Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine
- Status
H
Hesychios
Guest
I’ll admit I don’t get around much, but I don’t think I have ever seen an Orthodox Catholic claim the Holy Spirit protected the church from the Reformation.
From my perspective the Reformation happened due to very specific problems in the western church. The difference in problems the two churches faced in maintenance of discipline, avoidance of scandals and theological consistency are rooted in something, but what?
Note here that I am not claiming the Orthodox have not had problems in these areas, but the Reformation event was born out of the ‘western’ or Latin Catholic church, mostly by Latin Catholic priests and spread into the east primarily among Latin Catholics who lived further east.
Why this happened in just this way mostly in the Latin church is anyone’s guess, but I do not attribute the relative absence of a Reformation in the Orthodox areas to divine intervention. Protestant ideas did spread into the east and attracted some Orthodox (percentage-wise a small number), but the movement did not originate in the east, and the principal complaints of the major Reformers were against practices and ideas that were mostly not normal for the eastern churches to begin with.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I think I might have seen someone say exactly this over at CF in TAW.
C
Contarini
Guest
No, the question to which I responded was how one accounts for Orthodox unity. I wasn’t addressing the question of the Reformation per se, although it does seem to me that many Orthodox think that the lack of a Reformation in the East was due to the fact that the Orthodox didn’t need one–the Reformation was a response to the distortions of Tradition by the Western Church. So the lack of a Reformation would be due to the Holy Spirit in the sense that the Holy Spirit guided the Orthodox in the preservation of the one Faith, which made the Reformation unnecessary.
Edwin
S
StillWondering
Guest
Thank you Monica for those quotes.
J
josie_L
Guest
Oh my goodness, Edwin “it is at best a legitimate theological speculation”, did you even bother to read the article from whence I retrieved my quote???
Moreover, the fact that Pope St. Leo agreed with the theology of the filioque does matter because Harpazo has implied through his posts that Pope St. Leo repudiated the filioque (I can give you the thread/post in which he insinuated this).
J
josie_L
Guest
Or it could be that being subjugated by foreign forces, i.e., the Muslims, contained the Orthodox from experiencing a reformation (I would imagine that they were concerned with survival under enemy rule, and by survival I don’t mean just physical but spiritual as well)?
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I’ve always felt this was a great hypothesis.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Except not all of Orthodoxy was under the thumb of the Muslims, additionally at first the reformation made excellent inroads in Muslim-controlled Hungary, indicating that Christian lands occupied by Muslims were not immune to its effects.
H
Hesychios
Guest
OK, I can see that for sure.
I too believe that complete reliance on the Holy Spirit has been important factor in the doctrinal uniformity of Orthodox Christianity.
I also think (on a practical operative level) that most Orthodox prelates really believe in hell, and they know that they will be held personally accountable by Jesus Christ for allowing any poison to seep into the faith of their little flocks. All clergy are aware of this burden they personally carry before Christ at the judgment if they cause the flock to be endangered. They can neither take a relativistic ‘it doesn’t matter’ nor pass the buck and say ‘that’s not my job’.
I know that Catholics understand the Pope to be in such a ‘the buck stops here’ position, and most realize the terrible solitary burden this places upon him. Orthodox bishops each individually have the same pressure, they cannot defer the blame to someone higher like a patriarch, but they are not in fact solitary. They can expect to be called on any mistakes by any bishop from any synod anywhere, and a firestorm could erupt. It’s no joking matter.
Not only that, but grannies have been known to attack bishops with their brooms.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Exactly. Those who propose such an excuse are really inventing.
Eastern Hungary was mostly Orthodox, but with a Catholic population too. The Catholics overwhelmingly went over to the Reformation in eastern Hungary, the Reformation seemingly ‘jumped over’ the Orthodox communities.
Russia was not controlled by Muslims, neither was Poland. It probably comes as a surprise to many Catholics that Poland was once in the grip of the Reformation (mostly Calvinist), and had to be won back’ in about three generations by the work of the Jesuits.
But the Orthodox of the kingdom of Poland were relatively unaffected, and the Orthodox across the border in Russia not at all.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Why do you think that happened the way it did? Why did the Reformation “jump over” Orthodoxy and spread in Catholic communities? Accounts like these have an undercurrent, though most Orthodox deny it in here, that basically says that Orthodoxy has some special charism or inspiration or facet that is superior to Catholicism that helped it stave off Protestantism while Catholicism became inundated with the phenomenon because it was lacking in something the Orthodox had in abundance. What is your hypothesis as to why it happened this way?
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hi my brother,
Those same conditions were generally not present in Orthodoxy, even in a seminal form.
I don’t have much time right now, but I will give one example (one that I have given elsewhere):
The institution of the Papacy, with it’s supreme universal claims to jurisdiction, made possible to get ‘dispensations’ for a bishop to hold more than one See. If the Papacy had extended it’s influence into the east it is conceivable, even likely, that this abuse would have been spread into the east as well.
Why is this important? Because …
I have stated in many posts and threads that the problem rests squarely on the Roman Catholic church in that it created the conditions for Reformation.
Those same conditions were generally not present in Orthodoxy, even in a seminal form.
I don’t have much time right now, but I will give one example (one that I have given elsewhere):
The institution of the Papacy, with it’s supreme universal claims to jurisdiction, made possible to get ‘dispensations’ for a bishop to hold more than one See. If the Papacy had extended it’s influence into the east it is conceivable, even likely, that this abuse would have been spread into the east as well.
Why is this important? Because …
- … in the early church local synods were responsible for naming bishops, and holding two Sees was against the canons of the church.
- Popes started taking gifts of money, actually hefty charges, for this ‘dispensation’, which resulted in …
- widespread simony
- big debts to the banking houses of Europe
- abusive moneymaking schemes, like the selling of sacraments to cancel these debts
- a generally inescapable sense of cynicism throughout the clerical ranks
If you want more examples, perhaps later I will post additional ones, but I think you know enough to be able to reason these out for yourself.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I wouldn’t say not at all, Peter I was greatly influenced by the Reformation and there was a minimal spread of Protestantism, however it did not last.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
While my original statement was to the effect that such a movement could have potentially formed in Orthodox lands, they simply didn’t for whatever reason.
I would say the Protestant Reformation, at this time leaped over the Orthodox simply because they spoke a different language, I don’t mean Greek vs. Language, but the cultures themselves were notably different. I haven’t taken much time to look into it, but as far as I’ve seen, Protestant spread in Orthodox lands is usually preceded by a certain level of Westernization in the cultural understandings.
H
Hesychios
Guest
That’s true.
Individual Orthodox to this day are attracted to Protestant theology and Latin Catholic theology, he was one. I should have been more clear, one should not speak in absolute terms.
One did not see wholesale desertion of Orthodoxy by the clergy and bishops or the laity in general, although some individuals would have been attracted to the new theological ideas, which were all originating in the context of western thought and were circulating as printed publications.
I dislike the expression (and will not assert) that the Holy Spirit ‘shielded’ Holy Orthodoxy from the scourge of Protestantism, an idea which I think has ‘magical’ overtones. But I think the Holy Sprit does guide the church, taken as a whole, in maintenance of orthodox Christian Truth over the course of time.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
But was simony and corruption really the real root cause? The Reformation was not just based on these things. Indulgences were the catalyst but at their core men like Luther and Calvin had a radically new agenda for their view of Christendom. It was a vision of a church in many ways wholly different from the Catholic Church. It wasn’t just about cleaning house of corruption. The Priesthood of All Believers, no need for apostolic succession, penance/confession optional, communion in both kinds, imputation of grace rather than infusion, justification by faith alone, sola scriptura, these were Luther’s visions of the true Church. Calvin’s irresistible grace, total human depravity, a Eucharist free of the real presence, the “elect,” etc. etc.
Luther already had several influences in his life that he had studied in depth: William of Occam, a hardcore nominalist who was famous for divorcing faith from reason, a character very much opposed to Aquinas and company. He was also heavily influenced by the writings of John Gerson and Cardinal Peter d’Ailly who were both conciliarists. He also was influenced by Hus whom he openly praised at length when confronted by Eck. Luther had a sincere sense of unworthiness and wretchedness and a restless heart. Had the pope acquiesced to his demands in the 39 Articles, is it reasonable to assume Luther would’ve been content to stop there? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The papacy and the hierarchy didn’t take Luther as seriously as they should have. And the way they dealt with the Hussites was horrific so they engendered a lot of distrust for Catholicism so I get that. But I don’t think the crooked doctrine of indulgences and the corruption within the curia and the Church hierarchy was truly the catalyst for the Reformation.
The rise of nationhood, politics, money, and intrigue by nobles played a huge part, hardly something the Church in the West could’ve controlled. Henry VIII for example…appease him? Calvin and Zwingli and Luther…was it just indulgences that opened the floodgates of their views?
Speculation is fun and enticing but I think Orthodoxy takes an unfair speculative jab at Rome with the Reformation. Trying to blame Rome for it, I feel, is thin at best…Catholicism had enemies from within and without…Just as Orthodoxy had enemies in Islam and Communism from without. Neither is the fault of East or West particularly IMO. Imagine if some baffoon made the argument that Communism wouldn’t have risen if Orthodoxy had made its case better to the Russian people and had done a better job convicting the hearts of the Bolsheviks of Christ Jesus and the Orthodox religion then maybe the USSR would’ve have ever existed. Pretty crazy argument. So is the goofy idea that John Calvin is the Catholic Church’s fault I think.
Luther already had several influences in his life that he had studied in depth: William of Occam, a hardcore nominalist who was famous for divorcing faith from reason, a character very much opposed to Aquinas and company. He was also heavily influenced by the writings of John Gerson and Cardinal Peter d’Ailly who were both conciliarists. He also was influenced by Hus whom he openly praised at length when confronted by Eck. Luther had a sincere sense of unworthiness and wretchedness and a restless heart. Had the pope acquiesced to his demands in the 39 Articles, is it reasonable to assume Luther would’ve been content to stop there? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The papacy and the hierarchy didn’t take Luther as seriously as they should have. And the way they dealt with the Hussites was horrific so they engendered a lot of distrust for Catholicism so I get that. But I don’t think the crooked doctrine of indulgences and the corruption within the curia and the Church hierarchy was truly the catalyst for the Reformation.
The rise of nationhood, politics, money, and intrigue by nobles played a huge part, hardly something the Church in the West could’ve controlled. Henry VIII for example…appease him? Calvin and Zwingli and Luther…was it just indulgences that opened the floodgates of their views?
Speculation is fun and enticing but I think Orthodoxy takes an unfair speculative jab at Rome with the Reformation. Trying to blame Rome for it, I feel, is thin at best…Catholicism had enemies from within and without…Just as Orthodoxy had enemies in Islam and Communism from without. Neither is the fault of East or West particularly IMO. Imagine if some baffoon made the argument that Communism wouldn’t have risen if Orthodoxy had made its case better to the Russian people and had done a better job convicting the hearts of the Bolsheviks of Christ Jesus and the Orthodox religion then maybe the USSR would’ve have ever existed. Pretty crazy argument. So is the goofy idea that John Calvin is the Catholic Church’s fault I think.
H
Hesychios
Guest
…and Father Menno Simons (diocesan, Netherlands), Father Ulrich Zwingli (*diocesan, *Switzerland), Father Martin Bucer (Dominican, Germany)… Where did these agenda come from?
Some of these guys did not like one another very much, they did not have matching visions for the church. They were sparks out from a common fire flying in different directions
What’s more, their messages resonated with Catholics, who followed them in droves. Entire dioceses were lost in continental Europe.
I gave only one example, and that dealt only with a type of corruption and scandal, which led to cynicism and doubts in the clergy and faithful alike. An important point here is that the corruption is based upon a type of power the church says is inherent in the office of Peter, which is ultimately a theological/doctrinal argument.
Here’s another example, purely intellectual:
The Catholic church in the west originally followed the universal practice of three initiatory sacraments: Baptism, Communion and Confirmation.
For some reason the church in the west began to withhold communion and confirmation from children. The ‘threshold’ became the age of reason and that is the justification the church has always given for this rule. Yet this age restriction was not known in the early church and not ever considered necessary in the east. The idea was imported into the western church somehow.
Eventually some reformers applied this same reasoning to baptism too, simply an extension of an already extant western theological argument which had no basis in the early church understanding whatever.
M
Mickey
Guest
Interesting.
C
crazzeto
Guest
There are a number of factors in the West which would allow for something like the Reformation which were not existant in the East. Certainly the fact that Christianity was actually floroushing all over the West was a great help, while the vast majority of the East was under the thumb of various invading forces.
The fact that Christianity was flourishing in the West meant that that the Church it’s self was a part of the power structure in the West. Thus, while the reformation may have started out of a few core believers who had a bone to pick with the Church (and a host of new theological idea’s), the fact is it was really carried forward as part of a power struggle between Kings and the Church.
A great example of this is King Henry VIII, who was a lion of the faith for his entire life until he decided he wanted a divorce so he could marry someone who would bare him a son. His solution? The reformation! Of course he foolishly thought he could just userp the papacy in England and leave it at that, but you really can’t just do that.
Tied into this was the analogous “great enlightment” which was just starting, and of course the new age of colinaztion which was also just beging at this point in time.
- Status