Dan Selbo's election as NALC Bishop

[Dan Fienen]

Some of us like things nice and neat. Doctrines once stated are in force until they are specifically rescinded. The way churches actually work is messier. So while the sharp divide between the teaching of justification in the Lutheran Confessions and the Council of Trent, and the mutual condemnations therein contained, have not been formally rescinded, the positions have evolved and more or less set aside. One question that remains, at least for me and I haven't really seen a clear answer, is whether that means that there never really was a serious dispute and the whole unpleasantness of the Reformation was a misunderstanding. Ditto the Lutheran/Reformed split.

[mj4]

One question that remains, at least for me and I haven't really seen a clear answer, is whether that means that there never really was a serious dispute and the whole unpleasantness of the Reformation was a misunderstanding. Ditto the Lutheran/Reformed split.

It was/is a serious dispute. But not serious in a way that warrants, say, the Thirty Years War, or for the positions on each side to remain unexamined or presumed irreconcilable for 500 years.

[Steven W Bohler]

But Rome allows the preaching of justification in Lutheran terms.

And Rome (Council of Trent) formally anathematizes those who do.

The condemnations of Trent have been removed do not apply to the Lutheran teaching presented in JDDJ:

...the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.

https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/Joint%20Declaration%20on%20the%20Doctrine%20of%20Justification.pdf

Not so. From https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/03/a-betrayal-of-the-gospel-the-joint-declaration-on-the-doctrine-of-justification :

"The Vatican was very careful to make it clear that it has not set aside the Council of Trent and that Trent still remains authoritative, binding dogma for the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christianity Unity, the individual responsible in large part for Rome’s involvement in the Joint Declaration, went out of his way to clarify this point in a press conference held when the JDDJ was signed. Here is what he had to say: 'Asked whether there was anything in the official common statement contrary to the Council of Trent, Cardinal Cassidy said:"Absolutely not, otherwise how could we do it? We cannot do something contrary to an ecumenical council. There’s nothing there that the Council of Trent condemns”' (Ecumenical News International, 11/1/99)....There was a formal response issued by the Vatican that is careful to point out that the condemnations of Trent still apply against significant Lutheran doctrines. The Vatican’s response clearly affirms Rome’s historic position that justification is a process involving both God’s grace and the good works of human beings, in other words, the classic Roman position that salvation is not by grace through faith alone, but by grace plus human merit and good works."

[mj4]

But Rome allows the preaching of justification in Lutheran terms.

And Rome (Council of Trent) formally anathematizes those who do.

The condemnations of Trent have been removed do not apply to the Lutheran teaching presented in JDDJ:

...the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.

https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/Joint%20Declaration%20on%20the%20Doctrine%20of%20Justification.pdf

Not so. From https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/03/a-betrayal-of-the-gospel-the-joint-declaration-on-the-doctrine-of-justification :

"The Vatican was very careful to make it clear that it has not set aside the Council of Trent and that Trent still remains authoritative, binding dogma for the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christianity Unity, the individual responsible in large part for Rome’s involvement in the Joint Declaration, went out of his way to clarify this point in a press conference held when the JDDJ was signed. Here is what he had to say: 'Asked whether there was anything in the official common statement contrary to the Council of Trent, Cardinal Cassidy said:"Absolutely not, otherwise how could we do it? We cannot do something contrary to an ecumenical council. There’s nothing there that the Council of Trent condemns”' (Ecumenical News International, 11/1/99)....There was a formal response issued by the Vatican that is careful to point out that the condemnations of Trent still apply against significant Lutheran doctrines. The Vatican’s response clearly affirms Rome’s historic position that justification is a process involving both God’s grace and the good works of human beings, in other words, the classic Roman position that salvation is not by grace through faith alone, but by grace plus human merit and good works."

Is the glass half full or half empty? From the Joint Declaration...

The present Joint Declaration has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ. It does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations.

Also...

Nothing is thereby taken away from the seriousness of the condemnations related to the doctrine of justification. Some were not simply pointless. They remain for us “salutary warnings” to which we must attend in our teaching and practice.

[Steven W Bohler]

But Rome allows the preaching of justification in Lutheran terms.

And Rome (Council of Trent) formally anathematizes those who do.

The condemnations of Trent have been removed do not apply to the Lutheran teaching presented in JDDJ:

...the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.

https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/Joint%20Declaration%20on%20the%20Doctrine%20of%20Justification.pdf

Not so. From https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/03/a-betrayal-of-the-gospel-the-joint-declaration-on-the-doctrine-of-justification :

"The Vatican was very careful to make it clear that it has not set aside the Council of Trent and that Trent still remains authoritative, binding dogma for the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christianity Unity, the individual responsible in large part for Rome’s involvement in the Joint Declaration, went out of his way to clarify this point in a press conference held when the JDDJ was signed. Here is what he had to say: 'Asked whether there was anything in the official common statement contrary to the Council of Trent, Cardinal Cassidy said:"Absolutely not, otherwise how could we do it? We cannot do something contrary to an ecumenical council. There’s nothing there that the Council of Trent condemns”' (Ecumenical News International, 11/1/99)....There was a formal response issued by the Vatican that is careful to point out that the condemnations of Trent still apply against significant Lutheran doctrines. The Vatican’s response clearly affirms Rome’s historic position that justification is a process involving both God’s grace and the good works of human beings, in other words, the classic Roman position that salvation is not by grace through faith alone, but by grace plus human merit and good works."

Is the glass half full or half empty? From the Joint Declaration...

The present Joint Declaration has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ. It does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations.

Also...

Nothing is thereby taken away from the seriousness of the condemnations related to the doctrine of justification. Some were not simply pointless. They remain for us “salutary warnings” to which we must attend in our teaching and practice.

OK, so the declaration says that the subscribing Lutherans and Roman Catholics are "able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith Christ".  But, at the same time, the Roman Catholics say that they have not changed their teaching on justification; that it remains as Trent said (with its anathemas of justification through faith alone).  So, I am left to believe one of three choices:

1) The subscribing Lutherans were snookered into thinking that the Roman Catholics HAD changed their teaching on justification, despite the clear words of Cardinal Cassidy;
2) The subscribing Lutherans have adopted the teaching of Trent and the Roman Catholics;
3) The subscribing Lutherans are lying.

[Steve Ames]

mj4 – Reply #108: “From the Joint Declaration … ‘it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations.’”

The response of the Catholic Church to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification disagrees with this:

RESPONSE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO THE JOINT DECLARATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

1.   “The major difficulties preventing an affirmation of total consensus between the parties on the theme of Justification arise in paragraph 4.4 The Justified as Sinner (nn. 28-1,0 ). … For Catholics, therefore, the formula "at the same time righteous and sinner", as it is explained at the beginning of n. 29 ("Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament ...Looking at themselves ... however, they recognize that they remain also totally sinners. Sin still lives in them..."), is not acceptable.  … In this same sense, there can be ambiguity for a Catholic in the sentence of n. 22, "... God no longer imputes to them their sin and through the Holy Spirit effects in them an active love", because man's interior transformation is not clearly seen. So, for all these reasons, it remains difficult to see how, in the current state of the presentation, given in the Joint Declaration, we can say that this doctrine on "simul iustus et peccator" is not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on original sin and justification.
… If, moreover, it is true that in those truths on which a consensus has been reached the condemnations of the Council of Trent no longer apply, the divergencies on other points must, on the contrary, be overcome before we can affirm, as is done generically in n.41, that these points no longer incur the condemnations of the Council of Trent. That applies in the first place to the doctrine on "simul iustus et peccator" (cf. n. l, above ).”


Yet when one contends that the differences on justification have been mostly settled, which appears not to be true, this would not set aside the Lutheran Confession position about the papacy:
The Smalcald Articles
Part II, Article IV: Of the Papacy.
“6] And the Papacy is also of no use in the Church, because it exercises no Christian office; and therefore it is necessary for the Church to continue and to exist without the Pope.”

[Brian Stoffregen]

OK, so the declaration says that the subscribing Lutherans and Roman Catholics are "able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith Christ".  But, at the same time, the Roman Catholics say that they have not changed their teaching on justification; that it remains as Trent said (with its anathemas of justification through faith alone). 

So, do you also throw out James who states clearly: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24 ESV)? "Justification through faith alone" is not found in Scriptures. (Luther conveniently added "alone" in his translation.) "Not by faith alone" is clearly a biblical statement.

If you are able to make James fit into Lutheran theology; the same could certainly be done with Roman Catholic statements about works.

[Steven W Bohler]

OK, so the declaration says that the subscribing Lutherans and Roman Catholics are "able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith Christ".  But, at the same time, the Roman Catholics say that they have not changed their teaching on justification; that it remains as Trent said (with its anathemas of justification through faith alone). 

So, do you also throw out James who states clearly: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24 ESV)? "Justification through faith alone" is not found in Scriptures. (Luther conveniently added "alone" in his translation.) "Not by faith alone" is clearly a biblical statement.

If you are able to make James fit into Lutheran theology; the same could certainly be done with Roman Catholic statements about works.

So, I guess you are in camp #2 of my above post.

[Charles Austin]

Steve Ames writes, quoting Schmalcald Articles:
And the Papacy is also of no use in the Church, because it exercises no Christian office; and therefore it is necessary for the Church to continue and to exist without the Pope.

I comment:
The Lutheran-Catholic dialogue on the Petrine office concluded, and I think the Missouri Synod was still in this part of the dialogue although I’m not sure, that there might be a role in a reformed, more united church for a re-visioned papacy.

[Dave Benke]

Steve Ames writes, quoting Schmalcald Articles:
And the Papacy is also of no use in the Church, because it exercises no Christian office; and therefore it is necessary for the Church to continue and to exist without the Pope.

I comment:
The Lutheran-Catholic dialogue on the Petrine office concluded, and I think the Missouri Synod was still in this part of the dialogue although I’m not sure, that there might be a role in a reformed, more united church for a re-visioned papacy.

I believe you're right about LCMS participation; of course the original participant was AC Piepkorn.  That being said, ecclesiastical offices de lure humano can take a variety of directions, including the polar positions of structured hierarchy or congregational independence.  It's about the process, then, and the determination of what's best for the Church at this time.

Dave Benke

[Terry W Culler]

The opinions of the people who signed the Joint Declaration seem not to be the opinions of their Church bodies.  What can then be said about the JD?  Is it of any effect, if so on whom?  Does it accurately the theology of anyone other than the few involved?  What exactly is a re-envisioned papacy anyway?  What would such a pope do?  This is trying to put a square peg in a round pin hole and it will never work.  Salvation is by grace through faith without the works of the Law and most of us believe James would have agreed with that statement.

[Dave Benke]

The Uniate churches are an example of how something might work among Protestants seeking connection; using the historic Eastern Uniates which do not automatically demand clergy celibacy, and which have their own jurisdiction, there would be room for more Word/Sacrament communities to move toward Rome.  The question is whether and how Means of Grace means Means of Grace. 

I'd like to see newly formed groupings like NALC explore those conversations myself. 

Dave Benke

[mj4]

Steve Ames writes, quoting Schmalcald Articles:
And the Papacy is also of no use in the Church, because it exercises no Christian office; and therefore it is necessary for the Church to continue and to exist without the Pope.

I comment:
The Lutheran-Catholic dialogue on the Petrine office concluded, and I think the Missouri Synod was still in this part of the dialogue although I’m not sure, that there might be a role in a reformed, more united church for a re-visioned papacy.

Is it so hard to imagine what an evangelical papacy would look like? The WELS has a synod president. That's not a "Christian office" either. Just start with the basic fact that the Pope is the bishop of Rome. What role would you see going forward from that? It's not so hard.

[Steven W Bohler]

The Uniate churches are an example of how something might work among Protestants seeking connection; using the historic Eastern Uniates which do not automatically demand clergy celibacy, and which have their own jurisdiction, there would be room for more Word/Sacrament communities to move toward Rome.  The question is whether and how Means of Grace means Means of Grace. 

I'd like to see newly formed groupings like NALC explore those conversations myself. 

Dave Benke

So, you think the big problem we have with Rome is celibacy?

[dkeener]

I think the big problem is thread drift.