Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

[EvangelCatholic]

I thought that the more liberal interpretation (Leipzig Interim) is that anything outside of justification by faith is adiaphora. So as I understand it, justification by faith is never adiaphora to Lutherans.

My use of adiaphora can not be compared to non-separating issues as identified in the Declaration. I meant that the differences pose no barrier to reunification.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Thanks, JonNC, expected you to be one the few who will come out with well-considered replies. I do not see JDDF as a statement of agreement - more a statement of non-disagreement on an issue originally thought to divide the churches and a springboard to define areas of agreement.

My point on ‘different styles of worship’ and ‘church polity’ are that they are secondary differences that would not impair communion. But the question is whether the LCMS’s refusal to sign indicate a difference in understanding of the faith that may. The LCMS document on why they did not sign seems inconclusive to me. I cannot see whether the difference is due to understanding of the Catholic position or a rejection of the Catholic position. The non-resolution of the position on Mary, for instance could be interpreted as needing a broader agreement before something can be signed, which I don’t think was the intention of JDDF in the first place. Alternatively, I could interpret it (perhaps incorrectly) that LCMS see the Catholic position on Mary as informing its position on justification in a way that LCMS could not agree to, hence a rejection of Catholic position.

What are open and close communion?

If the LWF is the umbrella body of Lutherans, it would be incumbent on LWF to have an evaluation criteria on what constitute a Lutheran, to determine qualification for entry. Wouldn’t that criteria include the faith of the applicant? If so, wouldn’t LWF need to define Lutheran faith? So, even if it is not a magisterium in the Catholic sense, it would be a custodian of the depository of faith, and so should have a formal role in the talks with other churches.

The beliefs of what is Lutheran are articulated in the Augsburg Confession . It appears the conclusion of the Commission on Unity is that is enough.

Open Communion is that anyone who is baptized and believes in the Real Presence can commune at Lutheran and Anglican altars.

 

[jimkhong]

The beliefs of what is Lutheran are articulated in the Augsburg Confession . It appears the conclusion of the Commission on Unity is that is enough.

But who inteprets the Augsburg Confession? Wouldn’t there be a necessity to evalaute whether someone’s understanding of the Confession is consistent with orthodox Lutherans? Or does LWF accepts a declaration as prima facie evidence of consistency of understanding?

Open Communion is that anyone who is baptized and believes in the Real Presence can commune at Lutheran and Anglican altars.

Any Close?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

But who inteprets the Augsburg Confession? Wouldn’t there be a necessity to evalaute whether someone’s understanding of the Confession is consistent with orthodox Lutherans? Or does LWF accepts a declaration as prima facie evidence of consistency of understanding?

Any Close?

Lutherans all yield to the Confessions. There is no significant theological disagreement among Lutherans. Augustana is the “understanding” of Lutherans.

 

[steido01]

Lutherans all yield to the Confessions. ** There is no significant theological disagreement among Lutherans.** Augustana is the “understanding” of Lutherans.

But, regrettably, there are significant theological differences between Lutherans and those who call themselves Lutheran - significant enough to demand separate communions.

To answer the OP’s question regarding Lutheran polity - Lutherans don’t require a centralized Magisterium to determine doctrine, as it is entirely self-evident in Scripture and the Confessions (which we view as the right reflection of Scripture). Should a church, either locally or at the Synodical level, strays from the Confessions, the remainder of the Lutheran Church, through its ‘ministerium,’ admonishes it and, if necessary, breaks fellowship. For instance, the LCMS, ELS and WELS no longer consider the ELCA to be an orthodox Lutheran body. Worldwide, other Lutheran bodies have done the same, including the largest Lutheran body in the world, the Mekane Yesus in Africa; it broke fellowship with the ELCA and the Church of Sweden and has sought fellowship with the LCMS. The Confessional Lutherans continue to meet and strive toward more visible unity.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

**But, regrettably, there are significant theological differences between Lutherans and those who call themselves Lutheran - significant enough to demand separate communions. **
To answer the OP’s question regarding Lutheran polity - Lutherans don’t require a centralized Magisterium to determine doctrine, as it is entirely self-evident in Scripture and the Confessions (which we view as the right reflection of Scripture). Should a church, either locally or at the Synodical level, strays from the Confessions, the remainder of the Lutheran Church, through its ‘ministerium,’ admonishes it and, if necessary, breaks fellowship. For instance, the LCMS, ELS and WELS no longer consider the ELCA to be an orthodox Lutheran body. Worldwide, other Lutheran bodies have done the same, including the largest Lutheran body in the world, the Mekane Yesus in Africa; it broke fellowship with the ELCA and the Church of Sweden and has sought fellowship with the LCMS. The Confessional Lutherans continue to meet and strive toward more visible unity.

Can you be specific? Are your suggesting that 90% of Lutherans of not Lutheran?

 

[jimkhong]

Lutherans all yield to the Confessions. There is no significant theological disagreement among Lutherans. Augustana is the “understanding” of Lutherans.

There seems to be interesting opinions on this.

What is closed communion?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

There seems to be interesting opinions on this.

What is closed communion?

Missouri Synod Lutherans can answer your question. My understanding of close/ closed communion is the historic effort of Lutherans in America to distinguish themselves from Protestants over the Real Presence. Like Catholics, some Lutherans urge a prospective communicant to speak with the pastor before coming up to the altar at Mass. It is common to see a notice in the Sunday bulletin asking non-Lutherans to not take holy Communion in LCMS parishes.

 

[JonNC]

There seems to be interesting opinions on this.

What is closed communion?

“Closed” is, in our terms, what the Catholic Church practices. You specifically ask that, outside of certain circumstances and approved by the bishop, that non-Catholics not receive the Eucharist at a Catholic mass. And this applies, AFAIK, to all Catholic parishes in the world.
“Close” communion, the practice of the LCMS, is similar in that we ask visitors of other communions not to receive, but the local parish has significant flexibility to permit reception of the sacrament, particularly for those who are Lutherans of other synods or other Christians who discern and confess that in receiving the sacrament, they are receiving the true and substantial body and blood of Christ.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Missouri Synod Lutherans can answer your question. My understanding of close/ closed communion is the historic effort of Lutherans in America to distinguish themselves from Protestants over the Real Presence. Like Catholics, some Lutherans urge a prospective communicant to speak with the pastor before coming up to the altar at Mass. It is common to see a notice in the Sunday bulletin asking non-Lutherans to not take holy Communion in LCMS parishes.

It is not a matter of attempting to distinguish ourselves. That distinction is evident. It has two purposes: 1) we believe that communion is more than simply agreeing on the real presence, but having doctrinal agreement, 2) we take St. Paul’s admonishment in Corinthians seriously by cautioning those who do not discern the body and blood.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=steido01;11522014]As always, you represent the LCMS’s position correctly, even where you wish it to guide us differently. Would that our little (and growing!) Synod -and Christendom, in general- had more people like you.

Thank you for your kind words.

I understand the desire to hold up the JDDJ as a sort of “preliminary” agreement, but for the bolded reason above, we simply can’t accept it. Agreeing to disagree is not agreement. Unionism, or the appearance of it, are harmful to real dialogue. In this case, the vagueness of the JDDJ leaves far too much linguistic wiggle room to be interpreted as the reader sees fit. It simply is not finished.

I don’t think, Don, there is any implication that we should agree to disagree. I think the point is to say, here is where we agree. Here is where we need the Holy Spirit to guide us. I agree that it simply is not finished, but what I there that is good should be recognized. I think the avenue that the Vatican took, much to the chagrin of our LWF siblings, that being to write a clarification, is the correct model.

The saddest part is, in my opinion, that on Justification- modern Rome and steadfast Wittenberg are in agreement. The hang up comes, in this particular issue, in reconciling the heterodox practices (abuses? Forgive me for this sounding like polemics- I simply don’t know how else to say it… ) of Reformation-Era Rome with today’s Rome which is -dare I say- Lutheran in its practical understanding of Justification. But words have already been assigned meaning on this topic, and an “infallible” Church cannot be perceived to have “changed” its doctrine.

No, but doctrine can develop. Further, if you are correct that, modern Rome and steadfast Wittenberg are in agreement, then there is no need to have anxiety about the old definition of terms, and the road to convergence on the issue is much smoother. What it will take is a willingness on both sides to resist the temptation of, “see, we told you so”, but instead place our rejoicing in the Holy Spirit, in whom our unity becomes possible.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

I do not think that the Joint Declaration ought to be taken as an affirmation that Lutherans and Catholics agree on the doctrine of justifcation so much as that most of the rhetoric behind the issue is baseless and the issue did not justify the resulting division in the Church. This is going according to my memory and personal reading of the relevant documents. If the LWF can be said to agree witn the Catholic Church on justification, it would only be by a retreat from traditional Lutheran doctrine. For example, the Formula of Concord teaches the purely forensic model of justification and contains statements that are contrary to the Catholic faith. It is on these grounds that the LCMS rejected the Joint Declaration.

Well said.
Mary.

 

[jimkhong]

It is not a matter of attempting to distinguish ourselves. That distinction is evident. It has two purposes: 1) we believe that communion is more than simply agreeing on the real presence, but having doctrinal agreement, 2) we take St. Paul’s admonishment in Corinthians seriously by cautioning those who do not discern the body and blood.

Jon

Thanks, Jon. Makes a lot of sense. I wish our priests or bishops are accorded that type of flexibility.

 

[steido01]

Thank you for your kind words.

No, but doctrine can develop. Further, if you are correct that, modern Rome and steadfast Wittenberg are in agreement, then there is no need to have anxiety about the old definition of terms, and the road to convergence on the issue is much smoother. What it will take is a willingness on both sides to resist the temptation of, “see, we told you so”, but instead place our rejoicing in the Holy Spirit, in whom our unity becomes possible.

Jon

Perhaps you are right. Time may tell - and perhaps sooner than we think. As the enemy makes himself more prevelant in the world, it may provide an opportunity for the Holy Spirit to bring His people back together and end the in-fighting.

 

[steido01]

Thanks, Jon. Makes a lot of sense. I wish our priests or bishops are accorded that type of flexibility.

Well, your bishops are. At least, in my personal experience.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, the 50 years of Dialogue following Vatican 2 affirms our faith in the holy catholic and apostolic church and identifies areas that we can live with together. What the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Lutheran World Federation have concluded is very scary. ** It means we believe the same.**

Hi EvangelCatholic. I hear this “we believe the same” language quite a lot – including many times from fellow Catholics. But what’s really noteworthy is that most people who say that would also, if they were “open books”, say “Union is to take place on my terms.” (Not that I’m a mind-reader of course, but if that isn’t an accurate description of you, then you are very unusual.)

 

[jimkhong]

Well, your bishops are. At least, in my personal experience.

Very narrow margins. Only in certain extenuating circumstances and even so, with only certain pre-specified Communions. Although, I am sure there will be bishops who will dispense with the latter if situation demands it and no-one (from Vatican, in particular) is looking.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The saddest part is, in my opinion, that on Justification- modern Rome and steadfast Wittenberg are in agreement. The hang up comes, in this particular issue, in reconciling the heterodox practices (abuses? Forgive me for this sounding like polemics- I simply don’t know how else to say it… ) of Reformation-Era Rome with today’s Rome which is -dare I say- Lutheran in its practical understanding of Justification. But words have already been assigned meaning on this topic, and an “infallible” Church cannot be perceived to have “changed” its doctrine.

This is a strange statement to me since, I am unaware of any real change in Rome’s understanding of justification from the Council of Trent. Perhaps you can share what issues you have in mind and provide Reformation-era and recent sources to document this change.

 

[jimkhong]

But, regrettably, there are significant theological differences between Lutherans and those who call themselves Lutheran - significant enough to demand separate communions.

To answer the OP’s question regarding Lutheran polity - Lutherans don’t require a centralized Magisterium to determine doctrine, as it is entirely self-evident in Scripture and the Confessions (which we view as the right reflection of Scripture). Should a church, either locally or at the Synodical level, strays from the Confessions, the remainder of the Lutheran Church, through its ‘ministerium,’ admonishes it and, if necessary, breaks fellowship. For instance, the LCMS, ELS and WELS no longer consider the ELCA to be an orthodox Lutheran body. Worldwide, other Lutheran bodies have done the same, including the largest Lutheran body in the world, the Mekane Yesus in Africa; it broke fellowship with the ELCA and the Church of Sweden and has sought fellowship with the LCMS. The Confessional Lutherans continue to meet and strive toward more visible unity.

Sorry, Don, confusing to a simple Catholic mind. You mean that even though churches are constituent members of the LWF and are happy to accord the label of ‘Lutheran’ to each other, they are not deemed in communion? So, a Lutheran can regard another Lutheran as a Lutheran even while not convinced that the other person holds valid Lutheran faith?

 

[Peter_J]

So, a Lutheran can regard another Lutheran as a Lutheran even while not convinced that the other person holds valid Lutheran faith?

Well, let me throw out this analogy (our Lutheran brethen are welcome to tell me if it is way off): Suppose I said “So-and-so belongs to the Anglican Catholic Church” … but further suppose that someone pressed me on the point asking “Do you mean that someone outside the Roman Communion can be Catholic?” then I would respond “Well, no, I said ‘Anglican Catholic Church’ because that’s what that denomination is customarily called.”

(Or if you prefer, another example could be that most Orthodox people would call you and me “Catholics”, regardless of their view of us, because that’s what members of the Roman Communion are customarily called.)