But not by his own design. The term Lutheran was a slur by his opponents, which, not unlike “Roman Catholic Church” sort of stuck, and was eventually adopted, against Luther’s expressed desire, by the Evangelical (Lutheran) churches.
Jon,
So it is by papal fiat that Luther and those followed him are known as “Lutherans.”
Ok. But if being called Lutheran was considered derogatory why didn’t Lutherans change their name when they had the chance.
I don’t really know. One could imagine someone saying “if that’s what they want to call us, let’s show them that names can’t hurt us.” Then, too, it would have been considered derogatory by the Catholics but not necessarily so by the Lutherans.
I love the fact that the Lutheran Church officially counts John Calvin and Francis of Assisi together as “Renewers of the Church” on its remembrance-calendars. Somehow there seems to be a slight dissonance there. 
Not too surprising. It’s happened before and it will happen again. For instance, in economics, the term “Austrian” was often used as a slur by the German Historian School against the school of thought that dates its origins to Carl Menger. Several years later, the term “Austrian” was adopted and now those who follow Menger’s works go by the name of “Austrian”.
.
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod commemorates neither John Calvin or St. Francis of Assisi. The ELCA does.
To the credit of Anglicans, it’s not as if Scottish Calvinists came to be called “Calvinists”. These were called “Presbyterians” for their wish to restore the “original” episcopacy and presbyterate which Calvin thought he was restoring to its pristine pre-Dark-Age position. Obviously they were wrong, but at least they didn’t contrive to call each other “Calvinists”, or some other silly religious-patronymic. I believe the Anglican Communion “honours” him as a saint, or whatever term they use.
That doesn’t really surprise me.
.
D), it makes sense to honor other leads of that movement.From a Catholic prospective so did Luther. For Catholics Jesus’ real presents in the Eucharist is the center of our faith.
Is for us, too. The mark of the Church is word and sacrament.
Jon
Please explain to me where Luther got it wrong? Is it because we will not go along with the philosophical explanation of the accidents? Or the so called sacrifice of the Mass?
Where did Luther get it wrong? The difference between Catholic and Lutheran beliefs in a nutshell are, reading John 6, Catholics believe the bread and wine actually become Jesus Body and Blood at the consecration, whereas Lutherans believe the bread and wine are still bread and wine after consecration with Jesus riding piggy back so to speak. See the Dictionary definitions. Catholic, Transubstantiation, Lutherans Consubstantiation. There is a big difference.Please explain to me where Luther got it wrong? Is it because we will not go along with the philosophical explanation of the accidents? Or the so called sacrifice of the Mass?
Lutheran theology does not put forth consubstantiation as an explanation of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. We believe the “how” of Christ’s presence to be a mystery to be believed because of his words, “this is my body” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood.”
I’m sorry but this issue has been argued over and over again on this sight and for the last 500 years. I know I’m not smart enough to resolve the issue. All I can say is we have different understandings of Jesus words in John 6.