Walther on why the Lutheran Church should not try to claim to be Catholic

LP Cruz has put up a most interesting link to an article by the old Yankee Lutheran, C.F.W. Walther, re the preference for the name “Lutheran” over “Catholic”. It makes fascinating reading.

Here are just a few comments from me on the selection Lito has chosen to cite on his blog.

Generally, when you take into account Walther’s unique point of view, he talks a lot of sense, but at the same time his article shows how “non-catholic” his Lutheranism actually was.

“How wonderful the name catholic sounds. For example, in the mouth of Athenasius or Augustine when they use it against the sects of the Arian, the Donatists and others. “

But when the boot is on the other foot (ie. when you are the heretic and not the Catholic) it doesn’t sound so nice, eh?

“How glorious the name [“Catholic”] rings in the time of the Roman bishop Gregory the Great who completely rejected the title of the universal bishop of Christianity.”

And rightly so. Neither does the Bishop of Rome today claim such a title. He is a local bishop, the first among bishops, the “prius”, the primate, and he has universal jurisdiction in the Church precisely as the local Bishop of Rome, but not as a “universal bishop”. He is not above his brother bishops as if like some sort of “uber-bishoff”. There is no such title as “universal bishop” in the Church, except, as Walther points out, perhaps Christ himself.

“But what is the meaning of the word “Catholic Church” now? It is the fellowship of those who recognize the bishop of Rome as the head of the church, as standing in the place of Christ and God himself.”

Well, yes and no. First, lets be quite clear that the Pope is not the Head of the Church. Walther is right, and Benedict would agree: Christ is the Head of the Church.

On the other hand, there is no meaningful use of the word “Catholic” today which does not include communion with the Bishop of Rome.

“They must therefore worship all the unquestionable errors of the papacy such as: the sacrifice of the Mass, praying to the saints, purgatory, the worship of images and relics, the pope’s indulgence, human works unto salvation and self chosen works, the forbidding of the bible and marriage, tradition or the unwritten Word of God, compulsory fasts etc. etc. which all the confessions and catechisms of the new Roman Catholic Church teach along with the explicit explanation that outside of this faith no one can be saved.”

Well, what a show bag of horrors! If Walther were prepared to get down off his high horse and have a bit of chat to a real Catholic (rather than his straw-Catholic he sets up) he might learn that these horrors are in fact either myths (such as “forbidding the bible” or “human works unto salvation”) or part and parcel of the doctrine of the Incarnation (such as saints, images, relics, etc.).

I would hope that no readers of your blog, LP, would simply accept this 150 year old accusation without entering into some sort of dialogue to understand what we Catholics actually teach on these matters.

Absolute Truth living with Absolute Respect

Today I made a short presentation at the Victorian Council of Churches AGM to promote the resource “On the path to Mutual Respect” (I was on the editorial board for the production).

I was asked to focus on the section regarding the “exclusive claims of Jesus”, focusing on John 14:6 and Acts 4:12.

Here’s the outline of what I presented. Tell me what you think of the conclusion.

Background

• 2001 Racial and Religious Tolerance Act
• 2004 ICV vs Catch the Fire VCAT
• 2005 Premier’s Summit Meeting with Faith Leaders
• 2006 RRTA amended to included ‘teaching, conveying and proselytising of a religion’ under ‘religious purpose’
• 2006 Appeal of Catch the Fire upheld
• 2006 Victorian Government Grant to VCC to promote religious harmony
• Formation of Editorial Committee: Philip Newman, Maureen Postma, Mark Zirnsac, Mark Lindsay, and David Schütz
• Employment of Alan Nichols as writer
• Publication “On the Path to Mutual Respect” (2007)

Issues

• Freedom of speech (Freedom to critique)
• Free exercise of religion (Freedom to proselytise)
• Fear of prosecution
• Tolerance? Or Respect?
• Harmonious living in a multi-Ethnic, multi-Culture society

The exclusive claim of Jesus

• John 14:6 “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
• Acts 4:12 “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.”

Exclusive Truth Claims

• Many social commentators blame religious discord on mutally exclusive claims to truth
  Such claims are said to foster
  – intolerance
  – disrespect
  – vilification, etc.
• Multi-Faith society therefore poses a challenge to the traditional Christian conviction of the exclusivity of salvation in Christ alone

Alternatives to Religious Conflict?

• Is it necessary that believers give up their conviction that their religious beliefs are “absolutely true” in order to live in harmony with people of other faiths or no faith?
• Can Christians proclaim Christ as “the only Way” and as “the only Saviour” without being disrespectful of the beliefs of others?
• Is there an alternative approach to the question “Who can be saved?” other than the “Exclusivist / Inclusivist / Pluralist”?

Two Alternatives to Conflict

• Absolute Truth of Religious Freedom
  “Absolute Truth” claims will not lead to conflict as long as one of those absolute truths is the conviction of the dignity of every human being and the primacy of conscience
• Ask “Who saves?” rather than “Who is saved?”
  Both the John 14 and Acts 4 speak of the Saviour, not of who is saved. We are called to be “his witnesses”, not “his judges”.