Question for Lutherans

[KjetilK]

Ah, the old schism within a schism situation. I think I have mentioned that to you as well. (Without a satisfactory explanation about it from you I might add.)

Wow, I thought that Lutherans are those Protestants who followed the teaching of Martin Luther as expressed in distinctive confessions contained in the Book of Concord.

You don’t follow the entire Book of Concord? Wouldn’t some Lutherans disapprove of that position?

Lutheranism is a tradition, not a Church, in the same way that Byzantianism is a tradition, and not a Church. There are, for instance, Byzantines who reject the primacy or supremacy of the pope (for instance the Russian Orthodox Church), and there are Byzantines who affirm the primacy or supremacy of the pope (for instance the Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church). No one would deny that each of these are Byzantine churches.

Lutherans don’t follow Luther any more than Roman Catholics follow, say, Augustine, Aquinas or Rahner. The Formula of Concord was written late, and was rejected by most Lutheran churches in Europe. It is not as if anything written by any theologian within a given tradition automatically becomes a confessional document. If that was the case, you would have to follow everything Hans Küng has to say.

 

[Tomster]

A big problem here is that you referring to Luther as if he has some kind of ecclesial authority in my Church (the Church of Norway, or of Denmark-Norway before 1814), such that we have to follow his every word. That is not, and never had been, the case. Luther has never had any immediate authority in my Church. Luther was not a bishop, and the only text of his that is normative in the Church of Norway is his Small Cathechism. And only because the bishops adopted it as a confession. We don’t follow the entire Book of Concord.

I’m pretty sure I have said so before many times. I am in fact confident that I’ve said so to you, Tomster, many times.

Ah, I see. So, what you are saying is that because of your bishops the only text of Luther that is considered normative is Luther’s Small Catechism and that you do not follow the entire Book of Concord. Got it!

However, contained in your normative Small Catechism it states that “Our Lutheran Church has nine creeds and confessions in which we state what we believe.” “The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church are: (#6) The Formula of Concord”. “These six Confessions and the Ecumenical Creeds from the book of Concord, first published in 1580.”

So, you believe the Small Catechism is normative. However, you do not follow the entire Book of Concord. Your words.

Schism within the schism.

 

[KjetilK]

Through the lens of Luther and the creeds he invented.

So you know more about my own history and my own confession than I do, as an ordained priest with six years of studies?

 

[KjetilK]

However, contained in your normative Small Catechism it states that “Our Lutheran Church has nine creeds and confessions in which we state what we believe.”

And where, exactly, is this printed?

 

[mattp0625]

So you know more about my own history and my own confession than I do, as an ordained priest with six years of studies?

It is not difficult to find this information.

It also appears there is a narrative that ignores King Gustav and Johannes Bugenhagen

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by Tomster
And, “When he quoted a Scripture text, inserting a word that is not in Scripture, he was content to shout back at all hecklers: ‘Tell them that Dr. Martin Luther will have it so!’ That is what we now call Personality. A little later it was called Psychology. After that it was called Advertisement or Salesmanship.” - G.K. Chesterton

Umm, no. Here is a link to Luther’s Open Letter on Translating.

The letter is, essentially, in two parts. The first is a sarcastic response to the criticisms regarding his translation, while at the same time he is convinced it is being stolen by the “Bungler from Dresden”.
Within that first part is a response to this frankly tiresome accusation that Luther claimed authority.

Secondly, you might say that I have conscientiously translated the
New Testament into German to the best of my ability, and that I
have not forced anyone to read it. Rather I have left it open,
only doing the translation as a service to those who could not do
it as well. No one is forbidden to do it better. If someone does
not wish to read it, he can let it lie, for I do not ask anyone to
read it or praise anyone who does! It is my Testament and my
translation - and it shall remain mine. If I have made errors
within it (although I am not aware of any and would most certainly
be unwilling to intentionally mistranslate a single letter)…

This does not sound like someone who is claiming authority.

The second part is the actual explanation for his translation. In small part:

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is
not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German
tongue to add “allein” in order that “nicht” or “kein” may be
clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say "The farmer
brings grain and no (kein) money, but the words “kein money” do
not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer
brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word “allein” helps
the word “kein” so much that it becomes a clear and complete
German expression.

   We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to
   speak German - as these asses do.  Rather we must ask the mother
   in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the
   market about this.  We must be guided by their tongue, the manner
   of their speech, and do our translating accordingly.  Then they
   will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to
   them.

I do not know the context of the Chesterton quote, but the context of the Luther quote, which is absent in its entirety in your post, is easily found in Luther’s letter. Luther is not claiming some special authority in his sarcasm. In fact, he does quite the opposite in his letter.

Jon

 

[Tomster]

Lutheranism is a tradition, not a Church, in the same way that Byzantianism is a tradition, and not a Church. There are, for instance, Byzantines who reject the primacy or supremacy of the pope (for instance the Russian Orthodox Church), and there are Byzantines who affirm the primacy or supremacy of the pope (for instance the Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church). No one would deny that each of these are Byzantine churches.

Lutherans don’t follow Luther any more than Roman Catholics follow, say, Augustine, Aquinas or Rahner. The Formula of Concord was written late, and was rejected by most Lutheran churches in Europe. It is not as if anything written by any theologian within a given tradition automatically becomes a confessional document. If that was the case, you would have to follow everything Hans Küng has to say.

Nonetheless, the Formula of Concord is listed in your normative Small Catechism as a “confession in which we state what we believe”.

My copy of your Small Catechism states the above on page 210 under the title of “Creeds and Confessions”,

 

[GKC]

It is not difficult to find this information.

It also appears there is a narrative that ignores King Gustav and Johannes Bugenhagen

It doesn’t seem to be ignored in those links that Picky has kindly provided, to vex my reading style.

 

[JonNC]

Nonetheless, the Formula of Concord is listed in your normative Small Catechism as a “confession in which we state what we believe”.

My copy of your Small Catechism states the above on page 210 under the title of “Creeds and Confessions”,

That is truly miraculous, since Luther’s Small Catechism was published in 1529, Luther died in 1546, and the Formula of Concord was published in the late 1570’s.

Here is a link to Luther’s Small Catechism

Obviously, there is no mention of the Formula of Concord in it.

Jon

 

[mattp0625]

It doesn’t seem to be ignored in those links that Picky has kindly provided, to vex my reading style.

In some narratives it is ignored.

In other narratives it is explained away.

 

[KjetilK]

Nonetheless, the Formula of Concord is listed in your normative Small Catechism as a “confession in which we state what we believe”.

My copy of your Small Catechism states the above on page 210 under the title of “Creeds and Confessions”,

And who has given out that book? How can the Small Cathechism, written in 1529, contain a list of books where one of them is written in 1577, 48 years after the publication and 31 years after the death of Luther?

 

[Picky_Picky]

In some narratives it is ignored.

In other narratives it is explained away.

The thing is that the intervention of the King, which you and I might find unpleasant, is not particularly relevant to whether valid orders were passed on. If the intervention of a secular ruler using his muscle ended apostolic succession there would be few valid orders left. At least Gustav didn’t kidnap the Pope.

In my limited understanding, what counts in determining validity is whether, at each stage during the succession, a valid bishop consecrates a valid subject using valid matter, valid form, and valid intent. Those last three are the laying on of hands, an appropriate ordinal, and the intention of creating a bishop as the Church creates a bishop.

The laying on of hands is succeptible of some degree of historical discovery. Whether the form and intent were valid is a matter more of theology than of history, so, as I admitted, I have not sought to determine that. But so far as the succession of laying on of hands is concerned I can see no reason to doubt that it occurred, nor have you provided me with any such reason.

Skulduggery about the candidate for consecration being the king’s man rather than the Pope’s might well, I imagine, be grounds for Rome to declare the consecration illicit. But my understanding is that it would have no impact, by itself, on validity.

 

[mattp0625]

The thing is that the intervention of the King, which you and I might find unpleasant, is not particularly relevant to whether valid orders were passed on. If the intervention of a secular ruler using his muscle ended apostolic succession there would be few valid orders left. At least Gustav didn’t kidnap the Pope.

In my limited understanding, what counts in determining validity is whether, at each stage during the succession, a valid bishop consecrates a valid subject using valid matter, valid form, and valid intent. Those last three are the laying on of hands, an appropriate ordinal, and the intention of creating a bishop as the Church creates a bishop.

The laying on of hands is succeptible of some degree of historical discovery. Whether the form and intent were valid is a matter more of theology than of history, so, as I admitted, I have not sought to determine that. But so far as the succession of laying on of hands is concerned I can see no reason to doubt that it occurred, nor have you provided me with any such reason.

Skulduggery about the candidate for consecration being the king’s man rather than the Pope’s might well, I imagine, be grounds for Rome to declare the consecration illicit. But my understanding is that it would have no impact, by itself, on validity.

That’s fine. I disagree. I don’t see how a king’s decree with the threat of harm reflects a legitimate foundation. I wouldn’t want any part of that.

I also would not want Bugenhagen as my “apostle of the north”

 

[steido01]

Umm, no. Here is a link to Luther’s Open Letter on Translating.

The letter is, essentially, in two parts. The first is a sarcastic response to the criticisms regarding his translation, while at the same time he is convinced it is being stolen by the “Bungler from Dresden”.
Within that first part is a response to this frankly tiresome accusation that Luther claimed authority.

This does not sound like someone who is claiming authority.

The second part is the actual explanation for his translation. In small part:

I do not know the context of the Chesterton quote, but the context of the Luther quote, which is absent in its entirety in your post, is easily found in Luther’s letter. Luther is not claiming some special authority in his sarcasm. In fact, he does quite the opposite in his letter.

Jon

Exactly, Jon. Isn’t it fascinating how the Roman Catholic Church at the time was simultaneously bashing Luther’s German translation and plagiarizing it? At least today’s Popes have acknowledged that Luther’s translation here was correct, even if the online laity hasn’t caught up.

 

[GKC]

In some narratives it is ignored.

In other narratives it is explained away.

Or, some, might say, explained.

 

[GKC]

The thing is that the intervention of the King, which you and I might find unpleasant, is not particularly relevant to whether valid orders were passed on. If the intervention of a secular ruler using his muscle ended apostolic succession there would be few valid orders left. At least Gustav didn’t kidnap the Pope.

In my limited understanding, what counts in determining validity is whether, at each stage during the succession, a valid bishop consecrates a valid subject using valid matter, valid form, and valid intent. Those last three are the laying on of hands, an appropriate ordinal, and the intention of creating a bishop as the Church creates a bishop.

The laying on of hands is succeptible of some degree of historical discovery. Whether the form and intent were valid is a matter more of theology than of history, so, as I admitted, I have not sought to determine that. But so far as the succession of laying on of hands is concerned I can see no reason to doubt that it occurred, nor have you provided me with any such reason.

Skulduggery about the candidate for consecration being the king’s man rather than the Pope’s might well, I imagine, be grounds for Rome to declare the consecration illicit. But my understanding is that it would have no impact, by itself, on validity.

I agree.

 

[mattp0625]

Exactly, Jon. Isn’t it fascinating how the Roman Catholic Church at the time was simultaneously bashing Luther’s German translation and plagiarizing it? At least today’s Popes have acknowledged that Luther’s translation here was correct, even if the online laity hasn’t caught up.

The RCC did not, and does not, insert the word “alone” into its interpretation of the book of Romans. Only one person did that.

 

[commenter]

Wonder what Chesterton would say to Benedict XVI, now that “Luther was right… to translate [alone],” according to the pope emeritus. Catholics continue to attack this, yet it is clear from anyone who speaks any bit of German or English, that the word ‘alone’ belongs in that translation.

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119.html

As for this so-called “claim to authority,” isn’t it rather obvious that Luther is simply being facetious toward an adversary who claims to literally hold all power – both spiritual and temporal? Not even Luther believed that he was authoritative - that’s the whole point of this sarcastic comment! One fights corrupted, fiat power through mockery. This is exactly what Luther did here. He threw the Catholic line of the time right back at Rome. ‘Roma locuta est…’

The quote from Chesterton about Luther is found in (Chesterton, G.K., “Luther’s Bonfire” Published in “The Heart of Catholicism: Essential Writings of the Church from St. Paul to John Paul II” compiled and edited by Theodore F. James, Ph.D. Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1997.)
BTW, Pope Benedict was influenced directly by Chesterton in his social teaching, though no one doubts who was the scripture scholar. The context of the Chesterton quote was that GKC was contrasting St. Thomas Aquinas with Luther, who essentially burned St. Thomas’ influence in half of Europe. GKC was of course supporting the move to restore Thomas (just like some people today strive to restore Chesterton, who was cast aside around 1960). I don’t think the quote reflects Chesterton’s view of Luther so much as defending Thomas.

 

[JonNC]

The RCC did not, and does not, insert the word “alone” into its interpretation of the book of Romans. Only one person did that.

First, the “insertion” of the word “allein” in Romans 3:28 is translation, not interpretation (see Luther’s Open Letter on Translating). This is evident in the fact that no English translation of the Bible that I am aware of contains the word " alone" in Romans 3:28. It isn’t necessary in English.

Second, here are just 3 examples of Church Fathers using the phrase faith alone:

“They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed.” -Chrysostom

“Man clings to Christ by faith alone.” Cyril of Alexandria

“Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not a dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love” - Augustine

Does this mean that the Fathers would have sided with Luther in 1525? I don’t know, but I’ll bet they would not have sided with what was being taught in central Europe at the time.

Jon

 

[GKC]

The quote from Chesterton about Luther is found in (Chesterton, G.K., “Luther’s Bonfire” Published in “The Heart of Catholicism: Essential Writings of the Church from St. Paul to John Paul II” compiled and edited by Theodore F. James, Ph.D. Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1997.)
BTW, Pope Benedict was influenced directly by Chesterton in his social teaching, though no one doubts who was the scripture scholar. The context of the Chesterton quote was that GKC was contrasting St. Thomas Aquinas with Luther, who essentially burned St. Thomas’ influence in half of Europe. GKC was of course supporting the move to restore Thomas (just like some people today strive to restore Chesterton, who was cast aside around 1960). I don’t think the quote reflects Chesterton’s view of Luther so much as defending Thomas.

The origins of that quotation were in the 1933 bio of St. Thomas (see above for that, and more), you are basically correct in your conclusion. But the contrast between the monk and the friar was pointed and sharp.

I didn’t cast Chesterton aside in 1960, myself. It was 2 years later that I was first introduced to him. 54 years later, and here we are.