Lutheranism is the "pure" Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=Ridgerunner;11066216]One cannot really compare the relationship between Catholicism and Orthodoxy to that between Catholicism and Lutheranism.
Click to expand...
Some actually think ours is closer than either of us to Orthodoxy. 😃
I realize there are some 900,000 Lutherans in Africa. Some in Indonesia and other places too. It’s still mostly a Teutonic religion, though that could change.
Click to expand...
It’s changing. 😉

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Some actually think ours is closer than either of us to Orthodoxy. 😃
Click to expand...
It could be that some versions of Lutheranism are closer to some versions of Orthodoxy than is Catholicism in terms of governance.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It could be that some versions of Lutheranism are closer to some versions of Orthodoxy than is Catholicism in terms of governance.
Click to expand...
Oh, that’s probably true. We are also probably closer in our expression of the Eucharist, since we both reject Transubstantiation. But in terms of original sin, the Filioque, western things…

Jon
 
aidanbradypop said:
I have been told by Lutherans where I live (Lutheran heavy upper Midwest) that the Lutheran Church is the pure form of Catholicism that has not been perverted. They claim that the Lutheran Church is the church of the Gospel and the way Christ intended the Church to be. Many have gone on to say that the Lutheran faith is THE One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church rather than the Catholic Church. They believe that the Lutheran faith preaches the Gospel and the Catholic Church has ventured away from doing so. Basically, they are stating that they are the true Church established by Christ.

Are they wrong or spot on according to Lutheran teachings? The Lutherans here are very anti Catholic Church so it may just be a geographical thing and no Lutheranism as a whole. Please enlighten me because this is a tad disturbing.
Click to expand...
Hm…they must have been prescribed with PEDS…😃
 
Ridgerunner said:
I realize there are some 900,000 Lutherans in Africa. Some in Indonesia and other places too. It’s still mostly a Teutonic religion, though that could change.
Click to expand...
Hey… There’s more Lutherans in Africa than in America!

Europe: 36,828,845
Africa: 19,408,688
Asia: 8,994,049
North America: 7,631,705
Latin America and the Caribbean: 1,132,289
 
40.png
aidanbradypop:
I have been told by Lutherans where I live (Lutheran heavy upper Midwest) that the Lutheran Church is the pure form of Catholicism that has not been perverted. They claim that the Lutheran Church is the church of the Gospel and the way Christ intended the Church to be. Many have gone on to say that the Lutheran faith is THE One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church rather than the Catholic Church. They believe that the Lutheran faith preaches the Gospel and the Catholic Church has ventured away from doing so. Basically, they are stating that they are the true Church established by Christ.

Are they wrong or spot on according to Lutheran teachings? The Lutherans here are very anti Catholic Church so it may just be a geographical thing and no Lutheranism as a whole. Please enlighten me because this is a tad disturbing.
Click to expand...
everyone is entitled to their opinion. Lutherans are partially connected to the OHCAC through baptism and profession of some truths revealed by Christ. In fact, during my short time here on CAF, I have come to learn that the similarities are great…but close only counts in horse shoes and grenades. We should try to bring all Lutherans to the fullness of the faith.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
benjohnson said:
Hey… There’s more Lutherans in Africa than in America!

Europe: 36,828,845
Africa: 19,408,688
Asia: 8,994,049
North America: 7,631,705
Latin America and the Caribbean: 1,132,289
Click to expand...
But I don’t think they’re LCMS, are they? Apparently there are five distinct Lutheran denominations in Africa, most of whom seem to be more similar to ECLA than to LCMS, though it’s difficult to tell just by looking at online stuff. Organizationally, there appear to be both “heirarchical” groups and “synodal” groups.

Undoubtedly they hold certain teachings in common, just as is the case in the U.S.
 
Ridgerunner said:
But I don’t think they’re LCMS, are they? Apparently there are five distinct Lutheran denominations in Africa, most of whom seem to be more similar to ECLA than to LCMS, though it’s difficult to tell just by looking at online stuff. Organizationally, there appear to be both “heirarchical” groups and “synodal” groups.

Undoubtedly they hold certain teachings in common, just as is the case in the U.S.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, African Lutherans tend to be confessional - more like the LCMS and less like the ELCA.

For example - The Ethiopian Lutheran synod recently sent a letter to the ELCA and basically told them to repent and follow Christ. Failing that, they broke ties with the ELCA and the Church of Sweden.

firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/02/08/ethiopian-evangelical-church-mekane-yesus-severs-ties-with-elca/

Thanks be to God, there’s more Lutherans in the Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus than there are in the LCMS or the ELCA!
 
JonNC said:
It was most likely the undivided Church that gave us the 7 councils.
Click to expand...
So, what changed between 787 and 1517? At what point did the Catholic Church (from a Lutheran perspective) “run off the rails”? Certainly not before 787.
JonNC said:
But in terms of original sin, the Filioque, western things…
Click to expand...
While the concept of original sin goes way back to the early church, it is St. Thomas Aquinas (who lived from 1225 or 1227 to 1274) who is credited with the theological explanation of the nature of original sin. From this link:
[The nature of original sin] is a difficult point and many systems have been invented to explain it: it will suffice to give the theological explanation now commonly received. Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is “the death of the soul”, it is the privation of sanctifying grace.
Click to expand...
Also, from this link, the word filioque was added to the symbol of Constantinople in 1274 (at the Second Council of Lyons).

So, since Lutherans accept that people are saddled with original sin, and since Lutherans also accept the Filioque, it can be presumed that the Catholic Church (from a Lutheran perspective) could not have “run off the rails” until sometime after 1274.
 
But, regarding Transubstantiation, from this link:
As for the cogency of the argument from tradition, this historical fact is of decided significance, namely, that the dogma of the Real Presence remained, properly speaking, unmolested down to the time of the heretic Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088), and so could claim even at that time the uninterrupted possession of ten centuries. In the course of the dogma’s history there arose in general three great Eucharistic controversies, the first of which, begun by Paschasius Radbertus, in the ninth century, scarcely extended beyond the limits of his audience and concerned itself solely with the philosophical question, whether the Eucharistic Body of Christ is identical with the natural Body He had in Palestine and now has in heaven. Such a numerical identity could well have been denied by Ratramnus, Rabanus Maurus, Ratherius, Lanfranc, and others, since even nowadays a true, though accidental, distinction between the sacramental and the natural condition of Christ’s Body must be rigorously maintained. The first occasion for an official procedure on the part of the Church was offered when Berengarius of Tours, influenced by the writings of Scotus Eriugena (d. about 884), the first opponent of the Real Presence, rejected both the latter truth and that of Transubstantiation. He repaired, however, the public scandal he had given by a sincere retractation made in the presence of Pope Gregory VII at a synod held in Rome in 1079, and died reconciled to the Church. The third and the sharpest controversy was that opened by the Reformation in the sixteenth century, in regard to which it must be remarked that Luther was the only one among the Reformers who still clung to the old Catholic doctrine, and, though subjecting it to manifold misrepresentations, defended it most tenaciously.
Click to expand...
So, since Lutherans reject Transubstantiation, it can be presumed that the Catholic Church (again, from a Lutheran perspective) must have “run off the rails” by 1079. But, if that is the case, then why would Lutherans accept any “western things” after that? When* did *the Catholic Church (from a Lutheran perspective) “run off the rails”?
 
Erich said:
So, what changed between 787 and 1517? At what point did the Catholic Church (from a Lutheran perspective) “run off the rails”? Certainly not before 787.
Click to expand...
From my standpoint the problems stemmed from when the Papacy seemingly turned into a political office - Leo X being a prime example. He wasen’t even an ordained minister before becoming Pope.

That said, those times were hard for the Church. Perhaps an argument can be made that the political nature needed to be stressed just to survive.

N.B. : I’m under the influance of several bitters.
 
benjohnson said:
From my standpoint the problems stemmed from when the Papacy seemingly turned into a political office - Leo X being a prime example. He wasen’t even an ordained minister before becoming Pope.

That said, those times were hard for the Church. Perhaps an argument can be made that the political nature needed to be stressed just to survive.

N.B. : I’m under the influance of several bitters.
Click to expand...
That gave you up, 😃
 
the lutheran church’s founder’s grave is not empty. The Catholic Church’s founder’s grave has been completely empty since that glorious Sunday Morning so many years ago.

The Early Christians believed in and died for Transubstantiation.
 
benjohnson said:
From my standpoint the problems stemmed from when the Papacy seemingly turned into a political office - Leo X being a prime example. He wasn’t even an ordained minister before becoming Pope.

That said, those times were hard for the Church. Perhaps an argument can be made that the political nature needed to be stressed just to survive.
Click to expand...
This is something that I think too.

While I don’t think that the Church got theologically off the rails at any time…the mere fact that the office of Pope and the Bishops etc became BOTH political and spiritual caused no end of problems. However - I would assert that those popes who were primarily political had no real interest in trying to change fundamental Church teaching while those popes who were primarily spiritual, would not want to change the teachings.
In this way the Holy Spirit was able to protect the Gospel.
Of course matters of practice and poor teachers and corruption are another whole can of worms…

That said - the other organizational structure of the time (abt 1500) - the EO - had it’s own problems. While it was separate from the civil ruler…it often times became subject to that ruler. This is a problem that some of the early protestant churches ran into as well.
The Lutheran Church became primarily a “State Church” (Luther survived due to the protection of certain German princes) - The Anglican Church was subject to the King of England…
I’m not sure about the Calvinists…

Then of course one can get into the fact that certain princes in the various lands saw and opportunity to exploit the Church’s problems for political gain…not to mention wealth through the appropriation of lands and goods belonging to the Church at that time.

But anyway - much of the problem was, as you state ben, political in nature.

We tend to focus today on the theological differences and generally ignore most of the political aspects of the reformation. I believe that if the issues of the time had remained strictly theological any rift would have long since been healed…

but then maybe that is just my wishful thinking…🤷

Peace
James
 
jediliz said:
the lutheran church’s founder’s grave is not empty. The Catholic Church’s founder’s grave has been completely empty since that glorious Sunday Morning so many years ago.
Click to expand...
While I appreciate your sentiment…I know of no Lutheran who would assert that his “founder” is different than our founder.
No Lutheran classes Martin with Jesus…Rather Martin would be classed perhaps with Augustine, or Jerome or one of the other great writers and defenders of the true faith.

In short I simply do not see the above assertion as having any use in a discussion with our separated brothers.

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top