Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects

Difference Between Lutheran and Catholic

christLutheran vs  Catholic

Christianity saw its evolution as a Jewish sect in east Mediterranean. Christianity is considered to be a monotheistic religion – believing that there is only one god. This is based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Catholics were the early Christians to follow the teachings of Christ. The Catholic Church refers to all believers of Christ without any denominational affiliation. This believes that bishops are the highest order of ministry among Christians. According to them, Jesus made Peter guard the place on which his church would be built. Jesus will be followed by mere mortal men who would be called as Pope. As Popes were gaining authority, their  indulgences for money grew. This also led them into involvement in politics.

500 years ago, Martin Luther a German reformer’s perception on Christian theology and practices of the church helped in the evolution of Protestant Reformation. During his time Martin Luther was an exception with his Church contributions. Since the church was not following Catholic way, he took the path to advocate reforms with practices of church. This section of people which grew rapidly, were unsatisfied with the practices of Catholic Church joined the ranks of Lutherans.

Martin Luther believed and advocated that Western Church should return to what he thought, was a biblical foundation. He was advocating the Western Church reform and not to create a separate branch of Christianity. Lutheran Christianity is popularly known as Protestants.
The historic split between Catholic and Lutheran took place over the doctrine of Justification before God. According to Lutheranism, faith alone and Christ alone could save an individual. This is well contradicted by the Catholic’s belief that faith formed by love and work alone will save an individual. Lutheran theology advocates difference in theology, Christology, the purpose of God’s Law, divine grace, and predestination.

Lutherans also advocate that god’s grace will be granted only for the sake of Christ’s merit. Orthodox Lutheran theology holds that God made the world,  perfect, holy and sinless.

Lutherans believe that Jesus Christ is God by nature and as a man. They also confess in Luther’s Small Catechism that he is “true God begotten of the Father from eternity and also true man born of the Virgin Mary”. This sect of people advocates that sacraments and sacred acts are part of divine institution.

In spite of the differences in theology of Catholic Church, Lutherans continue to use pre-reformation church liturgical practices and sacramental teachings. The Protestants church teaches the doctrine of Luther and does not accept the Pope as their leader. Protestants also avoid use of the term Catholic instead of the term Christian to distinguish their own position from a Calvinist or Puritan form of Reformed-Protestantism.
Today, Lutheranism is one of the important offshoots of Western Christianity. Lutheran’s identify themselves with the teachings of Martin Luther.

Summary:
1.Lutheranism advocates that Grace and Faith alone can save an individual from his sin.
2.Roman Christians believe in faith formed by love and work could save an individual.
3.Lutherans believe that Jesus Christ is God by nature and as a man.


Search DifferenceBetween.net :

Custom Search



1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (8 votes, average: 2.88 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...


Email This Post Email This Post : If you like this article or our site. Please spread the word. Share it with your friends/family.



See more about : , ,

25 Comments

  1. Wow. The only thing missing from this article, painfully obviously written by a Roman Catholic, is the characterization of Lutherans as a sub-standard species.

    I’m sorry, but this is just a TERRIBLE article, obviously written from the perspective of a person who believes that Roman Catholicism is (and has always been) the center of the Christian universe. It is condescending and disrespectful to a broad spectrum of believers who are by no stretch of the imagination the “also rans” that the author of this article clearly believes them to be.

    Luther loved the Roman Catholic Church, in which he was an ordained priest. It pained him, almost beyond his ability to put into words, that he was forced to call the Church and its then-pope on its both bad behavior (primarily the selling of indulgences, though there was much, much more) and theological unsoundness. Luther’s criticism was based on incontrovertible biblical evidence. He wasn’t trying to form a new denomination. He was appalled by words like “protestant” and “Lutheran.” He wanted to stay in the Roman Catholic Church, but just reform some of its thinking and ways of acting.

    Every time I read a contrast between Roman Catholics and Lutherans, I can always easily determine which form of Christianity is the author’s theological underpinning. And here’s what’s nearly always true about contrasts written by Lutherans: There is exhibited in the writing a profound respect for the Roman Catholic Church and a truthful characterization of its beliefs, sensibilities and practices (as opposed to this condescending piece of garbage which relegates Lutherans to the stockpile of the protestant misguided).

    Only if the Lutheran writing the contrast is of the more conservative type — WELS Lutherans, or LC-MS (German) Lutherans, or former ALC Lutherans, etc. — which believes in Biblical inerrancy and, in some cases, is running headlong toward the palms-to-the-heavens, happy-clappy praise music of the Evangelicals, will the characterization of the Roman Catholics sometimes be legitimately either downright unfair, or at least bordering on it. But as long as the Lutheran is of the more progressive type (most, but not all of whom, are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the contrast between Lutherans and Roman Catholics will be fair-minded, respectful and accurate when describing the Roman Catholic Church.

    This article needs to be VASTLY re-written, or this “Difference Between” web site will have no credibility. I noticed some serious issues in some of the other religious articles, too. However, as an ELCA Lutheran (or at least that was my upbringing), it seems logical to start here.

    ____________________________________
    Gregg L. DesElms
    Napa, California USA
    gregg at greggdeselms dot com

    • Well written, Greg. I’m an ELCA Lutheran as well. We Lutherans still believe we are part of the Church Catholic. We have heavy dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church and love and respect our mutual beliefs and Sacraments. I do not consider myself a “run of the mill protestant”, but a proud Lutheran who loves and demands The Eucharist and other Sacraments retained by Luther. You’re on the same page as myself, as my Pastor told me “We do not look to Luther as the creator of a new Church, but as a Worshipping and Eucharstic Church that was cleansed by Luther of any distortions that were not necessary for our salvation. The Sign of the Cross, the Mass and all other Rites of the Church shall be ours. We are not “Reformed Protestants”. People need to know how unique ELCA Lutherans are. True to our Catholic heritage-with a more “personal touch”. God Bless-Mitch.

    • I agree with all that you wrote. The article left me confused and irritated

  2. The reply that you wrote is not very good as well. It seems like you are writing from a Lutheran perspective. Just remember, Catholics was the first church, and always will be.

  3. WOW AGAIN, THE DESCRIPTIVE SOUNDED NON-CATHOLIC TO ME. DOESNT SOUND LIKE A CATHOLIC AUTHOR TO ME , BECAUSE RIGHT AWAY HE/SHE TALKS TRASH ON THE POPE . ANYWAYS…… EVENTHOUGH LUTHER DIDNT WANT TO LEAVE THE CHURCH HE OPENED UP THE FLOODGATES. DIDNT HE SAY THAT EVEN THE PLOWBOYS AND SERVANT GIRLS ARE INTERPRETING …..I FORGET THE REST….BUT YEA, IT WOULD BE NICE IF UNITY COULD HAPPEN…BECAUSE THERE IS TOO MUCH ARGUING ABOUT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS OR DOESNT SAY…..
    WHAT IF WE DIDNT HAVE THE BIBLE? OR IT WASNT FINISHED YET? WHAT WOULD THAT BE LIKE? WE STILL WOULD HAVE THE CHURCH. THE BODY OF CHRIST. THE BRIDE OF CHRIST. THE BODY OF BELEIVERS. AND THE SACRED TRADITIONS OF THE APOSTLES, TAUGHT BY JESUS.

  4. To: Peter

    Seems like? Gee… what was your first clue? What part of my full disclosure of being an ELCA Lutheran (or at least that that has been the brand of faith of my upbringing and most of my adult life) did you not notice before coming to this (obviously) startling (to you, at least) conclusion? Or has it always been your practice to tend to gross understatement? [A rhetorical question, which you needn't bother answering]

    And for how long has your debate style been of the immature “I’m rubber, you’re glue” type? How ’bout some actual substance…

    …er… you know… beyond the grammatically appalling (and culturally and educationally revealing) “Catholics was the first church, and always will be.”

    [sigh]

    For starters, you might want to brush-up on the history of Christianity — a version, I mean, which has not been carefully filtered through the perspective of Roman Catholocism — before declaring, with (obviously ignorant) certainty, what was or wasn’t the original church (and especially what always will or won’t be)…

    …and by inference, then, also, what is or isn’t the mediator between man and the Divine.

    Of course, to properly do this I realize that one must struggle through, and somehow reconcile, in a manner similar to what Erasmus thought he had done, the fundamental differences between the Franciscan/Thomisitic rational belief that Christianity is its tradition, as codified and systematized by Thomistic methods of scholasticism; versus the Augustinian/Lutheran claim that the doctrines of the original, primitive Church were wiser and more inherently true than the mass of interpretation and commentary accumulated over time. This, notion was, in part, that which motivated Luther translate the Bible into the language of the masses; and to insist that no theological education is either authentic or complete without an understanding of Biblical Hebrew and Greek, and then thorough study of original Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek texts. I, personally, do not hold with the belief that study in the original Biblical languages is essential to the creation of effective preachers, though I do believe that it’s essential to the creation of effecitive teachers of preachers. But I digress. Sorry.

    Nowhere in the Bible is there so much as a mention of many of the things which the Roman Catholic church holds nearest and dearest, including such things as papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or even the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture… among MANY other things.

    The Bible, in fact, records the history of the church only to around 90 or 95 A.D.; and it wasn’t until from around 100 to 300 years later — particularly during the reign of the Roman Emperor Constantine, and the Council of Nicea — that we begin to see the earliest doctrines and practices which would eventually come to characterize Roman Catholicism… doctrines and practices which were a Constantinian compromise in order to unify the various forms of then-existing both Christianity and other practices such as paganism, the Egyptian Cult of Isis, Henotheism, Mithraism, and others.

    What we DO have, though, is Paul, in Acts 20, John 10 and Galatians 1, specifically not teaching that Christians were to follow the first organized church as a means of safeguarding truth; but, rather, he commits Christians, simply, to the safekeeping of God and to the word of his grace… that which they had already received as both the words of the holy prophets and the commandments Jesus gave to the apostles as recorded in Scripture. This notion is also repeated in 2 Peter chapters 1 and 3.

    By the 4th century, what was becoming the Roman Catholic church tradition had not-insignificantly departed from all that. Not significantly challenged from then until the 14th century, it was characterized by an interpreted and rationalized Thomistic scholasticism which was a product of, and heavily informed by, shifting cultural and historical events and beliefs. Keeping Scripture in Latin, and so making it inaccessible to the masses; and then also communicating the Word as a largely oral tradition because there had not been invented, yet, the printing press which would ultimately allow believers to read, for themselves, what riches were contained in the Bible…

    …these things helped to keep the Roman Catholic church pretty much the only game in town — not the first game, mind you, but ultimately the biggest player — until the likes of Luther, Huss before him, and even such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp as far back as the first century, and Justin Martyr, Didymus the Blind, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Fulgentius and many others before them…

    …all grasped and embraced the notion of the salvation or justification by grace through faith, rather than by the futile works of penance, almsgiving, or asceticism. Luther believed that it was the most damnable pride to suppose that man could bring about his own salvation; that a just and merciful God had sent his only begotten son, Jesus Christ — and not the church and its works — to save us… to become the mediator, by whose aid a depraved humanity crosses the gulf between it and a perfect God. This radical and reformational doctrine of justification by grace (Sola Gracia) through faith (Sola Fide) undermined the entire sacerdotal system of the Roman Catholic church and, with it, the institutions that administered, licensed, and perpetuated it.

    But, alas, I have now moved some 14 centuries beyond the scope of your original (mis)statement regarding whatever likely was the original church…

    …the, I dare say, primitive, pre-Roman-Catholic church.

    It may, in your irritation with this recounting of what ultimately became the terribly flawed Roman Catholic church, comfort you to know that Luther and his reformed church movement had no end of its own problems. It naturally found itself in need of a new confession of faith to distinguish itself from Roman Catholicism, and the defense of that faith required a new theology. Thus Luther found himself in the very same position of the earliest Christians who had had to choose between the kind individual religion and oneness with God on account of the cross, and the requirements of institutionalism in order to perpetuate said religion. Luther’s new theology, then, eventually became in most ways just as inflexible and orthodox as that which it decried. Those who opposed it were cast out just as were the Roman Catholics. Luther despised, foe example, the Anabaptists for, in part, their denial of the need for infant baptism (on the reasonable grounds that “God would not damn a little child for the sake of a drop of water”), and so Luther treated them most awfully and mercilessly.

    No one ever said that Luther didn’t do a pretty good job of goofing-up his own thing by the time he left this mortal coil. And I don’t even know where to even BEGIN with his rank antisemitism. Oy!

    But none of that has anything to do, really, with your notion of what was or wasn’t the first church…

    …though it pretty much addresses, head on, the part where you wrote about what will always be.

    It might be time for you to stop just opening the top of your skull as if it had a hinge on it, and letting the Roman Catholic church just dump in, unexamined, its sometimes foul propaganda. Santayana wrote that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. For any of us to fully understand where we should be with regard to our faith, we need to fully understand where was everyone who came before us…

    …but uncolored by a centuries-old church with a centuries-old tradition of misleading its parishioners.

    Get a clue, Peter…

    …the significance of which moniker, by the way, within the context of this conversation about the first church, is not lost on me, to wit:

    “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18)…

    …is but one of five metaphores in Roman Catholicism for the founding of the church (the others being 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, and Rev. 21:14).

    But I digress, yet again…

    …sorry.

    ________________________________________
    Gregg L. DesElms
    Napa, California USA
    gregg at greggdeselms dot com

  5. TO: Mark (formerly Peter)

    Obviously the way this web site dates/times postings is screwed-up because your “January 26, 2011 • 2:27 am” posting is a reply to my “January 26, 2011 • 9:27 pm” posting. Hmm. I wonder if the system meant “January 27″ on yours. Oh, well.

    At any rate, if you really had the courage of your Roman Catholic convictions, then you’d indicate your real name, as I have; or, at the very least, you’d pick just one fake name and then stick with it. Running through the names of the Gospels is already getting old… and assuming you only intend to use each once, also means that you have only two posts remaining. [grin]

    Additionally, please don’t type in all-capital letters. In the world of blog commentary postings, chat rooms, forum postings, newsgroup postings, etc., it signifies that you’re yelling; and it’s perhaps the most well known and rude breach of “netiquette” there is. Moreover, in a circumstance such as this, it just makes you look like a rank amateur who’s so outmatched that all he has left is to try to talk louder; and it just irritates anyone who reads this discussion, whom you’re clearly trying to impress.

    Beyond that, I don’t see anything in what you wrote that’s sufficiently coherent or relevant to merit a reply. You clearly have neither debating skills, nor the theological underpinning needed in this discussion with which to arm them. My time — and yours, too — is better spent doing other things.

    There is nothing wrong with your being blindly loyal to the Roman Catholic church. Your faith is your faith; and the differences between your church and mine are not sufficiently great for there to be so much bickering about it. Apparently the Roman Catholic church agrees, or there would never have been the Joint Statement on the Doctrine of Justification by Faith co-issued by the Roman Catholic U.S. Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs and the USA National Committee of the Lutheran World Federation in 1983; and then the follow-up Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification on October 31, 1999. And the two church bodies would not also be planning a shared Lutheran/Roman Catholic commemoration of the October 31, 2017, which is the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s posting of his 95 Theses; or the “Hope for Eternal Life” round of talks leading up to it (the 11th round of talks since such talks began in July of 1964.

    There are zealots like you among Lutherans, too. The conservative Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LC-MS) was disinvited to the 10th round of the aforementioned talks (after having been present for all nine earlier rounds) because it could simply not reconcile its rigid and repressive understanding of such notions as faith, sin, grace, the eucharist, etc., sufficiently with either the more liberal/progressive ELCA Lutherans, or the Roman Catholics, that it made any sense for it to be at the table anymore. The LC-MS has, however, agreed to participate in the 11th round; though with people among its ranks who are as inflexible as you would appear to be (and believe me, that’s most of them), it seems unlikely that they’ll fare in these next talks much better in the future than they have in the past.

    But we digress, yet again. The bottom line is that the article in chief to which these are comments grossly misstates the differences between Roman Catholocism and Lutheranism, and needs to be rewritten. I would be more than happy to do it if asked; and if I did, I believe I could do it in such a way that both church bodies’ beliefs are so fairly represented that even you would be satisfied. An article like the one to which these are comments needs to be neutral as to its author’s underlying beliefs, and needs to simply present the differences dispassionately and like a hard news story. Even my commentary, here, is too slanted… in my case, toward Lutheranism.

    My complaint, in my first posting, then, was simply that the article in chief was clearly written by someone who doesn’t know how to sublimate his/her Roman Catholic underpinnings and just dispassionately explain the differences without denigrating either church body along the way. That’s the problem. Whether the Roman Cathlics or the Lutherans have an inherently better way of understanding and/or doing things has nothing to do with how and why the original article, to which these are comments, was so poorly written; and what needs to be done to correct it.

    Newspaper reporters writing hard news stories also have beliefs and opinions. They’re human beings, just like anyone else; and they belong to one political party or the other, or are or aren’t religious, or are or aren’t liberal or conservative, etc. Yet they’re able to write the hard news story dispassionately, without revealing by the way they wrote it what is their personal opinion or belief system. That’s what makes them professionals. The article in chief on this page should have been written that way. It wasn’t, and that was why I made my September 11, 2010 posting in the first place. All the rest of this “conversation” in these comments is irrelevant to the simple fact that the article in chief on this page was very poorly written, and is clearly from a Roman Cathlolic perspective, and so needs to be rewritten so it is less skewed toward either Catholicism or Lutheranism and simply spells-out the differences. Period.

    That was my complaint, and I stand by it. All the rest of this is irreconcilable, and is, therefore, just a waste of time. Though I’ll happily re-write the article in chief if asked, I’ll not, then, further participate in the dialog that’s now limping its sorry way through these comment postings. With that, I’m done here… er… well… that is, maybe unless someone posts here something worthy of actual debate (and does so without yelling it).

    Adieu.

    ________________________________________
    Gregg DesElms
    Napa, California USA
    gregg at greggdeselms dot com

    • Wow.. don’t type in all caps? You are an idiot

      • HA! He is an arrogant, condescending….Something else!!! It wouldn’t be very Christian of me to call him what I really would like to call him!!! Then again, maybe someone should put him in his place. He isn’t exactly acting like the good Christian he claims to be by writing this way to these other people on this site. He is very rude. Like I said previously……Not everyone knows the proper “Netiquette”…….Not everyone is a blog nerd, and knows not to type in all CAPS. Doing so probably doesn’t make a difference to “normal” people. Also, to be telling someone to “take their meds”???? This guy is just looking for a fight with people. He’s obviously angry. May God Bless him, and bring him some peace so he doesn’t have to stay up all night being rude to people online.

        • Your comment is no more kind or loving than was Gregg’s. As believers, we should all be above petty arguing and name-calling. We are called to love others, even when they say something that annoys or irritates us. We should say what we say with love, respect, and kindness.

  6. wow, MAYBE YOU WERE REPLYING TO ME GREG TOO, I DONT WANT AN ARGUMENT AT ALL. AS FOR ME I SEE TOO MANY INVALID CLAIMS AGAINST THE CHURCH(UNIVERSAL) BY BIBLE CHRISTIANS. ATTACK AFTER ATTACK.
    I REALLY DONT KNOW TOO MUCH ABOUT LUTHERANISM, BUT HAVE BEEN STUDYING BAPTISTS AND JEHOVAHS WITNESSES MOSTLY. BUT ALL HAVE A BEEF WITH THE CATHOLICS BY ONE DOCTRINE OR ANOTHER. MOST ARNT EVEN UNIFIED IN THEIR DISAGREEMENT . THE MANY DIFFERENT CHURCHES THAT I HAVE VISITED IN MY SEARCH FOR GOD ALL PUT IMPORTANCES OF FAITH AT DIFFERENT AREAS AND HOW THEY PUT THEM TO USE ,AND MOST EMPHASIZE THE BIBLE. BUT WHAT I ALSO FIND IS THERE IS NO UNIFIED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBLE… IS THAT WHAT JESUS WANTS ? BAPTISTS DONT BELIEVE THE GIFTS OF HEALING OR SPEAKING IN TONGUES ARE STILL AROUND BUT PENTECOSTALS DO.
    A NOTED CATHOLIC CONVERT WITH MANY BOOKS AND CD’S, SCOTT HAHN, HAS SAID THAT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS THERE FOR EVERY AMERICAN TO READ, BUT YET THERE IS A SUPREME COURT ENACTED TO BE THE ONLY ONES WITH THE JOB TO INTERPRET IT. THE SAME GOES FOR WHAT JESUS TOLD PETER… AS THE MAN WHO WOULD FEED JESUS’ SHEEP(CHURCH). HE ALSO GAVE PETER HIS FULL AUTHORITY BY GIVING HIM THE KEYS TO THE KINGDOM. HE ALSO TOLD PETER WHAT EVER HE BOUND ON EARTH WOULD BE BOUND IN HEAVEN, AND WHATEVER LOOSED ON EARTH WOULD BE LOOSED IN HEAVEN. WHAT MORE DO BIBLE CHRISTIANS WANT WHEN THEY SAY ”WHERE DOES IT SAY IN THE BIBLE…?” PETER WAS THE MAN…. I ASK YOU WHY WAS PETER THE ONE WHO KICKED OUT THE FIRST HERETICS, APPOINTED THE FIRST SUCCESSOR TO THE APOSTLES(MATHIAS), ANNOUNCED THAT GENTILES COULD BECOME CHRISTIANS, PERFORMED THE FIRST MIRACLE AFTER JESUS, THE LIST GOES ON. HE IS MENTIONED SOME 195 TIMES IN THE N.T. MORE THAN ALL THE OTHER APOSTLES COMBINED..
    HE IS MENTIONED AS ” PETER AND HIS COMPANIONS’ BECAUSE HE WAS THE LEADER. EVEN PAUL , WHO DIDNT GET ALONG WITH PETER A WHOLE BUNCH ASKED FOR AUTHORITATIVE ACTION FROM PETER. SO , FIRST IF CHRISTIANDOM AGREES WITH PETER AS THE ROCK UPON WHICH THE CHURCH WILL BE BUILT, THEN HOW DOES IT END? DOES IT END WITH PETER? OR DOES HE PASS THE KEY ONTO LINUS WHO PASSES THE KEY TO ANACLETUS, THEN CLEMENT, THEN EVARISTUS… ON AND ON. NOW WE HAVE BENEDICT… NOT TO MENTION THE FIRST 30 POPES DIED AS MARTYRS. IF IT WERENT FOR CONSTANTINE, NONE OF THE HOLY SITES IN JERUSELEM WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR US TO VISIT. SUCH AS WHERE JESUS WAS BORN, CRUCIFIED, OR BURIED. IF YOU DENY HISTORY THEN YOU LOSE THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH . YOU LOSE THE MEANING OF WHAT THE APOSTLES LEARNED. JESUS ONLY SAID ONE CHURCH. AND HE KNEW AHEAD OF TIME THAT IT NEEDED TO BE GUARDED BY HIS PEOPLE. IT GREW. BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. LIKE AN ACORN GROWS INTO AN OAK TREE, IT DOESNT LOOK THE SAME BUT THE DNA IS THERE. WHY ARE THERE 35,000 DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS AROUND THE WORLD YET THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS TO BE THEE CHURCH? NO ONE ELSE CLAIMS IT OR APPLIES FOR THE JOB.

  7. WOW GREG I FORGOT A COUPLE OF THINGS….THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY… AND JESUS BEING HER ONLY SON. FIRST DOESNT THE BIBLE SAY THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT ARE NOT WRITTEN? YES. SO , YOU BELIEVE BY FAITH THAT THE EARLY CHURCH HAD IT GOING ON, THAT THEY WERE THERE. THAT WHAT THEY SAID AND PASSED ON WAS TRUE. THATS FAITH. THE BIBLE WAS ONLY WRITTEN BY 3 APOSTLES. WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER 10 ? WHERE THEY LAYING AROUND,OR WHERE THEY HEALING, TEACHING, APPOINTING BISHOPS, DEACON, AND PREBYSTERS LIKE THE BIBLE STATES?
    THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY IS THE FACT THAT MARY WHEN SHE DIED COULD NOT BE FOUND. THERE IS NO RECORDED BURIAL OF HER. SO , IF SHE WAS WATCHED OVER BY THE EARLY CHURCH AND MOSTLY APOSTLE JOHN IN EPHESUS AND THE MANY FOLLOWERS OF HIM AND HER THEN WHY COULDNT THEY BURY HER? ALL THE APOSTLES EXCEPT JUDUS ARE BURIED IN A CATHOLIC CHURCH. WOW!!!!!!! GIVE CREDIT TO THE CATHOLICS PLEASE! BUT IF MARY WAS SUCH AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE EARLY CHURCH(REMEMBER SHE WAS AT THE UPPER ROOM ON PENTECOST) THEN WHY DIDNT THEY BURY HER OR WHY DONT THEY KNOW WHERE SHE’S BURIED? WE ASSUME SHE WENT TO BE IN HEAVEN BOTH BODY AND SOUL. GOTTA HAVE FAITH. REV 12:1–2 KINGS 2:11 AND QUEENS HAVE CROWNS LIKE THAT WHICH IS STATED IN REV 12:1

    AND AS FOR MARY NOT HAVING OTHER CHILDREN, WELL ITS LIKE THE CHURCH SAYS. THAT BRETHREN IS A WORD ALSO FOR COUSINS. THAT THERE WAS NOT A WORD FOR COUSINS IN THE FIRST LANGUAGE OF THE N.T. WHICH IS ARAMAIC. ALSO THERE WAS ALOT OF EXTENDED FAMILY AROUND SUCH AS ELIZABETH AND HER CHILDREN. ANOTHER MARY IS ALSO MENTIONED., MAYBE AN AUNT. THERE ARE BRETHREN, BOTH MALE AND FEMALE, OF JESUS MENTIONED MANY TIMES, BUT NO PERSON IS EVER MENTIONED AS SON OR DAUGHTER OF MARY , OTHER THAN JESUS.
    MARK 6:3 SAYS”" IS THIS NOT THE CARPENTER… THE SON OF MARY?”(‘THE SON’, NOT
    ‘A SON’ SHOWS MARY HAD NO OTHER SONS.
    BUT THE BIGGEST ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF A ‘ONE CHILD’ MARY IS WHEN JESUS SAYS WHILE ON THE CROSS ”JOHN THERE IS YOUR MOTHER, WOMAN THERE IS YOUR SON”.AND FROM THAT HOUR ON HE TOOK HER INTO HIS HOME.(JOHN 19:27) NOW JEWISH CUSTOM WOULD HAVE MEANT THAT IF SHE HAD NO ONE ELSE THEN A CLOSE FRIEND WOULD TAKE CARE OF HER AS A WIDOW OR ALONE PERSON. IF SHE HAD OTHER CHILDREN THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TAKEN HER INTO THEIR HOME, BUT THE BIBLE DOESNT SAY THAT.

  8. sorry greg, is this better? my name is mark. i am not paranoid—- but i dont to ‘need’ to give you my last name to justify what am writing on this blog. have ”faith” that i am not trying to trick you by calling myself ‘peter’ or ‘mark’ and maybe tommorrow ‘matthew’. my name is mark…lets stop the arrogance and get on with a christian discussion or get off this site-please.

  9. That you’ve stopped “yelling” (by no longer typing in all-caps) won’t now make me go back and read any of the “yelling” (in all caps) that you did. When I said I wouldn’t read it, I wasn’t kidding.

    So if you have a point, then please now (re-)make it, in upper-and-lower-case letters, like normal people…

    …speaking of which: When I wrote upper-and-lower-case, I meant that, and not the all-lower-case that you’re using. All lower-case is what I consider “text speak,” and is the lazy behavior of people who spend entirely too much time texting everything in their lives, and have forgotten where is the [Shift] key; and who think that punctuation and proper typing don’t matter anymore, and that “close is good enough.”. All that such an attitude reveals about you is that you’re (likely) young, and (definitely) lazy, don’t sweat important details, and are probably not terribly well-educated.

    I usually don’t respond to all-lower-case, either. I figure if the other person can’t put enough effort into the discussion to bother to type things correctly, and like all parts of it matter, then they usually don’t have much to say that’s worthy of a response. So if you’d like my further silence in response to anything you type which is not in all-caps, but is exactly the opposite, in all lower-case, then you just go ahead and keep doing it.

    And it’s “Gregg,” by the way: Three g’s, not in a row. Not “Greg.” Your reputation for attention to detail (or, more accurately, your lack thereof) seems to precede itself, doesn’t it. (a rhetorical question… more like a statement, actually)

    And no one’s being arrogant, so I’d appreciate that you dispense with that flip accusation, thankyouverymuch.

    I’m also none too keen about you seeming to tell me to either do what you want or get off the site; however, I think what you meant was that we should both either discuss, rationallly, the “Christian discussion,” or get the heck out of here and stop bothering people… that sort of thing. At least that’s what I want to believe. I’ll not further respond to it, though, in any case.

    Other than this, I won’t respond, either, to your assertions as to which alias you’ve used, here, that’s the same as the names of the Gospels. You, me, and God (and any reader, here, with a brain) all know what is the truth… and how many of us — assuming you’re taking your meds — are actually involved in this conversation.

    As for our now getting on with the Christian discussion…

    …you mean we hadn’t finished?

    [sigh]

    ________________________________
    Gregg DesElms
    Napa, California USA
    gregg at greggdeselms dot com

  10. Hi, Mitch. Well-written, right back atcha’!

    As I was reading your words, I noticed your reference to “The Eucharist,” and it reminded me of an actually (surprisingly) well-written piece on that phrase that I found some time back on the WordAlone web site. Yes, I’ve read its stuff, even though I hold with little on it. I’m a former LCA Lutheran, not a former ALC one. The WordAlone, and former “Solid Rock” Lutherans, and now the “Lutheran Core” (aka “The North American Lutheran Church” (NALC)) folks all tend to be former ALC. And I’m not sure what ever happened to the 100,000 or so AELC Lutherans who jumped-in to the 1987 LCA/ALC/AELC merger to form the ELCA.

    But I am, in any case, of the more liberal/progressive types of Lutherans; but, beyond that, I’m a dowright progressive Chiristian, just generally, who is very ecumenical/interfaith, just generally; and who holds, generally, with the folks at http://www.tcpc.org and their both “8 points,” as well as their acquired “Crosswalk America” and its interesting “Phoenix Affirmations.” I like the Episcopalians, too.

    I still self-identify as an ELCA Lutheran, in the main; however I find myself very aware of and tuned-in to Lutheranism’s Roman Catholic heritage; and if I ever form the national church that I (crazy person that I can sometimes be) have up my sleeve, it will likelly be an interesting blend of Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism… sort of cherry-picking the best of both traditions, with some of the best of whatever other mainline traditions naturally fit…

    …and, yes, I realize that some people call that the “United Church of Christ” (UCC), except that there’s too much variance permitted in the UCC… too many churches at both ends of the progressive/conservative spectrum. My church, if I ever form it, will be decidedly at the left end, with nothing at any other end (or even very much toward the middle). Those who don’t like that can just go join the UCC. [grin]

    Anyway, the term “Eucharist” is taken issue with rather interestingly — and possibly even theologically convincingly — by the WordAlone article I was reading on the subject some time back. I’ll see if I can find it, and put a link to it, here; or you can go look at the WordAlone site (if you can bring yourself to so do) and see if you can spot it. It’s pretty good, I must admit. Worth the search.

    In fact, for a remarkably authentic view of the traditionally Lutheran approach to worship, versus the Roman Catholic approach — particularly the very interesting differences in viewpoint (who’s the mass ultimately for) — can also be found there… along with lots of other pretty cool theology (along, course, with some pretty screwed-up theology, too… it is, after all, the WordAlone site).

    I could not more agree with what that pastor told you; and I have often heard that kind of rhetoric used to explain why Lutheran is not just another protestant denomination.

    I’ll tell you a story I think you’ll like…

    Back in the ’80s, when I lived in the “Miller” (Beach) section of Gary, Indiana, our then-LCA church there was a teaching parish for the nearby (LCA-owned) Lutheran School of Theology Chicago (LSTC) seminary. We used to have a thing on Wednesday evenings called “Soup, Song and Sacrament,” where we’d all bring pot luck side dishes, and someone would make the soup, and we’d eat, and pray, and talk about whatever the pastor decided was the subject for the evening… stuff like that. It was sort of informal Bible study, but where it was sorta’ okay if you forgot to bring your Bible.

    Anyway, one evening a final-year seminarian from LSTC was invited to come and talk with our group. He had done his first… I think three years… or so… at a Roman Catholic seminary, studying for the priesthood. A professor during the first semester of his either second or third year at the Catholic seminary gave him what the professor dismissed as the simple assignment of spending a bunch of time in the library perusing through The Complete Works of Martin Luther, and then writing a paper on why Luther was wrong.

    The seminarian said that he did the assignment with enthusiasm, confident that all the ways that Luther was misguided would become painfully self-evident. But he found it a bigger challenge than he thought…

    …and when he finally turned-in the paper, it stated, simply that the assignment had been to peruse all 55 (or 57, depending on the publisher) volumes of The Complete Works of Martin Luther and list the salient reasons why Luther was wrong…

    …and beneath that he wrote, “the problem is that he wasn’t.” And then he added, beneath that: “And so I’ve now been accepted into an ELCA seminary. Bye.”

    Godasmywitness: True story. Of course, there was more to his presentation that evening than just that. He went on to specify the precise things which tipped it in for him. But it really made a huge impression on me.

    Something interesting to do, if you ever have the opportunity, is to sit around with a bunch of Lutheran pastors is to ask the simple question: “Why Lutheran and not… well… pretty much anything else?”

    The answers are particularly interesting from those who grew-up in a different faith tradition; but no matter their background, I’ve noticed that the one thing on which they all seem to wholeheartedly agree is that Luther — depressed (likely bi-polar), anti-semitic, anabaptist-hating, cynical, earthy, self-loathing, beer swilling, voice-hearing whackjob that he could sometimes be — bygod pretty much got it right… the basic theology of it all, I mean. It’s the most reasonable understanding of scripture out there, they’ll fairly enthusiastically all tend to say…

    …adding how kinda’ surprising that is, considering how truly screwed-up the dude otherwise was.

    For those who want a Reader’s Digest (but nevertheless really high-quality) take on and understanding of Luther, I cannot more strongly recommend the book on Luther that Martin Marty wrote for the Penguin Life series.

    And for both those who aren’t Lutheran but who would like to better understand being one from the perspective of everyday church life; or for those already Lutheran who want to be better at parish life, I could not more strongly recommend “Reclaiming the ‘L’ Word: Renewing the Church from Its Lutheran Core” by Kelly Fryer.

    I like to recommend those two because they’re both short books which can be devoured in a day or two each (or less); and they do a good job of helping people kind of begin to GET it, a little bit, regarding being Lutheran.

    Nice to have you chime in.

    Peace.

    ________________________________
    Gregg L. DesElms
    Napa, California USA
    gregg at greggdeselms dot com

  11. Wow ! Is Gregg (with 2 g’s) the most pretentious Lutheran apologist
    you’ve ever had to endure? I bet he records himself speaking and plays
    it back for a special thrill. Bottom line is , the Roman Catholic church
    may have been perverted by man along the road to its present place
    in society and history but it still retains its primacy as the original church
    of Jesus Christ.

    • Thank You! I “skimmed” over his responses…..But just could not handle it anymore! He is obviously educated, OR educating himself in The Bible, since he tends to reference MANY scriptures…But then again, all us Christians know we have books on our shelves that can give us a list of scriptures relating to every topic…….But anyway, HOW ANGRY IS THIS GUY GreGG?!?!?!? The way he REALLY wanted to “pick a fight” with everyone…..REALLY NOT SO CHRISTIAN OF YOU GREgg. I really found you to be “full of yourself” and condescending. You are NOT God…..So, please stop judging. Also, not everybody is YELLING when they write in CAPS…..Not everyone is a BLOG NERD, and knows the proper “Netiquite” (HA!HA!) okay?

  12. Take Up Your Cross and Follow Jesus

    24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.25 For whoever would save his lifet will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

    Matt 16: 24-28

  13. First of all I don’t understand why some of you guys are making such a big deal about caps or no caps. WHO CARES! And second we all have our own faith beliefs how about we just stick with them and don’t shove them into other peoples faces and just get along. OK?

  14. I was a Lutheran and the reason I became Catholic is because all i was ever told about Catholics was false. The two pillars of the Lutherans are Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, We are saved by faith alone and the bible is the sole authority. Now if you can show me a Bible that doesn’t contradict sola fide and where it supports Sola Scripura, I will flip back to lutheran in a flash…sadly though the Bible doesn’t support luthers docrine. peace :)

  15. Gregg, this is the internet and was meant for fun. You don’t need to type up essays. Just saying.

  16. I came to this site as a Christian who is neither Catholic nor Lutheran, seeking to understand the major differences between the two faiths. In the original article, I found very little that was useful to understanding the two faiths, and after reading a few responses, found nothing really useful there either.

Leave a Response

Please note: comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Articles on DifferenceBetween.net are general information, and are not intended to substitute for professional advice. The information is "AS IS", "WITH ALL FAULTS". User assumes all risk of use, damage, or injury. You agree that we have no liability for any damages.


Protected by Copyscape Plagiarism Finder