So just how should the Church have stomped out Protestantism

[rr1213]

Contraception is really a non-issue.

Why? My understanding is that the Orthodox Churches do not forbid the use of contraception (when, obviously, the Catholic Church does and most of the Protestant Churches do not). Is my understanding of the Orthodox position on the matter erroneous?

 

[rr1213]

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.

With all respect, I think that you are downplaying your differences with the Catholic Church over Papal supremacy.

Thanks for the info on contraception. I had been of the understanding that the Orthodox pretty much allowed for it.

 

[VWcrazy]

Sure. Acts 5:38-39 (I was lazy and didn’t look it up before).

This doesn’t show that God ordained the Reformation. If anything, it would show that he would condemn it. I have done the underlining.

So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God." They were persuaded by him.

 

[ChadS]

With all respect, I think that you are downplaying your differences with the Catholic Church over Papal supremacy.

Thanks for the info on contraception. I had been of the understanding that the Orthodox pretty much allowed for it.

I think Hesychios is right about what he has written. For a Protestant to look to the Orthodox to defend their positions is a bit short-sighted. The Orthodox have much more in common with Catholics than they will with any branch of Protestantism. Beause the Orthodox reject the authority of the Pope does not mean that they reject all authority or a hierarchiacal church structure. Protestants for the most part have rejected all forms of hierarchy beyond the local pastorate and those groups that do have “bishops” only pay lip service to their authority – as the case of the Episcopalians aptly demonstrates.

ChadS

 

[BrewMax]

This doesn’t show that God ordained the Reformation. If anything, it would show that he would condemn it. I have done the underlining.

500 years doesn’t look to me like destruction in the works. Just a thought.

 

[BrewMax]

Protestants for the most part have rejected all forms of hierarchy beyond the local pastorate and those groups that do have “bishops” only pay lip service to their authority – as the case of the Episcopalians aptly demonstrates.

ChadS

Don’t know if I would make that assumption. In the case of Anglicans and United Methodists, they have bishops in places of authority of some type. I believe Lutherans do too.

 

[Hesychios]

Don’t know if I would make that assumption. In the case of Anglicans and United Methodists, they have bishops in places of authority of some type. I believe Lutherans do too.

I would have to agree with Chad here, he pretty much nailed it.

Methodists, Anglicans and Lutherans don’t have bishops in the sense of Apostolic churches. They do not have the authority or respect from the community. All they have is the name.

By Apostolic Churches I am referring to the Orthodox (Byzantine) communion, the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches, the Church of the East (Assyrian) and the Roman-Papal Catholic communion. These are all historic Christian confessions with roots in ancient Christian communities, and all of them have a remarkably similar understanding of the role of a bishop, even though some have been separated for as much as 15 centuries.

It’s a shame what has happened to the Anglican Communion, I think that many Roman Catholics and Orthodox alike had hopes that one day Anglicanism would find it’s way back.

 

[jmcrae]

No you did not. But you did suggest he should have been arrested.

If that had been the case, he would have been tried for heresy and certainly conviced. And what was the usual punishment for heresy?

If he was only guilty of heresy, the penalty would have probably been along the lines of excommunication and house arrest, which was what happened to Galileo.

Those who were burned at the stake were guilty not only of “thought crimes” and “hate speech” but also of property crimes and various different kinds of violence, including instigating riots, etc.

 

[Ahimsa]

Why? My understanding is that the Orthodox Churches do not forbid the use of contraception (when, obviously, the Catholic Church does and most of the Protestant Churches do not). Is my understanding of the Orthodox position on the matter erroneous?

See Hesychios, above.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

John Knox was convicted of heresy several times, yet was never killed for it. He was jailed on at least three occasions, but then set free after a period of time. As far as I know, he died of old age.

 

[VWcrazy]

500 years doesn’t look to me like destruction in the works. Just a thought.

For 500 years, they have been splintering and falling apart. Doesn’t seem too constructive.

 

[ChadS]

Don’t know if I would make that assumption. In the case of Anglicans and United Methodists, they have bishops in places of authority of some type. I believe Lutherans do too.

I was a United Methodist for the first 30 years of my life. Our Bishops were pretty much in name only. It seems to me that our District Superintendent had more authority over the daily operation of our churches, but then again that was more administrative functions. There was no central authority to appeal to to clarify anything on teachings. The Methodist church had a Book of Discipline but even in that you couldn’t look for “official” teachings on various issues.

The Episcopalians are the Anglicans in America. They illustrate my point precisely that their bishops have no authority whatsoever. The Bishop of Canterbury, their nominal head, is powerless to prevent American parishes from disassociating with their bishops because they are too liberal and associating with bishops in Nigeria, because their theology is more to their liking. All the Bishop of Canterbury has been able to do is say “Let’s get along,” or “I really wish you wouldn’t do that.” Where’s the authority there?

ChadS

 

[jmcrae]

500 years doesn’t look to me like destruction in the works. Just a thought.

Protestantism still exists, but it is fragmented into hundreds of conflicting sects. There is very little of either theology or everyday practice in common between a Lutheran and a Pentecostal, and yet they are both equally Protestant.

 

[angelheart]

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

Hello,

It may be that the Protestants who complained about “pomana” in Romania don’t understand the purpose of it. The “pomana” is not an indulgence for the dead. It’s good works for the soul of the dead. It’s combined with prayer. It doesn’t mean that through good deeds and prayers for the dead, the souls are necessarily forgiven…but God may take this in consideration at the judgement day. Doesn’t one of the ten commandements say to love and care for your neighbor? Likewise, because orthodox believe that after death, the soul continues to exist, they keep on helping a soul by praying and doing good deeds for them.

The indulgences of the purgatory during the Reformation were wrong. The church (the pope) was receving money from the laity in exchange for diminishing the time a soul would spend in purgatory.

The Romanian Orthodox Church does not have any benefit out of good deeds of people for their loved ones.

God bless!
Stefania

 

[LilyM]

No human can stomp out what the Lord has ordained

Well, people have been trying to stomp out Catholicism right enough for near 2,000 years and haven’t succeeded - let’s see where Protestantism is in 2000 AL (after Luther) eh?

 

[BrewMax]

I would have to agree with Chad here, he pretty much nailed it.

Methodists, Anglicans and Lutherans don’t have bishops in the sense of Apostolic churches. They do not have the authority or respect from the community. All they have is the name.

By Apostolic Churches I am referring to the Orthodox (Byzantine) communion, the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches, the Church of the East (Assyrian) and the Roman-Papal Catholic communion. These are all historic Christian confessions with roots in ancient Christian communities, and all of them have a remarkably similar understanding of the role of a bishop, even though some have been separated for as much as 15 centuries.

It’s a shame what has happened to the Anglican Communion, I think that many Roman Catholics and Orthodox alike had hopes that one day Anglicanism would find it’s way back.

Find its way back where? I guess I don’t understand.

 

[jmcrae]

Find its way back where? I guess I don’t understand.

Into the Catholic Church, from which it separated in the early to mid-1500s.

 

[Ahimsa]

Well, people have been trying to stomp out Catholicism right enough for near 2,000 years and haven’t succeeded - let’s see where Protestantism is in 2000 AL (after Luther) eh?

Protestantism is forever.

 

[jmcrae]

Protestantism is forever.

I doubt that.

 

[Hellisreal]

Protestantism is forever.

If you mean in the sense that the Church will always be attacked, then I agree it will be “forever” in that sense of timeline.

But, it will be forever that they will be with us even if they dont like that fact.