A Question for Lutherans - One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic

[EvangelCatholic]

Hi EC,
Just a couple of comments.

I grew up un an LCA/ELCA parish, where, in my youth, they allowed for communion once monthly, despite Dad’s protests, and desires to celebrate weekly. Speaking of my dad, his was a presbyter ordination, and the ELCA, so far as I know, still honors as valid a presbyter ordination. If not, they are not In keeping with the Confessions. It is not so very long ago, EC, that what you hare criticizing in the LCMS was, and some cases, still is the practice in parishes in the ELCA.
Less-than-weekly communion is an American Lutheran aberration, not an LCMS one.
It is a matter of education, of catechesis, and not a matter of synodical doctrine.

As were the local synods of the LCA, ALC, and later the ELCA up until quite recently. First, as you know, district presidents lack authority to require weekly communion, but that said, the trend is decidedly toward weekly communion, particularly true with recently ordained seminarians.

I’m sure our Catholic and Orthodox siblings will take umbrage with this accusation, as I do.

Jon

Jon

To my knowledge presbyter ordination is not longer permitted in the ELCA. Ever since full communion with the Episcopal Church, Lutherans must have a bishop ordain even if the bishop is Episcopalian. This is to satisfy apostolic succession. Lutherans don’t believe episcopacy is necessary but accept it as the historic norm/ order of the ancient Church.

I read where seminarians in the ELCA fully expect that their parish ministry include weekly Eucharist and the number of parishes that don’t adhere to the Lutheran Confessions are confronted and corrected.

I can not understand/ accept any priest who denies holy Communion to a Christian who is baptized and believes in the Real Presence.

 

[steido01]

Jon

To my knowledge presbyter ordination is not longer permitted in the ELCA. Ever since full communion with the Episcopal Church, Lutherans must have a bishop ordain even if the bishop is Episcopalian. This is to satisfy apostolic succession. Lutherans don’t believe episcopacy is necessary but accept it as the historic norm/ order of the ancient Church.

I read where seminarians in the ELCA fully expect that their parish ministry include weekly Eucharist and the number of parishes that don’t adhere to the Lutheran Confessions are confronted and corrected.

I can not understand/ accept any priest who denies holy Communion to a Christian who is baptized and believes in the Real Presence.

Your first paragraph seems to contradict itself, and the teachings of your ecclesial body - presbyter ordination is accepted in the ELCA. Ever since Call to Common Mission, your ordinations have generally had a bishop present to satisfy the Anglicans, but AFAIK, the ELCA side still considers presbyter ordinations just as valid, since Lutherans do not recognize a division between pastor and bishop… Am I mistaken? Nowadays, your seminarians request ordinations specifically without a bishop present just to prove it isn’t necessary (as all Lutherans who profess the Confessions believe): archive.wfn.org/2002/09/msg00251.html

 

[SyroMalankara]

What’s a “two-point parish” and how does it differ from a “three-point parish”? (the terms are mentioned in the above link)

 

[EvangelCatholic]

What’s a “two-point parish” and how does it differ from a “three-point parish”? (the terms are mentioned in the above link)

“Point parishes” is where the pastor serves more than one parish. Lack of clergy is a pressing problem for Lutherans.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The issue of “presbyter ordination” is acceptable to all Lutherans but the bulk of synods, national churches practice episcopal ordinations. According to the article, it takes the bishop to authorize the “unusual circumstance” allowing a pastor to ordain. And in the story, I see that the synod bishop laid hands on the ordinate anyway.

 

[JonNC]

The issue of “presbyter ordination” is acceptable to all Lutherans but the bulk of synods, national churches practice episcopal ordinations. According to the article, it takes the bishop to authorize the “unusual circumstance” allowing a pastor to ordain. And in the story, I see that the synod bishop laid hands on the ordinate anyway.

And up until recently, roughly 2001, the vast majority of Lutheran ordinations in America were presbyter. And in Europe, there were many more prior to the Porvoo Communion in 1992. So, I’m not seeing what the point is. Presbyter ordination is considered valid by all Lutherans. Apostolic succession is considered valid by all Lutherans.

That said, I find the use of ordination to make a point by the seminarian to be distasteful.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

And up until recently, roughly 2001, the vast majority of Lutheran ordinations in America were presbyter. And in Europe, there were many more prior to the Porvoo Communion in 1992. So, I’m not seeing what the point is. Presbyter ordination is considered valid by all Lutherans. Apostolic succession is considered valid by all Lutherans.

That said, I find the use of ordination to make a point by the seminarian to be distasteful.

Jon

The article in question is from 2002 and could have been a reflection of anti-episcopal governance. My understanding is that the Scandinavia and Baltic Lutherans have used episcopal ordination since before the Reformation.

 

[JonNC]

The article in question is from 2002 and could have been a reflection of anti-episcopal governance. My understanding is that the Scandinavia and Baltic Lutherans have used episcopal ordination since before the Reformation.

Yes, they did, but not all Lutheran synods in Europe did.

Jon

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Do Lutherans actually believe their theology and way of doing things existed before Lutheranism? No doubt they have taken certain things from the fathers and the bible and incorporated that into their church. But on the whole do Lutheran’s recognise their unique origins exclusively within the mind of Martin luther?

I don’t believe the Lutheran’s have responded to this point and I would like them to do so. It is a critical point as well, that Lutheran’s have no trouble in appealing to the patristics (when it benefits them) in order to establish their practice as credible and part of the historic church. But I see a marked difference between the patristics and the theology which Martin Luther developed. Your denomination receives it’s very name and despite calling yourselves other things (Like Catholic or Orthodox), your primary way of identifying yourself is grounded in the theological understanding of One man and then subsequent men who followed in his footsteps, accepting his emphases in theology (primarily Justification and Sola-Scriptura) and his pastoral teaching.

It is a legitimate question to ask the Lutheran if such luminaries of the church, Saint Augustine, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint John Chrysostom and others were in the same church as the Lutheran church today. Orthodox and Catholics and Orientals have no problem claiming these for themselves and will vigorously say “they were Catholic!” or “they were Orthodox!” (Using Orthodox and Catholic to represent the two different and competing traditions). Lutherans will say they are just plainly “Christian,” at least from what I’ve read and listened concerning the opinions on such. Is it that the church invisible, as a concept takes precedent over what I do not think can be disputed in the patristics is the idea of the church on earth, clearly visible as institution, which has features of apostolic succession, which requires one to be faithful to it?

If we are talking about the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, we are necessarily remembering Nicea and all of us have some sort of loyalty to that council. I would appreciate clarification on part of the Lutherans before I say anything else and seem to be attacking a strawman.

So, do lutheran’s think their church was before Luther in both form or content? Or do they themselves recognize their unique origins in Luther? That without this Luther we might never have known the event which was known as the reformation?

 

[izzydizzydo]

You are a master polemist!!! Thank you…thank you…thank you

 

[izzydizzydo]

You are a master polemist!!! Thank you…thank you…thank you

 

[steido01]

I don’t believe the Lutheran’s have responded to this point and I would like them to do so. It is a critical point as well, that Lutheran’s have no trouble in appealing to the patristics (when it benefits them) in order to establish their practice as credible and part of the historic church.

Just as the Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

But I see a marked difference between the patristics and the theology which Martin Luther developed.

The ECF’s words were broad enough to contain both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, but not Evangelical Catholicism?

Your denomination receives it’s very name and despite calling yourselves other things (Like Catholic or Orthodox), your primary way of identifying yourself is grounded in the theological understanding of One man and then subsequent men who followed in his footsteps, accepting his emphases in theology (primarily Justification and Sola-Scriptura) and his pastoral teaching.

I suppose that makes us a bit of a “rite,” which is how many Lutherans consider themselves in the grand view of the church on earth.

It is a legitimate question to ask the Lutheran if such luminaries of the church, Saint Augustine, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint John Chrysostom and others were in the same church as the Lutheran church today. Orthodox and Catholics and Orientals have no problem claiming these for themselves and will vigorously say “they were Catholic!” or “they were Orthodox!” (Using Orthodox and Catholic to represent the two different and competing traditions). Lutherans will say they are just plainly “Christian,” at least from what I’ve read and listened concerning the opinions on such.

Well, now. The ECF’s lived centuries before the Great Schism. They were not aware that such a wrenching of the church would ever happen. How then can we assume that any of them would fit neatly into Orthodoxy, or Roman Catholicism, or Evangelical Catholicism as they are defined today? Furthermore, which of these groups does a service to the ECF’s by intentionally calling them Christian (in general), catholic (in general) or orthodox (in general) rather than placing words into their sleeping mouths and calling them Orthodox (specifically) or Catholic (specifically) – forcing them into an division that they took not part and knew not of? The truth is we don’t know where the ECF’s would align themselves today. Perhaps some with Wittenberg, some with Rome, some Constantinople. From our perspective, the most correct conclusion is ours – I am confident you hold to the same.

Is it that the church invisible, as a concept takes precedent over what I do not think can be disputed in the patristics is the idea of the church on earth, clearly visible as institution, which has features of apostolic succession, which requires one to be faithful to it?

See above, but as for Lutheran ecclesiology I want to make something clear: Yes, the church is invisible - but it is also visible. The church is made present wherever the Word is preached and the Sacraments rightly administered. This contrasts starkly with the American evangelical concept of the purely invisible “secret” church, while at the same time not falling into the Anglican “branch theory.” Do you understand the distinction Lutheranism understands to be present here from the fathers and Scripture?

If we are talking about the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, we are necessarily remembering Nicea and all of us have some sort of loyalty to that council. I would appreciate clarification on part of the Lutherans before I say anything else and seem to be attacking a strawman.

Appreciated. I hope we’ve been helpful.

So, do lutheran’s think their church was before Luther in both form or content? Or do they themselves recognize their unique origins in Luther? That without this Luther we might never have known the event which was known as the reformation?

We are not restorationists; but neither are we ignorant of history. The church was ill in the West during Luther’s time. If not Luther, then another would have challenged the Medici family’s oppression of the Faith and the faithful. Indeed, others did – and quite separately from Luther! Zwingli and Calvin weren’t Lutherans-who-became-something-else, they were ‘something else’ to begin with. Even Rome required its own "counter-"reformation at Trent.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I would grant that there is a development which happens in the church over the centuries and I would also grant that the patristics are quite broad on many theological topics. But insofar as to what the church visible is, it does not seem to be the same as the Lutheran. That is there is a totally different approach to the tradition of understanding church. The teachings of the fathers was taken much more seriously than it is in Lutheranism which tends to reject (correct me if I am wrong) the seventh ecumenical council’s decree concerning images. Jaroslav Pelikan puts the later and its understanding of authority in the fathers for instance (an authority Lutherans deny) thusly:

“So intimate was the connection between the scripture and the fathers that in one sentence “the holy apostle Paul and… Gregory of Nazianzus, the great and wondrous teacher,” could be invoked together. The difference between apostle and father was more in degree than kind.”

Jaroslav Pelikan, the spirit of eastern Christianity pg 19, quote from the Ambigua of Saint Maximos

I think it is safe to say Orthodox, Orientals and Catholics maintain this same perspective.

I think it is right to say that Lutherans in the understanding of sola scriptura can do away with any one consensus of the fathers in this regard (I will give some more examples later). Need we mention one of the most early consensus’? Succession via the apostolic, which Clement, Iraneaus, Eusebius testifies to and seems to have been the assumption behind it all. Which father for instance granted that one could start their own church and community if they were regarded as a heretic? If they themselves had the truth alone while the whole world was in schism? None as far as I can see. Yes individual communions make break off and away but we have an example in Maximos whom was regarded as just such a heretic by the state. He abstained from communion with the church but he did not start his own, rather he invited the church back to true doctrine and was killed for it and recognised later as a saint in the same church that at one time condemned him. Where in the fathers or even the scripture for that matter, do we find the authority given to one to just start a church? Can you find any evidence? That faith alone is all that is needed to establish a church body? Not even the apostle Paul started a church independently from the apostles and he was called by God, so what gave Martin Luther or indeed modern day Lutherans to do such a thing?

So what are the other examples of a clear rejection on the part of Lutherans as the tradition as a whole? There does seem to be a clear genesis of Lutheranism within Luther and nowhere else and I can’t help but feel that if your faith is dependent on one man and that is a problem. For if one man is the root and cause of your church, what does that say about the place of such a church? Without Luther, Lutheranism ceases to exist. Without Calvin, Calvanism ceases to exist. I compare this to the Orthodox church, without John Chrysostom does the faith fall apart? No. Without Ignatius does the faith fall apart as is my church compromised? No. Without Clement of Rome is my church compromised? No. If we have one heretical Bishop, says Nestorius, is the church compromised? No. If Saint Paul did not exist is the church then compromised? No, because there were twelve apostles.
I thank God for all of these however, that they did exist to contribute to the faith and mount what I see as the castle of the faith, with arrows to defend against any attacker. However, Luther on the other hand, he doesn’t so much mount the castle of already existing faith, he builds a new one and sends out his armies once he has set himself before the non-existant figure sitting on the empty throne. Where does Christ sit? In the Catholic castle with the Pope at his right hand? The Orthodox castle with his body before them? Or in the Lutheran castle, having left the Orthodox and Catholic castles some time ago?

Forgive the painful analogy but I want to make my point as clear as possible. If Lutherans claim to be the church of Nicea (which I don’t think you do, in which case I must ask why you bother confessing the creed?) Christ cannot be in all three of those chairs, he must be in one and Lutherans claim it is there one chair in the castle which Luther built, not the castle the apostles built. The only option I can see at this point is to defend on the principle of faith alone, that visible hierarchies are unimportant, historical succession is meaningless and if you make that case I will defend it more thoroughly.

Now I want to consider all of the tradition which Lutherans rejected, like monasticism for one thing. Perhaps reacting only to abuses within western monasticism sure, but the reformation threw out everything monastic when the fathers did not dare challenge the institution as a whole. There have always been bad monks which have been the source of grief in the church up to the modern day but the whole idea of it has not been totally dismissed in the radical fashion of the reformers who did away with the idea of a celibate life or from escaping the world in favour of the married life, which contradicts scripture. That is celibacy is almost a non-existent option for the protestant. I would also consider justification by faith alone in that before Luther one could easily say these things in the same treatise without being accused of advocating works righteousness, trying to buy ones salvation.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

1. Wishing to show that to fulfil every commandment is a duty, whereas sonship is a gift given to men through His own Blood, the Lord said: ‘When you have done all that is commanded you, say: “We are useless servants: we have only done what was our duty”’ (Luke 17:10). Thus the kingdom of heaven is not a reward for works, but a gift of grace prepared by the Master for his faithful servants.
2. A slave does not demand his freedom as a reward; but he gives satisfaction as one who is in debt, and he receives freedom as a gift.
3. ‘Christ died on account of our sins in accordance with the Scriptures’ (I Cor. 15:3); and to those who serve Him well He gives freedom. ‘Well done, good and faithful servant,’ He says, ‘you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many: enter into the joy of your Lord’ (Matt. 25: 21).
4. He who relies on theoretical knowledge alone is not yet a faithful servant: a faithful servant is one who expresses his faith in things Christ through obedience to His commandments.
   On those who think they are made righteous by works, Saint Mark the ascetic.

There is no deliberate understanding of sola fide, taken to such a point that Luther took it, almost to the point where to even try and do good, that is to will to live according to the gospel is an arrogant sin in of itself. I think one of the good features of the fathers is that there was never this debate about justification that has been so obsessed over like in the west. Things were much more mystical, left much more up to God judge rather than the Christian to say “your works and your faith condemn you, how dare you quote the words of Christ, “He who loves me will follow my commands!” (I once did this to a protestant and got this reaction more or less).

I hope I have understood Lutheranism, so that I have given clear reasons for it being wrong or questionable.

 

[McCartney]

Always love to hear answer from our Lutheran friends…
Mary.

Me too. Never realised until I joined this forum how considerate they are about the RCC.

 

[marywarfield]

We are not restorationists; but neither are we ignorant of history. The church was ill in the West during Luther’s time. If not Luther, then another would have challenged the Medici family’s oppression of the Faith and the faithful. Indeed, others did – and quite separately from Luther! Zwingli and Calvin weren’t Lutherans-who-became-something-else, they were ‘something else’ to begin with. Even Rome required its own "counter-"reformation at Trent.

Indeed. So a person might ask: if the Church addressed the
abuses which so infuriated Luther- why remain seperate?

If Luther and Zwingli and Calvin were only interested in
reforming the Church why did they create new ones once
they were successful?

And then since no Medicis have been around in
centuries then one has to ponder: Why are Lutherans
still Lutheran? Why have they not come home?

This is where the claims of innocence and altruism FAIL.

 

[benjohnson]

Indeed. So a person might ask: if the Church addressed the
abuses which so infuriated Luther- why remain seperate?

Two (edit: three) reasons:

1. Modern Catholic dogma of papal-infalibilty and the dogma of the immaculate conception.
2. We’re already home. Though we desire reunification, we don’t view ourselves as minor splinter off the grander Catholic church.
3. The dogma of Transubstantiation - we view the Body and Blood as a unknowable Mystery. Transubstantiation is a good way of teaching for the rational mind, but no rationality can encompass God’s mystery.

 

[benjohnson]

But insofar as to what the church visible is, it does not seem to be the same as the Lutheran. That is there is a totally different approach to the tradition of understanding church. The teachings of the fathers was taken much more seriously than it is in Lutheranism which tends to reject (correct me if I am wrong) the seventh ecumenical council’s decree concerning images. Jaroslav Pelikan puts the later and its understanding of authority in the fathers for instance (an authority Lutherans deny) thusly:

This description of our church is not one I recognize.

Based on outward appearances (because we’re sinners) your prognosis would seem correct - but our theology isn’t a faint echo of any particular cranky Augustinian monk.

Given our size, it would be reasonable to think that theology is shallow - but instead it is layered and indeed you must dig down layer after layer to expose deeper mystery.

If I had just two hours to convince you that we’re not shallow fakers - I would spend the first hour with you listening to parts of Handel’s Messiah, Bach’s Mass, and random selections from our Hymnody. The second hour at would be at one of our schools where we teach our children the faith.

 

[christus_vincit]

And then since no Medicis have been around in
centuries then one has to ponder: Why are Lutherans
still Lutheran? Why have they not come home?

Based on many of the responses given by Lutherans, I am also beginning to wonder about this.

 

[marywarfield]

Two (edit: three) reasons:

1. Modern Catholic dogma of papal-infalibilty and the dogma of the immaculate conception.
2. We’re already home. Though we desire reunification, we don’t view ourselves as minor splinter off the grander Catholic church.
3. The dogma of Transubstantiation - we view the Body and Blood as a unknowable Mystery. Transubstantiation is a good way of teaching for the rational mind, but no rationality can encompass God’s mystery.

So in other words the issues of the Reformation are
totally irrelevant and nothing but the Catholics changing
dogmas held for two thousand years will suffice.

Hey good luck with that! Lol.

In so far as consubstantiation vs transubstantiation:
Way wrong!
All Luther did was try to make an unknowable mystery
less mysterious. And subsequently less accurate.