Author Topic: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?  (Read 5611 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« on: September 01, 2016, 10:15:43 PM »
Hey all:

New member here. Thought I would post. I have a beef, of sorts. Not with Orthodoxy. But just in general with people's (any people, people in general), view of things.

First you have people who have the idea that the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are in some way more Catholic than the rest of us. I guess to a degree one can almost acknowledge that. None of them have been influenced by the Protestant Reformation in any sense.

But where my REAL beef comes in is when Roman Catholics designate Anglicans as "more Catholic than Lutherans." That is infuriating. EVERY single Lutheran I have ever met believes in an OBJECTIVE Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. There is no question that the Consecrated Elements ARE the Body and Blood of Christ. Whether you believe it or not is not relevant.

Anglicanism, on the other hand, and I was raised both Roman Catholic and Anglican, and Anglicanism is what stuck, has everything from the most Anglo-Catholic Transubstantiationist to the Lowest Church Receptionist. Furthermore, the 3rd Paragraph of Article XXVIII "Of the Lord's Supper says, "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, onlyh after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received in the Supper, is Faith."

So, when I hear Catholics, particularly the more liberal ones,talk about how Anglicanism is more Catholic than Lutheranism, I get a little fried. In fact, I recall, when I was a good Anglican, I knew a young lady, a Low Church Anglican, basically a Presbyterian with a Prayer Prayer Book, quite a pretty thing too, didn't know if she believed in the Real Presence, because Jesus said, "Take and eat, this is my body", but he also said, "Do this in memory of me."

I realise that there are issues over the fact that some Lutherans don't have Bishops, and some do. Of course, some answer that by saying what Luther said, that Episkopoi and Presbyteroi were one office in the Early Church. Some LCMS clergy and members like to say that our Pastors are all Bishops. I don't know if I would go that far. But I am bothered by the fact that someone who theoretically depends on subjectivists ideas about the Eucharistic Feast can be considered more Catholic than me.




Offline seekeroftruth777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,135
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2016, 10:39:21 PM »
I will let someone more wise answer. I just want to say Welcome, you seem new here.


OK I mean this in a non-serious manner but is this a tag match? We will just tag you guys in when the Catholics decide to get all Traddy,  :laugh: I joke
« Last Edit: September 01, 2016, 10:40:24 PM by seekeroftruth777 »

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2016, 10:43:17 PM »
Thank you for the welcome. I am indeed new here. That is most kind.

Offline Svartzorn

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 647
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek A.Diocese of B. Aires & S. America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2016, 11:47:24 PM »
I don't get it. Is this a competition to find out who's more "catholic"? And what do you mean by this term?
Death to the world dodos.

Offline FinnJames

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 788
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Finland
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2016, 12:41:29 AM »
EVERY single Lutheran I have ever met believes in an OBJECTIVE Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. There is no question that the Consecrated Elements ARE the Body and Blood of Christ. Whether you believe it or not is not relevant.

Welcome, Diego, and thanks for an interesting post.

I found what you said about Lutherans a bit puzzling. I remember being told at a Missouri Synod Lutheran church my college roommate and I visited a couple Sundays that the communion elements were the real presence of Christ, which is in line with what you wrote. But I don't think this was the case in the Lutheran church I attended with my grandparents when visiting them. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of that Lutheran group, but it was formed when many of the immigrant Lutheran churches merged (my grandmother grew up Augustina (spelling?) Lutheran, the Swedish immigrant Lutheran church in the US at the time), and I believe this merged group may be the largest Lutheran church in the US today.

Of course this was all almost 50 years ago so my memory may be faulty. But the facts about the Eucharist should be easy to check.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2016, 12:44:07 AM by FinnJames »

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2016, 12:46:47 AM »
SVARTZORN, I think you are missing the point of the question. I find it important because being designated a Protestant w/o qualifying that is offensive. We even count the 10 Commandments the same way Rome does, Exodus style, unlike Protestants, who use Deuteronomy. What do I mean by the Church Catholick, spelling it in the old English style deliberately? What I mean is that we defend & keep the Holy Mass, as stated in the Augsburg Confession. We believe in the Real Presence as an objective reality. We maintain the Three Ecumenical Creeds. We never had the Calvinistic crusades of Oliver Cromwell destroy our churches. England had to rebuild the statues. We never lost them except in the States. & that's only because we chose to ape what the Protestants were doing. So my point is, no, its not a contest. Its a genuine reality. Catholicism is alive & well in Lutheran Churches more than in Anglican Churches. Now, granted, a lot of Lutherans have gotten weird, like ELCA, & started ordaining women & gays, (CONT)

Offline Svartzorn

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 647
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek A.Diocese of B. Aires & S. America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2016, 12:58:33 AM »
(I don't think you need to split your posts, since the site doesn't seem to have a character limit).

I think it's a question you rather discuss with latins. As an orthodox I don't see that much relevance in who's keeping what among catholics and protestants.
But I do have the feeling - by knowing little - that lutherans seem to have some more sense than evangelicals, for instance.
Death to the world dodos.

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2016, 12:59:12 AM »
(CONT from prev.) but there are still plenty of Lutheran Churches that hold FIRMLY to the Bible & the Confessions. To answer your question, FINNJAMES, yes, the Swedes did believe in the Real Presence. The ELCA here & the Svenska Kyrkan there have gotten weird morally, sadly enough. The LCMS does indeed believe in the Real Presence. I am LCMS myself. Also, friends, do pardon multiple posts. On my computer its not needed. But on my dumbphone there is a space limitation. So I can only write so much, & use symbols like "&". Then I must continue the post. Thanks for your patience.

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2016, 01:04:28 AM »
SVARTZORN, the full site has no limitation. But the WAP2 Interface for dumbphones does.

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,258
  • Faith: Finnish Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2016, 01:07:03 AM »
I believe Calvinist influences creeped into Lutheranisn during 19th century in the form of Pietism which explains (AFAIK) widespread idea of Eucharist being only a symbol.
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2016, 02:41:32 AM »
I believe Calvinist influences creeped into Lutheranisn during 19th century in the form of Pietism which explains (AFAIK) widespread idea of Eucharist being only a symbol.

The point I am attempting to make is that, although the Pietism did exist, with its more Low Church concepts, it was never able to eliminate the belief in an objective Real Presence. The Confessions contained in the Book of Concord were a certainty against that happening. I know of only a TINY number of Lutheran Churches wherein any kind of Receptionism is taught, and they are all fairly small Churches at that. Their relevance to mainline Lutheranism is rather... pointless.

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,258
  • Faith: Finnish Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2016, 03:14:36 AM »
No idea about North America but in Finland (where ~95% of the population are Lutherans) I don't think too many understand that officially speaking according to their church bread and wine are body and blood. I believe that includes many church-going people too.
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 451
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #12 on: September 02, 2016, 06:25:52 AM »
Welcome Diego,

Sooooooo....let me see if I understand you.   Being "Catholic" in your view ? is a product of believing in the real presence of Christ?

This is what makes one a "Catholic?"

You tangentially reference Bishops and adherence to creeds of at least Three Ecumenical Councils.

So what makes a person "Catholic?"   This is the question.   Each of the traditions you have pointed to has a different understanding of what it is to be "Catholic."

I will not at this point elucidate the EO understanding of being "Catholic."   But you must first clearly define what you believe to be the criteria for Catholicity.   

Am I to understand you believe Catholicity is a function of belief in the Real Presence in the same manner that a Roman Catholic would understand Catholicity to be a function of allegiance to a "vicar" of Christ in the Pope?

God bless and welcome to OC.Net.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2016, 06:26:11 AM by Onesimus »

Offline seekeroftruth777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,135
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #13 on: September 02, 2016, 08:16:42 AM »
I believe Calvinist influences creeped into Lutheranisn during 19th century in the form of Pietism which explains (AFAIK) widespread idea of Eucharist being only a symbol.

This is a good point, there was also the union of 1817 when the Lutheran Church in Germany were forced to merge with the Reformed Church, which allowed Calvinist ideas to creep in that way too, especially in the seminaries.

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #14 on: September 02, 2016, 04:56:11 PM »
SEEKER, I would not identify the German United Church as Lutheran after the merger. In fact, said merger is largely what brought about the immigration of the Germans to the USA that created the MO Synod. As for Catholicity, I identify it as any Church that maintains the three Creeds (or less in the case of the Assyrian Church & the Oriental Orthodox), has valid clergy, & orthodox belief.

Offline Justin Kolodziej

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 710
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Atlanta
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2016, 05:16:52 PM »
Sola Scriptura is in no way orthodox belief, so I guess you're out   :police:
Quote from: Nun M.
The dread Pantocrator...is also "Christouli mou", (my little Christ), who really listens when you run in to your neighborhood church on the way to work to cry and light a candle because your daughter is in trouble at school. The untouchable and all-holy Mother of God is also "Panayitsa mou", who really will take your part before the court of heaven because, just like your own mom, she’ll always stick up for her children, no matter how badly they’ve behaved.

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2016, 10:39:26 PM »
Sola Scriptura is in no way orthodox belief, so I guess you're out   :police:

I would disagree with that statement MOST profoundly, as long as Grace Alone, Faith Alone, and Scripture Alone are understood correctly. Which I think they are often NOT, by both Roman Catholic AND Protestant, and, so it would appear, Orthodox.  :police:

Allow me to elucidate. Where does  Tradition come from? Well, Scripture. It is subordinate to Scripture. But that in no way means it doesn't have a right to exist. I hear so many Protestants criticise Lutherans for having a Liturgy. "Why, that is too Catholic!" we get told. Well, what the heck does that mean, I ask. Celebrating the Lord's Supper (which term I don't really like, I prefer "Divine Service", but I shall employ it for now) is too Catholic? I don't know, our Lord Himself did it! Was he "too Catholic"?

Martin Luther had no desire to start a new church. When he posted his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenburg, the goal was to debate a few things get a few abuses resolved, and be done with it. And if you look at LCMS, that's pretty much what we have done. Now, there are some parishes that are more spare than others. But overall, what you have is a very spare Catholicism.

You look at the Calvinists, now. They take Sola Scriptura to its utmost. Tradition doesn't exist in their understanding. They try to go back to a NT Church, which is kind of funny, since the Church existed BEFORE the NT did, and GAVE us the NT. And then they have this bizzarre Double Predestination, that frankly, had I been born and raised up with, would absolutely terrify me.

But Sola Scriptura simply reassures me that all traditions will either (1) have a basis in Scripture, or (2) at least not be flatly contradicted by Scripture. It's really not as hard to handle when looked at in the right sense.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,106
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2016, 12:49:07 AM »
Where does  Tradition come from? Well, Scripture.

Citation?
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline RaphaCam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,535
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2016, 03:03:07 AM »
Where does  Tradition come from? Well, Scripture.

Citation?
It doesn't, because:

the Church existed BEFORE the NT did, and GAVE us the NT

Anyway, welcome to the forum, Diego, I hope you can stay for coffee hour.  ;)
« Last Edit: September 03, 2016, 03:05:15 AM by RaphaCam »
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

Check my blog "Em Espírito e em Verdade" (in Portuguese)

Offline Svartzorn

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 647
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek A.Diocese of B. Aires & S. America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2016, 03:18:08 AM »
Scripture alone, faith alone, grace alone...
Well, which one is it?
Death to the world dodos.

Offline ttcmacro

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #20 on: September 03, 2016, 04:20:10 AM »
Welcome Diego!  As someone who was in the LCMS before becoming Orthodox, I find your comments quite interesting.

While I'm not a theologian by any stretch, I believe that that the LCMS and the Orthodox view of the Eucharist are very similar, if not functionally the same. When I was LCMS, it was a clear part of the teaching that the Eucharist contained the real presence of Christ. Before becoming LCMS, I flirted with Anglicanism (Episcopal technically) for a while, and at least in the parishes I went to, the teaching on the Eucharist was "fuzzy" to say the least. So while obviously LCMS, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox teachings diverge on some major points, I'm not sure the Eucharist is really one of them. The main difference would seem to be who is qualified to preside over the Eucharist. For Orthodox and Roman Catholics, it is a priest ordained by a bishop in apostolic succession from the apostles. On a side note, I find it interesting that you find that Roman Catholics view Anglicans as more Catholic than Lutherans. I believe all Anglican churches have bishops in apostolic succession, but the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Anglican church does not have valid orders- hence their bishops are not really bishops, and their sacraments are not valid. So it would seem to me that Anglicans are not really "more Catholic" than the LCMS from a Roman Catholic perspective :o.

I found your comment on tradition interesting, and the LCMS and Orthodox teaching are somewhat different here. In Orthodoxy, Scripture is a part of the tradition (a VERY important part), but is not the entire tradition. The tradition also includes the liturgy, iconography, other non-canonical early Christian writings, writings of the church fathers, writings of the saints, the creeds, etc.
Just the other day I was reading how many Calvinist reject the idea that Jesus descend into the hell (the harrowing of hell) because they don't believe there is Scriptural support for it. However, from the Orthodox view this was clearly a true event- it is part of the Creed and it is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2016, 04:23:07 AM by ttcmacro »

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #21 on: September 03, 2016, 07:13:25 AM »
Where does  Tradition come from? Well, Scripture.

Citation?

None needed. Its reality. If it were not for Scripture, we would not have anything, not even the basics. For example, the Moral Law is of Moses. It was recorded in Scripture. Ergo, without it, where would the morals of the human race been without Scripture?

SVARTZORN, PLEASE do not ask silly questions.It is all three, the which answer you knew perfectly well. By Grace Alone, Through Faith Alone, in Scripture Alone. They are all linked. TTMACRO, I think you are right, but keep in mind that we belive that Christ went down into hell also.

RAPHACAM, as far as Tradition coming from Scripture, in a sense I see your point. And insofar as it doesn't violate Scripture, I've no problem with it. To me, it doesn't have to be explicitly endorsed by them to be ok.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2016, 07:14:53 AM by Diego »

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #22 on: September 03, 2016, 07:40:50 AM »
None needed. Its reality. If it were not for Scripture, we would not have anything, not even the basics. For example, the Moral Law is of Moses. It was recorded in Scripture. Ergo, without it, where would the morals of the human race been without Scripture?

That would mean set, Noah, Melchisedek or Abraham were people without morals.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #23 on: September 03, 2016, 08:15:41 AM »
Well, you have a point there. But, before the Law of Moses, God provided for his people in other ways. And I shall grant that even under the Law, I am sure the non-Hebrews had codes to keep them in basic honesty, albeit they were not the Chosen People. And since the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, all men are called to live the Gospel. Note, I said "All men are called to live the Gospel." We are all called to be His.

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 451
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #24 on: September 03, 2016, 08:34:42 AM »
Where does  Tradition come from? Well, Scripture.

Citation?

None needed. Its reality. If it were not for Scripture, we would not have anything, not even the basics. For example, the Moral Law is of Moses. It was recorded in Scripture. Ergo, without it, where would the morals of the human race been without Scripture?

Diego,

Not so.  We would have the Holy Spirit.   We would have the Church within whom the Spirit indwells.  That is reality.   You see that the Spirit does not simply indwell the Scriptures....but people.   The Scriptures must be read by the Spirit in the Church.   They cannot be objectively read as if they are embodied truth, the Truth Himself indwelling the whole of the Church bound in conciliar Love gives them life...they do not give the Church life.   It is not true to say that if we did not have the Scriptures we would have nothing.   But it matters little...we do have the Scriptures (thank God!)   For the Orthodox, Scripture is nothing but written Tradition, and Tradition is nothing but living Scripture.   But none of these can be made manifest in the Church if it does not subsist in Love.   Love does not separate itself from others.   Rome showed no Love, and broke with the rest of the Church, quenching the Spirit.   The poor sons of the Roman Church, the Protestants simply continued down the same path...walking in disorder. (from an Orthodox perspective...please don't take this personally...it is our understanding of the unity of faith as inseparable from the Gospel...it is not about you as a person.)

This is made manifest in the witness of the Apostles, to wit;

Quote
"You yourselves are our letter, inscribed on our hearts, known and read by everyone. It is manifest that you are epistles of Christ, ...written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.…

Quote
"You pore over the Scriptures because you presume that by them you possess eternal life. These are the very words that testify about Me, yet you refuse to come to Me to have life.…"

It is the Church - and not Scripture alone - which is the "pillar and ground of Truth."  1 Tim 3:15.  For the Church is the Body of Christ indwelt by the Spirit.   The Scriptures testify to Christ and the Church IN Him...the Scriptures do not simply testify to the Scriptures.

There is a lot we could and should talk about in this regard.   But I am short on time.

Here is the issue we run into.   Neither Scripture or Tradition speak of Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide.   In fact, Scripture and Tradition militate directly against both explicitly.   

Now, as a long time Protestant I am sympathetic to the issues which prompted the Reformation.   But the fact...and it is a fact...remains that Sola Scriptura is a philosophy of men.  It is found neither in Scripture or Tradition and therefore, by your own criterion (not ours) cannot be true.

Regardless of that fact...we Love you and are glad to have you engage and try to understand the Orthodox faith.   Please ask questions, try to understand the Orthodox faith.   I understand you are convinced of certain things.   So be it.   It is not within our power to convince you otherwise.  Only the Spirit can "grant the increase."   

But since you are here...on an Orthodox forum..please take the time to learn from our side.   It is a place to learn about Orthodoxy.   If we want to learn about Lutheranism, we will go to a Lutheran chat board.

« Last Edit: September 03, 2016, 08:39:44 AM by Onesimus »

Offline Ainnir

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,203
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #25 on: September 03, 2016, 10:18:17 AM »
Beautifully put, Onesimus. 
"Is any of the above Orthodox?  I have no clue, so there's that."  ~me

Taking a hiatus.  Pray for me, a sinner.

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 451
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #26 on: September 03, 2016, 10:41:27 AM »
Quote
"And insofar as it doesn't violate Scripture, I've no problem with it.

So you mean to tell me that if Scripture explicitly says - more than once - that justification is NOT by faith alone -- and yet a group of Christians holds as the cornerstone of their evangelical teachings that justification is by faith alone, I should conclude that their teachings violate Scripture? 

Hmmmm.  That's interesting.  I'd have to agree.

Quote
Foolish man! Are you willing to learn that faith without works is useless? Wasn’t Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was active together with his works, and by works, faith was perfected.   So the Scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness,x, y and he was called God’s friend.  You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, wasn’t Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Quote
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not Love, I am nothing.And now abideth faith, hope, and Love, these three; but the greatest of these is Love.

So which is greater....faith or Love?   How can Paul state that a person with "all faith" is nothing if "sola fide" is true?   That person should be justified by faith!   But Paul says they are not.   They are nothing.

Love is greater than faith...and faith is only faith when it is "working through Love."

One cannot separate themselves from the rest of the Church and teach contrary to the Spirit of Love in Her and have faith working in love.   One cannot teach that we are justified by "faith alone" when the Scriptures say that we are "not justified by faith alone" and that if one has "all faith, but hath not love"... they are "nothing."   One cannot teach by "faith alone" if love is "greater" than faith.  One might be able to teach "love alone" or "faith, hope and love...these three alone...but love is the greatest"...but they cannot teach by "faith alone."    It violates Scripture.

I shudder at my own failings in this regard.   I am no better than you...probably much worse as a person.  But the Church has always taught faithfully the truth that Scripture and Tradition witness to...that man is "NOT justified by faith alone."   

I understand that you may reference Ephesians 2 - and yet, for us - Ephesians 2 is completely consistent with the rest of the witness of Scripture.   
Quote

For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life.

This is our calling.   

Yet, your community teaches otherwise and has separated itself from us.   Why?  We are saddened by this separation over a teaching contradicted by the witness of Scripture.  But we still Love you and hope for your reunion to the Body.   

God bless you Diego.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2016, 10:49:45 AM by Onesimus »

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,106
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #27 on: September 03, 2016, 11:05:54 AM »
Where does  Tradition come from? Well, Scripture.

Citation?

None needed. Its reality.

IOW, your tradition. 

Quote
If it were not for Scripture, we would not have anything, not even the basics.

Romans 1.18-20 appears to disagree. 
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Svartzorn

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 647
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek A.Diocese of B. Aires & S. America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #28 on: September 03, 2016, 12:02:06 PM »




SVARTZORN, PLEASE do not ask silly questions.It is all three, the which answer you knew perfectly well. By Grace Alone, Through Faith Alone, in Scripture Alone. They are all linked.

(...)

If it's all three there's no need to use the word "alone" (sola)
Death to the world dodos.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,197
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #29 on: September 03, 2016, 12:25:15 PM »
Hey all:

New member here. Thought I would post. I have a beef, of sorts. Not with Orthodoxy. But just in general with people's (any people, people in general), view of things.

First you have people who have the idea that the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are in some way more Catholic than the rest of us. I guess to a degree one can almost acknowledge that. None of them have been influenced by the Protestant Reformation in any sense.
Actually, the Vatican and the PNCC have been formed by the Protest Reformation, the Vatican we today being formed in the Counter-Reformation.

But where my REAL beef comes in is when Roman Catholics designate Anglicans as "more Catholic than Lutherans." That is infuriating. EVERY single Lutheran I have ever met believes in an OBJECTIVE Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. There is no question that the Consecrated Elements ARE the Body and Blood of Christ. Whether you believe it or not is not relevant.

Anglicanism, on the other hand, and I was raised both Roman Catholic and Anglican, and Anglicanism is what stuck, has everything from the most Anglo-Catholic Transubstantiationist to the Lowest Church Receptionist. Furthermore, the 3rd Paragraph of Article XXVIII "Of the Lord's Supper says, "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, onlyh after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received in the Supper, is Faith."

So, when I hear Catholics, particularly the more liberal ones,talk about how Anglicanism is more Catholic than Lutheranism, I get a little fried. In fact, I recall, when I was a good Anglican, I knew a young lady, a Low Church Anglican, basically a Presbyterian with a Prayer Prayer Book, quite a pretty thing too, didn't know if she believed in the Real Presence, because Jesus said, "Take and eat, this is my body", but he also said, "Do this in memory of me."

I realise that there are issues over the fact that some Lutherans don't have Bishops, and some do. Of course, some answer that by saying what Luther said, that Episkopoi and Presbyteroi were one office in the Early Church. Some LCMS clergy and members like to say that our Pastors are all Bishops. I don't know if I would go that far. But I am bothered by the fact that someone who theoretically depends on subjectivists ideas about the Eucharistic Feast can be considered more Catholic than me.
why do you care?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,197
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #30 on: September 03, 2016, 12:27:26 PM »
Where does  Tradition come from? Well, Scripture.

Citation?

None needed. Its reality. If it were not for Scripture, we would not have anything, not even the basics. For example, the Moral Law is of Moses. It was recorded in Scripture. Ergo, without it, where would the morals of the human race been without Scripture?

SVARTZORN, PLEASE do not ask silly questions.It is all three, the which answer you knew perfectly well. By Grace Alone, Through Faith Alone, in Scripture Alone. They are all linked. TTMACRO, I think you are right, but keep in mind that we belive that Christ went down into hell also.

RAPHACAM, as far as Tradition coming from Scripture, in a sense I see your point. And insofar as it doesn't violate Scripture, I've no problem with it. To me, it doesn't have to be explicitly endorsed by them to be ok.
Scripture comes from Tradition. Not the reverse. Scripture itself shows so. It was passes on for centuries before Moses, and formed the Church decades before the first Gospel or Epistle was written.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #31 on: September 03, 2016, 12:57:11 PM »
Where does  Tradition come from? Well, Scripture.

Citation?

None needed. Its reality. If it were not for Scripture, we would not have anything, not even the basics. For example, the Moral Law is of Moses. It was recorded in Scripture. Ergo, without it, where would the morals of the human race been without Scripture?

SVARTZORN, PLEASE do not ask silly questions.It is all three, the which answer you knew perfectly well. By Grace Alone, Through Faith Alone, in Scripture Alone. They are all linked. TTMACRO, I think you are right, but keep in mind that we belive that Christ went down into hell also.

RAPHACAM, as far as Tradition coming from Scripture, in a sense I see your point. And insofar as it doesn't violate Scripture, I've no problem with it. To me, it doesn't have to be explicitly endorsed by them to be ok.
Scripture comes from Tradition. Not the reverse. Scripture itself shows so. It was passes on for centuries before Moses, and formed the Church decades before the first Gospel or Epistle was written.

Actually, you have just made my point. If Scripture formed the Church (ie, the Old Testament), then in a way, the NT was written in such a manner as not to contradict it, and, and the Church was born with the of the OT and used the OT as Scripture, and gave us the NT, as did the OT.

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #32 on: September 03, 2016, 01:10:04 PM »
But since you are here...on an Orthodox forum..please take the time to learn from our side.   It is a place to learn about Orthodoxy.   If we want to learn about Lutheranism, we will go to a Lutheran chat board.

ONESIMUS, greeting:

I am more than happy to learn about Orthodoxy. However, here, on this section of the board, is a place to discuss Orthodox-Other Christian Relations. I believe it is necessary to have such chatting as we are having now. I also know that there are sections of the board where such chatting is NOT encouraged, and I won't do it there. Such areas are for strictly learning about Orthodoxy.

Please note that I have already sided with Orthodoxy once in the argument on the question of the Bishop of Rome having jurisdiction over all other Bishops. I am not inherently anti-Orthodox by ANY stretch of the imagination. But, be that as it may, I am glad to be here.


Offline Svartzorn

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 647
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek A.Diocese of B. Aires & S. America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #33 on: September 03, 2016, 01:34:56 PM »

Actually, you have just made my point. If Scripture formed the Church (ie, the Old Testament), then in a way, the NT was written in such a manner as not to contradict it, and, and the Church was born with the of the OT and used the OT as Scripture, and gave us the NT, as did the OT.

Probably the reason why it was deemed a curse and must be read under the careful scrutiny of the Fathers and the NT.
Death to the world dodos.

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #34 on: September 03, 2016, 01:40:19 PM »

Actually, you have just made my point. If Scripture formed the Church (ie, the Old Testament), then in a way, the NT was written in such a manner as not to contradict it, and, and the Church was born with the of the OT and used the OT as Scripture, and gave us the NT, as did the OT.

Probably the reason why it was deemed a curse and must be read under the careful scrutiny of the Fathers and the NT.

That sounds decidedly odd. I agree that all Scripture should be read in light of itself and with the Church Fathers (and with the Reformers even), but calling the OT a curse is a bit odd.

Online Cognomen

  • Ungrateful Biped
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,155
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Wanderer, but Antioch and All the East
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #35 on: September 03, 2016, 02:54:54 PM »

Actually, you have just made my point. If Scripture formed the Church (ie, the Old Testament), then in a way, the NT was written in such a manner as not to contradict it, and, and the Church was born with the of the OT and used the OT as Scripture, and gave us the NT, as did the OT.

Probably the reason why it was deemed a curse and must be read under the careful scrutiny of the Fathers and the NT.

That sounds decidedly odd. I agree that all Scripture should be read in light of itself and with the Church Fathers (and with the Reformers even), but calling the OT a curse is a bit odd.

I have never seen the Old Testament referred to as that either. And obviously there are OT readings, commentaries, and references, both liturgical and other, within the Orthodox Church. Perhaps Svartzorn can clarify his meaning.
If anything I have posted has been illuminating, please remember that I merely reflect the light of others...but also it's me.

Offline Svartzorn

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 647
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek A.Diocese of B. Aires & S. America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #36 on: September 03, 2016, 03:12:49 PM »
I may be wrong, but I came up with this when reading the pauline epistles, specially Galatians 3:10.
St. John Chrysostom gives a better insight, anyhow:

(...)

"For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse."

This is what he lays down, before proving it; and what is the proof? It is from the Law itself:—

Ver. 10, 11. "For it is written, Cursed is every one that continues not in all things that are written in the book of the Law to do them. Now that no man is justified by the Law is evident."

For all have sinned, and are under the curse. However he does not say this yet, lest he should seem to lay it down of himself, but here again establishes his point by a text which concisely states both points; that no man has fulfilled the Law, (wherefore they are under the curse,) and, that Faith justifies. What then is the text? It is in the book of the prophet Habakkuk, "The just shall live by faith," Habakkuk 2:4 which not only establishes the righteousness that is of Faith, but also that there is no salvation through the Law. As no one, he says, kept the Law, but all were under the curse, on account of transgression, an easy way was provided, that from Faith, which is in itself a strong proof that no man can be justified by the Law. For the prophet says not, "The just shall live by the Law," but, "by faith:"


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23103.htm

It also reads, from the same page:

For the Law requires not only Faith but works also, but grace saves and justifies by Faith. Ephesians 2:8

You see how he proves that they are under the curse who cleave to the Law, because it is impossible to fulfill it; next, how comes Faith to have this justifying power? For to this doctrine he already stood pledged, and now maintains it with great force of argument. The Law being too weak to lead man to righteousness, an effectual remedy was provided in Faith, which is the means of rendering that possible which was "impossible by the Law." Romans 8:3 Now as the Scripture says, "the just shall live by faith," thus repudiating salvation by the Law, and moreover as Abraham was justified by Faith, it is evident that its efficacy is very great.


Again, I may be wrong, and such passages regarding the Law as a curse, unfulfilling and incomplete were always a puzzle to me.
Death to the world dodos.

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 451
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #37 on: September 03, 2016, 03:33:55 PM »
I think he is speaking of the OT Torah (Law) as a curse, which Paul speaks of in Galatians.   

The Law is set before both the OT church and the NT church as BOTH a blessing and a curse.  See deut 11:26 and deut 30:19 etc.   The Torah was set as a "guardian "against an obstinate people and was either life or death....a blessing or a curse...at the same time.   It depended on their choice.

Christ Himself is the True Law (culmination, Fullfillment, completion).   He now stands as the definitive embodiment of the Law of Love, the cornerstone by which all will be judged.  The 10 commandments were a shadow (foreshadowing) and pointer to Him.

The - commandments were given...and then destroyed in wrath.   They were then reissued and Only then did the "Law" with all its ordinances get added to it get established in order to be a "guardian" for hard hearted Israel.   Those ordinances were a curse to a disobedient nation worshiping the golden calf and it required them to constantly slaughter the embodiments of Egyptian deities by immolation animals worshiped by Egypt so that they were constantly killing the very image of idols.  Since they could not take the "light yolk" of the 10 commandments, God cursed them with statutes and ordinances that weighed them down.   The "curse" does not refer to the 10 commandments per se, though there is something to be said about that in nuance.  It refers to the works that Israel constantly had to do to reign in their disobenient nature.   And still it did not work.   The ordinances became the focus instead of the reason they had to do them in the first place; I.e. Idolatry.  Soon they believed the ordinances saved them instead of being a punishment.

This is a very misunderstood and difficult aspect of Scripture, but one that when it clicks is pretty amazing.  The Law and Christ Himself  always represents both the promise of blessing or curse....a life filled with His presence, or devoid of it.   The True Law Hismelf never changes....He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.   only we change in relationship to the incarnated Law - the Logos.  He becomes the rock we break ourselves against...the judge.  He cancels the curse of the Law and its ordinances by becoming a curse.   In so doing He also shows himself to be the True Law.

The bottom line is the OT Law (Not the 10 commandments - but all the regulations added to it because of hard heartedness) were a curse on the people for worshipping the Golden calf.    Christ takes the curse upon Himself and pours out His Spirit on all flesh, stopping the need for an external guardian and allowing those who call on His Spirit to have the "law written on their hearts."  That's the short version.   There's much more to it.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2016, 03:44:49 PM by Onesimus »

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #38 on: September 03, 2016, 03:45:20 PM »
ONESIMUS, I think you are right. But that would not make the Old Testament itself a curse. Certainly the Law, and living under it, is a curse. And trying to survive the 613 Commandments of the would indeed be a Curse, and Christ did come to save us all from that Curse. So it is indeed a blessing and a curse.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,419
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #39 on: September 03, 2016, 03:52:55 PM »
St. Paul is not speaking only of Jewish law, but of man's need for law of any kind. Man is cursed by death and damnation and the difficulty of living -- yet he is really cursed by what leads to these ends -- which is his inability to keep himself from error and sin. The law is written to protect and separate man from his error -- yet the law is itself in error, especially in individual cases -- and the law does not succeed in restoring divine ability to man. It is a curse upon a curse, in other words -- meant as a cure, but in many ways only compounding the intractable underlying problem. But, as St. Paul also says in the same letter, law is the best man can do -- if it could save us, it would have. The passage can also be read as saying Holy Moses' law was the best man can do, and would have saved if any law could.

St. Paul in another epistle also speaks of law as blinding, poisoning, death-dealing. "Until this day remaineth the veil" on the mind's-eye that the Law brought. Only "in Christ" "the veil is done away." Only by the Spirit is the killing nature of Law made a contributing part of new life. (See II Cor 3.)
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #40 on: September 03, 2016, 03:59:26 PM »
Indeed. To quote our Luther, "This is most certainly true."  I think it fair to say that Martin Luther was very strong on the inability of the Law to save. Any law, the Jewish Law or otherwise. And it played very strongly into my conversion.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,419
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #41 on: September 03, 2016, 04:01:26 PM »
Actually, you have just made my point. If Scripture formed the Church (ie, the Old Testament), then in a way, the NT was written in such a manner as not to contradict it, and, and the Church was born with the of the OT and used the OT as Scripture, and gave us the NT, as did the OT.

No. Christ taught and the Apostles wrote what is eternally true in Heaven. They referred to the Prophets and Psalms where it was fitting. But there was no scheme to write new scripture a certain way that would create a dependence on the Hebrew scriptures.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,419
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #42 on: September 03, 2016, 04:03:17 PM »
Indeed. To quote our Luther, "This is most certainly true."  I think it fair to say that Martin Luther was very strong on the inability of the Law to save. Any law, the Jewish Law or otherwise. And it played very strongly into my conversion.

Dr. Luther said a great many things. A rebellious and restless mind unafraid to expose its own vagaries in thousands of books and sermons.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 451
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #43 on: September 03, 2016, 04:06:53 PM »
Truth.     :)

One thing...the Law is Holy and Good says Paul.   We must understand that what brings death is not the law which is good....but our inability to take hold of what is good and make it our own.  Just as in the Garden.  The tree is good.  So is the law.   But both are objects of wrath to the disobenient.    without God's grace and Spirit we are helpless...The Law is powerless only because until God becomes flesh We are powerless in the face of death which drives us to sin and Slavery out of fear.   The law is holy and good, and is meant to bring life, but it can't because of us.   So God becomes us, and changes our ability to respond to His commandments.  What we cannot do, he offers us as a gift to receive and particpte in.    His commandments are no on get burdensome but become light.   The Spirit makes this so.   But we can still quench the Spirit.   I know I often do.    :'(

« Last Edit: September 03, 2016, 04:10:21 PM by Onesimus »

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #44 on: September 03, 2016, 04:08:48 PM »
Actually, you have just made my point. If Scripture formed the Church (ie, the Old Testament), then in a way, the NT was written in such a manner as not to contradict it, and, and the Church was born with the of the OT and used the OT as Scripture, and gave us the NT, as did the OT.

No. Christ taught and the Apostles wrote what is eternally true in Heaven. They referred to the Prophets and Psalms where it was fitting. But there was no scheme to write new scripture a certain way that would create a dependence on the Hebrew scriptures.

Well, I shall agree that they wrote what was true in Heaven. But it did not contradict the OT, because that was ALSO what was true in Heaven. I guess that creates a question of what comes first, chicken or egg. Obviously Heaven does. But God revealed to all the Holy Writers of the Bible the Truth. and HE knew that the New would not contradict the Old.

I will agree that Luther had a restless mind. I am not so sure that "rebellious" is a fair term. Perhaps "questing" might be more apropos.

Quote
One thing...the Law is Holy and Good says Paul.   We must understand that what brings death is not the law which is good....but our inability to take hold of what is good and make it our own.  Just as in the Garden.  The tree is good.  So is the law.   But both are objects of wrath to the disobenient.    without God's grace and Spirit we are helpless...The Law is powerless only because until God becomes flesh We are powerless in the face of death which rives us to sin and Slavery out of fear.   The law is holy and good, and is meant to bring life, but it can't because of us.   So God becomes us, and changes our ability to respond to His commandments.

I totally agree.

Offline Svartzorn

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 647
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek A.Diocese of B. Aires & S. America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #45 on: September 03, 2016, 04:11:57 PM »
Thanks Onesimus and Porter, but I think I'll still have to scratch my head a lot on this particular matter ;D
Death to the world dodos.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,419
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #46 on: September 03, 2016, 04:37:37 PM »
Truth.     :)

One thing...the Law is Holy and Good says Paul.   We must understand that what brings death is not the law which is good....but our inability to take hold of what is good and make it our own.  Just as in the Garden.  The tree is good.  So is the law.   But both are objects of wrath to the disobenient.    without God's grace and Spirit we are helpless...The Law is powerless only because until God becomes flesh We are powerless in the face of death which drives us to sin and Slavery out of fear.   The law is holy and good, and is meant to bring life, but it can't because of us.   So God becomes us, and changes our ability to respond to His commandments.  What we cannot do, he offers us as a gift to receive and particpte in.    His commandments are no on get burdensome but become light.   The Spirit makes this so.   But we can still quench the Spirit.   I know I often do.    :'(

About the Garden:  Our Parents were tempted by the knowledge of good and evil; without this knowledge, Law would be both meaningless and unnecessary to man.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 451
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #47 on: September 03, 2016, 04:52:24 PM »
   The Logos Himself would still remain Law...the image by which we would be eternally conformed to.    The Fathers express that Adam and Eve were still capable of theosis which would eternally transform them "from glory to glory."   They were not ideally perfect, but in communion in which they could and would eternally be becoming what they were meant to be; the likeness to the Logos, whose image is inexhaustible.   They would always be imperfectly perfect if they were in communion with Him, because His strength would be manifest in their weakness and lift them to greater heights. Further, the Fathers say that they would have eaten from the tree of knowledge at the proper time through His blessing.

Thus, He is properly The Law.  Logos, amongst its many meanings has at its core the Law of all being.  All other "Law" we see is a dim reflection of the Truth Himself.   

The Law always has meaning when we understand it as a pedagogy of the Logos Himself.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2016, 04:53:25 PM by Onesimus »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,419
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #48 on: September 03, 2016, 04:59:05 PM »
There is a way to perceive Christ as Law since we, after all, were cursed and do experience Law and its necessity. I don't think, however, that Logos is primarily a synonym for Law or that Christ is inherently Law. Law is a human flaw, if also an important human aspiration. It may have some value as a metaphor for certain uses of the Truth. What mankind requires, and what Christ always was and will be, is a Savior. That is interesting patristic speculation on the "proper" future use of the Tree; I don't find it convincing or particularly helpful.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Daedelus1138

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 985
  • Faith: Lutheran
  • Jurisdiction: ELCA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #49 on: September 04, 2016, 01:51:18 AM »
Welcome to the forum.

I currently go to an ELCA church.  I also have experience as an Orthodox catechumen, but I was not received into the church for pastoral reasons.  I grew up in a mainline Protestant church (Methodist), and I've never been part of conservative evangelical religious culture.  My conversion to Orthodoxy from irreligion did not change that (in fact it made me even more critical of that culture), but there are parts of the US where that ethos is dominating the life of the Orthodox Church.

It's true Lutherans, even those in the mainline, have a general belief in the real presence.  Which in some ways can be very counter-cultural in the US, being surrounded by Protestant churches that effectively deny it. 

However, I'm not sure I'd call Lutheranism catholic in an unqualified way.  That is one stream of Lutheranism but there is another stream that is much more focused on a hermeneutic of discontinuity and radicalism.  One that tends to see Luther as the locus and interpreter of all things Christian, too.   These are some of the same folks who often have the most negative attitudes towards the 3rd use of the Law, sanctification, and so forth.  Often simply applying the Lutheran epithet "pietist" in response to any criticism of religious nominalism.

The juridical focus of Lutheranism is a difficult area for me. It's not a major emphasis at the parish I attend (where the pastor frequently quotes from Catholic authors like Merton or Nouen), but its more prominent in other Lutheran churches, even within the ELCA.  Lutherans are very wary of mystical theology, yet mystical theology is the only thing that makes Christianity more than wooden dogmatism or moralism.

Honestly, I'm skeptical that Lutheranism in the US has much of a future, especially the highly scholastic sort common among conservative Lutherans.    Modern westerners have more courage than to be terrorized by religion into filling pews.  What is missing from a lot of Lutheranism is mystical vision, what the Orthodox call theoria.  The problem for us now days isn't pride or despair so much as sloth (obliviousness to spiritual realities), and Lutheranism really can't speak to this as effectively in the language of the Confessions.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2016, 01:53:16 AM by Daedelus1138 »
"I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess."   - Martin Luther

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 451
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #50 on: September 04, 2016, 02:11:59 AM »
There is a way to perceive Christ as Law since we, after all, were cursed and do experience Law and its necessity. I don't think, however, that Logos is primarily a synonym for Law or that Christ is inherently Law. Law is a human flaw, if also an important human aspiration. It may have some value as a metaphor for certain uses of the Truth. What mankind requires, and what Christ always was and will be, is a Savior. That is interesting patristic speculation on the "proper" future use of the Tree; I don't find it convincing or particularly helpful.

Is Christ the Fullfillment of the Law?   What does that mean?   I propose to you it means much more than you may currently realize or be willing to accept.   There is a Law of Love.   That law is not a response to a human problem.  Christ Himself is that Law, and all creation is defined in relation to Him as Logos, first principle, image and telos of all that is.  God is Love prior to the human problem. While the codified law of Moses may have been a gift of grace by God to "guard" a wayward people from total self-destruction, and as a response to a human problem, it still remains that Christ in His person is the true culmination of the Law.   The cosmos received its savior in the Law of Love incarnate.   I trust that in time you will find this throughout Scripture. 

Or not.  It's not an easy idea, its rather abstract from our understanding of "law" which we don't commonly recognize as prophetically referencing Christ Himself.   We have no problem doing it with all kinds of other things in the OT, but we don't see or want to talk about the connection between the "shadow/foreshadow" of the law delivered to Moses, and "the Law written on our hearts" in Christ.    The Law is only written on our hearts because the Spirit of Love indwells us and writes Himself on our hearts.   

Just as the sacrifices of the OT foreshadowed Christ but were incapable of bringing salvation (Hebrews) so too is the Law the foreshadowing is of Christ as the Fullfillment of the Law., which becomes written on our hearts in the Spirit.   We don't have dissonance about saying he is the Lamb...but we have dissonance bout saying he is the Law?   I think we suffer from about 500 + years  of a false law/grace dichotomy which has made us not want to equate Christ to the Law, which Paul and Christ Himself had no problem doing.

"The entire Law is fulfilled in a single decree: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”   

Who entire law is fulfilled in Christ., who is the decree.


I'll be writing a paper on this within the year, I find this a fascinating topic.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2016, 02:28:34 AM by Onesimus »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,478
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #51 on: September 04, 2016, 03:03:55 AM »
Hey all:

New member here. Thought I would post. I have a beef, of sorts. Not with Orthodoxy. But just in general with people's (any people, people in general), view of things.

Welcome to the forum, Diego!

I have a soft spot for Lutheranism and it would be nice if the churches could reunite.

My request is that instead of making generalizations about Orthodox or about people on our forum, you quote specific posts made by individuals.

Quote
First you have people who have the idea that the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are in some way more Catholic than the rest of us. I guess to a degree one can almost acknowledge that. None of them have been influenced by the Protestant Reformation in any sense. But where my REAL beef comes in is when Roman Catholics designate Anglicans as "more Catholic than Lutherans."
OK, here is what I think you might be sensing. Quoting church fathers was important to Luther and studying patristics important to Lutheran theology. But it's essential in Orthodoxy to study Christian religious tradition outside the Bible. Never mind for the moment that it is Roman Catholics who talk about the "infallible magisterium" of Tradition. In emphasizing Sola Scriptura, an impression comes off that Lutheran thought tends to downgrade the essentiality of extraBiblical Tradition to Christianity.

Perhaps even more important a difference is that all the churches you mentioned teach sacerdotalism and apostolic succession. I understand that the Anglicans' view of it is weak, and that Lutheran bishops maintain succession from the apostles in some places. But when Lutherans changed their view of priests into one of non-priests who were a ministerial version of the laity, it made a big blow against the Orthodox understanding of the Church as an organized institution that stands in visible continuity with the apostles. I see the Lutheran arguments about sacerdotalism and succession not being essential to Christianity. But in any case they were established at an early time (1st-2nd century AD) and the Lutheran change can affect the Orthodox view of Lutheranism.

Here I am addressing the sense you have and why you might be perceiving a difference. On some other issues I think Lutheranism can be closer to Orthodoxy than most or all the other groups you mentioned. For example, unlike OOs and Nestorians, Lutherans accept Chalcedon and the early Ecumenical Councils, and unlike the RCs, the Lutherans do not claim that the Pope has supremacy over us and has a unique power of infallibility. And like you said about Anglicanism, many Anglicans do not accept an objective presence in Eucharist, but Lutheranism and Orthodoxy do.

Quote
I realise that there are issues over the fact that some Lutherans don't have Bishops, and some do. Of course, some answer that by saying what Luther said, that Episkopoi and Presbyteroi were one office in the Early Church. Some LCMS clergy and members like to say that our Pastors are all Bishops. I don't know if I would go that far. But I am bothered by the fact that someone who theoretically depends on subjectivists ideas about the Eucharistic Feast can be considered more Catholic than me.
If someone says "Anglicans are Catholic, Lutherans are not Catholic", they are not speaking for the EO Church. Judging who is more or less "Catholic" of those two groups seems very subjective from an EO Point of view.

Cranmer and Ridley, founders of Anglicanism, were burned by Catholic rulers as heretics. Luther and his main co-founders on the other hand escaped their grasp. So don't be too infuriated or jealous of Anglican foundations.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2016, 03:13:25 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #52 on: September 04, 2016, 09:27:02 AM »
Diego, it seems your main beef is with the Roman Catholics and not the Orthodox.  You do realize this is an Orthodox forum?

I think the main reason warm relations historically existed between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, which did not exist between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy, is because the high Church Anglicans, who believed in full-on transubstantiation including the reservation of the Sacrament, which most Lutherans reject, even if they believe in the corporeal presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, desired a reconciliation and reunion wherein the Church of England would have entered into communion with the Orthodox. 

Alas, the presence of the Low Churchmen, who rejected all of the above as "popery," meant that was never going to happen.

However, the Anglicans did spur the West into action in the 1930s against the extermination of the Russian Orthodox and may well have saved millions of lives.   They were also there in the Genocides of 1915, assisting, and are there now, albeit with much less influence, but they have not failed to sound the clarion about the attempted extermination of middle Eastern Christians.

~

As far as the LCMS is concerned, however, I will be the first to admit that there is some truth, that you do have a good grasp of Eucharistic doctrine, and one thing of great benefit is that your Lutheran Service Book follows the Eastern Orthodox liturgy word for word in several places.  This is the result of influence from the Swedish Massbok of 1942 on the 1959 Lutheran Hymnal and Servicebook, which together with the old 1941 Lutheran Hymnal (which you may know as the "Red Hymnal") was the basis for the Lutheran Book of Worship, "the Green Hymnal", which started as an LCMS project, although the LCMS rejected the finished work and published its own recension, the "Blue Hymnal", Lutheran Worship, and the Lutheran Service Book represents a revision of the Blue Hymnal with stronger influence from the 1941 Red Hymnal.

But you basically begin Divine Services nos. 1 and 2 with an extremely abbreviated form of the Litany of Peace, and you use nearly the full Litany sans the intercession to the Theotokos and the Saints at Compline, and following the trend of Anglicanism in recent years, also start Vespers with Phos Hilarion.

So on that basis, if we say Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, your faith is very close to ours.  Unlike the Anglicans you do not have the "Prayer of St. John Chrysostom" (the Prayer of the Third Antiphon) in the LSB as far as I can tell, but of recently published Protestant hymnals, the LSB is, without question, the most Orthodox-like hymnal to be published by a major Protestant denomination since the 1960s, and is also the most Orthodox-like hymnal to be published using contemporary rather than Elizabethan liturgical English.

As an Orthodox, I will say, there is very little in the LSB that offends my sensibilities or strikes me as wrong.  One obvious problem for us would be the lack of an epiclesis in the Communion Service, as we believe the Epiclesis and not the Words of Institution to be consecratory, and at least one ancient liturgy, that of Ss. Addai and Mari, lacks an unambiguous Institution Narrative (and several Syriac Orthodox anaphoras have the Narrative but paraphrase the words, for example, the Anaphora of St. Dionysius Bar Salibi).
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #53 on: September 04, 2016, 09:58:25 AM »
WGW, I am of course aware of this being an Orthodox forum. Unfortunately I am a bit short on time now, but I would like to do some more comparison work between the LSB and Eastern Liturgy.

I do agree that among High Church Anglicans, there was ALWAYS an interest in Orthodoxy, particularly among the Non-Juring Bishops after the Stuarts were forced into exile in 1688.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not condemning Anglicanism straight out. I still use the BCP 1979 in any one of three different languages of choice for my Daily Prayer, which I am able to do 5 times a day (I do use Prime from a Lutheran source). I usually choose English, but have the option of Spanish (which I speak fluently, and in which I have a copy of the Prayer Book in print), or Latin (which I know reasonably well for ecclesiastical purposes, and in which I have a Prayer Book on computer files).

I have to run, Good Man, but I shall be back after services, of course. I have some matters to which I must attend, but after that I shall come online and see if you have posted back. Like I said in another thread, I like you Easterners. I think we can communicate in a way that you can't do with Roman Catholics on the one hand, or liberals on the other. I may not always agree with you on points of theology, but I think we can speak well with each other, and with respect. Got to run. Take care.

Online Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 601
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #54 on: September 04, 2016, 10:46:10 AM »
You are not catholic if you do not hold the unchanged faith that has always been believed by all orthodox christians in all times and all places, starting from pentecost where the full & complete revelation was given, as Christ says, the gates of hell cannot prevail over His Church and as Apostle Paul says - if anyone will preach any other gospel let him be anathema...

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,478
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #55 on: September 04, 2016, 12:36:27 PM »
Diego,

It is nice that WGW has come here. He is a former Methodist and intelligent and nice. However, I don't think he is saying that Anglicanism is per se closer to Orthodoxy, only that it has had closer relations. It's true that there has been an Anglo-Catholic faction within Anglicanism that is quite interested in close relations with Orthodox, as when he writes:


I think the main reason warm relations historically existed between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, which did not exist between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy, is because the high Church Anglicans, who believed in full-on transubstantiation including the reservation of the Sacrament,
=====================
WGW,

You write:

Quote
which most Lutherans reject, even if they believe in the corporeal presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, desired a reconciliation and reunion wherein the Church of England would have entered into communion with the Orthodox.
Most High Church Anglicans don't believe in Transubstantiation in my experience. In fact, I think only maybe half of AngloCatholics do. I have discussed this a lot with them.
Lutherans do practice host reservation.
You say High Church Anglicans desire a reconciliation, but the truth is that RCs, High Church Anglicans, and Lutherans all desire reconciliation, and yet in each case there are major differences between us. The Thyateira confession discusses differences with Anglicanism. You can see one section on this here: http://philorthodox.blogspot.com/2016/05/anglicanism-and-eastern-orthodoxy.html?view=flipcard


Quote
However, the Anglicans did spur the West into action in the 1930s against the extermination of the Russian Orthodox and may well have saved millions of lives.   They were also there in the Genocides of 1915, assisting, and are there now, albeit with much less influence, but they have not failed to sound the clarion about the attempted extermination of middle Eastern Christians.
It looks like here you are making a kind of historical social or geopolitical argument. However, Anglican relations on this are hardly unanimous or so simple. How about the Crimean War where Anglican England invaded Orthodox Russia to protect Muslim Turkey's hold in Eastern Europe, where they controlled the lives of millions of Orthodox subjects and had repressed them for centuries? How about the English role in affecting the very controversial religious direction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the post-WWI era (particularly in the early 1920s)?  How about Anglican missionizing of Orthodox in the 19th c.?


Quote

As an Orthodox, I will say, there is very little in the LSB that offends my sensibilities or strikes me as wrong.  One obvious problem for us would be the lack of an epiclesis in the Communion Service, as we believe the Epiclesis and not the Words of Institution to be consecratory,
Lutherans have had a trend, especially in the last 2 centuries of introducing epicleses. I think some Scandinavian Lutherans may have always kept it.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,419
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #56 on: September 04, 2016, 02:36:35 PM »
There is a way to perceive Christ as Law since we, after all, were cursed and do experience Law and its necessity. I don't think, however, that Logos is primarily a synonym for Law or that Christ is inherently Law. Law is a human flaw, if also an important human aspiration. It may have some value as a metaphor for certain uses of the Truth. What mankind requires, and what Christ always was and will be, is a Savior. That is interesting patristic speculation on the "proper" future use of the Tree; I don't find it convincing or particularly helpful.

Is Christ the Fullfillment of the Law?   What does that mean?   I propose to you it means much more than you may currently realize or be willing to accept.   There is a Law of Love.   That law is not a response to a human problem.  Christ Himself is that Law, and all creation is defined in relation to Him as Logos, first principle, image and telos of all that is.  God is Love prior to the human problem. While the codified law of Moses may have been a gift of grace by God to "guard" a wayward people from total self-destruction, and as a response to a human problem, it still remains that Christ in His person is the true culmination of the Law.   The cosmos received its savior in the Law of Love incarnate.   I trust that in time you will find this throughout Scripture. 

Or not.  It's not an easy idea, its rather abstract from our understanding of "law" which we don't commonly recognize as prophetically referencing Christ Himself.   We have no problem doing it with all kinds of other things in the OT, but we don't see or want to talk about the connection between the "shadow/foreshadow" of the law delivered to Moses, and "the Law written on our hearts" in Christ.    The Law is only written on our hearts because the Spirit of Love indwells us and writes Himself on our hearts.   

Just as the sacrifices of the OT foreshadowed Christ but were incapable of bringing salvation (Hebrews) so too is the Law the foreshadowing is of Christ as the Fullfillment of the Law., which becomes written on our hearts in the Spirit.   We don't have dissonance about saying he is the Lamb...but we have dissonance bout saying he is the Law?   I think we suffer from about 500 + years  of a false law/grace dichotomy which has made us not want to equate Christ to the Law, which Paul and Christ Himself had no problem doing.

"The entire Law is fulfilled in a single decree: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”   

Who entire law is fulfilled in Christ., who is the decree.


I'll be writing a paper on this within the year, I find this a fascinating topic.

Do laws prefigure Christ? Certainly, since they epitomize the struggle of man with himself and toward God. If they are very good laws, like Moses', they also prefigure his justice, truth, mercy, and so forth. Are Law, Logos, and Love synonyms? Not at all. Is it Law that created us, that saves us, that will be with us in Heaven? Only by some poetic stretch. Christ fulfills all laws because the Logos alone can open mens' eyes to and give men the means to do what is right in any situation. However, calling the Logos Judge would be eternally appropriate.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Daedelus1138

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 985
  • Faith: Lutheran
  • Jurisdiction: ELCA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #57 on: September 04, 2016, 05:16:19 PM »
The NT itself distinguishes between the Torah and the grace and truth that came through Christ in John 1:17.

"the Law = bad" is not the Lutheran attitude in general, though that may be the tendency in certain 20th century modernist, existentializing strains of Lutheranism.  And it's present in certain forms of Evangelicalism.  But it's not decidedly Lutheran.

There are three functions of the Law according to Lutherans:

1) civil righteousness and restraining evil
2) conviction of sin (hence the saying, the Law accuses)
3) guide for Christian living.  This is more controversial.  Some would just say it is 1 + 2 applied to those with faith, so they would deny a distinct third use.  Others would say this is an invitation rather than a strict duty, per se.

An example of the third use would be: "because God has forgiven your sins, you are now free to forgive those who have wronged you".
« Last Edit: September 04, 2016, 05:20:29 PM by Daedelus1138 »
"I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess."   - Martin Luther

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,197
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #58 on: September 04, 2016, 05:27:59 PM »
Where does  Tradition come from? Well, Scripture.

Citation?

None needed. Its reality. If it were not for Scripture, we would not have anything, not even the basics. For example, the Moral Law is of Moses. It was recorded in Scripture. Ergo, without it, where would the morals of the human race been without Scripture?

SVARTZORN, PLEASE do not ask silly questions.It is all three, the which answer you knew perfectly well. By Grace Alone, Through Faith Alone, in Scripture Alone. They are all linked. TTMACRO, I think you are right, but keep in mind that we belive that Christ went down into hell also.

RAPHACAM, as far as Tradition coming from Scripture, in a sense I see your point. And insofar as it doesn't violate Scripture, I've no problem with it. To me, it doesn't have to be explicitly endorsed by them to be ok.
Scripture comes from Tradition. Not the reverse. Scripture itself shows so. It was passes on for centuries before Moses, and formed the Church decades before the first Gospel or Epistle was written.

Actually, you have just made my point. If Scripture formed the Church (ie, the Old Testament), then in a way, the NT was written in such a manner as not to contradict it, and, and the Church was born with the of the OT and used the OT as Scripture, and gave us the NT, as did the OT.
The Tradition was passed on between Adam until Moses.

Like I said, Scripture comes from Tradition. Not the reverse. The OT is read in the light of the Tradition of the Church from the Baptism of St. John until the preaching of St. Paul. Not the reverse.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #59 on: September 04, 2016, 06:04:00 PM »
Diego,

It is nice that WGW has come here. He is a former Methodist and intelligent and nice. However, I don't think he is saying that Anglicanism is per se closer to Orthodoxy, only that it has had closer relations. It's true that there has been an Anglo-Catholic faction within Anglicanism that is quite interested in close relations with Orthodox, as when he writes:


I think the main reason warm relations historically existed between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, which did not exist between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy, is because the high Church Anglicans, who believed in full-on transubstantiation including the reservation of the Sacrament,
=====================
WGW,

You write:

Quote
which most Lutherans reject, even if they believe in the corporeal presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, desired a reconciliation and reunion wherein the Church of England would have entered into communion with the Orthodox.
Most High Church Anglicans don't believe in Transubstantiation in my experience. In fact, I think only maybe half of AngloCatholics do. I have discussed this a lot with them.
Lutherans do practice host reservation.
You say High Church Anglicans desire a reconciliation, but the truth is that RCs, High Church Anglicans, and Lutherans all desire reconciliation, and yet in each case there are major differences between us. The Thyateira confession discusses differences with Anglicanism. You can see one section on this here: http://philorthodox.blogspot.com/2016/05/anglicanism-and-eastern-orthodoxy.html?view=flipcard


Quote
However, the Anglicans did spur the West into action in the 1930s against the extermination of the Russian Orthodox and may well have saved millions of lives.   They were also there in the Genocides of 1915, assisting, and are there now, albeit with much less influence, but they have not failed to sound the clarion about the attempted extermination of middle Eastern Christians.
It looks like here you are making a kind of historical social or geopolitical argument. However, Anglican relations on this are hardly unanimous or so simple. How about the Crimean War where Anglican England invaded Orthodox Russia to protect Muslim Turkey's hold in Eastern Europe, where they controlled the lives of millions of Orthodox subjects and had repressed them for centuries? How about the English role in affecting the very controversial religious direction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the post-WWI era (particularly in the early 1920s)?  How about Anglican missionizing of Orthodox in the 19th c.?


Quote

As an Orthodox, I will say, there is very little in the LSB that offends my sensibilities or strikes me as wrong.  One obvious problem for us would be the lack of an epiclesis in the Communion Service, as we believe the Epiclesis and not the Words of Institution to be consecratory,
Lutherans have had a trend, especially in the last 2 centuries of introducing epicleses. I think some Scandinavian Lutherans may have always kept it.

You are correct regarding the epiclesis; IIRC the Archdiocese of Malmo's original Lutheran liturgy preserved both an Epiklesis and Holy Unction.  In Sweden it was preserved continually in different parts of the church.  But the German Lutherans were always against it based on the opinions of Martin Luther, and one of the reasons the LCMS rejected the Lutheran Book of Worship and produced its own edited version, the "Blue hymnal," is that the LBW, or "Green Hymnal" contained optional Eucharistic prayers to be said by the pastor in addition to the Institution narrative.   It wasnt just the Epiclesis that Luther objected to, but basically the entire Anaphora,mthe Canon of the Mass, basically, everything that a priest prays silently in the Roman or Byzantine Rite liturgy.

 In the Oriental rites conversely, both OO and Assyrian, with, I think, the exception of the Armenians, much of the anaphora is prayed audibly and the chanting of it forms a substantiall part of the Eucharistic service.  I am certain Luther was ignorant of these rites; much of what he did in terms of communion in both kinds, the introduction of the vernacular alongside, but not completely replacing, the liturgical language, et cetera, was in line with Orthodox, particularly Oriental Orthodox, tradition.  Inwonder had Luther had the opportunity to visit the Oriental Orthodox, if he would have understood the liturgical meaning and function of the anaphora, and reconsidered his disastrous decision to delete the Canon of the Mass.

Luther was certainly vloser to Orthodoxy than Cranmer; I find Luther a tragic figure, a man who started successfully a much needed reform, but then fell into extreme delusion and deemed himself competent not only to delete books from the Athanasian canon (he was forced by his fellow churchmen to translate the "antilegomenna", Hebrews, Jude, James and Revelation, but did so begrudgingly, and placed them in the back of his bible), but also to interpolate the word "alone" into the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, on his own authority.  This combined with his extreme anti-Semitism and his proclivity towards the use of vile scatalogical insults has the effect of making him look quite unholy even in comparison to the less accomplished of Orthodox bishops, or in comparison to Jan Hus or John Wesley, however, he comes across as a pillar of Orthodoxy and a bastion of personal holiness and piety in comparison to Cranmer and Calvin, who are not likeable figures in any sense (I have yet to personally meet an Anglican who likes Cranmer; Calvin's admirers baffle me).  But, he did at least insist on the real physical presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, and he also correctly identified Calvinism as Nestorian.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #60 on: September 04, 2016, 06:12:10 PM »
Where does  Tradition come from? Well, Scripture.

Citation?

None needed. Its reality. If it were not for Scripture, we would not have anything, not even the basics. For example, the Moral Law is of Moses. It was recorded in Scripture. Ergo, without it, where would the morals of the human race been without Scripture?

SVARTZORN, PLEASE do not ask silly questions.It is all three, the which answer you knew perfectly well. By Grace Alone, Through Faith Alone, in Scripture Alone. They are all linked. TTMACRO, I think you are right, but keep in mind that we belive that Christ went down into hell also.

RAPHACAM, as far as Tradition coming from Scripture, in a sense I see your point. And insofar as it doesn't violate Scripture, I've no problem with it. To me, it doesn't have to be explicitly endorsed by them to be ok.
Scripture comes from Tradition. Not the reverse. Scripture itself shows so. It was passes on for centuries before Moses, and formed the Church decades before the first Gospel or Epistle was written.

Actually, you have just made my point. If Scripture formed the Church (ie, the Old Testament), then in a way, the NT was written in such a manner as not to contradict it, and, and the Church was born with the of the OT and used the OT as Scripture, and gave us the NT, as did the OT.
The Tradition was passed on between Adam until Moses.

Like I said, Scripture comes from Tradition. Not the reverse. The OT is read in the light of the Tradition of the Church from the Baptism of St. John until the preaching of St. Paul. Not the reverse.

You are quite right.  Also, since the Scriptures lack any kind of integral canon within the books of Scripture themselves, the question of canonicity is entirely a matter of tradition.

One thing that baffles me are people who reject the teachings of St. Athanasius on monasticism, theosis, the Incarnation, and so on, while clinging unwaveringly to the 27 book canon of the New Testament he put forward.  The Seventh Day Adventists are the worst at it.

Martin Luther was at least semi-consistent; in rejecting the authority of Holy Tradition (without bothering to look Eastward for a form of that Tradition uncorrupted by Papal errors), he took on himself the authority to edit scripture as he saw fit.  It was only the sensibility of Luther's fellow reformers which spared Lutheranism from having a 23 book New Testament.

But on this basis, it is easy to see why you have some ultra-liberal neo Gnostic clergy in the ELCA, the ECUSA, the UCC (both the Canadian and the Congregationalist ones) and other fallen mainline Protestant churches taking it upon themselves to read Gnostic scriptures or the Quran in the liturgy.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 451
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #61 on: September 04, 2016, 07:48:42 PM »
The NT itself distinguishes between the Torah and the grace and truth that came through Christ in John 1:17.

You can't be serious.




Offline maneki_neko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #62 on: October 12, 2016, 11:22:03 PM »
As for Catholicity, I identify it as any Church that maintains the three Creeds (or less in the case of the Assyrian Church & the Oriental Orthodox), has valid clergy, & orthodox belief.

Please forgive me Diego and everyone else, because I am woefully ignorant of Lutherans and new to Orthodox ideas, but I have some questions.

1. What is "valid clergy" in Lutheranism? As I understand it in Orthodoxy, valid ordination must be performed by someone in the line of physical Apostolic succession (at a minimum).
2. How do you define "orthodox belief"? It's my understanding that both east and west prior to the Great Schism agreed that the 7 Ecumenical councils were valid (I could be wrong as I don't know much about this time, if so please inform me). Isn't it "unorthodox" to decide 1500 years later they're not all valid and only the first 3 are? I guess I don't understand why it's valid to get upset about women priests, etc. when it's okay to reject 7 Ecumenical councils, so some light shed on this would be helpful.
3. Is your WELS in communion with those Lutheran branches you cited as having incorrect beliefs?

Thanks
« Last Edit: October 12, 2016, 11:22:59 PM by maneki_neko »
主哀れめよ!

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,256
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #63 on: October 13, 2016, 12:39:47 AM »
Diego, if the LCMS is more catholic than the Anglicans, where are your bishops?
"Homosexuality has been a popular topic, but not Satanic trances."

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline maneki_neko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #64 on: October 13, 2016, 01:21:39 AM »
I'm not sure why I can't edit my post so here's another one;

Diego I apologize for not catching earlier that you are LCMS and not WELS.

JamesRottnek, I believe he touched upon it somewhat here;


I realise that there are issues over the fact that some Lutherans don't have Bishops, and some do. Of course, some answer that by saying what Luther said, that Episkopoi and Presbyteroi were one office in the Early Church. Some LCMS clergy and members like to say that our Pastors are all Bishops. I don't know if I would go that far. But I am bothered by the fact that someone who theoretically depends on subjectivists ideas about the Eucharistic Feast can be considered more Catholic than me.

Relating to another potential error in mine (in question #2) I may be confusing 'creeds' with 'counsels' so someone step in and help me out if they're different things. Supposing Lutherans do accept all 7 counsels, is your view of Bishops also traditional? It seems from your quote as if it isn't and there's disagreement on that point. So I suppose I still have the same question; why is it okay to embrace a non-traditional belief in one area (in this case the way Bishop is defined) but not okay in other areas?
主哀れめよ!

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,256
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #65 on: October 13, 2016, 01:40:54 AM »
Your last paragraph is precisely my point, maneki.  Diego has some bizarre need for his church to be considered catholic by people he isn't in communion with, and so he is ignoring plain facts.

Like the fact that the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholics, and even Anglicans all consider bishops to be an essential element of the church.  So much so, that the Roman Catholics consider it an essential characteristic of a Church, for them to actually consider you a real Church (as opposed to an ecclesial community).

The Anglican Church, likewise, won't enter into a full communion agreement with a church that lacks bishops (in fact, when the Episcopalians entered into full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church, there was a huge debate about whether or not it was possible, since the ECLA accepted that a pastor could be ordained by other pastors, as opposed to a bishop - something that they had to promise never to do again, in order for the agreement to be entered into).

I find it incredibly strange that he feels such a strong need to attack the catholicity of the Anglican Communion, while defending that of the LCMS, despite the fact that none of the churches he would consider catholic (save his own) would find an absence of bishops acceptable.
"Homosexuality has been a popular topic, but not Satanic trances."

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #66 on: October 13, 2016, 10:23:11 AM »
Actually, lets make something clear. This is an intellectual exercise for me. Nothing more. I don't ultimately care WHAT you think of me or my Church. The fact that all of you put so much emphasis on Bishops is rather amusing to me. I was raised Catholic and Anglican. The Anglican Church calls my Church out for not having Bishops even whilst ordaining homosexuals to that august office. The OO call us out for the same reason even whilst not comprehending the Two Natures of Jesus Christ. ALL of you are Synergystic, which borders on Semi-Pelagianism, if it does not actually reach that point. So, criticise me as much as you like. I am fine with that. But DON'T misstate my motives, or my beliefs. No. Contrary to what you may choose to think, I am NOT here to make you Lutherans. But I WON'T stand for you to misstate, or outright lie, about my beliefs or intentions. Thank you, please!

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,332
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #67 on: October 13, 2016, 10:25:36 AM »
Contrary to what you may choose to think, I am NOT here to make you Lutherans.

Right, you are here to play Judy to wgw's Punch.
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,106
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #68 on: October 13, 2016, 11:16:17 AM »
The OO call us out for the same reason even whilst not comprehending the Two Natures of Jesus Christ.

This is one among many instances of you saying things reflecting your abysmal ignorance. 
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,564
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #69 on: October 13, 2016, 12:46:28 PM »
Contrary to what you may choose to think, I am NOT here to make you Lutherans.

Right, you are here to play Judy to wgw's Punch.

LOL, speaking of Punches ...

I would love OC.net's Punch to return and talk Lutheranism with Diego. That would be a fun discussion.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,478
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #70 on: October 13, 2016, 02:21:50 PM »
Which church would Orthodox feel most comfortable attending if there was no Orthodox one near them- lutheran, catholic, Anglican, another denomination, or there is no difference.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,478
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #71 on: October 13, 2016, 02:24:28 PM »
Diego, if the LCMS is more catholic than the Anglicans, where are your bishops?

In all fairness, the Old Believers did not have bishops either but would be more orthodox than anglicans.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline seekeroftruth777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,135
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #72 on: October 13, 2016, 04:13:39 PM »
How are we all semi-pelagian? Care to elaborate, I've Calvinists use this charge (then everything pelagian to them) but this new coming from Lutherans.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,881
  • Excelsior
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #73 on: October 13, 2016, 06:11:00 PM »
Actually, lets make something clear. This is an intellectual exercise for me. Nothing more. I don't ultimately care WHAT you think of me or my Church. The fact that all of you put so much emphasis on Bishops is rather amusing to me. I was raised Catholic and Anglican. The Anglican Church calls my Church out for not having Bishops even whilst ordaining homosexuals to that august office. The OO call us out for the same reason even whilst not comprehending the Two Natures of Jesus Christ. ALL of you are Synergystic, which borders on Semi-Pelagianism, if it does not actually reach that point. So, criticise me as much as you like. I am fine with that. But DON'T misstate my motives, or my beliefs. No. Contrary to what you may choose to think, I am NOT here to make you Lutherans. But I WON'T stand for you to misstate, or outright lie, about my beliefs or intentions. Thank you, please!

Who you callin' Pelagian?
My only weakness is, well, never mind

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #74 on: October 13, 2016, 06:13:16 PM »
Diego, if the LCMS is more catholic than the Anglicans, where are your bishops?

In all fairness, the Old Believers did not have bishops either but would be more orthodox than anglicans.

That's debateable.  I am not at all prepared to speculate on the Orthodoxy of the priestless Old Believers vs. the Anglicans; that sounds like an unprofitable game of theological Russian Roulette with a revolver that is quite possibly fully loaded.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #75 on: October 13, 2016, 06:20:10 PM »
Note that I have no relation to Diego.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2016, 06:23:50 PM by wgw »
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #76 on: October 13, 2016, 06:21:13 PM »
Your last paragraph is precisely my point, maneki.  Diego has some bizarre need for his church to be considered catholic by people he isn't in communion with, and so he is ignoring plain facts.

Like the fact that the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholics, and even Anglicans all consider bishops to be an essential element of the church.  So much so, that the Roman Catholics consider it an essential characteristic of a Church, for them to actually consider you a real Church (as opposed to an ecclesial community).

The Anglican Church, likewise, won't enter into a full communion agreement with a church that lacks bishops (in fact, when the Episcopalians entered into full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church, there was a huge debate about whether or not it was possible, since the ECLA accepted that a pastor could be ordained by other pastors, as opposed to a bishop - something that they had to promise never to do again, in order for the agreement to be entered into).

I find it incredibly strange that he feels such a strong need to attack the catholicity of the Anglican Communion, while defending that of the LCMS, despite the fact that none of the churches he would consider catholic (save his own) would find an absence of bishops acceptable.

+1
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline maneki_neko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #77 on: October 13, 2016, 11:14:40 PM »
The fact that all of you put so much emphasis on Bishops is rather amusing to me.

The emphasis on Bishops has to do with what you consider to be little 'o' 'orthodox'. From an EO perspective 'orthodox' means doing things from a customary, established way. It's what enables them to say 'no' to any of the things you find personally objectionable in Protestant denominations, in addition to their claims on Rome's error on the Pope overreaching. None of those things were previously established and/or found good for the life of the Church, so they're rejected. Conversely, other established practices (prayers to Saints, Scripture interpretations by Fathers, Bishops, etc.) were found beneficial and so they're recommended. The whole of it together is Holy Tradition and is a measuring stick of determining truth (physical Apostolic Succession is part of this).

The question is, are you using the same definition of 'orthodox' (as in, the whole Kit and Caboodle) as the EO? If you are, then why do Lutherans get to reject Bishops and physical Apostolic Succession (not an 'orthodox' position even from a Catholic POV)? If you're using a different definition of 'orthodox', please share.

I was raised Catholic and Anglican. The Anglican Church calls my Church out for not having Bishops even whilst ordaining homosexuals to that august office. The OO call us out for the same reason even whilst not comprehending the Two Natures of Jesus Christ. ALL of you are Synergystic, which borders on Semi-Pelagianism, if it does not actually reach that point. So, criticise me as much as you like. I am fine with that.

Having Bishops isn't a fail-safe and I don't think anyone here is suggesting that. That's what I didn't understand until I started looking into EO. As a Protestant, the argument against Catholics or Anglicans concerning Bishops was "they're wrong and they have Apostolic Succession, therefore Apostolic Succession is a crock". Apostolic Succession is A SIGN that legitimacy may exist assuming they are also in accordance with Holy Tradition. I think the reason why it gets pointed out is because it's the easiest hurdle to cross in determining traditional legitimacy; "Is there Apostolic Succession?: yes/no".
 
主哀れめよ!

Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Νέος Άνκορεϊτζίτης
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 886
  • Matthew 27:52-53
  • Faith: Like unto Neronov
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite, Chapelist ("Double-Crossers")
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #78 on: October 14, 2016, 02:31:43 AM »
Diego, if the LCMS is more catholic than the Anglicans, where are your bishops?

In all fairness, the Old Believers did not have bishops either but would be more orthodox than anglicans.

That's debateable.  I am not at all prepared to speculate on the Orthodoxy of the priestless Old Believers vs. the Anglicans; that sounds like an unprofitable game of theological Russian Roulette with a revolver that is quite possibly fully loaded.

I'll say this much: there's a difference between losing the episcopacy and giving it up.
"Take heed, you who listen to me: Our misfortune is inevitable, we cannot escape it. If God allows scandals, it is that the elect shall be revealed. Let them be burned, let them be purified, let them who have been tried be made manifest among you."   - The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by Himself

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #79 on: October 14, 2016, 11:09:52 AM »
The OO call us out for the same reason even whilst not comprehending the Two Natures of Jesus Christ.

This is one among many instances of you saying things reflecting your abysmal ignorance.

Simple question: How many Councils do you accept? Three or Four? Or Seven?

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,106
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #80 on: October 14, 2016, 11:51:32 AM »
As a Protestant, the argument against Catholics or Anglicans concerning Bishops was "they're wrong and they have Apostolic Succession, therefore Apostolic Succession is a crock". Apostolic Succession is A SIGN that legitimacy may exist assuming they are also in accordance with Holy Tradition. I think the reason why it gets pointed out is because it's the easiest hurdle to cross in determining traditional legitimacy; "Is there Apostolic Succession?: yes/no".

One thing to remember is that apostolic succession includes being "in accordance with Holy Tradition".  It's not just the ability to trace a hands-to-head ordination chain from today to the Upper Room in Jerusalem in AD 33.
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,106
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #81 on: October 14, 2016, 11:52:09 AM »
The OO call us out for the same reason even whilst not comprehending the Two Natures of Jesus Christ.

This is one among many instances of you saying things reflecting your abysmal ignorance.

Simple question: How many Councils do you accept? Three or Four? Or Seven?

There are only three ecumenical councils.  That said, in asking the question you have shown that you missed the point. 
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,256
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #82 on: October 14, 2016, 03:00:16 PM »
The OO call us out for the same reason even whilst not comprehending the Two Natures of Jesus Christ.

This is one among many instances of you saying things reflecting your abysmal ignorance.

Simple question: How many Councils do you accept? Three or Four? Or Seven?

How many do you accept?  Because I'm guessing your church follows very, very few of the canons.
"Homosexuality has been a popular topic, but not Satanic trances."

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #83 on: October 14, 2016, 04:22:05 PM »
Anyone who would say there is only 3 is simply inaccurate about the number. Even the rankest of 5 Point Calvinists recognise 4. The Confessions recognise 7. Even though many American Lutherans have admittedly made their beds with Protestants and often only recognise 4 (I personally am more High Church and go with 7), that still stands us in better steed than someone who only recognises 3.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,106
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #84 on: October 14, 2016, 05:46:29 PM »
Anyone who would say there is only 3 is simply inaccurate about the number. Even the rankest of 5 Point Calvinists recognise 4. The Confessions recognise 7. Even though many American Lutherans have admittedly made their beds with Protestants and often only recognise 4 (I personally am more High Church and go with 7), that still stands us in better steed than someone who only recognises 3.

You can stand behind as many steeds as you want, it means nothing.  Orthodoxy was never a numbers game. 
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline maneki_neko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #85 on: October 14, 2016, 07:31:24 PM »
Anyone who would say there is only 3 is simply inaccurate about the number. Even the rankest of 5 Point Calvinists recognise 4. The Confessions recognise 7. Even though many American Lutherans have admittedly made their beds with Protestants and often only recognise 4 (I personally am more High Church and go with 7), that still stands us in better steed than someone who only recognises 3.

So in your church, some of you accept only 4, and some of you accept 7, but you're all in communion with each other (thereby saying you're unified in your beliefs) and it's a matter of personal preference what you want to accept or reject? How are you in a position of authority to reject women priests, etc., if the measuring stick when you get far enough, ultimately comes down to personal preference? What is 'orthodox' (I would still like your definition) and what isn't?

It would be far easier for me socially to become high church Lutheran (which seems much closer to spiritual truth than how I was raised) than convert to Orthodoxy, but I've been unable to find any consistent way to discern Truth in the system. I am sincerely interested in understanding what I'm missing here.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2016, 07:32:02 PM by maneki_neko »
主哀れめよ!

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #86 on: October 14, 2016, 09:37:13 PM »
Anyone who would say there is only 3 is simply inaccurate about the number. Even the rankest of 5 Point Calvinists recognise 4. The Confessions recognise 7. Even though many American Lutherans have admittedly made their beds with Protestants and often only recognise 4 (I personally am more High Church and go with 7), that still stands us in better steed than someone who only recognises 3.

So in your church, some of you accept only 4, and some of you accept 7, but you're all in communion with each other (thereby saying you're unified in your beliefs) and it's a matter of personal preference what you want to accept or reject? How are you in a position of authority to reject women priests, etc., if the measuring stick when you get far enough, ultimately comes down to personal preference? What is 'orthodox' (I would still like your definition) and what isn't?

It would be far easier for me socially to become high church Lutheran (which seems much closer to spiritual truth than how I was raised) than convert to Orthodoxy, but I've been unable to find any consistent way to discern Truth in the system. I am sincerely interested in understanding what I'm missing here.

Actually, you are WAY off. We are NOT all in communion with each other. For example, LCMS is in communion with 35 other Lutheran Churches in the world, all of which are Confessional Quia Churches. We are not in Communion with Quatenus communities, and not even all Quia groups.

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #87 on: October 15, 2016, 01:09:52 AM »
Anyone who would say there is only 3 is simply inaccurate about the number. Even the rankest of 5 Point Calvinists recognise 4. The Confessions recognise 7. Even though many American Lutherans have admittedly made their beds with Protestants and often only recognise 4 (I personally am more High Church and go with 7), that still stands us in better steed than someone who only recognises 3.

The Oriental Orthodox disagree that councils 4 through 7 are ecumenical because of procedural irregularities and the Tome of Leo which assumed papal infallibility and contradicted St. Cyril of Alexandria at Chalcedon, and the other three involved issues particular to the Chalcedonians which did not effect the Oriental Orthodox.

- Council 5 was an ill fated attempt at reconciliation, in which St. Justinian, who I acknowledge as a saint for his introduction of the hymn Ho Monoges written by our St. Severus, into the liturgy, attempted to reconcile us by anathematizing Theodore of Mopsuestia, Diodore of Tarsus and Origen; this did not go quite far enough which his why his wife St. Theodora enabled St. Jacob bar Addai to more or less roam the Empire with her protection, ordaining additional bishops especially for the Syriac Orthodox and Coptic churches,

- Council 6 dealt with Monothelitism, which wreaked havoc on both the Chalcedonian and Oriental churches in Alexandria and elsewhere, and anathematized Pope Honorius I for backing it.  Monothelitism was another ill fated attempt at reconciliation (the third, including the Henoticon); St. Maximus the Confessor had his tongue cut our for opposimg this heresy, which was really Apollinarianism-lite sans the Chiliasm.  Council 6 also condemned monergism.

- Council 7 dealt with iconoclasm, which was imposed in the holy church of Constantinople by Emperors and Ecumenical Patriarchs (who thought that Islam was wining militarily because of its radical iconoclasm, and figured they could stop the Caliphate by smashing the icons, which tje excavated synagogue at Dura Europos proves even the Jews had before Islam) opposed by St. Theodore the Studite, St. John of Damascus, and others.  The Oriental Orthodox church on the other hand never lost an autocephalous church to iconoclasm; a brief outbreak in Eastern Armenia prior to this council was crushed by the Armenian bishops, and we have a continual record of the proper use and ceneration of sacred images and relics.

I believe these were important local councils which unlike Chalcedon we can support, but not accept per se as they contain anathemas against our saints and because we were either not present or did not fall under the major influence of a heresy, for example, the Seventh Ecumenical Council as people call it, or the Second Council of Nicea, dealt with iconoclasm, which was specifically a Chalcedonian problem.  Rome for that matter was not present at the Palamiat council or the Synod of Dositheus, which was a local council organized by the Greek Orthodoc Patriarchate of Jerusalem with the participation of some foreign bishops who were present for the occasion of the consecration of the rebuilt Church of the Nativity.

Now, in my opinion, the LCMS and much of Lutheranism is not really in compliance with Councils 4 through 7; your admirable Christological focus on communicatio idiomatum is not really Chalcedonian, in my opinion, your views on the Eucharist may if Minasoliman is right echo errors of Theodore of Mopsuestia (I don't think he is right, but he has done much research and so I am quite open to the possibility of him being right, and I havent been able to prove him wrong, and my admiration for him is such that I dont really want to argue the matter with him especially given his superior education, my opinion resting largely on Western scholarship and what Theodore apparently said anout the liturgy of preparation amd the epiklesis; Mina is much better read, and if he is correct, which he could well be, then this could pose problems for the "in, with and under" formula of the Lutherans re: the holy gifts).

In the case of the sixth council, you yourself explained that the Roman Canon was deleted because it was not monergistic, if I read you correctly, amd was thus Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian; if this is the theological perspective of the LCMS, and I hope it isnt, then the LCMS is monergistic.

Now in Lutheranism, I have always felt it comes close to monergism but stops just short of the threshold Calvinism, or five points Calvinism, crossed with TULIP.

Regarding the seventh ecumenical council, as far as I am aware, Luther was not an iconoclast, but I am not sure he was an iconodule; iconodulism is prescribed by that council, which also upholds the veneration of relics, which the LCMS I believe would reject emphatically.

I believe these are vital local councils on a par with the Photian synod that condemned the filioque, the synod that rejected Barlaamism and upheld the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas and the hesychasts like St. Symeon, and the Synod of Dositheus which condemned Protestantism.  But because these councils lacked the Oriental Orthodox, and dealt with problems specific to the Roman church and/or the Eastern Orthodox, they are Ecumenical as in Imperial, but not as in Universal.

One could make a case that the absence of certain Eastern bishops (who appear to have been encouraged to boycott the council by (St.) John of Antioch*), who later reconciled with St. Cyril, that only the first two were ecumenical, and this seems to be the official stance of the modern Assyrian Church of the East  However I believe Nestorius was wrong and needed to be removed; his misconduct extended beyond denying Mary as the Theotokos, and the reconciliation between him and John of Antioch made the council ecumenical.  But, does the LCMS regard St. Mary as the Theotokos, the Mother of God?  If not, you do not subscribe to this council.

I attended an LCMS parochial school and we never spent any of our considerable religious education time on the veneration of Mary as Theotokos; instead it consisted of Sola Fide being crammed down our throat to an extent that I later learned would have been rejected by the United Methodist Church, of which I was a member.   But I was not unhappy with the LCMS; they are probably my favourite Protestant denomination outside of high church Continuing Anglicanism; 50 years ago I would have preferred the Methodists, but the UMC has problems of disobedient clergy who just ignore the wishes of the General Conference and at each conference try to change them, and other problems broadly related to theological liberalism;  Whereas on the other hand I am actively opposed to the ELCA and find some aspects of WELS to be uncomfortable at first glance.

I would like to see the LCMS embrace Orthodox theology and join the Orthodox church, and to the extent the LCMS uses some of our liturgical texts I pray that this will incline them towards such an eventual change of direction.  But realistically, whereas the Oriental and Eastern churches are very close doctrinally, there is a huge gap between the LCMS and the Orthodox, much larger than the gap between the Orthodox and the Anglo Catholics or Roman Catholics.

We do not believe bishops are adiaphora, I dont think we even believe in such a thing as adiaphora, we disagree with much of what Luther said, we reject sola fide and sola scriptura, and the other solas, and we believe in the need for an epiklesis in the Eucharistic liturgy, as we believe that is where the real change occurs, that the Eucharist becomes the true body and blood of our Lord; we believe icons and relics should be venerated and oppose the sort of aesthetic/didactic approach to icons Luther seems to have followed, we reject monergism, and we also reject the strange view that I have seen some Lutherans express that links the efficacy of the Eucharist to "the [homiletical] exposition of the Word.". Most monasteries do not usually have a homily in the divine liturgy, but these services are unwuestionably valid; homilies are mainly delivered by priests and bishops and in rare cases, deacons or other authorized personnell, in a parish church context.

Also, although there are some few Lutheran monasteries, the relative lack of monasticism in Lutheranism even compared to Anglicanism and Luther's marriage and departure from the monastic state are what you might call red flags.

I don't think reconciliation can happen as long as Reformation Sunday per se is celebrated by the LCMS with Luther as a psuedo-Saint.  I dont think we could ever regard him as glorified.

I think, at beat, the LCMS actually adheres to only the fiest two ecumenical councils, but derogates from the Council of Constantinople of 381 by using the filioque, which is another huge problem for us.

* Question, is John of Antioch a saint in Eastern Orthodoxy?   If he is I cannot object to this because of his reconciliation with St. Cyril.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,478
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #88 on: October 15, 2016, 01:58:12 AM »
Quote
They have not only Seven Sacraments, seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, seven deadly sins, and seven days in the week, but seven general councils, dimly foretold long ages ago by the seven branched candlestick.

The Orthodox Eastern Church
By Adrian Fortescue

Seven is a holy number, and Seven councils have been the foundation of the Church for 1000 years. 
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline maneki_neko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #89 on: October 15, 2016, 02:03:56 AM »
Actually, you are WAY off. We are NOT all in communion with each other.

Thank you for your correction on that point. I'm still interested to know how you define 'orthodox' when you have a chance.

wgw, thank you for your detailed input. It was helpful for me as well to learn about these things in a bigger context. I have a question assuming I'm understanding adiaphora properly:

I dont think we even believe in such a thing as adiaphora [...]

Wouldn't things like pews and veils be considered such if not all jurisdictions follow them?
主哀れめよ!

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #90 on: October 15, 2016, 03:53:07 AM »
WGW, when I am next at my computer today, I shall reply to your excellently worded answer. PLEASE allow me the chance before responding again. But yes. LCMS WOULD consider St. Mary the Mother of  God, just as Luther always did!

In a bit then,
Diego

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,106
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #91 on: October 15, 2016, 11:17:06 AM »
Quote
They have not only Seven Sacraments, seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, seven deadly sins, and seven days in the week, but seven general councils, dimly foretold long ages ago by the seven branched candlestick.

The Orthodox Eastern Church
By Adrian Fortescue

Seven is a holy number, and Seven councils have been the foundation of the Church for 1000 years. 

Three persons of the Trinity, three Synoptic Gospels, three ecumenical councils, three days and three nights in the tomb as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, etc. 
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,188
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Candle-lighting Cross Kisser
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #92 on: October 15, 2016, 01:18:53 PM »
Contrary to what you may choose to think, I am NOT here to make you Lutherans.

Right, you are here to play Judy to wgw's Punch.

LOL, speaking of Punches ...

I would love OC.net's Punch to return and talk Lutheranism with Diego. That would be a fun discussion.

+1000000000000

I miss Punch.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline RaphaCam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,535
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #93 on: October 15, 2016, 01:21:45 PM »
Reading some of Fr. Adrian Fortescue's ridiculous criticism on the Holy Orthodox Church leads me to believe he's a perfect example of how reading a lot of books doesn't make one a master in a given subject.
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

Check my blog "Em Espírito e em Verdade" (in Portuguese)

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,013
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #94 on: October 15, 2016, 03:00:10 PM »
Actually, lets make something clear. This is an intellectual exercise for me. Nothing more. I don't ultimately care WHAT you think of me or my Church. The fact that all of you put so much emphasis on Bishops is rather amusing to me. I was raised Catholic and Anglican. The Anglican Church calls my Church out for not having Bishops even whilst ordaining homosexuals to that august office. The OO call us out for the same reason even whilst not comprehending the Two Natures of Jesus Christ. ALL of you are Synergystic, which borders on Semi-Pelagianism, if it does not actually reach that point. So, criticise me as much as you like. I am fine with that. But DON'T misstate my motives, or my beliefs. No. Contrary to what you may choose to think, I am NOT here to make you Lutherans. But I WON'T stand for you to misstate, or outright lie, about my beliefs or intentions. Thank you, please!

Do you even know what Pelagius taught? Do you even know what Augustine taught? And do you know what John Cassian taught?

If not, then start here: https://shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/pelagius-explored-on-his-own-terms-part-one/
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #95 on: October 15, 2016, 04:09:34 PM »
Anyone who would say there is only 3 is simply inaccurate about the number. Even the rankest of 5 Point Calvinists recognise 4. The Confessions recognise 7. Even though many American Lutherans have admittedly made their beds with Protestants and often only recognise 4 (I personally am more High Church and go with 7), that still stands us in better steed than someone who only recognises 3.

Except to the extent that you don't actually recognize all of these councils. 
Actually, you are WAY off. We are NOT all in communion with each other.

Thank you for your correction on that point. I'm still interested to know how you define 'orthodox' when you have a chance.

wgw, thank you for your detailed input. It was helpful for me as well to learn about these things in a bigger context. I have a question assuming I'm understanding adiaphora properly:

I dont think we even believe in such a thing as adiaphora [...]

Wouldn't things like pews and veils be considered such if not all jurisdictions follow them?

Not neccessarily; there are many who say the introduction of pews and the removal of veils is an entirely unacceptable deviarion from orthopraxis.  The idea of orthopraxis exists even in Oriental Orthodoxy; we have multiple liturgical rites which are recognized as equally Orthodox, but the differences between them are not adiaphora but the regional configuration of the local church liturgical rite based on the spiritual discernment of her bishops.  The same can be applied to monasticism; to the extent monasteries are different in terms of their rules, with some being stricter, some being idiorythmic and so on, this is based on the traditional approach of that monastery's hegumens over the centuries to the spiritual requirements of the brethren for their formation.  Its not adiaphora because it matters and is not interchangeable or optional within the specific local context.

And even then there are people who say that all of these variations are due to an excess of oikonomia and there should be rigid standardization.  Consider for example the Russian Old Believers who reject entirely the Nikonian revisions and insist upon the precise use of the Old Rite.

Even if we have adiaphora, which I am not convined we do, because I have never read the term in any Orthodox literature (instead I believe we have local rites due to inculturation, mission and spiritual economy but rites which are not inherently interchangeable and which are certainly not mutable, so for example, a Russian Orthodox parish should not use the Revised Julian Calendar because the Bulgarians use it and it doesn't really matter; a Greek parish should not use the All Night Vigils according to the specific Russian practice but should instead follow their typikon, a Syriac parish should not use the Coptic Agpeya instead of the Shimo, and so on; these rites may be ameliorable to a guided integration in the diaspora in the manner of the OCA, but the OCA hasnt yet been really successful at that), this adiaphora is over liturgical differences which are trivial compared to, for example, the sweeping differences between, in the LCMS, their Red Hymnal of 1941, the Blue Hymnal of the 1980s and the Lutheran Service Book of today, and the idea of having the Episcopate be an optional extra is frankly inconceivable.

Adiaphora conveys a proto-Pietistic stance that it doesn't matter, and Pietism* and Rationalism marked the end of the so called "Lutheran Orthodoxy" and colldctively represent the basis for the spiritual decline of Protestantism.

*As the word was understood in Germany, Poland, and by most Orthodox theologians.  I have encountered compelling articles by the Evangelical Free Church and various Scandinavian Protestant churches which suggest that there, it does not mean basically what the Anglicans would call Latitudinarianism, but something else, although what it means in that context Im frankly unsure of.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #96 on: October 15, 2016, 04:09:51 PM »
Reading some of Fr. Adrian Fortescue's ridiculous criticism on the Holy Orthodox Church leads me to believe he's a perfect example of how reading a lot of books doesn't make one a master in a given subject.

Link?
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #97 on: October 15, 2016, 04:16:54 PM »
Quote
They have not only Seven Sacraments, seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, seven deadly sins, and seven days in the week, but seven general councils, dimly foretold long ages ago by the seven branched candlestick.

The Orthodox Eastern Church
By Adrian Fortescue

Seven is a holy number, and Seven councils have been the foundation of the Church for 1000 years. 

Three persons of the Trinity, three Synoptic Gospels, three ecumenical councils, three days and three nights in the tomb as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, etc.

I would also note that I have encountered several Byzantine Orthodox settings with three oil lamps on the altar and not seven, for example, at St. Anthonys in Florence.

Also many pious Orthodox such as the Serbian Church have expressed a desire for the Photian Synod which condemned the filioque to be regarded as ecumenical, because Rome was present and for a time assented.  Some even say the Palamist council was Ecumenical, and count Trullo separately, taking us to ten.  And we could argue the Council of Bethlehem (Dositheus) had pan Orthodox participation and reception and would be ecumenical on the same basis.

The logic behind a specific number of councils determined arbitrarily is in my opinion equivalent to the logic behind Snow White having seven dwarves.

For that matter, I have seen criticisms of the view that there are seven sacraments as an import from Roman Catholicism, that would instead add to the number of Mysteries of similiar rank the Great and Lesser Blessing of Water, the memorial and burial services, the churching of women, and other items found in the Euchologion, often regarding these sacred mysteries without distinguishing between sacrament and sacramental.

Now I am not sure this is correct, but the opinion has been expressed and to my knowledge no one has been anathematized for it.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline RaphaCam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,535
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #98 on: October 15, 2016, 05:54:35 PM »
Reading some of Fr. Adrian Fortescue's ridiculous criticism on the Holy Orthodox Church leads me to believe he's a perfect example of how reading a lot of books doesn't make one a master in a given subject.
Link?
I had this impression reading excerpts from The Lesser Eastern Churches, he would insert bits of opinion here and there, sometimes clearly wrong and presumptuous, such as saying the imposition of a rite, as it was made onto Chalcedonian Egyptians and Antiochians, was something unparalleled in the RCC. There were other tidbits but I can't recall them right now, he could collect a lot of knowledge in his book but in a very uncritical, sometimes opinionating, way. Now this excerpt rakovsky posted repeats my first impression.
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

Check my blog "Em Espírito e em Verdade" (in Portuguese)

Offline maneki_neko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #99 on: October 15, 2016, 10:17:52 PM »
The idea of orthopraxis exists even in Oriental Orthodoxy; we have multiple liturgical rites which are recognized as equally Orthodox, but the differences between them are not adiaphora but the regional configuration of the local church liturgical rite based on the spiritual discernment of her bishops. [...] Its not adiaphora because it matters and is not interchangeable or optional within the specific local context.

wgw, thank you, this is very helpful.
主哀れめよ!

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,478
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #100 on: October 16, 2016, 01:20:49 AM »
Quote
They have not only Seven Sacraments, seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, seven deadly sins, and seven days in the week, but seven general councils, dimly foretold long ages ago by the seven branched candlestick.

The Orthodox Eastern Church
By Adrian Fortescue

Seven is a holy number, and Seven councils have been the foundation of the Church for 1000 years. 

Three persons of the Trinity, three Synoptic Gospels, three ecumenical councils, three days and three nights in the tomb as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, etc.
Three is a holy number repeatedly referring to the Trinity and resurrection, but seven is a number of completion as shown in the seven days of Creation. Hence, the complete number of Councils is Seven.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 36,137
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #101 on: October 16, 2016, 02:19:12 AM »
How can it be any number other than 4? How many gospels? How many directions on the compass? How many winds? How many corners of the earth? Are we to say that 4 was enough for the Gospels--even though St. John said much of what Jesus said was excluded--but yet 4 councils were not enough for the Church? Outrage!

On the other hand, 6 is the number of man and all creation (the universe was formed in 6 days), and thus the 6 Councils are a perfect representation of God's work through the Church as a theanthropic organism. You know which 6 I mean.

On the other hand, it cannot be ignored that there were 12 Apostles, the 12 tribes of Israel, etc., and so the most blessed number associated with the peoples of God throughout history. This aligns with my own, thoughtful, humble, belief. Thus there are 12 Ecumenical councils:

1) Nicea 325
2) Constantinople 381
3) Ephesus 431
4) Chalcedon 451
5) Justinian's Council 553
6) The Monothelite Thing 680
7) Trullo 692
8) Icondulic Council 787
9) Photian Council 879
10) First Palamite Council 1341
11) Second Palamite Council 1347
12) Third Palamite Council 1351

(Note: some, ignorant of history as they are, wish to group the above final three councils, and even more, into a single Palamite Council, and sometimes extend their madness further by making Trullo not an Ecumenical Council. This is insanity. Men such as these declare sometimes that there are only 10 true councils, using as evidence [falsely so-called] that the number 10 is the central base in most western mathematical schemes; while others add two addition councils in Jassy and Jerusalem to arrive at the God-ordained number of 12; the most ludicrous are those who arrive at the number 11, as though such a number could ever be holy... do they not know that even secular buildings all over the world and in NYC exclude an 11th floor because that number is God-forsaken!?)
« Last Edit: October 16, 2016, 02:23:56 AM by Asteriktos »

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #102 on: October 16, 2016, 04:03:00 AM »
How can it be any number other than 4? How many gospels? How many directions on the compass? How many winds? How many corners of the earth? Are we to say that 4 was enough for the Gospels--even though St. John said much of what Jesus said was excluded--but yet 4 councils were not enough for the Church? Outrage!

On the other hand, 6 is the number of man and all creation (the universe was formed in 6 days), and thus the 6 Councils are a perfect representation of God's work through the Church as a theanthropic organism. You know which 6 I mean.

On the other hand, it cannot be ignored that there were 12 Apostles, the 12 tribes of Israel, etc., and so the most blessed number associated with the peoples of God throughout history. This aligns with my own, thoughtful, humble, belief. Thus there are 12 Ecumenical councils:

1) Nicea 325
2) Constantinople 381
3) Ephesus 431
4) Chalcedon 451
5) Justinian's Council 553
6) The Monothelite Thing 680
7) Trullo 692
8) Icondulic Council 787
9) Photian Council 879
10) First Palamite Council 1341
11) Second Palamite Council 1347
12) Third Palamite Council 1351

(Note: some, ignorant of history as they are, wish to group the above final three councils, and even more, into a single Palamite Council, and sometimes extend their madness further by making Trullo not an Ecumenical Council. This is insanity. Men such as these declare sometimes that there are only 10 true councils, using as evidence [falsely so-called] that the number 10 is the central base in most western mathematical schemes; while others add two addition councils in Jassy and Jerusalem to arrive at the God-ordained number of 12; the most ludicrous are those who arrive at the number 11, as though such a number could ever be holy... do they not know that even secular buildings all over the world and in NYC exclude an 11th floor because that number is God-forsaken!?)

Most amusing.  But perhaps we could spice things up in an OO direction by auggesting that Ephesus II was not a Latrocinium as claimed but the true fourth council (note, I don't actually believe that; I think St. Dioscorus got in a bit over his head with Ephesus II and neglected to realize he did not have the political clout or diplomatic skills of his predeccessor, and this enabled the more unpleasant elements of Chalcedon, although Chalcedon I agree with to the extent that it, like the Oriental Orthodox church from the beginning, condemns Eutyches as an heresiarch.  But why did they rehabilitate Ibas?)
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,106
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #103 on: October 16, 2016, 11:52:29 AM »
Quote
They have not only Seven Sacraments, seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, seven deadly sins, and seven days in the week, but seven general councils, dimly foretold long ages ago by the seven branched candlestick.

The Orthodox Eastern Church
By Adrian Fortescue

Seven is a holy number, and Seven councils have been the foundation of the Church for 1000 years. 

Three persons of the Trinity, three Synoptic Gospels, three ecumenical councils, three days and three nights in the tomb as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, etc.
Three is a holy number repeatedly referring to the Trinity and resurrection, but seven is a number of completion as shown in the seven days of Creation. Hence, the complete number of Councils is Seven.

Six (6) is the number just shy of completion, which is why it is associated with human weakness, sin, and the devil.  I guess you guys needed to destroy icons and kill people in order to save your faith from the satanic incompleteness of having only six ecumenical councils back in the seventh century. 

IOW, things don't work the way you think they work, rakovsky.   
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 451
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #104 on: October 16, 2016, 12:26:04 PM »
^. I guess "you guys" needed to violently reject Chalcedon and kill St. Proterius in gruesome fashion and other chalcedonians when you don't get your way and  kill people in order to save your faith in the satanic  and fanatic need to have only three ecumenical councils back in the fourth century. 

IOW, things don't work the way you think they work, Mor.

We forgive such sins against the Church, yet it seems that you cannot find it within yourselves to see that Diascorus was legally and Ecumenically deposed, just as Nestorius before him, and the well known and well documented violence of the curcumcellions and donatist influences in what would become OO bastions was part and parcel to the rejection of conciliar love.

https://oca.org/saints/lives/2000/02/28/100617-hieromartyr-proterius-the-patriarch-of-alexandria

http://www.ecatholic2000.com/history3/untitled-36.shtml

Things most definately don't work the way you think they work.  Luckily Christ still loves us all and seeks our unity.

ONE is the loneliest number.   
« Last Edit: October 16, 2016, 12:37:58 PM by Onesimus »

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,013
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #105 on: October 16, 2016, 12:29:25 PM »
I'm surprised anyone takes the whole numbers game in biblical exegesis seriously anymore.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,106
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #106 on: October 16, 2016, 12:49:29 PM »
^. I guess "you guys" needed to violently reject Chalcedon and kill St. Proterius in gruesome fashion and other chalcedonians when you don't get your way and  kill people in order to save your faith in the satanic  and fanatic need to have only three ecumenical councils back in the fourth century. 

IOW, things don't work the way you think they work, Mor.

We forgive such sins against the Church, yet it seems that you cannot find it within yourselves to see that Diascorus was legally and Ecumenically deposed, just as Nestorius before him, and the well known and well documented violence of the curcumcellions and donatist influences in what would become OO bastions was part and parcel to the rejection of conciliar love.

https://oca.org/saints/lives/2000/02/28/100617-hieromartyr-proterius-the-patriarch-of-alexandria

http://www.ecatholic2000.com/history3/untitled-36.shtml

Things most definately don't work the way you think they work.  Luckily Christ still loves us all and seeks our unity.

ONE is the loneliest number.

I guess that's why you want to join rakovsky in not making any sense?

The point is that "Orthodoxy" is not determined by a particular number of councils, be it two, three, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, or twenty-one.  Councils are recognised if, when, and because they are Orthodox.   

But I am grateful that I've been able to get you and augustin717 on the same side of an issue for once.  How good and how pleasant it is... 
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #107 on: October 16, 2016, 01:31:41 PM »
^. I guess "you guys" needed to violently reject Chalcedon and kill St. Proterius in gruesome fashion and other chalcedonians when you don't get your way and  kill people in order to save your faith in the satanic  and fanatic need to have only three ecumenical councils back in the fourth century. 

IOW, things don't work the way you think they work, Mor.

We forgive such sins against the Church, yet it seems that you cannot find it within yourselves to see that Diascorus was legally and Ecumenically deposed, just as Nestorius before him, and the well known and well documented violence of the curcumcellions and donatist influences in what would become OO bastions was part and parcel to the rejection of conciliar love.

https://oca.org/saints/lives/2000/02/28/100617-hieromartyr-proterius-the-patriarch-of-alexandria

http://www.ecatholic2000.com/history3/untitled-36.shtml

Things most definately don't work the way you think they work.  Luckily Christ still loves us all and seeks our unity.

ONE is the loneliest number.

I guess that's why you want to join rakovsky in not making any sense?

The point is that "Orthodoxy" is not determined by a particular number of councils, be it two, three, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, or twenty-one.  Councils are recognised if, when, and because they are Orthodox.   

But I am grateful that I've been able to get you and augustin717 on the same side of an issue for once.  How good and how pleasant it is...

Indeed, I think numerology is best left for the practitioners of Chinese folk religion.

Otherwise there surely must be 41 ecumenical councils, and not 12 or 7 or 3, because there are forty one and not forty Kyrie Eleisons in each hour of the Coptic Agpeya, the number 41 appears frequently in the work of JS Bach using the obscure musical technique of sogetto caveto, and while he wasnt Orthodox and his cantatas were kind of annoying, his organ fugues were, like, totally awesome, and also some divination using the I Ching says so.   :P

~

Note that it is for the same reason that I am not completely convinced that the count of seven sacraments is exact, or an import from Roman Catholicism; the Syriac Orthodox shorter catechism says there are seven, but I still can't quite grasp what makes holy unction a mystery of the church, while the blessing of water, for instance, is not a mystery, given that both serve a similiar functional purpose and are efficacious for healing.  But if the catechism says we have seven sacraments, I am not going to argue with it, but if we later decide that other Euchologion type services are mysteries and the exacr figure of seven was due to RC influence, that would not in any sense discombobulate me.

But from an LCMS perspective, this is irrelevant because they are at best paying lip service to Nicea II, as you never see them kiss or venerate their iconography, or their relics, and many Lutherans are cremated in violation of ancient canons and the clear spirit of Nicea II; likewise I don't see how their theology survives council no. 6 and references to St. Mary as the Mother of God are quite lacking in their tradition, which suggests a violation of council no. 3.

Also, Canon XX of Nicea prohibits kneeling on Sundays, feast days and between Pascha and Pentecost, but I am reasonably certain Lutherans use a communion rail and kneel at it and in the pews in some parishes, and in others may even genuflect, although practically Canon XX seems to be a dead-letter canon; the Coptic church does full metanies during the Epiklesis and Fraction, and this again seems contrary to Canon XX.  But if one wanted to be ultra-strict about what adherence to the ancient councils mean, much of the LCMS flunks Nicea on that basis.   Also, since Nicea was decided by bishops...

Lastly most people who insist on seven councils count Trullo as providing the canonical legislation that accompanies councils 5 and 6, hence the name Quinisext, and there is no way the LCMS is compliant with those canons.  The mere use of unleavened bread or straight wine results in a fail on that count; the Roman Church never accepted Quinisext canons and the LCMS is descended from Lutherans who broke away from Rome while retaining those portions of the Roman Rite they deemed, I suppose, pleasing must be the only word that fits, since the distinction between what Luther accepted, rejected or interpolated, that is to say, added, was by his own admission arbitrary and according to his own authority as "Dr. Martin Luther."
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 451
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #108 on: October 16, 2016, 01:40:11 PM »
Mor,

Wow.   You too miss the point entirely. 

I don't buy into the whole numbers game and never said I did.   I simply used your nonsense rhetoric back at you.

You're right, Councils are recognized by when they are reflective of Ortho-doxy - i.e. "right-glory."   The glory of God is His Son, who is Love.   Conciliarity is the work of Love within the Church.   Those who reject that process are no longer attempting to fulfill the law of love within the Church Body.  See Cyprian On the Unity of the Church.

In any event, I don't blame current OO for their having been lead into this error, except insofar as its clergy continue to lead others into error and away from conciliar love.   There is much good and holy about the OO Tradition and I hope one day we can close the gap between ourselves.   But this would take a recognition on the OO part of certain issues they misrepresent.   And I'm sure, it would take the same from your persepective of us.

But if you're going to tout the violence of iconoclasm as a nonsense answer to nonsense numerology - which you yourself are mockingly entertaining... I'm going to give you an earful about the rigorist movements whose common use of violence, justified by your Saint Shenoute, even carried out in practice in violently creating a robber council at the behest of your Diascorus, resulting in the beating of  Saint Flavian and mortal wounds from that beating, would finally lead them to close the deal by becoming OO and splitting from the Church.

However this may be, we still love you.   Alas, that love finds no outlet and we remain divided. :(
« Last Edit: October 16, 2016, 01:50:15 PM by Onesimus »

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #109 on: October 16, 2016, 01:40:19 PM »
Of course, historic Anglicanism was just as arbitrary, especially the semi-Catholic variety practiced at court.  What makes Anglicanism salvageable is an Anglo Catholic perspective that basically ignores Anglican confessional documents like the 39 Articles and regards the priesthood as sacramental, and seeks to make Anglicanism a network of autocephalous national provinces in a communion that resembles structurally the Orthodox communion, with the Archbishop of Canterbury serving a role analogous to that of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

That never happened because the Anglo Catholics never had enough power and always lost members to the Roman church, and liberalism has taken over "the global North;" the so called Global South has some very Anglo Catholic provinces like Ghana, but also some very evangelical provinces like Sydney, and I do not see a pathway for all of it to come into Orthodoxy.  But some of the continuing Anglican churches of the Anglo Catholic persuasion might be received entire; this was how the AWRV came into being.  In contrast, I am aware of no Lutheran churches, even some of the very small and Catholic-looking portions like ELDONA, that would probably agree to convert to Orthodoxy.  Perhaps with much persuasion, the breakaway Mission Province of the Church of Sweden, or some of the conservative parts of the Lutheran Church of Finland might join the Orthodox if meaningful differentiation is preserved.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #110 on: October 16, 2016, 01:47:26 PM »
Mor,

Wow.   You too miss the point entirely. 

I don't buy into the whole numbers game and never said I did.   I simply used your nonsense rhetoric back at you.

You're right, Councils are recognized by when they are reflective of Ortho-doxy - i.e. "right-glory."   The glory of God is His Son, who is Love.   Conciliarity is the work of Love within the Church.   Those who reject that process are no longer attempting to fulfill the law of love within the Church Body.  See Cyprian On the Unity of the Church.

In any event, I don't blame current OO for their having been lead into this error, except insofar as its clergy continue to lead others into error and away from conciliar love.   There is much good and holy about the OO Tradition and I hope one day we can close the gap between ourselves.   But this would take a recognition on the OO part of certain issues they misrepresent.   And I'm sure, it would take the same from your persepective of us.

But if you're going to tout the violence of iconoclasm as a nonsense answer to nonsense numerology - which you yourself are mockingly entertaining... I'm going to give you an earful about the rigorist movements who common use of violence would finally lead them to close the deal by becoming OO and splitting from the Church.

However this may be, we still love you.   Alas, that love finds no outlet and we remain divided. :(

Hardly; there is nothing but love as far as I can tell between the Eastern and Oriental patriarchs in the Middle East.  There is a photo on the Net of the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem asleep on the shoulder of his Armenian counterpart during what looked to be a very boring Israeli presentation.   

Otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about in your post.   There was never sustained iconoclasm in the Oriental church, unlike in the Chalcedonian church, so we do not really need the seventh council.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 451
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #111 on: October 16, 2016, 01:55:16 PM »
Mor,

Wow.   You too miss the point entirely. 

I don't buy into the whole numbers game and never said I did.   I simply used your nonsense rhetoric back at you.

You're right, Councils are recognized by when they are reflective of Ortho-doxy - i.e. "right-glory."   The glory of God is His Son, who is Love.   Conciliarity is the work of Love within the Church.   Those who reject that process are no longer attempting to fulfill the law of love within the Church Body.  See Cyprian On the Unity of the Church.

In any event, I don't blame current OO for their having been lead into this error, except insofar as its clergy continue to lead others into error and away from conciliar love.   There is much good and holy about the OO Tradition and I hope one day we can close the gap between ourselves.   But this would take a recognition on the OO part of certain issues they misrepresent.   And I'm sure, it would take the same from your persepective of us.

But if you're going to tout the violence of iconoclasm as a nonsense answer to nonsense numerology - which you yourself are mockingly entertaining... I'm going to give you an earful about the rigorist movements who common use of violence would finally lead them to close the deal by becoming OO and splitting from the Church.

However this may be, we still love you.   Alas, that love finds no outlet and we remain divided. :(

Hardly; there is nothing but love as far as I can tell between the Eastern and Oriental patriarchs in the Middle East.  There is a photo on the Net of the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem asleep on the shoulder of his Armenian counterpart during what looked to be a very boring Israeli presentation.   

Otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about in your post.   There was never sustained iconoclasm in the Oriental church, unlike in the Chalcedonian church, so we do not really need the seventh council.

WGW,

Do in depth research into the rigorist movments of North Africa and Egypt and the Robber Council of Ephesus and the Fourth Ecumenical Council.   All you need to know is out there, if you dig deeply.   My post was about the schism between the OO and EO, not about iconoclasm, except insofar as a response to Mor's rhetoric using it as a dull, rusty blade with which to bludgeon others.

Love means more than "happy times" - it means suffering to find union with those who are seeking disunion - just as Christ had.   In this respect, both our Traditions need to seek one another, for neither of us are fulfilling the law of love towards one another to the degree that Christ would have us.   But yes, we have much affinity, though not true union in the fullness of Love.

God bless...I have faith that one day our unity will be fulfilled and forgiveness will reign.   This is truly an act of the Spirit working  on the hearts of men.   I believe that certain leaders have led the OO Church into the error of schism.   But I also believe that as a Church they are functionally Orthodox and the sad history of schism is a matter of neither side being able to forgive and come to terms with the ugly nature of their shared history and bring it into the light.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2016, 02:04:49 PM by Onesimus »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,478
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #112 on: October 16, 2016, 02:08:00 PM »


Hardly; there is nothing but love as far as I can tell between the Eastern and Oriental patriarchs in the Middle East.  There is a photo on the Net of the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem asleep on the shoulder of his Armenian counterpart during what looked to be a very boring Israeli presentation.   
I so want to see this.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 451
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #113 on: October 16, 2016, 02:14:10 PM »


Hardly; there is nothing but love as far as I can tell between the Eastern and Oriental patriarchs in the Middle East.  There is a photo on the Net of the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem asleep on the shoulder of his Armenian counterpart during what looked to be a very boring Israeli presentation.   
I so want to see this.

Would you settle for a picture of Mor and myself hugging? 

Whad'ya say Mor?    :-*

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,478
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #114 on: October 16, 2016, 02:18:41 PM »
^. I guess "you guys" needed to violently reject Chalcedon and kill St. Proterius in gruesome fashion and other chalcedonians
I didn't remember St. Proterius.

Quote
Hieromartyr Proterius of Alexandria (died 457), Patriarch of Alexandria (451–457), was elected by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 to replace Dioscorus of Alexandria, who had been deposed by the same council. His accession marks the beginning of the Schism of 451 between the Coptic Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox patriarchs of Alexandria, which has never been completely resolved. Because the church of Alexandria was largely Non-Chalcedonian, the deposition of Dioscorus, a Non-Chalcedonian, from the Patriarchate, and the elevation of Proterius, a Chalcedonian, to it, was violently opposed. Finally in 457 the Non-Chalcedonian party in Alexandria elected Timothy Aelurus as Patriarch of Alexandria, in opposition to Proterius, who was subsequently martyred by Coptic mobs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proterius_of_Alexandria
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,478
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #115 on: October 16, 2016, 02:19:37 PM »


Hardly; there is nothing but love as far as I can tell between the Eastern and Oriental patriarchs in the Middle East.  There is a photo on the Net of the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem asleep on the shoulder of his Armenian counterpart during what looked to be a very boring Israeli presentation.   
I so want to see this.

Would you settle for a picture of Mor and myself hugging? 

Whad'ya say Mor?    :-*
Only a real one.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #116 on: October 16, 2016, 02:28:47 PM »
Mor,

Wow.   You too miss the point entirely. 

I don't buy into the whole numbers game and never said I did.   I simply used your nonsense rhetoric back at you.

You're right, Councils are recognized by when they are reflective of Ortho-doxy - i.e. "right-glory."   The glory of God is His Son, who is Love.   Conciliarity is the work of Love within the Church.   Those who reject that process are no longer attempting to fulfill the law of love within the Church Body.  See Cyprian On the Unity of the Church.

In any event, I don't blame current OO for their having been lead into this error, except insofar as its clergy continue to lead others into error and away from conciliar love.   There is much good and holy about the OO Tradition and I hope one day we can close the gap between ourselves.   But this would take a recognition on the OO part of certain issues they misrepresent.   And I'm sure, it would take the same from your persepective of us.

But if you're going to tout the violence of iconoclasm as a nonsense answer to nonsense numerology - which you yourself are mockingly entertaining... I'm going to give you an earful about the rigorist movements who common use of violence would finally lead them to close the deal by becoming OO and splitting from the Church.

However this may be, we still love you.   Alas, that love finds no outlet and we remain divided. :(

Hardly; there is nothing but love as far as I can tell between the Eastern and Oriental patriarchs in the Middle East.  There is a photo on the Net of the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem asleep on the shoulder of his Armenian counterpart during what looked to be a very boring Israeli presentation.   

Otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about in your post.   There was never sustained iconoclasm in the Oriental church, unlike in the Chalcedonian church, so we do not really need the seventh council.

WGW,

Do in depth research into the rigorist movments of North Africa and Egypt and the Robber Council of Ephesus and the Fourth Ecumenical Council.   All you need to know is out there, if you dig deeply.   My post was about the schism between the OO and EO, not about iconoclasm, except insofar as a response to Mor's rhetoric using it as a dull, rusty blade with which to bludgeon others.

Love means more than "happy times" - it means suffering to find union with those who are seeking disunion - just as Christ had.   In this respect, both our Traditions need to seek one another, for neither of us are fulfilling the law of love towards one another to the degree that Christ would have us.   But yes, we have much affinity, though not true union in the fullness of Love.

God bless...I have faith that one day our unity will be fulfilled and forgiveness will reign.   This is truly an act of the Spirit working  on the hearts of men.   I believe that certain leaders have led the OO Church into the error of schism.   But I also believe that as a Church they are functionally Orthodox and the sad history of schism is a matter of neither side being able to forgive and come to terms with the ugly nature of their shared history and bring it into the light.

What you say however could also be applied to Old Calendarists, Russian Old Believers, or the Orthodox as a whole for refusing Papal supremacy and the filioque as innovations.  The OO idea was simply that Chalcedon was innovative; now maybe we were wrong, maybe Chalcedon was a legitimate expression of a de-Nestorianized Antiochene Christology, but the hymn of St. Severus, Ho Monoges, is a shared part of our tradition with the EOs, thanks to St. Justinian, and much OO language describing our Lord as the theanthropos worked its way into the Eastern church; St. Isaac the Nestorian Syrian is also venerated as a saint by both our churches despite him being a Nestorian and adhering to the idea of apokatastasis which was popular in the Nestorian church when he was alive (the attempts by some to show that Sebastian Brock translated the wrong St. Isaac look unconvincing at best, desperately apologetic at worst).

I think you are right though, the answer is love.  But I don't see Mor throwing iconoclasm in your face or in Augustin's per se; Mor likes to challenge us to think, and Mor has often helped me to increase my understanding of the faith and even made me realize some things which I thought were, for example, errors in Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, were not erroneous. 

The bone of contention in this thread is really between the Orthodox and the Protestants; the Episcopalians are at pains to explain why they entered into communion with the ELCA, which regards the episcopate as an optional luxury, and the LCMS members are at pains to explain how with their lack of bishops et cetera they are more Catholic than the Anglicans.   I believe we together as Orthodox should keep the pressure up, so that other Protestants who read this thread will come to a realization of the truth of Orthodoxy and probably wind up joining your Communion (since Oriental Orthodoxy does not have or attract as many converts and at times in my experience feels at a loss as to how to deal with them, the exception being the fantastic St. George's Mission run by Fr. Peter in the UK, which has taken over the business of the British Orthodox Church, by business, I mean, most of the laity and a good chunk of the clergy, just not the buildings or the name. 

So if someone converts to Eastern Orthodoxy, I am 100% happy for them, because as I see it they are at home in a safe environment, which we also provide, but on a smaller scale and in more specific settings, so far at least.

By the way, if you think Oriental Orthodoxy is related to rigorist movements like Novatianism or Donatism, which your post seemed to imply, I think you will find that to be completely in error; we literally followed St. Cyril's exact formula and in that respect are rigorist, but St. Cyril was opposed to Donatism and Novatianism, and Montanism, and none of the errors of those movements, like the idea that someone who caved under torture vs. enduring persecution unto martyrdom is damned and cannot be forgiven or reconciled to the church, or that sins committed post-baptism cannot be pardoned, have ever been a part of the dogma of the canonical Oriental church.

Does that sound acceptable?
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #117 on: October 16, 2016, 02:29:05 PM »


Hardly; there is nothing but love as far as I can tell between the Eastern and Oriental patriarchs in the Middle East.  There is a photo on the Net of the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem asleep on the shoulder of his Armenian counterpart during what looked to be a very boring Israeli presentation.   
I so want to see this.

Check your PMs
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,106
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #118 on: October 16, 2016, 02:41:34 PM »
I don't buy into the whole numbers game and never said I did. 

I wasn't talking to you in the first place.  You inserted yourself into an exchange between rakovsky and me.  I don't mind, but you need not defend yourself against claims I never ascribed to you as if I did. 

Quote
I simply used your nonsense rhetoric back at you.

I long ago lost hope in the concept of "serious dialogue with rakovsky".
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,478
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #119 on: October 16, 2016, 02:42:07 PM »


Hardly; there is nothing but love as far as I can tell between the Eastern and Oriental patriarchs in the Middle East.  There is a photo on the Net of the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem asleep on the shoulder of his Armenian counterpart during what looked to be a very boring Israeli presentation.   
I so want to see this.

Check your PMs
OK, sounds good. Feel free to let me know if you see it again.
Peace.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 451
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #120 on: October 16, 2016, 03:02:49 PM »

Quote
I simply used your nonsense rhetoric back at you.

I long ago lost hope in the concept of "serious dialogue with rakovsky".

Sounds like your problem.   I'll pray for you and your loss of hope in others.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,478
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #121 on: October 16, 2016, 04:46:10 PM »
I long ago lost hope in the concept of "serious dialogue with rakovsky".
I am sorry you feel that way, Mor. The document you pointed me to where OO hierarchs said that Chalcedon's formula was acceptable made a big impression on me.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline maneki_neko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #122 on: October 16, 2016, 04:50:41 PM »
But some of the continuing Anglican churches of the Anglo Catholic persuasion might be received entire; this was how the AWRV came into being.

Is there an existing thread that examines this possibility theoretically? Sorry, I don't know enough about the topic to know which keywords to use for a search.
主哀れめよ!

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,106
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #123 on: October 16, 2016, 05:43:16 PM »

Quote
I simply used your nonsense rhetoric back at you.

I long ago lost hope in the concept of "serious dialogue with rakovsky".

Sounds like your problem.   I'll pray for you and your loss of hope in others.

 :angel:
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #124 on: October 16, 2016, 06:44:10 PM »
But some of the continuing Anglican churches of the Anglo Catholic persuasion might be received entire; this was how the AWRV came into being.

Is there an existing thread that examines this possibility theoretically? Sorry, I don't know enough about the topic to know which keywords to use for a search.

Well there have been several but its kind of been something we have discussed ad nauseum.  However, the Western Rite Liturgics forum provides a realm in which you can find out practically whatever you wish about the AWRV, the ROCOR Western Rite, et al.

What we should probably avoid though is a thread speculating on which continuing Anglican churches might or might not "come over from the dark side of the Bosphorus."  Because that would just be wishful thinking.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,478
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #125 on: October 16, 2016, 06:46:41 PM »
Is there an existing thread that examines this possibility theoretically? Sorry, I don't know enough about the topic to know which keywords to use for a search.
We have a whole section of the forum dedicated to Western Rite Orthodox:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,35.0.html

If an Anglo-Catholic church wants to keep its Western forms of worship in general ways and still join Orthodoxy's communion and agree with Orthodox theology, they can become Western Rite Orthodox.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #126 on: October 17, 2016, 03:33:41 AM »
If an Anglo-Catholic church wants to keep its Western forms of worship in general ways and still join Orthodoxy's communion and agree with Orthodox theology, they can become Western Rite Orthodox.

I do not think it's that easy.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,478
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #127 on: October 17, 2016, 10:32:46 AM »
If an Anglo-Catholic church wants to keep its Western forms of worship in general ways and still join Orthodoxy's communion and agree with Orthodox theology, they can become Western Rite Orthodox.

I do not think it's that easy.
There are Anglican parishes that joined Orthodoxy's communion by being a subgroup of ROCOR or the Antiochians, while accepting Orthodox theology and practicing the Western Rite. I invite you to the Western Rite section to discuss this more.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2016, 10:33:57 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,188
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Candle-lighting Cross Kisser
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #128 on: October 17, 2016, 06:32:11 PM »
Take it down to a simmer, everyone.  Join the OCA.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #129 on: October 18, 2016, 12:01:23 AM »
If an Anglo-Catholic church wants to keep its Western forms of worship in general ways and still join Orthodoxy's communion and agree with Orthodox theology, they can become Western Rite Orthodox.

I do not think it's that easy.
There are Anglican parishes that joined Orthodoxy's communion by being a subgroup of ROCOR or the Antiochians, while accepting Orthodox theology and practicing the Western Rite. I invite you to the Western Rite section to discuss this more.

And ROCOR has already been canceling its WR because it's not that easy as you say.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,478
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #130 on: October 18, 2016, 12:28:22 AM »
Antiochians haven't canceled it. HaS Rocor actually done so or said it will?
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,332
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #131 on: October 18, 2016, 10:08:21 AM »
Antiochians haven't canceled it. HaS Rocor actually done so or said it will?

No. They did issue a very discouraging statement that was easy to interpret that way. The intention doesn't seem though to actually abolish it.
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,564
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #132 on: October 19, 2016, 11:03:58 AM »
Antiochians haven't canceled it. HaS Rocor actually done so or said it will?

No. They did issue a very discouraging statement that was easy to interpret that way. The intention doesn't seem though to actually abolish it.

More like let it wither on the vine. Abolition by atrophy.

The ROCOR experiment was poorly implemented. The Antiochians at least vetted potential WRO mass conversions.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,332
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #133 on: October 19, 2016, 11:33:03 AM »
Antiochians haven't canceled it. HaS Rocor actually done so or said it will?

No. They did issue a very discouraging statement that was easy to interpret that way. The intention doesn't seem though to actually abolish it.

More like let it wither on the vine. Abolition by atrophy.

Probably, but that makes the recent attempted conversion of the "Catholic Church of the East" rather puzzling.
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,564
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #134 on: October 19, 2016, 12:55:59 PM »
Antiochians haven't canceled it. HaS Rocor actually done so or said it will?

No. They did issue a very discouraging statement that was easy to interpret that way. The intention doesn't seem though to actually abolish it.

More like let it wither on the vine. Abolition by atrophy.

Probably, but that makes the recent attempted conversion of the "Catholic Church of the East" rather puzzling.

Old habits die hard? One last roll of the dice to see if their luck turned around?

I really am OK with mass conversions, etc., but the rush to put chrism on entire ecclesiastical communities (which all seem to hang on the strong personality of a given pastor) in a matter of months rather than waiting a year (or two, or three) appears to be at the heart of the issue.

Despite a few notable successes, folks simply declaring, "We're Orthodox now," tends to end with folks not being Orthodox very long — if, in fact, they ever truly were.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2016, 12:59:12 PM by Agabus »
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #135 on: October 20, 2016, 03:31:55 AM »
My understanding is that the ROCOR Western Rite is continuing and will likely survive.  The vision of Fr. Aiden and others was to attempt to recreate the old Orthodox Western Rite, hence the book series he wrote, following the Julian Calendar, an attempt to get at the Western Rote before the changes that followed the Schism, especially the Reformation and Trent.   This was an admirable goal amd I expect it will be pursued albeit with some increased Byzantinization.

What triggered the backlash was the unfortunate incident of the bishop in charge of the ROCOR WRV, HG Jerome Shaw, disobeying the Holy Synod and doing a mass ordination on Corpus Christi, which itself is a post-schism holiday and one which I doubt fell into the vision of figures like Fr. Aidan.  Fr. Anthony Bondi was also involved in this act of disobedience, and they were both retired.

Had that incident not transpired, there would be no Sword of Damocles hovering over the Western Rite of ROCOR, but from whar I hear, Metropolitan Hilarion,  who personally replaced HG Bishop Jerome, has endeared himself to the Western Rite parishes and is accomplishing the integration of these parishes as Western Rite parishes into ROCOR as opposed to the sort of semi autonomous fiefdom that the retired vicar was apparently running, in a loving manner.  And the ROCOr Western Rite has a powerful advocate in the person of St. John Maximovitch, who personally endorsed the concept.

So I expect it will continue, but in a better form.  ROCOR tends to do things in a very pleasing manner and I don't see any crushing obliteration of the Western Rite happening; as things stabilize, the exact nature of it will be discerned.

In contrast, the AWRV is much closer to the scenario envisaged by St. Tikhon, in which the Anglican and Roman Catholic liturgies have been more or less adopted in their present form and then corrected to reflect the Orthodox faith.  So instead of liturgical archaeology as it were, the living traditions of high church Anglicanism including both the BCP and the vernacular translation of the Tridentine Mass from the English Missal (the ultimate work of Anglo Catholicism) were simply modifed more or less based on the ROC's study of the Book of Common Prayer and its defects.

Now Metropolitan Kallistos Ware has been critical of this approach, but I support it.  We know there are errors in the faith of the Western churches, we know these are reflected in the liturgy, and the Western Rite in both its Antiochian and ROCOR forms represents prototypes of what Orthodox worship will look like in the Western Church when the Western Church returns to Orthodoxy, as an alternative to the wholesale annhilation of Western liturgy, which would be tragic, because much of it was composed by people like St. Ambrose and St. Gregory Diologos who we regard as saints.

We cant fall into the Old Believer error of thinking there is only one legitimate way of doing the liturgy, because this is contrary to the historical witness of the Catholic (Orthodox) Church.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Sinful Hypocrite

  • Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,292
  • The Lord helps those who help others
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: God
Re: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?
« Reply #136 on: April 01, 2017, 05:29:47 PM »
I may be just another voice in this internet forum wilderness, but Christ said this about his Church .

Matthew 18:19-20
…19Again, I tell you truly that if two of you on the earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. 20For where two or three gather together in My name, there am I with them.”
___________________________________________________________________________________________

So gather in his name and forget about squabbling over useless man made laws.


The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“