"one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"

[EvangelCatholic]

Even in disagreement, the Dialogue point out repeatedly that differences between Lutherans and Catholics “need not be church dividing”.

1. We recommend that our churches recognize our common understanding of the interdependent structures of church life and ministry, namely, the diocese/synod with its bishop and parish/congregation with its pastor or priest. This common understanding is reflected in a shared sense of the single sacrament of Order (sacramentum Ordinis) or the one office of ministry (Amt). The differences between us in emphasis and terminology need not be church dividing even though they challenge each church to overcome imbalances in its own tradition.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/koinonia-of-salvation.cfm

 

[GKC]

Even in disagreement, the Dialogue point out repeatedly that differences between Lutherans and Catholics “need not be church dividing”.

And you suppose the Dialogues are preliminary throat-clearings to a revamp of the Magisterium?

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

And you suppose the Dialogues are preliminary throat-clearings to a revamp of the Magisterium?

GKC

The Dialogues are a statement of faith in contemporary time and exactly as they as purport to be; a reflection of current convergence and consensus of the Catholic faith. I am not familiar with other ecumenical efforts but understand that the Orthodox and various Protestant groups have also been dialoguing with the Roman Catholic Church. So I have no reference point to compare the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity to other churches, especially the Anglicans who would seem to be as engaged as much as Lutherans and Catholics.

The Dialogue speaks of “magisterial mutuality”:

1. Should not Catholic theology take a new look at the Lutheran Confessions, especially those—such as the Augsburg Confession—whose original purpose was irenic? Reinterpreted in a new context which would highlight their Catholic dimension, could these Confessions be recognized as valid expressions of the Church’s teaching? Could such recognition serve as an instance, of magisterial mutuality?82

1. Should not creative efforts be made to discover a form of institutional relationship between the Catholic and the Lutheran churches which would express magisterial mutuality and would correspond to the converging state of their traditions? The present Catholic authorization of some sacramental sharing with the Orthodox, who do not acknowledge papal infallibility, shows more flexibility in Catholic thought and practice than was anticipated a few decades ago. Should the current developments in our two churches lead to analogous authorizations regarding sacramental sharing between Catholics and Lutherans?

1. Specific questions are likewise raised which Lutherans ought to examine seriously:

1. Should not Lutherans be ready to acknowledge that the polemical language traditionally used to describe the papal office is inappropriate and offensive in the context of Catholic-Lutheran relationships today?83

1. Should not Lutherans, as participants in a movement toward a common Christian witness in our day, be willing to consult with Catholics in framing doctrinal and social-ethical statements?

1. Should not Lutherans move to develop closer institutional relationships with the Catholic Church in respect to teaching authority which would be expressive of the converging state of their traditions?

 

[GKC]

The Dialogues are a statement of faith in contemporary time and exactly as they as purport to be; a reflection of current convergence and consensus of the Catholic faith. I am not familiar with other ecumenical efforts but understand that the Orthodox and various Protestant groups have also been dialoguing with the Roman Catholic Church. So I have no reference point to compare the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity to other churches, especially the Anglicans who would seem to be as engaged as much as Lutherans and Catholics.

The Dialogue speaks of “magisterial mutuality”:

So, you anticipate the possibility/probability of a change in the Magisterium of the RCC, based on these Dialogues and the positions they reveal/enunciate, with respect (say) to Eucharistic inter-communion? Or do you feel that they, as “a statement of faith in contemporary time…” and “… a reflection of current convergence and consensus of the Catholic faith” already do (or do not) comport with the RCC Magisterium, as currently proclaimed?

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

So, you anticipate the possibility/probability of a change in the Magisterium of the RCC, based on these Dialogues and the positions they reveal/enunciate, with respect (say) to Eucharistic inter-communion? Or do you feel that they, as “a statement of faith in contemporary time…” and “… a reflection of current convergence and consensus of the Catholic faith” already do (or do not) comport with the RCC Magisterium, as currently proclaimed?

GKC

Your question is beyond me but evidently for Catholic and Lutheran theologians the issue of even the Magisterium is not ‘church-dividing’. Regarding the Eucharist, I think it is safe to say that the Lutheran understanding of Real Presence and the spiritual benefits of holy Communion are acceptable to Catholics to share the sacrament with Lutherans.

 

[GKC]

Your question is beyond me but evidently for Catholic and Lutheran theologians the issue of even the Magisterium is not ‘church-dividing’. Regarding the Eucharist, I think it is safe to say that the Lutheran understanding of Real Presence and the spiritual benefits of holy Communion are acceptable to Catholics to share the sacrament with Lutherans.

That is, they would also consider the Lutherans so identified to be a true Church, not an ecclesiastical community. Which currently would require an acceptance by the RCC of (inter alia) the validity of Lutheran orders, and/or a change in the Magisterium.

Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating.

GKC

 

[steido01]

That is, they would also consider the Lutherans so identified to be a true Church, not an ecclesiastical community. Which currently would require an acceptance by the RCC of (inter alia) the validity of Lutheran orders, and/or a change in the Magisterium.

Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating.

GKC

The validity of Lutheran orders (and all the “form” and “intent” language usually associated with that sort of thing) will forever remain the dividing question from the Catholic perspective. But these dialogues only confuse the issue with muddied language: either Lutheranism is a true church with valid orders, or it is an ecclesiastical community without valid orders. How can an issue be considered “not church-dividing” if it is between a church and an ecclesiastical community? For the first time, I see what EC has been driving at but, sadly, I think this only reflects the useless vagueness of dialogue when it is not doctrine-centered, however well-intentioned it may be.

 

[Peter_J]

Your question is beyond me but evidently for Catholic and Lutheran theologians the issue of even the Magisterium is not ‘church-dividing’. Regarding the Eucharist, I think it is safe to say that the Lutheran understanding of Real Presence and the spiritual benefits of holy Communion are acceptable to Catholics to share the sacrament with Lutherans.

Hi EC. I’m curious where the Orthodox fit into your thinking, as they are even more conservative on this matter than Catholics are. (Orthodox don’t approve of any intercommunion with non-Orthodox, but Catholics approve of intercommunion with EOs, OOs, ACOE, and PNCC.)

 

[GKC]

The validity of Lutheran orders (and all the “form” and “intent” language usually associated with that sort of thing) will forever remain the dividing question from the Catholic perspective. But these dialogues only confuse the issue with muddied language: either Lutheranism is a true church with valid orders, or it is an ecclesiastical community without valid orders. How can an issue be considered “not church-dividing” if it is between a church and an ecclesiastical community? For the first time, I see what EC has been driving at but, sadly, I think this only reflects the useless vagueness of dialogue when it is not doctrine-centered, however well-intentioned it may be.

Yep.

Though I suspect that may be other such issues, in addition.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Hi EC. I’m curious where the Orthodox fit into your thinking, as they are even more conservative on this matter than Catholics are. (Orthodox don’t approve of any intercommunion with non-Orthodox, but Catholics approve of intercommunion with EOs, OOs, ACOE, and PNCC.)

Peter

I am woefully ignorant when it come to the Orthodox Church. But I did discover that Lutherans and Orthodox also agree on the Eucharist though no declaration of intent for eucharistic hospitality like the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue. The Dialogue references the Orthodox Church several times as an example of how Catholics could welcome Lutherans to holy Communion and yet allow Lutherans to disagree on papal infallibility and remain neutral on some of the subsequent Marian doctrines.

The obvious historical barriers to inter-communion between Orthodox and Catholics may not be obstacles for Lutherans and Catholics. I don’t think Lutherans will reject eucharistic sharing with Catholics though my understanding of the Dialogue is that Catholics can not receive Communion in a Lutheran church until further fine-tuning of holy Orders.

What I find quite remarkable is the concerted effort of both Catholics and Lutherans to find common ground that will lead to reunification of our Churches. My personal opinion is that this development [at least the welcome of Lutherans to receive holy Communion in Catholic churches] will occur in our life times.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The validity of Lutheran orders (and all the “form” and “intent” language usually associated with that sort of thing) will forever remain the dividing question from the Catholic perspective. But these dialogues only confuse the issue with muddied language: either Lutheranism is a true church with valid orders, or it is an ecclesiastical community without valid orders. How can an issue be considered “not church-dividing” if it is between a church and an ecclesiastical community? For the first time, I see what EC has been driving at but, sadly, I think this only reflects the useless vagueness of dialogue when it is not doctrine-centered, however well-intentioned it may be.

Nor sure where the “muddied language” is in the Dialogue. By “muddied” are you referring to the willingness of Catholics to accept intercommunion with Lutherans, warts and all?

The documents that make up these talks as summarized in ‘From Conflict to Communion’ devote much attention to the Mass as the starting point for intercommunion between Lutherans and Catholics as a clear statement of unity.

 

[PRmerger]

Nor sure where the “muddied language” is in the Dialogue. By “muddied” are you referring to the willingness of Catholics to accept intercommunion with Lutherans, warts and all?

What some Catholics are willing to accept ought not be misconstrued as “The Catholic Church is willing to accept”.

There are some Catholics willing to accept women’s ordination, homosexual “marriage”, abortion, divorce and re-marriage, too. But that is not the same as saying this represents magisterial teaching.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

What some Catholics are willing to accept ought not be misconstrued as “The Catholic Church is willing to accept”.

There are some Catholics willing to accept women’s ordination, homosexual “marriage”, abortion, divorce and re-marriage, too. But that is not the same as saying this represents magisterial teaching.

I am not referring to Catholic laity since the Dialogue is the work of the Vatican. I read a statement how Pope John Paul 2 pushed to get the Joint Declaration on Justification approved and we all know that his successor, Benedict was quite interested in bringing Lutherans into the Roman Catholic Church.

But you do raise important issues that are also addressed in the Dialogues, namely female ordination and gay clergy as obstacles for reunion.

 

[steido01]

Nor sure where the “muddied language” is in the Dialogue. By “muddied” are you referring to the willingness of Catholics to accept intercommunion with Lutherans, warts and all? .

Although I’d love nothing better than to share communion with my Roman Catholic wife in each other’s churches, intercommunion is still lightyears away. The muddiness comes in the definitions used by the Dialogues to describe what, exactly, Rome views Lutheranism to be: Are Lutherans a church or an ecclesiastical community?

We Lutherans know we are a part of His church. But the distinction is of tremendous importance to our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters. They could, perhaps, accept intercommunion with another church (ex: Orthodoxy); they could not seek intercommunion with an ecclesiastical community any more than Lutherans could offer communion to a non-Christian.

See what I mean? Dialogue can’t really continue until Rome makes sense of its definitions. And that can’t likely be done while liberal wings of Lutheranism engage in unorthodox and un-Lutheran practices like female ordination and the like.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter

I am woefully ignorant when it come to the Orthodox Church. But I did discover that Lutherans and Orthodox also agree on the Eucharist though no declaration of intent for eucharistic hospitality like the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue. The Dialogue references the Orthodox Church several times as an example of how Catholics could welcome Lutherans to holy Communion and yet allow Lutherans to disagree on papal infallibility and remain neutral on some of the subsequent Marian doctrines.

Fair enough. I just meant that Orthodox disapprove of intercommunion even with Catholics – a fact which appears to scandalize quite a lot of my fellow Catholics. (Aside: Now that I think about it, I wonder if it also scandalizes a lot of Lutherans, but they’re too polite to say so.)

The obvious historical barriers to inter-communion between Orthodox and Catholics may not be obstacles for Lutherans and Catholics. I don’t think Lutherans will reject eucharistic sharing with Catholics though my understanding of the Dialogue is that Catholics can not receive Communion in a Lutheran church until further fine-tuning of holy Orders.

I believe, however, that the number of Lutherans who accept women’s ordination will prove to be a significant problem.

What I find quite remarkable is the concerted effort of both Catholics and Lutherans to find common ground that will lead to reunification of our Churches. My personal opinion is that this development [at least the welcome of Lutherans to receive holy Communion in Catholic churches] will occur in our life times.

Same response as above.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Although I’d love nothing better than to share communion with my Roman Catholic wife in each other’s churches, intercommunion is still lightyears away. The muddiness comes in the definitions used by the Dialogues to describe what, exactly, Rome views Lutheranism to be: Are Lutherans a church or an ecclesiastical community?

We Lutherans know we are a part of His church. But the distinction is of tremendous importance to our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters. They could, perhaps, accept intercommunion with another church (ex: Orthodoxy); they could not seek intercommunion with an ecclesiastical community any more than Lutherans could offer communion to a non-Christian.

See what I mean? Dialogue can’t really continue until Rome makes sense of its definitions. And that can’t likely be done while liberal wings of Lutheranism engage in unorthodox and un-Lutheran practices like female ordination and the like.

I think it is a perspective of “the cup being half empty or half full”. Cautious pessimism for change seems to be a common mindset on CAF.

It is interesting to me that much of the Dialogues occurred in the U.S. so that many of the representatives [bishops, biblical scholars/ theologians] were from America. The Pontifical oversight was shared by the Lutheran World Federation and as the talks continued the language became evermore welcoming/ encouraging. I wish I had the time to study other dialogues between Rome and Protestants and did read a little of the Anglican-Catholic Dialogue.

But I don’t think Lutheran-Catholic relations can be taken lightly or dismissed and I firmly believe that the next ecumenical council [Vatican 3] will include Lutherans as full participants rather than observers in previous Vaticans over the passed 100 years. Lutheran have presented themselves as fellow Catholics; that is why these talks have been occurring for 50 years Among Lutherans there is a deep desire for full communion with our mother Church especially since the 500th anniversary of the Reformation is just 3 years away.

But you mention “liberal Lutherans” as if all these convergences and immense ecumenical progress were represented by so-called “confessional” Lutherans and am curious what the objections are from the LCMS. Catholics recognize the LWF as the only partner when the Missouri Synod pulled out of the Dialogues.

What all of this means is that Lutherans must accept episcopacy/ apostolic succession under the Church of Rome.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I fully agree that ethical and anthropological issues, as Francis stated recently, are sticking points for full implementation of reunion.

 

[PRmerger]

I am not referring to Catholic laity since the Dialogue is the work of the Vatican. I read a statement how Pope John Paul 2 pushed to get the Joint Declaration on Justification approved and we all know that his successor, Benedict was quite interested in bringing Lutherans into the Roman Catholic Church.

And even what Catholic clergy profess ought not be confused as what the magisterium proclaims. Yes, even Pope JPII and Pope B16 are included in this.

To wit: in Pope B16’s book Jesus of Nazareth he expresses his theological opinion that the Gospel of John was not written by the Apostle John.

That ought not be misconstrued as a pronouncement by the Catholic Church and reinterpreted as, “Catholics believe that the Gospel of John was not written by the Apostle John.”

Similarly, that Pope B16 and Pope JPII have professed their theological opinions regarding Lutheran-Catholic unity ought not be misconstrued as, “referring to the willingness of Catholics to accept intercommunion with Lutherans”.

But you do raise important issues that are also addressed in the Dialogues, namely female ordination and gay clergy as obstacles for reunion.

Indeed.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

And even what Catholic clergy profess ought not be confused as what the magisterium proclaims. Yes, even Pope JPII and Pope B16 are included in this.

To wit: in Pope B16’s book Jesus of Nazareth he expresses his theological opinion that the Gospel of John was not written by the Apostle John.

That ought not be misconstrued as a pronouncement by the Catholic Church and reinterpreted as, “Catholics believe that the Gospel of John was not written by the Apostle John.”

Similarly, that Pope B16 and Pope JPII have professed their theological opinions regarding Lutheran-Catholic unity ought not be misconstrued as, “referring to the willingness of Catholics to accept intercommunion with Lutherans”.

Indeed.

Not sure I follow you on the Gospel/ Apostle John comparison.

The Dialogues can be found on the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/koinonia-of-salvation.cfm

And clearly the Dialogue speaks for the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[benjohnson]

by so-called “confessional” Lutherans and am curious what the objections are from the LCMS.

Probably the LCMS objects to novel teaching, and the promulgation thereof - even if done under the auspices of ecumenism.