7
7_Sorrows
Guest
under Pope Benedict XVI, he approved the Anglican Use Mass. did you not know about this?
Could Protestant denominations have their own Rites, if they become Catholic?
- Status
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Yes, read the thread!!! Lol
S
steido01
Guest
Yep. And they also evolve together, despite their divisions. Take the celebration of Holy Communiom to ad populum with the altar removed from the wall instead of ad orientum. After Vatican II, many Lutheran churches followed the Vatican’s lead in a show of ecumenism. It was and is by no means universal practice in Lutheranism, but that actually had its roots at Luther himself, who pushed for the switch. The thinking was (mistakenly) that it was more like how Christ would’ve done it. While most of Lutheranism ignored Luther on that point, Rome thought is was great… 450ish years later.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Why should it matter if something had roots in Luther himself? What authority does he have?While most of Lutheranism ignored Luther on that point, Rome thought is was great… 450ish years later.
C
ConfusedLucy
Guest
I’m guessing in theory it would be possible for married men but not for women ministers then. Would it make a difference if the non-Catholic minister was a baptised Catholic.
C
ConfusedLucy
Guest
No I mean a lot of people who go to non-denominational churches are lapsed Catholics which I think means they wouldn’t technically be converting to Catholicism.
S
steido01
Guest
None, aside from the regular authority of a pastor. That’s why most Lutherans ignored him on that point. Anyway, I was just noting a fun bit of history - liturgies are in flux and affected by other churches.
C
ConfusedLucy
Guest
To be fair I was only going anecdotally, I have personally met an awful lot of lapsed Catholics that now go to non-denominational churches but I don’t know how common this is.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
I have a slightly different question, and it is an honest one.
How does a Lutheran understand being Lutheran, especially in the context of Christian patrimony? Like, to me as a Catholic, identifying as “Lutheran” suggests great emphasis on Martin Luther, a single person. As in, it sounds like “I’m a follower of Martin Luther.” To me as a Catholic, the idea seems odd. Not because of the obvious since that Luther is Protestant, and I am Catholic – but that Catholic does not really mean allegiance to any one person’s theology. It’s more about the entire Christian patrimony as passed down consistently through the ages.
So I guess this may be a personal question, but what does it mean for you to be Lutheran? What is your self understanding?
That kind of bounces off my question for what authority Luther had. Why should someone follow his movement?
Thanks
How does a Lutheran understand being Lutheran, especially in the context of Christian patrimony? Like, to me as a Catholic, identifying as “Lutheran” suggests great emphasis on Martin Luther, a single person. As in, it sounds like “I’m a follower of Martin Luther.” To me as a Catholic, the idea seems odd. Not because of the obvious since that Luther is Protestant, and I am Catholic – but that Catholic does not really mean allegiance to any one person’s theology. It’s more about the entire Christian patrimony as passed down consistently through the ages.
So I guess this may be a personal question, but what does it mean for you to be Lutheran? What is your self understanding?
That kind of bounces off my question for what authority Luther had. Why should someone follow his movement?
Thanks
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
ALSO that question to @steido01 is related to the thread’s topic because my OP suggests that all Christians should be able to find a home in the Catholic Church, even if that means having different cultures or practices. So long as they are not merely doctrinal issues.
Last edited:
C
ConfusedLucy
Guest
What about people in second marriages? There would be a lot of annulment applications needed. I imagine each person looking to become Catholic would need to sit with a priest to discuss what Catholic sacraments, if any, they have received and what their marital status is, it would be a huge task.
S
steido01
Guest
The name ‘Lutheran’ is a bit like the name ‘Cheesehead’ is to Packers fans. It was made up by Bears fans to make fun of Wisconsinites, but the name was endearing so it stuck.
Well, the title ‘Lutheran’ was likewise made up by Roman Catholics as a derogatory term. It was common to name heresies after their heresiarch: Arians after Arius, Marcionism after Marcion, Apollonarism after Apollinaris, etc. They thought if they pinned the Evangelical movement on one person, Luther, that the “bad PR” would scare people away from it. But the thing is, it was never just Luther. It was always a movement. It started in the Augustinian Order, and moved outward to much of Germany, resonating with both nobles and commoners. That movement subscribed to several Confessions of belief. It is these Confessions that make one ‘Lutheran.’
Luther himself never wanted anything named after him. He said, “What is Luther? A man, a stinking bag of maggots!” He preferred that Lutherans call themselves ‘Evangelical Catholics,’ and that’s how I see myself. Not as following Luther or any man, but as following Christ in the continuing [Evangelical] Catholic Church, and claiming all the patrimony that came in the first 1500 years of Christianity, too. In other words, Lutherans view themselves as the truest Catholic Church, even if Rome got the house in the divorce. They consider Rome part of that church, even if they believe it to have some errors. So are the Orthodox Churches, and even “Protestant” churches.
Well, the title ‘Lutheran’ was likewise made up by Roman Catholics as a derogatory term. It was common to name heresies after their heresiarch: Arians after Arius, Marcionism after Marcion, Apollonarism after Apollinaris, etc. They thought if they pinned the Evangelical movement on one person, Luther, that the “bad PR” would scare people away from it. But the thing is, it was never just Luther. It was always a movement. It started in the Augustinian Order, and moved outward to much of Germany, resonating with both nobles and commoners. That movement subscribed to several Confessions of belief. It is these Confessions that make one ‘Lutheran.’
Luther himself never wanted anything named after him. He said, “What is Luther? A man, a stinking bag of maggots!” He preferred that Lutherans call themselves ‘Evangelical Catholics,’ and that’s how I see myself. Not as following Luther or any man, but as following Christ in the continuing [Evangelical] Catholic Church, and claiming all the patrimony that came in the first 1500 years of Christianity, too. In other words, Lutherans view themselves as the truest Catholic Church, even if Rome got the house in the divorce. They consider Rome part of that church, even if they believe it to have some errors. So are the Orthodox Churches, and even “Protestant” churches.
I
Imdaman
Guest
This is correct. The non-catholic catholic is catholic whether he likes it or not. HIm coming back is just a matter of going to confession then sitting in the pew. Where as a non denom community would not be given an ordinariate. The non denom congregation would have to convert on a individual basis. If the minister was looking to become a priest, I’m sure it wouldn’t a slap on the back and given his own parish. Female miniisters would not be considered for the priesthood.
I
Imdaman
Guest
Unfortunately for you neither history nor truth bares this out. The Lutheran church broke from “The one Holy Apostolic Church” and that is plainly visible if one were to open one eyes and heart tot he truth!
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
So how to Lutherans deal with the church fathers and early usage of the term “Catholic” as equivalent to the visible nature of the Church, especially united in Rome (like Cyprian said, for example)?
How do we know that Luther was continuing the authentic Catholic Church? What bears this out? Did his claim come with any sort of authority – supernatural, charismatic, or apostolic?
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
No disrespect, I just find it confusing how Post-Reformation Christians try to use the term “Catholic.” It doesn’t seem to coincide with the exclusivity (of sorts) that was evident in the first millennium: THIS is Catholic, THAT is not Catholic. That is, there were plainly, visible ways of recognizing what was “Catholic.” It was not enough to simply be baptized, for example.
If all Christians are ultimately partners in the One Catholic Church, there would seem to be no use of that term to distinguish anyone.
So why is it you think the “Evangelical Catholic Church” (or Lutherans) equates to the actual fullness of the Catholic Church from the ages? How can we know this? Is it merely claim to doctrine, like “sola fide,” or is there some visible element we can test — like apostolic succession, or communion with a church?
[But also, while we are talking about name-origins, it’s also fair to point out that neither is “Roman Catholic” a name claimed by the Catholic Church. From what I know, it was a post-Reformation marker of the church that was always centered in Rome.]
If all Christians are ultimately partners in the One Catholic Church, there would seem to be no use of that term to distinguish anyone.
So why is it you think the “Evangelical Catholic Church” (or Lutherans) equates to the actual fullness of the Catholic Church from the ages? How can we know this? Is it merely claim to doctrine, like “sola fide,” or is there some visible element we can test — like apostolic succession, or communion with a church?
[But also, while we are talking about name-origins, it’s also fair to point out that neither is “Roman Catholic” a name claimed by the Catholic Church. From what I know, it was a post-Reformation marker of the church that was always centered in Rome.]
Last edited:
S
steido01
Guest
Great question. Lutherans conform entirely to the fathers’ understanding of a visible church. It is made visible wherever the Word is rightly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered. That is where the Lutheran measures catholicity; by a church body’s adherence to the historical Christian faith as expressed in Scripture and the Three Great Ecumenical Creeds, and in its use of the Sacraments for the reception of Grace and forgiveness of sins. To us, it is the teaching of the Apostles that grants true succession, not a game of tag (though we do retain the Rite of Ordination with the laying on of hands – we just understand each pastor to essentially be a bishop).
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
you seemed confused and uninformed. i was just wondering. there are probably many who have no idea what Pope Emeritus did for the Anglicans.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
‘Rites’ have different definitions. The OP clarified the context of ‘rite’.AugustTherese:
you seemed confused and uninformed. i was just wondering. there are probably many who have no idea what Pope Emeritus did for the Anglicans.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
- Status