www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Western Orthodoxy and the West

Greetings, AO! Give Fr. Thurman my warmest regards. He's a fine man.

------
Western Orthodoxy Blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]

Dear Western Orthodox,

Yes, but High Church Lutherans often reserve the right to disagree with Luther and others and they do.

There is no doctrinal consistency in Lutheranism just as there is no consistency in Luther himself. For example, which of Luther's sayings or beliefs are "Luther" and "binding" on Lutherans as a valid reflection of the Lutheran tradition? Are they those of the "Young Luther" or of Luther later in life?

In addition, I know Lutheran priests (who ONLY call themselves "priests") who believe in transubstantiation.

As for "consubstantiation" - it would be difficult, but not impossible to defend the thesis that the Lutheran doctrine here is similar to the RC doctrine insofar as Lutherans reject the distinction between "accidents of bread and wine that remain" and "actual bread and wine that remain."

The "accidents of bread and wine" remain after the Consecration. The Lutheran tradition rejected this as a kind of "disingenuous philosophizing based on pagan Greek ideas."

And the Lutheran emphasis on the dynamic aspect of Holy Communion, on its reception to be united through Christ to the Father by the Holy Spirit was a counter to the medieval Catholicism of the time where adoration of the Eucharist tended to be emphasized to the detriment of its reception.

Alex

This is true in the same sense that some RCC priests "reserve the right to disagree" with the pope over abortion and homosexuality. It doesn't mean the church doesn't have a position; it just means they willfully ignore it in violation of their oaths. The ELCA allows some doctrinal latitude -- it also finances abortion and supports gay rights. There ARE some Orthodox-minded ELCA pastors; one converted not long ago (after serving long enough to draw pension).

The case we're discussing, Zion Ev. Lutheran Church in Detroit, is within the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, which (I repeat) prides itself on being "Confessional." If the Lutheran Confessions take a position on any issue, the pastor (many of whom call themselves priests, though the LCMS is Congregationalist) is expected to believe them all. Failing that, he can be defrocked. And the LCMS has not proven overly reticent in the exercise.

The full Confessions (doctrinal positions) of traditional Lutheranism (that embodied by the LCMS) are contained in the Book of Concord [bookofconcord.org], which is amazingly consistent in rejecting Transubstantiation. Indeed, the Confessions are remarkably consistent to themselves throughout. That's not to say those positions are logically consistent with one another or the Bible/Tradition of the Church, but they don't contradict themselves. These are doctrinally binding, as any Lutheran will tell you, and not something Luther's stray comments in "Table Talk."

Like much of Protestantism, an overreaction to an actual problem. (Infrequent communion was/is a problem in the East, too.) Though he was the least so given of the Reformers, Luther too fell into occasionally gainsaying the Papacy. And those who gainsay for the sake of gainsaying are most tiresome.

------
Western Orthodoxy Blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]

Dear Western Orthodox,

O.K., so what are we to make of the "High Church Lutherans?" Are they people on their way to Orthodoxy or Catholicism and don't know it yet?

Also how is calling Martin Luther "St Martin Luther" or "Bl. Martin Luther" (as the Lutheran Benedictines do) in keeping with Lutheran traditions?

Alex

I'm afraid I don't see infrequent communion as a problem in the East. I teach in a RC school and play for a RC church. They truly have communion-itis. The children line up everyday at school and go to communion, class by class just like they go to the water fountain - and with often about as much thought or preparation. It seems to me that this frequent communion has, like familiarity, led to contempt. I do believe the East has a better perspective on communion - Saturdays, Sundays and holy days, and with adequate preparation.

In the discussions and disagreements that I've had with Eastern Catholics, I have been told that a true Eastern Catholicism cannot merely be a Latin salad with Byzantine dressing on top; that it has its own soup-to-nuts theology and spirituality to be respected and upheld regardless of what the Catholic church has supposedly dogmatically proclaimed in the past.

Yet, from what I know of the AWRV of Western Orthodoxy, these Western Orthodox have the filioque stripped out of their recitation of the creed and are not allowed to use azyme, but a form of leavened bread that is somewhat flattened.

Any thoughts regarding this? Are Western-rite Orthodox being denied the fullness of their tradition's spritual heritage in light of the above?

Regards,
Robster

One could not expect the Orthodox Church to tolerate the use of the Filioque, obviously.

Unleavened Bread? Hmmm. A problem, certainly, but not one worth having a split on. I strenuously doubt that the clergy and opinion-makers of the Western Rite Orthodox would seriously maintain that the Eucharist celebrated with unleavened bread is either invalid or gravely illicit. If they honestly think that, it would be interesting to get it in writing and forward it to the Armenian Orthodox authorities!

Fr. Serge

Robster,

And yet you know as well as I do that the Nicene-Constantinopolian Creed sans filioque is every bit as much a part of the Western tradition - and in fact WAS the practice of Rome for centuries - as it was a part of the Eastern tradition.

I would only add that NO liturgical tradition is a hermetically sealed package, especially during its phases of development. (Byzantium was in fact the fruit of Latin, Greek and Syrian influences.) Even Father Alexander Schmemann acknowledges that there was quite a bit of cross-fertilization going on over the course of centuries.

As an aside, I recall seeing a book at Light and Life years ago on "What the Eastern Orthodox Received from the West"...or some title very close to that. It was intended to be a very positive acknowledgement of the virtues of the Western Latin tradition and its influence on the East. I've also seen a book that was intended to do the opposite, highlight what the West owes to the East. I wish more books like these were around...

God bless,

Gordo

Fr. Serge, thank you for you welcome, if your ever in Colorado please come and visit oru humble parish-Adrien

I'm assuming this is Mr. Ben Johnson. I have to saw your blog is truly excellent in content and knowledge. I am very grateful that you have chosen to keep in running. Last month I had to give both Fr. Thurman and Sub. Anderson both a hard time of shutting down their blogs and depriving me of wonderful reading! I look forward to this forum and I will give your regards to Fr. Thurman-Adrien

Fr. Serge, since I am not clergy, I cannot speak for what the WR clery truly feel about the validity of Unleavened Bread in the Liturgy. I can saw that regardless of their private opinions, the few priests I know uphold the standards of the Orthodox Church that only Leaven Bread be used. I do know that they wont go far as to say that the Roman and Non-Chalcedonians eucharist is simply devoid of all grace. Hope that helps-Adriend

Robster, as a member of the AWRV, I can truly saw that no one in the WR parishers are being deprived of anything of our Western liturgical or devotional heritage. The Antiochian Archdiocese has allowed us to continue to use both our Roman and Anglican liturgical traditions, with very few changes. The few parts that are truly not in line with Orthodox Dogmatic teaching (such as the filoque or some of Cranmer collects) are removed. While such blessed Anglican saints such as Bp. Lancelot Andrewes, while he cannot be liturgically honored during the Mass, is allowed to be given private devotion. Also, in regards to cross-fertilization, very little of the has happened liturgically in the AWRV. However, speak to any Western Rite Orthodox, and you'll soon see that we are as dogmatically Orthodox as our Byzantine Rite brethren, not simply Anglicans in exile-Adrien

Gordo,

You make an important point. I heard just today (from one of the directors of the St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute [SEERI]) that St. Ambrose of Milan, a contemporary of St. Ephraim, went to Syria and learned Syriac Chant, brought it back to the Latin Church and it eventually developed into Gregorian Chant. How interesting is that!

I hope folks can understand when I say that there seems like a little bit of inconsistency going on here.

Dear Friends,

With respect to Western traditions that are or are not accepted in Western Orthodoxy, this is a most fascinating topic.

Fascinating given that things like azymes and other seemingly "insignificant matters of form and ritual" have also been historically a part of the "list of Latin errors" held by the East.

One of those errors, interestingly enough, was the Latin practice of making the Sign of the Cross on the floor and then kissing it (don't know anything about this). This drove the East "bananas" and it would often chide the West re: the canon that forbade placing a Cross on the floor lest it be trampled on etc.

Yet, in the Western Rite prayerbook printed by the Synod of Milan (albeit not canonical) there is a Stations of the Cross from before the Schism of 1054 where just such a practice is outlined!

The use of azymes was likewise so "looked down upon" in the East that one would have supposed that it was the principle Western "heresy." Latins were once called "Azymites" by the East.

Armenians and Ethiopians do indeed use azymes, but since they are not in communion with Orthodoxy - it has no bearing.

I know Western Rite Orthodox who cross themselves in the traditional RC way but when their Orthodox bishops are around, they use three fingers and go to the right. In one case, a Western Orthodox priest told me that his bishop gave him "looks" when he did otherwise.

I've also had the privilege of working with a Western Orthodox priest on developing explanations for certain Western devotions for his Eastern bishop - he said that "as long as they understand what it's about, he'll give approval for it!"

It would seem, to me anyway, that the estrangement between Western and Eastern Christian cultures is quite strong, from both perspectives. It also seems that even with the best of intentions, the Eastern Orthodox who have the Western Rites cannot but see them through Eastern eyes and see not only Orthodoxy as the standard of right belief but also certain Eastern liturgical forms as likewise the standard of right worship.

In that sense, yes, there is an Orthodox Uniatism with respect to the Western Rites too.

Alex