Loading ...
Walter Cardinal Kasper is always up to something - in the past, before Benedict’s pontificate, it always seemed to be something very, very bad, something tending to make one think that Kasper thought something contrary to what the Church thinks about the dogma “Roman Catholic Church = Mystical Body of Christ”. Well, he’s still doing things like that, but at other times, he says more encouraging things. And what to make of what is, presumably, his project of receiving the “Archbishop” of Canterbury at Lourdes? Does Rowan Williams hope thereby to repair the already ruined state of ecumenical dialogue between Rome and Canterbury? See here and here for Kasper’s latest.
In an interview with German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine, the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Walter Kasper said that Catholics should read Luther’s Bible commentaries and “hymns full of spiritual power”. [What?!?! The old, notorious Kasper.]
He also said that Protestantism would do well to return to the faith of Martin Luther, who he said “would have been deeply averse to all of today’s liberal tendencies”, according to Ecumenical News International. [An improved and not uninsightful Kasper. What the "faith" of Luther was, though, I couldn't say; he rejected the faith of the Church and made up a new religion. What a heritage to celebrate! It is true, though, that modern day protestants, even conservative protestants, do not recognize (or, indeed, find utterly abhorrent), e.g., Luther's condemnation of contraception, his promotion of oral confession in private to a "pastor", to mention a few examples. If you go to the website of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, a generally very conservative Lutheran church body - no women clergy - you'll find Luther's Large Catechism, minus the concluding exhortation to confess frequently and with great joy. Nor will you find any mention of Luther's condemnation of contracepted sex. What once was wrong (100 years ago) is now right!]
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Concerning confession, the Lutheran teaching is clear:
Augsburg Confession XI. Concerning Confession
Concerning confession it is taught that private absolution should be retained and not abolished. However, it is not necessary to enumerate all misdeeds and sins, since it is not possible to do so. Psalm 19: “But who can detect their errors?”
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod retains and practices private confession and absolution. Our Lutheran Service Book contains a rite for individual confession and absolution based on the rite in Luther’s Small Catechism.
The reason Luther’s Exortation to Confession was left out of the Large Catechism on our website is because this Exortation to Confession was added by Luther in his 1529 revised edition of the Catechism. It was omitted in the Jena edition of Luther’s works and in the German Book of Concord, 1580, and so also in several later editions of the Catechism.
I would recommend that you read the Lutheran Confessions themselves to test and see if Luther really did reject the faith of the church, or if he, rather, reformed it:
http://www.bookofconcord.org/index.php
why should a catholic read what luther thinks about the scriptures? why not read what arius, joe smith or pelagius thought while you’re at it.
besides, it was luther who wanted to throw out books from the new testament. all luther did was to reject the catholic church and put himself in it’s place.
the church is the pillar of truth, not the bible alone. (1 tim 3:15).
Pastor Thompson is a brave man to wade in here!
Elmwood, at least some Catholics should read the Protestant authors so as to be able to refute them. Furthermore, in a country like Germany, Luther is a foundational figure in the history and literature of the nation, like the Puritans in the U.S. Presumably Germans should read him for the same reasons Americans read Jonathan Edwards and John Winthrop.
J.R,
of course some catholics should read luther. but only some. kasper is saying that all catholics should read luther’s commentary. if he meant that by reading it we’d be able to refute the errors of luther then he should have said so. i doubt that was his intent.
luther, objectively, was a seriously disturbed individual. i don’t see why any cardinal would recommend reading luther’s commentary when the average catholic doesn’t even read the bible.
It is rather amusing to see this suggestion offered to Iosephus, himself an apostate Lutheran. (And though I didn’t know him then, I gather he was rather a serious one at one time, probably of the sort who would have read Luther.)
Myself, I made it a point to read up on Luther (works both by and about him) somewhere on the path to Rome. I knew by that point what direction I was headed, but somehow felt a compulsion to give Protestantism its “fair shake.” It wasn’t a serious or extended course of study by any means (I was in Uzbekistan at the time so I just read whatever I could get my hands on) but I definitely emerged from it more set than before on swimming the Tiber.
Elmwood:
When the Lutherans stood before Emperor Charles in Augsburg in 1530, they made claim at the end of their confession that, “in doctrine and ceremonies we have received nothing contrary to Scripture or the Church universal. It is clear that we have been very careful to make sure no new ungodly doctrine creeps into our churches.” Luther never intended to start a new church, but rather to purify the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. To reform the church is not to reject the church.
Well, obviously he said that, Reverend. I’m pretty sure Elmwood knows that Luther didn’t portray himself as starting a brand new church. Still, it’s hard to deny that his strategy of “reform” involved a pretty stringent rejection of the authority of Rome. To most of the readers of this blog, that’s pretty much equivalent to rejection, not reform, of the Church.
Rev. Thompson,
My intent isn’t to criticize the lutheran missouri sinod. as far as i can tell, they are a fine christian community with many things admirable qualities. i’m sure there are wonderful disciples of Christ who belong to it. orthodox catholics have much more in common with your community than many other christian communities.
but the missouri synod, or any luthran denomination, is not a church in the proper sense for they lack valid apostolic succession.
your faith is based on a tradition established by luther. he, by his own theological opinion, cannot legitimately claim in any way to represent the pure catholic faith anymore than zwingli or calvin.
Christ did not say, “there will be a deformist priest by the name of Luther in 1500 years, and on this Luther i will build my church”.
“There We Stood, Here We Stand” - Eleven Lutherans Rediscover Their Catholic Roots - By: Tim Drake ————-
http://tinyurl.com/3ewrxt ———–
http://tinyurl.com/4bwjng ———–
http://tinyurl.com/49qknn
Elmwood and others:
I appreciate that you have not wished to criticize our little Lutheran Synod and I too do not wish to cause any offense. Please let me know if I have done so.
Concerning the nature of the church, our churches teach the following:
“Our churches teach that one holy Church is to remain forever. The Church is the congregation of saints in which the Gospel is purely taught and the Sacraments are correctly administered. For the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree about the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. It is not necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies instituted by men, should be the same everywhere. As Paul says, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Ephesians 4:5–6).” (Augsburg Confession, VII)
Concerning the promise of Christ in Matthew 16, we quote the Chrysostom and Hilary:
Chrysostom says this:
“Upon this rock,” not upon Peter. For He built His Church not upon man, but upon the faith of Peter. But what was his faith? “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Homilies on Matthew, 54, 3)
Hilary says:
The Father revealed to Peter that he should say, “You are the Son of the living God”. Therefore, the building of the Church is upon this rock of confession. This faith is the foundation of the Church. (On the Trinity, VI, 36-37)
Rev. Thompson, your last statements are very interesting. I have difficulty finding anyone–from a denominational standpoint–you would agree with regarding “the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments.” My personal background includes Southern Baptist and Reformed theology; each would likely agree with your doctrine of the Gospel but adamantly oppose your administration of the sacraments. Are these two pillars of Protestantism outside the pale of the church catholic? I admit that I am not familiar with nuances of Lutheran theology regarding the sacraments. I just cannot see how your notion of the church is possible, especially given the fact that it is the sacraments themselves which are almost always the cause of denominational splintering.
Additionally, your selective quoting of Chrysostom–even regarding Peter–approaches irresponsibility. Did not Luther himself have quite a disdain for Chrysostom?
“We dread with horror the labyrinth to which all Protestantism is lost.” –George Agius: Tradition and the Church
I don’t think it’s irresponsible to quote sources that your interlocutors respect against them. I would have no hesitation in quoting Luther to a Lutheran as evidence for why he should believe a particular position, though of course I wouldn’t quote him to a Catholic (except maybe as a negative example). There’s nothing wrong with the “look, even your own guys agree with me” approach.
That said, Chrysostom and Hilary are obviously not infallible authorities, on this or really any other point.
I don’t especially care to wade into a full-scale argument about Church authority — it’s not a point on which I am in any respect troubled or uncertain — but as the above reflections might indicate, there was a time when I was somewhat uncertain about it. I tried to read some of the most “positive” stuff I could find on Luther (as I say, giving Protestants a fair shake) but what really turned me cold to him was seeing how much he was gradually hardened against the Church over the course of several years, starting with very reasonable complaints about particular abuses, but ending with calling the Pope the Antichrist, throwing open convent and monstery doors, retranslating the Bible, abolishing most of the Sacraments, etc etc. “By their fruits ye shall know them,” and those were not good fruits. Not at all.
Of course the other ugly part was the way the Church was splintered such that even within Luther’s own lifetime multiple other little breakaway “churches” were cropping up elsewhere. If you think, as I came to think, that Christianity must necessarily be embodied within a unified Church united by a recognizable authority and founded on an intelligible ecclesiology… well, it’s kind of a one-horse race, you know? (The only other remotely plausible candidate is the Orthodox Church, but even they don’t really fit the bill.) The very fact that you name yourselves for Luther is revealing of the sort of organization that you are.
Clara, Sebron’s point is a good one: the quotations are “irresponsible” in the sense that they don’t represent the teaching of Chrysostom and Hilary on the papacy. Moreover, the quotations are not, in themselves, anything against the papacy. The church is clearly not built upon a frail man, but upon all the gifts which the Lord would give, including faith, to Peter and his successors. The conclusion of the Gospel of John is a sufficient witness to this fact. This is what, I take it, Chrysostom and Hilary mean.
But your remark, Clara, is also true: if these comments were contrary to the faith of the Church, it would signify nothing.
Dear Mr. Thompson, I can recommend no better book for your perusal than Adrian Fortescue’s The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451. His thesis is no less bold (from your perspective) than that the Church before 451 held the same position about the papacy as she did after the First Vatican Council, when this doctrine was solemnly defined.
If you want to start quoting church fathers, sir, I’m afraid that you will be out dueled!
I give but one edifying quotation:
“I speak with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross. I, who follow none but Christ as first, am joined in communion with Your Holiness, that is with the See of Peter. On this rock I know that the Church was built. Whoever eats the lamb outside this house is profane. Whoever is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the deluge comes. I know nothing of Vitalis, I defy Meletius, I care nothing for Paulinus. Whoever does not gather with you scatters; for whoever does not belong to Christ is of Antichrist.” — Jerome (ca. 347-420) in a letter to Pope Damasus I (ca. 305-384)
And, yes, as it turns out, I am a former Lutheran, and yes, I have read the Book of Concord from cover to cover. The issue is and always has been one of authority. By what authority did Luther attempt to “reform” the Church? That is, what authority does he have such that we should believe him when he says that something is a and not b?
Your contemporary coreligionists, sir, are even worse (they will not even stick with Luther!), for though you may not have, they at least have abandoned many of Luther’s positions - as I had said, on the value of confession and the evils of contraception. So in the end, the protestant believes whatever he can work out for himself; one goes this way and another goes that.
I think that Romano Amerio (in his book Iota Unum) presents a very nice summary of the Lutheran (and protestant) problem:
“Inasmuch as it is a rejection of Catholic first principles, Lutheranism is theologically irrefutable. When confronted with Lutheranism, Catholic apologetic finds itself in the position nearly outlined by St. Thomas [Summa Theologica I, q.1, a.8]: it can solve the opponent’s objections, but not to the opponent’s satisfaction, since he rejects the principle on which the argument refuting him is based. For Luther was not merely rejecting this or that article within the body of Catholic doctrine (though of course he did do that as well), but rather rejecting the principle underlying them all, which is the divine authority of the Church. Bible and tradition are only authorities for the [Catholic] believer because the Church [the living, present reality] possesses them; and possesses them not simply materially or philologically, but possesses the meaning of them, which he historically unveils little by little.
Luther, on the other hand, places both the Bible and its meaning in the hands of the individual believer, rejects any mediating role for the Church, entrusts everything to the individual’s private lights and replaces the authority of an institution by an immediacy of feeling which prevails over all else. The conscience is detached from the teaching office of the Church ["Here I stand! I can do no other!"], and an individual’s impressions, especially if they are vivid and irresistible, are made superior to any other rule and are held to establish a right both to believe, and to proclaim what is believed. [Ronald Knox's wonderful scholarly (book-length0 essay Enthusiasm amply underlines this point.]
What the ancient Pyrrhonism does to philosophical knowledge, Protestant Pyrrhonism does to religious knowledge. The Church, which is the historic and moral continuation of Christ the God-Man, is deprived of its native authority, while the liveliness of an individual’s impressions is called “faith” and declared to be an immediate gift of grace. The supremacy of the individual conscience removes the foundation of all the articles of faith, because they stand or fall according to whether the individual conscience assents to, or dissents from them. Thus divine authority, which is the sustaining principle of Catholicism, is extirpated and with it go the dogmas of the faith: it is no longer the authority of the Church which guarantees them, but subjective individual impressions. Thus, if heresy consists in holding a truth to have been revealed, not on the authority of its having been revealed, but because it accords with a subjective perception, one can say that in Lutheranism the whole concept of faith is converted in the concept of heresy, because the divine word is accepted only inasmuch as it receives the form of an individual conviction. It is not the thing which demands assent, but assent which gives value to the thing. If then, by an internal logic, this criticism of divine authority as a theological principle becomes a criticism of the authority of reason as a philosophical principle, that is no more than might have been expected a priori, and it is also confirmed a posteriori by the historical development of German thought, right up to the fully developed forms of immanentist rationalism.
That about says it, I think!
Thank-you for the kind replies. Iosephus is correct that, “The issue is and always has been one of authority.” And in the Lutheran Church there is but one authority: the written Word of God.
“We receive and embrace with our whole heart the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel. They are the only true standard or norm by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged.” (Formula of Concord)
Yes, very nice, Iosephe. That last quote does get to the heart of the matter, and also makes plain the connection between Lutheranism and ideas within modern epistemology (think of Descartes and the authority he gives to his “clear and distinct” ideas.)
Misleadingly selective quotation can be irresponsible, so if that’s what Sebron was talking about, then sure. I personally don’t really know what those particular guys thought about papal authority. But I thought his objection was simply that Lutherans don’t regard those sources as authoritative, and thus they shouldn’t be quoting them.
Iosephe, thanks for those great quotes. I’ve been searching for that book on the papacy at local bookstores since it was remarked upon in an earlier post. I thought the Chrysostom quotations were irresponsible exactly because I thought they were misleading of Chrysostom’s true beliefs given his larger body of writing on Peter’s role in the Church. It seemed unfair to Chrysostom.
Rev. Thompson,
it is absolutely true that the church Christ built is founded on the faith of peter. it is absolutely true that the catholic church today is built on this same faith. God the Father gave peter the faith to recognize Christ as the son of God. he gives the same gift of faith to peter’s successors–the bishops of rome, whose faith is heralded throughout the world. for the visible church wouldn’t be a Christ’s body without a visible head.
nowhere in the bible does it say that scriptures alone are the pillar and foundation of truth, the church is. for we wouldn’t have the bible if Jesus didn’t create a church for there is no table of contents. the bible is inspired insofar as the authority who determines it to be inspired is.
it’s no coincidence that the protestantism sprung up at creation of the printing press. how could it be expected that every christian be knowledgeable in hebrew, latin, aramaic and greek?
Dear sir, the problem with your “written Word of God” as authority is that the Bible, such as you have it, did not drop from the sky. The Church gave it to us. Peter and Paul did not walk around with their bibles, propounding to the Gentiles. The Church existed, founded by Christ on the faith of Peter, long before any Bible ever saw the light of day.
By what authority did protestants remove books from the Bible? Though protestants, and Lutherans especially, claim a great reverence for Augustine, the books in your bible are not the books that were in his Bible and are in our (Catholic) Bibles today. If the Word of God is the only authority, show me where it says in the Word of God which books are in and which are out.
And is the aftermath of the “Reformation” not proof that Scripture must be interpreted and that, left to their own devices, every soul will interpret Scripture just as he sees fit?! It is impossible for the Bible, even if you protestants had the whole of the Bible, for it to be our sole authority, for who is to say what it means? That is, who is to say in an authoritative fashion what it means? Luther may have said many plausible things - I like many of the things that he says in his commentary on Jonah - but why should I think that Luther got it right? I’d love to trust the guy, but my eternal salvation is at stake.
Mr. Thompson, there are two very good articles - talks, originally, that I would recommend for your perusal, on topics related to our discussion in this thread. See here and here.
Another good article - by J. H. Newman - on the same topic:
“Now, my dear brethren, consider, are not these two states or acts of mind quite distinct from each other;—to believe simply what a living authority tells you, and to take a book, such as Scripture, and to use it as you please, to master it, that is, to make yourself the master of it, to interpret it for yourself, and to admit just what you choose to see in it, and nothing more? Are not these two procedures distinct in this, that in the former you submit, in the latter you judge?”
Thanks for taking the time to chat with us!
Iosephus:
As you should know, the Evangelical Lutheran Churches do not wish to be called protestant churches. We leave that designation to the Reformed and the Anabaptist enthusiasts.
Concerning the Canon of Scripture, we do not list out the books, but simply subscribe to the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, as do the Catholics, I believe. Or do you have a set Canon? Luther included all of the Apocrypha in his German translation of the Scriptures.
Also, what do you make of Pope Benedict XVI’s recent quotation of Luther?
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20080924_en.html
It’s a long quote, but for the sake of information, the Lutheran teaching on authority in the church was stated quite well in the Formula of Concord of 1577:
For thorough, permanent unity in the Church, it is necessary, above all things, that we have a comprehensive, unanimously approved summary and form of teaching. The common doctrine must be brought together from God’s Word and reduced to a small circle of teaching, which the churches that are of the true Christian religion must confess. They must do this just as the Ancient Church always had its fixed symbols for this use. Furthermore, this should not be based on private writings, but on the kind of books that have been composed, approved, and received in the name of the churches that pledge themselves to one doctrine and religion. Therefore, we have declared to one another with heart and mouth that we will not make or receive a separate or new confession of our faith. Instead, we will confess the public common writings, which always and everywhere were held and used as such symbols or common confessions in all the churches of the Augsburg Confession before the disagreements arose among those who accept the Augsburg Confession. We will confess them as long as there are on all sides, in all articles, a unanimous adherence to and maintenance and use of the pure doctrine of the divine Word, as the sainted Dr. Luther explained it.
1. First, we receive and embrace with our whole heart the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel. They are the only true standard or norm by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged.
2. In ancient times the true Christian doctrine, in a pure, sound sense, was collected from God’s Word into brief articles or chapters against the corruption of heretics. Therefore, we confess, in the second place, the three Ecumenical Creeds: the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian. They are glorious confessions of the faith, brief, devout, and founded on God’s Word. All the heresies that had at that time arisen in the Christian Church are clearly and irrefutably answered by these creeds.
3. In the third place, in these last times, by special grace, God has brought the truth of His Word to light again from the darkness of the papacy through the faithful service of the precious man of God, Dr. Luther. According to the Word of God, this doctrine has been collected from it into the articles and chapters of the Augsburg Confession against the corruptions of the papacy and other sects. Therefore, we also confess the first, unaltered Augsburg Confession as our symbol for this time. This is not because it was written by our theologians. We confess it because it has been taken from God’s Word and well founded firmly in the Word of God. We confess it precisely in the form in which it was committed to writing, in the year 1530, and presented to Emperor Charles V at Augsburg by some Christian electors, princes, and estates of the Roman Empire as a common Confession of the reformed churches. By this Confession, our reformed churches are distinguished from (a) the papists and (b) other rejected and condemned sects and heresies. This follows the custom and usage of the early Church, just as later councils, Christian bishops, and teachers appealed to the Nicene Creed, and confessed it.
4. In the fourth place, an extensive Apology was composed, published, and printed in 1531 regarding the proper and true sense of the oft-quoted Augsburg Confession. This was done after the Confession’s presentation, so that we might explain ourselves at greater length and guard against the papists. This was also done so that condemned errors might not sneak into God’s Church under the Augsburg Confession’s name or dare to seek cover under it. We unanimously confess this Apology also. Not only is the Augsburg Confession explained by the Apology (as much as is necessary and guarded), but it is also proven by clear, irrefutable testimonies of Holy Scripture.
5. In the fifth place, we also confess the Articles composed, approved, and received at Smalcald, in the great assembly of theologians, in the year 1537. We confess them as they were first framed and printed in order to be delivered in the Council at Mantua (or wherever it would be held) in the name of the estates, electors, and princes. They confessed it as an explanation of the above-mentioned Augsburg Confession, in which, by God’s grace, they were resolved to abide. In the Smalcald Articles the Augsburg Confession’s doctrine is repeated and some articles are explained at greater length from God’s Word. Besides this, the cause and reasons are indicated, as far as necessary, why we have abandoned the papistic errors and idolatries and can have no fellowship with them. They also explain why we do not know, and cannot think of, a way for coming to any agreement with the pope on these points.
6. In the sixth place, these highly important matters also concern the common people and laymen. Because they are Christians, they must distinguish between pure and false doctrine for their salvation. Therefore, we also confess the Small and the Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther, as they were written by him and included in his works. They have been unanimously approved and received by all churches holding to the Augsburg Confession and have been publicly used in churches, schools, and in homes. Furthermore, the Christian doctrine from God’s Word is put together in them in the most correct and simple way and explained, as far as is necessary for simple laypeople.
In the pure churches and schools these public, common writings have always been respected as the sum and model of the doctrine that Dr. Luther (of blessed memory) has admirably pulled together from God’s Word and firmly established against the papacy and other sects. We want to appeal to his full explanations in his doctrinal and polemical writings. We do so in the same way and as far as Dr. Luther himself has given necessary and Christian encouragement about his writings in the Latin preface to his published works [LW 34:327–38]. He has clearly drawn up this distinction: God’s Word alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no man should be regarded as equal. Everything should be subjected to God’s Word.
Other good, useful, pure books, expositions of the Holy Scriptures, refutations of errors, and explanations of doctrinal articles are not rejected by this point. As long as they are consistent with the above-mentioned type of doctrine, these works are considered useful expositions and explanations. They can be helpful. What has been said so far about the summary of our Christian doctrine is only intended to mean this: we should have a unanimously accepted, definite, common form of doctrine. All our evangelical churches should confess it together and in common. Because this Confession has been derived from God’s Word, all other writings should be judged and adjusted to it to determine the extent to which they are to be approved and accepted.
For this purpose we brought together the above-mentioned writings: the Augsburg Confession, Apology, Smalcald Articles, Luther’s Large and Small Catechisms as the frequently mentioned summary of our Christian doctrine. This was done because these have always and everywhere been regarded as the common, unanimously accepted meaning of our churches. Furthermore, they have been signed at that time by the chief and most enlightened theologians, and they have held sway in all evangelical churches and schools.
Also, as mentioned before, they were all written and sent out before the divisions among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession arose. Therefore, they are held to be impartial, and neither can nor should be rejected by either side of those who have entered into controversy. No one who is a follower of the Augsburg Confession without guile will complain about these writings. They will cheerfully accept and tolerate them as witnesses of the truth. No one can think ill about us because we get an explanation and decision about the articles in controversy from these writings.
As we lay down God’s Word—the eternal truth—as the foundation, we also introduce and quote these writings as a witness of the truth and as the unanimously received, correct understanding of our predecessors who have steadfastly held to the pure doctrine.
Iosephus:
I’ve read Fr. Damen’s teaching on the authority of the Church over Scripture. If this is true, however, then why do you criticize Cardinal Kasper?