P
Peter_J
Guest
You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means.
- Status
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Inconceivable.
M
Matariel
Guest
What about praying with a person individually together (not a co-service or group service) just two people praying together?
Would Lutherans have any problem with that version?
Oh… do you not think saints intercede?
Oh… I see. That’s interesting.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Where two are gathered in Christ’s name, there is the church, hence, the same principle would apply as to a congregational setting. While we would acknowledge the other person as a Christian, and saved by faith in Christ, hence a member of the “invisible” church…we would not recognize that the visible church is present because the other person is not orthodox in doctrine. The visible church is only present when united in faith and teaching. Only the visible church can join in prayer.
We realize that to those who don’t share our views on church fellowship, it comes across as harsh; but doctrine matters.
Not that I can think of.
Not in a specific way for specific petitions made to them. The Church Triumphant prays for the Church Militant in a “general” way. An example would be at a celebration of the Lord’s Supper. When the feast of the sacrament is given, the entire Church across space and time is present at each celebration.
S
Steadfast
Guest
If what your asking is whether these churches broke off from each other the answer is no, not really.Am I correct in understanding that LCA, ELCA and LCMS are splintered groups of a church?
The churches that went to make up the ELCA were never in communion with the LCMS or the WELS (With the exception of Seminex, a very small group of congregations, pastors and seminary officials who were asked to leave the LCMS in 1970 in response to their unwillingness to accept correction in the matter of “liberal” biblical interpretation) although there was, at one time, some exploration of the possibility of table fellowship between the LCMS and the ALC but that never got off the ground.
In the 60’s WELS and the LCMS were part of a larger church fellowship which worked together and co-published literature but the WELS left that over what they believed to be a liberalizing tendency in the seminaries of the LCMS. There is perhaps some irony here since the LCMS did deal with this issue in 1970 as I just mentioned. However, by that time the churches had gone their respective ways and the differences between them (real and imagined) were growing.
To this day however, in the matter of theological literature I know that LCMS Lutherans read and use things published by Northwestern Publishing House (of WELS) just as, I am sure WELS Lutherans still use material published by Concordia Publishing House (of LCMS).
Occasionally, LCMS Lutherans will use a few things from Augsburg/Fortress Press (now of ELCA) though with a good measure of caution. Whether WELS Lutherans do or not, I cannot say.
Far more significant in the early formation of most Lutheran churches is the matter of ethnicity. As Scandinavian, German, Slovak, Latvian, Finnish Lutherans arrived here they rooted their churches in the churches of the countries they came from, drawing their pastors from there and developing along distinct ethnic lines.
There was some drawing together of disparate strands in the 19th century and the lines of demarcation were certainly never impassible such that you would find Slovaks in predominantly German congregations and Finns in mostly Swedish congregations and so on, but this is how it developed and has had far more to do with the multiplicity of disparate polities within the Lutheran communion than factionalism, although, with the rise of “Progressive Theologies” in (mainly) the LCA and now (since 1988 when it was founded) the ELCA the bickering between Lutherans can get fairly shrill.
And yet, as I write that, I feel like I have to offer the reservation that Lutherans have always bickered, it’s just that their bickerings only rarely resulted in schisms prior to, say the middle of the twentieth century.
It is probably more profitable to think of them in terms of issues that developed in predominantly German Catholic congregations in Detroit and Cincinnati with the arrival of the Irish in the 19th century. In a great number of cases, entrenched German leadership of these churches and Dioceses led to a great deal of frustration on the part of the newer immigrants such that they often left, built their own parishes and called pastors from Ireland.
The same is generally true of Lutheranism during the same period but without the “benefit” of a single uniting hierarchy over the disparate communions providing at least the appearance of a larger communal unity.
C
Cinette
Guest
Thank you for taking the trouble to explain.
So they are all splintered groups within the Lutheran church.I once heard a Lutheran paster speak and what he had to say was more in line with the Catholic Church and then I came to know some Lutherans and even met their pastor and they didn’t sound anything like the first pastor. The latter group was more fundamentalist.
I confess that this trend of splintered groups and many different denominations does not give one a sense of confidence. I guess if I were not Catholic I might think differently but having a central authority - the Pope and the Magisterium - does give me a sense of confidence, that and the history of the Church of course :yup:
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Having a central authority does not stop individual priests, bishops, and laymen from going their own way. The central authority is a few thousand miles away in Rome. With some of the nonsense I’ve seen go on in parishes and diocese, it doesn’t give me much confidence that the central authority can do a bloody thing.Thank you for taking the trouble to explain.
So they are all splintered groups within the Lutheran church.I once heard a Lutheran paster speak and what he had to say was more in line with the Catholic Church and then I came to know some Lutherans and even met their pastor and they didn’t sound anything like the first pastor. The latter group was more fundamentalist.
I confess that this trend of splintered groups and many different denominations does not give one a sense of confidence. I guess if I were not Catholic I might think differently but having a central authority - the Pope and the Magisterium - does give me a sense of confidence, that and the history of the Church of course :yup:
C
Cinette
Guest
Listen here TruineUnity - have you never heard of Judas? Jesus hand picked him. Have you never heard of the wheat and the tares? Jesus said they will always be with us - he said not to weed until the harvest when He will sort it out.
So TruineUnity if you think you can change humanity then perhaps you should immigrate to Mars or something because down here you will not find perfection.
What we do have is the Church Jesus built with all the resources (Sacraments and the Pope and the Magisterium) That is as close to perfection as we will ever get in this world. Sure there are traitors - you will find then in every community, every nation, every church
:yup:
S
Steadfast
Guest
Cinette,
When you say “splinter” I think of one church breaking into two or more separate communions.
As I explained, this has NOT been the case with Lutherans.
As is often the case with Catholics, I perceive in you a tendency to view all other churches in terms of your own. In this case the “given” is a centralized hierarchical church government where “unity” is perceived in terms of submission to a bishop who is in turn subject to an ordinary who is in turn subject to the Bishop of Rome.
This has NEVER been the case with Lutheranism. It is true that the Swedish church uses an episcopal polity but they are, really, the exception. In the vast majority of cases a sort of “Episcopopresbygational” polity prevails; there may or may not be a bishop, if there is, his authority is generally limited, church properties are owned by the congregation and larger theological disputes are settled in a synodical setting.
Again, Lutheranism came to America as an ethnic church using European vernaculars instead of a single church language so they remained insular. As these Lutherans entered the main stream and English became the predominant language of their liturgies, efforts to override centuries of ethnocentricity were made and, by now we have a lot of Lutheran churches where the names on the membership rolls are not exclusively German (or Norwegian, or FInnish) but could be of nearly any and every extraction.
The fact that different Lutheran communions exist began largely due to this but, again, continue due to theological issues and problems that remain, some minor, others not so minor.
But it remains that in most cases, Lutheran churches do not “splinter”, rather, efforts to unite with other church bodies may or may not succeed which may or may not create new or differently constituted ecclesial blocs.
When you say “splinter” I think of one church breaking into two or more separate communions.
As I explained, this has NOT been the case with Lutherans.
As is often the case with Catholics, I perceive in you a tendency to view all other churches in terms of your own. In this case the “given” is a centralized hierarchical church government where “unity” is perceived in terms of submission to a bishop who is in turn subject to an ordinary who is in turn subject to the Bishop of Rome.
This has NEVER been the case with Lutheranism. It is true that the Swedish church uses an episcopal polity but they are, really, the exception. In the vast majority of cases a sort of “Episcopopresbygational” polity prevails; there may or may not be a bishop, if there is, his authority is generally limited, church properties are owned by the congregation and larger theological disputes are settled in a synodical setting.
Again, Lutheranism came to America as an ethnic church using European vernaculars instead of a single church language so they remained insular. As these Lutherans entered the main stream and English became the predominant language of their liturgies, efforts to override centuries of ethnocentricity were made and, by now we have a lot of Lutheran churches where the names on the membership rolls are not exclusively German (or Norwegian, or FInnish) but could be of nearly any and every extraction.
The fact that different Lutheran communions exist began largely due to this but, again, continue due to theological issues and problems that remain, some minor, others not so minor.
But it remains that in most cases, Lutheran churches do not “splinter”, rather, efforts to unite with other church bodies may or may not succeed which may or may not create new or differently constituted ecclesial blocs.
C
Cinette
Guest
Thank you again for your patience in explaining this to me. I understand 80%. How then do you explain that two Lutheran Churches (there may be more) in one city can have such different beliefs. If they are not “splinters” then what are they?
Thank you
S
Steadfast
Guest
The standard for Lutheran belief is the Bible and the doctrine of the Bible as explained in the Book of Concord.
The Book of Concord is a compendium of confessional documents (confessional documents are statements of belief).
You can check out the Book of Concord here
Different churches believe different things about the Bible and different Lutheran churches believe different things about the Book of Concord.
Generally speaking Lutheran churches will take one of two views with regard to both the Bible and Concord:
Something similar can be seen in Catholicism with differences between the “Trad” parishes and the more liberal or progressive ones with the obvious difference that no pretence of communion is maintained by different Lutheran churches.
*Note: When I say “divinely authoritative” with reference not only to the Bible but to Concord, I want to remind people that the Book of Concord only carries what authority it does because of its dependence upon the Bible. It is not an additional revelation but rather an exposition of Scripture and may be said to be “divinely authoritative” in that sense alone.
The Book of Concord is a compendium of confessional documents (confessional documents are statements of belief).
You can check out the Book of Concord here
Different churches believe different things about the Bible and different Lutheran churches believe different things about the Book of Concord.
Generally speaking Lutheran churches will take one of two views with regard to both the Bible and Concord:
- The Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God and the Book of Concord is THE true exposition of Biblical doctrine on all the subjects on which it speaks, this means that both are to be taken seriously and understood in both the wisest and simplest sense possible with all submission to their nature as true and divinely authoritative*.
- The Bible contains the Word of God but is not exactly coterminous with it. It contains many errors and stories which are cultural anachronisms and efforts on the part of the authors to explain religious truth, as such it is up to scholars to determine what may and what may not be said to really be the Word of God as it may be found there. The Book of Concord is an important collection of historical documents which define Lutheranism but which may be modified or simply relegated to the status of quaint doctrinal relics more pertinent to the time in which they were composed than today.
Something similar can be seen in Catholicism with differences between the “Trad” parishes and the more liberal or progressive ones with the obvious difference that no pretence of communion is maintained by different Lutheran churches.
*Note: When I say “divinely authoritative” with reference not only to the Bible but to Concord, I want to remind people that the Book of Concord only carries what authority it does because of its dependence upon the Bible. It is not an additional revelation but rather an exposition of Scripture and may be said to be “divinely authoritative” in that sense alone.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
God is not limited by an Apostolic Succession, and can make any sacrament valid where true believers are present,
**But does He?
That’s the real question.**
**But does He?
That’s the real question.**
S
Steadfast
Guest
Jesus said, “Wherever two or more of you are gathered in My name, there am I among you.”
C
Cinette
Guest
Thank you again. It is a little clearer. How do you then reconcile the differences in Lutheranism with the unity that Jesus speaks of? One Baptism…
I don’t think that the differences you talk about in the Catholic Church relate to core beliefs. There may be differences in outward sign but never inward signs. A priest may have a particular style but the essence is never different. There is one belief, one lectionary - one priest may say the Mass in the Latin rite and the other will use the venacular but it is essentially the same Mass
There is one official interpretation of the Bible
I
IowaJay
Guest
I think I just heard Jimmy Akin on Catholic Answers mention that there is no official Catholic interpretation of the Bible on some subjects (the subject in question was Noah’s flood).
Obviously, there are official interpretations of some passages, such as what “this is my body” means with regards to the Eucharist.
So, would a better statement be that in Catholicism that there is one “official interpreter”?
I
IowaJay
Guest
I will grant to you that many in the ELCA believe what you have said. Officially, though, this is what is said in the ELCA model constitution:
“The canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the written Word of God. Inspired by God’s Spirit speaking through their authors, they record and announce God’s revelation centering in Jesus Christ. Through them God’s Spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian faith and fellowship for service in the world.”
“This congregation accepts the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a true witness to the Gospel, acknowledging as one with it in faith and doctrine all churches that likewise accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.”
“This congregation accepts the other confessional writings in the Book of Concord, namely, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord, as further valid interpre*tations of the faith of the Church.”
I might also add that most disagreements between different Lutheran synods are on the periphery (more or less), and not necessarily on the basic articles of faith: justification, Baptism, Eucharist, Trinity, Original Sin, the creeds, etc.
Someone asked about the Rosary. The only things in the Rosary that Lutherans wouldn’t use are the second part of the Hail Mary (already mentioned), and the Hail Holy Queen. Otherwise, as a meditative prayer, it is fine.
Jon
Someone asked about the Rosary. The only things in the Rosary that Lutherans wouldn’t use are the second part of the Hail Mary (already mentioned), and the Hail Holy Queen. Otherwise, as a meditative prayer, it is fine.
Jon
P
Peter_J
Guest
While reading #1, it occurred to me that a parallel might be drawn between how Lutherans regard the Book of Concord and how Catholics regard the CCC.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Sorry to get on tangent, but saying Mass “in the Latin rite” doesn’t necessarily mean using the Latin language. In fact, the vast majority of Catholic masses use the Latin rite, but the vast majority of those use the vernacular language.There is one belief, one lectionary - one priest may say the Mass in the Latin rite and the other will use the venacular but it is essentially the same Mass
S
Steadfast
Guest
I rejoice over those congregations and pastors of the ELCA who have remained true to the Bible and Concordia, I know there are a great many of them.
Unfortunately there are also many whose readings (or lack of reading) of Scripture and the Confessions have led them into serious moral and doctrinal error.
Having said that, neither the LCMS nor the WELS are entirely pure either.
I did not mean to draw lines between Synods of the Lutheran communion but rather between individuals and groups regardless of ecclesial affiliation.
- Status