Here are the opening paragraphs to my presentation “Creeds & Confessions in
Orthodoxy.”





A Lutheran who sincerely and fairly examines Orthodoxy will find commonality
in more areas than not; he will be intrigued by many ceremonies and not a
few doctrinal nuances; he will bump up against some things that are flatly
contradicted in Lutheranism; he will be surprised by what he learns about
his own faith; he will cry out for a lexicon as he attempts to navigate his
way through new or similar sounding terms; and he will scratch his head in
bewilderment at several points. But my experience has taught me that a
Lutheran’s greatest frustration will be attempting to make adequate
comparisons. For the first instinct a Lutheran has is to look for a document
or a series of documents in Orthodoxy which resemble the 1580 Book of
Concord. Perhaps, in his investigation, a Lutheran will come across a list
of “Orthodox confessional documents” such as those provided by Bishop
Kallistos Ware in his book, The Orthodox Church. And perhaps in his search
the Lutheran will come across a multitude of Orthodox catechisms, which
differ widely in format and arrangement and which are quite unlike the
concise, well conceived Small Catechism of Martin Luther. And then perhaps
he will be cheered by the systematic manner in which Patriarch Jeremias
responds to the Tübingen theologians—a pattern that closely resembles the
outline of the Augsburg Confession. Nevertheless his frustration will remain
and, like not a few, he will conclude in despair that Orthodoxy has no
doctrinal standard, or that its doctrinal standard is similar to nailing
jello to a wall.

Let me state plainly and bluntly from the start that Orthodoxy does have a
doctrinal standard. That standard, which like much in Orthodoxy does not
measure up to post-reformational standards, is the Tradition of the Church.
What that means I shall describe in this presentation, as well as how it
relates to Orthodoxy’s understanding of creeds and confessions of faith. Let
it suffice, however, that the Tradition of the Church can be most easily
accessed in the Church’s Liturgy. In the words of Anastasios Kallis, “The
identity of Orthodoxy consists neither in a doctrine nor in an
organizational system, but in the correct praise of the Triune God, which
has its center in the celebration of the Eucharist, or simply in the
Liturgy, through which the one congregation assembled in the name of Christ
becomes his body, his church.”[1] According to Jaroslav Pelikan (a former
Lutheran), Orthodoxy’s particular view of liturgy as prayed creed indicates
“a principal reason for [the] ambivalent position of ‘symbolical books’
within…Orthodoxy.” Let us understand, however, that Orthodoxy sees the
liturgy as of the Spirit; and that for Orthodoxy liturgy is within the
matrix called Tradition. While the comparison is not precise, the frustrated
Lutheran might consider Tradition comparable to his Book of Concord.
Therefore, to compare apples to apples, he might want to examine Orthodoxy’s
liturgy alongside Lutheranism’s confessional documents.

While Orthodoxy’s liturgy may be the easiest way for a Lutheran both to
compare doctrinal content and to access the Church’s Tradition, one must
understand the overall place, use and purpose of creeds and confessions of
faith in Orthodoxy. That is what I will endeavor to describe and illustrate
in my presentation. I shall first begin by describing how confessing the
Faith is a doxological act and not merely a series of propositions. I shall
then briefly describe how the Orthodox teaching of the Church underlies the
confession of the Faith. And finally I will describe how creeds and
confessions of the faith are part of the greater matrix that is the Church’s
Tradition. In all this, I ask the Spirit by the prayers of Your Eminence and
my learned brethren to correct and guide me should I, a novice, misrepresent
in any way the mind of Holy Mother Church.









Fr John W Fenton

Priest, Holy Incarnation Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church

  <mailto:frfenton@...> frfenton@...

http://HolyIncarnation.org <http://holyincarnation.org/>

  <mailto:frfenton@...>


   _____

[1] In Pelikan, Credo, p. 405.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "JWF" <frfenton@...> wrote:
>
> Here are the opening paragraphs to my presentation "Creeds &
Confessions in
> Orthodoxy."

> A Lutheran who sincerely and fairly examines Orthodoxy will find
commonality
> in more areas than not; he will be intrigued by many ceremonies and
not a
> few doctrinal nuances; he will bump up against some things that are
flatly
> contradicted in Lutheranism; he will be surprised by what he learns
about
> his own faith; he will cry out for a lexicon as he attempts to
navigate his
> way through new or similar sounding terms; and he will scratch his
head in
> bewilderment at several points.
[big snip]

Fr. John -
I listened to your talk during my lunchtime today. I may have to listen
to it again before commenting (if then) - please don't take lack of
comment for dis-enthusiasm. I liked what you had to say.

Lisa

Dear Fr. John,

I listened to your presentation several days ago, but had no time to write to
congratulate you on it.  I loved it all, and it cleared up a thing that often
seems to bother Lutherans and others.

It just is not all about text(s).

Anastasia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What's At Stake in the
Atonement<http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/whats-at-stake-in-the-at\
onement/>by
Fr. Stephen Freeman

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/whats-at-stake-in-the-atonement/

One of the more common topics both on this blog and on a number of other
Orthodox sites are questions about the Atonement. In general the Atonement
refers to how it is we understand that Christ reconciled us to God. When we
say, "Christ died for our sins," what does it mean?

The questions of the Orthodox tend to center around the doctrine of the
Substitutionary Atonement, which in conservative Evangelical circles is
often made a touchstone of Christian orthodoxy. It is referenced in many
Christian schools' statement of faith - required of teachers and students on
a par with the Resurrection of Christ.

Questions of the Atonement seem significant from a Protestant direction (in
classical terms) based on Reformation debates with Roman Catholics. In those
debates Protestants tended to hear Catholics say that there was something
that could be added to the "merits" of Christ's death - something that made
His death on the cross less than sufficient. This is an historical argument.
Generally Catholics did not mean what Protestants accused them of saying and
neither group was interested in finding common ground. The purpose of debate
was to prove the other wrong.

The ground shifted on Atonement doctrine during the 20th century when
liberal Protestants began to question Atonement theory, in some cases making
reference to Christ's "death" where traditional texts had read "blood." This
was famously the case in some verses of the RSV translation of the
Scriptures which was a translation sponsored by the National Council of
Churches, and thus dominated by liberal Bible scholarship. Though the
intention on the part of the translators was probably not to deny anything
about the blood of Christ, the hue and cry of conservative Protestants was,
"Nothing but the blood of Jesus!" (The same translation rendered the Greek *
hilasterion* as *expiation* rather than *propitiation, *again alarming
conservative Protestants that Christ's atoning death was being denied.)

Orthodoxy comes late to this entire discussion, having been completely
absent at the Reformation, and not a party to the debates between liberal
and conservative Protestants in the 20th century. The understanding of
Christ's atoning death developed in a very different manner in the Eastern
Church. Untouched by the debates of the Reformation, alien to the metaphors
that came to dominate in the Latin-Germanic West in the Middle Ages, the
atonement never became a matter of debate or conciliar doctrine in the East.
The language used in the prayers of the Liturgy were probably the most
eloquent statements of Christ's atoning death, but generally made no mention
of the ideas found in the Substitionary model.

Today, those ideas have occasionally come under sharp attack from some
Eastern Orthodox (Kalomiros' *River of Fire* is probably the most commonly
cited screed), though elements of the Substitutionary model can be found in
a number of Orthodox prayers or catechisms of the more modern period. It can
be argued that these examples are largely borrowings from Protestant
writings rather than developments from within Orthodox patristic thought.

The clearest Orthodox complaint about Substitionary imagery is the role
played within it by the Justice of God and the Wrath of God. In classical
Substitionary doctrine, God's justice is understood to have been offended by
the sin of man (in Anselm it is not so much justice as "God's honor.")
Indeed, God's justice or honor is "infinitely" offended in most classical
treatments. Thus, man is *infinitely* deserving of *infinite* punishment.
However, God's love responds with infinite mercy and, in Christ's death on
the cross, He offers His only Son as a substitute for man, Christ Himself
bearing the burden of the wrath of God on behalf of all humanity. In
accepting His substitution on our behalf (by faith) man comes into a saving
relationship with God.

There is no Orthodox complaint with the mercy of God, nor with Christ's
death as God's saving act for mankind. The primary complaint is with the
imagery of God's wrath being raised to the point of dogma - that is to a
place where the whole turn of a central doctrine of the faith depends upon
this image. Equally problematic is the language about God's justice, which
is frequently described as "requiring satisfaction."

The Orthodox problem with these images is that they are just that: images.
Orthodoxy teaches that, through Christ, we can *know* God, though God in His
essence is unknowable. The mystery which surrounds God and even our
knowledge of Him is essential in Orthodox understanding. There is always a
warning within Orthodox theology when we speak very plainly about God - that
we know only what God has made known to us - and though we *know* Him, that
knowledge is itself frequently a mystery - something that cannot be
expressed sufficiently in words.

Thus to speak of God's wrath (as the Scriptures certainly do) is not to say
that God is angry in any way comparable to the anger of man. To speak of
God's wrath is a theological statement about the rupture in our relationship
with Him and should not be confused with a statement about how God *feels*.
Much use of the imagery of wrath in modern conservative Protestantism is
often used in this literal manner, coming dangerously close (and in some
cases crossing the line) of saying things about God that are simply untrue
and deeply offensive. These literal uses give rise to caricature on the part
of some (Monty Python comes quickly to mind) or rejection of God on the part
of others (I have had conversations with many atheists and agnostics whose
background was conservative Protestant and whose present rejection of God is
primarily a rejection of the God of Wrath).

There are as well problems with speaking of God's justice in terms that are
all too human. St. Isaac of Syria famously remarks that "we know nothing of
God's justice, only His mercy." His argument is drawn from examples such as
the parable of the workers in the vineyard - those who begin work late in
the day are paid the same as those who work all day. There we see only God's
mercy, not His justice (the Saint says). That God is just is not a point of
argument - what it means to *say* that God is just, however, remains largely
a mystery. Anyone who claims to know what he means when he speaks of God's
justice is delusional.

Of course, raising such questions can sound like an echo of liberal
Protestant attacks on Scripture and its reliability. Orthodox do not
question the reliability of Scripture, only its misuse or misinterpretation.
In general, Orthodoxy is uncomfortable with a dogma that seems new or
foreign to its own continual usage. If it is central then why does it find
no place in the Creeds or the Councils?

Of course, Orthodoxy did not face the same opponents as the West has had
within its own internal life. Conservative Protestants, having been wearied
by the constant shifts and changes and chimeric positions of liberal
Protestants, are justifiably cautious when things that seem so certain for
them are questioned by anyone.

A proper Orthodox answer is probably not to "come out fighting," but to
reassure that Orthodoxy has never wavered on the atoning death of Christ,
nor questioned that His blood was shed for us, nor that He is the only way
to the Father. The language of Orthodoxy has been shaped in the crucible of
the great doctrinal debates surrounding the Trinity and the Doctrine of
Christ - as well as within the spiritual world of apophatic theology, in
which great care is taken not to assert of God what cannot be asserted. This
language and this world have preserved a spiritual Tradition that has not
wandered from the Truth nor lost its mooring in the reality of God.
Conservative Protestants can be understood in their anxieties, but their
anxieties cannot be justified in the face of Orthodox faithfulness.

Orthodox questions about Substitionary Atonement language and imagery are a
worthy discussion for Protestants. It is the voice of Christian Tradition,
rooted in the Fathers that calls for carefulness when speaking of God and
circumspection when asserting something as dogma. Orthodoxy is no stranger
to dogma and holds it in the highest regard (you can't imagine), but just
so, it questions a dogma when it cannot find it within its own two-thousand
year history of councils and canons. Those questions should give pause to
any Christian of good will.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Some Further Thoughts on the
Atonement<http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/09/23/some-further-thoughts-on\
-the-atonement/>

by Fr. Stephen Freeman

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/09/23/some-further-thoughts-on-the-atone\
ment/#comment-12487

One of the most peculiar statements relating to the Atonement can be found
in Revelation 13:8 where Christ is descibed as the "Lamb slain from the
foundation of the earth." In a similar fashion we read in 1 Peter 1:18-20:

You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your
fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the
precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He
was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the
end of the times for your sake.

It is part of the wonder of the eschatological use of time in the Scriptures
that they can speak of Christ (the Alpha and the Omega) in terms in which
He, whose sacrifice is foreshadowed in the sacrifices of Israel, is Himself
sacrificed, a forshadowing before even the foreshadowing began.

One of the questions raised by this Biblical statement is fairly obvious:
which lamb of sacrifice does this verse foreshadow? Of course no simple
answer can be given, no one-to-one ratio in this heavenly typology. He is
the *Lamb*, while all other sacrifices are only *lambs*. The same
distinction can be made concerning all other sacrifices within the
sacrificial system of the Old Testament. Christ is not only that which those
sacrifices looked towards, but is also that P*rototype* of which they
themselves can only be shadows.

Here the system of sacrifice within the Old Testament becomes of less
importance for me. The Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth, if a
declaration of God's primordial purpose. He had always known that our
creation would also be followed with our treachery and our turning away from
Him. As well, He had always known that He would come for our salvation and
that our rescue from the power of death would involve His own entrance into
death, the sacrifice of the Lamb.

This revelation - that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the earth -
is also a revelation of Who God Is. The God Who Created Us is also the God
Who is Slain for Us. Just as He is the God who enters into death in order to
rescue His creatures, so is He the God Who creates out of nothing. Life from
death is not simply a rescue operation - but an act of making those things
are not to be as though they were.

This same wondrous pattern in found through virtually every action of God
throughout the Scriptures. This weekend we marked the feast of the
Conception of St. John the Forerunner, whose mother, Elizabeth, had been
barren. She is part of a long list of barren women from whose offspring God
brought salvation to the people around them. The whole of salvation history
is an impossible account of God bringing from nothing, or as good as
nothing, things that are wondrous and working of salvation. This is another
way of saying that the great miracle of Pascha is the pattern revealed in
all the actions of God on behalf of His world - from its creation from
nothing - to its resurrection from the dead.

This, to me, is the great act of atonement. The concentration on deeds done
amiss and debts owed for sin are almost a distraction from this greater
existential crisis of all creation. Not only do we do things amiss - we are
collapsing into the nothingness from which we came. Our deeds only reflect
this drive towards nothingness. Every murder is only a fiendish attempt to
make something into nothing - to make death reign over others.

The great atonement is the rescue of our very selves and our world from its
mad course towards non-being. St. Athanasius in his wonderful *De
Incarnatione* uses this very imagery to describe our reconciliation with
God. For me it has always had the advantage of its obvious universality. I
can read from Scriptures and tell someone that "all have sinned and come
short of the glory of God." For some, such a statement has an impact. For
others, less so.

But for all, the statement that we are *all* moving towards death, and are
even threatened with nothingness has an undeniable quality. If there is to
be an eternal life, it will only be an atoned life. Only the life that God
rescues and gives back to us again can be called *eternal* life. The
gracious God has rescued and given life to all. The immediate question for
us is whether we will live this atoned life in a manner that is in
*union*with God or whether we will choose to make of this re-gifted
existence an
eternal alienation from the very source of its being.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*That which is asked of every Orthodox person is to instill a "good
uneasiness" into the heterodox, that they might understand that they are in
delusion This is so they will not falsely calm their conscience and thus be
deprived in this life of the rich blessings of Orthodoxy and in the life to
come of the even greater and eternal blessings of God. *

- Elder Paisios

HT: Dixie of From Wittenberg to Athens and All Stops in
Between<http://byzantinedixie.blogspot.com/> at
http://byzantinedixie.blogspot.com/


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

so, I'm wondering what the folks here do when having otherwise civil
discussions with people who drop references like
this one
http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_resurrectionmyth.htm
into conversations.

Other than dropping out of the conversation - is there a way to engage
people who espouse the beliefs expressed in this article and others
like it (not so much the bit about the older resurrection myths but the
way the Gospel accounts are dated, set against each other & dismissed)

Lisa

I personally would NOT address this, because this kind of sloppy thinking shows
the author has an agenda of his own, and THAT is what really would need to be
addressed.  He is a former Catholic monk, he says.  Okay, his agenda is almost
certainly to justify the "former" by debunking Rome, probably for purposes
having to do with sexuality.  There are countless ex-Catholics trying to do the
same.

But of course what he wrote is not so much nonsense as simply irrelevant to us. 
So what if pagan religions also had death and resurrection stories?  Pagan
religions all encapsulate at least some portion of the deepest hopes and dreams
of mankind.  Only Christianity *fulfills* them.

Anastasia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Orthodoxy also accepts the fact that God spoke to non-Israelites/non-Jews as
well.  St. Justin Martyr and some of the other ante-Nicene Fathers dealing
with explaining Christianity (and its relation to Judaism) spoke of the
foreshadowings of Christ found in the pagan Greek philosophers, for
instance.  Some held this to be from the philosophers exposure to the books
of Moses and then related to the Greeks in an impure, misunderstood manner,
others held that God took account of the weakness of the pagans and worked
through their pagan faiths ("All things work together for the good of them
that love God...") to turn the falsity of their fallen faith toward their
salvation.  This was all a kind of preparation for them to accept the Gospel
in its fullness when it arrived in the fullness of time.

Orthodoxy teaches that prior to the Resurrection, ALL souls - righteous and
unrighteous, Jew and Gentile, went to the same place: Sheol.  St. John the
Baptist continued his Forerunner preaching in Sheol when he arrived so that
the souls of the departed would be prepared for the breaking of the brass
gates of Hades by Christ on Holy Saturday (the Great and Holy Sabbath, the
fulfillment of the prophetic 7th day) and led into the Kingdom of Heaven.

In more modern times, the Aleuts of Alaska had many foreshadowings of the
true faith in their pagan religion.  This is why the shamans so readily
renounced their faith (and livlihood) and accepted the God they had been
expecting.  There is more on this in Fr. Michael Oleska's "Orthodox Alaska".

Christopher


On 10/3/07, Anastasia Theodoridis <anastasiatheo01@...> wrote:
>
>   I personally would NOT address this, because this kind of sloppy
> thinking shows the author has an agenda of his own, and THAT is what really
> would need to be addressed. He is a former Catholic monk, he says. Okay, his
> agenda is almost certainly to justify the "former" by debunking Rome,
> probably for purposes having to do with sexuality. There are countless
> ex-Catholics trying to do the same.
>
> But of course what he wrote is not so much nonsense as simply irrelevant
> to us. So what if pagan religions also had death and resurrection stories?
> Pagan religions all encapsulate at least some portion of the deepest hopes
> and dreams of mankind. Only Christianity *fulfills* them.
>
> Anastasia
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Being the Vice President of CUW's Student Government Association, I
decided to sponsor a resolution to create a "program" for private
confession and absolution on-campus for members of the LC-MS. As I was
talking to members of the theology faculty, of which I'm on very good
terms with, the question I kept getting asked, "Why would an Orthodox
want to revive Private Confession for Lutherans?"  Quite frankly, I
wasn't sure, but I never said that.  The answer I usually gave was,
"This is something that Lutherans have cared for since the beginning
and it's making a revival, as seen in the 2007 Synodical Convention."

Now, I'm sure what this has to do with Fr. John Fenton; all I know is
that I mentioned his name, twice I believe, and I received the worst
looks.  And in the words of the Theology Department Chairman, "Don't
go there (in reference to Fr. John Fenton)."

Last Saturday, I went with one of my friends, who's looking to
Orthodoxy, to the St. John Chrysostom Monastery in Kenosha.  We got to
talking about the Western Rite, and I mentioned, "I believe Fr. John
Fenton's parish is the closest." And his response was simply,
"Fenton," with disdain.

So, a year later, and Fr. John Fenton is still view as controversial
in the LCMS.  I don't know, maybe I'm missing something.

In Christ,

Dan

Dan,



Just take a copy of the Book of Concord (whichever version, you choose), and
open up to Augsburg Confession, Article XI, and say, “Nope, Confession and
Absolution has nothing to do with Fenton; it does have everything to do with
being Lutheran as the Lutheran Confessions teach.” But therein lies the real
problem, now doesn’t it?! :-) …and that’s the real source of the
Fenton-phobia!



Randy

+   +   +   +   +
Rev. Randy Asburry
Hope Lutheran Church
St. Louis, MO
HYPERLINK "mailto:r.asburry@..."mailto:r.asburry@...
Blog: HYPERLINK
"http://rasburrysres.blogspot.com"http://rasburrysres.blogspot.com

“...we on our part shall not omit doing anything, in so far as God and
conscience allow, that may serve the cause of Christian unity." (Augsburg
Confession, Preface, 13; Tappert, 26).



    _____

From: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan L.
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 4:53 PM
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] "Fenton" a swear word at Concordia WI



Being the Vice President of CUW's Student Government Association, I
decided to sponsor a resolution to create a "program" for private
confession and absolution on-campus for members of the LC-MS. As I was
talking to members of the theology faculty, of which I'm on very good
terms with, the question I kept getting asked, "Why would an Orthodox
want to revive Private Confession for Lutherans?" Quite frankly, I
wasn't sure, but I never said that. The answer I usually gave was,
"This is something that Lutherans have cared for since the beginning
and it's making a revival, as seen in the 2007 Synodical Convention."

Now, I'm sure what this has to do with Fr. John Fenton; all I know is
that I mentioned his name, twice I believe, and I received the worst
looks. And in the words of the Theology Department Chairman, "Don't
go there (in reference to Fr. John Fenton)."

Last Saturday, I went with one of my friends, who's looking to
Orthodoxy, to the St. John Chrysostom Monastery in Kenosha. We got to
talking about the Western Rite, and I mentioned, "I believe Fr. John
Fenton's parish is the closest." And his response was simply,
"Fenton," with disdain.

So, a year later, and Fr. John Fenton is still view as controversial
in the LCMS. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something.

In Christ,

Dan




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.12/1072 - Release Date: 10/15/2007
5:55 PM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.12/1072 - Release Date: 10/15/2007
5:55 PM



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It's all very human and understandable.

My freshman year girlfriend from college contacted me via Facebook today.  I
haven't seen her for 10 years and haven't dated her for longer - and we only
dated about 6 months.  But she broke my heart and I was miserable.  When I
saw her name pop on, my stomach sank and my chest tightened.  My body
reacted involuntarily and took me back to how I felt 15 years ago.

Broken hearts hurt, whether of the dating or religious variety, and
conversions to or from any faith always break someone's heart.  The choice
brings into stark contrast a number of things: what we really believe rather
than what we would like to think we believe, who/what we love more than God,
who/what we love more than family and friends and career and respectability,
who our friends are, what our priorities are, etc.  Sometimes the heart that
is broken is our own as we either convert, or decide not to convert.

Christopher


On 10/16/07, Randy Asburry <r.asburry@...> wrote:
>
> Dan,
>
>
>
> Just take a copy of the Book of Concord (whichever version, you choose),
> and
> open up to Augsburg Confession, Article XI, and say, "Nope, Confession and
> Absolution has nothing to do with Fenton; it does have everything to do
> with
> being Lutheran as the Lutheran Confessions teach." But therein lies the
> real
> problem, now doesn't it?! :-) …and that's the real source of the
> Fenton-phobia!
>
>
>
> Randy
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Over the last few years, more than a few (formerly) Lutheran pastors
have become Orthodox, and a number have been granted priesthood. We've
asked serious questions in our journey, not the least of which
regarded the Church -- Where is the Church?

When we left, each of us was accused of abandoning our congregations,
of breaking ordination vows, -- and the list goes on and on. All of us
have attempted to explain, to help people understand, an so on. There
have been listening ears, but there has also been an outcry and public
"attack" -- often caricaturing Orthodoxy.

Frankly, it seems to me that if one can no longer confess that which
is Lutheran, the only proper thing to do is to leave!:)

So, the reaction that you are getting isn't really surprising,
although it is disappointing.

Pastor Asburry offers one suggestion -- More often than not, I think
such visceral reactions come when people are confronted with hard
questions -- hard questions that they don't want to face.

Confession is part of the Lutheran confession, to be sure, but it is
NOT widely practiced. In fact, some years ago, when I was still a
Lutheran pastor, a colleague said at a pastoral conference that
Confession was an "anachronism."

The pastors who have become Orthodox were confessional men who took
these things seriously.

Perhaps this little bit of background helps.


     Ezekiel





--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Dan L." <teengreek@...>
wrote:
>
> Being the Vice President of CUW's Student Government Association, I
> decided to sponsor a resolution to create a "program" for private
> confession and absolution on-campus for members of the LC-MS. As I was
> talking to members of the theology faculty, of which I'm on very good
> terms with, the question I kept getting asked, "Why would an Orthodox
> want to revive Private Confession for Lutherans?"  Quite frankly, I
> wasn't sure, but I never said that.  The answer I usually gave was,
> "This is something that Lutherans have cared for since the beginning
> and it's making a revival, as seen in the 2007 Synodical Convention."
>
> Now, I'm sure what this has to do with Fr. John Fenton; all I know is
> that I mentioned his name, twice I believe, and I received the worst
> looks.  And in the words of the Theology Department Chairman, "Don't
> go there (in reference to Fr. John Fenton)."
>
> Last Saturday, I went with one of my friends, who's looking to
> Orthodoxy, to the St. John Chrysostom Monastery in Kenosha.  We got to
> talking about the Western Rite, and I mentioned, "I believe Fr. John
> Fenton's parish is the closest." And his response was simply,
> "Fenton," with disdain.
>
> So, a year later, and Fr. John Fenton is still view as controversial
> in the LCMS.  I don't know, maybe I'm missing something.
>
> In Christ,
>
> Dan
>

Dear in Christ Ezekiel and readers,
       Not widely practiced is perhaps an understatement regarding confession.
Luther spoke strong words about the matter suggesting that those who did not
gladly come to confession for the sake of absolution should be sent back to the
pope to be coerced as they had not yet appreciated the gospel. General
confession and general absolution are good but not quite the same. Not that this
is any surprise to those familiar with the Lutheran Symbols!
       Yes, the accusations of abandoning the congregations are familiar.  I am
inclined to see on the other hand an abandonment of the true spirit of the
Lutheran / Evangelische reformation: to keep to the approved and sound
traditions which support the Gospel and not to depart from the solid catholic
wholeness.  When I must chose between the instructions of such as John
Chrysostom [the Golden Tongue] and reinterpretations of later folks, well, my
change from Lutheran pastor to Orthodox is no surprise.
       Dear friends have stayed within the Lutheran community, doing as best they
can to maintain and build up. But will not others tear down?  I miss Pastor
Evans who preceded Pastor Fenton at Zion but see Fr Fenton as completing the
genuine path of the reformation. I am sorry to live so far away from him but my
prayers are with him and so many others who have followed the Gospel. BPeter
Brandt-Sřrheim

   Edward Wolfe <ewolfe@...> wrote:
      Confession is part of the Lutheran confession, to be sure, but it is
NOT widely practiced. In fact, some years ago, when I was still a
Lutheran pastor, a colleague said at a pastoral conference that
Confession was an "anachronism. "

  __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dan,



Several have mentioned very good reasons for the reaction, and all are part
of the answer. Here are two other factors:



* "He-who-ought-not-be-named" :-) served a parish for 5 years in the
South Wisconsin District, serving also on district committees and becoming
known to (theology) faculty at CUW
* "He-who-ought-not-be-named" :-) wrote a resolution that passed the
SWD convention (1991, I believe) and, at its passing, was commended to the
1992 LCMS convention. But perhaps this is not remembered.





Fr John W Fenton

Priest, Holy Incarnation Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church

  <mailto:frfenton@...> frfenton@...

http://HolyIncarnation.org <http://holyincarnation.org/>

  <mailto:frfenton@...>

   _____

From: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan L.
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 5:53 PM
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] "Fenton" a swear word at Concordia WI



Being the Vice President of CUW's Student Government Association, I
decided to sponsor a resolution to create a "program" for private
confession and absolution on-campus for members of the LC-MS. As I was
talking to members of the theology faculty, of which I'm on very good
terms with, the question I kept getting asked, "Why would an Orthodox
want to revive Private Confession for Lutherans?" Quite frankly, I
wasn't sure, but I never said that. The answer I usually gave was,
"This is something that Lutherans have cared for since the beginning
and it's making a revival, as seen in the 2007 Synodical Convention."

Now, I'm sure what this has to do with Fr. John Fenton; all I know is
that I mentioned his name, twice I believe, and I received the worst
looks. And in the words of the Theology Department Chairman, "Don't
go there (in reference to Fr. John Fenton)."

Last Saturday, I went with one of my friends, who's looking to
Orthodoxy, to the St. John Chrysostom Monastery in Kenosha. We got to
talking about the Western Rite, and I mentioned, "I believe Fr. John
Fenton's parish is the closest." And his response was simply,
"Fenton," with disdain.

So, a year later, and Fr. John Fenton is still view as controversial
in the LCMS. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something.

In Christ,

Dan





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On the matter of Lutherans and Confession and Absolution, check out my blog
at HYPERLINK
"http://rasburrysres.blogspot.com/2007/10/homily-trinity-19.html"http://rasb
urrysres.blogspot.com/2007/10/homily-trinity-19.html . I posted this past
Sunday’s homily in which I tied Private Confession and Absolution to the
story of Jesus healing the Paralytic. In the homily I also urged folks to
partake of Confession and Absolution (much as Luther himself did in the
Large Catechism, I might say). But when you see the first comment after my
homily, you can see a typical “Confessional Lutheran” dismissal and
rationalizing away of Confession itself, even though it is clearly advocated
and taught in the Lutheran Symbols. I truly don’t know who “Anonymous” is,
but I have heard these points and this argumentation many times before from
Lutheran parishioners.



Randy

+   +   +   +   +
Rev. Randy Asburry
Hope Lutheran Church
St. Louis, MO
HYPERLINK "mailto:r.asburry@..."mailto:r.asburry@...
Blog: HYPERLINK
"http://rasburrysres.blogspot.com"http://rasburrysres.blogspot.com

“...we on our part shall not omit doing anything, in so far as God and
conscience allow, that may serve the cause of Christian unity." (Augsburg
Confession, Preface, 13; Tappert, 26).



    _____

From: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of BPeter
Brandt-Sorheim
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 6:12 AM
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Re: "Fenton" a swear word at Concordia
WI



Dear in Christ Ezekiel and readers,
Not widely practiced is perhaps an understatement regarding confession.
Luther spoke strong words about the matter suggesting that those who did not
gladly come to confession for the sake of absolution should be sent back to
the pope to be coerced as they had not yet appreciated the gospel. General
confession and general absolution are good but not quite the same. Not that
this is any surprise to those familiar with the Lutheran Symbols!
Yes, the accusations of abandoning the congregations are familiar. I am
inclined to see on the other hand an abandonment of the true spirit of the
Lutheran / Evangelische reformation: to keep to the approved and sound
traditions which support the Gospel and not to depart from the solid
catholic wholeness. When I must chose between the instructions of such as
John Chrysostom [the Golden Tongue] and reinterpretations of later folks,
well, my change from Lutheran pastor to Orthodox is no surprise.
Dear friends have stayed within the Lutheran community, doing as best they
can to maintain and build up. But will not others tear down? I miss Pastor
Evans who preceded Pastor Fenton at Zion but see Fr Fenton as completing the
genuine path of the reformation. I am sorry to live so far away from him but
my prayers are with him and so many others who have followed the Gospel.
BPeter Brandt-Sřrheim

Edward Wolfe <HYPERLINK "mailto:ewolfe%40charter.net"ewolfe@charter.-net>
wrote:
Confession is part of the Lutheran confession, to be sure, but it is
NOT widely practiced. In fact, some years ago, when I was still a
Lutheran pastor, a colleague said at a pastoral conference that
Confession was an "anachronism. "

____________-_________-_________-_________-_________-__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
HYPERLINK "http://mail.yahoo.com"http://mail.-yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.0/1076 - Release Date: 10/17/2007
7:53 PM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.0/1076 - Release Date: 10/17/2007
7:53 PM



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Anonymous brought up the fact that Confession was created only in the 12th
Century.  In fact, it arose at least as early as the legalization of
Christianity.  Confession was a public act whereby those that had recanted
the Christian faith out of fear of martyrdom, under torture, etc. were
reconciled to the Church and allowed to return.  As time went by, it became
more of a private act that was still done to the Church - that is, to Christ
Himself, for where his Body is there must all of Him be - in the person of a
priest or bishop.  "Revelation of thoughts" was something done to a
spiritual elder or eldress who was not necessarily one in Holy Orders and
carried no sacramental power, though it was integral to the ascetic life and
spiritual growth.

Here are a couple of Orthodox works discussing Confession:

http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=54
http://www.oca.org/QAindex-sacramentconfession.asp?SID=3
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Confession
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/penance.htm
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/guidance_repentant.htm
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sacraments_e.htm#n4
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/truth_we_hold.htm#_Toc26519135
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/salvation_theofan.htm#_Toc138998\
37
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/manual_services_sokolov.htm#_Toc\
517531173
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/confession_m_anthony.htm#_Toc532\
428793
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/pastoral_theology_k_kern_e.htm#_\
Toc107881587
http://www.orthodoxworld.ru/english/tainstva/5/index.htm
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8476.asp
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8493.asp

Here is more background on Confession, obviously from a RC angle, so...:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

Christopher


On 10/18/07, Randy Asburry <r.asburry@...> wrote:
>
>   On the matter of Lutherans and Confession and Absolution, check out my
> blog
> at HYPERLINK
> "http://rasburrysres.blogspot.com/2007/10/homily-trinity-19.html"
> http://rasb
> urrysres.blogspot.com/2007/10/homily-trinity-19.html . I posted this past
> Sunday's homily in which I tied Private Confession and Absolution to the
> story of Jesus healing the Paralytic. In the homily I also urged folks to
> partake of Confession and Absolution (much as Luther himself did in the
> Large Catechism, I might say). But when you see the first comment after my
> homily, you can see a typical "Confessional Lutheran" dismissal and
> rationalizing away of Confession itself, even though it is clearly
> advocated
> and taught in the Lutheran Symbols. I truly don't know who "Anonymous" is,
> but I have heard these points and this argumentation many times before
> from
> Lutheran parishioners.
>
> Randy
>
> + + + + +
> Rev. Randy Asburry
> Hope Lutheran Church
> St. Louis, MO
>
>  Recent Activity
>
>    -  1
>    New
Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LutheransLookingEast/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJn\
dXU3dDhnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE5NjYzNzk3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA3NDU5OARzZWMDdnRs\
BHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMTkyNzMxMzE2>
>
> Visit Your Group
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LutheransLookingEast;_ylc=X3oDMTJmcGU1dmdmBF9TAzk\
3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE5NjYzNzk3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA3NDU5OARzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN\
0aW1lAzExOTI3MzEzMTY->
>  Yahoo! News
>
> Sexual
Health<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12j40558l/M=493064.10729659.11333350.8674578/\
D=groups/S=1705074598:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1192738516/A=3848618/R=0/SIG=12u0hffnk/*htt\
p://news.yahoo.com/i/1413;_ylt=A9FJqa_awa5EhhEA4wfVJRIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2MnU4czRtBHN\
lYwNzbg-->
>
> Get important
>
> sex health news
>  Health & Fitness
>
> on Yahoo!
Groups<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12j8f589t/M=493064.11305689.11851548.8674578/\
D=groups/S=1705074598:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1192738516/A=4840950/R=0/SIG=11n59vup4/*htt\
p://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/healthandfitness/>
>
> Useful info for the
>
> health conscious.
>  Yahoo! Groups
>
> Join a yoga
group<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12j7hj88a/M=493064.10771301.11554070.8674578/D\
=groups/S=1705074598:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1192738516/A=4699089/R=0/SIG=11pv8cj55/*http\
://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yogazone/index.html>
>
> and take the stress
>
> out of your life.
> .
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There is an aspect to confession that I don't hear much discussed in
Lutheran circles and that is the aspect of grace conveyed to overcome sins,
to increase in holiness.  Now, of course, this is difficult for one to see
in himself...because the more Light one shines in the dark the more mess
one is able to find but it is a very real aspect of confession nonetheless.
If I want to be healed from talking badly about someone at work...I confess
that to receive forgiveness but to also gain strength, through
sacramental grace, to stop the uncharitable talk.

Forgiveness of sins not withstanding, do Lutherans acknowledge this aspect
of increasing in holiness by grace through the Sacrament of Confession?  I
would think that this would be a reason to go to confession even if the
troubled conscience was no longer troubled because of all the other means of
forgiveness mentioned by the first poster...Baptism, the Eucharist, general
absolution, etc.-----R


On 10/18/07, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:
>
>   Anonymous brought up the fact that Confession was created only in the
> 12th
> Century. In fact, it arose at least as early as the legalization of
> Christianity. Confession was a public act whereby those that had recanted
> the Christian faith out of fear of martyrdom, under torture, etc. were
> reconciled to the Church and allowed to return. As time went by, it became
> more of a private act that was still done to the Church - that is, to
> Christ
> Himself, for where his Body is there must all of Him be - in the person of
> a
> priest or bishop. "Revelation of thoughts" was something done to a
> spiritual elder or eldress who was not necessarily one in Holy Orders and
> carried no sacramental power, though it was integral to the ascetic life
> and
> spiritual growth.
>
> Here are a couple of Orthodox works discussing Confession:
>
> http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=54
> http://www.oca.org/QAindex-sacramentconfession.asp?SID=3
> http://orthodoxwiki.org/Confession
> http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/penance.htm
> http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/guidance_repentant.htm
> http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sacraments_e.htm#n4
>
> http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/truth_we_hold.htm#_Toc26519135
>
>
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/salvation_theofan.htm#_Toc138998\
37
>
>
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/manual_services_sokolov.htm#_Toc\
517531173
>
>
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/confession_m_anthony.htm#_Toc532\
428793
>
>
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/pastoral_theology_k_kern_e.htm#_\
Toc107881587
> http://www.orthodoxworld.ru/english/tainstva/5/index.htm
> http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8476.asp
> http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8493.asp
>
> Here is more background on Confession, obviously from a RC angle, so...:
>
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm
>
> Christopher
>
> On 10/18/07, Randy Asburry
<r.asburry@...<r.asburry%40sbcglobal.net>>
> wrote:
> >
> > On the matter of Lutherans and Confession and Absolution, check out my
> > blog
> > at HYPERLINK
> > "http://rasburrysres.blogspot.com/2007/10/homily-trinity-19.html"
> > http://rasb
> > urrysres.blogspot.com/2007/10/homily-trinity-19.html . I posted this
> past
> > Sunday's homily in which I tied Private Confession and Absolution to the
> > story of Jesus healing the Paralytic. In the homily I also urged folks
> to
> > partake of Confession and Absolution (much as Luther himself did in the
> > Large Catechism, I might say). But when you see the first comment after
> my
> > homily, you can see a typical "Confessional Lutheran" dismissal and
> > rationalizing away of Confession itself, even though it is clearly
> > advocated
> > and taught in the Lutheran Symbols. I truly don't know who "Anonymous"
> is,
> > but I have heard these points and this argumentation many times before
> > from
> > Lutheran parishioners.
> >
> > Randy
> >
> > + + + + +
> > Rev. Randy Asburry
> > Hope Lutheran Church
> > St. Louis, MO
> >
> > Recent Activity
> >
> > - 1
> > New Members<
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LutheransLookingEast/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJndXU3dDhn\
BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE5NjYzNzk3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA3NDU5OARzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2\
bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMTkyNzMxMzE2
> >
> >
> > Visit Your Group
> > <
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LutheransLookingEast;_ylc=X3oDMTJmcGU1dmdmBF9TAzk3\
MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE5NjYzNzk3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA3NDU5OARzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0\
aW1lAzExOTI3MzEzMTY-
> >
> > Yahoo! News
> >
> > Sexual Health<
>
http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12j40558l/M=493064.10729659.11333350.8674578/D=group\
s/S=1705074598:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1192738516/A=3848618/R=0/SIG=12u0hffnk/*http://new\
s.yahoo.com/i/1413;_ylt=A9FJqa_awa5EhhEA4wfVJRIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2MnU4czRtBHNlYwNzbg\
--
> >
> >
> > Get important
> >
> > sex health news
> > Health & Fitness
> >
> > on Yahoo! Groups<
>
http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12j8f589t/M=493064.11305689.11851548.8674578/D=group\
s/S=1705074598:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1192738516/A=4840950/R=0/SIG=11n59vup4/*http://adv\
ision.webevents.yahoo.com/healthandfitness/
> >
> >
> > Useful info for the
> >
> > health conscious.
> > Yahoo! Groups
> >
> > Join a yoga group<
>
http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12j7hj88a/M=493064.10771301.11554070.8674578/D=group\
s/S=1705074598:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1192738516/A=4699089/R=0/SIG=11pv8cj55/*http://adv\
ision.webevents.yahoo.com/yogazone/index.html
> >
> >
> > and take the stress
> >
> > out of your life.
> > .
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear in Christ brother Christopher!

I knew about the Confessions being public but I never realized they
didn't really exist from the first days of the Church. As I
understood, people confessed before being baptized. Did they not
confess after that? no later sins forgiven? That'd be SCARY to me.
I'm not any good in Church's history. I hope you can tell me how it was.

Thank you!
Sasha

--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Orr"
<xcjorr@...> wrote:
>
> Anonymous brought up the fact that Confession was created only in
the 12th
> Century.  In fact, it arose at least as early as the legalization of
> Christianity.  Confession was a public act whereby those that had
recanted
> the Christian faith out of fear of martyrdom, under torture, etc. were
> reconciled to the Church and allowed to return.  As time went by, it
became
> more of a private act that was still done to the Church - that is,
to Christ
> Himself, for where his Body is there must all of Him be - in the
person of a
> priest or bishop.  "Revelation of thoughts" was something done to a
> spiritual elder or eldress who was not necessarily one in Holy
Orders and
> carried no sacramental power, though it was integral to the ascetic
life and
> spiritual growth.

On 10/19/07, krolechka <krolechka@...> wrote:
>
>   Dear in Christ brother Christopher!
>
> I knew about the Confessions being public but I never realized they
> didn't really exist from the first days of the Church. As I
> understood, people confessed before being baptized. Did they not
> confess after that? no later sins forgiven? That'd be SCARY to me.
> I'm not any good in Church's history. I hope you can tell me how it was.
>
> Thank you!
> Sasha
> .
>
>
>

I should be more clear.  The specific Rite and form of Confession as a
distinct Mystery (Sacrament) with what we understand as the recognizable
requirements of the Sacrament developed over time.  Confession was commanded
and given in the New Testament, so it was there from the start.  The
Apostles were given the power to bind and loose - not all believers in the
Orthodox understanding of these passages - and this power was conferred by
the Apostles on the bishops and presbyters.  The Sacrament of Confession
(Repentance, Penance, Reconciliation) began to develop into its more
traditional form due to the persecutions and the need to develop a ways to
reintroduce fallen members into the Church and offer forgiveness while at
the same to recognizing the seriousness of denying Christ, and also honoring
the sacrifices of those that did not fall during the persecution.  Something
of the emotional difficulty the Church wrestled with can be seen in more
recent times in the interactions of Orthodox Christians that suffered
persecution, maiming and martyrdom under Communism, those that fled the
country to live in better conditions, those that collaborated to greater or
lesser extents with the atheistic authorities and those that denied Christ
by joining the Soviets but then repented and sought to rejoin the Church.
These are questions not only of how to reintegrate the Disciples that
abandoned Christ, but how to reintegrate a Judas and to integrate a Paul.
At first, public confession of sins was required as communal balm, later as
such persecutions and apostasies lessened the practice returned to more of a
private affair with the priest standing in the place of both Christ (and His
Body, the Church) and the local community.

It also gained much from the monastic practice of the revelation of
thoughts, which was guidance by an experienced elder to a young monk/nun in
spiritual warfare, overcoming logismoi (thoughts) insinuated by the evil
one, etc.  The argument can be made, as it is for monasticism in general,
that the monastic form of revelation of thoughts more closely resembles the
practice of the early Church, but whether this is true or not the fact is
that Confession in its 'modern' Sacramental form has been consistently and
universally held since at least the 300s.  Speculation as to what the Church
did during the years it was under persecution and (literally) underground is
just that, speculation - and speculation along the lines of the search for
the 'Historical Jesus' that normally leads to a recreation of Jesus in the
historian's own image (an idol).  This broad conciliar acceptance is the
Orthodox proof for the divine nature of the gift of the Mystery since the
Body as a whole cannot err or the gates of Hades will have overcome the
Church making Christ a liar (and therefore not God, not raised, and leaving
us in our sins, damned).

Christopher


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you for the detailed explanation, Christopher!

*...no later sins forgiven? That'd be SCARY to me.*
**
I should also note that communing of the Eucharist offers one the
forgiveness of sins, too.  As the priest says:


> "The servant/handmaiden of God communes of the Precious Body and Blood of
> our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ unto remission of sins and unto life
> everlasting."


This is also seen in the fact that following the lifetime confession of an
adult convert to the Orthodox faith, the prayer of absolution is not said.
Absolution is given in the communing of the Lord's Body and Blood that are
received (traditionally) immediately following the Mysteries of Baptism and
Chrismation in the Divine Liturgy.

So, even apart from a formal Sacrament of Confession, forgiveness of sins
was offered sinful humanity "in the breaking of bread".

Christopher


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> "The servant/handmaiden of God communes of the Precious Body and
Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ unto remission of sins and
unto life everlasting."
>
> So, even apart from a formal Sacrament of Confession, forgiveness of
sins was offered sinful humanity "in the breaking of bread".

Interesting... it may seem obvious to many, but people in some
churches (like Russian) simply don't think of it since the Confession
is required before each Communion (unless the communican comes to the
Chalice every Liturgy).
But if the forgiveness is offered at the Communion, why have a
separate Sacrament of Confession?

The prayers before communion make it very clear that Communion is a fearful,
wonderful and dangerous thing.  The Russian practice has been to confess
prior to communion so as to prepare as much as possible for uniting
ourselves with the consuming fire that is the Lord.  The prayers are
beautiful.  You can read them here:

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/prayerbook/cont1.htm#21

And the Canon of Preparation Before Holy Communion here:

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/prayerbook/cancomu.htm

The ones that immediately come to mind are:

> Behold I approach for Divine Communion.
> O Creator, let me not be burnt by communicating,
> For Thou art Fire which burns the unworthy.
> But purify me from every stain.
> Tremble, O man, when you see the deifying Blood,
> For it is a coal that burns the unworthy.
> The Body of God both deifies and nourishes;
> It deifies the spirit and wondrously nourishes the mind.

  Thou hast ravished me with longing, O Christ, and with Thy divine love Thou
> hast changed me. But burn up with spiritual fire my sins and make me worthy
> to be filled with delight in Thee, that I may leap for joy, O gracious Lord,
> and magnify Thy two comings.
>
> Into the splendor of Thy Saints how shall I who am unworthy enter? For if
> I dare to enter the bridechamber, my vesture betrays me, for it is not a
> wedding garment, and as a prisoner I shall be cast out by the Angels.
> Cleanse my soul from pollution and save me, O Lord, in Thy love for men.
>
> Sovereign Lover of men, Lord Jesus my God, let not these Holy Things be to
> me for judgment through my being unworthy, but for the purification and
> sanctification of my soul and body, and as a pledge of the life and kingdom
> to come. For it is good for me to cling to God and to place in the Lord my
> hope of salvation.
>
Christopher


On 10/26/07, krolechka <krolechka@...> wrote:
>
>   > "The servant/handmaiden of God communes of the Precious Body and
> Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ unto remission of sins and
> unto life everlasting."
> >
> > So, even apart from a formal Sacrament of Confession, forgiveness of
> sins was offered sinful humanity "in the breaking of bread".
>
> Interesting... it may seem obvious to many, but people in some
> churches (like Russian) simply don't think of it since the Confession
> is required before each Communion (unless the communican comes to the
> Chalice every Liturgy).
> But if the forgiveness is offered at the Communion, why have a
> separate Sacrament of Confession?
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In the Orthodox Old Calendarist parishes which I attend, individual [private]
confession is not required prior to each communion of the Body and Blood of our
Lord.  Nevertheless there is an expectation of ongoing spiritual direction and
periodic confession and absolution.  In both Western Rite and Eastern Rite in
these settings there is a general absolution of the eligible communicants just
before administration of the consecrated elements.  After more than twenty years
using the before and after communion prayers indicated by Christopher, I very
much miss them if for some reason I cut them short.  It is in the devout reading
of the liturgical and paraliturgical texts of the church that her mind set and
faith become clear, that her insight into the true sense of the Sacred
Scriptures is laid out before us.  Peter

Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:          The prayers before communion
make it very clear that Communion is a fearful,
wonderful and dangerous thing. The Russian practice has been to confess
prior to communion so as to prepare as much as possible for uniting
ourselves with the consuming fire that is the Lord. The prayers are
beautiful. You can read them here:

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/prayerbook/cont1.htm#21

And the Canon of Preparation Before Holy Communion here:

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/prayerbook/cancomu.htm

The ones that immediately come to mind are:

> Behold I approach for Divine Communion.
> O Creator, let me not be burnt by communicating,
> For Thou art Fire which burns the unworthy.
> But purify me from every stain.
> Tremble, O man, when you see the deifying Blood,
> For it is a coal that burns the unworthy.
> The Body of God both deifies and nourishes;
> It deifies the spirit and wondrously nourishes the mind.

Thou hast ravished me with longing, O Christ, and with Thy divine love Thou
> hast changed me. But burn up with spiritual fire my sins and make me worthy
> to be filled with delight in Thee, that I may leap for joy, O gracious Lord,
> and magnify Thy two comings.
>
> Into the splendor of Thy Saints how shall I who am unworthy enter? For if
> I dare to enter the bridechamber, my vesture betrays me, for it is not a
> wedding garment, and as a prisoner I shall be cast out by the Angels.
> Cleanse my soul from pollution and save me, O Lord, in Thy love for men.
>
> Sovereign Lover of men, Lord Jesus my God, let not these Holy Things be to
> me for judgment through my being unworthy, but for the purification and
> sanctification of my soul and body, and as a pledge of the life and kingdom
> to come. For it is good for me to cling to God and to place in the Lord my
> hope of salvation.
>
Christopher

On 10/26/07, krolechka <krolechka@...> wrote:
>
> > "The servant/handmaiden of God communes of the Precious Body and
> Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ unto remission of sins and
> unto life everlasting."
> >
> > So, even apart from a formal Sacrament of Confession, forgiveness of
> sins was offered sinful humanity "in the breaking of bread".
>
> Interesting... it may seem obvious to many, but people in some
> churches (like Russian) simply don't think of it since the Confession
> is required before each Communion (unless the communican comes to the
> Chalice every Liturgy).
> But if the forgiveness is offered at the Communion, why have a
> separate Sacrament of Confession?
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





  __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Orr"
<xcjorr@...> wrote:
>
> The prayers before communion make it very clear that Communion is
a fearful,
> wonderful and dangerous thing.  The Russian practice has been to
confess
> prior to communion so as to prepare as much as possible for uniting
> ourselves with the consuming fire that is the Lord.  The prayers
are
> beautiful.  You can read them here:
>
> http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/prayerbook/cont1.htm#21
>


And you can listen to them chanted in English (as well as morning
and evening prayers) through this site (follow their links on the
left):

http://www.pomog.org/


JiMi

The communion prayers speak of the Body and Blood as deifying:
"Tremble, O man, when you see the deifying Blood,For it is a coal that burns the
unworthy.The Body of God both deifies and nourishes;It deifies the spirit and
wondrously nourishes the mind."
Could someone explain this a little more?

In the latest volume (70) of CTQ, Dr. Weinrich wrote an article called The
Spirit of Holiness: The Holiness of Man which ended in the statement
"justification equals sonification equals deification". I'm curious whether
Orthodox thought would agree or disagree with the statement that justification
is the same as deification.


_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the word scramble challenge
with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Right off I need to make the disclaimer that I am possibly the least
well versed in theological matters in this group.  So with that in
mind, here goes...

Usually when the Orthodx and other confessions engage in dialogue,
there is this phenomenon that we are using the same words to mean
different things.  But it goes beyond a clarification of the meaning
of words.  There is an entirely different frame of reference in which
the words are used.  The most useful distinction that I can come up
with, and even this is imperfect, is that our Orthodox faith frames
everything within a primarily medical or healing context, while the
west tends to lean more toward a legal framework.  Orthhodoxy is not
without any use for the legal metaphor, but it would be focused on
the time of the actual great and dread judgment rather than during
our time on earth.

Sooooooooooo, if one frames justification primarily within a healing
context, then it just may be possible to equate this in some fashion
with deification.  In any event, deification would be a process or
journey wherein we strive as commanded to work out our salvation with
fear and trembling.

I would welcome correction from my elders on this matter.

In Christ,

James/JiMi


--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, <phos_hilarion@...>
wrote:
>
>
> The communion prayers speak of the Body and Blood as deifying:
> "Tremble, O man, when you see the deifying Blood,For it is a coal
that burns the unworthy.The Body of God both deifies and nourishes;It
deifies the spirit and wondrously nourishes the mind."
> Could someone explain this a little more?
>
> In the latest volume (70) of CTQ, Dr. Weinrich wrote an article
called The Spirit of Holiness: The Holiness of Man which ended in the
statement "justification equals sonification equals deification". I'm
curious whether Orthodox thought would agree or disagree with the
statement that justification is the same as deification.
>
>
>

The key to the phrase, and a compare/contrast, is defining 'sonification'.
If  being made a son is defined primarily or solely in terms similar to the
official declaration of an heir, as one say in olden days, than the terms
are very different.  A definition like this takes each person as a separate
individual with separate, individualistic rights, repsonsibilities,
standing, etc. that can then be declared something rather than made
something.  It goes back to the LCMS participant in the Orthodox Lutheran
conference who kept referring to Christ taking up only a single massa of
human nature - rather than all human nature.

Orthodox anthropology posits humanity as made up of both an ousia (nature,
essence) and hypostases (persons).  The use of these terms in triadology and
christology are essential not so much for our understanding of who/what the
Trinity and Christ are, but in how we are saved.  Essence refers to what is
generally common, hypostases to what is unique of a one sharing in an
essence.  Being deified is a movement not from one legal standing (bastard
or guilty) to another (heir or not guilty), but from being a rebel
individual to a person of one essence with all other human persons
(including Christ).  This is the way in which Christ has saved our essence,
we must then struggle with Him to save our person (per Vladimir Lossky per
St. Maximus), and this is where the Sacraments, worship, prayer, the ascetic
life come into play - the entire plant is present in its seed, yet it must
be cultivated, watered, warmed, sunned, pruned; similar with people from
conception through eternity.  We are truly made into the Body of Christ, we
do not simply attain the rank of son alongside the Son due to His paying the
price required for that status.  Salvation is free meaning no one pays
anything for it; sins are forgiven, not paid off by someone else.  The
'cost' of the cross was not a payment anymore than the 'cost of freedom' is
us paying off terrorists with US soldiers lives; the cost of the cross is
simply what Christ, Who is God, paid by lowering Himself to be born and
incarnate, to suffer and die - it's the cost to Him, not the price He paid
to the Devil or to the Father.  He paid the price OF death, not TO death,
and not the PRICE OF DEATH TO anyone, but for we who are IN him due to our
oneness of essence with Him.

Christopher



On 10/27/07, phos_hilarion@... <phos_hilarion@...> wrote:
>
>
> The communion prayers speak of the Body and Blood as deifying:
> "Tremble, O man, when you see the deifying Blood,For it is a coal that
> burns the unworthy.The Body of God both deifies and nourishes;It deifies
> the spirit and wondrously nourishes the mind."
> Could someone explain this a little more?
>
> In the latest volume (70) of CTQ, Dr. Weinrich wrote an article called The
> Spirit of Holiness: The Holiness of Man which ended in the statement
> "justification equals sonification equals deification". I'm curious whether
> Orthodox thought would agree or disagree with the statement that
> justification is the same as deification.
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the word scramble
> challenge with star power.
> http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

2 Timothy 1:18a "The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy from the Lord on
that day.

   Prayers for the faithful departed. [from the web site of the: Arthur Carl
Piepkorn] Center [for Evangelical Catholicity] Director [Dr Philip Secker]: I
remember Piepkorn saying that when he was called to the Seminary someone
questioned his position on prayers for the dead, which the Lutheran Symbols are
unwilling to say are "useless"  (Apology 24: 96). Piepkorn said that he went to
the library, canvassed the commentaries on 2 Timothy 1:18 and reported that the
majority of them asserted that Onesiphorus was dead or probably dead at the time
referred to in this verse, and that resolved the matter. A letter that Piepkorn
wrote on March 14, 1952, probably tells the details of this story: On that date
Piepkorn wrote an 11 page letter to [LC-MS] President Behnken in which he
mentions that someone had written to Behnken in the fall of 1951 attacking
Piepkorn on several matters, including his position on prayers for the faithful
departed. (Piepkorn Papers 91/429) The letter was
  apparently shared with Piepkorn, who wrote a reply on October 8, 1951. His
March letter also mentions a second letter from the same person, sent on October
31, and a letter that Behnken wrote to Piepkorn on November 12 (I have not seen
any of these three earlier letters). Piepkorn spoke to Behnken about the matter
over the phone on one or more occasion, but due to his move to St. Louis and his
new responsibilities did not reply until March 14. In the letter he states:
"Last Friday ... I spent three hours in the Pritzlaff Memorial Library going
over the commentaries and Bible encyclopedias on the shelves of the reading room
and in the stacks ....I am certain that this summary is thoroughly
representative. It should be noted that none of the authors were Roman
Catholics." Here is my quick count: 12 say Onesiphorus was alive, 10 leave the
question open, 17 say he was probably dead, and 6 say he certainly was dead.
(These sources also cite cross references to 2 authors who say
  he was probably alive and 8 who say he was probably dead.)  Piepkorn says
elsewhere that "The thrust of this passage is eschatological. St. Paul prays
that the Lord will grant to Onesiphorus to find mercy (eleos) with the Lord on
that Day. We have here a parallel to the petition of the Litany of our
[Lutheran] rite, 'In the day of judgment, Help us, good Lord.' Since the prayer
contemplates the Last Day as the locus of its fulfilment, it is finally almost
immaterial if Onesiphorus is alive or dead. But by the same token, since the
locus is the Last Day this kind of prayer for the faithful departed can hardly
be criticized." (11/21/62 Letter to Paul M. Bretscher, p. 2. 100/615) --The
Director

  __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]