No doubts about converting from LCMS

[Peter_J]

'm not exactly sure what you mean by private judgement. But I would like to take a crack at this statement. I believe confessional Lutheran bodies such as LCMS, WELS, and ELS retain catholicity in doctrine insofar as it is found in God’s Word. In fact in the WELS a return in many congregations to catholic traditions that we believe are congruent with biblical doctrine is progressing. Much of this may have happened sooner or not have been lost after the 16th century if not for the treatment of the Lutheran Confessors at the hands of the RCC, and the equally aggressive response to that treatment.

This however only includes traditions not doctrine. In holding to our confessions we believe we as Lutherans are coming down not on the side of Protestantism or Catholicism, rather on the side of correct Biblical Exegesis!

Well, possibly. I’ve been mostly an silent participant on this thread, but I’d like to chime in here …

Leaving aside the obvious “propaganda war”, anti-Lutheran rants from Catholics, and anti-Catholic rants from Lutherans (not that I would ever set foot on a Lutheran forum ) the main thing that strikes me about Catholic-Lutheran discussions is the hidden assumption that Western Christianity must be right, ie the automatic dismissal of Orthodoxy as a possibility.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

This however only includes traditions not doctrine. In holding to our confessions we believe we as Lutherans are coming down not on the side of Protestantism or Catholicism, rather on the side of correct Biblical Exegesis!
Reply With Quote

I have bolded the salient phrase. This is where private judgement has been preserved, and remains central and at the core of Protestantism. As long as you hold to a Sola Scriptura position, based on private judgement, you will be siding with Protestantism rather than Catholicity.

If you hold to a position where Church Authority, as found in Apostolic Succession and Holy Tradition interpret Scripture, you will be on the side of Catholicity and the dogmatic principle.

That is why all of this talk about Lutheran principles being common to Catholicism will always ring hollow and superficial, at least to me. IOW, you hold some beliefs in common with Catholicism, but it is accidental and not intentional. The Lutheran perception of “correct” Biblical exegesis, will always determine your beliefs.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Peter J:

Catholic-Lutheran discussions is the hidden assumption that Western Christianity must be right, ie the automatic dismissal of Orthodoxy as a possibility.

Not true. Catholics believe that the Orthodox are in accord with themselves. We don’t believe there are two Christianities, one for the East and one for the West. It’s true the Orthodox East and the RCC have a couple of issues where they disagree, but the overarching Catholicity of the Orthodox East and the Catholic West is unmistakable and central to our mutual understandings.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
… about Catholic-Lutheran discussions is the hidden assumption that Western Christianity must be right, ie the automatic dismissal of Orthodoxy as a possibility.

That was kind of my point.

 

[steido01]

Given that you have been in the LCMS for nine years now, and because you are not going to be making your tenth anniversary, it would seem that you are the one to respond to the following questions:

Just curious, why ask the admittedly poorly-catechized to comment? Why not those who have been taught well, profess it and do not plan to leave? That said, I join you in praying that betsybug is blessed in Word and Sacrament in her new communion.

1. As an LCMS member, were you aware of all (or any) of the offensive and anti-Catholic statements in the Formula of Concord?

I am aware of where Lutherans and Roman Catholics disagree. That some take offense at the wording of the Lutheran Confessions or the anathemas from the Council of Trent is beyond either communion’s control.

1. Were these statements covered in your initiation into the LCMS?

Yup. I was fairly well-catechized. Unsurprisingly, catechesis varies depending on the teacher - just as it does in every communion.

1. What was your understanding of your ‘duty’ (please supply the appropriate term) to hold to the beliefs stated in the FC?

It’s pretty straightforward in our Confirmation Rite, which is noted in this thread. We pledge to remain true to God and church, even at pain of death. Just as our Confessions state, “To dissent from the agreement of so many nations and to be called schismatics is a grave matter…” There is no room for personal interpretation within our communion; only what our church understands to be the right interpretation.

1. What do you think would ‘happen’ if the whole of the laity of the LCMS were to be exposed to the various texts in the FC which we Catholics find so offensive? In other words, do you think Lutherans would be shocked to learn of the official teachings of their denomination?

Lutherans ought to know what they believe and why. I would hope that our pastors would impress upon their flocks the importance of spiritual knowledge and solid catechesis. But we are sinful, foolish, silly beings - sometimes we don’t teach as well as we should. Poor understanding or knowledge can hardly be insinuated to be a reason people ‘haven’t left’ a given faith; this holds true for your Communion, as well. Would the growing percentage of co-habitating, unmarried Roman Catholics be shocked to learn that they are living in sin? That under normal circumstances they ought not to receive the Eucharist? That homosexual relations are inherently sinful?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

That was kind of my point.

Ok. Glad I could help!

 

[GraceofGod31]

I have bolded the salient phrase. This is where private judgement has been preserved, and remains central and at the core of Protestantism. As long as you hold to a Sola Scriptura position, based on private judgement, you will be siding with Protestantism rather than Catholicity.

If you hold to a position where Church Authority, as found in Apostolic Succession and Holy Tradition interpret Scripture, you will be on the side of Catholicity and the dogmatic principle.

That is why all of this talk about Lutheran principles being common to Catholicism will always ring hollow and superficial, at least to me. IOW, you hold some beliefs in common with Catholicism, but it is accidental and not intentional. The Lutheran perception of “correct” Biblical exegesis, will always determine your beliefs.

Point taken Ambrose!!! This is why no I could never abandon Sola Scriptura, for the very reason that the one and only man who holds authority over me is Christ. If the history of the sinful world gave me one example of authority whether secular or religious who did not fall in love with its own authority discarding God’s superior authority, then I could hold to an earthly authority.

The literal punchline of the story of God’s chosen people, is mankind being unable to willingly submit to God’s authority so much so that in order to fulfill the holy requirement, His son becomes incarnate.

That being said I guess a good description of the Lutheran belief is that we do hold to the authority of the Church in that Christ is that authority and head of it. We also hold to a historic-literal interpretation of scripture rather than critical.

 

[JonNC]

=AmbroseSJ;11792658]I believe you Jon. It just your use of the word “we” that I don’t believe. It is your own spirituality that is being defended, and I don’t argue with that.

I think it is far more than just me, though I too recognize what you are saying.

Your situation is very similar to those in the Oxford movement in Anglicanism. There was then a growing movement toward Catholicity, but unfortunately, their Church did not share their view. The Oxford movement was aimed at the dual threat of Erastianism and Protestantism. Unfortunately, it turned out that the Anglican Church, being governed by the state, rejected a coalescence in doctrine. IOW, Protestantism ruled the day, and continues to rule the day, despite strong Anglo-Catholic pockets here and there even now.

Indeed, we have the threat of the church-growth movement to deal with. So far, however, "Protestantism has yet to rule the day.

You have seen how Preus has reacted to the Joint Statement. You may reject his view, and that is your right. You are only exercising your own safeguarded private judgement.

Its my right only because the JDDJ is not a doctrine. I absolutely have the right to private judgment outside of doctrine. We even recognize it by name: adiaphora. I couple of years back I had the privilege to speak to one of the LCMS dialogue participants, and asked him about the JDDJ, and why that was rejected, when “The Hope For Eternal Life” was accepted." His answer had more to do with the totality of the doctrine of justification not having been addressed, and the unwillingness to accept a partial agreement. My response was, just like the CC, we could also issue a “clarification”.

As for Pastor Preus, I do disagree with him on the JDDJ, which I find to be, as far as it goes, consistent with Lutheran teaching. And as for the mass, I am quite content to use the term that our confessions use freely.

The same thing happened in England in the 19th c. Those who recognized that the Church of England would always come down on the side of Protestantism, and not Catholicity, either converted to Catholicism, or remained in Anglicanism hoping against hope that in some rosy future their Church would eventually see the Truth of their own view. But in the meantime, it was basically a party within their own Church. One that had no effect for good or ill upon the doctrine of their Church.

You must feel something similar. A hope that Lutheranism is headed in the direction you and those like you have envisioned. But I believe you will need more proof that Lutheranism will always come down on the side of Protestantism and not Catholicity. That Protestantism will always have private judgement at its core, and therefore will never coalesce with the dogmatic principle that you espouse.

I can only hope, pray, and advocate.

Jon

 

[Erich]

Erich;11789727:

My wife grew up Lutheran. There’s a widespread opinion among Lutherans that the Presence ends once the liturgy is over (which also explains why there is no tradition of Eucharistic Adoration outside the context of the liturgy among Lutherans, e.g. 24x7 adoration chapel, Corpus Christi processions, etc.) I do know that there is at least one local ELCA congregation that discards the leftover bread.

That said, I also know that several (and, by extension, I assume most) Lutheran congregations have lay members whose responsibility it is to bring the communion elements to their homebound members… which makes me wonder, "what do *they *

believe they’re receiving, if they also believe the Presence ends once the liturgy is over?" since it’s not like anyone outside clergy could simple “re-say” the words of institution for the Presence to “reappear” (for lack of a better term).
It isn’t what they believe, its what they know they are receiving. They are receiving the true and substantial body and blood of Christ.

I was referring specifically to homebound members of Lutheran congregations. I will grant that – according to Lutheran theology – there is a transformation which takes place at the speaking of the Words of Institution, and therefore Lutherans are – according to their own theology – receiving the true and substantial body and blood of Christ when they receive the elements at a communion service.

Maybe it’s just true of the ELCA (the only Lutherans with which I have personal contact), but it was an ELCA pastor who told me that, according to Lutheran theology, the elements cease to remain Body and Blood at the conclusion of the communion service. Hence, the source of my “what do they believe they are receiving” (and the inconsistency, at least as I see it). Either the elements remain Body and Blood past the conclusion of the communion service – and the homebound receive Body and Blood same as everyone else – or the elements “revert” (for lack of a better word) to bread and wine at the conclusion of the service (which is presumably what makes it allowable for the leftover bread to be discarded; the ELCA pastor in question uses leavened bread in his communion services, and whatever’s left over gets scattered for the birds) and the homebound receive… what? The only options appear to be:
a) Body and Blood (because, despite the congregation having been dismissed at the ite, missa est, the “missa” isn’t really over until the homebound have received the communion elements), or
b) bread and wine (because they stopped being Body and Blood at the ite, missa est) and the words of institution are (generally) not re-said.

 

[pablope]

Y

This however only includes traditions not doctrine. In holding to our confessions we believe we as Lutherans are coming down not on the side of Protestantism or Catholicism, rather on the side of correct Biblical Exegesis!

What, may I ask…is the correct Bibllical Exegesis? And what will the standard be for measuring the correct Biblical Exegesis?

And who will determine what is the correct versus the incorrect Biblical Exegesis?

 

[pablope]

Point taken Ambrose!!! This is why no I could never abandon Sola Scriptura, for the very reason that the one and only man who holds authority over me is Christ. If the history of the sinful world gave me one example of authority whether secular or religious who did not fall in love with its own authority discarding God’s superior authority, then I could hold to an earthly authority.

Well…do you hold the Lutheran confessions as authoritative, in that you subscribe to them totally and without reservation?

The literal punchline of the story of God’s chosen people, is mankind being unable to willingly submit to God’s authority so much so that in order to fulfill the holy requirement, His son becomes incarnate.

 

[JonNC]

I was referring specifically to homebound members of Lutheran congregations. I will grant that – according to Lutheran theology – there is a transformation which takes place at the speaking of the Words of Institution, and therefore Lutherans are – according to their own theology – receiving the true and substantial body and blood of Christ when they receive the elements at a communion service.

Maybe it’s just true of the ELCA (the only Lutherans with which I have personal contact), but it was an ELCA pastor who told me that, according to Lutheran theology, the elements cease to remain Body and Blood at the conclusion of the communion service. Hence, the source of my “what do they believe they are receiving” (and the inconsistency, at least as I see it). Either the elements remain Body and Blood past the conclusion of the communion service – and the homebound receive Body and Blood same as everyone else – or the elements “revert” (for lack of a better word) to bread and wine at the conclusion of the service (which is presumably what makes it allowable for the leftover bread to be discarded; the ELCA pastor in question uses leavened bread in his communion services, and whatever’s left over gets scattered for the birds) and the homebound receive… what? The only options appear to be:
a) Body and Blood (because, despite the congregation having been dismissed at the ite, missa est, the “missa” isn’t really over until the homebound have received the communion elements), or
b) bread and wine (because they stopped being Body and Blood at the ite, missa est) and the words of institution are (generally) not re-said.

Perhaps that pastor could answer your question. My question to him would be, even if you believe Christ’s presence has departed, why would you treat where He has been with such disregard and disrespect.
Maybe you could offer him the opportunity to sign up here.

BTW, my dad, now in the Church Triumphant, was an LCA/ELCA pastor. He, and no pastor I knew when I was LCA/ELCA would have done that.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi bb,

When I asked I knew I would get a specific and complete answers to my questions. Very cool and thanks!

Not until I went looking for them as I began to study the Catholic faith. That study naturally led me to take a harder look at the Reformation. Although I can’t speak for all LCMS churches, the FC was certainly de-emphasized by my particular Lutheran church, with the main focus on preaching the Gospel along with a strong emphasis on the “priesthood of believers,” a.k.a., “friendship evangelism” which is the term they used for witnessing to non-believers. Catechesis for new members was generally limited to a study of Luther’s Small Catechism along with the Bible.

Thinking back, about the only criticisms I ever heard of the Catholic faith while in the LCMS occurred on Reformation Sunday. One Reformation Sunday the associate pastor preached his whole sermon on an elliptical machine after eating a doughnut “on stage”; I kid you not! (Of course, that whole display was to somehow demonstrate how we can’t buy our way into heaven with good works and indulgences. But I digress.)

When adults are accepted as new members by transfer from another LCMS church or, in my case, on profession of faith having been a former Methodist (i.e., I was confirmed in the LCMS as an adult), they are asked the following question, among others:

*Do you hold all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God and the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, drawn from them and confessed in the Small Catechism, to be faithful and true? *

But as I’ve stated before, the church’s Constitution goes further than the profession of faith:

*This congregation acknowledges and accepts all the canonical books of the Old and New Testament as the revealed Word of God, verbally inspired, and acknowledges and accepts all the confessional writings of the Evangelical Lutheran church contained in the Book of Concord of the year 1580 to be the true and genuine exposition of the doctrines of the Bible. These confessional writings are the three ecumenical creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, Athanasian), the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, Luther’s Large and Small Catechisms and the Formula of Concord.
*

It would seem that at least at your LCMS church did not emphasize the whole of the Lutheran Confessions. Which brings us to this:

Would you have joined the LCMS if you had been aware of all of those anti-Catholic statements AND the fact that the LCMS stood behind them?

That’s a really tough question. I think that only the stodgiest Lutherans (like my brother-in-law, who is quite proud of his Lutheranism and has said things to me like “we’re still protesting,” would even bother to read that deeply. Someone like him would not be shocked because he has already accepted the confessions of the FC as accurate regarding the Catholic Church. OTOH, as I’ve said here before, the church where I’m still a member has adopted a lot of evangelical practices and, therefore, has attracted a lot of former (or is it still?) evangelicals. I can’t imagine many of them wanting to dig that deeply into historical Lutheranism. They are there because the Bible is being taught, and there is uplifting praise and worship music, great preaching, a strong children’s ministry, and worldwide mission outreach. Since the Divine Service was mostly discarded years ago in favor of contemporary, non-liturgical worship, there’s not really a whole lot left there that would identify that particular church as Lutheran. (But then there is my story of leaving that church for a more traditional, liturgical LCMS church down the road, which turned out to be a big step in my journey to Rome.)

Thank you so much!! I am so joyful. We are counting down to Pentecost Sunday, June 8, when, God willing, I will participate in the Rite of Confirmation at the Cathedral Basilica led by Archbishop Carlson.

I wonder what percentage of Lutherans are aware of those sections of their Confessions. Imagine this: Let’s say that on a given Sunday next month, every LCMS pastor would simply read those offensive anti-Catholic portions of the Confessions to their congregations. Do you think that this would have a negative or a positive impact on LCMS membership? In other words, would it cause at least some people to immediately go ‘church shopping’?

God Bless You bb, Topper

 

[steido01]

I wonder what percentage of Lutherans are aware of those sections of their Confessions. Imagine this: Let’s say that on a given Sunday next month, every LCMS pastor would simply read those offensive anti-Catholic portions of the Confessions to their congregations. Do you think that this would have a negative or a positive impact on LCMS membership? In other words, would it cause at least some people to immediately go ‘church shopping’?

Would the outcome be similar if Roman Catholic Churches read Unam Sanctam or the Anathemas of Trent each Sunday? The context and intended purpose of any document must always be considered. I would hope that reading a given communion’s documents would lead to a better understanding of the faith among the laity.

 

[Peter_J]

Would the outcome be similar if Roman Catholic Churches read Unam Sanctam or the Anathemas of Trent each Sunday?

You mean we don’t?

Man, I’ve got to start staying awaken during mass.

(Kidding.)

 

[betsybug354]

Hi bb,

When I asked I knew I would get a specific and complete answers to my questions. Very cool and thanks!

Aww, shucks.

It would seem that at least at your LCMS church did not emphasize the whole of the Lutheran Confessions. Which brings us to this:

Would you have joined the LCMS if you had been aware of all of those anti-Catholic statements AND the fact that the LCMS stood behind them?

I don’t know, Topper. Back in 2005 I still had a lot of misconceptions about the Catholic faith, so it’s possible I wouldn’t have had a problem with the anti-Catholic statements if I thought the pastor reading them was sincere and presented them with well-meaning explanations. I was not very spiritually mature at the time, having returned to regular church attendance only a couple of years prior to that, and I tended to take at face value whatever I was taught.

I wonder what percentage of Lutherans are aware of those sections of their Confessions. Imagine this: Let’s say that on a given Sunday next month, every LCMS pastor would simply read those offensive anti-Catholic portions of the Confessions to their congregations. Do you think that this would have a negative or a positive impact on LCMS membership? In other words, would it cause at least some people to immediately go ‘church shopping’?

I think in this day and age it wouldn’t go over too well. The Lutheran church, like other mainline Protestant denominations, has been on a slow decline in membership since the 1970’s, and I doubt they would want to do anything that might accelerate that trend. Regardless, I do so wish the LCMS would rethink some of those 500-year-old positions.

 

[GraceofGod31]

What, may I ask…is the correct Bibllical Exegesis? And what will the standard be for measuring the correct Biblical Exegesis?

First your opinion appears two appears two view Scripture as indecipherable by anyone. Although obviously the world is at odds with certain sections or verses of Scripture. But there is much we agree on the meaning of.

Scripture is the standard (in the original languages). Let Scripture interpret Scripture. Passages that are difficult to understand should be viewed by what the rest of Scripture says. We read contextually, literally, and historically.

And who will determine what is the correct versus the incorrect Biblical Exegesis?

Again scripture. “All scripture is God breathed.”

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Would the outcome be similar if Roman Catholic Churches read Unam Sanctam or the Anathemas of Trent each Sunday? The context and intended purpose of any document must always be considered. I would hope that reading a given communion’s documents would lead to a better understanding of the faith among the laity.

I will say this much; you have a very Catholic view of doctrine. You’d make an excellent Catholic if you ever decide to swim the Tiber.

 

[GraceofGod31]

What, may I ask…is the correct Bibllical Exegesis? And what will the standard be for measuring the correct Biblical Exegesis?

The correct Biblical exegesis is every doctrine found within scripture alone. Tradition although permissible and useful can not be made dogma. The standard for that is Scripture.

And who will determine what is the correct versus the incorrect Biblical Exegesis?

Scripture!!!

 

[steido01]

I will say this much; you have a very Catholic view of doctrine. You’d make an excellent Catholic if you ever decide to swim the Tiber.

So I’ve heard.

In all seriousness, if Rome and Wittenberg were to find a comprehensive solution to Justification that didn’t require caveats from each side like the JDDJ did, and a workable exception/answer to Universal Immediate Jurisdiction can be found (because if that’s fixed, I’m not sure Rome and Constantinople could even remain separate), then I’d happily cannonball into the water - because at that point, we’d be in the same river.