Protestants in the Eastern Churches

[LoyalViews]

So the west had the Protestant “reformation”, Luther objected to the truth and wanted people to believe in his own teachings, but what about in the East? Is there an equivalent to Lutherans…say, only “eastern” style. You know, like “Orthodox protestants” who split from say…the Melkites, or the Maronites?

 

[TheInquisitor]

From what I know, the Eastern Churches didn’t have to deal with a reformation. They had to deal with being conquered by Muslims.

 

[JPeter]

So the west had the Protestant “reformation”, Luther objected to the truth and wanted people to believe in his own teachings, but what about in the East? Is there an equivalent to Lutherans…say, only “eastern” style. You know, like “Orthodox protestants” who split from say…the Melkites, or the Maronites?

First of all. Your Pope has already rehabilitated Luther. In case you missed it, Pope Benedict XVI declared that Martin Luther actually wasn’t a heretic. According to the Pope, Luther never intended to split the Catholic Church, which is actually true. He never intended to split, but was trying to invite a dialogue and discussion over the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Many don’t realize this, but the 95 Theses he nailed to the church doors was written in Latin, not German, which was the language of the people. If he was trying to insight a rebellion, he would have written them down in a language the people could understand.

Pope Benedict XVI says that he was trying to cleanse the Catholic Church, and for that should not be condemned.

If you believe the Roman Catholic Church is the pillar of the truth, then you may not like it but you do have to believe it.

To my knowledge no Church ever broke away from the Orthodox, accept for the Roman Catholic Church depending on your interpretation of history. The Orthodox have been involved in a lot of dialogue with Lutherans, Anglicans, and old Catholics. In the 16th century a copy of the Augsburg confession was sent to an Orthodox patriarch. Although he agreed with a good portion of it, he did not accept it as Orthodox. However, the tides have changed in some ways. In 1976 Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) suggested that the Augsburg Confession might possibly be recognized as a Catholic statement of faith.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Well, there are always splinter groups (like the Old Calendarists, Old Believers, Monophysites, various nationalistic churches, etc.), but nothing on the scale of the Protestant Reformation. I think this is largely due to the Orthodox understanding of truth. Because Orthodoxy rejects metaphysical speculation as a means of arriving at truth (we rely instead on hesychastic experience), there is little room for theological speculation, and thus even less room for theological deviation.

 

[JPeter]

Well, there are always splinter groups (like the Old Calendarists, Old Believers, Monophysites, various nationalistic churches, etc.), but nothing on the scale of the Protestant Reformation. I think this is largely due to the Orthodox understanding of truth. Because Orthodoxy rejects metaphysical speculation as a means of arriving at truth (we rely instead on hesychastic experience), there is little room for theological speculation, and thus even less room for theological deviation.

Actually we Anglicans have a similar understanding. You pray your way into the truth instead of trying to think or read your way there.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Actually we Anglicans have a similar understanding. You pray your way into the truth instead of trying to think or read your way there.

I see what you are saying, but I think there is still a significant difference in approach.

In Orthodoxy, the fullness of truth is revealed in the uncreated light (glorification). Orthodox doctrine comes from this experience (scripture and ecumenical councils being written/attended by those in such a state) and thus for anyone to reject Orthodoxy (and break away as the OP posits) he would have to have never experienced the uncreated light (relying on one some other means, often theological study, of arriving at belief) and in some cases, rejecting the validity of hesychasm entirely.

 

[LoyalViews]

First of all. Your Pope has already rehabilitated Luther. In case you missed it, Pope Benedict XVI declared that Martin Luther actually wasn’t a heretic. According to the Pope, Luther never intended to split the Catholic Church, which is actually true. He never intended to split, but was trying to invite a dialogue and discussion over the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Many don’t realize this, but the 95 Theses he nailed to the church doors was written in Latin, not German, which was the language of the people. If he was trying to insight a rebellion, he would have written them down in a language the people could understand.

Pope Benedict XVI says that he was trying to cleanse the Catholic Church, and for that should not be condemned.

If you believe the Roman Catholic Church is the pillar of the truth, then you may not like it but you do have to believe it.

To my knowledge no Church ever broke away from the Orthodox, accept for the Roman Catholic Church depending on your interpretation of history. The Orthodox have been involved in a lot of dialogue with Lutherans, Anglicans, and old Catholics. In the 16th century a copy of the Augsburg confession was sent to an Orthodox patriarch. Although he agreed with a good portion of it, he did not accept it as Orthodox. However, the tides have changed in some ways. In 1976 Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) suggested that the Augsburg Confession might possibly be recognized as a Catholic statement of faith.

I never said Luther intended to split from the Church, I never said he was a heretic, nor did I say he intended a split. I never said anything about the 95 Theses.

What did I in fact say? I said that Martin Luther objected to the truth and wanted people to believe in his own teachings. Now I know he understood that as reforming the Church, which I know IS what his efforts were. However, if they were his true efforts, his fruit would not have yielded a new ecclesial body, would it.

Our Holy Father did say he tried to cleanse (“reform”) the Church. Our Holy Father did not say, however, that Luther wasn’t a heretic. There is no possible way I could explain this more accurately, than linking you to this thread here. It is a discussion regarding His Holiness’s views on Luther.

The Augsburg Confession, however not condemned officially, does contain many of Luther’s personal “interpretations” of Church teachings, and his thoughts about how such things should be carried out WITHIN the Church, but there is more than the Augsburg Confession. There isn’t much in the Confession itself, in the very texts, that are problematic. There are documents and books written by Luther where he proves his initial dissent and heresy.

But I really don’t want to derail this thread, as my question has been answered. Thanks for responding though! God Bless :byzsoc:

 

[LoyalViews]

I see what you are saying, but I think there is still a significant difference in approach.

In Orthodoxy, the fullness of truth is revealed in the uncreated light (glorification). Orthodox doctrine comes from this experience (scripture and ecumenical councils being written/attended by those in such a state) and thus for anyone to reject Orthodoxy (and break away as the OP posits) he would have to have never experienced the uncreated light (relying on one some other means, often theological study, of arriving at belief) and in some cases, rejecting the validity of hesychasm entirely.

Thank you! Just the answer I was looking for. God Bless :byzsoc:

Question Answered

 

[FabiusMaximus]

First of all. Your Pope has already rehabilitated Luther. In case you missed it, Pope Benedict XVI declared that Martin Luther actually wasn’t a heretic. According to the Pope, Luther never intended to split the Catholic Church, which is actually true. He never intended to split, but was trying to invite a dialogue and discussion over the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Many don’t realize this, but the 95 Theses he nailed to the church doors was written in Latin, not German, which was the language of the people. If he was trying to insight a rebellion, he would have written them down in a language the people could understand.

Pope Benedict XVI says that he was trying to cleanse the Catholic Church, and for that should not be condemned.

If you believe the Roman Catholic Church is the pillar of the truth, then you may not like it but you do have to believe it.

To my knowledge no Church ever broke away from the Orthodox, accept for the Roman Catholic Church depending on your interpretation of history. The Orthodox have been involved in a lot of dialogue with Lutherans, Anglicans, and old Catholics. In the 16th century a copy of the Augsburg confession was sent to an Orthodox patriarch. Although he agreed with a good portion of it, he did not accept it as Orthodox. However, the tides have changed in some ways. In 1976 Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) suggested that the Augsburg Confession might possibly be recognized as a Catholic statement of faith.

My friend, I think you are being unnecessarily hostile toward the OP. He never stated any of those things you seem to imply he claimed.

Just a thought.

With regards to the thread, I think much of it can be attributed to the large scale-institutional corruption that pervaded the Catholic Church during the era of the Reformation, which destroyed its credibility and fueled the Reformation movement. In addition, I think the Ottoman occupation has had a tremendous impact on it too. It’s a little difficult to worry about certain issues when you’re worrying that your entire faith might be extinguished by a conquering army. And I think this is significant. The West was instead in a relative state of peace and prosperity, which meant that people could afford to think more about Christian doctrine.

Although, perhaps you can call some of the early heresies in the Christian Church as “Orthodox Reformations” in the sense that they primarily plagued the Eastern Church (Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, etc) than the Western Church. Iconoclasm is also another reference point, in which the Orthodox Church was facing a new movement threatening one of Christianity’s oldest traditions. All these movements can, in a sense, be considered ‘Reformations’ for the Eastern Church. It is also interesting to note that a lot of these movements were then rehashed in some of the more radical movements of the Western Reformation.

I hope none of what I stated above is taken as a criticism of either Orthodoxy or the Protestant Reformation.

 

[CopticChristian]

Actually we Anglicans have a similar understanding. You pray your way into the truth instead of trying to think or read your way there.

J,

When you speak of We Anglicans are you not just speaking for Anglicans of North America as you pointed out previously.

No, I’m Anglican Church in North America. I mostly disagree with Anglicans on all of these issues. We have some Liberal Bishops in parts of the Church but not the majority. These are issues that we are a voice against and they are never permitted in the ACNA.

You do not speak for all Anglicans…

 

[Izdaari]

What did I in fact say? I said that Martin Luther objected to the truth and wanted people to believe in his own teachings. Now I know he understood that as reforming the Church, which I know IS what his efforts were. However, if they were his true efforts, his fruit would not have yielded a new ecclesial body, would it.

That doesn’t necessarily follow. Sometimes actions taken with one intention yield an unforeseen and very different result.

And saying that Luther “objected to the truth” is a very prejudicial way of putting it. A large part of the 95 Theses were objections to practices that the Catholic Church itself later decided were unsound and incorrect, and discontinued them… even if it did take a couple hundred years.

 

[JPeter]

And saying that Luther “objected to the truth” is a very prejudicial way of putting it. A large part of the 95 Theses were objections to practices that the Catholic Church itself later decided were unsound and incorrect, and discontinued them… even if it did take a couple hundred years.

That is exactly my point. A lot of what Luther was teaching was absolutely correct. Not according to Luther but according to the modern Roman Catholic Church. To say that Luther used a harsh tone when speaking about the Papacy is an understatement. But when you look at the Lutheran reformation it was rather conservative in comparison to other reformations on the continent. And beyond that the Lutherans accept the the decisions of the early Church councils, they believe in the sacraments as a means of grace, they accept baptismal regeneration and the real presence in the Eucharist, they are liturgical, they have private confession and absolution. These folks are more Catholic than many folks give them credit for. Of course when being Catholic gets turned into obedience to the Pope instead of holding to the faith once delivered to the saints, I can see how Roman Catholics may feel that Luther was a heretic.

 

[JPeter]

My friend, I think you are being unnecessarily hostile toward the OP. He never stated any of those things you seem to imply he claimed.

Just a thought.

What did I post that was harsh? I really need to tone it down if what I said here was harsh.

 

[JPeter]

J,

When you speak of We Anglicans are you not just speaking for Anglicans of North America as you pointed out previously.

You do not speak for all Anglicans…

The “Anglicans” who allow abortion and homosexual marriage have left the Church. Excommunication is automatic. If YOUR views diverge from the faith once and in its fullness delivered unto the saints than you are excommunicated from the Catholic Church. I speak for all true Anglicans.

Do you speak for all true Roman Catholics? How about Pelosi and Biden?

 

[CopticChristian]

The “Anglicans” who allow abortion and homosexual marriage have left the Church. Excommunication is automatic. If YOUR views diverge from the faith once and in its fullness delivered unto the saints than you are excommunicated from the Catholic Church. I speak for all true Anglicans.

Do you speak for all true Roman Catholics? How about Pelosi and Biden?

J,

What is a “true” Roman Catholic?

How about Pelosi.

How about Biden.

What do these statements with question marks mean?

 

[CopticChristian]

That is exactly my point. A lot of what Luther was teaching was absolutely correct. Not according to Luther but according to the modern Roman Catholic Church. To say that Luther used a harsh tone when speaking about the Papacy is an understatement. But when you look at the Lutheran reformation it was rather conservative in comparison to other **reformations **on the continent. And beyond that the Lutherans accept the the decisions of the early Church councils, they believe in the sacraments as a means of grace, they accept baptismal regeneration and the real presence in the Eucharist, they are liturgical, they have private confession and absolution. **These folks are more Catholic **than many folks give them credit for. Of course when being Catholic gets turned into obedience to the Pope instead of holding to the faith once delivered to the saints, I can see how Roman Catholics may feel that Luther was a heretic.

J,

You have previouly posted as to what you call the “Reformation”…Your post here not “Reformation” rather “Reformations”…

I, a group of like minded people want to cause change. We see a need for change. We want to reform. We gather, we decide and then we reform with the end result that what we reformed is better, in agreement with our purpose.

Here you note that your mind sees not a reform but many reforms and you designate one as Lutheran pointing out that it is a reform that leaves the group “more Catholic”…

There are several points. It indirectly affirms that the OHCAC remains unchanged in so far as you point out that the result of Lutheran Reform creates a situation where that group is more like that from which it reformed? No, from which it departed…it did not reform anything.

The next point is that reform is not one thing it is many and that of course is your understanding…

So if as I pointed out that the Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is the Head and His body the Church…the manifold wisdom of God is known through the Church…the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church…

What you are saying is that the body departed from the body and the head and changed the body…because if you say that the Lutherans are more Catholic the question is does Christ have two heads and two bodies…or is the body headless…?

 

[JPeter]

J,

What is a “true” Roman Catholic?

How about Pelosi.

How about Biden.

What do these statements with question marks mean?

In the Anglican view the Roman Catholic Church possesses all of the marks of A true Church. I understand the pendulum does not swing both ways. We view Roman Catholics how Roman Catholics view the Orthodox.

Abortion and homosexuality are sins according to all true Churches. The scriptures make this very clear. Both Pelosi and Biden hold that homosexual marriage and abortion are fine. They also hold that they are truly Roman Catholics. Which of course they are not. To be a true Roman Catholic is to agree with everything the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

The same is true for Anglicanism. Just because an Anglican priest or even an entire diocese tells you something, it does not make it correct. “The Anglican Communion,” Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher wrote, “has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ’s Church from the beginning.” It may licitly teach as necessary for salvation nothing but what is read in the Holy Scriptures as God’s Word written or may be proved thereby. It therefore embraces and affirms such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the Scriptures, and thus to be counted apostolic. The Church has no authority to innovate: it is obliged continually, and particularly in times of renewal or reformation, to return to “the faith** once** delivered to the saints.”

 

[JPeter]

My thoughts exactly.

 

[CopticChristian]

In the Anglican view the Roman Catholic Church possesses all of the marks of A true Church. I understand the pendulum does not swing both ways. We view Roman Catholics how Roman Catholics view the Orthodox.

Abortion and homosexuality are sins according to all true Churches. The scriptures make this very clear. Both Pelosi and Biden hold that homosexual marriage and abortion are fine. They also hold that they are truly Roman Catholics. Which of course they are not. To be a true Roman Catholic is to agree with everything the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

The same is true for Anglicanism. Just because an Anglican priest or even an entire diocese tells you something, it does not make it correct. “The Anglican Communion,” Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher wrote, “has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ’s Church from the beginning.” It may licitly teach as necessary for salvation nothing but what is read in the Holy Scriptures as God’s Word written or may be proved thereby. It therefore embraces and affirms such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the Scriptures, and thus to be counted apostolic. The Church has no authority to innovate: it is obliged continually, and particularly in times of renewal or reformation, to return to “the faith** once** delivered to the saints.”

J,

Your arbitrarily assigning “true” based on your notions is a Judgement. I believe your question about Biden and Pelosi are relevant to this notion and that was not understood.

My response to this is Biden and Pelosi are stated Catholic. When they speak for themselves and contrary to the OHCAC then they speak for themselves. When they speak about the OHCAC then they speak in concert.

The Oriental Orthodox, The Eastern Orthodox and the OHCAC are united by a valid priesthood and sacrament/mystery…your notion of how Anglicans view those groups is novel at best.

To be a true Roman Catholic is to agree with everything the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

Your statement above is interesting, worthy of discussion and investigation. I suggest you research this Catholic Answer forum for the belief that someone can be a

True Roman Catholic

Then if you believe this notion then look for the antithesis

Untrue Roman Catholic.

Explain, define, gather references from the Catechism and teachings of the Church…becasue this is your notion and not mine. I have nothing to prove and you do.

 

[JPeter]

J,

You have previouly posted as to what you call the “Reformation”…Your post here not “Reformation” rather “Reformations”…

I, a group of like minded people want to cause change. We see a need for change. We want to reform. We gather, we decide and then we reform with the end result that what we reformed is better, in agreement with our purpose.

Here you note that your mind sees not a reform but many reforms and you designate one as Lutheran pointing out that it is a reform that leaves the group “more Catholic”…

There are several points. It indirectly affirms that the OHCAC remains unchanged in so far as you point out that the result of Lutheran Reform creates a situation where that group is more like that from which it reformed? No, from which it departed…it did not reform anything.

The next point is that reform is not one thing it is many and that of course is your understanding…

So if as I pointed out that the Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is the Head and His body the Church…the manifold wisdom of God is known through the Church…the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church…

What you are saying is that the body departed from the body and the head and changed the body…because if you say that the Lutherans are more Catholic the question is does Christ have two heads and two bodies…or is the body headless…?

The Roman Catholic Church is the True Church. It always has been. This does not imply that it cannot make mistakes or look at a doctrine in the wrong light. Take this from the Augsburg Confession. **Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons, **we pray that Your Imperial Majesty would graciously hear both what has been changed, and what were the reasons why the people were not compelled to observe those abuses against their conscience. 11] Nor should Your Imperial Majesty believe those who, in order to excite the hatred of men against our part, disseminate strange slanders among the people. 12] Having thus excited the minds of good men, they have first given occasion to this controversy, and now endeavor, by the same arts, to increase the discord. 13] For Your Imperial Majesty will undoubtedly find that the form of doctrine and of ceremonies with us is not so intolerable as these ungodly and malicious men represent. 14] Besides, the truth cannot be gathered from common rumors or the revilings of enemies. 15] But it can readily be judged that nothing would serve better to maintain the dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish reverence and pious devotion among the people than if the ceremonies were observed rightly in the churches.

Things like Papal Primacy have to be decided by an ecumenical council like we had in the old days. Not some Vatican Church meeting.