LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 212

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

212

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

R62.4

Response of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Commission on Theology and Church Relations to
Final Report of the Theological Conversations between the Churches Associated with the
International Lutheran Council and the Roman Catholic Church
(International Lutheran Council and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity [2021]).
Introduction
A bilateral working group of representatives from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian
Unity (PCPCU) and the International Lutheran Council (ILC) met four times in conversations
over a span of five years (2014-2019). The genesis of these conversations, or this “informal
dialogue,” lies in the recognition that because prior Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues had
involved interactions only between the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the Roman
Catholic Church (RCC), significant Lutheran voices were thereby excluded from those earlier
conversations. That is, most of the more theologically traditional Lutheran church bodies do not
hold membership in LWF and even those that were members had no significant role to play in
LWF—RCC discussions. Most of the theologically conservative Lutheran churches are,
however, members of the International Lutheran Council. The ILC is a worldwide association of
churches that maintain a high view of Scripture as inspired and infallible and hold strictly to the
entire Book of Concord as an authoritative exposition of the teachings of Holy Scripture. In order
to gain an appreciation of the teaching and priorities of these churches, discussions between the
PCPCU and ILC began.
The group’s Final Report of the Theological Conversations between the Churches Associated
with the International Lutheran Council and the Roman Catholic Church (Final Report or
Report) included two Addenda clarifying the position of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
(LCMS) on ordination. 1 Subsequent to the publication of the Final Report, the churches of the
ILC were invited to submit responses. The LCMS was among the churches invited to respond.
The request for a response was unfortunately unnoticed during the pressures and confusion
brought on by COVID-19 and only recently recalled to the attention of LCMS leadership.
President Matthew C. Harrison then asked the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church
Relations to prepare the response that follows. 2
I.

Preamble
a. Review and questions

The Final Report frames the conversations around a concept of catholicity. The first “ecumenical
task” is “to determine (more) precisely the intersection between a Concordia-Lutheran
and a Reform-Catholic catholicity.” That is, “the Lutheran documents” are to be re-examined in
light of “their original intention to confess the Catholic faith and the history of their reception in
The LCMS is the single largest member of the ILC.
President Harrison promised a CTCR response on behalf of the LCMS in a February 25, 2024 email to Bishop
Juhana Pohjola, Chairman of the International Lutheran Council. In the same email Dr. Harrison expressed his
thankfulness for the conversations and his support for the efforts of the participants.
1
2

1

While conversations with a non-Lutheran church body are less likely to result in altar and
pulpit fellowship than those with a like-minded Lutheran church body, they may
nevertheless help to provide a defense against sectarianism since the talks can reveal and
emphasize areas that the LCMS and that church body hold in common. A shared
confession of the creeds, for example, stands as an important testimony against many
forms of heresy, even if it does not result in the full agreement necessary for altar and
pulpit fellowship. 7
We appreciate the changing circumstances of the reformers in the period after Augsburg. We
therefore find helpful the distinction between “confessorial” and “confessional” catholicity. 8 It is
important that the Final Report traces the increasing reality of disjunction between the theology
and practice of Wittenberg and “those theologians faithful to Rome and the Pope, but also in
contrast to the movements on the ‘left wing’ of the Reformation.” 9 The Report helpfully
summarizes the theological movement from the earliest context of the AC to the later historical
period in which the Book of Concord (1580) is published. 10
Of similar value is the discussion of the distinctive “normative structures” of Lutherans and
Roman Catholics. Here the claims of catholicity that are replete in the theology of the Book of
Concord must be recognized. 11 Thus the Preamble concludes by emphasizing the “enduring
theological significance [of] the intentional catholicity implicit in the normative structure that is
decisive for both Lutherans and Catholics.” 12
Consequently, we rejoice in the conversations between representatives of the ILC and the Roman
Catholic Church. Even as President Harrison expressed his desire “to further the relationship
between the ILC and the PCPCU,” 13 we too strongly affirm the importance of the ecumenical
work represented by the Final Report and urge continuing conversations between both groups.
II.

Mass as Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet
a. Review and questions

In the section titled 1. What We Perceive, the ILC-PCPCU representatives affirm certain
conclusions of previous Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues, even though ILC member churches
played no role in those dialogues. These positive acknowledgements include the joint recognition
that the sacrifice of Jesus is once-for-all “and can be neither continued, nor repeated, nor
“Theological Dialogue with Other Christian Church Bodies,” September 17, 2011, document link is at
https://files.lcms.org/dl/f/F44DF93E-1ADB-45DB-ABDC-D128581EEA15.
See Final Report, Preamble, 1.3 and accompanying footnote on p. 1. The footnote indicates that “confessorial” is a
translation of the German konfessorisch and reflects “a strong profession of faith within the bounds of churchly
communion, by way of contrast with konfessionell/ “confessional,” which carries with it the sense of a profession of
faith that results from or issues in a breach of church fellowship.” Since the AC was drafted prior to Roman
condemnations of Wittenberg’s theology and the subsequent excommunications, the Final Report applies
“confessorial” to the AC.
9
Final Report, Preamble, 2.4, p. 3.
10
Final Report, Preamble, 2.2-2.7, pp. 2-5.
11
See especially Final Report, Preamble, 3.1-3.4, pp. 5-7.
12
Final Report, Preamble, 4., p. 9.
13
See letter from Matthew C. Harrison, in Appendix I of the Final Report, p. 23.
7

the era of confessionalisation.” 3 The intention of the Augsburg Confession (AC) is understood to
be both an explanation of Wittenberg reforms and also a confirmation of “the foundational
Catholic consensus” present in its opening articles. Thus the AC is viewed first in an “innerCatholic context.” 4
We note here that “Catholic” in these first paragraphs of the Preamble is exclusively upper-case.
We are not certain about the significance of the capitalization, but assume that the upper case
usage indicates the papal Roman Catholic Church and not what Lutherans would understand as
“the church catholic.” If that is the case, then some of the initial claims of the Preamble may be
questioned. Is it true that the first goal of the AC is to claim alignment of the Wittenberg reforms
with the teachings of the Roman Church? On the contrary, we would hold that the claims of the
AC are broader from the outset. The AC is setting forth the truth of Scripture above all else. And,
with regard to catholicity, the view of catholic goes beyond the Roman church. After all,
Melanchthon buttresses the AC claims based on Nicaea (AC I), rejection of Pelagius (AC II),
affirmation of the Apostles’ Creed (AC III), and calls on the Fathers to support teachings on faith
(AC IV, V, VI). This is not to say that the Augustana sees itself as confessing something contrary
to Rome, but its chief concerns are to be faithful to Scripture and to the universal (catholic)
church. Therefore Melanchthon writes: “Since, then, this teaching is clearly grounded in Holy
Scripture and is, moreover, neither against nor contrary to the universal Christian church—or
even the Roman church—so far as can be observed in the writings of the Fathers, we think that
our opponents cannot disagree with us in the articles set forth above.” 5
Clarification of this matter would be helpful since it is obviously germane to the stated
“ecumenical task” as defined in the first sentence of the Preamble. An assumption that the first
goal of the Confessors at Augsburg was an alignment with Roman teaching as the ongoing
standard of catholicity is simply incorrect. At the same time, the desire for maintaining unity in
the whole church is explicit: “Inasmuch as we are all enlisted under one Christ, we are all to live
together in one communion and one church.” 6
b. Affirmation
Our question about the term “Catholic” (or “catholic”) should not be misunderstood as anything
other than an encouragement to continue the kinds of discussion as reported in this document. As
the CTCR stated in a 2011 statement:
The first objective of the LCMS in our Constitution is to “work through its official
structure toward fellowship with other Christian church bodies, and provide a united
defense against schism, sectarianism, and heresy.” This objective points in two
directions—“toward fellowship” and away from “schism, sectarianism, and heresy.”

3
Final Report coins the terms “Reform-Catholic” and “Concordia-Lutheran” to describe respectively “the early and
late 16th-century forms of the Lutheran movement.”
4
Final Report, Preamble, 1.2, p. 1.
5
AC [Conclusion of Part One], 1, KW, 58.
6
AC, Preface, 4, German, KW, 30.

2

replaced, nor complemented.” However, the sacrifice “should become effective ever anew.” In
addition, “the real and essential presence of Christ’s body and blood in the consecrated elements”
is confessed together with some common understandings of the vocabulary of the Lord’s Supper.
Also, a synergeia (intertwining of human and divine action) is affirmed as a way to express
“God’s action” “through created means” namely, “men who proclaim his gospel and administer
his sacraments.” However, given the long history of Lutheran opposition to all theological
synergism, 14 we would like to see further discussion of this particular topic in future meetings.
Lastly, “the central importance of the Words of Institution” is affirmed. 15
Section 2. is titled What Is Important. One may summarize the view therein in this statement
from the Final Report:
The interrelation between theological reflection and liturgical action helps to explain why
central points of controversy were especially connected with the doctrine and the
celebration of this sacrament. Conversely, this connection can lead to a resolution of the
fundamental differences related to it by articulating common grounds and
commonalities. 16
The identification of the relationship between doctrine and liturgy is both important and
necessary. And we note with appreciation that the report’s discussion of The Mass as Eucharistic
Sacrificial Banquet speaks of a “relecture” or re-examination of both the Lutheran confessions
and the decisions of Trent. 17 But we question § 2.2.2’s framing of the unresolved relationship
between Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and the sacrifice of the Mass on page 10 as a simply
disingenuous claim. Moreover, while we agree with the stress on responsible liturgical language,
we are not entirely comfortable with the statement: “Dogmatic language in the abstraction of its
way of speaking must not prevent legitimate varieties of liturgical expression.” 18 The concern
would be in the question of “legitimate varieties of liturgical expression.” How does one define a
legitimate versus an illegitimate expression? It seems to us that dogma is the critical—and
indeed, the only— authoritative arbiter for such a question. We do not understand how dogmatic
and liturgical language can really be equivalent. Dogma—doctrine—a church’s confession of
faith—stands above liturgical expression.
Given this concern, we appreciate the move of the Final Report from 2. What Is Important to a
consideration of 3.1 Systematic-Theological Affirmations as it begins section 3.
Commonalities. 19 We also appreciate the quotation from the Formula of Concord, Solid
Declaration that is added to § 3.1.1 and its emphasis on the “entire action” of the Sacrament from
the consecration of the elements by the Word through distribution and reception. And we
welcome the joint affirmation of the Holy Spirit’s work in and through “created, earthly means”

8

3

2026 Convention Workbook

14
One might argue that confessional Lutherans have represented a decidedly intentional “one-sided” view, in
contrast with the statement in the Final Report that “the concrete liturgical action must guard the theological
thinking from becoming one-sided.” “Mass as Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 1.4, p. 10.
15
Final Report, Mass as Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 1.1-1.6, pp. 9-10.
16
Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 2.1, p. 10.
17
The two previous references to the re-examination or relecture referred only to re-examination of Lutheran
positions (Preamble, 1.1, p. 1; Preamble, 1.4, p. 2).
18
Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 2.3.2, p. 10.
19
Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 3.1, p. 10.

4