rites in the Lutheran Church, but are still extremely important.

Peace and blessings,
Julie

 

[stephe1987]

Luther threw out anything that did not go along with his personal theology.

In the beginning, his intentions were honorable. He was protesting against some of the corrupt clergymen and what they were doing. It needed a reform. But then once he got followers he started to go off the handle a bit. Throwing away sacraments. Cutting books out of the Bible. He would have cut out even more books if his followers didn’t stop him. Now millions of people around the world left Christ’s Church, the Sacraments, and don’t have a complete canon because of what he did. There are thousands of denominations that teach different and conflicting doctrines. No wonder so many people are confused or left Christianity all together.

 

[Juliebug108]

Luther threw out anything that did not go along with his personal theology.

Throwing away sacraments. Cutting books out of the Bible. He would have cut out even more books if his followers didn’t stop him. Now millions of people around the world left Christ’s Church, the Sacraments, and don’t have a complete canon because of what he did. There are thousands of denominations that teach different and conflicting doctrines. No wonder so many people are confused or left Christianity all together.

He didn’t “throw away” any sacraments. It’s really a matter of semantics. He placed a clear definition on what a sacrament is. What the catholic church calls sacraments, the Lutheran church calls Holy (non-sacramental) rites. The books he removed were the apocrypha, which weren’t even canonized by the catholic church until 1546 AD.
Peace and Blessings,
Julie

 

[Alix1912]

Luther threw out anything that did not go along with his personal theology.

In the beginning, his intentions were honorable. He was protesting against some of the corrupt clergymen and what they were doing. It needed a reform. But then once he got followers he started to go off the handle a bit. Throwing away sacraments. Cutting books out of the Bible. He would have cut out even more books if his followers didn’t stop him. Now millions of people around the world left Christ’s Church, the Sacraments, and don’t have a complete canon because of what he did. There are thousands of denominations that teach different and conflicting doctrines. No wonder so many people are confused or left Christianity all together.

He DID NOT throw out books of the Bible. He seperated out books of the Old Testament that could not be traced back to original translations. They are still in Luther’s original translations of the Bible, they are just in a seperate section. Also those books he questioned were being questioned at the time and had been questioned before by Catholic Theologians. Also don’t even try to lay all the division in the Christian church on Luther, it was already happening before he got involved. England had already seperated from the church and many in Germanic and Swiss and French area’s of Europe were starting to question Rome. It’s not as simple as a 10 second soundbite.

 

[Cruxis117]

He didn’t “throw away” any sacraments. It’s really a matter of semantics. He placed a clear definition on what a sacrament is. What the catholic church calls sacraments, the Lutheran church calls Holy (non-sacramental) rites. The books he removed were the apocrypha, which weren’t even canonized by the catholic church until 1546 AD.
Peace and Blessings,
Julie

During several Councils, the Church listed out the complete canon of the Scriptures. This goes all the way back to the Council of Carthage in 397 and earlier. Here’s some references:

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp

Believe me, research is a Catholic’s middle name.

 

[fbl9]

He didn’t “throw away” any sacraments. It’s really a matter of semantics. He placed a clear definition on what a sacrament is. What the catholic church calls sacraments, the Lutheran church calls Holy (non-sacramental) rites. The books he removed were the apocrypha, which weren’t even canonized by the catholic church until 1546 AD.
Peace and Blessings,
Julie

Perhaps “throw away” was a poor choice of words.That is why i put it in quotes . If it is an offense my apologies as offending was not the intent.
Can you shed light on as to why matrimony is not considered as coming from God but man.

 

[Juliebug108]

Perhaps “throw away” was a poor choice of words.That is why i put it in quotes . If it is an offense my apologies as offending was not the intent.
Can you shed light on as to why matrimony is not considered as coming from God but man.

As to the question about marriage, remember that Luther defines “sacrament” as:
a sacrament is defined as an act or rite which is:

1. instituted by God;
2. in which God Himself has joined His Word of promise to the visible element;
3. and by which He offers, gives and seals the forgiveness of sin earned by Christ.

A sacrament must meet all three criteria, otherwise it is a Holy rite. Marriage really only meets the first, and so it is a Holy rite, instituted by God…but not a sacrament in the Lutheran sense.

Peace and Blessings,
Julie

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

He didn’t “throw away” any sacraments. It’s really a matter of semantics. He placed a clear definition on what a sacrament is. What the catholic church calls sacraments, the Lutheran church calls Holy (non-sacramental) rites. The books he removed were the apocrypha, which weren’t even canonized by the catholic church until 1546 AD. I suggest you do some research on these before you criticize that any further.

bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm
jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

Peace and Blessings,
Julie

Julie, you may have very good points but you won’t get far by posting sites such as jesus-is-lord to support them. I question your discernment by using that site especially with its articles on baptism and communion. Study the historian before you study their “history”.

God bless

 

[Juliebug108]

Julie, you may have very good points but you won’t get far by posting sites such as jesus-is-lord to support them. I question your discernment by using that site especially with its articles on baptism and communion. Study the historian before you study their “history”.

First, my apologies for the Jesus-is-lord link…I only realized after how anti-Catholic it was. I was looking for a quick explanation to share on a complicated matter. Sorry about that!

Yep…my bad. I’ll apologize again though.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Yep…my bad. I’ll apologize again though.

No need to apologize (though I am sure posting that site was against forums rules). Don’t be in such a rush that you post a source that appears to support your position before you research the source yourself

With that said I think you are missing the point of my post. It’s not only that it is anti-Catholic but it also holds several views that I would consider to be anti-Lutheran such as it’s views on baptism and communion. It has been 3 to 4 years since I have last been to that site but I am betting there is something in there about liturgical churches. Not only do they condemn several beliefs that Lutherans hold they out right mock them in much the same way they mock Catholic beliefs. You offered as a source for your opinion a web-site that cuts your own legs out from under you.

God bless

 

[AF_Fugue]

This discussion got me reading my Lutheran Confessions again, and it turns out the issue of “how many” Lutheran sacraments is a bit fuzzier than even I thought. I was taught the criteria with slightly different wording, but essentially the same. A sacrament is:

1. 
   *]Commanded by Christ
   *]Contains an earthly element (or physical sign)
   *]Contains a promise from God.
   
   Based on these criteria, there would indeed only be two.
   1. 
      *]Baptism - check
      *]Holy Communion - check
      *]Reconciliation - missing #2
      *]Matrimony - missing #1
      *]Holy Orders - depending on the understanding of each of the above, it could be missing any of the three
      *]Confirmation - missing #1 (also #2 if you don’t count oil)
      *]Annointing of the Sick - missing #1
      
      However, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, it says
      

      If we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to decide what are properly Sacraments. For rites instituted by men will not in this way be Sacraments properly so called. For it does not belong to human authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without God’s command are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps instruct the rude [children or the uncultivated], or admonish as to something [as a painted cross]. 4] Therefore Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments.

      Despite this, as a Lutheran, I have never heard of Absolution referred to as a Sacrament. The writers then go on to confuse the issue even more.
      

      But if ordination be understood as applying to the ministry of the Word, we are not unwilling to call ordination a sacrament.

      Matrimony was not first instituted in the New Testament, but in the beginning, immediately on the creation of the human race. It has, moreover, God’s command; it has also promises, not indeed properly pertaining to the New Testament, but pertaining rather to the bodily life. Wherefore,** if any one should wish to call it a sacrament, he ought still to distinguish it from those preceding ones** [the two former ones], which are properly signs of the New Testament, and testimonies of grace and the remission of sins.

      It seems the writers’ primary intentions were to separate the important Sacraments from the less important (in their minds). Of primary importance were those which granted forgiveness of sins. It is also argued that as long as they are practiced, the number and designation is not important. (Similar to the Church’s stance that the exact numbering of the Ten Commandments is not a Big Deal.)
      
      I recommend, if you’re interested in the whole exposition on the Sacraments, that you read the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XIII here bocl.org/?AP+XIII

 

[jessep28]

The Book of Concord is available for free online (bookofconcord.org/). I’m not well versed in the entire BOC outside of the Small Catechism but Article XII of the Defense of the Augsburg Confession seems like a good place to start:

bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php

 

[catsrus]

These types of discussions are exactly what led me to The Holy Catholic Church from lutheranism.
As Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant.”
Oh how true that is!

 

[pablope]

here’s what the Lutheran church teaches about sacraments:

in Luther’s Small Catechism, a sacrament is defined as an act or rite which is:

1. instituted by God;
2. in which God Himself has joined His Word of promise to the visible element;
3. and by which He offers, gives and seals the forgiveness of sin earned by Christ.

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession says this about sacraments:

I would refer to these websites:
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-boc.html#ac
lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2636
lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2635

Thanks…but again the question: Who gave Luther the authority to re-define what a sacrament is?

 

[pablope]

He didn’t “throw away” any sacraments. It’s really a matter of semantics. He placed a clear definition on what a sacrament is. What the catholic church calls sacraments, the Lutheran church calls Holy (non-sacramental) rites. The books he removed were the apocrypha, which weren’t even canonized by the catholic church until 1546 AD.
Peace and Blessings,
Julie

Thanks, Julie…I will post the same quetion:

Who gave Luther the authority to re-arrange the books of the Bible?

I think he did not just stop at the OT, he wanted to re-arrange the NT books too.

I think you should study more a different viewpoint of the development of the Bible canon. From about AD 397 or so, once a Church Council defined the canon, there was not dispute about the Canon till Luther and his friends came along. So the CC was forced to stop the tinkering and declare the canon closed.

You will also find out that those who initially questioned some of the books to be included kept their silence and accepted the Church’s decision once it was made.
I am at a lost why Protestants always cite these Catholic theologians. But they fail to see that when the Church spoke, they accepted what the Church promulgated.

 

[Alix1912]

Also keep in mind concerning sacraments that the Lutheran Church considers Confirmation an extension of Baptism. It is a person confirming the commitments their parents made for them as a baby.

 

[AF_Fugue]

Who gave Luther the authority to re-arrange the books of the Bible?

I think he did not just stop at the OT, he wanted to re-arrange the NT books too.

I think you should study more a different viewpoint of the development of the Bible canon. From about AD 397 or so, once a Church Council defined the canon, there was not dispute about the Canon till Luther and his friends came along. So the CC was forced to stop the tinkering and declare the canon closed.

You will also find out that those who initially questioned some of the books to be included kept their silence and accepted the Church’s decision once it was made.
I am at a lost why Protestants always cite these Catholic theologians. But they fail to see that when the Church spoke, they accepted what the Church promulgated.

I would like to point out that the canon, while widely accepted around the 5th century, was by no means a settled matter. From the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity…The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus.

Jerome, when writing the Vulgate, questioned whether the Deuterocanonical scriptures had the same authority and wrote a prologue to this effect. That’s not to say that the books are not useful and in accord with our faith; just that throughout the ages, the canon has been questioned. If I’m not mistaken, the Orthodox Church has a different canon than the RCC. In fact, it was not infallibly defined (and did not seem to be a church-dividing issue) until the Council of Trent.

In the end, it must be noted that whatever Luther’s personal views were on specific books, he did, in the end, translate the ENTIRE Bible into German – Deuterocanon and all. We all have doubts at times, and Martin Luther happened to be in the position that a lot of people heard about his doubts. However, it appears that he did respect the long history these books have had in the Church and included them in his translation. The complete removal of them from published Bibles is a relatively recent development. (I haven’t been able to find where I read that before – something about publishing companies realizing they could save money by leaving them out, and most non-Catholics wouldn’t notice or care.)