Dan Selbo's election as NALC Bishop

[Charles Austin]

All it would take is one word from the Vatican to say that our ordinations are “illicit” (maybe) but valid, or some diplomatic language that would remove the issue from being so closely tied to ordination as a sacrament of required “orders.”
Meanwhile, as I noted upstream, I believe that in the “minds of the faithful,” the detailed theology of ordination and “valid orders” is not a very big deal.

And re Mr. Gale’s comments: There are Lutherans among us who still consider the pope the Anti-Christ and the whole Roman Catholic Church as an abomination. May their tribe soon decrease. (And that element of our “confessions” be officially repudiated.)

[James_Gale]

All it would take is one word from the Vatican to say that our ordinations are “illicit” (maybe) but valid, or some diplomatic language that would remove the issue from being so closely tied to ordination as a sacrament of required “orders.”
Meanwhile, as I noted upstream, I believe that in the “minds of the faithful,” the detailed theology of ordination and “valid orders” is not a very big deal.

And re Mr. Gale’s comments: There are Lutherans among us who still consider the pope the Anti-Christ and the whole Roman Catholic Church as an abomination. May their tribe soon decrease. (And that element of our “confessions” be officially repudiated.)

The Vatican could do any number of things with just one word (well, one many-thousand word document published in Latin and several other languages).  I don't think that Rome will change its view any time soon of ordinations conducted by ecclesial communities.  That obviously does not preclude cooperation, discussion, and a recognition of the unity that we all share in Christ (most notably our unity through Baptism).

[Terry W Culler]

I wonder who could "officially" repudiate the confessions in either whole or part.  I know of no requirement that anyone accept the confessions as correct, only that those who claim to share the faith of the Reformers must agreed with their faith statements.  No one has to be a Lutheran, but to claim the name absent the confession of faith attached to that name would seem to me to be a tad dishonest.  If you don't agree with Lutheran teaching, call yourself something else.

[Mark Brown]

I believe what the "sweats the details" Roman Catholic would say is that a Lutheran Communion is a Sacramental, like a rosary, or a scapular or holy water.  Sacramentals are material things, objects or actions set apart or blessed to manifest the respect due to the sacraments.  They don't hold that Christ is present in Lutheran Eucharist because the presider/priest is not in communion with the Pope.  But the action is a pious one that holds the sacrament is esteem.  So paradoxically the Roman Catholic would say about the Lutheran Sacrament what the Reformed would claim about theirs - Christ is Spiritually present, but not actually, it just points to the real place.

[Coach-Rev]

Bingo.  You win the Christmas Turkey.

No one has to be a Lutheran, but to claim the name absent the confession of faith attached to that name would seem to me to be a tad dishonest.  If you don't agree with Lutheran teaching, call yourself something else.

[Charles Austin]

Is it “Lutheran teaching” today that the pope is the anti-Christ?
Do I have to believe that to be a Lutheran?

From the famed “brief statement” and a citation from the confessions:
As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist "as God sitteth in the temple of God," 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ's sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is "the very Antichrist." (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)

[Terry W Culler]

Is it “Lutheran teaching” today that the pope is the anti-Christ?
Do I have to believe that to be a Lutheran?

If one claims the faith confession of Luther, Melancthon, Chemnitz, etc., the answer is yes

[Charles Austin]

I believe, Terry Culler, that you are very wrong. And that even huge numbers of people in the Missouri Synod, Including some of its chief theologians and leaders, would agree with me.
Despite that “brief statement” and its reference to the Confessions.

[D. Engebretson]

From the LCMS website under its FAQ section:

The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod's Theological Commission:

The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5, 23-24; Mark 13:6, 21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ's Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.

However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic "Anti-Christ" (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20-21, 24-25, 11:36-45; 2 Thess. 2; 1 John 2:18, 4:3; Rev. 17-18) ... Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions' identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above.

It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person's heart.

Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.

In a footnote, the Commission adds:

To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine "that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified," the judgment of the Lutheran Confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God's guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on "Justification by Faith") could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.

[Coach-Rev]

And I believe, Charles, that YOU can be an antichrist, whenever you go against the will and the Word of God.

And before you get all breathless and bent out of shape, I believe that of all of us, including myself.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I wonder who could "officially" repudiate the confessions in either whole or part.  I know of no requirement that anyone accept the confessions as correct, only that those who claim to share the faith of the Reformers must agreed with their faith statements.  No one has to be a Lutheran, but to claim the name absent the confession of faith attached to that name would seem to me to be a tad dishonest.  If you don't agree with Lutheran teaching, call yourself something else.

It is Lutheran teaching that some things are adiaphora. We don't have to agree about them.

The following is also our teaching:

AC VII. Concerning the Church

It is also taught that at all times there must be and remain one holy, Christian church. It is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel.

For this is enough for the true unity of the Christian church that there the gospel is preached harmoniously[1] according to a pure understanding and the sacraments are administered in conformity with the divine Word. It is not necessary for the true unity of the Christian church that uniform ceremonies, instituted by human beings, be observed everywhere. As Paul says in Ephesians 4[:4–5*]: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
   
[1] Einträchtiglich. In CA I.1 it is translated “with one accord.”

Is it enough for one to agree that the gospel is purely preached and the sacraments are administered according to the gospel for one to be Lutheran?

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Engebretson posts:
From the LCMS website under its FAQ section:
The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist.

I comment:
Thank you for this. It sets aside that simplistic look at the anti-Christ which is so often voiced in some Lutheran circles. And it repudiates that harsh statement in the Smalcald Articles and in the words of those worthies (Melanchthon, Chemnitz et al.) cited upstream.

[Steve Ames]

Why is it important whether NALC Bishop Selbo is in an office with the historic apostolic succession?  Does this make his ordination of new pastors more legal and valid?  Or give the NALC Bishop the right to remove pastors from the clergy roster?  Is this historic apostolic succession of the head of the NALC necessary for the NALC to be Church?  I can image the uproar if LCMS President Harrison had a claim to  historic apostolic succession with the sole right to ordain new LCMS pastors along with the right to remove existing LCMS pastors from the LCMS clergy roster.

As a confessional Lutheran I see no need for concern whether the Roman papacy sees Lutheran pastors as in an “illicit” call or our sacraments as invalid.  For as we confess the pope is only a pastor to a church in Rome not the head of the Church and the papacy is of no use.  Additionally, the canon law Bishops are not acknowledged as having any authority.  Pastor Culler states this so clearly:
Pr. Terry Culler – Reply #77: “No one has to be a Lutheran, but to claim the name absent the confession of faith attached to that name would seem to me to be a tad dishonest.  If you don't agree with Lutheran teaching, call yourself something else.”

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession
Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.
24] The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination.  … For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. 25] But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops.

The Smalcald Articles
Part II, Article IV: Of the Papacy.
1] That the Pope is not, according to divine law or according to the Word of God the head of all Christendom (for this [name] belongs to One only, whose name is Jesus Christ), but is only the bishop and pastor of the Church at Rome,
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.

[Steven W Bohler]

Pastor Engebretson posts:
From the LCMS website under its FAQ section:
The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist.

I comment:
Thank you for this. It sets aside that simplistic look at the anti-Christ which is so often voiced in some Lutheran circles. And it repudiates that harsh statement in the Smalcald Articles and in the words of those worthies (Melanchthon, Chemnitz et al.) cited upstream.

No, the quoted passage does NOT repudiate any statement from the Smalcald Articles.  Nice try, though.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Bohler!
Explain this to me.
Brief statement citation of the Schmalcald Articles: Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is "the very Antichrist.Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)
LCMS website:The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist.
So which is it?