If Luther were alive today, would he be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No problem jcrichton. Hey, I have asked this before, but, are you from an Anglophone country originally?
 
rcwitness said:
The one he was… his own.
Click to expand...
The problem is the Lutheran Church is now split into synods. The ELCA is joining in the upcoming Joint Commemoration of the anniversary of the Reformation with the Catholic Church. The liberal morals the ELCA profess would probably put Luther back in his grave and he did not believe in women ordination nor friendly Pope relations. I doubt he’d agree with gay marriage or give a nod to abortion given his insistence on the Bible for doctrine.

The other synods that are more confessional like LCMS, WELS, etc are not joining in this and have serious concerns about the Papacy . There is not “his own” Lutheran Church anymore to join.

There is not even altar and pulpit fellowship among the various synods in some instances even the confessional ones.

Luther cannot come back to his “own” Lutheran Church for it does not exist anymore.

I might think he’d take issue to “his own” terminology as well. For he did not consider it his own albeit it was named after him.
 
MaryT777 said:
I doubt he’d want to be a priest in communion with the Antichrist. He was no fan of the office of the Pope, nor the Pope himself of course. The confessional Lutherans still hold the view that the Pope/the Papacy is Antichrist. This includes LCMS, WELS,etc.

Thus the Lutheran Book of Concord states, “[T]he pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ . . . Accordingly, just as we cannot adore the devil himself as our lord or God, so we cannot suffer his apostle, the pope or Antichrist, to govern us as our head or lord” (Smalcald Articles 2:4:10, 14).

Yes, it IS out of the realm of possibility the Church Catholic has changed enough for Luther to want to be a part of it. (Justification, Papacy, Number of Sacraments, etc etc)

The question to me is has Luther changed enough he would want to be a priest in the Catholic Church? I surmise if he saw the state of Lutheranism today the answer would be yes.
Click to expand...
Yet at times he called the bishop of Rome an erring brother :hmmm:
 
Luther wrote his own catechism. I think this is why I say he was and would be his own Lutheran. He did not merely afford fellow protestants their own freedom of local authority. He was actively opposed to the Anabaptists, Calvinists, and others… or am I mistaken?
 
claymcdermott said:
I think all but one knew what you meant and agreed.
Click to expand...
Actually another poster did ask as well which sect. That’s the reality of the situation today in the Lutheran Church. It’s divided into synods so the analogy of Luther being his “own” Lutheran isn’t realistic.

There is no such thing as being your “own” Lutheran by yourself apart from a Church, unless that means to start a new Synod. Luther could certainly do that.
 
rcwitness said:
Luther wrote his own catechism. I think this is why I say he was and would be his own Lutheran. He did not merely afford fellow protestants their own freedom of local authority. He was actively opposed to the Anabaptists, Calvinists, and others… or am I mistaken?
Click to expand...
Luther’s Large and Small Catechisms are obligatory for Lutherans to subscribe to, as are the other Lutheran Confessions contained in Concordia, the Book of Lutheran Confessions. Luther actively preached against the Catholic hierarchy, the Calvinists ( and indirectly, because of Calvinist influence, the Anglicans and English Dissenters), the Anabaptists, the Schwenkfelders, the Manichaeans, the Unitarians, the Pelagians and semi- Pelagians, the Jews, the Islamic Turks and as a matter of academics, he pointed out what he considered obvious flaws in ancient pagan thinking. It seems like he had no problems with the Greek Church or the Hussites, though. He didn’t think much of the Lollards, on the other hand.
 
Oh, didn’t see yours, Mary, actually, ha.

And if you are suggesting he would start his own, Id agree ha.

But I think rc meant that ideologically Luther would be his own individual, he wasn’t making a hypothetical point about what exactly he would do.
 
claymcdermott said:
Oh, didn’t see yours, Mary, actually, ha.

And if you are suggesting he would start his own, Id agree ha.

But I think rc meant that ideologically Luther would be his own individual, he wasn’t making a hypothetical point about what exactly he would do.
Click to expand...
Yes, he would certainly be his own individual as we all are, I can agree with that LOL!~ I might imagine it would be an interesting day for Lutherans if Luther came back, he might have some harsh words for many who have strayed from the Bible and the confessions. 😃
 
Luther might be a bit more his own individual than most haha

And Kierkegaard wrote a dialogue, worth reading, where just such a thing occurs.
 
claymcdermott said:
Luther might be a bit more his own individual than most haha

And Kierkegaard wrote a dialogue, worth reading, where just such a thing occurs.
Click to expand...
I tried to find the dialogue via ole’ google and could not, could you post a link to it?
Thanks.
 
I have it highlighted in one of my books at home, but I am not there right now. haha

Will get formal citation when I can haha
 
LutheranScholar said:
Luther’s Large and Small Catechisms are obligatory for Lutherans to subscribe to, as are the other Lutheran Confessions contained in Concordia, the Book of Lutheran Confessions. Luther actively preached against the Catholic hierarchy, the Calvinists ( and indirectly, because of Calvinist influence, the Anglicans and English Dissenters), the Anabaptists, the Schwenkfelders, the Manichaeans, the Unitarians, the Pelagians and semi- Pelagians, the Jews, the Islamic Turks and as a matter of academics, he pointed out what he considered obvious flaws in ancient pagan thinking. It seems like he had no problems with the Greek Church or the Hussites, though. He didn’t think much of the Lollards, on the other hand.
Click to expand...
While I am not claiming to know whether Luther would or wouldn’t have issue with the Book of Concord, it is obviously composed after His life (in this world :D). I’m just saying that, in order to rightly guess as to what he would be considered, we can only go from what he did teach and practice. What was compiled after him, as much as it attempted to claim unity, can not be known if is his approval was certain. And from what we see of his ways, he did not conform to other reformers, but maintained what he alone taught. And I don’t mean he never drew from some of the father’s writings, but that he himself defined the doctrine he believed.

Today, this continues perpetually when men open a “church” independent of outside authority. There is certainly outside influence, but not authority.
 
But if he agreed with this passage from the Book of Concord:

“as the unanimous consensus and exposition of our Christian faith, particularly against the false worship, idolatry, and superstition of the papacy and against other sects, and as the symbol of our time, the first and unaltered Augsburg Confession, which was delivered to Emperor Charles V at Augsburg during the great Diet in the year 1530 …[10]”

… then I don’t see how he would make such a radical change (as to be a Catholic in communion with Francis :o). Or should this passage not be associated with Luther? Or can this passage be explained in a good light?
 
rcwitness said:
But if he agreed with this passage from the Book of Concord:

“as the unanimous consensus and exposition of our Christian faith, particularly against the false worship, idolatry, and superstition of the papacy and against other sects, and as the symbol of our time, the first and unaltered Augsburg Confession, which was delivered to Emperor Charles V at Augsburg during the great Diet in the year 1530 …[10]”

… then I don’t see how he would make such a radical change (as to be a Catholic in communion with Francis :o). Or should this passage not be associated with Luther? Or can this passage be explained in a good light?
Click to expand...
That certainly sounds like Herr Doktor Luther. For good or ill, he stood by his faith and sometimes, " what we believe, teach and confess" has to be followed by a " what we reject and condemn." That was written around 1530 and to be honest, the Council of Trent did not conclude until 1563. While the Augsburg Confession and the Council of Trent extrapolated their respective confessions, plenty of things in both confessions emphasized the fact that these were two different church bodies. I believe Lutheranism is still classified as a sect under anathema? catholicdoors.com/faq/qu996.htm, newadvent.org/cathen/09458a.htm Of course, there are people on the radical side of the Reformation who consider us heretical, too whatisacult.com/lutheranism.html . 🤷 You can’t win sometimes, so the best you can hope for is God’s mercy and we can be thankful that those people who would consign us to Hell aren’t actually God, to whom such judgment actually belongs 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top