Lou writes:
As I listen to my formerly devout Roman parishioners, I come to understand there remains a long way to go for any meaningful sense of unity between Rome and Wittenberg. Sometimes institutional reality is a long way from reality. Most people live in reality.
I comment:
As I listen to my currently devout Roman Catholic friends and formerly Roman Catholic parishioners, I think there is already a kind of unity between "Rome" and "Wittenberg." The reality they live in is one where faith, service, witness and (sometimes) sacrament is shared. This is the reality some of us live in.
Pastor Culler writes:
Has the RCC renounced Trent? Has the RCC said they are ready to stop praying to Mary? Has the RCC stopped giving out indulgences? Has the RCC said they will treat our theology as on a par with theirs? Has the RCC agreed that the Reformation is right about justification? Has the RCC said they agree that apostolic succession is about the teachings of the apostles, not the laying on of hands by people? Could anyone claim they adhere to the Augsburg Confession and still accept the teachings of Rome as valid? That's pretty much all I have to say on the matter.
I comment:
Yes, in a way, the Roman Catholic Church has agreed that the Reformation was right about justification. Are those other things at such a high level that they would impede a "unity" of faith and witness and service and even (sometimes) sacrament? No, they are not. Your suggestion seems to reek of "Well! once they agree completely with us, maybe then..."
Pastor Rahn writes:
For many years I believed there was a good chance for Lutheran-Roman Catholic "unity" whatever that word means. But institutionally that could only happen on their terms. No matter how much we interpret the wide meaning of the Augsburg Confession, the RC church officially would need to provide their caveats to it. I say again and this has been my constant word on this: until there is substantive agreement about the nature of sin and our variant understanding of the image of God and justification, there will be no "unity". I say that with deep regret.
I comment:
See above; and we are not talking about an "institutional" or structural unity.
Pastor Fienen writes:
Is coming together in unity a matter of negotiating a settlement, like a treaty between nations or a union contract? Each side gives up something so that the settlement can advance?
I comment:
In a way, yes; ecumenical dialogue often involves certain changes in understanding or attitudes. I know that may be impossible for you, but in our ecumenical relations, that's how it works.
Pastor Fienen:
Let me ask this, what of the Book of Concord is not in line with Scripture or goes beyond what Scripture teaches and so be given up without denying what Scripture teaches? More specifically, what of the Augsburg Confession is contrary to Scripture or goes beyond what Scripture teaches and so may be given up without denying what Scripture teaches?
I comment:
We are not speaking of "giving up," except perhaps in terms of some interpretations. Again, your presumptions and assumptions mean there could not even be dialogue.
Pastor Fienen again:
Otherwise, what are you willing to give up that Scripture teaches in order to have unity with the Roman Catholics? Can you show that all of our remaining disagreements are in areas that Scripture does not teach?
I comment:
Yes, but not in a way that would satisfy you. And it is not a question of what the scriptures "teach," for that teaching is dependent upon interpretation. (And I know you do not accept that at all.)
Pastor Fienen writes:
What if one of the remaining sticking points preventing unity with Roman Catholics was the ordination of women or the ordination of partnered homosexuals? Would you be as willing to give that us as you apparently are willing to give up sections of the Augustana?
I comment:
Again, you show - not unsurprisingly - your ignorance of how 40+ years of dialogue have been conducted and progressed. Never, ever, have we said we have to agree 100 percent on every topic that comes up. And you keep repeating that we are "giving up" on the confessions, were I say we are taking new looks at those confessions. But speaking personally, for myself only, since I believe that while the confessions are a faithful exposition of scripture, I do not believe that the confessions are the absolute, once forever, only, for all time, never ever another word of confession added "rock" upon which every teaching of faith must be based. And I would be happy to find concurrence with the Roman part of the Church - as I believe we have done - even if it meant setting aside some formerly cherished interpretation. To some of you, that makes me non-Lutheran and a traitor. I don't care.
Pastor Fienen:
I remember reading some years back of an Episcopal priest who also wanted to be a Muslim and suggested that in order to foster greater understanding, peace and unity with the Muslim community we Christians should be willing to back down some of our claims about Jesus being God and Savior. That is an extreme case and I doubt that you would go along with such a proposal. But what of the faith would you be willing to jettison to foster unity with Roman Catholics or other religious groups?
Me:
Just picking such an extreme, idiosyncratic and widely denounced incident shows your have no real interest in what is going on in ecumenical dialogue. A nearly full type of eucharistic communion could be achieved with the Roman Catholic church without trashing any critical aspect of the faith. But I doubt that can be sensibly discussed here.
Pastor Fienen
Recognizing that generally the opinions of Lutherans who lived more than a hundred years ago are often discounted as irrelevant to today's world I still will go with what a prominent Lutheran has been quoted as saying about departing from what he found Scripture to be teaching: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen."
Me:
Again, I am truly sorry that you have not experienced any of the fellowship, enlightenment, joy and Spirit movement of the last 40+ years of Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue. You are where many of us were in 1960 and before. You have noted, of course, that some closely involved in the dialogues, such as our friend Richard John Neuhaus and other prominent Lutherans such as our other friend Russ Salzman have concluded that they could take their still partly "Lutheran" selves into the Roman Catholic part of the Church. Many others, such as this humble correspondent, have taken the dialogues and conclusions to heart and faith, rejoice in such things as that Joint Declaration on Justification, and welcome the ways that we have overcome our formerly triumphalistic Lutheran tendency to yell "Here I stand," whine "well, what about Trent" and pretend that it is still 1580.
