tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post7193164857184759344..comments2024-03-24T05:54:23.612-05:00Comments on Weedon's Blog: A friend sent me theseWilliam Weedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-70376631586371427172012-10-22T16:12:19.819-05:002012-10-22T16:12:19.819-05:00Is the LCMS a particular church in this sense?
Y...Is the LCMS a particular church in this sense? <br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />On the reliquae, yes is is a most serious matter and one that requires a better resolution than heretofore has been offered! Luther, of course, was no friend of any form of reservation. His solution (which strikes me as quite in line with the Verba) is consumption of all reliquae.<br /><br />Yes, Synod is a particular Church. William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-58117165620860356442012-10-22T12:04:24.134-05:002012-10-22T12:04:24.134-05:001. Particular churches is a term I learned from Ge...1. Particular churches is a term I learned from Gerhard, though it arose long before the Reformation. They are churches that share the same confession, but not necessarily the same organizational structure. Thus LCC and LCMS are both Lutheran particular churches. We freely intercommune, though we are different in administration (mostly due to locale). Same with say, the Antiochian vs. the Greeks. Same confession, different administrations.<br /><br />In this sense, is the LCMS a "particular church"?<br /><br />2a. We have to confess that in Lutheranism, historically considered, the matter of the reliquae is rather undecided. Those who toss the cups specifically do NOT believe that they are tossing the blood of Christ. That should not be overlooked. Even a Sasse could state that we can't say what it is after the celebration, for Christ hasn't told us (!). <br /><br />This is a *serious* problem. The entire church of the first millennium, without exception, did not view this as an undecided matter. Luther himself did not view this as an undecided matter, as can be seen in the anecdote about his spilling the chalice late in his life, and how he reacted. If the entire church says "decided," and contemporary Lutheranism says "not decided," what does this mean?<br /><br />2b. As long as there are particular churches willing to confess and be corrected by the Symbols, the Church that speaks in those Symbols exists.<br /><br />Again--"particular" churches means something bigger than the local parish--e.g. Synods, Districts etc.? or not?<br /><br /><br />Fr GregoryFr. Gregory Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01829108455227450650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-59578787376154162132012-10-20T20:44:19.517-05:002012-10-20T20:44:19.517-05:001. Particular churches is a term I learned from Ge...1. Particular churches is a term I learned from Gerhard, though it arose long before the Reformation. They are churches that share the same confession, but not necessarily the same organizational structure. Thus LCC and LCMS are both Lutheran particular churches. We freely intercommune, though we are different in administration (mostly due to locale). Same with say, the Antiochian vs. the Greeks. Same confession, different administrations.<br /><br />2a. We have to confess that in Lutheranism, historically considered, the matter of the reliquae is rather undecided. Those who toss the cups specifically do NOT believe that they are tossing the blood of Christ. That should not be overlooked. Even a Sasse could state that we can't say what it is after the celebration, for Christ hasn't told us (!). <br /><br />2b. As long as there are particular churches willing to confess and be corrected by the Symbols, the Church that speaks in those Symbols exists.<br /><br />3. No doubt the sad divisions between Lutherans awaits the day when reunion might be granted through the gracious working of God. Odd you mention Jay. He it was who first taught me about the glorious time when "Lutheran" was just "Lutheran" and those who held the Lutheran confession freely communed as they travelled from Leipzig to Rekjavik, from Brataslava to London. May the Lord grant it again!<br /><br />Miss you much, dear friend. God's peace!<br /><br /><br />William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-90598512523665233442012-10-20T20:30:37.759-05:002012-10-20T20:30:37.759-05:00Wow! Quick response...thank you.
1. Not to be a p...Wow! Quick response...thank you.<br /><br />1. Not to be a pain in the ***, but when you say "particular churches" do you mean congregations alone, or anything else beyond them? Recall our frequent discussion of "trans-parish entities" of years ago...<br /><br />2. Thanks for the specifics, though I might have expected you to say that those who toss what you confess to be the blood of Christ into the trash are not holding the confession of the Lutheran Church unaltered. Unless receptionism falls under the "unaltered" category (which has its own implications, of course)...<br /><br />Actually my point has *never* been that Lutherans don't live out their confessions well. For that would turn the metaphysical, descriptive statements of the Confessions into moral, prescriptive ones. One of my chief points before becoming Orthodox was precisely that when formerly descriptive statements have become prescriptive, it's a sign that the game is over. My contention was always that the (trans-parish) body those statements described, no longer exists. <br /><br />3. I found it increasingly hard to say I was in pulpit and altar fellowship with the fella who got a layman to do absolution in the liturgy, but not in p&a fellowship with some in other bodies--the DJ Webber types, if you know what I mean.<br /><br />Anyway, thanks for your kind and prompt responses. Somehow it seems so long ago that you and I met in a Ft. Wayne seminary dorm and talked theology...<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />Fr. Gregory<br /><br /><br /><br />Fr. Gregory Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01829108455227450650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-3010768967169368302012-10-20T17:24:53.521-05:002012-10-20T17:24:53.521-05:001. Both individual Christians and particular chur...1. Both individual Christians and particular churches.<br />2. An unaltered holding of the Confession is well described in the article you will recall by Walther; though I have come to wonder if Krauth actually does it better. He says that we do not interpret the Confessions by the Scriptures or the Scriptures by the Confessions, but both by the ordinary rules of language and a Lutheran is one who happens to find they say the same thing! Though there is no way around some recognition that it is their doctrinal content to which one is pledging one's self. One is not pledging one's self, for instance, to observing the Latin Mass with German songs thrown in here an there. :) <br /><br />As for the specific instances you bring forward: A. correct; B. the manner of the distribution of our Lord's blood has varied across history and the Confessions don't address much in that regard except this: that the laity are not to be denied the blood of the Lord. Are individual cups and above all plastic throw-aways in accord with the doctrine of the Symbols? I'd say beyond all doubt that they are in extreme tension with what we confess and challenge wide-spread practice. This is not to say that there is some law about the chalice nor that those who commune from the plastic individual cups don't receive our Lord's blood; it is rather because they DO that "what accords with what we confess" pushes one away from the disposables and any irreverent treatment of the reliquae. C. To quote Piepkorn: "freedom exercised responsibly is itself a catholic virtue." In the Symbols we have both the insistence on freedom of the Church in each place and time to shape the liturgical heritage in ways that best serve the Gospel in those particular instances AND we have the insistence that we do not dump the vast heritage we have received from the pass: "We keep the Mass." <br /><br />The short is: your point is that Lutherans are not doing a very good job of actually living out the life described in their Confessions. My response: DUH! Of course, my usual response is that we perhaps ought to actually TRY Lutheranism before deciding that it doesn't or can't work. :)<br /><br />3. In the last analysis we determine who holds the Confession not only by matching the doctrine taught in pulpit and at the altar with the Symbols, but most specifically by a willingness to submit to the correction of the Symbols. As we have weak Christians who are still very much Christians; so we have weak Lutherans who are still very much Lutherans. They submit to the norm of the Symbols for correction though they freely admit that their practice has a long way to go. They still know WHERE they are headed because they hold that the Symbols are a correct exposition of the Christian faith. <br /><br />What my quia article from years back showed was the extent to which Lutherans of the present are often way, way too ignorant of the doctrinal content of their own Symbols. The LCMS, the LCC, the Lutheran Church of South Africa, the Archbishop of Kenya and his clergy and parishes, etc. All these are folks who hold that the Symbols are the normed norm. As such they are willing to submit to correction on the basis of them. William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-12049197170350817962012-10-20T07:48:58.998-05:002012-10-20T07:48:58.998-05:00Sorry it's taken so long to respond. Press of ...Sorry it's taken so long to respond. Press of the semester and all that...<br /><br />In your last reply, you wrote that the Lutheran Church is, most properly, "those who hold the Confession of the Lutheran Church unaltered." <br /><br />A few questions to aid my poor understanding:<br /><br />1. By "those," here, do you mean individual persons, or church bodies? <br /><br />2. What constitutes an "unaltered" holding of the Confession?<br /> a) Those who practice the ordination of women and homosexuals, I take it you would say, are *not* holding the Confession unaltered.<br /> b) What about those who use plastic disposable cups and toss the reliquae? Those who use grape juice in Communion?<br /> c) What about forms of worship which do not derive from the catholic tradition of the Church?<br /><br />3. How do you determine, in the last analysis, those who hold that unaltered confession?<br /><br />4. Is there any presently-existing Lutheran body which does hold that confession unaltered--at least as measured by your article "Quia eye for the Lutheran guy" composed some years ago?<br /><br />Thanks for your patience. Now, back to the semester's work!Fr. Gregory Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01829108455227450650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-88835961220069635462012-10-04T10:44:16.195-05:002012-10-04T10:44:16.195-05:00That is substantially correct, though it would be ...That is substantially correct, though it would be more precise to say: those who hold the Confession of the Lutheran Church unaltered. There are those with whom the LCMS is not yet sharing communio in sacris, but in whom we are exploring whether we DO share the same faith. So particular churches who confess the verity of the faith as contained in the Lutheran Confession constitute "The Lutheran Church."William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-54663859223109461092012-10-03T12:16:38.107-05:002012-10-03T12:16:38.107-05:00OK...so, I think you're saying that when you s...OK...so, I think you're saying that when you say "the Lutheran Church," the denotation of that phrase is the LC-MS and all those groups with which it is in communion. Is that correct? If not, please clarify it for me.Fr. Gregory Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01829108455227450650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-37112355030876975602012-10-03T08:33:15.408-05:002012-10-03T08:33:15.408-05:00http://weedon.blogspot.com/2011/08/cross-posting.h...http://weedon.blogspot.com/2011/08/cross-posting.htmlWilliam Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-16731121739050226652012-10-02T20:21:13.012-05:002012-10-02T20:21:13.012-05:00Thanks, Pr. Weedon. If I may, I'd like to take...Thanks, Pr. Weedon. If I may, I'd like to take up your first statement...specifically its subject. When the Lutheran Confessors said, "Our churches with great unanimity believe, teach and confess..." they were referring to state/territorial, trans-parish entities.<br /><br />When you refer to "The Lutheran Church" here, what is the denotation of that phrase? Missouri? Wisconsin? ELCA? Since you use the singular, I take it that this referent has some sort of unity...<br /><br />I just want to be clear on the meaning of terms. Assumptions made at this level can come back to bite us later.Fr. Gregory Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01829108455227450650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-61239276480257452362012-10-02T15:52:46.217-05:002012-10-02T15:52:46.217-05:00The Lutheran Church acknowledges herself to be of ...The Lutheran Church acknowledges herself to be of a piece with the line of teachers that Christ has preserved within the one Church from the time of the Apostles forward. She recognizes that this line of teachers is bound to the Apostolic Word as normative. Furthermore, she recognizes that at various times and places the ministry became corrupted when that Word was in some way compromised (by addition, by subtraction). Certainly that was the state of the Church on the Eve of the Reformation: a corrupted ministry which nevertheless legitimately preached, taught, and administered the Sacraments. The Reformation represents a cleansing and restoration of that ministry. We are heirs of those who truly handed on the Word, but did not always do so with the same clarity and accuracy as in other times and places. I'll expand a bit more on that tomorrow.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-15590936415562349822012-10-02T15:37:11.986-05:002012-10-02T15:37:11.986-05:00Here's where I'd like to pick things up:
...Here's where I'd like to pick things up:<br /><br />"Given this distinction between form and matter in apostolic succession, and given the fact that we both grant the matter--that apostolic succession requires a continuing in the teach*ings* of the apostles, please address the issue in controversy--the *form* of apostolic succession, the succession of teach*ers*--from a Lutheran point of view."<br /><br />How's that sound?Fr. Gregory Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01829108455227450650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-20092591919178326052012-10-02T11:29:43.318-05:002012-10-02T11:29:43.318-05:00Sure. Please continue?Sure. Please continue?William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-37922116845721758722012-10-02T09:20:07.148-05:002012-10-02T09:20:07.148-05:00Now?Now?Fr. Gregory Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01829108455227450650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-5099004326687318182012-09-26T15:41:59.715-05:002012-09-26T15:41:59.715-05:00OK...thanks...whenever you're ready...
:-)OK...thanks...whenever you're ready...<br />:-)Fr. Gregory Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01829108455227450650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-78739135445914351442012-09-26T15:21:07.616-05:002012-09-26T15:21:07.616-05:00Oh, am preaching for Chris too - and both places w...Oh, am preaching for Chris too - and both places will be celebrating St. Michael's, but naturally, they are using DIFFERENT Gospels. Argh!William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-70185310435459371102012-09-26T15:20:05.461-05:002012-09-26T15:20:05.461-05:00Father, not for a few days at least. Am finishing ...Father, not for a few days at least. Am finishing up a presentation for Grace Tulsa (where our mutual friend Christopher Hall is pastor) that I will deliver on Fri and Sat.; am playing an ordination tonight; have to prep for Issues Etc. tomorrow (the Creed in the Divine Service), and am preaching for another mutual friend, Lee Maxwell, this Sunday. Insanity!!! William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-54708857531822344092012-09-26T08:43:10.371-05:002012-09-26T08:43:10.371-05:003Hi, Pr. Weedon! Just wondering if you're goin...3Hi, Pr. Weedon! Just wondering if you're going to pick up on the thread.Fr. Gregory Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01829108455227450650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-51904969465136985322012-09-22T19:59:15.781-05:002012-09-22T19:59:15.781-05:00Dear John,
The Law is nothing more or less than t...Dear John,<br /><br />The Law is nothing more or less than the will of God. Every time you say "Law," remember that.<br /><br />I'm not sure I fully grasp what you're asking wrt the Incarnation. It seems to me that it's God's m.o.--his characteristic way of dealing with the world he made. <br /><br />I'm reluctant to say too much, because I'm not sure, once again, that I get at what you're asking. Forgive my slowness.Fr. Gregory Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01829108455227450650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-30010030054892404372012-09-22T01:40:04.097-05:002012-09-22T01:40:04.097-05:00Fr. Hogg,
In reference to the either-or, the simp...Fr. Hogg,<br /><br />In reference to the either-or, the simplest explanation I can think of is either it is the merit of the messenger, or else it is the merit of the person who is spoken of in the Gospel that satisfies the demands of the Law. Since there is a particularity there must also be an exclusion, but the Gospel, itself not that merit, alludes to Christ who satisfies the demands of the Law fully.<br /><br />But obviously, it is fitting to praise God for using historical teachers to teach us the Gospel.<br /><br />I think it just triggered a lot of thoughts for me about how the incarnation is used in theology. Is it viewed as a legal establishment of particularity? Or is it really retained as the particular corpus by which Christ has suffered on our behalf.<br /><br />What kind of particularity is the incarnation mentioning when it comes up?<br /><br />Anyways, I will leave it at that, but I appreciate the discussion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01904078630488251035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-11809706052342184022012-09-21T09:13:47.674-05:002012-09-21T09:13:47.674-05:00P.S. No more time for posting here today. Will be ...P.S. No more time for posting here today. Will be checking back though.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-48947682844924725762012-09-21T09:12:57.903-05:002012-09-21T09:12:57.903-05:00You are being more Aristotelian than Gerhard! :)
...You are being more Aristotelian than Gerhard! :)<br /><br />1. Of course it is not simply a matter of the teaching, though that is primary and "the form" without this "material" is worse than useless.<br />2. Yes, it is legitimate to ask what constitutes succession.<br />3. To a degree, but noting that questions of legitimacy hang upon questions of authority, which gets back to first principles and if there's disagreement THERE...William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-32925294966155105742012-09-21T08:53:35.403-05:002012-09-21T08:53:35.403-05:00In an earlier comment you said,
"Yes, it inv...In an earlier comment you said,<br /><br />"Yes, it involves a faithful succession of teachers, but again you have the teachers preserving the message when it was the message that preserved the teachers, for the Holy Spirit is active in the message!"<br /><br />(The 'it', I take it, is apostolic succession.) But you seem to make things an either-or: either the teaching preserves the teachers, or the teachers preserve the teachings. Then you reject the latter in favor of the former.<br /><br />The biblical witness does not support this either-or. In the biblical witness it's a both-and. Otherwise, St. Paul's exhortation to Timothy, "Guard what has been entrusted to you," would be pointless. So, likewise, would his "entrust to *faithful men*." <br /><br />Note also his "continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed (i.e. the teachings), *knowing from whom you learned it* (i.e. the teachers)."<br /><br />So Irenaeus does not simply refer to the teachings, but also to the teachers: "“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about” (Against Heresies 3.3.1)"<br /><br />Hence:<br />1. Apostolic succession is not simply a succession of teachings (which we both agree is a feature of it), but also a succession of teachers. I'd like to refer to the apostolic teachings as the 'matter' or content of apostolic succession, and the apostolic teachers as the 'form' or framework of apostolic succession.<br />2. Just as it is legitimate to address questions about the content of the apostolic succession (i.e. the teachings), so also it is legitimate to address questions about the form of the apostolic succession.<br />3. Questions about the form of an issue can often be more easily decided than questions about the matter of an issue. A court, for example, will sometimes dismiss a claim on the grounds that the person raising the claim has no legal standing to raise it.<br /><br />In the case of the filioque, for example, apart from the substantive theological discussion that can be had, there is the formal point that no one patriarch or church had the right to change a universally-adopted symbol of faith, without the consent of the whole church. The filioque, whatever its theological merits, fails this formal test.<br /><br />Given this distinction between form and matter in apostolic succession, and given the fact that we both grant the matter--that apostolic succession requires a continuing in the teach*ings* of the apostles, please address the issue in controversy--the *form* of apostolic succession, the succession of teach*ers*--from a Lutheran point of view.<br /><br />(BTW, Luther himself recognized what I am calling the 'formal' aspect of apostolic succession in his Galatians 1541 commentary (LW 26.17, last paragraph)).Fr. Gregory Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01829108455227450650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-41825648489992438022012-09-21T08:10:23.174-05:002012-09-21T08:10:23.174-05:00Father,
What exactly did you want to discuss abo...Father, <br /><br />What exactly did you want to discuss about the succession of teachers? Gerhard has a fine section on this in his Locus on the Church. He cites Gelasius: "Some persons taking the place of others does not constitute succession. Rather, it is the perpetual consensus of doctrine, which joins later people to earlier people by the bond of faith." (Commen. Book 3 of Irenaeus, chapter 3 - cited on p. 372, the Church).William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-14330174300573959262012-09-19T10:29:51.874-05:002012-09-19T10:29:51.874-05:00Rev'd. Weedon:
I neither say, nor do I believ...Rev'd. Weedon:<br /><br />I neither say, nor do I believe, that the Word is inert. How can He be inert, when he is risen from the dead? And how can inscriptured Word be inert when it is the product of the Holy Spirit, the "treasury of good things and giver of life"?<br /><br />There should be no dispute that both are true--the teaching preserves the teachers, and the teachers preserve the teaching. To say the one does not deny the other. Without the teachings, the teachers could no longer proclaim Christ but only themselves. But without the teachers, as Paul says, "How will they believe if they do not hear? And how will they hear if they are not sent?"<br /><br />So let's be clear. We both agree that a succession of the teaching is necessary for apostolic succession. This is not in dispute.<br /><br />Now, can we turn to and focus on the succession of teachers in a bit more depth? <br />Fr. Gregory Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01829108455227450650noreply@blogger.com