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

[KjetilK]

I suppose I would ask is the filioque that important to you?

Yes, because it is true. I will not abandon truth.

Do you believe it should still be on the creed despite it being added by western Christians and later confirmed by the Pope alone apart from the rest of Christendom?

I do not say that it must be put into the original Greek text, but it should stay in the Latin one. Translation is interpretation, and I do think that Filioque is the true interpretation of the Greek text. And so what if it was added by western Christians? Is there something inherently wrong with western Christianity?

Or is it merely the theology of filioque that you agree with?

I do not see what is ‘merely’ about that. Surely the theology is the important part.

But let me ask this. Supposing you agreed with our theology but disliked the foreignness of the church. Would that stop you from converting?

That would depend on the alternatives. In Norway there IS a Church that is Western rite, and who shares much with the Eastern Church. But, as other people have noted here, the unwillingness of many Orthodox churches to actually engage with the culture in which they live IS a theological problem. Christianity is incarnational.

 

[KjetilK]

That’s easy; meaningful lay ascesis.

I know many who practice ascesis, and who aren’t Eastern. But I guess it isn’t ‘meaningful’ enough.

 

[KjetilK]

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.

Like Gregory Palamas, for instance?

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I know many who practice ascesis, and who aren’t Eastern. But I guess it isn’t ‘meaningful’ enough.

Nice deflect. I think my meaning was clear: it is not normative for Catholics and Protestant laymen to practice ascesis. One can be a perfectly good Lutheran and never fast. One can be a perfectly good Catholic and fast on two days and abstain from meat on Fridays in Lent. This, in my opinion, is a fatal omission.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I have. Many times.

Is there a good article on ascesis online that you would recommend?

Thanks.

Not right off hand. Not trying to give your question short shrift: but I think almost any Orthodox blog would have some good info. You might try OrthoWiki and put in “fasting”. There would certainly a good intro in Kallistos Ware’s two books, The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way. If you have any specific questions in mind, myself or the other Orthos here would be glad to take a stab at it.

 

[Efnouti_Nai_Nan]

Nice deflect. I think my meaning was clear: it is not normative for Catholics and Protestant laymen to practice ascesis. One can be a perfectly good Lutheran and never fast. One can be a perfectly good Catholic and fast on two days and abstain from meat on Fridays in Lent. This, in my opinion, is a fatal omission.

When our Pope Shenouda visited the Roman Pope in the 1970s, the first thing he asked of that Pope was “Why don’t your people fast?” It really is strange from the Eastern Christian perspective. I don’t understand why the western Christians don’t do it.

 

[a_priori]

I was an active, scorching evangelical for 20 years and converted to Orthodoxy in an Antiochian parish. After four years there, I moved to another part of the country and spent 8 years in the Greek Orthodox Church. Although I think the Orthodox approach to theology is pretty much spot on, I became Catholic. Orthodoxy is like a castle with a treasure inside that has a moat of ethnocentrism that keeps people out. This is sad. I was in the Orthodox trenches for years but finally had to go into Catholicism to get any sense of community, a support system, and a worship experience in a language I understand.

The Filioque issue is less important to me because the notion that one could use any human language words to the definitively describe the internal relationship between the members of the eternal Godhead is, well, presumptuous.

My 2 cents. You mileage may vary.

 

[KjetilK]

When our Pope Shenouda visited the Roman Pope in the 1970s, the first thing he asked of that Pope was “Why don’t your people fast?” It really is strange from the Eastern Christian perspective. I don’t understand why the western Christians don’t do it.

Well, and this might be very shocking to you, maybe Western Christianity has a different approach, and maybe that is OK? This is the problem. Why should I, as a Western Christian, have to become culturally Eastern to get the ‘benefit’ of Orthodoxy?

But I must say that I do not really buy that Easterns are that ‘perfect.’ To make a cheap shot, I could ask, say, Patriarch Kirill, ‘Why do Orthodox people in Russia drink until they drop?’ That would be a problem, because I would be comparing an ideal (the teaching of Western Christianity) with a real life situation (e.g. the massive drinking among Russians). Of course the ideal will win that argument.

The question should be: Is the customary traditions of Eastern Christianity better than the customary traditions of Western Christianity? My answer is no, they are different and exist within very different cultural contexts. And that is my point. The unwillingness of many Orthodox churches, in the West, to actually engage with the culture in which they live IS a theological problem.

 

[KjetilK]

The Filioque issue is less important to me because the notion that one could use any human language words to the definitively describe the internal relationship between the members of the eternal Godhead is, well, presumptuous.

Well, then we must ask, why say that the Spirit proceeds at all? Why say that the Son is of the same essence as the Father?

 

[a_priori]

Well, then we must ask, why say that the Spirit proceeds at all? Why say that the Son is of the same essence as the Father?

It was certainly important to get across the concept of homoousios and that God exists in Three Persons. However, the definitive nature of the Godhead doesn’t lend itself to the specificity of a turboshaft engine fuel control schematic.

 

[a_priori]

From Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart: “It has become so lamentably common among my fellow Orthodox to treat this claim that Western theology in general posits some ‘impersonal’ divine ground behind the Trinitarian hypostases, and so fails to see the Father as the ‘fountainhead of divinity’, as a simple fact of theological history (and the secret logic of Latin ‘filioquism’) that it seems almost rude to point out that it is quite demonstrably untrue, from the patristic through the medieval periods, with a few insignificant exceptions. In fact, I would go so far as to claim that the understanding of the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit found in Augustine is not only compatible, but identical, with that of the Cappadocian fathers—including Gregory’s and Basil’s belief that the generation of the Son is directly from the Father, while the procession of the Spirit is from the Father only per Filium (sed, to borrow a phrase, de Patre principaliter).”

fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.com/2012/05/myth-of-schism-by-david-bentley-hart.html

 

[Vanny]

Well one big reason the closest EO parish is about 100 miles to my south, and I’m not interested in starting a mission church-.
I have Read Bishop Kallistos Ware’s the Orthodox church and Frederica Mathew Greens facing East. I liked a lot I read in those books. I would love to attend a DL at some point.
But I think at the end of the day I’m a Western Christian. That and the issue of justification which I’m sorting through now as I look to possibly become Catholic. When I’m in that city (100 miles away) I would like to attend a service at the EO church, though. I really would before I decide completely that EO is not for me.

I have no problem with the Theotokos(Mary)
the saints, Icons, or even purgatory correctly understood so
I could convert to either one and they would not be issues for me.

 

[Peter_J]

I suppose I would ask is the filioque that important to you? Do you believe it should still be on the creed despite it being added by western Christians and later confirmed by the Pope alone apart from the rest of Christendom?

Yes. In fact, centuries later. Charlemange and company originally did it in defiance of not only the East but the pope as well.

As a matter of fact, the silver shields which Pope Leo III made, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin, are displayed in St Peter’s to this day. “I, Leo, have placed these for love and protection of the orthodox faith.”

 

[Efnouti_Nai_Nan]

Well, and this might be very shocking to you, maybe Western Christianity has a different approach, and maybe that is OK? This is the problem. Why should I, as a Western Christian, have to become culturally Eastern to get the ‘benefit’ of Orthodoxy?

But I must say that I do not really buy that Easterns are that ‘perfect.’ To make a cheap shot, I could ask, say, Patriarch Kirill, ‘Why do Orthodox people in Russia drink until they drop?’ That would be a problem, because I would be comparing an ideal (the teaching of Western Christianity) with a real life situation (e.g. the massive drinking among Russians). Of course the ideal will win that argument.

The question should be: Is the customary traditions of Eastern Christianity better than the customary traditions of Western Christianity? My answer is no, they are different and exist within very different cultural contexts. And that is my point. The unwillingness of many Orthodox churches, in the West, to actually engage with the culture in which they live IS a theological problem.

I don’t understand your example, friend. I’m sorry. What does Patriarch Kirill of the Russians have to do with Pope Shenouda? And anyway, I don’t think that drinking is a church discipline for the Russians in the same way that fasting is a church discipline, so the comparison is strange. It is fair to say that there is lots of cultural practices in every church. It is not fair to say that a cultural practice should be considered the same as a church discipline when they are not the same. Every church comes from somewhere. That is different than fasting, which was done by all Christians until very recently. It is not a “East West” issue. There is nothing stopping Western Christians to fast.

 

[KjetilK]

It was certainly important to get across the concept of homoousios and that God exists in Three Persons. However, the definitive nature of the Godhead doesn’t lend itself to the specificity of a turboshaft engine fuel control schematic.

Why is it more ‘technical’ to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (as from one source) then to say the He proceeds from the Father?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nice deflect. I think my meaning was clear: it is not normative for Catholics and Protestant laymen to practice ascesis. One can be a perfectly good Lutheran and never fast. One can be a perfectly good Catholic and fast on two days and abstain from meat on Fridays in Lent. This, in my opinion, is a fatal omission.

If Catholics do fast as you have just acknowledged, then we do not omit fasting; we simply do not fast as MUCH as you think appropriate.

But perhaps I am ignorant of Jesus’ instructions on this matter.

What verses of Sacred Scripture would you cite in support of your belief that the “omission” of fasting is fatal?

And which verses help you determine what amount of fasting is adequate to avoid being “fatal”?

 

[KjetilK]

I don’t understand your example, friend. I’m sorry. What does Patriarch Kirill of the Russians have to do with Pope Shenouda?

Nothing. It was an example.

And anyway, I don’t think that drinking is a church discipline for the Russians in the same way that fasting is a church discipline, so the comparison is strange.

No, it is appropriate. The assumption behind the question is that the Orthodox all follow the teaching ofg their Church, which is just not true.

It is fair to say that there is lots of cultural practices in every church. It is not fair to say that a cultural practice should be considered the same as a church discipline when they are not the same.

But THIS is my point. Church discipline takes as it starting point the culture of a particular Church (informed, of course, by the culture that surrounds it). The culture of the East developed in a different way from the culture of the West, which naturally led to different church disciplines.

Every church comes from somewhere. That is different than fasting, which was done by all Christians until very recently. It is not a “East West” issue. There is nothing stopping Western Christians to fast.

BUT WE DO FAST! We just don’t necessarily do it the exact same way you do it. And that is OK.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I was an active, scorching evangelical for 20 years and converted to Orthodoxy in an Antiochian parish. After four years there, I moved to another part of the country and spent 8 years in the Greek Orthodox Church. Although I think the Orthodox approach to theology is pretty much spot on, I became Catholic. Orthodoxy is like a castle with a treasure inside that has a moat of ethnocentrism that keeps people out. This is sad. I was in the Orthodox trenches for years but finally had to go into Catholicism to get any sense of community, a support system, and a worship experience in a language I understand.

The Filioque issue is less important to me because the notion that one could use any human language words to the definitively describe the internal relationship between the members of the eternal Godhead is, well, presumptuous.

My 2 cents. You mileage may vary.

Hear! Hear!

:clapping:

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t understand your example, friend. I’m sorry. What does Patriarch Kirill of the Russians have to do with Pope Shenouda? And anyway, I don’t think that drinking is a church discipline for the Russians in the same way that fasting is a church discipline, so the comparison is strange. It is fair to say that there is lots of cultural practices in every church. It is not fair to say that a cultural practice should be considered the same as a church discipline when they are not the same. Every church comes from somewhere. That is different than fasting, which was done by all Christians until very recently. It is not a “East West” issue. There is nothing stopping Western Christians to fast.

Does the Church have the authority to change its own disciplines which are required for all members?

 

[Efnouti_Nai_Nan]

Of course yes. That’s why it could change them in the first place, right? But a change away from what the rest of the ancient churches do waters down the practices. If you think it is beneficial to do less, then do less. Nobody can say that you have to fast like the Eastern Christians do. But when there is only a little to do, how can people get the full benefit of fasting? This is what the other guy doesn’t seem to understand, that it is not about saying that the eastern practice is “better” or the western practice is “worse”, but about what is beneficial to the people and their souls. What is the spiritual benefit of almost no fasting?