- Status
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Which comment(s) was seemingly “strident”?
“anti-Luther” research is worthless? Well, I guess that depends on the approach. Discovering the perversion of his works helped clarify my conversion to Catholicism.
Lutherans do not worship Luther, I would agree. However, I would say that it can appear that they do worship the mediation of Scripture as it relates to the pastors interpretation. The heart of a Lutheran service is not Holy Communion, but the sermon, of which is the longest portion and said every divine service, where Holy Communion is not offered daily or even weekly in most synods and/or non-synods.
Many orthodox Lutherans claim that Luther founding their religion is an unfounded concept, since all he did was simply reform that which was already established by Jesus Christ. If that is the case, then Lutherans should be right by our side condemning not the person of Martin Luther, but his works. Being over-sensitive of constructive criticism of Luther’s works seems to indicate what Lutherans really know deep in their hearts, that he did start a new church, and did not reform what he initially wanted to.
Eric
M
MaryT777
Guest
B
benjohnson
Guest
It’s a blessing that you found yourself in the Catholic tradition - you were obviously not well catachised in the Lutheran tradition.
The Lutheran Divine Service (Gottesdiens) literally is God’s service to us in Word and Sacrament. The sermon makes the word relevant to us - and meets us between the cross and the world.
There is more than a grain of truth, Eric, in what you say here, but it is a passing error on the part of American Lutherans. The return to the confessions’ teaching that mass be held every Sunday is a welcome thing. For far too long, we acted like protestants, forgetting the importance of the sacraments in weekly worship.
The Apology of the Augsburg Confession.
The Late LCMS President Dr. A.L. Barry put it this way:
Lutheran worship is Christ-centered. We receive His gifts at worship, and when we neglect the sacraments of the Lord’s Supper and Holy Absolution, when we relegate them to second behind hearing the word, we cheat ourselves of these precious gifts, through which we receive forgiveness of sins, and strengthening in faith. The job of the Church is to preach the word and administer the sacraments. They are of equal importance. Divine Service is in two parts: Liturgy of the Word, and Liturgy of the Sacrament, not one or the other.
Thank you for reminding us of that fact.
I don’t believe there is a Lutheran here who does not accept constructive criticism. If you check the top of this post, I just did, and again, thank you for it.
Jon
A
AugustTherese
Guest
The only catechesis I received in the “Lutheran tradition” was what was written in Luther’s large and small catechisms, alongside the Augsberg Confession.
What I do remember is this from the AC:
“Apostolic rites they [Catholic Church] want to keep, apostolic doctrine they do not want to keep. We should interpret those rites just as the apostles themselves did in their writings. They did not want us to believe that we are justified by such rites or that such rites are necessary for righteousness before God. They did not want to impose such a burden on consciences, nor to make the observance of days, food, and the like a matter of righteousness or of sin. In fact, Paul call such opinions “doctrines of demons.” To determine the apostles’ wish and intention, therefore, we must consult their writings, not merely their example.” - p.176 Book of Concord
This is Lutheran Tradition, and it comes not from Apostolic Tradition, but Luther and his followers. Hence my earlier question, where does Lutheran Tradition come from and by what authority, considering it is outside the only, ultimate, and final binding “practice” of sola scriptura as it relates to faith and morals?
Eric
T
Topper17
Guest
It was Martin Luther who established the Revolt against the Catholic Church which became and is now known as ‘The Reformation’. Without his Revolt there never would have been an Augsburg Confession or a FofC, or for that matter, Lutheranism. As such, if we want to judge the legitimacy of the Reformation, we need to begin with Luther and the question of the legitimacy of his Revolt.
Given that Luther’s ‘understanding’ of Scripture and his teachings on how it was to be ‘used’ are so important, it is crucial I think, that we NOT ignore what he actually taught. We cannot simply ‘jump past’ Martin Luther and begin discussing Lutheranism (and greater Protestantism of which Lutheranism is a subset) as if it did not have a pre-Augsburg Confession/FofC history.
The point I was making Jon had to do with Luther’s actual teaching on Scripture. Martin Luther originally taught that it was the individual and not the church which was to interpret and determine doctrine. I recognize fully that that is not the teaching of modern Lutheranism but it is extremely significant that Luther taught that the individual should interpret. After all, it was on that right of individual interpretation that Luther justified his own individual and very personal Revolt against the Catholic Church.
I have asked several times and am asking again here - What was it, specifically and exactly, that made Luther’s revolt against the authority of the Church acceptable when the Modern Lutheran church would not stand for such a revolt against it’s authority?
Jon, if you want to represent Mathison that way, then please quote him and make your point. Once you have done so, I will also quote Protestant Scholar Mathison regarding his opinion on the connection between Martin Luther and Sola Scriptura. Mathison BTW is a defender of SS and does not see it as having a huge role in the doctrinal confusion and dissension that has resulted from the ‘Reformation’. That too can be discussed of course.
The issue at hand is Luther’s original teaching on Scriptural interpretation. Skipping past Luther’s earlier and ‘lesser known’ teachings and actions would not allow for a full understanding of the history of the Reformation, and the ‘responsibility’ for the Sola Scriptura.
Topper
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
You just have to love reciting the Athanasian Creed on Trinity Sunday! I’m glad we have bulletins for our Divine Service. I always read through it a couple of times so I can get a slight grasp on it. Lots of coequal, coeternal, not three but One… good stuff!
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Mary,
Thanks for your kind words.
It always boggles my mind when we see the FofC referenced as if we are supposed view it as being authoritative. Somehow we are to look past Luther’s offenses against the Church and look to the FofC? As you mention they FofCrefers to the Pope as the Antichrist. It also refers to lay Catholics like you and I as the ‘adherents’.
For the record, the adherents are described by the
The Formula of Concord - A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald – 1537
“39] Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents.
59] But those who agree with the Pope, and defend his doctrine and [false] services, defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemous opinions, become guilty of the blood of the godly, whom the Pope [and his adherents] persecutes, detract from the glory of God, and hinder the welfare of the Church, because they strengthen errors and crimes to all posterity [in the sight of all the world and to the injury of all descendants].”
God Bless You Mary, Topper
Thanks for your kind words.
Thanks for the book recommendation also Mary.
It always boggles my mind when we see the FofC referenced as if we are supposed view it as being authoritative. Somehow we are to look past Luther’s offenses against the Church and look to the FofC? As you mention they FofCrefers to the Pope as the Antichrist. It also refers to lay Catholics like you and I as the ‘adherents’.
For the record, the adherents are described by the
The Formula of Concord - A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald – 1537
“39] Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents.
59] But those who agree with the Pope, and defend his doctrine and [false] services, defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemous opinions, become guilty of the blood of the godly, whom the Pope [and his adherents] persecutes, detract from the glory of God, and hinder the welfare of the Church, because they strengthen errors and crimes to all posterity [in the sight of all the world and to the injury of all descendants].”
The doctrinal confusion and doctrinal dissension that Lutheranism experiences more and more all the time were ‘baked into the cake’ by Luther himself. I have no doubt that he would be extremely upset with the state of modern day Lutheranism. However, I don’t think he would be capable of recognizing his own role in these current difficulties.
As you know, the ‘bashing Luther’ accusation, which we have seen here twice in the last 24 hours, is blatantly intended to cause people to stop criticizing Luther.
God Bless You Mary, Topper
C
commenter
Guest
It’s good to have it daily, too.
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
The Lord be with you, Topper. I prefer the Lutheran Confessions to the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Thirty- Nine Articles, the Baptist Faith and Message and the Catechism of the Catholic Church simply because they are the most logical extrapolation of Holy Scriptures coupled with Western Christian tradition that I have read thus far. They retain those doctrines that can be proved by Scripture and early Church tradition and explain them in intricate detail and even defend them, citing not only Scripture, but writings from the Early Church Fathers.
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
Amen. Well said, sir.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Wrong.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Guys,
Let me clarify a few things.
No one, at least me, thinks the orthodox Lutheran churches undermine the sanctity of its sacraments. If anything, I applaud those churches who value the proper way to believe in and administer them, according to Scriptural rite I suppose. I admire, at least for the most part, Luther and his current orthodox followers for wanting to keep the Real Presence in Holy Communion; along with keeping Communion closed to non-communicants.
However, when Luther (at least to my knowledge) and the Reformers removed Jesus Christ (in the Blessed Sacrament) from the tabernacles, it seems as though the focus of Lutheranism and its divine services inadvertently shifted to the pulpit. For example, I would contend that Luther spent the majority of his time commentating on the books of Romans and Galatians, and how it related to justification, than he did on the sacraments of Holy Communion and Baptism and how they related to salvation. He initially did not have any problem with the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church. But when you coin new thoughts and doctrines such as extrinsic justification, total depravity, sinner-saint, non-regenerative baptism, sacramental union, soul sleep etc. etc…He had no choice but to magnify and elevate the vitality of Sacred Scripture, and it gradually and slowly outweighed the significance of the Lutheran Sacraments. For instance, most if not all orthodox Lutheran churches do not have daily mass where Holy Communion is offered. Further, most if not all Lutheran churches do not have Holy Communion every Lords Day (Sunday).
The “Liturgy of the Word”, in my 25 years of being Lutheran, could take anywhere from 20-45 minutes of the divine service, whereas the “Liturgy of the Sacrament” would take anywhere from 10-20 minutes (depending on size of communicants). Yes, I know this is anecdotal evidence and there are probably how many orthodox Lutheran churches that do it differently, however that doesn’t change my attitude of what seemed of more importance.
The two Lutheran churches that I was a part of, ELS and WELS had Holy Communion twice a month, that’s 24 time a year! But, taking into account Advent and Lent where there were Wednesday services, there were about 62 homilies (give or take a few). Not only that, but there were daily bible studies, vacation bible school, sunday bible school - all of which are wonderful things!!! But when you look back on the focus, its hard to say there was an even balance between Word and Sacrament.
To my knowledge, the one thing that Our Blessed Lord explicitly commanded his Apostles to do, as it is recorded in Scripture, is to celebrate and partake in the mysteries of the Most Holy Eucharist, and “to do it OFTEN” (caps only for emphasis, not shouting
. Oh, and also make disciples of all nations via Holy Baptism. Two sacraments, two explicit commands.
God love you!
Eric
Let me clarify a few things.
No one, at least me, thinks the orthodox Lutheran churches undermine the sanctity of its sacraments. If anything, I applaud those churches who value the proper way to believe in and administer them, according to Scriptural rite I suppose. I admire, at least for the most part, Luther and his current orthodox followers for wanting to keep the Real Presence in Holy Communion; along with keeping Communion closed to non-communicants.
However, when Luther (at least to my knowledge) and the Reformers removed Jesus Christ (in the Blessed Sacrament) from the tabernacles, it seems as though the focus of Lutheranism and its divine services inadvertently shifted to the pulpit. For example, I would contend that Luther spent the majority of his time commentating on the books of Romans and Galatians, and how it related to justification, than he did on the sacraments of Holy Communion and Baptism and how they related to salvation. He initially did not have any problem with the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church. But when you coin new thoughts and doctrines such as extrinsic justification, total depravity, sinner-saint, non-regenerative baptism, sacramental union, soul sleep etc. etc…He had no choice but to magnify and elevate the vitality of Sacred Scripture, and it gradually and slowly outweighed the significance of the Lutheran Sacraments. For instance, most if not all orthodox Lutheran churches do not have daily mass where Holy Communion is offered. Further, most if not all Lutheran churches do not have Holy Communion every Lords Day (Sunday).
The “Liturgy of the Word”, in my 25 years of being Lutheran, could take anywhere from 20-45 minutes of the divine service, whereas the “Liturgy of the Sacrament” would take anywhere from 10-20 minutes (depending on size of communicants). Yes, I know this is anecdotal evidence and there are probably how many orthodox Lutheran churches that do it differently, however that doesn’t change my attitude of what seemed of more importance.
The two Lutheran churches that I was a part of, ELS and WELS had Holy Communion twice a month, that’s 24 time a year! But, taking into account Advent and Lent where there were Wednesday services, there were about 62 homilies (give or take a few). Not only that, but there were daily bible studies, vacation bible school, sunday bible school - all of which are wonderful things!!! But when you look back on the focus, its hard to say there was an even balance between Word and Sacrament.
To my knowledge, the one thing that Our Blessed Lord explicitly commanded his Apostles to do, as it is recorded in Scripture, is to celebrate and partake in the mysteries of the Most Holy Eucharist, and “to do it OFTEN” (caps only for emphasis, not shouting
. Oh, and also make disciples of all nations via Holy Baptism. Two sacraments, two explicit commands. God love you!
Eric
P
pablope
Guest
I do not think he will say he is infallible…but he made an infallible statement, whether he realizes it or not.
If the Catholic Church had stuck to its historic teachings (let’s remember what the CC allowed to be taught at Erfurt and other places as “Catholic”), if there had been no Schism in 1054 over many of the same issues, you’re right.
See, this is why a dialogue with you is virtually impossible. There are numerous to many Catholic scholars, including one particular pope emeritus, who would not even consider putting the word understanding in quotes in regards to Luther’s understanding of scripture.
Some of us get accused of criticizing your style of dialogue. Here’s why. The modern scholarly Catholic view of Luther makes this kind of little dig at Luther seem simplistic.
Sure we can. I’ve had countless conversations on this site with Catholics who actually want to discuss Lutheran teaching.
Luther approved the CA, but even that isn’t the point. I asked a few posts back if you knew of a communion prior to Lutheranism that practiced sola scriptura in a different way.
Now, I frankly don’t care if you answer the question or not, since that’s not the intention of the thread, but there it is. Luther never used the term sola scriptura that I’m aware of, and even that doesn’t matter. The historical understanding of the practice of sola scriptura is as the FofC describes it. Others may use it differently. I can’t stop that, nor do I approve of it.
Well, if you’re worried about his “personal revolt”, start a thread on it. Have fun.
By what authority, specifically and exactly, do you get to ask that question? Who are you tto determine authority? The issue of authority is an issue of far longer ago than Martin Luther and the Lutheran Reformation, or the Anabaptists, or Zwingli or Calvin, or Huss. The shattered nature of the authority of the universal Church goes by 500 years earlier.
When you’ve got a solution, specifically and exactly, for that one, then perhaps the others can be solved. But again, that’s not the issue of the thread.
continued
Hey, I’m thankful just to have it weekly. I grew up seeing ostensibily Lutherans leave prior to the liturgy of the sacrament if we had it more than once a month.
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
JonNC???
Could you please give your 2 cents on this?
I saw Styterald’s answer.
Looking for your thoughts as well.
- Status