Do Lutherans save themselves?


I appreciate this. Thank you.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but all of these seven can be forgiven at Confession.
If not, why not?
"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Lutherans, too, believe that repeated, unrepented sin can lead to eternal condemnation


Thank you for saying this. Agreed.

I was happy to see you noticed the similarities between Lutheran and Roman Catholic liturgies. When I noted the common root, I thought the discussion would continue to be pleasant. I was sorry to see another poster use that as an opportunity to ignorantly belittle Lutheran worship practices.


If that is the way you took it, then I apologize. It’s one thing to claim your “worship practices” as similar and comparable to the Roman Rite, it’s completely outrageous to claim:

The “Roman Mass” has always included the Sacrifice of the Mass dating back to the institution of the Eucharist. And, without the Sacrifice of the Mass, you have no Mass. This isn’t to “belittle” anyone’s “worship practices”, or to undermine any elements of truth and sanctification Protestant services have to offer.

I suggest instead of you impetuously claiming someone’s position to be ignorant, maybe you should first take some time and research the early antiquity of the Holy Mass and its development over many centuries.


Apology accepted.

Why is this an outrageous claim? This is factually correct. The Roman Mass has undergone, and continues to undergo, substantial changes. It’s seen the Tridentine Mass, Pope Paul IV’s changes, etc. It is not identical to the pre-Tridentine Mass, which was the basis for the traditional Lutheran Divine Service (with the aforementioned changes). Where Rome continues to refine its practice, Lutherans have remained essentially static since the Reformation. That’s no judgement on which is better or more true. It’s simply fact. Why is this bothering you so?

The distinctly Roman Mass may have. Roman Catholics should believe what their church says on that topic, but should not expect others to ignore the historical record. There’s not a whole lot of evidence to suggest the Apostles rolled out of bed after the Resurrection and started teaching others to enjoin their sacrifice to Christ’s Sacrifice at the altar.

That is the Roman Catholic view, and I wouldn’t persuade you to think otherwise. But demanding Lutherans to deny the Real Presence in their own Mass will continue to get you laughed at.

Brother, I know all about the Roman Catholic view on the ‘Sacrifice of the Mass.’ That doesn’t mean I consider it true or True. But I think you’d be well-served to read what Lutherans actually teach about the Mass in their Confessions. I’ll even link it for you here. Be sure to especially take in the section on “Sacrifice vs. Sacrament.” You may not agree with it (in fact, I don’t expect you will), but perhaps you’ll have a new appreciation for what Lutherans actually teach and where our differences actually lie.


There is only one Holy Mass, and Mass is Mass. Just because there are different ecclesial traditions of celebrating the sacraments, i.e. Byzantine Rite, Tridentine Rite, Novus Ordo Rite etc., along with minor variations in liturgical practices (facing east vs. the faithful), the principle liturgical elements for celebrating the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist are exactly the same. So, I wouldn’t say there have been “substantial changes” in the way you mean it, but different forms and rites have been introduced and/or reformed over the centuries for various reasons.

Our Blessed Lord not only founded a Church to hand on the full deposit of faith, and not only chose and commissioned Apostles and their successors to faithfully shepherd the faithful, but He also sent the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth. Aside from evidence in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, all the evidence one needs, is to go to the Apostolic Church to find the Sacrifice of the Mass that was instituted the night before Calvary.

I do not doubt that you confess to believe in the Real Presence. However, to validly consecrate one needs Sacred Orders/Apostolic Succession; Lutherans do not have either.


The Cistercian abbots did not have AS, practiced presbyter ordination, yet were considered by the Church in the 1400’s to be valid.
But again, while a Catholic is obliged to defend their communion’s position, don’t expect a Lutheran to give a moment’s care what Rome thinks about it


Jon NC
You wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but all of these seven can be forgiven at Confession.
If not, why not?
Nowadays, at least in Ireland, most Catholics do not go to confession.
A condition for forgiveness in confession is repentance and a firm purpose of amendment.


That’s too bad.
Am I correct, though?


I thought it might be a good idea to show (from the www) what happens at Sunday Service in the Lutheran Church in Dublin. I have added emphasis. It is important to note Lutherans are not Catholics, but within the Catholic Church (as has been pointed out) the Roman Rite is only one of several.
But again are we wandering off-topic.

The liturgy is made up of three parts, the Opening, the Service of the Word, and the Celebration of the Eucharist.

There follows the chanting of the Kyrie, in Greek, with the congregation responding in German. A shortened sung version of the Gloria comes next.
A Collect would normally end the Opening, and the Epistle should be next; today’s service moves on to the fourth hymn which serves as the Gradual.
The Creed is spoken by the congregation standing. … Normally there would be a sermon which, apart from Holy Communion, forms the most important element in a Lutheran service. …emphasized text
The Minister chants the Prayers of Preparation for the third section, the Eucharist, followed by the Eucharistic prayer (the Preface), and the congregation sings the Sanctus in German to the familiar Gregorian melody.
Then, facing the congregation the Minister consecrates the bread and wine. This is followed by the Lord’s Prayer spoken by the minister and congregation…

The Communion over, the Minister faces the altar to say the Postcommunion Prayer. This is followed by the chant, “Go in peace and serve the Lord”, to which the congregation replies: “Thanks be to God for ever more”. The Minister then blesses those present and the Service is over.


Abbots do not have the functions of a Bishop to validly ordain. Perhaps I am not understanding your statement, but how can an abbot validly ordain a priest?

“Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them.”

Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon) A Sermon by Martin Luther; taken from his Church Postil, 1522. [This sermon is taken from volume III:254-271 of The Sermons of Martin Luther]


Correct. And yet they were allowed to ordain (presbyter ordination), and it was considered valid.
They were the model the Evangelical Catholics (Lutherans) used to justify their presbyter ordinations when the bishops refused to ordain priests for their parishes.


I am unaware of this. Could you provide some sources?



Let me rephrase my question. Could you provide credible sources?


When a Catholic provides an official Catholic Source, I never question its credibility. I may say I disagree, or even that it is obviously biased. But not its credibility.
Now you’ve delved into ad hominem. So, now you have to find your own source.



Your source is the LCMS who also publicly promulgates this:

As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)

Being Catholic has nothing to do with anything. When you cite a source that not only decries the Papal Office, but publicly claims the Pope of being the anti-christ, then your source is not credible.


Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

I’ve been down this road numerous times before, and I have no wish to travel it again on this forum because it is the kind of apologetics I dislike.
But if a pope claims that it results in condemnation if a Christian is not in communion with him, that is opposed to Christ. Yet this is what Unam Sanctam claims.
So, do you want to discuss Pope Boniface IX’s bull granting the Abbot of Saint-Osith, London the power to ordain priests, even though he was not a bishop?


What Papal Bull? Quote me from this “bull” substantiating your claim.


No. You find it. It’s a papal bull. You’re Catholic. You questioned the last source, now it’s on you.

It is also true that Pope Martin V gave the same power to the Abbot of Altzelle in Saxony.


Burden of proof reversal is a logical fallacy. I did not question anything. Your source was not credible. If you’re going to use the LCMS to attempt to substantiate your claim, and then put the burden on me when your claim fails, that’s your affair.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit