Why aren't Orthodox regarded as "Protestants?"

[Peter_J]

Or that the Pope of Rome is not in full communion with the Eastern Churches. This is not a one sided affair. The fullness of the faith resides when both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches recognizes the need for each other. As long as each Church whether Rome or the Eastern Churches do not admit this need than both Churches are in fact lacking in certain elements of the fullness of faith. The Church of Rome does not own the fullness of faith and neither do the Eastern Churches. Together they do. The problem today is too many people not recognizing this important truth. As long as they do not admit it this stalement will just continue.

If that is so, then that means that the gates of hell have prevailed the True Church, and that Lord Jesus Christ failed with His promise about the gates of hell. The one Church is fully true, we all believe that is our Church.

Well, except you can’t really say “we all” when there are some (on either side) who do not believe that.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I’ll probably have more to say later, but first can you provide some background to this situation? In particular, were you responding to one argument, or more than one, for Orthodox being Protestant? And what argument(s)?

Yes, discussing with another Catholic from my parish. She argues Orthodox can be classified as “protestant” as they protest the primacy of the Holy Father and other doctrinal differences.

I argue they are not protestant as the Church has already declared that Orthodoxy is a “True Church” whereas every other christian belongs to an “ecclesial community”.

I have since mentioned JonNC post re: the Diet of Speyer. She replied “whilst the origins of the term “protestant” is interesting, language has evolved and should be applied retrospectively to Orthodoxy”. She cites the original use of the term “Roman Catholics” as a derogatory insult and exclusionary of Eastern Catholics but now accepted by most Western Catholics and even applied to Catholics who are long gone before the term was coined.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, discussing with another Catholic from my parish. She argues Orthodox can be classified as “protestant” as they protest the primacy of the Holy Father and other doctrinal differences.

Alright. Although to be frank, I’m not sure that’s an argument for considering Orthodox to be Protestant. (Consider: does being Pro-Life make me Protestant, since I protest the legalization of abortion?)

 

[JonNC]

Alright. Although to be frank, I’m not sure that’s an argument for considering Orthodox to be Protestant. (Consider: does being Pro-Life make me Protestant, since I protest the legalization of abortion?)

Indeed it does. The CC and LCMS are siblings in the protest against the HHS Mandate. And that is definition of Protestant, historically, a protest against government restrictions of religious liberty.

Jon

 

[ltwin]

Yes, discussing with another Catholic from my parish. She argues Orthodox can be classified as “protestant” as they protest the primacy of the Holy Father and other doctrinal differences.

I argue they are not protestant as the Church has already declared that Orthodoxy is a “True Church” whereas every other christian belongs to an “ecclesial community”.

I have since mentioned JonNC post re: the Diet of Speyer. She replied “whilst the origins of the term “protestant” is interesting, language has evolved and should be applied retrospectively to Orthodoxy”. She cites the original use of the term “Roman Catholics” as a derogatory insult and exclusionary of Eastern Catholics but now accepted by most Western Catholics and even applied to Catholics who are long gone before the term was coined.

The problem with her argument is she assumes that language has evolved to make “Protestant” simply mean “non Roman Catholic.” While many people use the term in such a way (at a popular level), it would be hard for anyone to walk into an Eastern Orthodox Church and call what they do “Protestantism” if the word is to have any meaning whatsoever. At the same time, Mormonism is such a fringy belief system that most people who think about it recognize that it can’t be classed as Protestant either.

This is because while the word “Protestant” is an umbrella term it is not a meaningless umbrella term. It has historical, theological, and socio-cultural connotations. Historically, Protestantism in all its various forms and branches is rooted (but not confined) in the beliefs and churches that emerged from the Protestant Reformation in 16th century.

Their Reformation pedigree puts the Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican (yes Anglicanism is considered even by many Anglicans as a form of Protestantism) squarely within the Protestant camp. These of course had their differences but they all shared Luther’s central premises of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Other denominations evolved out of these traditions and continued to share the basic premises-Baptists, Methodists,etc. These offshoots are clearly Protestant.

While Eastern Orthodoxy certainly challenged papal authority, that was not even the central issue of the Protestant Reformation. Protestants grappled with important theological questions that fundamentally reshaped Christianity in Western Europe. There was never a similar movement within the Eastern Orthodox Churches (at least on the scale of the Reformation). In addition, when early Protestants did reach out to Greek Church in an attempt to establish communion, the Protestant innovations were rejected since on most issues the Eastern Christians agreed with the Papacy.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, discussing with another Catholic from my parish. She argues Orthodox can be classified as “protestant” as they protest the primacy of the Holy Father and other doctrinal differences.

I argue they are not protestant as the Church has already declared that Orthodoxy is a “True Church” whereas every other christian belongs to an “ecclesial community”.

I have since mentioned JonNC post re: the Diet of Speyer. She replied “whilst the origins of the term “protestant” is interesting, language has evolved and should be applied retrospectively to Orthodoxy”. She cites the original use of the term “Roman Catholics” as a derogatory insult and exclusionary of Eastern Catholics but now accepted by most Western Catholics and even applied to Catholics who are long gone before the term was coined.

Your friend’s analogy is more related to the term “Lutheran”, which was also intended as a slur by Eck, and came to be adopted by the Evangelical Catholics. Protestant simply fit the event, the protest.
The rejection to the term is its misuse, as I mentioned before. Lutherans are certainly the center of that protest, but theologically we are Evangelical Catholic

Jon

 

[Vico]

…While Eastern Orthodoxy certainly challenged papal authority, that was not even the central issue of the Protestant Reformation. Protestants grappled with important theological questions that fundamentally reshaped Christianity in Western Europe. …

That seems like an odd thing to say, since the authority of the Church of Christ which subsists in the Catholic Church, is its teaching authority.

 

[ltwin]

That seems like an odd thing to say, since the authority of the Church of Christ which subsists in the Catholic Church, is its teaching authority.

What I mean is that some speak of “Protestantism” as if the Reformers’ central cause was challenging the Pope. It wasn’t. It was the place of Scripture and the meaning and role of faith. If the Pope acknowledged that Scripture was the sole authority by which tradition and doctrine are to be judged within the Church of God then Luther and followers would have had no problem with letting him run the church. The beef was not with the papacy per se but with the papacy’s unwillingness or inability to perceive the truth of the gospel. It was only then that Protestants concluded that they had to reject the teaching authority of the Bishop of Rome.

In other words, for Catholics the challenge to papal authority may the be central issue of the Reformation, but for Protestants its a side issue.

 

[Peter_J]

What I mean is that some speak of “Protestantism” as if the Reformers’ central cause was challenging the Pope. It wasn’t. It was the place of Scripture and the meaning and role of faith. If the Pope acknowledged that Scripture was the sole authority by which tradition and doctrine are to be judged within the Church of God then Luther and followers would have had no problem with letting him run the church. The beef was not with the papacy per se but with the papacy’s unwillingness or inability to perceive the truth of the gospel. It was only then that Protestants concluded that they had to reject the teaching authority of the Bishop of Rome.

In other words, for Catholics the challenge to papal authority may the be central issue of the Reformation, but for Protestants its a side issue.

Positive and negative statements are both important.

For instance, the Council of Ephesus both condemned “Nestorianism” and defined the teaching that Christ is a single person (hypostasis).

 

[Vico]

What I mean is that some speak of “Protestantism” as if the Reformers’ central cause was challenging the Pope. It wasn’t. It was the place of Scripture and the meaning and role of faith. If the Pope acknowledged that Scripture was the sole authority by which tradition and doctrine are to be judged within the Church of God then Luther and followers would have had no problem with letting him run the church. The beef was not with the papacy per se but with the papacy’s unwillingness or inability to perceive the truth of the gospel. It was only then that Protestants concluded that they had to reject the teaching authority of the Bishop of Rome.

In other words, for Catholics the challenge to papal authority may the be central issue of the Reformation, but for Protestants its a side issue.

The pope could not make the statement "that Scripture was the sole authority by which tradition and doctrine are to be judged within the Church of God " because that has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church and it must not falter on issues of faith and morals. So the reformers did oppose the teaching authority of the Catholic Church

Catholic Encyclopedia

" …in the time of the Apostles, faith consisted in submitting to authorized teaching, it does so now; for the essence of things never changes and the foundation of the Church and of our salvation is immovable."

Wilhelm, J. (1911). Protestantism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Because calling an eastern orthodox Christian just sounds wrong.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, discussing with another Catholic from my parish. She argues Orthodox can be classified as “protestant” as they protest the primacy of the Holy Father and other doctrinal differences.

I argue they are not protestant as the Church has already declared that Orthodoxy is a “True Church” whereas every other christian belongs to an “ecclesial community”.

I have since mentioned JonNC post re: the Diet of Speyer. She replied “whilst the origins of the term “protestant” is interesting, language has evolved and should be applied retrospectively to Orthodoxy”. She cites the original use of the term “Roman Catholics” as a derogatory insult and exclusionary of Eastern Catholics but now accepted by most Western Catholics and even applied to Catholics who are long gone before the term was coined.

The origin is important. It was used as a term to describe all those communities that separated from unity with Rome during the Reformation, and their modern offspring.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

The origin is important. It was used as a term to describe all those communities that separated from unity with Rome during the Reformation, and their modern offspring.

Thank you Guanophore, I understand that. She insists it could be argued that the Reformation commenced with the Schism. That the Schism was the foundation and set the precedent for the Reformation heresies.

I have invited her to come on here as I am out of my depth in this debate.

 

[Peter_J]

Liam Neeson said “There’s always a bigger fish.” Transposing that to internet discussion forums, I would say there’s always a more extreme polemicist.

 

[RyanBlack]

Thank you Guanophore, I understand that. She insists it could be argued that the Reformation commenced with the Schism. That the Schism was the foundation and set the precedent for the Reformation heresies.

I have invited her to come on here as I am out of my depth in this debate.

Then why start there? The schism leading to the separation of the Eastern Orthodox was not the first.

 

[Peter_J]

Thank you Guanophore, I understand that. She insists it could be argued that the Reformation commenced with the Schism. That the Schism was the foundation and set the precedent for the Reformation heresies.

I have invited her to come on here as I am out of my depth in this debate.

Then why start there? The schism leading to the separation of the Eastern Orthodox was not the first.

You’re right it wasn’t the first, but it was pretty major. Is there a saying that “schism begets schism”, or something like that? It seems pretty plausible that the West, beginning at the time of the East-West schism, was on a “path” toward its splintering into many pieces in the sixteenth century.

So I guess my conclusion is that SAVINGRACE’s friend may well be onto something, notwithstanding what seems to me a very strange manner of coping with it.

 

[prodromos]

The Orthodox does not protest anything in the Catholic Church. She simply holds fast to the traditions handed down. Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction simply are not a part of that tradition.

 

[Mongo]

You are referring, by Reformation, to 16th century Europe? There is no Apostolic succession, per the Catholic Church, in any of those ecclessial communities because there no longer exists the proper intention in giving the sacrament of Orders as it is in the Catholic Church.

Eastern Orthodox trace back through valid ordinations in the See of Constantinople (Istanbul). Similarly the Assyrian and six Oriental Orthodox Churches trace back through their Patriarchal Sees.

Apostolic succession isn’t just through the patriarchs; it is through every bishop. These churches trace back through all of their churches.

 

[chimo]

Then neither Catholicism or Orthodoxy is the Church started in the Upper room and Jesus lied when he said his Church would not be corrupted and exist for eternity. Christ solemnly swears that He shall be with His Church all days to the end of time, to the consummation of the world.

But Christ cannot remain with the Church that teaches error, or falsehood, or corruption. If, therefore, either has taught error then Christ must have abandoned her. If so, He has broken His oath. If He has broken His oath He is a perjurer, and there is no Christianity at all.

I did not say that the Catholic Church or the Eastern Churches were in error. Read my post again. What I said they were certain lacking of teachings in both Churches which would be completed by either Church. Let me explain using this model. In any family with children the better situation for children to be brought up is to have one parent very good in disciplining and the other parent very good in mentoring/nurturing. If both parents are only good at disciplining than the children are going to have a rough time. Now if this works in family then it must work also in our Churches. God has established the disciplinarian parent as the Catholic Church. It is very easy to understand why. The Catholic Church has his detailed disciplined catechism. The Eastern Churches do not. Why? It is because the structure of the Eastern Churches is geared to mentoring/nurturing not to disciplining as is the Catholic Church. The mentoring/nurturing parent is the Eastern Churches. What then is lacking in both Churches is the strengths of both Churches. The disciplining structure is somewhat lacking in the Eastern Churches while the mentoring/nurturing structure is somewhat lacking in the Catholic Church. It seems to me by this definition of our own Church structures we were created to rely on the strengths of each other. God for a great reason to unify us made us incomplete. Do you understand now. I grew up within the disciplinarian structure of the Western Church. I know that it exists. When I started living in the Eastern Church I found out there is another virtue which the Eastern Church relies on more which is contained in the parental attribute of mentoring/nurturing. I found that both Churches exhibit the best qualities of what parental guidance involves which is disciplining and mentoring/nurturing.

 

[chimo]

The Church recognizes the need for unity, including the Catholic Church. There have been many attempts to come to understanding through the meetings of The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, but there are also other such with Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and western ecclessial communities.

There have been these sessions of the JICTDBCCO, and since 2006 have been focused on primacy. Note that the Patriarchate of Moscow dissociated itself from the Ravenna Document, since they were not represented. There was to be a meeting in 2015 but I have no knowledge of the status.

• Patmos & Rhodes, Greece (1980) - The Mystery of the Church and the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity
• Munich, Germany (1982) - The Mystery of the Church and the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity
• Crete, Greece (1984) - Faith, Sacraments and Unity of the Church
• Bari, Italy (1987) - Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church
• Valamo, Finland (1988) - The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the Church, with Particular Reference to the Importance of the Apostolic Succession for the Sanctification and Unity of the People of God
• Freising (1990) - Uniatism
• Balamand, Lebanon (1993) - Uniatism: Method of Union of the Past, and Present Search for Full Communion
• Emmitsburg, Maryland, USA (2000) - Ecclesiological and Canonical Implications of Uniatism
• Belgrade, Serbia (2006) - The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church; Conciliarity and Authority in the Church at Three Levels of Ecclesial Life: Local, Regional and Universal
• Ravenna, Italy (2007) - The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church – Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority
• Paphos, Cyprus (2009) - The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium
• Vienna, Austria (2010) - The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium
• Amman, Jordan (2014) - Primacy and synodality in the Church

Vico, we need to see this unity as it is in a marriage. No one Church has it all just like a person who cannot have it all. The man sees in the woman he loves someone who will complete him just as the woman sees in the man she loves someone who will complete her. The problem with our Churches (Catholic and Eastern) is not understanding this simple model which is the model God has given for our Churches. Too many misunderstandings has clouded our minds. The Catholic Church was created by God to help complete the Eastern Church while the Eastern Church was created to help complete the Catholic Church. It will be our differences that will help us enter into our unity. Just as a man has differences so does the woman so does the Churches.