Michele Bachmann, the Smalkald Articles, and the Council of Trent

Incidentally, Michele Bachmann announced her candidacy for president during the debate the other night.

Bachman has taken a great deal of heat for being a member of a church (the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) which considers itself bound by a statement by Martin Luther condemning the papacy as the antichrist refered to in the Bible (the un-Lutheran beliefs of her friend Jan Markel regarding the End Times referred to in the article linked to above are a seperate matter). But has she caved in to that criticism? I'm still awaiting a response to an email asking her campaign about a rumor I've heard from a reliable source that she's left the Lutheran church because of section of the Smalkald Articles in question, namely:

10] ...the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God.

11] This is, properly speaking to exalt himself above all that is called God as Paul says, 2 Thess. 2:4. Even the Turks or the Tartars, great enemies of Christians as they are, do not do this, but they allow whoever wishes to believe in Christ, and take bodily tribute and obedience from Christians.

12] The Pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him. This we are unwilling to do, even though on this account we must die in God s name.

13] This all proceeds from the fact that the Pope has wished to be called the supreme head of the Christian Church by divine right. Accordingly he had to make himself equal and superior to Christ, and had to cause himself to be proclaimed the head and then the lord of the Church, and finally of the whole world, and simply God on earth, until he has dared to issue commands even to the angels in heaven.

14] And when we distinguish the Pope's teaching from, or measure and hold it against, Holy Scripture, it is found [it appears plainly] that the Pope's teaching, where it is best, has been taken from the imperial and heathen law, and treats of political matters and decisions or rights, as the Decretals show; furthermore, it teaches of ceremonies concerning churches, garments, food, persons and [similar] puerile, theatrical and comical things without measure, but in all these things nothing at all of Christ, faith, and the commandments of God. Lastly, it is nothing else than the devil himself, because above and against God he urges [and disseminates] his [papal] falsehoods concerning masses, purgatory, the monastic life, one's own works and [fictitious] divine worship (for this is the very Papacy [upon each of which the Papacy is altogether founded and is standing]), and condemns, murders and tortures all Christians who do not exalt and honor these abominations [of the Pope] above all things. Therefore, just as little as we can worship the devil himself as Lord and God, we can endure his apostle, the Pope, or Antichrist, in his rule as head or lord. For to lie and to kill, and to destroy body and soul eternally, that is wherein his papal government really consists, as I have very clearly shown in many books.

Given the papacy's domination of Western Christendom, and its position on the doctrine of justification, (which Luther regarded as "the article by which the Church stands or falls) this is, given Luther's own position, not a stretch. One may not, of course, agree with his judgment in this matter. But again, given his convictions on the subject of justification and its relationship to the very essence of Christianity- which are constitutive of Lutheran identity, if anything at all is-  this was not an outrageous deduction.

 This is apparently (excuse the expression) anathema to many commentators invoking the concept of religious tolerance. Yet the following (which, despite the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, and the Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II, has as far as I know never been retracted) apparently is somehow acceptable:

CANON IX.-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.

[Page 46] CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV.-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 XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV.-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 XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.

CANON XXX.-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 XXXI.-If any one saith, that the justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal recompense; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXIII.-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.

As one thus cursed and anathamatized by the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, I acknowledge the right of the Roman Catholic church to teach this without being accused of intolerance. I reserve te same right for Lutherans who agree with the judgment about the papacy made by the Smalkald Articles.

I also parenthetically observe that since the words "justification," "grace," and "faith" have different meanings in Lutheran and in Catholic theology, the "convergence" (the document makes no actual claim to agreement) on justification reported by the JDDJ is highly debatable- and that many precisely among those claiming the name of Lutheran who take confessional subscription most seriously question the degree to which there is actually even a convergence between the two traditions. The bottom line: neither the Roman Catholic nor Lutheran traditions have changed their positions on justification one iota, the ballyhoo over the JDDJ to the contrary. Luther's position- and Trent's- are each no more and no less valid today than they were when the words were first written.

Pope Benedict himself may disagree with Trent. I hope so. But it should be noted that despite Luther's identification of the papacy as an institution as the biblical Antichrist, neither he nor the Lutheran Confessions ever condemn any individual pope to hell, as the Tridentine degrees do everyone who accepts the Lutheran and Pauline doctrine of justification. I think it's reasonable to ask why the Catholic church gets a pass on this, while Luther and the Lutherans do not.

Just sayin'. I personally believe that everyone has the right to believe that I'm going to hell because of what I believe, and that only a religious bigot would criticize that person for it.

If, on the other hand, what Trent says about the Lutheran doctrine of justification and the salvation of those who believe it is somehow no longer applicable due to changed conditions, this would imply that the claims to which Luther refers in the Smalkald Articles are themselves no longer applicable.  We might well alter our judgment of the papacy if the papacy made ti clear that it had changed the doctrine which prompted it. So far, it hasn't happened; the judgements of Tremt have not been set aside, whatever Vatican II or the JDDJ may have said. And yes, Trent does (at least in the passages cited above) fairly describe our position.

In order to "unanathamatize" us, the Catholic church would have to admit that the Council of Trent was in error. Ain't gonna happen.

The question, then, is clear: why is Luther's position "intolerant," while Rome's is not? Am I a "seperated brother," or an anathamatized heretic? The answer of the Catholic church seems to be "both." And that's the best the Catholic church can do; to admit that Rome was wrong about justification would be to surrender its claim to indefectability. Certainly how confessional Lutherans regard Luther's position regarding the papacy as the Antichrist would be decisively effected by what would amount to a repudiation of Trent by Rome. But again, that hasn't happened, and it isn't going to happen, no matter how earnestly the Lutheran World Federation and the ELCA play make-believe.

But in the meantime, when was the last time anybody made a poltiical issue about, say, John Kerry or John Kennedy belonging to a church which taught what Trent teaches about Lutherans and what we believe about justification?

It will be interesting to see what the Bachman campaign has to say in response to my inquiry. I hope the rumor is false. I hope she has the integrity and the courage to resist caving in to the double standard to which she has been subjected on this matter.

ADDENDUM: Oh. And incidentally...