What religion or denomination would Martin Luther belong to if he were alive today?

[Jimmy_B]

Pay no attention to Jimmy. He makes up some of the facts himself as he goes along.

Luther’s pints are cold, Jimmy. Galileo is even tending the bar, I hear…

Lighten up, man, and take a pill. Or two.

Ok…but you three here, are still wrong about Luther…

 

[Peter_J]

You don’t really believe that do you? Of course the RCC changed because of Luther.

I agree, but I still think Luther was wrong. (Well, technically I should say “wrong about some things”. Obviously I don’t believe he was wrong on everything.)

The idea that the reformation didn’t produce the counter-reformation is simply revisionist history at its worse; but I guess it is a hard fact to swallow since it is logically fatal to infallibility.

Not if you’re talking about infallibility as defined by Vatican I.

 

[Peter_J]

I think he’d be Anglican, Lutheran, or heck maybe even Orthodox. He certainly wouldn’t be baptist, presbyterian and the rest of the folks who feel the Eucharist is merely a symbol or spiritual presence.

I agree (although, of course, if you asked baptists, presbyterians, and the rest of the folks who feel the Eucharist is merely a symbol or spiritual presence, I’m sure they’d say “Luther certainly wouldn’t be Catholic, Anglican, or Orthodox”). In particular, I think Orthodoxy would be much more of an option if he were alive today than it was back in the 16th century.

 

[reen12]

Question:
What religion or denomination would Martin Luther belong to if he were alive today?

It wouldn’t matter. He’d be too elderly to make it to church. http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

1483 - ?

reen12

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No truer words have ever been spoken. My hunch is that Luther and John Paul II are having a pint and thankful that such schist is not present at the Heavenly Banquet.

Good Lord, deliver us.

JP2 said that excommunication ended at death; that remark was prompted by, of all things, something to do with Luther - I forget exactly what.​

I think you’re right - why oh why oh why do we have to revisit the controversies of the past ? Let the dead past bury its dead. It’s not as though our getting upset over the 16th or any other century can change it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It must be understood that Catholics, Lutherans, EO, and conservative Anglicans who hold to the Real Presence do not believe we are consuming Christ carnally. We are eating His flesh and blood sacramentally. He is truly physical present, but not like eating a steak.

We simply take the words “this is my body” as they are…we are partaking of the real flesh and blood of the risen Savior.

Well said Very well said ​

Part of the trouble is with that word “physical[ly]”.

The physis of a thing is its nature. The Lord is present in a manner which agrees with the nature both of this particular Sacrament & of His own Glorified Body in Heaven; but He is not present “physically”, **if **by this is meant that He is present in a “gross & carnal” manner. He Himself is not affected by what is done to the Host or the Precious Blood: they are the sacramental signs of His Presence; but they are not Him - they are His Body and Blood, made present in the manner of a sacrament, under the appearances of bread and wine. The Person of Christ in His Two Natures is not interchangeable with His Presence as our Eucharistic Food: over-simplification in discussing such matters is not good.

A “gross & carnal” Presence would (to quote one of the 39 Articles of the Church of England) “overthrow the nature of a sacrament”’; & it would fail to respect the fact that this Presence is sacramental, true, real, & (most significantly of all) substantial.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Where did Paul describe the Supper as a “real spiritual presence?” In fact, his language in 1 Cor. is completely material.

I didn’t mean to imply this against the 5 points per se. Though I honestly do not see how comfort can be taken in not having an objective way to know whether Christ died for you. But I do share much agreement with the five points. What I was referring to is Calvin’s Christology.

Yes it is. Using pagan Greek philosophy to boot!

I like the Belgic Confession, as Reformed Confessions go. I was comparing the view expressed in that to the Baptist position on the sacrament.

That we receive the true body and true blood of the Lord in the Supper; we receive it by mouth, physically. We receive the benefits it offers through faith in what is promised in the sacrament.

If Scriptural accuracy is taken out of the equation, sure

On the other hand, that pagan fellow Paul of Tarsus not only came from a city where Isis was worshipped, but in Acts 17 he quotes a Stoic at the Athenians: either Cleanthes or Aratus (or Aratus quoting Cleanthes). ​

If he could do that, is it wrong in principle to draw on Aristotelian categories for Eucharistic theology ? Or is the problem that the categories are misapplied, Aristotle being permissible in principle ? Or are other philosophers allowed, except for Aristotle ? Or is Aristotle allowed, except in Eucharistic theology ?

The Aristotelian terminology is used simply because it expresses aptly what the Church believes. Aristotelianism as such has not been canonised - it is very helpful at helping to express what the Latin Church is trying to say; not in all respects, but in this respect.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well said Very well said ​

Part of the trouble is with that word “physical[ly]”.

The physis of a thing is its nature. The Lord is present in a manner which agrees with the nature both of this particular Sacrament & of His own Glorified Body in Heaven; but He is not present “physically”, **if **by this is meant that He is present in a “gross & carnal” manner. He Himself is not affected by what is done to the Host or the Precious Blood: they are the sacramental signs of His Presence; but they are not Him - they are His Body and Blood, made present in the manner of a sacrament, under the appearances of bread and wine. The Person of Christ in His Two Natures is not interchangeable with His Presence as our Eucharistic Food: over-simplification in discussing such matters is not good.

A “gross & carnal” Presence would (to quote one of the 39 Articles of the Church of England) “overthrow the nature of a sacrament”’; & it would fail to respect the fact that this Presence is sacramental, true, real, & (most significantly of all) substantial.

Very true Gottle. I think the term “physically” is used in opposition to the Reformed teaching of a “spiritual” presence in Holy Communion. It demarcates the differences and dividing lines. Reformed teaching states that Christ is received spiritually only, and He is only received by those who have faith. Whereas the Lutheran/Catholic/EO view states we receive Him by mouth regardless of whether we have faith or not. Only those who have faith, however, will receive the promises of the sacrament.

 

[TriuneUnity]

On the other hand, that pagan fellow Paul of Tarsus not only came from a city where Isis was worshipped, but in Acts 17 he quotes a Stoic at the Athenians: either Cleanthes or Aratus (or Aratus quoting Cleanthes). ​

If he could do that, is it wrong in principle to draw on Aristotelian categories for Eucharistic theology ? Or is the problem that the categories are misapplied, Aristotle being permissible in principle ? Or are other philosophers allowed, except for Aristotle ? Or is Aristotle allowed, except in Eucharistic theology ?

It is wrong simply because we cannot define it and anything other than stating what the Bible clearly teaches about it is, at best, a guesstimate. You’re correct that Paul quotes a pagan poet in Acts 17; but he doesn’t use it to dogmatically define a teaching of the Church. As Tertullian once said, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”

The Aristotelian terminology is used simply because it expresses aptly what the Church believes. Aristotelianism as such has not been canonised - it is very helpful at helping to express what the Latin Church is trying to say; not in all respects, but in this respect.

If the Church wants to state that the bread changes into the Body and Blood, on a speculative level, that would be fine (though, I believe, incorrect). Aristotelianism has not been canonized only if you do not consider an ecumenical council “infallibly” defining transubstantiation at the IV Lateran Council to not be an affirmation that Aristotle’s philosophy on substance and accidens is not only theoretically true, but in fact, revealed by apostolic teaching to be true.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Ok…but you three here, are still wrong about Luther…

And the Catholic Church admitted it was wrong about Galileo, I believe.

 

[Peter_J]

The Aristotelian terminology is used simply because it expresses aptly what the Church believes. Aristotelianism as such has not been canonised - it is very helpful at helping to express what the Latin Church is trying to say; not in all respects, but in this respect.

Perhaps not Aristotelianism as such, but I think scholasticism has at times been treated as having been canonized.

An analogy might be made with the Latin language: time was that translations of the bible and the creed were done not as translations from the original text into the various languages, but rather as translations from the Latin text. Fortunately now the Catholic Church allows translators to translate from the original – at least in the case of the bible (I’m not sure whether this is the case with the creed).

Similarly, for a long time (and to some extent today) scholasticism was treated as the official “language” of the Church, so that non-scholastic expressions of the faith – for example, Eastern Catholic expressions – were seen as translations of scholastic expressions.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Good, solid post, Peter. Scholasticism has been “in vogue” at certain times in Western history. I am glad we have allowed ourselves the balance of Eastern embrace of mystery in many things doctrinal and theological, particularly in matters sacramental.

O+

 

[Jimmy_B]

And the Catholic Church admitted it was wrong about Galileo, I believe.

King Henry VIII

 

[SIA]

King Henry VIII

as you can see, Catholics get an attitude when they are wrong.

 

[Peter_J]

as you can see, Catholics get an attitude when they are wrong.

Who doesn’t?

 

[SIA]

Who doesn’t?

exactly my point.

 

[Peter_J]

exactly my point.

Oh. I thought it was a criticism of Catholics.

 

[Jimmy_B]

You’re right. Luther didn’t intend to leave the Church…but he did. He thought he was more Catholic than the Pope. Luther had severe problems with obedience, and I am justified in saying that. The man was a heretic. This may not be politically correct or nice, but it is the truth.

 

[SIA]

No, because Luther didn’t actually found the Lutheran religion and today there exist many “Lutheran” denominations.

Thank you for your post.

There are three.

 

[Peter_J]

There are three.

Well there’s the Luther World Federation (LWF) and the more conservative Internation Lutheran Council (ILC). But each of those is made up of dozens of small Lutheran denominations (at least according to the standard usage of the word “denominations”). Plus there are some Lutheran denominations that belong to neither the LWF or the ILC. So I have to disagree with your claim that there are just 3.