E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Thanks oldcatholicguy. I was surprised by the enforcement of Lutheranism on the population:
- Status
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Anyone know what the penalty for breaking these laws were?
What was the penalty for maybe creating a new religion that denounce the Lutheran Church of Sweden as illegitimate?
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
They had to sit on an iceberg for several days!
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Unfortunately I can’t paste it since it is an ebook image,
But this page and the following one are quite interesting.
Apparently the Lutheran Church of Sweden held as doctrine and law that the Mosaic law with its penalties should be upheld.
I need to research more , but had to share.
books.google.com/books?id=5Dkk1CDZ1UsC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&ots=4uLx3eChrd&focus=viewport&dq=lutheran+church+sweden+laws+penalties&output=html_text
But this page and the following one are quite interesting.
Apparently the Lutheran Church of Sweden held as doctrine and law that the Mosaic law with its penalties should be upheld.
I need to research more , but had to share.
books.google.com/books?id=5Dkk1CDZ1UsC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&ots=4uLx3eChrd&focus=viewport&dq=lutheran+church+sweden+laws+penalties&output=html_text
D
dronald
Guest
This is a valid point, and exactly what I’m getting at. It’s like they recognized “Hey, we’re not the true Catholic Church so we’ll just accept the term Lutheran because we did come later; and calling ourselves Catholic would be dishonest.”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.
S
steve_b
Guest
In English speaking countries, it’s true, the qualifier “Roman” was inserted by the Anglo protestants. Roman Catholic
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
Eh, I dunno…I grew up in a church that falls under the Wesleyan Methodist umbrella, and I take it that Wesley’s name is used in honor of his influence, that’s all. I tend to assume the same for Lutherans.
S
steve_b
Guest
Names usually stuck to the founders of things or beliefs. In this case, Luther and Lutheranism (i.e. followers of Luther) made sense. Luther is also considered the father of protestantism.
M
MaryT777
Guest
B
benjohnson
Guest
Ahem… I doubt that was their logic.
Lutherans think of our church as a valid continuation of the western church that stated in Pentecost.
S
steve_b
Guest
true
HH:
If someone new to an area asks for the Catholic Church, would they be directed to the Lutherans? No
If one looks in the yellow pages of any phone book, under Catholic Church, would they find the Lutherans? Just for kicks I looked in my phone book. There is a Lutheran Church not 15 block away. I found them in the yellow pages, but not under the Catholic heading.
I suppose anyone can call themselves anything they want. But you ask in your opening remarks, does it make it right? No. As you say, misleading people is wrong, and I completely agree.
HH:
Considering Arianism, Pelagianism, Nestorianism, Sebellianism, Montanism, Jansenism, etc these belief systems were all named after the ones who founded the belief system. It doesn’t always happen that way in history but as one can see, there is history to naming a belief system and followers of that belief system, after the founder. The Great Heresies
The opening question could also be read as “What’s in a name”
S
steve_b
Guest
Around here, one has to prove what they say
I
IowaJay
Guest
It should be noted that originally, “Lutheran” was only the name used to describe the believers, and not the church itself. In Germany, the church was simply known as the “Evangelical” church. In Scandinavia to this day, the churches are simply the “Church of Sweden” or the “Church of Denmark”, etc. Those churches adopted the Augsburg Confession at the time of the reformation, but “Lutheran” is not the name of the church.
The name “Lutheran” was applied to the names of the churches when it spread to other areas where it was not the dominant religion. So, for example, when my Danish ancestors (who were very involved in the Church there - my great, great, great uncle was the Bishop of Copenhagen in the late 1800s) immigrated to America, they found that the Scandinavian churches were organized into various synods, and used the “Lutheran” name to distinguish their synods from other groups.
The name “Lutheran” was applied to the names of the churches when it spread to other areas where it was not the dominant religion. So, for example, when my Danish ancestors (who were very involved in the Church there - my great, great, great uncle was the Bishop of Copenhagen in the late 1800s) immigrated to America, they found that the Scandinavian churches were organized into various synods, and used the “Lutheran” name to distinguish their synods from other groups.
S
steve_b
Guest
I’m just thinking outloud as well
When Jesus said “I will build my Church, and not even the gates of hell will prevail against it”
why would Jesus EVER need 1500 years later after He said that, a man made organization, whose founder was excommunicated by the Church He says He will build and not even the gates of hell will prevail against it, to somehow continue His Church that He builds, as if He failed?
That leaves the door open to also question what other promises of Jesus failed? And not stopping there, it also means His prayer to His Father didn’t happen either John 17:20-23 . Since Our Lord wants ZERO division, in His Church from hierarchy to the rank and file, look at the division that competing founder foisted on Christianity. 10’s of thousands of competing protestant sects all claiming to be bonafide. Division on steroids.
Also, Re: the notion of “Western” Church, did Jesus restrict Peter’s authority to certain ethnic groups, or geography or compass points for His Church? No. Peter is to feed, shepherd, rule the entire Church worldwide. Peter’s see is Rome. Peter is in charge of The Catholic Church throughout the entire world. THAT’S the Church Our Lord started, and that’s the Church He builds. That’s the Church with all the promises. Division from which brings disaster on a person’s soul Romans 16:17-20 , , whichever translation one uses, the Greek word is the same. διχοστασίας dichostasia = division /dissension / sedition and it’s the same Greek word in both Rom 16:17. And Gal 5:19… so while the passage from Paul to the Church of Rome doesn’t speak of the consequences of division from the Church for one’s soul, the passage from Galatians does.
As I said, I’m just thinking outloud.
M
marywarfield
Guest
Problem is all these offshoots- Lutheran, Anglican,I’m just thinking outloud as well
When Jesus said “I will build my Church, and not even the gates of hell will prevail against it”
why would Jesus EVER need 1500 years later after He said that, a man made organization, whose founder was excommunicated by the Church He says He will build and not even the gates of hell will prevail against it, to somehow continue His Church that He builds, as if He failed?
That leaves the door open to also question what other promises of Jesus failed? And not stopping there, it also means His prayer to His Father didn’t happen either John 17:20-23 . Since Our Lord wants ZERO division, in His Church from hierarchy to the rank and file, look at the division that competing founder foisted on Christianity. 10’s of thousands of competing protestant sects all claiming to be bonafide. Division on steroids.
Also, Re: the notion of “Western” Church, did Jesus restrict Peter’s authority to certain ethnic groups, or geography or compass points for His Church? No. Peter is to feed, shepherd, rule the entire Church worldwide. Peter’s see is Rome. Peter is in charge of The Catholic Church throughout the entire world. THAT’S the Church Our Lord started, and that’s the Church He builds. That’s the Church with all the promises. Division from which brings disaster on a person’s soul Romans 16:17-20 , , whichever translation one uses, the Greek word is the same. διχοστασίας dichostasia = division /dissension / sedition and it’s the same Greek word in both Rom 16:17. And Gal 5:19… so while the passage from Paul to the Church of Rome doesn’t speak of the consequences of division from the Church for one’s soul, the passage from Galatians does.
As I said, I’m just thinking outloud.
and Orthidox can do claim historically an apostolic
succession and so do all of their own splinter groups.
And it can’t be really disproven anymore than trying
to disprove we are all descended from Adam. Can’t be done
because Adam was first.
S
steve_b
Guest
Re: offshoots. You mean (division / dissension / sedition / factions)?
The Catholic Church doesn’t buy into the branch theory, invented by the Anglicans. And there is no such thing as seperate but equal. As Paul says (Rm 16) in the link below, those who cause division from the Church and cause others to follow, that’s not from Jesus it’s from Satan.
m:
Consider the following
- Depending on one’s translation of the bible they read, διχοστασίας = dichostasia = division or dissension or sedition or factions. It’s the same Greek word that appears in both Rom 16:17. And Gal 5:19… Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 , which means Galatians shows the consequence for the soul who does that and dies in that sin (division from the Catholic Church #[21 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11909191&postcount=21) ) or any of those sins listed. i.e. they go to hell
- Who told Paul that those who divide from the Catholic Church will have such disaterous consequences on their soul? Since all scripture is inspired by the HS, and the HS gets His teaching from Jesus John 16:12-15. Therefore, Jesus who will judge the living and the dead is giving that warning through the HS through Paul to us, to not divide from His Church. That message was also carried on by Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John the apostle, who taugh the same in his Epistle to the Philadelphians Ref: the above link #[21 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11909191&postcount=21) . So to your point, while all humanity are descendents of Adam and Eve, Jesus warns us, one will end up in hell for eternity, for dividing and remaining divided from His Church. Which is the Catholic Church. I can only tell you this, I take his warning seriously
- There is no expiration date to those warnings.
- And let’s face it, If there are no bad consequences to what we do, then Jesus through the HS through Paul is scaring people needlessly…if that’s the case then eat drink and be merry.
- But I don’t believe that.
B
benjohnson
Guest
And we don’t claim that the gates of hell prevailed - the church needed reform and the church reformed.
That some didn’t join us is cause for prayer and reconciliation.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
The problem with this is the authority of the reformers!
It would be like the church in Corinth telling the Apostle Paul they were going to do it their way and not listen to his correction!!
Then we would read about the apostate schismatics in Corinth in the Bible instead of the corrected church we see.
B
benjohnson
Guest
The reformers had no authority - only His word. That frankly was the crux of the issue - on where other authority is placed in relation to His word.
- Status