Eastern Orthodox influencing Lutherans?

[JonNC]

I don’t believe Peter alone had the keys.

 

[AugustTherese]

I don’t believe Peter alone had the keys.

Would you have believed that if you were born, and had lived, in the first 1,000 years of Christianity?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

I don’t believe Peter alone had the keys.

Would you have believed that if you were born, and had lived, in the first 1,000 years of Christianity?

Yes…

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

JonNC:

I don’t believe Peter alone had the keys.

Would you have believed that if you were born, and had lived, in the first 1,000 years of Christianity?

Yes…

And, where would you have gone to receive the Sacraments?

 

[Whitney]

I am the son of an LCMS Pastor, who married a Roman Catholic.

Did your mother remain Catholic?

 

[steido01]

Oh, sorry for the confusion. The comma was supposed to clear that up. I myself married a Roman Catholic (that’s how I came to these boards). My wife is now effectively Lutheran and will be formally received this year.

My father married an Anglican, who was received into Lutheranism. From her particular strand of Anglicanism, it was merely a change of address.

 

[steido01]

Because some on this board continue to share false information about the LCMS, and to keep them from doing so knowingly and therefore being guilty of bearing false neighbor, I promised an explanation of the Lutheran views on the church, the Papacy, and Roman Catholicism. It is my sincere hope that folks will accept the LCMS’s explanation of its own views, even though they may disagree with those views on their own merits. It is one thing to disagree with a brother’s sincerely-held belief; it’s another entirely to continually say that brother doesn’t believe what he claims to believe, calling him a liar. And since non-Roman Catholics should not pretend to interpret Roman Catholic doctrine for Roman Catholics, the same courtesy should be afforded the other way.

So rather than taking things out of context to impose an Anti-Catholic narrative, let’s allow the LCMS itself to explain its own beliefs. Firstly, the LCMS believes, according to the Augsburg Confession (the defining document of Lutheranism), that the true church is found “in the congregation of saints, in which the Word is rightly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered.”

This includes, by definition, the RCC. Some might ask: but don’t Lutherans believe that the RCC doesn’t rightly preach the Word? Well, yes and no. Lutherans would say that it’s not so much that Rome doesn’t preach the Word rightly, but that they’ve clouded it with extraneous teachings. They do not fundamentally deny Christ in the way Mormons do, for example. So the Truth still remains beneath the outward trappings. Naturally, Lutherans understand themselves to be the most clear manifestation of the ‘True Church’ and the RCC to have grave errors — similar to what the RCC believes about Lutherans, but more generous. Where the RCC simultaneously considers Lutherans “heretics” of the formal or material variety (Unam Sanctum, Exsurge Domine) and “separated brethren” who “rightfully bear the name Christian” (Unitatis redintegratio, CCC 838), Lutherans would not deny that RCs are part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, but consider them to be Christians who err. This has never been denied by Lutherans.

 

[Whitney]

Some people just have a hard time understanding that church bodies can hold fundamental disagreements while still affirming the Christian identity of another body.

I can unofficially vouch for the LCMS that as a catechumen for the past several months I was taught that while the church essentially says they believe themselves to be the most correct church doctrinally (doesn’t every church?) including thinking they are more “correct” than the RCC. The pastor only insisted to us that all out apostasy exists in the LDS, JWs, etc and all non Christian religions.

 

[steido01]

Even Martin Luther admitted the ‘True Church’ is also found within the RCC:

Yes, we ourselves… concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? Therefore faith, the Christian Church, Christ, and the Holy Spirit must also be found among them… Thus we are also compelled to say: “I believe and am sure that the Christian Church has remained even in the papacy…” some of the papists are true Christians, even though they, too, have been led astray, as Christ foretold in Matt. 24:24. But by the grace of God and with His help they have been preserved in a wonderful manner.

Luther’s words are from late 1537, several months after the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope was written. (That’s the document that lives in overblown infamy for labeling the Papacy “antichrist” – don’t freak out yet. More on that word later…) So obviously Luther and other Lutherans did not consider that to be a complete impediment for Christianity to exist.

Elsewhere, Luther distinguishes the Lutheran movement’s criticism of the RCC from the truly Anti-Catholic movements of the Enthusiasts (Zwinglians, Anabaptists and other iconoclasts, and later Calvinists):

Now if Christianity exists under the pope, it must be Christ’s true body and members. If it is His body, then it has the right Spirit, Gospel, Creed, Baptism, Sacrament, keys, preaching office, prayer, Holy Scriptures, and everything that Christianity should have. Therefore we do not rave like the ‘enthusiasts’ that we reject everything in the papacy.

It is no wonder that Luther is responsible for coining the phrase “Don’t throw the baby out in the bath water!” Lutherans are unique in this regard; while denouncing the errors they perceive in other church bodies (often harshly and with words archaic or offensive to modern ears), they do not pretend to know the mind of God by denying other baptized Christians their rightful place within Christ’s body. They acknowledge RC orders and calls and ordinations as ‘valid.’

 

[steido01]

That said, Lutherans often have strong condemnations against what they believe to be false teaching. This is where the most confusion comes. The Brief Statement of 1932 has been misquoted in this thread to make the LCMS sound as though it condemns people in the RCC, when it instead speaks against certain teachings against “faith alone;” this is to be expected of any groups who earnestly disagree.

Another point that confuses those unfamiliar with Lutheran theology is its continued use of old words, even though they’ve taken on new, strange meanings in modern times. Modern ears may be offended more than warranted. For instance, there is the grossly misunderstood charge that Lutherans levy on the Office of the Papacy in the Treatise: that the Office of the Papacy is “anti-to-Christ.”

First of all, when the LCMS uses that word, it does not mean what the nutty “Left Behind” crowd means. When Lutherans use it, it’s as a surgical, precise identifier. It’s applicable to any leader of the church (which we just explained includes the RCC in the Lutheran view!) who uses his churchly office in a way that is contrary to Christ’s mission (i.e. anti-to-Christ). That can apply just as equally to Joel Osteen or Creflo Dollar, if we generously assume them to be Christians.  In the time of the Reformation, everyone and their mother was accused of being antichrist at some point. It’s like how both Democrats and Republicans claim each other’s platforms to be anti-American.

To be sure, the charge of antichrist is still very serious and I do not mean to make light of it. So is the RC charge of Lutherans being technical heretics, even if the word has fallen out of vogue today. Neither is calling for some insane “Excorcist” movie-style stuff.

Lutherans use this term surgically, and their confessions give three academic reasons for objecting to the Papacy, while not necessarily condemning the possibly —and in our times, the certainly!— that truly Christian men occupy that office. This point cannot be stressed enough; the LCMS explicitly teaches that the office of the papacy is, in its current form, anti-to-Christ; it does not teach that the Christian men who hold that office are themselves antichrist. Pope Benedict was a dear friend to Lutherans, greeting the President of the LCMS specifically at a prayer service a few years ago, and Francis is much-loved too. No one could seriously call Pope John Paul II anything other than a true example of Christian living.

 

[steido01]

It also must be noted that the Lutheran accusation is entirely conditional. The charge is not a permanent label. Should the situation change, they’d no longer apply. The Lutheran reasons are similar to the Orthodox:

1. “The Roman Pontiff has claimed for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom]."

The Eastern Patriarchs would have something to say about that. Lutherans, as Western Christians, often object only to the bit about “Divine Right.” Yes, that means many Lutherans would be totally cool with a pope if he didn’t claim to rule in the place of God, but rather out of human necessity. In fact, Philip Melanchthon, who wrote the Augsburg Confession, signed the Treatise saying precisely that.

1. “[The Papacy] claims the [earthly] authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].”

Lutherans do not recognize the Pope to be the ruler of the secular world or to have the power to appoint kings or presidents or members of Congress. The Papacy hasn’t really exercised this supposed power since the coronation of Napoleon in the 1800s, but still technically claims it.

1. “[The Papacy] claims that to believe this is necessary for salvation.”

In other words, Lutherans understand the Papacy to go beyond the Scriptural “outside the church there is no salvation,” to a “you must do this work (of giving fealty to a certain bishop) in order to be saved.” That would seem to do away with the need for Christ’s sacrifice. The focus of the Lutheran’s theology, as Pope Benedict XVI repeatedly noted, is the Cross, the Cross, the Cross.

In modern times, the papacy hasn’t really acted on these claims much, which has caused some Lutherans to wonder if the conditions still apply. The LCMS teaches that the papacy still technically holds these teachings even if it does not act on them, so the charge still stands, officially. At great sadness to Confessional Lutherans.

To anyone who is offended about the choice of language used in the Treatise, consider that the RCC itself is not bothered. It’s been engaging in dialogue with Lutherans since Vatican II. Folks would be well-served to read what the Lutheran-Catholic dialogues discussed specifically regarding the Office of the Papacy, including the Lutheran understanding of “antichrist,” back in the 1970s – see especially paragraph 30, where the RCC writers acknowledge that even sainted RCs have used the term with regard to the papacy! The total proceedings from “Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue, Round V: Papal Primacy and the Universal Church” can be found in this book. And, yes, the LCMS was a full participant in that round of discussions.

And should anyone attempt to reinterpret/mischaracterize Lutheran teaching any other way, I present this public statement from the LCMS:
https://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=552

 

[steido01]

“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… 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.”

Furthermore, the LCMS continues to work together with RCs on many social programs. Before becoming President of the LCMS, Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison started the joint Lutheran-Catholic St. Peter/Zion Project for Neighborhood Renewal, which is now nationally-known. The LCMS and the Archdiocese of St. Louis regularly make joint statements on Life issues. The LCMS even joined Archbishop Lori in testifying before Congress in protest against mandated coverage for abortion (if you only click one link, let this be it).

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

AugustTherese:

JonNC:

I don’t believe Peter alone had the keys.

Would you have believed that if you were born, and had lived, in the first 1,000 years of Christianity?

Yes…

And, where would you have gone to receive the Sacraments?

Since universal jurisdiction was not the position of the universal Church, it would not have been an issue

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

JonNC:

AugustTherese:

JonNC:

I don’t believe Peter alone had the keys.

Would you have believed that if you were born, and had lived, in the first 1,000 years of Christianity?

Yes…

And, where would you have gone to receive the Sacraments?

Since universal jurisdiction was not the position of the universal Church, it would not have been an issue

So, where would you have gone to receive the Sacraments?

 

[AugustTherese]

Because some on this board continue to share false information about the LCMS, and to keep them from doing so knowingly and therefore being guilty of bearing false neighbor

I did not know that quoting, verbatim, from the LCMS website was sharing ‘false information’, let alone breaking one of the 10 Commandments.

that the true church is found “in the congregation of saints, in which the Word is rightly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered.”

And, where might that be? Could you point me to where the 'Word is rightly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered?

This includes, by definition, the RCC

But, the LCMS Brief Statement calls the ‘RCC’ ‘apostate’. Care to explain how an ‘apostate’ Church could be found in the ‘true church’?

 

[AugustTherese]

To anyone who is offended about the choice of language used in the Treatise, consider that the RCC itself is not bothered

We’re Catholics, we do not get ‘offended’ at false claims. Christ was labeled as demon-possessed, how much more His household?

This point cannot be stressed enough; the LCMS explicitly teaches that the office of the papacy is, in its current form, anti-to-Christ; it does not teach that the Christian men who hold that office are themselves antichrist.

The LCMS teaches that a divine office, established by Christ Himself, is ‘anti-to-Christ’? Let me guess, this ‘office’ only became ‘anti-to-Christ’ right around the Council of Trent? But, before then, it wasn’t?

 

[JonNC]

The LCMS teaches that a divine office, established by Christ Himself, is ‘anti-to-Christ’? Let me guess, this ‘office’ only became ‘anti-to-Christ’ right around the Council of Trent? But, before then, it wasn’t?

Actually what they say is that the See of Rome was given an authority found neither in scripture nor in the early councils. An innovation.
The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope was written a full 8 years prior to Trent.

 

[steido01]

I did not know that quoting, verbatim, from the LCMS website was sharing ‘false information’, let alone breaking one of the 10 Commandments.

Many things can be quoted verbatim without context or explanation. Just look at how Pope Francis was quoted, verbatim, by the press and promoted by those with a certain agenda to be in favor of homosexuality. They were either ignorant of what he was actually saying, or knowingly bearing false witness against him. Do you understand this?

And, where might that be? Could you point me to where the 'Word is rightly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered?

You are welcome to come to my church anytime. It is often fun to meet the person on the other end of the computer screen.

But, the LCMS Brief Statement calls the ‘RCC’ ‘apostate’. Care to explain how an ‘apostate’ Church could be found in the ‘true church’?

I did. It is the teaching of Works Righteousness that the LCMS considers an apostasy from pure Christianity. The RCC has refined its teachings in this regard since the Brief Statement was penned in 1932 (which was only 62 years after the pope declared himself infallible!), most dramatically at the Second Vatican Council, and continuing in various dialogues. I don’t think even the most ardent Roman Catholic today would espouse the Works Righteousness condemned in the Brief Statement. At least, the folks who write the article for CAF don’t:

A key question at this point is how the magisterium handles James 2:24, which says that we are “justified by works and not by faith alone.” In popular discussions, this verse is often presented to Protestants as if it proves that we are justified by faith and works, with nothing more to be said. Confronted with this claim, the Protestant may respond, “But that’s not the kind of justification that James is talking about.” Before dismissing this claim, a Catholic should be aware of one thing: The magisterium agrees with it. At least, the magisterium doesn’t quote James 2:24 in connection with the justification that occurs at the beginning of the Christian life.

This should give all Christians hope that reunion, or at least some agreement on doctrine, might not be a dream saved for the Last Day.

 

[JonNC]

I did not know that quoting, verbatim, from the LCMS website was sharing ‘false information’, let alone breaking one of the 10 Commandments.

Verbatim, from the papal bull, Unam Sanctum:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

I think it’s fair that Catholics may claim it is “out of context “, or even claim that Catholics get to decide its interpretation.
Lutherans should be afforded that same control over their writings.