An open question for Lutherans

[Per_Crucem]

From these canons I deduce that the Catholic view is not that justification comes from faith+works, but from a faith that has grace and charity and a faith that is a movement of the will. What, exactly, do you disagree with here? As a Lutheran I also hold that the faith which justifies is faith filled with charity, not ‘naked faith.’ And my confessions don’t say anything else. There might be something in the confessions to which I do not adhere, as a member of the Church of Norway, but I haven’t checked yet.

• The text does not state that this movement is (entirely) his own.

The question is not whether charity or human will is involved, but whether the charity and the movement of the will is a cause/ground of the justification given. That is to say, because charity has been poured into our hearts we are justified. Or because our wills have been renewed, we are justified. Article IV says the sole grounds of our justification is the life, death and resurrection of Christ, received by faith.

 

[Per_Crucem]

The question is not whether charity or human will is involved, but whether the charity and the movement of the will is a cause/ground of the justification given. That is to say, because charity has been poured into our hearts we are justified. Or because our wills have been renewed, we are justified. Article IV says the sole grounds of our justification is the life, death and resurrection of Christ, received by faith.

This is reiterated by:

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

 

[Stilldreamn]

So you can’t forgive the past, but you can hold the past against? You have specifically listed actions of past Popes as a roadblock for you to unity. Or is it that you see ‘anti-Christ’ actions still occurring from the Pope today? Pope Francis has been very much in the public eye; is there something specific that he has done or even said that leads you to view him as ‘anti-Christ’?

I thank everyone for their open and honest comments and discussion, but would ask, as the OP, that we tone down our bickering and turn back to seeking unity. Debating over who is a Church and who isn’t has not proven fruitful. The purpose of my original questions were to begin dialogue amongst lay people about what we can do, in a grass roots way, to unite around Christ. From what I have seen here, we are oh-so-close and still yet oh-so-far away. The good news is that we are close on some very ‘major’ issues…it appears that we are letting small t traditions and, quite frankly issues more closely related to politics than faith, obscure our views of one another.

Please allow me to pose a hypothetical: IF, as an olive branch, Pope Francis said in a press conference later today, that from this moment forward, the Papal office would cease to exist as it has and will function solely as leader, and will henceforth defer to the College of Cardinals, and at the same time extended an offer for all who wish to unite around the Catholic Church, (specifically Lutherans here) and that all Lutheran ministers would immediately by considered fully consecrated priests…would that be enough? A hypothetical question that likely won’t occur, but it will give me a clearer picture of where we are.

What is the Church proclaimed ‘most’ of Ausberg to be accepted? What if the Church accepted all but a few paragraphs of the Small Catechism? What if the Church pulled some of the ‘anathema’ statements?

I don’t have all the answers, and I realize full well that the Catholic Church has some things are it’s side of the aisle that She won’t back down on, just as Lutherans do. I am not trying to make anyone ‘lukewarm’ to their faith, but unity is demanded by St. Paul, and his words are contained in Scripture that we all believe to be from God, so I fight to achieve it. And I thank you for joining me.

BEAR DOWN!!!

Peace in Christ

Your hypotheticals are all very compelling “pulls” for unification, but I think that there would need to be some “pushing” required as well. For Lutherans, specifically the LCMS, you would probably see an influx of folks should the Missouri Synod lurch off into the land of liberal, mainline churches by accepting women’s ordination, homosexual marriages and ordinations. Some Lutherans could turn to the Orthodox as well (as some have already done).

I don’t see the confessional Synods themselves (at least not WELS & LCMS which are the ones I am most familiar with) uniting with the Catholic church - they can’t even unite with each other!

This is an hour long video, but describes some of the challenges the LCMS faces as described by a group of pastors that are calling for reform (it’s been 500 years, after all).

“If not now, when?”

 

[FathersKnowBest]

If so, then your Church is not Catholic either, since there are churches calling themselves Catholic which do not adhere to your beliefs. Your ‘argument’ makes zero sense.

Sorry, but you are not approaching this logically.

The existence of a third party making spurious claims does not invalidate our claim.

You claim “particular” churches, plural, are Catholic. Of logical necessity, a “particular church” cannot be catholic.

It’s definitional, boarding on a tautology. It’s difficult to have a discussion with someone who would deny a near-tautological argument.

It’s not my responsibility that some Church somewhere in the world calls itself Lutheran and adheres to something I do not.

Great. But this particular strawman argument isn’t relevant.

My argument is that multiple “particular churches”, plural, can’t be catholic by definition, especially “localized churches”.

Your church claims certain churches are merely ‘ecclesial communities.’ What makes you think I agree in such a way that you can make that the premise of your argument? You state your conclusion as a premise. In other words, you beg the question.

I wasn’t making an argument using that term. You are.

 

[Per_Crucem]

In a way do you think with Lutherans accepting the Pope as a pastor, differs from that of Martin Luther who called the Pope the antichrist?

It should be noted that even among conservative Lutheran bodies, like the LCMS and WELS, Luther’s statement in the Smalcald Articles regarding the papacy being an office of anti-Christ is not required to be upheld by laymen. The laity are only required to accept the Small Catechism and Augsburg Confession. It is only pastors who are required to subscribe to the entire Book of Concord.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

It should be noted that even among conservative Lutheran bodies, like the LCMS and WELS, Luther’s statement in the Smalcald Articles regarding the papacy being an office of anti-Christ is not required to be upheld by laymen. The laity are only required to accept the Small Catechism and Augsburg Confession. It is only pastors who are required to subscribe to the entire Book of Concord.

They should disavow those statements, though, IMO.

 

[guanophore]

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

What do you understand this to be saying? It seems to me to be more directed to Calvanists, who believe that a person is born again apart from their will.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

I think this one is also more directed to Calvanism, but it is also a refutation of the forensic/“imputation” of grace.

The main difference I think is that the Apostles taught that an actual infusion of grace occurs, it is not just a declaraiton of righteousness, but that we are actuallly made rightous in baptism.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

I wonder if this one is more of a semantics problem, in the light of the JDDJ.

It is a statement that the faithful need to produce the works that befit repentence, which I think is a point upon which we all agree.

Help me understand the reasons for disagreement.

 

[guanophore]

From these canons I deduce that the Catholic view is not that justification comes from faith+works, but from a faith that has grace and charity and a faith that is a movement of the will. What, exactly, do you disagree with here? As a Lutheran I also hold that the faith which justifies is faith filled with charity, not ‘naked faith.’ And my confessions don’t say anything else. There might be something in the confessions to which I do not adhere, as a member of the Church of Norway, but I haven’t checked yet.

• The text does not state that this movement is (entirely) his own.

Did you say you did not agree with the JDDC? Someone did but don’t remember if it was you.

Yes, Catholic teaching is that we are justified by grace, through faith, by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. I prefer the phrase “faith THAT works”, because it describes the quality of saving faith.

 

[guanophore]

The question is not whether charity or human will is involved, but whether the charity and the movement of the will is a cause/ground of the justification given. That is to say, because charity has been poured into our hearts we are justified. Or because our wills have been renewed, we are justified. Article IV says the sole grounds of our justification is the life, death and resurrection of Christ, received by faith.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches, which is why I am confused about why it presents an impediment.

 

[guanophore]

This is reiterated by:

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

I can see why this presents problems because Catholics don’t separate out justificaiton from sanctification.

I think that Lutherans would agree that doing the works that God has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them keeps us in the grace of God, but Catholics believe that our right relationship with God can be lost (one can fall from grace) and lose the state of justification/being in right relationship with God through sin.

Doing the works he has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them transforms us so that Christ’s character is more formed in us.

 

[guanophore]

Sorry, but you are not approaching this logically.

The existence of a third party making spurious claims does not invalidate our claim.

You claim “particular” churches, plural, are Catholic. Of logical necessity, a “particular church” cannot be catholic.

But they are. All 22 of the non-Latin Rites that are united with the Bishop of Rome are sui juris/particular Churches!

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catholic-links/eastern-rite-sui/

The CC also recognizes the multitude of sui juris Eastern Orthodox Churches as particular churches.

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/liturgy/rites/the-rites-of-the-catholic-church/

It’s definitional, boarding on a tautology. It’s difficult to have a discussion with someone who would deny a near-tautological argument.

It is, but it seems you are not accepting the Catholic definition.

My argument is that multiple “particular churches”, plural, can’t be catholic by definition, especially “localized churches”.

Can you support that with Catholic documents?

 

[Per_Crucem]

What do you understand this to be saying? It seems to me to be more directed to Calvanists, who believe that a person is born again apart from their will.

Certain parts of it might be directed to Calvinists. In fact, much of the canons of Trent are (and where they condemn distinctives of Calvinism, like double predestination, I wholeheartedly agree with Trent). However, it is more the first part of the statement that is problematic. Namely, saying that we are justified by faith in addition to our cooperation.

I wouldn’t say our cooperation is unnecessary, since we can resist the Holy Spirit. It just isn’t a basis for our receiving the merits of Christ. Indeed, our cooperation is itself a gift. The benefits of the Gospel are a promise, they are received by the trust that the promise is true. That is faith.

I think this one is also more directed to Calvanism, but it is also a refutation of the forensic/“imputation” of grace.

The main difference I think is that the Apostles taught that an actual infusion of grace occurs, it is not just a declaraiton of righteousness, but that we are actuallly made rightous in baptism.

I’m not a huge fan of the imputation/forensic idea, myself.

Yet, I do think it a part of the question of justification. Infusion isn’t denied. It’s not the infusion that is the ground of our justification, though.

I wonder if this one is more of a semantics problem, in the light of the JDDJ.

It is a statement that the faithful need to produce the works that befit repentence, which I think is a point upon which we all agree.

Help me understand the reasons for disagreement.

It could be a semantics question. Yet I am not sure that that was the case for the framers of the council of Trent.

 

[Per_Crucem]

This is what the Catholic Church teaches, which is why I am confused about why it presents an impediment.

Does the Catholic Church teach that the charity, love, etc. that is infused into us by the Holy Spirit justifies us, and that we are justified based on our moral standing/quality before God? Or does it teach that our moral standing before God is based on the merits of Christ apart from our subjective moral standing before Him and we receive these merits by faith and only faith?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

But they are. All 22 of the non-Latin Rites that are united with the Bishop of Rome are sui juris/particular Churches!

I was referring to “particular churches” in the sense that KjetilK meant. NOT Churches that are in communion with the Pope. That’s why I had put the term in quotes. Please don’t fall into the trap of changing the meaning of a word or phrase to prove a point.

It is, but it seems you are not accepting the Catholic definition.

And what would that definition be?

Can you support that with Catholic documents?

Yes. The Gospel of Matthew. Ch 16, where Jesus tells St. Peter “I will build my Church.”

I can support it from the Catholic Answers website as well:

The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term “Catholic” in reference to the Church. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.

The term “Catholic” is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, and many Protestants, claiming the term for themselves, give it a meaning that is unsupported historically, ignoring the term’s use at the time the creeds were written.

Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: “As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).

Thus people who recite the creeds mentally inserting another meaning for “Catholic” are reinterpreting them according to a modern preference, much as a liberal biblical scholar does with Scripture texts offensive to contemporary sensibilities.

Included in the quotes below are extracts from the first creeds to use the term “Catholic”; so that the term can be seen in its historical context, which is supplied by the other quotations. It is from this broader context that the meaning of the term in the creeds is established, not by one’s own notion of what the term once meant or of what it ought to mean.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I can see why this presents problems because Catholics don’t separate out justificaiton from sanctification.

I think that Lutherans would agree that doing the works that God has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them keeps us in the grace of God

Not at all. Our relationship to God in the positive sense is due solely to Christ and Christ alone.

but Catholics believe that our right relationship with God can be lost (one can fall from grace) and lose the state of justification/being in right relationship with God through sin.

Yes, we agree.

Doing the works he has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them transforms us so that Christ’s character is more formed in us.

Yes. Theosis/mystical union with the divine is a central tenet of apostolic faith. In this sense, we can blame ourselves within the Lutheran churches for ignoring it because of extended disputes over justification.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I was referring to “particular churches” in the sense that KjetilK meant. NOT Churches that are in communion with the Pope. That’s why I had put the term in quotes. Please don’t fall into the trap of changing the meaning of a word or phrase to prove a point.

Are you arguing the term Church vs. ecclesial community here? The definition of Church vs. ecclesial community, ISTM, is not communion with the Pope, but apostolic succession/valid priesthood/valid Eucharist.

 

[guanophore]

  Certain parts of it might be directed to Calvinists. In fact, much of the canons of Trent are (and where they condemn distinctives of Calvinism, like double predestination, I wholeheartedly agree with Trent). However, it is more the first part of the statement that is problematic. Namely, saying that we are justified by faith *in addition to our cooperation*.

I wouldn’t say our cooperation is unnecessary, since we can resist the Holy Spirit. It just isn’t a basis for our receiving the merits of Christ. Indeed, our cooperation is itself a gift. The benefits of the Gospel are a promise, they are received by the trust that the promise is true. That is faith.

Then I think it is just a semantics issue. It seems that Lutherans and Catholics believe that every human person has an opportunity to choose to put their faith in Christ, is that right?

This is very opposite to Calvanistic thought, where grace is considered irresistable. I had an interesting conversation here on CAF with a Reformed Christian about this verse:

“When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.” (Luke 7:30)

He maintained double predestination. But that is off topic here. My point being that Catholics believe

1. God desires for all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth
2. He is calling everyone everywhere to repent
3. He has given sufficient grace so that numbers one and two can happen
4. Each person chooses whether or not to co-operate with Grace (receive His salvation by grace, through faith.

Faith is an element of our creation. People are born with the ability to have faith. We can choose where to put that faith, in wealth, power, success, or in Christ. When we choose to put our faith in Christ, the exercise of that faith is in cooperation with God’s plan for our salvation. When we choose NOT to place our faith in Him, and place it in ourselves, or somewhere else, we will not access the saving grace that is available for us.

I had the impression that Lutheran thought is consistent with this?

I’m not a huge fan of the imputation/forensic idea, myself.

Well then let’s move on to a topic that might be considered a bigger imediment?

Yet, I do think it a part of the question of justification. Infusion isn’t denied. It’s not the infusion that is the ground of our justification, though.

Right, and Catholics would not say so. It is Christ, and the work of Redemption on the cross that is the grounds. But, getting back to cooperation, He paid the price of redemption, but not all choose to be redeemed by Him. It is as if he paid the fine for everyone to get out of jail, and some refuse to leave.

Baptism is how we unite ourselves with Him in His death and resurrection, dying with Him, that we might be raised to newness of life. In baptism, we are sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, washed, cleansed, and the slavery to sin is broken. He comes to reside in our hearts, so that we are no longer our own, we have been bought with a price.

It could be a semantics question. Yet I am not sure that that was the case for the framers of the council of Trent.

I am pleased with the dialogues, because I think that light must be shed on the language and intent that is more meaningful to us 500+ years later.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I was referring to “particular churches” in the sense that KjetilK meant. NOT Churches that are in communion with the Pope. That’s why I had put the term in quotes. Please don’t fall into the trap of changing the meaning of a word or phrase to prove a point.

It would also seem that if they are a Church, and not an ecclesial community, then they are also “Catholic,” because there is only one Church, no?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Then I think it is just a semantics issue. It seems that Lutherans and Catholics believe that every human person has an opportunity to choose to put their faith in Christ, is that right?

This is very opposite to Calvanistic thought, where grace is considered irresistable. I had an interesting conversation here on CAF with a Reformed Christian about this verse:

“When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.” (Luke 7:30)

Because Calvinism is Manichaen/gnostic drivel. But yes, it’s off topic.

1. God desires for all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth

Amen.

1. He is calling everyone everywhere to repent

Amen.

1. He has given sufficient grace so that numbers one and two can happen

The Church

1. Each person chooses whether or not to co-operate with Grace (receive His salvation by grace, through faith.

Faith is an element of our creation. People are born with the ability to have faith. We can choose where to put that faith, in wealth, power, success, or in Christ. When we choose to put our faith in Christ, the exercise of that faith is in cooperation with God’s plan for our salvation. When we choose NOT to place our faith in Him, and place it in ourselves, or somewhere else, we will not access the saving grace that is available for us.

You would probably have to expand on this some because I don’t want to misunderstand you. I also wouldn’t want to answer in a way that gives the wrong impression about what we believe.

The general mistake I’ve seen many non-Lutherans make is to take what we believe about those subjects and conflate them with Calvinism. We also tend to make the mistake of sounding like Calvinists, which is even worse!

I had the impression that Lutheran thought is consistent with this?

It’s nothing we will jump up and yell heresy at, but we wouldn’t fully agree with it, either.

I will respond to the rest of what you wrote later, brother!

 

[guanophore]

Are you arguing the term Church vs. ecclesial community here? The definition of Church vs. ecclesial community, ISTM, is not communion with the Pope, but apostolic succession/valid priesthood/valid Eucharist.

I think you are spot on with this, Per. And I think that Fathers is assuming that the Church of Norway, and possibly other Lutheran communities don’t have those things.