Why should I care what Luther wrote?

[Stepson]

Personally, I like the fingers in the ear and shouting loudly, “I’m not listing…I’m not listing.” It works when my wife is trying to argue with me

 

[hn160]

You are right, the Lutheran Church in Europe are State Churches and where they are not a State Church, they are supported by tax money. It has caused those Churches to have the State dictate Church policy on women and homosexual ordinations. Thankful there are Free Lutheran Churches in those countries that have a State Church. But that has nothing to do with the Papal intrigues with Spain, France, Holy Roman Empire and England. The Pope at the time was head of the Papal States and needed money for St. Peter’s Basilica, the sale of indulgences was one way to raise money and the Bishop of Mainz need money to pay of the loans that he borrowed to pay for the three bishopric that he was bishop. He receive a portion of the money from the sale of indulgences in his territories.

 

[guanophore]

There I would have to humbly say that I do not know the answer to that.

It is certainly something to think about. It was certainly something that motivated my abandonment of the faith, and something I had to resolve to come back. For me, this has been accomplished already.

I realize now, though, what I really wanted was for someone to take the “blame” for the wrongdoing. I also came to understand that placing blame really does not solve anything. Those that were responsible for the sins that wounded the Church have already gone to their judgement. I can get hung up on finding fault, or I can be part of the solution, and work toward unity.

Peasants…Egg on his face. Although when he was writing Christian Liberty, he did not mean social liberty as well.

I think the same is true of St. Paul, but in writing about Christian liberty, he did not have such venom. To me it is the fruit of a rageful and prideful heart, and I am suspicious of any fruit that comes from such a tree.

To Luther’s defense, he scolded the Princes and called for restraint in the way they were treating the peasants.

He was kinda obligated to that, since he is the one that set the fire in the first place!

Always two sides of a coin; wouldn't you agree?  Some would argue that he needed the Prince's protection and the peasants threatened that.  There could be an element of truth there as well.

Yes. I think if he had not had this, he would have been assasinated.

As for the Jews.  Egg.  However, he was not alone in walking the plank on this subject.  Remember the Spanish Inquisition.  I believe Mel Brooks even wrote a catchy tune on that subject.  But if we look at Luther's early writing on the Jews, he believed that the purity and love of the Gospel would convert them.

I think he was carrying on a long time prejudice in the Church. There were plenty of others that shared his sentiment, but Luther was bold, erudite, and widely published, so he could spread the ideas much better than the average anti-Semite cleric.

Unfortunately, the Nazi’s glommed onto his writings as religious support for their treatment of the Jews. I am sure he had no way of knowing how his ideas would be used.

James 3:1-3
2 For we all make many mistakes, and if any one makes no mistakes in what he says he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also.

Here comes the scrambled eggs. Luther became disenchanted with the Jews when they didn’t convert as he had expected and wrote the infamous The Jews and Their Lies.

That is a really scary read. I think it says a lot about his personality, and his neuroses.

is that there was a Rabbi (forgot the name) that was writing that Jesus was born to a menstruating Mary.

I guess they really didn’t know much about the female reproductive cycle?

 And didn't Saint Francis of Assisi call for the execution of heretics.  Sign of the ignorant times I guess.

It does not sound like Francis, but you are right, it was certainly a custom at the time. WIth the conflation of Church and State, one who defied the Church ws also considered a traitor.

 He probably felt as if it was the world against him.  How terrifying is that.  And he still went ahead and did stood up.  Not everyone does that.  One should give him props for that.

Yes, his writings indicate that he did very much feel this way. I do give him props for standing up, but I think if he had put as much fervency into addressing the logs in his own eye as he did castigating others, the effects might have been more positive. Reform was needed. Men are always in need of Reform. Reform from a place of holiness and love does not produce the fruits of fragmentation. He stood up in an unloving way.

James 1:19-21

19 Know this, my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, 20 for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God.

Neither side kept this precept, and splitting and fragmentation resulted.

  As for how he went about doing it.  I have and will always say (unless someone can prove otherwise) that he often had the wrong execution of the right idea.  People often forget sitting in an A/C well lit room, that there was no users manual on how to go about stopping the corrupt men in the Church.  So it is no surprise he didn't get it 100% right.

This is just not the case at all. There is more than ample instruction on how to stop corruption, in the NT, in the writings of the Fathers, and in the direction of the saints and doctors of the Church. Not only that, he had access to this instruction, as a scholar and a priest. He chose not to follow that path, allowing his indignation and arrogance to rule his actions.

Again, this occurrred on both sides.

 

[guanophore]

Lets talk about choosing to excommunicate oneself.  So Leo and Tetzel can lead people to damnation and that's not heresy but if you speak out against that it is?

Honestly, I am not sure if Leo and Tetzel were ever believers. I have not been able to find any evidence that they were even Christians. There is more available on Leo that indicates he was a grossly corrupt priest, let alone pope. In order for someone to qualify as a heretic, they need first to have believed, then willfully and knowingly chosen to go the other way. In fact, they may not have been heretics, but wolves among the sheep. I will grant that they were practicing heresies, fleecing the flock, and teaching errors.

I think I can speak for Lutherans by saying this He never intended to leave the Church just stop the corruption as he saw it.

I agree, but leave he did. It does not seem to me that Luther could see any distinction between the Holy Bride of Christ, and the corrupt clerics against whom he was pushing.

 

[Stepson]

It is certainly something to think about. It was certainly something that motivated my abandonment of the faith, and something I had to resolve to come back. For me, this has been accomplished already.

I realize now, though, what I really wanted was for someone to take the “blame” for the wrongdoing. I also came to understand that placing blame really does not solve anything. Those that were responsible for the sins that wounded the Church have already gone to their judgement. I can get hung up on finding fault, or I can be part of the solution, and work toward unity.

I think the same is true of St. Paul, but in writing about Christian liberty, he did not have such venom. To me it is the fruit of a rageful and prideful heart, and I am suspicious of any fruit that comes from such a tree.

He was kinda obligated to that, since he is the one that set the fire in the first place!

Yes. I think if he had not had this, he would have been assasinated.

I think he was carrying on a long time prejudice in the Church. There were plenty of others that shared his sentiment, but Luther was bold, erudite, and widely published, so he could spread the ideas much better than the average anti-Semite cleric.

Unfortunately, the Nazi’s glommed onto his writings as religious support for their treatment of the Jews. I am sure he had no way of knowing how his ideas would be used.

James 3:1-3
2 For we all make many mistakes, and if any one makes no mistakes in what he says he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also.

That is a really scary read. I think it says a lot about his personality, and his neuroses.

I guess they really didn’t know much about the female reproductive cycle?

It does not sound like Francis, but you are right, it was certainly a custom at the time. WIth the conflation of Church and State, one who defied the Church ws also considered a traitor.

Yes, his writings indicate that he did very much feel this way. I do give him props for standing up, but I think if he had put as much fervency into addressing the logs in his own eye as he did castigating others, the effects might have been more positive. Reform was needed. Men are always in need of Reform. Reform from a place of holiness and love does not produce the fruits of fragmentation. He stood up in an unloving way.

James 1:19-21

19 Know this, my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, 20 for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God.

Neither side kept this precept, and splitting and fragmentation resulted.

This is just not the case at all. There is more than ample instruction on how to stop corruption, in the NT, in the writings of the Fathers, and in the direction of the saints and doctors of the Church. Not only that, he had access to this instruction, as a scholar and a priest. He chose not to follow that path, allowing his indignation and arrogance to rule his actions.

Again, this occurrred on both sides.

Instead of point, counter point, and so forth, I can see that we have different points of view on this subject; which is absolutely fine.

I have to agree on one of your points. If someone stands up for something, has a point to make or argument to be heard, if these come from a place of anger, resentment, fear, frustration or hate, they will most certainly be corrupted, misunderstood or even destroyed. It doesn’t matter how good the message is. Only given out of of love can one be sure that they will not be deformed. Martin Luther would have been better served by standing up and sending his message out of love.

The persons that use the word heretic or say that someone is a wolf in sheep clothing because they don’t see eye to eye with them hopefully will take note. Their message gets overshadowed by their stronger emotions. Thanks for the forms they have been informative.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I mean this with no disrespect as I honestly do not understand why a person should really care what Luther said or wrote. Why is he considered such a significant man as to warrant the naming of an entire Church for him. I find it odd that there is a whole Church that names itself for a man. I see a lot of threads about Protestants where Lutherans refer to or ask others to read his writings. Just curious as to what Lutherans have to say about this.

I wonder too.

What Luther wrote I suppose has historical significance, so is of value to historians.

Otherwise, was what Luther wrote inspired? No. Was he guided by the Holy Spirit? No. Did Luther write scripture? No. And, if sola scriptura is all that is required as the ultimate authority, there is no reason to care what Luther wrote or said at all.

 

[Contarini]

Honestly, I am not sure if Leo and Tetzel were ever believers. I have not been able to find any evidence that they were even Christians.

Well, they were baptized. . . .

There is more available on Leo that indicates he was a grossly corrupt priest, let alone pope. In order for someone to qualify as a heretic, they need first to have believed, then willfully and knowingly chosen to go the other way. In fact, they may not have been heretics, but wolves among the sheep. I will grant that they were practicing heresies, fleecing the flock, and teaching errors.

What errors did Leo teach, by Catholic standards?

I agree, but leave he did. It does not seem to me that Luther could see any distinction between the Holy Bride of Christ, and the corrupt clerics against whom he was pushing.

Well, actually he could see such a distinction, which is why he thought that he could reject the authority of those clerics without putting himself outside the Holy Bride of Christ.

He didn’t reject their authority because they were bad people, though, but because he thought they were teaching contrary to the Gospel.

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

The persons that use the word heretic or say that someone is a wolf in sheep clothing because they don’t see eye to eye with them hopefully will take note. Their message gets overshadowed by their stronger emotions. Thanks for the forms they have been informative.

One can note that Luther espoused heretical views without having hate or uncharity toward him. It is not an “emotional” position at all - or at least, it need not be. Certainly it is in some cases.

The reference to the wolves in sheeps clothing better describe the activities of Catholic clerics who were abusing the flock with superstitions and greed.

I am glad you are enjoying the forums. I have learned a lot here too.

 

[guanophore]

I wonder too.

What Luther wrote I suppose has historical significance, so is of value to historians.

Otherwise, was what Luther wrote inspired? No. Was he guided by the Holy Spirit? No. Did Luther write scripture? No. And, if sola scriptura is all that is required as the ultimate authority, there is no reason to care what Luther wrote or said at all.

It is also of value for Catholics to understand and heal the fractures in the Church.

We are not in a position to judge how much of the guidance of the HS he received, or did not recieve. We know that some of his works produced bad fruit, but in many ways, he retained the Teachings of the Apostles, which are clearly moved by the HS.

He was right that the Catholic bishops needed to get out of politics. It was killing the Church.

 

[hn160]

One can note that Luther espoused heretical views without having hate or uncharity toward him. It is not an “emotional” position at all - or at least, it need not be. Certainly it is in some cases.

The reference to the wolves in sheeps clothing better describe the activities of Catholic clerics who were abusing the flock with superstitions and greed.

I am glad you are enjoying the forums. I have learned a lot here too.

Have you ever read the Augsburg Confession or the Apology of the Augsburg Confession? What is heretical about them? By the way June 25th is the anniversary of the Augsburg Confession.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Have you ever read the Augsburg Confession or the Apology of the Augsburg Confession? What is heretical about them? By the way June 25th is the anniversary of the Augsburg Confession.

Did Luther write the Augsburg Confession?

 

[hn160]

Did Luther write the Augsburg Confession?

He helped write it and approved it before it was presented to Emperor Charles V on June 25th, 1530. additional writers were Justus Jonas, Johannes Bugenhagen, and Philipp Melanchthon. Luther wanted to go to the Diet of Augsburg but couldn’t because he was an outlaw. Don’t forget, the Catholic had a habit of burning so called heretics.

 

[mackbrislawn]

It is also of value for Catholics to understand and heal the fractures in the Church.

Yes, that is why the history of it is important. Not necessarily the actual content in and of itself, but of its historical significance and how to understand how the others think.

We are not in a position to judge how much of the guidance of the HS he received, or did not recieve. We know that some of his works produced bad fruit, but in many ways, he retained the Teachings of the Apostles, which are clearly moved by the HS.

Of course, insofar as he retained the teachings of the Apostles, those are not his teachings, but the Apostles teachings, which makes them of value.

I don’t know…if we suppose he received some HS guidance, how are we to judge which is which? The wheat from the chaff?

Luther started a trend, that of retaining some Apostolic teachings, but not retaining others. With each successive generation of the heirs of the Reformation down through the ages, more and more of the Apostolic teaching is not retained, a process of reductionism, until with the liberal modernists, even scripture itself is being denied. This seems to me is the ultimate fruit of the Reformation.

He was right that the Catholic bishops needed to get out of politics. It was killing the Church.

Yes, too bad it wasn’t just that…

 

[mackbrislawn]

. Don’t forget, the Catholic had a habit of burning so called heretics.

That’s right, and we mustn’t forget that the Catholics weren’t alone in this endeavor. Calvinists and Lutherans also burned heretics.

 

[hn160]

That’s right, and we mustn’t forget that the Catholics weren’t alone in this endeavor. Calvinists and Lutherans also burned heretics.

Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinist, all have enough blame to go around, thank goodness we talk about our differences without getting out the torch.

 

[guanophore]

Have you ever read the Augsburg Confession or the Apology of the Augsburg Confession? What is heretical about them? By the way June 25th is the anniversary of the Augsburg Confession.

I find that reading a variety of anti-Catholic material has helped me to understand the history of divisions in the Church.

To begin with, the fact that it was written at all

In the introduction it is written:

… 2] and then also concerning dissensions in the matter of our holy religion and Christian Faith, that in this matter of religion the opinions and judgments of the parties might be heard in each other’s presence; and considered and weighed 3] among ourselves in mutual charity, leniency, and kindness, in order that, after the removal and correction of such things as have been treated and understood in a different manner in the writings on either side, these matters may be settled and brought back to one simple truth and Christian concord,

He is saying that a concord at Augsburg can solve the “differences of opinion” that have emerged with regard to the faith. This means he rejects the authority appointed by Christ to govern the Church, and is substitution an alternate authority.

The Teaching of Jesus is not a matter of opinion, but of divine revelation. The confession is saying that the participants wish to jettison the custody held of that revelation in the CC and stubstitute another.

4] that for the future one pure and true religion may be embraced and maintained by us, that as we all are under one Christ and do battle under Him, so we may be able also to live in unity and concord in the one Christian Church.

And that the religion of Catholicism is not pure and true, and therefore, the participants no longer wish to be in unity and concord with Catholicism.

 

[guanophore]

Did Luther write the Augsburg Confession?

No, it was heavily influenced by his teachings, but it was composed and signed by nobles and princes. As much a poliitcal act as a religious one.

The above articles we desire to present in accordance with the edict of Your Imperial Majesty, in order to exhibit our Confession and let men see a summary of the doctrine of our teachers. 7] If there is anything that any one might desire in this Confession, we are ready, God willing, to present ampler information according to the Scriptures.

8] Your Imperial Majesty’s faithful subjects:
9] John, Duke of Saxony, Elector
10] George, Margrave of Brandenburg.
11] Ernest, Duke of Lueneberg.
12] Philip, Landgrave of Hesse.
13] John Frederick, Duke of Saxony.
14] Francis, Duke of Lueneburg.
15] Wolfgang, Prince of Anhalt.
16] Senate and Magistracy of Nuremburg.
17] Senate of Reutlingen.

I find, throughout the Reformation, the idea that politicians have the authority to define the faith, rather than those to whom it was committed by Christ in the Apstolic succession is one aspect that defines the course of the Reformation. The city council of Zurch implemented the ideas of Calvin and legislated them.

They replaced the Holy Roman Empire with Reformed empires.

 

[hn160]

I find that reading a variety of anti-Catholic material has helped me to understand the history of divisions in the Church.

To begin with, the fact that it was written at all

In the introduction it is written:

… 2] and then also concerning dissensions in the matter of our holy religion and Christian Faith, that in this matter of religion the opinions and judgments of the parties might be heard in each other’s presence; and considered and weighed 3] among ourselves in mutual charity, leniency, and kindness, in order that, after the removal and correction of such things as have been treated and understood in a different manner in the writings on either side, these matters may be settled and brought back to one simple truth and Christian concord,

He is saying that a concord at Augsburg can solve the “differences of opinion” that have emerged with regard to the faith. This means he rejects the authority appointed by Christ to govern the Church, and is substitution an alternate authority.

The Teaching of Jesus is not a matter of opinion, but of divine revelation. The confession is saying that the participants wish to jettison the custody held of that revelation in the CC and stubstitute another.

4] that for the future one pure and true religion may be embraced and maintained by us, that as we all are under one Christ and do battle under Him, so we may be able also to live in unity and concord in the one Christian Church.

And that the religion of Catholicism is not pure and true, and therefore, the participants no longer wish to be in unity and concord with Catholicism.

I am not sure where your introduction to the Augsburg Confession is from, but this is the Preface:
Most serene, most mighty, invincible Emperor, most gracious Lord:
A short time ago Your Imperial Majesty graciously summoned a diet of the empire to convene here in Augsburg. In the summons Your Majesty indicated an earnest desire to deliberate concerning matters pertaining to the Turk, that traditional foe of ours and of the Christian religion, and how with continuing help he might effectively be resisted. 2s The desire was also expressed for deliberation on what might be done about the dissension concerning our holy faith and the Christian religion, and to this end it was proposed to employ all diligence amicably and charitably to hear, understand, and weigh the judgments, opinions, and beliefs of the several parties among us to unite the same in agreement on one Christian truth, 3s to put aside whatever may not have been rightly interpreted or treated by either side,1 4 to have all of us embrace and adhere to a single, true religion and live together in unity and in one fellowship and church, even as we are all enlisted under one Christ.2 5 Inasmuch as we, the undersigned elector and princes and our associates, have been summoned for these purposes, together with other electors, princes, and estates,3 we have complied with the command and can say without boasting that we were among the first to arrive.4
6 In connection with the matter pertaining to the faith and in conformity with the imperial summons, Your Imperial Majesty also graciously and earnestly requested5 that each of the electors, princes, and estates should commit to writing and present, in German and Latin, his judgments, opinions, and beliefs with reference to the said errors, dissensions, and abuses. 7 Accordingly, after due deliberation and counsel, it was decided last Wednesday that, in keeping with Your Majesty’s wish, we should present our case in German and Latin today (Friday).6 8 Wherefore, in dutiful obedience to Your Imperial Majesty, we offer and present a confession of our pastors’ and preachers’ teaching and of our own faith, setting forth how and in what manner, on the basis of the Holy Scriptures, these things are preached, taught, communicated, and embraced in our lands, principalities, dominions, cities and territories9
9 If the other electors, princes, and estates also submit a similar (tr-41) written statement of their judgments and opinions, in Latin and German, 10 we are prepared, in obedience to Your Imperial Majesty, our most gracious lord, to discuss with them and their associates, in so far as this can honorably be done, such practical and equitable ways as may restore unity. Thus the matters at issue between us may be presented in writing on both sides, they may be discussed amicably and charitably, our differences may be reconciled, and we may be united in one, true religion, 11 even as we are all under one Christ and should confess and contend for Christ. All of this is in accord with Your Imperial Majesty’s aforementioned summons. That it may be done according to divine truth we invoke almighty God in deepest humility and implore him to bestow his grace to this end. Amen.

 

[Stepson]

I find that reading a variety of anti-Catholic material has helped me to understand the history of divisions in the Church.

To begin with, the fact that it was written at all

In the introduction it is written:

… 2] and then also concerning dissensions in the matter of our holy religion and Christian Faith, that in this matter of religion the opinions and judgments of the parties might be heard in each other’s presence; and considered and weighed 3] among ourselves in mutual charity, leniency, and kindness, in order that, after the removal and correction of such things as have been treated and understood in a different manner in the writings on either side, these matters may be settled and brought back to one simple truth and Christian concord,

He is saying that a concord at Augsburg can solve the “differences of opinion” that have emerged with regard to the faith. This means he rejects the authority appointed by Christ to govern the Church, and is substitution an alternate authority.

The Teaching of Jesus is not a matter of opinion, but of divine revelation. The confession is saying that the participants wish to jettison the custody held of that revelation in the CC and stubstitute another.

4] that for the future one pure and true religion may be embraced and maintained by us, that as we all are under one Christ and do battle under Him, so we may be able also to live in unity and concord in the one Christian Church.

And that the religion of Catholicism is not pure and true, and therefore, the participants no longer wish to be in unity and concord with Catholicism.

I believe that the Catholic Church is absolutely a wonderful, beautiful, spiritually filled Church. The one Church started by Christ. But you and I will NEVER agree on this. The Holy Father here, the Vicar of Christ was a man in which you in your own words tell us that you don’t believe was even a Christian. How can the Church be under the authority of Christ in which a non-Christian was leading.

These reformist wanted to turn the Church back toward the Gospel WITH, and here is my biggest disagreement with you, is within one Christian Church, or from the whole or in other words “catholic.”

 

[hn160]

I find that reading a variety of anti-Catholic material has helped me to understand the history of divisions in the Church.

To begin with, the fact that it was written at all

In the introduction it is written:

… 2] and then also concerning dissensions in the matter of our holy religion and Christian Faith, that in this matter of religion the opinions and judgments of the parties might be heard in each other’s presence; and considered and weighed 3] among ourselves in mutual charity, leniency, and kindness, in order that, after the removal and correction of such things as have been treated and understood in a different manner in the writings on either side, these matters may be settled and brought back to one simple truth and Christian concord,

He is saying that a concord at Augsburg can solve the “differences of opinion” that have emerged with regard to the faith. This means he rejects the authority appointed by Christ to govern the Church, and is substitution an alternate authority.

The Teaching of Jesus is not a matter of opinion, but of divine revelation. The confession is saying that the participants wish to jettison the custody held of that revelation in the CC and stubstitute another.

4] that for the future one pure and true religion may be embraced and maintained by us, that as we all are under one Christ and do battle under Him, so we may be able also to live in unity and concord in the one Christian Church.

And that the religion of Catholicism is not pure and true, and therefore, the participants no longer wish to be in unity and concord with Catholicism.

Preface Continued:

12 If, however, our lords, friends, and associates who represent the electors, princes, and estates of the other party do not comply with the procedure intended by Your Imperial Majesty’s summons, if no amicable and charitable negotiations take place between us, and if no results are attained, 13 nevertheless we on our part shall not omit doing anything, in so far as God and conscience allow, that may serve the cause of Christian unity. 14 Of this Your Imperial Majesty, our aforementioned friends (the electors, princes, and estates), and every lover of the Christian religion who is concerned about these questions will be graciously and sufficiently assured from what follows in the confession which we and our associates submit.
15 In the past7 Your Imperial Majesty graciously gave assurance to the electors, princes, and estates of the empire, especially in a public instruction at the diet in Spires in 1526, 16 that for reasons there stated Your Imperial Majesty was not disposed to render decisions in matters pertaining to our holy faith but would diligently urge it upon the pope to call a council. 17 Again, by means of a written instruction at the last diet in Spires a year ago, 18 the electors, princes, and estates of the empire were, among other things, informed and notified by Your Imperial Majesty’s viceroy (His Royal Majesty of Hungary and Bohemia, etc.) and by Your Imperial Majesty’s orator and appointed commissioners, that Your Imperial Majesty’s viceroy, administrators, and councilors of the imperial government (together with the absent electors, princes, and representatives of the estates) who were assembled at the diet convened in Ratisbon8 had considered the proposal concerning a general council and acknowledged 19 that it would be profitable to have such a council called. Since the relations between Your Imperial Majesty and the pope were improving and were progressing toward a good, Christian understanding,9 Your Imperial Majesty was sure that the pope would not refuse to call a general council, 20 and so Your Imperial Majesty graciously offered to promote and bring about the calling of such a general council by the pope, along with Your Imperial Majesty, at the earliest opportunity and to allow no hindrance to be put in the way.16
(tr-43) 21 If the outcome should be such as we mentioned above,1 we offer in full obedience, even beyond what is required, to participate in such a general, free, and Christian council as the electors, princes, and estates have with the highest and best motives requested in all the diets of the empire which have been held during Your Imperial Majesty’s reign. 22 We have at various times made our protestations and appeals concerning these most weighty matters, and have done so in legal form and procedure. 23 To these we declare our continuing adherence, and we shall not be turned aside from our position by these or any following negotiations (unless the matters in dissension are finally heard, amicably weighed, charitably settled, and brought to Christian concord in accordance with Your Imperial Majesty’s summons) as we herewith publicly witness and assert. 24 This is our confession and that of our associates, and it is specifically stated, article by article, in what follows.12

Tappert, Theodore G.: The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 2000, c1959, S. 26