Luther and Calvin on the Catholic/Orthodox split

[adf417]

Can anyone tell/show me what Luther’s and Calvin’s knowledge and understanding was on the Catholic/Orthodox schism? To what degree did they understand this split?

Peace!!!

 

[psalm90]

I have only a small piece of that puzzle, or maybe two pieces

Luther and Calvin didn’t agree with each other, so it is no surprise that they didn’t agree with the Orthodox Church.

I read a short introduction (book) to the OC and the priest speculated about the same question, why the “reformers” didn’t just migrate to the OC. He didn’t have an answer.

but, he had a certain assessment of things: to him, the Catholics have added too much to scripture and the Protestants (reformers) have taken too much away.

early protestants were smashing statues and taking down crucifixes and tabernacles, and denying the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, so there wasn’t much chance of them migrating to the OC, which has its own icons, smells, and bells.

Does that help?

 

[mark_a]

I’ve read where Luther wanted to dialog w/ the Orthodox, but when they saw what he was up to, they politely told him no thanks.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Can anyone tell/show me what Luther’s and Calvin’s knowledge and understanding was on the Catholic/Orthodox schism? To what degree did they understand this split?

Peace!!!

Luther was quite sympathetic to the Orthodox side of the split I believe - he thought they had a cause. He always mentions the Orthodox Church with respect. I don’t know about Calvin. Today the Orthodox view the Lutherans with a fair amount of scorn as Protestants but they I think it is fair to say they do the exact same thing to Catholics (scorn as not true Church). They will defend Lutherans against Catholics - I’ve seen it in person and online - anti papal authority is the connection - breaking with Rome.

I think Lutherans generally respect and look up to the Orthodox more than Catholics, though almost all Lutherans believe we are both true Churches, meaning some of us Os and Cs are saved - valid Churches. You can google it if you don’t get good info here. It is interesting.

 

[USMC_Convert]

Pick up a book called “The Protestant’s Dilemma” the author is very knowledgeable and talks in great depth about the split. I also recommend “The Church Under Attack: 500 years that split the Church and scattered the flock” as another great in depth look at what happened exactly 500 years ago (this year) and since!

 

[FollowChrist34]

christianitytoday.com/history/2008/august/what-did-reformers-think-about-eastern-orthodox-church.html

Not much here, but it sounds fair and balanced.

ukapologetics.net/07/orthodoxy.htm

Just a blog - but also pretty fair I think.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I think Lutherans generally respect and look up to the Orthodox more than Catholics, though almost all Lutherans believe we are both true Churches, meaning some of us Os and Cs are saved - valid Churches. .

Sort of been my experience with the Anglican Church as well. Some claiming to be closer to them than Rome. I guess they sort of have a common enemy in the Pope( for lack of a better term.)

 

[adf417]

christianitytoday.com/history/2008/august/what-did-reformers-think-about-eastern-orthodox-church.html

Not much here, but it sounds fair and balanced.

ukapologetics.net/07/orthodoxy.htm

Just a blog - but also pretty fair I think.

Thanks a bunch i will read these.

Any more info on this subject welcomed…

Peace!!!

 

[SyroMalankara]

Sort of been my experience with the Anglican Church as well. Some claiming to be closer to them than Rome. I guess they sort of have a common enemy in the Pope( for lack of a better term.)

In my experience, these are the most vocal and least knowledgable. They also hold some ahistorical mythical preRoman Christianity that was Eastern Orthodox before Rome appointing Sts. Palladius or Augustine.

 

[GKC]

In my experience, these are the most vocal and least knowledgable. They also hold some ahistorical mythical preRoman Christianity that was Eastern Orthodox before Rome appointing Sts. Palladius or Augustine.

I will interpret that to refer to those Anglicans, who believe such stuff about the origin of the Church in England. And not a few do.

Not all, even those who own Gray’s ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN BRITAIN, or Harvey’s TO THE ISLES AFAR OFF, or Lewis’ ST.JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA AT GLASTONBURY do so.

 

[steido01]

early protestants were smashing statues and taking down crucifixes and tabernacles, and denying the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, so there wasn’t much chance of them migrating to the OC, which has its own icons, smells, and bells.

This is false. The first “Protestants” were Lutherans. Lutherans we’re never iconoclasts. They have crucifixes, smells and bells even today. It was later “Protestants,” whose reformations originated elsewhere and not in connection to Luther who would smash statues. Luther explicitly condemned those groups.

Luther and Lutherans also believe in the Real Presence. Always have. It’s one reason why Lutherans refused to “join forces” with other “Protestant” movements, choosing instead to join the Catholics in wars against the Anabaptists, for example.

As for connecting with the Orthodox, Lutherans did reach out to Patriarch Jeremias II. Language, distance and politics convoluted the proceedings. While there was substantial agreement, the Orthodox were upset about the Filoque (surprise), the use of Sacraments, and how Lutherans didn’t fast like the Orthodox did, among other points. It ended with the Patriarch saying something to the effect of “We don’t have enough in common to be in fellowship, so quit bugging us unless it’s just to be friends.”

 

[SyroMalankara]

While obviously this cannot be extrapolated onto all Lutherans, listen/read this, an example of Lutheran iconoclasm:
myorthodoxjourney.blogspot.com/2012/08/need-proof-that-lutherans-are.html

 

[anon36907098]

…]
Luther and Lutherans also believe in the Real Presence. Always have. …]

Furthermore they expressed their believe in Real Presence by using tabernacles. They didn’t take them down. As Lutherans believe not only in the real presence but in the enduring real presence they had to decide how to handle with blood and body which isn’t received immediately. The tabernacle was the common way to keep the sacrament for the sick.

Some sources are mentioned in this thread in a german discussion board. I hope google translator can help you.

 

[steido01]

While obviously this cannot be extrapolated onto all Lutherans, listen/read this, an example of Lutheran iconoclasm:
myorthodoxjourney.blogspot.com/2012/08/need-proof-that-lutherans-are.html

Firstly, the author is really, really reaching to burn his old communion. I’ll never understand why neophytes to any denomination feel the vindictive need to utterly destroy their old one.

Secondly, Lutherans are not iconoclasts. Period. No matter what some obscure blogger says or even some solitary pastor.

Thirdly, I’d take a read at Pastor Weedon’s comment. He’s the LCMS Director of Worship. There are probably only a handful of men in the world who know more about Christian liturgics (both Eastern and Western), much less specific Lutheran flavors. Note also that he, like the Lutheran Confessions, appeals directly to the Fathers.

Fourthly, this author claims to have come from Lutheranism, but I wonder if he’s ever actually seen a Lutheran church? Banners, stained glass, liturgical paraments, icons and, most belovedly, crucifixes are all part of the package. Sure, *some *American parishes opted toward ‘modern’ buildings (ugh.) during the late 1950s - early 1970s in a misguided appeal toward the Boomer generation and in deference to the distinctly American style that spawned from Calvinism (mercifully, this trend is dying out). But that movement pervaded every body in America. The local Roman Catholic church is more avant garde than a Bohemian art show, and the local Orthodox parish is a downright bunker. Yet even if the outward trappings might appear iconoclastic, we know that the Lutheran Confessions, Luther, Chemnitz and the other Gnesio-Lutherans were all clearly against iconoclasts. Confessional Lutherans remain so today.

 

[pablope]

While obviously this cannot be extrapolated onto all Lutherans, listen/read this, an example of Lutheran iconoclasm:
myorthodoxjourney.blogspot.com/2012/08/need-proof-that-lutherans-are.html

From the article:

The excising of art from Lutheran churches for any spiritual purpose, especially in this country, is the influence of Calvinism. That has yet to be addressed across the board in the LCMS. Again, if the LCMS wants to return to its Confessional roots, then it cannot be pickers and choosers.

I find this quite to be true. There is a big LCMS church in my city, which I had occasion to visit…I would say it is a mega-church in size.

I did not see the crucifix, nor images, nor a tabernacle.

The thread I initiated regarding this experience…forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=843650

 

[Contarini]

Can anyone tell/show me what Luther’s and Calvin’s knowledge and understanding was on the Catholic/Orthodox schism? To what degree did they understand this split?

Peace!!!

Its a good question. Luther in particular (and the Reformers in general) cited the Orthodox to prove that you could be Catholic (i.e., part of the true, orthodox, historic Church) without being under Rome. They obviously agreed with Orthodox criticisms of the Papacy. But that ended to be the extent of it.

As steido01 pointed out, Melanchthon initiated a correspondence with Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople, but it didn’t get very far. Steido didn’t mention justification, which was of course the major point of division, even though Melanchthon softened Lutheran teaching in the Greek translation he made of the Augsburg Confession.

Calvin was steeped in the early Greek Fathers, but of course he disagreed with their teaching on free will. Indeed, one simple argument against Calvin’s theology is that he preferred Chrysostom’s exegesis but Augustine’s theology, while holding that theology should be based on exegesis. Something doesn’t compute there. . . . He also criticized II Nicea very strongly.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

They will defend Lutherans against Catholics

Well, alright. In the same sense that Catholics will defend Lutherans vis a vis the filioque.

 

[anon36907098]

Can anyone tell/show me what Luther’s and Calvin’s knowledge and understanding was on the Catholic/Orthodox schism?

From the lutheran point of view I’d say that this is perhaps an interesting historical question which is worth to be discussed.

But I guess it would be a mistake to consider Luthers or Calvins private opinions as constitutive for their denomonations. As “Contarini” explained, there were several reformers with the same or more influence on the reformation. He mentioned Melanchthon as an example for an actor in the lutheran-orthodox dialogue.

I avoid going into deeper detail level since it isn’t the straight answer to “adf417”'s question. He didn’t asked for Lutheran doctrine but for the explicit persons of Luther and Calvin. For some background information I can recommend the central statements of the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission. This commission meets every year. The documents can be found here.

The work of such commissions shows that the Lutheran Church doesn’t depend on Luther personally. The doctrine is the result of an broader process led by Holy Spirit.

@adf417: May I ask why you ask explictily for the persons and not for the doctrine? I would say there were some contacts with the orthodox church, especially by Melanchton, but I’m not sure if they had enough contact and informations to be able to formulate a conclusion. Depending on your goals we can decide which direction this thread should take.

 

[adf417]

@adf417: May I ask why you ask explictily for the persons and not for the doctrine? I would say there were some contacts with the orthodox church, especially by Melanchton, but I’m not sure if they had enough contact and informations to be able to formulate a conclusion. Depending on your goals we can decide which direction this thread should take.

Ive been curious as to Luther’s informed options at the time of the split from Catholicism. Even today many people are unaware of the Orthodox church and its roots, I can only speculate the general knowledge of the people then was somewhat less and wonderd how deep this might reach into the clergy.

Thanks for the answers,

Peace!!!