/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Nope. If you go to traditional lutheran churches, you'll be surprised at how "catholic" it looks. That's because Luther intended to reform the Catholic church and there were many Catholic traditions he fully accepted.

Those things are against the radical reformation though, which is a different thing all together

That is beautiful. Based tradlutheran

>>717200

Lutherans to this day have altars. The pic I shown is one example of a modern American Lutheran parish that does in fact have an altar. According to Diarmond Mcmulloch, Reformed electors in Germany were furious at Lutherans because most of their worship retained the form of Mass which is deemed too Papist. So if this is anything to go by, the "table" would still be reverenced, just as Anglicans also retained it as many writings record the act of "reverencing the altar" which would be a wooden table that is clothed.

So I only see you as more accurately describing the Reformed and Anabaptists. Now they truly wont have anything to do with Rome

>>717124

Lutherans does not support iconoclasm.

>the Gospel is such a means of grace in every form in which it reams men, whether it be preached or printed or expressed as formal absolution or pictured in symbols or types or pondered in the heart

>by a crucifix or some picture… Luther often recalls that in the Papacy many, when in the throes of death, were reminded of Christ's substitutionary satisfaction by means of a crucifix held before their eyes and thus died a blessed death.

LCMS theologian, Francis Pieper

>>717204

I don't know where he got that idea from.

>>717202

High church Lutherans will build altars, but they are not orthodox in the Lutheran tradition, and even still the altar is just being used as a table, not an altar.

The Lutherans did retain much of the worship of the mass, however they did not retain the belief it is a propitiatory sacrifice, which is the sole reason it involves an altar. Nobody "reverenced" the tables. Tables were introduced to reflect the Protestant belief that the sacrament is a meal, not a sacrifice.

>>717210

High church Lutheranism is the Lutheranism of Luther and whole of Lutheranism. What is called "High Church Lutheranism" has been so well known amongst the Nordics too. Also, if Lutherans retained much of the Mass, then they also retained the same acts of reverences toward the altar in worship. Even the book of Concord calls the Eucharist "Sacrament of the Altar"

http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.manngraebner.html

>>717210

>Protestant belief that the sacrament is a meal

“truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms” of the consecrated bread and wine (the elements), so that communicants eat and drink both the elements and the true Body and Blood of Christ Himself (cf. Augsburg Confession, Article 10)

>>717124

Lutherans reject both Calvin and the Radical Reformation, which is where you see iconoclasm creeping back in. Literally Luther saw himself as an actual reformer, not as someone seeking to break away. This is also why Lutheran writings from the Reformation reference canon law of the time. It was well known that iconoclasm was rejected at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, so why would Luther embrace it? Remember that second-generation Lutherans started a dialogue with the Ecumenical Patriarch, believing that they must be almost fully in agreement since they both should reject what Lutherans saw as modern abuses of doctrine. Obviously, they weren't, but it shows the mindset.

It all comes down to the interpretation of Sola Scriptura. For the Radical Reformation especially, it means that if it is not explicitly in the Bible, it must be rejected. For Luther and Lutherans, it means only that dogmas must have a Scriptural basis, and traditions that contradict Scripture should be reformed.

>>717210

High Church Lutherans are literally just Lutherans. Low Church Lutherans are just evangelicals in denial. The altar is still an altar in Lutheranism. Literally Luther refers to the Eucharist as "The Sacrament of the Altar" in the catechism. And of the Mass, the Augsburg Confession says, "Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence." (AC, Article XXIV)

>>717215

What do you think that means?

>>717218

>just evangelicals in denial

Who was that guy who wanted his followers to call themselves evangelicals again?

>The altar is still an altar in Lutheranism

It isn't seen as an altar. Again, altars in Lutheranism are an aesthetical tradition, not a doctrinal one. If one believes the mass is a sacrifice for his sins, he isn't a Lutheran at all

>Literally Luther refers to the Eucharist as "The Sacrament of the Altar"

Yes he does. Why do you think he said that? Maybe because it was celebrated exclusively with an altar up to that point?

>"Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence."

Lutherans will say they retain the mass, but the substance is not there. It does not mean the same thing to a Lutheran that it does to a Roman Catholic. When a Lutheran refers to the mass, he means only the Lord's Supper. The whole of the Reformation is summarized in the abolition of the mass.

Also, about that passage from the AC, keep reading

"There was also added the opinion which infinitely increased Private Masses, namely that Christ, by His passion, had made satisfaction for original sin, and instituted the Mass wherein an offering should be made for daily sins, venial and mortal. From this has arisen the common opinion that the Mass takes away the sins of the living and the dead by the outward act. Then they began to dispute whether one Mass said for many were worth as much as special Masses for individuals, and this brought forth that infinite multitude of Masses. [With this work men wished to obtain from God all that they needed, and in the mean time faith in Christ and the true worship were forgotten.] Concerning these opinions our teachers have given warning that they depart from the Holy Scriptures and diminish the glory of the passion of Christ. For Christ's passion was an oblation and satisfaction, not for original guilt only, but also for all other sins, as it is written to the Hebrews 10:10 We are sanctified through the offering of Jesus Christ once for all. Also, Hebrews 10:14 By one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. [It is an unheard-of innovation in the Church to teach that Christ by His death made satisfaction only for original sin and not likewise for all other sin. Accordingly it is hoped that everybody will understand that this error has not been reproved without due reason.]"

I think the the various tithes paid to the churches and the perceived corruption and excesses were the biggest problem instead of some smaller cosmetic detail.

>>717222

Luther's "Evangelical" isnt the same thing as today's Baptists or Evangelicalism today.

Like it or not, Luther retained the altar and form of Mass. His philosophy after all on these things isnt that hard to figure. If it aint broke, dont fix it

>tfw the COE was literally just supposed to be the Apostolic Church in England except the Monarch would elect the Archbishop and give him orders instead of the Pope

The Calvinists honestly are the reason Anglicans/Episcopalians are considered “Protestant” in the modern usage of the word to begin with. The same is probably true to a certain extent with Lutherans, which I admittedly know little about.

>>719755

Hey not saying it was Orthodox (in the sense that it was deemed acceptable by the church) to do so, but in its original form, the Anglican Church was Catholicism minus papal authority.

>>719729

>the Monarch would elect the Archbishop and give him orders instead of the Pope

Not the first time it happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Papacy