F
Fidelis
Guest
:tsktsk: tsk tsk…ad hominems are so tacky and don’t resolve anything.
Besides, it works both ways, does it not?
- Status
Besides, it works both ways, does it not?
S
spoiltvictorian
Guest
For one, are they really as important? I’m not sure about that. And a few other things.
S
scooter469
Guest
Thanks
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
I am not going to dispute the overall bent of the thread which suggests that the Lutherans seem closer to Catholicism, especially based on liturgical factors. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi and all that.
But, I will say that Calvin’s actual theology (i.e., the Institutes) always struck me as much more Catholic than anything coming from Luther. When I read Calvin, I recognize him (for lack of a better phrase). There are large sections of the Institutes that read like Thomism (God, Creation, Providence, Election…even, to a lesser degree Eucharist (Calvin on Eucharist makes a great deal more sense than where the Lutherans end up)). And it is not just the broad outline, but substantive agreement in content.
Now of course there are very deep disagreements in ecclesiology, and then carrying over into worship that make the whole piety of the Reformed tradition foreign to much of Catholicism (though, one might be reminded of the plain Cistercian chapels). On top of that, of course, most of the Reformed tradition rejects Calvin’s theology of the real presence in the Lord’s Supper, exacerbating that gap between Catholicism and the Reformed even more, while fueling the starkness of Reformed piety.
salaam.
But, I will say that Calvin’s actual theology (i.e., the Institutes) always struck me as much more Catholic than anything coming from Luther. When I read Calvin, I recognize him (for lack of a better phrase). There are large sections of the Institutes that read like Thomism (God, Creation, Providence, Election…even, to a lesser degree Eucharist (Calvin on Eucharist makes a great deal more sense than where the Lutherans end up)). And it is not just the broad outline, but substantive agreement in content.
Now of course there are very deep disagreements in ecclesiology, and then carrying over into worship that make the whole piety of the Reformed tradition foreign to much of Catholicism (though, one might be reminded of the plain Cistercian chapels). On top of that, of course, most of the Reformed tradition rejects Calvin’s theology of the real presence in the Lord’s Supper, exacerbating that gap between Catholicism and the Reformed even more, while fueling the starkness of Reformed piety.
salaam.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Gee, would Jesus have given all those sacraments to us if they WEREN’T important?
All the sacraments are important. Why settle for a few when you have an opportunity to have them all? I’m just sayin…
But back to the subject of the thread ~ I have been told that it is far more likely that the Lutherans will re-join the Catholics far sooner than the Anglicans/Episcopalians. (And of course the US Episcopal Church continues to proceed in the opposite direction of union.) As a former Episcopalian, I’d like to think that the Anglicans, at least, would beat the Lutherans back to Rome, but whoever wins the race, everyone wins.
I
IowaJay
Guest
Interesting observation, but I don’t know of any serious theologian - Lutheran, Catholic, or Calvinist, who would agree with you. After all, in the 1970s, then-Archbishop Ratzinger signed off on a ecumenical goal to recognize the Augsburg Confession as an acceptable statement of the Catholic faith:
books.google.com/books?id=fdUOk-7SId8C&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=ratzinger+pfnur+augsburg+confession&source=bl&ots=ICi8fsJ2qr&sig=kJBFEGzqJXo7ji3XEsta8pTrrlI&hl=en&ei=DozDScaROYnnnQep6aTMDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA218,M1
I don’t recall there ever being such a discussion in Catholic circles regarding a Calvinist statement of faith.
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
Yes, I think that is all true.
The gap on ecclesiology is enormous. On top of that, many of the Reformed confessions contain explicitly anti-Catholic (usually anti-Papal) language such that they could never be confused with Catholic statements of faith.
salaam.
C
Contarini
Guest
I would tend to agree with you. And this is much truer of some other Reformed theologians, in my opinion.
However, I think it’s also true that other Lutheran theologians were generally more “recognizable” in the sense you are talking about than Luther. Luther really was sui generis in many ways (both good and bad). For a good example of later “Lutheran scholasticism,” I’d recommend Johann Gerhard. I like the bits of his work I’ve read very much.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I actually think that’s one of the areas where the Reformed are more Catholic than the Lutherans. Calvin has a much better developed doctrine of the visible Church than Luther. This is ironically a barrier to ecumenism. Lutherans don’t care that much about questions of polity and ecclesiology (by and large). If you persuade them that they can be united with you and still preach the Gospel (as they understand it), the hardest part of your work is behind you. The Reformed, on the other hand, historically think that ecclesiology and questions of polity (though the emphasis on polity was largely a post-Calvin development) are pretty important to the Christian faith.
The broader issue of which this is part is that the Reformed have a much more holistic, thorough-going approach. Lutheranism is based on one major doctrine–justification by faith alone. So it makes sense for evangelical catholics" within Lutheranism to argue that if once Rome accepted the message of Luther on this point (or at least made room for it), Lutherans could return. People have tried to claim that Reformed Protestantism is similarly focused on the sovereignty of God. But that’s a dubious claim, and at any rate the sovereignty of God is a very broad concept with lots of ramifications. Reformed Protestantism has many foci and many points of emphasis, and has developed sophisticated alternatives to Catholicism across the spectrum of theological issues. Also, historically the Reformed have been much more militantly opposed to Catholicism politically. Calvinism was essentially at war with Catholicism for the first 150 years of its existence, and one could argue that this was still somewhat true for the next 150. Lutherans never took that kind of consistently militant political stance. I think that has deeply shaped attitudes on both sides. In Germany there are good historical reasons why Catholics think of Lutherans rather than Reformed as people they can deal with.
Also, it should be noted that the Augsburg Confession is a fairly early Protestant confession, and can be subscribed to by Reformed in its “variata” form (though I suspect that’s not the form that Catholics are willing to accept). The Augustana goes out of its way to emphasize common ground between Catholics and Protestants. The major Reformed confessions date from a later stage in the development of Protestantism, when reunion was no longer a goal.
All of that being said, I agree that there are many ways in which Lutherans are much closer to Catholicism than the Reformed. And yet when reading the 16th-century theological texts, I have often received the same impression as Badaliyyah.
Edwin
O
orange_man
Guest
Indeed … I could never see Rome adopting the Westminster Confession as an “acceptable statement of the Catholic faith.” Moreover, Calvin represented a far greater departure from Roman Christianity than did Luther (at least IMO). As you say Calvin confronted Catholic doctrine in every area, not just justification (and ancillary issues like indulgences); and he rarely if ever had a kind word to say about Rome (he believed finding salvation within the RCC was difficult, though not impossible).
- Status