Posted on 01/22/2013 9:28:25 AM PST by marshmallow
We don’t “follow” Martin Luther. We follow Christ. Luther is in many ways inspirational but some of his teachings we reject utterly.
I bet this dovetails with my latest study of the early history of the Church.
I have yet to see any group or organization label itself "Papist".
So: are there any definitions of "Lutheran" given in that dictionary with which you disagree, or that you find offensive?
See #41.
(2) Catholics do not "pray to" the saints or Our Lady.
Nor do we hold to superstitions.
And both Lutheran and Catholic churches have statuary. They're not mosques.
Seemed odd, till I studied the history. Those churches came from Southern Germany/Saxony.
Of course: “Followers of Martin Luther” is equivalent to defining Roman Catholics as Followers of the Pope, or Papists. Martin Luther had a number of personal characteristics and beliefs which are not indicative of doctrine of Lutheran churches, just as Popes of the time had personal habits which did not reflect or become doctrines of your faith.
Seems to me the gist of the issue at hand is this: no single person or entity speaks for something called “Lutheranism”. Not individual Lutherans nor the heads of the various splinter synods. If individual Lutheran congregations (or even groups of congregations) became disgruntled with Lutheranism for whatever reason and approached the Vatican for an Anglican-type ordinariate, there would be nothing or no one within Lutheranism to stop them. If other Lutherans are confident in the truth of their beliefs, then they shouldn’t fear any type of voluntary exodus from their church. That’s what Protestants always say to Catholics, anyway.
I see...I am sorry for the exegesis :-)...I think Lutheran merely is the flavor of protestantism. I could be an Adams Republican, a Payne Libertarian, I am a doctor, but designate myself as a critical care anesthesiologist to delineate what kind of doctor I am...I suppose it is appropriate to refer to myself as an allopath to distinguish my practice and training from that of osteopath — both equal in the site of the license boards. I think it is not whom we follow, for we follow the triune God, but just designates the finer point of our philosophy...
I see...I am sorry for the exegesis :-)...I think Lutheran merely is the flavor of protestantism. I could be an Adams Republican, a Payne Libertarian, I am a doctor, but designate myself as a critical care anesthesiologist to delineate what kind of doctor I am...I suppose it is appropriate to refer to myself as an allopath to distinguish my practice and training from that of osteopath — both equal in the site of the license boards. I think it is not whom we follow, for we follow the triune God, but just designates the finer point of our philosophy...
I see...I am sorry for the exegesis :-)...I think Lutheran merely is the flavor of protestantism. I could be an Adams Republican, a Payne Libertarian, I am a doctor, but designate myself as a critical care anesthesiologist to delineate what kind of doctor I am...I suppose it is appropriate to refer to myself as an allopath to distinguish my practice and training from that of osteopath — both equal in the site of the license boards. I think it is not whom we follow, for we follow the triune God, but just designates the finer point of our philosophy...
But, ultimately, if “Papa Benny” doesn’t correct Cd. Koch, he affirms the rhetoric.
I’ll retract my criticism* if and when Benny makes a statement -pro or con- of Cd. Koch.(* a form still protected under the same 1Amend that protects the faithful practice of both the RCs and Lutrins!)
As to the Chicago style of my earlier post...it goes without saying that [in Chicago] if “Dick” Daly didn’t know about it, he isn’t culpable. In this instance, is Cd. Koch a “loose cannon”?
:: rather than going off half-cocked ::
Have you been talking to my wife? [wink, wink]
So ... is the definition “Lutheran = Folks who find Martin Luther inspirational” a step in the right direction?
I honestly didn’t know that there was any sensitivity about the name “Lutheran”, particularly since Lutherans themselves used it. And also since we have Franciscans, and Dominicans, and Augustinians, so it didn’t seem out of the pale.
But you’ve acquitted yourselves well in explaining it, and now I will know (and will hopefully remember!) to be careful about that usage in the future.
For the most part, I don’t mind.
Life is to short to be offended. But there is history in those terms.
OK, but if somebody starts singing “Kumbaya”, we’re taking the beer and goin’ home.
[Deleting an 8 paragraph explanation of Smalkald, Epitome X.]
Why do some parishes use ^white^ wine for the Sacrament of the Altar?
AB, please read that small exposition (SA-Ep X) for a really good explanation as to why Lutherans grudgingly accept the label of Lutheran.
:: OK, but if somebody starts singing Kumbaya, were taking the beer and goin home. ::
Okay...hang up your interwebz and go home. We have the post of thread!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.