Word on the web is that Rome is opening up ecumenical conversations with confessional Lutherans. At the First Things blog, Matthew Block describes some of the activity and rationale for these discussions.
While dialogue between Roman Catholics and mainline Lutherans continues, a desire has arisen among Roman Catholics to begin looking to confessional Lutherans for more fruitful dialogue. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, while still under the presidency of Cardinal Walter Kasper, contacted the Independent Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany (SELK), Dr. Klän reported, to “fathom the chances of having something like a dialogue established between the two church bodies, the Roman Catholic Church in Germany and [SELK].” Dr. Klän and SELK’s Bishop Hans-Jörg Voigt were subsequently invited to visit the Unity Secretariat in Rome to meet with Cardinal Kasper and Msgr. Dr. Matthias Türk (responsible for the PCPCU’s Lutheran relations). This consultation led to the six-part discussions in Germany.
“One cannot deny that the church is influenced and affected by worldly societal trends,” said Dr. Klän in his report to the ILC. “The challenges that Christianity is facing today are not restricted to one church body. And that is why it makes sense to look for alliances with Christians and churches we might find agreement with on certain issues.”
He continued: “In many a way it may be hoped that confessional Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue on the world level could contribute to pursuing the goal of communicating foundational principles of Christian faith and defending them against being watered down, being contradicted, being challenged, and neglected not only from outside Christianity, but also within the realm of established church bodies. That is why it makes sense to me for the ILC and its member churches to enter into a theological dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church.”
The Roman Catholic Church seems to agree. When the German discussions ended, the participants issued a report encouraging both churches to enter into formal dialogue. Responding to that report, the new president of the PCPCU, Cardinal Kurt Koch, wrote in 2011 to Bishop Voigt of the SELK, informing him that the Roman Catholic Church is highly interested in starting an official dialogue with the ILC.
(Here is a link to the International Lutheran Council.)
Block suggests that recent opposition to Obamacare is a factor in making these ecumenical discussions plausible:
In the United States of America, for example, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod have recently become allies over the subject of religious liberty in the face of the Health and Human Services contraceptive mandate. And in Canada, very tentative discussions between the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and Lutheran Church–Canada have also begun. These churches are members of the International Lutheran Council, an international association of Lutheran churches known for their more traditional interpretation of the authority of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions—hence the term “confessional” Lutherans.
I don’t mean to remind Lutherans impolitely of Martin Luther’s chutzpah at the Marburg Colloquy, but these sort of dialogues do present a problem both for the integrity of the Roman Catholic Church and Lutheran communions and for the powers of human reason. Here I am reminded of Alan Wolfe’s interpretation of the recent thaw between Roman Catholics and Protestants in the United States (this from a sociologist of Jewish-American extraction who has no dog in the interpretive fight):
Now it is undoubtedly truth that many of these once furious debates between Catholics and Protestants have subsided in contemporary America. For the first time in our history, a generic thing called Christianity is emerging, as large numbers of switchers move from one faith to another and as young spiritual seekers respond, not to doctrinal differences between faiths, but to the vibrancy of specific sermons or the charisma of particular clergy. But if there exists a convergence among Christians today, it is difficult to imagine that the Christianity which historically divided them is precisely what is now unifying them. On the contrary, it makes more sense to argue that there is something in contemporary American culture that causes all American religions to become similar to each other (just as there is likely something in Nigerian culture that make all of Nigeria’s faiths — Anglican, Catholic, and Muslim — conservative in a worldwide context). Once something resembling a generic Christianity emerges, in other words, it confirms a relationship between democracy and Christianity, but it is not the one discovered by Tocqueville and extended by Heclo: today democracy shapes Christianity more than the other way around. (in Christianity and American Democracy, by Hugh Heclo et al, 191-192)
This is one reason why lumping causes indigestion for splitters. I don’t presume to speak for the lumpers who seem to be able to swallow anything.
Old Life 
Darryl,
How so?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
So you’re a confessional Lutheran looking at Rome post Vat II and saying; ‘Yeah we can work with liberal protestantism just fine.” And if you’re just looking at ‘cultural’ issues, how does that work with the predominance of progressives in Rome, much less the seediness of the Vatican itself and it’s monetary ties to the mob. Wouldn’t you look at Rome and say; ‘why don’t you spend the next generation cleaning up your house and then we’ll think about giving you a call, maybe, possibly, depends how my schedule looks, look at the time will ya.’
LikeLike
What motivates this is the us (Christian Theists) vs. them (Secularists) mindset. The problem is, secularists can only kill the body, while getting the gospel wrong can condemn souls to hell. I’ll cooperate with non-Reformed Christian theists on a lot of worldly tasks, just like I’ll cooperate with Secularists, but I’m not melding my theology with either of them.
LikeLike
Bryan, well, outside the church there is no salvation. Boniface VIII and all that. But if Rome wants to engage the world, as in Vatican II, Protestants are now separate brethren. When you were in the Protestant world, you would have called that liberal. And ecumenism was a cardinal trait of mainline Protestantism, but always on behalf of a social good — as if you can save the world outside the church.
LikeLike
Erik, ding ding ding ding. Back in the day when Rome believed that the soul was more important than the body, Protestants did not rise to the level of separated brethren.
LikeLike
… but these sort of dialogues do present a problem both for the integrity of the Roman Catholic Church …
How so?
Paradigm collision/side swipe. There will be blood, because not everybody wears their seatbelt like they are supposed to.
Or if you prefer, paradigm miscegenation. The blender affect. Everything turns into a bland lukewarm grey pablum.
That of course is the OLTS perspective. Those in the front row seats at an audience with His eminent refulgence of course know the true story/outcome. The gates of lutheranism cannot prevail against leviathan under the specious guise of a come hither ecumenicism. But again, the unsuspecting prey is not privy to the paradigm of the true insiders. If they were they would already be rosary carrying members of the Congregation of the Truly Faithful.
LikeLike
Wolfe’s paragraph makes me think more of the Pietism side of the Pietism/Confessionalism divide (some lumping is good, right?) from Lost Soul than it does about any potential LCMS/RC relations. But I might be (probably am) missing something.
LikeLike
Confessional Lutherans hold to all their confessions–commonly called Concordia, or the Book of Concord. The Augsburg Confession is just a few pages of the whole; Rome could not accept the Smalcald Articles without…ceasing to be Rome.
http://bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php
LikeLike
Nate, what if pietism leads inevitably to civil religion (which is another name for ecumenism)?
LikeLike
A more immediate argument against the LCMS (I won’t speak for our European sister-synods) getting friendly with Rome is a recent flap involving a pastor praying at a Newton, CT inter-faith “gathering” (I don’t know what to call those things). He was disciplined and apologized (sort of). Our synod president made clear the Scriptural position on such syncretism. It’s gone mainstream media, if you care to read the details.
Rome is involved in these inter-faith “prayer” meetings all the time. (To be fair, I know Roman Catholics who are not happy with it, but not so upset as to leave their church.)
What will happen if Roman extends an olive branch, is certain folks in the LCMS will jump at the chance, and so will cease to be confessional Lutherans, because they will have rejected the Confessions. (“Confessional Lutheran” is rather a broad term now, unfortunately. It can simply mean “not ELCA” or “pro-life and anti-gay-ordination”).
LikeLike
Katy, but if you have the magic wand of development of doctrine, you can affirm Augsburg and say that it was really affirming re-union with Rome all along. Or you can keep your wits and dictionary about you.
LikeLike
Thanks Dr. Hart, that helps me understand the connection.
LikeLike
Darryl,
True.
True.
Those two truths don’t entail any integrity problem, nor have you shown how they entail an integrity problem.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
D.G.,
You missed the part that only dumb, passive Protestants are separated brethren. Protestants who fight against Rome are still heretics.
LikeLike
Bryan, Protestants are schismatics. Schism is a mortal sin. We are going to hell. Why then call us separated brothers? Why hold ecumenical talks with schismatics? You’re the master of logic. Can A really = B? Even if the pope says? You are familiar with the Sedevacantists, no?
LikeLike
Darryl,
No, that’s an egregious straw man. The act of schism is *grave* matter, not necessarily mortal sin. In order for a sin to be mortal sin it must also be done with full knowledge and deliberate consent. (See CCC 1857) The condition of being in schism is distinct from the act of schism. The condition of being in schism is not a sin, though deliberately remaining in schism, when one knows that one is in schism, is a sin. “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” (CCC 846) But the Church does not assume that persons raised in a condition of schism know themselves to be in schism, or are culpable for remaining in that condition. The Church is aware of the possibility of being presently in a condition of heretofore invincible ignorance. So there is no contradiction between believing that Protestants are presently in a condition of schism, and engaging in ecumenical dialogue with Protestants. Nor have you shown there to be any contradiction.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, it is interesting that you don’t come close to giving biblical support for that view of sin. A Sunday School knowledge of the Bible makes one think that this notion of mortal sin is a stretch. Adam sent himself, his bride, children, and the whole human race to judgment thanks to merely eating a piece of fruit. Now you tell me that not following Christ’s vicegerent on earth, the one with temporal and spiritual powers directly from Christ, is not necessarily mortal, though it sure seems to me that you wouldn’t want to count on the not necessarily part. And then you seem to think that confessional Lutherans may not be guilty of mortal sin because they don’t know about Rome’s claims? Are you kidding?
This stuff make sense on a chalk board. But in the real lives of sinful human beings, I sure wish Rome would worry a little more about those whose sins may be mortal rather than looking for ways to consider a sin as less than mortal.
LikeLike
Bryan- ” But the Church does not assume that persons raised in a condition of schism know themselves to be in schism.”
Erik – Whew. I was raised unchurched, then Methodist, then CRC for a short time, then Southern Baptist, followed by Christian & Missionary Alliance, Southern Baptist again, then E-Free, and finally URC with some OPC sympathies — so I’m good. Sean, however, who was raised Catholic is screwed. Sorry buddy.
LikeLike
Rome is apparently kind of like the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
LikeLike
Bryan must have had to undergo a lobotomy to go from being a Reformed minister to believing all of this stuff. CCC 1857? Talk about a paradigm shift.
LikeLike
Erik, I don’t sweat the prot-catholic. The fear of God, and the compassion of Christ for even me, quells a noisy conscience. I’ve been on both sides and I made a supernaturally enabled choice to follow Jesus as the apostles presented Him, not as other men imagine Him to be.
LikeLike
Darryl,
That would be a red herring. The point of my comment was to show that there is no contradiction in the Catholic position, nor have you shown there to be one. And that’s what I showed. Raising the objection that there is not sufficient biblical support for the Catholic doctrine of sin is a separate question.
That’s not what I said. It is not enough merely to know a claim, to be culpable for not believing it.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, you didn’t show that there is no contradiction. You asserted it. I know paradigms. You should know, fideism.
Scripture a red herring? At least when the prophets and apostles wrote they were always infallible. Popes and the magisterium speak endlessly and we have only two instances of infallible dogma. According to the Vatican (thanks to Scott Clark):
I’m sure you have some “explanation” that satisfies your logical and metaphysical mind. But to us schleps, this game is rigged — tails, the church is infallible, heads, you’re not looking at it the right way. And you have a problem with Van Til? Sheesh.
LikeLike
With all due respect to Bryan, with the way be bobs and weaves I am surprised he couldn’t come up with a way to argue for Sola Scriptura with those (presumably young) Mormon missionaries. The Reformed system seems way more airtight than the Catholic system. Of course the older and larger the system, the more nooks and crannies to pull stuff from to make whatever point you are seeking to make on that particular day.
LikeLike
While we’re talking about excuses for the “sin” of not being in fellowship with the Bishop of Rome, why would his teaching things that are not found in Scripture not be a valid excuse? Mary, saints, the Mass, veneration of relics, indulgences, use of images, and on and on. If we all agree that Scripture is infallible this would seem to be a valid excuse.
LikeLike