"Lutherans" Why the name?

[EvangelCatholic]

Thanks for the explanation of the ‘Holy Roman Empire’, Itwin.

There was a great discussion of the political contributions to the Reformation recently where you, GKC and others commented on the ‘Theory why Protestantism flourished Northern Europe’.

 

[JonNC]

Frankly the way Protestants rail against church and state and how freeing the reformation was and how it was about the gospel not politics, etc etc ad nauseum. It is refreshing to have one putting up a map, showing quite the contrary.

Yes there were theological questions, but the momentum was carried for purposes of politics.

Hi Jon,
Yes. Not either/or, but both/and. Even the issue of indulgences, front and center in the 95 Theses, was in part about local governments not wanting local money going to Rome, as I understand it. That doesn’t mean that Luther’s complaint in that issue wasn’t theologically sincere, of course.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Any insight into how easily Sweden and it’s surrounding territories [ie.Finland, Norway] switched from Catholic to Lutheran?

 

[ltwin]

Frankly the way Protestants rail against church and state and how freeing the reformation was and how it was about the gospel not politics, etc etc ad nauseum. It is refreshing to have one putting up a map, showing quite the contrary.

I don’t know of any Protestants who claim the Reformation was not about politics. In sixteenth century Europe, it was impossible to separate religion and politics because the Catholic Church had so embedded itself within the political fabric of the entire society.

The middle of Europe was a hodgepodge of different countries each ruled by a prince (most secular, some bishops) who claimed that they had the right to determine what religion would be practiced in their realm and would not accept interference in their internal affairs by a foreign power (i.e. the Papacy).

Why should it surprise anyone that this state of affairs would lead to religious conflict? On what grounds did the Catholic Church claim legal authority over the German princes? Who gave it legal authority over secular rulers? No one did, certainly not God. What were the theological grounds? It certainly is not a theological necessity for Europe’s governments to be politically beholden to the Catholic Church.

Why should anyone be surprised that given the chance the government of sovereign states would assert their sovereignty in any ways that make sense to them? Once the Protestant Reformation began, princes who were religiously sympathetic would no doubt recognize the political implications, but this only occurred in response to the religious momentum for Reform.

Yes there were theological questions, but the momentum was carried for purposes of politics.

No. There were huge swaths of radical Reformers who had momentum and had no support from German princes at all. In fact, there were many Protestants who were persecuted by both Catholic and Protestant princes.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

From a “re-inventionist” aspect, this makes sense. However, they were each self-appointed and simply wrong to discard so much of the core of Christianity that had been practiced from day one. The true “reformers” stayed in the Church, fought quietly and suffered profoundly. No Churches or theologies are named after them.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I don’t know of any Protestants who claim the Reformation was not about politics. In sixteenth century Europe, it was impossible to separate religion and politics because the Catholic Church had so embedded itself within the political fabric of the entire society.

The middle of Europe was a hodgepodge of different countries each ruled by a prince (most secular, some bishops) who claimed that they had the right to determine what religion would be practiced in their realm and would not accept interference in their internal affairs by a foreign power (i.e. the Papacy).

Why should it surprise anyone that this state of affairs would lead to religious conflict? On what grounds did the Catholic Church claim legal authority over the German princes? Who gave it legal authority over secular rulers? No one did, certainly not God.

Why should anyone be surprised that given the chance the government of sovereign states would assert their sovereignty in any ways that make sense to them? Once the Protestant Reformation began, princes who were religiously sympathetic would no doubt recognize the political implications, but this only occurred in response to the religious momentum for Reform.

No. There were huge swaths of radical Reformers who had momentum and had no support from German princes at all. In fact, there were many Protestants who were persecuted by both Catholic and Protestant princes.

I’d love the OP’s thoughts on this. I am pretty sure most of these Protestant enclaves had the death penalty for those who did not submit to the authorities,

Most Protestants argue that the reformation freed from political motives and customs in religion. Granted most of you are not in that same category.

 

[ltwin]

Most Protestants argue that the reformation freed from political motives and customs in religion. Granted most of you are not in that same category.

Who are these Protestants? And unless that actually know something about the history of sixteenth century European religion and politics, why exactly do their opinions count?

“Most Protestants” don’t know anything about the Protestant Reformation. Most Catholics don’t either.

I think it would be accurate to say that according to some Protestant traditions, the Reformation was the start of the process of freeing the church from politics and Catholic traditions. Of course, many Protestants thought that Luther and Calvin did not go far enough in either project. Groups like Baptists probably would not really conclude that the project was complete until the dis-establishment of religion in the American colonies in the 1700s.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The conservation nature of the Reformation meant the ancient church buildings stayed exactly the same among Lutherans. Mass was said in Latin and eventually Luther’s German Mass. Early Lutherans were hoping to stay Catholic while the Reformers dialogged with the Pope.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Any insight into how easily Sweden and it’s surrounding territories [ie.Finland, Norway] switched from Catholic to Lutheran?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden#Lutheran_Reformation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_in_Denmark-Norway_and_Holstein

Granted its Wikipedia, but it should give a somewhat accurate broad big picture account.

 

[seanman611]

Hilarious!! So the Anglicans are the true Catholics who broke away from the Church because Henry VIII could not get an annulment.

Not that simple. What is even more hilarious is just how misinformed some Catholics are when it comes to English and Anglican history.

 

[dronald]

The conservation nature of the Reformation meant the ancient church buildings stayed exactly the same among Lutherans. Mass was said in Latin and eventually Luther’s German Mass. Early Lutherans were hoping to stay Catholic while the Reformers dialogged with the Pope.

And what did they call their Church’s? Certainly not Lutheran I would think?

I’d love the OP’s thoughts on this. I am pretty sure most of these Protestant enclaves had the death penalty for those who did not submit to the authorities,

Most Protestants argue that the reformation freed from political motives and customs in religion. Granted most of you are not in that same category.

You just want my opinion because you know of other opinions I have.

It has nothing to do with the topic though.

 

[ltwin]

And what did they call their Church’s? Certainly not Lutheran I would think?

At that early stage, they didn’t call their church anything. It was simply the church in Wittenberg or Zurich or Geneva or Strasbourg or wherever.

 

[dronald]

At that early stage, they didn’t call their church anything. It was simply the church in Wittenberg or Zurich or Geneva or wherever.

You see, that would make sense. But for them to suddenly change to “Lutheran” instead of remaining what they were; seeing as they did believe they were either an extension of the One True Church and had a greater interpretation than the other Church’s.

I can’t see any reason for them to say that Catholics can keep their name, but a Church with a better interpretation shouldn’t keep such a name and should resort to “Lutheran.”

 

[ltwin]

You see, that would make sense. But for them to suddenly change to “Lutheran” instead of remaining what they were; seeing as they did believe they were either an extension of the One True Church and had a greater interpretation than the other Church’s.

I can’t see any reason for them to say that Catholics can keep their name, but a Church with a better interpretation shouldn’t keep such a name and should resort to “Lutheran.”

They didn’t “suddenly change.” They were called that by opponents against their wishes. However, after a time, they did what many groups in similar situations do, they “owned” the derogatory labels their critics attached to them, turning what was meant as a slur into something positive.

 

[marywarfield]

I don’t know of any Protestants who claim the Reformation was not about politics. In sixteenth century Europe, it was impossible to separate religion and politics because the Catholic Church had so embedded itself within the political fabric of the entire society.

The middle of Europe was a hodgepodge of different countries each ruled by a prince (most secular, some bishops) who claimed that they had the right to determine what religion would be practiced in their realm and would not accept interference in their internal affairs by a foreign power (i.e. the Papacy).

Why should it surprise anyone that this state of affairs would lead to religious conflict? On what grounds did the Catholic Church claim legal authority over the German princes? Who gave it legal authority over secular rulers? No one did, certainly not God. What were the theological grounds? It certainly is not a theological necessity for Europe’s governments to be politically beholden to the Catholic Church.

Why should anyone be surprised that given the chance the government of sovereign states would assert their sovereignty in any ways that make sense to them? Once the Protestant Reformation began, princes who were religiously sympathetic would no doubt recognize the political implications, but this only occurred in response to the religious momentum for Reform.

No. There were huge swaths of radical Reformers who had momentum and had no support from German princes at all. In fact, there were many Protestants who were persecuted by both Catholic and Protestant princes.

At the same time one wonders how Lutherans claimed
sovereignity over Anabaptists?
one cannot seperate politics from religion historically in
any meaningful way. The reformation proves it, Catholicism
proves it, and this modern US proves it. The only way
religion and politics can operate is either entirely
in each others back pocket or by having the government
like the U. S. be diametrically opposed to religion period.

 

[GKC]

Not that simple. What is even more hilarious is just how misinformed some Catholics are when it comes to English and Anglican history.

Some Catholics, yes. But it is not a situation unique to Catholicism. Not everyone makes history a hobby.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Here’s an example of how early Lutherans accepted apostolic succession and even the papacy per the Lutheran-Catholic Declaration

The conviction that the doctrine of justification must, as an explication of the gospel, be the critical yardstick for our understanding and exercise of the ministry is applied in the Lutheran Reformation and the Lutheran churches in a special and for them significant way. It relates to the specific forms which the divinely instituted ministry has assumed in the course of history. This is true above all in regard to the specific formation of the ecclesial ministry of leadership (episkop�). The development of the ministry into an episcopate standing in a historic succession, i.e., the continuity of apostolic succession which occurred already very early in history250 was fully affirmed by the Lutheran Reformation and emphatically championed251 just as other church realities were affirmed and conserved which had come into being in the course of history (e.g. the biblical canon, the creeds of the ancient church). For Lutheran thinking too it is entirely possible to acknowledge that the historical development of an episcopate in a historic succession was not something purely within the sphere of history, set in motion only by sociological and political factors, but that it “has taken place with the help of the Holy Spirit” and that it “constitutes something essential for the church”.252
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_church4.html#4.2

 

[GKC]

Thanks for the explanation of the ‘Holy Roman Empire’, Itwin.

There was a great discussion of the political contributions to the Reformation recently where you, GKC and others commented on the ‘Theory why Protestantism flourished Northern Europe’.

It is kind of you to mention me, but though I had the most posts in the thread, I contributed nothing of substance, save a mention or two of Belloc.

GKC

 

[Jon_S_1]

You see, that would make sense. But for them to suddenly change to “Lutheran” instead of remaining what they were; seeing as they did believe they were either an extension of the One True Church and had a greater interpretation than the other Church’s.

I can’t see any reason for them to say that Catholics can keep their name, but a Church with a better interpretation shouldn’t keep such a name and should resort to “Lutheran.”

I was a marketing major. This seems to be a marketing problem.

If they just called themselves a Catholic Church, then people would come and be upset it was not the Catholic Church. In the same sense someone who did not want to go to a Catholic Church, would avoid this church for being called Catholic.

The first person is not the target market yet is being marketed to. The latter is the target market and is being repelled.

This is why all church splits and new churches have a name change. To educate the public about the new product. Education of a new product is far easier and more successful than recreating or redefining an old product.

So back to my apologetics side, it seems evidence that something new was created different from what was before.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Here’s an example of how early Lutherans accepted apostolic succession and even the papacy per the Lutheran-Catholic Declaration

It seems that this post indicates the name change originated or at least was embraced very early on by the Lutherans. Right ?