Lutheran critique of Eastern Orthodoxy and Authority

[mark_a]

Because your question was a moral one; i.e., if Protestantism is true, then why aren’t Protestant churches unified, in a leadership position, etc. We’ve never claimed that we are as unified as Catholics or that we are morally superior to Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

I think I see. But what’s the point of authority without unity, however imperfect it may be?

That said, I think Protestantism is very unified against Catholicism.

 

[mark_a]

you lost me what do you mean

Sorry, I guess it’s too off-topic.

The comment was meant to convey that I think that when we Catholics use the 30-40k figure to express the disunity of Protestantism, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I think I see. But what’s the point of authority without unity, however imperfect it may be?

That said, I think Protestantism is very unified against Catholicism.

But authority only applies to those within the circle of authority. How would we, as Lutherans, have authority over Methodists, or Anglicans? It would roughly be the same as saying that Catholicism has no authority, because they have no authority over the Orthodox, or the SSPX, or other splinter groups. That is why the authority argument proves too much when it is used by Catholicism. The split between East and West was exponentially greater than the split that occurred at the Reformation. Even with now hundreds of Protestant denominations, the split between East and West is still numerically bigger.

Not only that, but it has resulted in two communions which believe that their teaching authorities are infallible, yet they both contradict each other, so logically, only one can be right. How does the layman determine whether Rome or Constantinople is the true infallible one?

Ultimately, though, the issue is doctrinal. It’s not about the fact that they have authority figures, or that there is disunity over issues of abortion and contraception. Nor is it about scandals that have impacted the Catholic Church. All of these are human trifles that will happen no matter what the Church teaches, whether it’s doctrine is pure or false.

 

[mark_a]

So should I become WELS?

A couple of questions or points though:

But authority only applies to those within the circle of authority. How would we, as Lutherans, have authority over Methodists, or Anglicans? It would roughly be the same as saying that Catholicism has no authority, because they have no authority over the Orthodox, or the SSPX, or other splinter groups.

I don’t see an apples to apples comparison here. SSPX, I think, are much more like the original Lutherans or original Anglicans, staking a claim to have righted the ship.
Other groups, who develope or revert to a doctrine, are at the very least a scism of a scism. So without authority, how does one know whether to become WELS, Missouri, ELCA.

One other point. The Catholic Church claims the universal authority given by God, not universal authority consented by individuals.

Even with now hundreds of Protestant denominations, the split between East and West is still numerically bigger.

Even that is questionable since the Americas were not yet in the picture.

Not only that, but it has resulted in two communions which believe that their teaching authorities are infallible, yet they both contradict each other, so logically, only one can be right. How does the layman determine whether Rome or Constantinople is the true infallible one?

If I were WELS, I would go with the one whose moral teaching was closest.

Ultimately, though, the issue is doctrinal.

Do you mean theologically doctrinal? I would, off hand, disagree. When Jesus cured or forgave people, he didn’t do it conditionally depending on their theology. He commanded them to sin no more.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think Catholics flatter themselves at times that all Protestants have a united front against Catholicism. In all the Anglican services I’ve been to through the years and a few Lutheran ones, I’ve never heard anti-Catholic rhetoric. Believe it or not, an Anglican rector is worried about the liturgy, visiting people in the hospital, Wednesday night activities, going over to do chapel at the Anglican school, vestry meetings, coffee hours, counselling a troubled couple, attending diocesan meetings, and youth group activities, etc. They have little time to sit around plotting the overthrow of the Vatican.

I think I see. But what’s the point of authority without unity, however imperfect it may be?

That said, I think Protestantism is very unified against Catholicism.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think that. You might think Orthodox will join the fray with you against Protestantism when in reality Orthodox feel that Protestantism is the fault of the Catholic Church and what they perceive to be misunderstandings about misguided theology that is flawed. They believe, often times, that Protestantism and Catholicism are really two sides of the same coin. Catholics in here tend to be very kind, charitable, and brotherly to Orthodox but to do the smack-down at times on Lutherans, etc. The reality is Orthodox are the third party that wants nothing to do with the other two until the other two re-join them as Eastern Orthodox again.

Who thinks that?

I don’t know if you remember the Eastern Religions sub-forum here, but that’s where the real action was. The non-Catholic is forum is mild by comparison.

 

[TriuneUnity]

So should I become WELS?

Alls WELS that ends WELS.

I don’t see an apples to apples comparison here. SSPX, I think, are much more like the original Lutherans or original Anglicans, staking a claim to have righted the ship.
Other groups, who develope or revert to a doctrine, are at the very least a scism of a scism. So without authority, how does one know whether to become WELS, Missouri, ELCA.

Are you saying the SSPX would not consider itself to be Roman Catholic? It’s not even close to the original Lutherans and Anglicans. I don’t think the SSPX would say it is Protestant. It does, after all, agree with Roman Catholic teaching up until recent years. My comparison being, that it’s a schism that has occurred within Roman Catholicism. All of the schisms that have resulted in Protestantism have not resulted from within Lutheranism. If Lutherans are responsible for Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, Charismatics, Pentecostals, etc, then why isn’t Rome responsible for the SSPX and Orthodox?

One other point. The Catholic Church claims the universal authority given by God, not universal authority consented by individuals.

That is true, but if infallibility for the unity of the faith is necessary and prevents the supposed anarchy of sola scriptura, then Catholicism would be united. It’s not.

Even that is questionable since the Americas were not yet in the picture.

The number of Protestants involved in the Reformation was minuscule compared to the overall population of Europe. Of course, I don’t have actual statistics of population, but I would imagine the entire Eastern half of the planet, excluding Asians, outnumbered the amount of European Protestants. Even with the Americas in the picture, Catholicism is still huge compared to Protestantism. Are we forgetting that Mexico, Central and South America is 95% Catholic? Even in North America, the amount of Catholics would exceed Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists and Southern Baptists combined.

If I were WELS, I would go with the one whose moral teaching was closest.

But the divisions between, say, WELS and Missouri, are doctrinal, not moral.

Do you mean theologically doctrinal? I would, off hand, disagree. When Jesus cured or forgave people, he didn’t do it conditionally depending on their theology. He commanded them to sin no more.

I am not talking about moral imperatives. I am talking about the teachings of the faith.

 

[mark_a]

I think Catholics flatter themselves at times that all Protestants have a united front against Catholicism. In all the Anglican services I’ve been to through the years and a few Lutheran ones, I’ve never heard anti-Catholic rhetoric. Believe it or not, an Anglican rector is worried about the liturgy, visiting people in the hospital, Wednesday night activities, going over to do chapel at the Anglican school, vestry meetings, coffee hours, counselling a troubled couple, attending diocesan meetings, and youth group activities, etc. They have little time to sit around plotting the overthrow of the Vatican.

Maybe my view is skewed by the folks in my location. And I will admit that Anglican types and Lutherans that I know tend to be less hard-core about it.

 

[mark_a]

I think that. You might think Orthodox will join the fray with you against Protestantism when in reality Orthodox feel that Protestantism is the fault of the Catholic Church and what they perceive to be misunderstandings about misguided theology that is flawed. They believe, often times, that Protestantism and Catholicism are really two sides of the same coin. Catholics in here tend to be very kind, charitable, and brotherly to Orthodox but to do the smack-down at times on Lutherans, etc. The reality is Orthodox are the third party that wants nothing to do with the other two until the other two re-join them as Eastern Orthodox again.

You’ve either missed one of my posts about how Orthodox feel about Catholics or the post was removed. I had even provided links.

 

[mark_a]

Are you saying the SSPX would not consider itself to be Roman Catholic? It’s not even close to the original Lutherans and Anglicans. I don’t think the SSPX would say it is Protestant. It does, after all, agree with Roman Catholic teaching up until recent years. My comparison being, that it’s a schism that has occurred within Roman Catholicism. All of the schisms that have resulted in Protestantism have not resulted from within Lutheranism.

It’s obvious that I’ve been way too unclear.

If Lutherans are responsible for Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, Charismatics, Pentecostals, etc,

Never did I intend to give the above impression.

That is true, but if infallibility for the unity of the faith is necessary and prevents the supposed anarchy of sola scriptura, then Catholicism would be united. It’s not.

You paint a rosier picture of unity than Catholics do. I think the best we can do, or have ever done, would be to we say we’res less un-united than Protestantism on teachings of faith and morals.

But the divisions between, say, WELS and Missouri, are doctrinal, not moral.

I don’t understand. Are there no Lutheran moral doctrines?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I don’t understand. Are there no Lutheran moral doctrines?

Of course. But I am talking about what separates the WELS from Missouri.

 

[mark_a]

Of course. But I am talking about what separates the WELS from Missouri.

Please bear with me.

WELS = no contraception allowed, even NFP is frowned upon.

Missouri allows contraception.

Is this correct?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Please bear with me.

WELS = no contraception allowed, even NFP is frowned upon.

Missouri allows contraception.

Is this correct?

It is not a matter of dogma. It will not get you excommunicated from church fellowship.

 

[mark_a]

It is not a matter of dogma. It will not get you excommunicated from church fellowship.

I had another off topic question, but this could go on forever. Thanks for the info. I’ll see you on another thread.

 

[joemccarron]

In my somewhat limitted knowledge of EO, I would say that this thread tends to demonstrate how the EO and western churches differ in their outlook. EO believe the Holy Spirit acts as a guide in the church. However, unlike those in the west they do not spend so much time presuming they can describe and define exactly how it works. No doubt people can have their own ideas about this, but they are not going to suggest everyone must believe those ideas or be excommunicated.

In reading this thread someone asked something along the lines of: how many years before a council is considered valid? Of course, the answer is 42.

I think people tend to like different balances. EO seem much more willing to focus on the bigger pictures of Christ’s message and not get overly concerned with small stuff. Western Churches want more detailed answers.

Personally, I think the truth is somewhwere in the middle.

 

[a_priori]

EO seem much more willing to focus on the bigger pictures of Christ’s message and not get overly concerned with small stuff. Western Churches want more detailed answers.

As someone who has spent considerable time in both camps, this is exactly right.

 

[Non_Serviam]

So going back to Councils. This was recently posted on another thread:

A few weeks ago, I responded to a very similar inquiry:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=400698

As I pointed out, Councils define both doctrine (infallible) and custom (not). The Catholic Church has authority to define doctrine only relative to Herself - She could not define doctrine relative to Jews, Muslims, or Protestants, even if She wanted to. So all of these Canons regarding Jews and Muslims would be custom only.

But, as I replied in the post above, many of these canons are actually quite reasonable.

Does this doctrine/customs distinction line up with Orthodox and/or Catholic understanding of the infallibility of Councils? If not, what is the actual teaching and where can it be found?

Thanks.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Minutiae is mundane and time-wasting. But I think the EO have to very wrong conclusions about Original Sin, the Atonement, and theosis.

In my somewhat limitted knowledge of EO, I would say that this thread tends to demonstrate how the EO and western churches differ in their outlook. EO believe the Holy Spirit acts as a guide in the church. However, unlike those in the west they do not spend so much time presuming they can describe and define exactly how it works. No doubt people can have their own ideas about this, but they are not going to suggest everyone must believe those ideas or be excommunicated.

In reading this thread someone asked something along the lines of: how many years before a council is considered valid? Of course, the answer is 42.

I think people tend to like different balances. EO seem much more willing to focus on the bigger pictures of Christ’s message and not get overly concerned with small stuff. Western Churches want more detailed answers.

Personally, I think the truth is somewhwere in the middle.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I think people tend to like different balances. EO seem much more willing to focus on the bigger pictures of Christ’s message and not get overly concerned with small stuff. Western Churches want more detailed answers.

Personally, I think the truth is somewhwere in the middle.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, joe. However, this, I can’t. How a sinner is made right before a Holy God is not the small stuff.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The irony, however, is that they’re willing to completely divorce themselves from the Catholic Church over the filoque, which many would consider not a huge matter, and yet on the huge topic of Original Sin and the Atonement it wasn’t a deal breaker and it’s not much discussed?

As someone who has spent considerable time in both camps, this is exactly right.