L
LutheranStudent
Guest
I would like to dispel the horrible internet rumors that the WELS is more liberal than the LCMS. That’s crazy-talk. If anyone is interested ask me why…
- Status
W
Winchester
Guest
Close. The AECC is a Communion of Churches to which the ECC-L belongs. The ACC-AC joined the ECC-L less than a year ago. The AECC and the ECC-L are both actively working for union with the Roman Catholic Church and they want to bring as many Lutherans into the Catholic Church along with them as possible. Their clergy and bishops are in Apostolic Succession; all their worship is conducted using the rites of the Catholic Church exclusively including for ordinations; their Holy Synod (council of bishops) has accepted the principles of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility and the authority of all the Ecumenical Councils and of the Magesterium of the Church, and they have become solidly Marian. Their polity is a mirror (scaled down) of that of the Catholic Church; two of their bishops are Opus Dei Cooperators, and at least one senior Mosignor is a Benedictine Oblate.
W
Winchester
Guest
You are right. the WELS once was quite liberal - when it was founded - but that was a long, long time ago, and now they are among the most rigidly conservative Lutherans in America - like the SSPX “on steroids.”
Both the WELS and LCMS, however, have been strongly affected by Calvinism to the degree that in many ways both are as Calvlinist as they are Lutheran. The LCMS has been accused historically of what is called, “crypto-calvinism,” and has been through a couple of “crypto-calvinist” controversies the last of which (in the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s sort of died down when the LCMS in effect said, “so what if we are?” Both are careful to justify their Calvinist-influenced positions with quotes from the Book of Concord, (usually from the later documents in that book which had varying degrees of Calvinist influence) and try to present them as being confessionally Lutheran.
Pietism was another attempt to bring Lutheranism in line with Calvinism. It has always been opposed, but has had a profound influence on Lutheranism. The LCMS has been influenced by German Pietism and by the Prussian Union (an attempt to fuse Lutherans and Calvinists into one Church.) The ELCA has been influenced by the (German) Pietists of Halle, Hesse, and by Norwegian Haugian Pietism and various lines of Swedish Pietism. In general, the more Calvinist influence a Lutheran Church has, the more Protestant it has become.
On the other hand, the “high church,” “Evangelical Catholic” Lutherans have gone out of their way to remove all Calvlinist influence from their Churches, and I believe it may have been Fr. John Richard Nieuhaus who referred to that stripe of Lutheran as, “Medeivally Redacted Catholics.”
W
Winchester
Guest
In recent years, the LCMS has come under the influence of the Church Growth Movement, is and moving to non-liturgical worship with the sacraments downplayed and their general praxis moving in the direction of conservative Evangelical Protestantism as cast by the Church Growth Movement.
Keep in mind that Lutheranism is seen by many scholars as not truly Protestant, but a separate strand of Western Christianity alongside Catholicism and Protestantism, and within it one can find "almost Catholic Lutherans, “almost Southern Baptist Lutherans,” Lutherans which are almost Unitarian in their beliefs, and just about every commbination in between. But again, in general, the more Calvinism they have absorbed by osmosis or otherwise over the last 500 years, the more “Protestant” they are.
Keep in mind that Lutheranism is seen by many scholars as not truly Protestant, but a separate strand of Western Christianity alongside Catholicism and Protestantism, and within it one can find "almost Catholic Lutherans, “almost Southern Baptist Lutherans,” Lutherans which are almost Unitarian in their beliefs, and just about every commbination in between. But again, in general, the more Calvinism they have absorbed by osmosis or otherwise over the last 500 years, the more “Protestant” they are.
G
gcnuss
Guest
I’m jumping in somewhat late, but we Lutherans do like to get our two cents’ worth in.
As noted above, the three major Lutheran bodies are, in order of increasing conservatism:
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Virtually all of the smaller synods tend to be quite conservative and have been formed by groups who felt that their previous synod was lacking in confessional orthodoxy.
As strange as it may seem, the ELCA is the only one of the larger Lutheran bodies that is involved in ecumenical discussions with the Catholic Church. As far as I am aware, neither the LC-MS or the WELS have any interest in relating to the Catholic Church and they tend to be rather anti-Catholic. As to the smaller Lutheran bodies, most would also be quite anti-Catholic, save those which identify themselves as “Evangelical Catholics.”
The ELCA is the only Lutheran Church in the United States that is a member of the Lutheran World Federation, the international body that is a signatory to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. In addition, some individual synods within the ELCA have entered into covenant relationships with local Catholic dioceses, in which they agree to pray for one another, to work to increase understanding between Catholics and Lutherans, and to encourage cooperation among their parishes in ministry to their communities.
In my own synod (Northwestern Ohio), we recently celebrated the fifth anniversary of the covenant between our synod and the Diocese of Toledo. We had a joint Service of the Word and homilies by both bishops. It was a joyful occasion.
In Christ,
Pastor Gary
As noted above, the three major Lutheran bodies are, in order of increasing conservatism:
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Virtually all of the smaller synods tend to be quite conservative and have been formed by groups who felt that their previous synod was lacking in confessional orthodoxy.
As strange as it may seem, the ELCA is the only one of the larger Lutheran bodies that is involved in ecumenical discussions with the Catholic Church. As far as I am aware, neither the LC-MS or the WELS have any interest in relating to the Catholic Church and they tend to be rather anti-Catholic. As to the smaller Lutheran bodies, most would also be quite anti-Catholic, save those which identify themselves as “Evangelical Catholics.”
The ELCA is the only Lutheran Church in the United States that is a member of the Lutheran World Federation, the international body that is a signatory to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. In addition, some individual synods within the ELCA have entered into covenant relationships with local Catholic dioceses, in which they agree to pray for one another, to work to increase understanding between Catholics and Lutherans, and to encourage cooperation among their parishes in ministry to their communities.
In my own synod (Northwestern Ohio), we recently celebrated the fifth anniversary of the covenant between our synod and the Diocese of Toledo. We had a joint Service of the Word and homilies by both bishops. It was a joyful occasion.
In Christ,
Pastor Gary
T
truthsilence
Guest
This is wonderful to hear!
W
Winchester
Guest
As an Evangelical Catholic Lutheran, what Pastor Gary says is true but only up to a point. the WLF is not alone in approaching Rome. Some of the small Evangelical Catholic Lutheran Churches are also actively working toward visible, corporate reunion / return (incorporation as either a sui juris Church, a Priestly Society of Lutheran Heritage, or some modified form of Personal Prelacy - any of these will work) with the Roman Catholic Church, creating a structure of Lutheran heritage within the Catholic Church into which Evangelical Catholic Lutherans may find it easier to enter - *starting, in effect, a new, second wave of the counter-reformation *but this time driven by those on the Lutheran side of the Tiber. They consider Rome to be home, and are now ready to go home.
The WLF, on the other hand, has its problems with submission to the Pope, with the concepts of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility, with the Catholic Church’s proper (IMHO) understanding of the place and role of Mary Immaculate, acceptance of *and submission *to the authority of the Magesterium, they permit the ordination of women in all grades of the ministry, deny that the Mass is a true sacrifice, permit either openly or tolerage quietly by “local option” the ordination and service of openly practicing gays and lesbians in the ministry, and tolerate liberal theology beyond that permitted by the Magesterium and demythologized interpretations of Scripture which go beyond the boundaries imposed by the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document, “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.” I could go on and on.
To underscore the importance the WLF places on the ordination of women, for instance, in a recent meeting with the Pope, WLF President (and ELCA Presiding Bishop) Mark Hansen brought along some female clergy wearing clericals. That, IMHO, was not at all helpful if the goal was working toward visible, corporate reunion with and integration into the Roman Catholic Church…
In sum, whatever the WLF and ELCA are striving for in their negotiations with Rome, it seems clear at least to me that their goal is less than submission to the authority of the Pope as Head of the Church and Vicar of Christ, and the WLF’s (and the ELCA’s) visible, corporate reunion with and incorporation into the Roman Catholic Church.
Some of the small Evangelical Catholic Lutheran Churches like the ECCL, on the other hand, are actively working and praying for just that, and are praying that such visible corporate reunion and inclusion will happen sooner rather than later. From their standpoint, it is only a matter of, “where do we need to go, who do we need to see, and what do we need to sign to make this happen.” The onlyh real impediment at this point seems to be their small size, but they are working on that.
Your prayers for the reunion of all the separated Churches in general, and those small Evangelical Catholic Lutheran Churches in particular, with the Roman Catholic Church will be greatly appreciated.
Winchester
The WLF, on the other hand, has its problems with submission to the Pope, with the concepts of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility, with the Catholic Church’s proper (IMHO) understanding of the place and role of Mary Immaculate, acceptance of *and submission *to the authority of the Magesterium, they permit the ordination of women in all grades of the ministry, deny that the Mass is a true sacrifice, permit either openly or tolerage quietly by “local option” the ordination and service of openly practicing gays and lesbians in the ministry, and tolerate liberal theology beyond that permitted by the Magesterium and demythologized interpretations of Scripture which go beyond the boundaries imposed by the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document, “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.” I could go on and on.
To underscore the importance the WLF places on the ordination of women, for instance, in a recent meeting with the Pope, WLF President (and ELCA Presiding Bishop) Mark Hansen brought along some female clergy wearing clericals. That, IMHO, was not at all helpful if the goal was working toward visible, corporate reunion with and integration into the Roman Catholic Church…
In sum, whatever the WLF and ELCA are striving for in their negotiations with Rome, it seems clear at least to me that their goal is less than submission to the authority of the Pope as Head of the Church and Vicar of Christ, and the WLF’s (and the ELCA’s) visible, corporate reunion with and incorporation into the Roman Catholic Church.
Some of the small Evangelical Catholic Lutheran Churches like the ECCL, on the other hand, are actively working and praying for just that, and are praying that such visible corporate reunion and inclusion will happen sooner rather than later. From their standpoint, it is only a matter of, “where do we need to go, who do we need to see, and what do we need to sign to make this happen.” The onlyh real impediment at this point seems to be their small size, but they are working on that.
Your prayers for the reunion of all the separated Churches in general, and those small Evangelical Catholic Lutheran Churches in particular, with the Roman Catholic Church will be greatly appreciated.
Winchester
C
Contarini
Guest
I’d like to see some support for this claim. Exactly what do you mean by Calvinist influences?
I’m very surprised to hear that this is more the case for LCMS than for ELCA. Crypto-Calvinism in the 16th century referred primarily to the Eucharistic position of Melanchthon and his followers. I could see that someone like Samuel Schmucker in the 19th century could be put in that camp–but was he LCMS?
A sensible position. Fighting over labels is always silly.
This doesn’t make any sense. Isn’t the BoC the official confessional authority for Lutherans? So why do you make it sound as if this is some kind of illegitimate undertaking? If the later documents are more influenced by Calvinists (again, since you aren’t specific I’m not sure what you are talking about–are you talking about the Variata version of the Augsburg Confession? Did that make it into the BoC?), then who cares? Why shouldn’t Lutherans admit the truth in Calvinism as much as the truth in anything else?
You might as well argue that other parts of Lutheranism are bad because they are influenced by Catholicism. . . . You and I may think that it’s better to be influenced by Catholicism than by Calvinism (I certainly do think that), but why would one be less authentically Lutheran than the other?
Besides, I doubt that “Calvinism” is the most accurate term for what you’re talking about in terms of the BoC, though it’s certainly the term sixteenth-century hardline Lutherans used. The “Calvinism” of which Melanchthon’s followers were accused was a consensus Protestant position that had developed in the 1530s and later out of dialogue among figures like Bucer, Melanchthon, and eventually Calvin. Calvin, as I see it, was an heir to this Protestant consensus. Saying that the parts of the BoC that are closer to this consensus were “influenced by Calvinism” is putting the cart before the horse. Melanchthon, the source of many of the “Calvinist” elements in late-sixteenth-century Lutheranism, was more likely to have influenced Calvin than the other way round (though I don’t deny that it went both ways).
And if you’re talking about predestination rather than Eucharist, then the “Calvinist” elements in Lutheranism come straight from Luther himself and Melanchthon was actually responsible for Lutherans backing away from them. . . . .
I don’t claim to know a lot about later Lutheranism, but I did earn a Ph.D. in the theological history of the Reformation (I wrote my dissertation on Bucer), so I know a bit about that.
I can see how you would interpret it that way, but I’m not sure this is the most accurate way to speak about it.
But Pietism was in some respects a move toward Catholicism–the emphasis on inner change and regeneration rather than forensic justification; the reliance on late medieval Catholic piety for inspiration; the generally more ecumenical attitude and willingness to recognize true piety wherever it was found. (And yes, of course you have to set that against the focus on subjectivity and the suspicion of ritual and sacramentalism, etc.)
There are two sides to most of these issues. . . .
Edwin
W
Winchester
Guest
The BofC is not the official confessional authority for the more extreme among today’s Evangelical Catholic Lutherans. That would be the Magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church including the decrees and documents of Trent, Vatican I and II, and all the other Roman Catholic Magesterial documents and Catechisms.
We consider the influence of Calvin and Calvinism as “illligetimite” because to us, it is. Lutherans of the Evangelical Catholic stripe (in some small Churches as well as within both the ELCA and LCMS ) accept the BofC only insofar as it agrees with authentic (Roman) Catholic faith and tradition; and more specifically they only accept the Unaltered Augsburg Confession (AC) and its Apology (AAC) but only insofar as it agrees with authentic (Roman) Catholic faith and tradition and only respect the remainder of the BofC as historic documents but no longer consider them to be even marginally authoritative.
Why shouldn’t Lutherans admit the truth in Calvinism as much as the truth in anything else? Many in fact do. But many do not because, in all charity and respect for those in the Reformed Churches, they consider Calvin to have been a heretic and have the same low opinion of Calvinism as does the most conservative elements within the Roman Catholic Church
As recently as the 1970’s, a collegue who graduated from Lutheran Southern Seminary (LCA - a predecessor of the ELCA) was taught there that Lutherans were Catholics in an involuntary, expernally imposed schizm, and when conditions were favorable on the Roman side, were conscience-bound to return to the Roman Catholic Church. Fr. Raymond Brown lectured there, and Pope John Paull II visited there. Calvinist concepts were presented as something to be removed whenever and wherever found.
Considering how we Lutherans tend to keep to ourselves and keep our controversies among ourselves “in house,” “off the radar screen,” I am not suprised that you are unfamiliar with Lutheran controversies or the teachings of the Lutheran equivalent to the most Catholic of the Anglo-Catholics inside and outside TEC.
What I am trying to do on this thread is to show our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters the diversity within the Lutheran Churches (which are quite misunderstood - and that is our fault by keeping to ourselves.) The late Swedish Lutheran Bishop Nathan Soderblom considered Lutheranism to be a third separate version of Western Christianity alongside Catholicism and Protestantism which is as broad and diverse as Christianity itself. A secondary purpose is to present a thread of Lutheranism (the Evangelical Catholic variety) which is little known, close in faith, praxis, and polity to themselves; and which has the ecumenical goal of being being absorbed within the Catholic Church sooner or later.
Blessings
Irl
C
Contarini
Guest
That’s fine, and I respect your position, but as a church historian I’m obliged to point out that you are the ones departing from what has historically gone under the name “Lutheranism.” My objection is simply to your implicit suggestion that you are the “real” Lutherans while more historically mainstream Lutherans are contaminated by Calvinism. This may be true theologically–i.e., arguably you are what Lutherans ought to have been. But the danger of movements such as yours is that you slide very easily into describing what ought to have been while claiming to describe what has been.
But that phrase begs the question–does the AC agree with Catholicism? By saying “insofar as” you’re putting off the real issue, allowing for a certain comfortable ambiguity.
I’m pushing this because I find myself in a similar situation. In many ways I’m deeply sympathetic to the Anglo-Catholic movement within Anglicanism (and its counterpart in Methodism–yes, there is one). I would say that I subscribe to the Articles of Religion insofar as they are in agreement with the historic faith of the Catholic Church. I would not say specifically the Roman Catholic Church, because then I would simply become Roman Catholic–which given your position I really think you have no excuse for not doing. I am living in that same ambiguity that I criticize in you. However, at least I recognize the ambiguity and I don’t see it as characteristic of my entire community. ECUSA and the UMC (the two church bodies to which I have some sort of ties) have lots of ambiguities, but they make no pretense to subject their formularies to the approval of Rome. My ambivalence derives from my status as an individual layman, with divided loyalties to the tradition(s) of Christianity in which I have heard the Gospel and to which I find myself bound on the one hand and to the Universal Church Visible on the other.
Well, Luther would find this idea very strange. The early Lutherans were convinced that they were not the ones in schism, because they were not the ones who had adulterated the Gospel. [Certainly they professed their willingness to reunite with the Pope as soon as the Pope allowed them to preach the Gospel, but that doesn’t mean that they thought they were in schism as long as they remained without the Pope.] I know about this evangelical Catholic tradition within Lutheranism, but it’s historically revisionist, just like it’s Anglo-Catholic counterpart.
C
Contarini
Guest
I do know something about these controversies, though my acquaintance with the smaller high-church bodies to which you refer is limited to the occasional Internet encounter such as this one. I’m familiar with the writings of Fr. Neuhaus, and I have some limited personal acquaintance with Mickey Mattox and Reinhard Hutter, both of whom, like Fr. Neuhaus, have followed the logic of this branch of Lutheranism into union with Rome. A friend of mine from grad school, Jeff McCurry, falls into the same category. While doing research in Germany, I attended the Bruderkirche in Braunschweig, which is part of the state church but is definitely part of the evangelical Catholic wing of Lutheranism (they have a limited communion policy which the pastor summed up for me in the words “no Calvinists at the altar!”). So your perspective isn’t entirely new to me.
However, insofar as you are embracing a stance similar to that of extreme Anglo-Catholics, I think this is a serious mistake. While I respect individual members of this movement very much, I find ultra-Anglo-Catholicism as a whole to be hopelessly involved in prevarication and historical revisionism. They want the benefits of being Catholic without the costs. Newman pointed out the intrinsic contradiction and incoherence of what they were doing 150 years ago. I hope your movement doesn’t follow in their footsteps.
I have no quarrel with either of these goals. But you began your earlier post with the claim that the two largest Lutheran bodies in this country were both “affected by Calvinism” to the point that they were as much Calvinist as Lutheran. This implies that there is a historic entity called Lutheranism and that your version preserves it in its purity, while the larger churches adulterate it with something else called Calvinism. On further examination, it appears that your version of Lutheranism is not identical with anything that has historically existed (as far as I can tell) under that name, but rather is a version of Lutheranism revised so as to make it conform to Catholicism. I respect this as a theological move, but your manner of describing it is necessarily misleading. When most people hear the claim that certain churches are a mixture of Lutheranism and Calvinism, they assume that you are speaking of the historic confessional bodies that have gone under these names, not (in the case of Lutheranism) of an ahistorical “pure” Lutheranism refined by the exclusion of “Calvinist” elements that have been present as long as Lutheranism has defined itself confessionally. (If they haven’t, then perhaps you could point out what exactly these elements are and when Lutheranism existed without them.)
I am not accusing you of deliberate dishonesty, but of the universal human tendency to speak of what ought to have been as if it really happened. It is the unpleasant task of historians to challenge this tendency in themselves and others. I may of course be inaccurate in my challenge, and I welcome refutation if that is the case!
In Christ,
Edwin
G
gcnuss
Guest
Irl,
I would also note that the Society of the Holy Trinity, a Lutheran ministerium of which I am a member, includes the following statement as part of its rule: “this ministerium is dedicated to the Lutheran vocation of reform of the Church and the Lutheran ecumenical destiny of reconciliation with the bishop and church of Rome.” The Society is made up of Lutherans from a variety of synods, mostly ELCA and LC-MS.
Peace,
Pastor Gary
I apologize for failing to note the commitment of Evangelical Catholics to reunion with Rome.
I would also note that the Society of the Holy Trinity, a Lutheran ministerium of which I am a member, includes the following statement as part of its rule: “this ministerium is dedicated to the Lutheran vocation of reform of the Church and the Lutheran ecumenical destiny of reconciliation with the bishop and church of Rome.” The Society is made up of Lutherans from a variety of synods, mostly ELCA and LC-MS.
Peace,
Pastor Gary
W
Winchester
Guest
The Unaltered AD (there are a number of altered ones - the first being written by Melancthon himself presented positions which were quite Catholic in the light of the 4th Lateran council and the Council of Florence before several issues were clarified by the Council of Trent.
Not really. Where the UAC departs from authentic Catholic faith and tradition, we side with the Roman Catholic Church. Someone asked, possibly on this thread, if we disagreed with anything the Catholic Church teaches. My answer was, “not really.” Had they gone on and asked if I disagreed with anything taught by the two largest Lutheran Churches in the US: The ELCA and the LCMS, my answer would have been, “yes! We disagree with a lot of their teachings”
Actually my Church - the ECCL - is actively; working on that now. That is its ecumenical goal and that of its Communion, the AECC. That will happen. It is only a question of when and in what form (sui juris Church vs. Priestly Society (like SSPX) vs. some form of Personal Prelacy (like Opus Dei.)
I am sure you are aware of the fine job then Fr. (and later Cardinal) John Henry Newman sis in reconciling the Anglican Articles of Religion/U] with the Catholic faith as defined at the time.
That depends on whether you focus on what in our (Lutheran) circles is called, “the young, Catholic Luther” or “the old, Protestant Luther.” Our movement focuses on the “young, Catholic Luther” prior to and at the time of his meeting around 1520 with Cardinal Cajetan. We do not think Luther matured and learned over time. We think he “went downhill” and eventually more or less “lost it” over time.
Perhaps revisionist is the wrong term. Rather than “revising History,” our movement holds that Lutheranism actually “went off the rails,” and hold on to what the goals were in the very earliest phase of the Wittenberg movement. In a very real sense, we are not at all “children of the Reformation,” Nor are we proud of the Reformation. To us it was a catastrophe with tragic results - something to be ashamed of. along those lines, we do not attempt to recruit Roman Catholics. They are just fine where they are. Typically we just ask them to pray for the visible, corporate reunion of the Church under the Bishop of Rome, as part of the Church of Rome.
Blessings,
Irl
W
Winchester
Guest
Edwin, a friend who is an LCMS Pastor told me not long ago, "so what if we have absorbed a lot of Calvinism? Luther was an enthusiastic Catholic priest and there were a lot of things needing reform which he could not see but which John Calvin, as a layman, could.
Another friend who is an ELCA Pastor and a candidate for a Ph.D. in Church History who is of our Evangelical Catholic movement puts it this way: "Lutherans have absorbed so much Calvinist concepts that we have made it hard to see the Wittenberg skyline from Rome without the skyline of Geneva blocking the view; and we have done this to ourselves by taking Calvinism seriously. Do not underestimate the antagonism many EC’s have for Calvinism.
One of the Church History professors (Ph.D) at the Southern Baptist Seminary where I took my Greek and Hebrew (they had the best language teachers in the area) often put it this way: “The separation of Lutheranism from Roman Catholicism was not complete, and is still not complete. Lutheranism prior to the adoption of the Formula of Concord was a minimal and reluctant reformation at best. . . John Calvin acted. Luther reacted. Calvin thought the Catholic Church was damaged beyond repair and needed to be formed again (re-formed = reformation) from scratch based on Scripture. Luther thought only a minor course correction was needed. . .
Martin Luther’s greatest contribution to the Reformation may well be to show that a Reformer could be condemned by the Pope, outlawed by the Emperor, and still live to die in bed of old age.”
He then would go on and show how men like Calvin and his colleagues John Knox, etc. continued the work of reform. (He has a good opinion of Melancthon who, to him, through his work on the Formula of Concord with (name removed by moderator)ut from Calvinist colleagues, set Lutheranism on a course into what he calls “real reformation” in the future.)
Edwin, what I am doing for the Catholics on this Forum is to simply show the diversity and range of views within Lutheranism. Whether one likes or dislikes the EC movement within Lutheranism, it is there, just as there is the Anglo-Catholic part within Anglicanism whether one likes it or not. Incidentally I have a very high regard for the Anglo-Catholics and an early Bishop of the Anglican Catholic Church, Bishop James Mote was a mentor to me many decades ago.
There is and has been a slow but steady influx of EC Lutherans into the Roman Catholic Church over the years including Fr. Neuhaus and, this past year, 8 members of the (Lutheran) Society of the Holy Trinity including its first Senior. The ECCL and AECC will be following them as soon as the details can be worked out. The present Senior of the STS, Pr. Frank Senn, wrote a paper suggesting that perhaps Lutherans should begin relying on the Magesterium of the Catholic Church in controversies of our day which involve Moral Theology.
If you want to explore this beyond the parameters of this Catholic Answers Forum, please send me an e-mail.
Blessings,
Irl
Another friend who is an ELCA Pastor and a candidate for a Ph.D. in Church History who is of our Evangelical Catholic movement puts it this way: "Lutherans have absorbed so much Calvinist concepts that we have made it hard to see the Wittenberg skyline from Rome without the skyline of Geneva blocking the view; and we have done this to ourselves by taking Calvinism seriously. Do not underestimate the antagonism many EC’s have for Calvinism.
One of the Church History professors (Ph.D) at the Southern Baptist Seminary where I took my Greek and Hebrew (they had the best language teachers in the area) often put it this way: “The separation of Lutheranism from Roman Catholicism was not complete, and is still not complete. Lutheranism prior to the adoption of the Formula of Concord was a minimal and reluctant reformation at best. . . John Calvin acted. Luther reacted. Calvin thought the Catholic Church was damaged beyond repair and needed to be formed again (re-formed = reformation) from scratch based on Scripture. Luther thought only a minor course correction was needed. . .
Martin Luther’s greatest contribution to the Reformation may well be to show that a Reformer could be condemned by the Pope, outlawed by the Emperor, and still live to die in bed of old age.”
He then would go on and show how men like Calvin and his colleagues John Knox, etc. continued the work of reform. (He has a good opinion of Melancthon who, to him, through his work on the Formula of Concord with (name removed by moderator)ut from Calvinist colleagues, set Lutheranism on a course into what he calls “real reformation” in the future.)
Edwin, what I am doing for the Catholics on this Forum is to simply show the diversity and range of views within Lutheranism. Whether one likes or dislikes the EC movement within Lutheranism, it is there, just as there is the Anglo-Catholic part within Anglicanism whether one likes it or not. Incidentally I have a very high regard for the Anglo-Catholics and an early Bishop of the Anglican Catholic Church, Bishop James Mote was a mentor to me many decades ago.
There is and has been a slow but steady influx of EC Lutherans into the Roman Catholic Church over the years including Fr. Neuhaus and, this past year, 8 members of the (Lutheran) Society of the Holy Trinity including its first Senior. The ECCL and AECC will be following them as soon as the details can be worked out. The present Senior of the STS, Pr. Frank Senn, wrote a paper suggesting that perhaps Lutherans should begin relying on the Magesterium of the Catholic Church in controversies of our day which involve Moral Theology.
If you want to explore this beyond the parameters of this Catholic Answers Forum, please send me an e-mail.
Blessings,
Irl
W
Winchester
Guest
Thanks, Gary. The STS is a fine organization. The ECCL’s Metropolitan has recommended that the Church’s clergy join the STS. (One priest has so far.)
Blessings,
Irl
C
Contarini
Guest
That’s interesting but this kind of anecdote doesn’t prove much. I’m interested in the specific Calvinist ideas you say were absorbed.
Melanchthon was dead by the time the FoC was adopted, so I’m not sure what you mean by his (name removed by moderator)ut on it. As I understand it, parts of the FoC were directed against Melanchthon, and certainly the Formula’s condemnation of “crafty sacramentarianism” is directed against the Calvinists.
If you’ll tell me what these Calvinist ideas are, we can discuss them.
I don’t. I’ll never forget the venerable and learned retired pastor at the Bruderkirche whose comment on the 1536 Wittenberg Concord was, “Bucer lied.”
Your antagonism is so great that so far it’s prevented you from mentioning a single specific Calvinist doctrine. I’m arguing in the dark because you won’t give me any particulars.
That is an intriguing comment, but again I’d like to see more specifics.
Knox wasn’t a colleague of Calvin. Calvin thought Knox was a graceless firebrand–which he was.
This “incomplete Lutheran Reformation” is a standard Baptist and Reformed line. IMHO it’s a complete load of crock. In some respects, methodologically at least, the Reformed were more Catholic than Luther. They had more respect for the Fathers, anyway. (Yes, I’m saying this to provoke you!) Reformed Protestantism is not the completion of Lutheranism. Lutheranism is a mutated form of late medieval piety; Calvinism is a reconstruction of Christianity based on the Bible and (secondarily) the Fathers interpreted through the lens of sixteenth-century humanism and neo-Augustinianism.
Well, all I can say is this baffles me. Melanchthon was dead long before the FoC was formulated, and the FoC condemns the opinions of Melanchthon’s followers on several points (ironically, on the question of synergism/free will, Melanchthon’s influence was the opposite of Calvin’s).
With all due respect, you’re doing more than that. You’re making an argument about the relationship of Calvinism and Lutheranism that I find unconvincing–or rather, I think you’re defining terms in ways that are confusingly unlike the ways they are normally used, labelling anything you don’t like about historic Lutheranism “Calvinism.”
Which brings to mind–what is the position of your church on divorce and birth control? In my experience, even conservative Anglo-Catholics tend to be much laxer in these respects than Roman Catholicism.
I may do just that.If you want to explore this beyond the parameters of this Catholic Answers Forum, please send me an e-mail.
It’s been fun. . . .
Edwin
W
Winchester
Guest
My Church’s (ECCL’s) teachings on both are identical to those of the Roman Catholic Church and differ from both the major Lutheran Churches and the Anglocatholics, though the Anglican Catholic Church can be quite tough on this issue. Some of their Bishops spend much of their time on anullment cases.
In the case of divorce, we have the same anullment system the Catholic Church has. The ECCL follows the Code of Canon Law as promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1983 (the Libereria Editrice Vaticana 1989 edition) in all matters not covered by our own Canon Law code to the greatest extent possible. In the administration of a Decree of Nullity, we follow the same procedures, as those used by the Catholic Church - administered by Diocesan Marriage Tribunals, courts of first and second intention, etc., with the same reasons for issuing a Decree of Nullity.
In the case of birth control, we teach and practice as does the Catholic Church.
S
seeker_b
Guest
I feel for you. Why the Lutheran church is looking more Baptist is a puzzle to me. We have a beautiful liturgy but you rarely hear it. Its very sad. Like you I have left but I miss what I used to have.
W
Winchester
Guest
I agree. It is sad.
Let me give you an admittedly over-simplified explanation of what has been going on: I don’t know about the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), but in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (which my Church split away from,) this push towards the kind of worship you experienced started in the late 1990’s during the peak of the wave of Promise Keepers revivals around the country. Missouri Synod people went to those in droves. Most had not experienced this type of service (praise music, testimonials, sermon or “liturgical dance” and skits in place of a sermon) before, and were captivated and energized by the experience. They came back saying, "look what we found! Isn’t that wonderful! Its all about Jesus! We don’t need all this stuff (altars, vestments, a formal liturgy, sacraments, traditional hymns accompanied by an organ.)
Some parishes began experimenting with this type of service and with the theology and methods of the Church Growth Movement (as per Fuller Theological Seminary.) The huge popularity of that new type of service and the obvious success in growth (in membership) in parishes which used that model of worship and its underlying Evangelical Protestant theology caught the attention of LCMS leadership (though not without oopposition.) One thing led to another. The leadership of the LCMS changed, and they adopted a version of Church Growth they called “Ablaze!” The rest is history.
This sort of thing has happened among Lutherans before: An important nineteenth-century theologian, went so far as to amend the Augsburg Confession to accommodate the new revivalism and a more Reformed view of the Sacraments. Dr. S. S. Schmucker (1799-1873), long-time professor at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, believed that for Lutheranism to develop properly and be meaningful to Americans, it had to change its doctrine and its practice. He went so far as to amend the Augsburg Confession to accommodate the new revivalism and a more Reformed view of the Sacraments, which, in any case, he put “on the back burner.”
The primary statement of his theological program and favored praxis was the Definite Synodical Platform of 1855. However, Schmucker had made his views clear in a number of forums well before that time. In sum, Schmucker specifically rejected the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper and Baptismal Regeneration (that in baptism God washes away sin and gives new life to sinners.) He rejected private Confession and Absolution and threw out the historic liturgies of the church. All of these things had to be changed, argued Schmucker, if the Lutheran Church was to survive. The historic doctrine and practice of the church simply did not make sense to Americans, argued Schmucker, and therefore it was incumbent on the church to change to fit the attitude of the times.
Schmucker’s movement was popular, and many Lutherans went in this direction. (One large ELCA parish in Frederick Maryland, Evangelical Lutheran, has pictures from the time it participated in Schmucker’s movement, led by a Pastor who was called "The Revivalist,"and it shows the altar was removed, and replaced by a large central pulpit.)
While the movement was popular among Americans, it was not with an influx of Lutheran immigrants from the Germanies and it died out. Until now . . . arguably what you are seeing and have experienced may be considered a new version of Schmucker’s “American Lutheranism.” A Google search will give you references to this.
W
Winchester
Guest
True, but members of his party, the Phillipists were not, and continued his work. This is from encycl.opentopia.com/term/Catholic_Evangelical : “In early Lutheranism the Gnesio-Lutherans like Andreas Musculus with a strong understanding of the sacraments, and in the era of Lutheran orthodoxy theologians especially like Martin Chemnitz and Johann Gerhard, who were deeply rooted in patristic theology, saw the continuity of Catholicism in Lutheranism. They understood it to be not a re-formation of the Church, but rather, a renewal movement within and for the Catholic Church, from which they had been involuntarily and only temporarily separated. The Gnesio-Lutheran party, especially, were strongly opposed to any compromise with Calvinism and Zwinglianism on the one hand, and with the Roman Catholic Church on the other. They were strongly opposed to disciples of Philipp Melancthon called Philippists, and the accommodations they made with Calvinists in the preparation of the Formula of Concord.” (The underlining is mine.)
- Status