ELCA and Catholic Unity (?)

[commenter]

But for all practical purposes, it’s the position of many Catholics and is tolerated: I mean no one gets excommunicated from the Catholic Church because they support gay marriage, right? How can you say it’s “not acceptable” when it’s accepted?

• Excommunication is usually a private action. Certain actions cause you to be in a state of excommunication. Even if a bishop does excommunicate you directly, that is normally confidential. I have no idea how many people are excommunicated, or go through lifting that step, through confession. It is a rare step for medicinal purposes, not penal; it is designed for that particular soul, to change.
• One could argue that “for all practical purposes” 100% of Catholics and Protestants have not begun to “take up their cross” and live totally for God. Would you therefore conclude all churches should disband and all bibles tossed in recycling? Of course not. The reality is that people who read the Bible are also subject to enormous secular pressures, especially from the media. That does not eliminate the value of the Bible. Or the Magisterium.
• People with wrong views, and wrong actions, have been “accepted” by the Catholic Church for 2000 years. If you are not a sinner, the Church is not for you. But people with some false ideas - other words, all of us - get clarity of ****truth ****through the Magisterium. The Magisterium is like a fixed lighthouse, on land. The reliability of its light is not affected by popularity. I, personally, want to be a saint, so I watch the lighthouse (along with Scripture and Tradition). Many Protestant individuals and denominations also are guided somewhat by that Magisterium landmark. They may not want to be exactly Catholic, but they set their course in relation to that landmark. The Magisterium sets the standard for “Christian orthodoxy”.

 

[Peter_J]

I read that there are some Roman Catholic politicians who support SS marriage. One of them was greeted cordially by a high official in the RCC and there was no mention of his being outside of the RCC, even though his stance was publicly known.

Whatever may be done by smiling, you can count on me to do.

 

[cfauster]

According to the Declaration on the Way, here is what Catholics and Lutherans agree on concerning how truth is maintained in the church:

“Both Lutherans and Catholics ascribe to the Holy Spirit
the effective maintaining of the truth of the gospel and
the correct celebration of the sacraments. The church is
authorized by God and empowered by the Holy Spirit to
distinguish truth from error through faithful teaching. Both
sides affirm the need for a ministry and office of teaching,
exercised within the whole church in concert with all the
faithful…” (from p. 81)

and here is how we differ (from p. 82).

“For Catholics, the Lord’s promise that the church will abide in
the truth grounds a conviction that the episcopal and papal
magisterium can articulate the truth of the gospel in doctrinal
affirmations that express or interpret divine revelation. Because
of the mandate and authority of bearers of this office, the faithful
are obliged to accept their teaching with a “religiously based
assent” (eique religioso animi obsequio adhaerere debent). Such
teaching may in certain cases even be inerrant and infallible, and
thus bind church members to assent at this level.”

“Lutherans see the church’s ministry and decisions as liable to error and so hold that
as a matter of principle they must be open to examination by the
whole people of God. Believers have the right and duty to consult
Scripture in order “to test whether the proclamation offered to them accords with the gospel.”
Consequently, any teaching claiming to be binding must be met with a reservation (Vorbehalt) regarding its binding nature.”

The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification states well the truth that is to be maintained.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Let’s say I told my kids that they all must be in bed by 10:00 pm. I write down this rule in a book we have on the bookshelf called “Rules of the House”. But then I allow my kids to go to bed whenever they choose and we never speak about the rule again. Can I say my kids are in “outright rebellion”? I suppose in a very technical sense, but not in any real way. You can’t rebel against something that has no role or impact in your everyday life. I can’t rebel against the views of the Prime Minister of China—his views don’t affect me.

But what I really shouldn’t do with my “must be in bed by 10 pm” rule is go around the neighborhood criticizing other families about how they allow their kids to stay up until all hours. And brag about how my rule is written down in a book called “Rules of the House”. Or complain that my kids’ education is going down the tubes because they aren’t getting enough sleep.

See what I mean?

Interesting analogy. What about if you and i discussed thr rules. You do it your way and i do it mine. However, you, knowing my rule for my kids, allow my children to come to your house and violate the rules you supposedly respect for me to keep for my kids, and then pretend as if im supposed to be okay with that and we are best friends

 

[Peter_J]

But isn’t “the Church” the same as the people who are in “out right rebellion”? Or a least a majority of them? When you’re talking about the “views of the Church” you’re talking about the views of all Catholics, no? If not, then who is “the Church” that has these “views of the Church”?

We could have another discussion about the terms “visible church” and “invisible church” … but such discussions are rarely fruitful IMO.

 

[Peter_J]

According to the Declaration on the Way, here is what Catholics and Lutherans agree on concerning how truth is maintained in the church:

“Both Lutherans and Catholics ascribe to the Holy Spirit
the effective maintaining of the truth of the gospel and
the correct celebration of the sacraments. The church is
authorized by God and empowered by the Holy Spirit to
distinguish truth from error through faithful teaching. Both
sides affirm the need for a ministry and office of teaching,
exercised within the whole church in concert with all the
faithful…” (from p. 81)

and here is how we differ (from p. 82).

“For Catholics, the Lord’s promise that the church will abide in
the truth grounds a conviction that the episcopal and papal
magisterium can articulate the truth of the gospel in doctrinal
affirmations that express or interpret divine revelation. Because
of the mandate and authority of bearers of this office, the faithful
are obliged to accept their teaching with a “religiously based
assent” (eique religioso animi obsequio adhaerere debent). Such
teaching may in certain cases even be inerrant and infallible, and
thus bind church members to assent at this level.”

“Lutherans see the church’s ministry and decisions as liable to error and so hold that
as a matter of principle they must be open to examination by the
whole people of God. Believers have the right and duty to consult
Scripture in order “to test whether the proclamation offered to them accords with the gospel.”
Consequently, any teaching claiming to be binding must be met with a reservation (Vorbehalt) regarding its binding nature.”

The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification states well the truth that is to be maintained.

I have to admire someone who quotes from official dialogue. Gutsy.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The Church in this context is not the members of the Catholic Church, but the magisterial teachings of the Church.

How can the Church be a teaching? Isn’t the Church composed of people? Is this what Catholics believe about the nature of the Church?

 

[commenter]

Ecumenism needs 2 doctrinally stable partners. Suppose you and the others agree to play basketball. But halfway in the second quarter, the other team snaps the ball to the quarterback, who throws a touchdown pass. That’s kind of what the Catholic Church is dealing with, both with ELCA and ARCIC.

If you look at a snapshot, any one year’s statement, yeah, looks like some progress here. But this ignores the larger context of doctrinal movement by ELCA and most Anglicans, not only away from the RCC but away from positions that all Anglicans and Lutherans, themselves, once regarded as crucial. So in other words, any agreement on doctrinal matters now is written in very erasable pencil; we don’t know if this aspect which seems permanent now, will be redefined in a decade.

One might argue that it is “good” for denominations to be no longer bound to the old absolutes of doctrinal orthodoxy and tradition, but more responsive to the trends of the larger culture in reconsidering … um, almost everything. To each his own. But this does not make a foundation for ecumenism with the RCC.

 

[Thorolfr]

How can the Church be a teaching? Isn’t the Church composed of people? Is this what Catholics believe about the nature of the Church?

The notion that the Church is not the same as the people in it is one of the ways that I often see people use to explain why the Catholic Church has never been complicit in things like slavery, for example. Even if popes, saints and Doctors of the Church practiced slavery, it will be claimed that the Church had nothing to do with this, only those individual popes and saints.

 

[Rau]

How can the Church be a teaching? Isn’t the Church composed of people? Is this what Catholics believe about the nature of the Church?

I sense you may be setting out to be a tad obtuse over the use of language Dave. Context gives words meaning. When one says “the Church teaches …” Then this is a reference to the teaching authority of the Church, which is not to be equated with “the prevailing views of all the members of the Church”.

This whole notion of a teaching authority is foreign to a Church such as the ELCA, and thus the varying meaning of some words may not arise for Lutherans.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The notion that the Church is not the same as the people in it is one of the ways that I often see people use to explain why the Catholic Church has never been complicit in things like slavery, for example. Even if popes, saints and Doctors of the Church practiced slavery, it will be claimed that the Church had nothing to do with this, only those individual popes and saints.

Perhaps it would be better to clarify which definition of Church one is using, since it could mean ‘church militant’, ‘church penitent’ and ‘church triumphant’. Clearly the church triumphant cannot commit sin, and the church penitent is outside the temporal realm. If one is criticizing the church militant, I suppose in a limited way it could be argued to be at fault if the faulty party was following instruction from the direction of a true representative of her.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_Militant,_Penitent,_and_Triumphant

 

[Rau]

The notion that the Church is not the same as the people in it is one of the ways that I often see people use to explain why the Catholic Church has never been complicit in things like slavery, for example. Even if popes, saints and Doctors of the Church practiced slavery, it will be claimed that the Church had nothing to do with this, only those individual popes and saints.

No, that’s a different notion. Typically, the issue is to distinguish what was done from what was “taught”. There is no question that wrong things are and were done. It is not necessary to look far back in time time to know that.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I sense you may be setting out to be a tad obtuse over the use of language Dave. Context gives words meaning. When one says “the Church teaches …” Then this is a reference to the teaching authority of the Church, which is not to be equated with “the prevailing views of all the members of the Church”.

This whole notion of a teaching authority is foreign to a Church such as the ELCA, and thus the varying meaning of some words may not arise for Lutherans.

I just often see Catholics claim that the Church is perfectly holy and sinless, but then if you point out that the Church consists of fallible humans, then Catholics sometimes respond that those people aren’t actually part of the Church, they only “claim to be Catholic” or are “Catholics in name only.” But ultimately who would be left if all the fallible humans are excluded from someone’s definition of the Church?

So when someone says “the Church teaches…” who is “the Church” in that statement for Catholics? Only the bishops? Does Catholicism have a dual definition of “the Church,” depending on the context? It’s an honest question. Maybe someone can point me to where “the Church” is defined in Catholic teaching for some further clarity.

I’ll let the ELCA speak for themselves, but I’d guess they do have an understanding of teaching authority, just one that flows from the Church as a whole, not only from designated teachers. But maybe someone will clarify.

It does seem to me that one’s definition of “the Church” is very important in ecumenical dialogue if we are not to be speaking past each other.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Given that the ELCA presiding bishop is a woman and that the Pope was clear that women cannot be priests, I don’t think unity is the word I would use for it. It’s a little like calling the last micrometer of a meter long piece of velcro sticking together and saying that they two pieces are securely joined.

Given current circumstances you might find yourself in a joint “communion services” by next Friday.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I just often see Catholics claim that the Church is perfectly holy and sinless, but then if you point out that the Church consists of fallible humans, then Catholics sometimes respond that those people aren’t actually part of the Church, they only “claim to be Catholic” or are “Catholics in name only.” But ultimately who would be left if all the fallible humans are excluded from someone’s definition of the Church?

So when someone says “the Church teaches…” who is “the Church” in that statement for Catholics? Only the bishops? Does Catholicism have a dual definition of “the Church,” depending on the context? It’s an honest question. Maybe someone can point me to where “the Church” is defined in Catholic teaching for some further clarity.

I’ll let the ELCA speak for themselves, but I’d guess they do have an understanding of teaching authority, just one that flows from the Church as a whole, not only from designated teachers. But maybe someone will clarify.

It does seem to me that one’s definition of “the Church” is very important in ecumenical dialogue if we are not to be speaking past each other.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-does-church-mean

Generally a ‘local church’ is the members of the local parish in union with their bishop, who is in union with his patriarch, who is in turn in union with all the other patriarchs, who is in union with their bishops.

The particular church is made up of local churches of a self governing communion based on common Rite, Tradition, patristic history, custom.

The universal church is the sum of all local and particular churches in communion with one another

I’m sure there are various sub categories

 

[commenter]

I just often see Catholics claim that the Church is perfectly holy and sinless…

The Church itself is holy, based on Christ’s holiness. If in a given century or in a given country all the Catholics are very evil, that is very horrible for them. But it does not affect the holiness of the Church. The Church is not holier under a saintly pope, or less holy under an evil one. This does not minimize the importance of persons seeking holiness. The Bible does not become less holy or more holy, either.

So when someone says “the Church teaches…” who is “the Church” in that statement for Catholics?

In terms of faith and morals, the Magisterium defines doctrine. Confer the Catechism of the Catholic Church for a proper explanation.

I’ll let the ELCA speak for themselves, but I’d guess they do have an understanding of teaching authority, just one that flows from the Church as a whole, not only from designated teachers. But maybe someone will clarify.

My understanding is that historically, Lutheran teaching authority flowed from the Bible primarily; from Christian tradition of orthodox teaching, most of which is common with the RCC; and from the Confessions and Lutheran-specific interpretations. I believe the LCMS still would describe something like that. I also believe the predecessor denominations that became ELCA would also have followed that pattern.

What you are describing, “teaching authority” “that flows from the Church as a whole” might perhaps be how ELCA does in fact work, now. That is why Catholic-ELCA discussions on unity are likely less productive than Catholic-LCMS discussions would be; and why ELCA will continue moving farther from LCMS.

 

[Rau]

What you are describing, “teaching authority” “that flows from the Church as a whole” might perhaps be how ELCA does in fact work, now. That is why Catholic-ELCA discussions on unity are likely less productive than Catholic-LCMS discussions would be; and why ELCA will continue moving farther from LCMS.

As said earlier - the ELCA adopts compromise and can readily admit contradictory theological positions to be adopted according to the will (or the vote) of subsets of the overall ELCA community. This is fundamentally different from the Catholic Church which is in its entirety led and guided.

 

[commenter]

The notion that the Church is not the same as the people in it is one of the ways that I often see people use to explain why the Catholic Church has never been complicit in things like slavery, for example. Even if popes, saints and Doctors of the Church practiced slavery, it will be claimed that the Church had nothing to do with this, only those individual popes and saints.

Lots of angry feelings on this thread. People who have strong feelings against Catholicism or Protestantism should be treated with respect. But let’s all try to relate our posts to the topic. If the RCC is evil, loaded with hypocrisy and conceit and coverups, Antics with semantics, that may force expanded housing in Hell, but it isn’t exactly the topic of ELCA - Catholic unity. If you think ambiguous or duplicitous language by Catholics or ELCA impedes unity, describe why.

 

[Rau]

…So when someone says “the Church teaches…” who is “the Church” in that statement for Catholics? Only the bishops?

The Church is subject to the successor of St Peter as Scripture attests and the early Church confirms. The teaching authority is the Magisterium. The teaching authority is not “everyone” (by vote or otherwise), and in some contexts, “the Church” is a reference to the teaching authority. The context makes it clear - there is no ambiguity unless one wishes to create it.

It does seem to me that one’s definition of “the Church” is very important in ecumenical dialogue if we are not to be speaking past each other.

That’s true, but not for the reasons your recent posts imply.

 

[Peter_J]

How can the Church be a teaching? Isn’t the Church composed of people? Is this what Catholics believe about the nature of the Church?

The notion that the Church is not the same as the people in it is one of the ways that I often see people use to explain why the Catholic Church has never been complicit in things like slavery, for example. Even if popes, saints and Doctors of the Church practiced slavery, it will be claimed that the Church had nothing to do with this, only those individual popes and saints.

If you didn’t see it …

We could have another discussion about the terms “visible church” and “invisible church” … but such discussions are rarely fruitful IMO.