Traditions

[Casilda]

My point is that there is a HUGE amount of division within the Lutheran branch of Protestantism:

AALC - American Association of Lutheran Churches
ACLC - Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches
AFLC - Association of Free Lutheran Congregations
ALCA - Apostolic Lutheran Church of America
ALCC - Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church
ARC - Alliance of Renewal Churches (charismatic/Pentecostal)
CALC - Canadian Association of Lutheran Congregations
CLA - Conservative Lutheran Association
CLBA - Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America
CLC - Church of the Lutheran Confession
CLC - Concordia Lutheran Conference
EELK - Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church
Eielsen Synod - Eielsen Synod
ELCA - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
ELCIC - Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
ELCM - Evangelical Lutheran Conference & Ministerium of North America
ELDoNA - Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America
ELF - Evangelical Lutheran Federation (disbanded 1998)[1]
ELS - Evangelical Lutheran Synod
FELC - Fellowship of Lutheran Churches
GCEPC - The Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church
ILC - Illinois Lutheran Conference[2]
ILD - Independent Lutheran Diocese[3]
ILF - International Lutheran Fellowship (now Lutheran Church-International)
LCC - Lutheran Church - Canada
LCCF - Lutheran Conference of Confessional Fellowship[4]
LCMC - Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ
LCMS - The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
LCR - Lutheran Churches of the Reformation
LCS - The Lutheran Confessional Synod
LELCA - Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
LLC - Laestadian Lutheran Church
LMS-USA - The Lutheran Ministerium and Synod - USA
MLC - Missionary Lutheran Church
NALC - North American Lutheran Church
OLCC - Orthodox Lutheran Confessional Conference
Protestant Conference - Protes'tant Conference
ULMA - United Lutheran Mission Association
WELS - Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod

And this just expounds your ignorance on the subject of Lutheran unity. In order to remain Lutheran in title they have to hold to the Book of Concord (Concordia). Many of those ‘divisions’ you listed are simply organizations within Lutheranism.

I could equally list Catholic titles of division by just interviewing one pew at one mass at one parish. They all hold to different views on Catholic teaching which would pale in comparison to Lutheran disunity. It’s just unofficial and gives a false sense of unity.

 

[PJH_74]

So what are you asking or suggesting? That Catholics abandon their faith and move along to a more generic brand of Protestantism simply because Catholicism is not as dominant in this world as it once was?

I think the Church – at the diocesan and parish level does an absolutely abysmal job in meeting the needs of millions of Catholics. Yes, we have the glorious God-given sacraments. But that’s due to God, not to us. What do WE do with God’s great gifts? Often times it’s little more than running several production-line Masses each Sunday so Catholics can get their tickets stamped.

It would be great if the Church could improve – it it would be more responsive to the faithful’s needs, but that’s not going to happen without God’s help. In the mean time, that’s also no reason to abandon the Church for a brand of Christianity that lacks the absolute fullness of the Christian faith.

I completely agree. I’m not implying one should leave their faith, only that we as a united front of Christians have a lot to offer.

That’s a false dichotomy – either the focus is on orthodoxy OR spreading the Good News and addressing levels of Church attendance. All three can be focused on simultaneously and there is considerable overlap with all three as well.

I agree with you there too. Maybe the way I wrote this implied an accusation, that’s on me if so. It was meant to be an open question for discussion…

It’s a fair statement. My point is that there is a HUGE amount of division within the Lutheran branch of Protestantism:

A good portion of that is a result of the immigrants that came over. A large percentage of them came from northern Europe where each country had their own national branch of Lutheran church. These separations remained due to language and social differences. Yes, there is a wide range of individual Lutheran denominations with a wide range of, especially, social beliefs. My point about the Catholic church is that there is a wide range of actual practice, contraception is a good example. Lutheran churches may fracture over differences but a decent number of Catholics silently resist some church doctrine.

 

[PJH_74]

And this just expounds your ignorance on the subject of Lutheran unity. In order to remain Lutheran in title they have to hold to the Book of Concord (Concordia). Many of those ‘divisions’ you listed are simply organizations within Lutheranism.

I could equally list Catholic titles of division by just interviewing one pew at one mass at one parish. They all hold to different views on Catholic teaching which would pale in comparison to Lutheran disunity. It’s just unofficial and gives a false sense of unity.

While I’ve been hopefully less confrontational, this is the gist of what I was saying. There are only 3 branches that really matter in the US in order of size.

ELCA
LCMS
WELS

 

[zab]

I completely agree. I’m not implying one should leave their faith, only that we as a united front of Christians have a lot to offer.

I agree with you there too. Maybe the way I wrote this implied an accusation, that’s on me if so. It was meant to be an open question for discussion…

A good portion of that is a result of the immigrants that came over. A large percentage of them came from northern Europe where each country had their own national branch of Lutheran church. These separations remained due to language and social differences. Yes, there is a wide range of individual Lutheran denominations with a wide range of, especially, social beliefs. My point about the Catholic church is that there is a wide range of actual practice, contraception is a good example. Lutheran churches may fracture over differences but a decent number of Catholics silently resist some church doctrine.

We also have immigrants of all nationalities here in the U.S. that have built churches that serve various cultural communities. While there may be some changes in customs, like the language spoken, perhaps in the way they dress…the guidelines for the liturgy apply to all and the teachings of the Church do not change from one cultural group to another. The Catholic Church has never approved the practice of artificial contraception for any Catholic no matter what country or social status… Catholics who use artificial contraception are not in line with Church teaching. However, Catholics may space their children by natural means by practicing abstinence in times of fertility.

 

[steido01]

So what are you asking or suggesting? That Catholics abandon their faith and move along to a more generic brand of Protestantism simply because Catholicism is not as dominant in this world as it once was?

Friend, you’re awfully combative to a poster who is clearly questioning. If you continue to hit her over the head with a rock, she’ll surely follow her husband into Lutheranism (not that folks on my side of the Tiber would necessarily complain), or worse – become so turned off to Christianity that she leaves the faith altogether. I’d encourage you to put a better construction on her words, and not see the devil in the faintest shadow.

Sure you do. You are implying that if one is concerned about being an orthodox Catholic Christian, that necessarily takes away from another aspect of their faith and that’s simply nonsense. Just take a look at what you posted:

“When does this (focusing on orthodoxy) boarder on pharisaical (sic) observation as opposed to spreading the good news and addressing levels of church attendance? I observe often what appears to be disdain towards “born again” christians and the like.”

That’s a false dichotomy – either the focus is on orthodoxy OR spreading the Good News and addressing levels of Church attendance. All three can be focused on simultaneously and there is considerable overlap with all three as well.

Now you’re just plain misrepresenting what she’s said. Surely, you understand that these three things can also be taken to excess, and to the detriment of the other two. I believe the poster was merely asking at what point we lose the conversation with culture and out own brothers and sisters when we become legalistic (or conversely, antinomian). It’s a legitimate question that both Benedict XVI and Francis worked to combat. Frankly, it affects all catholic Christians, not just Roman Catholics.

All that said, we must continue to stress the importance of orthodoxy without legalism and gospel without antinomianism. Orthodoxy begets orthopraxis, which begets orthodoxy, which… you know.

It’s a fair statement. My point is that there is a HUGE amount of division within the Lutheran branch of Protestantism:

No, it merely shows you stoop to polemics to win arguments instead of seeking understanding to win souls.

Please accept some brotherly correction:

Firstly, “Protestantism” isn’t some monolithic church that splintered out into various factions. Not only is that bad polemics, it’s plainly poor history. The Lutheran Reformation was separate from the Zwinglian Reformation, which was separate from the Anglican Reformation, which was separate from the Counter Reformation, and so on. Sometimes these groups opposed each other bitterly (Lutherans and Zwinglians on the Lord’s Supper, for example), and sometimes they worked together. Lutherans and Catholics even joined forced to combat the Anabaptist Reformation. History is more complex than 3rd Grade History Class would have the wee students think.

Secondly, Lutheranism is not some big church that splintered either. It’s a movement - a way to “do” theology. Some state churches in Europe became Lutheran, while others did not. Some free churches (not run by the State) became Lutheran when the State churches became Reformed or stayed Roman Catholic. History is complex.

Thirdly, the “List” you so expertly copied and pasted (from Wikipedia?) merely shows the human associations various Lutheran churches (and quasi-Lutheran bodies) have. Many of these groups are in fellowship with one another through inter-Lutheran bodies like the ILC, CLC, or LWF, not dissimilar to how there are many sui juris Churches in Communion with Rome. Some are truly Lutheran, while others merely cling to the name to glean some sort of historical authenticity, despite not adhering to the Lutheran Confessions in any meaningful sense.

Finally, consider the ol’ plank and speck. What is Rome to Eastern Orthodoxy? What about the Copts? What is Utrecht? What are the “American” Catholics? What are “Traditional” Catholics? “Liberal” Catholics? The SSPX? The PNCC? These, and all “Protestant” groups, are lamentable divisions within the church catholic. Your list merely proves that every denomination is filled with sinful people, not that one denomination holds some place of virtue over the others.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I suppose enough has been said here to the OP.

To any overly scrupulous posters reading this - please stop throwing yourself in hell. Falling from grace isn’t like losing your car keys. You know it when it happens.

Just confess your sins to the Lord in your heart…then go to confession and do it sacramentally as you normally do. Jesus wants you in heaven, he isn’t sitting up there waiting for you to fall.

Really, if you suffer with anxiety then you are likely overly scrupulous. Treat the anxiety and you knock out both problems

 

[steido01]

No, and the Lutherans were instrumental in casting aside five of the seven.

Point of clarification that is relevant to the OP’s religious status, and to make sure we aren’t spreading untruths about Lutherans.

Lutherans do observe all the rites and practices that Roman Catholics call sacraments; none have been “cast off.” It is correct that (most) Lutherans consider two or three of these good rites of the church to be sacraments, but this is not because they’ve jettisoned the others. It’s because the forgiveness of sins is not directly received through, say, marriage or ordination as it so clearly is through Baptism, Holy Communion, or Holy Absolution. The disagreement between Lutheran and Roman Catholic on what constitutes a sacrament is really more of definition than substance.

The Lutheran Confessions even state that they don’t care how folks number the Sacraments, only that they use them properly. From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, which is a foundational document of Lutheranism:

If we call Sacraments “rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added,” it is easy to decide what are properly Sacraments. For rites instituted by men will not in this way be Sacraments properly so called. For it does not belong to human authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without God’s command are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps instruct the rude [children or the uncultivated], or admonish as to something [as a painted cross]. Therefore Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God’s command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament.

…Confirmation and Extreme Unction are rites received from the Fathers which not even the Church requires as necessary to salvation, because they do not have God’s command. Therefore it is not useless to distinguish these rites from the former, which have God’s express command and a clear promise of grace.

…if among the Sacraments all things ought to be numbered which have God’s command, and to which promises have been added, why do we not add prayer, which most truly can be called a sacrament? For it has both God’s command and very many promises; and if placed among the Sacraments, as though in a more eminent place, it would invite men to pray. Alms could also be reckoned here, and likewise afflictions, which are, even themselves signs, to which God has added promises. But let us omit these things. For no prudent man will strive greatly concerning the number or the term, if only those objects still be retained which have God’s command and promises.

 

[Solomonson]

And this just expounds your ignorance on the subject of Lutheran unity. In order to remain Lutheran in title they have to hold to the Book of Concord (Concordia). Many of those ‘divisions’ you listed are simply organizations within Lutheranism.

I could equally list Catholic titles of division by just interviewing one pew at one mass at one parish. They all hold to different views on Catholic teaching which would pale in comparison to Lutheran disunity. It’s just unofficial and gives a false sense of unity.

You’re wrong – and you’re rude. The strong disunity within Lutheranism is just terrible. Much like other mainline branches of Protestantism.

 

[Solomonson]

Point of clarification that is relevant to the OP’s religious status, and to make sure we aren’t spreading untruths about Lutherans.

Lutherans do observe all the rites and practices that Roman Catholics call sacraments; none have been “cast off.”

Your use of “Roman Catholics” is deeply offensive in itself. Plenty of Eastern Catholics who are part of the Catholic Church who are in no way “Roman Catholic.”

I suppose thought that you cling to the belief that there are “lutheran catholics” and this keeps you from calling Catholics what they are – Catholic Christians?

 

[zab]

So what are you asking or suggesting?

I just wanted to say that you are not the only one who is confused by the OP’s statement and question. Frankly, I don’t understand what is being said. I didn’t understand her question that was originally posted in on the Liturgy and Sacraments Forum. It came off as unjust and insulting. So I can understand why someone would react to the OP’s question in the manner in which you have. Defending the faith, and standing up to unjust criticism does not mean one is showing disdain “towards “born again” Christians and the like.”

As far as I’m concerned, this discussion is over, cause I don’t understand the question to begin with.

 

[steido01]

Your use of “Roman Catholics” is deeply offensive in itself. Plenty of Eastern Catholics who are part of the Catholic Church who are in no way “Roman Catholic.”

Don’t know what country you’re from, but 'round these parts in America, that’s what they call themselves. Including my Roman Catholic wife. Settle down. You’re seeking offense where there is none given. My Leftist professors liked to fancy themselves the martyrs back in college; I don’t generally expect that sort of thing from solid Catholics. (Plenty of folks use “Roman Catholic” and “Catholic” interchangeably. No offense ever meant or taken there, either.)

I suppose thought that you cling to the belief that there are “lutheran catholics” and this keeps you from calling Catholics what they are – Catholic Christians?

Roman Catholics are Christians. They are Catholic Christians. I also happen to believe that (Confessional) Lutherans also happen to be catholic Christians. Some might even argue Catholic Christians, including a favorite German Cardinal of mine you may have heard of.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Your use of “Roman Catholics” is deeply offensive in itself. Plenty of Eastern Catholics who are part of the Catholic Church who are in no way “Roman Catholic.”

I suppose thought that you cling to the belief that there are “lutheran catholics” and this keeps you from calling Catholics what they are – Catholic Christians?

I am Roman Catholic. I am not Maronite Catholic nor am I Melkite Catholic.

There is nothing offensive about the title that was used…at all.

There is much, however, that is offensive about the way in which you are conducting yourself.

 

[PJH_74]

Well, it looks like I stirred up a hornet’s nest. Maybe I’ll find a better way to have this discussion at some point in the future,. Sorry for any hurt feelings on my part.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Well, it looks like I stirred up a hornet’s nest. Maybe I’ll find a better way to have this discussion at some point in the future,. Sorry for any hurt feelings on my part.

I have found nothing at all in your posts for which you need apologise, in the least.

I find your posts to be quite thoughtful…like someone who has knowledge of the body of documents from Unitatis Redintegratio to From Conflict to Communion, and the aftermath of the latter’s publication. That is, sadly, not true of all Catholics who frequent this forum.

In any event…a most Happy and Blessed Easter to you and to your spouse.

 

[babochka]

Your use of “Roman Catholics” is deeply offensive in itself. Plenty of Eastern Catholics who are part of the Catholic Church who are in no way “Roman Catholic.”

I suppose thought that you cling to the belief that there are “lutheran catholics” and this keeps you from calling Catholics what they are – Catholic Christians?

I must say, as a non-Roman Catholic, that I am not the slightest bit offended (let alone deeply offended) when someone calls me a Roman Catholic. That person would be incorrect and I might make an explanation if it seemed helpful and appropriate, but I would never be offended by such a thing.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I am Roman Catholic. I am not Maronite Catholic nor am I Melkite Catholic.

There is nothing offensive about the title that was used…at all.

There is much, however, that is offensive about the way in which you are conducting yourself.

Me too, Roman Catholic all the way, as is every member of my Diocese which covers half my state almost, and being Australia, that’s quite large. Then if we move to the capital city, Its Diocese, also Roman Catholic

Pray for the intentions of Pope Francis.

 

[Tomyris]

I want to start off this post saying I have no intention to lambast the faith of and the way people express it. Mind you I grew up Catholic in a very Catholic family and a decent majority of cousins still go to church in some denomination or another. I have 8 years of Catholic schooling and my family counted a number of Priests as virtual members of the family.

I go to a Catholic church on occasion, but my spouse being a Lutheran Pastor, I generally go to a Lutheran Church. My prime prime motivation is that we go to church together. I’ve seen plenty of families that weren’t united in their faith (or lack of) expressions that results in the child never going to church as an adult. The Lutheran service is very similar to the Catholic and, most importantly, there is a belief in the presence of Jesus in the host. (I DO understand the difference with transubstantiation) Catholic legalism is also a big turnoff to me and I generally identify with the Franciscan approach to the Catholic faith.

So that said, I observe what appears to be an extensive worry about what is a strictly orthodox and what is not. A very recent post is a good example (again I’m not here to make fun of the person who posted it) which was asking if the caloric value of tea was enough to break a fast. Tea has a caloric value of 2. Another fretted over whether getting a item for a lower price due to a mismarked price, and customer service saying it was no problem, was a sin… There worry about discussing faith with non-Catholics and so on. To my mind these people quite faithfully observed their obligations, are very honest people, and take their allegiance to the church seriously.

But here’s the question I have. When does this boarder on pharisaical observation as opposed to spreading the good news and addressing levels of church attendance? I observe often what appears to be disdain towards “born again” christians and the like. One may have their issues about this person not being Catholic, but is isn’t there rejoicing in the fact that this person has come to Christ?

I like your question, which does not seem to have been addressed, except in terms of scrupulosity.

Jesus addressed it, as you say, in addressing the Pharisees and the fine distinctions they made between things. His answer seems to be it is of the heart, yet He also is the one who said no jot or tittle would be removed from the Law. I think there is always a struggle between grace and legalism. Let grace win. Paul addressed this in the book of Galatians. We are always trying to reinvent the law.

We tithe. We round up to give God more than exactly 10.0000000000000%. I try to love my neighbors even though they are, well, people I know, and since they know me, they sort of love me, but not particularly enthusiastically. If I give them eleven cookies for Christmas instead of the full dozen, am I no longer loving them? Maybe I should have baked a cake instead? Two cakes? A dozen cakes, and had a pizza delivered and parked a new Rolls Royce in their driveway to show my love for them? We can go nuts with legalism, which is close, I think, to scrupulosity but not exactly the same thing. Scrupulosity is going over the line, legalism is drawing lines where none should be drawn. Remember the Sabbath and do not turn any lights on or off, because that is work, but lighting a candle is not work. Do not drive on the Sabbath because that is work, so walk five miles to church instead, because that is not work, but walking six miles is, so if you forget your umbrella halfway to church and go home and get it, you better stay at church until Monday.

I am rambling but there is a point in there somewhere, if you can find it. I hope so, anyway. There is a reason Paul began so many letters with ‘grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.’ I think he thought it was important, and so should we.

Edit

I just read your question and I realized that I didn’t answer it. I think we should rejoice when anyone goes to heaven or changes their thoughts or actions to make that more likely. And Catholics would prefer someone would go to heaven as a Baptist than go to hell as a Catholic.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Me too, Roman Catholic all the way, as is every member of my Diocese which covers half my state almost, and being Australia, that’s quite large. Then if we move to the capital city, Its Diocese, also Roman Catholic

Pray for the intentions of Pope Francis.

I find it a bit offensive only because I know the history of it. Anti-Catholics started with that to try and marginalize Catholics.

When Matt Slick says it, it is offensive.

However, the folks on this forum do not appear to be combative or with bad intention. So on this sort of venue, it is not bothersome.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I find it a bit offensive only because I know the history of it. Anti-Catholics started with that to try and marginalize Catholics.

When Matt Slick says it, it is offensive.

However, the folks on this forum do not appear to be combative or with bad intention. So on this sort of venue, it is not bothersome.

It is definately not offensive in my country. It is just a label that describes a group, a belonging to the same , type group. Like vegetarian , or Collingwood supporter, or yachtsman.

I have no idea who Matt slick is but if I had a dollar, as they say, for everyone who told me that Catholics were a bunch of Paedophiles, well , I would have lots of cash to splash on charity!

And I do live in a Case 50 Diocese.

 

[PJH_74]

I thank all of the most recent respondents, this is much more of I was looking for. I like this site for the number people of here that will take topics more thoughtfully serious. There are of course some more aggressive members and some I’m worried about how they regard their fellow man; but that’s not the majority of course.

To some points brought up. I did indeed feel the attacks of some Protestant groups, especially in college, but that is a very vocal minority.

For my part I’ve generally looked at myself as an Ecumenical realist, that will upset some conservative friends of course. We live a few miles from one of the larger and more influential mega churches. I’ve been there a couple times to see what they are about. They seem to be reasonably Ecumenical in their views and behavior. The service isn’t really that deep; one associate pastor giving a flashy and acted out sermon; some sort of inspirational talk usually by a famous person; invitations to come to know Christ; and so on.

Is this sort of Mega church experience one that really resonates with Catholics, Orthodox, and Mainline Protestants? Not really, but the reality is Christianity is already or will soon not be a default cultural experience in this country. There are plenty of unchurched people out there for whom the highly symbolic, deeper experience, and extensive theology of these churches, is confusing and foreign. This divide can’t easily be crossed with drums and electric guitars in the long established denominations.

There is plenty disdain for the apparent superficially of some of these mega churches. I have no doubt however that there are some members with very deep faiths attending or often instrumental in the running of these churches. The mega church next us I’m near certain has a core group of people that are really the "members’; something akin to being confirmed. I look at this type of church as the most effective source, if not the experts, in getting Christians in the door and baptized. One most also not forget that a reasonable number will become core members of these churches or even migrate over to the more established churches.

I see that we must have some humility in people not “joining” our group. People will join a church that speaks to them. Yes you may have reservations about this and not view their choice of church the fully correct way; but Christians they still are and that is a great thing.