I am all for dialogue with Rome. Despite obvious differences (at least obvious to me), we still have far more in common with Rome than with any other confession. As heirs of the Western tradition, when we deny our connections to Rome, we deny ourselves.

I'm not so sure if the LWF route is the way to go, however. The LWF, for all the good things that it has done over the years, is so compromised with their shock tactics of handling third world country Lutheran, I just can't see much good coming out of it. They have made women's ordination the article upon which the church stands or falls, and it strikes me as deeply ironic to petition associate membership in the LWF in order to enter into dialogue with the staunchest opponents of women's ordination.

Of course, Lutherans love paradox, so maybe it makes as much sense as anything.

Pr. Todd Peperkorn, STM
Messiah Lutheran Church (LCMS)
Kenosha, Wisconsin

I was pleased as well, but not surprised, that the Pope recognized and warmly greeted the representatives of The LCMS. He knows very well that the Missouri Synod is the world's largest traditionally confessional Lutheran church body and, with Rome, vigorously advocates for the protection of human life from conception and has not, as other Lutherans have, embraced the false teaching and practice of the ordination of women. The Pope's remarks at that prayer gathering were pointedly aimed squarely at the Protestant mainline which has, and continues, to compromise every essential article of the Christian faith, and has adopted positions and policies at odd with the historic catholic church.

As quickly became painfully obvious when the leadership of the Lutheran World Federation hailed the "Joint Declaration" as a breakthrough is that, in fact, it was not. Rome was very careful quickly to clarify at its announcement that the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent are very much in full force. Hundreds of the most well-respected theologians in Germany issued a statement declaring that the Joint Declaration represented an unacceptable compromise of the central article of the Christan faith, the very heart of the Gospel itself: the doctrine that we are saved by grace, alone, through faith alone. Rome has never denied that it is by grace, alone, that we are saved, but it has repeatedly denied that it is through faith alone that we are saved.

What is so painfully difficult for those of us who subscribe to the Book of Concord, unconditionally and without reservation, is that the Bishop of Rome and those who regard him as the Vicar of Christ on earth, are our separated brethren. As we Lutherans clearly and repeatedly confess, through even the darkest years of the Roman Church's history, the Gospel was still read, the Body and Blood of Christ was still received by communicants, and by God's providence, even in the midst of the darkness of Christ-obscuring error, the Gospel still shone forth, for the Word of the Lord endures forever. That is why it is all the more painful that the Church of Rome still continues to propagate such deeply anti-Gospel teachings.

To any extent that Martin Luther is regarded as less of a heretic by the Roman Catholic Church, we can be glad and rejoice, for to that degree then the writings of Luther will be read and studied and the Holy Spirit can, and will, work through the pure Gospel therein proclaimed to move hearts away from the errors of Rome and into the light of the truth of Christ. For this we can give thanks and rejoice and pray ever more fervently for the unity of the Church, a unity not consisting of compromise and faithless neglect of the truth, but a unity rooted, grounded and growing in the Truth of God's most Holy Word.

We can all rejoice in any progress away from the traditional errors that still are very much in place, but we dare not forget, neglect the fact that the Bishop of Rome, in his role as Cardinal Ratzinger, was very careful to make it clear that the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification did not, in any way, change, alter or set aside the historic condemnations of the Council of Trent over against the Lutheran doctrine of justification.

Let's be careful not to forget what Trent declared over against the Gospel:

CANON 9: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."

CANON 12: "If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed."

Canon 14: "If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema."

Canon 24: "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."

Canon 30: "If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema."

Canon 33: "If any one saith, that, by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

Here is an excellent Q/A on the issue of Rome, Lutheranism and Justification:

Q. I would like to understand the main problem your church body has with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (signed October 31 by representatives of the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church). Is it the fact that it implies that we are saved as a result of both faith and works?

A. Yes, you are on the right track here. The recently signed Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) does not signal a change in the Roman Catholic church, but rather, a willingness on the part of the Lutherans who signed it to allow Rome's doctrine of justification to stand as a valid interpretation of what the Bible teaches us about justification. This is something that the Lutheran church has never done before, and in fact, it is a great tragedy and a profoundly sad moment in the history of Lutheranism.

Rome historically has always taught that we are saved by grace, and grace alone. They emphasize that very strongly. The 16th century Council of Trent makes this point very clear. Thus, there is nothing new on this in the Declaration on this point, even though some Lutherans have made it sound as if Rome's words about grace signal some marvelous breakthrough.

What you probably have not heard is that the JDDJ very carefully avoid precise definitions of the words grace, faith, sin, etc. That is no accident. Careful definition of those terms would have shown how far apart our two churches actually are on the doctrine of justification.

The problem with Rome's view of justification is that they view it as a process, whereby we cooperate with God's grace in order to merit eternal life for ourselves, and even for others (that is a paraphrase of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches). They view grace as a sort of "substance" that God infuses into us that permits us to do those works that are necessary in order that we might earn more grace. The Bible describes grace as the loving and favorable disposition of God; in other words, grace is all about what God is doing and giving.

We distinguish between the result of justification, which is the Christian life, and the work of God to save us. Rome mixes sanctification with justification. Why is this view troublesome? Because it teaches that something other than trust in Christ is necessary for or salvation. That "something other" is what we bring to the table. And the only thing we do bring to the table is our sin, not our good works. Our works are a response that God works in us, but not a contributing cause to our justification.

The Roman Catholic Church is very careful to state that even this "something other" is made possibly only because God has given us the "initial" grace to desire more grace. But in practical reality, it is apparent that the Roman Catholic Church is finally throwing people back on relying on what they are doing, or can do, to merit eternal life. When we mix in our works in the picture of our salvation, the glory and merit of Christ always end up becoming obscured.

But the Bible is clear that it is purely by grace, not by works, or else grace would just be a "help" for us to do the works that finally are what merit God's forgiveness. In the Roman Catholic view, justification is a process by which we participate with God in achieving our salvation. The Biblical view is that justification is God's declaration of our complete righteousness and total forgiveness, apart from any works. This gift is received by faith alone--apart from works (Rom. 3:28; Eph. 2:8-9).

Another point to be made is this: If, in fact, Rome does teach justification as the Bible teaches it, then there should be an immediate change in its view of indulgences, prayer to the saints and the myriad of other extra-biblical traditions that it has embraced. For if justification is the heart and center of the Bible, then these other things are incompatible with it.

I hope this helps you see that the Roman Catholic view of justification and the classical Lutheran view are definitely not complementary, but diametrically opposed to one another. The JDDJ did not change that fact. The Lutherans who signed the document did not insist on careful definition of terms so as to make absolutely clear that our salvation is by faith alone, through Christ alone, by grace alone.

The best short study of the historic differences between Rome and Lutheranism on the doctrine of justification is available in a book called "Justification and Rome" by Robert Preus. You may purchase a copy of this book from Concordia Publishing House (CPH) (800-325-3040).

The most complete treatment of this subject is in the 16th century Lutheran response to Trent, which still stands today as the best and most complete treatment of Trent by a Lutheran. It is "The Examination of the Council of Trent" by Martin Chemnitz, also available through CPH.

And here is a superbly done analysis of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification which shows how, tragically, Lutherans compromised the Gospel of Jesus Christ:

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/justclp.pdf

I was pleased to see that we were first, after the Orthodox, to be introduced to the Pope. I hold the modern Roman Church in high regard, even though I do certainly have theological and ecclesiological differences with it. Just as interesting as the Lutheran introduction, however, was that of the Episcopalians. Their representative was dead last. Tells you what Rome thinks of their direction.

I thank my dear brother John Hannah for this thoughtful piece. As a witness to this meeting, he reported not only on the good standing our little LCMS has with this Pope, but also the good manners exhibited by our own Bishop Benke, who in spite of being something of a lightning rod for any kind of ecumenical progress in our little Synod continues to faithfully step forward when the appropriate opportunity presents itself.

I also appreciate the thoughtful responses by my brothers who come to a different conclusion than Pastor Hannah.

Would that all of our dealings with one another be marked by this level of intellect, gloriously absent of the invective that usually accompanies replies of disagreement in our little LCMS.

Such an observation is entertaining but not very substantial. Unless you are looking for where the salt packets are. I am tempted to comment on the placement of the Episcopalians as the First shall be Last and the Last shall be First. Where would that put our Atlantic Bishop? In the long run line placement doesn't matter, in human politics one's place in line is changable and fleeting, just ask a Clinton delegate.