Are Orthodox considered protestants? If not, why not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MockSock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MockSock

Guest
Surely Orthodox were the first protestants. They rejected the filioque clause so rejected Catholic teaching. I’m not an expert on the history and theology surrounding the whole thing and I’m quite ready to be corrected.
 
Several popes, notably Leo III, refused to accept the addition of the filioque, first proposed at the Council of Aachen in 809. It was a more complex issue than just an East vs. West confrontation.

 
Technically they are schismatics. They have right theology, just refuse to be in communion with Rome. In their eyes, all bishops are equal and they don’t need a Pope to keep the bishops orderly. The Pope isn’t needed to settle disputes bewteen bishops.

Ironically, if they were in communion with Rome there wouldn’t be a Constantinople-Moscow split over Ukraine as the Pope would settle the matter for them.
 
Thanks I didn’t know that. It doesn’t make sense to me though, if the pope wasn’t in agreement with the filioque then why was it added or kept.
 
It’s a long story involving both theology and political pressures on successive popes. I couldn’t even begin to explain it. I believe it was Pope Benedict VIII who finally gave way and accepted the filioque, at a synod or council held (I think) in 1022.
 
MockSock said:
Surely Orthodox were the first protestants. They rejected the filioque clause so rejected Catholic teaching. I’m not an expert on the history and theology surrounding the whole thing and I’m quite ready to be corrected.
Click to expand...
No; we are in schism from each other. They are not heretics. The Filioque or its absence is a non-issue to us Catholics and many Byzantine-rite Catholic churches omit it in their Divine Liturgies.

The Orthodox are true churches, and healing will not involve “them returning to the Catholic church” but a re-establishment of communion. This is what distinguishes them from Protestants That’s just putting simply what can be a very complicated question. .
 
The Orthodox have valid Sacrament (called Mysteries) and that is including the priesthood. This is one of the major differences to the protestant ecclesial communions. Note that Catholics don’t call the protestants for being churches due to lack of valid priesthood in the apostolic succession.

There have been many language difficulties between the Orthodox and Catholics during the centuries and millennia mainly due to difficulties when translating from one language to another. Catholics celebrate Holy Mass which translated into Greek is θεία λειτουργία which means Divine Liturgy and that is the word the Orthodox use for Holy Mass. The word “proceeds” is the problem with the Filioque as the Greek doesn’t mean exactly the same in Latin and the conflict with the natures of Christ continued longer in the West than in the East.
 
The term “Protestant” in Church-speak historically is for one who denies the patriarchal authority of the Pope. Orthodox do not; to them, he is the Patriarch of Rome - he just lacks universal jurisdiction. Henry VIII declared himself the patriarch for England, thus denying the Pope’s rightful authority, and Protestantism was born. I’d have to dig, but I don’t think even Luther was a “protestant” by definition before that, just labeled a schismatic or heretic from 1507-1533ish.
 
Elias said:
In their eyes, all bishops are equal and they don’t need a Pope to keep the bishops orderly
Click to expand...
Not exactly my understanding.
Both the Oriental and Eastern Ortodox groups have patriarchs.
 
Those patriarchs are 1st among equals just like the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.
 
Did Luther ever deny the authority of the pope?
He dissagreed with him but did he ever deny the teaching that we shouod have a pope?
 
Elias said:
Technically they are schismatics. They have right theology, just refuse to be in communion with Rome. In their eyes, all bishops are equal and they don’t need a Pope to keep the bishops orderly. The Pope isn’t needed to settle disputes bewteen bishops.

Ironically, if they were in communion with Rome there wouldn’t be a Constantinople-Moscow split over Ukraine as the Pope would settle the matter for them.
Click to expand...
The technicality you mention is ironic in that you just said they have correct theology but differ significantly with you on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in matters of faith and doctrine, and yet that is one of the defining characteristics of Roman Catholic doctrine. Perhaps, considerations other than theological differences are the reason Eastern Orthodox are labeled as schismatics rather than heretics.
 
Thats as far as I know about the Lost Brothers. From what I gather, the filioque is a non-issue. Anything else I wouldn’t know about.
 
Hodos said:
40.png
Elias:
Technically they are schismatics. They have right theology, just refuse to be in communion with Rome. In their eyes, all bishops are equal and they don’t need a Pope to keep the bishops orderly. The Pope isn’t needed to settle disputes bewteen bishops.

Ironically, if they were in communion with Rome there wouldn’t be a Constantinople-Moscow split over Ukraine as the Pope would settle the matter for them.
Click to expand...
The technicality you mention is ironic in that you just said they have correct theology but differ significantly with you on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in matters of faith and doctrine, and yet that is one of the defining characteristics of Roman Catholic doctrine. Perhaps, considerations other than theological differences are the reason Eastern Orthodox are labeled as schismatics rather than heretics.
Click to expand...
I’m sure there’s a way to reconcile the two opinions. There’s already agreement to a degree: the Pope can still hold the primary of honour in a restored Pentarchy. As for his jurisdiction, we can also turn to the practice of the Great Church at the time of the first Seven Ecumenical councils and see where we could meet in the middle without doing violence to either ecclesiology. Possible examples could include Rome as a sort of universal “supreme court” of last appeal, or a ratifier of any future Church-wide Ecumenical Council. The recent developments such as Papal Infallibility of Vatican I can still be agreed on but exercised only “on the advice” of the rest of the Pentarchy, or perhaps the powers claimed by Rome can be held as reserve powers, also “on the advice” of the Pentarchy.

Not saying these are foolproof solutions, but there are ways to think of it. The problem is not doctrine. The problem is the bullheadedness of all concerned.
 
Elias said:
Those patriarchs are 1st among equals just like the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.
Click to expand...
Us Orthodox do indeed refer to as our primates (i.e. patriarch, Metropolitan, Archbishop, etc. or whatever the head bishop is titled) as “first among equals” though it should also be considered that they do indeed hold duties and responsibilities that a diocesan bishop does not have. See for example the descriptions in the statute of the Orthodox Church in America: the Metropolitan vs. the diocesan bishop.

I think this is really a way of saying a primatial bishop exercises his duties as a brother to his fellow bishops rather than a more top-down authoritative manner we stereotypically attribute to the Pope.
 
There is a difference with historic churches who have apostolic succession and valid sacraments and those who protest and made up their own churches. The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, assyrian church of the east are in schism with Rome. Protestants disagreed against some Roman Catholic doctrines and made up new churches to suit their needs. With over 40 000 protestant churches today, they vary a great deal from one to the other.
 
Iustinus1 said:
I’d say it could have been reconciled up to 1870.
The dogma that the Pope can be infallible made reunification all but impossible. They had issues with what the Bishop of Romes place was before the schism and to think they would come back when the teaching of the infallibility is now official makes it very very unlikely. I actually think that may have been a mistake for the Church to declare.
Click to expand...
I’m sure there’s still a way, although I think the Vatican I definition was a rather imprudent action in this regard, even if it’s doctrinally correct. Since the Orthodox churches are true churches, I’m certain God has provided a certain level of protection to them as as well such that reconciliation, if difficult, would not be impossible.

Again, it just needs charity and open-mindedness. But that’s not present on either side. We are probably closer to reconciliation with the Oriental Orthodox than we are with the Eastern Orthodox.

And if by some miracle we do re-establish communion with Constantinople, the Russians (if they have reconciled with Constantinople by then), will most likely sever communion anyway.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top