E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
You seem Orthodox in a way or the glass half empty. Especially since the Mass celebrated in Anglican and Lutheran church is identical to Roman Catholics.
- Status
B
benjohnson
Guest
While I don’t quite agree, I understand where the sentiment comes from.
When talking to the Orthodox it’s as if I have to learn a new vocabulary and a new viewpoint. I will say there at times I see strong parallels between confessional Lutheran theology and Orthodox theology, and at other-times Orthodoxy seems to be from a different world.
T
Trebor135
Guest
Maybe in form, but not in belief. Lutherans and most Anglicans deny the Eucharistic sacrifice.
S
Surnaturel
Guest
You may want to check your facts again. Some Orthodox churches do, in fact, use the term ‘transubstantiation’ and others ‘transelementation’. Orthodox coheres with Catholic Eucharist theology on the main point of significance: the transformation of the species into the body and blood of Christ. The Aristotelian language of substance and accidents does not make it ‘unChristian’ any more than neo-platonic philosophy negatively affects Eastern spirituality.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
When one speaks a common language there is understanding. No one dare set up roadblocks to God, the God we all worship.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
But then, how do Orthodox address things that didn’t exist 1000 years ago (i.e, IVF or “gay” marriage)?
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
BTW, the Eastern Divine Liturgy has no comparison to the Roman Mass.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
Not so.
In your creed, at least according to a 1910s Lutheran service book (my apologies if it is out-of-date) your creed says you believe in the “one, holy Christian, and apostolic Church”. While this isn’t wrong, it is not the same thing as “Catholic”.
Another thing is that Lutherans seem to have varying, non-concrete beliefs on the Eucharist. Some believe in a Real Presence sort of doctrine and even worship what they consider the Blessed Sacrament. Some seem to believe in Receptionism. Some seem to think the Real Presence departs after the service and they treat the bread and wine with little reverence.
A third is that our concepts of the priesthood are somewhat different; in Lutheranism, technically anyone could be a priest and do the service, correct? I don’t know the fine points of our doctrine, but I do know there is a difference between consecrated priests and the “priesthood of all believers” in Catholicism.
As for Anglicanism, they take a Calvinist view and believe in a “spiritual presence”, not a Real Presence.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Good points though some misunderstandings.
Replacing “Holy Christian” for “Holy Catholic” church a uniquely latent anti-catholic silliness. I think the LCMS hymnal still offers a choice of words.
Not silly is the disturbing number of Lutherans who believe “receptionism”; mostly in America.
Clergy attend 4 yr seminary including vicarage then ordained by a bishop.
M
Monergistic
Guest
It’s not how you start, it’s how you finish. The Reformation started as an attempt to reform the CC, but then some other stuff happened.
M
Monergistic
Guest
I would guess economy, which I think of as a way to put development on a leash in service of the same type of goal but in a more limited role. But I would be more than happy to tighten that up a bit, I don’t think that’s the best explanation that can be given.
R
Rawb
Guest
No, economy is a relaxing of rules where we can, like allowing someone to eat before coming to Liturgy, or allowing a second marriage, or allowing the use of contraception. It’s a lessening of the high moral standard demanded of a Christian in order to suit the situations of real life: the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
In some cases economy cannot be extended, such as the case of gay “marriage.” This is determined by knowledgeable and practicing Orthodox bishops who, because they are knowledgeable and practice their faith, are guided by the Holy Spirit. When one is Orthodox one just sort of knows the limits of such matters. It’s that “Orthodox mindset” that we sometimes refer to.
As to how we answer new things, well, there’s not really anything new. We know the faith, and when you know that you know how to react. If you don’t, you ask your priest. If he doesn’t know he’ll ask the bishop. If the bishop doesn’t know he’ll ask other bishops. If nobody knows a local council is convened. If the local council can’t answer the question, an ecumenical council will answer it.
About Roman Catholicism looking like protestantism, it’s very true from the Orthodox perspective. A common expression in Orthodoxy is “Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are two sides of the same coin.” Your theology is based upon the same assumptions and terminology, many of which do not even occur in Orthodoxy because it’s framed entirely differently. Protestantism is seen as an outgrowth and child of Roman Catholicism, possessing the same features, characteristics, traits, beliefs, and yes, I would say, many Orthodox view the Novus Ordo as a very protestant-like service.
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
Boy, you said a mouthful there! By the same token much of Catholicism is alien to Protestants especially those of the Evangelical variety. When I was one, I thought it was weird that Catholic clergy wore these robes, and Catholic churches had stained glass windows. that Catholics prayed to Mary and a lot of other “dead” people. I also had a problem with the Latin that Catholics used back in the day. As a Protestant I was used to the preacher wearing a business suit, or sometime just slacks and a polo shirt. One church I went to converted a gymnasium of a school to the place where they had Sunday worship through the use of folding chairs and when service was over they folded the chairs up and stored them under the stage and the room was a gymnasium again. And we had loud music with people dancing in the aisles, sermons that would last an hour or more. Songs projected onto a large movie screen and if you mentioned the word “tradition” it was like you said a cuss word.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
You said a mouthful, as well my bro or sis!Boy, you said a mouthful there! By the same token much of Catholicism is alien to Protestants especially those of the Evangelical variety. When I was one, I thought it was weird that Catholic clergy wore these robes, and Catholic churches had stained glass windows. that Catholics prayed to Mary and a lot of other “dead” people. I also had a problem with the Latin that Catholics used back in the day. As a Protestant I was used to the preacher wearing a business suit, or sometime just slacks and a polo shirt. One church I went to converted a gymnasium of a school to the place where they had Sunday worship through the use of folding chairs and when service was over they folded the chairs up and stored them under the stage and the room was a gymnasium again. And we had loud music with people dancing in the aisles, sermons that would last an hour or more. Songs projected onto a large movie screen and if you mentioned the word “tradition” it was like you said a cuss word.
The mode of worship may vary but the heart of a Christian beats strong!
E
EIF5A
Guest
This is a false accusation. One does not believe in Jesus but not repent. I have never come across a Protestant that believes one can just “believe” but not repent.
Just because Protestants emphasize a personal relationship with Our Lord doesn’t mean Protestantism negates the necessity of repentance.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
With Scripture.
Besides, homosexual acts have been condemned since OT times, what makes you think we’d have any other stance on gay marriage?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I’m 100% sure with my facts. I’ve already come across the topic from books and various talks. Usage of Latin concepts is common in Orthodoxy because of scholasticism in the 19th century, and also today it is easier to talk to people using these “common” terms. But deeper theological discussions about Sacramental theology would reject such concept as applicable to the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist.
I personally wouldn’t object to transabustantiation as a means to explain the Eucharist, but also make it clear that it is not an “official” understanding of the mechanics of the Eucharist.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
On the other hand, we did change the creed, too (though not right teaching). Still, “Christian”, while it is not a bad thing, cannot sufficiently replace “Catholic”, which very directly and unequivocally conveys unity as being fundamental to the faith.
It’s a small thing, but it can be very important (if the squabbling over the filioque here is any indication).
I am glad we agree this is an important point, because either we commit idolatry or we so abuse the Lord, depending on who is right.
But how are all the divers Lutherans to solve this point?
Maybe this will shed some light.
What differs between the minister ordained by the bishop and the ordinary man-in-the-pew? Would it still be valid (but illicit, that is, not approved by the bishop) for any man to celebrate a Lutheran service?
Furthermore, what differentiates a Lutheran bishop from a Lutheran minister, or any ordinary Lutheran?
As I understand it, the bishop, in Catholicism, receives the ability to teach with the authority of Christ, to confirm, and to ordain clergy - because when he himself is ordained, he is given the Holy Ghost in a way unique only to the Apostles and successors of the Apostles (like Timothy, Paul, Ignatius of Antioch, etc.). Ordinary unordained Christians do not have this special “mark” and ability to forgive sins, not forgive sins, teach, etc.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
Maybe this was a bad example.
What I mean is, does Orthodoxy, then, have no interest in doctrinal development - the logical, spiritual, or other implications of particular teachings (such as the Catholic understanding of the Immaculate Conception)? What I mean is not why don’t you believe in the IC, that is not my point.
But since II Nicaea, the Orthodox have never held a council and, I presume, never further chiseled out what is or is not true in the Christian faith. That is, their doctrinal development ceased after 787. Is this correct? If it is, why is this a good reason to eschew Catholicism or Protestantism if Christian doctrine had been developing for the first 800 years of our history (denying monophysitism, monothelitism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Semipelagianism, Nestorianism, and affirming the Trinune God, the double-nature of the one Christ, and the efficacy of icons and statues?
Or am I misunderstanding the doctrinal development of the Orthodox?
S
Surnaturel
Guest
The Aristotelian language categories are not normative for Orthodox and some may reject the concept in that they believe that the mystery of the Eucharist should stand as such without trying to work it out. That’s fine with me too. Personally, I prefer an explanation without the Aristotelian language such as the ‘the sacrament effectuated the very thing being signified.’
What I take offense with, however, is your straightaway rejection of transubstantiation and polemical comment that ‘neo-platonic philosophy’ has no place in Christianity which is especially problematic for anyone who draws on, say, the Cappadocian Fathers.
I think that is a mature Christian way to handle it. I would never expect a non-Catholic to have to conform to the language that we use so long as the teaching itself aboutthe flesh and blood of the Lord ks preserved. There is no need for us members of different denominations to further drive the wedge of division over matters that we have an essential agreement on.
- Status