Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Bishops

Expand Messages
  • Rosemarie Lieffring
    I think if bishops were the driving force for me I would have gone to Rome...they have a more structured hierarchical system that satisfies a German s need for
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 23, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I think if bishops were the driving force for me I would have gone to
      Rome...they have a more structured hierarchical system that satisfies a
      German's need for order.-----R

      On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:

      >
      >
      > Someone wrote:
      >
      > > "It is certainly true that one never become Orthodox merely to find
      > > bishops, but the Orthodox hammering away at the Lutheran 'lack' of
      > bishops
      > > is a key feature in Orthodox proselytism of Lutheran Christians..."
      > >
      >
      > Did the lack or presence of bishops affect anyone's conversion to or
      > inquiry
      > into Orthodoxy?
      >
      > Personally, it was just one more aspect of the millenium plus of
      > Christianity between St. John on Patmos and Luther at Wittenberg that was
      > missing. One among many.
      >
      > The Lutheran critique seemed to be based on papalist changes to real
      > Christianity, but this was seen everywhere regardless of a connection to
      > Rome - regardless even to a connection with the Roman Empire (which was not
      > centered in Rome very long after Constantine's conversion). These 'papal
      > innovations' included most of the things that were held in common by all
      > those not in communion with Rome - the Orthodox, for one - and by those
      > that
      > had nothing to do with the Roman Empire - Georgia, the Persian church, the
      > Ethiopians, the Indians, etc. Bishops, along with prayer to the saints,
      > veneration of relics, Tradition as an/the authority in the Church, lex
      > orandi est lex credendi, etc. all turned out not to be innovations of Rome,
      > but simply the common consensus of the Church against which the gates of
      > Hell cannot, will not and did not overcome. Everything else was simply
      > guesswork based on a particular reading of texts taken out of the context
      > of
      > the community that identified them as holy and preserved them.
      >
      > That's my take on it all, at least.
      >
      > Personally, I would prefer no bishops, but it's just a part of the Church
      > for anyone that has eyes to see - and not in the same way some Lutherans
      > like to think of each head pastor as 'bishop'.
      >
      > Christopher
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Christopher Orr
      Yeah, but even then such centralization couldn t stop such a massive dislocation as Vatican II - or various other innovations like the infallibility of the
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 23, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Yeah, but even then such centralization couldn't stop such a massive
        dislocation as Vatican II - or various other innovations like the
        infallibility of the Pope.

        For all it's messiness, Orthodoxy basically has arguments over things like
        the calendar where we all do the same thing, just 13 days apart. Wow,
        dramatic difference. Or, with ecumenism - who do we talk to about our
        faith?

        Christopher



        On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Rosemarie Lieffring <
        rose.lieffring@...> wrote:

        >
        >
        > I think if bishops were the driving force for me I would have gone to
        > Rome...they have a more structured hierarchical system that satisfies a
        > German's need for order.-----R
        >
        >
        > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...<xcjorr%40gmail.com>>
        > wrote:
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > Someone wrote:
        > >
        > > > "It is certainly true that one never become Orthodox merely to find
        > > > bishops, but the Orthodox hammering away at the Lutheran 'lack' of
        > > bishops
        > > > is a key feature in Orthodox proselytism of Lutheran Christians..."
        > > >
        > >
        > > Did the lack or presence of bishops affect anyone's conversion to or
        > > inquiry
        > > into Orthodoxy?
        > >
        > > Personally, it was just one more aspect of the millenium plus of
        > > Christianity between St. John on Patmos and Luther at Wittenberg that was
        > > missing. One among many.
        > >
        > > The Lutheran critique seemed to be based on papalist changes to real
        > > Christianity, but this was seen everywhere regardless of a connection to
        > > Rome - regardless even to a connection with the Roman Empire (which was
        > not
        > > centered in Rome very long after Constantine's conversion). These 'papal
        > > innovations' included most of the things that were held in common by all
        > > those not in communion with Rome - the Orthodox, for one - and by those
        > > that
        > > had nothing to do with the Roman Empire - Georgia, the Persian church,
        > the
        > > Ethiopians, the Indians, etc. Bishops, along with prayer to the saints,
        > > veneration of relics, Tradition as an/the authority in the Church, lex
        > > orandi est lex credendi, etc. all turned out not to be innovations of
        > Rome,
        > > but simply the common consensus of the Church against which the gates of
        > > Hell cannot, will not and did not overcome. Everything else was simply
        > > guesswork based on a particular reading of texts taken out of the context
        > > of
        > > the community that identified them as holy and preserved them.
        > >
        > > That's my take on it all, at least.
        > >
        > > Personally, I would prefer no bishops, but it's just a part of the Church
        > > for anyone that has eyes to see - and not in the same way some Lutherans
        > > like to think of each head pastor as 'bishop'.
        > >
        > > Christopher
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • oruaseht
        I will bite on this one. Bishops and hierarchical ecclesiology are a definite ATTRACTIVE to me in my inquiry into Orthodoxy. I believe that our Lutheran
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 23, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I will bite on this one. Bishops and hierarchical ecclesiology are a definite ATTRACTIVE to me in my inquiry into Orthodoxy. I believe that our Lutheran ecclesial structure is currently viewed as an adiaphora, to which we can do whatever we please. As such, "District Presidents" who are essentially figure heads that preach at congregational anniversaries and do not function as authoritative Bishops are inventions of Waltherian American Lutheranism. As a Canadian (speaking of Canadians in general), we are far more comfortable with top down authority systems. (We are far more socialist than our US American friends -- for better or worse). Why I like the Bishop structure is that it gives some teeth to situations that need immediate help, such as renegade pastors or rogue congregations. Our system as it sits now doesn't function very well. Congregations in conflict want the District to "step in and do something." The DP says "you are the congregation, you have the power, you fix it." Then massive rifts and distrust occur and the district wonders why people stop giving money to them. Nasty cycle.

          Anyways, being a Greek Exegete, I also don't believe that Episkopos, Presbyter and Diakonos all mean "Pastor" as we have come to understand this office. As Lutherans, we have messed this up. Orthodox 1. Lutherans 0.

          --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:
          >
          > Someone wrote:
          >
          >
          > > "It is certainly true that one never become Orthodox merely to find
          > > bishops, but the Orthodox hammering away at the Lutheran 'lack' of bishops
          > > is a key feature in Orthodox proselytism of Lutheran Christians..."
          > >
          >
          > Did the lack or presence of bishops affect anyone's conversion to or inquiry
          > into Orthodoxy?
          >
          > Personally, it was just one more aspect of the millenium plus of
          > Christianity between St. John on Patmos and Luther at Wittenberg that was
          > missing. One among many.
          >
          > The Lutheran critique seemed to be based on papalist changes to real
          > Christianity, but this was seen everywhere regardless of a connection to
          > Rome - regardless even to a connection with the Roman Empire (which was not
          > centered in Rome very long after Constantine's conversion). These 'papal
          > innovations' included most of the things that were held in common by all
          > those not in communion with Rome - the Orthodox, for one - and by those that
          > had nothing to do with the Roman Empire - Georgia, the Persian church, the
          > Ethiopians, the Indians, etc. Bishops, along with prayer to the saints,
          > veneration of relics, Tradition as an/the authority in the Church, lex
          > orandi est lex credendi, etc. all turned out not to be innovations of Rome,
          > but simply the common consensus of the Church against which the gates of
          > Hell cannot, will not and did not overcome. Everything else was simply
          > guesswork based on a particular reading of texts taken out of the context of
          > the community that identified them as holy and preserved them.
          >
          > That's my take on it all, at least.
          >
          > Personally, I would prefer no bishops, but it's just a part of the Church
          > for anyone that has eyes to see - and not in the same way some Lutherans
          > like to think of each head pastor as 'bishop'.
          >
          > Christopher
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.