In 2021, the International Lutheran Council (ILC) released its final report on certain conversations that it had with the Roman Catholic Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU), which it had been having from 2014 to 2019. While the Report’s spineless words on the sacrifice of the Mass (pp. 9 ff.) which give the reader the impression that ILC Lutherans find nothing to condemn in the papal Mass — in which the single and final nature of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is plainly rejected —, is disgusting enough, it is the ILC’s utter betrayal of the Reformation in its section on the doctrine of justification (which uses the equally worthless Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) to argue its points) that we direct the reader to.

The Final Report

On Justification

The report says that “Careful attention to the text yields the discovery that Trent did not condemn fiducia/trust as such, but rather an empty/inanis fiducia that it perceived as isolated from its proper setting.” (p. 17) However, in fact, Trent did condemn precisely the doctrine that saving faith consists in trust in God’s mercy, and that it is this faith which justifies apart from works. We read in the canons concerning justification:

Canon IX.

If anyone says that the ungodly is justified by faith alone in such a way that he understands that nothing else is required which cooperates toward obtaining the grace of justification and that it is in no way necessary for him to be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will, let him be anathema.

Canon X.

If anyone says that men are justified without the righteousness of Christ, by which He has merited for us to be justified, or that they are formally just through it, let him be anathema.

Canon XI.

If anyone says that a man is justified either solely by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness or solely by the remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and charity which is poured out into their hearts by the Holy Spirit and stays with them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God, let him be anathema.

Canon XII.

If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this trust alone by which we are justified, let him be anathema.

Canon XXI.

If anyone says that Christ Jesus was given by God to men as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey, let him be anathema.

Canon XXIV.

If anyone says that the received righteousness is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that the works are only the fruit and signs of the justification obtained, not also a cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

Canon XXVIII.

If anyone says that with the loss of grace through sin faith is also lost with it, or that the faith which remains is not a true faith, though it is not a living one, or that he who has faith without charity is not a Christian, let him be anathema.

Considering all of these canons, produced by the antichristian Council of Trent, show clear as day that they are not based on confusion on the side of the Tridentine fathers, it comes as a surprise to us that this report has ever been considered fit to represent the teaching of the members of the ILC.

On the Rite of Ordination

There is an addendum to the report, which concerns the doctrine of the call and the relation of the ecclesiastical rite of ordination thereto. All representatives, with the exclusion of one LCMS representative, approved the following sentences (p. 21):

• “Ordination is the indispensable way by which a member of Christ’s Body on earth becomes a minister of Word and Sacraments, as a public servant of the Lord to the benefit of the whole Church and to the accomplishment of the Lord’s will of salvation for all people.”
• “Ordination is recognized as the Lord’s action putting a person into the ministry of the one Church through His Church, an act done once for all, practiced with prayer and the laying on of hands by those who carry the office of the ministry and those who are commissioned to exert the office of overseeing (episkopé).”
• “That the ordained ministry is of constitutive importance for the celebration of the Eucharist, is beyond any doubt between us.”

The first two statements, which plainly echo the Romanizing tendency among our neo-Lutherans to elevate the rite of ordination into one prescribed to the Church by divine mandate, were considered to contradict the doctrine of the Brief Statement, which summarizes the doctrine of the Missouri Synod. Therefore, the report says that “it seems obvious that the arguments expressed in the dialogue do not really reflect the position of the LCMS” because, according to a clarification sent by Rev. Dr. Joel Lehenbauer and Rev. Larry Vogel of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) and signed by President Harrison, the LCMS teaches with its greatest teachers, that “there is in the Scriptures no command of God that this rite of ordination must be used” (Chemnitz) and it “is not necessary by virtue of a divine command, nor does the essence of the preaching office depend on it, nor does it imprint a certain character” (Gerhard).

The Response of the LCMS

After this report was made public, in 2024 the CTCR issued a response. In this, the LCMS, eager to placate the enemies of God, shows gratitude and rejoices in the worthless conversations, which have only served to confuse consciences. The fact that these “dialogues” only ever sow confusion can be seen from the rest of the Response.

On the Sacrifice of the Mass

It is found that the Report disingenuously claims there to be an “unresolved relationship between Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and the sacrifice of the Mass” (p. 4). Concerning the statement “Dogmatic language in the abstraction of its way of speaking must not prevent legitimate varieties of liturgical expression” the CTCR says: “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.” (Ibid.)

In the section on “Commonalities” the CTCR criticizes the Report for disingenuously claiming that both sides can find room for a Eucharistic sacrifice, because “the term sacrifice in the context of the Lord’s Supper is jealously restricted in the Lutheran confessions … for the sake of opposing the teaching of the sacrifice of the Mass and the view that the Lord’s Supper itself is an atoning sacrifice in any sense whatsoever. … So, the claim that both sides link the cross of Christ with his holy Supper is valid, but is it not also necessary to acknowledge more openly the fact that each side links them in significantly different ways?” (p. 5) The CTCR criticizes the Report’s silence on the question: “does our remembrance come in response to the gift of Christ’s body and blood for us to eat and drink? Or, does our act of remembrance make Christ’s body and blood present to be distributed and received?” (Ibid.) The Report’s brief, almost incurious characterization of the Roman doctrine of efficacy ex opere operato is also criticized for inadequately dealing “with the reality of the concerns raised by Reformers” (Ibid.). In the following statement from the Response, one is reminded of the ambiguities which the Joint Declaration also delighted in leaving unresolved: “Our consideration of 3.2 Liturgical-Theological Affirmation is colored by the concerns expressed in our comments on the preceding Systematic-Theological Affirmations. The affirmation here appears in great measure to be a defense for the notion that, in some sense, the priest offers an atoning sacrifice to God. However, the claim is carefully stated and underpinned by saying that ‘divine action is theologically primary and the human action is secondary.’ Moreover, the Report adds that the Epiclesis for Rome understands that the Church’s action depends on the Spirit’s action.” (Ibid.)

In the section “Affirmation” (p. 6), the Response yet again pretends as though these talks had a salutary effect, when, as shown in the Response itself, they have produced much confusion concerning doctrines which should be taught with the utmost clarity; this applies even to the chief article of the Christian faith.

On Justification

The CTCR first notes that, from the text of the Report, it seems that “the Final Report authors have fewer reservations about JDDJ than the ILC churches had earlier identified in their past reactions to JDDJ” (p. 7). In response to the Report’s claim that “the ‘sola gratia is supplemented by the sola fide’ for the first time in Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues” and “the critical function of the doctrine of justification is upheld,” the CTCR says the following: “These points, in paragraphs 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 raise questions for us. Is the changed orientation as described anything more than an increasing inclusion of faith terminology with regard to justification? Is not the connection of obedience and faith continued evidence of a transformative rather than a declarative understanding of justification? If so, to what degree is that a rapprochement? Does sola fide merely supplement a right understanding of sola gratia, or is it in fact absolutely necessary for a right view? Lastly, while we welcome language about ‘the critical function of justification’ for all doctrine, we also find the language to be less than precise. We recall the textual change in justification as ‘criterion’ between the 1996 draft of JDDJ and the final draft—a change from justification as the paramount criterion to justification as ‘an indispensable criterion.’ In light of that, what does it mean to speak of ‘the critical function of justification’?” (Ibid.)

Predictably, even in this article — where errors result in the loss of souls into the hands of Satan — the author is able to praise the ILC’s “discussions” with the Roman Church more than he teaches the doctrine of justification with the clarity it demands; all this in the interest of “ecumenism.”