Why do lutherans call themselves evangelical catholics?

[PRmerger]

There are I believe some 23 rite within the CC of which the Latin is just one. All 23 rites are in union with the CC in Rome. What I have not understood is what is a evangelical catholic. I know that there are evangelicals denominational churches and that evangelical is a modern thing in the USA, and do not know if that is the case in the rest of the world. One can look up what the rites that are within the CC to find all that are in union and also find the ones that are not which are Orthodox etc.

Right.

There is no such thing as a Catholic rite/church/denomination which is NOT subject to the Roman Pontiff.

 

[spina1953]

Right.

There is no such thing as a Catholic rite/church/denomination which is NOT subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Spot on!!!

 

[PRmerger]

And I’m heartened to see you view them as brethren

You can search all of my posts–every single one I have ever posted–and you will never find one in which I have viewed them as anything other than my brethren in Christ.

So it’s curious for you to be “heartened” by this.

It would be like my saying, “I am happy to read that you believe that George Washington was our first president!”

Which of course again brings up the topic? Calling
themselves Catholic? Only Catholics object to it
and quite frankly I think it is the least of our
problems and we should probably be complimented rather
than insulted.

Again, no one has been arguing that this is a monstrous problem.

Personally- my first reaction to those who dispute the
Pope is to slice their ears off with a sword.
My more rational side says these are OUR people-
let’s not look for irrelevant issues to argue over.

And I find it irrelevant that you are objecting to this objection.

It’s actually quite peculiar. If you don’t believe this argument is worth having, don’t join in the discussion.

Rather than calling them on the carpet for daring to
use our family name it makes more sense to try
and get them to visit the the manse of the Pater
Familis. Lol

No need to create some sort of false dichotomy. We are perfectly capable of doing both.

 

[marywarfield]

It is a Christian family, joined by baptism.

But they are imperfectly joined to the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church.

Well you see THAT is where you and the Lutherans
and the RC lose me- a life long RCer.
I find it extremely difficult to see how any Christian cannot
be a member of His Body nor how any Christian
cannot be a part of His One and Only church you see.

Now if I say hey JWs and Mormons etc are not
Christians along with the others the Church considers
not Christian I suppose I will be screamed at.

Yet those who we totally acknowledge to be Christian such
as EO and Lutheran we get slammed for suggesting
they might also be Catholic.
This has never been understandable to me.

 

[marywarfield]

You can search all of my posts–every single one I have ever posted–and you will never find one in which I have viewed them as anything other than my brethren in Christ.

So it’s curious for you to be “heartened” by this.

It would be like my saying, “I am happy to read that you believe that George Washington was our first president!”

Again, no one has been arguing that this is a monstrous problem.

And I find it irrelevant that you are objecting to this objection.

It’s actually quite peculiar. If you don’t believe this argument is worth having, don’t join in the discussion.

No need to create some sort of false dichotomy. We are perfectly capable of doing both.

And again your response is mystifying to me- HOW
exactly CAN they be your brothers in Christ yet
not be a part of His Body?
I don’t understand this?
How can they be- a. Your brother, b, your brother
Christian, yet not be a part of His Family?
I’m not arguing with you and wish you weren’t so
hostile. I’m asking you a question I’ve asked for
years- how can they be Christian yet not Of Christ’s
Body? How can they be our brothers but not our
brothers? Christ SS far as I understand it has only
One Body. He is only One Lord. Yet you call these Christians
and deny they are one of us?

 

[KjetilK]

My point is seeking unity. If the Anglicans and Lutherans are in full communion with one another, or fellowship,to me this seems to be a significant step in the healing of wounds to unity.

No, what I was asking is a council that involved Lutherans and Anglicans (only). Or do you think it is unnecessary to address those areas where disagreement remains?

I really have no idea what you are talking about? What ‘wounds to unity’ exists between the Church of Norway and the Church of England? And again, does the Patriarch of, say, Moscow, have a say in the day to day governance of, say, the Churches under the Patriarch of Alexandria?

If not, what is your point?

 

[PRmerger]

Well you see THAT is where you and the Lutherans
and the RC lose me- a life long RCer.
I find it extremely difficult to see how any Christian cannot
be a member of His Body nor how any Christian
cannot be a part of His One and Only church you see.

Now if I say hey JWs and Mormons etc are not
Christians along with the others the Church considers
not Christian I suppose I will be screamed at.

Yet those who we totally acknowledge to be Christian such
as EO and Lutheran we get slammed for suggesting
they might also be Catholic.
This has never been understandable to me.

Perhaps you can give us what you think are the criteria for inclusion in the Catholic Church?

You seem to be saying that the EO and Lutheran churches can be called Catholic.

And the JWs and Mormons can’t. In fact, these groups can’t even be called Christians.

So what is it that you use for your inclusion and exclusion criteria?

 

[marywarfield]

Perhaps you can give us what you think are the criteria for inclusion in the Catholic Church?

You seem to be saying that the EO and Lutheran churches can be called Catholic.

And the JWs and Mormons can’t. In fact, these groups can’t even be called Christians.

So what is it that you use for your inclusion and exclusion criteria?

My PROBLEM with this I repeat in different words:
To me Catholic, Christ, Body of Christ, brothers
and sisters in Christ are all the same thing.

It is difficult for me to view anyone who is not
part of the CC as a “brother in Christ” since the CC
is the Body of Christ. So how possibly can the
Lutherans be our brothers in Christ and NOT be
Catholic or if they are NOT Catholic how can they
be Christian? It is not sensible to me.
It would mean that my only brothers and sisters in
Christ are other Catholics.

 

[PRmerger]

My PROBLEM with this I repeat in different words:
To me Catholic, Christ, Body of Christ, brothers
and sisters in Christ are all the same thing.

It is difficult for me to view anyone who is not
part of the CC as a “brother in Christ” since the CC
is the Body of Christ. So how possibly can the
Lutherans be our brothers in Christ and NOT be
Catholic or if they are NOT Catholic how can they
be Christian? It is not sensible to me.
It would mean that my only brothers and sisters in
Christ are other Catholics.

Why don’t you look at it the way the Catholic Church looks at it, which seems to be a judicious approach, IMHO:

You are Catholic when you are baptized in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church consists of any of the churches/rites which give their obedience to the Roman Pontiff.

You are a Christian when you are baptized in water using the Trinitarian formula. Christians are our brethren in Christ, and are imperfectly joined to us.

It’s really not that difficult a distinction, Mary.

 

[guanophore]

As apologist Dave Armstrong says (paraphrasing): it’s simply ridiculous to claim that there are Roman Catholics, and then a subgroup of Catholics who are not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

If indeed Christ made Peter responsible for the care and feeding of His One Flock, and if indeed this responsibility was passed on to Peter’s successors, ,then every member of the flock is subject to the successor of Peter.

There are some that are rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff, but subjects nonetheless.

 

[guanophore]

This is the most absurd thing I have read today.

Millions of Catholics do what pleases them, but it is not with the permission of the Church, the Body of Christ, that they can "reject Rome.’

If they do so, and receive the Eucharist, they are guilty of a mortal sin.

No one is permitted to “reject Rome” and be a Catholic, receiving Communion.

The largest group of rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff.

 

[marywarfield]

If indeed Christ made Peter responsible for the care and feeding of His One Flock, and if indeed this responsibility was passed on to Peter’s successors, ,then every member of the flock is subject to the successor of Peter.

There are some that are rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff, but subjects nonetheless.

But if we hold their Apostolic Succession valid???
even if they reject Rome how does it follow they are not
Catholic? If we hold their Sacraments as valid but they
reject Rome how does it follow they are not Catholic?
If their Communion or Eucharist is valid how in the
WORLD can they NOT be a member of the Body?

Believe you me- I’m not the only RC who does not
understand this.

 

[guanophore]

But if we hold their Apostolic Succession valid???
even if they reject Rome how does it follow they are not
Catholic? If we hold their Sacraments as valid but they
reject Rome how does it follow they are not Catholic?
If their Communion or Eucharist is valid how in the
WORLD can they NOT be a member of the Body?

Believe you me- I’m not the only RC who does not
understand this.

All those who are validly baptized are members of the One Body (and there may be some members of the Body known only to Christ).

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” (1271)

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”276

Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 216). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.

The Orthodox wanted to distinguish themselves from the Latin Catholics, who they thought were departing from the Apostolic faith, so they called themselves Holy Orthodoxy, but do still retain the marks of the Church being catholic in faith and organization. They have valid apostolic succession, valid sacraments.

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” (1271)

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”276

Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 216). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.

 

[PRmerger]

But if we hold their Apostolic Succession valid???
even if they reject Rome how does it follow they are not
Catholic? If we hold their Sacraments as valid but they
reject Rome how does it follow they are not Catholic?
If their Communion or Eucharist is valid how in the
WORLD can they NOT be a member of the Body?

Believe you me- I’m not the only RC who does not
understand this.

So it would appear that these are your personal criteria for inclusion into the CC:
-valid Apostolic succession
-some sacramental unity (Holy Orders as a sacrament not being required by you, apparently)
-presentation of the Eucharist in their services

So…

where did you come up with this list? Why is “being subject to the Roman Pontiff” not a requirement for inclusion into the CC, but “valid Apostolic succession” is?

And why is it that you get to make up a list of inclusive and exclusive criteria, but the Magisterium of the CC–those who have actually been anointed and given authority by Christ–do not have this authority?

Are you really saying that you get to make some decisions about who you think qualifies as a Catholic (apparently, JWs and Mormons are not part of this group of people who feel are qualified to be Catholic)…

but that the Catholic Church doesn’t get to do this?

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t understand this.
Martin Luther was a Catholic. His followers
seperated themselves from the RC but they ALSO
were Catholics.
Lutheranism is rooted in Catholicism. It can’t be
disputed. The differences are severe- more severe
than EO- but we don’t have cows every time an EO
calls himself a Catholic do we?
If they want to call themselves Catholic so what?
That’s what they sprung from and it’s the very least
of our problems.

Hi marywarfield. I applaud you for asking th tough questions, but I’d like to add another one: Is there any particular reason for Lutherans to call themselves Catholic?

 

[guanophore]

So it would appear that these are your personal criteria for inclusion into the CC:
-valid Apostolic succession
-some sacramental unity (Holy Orders as a sacrament not being required by you, apparently)
-presentation of the Eucharist in their services

So…

where did you come up with this list? Why is “being subject to the Roman Pontiff” not a requirement for inclusion into the CC, but “valid Apostolic succession” is?

And why is it that you get to make up a list of inclusive and exclusive criteria, but the Magisterium of the CC–those who have actually been anointed and given authority by Christ–do not have this authority?

Are you really saying that you get to make some decisions about who you think qualifies as a Catholic (apparently, JWs and Mormons are not part of this group of people who feel are qualified to be Catholic)…

but that the Catholic Church doesn’t get to do this?

She is coming from the Old Catholic perspective (union of Utrecht) which would seem to account for much of this.

 

[meltzerboy]

And I’m heartened to see you view them as brethren.
Which of course again brings up the topic? Calling
themselves Catholic? Only Catholics object to it
and quite frankly I think it is the least of our
problems and we should probably be complimented rather
than insulted.

Personally- my first reaction to those who dispute the
Pope is to slice their ears off with a sword.
My more rational side says these are OUR people-
let’s not look for irrelevant issues to argue over.

Rather than calling them on the carpet for daring to
use our family name it makes more sense to try
and get them to visit the the manse of the Pater
Familis. Lol

Aren’t all Protestants regarded by the Catholic Church as separated brethren at the same time as heretics?

 

[guanophore]

Aren’t all Protestants regarded by the Catholic Church as separated brethren at the same time as heretics?

separated brethren yes, heretics, no. In order to be a heretic, one must first have been taught and embraced the faith. Most of our separated brethren were taught post-reformation theology. They were raised in faith traditions that were long departed from the One Faith, so that they could not qualify to be called heretics. They do embrace heresies, but don’t realize it.

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” (1271)

Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 216). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.

 

[meltzerboy]

separated brethren yes, heretics, no. In order to be a heretic, one must first have been taught and embraced the faith. Most of our separated brethren were taught post-reformation theology. They were raised in faith traditions that were long departed from the One Faith, so that they could not qualify to be called heretics. They do embrace heresies, but don’t realize it.

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” (1271)

Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 216). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.

Thank you. It is similar to the way in which we Reform Jews, Conservative Jews, and others are viewed by some Orthodox Jews. We are not regarded as heretics (although our “rabbis” may be) but we follow heresies rather than Torah Judaism.

 

[Annie39]

Well you see THAT is where you and the Lutherans
and the RC lose me- a life long RCer.
I find it extremely difficult to see how any Christian cannot
be a member of His Body nor how any Christian
cannot be a part of His One and Only church you see.

Now if I say hey JWs and Mormons etc are not
Christians along with the others the Church considers
not Christian I suppose I will be screamed at.

Yet those who we totally acknowledge to be Christian such
as EO and Lutheran we get slammed for suggesting
they might also be Catholic.
This has never been understandable to me.

Hmmmm Do you any member of the Orthodox Church who calls himself Catholic?