Did you get your invitation to the first consecration of a female Catholic bishop? Too bad. Neither did I. But the media was abuzz about it all. Of course it was since the media delights in giving dissidents prominence -- especially when those dissidents adhere to the sacred political agenda of the media (feminism, same sex marriage, gender identity, etc.).
So here is the story (from their own website). Spiritus Christi is an inclusive, mission-driven Catholic Church in Rochester, New York. The community officially began on Valentine's Day, 1999. 1100 people attended the Masses that first weekend. Most of them had previously belonged to Corpus Christi Roman Catholic Church in Rochester, but they had found themselves unwelcome there following a Vatican crack-down on the parish the previous year. [The Vatican took issue with a woman concelebrating the mass with their priest, the support of homsexuality and, indeed, the celebration of gay and lesbian weddings (though not on church property), and an open communion policy.] The Diocese of Rochester, under pressure from Rome, fired the leaders and ended these inclusive practices. This happened back in 1998. In 2001 the dissidents (a goodly number, some 1200-1500 people) gathered to re-establish their old identity but as an independent Catholic church (whatever that means). They ordained the woman who has been acting as a de facto priest before and have continued to the present day. There is no doubting that the congregation is appealing and has a steady membership of over 250 families and that they are very active -- in many good and laudable causes but also and very prominently in support of a pro GLBTQ agenda. The old Roman priest is back, no longer Roman, but an associate pastor of the group. Now one of their number has been consecrated a bishop, Denise (MeMa) Donato. You can read it all for yourself.
You can also notice the prominent coverage given to the group by the so-called National Catholic Reporter (here, here, and here). Which is my point. Rome is filled with dissidents who have not left and who are agitating still for the same old causes (many dating back to the 1970s). Here is a semi-official voice of the Roman Catholic Church giving big coverage to this particular dissident group of people who fought and left but still claim the identity. It is as if these were the heroes in the eyes of this journal and the Church was the oppressing force of wrong. It is also a hint that the problems in Rome are not simply a guy named Frank who wears a pallium and is called papa and who lives in the Vatican. No, indeed. There are many (many boomers of my vintage) who have older but not weaker voices in favor of a church that mirrors the movement of culture. But there is no future for the Church in becoming a pale echo of the sins of the world around us. Yet the cause of faithfulness rarely wins any publicity contests.
Finally there is that phrase: an independent Catholic church. It is a contradiction in terms. Catholic is a word that means nothing less than no independence but rather dependence upon and adherence to the catholic tradition. We Lutherans recognized this early on. We insisted in our first public confession that we have not departed from the catholic faith in doctrine or practice. It is this contention by which we insist we must be judged. But this community, Spiritus Christi, that insists that faithfulness requires departure from the catholic tradition and faith. Indeed, they have made this the litmus test of faithfulness. And this is where it all ends up so strange. They claim to be catholic but they have rejected every catholic dogma with regard to the pastoral office, to the sacred nature of marriage between one man and one woman, and the cause of sexual purity (over sexual indulgence). That they have a following is no surprise. The world loves the show more than it has loved the faith for a long time. They love the image of being the church while at the same time rejecting the basic truths that define and shape the church's faith and life. But make no mistake. This is not the path of faithfulness. In this case, the trappings of church are being used to foment error. And they are not alone.
14 comments:
Oh, to be affirmed in your sin by the church, it doesn’t get any better than that. Luke 17:1
At what point will this independent Catholic church join in altar and pulpit fellowship with the Episcopalians and with other liberal church bodies.
Why do so many disaffected Roman Catholics who want nothing to do with liberal churches feel that they must join the non-denominational mega-church across town? They have not been paying attention to the Evangelical leaders quietly accepting liberal theology........
Sigh.... yet again the sophistic game of equivocation is played between "Catholic" vs. "catholic."
When this bunch of goofballs claim to be "an independent Catholic church," they are referring to an independent (and visible) Catholic Church, separate from the Roman Catholic Church headed by the pope, who thinks his Roman Catholic Church is the true visible catholic church, which, of course, Lutherans know it is not!
Instead Lutherans know that the catholic Church is the invisible Church, that is, the one holy Christian Church of all true believers.
There is another article to spin off of this. When the rogue innovators steal the language to validate their stance. They still call themselves Catholic. People call themselves Lutheran while acting contrary to the very definition of 1580. Marriage doesn't mean a union of man/women; you can call yourself a Christian while rejecting the Trinity, Creeds and Scripture; evangelical, ministry, and mission can mean anything you want them to mean. The Mormons aren't satisfied unless called "Christians"; homosexuals aren't satisfied unless they have "marriage"; and "ministry" doesn't have to be about Jesus at all.
Carl,
You write, "Instead Lutherans know that the catholic Church is the invisible Church..." No, Carl, Lutherans are deluded to think that the catholic church is only the invisible church. It is both.
Lutheran doctrine correctly teaches the Church, in the proper sense of the term, is invisible. In his Christian Dogmatics (1934, p. 547)(92MB), John Theodore Mueller writes:
"The Church is invisible. (Ecclesia est invisibilis.) This follows from the fact that saving faith, which constitutes the means by which a person becomes and remains a member of the Church, is unseen of man, 1 Kings 8, 39; 19, 18; Rom. 11, 3-5; Acts 1, 24. The invisibility of the Church is, however, predicated only with respect to men, not with respect to God. Of men the words of Christ in Luke 17, 20. 21 hold; to God St. Paul's words in 2 Tim. 2, 19 apply (cp. John 10, 14. 27. 28).
"All who affirm that the Church is either wholly (papists) or partly (modern Lutheran theologians) visible destroy the Scriptural concept of the Church and change it from a communion of believers to an 'outward polity of the good and wicked' (externa politia bonorum et malorum; aeussere Anstalt; Heilsanstalt), in which the believers only play a more or less important role.
"Occasionally Lutheran theologians to-day speak of two aspects of the Church, a visible aspect : the Word and the Sacraments, and an invisible one: the true members of the Church. But it is logically incorrect to describe the marks of the Church (notae ecclesia) as an essential part of the Church. It is true, the Gospel and the Sacraments are true marks of the Church; for the Church is never found where these are not in use. Moreover, the Gospel and the Sacraments are also the means by which the Church is established and preserved; for without the means of grace there can be no believers, Is. 55, 10ff.; Rom. 10, 17; Matt. 28, 19. 20; Mark 16, 15. 16. But to call the means of grace a part of the Church or the Church itself is an absurdity."
Dr. Marquart:
"...standard Lutheran theology since Gerhard has spoken of the church being “visible” and “invisible,” and meant the right, orthodox content by this terminology."
In addition to the previous excepts from Mueller, in his 1889 essay, "The Distinction between Orthodox and Heterodox Churches", Franz Pieper stated his Thesis I: Every man's first and principal concern should be, that he belong to the Communion of Saints, that is, to he Invisible Church.”
From early in its beginning (if not all the way back to Dr. Carl Vehse's 1839 Protestation document, or C.F.W. Walther's 1841 Altenburg Debate), the Missouri Synod has made its doctrinal understanding of the "invisible Church" known with Theses III - VII, IX, concerning the Church (C.F.W. Walther, Church and Ministry, trans. by J.T. Mueller, CPH, St. Louis, 1987, pp. 38-158).
For example, Walther quotes Luther (Comment on Galatians 5:19, Halle Edition, 8:2745): "Therefore we rightly confess in the Creed and say: 'I believe a holy Christian Church.' For it is invisible and lives in the Spirit at a place to which no one can come." [p.41], and Chemnitz (Loci theologici, part 3, p.117): "The true and holy church of the elect nevertheless remains invisible" [p.43], and John Gerhard (Loci thologici, “De ecclesi", par. 151): "When we say: 'I believe one holy Christian church,' the word 'believe' shows clearly that we speak of the invisible church, which is proved also by the added adjective 'holy' [p.43], and “We say that the true, holy, and universal church is always invisible, even now when the newly kindled light of the Gospel shines most brightly in many kingdoms and provinces” (par. 69).
From whatever undocumented source, David, and in whatever context your excerpt from Marquart was extracted, it must be understood in the same way as clearly explain from Scripture and the Symbols by Mueller, Pieper, Walther, Gerhard and many other other thewologians included in Walther’s Kirche und Amt. Otherwise such a statement you present, David, is not a Lutheran statement.
The Church in the proper sense of the word is invisible.
Yet, AC 7 and 8 refer only to the Church as very, very visible; yet that is not exhaustive and we of course recognize it is both.
And Walther's Kirch and Amt in Thesis V and VII thinks the church is both.
God is incarnational and not an enthusiast. If the ekklesia is ONLY invisible we become enthusiast and mystics. I hope there is a visible place tomorrow with a visible Sacrament and visible Word and visible Absolution and visible Communion with some saints.
AC 7 and Walther's Thesis V both deal with the invisible Church. Walther points out that the marks of the Church are visible, and the presence of the Church can be discerned, though it is still invisible. This was discussed by Mueller, as noted in my April 13, 2018 at 6:21 PM comment.
AC 8 and Walther's Thesis VI introduce the meaning in the improper sense of the Church as a visible congregation containing both true believers as well as hypocrites and wicked persons.
It is this visible Church, defined in the improper sense, to which AC 8 and Walther's Thesis VII refer. This is very clear from the text, and from the further explanations and testimonies provided by Walther. The meanings of AC 7 and 8 are also clear from reading the corresponding section in the Apology.
The comments posted by the various Anons at 12:32 PM, at 12:40 PM, and at 12:58 PM, are lies and deceptions. Christians should ignore their false and heterodox claims; such heterodox claims by these Anons are only Lufauxran Kot.
Carl,
Have you found any LCMS pastors who agree with you?
Have you called on the entire Faculty of both our Seminaries to resign over their "lies and deceptions" of heterodoxy?
Not only was there agreement by the pastor and vicar from whom I was catechized and confirmed, but also the pastors of Missouri Synod congregations in which I have been a member through these years. Indeed all Lutheran pastors who committed to become rostered members of the Missouri Synod have voluntarily agreed to the Scriptural doctrine and Confessional exposition on the distinction of the invisible Church and visible church as understood in Walther's Kirche und Amt, in the Brief Statement of 1932, and also explained in excerpts from the Lutheran references I have previously provided. That would also include the theological faculties of Missouri Synod seminaries who are also rostered members of the Synod.
As for you, Anon on April 14, 2018 at 4:29 PM, there's little indication in your comment that would suggest you are an ordained or rostered member of the Missouri Synod, or even a Lutheran, so there's no need to call for any resignation from you.
Post a Comment