Defensio: Confessional Lutheranism

With profound gratitude to Chris Jones, I here take the liberty of posting his reply to my earlier post on the phenomenon of confessional Lutheranism. Chris presents a charitable and learned response to my concerns and criticisms. As one discovers when reading his submission, the historical Anglican Catholic position accords very closely in many respects with Chris' particular explication of the meaning of the Evangelical Lutheran confession. Let us pray that someday the orthodox Catholics of the Ecclesia Anglicana and Evangelical (Lutheran) Catholics will be able to forge a fuller sacramental unity in Our Blessed Lord. We see such a convergence now happening in relation to the Free Synod of the Church of Sweden and Forward in Faith. The main point of disagreement which remains between most Lutherans and Anglicanism, a disagreement which remains even within Anglicanism itself, is the Church's self-understanding of the summum sacerdotium, the Historic Episcopate. Is the Order of Bishop of the esse, bene esse, or plene esse of the Catholic Church? This question has yet to be resolved even amongst Anglicans themselves. I vote for esse! It should be pointed out that Chris' explanation of the necessity or lack thereof of the historic apostolic succession of Bishops is very similar if not identical to the original position of the Reformed Episcopal Church from 1873. I should like to ask any knowledgeable readers if they could please locate references in the Augustana to the Anaphora of Saint John Chrysostom or other Eastern Eucharistic Canons. Without further ado...

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.