Again, this word ‘Lutheranism.’ The interesting thing is how the Lutheran tradition (which basically boils down to the
three ancient creeds,
Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s
Small Catechism) plays out in a particular Church (just as with Byzantinism).
First of all, I can certainly understand that you do not want to be associated with the American ‘Formula Lutherans’ and their very anti-Catholic beliefs. The term “Lutheran” or “Lutheranism” is used rather generally here on CA, and represents, in general all of those traditions which have sprung directly from Martin Luther. Of course that encompasses who knows how many doctrinally independent communions.
Luther may have claimed authority. That doesn’t mean he was given it by any particular Church.
Only if Luther had that kind of authority, and only if Luther was the ‘founder’ of Lutheranism. But the ‘Lutheran tradition’ (whose name was given by those who were opposed to it) wasn’t ‘founded’ by Luther the way, say, Mormonism was founded by Joseph Smith. Your ‘logic’ only works if you ignore the facts.
Yes, many people agreed with him. I fail to see the significance to this discussion. The question is: Did he have formal authority within a given Lutheran Church? Well, he didn’t, and don’t, in mine. And note that I am talking about formal authority.
I posted a quote from Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards in a post yesterday, but I would like to get your reaction to it. After all, it seems that this Lutheran Professor disagrees with your assessment of Luther’s ‘standing’ or level of authority in early Lutheranism.:
Robert Kolb documents just the opposite. In the introduction of “Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero”, Kolb lays out the premise of a good portion of his book:
“First, for some of his followers during the subsequent decades,
the Reformer functioned as a prophet who replaced popes and councils as the adjudicating or secondary authority (interpreting the primary authority, Scripture) in the life of the church………Luther emerged as a prophet of God in whose words a secondary level of doctrinal authority could be found. **Those who believed that this Wittenberg Professor was God’s special agent – a voice of divine judgment upon the corruption of the old system – were able to ascribe such authority to him without difficulty. When the living myth ad disappeared into his tomb, and could no longer adjudicate disputes by composing letters or official faculty opinions, his writings – widely available in print – were used as a secondary authority by some of his disciples.” **Kolb, pg. 11
Actually Father K, Edward’s book contains a plethora of evidence as to Luther’s ACTUAL and de facto authority over doctrinal issues in early Lutheranism. I think you would find it an interesting read.
But that claim is false. ‘Lutheranism’ is not founded by Luther alone. And ‘Lutheranism’ is not a Church.
**“To a degree perhaps unique in the history of the church since the apostolic age, the image of this single person, Martin Luther, has directly shaped the institutions and life of a large body of Christendom. He has influenced his followers both as a churchman and as teacher of the church. **Calvinists churches, of course look to John Calvin as model and magister for the ecclesiastical life. John Wesley exercises a continuing role in the Methodist churches.
To a far greater extent, however, Lutheran churches have found in Luther not only a teacher, but also a prophetic hero and authority……
………**Luther’s image and thought shaped Lutheran thinking and action in the century flowing his appearance on the stage of Western history. **From the very beginning Luther’s students and friends regarded him as a figure of more than normal proportions. Some saw him as an illustrious figure of the faith. **Others regarded him as a powerful doctor of the church in line with Moses, Paul and Augustine. Many regarded him as a unique servant of God, a prophet and the eschatological angel who is depicted in Revelation 14 as the bearer of the gospel in the last days and whose authority could be put to use in governing and guiding the church, particularity in the adjudication of disputes over the proper and correct understanding of biblical teaching.” **Kolb, pg. 10
For the record, I have not stated that Lutheranism is the result of “Luther alone” (solo Marto), but to downplay his ‘contributions’ would be to misrepresent the actual historical facts.
I did not merely refer to Scripture. I referred specifically to Scripture, the Fathers and the Canons.
I think we are going to disagree on this also. I don’t think that any of the versions of Lutheranism can be represented as being taught by the Fathers, at least not where Lutheranism and Catholicism disagree doctrinally.
Again with this term ‘Lutheranism.’ In the Church of Norway the pope is seen as the bishop of Rome, and he has episcopal authority there. He is also primus inter pares , which does not entail that he can rule all. In my own Church we have a bishop who has that role. That bishop speaks on behalf of the other bishops, but doesn’t have any more formal authority than the others.
Ok Father, so what does
primus inter pares actually mean WITHIN Lutheranism. What is the tangible evidence of that ‘primacy’ within your Lutheran tradition or any other Lutheran tradition?
God Bless You Father, Topper
The Gospel is THE biggest reason for my not returning to Rome, though I came very close to doing so about two years ago.