Lutherans...closest to Catholics?

[Newbie2]

Now that I think about, I suppose “but at the same time they are not Pagans, nor Muslims, nor Jews” could be seen as a bit of a back-handed compliment.

'…backhanded" LOL

Hey, I’m Catholic. I gotta stick with that “separated bretheren” thing.

 

[Peter_J]

I just had an idea … you remember the Cosby Show episode, when it was Cliff’s birthday and his kids did a presentation " ______ is older than Dad" (e.g. the light bulb)?

Maybe we should start a " ______ is worse than Protestantism" thread (e.g. Paganism).

P.S. I’m sure you realize, Newbie, that I say this jokingly; but given the amount of Protestant-bashing I’ve seen, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone actually did this. (Conversely, given the amount of Catholic-bashing that exists on Protestant forums, I wouldn’t be surprised if a “______ is worse than Catholicism” thread exists somewhere on this grand ol’ internet.)

 

[gcnuss]

I’m coming late to this discussion – amazing since almost anything with “Luther” or “Lutheran” in the subject line usually draws me right in. (I can’t find a hook, line, and sinker smiley, but that would express it.)

From my perspective, as a Lutheran I find Catholicism to be closer Lutheranism than any other traditions. Perhaps, I should have worded that the other way around. In any case, we share all the pre-Reformation history, we have a common understanding of the Sacrament of Baptism; we share in many – if not all – respects an understanding that in the Eucharist we receive the true body and blood of our Lord; and we both confess the three ecumenical creeds.

To be sure, there are subjects on which we have not come to agreement, but work is being done to overcome some of those as well. As I have said on occasion, if Lutheranism was not an option for me, I would have to seriously consider becoming Catholic.

 

[JonNC]

I’m coming late to this discussion – amazing since almost anything with “Luther” or “Lutheran” in the subject line usually draws me right in. (I can’t find a hook, line, and sinker smiley, but that would express it.)

From my perspective, as a Lutheran I find Catholicism to be closer Lutheranism than any other traditions. Perhaps, I should have worded that the other way around. In any case, we share all the pre-Reformation history, we have a common understanding of the Sacrament of Baptism; we share in many – if not all – respects an understanding that in the Eucharist we receive the true body and blood of our Lord; and we both confess the three ecumenical creeds.

To be sure, there are subjects on which we have not come to agreement, but work is being done to overcome some of those as well. As I have said on occasion, if Lutheranism was not an option for me, I would have to seriously consider becoming Catholic.

Well said, Pastor. As I watch Lutheranism, in large measure since Seminex and the formation of the ELCA, I remember what my dad used to say, “The worst thing that can happen to a Lutheran is to become a fundamentalist, except to become a modernist.”
I don’t know if I’ll ever swim the Tiber voluntarily, but I could get pushed.

Jon

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Well said, Pastor. As I watch Lutheranism, in large measure since Seminex and the formation of the ELCA, I remember what my dad used to say, “The worst thing that can happen to a Lutheran is to become a fundamentalist, except to become a modernist.”
I don’t know if I’ll ever swim the Tiber voluntarily, but I could get pushed.

Jon

hey Jon I would not want to see you pushed in and if that happened I would get a boat and pick you up to bring you across.
and anyone else that wanted to come along.

I am assuming that it would be allowed I mean not everyone knows how to swim.

 

[grandfather]

Well said, Pastor. As I watch Lutheranism, in large measure since Seminex and the formation of the ELCA, I remember what my dad used to say, “The worst thing that can happen to a Lutheran is to become a fundamentalist, except to become a modernist.”
I don’t know if I’ll ever swim the Tiber voluntarily, but I could get pushed.

Jon

Jon,
There is only one reason to belong to any religion or church, Lutheran, Catholic, Muslim. That is if you believe the doctrines of the religion are true. The only reason I am a Catholic is I believe the doctrines of my church are true, all of them. If I did not I would not be a Catholic. If a person professes to belong to a religion or church and does not believe the things that church teaches then the person is a hypocrit. We have an obligation to seek truth, and if we discover it, or it discovers us, we must respond to it.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I’m coming late to this discussion – amazing since almost anything with “Luther” or “Lutheran” in the subject line usually draws me right in. (I can’t find a hook, line, and sinker smiley, but that would express it.)

From my perspective, as a Lutheran I find Catholicism to be closer Lutheranism than any other traditions. Perhaps, I should have worded that the other way around. In any case, we share all the pre-Reformation history, we have a common understanding of the Sacrament of Baptism; we share in many – if not all – respects an understanding that in the Eucharist we receive the true body and blood of our Lord; and we both confess the three ecumenical creeds.

To be sure, there are subjects on which we have not come to agreement, but work is being done to overcome some of those as well. As I have said on occasion, if Lutheranism was not an option for me, I would have to seriously consider becoming Catholic.

why do you think that lutheranism is closer to catholicism than anglicanism?

 

[gcnuss]

why do you think that lutheranism is closer to catholicism than anglicanism?

Good question. I wasn’t thinking of Anglicanism when I made my previous post. Anglicanism, too, is a direct descendant of Catholicism, also retaining much of what the Church was.

The difference, as I see it, is in how Anglicanism and Lutheranism came to be. Henry VIII was clearly seeking to get out from under the authority of the Catholic Church because it got in the way of his marital ambitions. The Lutherans, on the other hand, really wanted to remain within the Catholic Church and went to consider lengths to demonstrate this (see the Augsburg Confession and the Apology to the Augsburg Confession). In terms of how the separations happened, the Anglican Church left the Catholic Church; the Lutherans were tossed out.

The issues between Lutherans and Catholics might have been overcome if cooler heads had prevailed in the sixteenth century and beyond. Even today, though, we deal with the aftermath of political and theological warfare that increased divisiveness and that has made respectful and thoughtful dialogue a very recent development in Lutheran/Catholic relations.

 

[grandfather]

The issues between Lutherans and Catholics might have been overcome if cooler heads had prevailed in the sixteenth century and beyond. Even today, though, we deal with the aftermath of political and theological warfare that increased divisiveness and that has made respectful and thoughtful dialogue a very recent development in Lutheran/Catholic relations.

Pastor Gary,

Whenever we do anything it is a good idea to understand why we do it. What are the motivations, objectives of what we do. Sometimes we do things without this understanding. Respectful thoughtful dialogue is a good thing, but not for its own sake. What is the hoped for end of the dialogue? Are we talking for the sake of making polite talk, or do we hope to achieve something more?

Is it a spoken or unspoken objective that we want to try to achieve reunifiation, or do we want just check on and make sure we understand the differences that separate? Do we just want to engage in theological debate for its own sake and reassure ourselves that our respective positions are correct, or are we looking for truth?

If the purpose of dialogue is to repair division, which I is suspect it is, then it will not help much to define the areas where we already agree. That is a tendency that has prevailed for some years, but that is not what needs to be repaired. That is the easy stuff. It avoids looking at the ugly wounds. It is human nature to be that way. We do not like looking at our sinfulness. We would rather look at our virtue and pat ourselves on the back.

If a doctor looked at all of the healthy parts of his patient rather than the diseased he would never be able to restore him to health.

Whenever there is a theological disagreement over whether a certain proposition or statement is true or false, one side of the dispute is right and the other is wrong. Either the trinitarians or the unitarians are correct. Infants should be baptized or they should not. Holy Matrimony is a sacrament or it is not, etc.

One of the things that has become lost on us as the period of denominationalism ages is that there are serious negative consequences to believing false doctrine. Christian civilization is suffering greatly from them today even though we might not recognize the cause of our society’s disease, connect the symptoms to the source.

It is critically important that the work of ending division and restoring unity succeed. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to overcome the obstinacy, pride and intransigence that keeps us divided.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Good question. I wasn’t thinking of Anglicanism when I made my previous post. Anglicanism, too, is a direct descendant of Catholicism, also retaining much of what the Church was.

The difference, as I see it, is in how Anglicanism and Lutheranism came to be. Henry VIII was clearly seeking to get out from under the authority of the Catholic Church because it got in the way of his marital ambitions. The Lutherans, on the other hand, really wanted to remain within the Catholic Church and went to consider lengths to demonstrate this (see the Augsburg Confession and the Apology to the Augsburg Confession). In terms of how the separations happened, the Anglican Church left the Catholic Church; the Lutherans were tossed out.

The issues between Lutherans and Catholics might have been overcome if cooler heads had prevailed in the sixteenth century and beyond. Even today, though, we deal with the aftermath of political and theological warfare that increased divisiveness and that has made respectful and thoughtful dialogue a very recent development in Lutheran/Catholic relations.

well, king henry viii, like martin luther, was also ex-communicated. the king was greatly upset because he really didn’t want to stop being catholic. he was trying to work within the church to meet his goal of annulling his marriage to his first wife in order to marry ann boleyn. the king spent several years waiting for the Pope’s decision, before he finally took it upon himself after listening to his advisers to start his own church and declare himself the head of the church. by the time this happened, martin luther had already began the protestant movement. granted, in the case of king henry, politics played a big part also in his final decision to form his own church, but the anglicans also have the sacraments and the creeds and the order of archbishops, bishops, priests and deacons. i believe the anglican communion is also the second largest communion after the catholic communion. if i have erred in any historical facts, please correct me. the Pope has also approved an anglican use rite to be used for those who are converting to catholicism from the anglican communion which is in use in various parishes around the country. so there has also been much dialogue between the anglicans and the Pope. the anglican church has the 39 articles of faith and i don’t know how that compares to the lutheran Augsburg Confession.

 

[gcnuss]

If the purpose of dialogue is to repair division, which I is suspect it is, then it will not help much to define the areas where we already agree. That is a tendency that has prevailed for some years, but that is not what needs to be repaired. That is the easy stuff. It avoids looking at the ugly wounds. It is human nature to be that way. We do not like looking at our sinfulness. We would rather look at our virtue and pat ourselves on the back.

If a doctor looked at all of the healthy parts of his patient rather than the diseased he would never be able to restore him to health.

Whenever there is a theological disagreement over whether a certain proposition or statement is true or false, one side of the dispute is right and the other is wrong. Either the trinitarians or the unitarians are correct. Infants should be baptized or they should not. Holy Matrimony is a sacrament or it is not, etc.

One of the things that has become lost on us as the period of denominationalism ages is that there are serious negative consequences to believing false doctrine. Christian civilization is suffering greatly from them today even though we might not recognize the cause of our society’s disease, connect the symptoms to the source.

It is critically important that the work of ending division and restoring unity succeed. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to overcome the obstinacy, pride and intransigence that keeps us divided.

There have certainly been efforts to discuss the hard questions. The series Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue has delved into some of the issues that have been raised as barriers to unity. The following are the ten reports issued to date:

I	The Status of the Nicene Creed as Dogma of the Church
II	One Baptism for the Remission of Sin
III	The Eucharist as Sacrifice
IV	Eucharist & Ministry
V	Papal Primacy and the Universal Church
VI	Teaching Authority and Infallibility in the Church
VII	Justification by Faith
VIII	The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary
IX	Scripture and Tradition
X	The Church as Koinonia: Its Structures and Ministries

From my perspective, nos. III, V, VI, and VIII touch on some of the more controversial issues. With the adoption of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, no. VII is somewhat moot.

Unfortunately, most of these are out of print. I have a couple of them and find the discussions most interesting. They may be found in libraries or on-line through used book dealers.

You can find additional information here: usccb.org/seia/lutheran.shtml

 

[IowaJay]

well, king henry viii, like martin luther, was also ex-communicated. the king was greatly upset because he really didn’t want to stop being catholic. he was trying to work within the church to meet his goal of annulling his marriage to his first wife in order to marry ann boleyn. the king spent several years waiting for the Pope’s decision, before he finally took it upon himself after listening to his advisers to start his own church and declare himself the head of the church. by the time this happened, martin luther had already began the protestant movement. granted, in the case of king henry, politics played a big part also in his final decision to form his own church, but the anglicans also have the sacraments and the creeds and the order of archbishops, bishops, priests and deacons. i believe the anglican communion is also the second largest communion after the catholic communion. if i have erred in any historical facts, please correct me. the Pope has also approved an anglican use rite to be used for those who are converting to catholicism from the anglican communion which is in use in various parishes around the country. so there has also been much dialogue between the anglicans and the Pope. the anglican church has the 39 articles of faith and i don’t know how that compares to the lutheran Augsburg Confession.

As I understand it (and there are plenty of Anglicans here who could correct me), the Anglican Church is more of a product of Queen Elizabeth I and the so-called “Elizabethan Settlement” than of Henry VIII. Henry VIII, as you point out, was basically Catholic minus the Pope. It was not until later that Anglicanism started adopting elements of the continental reformation, and the Elizabethan Settlement formalized the “via media” between Catholicism and Protestantism.

I think if you read all the posts in this thread you will also see comments related to the 39 Articles/Augsburg Confession and the Lutheran/Catholic dialogues. Just to repeat - the Augsburg Confession is more “Catholic” than the 39 Articles, which have elements of Calvinist influence.

You also make a comment that Anglicans have the creeds and the sacraments. Lutherans have the same 3 creeds that Anglicans and Catholics have - Apostle’s, Nicene, and Athanasian.

The Lutheran understanding of the sacraments is not all that different than the Anglican understanding. Anglicans have the 2 major sacraments (baptism, communion) and 5 minors (ordination, etc.). It is commonly believed that Lutherans believe in only 2, but the Confessions do not limit the sacraments to 2. Confession/absolution is often referred to as a sacrament, and in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, the sacramental quality of other things, like marriage, is mentioned. Melanchthon’s criticism of the list of 7 sacraments in the RC Church is not that it should be limited to 2, but that there are many more things than that that have a sacramental quality to them (he lists prayer, as an example).

Finally, in some of the Scandanavian Lutheran Churches (the Church of Sweden, for example), they also have the order of archbishop/bishop/priest/deacon.

 

[grandfather]

well, king henry viii, like martin luther, was also ex-communicated. the king was greatly upset because he really didn’t want to stop being catholic. he was trying to work within the church to meet his goal of annulling his marriage to his first wife in order to marry ann boleyn. the king spent several years waiting for the Pope’s decision, before he finally took it upon himself after listening to his advisers to start his own church and declare himself the head of the church. by the time this happened, martin luther had already began the protestant movement. granted, in the case of king henry, politics played a big part also in his final decision to form his own church, but the anglicans also have the sacraments and the creeds and the order of archbishops, bishops, priests and deacons. i believe the anglican communion is also the second largest communion after the catholic communion. if i have erred in any historical facts, please correct me. the Pope has also approved an anglican use rite to be used for those who are converting to catholicism from the anglican communion which is in use in various parishes around the country. so there has also been much dialogue between the anglicans and the Pope. the anglican church has the 39 articles of faith and i don’t know how that compares to the lutheran Augsburg Confession.

History has a strange way of being colored depending on who has the crayons.

 

[grandfather]

Henry VIII, as you point out, was basically Catholic minus the Pope. .

There is no such thing.

Where the pope is there is the Church.

 

[CWBetts]

well, king henry viii, like martin luther, was also ex-communicated. the king was greatly upset because he really didn’t want to stop being catholic. he was trying to work within the church to meet his goal of annulling his marriage to his first wife in order to marry ann boleyn. the king spent several years waiting for the Pope’s decision, before he finally took it upon himself after listening to his advisers to start his own church and declare himself the head of the church. by the time this happened, martin luther had already began the protestant movement. granted, in the case of king henry, politics played a big part also in his final decision to form his own church, but the anglicans also have the sacraments and the creeds and the order of archbishops, bishops, priests and deacons. i believe the anglican communion is also the second largest communion after the catholic communion. if i have erred in any historical facts, please correct me. the Pope has also approved an anglican use rite to be used for those who are converting to catholicism from the anglican communion which is in use in various parishes around the country. so there has also been much dialogue between the anglicans and the Pope. the anglican church has the 39 articles of faith and i don’t know how that compares to the lutheran Augsburg Confession.

If Henry was so concerned about his position with Rome, then why didn’t he ever reconcile? He had the chance. After the death of Catherine of Aragon, he could have restored communion with Rome, but he didn’t. So the argument that he really wnated to reamain Catholic does not fly.

 

[IowaJay]

There is no such thing.

Where the pope is there is the Church.

Current Catholic ecclesiology would agree your second statement, but not your first one: Where the pope is, there is the Church is correct, but at least since Vatican II, it has been recognized that the Church can, and does, exist outside of full communion with the Pope.

For example, Dominus Iesus says the “Church” does exist outside of full communion with the See of Rome. It was written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II:

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

This applies to the discussion regarding Henry VIII as follows: When you read Apostolicae Curae, it is my understanding that Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican Orders null due to changes in the ordination formula that occurred well after (approximately two decades if I remember correctly) Henry VIII’s initial break with Rome. So, before the change in ordination formula, Apostolicae Curae implicitly recognizes that the Church in England was still “Catholic,” albeit a schismatic one.

 

[grandfather]

If Henry was so concerned about his position with Rome, then why didn’t he ever reconcile? He had the chance. After the death of Catherine of Aragon, he could have restored communion with Rome, but he didn’t. So the argument that he really wnated to reamain Catholic does not fly.

There are a lot of Henry apologists who try to rehabilitate him. He was a scoundrel apart from his dealings with the Church.

 

[Japp]

Thanks, Peter,
I hope I said it with patience. I know sometimes I make mistakes in what Catholics believe, and hope people will be patient with me. Like I said, if we don’t understand what our true differences are, and we don’t address them in Christian love, we’ll never come to unity.

Jon

Did you even read my post before going off on a diatribe? I was asking which one was CLOSEST. We all pretty much know that there are significant differences of theology.

“Why would I think this group is closest to Catholocism?” is the correct question, if you care to re-read the OP.

One could ask the same question about Islam and Taoism, for example, i.e. which is ***closest ***to Catholicism without ranting about how neither one is close to our theology.

Do you understand my OP now?

How could we possibly consider unification of both Communions with all the differences explicited here? At least, what we must try hard to accomplish is to convey agreements on how to reinforce the Christian faith in an agnostic world invaded by a “third-party” religion that has nothing to do with Christianity, consequences of which are especially seen and suffered in Europe. I don’t need to mention its name.

I say, in case we had to face a 21st century crusade

 

[7_Sorrows]

If Henry was so concerned about his position with Rome, then why didn’t he ever reconcile? He had the chance. After the death of Catherine of Aragon, he could have restored communion with Rome, but he didn’t. So the argument that he really wnated to reamain Catholic does not fly.

i would have to read up on more history, but was he already ex-communicated by the time of Catherine’s death? was he already married to anne boleyn? he was concerned about his position with Rome and that is why he waited for several years waiting for the ruling by the Pope. the king was more or less backed into a political corner. he needed a male heir. i won’t judge him because times were different back then. did Rome reach out to the king after the death of Catherine? i don’t know the history on that so i cannot comment. i don’t think the king approved of what martin luther did by posting his grievances on the church door. the two men were both of the Catholic faith. did Luther try to reconcile?

 

[7_Sorrows]

There are a lot of Henry apologists who try to rehabilitate him. He was a scoundrel apart from his dealings with the Church.

i don’t consider myself a Henry apologist and have no desire to rehabilitate him. he seems a man consumed by power and lust. i am only referring to what happened in reference to his marriage to Catherine and his desire for an annullment. he definitely seemed a scoundrel in regards to the women in his life.