Hi Father K,
Thanks for your response.
You know, I am starting to wonder if you and I have more in common than you do with the LCMS. Maybe I have been hanging out with the wrong Lutherans.
It has never given a definitive statement on it, except by codifying
Confessio Augustana as a confessional document. I’m not saying that most priests in the Church of Norway believe in, or teach, transubstantiation, but that there is nothing in
Confessio Augustana that is contrary to it, and that if you read the relevant article -
art. X - carefully, and in the context of the entire document, it seems that an embrace of transubstantiation is actually the most natural interpretation.
To me it seems like the kind of thing that should be better defined. After all it is things like that have the power to divide. In addition, Paul Tilich made the same comment, that transubstantiation is the most logical explanation for the Real Presence, and he was Reformed.
When
Confessio Augustana was issued, at
the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, it was issued not as a document declaring that its authors or adherents were ‘Lutherans,’ but that they belonged in the Church, together with the Roman Catholics. This is especially clear in the preface, in the conclusion of the first part (art. I-XXI, at the end of XXI), and in the conclusion to the entire document. It was seen as a profession of the catholic and apostolic faith, and avoided any denominational labeling (except som condemnations of Anabaptists and others, based upon the catholic and apostolic tradition).
Yes, but the fact is that rather than being based on catholic and apostolic tradition, it was primarily based on Luther’s radical ideas, but then many of them were ‘de-emphasized’ so as to properly ‘sell’ the Confession.
In addition, though, whereas Lutherans defined themselves as ‘belonging to the Church, together with Roman Catholics’, the Church, meaning the Catholic Church did not exactly see it that way. It would be one thing if the Catholic Church had agreed that the Augsburg Confessions Communions were part of the ‘Church overall’, but it did not. Shouldn’t that have been, and still be, a cause of concern?
In the Formula of Concord, on the other hand, the author(s) - probably Martin Chemnitz - and the adherent define themselves in opposition to Roman Catholics (or ‘Papists,’ as they prefer).
And as a result, it seems that the ‘Formula Lutherans’ are much more anti-Catholic than the ‘non-Formula Lutherans’ which appear to the majority.
The Church of Norway has never defined herself thusly. We define ourselves in light of the catholic and apostolic faith, as the ancient Church of the Norwegian realm.
I understand, but how do you explain the huge doctrinal dislocation that occurred in the 16th century, which by all appearances was a huge departure from the faith of the Church from which Lutheranism sprung?
Well, for a start the tradition defined itself as catholic and apostolic, and not in ‘opposition.’
Does this mean that any new ‘tradition’ can simply spring up and define ITSELF as being Catholic and Apostolic and that is the end of it? Is it completely meaningless as to whether the Church from which it sprung disagrees? This would seem to invalidate the authority of the Church to condemn the beliefs and teachings of ALL of the heresies of the prior 15 centuries?
I think they would have to. To say, in an interchristian dialogue, that the leader of the one you are having the dialogue with, or his office, is the enemy of Christ is, well, ‘counterproductive.’
Yep. I noticed that. In fact, holding to that position in regards to the pope, is not exactly conducive to productive dialogue here. The suggestion that the ‘Formula Lutherans’ officially renounce that hostile language normally prompts a response that suggests that the Catholic Church ‘do something first’, or that those condemnations will just ‘organically’ and magically disappear when all of the doctrinal disagreements have been solved. I have not seen even ONE ‘Formula Lutheran’ suggest that that language should be renounced as a show of good faith.
Well, the question is: Is that obedience - not only that the Roman Pontiff is the Western patriach and primus inter pares - but that he has supremacy - supreme universal jurisdiction - part of the catholic and apostolic faith?
With all due respect Father, I have seen a lot of people talk of the ‘primacy’ of the Bishop of Rome, but when you ask them what that means in concrete terms, it is ONLY a symbolic title, which means absolutely nothing. Are you saying that the supremacy of the Pope gives him some real authority over all of Christendom, or is it just that he deserves an infinitesimal amout of additional ‘respect’?
As you can probably imagine, it really irks me when people make this claim about the ‘primacy’ of the Bishop of Rome, meaning that he deserves this ceremonial honor, and STILL claim that he (or his office) is the antichrist.
God Bless You Father, Topper
), Trent was also excessively ‘denominational,’ in that it defined things more in contrast to the ‘Protestants’ than past councils had done (with regards to the one they condemned).
My daughter is dating a first-generation Russian immigrant and just this weekend I discovered his mother makes pirogi… I didn’t know life could be so sweet. I’m going to ask for lessons so I can make them homemade.
I also witnessed a pastor say to a prospective congregation that they could have communion once a quarter, if that’s what they wanted. He didn’t care, it was up to them. Again →