"Members of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) are now forbidden to pray and receive communion in the monasteries and churches on Mount Athos, said Igor Yakimchuk (spokesman for Patriarch Kirill) and Alexander Volkov (secretary of the Moscow Department for External Church Relations). For prayer in any churches of the Constantinople Patriarchate, Russian Orthodox Christians will have to repent of this sin at confession."
35 comments:
The nonsense put forward by ex-Lutherans converting to Orthodoxy about the much vaunted "unity" of the Orthodox Church is exposed, once again in this case, as a total fraud. The so-called "Orthodox" Church is filled with error, superstition, denial of the very Gospel and a whole host of other problems, you know, just like the churches these converts love to point to as reasons for leaving.
And people say Lutherans are too "close minded" about fellowship and the boundaries of said fellowship.
Forgot to sign last comment:
P-T-McCain
There was a very good and valid reason that the Moscow Patriarchate suspended communion with Constantinople. The Patriarch of Constantinople has changed. He now views himself as some sort of Orthodox Pope who can do whatever he pleases, even if it is against the Canons of our Church. Canonically he cannot interfere in a diocese of another jurisdiction. He has no universal authority nor does he have universal jurisdiction. Furthermore, now Constantinople is claiming that to be Orthodox, one must be in communion with HIM. If that isn't neo-papalism, I don't know what is. The two groups of schismatics that Constantinople has "recognized" as charlatans of the worst order. Denisenko (of the so-called Kyiv Patriarchate) is an ego maniac and cruel man. He was excommunicated and anathematized by the Russian Orthodox Church for some very valid reasons. He was supposed to be a monk, but he has a secret wife and family. He has a common law wife that he lies about and says that she is his sister. And he lives with her. An honest bishop who respected his monastic vows would not do that. The other fellow, Maletich, the head of the UAC (Ukrainian Orthodox Church) has never even been properly ordained as an Orthodox bishop. His "ordination" consisted of the laying on of hands by some laymen and priests. Not a single bishop was present at his "ordination." That doesn't not make a bishop, according to Orthodox theology. Since Constantinople "recognized" both of these charlatans as legitimate, the only canonical and proper thing the Russian Orthodox Church can do is break communion with Constantinople and pray for Bartholomew's repentance. I fully support the actions of the Moscow Patriarchate. And at this point the bishops of 11 different autocephalous Orthodox Churches have approved of Moscow's actions. The other four remaining churches have just been silent and said nothing. Not one single autocephalous Orthodox Church has approved of Bartholomew's actions.
Pr McCain's comment on this situation is, theologically, rather shallow. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion that the Orthodox Church is "filled with error, superstition, [and] denial of the very Gospel." I don't share his opinion, but it is based on a good amount of knowledge on Pr McCain's part about the teachings and practices of the Orthodox Church.
In this case, however, he fails to understand the ecclesiological basis of the schism between Moscow and Constantinople. Far from being an instance of disunity in the Orthodox Church, Moscow's excommunication of Constantinople is precisely a witness to the unity of the Church -- specifically, the critical dimension of unity of doctrine. The proximate cause of the schism is Constantinople's interference in the canonical jurisdiction of Moscow; but the underlying cause is Constantinople's claim -- which they make quite explicitly -- that its primacy ("first among equals") gives it the right and duty to interfere in the affairs of other local Churches. This is, to speak plainly, the heresy of papism, and Constantinople is not the first local Church to have separated itself from the unity of the Orthodox Church because of that heresy. The Orthodox Church has been waiting patiently for a thousand years for the elder Rome to repent of that heresy; it will not do to tolerate the same heresy in New Rome. Thus Moscow's action is not a breach of the unity of the Church, but a necessary step to preserve the doctrinal unity of the Church.
Pastor McCain's indictment of the Orthodox Church is exactly the same as if someone were to scold the LCMS for "breaking the unity of Lutheranism" because we are not in communion with the ELCA. But if we are to preserve the integrity of Lutheranism, we must be divided from the ELCA (and any other heterodox body that claims to be Lutheran). It is just so with the Orthodox: if they are to be authentically Orthodox, they must be divided from the neo-Papists in Constantinople.
This could be a by-product of the global politics of Russia and the Ukraine. I would not use a broad brush against the Orthodox Church, except some church leaders are influenced by governments.
I appreciate Chris Jones's point. It's hard not to see non-theological politics playing a large part in this, though, especially when Kirill and Putin are tight. I say this as someone who's sympathetic to the Russian stance against liberalism. Bartholomew seems to be all aboard the liberal train.
You've probably seen the papist Russian Soloviev's comments on the Russian-Greek relationship.
In any case, more schism is a shame. However, we trust that God is at work for our good through all of these schisms.
Please note that ELEVEN other autocephalous Orthodox Churches have condemned Constantinople's action in Ukraine and have side with the Moscow Patriarchate. Do you really think Putin controls them too? What about the Orthodox Church of Poland? There is no great love lost between Poland and Russia. The two nations have been enemies for most of their history. Yet the Orthodox Church of Poland condemned Constantinople's action and sided with the Moscow Patriarchate. There are lot of theological reasons those eleven churches sided with Moscow. This is not all political. Doctrine is involved.
It's hard not to see non-theological politics playing a large part in this, though, especially when Kirill and Putin are tight.
I can't deny that politics are involved in this, but it's not coming from Putin. I have little doubt that Putin supports the position of the Moscow Patriarchate in this matter, but the political initiative to bring this matter to a head came not from Putin, but from Poroshenko, the Ukrainian President; and there has reportedly been significant pressure on Patriarch Bartholomew from the U.S. State Department. (I say "reportedly" because I am not in a position to judge the veracity of those reports.)
The schismatic Church bodies that Bartholomew is attempting to normalize (and then grant autocephaly to) have existed for decades, unrecognized by Constantinople (or any other Orthodox Church). Why has it become urgent for Constantinople to recognize these groups now? The answer to that question is political, not theological; and the political impetus is coming from Kiev (and possibly Washington), not from Moscow and not from Putin.
So yes, the motivation for this entire mess is primarily political. It crosses over to become a theological issue because Constantinople's actions to "remedy" the situation are predicated on a canonical authority that Constantinople does not possess. The pretensions to a papal kind of authority on the part of Constantinople are nothing new. What is new is that there are now geo-political players who are willing (for their own political purposes) to throw their weight behind the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Constantinople sees the opportunity to use that political support as leverage to make good on its long-standing claims to a papal style of authority.
The rest of the Orthodox world is having none of it.
I'll take your and Tracy's word for it. I certainly wasn't saying it was all political, just partly. I also meant it was political from the Ukrainian side. And of course, as a Lutheran, I recognize the error of papacy.
Couple questions since you are in the know on these things. Where does the Greek church stand since they aren't directly under Bartholomew, right?
Are those under Bartholomew considered "out" of the church now according to EO ecclesiology?
Thanks for your questions, Anonymous.
You are correct that the Orthodox Church in Greece is independent and autocephalous and NOT under Bartholomew. Several bishops of the Church of Greece have condemned Bartholomew's action in Ukraine already, although the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece has not issued a formal statement about the matter yet, in so far as I know. I don't know of any bishops of the Church of Greece that have praised Bartholomew's action - not a single one.
The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria have condemned Bartholomew's action in Ukraine both verbally and in writing. They are calling for a Council of all Autocephalous Orthodox Churches to meet and discuss this matter. Many other Orthodox bishops are also calling for such as council, as is my hierarch, His Beatitude Tikhon, of the OCA (Orthodox Church in America).
Your last question is a loaded one: Are those under Bartholomew considered "out" of the church according to EO ecclesiology? My opinion as a mere layman is that they are still in the Orthodox Church. The laity who are under Bartholomew did not cause this. Even the priests who are under Bartholomew did not cause this. As far as I know, no Greek Orthodox people in the United States caused this or even participated in it. Bartholomew cause it by his actions alone. In the Russian Orthodox Church the laity now are being asked not to commune in churches of the Ecumenical Patriarchate until this matter is resolved. But that doesn't really effect too many Russian Orthodox people on a daily basis because most of the Russian Orthodox live in Russia. Unless they are one vacation, most of them are probably not anywhere near a Greek Orthodox parish. The OCA, being on the other side of the world from Ukraine and Constantinople, is greatly disappointed in Constantinople's action. The OCA wholeheartedly supports Metropolitan Onuphry, the head of the only canonical Church in Ukraine - the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. However, at this point, the OCA remains in communion with both Moscow and Constantinople. That means that we can still commune in Greek Orthodox parishes here in the United States and Greek Orthodox people can still commune in OCA parishes. Right now our bishops are counseling us to pray for Bartholomew and for a peaceful and wise solution to this problem. The Orthodox Church can move glacially slow at times and while it does we will continue one with our common life in the church. Eventually this will be worked out or New Rome will go the way of Old Rome. I hope this helps you understand at least a little bit better. Understanding the inner working of the Orthodox Church is difficult and complex, and at times, quite frustrating.
Anonymous,
Tracy Griffin gave a good answer to your questions. I have nothing useful to add.
Tracy is in a better position than I to answer these things, because I am not an Orthodox but an ex-Orthodox (now LCMS Lutheran), though I still consider myself a friend of Orthodoxy and follow Orthodox doings from the outside.
It is a mistake to equate an organizational structure with the Church. The Church is the organic baptized body of Christ under an Orthodox bishop who holds the Apostolic Faith and Practice of the Saints, Fathers, Confessors and Councils, unaltered and without the admission of heresy. That which is represented by the organizational structures known as world Orthodoxy has fallen under the condemnation of various synods and councils by it admission and participation in the heresy of Ecumenism. The true Orthodox Church is undivided and cannot be divided because it is the Body of Christ. Those who depart from this faith fall away from the Church but do not divide the Church. The unity of the Church exists in a unity of faith and practice, not in an organization or appearance of officialdom.
Thanks Tracy and Chris for your answers!
If the Greek Orthodox Church is not under the direct authority of Bartholomew, what orthodox churches are? (I've never fully understood the role of the Patriarch of Constantinople. But I do know it's not papal in authority.) I'm not Orthodox but my wife was when we married in the Antiochian Orthodox Church.
James
Dear Anonymous: The Greek Orthodox in the United States are under the authority of Constantinople, not the Greeks in the nation of Greece, they are under the Archbishop of Athens. Other groups under Constantinople include the Orthodox Church of Finland, the Orthodox Church of Estonia and the American Carpatho Russian Diocese. I believe there might be some other groups too. Bartholomew's actual flock in Istanbul is probably less than 1,000 people these days. After the anti-Greek progams of the 1960s, most of the Greek Orthodox population fled Istanbul and has never returned. The only Greek Orthodox still there are people who are too poor and elderly to afford to leave. It is a very sad situation. The Greeks in the nation of Greece really don't respect Bartholomew very much. They tend to view him as puppet of the Turkish gov't and want nothing to do with him for the most part.
What to make of this?
https://mobile.twitter.com/NBCTHESLAPP/status/1053301183916453889
Matters of jurisdiction appear to be a sensitive topic for Orthodoxy, perhaps even more sensitive than some other issues, especially issues of doctrinal unanimity or positions on social issues (abortion and homosexuality among them). While I appreciate much in Orthodoxy, it is very difficult sometimes not to see it as an ethnic church made up of ethnicities in conflict and competition. There are few places where this is more obvious than the US and its anomaly of more than one Orthodox bishop in a particular geographical area -- something that cannot be anything more than a testament to ethnicity. Pitting the Russian interests against the Ukrainian interests with the Patriarch of Constantinople choosing side is just this kind of jurisdictional dispute that is a weakness in Orthodoxy. I say this as one who has great affection for Orthodoxy and who has long been personally familiar with the OCA and St. Vladimir's.
Tracy Griffin
4:57 PM (4 minutes ago)
to noreply-comment
I see American Orthodoxy as no more divided by ethnicity now than American Lutheranism was just a generation ago. If you are criticizing the ethnic nature of Orthodoxy, you really don't understand it at all. There is one Orthodox Church because we all partake of the same Chalice, despite the differences in ethnicity and jurisdictional organization. All churches are ethnic because "ethnos" simply means "people." The only churches that think they aren't ethnic are the churches that are composed of the dominant ethnic group of a society.
And criticizing American Orthodox for having more than one bishop in a geographical area is not a testament to ethnicity. It is a testament to how the Bolshevik Revolution in Tsarist Russia helped to create today's jurisdictional chaos in the United States. But sadly, instead of actually being teachable and willing to learn this history, we have a lot of untaught people who smugly wanted to point the finger at the Orthodox Church over this issue. When Orthodoxy first came to the United States it came as the Northern American Mission of the Russian Orthodox Church. That started way back in Alaska in 1794 and has continued in an unbroken line until today. In the original plan (before Communism broke out in Russia) all the Orthodox in the United States were in ONE JURISDICTION and there were not competing bishops in the same area. There were still different ethnic populations, but they were all included under the structure of the Russian Orthodox Church. The goal of the Russia Mission in the United States was to eventually produce an American Orthodox Church, with converted Americans as priests and bishops worshipping in English. That was the long term goal of the Russian mission. Their goal here was to create an American Church just like the Greek Orthodox missionaries to Russia helped create a Russian Church. But when the Communists took over Russia that all changed. Patriarch Tikhon had a letter smuggled out of Russia to his American flock that told them "believe NOTHING from Moscow until the Church is free again." Most of our Russian Orthodox bishops were murdered by the Communists. By 1932 there were only 4 bishops left in all of Russia, and they were all elderly. All the rest had been killed. The Bolsheviks actually came to the United States and started suing parishes of the Russian Mission in American courts demanding their churches and parish properties. In some cases they won. That is how the OCA lost our National Cathedral in New York City and had to purchase an old Methodist Church on 2nd Ave in Manhattan to be our new cathedral. The Communists wanted to take over and sell all our churches properties so that they could get the money. That is when our parishes were encouraged to return to there ethnic roots and put in the church property in another name to keep the Communists from suing them and taking it. And so, naturally, the ethnic parishes asked bishops from the Old World to rule them as a way of saving their churches at a time of great suffering and chaos. And that is why American Orthodox today has these different ethnic jurisdictions. We never planned it that way and we didn't want it that way. It resulted from an accident of history and we are working on correcting it. Sometimes the speed of the Orthodox Church is glacially slow, but we are making progress. We have more English speaking parishes now than every before.
Thank you Tracy Griffin for your insightful posts. I didn't know the Greek Orthodox Church in America is under the direct authority of Bartholomew. That will be interesting in my part of the world since the Greek and ROCOR churches often hold mutual events together.
Pastor Peters, I do agree the ethnic emphasis is problematic within Orthodoxy in the US. But perhaps that will change. The Antiochian church my wife and I were married in no longer uses Arabic for much of their liturgy. And now there are plenty of members who aren't middle eastern. And the Orthodox priest who married us fully desires a separate autocephalous church in the United States. But he acknowledged things move slowly in the Orthodox church.
As a former LCMS member who is now a continuing Anglican, I don't really grasp the importance of this Russian / Ukrainian issue. My initial reaction is let the Ukrainians have their own church. But there is a long, often strained, history between the Russians and Ukrainians. For the sake of God's church on this earth, I pray for a peaceful resolution.
James
There are ethnic clubs but no such thing as an ethnic Church.
Anonymous: The problem is that there are THREE Orthodox "churches" in Ukraine. There is however, only ONE canonical Orthodox Church there. It is called the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). It is an autonomous church and is headed by Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev. It is same church that was established when Prince Vladimir of Kiev accepted baptism over 1,000 years ago in 988. It is the historic Orthodox Church of the Ukrainian people. It is autonomous, meaning that it elects its own bishops and conducts its own internal affairs on its own, without any interference from Moscow. Nevertheless, because is an autonomous part of the Moscow Patriarch, Metropolitan Onuphry has a permanent seat on the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow, in addition to his responsibilities in Kiev. This same Ukrainian Orthodox Church recently discussed the possibility of autocephaly and all the Ukrainian bishops unanimously voted AGAINST that and voted to preserve their relationship as an autonomous of the Moscow Patriarchate. The only difference between being an autonomous church and an autocephalous church is two things: the bishop who is commemorated in the Divine Liturgy and where they get their chrism from. That's it. In the UOK-MP, Patriarch Kirill is commemorated as the "Patriarch of Moscow and all the Russias (plural). This distinction is often not translated into English. The three Russias are Great Russia (Russia), Little Russia (Ukraine) and White Russia (Belarus). The Russian people have had these distinctions for over 1,000 years. After all, it is the largest nation in the world and it used to be all one country both under the Tsars and under Communism. Until very recently ALL of these people thought of themselves as different types of Russians, just like people from Massachusetts, South Carolina and California are all examples of Americans, different to be sure, but still one people. In order to not promote Russian or Ukrainian nationalism both the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) worship in Church Slavonic, not in modern day Russian or Ukrainian. The Church Slavonic language keeps the connection to the past and downplays nationalism. It also creates unity with the other Slavic Orthodox Church that also worship in Church Slavonic, such as the Orthodox Church of Serbia and the Orthodox Church of Bulgaria. Even the Russian Orthodox monastery on Mount Athos in Greece worships in Church Slavonic.
Then there are two other Orthodox "churches" (and I hate to use that word to describe them, but I will for purposes of our discussion here). These two non-canonical Orthodox jurisdictions are the Kyiv Patriarchate headed by Philaret Denisenko and the Ukrainian Autonomous Church (UAC) headed by "Bishop" Miletich - a priest who was "ordained" by group of laymen and a few priests! (Remember that is impossible under Orthodox ecclesiology. You must have a bishop to perform an ordination.) "Metropolitan" Filaret is also compromised. He was monk (all bishops in the Orthodox Church must be monastics) but he secretly got married and has a wife and several children. He also lies about it and says this woman is his "sister." In addition, he was also brought before a Court Court and excommunicated and anathematized by his ecclesiastical superiors. In fact, the Denisenko faction and the Miletich faction don't even like each other. BOTH of them want the title "Patriarch of Kiev" and it is not clear who, if either will get it. The problem with all of this mess is that Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople has supposedly lifted the excommunication of these two men (something he has no power to do because he did not IMPOSE the excommunication.) In the Orthodox Church, no bishop can lift the excommunication or anathema of another bishop. You have to go back to the bishop who excommunicated you and repent and be restored THERE. You cannot run to another bishop to do that. This is why the Moscow Patriarchate (and the rest of World Orthodoxy, for that matter, is so upset with Bartholomew. If the EP had simply made Metropolitan Onuphry's Church an autocephalous church, we would not be as upset as we are. That would have still be wrong for Bartholomew to do unilaterally and it should not be done without the blessing of the Russian Orthodox Church, of which Onuphry's church is a part. However that that had happened, it would have been merely a canonical squabble. This is a squabble about doctrine (Miletich is not even a real bishop according to Orthodox ecclesiology) and morality (Denisenko having a secret wife, breaking his monastic vows, lying about it). It is also a canonical issue because Denisenko had been validly deposed and anathematized as well. I hope this makes you understand why we Orthodox are so upset about this. This is not a mere "ethnic" thing to us. It is serious violation of the doctrines and morals and canons of our Orthodox faith.
Pastor McCain once again reveals himself for the pompous wind-bag he is. The unity of the Orthodox communion is in the same faith which has always been preached in all places from the beginning. News flash: there are breaks in communion all the time. The Antiochian Patriarchate and the Jerusalem Patriarchate are currently "in schism" because of the JP's infringement on Antioch's canonical territory which is a serious breach of the ecclesiology as informed and understood from Orthodox teaching. I know Pr. McCain gets his underwear all knotted up whenever he hears of Lutherans converting to Orthodoxy, especially if they are pastors (I'm sure he would show up to their houses, if he could, with a pitchfork and torch ready to make them submit like the inquisition of old), but more people are leaving the cluster&^%$ that is Lutheranism for the Orthodox. You tell me which is better: having the unity of the faith or merely an administrative union where any deviation from the faith is tolerated?
Chris
PR. Peters,
THe reason for multiple overlapping jurisdictions in the USA has everything to do with the Russian Revolution of 1917, not for immigrants wanting to merely keep to themselves. For as much as you condemn that, I wonder where your own condemnation is for Lutherans who, for years, and some still do worship according to their ethnic characters. It is not uncommon to find Swedish Lutheran churches or German Lutheran churches or Finnish Lutheran churches. I've been to examples of all three. Some of them still offer services from time to time in Swedish or German or even Finnish. But, that's OK? I call b.s.
Chris
Lutherans never held to the same jurisdictional concerns that Orthodoxy does hold. It is more than an anomaly that there is more than a single bishop for a single geography for Orthodoxy. It borders on a crisis. Lutherans have never held this opinion. It is not a fair comparison to equate the ethnic divisions of early Lutheran history in America with the ethnic divisions of Orthodoxy here. We have had almost the same time in this country to resolve this and for Lutherans it has largely been resolved with divisions over doctrine and not heritage. Orthodoxy claims there are no doctrinal divisions only ethnic ones and yet a hundred years has passed with no resolution on the problem of ethnic divisions. Instead the same issues seem to be gaining ground in other places instead of disappearing. Again, Chris, I do not say this as one who gloats over our Lutheran righteousness in polity and jurisdictional issues but as a friend of Orthodoxy with many longtime friends as priests and a bishop or two plus some time spent at St. Vlads.
I hasten to clarify that I am not the "Chris" who posted "October 19, 2018 at 11:29 PM". While I have had some disagreements with Pastor McCain over the years, and disagree with the sentiments he has expressed on this thread, he is a good and honorable man and I would advise "the other Chris" to treat him with more respect.
With respect to the substantive points that the other Chris has made, I suggest that the matter is rather more complicated than he has presented it. It is all well and good to say that unity of faith is more important than administrative consistency and clarity, because it is. But that does not make overlapping jurisdictions, ethno-phyletism, and jurisdictional squabbling into a good thing. It is a scandal which obscures the very unity of faith that Chris highlights, and compromises the Orthodox Church's witness to the Gospel.
The notion that the mess that is Orthodoxy in North America (and everywhere else in the diaspora) is "everything to do with the Russian Revolution" is the narrative of the Russian-heritage Churches (especially the OCA). And it is a narrative that has a good deal of truth in it with respect to the origins of the jurisdictional mess in America. It has a good deal less power to explain why the situation has continued well into the 21st century. The Russian Revolution was over 100 years ago, and the Bolsheviks fell from power almost 30 years ago; but the jurisdictional chaos that was "all about the Russian Revolution" lives on, without any good reason to exist. (There are, of course, reasons for it, but they are not good ones, and certainly not good theological ones.)
While I don't expect Lutherans to understand the chaotic Orthodox jurisdictional situation in North America, I do find it especially rich and ironic that a church as ethnic as the Lutheran Church is can actual lecture us Orthodox about our ethnic divisions still present here in North America. I spent 20 years of my life as a Lutheran and I have spent 25 years of my life as an Orthodox. I think I know both traditions fairly well. American Lutheranism has been just as ethnic as Orthodoxy still is. Have we forgotten the old Augustana Synod (Swedish) or the Suomi Synod (Finnish) or the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (that still to this day uses the Liturgy of the Church of Norway) or the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio und andere Staaten (today's current LCMS)? Do we realize that the flagship college of the Wisconsin Synod, Martin Luther College, is located in New Ulm, Minneosta (noted as the city with greatest percentage of American with German ethnicity of any city in the United States!). When I lived in Mankato, Minnesota people regularly referred to Bethlehem Lutheran Church as the "Norwegian" church and Grace Lutheran as the "Swedish" Church and Immanuel Lutheran as the "German" church. Even people in town that were not Lutheran would use those ethnic terms to describe those churches. Even to this day in Charleston, South Carolina the beautiful and historic St. Matthew's Lutheran Church (ELCA) has its name listed on its church sign as "St. Matthew German Evangelical Lutheran Church." I'm sorry, but for American Lutherans to lecture American Orthodox about the "sin" of being an ethnic church is like the pot calling the kettle "black."
You Lutherans are hopelessly divided. Even the conservative and traditional Lutherans are not in communion with each other. The LCMS and the WELS are not in communion now, but they used to be back in the days of the old Synodical Conference. Then you have the Church of the Lutheran Confession (CLC) that broke away from the WELS because WELS was too "liberal." Then you have the Protestant Conference Lutherans who broke away from the WELS back in the 1920s or so and still exist. Then you have the ELS (Evangelical Lutheran Synod) of Norwegian heritage that is in communion with WELS but is much milder and far less finger-pointing and, at least back in the 1980s, would occasionally commune visitors from the ALC (American Lutheran Church) while WELS would categorically refuse to. Orthodox is FAR more unified in both doctrine and practice than American Lutheranism. Until this scandal with the Patriarch of Constantinople erupted in Ukraine, there were no doctrinal divisions among us at all and we could freely commune in each other's churches. This is what the non-Orthodox fail to see and fail to understand: we we share the same Chalice, we are ALREADY one Church and have unity, despite the difference ethnic jurisdictions. For some reasons, Lutherans are blind to that or just refuse to see it. But the unity of the Orthodox Church is a beautiful thing and it transcends any ethnic jurisdictions we may have. We will eventually get it all worked out, but these things have to be done properly and canonically, otherwise a schism might result. These things take time and Americans are a very impatient people. We have already corrected some of the ethnic divisions. Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory unified the Antiochian Orthodox years ago. They had been divided into two different jurisdictions that often argued with one another. Now they are one. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, ROCOR and the OCA were often at odds with each other and not in communion with each other. Now that rift has been healed and the OCA and ROCOR are once again at peace and in communion with each other. Even the Old Believer schism that tragically occurred in Russia in the 1660s has been healed for the most part. The Moscow Patriarchate and the Old Believers have made peace with one another and the Old Believers are now called "Old Rite Orthodox" and are now in communion with Moscow and other Orthodox Churches. How many schisms and factions have been healed in Lutheranism lately?
Tracy Griffin: "You Lutherans are hopelessly divided... How many schisms and factions have been healed in Lutheranism lately?"
Well, there's one obvious schism not healed yet, when you stated earlier, "I spent 20 years of my life as a Lutheran and I have spent 25 years of my life as an Orthodox."
Presumably, sometime during the first twenty years, you answered, "I do so intend, with the help of God," when asked, "Do you also, as a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, intend to continue steadfast in the confession of this Church, and suffer all, even death, rather than fall away from it?"
There must have been some drastic change in belief to abandon that vow before God and a Lutheran congregation.
Carl Vehse: This is a Lutheran blog and I respect Pastor Larry Peters the owner of it. I will not post on this blog to argue against Lutheran doctrine and theology. That is not the purpose of this blog and it would be in bad taste to do so. As hard as it may be for you to understand, I still greatly respect the Lutheran Church and have some very fond memories of it. It is NOT my place here to scold Lutherans and lecture them on why they should become Eastern Orthodox. If you wish to discuss why I left Lutheranism, you can email me privately and we can discuss it. I don't wish to discuss it here in this forum. Suffice it to say that I look up my time in Lutheranism as something God used to PREPARE me for Orthodoxy. I will leave it at that.
Tracy Griffin: "I will not post on this blog to argue against Lutheran doctrine... It is NOT my place here to scold Lutherans and lecture them"
Wow. This is an interesting claim from someone who in her previous post argued, "You Lutherans are hopelessly divided," and then lectured Lutheran here on the ecumenical histories of the various Lutheran church bodies, and, in closing, scolded us Lutherans with a rhetorical question about the "lack of healing" for "many schisms and factions" in Lutheranism.
My post only referred to a drastic change in your belief that must have occurred, with no implication of wanting a doctrinal debate here, especially after a quarter century of you being in the Eastern Church.
Carl: My discussing Lutheran order and polity is NOT arguing against Lutheran doctrine. There are still many things about Lutheranism that I admire. I had no sudden, drastic change in my beliefs. My attraction to Orthodoxy was something that was quite gradual. I researched Orthodoxy, read books, and corresponded with Orthodox people for over 10 years before I finally converted to it and left Lutheranism. The thing that finally pushed me over the edge was when the LCMS parish I was attending got a new pastor and he came over to my house for a pastoral visit. He mentioned to me what a shame it was that the LCMS did not ordain women. It shocked me so much I made him repeat the question. He was a graduate of your St. Louis seminary and he is still serving in the LCMS here in South Carolina. He still regularly remarks about how he wished the LCMS was more like the ELCA and wishes it would ordain women. Pastors like him are what pushed me out of the LCMS and made me embrace the Orthodox Church. I have not regretted my decision.
Tracy, the latter part of your post indicates that rather than leaving your local congregation being led by a heretical pastor teaching in contradiction to the doctrinal position of confessional Lutheranism and the LCMS, or rather than leaving all LCMS churches (and going to another Lutheran church body) because the LCMS district and synodical leaders (which 25 years ago included Pres. Al Barry) would not discipline the Lufauxran heretic or the congregation, it was this Lufauxran pastor that pushed you out of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and away from the Lutheran Confessions.
But the earlier part of your post indicates that you had become attracted to (and researched) the Eastern Church religion a decade before your encounter with the Lufauxran pastor. This suggests there was something that attracted you to such a religion, rather than something in Lutheran doctrine (or someone) that drove you away.
To the other Chris:
Respect is earned, not given away. Pr. McCain has earned none. His treatment of non-Lutherans and apostates is extremely telling that if he ever did have power, he would be have no differently than the Inquisition.
Chris
Carl: It was both, not either or. There were things in Orthodoxy that did attract me. And there were things in Lutheranism that frustrated me and even things in Lutheranism that pushed me away. There were also things in Lutheranism that attracted me as well. I never had to take an oath to hold to the Lutheran faith until death. That was never required of me. I came into Lutheranism as an adult convert to the WELS. Since I was an adult already, WELS told me that I did not need to be confirmed. They reminded me that Lutherans do not consider confirmation a Sacrament and that is it not necessary for everyone. WELS simply catechized me and made me a member. No oath was required. Later, I joined the LCMS after I graduated from college, being rather fed up with the Low Church style of WELS and being attracted to how proud the LCMS was of their Lutheran heritage (instead of being embarrassed by it like WELS). I still admire even today how traditional LCMS clergy serve the Lutheran liturgy with reverence, devotion and proper ceremony. Since you asked, after I began studying Orthodoxy and Church history, I finally came to the conclusion that Luther's idea of justification by faith ALONE was an innovation and an error. Once I became convinced of that, it was very easy to convert to Orthodoxy.
Post a Comment