Lutheran's


#1

My father’s oldest sister became Lutheran when she got married to a Lutheran and my Aunt has stated that there is not that much difference between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church. And there really isn’t that much difference. The Lutheran Church retained Infant Baptism, First Holy Communion, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist or they call it the Sacrament of the Altar. Luther continued to believe that the Virgin Mary remained ever virgin.

Albert


#2

[quote=Albert Kopsho]My father’s oldest sister became Lutheran when she got married to a Lutheran and my Aunt has stated that there is not that much difference between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church. And there really isn’t that much difference. The Lutheran Church retained Infant Baptism, First Holy Communion, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist or they call it the Sacrament of the Altar. Luther continued to believe that the Virgin Mary remained ever virgin.

Albert
[/quote]

Is there a question here, or are you just making a general announcement? :confused:


#3

Luther rejected the sacrificial priesthood because he rejected Catholic teaching that the consecration of the bread and wine effects the Real Sacramental Presence of Jesus Christ and is a participation in the sacrifice of Calvary. He also rejected the papal authority to ordain bishops and priests, therefore rejecting the authority by which the Eucharist is confected and the Holy Spirit invoked in Confirmation. Most Lutherans retain a ritual of confirmation but do not consider it a sacrament, i.e. a liturgical action that effects Christ’s sacramental presence and conferal of grace. In rejecting the idea that apostolic authority could be passed on through the bishops, the successors of the apostles, Luther also rejected the notion that priests or anyone on earth has the power to forgive sins.


#4

[quote=puzzleannie]Luther rejected the sacrificial priesthood because he rejected Catholic teaching that the consecration of the bread and wine effects the Real Sacramental Presence of Jesus Christ
[/quote]

half right. Luther rejected the sacrificial priesthood but Lutherans beleive in the Real Presence.

He also rejected the papal authority to ordain bishops and priests

Lutherans don’t reject papal authority to ordain bishops and priests. They just beleive any local church can do the same. He rejected papal universal authority.

Most Lutherans retain a ritual of confirmation but do not consider it a sacrament, i.e. a liturgical action that effects Christ’s sacramental presence and conferal of grace.

correct

In rejecting the idea that apostolic authority could be passed on through the bishops, the successors of the apostles

Luther never said apostolic authority could be passed on through bishops, he simply did not limit it to bishops. he taught the church. from generation to generation had apostolic succession and rejected tactile succession.


#5

[quote=Albert Kopsho]My father’s oldest sister became Lutheran when she got married to a Lutheran and my Aunt has stated that there is not that much difference between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church. And there really isn’t that much difference. The Lutheran Church retained Infant Baptism, First Holy Communion, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist or they call it the Sacrament of the Altar. Luther continued to believe that the Virgin Mary remained ever virgin.

Albert
[/quote]

Perhaps you’re right in that there really is no difference between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran church exept maybe the fact that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church in 33 A.D. and a slightly mental booted out EX-Catholic heritic monk invented and changed the theology Bible and Faith Jesus gave us and created and founded the Lutheran church about 1522 A.D.?

I’ll stick with the Church Christ founded in 33 A.D. and remain loyal to Him and His Gospel in His Catholic Church. There is nothing like the real thing but the real thing.

If you take the flour out of a cake is it still cake? No!. Luther deleted so much that his church is not even close to the Catholic church.

PS. I went to a Lutheran church and nearly joined it before going back to the Baptist anarchy. I liked the Lutherans and if not for the Baptist contridictions I found I might well be Lutheran today! Lutherans are great people, just not Catholic or even close. I even know EX-Catholics that think the Lutheran communion has the Real Presence of Jesus in it as transubstantiantion.


#6

Malachi4U,

The Lutheran’s believe in consubstantiation. I do not believe in transubstantiation. I believe about the Holy Eucharist the same way that the Lutheran’s do and that is I believe in consubstantiation.

Albert


#7

[quote=Albert Kopsho]Malachi4U,

The Lutheran’s believe in consubstantiation. I do not believe in transubstantiation. I believe about the Holy Eucharist the same way that the Lutheran’s do and that is I believe in consubstantiation.

Albert
[/quote]

Then unfortunately, you don’t believe what Jesus taught at the last supper. He said “This is my body”, not, “This is with my body.” That is the difference. Transubstantiation teaches that the bread becomes the body of Christ. Consubstantiation teaches that the bread co-exists with the body of Christ.


#8

[quote=Scott_Lafrance]Then unfortunately, you don’t believe what Jesus taught at the last supper. He said “This is my body”, not, “This is with my body.” That is the difference. Transubstantiation teaches that the bread becomes the body of Christ. Consubstantiation teaches that the bread co-exists with the body of Christ.
[/quote]

The Lutherans also believe that it is no longer the body and blood after the liturgy.


#9

[quote=Scott_Lafrance]Then unfortunately, you don’t believe what Jesus taught at the last supper. He said “This is my body”, not, “This is with my body.” That is the difference. Transubstantiation teaches that the bread becomes the body of Christ. Consubstantiation teaches that the bread co-exists with the body of Christ.
[/quote]

Lutherans do not technically believe in Consubstantiation, that is an Anglican term. But Lutherans do believe that Christ is present with the bread and the wine. It’s kind of like how the Eastern Orthodox reject Transubstantiation, but believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.


#10

[quote=Psalm45:9]Lutherans do not technically believe in Consubstantiation, that is an Anglican term. But Lutherans do believe that Christ is present with the bread and the wine. It’s kind of like how the Eastern Orthodox reject Transubstantiation, but believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.
[/quote]

Consubstantiation is a core Lutheran belief. Transubstantiation means “one substance becoming another”. They may not submit to the word, but their understanding of what happens to the Eucharist during the consecration is exactly the same as the Catholic understanding, and equally valid. So valid, in fact, that a Catholic is authorized to receive communion in an Orthodox church under certain strict conditions (don’t know what they are off the top of my head) and the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople concelebrated the Eucharist within the last couple of years.


#11

[quote=Malachi4U]Perhaps you’re right in that there really is no difference between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran church exept maybe the fact that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church in 33 A.D. and a slightly mental booted out EX-Catholic heritic monk invented and changed the theology Bible and Faith Jesus gave us and created and founded the Lutheran church about 1522 A.D.?

I’ll stick with the Church Christ founded in 33 A.D. and remain loyal to Him and His Gospel in His Catholic Church. There is nothing like the real thing but the real thing.

If you take the flour out of a cake is it still cake? No!. Luther deleted so much that his church is not even close to the Catholic church.

PS. I went to a Lutheran church and nearly joined it before going back to the Baptist anarchy. I liked the Lutherans and if not for the Baptist contridictions I found I might well be Lutheran today! Lutherans are great people, just not Catholic or even close. I even know EX-Catholics that think the Lutheran communion has the Real Presence of Jesus in it as transubstantiantion.
[/quote]

Lutherans do not believe in the Fundlementalist theory of Sola Fide and they also do not believe in the Fundlementalist use of Sola Scriptura. The Catholic Church changed its termanology so that now Lutherans and Catholics believe justification is achieved the same way. For more info read this: cin.org/users/james/ebooks/gospjust/faith_a.htm


#12

[quote=Scott_Lafrance]Consubstantiation is a core Lutheran belief
[/quote]

Yes that is what they believe, but they will not call it Consubstantiation, that is an Anglican term, invented by the Anglican church for the Anglican church.


#13

[quote=Psalm45:9]Yes that is what they believe, but they will not call it Consubstantiation, that is an Anglican term, invented by the Anglican church for the Anglican church.
[/quote]

Ahhh, I just believe in calling a duck a duck. If Lutherans believe in the essential doctrine of consubstantiation, then they believe in consubstantiation, even if they don’t submit to the word. Just like abortionists are murderers, because in the act of performing an aborortion, they take an innocent life, even if they want to call themselves “reproductive health providers”.


#14

[quote=Scott_Lafrance]Ahhh, I just believe in calling a duck a duck. If Lutherans believe in the essential doctrine of consubstantiation, then they believe in consubstantiation, even if they don’t submit to the word. Just like abortionists are murderers, because in the act of performing an aborortion, they take an innocent life, even if they want to call themselves “reproductive health providers”.
[/quote]

Lol! I know how you feel, but it’s the truth. Pax Vobiscvm.


#15

[quote=Albert Kopsho]Malachi4U,

The Lutheran’s believe in consubstantiation. I do not believe in transubstantiation. I believe about the Holy Eucharist the same way that the Lutheran’s do and that is I believe in consubstantiation.

Albert
[/quote]

Albert, you probably know that Transubstantiation is a building-block of Catholic teaching. It’s not negotiable. AND it makes perfect sense, scripturally, spiritually, and logically. You could look it up! And you SHOULD! I presume you have come to these forums to shore-up your faith.


#16

[quote=Psalm45:9]Yes that is what they believe, but they will not call it Consubstantiation, that is an Anglican term, invented by the Anglican church for the Anglican church.
[/quote]

Really?

When was that done, by whom?

GKC

traditional Anglican


#17

Did I forget to mention that the Anglican communion can not agree on Consubstantiation.

"Consubstantiation is a theory which (like the competing theory of transubstantiation, with which it is often contrasted) attempts to describe the nature of the Christian Eucharist in terms of philosophical metaphysics. It holds that during the sacrament the substance (a technical philosophical term which refers to the fundamental reality of a thing) of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which persists. This view is often incorrectly attributed to the Lutheran church, which, although its writings often refer to the body and blood of Christ as “in, with, and under” the bread and wine, refuses to describe the Eucharist in terms of any philosophical theory.
In England in the late 14th century, there was a political and religious movement known as Lollardy. Among much broader goals, the Lollards affirmed a form of consubstantiation – that the Eucharist remained physically bread and wine, while becoming spiritually the body and blood of Christ. Lollardy was effectively ended with the execution of John Badby for heresy by burning at the stake.

In literature the conflict between Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation was satirically described in Jonathan Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels” as war between Lilliput and Blefuscu."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiation


#18

[quote=Psalm45:9]Did I forget to mention that the Anglican communion can not agree on Consubstantiation.

"Consubstantiation is a theory which (like the competing theory of transubstantiation, with which it is often contrasted) attempts to describe the nature of the Christian Eucharist in terms of philosophical metaphysics. It holds that during the sacrament the substance (a technical philosophical term which refers to the fundamental reality of a thing) of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which persists. This view is often incorrectly attributed to the Lutheran church, which, although its writings often refer to the body and blood of Christ as “in, with, and under” the bread and wine, refuses to describe the Eucharist in terms of any philosophical theory.
In England in the late 14th century, there was a political and religious movement known as Lollardy. Among much broader goals, the Lollards affirmed a form of consubstantiation – that the Eucharist remained physically bread and wine, while becoming spiritually the body and blood of Christ. Lollardy was effectively ended with the execution of John Badby for heresy by burning at the stake.

In literature the conflict between Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation was satirically described in Jonathan Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels” as war between Lilliput and Blefuscu."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiation
[/quote]

There are many things that Anglicans disagree on, to be sure, including the nature of the Eucharist. You can find Anglicans affirming anything from “purely symbolic, memorial” , over on the uber-reformed side, to all 11 Canons of Session XIII of the Council of Trent, on the Anglo-Catholic side, and all points in between, both as to the what (Real Presence or symbolic) or the how (con/trans). Point is, there is no single Anglican position. No problem finding an Anglican who afirms consubstantiation.

But my question was not on the variablility of Anglicanism, but the assertion that it was Anglicans who originated the term and concept of consubstantuation. Certainly there were Lollards in England in the late 14th century. But there were no Anglicans.

As is stated in your quote, with respect to the the Lutherans, there is no Anglican doctrinal definition of the nature of the Eucharist, including consubstantiation

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus.


#19

All,

Several key misunderstandings are occurring in this thread. As a Confessional Lutheran and In the spirit of peace I wish to correct the wrong views that seem to be occurring and include why we do not accept several key Roman teachings.

I. The solas of the Reformation - 1. Sola Scriptura - Holy Scripture is the sole NORM and JUDGE of doctrine. This does not mean that doctrine cannot and does not arise from history and tradition, simply that NOTHING can trump God’s Word. This doesn’t mean that Scripture is the sole SOURCE and that what is not mentioned cannot be pursued as open questions however.
2. We are saved by God’s Grace alone (sola gratia) by faith alone (sola fide) for the sake of Jesus Christ alone (sola Christus) - The faith of a Christian is a gift of God, and it is through this faith that we are justified and as a result of that transformation, good works follow but do not contribute to our salvation. Good works are merely the outward sign of the internal change.

II. Priesthood - Luther and confessional Lutherans continue to see the Pope as the rightful successor of St. Peter, but we deny that he is the universal head of the church on earth. We agree with the Orthodox view of church hierarchy only with authority from the “bottom up” rather than the “top down” and we have one head, Christ in Heaven and all bishops equal in authority on earth. We still have a Holy Ministry and recognize the spiritual difference between lay and ordained ministers, but acknowledge that if need be lay people can distribute the sacraments (which is nice since 1/3 of our churches don’t currently have priests).

III. Sacrifice of the Mass - We see the Holy Mass as a partaking in the sacrifice which transcends time and space, done once for all by Christ. We do not offer up Christ every time the Mass is said because that is not the job of the priest. We Lutherans acknowledge the active sacrifice but only from Christ’s perspective. The priest is the one who hands out the body and blood as sacramental gifts, not sacrifices.

IV. Elements of the Mass - We do NOT accept consubstantiation. We believe that when the Words of Institution are said the bread and wine are consecrated and Christ’s body and blood are present without altering the bread and wine. We believe in the Real Presence but for us to accept consubstantiation we would need to accept a 3rd substance which is a mixture of the previous 2 after consecration and we do not recognize a new 3rd substance. We do not accept transubstantiation because of St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians where he says “Is no the CUP OF THANKSGIVING for which we give thanks a participation in the BLOOD of Christ? And is not the BREAD THAT WE BREAK a participation in the BODY of Christ?”-1 Cor. 10:16-17.

I hope this sheds some light on what we believe. If you have any questions feel free to ask. We (Confessional Lutherans)are far more Roman Catholic than any other Protestants (save Anglicans).

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren


#20

[quote=Paleolutheran]I’m a Missouri Synod Lutheran…but I consider myself an Evangelical Catholic…I recovered from Protestantism when I began actually reading Luther’s works (as opposed to some of the nonsense being propogated currently and possibly in the future by our Synod as the schism continues) as well as appreciating the Liturgy and High Church elements.
[/quote]

The 2nd quote was from September last year.
Waht is the difference between a Synod Lutheran and a Confessional Lutheran, and do you still consider yourself an Evangelical Catholic?


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