Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue in the 16th. Cent.--Still Relavant today?

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Is it time for the Orthodox and Confessional Lutherans to renew or revisit our dialogue, or at least use it as a starting point?

One stipulation I ask that everyone honor:

While I desire that everyone is free to participate, I would like to restrict this discussion to exploring this idea regarding Orthodox and Confessional Lutherans as we already know the result of present day dialogue between the Orthodox and the Lutheran World Federation: How Sex is Derailing Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue | Mathew... I wish to avoid Confessional vs. Liberal Lutheran confrontation in this thread.




A bit of background:

The first Lutheran-Orthodox contacts took place already in the sixteenth century, through a visit of a Romanian Orthodox deacon to Wittenberg, where he befriended Melanchthon. Melanchthon and others undertook a translation of the Augsburg Confession into Greek for the benefit of the Ecumenical Patriarch, but the text never reached him. Several decades later, in the 1570s, many letters were exchanged between the Lutheran theologians in Tübingen and Jeremias II, the Patriarch of Constantinople at that time. The spirit of the exchange was irenic and interested, though the two parties were not able to establish much common ground.

Some additional resources including the historic dialogues: Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue in the Sixteenth Century

God Bless!

Mark

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I guess this is not going to work.

Closing.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Reopened.

 

[MKJ]

It's been some time since I looked at those discussions, but my feeling at the time was that there was some real talking past each other.

Some of it may have been language issues, but my main impression was because the easterners didn't quite understand why it was the Lutherans were going in the direction they were, or using that particular language. They didn't really see clearly what it was they were trying to move away from, clarify, or avoid.

I think on the one hand there really is far more scope for that sort of discussion today.

On the other hand, I also think that Lutherans, and nglicans are in pretty much the same boat, now have a much longer history of thinking and behaving a particular way, and whereas perhaps a more fruitful discussion with the east might have sent them in a slightly different direction at the beginning, those possibilities may be largely closed off now. I think what it is to be Lutheran has certain things associated with it that probably could not be reconciled with eastern approaches, but Lutherans would not be willing to give up - even just to change the language. Some of the language of faith alone, for example. It is now too much a part of Lutheran identity, but Orthodoxy would never accept that language.

 

[~Anastasia~]

If I'm following you, MKJ, I think I agree.

I'm sure Lutherans have their particular things they are adamant about keeping. The Orthodox Church is not going to be willing to compromise or change what has been so long established, imo. And Orthodox would not want the EP to do so.

Nothing personal against Lutherans at all, but you can insert anything there ... there has been a lot of discussion regarding the EP talking with the Pope. The Orthodox faithful (by and large) are perfectly willing to accept the Pope or any other coming to Orthodoxy, but don't want the Orthodox Church changed to compromise with any other.

I think there is less chance of accomplishing unification now. At least if all things remain as they currently are.

JMO of course.

 

[Anhelyna]

Have to say I agree with the preceding posts - I can't see any form of re-unification coming soon.

BUT any form of dialogue leading to a better understanding of each others' views praxis etc is a GOOD THING.

We really do need to learn to respect each other - and respect for the differences is what's frequently missing

 

[MKJ]

If I'm following you, MKJ, I think I agree.

I'm sure Lutherans have their particular things they are adamant about keeping. The Orthodox Church is not going to be willing to compromise or change what has been so long established, imo. And Orthodox would not want the EP to do so.

Nothing personal against Lutherans at all, but you can insert anything there ... there has been a lot of discussion regarding the EP talking with the Pope. The Orthodox faithful (by and large) are perfectly willing to accept the Pope or any other coming to Orthodoxy, but don't want the Orthodox Church changed to compromise with any other.

I think there is less chance of accomplishing unification now. At least if all things remain as they currently are.

JMO of course.

I don't want to give the impression that I think Orthdox leaders are unable to deal with ideas that are being expressed using different language. I think that is something that both they and Lutherans are quite capable of. Whether either would be willing to accept a change in language use might be more complicated, but not impossible if they realized they were talking about the same thing, I think.

But my feeling is that at the beginning there might have been more openness to different ways for some of the insights of the early Lutherans to develop, today they have gone in a particular direction.

I suppose a question is, would people be willing to look back to that time and say - ok, these are the problems we were trying to work around, can we be open to other possibilities for how that might have happened, other ways those insights might have led us?

My feeling is that while the confessional Lutherans in some ways are closer to an Orthodox approach than non-confessional Lutherans, they are perhaps less likely to be open to that kind of re-imagining.

Perhaps what might be more likely is a section of Lutherans - maybe not defined by any of the political groupings - that is really interested in doing that getting together with the Orthodox to look at such a thing. I think the same thing would also be the most fruitful with Anglicans -working with the existing leadership is not likely to go anywhere.

But I agree with Anhelyna - it isn't necessary that there be any idea that there will be concrete results to have such discussions. They are useful in and of themselves so long as they are going on in good faith.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don't want to give the impression that I think Orthdox leaders are unable to deal with ideas that are being expressed using different language. I think that is something that both they and Lutherans are quite capable of. Whether either would be willing to accept a change in language use might be more complicated, but not impossible if they realized they were talking about the same thing, I think.

But my feeling is that at the beginning there might have been more openness to different ways for some of the insights of the early Lutherans to develop, today they have gone in a particular direction.

I suppose a question is, would people be willing to look back to that time and say - ok, these are the problems we were trying to work around, can we be open to other possibilities for how that might have happened, other ways those insights might have led us?

My feeling is that while the confessional Lutherans in some ways are closer to an Orthodox approach than non-confessional Lutherans, they are perhaps less likely to be open to that kind of re-imagining.

Perhaps what might be more likely is a section of Lutherans - maybe not defined by any of the political groupings - that is really interested in doing that getting together with the Orthodox to look at such a thing. I think the same thing would also be the most fruitful with Anglicans -working with the existing leadership is not likely to go anywhere.

But I agree with Anhelyna - it isn't necessary that there be any idea that there will be concrete results to have such discussions. They are useful in and of themselves so long as they are going on in good faith.

These are my feelings as well. I don't foresee that reunification or even a fellowship agreement would be forthcoming in the near or even the distant future. I do think discussions in good faith could lead to cooperation though in society; presenting a unified front on issues that are dividing Christians, and in charitable efforts.

I think these things are possible and even desirable.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Is it time for the Orthodox and Confessional Lutherans to renew or revisit our dialogue, or at least use it as a starting point?

One stipulation I ask that everyone honor:

While I desire that everyone is free to participate, I would like to restrict this discussion to exploring this idea regarding Orthodox and Confessional Lutherans as we already know the result of present day dialogue between the Orthodox and the Lutheran World Federation: How Sex is Derailing Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue | Mathew... I wish to avoid Confessional vs. Liberal Lutheran confrontation in this thread.




A bit of background:



Some additional resources including the historic dialogues: Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue in the Sixteenth Century

God Bless!

Mark

I guess I would wonder what exactly it is that the goal of the dialogue would be in the end...as that can help chart which course would be the best.

 

[Gnarwhal]

These are my feelings as well. I don't foresee that reunification or even a fellowship agreement would be forthcoming in the near or even the distant future.

I highly doubt reunification would happen, simply because from what I've gathered in the couple of years I spent with Orthodox folks learning about the tradition, they are the least likely to budge on any sort of compromise. It's basically "[their] way or the highway". So if the Lutheran folk are interested in swapping out any of their traditions and theologies for the Orthodox counterpart then reunification would happen, but that would more accurately be an assimilation than any sort of reunification.

I do think discussions in good faith could lead to cooperation though in society; presenting a unified front on issues that are dividing Christians, and in charitable efforts.

This I think is absolutely true, and the best benefit of having dialogue with other traditions, we can all strive to accomplish certain common goals despite the fact that we worship differently.

 

[FireDragon76]

I've always been interested in the exchange between the Tubingen divines and the Ecumenical Patriarch. It seems to me that there was a great deal of misunderstanding going on, in both sides, which is why the discussion was not fruitful. In the end, it just turned into a profound disagreement. The Patriarch, like many Orthodox of the time (and perhaps since), did not seem very interested in engaging the west on its own terms, and the Lutherans were just naïve in what they would encounter in the Eastern Christian world (there seems to be a common perception at the time among some Protestants, for instance, that the Greeks did not practice confession to a priest, and so forth).

Non-confessional Lutherans have already had a great deal of dialogue with Eastern Orthodoxy, and a lot of agreement, at least in points of mutual understanding. I don't see reunification as possible, however, in the near or long-term future.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

There are so, so many "might have beens" in Orthodox history. Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue took place during the 1570s, but what if it had taken place during the tenure of Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril Lucarius, the "Calvinist" patriarch (1620s and 30s), or what about during the tenure of Patriarch Nikon of Moscow (1652-66), or when Emperor Peter the Great imported books from Lutheran universities in Germany or when the Lutheran princess Catherine took the throne as Catherine the Great?

 

[Gnarwhal]

There are so, so many "might have beens" in Orthodox history. Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue took place during the 1570s, but what if it had taken place during the tenure of Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril Lucarius, the "Calvinist" patriarch (1620s and 30s), or what about during the tenure of Patriarch Nikon of Moscow (1652-66), or when Emperor Peter the Great imported books from Lutheran universities in Germany or when the Lutheran princess Catherine took the throne as Catherine the Great?

I've always wondered if Luther had been aware of the Orthodox Church if he simply would've "gone east"?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I've always wondered if Luther had been aware of the Orthodox Church if he simply would've "gone east"?

And I wonder what Christendom today would look like in that case?

We can't know though, and sometimes what seems it might have been good could have led to disastrous consequences we can't know. We have to trust that God has it all in His hands.

But some things that go on in the name of "church" ... I know ...

Even those God may use to serve a purpose. Some of us wave are where we are today because we found certain practices ... concerning.

I guess that's my little interruption.

But I have often wondered these things.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I've always wondered if Luther had been aware of the Orthodox Church if he simply would've "gone east"?

Luther was actually very aware of the Orthodox Church, and used its practices as defenses for his own (liturgy in the vernacular, communion in both kinds, denial of universal papal jurisdiction). It can be found scattered throughout his writings and throughout the Book of Concord.

However, there was very little chance of establishing union with the eastern churches. Luther's work never really extended outside of trying to create a German league of Protestant churches. Outside his focus on Reform in Wittenberg and Electoral Saxony, he attempted to create a pan-Lutheran/Reformed front at Marburg in 1529 that would extend throughout the Holy Roman Empire and the Swiss cantons, but ultimately failed on the issue of the Eucharistic presence. His second attempt, which met with success, was the creation of a Lutheran League of the Augsburg Confession at Schmalkald in 1531, which added Denmark as a foreign associate power in 1538. It;s worth remembering that at the time, Constantinople and the entire Geek, Serbian, and Bulgarian churches were under the domination of the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman, and both the church of Rus' and the Muscovite principate were still in an uncertain state of flux. So when the Lutheran scholars of Tubingen University (led by Jakob Andreae, himself critical to the formation of the Formula of Concord and the Book of Concord) initiated dialogue with Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias II in the 1570s, they were both the earliest generation of Lutherans with any sort of global ecclesiastical ambitions and were then in dialogue with the first patriarch of any historical significance since the Ottoman conquest.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was also thinking of Luther's references to the "Greek Christians" as a point raised against Roman ecclesiastical hegemony. I think it's also worthwhile to remember that while the Great Schism is usually stated to 1154 the practical reality that the Western and Eastern Churches were no longer in communion took a very long time. The Council of Florence took place only a generation before Martin Luther's birth, and in a significant sense it was the Council of Florence that effectively sealed the deal rendering East and West split. Let's also understand that things had been shaky for centuries previously going at least as far back as the controversies of the Quinisext Council, and perhaps more significant the earlier Photian Schism which had already estranged East and West.

But at a very real level in Luther's time it's arguable that it was still not really conceived that the Eastern Church was really all that "separate" from the Western Church, or at least those in the West still largely understood their Eastern brethren as brethren. As such Luther's appeals about the "Greek Christians" would most likely have been understood in a context of just how recent official schism was and how its impact on Western Christendom was still probably only starting to be felt in any real and meaningful way.

-CryptoLuthearn

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Mark,

I'm ALWAYS in favor of humble, honest CONVERSATION.....

I have a personal friend that I met when I was an undergrad. She is rather passionately Greek Orthodox and while we now "know" each other via the 'net, we still chat quite often.

I have gained a HUGE respect for that community and perspective. I especially admire the humility, the sense of community, the appropriate embrace of tradition, the great emphasis on the true Ecumenical Councils.....

Frankly, I think Western Christianity (including Lutheranism) could learn a lot from them. I kind of lament that they tend to be shy, quiet people who keep to themselves (I especially lament in the West how they seem to shadow Catholicism, thus stating they are just Catholics who have some strange customs but great food and dance good - exactly how 99% of Westerners view them.... sadly).

There are things I disagree with in their doctrine (although, fewer issues than in Catholicism). The mysticism bothers me a lot. BUT, I love their heart and I think their sense of humility and community is EXACTLY what the West needs to learn.

Jaroslov Peliken (I'm sure I'm forgetting the proper spelling) might have been helpful here.



Thank you


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Mark,

I'm ALWAYS in favor of humble, honest CONVERSATION.....

I have a personal friend that I met when I was an undergrad. She is rather passionately Greek Orthodox and while we now "know" each other via the 'net, we still chat quite often.

I have gained a HUGE respect for that community and perspective. I especially admire the humility, the sense of community, the appropriate embrace of tradition, the great emphasis on the true Ecumenical Councils.....

Frankly, I think Western Christianity (including Lutheranism) could learn a lot from them. I kind of lament that they tend to be shy, quiet people who keep to themselves (I especially lament in the West how they seem to shadow Catholicism, thus stating they are just Catholics who have some strange customs but great food and dance good - exactly how 99% of Westerners view them.... sadly).

There are things I disagree with in their doctrine (although, fewer issues than in Catholicism). The mysticism bothers me a lot. BUT, I love their heart and I think their sense of humility and community is EXACTLY what the West needs to learn.

Jaroslov Peliken (I'm sure I'm forgetting the proper spelling) might have been helpful here.



Thank you


Pax


- Josiah





.

Some kind words about my Church. . Those are some of the things that most drew me as well, among others.


I'm still trying to understand the general Lutheran distaste for mysticism though? I have wondered whether it is connected to the stronger emphasis Lutherans tend to place on the fallen-ness of man? I have indeed found the Orthodox to have quite a bit of concern for the potential of delusion within personal mysticism (not sure if that's what you mean though) but it is something one has to search for, not something we are fully warned about (though to be fair, one is not really encouraged at all to pursue any form of mysticism without proper guidance either).

But I'm not sure if that's what you meant, Josiah, though I have certainly encountered that sentiment among other Lutherans whose views I highly respect.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think there are strong, fundamental similarities between 1054 and 1521. In both cases, there were some doctrinal issues that in some ways weren't really the point of conflict. I think in both cases, there was a different sense of the nature of the church and of epistemology.

In 1054, the East saw the church as US whereas the RCC saw it as ME. Both had a visible, institutional sense of the church but the East was more ecumenical whereas the west was very individualist - with a strong Roman sense of centrality, power, authority, obedience, submission. I think this all repeated itself 500 years later. The nature of the church was a key issue. Luther had an ecumenical sense of the church as US and rejected the very ROMAN, individual, power-oriented, control, submission, denominational sense so central to the RCC. Luther's view was not Orthodox either, but they both rejected the concept of the RCC and in both cases, that was foundational.

In 1054, the East rejected the idea that a denomination or bishop or subgroup could simply CHANGE doctrine. This can only be done by US in an ECUMENICAL council. The RCC simply designated itself as the teacher, the authority, the Mouth of God, whatever it itself individually said IS ergo truth and to be swallowed whole. I think this repeated itself in 1521. Luther embraced accountability, community. He was willing to submit to a Council. He was in large part excommunicated NOT because of his views on justification (which weren't heresy until Trent, and perhaps even then a misunderstanding of such was condemned) but because he didn't submit to the RCC individually. As in 1054, I don't think doctrine was as much the issue as the nature of the church.

I'm NOT suggesting the EOC and Lutheranism are the same..... Or even dogmatically compatible. But I think the issues in the 1054 split where largely the same as in the 1521 split. And I think it has less to do with details of doctrine than with the RCC's view of the church and of the need to be obedient to it. I CAN see how Lutheranism was so hopeful of finding a home in Orthodoxy, so hopeful. I.... perhaps it's sad that didn't happen (how the last 500 years of Christianity might have been COMPLETELY different, perhaps for the better?).


I do not doubt that SOME kind of "healing" of the 1054 rift might happen - even perhaps in my lifetime. But NOT because any of the issues will be resolved but because both are drifting toward Mr. Rogers.... relativism.... mysticism..... where issues aren't issues because they don't care about issues anymore. I think that would be a huge blow to Christianity. What I'd HOPE for (but consider less likely that Jupiter hitting the Earth) is that there could be some revised view of the church, some embrace of humility, some actual agreement on what is truth rather than just who submits to whom or some mutual agreement that agreement is irrelevant because truth is irrelevant.



Sorry....


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Some kind words about my Church. . Those are some of the things that most drew me as well, among others.


I'm still trying to understand the general Lutheran distaste for mysticism though? I have wondered whether it is connected to the stronger emphasis Lutherans tend to place on the fallen-ness of man? I have indeed found the Orthodox to have quite a bit of concern for the potential of delusion within personal mysticism (not sure if that's what you mean though) but it is something one has to search for, not something we are fully warned about (though to be fair, one is not really encouraged at all to pursue any form of mysticism without proper guidance either).

But I'm not sure if that's what you meant, Josiah, though I have certainly encountered that sentiment among other Lutherans who views I highly respect.

I want to respond to this with care and at some length (because I think it's an important discussion among different fully Christian traditions) but I don't have the time now..... Don't let me forget! I'll come back to this.....


Thank you!


BLESSINGS


- Josiah





.