Beatus Vir

Our seperated bretheren decline the hand. I'm always struck by the desire of some Lutherans to interpret the Pope's words in the most antithetical possible way.

"Love your enemies, and do good, and lend, exoecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High" - Jesus. (Lk 6:35)

Mr Woodring, from your time in Lutheranism, do Lutherans seem to at all want reunion? I pray they do, I have quite a bit of respect for confessional Lutherans.

Lutheranism is complicated. I speak of the LCMS.

There are some in the Missouri Synod who would embrace reuinion with Rome, even with doctrinal differences being what they are.

But for the most part, Missouri will not budge toward reunion until complete doctrinal agreement is achieved, and that means that Rome must concede everything to the Lutherans, repent, and embark in a lot of groveling and self-deprecation.

And then, there are those for whom not even that will ever be enough.

You have to understand that the LCMS holds that the Pope is the Antichrist. For those who are true to the position of the Missouri Synod, they would be as likely to want reunion with the Prince of Darkness than the Bishop of Rome.

As a confessional Lutheran here is a brief response to these comments.

Ben, I agree with your observation regarding how some Lutherans interpret the Pope's words on this or any other theological issue. Dan's comment sums it up with regard to the Antichrist (though some say it is the office of the papacy and not the person per se). At best this view about the Pope is staying true to the Lutheran tradition (with ongoing encouragement from protestants). At worse, this view adds an overwhelming note of irrationality to any discussion related to the Pope and including theological issues that he addresses, such that the theological issues almost never get addressed, if even acknowledged. When this is the case the picture moves beyond simple disagreement on particular theological issues and leaves very little room for discussion, including even "in-house" (Lutheran to Lutheran) discussion.

I am far from understanding all I would like to but have read enough theological writings of the former Cardinal and current Pope to take him at his words. This leaves open the possibility of agreement and disagreement without being distracted by irrational fears.

Without saying more this hopefully gives you one sense of why it is so hard to discuss Catholic theology with, or among, Lutherans.

Maybe a first step toward "reunion" would be to get the current pope's name right -- Benedict XVI, not XIV.

The next step would be to admit there is no union to be re-united. Rome broke with the apostolic faith of the catholic church long ago, then broke with its own Roman Catholic faith at Vatican II. The latter being the reason why I swam the Tiber too -- out, not even knowing at the time there is anywhere to swim to, under the influence of Roman hallucinogens.

The words of the current pope are encouraging. Perhaps in his old age he will come to the same courage he displayed as a young man and desert the abomination whose uniform he wears.

I appreciate Tim's assessment and frustration. I do think that those who regard the office of the papacy as the antichrist, and not the person per se, however, make things more difficult.

The view of the BOC that the Pope is the very antichrist rests upon the argument that he teaches contrary to the Gospel. If it is the office of the papacy that is "antichrist" then even should a pope agree with the Lutheran view, he would still be in office of the antichrist, would he not? So while the "office" vs. "person" distinction may seem like a kinder, gentler way of approaching things, I think that it is actually much worse.

Terry,

I've corrected the typo. Anything I am happy to do anything I can to foster re-union.

I am wondering if you were aware that the Lutheran confessions were written before Vatican II. I know your argument, and frankly, you have never said anything that convinces me that the Church post-Vatican 2 is substantially different than pre-vatican 2. In fact, the general consensus among confessional Lutherans is the opposite, namely, that Rome has not changed.

When it comes to the "central article", which is the primary disagreement between us, I believe you are hard pressed to show any discontinuity between what our current pontiff has said, and that which was taught by Augustine, the councils of Florence and the second of Orange, not to mention the Confutatio, Trent, Bellermine, Thomas Aquinas, and so on.

How, exactly, would one not be aware that a book from 1580 predates the 1960s?

Of course confessional Lutherans say the Roman church has not changed. If anything, it has gotten worse. And in any case, is still a departure from the church of Christ and simply the Imperial religion of Rome minus the empire.

However, I did not leave the Roman church because of confessional Lutheranism, which was still some twenty years in the future for me at the time, and seemed like nothing more than a well intended but misplaced effort to be Catholic without being Catholic. I left the post-conciliar Roman church on Catholic grounds.

I never will say anything to convince you or anyone else that the post-conciliar Roman church is fundamentally different from the pre-conciliar Roman church, let alone that it is its greatest enemy ever, which it is. The case has been made many times over far better than I have the time or ability to do, and is confirmed with each Tiber swimming since.

Among the many such demonstrations I have provided links to some of them on my blog, particularly with respect to the "Catechism of the Catholic Church", being neither a catechism nor Catholic, and the novus ordo, a thorough inversion and perversion of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of Roman belief.

The universalism strained through phenomenology that is the Gospel according to Ratzinger, Wojtyla, Scheler and others allows one to see whatever congruency one wishes with whatever one wishes.

Actually, identifying Antichrist with the office rather than any particular office holder makes it easier rather than not. Because, should a pope come to accept what you call the Lutheran view, he would in no way still keep himself in the office of antichrist.

Which is what is encouraging about Ratzinger reading Luther -- that perhaps he may come to show the same courage as an old man that he did as a young man in renouncing the uniform of the abomination he wore.

Dan,
Thank you for the correction. And you rightly assess the frustration of this issue among the Lutherans. What I grapple with is when the Vatican speaks truth to error and to power and we are not supposed to accept it as truth (even when we believe it to be so) because of the source. On the other hand all kinds of error can exist among non-Catholics but we are above Reformation because we are the Reformation (bound more to the Enlightenment). The ultimate irony might be that the "Antichrist" teaches the truth while falsity, error and heresy actually thrive elsewhere. I offer no solution here but only these thoughts.

PE,
We are all aware of childhood errors and mistakes. Are children able to escape from them, repent and mature to a position altogether different? At first, I was a bit alarmed by this news. After reading more up on this it is nothing more than an unhappy circumstance. This certainly does not equate with lifelong allegiance. His writings and speaking seems quite clearly opposed to such characterizations. Someone who has reached these accomplishments in the study of and teaching of theology and then reaching the position in the Catholic Church that he has demonstrates that his allegiances are clearly with a different kingdom and not the one you are clearly concerned about.

Ratzinger has been reading and writing on Luther for many years. He has no fear of studying the theology of other Christians and points out clearly any disagreement he has with them (whether Catholic or not). If he can point out those teachings of Luther that are praiseworthy and true it is no less a challenge for us to do the same when he and other Catholics also teach those things that are true and praiseworthy.

One might fairly assess that things are worsening in the Catholic Church. However, we must not ignore that, if this is true, it might also be true outside the Catholic Church.

Do not be fooled. There is no monopoly in any church on wearing "the uniform of the abomination."

Dear Father May -- I do not disagree with you, ni hic ni et ubique.

At the very least, even a broken watch has the right time twice a day, or once if digital. I can say now what I could not say as a Catholic, that the catholic church can be found within the post-conciliar Catholic Church, that amid its many and manifest errors it nonetheless still teaches some truth, for which we can be glad. To which I would also add, we ourselves have done great violence to the Lutheran Reformation, particularly here in the US, by rejecting things that are part of the catholic church because they are found in the Catholic Church.

Nor would I at any point allege deterioration to be contained within the Roman church, and certainly not absent from our beloved synode, the worst one in the world, except for all the others.

And -- in case this is the concern to which you refer but not mention -- in no way do I consider Ratzinger's membership in the Hitler Youth or the armed forces of Nazi Germany to be reflective of him as a man; the former being cumpulsory, the latter its consequence which he deserted in a courageous act of conscience at no small risk, deserters being able to be shot on sight.

That said, this is a "Catholic" blog and, as with the other "Catholic" blog where I have posted (Catholic blogs being intolerable without sufficient Pepto-Bismol) I post from the standpoint of the Catholic faith I once professed rather than the Lutheran faith I now profess.

Which point is, from the pitiable Neuhaus down (or up, as the case may be) this church the Tiber swimmers take for the Catholic Church I saw from its inception, knew some of its architects, heard what was said behind what was said, and it is in no case the Catholic Church in which I was raised or professed belief, but a monstrous and grotesque sham and parody of it, an utter disconnect from it, the greatest enemy it has ever faced, which in fidelity to Catholic belief must be roundly condemned as standing under the anathemas of the Catholic Church itself. To which I would add, the stories of our Tiber swimmers make clear as if more clarification were needed that the post-conciliar "Catholic" church is not the Catholic Church at all, and that conversion to the Catholic Church would have been impossible for them and depends entirely on the new religion constructed at Vatican II.

Those are Catholic matters: Gott sei dank that they are no longer matters for me, except to holler "Bridge Out" at those of our number missing the sign.

PE,

Regarding the post-conciliar Catholic Church I think you would find those who share your views at the highest levels in the same. There is a wide gap between theology and the reality of the church's existence crossing all ecclesiastical, confessional and denominational boundaries. This is usually dogmatically asserted as "diversity." To me such diversity is beyond obvious so this cultural construct which we know from the 60s and 70s and beyond really, I believe, is at best a distraction and at worse an excuse to not acknowledge or address the substance of the catholic faith.

Still, while you are rightly concerned about universalistic theology within the Catholic Church this is even more certainly a problem with the cultural religion. We must consider that the Antichrist might also arise in a religion that is not bound by the Catholic Church but may actually be already entrenched in part in all ecclesiastical, confessional and denominational traditions. Therefore I do not begrudge the Christ-centered approach of Pope Benedict XVI nor those within the Catholic Church who are trying to bring that church back to true catholicity.

I speak as one from a tradition that knows little of the papacy and only what it knows is bad. My tradition is actually going overboard in the opposite direction, which, may be arguably a more dangerous prospect. Therefore, while I am not jumping ship it bothers me only a little if there are those who leave to preserve their consciences.
Your concern about those not finding what they are looking for is also appreciated. I find it quite ironic when there is an uproar when some go to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and we hear nothing when pastors leave for "community" or other such groups.

But I would argue (not with you) that these things have to do with theological issues such as christolology, ecclesiology, soteriology, sacraments, etc. and not with "diversity", liberation or adjusting Christianity to meet cultural expectations.

I think there are breaths of fresh air within the Catholic Church, such as Pope Benedict XVI, as there are within every tradition. We are in agreement that there is no perfect jurisdiction. I think this only means we need to support and defend the voices of the theological truth of the catholic faith wherever we hear them.

Indeed, Father May. I doubt there is much of anything about which you and I disagree. We have widely different expository styles, which we -- I, actually -- at times need to clarify to attain visible agreement.

We certainly agree the our beloved synod is not the catholic church in toto, not the "true" church, and most certainly not immune from the effects of Antichrist who indeed operates against the catholic faith wherever elements of it are to be found, not at all confined to what is known as the Roman Catholic Church. And we agree that those who seek to defend their historic confessions against what is happening across the board are brothers in the same struggle, for the sake of those elements of the catholic faith which our confessions may share and despite those they don't.

On top of which, given my background, I think a day with Joseph Ratzinger playing piano, cooking brats and talking things over would be magnificent -- I may even get over the feeling after hearing him speak that I'm about to be assigned a paper due next week (his English sounding just like some of my professors)!

What is ironic is that you and I both would, on some "Lutheran" blogs, be called crypto-papists who ought to just go ahead and do what our host here has done and be done with it!

Which is really the only reason I visit our Aussie friend's blog, and lately this one. Been there, done that, as they say. I already was a "papist", no crypto about it! But, whereas our Bosphoros swimmers find what is recognisably Orhodoxy when they become Orthodox, our Tiber swimmers all find the same entity on its shores, so zu sagen, unrecognisable from what was there when I was there and left because it was taken down and replaced with the poor substitute. They don't even sound like converts used to sound. But why should they? They have converted to something other than what converts converted to as "Catholicism".

So while I no longer torture myself trying to remain Catholic within a church that is no longer Catholic, I do on encountering one of our number buying the lie try to carry the message that they having swum the Tiber are no more in the Catholic Church than Columbus was in India when he sailed the proverbial ocean blue!

Yes, "crypto-papists." Not a bad name for a blog either.

Anyway, not much to add here except that your line about a day with Joseph Ratzinger is great. That would be something. It reminds me of something he said a few years ago, after he was chosen to be pope, about simply being a man. I think many Lutherans would be surprised to find out that, besides being a great theologian, he believes in and teaches the Jesus of Scripture. (Another thing Lutherans would be surprised to find out would be that the pope of today finds agreement with many teachings of the 16th c. Luther. But that is a topic too big for this discussion.)

Dan, thank you for being such a gracious host.

I find it quite ironic when there is an uproar when some go to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and we hear nothing when pastors leave for "community" or other such groups.

Ah, thank you for that wise observation, Fr. May. How many Lutherans now occupy the pews in churches that have for all practical purposes abandoned historic Christianity?

What does it say when an esteemed Lutheran pastor such as Wally Schulz states that more literature by Billy Graham and Joyce Meyers is on Lutheran coffee tables than Lutheran material? Like it or not, there is still far more overlap between Lutherans and Catholics than Lutherans and Joe Osteen! I think you are spot on about the cultural collapse we are seeing in many traditions.

Last year 60 Minutes featured a story on Joel Osteen and at one of his book signings an older couple came up and gushed "My wife is Jewish and I'm Catholic and we just love your show!"

As for PE's insistence that those who swim the Tiber out of the Lutheran tradition do so completely with blinders on, I firmly reject that proposition. He can speak to his own upbringing as a preconciliar Catholic and what that means to him but he cannot define it for those of us who are Catholic by choice. It is no doubt frustrating to some preconciliar Catholics to hear that postconciliar Catholics are nourished in the Church today but there it is.

I learned the best of Lutheran and Catholic Christianity in my blended family. Even as a Catholic, I am grateful for the experience of both. Yet I have no desire to return to the monarchial model of the Catholic Church that PE and my father grew up in. PE is one voice among many. He is entitled to his views which are mirrored by those of the SSPX, the SSPV and other splinter groups.

And yes, Pope Benedict is very much rooted in Scripture.

Christine

I am afraid that more Catholics read read Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyers than Lutherans, and far too many Catholics occupy the pews of ahistorical Christianity.

This week's guest on EWTN's Journey Home, whose name I forgot, pointed out an estimated 70% of the pews filled at Willow Creek were former Catholics.

If I were still a Lutheran, I would be even more concerned about those who do fill the Lutheran pews, but are not really at all Lutheran. I think of three people I know quite well, one who loves being Lutheran, one who hates it, and one quite indifferent. But not one of them believes what Lutherans do on Justification, and would no doubt agree with what the Holy Father said as reported in this post.

At any rate, thank-you all for the stimilating discussion. Terry, your line about your synod being the worst except all the others was a gem. But everything else you said was the same old song and dance, and my toes aren't tappin'.

You know, when it came to my conversion, the only post-conciliar book that I had read was the Catechism. Perhaps you could include Cardinal Newman who was in many respects ahead of his time and may be called a post-conciliar Catholic who lived before the council.

But for my part it was Augustine, Bellermine and Thomas Aquinas, as well as other fathers who not only came before Vatican II, but came before Trent.

In Terry's (PE's) case, I think perhaps the problem falls along the lines of what Chesterton talks about in the first chapter of Everlasting Man, if you substitute a former Catholic looking at the Catholic Church for the former Christian looking at Christianity.

He did not see the Catholic Church as it really was because he was too close to it, and he is not yet far enough away to see that the Church both before and after John VI is the same Church. He has steped outside of her light but is still under her shadow. He is not near enough to love her, and yet not distant enough to not hate her.

Well Dan, this may be a new rap to you, but speaking of same old same old, I've been hearing what you're putting down for about forty years now.

Jeez, we read Augustine and Aquinas and the boys too, just didn't seem to come out like it does for you before the 1960s.

Die Christine geht hier auch? Who said you weren't being nourished? I'm just saying the nourishment isn't Catholic.

And speaking of same old same old, it always comes to the same end when speaking with post-conciliar "Catholics": what was taught to me by the RCC becomes "my" definition, "my own views", and those who teach and practice what the Church taught and practised are "splinter groups".

But thanks for the confirmation, as if more were needed, that what travels under the name "Catholic Church" now is a murderer dressed in its victim's clothes.

A brief response to Christine and Dan regarding the reading materials of lay Catholics and Lutherans. I have noticed this same problem. I have met many life-long Lutherans and Catholics who are devoted to their traditions but whose beliefs are shaped by the a-theological and a-historical (and really non-Scriptural) teachings and approaches of pop-protestant authors, evangelists, TV personalities, etc. They have no understanding or have lost the understanding of what their church really teaches, or have rejected the church's teaching and replaced it with a pan-pop-cultural-religion. Teachings such as those about Christ, the Church, Sacraments, and liturgy (and more) are lost on them even if they retain nominal devotion to the church where they hold their membership. While believing that they are learning Bible teaching they are learning more about self-help-feel-good motivation-driven-positive-thinking-success oriented-happiness than any teaching that might lead them closer to Christ. There is so much substantial teaching that they are missing out on because of faulty characterizations they have heard about such teaching. There is so much rich biblical theology in the catechisms and the liturgy itself that one cannot fully appreciate in a lifetime. You know that there is a problem when you mention an author's name or a theological topic and all you get in reply is a blank stare. Pope Benedict XVI is very grounded in Scripture and his writings are accessible to many. Thank you for your comments.

No disagreement there. If we tried to determine a false church by the number of its "bad" members, we'd all come up false.

Our last men's study group at midweek used PDL. The LCMS church that packs in in just one of its services more than any three or four others will all Sunday is listed on the Willow Creek site. It sends by far the biggest number of students to our school system -- ya think anyone's going to say something with all that tuition money on the line?

Dan, I was by no means trying to say that Catholics also have not fallen into this trap. They surely have. I was addressing Father May's point that some Lutherans have more apoplexy about their kin swimming the Tiber or the Bosphorous than when they head off to evangelical land and lose all sacramental sensibility. We really are living in a post-Christian era. Part of the problem is that Americans now have a very poor grounding in history. As Father May well says pop culture, pop-protestantism and TV personalties form the referent for many. There's definitely been a "dumbing down" of the culture.

That catechesis has been bad across the board is beyond dispute. I still travel a lot in Lutheran circles because my sister's family is Lutheran. We all have a lot of work to do.

Christine