Wohlrabe to Cascione: (5)
This is the fifth and final response in this series of responses to Doctor Wohlrabe's answers to 25 questions about Voter supremacy in the LCMS.
Let's set the record straight
Throughout the discussion Wolhrabe has equated the equality of the pastor with the layman in Convention with the equality of the pastor to a congregation's Voters' Assembly. Such an assumption is a fabrication. Walther never taught nor gave approval that one pastor's vote could nullify the vote of a congregation.
Wohlrabe maintains that Walther never taught the supremacy of the Voters' Assembly over the pastoral office. This is another fabrication. Walther approved a constitution where he was at times forbidden entrance into the Voters' Meeting of his own congregation, Trinity Lutheran Church, as Mundinger reports. The prayer for the opening of the meeting would be sent to the meeting by the pastor and be read to the meeting in Walther's absence.
Wolhrabe maintains that Walther regarded Voter supremacy as an adiaphoron in the LCMS. This is another fabrication. Forester, in "Zion on the Mississippi" and Mundinger in "Government in Missouri" clearly point out that the intent of Trinity's Constitution, which became a model for the entire Missouri Synod, was Voter supremacy. After the debacle, abuse, deprivation, deaths, misuse of funds, and embezzlement they suffered under Rev. Martin Stephan, Missourians would never again allow themselves to be governed by anything except Voters' Assemblies.
Wohlrabe knows the historical record very well. For him to suggest that Voters' Assemblies were an adiaphoron in the Missouri Synod is nothing else than an intentional effort to replace LCMS history with his own invention.
When confronted with direct questions and facts on the issues Wohlrabe is evasive, refuses to acknowledge the historical record, and changes the subject.
Wohlrabe claims Walther would disagree with Cascione on Voter Supremacy
Wohlrabe wrote in his first letter:
"By 'the exact nature of the ministry," I meant the doctrine of the ministry that Walther articulated in the theses of 'Die Stimme Unserer Kirche in der Frage von Kirche und Amt," which were formally adopted by the Missouri Synod at convention in 1851. If you read these theses carefully, you will see that they make no mention whatsoever of a voters' assembly, or the authority of the pastoral office in regard to such. You see, I firmly believe that Walther would have been very uncomfortable with the emphasis you are placing on the "supremacy of a voters' assembly" over the pastoral office. In fact, he would have disagreed with you. The concept of a voters' assembly falls under polity or church government, which Walther viewed as an adiophoron (even though he did view a democratic polity as the best form of church government for congregations established independent of the state in the republic we call the United States of America)."Cascione Replied:
"From my observation you have placed some serious contradictions between Walther' s theology and practice. One could conclude from your statements that the structure of the Synod and LCMS congregations in the first hundred years of the Synod are accidental and not the result of Walther's "Church and Ministry." Your claim that Walther did not teach congregational supremacy and the authority of the Voters' Assembly over the pastor gives an open door for every Church Growth Movement abuse we now witness in the Synod. Both the pastors and the congregations originally agreed to the form of worship as published in TLH and LW in the Synodical Constitution under Article VI. 4. Your position makes the congregation powerless to prevent these Church Growth aberrations."Wohlrabe Replied:
"I, and many others, see no contradiction in separating the doctrines of church and ministry from polity. One may conclude many erroneous things in many different situations and from many people's writings, even God's Holy Word. However, I believe that if one reads even the condensation of my doctoral dissertation carefully, one would not necessarily conclude that "the structure of the Synod and LCMS congregations in the first hundred years of the Synod are accidental and not the result of Walther's "Church and Ministry"." Your argument that my understanding of Walther's teaching on church and ministry opens the door for every Church Growth Movement abuse does not hold either. According to your understanding of congregational and voters assembly supremacy, a congregation that bought into the Church Growth Movement could force this abomination upon its pastor, and there is nothing he could do about it. At least my understanding allows for checks and balances. In my understanding, which is also Walther's understanding, the pastor cannot "introduce new laws and arbitrarily establish adiaphora or ceremonies." Thus, a congregation could resist a domineering pastor. Likewise, a pastor could stand up to a congregation that wants to subscribe to an erroneous teaching or practice and boldly proclaim God's Word without fear of losing his position."What happened to the authority of the LCMS Constitution?
Cascione Replies:
Contrary to Wohlrabe's opinion, there is a great deal a Pastor or a layman can do if they want to resist the removal of hymnals by a Voters' Assembly. All LCMS congregations have agreed to follow the use of Lutheran hymnbooks in the worship service according to Article VI.4 if they want to remain members of the Synod.Wohlrabe is creating his own new order for the Synod based on pastoral authority instead of the authority of the Synodical Convention where the clergy and laypeople are equal. The Convention cannot exercise coercive power over a congregation but it can remove a congregation from the Synod. The Bible does not prescribe any hymnals nor adherence to an LCMS Constitution, nor the existence of the Synod itself. Wohlrabe gives advice that leads us to question the existence of the Synod. If the existence of the Synod is a legalism we can no longer tolerate, then let's disband it.
Why is Wohlrabe apparently so uncomfortable with the supremacy of Voters' Assemblies? Was John the Baptist in fear of losing his position, or the prophets or the apostles? How many times did Paul keep quiet because he thought they might kick him out of town? We are delighted that Dr. Wohlrabe is a chaplain on a ship with lots of job security instead of a parish pastor. If the members don't want to hear the truth the best thing that can happen is that the pastor is thrown out. Why isn't Wohlrabe campaigning for Voter supremacy as did Walther, instead of trying to make room for alternative structures that coincidently favor the clergy?
Wohlrabe claims Voter supremacy goes too far
Cascione Question:
"My purpose for defending the supremacy of Voter's Assemblies, as originally taught by Walther, is to preserve the marvelous God-given Christian freedom that was the great gift and Biblical heritage of the LCMS. In many parts of Synod we now witness the abuse of church power by financial institutions, District Offices, Boards, and pastors who claim divine right to alter and reinvent worship and church polity in the name of God.Wohlrabe Replied:
"We share the same goal. I hope you can see that. However, I believe you are incorrectly placing the congregation over the pastoral office (similar to the position of Vehse ) in an effort to combat clerical and bureaucratic abuse. In pushing the pendulum, you have pushed it too far."If the Voters' aren't supreme we know who is
Cascione Replies:
Wohlrabe continues to argue by process of elmination. If the Voters' aren't supreme who is the final authority? Is it the custodian? Is it the lawn maintenance service? Wait, I have an idea? It could be the pastor! But, of course, from Wohlrabe's view, he is kind, gentle, understanding, wise, a man of fine judgment and character, orthodox, and motivated to do the right thing. Who else is more qualified to lend his assistance as the final authority in the congregation instead of those coarse, uneducated, rude, legalistic, abusive, carnal, parochial, unpredictable Voters? The pastor will stand side by side with the Voters and cancel anything they do with one vote. This is the only conclusion Wohlrabe leaves us when we adopt his interpretation of Walther's, "Church and Ministry."There is no question that Walther, as well as all LCMS Lutherans, should acknowledge that congregational polity found in many different cultures and in the past may be different than ours. Congregations, like countries, can give up their God-given sovereignty to a man or group by their own choice. The question is can they regain their liberty once it is surrendered? We should consult the Catholic Church on this issue.
The only position of the LCMS has been Voter supremacy and remains Voter supremacy. Through their deception many of the clergy and the COP would have us believe otherwise. From its inception, till the present day, the LCMS has only approved Voter supremacy. However, many congregations have been coerced or manipulated into adopting other forms of Church Government. In fact, if a pastor or congregation insists on Voter supremacy in the LCMS in 1999 they are now called legalistic. This legalism is due to the suffering and imposition Voter supremacy causes many clergy and the COP. In other words, the clergy now interprets "the freedom of the congregation" as uncontrolled and unpredictable instability.
COP organized to disenfranchise Voter supremacy
There is a great deal of irony and hypocrisy here. While the COP lobbies vigorously for the rights of women to vote in LCMS congregations, since 1969, it is doing everything in its power to eliminate the Voters control over the congregation. Their inspiration is obviously the ELCA, where women are pastors but the congregations have surrendered their autonomy to the District Office. In recent testimony given by the Minnesota South District President over congregational property rights, President Lane Seites repeatedly claimed that the LCMS was a hierarchy over which he exercised authority.
According to the LCMS "Reporter" the COP has unanimously endorsed Doctor Norbert Oesch's "Pastoral Leadership Training"(PLI) for LCMS congregations. The COP is beginning with 225 hand picked pastors to be retained as CEO's. The Lutheran Church Extension Fund had given hundreds of thousands of dollars for this effort, in addition to grants from AAL, Lutheran Brotherhood, Wheatridge and others.
Viewed objectively, it is all quite interesting. Without the agreement of the Congregations in Convention the COP endorses and promotes the removal of Voter supremacy. These hand-picked pastors meet in undisclosed locations for retraining. Their curriculum and course syllabus are kept a secret. They are funded without the approval of the Convention. When the COP achieves its goal these CEO's will be retrained in techniques in how to structure and administer congregations with a board of directors or a similar group in place of a supreme Voters' Assembly.
Thus Voters are reduced to a rubber stamp and the decisions are made behind closed doors for the "good" and the "growth" of the congregation. Of course the women also vote to disenfranchise themselves and are pleased to do it. Just a little bit more nitrous oxide and the Convention delegates will love Martin Stephan in a three-piece suit and briefcase. On the other end of the spectrum, the Hyper-Euro-Lutherans come to the rescue of this corporate invasion dressed as Martin Stephan wearing the garb of Episcopal hierarchy.
Bureaucrats and Bishops instead of Pastors
The B and B's, (Bureaucrats and Bishops) are so numerous in the LCMS this writer has within his possession more than 500 pages of email directed against Voter supremacy and/or claiming that congregations have an option to choose the form of polity they desire in the LCMS. Of course the Convention was never consulted.
The best construction one could place on this travesty is that the clergy have agreed the pastoral thing to do is to put the congregations out of their Voter supremacy misery. God wants this. The laity may be uniformed but whose job was it to teach them? True, some congregations will never miss Voter supremacy because they never knew they had it and don't know what they lost. The worst construction is that far more pastors than I realized fear their Voters and regard their membership as adversaries as well as the source of a paycheck. They will "rescue" the layman from control of the congregation.
Wohlrabe leads us to question if there ever was any Voter supremacy in the LCMS. The answer is yes, there was, and yes, there is, and yes, that is all there is.
The following are just a few of the quotations one can find in the official writings of the LCMS and its great scholars on this subject. The readers are recommended to keep them for their files.
"With the keys of the kingdom of heaven every Evangelical Lutheran LOCAL CONGREGATION HAS ALL THE CHURCH POWER it needs, that is, the power and authority to do all things that are necessary for its administration." (Form of the Christian Congregation, C.F.W Walther, CPH, St. Louis, 1989, p.24
"Finally the congregation is represented as the SUPREME TRIBUNAL, Matt.18:15-18.... Passage quoted" Note 7 on p 29 refers to this using the term 'highest jurisdiction' and referring in turn to the "Power and Primacy Of Pope," 'highest and final jurisdiction to the church... (Form of the Christian Congregation, C.F.W Walther, CPH, St. Louis, 1989, p.24
"In public church affairs nothing should be concluded without a vote and consent of the congregation." (Form of the Christian Congregation, C.F.W Walther, CPH, St. Louis, 1989, p.48)
(Under the topic of what kinds of things may be decided on in Voters) " In Matt. 18 the Lord Christ entrusts not to secular government but to HIS CONGREGATION THE SUPREME JUDGEMENT AND POWER to matters pertaining to the church, among which are: the election and calling of pastors, the judgment of doctrine, and the power to depose unfaithful teachers." (Form of the Christian Congregation, C.F.W Walther, quotes Hesshusius CPH, St. Louis, 1989, p.54)
"To the church the final decision must be entrusted." (Form of the Christian Congregation, C.F.W Walther, quotes Dannhaus, CPH, St. Louis, 1989, p.56)
"For active participation in speaking, deliberating, resolving and voting, in such congregational meeting ONLY THE ADULT MALE MEMBERS OF THE CONGREGATION ARE TO HAVE THE RIGHT, women and teenagers are to be excluded." (Form of the Christian Congregation, C.F.W Walther, CPH, St. Louis, 1989, p.47)
"SINCE THE RIGHT TO VOTE BELONGS TO THE WHOLE CONGREGATION, the voting, of course, must be done by those who represent the congregation." (Form of the Christian Congregation, C.F.W Walther, CPH, St. Louis, 1989, p.66)
"Though the constitution made the congregation the possessor of all church power and the HIGHEST TRIBUNAL, it did safeguard the ministry in various ways. The tenure of office was made permanent. No calls to pastors providing for a time limit were tolerated in the Missouri Synod." ("Government in the Missouri Synod" by Carl Mundinger, 1947, CPH, page 196)
"The Congregation, Not the Pastor, Has Supreme and Final Jurisdiction.--In according with the Scriptures (see texts quoted in previous paragraph) [These passages are printed at the end of this article after the *.] Our Confessions say:--"CHRIST GIVES SUPREME AND FINAL JURISDICTION to the church when he says: "Tell it unto the church'" (Smalcald Articles, Of the Power and Primacy of the Pope. Trigl.,p.511.) ("Pastoral Theology", John Fritz, CPH 1932, page 314)
Walther also regularly quotes Matthew 18:15-20 as textual proof for the divine institution of the Congregation in addition to the divine institution of the Voters' Assembly. He writes in his pastoral theology: "Since, ACCORDING TO GOD'S WORD, THE CONGREGATION IS THE HIGHEST COURT WITHIN ITS CIRCLE (Matt.18:17 Col. 4:17), and the preacher has church authority only in common with the congregation (Matt. 20-25-26; 23:8; 1Peter.5:1-3; 2Cor.8:8), the preacher must be concerned that the congregational assembly, both regular and special ones as needed at times, be held in Christian order to consider and carry out what is necessary for its governing (Matt. 18:17; 1Cor. 5:4;2 2Cor.2;6 Acts 6:20 15:1-4, 30; 21:17-22; 1Tim.5:20)." (Pastoral Theology by C.F.W. Walther, CN New Haven Mo., 5th Edition 1906 page 257)
"All adult, male members of the congregation have the right to participate actively in the discussion, votes, and decisions of the congregation since that is a RIGHT OF THE WHOLE CONGREGATION. See Matt. 18:17-18; Acts 1:15, 23-26; 15:5; 12-13, 22-23; 1Cor:5:2;6:2; 10:15; 12:7;2 2Cor.2:6-8; 2Thess. 3;15. Excluded from the exercise of this right are the youth (1Pet.5:5) and the female members of the congregation (Cor.14:34-35) [see also 1Tim.2:8-15]." (Pastoral Theology by C.F.W. Walther, CN New Haven Mo., 5th Edition 1906 page 257)
"It also belongs in the constitution that the congregation in its own circle is the FINAL AND HIGHEST COURT according to Matt. 18:17. Therefore all its officers are responsible to it and may be removed from office in Christian order. But also all decisions and resolutions of the congregation which are contrary to God's Word or the [congregation's] confession are to be declared in advance null and void." ("Pastoral Theology" C.F.W. Walther, Fifth Edition 1906, CN, 1995, page 264)
"For the Lord Christ teaches in Matthew 18:17 that the ban should be put ON THOSE WHO WILL NOT OBEY THE CHURCH OR HIS CONGREGATION." Thus the church truly teaches nothing else than God's Word. (Luther's Works LW 34:33)
"Therefore, every Christian should hold the view that neither St. Peter nor the apostles have in these passages been given power to rule or be on top." (LW39 page 90)
"Let this passage be your sure foundation, [1Cor.14:31 because it gives such an overwhelming power to the Christian congregations to preach, to permit preaching, and to call. Especially if there is a need, it [this passage] calls everyone with a special call-without a call for men-so that we should have no doubt that THE CONGREGATION WHICH HAS THE GOSPEL MAY AND SHOULD ELECT AND CALL FROM AMONG ITS MEMBERS someone to teach the word in its place." (LW 39:311)
"The Church of God has authority to appoint rites and customs in regard to festivals, food, fasting, prayers, vigils, etc., but not for others, only for itself; neither has it ever done, nor will it ever do otherwise. A church is a group or assembly of baptized and believers and under one shepherd, whether of one city, or of an entire country, or of the whole world. THIS PASTOR OR PRELATE HAS NOTHING TO ORDAIN, BECAUSE HE IS NOT THE CHURCH, unless it be that his church empowers him." (Pieper quotes Luther in Christian Dogmatics Vol. III page 431)
'Thus writes St. Paul (1 Cor. 3:21-23): 'Therefore let no one glory in men. FOR ALL THINGS ARE YOURS: whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come-all are yours. And you are Christ's and Christ is God's.' From this [passage] we learn that all things that even Paul and Peter had were only treasures from the jewel room of the believing Christians or of the church." ("Church and Ministry" C.F.W. Walther, 1851, CPH 1982, page 50)
"However, this equality of believers is abrogated and the church is changed into a secular organization if a minister demands obedience not only to the Word of Christ, his one Lord and Head and that of all Christians, but also to what his own insight and experience regard as good and suitable. As soon, therefore, as adiaphora or things indifferent, that is things that are neither commanded nor forbidden in God's Word, come in question in the church, A MINISTER MAY NEVER DEMAND ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE to what merely appears to him to be best" ("Church and Ministry" C.F.W. Walther, 1851, CPH 1982, page 312)
"It follows from these statements of Scripture that THE CONGREGATION OF BELIEVERS ENJOYS A SOVEREIGNTY under Christ which are not to be restricted or limited in any way. CHRISTIANS MAY NOT BE MADE SUBJECT TO A MINISTER or a priest, because they are all ministers and priests in their own right who have the privilege of approaching God directly. " ("The Abiding Word", Alfred von Rohr Sauer, Volume III, CPH 1947 page 306)
"As such they (congregations) possessed all the gifts and rights of the Church which Christ has bestowed upon it. Specifically, the function of the Christian congregation is to administer the means of grace in its midst and to serve in this world for the conversion of the sinner to God. This is nothing else than the administration of the keys of the Kingdom. (Matt. 18:17-20; "Tell it to the church"; Matt. 16:19, John 20:22-23, "Whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.")....THE CHURCH, THEREFORE FUNCTIONS AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE OFFICE OF THE KEYS of the Kingdom." ("The Abiding Word", Richard Klan, Volume III, CPH 1947 page 383)
"There are several factors which make connection between the genesis of Missouri's polity and existing American democratic theory rather improbable. The resemblance between the theory of CONGREGATIONAL SUPREMACY and American popular sovereignty is more apparent than real. Only male communicant members of the church who reached their twenty-first year had the right to vote. Furthermore, matters of doctrine and conscience which assumed great importance in the immigrant Church were not subject to popular vote, but were decided on the sole authority of the Scriptures. In such matters the Word of God hovered as a supreme authority over the congregation and Synod. This authority, be it remembered, was wielded officially and effectively by the pastor and by the Synodical officials. In a sermon delivered upon the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of the Missouri Synod as the jubilee convention, St. Louis, 1872, Walther said, 'Reverence and implicit obedience are due the ministry when the pastor teaches the Word of God.'" ("Government in the Missouri Synod," by Dr. Carl S. Mundinger, CPH, St. Louis, 1947 Page 201)
"The removal of Martin Stephan on May 30, 1839, and all the misery that followed that event gave the laymen the necessary jolt to press for lay participation in the government of the Church. This misery drove them into the writings of Luther, and here the laymen found the weapons which they needed to win the battle for CONGREGATIONAL SUPREMACY from the power-jealous pastors." ("Government in the Missouri Synod," by Dr. Carl S. Mundinger, CPH, St. Louis, 1947 Page 205)
"There are several factors which make connection between the genesis of Missouri's polity and existing American democratic theory rather improbable. The resemblance between the theory of congregational supremacy and American popular sovereignty is more apparent than real. Only male communicant members of the church who reached their twenty-first year had the right to vote. Furthermore, matters of doctrine and conscience which assumed great importance in the immigrant Church were not subject to popular vote, but were decided on the sole authority of the Scriptures. In such matters the Word of God hovered as a SUPEEME AUTHORITY over the congregation and Synod. This authority, be it remembered, was wielded officially and effectively by the pastor and by the Synodical officials. In a sermon delivered upon the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of the Missouri Synod as the jubilee convention, St. Louis, 1872, Walther said, 'Reverence and implicit obedience are due the ministry when the pastor teaches the Word of God.'" ("Government in the Missouri Synod," by Dr. Carl S. Mundinger, CPH, St. Louis, 1947 Page 201)
"By putting real power into the laymen's hands the founders of the Missouri Synod nurtured and developed a sturdy and informed laity. The laymen learned by doing. The difficult problem of teaching men and women who had been brought up in the State Church of Germany the task of paying for the maintenance of the Church was solved by giving laymen the privilege and the duty of making important decisions in the Church....The zeal which the early Missouri Synod laymen showed for their Church in that they attended meeting after meeting was produced, no doubt, in part by the fact that these men knew that their decisions were final." ("Government in the Missouri Synod," by Dr. Carl S. Mundinger, CPH, St. Louis, 1947 Page 218-219)
When Christ our Lord says: "Tell it to the church," He confers upon the local congregation the FINAL AND SUPREME AUTHORITY to excommunicate a former brother when that becomes necessary. Abiding Word, E.J. Otto, Vol. II. Page 555.
That a Christian Assembly or Congregation Has the Right and Power to Judge all Teaching and to Call, Appoint, and Dismiss Teachers, Established and Proven by Scripture. Luther's Works Vol. 39:305-314
"Therefore, I say that neither the pope nor a bishop nor any other person has the authority to prescribe to a Christian even the least command unless he consents to it. Whatever else is done stems from a tyrannical spirit" (Babylonian Captivity of the Church 1520 Luther) Walther, Church and Ministry Page 314
"History shows, too, that for a long time in the Church of the first centuries public ministers were appointed by congregational vote. The remark of the Smalcald Articles: 'Formerly the people elected pastors and bishops.' (Trigl. 525, ibid, 70), can be proved to be historically correct." (Pieper Vol. III Page 453)
"Hase says correctly that 'evangelical teaching' makes the congregation the source of all authority in the Church. ALL THAT THE PASTORS OF THE CONGREGATION DO AS PASTORS IS DELEGATED, THAT IS DONE SOLELY AS THE COMMAND OF THE CONGREGATIONS. This is true in particular when they pronounce excommunication." (Pieper Vol. III Page 458)
"This declaration rests upon the correct Scriptural principle that the local church is divinely appointed and is vested not only with the Office of the Keys, but with SUPREME AUTHORITY to direct all matters pertaining to church polity." Matt. 18:15-18, 1Cor. 5:11-13, 14:33-36. (Christian Dogmatics, J. T. Mueller. Page 561. Mueller goes on to explain the Biblical necessity of congregational voting.)
"A. The Voters' Meeting: If the congregation is to function and fully exercise its DIVINELY IMPOSED RIGHTS AND DUTIES in a conscientious, profitable, and God-pleasing manner, IT MUST, [just look at the outrageous legalism here] in the first place, hold public church assemblies in which it considers and determines all things THAT ARE NECESSARY [more legalism here from the LCMS] for its special church management. Such public executive church assemblies Christ presupposes when He commands Matt. 18:17-18 "Tell it unto the church." Such executive assemblies were generally maintained in the first Christian congregation, as the Book of Acts records, 1:15. 23-25, Acts 15:5: 23. "We call these assembly's voters' meetings, [as we do today] for we admit to them as authorized to vote only the adult male members of the church. Since the final authority in all matters is vested in the congregation and not in a few members of the congregation, it would seem evident that all of the members of the congregation are responsible for what the congregation does. But God Himself has made certain restricts." ("The Abiding Word" CPH, 1947,Vol. II, page 460 "The Lutheran Congregation" by G. Perlich)
Walther regularly speaks about the Congregation as the final tribunal. He also states the Congregation is the possessor of all church power in Theses VI and VII. As the possessor of all church power the local congregation must be divinely instituted by God. He regularly quotes the Lutheran Confessions on this point as follows: "In 1 Cor. 3, 6, Paul makes ministers equal, and teaches that THE CHURCH IS ABOVE THE MINISTERS. Hence superiority or lordship over the Church or the rest of the ministers is not ascribed to Peter [in preference to other apostles]. For he says thus: All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, i.e., let neither the other ministers nor Peter assume for themselves lordship or superiority over the Church; let them not burden the Church with traditions; let not the authority of any avail more than the Word [of God]; let not the authority of Cephas be opposed to the authority of the other apostles, as they reasoned at that time: "Cephas, who is an apostle of higher rank, observes this; therefore, both Paul and the rest ought to observe this." Paul removes this pretext from Peter, and denies [Not so, says Paul, and makes Peter doff his little hat, namely, the claim] that his authority is to be preferred to the rest or to the Church. (Treatise, Concordia Triglotta, page 507, par. 11)
"...the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning the keys adds, Matt. 18, 19: If two or three of you shall agree on earth, etc. THEREFORE HE GRANTS THE KEYS PRINCIPALLY AND IMMEDIATELY TO THE CHURCH, just as also for this reason the Church has principally the right of calling. [For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire Church, so the keys belong immediately to the entire Church, because the keys are nothing else than the office whereby this promise is communicated to everyone who desires it, just as it is actually manifest that the Church has the power to ordain ministers of the Church. And Christ speaks in these words: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc., and indicates to whom He has given the keys, namely, to the Church: Where two or three are gathered together in My name. Likewise CHRIST GIVES SUPREME AND FINAL JURISDICTION TO THE CHURCH, WHEN HE SAYS: TELL IT UNTO THE CHURCH.] Therefore it is necessary that in these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of the apostles, and for this reason they do not accord to Peter any prerogative or superiority, or lordship [which he had, or was to have had, in preference to the other apostles. (Treatise, Concordia Triglotta Page 511 par. 24-25)
October 30, 1999