|
yo anyone know anything about Grundtvig is he one of those people only scandinavians care about
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
Is he like Saint Urho?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
no he's a massively important theologian up here, mostly notable for his great efforts to unite Lutheranism with Not Having A Massive Stick Up Your Arse
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
apparently "my" denomination has him on our calendar of "saints and cool people"  next to MLK and florence nightingale, of courrse 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:yo anyone know anything about Grundtvig I was raised in a Scandinavian-American Lutheran community and attended a college of the same, I only know about Grundtvig because I studied abroad in Denmark, and my exposure was "he was super important in Danish Lutheranism, Pietism or something??" I think there were some special types of schools he helped found, he had a big impact theologically but also socially. Even though Lutherans in America are pretty heavily of Scandinavian descent (especially in the Midwest), it's mostly Norwegians and Swedes and there isn't a lot of awareness of European stuff. We study Luther and the Reformation but knowledge of anything Scandinavian doesn't often extend beyond "uhhh we were Vikings and then poor peasant dirt farmers until our ancestor emigrated to America, uff da!" He's certainly not a known figure to your American Lutheran laymen. Maybe clergy or those who've studied Lutheran theology will be familiar, but I think he's pretty specific to the Danish tradition. Edit: sort of like Kierkegaard, who most people aren't familiar with outside of philosophy but I'd consider really important for Lutherans to study. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
what would you nerds think of me having my dad (not the poster lol how wacky, but my actual father) do a mini a/t itt you can ask all your unresolved quandaries involving country lutheran pastoring and stuff e: basically if you come up with enough good/funny questions i'm going to make him do it, so go hog wild
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
What sort of parishes did he serve? Large ones? Small ones? Urban/rural? Parochial school attached? Second career or went straight to seminary?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:(not the poster lol how wacky, but my actual father) I don't even have to post anymore for my username to run its magic. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:My bad, then. Just convert, problem solved!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Just convert, problem solved! Man, but if they want to get married as soon as possible, first they'd have to do RCIA, and they couldn't get official until Easter (assuming they get into this years RCIA on time) and THEN the have a 6 month pre-Cana. I mean, totally worth it... but for us it's all about the 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:Man, but if they want to get married as soon as possible, first they'd have to do RCIA, and they couldn't get official until Easter (assuming they get into this years RCIA on time) and THEN the have a 6 month pre-Cana. I mean, totally worth it... but for us it's all about the If there's one thing the Church can do right it's bureaucracy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Just convert, problem solved! Maybe later! He's working on becoming a Missionary Associate and I'm all over the youth group, so we're pretty attached for the time being. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I was raised in a Scandinavian-American Lutheran community and attended a college of the same, I only know about Grundtvig because I studied abroad in Denmark, and my exposure was "he was super important in Danish Lutheranism, Pietism or something??" I think there were some special types of schools he helped found, he had a big impact theologically but also socially. Grundtvig is also very important in Norway, and the Grundtvig-Lęstadius conflict is a major point of tension in particularly Norwegian Christianity, basically being a contest between bourgeois/large-farmer liberalism and hard-line peasant puritanism. Grundtvig's major slogan was "Human First, then Christian" His big Thing was that, since Christianity is the most perfect lifestyle, it is not necessary to preach it directly - sufficiently enlightening and uplifting man through the course of his life will naturally lead man to God - the role of the clergy is to guide believers, not to lead them
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:His big Thing was that, since Christianity is the most perfect lifestyle, it is not necessary to preach it directly - sufficiently enlightening and uplifting man through the course of his life will naturally lead man to God - the role of the clergy is to guide believers, not to lead them Is this the basic Lutheran "you're able to accept salvation because God gave you the ability to do so" thing or is it different and I'm not understanding.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Is this the basic Lutheran "you're able to accept salvation because God gave you the ability to do so" thing or is it different and I'm not understanding. Nah this has more to do with the role of the Church in society. In the case of Scandinavia, you have state Lutheran churches so the situation is quite different in the US where state religion is explicitly unconstitutional. Grundtvig I think is advocating for a more "bottom up" religion where you educate and uplift and improve the lives of citizens and that will lead them to God. The alternative being a more "top down" approach where clergy are preaching to lead them to God.' Edit: I think it would be fair to say modern Americans would consider this more political than theological. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
I dunno if y'all heard, but Pope Francis released a letter yesterday that extended to all priests the power to absolve (and thus lift excommunications on) people who have gotten an abortion, without needing to consult with a bishop (since the lifting of excommunications is usually reserved to the local Ordinary). Expect an inflated, exaggerated reaction from the American press, if you haven't seen it already. More surprising in that letter is the extension of validity and license to confessions heard by the priests of the SSPX for the duration of this liturgical year. Looks like Francis is trying to lure them back into full communion by giving them a taste of full regularization.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:I dunno if y'all heard, but Pope Francis released a letter yesterday that extended to all priests the power to absolve (and thus lift excommunications on) people who have gotten an abortion, without needing to consult with a bishop (since the lifting of excommunications is usually reserved to the local Ordinary). Expect an inflated, exaggerated reaction from the American press, if you haven't seen it already. On the other hand, they've never accepted that they didn't have faculties to hear confessions (and officiate at weddings), so I don't know how much of a lure that'll be. I do like that grant of faculties worldwide, though; many (most?) bishops have granted it to their priests anyway, but now that isn't dependent on the bishop having done so. (Much like permission to say the Extraordinary Form, though that didn't lure the SSPX in when Benedict XVI tried it, which is why I'm dubious about this one.) Father Z made an entertaining comment: once a SSPX priest can validly absolve, when the new liturgical year starts, anyone who's been confessing to him for years would technically need to confess having to confessed to him while he didn't have those faculties...
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:On the other hand, they've never accepted that they didn't have faculties to hear confessions (and officiate at weddings), so I don't know how much of a lure that'll be. uh if they actually said that, that would be donatism
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:I dunno if y'all heard, but Pope Francis released a letter yesterday that extended to all priests the power to absolve (and thus lift excommunications on) people who have gotten an abortion, without needing to consult with a bishop (since the lifting of excommunications is usually reserved to the local Ordinary). Expect an inflated, exaggerated reaction from the American press, if you haven't seen it already. I like it, since Pope Francis really wants people to go to confession, he is doing whatever he can to remove obstacles. I go to confession to SSPX priests regularly. They claim not to have regular jursidiction (normally obtained from the local bishop), but that the church supplies it for each penitent who asks for confession because of a state of necessity and doubt. Their official response is "Thanks Papa, we'll keep hearing confessions". This is gonna make the SSPX situation a bit confusing after the Holy Year. They haven't changed anything, so are they okay now, or just when the year starts? And then do they stop being okay? Also, what about matrimony?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Also, what about matrimony? Still invalid and illicit as far as Canon Law is concerned, since the validity of Matrimony is predicated on having the bishop's authority behind it. Don't think that's going to change until/unless the SSPX is in full communion with the Holy See again. Though I have to say, I think the SSPX is really abusing the principle of ecclesia supplet when they say it applies to their confessions; as I understand it, it's meant to apply in situations of genuine ignorance or identifiable doubt rather than to situations where there's definite canonical irregularity. But I'm not a canon lawyer, so I may very well be wrong on this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
How does that even work? I assume quite a few SSPX priests were ordained by the bishops consecrated without permission from the Pope. From what I understand, Rome does not consider those consecrations valid, so those people are not bishops according to Rome. If they aren't bishops, then they obviously can't ordain priests, so those ordinations are invalid as well. Only a priest can celebrate Mass or receive confession, and I doubt that the Pope is saying laymen can do these things. What am I missing here?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
If a validly ordained bishop went with SSPX and that bishop ordained a priest or bishop, that ordination (or any sacrament they oversaw) would be valid but illicit, from what I understand. Though gain IANA(canon)L Not the greatest resource but the wikipedia article makes sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid_but_illicit#Holy_orders Moscow Mule fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Expect an inflated, exaggerated reaction from the American press, if you haven't seen it already. Liberal outlets are surprised to learn that abortion is still considered a sin by Francis. Conservative outlets' reaction is also predictable. Meanwhile, as far as I know, Orthodox priests could do this without consulting anyone since forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Is this the basic Lutheran "you're able to accept salvation because God gave you the ability to do so" thing or is it different and I'm not understanding. Not exactly - it has a major taste of it (Grundtvig was a Lutheran, after all), but as was mentioned it's as much about the role of the Church in people's lives and the approach the priest should take to preaching as it is about the nature of God. It's an essentially organisational argument based on Lutheran theology, with major cultural and practical implications (Christ's Mission becomes popular enlightenment as much as it is religious proselytism, for instance)
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:if they actually said that, that would be donatism No, it's not that they can't validly absolve because they're bad people, or because the bishop who ordained them was a bad person, but because for Catholics a valid absolution requires faculties from the bishop, which the SSPX by definition don't have. (Well, from Rome's point of view; the SSPX agrees that normally faculties are required, but proposes that this situation is unusual and their absolutions are valid anyway.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
some of the bureaucratic legal stuff you guys talk about sounds like just the most tedious crap. sanctioning someone for performing something they aren't supposed to makes sense, but putting the burden onto all believers of "lol make sure your confession was valid according to these 68 Catholic laws from hundreds of years ago" seems incredibly cruel and paternalistic
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:some of the bureaucratic legal stuff you guys talk about sounds like just the most tedious crap. sanctioning someone for performing something they aren't supposed to makes sense, but putting the burden onto all believers of "lol make sure your confession was valid according to these 68 Catholic laws from hundreds of years ago" seems incredibly cruel and paternalistic If Luther had his way you'd still be doing confession, you know.  And really, confession is pretty great. The legalism that is being discussed makes a lot of sense, too, re: the theology behind everything. And if it makes you feel better, God always forgives a person who confesses with a contrite heart, whether or not they do it the "right" way. It's all about intent as far as the parishioner is concerned. Mr. Wiggles fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:some of the bureaucratic legal stuff you guys talk about sounds like just the most tedious crap. sanctioning someone for performing something they aren't supposed to makes sense, but putting the burden onto all believers of "lol make sure your confession was valid according to these 68 Catholic laws from hundreds of years ago" seems incredibly cruel and paternalistic and the burden is never on the ignorant, there's always something that says "if you don't know that this is what's going on it's not a sin."
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:to tell people that they're damned no matter what they do, unless they make some sort of leap of faith? I assume you refer to original sin and sola fide but I hope you do know the above isn't a teaching in any major churches, as far I know. Leaps of faith can be a thing but they're a result of Holy Spirit's work as much as any other form of faith. There's a world of difference in telling people that "you need to start believing" versus "all this has been done for you" (and letting the faith bloom if it's going to). quote:and the burden is never on the ignorant, there's always something that says "if you don't know that this is what's going on it's not a sin." I'm a big fan of the line in Romans 2: "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. " (NIV). The starting chapters of Romans makes the following words of grace all the sweeter. I can never understand how the Orthodox Churches seem to (from my point of view) ignore them so easily. But that's ultimately about original sin so yeah.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 11:28
|
|
|
It helps to remember that a lot of this stuff was formulated specifically because the Church established, in the wake of the Donatist heresy, that it was specifically the validity of the form and the disposition of the faithful receiving the sacrament that determined whether it was effective, so that the faithful could be assured that even if their priest was a drunkard and a scoundrel, their own spiritual life wasn't in danger because of it as long as he adhered to the formal guidelines for the Sacraments; it's a way for people to know objectively rather than depending on the interior state of the priest, which they can never know. It seems really bureaucratic to us, but as Hey Gal said, the Canon Law provides a massive exception for those who aren't aware of what's going on, and for those who are, it provides either the assurance that their sacramental life is good or a grounds for redress from the local bishop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:making things clearer is good, and isn't it crueller to tell people that they're damned no matter what they do, unless they make some sort of leap of faith? nobody is saying that besides you and maybe luigi, but lol at that guy
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
See you at the fair this weekend
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
A friend of mine on Facebook is an extremely conservative Catholic. (zonohedron, he makes you look like Hans Kung!)* He posted an article about the KY woman's decision to refuse to follow the Supreme Court decision, as in the one specifically against her, to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The article began with the argument that like St. Thomas Moore, her duty was to resign. I was a little surprised, because it was, for this guy, pretty tame. Then it went on how, like St. Thomas Moore, she would be followed, even into her life as a citizen, and even for "living her faith with her thoughts in private" they would be coming for her in orange suits. I was like... there we go. *zonohedron, to be clear, I really like your posts and am very glad you participate in this thread Thirteen Orphans fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
(Full disclosure: I'm only slightly more liberal, most days, than zonohedron on theology.) To be completely fair to that guy....That's not an uncommon fear among traditional Catholics, that society is only a few short steps from open persecution of those disagreeing with the societal consensus. How far that persecution will go? Well, there opinions vary greatly. To me, mind you, it's not really a well-founded fear as things stand, but given the American history of anti-Catholicism (Hi, Blaine Amendments and Know-Nothings! And those are just the famous bits!) it's not completely insane either, to think that traditional Catholics have reasons to fear persecution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
But she's not a Catholic. Her denomination is one no one's ever cared about and seems to be superficially similar to reformed anglicanism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
I don't think it is out-there to worry that society might reach a point where people religious ministers need to marry certain oppressed classes. It would likely never happen in the US, with its religious zeitgeist, but the Scandinavian countries? Maybe within my lifetime. (I'm mid-twenties), though I honestly don't think it'll happen. I do, however, think it's a little out there to think people who believe that same-sex marriage is incompatible with orthodox Catholicism (which I assent to because of my understanding of deference to Magisterial authority) will be persecuted to the point of becoming an actual oppressed class of people, like, say, Jews in Europe. Just to clarify. I edited this post to correct a serious misunderstanding. Edit: Jaramin posted:But she's not a Catholic. Her denomination is one no one's ever cared about and seems to be superficially similar to reformed anglicanism. We know, we're discussing what a person should have done, and would later experience, from our Catholic perspective. Thirteen Orphans fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Everyone focuses on explicit government persecution cause it's sexier to be an oppressed minority than just facing growing societal pressure against your worldview
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Well, the Circumcellions were anathematized a long time ago - martyrdom is good and honorable, but actively inviting persecution upon yourself is not cool. As one sees with the ancient pagan officials who converted, if your job requires you to act in ways that are contrary to the faith, you quit. If they let you go, great. It's only a real stand for the faith if you're pursued after that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Everyone focuses on explicit government persecution cause it's sexier to be an oppressed minority than just facing growing societal pressure against your worldview The perception of losing power is terrifying, becoming "the persecuted" gives more power, but in a way truly backward to the way I believe Christ meant. I don't, however, think everyone who thinks to themselves, "the world hates this, but I am still Loved" do this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:I don't think it is out-there to worry that society might reach a point where people with authority to marry need to marry certain oppressed classes yes, it's a travesty that government employees might be forced to marry blacks or queers, and that they won't be allowed to hold hostage the legal benefits of other people based on their own personal religious fundamentalism
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 21:33
|
|