Lutheran Synods

[Contarini]

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.)

Well, this goes against what I’ve always been told about the FoC. It condemns the Philippists on several points. And Chemnitz was one of the framers of the Formula. So I don’t see the force of this, but I’m open to being instructed. I need specifics–you still haven’t mentioned a single doctrine, so I don’t quite know what you are talking about. And as I’ve said already, on questions of free will etc. Melanchthon moved *away *from Calvin’s position.

I’d like to see evidence that Chemnitz or Gerhard thought that their separation from Rome was temporary. Conditional statements such as “we would gladly accept the Pope’s authority if he would allow the free preaching of the Gospel” don’t count, because that tells us nothing about whether they thought the Pope would ever accept the conditions (a “temporary” separation based on circumstances you don’t expect to change isn’t temporary at all). To say that any of the sixteenth-century Protestants thought that they were separated from the Catholic Church–temporarily or otherwise–is to do violence to their thought.

I have read substantial portions of Chemnitz’s Examination of the Council of Trent, and I see no evidence that he accepted the claims of the Christian community represented at that Council to be the Catholic Church, which your characterization of his position (“temporary separation from the Catholic Church”) implies. On the contrary, like sixteenth-century Protestants generally, Lutheran and Reformed (I don’t mention Anglicans separately because Anglicans would have considered themselves Reformed), Chemnitz appears to believe that his communion is most in continuity with the teachings of Scripture and the early Church and hence has the best claim to the title “Catholic Church.” The Reformed would have said the same thing (although at least until the later 16th century the Reformed would generally have included the Lutherans as part of the Catholic Church, or at least would have been willing to do so if the Lutherans dropped their “schismatic” attitude). Read Calvin’s Reply to Sadoleto–it defines an “evangelical Catholic” position if any document ever did, and in fact Luther recognized it as a document that spoke for both major Protestant camps. (Sure, the Reply may not represent Calvin’s overall position adequately, being written in a particular context for diplomatic/political circumstances, but the same is true for many statements of Lutheran “evangelical Catholicism,” including the Augsburg Confession itself.)

All the Protestants (I’m excluding the Anabaptists here) in the sixteenth century claimed to be the Catholic Church. The claim “the Protestants weren’t starting a new church, but renewing the Catholic Church from which they were temporarily separated” makes no sense whatever. It’s anachronistic through and through. None of the Protestants thought they were starting a new Church, but neither did they think they were separating even temporarily from the true Catholic Church. None of them granted the claims of Rome to embody the Catholic Church.

Edwin

 

[Winchester]

Frankly, in all respect, you do not have to like any of this, Edwin. This thread started out wondering why there were so many Lutheran Synods. These ideas I have been presenting are in no way original with me. I am simply presenting the positions of a movement within Lutheranism as it is. Nothing more, and nothing less. This movement, and the Churches within it, like it or not, (some do, and some do not) does in fact exist. It is fair to say that there is an “internal logic” underlying the entire Evangelical Catholic Movement within Lutheranism that “Rome is Home,” and leads, sooner or later to an eventual return to the Roman Catholic Church - both for individual members of the EC Movement and for the Churches within it. In my opinion that statement is fair, balanced, and accurate, and admittedly is a cause for concern for many Lutherans not of the EC Movement - as well as some within it.

The most basic question underlying the Evangelical Catholic Movement is arguably this: Do you think the Roman Catholic Church had become so flawed by the early 16th century that Reformation (rather than just an internal renewal movement, an “aggiornamento” as Pope John XXIII would call it) was justified and the division of the Western Catholic Church from that time to the present justified and in accordance with God’s will?

My answer and that of many if not most EC Lutherans to this question is a solid, “no, the Reformation was completely uncalled for, completely unjustified. It was a catastrophy, it needs to be ‘un-done,’ and we are going to do whatever possible from within Lutheranism to do just that! Had we been alive during the Counter-Reformation, we would have happily returned to the Roman Catholic Church at that time.” And that, I suppose, is really the “bottom line.”

There has been a small but steady stream of EC Lutherans returning both to the Roman Catholic Church and to Eastern Orthodoxy from the Lutheran Evangelical Catholic Movement through the years, and that stream has been increasing of late. When people ask me where my Church, the ECCL will be 50 to 100 years from now, I tell them, “it will not exist. It will have been completely absorbed one way or another into the Roman Catholic Church.”

We (and other like-minded EC Lutherans) are working toward that goal actively now, we are praying for that to happen, and asking for our Roman Catholic friends to join their prayers to ours for this intention. There you have it. There is nothing further to say.

Having presented the positions of this movement within Lutheranism, I will not add any more posts to this thread. For further information on this sector of Lutheranism, simply do a “Google Search” for “Evangelical Catholic,” “Catholic Evangelical,” “High Church Lutheranism,” or to the websites of the Churches listed as Evangelical Catholic on "Pastor Zip’s U. S. Lutheran Links ( homepage.mac.com/pastorzip/uslutheranlinx.html ) about 2/3 of the way toward the bottom of the website.

Blessings,
Irl

 

[Contarini]

I like what you are doing–that’s not the problem. My problem is in your representation of history, which diverges in several ways from the historical record as I understand it. I was hoping for a debate on the specific issues concerning the sixteenth century, but I recognize that that’s not your purpose here. It happens to be the thing I study, that’s all. . . . . and I fear for any movement, however admirable, that has to shuffle the historical record this much in order to make its point. That has been the curse of Anglo-Catholicism, IMHO, and has demoralized Anglicanism as a whole to a great extent. I guess no tradition or movement is free of this tendency, though.

My personal liking is not the issue–I love evangelical-Catholic Lutheranism insofar as I’ve encountered it. You guys have the best of both worlds in many ways–I guess I’m envious

I understand that you don’t want to pursue this further, and that’s fine.

Edwin

 

[Winchester]

Peace and blessings, Edwin.

 

[JPII_the_Great]

An earlier post said that the Wisconsin Synod does more kneeling. Not true. My wife is a WELS Lutheran and they do no kneeling whatsoever. In adition, the WELS is officially what I would consider to be quite anti-Catholic. Official church doctrine is that the Pope is the anti-Christ and that Catholics can certainly go to heaven - but only if they don’t follow what the church teaches. The irony of this is that the WELS’ liturgy is quite “Catholic” in terms of some of its outward appearances.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

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.

I guess I am at a loss to explain how or why it is these folks even exist.

I once knew a fellow who, before giving up the church habit - had spent a year or two with the Lutheran Franciscans. He wryly commented once, “By now, all the guys who took it seriously have become Catholic.”

So if they in fact DO have the level of esteem for Rome and recognition of papal authority that their website claims, one wonders why they have not either come on board or at least joined up with folks like the PNCC or such.

Looking at their website - and their website and a scant few references TO that website… well I get the impression that the “Bishops to faithful” ratio is rather low…

Have any more info on em?