J
jinc1019
Guest
Thanks to everyone for all of the great posts, I greatly appreciate it!
- Status
B
bitznbitez
Guest
The reason for this distinction is somewhat historic too. The LCMS had its origins in German in the early middle 1800s when Martin Stephan, son of a Lutheran pastor, rediscovered the writings of Martin Luther and became convinced the rest of the Lutheran churches were not doing it correctly. This had the usual outcome of him collecting followers, trying to effect local change, being opposed, eventually deciding to set sail for America, which they did winding up in Missouri in 1840s, if memory is not off.
The point being that they left Germany and arrived here with the impression that the rest of Lutherans were wrong. Yet at the same time still sharing the same culture and background. So its always been a bit of an internal cultural family struggle, we are cousins we just think he’s the odd cousin sort of thing.
The LCMS ever since has never joined with any of the other US Lutheran faiths though the Slovaks finally did recently I think. The rest of the Lutherans have always viewed each other more openly and teamed up and split up along the way based on this or that issue.
The LCMS was going down the higher criticism route that led the rest of the Lutheran bodies to their liberal direction when back in the 70s a seminary / clergy purge took off after the more conservative body won a slim majority. This is called the Seminex controversy and it is the key reason the LCMS has remained conservative.
Working my way through the thread.
Close communion, like closed communion, limits those who may receive at our altars. The difference is that the local pastor has some leeway.
When I first moved to NC, the community where we now live having no ELCA parish, we visited our current LCMS parish. We approached the pastor asling permission to commune. After some conversation about our beliefs, the pastor chose to allow us to commune, even though our membership had been ELCA. That’s close communion.
Jon
This is the role of sola scriptura. all teachers, teachings, doctrine and dogma are subject to and held accountable to scripture. So, sola scriptura does not exclude or eliminate Tradition, but holds it secondary and accountable to scripture.
Therefore, Lutherans essentially accept the teachings of the early 7 councils because they and the creeds reflect the truth of scripture.
It seems to me the ancient creeds are about salvation. The Athanasian Creed is specific about this.
Jon
Yes and no. Governance and operation, the LCMS is (too, in my view) congregational. On the other hand, to remain in the LCMS, parishes must hold to the synodical acceptance of the Lutheran Confessions regarding doctrine. So we’re not so congregational that a pastor (who must be ordained in the LCMS) and a congregation cannot veer from the doctrine ofthe Church.
This is to a good degree true. My father once wrote an op-ed in The Lutheran that the LCA become ELCA was a coservative synod with a liberal leadership. Even 30 years ago he had an idea of where the synod was heading.
Jon
Meaning?
Source, please. No Lutheran synod that I know of teaches consubstantiation. It is virtually universally rejected by Lutheran theologians.
Yes and no. All Lutherans confess the three ancient creeds. They are the very first section of our Confessions.
The LCMS divine service is virtually identical to the ELCA service, and LCMS Lutherans, as most thinking Lutherans, understand ourselves to be catholic, though not in communion with Rome.
To their credit, they are more involved in ecumenism with Rome. Unfortunately, they also have communion hospitality agreements with other protestant communions that do not even confress the real presence.
I am not entirely convinced they would become Catholic, unless they could take their female clergy along.
I could accept Transubstantiation as part of reconciliation, also.
depends on what you mean by fundamentalist. I do not consider myself one.
I honestly know little about them.
The ALC (American Lutheran Church) is one of the predecessor bodies that formed the ELCA.
I’d like to see our pastor elevate that the elements at the consecration, and genuflect. Lutherans, I believe, need to see that, and remember that it is the true body and blood of Christ.I can add that for me, the ELCA was a first stepping stone to the Roman Catholic Church. We were married in one, as I was a member. When
the pastor that presided over our marriage ceremony lifted the consecrated elements and said “the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ”, I sure
believed it. That pastor converted to the Roman Catholic Church about two years after my husband and I did.
Jon
N
ndismyhome
Guest
I quickly read through this thread. As there are no other ELCA members commenting, I figured I should add my two cents. ELCA tends to be more “progressive”, “liberal”, “open”, “modern” etc. than the LCMS. Both denominations have congregations that practice the Divine Service formally. Two congregations in the Minneapolis -St. Paul area that are the most traditional (complete with smells and bells) are ELCA and LCMS. I know of several others that, for all intents and purposes, have Baptist or Non-Denominational services. The differences over liturgical practice are not so easy to delineate by denomination
As for theology, the ELCA tends to be looser in its treatment of the Confessions and Scripture. Higher Criticism was more or less rejected by the LCMS in the Seminex ordeal. The ELCA has embraced it fully (as did her predecessor bodies). Theologically, the ELCA is based in Schleirmachian Liberalism which comes out of the German and Scandanavian Union Church movement. The LCMS left Saxony precisely to avoid being merged with the Reformed in the area.
Politically, 20 years ago the ELCA and LCMS tended to be rather similar in their makeup. Most lay people were moderate to conservative. The ELCA and many of her predecessor bodies have had more “progressive” pastors since at least the middle of the 19th c., emblematic in the attempt of one Schmucker to rewrite the Augsburg Confession. At any rate, the LCMS, with their distrust of Reformed influences, have more or less resisted these influences. I digress. I do think that the present leadership of the ELCA has moved the membership in a more liberal political direction in the past 20 years, especially in urban areas.
I hope this helps.
As for theology, the ELCA tends to be looser in its treatment of the Confessions and Scripture. Higher Criticism was more or less rejected by the LCMS in the Seminex ordeal. The ELCA has embraced it fully (as did her predecessor bodies). Theologically, the ELCA is based in Schleirmachian Liberalism which comes out of the German and Scandanavian Union Church movement. The LCMS left Saxony precisely to avoid being merged with the Reformed in the area.
Politically, 20 years ago the ELCA and LCMS tended to be rather similar in their makeup. Most lay people were moderate to conservative. The ELCA and many of her predecessor bodies have had more “progressive” pastors since at least the middle of the 19th c., emblematic in the attempt of one Schmucker to rewrite the Augsburg Confession. At any rate, the LCMS, with their distrust of Reformed influences, have more or less resisted these influences. I digress. I do think that the present leadership of the ELCA has moved the membership in a more liberal political direction in the past 20 years, especially in urban areas.
I hope this helps.
I couldn’t disagree. It also needs to be noted that the confessions grant room for differences in traditions of worship, etc. I would suspect that the only limit on this is that the essential parts of the mass always be included - invocation, confession/ Absolution, the word, the creed, and (as the confessions promise), the sacrament.
Jon
H
hn160
Guest
When we moved to California, we were attending an ELCA church near our home, attending there for a couple of week, the dynamics of the congregration plus the upcoming vote on homosexuality, we decided to look for an LC-MS church or become Catholic. After looking over and visiting various LC-MS churches, all but one in our area have a praise band and a contemporary service either at the second service or every other Sunday. We decided to join our current church which has two liturgical services on Sunday. After a discussion with the pastor on our beliefs, he decided to commune us before we became members. In our case he waved the twelve week member class that he requires. Back East, at our former church, the pastor only requires a two hour class to become a new member.
The twelve week class ( three hours each week ) new member class is open to current members, we have taken it twice as have others. There is always something to learn.
We were actually accepted into our parish via transfer of membership, but I think it is a good idea to have new-member classes (catechesis) for current members. In fact, I’ve been trying to get my pastor to regularly hold Confession study classes.
Jon
H
hn160
Guest
What is sad about the ELCA, is that the great Lutheran theologian Charles Portorfield Krauth who wrote the book The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology and other works came from roots ( ELA ) of the ELCA. He said that error comes into the church in three stages and he is right.
J
jinc1019
Guest
All very interesting stuff. I assure you I am reading through it all, but since I know very little about this, I don’t feel compelled to add anything to the discussion. This has been rather enlightening though, because, as I am sure you know, on paper (which is to say OFFICIALLY), both churches claim to be very similar with a few exceptions (albeit a few big ones). But in reality, it seems they are much different.
Well, if one looks at the Reformation and its major dispute - justification - Lutherans of all stripes are on the same page. This is also the case with the sacraments. My problem with the ELCA is that, as is typical with liberals, they feel that doctrine and practice ought to bend to the current whim of the times. Women in the clergy, open and practicing gay in the clergy, and open communion.
There are and have previously been numerous ELCA members on this board, and I have found rare disagreement with them, except in the areas I mentioned. Pastor Gary (gcnuss) I would have as my pastor anytime.
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Jon-
There are liberal Catholics, also, but at the end of the day, one is either in communion with the Holy Father or not. If push came to shove, I suspect many “Catholics” would leave rather than accept the full teaching of the Church. Our dissidents remain among us.
In the case of most Protestant denominations, once the reason for disagreement gets heated enough, a group leaves and forms a new denomination. It is this lack of central authority with which one is either in communion or not that causes the problems, does it not?
It can’t be denied. My source of frustration in Lutheranism is the notion that we can change doctrines by election at, say, a churchwide assembly. But in the end, there is lttile differences between what you say in paragraph one and paragraph two in regards to the laity, it seems to me. In fact, with all due respect, perhaps the second scenario - that Lutheran synods sometimes are not in communion over issues, is a more realistic, and yes, more honest response than simply staying in a communion, receiving the sacraments, when one is dissident. See what I mean?
Randy, are they really among you? Or just in your midsts?
Jon
Randy,
Just another thought on the idea that dissidents remain among you. Surveys show that a large number of American Catholics believe that the Eucharist is symbolic of Christ’s body and blood, for whatever reason. I, OTOH, believe that the Eucharist is the true and substantial body and blood of Christ.
While I know that sharing the altar requires more than an agreement on one point of doctrine, one this one issue alone, who would you be more comfortable sharing the sacrament with; someone, even a Lutheran, who discerns the real and substantial body and blood of Christ, or a Catholic who does not?
Yes, I know, hypothetical.
Jon
B
benjohnson
Guest
The ability for Lutherans to split is both a curse and a blessing. For example - here in Seattle, it was almost impossible for a Catholic to find a parish that taught and practiced authentic Catholicism in the 1970’s and 80’s and early 90’s.
In contrast, at the same time, all the normal Lutherans gravitated to particular churches and left the -]nuts/-] others to themselves to wallow in their liturgical dances, modalism and psudo-social-justice.
That said, we Lutherans always need to pray for our leadership or we will be lost. We should pray over and over, for while our fluidity may sometimes have benefits, it can leave us rudderless.
In contrast, at the same time, all the normal Lutherans gravitated to particular churches and left the -]nuts/-] others to themselves to wallow in their liturgical dances, modalism and psudo-social-justice.
That said, we Lutherans always need to pray for our leadership or we will be lost. We should pray over and over, for while our fluidity may sometimes have benefits, it can leave us rudderless.
B
benjohnson
Guest
I know some very very conservative Catholics in western France who were overjoyed to have a somewhat aware Lutheran in their church. Frankly, I was overwhelmed at their reception and I cherish the memory fondly.
P
pablope
Guest
Could you let us know the wha the three stages are? I think everyone on here would be interested to learn what these are…
N
nitesnake
Guest
That’s not very likely. A Lutheran who “discerns the real and substantial body and blood of Christ,” would not be a Lutheran for long. They would become Catholic.
- Status