The Orthodox Church and the Lutherans | Visit to the Bulgarian Church
The 25th September 1559 Philipp Melanchton wrote in a circular letter to a number of friends, that he the very day had dispatched a letter to the Patriarch of the church of Byzans - the spiritual head of the orthodox churches.
With the letter he also sends an interesting enclosing, "an essential document", he writes. This essential document is nothing less than a translation into Greek of "the confession of our church" - that is the Confession of Augsburg.
In his letter(1) Melanchton takes for granted the widespread belief of the time of the Reformation in the imminence of the Day of Judgment and that only "repentance and inner renewment in the body of Christianity can help" in that state of things. East and West are connected and equally afflicted by the certain signs of the end of the world. The Greek church already has been overrun by the Turks - who without hesitation are identified with the apocalyptic people of Gog and Magog (Apoc. 20, 8). The West is under a constant threat from the same people and besides on the inner front from Papacy, which has raised its power in the middle of the temple of God.
The "messenger" who brings the letter and the confession is the deacon Demetrios, who has lived in Wittenberg in the house of Meælanchton from the 20th of May to the end of September. For three years he has been a deacon at the church in Constantinople and he is delegated by the Patriarch to get information about the movement of the Reformation. All this he gets in full during his stay at Melanchton and at the same time Melanchton gets reliable and actual news about the Orthodox Church now about 100 years after the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks.
Demetrios can from personal experience recount about the Lutheran Church, Melanchton writes, "That we in a god-fearing way stick to the holy prophetic and apostolic writings, the dogmatical decisions of the Holy Synods and the teaching of the Fathers". The Lutherans also strongly dislike the Mohammedans and all enemies of God, who reject the holy church, including the self-made customs, which unlettered Latin monks have brought into the church. It is quite clear that Melanchton expects to meet the Orthodox Church by returning to the sources behind the medieval Roman church and its many abuses.
As a support for the oral account Demetrios gets the Confession of Augsburg in a Greek translation, done by Poul Dolscius, one of Melanchton's pupils. In the preface to the first edition Dolscius takes his starting point in the miracleWhitsunday morning, where the apostles - being almost illiterates - by the outpouring of the Spirit get the highest possible linguistic education. What the apostles got through inspiration, the theologians and pastors of today have to reach the hard way through hard-working studies of the old languages: "Greek and Latin are the swaddling-clothes of the Godchild, the Son of Mary." The translation of the confession and other Lutheran writings are going to serve acquiring knowledge of the Biblical languages - but still more it must underline the coherence between the Lutheran teachings and the Holy Scripture - down to the linguistic form.
The preface is omitted in the second edition and does not cover what we meet in the translation. It is not a mere translation of the Confession, as we know ir from the authorized edition from 1530 - but a very free version, which has the clear aim to make the Confession understandable for people belonging to another Christian tradition than the West-european, viz. The Greek/orthodox Church.
Many West-european expressions, marked by the legal language, which both the Roman Church and the Reformation used, is paraphrased and explained with expressions coming from the orthodox liturgy. On deciding places the text hardly is a translation, but rather a Greek rewriting of the Lutheran ideas and statements - using quotations from the Bible, expressions from the liturgy and words and topics from the Fathers.
Especially in the parts dealing with "Justification by Faith" and "Good Works"(2) we only find single words from the original text. Here the question is about interpreting and explaining in such a way that the content is loyal reproduced and really understood by the orthodox. The same can be said about the article of "original sin"(3), because the understanding of sin is decisive for the right understanding of justification by faith and the good works, as well. The Greek George Mastrantonis(4), who has worked seriously with the translation, reaches the conclusion, that "the translation of the Confession of Augsburg into Greek is a free translation, but without changing the intention of the writing". It has been a really difficult task, linguistically and theologically, and the common opinion is that Melanchton has been adviser and consultant - surely helped by the deacon Demetrios - to be able to find the right formulation.
Melanchton gets no answer to his attempt to have a dialogue with the Orthodox Church. He does not hear from Demetrios or from the ecumenical Patriarch Josef II (1555 - 1565) and as early as 1560 Melanchton dies. The Greek dogmatist Ioannis Karmires in his dogmatics(5) is of the little malicious opinion that the reason could be that the patriarch found so many interpretations alien to the old church that he preferred to stay silent. It is complete guessing. Nobody knows what happened to Demetrios or his message - but a more likely guess is that Demetrios lost his life on the way to Constantinople - and so the letter never reached its recipient.
But the story does not end up here. 14 years later Lutheran theologians from the university of Tübingen picked up the thread - headed by the chancellor Jacob Andreae and the professor in Greek Martin Crucius. And this attempt succeeded. Now the dialogue got started and became that comprehensive that it with modern words became the first "joint commission" between the Lutheran Church and an alien church. With the difference that all work in the commission was in writing without oral meetings at all.(6)
This time the messenger was the pastor of the legation in Constantinople Stephan Gerlach. He was educated at the university in Tübingen and later became a theological professor at that university. He had the direct contact with the support base home and was personally present in Constantinople, where he without delay succeeded in getting contact with the patriarchate and the patriarch, Jeremias II. The 15th of October he was introduced to the patriarch and handed over the message, which he brought from Tübingen: Two private letters from Martin Crucius and Jacob Andreae and also a sermon written by Jacob Andreae about "the Good Shepherd" - text St. John 10, 11. After a short time supplemented by letters and a sermon more "The Kingdom of God has come close at hand" - text St. Luc. 10, 9. The patriarch commented rather elaborately upon these letters and sermons and ended up with a firm warning to the Lutherans: "We are not allowed to listen to the voices of strangers, who are going to introduce new doctrines, who have not entered through the door of the Gospel and the teaching of the church and the holy Fathers and teachers."
But previous to the arrival of the Patriarch's letter the Germans had taken the next step, sending the Patriarch an additional letter with the Greek translation of Confessio Augustana enclosed - " a summary of the old faith, which has come down to us from Paradise." And the forwarded letter continues as an answer to the Patriarch's letter, which crossed the sending of the Confession of Augsburg: " ... we hope that we in no way have invented new things in the context of the articles, which concern the salvation, as we (as far as we can estimate) have observed and kept to the faith, which has been handed over from the holy apostles and prophets, from the Fathers and patriarchs, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the seven ecumenical councils based upon the God-given writings."
You may be surprised that the two Lutherans include also the seventh council, which exclusively deals with holy pictures and the veneration of icons, but it is important to notice the limitation contained in at the end of their letter: All statements have to be measured by the Holy Scripture - interpreted by the Lutherans. Later we shall see that this statement becomes one of the main points in dispute in the following dialogue.
The Lutheran confession was presented to the patriarch the 24th of May 1574 and he set up a committee composed of the leading Orthodox theologians. After procuring several additional copies of the confession, the commission was at session until the 15th of May 1576, when it made an elaborated answer in writing, which immediately was sent to Tübingen. The answer consists of nearly 50 pages and deals with every single article in the confession attaching great importance to expound the orthodox point of view to every question simultaneously indirect commenting on the Lutheran statements.
There are very few direct critical remarks - more exactly only concerning "faith and good works" and very decisive about "tradition". In the concluding remarks of the document the orthodox opinion is clear and unambiguous expressed: "All here said, my beloved ones, is - as you very well know - based upon the inspired Holy Scripture, according to the interpretation of the Fathers of the Church, explanation and sound teachings. We are not allowed to trust our own interpretation and understand and interpret the words from the inspired scripture without consent with the Fathers of the Church, who are recognized by the holy synods, inspired by the Holy Spirit ... " In most cases the criticism is formulated indirectly as an invitation to further discussions not going into details about the Lutheran formulation - but by formulating in full the Orthodox attitude to the questions.
The answer from the Lutheran theologians, which is sent the 18th of June 1477, tries to systematize the rather diffuse impression, which the answer from the patriarch has left. They summarize the answer in six questions, where three are really controversial: "the Free Will", "Faith and Works", and the question about "Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition in the Church", which is crucial for the Orthodox. The argumentation of the Lutherans are built upon quotations and interpretations from the Bible, but beautifully supplied with quotations from the Church-fathers, but it is underlined that "every man can make mistakes" - consequently also the Fathers of the Church. And who decides, whether an interpretation is in agreement with Holy Scripture? The Lutherans answer. "No better way is found than the way that Holy Scripture is interpreted by Holy Scripture - that is by or through itself. " For the Orthodox it was only another word for one's own more or less shrewd thoughts and ideas.
In May 1579the second answer of the Patriarch follows. In spite of many kind words about agreement in faith the tune changes in a renewed underlining of the critical attitude of the Lutherans against the Fathers of the Church and holy tradition. In short the Lutheran interpretation of the Bible, which has no foundation in fact. This fundamental disagreement makes the apparent unity in a number of details indifferent.
The Lutherans answer back the 24th of June 1580 by repeating the former arguments in a more rigorous form unable to understand that it was the foundation of the arguments "the Sola Scriptura", which made the negotiations reach an impasse. It appears very clearly from the third and last answer from the patriarch: "We have considered keeping silent and not forward further answer to you, who twist the Holy Scripture and the interpretation of the Fathers in accordance with your own wishes. .. Do not write further about questions of doctrine, - however we should be happy to exchange letters for the sake of friendship."
It became a voluminous work, when the total correspondence in 1584 was published in Wittenberg - nearly 300 pages. The Lutherans have not since picked up the thread, but in the Orthodox world the correspondence has got authoritative character, as the answers of the patriarch are looked at as one of the "confessions" of the Orthodox Church - with with reference to the Lutheran heresy. Still the 161 pages long letters of the patriarch form part of the symbolic books of the Orthodox Church, and Orthodox theological students have to go through this more than 400 years old dialogue between the Orthodox and the Lutherans.
Two questions are different and decisive; The importance of the tradition of the Church has been underlined in the preceding pages - and next the question of about the view of human nature, gathered in considerations about Free Will, the Fall of Man and the Original Sin, which again influence the view upon "faith and good works. - as the patriarch says in his last letter: The Orthodox Church does not believe in justification by faith alone, but in justification by faith, which produces good works through love.
Two questions and on the whole an ecumenical dialogue, which it would be profitable for both parts to take up again in the light of the development through more than 400 years, which have gone since the last letters were sent between Constantinople and Wittenberg.
1) The letter is reproduced in Ernst Benz: Wittenberg und Byzanz, Kyrios IV. (text)
2) The Confession art. 4 and 20. (text)
3) Art. 2. (text)
4) George Mastrantonis: Augsburg and Constantinople, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982. (text)
5) Dogmatica et Symbolica Monumenta Orthodoxae Ecclesiae, auctore Ioanne Karmiris, 1968. Greek only. (text)
6) The contributions both from the Lutheran and the Orthodox were published in: "Acta et Scripta Theologorum Wirtembergiensium et Patriarchae Constantinopolitani D. Hieremiae, quae utriqueanno MDLXXVI usque ad annum MDLXXXI de Augustana Confessione inter se miserunt, graece et latine ab iisdem Theologis edita" (Würtemberg 1584). (text)
"Acta et Scripta Theologorum Wirtembergiensium et Patriarchae Constantinopolitani D. Hieremiae, quae utrique ab anno MDLXXVI usque ad annum MDLXXXI de Augustana Confessione inter se miserunt, graece et latine ab iisdem Theologis edita" (Württemberg 1584).
(The publication is rare and almost inavailable. My copy is a microfilm-copy of the edition owned by the library of Union Theological Seminary i New York).
Stanislas Socolovius: Censura orientalia Ecclesiae de praecipuis nostri saeculi haereticorum dogmatibus. (Paris 1584)
Dogmatica et Symbolica Monumenta Orthodoxae Ecclesiae, auctore Ioanne Karmiris, 1968. (Greek only).
Georg Kretschmar: Die Confessio Augustana graeca. (Kirche im Osten 20/1977).
Paul Renaudin, O.S.B.: Lutheriens et Grec-Orthodoxes - Les erreurs du Protestantisme. (Librairie Bloud og Cie, Paris 1903).
George Elias Zacharides: Tübingen und Konstantinopel im 16. Jahrhundert. (Inaugural-Dissertation, Göttingen 1941).
Ernst Benz: Die Ostkirche - im Lichte der protestantischen Geschichtsschreibung von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart. (München 1952).
Ernst Benz: Wittenberg und Buzanz - Zur Begegnung und Auseinandersetzung der Reformation und der östlich-orthodoxen Kirche. (Marburg/L. 1949).
Walther Engels: Die Wiederentdeckung und erste Beschreibung der östlich-orthodoxen Kirche in Deutscland durch David Chytraeus (1569).
Tübingen und Byzanz - Die erste offizielle Auseinandersetzung zwischen Protestantismus und Ostkirche im 16. Jahrhundert. (Begge i "Kyrios, 3/4, 1939).
George Mastrantonis: Augsburg and Constantinople (The correspondence between the Tübingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession). Holy Cross Orthodox Press, Massachusetts 1982.
Dorothea Wendenbourg: Reformation und Orthodoxie (Der ökumenische Briefwechsel zwischen der Leitung der Würtembergischen Kirche und Patriarch Jeremias II von Konstantinopel 1573 - 1581). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1986.
Colin Davey: The Orthodox and the Reformation. (Eastern Churches Review, Volume II, nr. 1 og 2, 1968).
George Florovsky: An early Ecumenical Correspondence. (World Lutheranism of Today, A tribute to Anders Nygren, Stockholm og Oxford 1950).
Above the southern horizon of the town Plovdiv the Rodope-mountains rise like a wall only ten kilometres from the centre of the city. In these mountains Orpheus was born. Not eastwards of sun and westwards of moon, but out of time in the twilight of the world of myths and legend. Orpheus, the divine singer, who attracted not only human beings but also animals and plants by his singing, lost his young wife Euridice - but saved her out of the land of the dead just by his song. In that way he became a symbol for regeneration and resurrection and gave his name to one of the most widespread religions of the antiquity - Orphism.
Not a very bad symbol for a country and a town, which has been part of the European changeable history through more than 2000 years. In Plovdiv we meet history with every step, layer over layer, changeable as the weather in April. Now victory and now defeat. The history of the people, the history of religions and of Christianity. Lucid and present today.
The first known inhabitants came from the South 6 - 700 years before the beginning of the Christian era. It was the Thracians. They founded towns as Sardica, to day Sofia, and Pulpdova to day's Plovdiv. In the fourth century before Christ the area was incorporated in the empire of Alexander the Great and Plovdiv got its name changed to Philipopolis - named after the father of Alexander. Some years before Christ the Romans annexed the country and at last in 395 it became part of the Byzantine empire.
Even at that early time we have proofs of the influence of Christianity in the Bulgarian area. A few churches are preserved, but more important is the fact that two councils were held in the country - the first at Philipopolis (Plovdiv) 342 and the second at Sardica (Sofia) 343.
The topic was the connection between God the Father and Jesus, the Son. Was Jesus the only begotten son of God, God from God and light from light as the statement from Nicaea 325 says, or was Jesus a creature as God's other creatures? Certainly the first and most noble creature, but not the son of God and not divine as claimed by the presbyter Arius from Alexandria. The man who has given name to the fight.
The council at Philipopolis supported the Arian ideas, but the council at Sardica confirmed decision from Nicaea. In spite of the decisions at Nicaea, later confirmed at Constantinople, hundreds of years went away before the Arian idea was eradicated. The ideas still mark the actual discussion - especially in the dialogue with Muslims.
In the 6th and 7th century conditions on the Balkans and in Bulgaria changed decisively because of the great Migration. The Teutons walked westwards, and the vacuum they left was filled by the so-called Old Bulgarians and Slavonic tribes, which spread from East to West and South, so far that they for some time threatened even Byzans.
The new immigrants continued to build on the inheritance from the culture from of the previous centuries - most important - they adopted Christianity. In this context the two missionaries St. Cyril and St. Methodios played the leading role, not only ecclesiastically, but also culturally. They created the Slavonic church language based on the old Bulgarian dialect. It is the language, which is used to this very day, not only in the liturgy of the Bulgarian Church, but in the Russian and Serbian churches as well.
Tsar Boris, who officially introduced Christianity in the year 865, looked around to the West and to the East. Was the church going to connect with the Greek church of Constantinople or to the Latin of Rome? The question was not a reality until 1054, and at the same time we are in the border-area between the Roman and Greek influence.
The end of it was that tsar Simeon declared the church independent and autonomous. The autonomy was recognized by Constantinople, and the new leader of the Bulgarian church, the patriarch, got his see at Ochrida. The independence lasted only short. As early as 1018 Byzantium conquered the country - under the reign of Basileus the second - who got the not very flattering nickname "the Bulgar killer". The patriarchate was reduced to a see of an archbishop under Constantinople and was occupied by a Greek.
The monastery of Batschkovo was founded in this period. The monastery survived to this very day - situated near Plovdiv on one of the slopes of the Rodope-mountains - and it is impossible to overestimate the significance and influence this monastery has had upon the Bulgarian church, through the centuries of oppression and trials. At the same time it is a goldmine of church-art, -especially wall-paintings.
1186 Bulgaria again won freedom and the experiences with the Greek church made it naturally to take contact with Rome, but the attempt did not get any popular backing - and the church returned to the connection with Constantinople.
The second Bulgarian kingdom disappeared at the end of 14th century, when the five hundred years long Turkish night fell over the country. How did this Turkish occupation effect the Christian population?
From registers of taxpayers between 1520 and 1530 we know the figures for the total Turkish occupied areas on the Balkans: The Muslim households made up 18,8% and the Christian 80,7%. (Jews made up only 0,5%). In Sofia the Muslims counted 66,4%, but if we include all rural districts in the province of Sofia, it shows up that the Muslims only made up 6% of the total population. To day the Muslims make up less than 10% of the total population. The majority forms the ethnic Turks with 1180 mosques and about 500 imams. The Muslim Bulgarians have 120 mosques and about 100 imams.
Not only the threatening Islamisation of the population was a problem for the Bulgarian church. It had to fight on another front as well against the Greek influence. The power of Constantinople was considerably increased by the Turkish conquer. Despite differences the Turks made the patriarch of Constantinople the head of all orthodox Christians in the Osmanic empire. The consequence was a heavy Greek influence and suppression. The Bulgarian patriarchate was abolished and all superior offices in the church were replaced by Greeks. Even the language was suppressed - Bulgarian was by force substituted by Greek. Whom the Bulgarians hated the most - the Turks or the Greeks - is still all in the air.
The liberation began with the Russian-Turkish war in 1877, which was followed by more than 50 years of turbulent conditions in the new Bulgaria, which came to a conclusion not until the second World-war, where Bulgaria - as in the first World-war supported Germany and the Axis Powers. "Spheres of influence" were stipulated between Stalin and Churchill in Moscow 1944, where the basis of the "Iron-curtain" - which for decades was the borderline between East and West - was made. In Bulgaria the communist East got 75% influence and the democratic West only 10%, The result for Bulgaria was more than 50 years under communist rule.
It is this church, which to day after the fall of communism is licking its wounds and trying to find its own feet in the new democratic society, we are going to cooperate with and try to help from Denmark - especially the diocese of Aalborg - to be precise the diocese of Plovdiv the biggest of the 13 dioceses in Bulgaria.
The diocese has 400 churches and 15 monasteries, of which the Batschkovo monastery is the best known. The name of the bishop is Arseni - and he is the one who has taken the initiative to establish an Orthodox Centre for Culture, Education and Information in connection with the church of St. Dimitri in Plovdiv.
As daily leaders the bishop has appointed Timo Zlatanov and Peter Grammatikov, both teachers from the Theological Seminary in Plovdiv. The bishop has taken "the Danish Dialogcenter" as a model. The church of St. Dimitri is one of Plovdiv's old churches, built at the hill of Djambez Tepe in the old Turkish part of the town. During many years the church has been used by the Russian refugees after the October-revolution, but now the church is ready for its new task as the church of the Dialogue centre. There are brilliant rooms connected with the church, which now are fitted out as offices and meeting-rooms. It is the main purpose of bishop Arseni that the work from the Centre has to go hand in hand with the liturgy of the church, as the first and biggest task after 50 years of communist suppression is to teach the Bulgarians, what true Christianity really is. You have to know your own position before you are prepared for the dialogue with the many new religious movements, which try to win the Bulgarian man after 1989.
A rather big part of the Muslim minority, which still live in Bulgaria, are to be found in the diocese of Plovdiv - situated near the Turkish border. Also with the Muslim leader, the Mufti, I have got a good contact. The Muslims want a peaceful, daily co-existence with the Orthodox church. The Mufti does not believe that such a "diapractise" will lead to a real dialogue. History has shown that we are not getting along with the task to convert each other - but only the future may show, what the result of a daily, peaceful common life can be. He is much aware of the fact that Muslim minorities during the last decades have grown to a problem all over Europe - and which city would be better fit for the discussion of peaceful co-existence between Christians and Muslims? For that reason he prepares a European, international conference in Plovdiv in the autumn of 1999 with "Peaceful co-existence" as its main theme.
The diocese of Plovdiv is going to take part. And perhaps this conference is going to be the first big challenge of the new Orthodox Centre for Culture, Education and Information. A challenge that equally addresses to the Bulgarian and the European reality.