Tag: large catechism

Luther’s Large Catechism II.66 and Subjunctive Unreality

November 30th, 2023

In Part II §66 of Luther’s Large Catechism we read the following:

These articles of the Creed, therefore, divide and separate us Christians from all other people upon earth. For all outside of Christianity, whether heathen, Turks, Jews, or false Christians and hypocrites, although they believe in, and worship, only one true God, yet know not what His mind towards them is, and cannot expect any love or blessing from Him; therefore they abide in eternal wrath and damnation. For they have not the Lord Christ, and, besides, are not illumined and favored by any gifts of the Holy Ghost.
cited from thebookofconcord.com

There are some who for various theological motivations make hay of the fact that Luther here states that heathen, Turks, Jews, or false Christians and hypocrites believe in and worship only one true God. This article will not engage with theological arguments but rather intends to respond to a contribution made to the discussion by the Rev. Larry W. Myers that assesses the various claims made by several parties in light of the subjunctive mood of the verbs credant and invocent (trans. above as the verbs “they believe in, and worship…”) in a concessive subordinate quamquam (“although”) clause. It is my contention that Rev. Myers, while well-intentioned, mistakenly errs in his definition of the subjunctive mood particularly in its unreal aspects.

The following definition appears on pages 3-4 of “A Case for Latin: A Linguistic Note on LC II, 66”:

Read Rev. Myers’ full article here.Download

While it is true that the subjunctive inherently conveys a sort of unreality to an action or idea, this unreality can arise in several expressions and does not necessarily, by default, indicate nor undermine the truth value of a given clause with a subjunctive verb. If I were to compose a Latin confession of belief, I should start with my main verb, Credo, “I believe,” and thereafter state my confession, and whatever verbs would follow in said confession would be in the subjunctive case, such as Christus Dominus sit, “Christ is Lord.” This does not mean, per Rev. Myers’ definition, that my belief is not, or must be considered possibly not, factually true: rather, the subjunctive mood has conveyed the unreality that is attached to the mental content associated with my belief that Christ is Lord. Such a use of the subjunctive conveys the source from which the statement is coming, and in that way helps to focalize the reading experience from a mere matter-of-fact recollection into a claim that has a third party’s thoughts and motivations behind it.

Further understanding of the Latin subjunctive is necessary to get to the nature of this unreality expressed in focalizing statements of the subjunctive mood. Allen & Greenough write

Of the two principal uses of the subjunctive in independent sentences (cf. § 436), the second, or Potential Subjunctive, is found in a variety of sentences whose common element is the fact that the mood represents the action as merely conceived or possible, not as desired (hortatory, optative) or real (indicative).
“Potential Subjunctive,” §445

A focalizing statement of the subjunctive mood, therefore, gives us particular information as to from where a merely conceived or possible claim or action arises with its use of the Potential Subjunctive. What Rev. Myers fails to distinguish in his definition of the unreality of the subjunctive mood is the difference between ontology and epistemology. While the truth value of a statement may be True or False in a focalizing statement of the subjunctive mood, this issue is a separate fact from whether it is merely conceived or possible. Definitionally, unreality is just that: not yet real, merely conceived or possible. The fact that I believe Christ is Lord is True, but the nature of faith and belief is intangible, an expression of mental content, which is in that way unreal and immaterial, non-actuated.

Let us then return to the point of original contention, LC Part II §66. The focalizing statement of the subjunctive mood is here, stripped down to its essential elements, “quamquam… credant, et invocent,” “although… they believe, and worship.” While Rev. Myers claims the Latin translator of Luther’s LC, Obsopoeus “was not presenting a statement of fact; he was merely being hypothetical, at best, for the sake of argument” with these verbs, this assertion fails the ontological-epistemological distinction necessary to understanding the unreality of the subjunctive. Whether or not they truly believe and worship (“credant, et invocent”) is aside the point of the use of these subjunctive mood verbs: they definitionally don’t, as false Christians and hypocrites. But it is from the focalizing statement of the subjunctive mood in an adversative-concessive quamquam clause that we get the information that they possibly conceive of themselves as truly believing and worshiping. Factually speaking, their claim that they believe and worship only one true God is false, although the focalizing force of the subjunctive tells us that they believe their worship is true.

It is intended that this response can aid those more theologically minded to decide the full import of LC II§66. I thank Rev. Myers for his concise and thorough recapitulation of the debate in “A Case for Latin: A Linguistic Note on LC II, 66” and encourage others to go read it and his full argument for themselves.
LCACA Goes To Convention

August 24th, 2023

A reader requested a report on what happened to the discussion of Luther’s Large Catechism with Annotations and Contemporary Applications (LCACA) at the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod’s 2023 National Convention. If you, our readers, would benefit from a comprehensive telling of the entire LCACA saga, please contact us and let us know.

What happened to the discussion of Luther’s Large Catechism with Annotations and Contemporary Applications (LCACA) at the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod’s 2023 National Convention?

In short: Synodical apparatchiks decided not to throw their pearls before swine.

Wherein: pearls = their painstakingly varnished, hand-made-with-love, catechetical tome. And swine = the delegates that member congregations selected and sent to Milwaukee to represent you.

This despite assurances made by President Harrison on the first day of convention that the matter would be discussed:

The carrot that Harrison was dangling was Resolution 5-14A.

This resolution was cobbled together from the below overtures by way of addressing the clear will of the Synodical body politic to discuss the LCACA at convention — as evidenced by the existence of those overtures. Including one which called for its publication to cease (listen to an interview with the primary author of that overture here).

There was an additional proposed amendment included in convention materials, as well as a proposed substitute resolution, both with the same goal: to divide LCACA into two distinct volumes, separating the essays from the catechism with annotations.

Old Lutherans’s editors noted problems even with this compromise, as e.g. Steven Paulson’s works are also cited in the annotations. However, due to backroom “bipartisan” deals and wink and nudge agreements, Committee 5 withheld the red meat from the convention floor.

Despite a strained and put-on attempt to brush past the matter, including offering to have a drink with disgruntled delegates after convention hours, the mics were sufficiently swarmed such that Harrison’s hand was forced to recognize the floor. After several individuals spoke without a motion, it was one of the Synod’s most openly liberal pastors who finally managed to move to resurrect the resolution.

In the end, the motion to bring Resolution 5-14A back to the floor failed, with 416 votes for, 479 votes against, and scores of votes abstaining (or glitching, as technical issues with electronic voting plagued the proceedings). With the matter successfully shut off from further discussion at convention, discussion of the matter was successfully returned to executive sessions during bureaucratic group huddles, away from the eyes of the public and the LCMS at large.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you put a corporate boondoggle PR catastrophe to bed. We in the LCMS have the best politicians, don’t we?

Tag: large catechism

Luther’s Large Catechism II.66 and Subjunctive Unreality

LCACA Goes To Convention