Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

[steido01]

Interesting. Would modern Lutheranism be closer to Eastern Orthodox than to the West?

Nothing modern about it; the Lutheran Confessions are what makes a given communion Lutheran and have not changed. Regarding papal jurisdiction, the short answer is yes - Lutheranism, like Orthodoxy, can admit to a tradition of first-among-equals for the Bishop of Rome. But we, like Orthodoxy, do not understand this *primacy *to be supremacy. And we certainly don’t see any proof in the early Church of infallibility or of being Vicar of Christ.

It gets interesting when Catholics quote an ECF as proof of modern papal dogmas. Catholics see supremacy. Lutherans and Orthodox see primacy, at best.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nothing modern about it; the Lutheran Confessions are what makes a given communion Lutheran and have not changed. Regarding papal jurisdiction, the short answer is yes - Lutheranism, like Orthodoxy, can admit to a tradition of first-among-equals for the Bishop of Rome. But we, like Orthodoxy, do not understand this *primacy *to be supremacy. And we certainly don’t see any proof in the early Church of infallibility or of being Vicar of Christ.

It gets interesting when Catholics quote an ECF as proof of modern papal dogmas. Catholics see supremacy. Lutherans and Orthodox see primacy, at best.

steido01-

Thanks for joining the discussion. I know you share an understanding with the Orthodox regarding the supremacy of Peter, but I have made the argument that Jesus named Peter the Royal Steward of His kingdom.

My points can be found in posts 1, 5, 6, 8, 23 & 39.

The points in 23 & 39 (I think) specifically address the question of why the supremacy of the pope was not so evident in the early church. Once the logic of Newman’s and Fortescue’s arguments sink in, I’m not sure there is any real defense of Protestantism and Orthodoxy left.

I look forward to your thoughts.

 

[steido01]

steido01-

Thanks for joining the discussion. I know you share an understanding with the Orthodox regarding the supremacy of Peter, but I have made the argument that Jesus named Peter the Royal Steward of His kingdom.

My points can be found in posts 1, 5, 6, 8, 23 & 39.

The points in 23 & 39 (I think) specifically address the question of why the supremacy of the pope was not so evident in the early church. Once the logic of Newman’s and Fortescue’s arguments sink in, I’m not sure there is any real defense of Protestantism and Orthodoxy left.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Sorry for continuing on the tangent, Randy. I’ll take some time to consider your points and try to post back within the week.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Luther on the Keys

"So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: ‘Why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.’”

(Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luther’s Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p. 365-366.)

Is Jesus’ authority supreme and universal?

And if Peter has Jesus’ keys, if his mouth is Jesus’ mouth, if his office is Jesus’ office, if his binding and loosing are Jesus’ binding and loosing, can it be anything less than supreme and universal?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

steido01-

Thanks for joining the discussion. I know you share an understanding with the Orthodox regarding the supremacy of Peter, but I have made the argument that Jesus named Peter the Royal Steward of His kingdom.

My points can be found in posts 1, 5, 6, 8, 23 & 39.

The points in 23 & 39 (I think) specifically address the question of why the supremacy of the pope was not so evident in the early church. Once the logic of Newman’s and Fortescue’s arguments sink in, I’m not sure there is any real defense of Protestantism and Orthodoxy left.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Randy,

There is a lot of other reasons and history that is not being touched.

~1059 A.D. - In Nomine Domine Papal Bull by Pope Nicholas II
a) For the very first time the Bishop of Rome is selected from within the Church:

*the cardinal bishops, with the clergy of the church and the catholic laity, may have the right and power, even though few in numbers, of electing a pontiff for the apostolic see wherever it may seem to them most suitable. *

Why is this necessary? [The Investiture Controversy](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08084c.htm), where Bishops and abbots were nominated and installed by the rulers of the region where the Bishopric Office also had jurisdiction. The lines between Church government and State government were practically invisible.

The Investiture Controversy carried on, during which time – Henry IV (Roman Emperor) along with the German and Northern Italy Bishops renounced their allegiance to the Pope. It was so bad that Henry IV got excommunicated and in 1077 A.D. at the Council of Autun – the ecclesiastical investitures by the laity (Including Rulers) were finally banned. This paved the way for the biggest development yet:

~1090 A.D. - Dictatus Papae by Pope Gregory VII
For the first time we see the following:

1. That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
2. That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
3. That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
4. That the pope may depose the absent.
5. That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
6. That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
7. That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
8. That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
9. That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
10. That this is the only name in the world.
​

This is completely absent during the first 1,000 years of the Church. In fact, it all happened after the Great Schism in 1054 A.D.

And I am not touching on other factors like transportation, communication, and others that also contribute to the absence of supreme, absolute and immediate jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over all the other Sees.

It is just not there for those first 1,000 years.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

There is a lot of other reasons and history that is not being touched.

~1059 A.D. - In Nomine Domine Papal Bull by Pope Nicholas II
a) For the very first time the Bishop of Rome is selected from within the Church:

Why is this necessary? [The Investiture Controversy](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08084c.htm), where Bishops and abbots were nominated and installed by the rulers of the region where the Bishopric Office also had jurisdiction. The lines between Church government and State government were practically invisible.

The Investiture Controversy carried on, during which time – Henry IV (Roman Emperor) along with the German and Northern Italy Bishops renounced their allegiance to the Pope. It was so bad that Henry IV got excommunicated and in 1077 A.D. at the Council of Autun – the ecclesiastical investitures by the laity (Including Rulers) were finally banned. This paved the way for the biggest development yet:

~1090 A.D. - Dictatus Papae by Pope Gregory VII
For the first time we see the following:

1. That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
2. That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
3. That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
4. That the pope may depose the absent.
5. That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
6. That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
7. That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
8. That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
9. That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
10. That this is the only name in the world.
​

This is completely absent during the first 1,000 years of the Church. In fact, it all happened after the Great Schism in 1054 A.D.

And I am not touching on other factors like transportation, communication, and others that also contribute to the absence of supreme, absolute and immediate jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over all the other Sees.

It is just not there for those first 1,000 years.

I covered the transportation/communication thing in post #39 by citing Fr. Fortescue on this very point.

Nice work!

 

[rcwitness]

Nothing modern about it; the Lutheran Confessions are what makes a given communion Lutheran and have not changed.

Point taken I probably should have said Confessional Lutherans.

Regarding papal jurisdiction, the short answer is yes - Lutheranism, like Orthodoxy, can admit to a tradition of first-among-equals for the Bishop of Rome.

Ok, so would you consider the Luthernan Communion as a branch of the East or West? I always thought of the Protestant denominations as coming from the Western Rites, and yet somehow Luthernism considers itself closer to the East. Maybe Luthernism branched off from the West, but closer in direction to the East.

But we, like Orthodoxy, do not understand this *primacy *to be supremacy. And we certainly don’t see any proof in the early Church of infallibility or of being Vicar of Christ.

I see.

It gets interesting when Catholics quote an ECF as proof of modern papal dogmas. Catholics see supremacy. Lutherans and Orthodox see primacy, at best.

I guess, as a Catholic, I would see the Western Church in Communion with the Roman Bishop as being closer to the Teachings of the ECF’s and Scriptural recognition of Peter’s office than Luthernism even if there were exaggerated powers given to the papacy (which I’m not claiming, but understand some of the claims )

For example, would you honestly think that St Jerome or St Augustine spoke more like a Lutheran or like a Catholic regarding the Papacy?

 

[rcwitness]

And we certainly don’t see any proof in the early Church of infallibility or of being Vicar of Christ.

I think there is a line that must be drawn between the Papacy and High Priest, but these examples are not where the seperation exists.

As Randy has pointed out, there is a particular vicarious work of Jesus in the person who holds the office of Bishop of Rome, but not exclusively him only. Each Bishop, Priest, Deacon, and finally Laymen can act in the person of Jesus. But each in their proper order. Not that a layman cannot be more noble than the Pope.

It does not work against Jesus’ High Priesthood but in accordance to it, and by its merits. Just as Paul worked in the Person of Christ to those under his spiritual care, so does the Bishop of Peter’s office.

2 Corinthians 2:10 (RSVCE)

10 Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ,

This office was instituted for Confirmation and unity among the brethren. This is why Paul was sent to lay his Gospel before Peter and the others, because he sought Confirmation from Jesus and acted in obedience to Jesus. So we can say just like the fisrt Christians, that we devote to the Apostolic Teachings in our own generation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think there is a line that must be drawn between the Papacy and High Priest, but these examples are not where the seperation exists.

As Randy has pointed out, there is a particular vicarious work of Jesus in the person who holds the office of Bishop of Rome, but not exclusively him only. Each Bishop, Priest, Deacon, and finally Laymen can act in the person of Jesus. But each in their proper order. Not that a layman cannot be more noble than the Pope.

It does not work against Jesus’ High Priesthood but in accordance to it, and by its merits. Just as Paul worked in the Person of Christ to those under his spiritual care, so does the Bishop of Peter’s office.

2 Corinthians 2:10 (RSVCE)

10 Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ,

This office was instituted for Confirmation and unity among the brethren. This is why Paul was sent to lay his Gospel before Peter and the others, because he sought Confirmation from Jesus and acted in obedience to Jesus. So we can say just like the fisrt Christians, that we devote to the Apostolic Teachings in our own generation.

2 Corinthians 2:10 (Douay Rheims)
And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

Clearly, the Apostle Paul himself forgave the sins of others acting in persona Christi or “in the person of Christ” – just as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the sacrament of reconciliation.

 

[JonNC]

2 Corinthians 2:10 (Douay Rheims)
And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

Clearly, the Apostle Paul himself forgave the sins of others acting in persona Christi or “in the person of Christ” – just as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the sacrament of reconciliation.

Lutherans believe the same. After confession, the pastor/confessor:
“As a called and ordained servant of Christ and by His authority, I therefore forgive you all of your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Amen.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Lutherans believe the same. After confession, the pastor/confessor:
“As a called and ordained servant of Christ and by His authority, I therefore forgive you all of your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Amen.

Jon

I know, Jon. Which is why I’m expecting a big announcement from you almost any day now.

 

[JonNC]

I know, Jon. Which is why I’m expecting a big announcement from you almost any day now.

I just checked the LCMS website. Nothing yet.

BTW, and off topic (or maybe not), I’m praying to see the LCMS stand with Fr. Jeffrey Bayhi and Catholic Diocese of Baton Rogue in their fight to defend the seal of the confessional.

catholic.com/news/religious-groups-say-louisiana-ruling-unconstitutional-violates-seal-of-confession

More and more, as the anti-religious freedom secularists nibble away at liberty, our communions are forced into a common stance together.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

I just checked the LCMS website. Nothing yet.

BTW, and off topic (or maybe not), I’m praying to see the LCMS stand with Fr. Jeffrey Bayhi and Catholic Diocese of Baton Rogue in their fight to defend the seal of the confessional.

catholic.com/news/religious-groups-say-louisiana-ruling-unconstitutional-violates-seal-of-confession

More and more, as the anti-religious freedom secularists nibble away at liberty, our communions are forced into a common stance together.

Jon

Yep. Nothing like a little persecution to help you figure out who your real friends are.

 

[JonNC]

Yep. Nothing like a little persecution to help you figure out who your real friends are.

Indeed. I just hope the LCMS recognizes it, and works to make that friendship grow.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

For example, would you honestly think that St Jerome or St Augustine spoke more like a Lutheran or like a Catholic regarding the Papacy?

Speaking for me, I actually think that Orthodoxy speaks of the papacy more like ECF’s than either Catholics or Lutherans. The Lutheran (confessional) language is far too wrapped up in the polemics of the Reformation era to sound like them.
Catholics, OTOH, have Vatican I and other councils since 1054 that influence the way they speak about the papacy.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Speaking for me, I actually think that Orthodoxy speaks of the papacy more like ECF’s than either Catholics or Lutherans. The Lutheran (confessional) language is far too wrapped up in the polemics of the Reformation era to sound like them.
Catholics, OTOH, have Vatican I and other councils since 1054 that influence the way they speak about the papacy.

Jon

Here’s an oft quoted statement (but I didn’t highlight the part that is usually highlighted):

Ratzinger:

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressingthe essential contentof the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium.*Rome need not ask for more.*Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

 

[rcwitness]

Speaking for me, I actually think that Orthodoxy speaks of the papacy more like ECF’s than either Catholics or Lutherans. The Lutheran (confessional) language is far too wrapped up in the polemics of the Reformation era to sound like them.
Catholics, OTOH, have Vatican I and other councils since 1054 that influence the way they speak about the papacy.

Jon

Thanks Jon.

Now, Im not sure how to articulate my question, but this is what im wondering…

In contrast to the beliefs of Confessional Lutheransim being closer to that of Eastern Orthodox, it seems that Luthernism is focussed more on eccumenical resolve with the Western Rite in Communion with the Papacy.

…or is this not an accurate impression I have?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here’s an oft quoted statement (but I didn’t highlight the part that is usually highlighted):

Peter J-

Interesting and encouraging, but how do you think that would play out in practical terms?

 

[steido01]

Peter J-

Interesting and encouraging, but how do you think that would play out in practical terms?

I’m wondering the same thing. Looking forward to the hypotheticals.

Also reading on your previous posts.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Peter J-

Interesting and encouraging, but how do you think that would play out in practical terms?

It’s not like the Church couldn’t work without Rome’s immediate, supreme and absolute jurisdiction for 1,000 years…

We just had different demons to fight that lead to different developments. The problem is that we have put our foot in our mouth and it’s probably too late to take some things back…

There’s always redefining terms…

That’s what happens when you write documents in a reactionary way and/or out of anger…