CONCORDIA JOURNAL

Volume 29 October 2003 Number 4

CONTENTS

EDITORIALS

Editor’s Note ...... 354 A Statement ...... 356 Theological Potpourri ...... 358 Theological Observers ...... 363

ARTICLES

The Beginnings of the Papacy in the Early Quentin F. Wesselschmidt ...... 374 ?: The Lutheran Confessions on the Papacy Charles P. Arand ...... 392 The Papacy in Perspective: ’s Reform and Robert Rosin ...... 407 Vatican II’s Conception of the Papacy: A Lutheran Response Richard H. Warneck ...... 427 Ut Unum Sint and What It Says about the Papacy: Description and Response Samuel H. Nafzger ...... 447 Papacy as a Constitutive Element of Koinonia in Ut Unum Sint? Edward J. Callahan ...... 463

HOMILETICAL HELPS ...... 483

BOOK REVIEWS ...... 506

BOOKS RECEIVED ...... 518

INDEX ...... 520

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 353 Editorial

Editor’s Note

On May 25, 1995, John Paul II issued Ut Unum Sint, his encyc- lical letter in which he reaches out to non-Roman churches to enter into ecumenical dialogue for the sake of achieving the unity that Christ prayed for in His high priestly prayer in John 17:20-21. Since the papacy has been one of the major points of division between the Roman Church and other denominations from the sixteenth century, the pope seeks dia- logue on this topic as well as in other areas of disagreement. In light of this invitation, this issue of Concordia Journal is devoted to articles on the Roman papacy. The papacy and its claims of primacy are reviewed in his- torical and confessional terms to see whether there are any changes in Rome’s understanding of the papacy that might make it acceptable to Lutherans. In the first article, Dr. Quentin F. Wesselschmidt examines the devel- opment of the Roman church’s claims of and Petrine succes- sion in the early centuries of the church’s history. When and why these claims developed, as well as how these claims were received or resisted by the churches outside of Rome, must be taken into account in any reconsid- eration of the papacy. In the second article, Dr. Charles P. Arand reexamines the view of the Lutheran reformers and the Lutheran Confessions that the pope is the antichrist. He investigates why and how that view may still be appropriate today and whether other issues are involved. One must consider the his- torical context of the Confessions and the concerns of their authors in any reappraisal of the pope being the antichrist. Two other factors that must be taken into account are eschatology and the two kinds of righteousness. In the third article, Dr. Robert Rosin looks at the papacy in light of the Lutheran and notes that the papacy was not the main target of Luther’s reform efforts, but it was an issue that could not be ignored. Any reexamination of the papacy must take into account post-Reformation , Tridentine thought, and nineteenth-century theologians’ views on Luther and the papacy. In the fourth article, Dr. Richard H. Warneck calls attention to the views of the papacy as reinforced by the . In spite of some of the liberalizing tendencies of Vatican II, the papacy remains the “single monolithic entity in Roman Catholicism.” Therefore, any dialogue with Rome must deal with the papacy. In the fifth article, Dr. Samuel H. Nafzger reviews the content of Ut Unum Sint and offers a Lutheran response. He suggests that before the issue of the papacy can be taken up, changes need to be made in the encyc-

354 lical and its understanding of the doctrine of the church. In the sixth article, Rev. Edward J. Callahan addresses the question of whether the role of the papacy in the ecumenical movement as envisioned by John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint makes the papacy acceptable to non- Catholic . Even though the pope makes a strong case for unity among all Christians, Lutherans and will not find his understanding of unity in line with the unity for which we pray the to grant to the church. John Paul II has been a very active and congenial pope with enough charisma to have made the papacy a household name and a subject of interest to non-Catholics. He is liked and respected well beyond his own denominational circles and has urged Christian positions regarding many contemporary social issues that win the applause of most traditional Chris- tians. Yet, the papacy must be considered in terms of its long history and contemporary Catholicism’s position on it. We hope that our readers will find these articles informative and beneficial. Quentin F. Wesselschmidt

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 355 A Faculty Statement

Unfinished Work

The Yankee Stadium event of September 23, 2001, and the ensuing controversy in The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod have raised a host of questions for Synod. Among them is the vital question concerning the future policy of Synod. How should Missouri Synod Lutherans relate to people of non-Christian religions? Should Missouri Synod be encouraged to participate in inter-religious events or not? Why or why not? If so, how should they participate? What kinds of presence would be deemed God-pleasing and helpful? Although the Dispute Resolution Panel has rendered an decision on the charges brought against David Benke, we do not believe that the issues raised by the event have been satisfactorily addressed. Furthermore, some conclusions have been drawn which may be confusing or misleading. In particular, we do not believe that the Synod has currently in place a well-articulated statement of and practice pertaining to participation or non-participation in various kinds of public events with representatives of non-Christian religions. Specifically, the CTCR document, “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship” with the response, which was commended by the 2001 Synodical convention (Resolution 3-07A), deals only with inter-Christian fellowship issues and does not have in view situations of religious pluralism such as that which took place at Yankee Stadium. The CTCR on February 18, 2003, has also expressed the same opinion: “Section V, B. does not explicitly address the issue of ‘offering a prayer by an LCMS pastor in a “civic event” in which prayers would also be offered by representatives of non-Christian religions.’”1 All of this is to say that the Synod still has unfinished work in determining how best to be church in a religiously pluralistic nation and world. We believe that the discussion can best take place in a dispassionate way among those who were not “combatants” during the recent controversy with a vested interest in determining winners and losers. We look forward to the results of the CTCR’s ongoing work regarding the issue of participation in civic events and the definition of civic event. Moreover, we as a faculty stand ready to assist the Synod in developing and articulating responsible Christian approaches to the challenges facing us in the changing religious landscape of America. In addition to past contributions made in the Concordia Journal and Theological Symposia, we at Concordia Seminary

1To see the CTCR response to the DRP questions, dated February 18, 2003, go to the following web site address: http://www.lcms.org/president/statements/ on_disputedecision.asp

356 have recently offered a collection of essays entitled “Witness and Worship in Pluralistic America.” We hope that others will contribute their insights as well. Consensus on such a complex issue comes only after much study, discussion, and debate, sometimes extending over the course of many years. Concordia Seminary Faculty

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 357 Theological Potpourri

Report on the ELCA’s Conference of Teaching Theologians

This past August, I was invited to attend the 2003 Conference of Teaching Theologians of the ELCA, held in Milwaukee immediately after that church body’s national convention in the same city. The attendees at this conference comprised essentially theologians from the ELCA in teaching positions at various academic institutions, including seminaries, colleges and universities of the denomination, and non-affiliated institutions, both public and private alike. In addition, several were present, and a representative from a Reformed body and I were invited as guests to observe (the Reformed observer was not able to be present). I represented the Concordia Journal at this event, and I am pleased to say that my days there were time well spent, indeed—especially since the topic, “The Promise and Challenges of a Lutheran Hermeneutic,” is something near and dear to my heart. The conference format was not novel: plenary presentations and small group discussions intertwined. The papers in plenary were well prepared, and the topics and format in the small groups were well conceived and effectively carried out. (Mercifully, there were no reports from small groups back to the plenary, which is always a lowlight of any conference.) In fact, if one ignored a few half-hearted runs at the concept of the third use of the law on a couple of occasions, it would have been hard to tell that one was not at a gathering of LCMS teaching theologians. Toward the end of the conference I was asked—and it was gracious of the organizers to do this—if I, as an invited observer, wished to provide any reaction to what had transpired. I was happy to do so. Subsequently, a number of attendees asked for a write-up of my remarks, which I was able to provide. Below is a copy of that write-up, which represents about 90% of what I presented orally. There are also some additions for clarification and to provide bibliographical references. We have room to talk.

Toward a Distinctive Lutheran Hermeneutic

Introduction: The ELCA Conference of Teaching Theologians was well- conceived and well-executed. The papers were well-prepared and provide a basis for coming to grips with the distinctions of a Lutheran hermeneutic.

I. Pragmatics and Semantics

Steve Carlson’s paper, “Luther and Scripture” (8/17/03) highlighted the issue of the impact of Scripture. His paper contained the following clauses:

358 “the content of Scripture magnifies sin”; “Scripture condemns”; “Scripture puts us to death and revivifies.” Such words focus our attention on the issue of pragmatics and its relation to semantics, i.e., the impact of a text vs. the meaning or sense of a text1 (cf. Mark Powell’s point that there are “different philosophical concepts of what constitutes ‘meaning’”2 [8/18/03]). Carlson was supported by Kit Kleinhans (8/18/03), who spoke of Scripture being holy “because of its use.”3 She also highlighted the importance of asking how a text “exposes” our sinfulness and “comforts” us. It is a Lutheran distinctive to embrace both the semantics/meaning of a text and the pragmatics or impact of a text. (Indeed, Lutherans have been “ahead of the curve” in recognizing impact, in speaking of various “uses” of the Law [which are various impacts, not meanings of the Law]). It is also a Lutheran distinction to tend to privilege pragmatics/impact. The problem is to keep both meaning and impact, semantics and pragmatics, together. In my opinion, the LCMS has a tendency to get out of balance in the direction of semantics, becoming fascinated with inerrancy and the surety of meaning. When this happens, the address of the text tends to get lost. The ELCA, by contrast, has a tendency to get out of balance in the other direction, pragmatics, so that, e.g., questions of the nature of Scripture are answered by discussing not what it is, but what it does. (Cf. the point made by Kleinhans concerning the ordering of articles regarding Scripture in the ELCA constitution, viz., that only after speaking of the “generativity” of the text is there a discussion of Scripture being normative.) When pragmatics becomes over-dominant, the message of the text tends to become overwhelmed.4

II. and Scripture

Scott Hendrix’s tour through Luther (8/17/03) highlighted issues related to the relationship between and Scripture. Luther says, e.g., “...the gospel itself is our guide and instructor in the scriptures.”5 How tricky this relationship is, can be seen in the penetrating questions of Hank Langknecht to Kit Kleinhans after her presentation: “How do we know Christ and how do we know that the Scriptures point to Christ?” 1For a basic introduction, see James W. Voelz, What Does This Mean?: Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Post-Modern World 2nd ed., St Louis: Concordia, 1997, 275-292. 2“Polyvalence in Interpretation - And Questions Raised for Interpretive Exegesis.” He noted that meanings may be understood as “a cognitive message to be passed from author to reader, or an affective or emotive response produced in readers through the experience of receiving the text.” 3“What Ought We Look for and Expect in Scripture?” 4In this repect, it will be interesting to see what happens in coming years as passages such as Romans 1, dealing with the matter of homosexuality, are considered by the ELCA. 5Scott Hendrix, “The Interpretation of the according to Luther and the Confes- sions, or, Did Luther Have A (Lutheran) Hermeneutics?,” section 2, Scripture and Gospel (A Brief Instruction on What to Look For and Expect in the , 1522) 2.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 359 Here we see an example of the question of the relationship between a notion of content and a document which is an authoritative source and norm—their relationship in the hermeneutical spiral.6 Lutherans affirm both the Gospel and Scripture and distinctively keep them together. It is also a Lutheran distinction to tend to privilege the Gospel over Scripture.7 We may note that the early church understood this problem as it developed the regulae fidei (localized proto-).8 These represented content, just as Scripture represented authoritative document. Both were apostolic (the regulae were not “drawn from” Scripture) and both were kept together. The regulae were statements of the faith congruent with the contents of the Scriptures, plus they were lenses to view and keys to unlock these same Scriptures, and thus could be privileged. In the words of Robert Wall, “The [regulae] were statements of core theological affirmations, which might continue to serve the church as criteria for assessing the coherence of one’s interpretation of Scripture.”9 Lutherans have used the terms “formal” and “material” principle to describe the distinction between content and authoritative source, but a new article soon to be published by Erik Heen10 shows how slippery and recent these terms are. We must be very careful in using them. The problem is to keep both content and authoritative document together. If Scripture, seen to be “sola” (and understood as totally self- interpreting), wipes out content as a hermeneutical key, exegesis becomes idiosyncratic.11 Dispensational millenialism is a good example of this error. If Gospel as content wipes out Scripture as source and norm, the incarnated specifics of God’s revelation are lost (and systemticians take over the world!). It is my opinion that Gospel/content can also be seen as a community principle because the Gospel and/or regulae have existence apart from the Scriptures, and are handed down by the as the community of faith. 6It is never a hermeneutical circle, always a spiral, for understanding grows as the interpretive process proceeds. 7This distinguishes us from fundamentalists, who believe the Gospel because they believe the Bible. Lutherans believe the Bible because they believe the Gospel. 8Robert S. Wall, “Reading the Bible from within Our Traditions: The ‘Rule of Faith’ in Theological Hermeneutics” in Between Two Horizons: Spanning Studies and New Testament Theology, ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000, especially 89, 101-102. 9Wall, “The ‘Rule of Faith’ in Theological Hermeneutics”, 89. See also Frances Young (The Making of Creeds, London: SCM, 1991, 91), who says that the early church regarded the creedal statements as “a normative overview, as ‘apostolic’ and as the standard to which appeal was to be made when controversy about the content or interpretation of scripture arose.” For a placement of this issue in the general hermeneutical discussion, see James W. Voelz, “Reading Scripture as Lutherans in the Post-Modern Era,” Lutheran Quarterly 14 (2000): 318-320. 10“The Distinction ‘Material / Formal Principles’ and it Use in American Lutheran Theiology,” Lutheran Quarterly (Autumn 2003). 11I would thus plead for an understanding which is “sola apostolica,” embracing both the apostolic regulae and the apostolic Scriptures. Sola Scripture is essentially a polemical formulation directed against the teaching .

360 III. Personal Experience

Personal experience is also key. Hendrix brought this out in his discussion of Luther, especially in the notion that theology and experience belong together, and that the Word is rich when studied under pressure (Anfechtungen).12 Paul Rorem confirmed the point in his reaction paper (8/ 17/03). This is not hard to imagine, if pragmatics is part of the picture (for, by its very nature, pragmatics concerns the impact of the meaning of a text upon a personal subject). But reader-oriented criticisms (e.g., reader- response, various post-structuralist approaches) lead us to understand that it is a factor in the semantic/meaning enterprise, as well. A distinctively Lutheran hermeneutic is also existential. This allowed Luther to privilege the book of Romans over James (as the Roman Church did not), and it allows us to listen and learn from Mark Powell’s experiences with Russian and Tanzanian interpreters (who hear Biblical stories from their own, personal social location). The problem with the existential factor is that we must make sure that we listen to other personal readings of the text (such as those in Russia and Tanzania). The self is in community. We must also listen to those who experienced the text in the past. The community is not only in the present. (G. K. Chesterton once said that the of the past must not be disenfranchised “just because they happen to be dead.”) And, we must be sure to actually listen to the text.

Points I, II, and III, then, may be interrelated to create the following diagram of a distinctively Lutheran hermeneutic:

Pragmatics ------

Content/Gospel Community

Semantics

Authoritative Text Self

IV. Two Further Observations A. General/Sacred Hermeneutics Too much of our discussion at the Teaching Theologians Conference has focused on sacred hermeneutics—principles for interpreting Scripture 12These points were made orally in the discussion of his first text, under the first heading, “Scripture and the Reformation Discovery” (The Interpretation of the Bible According to Luther, 1).

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 361 as the Word of God/as containing the Word of God. But the devil is in the details of general hermeneutics, the majority of the time. Take, e.g., the “ within a canon” issue. This was a much discussed topic in our first plenary discussion (8/17/03), and also in the paper by Richard Perry13 (8/18/ 03). All literature or bodies of literature has this issue. Ask anyone who is reading the works of Derrida!

B. General Geist

The LCMS and the ELCA differ in some ways in Geist. Erik Heen gave a very fair historical assessment in his essay “The Interpretation of the Bible Among Lutherans in the 20th Century” (8/17/03). He noted that the forerunner church bodies of the ELCA valued the in Luther studies in the ’60s more than the LCMS, while the LCMS valued the insights of 17th century more than ELCA-predecessor theologians. We can, in addition, note that ELCA theologians value and privilege the Augustana over the in the , while LCMS theologians tend to value and privilege the Formula over the Augustana.14 This leads me to observe that the ELCA is, to create an analogy to literature and music, “romantic” in its temperament, while the LCMS is more “classical.” The former values the early, the fresh, and the direct, while the latter values the mature, the studied, and the considered. Which is, generally, correct is hard to say, but it certainly is true that macro- tendencies of groups or organizations are most powerful, yet their influence generally remains undetected and unarticulated. James W. Voelz

13“What Sort of Claim Does the Bible Have Today?” 14One can, e.g., see this in discussions of the unity of the church as one observes the uses made of AC VII and FC X.

362 Theological Observers

Five Things You Should Not Say at Funerals

As a young pastor in the early 1980s, I learned pretty quickly that you hear things said at funerals that (strictly speaking) were not true. The deceased was often described as the kind of person who “never turned away anyone in need” or who “would give anyone the shirt off his back” or who was “always a loving and patient husband.” Recognizing quickly the need to “translate” comments made during times of intense emotional strain, I also learned that it was probably a grim thing when the best that was said about the dead person was “Oh, he was a real character all right!” As a not-as-young pastor now in the early years of the twenty-first century, I still hear at funerals things said about the dead Christian that are not true. The problem is that I hear them said by the pastor, as part of his sermon. These are things which, strictly speaking, are not true. More importantly, these are things which, theologically speaking, are not true. And so we ought not to say them. Because ultimately, statements such as the ones highlighted below downplay the real meaning of death, and they diminish the great hope of resurrection that is God’s answer in Christ to the reality of death. The following are things that should not be said at funerals. First: “Bob has received the crown of righteousness, and he has heard the Lord say, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant’.” No, actually, he hasn’t— not yet. The phrase “crown of righteousness” comes from 2 Timothy 4:8 where Paul confidently asserts as he looks forward to his own death, “Fi- nally, the crown of righteousness is being stored up for me, which the Lord, the righteous Judge will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have loved his appearing.” The crown of righteous- ness is awarded on the Last Day, at the Final Judgment. Until that day— it is stored up and waiting to be awarded (see also 1 Peter 5:4). The Lord’s commendation, “Well done,” comes from the Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14-30), a parable that also refers to the Judgment Day. The final verdict on each Christian’s service is not given until the final accounting takes place–when the Master returns after a long journey (Matt. 25:14, 19; see also 1 Cor. 3:10-15). Second: “Margaret has now entered into eternal life.” There is no Biblical support for a statement like this–this is not, in fact, a Christian

The “Theological Observer” serves as a forum for comment on, assessment of, and reactions to developments and events in the church at large, as well as in the world of theology generally. Since areas of expertise, interest, and perceptions often vary, the views presented in this section will not always reflect the opinion of the editorial committee.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 363 thing to say. Standing on its own, such an utterance can also have the double effect of both diminishing the significance of Holy and effectively eliminating the creedal hope of “the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.” As John 5:24ff. tells us, eternal life has already begun for all who hear ’ words and believe the Father who sent Him. Whatever else might be said about the condition of the believer’s soul when death tears it away from the believer’s body, this event cannot and must not be called “ into eternal life.” To say such a thing is to imply that the body is not destined to participate in eternal life! Third: “John has gone to his eternal home.” This utterance contains an echo of a Biblical way of speaking, but it is terribly misleading. In 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, Paul is dealing with the prospect of death, the hope of the resurrection body, and how these matters interrelate. His primary hope concerns the resurrection body that will be given to him and to all believers “so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (2 Cor. 5:4; cf. 1 Cor. 15:53f.). Until he puts on that dwelling, Paul and all believers groan, along with the whole creation (2 Cor. 5:4; cf. Rom. 8:22-23). The gift of the Holy Spirit, however, is the “bridge” between this mortal existence and that immortal, resurrection life–the Spirit is the “guarantee” of final inheritance and life (2 Cor. 5:5). So, life is lived in this tension. Until the gift of the resurrection body, one must be “home” somewhere and “away” from something. Currently, Paul is “home in the body” and “away from the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:6). If he had to choose, he would rather be “away from the body” and “home with the Lord,” something that he elsewhere describes as an existence that is “far better” (Phil. 1:23). But this does not mean that the bodiless existence of the soul is “our eternal home.” If one were going to specify the location of our “eternal home,” the closest approximation would be where we are now—in God’s creation! As creatures, this creation is rightly our home. Spoiled by sin, however, the creation awaits renewal—our eternal home is in need of renovation, purging, . A Christian who dies most certainly is, in some important sense, “at home with the Lord.” But at death, the believer does not go to his or her eternal home—not yet. Fourth: “Julia is with the Lord now forever.” This, too, implies that the resurrection of the body is an afterthought, an add-on, something that isn’t very important. The blessed condition of the dead believers is rest, paradise, a being “with the Lord”—but it will not always be that way. Our dogmatic theologians have rightly called the condition of the soul apart from the body the “interim state.” It is a “between” kind of existence. It is not the existence that will characterize eternal life. Things will change on the Last Day also for the dead–they will be raised and in that condition, “we will always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:17). Fifth: “This is not a funeral—it’s Craig’s victory celebration!” This is perhaps the most objectionable of all—and it is patently false, as even many unbelievers instinctively know. It is true, of course, that when a

364 Christian dies, he is now “out of danger”—he can no longer be tempted. In addition, when tragic and prolonged physical or mental suffering precede the death of a Christian, there can be great relief and release for both the deceased and for those who loved him and have cared for him. But who could even imagine saying that a funeral is a “victory” when it’s the funeral of a child, or of a young mother, or of a colleague and friend struck down in the midst of a vigorous and productive life? As a matter of fact, the death even of a Christian is always and only a sign that sin has not yet fully been abolished by the Lord Jesus Christ; the last enemy has not yet gone under His feet. As a matter of fact, death (which does not separate the deceased from the love of God in Christ) does separate the deceased from those who love him. Funerals are not victory celebrations. They are funerals. The grief is, in light of the Gospel, never grief without hope (1 Thess. 4:13). But it is still, ever and rightly—grief. For only on the Last Day will death be swallowed up in…victory (1 Cor. 15:54). Why do we say things at funerals that we should not say? Perhaps it’s the desire to bring “complete” comfort to those who mourn. I suspect that there is also at work a skewed anthropology that views a person as essen- tially a “soul.” So, when we think of a person’s future, we think only of the future of his soul, but not of the blessed future of his body. But my real guess would be that such mis-speaking at funerals occurs because we have lost a real appreciation for the true and great Biblical hope of the parousia of Jesus at the consummation of the age (see my essay “Regaining Biblical Hope: Restoring the Prominence of the Parousia,” Concordia Journal 27 [October 2001]: 310-322). When the second coming plays no functional role in one’s working theology, it will not show up in funeral sermons. When the theological understanding of death as the enemy is hidden behind clichés that are not true, then there is less opportunity for speaking the Good News. When the pastor, even though he believes that it will happen, is not himself actually looking for and longing for the return of Christ—then he will say at funerals things that he should not say. And he will not deliver the fulness of the Gospel. For that is what a pastor should say at a funeral—the Good News. The Law is there, staring everyone in the face—death. And the sermon should speak explicitly of sin and its effects and its manifestations—including the death of this Christian or sister. And one can also proclaim the Biblical message about the soul of the dead Christian—the soul is “with Christ,” or “at rest,” or “in Paradise.” These are all Biblical ways of speaking, and they can offer true Christian comfort. But in the face of death the pastor must proclaim the Good News of God’s solution to sin and all its effects. And God’s solution for bodily death is bodily resurrection! The is the first fruits of the final resurrection on the Last Day—and this is very good news indeed for all who are in Christ Jesus. The redeeming act of Jesus of Nazareth encompasses and overcomes all guilt now, and His deeds for us will overturn

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 365 the death of our bodies and restore us and all who trust Him to our rightful home in the new heavens and the new earth. This hope is realistic, in that it allows death in Christ to be death—no more, but certainly no less. And this hope is true, because it is centered in Christ Jesus and looks only to Him who is the same yesterday in our life, today in our death…and forever in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting. This is what we should say at funerals. Jeff Gibbs

What Luther Meant

Two pieces in the July Concordia Journal (232-234, 235-239) provide helpful clarification that Luther’s statement in the Large , II, 66, does not at all commit confessional Lutherans to the idea that Turks (), , and pagans have faith in the one, true God and worship Him with such faith. Neither the German nor the versions of the Catechism have a definite article with “one, true God.” (He is speaking about what others may say about deity.) Both pieces (at 232 and 239) assert that pagans cannot be said to believe in and worship the one, true God. Beyond that, two points of analysis are seen in both pieces. (1) The Large Catechism passage uses a concessive (“although”) clause, i.e., a clause that grants a point which nevertheless does not invalidate the main assertion. This concessive clause is (in the Latin translation): “Although they merely believe that God is one and true, and call upon Him [as such].” This employs Dr. Nordling’s useful observation that tantum (merely, only) is best understood as modifying the verbs. (Presumably the same can be said of the nur of the German version). This concessive clause serves the purpose of making the point that the non-Christians, regardless of what their belief and worship may be, do not know God’s attitude toward them of love and blessing. (2) The antecedents of “they” in the concessive clause need not include all the groups listed by Luther: “All who are outside this Christian people, whether heathen, Turks, Jews, or false Christians and hypocrites” (Kolb/Wengert). Here the CJ pieces are not exact. Page 233 leaves it undecided whether “they” refers only to false Christians and hypocrites, or also includes Jews and Turks (but not pagans) as those who believe in and worship one, true God (even if it is false worship). In either case, it is certain that the non-Christians do not know the divine attitude toward them. But page 238 definitely opts for excluding Jews and Muslims as well as pagans, since all have a “fictive God,” “what they merely believe is the true God.” Footnote 17 on page 239 also excludes the rest of the list, viewing the concessive clause as contrary-to-fact with “they” not referring to any actual non-Christian and (I suppose) expressing a paradox about correct doctrine and saving faith. While greatly appreciating these efforts, one does wonder if a broader

366 look at Luther’s writings and use of language might not be helpful for further clarification. Such a look does yield the information that Luther sometimes speaks of non-Christians “believing” and “worshiping” God in some sense. For example, he says that the heathen of Romans 1:20 “do not believe for a theological reason but a human one” (WA 39, 1, 180) and that Jews and Turks “boast against us Christians that they believe in the one God, the Creator of heaven and earth” (WA 54, 67-67). He is referring to natural knowledge of God, which the unregenerate mind may have and which is widespread in the world (e.g., WA 19, 205; 24:640). He observes that some pagans, like Aristotle, even conclude that there is one God (WA 21, 510-11). We may note that in the Large Catechism passage (II, 66) “one, true God” is accusative in German without the preposition “in” and is part of indirect discourse in Latin. It is easy to understand this as referring to knowledge about God’s existence and oneness, which pagans, etc., can also have. But Luther always insists that only personal faith in God and trust in Christ is true, right knowledge of God (WA 14, 16), and that is certainly his theme in the Large Catechism passage. Similarly, Luther can speak of the non-Christian’s worship of God, as part of the natural knowledge of God, just as the Apology says that the natural man can “talk about God and offer God acts of worship with external works” (XVIII, 4). But he says that there are two kinds of worship (anbeten– the actual word used for worship in our Large Catechism passage at II, 66). These are outward worship and inward, spiritual worship, which is faith in the Savior. The first can express the second, but the first without the second is not true, right worship at all (AE 36:290-93; St. L. 22:1119). Just as Luther holds that the natural knowledge of God is not true and right knowledge, he speaks of “worship” of God which is not true worship. In the confusion of religions in the world, it is, “properly speaking, idolatry, when we ourselves give God a form and invest God with some sort of religious worship which He Himself has not instituted” (WA 25, 128). The Jews who opposed Christ in John 6 had a “vain service of God” (Gottesdienst), which was not the “true, eternal, and unending service of God” (WA 33, 28). “Therefore it is not enough and cannot be called a worship of the true God, if we worship Him as the Mohammedans and Jews and the whole world without God’s Word and faith boast—that they worship the only God, who made heaven and earth” (WA 22, 376). In Luther’s view, non-Christian thinking replaces the true God with an idol, an invention of unbelief and the unregenerate mind. Because the focus of religious awareness in the non-Christian religions is seriously distorted, the non-Christian offers acts of worship to God which in actual practice always replace Him with these idols and inventions. Thus he says:

For the Turk says he adores the God who made heaven and the earth. The Jew says the same. But because both deny that this King is the Son of God, they not only wander away from God, but

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 367 also adore an idol of their own heart. For they invent a god such as they wish to have, not as God has revealed Himself (AE 12:84).

Therefore it is of no avail to Jews, Turks, and heretics to feign great religious zeal and to boast of their belief in the one God…. For if you were to ask such a saintly Jew, Turk, or heretic whether he believes that this one God, Creator of heaven and earth…really is a Father and has a son in the Godhead outside of creation, he would be horrified in his great holiness and would regard this as frightful blasphemy…. Consequently they have no God, except that they fabricate their own god and creator…” (AE 15:314-316).

The Turk does the same thing; in his worship he names and has in mind the true God who created heaven and earth. So also do the Jews, Tartars, and now all unbelievers. Nevertheless, with them it is all idolatry (AE 35:271).

According to Luther, the idol that becomes the object of worship and religious adherence cannot be identified with the true God. For example, it is not right to say that the Muslim God is the true God. The Muslim God is the God described in the Quran (Allah) and worshipped according to the Quran. This is a god who does not have a son and is angry with all who say that he does.

It does not befit the majesty of Allah that he should take unto himself a son (Quran 19:35).

The Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who were unbelieving of old. Allah himself fights against them. How perverse are they (Quran 9:30)!

The Muslim God is definitely a god who is not the Messiah.

They are surely who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary (Quran 5:72).

In short, this is not the God in whom Christians put their faith, and believers in Christ cannot join in worship and prayer with the devotees of the Muslim God. We conclude this study of the Large Catechism, II, 66, by pointing out that if we do understand Luther here to be referring to the non-Christian “believing” and “worship” which he describes in other places, the major point remains the same: none of this non-Christian activity is saving faith or the worship of one reconciled to God. The non-Christian activity may

368 express an awareness of the supreme being, but that is another matter. It should be added that in Luther’s discussions of non-Christian religion, he does not the issue of the Biblical trinitarian identification of God from the issue of a person’s recognition of the divine attitude of grace. It is true that the recognition of the trinitarian identification of God is not by itself Gospel faith, but it is not unrelated to it, as Luther points out in the quotations above. The Gospel proclaims the love of the Father made known in His beloved Son for the of sinners and His gifts of His Son and His Spirit (John 3:16; Matt. 28:19; etc.). Luther has these themes in mind as he concludes his explanation of the in the Large Catechism (Part II). This trinitarian Gospel is the message Christian evangelists and missionaries endeavor to connect with the many points of contact and common moral concerns to be found in Islam, Judaism, etc. Thomas Manteufel

The Hemeneutical Naiveté of the Supreme Court

The cross-burning case (Virginia vs. Black) before the Supreme Court late last year has reopened interest in freedom of speech, especially because of the comments of Justice Clarence Thomas. In addition to the importance of the specific case, however, the entire issue should bring to our attention the fact that our courts deal with laws and situations with a curious and serious interpretive naiveté. They seem to have little knowledge of the field of semiotics, which is the theory of signs and how they both convey meaning and function—signs not only in documents (e.g., words and sentences) but also in life (e.g., concrete actions and things). First, the justices seem to have no conscious awareness of the difference between semantics and pragmatics. The former concerns itself with the meaning of a sign, e.g., the meaning of a word or an action in a given context, while pragmatics deals with its impact, e.g., whether the meaning conveyed constitutes a warning, a threat, a promise, etc. Now, these are not the same categories and the difference between them is not trivial. If we are guaranteed freedom of speech in the United States of America, are we guaranteed both freedom of expression of meaning and freedom of intent of impact? Deputy solicitor general Michael R. Dreeben has apparently sensed the distinction I am urging, because, according to Jonah Goldberg (“Court case illustrates the curious convolution of our First Amendment” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, December 18, 2002, C19), he has argued that “historically burning the cross was not expression but ‘akin to a threat to put somebody in fear of bodily harm’ and therefore ‘is not protected by the First Amendment.’” Indeed. Justice Thomas, according to Goldberg, replied with these words: “‘My fear is you are actually understating the symbolism of and effect of the burning cross.’” Here is precisely the distinction I am suggesting (though Thomas does not distinguish them): symbolism =

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 369 semantics and effect = pragmatics. Note how Thomas is said to have continued: “‘There was no communication…It was intended to cause fear…’” (emphasis added). The question now becomes: What is the relationship between the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and pragmatics? Does this amendment cover the pragmatics of discourse and action, i.e., its impact, whether intended or actual (though this distinction is still another matter!)? In my view, solicitor Dreeben has it right. But here is a second point, which elsewhere I have called “entailment.” When nouns are related to verbal ideas, e.g., as “sale” is to selling and as “speech” is to speaking, they are much more difficult and complex to interpret than are nouns which denote simply things, e.g., “grass,” “tree,” “street.” In fact, an entire sentence is usually concealed in them along with the modifiers associated with them. For example, the phrase “shoe sale” conceals something like “(a given store) is selling shoes (at lower prices).” Who is doing the selling and at what price must be determined from context. Now, the same is true with the phrase “freedom of speech.” This conceals a sentence along the lines of “We are free to speak about X.” The problem in our current context is not the definition of the words “freedom” and “speech.” Rather, it is the identity of the X in the sentence above! Goldberg points this out when he says that virtual pornography seems to be protected by current court interpretations, while ability to criticize political candidates (because of campaign finance reform) is not. In other words, it’s a problem of entailment. Surely our country’s founders had in mind the following entailment/concealed sentence in the First Amendment: “We are free to speak about political matters.” It’s not a stretch to think that they did not have in mind: “We are free to speak about adults having sex with children and infants.” The entailment of a word like “speech” is unexpressed in the Constitution, probably because it was assumed “to be self-evident” (which today it is not). And you thought that the kind of issues you considered in hermeneutics class were of concern only to pastors and professors who wrestle with the “non-contemporary,” authoritative texts of the sacred scriptures! James W. Voelz

On Competence and Integrity in the Life and Work of the Church

During the past two years, Dr. David Benke’s participation on September 23, 2001, with spiritual leaders of both Christian and non-Christian faiths in a civic prayer service at Yankee Stadium has elicited a great deal of discussion. At the heart of the controversy are important matters of doctrine and practice. Our concern in this “Observer,” however, is that in the

370 “resolution” of the case, there is the appearance, at least, of mishandling of Missouri Synod’s theological statements, an observation based upon careful study and assessment of evidence available to the synod at large. Because integrity in the use of documents—especially those which cite God’s Word and principles normed by that Word—is critical for the life of the Synod, we offer the following appraisal and appeal. Following a meeting in the spring of 2002 to deal with complaints about his participation, Dr. Benke was put on suspended status by Dr. Wallace Schulz, second vice president of Synod, who had adjudicated the charges of unionism and syncretism and violations of the synodical Constitution and of the First and Second Commandments. When Dr. Benke challenged the , the case went to a Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), with Dr. Schulz named as the complainant and Dr. Benke as the respondent. Dr. Schulz grounded his case against Dr. Benke’s actions on scriptural, confessional, and synodical constitutional principles; the respondent rested his position principally on church polity, i.e., a synodical resolution, ecclesiastical supervision, and opinions regarding same by the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM). The DRP rendered their decision on April 10, 2003, exonerating Dr. Benke and basing their decision for the respondent primarily on Res. 3-07A of the 2001 synodical convention, a resolution that “commended” two fellowship documents: a thorough, formal “Study” and a less formal “Report” of district discussions of the “Study.” Although the DRP decision is final and will not be appealed, it was fatally flawed by misinterpretation and mishandling of the documentary evidence. As noted, the respondent preferred to focus on church polity as the key issue. Even if that point were to be conceded, it is now clear that the polity was violated. Dr. Benke, his ecclesiastical supervisor (the president of Synod), and the DRP claim that Dr. Benke’s participation at Yankee Stadium was permitted by the “Cases of Discretion” section in the “Report” of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) commended by Res. 3-07A. This, despite the fact that the commended “Report” and “Study” deal only with church fellowship, i.e., religious relationships with other Christians. They say nothing about “discretion” to participate in civic religious events involving non-Christians. At least as important as the violation of polity was the faulty nature of the DRP process itself. Consider the following: During the dispute resolution process, the CCM directed the DRP to the CTCR for interpretation of the content of the fellowship documents commended by Res. 3-07A. The DRP complied, posing a convoluted question: “Would offering a prayer by an LCMS pastor in a ‘civic event’ in which prayers would also be offered by representatives of non-Christian religions [cf. Yankee Stadium] be in and of itself a violation of the paragraph under ‘Section V point B. Cases of Discretion’ in the CTCR document ‘The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship’ [i.e., the “Report” commended by Res. 3-07A]…?” (Did they

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 371 mean to ask if it permitted offering a prayer in such circumstances? That’s the obvious conclusion in their published decision.) The CTCR replied “No,” because “Section V, B. does not explicitly address the issue of offering a prayer by an LCMS pastor at a ‘civic event’ in which prayers would also be offered by representatives of non-Christian religions. The CTCR is presently considering assignments with respect to this issue….”1 That is, the paragraphs dealing with discretion neither prohibit nor permit such participation. They simply do not apply, and they cannot be used to justify participation. It is apparent that the DRP ignored this most relevant response of the CTCR to their own question. In fact, they did not so much as refer to it in their published report. Indeed, the DRP’s decision quotes liberally from CCM Opinion 02-2294 on Res. 3-07A but stops precisely before the final sentence in which the CCM directs the DRP to query the CTCR about the content of the commended fellowship documents.2 Furthermore, contrary to the clear meaning of the CTCR’s response, the DRP’s decision inexplicably states (Fact 12) that Res. 3-07A3 “not only does apply, but is the very basis for [Dr. Benke’s] participation” at Yankee Stadium, thus exonerating him from any culpability in the matter. Can it be said of precisely the same content in the same document that it “does not explicitly address” and that it “does apply” to, even serves as “the very basis for,” participation in the same event? What is one to think? Finally, before the DRP’s decision was released to the Synod (and the CTCR’s response also became available), the web site of Dr. Benke’s (St. Peter’s Brooklyn, NY) had already published a novel interpretation of the CTCR’s response, claiming that the CTCR had replied, “YES…as far as the Missouri Synod is concerned the Bible and the rulebook say the same thing: It’s OK to Pray!”4 Had those words been the response of the CTCR, surely they would have been cited

1The full text of the DRP’s question to the CTCR and the CTCR’s response may be found as Exhibit C at http://www.lcms.org/president/statements/on_disputedecision.asp Evidence of the DRP’s ignoring of the response may be found in Exhibit A of the same document. 2The full text of the DRP’s decision is at http://www.lcms.org/president/ disputedecision.asp See especially p. 5, no. 12 for the DRP’s contradictory rationale based on Res. 3-07A. On page 9, the ellipses at the end of no. 20 represent the omitted words from CCM Opinion 02-2294 (Jan. 20-21, 2003), directing the DRP to consult the CTCR: “Regarding interpretation of the content of ‘The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship’ and the response, such questions should be directed to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations.” (The full text of Opinion 02-2294 may be found at http://www.lcms.org/ ccm/min012003.pdf ) Also relevant in the context is CCM Opinion 02-2309 of the same date, which states that “when an ecclesiastical supervisor discovers error in his counsel, it is incumbent upon that supervisor to correct or amend it. The member should then be held to consider the corrected counsel. Failure to consider such amended admonition could form the basis for disciplinary action as provided in Article XIII.” 3In the DRP decision, “Res. 3-07A” in effect refers to the CTCR “Report” commended by it— specifically the section entitled “Cases of Discretion.” 4See http://www.stpeter-brooklyn.org/yes_oktopray.html

372 prominently in the DRP’s decision. Again, what is one to think of such actions? Especially disturbing in the procedure is the evident mishandling of written documents, a type of mishandling seen before in our Synod. (See, for example, the description in section C. Historical Concerns of the “Dissenting Opinion on the Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices”—CTCR, 1994.5) Such mishandling of documents is fraught with peril: It renders the written word meaningless and impotent, turning it into a waxen nose which may be employed when rhetoric is suited to an and ignored or modified when it is not. We can neither condone nor ignore, especially in the church, any debasing of our ability to communicate effectively, fairly, and honestly with one another. Continued meaningful theological discussion is predicated upon, at the very least, integrity and competence in the use of documents and language. David O. Berger and James W. Voelz

5The text for the Dissenting Opinion may be found at http://www.lcms.org/ctcr/docs/ pdf/dissent.pdf

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 373 Articles

The Beginnings of the Papacy in the Early Church

Quentin F. Wesselschmidt

Introduction

In his recent book, Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church, Stephen K. Ray, a convert from the Baptist faith to Roman Catholicism, set out to substantiate his new church’s claims for Petrine succession and papal primacy. His main interest seems to be the need to establish unquestioned authority of the pope in the church. In the Introduction, he acknowledges that there is little direct support for papal claims in the early church and resorts to the argument from silence as the basis for his case. In referring to the early fathers, he says, “never is there a flat-out denial of the Petrine primacy or the primacy of Rome. This is a silence that speaks volumes!”1 There is no doubt that silence can, on occasion, be a valid argument, but it seems a very specious argument in this case since there were no early claims for Petrine succession and primacy of the Roman episcopacy–these develop over the first several cen- turies. So why should one expect a denial of what was not asserted? This argument seems analogous to examining sermons written several decades ago, before Roe vs. Wade, increased cohabitation of unmarried couples, and the gay and lesbian agenda and concluding that, since there were relatively few sermons written against these offenses to Scripture and the Christian faith, the church was in favor of them. One speaks out against those things which have become problems. When some of these papal claims began to be made, they did meet with some resistence or non-acceptance. If the Roman ’s claims for papal primacy are correct, it would seem that there should be solid proof that such can be supported by Scripture and substantiated from the records of the early church. Indis- putable evidence should exist for the various pillars on which claims of

1Stephen K. Ray, Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press [Modern Apologetics Library], 1999), 12 (emphasis original). Dr. Quentin F. Wesselschmidt is Professor of Historical Theology and Chair- man of the Concordia Journal Editorial Committee at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO.

374 papal primacy are built, namely, the presence and apostolic ministry of Peter in Rome, Petrine succession of all subsequent bishops in Rome, monepiscopacy in the Roman church from the beginning, capable individu- als with leadership ability and unquestioned doctrinal orthodoxy, and gen- eral acceptance of the primacy of the Roman by the rest of the church both East and West. As we shall see, there is no absolute certitude on any of these points. In actuality, papal primacy developed over time in the tradition of the church and was then read back into the earlier period. While not critical to the issue at hand, it should be noted that the term “pope” is of later derivation and that Rome has no exclusive claim to the . The term “pope” is derived from the Greek word BVBB"H (pappa), which is a diminutive form of B"JZD (father).2 The term was popularly used for any senior or leading member of a local Christian congregation. The term was not used of the bishop in Rome until the ninth century. Today it is still used of village priests in Greek Orthodox churches.3

Petrine Ministry and Succession in Rome

All claims of papal primacy are built upon the premise that Peter had traveled to and had carried on an apostolic ministry in the church in Rome. However, not everyone agrees with that claim. For instance, Nicholas Cheetham, in Keepers of the Keys: A History of the from St. Peter to John Paul II, acknowledges that there is no solid evidence of Peter ever having been in Rome and resorts to later tradition to support the Roman Catholic Church’s claims for Peter’s presence and activity in Rome:

We have little or no idea of his [Peter’s] whereabouts and move- ments during the years preceding the Neronian persecution. Apart from the mysterious reference to Babylon (usually taken to mean Rome) at the end of the first Epistle of Peter there is no reference in any strictly contemporary writings to his presence in the capi- tal. The lack of any concrete evidence of the later stage of his life and of his relationship with Paul at the time of the latter’s resi- dence at Rome is very puzzling. Many scholars, from Marsilius of Padua (1326) onwards, have questioned whether he was in Rome at all; others, such as the Protestant Harnack and the unbeliever Renan, have seen no reason to deny his presence there. If it was just a legend, along with the story of his martyrdom, the origin and meaning of the papacy would of course be invalidated. What surely matters is the strength of the tradition, handed down from the early days of in Rome and fortified rather than

2The diminutive form of a word is often used to express endearment. 3Nicolas Cheetham, Keepers of the Keys: A History of the Popes from St. Peter to John Paul II (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1983), 8.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 375 weakened by modern scholarship and archaeology, that both the Apostles lived and were martyred in the city. It is irrelevant that the tradition later became encrusted with legend. In its original and simple form it leaves no room for doubt that the leaders of the early Roman Christians were Peter and Paul and that they both lost their lives, the former by crucifixion and the latter, as befitted a Roman Citizen, by decapitation, in the reign of Nero. Thirty or forty years afterwards there were plenty of Christians alive who had seen and spoken with the Apostles. They did not bother, how- ever, to record facts and dates for a posterity they did not believe would ever exit.4

It must be granted that there are some attestations to Peter having been in Rome and having founded the church there, but they are later assertions. claims that Peter was martyred in Rome, and says that Peter and Paul preached and founded the church in Rome.5 There is no list of Roman bishops in a Petrine succession until the end of the second century when Irenaeus lists the successors of Peter in his Against , no doubt with an interest in establishing a teaching au- thority in the church as a counter-balance to the Gnostics’ claim of a se- cret .6 About the same time, Hegesippus, considered by some to have been the father of church history, wrote his Memoirs, which have been lost except for some excerpts in ’ Church History. Whether or not Hegesippus compiled a list depends on the translation of the words, (g(`:g<@H *¥ {Cf:0 ¦< *4"*@P¬< ¦B@4FV:0< :XPD4H z!<46ZJ@L. One possible translation of the words *4"*@P¬< ¦B@4FV:0< is that they mean “I have compiled a list,” namely, of the bishops in Rome down to the time of Anicetus.7 The next list comes from Hippolytus (an anti-pope) in 235. Not only are the first lists of Roman bishops compiled over a century after the death of Peter, there is also a lack of consistency in the order of succes- sion–Irenaeus places Clement after Anencletus who follows Linus, and Hippolytus places him after Linus and before Cletus and Anencletus. There is also disagreement on who was ordained by whom– claims that Clement was ordained by Peter; according to the (7.46), Linus was ordained by Paul and Clement by Peter. If one follows

4Cheetham, 4. 5See Eusebius, Church History 2.25.7-8 (NPNF 2 1:130) and 5.8.1-2 (NPNF 2 1:222), respectively. NPNF 2 is used as the abbreviation for Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1952. 6Adv. Haer. 3.3.2-3, in The Anti-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 1:415-416. 7See Eusebius, Church History 4.22, and especially n. 3 on the translation of the Greek in NPNF 2 1:198-199. Cf. Henry Wace and William C. Piercy, eds., A Dictionary of Christian Biography (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 436-437.

376 the Apostolic Constitutions, Linus, the second bishop of Rome, would not even be in the Petrine succession since he was ordained by Paul.8 The Petrine succession of Roman bishops is based on the application of Matthew 16:18 to Peter specifically. The first individual to apply this text to Peter’s supposed successors in Rome is Callistus I (217-222). did not allow this application of the text; and of , in his dispute with Stephen I (254-257) of Rome, allowed that the text might be applied in the sense of the pre-eminence of the church in Rome, but not to any individual bishop. At the end of the sixth century, Gregory the Great (590-604) called the use of the title “ecumenical bishop” “proud and foolish” and “an imitation of the devil.”9 There were several motives for the development of the idea of apos- tolic succession. One was to establish a New Testament foundation for the office of bishop. also served the purpose of giving bish- ops authority and of guarding the truthfulness and soundness of the doc- trines taught by the church. The idea of apostolic succession reached its high point in Cyprian, who believed that bishops were Christ’s representa- tives in the church and therefore exercised the same authority as Christ. However, Cyprian did not see this authority residing in any one bishop. Rather, it was an authority and responsibility shared with other bishops in a collegial system.10 Thomas Lindsay claims that support for apostolic suc- cession grew out of the Roman legal system of precedence.11 This might explain why it developed more strongly in the West than in the East. At the end of the fourth century, of Aquileia translated parts of the Clementine Homilies and Recognition into Latin. The writings Rufinus translated contained a description by Clement of how Peter had consigned to him, as his successor, the power of what we call the Office of the Keys. Regarding this Bernhard Schimmelpfennig says,

What was important for Rome, however, was Clement’s descrip- tion of how Peter had consigned to him as his successor the power of binding and loosing. The letter, considered genuine, was proof for the Roman bishops that they possessed the full powers of Pe- ter, just as Clement did. At the end of the fourth century the doc- trine was put forward that every Roman bishop possessed the ca- thedra petri.12

8See F. J. Foakes Jackson, The History of the Christian Church from the Earliest Times to AD 461 (London: George Allen and Unwin LTD, 1891 (reprinted 1957), 105. 9See Foakes Jackson, 260-261. 10Quentin F. Wesselschmidt, “The Concept and Practice of Ministry in the Early Church: Its Structures, Formative Influences, and Scriptural Correspondence” in Concordia Journal 14 (July 1988): 247. 11Thomas M. Lindsay, Church and Ministry in the Early Centuries (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902), 278ff. 12Bernhard Schimmelpfennig, The Papacy, trans. James Sievert (New York: Colum- bia University Press, 1992), 26.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 377 Out of the petri concept, there developed the Roman doctrine of sedes apostolica, which maintains that every Roman bishop receives all the power and authority that Peter possessed by virtue of being Peter’s successor in Rome. Eventually, this view was strengthened by Leo I (440- 461), who utilized Roman law to make every Roman bishop the heir of Peter. The implication of this was that every bishop in Rome was the vicar or representative of Christ and, therefore, the for the en- tire church.13

General Characterization of Early Roman Bishops

If papal primacy is one of the undergirding pillars of the church, it would seem that all the early bishops of Rome would have been outstand- ing and truly capable individuals with keen theological minds and good leadership abilities. However, this was not the case. Foakes Jackson makes this interesting observation:

The most remarkable circumstance connected with the Roman See in the period under review [fifth century] is the rapid growth of its influence despite the comparative obscurity of the individu- als who filled it. Among the early Popes there is hardly a single commanding personality. The influence of the bishops of Rome depended less on the merits or ability of the pontiff than on tradi- tions of his throne. The very fact that, save Clement, no successor of St. Peter had taken his place among the Fathers of the Church, that Rome could not boast of an Athanasius, a Chrysostom, or a Cyril, enhanced rather than detracted from the dignity of the See; since, whereas all these eminent men had been engaged in the arena of controversy, the Popes had occupied the more secure po- sition of umpires. At last, however, in Leo (A.D. 440-461) one of the greatest men of his age presided over the Church of Rome.14

Not only are there questions about the capabilities of many of the early bishops in Rome, there is already in the second century the interest- ing case of Callistus I, who allegedly sided with several heretical groups before forming his own group that was Sabellian in nature. It must be recognized that, since this was based upon a document by Hippolytus, there is some question about the legitimacy of the claim. Even if Callistus I’s case is questionable, there are other incidents that raise grave concerns. In 358 Liberius (352-366), after being removed from Rome and imprisoned, was coerced into signing an Arian creed before being allowed to return to Rome. In the case of Liberius, one might be understanding and remember the words of Athanasius when he was informed that Hosius of Cordova

13Ibid. 14Foakes Jackson, 529.

378 had done the same thing–“You cannot blame him; you must blame those who did this to him.” In the early fifth century, Zosimus (417-418) tempo- rarily supported Pelagius and reprimanded the church in North Africa for what he considered a too hasty condemnation of . Worse than these cases is that of Honorius I (625-638) in the seventh century who was condemned as a heretic for siding with the monotheletes (the belief that the incarnate Christ possessed only one will, namely, a divine will) both by the Sixth , III in 680-681, and by sev- eral of his papal successors. If Hippolytus’s allegations against Callistus I were true, Liberius was forced to sign a heretical creed, Zosimus was tem- porarily mistaken about a that denies and the need for Christ’s redemptive activity, and Honorius I was condemned as a heretic, then the assertion that the pope is the magister magistrorum and the final conservator of the orthodox faith is called into question as not being appli- cable to all holders of the papal office. It is not until the fifth century that Rome finally elected someone with great intellect, leadership ability, and doctrinal acuity in the person of Leo I and in the seventh century his counterpart in the Christological contro- versies, namely, Agatho (678-681). Leo I is often called the first pope in the sense of a gifted, forceful church leader who was generally respected, even in the Eastern half of . He is the only pre-Gregorian bishop of Rome to be given the epithet “the Great.”

Leadership in the Church Was Initially Collegial, Not Monarchical

It would seem that advocacy of papal primacy necessitates the exist- ence of a monarchical office from the very beginning of the church’s exist- ence and that this was true throughout the history of the church. How- ever, that simply was not the case in the first several centuries. The first leadership positions that occur in the early church were episcopos, presbyteros, and diaconos. The first two terms (bishop and presbyter) were often used interchangeably, and there is no evidence of anything but a collective leadership in the first two centuries. Beginning in the first and well into the second century, office-holders in the church were always re- ferred to in the plural. Lindsay claims that there is no evidence of a Chris- tian congregation being led by one individual during the early period of the church’s existence.15 Since there was no overall centralized authority, all congregations were independent and able to make their own decisions. Yet, since Christians were aware that fellow believers everywhere worshiped the same Lord, held common beliefs, and had the same eschatological hopes, they did have a sense of interdependence among congregations throughout Christendom.

15Lindsay, 152, 155.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 379 So, when disputes arose in terms of doctrine or practice, Christians looked to the apostolic churches and their leaders for answers on the grounds that these churches had the most direct link to the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself via His disciples and their successors. It should be noted that, as yet, there was no generally accepted New Testament canon. In the East, Christians had the option of several apostolic sees to which they could turn; however, in the West, no see competed with Rome for primacy. In the East, these were apostolic churches in cities such as Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, and . In the entire West only one church, the church in Rome, could claim to be an , and it had the advan- tage of claiming double apostolicity on the premise that both Paul and Peter had labored there. And, to the division of the empire under Diocletian and the building of Constantinople by Constantine as the East- ern capital in 330, Rome was the chief city in the empire and the center of the Roman world. Where better to develop claims of episcopal primacy and where more necessary for the West than in Rome when the political power had shifted to the East and emperors began developing closer ties to lead- ing Eastern bishops? When the church began encountering major and widespread disputes and heresies in the second century,16 a new source of authority was needed since the apostolic sees began losing some of their significance as the apostles became distant memory. Churches now turned to councils as the way to settle disputes and determine right doctrine. If the church had a final arbiter and judge of doctrinal disputes in the person of the pope standing in apostolic succession to Peter, the conciliar development would seem to have been not only unnecessary but an affront to the claims of papal pri- macy, if it had existed and were recognized throughout the church. The sevenfold hierarchical structure of church leadership—bishop, pres- byter, , sub-deacon, reader, acolyte, and janitor, with the office of exorcist being either an eighth office or filled by one of the other office- holders—begins around the time of Ignatius (d. ca.110) and is fully opera- tive in the mid-third century or so. A monarchical episcopacy seems to have existed first in Antioch under Ignatius. The ecclesiastical hierarchy is most fully developed by Cyprian of Carthage. Roy A. Harrison says, “With Cyprian of Carthage the hierarchy attained its full height in the bishop and he alone could speak the word of judgment and salvation.”17 With the rise of the hierarchy, the office of bishop is elevated above that of presbyter. The first evidence of a monepiscopacy in Rome comes in the (generally dated around 200 and attributed to Hippolytus). In this document, the bishop in Rome is placed in office by the election of the people, not by the selection of his predecessor. According to

16The first historical record of church councils, after the council in Jerusalem re- corded in Acts 15, emerges in the Eastern church in the second half of the second century. 17Roy A. Harrison, Ministry in Crisis (Minneapolis: , 1987), 42.

380 Eusebius, by the middle of the third century, the Roman church was clearly monepiscopal as he indicates by the following statistics for the church in Rome: one bishop, forty-six presbyters, seven , seven sub-deacons, forty-two acolytes, fifty-two exorcists, readers, and janitors, and over fif- teen hundred widows and needy people in its care.18 As the hierarchical structure developed, it was natural for the churches to look to important bishops, distinguished for their erudition or the promi- nence of the city in which they presided. These bishops also began using councils as a means of strengthening and extending their authority over entire region of the church. Bishops in Carthage, for instance, often called councils of North African bishops and church leaders and expected the decisions of these councils to be binding on all churches in North Africa. Thus, we see that the claims of papal primacy more or less assume the development of the second and third centuries with the multiplication of clerical offices and the of the episcopacy above the presbytery, and that these developments have to be read back into the first century for the papacy to become legitimate. There can be no doubt that there was respect for the congregation and its leaders in Rome at a fairly early date, but this generally followed the pattern of churches elsewhere. Cyprian was willing to grant the church in Rome the status of on the basis of the antiquity of the see and its claims of double apostolicity, but as Hans von Campenhausen says, “That Cyprian was no ‘Papalist’ is well known.”19

The Growing Importance of Bishops

More power is gradually placed into the hands of the bishops for a number of reasons: the apostles and their immediate successors died off, leaving a vacuum of authority of final resort; the increased size of the church necessitated greater organizational structure; external threats from government and society generally made centralized authority more desir- able; the acknowledgment of a needed some recog- nized interpreter; the rise of heresies that confronted the church gener- ally, not just locally, required more broadly accepted leadership; the con- version of prominent citizens and their election to office provided the church with some very competent leaders–in some cases, such as Cyprian, these were men with affluent backgrounds and occasionally individuals who had held important positions in the imperial government, such as . The church gradually developed a sense of its –the first to give clear articulation to this was Cyprian in his De unitate ecclesiae. Ini- tially, the rise of monarchial bishops went hand-in-hand with collegiality. The first to fully develop this idea was Cyprian, who held that bishops

18Eusebius, Church History 6.43.11 (NPNF 2 1:288). 19Hans von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Churches of the First Three Centuries (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 278.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 381 formed a collegium or college. In Cyprian’s , all bishops were equal, and unity in the church was founded on the unity of the bishops in terms of their teaching. The rise of heresies that threatened the faith of the church beyond the narrow geographical boundaries of congregations, cities, and regions cre- ated the need for authority that transcended that of local bishops and con- gregations, or even dioscesan . At first this need was supplied by councils. Prior to the calling of ecumenical councils, dioscean, provincial, or national councils gave bishops greater authority in terms of the need for someone to call a council, to preside over it, and to publicize and en- force the decisions of these councils. This usually fell to the most respected and powerful bishop in a region, and this created a new venue for aggres- sive bishops to assert authority over other bishops in their region. Simultaneous with collective leadership and episcopal collegiality, some bishops, such as the bishop in Rome, began to assert their authority over others. However, not everyone either agreed with the Roman bishop or acceded to his authority. When visited Rome during the episco- pacy of Anicetus, he and Anicetus disagreed over some matters. Each held his ground, and in the words of Robert Grant, “they finally agreed to dis- agree.”20 The next incident of disagreement with a Roman bishop occurred late in the second century. In the wide-ranging dispute over the dating and other aspects of celebrating , commonly known as the Easter Ques- tion, we know that Victor I either excommunicated or threatened to ex- communicate21 bishops who followed Eastern rather than Western prac- tices. In doing so, Victor I was flexing his muscles and asserting authority that would later be claimed as the prerogative of the bishop of Rome by virtue of his Petrine succession and rights of primacy. However, not every- one agreed that Victor I possessed such a prerogative of power. Irenaeus, who grew up in Asia Minor, emigrated to France and became the Bishop of Lyons, disagreed with Victor I, believing that he had gone too far and was too harsh in excommunicating or threatening to excommunicate bishops in Palestine, clearly outside of his jurisdiction. Irenaeus, noting that such action was without precedent, wrote, “But none was ever expelled because of this form [namely, Easter practice].”22 It is believed that Irenaeus went to Rome, met with Victor I, and discussed this situation in person, but most likely without success. There are two other incidents that raise questions about the primacy of the bishops in Rome. In the Donatist controversy, Miltiades (310-314) was not considered the highest judge in matters concerning the Christian

20Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons (London and New York: Routledge, 1997), 3. See Eusebius, Church History 5.24.12-17 (NPNF 2 1:243-244) for a more complete refer- ence to this incident and to Irenaeus’‘s dispute with Victor I. 21There is some dispute over whether Victor I had actually excommunicated some bishops or had only threatened to excommunicate them (cf. Foakes Jackson, 251-252 [esp. n. 1]). 22Eusebius, Church History 5.24.15 (NPNF 2 1:243).

382 congregations in the West. When not everyone accepted the decision of the Latern Synod of 313, presided over by Miltiades, Emperor Constantine called the Council of Arles to deal with the matter. In 418 a council in Carthage, at which Augustine was present, forbade North Africa clergy from appealing to the bishop in Rome against judgment made against them by their local superiors.23

A Major Shift in the Fourth and Following Centuries

Rome’s claim of papal primacy were certainly abetted by the tectonic plate-like shifts in the church’s organization and its relationship to the state that occurred during the fourth century. With the accession of Constantine as Western emperor in 312 and as sole emperor with his de- feat of Licinius in 323, the Christian church underwent a veritable trans- formation. Not only was Christianity granted toleration and equal status with all other religions, but it increasingly became the preferred religion, with orthodox Christianity declared the official religion of the Roman Empire by Theodosius I. In addition to being one of the signators of the famous Edit of Milan, Constantine granted the church, along with many other privileges, the status of a legal entity, which meant churches could now hold legal title to property and other material possessions. Since Chris- tianity was now becoming the preferred religion, many people were in- duced to become Christian because of the social benefits their new faith offered. This led to a great increase in membership, many of whom were people of means. Together with a strong emphasis on work righteousness, the church became not only more powerful, but also more wealthy, in terms of financial wealth and land possessions. This meant that the bish- ops in Rome became more powerful and influential. Damasus I (366-384) is said to have lived very well and to have thrown some of the finest ban- quets in the city of Rome. The position of the Roman bishop was further enhanced when the center of governmental power shifted to the Eastern half of the empire with Constantine holding court first in Nicomedia and then in Constantinople. Even when there were two emperors, the Western em- peror often governed from Trier, Milan, or Ravenna, instead of from Rome. With the emperor sitting in Constantinople or in another city in the West, a certain power vacuum began to develop in Rome, which the Senate was unable to fill. It was the bishop in Rome who gradually began to fill this vacuum and to exploit this opportunity. The bishop in Rome gradually be- came the most significant and recognized leader in the city. In addition to this, the popes were often called upon to fulfill govern- ment functions. For instance, when Constantine first became involved in the , he designated Hosius, bishop of Cordova, as his

23Schimmelpfennig, 35.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 383 emissary to try to adjudicate the situation in Alexandria. Among the vari- ous privileges that Constantine granted to the clergy was the Roman bish- ops’ right to serve as judges in legal cases that affected Christian disci- pline–one of the first instances of this was Constantine’s appointing Miltiades to preside over the in 313, dealing with the Donatists. Then, at the end of that century the state was no longer able to provide the corn dole (Rome’s food welfare for the poor and needy). The church, long noted for its charity, increased its charitable activity and be- gan to assume this former government responsibility. By the time of Damasus I, bishops were granted the privilege of riding in carriages through the streets of Rome–a right formerly limited to high state .24 Gradually, the bishop in Rome was seen not only as an ecclesiastical leader but also as a political person of first rank. This shift continued as the city of Rome lost more and more of its former political power and glory. This no doubt reinforced the Roman bishops’ pretensions of supremacy throughout Christendom.

Claims of Papal Primacy

Although various Roman bishops had attempted early on to exercise their authority over other bishops and churches as already noted, much stronger claims of primacy emerge in the fourth century. In 343, the Council of Sardica appointed the bishop of Rome as a judge in questions of discipline and doctrine. Canon 5 says:

...if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region as- semble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his re- quest it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right–that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent....25

However, it was the episcopacy of Damasus I that is the real water- shed for Rome’s assertion of primacy. Robert B. Eno says, “Before the time

24Ibid. 25NPNF 2 14:419.

384 of Damasus I, evidence from both sources (Roman and non-Roman views of Rome’s authority) is sketchy and sporadic.”26 In 378, Damasus I induced Emperor Gratian to grant aggrieved bishops the right to appeal over the heads of their immediate superiors to the bishop of Rome. This increased his authority by making him the leading bishop in the West. In response to the Council of Constantinople I’s adoption of Canon 3,27 Damasus I, deeply disturbed by Constantinople’s new status, called his own council to meet in Rome in 382. This latter council “laid down as a principle the primacy of the Roman Church over all other churches by virtue of the pope’s Petrine authority and not by virtue of conciliar decisions.”28 According to Cheetham, Damasus I “proclaimed in the firmest terms the primacy of his apostolic see at the precise moment when the Catholic faith became indisputably the empire’s official religion.”29 Damasus I also requested that Jerome pro- duce a new Latin translation of the Bible. According to W. H. C. Frend, the new translation definitely abetted Rome’s claim of primacy:

The publication of the was another centralizing measure reinforcing Rome’s claim to be the authoritative center for biblical interpretation as the had done in its day for Alexandrian Jewry. In later centuries the Vulgate was to become one of the pillars of Roman primacy.30

The church in Rome now began to assert more strongly her jurisdic- tion over all churches in the West. In what is usually called the first papal , Siricius (384-398) wrote to Himerius of Tarragona in 385 that the Roman rules of discipline, such as , were binding on all the Chris- tian communities in .31 This was not to be looked upon as merely wise counsel. In Epistle 5.4, Siricius says that disobedience to Rome’s or- ders would result not only in , but also in eternal con- demnation. Regarding heretics, Siricius says in Epistle 7.4 that they would be damned for all eternity “by divine sentence and our judgment.” Accord- ing to Innocent I (401-417), Epistle 2.1, the church in Rome was to be considered the norm and authority for all the churches.32 Much stronger claims come along in the position of Leo I regarding the bishop of Rome. Leo I, when he was in opposition to the bishop of Arles

26Robert B. Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, Theology and Life Series, vol. 32 (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1990), 30. 27Canon 3 reads, “The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome” (NPNF 2 14:178). 28W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Chrisitianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 628. 29Cheetham, 22. 30Ibid. 31Schimmelpfennig, 45. 32Ibid., 90.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 385 in 445, had Emperor Valentinian III grant the bishop of Rome authority over the churches in the Western empire. Leo I wrote to his namesake, the Eastern emperor, that his own authority had been given to him “chiefly for the protection of the church.”33 Foakes Jackson gives the following very fine summary of Leo I’s attitude toward the papacy:

Leo betrays no sign of doubt regarding the assured position of the bishop of Rome. He is unquestionably the successor of St. Pe- ter, the vicegerent of Christ. As Peter is above all the Apostles, so the Roman pontiff is set over all bishops. His right of superiority is in every case uncompromisingly asserted. Dioscorus of Alexandria is reminded at his accession to the bishopric that he presides over the Church of St. Mark, the fol- lower of St. Peter [Ep. 7]. Flavian of Constantinople is blamed for not at once communicating the sentence against Eutyches to Rome [Ep. 23]. Anatolius, St. Flavian’s successor, is constantly warned not to presume to an equality with the Pope, and is asked to send a of his faith, that Leo may judge whether or not he ought to be acknowledged by the Apostolic See [Ep. 59, ad Theodosium Augustum; Ep 80, ad Anatolium]. The bishops of Mauretania Caesariensis in Africa are given precise directions as to how they are to act in regard to ordinations, creation of sees, treatment of individuals, and appeals to Rome [Ep. 12]. The Sicil- ian bishops are warned against alienating Church property and instructed as to the proper times for administering the of baptism [Ep. 16]. The Spaniards are commanded to be more vigilant, and are directed how can best be refuted [Ep. 15]. Illyricum is regarded as peculiarly under the dominion of the Pope; and Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica, is made his vicar, with authority over all the bishops of the province [Ep. 6]. When, however, Anastasius used force to summon Atticus, bishop of Old Epirus, to Thessalonica, he is sternly taken to task by Leo for his arbitrary and unjust conduct. Even if Atticus had committed a se- rious crime, Leo declares that the metropolitan should not have acted until he had taken advice from the [Ep. 14]. Indeed it is impossible in reading Leo’s correspondence not to notice that anyone who appeals to him against his ecclesiastical superiors is sure of a patient hearing.34

Foakes Jackson later summarizes Leo’s position regarding the Roman See: As regards the position of the Roman See, Leo is perfectly explicit. Alike in practice and in theory he upholds the supremacy

33Ibid., 37. 34Foakes Jackson, 530-531.

386 of St. Peter, of whom he declares himself to be the unworthy rep- resentative. It was customary for Leo on his ‘birth-day’, i.e., the anniversary of his consecration, to address the people and clergy of Rome together with the bishops who had assembled for the oc- casion; and the main topic of his discourse seems to have been the dignity of the See of Rome as the seat of St. Peter. The whole Church would, he says, always find Peter in Peter’s See [Sermo 2]. Peter was the first to confess Christ; he was ordained first before all the Apostles, that “from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the Kingdom of Heaven, from his being set an um- pire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their valid- ity in Heaven–from all these mystical we might know the nature of his association with Christ” [Sermo 3]. Not only is Peter above all the Apostles; he is also the channel through which all grace is communicated to them and to the Church. It is not the secular greatness of Rome, but the fact of Peter fixing his seat there, that makes her the first Church in the world [Ep. 54.3]. The Council of Nicea, according to Leo, who, like Zosimus, confounds the Sardican canons with those of the great council, confirms the unalterable supremacy of Rome.35

Going even further than Leo, Gelasius I (492-496) has the distinction of claiming the highest authority in the church for the bishop in Rome. He distinguished between the power of state and church and then asserted, “Of these is the burden of the priests that much heavier in that they have to submit before the heavenly judge the account of the kings of men.” According to this the emperor was subject to the church in matters of faith and church discipline. He then proceeded to claim that the bishop in Rome possessed the highest authority in the church on the grounds that “the highest deity chose [him] to stand above all priests.” In much the same vein, Felix III (526-530) wrote to Emperor Zeno that he, in matters of faith, was bound to obey God’s law and the church since he was not a bishop but a son of the church. 36

Factors Contributing to the Pope’s Sense of Importance

Several factors contributed to the importance of the bishop of Rome. Roman primacy was largely unchallenged in the West. The West was on the side of the orthodox in the major doctrinal controversies that origi- nated in the East. For the most part, the West was not a contributor of heresies, except for the ecclesiastical and anthropological heresies– , , Pelagianism, and Semi-Pelagianism. The support

35Ibid., 538. 36Schimmelpfennig, 37.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 387 of Rome was often courted by parties in the East on both sides of a doctri- nal issue. There was also the increased wealth of the Roman church and the good fortune of having some very gifted individuals in the persons of Leo I and Agatho. The Roman bishop was not troubled with power struggles such as existed between the bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople. Finally, the Roman bishop received an increased sense of political power as noted above.

Bernhard Schimmelpfennig has observed:

Above all, it is worth bearing in mind that it simply is not true that the popes were the only and most important defenders of the church’s freedom. What distinguished the Roman bishops in this regard from other important colleagues–Hosius of Cordova, , , Ambrose of Milan, , of Constantinople–is the established continuity of doctrine in fifth-century Rome. This was not only shaped by the personalities of individual popes–Innocent I, Leo I, Gelasius I. Equally important were Rome’s reputation as the theoretical center of the empire, the fact that the ruler’s resi- dence was far away, and the stability of the church’s political poli- cies, vouchsafed by the college of deacons and the keeping of ar- chives, within the leading strata of the Roman congregation.37

Furthermore, Rome claimed to have been the mother church of all congregations in the West. In 416, Innocent I claimed in a letter to Bishop Decentius of Gubbio that Peter had been the only apostle who had worked in the West, and that Peter or his successor had appointed all the bishops who founded churches in , France, Spain, Africa, Sicily, and the west- ern islands in the Mediterranean.38 Therefore, all Western churches owed their existence to the bishop of Rome. Along the same lines, Zosimus as- serted that Arles and the surrounding territory had been Christianized by a St. Trophinus on behalf of the bishop in Rome.39 If these claims are true, Rome could certainly expect some allegiance from the other churches, but that does not equate to papal primacy.

Opposition to the Claim of

Although Ray may be technically right in saying that no one explicitly protested the idea of papal primacy in the early church, there is ample evidence that not everyone accepted the idea. We have already noted Irenaeus’s reaction to Victor I’s excommunication or threatened excom-

37Schimmelpfennig, 35. 38Ibid., 39. 39Ibid., 43.

388 munication of bishops, Cyprian’s concept of collegial episcopacy, and the North African church’s refusal to yield to the admonition of Zosimus to retract its conciliar judgment against Pelagianism. Ambrose, as bishop of Milan, did not play second fiddle to Rome and often dealt with issues like on his own authority and as far away as Illyricum. He worked independently of Rome even though he had great regard of the Roman See. Eno observes:

He was something of a phenomenon, threatening to throw into the shade and rival the Roman see, even though the bishops of Rome at that period, Damasus and Siricius, were themselves strong characters. Ambrose’s biographer, Paulinus, said of him what the Roman bishops were saying of themselves, namely, “There was in him the concern for all the churches.”40

Schimmelpfennig summarizes the situation at this time in this way: “In glancing over Rome’s relationship to the various areas of the Western empire, we can see that the popes were unsuccessful in this epoch, except for suburbicarian Italy, in obtaining a lasting supervision and jurisdiction that was recognized by all parties.”41 Certainly the Eastern church, which could recognize the orthodox the- ology of Leo I and Agatho, often acted independently of Rome and the Western church and passed canons that she must have known would meet with strong rejection from Rome, such as Canon 3 of Constantinople I and Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Although various Roman bishops, such as Damasus I and Leo I protested the East’s passing these canons, the Eastern church did not back down and retract them. It has been argued that one of the reasons that Rome had little say in the East is that, except for Leo I (and later Agatho), Roman bishops were bad theologians compared to their Eastern counterpart, and important decisions were made at ecumenical councils at which Rome had few or no representatives.42

Conclusion

This topic deserves a book rather than an article, and books have been devoted to it. Yet, in the evidence cited above, it is clear that an indisput- able case cannot be made for Roman Catholicism’s claims for papal pri- macy and its undergirding principle of Petrine succession. As we have seen in the period from the mid-first century down to the time of Damasus I in the fourth century, there is only sketchy evidence of any general support for primacy of the Roman bishop. Then, beginning with

40Eno, 81. The Paulinus quote is from his Vita Ambrosii 38. 41Schimmelpfennig, 46-47. 42Ibid., 47.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 389 Damasus I the situation changed, and Rome began claiming authority over the entire church even though these claims were refuted or ignored by others. Rome’s claims of Petrine succession and papal primacy develop over time and become a tradition that is then read back into the earlier centuries. Schimmelpfennig says it very well: “Even today, every pope is the ‘Bishop of Rome,’ ‘ of the West,’ ‘Supreme shepherd of the universal church.’ As such he asserts claims, rights, and obligations achieved in late antiquity and the that have been preserved ever since.”43 Williston Walker et al. put it this way:

The fourth century and the era of the barbarian invasions saw a significant development both in the effective influence of the bish- ops of Rome and in the claims made on their behalf. The roots of this authority lay originally as much in the location, wealth, and make-up of the Roman church as in the association of the apostles Peter and Paul with its early years. Nevertheless, as time went on, the claims of the Roman see to pre-eminence were increas- ingly–and in the end exclusively–based on the accepted fact that its bishops were the successors of Peter.44

As the church grew there was greater need for increased authority in the church, be it episcopal, conciliar, or a combination of the two. Von Campenhausen remarks,

The increasing remoteness of the church’s beginnings, the emer- gence of heretical deviations, the growth in numbers, and to some extent also the flagging zeal in the congregations made it essential in time to develop everywhere a responsible cadre of leaders, and ultimately to arrange for the formal appointment of authorized officials.45

There is no doubt that the church in Rome provided needed leadership and authority, but this did not require primacy and could have been as- serted in a Cyprianic collegial system or some other organizational struc- ture. The church in Rome was not rocked by doctrinal heresies to the de- gree that the Eastern church was, but remained largely orthodox except for several lapses as noted above, and on occasion, provided solid theologi- cal guidance. Although she did not experience the contest for primacy that riled the Eastern church, other Western sees were often filled by more gifted and outstanding individuals who went about their business without

43Ibid., viii. 44Williston Walker, Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz, and Robert T. Handy, A History of the Christian Church, 4th ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,1985), 151. 45Von Campenhausen, 79-80.

390 any sense of subservience to Rome and sometimes contested Rome’s in- trusions beyond her area of jurisdiction. And, as the Western empire de- clined, the bishop in Rome did provide needed leadership in terms of both state and church. Yet, here she often went too far: “The Roman bishop, on the other hand, exploited the fact that the emperor lived far away to ex- pand their own power and to make themselves, as much as possible, inde- pendent of the emperor.”46 There is no doubt that the Roman church went beyond what can be supported by historical evidence and Biblical in maintaining the primacy of the pope and his apostolic succession from Peter.

46Schimmelpfennig, 16.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 391 Antichrist?: The Lutheran Confessions on the Papacy

Charles P. Arand

Perhaps few things cause greater chagrin to a student reading the Lutheran Confessions for the first time than the sharp polemical statements in the and the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope declaring that the papacy is the very Antichrist himself. This is due in large part to the fact that we live in a post-Vatican II world that has seen many reforms taken place within the Roman Catholic Church. Ecumenical dialogues between Lutherans and Catholics have taken place for more than thirty years. Theologians from the Missouri Synod played an important role in many of them. The documents produced by these dialogues have done much to remove stereotypes and help each side better understand the other even when agreement could not be reached. The question thus facing the interpreter of the Confessions in the twenty-first century is not “what do the Confessions say about the papacy?” That is easily enough determined. Instead, the question is, “what do we do with those statements on the papacy?” Do we simply repeat them today? Do we ignore them? Do we try to explain them away? In order to answer this question, we will first survey the various statements about the papacy within the Lutheran Confessions in order to identify the historical context of the various statements made and the theological concerns that motivated the confessors. We will then make a proposal to consider the confessional statements regarding the papacy and the Antichrist in light of eschatology and the two kinds of righteousness in order to speak today in a way that is faithful to the Book of Concord and sensitive to our own historical context.

The Confessions on the Papacy

Comments on the papacy can be found throughout the Book of Concord, beginning with its very first page. For example, the “Preface” to the Book of Concord characterizes the Reformation as an act whereby God “has allowed the light of his holy gospel and his Word that alone grants salvation to appear and shine forth purely, unalloyed and unadulterated out of the superstitious, papistic darkness for the German nation” (KW, 5). 1 While

1The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000) (hereafter cited as KW). Dr. Charles P. Arand is Professor of Systematic Theology and holds The Waldemar and June Schuette Endowed Chair of Systematic Theology at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO. He is also Chairman of the Department of Sytematic Theology.

392 scattered references can be found throughout, the sustained discussions of the papacy are found primarily in articles seven and fifteen of the Apology of the , part two of the Smalcald Articles, and in part one of the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Papacy.

Augsburg Confession and Apology

The subject of the papacy does not arise explicitly within the Augsburg Confession. Though some might see this as a significant omission, it is consistent with Melanchthon’s attempt to win over the emperor by laying out the catholicity of the Gospel confessed by the Lutherans, thereby demonstrating that the church in fact exists among the evangelicals. But the papal representatives urged the emperor to reject the Augsburg Confession, issue the Confutation in his own name, and draw up the Recess of the Augsburg threatening the Lutherans with prosecution in the imperial supreme court that would certainly lead to the use of armed force against the Lutherans. Now in the Apology, Melanchthon will sharply criticize these papal representatives (and by extension the papacy itself) and their Confutation at several places. In Article VII, “On the Church,” Melanchthon criticizes the Confutation for confusing the two kinds of righteousness. “The question is whether or not the observances of human traditions are religious worship necessary for righteousness before God. This is the point at issue in this controversy” (Ap VII, 34).2 In other words, his opponents have confused the boundaries of the external kingdom of the papacy (sociological manifestation of the church) with the nature of the true church (as an assembly of all believers). Since the church is an external monarchy of the entire world, the Roman pontiff must hold unlimited power, which no one is allowed to question or (par. 23). He has power to establish articles of faith, institute forms of worship, etc. The emperor and all kings receive power and the right to govern their kingdoms from the pope. “Therefore the pope must necessarily be the lord of the entire world, of all worldly kingdoms… he must possess both swords, the spiritual and temporal.” But we receive forgiveness of sins by faith in Christ “and not by religious rites invented by the pope” (par. 25). In other words the papal church is not coextensive with the true church. We are also church (peroratio of Article IV).3 2Again, in paragraph 37 he states, “Moreover, the point to be decided in this contro- versy must be raised a little later below, namely, whether human traditions are necessary acts of worship for righteousness before God.” In both cases, he uses the technical rhetorical term krinomemon which refers to the central question or issue in a dispute. In his Elements of Rhetoric, Melanchthon defines krinomemon as follows: “Of these the one about which there is controversy and by which when confirmed the true conclusion is made evident, is called the krinomemon, the point to be decided upon.” Sister Mary J. LaFontaine, A Critical Translation of ’s ‘Elementorum Rhetorices Libri Duo’ (University of Michigan, PhD 1968), 118. 3For the importance and use of rhetoric as a tool for interpreting Melanchthon’s confessional writings, see Charles P. Arand, “Melanchthon’s Rhetorical Argument for in the Apology,” Lutheran Quarterly 3 (Autumn 2000): 281-308.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 393 In the course of discussing repentance in Article XII, Melanchthon inserted an important digression (pars. 124-130).4 As if in a court of law, Melanchthon interrupts his arguments before the emperor and turns, faces, and addresses the papal legate Cardinal Campeggio. He lays at Campeggio’s feet the failure of the diet to achieve the aims of the emperor and warns the legate in no uncertain terms that he is undermining any future role that the papacy might have in spiritual matters within the church. The signs of the times portend a change in the status of Rome (par. 127). People throughout Europe will not put up with the lack of sound teaching and good pastoral care. The current teaching and policies of the papacy can do nothing but produce a backlash of hatred against those who should be healing consciences and freeing them from doubt about salvation in Christ. Controversies will continue to arise because Rome refuses to examine and adjudge fairly the questions raised by the Reformation. Churches cannot be maintained only by force of arms. The next significant place in which the papacy is linked with the Antichrist appears in Ap XV where Melanchthon once again discusses the place of human traditions within the church. After expressing astonishment at the reasons given for the Confutation’s rejection of Augustana XV, Melanchthon declares that he has an easy open and shut case. He warns that by defending human acts of worship as meriting justification, his opponents are “simply establishing the kingdom of the Antichrist” (Ap XV, 18). Melanchthon contends that the kingdom of the Antichrist will be characterized by a new worship of God “devised by human authority in opposition to Christ.” He first observes that the kingdom of Mohammed “has religious rites and works, through which it seeks to be justified before God.” He then warns, “So also the papacy will be a part of the kingdom of the Antichrist if it defends human rites as justifying” [italics added]. After noting how the papists deprive Christ of His glory by teaching that such humanly established rites are necessary for justification, he cites Daniel 11:38 as evidence that “new religious rites will be the very form and constitution of the Antichrist” (Ap XV, 19).

Smalcald Articles

In the summer of 1536, Pope Paul III called for a council to be held in Mantua by the spring of 1537. Due to the many changes in location and schedule, it ultimately did not meet until December 1546 in Trent. But with the assumption that it would be held, Elector John Frederich asked Luther in December 1536 to draw up a list of items that might be discussed for the sake of peace as well as a list of topics on which there could be no

4See Timothy J. Wengert, “Philip Melanchthon’s Last Word to Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggio, Papal Legate at the 1530 Diet of Augsburg,” in Dona Melanchthoniana. Festgabe für Heinz Scheible zum 70. Geburtstag, hg. v. Johanna Loehr, (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 2001).

394 compromise. Luther wrote them in the style of an opinion as the emperor requested. Luther’s draft was discussed by a conference of theologians at the end of December 1536. When the representatives of the Smalcald League met in February 1537, Luther’s articles were signed by the great majority of theologians present at the meeting. In the summer of 1538, Luther published an expanded version of these articles that eventually found its way into the 1580 Book of Concord. In the end, the princes decided not to attend the planned council and asked the theologians to justify that decision by discrediting the council as a free, open, and Christian council.5 The preface makes clear at the outset that the Smalcald Articles are considerably more polemical than the Augsburg Confession. As Friedrich Mildenberg has pointed out, while we may be tempted to overlook the strong polemics in which Luther expressed his contempt for the papacy as the devil’s tool and accessory, “these sharp judgments constituted the special significance of the Smalcald Articles in their context in the Book of Concord.”6 In the preface, Luther expresses his doubts that the impending council called by the pope would be a free and open Christian council. The Roman was too afraid of that happening. Luther’s pessimism is well expressed in his prayer at the end of the preface. “Dear Lord Jesus Christ, hold a council of your own and redeem your people through your glorious return. The pope and his people are lost. They do not want you. Help us who are poor and miserable, who sigh to you and earnestly seek you, according to the grace you have given us through your Holy Spirit…” (KW, 300).7 In Part I, Luther discusses the church’s creedal consensus on the doctrine of the and the person of Christ. He concludes by stating that these are not items of dispute because “both sides confess them.” In his original manuscript, Luther had written “both sides confess and believe them,” [italics added] but he then crossed out the word “believe.” In this way, Luther expressed implicitly his private opinion that his opponents did not believe what they confessed. More importantly, “the correction meant that the faith described in Parts I and II cannot be subdivided.”8 The confession of that catholic consensus and confession of the work of Christ for our redemption belong together.

5For a good discussion of this, see “A Matter of Substance: The Convening of a Council,” in Mark U. Edwards, Jr., Luther’s Last Battles: Politics and Polemics, 1531-46 (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1983), 68-96. Edwards traces the Protes- tant call for a council and its effect upon the spread of the Reformation from 1519 through 1538 when now that it appeared the Protestants would get what they asked for, they had to explain why they could not attend. 6Friederich Mildenberger, Theology of the Lutheran Confessions, tr. Erwin L. Lueker, ed. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 135. 7As Scott Hendrix noted, Luther remained constant in his contempt and disregard for the papacy throughout his life. Luther and the Papacy: Stages in a Reformation Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 146-147. 8Mildenberger, 136.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 395 In Part II, Luther opens with a brief statement on the “first and chief article,” namely, that “Jesus Christ, our Lord and God was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.” This first chief article then becomes the constant criterion for critiquing the , foundations and , and the papacy (SA II, 1; II 2: 1; 7, 21, 25; II 3: 2; II 4: 1, 3; III 14:1). Luther’s fundamental concern in this section can be expressed starkly: no human activity or dare come between faith and Christ. The pope, by self-definition, sat at the summit of an ecclesiastical system that, in Luther’s estimation, “directly and violently” opposed the chief article and destroyed the knowledge of Christ (SA II 2:25).9 Thus, the choice comes down to following Christ or the pope, which is to say, following Christ or the devil. Two things stand out in Luther’s enumeration of various practices rejected in Part II. First, the pope is a temptor who invites and seduces people to idolatry with false beliefs and humanly established religious practices. The primary means by which the pope promotes idolatry in human works is the mass which lay at the center of religious life in most villages. Accordingly, Luther describes the sacrifice of the mass along with the various liturgies and practices around it as “the supreme and most precious of all the various papal idolatries” (SA II 2:1) for it, rather than the Lamb of God, delivers people from sin. Luther describes the practice of the mass as the dragon’s tail that has produced an “excrement of various idolatries” (SA II 2:11) by which a person was encouraged to seek salvation. These included “,” “purgatorial masses for the dead,” “vigils,” “pilgrimages,” “alms,” “fraternities,” “relics,” “,” and the “invocation of saints.”10 As a result of the mass, according to Luther, the “gate is opened wide for every kind of religious activity to be offered to God.”11 Second, these idolatrous beliefs and practices are not grounded in God’s Word, but in the devil’s lies. The mass was a human invention (SA II 2:2) fabricated without God’s Word and Will (SA II 2:5).12 The sacrifice of the mass and its accompanying practices arose because “the devil has driven the pope into praising and confirming such practices, so that the people routinely deserted Christ for their own works and (worst of all!) became idolatrous” (SA II 2: 19). In a section on enthusiasm inserted into the 1538 published edition, Luther declares:

9William R. Russell, The Schmalkald Articles: Luther’s Theological Testament, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 92. This is the most complete treatment of the Smalcald Articles available in English. 10Under the topic, “False Repentance of the Papists” in Part III, Luther also attacks the selling of indulgences, noting, “The more money he [the pope] swallowed, the wider his gullet became” (SA III 3:25). 11Mildenberger, 137. 12Purgatorial “Mass fairs” lack support from the Scripture (SA II 2:14). The practice of relics “lack God’s Word.” Indulgences are “without God’s Word” (SA II 2:24). The invocation of saints “has no precedent in the Scripture” (SA II 2:25). Foundations and monasteries are “human inventions” (SA II 3:2).

396 The papacy is also purely religious raving in that the pope boasts that all laws are in the shrine of his heart and that what he decides and commands in his churches is supposed to be Spirit and law— even when it is above or contrary to the scriptures or the spoken Word. This is all the old devil and old snake, who also turned Adam and Eve into enthusiasts and led them from the external Word of God to “spirituality” and their own presumptions…(SA III 8:4).

In brief, enthusiasm is the poison of the devil and the source, power, and might of all heresies, including the papacy (SA III 8:9). This brings us to the Fourth Article that deals expressly with the papacy itself. Luther focuses on the question of whether or not the pope is the head of Christendom by divine right (de jure divino) or by human right (de jure humano).13 By insisting upon the former, the pope corrupts the entire holy Christian church, and negates the first, chief article on redemption by Jesus Christ. All of the problems recounted by Luther in the first three articles of Part II stem from this claim (SA II 4;12). Faith in Christ was inconsistent with the pope’s demands for obedience to the institution. As a result, the church can live without such a head (SA II 4:6). The church has one head, Christ, and all bishops possess equal authority. Even though much has been made of Melanchthon’s qualified subscription in which he would be willing to grant the pope “his superiority over the bishops” by “human right,” Luther also raised the hypothetical possibility (SA II 4:7). But he immediately discounts it for the pope would have to suffer the overthrow and destruction of his entire government and position…” (SA II 4:8).14 By his refusal to relinquish his position, the pope shows himself to be the “true end-times Antichrist, who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ, because the pope will not let Christians be saved without his authority” (SA II 4:10). Here Luther refers to the , ,15 which had been issued in an attempt to counter the attempt by Philip the Fair to separate the two domains, thus breaking the unity of Christendom. Unam Sanctam reasserted classical theology “in its extreme form: the temporal power must be exercised by the king, within the church,

13Arthur Carl Piepkorn, “Ius Divinum and Adiaphoron in Relation to Structural Problems in the Church: The Position of the Lutheran Symbolical Books,” in Papal Pri- macy and the Universal Church, ed. Paul C. Empie and T. Austin Murphy, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), 119-126. 14Luther notes that if the pope were to exercise absolute authority de jure humano, more divisions and sects would inevitably result. It is ironic that there are now nearly 34,000 Protestant denominations and/or sects. 15George H. Tavard, “The Papacy in the Middle Ages,” (98-104) and “The Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII,” (105-118) in Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, ed. Paul C. Empie and T. Austin Murphy, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V (Minneapo- lis: Augsburg, 1974). A good historical overview along with discussion of the text itself and the binding character of the text.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 397 for the church, at the discretion of the sacerdos, that is, practically speaking, of the pope.”16 This sentiment was explicitly reaffirmed by the Fifth Lateran Council on the eve of the Reformation in 1516.17 Here Luther’s pastoral concern also comes to the forefront. The papacy has destroyed lives. His “papal government is characterized by lying and murder and the eternal ruin of body and soul” (SA II 4:14).

Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope

Although the theologians signed the Smalcald Articles, they were not adopted by the Smalcald League.18 Instead, the princes recommitted themselves to the Augsburg Confession and its Apology. They also asked the theologians to produce an addendum to the Augsburg Confession on the question of the primacy and authority of the papacy. The princes needed to justify their refusal to attend a council convened by the pope on the grounds of the pope’s false claims to divine authority. The request was made on Monday, February 12 . Melanchthon completed the addendum by the following Friday. Luther, stricken with a severe kidney stone attack, was unable to participate in the deliberations.19 At the close of the meeting on March 6, the Smalcald League approved the Treatise, at which time it became an official confessional document of the evangelical churches. In the first half of the document, Melanchthon deals with the question of papal authority. In the second half, he deals with the question of how Lutherans might obtain pastors when Roman bishops refused to ordain Lutheran candidates. The text is well organized according to the rules of rhetoric—as one would expect from Melanchthon. In the opening paragraph, he lays out the central issues by identifying three papal claims. First, the pope is to all other bishops by divine right (pars. 5-30). Second, the pope possesses by divine right both swords, the temporal and the spiritual (pars. 31-37). Third, it is necessary for salvation to believe these things (pars. 38- 59). As is readily apparent, these topics parallel those dealt with by Luther in the Smalcald Articles. Melanchthon’s tone is quite sharp. Melanchthon himself had noted that he wrote it stronger than he had wanted. Melanchthon takes a deliberate and systematic approach to the topic,

16Tavard, 111. He contends that the doctrines in Unam Santam were not received by the church as authoritative nor does it meet the standards of infallibility outlined by Vatican I since Boniface VIII does “not clearly present himself in it as ‘pastor and doctor’ of all Christians” (115). 17See Carter Lindberg, “The and the of the Sixteenth Century,” in Christianity: A Social and Cultural History, ed. Howard Clark Kee (New York: Macmillan Co., 1991), 309. 18This was in large part due to Luther’s statement on the Lord’s Supper, which some felt was too harsh in light of the Concord that had been signed the previous year. 19See Russell for a thorough account of this episode, 30-33.

398 approaching it from the standpoint of a Scriptural basis, historical development, and the centrality of the Gospel. The first issue involves the right of the papacy to ordain, confirm, and depose bishops. It also includes the authority to make laws concerning worship, the , and the teaching of the church. Melanchthon first argues from Scripture, particularly the texts from Luke 22, John 20, , and 1 Corinthians 3. Each one of the texts shows that Peter was accorded no primacy over the other apostles within the New Testament documents. Melanchthon then turns to the historical data. Beginning with the Council of Nicea, Melanchthon cites Cyprian, Jerome, and Gregory as witnesses that the pope was considered at most, the first among equals. Overall, the record demonstrates that the authority of the papacy evolved out of human decisions and historical necessities. After demonstrating his thesis (confirmatio), Melanchthon takes up the objections that might be raised by his opponents (confutatio) in paragraph 22. These include the Scriptural texts Matthew 16 and John 20. Melanchthon devotes less space to the second issue regarding the papacy’s claim to wield the temporal and spiritual swords based on Boniface VIII’s bull, Unam Sanctam, which asserted that the pope “is lord of the kingdoms of the world by divine right” (par. 33). In paragraphs 31-33, he demonstrates from Matthew 28, John 20, John 18, 2 Corinthians 1, and 2 Corinthians 10 that the church has been given the task of proclaiming the Gospel, not the task of ruling secular kingdoms. As with the preceding point, Melanchthon turns to some historical examples (pars. 34-37) in which he gives examples of the horrors brought upon both the church and the world by the papacy’s equation of Christian righteousness with external government. Contrary to the command of Christ, he exalts himself tyrannically over all rulers. He uses the authority of Christ as a pretext for transferring kingdoms. Worst of all, he claims that “it is necessary for salvation that people believe this tyranny belongs to the pope by divine right.” With regard to the third issue, Melanchthon puts forward the charge that the pope is the Antichrist. He does so indirectly by asserting, “the marks of the Antichrist clearly fit the reign of the pope and his minions” (par. 39). On the basis of 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Melanchthon identifies two marks of the Antichrist (pars. 39-40). First, he resides and rules from within the church. Second, he promulgates teachings and practices that contradict the Gospel. Melanchthon then lines up these marks with various errors of the papacy in pars. 42-48. Here the influence of Luther’s Smalcald articles becomes evident in Melanchthon’s treatment as he mentions the promotion of idolatry in the desecration of the Masses, the corruption of repentance through the teaching that our sins are forgiven by our works, the obscuring of the doctrine of sin, the practices relating to satisfactions, indulgences, and monastic vows. In every case, the pope uses them to rob Christ of His glory and consciences of sure consolation (pars. 44, 48).

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 399 Paragraph 49 deals with two additional “enormous sins.” The first involves the pope’s willingness to defend his errors with “oppressive cruelty and punishments.” The second involves the pope’s refusal to allow ecclesiastical controversies to be properly decided. It is here that Melanchthon turns to the task of discrediting any council called by the papacy, thereby providing the princes with cover against the charge that they would be guilty of causing a schism by their non-attendance. Melanchthon states that the princes have an obligation to flee idolatry and attend to the needs of the church. Princes as eminent members of the church must attend to the church (54) and restrain the “wantonness” of the pontiffs so that matters may be decided by a council according to the Word of God. Even if the pope did possess authority by divine right, one is not bound to obey him when he defends teaching contrary to the Gospel. To the contrary, it is necessary to oppose him as the Antichrist (par. 57). Even if the pope allowed a council, “how can the church be restored to health” if he does not allow anything to be decided against his will. One must flee idolatry, ungodly teaching, and unjust violence” (par. 58). There are good and compelling reasons not to submit to the pope. “These reasons console them in the face of all the reproaches for causing scandal, schism, and discord, with which they are regularly taunted” (par. 58).

A Confessional Approach to the Papacy Today

This brief overview of the Confessions seems to leave little room for speaking about the papacy today in anything other than purely negative terms. It is difficult, if not downright impossible, to find a single positive statement about the papacy within the entire corpus of the Lutheran Confessions. Does this mean that we must still denounce the papacy as a tool of Satan and oppose it at every turn? Are we committed to declaring that the papacy is the Antichrist today? In brief, to what do the confessional statements on the papacy commit us?

Eschatology as an Interpretive Horizon

If we consider confessional statements regarding the papacy within the wider eschatological and apocalyptic context in which they were made, we can take their statements with the complete seriousness they deserve while not ignoring the particularities of our own historical setting. We can summarize this context with two themes. The end times are breaking in, and that includes both the kingdom of God in Christ, and the enemies of God (or anti-Christs). Yet, their full presence and evidence will not be seen until the return of Christ. Here it might be helpful to consider the Treatise’s use of Paul’s statement regarding the appearance of the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians as parallel to the New Testament’s understanding of the

400 appearance of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God came in the person and work of Jesus Christ and in so doing fulfilled the prophecies of the . But it came and fulfilled those promises proleptically and in principle.20 That is to say, the eschatological kingdom of God came ahead of time into history in Christ and essentially all of its features were present and achieved their fulfillment in him. But there will be more. The reign and rule of God did not come without anything remaining to be accomplished (for example, not all the dead were raised, not all the deaf were healed) during the earthly ministry of Christ. These things will happen at the end of time.21 The appearance of the kingdom of God thus has a now-not yet character. We await the full and final presence and manifestation of the kingdom of God. In a mirrored way, Paul speaks about the appearance of the man of lawlessness in the end times. The man of lawlessness is part of the manifestation of the enemy of God. As part of the enemy, he, too, is in principle defeated, though he, too, will do better or worse until finally, he is completely banished. Thus, anti-Christs have arisen throughout the history of the church (St. John talks about them as already present in the first century and as plural) and have subsided. They will continue to do so. The man of lawlessness has appeared in principle and may or may not be present any given time. Indeed, it is possible that there may be a further/ different/greater/clearer manifestation and presence of this “man” and of anti-Christs. The Reformers identified the man of lawlessness or Antichrist with the papacy. For them, it had a “now” character. It was readily evident. Claiming divine authority, the papacy exercised tyranny over the church and secular rulers. He suppressed the Gospel by establishing human rites as necessary for salvation. Yet, perhaps surprisingly, the reformers also recognized a possible not-yet character to their identification of the Antichrist by holding out the possibility (however remote) that the papacy could renounce his claim to authority. In other words, the Confessions’ identification of the papacy as the Antichrist may be seen as an understanding in which the papacy is a “preliminary manifestation” or “proleptic manifestation” of the final appearance of the man of lawlessness meaning that Paul’s prediction was fulfilled in principle, but perhaps not finally or “without remainder.” If this is the case,22 then at the end of time,

20I am indebted in this section to the insights of James W. Voelz’s “Addendum 11-B: The Christocentricity of the Scriptures: The Kingdom of God and Biblical Eschatology as Key,” What Does This Mean? Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Post-Modern World (St. Louis: Concordia, 1995), 251-58 as well as to conversations with him about its application to the statements regarding the papacy in the Lutheran Confessions. 21The analogy to D-Day has often been noted: the enemy is in principle defeated and cannot win the war but he continues to fight and does better or worse in his attacks until his weapons are finally taken away (cf. VE Day). 22Cf. Voelz, 251.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 401 the full presence and evidence of God and his enemies will become manifest. Such a “proleptic” understanding of the confessional statements on the papacy in no way undermines the validity of charges made against the papacy by the sixteenth century reformers. To the contrary, it takes those statements with complete seriousness even if the identification of the man of lawlessness and his reign is less apparent to us in the twenty-first century. Thus, to frame the relevance of the Confessions’ judgment of the papacy as either a historical judgment or doctrinal decision is not particularly helpful. It is both. The Lutheran Confessions issue a judgment within a specific historical context for clearly defined doctrinal reasons such as the papal claim to wield the temporal and spiritual swords by divine authority (ius divinium) which results in the complete overthrow of the Gospel. So, what does this mean for the church today? First, we must be cautious about making an absolute once-and-for-all- times, never to be altered verdict. The identification of the papacy as the Antichrist in the Confessions takes place in an apocalyptic climate in which the Reformers also considered other candidates for the title of Antichrist, the most prominent of which were the Turks (Ap XV, 18).23 In fact, they hold out the possibility in three instances24 that the papacy would not be coextensive with the kingdom of the Antichrist if the papacy were willing to renounce its claim to possess authority over church and state by divine right. Now, granted, that was a big “if.” Luther certainly regarded it as highly unlikely—indeed impossible—for the pope to do so. But as long as the possibility is held out, one cannot make an absolute identification. Such an absolute verdict would preclude a priori any possibility that reform of the papacy could ever take place.25 Second, an absolute, once-and-for-all-times identification of the papacy as the Antichrist in our day can so focus our attention on opposing and resisting the papacy that it can blind the church to other dangers that undermine and threaten the heart of Christian faith and which may be as potentially devastating for the church in the twenty-first century as the papacy was in the sixteenth century. As Edmund Schlink puts it when summarizing the confessional data on the subject, we need “to take seriously the Lord’s directive that we should look in the present moment of every age for the harbingers of the end…the church becomes unfaithful to the Confessions if it views the pope alone as the Antichrist, instead of being ever alert in constant watchfulness for the signs of the Antichrist in each current generation.”26

23For that matter, supporters of the papacy were not unwilling to call Luther himself the Antichrist. 24Ap XV, 18; SA II, 4:7. Cf Melanchthon’s subscription to the SA. 25For these reasons, Harry Huth, longtime instructor in the Lutheran Confessions at Springfield and later Fort Wayne argued that the Confessions’ statements are historical judgments regarding the papacy. 26Edmund Schlink, Theology of the Lutheran Confessions (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1961), 283.

402 A “now-not yet” eschatology provides a context within which we may take seriously the unequivocally strong statements identifying the papacy as the Antichrist alongside those statements that do not close the door entirely on the possibility of reform—in which case the papacy would not be the Antichrist. To frame the question only in terms of whether or not the Confessional statements regarding the papacy are “historical judgments” or “doctrinal decisions” is not helpful. The former can too easily relativize the confessional statements (if we we were living then we would have said the same thing given the available evidence, but now…) and not take them with due seriousness. The latter runs the opposite risk of treating the confessional statements regarding the papacy as binding upon Lutherans for all times regardless of historical context. This can lead to complacency. Both must be affirmed. The reformers issued a verdict in a specific historical context for doctrinal reasons. The Antichrist manifested itself strongly.27 Today its tyranny may have subsided and may not be as apparent today. It could reappear here or somewhere else. Thus, the church cannot be complacent. It must continue to watch and pray.

Two Kinds of Righteousness as an Evaluative Framework

An appropriation of the two kinds of righteousness can assist us in developing confessional approach to the subject of the papacy for our day that is avoids an all-or-nothing way of thinking. In brief, the two kinds of righteousness consider life simultaneously within two coram relationships. That is to say, we live simultaneously coram deo and coram hominibus. The former deals with the question of our standing before God. In reformation thought, this always involved questions related to soteriology. Human beings can live in the presence of God only by virtue of the passive righteousness of faith in Christ. In the question of salvation, we seek nothing other than to appear before God by faith alone, clothed in the righteousness obtained by Christ. But in our coram relationship with other people, we seek an active righteousness (a righteousness of works) that promotes the well-being of society. This active righteousness of works lives in the tension between creation and the eschaton. With regard to the former, we enter into the creative work of God as He preserves, provides, and protects. With regard to the latter we recognize that we will not establish a utopian society on earth; our works have a provisional character to them of keeping the world going as we await the return of Christ.

27For a good treatment on the Biblical data and its application, see The “End Times”: A Study on Eschatology and Millennialism. A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (St. Louis: Concordia, 1989). For an older but still helpful treatment, see Henry Hamann, “A Brief Exegesis of 2 Thess.2:1-12 with Guideline for the Application of the Prophecy Contained Therein,” Concordia Theological Monthly, 24 (1953): 418-433.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 403 When we consider the confessional statements within the two kinds of righteousness framework, we will immediately recognize that the many negative statements about the papacy pertain to the role that the papacy played in undermining the passive righteousness of faith in Christ. It is important to note that the Confessions do not address the subject of the antichrist in the same way as American dispensationalists. There is little interest in identifying the Antichrist in order to predict the exact time when the end of the world will occur.28 The primary reason for identifying the papacy with the Antichrist is that the Reformers were convinced that everything the papacy stood for and everything that the papacy promoted was Anti–Christ, that is, opposed to Christ and His work of redemption. In other words, works of the papacy undermined the passive righteousness of faith in Christ coram Deo. Here belong all of the charges that the papacy established religious practices as necessary for salvation contrary to the first, chief article on redemption through Christ, as well as all of the charges that it thereby promoted idolatry in human works.29 By making our active righteousness of good works the basis for righteousness before God, the papacy not only withheld the benefits of Christ from the people, but it undermined the pursuit of righteousness within the world.30 This is because works promoted by the pope such as pilgrimages were regarded as better works for attaining perfection than those works commanded by God. As a result, pastors neglected their parishes and laypeople neglected their spouses and children in order to “run after unnecessary, uncertain, shameful, devilish will-o’-wisps” (SA II 2:18). Monastic forms of life were better than “everyday Christian walks of life and the offices and orders established by God.” In fact, the papacy more often than not contributed to immorality with its strictures and demands that went beyond the commands of God. In the preface to the Smalcald Articles, Luther noted the issues of public morality that needed attention. “There are also countless important matters in worldly affairs that need improvement” (SA, Preface, 12). He goes on to list, “Greed and usury have burst in like a great flood and have attained a semblance of legality. Wantonness, lewdness, extravagant dress, gluttony, gambling, conspicuous consumption with all kinds of vice, wickedness, disobedience—of subjects, servants, laborers—extortion by all the artisans and peasants (who can

28Schlink rightly observes that apart from their statements about the Antichrist, and despite their conviction that Christ would return within their lifetimes, the Confessions do not engage in any detailed speculations regarding the signs of the times. Even though 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is cited and lies in the background for the statements identifying the papacy with the Antichrist, it is cited or alluded only four times. 29Works of the mass deliver people from sin rather than the Lamb of God (SA II, 2:1, 7). Luther will not allow a servant of the Mass and his work “to be equal to or greater than my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (SA II, 2:10). The invocation of saints, one of the abuses of the Antichrist, “destroys the knowledge of Christ” (SA II, 2:25). The pope has set himself up “as equal to and even greater than Christ (SA II, 4:13). 30Note the distinction between being holy and being saved in Luther’s Great Confession of 1528.

404 list everything?)….” He goes on to say that the church needs to be dealing with these rather than issues of robes, cinsures, tonsures, cardinals’ hats, etc. Utilizing the two kinds of righteousness, we can adopt a twofold approach to the subject of the papacy today. First, the church in each age must determine whether the papacy (or some other candidate) exhibits Anti- Christ characteristics. At the very least, this implies that we need to stay abreast of developments within the Roman Catholic Church regarding the papacy itself. What is the current interpretation of papal primacy as formulated in such statements from Vatican I in the “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ,” also known as Pastorae aeternus, which made assent to a requirement for salvation? Is the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification truly a significant shift or is it nothing other than the teaching of Trent in contemporary dress? If it is a significant shift, how is it impacting the life of the church? Do Protestants still live only within the shadow or penumbra of the church according to Rome? The task involves the arduous work of understanding the complexities of Roman , particularly with regard to the question of the status and authority of past statements.31 In any event, when it comes to righteousness coram Deo, salvation is an either-or matter. It is either defined as passive righteousness or as active righteousness. There is no in-between. Hence the church must always reject and can have no fellowship with those teachings and practices that undermine faith alone in Christ alone. Second, when it comes to promoting public or civic righteousness in the world, Christians need not take an all-or-nothing approach to working with others.32 In this realm, Christians can seek allies with other groups, including the papacy! They can assist in helping the world remember and describing the world as it was intended to work. In this regard, Lutherans can applaud and commend those statements issued by the pope that promote and argue for public morality and civic righteousness. One can utilize the work of Roman Catholic in the area of moral theology. These alliances may be all the more important to cultivate for it is here in the realm of morals and ethics that lie some of the greatest challenges facing Christians today. Emotivism, moral relativism, and utilitarian individualism may pose as great a threat to the Christian proclamation of the Gospel today as did the teachings promoted by the papacy in the sixteenth century. Here lies a significant difference in our contexts. Where the reforms saw

31Unfortunately, we in the Missouri Synod have not raised up scholars during the past two decades with an expertise in contemporary Roman Catholic theology or developments within the ecumenical movement. 32In thesis 10 of his concerning Justification, he states, “The riddle is astonishing, because God rewards the very righteousness which he himself regards as iniquity and wickedness” (1536; LW 34, 152). See also theses 11-19. God bears with, and sustains even evil-doers for the preservation of the human community with a view toward giving the world time before the final appearing of the kingdom.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 405 the papacy as undermining the Gospel through legalism, the threats to the Gospel today come through various form of , namely, that there is no such thing as universal standards of behavior external to the self. Where there is no law, there is no sin, there is no wrath of God, and hence no need for forgiveness. Because the pope represents nearly one billion Christians worldwide, politicians, ethicists, other religious leaders, and certainly the media sit up and take notice when he speaks. Thus, one can take some encouragement when the papacy speaks out on the topics of abortion, gay , and human cloning, etc. While we may not always agree with the arguments by which he has arrived at his position, we may find ourselves agreeing with the conclusions. Thus, our answer is twofold to the question of the papacy today. If the papacy claims primacy by divine right and promotes any teaching or practice that obscures the glory of Christ’s redemptive work and deprives the world of comfort given by Christ’s work, it must be opposed and rejected in no uncertain terms. In so far as the papacy serves as voice of moral authority and promotes public righteousness within the world, we may commend it and even work with it for the sake of first article life within the world. And that is significant for this world is still God’s world.

Conclusion

The Lutheran Confessions belong to the theological stream of . The confessors never saw themselves as breaking away from the catholic church. To the contrary, they saw themselves as setting forth the catholic faith of the Western church and reforming the life of the church in accordance with that confession. That faith had been obscured to the point of disappearing under practices supported by the papacy during the late Middle Ages (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 5). If that were not enough, the papacy rejected the catholic confession of the Gospel offered by Reformers. Lutheranism became a distinct confession with its only ecclesiastical structures out of necessity, not out of desire. Unless Lutherans now interpret their history in such a way as to see themselves as forever leaving behind the church of Rome (the Old World) bound for the shores of (the New World), the question of a Lutheran understanding of the papacy remains important for the subject of inter-Christian relations, particularly, with Rome.

406 The Papacy in Perspective: Luther’s Reform and Rome

Robert Rosin

In the wake of Charles V’s coronation in Aachen, the famous humanist Desiderius hoped to meet with the new emperor as well as with key German leaders in an effort to win a measure of support for Luther. Not that Erasmus had thrown his lot in with Luther, who was on his way to being declared a heretic. Erasmus may have been a hard one to peg when it came to his ideas on reform, especially without the benefit of 20/20 historical hindsight, but he was not about to side too closely with Luther. Yet, Erasmus had an interest in Luther. With Luther headed toward excommunication, Erasmus feared that if the princes also condemned Luther without giving any room for maneuver or discussion, then all hope for any kind of reform would be lost. Joint condemnation by Rome and Empire would make Luther the example of how quickly things can get out of hand and how badly they can go. Then Erasmus’ milder reform efforts would stand no chance of getting a hearing, let alone effect any change. So Erasmus, who was known for avoiding an ecclesiastical brawl at close range, took the unusual step of seeking out the political power- brokers to lobby the German leaders personally. In an interesting twist, one of those German princes, Frederick the Wise of Electoral Saxony and patron of Wittenberg University, also wanted to speak with Erasmus about his now (in)famous professor. Therefore, the two arranged a meeting in Cologne while Frederick was heading home after the imperial coronation. Rome had called on Frederick to torch Luther’s books and to hand over the renegade , but, before the elector would reply, he wanted to know Erasmus’ opinion of the matter. Just how serious was this business with Luther? To that, Erasmus offered his now famous quip. Luther had sinned most grievously, Erasmus judged, for he had struck out against the bellies of the and the crown of the pope.1 Just how serious was this reply? Was that really the issue, or was this Erasmus tongue-in-cheek? Frederick, who wasn’t called “the wise” for nothing, realized Erasmus had dodged the point even as he damned Luther with faint praise in his reply. “What a wonderful little man that is,” Frederick remarked about

1Desiderius Erasmus, Spongia in Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1969-), vol. 9, part 1, 182:420-428.

Dr. Robert Rosin is Professor of Historical Theology and Chairman of the Department of Historical Theology at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 407 Erasmus after they had met. “You never know where you are with him.”2 It was a reply worthy of the slippery eel, as Luther called Erasmus. How so? In truth, Erasmus was displeased not only with Luther’s tone, but also with what Erasmus saw as a snowballing theological issue. And the controversy was not simply a matter of the theological bottom line, the dogma, but it also ran deeper to method, to how one approached theology. A change in method, as Luther also realized, was the pivotal point.3 Rome eventually would get the point and see this was more than a monkish squabble. But at the Cologne meeting, Erasmus’ quip to Frederick in effect dismisses the serious side of Luther, the theological side, and reduces him to a puritanical scold. But then didn’t the bulbous monks and indulgent popes need some scolding? Sure, but was there no more to all this than a scolding? If that’s all this finally amounted to, then Frederick shouldn’t worry. Those skewered would understandably howl, but Luther (and Frederick) would find plenty of support for some moral reform. By now Erasmus certainly understood there was more involved, but perhaps he was underselling the matter lest Frederick become alarmed and withhold support even for the the kind of change Erasmus wanted. Besides, Frederick had heard calls for moral improvement plenty of times. It was a widespread theme among the popular preachers and in the literature.4 In fact, Erasmus himself had a large dose of moral reform in his own plan for the restitutio christianismi, a mix of simple-hearted piety and devotion along with sincere morality. He could play to a more popular audience as he did with Julius Exclusus with Pope Julius II trying in vain to enter heaven upon his death. Or he could be more sophisticated with his Praise of Folly where Dame Folly, having the license of the court jester to tell the truth to whomever.5 Erasmus should not mind if Luther tweaked the ecclesiastical powers that be, even the pope himself.

2Quoted in Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, ed. E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 2. 3Luther put it plainly in a May 9, 1518, letter to his old teacher Trutfetter: “I believe simply that it is impossible to reform the church if the canons, the , the scholastic theology, the philosophy, logic as they now are are not uprooted and another study installed.” WA-Briefwechsel, vol. 1, no. 74. [WA= , Werke (, 1883-). WA-Briefwechsel is the “letters” sub-set in the Weimar Ausgabe, the WA or Weimar Edition.] 4Two prominent examples are Geiler of Kaysersberg, renowned for his preaching, and Sebastian Brant’s Narrenshiff or Ship of Fools. On Geiler see Jane Dempsey Douglass, Justification in Late Medieval Preaching: A Study of John Geiler of Keisersberg (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966). A modern translation of the Narrenschiff is Sebastian Brant, The Ship of Fools, translated by William Gillis (London: Folio Society, 1971). 5Moral criticism abounds, for example, in Erasmus’ Julius Exclusus, his uproarious exchange at heaven’s gate between the late warrior pope Julius II and St. Peter as the two spar over Julius’ moral qualifications to gain entry. An excerpt is included in Roland Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom (New York: Collins, 1969), 131-136. Another famous critique is the Praise of Folly, where Erasmus targets the highest ranks of the church as well as his own efforts at reform, a clever way to deflect Rome’s ire with self-criticism as well. That text is included, for example, in John P. Dolan, The Essential Erasmus, trans- lated by Dolan (New York: Mentor Book, 1969), 94-173. 408 But the papacy was not Luther’s primary target, notwithstanding Erasmus’ clever line and certainly not in reality as the causa Lutheri unfolded. Rome is, however, important for the pages in hand. What follows includes a sampling of the problem as many traditionally saw it, with a nod as well to a revisionist reconsideration of what the papacy was busy doing. Whether traditionalists or revisionists are right in their assessment of Rome, the papacy still was not the central issue, though its position could not be ignored. Luther was forced to deal with it because of what that position meant for reform. So Luther would have plenty to say about Rome (though what he offers within the Lutheran Confessions is left for another article in this collection). Especially near the end of his life, as his central point continued to fall on deaf ears, Luther left little doubt about where he thought the problem lay. For its part, Rome would be equally insistent, first digging and then even seeking to uproot Luther’s point. For post- Reformation Lutheranism, there was little to add, as we shall see, with lines sharply drawn. Over time, the Catholic and Lutheran confessions would go their own ways, aware of each other but with little point in going over the same ground again and again. In Trent Rome had made itself clear, and Luther’s heirs saw no change in the theological issues. So they stood by their positions from the mid to late sixteenth century. Other matters would capture their attention and energy, and only years later would some prominent names from the Reformation side revisit the papacy when they thought it useful to advance their own particular agenda. That all lies ahead in the next few pages. First, let us go back to the papacy that greeted Luther as he first called for reform. Despite Erasmus’ line to Frederick the Wise, the papacy was not the chief issue, but it became an accessory to the matter. And Luther was certainly not silent about the papacy, especially when Rome’s spokesmen tried to force the issue by asserting papal authority, demanding that all should defer to Rome. But at bottom, errant theology was the problem for Luther. He made no secret of that as will become plain. But in the end, Rome became part of the problem, not so much in its own right or because it was initially the issue, but rather because it chose to continue its support of that errant theology. Luther’s reform was beyond anything Erasmus had in mind with Luther’s far more radical approach to theology. That actually made Rome and papacy less a focus than it was for others, whose primary emphasis was on piety and morality. Rome brought Luther’s ire on itself when it impinged on the central interest in justification. But Luther’s reform was not about the papacy, not initially and only secondarily as time went by. Not that the papacy was not in need of reform. Given the power and splendor of Renaissance Rome, one wonders if Erasmus’ Pope Julius was not taking a step down by trying to get into heaven. There is little argument over the splendor, though the debate— whether Rome thought first about maintaining its status or whether it actually concentrated on other things

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 409 and the luxury just came—divides a traditional approach from the revisionsts.6 The traditional line sees the Renaissance papacy in the lap of luxury, followed then by some sober-minded pontiffs keen on reform, but finally backsliding somewhat in the era, heading toward the shock of the Enlightenment’s revolutions and assault on religion. In some ways, that model holds. When the Renaissance began to dawn in the mid-fourteenth century, the papacy already was several decades into its “Babylonian Captivity” of nearly seventy years at . However, the papacy hardly needed the Renaissance to spark a lofty self-image. Popes in Avignon were highly active in politics and lived in a style appropriate to their claims, sparking criticism from the likes of the Spiritual or Catherine of , who called for repentance, reform, and even a return to Rome.7 Gregory XI (1370-1378) finally did at least make the move, but he had the bad fortune of dying after only a year back in Rome. Under pressure from the local populace to give them an Italian (who presumably would stay put), the cardinals elected Urban VI but declared him unfit and deposed him five 6The studies on the history and nature of the papacy are legion—articles, mono- graphs, and multivolume sets. The two old studies are from Ludwig Pastor and Leopold von Ranke. Detailed and pro-Rome is Pastor, The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages, trans. and ed. Frederick Ignatius Antrobus, et al., 40 volumes (London: Hodges, 1891-1954). From the other end of the theological spectrum is von Ranke, His- tory of the Popes: Their Church and State, trans. E. Fowler, 3 volumes (New York: Ungar Publishing Company, 1966); originally published in translation by Walter Kelly (New York: William Colyer, 1847). Among the many modern, useful titles, Rome and papacy figure prominently in several volumes from the famous Catholic historian Hubert Jedin and John P. Dolan, editors, The History of the Church. Volume 4: From the to the Eve of the Reformation (New York: Seabury, 1980); Volume 5: Reformation and Counter Reformation (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1981); Volume 6: The Church in the Age of Absolutism and Enlightenment (New York: Crossroad, 1981); Volume 7: The Church between Revolution and Restoration (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1981). Other titles include John A. F. Thomson, Popes and Princes, 1417-1517: Politics and Polity in the Late Medieval Church (London; Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1980); John F. D’Amico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome: Humanists and Churchmen on the Eve of the Reformation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1963); John W. O’Malley, Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome: Rhetoric, Doctrine, and Reform in the Sacred Orators of the Papal Court, c. 1450-1521 (Durham: Duke University Press, 1979); Peter Partner, The Pope’s Men: The Papal Civil Service in the Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990); Partner, Renaissance Rome 1500-1559: A Portrait of a Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976); Robert Bireley, The Refashioning of Catholicism, 1450-1700 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1999). Focusing more closely on the financial aspects, see such titles as Barbara McClung Hallman, Italian Cardinals, Reform, and the Church as Property, 1492-1563 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985); Kurt Stadtwald, Roman Popes and German Patriots: Antipapalism in the Politics of the German Humanist Movement from Gregor Heimburg to Martin Luther (Geneva: Librarie Droz, 1996); Felix Gilbert, The Pope, His Banker, and Venice (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1980); Peter Partner, “Papal Financial Policy in the Renaissance and Counterreformation,” Past and Present 88 (1980): 17-62. 7Robert Coogan, Babylon on the Rhone: A Translation of Letters by Dante, Petrarch, and on the Avignon (Potomac, MD.: Studia Humanitatis, 1983). Rob- ert E. McNally, Reform of the Church: Crisis and Criticism in Historical Perspective (New York: Herder and Herder, 1963). 410 months later. Then they elected Clement VII who decided to head back to Avignon. Urban would not go quietly, sitting tight on the See in Rome. Both men mustered support, excommunicated each others backers, and started the Great Schism in the western church. Several rounds of papal elections on both sides perpetuated the problem. At one point, the Council of (1409) thought it had solved the problem by greatly weakening the rival sides and electing yet another man, Alexander V. Most cardinals abandoned the two feuding sides for Alexander, though the old Rome- Avignon rivals themselves tried to keep their flames alive for several years thereafter. The end of the soap opera came with the (1414- 1418, also known for the burning of John Hus), which settled on Martin V. Constance also tried to avoid such a mess again by asserting a council’s privilege and authority, not to mention its necessity.8 So Haec Sancta (1415) asserted that the general council had authority over popes, while Frequens declared that councils should be called “frequently” as the voice of church leadership. It was an expression of , a movement with roots from the days of Avignon. At that time, critics of what appeared to many to be a high-handed papacy argued that since the days of the early church, general councils were the true seat of wisdom, the forum in which the collected wisdom of the church in its leaders would, with the aid of the Spirit, come to God-pleasing decisions for the life of the church. Conciliarists could be radical in their claims. William of Occam argued any wash-woman could call for a council if the need were so great. But no conciliarist ever thought of church without a pope. It was the role, the place, the authority in relationship to councils that would cause popes to balk at Conciliarism’s calls for reform. And so after the went home from Constance, Martin V did what he wanted, the council’s claims notwithstanding. Clearly there were things needing reform in any number of areas. And, to be fair, there were efforts made, though results were less than hoped for in the eyes of reformers—and for them it would only get worse. Conciliarists and Rome would jockey for position in the decades after Constance with the papacy seeming to get the better of the exchange while conciliarist influence ebbed, handicapped in part by internal debate. Meanwhile, the popes consolidated control over the , that territory that ran roughly like a garter across the boot of Italy. The Avignon- Rome schism had made control over the states more tenuous, but now over several decades popes managed to firm up their hold. They blunted rivals from surrounding principalities, clipped the wings of powerful Roman families such as the Colonna, installed friends and relatives in strategic positions within the church structure, suppressed claims of lesser nobility

8Phillip H. Stump, The Reforms of the Council of Constance (1414-1418) (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994). Remigius Bäumer, ed., Das Konstanzer Konzil, Wege der Forschung, vol. 415 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977).

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 411 within the papal lands, and even expanded the papal territorial claims—all trends that would more or less continue into the seventeenth century. The papal states gave the popes a second base of support, especially financial, as an alternative on which to lean if the backing they sought from the larger church was not always so regular or enthusiastic. By the middle of the fifteenth century the Renaissance papacy was clearly gathering steam, and with the accession of Sixtus IV in 1471, the era of the High Renaissance for papal Rome was in full bloom. Rome consolidated not only its territories, but also its control over the ranks of the cardinals. Constance and the Council of Basel (1436) had tried to hold the number of cardinals to two dozen with no more than a third coming from any one nation. They were to be at least thirty years old with some kind of advanced degree (unless they were papal relatives). Not surprisingly, popes argued for greater numbers. If nothing else, more cardinals swelled the treasury. Alexander VI, Sixtus IV, Leo X, and others promoted dozens during their pontificates, and the Italians soon dominated. After a plot on his life, Leo named thirty-one at the same time to guarantee support in the college. When there were fewer early in the Renaissance, the cardinals had more latitude and wider influence, but as the numbers grew, particularly in those early years of the sixteenth century, each had relatively less weight. As the curial bureaucracy grew with more work being done by committees rather than assigned to an individual cardinal, the college as a whole often did little more than rubber-stamp what popes, with their advisors and bureaucracy, had already determined. The disaster of the sack of Rome at the hands of Charles V was a sobering experience,9 and a page was turned. Starting with Paul III and his reform-minded cardinal appointments in the 1530s, popes would set up different commissions to deal with specific interests or issues such as German church affairs, the Roman , or the index of prohibited books—all important issues. But while these more focused assignments would highlight a cardinal’s profile in that particular area, the more narrow assignments also seemed to have a way of limiting the cardinals’ wider impact within the overall structure, while the popes presided over all. So as the number of cardinals increased during the Renaissance, their relative power both individually and collectively seemed to decline. The papacy reaped the benefit of the power shift. The Renaissance papacy further extended its power through the growth of the curia, which handled the central administration. The curia handled finances, bureaucratic paperwork, judicial matters, and took care of favors along the way. Responsible to the pope and cardinals—remember that the curia’s various departments had cardinals as heads—the bureaucrats gathered inertia as they functioned day to day. The hundreds involved

9Kenneth Gouwens, Remembering the Renaissance: Humanist Narratives of the Sack of Rome (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998).

412 would remember who got them there, and they also would not forget to look out for themselves. A burgeoning curia was in the financial interest of the popes as new appointees paid for their positions, offices usually then held for life. With the curial officials staying on with the coming of a new pontiff, their numbers would swell as the new pope added to the ranks, rewarding supporters with new appointments. (Those doing the work of the church could, in turn, count on recovering any costs they might have incurred in getting their new positions. They would routinely claim about ten percent of what they would take in each year in the course of running their office—the accepted way of funding their annual stipend—and then there were other funds that might come their way in the course of conducting their affairs.) At various times, cardinals and councils called for adminsitrative reform, but their appeals were generally resisted, ignored, or at best met with the meager response. Unless the Renaissance papacy would radically retool its own lifestyle, dramatically revamping the centuries-long trend to funnel as much as it could toward Rome, it could not afford sweeping changes in the curia. Cardinals and curia were linked on another issue related to influence and authority: cash. An institution so large as the church was bound to have complex finances that were challenging to marshal. Given how the church had expanded over the centuries in such varied circumstances, it understandably had no simple overarching system to take in and pay out the funds it needed to operate. Instead, a hodgepodge of offerings, fees, fines, expected gifts, and more were added on top of money raised in the papal states. By the end of the sixteenth century, the bulk of Rome’s financial needs were funded by revenue from the papal territories. But toward the start of the century, when Luther’s reform was heating up, more came from other sources throughout the church, transferred to Rome and funneled through the curia. More of that money came from the Germans than from any other nationality within the church, and they certainly took note of all the money that flowed south over the Alps to Rome. They saw, for example, fees being charged for the right to be nominated to a church post and for reserving it, that is, for holding it open during the negotiations, charges made for bending the rules on matters of a nominee’s age, other qualifications, or his holding of multiple offices. Once installed, the new cleric gave to Rome, the firstfruits of the income that he would receive annually in the new post. Those were some of the high-profile, high-dollar sums brought in. But on the most mundane level, things added up since there were always fees paid for the most ordinary documents—paperwork needed to make the system work—as well as fines levied when something went amiss. From the high-profile to the most ordinary, it made for vast amounts that were, in all honesty, needed for so large a church to function. Yet, people were reluctant simply to shrug this off as the cost of things. The gravamina, or grievance lists, compiled at the imperial diets, those assemblies of the

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 413 representatives from the hundreds of political entities that made up the , regularly complain about the wagon loads of gold that headed to Rome while they appeared to get relatively little in return. Things seemed out of balance, a perception sure to be reinforced by the next scandal and fueled by the next outrageous episode. (A complicating factor was having so many of the higher church officials also serve as political rulers—a prince-bishop, for example. Allegiances could be strained and interests played off against others, complicating any effort at reform.) Meanwhile, what Rome took in, it quickly paid out. It had the costs of maintaining the curial bureaucracy, defending papal lands with troops, and subsidizing campaigns against the church’s foes—the or the Turks, for example. It also underwrote first-rate schools in Rome for those who would serve the church, and it carried on expensive building projects. An argument could certainly be made in favor of all this and more, but serious criticism, not just carping, could be leveled as well. That is some of what is typically cited when the Renaissance papacy comes under scrutiny. There was splendor in that era of the golden age of the arts, but there also was scandal. The more traditional approach to the papacy portrays this as a time of followed by earnest efforts at reform, efforts urged by some of the popes themselves, efforts that succeeded to a point. But some of the secularism from Renaissance roots survived and would spring up again in the seventeenth century, though a new secularism of the Enlightenment would not only overshadow the older version but now would target Rome as well as the other traditions coming out of the Reformation. Revisionists, on the other hand, have rethought this pattern. The ebb and flow of papal fortunes that was marked by the traditional approach is not denied. But more important is a larger continuity that was said to have emerged as the papacy developed an organization, a financial base, and a way of interacting with other powers that proved to be more stable, able to rise above and ride out the ebb and flow that is usually cited.10 The revisionists may downplay the papacy’s problems, but they do not deny them. Rather, they argue for a greater accomplishment that outweighed them. In the decades near the start of the High Renaissance of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century, there would be no lack of reformers who looked at all of this with the papacy at the epicenter and called for reform—popular preachers, some humanist intellectuals, and certainly many in the secular political leadership of the Empire along with voices

10Both the traditional and revisionist approaches found in the studies cited earlier are noted in summary in the article on “Papacy,” by Wolfgang Reinhard in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), vol. 4, 203-207. “Papacy,” by Nelson H. Minnich in The Encyclopedia of the Renaissance, ed. Paul F. Grendler (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1999), vol. 4, 378- 390, is also a nicely balanced overview done topically, rather than as a chronological synthesis.

414 raised from other nations.11 It is easy to pile on, and the papacy certainly did itself no favors as the Renaissance popes, hardly high-minded spiritual leaders, stood out as obvious targets. It was Leo X who remarked, “God has given us the papacy. Let us enjoy it.” Luther was also well aware of the failings. He had been to Rome and seen some of the squalor firsthand. Yet, the papacy did not take center stage when Luther began to call for reform. Luther even included a highly deferential cover letter with his 1520 Freedom of the Christian, writing as if Pope Leo would surely make changes if he only knew what was going on and were not insulated by his self-serving aides—a sheep among wolves, Luther wrote. The preface was good form and a generous gesture, giving Leo the benefit of the doubt. And while “what ifs” are minefields to be avoided by historians, in general, it is clear that had Rome reacted differently, Luther never would have turned his sights there. Rome was not the key target. But it would come in for heavy criticism as it resisted the real focus of reform.12 Luther’s efforts at reform would center on justification, the chief article on which all theology centers—justification solely by God’s grace came through faith alone in God’s promises. God’s grace in Christ also creates the church, the , as the Spirit calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies as Luther would write in the catechism. Clothed in Christ’s righteousness, believers stand as priests before God. At the same time, while all believers certainly can proclaim the Word, Christ gave believers the office of the ministry so that the formal public proclamation—the sort done in Sunday worship, for example—can be done in good order. The church as the body of Christ, the spiritual assembly, cannot be simply equated with some visible manifestation that people see, though God certainly knows what is hidden within any visible institution. But people, believers, while knowing this about the true nature of the church, can but live in this world with their surroundings. So within the visible assembly, Christians rightly look to the New Testament texts to see who should fill that office of the public ministry and then put people into that office in good order. The Augsburg Confession would speak of being “rightly called,” a term that

11Complaints about relations with Rome and the assertion of national interests found among the Germans were echoed elsewhere and had long histories. France, for example, cited the fifteenth-century Pragmatic Sanctions of Bourges to defend its perogatives by handling church disputes within its borders as much as possible and putting the brakes on those who would quickly plead their cases to Rome (who was often only too happy to get involved and so accrue a little more influence to itself). Appeals to Rome were to be the last resort, not the first move. England groused about the money it sent to Rome, things like the Peter’s Pence paid annually since King John lost out in a power struggle with Innocent III in the thirteenth century. 12Karl Otmar Freiherr von Aretin, “Das Papsttum der Renaissance und Martin Luther,” in Martin Luther, “Reformator und Vater im Glauben”: Referate aus der Vortragsreihe des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz, edited by Peter Manns, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz, Abteilung für abendländlische Religionsgeschichte, Beiheft 18 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1985), 208-219. CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 415 does not prescribe some single set of rules or steps but simply meant called in the way accepted and understood for a particular jurisdiction.13 For Luther and his Wittenberg colleagues, it was enough to be sure to fill the public office, and beyond that it did not matter how the visible church on earth organized itself so long as the evangelical message was preached. If present structure worked, then keep it. If not, then change. The New Testament called for no more than that: believe and proclaim the true message, recognize the priesthood of all the baptized, and see that the public work of the office of the ministry gets done. More than that did not matter, especially when it came to the functioning of the visible church. As a former seminary colleague was known to say, church polity is an adiaphoron. Luther was highly respectful of tradition and authority. As the Gospel began to emerge in his own mind and as he made these evangelical ideas public, Luther expected those in authority to pick up on what he wrote and to live up to their responsibility to make changes so others would see the evangelical truth even as whatever clouded it would begin to pass away. So, for example, when Renaissance humanism’s new educational methods— languages, grammatical and historical text studies, rhetoric for communication, an interest in history, and more—helped Luther rediscover the Gospel, he logically wanted more of such methods and less of scholastic logic which had previously driven him to despair. What to do? Luther gradually introduced a new approach in his classes—part of the advancing of theology that a professor was expected to do—and he strongly lobbied Georg Spalatin, Elector Frederick’s chancellor, to urge the prince to make changes in Wittenberg’s curriculum. Luther could be insistent, but he also made sure this was all done in good form and according to good order. When the furor over the Ninety-five Theses erupted, again Luther tried his best to honor various authorities along the way. But we also see him pressing the issue, not because the opposition was blocking Luther per se but because his opponents were stifling the Gospel message. That attitude held as well for Luther’s view on the papacy.14 Luther’s rhetoric would heat up dramatically over the years as he dealt with Rome, but it is important to understand that this was not personal. We arguably know more about the lives and character of the popes of Luther’s day, though he is hardly uninformed. Yet, when Luther unleashes a salvo, it is aimed at the institution of the papacy of his day, not necessarily at individual popes, though few (especially earlier in Luther’s life) seemed chosen for spiritual virtue. Not blind hatred of pope but fierce defense of the Gospel in the face of the papacy’s obstruction drives Luther. That 13In other words, if the prince nominates the parish priest in one area, that is how it should be rightly done. If the city council holds patronage rights for a local parish, their authority should be acknowledged and a call issued that way. Far from razing tradition and forcing one-size-fits-all, the Lutheran Reformation simply worked with what was there. The point was to get a competent preacher with the right message in the post. 14A shorter review of the relationship is Remigius Bäumer, “Der junge Luther und der Papst,” Catholica 23 (1969): 392-420, or Gerhard Müller, “Martin Luther und das Papsttum,”

416 distinction is not lost on the generations that followed, but Luther seems to hold that point despite plenty of opportunity to stoop to the level of ad hominem attack. To be sure, more than enough personal insults were launched on all sides, in part a matter of style often employed, but the sharp rhetoric was to embellish the argument that Mr. Blockhead or Dr. Dolt failed ultimately by not seeing the real crux of the argument, a point that even the simplest layman could see. It was precisely Luther’s point about the papacy that made quick or superficial compromise impossible and would have turned Rome upside down. While Luther had criticisms for the papacy before 1520, that was the year when he upped the ante by calling the Roman pope the Antichrist. The charge was hardly new. In the fourteenth century, the visionary also equated the papacy with the Antichrist, a charge Rome added to the issues it held against revolutionary Joachimites targeted for church discipline. Antichrist was also in the vocabulary of some of the Fraticelli or Spiritual Franciscans, an offshoot that made not only the traditional Franciscans, but also stricter Observants, seem like slackards. The Spiritual Franciscans, with their strict , could not abide the example Rome set, and they said so. And Wycliffe, yet another example, also equated Rome with the Antichrist, though such criticism counted for little since he was eventually condemned by the church, his body exhumed and burned as a sign of his fall to perdition. Still, while the term sounds harsh to modern ears and the concept in and of itself ought to be taken seriously, Rome often seemed less aghast at being called Antichrist than it was irritated that yet someone else had chimed in and made the charge again. It was more an irritation since, after all, those who called Rome the Antichrist were likely to be already on the list of those known to embrace other errors already condemned by the Roman See. So why should Rome take this seriously or be shocked into self-examination and repentance? Luther would build up to the point where he referred to Rome in pub- lic as the Antichrist. It was not a term he used lightly or decided to apply without considerable thought. He had complained about Rome in private correspondence, and at Leipzig in 1519 he would suggest that popes and councils could and had erred. (So much for any idea that Luther might be a conciliarist.) But suggesting error was still not at the point of using the Antichrist label in public. By the time Luther did, he had arrived at all the factors that would figure into his stance on the papacy. And from that point, his position really did not change. Antichrist is no label to be tossed out lightly and is not used by Luther simply in anger but with an awareness of the theological implications he was making. Still, Luther would have preferred to be true to the Roman in Das Papsttum in der Diskussion, edited by Georg Denzler (Regensburg: Pustet, 1974): 73-101. A longer study, weighted more toward the earlier Luther and even-handed, is Scott H. Hendrix, Luther and the Papacy: Stages in a Reformation Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981).

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 417 church and papacy, even as he was thrust into the public eye at the center of controversy. The Ninety-five Theses, for example, were not so much hostile to indulgences and papacy but rather critical, at least taking what Luther put on paper at face value. He suggested a return to the much more limited role indulgences originally had.15 And Luther came to the defense of Rome in a backdoor way, noting that the excesses and abuses were compromising the papacy, as the claims made by the indulgence sellers and the money involved put the pope into a no-win position when it came to evangelical pastoral practice of forgiving sins. Of course, this backdoor help could also be a backhanded criticism, and those who leaped to Rome’s defense certainly realized that. When the theological faculty at Mainz offered its opinion to Mainz Albrecht (who had borrowed money to obtain that post and then promoted indulgences to raise funds to repay the loans) and to John Tetzel (Albrecht’s chief agent now under attack), the faculty understood the implications of what Luther had written. John Eck and Sylvester Prierias, two of Luther’s early antagonists, saw through this as well.16 The point: if Luther’s suggestions were implemented, if indulgences were recast and the papal efforts redirected when it came to how sins were forgiven, the papacy would be through as they knew it. Half a year before the controversy mushroomed, John Eck had struck up a relationship with Luther, and they seemed on good terms. But by fall things had soured, and Luther found himself targeted by Eck in his Obelisks. It was a clever title since the obelisk, a small dagger sign, was the mark scholars made in a book’s margins to flag passages deemed objectionable. It meant Eck had gone through Luther’s material, studied it, and found it wanting. Luther would reply with Asterisks, star- like marks indicating where things that had been omitted, overlooked, or needed to be referred to other material to get the point. As Luther put it to Eck, had things come to the point where one dared to set himself against the word of God? The pope was, admittedly, a human being who could err, but God was Himself the truth and could not err.17 The comment on the pope’s fallibility and the contrast drawn with God and God’s truth could not be any more obvious. Eck would make a note of Luther’s comment and use it at the 1519 . In tangling with Prierias, Luther added another angle. The decisions and decretals coming from Rome could not be accepted automatically but needed to be squared against the standard of the Scriptures.18 Still, Luther did not want to make Rome his chief target. He seemed honestly to think that if truth emerges, people would welcome it and make 15WA 1, 233-238. 16Erwin Iserloh, Johannes Eck (1486-1543): Scholastiker Humanist Kontroverstheologe (Münster: Aschendorff, 1981). Michael Tavuzzi, Prierias: The Life and Works of Silvestro Mazzolini da Prierio (1456-1527), Duke Monographs in Medieval and Renaissance Studies, vol. 16 (Durham: Duke University Press, 1997). 17WA 1, 306. 18WA 1, 655.

418 changes. In fact, Luther thought the papacy was owed honor and obedience, though there is a twist. Rather than base this on Matthew 16:18 (“You are Peter…”), Luther looked to Romans 13 where the powers that be rested on God’s law—but those were earthly powers with temporal rule.19 So the pope could serve well in given circumstances, but there clearly were limits. Papal power did not trump all. It did not reach beyond the grave to the dead (in indulgences bought for them). The early church knew nothing of this. More, papal power did not even reach everywhere in the church geographically speaking. The Eastern church had ignored Rome for generations. So while the papacy may prove most useful and even beneficial as it does its tasks in a God-pleasing fashion, it is hardly something the church could not live without. To say otherwise flies in the face of the higher authority of the divine Word. To say those things to the likes of Eck or Prierias was one thing. To stand by the position in the face of Cardinal Cajetan was another. Cajetan came as a papal legate, an ambassador with wide latitude to speak for the pope. In that age of non-instant communication, speaking to the legate was virtually like speaking to the pope who had sent him. So what did Luther say? In the course of debating the system of merits that Luther had questioned, Cajetan referred to Unigenitus, a 1343 papal bull from Clement VI, and claimed that this bull declared that Christ had won for us a treasury of merit (which then is tapped through indulgences). Luther refused to accept that unless it could be proved from the Scriptures. In other words, what the pope says does not matter unless Scripture says it as well.20 Popes must yield to Scripture. For the papacy to set itself up over against that teaching is to build a false kingdom. And, Luther offered, if Cajetan continued to defend such a false kingdom, one might wonder if he were truly a Christian. And if Cajetan truly represented the highest authority in Rome, said Luther, one also might wonder if the church were not being ruled by the Antichrist.21 The study Luther did after meeting Cajetan and in preparation for the Leipzig Debate did nothing to change his view. The pope as a human being was as fallible as the next person, and if he were to stand counter to what God has spoken (Scripture), then the pope should be resisted. In a March 1519 letter to Spalatin, Luther wondered whether it were not possible that the pope was the Antichrist or at least his apostle.22 At that point Luther had nearly finished gathering his thoughts on the papacy, especially as it related to the evangelical reform underway. The last move from “I wonder if” to “he is the Antichrist” came in Luther’s 1520 treatise On the Papacy of

19WA 1, 618. 20In addition, Cajetan got it wrong. The bull did not say that Christ won a separate treasury, but rather was our treasury. Luther, prompted to the study of history by the Renaissance humanists, knew that. He had looked up the text. 21WA-Briefwechsel 1, 270 (comment written to Wenzeslaus Linck on December 18). 22WA-Briefwechsel 1, 359 (March 13, 1519)

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 419 Rome against the Most Celebrated Romanist in Leipzig.23 The famous Romanist was Franciscan Augustinus von Alveld. Luther reiterated ideas he had advanced before, but in addition, despite the resistance he repeatedly encountered from Rome’s side, Luther offered that he could imagine a reformed papacy one could not refuse to follow. Of course, specific concessions, qualifications, and a reworking of Rome would be necessary in the end, especially support for the Gospel and acknowledgement of the papacy’s real status and role. But from Luther’s side, what stands out as most significant in this treatise addressed to Alveld is Luther’s conclusion that opposition to Rome is, properly speaking, about theology, not about personality or power or politics. When Luther wrote that the papacy was the Antichrist, now putting before the public in 1520 what he had suggested privately on occasion, Luther had arrived at this by way of theology. More precisely, this was the application of a theological concept within particular sixteenth-century circumstances. The theological points about the Antichrist—who he is, what he does, where he is to be found, why he is to be resisted—are all taken from the New Testament. That this applies to the papacy is Luther’s historical application of that theological concept of the Antichrist. In other words, a reader from any era could put together the profile from the New Testament texts. Luther did that well—and then he made a historical judgment or application of that theology when he saw the New Testament description mirrored in the papacy. The profile fit to a “t.” That, in turn, meant this was not an issue for negotiation as if Rome and Luther were two ends of a spectrum and some compromise might be found on a sliding scale in-between. Instead the im- age is a bulls-eye: either one hits dead center or misses. There were only two options. Either Rome continues as is, in which case Luther would have to concede he missed the mark, or Luther is correct in his assess- ment, and Rome would have to retool radically, abandoning its position. It is serious theology. But it is also crucial to remember that this is theology applied in certain historical circumstances. Could Rome change? Of course. Everything Luther had said to this point included that possibility. Would Rome change? That is another question. Luther prayed for that, but in his lifetime it was not to be. The rhetoric could run hot, but the door was always open. Luther’s battle with the papacy was never finally about the people in the office. Instead, it was a battle against a a false theology that led the church astray and a battle for the Gospel that gave life to the body of Christ. By 1520, Luther had rounded out his ideas on the papacy as Antichrist. Could he conceivably have changed them? Of course, not so much in terms

23WA 6, 285-324; translated in Luther’s Works (Philadelphia and St. Louis: Muhlenberg/ Fortress and Concordia, 1957- ), vol. 39, 49-104.

420 of the theological description drawn from the Scriptures but perhaps when it came to applying those to the papacy. That, in turn, would probably have happened only if Luther had seen signs of change from Rome, and those did not come. When Luther developed his position, Leo was pope in Rome and there was no thought of change. Three more popes followed in Luther’s lifetime, three very different men, but no change came. Adrian VI from Holland (the last non-Italian until John Paul II) may have been somewhat inclined toward reform—so some said—but he held office little more than a year (1522-1523) and hardly had time to do anything. One thing he did do gave little hope, however, for he pressed the 1522-1523 Nürnberg Diet to implement the 1521 Edict of Worms that had condemned Luther’s position so that the error could be rooted out. Adrian’s successor was Clement VII (1523-1534), another Medici who knew a lot about politics and nothing about theology, a disastrous combination at a delicate time when things might have gone differently had the papacy responded to issues raised by the Reformation. The last pope Luther knew was Paul III (1534-1549), a dramatic change from Clement. Paul, from the prominent Farnese, knew how the political games were played, yet did his best to focus instead on church reform. But this was reform as he conceived it. He talked about having a church council, but the Evangelicals doubted it would be an open forum. The plan was to meet in Mantua in 1537, but the council that eventually came was Trent. Paul also talked about other internal reforms and set up a blue-ribbon panel that in 1537 produced the Counsel…on Altering the Church. It was too little and misdirected for Luther, as he made plain with his published comments on the document.24 Yet while Paul’s efforts were disappointing, the door was still open, although realistically the possibility for change was fading as the years passed. In fact, it could be argued that Rome was the one to cut off discussion with the (1545-1563). Until then, Luther’s theology had been rejected, and Luther himself had been excommunicated, but bad as things were, there was still a chance to come together. Other theologians and their ideas had been rejected through history, only to be resurrected and even championed. is an example of this. But once Trent weighed in with the , things had gone beyond being condemned by learned individuals and spokesmen from Rome. Now, it was said, the church in assembly had spoken. Rome was no longer interested in talking. What was there to say? (Actually, some have hoped that Vatican II might provide an opening, not that all has changed, but perhaps some sort of beginning might be made.25) 24WA 50, 288-308; translated in LW 34, 231-267. 25That thesis was suggested in Daniel Olivier, Luther’s Faith: The Cause of the Gospel in the Church, trans. John Tonkin (St. Louis: Concordia, 1982). Olivier, a French Roman Catholic and Reformation scholar, is actually very open to Luther, arguing that his theology is catholic, that is, acceptable and orthodox and should have been given more of a hearing. But Trent cut off discussion, and only with Vatican II is there now a real chance to strike

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 421 The popes did nothing to give Luther reason to expect change, hope and pray as he might. All this had erupted publicly as part of the Ninety- five Theses debate over indulgences, and Luther made clear he had problems both with indulgences and with the authority Rome claimed. Despite the problems that came, Clement VII poured fuel on the fire with his proclamation of indulgences for the 1525 Year of Jubilee. It was for Luther that he was right about the pope acting as Antichrist with Clement caring more for the gold than the Gospel.26 And if popes did nothing to raise Luther’s hopes, he found no reason to change or expand his ideas on papacy, which he had summed up by 1520 with the treatise aimed at Alveld. The pitch of the rhetoric would rise, but the substance stayed the same. When talk of a council arose in the 1530s with Paul III, Luther undertook extensive study of the councils in the early church and came to some interesting conclusions that would bolster his stand on papacy. The Smalcald Articles reflected Luther’s expanded knowledge of papacy as it related to earlier church history. And he would find that the early church councils, when they held to their task, stood in contrast to papacy as Luther knew it in his own day. In 1539, in On the Councils and the Churches,27 Luther noted that councils were not some kind of continued revelation of the Spirit in the years after the New Testament texts as if councils had the same kind of Biblical authority in and of themselves. The Eastern church held that, and high claims of authority were used also in the West to give weight to conciliar decisions (even if they were not general, church-wide assemblies like Nicea, for example, but drew only from the West). But Luther shrewdly noted that those early church councils, Acts 15 included, did not create new theology or expand theology. On the contrary, their purpose was to prevent new theology from arising while asserting only what was already taught in the Scriptures, reflecting what God had revealed. So, for example, Arianism was new, an innovation to be resisted, while Augustine’s Trinitarianism

up meaningful contact again. Will Vatican II finally open a new ? Remember that Olivier wrote in1982. Some will have seen little new happening since then, while others know that change, especially within Rome, sometimes moves at glacial pace. Some argue that Vatican II has thrown open a window, while others even within Catholic ranks have claimed it has done little new though its language has been seized upon by some who would like to force change. From a pragmatic Lutheran vantage point perhaps the best is to ignore whether there is real change or not in Vatican II itself, but if some who have something to say from Rome’s side are willing to think that opening is there and honestly offer, then use the opportunity to see if issues raised long ago by the Reformation have any better reception today. Some in the New Catholic approach to Reformation theology think Luther has a place. What else is included or involved? That would seem worth finding out. Remember, Luther’s judgment about pope as Antichrist is theology applied in his historical circumstances. The Lutheran Confessions themselves at least allow that those circumstances may change. People pray and work for that for the sake of the clear proclamation of the Gospel. 26Luther published Clement’s bulls on the indulgences with marginal comments added. WA 18, 255-269. 27WA 50, 509-653; translated in LW 41, 3-178.

422 was what Scripture taught. Give me that old-time religion, they might have sung. What does that have to do with the papacy? It means the papacy also should be saying nothing new but rather should reflect the Scriptures, finding ways to engage that Word in contemporary circumstances. Instead, Luther argued, Rome innovated and expanded—indulgences as one example—which is just what the councils were out to prevent. In effect, early church history bolstered Luther’s position on Rome. Properly speaking, the pope, like any clergy servant, should not be offering his wisdom but rather what God says. That does not reduce clerical speech to simple Bible-quoting (though there’s nothing wrong with Bible verses!), but rather it expects theology to be done, that is, the Word to be connected with life as God sets it before us. But Rome put much more into the idea of being the substitute—vicar—of Christ, a claim Luther rejected. By its claim and conduct, Rome in effect had put itself out of the church, at least, said Luther, if the approach of those first church councils is correct.28 Against Jack Sausage from 1541 echoes Luther’s criticism of Rome as an improper innovator.29 There is the true church (the body of Christ, the believers) and a new church (what Rome has fostered). And it is not simply new but the devil’s doing, Luther argued.30 No wonder, since the papacy was also the Satan’s doing: Against the Papacy of Rome, Established by the Devil.31 Luther has come a long way from those first efforts to raise objections to the papacy, not in terms of the theological points but in terms of his sharp language. A new twist came by adding Lucas Cranach’s illustrations that were both clever and scatalogical. Perhaps the shock value would jump-start a change. These are just some of the better known texts that show Luther’s ideas and just the basic outline of his arguments. Many more references can be found as Luther dealt also with fine points of particular documents and arguments that came from Rome over the years. But through it all, some basics emerge. First, Luther is consistent in his position. He will expand and fill out his ideas, especially early on, but he does not radically alter his focus. The papacy, by promoting itself and its ideas rather than hold to the Word and serve the people with the Gospel, has become the agent not of God but of Satan, an opponent of Christ. Second, there is no middle ground, no half-way solution. Either Rome as it stood or the Gospel would hold sway. Ideally, Rome would come to represent the pure Gospel.

28WA 50, 512. 29WA 51, 469-572; translated in LW 41, 179-256. 30WA 51, 494. 31WA 54, 206-299; translated in LW 41, 257-376. See Rolf Decot, “Die Entstehung des Papsttums: Martin Luther’s historische Sicht in seiner Schrift ‘Wider das Papsttum zu Rom, vom Teufel gestiftet’ (1545),” in Deutschland und Europa in der Neuzeit: Festschrift für Karl Otmar Freiherr von Aretin zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Ralph Melville, et al., Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz, Abteilung für Universalgeschichte, vol. 134, part 1 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1988), 133-154.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 423 Third, Luther’s opposition is not personal, not aimed at any individual but at the office. True, the person carries out the office, but there is also a place for repentance, a change of heart for that person. And that, hoping against the immediate evidence at hand, might actually prompt the person to try to change the nature of the institution. That leads to the fourth and final point. Luther’s position combines theological insight from the Scriptures with a historical judgment Luther made in identifying papacy with Antichrist. There is nothing in Luther to argue that the papacy, once it is identified as Antichrist, is somehow fixed or frozen as such for all time. Calls for change presume that can happen. Never say never, but also realize what that would entail for Rome, namely, a change that would effectively end papacy as Luther knew it. Did papacy stay that way and did Lutherans change their arguments? Actually, once the first wave of Reformation made its case and Trent had its say, little more was said from either side. Those subscribing to the Lutheran Confessions, especially the Smalcald Articles and the Tractatus, presumably agreed with what Luther (and Melanchthon) had said if their vows meant anything. But that also meant they understood how theology was formulated and applied.32 Some from the time of Orthodoxy seemed to expand the argument against Rome. Abraham Calov, for example, argued for Mohammed as an eastern Antichrist while the pope held sway in the West. With the millennium of Revelation 20 starting with Constantine, persecution would rise, and Mohammed would see to that in the East. Rome attacked the true faith in the West. The various stages of persecution culminated with the final era that began in 1517 when Luther showed the pope for what he really was. By his time, Calov saw an additional angle with the syncretists coming more from their own ranks—Calixt, for example—with their hope for some kind of reconciliation with Rome, though Calov thought they would have their reunion and reward in hell.33 But for the most part, the Lutheran Fathers such as Quenstedt simply stood firm with Luther, satisfied that he had unquestionably made the point with nothing more to be said even as Rome stood firm.34 As time passed, however, others within the watershed of historic

32On the Late Reformation’s view of Luther as champion against the false church, see Robert Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer, 1520-1620 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), especially chapter 3, “The German Prophet,” 75-101. 33Abraham Calov, Systematis Locorum Theologicorum (Wittenberg: Johannes Wilkius, 1678), 189-194. The pages are part of Calov’s locus “EKKLHSIOMETRIA” (ECCLESIOMETRIA). My thanks to graduate student Quentin Stewart for the references in this note and the next that make the connection to Calov and Quenstedt, two Lutheran Fathers and a couple of Quentin’s friends. 34Johann Quenstedt, Theologia didacto polemica, part 1, chapter 16, section 2, quest. 1, p. 528, cited in Adolf Hoenecke, Ev.-Luth. Dogmatik (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1909), vol. 4, 223: “Non autem dicimus, quaestionem hanc de antichristo esse talem, cujus decisio omnibus christianis ad salutem scitu sit necessaria, vel ignoratio per se damnabilis.”

424 Lutheranism found other channels apart from those set by Luther that were echoed in the next several generations. The Thirty Years War (1618- 48) unleashed such incredible destruction in the name (at least in part) of dogmatic distinctions that were lost on so many. In reaction, sought a change from what it saw as an overemphasis on dogma to a time where more attention would be paid to living out the Christian life. Some within both Lutheran and Roman Catholic ranks wanted to focus more on morality, on godly living than on dogmatic fine points. For them, the idea that the papacy was (still) the Antichrist did not help matters, and they preferred to take the issue off the table. Not all did this, of course. Jakob Spener, for example, acknowledged Luther’s point about Rome, but he preferred to avoid polemics. Some pietists who were more millennialist-inclined had other ways to apply Antichrist to the end times. And there were those who simply did not talk about the matter since such sharp doctrinal positions often stood in the way of relationships they wanted to build with others on the basis of heartfelt religion rather than confessional distinctions.35 The Enlightenment in German Lutheran lands was even less interested in defending Luther’s position on Rome. As another part of the backlash to the war, it had no place for doctrine that smacked of medieval superstition. Besides, the Antichrist was part of the end times, but they were at the dawn of a new age. The one aspect they could embrace was the idea that the papacy held undue power over hearts and minds. That deserved criticism, but not with Luther’s arguments. With tolerance as one of the watchwords of the Enlightenment, it had little patience for either the classical Lutheran opposition to Rome or Rome’s condemnation of the Lutherans. Neither was reasonable or modern.36 The nineteenth century saw renewed interest in the Lutheran Reformation’s position on the papacy. The Confessional Revival within Lutheranism gained momentum from such theologians as Claus Harm with his new Ninety-five Theses of 1817 aimed at the Enlightenment and the blurring of theological lines through the Prussian Union. Others added energy: Friedrich Stahl, a Berlin professor; Wilhelm Löhe, who guided misison and diaconate efforts from Bavaria that reached North America; August Vilmar, active in Hessen; Theodor Kliefoth and F. A. Philippi, who worked in Mecklenberg; and Ernst Hengstenberg, who argued hermeneutics in Berlin.37 They brought renewed emphasis to the Lutheran Confessions, an interest that would also spark study of Luther’s wider writings. And when they looked to Rome they saw a papacy worth criticizing—the sort epitomized by Pius IX with international ambitions

35Hans Preuß, Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im späteren Mittelalter, bei Luther und in der konfessionellen Polemik: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie Luthers und zur Geschichte der christlichen Frommigkeit (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1906), 261-264. 36Preuß, 264-266. 37Preuß, 267-274. Claude Welch, Protestant Thought in the Nineteenth Century, Volume 1: 1799-1870 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), 68ff., 194ff.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 425 and bolstered by claims of infallibility now made dogma. As the first council since Trent, Vatican I gave the Confessional Revival little to cheer. Others in the nineteenth century from the liberal theological wing also took a renewed interest in the papacy. Frederich Schleiermacher would see top-down papal authority and direction as a problem. For him, true religion was absolute dependence, and the expression of religion was the product of those who naturally gather to give common voice to that dependence. Popes ought not be determining what people believe—but then neither should some allegiance given to some historic document whose time may or may not have passed. And Albrecht Ritschl made the papacy a matter of controversy again. He challenged Rome both in terms of its soteriology that added to what Christ taught and its ecclesiology that undermined the communio sanctorum with its sacerdotalism and its insistence on the institution headed by the papacy.38 In the hands of modern German state-builders, Ritschl’s criticisms could be used to challenge Catholic influence and underscore protestant efforts in behalf of modern culture. More conservative Lutherans from the Confessional Revival would have their issues with Ritschl, but both found the papacy a problem. The way Luther was handled or ignored in the centuries after the Reformation invites one to return to Luther and take a second look. Many who followed thought his position was harsh, judgmental, not helpful, dogmatic, and any number of other adjectives that justify setting it aside. Some still echoed Luther. Did they get it right? It’s right when the simple basics come through, the reason Luther objected in the first place. His was a theological reason, a summary of what God had said about what would rise up to threaten the church. It was crucial to speak out and speak up for the Gospel. Those theological prin- ciples were applied in a historic situation where the shoe fit all too well, so to speak. There could always be hope for change, and Luther worked to- ward that. And for its part, Rome today understands that it can be its own worst enemy.39 But in the end, the challenge to effect change within the papacy was and is probably so great because the basics Luther saw are so simple and clear, the positions on both sides are so sharply defined, and there is so much at stake. To get beyond that is no easy task, but then things worth doing are seldom easy.

38David W. Lotz, Luther and Ritschl: A Fresh Perspective on Albrecht Ritschl’s Theology in the Light of His Luther Study (Nashville: Abingdon, 1974), 62-66. 39Acta apostolica sedis 59 (Rome, 1967): 498. Paul VI is quoted as saying he is fully aware that the papacy is the greatest hindrance to . Collections such as Jared Wicks, ed., Catholic Scholars Dialogue with Luther (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1970), focus on other theological issues—Lord’s Supper, Luther’s idea of faith, justification as seen in Galatians, etc.—but not papacy. Nothing more to say? Or does that rather infer that Luther had a point, even as many within Rome would argue that the papacy has changed. Certainly Luther has had an influence. One Catholic scholar, a friend as well, spent a semester’s lectures on Against the Papacy of Rome, Established by the Devil, arguing that Luther was right in calling the pope the Antichrist, though things have now changed. “After all,” he remarked, “I’m now less papist and much more catholic.”

426 Vatican II’s Conception of the Papacy: A Lutheran Response

Richard H. Warneck

Not the councils or conciliar action; surely not diocesan or parish prac- tices; not subject to reformulation; rather, the single monolithic entity in Roman Catholicism is the papacy! All parties who dialog with Rome must reckon with the papacy. Lutherans may well bear this in mind when they respond to Pope John Paul II’s , Ut Unum Sint. In three parts, this study will show that the powerful dominical posi- tion of the papacy prevails undiminished since the Second Vatican Council. The first part devotes attention to the papacy addressed by the documents of Vatican II.1 Then follows a sampling of views from Rome’s theologians who render their own appraisal of the papacy. With understanding acquired from the Second Council and Roman Catholic theologians, the study ven- tures to formulate a Lutheran response to the papacy, the final part of the effort.

I

The Second Vatican Council opened on October 11, 1962, in a spirit of aggiornamento, modernization, which embraced the institutions and life of the Church of Rome, beginning with the papacy itself. Pope John XXIII set a distinctive pastoral tone for the conclave and the Council fathers responded favorably. If dominus had been the papal image from Vatican I, then “servant” and “pastor” became the preferred appellatives for the pope at Vatican II. The office of bishop, particularly the bishop of Rome, evolved from the juridical concept of administrator to the pastoral office of “good shepherd…true father.”2 Vatican II emphasizes repeatedly the shepherd role assigned to the episcopate. The bishops, with the Roman Pontiff as head, undertake Christ’s own role as Teacher, Shepherd, and High Priest. This duty first committed by our Lord to the apostles, shepherds of His

1The documents are principally the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church , the on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church , and the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, but not overlooking the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum. 2Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church Christus Dominus, n. 73, in The Documents of Vatican II, ed. William M. Abbott (New York: Guild Press, 1966), 428 (hereafter, Abbott).

Dr. Richard H. Warneck is Professor of Practical Theology and Chairman of the Department of Practical Theology at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 427 people, is committed by the power of the sacrament of orders to the bish- ops who have succeeded to the place of the apostles as shepherds of the Church. Their “diakonia” or ministry (cf. Acts 1:17, 25; 21:19; Rom. 11:13; 1 Tim. 1:12) is the daily care of their sheep, also those who are not yet of this one flock, thus following the example of the Good Shepherd (cf. Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; esp. John 10:11).3 The articles describing bishops as shepherds project a distinctive pas- toral image for the bishop of Rome. The council documents thereby at- tempt to cast in new garb both papal authority and the foundational con- cept, Petrine primacy. Have they succeeded? Not entirely. Numerous state- ments repeatedly emphasize the core assertions about papal primacy con- tained in this passage from the Decree on Ecumenism:

In order to establish this holy Church of His everywhere in the world until the end of time, Christ entrusted to the College of the Twelve the task of teaching, ruling, and sanctifying (cf. Mt. 28:18- 20, in conjunction with Jn. 20:21-23). Among their number He chose Peter. After Peter’s profession of faith, He decreed that on him He would build His Church; to Peter He promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Mt. 16:19, in conjunction with Mt. 18:18). After Peter’s profession of love, Christ entrusted all His sheep to him be confirmed in faith (cf. Lk. 22:23) and shepherded in perfect unity (cf. Jn. 21:15-17).4

Though couched in terms of Biblical theology, this statement is dominical and even juridical in tone, not unlike papal primacy taught by Vatican I and strikingly similar to this statement from the Council of , 1438- 1445:

We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church; just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.5

3Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 20, 24. In Abbott, 40 and 47. Cf. also parts 21, 27, and 28. 4Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, 2 (Abbott, 344). 5Denzinger, Henry. The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 30th ed., trans. Roy J. Defarrari. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1957, 220 (hereafter, Denzinger).

428 Petrine primacy and the scope and power of papal jurisdiction were stated clearly at Florence. Vatican I affirmed these assertions which bind all Chris- tians in subordination to the Roman Pontiff as a duty of obedience, not only in the things pertaining to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the church. The binding na- ture of the decree on primacy is sealed by these words from the First Council: “This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.”6 The Fathers at Vatican II upheld Petrine primacy and papal authority asserted in the canons of earlier councils. But they did so in the light of Lumen Gentium which frames the papacy anew as “servant” in the church, not dominating the same. Therefore, primacy is complemented by exten- sive treatment of collegiality, the pope and the bishops. But elevation of the Roman Pontiff is unmistakable. The episcopal order, though accorded supreme and full power over the universal church, is subject to that pri- mal authority which the papacy possesses by virtue of Petrine origins. The Second Council was about the church not the papacy according to Father Avery Dulles. Nevertheless these words from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church indicate that the papacy is central:

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is simultaneously conceived in terms of its head, the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and without any lessening of his power or pri- macy over all, pastors as well as the general faithful. For in virtue of his office, that is, as the Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme, and universal power over the Church. And he can always exercise this power freely.7

The episcopate exercises authority through an ecumenical council. How- ever, a council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least ac- cepted as such by the successor of Peter.8 The caveat is obvious. Collegial- ity notwithstanding, overarching authority within the magisterium is pa- pal authority. And the papacy is foundational for ecclesiology espoused by Vatican II. At every opportunity, the council Fathers set forth the New Testament doctrine of the church. The opening chapters of Lumen Gentium discuss the mystical body of Christ as the people of God in order to focus on the human and communal side of the church, rather than on the institutional and hierarchical aspects, which have sometimes been overstressed in the past for polemical reasons.9 Yet those very institutional and hierarchical

6First Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution I on the Church of Christ, in Denzinger, no. 1827, 454. See nos. 1824 through 1827, 453-454. 7Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 22 (Abbott, 43). 8Ibid., 44. 9Ibid., n. 27, 24.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 429 aspects surface continually. The church is spoken of variously as Christ’s body, as Mystery, as sacrament in the world akin to the Incarnation. Also essential to the church as a society, the visible “sign and instrument” of grace which unites men supernaturally to God, is the governance of the papacy!10 The Second Council states clearly, the church of Christ confessed in the Creed as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, the church handed to Peter by the risen Lord in order that the apostle and others with him might propagate and govern her (John 21:17; cf. Matt. 28:18ff.), is today the church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsisting in the Catholic Church which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in union with that successor.11 Paying serious attention to the New Testament doctrine, the Second Council dispels primitive notions that the church emanated from and is defined by the pope. But the documents are less than convincing to many that a fresh ecclesiology evolved from the Council, one that is inclusive of the laity and mindful of the human and communal aspects of the church. Hierarchical and juridical aspects pre- vail. Like threads woven throughout the discussions, Petrine primacy and papal authority ultimately dominate. As with ecclesiology, the papacy is pivotal for the church’s understand- ing of unity. The Second Council is clear. At the core, unity is Christological. In the beginning, God made human nature one. After His children were scattered, He decreed that they should at length be unified again (cf. John 11:52). For this reason, states the Constitution on the Church, God sent His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things (cf. Heb. 1:2), that He might be Teacher, King, and Priest of all, the Head of the new and universal people of the sons of God. For this God finally sent His Son’s Spirit as Lord and Lifegiver.12 Furthermore, the Decree on Ecumenism extols the means whereby Christ perfects His people’s fellowship in unity—through preach- ing of the gospel by the apostles and their successors with Peter’s succes- sor as their head, through their administration of the sacraments, and through their loving exercise of authority. By these means Jesus makes His people to increase under the influence of the Holy Spirit.13 Beyond this Christological matrix, unity is like an ever expanding circle that embraces within the church all who would be saved. As the circle expands, it becomes more ecclesiastical, and the papacy is more pivotal.

10Ibid., 22-23. See Abbott, n. 23, 23. 11Ibid., 22-23. The church of Christ here is the community of faith, a visible structure. 12Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 13 (Abbott, 30-31). Through- out the decades of his pontificate, Pope John Paul II has devoted energies toward fulfill- ment of our Lord’s wish for His people, “…that they may be one” (John17:21). This unity, according to the Pope, stands at the very heart of Christ’s mission. Jesus would die in order to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad (John 11:51-52). By the cross He brought about unity in place of what was divided (cf. Eph. 2:14-16). See John Paul II, “Ut Unum Sint,” in The of John Paul II, ed. J. Michael Miller (Hun- tington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1996), 917-919. 13Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, 2 (Abbott, 344).

430 Christ is the Mediator and unique Way of salvation. But He affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), and therefore He affirmed also the necessity of the church, i.e., the church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Reminiscent of the old axiom, extra ecclesiam non salus est, are these words, “Whosoever, there- fore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved.”14 And those who enter, submit to papal authority according to these words of the Constitution:

They are fully incorporated into the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and through union with her visible structure are joined to Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops.15

The bonds effecting unity with the church—profession of faith, the sacra- ments, communion—include ecclesiastical government. Wherever the people of God are scattered, the foundation and the perpetual and visible source of the unity of this multitude of the faithful, is the Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter.16 Expanding ever wider, the circle of unity em- braces and includes the “separated brethren” who are divided from the Roman Church. Ultimately it embraces the whole of mankind. Foremost among the separated ones are the Eastern Churches. The Second Council honored these churches and permitted them to retain their rites (liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage). But the Council also en- trusted them to the pastoral guidance of the Roman Pontiff, “…the di- vinely appointed successor of Peter in supreme governance over the uni- versal Church.”17 Papal authority is a unifying principle also within the episcopate, the . As successors of the apostles the bishops are linked with one another and with the Bishop of Rome by the bonds of unity, char- ity, and peace.18 This is collegiality, by every estimate an ancient concept, but one which received primary consideration at Vatican II. Collegiality originates with Christ who formed the apostles after the manner of a col- lege or a fixed group, over which He places Peter, chosen from among them (cf. Luke 6:13; John 21:15-17). A perception evolved that the prin- ciple of collegiality set forth by the Second Council decentralized authority

14Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 14 (Abbott, 32-33). 15Ibid. 16Ibid., 23 (Abbott, 44). 17Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches , 3 (Abbott, 374). This Decree acknowledges the dignity of the Eastern Churches. At the same time, it gently reminds all that they are accountable ultimately to the Roman Pontiff. 18Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 22 (Abbott, 42-44).

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 431 within the magisterium and accorded the bishops some amount of inde- pendence. This perception undoubtedly prompted Albert Outler to remark, “No one has any longer to choose between the primacy of the Petrine Office and the authority of the episcopal college.”19 Perceived independence and distributive authority among the bishops is weighed against the Second Council’s emphasis on papal authority within the episcopate. Certainly the bishops are not merely “vicars” of the Roman Pontiff. For they exercise an authority which is proper to them, and they are quite correctly called “prelates,” the leaders of the people they govern. Furthermore, their territorial oversight—teaching and governing—is supplemented by a collegial responsibility for the universal church.20 The governance exercised by the bishops is from Christ, and comes to them through episcopal consecration in the sacred orders, not as designees of the pope. That Vatican II affirms the title, “Vicar of Christ,” ascribed to the pope, does not deny that all bishops are in some sense Christ’s vicars or ambassadors.21 The Second Council is clear about these themes which rep- resent an advancement over Vatican I. Yet the reality is that collegiality according to Vatican II must still be viewed in relation to papal authority. The Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church reminds all that, “Sharing in solicitude for all the churches, bishops exercise this episcopal office of theirs…with and under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff.”22 The episcopate itself enjoys unity as a body only in relation to the papacy and under papal authority. The Constitution reads:

He [Christ] placed blessed Peter over the other apostles, and insti- tuted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and fellowship. And all this teaching about the insti- tution, the perpetuity, the force and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible teaching authority, this sacred Synod again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faith- ful.23

The comment made by Bishop Manuel Larrain of Chile is understandable:

19Albert C. Outler, “Response to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium” (Abbott, 104). 20Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church Christus Dominus, 6 (Abbott, 400). 21Abbott, n. 70, 38. 22Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church Christus Dominus, 3 (Abbott, 397). Elsewhere, the Decree reads: “The individual bishops, to each of whom the care of a particular church has been entrusted, are, under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, the proper, ordinary, and immediate pastors of these churches” (Ibid., 11) (Abbott, 403). For a discussion of the different levels of authority within the magisterium, see the Preface to Christus Dominus, n. 4 (Abbott, 397). 23Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 18 (Abbott, 38).

432 “The more you affirm collegiality, so much the more do you exalt the im- portance of the head of the college, who is the Roman Pontiff.”24 Papal primacy and authority are frequently linked with papal infalli- bility. This may lead to misunderstanding because infallibility is a property of the church, though assigned individually to the pope. Jacques von Allmen may be correct in his assessment that Lumen Gentium does not put the weight of its theology concerning the papacy so much on the infallibility as it does on the primacy.25 Nevertheless the Second Council treats exhaus- tively infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His church to be endowed in defining a doctrine of faith and morals. Of papal infallibility, the Council teaches:

This is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the su- preme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (cf. Lk. 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.26

The Second Council is careful to note that any claim to infallibility for papal statements is made in reference to divine revelation. Infallibility extends as far as extends the deposit of divine revelation, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.27 In this regard we note how special care is taken that no one may assume such pronouncements are themselves new revelations. Such a notion is dispelled with this explana- tion:

The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in conformity with their duty and as befits the gravity of the matter, strive painstakingly and by appropriate means to inquire properly into that revelation [reli- giously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church, as writ- ten or preserved by tradition, under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth] and to give apt expression to its contents. But they do not accept any new public revelation as part of the divine deposit of faith.28

24Abbott, n. 18, 399. 25Jacques von Allmen, “Remarks Concerning the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church Lumen Gentium,” trans. Hughes Oliphant Old, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 4 (Winter 1967): 669, n. 59. 26Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 25 (Abbott, 48-49). Vatican I ascribes infallibility to the pope speaking ex cathedra. For a comparison of the two councils regarding papal infallibility, see also First Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution I on the Church of Christ, 1839 (Denzinger, 457). 27Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 25 (Abbott, 48). See espe- cially the explanatory note 122 (Abbott, 48). 28Ibid. (Abbott, 49-50).

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 433 In the minds of many, a special difficulty arises when papal pronounce- ments do not cohere with the deposit. The Marian dogmas prove most difficult. They are the encyclical of Pius IX, , defining the dogma of the in 1854, and , the papal bull of Pius XII promulgated ex cathedra in the Marian Year of 1950, defining the dogma of Mary’s assumption body and soul into heaven. Since neither Marian dogma has direct support from the New Testament, their relationship to the deposit of revelation has proven to be problem- atic. More troublesome is that numerous papal pronouncements not spo- ken ex cathedra have taken on the status of infallibility. After Vatican I, certain writers, perhaps also teachers, proposed that the pope was infal- lible also in his ordinary magisterium, i.e., in his regular teaching through , letters, encyclicals, etc. Not every papal saying bears the stamp of infallibility, but all pronouncements made by the pope are authoritative, requiring the assent of clergy and laity alike in the Catholic Church.29 Infal- libility is a gift to the church, according to Catholic teaching. But this gift is popularly thought to be localized with the papacy, lending support to the notion that the papacy is indeed the monolithic entity in Roman Catholi- cism.

II

Twentieth-century Roman Catholic theologians were aware that the style and image of the papacy prior to Vatican II had been shaped by the , 1869-1870. A century later, the Second Council pro- jected the papacy as more pastoral, collegial, the “teacher and evangelist of culture,” a role that retrieves the New Testament task of Peter “to strengthen the brethren.”30 This “new” papacy was welcomed by the theo- logians. They were comfortable with the papacy defined by Vatican II: more pastoral, mission minded, and evangelical. In their vocal commentary, the theologians applied to the papacy aggiornamento, modernization. Though generally positive, some reflections and commentary of the theologians were viewed as controversial. What came to an end with Vatican II, according to George Weigel, was the so-called “Constantinian arrangement,” the notion that the church’s truth claims and public position required the buttressing of something like Christendom.31 In his works, The Church and Structures of the Church, Hans Küng was frank to admit the difficulties which attend establishment of a monarchical bishopric of Rome, even assuming that there was a Petrine

29For an extended and informative discussion of the Second Council’s teaching on infallibility and authority, see Gregory Baum, “Doctrinal Renewal,” Journal of Ecumeni- cal Studies 2 (Winter 1965): 365-381. 30“The Future of the Papacy.” Symposium, in First Things 11 (March 2001): 28. 31Ibid., 20.

434 primacy for it to succeed to. Avery Dulles posed the question whether there could be some modification of the doctrine of papal primacy without conflicting with the claim of divine institution for the papacy. He set about to reinterpret three of the key assertions of Vatican I: the divine institu- tion of the papal office, the pope’s primacy of jurisdiction, and his infallibility.32Dulles and others reacted strongly to papal primacy framed by dogmatic treatment of the subject in the schools and seminaries. A sampling from Ludwig Ott’s, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, is illustra- tive:

The primacy of jurisdiction consists in the possession of full and supreme legislative, juridical and punitive power…Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible Head of the Whole Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to the primacy of jurisdiction.33

For Weigel, Küng, Dulles, and others, papal primacy had to shed the hier- archical clothing of Roman imperialism and reclaim likeness to the Petrine ministry in the spirit of the Gospel. The theologians were intent on follow- ing the lead of the Second Council, exhibiting papal primacy in the light of the Petrine Office modeled after Christ Himself, a ministry in the Church. On this basis, papal authority can be reconfigured in the Church, not over the Church. The essential Petrine ministry, the theologians aver, will be concerned, not with rights and authority and power, but with ministry to the brethren (cf. Matt. 23:8).The special ministry of the Petrine office is the ministry of strengthening the faith, of charity, and of pastoral care for the unity of the church.34 The test for what Avery Dulles called “a renewed papacy” in terms of the Petrine Office modeled after Christ, must be collegiality, the divine right of the papacy with which the divine right of the episcopate must finally be reconciled. For Gregory Baum, treatment of the episcopate in chapter three of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church is the core achievement of Vatican Council II. He was confident in 1965 that this ar- ticle would initiate structural and governmental reform of the entire Catho- lic Church.35 Reactions among other theologians and the bishops were mixed. For instance, mused, how could the bishops’ collegial- ity and the pastoral implications become obscured and all but forgotten for

32Avery Dulles, The Resilient Church: The Necessity and Limits of Adaptation (Gar- den City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977), 115-116ff. 33Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Com- pany, 1954), 277. 34Hans Küng, Structures of the Church, trans. Salvator Attanasio (New York: Tho- mas Nelson & Sons, 1964), 227-228. 35Gregory Baum, “The Constitution on the Church,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 2 (Winter 1965): 11.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 435 fifteen centuries?36 Others expressed suspicion that the notion of collegial- ity posed a threat to papal primacy. A large group remained skeptical about how the new fraternalism would develop. Many desired more full and com- plete sharing of authority because, in their view, the pope is by sacramen- tal orders one among the others in the college of the apostles as their successors. Frustrating for some was the motu-proprio of Paul VI, Sep- tember 15, 1965. The pope’s invitation to a worldwide Episcopal Synod seemed to be a deliberate preemptive initiative that was more in the older imperial style. The circumstances seemed ripe for feisty journalists like Ludwig Kaufmann who later reflected cynically that few bishops were able to discern whether the proposed synod would be a collegium of bishops or a consilium to the pope. Since the Second Council, collegiality has under- gone scrutiny and testing.37 The more acute issue for post-Vatican II theologians was not collegial- ity, but infallibility. The meaning of papal infallibility especially with refer- ence to its limitations was prone to various interpretations. The theolo- gians raised a vast array of questions about infallibility which congeal around three critical issues:

1. A static view of divine revelation expressed in propositional state- ment has given way to revised notions of disclosure, a continuous ongoing dynamic work of the Holy Spirit. In light of these new perceptions of revelation, should the church always be bound to earlier promulgations by the Vatican, especially if one or another of these pronouncements are later found to be in error?

2. When the church finds herself in the midst of changes—history, culture, situation—and the adequacy of doctrinal formulations must necessarily be reconsidered, even reinterpreted and reformulated, how shall a doctrine like papal infallibility be understood today?

3. Is it possible for the church in the present age to affirm a doctrine (in this instance infallibility) with meanings other than the assumed understandings at the time when the doctrine or dogma was first advanced by the Vatican?

For all the questions put by Catholic theologians, we are impressed that infallibility is not an option for them. Lutherans and Protestants hardly comprehend this fact. One may be a Christian and remain indifferent to infallibility, but a Catholic Christian will not be so. Richard McBrien was

36Paul J. Hallinan, “Bishops,” Introduction to the Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church Christus Dominus (Abbott, 392). 37For a somewhat imbalanced yet interesting discussion of collegiality three decades after the Second Council, see the essays gathered in the 1990 edition of Concilium, titled, Collegiality Put to the Test, ed. James Provost and Knut Walf (Philadelphia: Trinity International Press, 1990).

436 bold or foolish to suggest that affirmation of papal infallibility is not essen- tial to the Catholic understanding of the church. But he acknowledges, what bothers many theologians, even , is the question: What is the basis of Catholic identity if it is not belief in the infallibility of the pope?38 If the theologians are the real and essential teachers of the bish- ops, as Rahner has suggested, they have an obligation to interpret or rein- terpret the doctrine of infallibility, the affirmation of which is for Catholic Christians a criterion of fidelity to God’s Word itself.39 For the congregations and their priests, Gregory Baum explains clearly the infallibility doctrine. According to , promulgated by the First Vatican Council in 1870, the pope’s definitions are infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he speaks as supreme teacher, when he uses his apostolic authority, and when he teaches on faith and morals.40 The phrase faith and morals should not be reduced to signify a general reference to human wisdom for man’s moral existence. Baum explains that faith and morals suggests two areas: first, the proclamation of the Gospel, i.e., credenda, things to be believed, and facienda, things to be done; and second, the defense and explanation of the Gospel.41 Further- more, as stated above, faith and morals, according to Vatican II, extends as far as extends the deposit of divine revelation, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.42 The latter phrase is generally under- stood as a reference to the so-called “secondary” object of infallibility, i.e., truths which are not formally revealed but which are judged necessary for the defense or correct explanation of the contents of revelation itself.43 Commending basic understandings to the church, theologians includ- ing Baum extend their interpretations of infallibility far beyond classic definitions. In the early 1970s, a debate over infallibility ensued when Hans Küng published his work, Infallibile? An Inquiry. Küng argued that Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humana Vitae, with its stated prohibition of contra- ception, was a significant error of the Catholic Church, demanding that the entire question of infallibility be raised.44 The theologians, Harry J. McSorley for one, judged that Küng had gone too far, that he used papal

38The Infallibility Debate, ed. John J. Kirvan (New York: Paulist Press, 1971), 41. 39Gregory Baum, “Teaching Authority of Vatican II,” Ecumenist 3 no. 6 (September- October 1965): 91. 40Gregory Baum, “Doctrinal Renewal,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 2 (Winter 1965): 367. 41Ibid., 369. 42Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 25 (Abbott, 48). 43Abbott, 48, n. 122. 44Gregory Baum, writing in The Infallibility Debate, ed. John J. Kirvan (New York: Paulist Press, 1971), 3. The lines of this debate are set forth clearly in this work contain- ing untitled essays by Gregory Baum, Richard P. McBrien, Harry J. McSorley, and George Lindbeck. For a brief and succinct summary of the debate, see, “Hans Küng’s Infallible? An Inquiry: A Symposium,” America 124, no. 16 (April 24, 1971): 427-433. The theolo- gians writing critical reviews of Küng’s book are Avery Dulles, Michael A. Fahey, and George Lindbeck.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 437 infallibility as a straw man for the real culprit, papal absolutism. Karl Rahner’s animated response to Küng’s assertions, the latter’s response, followed by Rahner’s more settled assessment, is a debate familiar in Catho- lic circles. Gregory Baum lets the reader in on the conversation between these two German theologians. Rahner, according to Baum, mistakenly supposed that Küng was saying that all dogmas are wrong. As Baum ex- plains, Küng was only prodding the church to face up to errors in its pro- nouncements, but not to give up on infallibility. In spite of mistakes, the church communicates the Gospel without fail. Küng calls this the indefec- tibility of the church.This means that the Spirit of the Lord will so abide with the church throughout its life that, over the long run of history, it will not fall from fidelity to Christ or to His Gospel.45 But questions press for clear answers. Is reformulation of dogma com- patible with the church’s indefectibility, inasmuch as the Gospel is still communicated? Is infallibility subject to reinterpretation and even refor- mulation? Reflecting on these kinds of questions, Baum believes that doc- trine is not a corpus of truth distilled from a fixed time in the past and then poured into new vessels. Doctrine expresses man’s concrete, historical relationship to the divine present in history.46 He inquires, “How can the Church reinterpret her dogma without changing the Gospel? How can we preserve the self-identity of God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ as we reformulate the symbols in which we proclaim it?”47 The assumption is that the Gospel need not be communicated singularly in a propositional, uni-valued mode typically associated with infallible pronouncements, but in ways compatible with the church’s present salvational situation.48 There- fore Baum redefines infallibility as the gift of reinterpretation of the Gos- pel for this age of the church’s present experience. She protects the self- identity of the Gospel by formulating it anew when the spirituo-cultural conditions of life demand it.49 Papal infallibility undergoes reinterpretation and redefinition by means of a hermeneutic decidedly situational and progressive. Avery Dulles uses this hermeneutic deftly on infallibility.He observes that the time worn axiom, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, (outside the church there is no salva- tion), harshly executed in the past, dating back to the Middle Ages, is countered by an inference of the Second Council that there is plentiful salvation outside the church.50 The notion that outside the church there is no salvation had to be changed because in the mental and social structures

45Gregory Baum, untitled essay in The Infallibility Debate, ed. John J. Kirvan, (New York: Paulist Press, 1971), 2-6, 47. 46Ibid., 28. 47Ibid. 48Ibid., 8. 49Ibid., 29-30. 50See, Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate, 2 (Abbott, 662); also the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 16 (Abbott, 35).

438 of the contemporary world there is no longer room for an exclusivist con- cept of the church as the society of the saved. Similarly, papal infallibility does not bear the mark of “irreformable.” Dulles explains, “When men acquire new cultural conditioning and mental horizons, they have to re- conceptualize their dogmas from their present point of view.”51 This sug- gests that Vatican I’s dogma of infallibility may be viewed as a time-condi- tioned response to the situation of Roman Catholicism in Europe in the second half of the nineteenth century. Like other dogmas, it is subject to reinterpretation in accordance with the presuppositions, thought catego- ries, concerns, and vocabulary of a later age.52 Dulles arrives at the conclu- sion, “Without contradicting Vatican I’s teaching on infallibility, therefore, one may admit that all papal and conciliar dogmas, including the dogma of papal infallibility, are subject to ongoing reinterpretation in the Church.”53

III

Vatican II framed the papacy for our time in the light of previous councils. Since the Second Council, Rome’s theologians appraised that framing. And how does Lutheran theology respond to the papacy in our time? Fr. Yves Congar is reported to have said that the 20th of November, 1962 definitely marked the close of the Counter-Reformation. If this obser- vation is true, Lutherans breathe a sigh of relief. The Swiss Reformed theologian, Jean Jacques von Allmen, made a similar remark when he stated that the Second Council signifies also the end of the Reformation, at least as it was expressed in the sixteenth century. Confessional Lutherans are uncomfortable with this remark. How can today’s progeny of the Lutheran Reformation recognize the bishop of Rome as supreme teacher of the church universal? Two things are apparent. First, Lutherans com- prehend that dialog with Rome—topics such as revelation, Scripture and tradition, authority, the Sacraments, church and ministry, , Mary, the saints, etc.—must begin by reckoning with the papacy, i.e., papal pri- macy and authority. Second, for many Lutherans, “back to Rome” is a euphemism for “back to the pope.” In one of the essays from Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue, Lutheran theologian Fred Kramer notes two canons from Vatican I which placed government of the churches squarely into the hands of the Roman Pontiff. These canons are still in force.54 Vatican II reconfirms primal papal authority.

51Avery Dulles, The Survival of Dogma (Garden City, NY: Image Books, A Division of Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1971), 165. 52Avery Dulles, The Resilient Church, 54. 53Ibid., 125. 54Fred Kramer, “A Lutheran Understanding of Papal Primacy,” in Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V, Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, ed. Paul C. Empie and T. Austin Murphy (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), 127-129.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 439 Will the encyclical of Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, succeed in alleviating Lutheran concerns over papal authority? If the Vatican is seri- ous about reaching these “separated brethren,” Lutherans should urge the pope to be persuasive about Rome’s confession of the Gospel. The is- sue is the Gospel! The sixteenth-century Lutheran confessors cared little about matters of church polity. They were even willing to grant papal au- thority, de iure humano.55 But, a papacy claiming to be head of the church de iure divino troubled Luther and his followers, principally because on numerous counts they viewed the institution and its head inimical to the Gospel of Christ.56 Thus, the Lutheran confessors applied the term antichrist (1 Thess. 2) to the papacy. This is not to gainsay Rome’s claim to the de- posit, the Gospel. Vatican II documents contain many passages exalting Christ as chief Shepherd of the Church. In his post-Vatican II review of the Second Council’s proceedings, the Lutheran pastor and theologian, James Manz, celebrated the attention given to valid Christian Baptism, the Sac- rament of the , and preaching of the Gospel in the churches as well as the general allegiance by clergy and laity alike to “the faith which was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).”57 Yet, to all appearances the Church of Rome as a visible institution, posing as the essential means to salvation, overshadows the clear Gospel of the New Testament.58The Roman Pontiff is pivotal here. Lutherans reading the documents of Vatican II are painfully aware of the major rift between Rome and Lutheran theology.And this separation is distinctive in light of the present subject. The papacy is central in the Roman Church to a point that it has become the fundamental, integrative principle in Catholic theology, in worship and practice, and in the ministry

55In the opening paragraphs of The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther responds to Eck and Emser who had undertaken to instruct him concerning the primacy of the pope. Luther stated, “For while I denied the divine authority of the papacy, I still admitted its human authority.” See Luther’s Works, American Edition 36, 12 (hereafter, AE). Melanchthon would grant the pope to be superior to bishops by human law, if the pope would admit the Gospel. See Die Bekenntnissschriften der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche. 4 durchgesehene Auflage (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 463-464. 56For a Lutheran response to Petrine primacy and papal authority (cf. part I of this study), see Martin Luther, Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. In The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 330ff. (hereafter, KW). See Philip Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, VII and VIII, 23-24 (KW, 178); Luther, Smalcald Articles II, iv., 3, 4, 13 (KW, 307-309). For a discussion of the Keys belonging to the Church rather than singularly to Peter and his successors, see C. F. W. Walther, The Congregation’s Right to Choose Its Pastor, trans. Fred Kramer. Preface and Questions by Wilbert Rosin, ed. (Ft. Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary), 23-48. Cf. William Dallmann, How Peter Became Pope (St. Louis: Concordia, 1931). For literature on the Petrine question, see Hans Küng, The Church (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967), n. 60, 455. 57James Manz, Vatican II, Renewal or Reform (St. Louis: Concordia, 1966), 13. 58The Vatican declaration, On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ , September 5, 2000, asserts that the Roman Catholic Church is the only “instrument for the salvation of all humanity.”

440 in the church. Lutheran theology is clearly at odds with this Catholic prin- ciple. For confessing Lutherans, the one doctrine central to all teaching and practice and life in the church is the sinner’s justification before God purely on terms of His grace in Christ Jesus, then faith in Him, without works or merit of the sinner contributing in any way to justification. This cardinal doctrine is frequently stated: “A sinner is justified [saved] by grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith.”59 To repeat, the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith is the one integrative principle in Lutheran theology, worship and practice, and in the church’s ministry!60 Rome does not agree with this principle. Many strides were made in Lutheran-Catho- lic discussions leading to the document, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, 1999. But the for Promoting Christian Unity would go no further than to say that “the doctrine of justification is an indispensable criterion.”61 They would not affirm with Lutherans that justification is the central and integrative principle. Hans Küng may be correct in his estimate that the papacy itself, its very existence, divides Catholics and Protestants. For Lutherans, however, the chief concern is not the papacy but how the doctrine of justification, the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae, is essentially marginalized by Rome. Moreover, the doc- trine of justification, is at core the causis controversiae, the substantive reason for debate with Rome as far as numerous topics in Christian theol- ogy are concerned, including the papacy. To underscore the centrality of the doctrine of justification, Robert Preus summarizes, “But the article of justification serves not only to assess doctrine and practice in the church. It is the focal point and backbone, as it were, of the entire corpus doctrinae. And it is the basis of the Christian religion and life, for it is the very es- sence of the Gospel itself.”62 Then he cites Luther who judges that should this central doctrine ever be abandoned, or for any reason perverted, or in the instance of the papists, actually lost, the whole of Christian doctrine would be lost. Therefore, when Lutherans survey the documents of the Second Council, it becomes obvious how much Vatican II expounds the papal doctrine and how little discussion by comparison is devoted specifi- cally to the doctrine of justification. If, as Avery Dulles has observed, the Second Council was intentionally more Biblical, Lutherans surmise that the documents of Vatican II may well have composed a constitution show- ing clearly how the doctrine of justification is central to every doctrine and practice, also to a proper understanding of the church and the papacy.

59Robert D. Preus, Justification and Rome (St. Louis: Concordia, 1997), 27. 60Ibid., 18-19. Preus observes that Luther uses the article of justification/redemption hermeneutically throughout the second part of the Smalcald Articles as he subjects the papacy, prevalent in his day (the mass, chapters and monasteries, the papacy itself), to the judgment of this “first and chief article” (see p. 16). 61The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in Confessional Lutheran Perspective. (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1999), 9. 62Preus, Justification and Rome, 16.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 441 Rome is concerned, too. Why did the Lutherans in the sixteenth cen- tury devote extended rhetoric to indict the papacy as the Antichrist? In numerous passages, the Lutheran Confessions reply that the papacy es- poused the Mass in ways contrary to the Gospel. This is a serious concern. For instance, Melanchthon asserts that opponents who defend human acts of worship as meriting justification, grace, and the forgiveness of sins, are simply establishing the kingdom of Antichrist, which he compares to the Muslim religion. “For the kingdom of the Antichrist,” writes Melanchthon, “is a new kind of worship of God, devised by human authority in opposition to Christ, much as the kingdom of Mohammed has religious rites and works, through which it seeks to be justified before God.”63 Elsewhere, Melanchthon cites as Baal worship the Mass directed in such a way that by it worshipers might merit the remission of guilt and punishment for the unrighteous. He adds that such worship will endure together with the reign of the pope until Christ comes for judgment and by the glory of His coming destroys the kingdom of Antichrist.64 These statements by Melanchthon are in substance the position of Luther who declared out- right that the pope is the Antichrist.65 If the Church of Rome must have the papacy, which Luther thought was quite dispensable,66 then let them have the pope de iure humano, the magisterium placed squarely under the divine authority and speaking of Holy Scripture! The Roman Catholic Christian has confidence in the apos- tolic authority of the teaching office of his church, the office centralized in the papacy.He believes that the Holy Spirit is continuously active through-

63Apology of the Augsburg Confession XV Human Traditions in the Church, 18 (KW, 225). Of interest is the suggestion made by Lumen Gentium that God saves Moslems because they acknowledge the Creator, an example of salvation speech quite distant from the doctrine of justification enunciated in Romans 3 and 5, Galatians 3, etc. See, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 16 (Abbott, 35). 64Apology of the Augsburg Confession XXIV, The Mass, 98 (KW, 277). 65Any investigation of the subject, antichrist, from a Lutheran standpoint should begin with the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, IV Justification, composed by Philip Melanchthon (KW, 120ff.). Re: the marks of the Antichrist, see Martin Luther, Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, 39 (KW, 337). Re: rejection of the notion that salvation is linked to submission to papal authority, see Luther, Smalcald Articles IV, 4 and 10 (KW 307 and 309). Re: papal authority transferred from Christ through Peter, see the Lutheran response, Apology of the Augsburg Confession VII and VIII, 23-24 (KW, 178); Smalcald Articles IV, 13 (KW, 309); Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, 1, 2, 3 (KW, 330); 7-11 (KW, 331-332). Cf. Luther’s references here, Lu. 22:24-27; Matt. 18:1-4; John 20:21; Gal. 2:2; 1 Cor. 3:4-8, 21-22. Additional writings of Luther about the papacy as Antichrist are the following: On the Papacy in Rome against the most cel- ebrated Romanist in Leipzig, 1520, AE 39:55ff.; Against Hanswurst, 1541 (AE 41:179ff.); Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil, 1545 (AE 41:263ff.); The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520 (AE 36:11ff.). For a Catholic interpretation of Luther’s questioning whether or not the teaching office could always, in every circumstance, guarantee to proclaim faithfully the gospel of Christ, see: Wenzel Lohff, “Would the Pope still have been the Antichrist for Luther Today?” (in Papal Ministry in the Church, ed. Hans Küng. Concilium (New York: Herder and Herder, 1971), 68-74. 66Smalcald Articles IV, 4-6 (KW, 307-308).

442 out history in that office.67But how is the Holy Spirit present and active in the indefectible church?Luther specifies what is less than specific in much of Catholic literature, that the Holy Spirit works in the church through and by means of the external word. Any mystification of the Spirit’s work and influence Luther addressed pointedly when he stated, “Accordingly, we should and must constantly maintain that God will not deal with us except through his external Word and Sacrament. Whatever is attributed to the Spirit apart from such Word and Sacrament is of the devil.”68 Luther insists that the Holy Spirit speaks through the Holy Scriptures. He joined the princes and estates of the empire for more than two decades to plead that Pope Paul III call a free, Christian, German council. Luther explained that “free” meant more than a relaxed atmosphere wherein all teachings and opinions could be expressed. The term “free,” as Luther interprets its use here, is that above all God’s Word, or Holy Scripture should have its way and rights, free and without strings (as it must be), according to which one decides and judges everything. Luther adds, “It means ‘free’ because the council is free, and the Scriptures, that is, the Holy Spirit, are free.”69 A council convened on these terms, Luther believed, would be consistent with the fathers who wanted to have Scripture only as master and judge. St. Augustine exclaimed that outside of Holy Scripture, all is uncertain, lost, and in vain; and St. Bernard would rather drink from the spring (Scrip- ture) than from the brook, (the fathers).70 The principle articulated by Luther and affirmed by the Lutheran confessors in the sixteenth century conflicts with views com- monly held by Catholic theologians today. They say that the Holy Spirit is giving to the church an instinct of faith and discernment to determine, not what Scripture as the inspired text states with finality, but the meaning of Scripture in the present time against the horizon of new presuppositions and concerns. The self-communication of the divine is never fully objecti- fied, certainly not as the norma normans for all theology and confession. Indeed, this Latin phrase cherished by Lutheran theology, Gregory Baum dismisses as an unfortunate historical development, an overstated expres- sion of piety intent on being free of tradition.71 In fact, it is not a stretch to observe how the views of Baum and others relegate the Scriptures to a status of norma normata, indicating that the present experience of the Holy Spirit in the church norms what the Scriptures are saying today. This hermeneutic is clearly a mystifying of the Spirit! Confessing Lutherans would therefore caution the Holy Father that theologians in the Catholic Church espouse such a hermeneutic which

67Wenzel Lohff, “Would the Pope still have been the Antichrist for Luther Today?” 71. 68Smalcald Articles III, viii, 10 (KW, 323); cf. Augsburg Confession V (KW, 40, 41). 69Martin Luther, Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil 1545 (AE, 41), 269. 70Martin Luther, On the Councils and the Church 1539 (AE, 41), 26-27. 71Gregory Baum, writing in The Infallibility Debate, ed. John J. Kirvan (New York: Paulist Press, 19871), 10.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 443 reduces the Scriptures from norma normans to the status of an ancient source which helps the church to discern what the Spirit is saying quite apart from the external Word. According to Baum, Vatican II did not want to speak the last word in the various doctrinal themes contained in it, leaving latitude for continuing revelation and developing doctrine.72 Lutherans are prompted to inquire with Pope John Paul II how such open- ness and latitude are permitted in the light of Vatican I absolutist state- ments about the Holy Spirit and the permanence of doctrine. This Lutheran inquiry is prompted by Vatican I, saying: “For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.”73 The shift from revelation understood as absolute and final to the no- tion that revelation may be continuous and doctrine flexible is indicative of a hermeneutic which affects Lutherans indirectly. The hermeneutical assumptions of some theologians of Rome are a red flag. New understand- ings of historical truth as situational with regard to time and place and culture pose problems which are dismissed lightly among many Lutherans as minor differences over doctrine and practice. In reality, the underlying assumptions of non-foundational thinking and epistemology may be at work. The result is that some confessing Lutherans question whether the Scrip- ture text originally given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit at the hands of the prophets and the apostles is the constant principium cognoscendi of all true theology. Luthean theologians, too, ask just how and to what extent recipients and readers of the text in their situation contribute to discern- ing the meaning of the text.74 It could be that such hermeneutical forays by the theologians result in hesitation and atypical silence on their part. In the face of glaring critical issues, is there heard from their camp the certain sound, “Thus says the Lord!” But the sounds of papal encyclicals and pronouncements are both heard and heeded in the Catholic Church. This we have to admire. Papal pri- macy and authority signify a unity which the papacy brings to Rome and somewhat to larger Christendom. This is so, at least with respect to the response of Christianity in the face of western culture in moral disarray.The demonstrable expressions and statements made by Pope John Paul II in recent decades, his open apology for the Judeo-Christian ethic against the excesses of a culture going non-Christian and uncivilized, is most credit-

72Gregory Baum, “Constitution on the Church,” 1-2. 73First Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution I on the Church 4, 1836. DS, 456. 74For a basic treatment of current hermeneutical issues and confessional Lutheran theology, especially the doctrine of Scripture, see James W. Voelz, “Reading Scripture as Lutherans in the Post-Modern Era,” Lutheran Quarterly 14, 3 (Autumn 2000): 309-334.

444 able and certainly edifying.75 The recent push for same sex marriages, spurred by the United States Supreme Court decision to strike down anti- sodomy laws in Texas, was met with a firm rebuttal from the Vatican on July 31, 2003.76 Confessing Lutherans laud the plea made by the Vatican document that heterosexual is the intention of God in His cre- ation of the human race, and that this arrangement bodes well and best for procreation and the rearing of children, a factor essential to the con- tinuance of society and civilization. Many of those who are “separated breth- ren” find themselves in churches led by church leaders and theologians who are conspicuously quiet, all the while evil marches on in the strength of increasing support from the courts and exposure by the media. The talk show hosts become the gurus. One evangelical leader cried, “Where are the preachers?” Pope John Paul II has answered with courage and careful articulation of . How gratifying and strengthening to the Church! This commendation, however, should not be misconstrued as giving credence to a “back to Rome” movement. Lutheran theology is most sensi- tive to a centripetal ecclesiology which Karl Rahner explicates in his work, The Church after the Council. The words of salvation for Rahner are, “…Christ, and the historical permanence of his existence, the Church.”77 This ecclesiology (the church as sacramentum of the world’s salvation) is complemented by mission activity calling souls, not first and directly to Christ, but rather to the church. Such a centripetal paradigm is not conso- nant with the New Testament apostolic “preaching Christ” who lived and died and rose again for our justification (Rom. 4:25). Fundamentally askew is the centripetal drawing of the non-Christian to the church wherein a person realizes more fully his or her own “Christianness” while participat- ing in the visible communion with its objective formal creed(s), also in the objectivity of a sacramental making-present, and in the objectivity of so- cial organization, such as all this occurs in the church.78 And this in place of the essentials of the kerygma, the call to repent and believe the Gospel (Mark 1:15)! The centripetal portrait of the church as sacramentum frames the church’s mission as “back to Rome.” Can this be the church of which Christ alone is head and Shepherd? Does it come to this? The close affinity in Catholic theology of Christ’s church with Rome’s ecclesiology and papal office, primacy and authority,

75See the Pope’s encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, 1993 and Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 1987, in The Encyclicals of John Paul II, ed. J. Michael Miller (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1996). See Fides et ratio (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1998). 76The Vatican’s twelve page document opposing the legalization of gay marriage was issued in seven languages.The English title is, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons. 77Karl Rahner, The Church after the Council, trans. David C. Herron and Rodelinde Albrecht (New York: Herder and Herder, 1966), 55. 78Ibid., 56.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 445 Vatican II notwithstanding, is less than convincing to confessing Lutherans! Still, for all that is involved, reckoning with that single monolithic entity, the papacy, the proper spirit of Lutheran theology is to celebrate unitas with all Christians, desiring and continuing to strive for concordia also with Rome as the Lutheran Confessions would have it.

446 Ut Unum Sint and What It Says about the Papacy: Description and Response

Samuel H. Nafzger

Introduction

“The pope is not the head of all Christendom ‘by divine right’ or on the basis of God’s Word, because that belongs only to the one who is called Jesus Christ,” writes Martin Luther in the Smalcald Articles (SA IV 1).1 The Pope’s “false, offensive, blasphemous, arrogant power” is “a purely diabolical affair and business which corrupts the entire holy Christian church” (SA IV 3). He “negates the first, chief article on redemption by Jesus Christ.” In fact, writes Luther, the Pope

is the true end-times Antichrist, who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ, because the pope will not let Christians be saved without his authority (which amounts to nothing, since it is not ordered or commanded by God). This is precisely what St. Paul calls “setting oneself over and against God.” Neither the Turks nor the Tartars, despite being great enemies of the Christians, do any such thing (SA IV 10-11).2

Three hundred years later, the statements of Vatican Council I about Peter and the papacy reveal how deep is the chasm separating traditional Protestant and Roman Catholic views about the office of the Bishop of Rome:

If anyone says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not constituted by Christ the Lord as the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant, or that he received immedi- ately and directly from Jesus Christ our Lord only a primacy of honor and not a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be .

If anyone says that it is not according to the institution of Christ our Lord himself, that is, by , that St. Peter has per-

1The Book of Concord, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2000), 307. All quotations from the Lutheran Confessional writings are taken from this edition of The Book of Concord. 2Ibid., 309.

Dr. Samuel H. Nafzger is Executive Secretary of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 447 petual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or if any- one says that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of St. Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema.

If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of juris- diction over the whole Church, not only in matters that pertain to faith and morals, but also in matters that pertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the whole world; or if anyone says that he has only a more important part and not the complete fullness of this supreme power; or if anyone says that this power is not ordinary and immediate over each and every church or over each and every shepherd and faithful member, let him be anathema.3

No wonder that Lutheran theologian Peter Brunner could write in 1967, following Vatican Council II’s reaffirmation of the First Vatican Council’s understanding of the papacy,4 that the Reformation’s exclusive orientation to the Word of God is irreconcilable with the Roman Catholic Church’s understanding of the teaching office in the church and its rela- tionship to Peter.5 Indeed, it is difficult to disagree with the assessment of the status of this disagreement as formulated in 1983 by Roman Catholic theologians Heinrich Fries and Karl Rahner:

So that is where it stands: the issue of the papacy is a still unre- solved ecumenical problem. It stands between the Roman Catho- lic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Reformation churches, not to men- tion the so-called free churches.

3This is Raymond Brown’s “slightly corrected” translation from The Church Teaches (St. Louis: Herder, 1955) as quoted in his essay “The Meaning of Modern New Testament Studies for an Ecumenical Understanding of Peter and a Theology of the Papacy” in Biblical Reflections on Crises Facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), 64- 65.Brown has supplied the italics “to make apparent the main points being affirmed.” 4See Heinrich Fries and Karl Rahner, Unity of the Churches: An Actual Possibility, trans. Ruth C. L. Gritsch and Eric Gritsch (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). They point out that Vatican II repeats “the formulations of Vatican I, including the misleadingness regarding the declaration that the ex cathedra decisions of the Roman biship are ‘irre- formable’ ‘out of himself (ex sese),’ not on the basis of the church’s agreement. It has already been pointed out frequently that the texts of Vatican II…had more references to the pope, more often than Vatican I. The ‘nota praevia (advance notice)’ which was communicated to the council fathers in connection with the Church Constitution, Lumen Gentium, through the general secretary, on behalf of a ‘higher authority,’ contains the sentence which is not contained with equal harshness and misleadingness in Vatican I: ‘The pope, as supreme shepherd of the church , can exercise his power at any time he sees fit, as is demanded by virtue of his office’ (no. 4)” (62-63). 5Peter Brunner, “Reform-Reformation-Einst-Heute,” Kerygma und Dogma 13 (1967): 159-183.

448 Even theologians who no longer discern a church-dividing quality in other previously controversial issues—and indeed see in them a possibility for reconciled diversity—so far find the issue of the pa- pacy a seemingly uncrossable border barring the way to a unity of the Church in faith and in truth.6

Nevertheless, on May 25, 1995, Pope John Paul II issued his Encycli- cal Ut Unum Sint (That They May Be One). In this letter to the church, he points to the “courageous witness” of so many twentieth-century Christian martyrs, a huge band which includes members of churches and ecclesial communities not in with the Catholic Church, and de- clares that they are “the most powerful proof that every factor of division can be transcended and overcome in the total gift of self for the sake of the Gospel” (1)7 (my emphasis). It is clear from the text of this letter that the Pope intends his refer- ence “to every factor of division” which can indeed be overcome to include also those deep differences between Protestants and Catholics surround- ing the office of Peter, the papacy. It is clear in this Encyclical that he does not want to take the challenge of resolving Catholic and Protestant dis- agreements regarding the papacy lightly. The resolution of this division, therefore, “demands” that Catholic and non-Catholic Christians must work together. He writes:

This is an immense task, which we cannot refuse and which I cannot carry out myself. Could not the real but imperfect com- munion existing between us persuade church leaders and their theologians to engage with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for His church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his pleas “that they may be one…so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (Jn. 17:21) (96)?

Our purpose now in preparing this article is to offer a response to the Pope’s fraternal invitation. In this response, we shall first of all present a brief overview of the contents of the Pope’s Encyclical as a whole. Then we shall focus more directly on what John Paul II says specifically in this letter about “The Ministry of Unity of the Bishop of Rome.” We shall con- clude with a few evaluative observations from a Lutheran perspective about the Pope’s words of encouragement to work together towards resolving the longstanding disagreement between Roman Catholics and Protestants

6Heinrich Fries and Karl Rahner, 63. 7All future quotations from Ut Unum Sint will be referenced by the paragraph number.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 449 over the papal office and with a proposal as to what needs to be done to make meaningful dialogue on this issue possible.

I. The Encyclical: An Overview

Pope John Paul II begins his Encyclical with these words:

“Ut Unum Sint.” The call for Christian unity made by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council with such impassioned commitment is finding an ever greater echo in the hearts of believers, espe- cially as the year 2000 approaches, a year which Christians will celebrate as a sacred Jubilee, the commemoration of the Incarna- tion of the Son of God, who became man in order to save humanity (1).

His purpose in issuing this letter at this time, says the Pope, is to renew Christ’s call to His Church to unity, “to propose it once more with determi- nation” (1). In this way, he wants to “encourage the efforts of all who work for the cause of unity” (3). If believers in Christ, says the Pope, truly wish to oppose the world’s tendency to reduce to powerlessness the Mystery of the Redemption, they “must ‘profess together the same truth about the Cross.’” This necessi- tates not only resolving the doctrinal issues which divide them, but it also means overcoming the burden of “‘long-standing misgivings’ inherited from the past,” of “mutual misunderstandings and prejudices,” and of “compla- cency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another.” The road to unity, therefore, “must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer” (2). The Pope includes himself in this call to conversion. Contending that it is “a specific duty of the Bishop of Rome as the Successor of the Apostle Peter” to work for the cause of unity, he writes:

I carry out this duty with the profound conviction that I am obey- ing the Lord, and with a clear sense of my own human frailty. Indeed, if Christ himself gave Peter this special mission in the Church and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, he also made clear to him his human weakness and his special need of conver- sion: “And when you have turned again, strengthen your breth- ren” (Lk. 22:32). It is precisely in Peter’s human weakness that it becomes fully clear that the Pope, in order to carry out this special ministry in the Church, depends totally on the Lord’s grace and prayer: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Lk. 22:32)…. The Bishop of Rome himself must fervently make his own Christ’s prayer for that conversion which is indispensable for “Peter” to be able to serve his brethren (4).

450 The Pope then immediately proceeds to invite “the faithful of the Catholic Church and all Christians” to join together with him “in praying for this conversion.” In the first section of Ut Unum Sint, the Pope lays out the basis for “The Catholic Church’s Commitment to Ecumenism.” Frequently quoting from Vatican II statements and documents, he writes:

Together with all Christ’s disciples, the Catholic Church bases upon God’s plan her ecumenical commitment to gather all Christians into unity…. The unity of all divided humanity is the will of God. For this reason he sent his Son, so that by dying and rising for us he might bestow on us the Spirit of love. On the eve of his sacrifice on the Cross, Jesus himself prayed to the Father for his disciples and for all those who believe in him, that they “might be one,” a living communion. This is the basis not only of the duty, but also of the responsibility before God and his plan, which falls to those who through Baptism become members of the Body of Christ, a Body in which the fullness of reconciliation and communion must be made present. How is it possible to remain divided, if we have been “bur- ied” through Baptism in the Lord’s death, in the very act by which God, through the death of his Son, has broken down the ways of division? Division “openly contradicts the will of Christ, provides a stumbling block to the world, and inflicts damage on the most holy cause of proclaiming the Good News to every creature” (5).8

The Catholic Church, therefore, “embraces with hope the commitment to ecumenism as a duty of the Christian conscience enlightened by faith and guided by love” (8).

To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father’s plan from all eternity. Such is the meaning of Christ’s prayer: “Ut Unum Sint.”

For the two thousand years of her history, the Catholic Church “has been preserved in unity,” says the Pope, although he does concede that “many among her members cause God’s plan to be discernible only with diffi- culty” (11). To the extent that “the elements of and truth” are present in “other Christian Communities,” the “one Church of Christ is effectively present in them” also (11). Once again quoting from the Second Vatican

8The final phrase of this quotation from Ut Unum Sint is a reference to the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council’s Decree on Ecumenism “Unitatis Redintegratio.”

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 451 Council’s Decree on Ecumenism, he says:

It follows that these separated churches and communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church (10).

In “some real way,” these separated churches and communities are “joined with us in the Holy Spirit” (12). The Catholic Church’s commitment to “the way of ecumenism” (67) includes an understanding of “the fundamental importance of doctrine.”

Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the “Creed” under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today. The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the context of re- vealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn. 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth?…. A “being together” which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart (18).

This does not mean, of course, that the expression of truth cannot “take different forms.” This renewal of the forms of expression is necessary “for the sake of transmitting to the people of today the Gospel message in its unchanging meaning” (19). The Pope emphasizes what he refers to as “the primacy of prayer” for the unity of Christians. Prayer is “the soul of the whole ecumenical move- ment.” “When Christians pray together, the goal of unity seems closer” (22). Finally, the Pope points to the importance of ecumenical dialogue, which he contends is “not simply an exchange of ideas” but an “exchange of gifts” (28). He writes:

It is necessary to pass from antagonism and conflict to a situation where each party recognizes the other as a “partner.” When un- dertaking dialogue, “each side must presuppose in the other a de- sire for reconciliation,” for “unity in truth.” For this to happen, any

452 display of mutual opposition must disappear. Only thus will dia- logue help to overcome division and lead us closer to unity (29).

But dialogue dare never result in a compromise of the truth.

Love for the truth is the deepest dimension of any authentic quest for full communion between Christians…. With regard to the study of areas of disagreement, the Council requires that the whole be clearly presented…. Full communion of course will have to come about through the acceptance of the whole truth into which the Holy Spirit guides Christ’s disciples. Hence all forms of reductionism or facile “agreement” must be absolutely avoided. Serious questions must be resolved, for if not, they will reappear at another time, either in the same terms or in a different guise (36).

Dialogue “puts before the participants real and genuine disagreements in matters of faith.” The discussion of these disagreements, says the Pope, has “two essential points of reference: Sacred Scripture and the great Tra- dition of the Church.” He then adds: “Catholics have the help of the Church’s living Magisterium” (39). In Chapter II of the Encyclical, Pope John Paul reviews “the fruits” of the ecumenical dialogues over the past thirty years. One of the positive results of these discussions is that “Christians of one confession no longer consider other Christians as enemies or strangers but see them as broth- ers and sisters” (42). Christian Communities “join together in taking a stand in the name of Christ” on important issues in the world (43). Other positive results of the various dialogues include the ecumenical transla- tions of the Bible (44), common cycles of liturgical readings in Sunday worship (45), and, although it is not yet possible to celebrate Holy Com- munion together, the giving of the “Sacraments of the , Penance and to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church,” provided that they “greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with respect to these sacraments” (46). To be sure, the dialogues with “other Churches and Ecclesial Commu- nities” have revealed that “very weighty differences not only of a histori- cal, sociological, psychological and cultural nature, but especially in the interpretation of revealed truth” remain. “The doctrinal disagreements which remain,” says the Pope, “exercise a negative influence and even place limits on cooperation.” But “the communion of faith which already exists between Christians provides a solid foundation for their joint action not only in the social field but also in the religious sphere” (75).

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 453 II. “The Ministry of Unity of the Bishop of Rome”

The Pope’s determined renewal of Christ’s call of His church to unity and his reiteration of the Catholic Church’s “Commitment to Ecumenism” and to dialoguing with “other Churches and Ecclesial Communities”—which has already produced so many positive results—form the context for John Paul II’s treatment of one of those “weighty issues” which remain to be resolved, namely, “The ministry of unity of the Bishop of Rome.”9 The Pope begins this section of his Encyclical by emphasizing the ne- cessity for finding genuine agreement in the substance of the issue, in- stead of superficial solutions. He writes:

In this courageous journey towards unity, the transparency and the prudence of faith requires us to avoid both false irenicism and indifference to the Church’s ordinances. Conversely, that same transparency and prudence urge us to reject a halfhearted com- mitment to unity and, even more, a prejudicial opposition or a defeatism which tends to see everything in negative terms.

To uphold a vision of unity which takes account of all the demands of revealed truth does not mean to put a brake on the ecumenical movement. On the contrary, it means preventing it from settling for apparent solutions which would lead to no firm and solid re- sults. The obligation to respect the truth is absolute. Is this not the law of the Gospel (79)?

This “courageous journey,” says the Pope, also includes the task of “receiv- ing the results already achieved” in previous bilateral dialogues (80). This is an important point, for the process of reception in the Catholic Church “is followed and encouraged by the Bishops and the Holy See.” He ex- pressly states at this point that the “Church’s teaching authority is respon- sible for expressing a definitive judgment” (81) in this process of reception. When will we know that we have reached genuine agreement? In re- sponse to this question, the Pope turns to Vatican II’s understanding of the church:

9There are other issues yet to be resolved, says the Pope. “It is already possible to identify the areas in need of fuller study before a true consensus of faith can be achieved: 1) the relationship between Sacred Scripture, as the highest authority in matters of faith, and , as indispensable to the interpretation of the Word of God; 2) the Eucharist, as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, an offering of praise to the Father, the sacrificial memorial and Real Presence of Christ and the sanctifying outpour- ing of the Holy Spirit; 3) Ordination, as a Sacrament, to the threefold ministry of the episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate; 4) the Magisterium of the Church, entrusted to the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him, understood as a responsibility and an authority exercised in the name of Christ for teaching and safeguarding the faith; 5) the Mary, as Mother of God and of the Church, the Spiritual Mother who inter- cedes for Christ’s disciples and for all humanity” (79).

454 The Constitution “Lumen Gentium,” is a fundamental affirmation echoed by the Decree “Unitatis Redintegratio,” states that the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. The Decree on Ecumenism emphasizes the presence in her of the fullness (“plenitudo”) of the means of salvation. Full unity will come about when all share in the fullness of the means of salvation entrusted by Christ to his Church (86).

This understanding of the church is the fundamental assumption which provides the basis for what the Pope has to say about “The Ministry of Unity and the Bishop of Rome.” Pope John Paul II begins his discussion of Peter and papal primacy with his formulation of the problem which the Roman Catholic under- standing of the papacy poses for non-Catholics. He writes:

Among all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities, the Catholic Church is conscious that she has preserved the ministry of the successor of the Apostle Peter, the Bishop of Rome, whom God established as her “perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity” and whom the Spirit sustains in order that he may enable all the others to share in this essential good. In the beautiful ex- pression of Pope Gregory the Great, my ministry is that of “servus servorum Dei.” This designation is the best possible safe- guard against the risk of separating power (and in particular the primacy) from ministry…. On the other hand…the Catholic Church’s conviction that in the ministry of the Bishop of Rome she has preserved, in fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition and the faith of the Fathers, the visible sign and guarantor of unity, constitutes a difficulty for most other Christians, whose memory is marked by certain painful recollections (88).

To the extent that the Catholic Church is responsible for these “painful recollections,” the Pope says that he joins his “Predecessor Paul VI in asking for forgiveness.” In response to the problem which the Catholic Church’s conviction regarding papal primacy affects “other Christians,” John Paul II says that “it is significant and encouraging that the question of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome has now become a subject of study” in the World Council of Churches and in the theological dialogues” (89). In addition, he applies what he had previously written about the Pope’s special ministry being dependent on God’s mercy to this matter. The Gospels of Matthew (16:17- 19), Luke (22:31-32), and John (21:15-19), in presenting “the pastoral mis- sion of Peter in the church,” do so “against the backdrop of Peter’s human weakness,” and thereby make it “fully evident that his particular ministry in the Church derives altogether from grace.” The same is true of Paul.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 455 The weaknesses of these Apostles “clearly show that the Church is founded upon the infinite power of grace” (91). At the same time, the Pope forthrightly states that the ministry of mercy of the Bishop of Rome entails the exercise of power and authority, “without which such an office would be illusory” (94). But, says the Pope, the New Testament teaches that this power is not exercised as “the rulers of the Gentiles and their great men do” (cf. Mt. 20:25; Mk. 10:42). Rather, the authority of this office consists in

— “keeping watch (‘episkopein’), like a sentinel” — ensuring “the communion of all the churches” — admonishing, cautioning, and declaring at times that certain opin- ions being circulated are “irreconcilable with the unity of faith” (94).

And the authority and power of this office require that

when circumstances require it, he speaks in the name of all of the Pastors in communion with him. He can also—under very specific conditions clearly laid down by the First Vatican Council—declare “ex cathedra” that a certain doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith. By thus bearing witness to the truth, he serves unity (94).

It is at precisely this point that the Pope issues his invitation that “Church leaders and theologians” engage with one another in a patient and frater- nal dialogue on this subject, in addressing what many regard as the irrec- oncilable positions of the Catholic Church and of Protestants on papal pri- macy. On the one hand, the Pope says that “it is out of a desire to obey the will of Christ truly that I recognize as Bishop of Rome I am called to exer- cise that ministry” of papal primacy. At the same time, he is also convinced that he has a particular responsibility of “acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation.” In order to illustrate that there is a solution to this problem, which would not involve compromise on either side is pos- sible, he points to history itself. “For a whole millenium Christians were united in ‘a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life…. If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator’” (95). In a very carefully worded section titled “The Communion of all par- ticular Churches with the Church of Rome: a necessary condition for unity,” the Pope appears to try his hand at doing precisely this, namely, to find a solution to papal primacy which would heed the concerns of “Other Chris-

456 tian Communities” while at the same time retaining what is absolutely “essential” from the Catholic standpoint. He writes:

The Catholic Church, both in her “” and in her solemn docu- ments, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is—in God’s plan—an essential requisite of full and visible com- munion. Indeed full communion, of which the Eucharist is the high- est sacramental manifestation, needs to be visibly expressed in a ministry in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith. The first part of the presents Peter as the one who speaks in the name of the apostolic group and who serves the unity of the community all the while respecting the authority of James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem. This function of Peter must continue in the Church so that under her sole head, who is Jesus Christ, she may be visibly present in the world as the communion of all his disciples (97).

The Pope continues by asking:

Do not many of these individuals in ecumenism today feel a need for such a ministry?

This question brings us to the purpose of this article. What are those of us who belong to the category of “other Christians” or “separated brethren” to say in response to the Pope’s proposal? It is to this question which we now turn.

III. The Pope’s Proposal: A Lutheran Response

The assignment given to me was to “review and/or assess the encycli- cal generally for the reader and then suggest changes” in what the Pope has said in Ut Unum Sint, about Rome’s understanding of the papal office that would make the papacy “acceptable to Lutherans and Protestants.”10 Before responding directly to this request to suggest changes in what the Pope has said, I want first to express my appreciation for the Pope’s Encyclical Ut Unum Sint itself, to commend the Pope for what he has already said in this Encyclical, and also for the way in which he has said it. Lutherans should commend the Pope for having taken the initiative to issue this invitation in the first place. He speaks not only for Catholics but also Lutherans and Protestants, I would submit, when he asks with passion:

10Letter of October 28, 2002 from the editor of Concordia Journal, Dr. Quentin F. Wesselschmidt.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 457 How is it possible to remain divided, if we have been “buried” through Baptism in the Lord’s death, in the very act by which God, through the death of his Son, has broken down the walls of division? Divi- sion “openly contradicts the will of Christ, provides a stumbling block to the world, and inflicts damage on the most holy cause of proclaiming the Good News to every creature” (6).

Secondly, Lutherans and Protestants should applaud the recognition of the Pope that the task of resolving what has been a longstanding im- passe between Protestants and Catholics over “the ministry of unity of the Bishop of Rome” cannot be accomplished by either side acting alone. We certainly agree that if this deeply divisive issue is ever to be resolved, then church leaders and theologians from each side must engage “in a fraternal dialogue on this subject” (96). In the third place, Lutherans should join the Pope in emphasizing that genuine agreement on this issue cannot be achieved by asking either side to compromise its doctrinal convictions. Lutherans can and should affirm the Pope’s clear statement that “the unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety” (18), and that “the obligation to respect the truth is absolute” (79). More- over, we should all be able to agree that this does not preclude the recog- nition of the fact that “the expression of truth can take different forms” (19). It is also true, of course, that expressing the truth in different forms involves the danger of changing the truth, and it is for precisely this rea- son that patient and fraternal dialogue is an absolute necessity. While much in this Encyclical is praiseworthy, it is also true that the Pope’s letter raises some extremely critical questions which must be openly confronted. The most important of these questions, in my opinion at least, has to do with the understanding of the church upon which the Pope’s fraternal invitation is based, and the implications this understanding of the church has for the dialogue to which he invites “other Christians.” In this Encyclical, Pope John Paul II makes a number of positive state- ments about the ecclesial nature of non-Catholic Christians and the church bodies to which they belong. He refers to the statement from the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism that “the separated Churches and Communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation” (10). This means, says the Pope, that the “separated brethren” in these communities “can truly engender a life of grace, and can be rightly de- scribed as capable of providing access to the community of salvation” (13). The Pope can even expressly note that the Roman Catholic Church may “administer the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing to the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church” when those who request them “manifest the faith which the Catho-

458 lic Church professes with regard to these Sacraments”11 (46). But what is said in every instance about “the separated Churches” and “the separated brethren” is expressed in such a way so as not to contradict the basic position of the Catholic Church, i.e., that it is, properly speaking, to be identified with the church.12 As the Pope says, the Spirit of Christ can use these “separated Churches and Communities” as “means of salvation” because they “derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church” (10). This understanding of the doctrine of the church as articulated once again in the Pope’s Encyclical Ut Unum Sint has direct implications for “the patient and fraternal dialogue” to which the Pope invites non-Catholic church “leaders and their theologians” for the purpose of resolving the impasse between Catholics and Protestants on the office of the Bishop of Rome. It poses a serious obstacle for Lutherans and all Protestants. It is first of all asserted by the Pope that the Catholic Church’s teaching au- thority is responsible for expressing a “definitive judgement” (my empha- sis) on the reception of the results of the dialogues (81). It is also affirmed that “the communion of all particular Churches with the Church of Rome” is “a necessary condition for unity” (my emphasis) (96). But if these two conditions are to be met, then it follows that the Pope as Peter’s successor and the holder of the papal office has the responsibility of making the final judgment regarding what constitutes the non-negotiable “deposit of faith” also with respect to papal primacy. The Pope makes this clear when he writes:

It is the responsibility of the Successor of Peter to recall the re- quirements of the common good of the Church, should anyone be tempted to overlook it in the pursuit of personal interests. He has the duty to admonish, to caution and to declare at times that this or that opinion being circulated is irreconcilable with the unity of faith. When circumstances require it, he speaks in the name of all the Pastors in communion with him. He can also—under very spe-

11Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU), in a July 2003 interview with Lutheran World Information, stated: “For us Catholics, church fellowship and eucharistic communion are one. We cannot meet in closest inner communion, which is the meaning of the Eucharist and then part again to go our different ways into different churches. I can also put it differently: for eucharistic fellowship, it is essential for us to be able to say ‘Amen,’ which means that they agree with what has happened and with what has been said in the great prayer. And only those who can say ‘Amen’ can also come up afterwards and put out their hands, otherwise commun- ion is not honest” (Lutheran World Information, July 14, 2003). 12This point is explicitly made in “Dominus Iesus”: On the Unicity and Salvific Uni- versality of Jesus Christ and the Churches, issued by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (published in Origins, September 14, 2000). This document states that “the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid episcopate and the genuine integral substance of the eucharistic mystery, are not churches in the proper sense” (par. 17).

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 459 cific conditions clearly laid down by the First Vatican Council— declare “ex cathedra” that a certain doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith. By thus bearing witness to the truth, he serves unity (94) (my emphasis).

The Pope has already stated that it is an “essential” element of the deposit of faith that the Catholic Church among all the Churches and Ecclesial Communions “has preserved the ministry of the Successor of the Apostle Peter, the Bishop of Rome, whom God established as her ‘per- petual and visible principle and foundation of unity’” (88). But if this is true, then it would appear that the final outcome of “the patient and fra- ternal dialogue” to which the Pope has extended his invitation has already been decided.

Conclusion

What changes would I suggest to Ut Unum Sint that would make Rome’s understanding of the papal office acceptable to Lutherans and to Protestants? This question, I believe, is premature at this point. From my perspective, a prior question needs to be asked, namely “What changes in Ut Unum Sint need to be made in order to make genuine patient and fraternal dialogue between Roman Catholics and non-Catholics on the understanding of the Papal office even possible. The Pope has rightly stated that genuine agreement cannot be based on a compromise of the truth, that “the unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in it entirety” (18) (my emphasis). But if this is true, then it holds true for Catholics and non-Catholics alike. This basic ground rule for dialoging pertains to both sides in the debate. As the Pope has rightly recognized, the way to unity can be found not through compromise but only on the basis of a common understanding of all of revealed truth. In other words, the Pope’s Encyclical Ut Unum Sint assumes that the church most precisely defined is to be identified with the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope is to be commended for making it clear that this contin- ues to be the Catholic position. Under the heading “Contribution of the Catholic Church to the quest for Christian unity,” Pope John Paul, quoting the Constitution “Lumen Gentium” states:

…the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. The Decree on Ecumenism emphasizes the presence in her of the full- ness (“plentitudo”) of the means of salvation. Full unity comes about when all share in the fullness of the means of salvation entrusted by Christ to his Church (86).

460 But Protestants do not accept this assertion. For Lutherans, the church properly speaking is “the assembly of saints in which the gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered rightly” (AC VII, 1). The Pope’s Encyclical Ut Unum Sint will need to be changed at least to recognize that it is with this understanding of the doctrine of the church, together with all that it implies, that Lutherans can carry out the dialogue with Catho- lics on “the ministry of unity of the Bishop of Rome.” For the Roman Catholic Church not to recognize this understanding would be to violate the Pope’s own statement that neither side should be asked to compromise its under- standing of the truth, that the “love for the truth is the deepest dimension of any authentic quest for full communion between Christians” (36). But if each of the Roman Catholic and Protestant understandings of the church are acknowledged at the outset, even if not yet agreed upon, then true dialogue can take place. Issues that can then be addressed re- garding “the Ministry of Unity of the Bishop of Rome” include the under- standings of the papacy as a jure divino institution,13 the “function” of Pe- ter,14 and the implications of what Raymond Brown refers to as “the his- torical conditioning of the formulations of church dogma.”15 These are some

13Cf. J. Michael Miller’s The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theol- ogy (Rome: Universita Gregoriana Editrice, 1980). In this doctrinal dissertation at the Pontifical Gregorian University, Meyer presents a careful treatment of classical and contemporary Roman Catholic understandings of ius divinum, together with the Lutheran and Anglican understandings of this term. Miller concludes that ius divinum has always connoted something about the origin of that to which it is applied. Traditionally, this term has been used to signify that something has been divinely instituted, either dominically or non-dominically. Some Roman Catholics today use the term jus divinum to refer to that which had dominical institution. Increasingly, however, most Roman Catholics use this term to refer to the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the apostolic community and not to something instituted by Christ himself. For Lutherans, however, this term almost always refers to something instituted by the historical Jesus. 14Interestingly, Pope John Paul refers to the “function of Peter” in one key passage in Ut Unum Sint. He writes: “The first part of the Acts of the Apostles presents Peter as the one who speaks in the name of the apostolic group and who serves the unity of the community all the while respecting the authority of James, the head of the church in Jerusalem. This function of Peter must continue in the church….” Does this formulation suggest an openness on the part of the Pope to consider some of the conclusions pre- sented in Peter in the New Testament (1973) regarding the understanding of what pre- cisely jus divinum means? 15Brown says that Mysterious Ecclasiae “goes farther than the Catholic Church has ever gone before in recognizing the historical conditioning of the formulation of church dogma. The Roman Catholic Church, which in the 1960’s came to grips with the historical conditioning of the Gospels, has now begun to come to grips with the historical condition- ing of subsequent Tradition.” Brown goes on to say that “in considering past pronounce- ments of Catholic doctrine we must take into account: (a) the expressive power of the language used at a certain point in time and particular circumstances; (b) the fact that sometimes a dogmatic truth is expressed only incompletely, needing at a later date and in a broader context of faith and knowledge a fuller and more perfect expression; (c) that a pronouncement may have been meant to solve only certain questions and that this limited scope must be taken into account in interpreting the pronouncement; (d) that sometimes the formulas are expressed in the changeable conceptions of a given epoch

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 461 of the issues which, had they been included in Ut Unum Sint, would at least facilitate genuine, fraternal dialogue with Lutherans and Protestants on papal primacy. I want to conclude this article by affirming the concluding words of Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Ut Unum Sint that “indeed all the faithful are asked by the Spirit of God to do everything possible to strengthen the bonds of communion between all Christians...”(101). May God guide us into “a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea ‘that they may all be one…so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (96).

and may need new expressions which present more clearly or completely the genuine meaning” (66). On this basis, Brown concludes that a Catholic scholar who takes these four qualifications seriously “is certainly not disloyal if he points out that the statements of Vatican I have biblical and historical limitations and that Vatican II offers the possibility of a more complete formulation of a theology of the Papacy.” In this connection, it should also be noted that The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod holds that the identification of the papacy with the Antichrist is a historical judgment subject to revision when and if the characteristics of the papacy which called for this identification no longer exist. Cf. The End Times: A Study on Eschatology and Millennialism, A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, 1989, p. 25 Footnote 32.

462 Papacy as a Constitutive Element of Koinonia in Ut Unum Sint?

Edward J. Callahan

Above the main lecture room of the Renaissance era palace housing the Centro Pro Unione in Rome hangs a great burgundy banner bearing the words ut omnes umun sint.1 More than the motto of the Graymoor , the Franciscan order which runs the Centro, these words are our Lord’s prayer in John 17, expressing His desire for the church: “that they may all be one.” The unity for which He prays is a unity reflective of His own unity with the Father. His prayer is the inspiration for and the goal of the ecumenical movement. The Lutheran church, and thus the Missouri Synod, has committed itself to the cause of Christian unity.2 This involves awareness not only of the basic theological position of one’s bilateral partner but of developments or changes to it, as all of this may facilitate, or hinder, the quest for unity to which Lutherans are committed, the incarnation of the unity for which our Lord prayed. Bi- and multilateral dialogues with the Roman Catholic Church must address the issues related to the papacy. The 1995 encyclical Ut Unum Sint represents an attempt by the papacy to explore its role within the ecumenical movement. This essay asks whether this role, as envisioned by John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint, renders the papacy palatable to Christians outside the Roman Catholic Church, particularly Lutheran. As any papal encyclical cannot be read in a vacuum, a brief and selective review of Roman Catholicism’s ecumenical commitment, its koinonia ecclesiology, and the observations of Lutheran ecumenists on the matter of the papacy is warranted. This will provide a background for Ut Unum Sint.

1I was privileged to see this banner and ponder its significance daily while attending the Centro Pro Unione’s annual summer course “Introduction to Ecumenism and Inter- religious Movements from a Roman Catholic Perspective” in June and July of 2002. See for more information regarding the Centro, its work, and especially the summer course. 2“If, however, our lords, friends, and associates who represent the electors, princes, and estates of the other party, do not comply with the procedure intended by Your Imperial Majesty’s summons, so that no charitable and amicable negotiations take place among us, and if they are not fruitful, we on our part shall not have failed in anything that can or may serve the cause of Christian unity, as far as God and conscience allow.” Preface to the Augsburg Confession, 12-13, in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 32 (hereafter, Kolb-Wengert). Quoted according to the German text.

The Reverend Edward J. Callahan is Pastor of The Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Redeemer in Glendale, NY.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 463 The Roman Catholic Church’s embrace of the ecumenical movement was articulated by the Second Vatican Council in the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, promulgated on November 21, 1964.3 Its opening statement powerfully expresses this commitment.

The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but they differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ himself were divided. Certainly, such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages that most holy cause, the preaching of the Gospel to every creature.4

Concern for the restoration of visible unity necessitates a reappraisal of Christians outside the Roman Catholic Church. Unitatis Redintegratio states that

all who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.5

Considered “separated brethren,”6 these Christians nevertheless share a common longing for the one visible church of God, a church truly universal and sent forth to the whole world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God.7 Thus, Unitatis Redintegratio envisions a unity which is created not by the domination of one by another but by a mutual sharing and working together.

This sacred Council firmly hopes that the initiatives of the sons of the Catholic Church, joined with those of the separated brethren, will go forward, without obstructing the ways of , and without prejudging the future inspirations of the Holy Spirit. Further, this Council declares that it realizes that this holy objective–the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the

3Abbreviated UR, an English translation of the full text may be found in Vatican II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 452-470. 4UR, 1. 5UR, 3. 6UR, 4. 7UR, 1.

464 one and only Church of Christ–transcends human powers and gifts. It therefore places its hope entirely in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit. “And hope does not disappoint, because God’s love has been poured forth in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Rom. 5:5).8

For all the enthusiasm which the goal of ecumenical projects may create among their participants, Unitatis Redintegratio envisions a very careful methodology involving the language to be used,9 the composition10 and organization of official commissions,11 as well as the involvement of the bishops.12 While nobody pretends this will be easy, the Roman Catholic Church has committed itself to this task. John Paul II has renewed that commitment for himself and the Roman Catholic Church in Ut Unum Sint, a commitment he calls irrevocable.13 The topic, like the encyclical itself, could not be more timely. Roman Catholic dialogue with Lutherans has continued for decades,14 with conversations preceding Vatican II.15 The fruits of this have been increased fraternal contact, a deeper awareness of the theological nuances of the faith confessed by each communion, and a remarkable degree of convergence on many divisive issues between Lutherans and Roman Catholics. In terms

8UR, 24. 9Ecumenists are urged to make “...every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult.” This involves also a willingness on the part of participants to “examine their own faithfulness to Christ’s will for the Church and, wherever necessary, undertake with vigor the task of renewal and reform” (UR, 4). One would presume that this would include renewal and reform on an individual as well as institutional level. 10The document urges that these be staffed by “competent experts from different Churches and communities” (Ibid.). 11They are to be “organized in a religious spirit,” with time set aside for “common prayer” (Ibid.). 12 “Such actions, when they are carried out by the Catholic faithful with prudent patience and under the attentive guidance of their bishops, promote justice and truth, concord and collaboration, as well as the spirit of brotherly love and unity” (Ibid.). Here one may presume that the ecumenical commission, at least on the local/diocesan level, must have the full support of the bishop, and any other equivalent judicatory head, in order to be productive. 13Ut Unum Sint, 3. 14Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue also springs from Vatican II, with the 1967 formation of the Joint Lutheran-Roman Catholic Study Group by the Lutheran World Federation and the Vatican Secretariate for Promoting Christian Unity (itself a prepara- tory organ of Vatican II). Within the United States, Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue has proven quite extensive and prolific in terms of the discussions, reports, and state- ments produced. For a fuller account of each dialogue, as well as the Secretariate for Promoting Christian Unity, see the Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, ed. Nicho- las Lossky et al. (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1991) (hereafter, DEM). 15Dialogue between Lutherans and Roman Catholics has a rich history, reaching back to the Reformation period.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 465 of ecumenical ecclesiology, and its component desire for the reconciliation of ministries, discussions between representatives of the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church have resulted in The Ministry in the Church16 and its follow up, Facing Unity.17 More recently, LWF’s Working Group on Ecclesiology produced the statement Toward a Lutheran Understanding of Communion in 1997, which seeks to stimulate internal discussion on the topic.18 In order to understand Ut Unum Sint, it is necessary that the reader be aware of these documents and any other convergence statements between Lutherans and the Roman Catholic Church. Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy believes that Ut Unum Sint encour- ages the ecumenical movement once again to embrace the goal of full visible ecclesial unity.

The reason for the movement away from the pursuit of full, visible unity within the ecumenical movement, which has in the past always been the goal of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of churches [sic], is to be found, I believe, mainly in frustration and disillusionment at the slow rate of progress in this search for greater communion. The difficulties that the churches are encountering in this quest bring a natural tendency to limit the goal. Ut Unum Sint is a response to this challenge.19

In Cassidy’s estimation, Ut Unum Sint is the most widely distributed and studied of all encyclicals outside the Roman Catholic Church. One can conclude by this that it touches a nerve. Keeping in mind the development of the papacy, and the historic position of Lutherans regarding it, this essay seeks to explore the role assigned by Ut Unum Sint to the papacy against the background of an ecclesiology of koinonia.20 Koinonia language can be found in many ecumenical statements originating from many confessional and inter-confessional groups.21 One example, from the World Council of Churches, is the 1991 Canberra

16Roman Catholic/Lutheran Joint Commission, Ministry in the Church (Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 1982). 17Issued by the same Roman Catholic/Lutheran Joint Commission in 1985. 18“Toward a Lutheran Understanding of Communion” in The Church as Communion (Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1997), 13-29. 19Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy, “Ut Unum Sint in Ecumenical Perspective,” in Church Unity and the Papal Office: An Ecumenical Dialogue on John Paul II’s Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids and Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 2001), 13. Capitalization of the encyclical’s title is inconsistent within the secondary literature. 20As a transliteration of the Greek 6@4

466 Statement, The Unity of the Church: Gift and Calling.22 Similarly, koinonia language is found in the LWF’s statement Toward a Lutheran Understanding of Communion.23 Then, of course, it is employed in Ut Unum Sint.24 All of this begs the question of consistency. Do the ecclesial bodies or agencies employing koinonia language share common understandings of its constitutive elements and tangible manifestations?25 A similar concern is expressed in Ut Unum Sint. Citing recent agreements regarding

Lund (1952), since the WCC Assembly in Evanston, 1954, it has occupied a more promi- nent place in ecumenical parlance. New Delhi (1961) employed it as a descriptive term for the church. Since the 1975 Nairobi assembly “the notion of koinonia has emerged as one of the motivating ideas of the ecumenical movement of this century; it has thus not been by chance that since Lima (1982) the F & O commission has directed a great deal of its attention to this theme” (569). However, DEM in observing the multivalent use of the term throughout the New Testament and patristic literature, attempts to synthesize the data into an overall summary statement.

…it should not be difficult to recognize in koinonia the deepest stratum within the church of God on earth, by means of which we are enabled to see God’s fundamental gift to humanity. It is not only on the mystical level that a person who has received the Spirit is introduced into the koinonia of Father [sic] and Son; it is also on the practical level that this supreme grace takes form in a community that binds together a common faith, a fellowship of sharing and of service, a common undertaking for the sake of the gospel and common acts of divine worship. In other words, all the biblical images which serve as represen- tatives or models of the church are intended to convey the single reality which is koinonia (DEM, 574).

The word is not italicized in the DEM text. Koinonia becomes, then, something which is described, not defined. However, does this truly lead to a univocal understanding of koinonia, or has the ecumenical movement simply employed what is essentially a “buzz word” enabling all parties to engage in common discussion without arriving at a common- ality of understanding? As alternate terminology is lacking, this essay will similarly em- ploy the term koinonia, hopefully in a univocal manner. 22“2.1 The unity of the Church to which we are called is a koinonia given and ex- pressed in the common confession of the apostolic faith; a common sacramental life entered by the one baptism and celebrated together in one eucharistic fellowship; a common life in which members and ministries are mutually recognized and reconciled; and a common mission witnessing to all people to the gospel of God’s grace and serving the whole of creation.” The Canberra Statement, produced by the Faith and Order Com- mission, was adopted by the Seventh Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Canberra, Australia. It may be extracted from http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/faith/ canb.html 23Op. cit. By my count the word koinonia appears twenty-two times within the text of the statement with various shades of meaning. Never once is koinonia given a defini- tion. Common usage of a word doesn’t guarantee a common understanding of it. 24It appears only three times in this document. 25With regard to this, Harding Meyer astutely comments, “Coming from their own ecclesiastical traditions, Christians and churches introduce into the ecumenical move- ment their own and, for the most part, specifically characterized understanding of the unity of the church. Thus, something akin to a confrontation of different understandings of unity occurs in the ecumenical movement.” As he believes that these same seemingly disparate voices share certain base line commonalities regarding the nature of the church

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 467 , John Paul II observes that

with regard to doctrinal formulations which differ from those normally in use in the community to which one belongs, it is certainly right to determine whether the words involved say the same thing.26

Koinonia cannot be discussed apart from its constitutive elements. These both comprise and facilitate koinonia at intra- and inter-ecclesial levels. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church they are the trina vincula, the three visible bonds of unity: “profession of one faith received from the Apostles”; “common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments”; and the “apostolic succession through the sacrament of , maintaining the fraternal concord of God’s family.”27 For Lutherans the constitutive elements28 of koinonia are described in the Augsburg Confessions’s seventh article: agreement “concerning the teaching of the gospel and the administration of the holy sacraments.”29 While it may be latent in the term “administration of the holy sacraments,” no explicit mention is made of the ordained ministry in this article. One could opine that in the absence of the first two constitutive elements (the faith and the sacraments) the third would not matter. At first glance, there appears to be a remarkable similarity. Both lists show concern for setting forth the faith and the sacramental components of worship. The Roman Catholic Church also finds a source of unity within the apostolic succession. One could argue that by adopting Called to Common Mission in 2000, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has, on

(unity being the basic conviction; efforts for unity being the “ecumenical indicative”; and the need to manifest this unity visibly being the “ecumenical imperative”) Meyer does not believe that this should prove a hindrance to discussion. Harding Meyer, That All May Be One: Perceptions and Models of Ecumenicity, trans. William G. Rusch (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 7. 26Ut Unum Sint, 38. 27Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 234. The context here is the discussion of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” of the . 28Citing Facing Unity, Susan Wood notes that the Roman Catholic-Lutheran Joint Commission identified the following elements of what she terms “full communion”: com- munity of faith; community in sacraments; community of service. Each of these can be broken into component parts. In terms of the topic of this essay, community of service is said to include “structured fellowship, common ordained ministry, joint reflection on the early Church, jointly exercised ministry, joint exercise of episkopè, act of recognition [sic], single collegial episkopè, and joint episkopè and ordination.” “Ecclesial Koinonia in Ecu- menical Dialogues,” One in Christ 30:2 (1994): 130. From the Lutheran perspective, and presumably also the Roman Catholic, since joint ordination would create a single or- dained ministry, it is difficult to determine why a joint form of episkopè would be neces- sary unless the Roman Catholic Church is picturing the existence of a fully recognized Lutheran community within its own institutional structure. 29Augsburg Confession VII (Kolb-Wengert, 43). Quoted according to the Latin text.

468 paper, committed itself to affirming the historic episcopate as a constitutive element of koinonia with the Episcopal Church, USA. However, is it the case that, as Roman Catholics and Lutherans discuss the constitutive elements of koinonia they are all on the same page? Do they hear the same things? Do they share the same understandings of the faith, the sacraments, or even the apostolic succession? Sadly, they do not.30 Concerning the papacy, the following statement appears in Ut Unum Sint:

[As] I acknowledged on the important occasion of a visit to the World Council of Churches in Geneva on 12 June 1984, the Catholic Church’s conviction that in the ministry of the Bishop of Rome she has preserved, in fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition and the faith of the Fathers, the visible sign and guarantor of unity, constitutes a difficulty for most other Christians, whose memory is marked by certain painful recollections. To the extent that we are responsible for these, I join my Predecessor Paul VI in asking forgiveness.31

Pope John Paul II alludes to two realities: the Roman Catholic Church’s conviction that the papacy serves as the “visible sign and guarantor of

30This highlights an ongoing ecumenical problem concerning koinonia, koinonia language, and the identification of koinonia’s constitutive elements. The language is often equivocal. Each party reads, or receives, the agreed statements through its own distinct set of lenses. What one party assumes the other is hearing may not necessarily be the case. As a result, a kind of koinonia may emerge which, when examined in the light of common agreed understandings of terminology et al., may in fact turn out to be no koinonia at all. Does this mean that ecumenical relations should come to a grinding halt until univocal ecumenical language can be arrived at? No. Univocal language must be developed, emerging from the on-going dialogue process. Indeed, as evidence that this is a matter of concern among many bi- and multilateral ecumenical partners, Lorelei Fuchs cites the “ecumenical proclivity for a shift from instrumental to symbolic thinking and for a more acceptable meta-language in which the churches might together articulate common understanding” (“Louise-Marie Chauvet’s Theology of Sacrament and Ecumenical Theology: Connections on Terms of an Ecumenical Hermeneutics of Unity Based on a Koinonia Ecclesiology,” in Contemporary Sacramental Contours of a God Incarnate, ed. Lieven Boeve and Lambert Leussen. Texts et Études Liturgiques Studies in Liturgy XVI [Leuven: Peeters, 2001], 63). This is not, however a matter of engaging in word games as a means to avoid confronting serious theological differences. Fuchs observes that those “engaged in the work of Christian unity are not looking for a symbolic language or a symbolic ecclesiological order which fosters ecumenical syncretism in Christian sacraments. They are looking to live life as sacrament in the sense that their baptismal koinonia shall be realised in the koinonia of one eucharistic fellowship, in recognised and reconciled ministry, and in mission” (Fuchs, 73). Until a fully univocal language emerges, ecumenical documents, like koinonia language, must be read carefully, both in terms of one’s own particular ecclesial setting and theological presuppositions, and that of the body from which the document originates. 31Ut Unum Sint, 88.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 469 unity,” and the problematic nature of this conviction among Christians outside the Roman Catholic Church. In the twentieth century, at least, these discussions have shifted to the issue of “Petrine function.” Within the statement Differing Attitudes Toward Papal Primacy produced by the fifth round of Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue in the United States, the following description of Petrine function appears.

...although we are aware of the danger of attributing to the church in New Testament times a modern style of model of universality, we have found it appropriate to speak of a “Petrine function,” using this term to describe a particular form of Ministry exercised by a person, officeholder, or local church with reference to the church as a whole. [Emphasis in text.] This Petrine function of the Ministry serves to promote or preserve the oneness of the church by symbolizing unity, and by facilitating communication, mutual assistance or correction, and collaboration in the church’s mission.32

David Yeago discerns in all of this a shift in the way the papacy is discussed. He believes that this shift holds the potential to facilitate helpful and fruitful discussions.

The central theological achievement of the U.S. dialogue was to relocate the issue of primacy in a teleological context, within which we can ask what good the primacy of Rome might serve, in what ways, and under what conditions. Since other Christians generally agree with Catholics that Christian ministry does have a “Petrine function”…dialogue is indeed possible…. One can ask what reasons there are for locating such a Petrine ministry precisely in the local church of Rome and its bishop. One can discuss just what power and authority really are required “lest such an office be illusory,” and to what degree the concrete ways in which the office has been exercised have helped or hindered its fulfillment of its task. The claim of divine institution need by no means be surrendered, but its force is altered when the function of papal primacy in a teleology of mission becomes central evidence for it.33

Personal or ecclesial assessments of this notwithstanding, the common threads running through this are episkopè and unity. These are revisited in Ut Unum Sint. The Bishop of Rome is, according to Lumen Gentium 23, the point of unity within the Roman Catholic Church. The terms “visible

32“Differing Attitudes Toward Papal Primacy.” Papal Primacy and the Universal Church: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V, ed. Paul C. Empie and T. Austin Murphy. (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), 11-12. 33David S. Yeago, “The Papal Office and the Burdens of History: A Lutheran View” in Church Unity, 103.

470 sign” and “guarantor of unity” used in Ut Unum Sint 88 have been noted above. Susan Wood writes,

The expressive or representational function of ministry varies among the confessions in proportion to the degree to which they envision ministry within the general category of sacramentality. The expressive function of ministry is fulfilled where the person of the minister represents, sacramentalises [sic] or symbolises [sic] the unity within the ecclesial community. The minister becomes the focus of unity because that person is representative of the ecclesial community, but also because union with that person and the authority invested in that person becomes a condition for the unity within the Church itself.34

This is reflected in Ut Unum Sint when John Paul II understands himself, and his office, as serving to facilitate unity.

I myself intend to promote every suitable initiative [emphasis in text] aimed at making the witness of the entire Catholic community understood in its full purity and consistency, especially considering the engagement which awaits the Church at the threshold of the new Millennium. That will be an exceptional occasion, in view of which she asks the Lord to increase the unity of all Christians until they reach full communion. The present Encyclical Letter is meant as a contribution to this most noble goal. Essentially pastoral in character, it seeks to encourage the efforts of all who work for the cause of unity. This is a specific duty of the Bishop of Rome as the Successor of the Apostle Peter. I carry out this duty with the profound conviction that I am obeying the Lord, and with a clear sense of my own human frailty.35

John Paul II believes he is obeying the will expressed in John 17:22, a will which ultimately lends itself to the title of this encyclical: “that they may be one even as we are one.” Ultimately, John Paul II understands this unity in Christ as unity built around the Bishop of Rome who is the successor to Christ.36 Thus, the exercise of his episkopè, and that of the bishops in

34Wood, 140. 35Ut Unum Sint, 3 and 4. 36“The mission of the Bishop of Rome within the College of all the Pastors consists precisely in ‘keeping watch’ (episkopein), like a sentinel, so that through the efforts of the Pastors, the true voice of Christ the Shepherd may be heard in all the particular Churches. In this way, in each of the particular Churches entrusted to those Pastors, the una, sancta, catholica et apostolica Ecclesia is made present. All the Churches are in full and visible communion, because all the Pastors are in communion with Peter and therefore united in Christ,” Ut Unum Sint, 94.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 471 communion with him is in his estimation the manifestation of Christ’s will for the Church.37 Historically, Lutheranism has not understood the structure of the Holy Ministry to be a matter on which a clear dominical mandate can be found.38 Neither has Lutheranism regarded the issue as unimportant. Episkopè must function for the good of the ecclesia. The various polities within Lutheranism, which range from the episcopal through the synodical and congregational, attempt to do that. Thus, for Lutherans episkopè, in its tangible manifestations, is a theme with many variations. However, what may appear a chaotic mix of incompatible structures does not pose an impediment to inter-ecclesial koinonia among Lutherans, especially within the umbrella of the LWF or the much smaller International Lutheran Conference.39 The stated preference within Lutheranism’s symbolic documents is for an episcopally structured ecclesia, even if such could not, in most cases, be realized in actuality.40 What is important for the sake of this presentation is the recognition in each of these polity structures of an attempt to incarnate episkopè within a given ecclesial context. A concern for Lutherans is whether episkopè is by necessity best comprehended within the institution of papacy. Lutherans would not deny

37None of this, of course, is bereft of controversy. The desired unity expressed in John 17 and its tangible manifestation have proven elusive. The Great Schism of 1054 split the Eastern and Western churches. Fragmentation accelerated in the West with the sixteenth century Reformation, from which, among others, emerged the Lutherans and the Anglicans. Although separated from the Roman Catholic Church, both communions seek to exercise the episkopè inherent in the Petrine function as it is manifested within their own distinct ecclesial contexts. 38The Preface to the Ordinal in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, 510, in a sense, echoes this, pointing out that “The Holy Scriptures and ancient Christian writers make it clear that from the apostles’ time, there have been different ministries within the Church.” Existence is one thing. Dominical mandate is quite another. The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church (The Seabury Press, 1979). 39The twenty-eight member ILC, of which The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is the largest member, seeks to be “a forum to which member churches may bring their theological and practical needs and challenges to mutual consideration” (See Bachman, 607). For additional information on the ILC, the reader is referred to its web site, http:// www.ilc-online.org. 40For example, Article XIV of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: “Article fourteen, in which we say that no one should be allowed to administer the Word and the sacraments unless they are duly called, they [the Roman Catholic party represented in the Confutation of the Augsburg Confession] accept with the proviso that we use canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in the assembly that it is our greatest desire to retain the order of the church and the various ranks in the Church– even though they were established by human authority. We know that church discipline in the manner described by the ancient canons was instituted by the Fathers for a good and useful purpose. However, the bishops compel our priests either to reject and to condemn the kind of doctrine that we have confessed, or by new and unheard cruelty they kill the unfortunate and innocent people. This prevents our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason for the abolition of canonical order in some places despite our earnest desire to retain it” (Kolb-Wengert, 105-140).

472 that, for various reasons which lie outside the scope of this presentation, the See of Rome assumed a primatial position in the West.41 Rejection of the papacy stems from a threefold source: theological reflection, concerns about its growing power, and experienced abuses. This is not unknown to John Paul II.

Nevertheless, besides the doctrinal differences needing to be resolved, Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long- standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference, and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories. With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord’s disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine [sic] together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today.42

Lutheranism has, at least on paper, a quiet confessional commitment within its 1537 Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope to consider aspects of the question open. Harding Meyer has suggested that, rather than repudiating the concept of papacy entirely, the Treatise may, in fact upon closer reading, leave the door ajar. If it is the case that Melanchthon is saying “No” to “an exaggerated understanding of the pope’s iure divino status,”43 does this rule out the topic altogether? Is it possible to discuss papacy in another way, as perhaps a plausible institution within the Christian church de iure humano? A hint of this may be detected in his qualified subscription to the Smalcald Articles, also of 1537.44 This does not appear to be a specious understanding of the evidence. Fred Kramer points out that while open to discussing papacy in abstracto, Lutherans have a particular concern.

41The history of this may be most profitably gleaned from the supporting essays in the American Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue’s Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, op. cit. 42Ut Unum Sint, 2. 43Harding Meyer, “‘Suprema auctoritas ideo ab omne errore immunis’: The Lutheran Approach to Primacy” in Petrine Ministry and the Unity of the Church: “Toward a Patient and Fraternal Dialogue,” ed. James F. Puglisi (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1999), 30. 44“I, Philip Melanchthon, also regard the above articles as true and Christian. How- ever, concerning the pope I maintain that if he would allow the gospel, we, too, may (for the sake of peace and general unity among those Christians who are now under him and might be in the future) grant to him his superiority over the bishops which he has ‘by human right’” (Kolb-Wengert, 326).

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 473 They stress the importance of the right teaching of the Gospel and the right administration of the sacraments as necessary for the very existence and unity of the church, and the importance of the public ministry.45

But Kramer urges that Lutheran concerns not be understood as a Lutheran repudiation of the possibility of a papacy exercising some form of episkopè, or primacy.

…it is possible to risk a statement on what a Lutheran under- standing of papal primacy in the church might mean. 1. It would be a primacy strictly de iure humano; 2. It would be a primacy over the bishops, making the pope a primus inter pares; 3. The individual pope’s position would depend on the good will of those who elected him, and who could also depose him; 4. Such a pope would therefore be responsible to those who el- evated him to his position; 5. Such a pope should serve the cause of peace and unity in Christendom.46

While this reflects Lutheran concerns prior to Ut Unum Sint, a remarkable similarity may be found in Lutheran reflection after the fact. Harding Meyer identifies several items which he believes Lutherans bring to the table as part of any discussions regarding acceptable forms of papal primacy.

1. The great and overarching expectation is that papal primacy, in turn, be placed “under” the “primacy of the gospel” and “serve” it, “clearly.” 2. It is expected that this subordination to the Gospel be made clearly evident and recognizable in two respects: – on the one hand with a view to the theological understanding of papal primacy, particularly with regard to its teaching au- thority, i.e., its claim for infallibility or indefectibility of its ex cathedra decisions, and with regard to its claim of being “nec- essary for the church” or–which amounts to the same–of being iure divino; – on the other hand with a view to the ecclesiological (both struc- tural and juridical) aspects of papal primacy, i.e., with regard

45Fred Kramer, “A Lutheran Understanding of Papal Primacy” in Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V, op. cit., 129. Regrettably absent is a clarification of the word “Gospel,” rendering the word susceptible to multiva- , even equivocal, usages and understandings which, in the end, prove unhelpful. 46Ibid.

474 to its authority and exercise of leadership because here, too, the primacy of the gospel can be at stake particularly where the relationship of papal primacy to the whole people of God is concerned. To put it simply and with a view to the twofold dogma of papal primacy of Vatican I: on the one hand it is mainly the problem of magisterial primacy, on the other it is principally the problem of jurisdictional primacy [emphases in original].47

The degree to which Roman Catholics in general, and the papacy in particular, could accept this assessment is debatable indeed! In Ut Unum Sint 96, John Paul II calls for “patient and fraternal dialogue” regarding the papacy. The above cited Lutheran provisos concerning potential recognition of papal primacy would, no doubt, test the limits of both patience and fraternity. However, it must be kept in mind that John Paul does not intend to make Ut Unum Sint the occasion for a full statement of the Roman Catholic Church’s position on papal primacy. Quite the opposite. Ut Unum Sint’s genesis is in Unitatis Redintegratio’s embrace of ecumenism. Even this must be read “in the context of the complete teaching of the Second Vatican Council.”48 What he says must be understood, then, both in terms of Roman Catholic theology in general and an ecclesiology of koinonia in particular. Specifically in this encyclical, he sets forth what he understands is an aspect of one of its constitutive elements: the exercise of episkopè.

The mission of the Bishop of Rome within the College of all the Pastors consists precisely in “keeping watch” (episkopein), like a sentinel, so that, through the efforts of the Pastors, the true voice of Christ the Shepherd may be heard in all the particular Churches. In this way, in each of the particular Churches entrusted to those Pastors, the una, sancta, catholica et apostolica Ecclesia is made present. All the Churches are in full and visible communion, because all the Pastors are in communion with Peter and therefore united in Christ.49

While this will involve the exercise of power, power is not the ultimate end, even if, at times, that is the way primacy is experienced. That this could even be admitted is remarkable. That this will result in concrete changes in the exercise of the papacy is less certain. However, John Paul believes that papal primacy, exercised within an ecclesiology of koinonia

47Harding Meyer, in Puglisi, op. cit., 24-25. 48Ut Unum Sint, 8. 49Ibid., 94. Although the discussion of papal primacy begins earlier in Ut Unum Sint, starting with a generalized statement regarding the Bishop of Rome in section 88, sec- tions 94-97 form the heart of the matter.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 475 serves the cause of unity within the ecclesia “by bearing witness to the truth.”50 From his perspective, and that of the Second Vatican Council, the ecclesia is not coterminous with the Roman Catholic Church but ultimately embraces the una, sancta, catholica et apostolica confessed within the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Accepting that this is the case, how then is primacy to be comprehended? What role does it have within the ecclesiology of koinonia underpinning Ut Unum Sint? John Paul identifies two aspects—one positive and the other negative. He finds the positive side to primacy in the service of unity which includes

vigilance over the handing down of the Word, the celebration of the Liturgy and the Sacraments, the Church’s mission, discipline and the Christian life.51

He admits that he cannot carry out this task alone.52 Various commissions, , theological faculties, and individuals provide support. Is this unique? No. This form of episkopè has corresponding forms within other ecclesial bodies. While the given incarnation may differ, often widely among the ecclesial bodies, the goal of nurturing the faith remains a common concern. Nurturing the faith, promoting intra-ecclesial koinonia, also involves recognizing where lines of acceptable teaching have been crossed. Not all teaching serves to edify or strengthen intra-ecclesial koinonia. A certain vade post me Satana scandalum es mihi53 is in order when the integrity of the faith is jeopardized. Avoiding this only injures intra- and inter-ecclesial koinonia.

It is the responsibility of the Successor of Peter to recall the requirements of the common good of the Church, should anyone be tempted to overlook it in the pursuit of personal interests. He has the duty to admonish, to caution and to declare at times that this or that opinion being circulated is irreconcilable with the unity of faith [emphasis mine].54

Again, as with that aspect of episkopè which promotes and nurtures the faith, the admonitory and corrective form of episkopè also may be found within other ecclesial bodies. The question for all is the extent to which it

50Ibid. Problematic in this phrase is, of course, the word “truth.” 51Ibid. 52Ibid., 96. This is true both in terms of his primatial office within the Roman Catholic Church as well as his contacts with ecclesial leaders outside the Roman Catholic Church. 53Matthew 16:23. Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994). 54Ut Unum Sint, 94.

476 is employed. For instance, does this necessitate the specific concentration of episkopè within a specific office, namely the papacy? The concern for clear articulation of the faith (and the rejection of errors) is found within Ut Unum Sint. In the muddle of voices (often wildly contradictory which vie for an audience among the faithful) a clear articulation of the faith is needed. Primacy places the papacy on the forefront, making the pope the spokesman for the episcopal college.

He can also–under very specific conditions clearly laid down by the First Vatican Council–declare ex cathedra that a certain doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith.55

This is the exercise of infallibility. While its development lies outside the realm of this essay, the “very specific conditions” referred to involve the consultation with other bishops so that what is articulated is not the faith of the pope but the faith shared within the koinonia of the Roman Catholic Church. Lutherans would have great difficulty signing on to this. Conceptualizing the papacy as the promoter of unity is not necessarily the same as acceding to its claims of infallibility. One must even wonder about the extent to which papal claims of infallibility are embraced by Roman Catholics themselves. Ut Unum Sint, while setting forth the issues of episkopè, primacy, and infallibility urges the crucial caveat that this “must always be done in communion.”56 Within the ecclesiology of koinonia outlined in Ut Unum Sint, the pope is not envisioned an independent player divorced from accountability. Faithfulness to the paradosis, mutuality within the episcopal college, coupled with an intentional willingness to apply the principle of subsidiarity, must all be fostered. If not, then what claims to be an ecclesiology of koinonia really devolves into an ecclesiology of power, hyper- centralization, and self-aggrandizement at the expense of others. Often this is how papacy is both perceived and experienced. If the Roman Catholic Church’s ecumenical efforts are geared not simply to foster inter-ecclesial koinonia in general but to foster a particular trajectory, it can ill afford a papacy which lives up to the fears and protests of its ecumenical partners. Keeping in mind the positions of the ecumenical partners, John Paul II remains firm in his insistence that there is no ecumenical future for the Roman Catholic Church which does not, in some way, include the papacy.

The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of

55Ibid. 56Ibid., 95.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 477 Rome, is–in God’s plan–an essential requisite of full and visible communion.57

Thus, the acceptance of papal primacy is, beyond a shadow of doubt, a constitutive element for intra-ecclesial koinonia and inter-ecclesial koinonia with the Roman Catholic Church. The difficulty in the text is whether infallibility is a component part of this “essential requisite of full and visible communion.” If so, does Ut Unum Sint truly represents a change in the papacy’s self-conception? Or has a new way been found to repackage the same claims, hoping thereby to make them palatable? This is not a forced interpretation of the data. Consider what follows the assertion that the papacy “is–in God’s plan–an essential requisite to full and visible communion.”

Indeed full communion, of which the Eucharist is the highest sacramental manifestation, needs to be visibly expressed in a ministry in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith.58

As the statement reads by itself, few would argue with this. In fact, it seems to that this ultimately is the goal of all who are engaged at any level in the ecumenical task. However, that this, of necessity, requires or flows from the acceptance of papal primacy is a matter about which the jury is still out. Within the Roman Catholic Church episkopè, while distributed to all who are in the episcopal college, ultimately finds its functional incarnation in the pope as primus inter pares. As such, the recognition of papal primacy for Roman Catholics will always be a constitutive element of koinonia because this form of episkopè is included, of necessity, within the Roman Catholic Church’s understanding of the apostolic succession. To return to an earlier question, is it necessary that this episkopè assume the shape of papal primacy as it is expressed within Ut Unum Sint or currently exercised by the pope? The clergy abuse scandal within the Roman Catholic Church has caused this issue to be discussed at levels which go beyond that of a bi- or multilateral commission. Sober minds cannot fail to be affected by recent events, all of which raise considerable doubts about the viability of papal primacy in the service of anything, let alone koinonia. Is this what primacy entails? If so, is this truly something seriously worth considering? What might be termed “immediate” concerns, generated by recent history, may evidence other concerns which lurk behind Lutheranism’s highly qualified openness to primacy.

57Ibid., 97. 58Ibid.

478 Ut Unum Sint raises many questions. Are communions which receive papal primacy prepared for some of its implications? Are Lutherans who embrace papal primacy prepared to terminate their inter-ecclesial koinonia relationships with Lutherans who do not? Are Lutherans prepared to cede a cherished part of their functional subsidiarity, namely, the local election of bishops in favor of direct episcopal appointment from Rome?59 Will those Lutheran bodies, for which the ordination of women to the presbyterate, or consecration to the episcopacy, is an assumed part of ecclesial life, accept the wholesale or invalidation of the orders of comparatively large segments of their clergy? Is the Lutheran laity prepared for the possibility that, other than baptism, the sacraments administered particularly by its clergy, irrespective of gender, may be pontifically judged invalid? In its response60 to Ut Unum Sint, the Bishops’ Conference of the Church of Sweden has raised some of these questions with an eye to another facet of the discussion. If the Roman Catholic Church considers itself to be the visible, tangible manifestation of ecclesia, is it truly the case that its bi- and multilateral partners come to the table as equals? If the ministerial orders of a given ecclesial body are judged defective61 so that eucharistic koinonia cannot be shared, what does this say of any sacrament administered by that body?

59A prophetic example of this may be found in the decision by the Roman Catholic Church to create four new within Russia. Ostensibly this is meant to serve the spiritual needs of Russia Roman Catholics, but the ecumenical effect from the Russian Orthodox perspective has been the rendering of a de facto judgement that the is not truly church. “Catholics Upgrade Presence in Russia, Annoying Orthodox.” New York Times, February 12, 2002, sec. A, 3. It would appear that this violates the provisions of Canon VIII of the Council of Nicea (325) that, in order to avoid conflicting jurisdictions, there be only one bishop in the city. Archbishop Peter L’Huillier expands on this, “Moreover, we do not find in the ancient canonical documents one single term to designate the territory over which each bishop exercised his authority...” (The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils [Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2000], 62). However, he observes that “the territorial principle is inherent in Orthodox ecclesiology, and it is effectively respected in the geographical limits of the various and autocephalous churches. On the other hand, in our time and beyond the limits of these territorial churches, we witness a certain failure to observe this principle. It is proper to recognize that this constitutes a serious attack on strict canonical observance. It is certain that these existing abnormalities will progressively have to be eliminated.” 60Extractable from http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/arkeb/biskmote/bisksvar/ bisksvareng.html. 61 This issue was addressed, although not resolved in the Roman Catholic/Lutheran Joint Commission’s The Ministry in the Church (Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1982), 29, where a so called defectus in Lutheran orders is mentioned, but never defined. Section 76 continues by asking whether this “defectus refers to a partial lack rather than a complete absence” of the fullness of ordained ministry. This is followed by section 77’s assessment that “in the light of the post-conciliar ecumenical discussion...it seems pos- sible to speak of a defectus ordinis in the sense of a lack of the fullness of the church’s ministry. In fact it is the Catholic conviction that standing in the historic succession belongs to the fullness of the episcopal ministry. But this does not, according to the Catho-

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 479 By baptism, there is a spiritual communion between our churches, but “the lack of the Sacrament of Orders” hinders unity at the Eucharist. Does not the fullness exist implicitly already in the mutual recognition of baptism–as a grafting into the Body of Christ, with the entire ecclesiology that this means? Does not such recognition also imply some degree of recognition of each other’s churches and ministries? How is it otherwise possible that one sacrament (Baptism) may be recognised but not the other (the Eucharist)? And if baptism is an act common to all churches, which nevertheless is administered in different churches, what does that baptism say about the ecclesial status of those different churches? Are they then not more united–in the Body of Christ–then what we have so far had the courage to acknowledge–both from an ecclesiological and a sacramental perspective? Is it possible to uphold the view that there is a defect in the doctrine on the ordained ministry?62

Admittedly, the Bishops’ Conference seems to be pressing Baptismal koinonia too far, perhaps forcing it to bear more weight than it truly can. However, the point is well taken. How much of a defectus can there be if Baptism is recognized? Lutherans have always regarded performed by the Roman Catholic Church as salvific, therefore valid. While arguing that Luther was willing to recognize the papacy and papal primacy under some extremely well-defined conditions, the Bishops’ Conference raises a series of as of yet unanswered questions. When compared to other Lutheran concerns outlined earlier in this essay, the questions of the Bishops’ Conference ring familiar. These questions deserve both a hearing and serious reflection by the Missouri Synod at all ecclesial levels.

Does the primacy—in any form or content—belong to the esse of the faith? If so, how? And in what sense can the primacy of the pope be subject to the primacy of the gospel? Theological and ecclesiological interpretation on several difficult issues, which are all deeply interrelated, is needed, among them the relation between the pope and all other bishops, the power of the pope, or the primacy of jurisdiction, if that is how it might be expressed (see again the Malta Report, point 66) not to mention the view of the papal primacy as a divine institution in the right church,–de iure divino–and its

lic view, preclude that the ministry in the Lutheran churches exercises essential func- tions of the ministry that Jesus Christ instituted in his church.” This is an absolutely startling concession on the part of Lutherans to say the least. All it has cost the Roman Catholic Church is the narrow refocusing of the alleged defectus. Does this truly repre- sent a step forward for either body? 62A Response to the Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint from the Bishops’ Conference of the Church of Sweden, op. cit. The paragraphs are not numbered.

480 close connection with the doctrine of infallibility. Here it will be important to clarify the difference between spiritual and canonical primacy.63

For all its willingness, even eagerness, to put the best construction on Ut Unum Sint, the Conference has reservations. These are not squea- mish peccadilloes or matters of recalcitrant nit picking. Like Ut Unum Sint, discussions of the reception of papal primacy by ecclesial bodies out- side the Roman Catholic Church lead to a single conclusion.

[A] consequent adherence to Roman-Catholic reasoning ultimately makes ecclesiology a matter of salvation64 [hyphenation in original].

In other words, it becomes a constitutive element of koinonia in the sense of being a component of the apostolic faith, effectively rendering null and void the claim of any outside the Roman Catholic Church to be “church.” This simply is unacceptable. Entrance into any kind of inter-ecclesial koinonia with the Roman Catholic Church would necessitate the termination of all other inter-ecclesial koinonia relationships with ecclesial bodies not having such a relationship with the Roman Catholic Church. This has led the German theologian Reinhard Frieling to comment rather wryly,

It requires no special perspicacity to see that no other church is going to accept the Roman Catholic model of unity of faith and church unity. [This sentence seems rather awkward.] This is probably why Pope Paul VI said in a 1967 address to the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, “We are fully aware that the pope is the greatest stumbling-block on the way to unity.” Pope John Paul II sees this no less clearly, though in Ut Unum Sint he puts it somewhat more cautiously.”65

Desirous of finding something good in Ut Unum Sint, and to avoid sinking years of productive dialogue, the Bishops’ Conference suggests an alternate way of comprehending papal primacy.

[It] might perhaps be possible to distinguish between what is necessary for a right ecclesiology and what is necessary for the unity of the church. In other words, the papacy may not be necessary in order to be church, as other churches must also be recognised, but it could be considered as a necessity for the unity between the churches.66 63Ibid. 64Ibid. 65Reinhard Frieling, “Communion With, Not Under the Pope,” in Ecumenical Re- view. 49:1 (1997): 39. 66A Response, op. cit.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 481 The Bishops’ Conference believes that the details still remain unclear. How will it be incarnated into the life of the ecclesia? This raises the issues of theological foundations, the process of reception and functionality, which include guarantees of collegiality and subsidiarity. These issues must be addressed before the concept may be attractive enough to embrace. The Conference is not, however, convinced that the Roman Catholic Church should address them alone. Input from ecumenical partners, including The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, is crucial. Also crucial is the demonstration that this input has yielded real results. No one with an ear to the ground can underestimate the influence of Ut Unum Sint in stimulating discussion between the Roman Catholic Church and its ecumenical partners, even among those partners themselves. The influence of this encyclical on the ecumenical movement, like that of Vatican II on the Roman Catholic Church is, perhaps, discerned over time. Registering his support for Ut Unum Sint’s call for full visible communion among all Christians, Cardinal Cassidy states

It is the response of Christians to this call on which the future of the ecumenical movement will depend in the long run. Nothing is lacking from the Lord. He has given us his Spirit to guide and inspire us. The big question remains to what degree we are ready to listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches today?67

To return to the banner hanging within the Centro Pro Unione, we in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod must hear and heed the words it bears: ut omnes unum sint. They are our Lord’s words, expressive of His will and His vision for the church. Ignoring them only side-lines the Synod into an introspective, but ultimately irrelevant, sectarianism. Embracing them, and all that they can mean, the Synod is prepared to hear what the church’s Lord and His quickening Spirit have to say. Christians of all stripes must be ready to listen to what the Spirit is saying. However, is the Spirit saying what John Paul II is saying in Ut Unum Sint?

67Cassidy in Braaten and Jenson, op. cit., 26.

482 Homiletical Helps on LW Series B —Gospels

All Saints’ Day Matthew 5:1-12 November 2, 2003

Always a Blessing

Are the beatitudes Law or Gospel? After reading the beatitudes, does one feel a need to repent or does one feel surrounded by the blessing of God? The beatitudes are not guidelines for living. They are about the assurance of God’s promised grace at all times. Introduction: The man was in his 80s, never before having been hospitalized. Now he needed surgery. The man attempted to interpret the relationship between his faith and his life. He looked up into his pastor’s eyes and said, “Pastor, what did I do wrong that God is punishing me now?” For the sick man, surgery was punishment and health was the norm, but God could make either a blessing.

Always a Blessing

I. Believers have difficulty seeing God’s blessings. A. Believers often interpret life rationally as though their comfort level were an automatic reward for faithfulness. If things go well, God must be blessing them. When things do not go well, God must be punishing them. Jesus challenges such a vew of faith. In the beatitudes, He shares the hidden way in which God blesses the lives of His disciples even in the most difficult of circumstances. Discipleship is a way of life different than other ways but always within the providence of God’s gracious care. As rational human beings, believers may ask, “Why, God?” and then set about rationally to figure out existence in the fallen created order as action/reaction to faith. Why must sadness come into life? As one widow said, “Why did my husband have to die when there are all those people with no morals walking around?” B. An attempt to interpret life in a rational manner obscures one’s ability to see God’s action in the moment. There are no answers for the “why’s” of life if it is posited that life in a fallen world must be reasonable. The psalmist asks the “Why?” regarding the seemingly unfair conditions of the world in Psalm 2 but then corrects his own thinking by proclaiming God’s prevailing nature in the circumstance. Such insights into God’s functioning are often hidden from the believer. II. In every circumstance, God gives a blessing to the believer. A. Each verse begins with (:"6VD4@4). Blessed describes that special joy which God gives to those disciples who faithfully follow Him in Christ. True joy resides not in the pursuit of happiness. True joy rests in God (Ps. 16:11). It is not dependent on outward circumstances but finds joy in the Lord and removes further anxiety by entrusting all situations to God (Phil. 4:4-7). Part of the joy is the result of seeing life as God sees it. While

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 483 this may cause some temporary discomfort, it results in deep, eternal joy. B. In God’s plan of salvation, the everyday events of life are only foils for the blessings for the believer. On All Saints’ Day there is a reminder that the true blessings are evident in the light of God’s plan for life, the salvation of all (1 Tim. 2:4). God blesses the believer: 1. In humility (v. 3). The poor in spirit have been humbled by God’s Law and their own sins. Their humble trust in Jesus is a sign of their inclusion in the kingdom of heaven. 2. In mourning (v. 4). Believers grieve over sin (1 Cor. 5:2) or may sorrow from looking at the world and sighing deeply because of its rejection of the Christ, or may be sad over any other loss in life. In His Word, God forgives their sins and sustains them. 3. In meekness (v. 5). The unassuming (BD"gÃH) will find a blessing in every possession which God gives to them. By God’s grace, they will be the same as kings because they will have Jesus.

There is no circumstances in which God will not bless the believer. God’s blessing just keeps coming and coming.

III. Jesus is the fulfillment of all of the blessings God has to offer. The highest blessing is to know that God forgives all sins through the cross of Christ (Ps. 32:1-2). The beatitudes are meant to sustain forgiven sinners along the way. In the beatitudes, the blessing of being a follower of Jesus is at every turn. God blesses the believer: A. In his/her search for righteousness (v. 6). The seekers will be given the righteousness of God in Jesus (1 Cor. 1:30). B. In acts of mercy (v. 7). Those who are kind to the weak and do not reject them will receive God’s acceptance of their weakness, and His kindness and favor in Jesus. C. In being pure in heart (v. 8). Those who stay close to God’s Word and penitently replace their own thoughts with what God says will be led to God through the purity of Jesus. D. In peacemaking (v. 9). Those who are reconcilers will be doing the work of God who has reconciled the world to Himself in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:19). E. In being persecuted (v. 10). Those who are persecuted are identified along with the saints who have gone before them.

God has entered the created order in the form of a man. He has broken into the lives of the believers by the power of the Holy Spirit. He continues to bless the believers. It is a fallen world but not a mechanistic world. God continues to intervene (Ps. 50:15). In Word and Sacrament, God continues to bring us Jesus. In the Messianic kingdom, everything is righted. Everything is taken care of. God makes up for all of the inadequacies and difficulties of life, for with God there is always a blessing. Gary Schaper

484 Third-Last Sunday in the Church Year Mark 13:1-13 November 9, 2003

The flow of the text: The text revolves around acts of “seeing” as the story line moves from the immediate context where Jesus observes a poor widow giving all out of her poverty, in contrast with the rich who gave from abundance. The “little apocalypse” of Jesus begins with a ’s shift of the conversation; he marvels, now, over the sight of the impressive stones and buildings of the temple area. Jesus’ attention has been shifted from spiritual quality to the disciple’s view of material quantity. Jesus’ reply is that what you see ($8XBg4H) is “here today, but gone tomor- row.” That vision for the revered temple seems incredible to the disciples who challenge Jesus to give them some signs and a timetable. Twice Jesus replies with “look out” statements (vv. 5, 9). “Look out,” He says, for those who would give dates and read the signs in misleading ways. Jesus suggests that the focus be not so much on the end as on our fidelity as we approach His coming for us, whenever that is. Also, “Look out,” He says, lest you be overwhelmed by the trials that beset the Christian witness. But, look up! As you endure, you’ll be enabled by the Spirit and be given the salvation reserved for the faithful. Your future is assured through your day-by-day walk with Jesus! Textual notes: Verse 1: The imperative, Ç*g, from one of the disciples directs Jesus’ attention away from the poor widow’s intimidating example which Jesus observed (¦2gfDg4) at the temple treasury to the grandeur of the whole temple area. Verses 2-3: The @Û :¬ (emphatic denial) is used twice here as Jesus declares in unmistakable terms the total demise of the temple buildings. The temple comes under judgment because it symbolized a nation gone awry, a corrupted worship program. Jesus assumes the posture of the teacher, sitting, opposite the temple now, repositioned on the Mount of Olives. Mountains are the traditional place for revelation, e.g., Sinai for the Law; the sermon on “the mount” for new slants on the Law; the mount of transfiguration for Jesus’ need to go to Jerusalem; etc. Now, on Olivet (cf. Zech. 14!), the disciples ask for and get an exposition about end times. Similarly, in 12:41, Jesus had sat opposite something: the temple’s treasury. There He taught a stewardship lesson; here He would teach about discipleship in light of the parousia. The four disciples had politely taken Jesus aside (perhaps to avoid public embarrassment over this incredible statement; see 8:32 for a parallel with Peter). For the moment, they failed to grasp that Jesus had personally superseded the temple. Verse 4: They ask for a sign and a date regarding “these things” (plural). Jewish thought linked the destruction of the temple and city with the end of the world. Hence, Jesus also gives signs here which speak of the end of the age. (Matt. 24:3 also makes clear this connection with the eschaton.) This helps the reader understand why Jesus’ reply speaks alternatively in the rest of the chapter about both parousia and temple. The latter’s end is a fore picture of the world at the parousia. Neither seemed credible to many; yet, both would surely happen! Verses 5-6: The force of the repeated “seeing” verb ($8XBgJg) now takes on the nuance of “look out.” In light of what they will see, the disciples need to “watch out” (vv. 32-37). “In my name,” many will come claiming messiahship (saying ¦(f gÆ:4)! Thus, they would imitate Jesus’ use of the expression by which He indicated identity with the Father. Obviously, false messiahs continue among us! Their pre-occupation

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 485 is with speculating on how God orders the world rather than with how we might live to His glory. Verses 7-8: The coming signs (wars and rumors of wars; nation rising vs. nation; and, kingdom vs. kingdom; earthquakes; and famines) would be misread. Be not deceived, Jesus cautions, these signs are not yet the end! Rather, they are the beginning of the “birthpangs” which signal the eschaton. Even as the pangs of birthing were endurable because the imminent birth would validate the Jewish mother’s role and remove the disgrace of barrenness, so the trials and sufferings preceding the Lord’s coming are bearable as the faithful anticipate their future glory. The signs, though not to be mistaken for the end, bear eloquent testimony to its ultimate approach. For Jesus to have granted signs pinpointing the end would have negated the need to watch (vv. 32-37). Verses 9-13: The final section of the text urges the hearers/readers to “look out” for themselves. The emphatic use of ß:gÃH here (vv. 9, 11) emphasizes the relevance of the instruction for the individual. Persecutions in the form of arrest, accusation, physical abuse, and betrayal will come to the Christian witness (certainly also in contemporary times, as examples both at home and abroad abound)! It is the Christian’s badge of honor (Matt. 5:10) and puts him into a kind of “apostolic succession.” Verse 10 reminds of the urgent calling to proclaim the good news to all nations (cf. also Luke 24:47). Verse 11 promises the support of the Holy Spirit for times of trial. It also is a prod to spend more energy on sharing the good news rather than on keeping a primary focus on continual defense! The Gospel must get out before the end! Verse 13: “He who endures,” refers to the one who stays behind (to the end) while others go away (Matt 24:12); or, who remains constant despite opposition. He does more than survive; he makes a difference! The promise of seeing the full and final reward of Christ is in the endurer’s crystal ball!

The View in Your Crystal Ball

I. Jesus looks deeper than the disciple. A. Jesus sees a widow’s faith in action. B. The disciple sees great stones and buildings. C. Jesus suggests another look. II. The disciples want to see signs and fix a date. III. Jesus says for them to “look out” A. Lest they be misled: 1. By pseudo-messiahs; 2. By misread signs; 3. By date setters. B. Lest they be unprepared: 1. For suffering for His name’s sake; 2. For the challenge of the mission a. To all peoples; b. With proclamation as primary. IV. Jesus promises that the “endurers” will see: A. The Spirit’s support in present trials. B. His glorious salvation at the end.

Postscript: What one sees and does in the present has a way of shaping one’s

486 future. Jesus, the master teacher, persisted in the monumental task of lifting the sights of His willing, but often obtuse, followers. While they are impressed by human achievements, He sets their sights toward spiritual realities. The latter abide even after the former perish. The hearer is emboldened to face his mission despite its attendant challenges. For the Spirit will stand with him now, and Jesus provides salvation in the end. For those opting for the goal/malady/means approach to the text, Mark 13 works well. Goal—having the outlook of Jesus (see outline IA, IIIAB). Malady— having a faulty spiritual focus (see IB, II). Means—having the support of the Spirit and the promise of Jesus (see IV). Donald R. Miesner

Second-Last Sunday in the Church Year Mark 13:24-31 November 16, 2003

Liturgical considerations: The countdown to “The End” continues. Anticipating the coming of “the Ancient of Days” and His revealing judgment (Old Testament reading), the people of God remain comforted by all the “great works of the Lord,” especially the work of redemption that He has accomplished in Christ Jesus (Psalm 111 and the Introit). In the face of present dangers, God’s sure and certain promises of daily care and final rescue (Collect) sustain us. Confessing the nearness of His return in glory, we live our lives with eyes fixed on Jesus (Epistle), anchored in His eternal love by a Word that never passes away. The context: Mark’s usual narrative style significantly changes course here in chapter 13. The action gives way to rather lengthy discourse, set as a kind of conclusion to Jesus’ public ministry and preface to His passion. This discourse is sometimes referred to as the “little apocalypse” and provides no small challenge to the serious student of Scripture. What is going on in this entire chapter provides the necessary framework for understanding and applying the portion serving as the appointed Gospel text for this Second-Last Sunday. Though chapter 13 is really not apocalyptic in the strict sense, it does focus upon the imminent judgment of God along with a call to His people to remain faithful and on guard (“watch”). Jesus and His disciples were leaving the temple (following the triumphal entry, Mark 11) when He attempts to correct the convoluted thinking of an unnamed disciple (13:1- 2) who admires the architectural wonder of that great worship center. Shortly thereafter, while sitting on the Mount of Olives, Jesus responds to yet another question, this time posed by Peter, James, John, and Andrew (13:3ff.). (The geography—between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives—is worth noting in view of the fact that very often in the Old Testament the Mount of Olives is the place to which God retires from a rebellious, wayward Jerusalem [see Ezek. 11:23], as well as the place where God passes judgment upon His people [Zech. 14:4].) The theme of Jesus’ response—and of this entire discourse—appears at the beginning and at the end of it: “Watch out that you not be deceived!” (13:5, 35, 37). The text: The appointed Gospel reading follows on the heels of Jesus’ prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple/Jerusalem (70 A.D.); the point upon which verse 24 comes down. Verse 24: “But in those days following that distress/tribulation.” Although the opening z!88• signals a contrast between what has just been described and what

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 487 is to follow, the emphasis is not in terms of time but in the growing intensity of the events about which Jesus is speaking. Up to this point, He has been unfolding the events leading up to the horrific (unimaginable/unthinkable) climax when literally, “not one stone here will remain on top of another” (13:2). So much for architectural splendor! The language and imagery of verses 24b-27 are tied directly to the Old Testament. Interestingly—and not without significance for understanding and applying this text—is the close relationship to Isaiah 13:10, a prophecy of impending judgment against Babylon (see also Is. 34:4 as an oracle of judgment against the nations). What is Jesus doing by using this Old Testament language and imagery? Just as the prophets of old had done, so also He is now speaking a word of judgment, and—of all things!—it is a word of judgment against Jerusalem! God is aiming His word of judgment at His own people. The old order of things was surely coming to a quick and decisive end. But there would be a new, radically different order subsequent to the destruction of the old. Taken within the context of chapter 13, Jesus Himself and His followers (those gathered from “all the nations”) would be that new order. The clear signal for this is our Lord’s reference to Daniel 7:13-15, where “one like a son of man” is enthroned to rule with all authority and power. Jesus, the anointed One, receives this rule and authority. He is Israel reduced to one—the holy and faithful One! Now the dwelling of God is with men, but no longer through the temple. The old order of things is passing away. The new is come! For verse 27, see also Deuteronomy 30:4-5 and Zechariah 2:6. The Lord gathers His elect from “all the nations” (13:10). Verses 28-29: Here is the response to the disciples’ request for “a sign” (13:4). Jesus provides a living and common parable, in the life of the fig tree. Note in verse 29: “Even so, when you (My disciples) see these things happening, you (My disciples) know that it is near….” The “it” refers to that which is unthinkable—to the destruction of the temple. Verses 30-31: Emphatically (•:¬< 8X(T ß:Ã<) and with decisive authority, Jesus finally gets around to the disciples’ “when” (13:4) question: @Û :¬ B"DX82® º (g

When we are faced with the problem of understanding a hard saying, it is always a safe procedure to ask, “What would it have meant to the people who first heard it?” And there can be but one answer to this question…Jesus’ hearers would have understood him to mean only that “all these things” would take place within their generation…the genera- tion now living (226).

Indeed, this is the simple, unencumbered translation of the term, genea, as it answers the question originally posed by the disciples (13:4). Verse 31: These words echo Isaiah 40:8 and underscore the utter reliability of Jesus’ word. By saying this, the Lord is not, however, predicting some future passing away of heaven and earth, nor is He urging His followers to contemplate this happening. Rather, He employs the unimaginableness of such a catastrophic event— the actual destruction of the temple as God’s judgment upon His wayward people— as a guarantee for the absolute truth of what He has just spoken.

488 Homiletical consideration: When “not one stone here will remain on top of another”—the unthinkable destruction Jesus prophesied in Mark 13:1ff.—there is, nonetheless, one stone that will remain. It is that stone that anchors a new, humanly unthinkable building. This new building is entirely of the Lord’s doing. He builds it His way and in His time. Surprisingly, this anchor and cornerstone was rejected by the old order. Hence, there is no sign of the old order within the new! In fact, the stones placed into this new building are gathered by the Builder from places before considered unthinkable. It is, after all, the Lord’s way. It is the Lord’s building. His words cement these stones to one another and to Him, the Cornerstone, providing an eternal witness to the power of His love—a power triumphing above and beyond all nations and rulers and governments and powers. Heaven and earth are passing away. The old order is coming to an end. Not one stone here will remain on top of another, no matter how solid and unshakeable these things appear now! Only the Lord’s words that construct and sustain His building remain. Only His words enable the kind of watchfulness that prevents us from being easily deceived in these last days before He comes again. Larry W. Rockemann

Last Sunday in the Church Year Mark 13:32-37 November 23, 2003

Considerations in relation to the text: 1. There is no doubt about the theme for this Sunday’s text. Every Scripture reading for the last three weeks has been swelling the volume and intensity of the message until today’s three readings conspire to fairly scream the theme: the eschaton is coming—the return is near— soon, soon, soon! It is palpable. The stage is set. It’s the Last Sunday of the Year and the tone should be breathless anticipation, tense, wired awareness, like the lingering adrenaline rush after a movie a bit too thrilling, or a football game unbearably close. Relaxation, leisure, and complacency are categorically ruled out. 2. The end is set. There is no doubt. The conclusion has been determined. Not only the day, but even the hour is firmly established. D-day and H-hour are already on the calendar. No man, though, knows or can know that predetermined day and hour. Indeed, man can know not even Y-year, C-century, or M-millennium. Such ignorance extends to all men—even the Son of Man. (The obvious opportunity for “doctrinal preaching” (assuming some may not be) might be met ably by what would be a semi-annual reappearance of the .) 3. In this frenetic atmosphere of charged anxiety and mystery, the worst thing that could happen, the virtually unthinkable thing, is to be caught sleeping. Images of drowsy, sleep-addled disciples strewn around the Gethsemane grounds, spring to mind. It was D-day already, and H-hour was charging toward them. But, they never saw it coming—in spite of the repeated warnings. On the verge of the world’s premiere event of eternal significance, they slept. 4. Sleeping through the sermon and stumbling through the liturgy in unthinking stupor may be common enough, and sinful enough, but what of the sin of sleeping through life itself? The command to watch applies not only to doormen and watchmen, but also to travelers. Careless, sleepy travelers risk missing a flight, or an exit, or the “bridge out” sign. Alert traveling demands attention to maps, weather, the road, luggage, other travelers and the destination. It is the direction suggested

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 489 by the day’s Gradual: “Blessed are those who have set their hearts on pilgrimage” (Ps. 84:5). An otherwise inexact and general appeal to “be alert” can become considerably more tangible and relevant when cast in terms of being alert to God’s direction through each day’s journey. Central thought: Jesus is coming—physically, visibly, finally, certainly—and we need to be alert, and so ready…always. Goal: To instill in the hearers renewed certainty in the reality of the promised return and redoubled commitment to alert living. Malady: Being lousy waiters, we lose our alert edge and even slide into sleep. Complacent, lackadaisical Christians are the very antithesis of the alert disciples called for by Christ. Means: There is only one who never sleeps (Ps. 121:4), only one who watches over us and brings us at last to H-hour of D-day. Suggested outline:

“What Are You Waiting For?”

Introduction: Samuel Beckett’s play, Waiting for Godot, parodies those who spend their lives waiting for God to come. While we recoil from such impious portrayals of life and its meaning, we too often end up asking the same impious questions.

I. “What are You waiting for?”—our question to God. A. The day and hour are already scheduled. 1. God has established the last hour. 2. It will certainly come. B. No man knows the calendar’s last day. 1. We grow impatient. a. “What’s God waiting for?” b. “Maybe it isn’t really going to happen after all.” 2. We grow complacent. a. We are easily distracted from an alert state. b. We drift into sleep.

Transition: Our questioning ends in shame and then terror as God turns the question back on us.

II. “What are you waiting for?”—God’s question to us. A. Learning to be alert, or, “What part of ‘Be alert!’ don’t you understand?” 1. Being alert describes the life of a pilgrim. a. We have a destination (arrival at H-hour on D-day). b. We have direction for each day. 2. Sleep is the ultimate failure. a. This is manifest in complacent, careless attitudes. b. This is not easily (possibly!) avoided (exhibit A: Gethsemane). B. Knowing for whom you are waiting, or “Who’s the real watcher?” 1. Only God never sleeps. a. He watches you, always b. He directs your way, always. 2. Only God can accomplish The Day.

490 a. H-hour came for the disciples: Jesus dies and rises. b. H-hour comes, now, for you: Jesus graces you at the communion rail. c. H-hour will come for all: Jesus will come again.

Conclusion: There’s no doubt. We are waiting for God. And there’s no doubt, this waiting is not in vain. It has already been fulfilled at Calvary, is being fulfilled again at the altar, and will be fulfilled on the Last Day. What are you waiting for? The reality is now. Joel D. Biermann

Commemoration of St. Andrew Ezekiel 3:16-21 November 30, 2003

Liturgical context: The Commemoration of St. Andrew happens to land on the First Sunday in Advent, so many of you may be using the appointed propers for Advent. But if you’re so moved to use the lessons for St. Andrew, then the overarching theme of the day is on God’s glory as proclaimed through Creation (Ps. 19:1-6); the need for more pastors so that the way of salvation can be proclaimed and taught to those who will hear (Rom. 10:10-18); and the simplicity of sharing the Gospel with others beginning right within our very own families as St. Andrew did (John 1:35- 42). Homiletical considerations: If you as a pastor are encouraging some of your parishioners to read Scripture and prayerfully consider full-time church work as a vocation, this text in Ezekiel probably wouldn’t be your first choice. However, if you choose to use the readings for the day, then they’re going to hear about it and they’re going to want to know what this is all about. They may even begin to have second thoughts as to whether it’s really worth their time and effort to enter church work if God seems to lay such a heavy hand of responsibility upon the pastor. But it’s God’s message of grace in Christ that comes shining through His message of judgment which moves many of us into careers as full-time church workers. The immediate context of Ezekiel’s call into the ministry shows us that Ezekiel didn’t enter this by himself. Rather, God called him into service, but He equipped him as well with His word and with His Spirit. The Lord also reminded Ezekiel that he would not be ministering among complete strangers, but rather his ministry would be among people that he knew—compatriots and not foreigners. And as a pastor, you’re probably aware that sometimes this can be a challenging ministry because we’re called to minister among people we know and love. And yet this is one of the reasons for the urgency of preaching which lies behind Ezekiel’s call; God’s love for His people and His desire that no one should die. On the surface, this text can be heard as all judgment. To be sure, God’s judgment is not to be minimized. Wrath and damnation await those who do not trust in the Lord and follow Him. However, His action of grace is found within judgment in that God had made Ezekiel a watchman (guardian) over the House of Israel in order to warn them ahead of time so that they might repent. God’s Word is for everyone, and as the text alludes, God’s Word is to be preached to everyone; believers and unbelievers alike. The unbelievers need to hear Law and

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 491 Gospel so that they may receive Christ and the gift of salvation. Believers need to hear the word because the temptations of this world and the unholy trinity (sin, Satan, and the grave) continue to hound us in our sanctified living. And yet, during this time of Advent, we remember God’s love toward the world in action as we prepare once again to celebrate the birth of the Christ child; God’s Word of Salva- tion who became flesh. Suggested outline:

Help Wanted for Christmas Employment

Introduction: Create a fictional “help wanted” ad for Christmas work: “Looking for workers. Hard work. People business; some people will love you, others will despise you. You may not always be the most popular person at times. Low pay. Great Boss.” Would you answer this ad?

I. Ezekiel answered God’s call. A. Ezekiel was God’s gift to the people. 1. It wasn’t always going to be easy. 2. Lots of responsibility. 3. Ezekiel was God’s gift to the people in order to warn them of the coming judgment. God’s grace is seen in that He wanted all the people to hear the message. The Lord wanted the people to know that He offered the way of salvation as well. B. God equipped Ezekiel for the task. 1. God equipped him with His Word. 2. God equipped him with His Spirit (Ezek. 2).

Some listened and others didn’t. It wasn’t Ezekiel’s call to make people believe. He was called to simply speak God’s Word to the people. This is still the case today. Christians and church workers are not responsible to make people believe in Jesus Christ. Whether we are in full-time church work or not, we’re all called to share God’s Word with others. We’re called to share the Gospel that God sent His Son to be born in Bethlehem so that He could die for us in Jerusalem, thus winning salvation. Christ took the judgment for us so that we could have the gift of salvation. The grace and love of Christ precedes the coming judgment; therefore the Word still needs to be proclaimed (John 1:36).

II. There’s still plenty of room for more workers! A. There’s still a great need for full-time church workers. 1. This can be the place in the sermon where the pastor can share some of his challenges but also highlight the great joys he has had in his ministry—obviously without sacrificing any confidentiality! 2. Encourage the hearers to prayerfully consider answering God’s ad for more full-time church workers (Rom. 8:10-18). B. All of us can follow the example of Andrew. 1. Continue spending time with the Lord in Word, Sacrament, and prayer. 2. Share the Gospel with the urgency of Ezekiel but with the enthusiasm of Andrew to reach out to the people we know best: family, friends, schoolmates, co-workers, etc.

492 This isn’t temporary employment. There’s real job security with the Lord for the Christmas message of the Christ child is proclaimed throughout the year. Michael Redeker

Second Sunday of Advent Malachi 3:1-4 December 7, 2003

The prophet Malachi’s criticisms of the Israelites have a contemporary ring for us. He rebukes them for stingy offerings (1:8ff.; 3:8-9), violating marriage commitments (2:14-16), grumbling against the Lord (2:17; 3:13), occult practices, adultery, perjury, oppression of the poor and the aliens, and being without fear of God (3:5). There are corrupt priests (1:6ff.; 2:1-9), even though a priest is supposed to act as “the messenger of the Lord” (2:7). In the verse just before our pericope (2:17), we hear that the Lord is tired of them, and some of them self-righteously complain that He is not rewarding them for the piety they claim to have and is favoring and prospering the evil-doers. “Where is the God of justice?” is a continuing cry even today, when some blame God for the world’s mess and assert that He is not really good or doesn’t exist at all. A recent cartoon referred to this attitude by depicting a Recording Angel at the gate of Heaven holding a newspaper with the headline: “Corporate Crooks Are Getting Away with Crimes” and commenting “That’s what they think!” In Malachi 3, God declares that He never gives up His hatred of sin and will certainly come for a Day of Judgment (3:5). But He has much more to say about this. In connection with the Day of Judgment, He will send two special Messengers, who will not be unfaithful like the priest-messengers already mentioned. Sugguested outline:

The Coming of the Two Messengers

I. The Messenger sent to purify. A. This messenger is God Himself (v. 1). He is “the Lord you are seeking” (by saying, “Where is the God of justice?”). “The Lord” (Supreme Ruler) is a divine title here, for this is the Lord (Yahweh), the Lord (Supreme Ruler) of all the earth (Joshua 3:13; Micah 4:13). He is identified here as the Messenger of the Covenant, who is the Angel (same word as “Messenger” in Hebrew: malak) sent by the Lord of Hosts (preachers using the NIV should consult page xi of the Concordia Self-Study Bible on the rendition of the divine names) as His special representative to help and benefit His people. This Angel/Messenger, in whom God’s name is, is identified in numerous Scripture passages as God (Gen. 16:7-13; 22:1-18; Ex. 3:2-4; 23:20-23; Judg. 6:11-24 ). He is a divine Person sent as the Messenger of another divine Person, to carry out His will and bring benefit–the greatest of all benefits–to His people (Israel, old and new, Rom. 11:13-24). The divine Messenger of the Covenant comes to implement the of reconciliation (Jer. 31:33-34). This is a wondrous mystery in the depths of the oneness of God (Mal. 2:10; Is. 45:5-6). He is Christ, the Son of God. B. This is the Messenger who comes to purify from sin (vv. 2-4). He does carry out the holy judgment of the Lord of Hosts (v. 5; John 5:22). But the self -

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 493 righteous grumblers must realize that they also are sinners deserving damnation in the Judgment. “Who can endure the day of His coming? Who can stand when He appears?” This is true of all mankind (Ps. 143:2; Rom. 3:20). But the Lord of Hosts in profound mercy provides salvation from the judgment by sending His Messenger to cleanse from sin (see Titus 3:14). He will bring atonement for forgiveness and will also sanctify the lives of God’s people. The Levitical priests and the people will be sanctified to offer sacrifices acceptable to the Lord. In fact, in the days of the Messiah and His church, the Levitical priesthood will come to an end and all believers in Christ will become spiritual priests to offer spiritual sacrifices, which are all the works of the Christian life (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Heb. 13:15-16). The Apology of the Augsburg Confession (XXIV, 31-34) speaks of how Malachi prophesies the coming about of these spiritual sacrifices in 1:11 and 3:3: “This takes place through the preaching of the gospel, which makes known the name of Christ and the Father’s mercy promised in Christ. The proclamation of the gospel produces faith in those who receive the gospel. They call upon God, give thanks to God, they bear afflictions for their confession, they do good works on account of the glory of Christ. In this way the name of the Lord becomes great among the nations.” Those among the hearers of Malachi who did fear the Lord (3:16) were the ones who desired and delighted in the Messenger of the Covenant and the ancient prophecies of His coming and benefits. We join them in rejoicing in the coming of our divine Redeemer in this Advent season. II. The messenger sent to prepare the people for the Day of Judgment (v. 1). Isaiah also prophesied his coming, as the “voice crying in the wilderness” (40:3-5). Today’s Gospel lesson tells us that the prophecy of this messenger was fulfilled in . He called the people to repentance and to faith in the other Messenger, namely, Christ. What William Jennings Bryan said long ago is true to this day: “The world never needed men like John the Baptist more than it needs them now. It is full of shams and frauds and deceptions; God is mocked, the Bible is derided, and Christ is reduced by some to the stature of a man…. There is much of the ‘wilderness’ even in our crowded cities, and we need the cry of men with souls afire, calling back society to God, to the Bible, and to Christ.”

As we ourselves take to heart the announcement of this messenger, we can also take delight in the coming of the other Messenger, who comes to restore us. We can join in the words of the Gradual: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, daughter of Jerusalem! See, your King comes to you, righteous and having salvation.” Thomas Manteufel

Third Sunday in Advent Zephaniah 3:14-18a December 14, 2003

During this contemplative time of the year, we are reminded not only of our sin before God, but we are also reminded of God’s great love for us; so much so that He would send His Son to be born in a manger in Bethlehem. God’s love for us is truly

494 amazing, and we have the privilege to hear about it once again through the prophet Zephaniah. Homiletical considerations: In verse 14, Zephaniah piles up many expressions for joy, and he does so in the imperative: Sing! Shout aloud in victory! Be glad and rejoice! The reason for God’s people to rejoice is found in the next verse: the Lord has taken away your punishment. Two things to note here: (1) the punishment belongs to the people; (2) God, out of His great love for His people removed their punishment. He has removed what once stood in the way so that He can now have a restored relationship with His people. The Lord is their King and Mighty Hero. He has turned the enemies away, and He is now in their midst/with them. The Mighty Hero is victorious, and He cannot be beaten so there is no longer any reason for His people to fear since He lives in the midst of them once again. As some commentators noted, Jesus uses the words of Zephaniah, which are recorded in John 12:15. Homiletically, it’s interesting to note that Jesus begins His march toward the cross in this part of John. The One whom God sent to take the punishment for His people is the very same One who calms all our fears because He is going to complete His work of liberation and freedom for us on Good Friday— Do not be afraid O Daughter of Zion. Verse 17 has been called the John 3:16 of the Old Testament. The prophet proclaims the real deep-seated love that God has for His people. His love is so great that we, with our fallen reason, cannot even begin to comprehend how wonderful, deep, and beautiful it is. The Lord is your God—the God who once again is in the midst of His people. The Lord is your God who has His people as the object of His delight. The Lord is your God who rejoices over His people with singing. And the reason that God delights and rejoices over His people is because “He will be quiet in His love over you.” The Hebrew brings out a different nuance that isn’t reflected in many of the English translations. The “love” that God has is an unconditional love— a marriage-kind of love “until death do us part” for His people, except that God’s people never die. We live with Him in this relationship for eternity! In addition to His love, the Hebrew nuance of “quiet” describes the inward condition of the subject, namely, the Lord. This “quiet” is a contemplative quiet that God does as He truly “quiets” over His creation. It is not depicting the quietness being conveyed upon someone else. And yet His love is not mere sentimentality, but rather the Lord contemplates and puts His love into action concretely in order to deliver His people. He continues to do so even today through His Word and Sacraments. Suggested outline:

The Quietness of the Times

Introduction: Work through contemplating quietness. The preacher may also bring in the subtleness and quietness of our sins, but that they make a cacophonous racket before the Lord.

I. The quietness of Christmas—The Christ Child born so silently in the manger (John 3:16). II. The quietness of Good Friday (Is. 53:7; Matt. 27:12-14; Mark 14:60-61; 15:4-5; John 1:29, 35; John 19:8-9)—Christ was the One whom God sent in our place to take away the punishment we deserved. III. The quietness of the times gives way to rejoicing.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 495 A. The quietness of the first Easter morning has made a glorious noise for 2000 years! B. Do not be afraid! You are forgiven. Christ quiets our soul so that we can now make a joyful noise to the Lord—praising God and rejoicing. Michael Redeker

St. Thomas, Apostle Judges 6:36-40 December 21, 2003

When God Seems Very Far Away Indeed!

Sermon notes: 1. The narrative of which the Old Testament reading is a part contains what could be called “two stories.” The first one is the obvious “surface story.” It presents the historical context or historical narrative in which we find Gideon, the “facts” of his situation, so to speak: the domination and cruelty of the Midianites, their raids on Israel, the cause and effect relationships which take place on this level—the oppression of Israel caused by the Midianite incursions into the land and so on. And then, “in, with, and under” this surface story is another story, one that comments on and interprets the surface story. Thus, in verse one, we read that Yahweh had handed Israel over to Midian because they did what was evil in His sight. Behind the surface story, then, there is another story reflected here. It is part of the continuing story of God and His relationship with Israel, His people, and serves to remind us that ultimately God is in control of all that happens on the surface level, though it may not seem that way at all. 2. Here in Judges 6, the “story behind the story” intrudes upon the surface story. Or, to put it another way, God begins to have a conversation with His people. First, a prophet begins the conversation (he is the mouth of God, after all) by attempting to remind them of a conversation they seem to have forgotten. That is to say, he reminds them of the Torah—the story of their redemption from Egypt and their relationship with Him and how that relationship is to be embodied in their lives (6:7-10). He comments, to put it mildly, that they have not been doing too well in this regard. Then, the Angel of the Lord Himself “interrupts” Gideon’s daily routine, and the divine begins the conversation with the human (6:11-12). 3. In the course of the conversation, Gideon too recalls the Torah, the story of past redemption when Yahweh intervened in his fathers’ story with miracles ((|!-I5A1E), and he challenges the Messenger’s suggestion that Yahweh is with Is- rael, boldly asserting that Yahweh has abandoned them and handed them over to Midian (6:13). Gideon implies that Yahweh ought to make the future like the past. What Israel needs is another Moses and another Exodus! Israel needs that “day” of judgment on God’s enemies and salvation for His people. 4. Surprise! The Angel of Yahweh is not offended by Gideon’s speech. Quite the contrary, he is “convinced!” But, to his shock, Gideon finds out that he is to be the “new Moses.” The Angel says to him: “Go with the strength you have and rescue Israel from the Midianites. Have I not sent you?” (6:14). (Note that many commentators see considerable parallels between Moses and Gideon here.) Gideon is to be the means by which Yahweh “sets things aright” and brings past and future together. Gideon is to be the one to change the “surface story” of Israel and bring the day of deliverance for which Israel hoped.

496 5. Gideon, as you might expect, has his doubts. But Yahweh does not leave him without a sign. Our text (6:36-40) records the second of such signs that Yahweh gives him (cf. 6:17-21). Note that Yahweh does not censure Gideon for asking for the signs. Rather, they are the means by which Gideon receives assurance that Yahweh is with him, and that he will be victorious, though everything in the “surface story” tells him that this will not be the case. And indeed, in chapter seven, we read that Yahweh gives Gideon a great victory indeed. 6. In a sermon on this text, the pastor will want to make use of the “underlying realities” that connect us and Gideon in his proclamation of the Gospel. He will not want to simply insert our names for Gideon’s name here, lest the sermon become moralistic in tone (i.e., Gideon doubted and needed signs; we ought to have more faith than Gideon. Or, as Yahweh was with Gideon and helped him conquer his enemies, so He will be with us to help us conquer the “Midianites” in our lives.). 7. One might instead proceed as follows: Our “surface story” seems very much like Gideon’s. The days come and go, and each seems to bring its own set of problems. In our world, the wicked seem to prosper at the expense of God’s people. God seems to be nowhere in sight. Death reigns over everything. The promised kingdom, the day of salvation, seems to be very far away indeed. 8. For us who live in these in-between times, we too remember the past, when God Himself “interrupted” (or better “invaded”) our surface story and brought the past and the future together in His Son. In Christ, the Word incarnate, God also began a conversation with us. (Hebrews 11:1: “...in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son...”). Christ performed a mighty act of redemption (%!-F5A1E), another Exodus (Luke 9:31) which brought salvation and His kingdom to our world. In Christ, the “day” so long hoped for has come. Like the Exodus back in the day, the death and resurrection of Christ for us assure us that God has not abandoned His people, no matter what the surface story might look like. No matter what happens, God’s people can cling to that promise. 9. This past also has us looking ahead to the future, when God will interrupt the surface story once again and visibly manifest Himself as our Lord and King and destroy every enemy that besets us. The Exodus and Gideon’s victory over Midian are anticipations and foretastes of Christ’s victory which will be revealed on that Last, Great Day. We await the appearance of our Savior and our Exodus from the grave, which will signal our victory over enemies which, on the surface, look too fierce for us to conquer. 10. But as we wait, our Savior has not left us without signs connected to God’s promise. Our Baptism assures us that the “surface story” is not the final story— death does not have the final word. The Lord is with us, and He will rescue us as He promised. Through Baptism, our “story” has been given a different ending—resur- rection. Likewise, Holy Communion continually strengthens our faith in God’s promised salvation. He has given these to us so that we can be assured that when “the fight grows fierce and the warfare long” the victory is ours. We can trust in Him. 11. It is for this reason that Luther writes: “In all his promises, moreover, in addition to the word, God has usually given a sign, for the greater assurance and strengthening of our faith. Thus he gave Noah the sign of the rainbow. To Abraham he gave circumcision as a sign. To Gideon he gave the rain on the ground and on the fleece. So we constantly find in the Scriptures many of these signs, given along with the promises...” (LW 35.86). Tim Saleska

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 497 The Holy Innocents Jeremiah 31:15-17 December 28, 2003

When Jesus said that all Scripture testifies of Him, He included the various events that surrounded His life as well. Today’s text in Jeremiah is one such reference which centers on the slaughtering of the innocent baby boys (the New Testament’s first martyrs) because King Herod sought to kill the only true Innocent One. Homiletical considerations: The text itself seems rather straightforward. The commentators seem to make an issue about the location of Rachel’s tomb with respect to Ramah. This certainly makes for some interesting study and would be good grist for a Bible study. However, I really don’t believe that the debate over Rachel’s tomb should be done from the pulpit. The prophet does, however, depict Rachel weeping from her tomb. She’s in great mourning and deep sorrow, weeping bitterly as this mother can only helplessly watch her descendants being deported; her children are no more. (The Hebrew has “sons,” which can be referred to later on in the sermon for Jesus.) And yet the Lord speaks a great word of hope through the prophet. In the imperative, the Lord says to Rachel, “Restrain your voice from weeping.” The Lord made a promise that something great was going to happen! Even though her sons/ children “are no more,” the Lord promised that there would be a time when the family would be reunited! Rachel’s children would return home once again! In short, Rachel’s hope and future had its foundation in God’s promise in the returning of the sons/children. The family would be back together again, and there would certainly be great joy and rejoicing as every tear would be dried. As this prophecy is carried forward and fulfilled in Matthew 2, we find that King Herod slaughtered all the male children who would have been around the age of Jesus at that time. Again, it’s hard to imagine any mother or father watching helplessly as their son was killed right before their eyes. And yet this can be the transition in the sermon and the Gospel handle as well! When we look at Matthew 2:18, we see that Matthew is quoting Jeremiah 31:15. But what’s missing from Matthew’s account? It’s the hope for the future that’s found in the return of the sons. However, all Scripture testifies of Jesus. Therefore the Gospel handle is the remainder of Matthew’s Gospel, which records the events of Jesus’ life as God’s Son returns from His Egyptian exile back to the land of Israel. It is precisely because the Son returned to complete His work on the cross and rise again on Easter morning that gives any one of us the hope of a beautiful future and a blessed family reunion in heaven with our fellow Christians! It was also the hope of the resurrection that would restrain the weeping and tears of the mothers and fathers as well who lost their sons during King Herod’s violent reign. As the pastor prepares his sermon, it would be good to remember anyone in the congregation who may have lost a child. In addition, statistically there will be women of various ages sitting in the pews on December 28 who have gone through an abortion themselves. There may also be some fathers in the pew carrying around similar guilt, either because they encouraged an abortion in the past or because their hands were tied and they couldn’t do anything to stop it. I know that this is not a popular topic for some pastors to preach about from the pulpit, especially the first Sunday after Christmas. However, this is the perfect text to bring healing and hope to those who may not have approached the pastor in

498 this matter for spiritual counseling. In addition, there are many people who avoid the third Sunday in January, normally designated as Life Sunday, either because they cannot come to grips with their past or because they simply cannot deal with the pain. This is the perfect opportunity for the preacher to do some wonderful spiritual counseling while following the at the same time. (In fact, there is an organization called Project Rachel, which is named after this part of Jeremiah, that helps post-abortive women work through their past.) Sermon direction: Since this is the time of the year when many families get together and have reunions, I would suggest creating the sermon around the theme of “Happy Reunions.” The malady of sin and death is rather prevalent within the Propers of the Day, so this could be expounded upon given the pastor’s specific context of his congregation. The Gospel handle of hope found in “the return of the sons” can transition into “the return of the Son.” The preacher can also bring into the sermon the pain that the Father went through as He watched the Innocent One die for the guilty. But it is through the death of this Innocent One that we have hope in the resurrection and the blessed reunion in Heaven. Michael Redeker

Second Sunday after Christmas Isaiah 61:10-62:3 January 4, 2004

Biblical context: This section of Isaiah points to the continual deliverance which God offers to His people. It is one of the givens of the life of faith. Jesus read Isaiah 61:1-2A in the synagogue at Nazareth and announced that the Scripture was being fulfilled on that day (Luke 4:17-21). Consequently, the context of Isaiah 61 is Messianic prophecy applicable to the Christ. Note the beauty of the Hebrew poetry. The cadence seems to flow and ebb, reveling in God’s saving action. The poetry repeats, amplifies, and gently moves forward. God enters into the context of humanity. There is beauty, hope, and joy to be found in the righteousness which the Son of God brings to the world. Isaiah 61:10-11: The person speaking is the prophet. The prophet points out the festive, rich way in which God clothes His people. To claim that the wedding garments represent the priestly nature of the bridegroom or that the bridegroom and the bride have special meaning seems to go beyond the text. The main point is that God gives beautiful, rich, adorned garments of salvation. The robe of righteousness for the believer is the sheer act of a God working salvation for the world in Jesus. It is the same garment as mentioned in Matthew 22:11. The delight of the prophet is not only the garments worn but the undoubtable fact that, just as surely as the created order comes to life in the spring, so surely will God make this righteousness in Jesus and the resulting praise of the people of God be seen all over the earth. The hymns and praise songs of the day should reflect this deep, abiding delight in what God has done openly for His people and the display of His righteousness in Jesus. Isaiah 62:1-3: The Lord speaks. God will not be the hidden God at the birth of the Holy Child. God will not rest until the righteousness of Jerusalem bursts forth to the ends of the earth. Consequently, the force of the preaching of Jesus will be unstoppable because it is a resolved act of God. The kingdoms of this world will see the glory of the church, not in buildings and

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 499 splendor, but solely in Jesus (Is. 40:5 and John 1:14). Jesus showed His glory by displaying His godly powers in His miracles and ultimately His resurrection (John 2:11). As believers are added to the church, the gracious presence and power of God’s Spirit working among the people of God is seen. Consequently, the church not only rejoices in its righteousness by faith and God’s unstoppable manner of lifting up that salvation, but the resultant way in which God continues to add to the saving community in Jesus as fulfillment of this prophecy (Acts 2:46-47). This brings a double joy for the believing community knows that it is still sinful, but as it continues to accuse itself and at the same time lift up the name of Jesus, others are brought to faith. That is only possible because of the presence of Jesus (John 15:5). Isaiah 62:2: The people of God will be called a new name as seen in verse 12. They will be called the Holy People, the Redeemed of the Lord. Isaiah 62:3: The church, the redeemed of God, is the precious instrument which God uses to fulfill His bold, forceful proclamation. As the church lifts up the glory of God in Jesus and humbly shows the righteousness of God in the cross, it is like a jeweled crown in the hand of God, treasured by God Himself. Suggested outline:

What’s the plan?

Introdution: The big question in the business world today is, “What is the overall plan? What are the goals we are attempting to reach?”

I. Life can be confusing. A. There is no overall plan for the world as presented by television news. Television reporting centers on violence and evil in the world. Iraq, Israel, children being abducted, people being murdered, company executives being quilty of fraud. B. Movements such as the United Nations, peace plans, law enforcement, government regulations on business, etc., seem unable to make a lasting difference in the situation. C. The Word of God needs to be lifted up to balance the high amount of television reporting on the confused state of the world. II. God has a focused plan for the world. A. He clothes people in the righteousness of Jesus. 1. New clothes cover the body with vibrancy, crispness. 2. Jesus’ birth and saving action give new clothes that cover old sin. B. He causes this righteousness to be lifted up boldly in front of people all over the world. C. He enfolds His people as part of this universal action. III. The focus on Jesus brings continual joy and delight to those who are being saved. A. They are called holy and redeemed (Is. 62:12). B. They see and participate in the bold plan of God in action. C. They continually praise God within the manifestation of His plan. Gary Schaper

500 The Baptism of Our Lord First Sunday after the Epiphany Isaiah 42:1-7 January 11, 2004

It can be exciting to meet a famous personality. In this Scripture text, God, by the mouth of the prophet Isaiah, introduces someone whom He wants His people to meet. Behold! Look! He calls out in the original Hebrew. See the one portrayed here! Isaiah’s hearers could only see Him afar off through prophecy. But there would be people of a later time who could rejoice in knowing Him intimately. Do you count yourself among them? Suggested outline:

Look at Who Has Come!

I. Here is the Servant of God, in whom He delights (v. 1). This is the great Envoy and official Minister of God, approved and upheld by God in all the work He is sent to do. Isaiah says that this Servant will bear the iniquities of sinners and justify them (Is. 53:5, 6, 11). He will bring and establish justice (mishpat, vv. 1, 4), the total redemptive order of God’s rule. “He shall make the right and good and holy will of God everywhere prevail, so that all nations find their sure ground of confidence in Him” (Martin Franzmann, Follow Me [St. Louis: Concordia, 1961], 121, on Is. 42:1-4/Matt. 12:18-21). He will bring reconciliation with God, renewal, and deliverance from the moral, physical, and social evils of a fallen world (v. 7; Is. 61:1; 35:7)— at first in part and in hope, and then with total victory in the grand consummation. Matthew 12:15-21 quotes the words of Isaiah 42 and declares that they are fulfilled in the Messianic work of Jesus. God is heartily delighted (v. 1) with Him who does this, for the Maker of heaven and earth (v. 5) longs and plans for the restoration of the ruined world and its inhabitants. He wants sinners to be saved, receive His mercies, and glorify Him forever (Ezek. 18:23; John 3:1; Ps. 113:1-2; 50:15). Therefore, when Jesus began to perform the Servant’s work, the Father’s voice was heard from heaven: “You are My beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.” “I will put My Spirit upon Him,” to work with Him in the actions of His mission as the Servant. This has happened in the work of Jesus the Messiah (Luke 3:22; Matt. 1:28; Heb. 9:14; Matt. 3:11; John 16:7-15; 1 Cor. 12:3). II. He is sent to bless and restore those who have faith in Him (v. 3). says, “Behold My Servant!” and wants people to know Him as Redeemer. He sends His Servant and His Spirit to continually create and build up such faith. The bruised reed and smoldering wick of weak and feeble faith are strengthened and made firmer. Christ will not crush or condemn or abandon one who looks to Him for help. A contrite heart will always find a forgiving, helping Savior. The Servant worked lovingly and knowingly with weak faith (Matt. 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; Luke 18:1ff.). Walter A. Maier told of a young man who had lost his faith and had spent Christmas Eve gambling, drinking, and carousing, ending by feeling ashamed of himself. He was awakened in the morning by carolers outside his window singing of the newborn Redeemer’s forgiving, rebuilding love. He was filled with repentance and eventually became a notable Christian businessman. Maier urged his listeners

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 501 to take the message of the Christmas carols to heart and say: “Those songs sing Christ’s love for me!” III. He is appointed to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles (v. 6). The covenant which Christ confirms and mediates is the New Covenant (Jer. 31:33-34), which has been made the basis of life with God in Christ’s church, the new Israel (Heb. 8:8-12). It promises that God will be our God, that all His people will truly know Him, and that He will forgive our sins and write His law on our hearts. By the Baptism which Christ instituted, we enter into and live in the covenant of Christ, as the Collect for the Day says (Lutheran Worship, p. 2l). Through the baptismal covenant, we are united with Christ and receive His blessings (Rom. 6:1-6; Titus 3:4-7). In that covenant we are redemptively conformed to Him: As the Father delights in Him (v. 1), so He delights in us and accepts us for His sake (Tit. 3:4-7; Eph. 1:6-7). As He is the Chosen One (v. 1), so through baptismal faith we recognize that we are elected in Him (Eph. 1:3-4). As the Spirit is upon Him and works with Him (v. 1), so the Spirit is given to us for our life in Christ (Acts 2:38). The Servant is appointed to be a light for the nations (v. 6), and for centuries people have found light and grace in Him for the darkness of their sin and misery. Illustration: A man who had been a professed atheist all his life was found dead in his room. But clenched in his hand was a note with words which showed that at the end of life he had met the Servant and come into His light:

I’ve tried in vain a thousand ways My fears to quell, my hopes to raise; But what I need, the Bible says, Is ever, only Jesus.

My soul is night, my heart is steel– I cannot see, I cannot feel; For light, for life, I must appeal In simple faith to Jesus. Thomas Manteufel

Confession of St. Peter Acts 4:8-13 January 18, 2004

“It’s Not About Peter!”

On a day set aside to commemorate the Confession of St. Peter, we might naturally assume that the spotlight would be on the apostle, his character, and his exemplary (even heroic) faith. In fact, however, Peter’s confession isn’t really about Peter at all. It’s all about Jesus. Peter is probably most people’s “favorite apostle.” For one thing, we know more about Peter than we do about any of the other eleven. For another thing, the Gospels portray Peter as painfully, endearingly human: he is both courageous and cowardly, both bold and misguided, both strong and all too weak. Many Christians can readily identify with the character of Peter. He earnestly desired to be devoted to Christ, and at the same time he seems a bit thick-headed about what Jesus is

502 up to. (We see both sides of Peter in Matthew 16:13-23, where Peter’s bold confession of faith in Jesus is followed quickly by the Lord’s rebuke.) Peter is dear to us, partly, because he so clearly exemplifies the tension in each of us between our faith in Jesus, the Son of God, and our natural preference for a theology of glory that bypasses the cross. In the portion of Acts assigned for today, Peter could easily have lost his focus on Jesus and basked in the glory. The apostles were engaged in an incredibly successful ministry, and Peter was the main leader in the young church. It had started with Pentecost and the baptism of three thousand new believers. Day by day more people were hearing and believing the message about salvation in Christ. The church was devoted to learning what the apostles had to teach. There were even miracles occurring, as a demonstration of the power of God at work with Peter and the others. The aftermath of one of those miracles (the healing of the lame beggar in the temple) was yet another opportunity for Peter to preach Jesus Christ (Acts 3). Even though Peter and John were arrested by the temple authorities, many people were brought to faith in Jesus. The number of the men totaled five thousand by this time, perhaps no more than a few weeks after Pentecost—and that probably does not even include the women and children. In our day and age, Peter could easily have negotiated a lucrative publishing deal for his forthcoming book on how to grow an instant megachurch! But our text shows us how Peter (“filled with the Holy Spirit”) did nothing of the kind. His defense barely uses the first person at all (the singular not at all, and the plural only twice—and in verse 12 “we” should be read as including the hearers among those who “must be saved” by Christ’s name). For Peter, this healing, this trial, and the whole dynamic growth of the church is all about Jesus Christ. It’s not about Peter at all. It can be a challenge to celebrate Peter’s bold and faithful confession of Jesus as the Savior, without inadvertently shifting our attention from the message to the messenger. But focusing too much on Peter the man, the apostle, the witness may actually distract people from Christ. Christ and His salvation are always confessed and proclaimed in the world by flesh and blood human beings like Peter (and like us). Focus on the human messenger can lead us into hero-worship rather than Jesus-worship, and can foster all the wrong kinds of party divisions as we rally around our favorite apostle (cf. 1 Cor. 1:11-13). But never mind that the main thing here is Jesus Christ, whom we crucified, whom God raised from the dead, in whom alone we have salvation. That saving Gospel is stated here in our text so clearly that it still thrills us with its simple power and unequivocal promise. Whether the messengers are heroic or humble, famous or obscure, brilliant or uneducated, that is the way people speak who have been with Jesus (v. 13). And that is why this celebration of the Confession of Peter is the feast-day of every Christian’s witness. It’s not about Peter; it’s about Jesus Christ. William W. Schumacher

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 503 Conversion of St. Paul Acts 9:1-22 January 25, 2004

The story of Saul’s conversion is very familiar to most Christians, and that familiarity may itself be a homiletical challenge. It will not always be possible to find a new way to approach the preaching of such a well-known text, while remaining really faithful to the text itself. The text is a narrative, a story, and is part of a larger story in which Saul will come to play an important part later. Preachers can sometimes weaken the power of narrative texts by reducing them to a series of dogmatic principles, or (worse yet) distilling from the text some universal ethical principles. It is probably best to retain the narrative character as much as possible in the sermon on this text. And what a narrative! No more compelling story of Christ’s power to overcome human sin and opposition can be imagined. No more complete transformation by the saving power of Jesus can be cited. Saul the persecutor does complete his journey to Damascus, but his agenda is utterly different by verse 20. Saul’s conversion ought not to be depicted as the model for all conversions, since few Christians have his violent history of persecution to report as a vivid backdrop to their present life of faith. Attempting to hold up Saul as the pattern for every convert may have unintended results, such as encouraging people to embellish their past sins, or even leading them to doubt whether they are genuine Christians if they do not have such lurid past lives to report. Rather, Christ’s unilateral and undeserved choice of Saul should be an example of God’s patience and grace to encourage believers (cf. 1 Tim. 1:15-16). Half of our text is not so much about Saul as about another believer. We know almost nothing about Ananias, the Damascus disciple whom the Lord sent to Saul, besides what is given in these verses, but he is an intensely interesting character. His objections about going to Saul seem entirely reasonable, given Saul’s track record. And his obvious common sense makes his obedience to the Lord’s mission all the more exciting and challenging to us. Ananias is the “patron saint” of courageous (but not blind) obedience in mission. We cannot know what Ananias expected when he called on the house on Straight Street. What he found was (as C. S. Lewis once described himself) “perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert” in all Damascus. The apostle Paul would later emphasize that he was converted and called directly by Christ Himself (Gal. 1:12), but Ananias laid hands on him, healed him, and baptized him. That was hardly something Ananias could take much credit for. The Lord Jesus had sent him, and he (Ananias) had tried to talk the Lord out of it. Not only did the Lord overcome the enmity and hostility of the unbeliever Saul, but he also overcame the qualms and reluctance of the disciple Ananias—all to spread His Gospel and carry His name. The Lord Jesus still has His way, for our salvation and the salvation of the world. Just a note about what we should call the convert. Our text for today never calls him Paul, but consistently refers to him by his old (Jewish) name of Saul. The name Paul is not introduced until much later in Acts (13:9) and is simply given as an alternative without explanation. It certainly does not seem to be as simple as calling him “Saul” before his conversion and “Paul” afterwards, as if a changed name denoted a changed man. One technique that might be employed in a sermon on this present text would be to refer to him consistently as Saul (as the text itself

504 does), without introducing any other explanations or harmonizations with other texts. This may have the effect of rendering this familiar narrative just slightly strange to listeners, helping them to re-hear it afresh. William W. Schumacher

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 505 “On the reading of many books...”

THE LAST THINGS: Biblical & Theological Perspectives on Eschatology. Edited by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ix + 169 pages. Paper. $16.00.

This volume is a serious quest for the renewal of the Biblical awareness and understanding of the “last things” in the teachings of Jesus and early Christian church viewed from the ecumenical perspectives. It deals with the Biblical vision of the future, though there seems to be no consensus then and now, which is so important and meaningful for the Christian life of faith and for the raison d’etre of . It is authored by nine prominent thinkers of our day, mostly Lutherans, reflecting on the fresh meaning of eschatology: challenges of current eschatological reflections, the apocalyptic imagination in the Christian Gospel and in the early church, the nature of the “eschaton,” the relationship between the Bible and politics, Jesus’ view of the future of the New Testament—of an “eschatological and a non-eschatological Jesus,” the Jewish and Christian approaches to God and history, the Theodrama of judgment in the , Luther’s understanding of apocalypse, and some hints on science and eschatology. It is a collection of challenging and stimulating monographs reflecting directly on the perceptions of the future with meaning, hope beyond death, and God’s way of handling the world and human events, how to understand them as well as how to anticipate them occurring in history and in eternity. In the midst of many disagreements on eschatology in the history of theology and the Christian church, the book in general gives broad perspectives with some promising image of the future for Christians, the church and society, on the end of the world, the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, etc. Their contribution can be specially significant with consideration of the ongoing disagreements and disputes. The writers are trying to somehow rebuild theology on the foundations of eschatology. The list of writers include a German systematic theologian , American contributors Carl E. Braaten, Robert W. Jenson, Paul D. Hanson, Arland J. Hultgren, David Novak, John A. McGuckin, Philip D. W. Krey, and George L. Murphy. Realizing our age with many uncertainties in life, confusion of moral values, secularistic worldviews, and undue spiritual milieu, this publication makes a timely contribution on the meaning of life, certainty of the future, and a promising perspective of hope in God’s hand. Each monograph expresses some new insights and conclusions to express a coming age which God will establish a new kingdom by power with His people, Jews and Christians. Each essay attempts to help a better understanding of the various differences in eschatology. Will these differences be overcome? That is certainly a question in our minds, facing many imaginable and unimaginable options in eschatologies, to mention a few: consistent, realized futuristic, existential, evolutionary, millennial, and apocalyptic in nature. Authoring on such a subject like eschatology can present no simple exit. It is truly complex and confusing in the midst of many incompatible perspectives on the last things. The book seems to have a common intention of discovery with some convincing arguments in order to discover a wholesome Biblical eschatology. At any rate, we may not completely discern the real meaning of many strange symbols, figures of

506 speech, imagery language, etc. in the apocalyptic writings of Holy Scripture until we will see face to face the totally different reality and its mystery in the ultimate eschaton. Reading this volume certainly stimulates our thinking. Won Yong JI

THE LORD’S SUPPER: Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics XII. By John R. Stephenson. St. Louis: The Luther Academy, 2003. xv + 294 pages. Paper. No price given.

American Christianity remains deeply divided over the Gospel and Sacraments. Centuries old divisions persist. We are still divided over the gospel of justification, the bondage of the will, the universal atoning work of Christ, and infant baptism, to name a few issues. And we are still divided over the Lord’s Supper. Many North American Lutherans gravitate toward either or mainline Protestantism. Yet when it comes to the Sacrament of the Altar, most American Protestants are heirs of Zwingli. For example, Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (Inter-Varsity Press/Zondervan, 1994), a standard textbook in Evangelical circles, states: “Today most Protestants would say, in addition to the fact that the bread and wine symbolize the body and blood of Christ, that Christ is also spiritually present in a special way as we partake of the bread and wine” (emphasis original; 995). Given such a context where the symbolical view prevails, it behooves us to delve deeply into the doctrine and practice of the Sacrament. To that end, John R. Stephenson has given us an excellent resource. It is the latest volume in the Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics series begun under Robert Preus and published by the Luther Academy. As one would expect, the volume is particularly strong in laying out the classical Lutheran position articulated in the 16th-17th centuries. Stephenson does the reader the service of giving extensive quotations in the footnotes. He also interacts with modern challenges, such as Hans Lietzmann’s influential views and recent ecumenical developments. While Stephenson refers to a variety of theologians, the two key figures are Luther and Chemnitz. Luther’s works on the Lord’s Supper still speak powerfully (see the American Edition, vols. 34-40), such as:

— Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1525) — The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ Against the Fanatics (1526) — That These Words of Christ, ‘This is My Body,’ etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics (1527) — Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) The Colloquy and the Marburg Articles (1529) Brief Confession Concerning the Holy Sacrament (1544)

Other key sources include the Examination of the Council of Trent and The Lord’s Supper by Chemnitz and the History of the Sacramental Controversy by Chemnitz, Kirchner, and Selneccer. What may surprise the reader is the extent to which the arguments against the Lutheran position have remained the same over the past 475 plus years. In

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 507 fact, some of the objections were also issued against the early . For example, there is the charge of “cannibalism.” Needless to say, Luther thoroughly refuted the objections of the and directed strong anathemas against them: “We earnestly believe that the Zwinglians and all sacramentarians, who deny that the body and blood of Christ are taken in the bodily mouth in the venerable eucharist are heretics and estranged from the church of God [ab alienos]” (Against the Thirty-two Articles of the Louvain Theologists, 1545; Stephenson, 77). Stephenson organizes his discussion of the sacrament into three parts dealing with its essence, proper celebration, and benefits. Space permits mention of only a few key points. The church’s teaching and practice are based on the clear , which are to be understood in their normal and ordinary sense. Lutherans and Reformed differ not merely over the “mode” of presence but over the “what.” Luther’s question still begs for an answer: “One should put to him the straight question: ‘What is held here in hand and mouth!’” (Open Letter to Those in on the Main 1533; Stephenson, 134). The terms “body” and “blood” refer to Christ’s very body and blood offered as a sacrifice on the cross (cf. Deut 12:27). Moreover, the demonstrative pronoun “This” also retains its integrity. Luther em- ployed the expression “”:

It is not necessary, meanwhile, that one of the two disappear or be annihilated, but both the bread and the body remain, and by virtue of the sacramental union it is correct to say, “This is my body,” designating the bread with the word “this.” For now it is no longer ordinary bread in the oven, but a “flesh-bread” or “body-bread,” i.e. a bread which has become one sacramental substance, one [ein ding!] with the body of Christ. Likewise with the wine in the cup, “This is my blood,” designating the wine with the word “this.” For it is no longer wine in the cellar but “blood- wine,” i.e. a wine which has been united with the blood of Christ in one sacramental substance (Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, 1528; Stephenson, 108).

Jesus of Nazareth, the God-Man Himself, instituted His Supper at a meal on the night when He was betrayed. It is His Passover meal for His reconstituted new Israel intended to fulfill and replace old Israel’s Passover. The Lord’s Supper is a sacrificial banquet with its roots in the Passover meal and ancient Israel’s practice of partaking of the sacrificial elements (cf. 1 Cor 10:18). It is the heartbeat of the church, standing at the center of the church’s worship life. The “Word alone” necessarily includes the sacraments. Any treatment of justification isolated from the Reformation’s renewal of baptism, , and the Lord’s Supper “runs the risk of turning the chief work of God through the into a cerebral abstraction” (69). Christ’s command “Do this” refers to the entire action including the consecration with the verba, distribution, reception, and thanksgiving. The almighty words of God Incarnate and His words alone spoken through the minister are what consecrate the elements and bring about what they say. Christ’s mandate “This do” was given to the original twelve standing for both future ministers who administer and future communicants who receive. Restricted access to the Lord’s Supper is the proper practice, because it is based on Christ’s institution and the inextricable connections of the sacrament,

508 the apostolic doctrine, and the communal, ecclesial nature of participation. According to Luther, the individuals who failed to discern the body in 1 Corinthians 11 were “those who burst in like pigs and made of it physical gluttony and treated it no differently from mere daily bread and wine; besides, they despised one another and everyone had his own meal” (Admonition Concerning the Sacrament, 1530; Stephenson, 138). Luther argued for the necessity of being catechized first:

However, because we are concerned about nurturing Christians who will still be here after we are gone, and because it is Christ’s body and blood that are given out in the Sacrament, we will not and cannot give such a Sacrament to anyone unless he is first examined regarding what he has learned from the Catechism and whether he intends to forsake the sins which he has again committed. For we do not want to make Christ’s church into a pig pen (Matthew 7:6), letting each one come unexamined to the Sacrament as a pig to its trough. Such a church we leave to the Enthusiasts! (Open Letter to Those in Frankfurt on the Main 1533; Stephenson, 158).

The benefits of the Lord’s Supper include: forgiveness, life, and salvation; sustenance for pilgrims on the way; medicine of immortality and the resurrection of the body; strengthening of the church’s unity; heaven on earth; foretaste of the feast to come; union with Christ and transformation into Christ’s image. On this last point, Luther made an interesting comparison:

[I]t is as if a wolf devoured a sheep and the sheep were so powerful a food that it transformed the wolf and turned him into a sheep. So, when we eat Christ’s flesh physically and spiritually, the food is so powerful that it transforms us into itself and out of fleshly, sinful, mortal men makes spiritual, holy, living men. This we are already, though in a hidden manner in faith and hope; the fact is not yet manifest, but we shall experience it on the Last Day (That These Words, 1527; Stephenson, 224).

Occasionally, one might wish to see more exegesis. For example, regarding the cup-saying according to Luke and Paul offers that opportunity. More engagement with the ecumenical document entitled Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry would have been helpful. Nevertheless, Stephenson has given the church a great resource that is well-written, well-researched, and insightful. Moreover, it offers interesting discussions on a wide variety of topics, such as nomenclature, , and distinctions regarding local, definitive, and repletive presence. May his fine treatment move us to frequent Communion and to say with Luther: “I love it from the heart, this dear, blessed Supper of my Lord Jesus Christ” (Luther’s Letter Concerning his Book on the Private Mass, 1534; Stephenson, 225). Paul R. Raabe

AMOS: THE PROPHET AND HIS ORACLES. By M. Daniel Carroll Rodas. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2002. 224 pages. Paper. $29.95.

The book of Amos holds a central place among the canonical prophetic literature and presents a unique array of issues. The prophet’s preaching is direct, clear, and simple—deceptively so. His vocabulary is relatively small, his concerns specific,

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 509 and his message seems as plain as his style. Resplendent with a variety of rhetorical features that display a polished and passionate, dynamic and didactic style, the book of Amos gets the attention of its readers with its straightforward “in-your- face” message. That the Lion’s roar (Amos 1:2) continues to stimulate a wide variety of theological reflection is evidenced by this book. M. Daniel Carroll Rodas, an evangelical Christian from Guatemala who currently teaches at Denver Seminary, surveys more than a century of Amos research and successfully builds bridges between past, present, and future research as well as between European, American, Latin American, and African scholars. This review will analyze Rodas’s work in terms of what the author calls issues related to what lies “behind the text,” “in the text,” and “in front of the text.” “Behind the text” issues of current Amos scholarship include, to a lesser extent, archaeological findings as well as tools from the social sciences that seek to understand the text’s sociological milieu. In terms of archaeology, the work of Shalom Paul (1991—Hermeneia Series) and Philip King (ongoing work on eighth century prophets) is noteworthy. The use of social sciences to get “behind the text” of Amos has been led, in large part, by Norman Gottwald. Here the aim is to attempt a reconstruction of social realities, systems, institutions, and movements in dimensions that more traditional historical approaches are usually ill-equipped to do. Gottwald’s thesis is that prophets like Amos reacted against Israel’s change from the communitarian ideals and social structures of her earlier life (Exodus, Wilderness, Premonarchial Eras) to an oppressive society which arose with the monarchy and led to unjust social relations and the unequal distribution of wealth. Revolutionary power for Latin American, Hispanic, Black, gay, feminist, and other calls for liberation lies in a social reconstruction that is “behind the text” of Amos. Though important, these “behind the text” issues are overshadowed by the quest for the “real” Amos and with it concerns about the literary history of the received text. Any discussion in this area begins with Julius Wellhausen’s epoch- making Prolegomena to the History of Israel (1878). Wellhausen’s idea was that Amos predated the Mosaic covenant and the law. It followed that Wellhausen’s Amos was a champion of universal moral principles, or what he called “ethical monotheism.” In this view, Amos is a harbinger of the higher ethics of the Christian faith and a precursor to the social gospel of the early twentieth century. The resulting effect is a chasm between prophetic and sacrificial aspects of Israel’s faith. “Behind the text” scholarship at this point not only tried to separate Amos from Israel’s Pentateuchal narrative, but—led by Hermann Gunkel—also sought to separate the prophet’s ipsissima verba from later redactional editors. This methodology is stated classically by Hans Walter Wolff. He wrote in 1975: “Inasmuch as Amos and Hosea were master poets, a number of secondary additions issue their own condemnation by reason of poor poetic quality or even prose style.” Hence, poetry equals early—prose, late. “Behind the text” questions began to take a somewhat different shape by the 1930s. The work of Sigmund Mowinckel and others began to argue that, in contrast with previous scholarship, the prophets were heirs, transmitters, and developers of earlier communal and national theological convictions and expressions. In other words, their creative genius did not lay in a break with the past, but rather was displayed in the recontextualization of older forms and beliefs into new situations. Within the next three decades, scholars (e.g., Würthwein, Reventlow) went even further to argue that Amos was a cult prophet at the shrine in Bethel. This position was grounded in the supposition that the prophets at the sanctuaries were prophets

510 of weal (Heilsnabi), who delivered messages that would have denounced the enemies of Israel and proclaimed blessing for Israel (e.g., the oracles against the nations in Amos 1 and 2). In a move beyond these classical critical ideas that had become normative in Amos scholarship, Jörg Jeremias began in the 1990s to argue that the canonical text of Amos needs to be read together with Hosea. This direction of research has led to a reading of Amos in light of the eleven other Minor Prophets. Scholarship that focuses upon “The Book of the Twelve” is currently at high ebb with James Nogalski as the movement’s unofficial leader. Even though Nogalski mentions a number of features—like quotations, allusions, motifs, and framing devices—the most important criterion for his theory is the catchword principle, especially “the Day of Yahweh.” The idea is that Amos must be interpreted as one among twelve and not simply by itself. The reaction to this literary “behind the text” methodology that began with Wellhausen and continues today to “cut and paste” texts using form, tradition, and redaction critical methodologies, has resulted in renewed attention to literary and rhetorical structures that appreciate more artistry and less disjunction in the final form of the text. While not totally ignoring the issues of archaeology, sociology, and literary history, this “in the text” movement in Amos scholarship seeks to focus its energy on the text itself. For example, Roy Melugin explicitly singles out Wolff’s redactional theory of the composition of Amos as an illustration of “behind the text” theories that stretch meager evidence too far. Melugin encourages more concern for synchronic readings because redactional strategies rely on scholarly ingenuity that is divorced from more solid historical controls. A stellar example of this kind of “in the text” reading of Amos is Andersen and Freedman’s Anchor Bible commentary (1989). While not entirely neglecting other approaches, these scholars place a major emphasis on chiasms, word-plays, and the highly developed structure “in the text.” Finally, “in front of the text” appropriations of Amos abound, in large part, because the book seeks to establish justice and righteousness (cf. Amos 5:24). Rodas devotes an entire chapter to this methodology and titles it, “Reading Amos from the Margins: The Impact of Context on Interpretation Since 1990.” This chapter presents scholarship that argues for the integration of the text with current social and economic issues in the world. This reading strategy is closely related to the previously discussed “behind the text” issues connected with a sociological reconstruction of the “life and times” of Amos. Readings are offered from the “First World”—that is, North America and Western Europe as well as the “Two-Thirds World”—that is, from Africa and Latin America. An example of this “in front of the text” reading of Amos is as follows: “Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Iraq and for four, punishment will come; because they have destroyed the Kurdish people by denying them land, food, and dignity. So I will send fire on the hills and valleys of Iraq … Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of the United States and for four, punishment will come; because you have been the great hypocrites of the earth: putting your moralistic finger and expounding your pious rhetoric while you commit the same atrocities as the other nations.” Part two of Rodas’s book consists of four bibliographies that cover commentaries, monographs, articles, and dissertations on every aspect and part of Amos scholarship. This is designed to be a comprehensive, not exhaustive, listing of sources for further study. A quick perusal of this section indicates that virtually every method or perspective available has been exercised on the nine chapters of

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 511 this prophetic masterpiece. As a result, no prophetic book has a bibliography comparable in size to that of Amos. In the end, Rodas provides a thorough, balanced, and objective overview of the last 130 years of Amos scholarship. The work offers promising lines for further inquiry, a substantial anthology of readings, and an extensive and current bibliography and notes. Rodas’s book will enable anyone working on Amos (professor or pastor) to better understand the current issues in order to faithfully articulate the Lion’s roar for the twenty-first century. Reed Lessing

LET CHRIST BE CHRIST: Theology, Ethics & World Religions in the Two Kingdoms, Essays in Honor of the Sixty-Fifth Birthday of Charles L. Manske. Edited by Daniel N. Harmelink. Huntington Beach: Tentatio Press, 1999. Paper. 378 pages. $22.00.

Manske was the founding president of Christ College (now Concordia University) in Irvine, California, and served there as professor for twenty-five years. He also taught at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana, as guest professor of ethics at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, and also at several institutions in California. In 1958, he received his Master of Divinity from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. The thirty-one essays in this book were written in his honor by a variety of writers. Space for this review permits only to comment on a few of the essays. Kenneth W. Behnken provided a very important article in view of the great diversity in America in our age on “Christ in the Midst of Cultural Diversity.” He notes that in speaking of God’s action the Apostle Paul states: “From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth, and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live” (Acts 17:26). In speaking of the motivation for diversity training in the Christian church for our nation, he quotes 1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light.” He also quotes Paul’s crucial words as recorded in Ephesians 2:10-16. In stressing the great diversity of people from many nations, races and cultures, he notes what the Apostle John stated in Revelation 7:9-10. He goes on to state in his closing paragraph: “To the question, ‘Can it be done? Can unity be found in the midst of cultural diversity,’ the Kingdom of Power responds, ‘We are working on it.’ Yet, the Kingdom of Grace shouts: ‘Absolutely! Let Christ be Christ and we will be united both now and in eternity’” (10). In his article on “Luther the Missionary, The Reformer’s Theology of Missions,” Eugene W. Bunkowske states that “the greatest of all missionaries was our Lord Jesus Christ. He came specifically to ‘seek and save the lost’” (13). He records how Luther’s encounter with Jesus Christ of the Scriptures changed his life. Luther learned that missions is spontaneous and Biblically-based, prayerful, sacramental, people oriented, student centered, catechetical, and indigenously directed. The latter involves the role of the home in this crucial aspect of living the faith. In closing the essay, Bunkowske states that a “proper approach to mission outreach is always consciously direct and spontaneous, Scripture-based and directed, prayerful, sacramental, people-centered, catechetical, sees students as fellow

512 workers in Christ’s mission, clearly distinguishes between ordained pastors and the priesthood of believers, and recognizes that all Christians are to be equipped to work as ‘ministers of the Word of God,’ skillfully communicating to their neighbor” (25). Donald G. Matzat provided an esssy on “ in a Postmodern Age: Proclaiming the Gospel in a Vacuum of Truth” (191-200). He notes that “all evangelism is done in a context.” He notes that “we are moving from the modern age to what is being called postmodernism” (191). There he goes on to describe what the modern age was like and states that we are now living in the postmodern age. Crucial to remember is that the Christian church faces a unique challenge. Truth has become relative. Time has gone from rationalism to irrationalism. For the postmodernist, words no longer convey objective meaning and truth. Each individual discovers his own personal meaning of the text. This results in the question, “Should we accommodate the culture and how?” in this postmodern religious world. The question comes, “What does it mean to have joy, peace, hope and love in Christ?” This results too often in a wide range of interpretation of the sound doctrine. Also, the question, “Is truth as important to us as it was to our grandparents and our ancestors?” In the end, truth becomes a vacuum. The challenge today is, “We have the pure Gospel. Let’s understand it and proclaim it!” We need to keep on asking God for the courage and also the talents to do this persuasively in this chaotic age. In his essay “Neighbors, Religions & Worldviews” (261-272), A. R. Victor Raj centers on “understanding the world to better proclaim the truth.” He notes that “more and more people today prefer a free-lance, extemporaneous and expressionist worship style to a formal, structure, and directed one” (266). “It is clear that new religions and spiritualities flourish in a society even though they are not always introduced into a culture as religious teachings in a structured, intensive way by trained professionals” (267). In his analysis, Raj states that one reason for what is happening is the “popular assumption that people inherit their religion from their families and cultures.” This he states is no longer the case. The reason “is the influence of other religions on the lives of many whose friends, neighbors, and coworkers are faithful followers of other religions” (268). He also notes “that when new communities are built apart from a specific religious stronghold, new religions will emerge in that community by default. The mobility of modern society makes it all the more easy for new religions to travel with people and to evolve into new adaptations to suit the tastes and wants of the people” (268). He stresses that “the Christian community needs to understand its neighbors and their worldviews, and, above all, to share with them the unique truth they are privileged to know about Jesus Christ” (269). He closes his essay with “every neighbor...is a witnessing opportunity for every Christian. True religion is not just a matter of taste, it is truly a conviction, the certainty and confidence to tell one’s neighbor to ‘taste and see that the LORD is good; happy are those who take refuge in him’ (Psalm 31:8)” (271). W. Rod Rosenbladt provided the essay on “Reclaiming the Doctrine of Justification: The Lost Art of Properly Distinguishing Between Law and Gospel.” He stresses the crucial importance of “a clear and unqualified pronouncement of the assurance of salvation on the basis of the fullness of the atonement of Christ.” Crucial is the “exposition of the Scriptures that places Christ at the center of the text for everybody, including the Christian. All of the Bible is about Christ. All of

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 513 the Bible is even about Christ for the Christ!” (290). William R. Russell wrote an essay on “Prayer: The Practical Focus of Luther’s Theology.” He states that throughout Luther’s career, “the topic of prayer was consistently near the top of his theological agenda.” These essays are some of the highlights of the thirty-one very informative essays provided in Manske’s honor. Erich H. Kiehl

FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD: An Instructional Manual for Youth and Adults on the Basic Doctrines of Christianity. By Henry F. Fingerlin. Centennial: Cross+Bearer Publications, 2001. 510 pages. 3-ring binder. $14.00.

What needs to improve in my teaching of the Christian faith to youth and adults? Whenever I tire of the curriculum I am using in junior and adult instruction classes, I subconsciously ask this question. My dissatisfaction in my class must have a source. If a change is to be made, it ought to be made in the direction of the need. So what do you need to change in your instruction? The degree to which Pastor Fingerlin’s book will be of service to you depends upon your need. First, let me share with you those needs with which Fellowship with God will not assist you. If your need is more help with music, or role-playing, or relationship building activities, or retreat planning, or analysis of learner’s felt needs, or a teacher’s guide, or strategies for involving parents, or multiple puzzles-games-worksheets, I’m afraid your search will have to continue. The book does not provide these elements, not even a listing of behavioral objectives at the beginning of each lesson. On the other hand (and this is an “other hand” of sizable proportion), if your need is for a well-organized outline of Christian doctrine, or new illustrations and diagrams to replace Kurth’s Catechetical Helps, or a text that has Bible passages embedded in the outlines and immediately accessible to the learner, or humor in the form of comic strips that rivet the Biblical truth into the learner’s memory, or quotation after quotation from well-known authors to stimulate the thinking of adult intellectuals and challenge the inquisitiveness of adolescents, then you may join me in crying, “Eureka! I have found it.” Fingerlin does not attempt to tell you how to teach doctrine. Instead, he gives you resources to mold and shape into a presentation style with which you are comfortable. The text is organized into sixteen lessons, but there is sufficient material provided to easily create thirty-two lessons. Likewise, with careful pruning, an instructor could develop eight lessons, although they would of necessity be longer than a Sunday School hour. The text includes two appendices, one covering the topic of millennialism and the other providing a time line chart of church history. Fingerlin includes an author index as well as a Scripture reference index. Creating the learning environment will be your task as the instructor. Can you add music, relationship building exercises, or puzzles? Sure. Resources can easily be found for active learning activities. What Fingerlin will provide for you are the supportive quotations by authors from Al-Ghazzali to Zig Ziglar, with plenty of Chesterton, Chrysostom, Kierkegaard, Lewis, Luther, and Stott thrown in as well. And the cartoons? Here’s an example to whet your appetite. A man whose eyes are bugging out and with pencil, pad and calculator in hand approaches a co-worker who is writing at a desk and says, “If you take the year 2000, multiply it by 666,

514 divide by 13, change the numbers into the corresponding letters of the alphabet, rearrange the letters & add an ‘H’, it spells ‘END OF THE WORLD…’ Pretty creepy, huh?” The co-worker glances up from his work in obvious irritation and says, “You have no IDEA.” Caption below: “No one knows the day or the hour when these things will happen” (Matthew 24:26). This resource is not in stores, but is available through Cross+Bearers Publishing, Attn: Donna Buehner, 71 Woodland Circle, Highlands Ranch, CO 80126; e-mail: [email protected] (303) 346-1133. John Oberdeck Mequon, WI

MATTHIAS FLACIUS AND THE SURVIVAL OF LUTHER’S REFORM. By Oliver Olson. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2002. 428 pages. Cloth. $114.00.

What do Lutherans today know of ? How many have read his works in their original languages? How much of Flacius’s work has been translated into English? In an attempt to correct a “Flacian blight,” Oliver Olson has written this book on the life and work of Matthias Flacius. Many scholars credit Flacius with spearheading the religious and political reversal of the victory of Emperor Charles V in the Smalcaldic War. Charles vigorously reinstituted Roman Catholic theology and worship practices in the conquered Lutheran lands. This book recounts Flacius’s work in preserving Luther’s reforms in both the secular and religious realms. Flacius is not only credited with preserving Luther’s reforms; he is also remembered as the “Father of Church History” and the “Father of Hermeneutics” (15). The Father of Church History title comes as a result of Flacius’s Centuries and his Catalogus Testium Veritatis, an accurate history of the saints of God’s church. Flacius’s title as the Father of Hermeneutics comes from his work Cia vis Scripturae Sacrae, known by many as “the golden key” to Scripture (16). Olson’s book traces Flacius’s early life and his close friendship with Melanchthon in his early years (25-46). With the defeat of the Lutherans by Charles V, life held many changes for Flacius. Flacius became involved in helping Luther’s reform survive when he began writing against the liturgical innovations of the Roman Church and their insistence that the and the Eucharistic prayers were transmitted directly from Christ and the apostles by unwritten Tradition. Flacius attacked the historicity and the authority of the mass canon/eucharistic prayer. His works on the subject of the liturgy and the mass canon should be studied diligently in our current liturgical climate. They also should be translated into English for Lutheran liturgical scholars to study. The history of the liturgical changes, which were an attempt by the emperor to reinstitute Roman Catholicism by force into Lutheran churches and lands, deserves careful study today. Why? The Modern Liturgical Movement (fueled by Roman Catholic liturgical studies) has reinstituted in Lutheran liturgies some of the very practices (i.e., eucharistic prayers, etc.) that Flacius, Melanchthon, and others opposed at the risk of death. Melanchthon insisted that the Lutheran liturgies without the eucharistic prayers had retained all the essential parts of the mass— “consecration, distribution, reception, prayer for forgiveness, and thanksgiving” (123).

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 515 Melanchthon’s paper, “Refutation and Explanation of Recent Sophisms, by Which the Blasphemies of Private Masses and the Canon Are Depicted Idolatrously,” should be studied by Lutheran liturgical scholars even today. This work should also be translated into English for the edification of Lutherans today as they wrestle with the theological questions raised by the return of Eucharistic prayers into Lutheran hymnals and liturgies. Melanchthon believed that Eucharistic prayers were to be resisted because of Christ”s “command that the recognized doctrine of the truth of the gospel must not be denied...” (95). Melanchthon wrote that the return of Eucharistic prayers to Lutheran liturgies was “something that could not be received without impiety” (121). Melanchthon, Flacius, and others saw that the doctrine of justification and sola scriptura were at risk if Eucharistic prayers were restored into Lutheran liturgies. Flacius believed that “the whole papacy is in the canon” (118). Thus he wrote, “The devil is especially interested in the liturgy...when he has it, he has everything.” Further Flacius wrote that liturgical “changes will be the window through which the wolf will enter the evangelical fold” (140). If only for the historical Lutheran perspective on “modern” liturgical changes, Olson’s book deserves wide Lutheran distribution and careful scrutiny by all who desire to retain the centrality of the doctrine of justification in Lutheran liturgies. A lack of knowledge and understanding of our history condemns us to errors that we would not make with a better historical perspective. As a result of Flacius’s steadfast opposition to the political inquisition against Lutherans the princes began to revolt (211-255). Flacius’s work on the history of the church, his role in the Osiandrian controversy and the Schwenkfelders, and his work in preventing the collapse of Luther’s reforms to 1557 occupy the remainder of Olson’s book (256-333). This book is well laid out. The primary works cited and rendered into English are well documented. The book’s illustrations are wonderful giving the reader the flavor of many of the original documents and the art of Flacius’s day. The book divides Flacius’s life into four segments—Venice (student days), Wittenberg (professor), Magdeburg (where he began the Magdeburg Centuries and attempted to reconcile warring parties in Lutheranism), and Jena (professor)—corresponding to significant parts of Flacius’s life to 1557. The sequel promises to cover the rest of Flacius’s life. Many know Flacius as one of the individuals involved in doctrinal problems that needed resolution in Article I of the Formula of Concord and for his defense of the faith in the Majoristic, Osiandrian, and Adiaphoristic controversies. He also contended against the errors of Schwenkfeld. Some today see Flacius as a decidedly contrarian individual, someone who went to excesses, who simply argued for the sake of argumentation. The breadth of this book helps to place Flacius in a more balanced light. All who would contend for the faith once delivered to the saints in our postmodern world would do well to read this book to learn how one man contended for and defend the faith in dangerous and contentious times. By God’s Spirit, Flacius kept the saving Gospel revealed in Holy Scripture central in all his work, thus helping to preserve Luther’s reform of the church. As was stated before, this book deserves wide Lutheran and Christian circulation. It sets before the reader information about an historical period of Lutheranism long clouded by a lack of access due to language barriers and limited access to rare books. Lutherans desirous of a greater knowledge of their spiritual

516 family history should read this book. Lutherans neglect their history to their peril. All who read this book and the promised sequel will be greatly edified. The Lutheran world owes a debt of thanks to Oliver Olson for his scholarship and persistence in writing this book. May it serve to further the “survival of Luther’s reform” so that justification remains the center of Christ’s church. Armand J. Boehme Waseca, MN

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 517 BOOKS RECEIVED

Allen, L. and T. Laniak. NEW INTERNATIONAL BIBLICAL COMMENTARY: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003. 290 pages. Paper. $11.95. Bayer, Oswald. LIVING BY FAITH: Justification and Sanctification. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. 89 pages. Paper. $20.00. Benne, Robert. ORDINARY SAINTS: An Introduction to the Christian Life. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003. 222 pages. Paper. $17.00. Bennethum, D. Michael. LISTEN! GOD IS CALLING!: Luther Speaks of Vocation, Faith, and Work. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2003. 95 pages. Paper. $9.99. Catherwood, Fred. THE CREATION OF WEALTH: Recovering a Christian Understanding of Money, Work, and Ethics. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2002. 208 pages. Paper. $14.99. Clowney, Edmund P. PREACHING CHRIST IN ALL OF SCRIPTURE. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003. 189 pages. Paper. $15.99. Cooper-White, Michael L. ON A WING AND A PRAYER: Faithful Leadership in the 21st Century. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003. 89 pages. Paper. $9.99. Dunn, James D. G. CHRISTIANITY IN THE MAKING: Vol. 1, Jesus Remem- bered. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. xvi+1019 pages. Cloth. $55.00. Fahlbusch, Erwin et al., eds. THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CHRISTIANITY: Vol. 3 (J-O). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. 918 pages. Cloth. $100.00. Gundry, Stanley N., ed. SHOW THEM NO MERCY: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. 204 pages. Paper. $16.99. Hafften, Ann E. WATER FROM THE ROCK: Lutheran Voices from Palestine. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003. 94 pages. Paper. $9.99. Hall, Douglas John. THE CROSS IN OUR CONTEXT: Jesus and the Suffering World. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003. 274 pages. Paper. $17.00. Hedahl, Susan K. WHO DO YOU SAY THAT I AM?: 21ST Century Preaching. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003. 95 pages. Paper. $9.99. Hefner, Philip. TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN BECOMING. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003. 97 pages. Paper. $6.00. Hunt III, Arthur W. THE VANISHING WORD: The Veneration of Visual Imagery in the Postmodern World. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003. 272 pages. Paper. $14.99. Hurtado, Larry W. LORD JESUS CHRIST: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. 746 pages. Cloth. $55.00. Kaltner, John, and Steven McKenzie. BEYOND BABEL: A Handbook for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages. Leiden: Brill Academic Press, 2002. 241 pages. Cloth. $91.00. Keller, Brian R. BIBLE: God’s Inspired Inerrant Word. Milwaukee: Northwestern, 2003. 219 pages. Paper. $13.99. Klauck, Hans-Josef. THE RELIGIOUS CONTEXT OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. 503 pages. Paper. $30.00. Levinson, Tom. ALL THAT’S HOLY: A Young Guy, An Old Car, and the Search for God in America. SanFrancisco: Wiley, 2003. 320 pages. Cloth. $23.95.

518 Malina, Bruce J. and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. SOCIAL-SCIENCE COMMENTARY ON THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. 441 pages. Paper. $27.00. Marty, Martin E. SPEAKING OF TRUST: Conversing with Luther about the . Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003. 155 pages. Paper. $13.99. Melander, Rochelle and Harold Eppley. OUR LIVES ARE NOT OUR OWN: Saying “Yes” to God. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003. 95 pages. Paper. $9.99. Mowchan, Carolyn Coon and Damian Anthony Vraniak. CONNECTING WITH GOD IN A DISCONNECTED WORLD: A Guide for Spiritual Growth and Renewal. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003. 96 pages. Paper. $9.99. Nessan, Craig L. GIVE US THIS DAY: A Lutheran Proposal for Ending World Hunger. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003. 94 pages. Paper. $9.99. Nestingen, James A. MARTIN LUTHER: A Life. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2003. 112 pages. Paper. $9.99. Nickelsburg, George W. E., ANCIENT JUDAISM AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS: Diversity, Continuity, and Transformation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. 264 pages. Paper. $23.00. Nixon, Rosemary. THE MESSAGE OF JONAH. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003. 220 pages. Paper. $11.99. Rediger, G. Lloyd. BEYOND THE SCANDALS: A Guide to Healthy Sexuality for Clergy. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. 235 pages. Paper. $18.00. Schuetze, John D. MARRIAGE AND FAMILY: The Family Photo Album. Milwaukee: Northwestern, 2003. 183 pages. Paper. $12.99. Sorensen, Barbara DeGrote and David Allen Sorensen. LET THE SERVANT CHURCH ARISE. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003. 96 pages. Paper. $9.99. Trexler, Edgar R. HIGH EXPECTIATIONS: Understanding the ELCA’s Early Years, 1988-2002. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress. 2003. 224 pages. Paper. $10.99. Werning, Waldo J. THE NURTURING CHURCH GENERATES GRACE GIV- ING: Turning Donors Into Disciples. Warminster: Niebauer Press, 2003. 59 pages. Paper. No price given. York, Terry W. AMERICA’S WORSHIP WARS. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003. 138 pages. Paper. $16.95. Younan, Manib. WITNESSING FOR PEACE: In Jerusalem and the World. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. 162 pages. Paper. $16.00.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 519 Index of Volume 29

Since our page numbers are consecutive within a volume, the following key hows the page number for each reference.

Volume 29, Number 1 – pages 1-124 Volume 29, Number 2 – pages 125-224 Volume 29, Number 3 – pages 225-352 Volume 29, Number 4 – pages 353-524

Articles, Editorials, Homiletical Helps, and Short Studies

Antichrist?: The Lutheran Confessions on the Papacy (Arand), 392-406. The Beginnings of the Papacy in the Early Church (Wesselschmidt), 374-391. “Following” Matthew 18: Interpreting Matthew 18:15-20 in Its Context (Gibbs and Kloha), 6-25. Is There a God-Pleasing Purpose to War?: An Introduction of Just War Concepts (Wollenburg), 65-69. The Gospel According to Graham Greene in The End of the Affair (Rossow), 26-35. Hofmann as Ich-theologe?: The Object of Theology in Johann von Hofmann’s Werke (Becker), 265-293. The LORD Is One (Nagel), 294-301. The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod and the Public Square: C. F. W. Walther and the First Generation (Dost), 70-74. The Meaning of Participation: A Case for Speaking in the Public Square (Saleska), 39-49. New Questions, Old Answers (Schumacher), 63-64. Orality in the Prophets (Lessing), 152-165. PDAs and the Spirit’s Sword (Meyer), 166-176. Papacy as a Constitutive Element of Koinonia in Ut Unum Sint? (Callahan), 463-482. The Papacy in Perspective: Luther’s Reform and Rome (Rosin), 407-426. Preaching in a Changed Public (Nielsen), 50-62. Ready or Not, Here They Come (Raj), 36-38. The Spoken Word: What’s Up with Orality? (Winger), 133-151. Syncretism and Unionism (Nafzger), 240-264. Ut Unum Sint and What It Says About the Papacy: Description and Response (Nafzger), 447-462. Vatican II’s Conception of the Papacy: A Lutheran Response (Warneck), 427-446 Editor’s Note (Wesselschmidt), 2-3, 126-127, 354-355. Homiletical Helps: Advent (Redeker, Manteufel, Redeker, Saleska), 491-493, 493-494, 494- 496, 496-497. All Saints’ Day (Schaper), 483-484. Christmas (Redeker, Schaper), 498-499, 499-500. Epiphany (Burreson, Gerike, Carr, Warneck, Manteufel, Schumacher), 75-76, 77, 78-79, 79-82, 501-502, 502-505. Lent (Thomas, Rowold, Schaper, Gerike), 85-89, 89-91, 91-92, 93-94.

520 Easter (Schaper, Rowold, Rossow, Duke, Gibbs, Henrickson), 95-96, 96-98, 177-179, 179-180, 181-184, 185-186. Palm Sunday (Weise), 94-95. Pentecost (Henderickson, Blanke, Graudin, Blanke, Rossow, Graudin, Wesselschmidt, Duke, Meyer, Raj, Lessing, Kolb, Okamoto, Kolb, Rosin, Raj, Meyer, Miesner, Rockemann, Bierman), 185-188, 188-191, 191-193, 193-195, 195-196, 196-198, 198-200, 200-201, 302-303, 304-305, 306- 308, 308-310, 310-315, 315-316, 317-320, 321-322, 322-324, 485-487, 487-489, 489-491. Reformation (Lessing), 324-326. Transfiguration (Warneck), 82-84. Short Studies: Large Catechism III, 66, Latin Version (Nordling), 235-239. Statement of Faculty: Unfinished Work, 356-357. Theological Observers (alphabetical by author, then title) Arand: Large Catechism, III, 66, 232-234. Berger: On Competence and Integrity in the Life and Work of the Church, 370-373. Gibbs: Is There a Nuance in the House?, 227-229. Gibbs: Five Things You Should Not Say at Funerals, 363-366. JI: Lutheran Scholarship in Korea, 128-129. Mantuefel: What Luther Meant, 366-369. Raabe: What Kinds of Prayers for America?, 226-227. Rowold: The Gospel...through a Mask SARSly, 230-232. Sander: Luther and the “Devil’s Tunes,” 130-132. Voelz: Contemporary Americans Make Poor Confessional Lutherans, 4-5. Voelz: Large Catechism, III, 66, 232-234. Voelz: Hermeneutical Naiveté of the Supreme Court, 369-370. Voelz: Report on the ELCA’s Conference of Teaching Theologians, 358-362. Voelz: On Competence and Integrity in the Life and Work of the Church, 370-373.

Authors of Articles, Editorials, Homiletical Helps, and Short Studies

Arand, Charles, 232-234, 392-406. Becker, Matthew L., 265-293. Berger, David O., 370-373. Bierman, Joel D., 489-491. Blanke, Jonathan, 188-191, 193-195. Burreson, Kent, 75-76. Callahan, Edward J., 463-482. Carr, William, 78-79. Dost, Timothy, 70-74. Duke, David, 179-180, 200-201. Gerike, Henry V., 77, 93-94. Gibbs, Jeffrey A., 6-25, 181-184, 227-229, 363-366. Graudin, Arthur F., 191-193, 196-198. Henderickson, Charles, 185-188.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 521 JI, Won Yong, 128-129. Kloha, Jeffrey J., 6-25. Kolb, Robert, 308-310, 315-316. Lessing, Reed, 152-165, 306-308, 324-326. Mantuefel, Thomas, 366-369, 493-494, 501-502. Meyer, Dale A., 166-176, 302-303, 322-324. Miesner, Donald R., 485-487. Nafzger, Samuel H., 240-264, 447-462. Nagel, Norman, 265-293. Nielsen, Glenn A., 50-62. Nordling, John G., 235-239. Okamoto, Joel, 310-315. Raabe, Paul R., 219-221. Raj, Victor, 36-38, 304-305, 321-322. Redeker, Michael, 491-493, 494-496, 498-499. Rockemann, Larry W., 487-489. Rosin, Robert, 317-320, 407-426. Rossow, Francis C., 26-35, 177-179, 195-196. Rowold, Henry, 89-91, 96-98, 230-232. Saleska, Timothy E., 39-49, 496-497. Sander, K. Joan, 130-132. Schaper, Gary, 91-92, 95-96, 483-484, 499-500. Schumacher, William, 63-64, 502-505. Thomas, Glen, 85-89. Voelz, James, 4-5, 232-234, 358-362, 369-370, 370-373. Warneck, Richard H., 79-84, 427-446. Weise, Robert W., 94-95. Wesselschmidt, Quentin F., 2-3, 126-127, 198-200, 354-355, 374-391. Winger, Thomas M., 133-151. Wollenburg, David, 65-69.

Book Reviews

Amos: The Prophet and His Oracles. By M. Daniel Carroll Rodas (Lessing), 509- 512. The Art of Preaching Old Testament Narrative. By Steven D. Mathewson (Rossow), 113-114. Building Your Biblical Hebrew Vocabulary: Learning Words by Frequency and Cognate. By George M. Landes (Lessing), 110-111. The Company of Preachers: Wisdom on Preaching. Augustine to the Present. By Richard Lischer (ed.) (Rossow), 344-345. Casiodoro De Reina: Patriarca del Protestantismo Hispano. By Raymond S. Rosales (Domínguez), 341-342. Casiodoro De Reina: Patriarca del Protestantismo Hispano. By Raymond S. Rosales (Domínguez), 342-343. Confession and Mission, Word and Sacrament: The Ecclesial Theology of Wilhelm Löhe. By David C. Ratke (Rhoads), 219-221. Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers. By Michael J. Gorman (Lessing), 330-331.

522 Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics. Vol. IV. By Adolf Hoenecke (Manteufel), 215- 216. Fellowship with God: An Instructional Manual for Youth and Adults on the Basic Doctrines of Christianity. By Henry F. Fingerlin (Oberdeck), 514-515. God, Evil, and Sufferings: Essays in Honor of Paul R. Sponheim. Edited by Terence E. Fretheim and Curtis L. Thompson (Rehm), 105. From Paradise to Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch, 2nd Edition. By T. Desmond Alexander (Lessing), 332-333. God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. By Bruce A. Ware (Rhoads), 212-213. Gospel Handles: Finding New Connections in Biblical Texts. By Francis C. Rossow (Nielsen), 99-101. Handbook on the Historial Books. By Victor P. Hamilton (Saleska), 216-218. Hear the Word of Yahweh: Essays on Scripture and Archaelogy in Honor of Horace D. Hummel. Edited by O Wenth, Paul L. Schrieber, and Lee A. Maxell (Lessing), 202-204. Henry VIII, The League of Schmalkalden and the . By Rory McEntegart (Maas), 329-330. Holiness by Grace: Delighting in the Joy That Is Our Strength. By Bryan Chapell (Rossow), 218-219. The “I” in the Storm: A Study of Romans 7. By Michael Paul Middendorf (Trapp), 327-328. Interpreting the Old Testaments: A Guide for Exegesis. Edited by Craig C. Broyles (Ashmon), 335-338. Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology. By Paul J. Achtemeier, Joel B. Green, and Marianne Meye Thompson (Holst), 345-347. Introducing the Reformed Faith: Biblical Revelation, , Contemporay Significance. By Donald K. McKim (Maschke), 206-207. Isaiah 1-39, The People’s Bible. By John A. Braun (Rehm), 111. The Last Things: Biblical & Theological Perspectives on Eschatology. Edited by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (JI), 506-507. Let Christ be Christ: Theology, Ethics & World Religions in the Two Kingdoms, Essay in Honor of the Sixty-Fifth Birthday of Charles L. Manske. Edited by Daniel N. Harmelink (Kiehl), 512-514. Life in Biblical Israel. By Philip King and Lawrence Stager (Lessing), 349-350. The Lord’s Supper: Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics XII. By John R. Stephenson (Raabe), 507-509. Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther’s Reform. By Oliver Olson (Boehme), 515-517. A Modern Grammar for Classical Hebrew. By Duane Garrett (Lessing), 213-214. The Most Reluctant Convert: C. S. Lewis’s Journey to Faith. By David C. Downing (Rossow), 108-109. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. By Philip Jenkins (Raabe), 204-206. Not a Tame God: Christ in the Writings of C. S. Lewis. By Steven P. Mueller (Rossow), 339-341. Open Secrets: A Spiritual Journey Through a Country Church. By Richard Lischer (Oberdeck), 114-116. Penitence, Preaching and the Coming of the Reformation. By Anne T. Thayer (Morgret), 347-349.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 523 The Religion of Ancient Israel. By Patrick D Miller (Lessing), 102-103. A Smooth Stone: Biblical Prophecy in Historial Perspective. By David Arthur (Lessing), 207-211. The Social World of the Hebrew Prophets. By Victor Matthews (Lessing), 106-107. The Strange New Word of the Gospel: Re-Evangelizing in the Postmodern World. Edited by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Rossow), 333-335. Surprising Insights from the Unchurched and Proven Ways to Reach Them. By Thom S. Rainer (Meyer), 112. The Synodical Conference: Ecumenical Endeavor. By Armin W. Schuetze (Rehm), 103-104. Till the Night Be Past: The Life and Times of . By Theodore J. Kleinhans (Schuessler), 109. Trinity: One God, Three Persons: The People’s Bible Teachings. By Richard D. Balge (Rehm), 214-215. We Believe in Jesus Christ: Essays in Christology. By Curtis A. Jahn (Raabe), 211- 212.

Reviewer of Books

Ashmon, Scott A., 335-338. Boehme, Armand J., 515-517. Domínguez, R., 341-342, 342-343. Holst, Robert, 345-347. JI, Won Yong, 506-507. Kiehl, Erich H., 512-514. Lessing, Reed, 102-103, 106-107, 110-111, 202-204, 207-211, 213-214, 330- 331, 332-333, 349-350, 509-512. Maas, Korey D., 329-330. Manteufel, Thomas, 215-216. Maschke, Timothy, 206-207. Meyer, Dale A., 112. Morgret, Frank, 347-349. Nielsen, Glen, 99-101. Oberdeck, John W., 114-116, 514-515. Raabe, Paul R., 204-206, 211-212, 507-509. Rehm, Merlin D., 103-104, 105, 111, 214-215. Rhoads, John, 212-213, 219-221. Rossow, Francis C., 108-109, 113-114, 218-219, 333-335, 339-341, 344-345. Saleska, Tim, 216-218. Schuessler, Mitchel, 109. Trapp, Thomas H., 327-328.

524