Thanks for your clarification about the Lutheran situation. It seems that the scenario is helped by the fact that the Book of Concord is clearer statement rather than, say, the sprawling Catholic understanding of Tradition.

W.H.

*****

Andrew,

I think you’ve identified a rather serious problem in Catholic theology. The way magisterial statements are treated currently would necessitate that: (1) the spectrum of orthodoxy gradually narrow with time, and (2) the “content” of orthodoxy increase with each magisterial pronouncement. Oftentimes, this is justified in terms of “development of doctrine”.

The spectrum of orthodoxy doesn’t have to only narrow. It can broaden also—say, for example, when we accept new ways of articulating a particular truth. Thus, its trajectory is a complex process—one that is always encumbered by the severe limitations of human thought and language. For example, just because some Christians refuse to say that Christ possessed “two natures” does not necessarily mean that they are “Monophysites”. It would depend on how the term “nature” is being used in discussion.

Related to the question of the spectrum of orthodoxy is the concept of “development of doctrine”. This development need not necessarily mean that, with time, there will be more and more dogmatic propositions to which Christians must believe. We must distinguish between a truth and the historical developments that surround it. Those developments that have no clear foundation in Scripture or the Fathers cannot be held as binding, no matter who pronounces them or how many people hold to them in the present day. The Church, after all, does not see “new truths” in every generation; she only rediscovers, perhaps in a deeper way, those things which were entrusted to her from the beginning.

W.H.

But since certain definitions of dogma have already been made, isn’t the spectrum of orthodoxy now narrower? The belief in the active guidance of the Holy Spirit under whose inspiration certain councils and pontiffs exercised their magisterium in defining dogmas, IMHO, has narrowed down what can and cannot be considered orthodox. Thus, the legitimate variety of what constitutes the mind of the Church has been limited. But this, of course, cannot be reversed anathema’d and applied to the Fathers who lived in the freedom before those definitions.

What do you think?

I found your blog via Chris and Elizabeth’s. I’m glad to hear that it sounds like you will remain in America. Thank you for your prayers for my upcoming ordination.

Perhaps my characterization of conservative Catholics as those faithful to the magisterium was misguided. I can see your point that there is an amount of conservatism for conservatism’s sake; the fear of upsetting or changing the current situation and balance of things.

Here is where there are differences in the idea of conservative or liberal Lutherans. Whereas it seems that the “conservative” Catholics are happy with the Pope and the Papal Congregations, conservative Lutherans in the Missouri-Synod are not happy with the current Synodical President and Boards. Thus it seems to me that there is not conservatism for conservatism’s sake. The “conservative” Lutherans want to a different Synodical President for theological reasons.

For this reason, I don’t think you see conservative Lutherans wanting to put the church above the Book of Concord, but rather the liberal Lutherans want to discount the Book of Concord and put themselves above it. This allows for more theological freedom that goes against tradition and even at times against Scripture. It is for this reason that I classified the conservative Lutherans as orthodox. I don’t see a third category of Lutherans being called orthodox that is distinct from conservative Lutherans.

First of all, welcome, old friend. I’m delighted by the news of your upcoming ordination, and regret that I won’t be able to attend. Nevertheless, you have the promise of my prayers.

You raise some great points. I would’ve never been able to draw the parallels between the Lutheran and Catholic situations given my sheer ignorance about your tradition.

If only a “conservative” Catholic were simply one who believes all that the Magisterium teaches! More and more, I’m convinced that there exists a conservatism that is just that—conservatism, and not orthodoxy. This conservatism is usually oriented toward preserving or “maximizing” current ideas and structures in the Church, and sometimes it is about re-establishing previously held (but still recent) ones that have passed away with time.

This kind of conservatism is illustrated, in my opinion, by the response of self-professed “faithful Catholics” to the pronouncements of the current Magisterium (usually understood only as the Pope and papal congregations). One often finds that there is much ado about the most recent papal documents, Roman decisions and other “official” statements. The Apostolic and Catholic Tradition received from Scripture and the Fathers is effectively rendered irrelevant, or at least too remote (chronologically and theologically) to be of any relevance.

This is a serious problem, because the Church is not an arbiter of the Word but rather its servant, yet she is repeatedly equated with that Word rather than placed under it. As you pointed out, this problem is exemplified in the whole debate over Mary’s status as co-redemptrix. It can be seen also in the Western debates about liturgical rubrics. One notitiae from the Congregation for Divine Worship, it seems, would suffice to reverse a practice with origins in the apostolic and patristic ages!

Is the Church servant or arbiter of the Tradition? This is a question that conservatives must repeatedly ask. Orthodoxy, then, seems to me to be one thing, and conservatism quite another.

What are your thoughts? Do you think Lutherans face a similar dilemma with the Book of Concord?

W.H.

These are some very interesting comments that I believe have a broad application. Even when the Church is not technically divided, there are still separations and divisions in theology. The question that Lutherans are asked is, “Are you Confessional (Conservative) or are you Progressive (Liberal)? A Confessional Lutheran would subscribe to the Book of Concord with a quia subscription. He subscribes because the Book of Concord agrees with Scripture. A liberal would have a quatanus subscription because he subscribes to the Book of Concord in so far as it agrees with Scripture. The bottom line being that a quatanus subscription allows one to only agree with parts of the Book of Concord and not all of it.

From my perspective, the same thing is found in the Catholic Church. A conservative Catholic believes all that the Magisterium teaches and a liberal Catholic believes some of what the Magisterium teaches. By the definitions of what a conservative and liberal is, it seems that the term orthodox would be applied to the conservatives of both churches because they agree with all the teachings of their respective churches.

The one problem that I see in applying the term orthodox to the conservatives of both churches is that orthodox Catholics will sometimes go further than the Magisterium, for example belief in Mary as co-redemptrix as you touched on in your post entitled, “Is it true if the Pope doesn’t say so?” Confessional Lutherans will sometimes do the same type of thing by going beyond the Book of Concord. Some Confessional Lutherans will want to apply the title semper virgo to Mary when the Confessions don’t explicitly say she is.

The application of labels to people is something that our sinful, fallen nature will continue to want to do. Perhaps, while recognizing the source of these labels as our sinfulness, it is helpful to be as precise as possible in what we call ourselves.