K
KjetilK
Guest
The Small Cathechism does not contain 331 questions. And again; how can something written in 1529 contain references to something written in 1577? You are just desperately grasping at non-existing straws.
- Status
C
commenter
Guest
Even though I haven’t posted much in this Forum in the past year, that does not mean I have not learned much about Lutheranism, and other interesting stuff. I just haven’t had anything intelligent to add, but I do read. Your communication is not a fool’s errand.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Not everyone here may be familiar with the Church of Norway in the Lutheran tradition. I have posted a number of years and Father K is the first one I remember posting on NCF.
I think what Picky Picky is trying to discern, and I am just guessing and stand to be corrected, is what are the core beliefs necessary to call yourself Lutheran.
We have LCMS and ELCA Posters who have noted an adherence to the Concord Book is necessary to be a “confessional Lutheran.” That seems to insinuate a “higher” form of “true Lutheranism” while Father K states he does not follow the book of Concord and refers to Luther’s small Catechism.
So I will ask directly to any Lutheran poster,
Are there a minimum set of core doctrinal and/or moral beliefs necessary for all Lutherans to agree you are Lutheran. Given there is no altar and pulpit fellowship between the various traditions/synods it’s a fair question in my opinion.
I do not believe at all Picky Picky is trying to blast Lutherans or engage in polemics for
“jolly good fun” and I think your insinuation he is doing so is done in a passive/aggressive manner and ultimately is an insult against another poster which is against forum rules regarding insulting another poster.
Mary.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
I wish I could have been as merit worthy as you assume, but I think you have been too kind to me. All I was doing was countering the claim by Tomster that Fr K had asserted he did not belong to a church (a claim which was an insulting misrepresentation).
K
KjetilK
Guest
I’ve never said that, and you know it. Haven’t you been taught the 8th commandment?
I am member of a particular Church, the Church of Norway, which is furthermore part of a larger communion of particular churches (the same way that your Church is a communion of 23 particular churches). That communion of churches is joined through the Porvoo agreement, and includes the Church of Norway, the Church of Sweden, the Church of Denmark, the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Lithuania, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Church of England, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, the Church of Ireland, the Church of Iceland, the Church in Wales, the Lusitanian Catholic Apostolic Evangelical Church (Portugal), the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church, the Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church Abroad, and the Lutheran Church in Great Britain
What I have said that that Lutheranism is a tradition which can be found within various churches. It is not a communion or a church, but a tradition, just like Byzantinism.
T
Tomster
Guest
Obviously you haven’t read my previous post.
M
MaryT777
Guest
So you are bringing up the 8th commandment and insinuating a particular poster hasn’t
“been taught it?” Another passive aggressive insult.
Give me a break, all cloaked in the name of God’s commandments. Even worse.
With the credentials you post here about your years of study and years of Pastoring?
S
steido01
Guest
Father K may have some further insight from his communion, but I think you’re asking the wrong question. I don’t think the concept of “minimums” really fits here.
My communion doesn’t determine whether it can share pulpit and altar fellowship with another communion based on “essentials,” but rather on unity in doctrine. If it were merely a question of essentials, we would be in communion with the WELS, ELS, CLC already. But fellowship requires total agreement in all matters not considered adiaphora. So we converse fraternally with our separated brethren. Please understand, I’m not dodging the question. It’s just not so black and white as we broken humans often want things to be.
That said, the fruits of a communion are a good indicator of whether that communion teaches true Evangelical-Lutheran doctrine. Does a given body ordain women? Does it perform gay “marriages?” Does it encourage sin? Does it abandon the necessity of the sacraments? Does it forget the benefit of the Law? Does it reduce the Gospel to fluff? Does it abandon the gift of the Liturgy? Does it profane Christ by accepting worship of pagan gods within its services? Without necessarily drawing conclusions, such a body wouldn’t seem very Lutheran.
S
steido01
Guest
Mary, how else could Father K have called out the poster for his wrongful comment?So you are bringing up the 8th commandment and insinuating a particular poster hasn’t
“been taught it?” Another passive aggressive insult.
Give me a break, all cloaked in the name of God’s commandments. Even worse.
With the credentials you post here about your years of study and years of Pastoring?
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Fr K’s first sentence, though, is true, and it would be polite of Tomster now to recognise that and apologise.So you are bringing up the 8th commandment and insinuating a particular poster hasn’t
“been taught it?” Another passive aggressive insult.
Give me a break, all cloaked in the name of God’s commandments. Even worse.
With the credentials you post here about your years of study and years of Pastoring?
K
KjetilK
Guest
Well, ‘Lutheran’ is not a dogmatic word, any more than ‘Western’ is. It is more of a sociological term, indicating the tradition (or one of the traditions) to which a given church belongs. Just like using ‘Byzantine’ of a Church indicates that this church has a certain liturgical tradition, yet doesn’t tell you anything about the position that Church has on, say, the papacy, Filioque or Purgatory. To put it in perspective, both the monks of Athos and the Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church are Byzantine.
But I can add that there are five confessional documents that every Lutheran Church does bind themselves to; the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, Luther’s Small Cathechism, and Confessio Augustana.
M
MaryT777
Guest
By saying his statement is incorrect. No need to imply a poster here on an anonymous forum is breaking a commandment; that is unless he can read hearts which means he is God of course.
Just sayin’
Mary.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Again; what has some editorial note put in a book by some American have to do with the confessions of the Church of Norway?
T
Tomster
Guest
I know where you have gone. A nice democratic form of religion and not the Mystical Body of Christ Jesus taught and revealed to St. Paul.
K
KjetilK
Guest
I have ‘danced this dance’ with Tomster before.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Thank you, I appreciate that. I have a high affinity for Lutherans and almost converted after my divorce to the LCMS. I remained Catholic however I learned a lot.
I just like a happy forum where everyone gets along LOL…and I joined right in.
Lord have mercy on me a poor miserable sinner,
Enough said.
Mary.
T
Tomster
Guest
Well, let’s get something clear. First of all, Lutheran ministers are not priests. The are laymen in clerical garb.
T
Tomster
Guest
Please, I do not dance with men Mr. K. You are male aren’t you?
G
GKC
Guest
Depends on who you ask.
There is a Catholic priest who posts here now buy the name of Don Ruggero, out of respect, I call him “Father Don”. Why? Because it is the common title for clergy in the Catholic Church, as well as in many western traditions, such as Anglicanism and in many places, Lutheranism.
In the correspondence between Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Dr. Johannes Hanselmann, Provincial Bishop of the Lutheran-Evangelical Church in Bravaria, Bishop Hanselmann addresses Cardinal Ratzinger thus: Dear and Most Reverend Cardinal,
In his return letter, Cardinal Ratzinger refers to Dr. Hanselmann:
Dear Provincial Bishop,
Now, the good Cardinal did not have to call Hanselmann, “Bishop”. He could have called him , “Dear Dr. Hanselmann”. but he didn’t. He showed the Bishop mutual respect, and from what I know of their relationship, admiration.
If I referred to the priest I meet as Mr. _____, when I know his title is Father ______, it seems to me to be at best, disrespectful. It could also be considered rude and boorish.
I would suspect that Father K probably couldn’t care less what you call him. As for me, I will continue to refer to Father Don in that way for two reasons; 1) it is the respectful and mannerly thing to do, and 2) I would not want to embarrass the Anglican and Lutheran posters here, since I am identified by both names in my profile.
Jon
BTW, the correspondence referenced can be found in Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith
- Status