Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[Per_Crucem]

To me, there is no difference and that is why I am Roman Catholic and not Orthodox, despite loving very much the members of my local Antiochan Orthodox church.

No worries, Selah. We will still give you falafel, perohi and gyros, regardless of being Roman Catholic.

 

[KjetilK]

To me, there is no difference and that is why I am Roman Catholic and not Orthodox, despite loving very much the members of my local Antiochan Orthodox church.

So you are rejecting the Byzantine Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church, then?

 

[pablope]

I don’t think people here understand my point. My point is that there are vast differences between the different Byzantine churches (some have communion with the pope, some don’t, and some don’t even see him as part of the Church of Christ at all). So what ‘authority’ is there within Byzantinism which is capable of uniting Byzantinism

?

The papacy…the successor of Peter…bishop of Rome.

As St. Optatus wrote…calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/

Later in the work he shows that St. Peter, the Head of the Apostles, was the first to occupy the Episcopal Cathedra in Rome, and that the purpose of this Cathedra was to preserve unity among all Christians, including even the other Apostles. He writes:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25

The fact is that you need to take each Byzantine Church in turn, and the same with the Lutheran churches.

 

[Per_Crucem]

The papacy…the successor of Peter…bishop of Rome.

 

[pablope]

pablope;12829698:

See the Ravenna statement on this issue; viz. from the Orthodox side.

You mean this one? I went to the conclusion quickly, will read the rest later, time permitting (section 43 caught my eye quickly thought):

1. Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium.
2. Primacy and conciliarity are mutually interdependent. That is why primacy at the different levels of the life of the Church, local, regional and universal, must always be considered in the context of conciliarity, and conciliarity likewise in the context of primacy.

Concerning primacy at the different levels, we wish to affirm the following points:

1. Primacy at all levels is a practice firmly grounded in the canonical tradition of the Church.
2. While the fact of primacy at the universal level is accepted by both East and West, there are differences of understanding with regard to the manner in which it is to be exercised, and also with regard to its scriptural and theological foundations.
3. In the history of the East and of the West, at least until the ninth century, a series of prerogatives was recognised, always in the context of conciliarity, according to the conditions of the times, for the protos or kephale at each of the established ecclesiastical levels: locally, for the bishop as protos of his diocese with regard to his presbyters and people; regionally, for the protos of each metropolis with regard to the bishops of his province, and for the protos of each of the five patriarchates, with regard to the metropolitans of each circumscription; and universally, for the bishop of Rome as protos among the patriarchs. This distinction of levels does not diminish the sacramental equality of every bishop or the catholicity of each local Church.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Per Crucem;12829814:

You mean this one? I went to the conclusion quickly, will read the rest later, time permitting (section 43 caught my eye quickly thought):

Yeppers. Meaning from the Orthodox side, what St. Opaptos said is already recognized vis a vie the Pope of Rome. Where the disagreement lies is the extent of the primacy.

 

[Tomyris]

This is an interesting discussion.

I’m tempted to start a thread on Present Day Lutheran-Orthodox Relations.

 

[Per_Crucem]

This is an interesting discussion.

I’m tempted to start a thread on Present Day Lutheran-Orthodox Relations.

There really isn’t one, save that us Lutherans tend to become Orthodox

 

[Tomyris]

There really isn’t one, save that us Lutherans tend to become Orthodox

Sort of a one-way conversation? Or conversion?

“thinking great thoughts” for a moment.

Are there celebrated Orthodox who have become Lutheran?

 

[Tomyris]

Sort of a one-way conversation? Or conversion?

“thinking great thoughts” for a moment.

Are there celebrated Orthodox who have become Lutheran?

Let me answer that.

I don’t think so. I’ve read Orthodox critiques of Lutheranism.

 

[Tomyris]

This is kind of interesting. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_Roman_Catholics

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_Protestants

 

[Per_Crucem]

Sort of a one-way conversation? Or conversion?

“thinking great thoughts” for a moment.

Are there celebrated Orthodox who have become Lutheran?

None that I know of, offhand.

 

[Per_Crucem]

This is kind of interesting. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_Roman_Catholics

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_Protestants

Rid Dreher I knew about; and St. Alexis Toth. I go to the cathedral he pastored here in Minneapolis.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Kjet,

Thanks for your response.

To some extent, yes. I believe, for instance, that it excessively narrows the interpretive range of Confessio Augustana, especially on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As I’ve argued before, I think that Confessio Augustana, which understands itself in light of Apostolic and Catholic Tradition, is open to, if not actually teaching, transubstantiation. That theological idea, which has a long precedence, is outright rejected in the Formula of Concord in favour of the idea of ‘sacramental union.’

I think we agree, but correct me if you think I am wrong. The Formula of Concord was written and codified more than 60 years after Luther’s initial Revolt, From my perspective, there was absolutely NO REASON for the Formula to go completely overboard in naming the pope (or papacy) as the antichrist, and describing lay Catholics as ‘adherents’. The Formula MUCH MORE than the Augsburg Confession stands as a huge barrier to the unity that we all hope for. But then that only applies to those Lutheran denominations which hold that the Forumla is authoritative. Those like yours, which as I understand it, have NEVER made a confessional statement about the Pope as the antichrist, should NOT have to answer for those who have. This is especially true if you consider the Formula as a departure from Lutheranism.

Don’t get me wrong, the wording in Confessio Augustana, art. X, is open to that idea. But it is also open to transubstantiation, or other ideas.

OK, so does your church teach transubstantiation?

Furthermore, where Confessio Augustana sees itself as a confession of Apostolic and Catholic Tradition, the Formula of Concord is clearly a denominational document. To explain the difference, I can say that the Church of Norway, while being part of the Lutheran ecclesial tradition (like the Russian Orthodox Church is part of the Byzantine ecclesial tradition), does not call herself the Lutheran Church of Norway, while many free churches do call themselves ‘the Lutheran Church of X.’ See more below, on the papacy.

I will have to admit that I don’t understand your point here.

Well, it is normative within those Lutheran churches which rejects the Formula as being authoritative. The problem is that your question seem to imply, again, that ‘Lutheranism’ is a Church, not an ecclesial tradition. Within the Byzantine ecclesial tradition, for instance, we can say that the rejection of the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff is normative for those churches which teach that (such as the Russian Orthodox Church), while not for those churches which rejects that (such as the Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church or the Russian Greek Catholic Church).

OK, but if it is an ‘ecclesial tradition’ then how does that differ from the rest of the traditions that were the result of the Reformation?

Yes, if they actually follow the words of the Formula.

It seems that we might agree that the ‘words of the Formula’ are extremely clear. What bothers me is when people claim that the Formula is authoritative but then find it necessary to interpret to mean something that it clearly does not say.

Probably.

Ok Father Kjet. As a Lutheran Pastor, and knowing that you are not a “Formula Guy”, do you think it is even possible for the ‘Formula Lutherans’ to refute or eradicate those sections of the Forumla which are so offensive to Catholics? Or would that be to ‘admit too much’, and begin possibly a slide down a slippery slope?

Yes, there was a Reformation. But you will not find, for instance, a Russian Orthodox bishop who will say that their history only goes back as far as approximately 1054 (give or take a few hundred years). What happened in the 16th century was that the Church of Norway broke with Rome, not that it ceased to exist.

I take it from this comment that you believe that the Church of Norway of the 17th century was a valid continuation of the Church that existed in Norway in the 15th. Is that what you are saying? If so, then what about the huge doctrinal dislocation that occurred in the 16th? What about the fact of the change in obedience to the Bishop of Rome?

I generally assume that people actually believe what they claim to believe, and that they are convinced of the arguments leading to that position. So if they do not, maybe they should either rethink their ecclesial allegiance, or perhaps push forward for a ‘Reformation’ in which the document in question is rejected altogether.

Exactly Father! The way I look at it, if people cannot even begin to explain why they believe in something as important as the Formula being Authoritative, then they should seriously consider the possibility that they should not. I do love the idea that those Formula Lutheran communions should consider the possibility of declaring the Formula to be NON-Authoritative.

My guess is that the ‘Formula Lutherans’ are dwindling as a percentage of overall Lutheranism. You recently said that the ‘Forumlas’ are less than half of Lutheranism. What do you believe their percentage is?

God Bless You Father, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Thor,

Thanks for your response.

Or as Jim Blackburn says, “But once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it.”

Exactly. To reject what you ‘know’ to be the Truth of God is to blaspheme God by disobedience.

Speaking personally, there are very few topics of faith that I have come to know the truth about with any absolute certainty and without questions or doubts. I can’t imagine ever “knowing” with certainty that the Catholic Church is the one true church. As a result, it would be hard to see how I could ever be considered “invincibly ignorant.” I can’t even say with absolute certainty that I know that Christianity is the true religion since I know that part of the reason that I am a Christian is due to an accident of history and birth (i.e. I was born into a family that comes from a part of the world that has a long history of being Christian whereas if I had been born in Thailand I would probably be a Buddhist or if I had been born in India I would probably be a Hindu, etc.).

A couple of decades ago I would have agreed with you. However, that position leads pretty quickly to the idea that God has NOT instituted a ‘means’, here on earth by which we can know, with certainty, His Absolute Truth. That leads pretty quickly to the idea that God does not really care all that much what we believe. After all, if He DID really care He would have left us a means by which we could be ‘certain’. Since he obviously didn’t, then He doesn’t ‘mind’ if we all believe ‘different stuff’.

With this comes the much reduced importance of Doctrine, which is exactly where Protestantism in general has already ‘arrived’.

But there are lots of Catholics who don’t believe in all the official teachings of the Church (such as on contraception, for example) and although they don’t usually form another rival Catholic denomination, they nonetheless ignore the teachings they don’t like. So there is an appearance of unity, but divisions under the surface nonetheless.

That is true, but fallen man will ALWAYS, or at least a portion of them, will find a way to disobey the rightful Authority that God has placed here on earth. The fact that some, or even a lot of Catholics don’t believe or follow the teachings of the Church does NOT in any way invalidate those teachings. On the other hand, the 16th century innovation of Sola Scriptura has PROVEN itself to be false. Furthermore, the only way that people can ‘disprove’ the teachings and authority of the Church is by the use of Sola Scriptura AND their ‘rights’ to Personal Interpretation, both of which have proven themselves to be nothing more than the doctrines of man.

God Bless You Thor, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Dorothy,
There is a lot of truth in this statement. It really doesn’t matter what members of a communion say or believe, or what outsiders say a communion teaches. What matters is what that communion itself says.

Jon

True Jon, but on the other hand, there is only so much that a communion can depart from its Confessional statements without losing credibility.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Father,

Thanks for your response.

You are still comparing one Church – the churches, patriarchates, dioceses and archdioceses in communion with the Roman Pontiff – to an ecclesial tradition.

So why is it a problem for Lutherans in, say, the Church of Norway or the LCMS, that Lutheranism is disunited, but not a similar problem for Byzantines in, say, the Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church or the Russian Greek Catholic Church, that Byzantinism is disunited?

We must be having a problem over the nature of the Church. I will admit that I think if it MUCH differently than I did 30 years ago.

Maybe this will help. There are heresies and there are schisms. Both have originated from the Catholic Church, and a TON of them have originated from previous schisms and heresies. In another way of looking at it, there are Churches that are in COMPLETE communion with Rome and there are those who are not. Those who are not are those heresies and schisms. Whether Lutheranism itself is fractured into dozens of doctrinally conflicting denominations which do or do not commune with each other is not the issue. The issue is whether they are in communion with Rome.

ALL of the communions who are separated from Rome are separated from some of the ‘others’ but that is completely inconsequential compared to being separated from Rome.

God Bless You Father, Topper

 

[KathleenGee]

As has been shared here…www.calledtocommunion.com…is an excellent site and is now on EWTN Catholic television…

We speak of communion with Rome…we also have to include our Eastern Orthodox…such a grace this will be…

Our communion lies in the Holy Trinity…not in ourselves…and we have the Lord’s tabernacle dwelling among us in our churches…this is a strong statement of faith in regards to all the different churches who do not have the Lord dwelling in their sacred places of gatherings.

 

[KjetilK]

The papacy…the successor of Peter…bishop of Rome.

But that doesn’t mean that the Orthodox in question aren’t Byzantines. The point I am making is that if you do not blame Byzantinism as such for the divisions within that tradition - i.e. that you do not reject Byzantinism itself when the different Byzantines are disunited - you cannot use the divisions within the Lutheran tradition as a proof that Lutheranism is bunk.

I think there is a standard with which the Byzantine can be looked at…but there is none within the Lutheran churches.

Yes, there is: the three ancient formulas (the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed), Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism (and the latter not as a dogmatic treatment, but a catechetical tool - from which you can, of course, draw dogmattic conclusions).

That is the standard. You cannot say that there is no standard. That is just not true. You might think it insufficient, but to say that there is no such standard is just not true.

But that standard has been used in various ways, as has the standard within Byzantinism. And within Byzantinism the standard has also proven to be insufficient to heal all the divisions. And the divisions can be extreme - to the point that some Byzantines do not accept the baptisms of other Byzantines.

 

[KjetilK]

I think we agree, but correct me if you think I am wrong. The Formula of Concord was written and codified more than 60 years after Luther’s initial Revolt, From my perspective, there was absolutely NO REASON for the Formula to go completely overboard in naming the pope (or papacy) as the antichrist, and describing lay Catholics as ‘adherents’. The Formula MUCH MORE than the Augsburg Confession stands as a huge barrier to the unity that we all hope for. But then that only applies to those Lutheran denominations which hold that the Forumla is authoritative. Those like yours, which as I understand it, have NEVER made a confessional statement about the Pope as the antichrist, should NOT have to answer for those who have. This is especially true if you consider the Formula as a departure from Lutheranism.

Yes.

OK, so does your church teach transubstantiation?

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.

I will have to admit that I don’t understand your point here.

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 conclusionto 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).

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).

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.

OK, but if it is an ‘ecclesial tradition’ then how does that differ from the rest of the traditions that were the result of the Reformation?

Well, for a start the tradition defined itself as catholic and apostolic, and not in ‘opposition.’

It seems that we might agree that the ‘words of the Formula’ are extremely clear. What bothers me is when people claim that the Formula is authoritative but then find it necessary to interpret to mean something that it clearly does not say.

Yeah.

Ok Father Kjet. As a Lutheran Pastor, and knowing that you are not a “Formula Guy”, do you think it is even possible for the ‘Formula Lutherans’ to refute or eradicate those sections of the Forumla which are so offensive to Catholics? Or would that be to ‘admit too much’, and begin possibly a slide down a slippery slope?

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.’

I take it from this comment that you believe that the Church of Norway of the 17th century was a valid continuation of the Church that existed in Norway in the 15th. Is that what you are saying? If so, then what about the huge doctrinal dislocation that occurred in the 16th? What about the fact of the change in obedience to the Bishop of Rome?

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?

Exactly Father! The way I look at it, if people cannot even begin to explain why they believe in something as important as the Formula being Authoritative, then they should seriously consider the possibility that they should not. I do love the idea that those Formula Lutheran communions should consider the possibility of declaring the Formula to be NON-Authoritative.

Yeah.

My guess is that the ‘Formula Lutherans’ are dwindling as a percentage of overall Lutheranism. You recently said that the ‘Forumlas’ are less than half of Lutheranism. What do you believe their percentage is?

I have no idea, and prefer not to speculate.