Home to Rome?

[DCharlton]

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.

[Team Hesse]

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

[cssml]

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'), 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))

[Jonathan Priest]

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).

[John_Hannah]

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

[Team Hesse]

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

[Dave Likeness]

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.

[Weedon]

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.'"

[Matt Staneck]

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

[John_Hannah]

MATT

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

Congratulations on graduation and ordination!


Peace, JOHN

[ReformedCatholic]

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+

[Team Hesse]

(Keep in mind, that reform was happening (the '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

[Terry W Culler]

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.

[Jonathan Priest]

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.

[ReformedCatholic]

"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.............