Author Topic: Lutheranism and Orthodoxy v. Catholicism and/or Anglicanism?  (Read 5042 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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: 11,080
  • 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: 11,080
  • 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: 10,158
  • 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, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ 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.

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 564
  • 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: 10,158
  • 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, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • 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: 41,173
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: 44
  • 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: 44
  • 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: 12,916
  • 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: 32,618
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • 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. 
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,353
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: 10,158
  • 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, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,158
  • 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, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline seekeroftruth777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,114
  • 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: 19,769
  • 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: 44
  • 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: 868
  • 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: 32,618
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • 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.
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,618
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • 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. 
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

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: 32,618
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • 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. 
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline maneki_neko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
  • 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: 10,158
  • 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, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline maneki_neko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
  • 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!