Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[Denise1957]

Hi Denise,
So let’s think about the term “ignorance”. What does the CC say is the way non-Catholics can be saved? Invincible ignorance. Should non-Catholics be offended by the claim that we have to not just ignorant, but invincibly ignorant of what the CC claims as the truth? The very statement says that by not being Catholic we must be ignorant.

Not true, though isn’t that the very claim of the CC regarding non-Catholics since they are not in communion with the Pope, only by invincible ignorance can we be saved?

Again, not true. Lutherans of all stripes recognize the role of the Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, as the western patriarch, even his historic primacy. What we question is supremacy and infallibility. In these two we are clearly not alone. Orthodox and Old Catholics also reject these claims not only scripturally, but in the historic Tradition of the Church.

My point is not to defend any of this, from either side, but merely to point out that it comes from both sides.

Jon

Firstly, I’m not offended by the ridiculous comments about Catholics in the Book of Concord, since I can be detached from be offended when discussing why Lutherans believe the things that they do. After reading the BoC, I can better understand, I think, where they’re coming from. That’s one of the reasons that I appreciate that it’s being discussed here.

We’re talking about the Book of Concord, and why Lutherans look to it to defend their views. The views of the Catholic Church are a separate issue.

Do you not agree then, with the Book of Concord and the part in it that describes the papacy as being anti-Christ?

 

[Topper17]

OTOH, I can envision over the next decade or so more and more instances where we are thrust into alliance with each other over moral issues, and government imposition of laws that violate our religious liberty and conscience, as well as our 1st amendment rights. Despite the negative reasons for this happening, I think God can use these events to strengthen our friendship and mutual respect.

Jon

We welcome your support on all of these issues.

 

[JonNC]

Firstly, I’m not offended by the ridiculous comments about Catholics in the Book of Concord, since I can be detached from be offended when discussing why Lutherans believe the things that they do. After reading the BoC, I can better understand, I think, where they’re coming from. That’s one of the reasons that I appreciate that it’s being discussed here.

We’re talking about the Book of Concord, and why Lutherans look to it to defend their views. The views of the Catholic Church are a separate issue.

Do you not agree then, with the Book of Concord and the part in it that describes the papacy as being anti-Christ?

Hi Denise,
And I am not offended by the ridiculous notion that non-Catholics must be invincibly ignorant to be saved. I think not being offended is a good start.

I have said often that I do not like the language, that it rises to offensive at a time of much greater respect and communication between our traditions. The language is dated, it has taken on meanings claimed by other communions that we don’t intend. I think the language of the charge actually begins to sound silly considering the remarkable line of excellent Christian men who have been pope, certainly during my lifetime, and before.

That doesn’t change the fact that we do in fact disagree with the Catholic church’s claim that the Pope has universal, ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over the whole of the Church, and that he is infallible when speaking *ex cathedra *. My own thought is that it is heterodox. Catholics might not like that term either, but it certainly doesn’t have the same emotional baggage that antiChrist has.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

We welcome your support on all of these issues.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi comm,

It would seem that the infallibility of the content of Scripture is, from a human standpoint, dependent on the infallibility of the visible ecclesiastical authority that identified (and still identifies, present tense) these 27 books as the NT, and those other books as not in the NT. In other words, if the content of Scripture were the only infallibility, someone could reject a few of Paul’s epistles as “I don’t find that to be the Word of God”, and then quote back at you with the Gospel of Thomas, which they do find inspiring, and do include in* their* NT as the Word of God. In fact some Pauline epistles will almost certainly be missing from some bibles in 5 years. The Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, and others, have been getting incorporated for a couple years now; not in an appendix, but right in the actual NT.

This is not just a historical debate, some extreme liberal Protestant denominations are adding books to the NT right now. I don’t believe any Lutheran groups are - yet - and I hope they never do. In any event, present day Catholics and Lutherans will need cooperative relations to defend our NT canon as the only inspired one. I think part of that defense in 2015 will need to include a closer examination of how infallibility worked through a visible human agency in defining the canon, and whether that same human agency has infallibility in 2015 to defend the canon; and other things.

Actually, Lutheranism has not yet actually officially defined the NT canon as being 27 books, and in fact follow Luther in his decision to place four of the NT books into a ‘secondary category’. The ‘antilegomena’ are books which are not to be used for doctrine. The four books are; James (of course), Jude, Revelation, and Hebrews. So really, Lutheranism only has 23 books that they draw doctrine from, and even those are not officially set in stone.

God Bless You comm, Topper

 

[Tomyris]

I’m in the position of neither having to defend the papacy or the Book of Concord, which makes my viewpoint possibly helpful, or will allow me to be a target for both sides. Oh, well.

What I did not see in the article was the assertion that the papacy is inherently and intrinsically anti-Christ, the Great Satan, the W of Babylon, etc. What I saw was an enumerated list of properties that the LCMS considers, anyway, to have historically and organically grown up in the church in our joint understanding of what ‘anti-Christ’ means. I saw that anyone with those properties, even sweet little old me, if they have those properties, is rightfully deemed to be anti-Christ. NOT that the papacy is singularly and uniquely and essentially so, but that it is, in their view, anti-Christ as a result of possessing those properties, as a result of deduction. What walks like a duck…So if the papacy moved away from that list, the papacy would not be so regarded.

An aside here is that the current pope is making his cardinals ride buses. He has forsaken a lot of the pomp and stuff in favor of actually pastoring. He is challenging the Mafia. Maybe he’s got the Lutheran List and is checking items off, one by one.

Probably the above will anger some Catholics. Keep reading.

Catholics have to come to grips with the fact that at time some of the popes have gone full-bore after that list as their bucket list. It did not arise in a vacuum. Alexander VI and the Borgias (sounds like a rock band, a really bad 80’s one) before him did a horrendous amount of damage to the Catholic Church, partly by acting like anti-Christs.

Ah. There is another point. Throughout history there have been MANY anti-Christs. Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Lenin fit the bill in my opinion. In my own city there is a building that used to be a mega-church where the pastor had his whole family on staff, all making six figure incomes. In the sanctuary was a statue of said pastor. Boom. Poof. All gone. I know of a church where you enter it and are immediately confronted with a six-foot high oil painting of the pastor (shoulders up): said pastor rules the church with a rod of iron. I think his time is coming. I will say some bishops and popes fit the description, and Catholics should acknowledge that in honesty and humility. Anytime I resist Christ and insist on me I am an anti-Christ.

Do I think the pope is necessarily and intrinsically the anti-Christ? No. But do I think any particular person in that office could be? I think it has happened. Is some pope the great one prophesied in the Apocalypse of John? I don’t know. I have to face the anti-Christs in my life, in myself and where I can fight the good fight. Perhaps some day there will arise a terrible figure that makes the Borgias look like good little boys and girls, and the events in Revelations will come to fulfillment. But as for me, I am called to resist the anti-Christs I know and stay faithful to the end.

 

[Topper17]

Hi pab,

Looks you missed this in the article:

“This business show overwhelmingly that the pope is the true end-times Antichrist (Endchrist or Widerchrist) who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ.” (sec. 10, p. 309).

(This book has been discredited…)
Foxe’s Book of Martyrs gives plenty of examples of Protestant tortures and executions that were “abominable and horrible.”

Thus the papacy has changed by giving up its former oppression and persecution of religious opponents, but has not changed its claim to be the sole dispensary of “full salvation.”…So the political status of the papacy in the world has changed, but its nature as examined by Scriptural teaching has not.

(in orther words…the papacy is still Ant-christ)

And the conclusion is an attempt to rationalize or make the teaching that the papacy is the very anti christ palatable…

Given Noland’s leadership role within the LCMS, I think that this ‘attitude’ should be seen as being the ‘official position’ of the communion. I think that this kind of ‘ecumenical attitude’ also reflects on the nature of the communion itself. As you know, Noland goes on to state, quite definitely:

“…therefore the papacy still bears some of the marks of the antichrist, per Lutheran doctrine.”

Where can the dialogue with the LCMS go given this kind of position?

Granted we can work together on issues that we both want to impact, the secular attack on marriage, abortion etc, but as far as discussing doctrine, what ‘room’ is there for substantive discussion?

God Bless You pab, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Denise,

I agree that the conclusion is an attempt to make palatable the (Lutheran) teaching that the papacy is the very anti-Christ. So much for charity!

Something else which the introduction to the Noland article mentions caught my eye (which Topper has already mentioned [thanks, Topper!] and commented on), and I’d like to comment on it, too. Noland writes:

“The Book of Concord (preface) recognizes that the common people in the Roman Church are ignorant and confused by the vast array of traditions and false doctrines thereby are excused for their errors, so long as they cling to Christ and his merits for salvation”

It’s a comfort to know that we ignorant and confused Catholics will still be saved (or merit salvation), according to the Book of Concord.

Through the BoC excuses regular Catholics, what does it think of the hierarchy? The paragraph seems to assume that the Catholic hierarchy will not be saved.

I’m glad that Tomi posted a link to the article. It puts the comments of the Lutherans here (especially the LCMS) into context, in that they refuse to see any justification of the office of the papacy (and papal infallibility) either in scripture or tradition. Evidently, The Book of Concord won’t allow them to do so.

In addition, it appears, at least to me, that the ‘Formula Lutherans’ (Lutherans who hold that the Formula of Concord is authoritative), simply CANNOT reject even a small portion of the Formula. To do so would be to take the first step down a slippery slope that would quickly reach the conclusion that the Formula IS NOT authoritative. That would mean that that those Lutherans communions were based on something that was fundamentally false. They just cannot ‘go there’. Better to just spin around and around explaining the harsh language as not meaning what it so clearly means.

Noland goes on to defend the LCMS position as follows:

“X. The Marks of the Antichrist, according to Luther and Melanchthon

(see Treatise on Power and Primacy of the Pope, 39-40 [KW, 337]):

• #1 - Rules over the church and establishes earthly dominion on the basis of doctrine of church and ministry, esp. Matthew 16:19, “The Keys.”
• #2 - Doctrine contradicts the Gospel at numerous points.
• #3 - Claims the right to alter Jesus’ teaching and worship.
• #4 - Claims to bind and loose in this life and the next.
• #5 - Not willing to be judged by anyone, including councils of the church.
• #6 - Defends errors with the greatest savagery, killing dissenters.

From the perspective of the Church at least, Luther contradicts the Gospel at numerous points (#2), and claimed the right to alter Jesus’ teaching and worship (#3). He also claimed that people who didn’t follow his teachings might not be saved (#4), and as we know, held his beliefs to be above the decisions of Councils (#5). He also recommended that Anabaptists be put to death for nothing more than their false belief. Some actually WERE executed (#6).

Where would these facts fit into Noland’s, and Lutheranism’s defense of the ridiculous ‘antichrist’ accusations?

God Bless You Denise, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Hi pab,

Given Noland’s leadership role within the LCMS, I think that this ‘attitude’ should be seen as being the ‘official position’ of the communion. I think that this kind of ‘ecumenical attitude’ also reflects on the nature of the communion itself. As you know, Noland goes on to state, quite definitely:

“…therefore the papacy still bears some of the marks of the antichrist, per Lutheran doctrine.”

Where can the dialogue with the LCMS go given this kind of position?

Granted we can work together on issues that we both want to impact, the secular attack on marriage, abortion etc, but as far as discussing doctrine, what ‘room’ is there for substantive discussion?

God Bless You pab, Topper

We can talk about lots of doctrines, as the recent “Hope of Eternal Hope” demonstrates, with remarkable concurrence
We can talk about soteriology, eschatology, but for me ecclesiogy is front and center, since the role of the Pope in the Church Militant is of the greatest importance. And that is the underlying disagreement that spawned the charge in the first place.
Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Denise,

In addition, it appears, at least to me, that the ‘Formula Lutherans’ (Lutherans who hold that the Formula of Concord is authoritative), simply CANNOT reject even a small portion of the Formula. To do so would be to take the first step down a slippery slope that would quickly reach the conclusion that the Formula IS NOT authoritative. That would mean that that those Lutherans communions were based on something that was fundamentally false. They just cannot ‘go there’. Better to just spin around and around explaining the harsh language as not meaning what it so clearly means. Noland goes on to defend the LCMS position as follows:

“X. The Marks of the Antichrist, according to Luther and Melanchthon

(see Treatise on Power and Primacy of the Pope, 39-40 [KW, 337]):

• #1 - Rules over the church and establishes earthly dominion on the basis of doctrine of church and ministry, esp. Matthew 16:19, “The Keys.”
• #2 - Doctrine contradicts the Gospel at numerous points.
• #3 - Claims the right to alter Jesus’ teaching and worship.
• #4 - Claims to bind and loose in this life and the next.
• #5 - Not willing to be judged by anyone, including councils of the church.
• #6 - Defends errors with the greatest savagery, killing dissenters.

From the perspective of the Church at least, Luther contradicts the Gospel at numerous points (#2), and claimed the right to alter Jesus’ teaching and worship (#3). He also claimed that people who didn’t follow his teachings might not be saved (#4), and as we know, held his beliefs to be above the decisions of Councils (#5). He also recommended that Anabaptists be put to death for nothing more than their false belief. Some actually WERE executed (#6).

Where would these facts fit into Noland’s, and Lutheranism’s defense of the ridiculous ‘antichrist’ accusations?

God Bless You Denise, Topper

Topper,
I couldn’t agree more with your thoughts in the highlighted portion…
Mary.

 

[Topper17]

One thing I noticed too…is this statement:“The Book of Concord (preface) recognizes that the common people in the Roman Church are ignorant and confused by the vast array of traditions and false doctrines thereby are excused for their errors, so long as they cling to Christ and his merits for salvation”

It looks like the BOC and the Lutherans who accept it are doing exactly what they accuse the pope of doing… thereby are excused for their errors, so long as they cling to Christ and his merits for salvation"…that we ignorant and confused Catholics will still be saved (or merit salvation), according to the Book of Concord

And thereby reflecting one of Luther’s best known ‘attributes’ - the inability to see the plank in his own eye. This is not to mention the holding of the ‘other’ to a completely different set of standards than one is willing to personally abide by.

God Bless you pab, Topper

 

[MaryT777]

And thereby reflecting one of Luther’s best known ‘attributes’ - the inability to see the plank in his own eye. This is not to mention the holding of the ‘other’ to a completely different set of standards than one is willing to personally abide by.

God Bless you pab, Topper

Then to look at his writings in Luther’s Small Catechism on the 8th Commandment and it seems hypocritical given his vile writings.

Mary.

 

[Topper17]

I actually disagree with Noland in his list of who we are closest to. My personal view is we are far closer to Catholicism than many of the ones he places before it. Mine, like his and like yours, are merely opinions on the topic.

Jon, you and I might have our opinions, but they don’t count for very much because neither of us are in leadership positions within our communions. That cannot be said of Noland. He is a decision and policy maker within the LCMS, and it would seem that his opinions are more representative of the beliefs of your communion.

What strikes me consistently Jon, is that whenever we see the ‘opinions’ of your leadership, they are much more anti-Catholic than your statements. I appreciate that you don’t go to those extremes but also recognize how much you are at odds with the positions of your leadership.

Noland also wrote in that article defending the LCMS position on the pope:

"‘VII. Is The LCMS Position Reasonable?

• Seems to be unduly harsh, even unChristian. Seems to be irrational. Why does it seem to be harsh and irrational?
• Enlightenment influence, entering into Protestant theology and church, has rejected previously universally accepted Christian doctrines: existence of Satan, existence of hell, eternal damnation, existence of demons (i.e., evil angels), the ability of Satan to influence the course of human events, and the anti-christ(s).

“Educated people don’t believe in such things.”
**

• The fact is that ignoring evil will not make it go away. The Western nations ignored the rise of Hitler hoping he would go away and leave them alone.**
• The doctrine of anti-christ (I John 2:18-19,22), the prediction of false messiahs (Mark 13:5, 21-23), and the “son of perdition” (II Thess. 2:1-12) is clearly taught in the New Testament. Those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture must believe in these things. They cannot simply be ignored.
• The difficult task is determining whether or not these predictions have been fulfilled and by whom, or whether they remain for the future.” Noland

Jon, I think that the reference to ‘ignoring evil’ and the reference to Hitler in this context, is a pretty good indication of how the LCMS leadership approaches the issue of the papacy. I see this as yet another example of the kinds of comments that are absolutely UNNECESSARY.

Wouldn’t it be enough to describe the papacy or pope as the antichrist and leave out the references to ‘evil’ and Hitler? Why go to these kinds of extremes?

It’s like – OK, we get it. You think that the papacy teachers error - but do you have to imitate Luther with such an extreme comment? What is gained by that kind of language?

This is kind of stuff is a barrier to unity and I think it is written understanding that fact. You don’t EVER see Catholic leadership making these kinds of inflammatory statements about ANYBODY.

 

[Topper17]

Lutherans of all stripes recognize the role of the Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, as the western patriarch, even his historic primacy. What we question is supremacy and infallibility. In these two we are clearly not alone. Orthodox and Old Catholics also reject these claims not only scripturally, but in the historic Tradition of the Church.

OK Jon, you recognize the historic primacy of the Bishop of Rome. How does that ‘primacy’ manifest itself within Lutheranism, specifically and exactly? or it is simply a meaningless term that is used to try create an impression? With his primacy, what role does the Bishop of Rome play in the LCMS?

 

[MaryT777]

Jon, you and I might have our opinions, but they don’t count for very much because neither of us are in leadership positions within our communions. That cannot be said of Noland. He is a decision and policy maker within the LCMS, and it would seem that his opinions are more representative of the beliefs of your communion.

What strikes me consistently Jon, is that whenever we see the ‘opinions’ of your leadership, they are much more anti-Catholic than your statements. I appreciate that you don’t go to those extremes but also recognize how much you are at odds with the positions of your leadership.

Noland also wrote in that article defending the LCMS position on the pope:

"‘VII. Is The LCMS Position Reasonable?

• Seems to be unduly harsh, even unChristian. Seems to be irrational. Why does it seem to be harsh and irrational?
• Enlightenment influence, entering into Protestant theology and church, has rejected previously universally accepted Christian doctrines: existence of Satan, existence of hell, eternal damnation, existence of demons (i.e., evil angels), the ability of Satan to influence the course of human events, and the anti-christ(s).

“Educated people don’t believe in such things.”
**

• The fact is that ignoring evil will not make it go away. The Western nations ignored the rise of Hitler hoping he would go away and leave them alone.**
• The doctrine of anti-christ (I John 2:18-19,22), the prediction of false messiahs (Mark 13:5, 21-23), and the “son of perdition” (II Thess. 2:1-12) is clearly taught in the New Testament. Those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture must believe in these things. They cannot simply be ignored.
• The difficult task is determining whether or not these predictions have been fulfilled and by whom, or whether they remain for the future.” Noland

Jon, I think that the reference to ‘ignoring evil’ and the reference to Hitler in this context, is a pretty good indication of how the LCMS leadership approaches the issue of the papacy. I see this as yet another example of the kinds of comments that are absolutely UNNECESSARY.

Wouldn’t it be enough to describe the papacy or pope as the antichrist and leave out the references to ‘evil’ and Hitler? Why go to these kinds of extremes?

It’s like – OK, we get it. You think that the papacy teachers error - but do you have to imitate Luther with such an extreme comment? What is gained by that kind of language?

This is kind of stuff is a barrier to unity and I think it is written understanding that fact. You don’t EVER see Catholic leadership making these kinds of inflammatory statements about ANYBODY.

 

[Topper17]

Even better. Let’s go back to the seventh ecumenical council as a starting point? Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, most Anglicans, and maybe some others will agree up to there.

Jon

OK - lets go with that and see where it leads. Now we have ALL Christians invited to an Ecumenical Council. 2,100,000,000 Christians will be represented. Again, how do you think the votes should be divided up if not in proportion to communion membership. To attend the Council is to agree to follow its decisions. A million members gets you one seat at the table and one vote. This would mean that the Church would get 1,100 delegates and votes. The LCMS would get 2 votes and Lutheran overall would get about 80 or so. Would this be acceptable to the LCMS? Would it abide by the decisions made at the council?

The idea would be that all delegates would agree going in to have their communions follow the teachings and Church structure that is agreed upon by ALL of Christendom. Do you think that the LCMS will sign on with this agreement? Also, do you think that the LCMS will have any problems deciding which to delegates to send to the Council?

 

[commenter]

There is another possibility: the infallibility of the content of Scripture is dependent on the infallibility of the Holy Spirit, with the church as the medium through which the canon of Scripture was identified.

When seen that way, the church does not have to be infallible and, therefore, of equal authority with Scripture.

The problem with your argument–which is popular among RC apologists–is that it goes essentially like this:

1. The Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to determine the canon of Scripture.
2. Any church that is guided by the Holy Spirit is itself infallible.
3. Therefore, the Catholic Church is infallible.

That doesn’t work, because #2 is flawed.

I realize this is not your full argument, just a brief response to my argument. But I think the NT canon - past, present, future - is a good topic to further explore, re: Catholic-Lutheran relations. Catholics believe infallibility is an element in how the Holy Spirit used a visible human agency - the Magisterium, not “the Christian community” or popular opinion, or some blind robotic autopilot - to identify the Canon of the NT. But there is also a “canon” of Tradition. The vast majority of ancient Christian traditions were rejected centuries ago as non-authoritative (just like most proposed NT books were also rejected as non authoritative); rejected by the Magisterium, not by “consensus”.

This process of rejecting the vast majority of ancient Christian traditions as unreliable, and accepting a few as authoritative “Tradition”, also could not have occurred without a single visible Magisterium in place. I realize Lutherans don’t have quite the same role for Tradition, and don’t accept all the later Catholic Tradition. But I think they accept much (Catholic?) Tradition, though inferior to Scripture. That doesn’t prove Pope Francis is infallible, but it suggests the infallible Holy Spirit chose to work through a single visible human agency on other things besides the NT Canon.

 

[Koineman]

Hi Koin,

At least this is a bold proposal. Of course the counterproposal would be that the Augsburg Confession, the Formula of Concord and all of the other Lutheran Confessional documents be discarded. How about that?

That’s what makes unity very unlikely. It would require one or both sides to jettison a crucial document of their faith, which they feel they could never turn their back on.

If that doesn’t work for some reason, then how about a truly “ecumenical approach”:

How about if EVERYBODY throws out all of the Confessions and dogmas that have been established after Oct 30th, 1517. Trent, Augsburg, Smalcald, Westminster, Vatican I and II, and all the rest simply disappear and we ‘start over’. Then we could have a truly Ecumenical Council in which EVERYBODY gets to be equitably represented.

Interesting idea; but of course it’s not going to happen.

Would the LCMS (and everybody else) be willing to abide by the guiding of the Holy Spirit and be a part of a UNIFIED CHRISTIANITY? Would the LCMS be willing to ‘sign on’ and commit to being a part of whatever the Council was led to teach and establish in terms of ecclesiastical ‘structure’?

I doubt it, based on the reasons I noted above.

OK, let’s say that everybody is ‘all in’. So how do we apportion representation and voting on a unified set of doctrines and a new “Church Structure”? It would seem that the best and most fair way would be on the basis of membership or population. So if there are 2,100,000,000 Christians worldwide, how about if we assign a delegate and a vote on the basis of a million members. That would mean that the Catholic Church gets 1,100 of the votes, and the LCMS gets 2. Does that seem fair, and if not, how would you like to see them apportioned out?

By the way, do you think that the LCMS will be able to easily determine which two of its leaders to send, or is that going to be a problem?

I have no idea.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12849700]OK - lets go with that and see where it leads. Now we have ALL Christians invited to an Ecumenical Council. 2,100,000,000 Christians will be represented. Again, how do you think the votes should be divided up if not in proportion to communion membership. To attend the Council is to agree to follow its decisions. A million members gets you one seat at the table and one vote. This would mean that the Church would get 1,100 delegates and votes. The LCMS would get 2 votes and Lutheran overall would get about 80 or so. Would this be acceptable to the LCMS? Would it abide by the decisions made at the council?

All Christians is highly unlikely, regardless of the starting point, but I would be excited to see where such a scenario would go.

The idea would be that all delegates would agree going in to have their communions follow the teachings and Church structure that is agreed upon by ALL of Christendom. Do you think that the LCMS will sign on with this agreement? Also, do you think that the LCMS will have any problems deciding which to delegates to send to the Council?

I can’t speak for the entire synod, but here’s a couple of thoughts: 1) within the Lutheran tradition, Church polity is adiaphoron, 2) for me personally, even if the LCMS didn’t agree, I would agree to whatever the patriarchates together agreed to.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

OK Jon, you recognize the historic primacy of the Bishop of Rome. How does that ‘primacy’ manifest itself within Lutheranism, specifically and exactly? or it is simply a meaningless term that is used to try create an impression? With his primacy, what role does the Bishop of Rome play in the LCMS?

It doesn’t, currently, just as it doesn’t within Eastern Orthodoxy. Even so, he is the one we speak to when dialogue between our communions occurs.

Jon