The "Ask a Lutheran" Thread!

[JMJ4]

Hi - thanks for the opportunity to ask a question that I have always wondered about Lutheranism!
It is my understanding that Martin Luther had issues with the Catholic Church and posted them on a door.
I can understand that an intelligent and passionate religious person might have problems and/or questions regarding their church.

What I don’t understand is why did he have to “break away” and start a church of his own as opposed to trying to work for change from within?

St. Francis of Assisi is a great example of someone who saw problems within the Church,(not with the Church). But instead of riling people up and AWAY from the Catholic Church, he humbly and OBEDIENTLY brought about change from WITHIN. Today, we are still benefiting and learning from his absolute and total obedience to the Church. He was extemely popular and well-loved and had some very different ideas about what it meant to be a good Catholic, but he never started his own church.

Couldn’t Martin Luther have done the same?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Hi - thanks for the opportunity to ask a question that I have always wondered about Lutheranism!
It is my understanding that Martin Luther had issues with the Catholic Church and posted them on a door.
I can understand that an intelligent and passionate religious person might have problems and/or questions regarding their church.

What I don’t understand is why did he have to “break away” and start a church of his own as opposed to trying to work for change from within?

St. Francis of Assisi is a great example of someone who saw problems within the Church,(not with the Church). But instead of riling people up and AWAY from the Catholic Church, he humbly and OBEDIENTLY brought about change from WITHIN. Today, we are still benefiting and learning from his absolute and total obedience to the Church. He was extemely popular and well-loved and had some very different ideas about what it meant to be a good Catholic, but he never started his own church.

Couldn’t Martin Luther have done the same?

The Church wouldn’t let him.

 

[JMJ4]

Hi - Please elaborate. I truly do not know the history of Lutheranism.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Hi - Please elaborate. I truly do not know the history of Lutheranism.

The simple version:
It took the Church 40 years to go from the original 95 theses to the Council of Trent. Posting theses like these were common in Luther’s day. There were many corrupt clergy in positions of authority in the Church who were threatened by ML’s postings.

It gets too complicated after this, politics, German princes, political alliances of archbishops, etc.

newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm

 

[JMJ4]

I understand corrupt clergy, as I related earlier, it occurred in the time of St. Francis.

I still don’t understand - did ML give a deadline for a response to his grievances?

My understanding is that ML was not incorrect in what he was saying.

I would like to know why he broke the church apart - even if he was right - and didn’t work from within - even if it took centuries to change?

Isn’t obedience important in Lutheranism? Maybe even more than being right?

 

[JonNC]

I am a lifelong member of the ELCA (well, technically, I was born and raised in the ALC, one of the ELCA’s predecessor bodies before the merger in 1987). There are many issues with the ELCA, but I’m not inclined to give up on those ties nor abandon the many faithful Christians in the ELCA. If I leave the ELCA, it will not be to go to the LCMS, but to go to a church with orthodox beliefs with apostolic succession - because I will have concluded that Lutheranism, in any form, is no longer viable as a separate ecclesial entity.

hi Jay,
I share your last sentiments, though 10 years ago I made the move to LCMS, in part because of geography, even though I was lifelong LCA/ELCA. As for staying in the ELCA, my brother has decided on that path, as well. Have you looked into LCORE or any of the other groups looks to draw back some of the recent changes in the ELCA?

Jon

EDIT: If there was a congregation from Irl’s synod here, I’d look into it.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I understand corrupt clergy, as I related earlier, it occurred in the time of St. Francis.

I still don’t understand - did ML give a deadline for a response to his grievances?

My understanding is that ML was not incorrect in what he was saying.

I would like to know why he broke the church apart - even if he was right - and didn’t work from within - even if it took centuries to change?

Isn’t obedience important in Lutheranism? Maybe even more than being right?

This is an “ask the Lutheran thread,” not an attack Martin Luther thread. Sorry to be so blunt, but I have seen too many uncharitable remarks here against Martin Luther. They’re thinly veiled attempts to bash Protestants. It would be a shame if the Lutherans here were to shy away from discussion in order to defend Martin Luther. And no, you don’t want to go there. The story is not pretty on either side.:nope:

Lutheranism is cultural as well as religious. It’s very hard for a Lutheran to leave his culture, even if he knows there are some inconsistent teachings. Luther was 500 years ago, let’s forgive him. Most Lutherans here are seeking some sort of unity and common ground with Catholics. There is even a group that wants to come into the Catholic Church, much as the recent Anglicans.:harp::grouphug:

 

[qui_est_ce]

h Have you looked into LCORE or any of the other groups looks to draw back some of the recent changes in the ELCA?

Jon

Do you see where this is leading?

Without an authority you have to keep reinventing the wheel.

 

[JMJ4]

I can honestly say that by asking those questions I was not bashing the Lutherans, or Martin Luther.

My apologies to any Lutherans who have found my questions to be offensive.

Since you are not a Lutheran I guess I will have to wait for a Lutheran to respond to my questions and they can tell me if I am offensive.

(I thought this post was started by a Lutheran so that Catholics could ask questions and get answers to Lutheranism).

Any Lutherans care to answer my questions?

 

[JonNC]

Hi JMJ,
Let me try to respond to your questions.

=JMJ4;6251484]I understand corrupt clergy, as I related earlier, it occurred in the time of St. Francis. I still don’t understand - did ML give a deadline for a response to his grievances?

Actually, the deadline was the other way. He was required to recant what he was writing.
The sad thing about this was his initial efforts was, he thought, to warn the Pope regarding the abuses being done in his (the pope’s) name. Remember, Luther was excommunicated, and did not simply walk away from the Church. That is not to say he didn’t make mistakes, too.

My understanding is that ML was not incorrect in what he was saying.

The Catholic Church at Trent did agree with some, not all of Luther’s teachings.

I would like to know why he broke the church apart - even if he was right - and didn’t work from within - even if it took centuries to change?

He was required to recant - even those things Trent later agreed with. Just recant.

Isn’t obedience important in Lutheranism? Maybe even more than being right?

Quite important, but I’m not sure about more than being right. Interestingly enough, they believed they were being obedient - to the Gospel. When given the choice of ordination for their clergy by the Bishops (something they considered very important) and recanting what they taught, or returning to the practice of presbyter ordination and maintaining what they believed to be the Gospel, they chose the Gospel. And this was no easy decision, as the Lutheran reformers valued apostolic succession highly.

But the most important point of all this is not what happened in the 1510’s, but what will we do in th 2010’s. Can we allow the Spirit to draw us closer together? That, to me , is the important question.

Jon

 

[JMJ4]

JonNC - Thanks for your excellent responses.

What do you think the Catholic Church could/should have done differently at the time of ML?

Do you understand my comparison to ML and St. Francis? I know that SF was very frustrated with the Church, but went away by himself and tried to figure things out.

Perhaps ML was excommunicated before he could do that?

Yes, I agree, we should focus on the here and now. But since I have no info on Lutheranism, I just wanted to ask some questions about things that I have recently been thinking about.

No offense to anyone please. Let me know if my questions are out of line.

 

[IowaJay]

The excommunication of Luther forced him to create the “lifeboat” to use my earlier analogy. The early Church had it right - when there was a major dispute they called a council instead handing out excommunications. When the dispute was over whether to allow Gentiles to be a part of the Church, they called a council (See Acts). When the dispute was over whether Jesus was divine or merely an adopted Son of God, they called a council to discuss it and vote on it at Nicaea. Luther asked the Pope to convene an ecumenical council, but he did not - the Council of Trent was not called until after Luther was dead and Northern Europe was already lost to the Church. I think the Pope at the time had no idea about the size of the political powderkeg he was sitting on in Northern Europe, and the excommunication of Luther caused that keg to blow up.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Why did the LCMS not sign the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification?

Also, is it true that LCMS may not pray with non LCMS Christians?

 

[JonNC]

Why did the LCMS not sign the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification?

I find the LCMS response quite disappointing, but here it is.
ecumenism.net/archive/LCMS-justification.pdf

Also, is it true that LCMS may not pray with non LCMS Christians?

Actually, the WELS has this very strict line, but I will leave it to a WELS member to state their position. LCMS position is more about worship, less about prayer and fellowship. And my take on this is it is more applied to clergy than laity.

Jon

 

[Jerry_Parker]

I suspect that the real (and perhaps a bit secretive) reason that the L.C.M.S. did not sign the agreement with the Catholic Church concerning Justification is that its own, bizarrely sectarian doctrine of U.O.J. (“universal objective justification”) and S.J. (“subjective justification”) just cannot fit the mold either of the Roman teaching or of the teaching of the Lutheran Confessions. The same applies to all of the Lutheran groups in the orbit of the former Evangelical Synodical Conference. None of them teach what the Reformers intended by Justification by Faith Alone. Hence, they cannot sign on with other Lutherans worldwide OR with the Catholic Church.

When I at last read the Catholic-Lutheran statement, I was amazed at how orthodox it truly is. The liberalism that lurks in Lutheran quarters outside the realm of the old Synodical Conference is nowhere in evidence in this joint statement.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[qui_est_ce]

I suspect that the real (and perhaps a bit secretive) reason that the L.C.M.S. did not sign the agreement with the Catholic Church concerning Justification is that its own, bizarrely sectarian doctrine of U.O.J. (“universal objective justification”) and S.J. (“subjective justification”) just cannot fit the mold either of the Roman teaching or of the teaching of the Lutheran Confessions. The same applies to all of the Lutheran groups in the orbit of the former Evangelical Synodical Conference. None of them teach what the Reformers intended by Justification by Faith Alone. Hence, they cannot sign on with other Lutherans worldwide OR with the Catholic Church.

Please elaborate Reformers had various views. I thought ML taught Faith ALONE, and that a person was intrinsically evil.

When I at last read the Catholic-Lutheran statement, I was amazed at how orthodox it truly is. The liberalism that lurks in Lutheran quarters outside the realm of the old Synodical Conference is nowhere in evidence in this joint statement.

Pax, Jerry Parker

But liberal Lutherans did sign it.

 

[Deacon_Latif]

Admittedly, I don’t have as much contact with them as I used to, but it seems they are going liberal, especially with the music. Without an Authority, this is what happens.

Christine:
I don’t say this as an attack, or as a slam, but just to be fair, trends in bad music in liturgy, as well as all other forms of atrocious and irreverent liturgy, including the influence of feminism in the Church, these are all cross-denominational problems. Most LCMS churches still do not have women lectors or women giving the prayers, or Marty Haugen style liturgical settings. In these ways, Rome has been the leader, and the trailblazer, and Lutherans have all too often followed that lead. There are very good and very bad things happening in RC churches and LCMS churches, and I pray that the renewed interest in traditional liturgy in both churches of recent years will continue, and bear fruit. The sad fact, however, is that both with the kind of authority you speak of, and without it, these things happen.

 

[IowaJay]

Please elaborate Reformers had various views. I thought ML taught Faith ALONE, and that a person was intrinsically evil.
But liberal Lutherans did sign it.

• I wouldn’t say that Luther thought that man is intrinsically evil his point was that after the fall, man is unable to turn to God on his own or do anything to save himself on his own, which is not quite the same thing.
• The Lutheran World Federation approved the Joint Declaration, and the LWF is made up of conservative and liberal Lutherans.

 

[Deacon_Latif]

• I wouldn’t say that Luther thought that man is intrinsically evil his point was that after the fall, man is unable to turn to God on his own or do anything to save himself on his own, which is not quite the same thing.
• The Lutheran World Federation approved the Joint Declaration, and the LWF is made up of conservative and liberal Lutherans.

That depends on how you define “conservative,” I suppose. It is virtually a given in the LWF that your church will accept the ordination of women, for example. There is nothing Lutheran about priestesses.

Regarding sin, the Lutheran position is Luther’s position, and it is summed up nicely by Melanchthon in article 2 of the Augsburg Confession:

**Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ’s merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason. **

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I understand corrupt clergy, as I related earlier, it occurred in the time of St. Francis.

I still don’t understand - did ML give a deadline for a response to his grievances?

My understanding is that ML was not incorrect in what he was saying.

I would like to know why he broke the church apart - even if he was right - and didn’t work from within - even if it took centuries to change?

Isn’t obedience important in Lutheranism? Maybe even more than being right?

I’ll make an attempt, although I’m a fairly recent convert from Catholicism to Lutheranism. And my degree is in math and physics, not Reformational History (and it’s only a B.S at that - hardly making me an expert, lol)

I still don’t understand - did ML give a deadline for a response to his grievances?

From MY very limited knowledge, Luther’s 95 Theses were simply intended for acedemic discussion - but he suddenly found himself at the epicenter of a 10.0 earthquake. It was a role for which I’ve gathered he was ill prepared and didn’t handle very well. In any case, The Catholic Church went on the offensive. The process became totally in the control of the CC. Any “timelines” were its, not his. The demand was one of recanting and obedience on the part of Luther.

I think what often get’s “lost” in this discussion is that The Church claimed to be infallible in these issues (and thus incapable of being wrong, unaccountable in these matters) and it demanded absolute obedience to its control/lordship/authority and docility in regard to its teachings. It was not a situation “open” to reform. Any reform. By any one. At least not in matters of doctrine. From the Church’s perspective: Luther was simply wrong if he disgreed with the Church and it was intolerable for him to not be docilically obedient (probably strengthened because he was ordained and a university professor). IF Luther had INTENDED to be a Reformer, I think he could be criticized for not realizing the impossible mission of such, but I don’t think that was his intention. He wanted to discuss some issues with the students and profs of the university - and suddenly found himself in the center of a firestorm. He seemed willing to be so, however. I don’t think he did well in that role.

I think it also needs to be remembered that The Catholic Church had no need to “listen” to this “hero” of all that challenged it. It needed to silence him. IMHO, that he died a natural death is quite remarkable.

I think it should be remembered, too, that there were major political/civil/secular influences here. The Church and the Pope were MAJOR political players and powers, and there were those opposed to them (quite APART from any theological or moral issues). This was not JUST a theological issue - it was political, national, economic. Again, this monk (known only for his great abilities with biblical Hebrew and Greek) was wholly unprepared for such politics.

I would like to know why he broke the church apart - even if he was right - and didn’t work from within - even if it took centuries to change?

First of all, I don’t think he broke the church. I think Pope Leo broke his denomination. IMHO, the church was/is/ever will be one and holy and catholic; it was/is/ever will be the communion of saints, the mystical union of believers. The gates of hell CANNOT prevail against it, but that sure doesn’t keep congregations or denominations from splitting!

It should be remembered that Pope Leo excommunicated Luther. Being kicked out is not the same thing as leaving (it’s a separate issue whether you think he was right to do so). The Catholic Church was split in 451, 1054 and 1521 - and the Bishop of Rome played a major role each time. But the church is and ever will be one.

It seems to ME that yes, all this SHOULD have been handled very differently - on all sides. COULD have been done differently - given the mileau of The Catholic Church insisting that it alone is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable? That The Catholic Church insists on absolute obedience to its lordship and docility to its teachings? Given all the political interactions? I doubt it. THEORETICALLY, we - together - should have had a respectful, open discussion of all these issues, all within the prespective that wrong can exist (including in The Catholic Church and even its dogmas), all arbitrated by a true ecumenical council. But none of that was possible. Certainly not then and I sincerely and sadly think not today.

I hope that contributes SOMETHING.

Pax

• Josiah

.