Lutherans - What is it that keeps you from becoming Orthodox?

[TarkanAttila]

Which western Christians celebrate according to their ancient customs? I don’t know of any.

Oh, hi! What’s the Sarum Rite? What’s the Anglican Use?

 

[Seraphim73]

Oh, hi! What’s the Sarum Rite? What’s the Anglican Use?

Who uses that? A extremely tiny minority.

 

[KjetilK]

Which western Christians celebrate according to their ancient customs? I don’t know of any.

And here you manages to make my point in one sentence. Good.

 

[Seraphim73]

And here you manages to make my point in one sentence. Good.

What point is that?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well, if it doesn’t have anything to do with being a Russian or Greek (or other ethic groups), why was it part of the ‘solution’ to the problem shown in the link I provided to “establish a commission to examine the means of integrating clergymen and communities of the Western Rite into the liturgical life of the Russian Orthodox Church”? Why not just discipline the people involved? Why MUST these people become liturgically eastern?

It has nothing to do with language – speaking Russian, Greek, Latin, Chinese, English, Norwegian, etc. It has to do with Rite. As we can see in the link provided, some Eastern Orthodox actually believes that the Eastern Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom – which I find beautiful, by the way – was the original, that English Christianity (both pre and post 7th century) was Eastern, and that the Byzantine Rite transcends ethnicism.

That is just nonsense. The fact is that the Roman Canon is as old, and in many case older, than most Eastern liturgies, English Christianity was influenced primarily by St. Augustine of Canterbury, who was a papal delegate and Celtic Christians, who traces back to St. Patrick, another papal delegate and a Roman to boot. And no Liturgy ‘transcends ethnicism.’ No rites are more ‘transcendent’ than other in terms off ethnicity. The Byzantine Rite is rooted in Byzantine culture as much as the Western rite is rooted in Roman culture.

I am not saying that Eastern liturgy is wrong. I am saying that it is not Western, and Western Christians should be able to celebrate in their ancient customs, whether in or out of communion with Eastern Orthodox churches.

Chinese Taoist rites are also deeply ingrained into Chinese Culture. Is that a legitimate excuse for Chinese people not to adopt Christianity, because it is too Western? I frankly have no sympathy for this particular complaint, because after my own conversion to Christianity, I’ve had to think hard about which cultural observances I must cease to participate in because they are too pagan. Your complaints about this or that Eucharistic canon are small beans.

 

[KjetilK]

Chinese Taoist rites are also deeply ingrained into Chinese Culture. Is that a legitimate excuse for Chinese people not to adopt Christianity, because it is too Western? I frankly have no sympathy for this particular complaint, because after my own conversion to Christianity, I’ve had to think hard about which cultural observances I must cease to participate in because they are too pagan. Your complaints about this or that Eucharistic canon are small beans.

It seems my points make themselves….

 

[KjetilK]

What point is that?

That Catholics doo celebrate according to their customs, that customs develop, and that Orthodox liturgies develop also.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It seems my points make themselves….

Being cryptic never helped anybody’s case. And Seraphim is right, nobody uses the pre-schism western rites. They use either newly composed rites (in the case of many Anglicans, many Lutherans, and the Novus Ordo Missae) or some liturgical descendent of those rites.

 

[twf]

Being cryptic never helped anybody’s case. And Seraphim is right, nobody uses the pre-schism western rites. They use either newly composed rites (in the case of many Anglicans, many Lutherans, and the Novus Ordo Missae) or some liturgical descendent of those rites.

The Tridentine Mass is essentially the pre-schism Roman liturgy. Sure it evolved over the Middle Ages, but these were gradual, organic changes…the same happened with the Byzantine liturgy which is not celebrated today exactly as it was prior to the Great Schism.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Being cryptic never helped anybody’s case. And Seraphim is right, nobody uses the pre-schism western rites. They use either newly composed rites (in the case of many Anglicans, many Lutherans, and the Novus Ordo Missae) or some liturgical descendent of those rites.

Ah, I’m sure the Old Believers thought the Nikonian Reforms were just rehashing of what’s already been said…

Oh, not to mention, all Byzantines are, in one way or another in schism with the Oriental Orthodox, who use the pre-Chalcedonian Liturgy of St. James.

Look, the Byzantine Rite is nice and all. Don’t get me wrong. But arguing that your Church cannot celebrate in any other rite of liturgy because all others developed from post-schismatic movements is like saying we’re not Christians. The DL of St. Tikhon was a big step forward for the ROC, and for the Orthodox Churches in general. It acknowledged, rightly, that the Divine Liturgy needs to acknowledge the cultural heritage of the people celebrating it. I don’t mean to sound like a pluralist. But the DLoSJC was a development of the DL of St. James. Western Rites are a development for a Western audience. And let’s face it; the West is a different beast from the East. West Europe grew up with Latin, not Greek. It grew up with a different Tradition. It is very meet and right to preserve that as best as you can within the bounds of the true faith - to correct the errors you see in Western Christianity while preserving that which is distinctly good about it.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Where is there an Eastern Orthodox church that celebrates the Roman liturgy, or any authentic Latin rite, according to the books either pre-schism or post-schism? From what I have heard, the EO will leave not even the Roman canon untouched (which is undeniably pre-schism), adulterating it with inauthentic Byzantinizations.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

What I’m getting out of this thread is that because of the Orthodox church’s difficulty in handling a western rite, that this is the major reason Lutherans will not convert? I don’t think that is the case at all and I brought up what I thought one of the actual reasons is. The issues run much further than what liturgy you celebrate, at the very heart of it you have two very different theologies. I think its a mistake to over play the liturgy card, when the real difference is the theology itself.

Using my own experience as someone thoroughly ingrained in western culture and western Christendom I became Orthodox despite the cultural barrier. Why did I become Orthodox?Because I am convinced that the theology of the church is true and that it is the true church, and that overrides any difficulty I might have in practising in the church. Surely the main reason Lutherans or protestants will not become Orthodox is because of the theology, not the liturgy of ethnic character of the church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Tridentine Mass is essentially the pre-schism Roman liturgy. Sure it evolved over the Middle Ages, but these were gradual, organic changes…the same happened with the Byzantine liturgy which is not celebrated today exactly as it was prior to the Great Schism.

I’m not arguing against liturgical development but against attempts at liturgical archaeology. The rites as they are practiced today are not acceptable for the reason that they have lost continuity of use within the Church. The ordinaries may be fine, but many post-schism feast days and propers would have to be expunged. Just as we could not suffer to have a feast dedicated to Severus of Antioch or Nestorius, so too we could not have feasts dedicated to post schism Western saints. That’s just how the ecclesiological cookie crumbles.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I’m not arguing against liturgical development but against attempts at liturgical archaeology. The rites as they are practiced today are not acceptable for the reason that they have lost continuity of use within the Church. The ordinaries may be fine, but many post-schism feast days and propers would have to be expunged. Just as we could not suffer to have a feast dedicated to Severus of Antioch or Nestorius, so too we could not have feasts dedicated to post schism Western saints. That’s just how the ecclesiological cookie crumbles.

Yeah, sure. That’s one thing. And I take your point. There is, still, contention about what Mark of Ephesus’s position in the Catholic Church ought to be.

But the altar rail rather than the iconostasis. The flat wafer rather than a prosphora. Statues rather than icons. Organs and maybe even guitars rather than just chant (and believe me, I do love a good chant - Byzantine, Gregorian, or otherwise). Mitres rather than the klobuks. Latin and English rather than Greek and Russian. Is that so much to ask?

 

[Randy_Carson]

What I’m getting out of this thread is that because of the Orthodox church’s difficulty in handling a western rite, that this is the major reason Lutherans will not convert? I don’t think that is the case at all and I brought up what I thought one of the actual reasons is. The issues run much further than what liturgy you celebrate, at the very heart of it you have two very different theologies. I think its a mistake to over play the liturgy card, when the real difference is the theology itself.

Using my own experience as someone thoroughly ingrained in western culture and western Christendom I became Orthodox despite the cultural barrier. Why did I become Orthodox?Because I am convinced that the theology of the church is true and that it is the true church, and that overrides any difficulty I might have in practising in the church. Surely the main reason Lutherans or protestants will not become Orthodox is because of the theology, not the liturgy of ethnic character of the church.

No, Ignatian. It’s not about the rite. It is, to a large degree, about the “ethnic character” of the Orthodox churches. In post #13, I wrote:

If you look at the last line of post #3, you will see the very issue that I have read about over and over and over from people who were interested in Orthodoxy, visited a church, made inquiries, etc., but simply couldn’t get past the “glass” barrier that separated them from the for which that Church was primarily built.

I’ve read papers and articles on Orthodox websites laying out this exact issue, and there were many personal examples given by folks here on CA in the threads last year.

One more point, Lutherans who consider converting ARE confronted by two “different theologies”, but as always, the ultimate difference is the papacy. And if conversion takes place at all, whether they go East or West will largely be determined by their ultimate interpretation of Mt. 16:18-19. I’d bet yours was, too.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

No, Ignatian. It’s not about the rite. It is, to a large degree, about the “ethnic character” of the Orthodox churches. In post #13, I wrote:

I’ve read papers and articles on Orthodox websites laying out this exact issue, and there were many personal examples given by folks here on CA in the threads last year.

One more point, Lutherans who consider converting ARE confronted by two “different theologies”, but as always, the ultimate difference is the papacy. And if conversion takes nplace at all, whether they go East or West will largely be determined by their ultimate interpretation of Mt. 16:18-19. I’d bet yours was, too.

You would have bet wrong. But it seems to me to argue that because there is a cultural quality to the orthodox church is amongst the worst arguments to not join. What matters is if the church is the true church.

 

[KjetilK]

The Tridentine Mass is essentially the pre-schism Roman liturgy. Sure it evolved over the Middle Ages, but these were gradual, organic changes…the same happened with the Byzantine liturgy which is not celebrated today exactly as it was prior to the Great Schism.

Thank you. My point exactly.

 

[KjetilK]

Where is there an Eastern Orthodox church that celebrates the Roman liturgy, or any authentic Latin rite, according to the books either pre-schism or post-schism? From what I have heard, the EO will leave not even the Roman canon untouched (which is undeniably pre-schism), adulterating it with inauthentic Byzantinizations.

Which is interesting, since the Roman Canon predates the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom by about two centuries.

 

[KjetilK]

What I’m getting out of this thread is that because of the Orthodox church’s difficulty in handling a western rite, that this is the major reason Lutherans will not convert? I don’t think that is the case at all and I brought up what I thought one of the actual reasons is. The issues run much further than what liturgy you celebrate, at the very heart of it you have two very different theologies. I think its a mistake to over play the liturgy card, when the real difference is the theology itself.

Using my own experience as someone thoroughly ingrained in western culture and western Christendom I became Orthodox despite the cultural barrier. Why did I become Orthodox?Because I am convinced that the theology of the church is true and that it is the true church, and that overrides any difficulty I might have in practising in the church. Surely the main reason Lutherans or protestants will not become Orthodox is because of the theology, not the liturgy of ethnic character of the church.

In my original post I did point out that there are both theological and cultural reasons why I will not become Orthodox. I then mentioned two of these reasons, and the first one was theological – that I actually believe in the Filioque.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Which is interesting, since the Roman Canon predates the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom by about two centuries.

But nobody doubts the historicity of the Roman Canon. What people find to be troublesome would be questions of teleliturgics and questions concerning what to do with the propers of feasts dedicated to post-schism saints.