Why do lutherans call themselves evangelical catholics?

[House_Harkonnen]

The Lutheran Church I attended briefly was like that - very stark. I have never seen anything Lutheran that looked like the photos in #394.

I am getting more and more curious about seeing now. There is an LCMS near me. If I did not have such a full day yesterday I probably would have gone over to check it out.

Lutheran churches run the gamut in this area.

From very plain to extremely ornate. Even out tiny synod which is known to be the most “Protestant of the synods” has some extremely ornate chapels.

flickr.com/groups/710355@N23/pool/with/5567119310/#photo_5567119310

 

[steido01]

The Lutheran Church I attended briefly was like that - very stark. I have never seen anything Lutheran that looked like the photos in #394.

I am getting more and more curious about seeing now. There is an LCMS near me. If I did not have such a full day yesterday I probably would have gone over to check it out.

The church I currently attend is, unfortunately, a product of the hyper-functional bunker-church wave (as is the Catholic Church across the street). But many LCMS churches treasure their beautiful buildings. These folks in particular: gottesdienst.org.

My point is that we can find examples of traditional churches and bunker churches in any Christian communion. We might be better served by looking not at individuals or outer appearances-- but at doctrine.

 

[JonNC]

The Lutheran Church I attended briefly was like that - very stark. I have never seen anything Lutheran that looked like the photos in #394.

I am getting more and more curious about seeing now. There is an LCMS near me. If I did not have such a full day yesterday I probably would have gone over to check it out.

Sometimes it depends on the age of the parish. Older churches tend to be more ornate; stained glass windows, etc. Newer buildings less ornate. And European Lutheran churches tend to be far more so than American ones, due to the Reformed/protestant influence here in America.

Our president/bishop speaks on the issue of iconography:

youtube.com/watch?v=lizfznY63Yk

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

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.

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

No, but “in communion with Rome” is kind of a mouthful, if you say it often – one reason I like the nice simple term “Catholic”.

 

[PRmerger]

Try this.

Well, this is ANOTHER area of disunity. We would not view that document as anything authoritative.

That you have used it as an authoritative source for changing the Lutheran doctrine of 2 valid sacraments is telling.

We cannot even agree on what is a source of authority.

Lutherans (you?) view that document as magisterial.
Catholics view that document as helpful and interesting and hopeful.

So you will have to be rather accepting of my high skepticism that what you are saying is anywhere near a Lutheran doctrinal change proposing that they no longer view only 2 sacraments as valid.

Google search tells me that no Lutheran doctrine has changed in this regard.

google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=lutheran%20sacraments

 

[andrewstx]

Is there a legal copyright that gives Latin Catholics sole right to use the term “Catholic” to apply the word Catholic only?

As an Orthodox Christian I find the triumphalism in this very unatractive, and not charitable at all.

Can someone link to such a document that gives Latins sole use of the word ‘Catholic’?

 

[Peter_J]

Is there a legal copyright that gives Latin Catholics sole right to use the term “Catholic” to apply the word Catholic only?

As an Orthodox Christian I find the triumphalism in this very unatractive, and not charitable at all.

Can someone link to such a document that gives Latins sole use of the word ‘Catholic’?

Not as such, no. But we definitely appreciate it when our fellow Christians use the term that way.

 

[KjetilK]

Besides Anglican what Protestants look like this and build churches like European Lutherans?

The first picture is not of Lutherans. They all used to be Lutherans (from the Church of Sweden and the Church of Norway), but are now part of the Nordic Catholic Church, which is the Northern European wing of the PNCC.

The people on the picture is, from left to right, Archdeacon Petrus Michael Catenacci, Father Matteus Maria Furemalm (the vicar of the parish in Stockholm and the vicar of the bishop in Sweden), bishop Roald Nikolai Flemestad, and Father Asle Ambrosius Dingstad (the vicar and Dean of the parish in Oslo). I know the last two personally, and am on a first name basis with them.

 

[KjetilK]

Do your churches look like the photos in # 394?

Yes, that is from the Cathedral in Oslo, and it was built after the Reformation.

Did the Church of Norway take over buildings vacated by Roman Catholics as did the Anglicans in England?

Or did whole congregations of previous Roman Catholics become “Church of Norway” so that nobody really moved or changed liturgy?

The latter. As was also the case, mostly, in England. Two examples are the Cathedral in Bergen and the Cathedral in Trondheim.

 

[KjetilK]

No, but “in communion with Rome” is kind of a mouthful, if you say it often – one reason I like the nice simple term “Catholic”.

Except, of course, that your own Magisterium recognizes the Catholicity of, say, the Orthodox and the PNCC. Therefore ‘Catholic’ cannot mean ‘in communion with Rome.’

 

[KjetilK]

Not as such, no. But we definitely appreciate it when our fellow Christians use the term that way.

More Catholic than the Pope, then?

 

[JonNC]

Except, of course, that your own Magisterium recognizes the Catholicity of, say, the Orthodox and the PNCC. Therefore ‘Catholic’ cannot mean ‘in communion with Rome.’

Well, it can, but not exclusively.

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

Well, it can, but not exclusively.

Jon

Touché.

 

[spina1953]

Is there a legal copyright that gives Latin Catholics sole right to use the term “Catholic” to apply the word Catholic only?

As an Orthodox Christian I find the triumphalism in this very unatractive, and not charitable at all.

Can someone link to such a document that gives Latins sole use of the word ‘Catholic’?

I wonder how the Orthodox would feel if those who were not Orthodox used the word evangelical Orthodox etc. The term orthodox may not be the sol right for the Orthodox to use if others want to use the word for define themselves but are not Orthodox.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, much of the discussion here has covered at least one side of this question: namely, that we Catholics claim the name “Catholic” exclusively. (I’m thinking about starting a new thread to consider another side of the question.)

See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=906348

 

[guanophore]

My point is that we can find examples of traditional churches and bunker churches in any Christian communion. We might be better served by looking not at individuals or outer appearances-- but at doctrine.

Oh, yes, of course. But I know that, when it can be afforded, congregations will design and decorate their place of worship in such a way that it reflects their doctrine.

It seems to me I read that Luther was very upset when his congregation gutted out some of the decorations while he was out of town.

And I have done some study of the Calvin and Puritan influenced buildings which were very stark. And I am not so sure that all congregations do have traditional or highly decorated churches. I used to live in Mansfield, Ohio, where there were many Brethren and a few Quakers They are not into decoration or fancy at all!

 

[guanophore]

No, but “in communion with Rome” is kind of a mouthful, if you say it often – one reason I like the nice simple term “Catholic”.

Well that helps. I must say I have been mystified by what “non-nonCatholic” really means.

 

[Annie39]

Is there a legal copyright that gives Latin Catholics sole right to use the term “Catholic” to apply the word Catholic only?

As an Orthodox Christian I find the triumphalism in this very unatractive, and not charitable at all.

Can someone link to such a document that gives Latins sole use of the word ‘Catholic’?

I recently spoke to a fellow Catholic (a Priest) he is not Latin he is Chaldean. It is’t only Latins who use the word Catholic but those who are in union with the Bishop of Rome.

BTW please define “triumphalism”.

Annie

 

[Annie39]

Except, of course, that your own Magisterium recognizes the Catholicity of, say, the Orthodox and the PNCC. Therefore ‘Catholic’ cannot mean ‘in communion with Rome.’

Do you have any quotes from the magisterium of the Catholic Church that states this?

Annie

 

[PRmerger]

Except, of course, that your own Magisterium recognizes the Catholicity of, say, the Orthodox and the PNCC. Therefore ‘Catholic’ cannot mean ‘in communion with Rome.’

Source, please!