Shouldn't Protestants Really be Converted to Orthodox?

[a_priori]

Hi PJ,

Are you suggesting that Protestants become Orthodox to avoid being Catholic? I can’t quite see what you’re trying to get at with your posts.

I was a Protestant who became Orthodox to avoid being Catholic. This was because I didn’t understand Orthodoxy and its implications OR Catholicism and its implications. I know now.

 

[wynd]

While I can’t answer for PJ, for myself it seems a logical option if one has trouble with the Papacy but still wishes to belong to Christ’s Duly ordained Church.

The problem with that is the RCC claims to be the true church to the exclusion of the Orthodox Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi PJ,

Are you suggesting that Protestants become Orthodox to avoid being Catholic? I can’t quite see what you’re trying to get at with your posts.

No, not exactly. Scott Hahn never became Orthodox, period.

What I am saying is that for him, originally, the question was not “Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox?” but rather “Protestant or Catholic?”

At a certain point, it became clear to him that if the question was “Protestant or Catholic?”, then the answer was “Catholic.” Only at this point did he really consider the question “Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox?”

Is that clearer?

God bless,
Peter.

P.S. Of course, some Orthodox would perhaps claim that he never really considered Orthodoxy. But that’s a whole other can of worms.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Not all Protestants have the same ecclesiology, so some repsonses may be different.

** Jesus did establish his church…not an organization, but a redeemed people**. The Church is not a monolithic organization like the Catholic Church or the LDS Church…it is made up of believers who have been redeemed in Christ. It is visibile in that it meets together in the name of Christ…it is invisible in thatit’s Head is Christ himself but has no central organization. Many Protestants would echo the Orthodox understanding that the church exists whole in each Meeting. There is no “Nazarene Church” or “Baptist Church” or “Catholic Church” that one can point to and say "This is the orgainizational Church established by Christ". There is One Church made up of those who have been justified by faith in Christ. It is “a glorious church without spot or wrinkle, washed in the blood of the Lamb” to use the line of a Protestant hymn.

Friends believe the “Reformation” did not go far enough in bringing us back to the simple faith those first Christians experienced…we understand those first Christians performed rites, but they were carry over from it’s Jewish roots…the Apostles continured worshiping in the Temple and even Paul made sacrifice in the Temple, but Christ fulfilled all ritualistic requirements. The One Baptism necessary is that of the Spirit, not of water of washing the body, but of putting away filth through the regeneration of his Holy Spirit…true communion is not in the breaking of the bread, but of sharing the common experience of receiving the Bread of Life…“behold I stand at the door and knock…I will come in to him and sup with him and he with me…”…the Real Presence is not found in bread and wine, but in the Living Presence of Christ himself in the presence of his people.…“where two or three are gathered together in my name, THERE AM I in their midst.”…we take that very literally…He is in our midst when we gather in his name together…

Any faith tradition which requires someone to perform an act or rite on our behalf is foreign to our understanding of what it is that Christ did for us…He and he alone acts on our behalf as Priest…no other priest is needed, we share in his Priesthood to approach God directly without any human mediator acting in our behalf…we are Sons and Daughters of God, and approach our Father in boldness because of what Christ has done on our behalf…what God has done for us which we could not do for ourselves…our “authority” to come before God in boldness rests in Christ and Christ alone…no one else is needed.

While the reader may disagree with what I have written theologically, I was not presenting a rebuttal to Orthodox or Catholic belief, I was offering an explanation as to why Orthodoxy isn’t always an option…it still utilizes a “sacrifical priesthood”.

Although I do disagree theologically with what you have written, what I take issue with is your characterization of the early church, which was at the same time a redeemed people and an organizational church. In fact, Jesus put much time into the formation of the Apostles, who were the first bishops. When one reads the writings of the early church fathers, one sees that being in a local church whose bishop was taught directly by the apostles or one of their successors was most important.

Not only was the church organizational, it had ritual and sacraments. The prayer meetings (masses) were led by bishops or priests they appointed and they followed the general order of prayers and singing, readings, and the Eucharist. Newcomers were instructed in the teachings and were baptized with water. Bishops, deacons, and presbyters were ordained and had their appointed places and responsibilities.

Read the early church writings of the time shortly following the Acts of the Apostles to discover these facts.

One of my relatives is a member of a Friends meeting and she isn’t even a Christian in her beliefs. I doubt that she would agree with you that she is '“brought back to the simple faith those first Christians experienced” in the meetings she goes to.

 

[Publisher]

Although I do disagree theologically with what you have written, what I take issue with is your characterization of the early church, which was at the same time a redeemed people and an organizational church. In fact, Jesus put much time into the formation of the Apostles, who were the first bishops. When one reads the writings of the early church fathers, one sees that being in a local church whose bishop was taught directly by the apostles or one of their successors was most important.

Not only was the church organizational, it had ritual and sacraments. The prayer meetings (masses) were led by bishops or priests they appointed and they followed the general order of prayers and singing, readings, and the Eucharist. Newcomers were instructed in the teachings and were baptized with water. Bishops, deacons, and presbyters were ordained and had their appointed places and responsibilities.

Read the early church writings of the time shortly following the Acts of the Apostles to discover these facts.

One of my relatives is a member of a Friends meeting and she isn’t even a Christian in her beliefs. I doubt that she would agree with you that she is '“brought back to the simple faith those first Christians experienced” in the meetings she goes to.

As I said, I am not trying to challenge your beliefs, but to explain a general understanding of ecclesiology among Protestants. That you do not share that understanding is fine…you are Catholic, so of course you wouldn’t.

It is among those who hold a view of apostolic succession that claim the “apostles were the first bishops”…church government developed over time and was established among the proto-Catholic/Orthodox…but not all people who called themselves “Christian” in those first decades held to such an orgainizational structure.

That some modern day Friends do not hold a Christocentric belief is fine also…at least with me…in the Meeting I attend, there are Friends who also disagree with me on matters of theology…but we meet in the Living Presence just the same each First Day.

Historically Friends believe that Quakerism is simply “ancient Christianity rediscoverd”…that it would be rejected by a Catholic…is ok…we’re cool.

 

[JRKH]

The problem with that is the RCC claims to be the true church to the exclusion of the Orthodox Church.

I don’t know if “Exclusion” would be the right word.
I’m not sure of the particulars. The Orthodox are considered in Schism from Rome’s viewpoint, but regardless of one’s particular view it cannot be denied that the Orthodox have a legitimate claim to Apostolic Succession right back to the time of Christ.

Peace
James

 

[wynd]

I don’t know if “Exclusion” would be the right word.
I’m not sure of the particulars. The Orthodox are considered in Schism from Rome’s viewpoint, but regardless of one’s particular view it cannot be denied that the Orthodox have a legitimate claim to Apostolic Succession right back to the time of Christ.

Right. But according to logic, there can only be one “true church.” And the RCC, recognizing this, claims that it is it. So while from Rome’s point of view the Orthodox Church does indeed have apostolic succession, it still views itself (and not the Orthodox Church) as the true church.

That being said, from the RCC point of view there is much more that the Orthodox have that Protestantism doesn’t (namely apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist) that allows them to be called churches and not “faith communities.” But that still doesn’t change the RCC understanding that the Orthodox are not part of the true church.

 

[wynd]

No, not exactly. Scott Hahn never became Orthodox, period.

What I am saying is that for him, originally, the question was not “Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox?” but rather “Protestant or Catholic?”

At a certain point, it became clear to him that if the question was “Protestant or Catholic?”, then the answer was “Catholic.” Only at this point did he really consider the question “Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox?”

Is that clearer?

Sort of. I knew what you were trying to say the first time. I guess I just don’t see how it fit into the thread.

 

[Peter_J]

Sort of. I knew what you were trying to say the first time. I guess I just don’t see how it fit into the thread.

It’s my response to JRKH’s question, “why do [Protestants] remain in ‘Protest’ when [they] could belong to the ancient Apostolic Church through the Orthodox Church?”

I guess the bottom line of what I was saying is that the P.C.H. (pre-conversion Hahn) mindset gives Protestantism an “unfair advantage” over Catholicism and especially Orthodoxy.

Blessings,
Peter.

 

[strngrnrth]

Maybe an individual story would answer part of the question.
I looked at everything I could to try to avoid becoming Christian in the first place. I eventually gave up the struggle against the facts and recognized Christianity as the truth almost ten years ago. I spent two years assuming I needed no church. In the environment I live in, there are so few Christians that Catholic/Protestant issues get less attention than divisions between neo-pagans and atheists. This was once an anti-Catholic, racist, segregated area but that was so long ago few people are aware that it has anything to do with our difficulty creating diversity. It’s very liberal now.
Early unguided readings of a lovely Protestant NIV that was a gift from a family member (our pioneer into Christianity) showed me that I needed to be baptized and I didn’t know what that meant: Could I do it myself? Could just anyone do it?
Eventually I decided I needed a church. I was attracted to an Evangelical Friends church as I leafed through the yellow pages. I liked it but had strange mixed feelings all the while I was there. Finally I decided there was something missing. Several people I knew there felt that way. I met someone from a nondenominational neo-Pentecostal-style storefront church. I loved it there but it started changing. I have posted many times about why I felt it was time to explore further. Something was still missing, that was sure, yet I was attached.
CA had a lot to do with my decision to consider “either Catholic or maybe Orthodox”. I live near an Orthodox congregation and I stopped in to check it out. I liked something about it. Yet I also felt a warning feeling. I don’t know why. Their literature was persuasive, yet it felt wrong. I went to Catholic Mass with a friend and felt so aware of Christ and what He did for us all and the reverence was so huge in the air I was astounded. Why had I taken so long to get here? I debated with myself and questioned people at the Church and prayed until I knew I was going into RCIA.
Peter wasn’t the big hurdle, essentially. If we are to have patriarchs, it actually makes sense that we would know who is the original patriarch.

 

[ralphinal]

How many of these beliefs are actually part of the origional Protestant Reformation?
My line of reasoning is that most Protestants do not argue against the Church so much as they argue against the Authority of Rome. When they argue doctrine it is always in the context of what “Rome” decrees or teaches as opposed to what “The Bible” teaches.
Well the Orthodox Church does not recognize the universal Papacy and therefore their doctrines are based on an apostolic succession and the Bible minus the supremacy of Rome.
To me this seems to fit the idea that Protestants not rebel against God, but rather the percieved errancy of Rome.

Peace
James

If you mean “original” as Luther, the prayers for the dead and importance of sacred tradition would still be major issues. If you mean the first generation reformers all over Europe, all of them were to at least one of them

Just look at how many issues Calvin had

 

[Milliardo]

If the only issue was the pope, I would understand the point.

What about those who hold that infant baptism is wrong?

What about those who hold that there are no sacraments?

What about those who hold that there is no reason to pray for the dead?

What about those who hold that there is no Real Presence?

There are other theological issues besides these. THere are tons of reasons that are not theological as well.

You can add the veneration of the Theotokos and the saints to that list, which many Protestants would have a hard time with.

 

[Addai]

I was a Protestant who became Orthodox to avoid being Catholic. This was because I didn’t understand Orthodoxy and its implications OR Catholicism and its implications. I know now.

I am sort of that myself. I would put it another way though…

For many Orthodox converts. Orthodoxy is “haivng the best of both worlds”. You get access to all the good aspects of the Early Church. While at the same time, avoiding the scary things like Indulgences, Albigensian Crusades etc.

(I am rethinking things by the way…)

But I think Orthodoxy does exist as way of “having your cake and eating it too” for many Protestants.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Many protestants DO convert to Orthodoxy.

 

[a_priori]

I am sort of that myself. I would put it another way though…

For many Orthodox converts. Orthodoxy is “haivng the best of both worlds”. You get access to all the good aspects of the Early Church. While at the same time, avoiding the scary things like Indulgences, Albigensian Crusades etc.

(I am rethinking things by the way…)

But I think Orthodoxy does exist as way of “having your cake and eating it too” for many Protestants.

I think that is a fair point. To be honest, the problem continues to be epistemological for me. (As for everyone else actually.)

I was liberal Protestant early on and then became Evangelical for decades, spending time as a 5- point Calvinist, dispensationalist, charismatic, Arminian and everything in between looking for the “correct” hermeneutic. A lot of Bible study and then studying the early Church brought me to Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy was great theologically and seemed to be the way to go except that it was very inward and ethnic. I experienced Orthodoxy across jurisdictions and also in many parts of the country. We never did anything for anyone who wasn’t of the ethnicity of the parish, and even very little of that.

I’m Catholic because I’m convinced that it is impossible to know who has it exactly right in terms of doctrine. Christendom is littered with clashing points of view and people who live and die on minor matters of interpretation. Much like the beekeeper who gets stung many times and then one day finds he is now allergic to bee stings, I now have a serious aversion to Christians getting cranky about their particular doctrinal point of view. All this arguing just kicks up dust and helps no one.

I am Catholic because I am a Christian and need some place to be. Catholics in my area actively work in the community to improve the lives of others. I don’t know if saying the Creed with or without the Filioque is correct or not. (And ultimately, neither does anyone else) But I do know that if someone is hungry you should feed them. I’ll start there.

Arguing doctrine makes my hair hurt. It is largely a useless exercise and I don’t do it anymore. Listening to people argue doctrine is like fingernails on blackboard.

Helping the helpless is like a soothing breeze. It feels great in the innermost parts.

God didn’t say “You shall be My debating team.” He said “You shall be my witnesses.” He also said “If you did it not to the least of these, you did it not to Me.”

 

[JRKH]

Maybe an individual story would answer part of the question.
I looked at everything I could to try to avoid becoming Christian in the first place. I eventually gave up the struggle against the facts and recognized Christianity as the truth almost ten years ago. I spent two years assuming I needed no church. In the environment I live in, there are so few Christians that Catholic/Protestant issues get less attention than divisions between neo-pagans and atheists. This was once an anti-Catholic, racist, segregated area but that was so long ago few people are aware that it has anything to do with our difficulty creating diversity. It’s very liberal now.
Early unguided readings of a lovely Protestant NIV that was a gift from a family member (our pioneer into Christianity) showed me that I needed to be baptized and I didn’t know what that meant: Could I do it myself? Could just anyone do it?
Eventually I decided I needed a church. I was attracted to an Evangelical Friends church as I leafed through the yellow pages. I liked it but had strange mixed feelings all the while I was there. Finally I decided there was something missing. Several people I knew there felt that way. I met someone from a nondenominational neo-Pentecostal-style storefront church. I loved it there but it started changing. I have posted many times about why I felt it was time to explore further. Something was still missing, that was sure, yet I was attached.
CA had a lot to do with my decision to consider “either Catholic or maybe Orthodox”. I live near an Orthodox congregation and I stopped in to check it out. I liked something about it. Yet I also felt a warning feeling. I don’t know why. Their literature was persuasive, yet it felt wrong. I went to Catholic Mass with a friend and felt so aware of Christ and what He did for us all and the reverence was so huge in the air I was astounded. Why had I taken so long to get here? I debated with myself and questioned people at the Church and prayed until I knew I was going into RCIA.
Peter wasn’t the big hurdle, essentially. If we are to have patriarchs, it actually makes sense that we would know who is the original patriarch.

A beautiful Story - Thanks for Sharing.
And Welcome Home

Peace
James

 

[ralphinal]

You can add the veneration of the Theotokos and the saints to that list, which many Protestants would have a hard time with.

True. In fact, I would bet that you could come up with a hundred reasons that Protestants would not like being Orthodox.

 

[Peter_J]

All this arguing just kicks up dust and helps no one.

…

I don’t know if saying the Creed with or without the Filioque is correct or not. (And ultimately, neither does anyone else)

So you don’t like to argue, but you’re highly opinionated?

 

[a_priori]

So you don’t like to argue, but you’re highly opinionated?

Yea, weird huh? Perhaps I don’t like to argue PRECISELY because I’m highly opinionated. But those opinions don’t extend to criticizing others over fine points of doctrine that no one can know definitively anyway.

 

[Peter_J]

Yea, weird huh? Perhaps I don’t like to argue PRECISELY because I’m highly opinionated. But those opinions don’t extend to criticizing others over fine points of doctrine that no one can know definitively anyway.