I may have noted elsewhere that our small Orthodox parish has four former Lutheran (LCMS) clergy in it.
I just discovered that the philosophy department in which I teach also has four former Lutherans in it.
Interesting....
30 September 2009
07 September 2009
Subterranean scribbling: A little child...
...approaches the Eucharist in the arms of his mother. He has been baptized in the name of the Triune God and, theologically, he is said to possess the faith in its fullness. "The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these," and unless we who are older become like him, we cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven. He has even had the "confirmation prayer" prayed over him at the end of the rite.
To each person near him come the words, "Given for you, for the forgiveness of sins."
But when the host and chalice come to him, he is passed over.
The words are Jacob's: "he is a member of the body of Christ."
But the hands are Esau's: he is not communed.
And it is useless to talk about "earlier" communion. Does baptism give what it says, or not? If it does, there is no reason to refuse what is said to be the body of Christ to those who are his members. Such communion is not 'open,' since such recipients are equally members of the parish in question as their older fellows.
This is the kind of problem that's led many away from Lutheranism, for all its good, to the Church. One can destroy forests with the trees sacrificed to books and articles on various points of theology. But such arguments arise from faith; they rarely lead to faith. What leads one to reflect and to reexamine are these crushingly existential problems. "How can I refuse one whom I say that the Lord himself has received?"
To each person near him come the words, "Given for you, for the forgiveness of sins."
But when the host and chalice come to him, he is passed over.
The words are Jacob's: "he is a member of the body of Christ."
But the hands are Esau's: he is not communed.
And it is useless to talk about "earlier" communion. Does baptism give what it says, or not? If it does, there is no reason to refuse what is said to be the body of Christ to those who are his members. Such communion is not 'open,' since such recipients are equally members of the parish in question as their older fellows.
This is the kind of problem that's led many away from Lutheranism, for all its good, to the Church. One can destroy forests with the trees sacrificed to books and articles on various points of theology. But such arguments arise from faith; they rarely lead to faith. What leads one to reflect and to reexamine are these crushingly existential problems. "How can I refuse one whom I say that the Lord himself has received?"
03 September 2009
The Kingdom of God does not consist in talk, but in power.
There is little profit in engaging Lutheran bloggers in logomachy.
It's not our turf.
Lutheranism was born and bred in words. Ninety five theses, Heidelberg Disputations, Visitation Articles, Confessions, etc. From the womb it was quarreling, and it exists by defining itself over against 'the other'--whether that be Rome, the Reformed, or even other Lutherans.
The Church was born in power: the power of God the Word incarnate--and she lives by the divine energies, received in font and chrism, Body and Blood, and revealed in the blood of the martyrs. Less than a year after Luther died, St. Michael the breadseller was covered in sulpher by the Turks and burned alive, singing hymns till the end. While Walther was disputing about predestination, St. Joseph of Damascus was being ripped limb-from-limb by an angry unbelieving mob. While Pieper was writing his Dogmatics, St. Elizabeth was singing the Cherubimic hymn and tending the wounds of her fellow-martyrs in a mineshaft.
It's not the nature of the problem, either:
It's not the problem with Lutheranism. Most or all of us who were Lutherans and became Orthodox didn't do so because a certain formula came to be recognized as heretical. "Find me an error in the Book of Concord" is beside the point. Are there errors there? Of course there are. But one does not see that at once. "The renewing of the mind" takes years. Old patterns of thought cling to most of us, in my case doubtless till I die (though I find hope in St. Elizabeth the New Martyr). We left Lutheranism for the sake of our children.
The problem with Lutheranism is existential. It is not the Church. And that is not a judgment based on Orthodox sources. It is based on the words of the Lutheran Confessions.
The fact that some cars in that train called Lutheranism have not yet gone off the edge of the bridge can, in the end, provide but cold comfort for those further back in the train who realize that they are joined historically and confessionally to those whose cars have gone off the edge. "How can the church of Krauth have come to what it now is?" Indeed! Let every Lutheran ponder that.
It is not the problem with certain Lutheran bloggers, either.
They did not turn away from Orthodoxy because they were troubled by ambiguous truth, or unambiguous error. They turned away for, shall we say, personal reasons. They heard the Truth but walked away sorrowful because of their great possessions--or perhaps, family connections.
What do you suppose the rich young ruler did for the rest of his life?
For all this, I am sad and weep. Kyrie eleison!
It's not our turf.
Lutheranism was born and bred in words. Ninety five theses, Heidelberg Disputations, Visitation Articles, Confessions, etc. From the womb it was quarreling, and it exists by defining itself over against 'the other'--whether that be Rome, the Reformed, or even other Lutherans.
The Church was born in power: the power of God the Word incarnate--and she lives by the divine energies, received in font and chrism, Body and Blood, and revealed in the blood of the martyrs. Less than a year after Luther died, St. Michael the breadseller was covered in sulpher by the Turks and burned alive, singing hymns till the end. While Walther was disputing about predestination, St. Joseph of Damascus was being ripped limb-from-limb by an angry unbelieving mob. While Pieper was writing his Dogmatics, St. Elizabeth was singing the Cherubimic hymn and tending the wounds of her fellow-martyrs in a mineshaft.
It's not the nature of the problem, either:
It's not the problem with Lutheranism. Most or all of us who were Lutherans and became Orthodox didn't do so because a certain formula came to be recognized as heretical. "Find me an error in the Book of Concord" is beside the point. Are there errors there? Of course there are. But one does not see that at once. "The renewing of the mind" takes years. Old patterns of thought cling to most of us, in my case doubtless till I die (though I find hope in St. Elizabeth the New Martyr). We left Lutheranism for the sake of our children.
The problem with Lutheranism is existential. It is not the Church. And that is not a judgment based on Orthodox sources. It is based on the words of the Lutheran Confessions.
The fact that some cars in that train called Lutheranism have not yet gone off the edge of the bridge can, in the end, provide but cold comfort for those further back in the train who realize that they are joined historically and confessionally to those whose cars have gone off the edge. "How can the church of Krauth have come to what it now is?" Indeed! Let every Lutheran ponder that.
It is not the problem with certain Lutheran bloggers, either.
They did not turn away from Orthodoxy because they were troubled by ambiguous truth, or unambiguous error. They turned away for, shall we say, personal reasons. They heard the Truth but walked away sorrowful because of their great possessions--or perhaps, family connections.
What do you suppose the rich young ruler did for the rest of his life?
For all this, I am sad and weep. Kyrie eleison!
24 August 2009
The ELCA decision...
...has produced some thoughtful commentary in the Lutheran blogosphere--most notably on Weedon's blog and on Father Hollywood. Pr. Weedon poses the question of what happened to the church of Krauth, Jacobs, Tappert and Reed--a question well worth pondering. Fr. Beane writes a nice piece on tradition, in which he says, in part:
First, note the list of traditions rejected by the Lutherans:
(1) The Word of God teaches that those Christians whose hearts have ceased beating are not dead, but alive. The normal New Testament way of speaking of them is as "asleep in Christ," not "dead." And the Word of God enfleshed tells us that "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him."
(2) The Word of God teaches that Christians ought to pray for each other, and to ask for each other's prayers.
(3) Finally, unlike the late Roman system, our motive for asking is not utility, but love.
It is understandable that the Lutheran reformers would reject asking for the intercessions of the saints (though the reason they offer, "How can we know that they hear us?", is an example of early-modern skepticism); after all, they only knew the practice in its late-mediaeval Roman guise. Nonetheless, they tossed out the baby with the bathwater here.
The intercession of the saints is, I would argue, an apostolic tradition. It upholds the apostolic words; it is both ancient and universal. So Fr. Beane's last words cited above are worth pondering:
"Those who cut themselves off from the apostolic tradition cut themselves off from the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God, and are left with nothing more than their own imaginings and the sorts of "traditions" of the Pharisees that our Lord condemns."
"The Lutheran Reformation got rid of some traditions, such as the prayers to the saints, the withholding of the cup to the laity, indulgences, and the liturgical language of the canon of the Mass that refers to a propitious (sin-forgiving) sacrifice, offered ex opera operato (by the work itself apart from faith) for the living and the dead.(Note the ellipsis after the second paragraph; I've excerpted the text I want to comment on, but you should read the whole entry--it's well worthwhile.)
But the Lutherans kept a whole lot more than they got rid of. "We keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of the lessons, prayers, vestments, etc." (Ap 24:1)...
Tradition that "nullifies" the Word of God is a bad thing, and must go. Tradition that upholds the Word of God is a good thing that ought to be retained. This was a very important principle guiding the Lutheran reformers, and it continues to guide Traditionalist Lutherans today.
Those who cut themselves off from the apostolic tradition cut themselves off from the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God, and are left with nothing more than their own imaginings and the sorts of "traditions" of the Pharisees that our Lord condemns."
First, note the list of traditions rejected by the Lutherans:
- prayers to the saints
- the withholding of the cup to the laity
- indulgences
- liturgical language of the canon of the Mass that refers to a propitious (sin-forgiving) sacrifice, offered ex opera operato (by the work itself apart from faith) for the living and the dead
(1) The Word of God teaches that those Christians whose hearts have ceased beating are not dead, but alive. The normal New Testament way of speaking of them is as "asleep in Christ," not "dead." And the Word of God enfleshed tells us that "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him."
(2) The Word of God teaches that Christians ought to pray for each other, and to ask for each other's prayers.
(3) Finally, unlike the late Roman system, our motive for asking is not utility, but love.
It is understandable that the Lutheran reformers would reject asking for the intercessions of the saints (though the reason they offer, "How can we know that they hear us?", is an example of early-modern skepticism); after all, they only knew the practice in its late-mediaeval Roman guise. Nonetheless, they tossed out the baby with the bathwater here.
The intercession of the saints is, I would argue, an apostolic tradition. It upholds the apostolic words; it is both ancient and universal. So Fr. Beane's last words cited above are worth pondering:
"Those who cut themselves off from the apostolic tradition cut themselves off from the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God, and are left with nothing more than their own imaginings and the sorts of "traditions" of the Pharisees that our Lord condemns."
22 August 2009
18 August 2009
Subterranean scribbling; On patrology and the fathers
Many people are aware that it was Protestants--Lutherans, specifically--who first came up with patrology as a field of study. In the Tao te Ching, Lao Tzu says,
"When the great Tao is forgotten,
goodness and piety appear.
When the body's intelligence declines,
cleverness and knowledge step forth.
When there is no peace in the family,
filial piety begins.
When the country falls into chaos,
patriotism is born."
Could we not add to his words:
"When the fathers were lost to the west,
then Patrology came into being."
"When the great Tao is forgotten,
goodness and piety appear.
When the body's intelligence declines,
cleverness and knowledge step forth.
When there is no peace in the family,
filial piety begins.
When the country falls into chaos,
patriotism is born."
Could we not add to his words:
"When the fathers were lost to the west,
then Patrology came into being."
11 August 2009
On consensus, claimed and actual
Over on Weedon's blog, the discussion of the Compline prayer has returned to familiar ground: the Jerome reference concerning church government. Note this exchange between Rdr. Christopher Orr and Rev. Weedon. Reader Christopher wrote:
claiming to present the teaching of the apostles and an author actually presenting the teaching of the apostles. Arius, Nestorios and their ilk claimed to be presenting the teaching of the apostles; so such a claim is not sufficient.
What is sufficient is that said claim be received by the Church. The veneration of Mary and intercession of the saints passes that test; for over 1,000 years in East and West alike both have been practiced, and this in itself should give opponents pause.
Despite the appeal to Jerome, the equality of presbyters and bishops does not pass that test. For the faithful, this fact is enough. For opponents, nothing would be enough.
claiming to present the teaching of the apostles and an author actually presenting the teaching of the apostles. Arius, Nestorios and their ilk claimed to be presenting the teaching of the apostles; so such a claim is not sufficient.
What is sufficient is that said claim be received by the Church. The veneration of Mary and intercession of the saints passes that test; for over 1,000 years in East and West alike both have been practiced, and this in itself should give opponents pause.
Despite the appeal to Jerome, the equality of presbyters and bishops does not pass that test. For the faithful, this fact is enough. For opponents, nothing would be enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
'The only difference between dogma (δογμα) and kirigma (κηρυγμα) was in the manner of their transmission: dogma is kept "in silence" and kerygmata are "publicized".' (Fr. Georges Florovsky, 'The Function of Tradition in the Ancient Church')
The doctrines concerning the Mother of God were examples of dogma. They were revealed 'in mysteries', in the sacraments, of which the sub tuum praesidium is a surviving example - as is the consensus of all the ancient liturgies.
The consensus of the Church is pretty clear on the place of Mary and requests to her for her assistance - unless one believes in some form of a DaVinci Code theory of early, mass apostasy (or, least indelible taint) across the vast expanses and boundaries of Christendom from the true faith. It's OK to believe that, it's just that it is what it is.
Of course, if this is cherry picking, then so is referring St. Jerome for patristic verification of one's doctrine of Holy Orders. Then again, the consensus of the Church is pretty clear on that, too.
Christopher,
The point with St. Jerome is that he claims to present what is the teaching of the Apostles as witnessed from their writings. It's a worthwhile endeavor for all who claim to speak for the Church.