There is a classic scene in “Life of Brian” where they say: “Why do you keep going on about women, Stan?” and Stan (after a moment’s hesitation) says: “I want to be one.”
PE wants to know why, in conversation with Protestants, we keep on going on about “the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church.” He says that this tendancy proves we Catholics make a “God” out of the Church. It all ends up with “sola ecclesia”.
Why DO we keep going on about the Catholic Church? The reason is very simple. Let’s try an analogy.
Imagine a Lutheran in conversation with a Calvinist. The Calvinist and the Lutheran will both agree on many things. They will certainly agree that justification is by faith alone and that the bible is the sole source and norm of all Christian doctrine. They might even agree on infant baptism. But they will part company on a crucial issue–the same crucial issue that Zwingli and Luther parted company on back in 1529, namely: the Lord’s Supper.
As Martin Luther did then, so today. In dispute with a Calvinist (or any other species of Reformed Christian) the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, that is, the insistance that when Christ said “This is my body” he meant that the bread of the Lord’s Supper is his true body born of the Virgin Mary etc., will be the crucial issue. Unless the Reformed/Calvinist can assent to this, they cannot be in communion with the Lutherans.
As Zwingli did then, the Calvinist/Reformed Christian will today say to the Lutheran: Why do you keep going on about the Real Presence? “The Real Presence, the Real Presence, the Real Presence.” Don’t you think that you might not be making a “God” out of the Real Presence? Aren’t you making this “sola the Real Presence”?
To which, in reply, the Lutheran can only shake his head and say “My Calvinist friend doesn’t get it. How can he say that I am “making a god” out of the Real Presence when the Real Presence IS my God in flesh and blood? How can I conceive of a Christianity without the Lord’s Supper? Without the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper there is no church.”
So you see? In the Lutheran view (Catholic too, but that is irrelevant here), the Real Presence is essential to the Christian faith. But the Calvinist/Reformed Christian denies this essential element. Therefore, in the dialogue with one another, this will be the chief issue between Reformed and Lutheran Christians.
The analogy is this: in the dialogue between Catholic and Protestant Christians, the necessity of the Catholic Church per se is the point of contention. We go on and on about “the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church” because it is the point on which we differ. We could go on about “The Holy Trinity, the Holy Trinity, the Holy Trinity”, or “Baptism, baptism, baptism”, or “faith, faith, faith”, or “Christ, Christ, Christ”, but the essential necessity of these for our faith is not in dispute between us.
The essential neccesity of the Church IS. And that is why we keep banging on about it.
Time for me to jump in.
My main reaction to everything that has gone before has been posted in the form of a list of questions in a new post. You might like to continue this discussion here.
A few comments:
Pastor Weedon, I read your post by Dr Hein – and just about screamed with laughter when someone suggested that Dr Ed Schroeder was a good example of someone who upheld the doctrine of justification as the “chief article”. I found it so funny, because from what I hear of the bloke from people who had him for a teacher over here, he was a classic “gospel reductionist”!
PE, how do you cope with the fact that for the vast majority of its history and for the vast majority of its members today, the Evangelical Lutheran Church is A STATE CHURCH??? Right from the very beginning, it would not have had a snowflake’s chance in Hades if Elector Frederick and King Henry and King Gustav and all their ilk hadn’t got behind it with the sword!
And Tony (Bartel): how does one tell if “a” or “b” is right in the first place?
And Pastor William and Father Timothy, I think the Church WAS the issue at the time of the reformation, only it was cloaked in the discussion of AUTHORITY. But you can’t really divorce the question of authority from ecclesiology. Still today, ecclesiology and authority remain the only real ecumenical questions.
And to all Missouri Lutherans reading this blog: How, and by what authority, do you judge your fellow Lutherans in the ELCA not to be “real Lutherans” when it is they, and not you, who are in communion with the majority of Lutherans the world over? (Hey, I just ask this: personally, I would endorse your version of Lutheranism over those guys any day!)
PE, did not Ignatius of Antioch say “Where the bishop is, there let the people gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church”? If the bishop, therefore, was at 70333 L Street, Omaha NE 68127, I assume that that is where the people should gather, just as if Jesus Christ were there, and that the Catholic Church would be there too?Of course, then, the next question is “Which Bishop?”
Christine, The Marian apparitions are indeed “private revelations”, but some (such as Fatima) have Church approval for those who wish to attach themselves to them devotionally. Thus, no doctrine can be based upon them – but devotional practices such as the naming of churches is allowed.
And, by the way, we also deny that the Catholic Church is the “sum total” of the Catholic Church.
Pastor Weedon, I guess that Bible believing Baptists must have some quibble about either the age of the the “teknon” referred to Acts 2:39, or claim that the “promise” refered to is something other than baptism. Who can say? Either way, they interpret this passage differently from you. (I reckon you’re right, but again, who’s to say?)
Anyway, this could go on forever. That’s my ten bob’s worth.
It isn’t a theory, Christine. It’s the reality. Not only can “the catholic Church be found in the Catholic Church”. The Catholic Church is, in fact, the catholic church – which is not to say the other ecclesial communities are not themselves the mystical beneficiaries of God’s grace and love, albeit in a way that lacks the fullness of Catholicity. This is really the purpose – for want of a less utilitarian word – of ‘subsistit in’ (LG of Vatican II). It brings rigour (not flimsiness) to the Catholic Church’s traditional self-identification while also shedding light on how the particular churches and ecclesial communities stand in relation to the credal catholic church (which subsists fully only in the Catholic Church). There are great opportunities for eirenic advancement created by this. Luther certainly wouldn’t have approved but, thankfully, neither he nor his malodorous cathedra were as present in the aula of Vatican II as protestant triumphalists and Catholic catastrophists imagine.
FWIW,
PE’s statement above (which I reproduce below) is I fully agree the really most serious objection against the Catholic Church:
“Problem is, that church began to do and say things in many ways substantially different [THIS is the real issue – are the official teachings now substantially different? if so, then game over, Catholicism is untrue] than what it had taught me to do and say, things expressed in theologians many of whom before it began to do and say as it does now were forbidden to teach such things as Catholic, and if one continues to do and say what one was formerly taught one will be harrassed no end by the very church that taught you to do and say so, and if you are a bishop of that church trying to do that the plug will not be pulled since you are an old man and will die soon, but ordain bishops to continue to do and say what the church taught you instead of what they teach you to do and say now and it excommunicates you [PE alludes of course to Lefebvre; amusingly, these excommunications have just been lifted].
“So when you show up at your neighbourhood Catholic Church you do not find what the Catholic Church taught you [NOT true – try a Latin Mass parish amongst others], and are lucky if you find what the Catholic Church says now [all too true, alas]. All you find for sure is a church with the name Catholic over the door in which you will not find what used to be there. And if such a double talking farce of a lying church is proven to be the authentic church of Jesus, then he was not the Christ, as Christ did not found a lying double talking farce for a church.”
I accept much of this analysis – but I do disagree that the official teachings of the Catholic Church, her dogmas and doctrines, have substantially changed. It is easy to see that in the minds of many if not most of the laity, of clergy and even of bishops, this is true: but I don’t see this in the official teachings – there is none I can detect which directly contradict a previous teaching (the best candidates are well-known, I won’t list them here). I would argue that there has been a de facto apostasy from the Faith (which is still taught and held, but by many derided and denied), but as yet no formal schism.
Not only can “the catholic Church be found in the Catholic Church”. The Catholic Church is, in fact, the catholic church –
Ah yes, a beautiful summation of sola ecclesia. Again, I’m aware of the “official” teaching of the Catholic church. I’ve yet to find many Catholics who understand Luther as well as I understand the Catholic church.
David, I know as well as you do what the “official” position of the Catholic church is on private revelation. Again, the reality plays out differently. It blurs the distinction between the “official” prayer of the church and “devotional” prayer. There are Catholics that really, really do believe that they can’t get to heaven unless Mary clears the path and you and I know that is utterly wrong.
And state churches? Oh, you mean like the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne? Catholics had it long before Lutherans did. And in the new world it plays no part.
And this:
And to all Missouri Lutherans reading this blog: How, and by what authority, do you judge your fellow Lutherans in the ELCA not to be “real Lutherans” when it is they, and not you, who are in communion with the majority of Lutherans the world over? (Hey, I just ask this: personally, I would endorse your version of Lutheranism over those guys any day!)
Very simple, David. They had their own “Vatican II.” Since I have worshipped at both I can clearly and unequivocally state that Missouri clings to the Confessions which uphold the Word of God while the ELCA no longer does. My LCMS parish does not support women’s ordination, abortion, same sex unions and a host of other divergences from historic Christian teaching.
And please, again, don’t try to impress me with numbers. God often works through remnants in order to reinvigorate the whole.
I’ll never forget when Benedict went to visit Brazil. There he was, with a host of people all droning the Rosary with about as much enthusiasm as a frog on a lily pad. Do I sound angry? You bet I am. Holy Mother Church disappointed me big time and I now know I should have headed to Missouri when I left the ELCA. It’s good to be catholic again.
Joshua, please reconcile the teachings of Pius X with those of John Paul II, especially on ecumenism. Can’t do it.
Right from the very beginning, it would not have had a snowflake’s chance in Hades if Elector Frederick and King Henry and King Gustav and all their ilk hadn’t got behind it with the sword!
Speaking again of Charlemagne, ever read about how he converted the Saxons, David?
And to Kiran:
If Lutherans are Catholic,
I didn’t say Lutherans are [C]atholic, I said they are [c]atholic.
It’s s distinction very few [C]atholics understand (but of which I saw plenty growing up with one Lutheran and one Catholic parent).
Re recent posts on this thread:
– do I have an argument to make? If by that you mean that the documents and liturgy which result from Vatican II are utterly false to Catholicism, both the ways in which this is so and the analysis of that are so extensive as to be betrayed by reducing it to a few paragraphs in a combox, for which reason I have repeatedly urged those interested to refer to appropriate treatments, and for starters, offered a few by way of links on an element in the sidebar of my blog.
– have I not said repeatedly that one of the tragedies of the Reformation was the coming to be of state churches under the Lutheran and other banners as miserable as the ones they replaced?
– no, the quesstion is not Which bishop?, it is What is a bishop?
– a Latin Mass parish or a Latin Mass said under the motu is as much a repudiation of Catholicism as the new faith and new order of Vatican II, since, as with the Roman Empire before it, it simply allows local observance of whatever as long as one does not deny the validity of the official religion. If the religion of Vatican II were Catholic, there would be no need for “traditionalism”.
– how interesting that all that appears to have happened is that the Brave New Catholic Church, having created a faith and worship drawn from the modern era to market to it, has created from phenomenology and sociology modern era reasons why, absent the force of state and “Christendom”, it is still, first, last, and always, about the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, the only thing about which it cares or in which it believes, and whose “dialogue” and “ecumenism” is simply the softer exterior of You Will Be Assimilated.
As I was asked – Pius X forbade all ecumenical contacts for the prudential reason that it could encourage indifferentism and other forms of misbelief. JP II encouraged it, thinking it would lead to a diminution of bigotry and eventually to the reunion of all Christians with the Successor of St Peter. Let’s be honest, the diminution of bigotry has happened – but so has the increase in indifferentism! Most of the changes effected post-Vatican II have been of this nature: well-intentioned, not of their essence against the Faith, but all too often leading to bad results.
I think it mischievous to trumpet one’s resumed Lutheranism as catholic (yeah, what a wondrous continuity Lutheranism expresses with the Church of the Fathers and the Doctors, not!), while admitting that while a Catholic one didn’t even adhere to all the Catholic Church’s teachings: I suppose it is better to be an honest Lutheran than a dissenter in the Church.
Joshua,
Lutheranism represents a significant continuity with the fathers. Might I inquire if you’ve read much in them? I ask that not to be snotty, but because you strike me as a most honest fellow, and I can’t understand how one can read them and not see some grounds for Lutheran concerns. I mean, as a Lutheran I have absolutely NO problem with the statement of Pope Gelasius: “Certainly the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ are a divine thing, through which we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to be.” – De duabis nature. In Chr. Adv. Eutych. Et Nestor. Patrology IV, 1:422 I would suspect a modern Roman Catholic, however, might take exception with him?
Similarly, have you pondered these teachings of St. John Chrysostom?
“We need none of those legal observances, he says; faith suffices to obtain for us the Spirit, and by Him righteousness, and many and great benefits.” – Chrysostom, Homilies on Galatians 4
“And he well said, “a righteousness of mine own,” not that which I gained by labor and toil, but that which I found from grace. If then he who was so excellent is saved by grace, much more are you. For since it was likely they would say that the righteousness which comes from toil is the greater, he shows that it is dung in comparison with the other. For otherwise I, who was so excellent in it, would not have cast it away, and run to the other. But what is that other? That which is from the faith of God, i.e. it too is given by God. This is the righteousness of God; this is altogether a gift. And the gifts of God far exceed those worthless good deeds, which are due to our own diligence.” Chrysostom, Homily on Philippians 3
Suppose someone should be caught in the act of adultery and the foulest crimes and then be thrown into prison. Suppose, next, that judgment was going to be passed against him and that he would be condemned.
Suppose that just at that moment a letter should come from the Emperor setting free from any accounting or examination all those detained in prison. If the prisoner should refuse to take advantage of the pardon, remain obstinate and choose to be brought to trial, to give an account, and to undergo
punishment, he will not be able thereafter to avail himself of the Emperor’s favor. For when he made himself accountable to the court, examination, and sentence, he chose of his own accord to deprive himself of the imperial gift.
This is what happened in the case of the Jews. Look how it is. All human nature was taken in the foulest evils. “All have sinned,” says Paul. They were locked, as it were, in a prison by the curse of their transgression of the Law. The sentence of the judge was going to be passed against them. A letter from the King came down from heaven. Rather, the King himself came. Without examination, without exacting an account, he set all men free from the chains of their sins.
All, then, who run to Christ are saved by his grace and profit from his gift. But those who wish to find justification from the Law will also fall from grace. They will not be able to enjoy the King’s loving-kindness because they are striving to gain salvation by their own efforts; they will draw down on themselves the curse of the Law because by the works of the Law no flesh will find justification.
What does this mean? That he has justified our race not by right actions, not by toils, not by barter and exchange, but by grace alone. Paul, too, made this clear when he said: “But now the justice of God has been made manifest apart from the Law.” But the justice of God comes through faith in Jesus Christ and not through any labor and suffering. Chrysostom on Justification, Discourses Against Judaizing Christians. Discourse I:6-II:1
“God does not wait for time to elapse after repentance. You state your sin, you are justified. You repented, you have been shown mercy.” – St. John Chrysostom, Homily 7 On Repentance and Compunction, p. 95 in FOTC, vol. 96.
“But what is the ‘law of faith?’ It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 3
Or these:
“Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.” Homily 7 on Romans – St. John Chrysostom
“For you believe the faith; why then do you add other things, as if faith were not sufficient to justify? You make yourselves captive, and you subject yourself to the law.” – St. John Chrysostom (Epistle to Titus, Homily 3, PG 62.651)
No, Joshua. When Pius X was still around the official teaching was STILL that outside the Catholic church there is no salvation. Do you think for one minute he would have invited non-Christians to participate at a “prayer meeting” at Assisi?
And yes, Lutherans are very much in continuity with the Fathers while recognizing that the Fathers were not always of one mind on various issues and sometimes erred.
As far as my “dissent” as a Catholic goes, my private thoughts were my own, exactly that. In the meantime for ten years I went faithfully to Mass on Sundays and weekdays, supported the church financially and kept telling myself that at some point the Catholic church I thought I had joined would emerge.
Unfortunately it didn’t and I realized that the catholicy I sought had been mine as a Lutheran all along.
Again, ask yourself why the priesthood and religious orders emptied so rapidly after Vatican II.
Oh, one other very important point that I forgot to mention — when I left the ECLA in the mid-nineties it seemed very logical for me to head to Rome because liturgically the ELCA had experienced its own “Vatican II” and except for some parts of the canon the liturgies were very similiar. I hadn’t worshipped in the Missouri Synod for a long, long time and had forgotten how historically catholic LCMS worship was.
If I had thought to investigate further when I left the ELCA I never would have gone to Rome to begin with. The Joint Declaration, a total fiasco, should have been my earliest warning.
As one lady gushed at my old Catholic parish, “Oh, I go to communion at my Lutheran (ELCA) friend’s church because there’s almost no difference!”
There ya have it, the fruits of aggiornamento.
http://ccrg.info/cas.htm
Please help us by acquiring this Catholic Traditionalist CD and by making a donation
to one of the few left of the remnant Church Militant; designed to expose the masonic evils of our world and implement philosophies, technologies, and economies
designed to preserve and protect present and future generations.
All challenges or assistance welcomed and encouraged.
Introducing the new Traditionalist Catholic National Anthem: Guns & Jesus.
http://ccrg.info/cas.htm
strewth Adamgv I have a cousin a strong Pentecostal living in tasmania who goes around preaching about the evils of masonry-( is that an apron for the Rite or are you just cooking dinner Worshipful master!!) He also tries to flog weight loss treatments, seems a bit of a Snake Oil salesman to me.
Christine, lutherans are not, in my opinion, catholic, or Catholic, the two last of those being equivalent terms. If lutherans are catholic, then the Catholic Church ain’t.
And whatever an individual Pope might do, or an individual Bishop, the official teaching is the official teaching. Assisi was silly. I have hardly met an orthodox Catholic who doesn’t think that, but if you were to abandon a communion because in a moment of bad judgement, one particular Bishop (however significant he may be) made a bad choice, then you will be left nowehere to go but toward an increasingly smaller remnant, which (whatever else it is) isn’t the Catholic (or catholic) Church. The Church has never been wary of saying that Popes can and have made mistakes, not just moral mistakes, but mistakes which can give scandal and promote false teaching: Peter appeared to Judaise, and Liberius to Arianise, and so on. Nothing protects, as far as I can see, the Pope from heresy, only from publicly professing the said heresy. But this doesn’t detract from the fact that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he speaks infallibly, nor from the fact that “ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia” is a good rule to finding which of the several bodies that claim to be the Church catholic actually is so. To believe anything else seems to drive me towards myself as judge, and I know that left to myself, Iam a bad judge. Conscience takes me (or ought to) outward. I cannot be a lone Christian.
emillac: a type of car fuelled by emetics.
I should add that I fully expect that lutherans in consistency should think that Catholics aren’t catholic, noting also that the High Anglican Newman, as well as Hurrell Froude and others, quite strongly opposed the Catholic Church.
unfulact: Do things by halves.
Davd,
“. . . I think the Church WAS the issue at the time of the reformation, only it was cloaked in the discussion of AUTHORITY. But you can’t really divorce the question of authority from ecclesiology. Still today, ecclesiology and authority remain the only real ecumenical questions.”
Thank you for your response. I agree that ecclesiology is united with the question of authority (and cannot be divorced), and what better place to find the two together than in Christology (“all authority in heaven and on earth” has been given to Him.) So it is in no way insignificant as to what it means when Jesus gives the keys to Peter or that the blessed Virgin Mary gives birth to Jesus. But back to the reformation and the Church. I think you are right that ultimately the Church was the issue. Even though Lutherans do not officially recognize it as the issue it could certainly be defended. And what other issue is debated most among Lutherans today? I would probably need to defend my agreement with you on this before my fellow Lutherans but this would mean writing a book or two and it or they would likely not see publication.
The only reason ecclesiology is an issue is because at the time of the Reformation, the only ecclesia around to have an ology was seen to have departed from the catholic faith. And the Catholic Church’s continued departure from the catholic faith remains the only reason for ecclesiology to be an issue now.
If the Catholic Church were to proclaim the catholic faith of the catholic church it says it is, I would be the first to join up.
Instead, the Catholic Church continues to maintain that since it is the true church whatever it teaches is the true faith, then proves it is the true church from its own faith. The Catholic Church is the true church because the true church, the Catholic Church, says so, so whatever else it says is the true faith.
Sola ecclesia.
patershi: sushi for dads.
PE, what is this faith you speak of?
triffsfe: Trifles described in German by someone who doesn’t know the language.
OMG, it must be the one I wouldn’t know what the hell it is except for the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church!
Sorry, PW, I’ve been rather busy…
I have only a B.Theol, and hope to finish my M.Theol. sometime, but I’m no expert in patristics: you obviously read the Fathers more than I. Sometime I hope to study them under Dr Adam Cooper, late a pastor of the Lutheran Church of Australia, who I notice is the latest convert clergyman from that denomination to join the Catholic Church.
Of course among the Fathers all manner of views can be ferreted out; one wouldn’t want to believe too much of Origen for example! But surely it is evident that the views held concerning the Holy Eucharist have gradually crystallized; St Irenæus can be read as teaching impanation in Adv.Hær. 5,2,2 for instance. The process of development whereby transsubstantiation came to be acknowledged as the truth about the Sacrament of the Altar was long.
Amusingly enough, yesterday’s Matins lessons were from St Augustine, energetically pointing out that faith without good works is dead, as the Apostle teaches, and that those who claim to be saved by faith alone shall burn in that fire which hath no end!
S. Augustinus Episcopus, Liber de fide et operibus, cap. 15 tom. 4, circa medium:
“If it be possible to enter into life without keeping the commandments, that is, by faith alone (albeit faith without works is dead), how can those words be true which the Lord will speak on the last day? For at that time he will say unto them which he hath placed on his left hand: Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. Not because they have not believed on him, doth he thus rebuke them, but because they have not done good works. In sooth, lest a man should promise himself eternal life by reason of that dead faith which is without works, the Lord hath declared that he will separate all nations one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats, even though aforetime the same had mingled together, and fed in the same pastures. That these same had believed on him, is evident from their saying, to wit: Lord, when saw we thee suffering such and such things, and did not minister unto thee? Thus will they speak, as if they had hoped by their dead faith to attain unto life eternal.
“What then? If these who have omitted to do works of mercy be destined to go into everlasting fire, will not those also have a like destiny who have taken away other men’s goods? or who have been unmerciful toward themselves in that they have destroyed the temple of God within themselves? For all such do think that works of mercy are profitable without love, whereas the Apostle saith: Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Can any man who loveth not himself love his neighbour as himself? For whoso loveth iniquity hateth his own soul.
“Neither in this connection can there be allowed that interpretation whereby some others deceive themselves, to wit, that the fire, but not the punishment, is everlasting. These folk be of the opinion that the souls of them whose faith is dead will indeed pass through the everlasting fire, but that by virtue of this dead faith these same are recipients of the promised that they shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Forsooth, the fire itself is everlasting, but the burning therein of these same, that is, the operation of the fire upon them, is not everlasting. As though the Lord would give answer to this beforehand, he endeth his words, saying: And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal. For which reason, like as the fire is everlasting, so also shall the burning be. Yea, the Truth himself hath said who they be that shall burn therein, to wit, those whom he findeth lacking, not in faith, but in the sacrifice of good works.”
What continuity is there between St John Chrysostom, who celebrated the dread Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, offering up that Holy Mystery in the Sacred Liturgy that came to bear his name, who prayed to the saints, who heard confessions, who as a bishop ruled and ordained priests and deacons – and those who are not in the apostolic succession, having no true threefold ministry, who pray not to the saints, who persist in regarding the Lord’s Supper as but a bare commemoration?
If Chrysostom materialized to-day, he’d commune with the Greeks, till he noted that the majority were in schism from Rome, and thereupon hie himself to the Greek Catholics; he’d not follow Cyril Lucaris in making peace by compromise with Lutherans.
Josh,
Do you think a Lutheran would disagree with Augustine’s clear teaching that a faith that is alone (with no good works) saves no one? Certainly not! A faith that exists without good works IS a dead faith.
It’s very problematic to tell what an historical figure would do if they were confronted with the Church situation as it is today; it just become a fantasy game. What we know for certain about a father is what he wrote down; and I think that’s where we should begin at understanding him (rather than reading into him our assumptions about his belief and practice).
I know that you do not regard Lutheran orders as valid (an argument I understand, but do not grant), but why on earth would you say that we “persist in regarding the Lord’s Supper as but a bare commemoration”? I’m not sure how you can say that. We confess that in the Eucharist that which was offered upon Calvary, the very Body and Blood of the Savior, is made present to be our forgiveness, life, and salvation. This is bare commemoration?
Kiran,
I fully expect that you do not accept the catholicity of the Lutheran Church but with all due respect we’ll just have to agree to disagree here. Catholic and catholic are NOT equivalent.
As far as Assisi goes, that in and of itself, even the bad judgments of Bishops, were far from being the main reason for my departure. I am simply tired of seeing that what the Catholic “officially teaches” and what I encountered at the parish level didn’t always mesh and I DO see a break in continuity with what went before.
It was John Paul II himself who lamented that the Catholic church still has too many baptized pagans in her midst who need to be evangelized. Do Protestants have problems? Of course. Mainstream Protestant churches are always skirting on the edge of rationalism, as is evident in the Calvinist Netherlands, and Catholicism always runs the danger of syncretism.
Lutherans are a worldwide communion, as are the Eastern Orthodox. Catholics hardly have the lock on that. I in no way see myself as returning to a “remnant” but to the historic catholic faith unencumbered by the errors that entered in over the centuries.
Here’s the problem in a nutshell:
by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define
And so was birthed the dogma of the Assumption. I don’t accept the teaching that any pope was granted the privilege of infallibility and neither do the churches of the East; it flies against the truth of the Word of God, through which the Holy Spirit works and the early centuries of Christianity.
Nor do I accept that the Lord Christ, who at His ascension said all power in heaven and on earth had been given to Him, needs to keep sending His mother, blessed as she is, to keep coming back to run interference for Him. He is still very much with us in Word and Sacrament. As Mary said, “Do whatever HE tells you.”
I once again take my stand on the Lutheran Confessions and the Word of God.
Lutherans. Reformed. Roman Catholics. Orthodox. Evangelicals. Pentecostals.
Is there a single one that is not broken and suffering? I can tell you why I’m a Lutheran and why I intend to persist as one; but that is not to excuse the mess my own jurisdiction is in.
Folks, I think we’re on the cusp of the great apostasy and the weakness and at times blasphemy we see taking place within any of our jurisdictions should wake us up. The time for vigilance and prayer is upon us now more than ever. Sorry to sound apocalyptic, but I think O’Brien’s *Father Elijah* is closer to us than we’d like to admit.
Pastor Weedon has inspired me — perhaps I can put my meagre cyberskills to-gether enough to create a new game, “Dream Team Church”, fantasy football applied to ecclesiology. I’ll test market it with my kids!
Seriously, that’s what a lot of this is — assembling a dream team of what would be to-day on the performance of players of the past.
Good God, when I was a Catholic we were never, ever, taught that Lutherans don’t believe in the Eucharist, the Real Presence etc like Protestants. We were taught the tragedy is they believe in it but don’t, and can’t, have it due to their rupture from the Church where it is found. Same for the Anglican Communion btw.
As to Faith Alone. It does not mean faith alone. In fact, “faith alone” does not even translate the original phrase sola fide.
To expand on what Pastor has pointed out: faith alone does not mean only faith. It does not mean that having faith, one need not concern oneself with works, church, or anything else but only faith.
Sola fide is a construction in Latin called an ablative of means: it is a way of declinging a noun to indicate the means by which an agent accomplishes an action. Sola fide means “by faith alone”.
I am convinced that a good deal of our problems re sola fide is the persistent mistranslation of this term into something which appears to say “only faith”, rather than identify the means by which something is done.
Works are essential. So is the church. We do not differ with Catholics on that. We differ in how that is.
In the classic statement, and I know no better one: we do good works not to be saved, but because we are saved.
Lutherans. Reformed. Roman Catholics. Orthodox. Evangelicals. Pentecostals.
And there we have it. The Church catholic.
“I know my own, my own know me,” said the Lord. On that last day it will be manifest to all.
LOL, not that silly Branch Theory!
The Assumption – which all but a small minority of all Christians believe in and have believed in.
Josh,
Not a branch theory. That presupposes the legitimacy of each of the major confessions and is a typically Anglican way of looking at Church history. Lutherans teach instead that the Spirit at work through the truth of the Gospel preached and sacramentally lived keeps people connected in saving faith to the Lamb of God in a variety of jurisdictions. He does this despite errors that have established themselves in those jurisdictions, which nevertheless do not overthrow the foundation:
“There are also many weak persons, who build upon the foundation stubble that will perish, holding certain harmful opinions. Nevertheless, because the weak do not overthrow the foundation, they are both forgiven and corrected.”
To us, Rome and the Orthodox and many of our Protestant brothers and sisters do not overthrow the foundation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, so they are certainly our beloved brothers and sisters in Christ through our common Baptism. Through their saving faith in the Redeemer they hold to the same Savior of sinners, yet they hold opinions and practices which we hold are dangerous in that they becloud this foundation that is Christ alone.
Krauth once said so beautifully: “It is enough for her [the Lutheran Church] to know that she is a genuine part of it [the catholic church], and she can rejoice and does rejoice, that the Savior she loves has his own true followers in every part of Christendom. ‘The Catholic Church consists of men scattered throughout the world, from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof.’ She unchurches none of other names, even though they may be unsound. It is not her business to do this. They have their own Master before whom they stand or fall. She protests against error; she removes it by spiritual means from her own midst; but she judges not those who are without. God is her judge and theirs, and to Him she commits herself and them.” Conservative Reformation, p. 142
I hope this clarifies the difference for us between the branch theory and what we actually hold to. They are really two different things; and our teaching on it came along long before the Anglicans pushed the branch theory into prominence.
The Assumption – which all but a small minority of all Christians believe in and have believed in.
Pious opinion raised to the level of dogma. No Scriptural or apostolic warrant whatsoever.
I love this part:
According to one tradition, Mary was warned of her approaching end by Saint Michael the Archangel, who conducts souls to Heaven, and was surrounded on her death-bed by the apostles, who were miraculously transported to her bedside from their various mission-fields. It was said that Jesus appeared, bore away her soul, and returned three days after her burial, when angels carried her body to Paradise where it was reunited with her soul under the Tree of Life.M
Just like the “Holy House of Loreto” which was flown by angels to Italy. Well, at least that was never raised to the level of dogma.
Christine, good. I enjoy disagreements. :-) I was just concerned that I not be read as being uncharitable, only (as best I can be) truthful.
The Assumption as a feast is quite old, and predates the definition of it by a long time. If you read the documents which define the dogmas, you will find Scriptural and traditional warrant aplenty.
In the second instance, I think the problem with sola, even as you define it is the basic point about humanity, which Lutherans should be (I would think) in a peculiarly good place to appreciate if they are indeed Augustinians: its capacity when turned in upon itself to decieve itself. It is the society of the faithful that is the curative to this tendency. This being the case, salvation is by belonging to the Body of Christ – the Church, which is why ecclesiology is always the basic question. This is why we can’t agree to disagree. As far as I can see, PE and yourself are insisting on something which doesn’t exist and isn’t clear.
Pastor Weedon (and I am not saying this contemptuously) doesn’t make it clear how one is supposed to tell truth from falsehood, the faith from approximations or outright falsehoods. Extra Ecclesia nulla salus has always been the case, but surely it has a significance: It is not a tautology. Therefore, there must be a visible Church. Without Her, there is not only no salvation, but no consistent faith, no scriptures, only limited human reason.
My set of questions remain therefore: Without the Church, how can we know the letter to the Hebrews are in the Scriptures and the Protogospel of James not in there, when to take Tertullian and Origen seriously, what Augustine means by perseverance and how to reconcile it with Catholic teaching, how to go about interpreting the first few chapters of Genesis?
worso: not so bad it couldn’t be better.
mocent: lucent mauve, or mauvely lucent.
Kiran,
Lutherans freely and joyfully admit that we receive the Holy Scriptures from the Church through Tradition. Dr. Chemnitz expounds this in detail in his monumental Examination of the Council of Trent; but the same Church that hands us the Scriptures also teaches us that by them we are to recognize truth and error. See the citations above from the Fathers on Sacred Scripture.
“Lutherans. Reformed. Roman Catholics. Orthodox. Evangelicals. Pentecostals.
And there we have it. The Church catholic.”
Who ever heard of, spoke of, acknowledged the existence of such a fictitious non-ens as “the church catholic” throughout the first 1500 years of Chrisianity? But say instead,
“Novatianists. Donatists. Meletians. Catholics. Arians. Macedonians. Montanists.
And there we have it. The Church catholic.”
If the first is true in 2009, the second must have been equally true in 409. But what Father ever dreamed of such a thing — and what Father who addressed himself to ecclesiological issues does not, implicitly or explicitly, reject the idea of any such invisible Church catholic? One need but glance at Cyprian on the Novatianists, Optatus and Augustine on the Donatists, Athanasius on both the Arians and the Meletians, Cyril of Jerusalem on thwe word “Catholic” and Epiphanius on sects and schisms, to see that the thought of a “Church catholic” never once entered their heads. (I did note with interest, though, that the Lutheran Werner Elert, in an aside in his *Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries* does say that as a Lutheran he has to regard the Novatianists and Donatists as being as much a part of “the Catholic Church” as “the Catholics.”)
I have many friends who have becomne Orthodox out of the sense that the Catholic Church cannot credibly claim to be what it had alwats claimed to be, and so found holy Orthodoxy’s cliaim to be more compelling and plausible. Indeed, some 25 or 30 years I was rather strongly inclining in that direction myself, although in the end I came to conclude that if the Catholic claim was mistaken, that of the Orientals (the Copts, Armenians etc.) seemed more compelling than that of the Chalcedonians. But never in my wildest imaginations would I have embraced a johnny-come-lately ecclesiology and consoled myself with the notion that I was a member of a “Church catholic” of which the Fathers make no mention and the early Christians were wholly unaware.
I might also mention here the useful book *Schism in the Early Church* by S. L. Greenslade (1953):
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=greenslade&sts=t&tn=schism&x=48&y=14
of which cheap copies are readily availalbe.
Greenslade, a liberal-ish English Anglican Evangelical church historian who became Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, openly admits, and fully documents, in his little book the futility of seeking any recognition of an invisible "Church catholic" among the Fathers generally, or for that matter anywhere among Christians before the Reformation. Rather, he acknowledges that (apart from the Gnostics) orthodox and "classical heretics" all alike confessed that the "Catholic Church" was one visible and indivisible body, and each asserted that his own church was, alone, that same Catholic Church. But (as one might expect) Greenslade concludes that the Fathers were mistaken in their ecclesiology, and that all "Christian denominations" must be regarded as "parts" of "the Church catholic."
Dear Dr. Tighe,
I find it interesting that St. Cyril’s catechesis on the Church Catholic of the Creed (he was there in 381, no?) says nothing that could not apply to the Lutheran Church:
“It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.” (Catechetical Lectures 18:23)
Pax!
P.S. Your analogy fails particularly in that Lutherans specifically REJECT as contrary to the Catholic faith: Novatianists. Donatists. Arians. The others too, but not as explicitly:
Against, Novatian: “The Novatians are also condemned, who would not absolve those who had fallen after Baptism, though they returned to repentance.”
Against Donatism: “Our churches condemn the Donatists and others like them, who deny that it is lawful to use the ministry of evil men in the Church, and who think that the ministry of evil men is not useful and is ineffective.”
Against Arians: “They also condemn the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Muslims and all heresies such as these.”
We claim to be of a piece with the Christians that have specifically rejected these heresies.
I agree, Pastor Weedon, with your last, just as I do not doubt that orthodox Lutherans would reprobate the errors of the Reformed … Evangelicals … Pentecostalists. Nevertheless, Christine’s seeming lumping together of thse various groups into a “The Church catholic” seems to justify my parody of her list, insofar as it is not obvious that the errors of the Novatianists were more grievous than those of the Reformed, or those of the Donatists than those of the Pentecostalists. I would not hold all Lutherans to her peculiar formulation, in which the conclusion seems to precede the arguments designed to uphold it.
Cockadoodledoo.
A conclusion seems to precede the arguments designed to uphold it.
Better known as begging the question in mi barrio. Lesser known as petitio principii, Latin for the Greek in which Aristotle defined the error in Prior Analytics (II:xvi). Universal in constructing the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, which is the true church, because the true church, the Catholic Church, says so.
emody: cyberhymnody
Bless us and save us, Mrs O’Davis.
William Tighe has said what I’ve mused on: that if one’s doubts about the Church since the post-Conciliar disaster really did persuade one that Rome had failed, one would have to go East, where after all nothing has changed… there’s absolutely no chance I’d ever have (or would even now) consider Lutheranism or any such Protestant group. I still don’t get why PE didn’t go East.
And I really think that Christine ought speak more respectfully of the Most Holy Mother of God. It is so very offensive to pious ears to have a heretic proudly railing against the Blessed Virgin.
Might I suggest, Joshua, that the Holy Mother might find it more offensive to hear your designation of Christine as “heretic”? What did Christine say that in any way attacked the Holy Virgin? You know Christine by now! She wouldn’t speak impiously against her.
If I might, I’d refer you to this rather fine article by one of your priests that I think is really outstanding:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=617
Joshua, where did I speak impiously of the Blessed Virgin? Along with Luther and the early Church I honor her as the Mother of God and always will. But Jesus clearly placed ties on the basis of the Kingdom of God ahead of biolgical ones. I think the Blessed Virgin would shrink in dismay at the overexaggerated role she’s been given in some quarters.
What I posted on was the DOGMA of the Assumption for which there is no proof but pious speculation. “God willed it, it was reasonable, so God did it.” Basta. That’s how we got the dogma of the Assumption.
But if you want to label me a heretic, have at it. I’ve in some glorious company!
The fact that nothing has “changed” in Orthodoxy doesn’t change that it is the remnant of Empire in the East just as Rome is the remnant of Empire in the West.
I thought about it indeed, Joshua — going East. And if my thinking had gone no further than the rupture with Catholicism that was Vatican II, that is where I would have gone. And had I stayed there, I would now be with what some call Western Orthodoxy, such as that to which Pastor Fenton went. IOW, Orthodoxy, period, not Eastern Orthodoxy only, as the “true church” now at the point in its history taking on a Western face with the collapse of Roman Catholicism and the rise of Orthodox churches with a Western liturgy.
Nevertheless, Christine’s seeming lumping together of thse various groups into a “The Church catholic” seems to justify my parody of her list, insofar as it is not obvious that the errors of the Novatianists were more grievous than those of the Reformed, or those of the Donatists than those of the Pentecostalists. I would not hold all Lutherans to her peculiar formulation, in which the conclusion seems to precede the arguments designed to uphold it.
You are taking my “peculiar” comments out of context. Just as there will be Catholics who don’t make it past the pearly gates simply because of the label, so there will be Christians in many traditions who WILL be there because they are connected to Christ and are part of the Church catholic.
You and I don’t get to make that judgment, by the way.
What I find even more interesting is the idea of an “orthodox” Catholic employed by an ELCA-affiliated institution.
Sorry to be grumpy.
Of course, technically, to deny the dogma of the Assumption is to fall under the anathema…
I do find slighting remarks about Our Lady upsetting, but may have perceived them to be such when they were not.
Apologies for bad manners.
Aw, Joshua, I still think you’re a pretty cool dude (-:
No offense taken!
Christine
You might look at the “Gregorian Rite” of the Western Orthodox churches by comparison to the novus ordo of the post-conciliar “Catholic” church for a different window into the same thing I have been saying re the novus ordo as vacating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
And even the beautiful Sarum Rite. The novus ordo pales in comparison.
Christine
And don’t leave out our Common Service!
David, Christine and I have decided that you should thank us talkative Lutheran types for sending your responses up so high!!!
Seriously, may the joy of Lenten repentance be yours on this ember day. “Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me!”