Differences Between The Catholic Church & The Lutheran Church

[Athanasias]

Former Catholic now LCMS here....

I don't usually post here anymore (I've moved to a different discussion forum) but as briefly as I can...


1. I see the major "differences" between confessional/traditional Lutheranism and Catholicism as:

A) Ecclesiology. Lutherans embrace the church catholic whereas the RCC places enormous emphasis on itself as "the church" in the full sense. The RCC has enormous, foundational emphasis on it itself. This makes enormous difference. Lutherans embrace Tradition but it's historic, ecumenical Tradition not simply whatever one denomination now holds.

B) Epistemology. Lutherans approach theology with humility and accept a rich sense of mystery. Catholicism is far more likely to theorize and to make such into dogma. Lutherans accept accountability (in theory anyway, LOL) whereas Catholicism is based on a powerful sense that it itself alone is THE Authority and ultimately unaccountable. Some think this is what actually was at the heart of the 16th Century dispute rather than the issue of Justification that the RCC claimed was so at the time.

C) Dogmatization. There are Catholics (including me at the time) who see Lutherans as "Catholic Light" or perhaps as a simplier, more ancient form of Catholicism. There is SOME truth in this..... Lutherans often aren't as concerned with a unque RCC view as it is with the dogmatiztion of such. Many Lutherans, for example, have a rich Marian devotion but don't insists that all the current RCC Marian views are DOGMA.

E) The "Catholic Light" doesn't really work because there are several interrelated things important to understanding Lutheranism. I won't post HERE to get into these, but they are critical: They include - 1) The Law/Gospel Distinction, 2) Theology of the Cross vs. Theology of Glory (this is probably the single issue that caused me to move from Catholicism to Lutheranism), 3) Monergism. Lutherans hold that Justification (narrow or "initial") is entirely, wholly God's gift and not a cooperative, synergistic process. Lutherans are passionately anti-Pelagianism. I personally believe Catholicism and Lutheranism are much closer on Justification than most think, but Lutherans are hyper-sensitive to anything that remotely can be understood as synergistic or semi-Pelagian because it underminds the foundation: Jesus is THE Savior (not just helper or possibility-maker or door-opener).


2. I can't understand how a conservative Catholic could ever join the ELCA, with it's liberal theology, it's ordaining of women and gays, same-gender marriage, rather pro-abortion sympathy, etc. The LCMS shares the morality and life of Catholicism. The ELCA and Epistcoplians may at times LOOK more "Catholic" but are alternatives ONLY for the very liberal Catholic who is leaving the RCC because of it's stance on divorce, abortion, same-gender marriage, etc. and because the theology is too old fashioned.


Well, I'd be pleased to discuss all this (and more on this) much further but I'm just not here at this website very much, I've moved elsewhere.


Blessings!


- Josiah

I just wanted to reply that Catholics are not semi-pelagain in their soteriology. You may need to go back and study what semi-pelagaineism is and how the Catholic Church historically condemned it before you make that claim. If you would like we can demonstrate this in a dialog.

 

[Beloved2018]

Church of Rome holds to the papacy, that they are the one true Church instituted by Jesus, Apostolic succession, and one gets saved by partaking of all 7 Sacraments of Grace,

The seven sacraments include ordination to the priesthood (of which women do not partake in), marriage (which many do not partake in), confirmation (which many do not partake in (such as those who die in infancy)), and extreme unction (which some have not had). All Sacraments are a means of grace, but not all are ways 'one gets saved' in the same sense at least.

 

[YeshuaFan]

I just wanted to reply that Catholics are not semi-pelagain in their soteriology. You may need to go back and study what semi-pelagaineism is and how the Catholic Church historically condemned it before you make that claim. If you would like we can demonstrate this in a dialog.

Augustine certainly was not one, but the Church of Rome does hold to a Sacramental form of salvation.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I just wanted to reply that Catholics are not semi-pelagain in their soteriology. You may need to go back and study what semi-pelagaineism is and how the Catholic Church historically condemned it before you make that claim. If you would like we can demonstrate this in a dialog.

Hello, my old friend...

1. I don't think you actually READ what you quoted from me. Read post # 12

2. I think we've already had this discussion, years ago, and you ended up confirming my point. Perhaps I'm remembering incorrectly (it was years ago).

3. I've LOVE to discuss this (but only respectfully and both embracing each other as FULL, EQUAL brothers in Christ) in hopes of greater mutual understanding. But such could not be here. I just come here way too infrequently to have a discussion. PM me and I can give you other options if you want this dialog.


A blessed Epiphany...


- Josiah

 

[Beloved2018]

Augustine certainly was not one, but the Church of Rome does hold to a Sacramental form of salvation.

That doesn't make them semi-pelagian. Lutherans are also sacramental. For me, having a sacramental understanding of grace shields us from semi-pelagian thought, because it gives the Christian an objective event (like the life, death and resurrection of Christ itself) to cling too, rather than the inward subjectivity of faith or charity. Even 'faith alone' can bring one to despair, if a Christian perceive within themselves a lack of faith.

 

[Athanasias]

Augustine certainly was not one, but the Church of Rome does hold to a Sacramental form of salvation.

Actually that is incorrect. St. Augustine was a Catholic Bishop who held to all 7 sacraments and salvation through the sacraments. Here is just one example from his abundant writings:

[According to] Apostolic Tradition . . . the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal. This is the witness of Scripture too" ( St. Augustine Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412])

 

[YeshuaFan]

Actually that is incorrect. St. Augustine was a Catholic Bishop who held to all 7 sacraments and salvation through the sacraments. Here is just one example from his abundant writings:

[According to] Apostolic Tradition . . . the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal. This is the witness of Scripture too" ( St. Augustine Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412])

He was right on salvation proper , but was wrong when he went off into Sacramental Grace model.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Augustine certainly was not one, but the Church of Rome does hold to a Sacramental form of salvation.
and
He was right on salvation proper , but was wrong when he went off into Sacramental Grace model.

So do Lutherans, and St. Augustine is indeed correct; BTW, this is the Lutheran forum, where, according to the rules, you may not teach against the Statement of Faith.

The Sacraments are means of grace, and therefore by their nature are part and parcel with Salvation.

 

[YeshuaFan]

So do Lutherans, and St. Augustine is indeed correct; BTW, this is the Lutheran forum, where, according to the rules, you may not teach against the Statement of Faith.

The Sacraments are means of grace, and therefore by their nature are part and parcel with Salvation.

I am sorry if I have offended any Lutherans posting here, as was not aware of that could not discuss your theology differences between yourself and myself in regards to Christian theology!

 

[FireDragon76]

According to my pastor, the main differences are down to authority and ecclessiology, and I would tend to agree.

Justification is more of a question of emphasis and how that applies to Christian living. I still think its more important than some interpretations given to the Joint Declaration, however. The differences aren't insignificant.

Very valid points! It is often the case in all denominations that the actual congregations and Christians in them might not be as hard line as the head organization makes it seem. In reality there is much in common between ELCA and LCMS than we often focus on.

There is an old lady in our congregation that used to belong to WELS. In reality, north American Lutherans do cross denominations on the ground at times, and the denominational distinctives are less evident at the local level.

 

[Athanasias]

According to my pastor, the main differences are down to authority and ecclessiology, and I would tend to agree.

Justification is more of a question of emphasis and how that applies to Christian living. I still think its more important than some interpretations given to the Joint Declaration, however. The differences aren't insignificant.



There is an old lady in our congregation that used to belong to WELS. In reality, north American Lutherans do cross denominations on the ground at times, and the denominational distinctives are less evident at the local level.

This is true the main differences are Authority and Ecclesiology. Well said!

 

[Daniel9v9]

One difference which may seem trivial to many in our day but, at least historically, is a major source of schism, is the understanding of man's relationship to God. Flowing out of this, we get different views on sin, justification, sanctification, Law and Gospel.

Roman Catholics believe that original sin is a severe weakening of man, albeit only a weakening. It's sometimes talked about as a condition or a sickness. It's not a sin in and of itself.

Lutherans believe that original sin means a complete loss of original righteousness; that is, being entirely spiritually dead. It's not a mere condition, but a state. The reason for this is that to be without faith and trust in God, is in and of itself sin. It's not viewed as a neutral state or weakened condition. When we don't believe, trust, fear and love God, we instead exalt ourselves as our own lord — we are children of wrath and dead in sin and need to be born again through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Flesh is born of flesh, but spirit is born of the Spirit.

On this point, Luther and Calvin and church bodies in their tradition follow in the steps of Augustine, and we believe, the apostolic faith (Monergism; a passive receiving of God's grace). This is something that is criticised by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Arminian traditions (Synergism; an active receiving of God's grace).

From this, it's understandable that justification is no special doctrine in the system of Roman Catholic theology, but part of a process of salvation. To my knowledge, the Roman Catholic Catechism has no treatment of it (whereas it's central to the Lutheran Catechism), and the deliverances on this subject in the Decrees of Trent are largely negative, opposing the Reformation — stressing the relation of justification and sanctification through good works and merits.

Though our history on both sides is undoubtedly fueled by a lot of, zealousness, shall we say, to claim that the theological differences have mostly to do with language and technical definition I think is questionable. It's certainly not the sense I get from reading the Augsburg Confession, the Roman Catholic Confutation and the Lutheran Defense.

There are many things I commend the Roman Catholic Church on — their unity, orthodoxy, pious desire and unwavering fidelity. There are many things on which we agree, but, as I see it, Lutherans are simply unwilling to compromise on the Gospel, and that is the root of our division.

Reference on the original sin controversy:
Defense of the Augsburg Confession - Book of Concord

 

[Athanasias]

One difference which may seem trivial to many in our day but, at least historically, is a major source of schism, is the understanding of man's relationship to God. Flowing out of this, we get different views on sin, justification, sanctification, Law and Gospel.

Roman Catholics believe that original sin is a severe weakening of man, albeit only a weakening. It's sometimes talked about as a condition or a sickness. It's not a sin in and of itself.

Lutherans believe that original sin means a complete loss of original righteousness; that is, being entirely spiritually dead. It's not a mere condition, but a state. The reason for this is that to be without faith and trust in God, is in and of itself sin. It's not viewed as a neutral state or weakened condition. When we don't believe, trust, fear and love God, we instead exalt ourselves as our own lord — we are children of wrath and dead in sin and need to be born again through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Flesh is born of flesh, but spirit is born of the Spirit.

On this point, Luther and Calvin and church bodies in their tradition follow in the steps of Augustine, and we believe, the apostolic faith (Monergism; a passive receiving of God's grace). This is something that is criticised by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Arminian traditions (Synergism; an active receiving of God's grace).

From this, it's understandable that justification is no special doctrine in the system of Roman Catholic theology, but part of a process of salvation. To my knowledge, the Roman Catholic Catechism has no treatment of it (whereas it's central to the Lutheran Catechism), and the deliverances on this subject in the Decrees of Trent are largely negative, opposing the Reformation — stressing the relation of justification and sanctification through good works and merits.

Though our history on both sides is undoubtedly fueled by a lot of, zealousness, shall we say, to claim that the theological differences have mostly to do with language and technical definition I think is questionable. It's certainly not the sense I get from reading the Augsburg Confession, the Roman Catholic Confutation and the Lutheran Defense.

There are many things I commend the Roman Catholic Church on — their unity, orthodoxy, pious desire and unwavering fidelity. There are many things on which we agree, but, as I see it, Lutherans are simply unwilling to compromise on the Gospel, and that is the root of our division.

Reference on the original sin controversy:
Defense of the Augsburg Confession - Book of Concord

Just to point out a few distinctives from the Catholic pov. The Catholic Church does consider original sin to be a sin. Because of Adam and Eve committed this sin we all inherit it and it deprives us of friendship with God(what we call sanctifying grace) and we cannot be with God in heaven if we do not have his friendship. Now we do differ in our understanding of anthropology or how we are created and what we lost and what God gave us.

Catholic theology teaches that Adam and Eve were created initially immaculate or morally Good). God gave them 5 gifts that were above thier own human nature. 4 of these gifts were called preternatural(above human nature) and one was supernatural(belonging to God). The 4 preternatual gifts were 1). freedom from pain, 2). immortality 3). Integrity, and 4). Infused knowledge.

The supernatural gift was Gods friendship or sanctifying grace. When they fell in the Catholic view they lost all these gifts that elevated human nature and because of that they are fallen creatures and they suffer temporal and can suffer eternal punishments. They now can die, their intellects are very darkened by sin, and there wills are disorder to passions and sinful desires(what we call concupiscence) This is what we mean when we say mans nature is fallen. The world is also fallen as is the devil was able to gain a sort of dominion over creation when Adam and Eve choose against God.

Original sin is real and if you have it you cannot get into heaven. That is why we baptize babies. But we do differ on our understanding of human nature. Human nature in our view is not totally depraved in the same understanding as Lutherans would view it as because what we lost were gifts that elevated nature to begin with. does that make sense? I should say without Gods grace in our view man cannot do anything. I hope this helps.

The other area of justification is more complex. Trent condemned the idea that man can justify himself because man is finite and God is infininite and sin put an infinite divide between God and man, Hence that is why the God man Jesus Christ had to be the one to justify man by his grace.:

Initial salvation is a free gift with no works or merit ever done and can only be by Gods grace. That is why we baptize babies. What could a baby possibly do to earn salvation?


CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

What the Church does teach is that man is not justified by the law(like circumcision) but by a faith working through love(Gal 5:6) as St. Paul would say and this is an active faith. If Lutherans when they say faith alone mean an active faith formed in works of love like St. Paul teach then Catholics can agree but we often use different language.

 

[FireDragon76]

Augustine certainly was not one, but the Church of Rome does hold to a Sacramental form of salvation.

So do Lutherans.

So do Lutherans, and St. Augustine is indeed correct; BTW, this is the Lutheran forum, where, according to the rules, you may not teach against the Statement of Faith.

The Sacraments are means of grace, and therefore by their nature are part and parcel with Salvation.

The huge difference between Lutherans and evangelicals in the US, is that evangelicals mediate their relationship to God through their imagination. Jesus is like an imaginary friend they talk to. It's in alot of Anglo-American hymns, even. In Lutheranism, our relationship to God is mediated through water, wine, and wheat (we even have a hymn about that), the ways in which Christ himself declared he would be present till the end of the age.

 

[YeshuaFan]

So do Lutherans.



The huge difference between Lutherans and evangelicals in the US, is that evangelicals mediate their relationship to God through their imagination. Jesus is like an imaginary friend they talk to. It's in alot of Anglo-American hymns, even. In Lutheranism, our relationship to God is mediated through water, wine, and wheat (we even have a hymn about that), the ways in which Christ himself declared he would be present till the end of the age.

My relationship, and yours, would be fully mediated thru the one mediator between the father and Us, Jesus Christ!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

My relationship, and yours, would be fully mediated thru the one mediator between the father and Us, Jesus Christ!

The sacraments are not what we do, but what God does for us; maybe not in the same sense as you see it, but a very real and physical manifestation of Christ's mediation for us, on our behalf.

 

[FireDragon76]

My relationship, and yours, would be fully mediated thru the one mediator between the father and Us, Jesus Christ!

That is not a contradiction to what we believe.

 

[ViaCrucis]

My relationship, and yours, would be fully mediated thru the one mediator between the father and Us, Jesus Christ!

Yes, and where is Christ the One Mediator found, where is He doing this? And by what Means?

-CryptoLutheran