Lutheran vs. Catholic: Itemized differences? [Archive]

View Full Version : Lutheran vs. Catholic: Itemized differences?

ZeroTX

3rd May 2004, 12:26 PM

JVAC

3rd May 2004, 01:17 PM

Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper -- "real presence" or "symbolic gesture of faith"? Provided every week, or what frequency? Requirements to take communion? Protestants who are NOT Lutheran allowed to partake?
All Lutherans believe in the Real Pressence (Christ is present in the Bread and Wine), and how that Pressence is manifested is not defined by the Church (though I don't know if you can find a Lutheran who believes in Transubstantiation). Many Lutheran Churches celebrate the Eucharist (Holy Communion) every Sunday, yet there are also quite a few that do it every other week or once a month. In the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America www.elca.org (http://www.elca.org) )there is open communion that is, all who believe in Jesus as Lord and Saviour and that recognize Him as truly pressent in the Eucharist are invited to share the meal, with the reasoning that Christ is the Host of the meal and He wishes all to come unto him. LCMS and WELS all have closed communion (there might be a few congregations that celbrate an open Eucharist). Usually in a closed communion church you must confess the teachings of the Church before you can recieve the Holy Sacrament of the Altar (that is the Small Catechism usually).

Papacy -- Is there an "infallible" Lutheran authority, or is it like most other Faiths and we are just human beings who accept guidance from the Holy Spirit? (The Papacy is the #1 reason I can never accept Catholicism.... I'm a History nut with a Bachelor's degree in History, and study of the History of the Papacy is enough to make you never believe in the papacy, not even for a minute)
The only infallible Lutheran authority is Scripture alone. The heirarchy of most Lutheran churches is a democratic one, usually ran by either a president or Presiding Bishop, which is always elected to a term. The ELCA uses Bishops as executive heads of Synods (local churches united in a region, sub-national). The Bishops are responsible to the Synod Council. Basically the national church and the World Church (either LWF [Lutheran World Federation] or ILC depending on your perspective) are all ran the same way a congregation is ran.

Now we also have the Book of Concord which are the confessions of the Church, that is, they are our guidelines of how the Church has traditionally understood Scripture; such documents are: Three Ecumenical Creeds (Apostle's, Nicene, Athanasian) Augsburg Confession and its Apology, Schmalcald Articles, Formula of Concord, the Large and Small Catechisms. ( www.bookofconcord.org (http://www.bookofconcord.org) )

Baptism -- immersion or sprinkle? Infant baptism or upon making a conscious choice and commitment?
Baptism is traditionally practiced upon infants with a confirmation of that baptism performed in about 8th grade. Baptism is a time which God claims a child unto himself, and the time for confession of the faith is reserved for the "Rite of Confirmation" which is done later after the Child is educated in the faith. Of Baptism we believe "Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace. " (Augsburg Confession)

Scripture -- Sole authority or not?

Yes. We believe Scripture is the Sole infallable authority, and we rely on tradition also, but only tradition that is not contrary to scripture, ex: papal infallability.

Worship style -- singing, music? What kind? Solemn adoration or joyful praise? Hand waving, dancing, etc? Physical gestures? Statues or other physical objects (i.e. rosary?)... Is there a "sermon" that allows you to get a real message out of it (perhaps thematic??) or is it like the Homily, rather dry?? What percentage of the church service is worship ritual (singing, communion, "other" ritual) vs. the actual message from the Minister?... Are the messages usually relevant with specific examples for life and heavy use of Scriptural support?
Most Lutheran services are High Church. We traditionally follow the Ancient Western Mass, though modified of its abuses. The Lutheran Mass boasts of its combination between authoritative preaching and Sacramental emphasis. Also the Lutheran Church is aptly named "The singing church" for we sing a lot. Our pastors give Sermons, and Sermons are always based on readings from the Lectionary (the lectionary is an accountability tool) yet, the Pastor always makes it relevant to the Congregation. However there are "Contemporary Services" that more resemble the latest christian fad of Christian Rock, yet we retain dignity in the Church because of our Sacramental emphasis (Word and Sacrament Church, that is we emphasise both the Word (Bible/Sermon) and Sacraments (Communion/Baptism)). We usually don't have statues of Saints or Mary in Church, nor do we pray a Rosary, though it is not forbidden.

This is all I can answer this quickly, but if you have more questions feel free to ask!!

-James

ChiRho

3rd May 2004, 01:25 PM

Hi guys,

In another thread I discussed the fact that I am a Protestant who is presently dating a Catholic. It is my very limited-knowledge understanding that Lutherans and Catholics share many beliefs (more so than say a Baptist and a Catholic), and I was curious if someone could tell me in very brief "listed out" terms the things off the top of their head...

for instance..

Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper -- "real presence" or "symbolic gesture of faith"? Provided every week, or what frequency? Requirements to take communion? Protestants who are NOT Lutheran allowed to partake?

Papacy -- Is there an "infallible" Lutheran authority, or is it like most other Faiths and we are just human beings who accept guidance from the Holy Spirit? (The Papacy is the #1 reason I can never accept Catholicism.... I'm a History nut with a Bachelor's degree in History, and study of the History of the Papacy is enough to make you never believe in the papacy, not even for a minute)

Baptism -- immersion or sprinkle? Infant baptism or upon making a conscious choice and commitment?

Scripture -- Sole authority or not?

Worship style -- singing, music? What kind? Solemn adoration or joyful praise? Hand waving, dancing, etc? Physical gestures? Statues or other physical objects (i.e. rosary?)... Is there a "sermon" that allows you to get a real message out of it (perhaps thematic??) or is it like the Homily, rather dry?? What percentage of the church service is worship ritual (singing, communion, "other" ritual) vs. the actual message from the Minister?... Are the messages usually relevant with specific examples for life and heavy use of Scriptural support?

I guess, what I'm really looking for is to find out the big similarities and big differences. I'm want us both (me and the girl I'm dating) to write down the "my church MUST believe this" and "my church MUST do this ritual" etc so that we can see if we will EVER be compatible religiously... as it is, I'm not too happy about the idea of marrying and having my children forced to become Catholic or else risk an Ecclesiastical Curse upon us (Anathema) as indicated by the RCC!!! Fear is such a horrible way to convince people to follow the church's rules.

Thanks guys,

Michael

ZeroTx,

Hopefully, Spirituality of the Cross, shows up soon to your address. When it comes, you will have a clear explanation of the faith of the first Evangelicals. While outwardly, it may appear that Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism are similiar, actually we differ as North differs from South. In truth, we are polar opposites. If you want a detailed explanation of the differences between Rome and us, then the Book of Concord outlines our definitive differences better than anything else. Luther concluded that the fundamental point of our dissent, was the article of Free Will. While Rome would profess that man is wounded from the Fall, Lutheranism boldly declares that man is completely broken and utterly ruined.

SYNERGISM VS. MONERGISM

Synergism is defined as the doctrine that individual salvation is achieved through a combination of human will and divine grace. Rome would profess that man is left in a state of neutrality and can, with a bit of help, choose God. Monergism is defined as the doctine that individual salvation is achieved solely through and because of God, with no contribution of man.When one adheres to Monergistic Justification but believes in Synergistic Sanctification, one takes from the left hand what is first offered in the right. If one claims Monergistic Justification, but believes that man can contribute, even in great weakness, to the sustenance of man's righteousness, in actuality, he is a believer in Synergistic Justification. Lutherans reject synergism completely and rightly proclaim Monergistic Jusification and Sanctification. God saves and keeps man...completely! Lutheranism confesses that man is evil and rebellious from conception to earthly death, and the only hope for salvation is God. Vicarious Atonement was achieved upon the Cross by Christ (His perfect Obedience and and Perfect Sacrifice) nearly 2000 years ago, His Righteousness is reckoned to us, miserable and undeserving sinners that we are. We believe that this saving faith comes to us, and that continually, by Word and Sacrament. All is contingent upon the Word of God.

Lutheran Sanctification

We receive faith, but only passively as Steve Parks meetly describes in his CR of TPDL,

"The Lutheran Confessions, however, make it quite clear that such a [synergistic] view is unbiblical:

From this, then, it follows that as soon as the Holy Ghost, as has been said, through the Word and holy Sacraments, has begun in us this His work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain that through the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should cooperate, although still in great weakness. But this [that we cooperate] does not occur from our carnal natural powers, but from the new powers and gifts which the Holy Ghost has begun in us in conversion, as St. Paul expressly and earnestly exhorts that as workers together with Him we receive not the grace of God in vain, 2 Cor. 6, 1. But this is to be understood in no other way than that the converted man does good to such an extent and so long as God by His Holy Spirit rules, guides, and leads him, and that as soon as God would withdraw His gracious hand from him, he could not for a moment persevere in obedience to God. But if this were understood thus [if any one would take the expression of St. Paul in this sense], that the converted man cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the manner as when two horses together draw a wagon, this could in no way be conceded without prejudice to the divine truth.

Thus, man cooperates in his sanctification, but only insofar as he is involved in it. God begins, continues, and completes His work in the redeemed. We do not take the initiative, nor are we even equal partners in the endeavor. Instead, our cooperation is passive, inasmuch as “it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

Shift over and I am late for a lunch date! I gots to go. I will answer some of your specific questions later.

Repent and trust you are forgiven according to the Promises of Christ!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

JVAC

3rd May 2004, 03:41 PM

In another thread I discussed the fact that I am a Protestant who is presently dating a Catholic. It is my very limited-knowledge understanding that Lutherans and Catholics share many beliefs (more so than say a Baptist and a Catholic), and I was curious if someone could tell me in very brief "listed out" terms the things off the top of their head...

I guess, what I'm really looking for is to find out the big similarities and big differences. I'm want us both (me and the girl I'm dating) to write down the "my church MUST believe this" and "my church MUST do this ritual" etc so that we can see if we will EVER be compatible religiously... as it is, I'm not too happy about the idea of marrying and having my children forced to become Catholic or else risk an Ecclesiastical Curse upon us (Anathema) as indicated by the RCC!!! Fear is such a horrible way to convince people to follow the church's rules.
I didn't get a chance to reply to this part, the best part, because of my previous rush. However, I want to say that the Lutheran Church is a good middle ground for Protestant/Catholic couples. I compare it this way:

The Lutheran Church is mostly Protestant because:

We believe in Salvation by Grace alone, through Faith alone for the Glory of God alone
We believe in Scripture alone as the only infallable authority
We believe in Christ alone as the only way to the Father

The Lutheran Church is mostly Catholic because:

We have a Sacramental emphasis
We retain confession (all though private confession isn't necessary, and in the Lutheran church it is merely a Rite and not a Sacrament) and the Office of the Keys
We follow the ancient Church liturgy, complete with Lectionaries and Collects
We are confessional
I would like to encourage you all in this time, and if you could give me her name as well, I'd like to be praying for you guys!

-James

opus_dei

3rd May 2004, 04:33 PM

if i remember correctly, i think that there were something on the order of 95 specific differences lutherans had with catholics. :wave:

actually, i'd like to see the list that all y'all come up with. i was in a wedding of a good friend of mine in a lutheran church. nice service, much different than i thought (in a good way).

congrats on your "own" forum. makes it hard to goto one place for my PRE goodness though.

cheers.

o.d.

[edit] as per james' post, he is lutheran, she catholic. and it did seem to be a good fit, at least for them.

JVAC

3rd May 2004, 04:46 PM

if i remember correctly, i think that there were something on the order of 95 specific differences lutherans had with catholics. :wave:
Hello Opus!!

Actually Martin Luther wrote the 95 thesis in deffense of the Pope against people like Johann Tetzel, who he thought were subverting the Pope's authority and burdening the Christian consciences. Only later did Luther find out that the Pope was the one behind indulgences.

-James

opus_dei

3rd May 2004, 04:52 PM

Hello Opus!!

Actually Martin Luther wrote the 95 thesis in deffense of the Pope against people like Johann Tetzel, who he thought were subverting the Pope's authority and burdening the Christian consciences. Only later did Luther find out that the Pope was the one behind indulgences.

-James
oh, i know. i figured that i'd just act the ignorant catholic part. my buddy who was married came from a missouri synod family where the father was a minister and the mother was a teacher in a private lutheran school. i've heard many times what an incorrigible papist i am. heh.

cheers.

Phoebe

3rd May 2004, 10:16 PM

oh, i know. i figured that i'd just act the ignorant catholic part. my buddy who was married came from a missouri synod family where the father was a minister and the mother was a teacher in a private lutheran school. i've heard many times what an incorrigible papist i am. heh.

cheers.
That was funny. I was hoping you were playing "dumb." :D

ChiRho

4th May 2004, 08:28 AM

ZeroTX

Hi guys,

In another thread I discussed the fact that I am a Protestant who is presently dating a Catholic.

Much luck to you!

It is my very limited-knowledge understanding that Lutherans and Catholics share many beliefs (more so than say a Baptist and a Catholic), and I was curious if someone could tell me in very brief "listed out" terms the things off the top of their head...

If the issues are distilled to there very essence, a Baptist is more like a Roman Catholic, than a Lutheran and a Romanist!

*SEE PREVIOUS POST (#3)

for instance..

Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper -- "real presence" or "symbolic gesture of faith"? Provided every week, or what frequency? Requirements to take communion? Protestants who are NOT Lutheran allowed to partake?

Real Physical Presence, as we cannot argue with the clear words of Christ. Rome attempts to explain this Divine Mystery, while Lutherans do not. We take Christ at His words and believe.

How often a Lutheran Church offers Holy Communion varies from church to church. Typically, a LCMS Church, will offer Communion every Sunday and some throughout the week as well.

Papacy -- Is there an "infallible" Lutheran authority, or is it like most other Faiths and we are just human beings who accept guidance from the Holy Spirit? (The Papacy is the #1 reason I can never accept Catholicism.... I'm a History nut with a Bachelor's degree in History, and study of the History of the Papacy is enough to make you never believe in the papacy, not even for a minute)

While Lutherans certainly appeal to their Fathers (Pastors) as authority, it is not with the understanding that any man is infallible. So long as my Pastor proclaims the truth of Scripture and stands in the stead of Christ, then I appeal. When a Pastor strayes from Scripture and the correct interpretation of the Book of Concord, then we rough him up a bit.

Baptism -- immersion or sprinkle? Infant baptism or upon making a conscious choice and commitment?

Since there is never an amount of water instituted in Holy Scripture, the Lutherans refrain from adding a requirement that God has not.

Holy Baptism for all. We think little of the conscious choice and the empty commitments of man. In Christ we trust.

Scripture -- Sole authority or not?

Sola Scriptura.

Worship style -- singing, music?

Yes. Confession put to song.

What kind? Solemn adoration or joyful praise? Hand waving, dancing, etc? Physical gestures? Statues or other physical objects (i.e. rosary?)...

This should vary from church to church. I would hope there is no dancing and rolling in the aisles, but nothing would shock me.

Is there a "sermon" that allows you to get a real message out of it (perhaps thematic??) or is it like the Homily, rather dry??

In a Lutheran Church, you will get a sermon or Homily that properly distinguishes Law and Gospel. The Homily usually ties in with the three readings each week (O.T., Epistle, Gospel). You will receive what you need- assurance of the Promises of Christ

What percentage of the church service is worship ritual (singing, communion, "other" ritual) vs. the actual message from the Minister?... Are the messages usually relevant with specific examples for life and heavy use of Scriptural support?

Depends on the individual church, but usually, less like the format or style of a modern evangelical church.

I guess, what I'm really looking for is to find out the big similarities and big differences. I'm want us both (me and the girl I'm dating) to write down the "my church MUST believe this" and "my church MUST do this ritual" etc so that we can see if we will EVER be compatible religiously... as it is, I'm not too happy about the idea of marrying and having my children forced to become Catholic or else risk an Ecclesiastical Curse upon us (Anathema) as indicated by the RCC!!! Fear is such a horrible way to convince people to follow the church's rules.

Seriously, you should visit a local LCMS Pastor and speak with him about these issues.

Lutheranism is unlike anything else!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

Proud Papist

4th May 2004, 02:28 PM

So long as my Pastor proclaims the truth of Scripture and stands in the stead of Christ, then I appeal. When a Pastor strayes from Scripture and the correct interpretation of the Book of Concord, then we rough him up a bit.

So is authority (for lack of a better word) vested in the general consensus of the congregation? How is the congregation sure that it right and the pastor may be wrong? Is it possible for the congregation to be wrong while a pastor tries valiantly to hold down the fort? Is there a final authority in church disputes?

Thanks. I am very interested into looking deeper in Lutheranism and am finding this forum a real help.

Regards,
Douglas

Celticflower

4th May 2004, 03:06 PM

Also the Lutheran Church is aptly named "The singing church" for we sing a lot. -James

Gee, and I thought that was the Methodists.

Celtie

JVAC

4th May 2004, 04:45 PM

Gee, and I thought that was the Methodists.
Actually it is a title that has been thrown at just about everyone lately, however, it is quite specific to Lutherans because:

Prior to Lutheranism, the Western Liturgy was performed entirely in Latin with a few chants here an there. However, after the Lutheran reformed Mass took effect, German Hymns were substituted for the Latin chants, and the Latin in other places was translated to German. So actually right after the reformation of the Mass, Germans could be heard singing hymns everywhere, and were labeled as the singing church because of the beautiful hymns they sung.

-James

JVAC

4th May 2004, 04:58 PM

So is authority (for lack of a better word) vested in the general consensus of the congregation?
By no means! Authority mostly rests in the Confessions of the Church, and the confessions are the proper interpretation of Scripture.

How is the congregation sure that it right and the pastor may be wrong? Is it possible for the congregation to be wrong while a pastor tries valiantly to hold down the fort? Is there a final authority in church disputes?
This is where the Synod, all congregations in an area, comes into play. The Synod is usually controlled by either a Bishop (ELCA) or a President (LCMS) (I dont' know about the WELS). The ELCA is composed of many different Synods and has a council of Bishops, that ultimately "judge doctrine" as is the office of Bishop (Augsburg Confession). All judgements, however, are judged against Scripture with respect to the Confessions which are the accurate interpretation thereof.

The main thing about LUtheranism, is one must accept the Confessions, and this is a pre-supposition in all Lutheran scriptural disputes. Lutherans also hold a high value for Church Tradition that doesn't conflict with Scriptural teachings.

So Scripture is interpreted by three ways:

Confessions: Book of Concord
Tradition: Ways of the Early Church
Logic: What we can reason from the three.

And all this done by Bishops or people who are properly called, with the support of the Church.

-James

JVAC

4th May 2004, 05:05 PM

Ok after reading what I just wrote I have to add something:

By support of the Church that usually means Church wide elections that happens throughout the particular synod or every synod. This holds the Bishops or President (Synod Councils) accountable to the entire Church.

-James

ChiRho

4th May 2004, 06:14 PM

So is authority (for lack of a better word) vested in the general consensus of the congregation? How is the congregation sure that it right and the pastor may be wrong? Is it possible for the congregation to be wrong while a pastor tries valiantly to hold down the fort? Is there a final authority in church disputes?

Thanks. I am very interested into looking deeper in Lutheranism and am finding this forum a real help.

Regards,
Douglas

No, truth is not a "majority decides" situation. Authority is the clear word of God, Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture is the Judge. It is quite possible for a congregation to be wrong, while the Pastor defends what is true, just as it is possible for the reverse, but we have the clear, unwavering, infallible, and inerrant word of God to proclaim truth.

Added:

JVAC is correct to name the Book of Concord as the true interpretation of Scripture. So we may trust in the Lutheran Confessions in times of conflict, as they accurately confess truth.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

ZeroTX

4th May 2004, 08:53 PM

It sounds like the Lutheran Church is an excellent place for a Catholic to stay with many of their traditions while not sacrificing the Biblical principals that are so important to me... and while not giving excessive value to the words of clergy... The Papacy is something I have a *real* problem with...

I thinik the denomination I associate myself most closely with is Southern Baptist. However, I am willing to consider the other options... Except Catholicism. I just do not think I can swallow their "infallible" pope theory or their belief that today's RCC is the original church. I believe neither. I think no human is infallible except for Jesus Christ when he was here on earth... and I believe that the original church split centuries ago, or simply ceased to exist in the Constantine era.

-Michael

BronxBriar

4th May 2004, 10:42 PM

It sounds like the Lutheran Church is an excellent place for a Catholic to stay with many of their traditions while not sacrificing the Biblical principals that are so important to me... and while not giving excessive value to the words of clergy... The Papacy is something I have a *real* problem with...

I would agree. I was (still am officially) Catholic and the thing that first struck me when I began to attend Lutheran worship was the very real similarity with the Catholic Mass. I feel very much at home in the Lutheran environment, for that and many other reasons. More so than in the church I grew up in.

-Henry

ByzantineDixie

4th May 2004, 11:57 PM

ChiRho

7th May 2004, 03:06 PM

I will second that...another former Catholic here. :wave: I know ChiRho stresses the differences...and theologically they can be considered signficant...but I think Lutherans tend to see the leap as far greater than Catholics who have become Lutheran see it.[/

I wonder who is closer to the objective truth (actual length of leap)? :) This isnt ANOTHER implication accusing ChiRho of being the driving force behind dissention, is it? LOL!!

Lutheran theology is rich and can well be appreciated by Catholics seeking assurance of their salvation.

Perhaps this should be the opening statement for our thread! Well said Rose, I doubt it could be expressed more clearly (these comforting words apply to anyone that is denied the pure Gospel!). :D :clap:

I think it is the perfect compromise between Catholic and Protestant...at least it was for my husband and I.

Compromise?!...in what sense? :confused:

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

ZeroTX

7th May 2004, 07:20 PM

Compromise?!...in what sense? :confused:

ChiRo,

A compromise is exactly how I'm seeing it as well.... The article in the back of The Spirituality of The Cross explains it exactly....

It's almost like a "Best of" between Protestantism and Catholicism...

From Protestantism:
Bible-based, Salvation is a free gift, No "papacy"

From Catholicism:
Traditionally-organized church service, "real presence" communion, infant baptism

That's just a few off the top of my head. I left the book in my truck, or I'd look and give you more, but it seems more "right" than Catholicism to me... I can be a Lutheran, I think. I cannot be a Catholic, and I think I would rather break up with this girl than ever become a Catholic. The papacy goes against everything spiritual that I believe, down to the core. I have a History degree from college, and all I can think about is the horrible people who held the office of the pope, and to whom all Catholics must submit authority. It makes me want to vomit.

BTW, we're attending a Lutheran (LCMS) church this weekend.... I mentioned some questions in my PM to you.

-Michael

ByzantineDixie

7th May 2004, 07:58 PM

I wonder who is closer to the objective truth (actual length of leap)? :) This isnt ANOTHER implication accusing ChiRho of being the driving force behind dissention, is it? LOL!!

Nah, if I wanted to do that I could find much better examples out there to pick from! :P

But think about it this way...actually the subjective truth is the issue. When anyone changes their faith or faith practice they have to assess what must they give up and what must they embrace. It has been my experience, and my understanding from discussions with other Catholics that have joined the Lutheran church, that it's not so difficult--the transition to becoming Lutheran...not really so much to give up...and really great stuff to embrace. However...I do not see the converse as being as easy.

Compromise?!...in what sense? :confused:

Ya know, I had a response to this before I LOST IT but I like Michael's response better so...ditto that!

Actually...while the husband has authority and responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the family, my husband, though not willing to become Catholic, was willing to look at other denominations in which I might feel more comfortable. What a gracious gesture on his part!

Peace

Rose

ChiRho

10th May 2004, 10:32 AM

[QUOTE=Luthers Rose]Nah, if I wanted to do that I could find much better examples out there to pick from! :P

But think about it this way...actually the subjective truth is the issue. When anyone changes their faith or faith practice they have to assess what must they give up and what must they embrace. It has been my experience, and my understanding from discussions with other Catholics that have joined the Lutheran church, that it's not so difficult--the transition to becoming Lutheran...not really so much to give up...and really great stuff to embrace. However...I do not see the converse as being as easy.

Well, I thought the issue was the differences (ChiRho points to op)! :)

Ya know, I had a response to this before I LOST IT but I like Michael's response better so...ditto that!

Actually...while the husband has authority and responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the family, my husband, though not willing to become Catholic, was willing to look at other denominations in which I might feel more comfortable. What a gracious gesture on his part!

com·pro·mise
n.

1. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
The result of such a settlement.

2. Something that combines qualities or elements of different things: The incongruous design is a compromise between high tech and early American.

3. A concession to something detrimental or pejorative: a compromise of morality.

Considering the councils of Trent and Vatican II, and all of the modern movements within Christendom emphasizing our need for compromise or change to suit the people of today, I just dread the word "compromise."

Lutheranism is unique- a compromise- only in the sense, that it concedes nothing when confronted with untruth, but agrees completely with all who advocate what is absolutely true. :)

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

Flipper

10th May 2004, 01:55 PM

I will second that...another former Catholic here. :wave: I know ChiRho stresses the differences...and theologically they can be considered signficant...but I think Lutherans tend to see the leap as far greater than Catholics who have become Lutheran see it.

Lutheran theology is rich and can well be appreciated by Catholics seeking assurance of their salvation. I think it is the perfect compromise between Catholic and Protestant...at least it was for my husband and I.

Peace

Rose
As a former Catholic, I agree with you - I don't have that "history" in my blood, so I guess I don't see it like other Lutherans do.

While I had already joined a Lutheran church before I met my husband (Methodist), I do know he wouldn't have wanted to become Catholic either. He had no problem joining my church. It worked out for us.

JeffreyLloyd

13th May 2004, 02:47 AM

You think it's possible to tell what you believe without bashing the Pope and the Catholic Church... could you try that? Please?

ChiRho

13th May 2004, 07:01 AM

You think it's possible to tell what you believe without bashing the Pope and the Catholic Church... could you try that? Please?

Could you cite some examples? Just so we have a clear understanding of "pope bashing,' or "roman catholic bashing?" Thanks.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

JeffreyLloyd

13th May 2004, 08:07 AM

...but only tradition that is not contrary to scripture, ex: papal infallability.

I'm not going to list them all, all I am asking, is it really hard to share what you believe without saying how "unbiblical" the Catholic Church is?

Flipper

13th May 2004, 09:13 AM

You think it's possible to tell what you believe without bashing the Pope and the Catholic Church... could you try that? Please?
I don't think I bashed anyone. Actually, I have no problem with the Pope and/or the RCC. I do, however, have a HUGE problem with my archdiocese and many of the holier-than-thou officials in it and their stupid rules, and they play a huge part in why I became Lutheran. Those are individuals, however, not a denomination. I really haven't bashed my archdiocese ever on these boards, but if you get me started, I can very easily. Lets just say that I should have the right to attend as a member, any church I want, and marry in any church I want who's pastor will marry me - not the parish my archdiocese tells me to go to or marry in.

Only a year or two after I became Lutheran, did I really learn the differences. They are quite fascinating differences, and it was an eye opener. Even with those differences, Catholics are just as much Christians as Lutherans and anyone else who believe that the only way to Heaven is through Jesus.

ChiRho

13th May 2004, 09:57 AM

Jeff,

What is the title of this thread and where is it found? Lutheran/ Roman differences...located deep within the walls of Castle Wittenberg. Do you expect us to be reciting the Rosary and staring at the Eucharist?

Besides, Papal Infallibility is not Scriptural, in fact, it is contrary to Holy Scripture. This is not Roman Catholic bashing, this is clarifying the truth of Christianity.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

ZeroTX

13th May 2004, 05:49 PM

I'm not going to list them all, all I am asking, is it really hard to share what you believe without saying how "unbiblical" the Catholic Church is?
Jeffrey,

What differentiates the Roman Catholic church from the Lutheran church is those exact items that Lutherans feel Catholics do/believe that are unbiblical. This was the basis of Martin Luther's problems with the church, and thus the basis of Lutheran believers who agreed with him.

I'm new to this myself (I grew up Baptist), but my understanding is that Luther,a Catholic priest, felt there were many unbiblical items that had become a part of the Catholic church over its evolution ( and WERE NOT part of it originally ), and he wanted them brought to the forefront and corrected. His goal was not to spawn the Reformation or to build a church called 'Lutheran'... In fact, he detested the fact that people used his name. But, as with most beliefs, the derogatory name of the believers ends up being the name they embrace!

I really respect and enjoy many of the Catholic traditions, and so did Luther. The church was unwilling to correct their biblical flaws that had come about long after the time of Christ, by way of mistakes men made (not by mistakes of Christ or the original Apostles)... The church was unwilling to make corrections, so here we are.

Note: I'm not a Lutheran. ChiRo and others in this forum can give you more expert opinion, or you could always read some of Luthers writing, which is extensive. I read a book called The Spirituality of The Cross which was an excellent way for me to become introduced to the Lutheran beliefs. I will heed James' warning (James 3:1) and not try to be a teacher in this area, as I do not have the background to teach Lutheran beliefs...

-Michael

JeffreyLloyd

13th May 2004, 07:59 PM

Jeff,

What is the title of this thread and where is it found? Lutheran/ Roman differences...located deep within the walls of Castle Wittenberg. Do you expect us to be reciting the Rosary and staring at the Eucharist?

Again, thanks for the respect :rolleyes:

Besides, Papal Infallibility is not Scriptural, in fact, it is contrary to Holy Scripture. This is not Roman Catholic bashing, this is clarifying the truth of Christianity.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

Like I said, it's just interesting, that you cannot comment on your own beliefs without bashing someone else's.

Jeff

Lotar

13th May 2004, 09:29 PM

Hi guys,

In another thread I discussed the fact that I am a Protestant who is presently dating a Catholic. It is my very limited-knowledge understanding that Lutherans and Catholics share many beliefs (more so than say a Baptist and a Catholic), and I was curious if someone could tell me in very brief "listed out" terms the things off the top of their head...

for instance..

Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper -- "real presence" or "symbolic gesture of faith"? Provided every week, or what frequency? Requirements to take communion? Protestants who are NOT Lutheran allowed to partake?
Like Catholics profess that Christ is truly and physically present in the Eucharist. Catholics try define how it happens by using metaphysics, calling it transubstantiation. People often say that Lutherans teach consubstantiation, which isn't really true, though many do believe it, we do not have a dogmatic decree on how it happens. Christ said, "This is my body" and "This is my blood," and Christ does not lie, so we believe Him. It isn't something that we feel needs a dogmatic definition.

The frequency depends on the pastor, some every other week, some every week, some every Sunday and midweek service. There is a big push to get the churches to practice it every Sunday at least.

We must not partake unworthily, so we must pray and inspect ourselves for sins, and there is confession and absolution before. Most churches wait until children are confirmed before allowing them to commune, but some allow it immediately.

The traditional and orthodox (and in my oppinion, biblical) way is to have closed communion. So only church members and those who's church is in communion with the church may take communion.

Papacy -- Is there an "infallible" Lutheran authority, or is it like most other Faiths and we are just human beings who accept guidance from the Holy Spirit? (The Papacy is the #1 reason I can never accept Catholicism.... I'm a History nut with a Bachelor's degree in History, and study of the History of the Papacy is enough to make you never believe in the papacy, not even for a minute)Only God's Word is infallible, but we recognize that the Word is not limitted to the Bible. There are sources of authority that we do not consider to be infallible, per se, but correct. In that area there are the 3 Creeds, the Lutheran Confessions, etc. We don't accept scripture without Tradition, nor tradition without Scripture, in doctrines of faith.

Baptism -- immersion or sprinkle? Infant baptism or upon making a conscious choice and commitment?Baptism is generally done by sprinkling, though Trinitarian immersion is recognized as well.

Baptism is not about what you do, but what God does and His free gift to you. Baptism sparks saving faith in the heart of a child, we would never withhold it from them.

Scripture -- Sole authority or not?
Sole authority by which all matters of faith must be judged by. It is not the only authority, and dare I say, its authority is questionable when seperated from the Tradition of the Church.

Worship style -- singing, music? What kind? Solemn adoration or joyful praise? Hand waving, dancing, etc? Physical gestures? Statues or other physical objects (i.e. rosary?)... Is there a "sermon" that allows you to get a real message out of it (perhaps thematic??) or is it like the Homily, rather dry?? What percentage of the church service is worship ritual (singing, communion, "other" ritual) vs. the actual message from the Minister?... Are the messages usually relevant with specific examples for life and heavy use of Scriptural support?Lutherans are liturgical, many consider the Liturgy to be Tradition rather than tradition, and like Catholics and Orthodox we refer (officially at least, some people are Americanized) to it with names like "divine service" and "mass." A Lutheran service and Catholic service are virtually identical, except Lutherans sing a little more and the sermon is around 15 minutes instead of 5. We believe that the service should have both the Word and Sacrament.

The sermon or homily, is not the sole purpose of the service, and indeed, is not the message. There are multiple readings of scripture, prayers, reciting of the Creed, hymns etc.; the entire liturgy is a message, every song, reading, and response teaches something. You will be standing up, sitting down, standing up, kneeling (if they have kneelers), sitting down, standing up, etc. ;)

Some Lutherans use a rosary, a prayer rope, etc., but it is not in the services and is more akin to the Orthodox practice than the Catholic Mary-centered Rosary, though I have seen the practice of reserving one bead for the magnificant.

I guess, what I'm really looking for is to find out the big similarities and big differences. I'm want us both (me and the girl I'm dating) to write down the "my church MUST believe this" and "my church MUST do this ritual" etc so that we can see if we will EVER be compatible religiously... as it is, I'm not too happy about the idea of marrying and having my children forced to become Catholic or else risk an Ecclesiastical Curse upon us (Anathema) as indicated by the RCC!!! Fear is such a horrible way to convince people to follow the church's rules.
Well, I must inform you that Lutherans also have their own anathemas. All of those declared in the 7 councils and the the ones in the Lutheran Confessions, though they say "we condemn" rather than "let him be anathema." The difference is that those ones where we say "we condemn" do not mean that said person is damned to hell, but we do mean that said belief is wrong, heretical, and will put their souls in danger.

In ways of worship, post Vatican II, Catholics and Lutherans are little different from eachother. Our main differences are in doctrine, like justification, Papal infalibility, doctirnal progression, etc.

ChiRho

14th May 2004, 07:20 AM

Again, thanks for the respect :rolleyes:

Like I said, it's just interesting, that you cannot comment on your own beliefs without bashing someone else's.

Jeff

I respect you...I do not respect Papal Infallibility...in fact, I believe that trust in Papal Infalliblity weakens one's faith. It actually aids in the destruction of faith. We are to regard no one as righteous, not one. There has never been anyone without sin, but Christ. I cannot put my confidence (of infallibility) in anyone but Jesus Christ.

If I really believed this, which I do, would it be kind of me to remain silent?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

ChiRho

26th May 2004, 02:22 PM

ChiRo,

A compromise is exactly how I'm seeing it as well.... The article in the back of The Spirituality of The Cross explains it exactly....

It's almost like a "Best of" between Protestantism and Catholicism...

From Protestantism:
Bible-based, Salvation is a free gift, No "papacy"

From Catholicism:
Traditionally-organized church service, "real presence" communion, infant baptism

That's just a few off the top of my head. I left the book in my truck, or I'd look and give you more, but it seems more "right" than Catholicism to me... I can be a Lutheran, I think. I cannot be a Catholic, and I think I would rather break up with this girl than ever become a Catholic. The papacy goes against everything spiritual that I believe, down to the core. I have a History degree from college, and all I can think about is the horrible people who held the office of the pope, and to whom all Catholics must submit authority. It makes me want to vomit.

BTW, we're attending a Lutheran (LCMS) church this weekend.... I mentioned some questions in my PM to you.

-Michael

This is what I meant by not compromising. We dont see it as a "compromise" but a strong stance on what is true. :)

Evangelical Catholics & Confessional Evangelicals
The ecumenical polarities of Lutheranism

by Gene Edward Veith

Gene Edward Veith is Professor of Humanities and Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at Concordia University*Wisconsin. He is the author of eight books-including Postmodern Times, Reading Between the Lines: A Christian Guide to Literature, and Reformation Spirituality: The Religion of George Herbert-and numerous essays on Christianity, culture, and the arts. He is a member of First Immanuel Lutheran Church in Cedarburg, Wisconsin, a congregation of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some places, genuine Lutheranism for all of the Lutheran churches has become hard to find. But, as it always has, the pendulum may be starting to swing in the other direction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
Paradoxy
The Roots of American Lutheranism
Between Separatism & Accommodationism
Lutheran Confessionalism
Anti-Ecumenism

Introduction

Imagine a church that is both evangelical-proclaiming the free forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ-and sacramental, centering its spiritual life in the regenerating waters of baptism and the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion. Imagine further a church that is strongly grounded on Scripture, but yet avoids the solipsism of individual interpretation in favor of a comprehensive, intellectually rigorous and eminently orthodox theological system. Imagine a worship service that features both strong preaching and the historic liturgy. Imagine that this is a historical church with a rich spiritual tradition, but without legalism. Imagine, in short, a church that has some of the best parts of Protestantism and the best parts of Catholicism. Finally, imagine that this church body is not some little made-up sect, but one of the largest bodies of Christians in the world.

Such a church might seem like what many Christians-disaffected by both the vacuity of liberal theology and the shallowness of American evangelicalism-are dreaming of. For millions of Christians such a church actually exists-it goes by the admittedly inadequate name "Lutheran."

Worldwide, there are some 60 million Lutherans on the books, making it the largest Protestant tradition of them all. There are around 9 million Lutherans in the United States, but 5 million in Africa and another 5 million in Asia. Brazil has over a million Lutherans, and it is one of the dominant religions of Papua New Guinea. In the United States, there are about the same number of Missouri Synod Lutherans (2.5 million) as there are Episcopalians.

To be sure, these numbers are uncertain and doubtless inflated, including state churches and those that have all but abandoned their heritage in favor of liberal theology or quasi-evangelicalism. Just as not all Catholics actually believe and practice their Catholicism, the same is true for Lutherans. Nevertheless, this many people consider themselves Lutherans and affirm, in their formal subscriptions, the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament and salvation by grace through faith in the work of Jesus Christ.

Despite its size, the Lutheran Church seems almost unknown in American Christianity. Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists, charismatics, and Calvinists are well represented in theological debates, opinion polls, and articles in Christian publications, but Lutherans-who have their own distinctive approach to everything from salvation to politics-are often theological wallflowers.

Billy Graham called Lutherans "the sleeping giant." If Lutheranism is the invisible Church, or, to paraphrase what Luther said of God, the Church that hides itself, this is partly its own fault and partly the result of its theological tension with American culture. Nevertheless, Lutheranism has much to offer Christendom as a whole. As a Church body with a thoroughly worked-out theology, which it actually follows, Lutheran denominations have retained their orthodoxy more successfully than most. But more than that, Lutheran theology-and spirituality-is animated by a dynamic polarity in which divisive theological controversies are put into balance and thus resolved.

Paradoxy

The distinctive characteristic of Lutheran theology is its affirmation of paradox. Calvin and Arminius both constructed systematic theologies, explaining away any contrary biblical data in a rationalistic system of belief. Luther developed his theology in Bible commentaries, following the contours of Scripture wherever they led and developing its most profound polarities: law and gospel; Christ as both true God and true Man; the Christian as simultaneously saint and sinner; justification by faith and baptismal regeneration; Holy Communion as the Real Presence of Christ in material bread and wine.

Not only have Lutherans always affirmed both "evangelical" and "Catholic" ideas, their way with paradox also resolves issues that have divided Protestants. Calvinists insist on salvation by grace alone to the extent of double predestination; Arminians insist that everyone, potentially, can be saved, and so stress the utter freedom of the will. Lutherans stress grace above all, that God does literally everything for our salvation, dying on the cross, with his Spirit breaking into our lives through Word and Sacrament, the means of grace. But Jesus died for all, and potentially anyone might be saved. Lutheranism affirms the best of both Calvinism and Arminianism, while avoiding the exclusivity of the one and the potential Pelagianism of the other. Charismatics emphasize the Holy Spirit-so do Lutherans, finding that Spirit not in the vagaries of human emotion but even more tangibly as being genuinely operative in the Word and Sacraments. Lutherans are fundamentalist in their doctrinal rigor, while excluding separatism and legalism. Lutheran cultural theology affirms Two Kingdoms, preventing the secular from swallowing up the sacred, and the sacred from swallowing up the secular. This explains why Lutherans can seem both inwardly focused and free and easy, why they seem conservative yet apolitical, and why they often have beer at their church dinners.

Lutheranism-with its sacramentalism and liturgical worship synthesized with its biblicism and evangelical proclamation-might serve as a bridge between the various factions of Christianity. Of course, it is not that simple.

If Lutheranism represents an "evangelical Catholicism" (a term favored by many confessional Lutherans), its paradoxes mean that it is likewise subject to attack from every side. Evangelicals consider it "too Catholic"-making fun of what they consider its stiff formality, its old-fashioned music, and its ancient liturgy and, more seriously, questioning how Lutherans can say salvation is by faith if they believe in baptismal regeneration and being appalled at the way the pastor says when he gives the absolution that he forgives people their sins. Catholics and Orthodox lump Lutheranism with all other Protestants-in fact, Lutherans are the worst Protestants because they started the dissolution of Christendom.

Within Protestantism, Calvinists attack Lutherans for "not going far enough in the Reformation," for keeping papistical practices and idolatrous worship. Arminians attack Lutherans for not believing in the freedom of the will and for leaving the door open to anti-nomianism. Charismatics think Lutherans are "cold." Fundamentalists say Lutherans are strong on doctrine but weak on morals.

And, just as the Lutheran framework seems to invite attacks from every side, Lutherans counterattack everyone else. Lutherans condemn Arminians for not believing in predestination and Calvinists for believing in double predestination. Catholics and charismatics are considered alike in believing that the Holy Spirit reveals himself in human beings, apart from the Word. Fundamentalists are savaged for their legalism. In fact, many Lutherans do not see themselves as being Protestant at all.

The Lutheran synthesis is a baroque structure that can only be held together by a doctrinal rigor that constantly reinforces every point. Anglicans attempt a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism, which works through compromise, broad consensus, and a tolerance for differences. The Lutheran way, on the other hand, is one of polarities. Each pole of the paradox must be maintained and heightened. What Chesterton said in Orthodoxy of the paradoxes of Christianity is particularly descriptive of Lutheran theology: "We want not an amalgam or compromise, but both things at the top of their energy; love and wrath both burning." Christianity does not approach doctrinal issues, such as the nature of Christ or the moral status of a human being, in terms of the Aristotelian golden mean. Rather, "Christianity got over the difficulty of combining furious opposites, by keeping them both, and keeping them both furious."

Thus, Lutherans are very sacramental and very evangelical. Anglicanism, even in its high-church phase, has always been dismissed by continental Lutherans as merely another variety of Reformed Calvinism, its articles being so wishy-washy in not clearly affirming the Real Presence. Evangelicals are not evangelical enough, falling as they do into the trap of "decision theology" and moralism, not trusting God to accomplish literally everything that is needful.

As a result, Lutheran theology, though embracing in one sense the whole range of Christian spirituality, is nevertheless an entity unto itself, with its own spiritual disciplines that are quite alien to those of other traditions. Consider, for example, the way Lutheranism opposes the so-called Theology (or rather, spirituality) of Glory-with its pretensions of power, victory, and earthly success-with the Theology of the Cross, in which God reveals himself in weakness, defeat, and failure. Or the Word of God, not merely as a sourcebook of information, but as a sacramental means of grace. Or the way God hides himself in what seems to be his opposite, in the material elements of the Sacraments, in humiliation and defeat, in what seems most secular and nonreligious. Or the exhilaration, under the gospel, of Christian freedom.

ChiRho

26th May 2004, 02:24 PM

The Roots of American Lutheranism

An immigrant faith, like Catholicism and Orthodoxy, Lutheran churches had always been somewhat culturally isolated and highly conscious of their differences with mainstream American Protestantism. While German Lutherans came to Pennsylvania in colonial times and Scandinavian Lutherans settled in the upper Midwest, bringing their churches with them, another group came for a different reason.

In nineteenth-century Germany, efforts were being made by the post-Enlightenment princes to combine the various Protestant factions into a single, ecumenical, state church. Calvinists and Lutherans were forced to give up their doctrinal distinctiveness and combine into an "Evangelical and Reformed" church. ("Evangelical"-referring to the centrality of the gospel-is the preferred continental term for Lutheranism, as opposed to the "Reformed" Calvinists. Lutherans were thus the

first, and one might argue, the most quintessential Evangelicals.) The state churches so formed tended to foster a rationalistic, cultural religion-preaching new agricultural techniques and doctrines of social progress rather than the gospel-the fruit of the new liberal theology being developed in German seminaries. In the typical heavy-handed German way, pastors who opposed the ecumenical union were actually imprisoned, and the so-called "Old Lutherans" were persecuted. Scores of congregations that insisted on classical Lutheranism left everything they owned and settled in America. (Substantial numbers also went to other countries such as Australia, Africa, and Brazil.)

These formed the more conservative Lutheran denominations, such as the Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Synod (terms that refer to the place of their historical origins and denominational headquarters), churches that, because of their history, would naturally be suspicious of ecumenism. Like the Catholics, these confessional Lutherans, recognizing that the Protestant civil religion of the public schools was inimical to their faith, established an extensive system of parochial schools to educate their children in a way that would be supportive of their faith. This strain of Lutherans thus resisted assimilation into the mainstream of American religious life. In terms of their "Two Kingdoms" theology, they assimilated quite well into American society and economic life, but their church was kept separate, untouched by the revivalism, the social gospel, religious individualism, and other trends of American religion.

Between Separatism & Accommodationism

But if one tendency in American Lutheranism is a certain separatism, the other part of the inevitable polarity is accomodationism. The colonial-era Lutherans and many of the Scandinavian settlers were not so strict as the religious refugees. Quite early, these Lutherans debated about to what extent they should adapt to the religious life of their new homeland. An important nineteenth-century theologian, Samuel Schmuucker (mod note: had to add an extra "u" to his lastname because of the curse/slang filter in the software *shrugs* - JMRE5150), went so far as to amend the Augsburg Confession to accommodate the new revivalism and a more Reformed view of the Sacraments. While many Lutherans went in this direction, another theologian, Charles Krauth, in a movement paralleling the Oxford movement within Anglicanism, championed a revival of confessionalism and liturgical renewal.

Ever since, American Lutherans have tended to vacillate between the poles of separatism and accommodationism. Historically, Lutheran denominations in America have tended to drift towards the religious mainstream, only to lurch back into their distinctiveness.

In this century, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) has gone through a particularly traumatic "civil war." Its seminary in St. Louis gradually began accepting other mainline Protestant denominations' approach to the Scriptures, employing the historical-critical method to cast doubt on the authority of the Bible and adopting other tenets of liberal theology. In the 1970s, "the battle of the Bible" erupted, as conservatives called "the moderates" on their unorthodox view of the Scriptures-the latter were expelled, set up a seminary of their own, and every congregation had to choose which side it would be on. Unlike what happened in other denominations, the liberals left and the conservatives retained control of the institution (rather than the conservatives leaving, which has usually been the case in other church bodies).

Today, the LCMS is facing a similar issue, only now the American religious mainstream is no longer liberalism but evangelicalism. Many Lutheran churches have been jettisoning their liturgy and their distinctive beliefs, in favor of emulating the Evangelicals, adapting techniques from the church-growth movement, singing "praise songs," preaching sermons on pop-psychology, and otherwise abandoning their spiritual heritage in favor of generic American Protestantism.

In the meantime, the moderates' exodus from the LCMS served as the catalyst for the union of the nation's more liberal Lutherans. The resulting Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) continued going the way of the rest of mainline Protestantism. The ordination of women, left-wing political advocacy, and the ecumenical movement have made them less distinctive, and more and more like generic American liberal Protestantism.

In some places, genuine Lutheranism-for all of the Lutheran churches-has become hard to find. But, as it always has, the pendulum may be starting to swing in the other direction.

Lutheran Confessionalism

Today, a new confessionalism is emerging in Lutheran circles. Just as many Lutheran churches are going the way of American evangelicalism in using praise bands and overhead projectors, others are reemphasizing the historic liturgy, chanting the service and signing themselves with the Holy Cross. Many parishes have reinstituted the ancient Lutheran practice of private confession and absolution.

The most rigorously confessional Lutheran pastors can be recognized by their black shirts and white clerical collars, the priest-like garb worn by traditional holders of the pastoral office before they adopted the American-style minister's coat and tie. All Lutheran pastors wear the collar; the arch-confessionalists are distinguished by wearing it practically all the time.

This confessionalism can appear formidable. Closed Communion (sharing the Lord's Supper only with those who agree on every point of doctrine), a genuine pastoral authority, rigorous catechetical instruction for converts, and forthright practices (such as no weddings during Lent, and no congratulatory eulogies during funerals), can be off-putting in America's easy-going culture. But confessionalism is not the same as conservatism. During the LCMS controversy over the Bible, high-church ceremonialists tended to be on the liberal side; today, while theologically orthodox, they stand against the evangelical and fundamentalist tendencies within the church.

Lutherans allow a measure of freedom in practice, while insisting on agreement in doctrine (unlike, say, the Anglican tradition which has tended to stress uniformity of worship forms while allowing for doctrinal latitude). Conservative denominations such as the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods remain rigorously confessional, in the sense of upholding the creeds and formulas of the Book of Concord, though they are presently torn by controversies over worship styles. That style is expressive of confession, though, is becoming more and more evident, and serious fault lines seem to be manifesting themselves within the conservative Lutheran denominations. Most Lutherans today are somewhere along the spectrum between the two poles of low-church informality and high-church ceremonialism.

Nevertheless, it is surely significant that many of the most ardently confessional pastors, those who are most concerned to bring back the Lutheran traditions in both doctrine and worship, are those straight out of seminary. The younger pastors, the new generation, seem to be the ones most concerned to recover their Lutheran distinctiveness.

In the meantime, Lutherans are starting to get their share of disaffected Evangelicals-casualties of megachurches and refugees from generic American Protestantism, Christians looking for meaningful worship and theological depth-as well as Catholics dismayed by the post-Vatican II liberalism within their Church, and burnt-out secularists who, broken by the law and renewed by the gospel, have come to Christ.

Anti-Ecumenism

Confessional Lutherans are not ecumenical. They will never join the National Association of Evangelicals, nor the World Council of Churches. Lutheran institutions are so big-with their network of schools, colleges, publishing houses, and denominational services-that they can be rather insulated and self-contained. Though the ELCA has pioneered ecumenical dialogue with the Reformed, Anglicans, and even Roman Catholics-to the point of claiming to have found agreement with Rome on justification by faith-the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods will have none of that. Their wariness of ecumenical union and, even more profoundly, of American-style Christianity has kept them out of the mainstream, but it has kept them relatively true to their theology.

Any genuine ecumenism must avoid simply emptying Christianity of its distinctive content and must somehow affirm what is most salient, what is most "Christian," in the whole spectrum of Christian belief, from traditional Catholicism to Protestant fundamentalism. Lutheranism, while eschewing ecumenism as such, provides a framework-or, rather, a set of polarities-by which this might be done.

Many confessional Lutherans have taken to calling themselves "evangelical catholics." They are catholic in their historic creeds, their worship, and their sacramentalism, and they are evangelical in their trust in the good news of Christ, that in his cross he has saved us by sheer grace for a life of Christian freedom. Others are calling themselves "confessing Evangelicals," allying with Reformed Christians to call today's doctrinally shallow Evangelicals to the historic confessions of faith forged by the Reformation. From the Lutheran perspective, mere Catholics are in need of evangelical reformation, and mere Evangelicals are in need of historic orthodoxy. The theological formulas that purport to show how both of these tasks can be done are collected in a volume appropriately titled The Book of Concord. For Lutherans, such an approach represents nothing other than mere Christianity.

JVAC

26th May 2004, 02:33 PM

Confessional Lutherans are not ecumenical.
Poppycock (respectfully)

-James

ChiRho

26th May 2004, 02:39 PM

Confessional Lutherans are not ecumenical.

Poppycock (respectfully)

-James

I agree! Where did you quote me from? If I typed that, then I am wrong!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

Lotar

26th May 2004, 02:42 PM

Poppycock (respectfully)

-James
Saying that ELCA is confessional is like saying SSPX follows the Pope :D

JVAC

26th May 2004, 02:42 PM

Anti-Ecumenism

Confessional Lutherans are not ecumenical. They will never join the National Association of Evangelicals, nor the World Council of Churches. Lutheran institutions are so big-with their network of schools, colleges, publishing houses, and denominational services-that they can be rather insulated and self-contained. Though the ELCA has pioneered ecumenical dialogue with the Reformed, Anglicans, and even Roman Catholics-to the point of claiming to have found agreement with Rome on justification by faith-the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods will have none of that. Their wariness of ecumenical union and, even more profoundly, of American-style Christianity has kept them out of the mainstream, but it has kept them relatively true to their theology.

Any genuine ecumenism must avoid simply emptying Christianity of its distinctive content and must somehow affirm what is most salient, what is most "Christian," in the whole spectrum of Christian belief, from traditional Catholicism to Protestant fundamentalism. Lutheranism, while eschewing ecumenism as such, provides a framework-or, rather, a set of polarities-by which this might be done.

-James

JVAC

26th May 2004, 02:45 PM

Saying that ELCA is confessional is like saying SSPX follows the Pope :D
I didn't say ELCA at all, just because that is my Church doesn't mean that I was talking about it. I think the original Lutheran Church wanted very much to rejoin Rome, but Rome was more anti-Ecumenical than we were and are.

-James

ChiRho

26th May 2004, 02:45 PM

Saying that ELCA is confessional is like saying SSPX follows the Pope :D

What is SSPX? :confused:

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

Lotar

26th May 2004, 02:48 PM

Confessional Lutherans are different type of ecumenalists. Pietists seek union through brushing over differences and liturgical uniformity. While the orthodox way is to seek union through doctrinal agreement.

ChiRho

26th May 2004, 02:52 PM

Lotar

26th May 2004, 02:53 PM

I didn't say ELCA at all, just because that is my Church doesn't mean that I was talking about it. I think the original Lutheran Church wanted very much to rejoin Rome, but Rome was more anti-Ecumenical than we were and are.

-JamesNo, we did and still do wish Rome to rejoin us, as they are the ones who broke off from the Church and followed their own human traditions and wisdom. Such union will only take place when they recant of the heretical positions of Trent and the two Vatican councils. Talks are one thing, signing documents that make false declarations and brushing over differences of the most important position of the Reformation, is something completely different.

But at least you don't claim that ELCA is confessional, there is some hope for you yet. ;)

Lotar

26th May 2004, 02:58 PM

What is SSPX? :confused:

Pax Christi,

ChiRho
Society of Saint Pius X. They broke off from Rome after the liberal declarations of Vatican II.

ChiRho

26th May 2004, 03:00 PM

No, we did and still do wish Rome to rejoin us, as they are the ones who broke off from the Church and followed their own human traditions and wisdom. Such union will only take place when they recant of the heretical positions of Trent and the two Vatican councils. Talks are one thing, signing documents that make false declarations and brushing over differences of the most important position of the Reformation, is something completely different.

But at least you don't claim that ELCA is confessional, there is some hope for you yet. ;)

Speechless! Completely speechless!

Does it get any better? :)

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

ChiRho

26th May 2004, 03:04 PM

Society of Saint Pius X. They broke off from Rome after the liberal declarations of Vatican II.

AHH! thanks for the clarification. I agree.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

JVAC

26th May 2004, 08:38 PM

But at least you don't claim that ELCA is confessional, there is some hope for you yet. ;)
I didn't say that either, I merely was remaining silent on the matter, because I know your thoughts about my Church and what your Synod thinks about us.

-James

Lotar

26th May 2004, 11:00 PM

All you have to do is look at the communion with the sacramentarians, when the Confessions say this:

33] Dr. Luther, who, above others, certainly understood the true and proper meaning of the Augsburg Confession, and who constantly remained steadfast thereto till his end, and defended it, shortly before his death repeated his faith concerning this article with great zeal in his last Confession, where he writes thus: I rate as one concoction, namely, as Sacramentarians and fanatics, which they also are, all who will not believe that the Lord's bread in the Supper is His true natural body, which the godless or Judas received with the mouth, as well as did St. Peter and all [other] saints; he who will not believe this (I say) should let me alone, and hope for no fellowship with me; this is not going to be altered [thus my opinion stands, which I am not going to change]. Tom. 2, Wittenb., German, fol. 252.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/supper.html

JVAC

27th May 2004, 01:34 AM

All you have to do is look at the communion with the sacramentarians, when the Confessions say this:

http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-left.gifQuote:http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gif33] Dr. Luther, who, above others, certainly understood the true and proper meaning of the Augsburg Confession, and who constantly remained steadfast thereto till his end, and defended it, shortly before his death repeated his faith concerning this article with great zeal in his last Confession, where he writes thus: I rate as one concoction, namely, as Sacramentarians and fanatics, which they also are, all who will not believe that the Lord's bread in the Supper is His true natural body, which the godless or Judas received with the mouth, as well as did St. Peter and all [other] saints; he who will not believe this (I say) should let me alone, and hope for no fellowship with me; this is not going to be altered [thus my opinion stands, which I am not going to change]. Tom. 2, Wittenb., German, fol. 252. http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif

http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/supper.html (http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/supper.html)
And this is where I differ, you might choose to emphasize this part of the confessions, and I choose to emphasize the AC:

(30) therefore the Mass was instituted that the faith of those who use the Sacrament should remember what benefits it recieves through Christ, and cheer and comfort the anxious conscience.

and yet again a couple sentences later:

(33) Wherefore the Mass is to be used to this end, that there the Sacrament [Communion] may be administered to them that have need of consolation; as Ambrose says: Because I always sin, I am always bound to take the medicine.
I don't see the Sacrament as a 'fellowship with thoughs you agree with'; I contrarily see it as Christ crucified for His Church. I see it as "signs and testimonies of the will of God toward us, instituted to awaken and confirm faith in those who use them" (AC XIII). To deny the blessed sacrament is to deny the precious body and blood of our Lord and Saviour and not a rejection of mere "fellowship". If you don't wish fellowship, there are other ways to remove that, but to deny someone the comfort and solace of the Divine Mercy is just Unchristian if you ask me.

-James

ByzantineDixie

27th May 2004, 07:23 AM

I don't see the Sacrament as a 'fellowship with thoughs you agree with'; I contrarily see it as Christ crucified for His Church. I see it as "signs and testimonies of the will of God toward us, instituted to awaken and confirm faith in those who use them" (AC XIII). To deny the blessed sacrament is to deny the precious body and blood of our Lord and Saviour and not a rejection of mere "fellowship". If you don't wish fellowship, there are other ways to remove that, but to deny someone the comfort and solace of the Divine Mercy is just Unchristian if you ask me.

Against the policy of my synod...I am so with you on this one. It seems there are two requirements from scripture for someone to receive the Lord's Supper.

1) Must be a believer
2) Must take "worthily" which includes believing in the Real Presence

For me the fellowship argument holds little weight. We do not have a magic glass in which we can look into the soul of man to see if he is a believer or not and membership surely does not constitute belief.

It is difficult to balance the use of Christ's precious sacrament. Withholding from the true believer is an error. Adminstering to the non-believer is an error. Limiting the Sacrament to LCMS membership resolves neither error.

I think it is important to provide proper instruction to the visitor regarding what is necessary to take communion and the turn the decision over to the visitor and his/her conscience. Christ is Christ in the Sacrament--He is in a better position to do the work He wants to do in the heart of the visitor.

Then too, I also believe there is valid communion outside the LCMS. So I am pretty much a synod renegade on the subject....

Peace

Rose

ChiRho

27th May 2004, 07:35 AM

And this is where I differ, you might choose to emphasize this part of the confessions, and I choose to emphasize the AC:

and yet again a couple sentences later:

I don't see the Sacrament as a 'fellowship with thoughs you agree with'; I contrarily see it as Christ crucified for His Church. I see it as "signs and testimonies of the will of God toward us, instituted to awaken and confirm faith in those who use them" (AC XIII). To deny the blessed sacrament is to deny the precious body and blood of our Lord and Saviour and not a rejection of mere "fellowship". If you don't wish fellowship, there are other ways to remove that, but to deny someone the comfort and solace of the Divine Mercy is just Unchristian if you ask me.

-James

James,

"It is sometimes assumed that the real motivation behind the practice of closed communion is a desire to exclude people; an expression of religious arrogance. Of all the Pastors I know who implement this preactice in the confregations they serve, not one of them is motivated by any such attitude of unchristian pride. In fact, the opposite is true; it is a singularly humbling experience. As stewards of the mysteries (1 Cor. 4:1), love of God and His Word, and love of neighbor, is the proper motivation for closed communion. Loving our neighbor, we seek to keep him or her from incurring God's judgement by unworthy reception of the sacrament. Loving God and His Word we ask that our neighbor receive proper instruction and give account of their faith so that we may kneel in unity of faith and confession at the Lord's altar, and no seek to express a unity that is not really there. There are some who cannot see closed communion as a loving practice, to whom the question must be asked whether we are operating with a definition and conception of love that flows from God's Word or one that flows from popular culture. Luther: "Faith must be the master of love...Love ceases when it spoils the Word of God."

"It has been said by some, that closed communion is a violation of the proper distinction beween law and gospel in that is makes a law out of the gospel, i.e., the administration of the Lord's Supper. I disagree. The Gospel and Baptism were given to create faith (and also to stregthen already present faith). Holy Communion, however, was given to strengthen a faith that is already there. Proper preaching of the Gospel does not presuppose faith, but proper administration of Holy Communion, and proper reception of Holy Communion, do presuppose faith. The Eucharist is not used to create faith, or to create unity; it strengthens an already present faith, and expresses an already present unity among those communing together. Furthermore, unworthy use of the sacrament is warned against in rather strong language (1 Cor. 11:27-30). Therefore when we decline to commune one who does not believe the real presence, we properly apply the law to that person, who comes without proper faith, and for reasons other than those for which the sacrament is given. Secondly, when we decline to commune one who is not united with us in faith and doctrine, we are recognizing what Scripture is very clear about: doctrinal error is sin, and like all sin, is to be repented of and forsaken by the grace of God. Until that happens, there can be no expression of a unity that really doesnt exist."

The Biblical Practice of Closed Communion in the Light of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34

The Rev. William P. Teerjesen, Pastor

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

Lotar

27th May 2004, 12:19 PM

JVAC

27th May 2004, 02:34 PM

I accept all of the Confessions, I don't "emphasize" one part or the other. Communion is indeed a means of grace that confirms and strengthens faith, but it is also a declaration of unity, of common belief.
I disagree, only in as much as it cannot be proven in Scripture that one must believe the same thing to share in this meal, I site two examples, first of Judas' presence at the Last Supper and also that when St. Paul opposed St. Peter to his face, I can expect that they still shared the common cup and worshiped the same Lord.

Sacramanterians are heretics, and the confessions clearly state so. It is wrong for us to ingore their belief, let alone confirm it and declare unity with it, for it puts their souls in danger of damnation.
It is true they are in heresy, and they should be taught of that, but if one comes to our Church to recieve the Blessed Body and Blood of Jesus, the Christ of God, I will not hold him back. Jesus' passion was far to great for me to judge who can share in that blood of forgiveness.

In their churches we would sin by declaring union with those who do not believe His Word and promise, and we would recieve nothing but bread and wine, for their sect declares the He is not present at all, or is only present spiritually. You say that it does not depend on our belief, this is true, yet what the Church or sect teaches does matter. It is not a magic incantation that depends on the words of the pastor, it is the Word joined with a physical element, it is Christ work and His promise. If a Mormon was to recite the words of Christ before their commion service, they would still have nothing but bread and water, because of what their sect teaches.
I disagree greatly. These words (the Verba) are divine words and have the power of God to attest to them. No matter what Godless heathen might say them, God KEEPS His promise to His Church, if that same godless heathen defames the Blessed Sacrament be it on him and him alone. If a synagogue of Satan wishes to share the body and blood of Christ, they may, but with absence of faith the Sacrament is of no use to them, and there is no forgiveness to an unrepentant heart. Yet the blessed body and blood of the Lamb will be there. I am not a calvinist and I reject the idea that Christ died only for some, likewise I reject the notion that Christ offers his body and blood to only those who are in the Church. In Christ there is infanate love and infanite charity, and Christ chooses to give himself to all, so that they might be saved!

In our churches we would lead them into sin, for they would partake unworthily, by denying His word and promises.And by declare our beliefs, while at the same time rejecting them in their hearts.
We do not, though. If the Verba be not clear enough for a soul to know what to expect, there is still the communion cards, the warning of the Pastor, and the Sermon. Don't say they don't know what they do, for it is quite clear, that the Church celebrates the Sacrament with the intent of consuming their Lord and Saviour, for the forgiveness of Sin. Also, "That he might abide in us and we in him" (John 6).

Not only that, but we confess the Nicene Faith together before the Sacrament be administered! The Faith of the Church catholic, which if it not be a valid faith, then there is no valid faith.

I especially key upon the word "unworthily". It is my opinion that the only reason one should partake is that they are unworthy. This great Love, that is, the Divine Mercy, Jesus, is unearned and unmerited. The Church catholic is unworthy of it, yet that is Grace. If the great God of Heaven and Earth can see it permissable to allow this unworthy soul, who has fought against the Lord and despised him, to participate in the Divine, then who am I, to not allow my neighbor. I am not worthy of anything and yet I am welcome, how much more, my brothers, will be welcomed? Let only the perfect Lamb of God decide, he who declares "Come to me all you who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest." Matt 11:28

-James

Lotar

27th May 2004, 03:29 PM

I disagree, only in as much as it cannot be proven in Scripture that one must believe the same thing to share in this meal, I site two examples, first of Judas' presence at the Last Supper and also that when St. Paul opposed St. Peter to his face, I can expect that they still shared the common cup and worshiped the same Lord.
You are wrong my friend, Judas was not present:
Matthew 26:21-28
As they were eating, He said, "Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me."
Being deeply grieved, they each one began to say to Him, "Surely not I, Lord?"
And He answered, "He who dipped his hand with Me in the bowl is the one who will betray Me.
"The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born."
And Judas, who was betraying Him, said, "Surely it is not I, Rabbi?" Jesus *said to him, "You have said it yourself."
While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;
for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Now let St. John fill in a couple details:

John 13:26-30
Jesus then *answered, "That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him." So when He had dipped the morsel, He *took and *gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.
After the morsel, Satan then entered into him. Therefore Jesus *said to him, "What you do, do quickly."
Now no one of those reclining at the table knew for what purpose He had said this to him.
For some were supposing, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus was saying to him, "Buy the things we have need of for the feast"; or else, that he should give something to the poor.
So after receiving the morsel he went out immediately; and it was night.

When St. Paul admonished St. Peter, Peter corrected his ways, he did not continue in his error.

It is true they are in heresy, and they should be taught of that, but if one comes to our Church to recieve the Blessed Body and Blood of Jesus, the Christ of God, I will not hold him back. Jesus' passion was far to great for me to judge who can share in that blood of forgiveness.
When scripture says, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" (1 Corinthians 11:29), would it not be wrong to not discern where possible?

Oh, and some Biblical proof: ;)
1 Corinthians 10:20
But I [say], that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

I disagree greatly. These words (the Verba) are divine words and have the power of God to attest to them. No matter what Godless heathen might say them, God KEEPS His promise to His Church, if that same godless heathen defames the Blessed Sacrament be it on him and him alone. If a synagogue of Satan wishes to share the body and blood of Christ, they may, but with absence of faith the Sacrament is of no use to them, and there is no forgiveness to an unrepentant heart. Yet the blessed body and blood of the Lamb will be there.
I bolded and underlined the key phrase here. Though some individual sacramentarians may belong to the invisible Church, the body of all believers, their sect is indeed not part of the Church. They have no true sacrament, because they are no true Church. The Christian faith is not merely a personal one, which is perhaps one of the greatest pietist errors, because it is also, and perhaps even more importantly, a corporate faith.

I am not a calvinist and I reject the idea that Christ died only for some, likewise I reject the notion that Christ offers his body and blood to only those who are in the Church. In Christ there is infanate love and infanite charity, and Christ chooses to give himself to all, so that they might be saved!
Yet you communion with these Manichean heretics!!!

We do not, though. If the Verba be not clear enough for a soul to know what to expect, there is still the communion cards, the warning of the Pastor, and the Sermon. Don't say they don't know what they do, for it is quite clear, that the Church celebrates the Sacrament with the intent of consuming their Lord and Saviour, for the forgiveness of Sin. Also, "That he might abide in us and we in him" (John 6).

Do you warn them of damnation if they do not believe the Body and Blood are truly and physically present? I find this hard to believe, as you have officially entered full communion with sects who deny this. Furthermore, read again that they are also responsible for what their sect believes.

Not only that, but we confess the Nicene Faith together before the Sacrament be administered! The Faith of the Church catholic, which if it not be a valid faith, then there is no valid faith.
The Creed is indeed a good thing to be recited and remembered, but it is just the bare bones of the Christian faith, of which many heresies find no fault with.

I especially key upon the word "unworthily". It is my opinion that the only reason one should partake is that they are unworthy. This great Love, that is, the Divine Mercy, Jesus, is unearned and unmerited. The Church catholic is unworthy of it, yet that is Grace. If the great God of Heaven and Earth can see it permissable to allow this unworthy soul, who has fought against the Lord and despised him, to participate in the Divine, then who am I, to not allow my neighbor. I am not worthy of anything and yet I am welcome, how much more, my brothers, will be welcomed? Let only the perfect Lamb of God decide, he who declares "Come to me all you who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest." Matt 11:28

You teach to partake unworthily when scriptures teach that it is the greatest of dangers? No my friend, we must be made worthy through Christ, through repentance. One who hears the truth, yet does not repent of their error partake unworthily. You make to light of this heresy.

Rechtgläubig

28th May 2004, 03:48 AM

A Christian may listen to the sermon of a preacher of another denomination (perhaps for the purpose of finding out his doctrinal position or when out of respect to a relative or a friend or a distinguished citizen he attends a funeral) and thereby not become guilty of entering into fellowship with that particular church and of confessing its faith. But when a person communes at the altar of any church, he thereby, by a public act, confesses the faith of that church and at once enters into fellowship with whom he communes. If a Christian in an exceptional case attends the services of any church, no one will from such act conclude that he is a member of that church or that he agrees with its doctrines—it is even likely that he will at once be spotted as a stranger—but if he communes at the altar of any church and thus by such a public outstanding act, presupposing a deliberate determination on his part, lines himself up with the worshippers of that particular church at their own altar, he thereby at once gives to all present sufficient reason to believe that he is not protesting any of the wrong doctrines of that church, but is rather confessing them and has entered into fellowship with the members of that church. All this is apparent from the facts in the case. How could therefore a Lutheran justify his action if he would commune at the altar of such as deny the Real Presence? He himself would thereby be denying together with others. And how could we justify our action if we would permit those who deny the Real Presence or who otherwise do not agree with our doctrines of who are unbelievers to commune at our altar, where we confess the Real Presence and our Christian faith in accordance with the Scrip Lures? By so doing we would become partakers of other men’s sins. There is no closer fellowship than that of the Communion table. Such texts as the following apply: 1 Tim. 5:22; Ezek. 3:17,18; 2 Tim. 2:15,25,26; Heb. 13:17; Is. 56:10; 1 Cor. 4:1; Matt.7:6;1 Cor. 5:11,13; 2 Thess. 3:6,14; 2 John 10,11; Rom.16:17; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; Titus 3:10,11; 2 Cor. 6:14-13. Says Luther: "Not only do those dishonor the Sacrament who receive it unworthily, but also those who give it to such as are unworthy." "Lutheran pulpits for Lutheran ministers only; Lutheran altars for Lutheran communicants only" (Galesburg Rule, 1875). (pp. 110-111)

"There is no closer fellowship than that of the Communion table." I totally agree with Lotar and ChiRho.

JVAC

30th May 2004, 10:40 PM

You are wrong my friend, Judas was not present:
Matthew 26:21-28
As they were eating, He said, "Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me."
Being deeply grieved, they each one began to say to Him, "Surely not I, Lord?"
And He answered, "He who dipped his hand with Me in the bowl is the one who will betray Me.
"The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born."
And Judas, who was betraying Him, said, "Surely it is not I, Rabbi?" Jesus *said to him, "You have said it yourself."
While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;
for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Now let St. John fill in a couple details:

John 13:26-30
Jesus then *answered, "That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him." So when He had dipped the morsel, He *took and *gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.
After the morsel, Satan then entered into him. Therefore Jesus *said to him, "What you do, do quickly."
Now no one of those reclining at the table knew for what purpose He had said this to him.
For some were supposing, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus was saying to him, "Buy the things we have need of for the feast"; or else, that he should give something to the poor.
So after receiving the morsel he went out immediately; and it was night.
I have always been more of a visual learner, and every painting I have seen iof the last supper has had thirteen people, and the most famous with Judas clutching the purse. St. Matthew and St. John have never harmonized perfectly. The jury is still out on this one.

When St. Paul admonished St. Peter, Peter corrected his ways, he did not continue in his error.
touché ;)

When scripture says, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" (1 Corinthians 11:29), would it not be wrong to not discern where possible?

Oh, and some Biblical proof: ;)
1 Corinthians 10:20
But I [say], that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
Surely here they are talking about feasts with sacrificed meats, which were common place in that day. The warning here is to stay away from meals that were sacrificed to idols, because you cannot worship idols and God. Surely this doesn't apply to those Christians who believe in a historic episcopate or what not.

I bolded and underlined the key phrase here. Though some individual sacramentarians may belong to the invisible Church, the body of all believers, their sect is indeed not part of the Church. They have no true sacrament, because they are no true Church. The Christian faith is not merely a personal one, which is perhaps one of the greatest pietist errors, because it is also, and perhaps even more importantly, a corporate faith.
I never said it was a personal thing. I merely included Church because I am sure there are saints in other denominations, and I do think that even though there be a whole church of evil yet for that dear soul, there will be participation in the body and blood. Even for the rest, there be the Body and Blood for which they will have to account on that last day. Jesus has promised it to be his flesh and blood, and that promise will not be broken, for God is no liar.

Yet you communion with these Manichean heretics!!!
Personally I have never drank of the same chalice as one of these people, however, if one wanted the benefits of that chalice I would not opose, for Christ is far too important than my differences with this man.

Do you warn them of damnation if they do not believe the Body and Blood are truly and physically present? I find this hard to believe, as you have officially entered full communion with sects who deny this. Furthermore, read again that they are also responsible for what their sect believes.
Firstly I do not think that any Christian wishes to dishonor the Lord. Secondly I do think that they, when in a Lutheran Church, treat the Blessed Sacrament with as much dignity as any other Lutheran, at least externally. Thirdly, I believe what they do they do to the Lord and his glory, and I believe, as Romans 14 admonishes, that: (I do so encourage to read 1-12 but I am starting with 13 for brevity) "Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way."

The Creed is indeed a good thing to be recited and remembered, but it is just the bare bones of the Christian faith, of which many heresies find no fault with.
Yeah, I agree, especially that ELCA heresy!

You teach to partake unworthily when scriptures teach that it is the greatest of dangers? No my friend, we must be made worthy through Christ, through repentance. One who hears the truth, yet does not repent of their error partake unworthily. You make to light of this heresy.
We are unworthy, and we recieve Christ, who is worthy, in the Sacrament of the Altar. The Peace of the Lord might rest with us after confession, yet the Sacrament of the Altar, that desire of Christ, is what really forgives sins. The wish to abandon all but the Lamb and if someone longs for the Lamb, I think he should go to him.

I make light of no heresy, however, I do greatly disagree with what you might think as heresy on this matter. I do not think it necessary for my neighbor to be in agreement with me to enjoy the benefits of Christ.

-James

JVAC

30th May 2004, 10:51 PM

"There is no closer fellowship than that of the Communion table." I totally agree with Lotar and ChiRho.
While that was a nice quote, it seems to advance on the premise that a person must agree with a congregation to commune, which is not the case.

ex:

A person can eat at Hooters on the account one is hungry and that if one does not eat he is lost. This by no means that this man is infavor of skimpy clothing, fornication, ect. it just means that this man is in need of a comodity that is necessary for life.

So to we can think of the Christian Church, if there is the Body and Blood, offered one can partake for it is necessary to every body and soul. One doesn't have to confess any belief contrary to their own in order to recieve that manna.

Now on the other hand if it were required to confess certain things, ex: if I was required to confess belief in the infallability of the Roman Bishop, as is the case in the Roman Church, then I cannot and will not commune there. I will not state beliefs contrary to conscience. This is not the case elsewhere.

On a seperate note, if it be of interest. I choose to only commune in Real Pressence Churches who welcome this wayward soul. I commune there because I do not feel that Spiritual Pressence or Symbol churches treat the Sacrament with dignity. This is a personal conviction and I do not coerce others to believe it.

-James

Lotar

31st May 2004, 03:32 PM

Well, at this time I will just say, believe as you wish. And I will only appeal to Tradition, which has always upheld closed communion, as I accept no new doctrine. :wave:

clayrichard

31st May 2004, 05:14 PM

The real Differance:
sola fid
meaning

Faith alone

No other differance even comes close in importance.

Romans 5:6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

Philip

31st May 2004, 05:19 PM

The real Differance:
sola fid
meaning

Faith alone
No other reformed doctrine is more important or even comes close

I disagree.

Grace alone. This is how we are saved.

clayrichard

31st May 2004, 05:31 PM

Philippians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God byfaith:

Actually it is faith that enables you to recieve the grace that saves

Eph2:8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

9 not of works, that no man should glory.

clayrichard

31st May 2004, 06:05 PM

http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-left.gifQuote:http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gifAnti-Ecumenism

Confessional Lutherans are not ecumenical. They will never join the National Association of Evangelicals, nor the World Council of Churches. Lutheran institutions are so big-with their network of schools, colleges, publishing houses, and denominational services-that they can be rather insulated and self-contained. Though the ELCA has pioneered ecumenical dialogue with the Reformed, Anglicans, and even Roman Catholics-to the point of claiming to have found agreement with Rome on justification by faith-the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods will have none of that. Their wariness of ecumenical union and, even more profoundly, of American-style Christianity has kept them out of the mainstream, but it has kept them relatively true to their theology.

Any genuine ecumenism must avoid simply emptying Christianity of its distinctive content and must somehow affirm what is most salient, what is most "Christian," in the whole spectrum of Christian belief, from traditional Catholicism to Protestant fundamentalism. Lutheranism, while eschewing ecumenism as such, provides a framework-or, rather, a set of polarities-by which this might be done.

-Jameshttp://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif

The reason the Roman Cathlics agreed with justification by faith here was that the word Alone was droped! A few years ago there was a big stink in the Southern Baptist when a few of them, along with Chuck Colson (who always saw adding works to faith OK but unnesisary) signed a document with the world counsel of Churches and the Roman Cathlic church saying the same thing. However, Alone is absolutly esential, since as it is wrtten Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Grace, recieved through faith (Eph 8:9) can not be mixed with works.
The Missouri and Wisconsin Synods Should have none of that.
Though I am not a Lutheran, I pray they stay true to this most vital truth.

Lotar

31st May 2004, 08:45 PM

The real Differance:
sola fid
meaning

Faith alone

No other differance even comes close in importance.

Romans 5:6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

You mean sola fide? :P

The big issue is not faith alone, but Christ alone. Rome holds Christ's merit plus our merit equals justification, while Lutherans hold that we are justified by Christ's merit alone.

clayrichard

1st June 2004, 06:06 AM

You mean sola fide? :P

The big issue is not faith alone, but Christ alone. Rome holds Christ's merit plus our merit equals justification, while Lutherans hold that we are justified by Christ's merit alone.
A cut and paist error. True, it is actually a isue of the suficiancy of the attonement, but rome misused pasages like James 2 to suport their error, thus sola fide became the cry of the reformation.

Perhaps someone here can answer a question I've had for some time.
why does the LCMS continue in ecumenical talks with Rome? No way their going to compramise truth for unity (at least I pray not) and Rome, while it might be willing to say justified by faith, making sure to leave out alone, But they cerinly will never eliminate papal infalibility or accept Christ alone. It's an exersise in futility at best and runs the risk of compramisers getting the uper hand at worst.

ChiRho

1st June 2004, 07:14 AM

A cut and paist error. True, it is actually a isue of the suficiancy of the attonement, but rome misused pasages like James 2 to suport their error, thus sola fide became the cry of the reformation.

Perhaps someone here can answer a question I've had for some time.
why does the LCMS continue in ecumenical talks with Rome? No way their going to compramise truth for unity (at least I pray not) and Rome, while it might be willing to say justified by faith, making sure to leave out alone, But they cerinly will never eliminate papal infalibility or accept Christ alone. It's an exersise in futility at best and runs the risk of compramisers getting the uper hand at worst.

The reason the talks continue? Because what man deems futile and hopeless matters not, instead, it is the trust in the word of God...that the Spirit will work....even when we claim "impossible!"