Posted on 01/22/2013 9:28:25 AM PST by marshmallow
The Secretary of the International Lutheran Federation has rejected the proposal presented again about a day or so ago by the Prefect of the former Holy Office
An ordinariate for Lutherans who wish to re-enter into communion with the Vatican, whilst preserving their traditions at least partially? The idea of extending the solution offered by Pope Benedict XVI to groups of traditionalist Anglicans to followers of Martin Luther was suggested for the first time by the President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, Cardinal Kurt Koch.
But just as the proposal is being put forward again by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mgr. Gerhard Ludwig Müller, it is beginning to trigger heated protests and concerns among the Catholic Church’s ecumenical partners –as happened with the Anglican Church.
The creation of an ordinariate – intended for those groups of Anglicans that wish to join the Catholic Church but also maintain their own identity – was “not Rome’s idea; it originates in the Anglican Church,” Koch said last 30 October. “The Holy Father looked for a solution and found a wide-reaching one which took into account the Anglican Church’s ecclesial and liturgical traditions. If the Lutherans made a similar request - he went on to say - we will have to consider their situation carefully. But the initiative remains in the hands of the Lutherans.”
The issue was recently addressed by Mgr. Müller. The German theologian chosen by Pope Benedict XVI to lead the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, recognised that the “Lutheran world is different to the Anglican one because Anglicanism has always had an element that is closer to Catholicism.” But this would not stop the Church from allowing Lutheran groups to convert to Catholicism, preserving “legitimate traditions developed” over the......
(Excerpt) Read more at vaticaninsider.lastampa.it ...
I wouldn’t be offended. “Papist” is an insult from non-Catholics.
I don’t see why ‘follower of Martin Luther’ is an insult to Lutherans. You’ll have to enlighten me.
Objectively, it would seem to mean a follower of someone named "Luther", in the same way as "Jeffersonian" means a follower of someone named "Jefferson" or "Platonist" means a follower of someone named "Plato". This seems inoffensive ... certainly does not deny the possibility that the Lutheran follows Luther (etc.) in mutual pursuit of some greater good.
Yet we see up-thread folks (who may not even be Lutheran) objecting rather rudely to this understanding of the meaning of the word.
So I ask, what does the word itself mean? Why use it? What distinction does it make?
While I disagree with most of what you wrote, a good portion of it is a matter of personal opinion - except for this.
This statement is demonstrably false and should be obviously false to anyone who stops and thinks about it for one second.
Numerous Catholic theologians have spent long years explaining in great detail the substantial arguments against Protestant criticisms of the Church.
To ignore this fact is to ignore much of the history of the Reformation itself.
OK ... do you call yourself "Lutheran"? If so, what do you mean by that word? What distinction does it make?
Lutherans identify with “Followers of Jesus Christ”. The point being is that Luther was not/is not infallible. We don't claim that.
And considering that this site has some who constantly claim that
1. Lutherans are not “real” Christians.
2. Lutherans worship Luther.
I can see some getting touchy about it. In fact I expect a few to arrive shortly, who will start saying that Lutherans (and all non Roman Catholics) are indeed damned.
In other words, welcome to the religion forum. Poo gets thrown here.
Meant to pin you to my last post. Sorry.
Presumably the ELCA are ‘followers of Sodom’, since Luther never preached that sodomy is a virtue.
“At that time the church was apostate among other things selling indulgences and claiming that this would purchase forgiveness of sin without repentance and subsequently salvation”
Indulgences are given for the dead, not for the person themselves. You don’t take out an indulgence for forgiveness of your sins.
“at that time the pope excommunicated Luther, and at the diet of Worms Luther was given the opportunity to rescind his teachings”
You’ve got it backwards - Luther’s 95 theses, about 75 were accepted by the Church. 14 or so were rejected. Luther was instructed to retain the 75 and rescind the 14 which were contrary to what the Church teaches. He refused.
“claiming the Word of God was inerrant and not subject to the papal interpretation.”
Given that he was a member of the magisterium and had teaching authority, such an argument is fatal to his own authority. One cannot divide one’s own authority as a priest from the Pope, they are one and the same.
“He further denied the diety of the pope.”
Something no Catholic believes, then or now.
“Upon excommunication, the Protestant movement was born”
Munster occurred two years prior to Luther’s excommunication, FWIW.
“All Protestants accept the low church perspective that priests and hierarchical men are not required to petition God and that our relationship is personal with God and not necessarily contingent on a relationship with a church body per se.”
Catholics believe that one can petition God without a priest, and that salvation doesn’t require one to be a member of the Catholic church, or any church for that matter.
Can you answer my question?
What does the word "Lutheran" mean? What distinction is meant by those who use it?
Why would I be offended? That is what I am - I have a duty to be obedient to Papa Benedict.
“The point being is that Luther was not/is not infallible. We don’t claim that.”
You claim the bible is inerrant and at the same time use Luther’s canon. Ergo, you are followers of Luther and his teachings.
The term "Lutheran" originated as a perjorative which was eventually accepted by members of the faith because it was reasonably descriptive and, besides, it's much easier to pronounce than Melanchthonians.
My statements are from personal experience and research, but the history of the Church and the Protestant Reformation can get pretty complicated to follow when attempting to sort it out for yourself.
Can you recommend something for me to look at ?
"Papa Benny" didn't give the interview Speciale describes, Cardinal Koch did. It was an interview, not a formal document, so obviously it wasn't reviewed by anybody in the Vatican. The actual interview is here. You'll note that Cardinal Koch uses the word ... get this ... "LUTHERANS". Ghastly!
This thread is a good example of why FReepers need to actually *read* *and* *understand* *primary* *sources* rather than going off half-cocked based on every ill-considered word from the pen of a journalist.
The creation of an ordinariate – intended for those groups of Anglicans that wish to join the Catholic Church but also maintain their own identity – was “not Rome’s idea; it originates in the Anglican Church,”
If someone goes to Rome, they should do it whole hog and eyes open. Pray'n to saints and Mary, indulgences, statues, superstitions and scapulars, all of it.
That’s a reasonable explanation. Thank you. No intent to offend, having never been a Lutheran myself. A denominination ought to be defined by it’s confessionals, and Augsburgians is appropriate.
In Germany and other Baltic states, those synods are often called “Evangelical”. They do not often call themselves Lutheran. In some places that is a slur on the level of “Papist”, and “Fisheater”. In most of North America (NA), that isn't the case.
JCB, I suggest you research the Lutheran (using the NA term) canon pre WWI. My great uncle's Bible has the same books you do included in the Apocrypha. In confirmation, we got most of the books as separate handouts (excluding Tobit, if I remember right. Didn't have time for it).
And saying you follow BXVI to some here will get screams. During WWI, Wilson forcibly changed the Lutheran canon and liturgy to match that of the Episcopal churches.
1. of or pertaining to Luther, adhering to his doctrines, or belonging to one of the Protestant churches that bear his name.
2. a follower of Luther or an adherent of his doctrines; a member of the Lutheran Church.
1. a follower of Martin Luther or a member of a Lutheran Church
2. of or relating to Luther or his doctrines, the most important being justification by faith alone, consubstantiation, and the authority of the Bible
3. of or denoting any Protestant Church that follows Luther's doctrines
Does anybody on this thread disagree with any of these definitions? If so, why?
Traditionally, congregations of the Missouri Synod would inscribe the initials UAC in the cornerstone of each new church building to signify the congregation's fealty to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.
Are you Lutheran Church Missouri Synod or ELCA? (Just curious.)
Theodore Beza and John Rainolds (the most prominent English Puritan theologian before the Restoration) wrote extensive replies to Bellarmine, as did the High Anglican Lancelot Andrewes.
There are also the three volumes of St. Peter Canisius - The Summary of Christian Doctrine and the works of St. Lawrence of Brindisi whose three volumes of Controversies address matters of Protestant exegesis in detail.
These are difficult to find today, especially online, but they comprise thousands of pages of closely reasoned arguments.
More recent books that are readily available are such works as By What Authority? by Mark Shea, If Protestantism is True by Devin Rose and Pillars of Sola Scriptura by Dave Armstrong, among many, many others.
“And saying you follow BXVI to some here will get screams.”
One could certainly do worse.
“During WWI, Wilson forcibly changed the Lutheran canon and liturgy to match that of the Episcopal churches.”
That I did not know. Wilson was an evil man for many reasons.
“JCB, I suggest you research the Lutheran (using the NA term) canon pre WWI. My great uncle’s Bible has the same books you do included in the Apocrypha. In confirmation, we got most of the books as separate handouts (excluding Tobit, if I remember right. Didn’t have time for it).”
This is probably the greatest division between us. If that is the case, this makes me hopeful for the future. :) I see collaboration as possible between the Missouri Synod, those who are ‘Evangelical’, in the sense that they have retained the true teachings of Christ and, yes, Luther. And not the ECLA which is unworthy of the name.
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.