Is there currrently any larger attempt at Lutheran/Orthodox dialogue? I'm familiar with the early talks not going anywhere, but the situation was different then. Its not like they could hop on a skype call with someone across Europe back then.
I think Augsburg Catholic would be best, or Reformed Catholic, but of course somebody would immediately assume some form of Calvinism with the “Reformed” it’s frustrating that we Lutherans were left with a title that was used pejoratively by papists.
The Reformed literally originally called themselves "Reformed Catholics" before it was shortened, so that term is taken. The term "Papist", "Romanists" and the like are insulting and demeaning terms which you shouldn't use in polite conversation.
@@Michael-bk5nz Well As I previously stated, Lutheran was a term coined by Catholics and used as a pejorative, yet we identify ourselves as such, it was a bit of joking on my part. Also while historically the term may have been derogatory, I’ve seen it used primarily as an identifier, simply someone belonging to the catholic faith, and I would only use it within this context.
@@Possum880 almost every term used to describe religious groups originated as an insult. Methodist, Quaker, Puritan, Mormon, Calvinist, Anabaptist, later shortened to Baptist, Waldensean, Lollards, evangelical (18th-century variety), fundamentalist, probably even the word “Christian” itself, all these words originated as insults.
I've seen "Augsburg Catholic" being used more recently. Just as 99% of Roman Catholics do not reside within Vatican City, the same can be said of Lutherans within Augsburg today. Yet it's name is part of the confession and history all confessional Lutherans profess. Or as Will Weedon said it so boldly and confidently, "we ARE the Western Catholic Church, cleansed by the Gospel."
I will say, as someone who has recently moved from non-denominational worship to Lutheranism, I can say with 100% certainty I would’ve had an easier and quicker time accepting and making the change had the tradition not been named “Lutheranism”. As well, I feel like the confusion has been insane from people around me, who think I’ve joined a new religion entirely that worships Luther in a similar way the Mormons hold Joseph Smith. I understand why it is what it is, and yes, we agree with how Luther viewed the scripture, but it still feels a bit odd to be somewhat “named” after a guy. I’d definitely change it to something else if it were up to me. But that’s just my perspective.
Take the current broad definitions of "Evangelical" (an American-Protestant co-opted term) and "Catholic" (usually indicates Roman communion), and we'd neither be Evangelical nor Catholic. Take their traditional definitions and I think it's very accurate
I would prefer the word "Reformed Catholic" to the word Lutheranism. Same as MS-pw6jx's comment, name something after a guy should be its early name. It should be named after the theology that had been changed throughout the centuries. I am a member of Evangelical Lutheran Church of Thailand, we do not have the problem of definition as the Americans. However, the services are more like the low church but we still hold the tradition as the Catholic.
Lutherans are literally the first Protestants, the word "Protestant" was coined in 1529 to describe the Lutherans who signed the Protestation of Speyer
I am from finland. I never was lutheran but lutheran church proclaims to be protestant. Its name is finnish evangelical protestant church. So it is clear it is protestant. Now i was pentecostal but I never even knew that pentecostals are protestants since it is totally different than lutherism. Pentecostals do not even speak about protestantism. And lutheran church persecuted pentecostals in Finland and called them heretics. So the situation in Finlans is opposite of America. All finns know that lutherism is protestantism. But people do not think Pentocastals has to do anything with them. And for me it is very strange to put them in the same box. Both of them are protestant but they have nothing in common. Orthodox and lutherans seems to be more alike. Lutheran finns are basicly 95% non christian. They dont even believe anything about christianity. All pentecostals claims to believe in Christ. Now i am finnish eastern orthodox though since we have two national churches: lutheran and orthodox.
There are also some ways in which the Reformed tradition (traditionally, not the more evangelical churches of today) is closer to Rome than Lutheranism is. We are more willing to try to answer every possible theological question than to appeal to mystery or lack of understanding. We also don't allow contradictions, like Lutherans do. LCMS literally admits a contradiction in their statement of faith. Traditional Reformed would also say that we have more in common with Rome than with modern evangelicalism.
3 месяца назад
Question: is it possible to be a Roman Catholic and yet reject the Nicene Creed? It doesn't seem like it would be.
When a good movement begins it is given a moniker. The moniker is then used by people who don't understand the original intent and bastardize it i.e. protestant, evangelical. Both those terms no longer have the true meaning left in them according to the current societal interpretation. Sorry, I wrote that quickly hope the meaning gets through🙂
The deacon of our church encouraged us to say "the holy catholic church" instead of the "holy apostolic church" when saying the confession. He would say we are the catholic church. (he wouldn't say that catholics aren't catholic too) Concerning "Protestant" he would basically tell us the meaning of the latin word "protestare" and affirm that we are protestant as we are catholic. Concerning "Evangelical Catholic" I never heard anyone say the equivalent in German. That's just my experience with Lutheranism in Saxony/Germany.
I'm a calvinist since among all theologians this world produced, Calvin is the one I think had the best understanding of the bible in the last 1000 years. I'm a presbyterian since I believe this is the right model for Church governance, by definition I'm also reformed since the Presbyterian Church is a reformed church. I'm a "crente" (believer, used as a slur in my country) because I ardently believe in Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I'm an evangelical because the good news in the bible (εὐαγγέλιον) is the Truth. I'm a protestant because I protest against self imposed hegemony from the church of Rome. Before I'm all of any things, I'm a devout christian and sinner trusting in the grace of Jesus Christ for my redemption. I really don't have problem with any of those terms even if they are used as slurs or if they get a negative connotation from mainstream due to any reason.
Who are these Lutherans who don’t call themselves “Protestants”? I have friends in both the ELCA & LCMS camps an none of them have a problem with the term. This feels like a nothingburger of an issue that just gets spun around by a small number of Luths online.
It all comes down to terms and their meaning (which is based on usage). Lutherans are the original Protestants in the original meaning of the term and also its broader usage today, that is, all groups (confessions or denominations) that broke with (and/or excommunicated from) the Catholic Church (i.e., the universal church as defined throughout the Middle Ages, headed by the Pope in Rome [sometimes Avignon]).
It's because so much of the protestant churches in the USA do not hold to traditional Christianity and left literary, sacraments, and sex based roles behind. Confessional lutherans are so different from these other churches.
I think both embracing the term and shy away from it, carriers it's own risks. I whould first of all deny that "protestant" is a concept that carries any meaningful theological information. The "solas" is as far as I understand it not contemporary terms to the Reformation, but later analytical tools which appeared in order to define a concept which already existed - 'protestant". The word actually arose in a political context in Germany. In the Anglo-Saxon world the word has clear political undertones, that has to to with identity and loyalty. So I would say that the word primarily is a political concept, secondarily a kind of cultural-historical concept - but it is not a theologically useful concept. Then when it comes to the term Catholic, I would say: Yes of course we are Catholic. The problem is if you use the term too carelessly you fall in to the Anglo-Catholic trap, in that you abandon the principles of the Reformation altogether. We Lutherans have never been Puritans, so we don't need to have such an over-the-top reaction as the Anglicans did. All words carry with them a history of association. “Evangelical Catholic” is a good candidate, but the risk is that the concept itself will lead us to a place we don't want to be. I guess we are stuck with the term "Lutheran" so far, which brings with it its own problems. :-)
Wasn’t it the Lutherans who coined the term “Roman” Catholics as opposed to Latin Catholics. We now own it and wear it. You are a protester “Protestant “, own it and wear it.
I admit I'm surprised by this. I grew up Lutheran (in the LCMS) and was always taught by my parents that we're Protestant, because Luther started the protest against Rome. I've always just thought of it as A) a descriptor of the historical event and B) it distinguishes us from Roman Catholics today in that we all reject the authority of the pope among other things. Certainly, the US has a lot of confusion about what the Bible teaches because of the greater spread of other protestant denominations (and non-confessional Lutherans like the ELCA) but when I talk with my friends who always have been or who became atheist, the word "protestant" never comes up. Instead what I have to clear up is the confusion they have regarding the word "Christian". I've had to learn to use phrases like "what the Bible teaches" and "those who believe the Bible" to get past the anger they immediately feel towards the word "Christianity". The more we talk about the Bible, the more they can see a difference between what it says and what they have previously understood Christianity to be. And when I'm talking to friends from other protestant denominations or non-denominational, we still don't discuss the word "protestant", we discuss what the Bible says and what I confess and believe as a Lutheran and where that's similar or different to them. So, what I'm trying to say is that I didn't realize there was a controversy over the label "protestant", but also that I hardly ever hear it used by people who I need to explain my beliefs too. Instead, the word "Christianity" gets applied more often.
As a Catholic I say that Lutherans are the only real Protestants. Everything after Luther is a complete break from Christ and His Church. Calvinism is Christianized Islam. The rest are neo-Gnostics. But I like the Evangelical Catholic thing. I have a very high regard for Lutherans. In that sense, "protestant" would refer to those protesting against Luther and Lutheranism?
Learn a bit more about church history, for example the Anglicans, to avoid uninformed statements. Besides, the Church of Rome behaved like a protestant when it broke away from the Holy Orthodox and Catholic Church in 1054.
I've always wondered why we don't take a page from Anglicanism and use a phrase like "via media". We truly are the best of both worlds as far as Protestant and Catholic go. But I suppose if you think about it from another perspective, Luther didn't want to leave the Catholic Church, but rather wanted to reform it and fix the errors in it. Unfortunately Rome wasn't having it and kicked him out. So in that sense, we really aren't "Protestant" since we never abandoned our Catholicism. (And yes, I'm using a capital C, why should the papists have a monopoly on capital letters?) Nor are we "Catholic Lite". We are "Full Flavor Catholic", without the fillers and added by-products.
Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide Sola Gratia, Solo Christo are the fundamentals of Protestantism as opposed to Roman Cathlic and Orthodox doctrine so Lutheranism is fully Protestant.
It’s really Protestantism vs ecclesialism. The definition characteristic of Protestantism is its view of the church as not needing to be institutionally homogeneous.
I think you're both onto something. The Reformers protested, past tense, and their protestations for reform were mostly rebuffed by a Rome that no longer exists as it did in 1517. The Rome of today is a far cry from the historic Medieval Church. So, what's left today is a strange, irreconcilable stalemate where giving any ground becomes a refutation of justified actions of the past for every party involved.
We still protest against Rome's self imposed hegemony over the Church. They are still there, powerful (not as powerful as they were before, but still) and numerous. They are doing intense proselytism over past few years and many atheists and protestants have converted to papism.
Probably that works well in the US, but in Europe, the Catholic Church is much more present. Even though some countries, like the Nordics, have a very clear and pervasive Protestant Lutheran tradition, in the context of Europe I think the term Protestant has meaning. However, do we want to continue defining ourselves in opposition? I would rather not.
While I was Lutheran, I was very much of an AC XXI:5 and XXIV:1 mentality. "We are the continuation of the Church Catholic in dogma and praxis, and thus the name truly belongs to us. To be Protestant is to protest against the Faith to which we hold." "Evangelical Catholic" and even "Augsburg Catholic" were the colors I would hoist, and hearing other Lutherans self-describe as "Protestant" would cause me to flinch and become defensive. Stepping out of Lutheranism into the Orthodox Church, it's somewhat humorous and entirely humbling how quickly that point is conceded, realizing I was a Protestant in denial the entire time.
3 месяца назад
I've heard Catholics call the Orthodox the first Protestants.
Why do they call their faith Protestant? Its a bad name for their faith. Evangelical would be far more appropriate. There was Evangelical groups in existence far before Luther ever nailed his thesis. Waldensians, Lollards, and Hussites to name a few.
In the English speaking world, "Evangelical" is an extremely misleading term because it refers to those who grew out of the First Great Awakening in the 18th century who hold to low church, anti-sacramental views, and who are opposed to liturgy and ritual and hold that worship should be informal, spontaneous and free. Lutherans are absolutely NOT evangelical in that sense, and if you use the term to describe Lutherans you are going to have to precede it with a long winded explanation that what you mean by the term is different from what 99% of people who call themselves that mean by it, and that makes it a very impractical word to use.
We are evangelical catholic. The Protestants are what Luther called the Radicals. American Lutherans need to embrace the term evangelical catholic even more than the name Lutheran. Our theology is distinctive and rooted in history before the 16th. Only the term evangelical catholic does this. Listen to Luther on that subject! 👍 Edit: using the term Protestant and people think you are a radical. Use the term Lutheran and the Catholics and Orthodox see you as a member of a 16th century cult. Luther himself gave us the correct term and we should listen to his wisdom-- "evangelical catholic "
Yes of course they are. The term 'protestant' was solely applied to the Lutherans in 1529 because they 'protested' against Emperor Charles V's religious policy. It later became adopted by the various heretical sects of the C16th. In the coronation of Edward VI in 1547 a section of Westminster Abbey was set aside for the 'protestants' from the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. It correctly dignified that Lutherans were religious heretics and politically subversive.
@@user-tb5sq6jm2y It is actually quite sad so many protestant's follow their own pride instead of tradition, 500 years of rebellion has lead exactly nowhere. If Christianity is one thing it is restauration through obidience. Protestants have a very hard time grasping that concept. Happy Holy Week.
@@user-tb5sq6jm2y I guess if you worship your own ideas than you are not in need of the 7 sacrements, nor grace, nor The Saints, nor The Blessed Virgin.
@@user-tb5sq6jm2y Sounds like you are just making stuff up on the fly. If you don't like the Pope you can always go Orthodox. Because if what you were saying was truth others should have found that truth by now. Looking at religion as muscician with years of experiences in scenes and genres and subgenres. It is very easy to see lutheranism is just wannabee Christianity, no pedigree, no blessings, just a whole lot of talk. Some denominations pull the same trick social scientist pull. Where you first have to plough through word salad after word salad to co be allowed to say something. Luckily Jesus made it very easy for us, he gave his followers blessings, gave us his flesh, his blood, his mother , the saintsand the holy spirit. If you find yourself lacking in any of these than you are doin g it wrong.
You got to be kidding?The 1st. Heritics and you got to ask that question. As a Cradle Catholic pre Vatican ll Baltimore Catechism Douy Rhines Bible. The words Turncoats or Traitor may sound :harsh :Those were the least said about Lutherans when I was coming up.
That vestment is a ridiculous conceit. There's no indication in the New Testament that the OT priestly garments are somehow to be emulated in worship service by Christian pastors/elders. This look seems to be a variation of the vain conceit of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox "priests."
Perhaps but the first Christians, those that knew the apostles, met in synagogues following the Jewish liturgy and worship. Also the commands of scripture dont abhor clerical robes in themselves.
Scholars aren't 100% certain of the origin of all vestments, but it seems likely that most are just formalized/uniformed versions of common Roman garb. During certain services in the early Church, specific members would wear a certain color. So it would make sense for them to start making a garb that completely matches one another.
Also the writings of the new testament does presuppose you have a view of the 1st century era as well as a connection with other Christian of the time. So just because it doesn't explicitly say something doesn't really mean much.
@@theimputationist3331 Where in scripture does it say that the Christians of the apostolic time, following Christ's ascension, met in the synagogues and followed Jewish liturgy and worship? Nowhere. What is said is that those early Christian churches met in believers' houses. And, again, no mention is given of Jewish liturgy being practiced at these houses. As for vestments - sure, they aren't proscribed. But neither are they prescribed. For me - they have an air of vain, separatist conceit a la the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox systems of false, yet elevated, priestly hierarchy. I seriously doubt Paul or any of the apostles garbed themselves so. There's certainly no evidence of such practice in the New Testament, or in church history of the time, including the Didache.
Not everyone wants the name "Catholic". Most self-proclaimed "Protestants" want to be as far away from anything having to do with Rome as possible. About the ONLY "Protestants" who also go by Catholic are confessional Lutherans. So, it doesn't say much.
The Greek word catholicos means universal. No church organisation can claim to be universal. The Monophysites and the Nestorians broke away first, then the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches broke away from each other, and later on the Protestants from the Roman Catholic Church.
They are protestant because they are still protesting 500 years later. 80% of Luther's objections have already been remedied. It's starting to look like protest for the sake of protest.
@@Catholic-Perennialist "deficient soteriology" you guys literally pray to Mary asking for salvation, wear scapular thinking dying while wearing it makes you saved, you guys also believe papal indulgences also help people get saved. You also believe some people need to burn in purgatory for thousands of years or so in order to be truly saved and it's up to the living to shorten their time there. This is the most broken soteriology that ANY christian denomination ever has.
@@CosmicHyperborean should they weigh in on the war in ukrain as well? What about the housing market? Should they make an official statement endorsing chik fil a?
@@Poobiswooby , certainly on issues which affect Lutheran congregations and the larger communities. Mass immigration is real problem along with homelessness in both the United States and Europe.
