Did historical protestants identify themselves as "catholics"?

The reformers lived up to the light they were given at the time .... God does not reveal His light (truth) all at once. So it is with all of us .... the more we study ... the more we learn and the more is revealed .... the important thing is we use scripture itself and not tradition .... we are warned of mans tradition by Jesus. We each have the individual responsibility to study scripture. We are to follow in the steps of Jesus .... He is our example.

Wenura said:

Did Historical protestant churches like Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, etc... and their founders identify themselves as lowercase "catholic"(Universal in sense) in their founding years? or the Catholic - catholic difference came from branch theory later?

Click to expand...

I don't believe so. However, the protestants 100-500 years ago were much closer to Catholic beliefs than current day protestants.

Officially, On April 19, 1529, six princes and representatives of 14 Imperial Free Cities petitioned the Imperial Diet at Speyer against an imperial ban of Martin Luther, as well as the proscription of his works and teachings, and called for the unhindered spread of the evangelical faith. This is known as the Protestation of Speyer, which is where the term Protestant came from.

Wenura said:

Did Historical protestant churches like Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, etc... and their founders identify themselves as lowercase "catholic"(Universal in sense) in their founding years? or the Catholic - catholic difference came from branch theory later?

Click to expand...

Here's what the Lutheran Confessions say,

"This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. This being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers be regarded as heretics. There is, however, disagreement on certain abuses, which have crept into the Church without rightful authority. And even in these, if there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have now reviewed; because even the Canons are not so severe as to demand the same rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all churches been the same; although, among us, in large part, the ancient rites are diligently observed. For it is a false and malicious charge that all the ceremonies, all the things instituted of old, are abolished in our churches. But it has been a common complaint that some abuses were connected with the ordinary rites. These, inasmuch as they could not be approved with a good conscience, have been to some extent corrected.

Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons, we pray that Your Imperial Majesty would graciously hear both what has been changed, and what were the reasons why the people were not compelled to observe those abuses against their conscience. Nor should Your Imperial Majesty believe those who, in order to excite the hatred of men against our part, disseminate strange slanders among the people. Having thus excited the minds of good men, they have first given occasion to this controversy, and now endeavor, by the same arts, to increase the discord. For Your Imperial Majesty will undoubtedly find that the form of doctrine and of ceremonies with us is not so intolerable as these ungodly and malicious men represent. Besides, the truth cannot be gathered from common rumors or the revilings of enemies. But it can readily be judged that nothing would serve better to maintain the dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish reverence and pious devotion among the people than if the ceremonies were observed rightly in the churches." - The Augsburg Confession, Article XXI, 5-15

For Lutherans, then, the answer is absolutely yes. We are Catholic. I even go so far as to use the capital 'C' here. Catholic, but not Roman. The Lutheran self-understanding is simply that we are the Catholic Church in the West, reformed and cleansed with the Gospel. We don't deny others are members of the Church, we don't claim we alone are the Church--but we do see ourselves as simply continuing and practicing the faith of the fathers and the apostles. I.e. the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

For Lutherans, then, the answer is absolutely yes. We are Catholic. I even go so far as to use the capital 'C' here. Catholic, but not Roman. The Lutheran self-understanding is simply that we are the Catholic Church in the West, reformed and cleansed with the Gospel. We don't deny others are members of the Church, we don't claim we alone are the Church--but we do see ourselves as simply continuing and practicing the faith of the fathers and the apostles. I.e. the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Since you brought up the four marks of the Christian church, I would wonder what you think of the following:
How are we "one" if there are differences of opinion on beliefs and differences in community?
How is the Lutheran church catholic if it cannot show an attempt to be truly universal? This does not allow one to adopt a bunker mentality.
How can the Lutheran church claim apostolic descent if there is a break in the lineage from the apostolic church?

I am not trying to throw rocks at the Lutheran church only. I see some of the same issues in claims by the Catholic Church centered in Rome and the Orthodox church. I hope the members here can address these common problems without making this about who is right and who is wrong.

tz620q said:

Since you brought up the four marks of the Christian church, I would wonder what you think of the following:
How are we "one" if there are differences of opinion on beliefs and differences in community?

Click to expand...

Such as the differences that existed between East and West even before the year1054? Or the differences between those in the Latin Rite or the various Eastern Rites even today?

Doesn't even Rome acknowledge that, by virtue of baptism, those outside of communion with Rome are still--if their baptism is valid and licit--some sense connected to the Church Catholic?

That, I'd argue, is the starting place for that conversation.

tz620q said:

How is the Lutheran church catholic if it cannot show an attempt to be truly universal? This does not allow one to adopt a bunker mentality.
How can the Lutheran church claim apostolic descent if there is a break in the lineage from the apostolic church?

Click to expand...

I would first argue that there is no such thing as "the Lutheran Church". The term "Lutheran" was given by those who wanted to call us heretics. The name has stuck, and we have accepted it inasmuch as we call ourselves "Lutheran" as a helpful way of identifying ourselves within the broader sea of Christians.

But there is no such thing as a "Lutheran Church" as opposed to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ.

As far as apostolic descent is concerned, in some places Apostolic Succession was retained, in other places it was not. We have argued that apostolicity is not merely by virtue of having ministers with Apostolic Succession, but in the faithful preaching and maintaining of the apostolic teaching. Wherever the apostolic word is preached, there apostolicity is maintained. Conversely, if one with otherwise valid apostolic succession does not preach the apostolic faith, they cannot claim apostolicity--a heretic cannot claim to represent the apostolic faith of the Church even if they have the "credentials" to back it up. So while Apostolic Succession is certainly a good thing when and where it safeguards the faith from heresy, false teaching, and abuses; but if it does not do that, then it is more necessary to be faithful to Christ's word and the word of His apostles than to merely claim linear descent from the apostles. To preach the word rather than merely claim the word; to believe the faith and confess the faith rather than merely claim the faith.

In this way apostolicity is maintained in the churches of the evangelical reform of the Church, whether through Apostolic Succession or without. If our confession is true, then it is true. If our faith is faithful, then let it be faithful. If we are persisting and enduring in the faithful deposit of faith given from the beginning, and if we are teaching and professing what has been believed and have Christ and His Gospel front and center--then we are Christian, we are Catholic. For the Catholic and Apostolic faith is that we confess and believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son our Lord, et al.

tz620q said:

I am not trying to throw rocks at the Lutheran church only. I see some of the same issues in claims by the Catholic Church centered in Rome and the Orthodox church. I hope the members here can address these common problems without making this about who is right and who is wrong.

Click to expand...

Understood. Since we don't believe that there is a "Lutheran Church" as something distinct or other than the one Church of Jesus Christ, then that is about the sum of it. We don't see our Church as anything other than the same Church that's been from the beginning. No church was founded by Luther or any of the Evangelical Reformers. We never left the Catholic Church. The Church of 1516 is the same Church in 1517.

To believe that there is a distinct and separate "Lutheran Church" apart from the Catholic Church would mean recognizing the claims and authority which condemned Luther as a heretic--and we don't recognize that; we consider it an illicit authority.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

Such as the differences that existed between East and West even before the year1054? Or the differences between those in the Latin Rite or the various Eastern Rites even today?

Doesn't even Rome acknowledge that, by virtue of baptism, those outside of communion with Rome are still--if their baptism is valid and licit--some sense connected to the Church Catholic?

That, I'd argue, is the starting place for that conversation.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

I thought these points you brought up are worthy of separate discussion, so I have broken this into 3 different replies. On what is quoted above, I see your point. There were political and religious rifts prior to the Great Schism in 1054. Perhaps by maintaining a sense of community and a common communion, there was a pull back towards a center that allowed the rifts to be healed, even if only temporarily. This healing truly only happened through ecumenical councils. The Great Schism might have been the tectonic shift that caused a permanent displacement; but I don't think we can use physical phenomenon as an analogy for spiritual matters. A better explanation for why this rift has lasted to this day is the story of Adam and Eve. Human nature corrupts even the church and it is a testament to the apostles and their successors that the church careened along for a thousand years before egos and pride took it off the rails.

As far as the validity of baptisms from other separated groups, I think the theology of this is that a person is baptized ex opere operato. The efficacy of the sacrament is not dependent on either the attitude of the recipient or the merits of the celebrant. This theology was fought over and clarified during the time of the Donatist schism and can be applied to our separated brethren today without having to redefine the theology of baptism. But I think this is a hollow victory, in that it only acknowledges the link of these communions on a nebulous spiritual level connected by Christ without opening up the need to reform ourselves back into a unified church to repair the fractures caused by human fraility.

ViaCrucis said:

But there is no such thing as a "Lutheran Church" as opposed to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ.

As far as apostolic descent is concerned, in some places Apostolic Succession was retained, in other places it was not. We have argued that apostolicity is not merely by virtue of having ministers with Apostolic Succession, but in the faithful preaching and maintaining of the apostolic teaching. Wherever the apostolic word is preached, there apostolicity is maintained. Conversely, if one with otherwise valid apostolic succession does not preach the apostolic faith, they cannot claim apostolicity--a heretic cannot claim to represent the apostolic faith of the Church even if they have the "credentials" to back it up. So while Apostolic Succession is certainly a good thing when and where it safeguards the faith from heresy, false teaching, and abuses; but if it does not do that, then it is more necessary to be faithful to Christ's word and the word of His apostles than to merely claim linear descent from the apostles. To preach the word rather than merely claim the word; to believe the faith and confess the faith rather than merely claim the faith.

In this way apostolicity is maintained in the churches of the evangelical reform of the Church, whether through Apostolic Succession or without. If our confession is true, then it is true. If our faith is faithful, then let it be faithful. If we are persisting and enduring in the faithful deposit of faith given from the beginning, and if we are teaching and professing what has been believed and have Christ and His Gospel front and center--then we are Christian, we are Catholic. For the Catholic and Apostolic faith is that we confess and believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son our Lord, et al.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Your first line from above provides a great goal for all of us. The oneness of the Church is not optional. There was only one Christ and the body of Christ is called to be one. So in some sense, we as Christians must maintain a oneness that goes beyond pointing to being one in Christ to being one in mind, one in heart, and one in spirit. We are called to conform ourselves to the oneness of Christ, not redefine unity to rationalize our own human failings.

Likewise we are holy because Christ is holy. Our holiness does not come from the church we belong to but, hopefully, through the church we belong to.

We are catholic because Christ's message is universal and not intended for merely a subset of humanity.

Finally we are apostolic in that we resist any efforts to change the teachings of Christ. And in that lies the rub. Any innovation needs to be looked at critically to see if it fits within the apostolic faith. Does this new thought merely clarify what was previously believed and even then is it needed to fight a current heresy? Somehow we have to tie ourselves down or be buffeted by the storms of popular thought. Within the Catholic Church administered from Rome, we try to do this through a clearly defined hierarchical structure and clearly defined theological beliefs. Our hope is that this gives us a means to tell when something is outside acceptable norms and a means to enforce the norm. Obviously this does not work as well as needed; but it reminds me of Winston Churchill's famous quote, "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried." I would argue that democracy would actually be the worst form of government in the church. That would place Christ's teaching at the mercies of the mob.

So your last thought on maintaining the faith through maintaining the apostolic teachings is a great goal; but what happens when someone starts going off into the weeds. Can you comment on how this would be handled within the Lutheran Confessions?

ViaCrucis said:

Understood. Since we don't believe that there is a "Lutheran Church" as something distinct or other than the one Church of Jesus Christ, then that is about the sum of it. We don't see our Church as anything other than the same Church that's been from the beginning. No church was founded by Luther or any of the Evangelical Reformers. We never left the Catholic Church. The Church of 1516 is the same Church in 1517.

To believe that there is a distinct and separate "Lutheran Church" apart from the Catholic Church would mean recognizing the claims and authority which condemned Luther as a heretic--and we don't recognize that; we consider it an illicit authority.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

I don't know how to say this without seeming somewhat critical; but would the reformers of 1517 recognize all of the groups within the current Lutheran designations. I feel that the Lutheran group of churches have actually resisted innovation better than all other "Protestant" groups; but we are not graded on a curve. We could turn this same critical thought on the Roman church or the Orthodox church and find each group lacking; but I try not to speak for other groups, so would appreciate your critical thought on this.

tz620q said:

Your first line from above provides a great goal for all of us. The oneness of the Church is not optional. There was only one Christ and the body of Christ is called to be one. So in some sense, we as Christians must maintain a oneness that goes beyond pointing to being one in Christ to being one in mind, one in heart, and one in spirit. We are called to conform ourselves to the oneness of Christ, not redefine unity to rationalize our own human failings.

Likewise we are holy because Christ is holy. Our holiness does not come from the church we belong to but, hopefully, through the church we belong to.

We are catholic because Christ's message is universal and not intended for merely a subset of humanity.

Finally we are apostolic in that we resist any efforts to change the teachings of Christ. And in that lies the rub. Any innovation needs to be looked at critically to see if it fits within the apostolic faith. Does this new thought merely clarify what was previously believed and even then is it needed to fight a current heresy? Somehow we have to tie ourselves down or be buffeted by the storms of popular thought. Within the Catholic Church administered from Rome, we try to do this through a clearly defined hierarchical structure and clearly defined theological beliefs. Our hope is that this gives us a means to tell when something is outside acceptable norms and a means to enforce the norm. Obviously this does not work as well as needed; but it reminds me of Winston Churchill's famous quote, "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried." I would argue that democracy would actually be the worst form of government in the church. That would place Christ's teaching at the mercies of the mob.

So your last thought on maintaining the faith through maintaining the apostolic teachings is a great goal; but what happens when someone starts going off into the weeds. Can you comment on how this would be handled within the Lutheran Confessions?

Click to expand...

When a pastor is called, ordained, and installed they make their vow and committment to their office and to preaching the word and upholding the faith in the Creeds and Confessions. If they abuse their office and calling, disciplinary action is required: both congregationally as well as by the larger synodical or other ecclesiastical structures in place. Refusing correction, rebuke, and repentance would mean being removed from office--someone who is unable or unwilling to uphold their pastoral and ministerial vows isn't fit to serve. And excommunication does become necessary if, refusing correction and discipline, they continue to become a harm for the Body of Christ. Obviously we should always desire to do all things in love, all things gracefully, all things to call people to faith and communion--but as St. Paul reminds us, there are times when we must essentially hand someone "over to Satan" and remove them from our midst if things reach that critical level.

While there is not universal Lutheran polity, all Lutherans emphasize the critical need for accountability and practical measures to maintain peace in the Body. Sometimes that is with the Historic Episcopate, such as among the Scandinavian Churches who never lost the Episcopate; among German Lutherans and Lutherans in places like North America polity structures are organized in ways that are intended for practicality and especially for good order. The essence of the Lutheran understanding of church polity is good order--for St. Paul says that God is the God of order not confusion. So while we don't believe there is a divinely mandated and biblical command about any particular form of church order, the Church must be ordered for its own good. Which is why polity structures are necessary to facilitate that. Pastors, therefore, are held accountable to their congregations, to each other, and to their bishops or synodical leadership.

Nobody is above reproach, nobody is beyond accountability. Christ calls His Church to good order, faithfulness; that the Word is preached, the Sacraments administered, and so the entire Body of Christ be strenghtened, uplifted, and nourished in and by Him and the Holy Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

tz620q said:

I don't know how to say this without seeming somewhat critical; but would the reformers of 1517 recognize all of the groups within the current Lutheran designations. I feel that the Lutheran group of churches have actually resisted innovation better than all other "Protestant" groups; but we are not graded on a curve. We could turn this same critical thought on the Roman church or the Orthodox church and find each group lacking; but I try not to speak for other groups, so would appreciate your critical thought on this.

Click to expand...

Allow me to put it this way. When I was first Lutheran I was attending ELCA congregations. As a member of the ELCA I never encountered anything weird, strange, or "un-Lutheran". But I became more aware of some of the strangeness that is tolerated among the leadership of the ELCA, and that made me uncomfortable. I decided several months ago to attend a local AALC (aka TAALC, The American Association of Lutheran Churches). A much more conservative, and significantly smaller Lutheran group that is in Altar and Pulpit Fellowship with the LCMS.

I don't have any negative feelings toward the ELCA, and honestly, there are probably a lot of things I personally like about the ELCA more than I do the AALC and LCMS. But I believe that, at the end of the day, I had to abide by my conscience. For example, the AALC and LCMS reject evolution, while I don't have a problem with evolution as science. But that's hardly the most important issue for me when it comes to confession and faith. And while there are a good many ELCA congregations out there, lots. I've been part of them. The upper eschelons of the ELCA tolerate certain things (and I'm not even talking social/political issues here, but rather theological ones) that clearly are at odds with not just Lutheran teaching specifically, but Christianity on the whole.

So to answer: I have no idea what Luther and the Lutheran fathers would think of the Lutheran groups of today, probably a mix of happiness, sadness, and bewilderment.

-CryptoLutheran

tz620q said:

I thought these points you brought up are worthy of separate discussion, so I have broken this into 3 different replies. On what is quoted above, I see your point. There were political and religious rifts prior to the Great Schism in 1054. Perhaps by maintaining a sense of community and a common communion, there was a pull back towards a center that allowed the rifts to be healed, even if only temporarily. This healing truly only happened through ecumenical councils. The Great Schism might have been the tectonic shift that caused a permanent displacement; but I don't think we can use physical phenomenon as an analogy for spiritual matters. A better explanation for why this rift has lasted to this day is the story of Adam and Eve. Human nature corrupts even the church and it is a testament to the apostles and their successors that the church careened along for a thousand years before egos and pride took it off the rails.

As far as the validity of baptisms from other separated groups, I think the theology of this is that a person is baptized ex opere operato. The efficacy of the sacrament is not dependent on either the attitude of the recipient or the merits of the celebrant. This theology was fought over and clarified during the time of the Donatist schism and can be applied to our separated brethren today without having to redefine the theology of baptism. But I think this is a hollow victory, in that it only acknowledges the link of these communions on a nebulous spiritual level connected by Christ without opening up the need to reform ourselves back into a unified church to repair the fractures caused by human fraility.

Click to expand...

And it would be a marvelous and happy day to see that repair and reunification take place. That Rome and Wittenberg are not in communion is not a good thing. We don't celebrate this, we lament that, for example, you and I cannot come and celebrate at the same Altar and Table. That you and I do not, and cannot, receive the Eucharist together is something to be grieved. No one should celebrate that.

But in the same way that Rome isn't going to submit to the reform of our Confessions; neither are we Lutherans going to submit to Rome. So that breach in communion remains, regrettably, tragically, and certainly it breaks our Lord's heart that this is so.

-CryptoLutheran

"catholic" yes but not part of the Roman Catholic denomination "Catholic" as do I.

concretecamper said:

I don't believe so. However, the protestants 100-500 years ago were much closer to Catholic beliefs than current day protestants.

Click to expand...

As far as I know, Mainline Protestants such as Anglican and Lutheran are closer to Catholic beliefs/liturgies. Mainstream Protestants such as Baptists and Pentecostals, not so much.