Do you not agree with the holy fathers?
“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)
"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).
"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)
“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).
“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.” St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)
"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)
"Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God." St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)
"It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments." St. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 2
Hi Rev. Weedon,
I gave much primary evidence demonstrating that Chrysostom, Basil, Cyril and Augustine (and six other Church Fathers) did not believe in sola Scriptura in the following paper:
Reply to Jason Engwer's "Catholic But Not Roman Catholic" Series on the Church Fathers: Sola Scriptura (An In-Depth Analysis of Ten Church Fathers' Views Pertaining to the Rule of Faith)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...tholic-
but.html
St. Gregory of Nyssa's view was dealt with in a separate paper:
Did St. Gregory of Nyssa Believe in Scripture Alone? (+ Discussion)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...believe-
in.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...0856114/
#130701
I can't say that I have studied St. John Damascene's views on this, but I am confident that a study of his opinions would easily reveal the same position as all the others.
I "proved" in another paper that it could be "proven" that I, too, believe in sola Scriptura, if someone would just act like you and many Protestants who take this approach, collect my statements about Scripture and ignore what I wrote about Tradition, apostolic succession, conciliar and papal authority, etc.:
If the Church Fathers Can Be Remarkably Transformed Into "Sola Scriptura Protestants" by "Bible Prooftexts", Why Not Me, Too?!!
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
amazingly.html
Sure enough; took me about 45 seconds on Google to find something relevant on St. John Damascene:
"I honour all matter besides, and venerate it. Through it, filled, as it were, me. Was not the with a divine power and grace, my salvation has come to thrice happy and thrice blessed wood of the Cross matter? Was not the sacred and holy mountain of Calvary matter? What of the life-giving rock, the Holy Sepulchre, the source of our resurrection: was it not matter? Is not the most holy book of the Gospels matter? Is not the blessed table matter which gives us the Bread of Life' Are not the gold and silver matter, out of which crosses and altar-plate and chalices are made? And before all these things, is not the body and blood of our Lord matter? Either do away with the veneration and worship due to all these things, or submit to the tradition of the Church in the worship of images, honouring God and His friends, and following in this the grace of the Holv Spirit."
(On Holy Images, trans. by Mary H. Allies, London, Thomas Baker, 1898, pp. 10-17)
"Often, doubtless, when we have not the Lord's passion in mind and see the image of Christ's crucifixion, His saving passion is brought back to remembrance, and we fall down and worship not the material but that which is imaged: just as we do not worship the material of which the Gospels are made, nor the material of the Cross, but that which these typify. For wherein does the cross, that typifies the Lord, differ from a cross that does not do so? it is just the same also in the case of the Mother of the Lord. For the honour which we give to her is referred to Him Who was made of her incarnate. And similarly also the brave acts of holy men stir us up to be brave and to emulate and imitate their valor and to glorify God. For as we said, the honour that is given to the best of fellow-servants is a proof of good-will towards our common Lady, and the honour rendered to the image passes over to the prototype. But this is an unwritten tradition, just as is also the worshipping towards the East and the worship of the Cross, and very many other similar things.
". . . Moreover that the Apostles handed down much that was unwritten, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, tells us in these words: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and bold the traditions which ye have been taught of us, whether by word or by epistle." And to the Corinthians he writes, "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you." "
(The Fount of Wisdom, trans S.D.F. Salmon in John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, repr. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955, Vol IX, p. 88 )
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/s...ndam-
icons.html
See also his sermons on the Assumption of Mary:
http://www.catholictradition.org...ry/mary19-
3.htm
Really sounds like a sola Scriptura Protestant. Who could doubt it? We have veneration of images, veneration of the cross, indeed of all matter, asking Mary to intercede, Mary's Assumption, authoritative unwritten traditions of the Church, etc.
Man, you guys make Catholic apologetics so easy. At least give me some kind of a challenge . . . If I could find this stuff in 15 minutes on Google, couldn't you do the same?
David,
But the question was not on whether one should hold to unwritten traditions, but how one may know that what goes by the name of traditions are in fact traditions. If you've not read it, I would encourage a study of Martin Chemnitz' *Examination of the Council of Trent* where he delineates no less than 8 kinds of tradition, and rejects unqualifiedly only the last sort: those unwritten traditions related to faith and morals undemonstrable from the Scriptures but to received with the same faith and devotion. For to Lutherans the dispute is simply about this: do the Sacred Scriptures contain all things which pertain to the articles of faith and the teachings of the faith?
In summary, the seven forms of traditions accepted among Lutherans:
1. The Sacred Scriptures themselves (yes, they are part of Tradition!)
2. The handing down of the Scriptures and the witness of the Church concerning canonicity.
3. The Rule of Faith.
4. The exposition of the Scriptures.
5. Dogmas gathered from inference of what the Scriptures teach (e.g., infant baptism)
6. Consensus of the Orthodox fathers on controverted points ("We hold that no dogma that is new in the churches and in conflict with all of antiquity should be accepted.")
7. Unwritten but ancient ceremonies and rites traced back to the apostles by the fathers (which are accepted, but with the qualification that while the doctrine is universal and perpetual, the Church has in freedom altered even apostolic ceremonies - the eating of blood; the requirement of head covering).
Thus,
Oops. Last part disappeared. Thus, Lutherans make a distinction which the Fathers also made: when it comes to the teachings of the faith, they appeal explicitly to the Sacred Scriptures and they urge their hearers to pass judgment on what they hear based upon those Sacred Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem even tells CATECHUMENS who are just learning the faith not believe what he says unless they receive the demonstration from the Sacred Scriptures. Key to all of that, of course, is what Father Behr points out in his marvelous *Way to Nicea* that the Fathers teach the reading of the Scriptures with the Christological key for unlocking their meaning.
One last point, in case you missed it, "sola Scriptura protestant" is a straw man. You may not with intellectual honesty equate the complex teaching of the Lutheran Church regarding traditions with those confessions who seem to mean by sola Scriptura "nuda Scriptura." It might be of some help to note that a similar situation of otains in regards to "sola fide" - by faith alone. We do insist that we are justified by faith alone - and we immediately add, that the faith that alone justifies is NEVER alone, but invariably accompanied by works of love as the fruit of that faith.
So with the ablative "by Scripture alone" but the Scriptures are not received by us alone, but also with the gift of the interpretation of the them which the Holy Spirit has endowed the Church.
I really am not sure how to characterize the other Protestants on the question, but I wonder if this distinction would be helpful? For the others, whatever was not in Scripture was rejected. For the Lutherans, whatever in the tradition, when tested against the Scripture and found wanting, was rejected, but whatever could be harmonized with it and was not contrary was retained.
There is still a critiquing of tradition in either Protestant camp, but if you trace that out you will see why Lutherans retain statuary and honor the cross when it passes and have the traditional vestments and paraments and retain the lion's share of the liturgy of the mass and of the offices etc.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I understand all that. I don't accuse Lutherans of "nuda Scriptura" or what is often called "solo Scriptura." You are simply assuming that I do that or might do it.
All this is well and good, and not far from Catholic teaching, but does it not remain true that for the Lutheran, no council or pope is infallible, and Scripture is the only infallible authority? To me, that is the heart of sola Scriptura, for everyone who believes it. This was the essence of Luther at Worms: he could reject the authority of the Catholic Church where he disagreed with it, precisely because he rejected its infallibility and put the Bible in a place that the Fathers didn't, because they believed in the three-legged stool of Bible-Church-Tradition.
Protestants may have greatly differing views as to how much they incorporate non-infallible tradition (with Lutherans, Methodists and Anglicans being on the "more" end of the spectrum), but they still reject an infallible Church and pope and apostolic succession.
Catholics believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture. This is usually what explains Church fathers talking about the centrality and primacy of Scripture.
Moreover, if St. John Damascene supposedly believed as a Lutheran, where in Scripture did he find a "sacred declaration" of the Assumption or veneration of images, or asking Mary and other saints to intercede, according to the Lutheran methodology and rule of faith? And if it can't be done, then why do you cite him in the first place? he is obviously far closer to my belief as a Catholic than to yours as a Lutheran.
I would encourage a study of Martin Chemnitz' *Examination of the Council of Trent
All you guys talk about that book. How much does it cost? You ought to take up a collection and send it to me as a gift. 
I'm just a poor apologist trying to squeak by, doing apologetics and evangelism and sacrificing for the sake of the gospel and the kingdom. I'm not loaded with dough like you Lutheran pastors are.
Just teasing!
It might be of some help to note that a similar situation of obtains in regards to "sola fide" - by faith alone. We do insist that we are justified by faith alone - and we immediately add, that the faith that alone justifies is NEVER alone, but invariably accompanied by works of love as the fruit of that faith.
Amen. That's why I wrote this paper, to make that clear, and to defend Luther against the usual ignorant charges of antinomianism that a lot of Catholics stupidly make:
Martin Luther's Doctrine Concerning Good Works: Have I Misrepresented It?
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...rning-
good.html
A lot of what you say are reasons why I think Lutheranism is the most respectable Protestant denomination. I used to think the Reformed were, but after much interaction with them, y'all have passed them and sit up at #1!
Hey; Chemnitz is $22 right now on amazon for a used hardcover. Not bad at all!
http://www.amazon.com/Examinatio...82266888&sr=1-
1
But I can't even afford that at the moment, as I am waiting to get a full-time job to supplement my royalty income and going through the usual summer doldrums of financial support from those who believe in this apostolate. If I had a little extra money I would be more than happy to purchase it as an important early Lutheran apologetic. I have a great many of the primary works of the period, such as Melanchthon's Loci communes (two different versions), etc.
Oh, I see that is only part I. Yep, this multi-volume work will require big bucks any way you look at it. Y'all should press Project Wittenberg to scan it and make it available for po' folks like me who don't have $150 to fork out for books that trash my faith.
Dave,
The volume of Examination you would want to deal with this question is the first. It covers Scripture and then Traditions.
I want to be clear: I never said nor do I believe that St. John of Damascus is a Lutheran. But he is very important to Lutherans for many reasons. First, his theological methodogy as laid out in On the Orthodox Faith is the same methodology Lutherans employed in the great "Loci Communes" or "Loci Theologici." This method predates the summa method (where things fit together nicely) and instead focuses on gathering together the pertinent Scriptural passages and patristic witnesses under the various heads of Christian doctrine.
He's also very important for the Lutheran approach to Christology - if you ever have joy of Chemnitz' magisterial work on that topic, you'll notice at once his indebtedness to the Damascene.
He believed, of course, in the force of unwritten tradition - no one who reads him would deny that for a second - but he also was very careful to follow the rule laid down in what I cited from him originally. He seeks to establish each article of faith from the Sacred Scriptures primarily.
The difficulty with the recent Roman treatment of the Assumption, by the way, is not granting that it happened, but the dogmatizing of the Assumption into something which must be believed. This the earlier church never did. FWIW.
Sounds like an interesting book. It is only time and limited finances that has prevented me from not obtaining and reading it up till now. It's definitely next on my list of early Protestant primary materials.
But you started this thread by asking, "Do you not agree with the holy fathers?" And my answers is, "yes, by and large, of course, but citing only one aspect of their teaching, in discussing Scripture, is not the whole of their teaching on the rule of faith, and has to be balanced with a consideration of how they regarded Tradition, an authoritative Church, apostolic succession, the papacy, and ecumenical councils."
You were clearly implying that St. John Damascene and the others were closer to a Lutheran rule of faith than to the Catholic. This I strongly deny and I have argued it in some considerable depth (regarding every Father mentioned except for him).
They believe in material sufficiency of Scripture. So do I and most Catholics. No disagreement there . . .
But the question was not on whether one should hold to unwritten traditions, but how one may know that what goes by the name of traditions are in fact traditions.
The Magisterium declares what is the content of authentic Sacred Tradition, and to my knowledge (admittedly limited) it does not say that the writings of Father #1 or Father #2 contain the sum of that Tradition: that is, no Father of the Church is considered an infallible authority.
Dave,
The citations I cited from the fathers are passages that I have noted in my reading over many years. I don't think I'm "picking and choosing" but I do notice that when they address the matter of Scripture, they clearly sound consonant with the Lutheran Symbols that all the teaching of the Church is to be normed by what the Sacred Scriptures say.
Now, I notice that in recent years, and especially since the council, there were those who proposed that Scripture AND Tradition was the wrong way to go about thing, since that leaves the impression that Tradition is for what's not in the Scripture and yet is binding.
It was pointed out by a number of catholic theologians, was it not?, that the early fathers actually spoke in a different way. That the content of Tradition and Scripture is the same: the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ, our blessed Lord, true God and true Man. They could appeal to Scripture AND they could appeal to Tradition because they were convinced that both gave witness to the self-same reality.
The particular Lutheran concern arises when one recognizes that under guise of unwritten traditions stuff can sneak in at times that is not part of Tradition (with the capital). And how then do you recognize what is and what isn't authentic in the Tradition?
It seems to this Lutheran that the Roman position is to say: Holy Mother Church won't lead you astray; through the magisterium, we'll authenticate that which is the goods and we'll point out what is not.
As a Lutheran, of course, the matter is settled in a different manner: whatever is contrary to the Scriptural witness ipsofacto is contrary to Tradition.
I was reading the discussion this morning in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession on the matter of satisfactions. The Apology demonstrates that there CAN be no works of supererrogation because Scripture reveals that none of us are capable of meeting the demands of the Law - we do not love God with our all; we fail to love our neighbor as ourselves. And so the idea that anyone can have left over good works to help serve another is, for us, ruled out by Scripture: "When you have done all that you are commanded, say: We are unworthy servants, we have only done our duty."
Sorry to be so longwinded, but I do appreciate the conversation. I think Lutherans and Roman Catholics really can have most promising dialog because of our shared history - history which the Lutherans (unlike the Reformed) do not repudiate. We consider St. Bernard a father, just as we consider St. John of Damascus one, and St. Leo and St. Gregory. We see and hear in all of them faithful witness to that saving Gospel which it is our duty and delight to proclaim.
In the peace of Christ!
As a Lutheran, of course, the matter is settled in a different manner: whatever is contrary to the Scriptural witness ipsofacto is contrary to Tradition.
And who decides authoritatively what is scriptural and what isn't, and what do you do when different authorities (even within Lutheranism) honestly disagree? Just form another Lutheran sub-group? Take a vote?
So you really have the same problem any Christian does, and (with all due respect) you haven't solved it by abstract recourse to "well, whatever the good ole Bible teaches, that's what WE believe!" because that immediately raises the question of interpretation, which leads right back to human beings.
Now you are forced to rely on entirely fallible human beings (because you allow no infallible human beings, protected by the Holy Spirit) who contradict each other. It's pick and choose, and what I sometimes call "the priesthood of scholars." That is ultimately arbitrary. And it is placing man too large in the scheme of things, where God should, rather, be.
But the Catholic view is not arbitrary or confusing at all because we believe that the Holy Spirit infallibly guides the Church and Councils and popes (within certain limitations) to prevent contradiction and error. It is the work of God, not men. Men only determine it insofar as they are granted a sheer gift of infallibility by God in certain circumstances.
Sorry to be so longwinded, but I do appreciate the conversation. I think Lutherans and Roman Catholics really can have most promising dialog because of our shared history - history which the Lutherans (unlike the Reformed) do not repudiate.
Yep, me too. I'm honored by your presence here and willingness to talk in polite, amiable fashion.
I still say that Corpus Christi is a perfectly reasonable development of eucharistic theology. The original retort (on Josh's blog) was that "this wasn't in the Bible, so we can't do it". I responded in a number of ways, but always appealing to development.
I could also cite organs, stained glass, church buildings themselves, closed communion (perhaps strongly implied -- and of course, we agree -- but not overtly stated), presidents of church bodies, denominations, choirs, voting for pastors, and a host of other things as equally "unbiblical" but that doesn't stop Lutherans from doing all of them.
I could make an elaborate biblical argument favoring the sacrifice of the mass, and there is strong patristic consensus on that as well (I've debated that with Lutherans), but it doesn't prevent Lutherans from not accepting that notion.
We freely agree that development is required to get to Corpus Christi, but we argue that it is perfectly predictable and inevitable. All doctrines develop, and liturgy does also. The Church is continually guided into deeper truth by the Holy Spirit.
Thanks for the great discussion!
David,
The manner Lutherans sought to guard against private judgment (which we also condemn - shoot, Scripture does, how could we not?) is to first seek from the Scriptures the grounds for a given teaching and then to demonstrate that such an understanding was not novel by citing the Fathers who similarly dealt with the topic. This is the pattern of the Lutheran Symbols, whose motto might be summarized as "nothing new." It was a Lutheran, Hermann Sasse, who said: "A church without patristics is a sect." Lutheranism takes that seriously, but (like Rome) does not burden the fathers with infallibility. We acknowledge the consensus of the fathers on given points of dispute, rather than attributing absolute infallibility to any of them. We, with St. Augustine, reserve such absolute infallibility to the canonical Scripture - and yes, of course, we receive such canon from tradition. See the post above about Chemnitz.
That's why it's really fun and interesting to dialogue with Lutherans on what the Fathers believed. I love it! Each side is trying to show that the Fathers were more like them in some particular topic.
Where and how do Catholics give "absolute infallibility" to "any" Church Father (unless you mean someone like Pope St. Leo the Great or Pope St. Gregory the Great ? I'm unaware that we do that, and I've been doing Catholic apologetics for 16 years.
Our view is actually a lot like yours: we look at the broad consensus of patristic teaching as indicative of the true Sacred Tradition in any given area. so our debate here is simply over the patristic facts. I love that because I love Church history and history of doctrine (and the tie-in to development).
Overall, this historical argument gains strength as doctrine after doctrine are shown to be more in line with the Catholic Church than any Protestant communion. It's a cumulative effect. If you find that the Fathers more closely resemble Catholics in, say, nine different doctrines or practices, then that has to give a non-Catholic Christian who respects patristics (as Lutherans do) at least some pause.
It doesn't seem to me that Lutherans can entirely avoid the problem of private judgment. Because there's this little problem of them having separated from the Catholic Church. On what grounds? Because Luther, Melancthon and some others privately judged that they knew better than the Church.
David,
I said that the Lutherans were in agreement with Rome in not burdening the fathers with infallibility.
Reginald,
The division from Rome was not exactly a one-way street. The Augsburg Confession (which at one point Ratzinger seemed prepared to call a Confession of the Catholic Church!) makes it clear that the Lutheran princes, parishes, and pastors were not set on schism, but on avoiding it.
Private judgment in the interpretation of Scripture was not where the Lutheran Symbols came down, esle they would have seen no need whatsoever to show the opponents time and again that the teaching in our parishes was in unity with what had come before. They really meant it when they proclaimed at Augsburg: "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." (Conclusion, 5)
A Roman Catholic will, of course, disagree with the Lutheran assessment, but in rejecting indulgences, restrictions on the marriage of priests, the cup being withheld from the laity, the rejection of bishops having temporal power by divine right, making it sin when people failed to keep the church's fasting discipline, and the like, the Lutherans believed that they stood with the ancient church and with the best of the Roman Church.
And, of course, in the area of abuses addressed in the AC, Vatican II was rather much of a vindication of many Lutheran concerns. It could have gone further, and again, it was the present pope who said in his days before assuming the chair of Peter that the problem with the council was that it listened too much to Rahner and not enough to Luther!
I said that the Lutherans were in agreement with Rome in not burdening the fathers with infallibility.
Ah, I read that wrong.
And when they rejected transubstantiation?
And when they rejected the authority of the Church with respect to things like transubstantiation? And the points of disagreement you mention?
It may have been a judgment common to the Lutherans, but it was a private judgment nonetheless, advanced in place of the Church's authority.
And of course it wasn't a one-way street once Luther & Co. made it clear (regrettably) that they would not repent. And if they say "We have to be true to God and the Bible" then they have...exercised private judgment.
And if they say "We have to be true to God and the Bible" then they have...exercised private judgment.
To clarify what I mean: If they had wished to be true to God and the Bible, then they should have stayed in the Church. But because they had their own ideas about what the Bible taught - ideas they preferred to what the Church teaches - they exercised a private judgment to leave the Church.
The rejection of transubstantiation was of a particular theory of how the bread becomes the body of Christ. That in the Eucharist the bread IS the body of Christ is the teaching of the Lutheran Church, and the Augsburg Confession even uses the expression: "unter dem Gestalt Brodt und Weins" - under the *appearance* of bread and wine.
I don't think you'll find much to quibble about with Lutherans on that topic. The much weightier topic had to do with in what sense the Mass is a sacrifice. Yet, even on that, the Lutheran dogmaticians could say:
In the celebration of the Eucharist ‘we proclaim the Lord’s death’ (1 Cor. 11:26) and pray that God would be merciful to us on account of that holy and immaculate sacrifice completed on the cross and on account of that holy Victim which is certainly present in the Eucharist…. That he would in kindness receive and grant a place to the rational and spiritual oblation of our prayer. (Johann Gerhard, Confessio Catholica, vol II, par II, arti xiv, cap. I, ekthesis 6, 1200-1201)
It is clear that the sacrifice takes place in heaven, not on earth, inasmuch as the death and passion of God’s beloved Son is offered to God the Father by way of commemoration… In the Christian sacrifice there is no victim except the real and substantial body of Christ, and in the same way there is no true priest except Christ Himself. Hence, this sacrifice once offered on the cross takes place continually in an unseen fashion in heaven by way of commemoration, when Christ offers to His Father on our behalf His sufferings of the past, especially when we are applying ourselves to the sacred mysteries, and this is the ‘unbloody sacrifice’ which is carried out in heaven. (Ibid. 1204)
David Hollaz, another Lutheran dogmatician, wrote:
If we view the matter from the material standpoint, the sacrifice in the Eucharist is numerically the same as the sacrifice that took place on the cross; put otherwise, one can say that the things itself and the substance is the same in each case, the victim or oblation is the same. If we view the matter formally, from the standpoint of the act of sacrifice, then even though the victim is numerically the same, the action is not; that is, the immolation in the Eucharist is different from the immolation carried out on the cross. For on the cross an offering was made by means of the passion and death of an immolated living thing, without which there can be no sacrifice in the narrow sense, but in the Eucharist the oblation takes place through the prayers and through the commemoration of the death or sacrifice offered on the cross. (Examen theologicum acroamaticum, II, 620)
How far apart then on the sacrifice of the mass do you think we are? I'd be curious of your honest assessment of the above citations (either of you, Reginald or David).
One last thought for the night. Dr. Piepkorn (Lutheran) once observed that the existence of Lutheran eucharistic devotion could be accounted for by Roman Catholic Christians in one of four ways:
1. A blasphemous, diabolical sham and deception.
2. An exceptional and uncovenanted grace which a superabundantely compassionate God gives to people who would like to have the Eucharist, but cannot, because their clergy cannot confect valid Eucharists.
3. Valid Eucharists which a superabundantly compassionate God validates in an exceptional and uncovenanted way in spite of the intristic incompetence of celebrants to confect valid Eucharist.
4. Or, Lutheran Eucharists are valid because Lutheran clergymen possess the authority of order through presumptively valid orders.
He argues that perhaps a Roman Catholic could hold to the fourth option on the basis of a. 1 Tim 4:14; b. St. Jerome's Commentary on the Letter to Titus I, v. 9-13; c. the bulls Sacrae religionis (Feb. 1, 1400) and Apostolicae Sedis providentia (Feb. 6, 1403) of Bonifice IX; d. of the bull Gerentes ad vos (Nov. 16, 1427) of Marvin V; e. Of the bull Exposit (April 9, 1489) of Innocent VIII; f. Of the stipulations of Canon 951 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and g. of the analogy with confirmation.
He argues that on the basis of the above, it seems *possible* within Roman Catholic theology to argue that a priest at ordination receives the power to confer holy orders, and thus perhaps (again from a Roman view) Lutheran pastors may not posses an irregular form of presbyteral ordination and so be able to confect valid Eucharists.
Piepkorn's research on the question is worth following out. He also points to a number of presybeteral ordinations in the history of the West - specifically the ordination by St. Luidger while yet a prosbyer, ordained Landric to the priesthood. FWIW.
It seems to me - without addressing the particulars of what you are saying - that the more you argue how you're more or less just like the Catholics, you are begging us to ask you: why then are you not Catholic? If you're just like us, then there is no reason not to be, right? End the schism! Come home to Mother Church!
Reginald,
It is a question a Lutheran must wrestle with continually. For me, though, I must confess that I am already at home IN mother church precisely *as* a Lutheran Christian. But as such I do pray for the day when the hiddeous divisions will cease. May God grant us all the grace of repentance and the joy that alone will win the world!
2. An exceptional and uncovenanted grace which a superabundantly compassionate God gives to people who would like to have the Eucharist, but cannot, because their clergy cannot confect valid Eucharists.
This is my view. But if there is some chance that a valid Eucharist is present, I would be the first one to rejoice about it. I read some statement by the pope that came close to granting this as a possibility. I hope he is right.
The statements on Eucharist as related to sacrifice are excellent and extremely interesting. The difficulty I have, however, is synthesizing that with what we find in the Lutheran confessions; e.g.:
Smalcald Articles [1537], Part II, Article II: The Mass:
The Mass in the papacy must be regarded as the greatest and most horrible abomination because it runs into direct and violent conflict with this fundamental article. Yet, above and beyond all others, it has been the supreme and most precious of the papal idolatries . . .
If there were reasonable papists, one would speak to them in the following friendly fashion:
"Why do you cling so tenaciously to your Masses?
1. "After all, they are a purely human invention. They are not commanded by God . . . Christ says, 'In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men' (Matt. 15:9)."
. . . 3. . . . "one can be saved in a better way without the Mass. Will the Mass not then collapse of itself -- not only for the rude rabble, but also for all godly, Christian, sensible, God-fearing people -- especially if they hear that it is a dangerous thing which was fabricated and invented without God's Word and will?"
. . . 5. "The Mass is and can be nothing else that a human work, even a work of evil scoundrels . . ."
Accordingly we are and remain eternally divided and opposed the one to the other. The papists are well aware that if the Mass falls, the papacy will fall with it. Before they would permit this to happen, they would put us all to death.
Besides, this dragon's tail -- that is, the Mass -- has brought forth a brood of vermin and the poison of manifest idolatries.
(The Book of Concord, translated and edited by Theodore Tappert, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House / Muhlenberg Press, 1959, pp. 293-294)
Apology of the Augsburg Confession [1531], Article XXIV: The Mass
Carnal men cannot stand it when only the sacrifice of Christ is honored as a propitiation. For they do not understand the righteousness of faith but give equal honor to other sacrifices and services. A false idea clung to the wicked priests in Judah, and in Israel the worship of Baal continued; yet the church of God was there, condemning wicked services. So in the papal realm the worship of Baal clings -- namely, the abuse of the Mass . . . And it seems that this worship of Baal will endure together with the papal realm until Christ comes to judge and by the glory of his coming destroys the kingdom of Antichrist. Meanwhile all those who truly believe the Gospel should reject those wicked services invented against God's command to obscure the glory of Christ and the righteousness of faith.
(Tappert, ibid., 268 )
I asked at the end of my dialogue with a Lutheran, where I cited these passages:
"How Lutherans square the realities of these aspects of the Book of Concord, I don't know, but it creates an internal contradiction if one says that they follow the Lutheran confessions, yet dissent on the nature of the Mass and so forth, and are not themselves anti-Catholic.
"How would you square these two things, if you have become aware of some passages that perhaps you were not aware of before, in the Book of Concord? I'm very curious. There may very well be a way that ecumenical Lutherans reconcile this, through some interpretive means that I am not yet aware of. I'd be more than happy to be educated by those who feel that they have a solution to this apparent dilemma for ecumenical Lutherans. Please (you or friends of yours who might help us better understand) teach me . . . I don't want division; I would love for there to be a way to reconcile these two things. No one would be happier than I would be to learn that there is some coherent explanation of this, so that anti-Catholicism is not necessary to hold as a confessional Lutheran."
Dave,
The passages in the Symbols are ones that I am well aware of (as were Gerhard and Hollaz, of course!). The key is not just the "mass" but the "mass in the papacy" - i.e., how the Roman communion at the time of the Reformation was teaching about the Mass. A read through of the entirety of the Lutheran Symbols bears this out.
Specifically, Lutherans reject:
1. That the Mass gives grace by the outward performance of the ceremony (we teach that its proper use requires faith on the part of those receiving it);
2. That the performance of the Mass atones for sins of the living and the dead (we hold that Christ's self-oblation on Calvary alone has acheived this);
3. That it is an abuse of the Mass to pay for them to be offered.
4. That Christ by His Passion made payment for original sin, but instituted the Mass as payment for daily sins, both venial and mortal.
5. That it is proper for the Mass to be celebrated without communicants obeying Christ's command to "eat and drink."
So, in addition to the quotes you provided from the Lutheran Symbols, you need to set down the other ones:
"Our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass. The Mass is held among us and celebrated with greatest reverence." AC XXIV:1
"At the outset, we must again make the preliminary statement: we do not abolish the Mass, but religiously keep and defend it. Masses are celebrated among us every Lord's Day and on the other festivals. The Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons, of prayers, vestements and other such things." Ap. 24:1
"First, we hope that all good people everywhere understand that we keep the dignity of the Mass and show its true use with greatest zeal." Ap XXIV:99
Thus, even in Luther's harsh polemic recorded in the Smalcald Articles, it must be remembered that he was speaking specifically against what he experienced and was taught about the Mass in the papacy. It in no way mitigates the statements of the Lutheran dogmaticians cited above.
A friend of mine put it this way: when Lutherans speak of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, the word "sacrifice" is always noun, not verb. The verb sacrifice happened once for all upon the Cross of Calvary in which Christ alone was the High Priest immolating Himself. In the Eucharist that which He offered: His very body and blood, the sacrifice of Calvary, is given out to bring and seal the benefits of Calvary to the communicants who receive that Body and Blood, trusting in His promise "for you, for the forgiveness of sins."
Hi Rev. Weedon,
I'm delighted to hear that there may be some way of interpreting that harsh rhetoric in a way that perhaps was time-specific, and so does not necessarily apply today. We have the same view of the Tridentine anathemas, actually. There's a lot more leeway than many people think.
Still, it's tough for me to conceptualize the following words as falling under one or more of your #1-5:
"this worship of Baal will endure together with the papal realm until Christ comes to judge and by the glory of his coming destroys the kingdom of Antichrist."
How is it that Catholics worship Baal, for heaven's sake?
Commenting by HaloScan
