Why do lutherans call themselves evangelical catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 7_Sorrows
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
To petition Rome includes an implication that validity is dependent on Rome’s say so. With due respect, that’s not the way Lutherans typically view the issue. Having Rome’s recognition of our orders would be welcome, but not necessary.

Jon
Click to expand...
Know how you feel.

GKC
 
JonNC said:
To petition Rome includes an implication that validity is dependent on Rome’s say so. With due respect, that’s not the way Lutherans typically view the issue. Having Rome’s recognition of our orders would be welcome, but not necessary.

Jon
Click to expand...
I wonder about this. Paul was very clear that he knew his Gospel was valid, and came from the Lord, but he sought out the Peter to ascertain that he had not “run in vain”. He was equally clear that his visit did not change anything that he preached. Yet he felt this was necessary.
 
GKC said:
Know how you feel.

GKC
Click to expand...
Good to see you here. Spoken like a classic high churchman: “We know our orders are valid; Cranmer’s and Hooker’s reformed Catholic doctrine makes us the best branch of the church.”

For most but not all of Anglicans’ history, apostolic-claim bishops have been treated as essential, a foundation stone for their claim to Catholicity besides the creeds and references to the church fathers.

The Lutherans, left and right, are different: they think apostolic succession is at best nice to have but not necessary, a reaction to corrupt churchmen in Luther’s time (as is their belief that a pastor without a “call” isn’t a pastor).

At heart they are still an ad-hoc group of reformist Catholics pushed out. Some like Fr. Richard John Neuhaus have found their way back, through Lutheranism itself. Our close cousins.

Interestingly the high-church confessional (conservative) Lutherans resemble classic Anglicans in that they are not Catholic wannabes, even when they look like us liturgically (Luther kept and defended using the crucifix and crossing yourself; confessional Lutherans still defend them); they think they’re the true church (keep the Word and sacraments pure) and don’t like us.
 
Novocastrian said:
You’re wrong to conflate Luther and Lutherans. Luther may have been the catalyst in the German and Scandinavian reformations, but he isn’t the arbiter of ‘Lutheran’ doctrine;
Click to expand...
This seems to be the best reason to call oneself by another name!
 
The_young_fogey said:
Interestingly the high-church confessional (conservative) Lutherans resemble classic Anglicans in that they are not Catholic wannabes, even when they look like us liturgically (Luther kept and defended using the crucifix and crossing yourself; confessional Lutherans still defend them); they think they’re the true church (keep the Word and sacraments pure) and don’t like us.
Click to expand...
Why don’t lutherans like anglicans or episcopalians or did I misunderstand who you were referring to?
 
7_Sorrows said:
Why don’t lutherans like anglicans or episcopalians or did I misunderstand who you were referring to?
Click to expand...
“Us” = I’m a Catholic. Confessional Lutherans don’t like the Catholic Church. I don’t think they buy a branch theory either; they think we’re in grave error.

Historically Lutherans and Anglicans have often been close, interchangeable in practice, but the Lutherans have suspected the Anglicans of being too Protestant (Reformed).
 
The_young_fogey said:
“Us” = I’m a Catholic. Confessional Lutherans don’t like the Catholic Church. I don’t think they buy a branch theory either; they think we’re in grave error.

Historically Lutherans and Anglicans have often been close, interchangeable in practice, but the Lutherans have suspected the Anglicans of being too Protestant (Reformed).
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification.

I have never viewed anglicanism as too protestant reformed but I have. never been lutheran so I can’t say.
 
The_young_fogey said:
“Us” = I’m a Catholic. Confessional Lutherans don’t like the Catholic Church. I don’t think they buy a branch theory either; they think we’re in grave error.

Historically Lutherans and Anglicans have often been close, interchangeable in practice, but the Lutherans have suspected the Anglicans of being too Protestant (Reformed).
Click to expand...
Nice to have your (name removed by moderator)ut, the young fogey; welcome.

All Lutherans are “confessional” in that we, at the very least, consider the Augsburg Confession/ Luther’s Catechism as the interpretation of scripture and tradition. Lutherans historically have had an adversarial relationship with the Catholic Church; like divorced parents quarreling in front of the children. In north America, Lutherans have been influenced by Protestantism, wanting to fit in with other Christians and criticize Catholics. That doesn’t work too well when Lutherans realize that we are closer to Catholics than most other Protestant denominations except Anglican/ Episcopal.

Most Lutherans are in full communion with Anglicans.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
I thought Tor Singsaas was the archbishop of Norway since he is bishop of Nidaros which is an archdiocese. Without an archbishop/ presiding bishop, who supervises the bishops of the 11 dioceses in Norway? Am I correct that priests in Norway are paid by the national government? Are gender issues covered as a human right in Norway?
Click to expand...
Nidaros seized to be an archdiocese in 1537, when Olav Engelbrektsson was forced out. Tor Singsaas is the bishop of the diocese (not archdiocese) of Nidaros, while the presiding bishop is Helga Haugland Byfuglien (who doesn’t have the same amount of power as the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church or the Archbishop of Canterbury, to the extent they have any real power).
EvangelCatholic said:
My sense is that if an ELCA pastor voiced such beliefs regarding sacramental authority absence for females, that he/she would be disciplined. I understand in Sweden that dissent against female clergy is grounds for defrocking.
Click to expand...
Yes, but as I said, it is codified in our Church Law. The bishops have to agree to this. We are a national Church, the ELCA is not in the same sense. There is no established Church in the US. We see the same in England, which is also an established Church.

The Church of Sweden is a bit different, for many reasons, three of which are important here:


  1. *]Sweden have (as I’ve been told by some Swedish friends) an extremely conformist culture. They are pluralistic, sure, but not when it comes to ideas and cultural norms. Norway is much more pluralistic, and we also have a culture that doesn’t like confrontation.
    *]The Church of Sweden is no longer established in the same way as it is in Norway, Denmark, and England, and thus it doesn’t need to accommodate in the same way.
    *]The Church of Sweden has, since its disestablishment, somewhat ironically, become extremely politicised. The parish and diocesan councils are elected, and since the political parties of Sweden didn’t like that it became disestablished, they went into these councils. They were very open about it, and now you get, for instance, a person in a diocesan council who actively represents his or her political party. So someone can get elected to a parish or diocesan council as a representative of, say, the Swedish Social Democratic Party, the Moderate Party, or the Christian Democrats.
 
The_young_fogey said:
The Lutherans, left and right, are different: they think apostolic succession is at best nice to have but not necessary, a reaction to corrupt churchmen in Luther’s time (as is their belief that a pastor without a “call” isn’t a pastor).
Click to expand...
Some Lutherans believe that, yes. I’m not ‘some Lutherans.’ 😉
 
KjetilK said:
Nidaros seized to be an archdiocese in 1537, when Olav Engelbrektsson was forced out. Tor Singsaas is the bishop of the diocese (not archdiocese) of Nidaros, while the presiding bishop is Helga Haugland Byfuglien (who doesn’t have the same amount of power as the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church or the Archbishop of Canterbury, to the extent they have any real power).

Yes, but as I said, it is codified in our Church Law. The bishops have to agree to this. We are a national Church, the ELCA is not in the same sense. There is no established Church in the US. We see the same in England, which is also an established Church.

The Church of Sweden is a bit different, for many reasons, three of which are important here:


  1. *]Sweden have (as I’ve been told by some Swedish friends) an extremely conformist culture. They are pluralistic, sure, but not when it comes to ideas and cultural norms. Norway is much more pluralistic, and we also have a culture that doesn’t like confrontation.
    *]The Church of Sweden is no longer established in the same way as it is in Norway, Denmark, and England, and thus it doesn’t need to accommodate in the same way.
    *]The Church of Sweden has, since its disestablishment, somewhat ironically, become extremely politicised. The parish and diocesan councils are elected, and since the political parties of Sweden didn’t like that it became disestablished, they went into these councils. They were very open about it, and now you get, for instance, a person in a diocesan council who actively represents his or her political party. So someone can get elected to a parish or diocesan council as a representative of, say, the Swedish Social Democratic Party, the Moderate Party, or the Christian Democrats.
Click to expand...

  1. Thanks for the European insight. I wish more Europeans posted on CAF. Lutheran majority are north Americans who value interaction with the “Motherland” of our Catholic roots. All Christians no doubt, look to Rome as our cultural home just across the Mediterranean from the Holy Land.

    It is honorable to have a priest post among ELCA pastors and Catholic priest or two; I generally get into arguments with every one of them :o And strong reminder of the importance of holy Absolution.

    I may be the only Lutheran layman on this forum who abides by female presiding bishop/ archbishop guidance.
 
Peter_J said:
See her later post

(Although, like I said, I don’t think there’s any “if” about it; it happens already.)
Click to expand...
I’d like to know if a priest from the Lutheran Church in Norway was reordained if he Converted to the CC. It is he’s scary for an Anglican priest to be reordained I know two who were.
 
Hmmm, I think “scary” is dramatizing the sacrament just a little too much.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
I may be the only Lutheran layman on this forum who abides by female presiding bishop/ archbishop guidance.
Click to expand...
Yes. For all those who have retained the Apostolic faith, this is considered a major departure from Sacred Tradition.
 
guanophore said:
I wonder about this. Paul was very clear that he knew his Gospel was valid, and came from the Lord, but he sought out the Peter to ascertain that he had not “run in vain”. He was equally clear that his visit did not change anything that he preached. Yet he felt this was necessary.
Click to expand...
Hi guan,
I see your parallel, so in the interests of ecumenism, seeking out Rome’s approval, as opposed to say “petition”, of our orders may be a good thing, seeking an end to the current asymmetrical situation, since we already recognize yours.
What I feel is necessary is a continued and bold, not timid and reluctant, dialogue between our communions, an idea I think the LCMS and ILC are finally warming to.

Jon
 
The_young_fogey said:
Good to see you here. Spoken like a classic high churchman: “We know our orders are valid; Cranmer’s and Hooker’s reformed Catholic doctrine makes us the best branch of the church.”

For most but not all of Anglicans’ history, apostolic-claim bishops have been treated as essential, a foundation stone for their claim to Catholicity besides the creeds and references to the church fathers.

The Lutherans, left and right, are different: they think apostolic succession is at best nice to have but not necessary, a reaction to corrupt churchmen in Luther’s time (as is their belief that a pastor without a “call” isn’t a pastor).

At heart they are still an ad-hoc group of reformist Catholics pushed out. Some like Fr. Richard John Neuhaus have found their way back, through Lutheranism itself. Our close cousins.

Interestingly the high-church confessional (conservative) Lutherans resemble classic Anglicans in that they are not Catholic wannabes, even when they look like us liturgically (Luther kept and defended using the crucifix and crossing yourself; confessional Lutherans still defend them); they think they’re the true church (keep the Word and sacraments pure) and don’t like us.
Click to expand...
I beg your pardon. I love you guys. :hug1: And no, I am not being sarcastic.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top