ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: Jim_Krauser on June 03, 2013, 02:49:08 AM

Title: Home to Rome?
Post by: Jim_Krauser on June 03, 2013, 02:49:08 AM
"Going home to Rome." 

I find the oft used expression and image of the Roman church as "home" (for all western Christians) to be both overly romantic and errant. 

As Lutheran Christians we descend from the western branch of the family tree, this is true.  However, as is true with any branch there is a point of departure which naturally separates it from other branches even while all the branches are nourished via the same root system.
The Lutheran Church(es) and the Roman Church share a common point of divergence in the mid-second millenium.  Neither of these (or for that matter any others) exist exactly the same as the church which existed at the time of separation (nor as that of any other previous point), that is to say none of us own an exclusive claim upon any point in the trunk.  What is more, all of us have reformed (been pruned) in some measure and all of us have grown in new directions. 

There is no "home" to return to. 

Such an expression suggests that one branch has a greater claim upon the roots than another.  I believe that if necessary (and it isn't) we can make a pretty persuasive case, that the Lutheran Church has as great a claim if not a better one to the family "home" as any other descendants--even that body which claims the family surname of Catholic as its own.  Going "home" to Rome, speaks a language that recognizes only patrilineal descent, as if the modern Roman Church is descended from an only elder son, while the rest of us from younger daughters with lesser inheritances. 

Certainly we all have our notions of what represents "health" in any particular branch, but these judgments are best made in humility, with an eye primarily toward our own health, and prayers that the vinedresser will be as gentle with the others as we trust he will be with us.   

I prefer the image of the family tree that I have drawn upon which maintains that there are divergences in the life of the Church, but not true separations.   

The "home" image is based more on the notion of family and households, but in using this we should be clear that in this model, we should not confuse structure with relationships.  While Jesus does us the image of a house of many rooms, scripture also gives us the images of a city, or even an entire kingdom as the nature of the dwelling place of people of God.

If compelled to speak in the language of households, I would point out that no family maintains a single home over many generations, let alone millenia.  What descendants share is a heritage, not a home.  In our divergent expressions, not all aspects of the heritage are preserved, nor should they be.  Some aspects were unhealthy; not all are well-suited to all times and all places.  We may from time to time enjoy family reunions, share well-wishes, engage in common endeavors, but we are not and cannot be of one home. 

Once we leave the botanical image we may move into the animal kingdom of living people as a more apt image but there the image is not homes, but heritage (DNA and traits), passed on and shared, but there is no "going home" in that construct.  In the world of homes (families), each generation establishes for itself a new home, an idea present in scripture.  The child must leave father and mother, carrying with it much to be sure, but taking on much from other families and sources as well.  If the goal of our life of faith is to go "home" we must be careful lest we find ourselves taking up residence, living in the past, with our forebears in the cemetery, for that is where they now dwell, not in the family home.

Thus in the image of "home" understood as family, we can hope and pray for continued relationships and even in the long line of generations expect that there would be eventual intermarriages of the descendants and reintegration of many part of the original family genome, but we must also understand that we cannot go home again, even while we may treasure much that we were given there.
I still own our family home, but when I go there it is very much changed.  Many of the artfacts are still there, all of the memories are still there, but it is a lonely place--for the family that lived there lives there no more.   My home is elsewhere, as it should be.  Eventhough I live alone, where I live now is a living home, that other place, in spite of all of my sentimental attachment to it, is just a house.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: John Mundinger on June 03, 2013, 07:28:43 AM
There is no "home" to return to. 

au contraire!

As Lutheran Christians we know that we have a home to return to - it is built on a sure foundation at the foot of the cross.  Our problem is that we have become too comfortable with the homes that we have built for ourselves on the distal ends of the branches and, in the process, have too little regard for all the other branches in the vine.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Weedon on June 03, 2013, 08:58:15 AM
Jim,

Very well stated. We've both continued to grow; we do grow from a common stem, but there is no returning to that stem because as you pointed out already: those who once lived it have gone to the true and lasting home already. And that's the only "home" that we should worry about returning to. The faith community that provides the necessaries for the journey to that home can never pose as the final destination.

"For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come." Hebrews 13:14
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Jim_Krauser on June 03, 2013, 09:54:14 AM
Jim,

Very well stated. We've both continued to grow; we do grow from a common stem, but there is no returning to that stem because as you pointed out already: those who once lived it have gone to the true and lasting home already. And that's the only "home" that we should worry about returning to. The faith community that provides the necessaries for the journey to that home can never pose as the final destination.

"For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come." Hebrews 13:14
As usual, far more elegantly said.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Charles_Austin on June 03, 2013, 09:56:43 AM
Agreed. We can no more go "home to Rome" than we could to Jerusalem or Antioch or Alexandria. Even using the terminology buys into Rome's self-proclaimed superiority.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Terry W Culler on June 03, 2013, 10:24:44 AM
Wow, we all seem to agree about something!
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: George Erdner on June 03, 2013, 11:34:55 AM
There is no "home" to return to. 

au contraire!

As Lutheran Christians we know that we have a home to return to - it is built on a sure foundation at the foot of the cross.  Our problem is that we have become too comfortable with the homes that we have built for ourselves on the distal ends of the branches and, in the process, have too little regard for all the other branches in the vine.


What your out of context quote ignores is that he is speaking of home in the sense of a particular church body, not in the sense of the one catholic and apostolic church. The Roman Catholic Church is NOT home for a Lutheran.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Charles_Austin on June 03, 2013, 12:03:44 PM
Mr. Erdner writes:
The Roman Catholic Church is NOT home for a Lutheran.

I comment:
Someone tell Mr. Erdner not to worry. Those who become Roman Catholics are no longer Lutheran.
Doh!
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: John Mundinger on June 03, 2013, 12:19:20 PM
There is no "home" to return to. 

au contraire!

As Lutheran Christians we know that we have a home to return to - it is built on a sure foundation at the foot of the cross.  Our problem is that we have become too comfortable with the homes that we have built for ourselves on the distal ends of the branches and, in the process, have too little regard for all the other branches in the vine.


What your out of on text quote ignores is that he is speaking of home in the sense of a particular church body, not in the sense of the one catholic and apostolic church. The Roman Catholic Church is NOT home for a Lutheran.

Actually, I didn't ignore it at all.  I just expressed the opinion that Christians do not nor have they ever really had a "home" in any church body.  And, if we are looking for "home" within a denomination, we are looking in the wrong place.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: David Garner on June 03, 2013, 01:38:51 PM
Given that the phrase is used typically by Roman Catholics, I'd suggest the bias inherent in it should not be surprising.

Yes it implies that one did not diverge from the common branch. It is intended to so imply. Registering disagreement with the sentiment is fine I suppose, but I doubt Roman Catholics are going to concede the point ion that basis alone.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Weedon on June 03, 2013, 02:06:47 PM
What certain Roman apologists at times seems to have trouble grasping is that the Roman Church also has changed since we were together before the Reformation. I've linked to this article before, but it simply is a fine treatment (and I think YOU might have first put me onto it, David???):

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2007/12/who-are-you-calling-a-heretic
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: David Garner on June 03, 2013, 03:00:14 PM
I don't think it was me, but it was a fine article.

I'm not suggesting we should all go back to anathematizing each other. I'm simply saying Rome doesn't agree she has moved. She is begging the question, of course, but the approach that says "she shouldn't say that because she did move" is only begging it in the other direction. What I think is more helpful is simply talking to each other about the differences.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: George Erdner on June 03, 2013, 03:22:33 PM
There is no "home" to return to. 

au contraire!

As Lutheran Christians we know that we have a home to return to - it is built on a sure foundation at the foot of the cross.  Our problem is that we have become too comfortable with the homes that we have built for ourselves on the distal ends of the branches and, in the process, have too little regard for all the other branches in the vine.


What your out of on text quote ignores is that he is speaking of home in the sense of a particular church body, not in the sense of the one catholic and apostolic church. The Roman Catholic Church is NOT home for a Lutheran.

Actually, I didn't ignore it at all.  I just expressed the opinion that Christians do not nor have they ever really had a "home" in any church body.  And, if we are looking for "home" within a denomination, we are looking in the wrong place.


I suppose if you take the narrowest possible meaning of home, to an extreme level beyond what normal people think of as home, you might have a nitpicking point,

Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Jim_Krauser on June 03, 2013, 06:17:58 PM
There is no "home" to return to. 

au contraire!

As Lutheran Christians we know that we have a home to return to - it is built on a sure foundation at the foot of the cross.  Our problem is that we have become too comfortable with the homes that we have built for ourselves on the distal ends of the branches and, in the process, have too little regard for all the other branches in the vine.

I accept your caveat.  My point is of course that we have here no abiding city.  What Jesus told his followers in his farewell discourse was that he goes to prepare a place for us in his house.  In the meanwhile, through the Holy Spirit, God continues to make his home with us, in whatever ends of the earth we might be, with us gathered around his Word and Sacraments:  he is there. 

The sent nature of the Church implies that our home is at best a mobile one or one which is shared in hospitality with other members of the body.    Paul and the Apocalypse speak of the time when Christ comes to make all things new and bring to the new earth, the new and eternal city.  You are quite right, if there is a home for us to pine for...it is that one--not nostalgia but fulfillment.

Rome is not home for all of its descendants (even those who have great affinity for its heritage).   Even meant metaphorically, Rome is not the be-all-end-all-most perfect expression of the Christian life and faith and to my mind it is nearly idolatrous to think so--also a word of caution if we begin to think that of ourselves.  Rome can be in many ways a source of inspiration and renewal.  It can also be an example of worst case scenario.  True of them, true of us.  Simul justus et peccator.

The Lord has been (and continues to be) our dwelling place.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: George Erdner on June 03, 2013, 08:35:44 PM
"Home" is where you live. My home is a rented half duplex in Duluth, GA. Before that it was a rented half duplex in Pittsburgh, and before that a rented house in Castle Shannon, PA. "Home" is a place where you live. You can make any place where you live your home.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: DCharlton on June 03, 2013, 08:38:14 PM
What tempts me most about Going Home to Rome is the notion that Rome is more likely to preserve the Canon, Creeds, and the Trinitarian and Christological Dogmas than any other group in Western Christianity.  It's also possible that Rome will be a better home for the branch of Augustinian theology found in the Reformers than any Protestant church will.  It can be argued that, in regard to Mainline Protestantism, this is already the case.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Team Hesse on June 04, 2013, 01:09:34 AM
What tempts me most about Going Home to Rome is the notion that Rome is more likely to preserve the Canon, Creeds, and the Trinitarian and Christological Dogmas than any other group in Western Christianity.  It's also possible that Rome will be a better home for the branch of Augustinian theology found in the Reformers than any Protestant church will.  It can be argued that, in regard to Mainline Protestantism, this is already the case.


Please do not forget, David, that it is the Holy Spirit who calls, gathers, enlightens, sanctifies, and keeps the Church. do not make a false God of Papacy, Priest, and visible church, as some do....the wisdom of Gamaliel pertains, "if from God it cannot be stopped, if not it cannot succeed."


Lou
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: cssml on June 04, 2013, 01:47:23 AM
What tempts me most about Going Home to Rome is the notion that Rome is more likely to preserve the Canon, Creeds, and the Trinitarian and Christological Dogmas than any other group in Western Christianity.  It's also possible that Rome will be a better home for the branch of Augustinian theology found in the Reformers than any Protestant church will.  It can be argued that, in regard to Mainline Protestantism, this is already the case.

...the wisdom of Gamaliel pertains, "if from God it cannot be stopped, if not it cannot succeed."


Lou

It does indeed.

"For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God."   http://www.usccb.org/bible/acts/5:34

The Church is not of Human origin, as Pope Francis stated so well in this past Wednesday's audience.

 http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-weekly-general-audience-full-text

"What is this God’s plan? It is to make us all the one family of his children, in which each of you feels close to Him and feels loved by Him—feels, as in the Gospel parable, the warmth of being the family of God. In this great design, the Church finds its source. [The Church is] is not an organization founded by an agreement among [a group of] persons, but—as we were reminded many times by Pope Benedict XVI—is the work of God: it was born out of the plan of love, which realizes itself progressively in history. The Church is born from the desire of God to call all people into communion with Him, to His friendship, and indeed, as His children, to partake of His own divine life. The very word “Church”, from the Greek ekklesia, means “convocation”." 


Far too often the Church is envisioned as simply another human institution, and this is by many Catholics as well as those outside the Catholic Church.  In my opinion, this is one place where Fr. Martin (a monk and ordained Catholic priest) succumbed to the temptation to see only the sinful human failings of the Church of the 16th century, and to conclude that it was hopelessly lost.  I understand his struggle, and had I lived in the 16th century, I cannot say that I would not have been right behind him.  Humans are involved, fallible humans, just like David, Peter, and the writers of the Gospel, but God continues to act "progressively in history" through these fallible humans who make up His Church.

(Keep in mind, that reform was happening (the 'counter reformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation)'), and the Gospel was spreading right through the every period of the tumultuous reformation, for instance, St. Ignatius of Loyola and the founding of the Jesuits (1534), St. Juan Diego and our Lady of Guadalupe (1531) and the conversion of 10 million or more, The reforms of St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross (late 1500s), St. Francis De Sales (early 1600s), St. Vincent de Paul (early 1600s))
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Jonathan Priest on June 04, 2013, 10:14:28 AM
I believe that when reading catholic apologists Novak, Weigel, Neuhaus the language of "coming home" is ever-present because they are writing polemically. If you read an apologist you should expect a strong position.
Likewise we should expect the Holy See, the Curia, and the Vatican to argue for their primacy; when have they not? Since we confess an orthodox doctrine of church and ministry the doctrine of primacy of the bishop of rome is alien to us. Oil and water. Or better yet, virus and antibody. Unfortunately our knee jerk reaction to the primacy of Rome spills over into anti-authoritarianism--which is not a biblical view at all. But I digress.   
Among local parish priests who also work among the poor I have yet to hear this view. Even when I've raised the issue with a priest of the Florida Diocese, a friend who is a priest of the Passionist order, and another friend who is an ordained Franciscan friar, none of them view 'conversions' as 'coming home'. They even believe and act as if my office and sacraments are valid (contrary to their doctrine of apostolic succession).

Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: John_Hannah on June 04, 2013, 10:25:05 AM
I believe that when reading catholic apologists Novak, Weigel, Neuhaus the language of "coming home" is ever-present because they are writing polemically. If you read an apologist you should expect a strong position.
Likewise we should expect the Holy See, the Curia, and the Vatican to argue for their primacy; when have they not? Since we confess an orthodox doctrine of church and ministry the doctrine of primacy of the bishop of rome is alien to us. Oil and water. Or better yet, virus and antibody. Unfortunately our knee jerk reaction to the primacy of Rome spills over into anti-authoritarianism--which is not a biblical view at all. But I digress.   
Among local parish priests who also work among the poor I have yet to hear this view. Even when I've raised the issue with a priest of the Florida Diocese, a friend who is a priest of the Passionist order, and another friend who is an ordained Franciscan friar, none of them view 'conversions' as 'coming home'. They even believe and act as if my office and sacraments are valid (contrary to their doctrine of apostolic succession).

We should not be surprised that the RCC is full of people and even clergy who more or less ignore official viewpoints. The ELCA is likewise full of folks (clergy and lay) who do not believe the 2009 pronouncements. And so the LCMS is full of clergy and lay who do not believe the many opinions given at St. Louis as "confessional doctrine."


Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Team Hesse on June 04, 2013, 10:27:15 AM
I believe that when reading catholic apologists Novak, Weigel, Neuhaus the language of "coming home" is ever-present because they are writing polemically. If you read an apologist you should expect a strong position.
Likewise we should expect the Holy See, the Curia, and the Vatican to argue for their primacy; when have they not? Since we confess an orthodox doctrine of church and ministry the doctrine of primacy of the bishop of rome is alien to us. Oil and water. Or better yet, virus and antibody. Unfortunately our knee jerk reaction to the primacy of Rome spills over into anti-authoritarianism--which is not a biblical view at all. But I digress.   
Among local parish priests who also work among the poor I have yet to hear this view. Even when I've raised the issue with a priest of the Florida Diocese, a friend who is a priest of the Passionist order, and another friend who is an ordained Franciscan friar, none of them view 'conversions' as 'coming home'. They even believe and act as if my office and sacraments are valid (contrary to their doctrine of apostolic succession).


There is a real diversity even among Roman Catholics in this understanding. One of my parishioners is a former RC. He told me that one of his former Priests when told that he was now attending a Lutheran Church was delighted that my parishioner had remained faithful to Christian teaching. Another of his former Priests when told the same thing, frowned, turned, and walked away without saying a word.


Lou
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Dave Likeness on June 04, 2013, 10:30:53 AM
In the last 2 decades there has been an uptick
in Lutheran pastors becoming priests in the Roman
Catholic Church. They are willing "to swim the Tiber"
because they believe that ultimately we need only
one visible church on this earth and the Roman
Catholic Church was the first one despite its flaws.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Weedon on June 04, 2013, 10:44:03 AM
It is a pity that visible/invisible language has become so ingrained in ecclesiology. Years ago Korby pointed out that that focuses precisely upon the wrong sense! Not eyes, but ears. "My sheep HEAR my voice."

But if you're going to run with visible, invisible, best to use Gerhard's fine dictum: "We are by no means introducing two churches that are opposed to each other as totally different, in such a way that the visible and invisible churches are contradistinctive species. Rather we say that one and the same church is visible and invisible in diverse respects...With respect to the called, the church is called 'visible'; with respect to the elect, 'invisible.'"
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Matt Staneck on June 04, 2013, 10:52:08 AM
I believe that when reading catholic apologists Novak, Weigel, Neuhaus the language of "coming home" is ever-present because they are writing polemically. If you read an apologist you should expect a strong position.
Likewise we should expect the Holy See, the Curia, and the Vatican to argue for their primacy; when have they not? Since we confess an orthodox doctrine of church and ministry the doctrine of primacy of the bishop of rome is alien to us. Oil and water. Or better yet, virus and antibody. Unfortunately our knee jerk reaction to the primacy of Rome spills over into anti-authoritarianism--which is not a biblical view at all. But I digress.   
Among local parish priests who also work among the poor I have yet to hear this view. Even when I've raised the issue with a priest of the Florida Diocese, a friend who is a priest of the Passionist order, and another friend who is an ordained Franciscan friar, none of them view 'conversions' as 'coming home'. They even believe and act as if my office and sacraments are valid (contrary to their doctrine of apostolic succession).

The issue of validity of orders is what I spent most of my time studying with Dr. Kolb in my independent study looking at Arthur Carl Piepkorn's contributions to the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogues.  Full disclosure, there was no grand treatise written by me, nor were there any "ecumenical breakthrough's" in a "come home" sense.  What I encountered with Piepkorn is that this was a solidly and fully convinced Lutheran who genuinely loved engaging with the heritage holders, if you will (my term), of the Western Christian tradition.  The interlocutors from Rome's side (Fr. Ray Brown among others), indeed see themselves as the possessor's of Apostolic succession, flowing from the chair of the Bishop of Rome.  But as a result of those dialogues there came out that there was no issue of the thing itself, the ministry of the Lutherans and their sacraments, but rather because we did not align ourselves to the Bishop of Rome.  Obviously there were (and are) disagreements over Communion in both kinds, and some issues pertaining the "sacrifice of the Mass," but as we see from the Roman Confutation, there was no issue with what Melanchthon penned in AC X concerning the Lord's Supper.  I think the honesty of those dialogues which Piepkorn was a part (along with George Lindbeck and others) has led to a developing recognition from Rome that our orders are valid, and home may indeed be where the Gospel and Sacraments are.  They still cannot get out of their own way with Apostolic Succession, but we Lutherans can and should appreciate the progress that has been made. 

M. Staneck
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: John_Hannah on June 04, 2013, 11:15:44 AM
MATT

Good summary of your studies and what I, too, think was Arthur Carl's position.

Congratulations on graduation and ordination!


Peace, JOHN

Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: ReformedCatholic on June 04, 2013, 11:20:24 AM
PASTOR Matt Staneck.............well done as usual, and if you still have a copy of your "no grand treatise", I'd love to read it.

Is this your first contribution to the Forum as a Presbyter ?

Pastor James Krauser, greatly appreciated your memorial presentation at the MNYS Assembly this past weekend. A catechism perhaps modeled on the German Lutherans Church offering is much needed. Well done as usual Jim, perhaps when our current MNYS Secretary is elected Bishop, you may once again consider becoming Secretary?

Pax
Bob+
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Team Hesse on June 04, 2013, 11:31:52 AM


(Keep in mind, that reform was happening (the 'counter reformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation)'), and the Gospel was spreading right through the every period of the tumultuous reformation, for instance, St. Ignatius of Loyola and the founding of the Jesuits (1534), St. Juan Diego and our Lady of Guadalupe (1531) and the conversion of 10 million or more, The reforms of St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross (late 1500s), St. Francis De Sales (early 1600s), St. Vincent de Paul (early 1600s))


This statement actually points to a fine point in the understanding of "Reformation." There have been many "reformers" in the long history of the Church. Nearly all have been about reforming the morals and perceived abuses of the Church. Erasmus, Henry VIII, Calvin, Knox, Loyola and those listed above, as well as many others fit this understanding of reform (morals and practices) very well. But in several aspects, Luther does not fit the mold. He had no discernible program or discipline to follow. His notion of reform was directed precisely at the point where he felt the Church had gone off the rails--the proclamation of the Gospel (the indulgence controversy was the trigger). His reform was different. Which is why he remains basically misunderstood. The assumption is that he was like the rest--not liking simony, priestly character mishaps, power mongering in the Papacy and the other abuses--when actually he was driving much deeper. "If the proclamation is right, everything else will follow, like good fruit from a good tree". The other reformers were about getting good fruit, very few examined the tree. Luther is maddening for many folks because he does not tell us what to do.....
as Loyola does (obey the Pope no matter what) as Calvin and Knox do (obey the word, and we will tell you what it says) as Henry VIII does (obey the King) as Erasmus does (listen to the brilliant among us)....the list goes on....


Lou
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Terry W Culler on June 04, 2013, 11:39:50 AM
The idea that Rome is the home church is factually incorrect.  I would say that the Antiochian Orthodox Church is much closer to being the first church than Rome so if you want to go home that would be the place.  Many of us who have western European ancestry might very well have Arianism as our first Christian home.  I don't want to there either.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Jonathan Priest on June 04, 2013, 12:05:30 PM
RE: Validity of the Lutheran offices

Here is a fun little quote from John Allen Jr.'s book, Future Church. It features Dr. Michael Root, now a convert to catholicism, but at the time he was acting as an apologist for the validity of the ministry in the Lutheran Church according to teachings already held by the RC.

Ironically, one model of this kind of astute phraseology was offered by a Lutheran scholar, Michael Root, at the 1997 convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America. Root’s aim was to convince the Catholic Church to recognize some validity to ordained ministry in Protestant denominations such as his own. On the surface, such a proposal would seem to contradict the evangelical Catholic emphasis on the unique status of the Catholic Church, but in this regard Root’s case was ingenious. By citing official documents, he demonstrated that Catholic teaching holds the following points:
* The one church of Christ is “present and at work” in other Christian bodies, such as the Anglican Communion and Lutheranism;
* These “ecclesial communities” are instruments of salvation for their members;
* They have preserved the “basic truths” of the gospel.
At the same time, Root observed, Catholicism also holds that these bodies lack valid ordained ministries—meaning, in effect, that they don’t have real bishops. (He recalled one droll English Catholic wit who defined the Archbishop of Canterbury as a “dubiously baptized layman.”) Root then drew the obvious conclusion: if the three points given above are true, then the Catholic Church must believe that bishops are not essential to ecclesial communion, to the presence of the Church, to the means of grace that lead to salvation, or to the teaching office. Otherwise, he suggested, it would be impossible to explain the presence of those qualities in communities that don’t have bishops. Root’s contention was that recognizing some measure of validity to Lutheran and Anglican priests and bishops is essential to defending the Roman Catholic theology of the bishop’s office.

Allen Jr, John L. (2009-11-03). The Future Church: How Ten Trends are Revolutionizing the Catholic Church (Kindle Locations 1705-1719). The Doubleday Religious Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: ReformedCatholic on June 04, 2013, 02:06:27 PM
"Our" loss of Dr Root was the RCC gain........I wonder aloud does he still maintain his very valid and convincing argument?

I have held this same position for years.............
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Dave_Poedel on June 05, 2013, 01:37:06 AM
In June and July of 2003, I took my bride of one year to Rome as our belated honeymoon to take the course "Ecumenical Theology from a Roman Catholic Perspective".  I highly recommend the course to my brother and sister Pastors.  The course is sponsored by the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement, based in New York with the Centro Pro Unione in Rome.  There are so many compelling reasons for a Lutheran Pastor to take this class, and it is obscenely inexpensive!

Throughout the course, I kept hearing the same refrain: Roman Ecumenically emphatically states that it is NOT about "coming home".  I challenged the faculty and presenters with their seeming contradiction:  100% agreement is not necessary for a variety of  ecumenical possibilities, but the non-negotiable are the Papacy and the necessity of fellowship with him to be necessary for a licit Eucharist.

The examples given to us of reunion without merger are the early monophysite Churches that have issues with Christology but are reconciled or overlooked for the sake of unity.

In spite of my best efforts, we could not come up with a model for Lutheran reunion while remaining Lutheran.  My participation in the Course was prior to the Personal Prelature, which is an ingenious approach which has great potential for individual Lutheran priests who wish to become Roman for whatever reason.  This approach is not practical for a "group fellowship" model that makes it more than just the personal.

My discussions in Lutheranism sounds to me like what I hear from the Orthodox, who are more of a diverse group than Lutherans could ever hope to be.

I have officially withdrawn myself from conscious attempts at prompting reunion with Rome.  I came from Rome, became Lutheran at age 21 and long ago celebrated the anniversary of becoming Lutheran longer than I was Roman Catholic.  I have a deep and lasting love and honor for the Roman Catholic Church for my formation and for the safety they provided me in a very, very difficult childhood and adolescence.  The Roman Church nurtured me well, including the foreknowledge at age 7 that God was calling me to become a priest.  The pastoral ministry I am privileged to serve in the LCMS allows me to be the reformed Catholic priest I am and enough "cover" to live the piety of a traditional Lutheran Pastor, nurtured and nurturing in the amazing Word of God and the life-sustaining Sacraments.

If there was a grand gesture by Rome to reconcile the Reformation of the 16th Century, I would certainly pay attention and find ways of presenting it as a positive thing to my parishioners, but would not necessarily be the first in line, or maybe even be in the line towards reunification and reconciliation.

This is a huge change in me in the past 20 years, and is a great shock to those who know my heart, even and especially my wife.  What has changed in me is that the only interest I have is that which God initiates and brings about in spite of me and the LCMS!
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: John_Hannah on June 05, 2013, 08:26:31 AM
PADRE

As usual, very well stated!

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Team Hesse on June 05, 2013, 08:27:53 AM
In June and July of 2003, I took my bride of one year to Rome as our belated honeymoon to take the course "Ecumenical Theology from a Roman Catholic Perspective".  I highly recommend the course to my brother and sister Pastors.  The course is sponsored by the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement, based in New York with the Centro Pro Unione in Rome.  There are so many compelling reasons for a Lutheran Pastor to take this class, and it is obscenely inexpensive!

Throughout the course, I kept hearing the same refrain: Roman Ecumenically emphatically states that it is NOT about "coming home".  I challenged the faculty and presenters with their seeming contradiction:  100% agreement is not necessary for a variety of  ecumenical possibilities, but the non-negotiable are the Papacy and the necessity of fellowship with him to be necessary for a licit Eucharist.

The examples given to us of reunion without merger are the early monophysite Churches that have issues with Christology but are reconciled or overlooked for the sake of unity.

In spite of my best efforts, we could not come up with a model for Lutheran reunion while remaining Lutheran.  My participation in the Course was prior to the Personal Prelature, which is an ingenious approach which has great potential for individual Lutheran priests who wish to become Roman for whatever reason.  This approach is not practical for a "group fellowship" model that makes it more than just the personal.

My discussions in Lutheranism sounds to me like what I hear from the Orthodox, who are more of a diverse group than Lutherans could ever hope to be.

I have officially withdrawn myself from conscious attempts at prompting reunion with Rome.  I came from Rome, became Lutheran at age 21 and long ago celebrated the anniversary of becoming Lutheran longer than I was Roman Catholic.  I have a deep and lasting love and honor for the Roman Catholic Church for my formation and for the safety they provided me in a very, very difficult childhood and adolescence.  The Roman Church nurtured me well, including the foreknowledge at age 7 that God was calling me to become a priest.  The pastoral ministry I am privileged to serve in the LCMS allows me to be the reformed Catholic priest I am and enough "cover" to live the piety of a traditional Lutheran Pastor, nurtured and nurturing in the amazing Word of God and the life-sustaining Sacraments.

If there was a grand gesture by Rome to reconcile the Reformation of the 16th Century, I would certainly pay attention and find ways of presenting it as a positive thing to my parishioners, but would not necessarily be the first in line, or maybe even be in the line towards reunification and reconciliation.

This is a huge change in me in the past 20 years, and is a great shock to those who know my heart, even and especially my wife.  What has changed in me is that the only interest I have is that which God initiates and brings about in spite of me and the LCMS!


Thoughtful, well-considered, and charitably stated.


Lou
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Charles_Austin on June 05, 2013, 10:55:38 AM
Padre Dave retains his title as one of the sanest, most thoughtful and truly ecumenical voices present in this small forum.
Even in the things he is wrong about, he is sane and thoughtful.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Coach-Rev on June 05, 2013, 11:32:43 AM
Wow.  There's a backhanded compliment if I ever heard one...  ::)
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Matt Staneck on June 05, 2013, 12:20:12 PM
Thanks for that, Padre!  Something I have come to terms with is that of all the "institutions" in the world, the Church is the one institution that does not have to be desperate for X, Y, or Z.  The world is desperate in her attempt to forge agreements and "unity," and whatever else it is she does.  The Church however, while urgent in her appeals and constant in her faith, is not in the business of desperately making this move.  Exegetically, one better believe the Lord desires unity amongst his people, but we know for certain that if we cannot get it done, Jesus will eventually.  More of that freeing sense of being able to go about one's work without having to be desperate.  Work hard, and work towards unity, because we are after all Christian, but removing a desperation equation from the process allows us to engage one another openly and honestly.  There is no timeline, there is no deadline, go talk with that Christian over there because it's your vocation as Christian. 

I'm obviously still working through all of this, but I was again led to this studying Piepkorn.

M. Staneck
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Charles_Austin on June 05, 2013, 03:12:18 PM
Dammit! Pastor Cottingham, will you please butt out!? Padre Dave and I have had private exchanges from time to time and he - along with anyone who wouldn't take issue if I said we are in the month of June - knows there is nothing backhanded about my compliment.
You, sir, are out of line. You might consider allowing me to say something without taking a swipe at it. Maybe, shall we say, at least once a week?
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Dave_Poedel on June 05, 2013, 04:40:30 PM
Dammit! Pastor Cottingham, will you please butt out!? Padre Dave and I have had private exchanges from time to time and he - along with anyone who wouldn't take issue if I said we are in the month of June - knows there is nothing backhanded about my compliment.
You, sir, are out of line. You might consider allowing me to say something without taking a swipe at it. Maybe, shall we say, at least once a week?
Thanks, my friend.  Yes folks, the good Pastor Austin and I frequently (though not frequently enough, but that is my issue as I deliberately limit my time here lest my more obvious and obnoxious aspects of my sinful nature become more evident) correspond regarding issues here and elsewhere and we do so in a respectful and honorable fashion.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: John_Hannah on June 05, 2013, 05:58:40 PM
Thanks, Padre Dave! I, for one, think that it's time to stop picking on Charles Austin. He is not the antichrist. (Some of you are supposed to believe it's the pope anyway.)


Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: George Erdner on June 05, 2013, 06:18:37 PM
How could anyone possibly interrupt or butt into a private exchange? Private exchanges take place using PRIVATE MESSAGES. Public posts made for all to see are not private. Therefore, since they aren't private, they cannot be "butted into".
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: ReformedCatholic on June 05, 2013, 07:09:04 PM
Thanks, Padre Dave! I, for one, think that it's time to stop picking on Charles Austin. He is not the antichrist. (Some of you are supposed to believe it's the pope anyway.
Peace, JOHN

I know you John, I respect you and love you as a brother in Christ.........but you are in error.

Padre Dave it is always a blessing and an enlightenment to read your contributions. I have sinned and become like some others who regularly post, in spite of my best efforts not to react. Thanks for reminding me that there are those whose posting are edifying and therefore continued participation in this forum is a good thing.
Blessings
Bob+   who "somehow" "got my ordination"     <sigh>
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Coach-Rev on June 05, 2013, 07:27:18 PM
Butting out, even though I agree with George.  And since Charles can cuss, swear, and "butt in" to every other conversation he wishes, apparently without repercussion and opportunity for rebuttal, I'm done here. 

Typical bullying behavior, I simply note:  What he most complains about is the very thing he's guilty of on a frequent basis.

And to Padre Dave, my apologies.  Without knowing what you state, his comment is indeed very backhanded, (when you are "wrong...")   and certainly within his usual character on this forum.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: Norman Teigen on June 05, 2013, 08:30:24 PM
The moderator recently asked me to stop my Beavis and Butthead jokes and I have complied.  I see in these most recent comments  some Beavis-and-Butthead like messages.  I would urge those so inclined to heed the moderator's advice and desist from juvenilism., as I have now done.
Title: Re: Home to Rome?
Post by: LutherMan on June 05, 2013, 08:34:47 PM
What are Beavis and Butthead jokes? 
Bear with me, I generally ignore popular culture...