Over the last two years I have studied confessional Lutheranism when time has allowed. For me, steeped as I am in the Catholic Movement of Anglicanism, Lutheranism of the confessional kind (as opposed to the modernist mainline variety) has proven to be a fascinating and compelling adventure. However, I am somewhat confused by some of the theological claims I have discovered. The following is how I would describe my findings, and I hope someone far more knowledgable than I will correct my errors. Here we go...
Are confessional Lutherans, in essence, 'rivals' to the Holy Catholic Church?
1. I am fascinated by the confessional Lutheran position on the Real Objective Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. Missouri Synod Lutherans, for example, are absolutely emphatic that the True Body and Blood of Our Lord are 'in, with, and under' the species of bread and wine after consecration. They absolutely insist on the unique power and efficacy of the Verba, or Words of Institution, which alone consecrate the sacred species into the Body and Blood of Christ. They insist again that only those who hold to the Lutheran confessional doctrine may receive the Holy Communion, and thus they practice the two-pronged principle of necessity of dogmatic unity before Eucharistic hospitality, and of 'closed communion' for only those that fully subscribe to the Lutheran doctrinal formulae. What is most perplexing about this position from my perspective is the absolute rejection on their part of the apostolic sacramental or ministerial priesthood and of the necessity of episcopal ordination and apostolic succession, upon which, of course, Catholics believe the Eucharistic Mystery is utterly dependent. I am led to believe that Lutherans therefore believe any baptised Christian can preside at the Eucharist and recite the formula of the Verba, thus bringing about the Real Presence. But they vehemently deny this and require the 'Office of the Holy Ministry,' as transmitted by some form of succession within the Lutheran community, for a valid celebration of the Eucharist. They appear to deny that other protestants, such as Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians, possess a valid offering of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Again, confessional Lutherans abhor the Eucharistic Prayer or Canon, which they say, quoting Luther, 'stinks of oblation.' They claim that the Prayer of Consecration, or Canon, with anamnesis and epiclesis, renders the action of the Eucharistic celebration a man-centred work, works-righteousness, an act of the Church towards God in an effort to propitiate God, rather than the reception of the unmerited and unearned grace of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament. Thus, they divorce the traditional elements of the Canon from the Verba, which stand alone as the central and independent act of consecration. In the administration of the Lord's Supper, they call the elements the 'true Body' and 'true Blood' of the Saviour. Some of them even speak of the 'Mass;' they certainly all refer to the Holy Communion as being the Body and Blood of Christ. Yet, they do not practise Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament and do not seem to believe in a permanent Presence in the sacred species after their liturgical use.
2. Along these same lines, confessional Lutherans also claim to be THE One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, a genuine recovery of the True Church on earth. It is maintained that confessional Lutheranism is the full resourcement, the complete restoration of New Testament Christianity. In the Book of Concord, they claim to possess a higher magisterial authority for the interpretation and transmission of dogma than the Roman See or the consensus patricum of the early Fathers. They appear to claim that the Lutheran confessions correct the Church Fathers, while handing-on what is true and faithful in the original doctrine of the same. They claim to be the Church of the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Councils of the Undivided Church - and they assert that those bodies which refuse their position are essentially heretical and have abandoned the true Gospel. In practice, as I see it, this assertion seems to contradict the fundamental Lutheran axiom of sola scriptura, for it is only Scripture as rightly interpreted by the Lutheran confessions which alone possesses truth in faith and morals. To be painfully honest, I cannot help but see the Lutheran confessional position as analogous to the Donatist schism of the fourth century. The confessional Lutherans appear to hold themselves above the consentient witness and tradition of Catholicism as the 'Church of the pure,' the 'Church of the holy.' As far as I can tell, they present themselves as being the only true Church, uniquely possessing the purity and apostolic deposit of the Gospel - based on justification by faith alone, that on which the 'Church stands or falls.' Unity in the Church Catholic can thus only be had on the terms of the Lutheran confessions. Is adherence to the Book of Concord and the Augsburg Confession adherence to the mind of Christ, in a unique sense? All non-Lutheran bodies seem to be regarded as heretical. Do Lutherans really see themselves as the Holy Catholic Church, nothing less? Are all other Christians, Catholics or protestants, truly beyond the pale?
Please correct me if I am mistaken. Have I erred in my attempt to grasp this profoundly interesting position?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
anglicanprovince.shop
We are intensely excited to announce the launch of the official Anglican Province of America online store! The website features merchandise ...
-
Being a Tractarian, ressourcement, patristically-minded, first millennial, conciliarist, philorthodox kind of Anglo-Catholic, I have always ... -
Following on the intriguing discussion at The Continuum , below is the carefully-researched essay by Father John Jay Hughes found in his 197... -
Another liturgical tradition from the Orthodox Church for one's contemplation, a section of THE OFFICE FOR THE RECEPTION OF CONVERTS: Wh...
10 comments:
I've had little contact with Lutherans (including two friends who were ex-Lutherans) but that church is fascinating. Ironically considering their place in history, they're less Protestant than most people think. (How many others have consistently used the crucifix for the past 500 years?)
Of course they're very rare in England - historically they went to the Anglicans as Anglicans went to them in their countries.
Based on recent reading online (from Lutherans), they seem to have a 'functional' view of both the Real Presence and the ministry. A pastor can validly consecrate as long as he has a 'call' to a church - a pastor without that functionally isn't a pastor and can't consecrate. As for the Presence, some reserve in order to give communion to the sick - they'd hold that as long as the elements are being used as the sacrament then that's what they are. It seems that they don't believe in an abiding Presence - the elements can revert to bread and wine.
ELCA, America's liberal mainline Lutheran church, allows lay presidency in the absence of a pastor with the local district president/bishop's permission.
They made a mistake about the apostolic ministry but looking at the corruption around him one can feel for Martin Luther and understand why he made that mistake.
The Swedish Church and those descended from it - Finland, Estonia and some African missions - claim the historic episcopate but I understand Rome has never accepted that because they allow non-episcopal pastors, from other Lutheran churches, to celebrate in their churches.
There are Swedo-Catholics in that church: microscopic. They even have a Benedictine monastery and convent.
Sweden was a world power for about 15 minutes in the 1600s, had an American colony in what's now Delaware and Pennsylvania and had a few churches there - they became Episcopal when the lands became British.
Norway has the title of bishop but for a while during the 'Reformation' they let the succession lapse and had 'district superintendents' so their bishops today can't claim it.
Denmark and Germany don't claim it.
All this matters to Catholic churchmen but of course liberals don't care - the Porvoo agreement means the Church of England accepts Lutheran pastors, even if they're non-episcopal, and of course there's the concordat between ECUSA and ELCA (in future ELCA pastors are supposed to be episcopally ordained but that's waived for now). You've got lay presidency.
My spiritual director told me that the confessional box is actually a Lutheran invention. Confessional stations I saw in Italy on my honeymoon seemed to confirm this somewhat, as they were not boxes, but little "boothes" of sorts.
I don't know if the Lutherans invented the box but know that - again, they're less Protestant than most think - they historically retained the practice of making one's confession before going to Communion. (Martin Luther initially counted it as a sacrament and continued to believe in and practise it.) I think, among old-school Lutherans in the States, they did it at the pastor's house the night before.
The reason for screened confessional booths or boxes, I recently learnt, was not for the anonymity of the penitent but so attractive women making confessions wouldn't be an occasion of sin to the priests! The booths SJA described were especially for that ('women's confessionals'), I think - semi-open, with the penitent in public view, to make sure no hanky-panky went on (considering every possibility!).
I wonder if, in Lutheran theology, a non-Christian could say the Words of Institution and have a valid eucharist... sort of like a non-Christian can baptize in extreme cases as long as the right form and matter are used?
Considering that they believe a pastor without a 'call' (church assignment) can't, probably not.
Fr Chad,
The first thing to know about understanding "Lutheranism of the confessional kind" (which ought to be the only kind) is that to learn the teaching and practice of confessional Lutheranism you need to look at the Lutheran Confessions in the Book of Concord. Not all of the writings of Luther or the other Reformers, not the opinions of anyone who calls himself "Lutheran" today, but the Lutheran Confessions themselves. They are the dogmatic definitions which are distinctive to Lutheranism. Pastors and congregations which belong to a confessional Church body, such as the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, are required to subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions.
With that said, I will try to clarify, and where necessary to correct, the impressions of Lutheran teaching and practice that you discuss in this post.
1. The Lutheran position on the Real Presence is simply the Catholic faith. We believe, teach, and confess that the consecrated bread simply is the body of Christ, and that the consecrated wine simply is the blood of Christ. We do not offer any metaphysical or philosophical explanation of how the Real Presence happens, but we faithfully confess that it is so. Our objection to the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is not that we deny that the bread and wine truly are the body and blood of the Saviour (God forbid!) but that we do not believe that it is right to bind the conscience of the faithful to the Aristotelian framework of substance and accidents which transubstantiation presupposes. The fact of the Real Presence is firmly taught by Scripture and Fathers, but the explanation of its mechanism that is transubstantiation is not.
You are mistaken to believe that Lutherans have an "absolute rejection ... of the apostolic sacramental or ministerial priesthood and of the necessity of episcopal ordination and apostolic succession". The Confessions make clear that the Lutheran reformers were willing, even eager, to continue the traditional episcopal polity. But historical circumstances made it difficult, if not impossible, to do so. And the doctrine of the sacred ministry which was current in the Western Church at the time of the Reformation did not, in fact, hold that episcopal ordination was an absolute necessity. The doctrine current at the time, following St Jerome, held that the episcopate and the presbyterate were in fact the same office, with the sole difference that the bishop was, as a matter of discipline not of doctrine, empowered to ordain. And in fact the prohibition of presbyters to ordain was lifted by Papal dispensation on occasion during the mediaeval period.
There came a point in the Reformation when the need arose to ordain pastors for vacant parishes in Lutheran territories. The incumbent bishops, remaining under the Papal obedience, were unwilling to ordain men for the Lutherans. The Reformers, being the heirs of the mediaeval doctrine of the essential equality of the episcopate and the presbyterate, believed that what had been done occasionally by Papal dispensation could be done on an emergency basis by Lutheran presbyters. They believed this to be far better than to leave the faithful without priests. Thus, from a Lutheran point of view, it is not that we reject the priesthood but that we do not hold that episcopal ordination is an absolute necessity.
The Lutheran pastor is not simply a layman to whom the duty of administering the sacraments has been assigned; we believe that he holds the same office that any Orthodox, Roman, or Anglican priest holds.
It is also untrue to say that "confessional Lutherans abhor the Eucharistic Prayer or Canon, which they say, quoting Luther, 'stinks of oblation.' " It is true that the Roman Canon, as understood and interpreted at the time of the Reformation, involves a doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass as something separate from the sacrifice of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ on the Cross. But the Lutheran Confessions never condemn the notion of a eucharistic canon or anaphora as such. To the contrary, the anaphora of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom is specifically, and approvingly, cited in the Confessions in support of our Lutheran doctrine. The example of St Chrysostom's anaphora is used to illustrate the fact that we do not condemn any and every idea of the eucharist as a sacrifice, but only a doctrine of sacrifice that makes of the Mass a work of man with a merit all its own, distinct from the sacrifice of our Lord.
2. It is not quite true to say that we claim to be the Catholic and Apostolic Church. We certainly claim to be A Catholic and Apostolic Church, but we do not deny that other Churches may, in principle, be authentic manifestations of the Church Catholic. And it is quite misleading to describe Lutheranism as a ressourcement or restoration of New Testament Christianity. What the Book of Concord says is that "we have not departed in any article of faith from the Catholic Church or from the Scriptures, but have only corrected some abuses which are new." We never claim to have "restored" the New Testament Church "from scratch", as it were. "Sola Scriptura" for Lutherans does not mean that everything we have received from the historic Church is to be thrown out, and all Christian doctrine and discipline is to be derived anew from the Bible. To the contrary, we are faithful to all that we have received in the tradition of the Church, except for those errors and abuses which are clearly contrary to Scripture. The theological, liturgical, and spiritual patrimony of the Catholic Church carries great weight among us, but it must be measured by the standard of Holy Scripture; for the written apostolic Scriptures are the pre-eminent and normative expression of the apostolic tradition.
It is also untrue to say that the Book of Concord has a higher authority than the sensus patrum. The Book of Concord subordinates the authority of the Fathers to that of Scripture, but not to its own authority. Indeed, it commends the Fathers' writings as faithful witnesses of how the Church Catholic has understood Scripture. A so-called "Catalogue of Testimonies" from the writings of the Fathers is traditionally appended to the Book of Concord as support for its doctrines.
Throughout the Church's history, it has been necessary to make dogmatic definitions from time to time, to combat errors which have arisen. The Lutheran Confessions are simply another dogmatic definition, which was made necessary by the errors which arose in the late mediaeval Western Church. To interpret Scripture according to the Lutheran Confessions is no more a compromise of "Sola Scriptura" than it is to interpret Scripture according to the Nicene Creed or according to the Chalcedonian definition. St Irenaeus in the 2d century taught that Scripture must be interpreted according to the Church's rule of faith (indeed the notion of an explicit creed or dogmatic definition by which Scripture must be interpreted may go back to the υποτυπωσιν υγιαινοντων "form of sound words" of 2 Tim 1.13). We do not "hold [ourselves] above the consentient witness and tradition of Catholicism" at all; nor do we regard the Lutheran Confessions as being more authoritative or more definitive than the other dogmatic definitions such as the decrees of the Seven Councils or the definitions of Carthage or 2d Orange. But we do believe that the errors which made the Reformation necessary were serious enough to warrant a further dogmatic definition. The Lutheran Confessions are offered as such a necessary definition, to take its place among all of the other definitions that have been necessary in the history of the Church.
There are other issues which you have raised in your post which could be addressed (such as the reservation of the sacrament, and whether there is a "permanent" presence), but this comment is, I am sure, quite long enough. I hope that I have been able, to a certain extent, to clarify the confessional Lutheran view of things.
Fr Deacon Anderson,
I wonder if, in Lutheran theology, a non-Christian could say the Words of Institution and have a valid eucharist?
Not at all. The Lutheran Confessions are quite clear that only a rightly called and ordained pastor may administer the sacraments. No lay person, and certainly no non-Christian, may do so under any circumstances.
The theology of the ministry is an area where equally faithful Lutherans have signficant differences. While all Lutheran bodies require both a congregational call and ordination by the already ordained, Lutheran theologians differ on the relative signficance of these two things. And some hold that a consecrated episcopate is valuable to the bene esse of the ordained ministry.
So if you find it hard to figure this out, it's because it's not too clear in the Lutheran churches themselves. And that's OK because one thing we all agree on is, anytime you're making polity central, you're going wrong. Lutherans don't have to know what Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Congregational churches teach to know they've made a big mistake already, in founding their identity on details of church polity.
About Holy Communion and the sacraments, you may find my on-going series on Luther's "Babylonian Captivity of the Church" helpful here
Thanks for the very helpful comments. My understanding and appreciation of historic Lutheranism has certainly grown!
Dear Chris and all:
Thank you for the informative and lively discussion. I am delighted my post has generated such interest! I do wish more Evangelical Lutherans expressed themselves in the terms and with the theological catholicity and conviction that Chris does. My concern, my point, is indeed simply this, that the vast majority of Lutherans, even Lutheran pastors and theologians, do not understand their Lutheranism in such a way as that eloquently presented by Chris. Is the 'High Lutheran' view comprehensively and thoroughly representative of confessional Lutheranism as received and practiced on a practical level? Sadly, I have yet to meet any other Lutherans who pray, think, and explicate in exactly the gracefully catholic manner found in Chris' post. How does one go about correcting the Lutheran view 'commonly held,' which seems to be at odds with the High Church vision or version? Thank you for your contribution. God bless you!
Post a Comment