An open question for Lutherans

[FathersKnowBest]

Only some Lutherans adhere to that writing as a confession. The Scandinavian Churches do not, and never have. It was made a confession in the 1580s, well after the Reformation and the Imperial Diet of Augsburg in 1530, where Confessio Augustana was presented.

Not all Churches approved every part of the Book of Concord. What you need to do is not to engage ‘Lutherans’ - as if we are all alike - but each particular Church on its own terms. As a vicar in the Church of Norway, I’m not obliged to answer for the official teaching of, say, LCMS or WELS.

That’s part of the problem, though, isn’t it? The fact that nobody can speak for Lutherans.

Lutheranism is thus disunified, having different beliefs. You can speak of localized portions of the Lutheran church, but that contradicts one of the four marks of the Church given by Apostolic Tradition in the Nicene Creed: catholicity.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Yes, I think this is the crux of it. The Church believed from the beginning that the Petrine Gifts and responsibiliies given to Peter were passed on to his successor, and so on, until the present day.

Yes, that is the crux, I think. I don’t think the question is whether Petrine gifts were passed on, but whether those gifts are distinct from the gifts every bishop receives and whether they are localized and restricted only to the Bishop of Rome.

This was recognized by the whole Church throughout the world until the Schism.

I’m pretty sure the East disagrees. That’s not my dog to fight, though!

An example of this occurred at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Pope’s teaching was received as authoritative by the Eastern bishops, who proclaimed: “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo.”

That could be seen as simplistic. If the Tome of Leo were accepted de fide, without question, your argument would be stronger. However, 50 bishops refused to sign it, arguing that it did not agree with St. Cyril from the Council of Ephesus. After lengthy debate, it was determined that it did agree with Cyril, and the Tome was accepted. If what the modern Catholic Church teaches about the papacy were the view of the bishops, the orthodoxy of Leo would not have been subject to St. Cyril.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

That’s part of the problem, though, isn’t it? The fact that nobody can speak for Lutherans.

Lutheranism is thus disunified, having different beliefs. You can speak of localized portions of the Lutheran church, but that contradicts one of the four marks of the Church given by Apostolic Tradition in the Nicene Creed: catholicity.

The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity seemed to have no problems understanding Lutheran theology because, in part, Lutherans are quite clear about salvation.

 

[guanophore]

 The question is whether the Bishops of Rome possess some charism or authority that the Patriarchs of Antioch, or any other successors of Peter, do not.

Not by a council, as a starting point.

Jon

Things do not come up in council until they are disputed or problematic, so such a situation being accepted up to the Schism would never have needed to go to council.

Is this why you say that when East and West re-unite you will be satisfied that this is a work of the HS?

This is an issue that would have to be settled in council if that were to happen.

 

[guanophore]

But see that’s what makes us different. We don’t have to be in accordance with the Pope every single time.

It is not different. Holding Lutherans to statements of Luther to which they do not subscribe is not fair.

You say about Lutherans do not have to have to abide by Luther's teaching, but yet, they have brought up the one of the Confessions quite a bit (forget me I don't remember which 1 it is.

It is fair to hold them to their professed confessions, but not all Lutherans accept the same documents, so applying what one group of Lutherans espouse to others who have said they don’t is not fair.

But that is the reason they “believe the seat of the Pope is the Antichrist”. That is b/c Luther stated that.

I think it has as much or more to do with how the Popes had been behaving for a long time. Savonarola’s preaching might be instructive on this point.

Your logic does not add up. Your saying their free to believe whatever they like, but yet, they put Luther and his teachings in the front page. It just doesn’t add up.

The OP asked what Lutherans needed to unite with the Bishop of Rome. It is not fair to hold them to confessions they do not espouse, and especially Luther’s writings that they do not espouse.

There are Lutherans that don’t believe the current Pope is an antichrist.

 

[guanophore]

As one example, the first council of Constantinople, which attempted to grant Constantinople precedence over all the sees except for Rome, which was acknowledge to hold the highest authority.

This was rejected, as the Tradition did not have the Roman see as the primary one because of its political stature, but rather because the see (not the city) held the office of St. Peter.

Yes, and that both Peter and Paul labored there to “build the Church”.

Irenaeus

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

There are a number of historical documents citing the primacy of the See of Rome.

 

[steido01]

There are Lutherans that don’t believe the current Pope is an antichrist.

And even those Lutherans who do (like me) see him as a key - if not the key - to unity within Christ’s church on earth. Corporate unity between Lutherans and Roman Catholics will not happen without the Western Patriarch. There is a place for him in the future, united Western church: as our bishop. Our Confessions hope to retain the ol’ ecclessial order too.

 

[Novocastrian]

Up to a point. But the Patriarchate of Antioch was NOT where the office of St. Peter was invested, as can be seen with certainty and clarity from the writings of the ECF.

Again, answered by the Early Church quite emphatically in the affirmative.

The Orthodox and the traditional Protestants tend to deny that there is a consensus patrum on this point, and would also distinguish between a Petrine primacy and the supremacy and infallibility claimed by the current Pope.

I imagine that most Orthodox and traditional Protestants would accept that there is significant Patristic evidence for a Roman Primacy of some sort, but would deny (a) that this was held to be part of the apostolic deposit of faith, necessary to be held for one’s salvation, and (b) that this primacy involved jurisdictional supremacy and dogmatic infallibility.

Your ‘up to a point’ is the location of our disagreement.

 

[guanophore]

That’s part of the problem, though, isn’t it? The fact that nobody can speak for Lutherans.

Lutheranism is thus disunified, having different beliefs. You can speak of localized portions of the Lutheran church, but that contradicts one of the four marks of the Church given by Apostolic Tradition in the Nicene Creed: catholicity.

Yes but the Catholic Church cannot throw stones, being as we live in a glass house. We must focus on healing the Schism with our Orthodox brethren before we start finding fault with schisms elsewhere!

 

[guanophore]

Yes, that is the crux, I think. I don’t think the question is whether Petrine gifts were passed on, but whether those gifts are distinct from the gifts every bishop receives and whether they are localized and restricted only to the Bishop of Rome.

Indeed, all the Bishops have the responsibility to feed and care for the flock, though it was only to Peter that the instruction was given to “strengthen your brethren”.

Jesus did not change the names of any of the other Apostles, indicating a drastic change of identity and mission. Simon bar Jona became a “rock” which Jesus grafted into Himself as cornerstone. Upon this rock, the Church is built, the foundation being the Apostles and prophets.

It is clear in the NT that Peter is the visible sign of unity, and the Apostles did not do anything without being in unity with one another. Paul, though he was sent to the Gentiles and ministered outside of the Holy Land, travelled to Jerusalem to ensure that his gospel was unified with the rest of the Apostles.

I’m pretty sure the East disagrees. That’s not my dog to fight, though!

There is disagreement now, but that did not exist prior to the Schism. And there have been developments past the Schism that have exacerbated the rift.

That could be seen as simplistic. If the Tome of Leo were accepted de fide, without question, your argument would be stronger. However, 50 bishops refused to sign it, arguing that it did not agree with St. Cyril from the Council of Ephesus. After lengthy debate, it was determined that it did agree with Cyril, and the Tome was accepted.

But this is the pattern of how the HS guides the Church. The Bishops pray, and discuss, until unity is achieved.

If what the modern Catholic Church teaches about the papacy were the view of the bishops, the orthodoxy of Leo would not have been subject to St. Cyril.

I think you lost me here. The Bishop of Rome is subject to all the Teaching of the Church, prior councils, Scripture, etc.

 

[steido01]

The Orthodox and the traditional Protestants tend to deny that there is a consensus patrum on this point, and would also distinguish between a Petrine primacy and the supremacy and infallibility claimed by the current Pope.

I imagine that most Orthodox and traditional Protestants would accept that there is significant Patristic evidence for a Roman Primacy of some sort, but would deny (a) that this was held to be part of the apostolic deposit of faith, necessary to be held for one’s salvation, and (b) that this primacy involved jurisdictional supremacy and dogmatic infallibility.

Your ‘up to a point’ is the location of our disagreement.

Is it claimed by “the current Pope” even if he does not act as if he claims these powers? Or is it better to speak about the current Office of the Papacy espousing these claims?

This is why Lutherans who do claim the Papacy to be anti-Christ are careful to never condemn the good men who serve as shepherd in Rome, just the office -and even then- only so long as it teaches falsely.

As one source put it, “Scripture does not teach that the Pope is the Antichrist. It teaches that there will be an Antichrist. [Confessional Lutherans] identify the Antichrist as the Papacy. This is an historical judgment based on Scripture. The early Christians could not have identified the Antichrist as [Confessional Lutherans] do. If there were a clearly expressed teaching of Scripture, they must have been able to do so.”

This is why at least my communion teaches:

The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod’s Theological Commission:

The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5,23-24; Mark 13:6,21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ. However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8,11, 20-21, 24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person’s heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.

In a footnote, the Commission adds:
To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.

Bolding mine.

The point is, we must be careful to note the distinction between protesting the office and branding an individual as evil.

 

[JonNC]

The Orthodox and the traditional Protestants tend to deny that there is a consensus patrum on this point, and would also distinguish between a Petrine primacy and the supremacy and infallibility claimed by the current Pope.

I imagine that most Orthodox and traditional Protestants would accept that there is significant Patristic evidence for a Roman Primacy of some sort, but would deny (a) that this was held to be part of the apostolic deposit of faith, necessary to be held for one’s salvation, and (b) that this primacy involved jurisdictional supremacy and dogmatic infallibility.

Your ‘up to a point’ is the location of our disagreement.

This.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;12271283]Things do not come up in council until they are disputed or problematic, so such a situation being accepted up to the Schism would never have needed to go to council.

Generally true, but canon 6 of Nicea 325 does speak to the issue of jurisdiction, and makes no claim of primacy for Rome, much less supremacy. That said, most Lutherans (here at least), are accepting of primacy forthe Bishop of Rome.

I

s this why you say that when East and West re-unite you will be satisfied that this is a work of the HS?

Me? Yes.

Jon

 

[andrewstx]

To quote the Lutheran catechism, “This is most certainly true.”

Huh, what about the Chicago BEARS?

 

[ptisme]

Is it claimed by “the current Pope” even if he does not act as if he claims these powers? Or is it better to speak about the current Office of the Papacy espousing these claims?

This is why Lutherans who do claim the Papacy to be anti-Christ are careful to never condemn the good men who serve as shepherd in Rome, just the office -and even then- only so long as it teaches falsely.

As one source put it, “Scripture does not teach that the Pope is the Antichrist. It teaches that there will be an Antichrist. [Confessional Lutherans] identify the Antichrist as the Papacy. This is an historical judgment based on Scripture. The early Christians could not have identified the Antichrist as [Confessional Lutherans] do. If there were a clearly expressed teaching of Scripture, they must have been able to do so.”

This is why at least my communion teaches:

Bolding mine.

The point is, we must be careful to note the distinction between protesting the office and branding an individual as evil.

Where in scripture does it state the Papacy is the anti-Christ?

 

[ptisme]

Huh, what about the Chicago BEARS?

Two words: Jay Cutler

 

[JonNC]

Where in scripture does it state the Papacy is the anti-Christ?

It doesn’t. for two reasons:

1. the Papacy is not mentioned in scripture
2. the description is conditional, and therefore, it can change.

Jon

 

[andrewstx]

Two words: Jay Cutler

But Steido is from Illinois, not Wisconsin.

But when I lived in Central Illinois we all rooted for St. Louis so I kind of understand.

I have a friend from Wisconsin who is now a priest. He liked to pronounce Illinois as Illinoisse. It was a joke between us.

 

[ptisme]

It doesn’t. for two reasons:

1. the Papacy is not mentioned in scripture
2. the description is conditional, and therefore, it can change.

Jon

Didn’t you state In 191 that confessional Lutherans believe the papacy to be the anti-Christ based on scripture?

 

[ptisme]

But Steido is from Illinois, not Wisconsin.

But when I lived in Central Illinois we all rooted for St. Louis so I kind of understand.

I have a friend from Wisconsin who is now a priest. He liked to pronounce Illinois as Illinoisse. It was a joke between us.

steido got the right football team now we’re working on the Religion