Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 247

2026 Convention Workbook
212 
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS  —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
1 
 
Response of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod  
Commission on Theology and Church Relations to 
Final Report of the Theological Conversations between the Churches Associated with the 
International Lutheran Council and the Roman Catholic Church  
(International Lutheran Council and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity [2021]). 
 
 
Introduction  
 
A bilateral working group of representatives from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian 
Unity (PCPCU) and the International Lutheran Council (ILC) met four times in conversations 
over a span of five years (2014-2019). The genesis of these conversations, or this “informal 
dialogue,” lies in the recognition that because prior Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues had 
involved interactions only between the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the Roman 
Catholic Church (RCC), significant Lutheran voices were thereby excluded from those earlier 
conversations. That is, most of the more theologically traditional Lutheran church bodies do not 
hold membership in LWF and even those that were members had no significant role to play in 
LWF—RCC discussions . Most of the theologically conservative Lutheran churches are, 
however, members of the International Lutheran Council. The ILC is a worldwide association of 
churches that maintain a high view of Scripture as inspired and infallible and hold strictly to the 
entire Book of Concord as an authoritative exposition of the teachings of Holy Scripture. In order 
to gain an appreciation of the teaching and priorities of these churches, discussions between the 
PCPCU and ILC began.  
 
The group’s Final Report of the Theological Conversations between the Churches Associated 
with the International Lutheran Council and the Roman Catholic Church (Final Report or 
Report) included two Addenda clarifying the position of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod 
(LCMS) on ordination.
1 Subsequent to the publication of the Final Report, the churches of the 
ILC were invited to submit responses. The LCMS was among the churches invited to respond. 
The request for a response was unfortunately unnoticed during the pressures and confusion 
brought on by COVID-19 and only recently recalled to the attention of LCMS leadership. 
President Matthew C. Harrison then asked the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church 
Relations to prepare the response that follows.
2 
 
I. Preamble      
 
a. Review and questions 
 
The Final Report frames the conversations around a concept of catholicity. The first “ecumenical 
task” is “to determine (more) precisely the intersection between a Concordia-Lutheran 
and a Reform-Catholic catholicity.” That is, “the Lutheran documents” are to be re-examined in 
light of “their original intention to confess the Catholic faith and the history of their reception in 
 
1 The LCMS is the single largest member of the ILC.  
2 President Harrison promised a CTCR response on behalf of the LCMS in a February 25, 2024 email to Bishop 
Juhana Pohjola, Chairman of the International Lutheran Council. In the same email Dr. Harrison expressed his 
thankfulness for the conversations and his support for the efforts of the participants.  
2 
 
the era of confessionalisation.”3 The intention of the Augsburg Confession (AC) is understood to 
be both an explanation of Wittenberg reforms and also a confirmation of “the foundational 
Catholic consensus” present in its opening articles. Thus the AC is viewed first in an “inner-
Catholic context.”4 
 
We note here that “Catholic” in these first paragraphs of the Preamble is exclusively upper-case. 
We are not certain about the significance of the capitalization, but assume that the upper case 
usage indicates the papal Roman Catholic Church and not what Lutherans would understand as 
“the church catholic.” If that is the case, then some of the initial claims of the Preamble may be 
questioned. Is it true that the first goal of the AC is to claim alignment of the Wittenberg reforms 
with the teachings of the Roman Church? On the contrary, we would hold that the claims of the 
AC are broader 
from the outset. The AC is setting forth the truth of Scripture above all else. And, 
with regard to catholicity, the view of catholic goes beyond the Roman church. After all, 
Melanchthon buttresses the AC claims based on Nicaea (AC I), rejection of Pelagius (AC II), 
affirmation of the Apostles’ Creed (AC III), and calls on the Fathers to support teachings on faith 
(AC IV , V , VI). This is not to say that the Augustana sees itself as confessing something contrary 
to Rome, but its chief concerns are to be faithful to Scripture and to the universal (catholic) 
church. Therefore Melanchthon writes: “Since, then, this teaching is clearly grounded in Holy 
Scripture and is, moreover, neither against nor contrary to the universal Christian church—or 
even the Roman church—so far as can be observed in the writings of the Fathers, we think that 
our opponents cannot disagree with us in the articles set forth above.”
5 
 
Clarification of this matter would be helpful since it is obviously germane to the stated 
“ecumenical task” as defined in the first sentence of the Preamble. An assumption that the first 
goal of the Confessors at Augsburg was an alignment with Roman teaching as the ongoing 
standard of catholicity is simply incorrect. At the same time, the desire for maintaining unity in 
the whole church is explicit: “Inasmuch as we are all enlisted under one Christ, we are all to live 
together in one communion and one church.”
6  
 
b. Affirmation  
 
Our question about the term “Catholic” (or “catholic”) should not be misunderstood as anything 
other than an encouragement to continue the kinds of discussion as reported in this document. As 
the CTCR stated in a 2011 statement:  
 
The first objective of the LCMS in our Constitution is to “work through its official 
structure toward fellowship with other Christian church bodies, and provide a united 
defense against schism, sectarianism, and heresy.” This objective points in two 
directions—“toward fellowship” and away from “schism, sectarianism, and heresy.” 
 
 
3 Final Report coins the terms “Reform-Catholic” and “Concordia-Lutheran” to describe respectively “the early and 
late 16th-century forms of the Lutheran movement.”  
4 Final Report, Preamble, 1.2, p. 1. 
5 AC [Conclusion of Part One], 1, KW, 58. 
6 AC, Preface, 4, German, KW, 30.  
3 
 
While conversations with a non-Lutheran church body are less likely to result in altar and 
pulpit fellowship than those with a like-minded Lutheran church body, they may 
nevertheless help to provide a defense against sectarianism since the talks can reveal and 
emphasize areas that the LCMS and that church body hold in common. A shared 
confession of the creeds, for example, stands as an important testimony against many 
forms of heresy, even if it does not result in the full agreement necessary for altar and 
pulpit fellowship.
7 
 
We appreciate the changing circumstances of the reformers in the period after Augsburg. We 
therefore find helpful the distinction between “confessorial” and “confessional” catholicity.
8 It is 
important that the Final Report traces the increasing reality of disjunction between the theology 
and practice of Wittenberg and “those theologians faithful to Rome and the Pope, but also in 
contrast to the movements on the ‘left wing’ of the Reformation.”
9 The Report helpfully 
summarizes the theological movement from the earliest context of the AC to the later historical 
period in which the Book of Concord (1580) is published.10  
 
Of similar value is the discussion of the distinctive “normative structures” of Lutherans and 
Roman Catholics. Here the claims of catholicity that are replete in the theology of the Book of 
Concord must be recognized.
11 Thus the Preamble concludes by emphasizing the “enduring 
theological significance [of] the intentional catholicity implicit in the normative structure that is 
decisive for both Lutherans and Catholics.”12  
 
Consequently, we rejoice in the conversations between representatives of the ILC and the Roman 
Catholic Church. Even as President Harrison expressed his desire “to further the relationship 
between the ILC and the PCPCU,”
13 we too strongly affirm the importance of the ecumenical 
work represented by the Final Report and urge continuing conversations between both groups.  
 
II. Mass as Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet  
 
a. Review and questions 
 
In the section titled 1. What We Perceive, the ILC-PCPCU representatives affirm certain 
conclusions of previous Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues, even though ILC member churches 
played no role in those dialogues. These positive acknowledgements include the joint recognition 
that the sacrifice of Jesus is once-for-all “and can be neither continued, nor repeated, nor 
 
7 “Theological Dialogue with Other Christian Church Bodies,” September 17, 2011, document link is at 
https://files.lcms.org/dl/f/F44DF93E-1ADB-45DB-ABDC-D128581EEA15.  
8 See Final Report, Preamble, 1.3 and accompanying footnote on p. 1. The footnote indicates that “confessorial” is a 
translation of the German konfessorisch and reflects “a strong profession of faith within the bounds of churchly 
communion, by way of contrast with konfessionell/ “confessional,” which carries with it the sense of a profession of 
faith that results from or issues in a breach of church fellowship.” Since the AC was drafted prior to Roman 
condemnations of Wittenberg’s theology and the subsequent excommunications, the Final Report applies 
“confessorial” to the AC.  
9 Final Report, Preamble, 2.4, p. 3.  
10 Final Report, Preamble, 2.2-2.7, pp. 2-5.  
11 See especially Final Report, Preamble, 3.1-3.4, pp. 5-7.  
12 Final Report, Preamble, 4., p. 9.  
13 See letter from Matthew C. Harrison, in Appendix I of the Final Report, p. 23.  
4 
 
replaced, nor complemented.” However, the sacrifice “should become effective ever anew.” In 
addition, “the real and essential presence of Christ’s body and blood in the consecrated elements” 
is confessed together with some common understandings of the vocabulary of the Lord’s Supper. 
Also, a synergeia (intertwining of human and divine action) is affirmed as a way to express 
“God’s action” “through created means” namely, “men who proclaim his gospel and administer 
his sacraments.” However, given the long history of Lutheran opposition to all theological 
synergism,
14 we would like to see further discussion of this particular topic in future meetings. 
Lastly, “the central importance of the Words of Institution” is affirmed.15  
 
Section 2. is titled What Is Important. One may summarize the view therein in this statement 
from the Final Report:  
The interrelation between theological reflection and liturgical action helps to explain why 
central points of controversy were especially connected with the doctrine and the 
celebration of this sacrament. Conversely, this connection can lead to a resolution of the 
fundamental differences related to it by articulating common grounds and 
commonalities.
16 
 
The identification of the relationship between doctrine and liturgy is both important and 
necessary. And we note with appreciation that the report’s discussion of The Mass as Eucharistic 
Sacrificial Banquet speaks of a “relecture” or re-examination of both the Lutheran confessions 
and the decisions of Trent.
17 But we question § 2.2.2’s framing of the unresolved relationship 
between Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and the sacrifice of the Mass on page 10 as a simply 
disingenuous claim. Moreover, while we agree with the stress on responsible liturgical language, 
we are not entirely comfortable with the statement: “Dogmatic language in the abstraction of its 
way of speaking must not prevent legitimate varieties of liturgical expression.”
18 The concern 
would be in the question of “legitimate varieties of liturgical expression.” How does one define a 
legitimate versus an illegitimate expression? It seems to us that dogma is the critical—and 
indeed, the only— authoritative arbiter  for such a question. We do not understand how dogmatic 
and liturgical language can really be equivalent. Dogma—doctrine—a church’s confession of 
faith—stands above liturgical expression.  
 
Given this concern, we appreciate the move of the Final Report from 2. What Is Important to a 
consideration of 3.1 Systematic-Theological Affirmations as it begins section 3. 
Commonalities.
19 We also appreciate the quotation from the Formula of Concord, Solid 
Declaration that is added to § 3.1.1 and its emphasis on the “entire action” of the Sacrament from 
the consecration of the elements by the Word through distribution and reception. And we 
welcome the joint affirmation of the Holy Spirit’s work in and through “created, earthly means” 
 
14 One might argue that confessional Lutherans have represented a decidedly intentional “one-sided” view, in 
contrast with the statement in the Final Report that “the concrete liturgical action must guard the theological 
thinking from becoming one-sided.” “Mass as Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 1.4, p. 10. 
15 Final Report, Mass as Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 1.1-1.6, pp. 9-10.  
16 Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 2.1, p. 10. 
17 The two previous references to the re-examination or relecture referred only to re-examination of Lutheran 
positions (Preamble, 1.1, p. 1; Preamble, 1.4, p. 2). 
18 Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 2.3.2, p. 10. 
19 Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 3.1, p. 10. 
R62.4