Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, they are in union with Rome. So what? Why is it that being in communion with Rome is the be all and end all of being a valid and complete church?

Cyprian of Carthage (251 A.D.)

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Church of Norway’s bishop’s conference is in complete union with the bishop’s conference in the Church of England, the Church of Sweden, the Church of Denmark, the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Lithuania, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, the Church of Ireland, the Church of Iceland, the Church in Wales, the Lusitanian Catholic Apostolic Evangelical Church (in Portugal), the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church, the Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church Abroad, and the Lutheran Church in Great Britain.

And which of these are in full communion with the Chair of Peter in Rome?

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Cyprian of Carthage, ibid., 59:14).

 

[Thorolfr]

And which of these are in full communion with the Chair of Peter in Rome?

What kind of chair is it? Is it a plain, ordinary wooden chair that a fisherman like Peter might have had or is it a gold encrusted throne?

 

[commenter]

Yes, they are in union with Rome. So what? Why is it that being in communion with Rome is the be all and end all of being a valid and complete church? Why is it that the bishop’s conference of your particular Church (that is, the USCCB, if you live in the US) is not invalidated by not being in communion with, say, the bishops of the Russian Church?

The Church of Norway’s bishop’s conference is in complete union with the bishop’s conference in the Church of England, the Church of Sweden, the Church of Denmark, the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Lithuania, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, the Church of Ireland, the Church of Iceland, the Church in Wales, the Lusitanian Catholic Apostolic Evangelical Church (in Portugal), the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church, the Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church Abroad, and the Lutheran Church in Great Britain.

The USCCB is not a “particular church”. It does not even have the status of a parish, let alone a diocese. It can’t baptize, marry, confirm, etc. It is an organization of bishops. No priests or laity belong to it. Even their employees, if they are Catholic, belong to a parish and diocese under a bishop. As an American Catholic, I am under a pastor, and he and I are under a bishop. That bishop belongs to various national and local organizations, as I do, but he reports to Rome, not Washington. That bishop, himself, is in union with the Holy See. He is not more “in union with” another American bishop than with a bishop from France.

If my bishop errs to an extreme, his correction comes from Rome, not Washington. He pledged his allegiance to the Holy Father, alone. The Catholic bishops in the US are, personally, all in communion with all the **individual **Catholic bishops in Norway, because they are in communion with the Pope. National, or state, or other types of conferences are useful, but irrelevant to this question.

The various church bodies you mentioned in para 2 are actually separate churches, or ecclesial communities that happen to have bishop conferences attached. Whatever compatibility they may have is totally different from being parts of the same church. The leadership of any of those bodies could move the denomination in doctrine and order without necessarily being in agreement with the leadership of others. They do have authority over millions of people within their own denomination, but not over others. They may choose which bodies of bishops they may start to be in communion with, or terminate communion with (and I bet that changes every few years). They may choose who gets to be a bishop. They recognize no pope over their own country, let alone internationally.

I’m not denying cooperation is helpful among all bishops. I am suggesting in addition to cooperation, there seems to be a strong argument that “unity with the Pope” may the best visible sign that Catholic bishops constitute the successor of the college of bishops.

 

[Peter_J]

If my bishop errs to an extreme, his correction comes from Rome, not Washington. He pledged his allegiance to the Holy Father, alone. The Catholic bishops in the US are, personally, all in communion with all the **individual **Catholic bishops in Norway, because they are in communion with the Pope. National, or state, or other types of conferences are useful, but irrelevant to this question.

Which is all difficult for Eastern Catholics to understand as well.

 

[KjetilK]

The USCCB is not a “particular church”. It does not even have the status of a parish, let alone a diocese. It can’t baptize, marry, confirm, etc. It is an organization of bishops. No priests or laity belong to it. Even their employees, if they are Catholic, belong to a parish and diocese under a bishop.

Good thing I never said it was a particular Church, then. It is not easy to have a discussion when people keep changing the context in which the discussion is held. You were specifically talking about colleges of bishops, therefore it shouldn’t surprise you that my answer would be about, well, that.

I was talking about the bishops conference of your particular Church. Your particular Church is your diocese, or your national Church (although that is harder to find in the US). My particular Church is, on the diocesan level, the Diocese of Bjørgvin, and, on the national level, the Church of Norway. The bishops conference of my particular Church is the bishops conference of the Church of Norway, the conference of which my bishop is a member, and those bishops are in complete union with the bishops of, amongst others, the Church of England. The bishops of the Church of England is not, as you say, a closed off ‘Anglican-college’ of bishops.

As an American Catholic, I am under a pastor, and he and I are under a bishop. That bishop belongs to various national and local organizations, as I do, but he reports to Rome, not Washington.

Which is just like in the Church of Norway. My bishop doesn’t ‘reports to the Norwegian state.’

That bishop, himself, is in union with the Holy See. He is not more “in union with” another American bishop than with a bishop from France.

Again, it is very hard to have a discussion with persons who keep changing their points. There is no principled difference between the USCCB and the bishops conferences in, say, the Church of Norway or the Church of England, yet you tried to make it seem like it was. Those bishops conferences aren’t closed off, just as the USCCB is not closed off.

If my bishop errs to an extreme, his correction comes from Rome, not Washington.

Yes, and if my bishop errs to an extreme, his correction comes from his fellow bishops in Norway, or in the wider communion of bishops, not Oslo.

He pledged his allegiance to the Holy Father, alone. The Catholic bishops in the US are, personally, all in communion with all the individual Catholic bishops in Norway, because they are in communion with the Pope. National, or state, or other types of conferences are useful, but irrelevant to this question.

No, it’s not irrelevant. You were the one who brought up the ‘uniqueness’ of an ‘Anglican-college’ of bishops. When that backfired, you tried to make it seem like you actually meant something completely different.

The various church bodies you mentioned in para 2 are actually separate churches, or ecclesial communities that happen to have bishop conferences attached.

They are ‘particular churches,’ not ‘separate churches.’ And every diocese is a particular Church, also in Roman Catholicism.

Whatever compatibility they may have is totally different from being parts of the same church. The leadership of any of those bodies could move the denomination in doctrine and order without necessarily being in agreement with the leadership of others. They do have authority over millions of people within their own denomination, but not over others. They may choose which bodies of bishops they may start to be in communion with, or terminate communion with (and I bet that changes every few years). They may choose who gets to be a bishop. They recognize no pope over their own country, let alone internationally.

This is equally true of the Orthodox (or equally false). In fact it is NOT true that the bishops in, say, the Church of Norway, can do whatever they want apart from the bishops in, say, the Church of England or the Church of Finland. We do have a Canon Law.

I’m not denying cooperation is helpful among all bishops. I am suggesting in addition to cooperation, there seems to be a strong argument that “unity with the Pope” may the best visible sign that Catholic bishops constitute the successor of the college of bishops.

The question, however, is this: Why Rome? Why not Canterbury? Why not Constantinople? Why not Jerusalem? Why not Moscow?

The other question is: Why should one bishop, have immediate and direct authority over other bishops?

 

[commenter]

“As an American Catholic, I am under a pastor, and he and I are under a bishop. That bishop belongs to various national and local organizations, as I do, but he reports to Rome, not Washington.” (from Commenter)

Which is just like in the Church of Norway. My bishop doesn’t ‘reports to the Norwegian state.’

Forgive me if I have misunderstood the context in prior posts, it is not my intention. I wanted to clarify one point where you may have misunderstood one word. When I said my bishop reports to Rome, not Washington; Washington is the headquarters of the USCCB. I was not referring to the capital of the US government.

Yes, and if my bishop errs to an extreme, his correction comes from his fellow bishops in Norway, or in the wider communion of bishops, not Oslo.

The question, however, is this: Why Rome? Why not Canterbury? Why not Constantinople? Why not Jerusalem? Why not Moscow?

The other question is: Why should one bishop, have immediate and direct authority over other bishops?

The answer to the second question seems stronger now than 50 years ago. Some, not all, denominations that have bishops have taken paths on doctrine and order that repudiate not only the common Christian heritage, but historic positions of their own faith tradition that their own predecessors would have thought sacred and secure. True, that does not prove the answer to the first question. It does suggest a single Magisterium somewhere.

 

[MaryT777]

Forgive me if I have misunderstood the context in prior posts, it is not my intention. I wanted to clarify one point where you may have misunderstood one word. When I said my bishop reports to Rome, not Washington; Washington is the headquarters of the USCCB. I was not referring to the capital of the US government.

The answer to the second question seems stronger now than 50 years ago. Some, not all, denominations that have bishops have taken paths on doctrine and order that repudiate not only the common Christian heritage, but historic positions of their own faith tradition that their own predecessors would have thought sacred and secure. True, that does not prove the answer to the first question. It does suggest a single Magisterium somewhere.

Well said.
Mary.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What kind of chair is it? Is it a plain, ordinary wooden chair that a fisherman like Peter might have had or is it a gold encrusted throne?

Ya know, I was hopin’ you’d ask. http://www.ultimateveggie.com/wp-content/uploads/junior01-200x228.png

9 things you need to know about the "Chair of St. Peter"
By Jimmy Akin
ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-chair-of-st.-peter

 

[Randy_Carson]

Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

And now, a few words regarding those keys…I wrote this a few months ago, and I have presented it to you previously. You have never attempted a refutation of this argument.

Peter – The Royal Steward

Here are two questions that need to be answered:

1. Is Jesus a king?
2. Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward?

You probably said “Yes” quickly to the first question, but you may have hesitated or even answered “No” to the second. Let’s take a look at what scripture and history tell us about the office of the Royal Steward.

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking to Shebnah, an unfaithful steward serving King Hezekiah. God is telling Shebnah that he is about to be replaced by Eliakim, and this confirms the existence of the office, the key worn as a symbol of the office, and the continuation of the office in perpetuity – despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter to the office of Royal Steward granting him the authority to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter could not teach error. God’s protection of His own flock by preventing the formal teaching of error in His name is referred to as “infallibility”.

Therefore, if Jesus, our eternal king, established Peter as His first Royal Steward in a perpetual office, then despite the existence of other, lesser stewards (who have their own legitimate areas of authority), don’t Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome, continue to serve in that office today?

 

[KjetilK]

Forgive me if I have misunderstood the context in prior posts, it is not my intention. I wanted to clarify one point where you may have misunderstood one word. When I said my bishop reports to Rome, not Washington; Washington is the headquarters of the USCCB. I was not referring to the capital of the US government.

OK. But then one question is natural to ask: So what?

The answer to the second question seems stronger now than 50 years ago. Some, not all, denominations that have bishops have taken paths on doctrine and order that repudiate not only the common Christian heritage, but historic positions of their own faith tradition that their own predecessors would have thought sacred and secure. True, that does not prove the answer to the first question. It does suggest a single Magisterium somewhere.

Yes, some have, for instance, made one of their bishops into some kind of super bishop that basically robs all other bishops of their real authority, and have centralised the real power in him.

 

[KjetilK]

Isaiah 22:22:
And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Revelation 3:7:
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.’

 

[Randy_Carson]

Isaiah 22:22:
And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Revelation 3:7:
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.’

“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: ‘Why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.’” (Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p. 365-366.)

+++

As the royal son of David, Christ is the owner of the key of David, but this doesn’t mean he can’t give to Peter, as his “prime minister,” the key(s) to his heavenly kingdom.

In the passage to which Revelation 3:7 alludes, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king’s right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the “key of the House of David.”

Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king’s duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom.

Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as the “holder of the key of David.” Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19.

There’s a problem with this argument. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace–the king isn’t. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king’s affairs. If we apply this to Christ, then we must conclude he’s not the true messianic king, merely his prime minister, the Messiah’s chief representative!

Although Jesus is called the “holder of the key of David” in Revelation 3:7, he doesn’t hold it as Eliakim did. As the son of David, Jesus is the heir to the throne of his ancestor (Lk 1:32-33). He really is the king, not the master of the king’s palace, as was Eliakim. As king, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of his kingdom on whomever he wishes–without losing the authority those keys represent.

It’s the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging his kingship. Christ then shows his kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the king could give–the keys of the kingdom of heaven–thus making Peter the messianic equivalent of Eliakim.

catholic.com/quickquestions/dont-revelation-37-and-isaiah-22-point-to-christ-not-peter-as-having-the-keys-of-davi

 

[benjohnson]

“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: ‘Why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.’” (Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p. 365-366.)

Randy, I’ll raise your Luther Quote:

*It is not necessary for the ordinary man to dispute much about the power of St. Peter or the pope. What is more important is to know how one should use it for salvation. It is true that the keys were given to St. Peter; but not to him personally, but rather to the person of the Christian church. They were actually given to me and to you for the comfort of our consciences. St. Peter, or a priest, is a servant of the keys. The church is the woman and bride, whom he should serve with the power of the keys; just as we see in daily use that the sacrament is administered to all who desire it of the priests *[LW 51:59].

More context of the quote you used: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/luther-christ-gave-keys-to-peter.html

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, I’ll raise your Luther Quote:

*It is not necessary for the ordinary man to dispute much about the power of St. Peter or the pope. What is more important is to know how one should use it for salvation. It is true that the keys were given to St. Peter; but not to him personally, but rather to the person of the Christian church. They were actually given to me and to you for the comfort of our consciences. St. Peter, or a priest, is a servant of the keys. The church is the woman and bride, whom he should serve with the power of the keys; just as we see in daily use that the sacrament is administered to all who desire it of the priests *[LW 51:59].

More context of the quote you used: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/luther-christ-gave-keys-to-peter.html

I agree. The Pope is the servant of the servants of God.

But Beggars All? Not going there.

 

[SteveVH]

Ya know, I was hopin’ you’d ask. http://www.ultimateveggie.com/wp-content/uploads/junior01-200x228.png

9 things you need to know about the "Chair of St. Peter"
By Jimmy Akin
ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-chair-of-st.-peter

Thanks for this Randy. Plus, I got to join the secret club.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Isaiah 22:22:
And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Revelation 3:7:
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.’

Kjetil-

It’s time for you to be intellectually honest…not with me…but with yourself before God. I don’t want you to respond to this post…I want you to pray about it, instead. A lot.

Jesus could have chosen any image He wanted to illustrate the point He was trying to make in Mt. 16. He chose the keys - an image that was full of meaning for the Jews of His day. And He could have spoken any words He wanted in response to Peter profession of faith. He chose to quote the prophet Isaiah in a passage directly associated with the office of Royal Steward.

God chose Eliakim to receive the keys of the House of David, and He chose Peter to receive them, also. Although the kingdom of Judah ended in the course of human history, the kingdom of Jesus will never fade away. And though the stewardships of Shebna and Eliakim came to an end and the office of the steward was vacant for many centuries, under the eternal kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ, the perpetual office of the steward will never pass away.

The successor of Peter still holds the keys, and he serves the one, universal Church built by Jesus upon solid rock. Your heavenly king desires your obeisance and submission to His vicar here on earth.

 

[KjetilK]

Kjetil-

It’s time for you to be intellectually honest…not with me…but with yourself before God. I don’t want you to respond to this post…I want you to pray about it, instead. A lot.

So if I disagree with you, I must be intellectually dishonest?

 

[TertiumQuid]

I agree. The Pope is the servant of the servants of God.

But Beggars All? Not going there.

Yeah, I wouldn’t go their either if I were you.

 

[pablope]

Randy, I’ll raise your Luther Quote:

*It is not necessary for the ordinary man to dispute much about the power of St. Peter or the pope. What is more important is to know how one should use it for salvation. It is true that the keys were given to St. Peter; but not to him personally, but rather to the person of the Christian church. They were actually given to me and to you for the comfort of our consciences. St. Peter, or a priest, is a servant of the keys. The church is the woman and bride, whom he should serve with the power of the keys; just as we see in daily use that the sacrament is administered to all who desire it of the priests *[LW 51:59].

More context of the quote you used: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/luther-christ-gave-keys-to-peter.html

Part of the discourse of the keys is the authority to bind and loose…so if we have he power of the keys…we individually bind and loose also…in essence you are then saying each individual is his own pope…