Question for Lutherans

[JonNC]

Okay Father, Luther did not intend to start a new Church in the beginning, he only wanted to reform it. But that raises these questions in my mind that I hope you can answer:

1.) Since in the end he totally rejected indulgences, what leads you to believe that eliminating the sale of indulgences would have been enough for him?

2.) He only kept two sacraments, why should people believe that another crisis would not have ensued on the issue of sacraments even after the elimination of the selling of indulgences?

3.) Would not the issue of his view of sola scriptura lead to the same results?

4.) If he only wanted to reform the Church, why did the one he start look radically different than the one he was trying to reform?

5.) I realize this is speculation, and you do not like to do that, but…do you think dialogue on the issues would have been enough for him, if the Church did not eliminate indulgences, priestly celibacy, calling the Mass a sacrifice…?

6.) If the Church had reformed around the lines that Luther wanted, would that not be a radical change from the way the Church had looked for 1500 years? And would that not in essence be a new Church, since the reforming of it would have been a radical change to what She had been?

Keep in mind, Duane, that the Lutheran tradition is not Martin Luther. Lutherans are not bound by the words or ideas of Father Martin, but to the word of God, and the confessions and creeds that rightly reflect it.
I’d like for a moment to reflect on the number of sacraments. I mentioned earlier my Lutheran Confirmation. The words said stay with me today. They are, indeed, a gift of grace to me, even as my faith journey has led me into Anglicanism. The SPirit has used Confirmation as a means of grace for me. That has elements of a sacrament. Ina different way, my marriage of 30 plus years has also been a means of His grace for me.
It is normal to hear Lutherans speak of Holy Absolution as a sacrament.
I have heard Lutheran pastors speak of marriage, ordination, and annointing as sacraments.
In short, my move from Lutheranism to Anglicanism was in no way hindered by the issue of the number of sacraments, because their use and value in Lutheranism should not be diminished because of definition.

Jon

 

[ComplineSanFran]

It may or may not do damage, but I think the message could be that I don’t recognize your vocation, or worse, I don’t respect it.

I am sure that some protestants who have a problem with the term, Father" might not be comfortable calling him Father, and I’m sure Father Don would understand that.

There have been Lutheran pastors I’ve known who were called Father, and our Anglican priest we call Father.

So I guess it depends on the intention. If it is from an honest discomfort with using the term, understood. If it is because one wants to emphasize that one disapproves of or doesn’t recognize the vocation, it is clearly disrespectful and boorish.

Jon

I quite agree, Jon. So what would one do here with priests who happen to be female? Will the same distinctions apply in addressing them as Mother, Pastor, Reverend, Doctor, Bishop, etc?

 

[GKC]

I quite agree, Jon. So what would one do here with priests who happen to be female? Will the same distinctions apply in addressing them as Mother, Pastor, Reverend, Doctor, Bishop, etc?

I’m not Jon.

From the courtesy point, I’d think so. From the point of valid orders, I’d say no. Which is why I always say it depends on who you ask.

 

[JonNC]

I’m not Jon.

From the courtesy point, I’d think so. From the point of valid orders, I’d say no. Which is why I always say it depends on who you ask.

This sounds like what Jon would say.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

This sounds like what Jon would say.

Jon

Wow, besides being an expert in many fields of study without a doubt and surrounded by books, GKC is a mind reader for Jon

 

[Reuben_J]

1. I have not concelebrated the Eucharist with a Lutheran cleric since that is not YET feasible. I have had Lutheran clerics present, in the sanctuary, when I have presided at Mass, just as I’ve been present as they have celebrated the Lord’s Supper.

In any case, in the present status quo, that is not going to happen.

Since you, Fr., said it is not yet feasible, implying that it will be feasible at some point in time, would you honestly tell your Lutheran audience here, under what circumstances or situation that would be, when Lutheran clerics will concelebrate the Holy Eucharist, and presumably receiving Holy Communion/breaking bread, together with Catholic priests?

I am asking because that would be an interesting scenario and perhaps the Lutherans would be curious to know.

 

[pianistclare]

Oh for goodness sake, his name is NOT Don.

It’s an honorific title.
*In practice, however, the style Don/Donna (or Latin Dominus/Domina) was used more loosely in church, civil and notarial records. The honorific was often accorded to the untitled gentry (e.g., knights or younger sons of noblemen), priests, or other people of distinction. It was, over time, adopted by organized criminal societies in Southern Italy (including Naples, Sicily, and Calabria) to refer to members who held considerable sway within their hierarchies.

Today in Italy, the title is usually only given to Roman Catholic diocesan priests (never for prelates, who bear higher honorifics such as monsignore, eminenza, and so on).

Outside of the priesthood or old nobility, usage is still common in the south, mostly as an honorific form to address the elderly, but rarely if ever used in central or northern Italy. It can be used satirically or ironically to lampoon a person’s sense of self-importance.

As in the Spanish usage, Don is prefixed either to the full name or to the person’s given name*

 

[GKC]

Wow, besides being an expert in many fields of study without a doubt and surrounded by books, GKC is a mind reader for Jon

I am a man of many talents.

Many foibles, too.

 

[Reuben_J]

Wow, besides being an expert in many fields of study without a doubt and surrounded by books, GKC is a mind reader for Jon

Perhaps a new charismatic gift of the Holy Spirit, the ability to read mind but how blessed is CAF to have him to illuminate this Forum.

Seriously, it is true too that some people are born more talented than the others.

 

[GKC]

Perhaps a new charismatic gift of the Holy Spirit, the ability to read mind but how blessed is CAF to have him to illuminate this Forum.

Seriously, it is true too that some people are born more talented than the others.

I think of it more as adorning the board.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I think of it more as adorning the board.

Yeah, yeah, I suppose talent’s OK in its place. I have an almost incandescent Apollo-like beauty, but I don’t go boasting about it.

 

[GKC]

Yeah, yeah, I suppose talent’s OK in its place. I have an almost incandescent Apollo-like beauty, but I don’t go boasting about it.

I understand. Modesty is my most admirable and evident virtue.

 

[steido01]

One of the most radical errors of Reformation theology was Luther’s denial of a distinct sacerdotal office or power, and the corresponding claim that all believers are equally priests before God…
Luther had taken up the Catholic challenge and repudiated the very idea of a visible priesthood to be consistent with his theory of a purely invisible Church.

Jon has already addressed your source’s embarrassing error regarding the Lutheran understanding of the Office of Holy Ministry, but I wanted to just add your source is also incorrect about the Lutheran concept of ‘Church.’

Article VII: Of the Church.

Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.

Now, does a place where the Sacraments are administered (which, as Jon’s already explained, require an ordained pastor) sound anything like a “purely invisible church” to you? Lutherans believe the church is both visible and invisible.

Where are you pulling this information from?

 

[steido01]

Father, I’m an Anglican. I call my rector and his curate Father for the same reason I call you by that title

That extends beyond courtesy or custom, as you will understand.

Amen.

Even we pesky Lutherans acknowledge that Catholic priests are rightly called and ordained. From the Lutheran perspective, that we do not share fellowship is reflective on our respective communions’ inability to agree on various doctrines; not on the validity of the pastoral call. Of course, Catholics might be more bound to a view of succession. Then again, maybe not as much as has been traditionally taught.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

In any case, in the present status quo, that is not going to happen.

Since you, Fr., said it is not yet feasible, implying that it will be feasible at some point in time, would you honestly tell your Lutheran audience here, under what circumstances or situation that would be, when Lutheran clerics will concelebrate the Holy Eucharist, and presumably receiving Holy Communion/breaking bread, together with Catholic priests?

I am asking because that would be an interesting scenario and perhaps the Lutherans would be curious to know.

As I have said before on this thread, communion was ruptured. This is not a unilateral reality but it is effected by all sides and it effects all sides. It is not a matter of Catholics deciding how koinonia is restored but, actually, Catholics and Lutherans TOGETHER finding a path ahead.

I am a Catholic theologian. It is not proper to my vocation to say how, ultimately, the Bishop of Rome will resolve the matters from the Catholic side of the dialogue. Still less how the issues might be resolved from the Lutheran side of the table, which is somewhat multi-faceted. The role of the theologian is to propose in the framework of theology.

That said, I do know what the Popes have said.

Pope Saint John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint:
In this respect I would like to mention one demonstration dictated by fraternal charity and marked by deep clarity of faith which made a profound impression on me. I am speaking of the Eucharistic celebrations at which I presided in Finland and Sweden during my journey to the Scandinavian and Nordic countries. At Communion time, the Lutheran Bishops approached the celebrant. They wished, by means of an agreed gesture, to demonstrate their desire for that time when we, Catholics and Lutherans, will be able to share the same Eucharist, and they wished to receive the celebrant’s blessing. With love I blessed them. The same gesture, so rich in meaning, was repeated in Rome at the Mass at which I presided in Piazza Farnese, on the sixth centenary of the canonization of Saint Birgitta of Sweden, on 6 October 1991.
Pope Benedict to a delegation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church during the Chair of Unity Octave 2011:
Even if the divisions of Christians are an obstacle in molding catholicity fully in the reality of the life of the Church, as was promised in Christ and through Christ (cf. “Unitatis Redintegratio,” No. 4), we are confident in the fact that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the ecumenical dialogue, as important instrument in the life of the Church, will serve to overcome this conflict. This will happen, in the first place, also through the theological dialogue, which must contribute to understanding on the open questions, which are an obstacle along the path to visible unity and the common celebration of the Eucharist as sacrament of unity among Christians.
These are but two examples of many where the Pope is not speaking of “if” but “when”.

Pope Benedict also said, emphatically, that the old “ecumenism of return” is today rejected by the Holy See. The concept of the past, that the solution was for those not in full communion with Rome to renounce their past and leave behind what they have now, is rejected as not the solution. The solution will lie in integrating their gifts and their identity and their heritage. The ecclesiology of Vatican II, the ecclesiology of the koinonia among the particular churches, will certainly be a critical component.

 

[pablope]

1. I have not concelebrated the Eucharist with a Lutheran cleric since that is not YET feasible. I have had Lutheran clerics present, in the sanctuary, when I have presided at Mass, just as I’ve been present as they have celebrated the Lord’s Supper.

The document seeks reception of the Statement of Agreements from The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU). The LWF is a global communion of 145 churches in 98 countries worldwide. The ELCA is the communion’s only member church from the United States

The conclusion invites the PCPCU and the LWF to create a process and timetable for addressing the remaining issues. It also suggests that the expansion of opportunities for Lutherans and Catholics to receive Holy Communion together would be a sign of the agreements already reached. The Declaration also seeks a commitment to deeper connection at the local level for Catholics and Lutherans

In December 2011, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the PCPCU, proposed a declaration to seal in agreements in the areas of the church, ministry and the Eucharist. The ELCA and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops responded to the Cardinal’s proposal by identifying Catholic and Lutheran scholars and leaders to produce the declaration, drawing principally on the statements of international dialogue commissions sponsored by the LWF and the PCPCU and a range of regional dialogues, including those in the United States

The text of the Declaration on the Way and more information are available online: usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/declaration-on-the-way.cfm

Thanks for this post…Father Ruggero. Are you in Italy by any chance? I know the title Don is used there, isn’t it? Like “Don Bosco”…

Anyway, this post brings a question. There are some Lutheran bodies that have ordained women to the priesthood.

If and when Luther and Catholic unity is final, what will happen with the unity with those Lutheran bodies that have ordained women and have women bishops?

Will they excluded?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Anyway, this post brings a question. There are some Lutheran bodies that have ordained women to the priesthood.

If and when Luther and Catholic unity is final, what will happen with the unity with those Lutheran bodies that have ordained women and have women bishops?

Will they excluded?

Well, again, the paradigms which are being used here are simply not conformed to the reality in se. Eventual unity between Lutherans and Catholics simply could not proceed or be concluded as though Lutheranism is the mirror image of Roman Catholicism in terms of its institutional structure and hierarchy.

The best analogy in Catholicism that I could offer would be with our religious orders. You can have groups of Religious who trace themselves back, either directly and historically or by charism and inspiration, to a person like Saint Francis. They are not, however, all under common governance and the superior of one iteration of a Franciscan institute cannot speak for any other Franciscan institute or mandate for another beyond their own proper subjects. They also may have very different ways of being Franciscan or understanding Francis and his charism…to say nothing of the diversity of how they live that charism today. If one wants to conclude some agreement with “the Franciscans” writ large, as opposed to the OFMs for example, one will be speaking with many many groupings.

This diversity of response and engagement that we have with the Lutherans is also the Catholic experience with the Churches of the Orthodox communion and dialogue with them. The relations that Rome has with Constantinople are different from the relations with Moscow, for example.

The theological dialogue is about partnership…not dominance. It is about finding commonality and, of course, identifying issues that need to be visited. One does not “exclude” another as much as the partner determines that they themselves have reached an impasse in being able to advance further.

There are unquestionably issues which present the most daunting of challenges in finding a joint path forward…for all the partners in dialogue.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father, I’m an Anglican. I call my rector and his curate Father for the same reason I call you by that title

That extends beyond courtesy or custom, as you will understand.

I quite understand. In the instance at hand, I was addressing a specific point but perhaps a fine enough point was not put upon it.

There are two distinct issues. There is the issue of the person being addressed and there is the issue of one’s own proper position in being Roman Catholic.

The relationship of a Roman Catholic to the Bishop of Rome is a communion of faith, a communion of sacraments, and a communion of governance. If the Bishop of Rome addresses an ecclesiastic of the Church of Norway as “Bishop” and invites said ecclesiastic to participate in the synod of bishops held at the Vatican, then the matter goes beyond the courtesy to be accorded to this ecclesiastic of the Church of Norway…the matter at that point goes to my deference, as a Catholic, to the Bishop of Rome who, for Roman Catholics, has supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary jurisdiction that goes to the level of the individual. He has implicitly informed me of how I am to proceed…and I neither need nor do I want him to make that implicit directive to be explicit…there is no need to go there.

Thus, whether I were a cleric or a lay person, if the Pope presents me to said ecclesiastic from the Church of Norway as to “Bishop X,” my only respectful response, to my own Pope above all other considerations, is: “How do you do Bishop X? It is an honor and a pleasure to be presented to you.” To think I can overrule the Pope and address this ecclesiastic as Mr. X is, more than an offense to the ecclesiastic, an unacceptable wont of submission to the Bishop of Rome who, again, has supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary jurisdiction…over me. What I have written, of course, is not limited to Lutheran Bishops of the Church of Norway.

 

[GKC]

I quite understand. In the instance at hand, I was addressing a specific point but perhaps a fine enough point was not put upon it.

There are two distinct issues. There is the issue of the person being addressed and there is the issue of one’s own proper position in being Roman Catholic.

The relationship of a Roman Catholic to the Bishop of Rome is a communion of faith, a communion of sacraments, and a communion of governance. If the Bishop of Rome addresses an ecclesiastic of the Church of Norway as “Bishop” and invites said ecclesiastic to participate in the synod of bishops held at the Vatican, then the matter goes beyond the courtesy to be accorded to this ecclesiastic of the Church of Norway…the matter at that point goes to my deference, as a Catholic, to the Bishop of Rome who, for Roman Catholics, has supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary jurisdiction that goes to the level of the individual. He has implicitly informed me of how I am to proceed…and I neither need nor do I want him to make that implicit directive to be explicit…there is no need to go there.

Thus, whether I were a cleric or a lay person, if the Pope presents me to said ecclesiastic from the Church of Norway as to “Bishop X,” my only respectful response, to my own Pope above all other considerations, is: “How do you do Bishop X? It is an honor and a pleasure to be presented to you.” To think I can overrule the Pope and address this ecclesiastic as Mr. X is, more than an offense to the ecclesiastic, an unacceptable wont of submission to the Bishop of Rome who, again, has supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary jurisdiction…over me. What I have written, of course, is not limited to Lutheran Bishops of the Church of Norway.

I understand, Father, and appreciate your further explication here.

 

[Reuben_J]

As I have said before on this thread, communion was ruptured. This is not a unilateral reality but it is effected by all sides and it effects all sides. It is not a matter of Catholics deciding how koinonia is restored but, actually, Catholics and Lutherans TOGETHER finding a path ahead.

I am a Catholic theologian. It is not proper to my vocation to say how, ultimately, the Bishop of Rome will resolve the matters from the Catholic side of the dialogue. Still less how the issues might be resolved from the Lutheran side of the table, which is somewhat multi-faceted. The role of the theologian is to propose in the framework of theology.

I thought you would say that, Fr. I was hoping that you had something new up in your sleeve which I did not know. Seemed to me you were dangling tantalizing carrot only to dampen it with that reply. Perhaps, more importantly, for the ears of the Lutherans so that they would know what it is in for them.

In other word, what you have been telling us, which we knew all along though maybe not with the same depth, are works in progress. So too is the effort of reconciling with the Orthodox.

The reality is, it is still very much an elusive dream. Sure, we always hope to be one someday, hope being a Christian virtue which we should hold onto. How it would happen, you had given a pertinent answer. Nothing as of yet.

As Catholics, there would be certain issues that are non-negotiable and achieving communion means something have to give.

Recent success story in communion was the Anglican Ordinariates and how angry were their mainstream body that we were stealing their flock. Similarly the Orthodox who view such overture suspiciously.

Meanwhile we have Catholics here who are stating facts about the seemingly insurmountable mountain to climb in this road. Sorry, probably being not in the conferences or listening to what transpired in the dialogues with the Lutherans, their view would be embarrassing for those who did.

Thus we have a clergy here who chides Catholics for saying it as it is.

The reality of the matter is, for communion and unity to happen, and yes, so that you can concelebrate the mass which would be one of the fruits of all that, certain issues have to be resolved first. A couple of examples - ordaining woman bishops and the primacy of the Pope.

That would be like telling them, “Our separated brethren, if you want unity, ordaining woman bishops is tightening the proverbial screw and maybe you guys have to practice kissing the fisherman’s ring as of now”.

You sure are more enthusiastic and that is understandably so, since you may be involved in some way more than us lay Catholics in the effort to unity with the Protestants, here specifically Lutherans. And it is nice when a good few of them call you Father but were dismayed when we did not return the compliment about their clergy.

In other word, unity and communion is still a bridge too far. Honesty would dictate that part would have to be made clear too to both parties as not to lead anybody on. Meanwhile, the Vatican would continue in fostering good relationship with various religions. There surely are fellowships and fraternity, and even celebrating their pastor birthday or kissing the Quran. We are known for our magnanimity but let’s not forget, truth would never be compromised.