LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 213

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
in 3.1.2 as well as the connective unity between Christ’s sacrificial death and the Sacrament of
the Altar (3.1.3).
However, some terminology and emphases in section 3. Commonalities give pause. Here we
mention the Final Report’s rather nebulous claim that there is a “way of proclaiming the unity of
the sacrifice on the cross and the Eucharistic sacrifice.” 20 Perhaps a more accurate description
might indicate that both sides find ways to proclaim both the sacrifice on the cross and a
Eucharistic sacrifice. Even that more modest claim, however, should acknowledge the fact that
the term sacrifice in the context of the Lord’s Supper is jealously restricted in the Lutheran
confessions. 21 This restriction is, of course, for the sake of opposing the teaching of the sacrifice
of the Mass and the view that the Lord’s Supper itself is an atoning sacrifice in any sense
whatsoever. As a result, Melanchthon refers only to the reality that a sacrifice of praise occurs as
one rejoices in the gift of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. And the Apology uses the term “eucharistic
sacrifice” for practices that have no direct connection to the Sacrament of the Altar. 22 So, the
claim that both sides link the cross of Christ with his holy Supper is valid, but is it not also
necessary to acknowledge more openly the fact that each side links them in significantly
different ways? 23 The matter of the unity between the cross and the Sacrament deserves
continuing conversation, as the Final Report indicates in 4. Open Questions.
We can affirm the important “commonalities” identified in 3.1.4 through 3.1.6, but we would like
there to be further clarification. The discussion of remembrance is helpful, but there is a question
of order: that is, does our remembrance come in response to the gift of Christ’s body and blood
for us to eat and drink? Or, does our act of remembrance make Christ’s body and blood present
to be distributed and received? 24
The brief characterization of ex opere operato again gives pause (§ 3.1.7). The conditional
characterization of that controversial term to mean only that there is an objective reality in the
Sacrament, while unobjectionable, does not deal adequately (in our view) with the reality of the
concerns raised by Reformers. 25
Our consideration of 3.2 Liturgical-Theological Affirmation is colored by the concerns
expressed in our comments on the preceding Systematic-Theological Affirmations. The
affirmation here appears in great measure to be a defense for the notion that, in some sense, the
priest offers an atoning sacrifice to God. However, the claim is carefully stated and underpinned
by saying that “divine action is theologically primary and the human action is secondary.” 26
Moreover, the Report adds that the Epiclesis for Rome understands that the Church’s action
depends on the Spirit’s action.
20
Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 3.1.3, p. 11.
21
Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 3.1.3, p. 11.AC XXIV, 25, 30, KW 70 and Ap XXIV, 22, KW 261.
See also SA II,2.,1, KW 301; FC SD VII. 83, KW 607.
22
Ap, XXIV, 25, KW 262.
23
We note the language of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) at §1367, which says “The sacrifice of
Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice,” affirming the doctrine of Trent. CCC, 2nd ed.
§1367 (Washington: United States Catholic Conference, 1997), p. 344.
24
The Final Report, seems to imply the latter view. Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 3.1.5, p. 11.
25
Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 3.1.7, p. 11. See e.g. AC XXIV, 29, KW 70; 259, 11-12.
26
Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 3.2.4, p. 12.

As the Report moves on to section 3.3 The Sacramental Presence of Christ’s Sacrifice in the
Eucharist, we are especially grateful for the note in § 3.3.2 about the absence of any language in
the Lutheran Confessions “about a presence of the sacrifice of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.” It is
true that some liturgies used in some confessional Lutheran churches have indicated something
along these lines. 27 At the same time, as confessional Lutherans, we dispute that such language
adequately represents Lutheran theology. This matter is therefore of vital importance to us and
we hope it is explored more fully as part of the discussion of representation as one of the open
questions. 28
With regard to section 4. Open Questions, we believe the points are generally well-stated and
identify many of the uncertainties and clarifications noted in our comments in this section. They
are well-balanced and inclusive of both Roman Catholic and confessional Lutheran concerns. 29
Section 5. Intermediary Results: We have discovered, helpfully distinguishes the terms
“consensus” and “convergences.”
b. Affirmation
Our preceding “Review and Questions” should indicate two things. First, we recognize the value
of the work of the ILC and PCPCU participants and give thanks to God for the many important
points of agreement the discussions uncovered. Second, precisely because of the importance of
such conversations, we pray that there will be continued discussion of the theology and practice
of the Sacrament of the Altar between confessional Lutheran and Roman Catholic
representatives.
LCMS teaching on the Lord’s Supper is, in some ways, rather simple. For example, the LCMS
CTCR published a report titled Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper (1983) that briefly
emphasizes the central teachings of Holy Scripture on the Sacrament as those teachings are
explained in the Book of Concord. (1) “The Lord's Supper offers and conveys forgiveness of
sins.” (2) “The Lord's Supper offers the truly present body and blood of Christ.” (3) “The Lord's
Supper strengthens faith.” (4) “The Lord's Supper imparts power for Christian living.” (5) “The
Lord's Supper is an act of thankful adoration.” And (6) “The Lord's Supper is a celebration of
Christian fellowship.” 30
Given such a simple characterization, one can see why we appreciate the work encapsulated in
the Final Report. The “Commonalities” identified in the report are substantial and they indicate
important elements of agreement. At the same time, there is more work to be done with regard to
the Sacrament and the CTCR strongly encourages continuing discussions.
III.

27
28
29

30

5

a. Review and Questions
In section three of the Final Report the representatives share the results of their discussions
concerning the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of
Justification (JDDJ), issued by LWF and the Roman Catholic Church in 1999, plays a pivotal
role in the conclusions of the participants. The Final Report acknowledges “statements” and
“reservations” from ILC churches, 31 but declares that there have been “valuable rapprochements
between the two parties involved.” 32
We are unclear about the point of reference intended by the term “valuable rapprochements.”
Does this mean that the Final Report authors have fewer reservations about JDDJ than the ILC
churches had earlier identified in their past reactions to JDDJ? The ensuing paragraphs in the
Final Report seem to suggest such a perspective.
Rome is said to have adopted a different “orientation” regarding justification in Vatican II. 33 So,
for Vatican II, “Obedience and faith are parallel, not prior to the message of faith, but to faith’s
enactment.” 34 The authors note that the “sola gratia is supplemented by the sola fide” for the
first time in Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues. 35 They add that “the critical function of the
doctrine of justification is upheld.” 36
These points, in paragraphs 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 raise questions for us. Is the changed
orientation as described anything more than an increasing inclusion of faith terminology with
regard to justification? Is not the connection of obedience and faith continued evidence of a
transformative rather than a declarative understanding of justification? If so, to what degree is
that a rapprochement? Does sola fide merely supplement a right understanding of sola gratia, or
is it in fact absolutely necessary for a right view? Lastly, while we welcome language about “the
critical function of justification” for all doctrine, we also find the language to be less than
precise. We recall the textual change in justification as “criterion” between the 1996 draft of
JDDJ and the final draft—a change from justification as the paramount criterion to justification
as “an indispensable criterion.” In light of that, what does it mean to speak of “the critical
function of justification”? 37
Regarding section 1.6, we are also pleased that the matter of “reward is being dealt with.” The
bullet points are, in our judgment, examples of JDDJ’s achievements, especially since the Final
Report modestly refers only to “a certain consensus.” We too see movement toward a greater
understanding of the differing historic teachings of Rome and Wittenberg.

213

Justification by Faith

Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 3.3.2, p. 12.
Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 4.8, p. 14.
Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 4.1 to 4.8, pp. 13-14.
The report is available for download at https://files.lcms.org/dl/f/716DCFC2-0F4B-45C5-A250-065A446F3E83.

6

Sections 1.7 through 1.10 move the discussion away from dogma to “the liturgical and
sacramental dimension.” 38 We note that these paragraphs no longer reference JDDJ, but instead
rely entirely on references from the Book of Concord. The connection between justification and
baptism was already introduced in section 1.6, but in § 1.8 the Final Report emphasizes the
language in the Latin text of AC IV that those justified through faith “believe that they are
received into grace.” 39 The Final Report notes this as significant, but does not indicate why. Is it
understood to be consistent with a more Roman Catholic understanding of grace? What
Lutherans mean is that by faith alone without works we are justified, i.e., declared righteous for
Christ’s sake and made heirs of heaven. 40
We find these liturgical-sacramental paragraphs about baptism, absolution, and preaching to be
helpful, but not in contrast with dogmatic language. Rather, they illumine the dogmatic truth
emphasized in the biblical doctrine of justification: that God manifests his righteousness solely
“through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (Romans 3:22). Even as justification means
that God “reckons” or “counts” faith as righteousness (Romans 4:3-5), so also it is enacted only
as the gospel of forgiveness is made known in word and sign, promising the one who “believes
in him who justifies the ungodly,” that “his faith is counted as righteousness” (Romans 4:5).
We find the discussion of “What Is Important for Our Dialogue between the ILC and the
PCPCU” to be very helpful. 41 The centrality of justification for understanding the Gospel is
affirmed, as is the recognition that Vatican II has enabled “a spirit of fraternal dialogue, not
polemical exchange.” 42 And we commend the Final Report for its frank admission that “mutual
congruence” is not possible given the differing understanding of terms between the two sides. 43
Paragraphs 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 then expand on the terminological distinction in discussing the allimportant term “faith.” There are certainly points of agreement and the different views are better
understood now, yet the critical difference remains over whether faith alone justifies.
We also find section 3. Commonalities, to be generally helpful in terms of the stated items. 44
That only Christ is “righteous and holy” (§ 3.1) and so only he can sanctify the church is a vital
truth. But we miss any discussion of how that relates to Roman teachings on the cult of the
saints. The discussion of Justification by Faith in § 3.2 rightly points out convergences, and notes
that the language of faith alone (sola fide) was “finally” affirmed in JDDJ’s Annex and by
Benedict XVI. It also, in our opinion, modestly claims no more than that the formula “may no
longer be the storm centre” (emphasis added). (This judgment must be considered alongside the
comments in the preceding paragraphs on faith in 2.4-2.6.).
We are displeased with the title of 3.3, Faith Becomes Effective through Love, together with
the particular sentence, “Faith precedes love; in love does faith become effective.” The Lutheran

31
The Final Report, footnote 23, references the LCMS seminary responses which were published by the CTCR in
1999 with a summary and study guide.
32
The Final Report, Sola Fides Numquam Sola—Justification by Faith (Sola Fides), 1.1, p. 14. For the response of
the LCMS see The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in
Confessional Lutheran Perspective (1999), https://files.lcms.org/dl/f/90BD9722-8E11-4DCF-96D3-869B579EC336.
33
Final Report, Sola Fides, 1.2, p. 14.
34
Final Report, Sola Fides, 1.3, p. 15.
35
Final Report, Sola Fides, 1.4, p. 15.
36
Final Report, Sola Fides, 1.5, p. 15.
37
On the textual change that Rome required, see The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, The Joint Declaration on
the Doctrine of Justification in Confessional Lutheran Perspective (1999), pp. 16-17.

Final Report, Sola Fides, 1.7, p. 16.
Final Report, Sola Fides, 1.8, p. 16.
Kolb-Wengert understands that “in gratiam recipe” is using grace to mean “divine favor.” Kolb-Wengert, AC IV,
Latin Text, footnote 52, p. 41.
41
Final Report, Sola Fides, 2., p. 17.
42
Final Report, What Is Important, 2.1, 2.2, p. 17.
43
Final Report, What Is Important, 2.3, p. 17.
44
Final Report, Commonalities, sections 3.1 through 3.7, pp. 17-20.

7

8

38
39
40

2026 Convention Workbook