The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionA German pope heads for the Land of Luther
by John L Allen Jr on Sep. 02, 2011
Back in 1966, a young German Catholic theologian penned a commentary on the final session of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), expressing some fairly strong reservations about what he saw as the overly optimistic and “French” tone of its concluding document, Gaudium et Spes, the “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World.”
The document’s lofty humanism, this theologian charged, “Prompts the question of why, exactly, the reasonable and perfectly free human being described in the first articles was suddenly burdened with the story of Christ.” He worried that concepts such as “People of God” and “the world” were given an uncritically positive spin, reflecting naiveté about the corrupting effects of sin.
Along the way, this writer offered an arresting aside. Gaudium et Spes, he opined, breathes the air of Teilhard de Chardin, the French Jesuit, but not enough of Martin Luther, the German father of the Protestant Reformation. Saying so required a certain ecumenical chutzpah, given that Pope Leo X’s 1520 condemnation of Luther’s ideas as “heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears and seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth” remained on the books.
That’s an irony worth recalling, given that the young theologian in question is today Pope Benedict XVI, and that in two weeks he’ll be heading back to the Land of Luther for his first official state visit.
Benedict XVI may be as Catholic as they come, but he’s also deeply German, and he obviously feels a streak of affection for his country’s most celebrated theological son. Part of the drama of the trip, therefore, is how Benedict may use it to recalibrate relations with Protestantism heading into the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in 2017.
Ecumenically, the highlight should come with a Sept. 23 visit to an Augustinian monastery in Erfurt, about two hours by car southwest of Berlin, where Luther lived from 1501 to 1511 while studying at the local university. (For the record, Luther’s verdict on his stay was mixed. He described Erfurt itself as “the perfect place for a city,” but derided the university as a “beerhouse and whorehouse.”) It was in Erfurt that Luther entered the Augustinian order, after vowing to become a monk in gratitude for surviving a violent lightning storm, and he was ordained to the priesthood in its cathedral.
Jesuit Fr. Hans Langendoerfer, the secretary for the German bishops’ conference, said this week that Benedict will use the stop in Erfurt to reshape Catholic perceptions of Luther and his contemporary disciples.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
“In Erfurt, Benedict will aim to get further away from the idea that Protestants are first of all dissenters,” he said. “This broad view of Christian history could be very fruitful as we approach the anniversary of the Reformation.”
(Langendoerfer cautioned, however, against overheated expectations: “Hopes about this visit have gone wild,” he warned. “There’s talk Pope Benedict could grant the Protestants a new status or could just say ‘OK, let’s completely change those rules about communion services.’ It doesn’t work that way.”)
By way of background, it’s worth taking a brief stroll down memory lane to revisit a little-known episode from Benedict’s biography, one with bearing on his attitude towards Luther and Lutherans. It involves the future pope’s role in first sabotaging, then resurrecting, perhaps the most heralded ecumenical agreement of the 20th century: The 1999 “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” between the Catholic church and the Lutheran World Federation, which purportedly closed the debate over salvation through faith alone, versus faith plus works, at the heart of the Protestant Reformation.
* * *
In some ways, the Lutherans are to Benedict what the Orthodox were to John Paul, the separated brethren he knows best and for whom he has the greatest natural affinity. Luther has loomed large in the pontiff’s thought; after Augustine, there is probably no pre-modern Christian writer who has exercised more influence on his theological views. Benedict also openly admires several 20th century Lutheran theologians and Biblical scholars, such as Wolfhart Pannenberg, Wilfrid Joest, and Martin Hengel.
At the same time, Benedict XVI has long been a skeptic about the prospects for swift Catholic/Lutheran détente.
First of all, his judgment on Luther himself is mixed. In his 1987 book Church, Ecumenism and Politics, Ratzinger wrote that there are really two Martin Luthers. First is the Luther of the catechisms, the great writer of hymns and promoter of liturgical reform. This Luther, Ratzinger wrote, anticipated much of the ressourcement that later surfaced in Catholicism prior to Vatican II. Yet there is also, Ratzinger asserted, Luther the polemicist, whose radical view of individual salvation leaves the church entirely out of view.
Second, Benedict over the years has been ambivalent about what one might call “bureaucratic ecumenism,” including the joint documents that official dialogues between different confessions produce. In his view, such documents often attempt the impossible by trying to reconcile logically opposed positions of the past. Three decades ago, Ratzinger wrote that unity will not be found that way, but rather by taking “new steps” together.
Third, the water under the bridge during the five centuries since the Protestant Reformation has created new obstacles to unity, particularly with mainline Protestant churches. Those developments include changes in moral teaching and in ecclesiastical structures, as well as ministries (most pointedly, the ordination of women; a reminder will come in Erfurt, where Benedict XVI will be hosted by a female Lutheran bishop, Ilse Junkermann).
All of these forces -- Benedict’s fondness for Luther and Lutheran thought, coupled with his ambivalence about official ecumenical agreements and the present realities of Western Protestantism -- were clearly on display in his reaction to the 1999 “Joint Declaration.”
The fruit of decades of dialogue among Catholic and Lutheran theologians, the document was designed to address the central theological dispute of the Reformation: How the fallen human person is saved. The idea was that although Catholics and Lutherans may have different accents in answering that question, at heart they are in substantial agreement. By saying so out loud, the declaration would also take the mutual condemnations of the 16th century off the table.
The watershed moment seemed to have arrived on June 25, 1998, when Australian Cardinal Edward Cassidy, at the time the president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, held a news conference in Rome to present the text. It contained 44 “common declarations,” summarizing areas of agreement. Each side was able to offer its own explanation of the reasoning that allowed it to sign the declaration.
The heart of the agreement was this key sentence: “By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping us and calling us to good works.”
Cassidy said the “high level of consensus” allowed both sides to state that “the condemnations leveled at one another in the sixteenth century no longer apply to the respective partner today.” He obviously believed something transcendent had been achieved. Cassidy said at the time that when he dies and faces judgment, and God asks what he accomplished with his life, his answer will be: “I signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.”
As it turned out, however, the victory lap was premature. Shortly after Cassidy’s presentation, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Ratzinger issued a “response” to the declaration, which seemed to suggest that the alleged consensus between Catholics and Lutherans was artificial.
(Procedurally, it must be said, this was a curious move. Outsiders fairly wondered what sense it made for the Vatican to issue a “response” to a document for which it was supposedly one of the authors. If Vatican officials had problems with the text, they asked, why sign in the first place? Alternatively, if the Vatican was going to back away from its own agreements before the ink was even dry, why invest time and treasure producing them? It was one of several episodes from the John Paul years illustrating a chronic lack of communication among the various Vatican departments, but that’s another story.)
The doctrinal response, issued under Ratzinger’s name and obviously shaped by his thought, ticked off a number of areas where, it charged, serious differences remained between Catholic and Lutheran theology:
- The Lutheran understanding of justification, in which the human person remains simul iustus et peccator -- simultaneously justified and a sinner -- is inconsistent with Catholic belief that baptism removes the stain of sin.
- Catholics believe in both salvation through faith and judgment on the basis of works, and it’s not clear Lutherans share that belief.
- The Lutheran understanding of salvation is difficult to reconcile with the Catholic sacrament of penance.
- Lutheran insistence that justification is the cornerstone of the entire Christian faith is overblown; the doctrine of justification has to be incorporated into the organic whole of revelation.
- It was also unclear, according to the response, if the Lutheran signatories could speak for their denomination: “There remains the question of the real authority of such a synodal consensus, today and also tomorrow, in the life and doctrine of the Lutheran community.”
The bottom line was that Trent remains in force: “The level of agreement is high,” the response said, “but it does not yet allow us to affirm that all the differences separating Catholics and Lutherans in the doctrine concerning justification are simply a question of emphasis or language .... The divergences must, on the contrary, be overcome before we can affirm, as is done generically, that these points no longer incur the condemnations of the Council of Trent.”
Many Lutherans were furious. One claimed that the Holy See had betrayed both the Lutheran and the Roman Catholic theologians who worked on the document, and that it would take decades to reestablish trust.
In the German press, Ratzinger quickly emerged as the villain of the story, which brought a rare flash of personal pique. On July 14, 1998, he published a letter in the Frankfurter Allgemeine calling reports that he had torpedoed the agreement a “smooth lie,” insisting that to scuttle dialogue with Lutherans would be to “deny myself.”
Perhaps stung by the backlash, Ratzinger stepped in to put the dialogue back on track. On November 3, 1998, he quietly invited a small working group to assemble in Regensburg, Germany, in the home he shared with his brother Georg. In addition to Ratzinger, the group consisted of Lutheran Bishop Johannes Hanselmann, Catholic theologian Heinz Schuette, and Lutheran theologian Joachim Track.
Track later said, in an interview I conducted with him, that Ratzinger saved the agreement by offering three key concessions.
- First, Ratzinger agreed that the goal of the ecumenical process is unity in diversity, not structural reintegration. “This was important to many Lutherans in Germany, who worried that the final aim of all this was coming back to Rome,” Track said.
- Second, Ratzinger acknowledged the authority of the Lutheran World Federation to reach agreement with the Vatican.
- Third, Ratzinger agreed that while Christians are obliged to do good works, justification and final judgment remain God’s gracious acts.
On that basis, the working group retooled the Joint Declaration to satisfy concerns on both sides. Bishop George Anderson of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, who was not present in Regensburg but who was briefed by the Lutheran participants, said Ratzinger’s role was critical: “It was Ratzinger who untied the knots … Without him we might not have an agreement.”
One year after his original announcement, Cassidy held a second press conference to present an agreement -- this time, one that the Vatican’s doctrinal office did not disown.
The final version came in the form of three documents: the Joint Declaration itself, an “official common statement” indicating how the two parties understand the Joint Declaration, and an “annex” in which the points raised in the response were addressed as well as additional concerns from the Lutheran side. The statement asserted that “consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics.”
The annex offered point-by-point commentary on the issues raised in the 1998 response:
- Baptism really does free humans from the power of sin, “yet we would be wrong to say that we are without sin.”
- “The working of God’s grace does not exclude human action.”
- “In the final judgment, the justified will be judged also on their works.”
- “The doctrine of justification is the measure or touchstone for the Christian faith. No teaching may contradict this criterion.”
- Pointedly, the annex said that “the response of the Catholic church [to the original declaration] does not intend to put in question the authority of Lutheran synods or of the Lutheran World Federation.”
With that, the doctrinal divide opened by the Reformation was, in effect, declared closed.
To be sure, the Joint Declaration has not exactly brought about an ecumenical New Jerusalem. Some Lutherans have rejected the agreement, including the International Lutheran Council and the Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference. On the Catholic side, the Vatican’s approval remains officially binding, but enthusiasm varies.
All signs suggest that sensitivities remain a bit raw. Recently, German Lutheran theologian Reinhard Frieling suggested that Benedict XVI might be declared an “honorary head of Christianity.” That, of course, falls far short of the “full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the church” asserted for the Roman Pontiff in canon law, but even so, Frieling’s suggestion produced such a backlash in Lutheran circles that he was forced to clarify that he supports “unity with, but not under, the pope.”
Yet the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification remains the ecumenical agreement in which Pope Benedict XVI was most intimately involved, first as a critic and then as its savior. As such, it illustrates both the doubts and the hopes that the first German pope in 500 years will carry with him on his homecoming later this month.
[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail is jallen@ncronline.org.]
yeah. let him publicly join
yeah. let him publicly join the Lutherans and give us our Pilgrim Church back to the poor!
Leonardo Boff for Pope!
no wonder ratzo is so eager to embrace radically right wing excommunicated schismatics like those SSPX lefevberistas, setting no condition upon their forgiveness so coldly received! HE foresees embracing Martin Luther's schismatics as well!
Could this mean married priests?
OMG!
WOMEN??!!
To know more about Leonardo
To know more about Leonardo Boff point of view:http://www.catholicnetwork.us/uncategorized/leonardo-boff-writes-encouragement-for-those-disappointed-with-the-church/
I pray that Pope Benedict XVI
I pray that Pope Benedict XVI will be greeted warmly by the German people and that they will open their hearts to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. In God's everlasting love.
IT SEEMS, from John Allen's
IT SEEMS, from John Allen's analysis, that Pope Benedict is too conflicted personally in so many theological ways that there is little or no hope for him to make any progress in ecumenical relations or any peace among waring religious views. The evidence so far in his reign is that is true. The world needs a different kind of pope.
Very true. His own
Very true. His own itellectual and spiritual conflicts about many things were also evident in his comments on Islam, then regarding the Jews - and he did the same things to try and repair it as John Allen reports in this article - he calls a special meeting to "clarify" what he (Ratzinger/Benedict) said originally, and then when confronted with the backlash, extends a more conciliatory note as if surprised by the strength of the reactions. You would think this brilliant man would have learned by now to do what my Dad used to tell me: "Don't engage your mouth before your brain is in gear." He can put both feet in his mouth and still talk.
Before Benedict deal with
Before Benedict deal with Luther and Lutherans, I suggest he deal with the Church's long standing sin of murdering Jon Hus, who efforts to reform the Church occurred decades before Luther and resulted in the 30 Years War.
I hope that sometime soon you
I hope that sometime soon you tell us that story of the chronic lack communication during the John Paul years. Our Canadian lectionary was a victim of that phenomenon.
Since Germany is now
Since Germany is now politically reunited, does this German Pope want to leave as his legacy a religiously reunited Germany? As a lay person reading this article I ask myself "why does everything have to be so complicated ?" To me as a lay person, it looks like a lot of "busy" work to keep the hierarchy from doing some real work in this troubled world. The average Christian, whether Roman Catholic or Lutheran is too occupied trying to adjust to a diverse world that is constantly changing, while the hierarchy is busy going backwards, trying to answer questions that are totally irrelevant to most of our lives. Of all the progressive German theologians who ask questions that are relevant to the history of the 20th and 21st century ( Karl Rahner, Hans Kueng, Johannes Baptist Metz....protestant theologians like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Dorothea Soelle etc) we are stuck with a Pope who wants to answer the theological questions from 500 years ago.
Even as I find myself more
Even as I find myself more and more discouraged by the national church and by Rome, I keep hoping that Benedict may be the one to lead the universal church to unity with diversity. Come, Holy Spirit!!
As a Lutheran pastor, I think
As a Lutheran pastor, I think I speak for many Lutherans when I say that we find in Pope Benedict XVI a pope who, for the first time since the Reformation, who knows and understands Martin Luther better than any other, and for that I and many of my fellow Lutherans applaud him. There can never be honest dialogue when our differences and our agreements are not full on the table. I also appreciate the fact that this article notes, correctly, that the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent are fully still in force, which explains why our two communions remain separate one from another.
I like the Pope's desire to
I like the Pope's desire to engage though to some of us including myself, it can feel a bit uncomfortable. I go to both protestant churches and catholic, but I am a Catholic to the bone who's studied Luther recently. All I have to say is that Benedict has guts to try to "honor" Luther. From reading what he wrote, I don't see much honor, but I do see much pride. How he is considered Germany's greatest theologian is beyond my understanding.
John Allen's account is more
John Allen's account is more correct than incorrect, but there are important notes requiring response.
The Lutherans through the Lutheran World Federation worked with the one consistory of the Vatican to produce the original document, and then submitted it to the many different church bodies around the world for response, with assurances from Cardinal Cassisdy and others that Vatican approval was a mere formality. Thus they rightly felt betrayed by the flat rejection by the Ratzinger office.
They church bodies were also reminded that they, and not the LWF, had doctrinal authority, and the LWF was merely a conduit for their decisions. Thus the LWF misled Ratzinger when they insisted they could speak for the Lutheran churches of the world. Not a single Lutheran church approved the final three documents, which were approved only by the Council of the LWF. It also remains unclear whether it is an agreement of only the one consistory, as some Roman Catholic theologians have insisted, rather than of the Vatican as a whole.
The JDDJ has clever language to finesse important differences, but has not in fact overcome anything. Avery Dulles was articulate about this point, showing that both sides had serious reason to disown it, or at least not to be satisfied with it. A very large number of German professors expressed their reasons for rejecting it.
The JDDJ is clear that the overcoming of mutual condemnations of the 16th century (there were far more by Trent than by the Lutherans) applies only to those who hold the rather problematic views expressed in the JDDJ itself, and not to the churches in general. Those are radically different groups.
Benedict is right that common actions rather than documents, painstakingly drawn up by experts over many years and then sold to the church bodies ("reception"), are the future of any true ecumenical progress. John Allen is correct that the developments of 500 years, ranging from the Protestant rejection of 5 of the sacraments of Rome to the ordination of women, a great advance as far as most Protestants see it, seem to set absolute limits to the progress that can be made in mutual worship and leadership, but they ought not to limit the possibilities of mutuality in service to the world, well illustrated in the collaboration in disaster relief.
It will be interesting to watch.
The JDDJ has clever language
The JDDJ has clever language to finesse important differences, but has not in fact overcome anything. Avery Dulles was articulate about this point, showing that both sides had serious reason to disown it, or at least not to be satisfied with it. A very large number of German professors expressed their reasons for rejecting it.
=================================================================================
The same set of problems are built into the Orthodox-Catholic discussions, as one can see from talks in Cyprus and Vienna. It is one thing for the "experts" to agree, it is something else for local churches to buy the same "clever language" in finessing differences. Remember what happened after the agreements at the Council of Ferrara-Florence.
The irony here are the
The irony here are the consequences today for a theologian who questions this pope's teachings. This article shows a double standard for a young Ratzinger, who had no trouble questioning the teaching of an ecumenical council, if only it's tone. It also affirms the belief that many people have that he, as pope, is not really committed to the teachings of the council. While the young theologian might doubt the council's optimism towards humanity, many people likewise doubt his ability to be a bridge builder (pontifix) who can reach many of his flock.
Perhaps for the 500th
Perhaps for the 500th anniversary of the Reformation the Pope could issue a plenary indulgence to the faithful lol?
Don't be so quick, Fr. J, to
Don't be so quick, Fr. J, to say lol. Benedict anticipated your suggestion regarding World Youth Day. He gave the possiblity of plenary indulgences to the attendees and also to the rest of us for prayers and other stuff surrounding attendance. The New Evangelization doesn't miss one trick!
this was written in a way for
this was written in a way for a lay person to understand how close and yet how far apart we are.
I have a friend who is a female Lutheran pastor,in Germany,.. we grew up together. Yet after the 1999 event she became very cold towards me and we don't discuss religion anymore. Sad.
All of these beliefs of the
All of these beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church have been believed for so
long that there often is no one who questions them. Baptism frees us from
original sin? If we are born with sin, why does God allow pouring of water and
a few words change things? Why would God do that? And confession? Why
would God give humans the power to forgive sin? Why do we say, I am sorry for
having offended you? How can God be offended? God isn't human, God is omnipotent and incapable of feeling offended. We offend each other and ourselves, not God.
This just points to the
This just points to the dangers of having such a man as Ratzinger become Pope. It is too bad that the last and present pope were so threatened by reform and change in the Catholic Church. The damage both of these men to the People of God has been stunning. I will never be convinced that either of these human beings have done anything to accept and respect other theologians with different thinking on ways of being Church. Ratzinger never should have been elected to this position. He represents the most Radical Right Catholic Fundamentalist elements in he Church. He speaks to no one else unless except those who agree with his every word. He is stuck in Trent. Trent was not a good thing. Time for women bishops and priests. Time for optional celibacy. Time to elect our own bishops. Benedict really does NOT get it when it comes to this important event in 1998. He is a man totally in over his head. He has no idea what Vatican II was really about. He is a reactionary and a very weak Bishop of Rome.
Dear Chris Smith, With all
Dear Chris Smith, With all the wisdom you possess, perhaps the Laity should elect you Pope.
Once again we read from an individual who was not at the Vatican II Council and has written as though he/she were a reporter of information of a non-factual nature. Today we have access to many documents which came out of Vatican II and it is difficult to understand why so many state that more ? is coming.
Yes you have many people who agree with you that divorce, adultry, same-sex marriage, contraception, gay rights, female priests, female Bishops, free sex, throw out the Ten Commandments, and anything else that gets in our hedonistic ways probably were passed at Vatican II and Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict VXI fought and is fighting to keep us on the narrow path and both are being malighned for doing so. Both Popes have fought and are fighting the good fight as did SAINT PAUL. Why do we continue this controversey? Catholic Dogma will not change!
John, when our dear Pope John
John, when our dear Pope John Paul II was preparing for the 3rd millenium, the Order of St. Augustine, was working very hard to have the bull of excommunication lifted from Martin Luther. It was my knowledge that because of his poor health and politial matters - he was unable to board the matter.
Benedict may be working to
Benedict may be working to have the bull of excommunication lifted from
Martin Luther, but he may end up having to impose new bulls of excommunication on hundreds of German and Austrian priests who, in a very real sense, are themselves modern day Luthers.
As for any joint declaration papering over the differences between Catholics and Lutherans at the level of the Lutheran World Federation and Holy See , most Lutheran theologians are neither impressed with or satisfied with its conclusions, and they don't accept the equivocating language of the agreement itself. It reads much too much like archbishop Thomas Cranmer's eucharistic theology. It raises more questions than it settles.
Benedict's continuing love affair with the SSPX heretics and their camp followers who despise ecumenism towards Protestants and Jews, raises disturbing questions in the minds of inquiring and intellectually curious Protestants and Catholics. Just how committed is Benedict to finding ways to reconcile our differences in the areas of theology and liturgy by giving uncompromising support to the Council of Trent, while in reality trashing Vatican II? If pressed on the issue, Lutherans and many Catholics would rather see a renewal of the spirit of the last Council over Trent any day.
As for the Catholic perspective, most Catholic theologians today, despite the Holy Office's usually ignored,"Rome has spoken" stance, continue to raise
questions about the statements in the agreement.
John, when our dear Pope John
John, when our dear Pope John Paul II was preparing for the 3rd millenium, the Order of St. Augustine, was working very hard to have the bull of excommunication lifted from Martin Luther. It was my knowledge that because of his poor health and politial matters - he was unable to board the matter.
"The final version came in
"The final version came in the form of three documents: the Joint Declaration itself, an “official common statement” indicating how the two parties understand the Joint Declaration, and an “annex” in which the points raised in the response were addressed as well as additional concerns from the Lutheran side."
1) http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents...
2) http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents...
3) http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents...
And then there's good old John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world that S/HE didn't send a COMMITTEE (of ecumenical theologians)!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a4naYEHUZs&feature=related
Signing a statement of
Signing a statement of agreement can't take away the disagreement if you can't quite get out of our unconscious boxes and recognize those on the other side as thinking, real beings. After the signing of the agreement described above, my diocese held a big gathering/prayer session to celebrate the new declaration of unity. There were so many people that the gathering was held in the football stadium. The main speaker was a well-known and respected Lutheran bishop, if I remember rightly. The whole afternoon was spent on a welcome by our bishop, the Lutheran's talk, songs by school children, prayers. After that the crowd moved to the basilica for a Mass. Except for the Lutheran bishop, who was formally excluded from participation in this liturgy.... One wonders what the agreement meant to the participating Catholics, especially our bishop. Since my daughter and I lived for a few years in a faith community in DC which was Lutheran-founded but ecumenical, with members who were Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists and various other groups of Lutherans, I feel very close to that group and still attend their liturgies whenever I'm in Washington. It was the most 24/7 Christian life I've ever experienced. I felt embarrassed for my Lutheran friends that their bishop was excluded from a liturgy celebrating an agreement of unity. I had a Turkish boyfriend for awhile, not at all a practicing Moslem but an educated university professor. He used to go to church with me sometimes. We went one year to the Good Friday service. Of course the celebrant, an elderly monsignor, read the usual Good Friday prayers for those who don't believe in God, etc., including prayers for our Moslem brothers who don't believe in Jesus Christ as God. Saying the prayer the Monsignor sounded sincere, but afterwards downstairs over coffee and something, I introduced my Moslem friend, thinking it would be interesting to meet a real Moslem right after praying for them. Again there was no click onto the wave length of reality. The people in the prayers were not real people to most of us. I guess I'm just lucky to have lived in a lot of places in close interaction with a lot of different faith groups. They're all very real and dear to me. Once my deeply Catholic father came to visit us in DC and agreed to attend that Lutheran community's liturgy on Sunday. He intended to go to a Catholic Mass first, but failed to get up in time. So he sat back in a corner of the room listening attentively to every word the celebrant said, checking for heresy, I suppose. I was surprised to see that at the Communion time, my father went up with the rest of us and took communion. After the service he took the pastor aside and asked questions for a long time: What do you believe about this? What's your teaching on that? Do you believe such and such? though he had already decided that the liturgy was authentic enough for him to take part. I felt pleased for my community: my totally outsider father had felt he could accept that liturgy enough to take part in the Communion. Maybe it helped that he grew up in a German community--in Chicago. But for less attentive Catholics there isn't quite any connection with reality, with the meaning of the agreement reached. How can you come to an agreement with people that aren't quite real to you?! It sounds like the same thing is true even for the theologians who have spent months, even years, in close discussions between the two sides about all the particulars of each other's doctrine. You have to live it on a different level. Even our German shepherd, Benedict, sounds a bit confused about the agreement and its implications.
"Our German Shepherd" appears
"Our German Shepherd" appears far more interested in public displays of unity following vague and innocous statements defining areas of mutual agreement on justification. All the while privately gutting his own Vatican Council.
Our chief shepherd's canonical rottweilers in scarlet are still excommunicating Catholics for taking holy communion in the Lutheran or Anglican liturgy.
Jesus and St. Paul never invited us to partake of Jesus holy mysteries by first asking if we accept transubstantiation or the Real Presence. Jesus' hospitality, His saving grace and His presence in Medicine of Immortality don't change and cannot be changed by any subjective standards we, unworthy as we may be, happen to apply to the host and the chalice. Such a state of mind does not suggest unworthiness on our part. That being the case, neither should the Church demand belief in the Real Presence as a pre-condition for admitting Lutherans to the Holy Table. Particularly, when few Catholics themselves today accept the Real Presence in either a Lutheran or Catholic context, and may very well entertain an entirely different view of that Presence.
We see an unfortunate bi-product of the New Puritanism or neo-Jansenism, an outgrowth of Benedict's dedicated bands of self-appointed neo-Gnostics sweeping through the Church hunting down those who aren't "orthodox" and sitting in self-righteous judgment of those approaching the altar. Trying to ascertain who should or should not be denied holy communion.
The workings of the Holy Office and bishops eager to prove their loyalty serve to stoke these fires. While the pope signs off on agreements publicly, but goes down a very different path behind the scenes.
Criticism of the Pope is not
Criticism of the Pope is not the same as expressing contempt for him ("Our German Shepherd", etc). Very disappointing to read.
Thank you for this
Thank you for this comment.
For those of us who do not have the opportunity to experience a connection with other faiths in praxis, there is always prayer, or more precisely, meditation.
this is something that we as Catholics do not hear enough about; have not been taught. Our mystics, and I think of famous German mystics such as Meister Eckhart and John Tauler and the German Beguines could teach us how to find this God who is the God of us All. Prayer seems to be the neglected card in this game, and it is the key to our EXPERIENCE of UNITY.
Your post reminds me of my
Your post reminds me of my German mother who lived in a small town in southern Germany which even now is primarily Roman Catholic, but her town was so poor that the people could really only support one church, so the Roman Catholics and Lutherans shared the same church holding their services at different times....one service for Lutherans and then the Mass for the Roman Catholics. As a result my mother was very ecumenical. While living in Germany I frequently attended services with my good friends at the Lutheran Church in the small city where I grew up. Coming to the U.S. was a culture shock in more ways than one. The hardest part was adjusting to the RC church. I trust that average, ordinary people in the pew will come to terms with religious differences before the hierarchy of the RC institutional church. We can't just pray for "unity" and sign declarations and then not invited the "others" to the table.
Lore H., Thank you for this
Lore H., Thank you for this valuable personal history. Your experience points to why Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, Lutherans, and other interested religious parties should work toward shared liturgical facilities with shared expenses as a standard operating procedure throughout the U.S. and elsewhere. It is a continuing scandal for religious bodies seeking mutual cooperation in their charitable and philanthropic outreach, and can agree on so many theological and liturgical points, possess similar liturgies, worship with almost identical church interiors (altars, vestments, icons, tabernacles, etc.), but continue to waste their valuable denomination's resources constructing churches for their adherents only. Thus, having to shoulder the entire cost of building a parish. This makes no sense.
It only dramatizes our divisions, instead of expressing truly united Christian acts of charity and fostering a shared spirituality. If corporate reunion is ever to be achieved, it must be firmly established at the liturgical and sacramental level first.
This isn't rocket science. It's very plainly evident.
I very much agree, Lore, and
I very much agree, Lore, and would add one other plea: enough of our ornate churches and cathedrals that cost such unbelievable amounts of money that they betray Christ's example of being poor and simple in our adornments. I would hope this also applies to houses of worship that need to be rebuilt (due to fire, flood, age, whatever). Simple, quiet, a place for both prayer and community. The majority of Catholic Churches (and those of other faiths) are clearly palaces suitable for medevil kings and queens. Better we should imitate the churches from the poorer countries in their simplicity and clear focus on the presence of Christ. The Catholic Church is no longer the major force in the arts and should begin to pare itself down from being as horribly expensive as they are.
Perhaps Tom Fox could get an
Perhaps Tom Fox could get an objective response to this.
Can we get a Hans Kung view?
Assuming Chuchman means about
Assuming Chuchman means about Luther, I recommend he read the 1994 Continuum paperback from the Reverend Father Hans Kung entitled Great Christian Thinkers: Paul, Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Schleiermacher, Barth.
While a rather comprehensive and thus less in-depth overview, perhaps this book will begin to answer John's question as objectively as possible, for only a few bucks used from amazon.
I thought you said objective.
I thought you said objective.
I thought he requested the
I thought he requested the "Hans Kung view" on Martin Luther and really who provides that better than the Reverend Father and long-noted Roman Catholic professor and theologian himself, as published in his book: Great Christian Thinkers: Paul, Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Schleiermacher, Barth.
This then is my "objective response."
Dear John, your article shows
Dear John, your article shows you at your brilliantly analytical best. It is superb and I am in awe of your ability to just "dash such stuff off" in the midst of your constant travels, interviews, etc.. But there is another side. That the Church and the Lutherans now agree on issues that caused the worst split that ever happened in the Western Church shows that the issues that people fought and died about 500 years ago are no longer relevant or even interesting. 99.9% of Lutherans and 99.9% of Catholcs no longer care about such issues, even though Pope Benedict has apparently spent countless hours and energy on them. The theological questions that people today feel relevant are very different. People today care about the equality of women and gays, the sanctity of sexuality (whether or not restrained by heterosexual marriage) and other such theological concerns. And, just as the Church ignored and dissed the concerns of Catholic theologians like Luther until it was too late, the same thing seems to be happening again. And Pope Benedict, sadly, seems more interested in healing 500 year old rifts that mean next to nothing to today's Christians. Perhaps excusable by his academic bent but hardly helpful re the current crises.
"...excluded from [full]
"...excluded from [full] participation in this eucharist...."
But why should it be agreeable for Lutherans (of any stripe, marital status, ecclesiology, etc.) to receive Catholic Communion when tens of millions of self-identifying Catholics are technically forbidden every Sunday to receive Communion (owing to divorce, non-church sanctioned marriages, active homosexuality, etc.)? Allowing Lutherans to receive -- while inhibiting Catholics -- seems a departure from justice. What is in conformity with Catholic liturgical practice and worship should also be in conformity with justice, irrespective of some theological agreement. After all, cradle Catholics are not in disputed theological territory, different ecclesial boundaries, caught ip in 500 hundred years of separation. It's as if the ecumenical world has gone deaf to these "left out" Catholics while opening its arms to non-Catholics and their "full participation." Yet there is nothing noble about our forgetfulness of these "left out" Catholics. After all, many of them are our relatives, friends, and neighbors.
Well, of course, I'm glad to
Well, of course, I'm glad to see progress on the ecumenical front between Lutherans and Roman Catholics; but John Allen takes an unfortunately myopic but all too common Catholic view of what water has flowed under the bridge in the nearly 500 years since the Reformation. True, Lutherans and other mainline Protestant and Anglican bodies have updated moral teachings on issues such as contraception, divorce and remarriage, and to some degree of nuance on abortion, and have begun ordaining women and to a lesser extent so far openly gay men and women; nevertheless Vatican I in defining papal infallibility; subsequent papal definitions of The Assumption and the Immaculate Conception; the papacies of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X (despite the incumbents' other virtues); and recent examples of creeping infallibility were and are a deal more damaging than anything the separated sisters and brothers did to the eventual unity for which Jesus earnestly prayed.
I had serious, and I believed well-founded, hopes for Christian unity in the aftermath of Vatican II; but I no longer foresee any such answer to prayer on the horizon. Mainline and Orthodox Christian bodies need to weigh carefully the Vatican's ill treatment of the Eastern Uniate churches to see what might be in store for them should the pope ever be recognized as first among equals as a minority would be willing to accept. They would also do well to consider how far Roman Catholicism has backslid from Vatican II's "aggiornamento" since the 1960s, and to what extent the decay of the sex abuse scandal is indicative of an inoperable and fatal cancer.
I hope my concerns are ill-founded.
I believe Jesus invited all
I believe Jesus invited all to his table. The same should apply to the Catholic Church. There should be an open invitation to all who are baptized Christians, with no exceptions, to receive the Holy Eucharist. There should NOT be a bar on anyone who WANTS to receive. This included divorced people, and those previously disenfranchised from the Church. The "rules" should never be set in stone when it comes to reception of the Eucharist. I can even think of reasons why non-believers should be invited to the table. The Catholic Church is simply NOT being a universal Church by making up "rules" for those who wish to receive Christ in the Eucharist. Lutherans and Methodists are truly Catholic whether Rome recognizes it or not. Anglicans are so close in liturgical practices that they are virtually indistinguishable from Roman Catholics. It is the greatest scandal that these branches of Christ's Church, or any human being for that matter, are disinvited from the table. No one should be refused! The Lutherans have a great deal to teach us. Same applies to many of the Protestant Christian communities.
Check the Lutheran Church
Check the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod's rules for taking communion. You will find many are refused.
To give scandal in the old
To give scandal in the old religious sense of the word was to cause another/others to sin; literally scandal is a stumbling block, a trap. That, after all, is what the bishops of many nations were/are attempting to avoid in regard to the Sex Abuse Scandal, and in doing so, made the stumbling block much, much worse: They damaged the Church by causing thousands, perhaps millions, of its members to lose confidence in the Church's ability to lead them to salvation; and so many looked elsewhere, thus becoming apostates and earning automatic excommunication and being cast out into darkness, where presumably they will weep and gnash their teeth. This while, secondarily of course, depleting Holy Mother's coffers, needed now to recompense the Church's victims and lawyers. "Oh what tangled webs we weave - - - ."
Another way the Church gives scandal, in my view, is for the Magisterium to insist it alone has the right to control access to Our Lord's table, as though the Roman Catholic Church owns Our Dear Lord's table. Such hubris! How serious a sin is such a scandal?! Is it a mere imperfection, perhaps just a venial sin!? Surely not a mortal sin! That is almost unfathomable, because:
First, the matter must be seriously wrong.
Second, the sinner(s) must know it is seriously wrong.
Third, the sinner(s) must give full consent of the will.
I cannot judge, but I can't help wonder.
I have a friend who says one of his prayers is for forgiveness for his participation in the Mass where believing, faithful Christians are turned away for whatever reason. I try to limit my reception of Holy Communion to Masses where this is not the case, even if that has meant, as it has, receiving the Eucharist in a non-Roman Catholic Church.
Though it grieves my heart, I don't expect to be damned thereby; and if I have been cast out of one place, I have been welcomed with open arms in other places, better places, I have finally come to realize.
So exactly why is the pope
So exactly why is the pope cozy-ing up to the Protestants that he and his Right Wing Repub cult Catholics keep derisively telling us to join because that's all we are??? Is it because his earthly empire is crumbling and he cannot keep his flip-flopping house of cards from collapsing?? Is he trying to add on to his, now very meager, extremist Right Wing assault force?? So he keeps triangulating.
This is the very same assault force that brought us two very deadly and costly wars, and one American no regulation/deregulation Trickle-down economic financial disaster that has nearly destroyed our economy and the worlds economy.
Should there be a "New World Order", as both Bushes talked about, the pope will try be the leader of that pack of jackals. And, they'll still be saying that there is no conspiracy. Even though this current conspiracy(Evangelicals and Catholics Together) has been going on ever since JPII just simply won an election which was probably fixed by Scalia!! Especially since laws mean nothing to those kind of criminals.
Goood going boys. (sarcasm) What else can you destroy??
I hope the Lutheran pastor's
I hope the Lutheran pastor's daughter and current Chancellor of Germany will have the authorities on hand to arrest this pontifical criminal arrested when his plane lands.
The justification agreement
The justification agreement is flawed. We are clearly not justified by faith alone which is what the Lutherans still believe. Faith is important but faith without works is dead. We read this in the epistle of St James which Luther called an epistle of straw. In the final analyisis though only one work is absolutely necessary & that is contrition for sin. Sorrow for sin is separate from faith even though it is clearly necessary for contrition to have any meaning.
In the final analysis only two things are absolutely necessary for salvation as we can see in a death bed conversion like the case of Lord Marchmain, # 1 a belief in the one true God & # 2 a perfect contrition for sin. Of course justification & salvation are not exactly the same thing. On the justification side of the house, God sends actual grace which the individual can coopertate with or not. But the work of contrition which is separate from faith is always absolutely necessary for salvation.
Paulie, had you only stopped
Paulie, had you only stopped with this: "The justification agreement is flawed. We are clearly not justified by faith alone which is what the Lutherans still believe. Faith is important but faith without works is dead. We read this in the epistle of St James which Luther called an epistle of straw." I might at long last embrace you as my Roman Catholic brother, but you went as always astray with the rest. Stick with Saint James the Great.
Faith without works is dead. What good does it do to wish someone to keep warm and well fed without giving them the means to do so.
Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give sanctuary to the illegal alien, shelter the homeless, like Jesus, Mary and Joseph out back in Bethlehem.
If you substitute the word
If you substitute the word "trust" or "reliance" for "faith" you get a better idea of what Lutherans and other Protestants mean by "justification by faith".
It's not mere intellectual assent. It's a total reliance, an utter trust that Jesus Christ, by His sacrifice on the Cross, redeemed me: wretched, sinful, messed-up me.
I love Evelyn Waugh and his
I love Evelyn Waugh and his characters. Truly. However, the deathbed conversion of Lord Marchmain is not one of the high points of his novel "Brideshead Revisited". It is the straw man in an otherwise excellently executed disquisition of a novel concerning Catholics in the upper classes of British Society, as well as his own beliefs.
Mention of Marchmain is seemingly out of place here, but is not the best example of the argument. He is a wonderful roue of a character in a novel. This character spends an entire life offending (one would think on purpose) his family's sense of Catholic propriety, only to come home to die what a Catholic might call a "good death". This leaves the protagonist wondering, it seems, whether he "sold out" or he truly "came home". No obvious good works in evidence anywhere from him, just a deathbed repentance and confession to a priest. So we could be forgiven from seeing Luther being vindicated in this piece. Marchmain's ascent into Heaven (or Purgatory -- most likely), as opposed to his condemnation, is brought about by his Faith -- or his recovery of it and repentance of his sins. His Faith and his repentance are his justification for his salvation, but good works are not in evidence.
It seems to me that the fact that here we are, in 20011, still arguing justification by faith or good works means the human race is hopelessly bound to run around in circles until the end of time all talking without listening to one another about the same thing. If one takes the time to read what Luther wrote (before all the shooting started), he said faith comes first but from that faith is born the desire or impulse to do great works. That faith can move humanity to good works is indubitable as the great works of charity that the Lutheran Church and the Reformation branches on Christianity's tree can attest.
Whatever else we may discuss in these comment pages (of all topics) concerning the Church, its own good works cannot be ignored. People have pointed out the assistance to the poor, social justice, schools, hospitals, direct assistance to individuals... The list goes on. Whether the actor is one on the more liberal or conservative side of the house the track record is indeed impressive.
Does Faith precede the good works? Accompany them? Is it independent? We seek to emulate Jesus' good works out of faith? Just because? Does it really matter? Should we ignore the works of the ethical atheist because they are done sua sponte, without regard to the hereafter? Or should we require good works as they spring from good ethics as a precursor to the development of Faith?
It kind of reminds me of the old joke about Jesuits and casuistry: "Can I smoke while I pray? -- No. Then, can I pray while I smoke? Yes." Whether or not good works are impelled by Faith or are undertaken independently certainly matters when one considers organized religion, but given that most people of Faith (of any stripe) undertake good works it is (in reality) a matter of praying while smoking or smoking while praying -- the actions are the same no matter the motivation, and the end result is the same.
It's what Jesus said -- feed the naked, clothe the hungry, visit the prisoner... And to paraphrase Maimonides -- the rest is commentary.
--Andy Jo--
Yes, Benedict is headed home
Yes, Benedict is headed home again. Let's hope this time he doesn't commit the awful faux pas that was such an embarrassment on his first return. I don't know about it being "The Land of Luther," but Benedict could learn a great deal if he would seriously consider the more successful ways Protestants run churches than has ever been the case with the bishops of Rome. Become a genuine pastor, a genuine bridge builder. Doff the royal pretensions. They are so unlike Jesus.
More successful? Liberal
More successful? Liberal Protestantism is dying fast. Look at the Anglican church. The majority of Christians in the world are Catholic. Pope Benedict IS a pastor and bridge builder. He believes that we should unite in charity and truth. You can't have one without the other. A pity you are to caught up in your own pretensions to see how Christ like Pope Benedict truly is.
Again, you could have made
Again, you could have made your point with the attack of the entire last sentence. Good grief.
I meant the word "without"!
I meant the word "without"!
Long ago when confronted with
Long ago when confronted with the Faith vs Works discomfort, I said;
"if Christianity were a disease, good works would be the symptom".
Nils K. Hammer
It is obvious that university
It is obvious that university students don't have got lots of money to spend for academic writing. This is a stuff to be confused. It is simpler to Buy Essay Paper. Furthermore, it is a great way to save cash!
Post new comment