B
BrewMax
Guest
Reasonably speaking, how could have the Reformation been stopped? I don’t see that it would have been humanly possible.
- Status
M
mozart-250
Guest
Can you (or anyone) name one person in that time period who was convicted of heresy and left alone. Sheesh I would be interested if anyone could name one person in that time period who was convicted of heresy and not somehow killed.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I don’t think the issues between Roman Catholicism and Holy Orthodoxy can be framed in this way.Ah coming from the fine Eastern perspective I see.
Which gets me to thinking (sorry for my ignorance), did the Church try to stomp out Orthodoxy? Could it have?
To address it at all I would have to restructure the question. What I write here is going to seem like a great deal but is actually very abbreviated, and does not do justice to the ‘question’ in any case.
To begin with, the eastern church has common roots with the Roman Church, and for the first several hundred year (until at least when Augustine became a dominant influence in the west) the Greek east had a strong influence on the growth and development of the church in the west.
Orthodox have no issues whatever with some key points of Roman Catholicism that stand out in contrast to most Protestant positions. These include (but are not limited to):
- The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
- Sacerdotal ministry to confect the sacraments, and a hierarchy of prelates.
- A deposit of Apostolic faith carried through the generations as tradition by the church as the Body of Christ.
- A understanding of the spiritual benefits of prayer and ascetic practices such as fasting.
- A confidence in and reliance on prayers of the faithful for each other, prayers of the departed on our behalf and our prayers on behalf of the departed. In other words an understanding of the communion of saints which transcends temporal human existence.
- An appreciation for the heroic life and work of the Holy Theotokos, the mother of God. We sing her praises and ask for her prayers.
- Forgiveness of sins through confession.
And much more besides…
So there is not much about Holy Orthodoxy that the Roman Catholic Church would want to “crush” as such. I firmly belief that the Roman church would have been quite satisfied to incorporate Holy Orthodoxy into its system of governance, and introduce the missing parts by correcting it’s books.
What we are dealing here with is a type of nascent ultramontanism arising in the west. The Roman church was beginning to take itself much more seriously as the center of Christianity and had come to see itself in a type of commanding role.
But in the east most of the great cities had well established congregations of Christians as old as that in Rome or older, and they had no memory of any sort of pervasive control exercised from Rome. Most of the Christian congregations of the emerging great cities of Western Europe had originated as missions from other places or from Rome itself, and it was much easier for them to associate “the Apostolic See” with ecclesiastical authority.
In the east we have many Apostolic Sees, it forces us to look at the whole system of church governance a bit differently. When the disputed teaching of the filioque arose in the west it was a local issue to be dealt with by the western (Roman) church. The east would have only been involved if asked, or if the situation became so out of control that the rest of the church felt it should remonstrate with the western bishops. When the filioque was formally adopted by the governing organization at Rome the East became very alarmed. The church in the city of Rome was now dominated by the Franks, not the Byzantines, and the adoption of the filioque was a fait accompli over the entire western church. It essentially signaled an end to orthodox Christianity in the west.
This is why Orthodox are sometimes seen to state that the Roman Catholic church was the first Protestant church.
{continued below}
H
Hesychios
Guest
{continued from above}
When the Christian kingdoms of western Europe put boots on the ground in the east (the crusading armies) the situation became potentially dangerous for Orthodoxy. The filioque, and the refusal of the eastern prelates to recognize a universal authority claimed by Rome gave the occupying crusaders an excuse to depose Orthodox bishops and replace them with Latin “heretics”.
This was not primarily a formal move by the western church to crush Orthodoxy (the crusades were first and foremost a move against Islam in the Holy Land), it was more of a fringe benefit of having military control in those places.
It should be remembered that the first crusade was in the interest of helping the Byzantine empire drive out the Muslims from it’s provinces in the Levant. There was an expressed agreement extracted by the Roman (Byzantine) emperor from the crusaders giving the Roman emperor overlordship in those places they might liberate. If this agreement had worked Holy Orthodoxy would have been fine.
But the crusaders were by and large not the high-minded idealists that were called for, they were mostly ruthless mercenaries who were easily pursueded that eastern Christians (still a majority of the inhabitants then) could be exploited while they built up their private estates.
The eastern bishops were routinely replaced by latin ones, with the approval of the Popes, and a program of absoption of the eastern churches had begun.
If this had been successful, there is no doubt that the same problems that arose in the western church by 1500AD would have been present in the east, and the eastern church would have experienced a Protestant reformation of it’s very own.
These final comments do not relate directly to Orthodoxy. They are my observations on the church of the west outside of the Orthodox communion at the time:
The highly centralized church structure in the west made it possible (at least theoretically) to abuse the system if the wrong type of people came into power, and sometimes it really was abused. After the Byzantine emperors lost control of Italy the Franks became dominant. When the Franks lost their grip the powerful families of central Italy and Rome itself became the serious contenders for the power exercised by the Papacy (this was primarily an economic power, there was money to be made). The church in Rome was a money pump, and whomever had control at any time could use this for the good of the church and faithful, or to benefit private interests and powerful families.
The ethical decay of this highly centralized international organization is what ultimately set the stage for the much later Protestant reformation.
When the Christian kingdoms of western Europe put boots on the ground in the east (the crusading armies) the situation became potentially dangerous for Orthodoxy. The filioque, and the refusal of the eastern prelates to recognize a universal authority claimed by Rome gave the occupying crusaders an excuse to depose Orthodox bishops and replace them with Latin “heretics”.
This was not primarily a formal move by the western church to crush Orthodoxy (the crusades were first and foremost a move against Islam in the Holy Land), it was more of a fringe benefit of having military control in those places.
It should be remembered that the first crusade was in the interest of helping the Byzantine empire drive out the Muslims from it’s provinces in the Levant. There was an expressed agreement extracted by the Roman (Byzantine) emperor from the crusaders giving the Roman emperor overlordship in those places they might liberate. If this agreement had worked Holy Orthodoxy would have been fine.
But the crusaders were by and large not the high-minded idealists that were called for, they were mostly ruthless mercenaries who were easily pursueded that eastern Christians (still a majority of the inhabitants then) could be exploited while they built up their private estates.
The eastern bishops were routinely replaced by latin ones, with the approval of the Popes, and a program of absoption of the eastern churches had begun.
If this had been successful, there is no doubt that the same problems that arose in the western church by 1500AD would have been present in the east, and the eastern church would have experienced a Protestant reformation of it’s very own.
These final comments do not relate directly to Orthodoxy. They are my observations on the church of the west outside of the Orthodox communion at the time:
The highly centralized church structure in the west made it possible (at least theoretically) to abuse the system if the wrong type of people came into power, and sometimes it really was abused. After the Byzantine emperors lost control of Italy the Franks became dominant. When the Franks lost their grip the powerful families of central Italy and Rome itself became the serious contenders for the power exercised by the Papacy (this was primarily an economic power, there was money to be made). The church in Rome was a money pump, and whomever had control at any time could use this for the good of the church and faithful, or to benefit private interests and powerful families.
The ethical decay of this highly centralized international organization is what ultimately set the stage for the much later Protestant reformation.
C
Contarini
Guest
I think it is patently false to say that these problems were not/are not present in the East. I’ve spent a lot of time in Romania. Most of the things Protestants have historically complained about are present in Romania, including a form of “indulgences” (the practice of “pomana,” in which people give alms for the dead–granted, it’s not phrased in the legalistic terms of the West).
Edwin
M
mozart-250
Guest
Thanks. I do not know much about Orthodoxy.I don’t think the issues between Roman Catholicism and Holy Orthodoxy can be framed in this way.
To address it at all I would have to restructure the question. What I write here is going to seem like a great deal but is actually very abbreviated, and does not do justice to the ‘question’ in any case.
…
C
Contarini
Guest
Belloc is wrong. Calvin did give a particularly hard edge to Reformed Protestantism, but he didn’t say much that was new.
But is he accurate? I don’t recall this part of the work (I’ve only glanced at it and was not impressed with what I saw, particularly the oddly secularist reductionism of saying that Luther’s Reformation was really about politics and economics), but judging from the things his friend Chesterton said about Calvinism I seriously doubt that Belloc had any understanding of Calvinism at all. Chesterton identified Calvinism with straight determinism to the point of calling all determinists “Calvinists.” There was no understanding of how much Augustine was in Calvin. There are differences betwen Calvin and Augustine, of course, but I have not seen any reason to think that Chesterton or Belloc could have described those differences accurately if their lives depended on it.
Edwin
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Stomp out Orthodoxy???!!! Heaven forfend! Impossible!:dts:Ah coming from the fine Eastern perspective I see.
Which gets me to thinking (sorry for my ignorance), did the Church try to stomp out Orthodoxy?
V
VWcrazy
Guest
Please site chapter and verse.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Sure. Acts 5:38-39 (I was lazy and didn’t look it up before).
M
mozart-250
Guest
C
ChadS
Guest
The one example that comes to mind is Galileo. He was convicted of heresy and there never seem to have been any attempts on his life. He died of natural causes.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Fair enough in that he wasn’t killed. But neither was he “left alone”. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
I doubt whether the court would have shown similar mercy to Martin Luther simply because he was a religious leader as opposed to a scientist. I can’t think of a religious leader (particularly one as prominent as Luther) of that time period who received a more lenient sentence for the great crime of heresy.
(ps. gone this weekend to Maine…leaving just about now)
H
Hesychios
Guest
One thing to keep in mind about Orthodoxy is this…
If you have a serious honest issue with specific beliefs or practices of Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity will probably be a problem for you as well.
I know that there is a big issue between RC and many Protestants about Faith and Works. Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism alike stand on the principle that Faith without Works is dead, and I believe this with my whole heart.
In fact, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communities each and both define Faith in an active sense, it is something one lives and does rather than simply an intellectual assent. Faith is life and living that life can be salvific. Faith is in your breath and in your heart. This is essentially what Theosis is all about, and the reason asceticism, sometimes rather harsh, is practiced.
Worship is an action as well. So much so in Orthodoxy that it tends to be quite physical: involving standing, bowing and prostrations. Roman Catholicism and the mainline Protestant churches lost some of that over the centuries, and tend to worship on their butts through most of the service.
Ornateness of the temple, sounds and smells are all part of Orthodox worship, it is a highly sensory experience. Anyone who has problems with that in Roman Catholicism should be aware that Orthodoxy takes it all to a higher level whenever possible (according to the means of the congregation of course).
http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2007/September/1491/Detail/_DSC0019.JPG
http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2006/September/1346/Detail/DSC_0367.jpg
http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2005/September/1109/Detail/DSC_0108.jpg
I cannot think of any similarity whatever between Orthodoxy and any form of Protestantism (aside from a somewhat charismatic aspect to Orthodoxy), and we do not make common cause with any Protestant issue. Our great prayer is that all western Christian churches find a way to reconcile with Roman Catholicism, and that Roman Catholicism becomes Orthodox once again.
Michael
R
rr1213
Guest
What about the role of the Papacy? That would seem to be an area where the Orthodox and Protestants have more in common than apart. What about contraception? That would seem to be another area.
V
VWcrazy
Guest
This sure doesn’t prove that the Reformation was ordained by God. If anything, its a condemnation of the Reformation.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Contraception is really a non-issue.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I wouldn’t say forcefully. I think there should have been more dialogue between the two parties without the need to split from the Catholicism.OK. So you disagree then that the Church should have acted more “forcefully” against the great heresy of Protestantism. Maybe do what it did a little more promptly. And BTW it should have listened to Martin Luther concerning indulgeneces.
That’s quite different than Crusades 2.0.
H
Hesychios
Guest
It might be patently false to say that they never were present in Anglicanism or Lutheranism either.
What I am stating, and standing by that, is the level of ethical corruption in the western church was a direct cause of the protestant reformation. This corruption had far more to do with the structure of the western church, it amounted to institutionalized racketeering.
The indulgence question, in particular, is interesting because Orthodox have no theology of Purgatory, and no theory of ‘satisfaction’ as the Roman Catholics do. (The theory of satisfaction is generally traced to an Italian Lombard, St Anselm, who was appointed by a Pope to be the Archbishop of Canterbury.)
In Orthodoxy, once a sin is forgiven the temporal punishment is forgiven as well, there is no left over punishment that could use an indulgence. Any ascetic practices assigned by a priest are therapeutic, intended to ward off and fight a bad tendency. In other words a part of the growth or healing process of a Christian. These are not punishments, and do not ‘spill over’ into the afterlife to be made up there.
Orthodox do however, pray for the dead, and many believe that prayers on the behalf of someone may alleviate their sufferings, and even that a soul might be prayed out of hell.
Michael
H
Hesychios
Guest
Nothing but theology is important. The structure of the Roman Catholic church is a discipline. They could keep the Papacy for themselves if they want it, we reject their dogmatic claim.
That does not mean Orthodox and Protestants are in any kind of agreement on this, they are like two different issues.
We oppose ultramontanism, but not hierarchical clergy. Protestantism has experience under a Papacy and has rejected it based upon that experience. Orthodoxy has never had a Papacy and does not need or want one imposed from outside. We have our own hierachy and discipline, and we understand primacy in church governance.
Holy Orthodoxy opposes abortion in any and every form, whether chemically, by IUD or otherwise. It is always killing.
The only methods that have been approved for avoiding pregnacy for pastoral reasons are non-abortifactant. Where we diverge with Roman Catholicism is that Humanae Vitae has declared the intention to avoid pregnacy, even by non-abortifactant methods, is a sin. The one concession being NFP, which is also acceptable to Orthodox.
We are really not that far apart, from an Orthodox point of view. Orthodox practice is certainly not like the “anything goes” approach of many Protestant pastors.
- Status