An Ordinariate for Lutherans?
January 15, 2013 60 Comments
More hints of an Ordinariate for Lutherans. Last October, Cardinal Kurt Koch mentioned the Vatican being open to the idea. Now, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, is at it:
The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has said that the Vatican might consider an ordinariate for Lutherans wishing to return to full communion with the Catholic Church, similar to the structure established by Pope Benedict XVI for Anglicans.
Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller conceded that “the Lutheran world is a bit different from the Anglican one, because among Anglicans there has always been a sector closer to Catholicism.” However, he said, some Lutherans hope for a restoration of full communion with Rome, and the Church should be ready to receive them. He suggested that, as with Anglicans, the Catholic Church might allow Lutherans to preserve “the legitimate traditions they have developed” while becoming members of the Catholic Church.
In the eyes of some Lutherans, the archbishop observed, Martin Luther intended merely to reform the Church, not to cause division among Christians. Archbishop Müller added that some Lutherans believe the necessary reforms were completed by Vatican II. He added that in his own native land, Germany, “Protestants are not just opposed to Catholicism, because they have retained many Catholic traditions.”
Archbishop Müller made these remarks during an appearance at a Roman bookshop marking the release of his own new book on the thought of Pope Benedict XVI.
About Fr Stephen Smuts
“Some Lutherans” is a vague amount of Lutherans. It’s like “Some Catholics don’t believe the Pope is the rightful Pope at Rome.” and “Some Catholics believe abortion is moral.” How small and how “crazy” are they from the point of view of Lutherans?
This is unlikely to happen. It’s not the same case as the Anglicans- the Anglicans maintained some semblance of Catholicism though without valid orders or valid sacraments. But something important is preserved in Anglicanism, a sort of well-preserved Body or Temple for the Spirit to dwell in. With Lutheranism, however, the divide is too great. It’s like sewing a rotten limb back to a healed stump. I don’t even know if there is a Lutheran analogue of Blessed John Henry Newman. Maybe Blessed John Henry Newman himself will be a catalyst for the Lutherans?
Maybe through some great traumatic experience like war or persecution of ALL Christians, it is possible. But as we saw, the divide survived two world wars. I’d say… It will take another ecumenical council before there’s a small possibility that this will happen.
Maybe through God’s intervention, it is possible. But if God wills it, the Catholic Church will survive without Lutherans.
Also: I don’t trust Müller. He’s made some questionable statements a while ago- but now he’s the Grand Inquisitor. It’s a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
Ioannes, there is a form of Lutheran close to Catholicism in Europe. The Churches of Scandinavia have all retained the three fold order of deacon, priest and Bishop, and the liturgical movement had very good results there. I know that they are completely liberal now, with a lesbian woman “archbishop” in Stockholm, but there are still some pockets of orthodox resistances, such as the Swedish Church Union, the Society of St Bridget… that are akin to Forward in Faith.
But it would be a better solution in these countries to simply facilitate the re-ordination of former Lutherans in the local diocese, because there are so few Catholics there I don’t really see the point in having 2 overlapping jurisdictions.
+ pax et bonum
The Latvian Lutherans may be also be interested. They have remained much more conservative than the Scandinavians and are relatively “High Church” because of historic Swedish influence. Their current Archbishop put an end to WO after he was elected in 1993.
Also I wouldn’t say the Church of Denmark is particularly close to Catholicism. The office of Bishop in the CofD is merely that of a superintendent and the Danish crown went out of it’s way very early on to break tactile succession from the pre-Reformation Catholic Church. That of course had knock on effects for Norway and Iceland as they were Danish controlled, though Norway remained that bit higher due to recusancy in isolated areas up until the the late 17th Century.
I don’t know…. How much of an issue will obedience be for these theoretical “Lutheran Ordinariate” members? Let’s not forget they are -Protestants- they must be protesting something, or they’d cease to be Protestants once becoming Catholic. So what is the role of a “Protestant Patrimony” in the Catholic Church?
Maybe this will warrant more investigation.
Ioannes, You might start your “investigation” by reading the Joint Declaration on Justification. Binding on RCs.
To Conchur: Latvian Lutherans are lost too, because as soon as Abp. Vanags is out, the hundreds of ladies who studied theology and are today known as “evangelists” (= lay-readers) will be suddenly ordained. It’s sad to say, but everybody in the Church of Latvia wants women-priests, and it’s only because this Church gives dictatorial powers to its Archbishop that ++Vanags has been able to prevent it, as he is personally opposed. The liberals tried to accuse him of misusing church-money so as to push him to resignation, but to no avail to this date. He’s a very uncommon man… he even asked SSPX Priests to teach liturgy to his pastors! I wonder if he will one day become Catholic, a move that would certainly be logical given his stance on most theological subjects.
Anyway Swedish Lutheran Bishops are busy ordaining women for ministry in Latvia (and those women are using the Anglican church in Riga as their headquarter, see the liberal collusion against conservatives), and as much money comes to Latvia from the Church of Sweden, they can’t really rebuke them.
+ pax et bonum
Michael Frost,
I already know about the Joint Declaration on Justification.
It’s just that I haven’t heard much news about where to go to from there. It’s just like the “Orthodox Catholic Theological Consultation” – my reaction “So, what?” Which means to say, there’s not much going on. For example: http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic.html
-Not much news going on there.
The Joint Declaration on Justification, just like SCOBA are good starting points, but it’s a stretch to say we’re any closer to unity. So Lutheran Ordinariates, before being a reality, I think, need to have good theological foundation that makes it possible to have an integrated body within the Catholic Church. Right Worship and right practice are necessary.
I mean. You know that any “Lutheran Catholic Ordinariate” would essentially be under Roman Catholic jurisdiction, right? In the same manner the Anglican Ordinariates are Roman Catholic jurisdictions. Not sure how receptive the Lutherans are to becoming “Roman” again. Or if they believe they need to be Catholic when they are already “catholic”.
Ioannes, My thoughts are tied to your question and thought: “So what is the role of a “Protestant Patrimony” in the Catholic Church? Maybe this will warrant more investigation.”
Since we are discussing Lutheranism, I’m suggesting you study the Lutheran Patrimony. And since Justification by Faith is the key to Lutheranism, a thorough study of the Joint Declaration is critical. A study done by comparing the Joint Declaration to both Trent and the Augusburg Confession/Apology. Then you’ll start to understand the Lutheran mind and their beautiful patrimony. Where you might go after that is up to you. I’d suggest a good biography of Luther and another of Melanchthon, Melancthon’s Loci Communes (either 1555 or 1559), the Formula/Book of Concord (1580), and a good study of the history of Lutheran liturgics (e.g., either Luther Reed (1959) or Frank Senn (1997)). And the recent magesterial Lutheran Study Bible (2009) and The Apocrypha Lutheran Edition with Notes (2012), both using ESV.
Ioannes, I can assure you that I’ve been on my own crash course regarding Lutheranism ever since my daughter announced her engagement. He is Lutheran (ELCA). So I plan on knowing a heck of a lot more about Lutheranism than he does. I’ve already been talking about Lutheranism with her.
I’ve been very impressed with so much I’ve discovered. And it has led me to a better appreciation of my own faith. I have no trouble saying Luther was a great man, both for his time and all ages. A giant of a thinker. Same for Melanchthon. But one has to read them and the early Reformation as part of the times, what they were reacting to/against, and in light of prevailing ways of speech and thought (e.g., the oft polemical nature of debates and discussions, the condemnations, etc.). Unfortunately, I’m less impressed with what ended up happending to so much of Lutheranism after they essentially threw away/out Melanchthon and failed to stay in the footsteps of Luther (see gnesio-Lutherans, the Book/Formula of Concord, and European Lutheranism in 18th-19th centuries).
Ioannes, please do not trust and repeat shallow and “not very intelligent” propaganda against +Muller by SSPX (who are not objective, as they are afraid that the new Head of CDF will take tougher stance against them, like ‘take it or leave it’ – which, IMHO, would be appropriate after this neverending dialogue). With respect to +Muller’s orthodoxy, do you trust them more than the judgment of the Holy Father, who is an outstanding theologian himself? Read this:
http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=5927
Our Catholic faith is very clear that at the consecration during Mass a change occurs so that the whole substance of the bread and wine is changed into the whole substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and that this change is rightly called transubstantiation. And we have refused to accept all the other interpretations, consubstantiation, transignification, transfinalisation and so on. The Church is also equally clear on the “virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus, mother of God, before, during and after the birth of Christ,” Archbishop Muller stated.
Well, that’s a relief!
But it is my attitude to be cautious and vigilant. I believe it is most prudent to be so.
Commentators here appear to forget that it was just in the late 1990s that Rome and the LWF signed the Joint Declaration on Justification. It is far easier for Rome to understand where Lutherans come from if those Lutherans are clearly confessing (usually according to Formula of Concord, Augsburg Confession/Apology/Treatise on Pope, etc.). Confessing Lutherans have a very strong, consistent systematic theology. Rome has trouble finding common ground with Anglicans since Anglicans can’t agree on their own dogma or source thereof (e.g., 39 Articles, etc.).
Would be interesting to see Lutherans go back to the Augsburg and (esp.) Leipzing Interims from 1548. Melanchthon and Bucer signed, though very reluctantly and mainly for the sake of protecting pastors, their family, and congregations. RCs should stugy these attempts at reunion. Melanchthon argued he’d preserved the key doctrine of Justification and argued that so much else were just non-essential, adiaphora. In the Leipzig Interim the Lutherans kept critical ideas like married clergy, communion in both kinds, confession didn’t require auricular enumeration, meritorious sacrifice omitted from mass, etc.
Ioannes, if you want to understand the value of “Protestant Patrimony,” read Louise Bouyer’s Spirit and Forms of Protestantism:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0097.html
I have two comment.
To Michael Frost: on what basis do you write that the Joint Declaration on Justification is “Binding on RCs.”? Everything I have read indicates that it is merely an agreement between a group of representative Lutheran theologians (appointed by the Lutheran World Federation) and a group of Catholic theologians (appointed by the Vatican). The Vatican may have endorsed its conclusions in general terms, but until and unless it is specifically promulgated by some sort of “magisterial act” it is not “binding” in any way for Catholics — and in fact it has received, and continues to receive, criticism from conservative Catholics, and the Vatican has domne nothing to refute, much less to silence, these critics.
To Don Henri: I am well acquainted with the Latvian situation; in fact, in 1999 I conducted a long interview of Archbishop Vanags, a link to which I will place below. My imprerssion is very different from yours, in that I thionk he enjoys overwhelming support from the great majority of the clergy of thye Latvian Lutheran Church, and probably from that of most active lay church-goers. Moreover, the manner in which those Lutheran churches that have been trying to thrust WO on the Latvians (above all, the Church of Sweden) have now moved on to endorse and embrace sodomitic pseudogamy, can only have strengthened the support for the archbishop in his church. There is a great deal of opposition to him, of course, but for the most part it comes from secularized Latvian Lutherans, or occasionally-practicing ones, and a few ageing Lutheran clergy. Since Vanags was born in 1958, he still has (God willing) many years left to serve as archbishop, and I seriously doubt whether his successor will be a liberal a la Scandinavienne.
Here is the interview:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-04-031-i
and here is a report extracted from an interview I conducted a few days later with Janis, Cardinal Pujats, who was then Archbishop of Riga:
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2003/may2003p9_1321.html
That latter interview was published in Catholic World Report, but I cannot find it online.
William, Do you have a copy of the Joint Declaration? I have a copy of the English-language edition, Eerdmans (2000), which is copyrighted by The LWF and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
The Preface, Joint Declaration including Preamble, Common Statement, and Annex make clear that “The Roman Catholic Church/the Catholic Church” has signed this. The signers include Cardinal Cassidy, President of the PCPCU and his secretary of same, then Bishop Kasper. The Official Common Statement states, “On the basis of this consensus the [LWF] and the Catholic Church declare together: ‘The teaching of the Lutheran Churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations of the Council of Trent. … thus is becomes clear that the earlier mutual dialogue condemnations do not apply to the teaching of the dialogue partners as presented in the Joing Declaraiont.” And, “By this act of signing The Catholic Church and The [LWF} confirm the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in its entirety.”
As the Preface says, this document “represents an ecumenical event of historical significance.” And from the Preamble, “…the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understanding….”
Since this binds the RCC, which, voluntarily and of its own free will, bound itself to it, it binds all the RC faithful, And if it doesn’t then did Rome lie to the LWF? Sign a false statement/declaration? Intend to deceive? Get the LWF to sign under false pretenses?
I think it is also instructive that the Joint Declaration doesn’t refer to or rely on the RC CCC, which was promulgated before it.
I agree with you Michael that the JDDJ appears to be a magisterial act, though some will argue that the existence of the Annex (a sort of “pulling back” document) itself indicates hesitation on the part of the Church.
I have long hoped to see a Catechism that incorporates the insights and emphases of the JDDJ into its structure and content… perhaps when we get around to an Ordinariate Catechism!
LF, What would “an Ordinariate Catechism” be? Why would they even need their own when the RC CCC suffices for all RCs, including their Uniates. (Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the Uniates have their own Canon Law, though not their own binding Catechism?)
Makes me wonder if you jest. How come I could picture any attempt at creating an Ordinariate Catechism as a source of schism, since Anglicans can’t agree on anything? Which is why they stopped being Anglicans and became RCs.
IF they were to (or are), my suggestion would be just to list the magesterial documents that they are bound to. This would include all their officially binding councils, bulls, encyclicals, joint declarations, etc. I’d really love to see what all magesterial documents are out there. Would it include Piux IX’s Syllabus of Errors? If so, maybe just this one document could be their Catechism? Was promulgated after the Oxford Movement’s last Tract and while Newman and Manning were alive.
Michael, an Ordinariate Catechism would be a local or particular adaptation of the CCC, just as the USCCB produced a Catechism for Catholics of the United States and the Ukrainian Catholic Church did the same (“Christ Our Pascha”).
As we read in the prologue of the CCC itself:
11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”.
24 By design, this Catechism does not set out to provide the adaptation of doctrinal presentations and catechetical methods required by the differences of culture, age, spiritual maturity, and social and ecclesial condition among all those to whom it is addressed. Such indispensable adaptations are the responsibility of particular catechisms and, even more, of those who instruct the faithful…
An Ordinariate Catechism would be structured and composed with the same goal as the Ordinariate itself, which is to preserve the treasures of the Anglican Patrimony whilst providing a bridge to bring separated brethren to embrace the fullness of Catholic faith and life.
Dr Tighe, thank you so much for including the dialogue that you had with Archbishop Vanags, it was truly fascinating. I was especially interested in his take on the “mass” conversions of Estonian peasants to the Russian Church in the 19th century and their subsequent betrayal by the Russian colonial imperial authorities.
I was also drawn into the conversation when he readily admitted to the rather explosive growth of Roman Catholicism because of their resistance to Russian Soviet atheism.
Altogether very interesting reading.
“I was especially interested in his take on the “mass” conversions of Estonian peasants to the Russian Church in the 19th century and their subsequent betrayal by the Russian colonial imperial authorities.”
Dale, it is interesting that you wrote “Estonian” for “Latvian” above, I presume inadvertently — for, in fact, although Abp. Vanags discussed the origins of the rather small Latvian Orthodox community, and their betrayal by the Imperial Russian authorities, the same thing happened in Estonia, and on a much larger scale, such that there are still a fair number (ca. 25) of ethnically Estonian Orthodox congregations in Estonia.
Yes, Dr Tighe that is exactly what I meant to write. I did some research whilst in seminary on the Estonian situation and it is analogous to what the Archbishop wrote about the situation in Latvia. When I did mention this form of “missionary Outreach” to one of my professors, he became quite nasty declaring that this was only anti-Orthodox Roman Catholic propaganda! This whole period of forced Russification through almost forced conversions to Russian Orthodoxy was actually official tzarist position throughout most of the 19th century, supported not only by the Tzar but also by Konstantin Pobedonostsev whose famous declaration, “Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationalism,” is well known.
The same form of conversion was also used amongst the German speaking communities in Russia, although most of these individuals were Mennonites and not interested, a few communities of German speaking Lutherans did convert having been promised removal of legal restrictions, but during the first world war, under the Tzar, millions of these people were murdered by the imperial government because of their ethnic origin, without regards to who had or who had not converted to Russian Orthodoxy. The method of extermination was actually quite interesting. the men were rounded up, forced to join the Imperial army and used as cannon fodder to be shot by the invading Germans in the Great War and their women in children were turned from their homes, which were burnt, and left to die by the hundreds of thousands by exposure.
I remember once asking a Finnish Orthodox why they celebrated Easter on the western date, his response was that they would rather celebrate the Resurrection with their Finnish Lutheran brothers than with the Russians who occupied and oppressed their land for so long.
One would hope that in the future instead of attacking the Roman Catholic Church, the Byzantine Orthodox might be willing to admit to a few of their own historical crimes.
Almost forgot…when both of these Baltic states were freed from the control of the Russian imperial government after the Great War, thousands of these converts did indeed return to their own ancestral traditions, leaving the Russian Church.
Dale, you wrote: “One would hope that in the future instead of attacking the Roman Catholic Church, the Byzantine Orthodox might be willing to admit to a few of their own historical crimes.”
Nope. I mean, you can hope, but perhaps it will come true only in Heaven or during Judgement Day.
As a Roman Catholic, the Orthodox are waaaaaay down the list of threats, despite the really sad and unforgiving attacks they make on Catholicism.
Atheism is at the top, by the way, and I wonder how the Orthodox are progressing in their combat against secularism? We recently had our Pussy Riot incident at St. Peter’s Basilica from a bunch of pro-homosexual Ukrainian feminists who regretfully were not shot and had their bodies thrown into the Tiber. (Perhaps their blood will poison the river, discouraging anyone swimming across.)
Dale, Your statement regarding Finland–”the Russians who occupied and oppressed their land for so long”–is just plain wrong. I’d encourage you to read some good histories of Finland. Russia defeated Sweden in 1808-09, and the terms of the transfer of Finland from Swedish to Russian sovereignity was done according to the terms of the Diet of Porvoo (1809), which gave Finland vast autonomy (esp. in comparison to other nationalities within the Empire, like Poland).
As L.A. Puntila wrote in his The Political History of Finland, 1809-1966 (Otava Publishing, Helsinki (1975)), “The relentless opposition of the bureaucracy and the intermittent interference of the tsar hindered Finnish national aspirations for more than a half-century. The situation eased considerably in the 1860s….” (p. 50) “Systematic efforts to reduce Finland’s rights did not occur until the reign of Alexander III’s successor, Nicholas II. … When the Russian government was ready to take action in the late 1890s, the Finnish public was alert and nationalistic sentiment was aroused.” (p. 60)
As the English historian D.G. Kirby wrote in Finland in the Twentieth Century (C. Hurst Co., London (1979)), in the year 1900 it was hard to conceptualize Finland as an independent nation. They had no history as a nation, having been under Russian rule for less than a century and Swedish rule for many centuries, and the autonomy granted them by the Russians had been very liberal.
Both Puntila and Kirby discuss General Bobrikov’s February Manifesto, issued as Governor-General of Finland, on 15 Feb 1899. Reaction by Finns, including the “Great Strike” had Tsar Nicholas caving in and consenting to Finnish demands in his November Manifesto (4 Nov 1905). By May 1906 Finland had created a new Parliament Act and election law.
Compare this to say the horrors experienced in the Belgian Congo, the Philippines, and during the Boer War, events taking place during this same period of very limited hardship in Finland. There you’ll see real oppression and occupation; you won’t find it in Finland.
You might read Marshal Mannerheim’s memoirs (E.P. Dutton (1954)). Per the Finns’ own Washington/Lincoln (independence & civil war) & Churchill (2 wars with Soviets):
“My thirty years of service in the [Russian] Imperial Army were ended. It was with great expectations I had begun them in Russia, that vast and alien country, and when I now looked back on the many years I had worn the uniform of the Tsar, I had to admit with gratitude that my expectations had been fulfilled.” (p. 124) He then goes on to express his thanks and gratitude to Russia, the Tsar, and its people, esp. the troops he commanded as a Russian general during WW I. And, when commenting on “police states”, as he put it, “…., but actually the State interferred very little in the citizens’ private lives.” (p. 126)
Well, I can only say that I really hope you are right. I like Archbishop Vanags (well, more when he sings a Tridentine Mass with a pallium and gremial than when he says a communion service wearing a black gown), and Cardinal Pujats is a personal hero of mine.
Are you aware of the tentative of corporate reunion of the Church of Latvia with Rome that occurred with no results whatsoever in the 30′s? I read a few allusions to this, but have never been, to found anything about it, even in Russian (I don’t speak Latvian).
+ pax et bonum
“Are you aware of the tentative of corporate reunion of the Church of Latvia with Rome that occurred with no results whatsoever in the 30′s?”
I have never, ever heard anything about this — and considering the way in which the Latvian Lutheran Church wrapped around itself the standard of ethnic identity in the 1920s and 30s (and even tried to “thrust itself” into the Catholic region of Latgale in SE :Latvia at that time) I am moist surprised to learn that there ever was such a notion then.
No – I’ve even never been to Estonia
Everything I know about this country I found in internet 
.
BTW – I had checked up on estonian catholic church www (http://www.katoliku.ee/index.php/en/) and found there were another two secular (?) priest of possible estonian orgin: fr. Ain Peetrus Leetma (name sounds estonian) and fr. Igor Gavrilchik (sounds russian), and no any information about 2 russian dominicans about which had mentioned before.
ooops – sorry. I’ve put my response in wrong place. Fr. Stephen could you erease it?
Porys, in this case “secular” means non-religious, e.g. diocesan as opposed to Franciscan, Jesuit, etc., who are referred to as “religious priests”. I know that for us non-native speakers in Europe the term “secular priest” sounds strange
@CC – indeed – I should say ‘diocesan priest’ – and secular priests sounds strange also for me
. In Polish we colloquially call masters of ceremony on atetheists’ funerals, or on non-church weddings by this term.
Don Henri, if I may make a few more scattered observations …
The Anglican parish church in Riga has been a centre of opposition to the “Vanags line” on women’s purported ordination and homosexual practice, but that is not because of the involvement of the Swedes, but rather because a liberal former Latvian Lutheran pastor became Anglican, got himself ordained, and has a position (I can’t recall whether as Rector or not) at that church, in which he is able to draw in disaffected liberals.
I almost think that some of your remarks have more salience as regards the Estonian Lutheran Church, than the Latvian. In 1999, when I interviewed Archbishop Vanags and Cardinal Pujats, I went to Tallinn to interview the then Archbishop Kiiwit of the Estonian Lutherans (my intention being to contrast the two churches’ positions on WO and other matters), but I found that he had been hospitalized for a heart condition. Instead, I had a long and informal “not for publication” talk with a member of the “Lutheran Archdiocesan Curia,” who told me some very interesting things. The ordination of women had been introduced in Estonia in 1967 by a former Archbishop Kiiwit (the then archbishop’s father), but had met with much opposition from the Estonian Lutheran clergy, opposition which continued strong to that very day (1999). However, successive Lutheran archbishops had “bought off” the opposition by asserting, on the one hand, that to cease ordaining women would dry up the flow of “foreign aid” from other Lutheran churches (notably, the Church of Finland) on which the Estonian Church depends and, on the other, by allowing the opposition a great deal of leeway in liturgical revision of a “catholicizing” sort, the reintroduction of eucharistic vestments and other “novel” liturgical practices. But (this person added) a difficult new problem had recently arisen. In addition to the Church of Finland, the Northelbian Lutheran Church in Germany had been supplying the Estonians with a great deal of catechetical and “religious education” material, most of it already translated into Estonian. A lot of that stuff, however, was taking a strongly pro-homosexualist line, advocating for the recognition of “homosexual partnerships” and their “blessing” by the church. To distribute this material would cause “an uproar” on the part of clergy and laity alike, but to refuse it or return it would offend the Northelbian Church and so, perhaps, end the supply of “foreign aid.” The result, at the time, was that all of this “catechetical” stuff was gathering dust in a warehouse.
I have no Estonian contacts, and no nothing concerning how the Estonian Lutheran Church has dealt with these issues since 1999, but I imagine that the matter of the acceptance and “blessing” of homosexual partnerships remains problematic there for some, if not many, of its clergy and laity.
About Estonia, it is important to note that the mission of the Catholic Church there is rather successful. A Bishop has been appointed in Tallinn in 2005, and the number of faithfuls in “Terra Marialis” (designated as such by Pope Innocent II in 1215) is growing, both amongst ethnics Russian and Estonian people. A Bridgettine convent has been re-established on the site of a former religious settlement destroyed during the Reformation. There are though only 2 ethnic Estonian Priests, and one of them lives in Germany.
+ pax et bonum
Oh I forgot, other Protestants are also highly successful. In facts St Olaf’s cathedral, the historic domkirche in Tallinn, is now used by Baptists, the only denomination able to draw enough people on Sunday to fill the gigantic nave of this colossal building.
+ pax et bonum
@Don Henry – I think you forgot about 3rd ethnical Estonian catholic priest fr Ivo Ounupu – pastor in Valga now – who – for sometime was member of FSSPX. There are also, AFAIK – 2 ethnicaly Russian dominicans who were born in Estonia.
I am aware of Isa Ivo Õunpuu of course (who isn’t?), the cool parish Priest of Valga where he celebrates only the Extraordinary Form. He recently traveled to Viciebsk in Belarus to teach a workshop on how to celebrate the Extraordinary form, and our good Bishop Uladislau Blin did even celebrate on this occasion a pontifical Mass! Our Primate Archbishop Kandrusevich is himself sadly an opponent to the traditional Mass; to the extent that the only Extraordinary form Mass in Minsk is said by an SSPX Priest.
The other Priest I alluded to is Isa Rein Õunapuu (not related to each other in spite of their similar name). Is there a third? Not to my knowledge.
+ pax et bonum
The third is fr Vello Salo.
http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vello_Salo
I have always thought he was of German origin. Thank you Porys. Are u living in Estonia currently?
+ pax et bonum
No – I’ve even never been to Estonia
Everything I know about this country I found in internet 
BTW – I had checked up on estonian catholic church www (http://www.katoliku.ee/index.php/en/) and found there were another two secular (?) priest of possible estonian orgin: fr. Ain Peetrus Leetma (name sounds estonian) and fr. Igor Gavrilchik (sounds russian), and no any information about 2 russian dominicans about which had mentioned before.
So, going back to a “Lutheran Ordinariate” the safest thing to do is to not invest too much expectation and enthusiasm at least before there are any definitive statements from above about a realistic possibility of it happening. Even if, for example, there is a widespread understanding of what Lutheranism is about, things usually don’t start from the grassroots in the Church; the Pope allowed for the current Ordinariates to exist, and that, I presume, will be the same case with any Lutheran Ordinariates. I’d be as supportive of any Lutheran Catholics once Rome supports it enough so to make an Apostolic Constitution from it.
Pingback: LUTHERAN ORDINARIATE COMING? « Fr. Orthohippo
I think a Lutheran Ordinariate would undermine the Anglican Ordinariate to the extent that it revealed that the estimation in which the “treasures of the Anglican Patrimony” are held by Catholics is not as high as some Anglicans fondly believe. Certainly it would destroy any illusion that Anglicanism was any kind of “special case” where membership in the One True Church was concerned. Most Anglo-Catholics are not particularly positive about Lutheranism and to see Lutherans welcomed with the same rhetoric would be a considerable blow to the Anglican ego.
That’s what I was worried about as well- what are the trade-offs to accepting a “Lutheran Ordinariate”? And accepting it at breakneck speed, compared to how the Church usually moves.
I would think it wiser to grow and develop the pre-existing Ordinariates as a sort of model for any future “Ordinariates”.
Well, I for one would welcome any structure within the Church that could bring in the sort of Lutherans Dr. Tighe has dealt with. But in the immediate I am more interested in trying to find members for/erect Anglican Ordinariates in places such as South Africa and India – to say nothing of the Torres Strait!
The situation at St Mary of the Angels is crystal-clear compared to the current “Anglican” situation in India, where two ” continuing” bodies ( one TAC affiliated) both calling themselves the CIPBC (Church of India, Pakistan, Burma, and Ceylon) claim to be the legal successor to the assets of the Anglican body which joined with several other denominations in 1947 to form the Church of South India, an official member of the Anglican Communion. Tens of millions of dollars are involved. The actual membership of either CIPBC can only be speculated about, but the likelihood of any significant number abandoning the field to a rival seems remote. The CSI itself does not appear to have an “Anglo-Catholic” wing.
As a former Lutheran, then Anglican, now Ordinariate Catholic, I do not see a Lutheran ordinariate happening outside the small groups of Anglo-Lutherans who wished to take advantage of Anglicanorum Coetibus.
When I was Lutheran, the liturgy was one of three things: A) Luther’s stripped-down revision of the Latin Mass, B) a ‘Lutheranised’ revision of the Ordinary Form Roman rite, or C) (most commonly) a ‘Lutheranised’ revision of the Communion Service from the 1928 BCP. Where is a Lutheran liturgical patrimony in all that?
The Anglican liturgical patrimony has the old (fully Catholic) Sarum Use to draw upon. For Lutheranism, there is no unique liturgical tradition separate from the standard Roman Rite of the time on which to draw. If there is, I was not aware of it in my eight years as a confessional ‘high church’ Lutheran.
Theologically, don’t get me started. Lutheran theology, if not the full realisation thereof, is at least the fountainhead from which the most Protestant of all Protestant theology springs. I would object to recognising a distinct Lutheran theological patrimony as a legitimate feature of a potential Lutheran ordinariate.
I have long thought along similar lines. In particular, I do not see any distinctive Lutheran liturgical tradition that can be “Catholicized” — music is, of course, a different matter.
Nor do I see the “Joint Declaration on Justification” as having signified the Catholic church’s acceptance of Lutheran soteriology. The definitions of Trent still stand, as does the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and it is folly to imagine, as some do, that the “Joint Declaration” supersedes or overrides these authoritative proclamations or presentations of Catholic doctrine. The most it means is that the Catholic Church is prepared to regards *Sola Fide* as susceptible of an interpretation that makes it congruent with what Trent, the Catechism and other magisterial sources have declared.
Anyone who wants to see the European and American history of Lutheran liturgics merely has to read the magesterial works of Archbishop of Uppsala Yngve Briloth (Eucharistic Faith and Practice–Evangelical and Catholic,1925 Swedish/1930 English), Luther Reed (The Lutheran Liturgy, 1947/1959), and Frank Senn (Christian Liturgy–Catholic and Evangelical, 1997). And anyone who wants to see it at its American height should study the 1958 Common Liturgy. Anyone wanting to study the historical Swedish liturgies should get a copy of E.E. Yelverton’s The Mass in Sweden (1919), which contains all the official Swedish Church’s rites from the medieval period thru the then modern rite (a total of 6 liturgies); Briloth has a detailed outline of the modern in his work.
The Lutheran “patrimony” is expressed within Anglicanism most clearly in the 1549 BCP, which heavily relied upon various Lutheran sources (e.g., Bucer’s work in 1543 with Archbishop Hermann in Cologne), and thus, to a more limited extent, to the 1552/1559/1662 BCPs where they most agree with the 1549. And same in America given the relationship of the 1928 to the 1549.
In light of the confessional contentions of the 16th century, one could easily argue that there is a Lutheran “patrimony” in the RC New Order Liturgy. Luther and Melanchthon argued for liturgy in the vernacular, bible in the vernacular, communion in both kinds, the preaching of the Gospel & in the vernacular, active participation of the laity, with frequent communion, and a simplified return to a pre-medieval liturgy. They have achieved all of this in the New Order! They wanted married priests, which there are in all the Rites, Eastern and now the Ordinariate and varous provisions/exceptions in the Latin. And the issues tied to indulgences and sacrifice for the dead are so attenuated in the modern RC liturgy and devotional life of the laity, that they appear minor to the average man in the pew. The similarities between the New Order and the 1978 Common & 2006 ELCA liturgy are quite striking.
The issue of “married priest” is by special exception regarding former Protestants who become Catholic, not the rule. An Ordinariate seminary, as of now, will theoretically not allow married men to be priests because they are a part of the Latin Rite. That is why the Ordinariate masses are called “Anglican Use of the Latin Rite/Roman Catholic Church.” There’s no such thing as an “Anglican Rite” or an Anglican Sui Juris church.
Please check your facts more thoroughly.
Pardon me, there seems to be a hiccup in the system. Msgr. Steenson spoke about the position of the Ordinariates with regards tot he discipline of clerical celibacy on the Catholic News Service channel.
This is the way Lutherans should be practicing the Liturgy: http://www.lexorandi.org/piepkorn.html
As far as the various synods of the Lutheran church in the United States only the ELCA (the most liberal including women’s ordination) would be interested in a return to Rome, but the confessional Lutherans: LCMS , or WELS would not.
Here’s the evidence: http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=25934
Mr. Frost,
Outside of John Bugenhagen’s liturgy for the Danes, I am ignorant of Scandinavian Lutheranism’s liturgical origins and developments. Perhaps a Lutheran liturgical patrimony is to be found there. I was not aware of any pre-protestant Scandinavian liturgical heritage that differed in any way from the standard Roman Rite of the time (as standard as it could be said to be, anyway). The same could not be said about German Lutheranism.
In my experience, which was LCMS and ELS Lutheranism, all liturgy was derived from elsewhere (Rome and Canterbury/Salisbury) and sanitised so as to conform with Luther’s peculiar theological perspective, with no eye towards preserving, developing, or continuing a particular liturgical tradition.
I further admit ignorance of anything the ELCA has done, being that when I was Lutheran, they were not considered be Lutheran by the LCMS and ELS except by ‘felicitous inconsistency’.
Erich beat me to it.
The only Lutherans of which I am aware that are not nigh unto Spong-ian are the LCMS, WELS, and their sister ecclesial bodies. They would not consider any communion with the Catholic Church under any circumstance, unless we were to repudiate Trent and everything afterward and convert to Lutheranism.
The question is, would we want to offer an ordinariate to the LWF Lutherans, when they are so theologically, well, Spong-ian.
The Lutherans who are liberalized with women’s ordinations want to be with the Catholic Church?
Oh, no. No, no, no, no, please, no.
Say “No” to any Lutheran Ordinariates, folks.
Perhaps we should take care to not have the blinders of an Anglocentric worldview..
A Lutheran Ordinariate would not be for the Americans in the ELCA (who should find a nice home in the Chair of St. Peter), but for the Germans in Germany.
As for distinctive Lutheran liturgical or theological insights and emphases, again the Joint Declaration on Justification is the model. While the Church did not “accept Lutheran soteriology,” what She did was recognize explicitly the elements within Lutheran soteriology that are not only truly Catholic but also illuminative in way that can be seen as complementary to the Tridentine formulas.
Again, Louise Bouyer’s work is instructive. The Ordinariate project is not primarily about returning to Sarum or sending a lifeboat to the “Catholic wing” of the separated brethren.. it is about truly reconciling the Reformation, fully incoporating into the Church whatever good work the Holy Spirit’s presence in those communities has brought about over 500 years.
A.L.G. Bass, I love what Swedish Archbishop of Uppsala Briloth wrote about the influence of Lutheranism on the Anglican liturgy:
“At Easter, Cranmer’s Order of Communion [1548] was issued by authority; it consisted of a series of texts to be inserted in the Latin mass after the communion of the priest, which still remain in the present English servvice, with only verbal alterations.The origin of these forms is partly mediaeval, and in part a peculiariy interesting document from Germany, the Simplex et pia deliberatio issued by Archbishop Herman of Cologne; this is written in German by Melanchthon and Bucer, but an English translation was made from the Latin in 1548. This is the source, among other things, of the Comfortable Words, which are so striking a feature of the present English service.” (p. 202)
As Briloth points out in a footnote on this same section, citing Brightman’s The English Rite, Cranmer’s Order of Communion included the “Exhortation, Invitation (“Ye that do truly”), Confession, Absolution, Comfortable Words, Prayer of Humble Access.” Of course, this Communion then impacts the 1549 BCP and subsequent BCPs in England, USA, and elsewhere.
Wow, thanks for that reference, Michael!
I would say that the presence of the “Comfortable Words” in the liturgy represents one of the fundamental elements of the Anglican patrimony: the clear declaration of the gospel’s essential message, or the “bad news/good news” kerygma of salvation by grace. It is not absent from the Roman Rite of the Mass by any means, but it is in a way assumed there. The valuable insight from Luther and other Reformers was to continually make the basic gospel message explicit, to retell “the old, old story” in every liturgy so that even a Christianized culture would not lose the dramatic urgency of conversion and grow numb to evangelization.
“The New Evangelization” is an attempt, it seems to me, to accomplish the same purpose of highlighting the kerygma of the gospel.
Ioannes, perhaps this will work:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JX5gwBiOXw&w=560&h=315%5D
Oh, that link works. Thank you!
Anyone hear of any sort of “Romanorum Coetibus” to get rid of our embarrassing Catholics (who are, for example, supportive of contraception, abortion, homosexual pseudogamy and women’s ordinations)?
The only problem is that those “catholics” won’t leave the Church. They -insist- they’re Catholics, even if their lifestyles are contrary to being Catholic.
‘Indeed WELS is the last American hope for Reformational Lutheranism’, I am quoting an American WELS Lutheran pastor friend of mine! I would somewhat agree, there is a mixed bag with many LCMS it seems.