Why do lutherans call themselves evangelical catholics?

[7_Sorrows]

Some Anglicans do, many don’t. Anglicanism is – how shall I put it? – fickle? freckled? … almost motley.

Correct. Anglo-catholics is not a term used by all anglicans.
I am not sure what qualifies as anglo-catholic. If GKC were here he could probably answer. It is a small group.

 

[PRmerger]

If they made the effort to make it legal, then I would include them in the analogy.

If it’s merely by attrition, then no.

I add that if either member of the couple is a Catholic who has not made the effort to abide by the Church’s requirements for getting married, then they ought to be excluded from the analogy.

 

[marywarfield]

Could you please clarify what you mean by this comment, mary, as it applies to me?

How is it that I “have a long way to go”? In what way?

And how does my having “a long way to go” apply to this discussion?

When you respond to my posts your responses
sound more “nationalistic” than patriotic to my ears.
I believe the true Spirit of Christ would be a less
dogmatic and more open to questions
as those involved in the dialogues.

What is meant by terms such as Catholic and Christian
have been fodder for debate among theologians for centuries.
Yet your responses sound like I’m a simpleton for
not knowing the answers.

 

[guanophore]

 my response to the above is:  I highly doubt that mary is "coming from the Old Catholic perspective".

Well, she is listing her religion as T.O.C, and her persepctive is consistent with it.

From whence does she get this criterion that belief in only 2 sacraments are necessary for inclusion into the Church?

All groups who have lost communion with the successor of Peter have lost some degree of Sacred Tradition, at the very least, the loss of that communion as necessary. Luther re-defined the term “sacrament”, so that the other five sacraments did not meet the criteria.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Yes. I would like something from the equivalent of the Lutheran magisterium which declares that this is no longer correctly articulates Lutheran doctrine:

There has been a change, according to you, in Lutheran teaching?

Do these Anglo-Catholics profess submission to the Roman Pontiff?

Honesty in our dialogue on the Augsburg Confession also compels us to admit that there are still open questions and unresolved problems, among them the following:
� The Confessio Augustana does not adopt a position on the number of the sacraments, the papacy, or on certain aspects of the episcopal order and the church’s teaching office.
� The Confessio Augustana naturally makes no mention of dogmas which have only been promulgated since 1530: the primacy of jurisdiction and the infallibility of the Pope (1870); the gracious preservation of the Virgin Mary from original sin (1854) and her bodily assumption into heaven (1950).
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int…onechrist.html

Because Luther’s definition of a sacrament was stricter than was common
during the Middle Ages, and because he perceived the Catholic
sacrament of holy orders as chiefly serving the practice of the sacrifice
of the Mass, he ceased to view ordination as a sacrament.

Melanchthon,
however, stated in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession: »But if ordination
is understood with reference to the ministry of the Word, we
have no objection to calling ordination a sacrament. For the ministry of
the Word has the command of God and has magnificent promises like
Romans 1:16]: the gospel ›is the power of God for salvation to everyone
who has faith.‹ Likewise, Isaiah 55:11], ›. … so shall my word be that
goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish
that which I purpose … .‹ If ordination is understood in this
way, we will not object to calling the laying on of hands as a sacrament.
For the church has the mandate to appoint ministers, which ought to
please us greatly because we know that God approves this ministry
and is present in it.«64
lutheranworld.org/sites/d…0Communion.pdf

There’s additional sections including the sacraments of unction, marriage. Lutherans view confirmation as an extension of baptism.

 

[PRmerger]

All groups who have lost communion with the successor of Peter have lost some degree of Sacred Tradition, at the very least, the loss of that communion as necessary. Luther re-defined the term “sacrament”, so that the other five sacraments did not meet the criteria.

And that’s why communion with the See of Peter is so necessary. It is not optional to be a Catholic and in submission to the Bishop of Rome.

I am confused by some folks here who are professing that one can be a Catholic yet also disagree with A, B and C, given that the Catholic Church has declared A, B and C to be of great import.

It appears to me to be similar to a JW saying, “I am a Christian but I don’t believe in the divinity of Christ!” Christians ought to be quite clear: you don’t get to call yourself a Christian and also deny the divinity of Christ.

Or to a Mormon saying, “I am a Christian but I don’t believe in the Trinity!” Christians ought to be quite clear: you don’t get to call yourself a Christian and also deny the Trinity.

Meltzerboy may be able to correct me, but would Judaism countenance someone saying, “I am a Jew–I believe in the Torah. I celebrate Yom Kippur. I observe the Sabbath. I keep kosher. But I just don’t believe there’s One God. I believe that Shiva, Zeus and Thor are also deities”?

I would think not.

 

[spina1953]

Here’s why I believe it’s wrong for people who aren’t actually Catholic to call themselves Catholic.

Let’s take a parallel: there are some couples who are living together, who have not actually “made it official” and gotten married, who want to call themselves married. They say that they love each other in the same way that married couples do…and, in fact, there are some couples who are married but act in a less loving way than they do…

so why can’t they say that they are married? They love each other, right? They are fully committed to each other, right? They are faithful and exclusive to each other, right?

Answer: because they aren’t, well, married. Even if they act as if they are.

Even if some married couples don’t act as if they are married, and actually cheat on their spouses!

Even if some married couples don’t even talk to each other and this living-together couple talks to each other constantly!

And it should bother us, even a little bit, that there are some couples who are calling themselves married when they actually aren’t.

Hi PR merger: I agree with you. Its just that we can’t do anything about it other than to voice our opinion on it. No matter what we say there are going to be those who of course disagree and will continue no matter what others say against it. For me I just accept the fact that people will continue and while I disagree and it bothers me somewhat I know that there in nothing I can do to change as it is always up to the individual to make the change not me.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Correct. Anglo-catholics is not a term used by all anglicans.
I am not sure what qualifies as anglo-catholic. If GKC were here he could probably answer. It is a small group.

OK the actual number of Anglo-Catholics may be unknown but I can safely suggest that most Catholics walking into a typical Episcopal/ Anglican parish would feel right at home.

 

[guanophore]

When I was a kid ( and no Guanophore I’m not
an Old Catholic just an older lol)

Ok, I guess I got thrown off by your affiliation listing and your theology.

 

[PRmerger]

OK the actual number of Anglo-Catholics may be unknown but I can safely suggest that most Catholics walking into a typical Episcopal/ Anglican parish would feel right at home.

Sure. Until they started discussing doctrine with the cleric.

 

[meltzerboy]

And that’s why communion with the See of Peter is so necessary. It is not optional to be a Catholic and in submission to the Bishop of Rome.

I am confused by some folks here who are professing that one can be a Catholic yet also disagree with A, B and C, given that the Catholic Church has declared A, B and C to be of great import.

It appears to me to be similar to a JW saying, “I am a Christian but I don’t believe in the divinity of Christ!” Christians ought to be quite clear: you don’t get to call yourself a Christian and also deny the divinity of Christ.

Or to a Mormon saying, “I am a Christian but I don’t believe in the Trinity!” Christians ought to be quite clear: you don’t get to call yourself a Christian and also deny the Trinity.

Meltzerboy may be able to correct me, but would Judaism countenance someone saying, “I am a Jew–I believe in the Torah. I celebrate Yom Kippur. I observe the Sabbath. I keep kosher. But I just don’t believe there’s One God. I believe that Shiva, Zeus and Thor are also deities”?

I would think not.

I think I would draw the line there.

 

[PRmerger]

There’s additional sections including the sacraments of unction, marriage. Lutherans view confirmation as an extension of baptism.

Neither of your links worked, EC.

And it’s a moot point if neither of those are from your equivalent of the magisterium.

Please offer (working) links that officially declare that there are more than 2 recognized sacraments in the Lutheran church.

 

[Peter_J]

I’d like to add another one in response-
Why are Lutherans unhappy being called Protestants?
Remember that thread?

I guess I don’t, but I hope it was a good thread.

In any case, I have definitely encountered all the basic combinations:

• Some see Lutherans as catholic and protestant.
• Some see Lutherans as catholic and not protestant.
• Some see Lutherans as protestant and not catholic.
• Some see Lutherans as neither catholic nor protestant.
  along with some variations (e.g. Fr Hart uses “Catholic and Protestant” on his blog).

It should be understood, of course, that the decision cannot be made in a vacuum – excepting if we’re answering the question on the basis of a previously agreed upon definition, in which case the exercise becomes child’s play. But based on my experiences, I’ve come to believe that the most appropriate terminology (in present circumstances) is “Lutherans as catholic and protestant”, with the understanding that Catholic refers to those of us ICWR.

Note: All of the above applies to Anglicans as much as Lutherans.

 

[marywarfield]

Well, she is listing her religion as T.O.C, and her persepctive is consistent with it.

All groups who have lost communion with the successor of Peter have lost some degree of Sacred Tradition, at the very least, the loss of that communion as necessary. Luther re-defined the term “sacrament”, so that the other five sacraments did not meet the criteria.

That again is nonsense! Haha. Plus Third Order Carmelite has
already been defined for you on previous threads. Your inability
to retain that information however is borne out by
your listing your religion as OSB.
Why are you now
insulting Third Order Carmelites by calling them heretics?

You make no sense. Is that why you call yourself
Obsessive Schizoid and Bipolar? OSB. No wonder
you have difficulty with memory.
I give you a pass.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Neither of your links worked, EC.

And it’s a moot point if neither of those are from your equivalent of the magisterium.

Please offer (working) links that officially declare that there are more than 2 recognized sacraments in the Lutheran church.

Try this.

Honesty in our dialogue on the Augsburg Confession also compels us to admit that there are still open questions and unresolved problems, among them the following:
� The Confessio Augustana does not adopt a position on the number of the sacraments, the papacy, or on certain aspects of the episcopal order and the church’s teaching office.
� The Confessio Augustana naturally makes no mention of dogmas which have only been promulgated since 1530: the primacy of jurisdiction and the infallibility of the Pope (1870); the gracious preservation of the Virgin Mary from original sin (1854) and her bodily assumption into heaven (1950).
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_onechrist.html

Because Luther’s definition of a sacrament was stricter than was com
mon
during the Middle Ages, and because he perceived the Catholic
sacrament of holy orders as chiefly serving the practice of the sacrifice
of the Mass, he ceased to view ordination as a sacrament.

Melanchthon,
however, stated in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession: »But if ordination
is understood with reference to the ministry of the Word, we
have no objection to calling ordination a sacrament. For the ministry of
the Word has the command of God and has magnificent promises like
Romans 1:16]: the gospel ›is the power of God for salvation to everyone
who has faith.‹ Likewise, Isaiah 55:11], ›. … so shall my word be that
goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish
that which I purpose … .‹ If ordination is understood in this
way, we will not object to calling the laying on of hands as a sacrament.
For the church has the mandate to appoint ministers, which ought to
please us greatly because we know that God approves this ministry
and is present in it.«64
books.google.com/books?id=mM-EPZyCbjwC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=Apology+to+the+Augsburg+Confession:+%C2%BBBut+if+ordination&source=bl&ots=8RPB65yWPR&sig=MeuXN6S9830_10Cp88ZVCLdQ95Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=R7AEVMKDGKi2igKJ3oDwBQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Apology%20to%20the%20Augsburg%20Confession%3A%20%C2%BBBut%20if%20ordination&f=false

 

[guanophore]

But based on my experiences, I’ve come to believe that the most appropriate terminology (in present circumstances) is “Lutherans as catholic and protestant”, with the understanding that Catholic** refers to those of us ICWR**.

Note: All of the above applies to Anglicans as much as Lutherans.

What exactly IS that? Surely you do not mean The International Centre For Waterspout Research (ICWR)

 

[guanophore]

That again is nonsense! Haha. Plus Third Order Carmelite has
already been defined for you on previous threads. Your inability
to retain that information however is borne out by
your listing your religion as OSB.
Why are you now
insulting Third Order Carmelites by calling them heretics?

You make no sense. Is that why you call yourself
Obsessive Schizoid and Bipolar? OSB. No wonder
you have difficulty with memory.
I give you a pass.

And I will give you an apology, not only for my memory, but for my confusion about your theology.

 

[marywarfield]

Skipping past Guanophores attempted side trips and
deviations I’d like to return to what I said earlier.
If the true Christian Church according to the
Catechism bears four marks: One, Holy, Apostolic
Catholic- which of these marks do you deny Lutherans
bear?
And if they do not bear the four marks they are not
therefore truly Christian. So why delude people into
believing they are your brethren?

If in the other hand you believe they do bear the
four marks or that the four marks are irrelevant
why do you object to them calling themselves Catholic?

 

[marywarfield]

And I will give you an apology, not only for my memory, but for my confusion about your theology.

Accepted. And please try to stay with the four marks.
Mentioning sacraments was not central to my post.
But they DO apply to four marks, correct?
Am I crazy? Don’t answer that. Rhetorical.

 

[guanophore]

Because Luther’s definition of a sacrament was stricter than was com
mon during the Middle Ages,

Never mind the middle ages, what about back to the early centuries of the Church? How did he set aside that Christians had embraced 7 sacraments for 1500 years both East and West?

This is a problem I see with the Protestant position. One can disregard all that one believes are trappings from Rome, because the Papacy corrupted the Church, but one is still left with the Sacred Deposit of faith that we share with the EO, How does Luther go about throwing out sacraments that are non-Roman?

and because he perceived the Catholic
sacrament of holy orders as chiefly serving the practice of the sacrifice
of the Mass, he ceased to view ordination as a sacrament.

because he did not consider the Mass a Holy Sacrifice?

Melanchthon,
however, stated in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession: »But if ordination
is understood with reference to the ministry of the Word, we
have no objection to calling ordination a sacrament. For the ministry of
the Word has the command of God and has magnificent promises like
Romans 1:16]: the gospel ›is the power of God for salvation to everyone
who has faith.‹ Likewise, Isaiah 55:11], ›. … so shall my word be that
goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish
that which I purpose … .‹ If ordination is understood in this
way, we will not object to calling the laying on of hands as a sacrament.
For the church has the mandate to appoint ministers, which ought to
please us greatly because we know that God approves this ministry
and is present in it.«64

But “do this in memory of me” does not qualify? I am confused.