A comment by Fr. Beane led me to search out and order a copy of *Lutherans and Catholics in Dialog IV: Eucharist and Ministry.* It arrived in the mail and I've been entranced. A few observations of what has struck me:
* The depth of the scholarship on both sides; we're such children compared to these intellectual giants.
* The unanimity among Lutherans from three different bodies in the USA, able to speak and act as theologians of a single Church due to their unswerving commitment to the Lutheran Symbols, yet living under three distinct jurisdictions , and Rome evidently receiving them as such - representatives of "the Lutheran Church." Such days are, to steal a phrase, "gone with the wind!"
* The honesty of the Roman appraisal of history (the exact opposite of "we will overcome history with dogma" a la Cardinal Manning). Just two examples: (by James McCue) "At least down through the time of Origin, the bishop of Alexandria seems to have been chosen and consecrated by the presbyters of that city. From this one could not directly conclude that in Alexandria there could have been no notion of episcopal apostolic succession. Apostolic succession as succession to an apostolic chair would be reconcilable with Alexandrian practice; but apostolic succession as the transmission of authority and/or power through consecration by bishops would not be reconcilable." (p. 167, 168) (by Harry McSorley): "Nowhere in the Tridentine discussions on order of any of the three periods do we find an accurate statement of the Lutheran or Calvinist confessions pertaining to the ministry. This aspect of Trent's teaching on orders reminds us of a basic principle in interpreting Trent: because Trent condemns something, do not conclude that the Reformers were teaching it" (p. 296)
Yes, thinking through this area and dealing with its history is messy business. I'm fairly convinced from what I've read already that no single dogmatic theme can cover the diversity of thought and practice that actually characterize the Church's grappling with this through the centuries. Maybe Missouri's own struggles since Wichita 1989 are only part of a much longer story. Particularly new to me was the "back stage" info of discussions at Trent and learning how to read what was finally confessed by what they discussed, but declined to say and in some cases declined to rule out.
This book is a great start to learning the terrain a bit better. I think I need to read this one from start to finish; I've also ordered the more current state of the discussions and am curious to see where either group has shifted.
I recommend Walter Burghardt's essay. His conclusions are sound and well worth listening to.
ReplyDelete"In the first two centuries of patristic thought, great emphasis is laid on the need of being in the doctrinal succession of the apostles (fidelity to the gospel); for otherwise one is not really a Christian. But this is not simply guaranteed by looking at the doctrine. There is a mutual interplay: doctrinal integrity and an identifiable chain (most often of those in an official position). Put another way: doctrinal communion and legitimate appointment. The manner of appointment is often difficult to determine - more difficult the farther back you go. And of course, still to be satisfactorily determined is the precise meaning of episkopoi and presbyteroi in the first two centuries - an issue of vital importance in the quest for the normative (Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue: IV, pg 177)."
This is the same bunch that brought us the JDDJ. Expect no less a vacating of either Lutheran or Roman faith in anything else they do.
ReplyDeleteThis stuff is more dangerous to the faith accurately taught in the BOC than all the emergent, seeker-sensitive, Willow Creek, CCM etc out there.
Who cares what Rome -- or the LWF, for that matter -- thinks? If Rome wants to play catch-up with the Lutheran Reformation, fine; if the LWF wants to continue to abandon the Lutheran Reformation, fine; if they all make it in time for Communion on 31 October 2017, fine.
It's also fine to check from time to time to see how they're coming along. But we sure as hell do not need Rome to come around so we can have them tell us we're OK, or fall in line with them as they do so. That 1970s period piece didn't even consider why it is we already know we're OK.
Not to mention, if "the normative" is something that only now after two millennia is slowing being unravelled by academic oracles what was it worth?
We should wear our non-invitation to the tenth round of talks as a badge of honour. The only ones taking this nonsense seriously are heterodox churches anyway long since morphed from their confessional documents.
Past Elder,
ReplyDeleteWhich essays in the this volume would you say misrepresent either ecclesial communion?
"Gone with the wind" indeed.
ReplyDeleteSeeing the crash and burn that has affected the ELCA since implementing Called to Common Mission, how differently the winds have blown since that time.
Full communion with the ECUSA (ooops, now the EC), the PCUSA, the UCC and other reformed bodies has not enhanced the ELCA's Lutheran identity and praxis.
Then there was the Consultation on Church Union which morphed into Churches Uniting in Christ, also made up of the Protestant mainstream.
I agree with PE, Confessional Lutherans need to stand firm.
It seems the one under discussion is IV, although the JDDJ itself would do fine as an example too.
ReplyDeleteIf I run out of puppy pads, it might come in handy some day.
As I am running low on Pepto-Bismol, rather than put my comment on "I put this" here again I refer you there.
Past Elder,
ReplyDeleteThe JDDJ isn't specifically under discussion on this thread. What is is "Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue IV". And so, I still wonder, which documents in that volume do you think misrepresent either of the dialogue partners?
Judas in the Lambeth men's room.
ReplyDeleteI did not say the JDDJ was under discussion here, I said Doc IV in the dialogue was, although the JDDJ is also an example.
Then I referred to what was quoted in the post "I put this" earlier on this blog specifically, as well as my comment there.
There. Now I have to check on how the local Episcopal diocese's lawsuit against a parish trying to be Episcopal is coming along.
William,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you engaging and bringing these essays up for discussion. Hopefully they can actually be wrestled with and engaged minus the interjections from some so far.
Bryce,
ReplyDeleteMy dear friend PE has an approach to these things that I've come to expect, and given his person history, can appreciate. My own approach is different, as I've not had his experiences. I can only look at the LUTHERAN side of the equation in the book in awe and envy; would that such men were still among us today and that they might guide us through the morass that our Church has succumbed to.
Well, my "experiences" are being a veteran of, or more accurately a survivor of, a time and place where this sort of thing was the atmosphere breathed -- not a concoction as fast as that served at other religious compounds, but equally lethal.
ReplyDeleteThis sort of stuff should be left on the shelf accumulating dust with the Peter, Paul and Mary albums and other relics of the age.
The morass we have succumbed to now is the child, maybe grandchild, of the one these guys created. Christine alluded to some of the fruit so far.
William,
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are saying and I resonate with the influences of experience. And yet, I find name calling to fall outside of decency and charity.
I made a profession of faith on 15 December 1996, upon which I stake everything in this world and the next. Hier steh ich.
ReplyDeleteEs war nicht hier, oder hier, nein hier, und vielleicht hier auch.
The process by which smaller churches that either never did or no longer make that confession become larger churches that do not make that confession -- or become fellowships or federations which do not make that confession and let the real issues of who gets the real estate and the money and pays the pensions stand -- is irrelevant, entirely external to making that confession.
Should I conclude I do not stand there and can do otherwise, then I will go there and stand. Those who already make such stands doing otherwise, I respect, in fact support in their efforts to maintain a confession I myself do not confess against the same forces in their churches that say they do while doing otherwise.
Hier steh Ich; Ich kann nicht anders. Gott hilf mir.
The Lutheran-Catholic dialogues are on google books: My favorite reference to the subject of the Antichrist is here: http://books.google.com/books?id=ICCi66SNBUoC&pg=PA140
ReplyDeleteI know they're super-scholarly, but the Lutherans in the group are often a bunch of sell-out losers that are already half-Romanized, especially with false doctrines of the ministry. They compromise big-time with the Roman Catholics again and again, but the Romans only twitch their little toe!