Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[pablope]

The retort here would be that one day you will see all the unnecessary mess that the popes have brought upon all Christendom.

So I would not use that as an argument if I were you.

Well…you ask what Lutherans and Catholic should do…yet here you are, apparently indoctrinated fully in your hatred for the popes…you only see it one way…that they have brought a mess…yet you do not see any good popes have done also.

Anyway…here is my question for you…what are you doing to bring about unity?

Do you pray for unity at all?

 

[Per_Crucem]

I am more than thrilled now to be Catholic again but it just seemed to me that while very confessional to the Book of Concord, a lot of LCMSers have an identity crisis. Many would tell me, “Well, we’re not ELCA” yet when it came to my pro-life vigil, with some, you would have never known. That episode really bummed me out with that church.

I don’t think this is the major issue in the LCMS, per se (perhaps as it relates ancedotally to your experience). The real crises in the LCMS right now seems to be the confessional and liturgical wings vs. the very evangelical church growth contemporary movement.

 

[Stilldreamn]

I don’t think this is the major issue in the LCMS, per se (perhaps as it relates ancedotally to your experience). The real crises in the LCMS right now seems to be the confessional and liturgical wings vs. the very evangelical church growth contemporary movement.

I wish it was just contemporary vs. liturgical services. I look back at those days with fondness - and while that particular issue is still in play, the rift is much deeper than that now. We seem to be right back to the 1960s - early 1970s, or “Seminex redux.” We even have a number of confessionals that are ready to jump ship - novel idea for Lutherans, eh?

 

[Per_Crucem]

I wish it was just contemporary vs. liturgical services. I look back at those days with fondness - and while that particular issue is still in play, the rift is much deeper than that now. We seem to be right back to the 1960s - early 1970s, or “Seminex redux.” We even have a number of confessionals that are ready to jump ship - novel idea for Lutherans, eh?

Yes, indeed. I was one of those who jumped ship from the LCMS to ELDoNA. Alas, the problems within Lutheranism are theological; not synodal.

 

[JonNC]

Lutheran Church would need to denounce the Office of the Pope is anti Christ and the Lutheran Confessions changed to reflect as such.

Lutheran Church would need to accept the number of Sacraments the Catholic Church defines as such based on the Bible.

Lutheran Church (ELCA) would need to accept the morals of the Catholic Church; abortion as unacceptable and homosexuals called to a life of celibacy as supported by the Bible

Lutheran Church would need to accept (ELCA) that women ordination is contrary to the Bible.

It would be helpful if the Lutherans could resolve their own interLutheran conflicts over the above issues so that the Catholic Church could dialogue with one unified Lutheran Church.

Solo scriptura would need to be rejected. It’s been a dismal failure and contrary to the Bible.

There would need to be further discussion with the Confessional Lutherans LCMS
and Wels etc regarding coming to agreement on justification. They did not sign the JDDJ Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification with the LWF Lutheran World Federation.

Mary.

Originally Posted by Thorolfr
For starters, I think Lutherans would need for the Catholic Church to renounce papal infallibility and papal supremacy.

My thinking is that neither of these is the approach of current ecumenical dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics. When when starts out with a statement of what the other side needs to reject, that doesn’t seem like a successful foundation to start from.

When I read the dialogue statements, they seem to proceed, generally,

1. A statement of the dispute or issue
2. The historical, scriptural context
3. The historical beliefs of each side
4. An expression of where current dialogue has had a positive impact, and what still needs to be done. The document called “The Hope for Eternal Life” seems to be an excellent example of that format, and the results regarding issues such as Purgatory are rather remarkable.

Jon

 

[Selah_KY]

(Be gentle - this is my very first post! )

It all hinges (or should hinge, if Lutherans truly are Lutheran) on the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

And my first comment is a disagreement! (EEK!) But, I have to disagree. I believe that would be an important part of the discussion, but everything hinges on the different views Catholics and Lutherans have of the sacraments. Beginning with the fact that Lutherans don’t consider ordination (Holy Orders) a sacrament and don’t accept the Pope’s role as the final say in matters of faith.

Once we stopped seeing ordination as a sacrament and took that God-given authority from our clergy, it was inevitable that disagreements would lead to splits.

I think Lutherans would need to recognize the Popes God given role in God’s Catholic Church in order to keep the faith United and True to the teachings of Jesus Christ and all Seven Sacraments. That would mean Unity of Truth. Prayers or true Unity. God Bless, Memaw

For starters, I think Lutherans would need for the Catholic Church to renounce papal infallibility and papal supremacy.

I think that the first thing would have to happen is for the Lutheran church to recognize that God set ONE seat over all of Christendom to prevent the kinds of splintering and denominational differences we have now. Before that could happen, they would have to see ordination (Holy Orders) as a sacrament and the lay people would have to accept our clergy as both shepherd and scriptural authority. And in turn, our CLERGY would have to accept that they report to other authorities besides just God Himself - bishops, cardinals, the Pope, et al.

When every man feels that he has the authority to interpret scripture without oversight from any other human, there’s going to be a problem. Scripture may be without error, but human understanding will always be flawed because of sin.

In the LCMS, there are pastors and conference leaders who believe that they are more right than the synod itself and don’t feel the need to follow the “rules” (for lack of a better word) of they synod. That may happen in the Catholic church, but there is a hierarchy in place to ensure that it doesn’t go to far. There is a huge problem of lack of respect for church leaders and refusal to follow elected synod leaders that are on “the other side” - and this is a problem with both the confessional crowd and the missional crowd.

Add that to the fact that Justification by faith alone hasn’t kept the Lutheran church unified by any mean. The confessional Lutherans don’t even have altar and pulpit fellowship with the ELCA.

BINGO! The confessional (conservative) Lutheran synods aren’t even in altar and pulpit fellowship with EACH OTHER!

The retort here would be that one day you will see all the unnecessary mess that the popes have brought upon all Christendom.

?? This former Lutheran sees the unnecessary mess being caused by Luther and the reformers who decided that they didn’t need an earthly authority. Made even more clear by living in the rural south where there are more “flavors” of “Baptist” than one could ever imagine possible. Pastor has a disagreement with his conference? No problem, he just starts his own. When every Christian is given the “right” to interpret scripture with no authority except to God, there is no reason to assume that the splintering will continue and the day could (albeit not realistically) come where ever individual is his own denomination.

As the Lutheran denominations struggle and transform themselves into something less and less recognizable as orthodox Lutheran, we may discover that those of us “left behind” are, and have been, catholic to begin with.

I agree. And that’s exactly how I ended up in the Catholic church.

 

[MaryT777]

(Be gentle - this is my very first post! )

And my first comment is a disagreement! (EEK!) But, I have to disagree. I believe that would be an important part of the discussion, but everything hinges on the different views Catholics and Lutherans have of the sacraments. Beginning with the fact that Lutherans don’t consider ordination (Holy Orders) a sacrament and don’t accept the Pope’s role as the final say in matters of faith.

Once we stopped seeing ordination as a sacrament and took that God-given authority from our clergy, it was inevitable that disagreements would lead to splits.

I think that the first thing would have to happen is for the Lutheran church to recognize that God set ONE seat over all of Christendom to prevent the kinds of splintering and denominational differences we have now. Before that could happen, they would have to see ordination (Holy Orders) as a sacrament and the lay people would have to accept our clergy as both shepherd and scriptural authority. And in turn, our CLERGY would have to accept that they report to other authorities besides just God Himself - bishops, cardinals, the Pope, et al.

When every man feels that he has the authority to interpret scripture without oversight from any other human, there’s going to be a problem. Scripture may be without error, but human understanding will always be flawed because of sin.

In the LCMS, there are pastors and conference leaders who believe that they are more right than the synod itself and don’t feel the need to follow the “rules” (for lack of a better word) of they synod. That may happen in the Catholic church, but there is a hierarchy in place to ensure that it doesn’t go to far. There is a huge problem of lack of respect for church leaders and refusal to follow elected synod leaders that are on “the other side” - and this is a problem with both the confessional crowd and the missional crowd.

BINGO! The confessional (conservative) Lutheran synods aren’t even in altar and pulpit fellowship with EACH OTHER!

?? This former Lutheran sees the unnecessary mess being caused by Luther and the reformers who decided that they didn’t need an earthly authority. Made even more clear by living in the rural south where there are more “flavors” of “Baptist” than one could ever imagine possible. Pastor has a disagreement with his conference? No problem, he just starts his own. When every Christian is given the “right” to interpret scripture with no authority except to God, there is no reason to assume that the splintering will continue and the day could (albeit not realistically) come where ever individual is his own denomination.

I agree. And that’s exactly how I ended up in the Catholic church.

Well said and welcome to the forums. I hope you enjoy your time here.

Peace and Blessings,
Mary.

 

[Ridgerunner]

(?? This former Lutheran sees the unnecessary mess being caused by Luther and the reformers who decided that they didn’t need an earthly authority. Made even more clear by living in the rural south where there are more “flavors” of “Baptist” than one could ever imagine possible. Pastor has a disagreement with his conference? No problem, he just starts his own. When every Christian is given the “right” to interpret scripture with no authority except to God, there is no reason to assume that the splintering will continue and the day could (albeit not realistically) come where ever individual is his own denomination.

I agree. And that’s exactly how I ended up in the Catholic church.

You know, Selah, I find it hard to be too hard on Baptists or any kind of Fundamentalists. I live in the Bible Belt in the Southern Missouri Ozarks. We Catholics are a definite minority, but we have a lot of converts, mostly from Fundamentalist-type “birth churches”. The very lack of unity and definiteness they have is one of the things they turn to the Church for. In those churches, every man is his own authority. As a result, nothing is definite, nothing can truly be known.

By the way, I see you are from Ky. My relatively new bishop is from Tenn. James Van Johnston is his name. A fine man. His grandparents were, I believe, Baptists. His parents converted to Catholicism.

 

[Topper17]

Jon,

My thinking is that neither of these is the approach of current ecumenical dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics. When when starts out with a statement of what the other side needs to reject, that doesn’t seem like a successful foundation to start from.

When I read the dialogue statements, they seem to proceed, generally,

1. A statement of the dispute or issue
2. The historical, scriptural context
3. The historical beliefs of each side
4. An expression of where current dialogue has had a positive impact, and what still needs to be done. The document called “The Hope for Eternal Life” seems to be an excellent example of that format, and the results regarding issues such as Purgatory are rather remarkable.

Jon, the ‘approach’ that you criticize is exactly the approach of your (then) First VP of the LCMS, Daniel Preus:

**“It is difficult to look seriously at the official teachings of the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church and come to the conclusion that the formulators of the Joint Declaration have attempted to be honest with their respective churches. To declare convergence on the article of justification when there are “diverse understandings of merit, reward, purgatory, and indulgences, Marian devotion and the assistance of the saints in the life of salvation, and the possibility of salvation for those who have not been evangelized” is indeed nonsense. To speak of consensus on the doctrine of justification and ignore the soteriological conflict between the Roman mass and the Lord’s Supper is to make a mockery of the meaning of consensus……/B]

One can hardly escape the conclusion that the signers of the Joint Declaration are more interested in the illusion of peace and harmony than they are in the truth. In his Preface to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Philip Melanchthon stated that he wrote it to testify to all nations that we hold to the Gospel of Christ correctly and faithfully. We take no pleasure in discord, nor are we indifferent to our danger, its extent is evident from the bitter hatred inflaming our opponents. But we cannot surrender truth that is so clear and necessary for the church (AC Pref. 15 - 16; Tappert, 99).

True Lutherans will never take pleasure in discord. But neither will they surrender truth that is so clear and necessary for the church.** If the Lutheran Church today wishes to hold to the gospel of Christ correctly and faithfully, she cannot afford to ignore actual differences in doctrine, especially when those differences impinge so directly on the gospel itself. The Roman and Lutheran teachings on the Lord’s Supper not only divide us in our understanding of the sacrament of the altar**. **They represent two differing soteriologies, and no less in our day than in Luther’s. **It is difficult to know what long-term effect the Joint Declaration will have on Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches. One thing is sure we have no consensus now on the doctrine of justification, nor will there ever be consensus as long as the Roman mass remains a sacrifice.” Daniel Preus,

Daniel Preus is a contributing editor for Logia. Formerly director of the Concordia Historical Institute, he is First Vice President of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod."

Jon, here we see that the official position of the LCMS is very much opposed to the one that you seem to support. Preus makes it very clear that he wonders whether the Lutheran and Catholic representatives have been honest about the Dialogues with their members. He speaks of the ‘mockery of consensus” and comments that the Lutheran church cannot afford to ignore the doctrinal differences that we have. He also mentions of course that there will ‘ever be consensus as long as the Roman mass remains a sacrifice.’

As you well know, the mass will FOREVER be a sacrifice. This is the OFFICIAL position of your communion, and as you have noted, it is your communion which makes doctrinal decisions, not the individual.

The ‘approach’ you outlined of course would be preferable to the position taken by the LCMS as outlined by Preus. However, your approach lacks a step 5, in which people actually get down to business and attempt to resolve our doctrinal differences. Just talking about what needs to be done as in your step 4, AS IF that is the last step, assures that nothing of any significance will ever be done. There should be at least a plan to actually resolve our differences.

I do think though that you might try out your ‘procedure’ with all of those Lutheran communions with whom you currently will not commune. If it could work on those supposedly unhealable wounds to Lutheran unity, it would show that it is possible to heal the divide between Lutheranism and Catholicism.**

 

[MaryT777]

Topper,

Nice post. I appreciate the ecumenical spirit of individual posters LCMS but as you note that sentiment does not seem to be shared by official LCMS documents and writings from those you note such as Daniel Preus.

Daniel Preus does have a book called Why I am a Lutheran-Jesus at the Center that I have read. My LCMS pastor friend loaned it to me and it was quite well written. That said,
I wish it was as simple as Jesus in the Center.

Given Luther said:

The article of justification is said to be the article by which the church stands or falls.
(Somewhere, no link sorry)
it would seem to me that we should start there with the confessional Lutherans , and authority regarding the Pope regarding discussions.

How can we dialogue as a Church Body with Confessional Lutherans who feel the leader of our Church sits in the seat of the Anti Christ. That seems ludicrous to me until that is
“ironed out”

It is nice there are talks about purgatory as Jon pointed out but that to me is not the “key” issue. “pun intended”

The Devil is in the details and Sacramental life as Jesus intended, as well as justification etc are very important and you can Commune yourself to harm as scriptures so state.

Mary.

 

[Selah_KY]

How can we dialogue as a Church Body with Confessional Lutherans who feel the leader of our Church sits in the seat of the Anti Christ.

Yes, this. I think several Lutherans have said here that they don’t believe that the Pope is the “anti-Christ”, but it’s very much a teaching of the church. Well, not that the Pope is, but that the Papal Seat is the the anti-Christ (I’ve never actually attempted to wrap my brain around that whole concept, since I don’t believe it personally.)

 

[Thorolfr]

You know, Selah, I find it hard to be too hard on Baptists or any kind of Fundamentalists. I live in the Bible Belt in the Southern Missouri Ozarks. We Catholics are a definite minority, but we have a lot of converts, mostly from Fundamentalist-type “birth churches”. The very lack of unity and definiteness they have is one of the things they turn to the Church for. In those churches, every man is his own authority. As a result, nothing is definite, nothing can truly be known.

For people who want definiteness and certainty in their life and who don’t want to think for themselves, the Catholic Church is probably a good choice. But I’m not convinced that there is anything infallible about the Church’s doctrines or dogma so what looks like certainty is, in my opinion, merely an illusion.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12813406]Jon,
Jon, the ‘approach’ that you criticize is exactly the approach of your (then) First VP of the LCMS, Daniel Preus:

**“It is difficult to look seriously at the official teachings of the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church and come to the conclusion that the formulators of the Joint Declaration have attempted to be honest with their respective churches. **To declare convergence on the article of justification when there are “diverse understandings of merit, reward, purgatory, and indulgences, Marian devotion and the assistance of the saints in the life of salvation, and the possibility of salvation for those who have not been evangelized” is indeed nonsense. To speak of consensus on the doctrine of justification and ignore the soteriological conflict between the Roman mass and the Lord’s Supper is to make a mockery of the meaning of consensus……/B]

One can hardly escape the conclusion that the signers of the Joint Declaration are more interested in the illusion of peace and harmony than they are in the truth. In his Preface to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Philip Melanchthon stated that he wrote it to testify to all nations that we hold to the Gospel of Christ correctly and faithfully. We take no pleasure in discord, nor are we indifferent to our danger, its extent is evident from the bitter hatred inflaming our opponents. But we cannot surrender truth that is so clear and necessary for the church (AC Pref. 15 - 16; Tappert, 99).

True Lutherans will never take pleasure in discord. But neither will they surrender truth that is so clear and necessary for the church.** If the Lutheran Church today wishes to hold to the gospel of Christ correctly and faithfully, she cannot afford to ignore actual differences in doctrine, especially when those differences impinge so directly on the gospel itself. The Roman and Lutheran teachings on the Lord’s Supper not only divide us in our understanding of the sacrament of the altar**. **They represent two differing soteriologies, and no less in our day than in Luther’s. **It is difficult to know what long-term effect the Joint Declaration will have on Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches. One thing is sure we have no consensus now on the doctrine of justification, nor will there ever be consensus as long as the Roman mass remains a sacrifice.” Daniel Preus,

Is it different? The only thing I find different in terms of how to proceed with dialogue is he implies in the last sentence, a necessity of change in teaching within the Catholic Church prior to dialogue. In that way, he holds what appears to be a similar view, from a Lutheran perspective, of course, that you hold from a Catholic perspective. In that sense you would be correct, that I disagree with Pastor Preus, if in fact that is his view.

Jon, here we see that the official position of the LCMS is very much opposed to the one that you seem to support.

Where does he say that this is “the official” LCMS position. In fact, I have had a private conversation with one of the LCMS dialogue team members, and he did not indicate to me that Pr. Preus set the “official” position. Instead, ISTM that Pr. Preus is presenting his own view.

Preus makes it very clear that he wonders whether the Lutheran and Catholic representatives have been honest about the Dialogues with their members. He speaks of the ‘mockery of consensus” and comments that the Lutheran church cannot afford to ignore the doctrinal differences that we have. He also mentions of course that there will ‘ever be consensus as long as the Roman mass remains a sacrifice.’

In my conversation with the dialogue team member, he did not use such language as “mockery”, but he did explain the reasons why the LCMS could not sign on to the JDDJ. I offered him my perspective, which is that I believe we should sign on, with a further explanation of our position, much like the CC did following the signing of the JDDJ.

As you well know, the mass will FOREVER be a sacrifice. This is the OFFICIAL position of your communion, and as you have noted, it is your communion which makes doctrinal decisions, not the individual.

Precisely. And thank you for offering information which supports my view, which is in fact contrary to what the ELCA/LWF typically does. Pr. Preus above is critical of an agreement which, in his view, does not really bring about agreement (my personal view is there is nothing in the JDDJ a Lutheran could complain about, other than its being incomplete).
But even in this, your response does not respond to my point, which was, for dialogue to have a chance, neither side can go into dialogue with the prior insistence that the other side relinquish its beliefs. The same goes for the old condemnations from both sides; those condemnations, while harsh to our ears today, have behind them the disagreements that in fact have to be resolved. Neither side can be asked to jettison those statements PRIOR to agreement.

continued

 

[JonNC]

The ‘approach’ you outlined of course would be preferable to the position taken by the LCMS as outlined by Preus. However, your approach lacks a step 5, in which people actually get down to business and attempt to resolve our doctrinal differences. Just talking about what needs to be done as in your step 4, AS IF that is the last step, assures that nothing of any significance will ever be done. There should be at least a plan to actually resolve our differences.

In your typical way - that of pretending that you get to say what our position is - you completely ignored the major content of my post, that being that the document The Hope of Eternal Life", of which the LCMS participated and, with I believe three caveats, accepted, seems to proceed essentially along the lines I related above.

I do think though that you might try out your ‘procedure’ with all of those Lutheran communions with whom you currently will not commune. If it could work on those supposedly unhealable wounds to Lutheran unity, it would show that it is possible to heal the divide between Lutheranism and Catholicism.

Again, I wasn’t providing “my procedure”. I was relating what appears to be the procedure of the dialogue I mentioned and linked to. Now that you mention it, however, from what I understand, that does seem to be the approach both the ELCA and LCMS take. I suppose, of course, it is the same the CC takes with the PNCC and OC.
OTOH, perhaps in both situations, all sides are being too “timid”.

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

“…One thing is sure we have no consensus now on the doctrine of justification, nor will there ever be consensus as long as the Roman mass remains a sacrifice…”

And as a Lutheran priest who can claim some authority to pontificate on this issue, I respectfully have to disagree with Daniel Preus. I am currently working on an article on this very issue which I hope to get published in a peer reviewed journal.

Yes, this. I think several Lutherans have said here that they don’t believe that the Pope is the “anti-Christ”, but it’s very much a teaching of the church.

Yes, it is the teaching of some Lutheran churches. But it is not Lutheranism. Most Lutheran churches in Europe have never taught it, and most of them rejected the private opinions of some theologians that the pope and/or the papacy is the anti-Christ. That some of these private opinions (such as the Formula of Concord) have been given confessional status by some churches (such as LCMS or WELS) doesn’t mean that it IS Lutheran teaching. I’m pretty sure that no Roman Catholic would agree that rejection of the papacy is of the essence of Byzantine theology. Some Byzantine churches do hold to that (such as the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate). But some don’t (such as the Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church or the Russian Greek Catholic Church). Lutheranism is not a Church. Lutheranism, as Byzantinism, is a ecclesial tradition.

 

[Indifferently]

Have you read McGrath’s Iustitia Dei? He makes the argument that Lutherans argue that justification is the most important argument.

He’s Anglican, so here we go again with someone in one Communion telling someone in another what they believe…

Excellent post.

 

[KjetilK]

Excellent post.

Yes, if what you are looking for is the private theological opinions of certain Lutheran theologians.

The confessions, on the other hand, does not put such an emphasis on justification.

 

[Ridgerunner]

For people who want definiteness and certainty in their life and who don’t want to think for themselves, the Catholic Church is probably a good choice. But I’m not convinced that there is anything infallible about the Church’s doctrines or dogma so what looks like certainty is, in my opinion, merely an illusion.

Where is this coming from? It isn’t as if the Lutheran church doesn’t claim a lot of certitudes all its own. As between, say, the Church of Christ and Lutheranism, the latter would be massively more “definite and certain” than the former than a comparison between Lutheranism and Catholicism.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Where is this coming from? It isn’t as if the Lutheran church doesn’t claim a lot of certitudes all its own. As between, say, the Church of Christ and Lutheranism, the latter would be massively more “definite and certain” than the former than a comparison between Lutheranism and Catholicism.

Some Lutheran churches seem to be more certain than others.

 

[Magdalena59]

I sure am glad that all my ancestors became Protestants several hundred years ago or I might be a Catholic now

What if you were in the wrong church? Wouldn’t you want to know?

For people who want definiteness and certainty in their life and who don’t want to think for themselves, the Catholic Church is probably a good choice. But I’m not convinced that there is anything infallible about the Church’s doctrines or dogma so what looks like certainty is, in my opinion, merely an illusion.

What if your thinking was wrong? We are all human and we all have different thoughts and many times our thoughts are wrong. How can you be sure your thinking is right?

We humans have a hard time admitting when we are wrong.

God bless.