Why did Eastern Orthodoxy never have a Reformation?

[ByzCathCantor]

But what I am trying to say and can’t get my point across is this, Nothing that was done by the early leaders of the Church has anything to do with the Church. What I mean by the Church is Christ leading us by the power of the Holy Spirit.

And you must show me ONE thing that Luther could give me that I can not get from the Catholic Church. You won’t and you can’t!!

Amen, amen, amen!

Agreed, and I certainly don’t intend to prove Luther’s case - simply trying to acknowledge with honesty that what he saw from leaders of the Church was not what he had invisioned based on his monastic life in the Church.

Peace be with you!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You really do overstate - at least - things here.

Certainly many scholars believe that the centuries of heated virulence and nit-picking distinctions that the opposing parties in the East, especially, had with respect to the numerous heresies contributed to the ease with which so many EO abandoned Christianity for Islam - and the sword and taxes, too…

Islam certainly had contact with the west and it’s Bishops. I think most historians would hold that Muhammad took many of his ideas from Judaism and Christianity - and hence the belief that Jesus is not God, being the more natural and easier to accept idea, won out. The Trinity is a difficult concept; the hypostatic union ain’t easy either. A human prophet is one most can buddy-up to.

Apart from my opinions, which can be supported by history and the fact remains that Islam holds to a form of Arianism. The Church during this time was still seeing effects of Arianism, much so, so as to name Islam another form of Christian heresy derived from Arianism, which by this time had already splintered into many different facets of Christianity.

Thus I feel for poor old Mohammed to be faced with such distortions of Christianity, who could blame him for starting his own religion? which has a christian identity heretical of course.

 

[Publisher]

Apart from my opinions, which can be supported by history and the fact remains that Islam holds to a form of Arianism. The Church during this time was still seeing effects of Arianism, much so, so as to name Islam another form of Christian heresy derived from Arianism, which by this time had already splintered into many different facets of Christianity.

Thus I feel for poor old Mohammed to be faced with such distortions of Christianity, who could blame him for starting his own religion? which has a christian identity heretical of course.

I’m sure Muhammed was familiar to an extent with several sects of Christianity and took some of their ideas…Jesus according to Islam is not a “god” but a prophet…I believe Arianism saw Jesus as “divine”… but God’s First Creation whom He adopted as His Son…some of the Gnostic sects taught Jesus never died…just appeared to die…OR…Simon was crucified in his place by accident…or Judas in some cases…so when the Holy Qur’an says Jesus didn’t die…it is assumed they came from various Christian sects in the Arabian desert isolated from the dominant version in Rome.

 

[Hesychios]

So, why Syria and not Bulgaria? Is there an Orthodox point of view about this?

I don’t think there is a ‘church approved’ explanation for anything, but I have opinions.

It requires an examination of history, and unfortunately none of us were there, so everything is open to speculation.

I am pretty sure there were still pagans around in the eastern empire at the time of the Arab conquest. They were forcibly converted. So the Christians and Jews observed foreigners (Arabs from the desert) and former pagans catapulted to the privileged places in society.

There is about a 700 year difference (or more) between the Arab explosion into the Levant (and north Africa) and the Turkish expansion into Europe. That’s about twice as long.

For most of that time, in both cases, the Muslims did not do much forcing of conversions of Christians and Jews, in fact the authorities often discouraged it. The reason was that there were punitive taxes and discrimination against “people of the Book”. If the people converted, they did not pay these taxes (and I think there was something about a ban on the forced conscription of Muslims, but I am having a hard time remembering what I read on these points).

Now this was not a free society. Christianity could not compete in the marketplace of ideas because conversions could only go one way: into Islam, not from Islam.

One piece of current conventional wisdom states that a parish needs to add 6% of it’s membership every year in order to keep an even (or consistant) population, just treading water. This accounts for death and people moving out. To expand the parish should try to beat that number. I don’t know how accurate that is but I remember reading that at one time.

Another thing I remember reading (I have no stats for this) was that Christianity in Egypt, Palestine, Anatolia and Syria was actually still the majority religion (declining, but …) until the time of the crusades, after which there was a heightened amount of retribution on the local Christians, and the numbers started to decline more rapidly. We are seeing this kind of accelerated decline among Christians in Iraq again these days.

In this kind of situation those who can leave often do, and if for any reason the birthrate falters or the number of people converting out of the community rises there will be a negative annual rate of growth. Repeating this 600 or 900 times in a row and one can see how this can become a big problem.

It is noted that north African church completely disappeared. What is often missed by us is that the Mozarabic (native) population in Spain was once on the same trajectory. Probably most of the ‘Moors’ who were expelled at the fall of Granada were actually Mozarab Spanish families who had converted at some point in the 700 year occupation (naturally there were Arabs and Berbers too, but it is known that the native Spanish had assimilated to the point that most spoke a form of Arabic and that is usually the first big step in the process before large numbers fall away).

 

[Nine_Two]

Because they had mass apostasy into Islam. What was left was an oppressed minority that coalesced around the rump churches in the East. Until Russia came along, the Orthodox Church was a mere shadow of itself. Then the peculiarities of Russian Orthodoxy and its Caesaro-Papism structure (being a department of the State following the Petrine reforms until the Soviet revolution) and anti-Western politics conspired to keep the Reformation at bay.

Actually, Russia, arguably, ended up having the strongest Protestant influence exerted on it specificly because of the Caesaro-Papist structure. It also resisted it better than anywhere else in the Orthodox World.

 

[Warrenton]

Martin Luther was first a Roman Catholic monk par excellence, and it was he who set the wheels in motion. Of course, there were many other factors “outside” the Church so to speak, but the extensive influence of the Roman Church on all aspects of secular life (economic, legal, etc.) were certainly major factors as well. All of these factors led to the “success” of the Reformation on the whole.

He certainly wasn’t a monk par excellence, since he married a nun.

You are confusing the inception of the Reformation with the means of its success. It succeeded because the rulers of Catholic lands broke their oaths and attacked the Church.

The unity between civil life and eccliastical life was a goal that all of Christendom held until the Reformation, at which point the idea began to be rejected first among obscure sects, then among the maintstream. The influence of the Latin Church on the life of the people was no less important than the influence of the Orthodox Church on the life of its people. Because the Greeks maintained the Roman political organization longer, which was at least institutionally more stable than its western competitors, the division of worldly authority worked better in the East, at least conceptually.

People leave churches because, for a variety of reasons, they become dissatisfied with it.

This is no different now than it was 600 years ago, 1000 years ago, or in 800 when the Arabs attacked the Empire.

Once someone is dissatisfied, he looks for an alternative. For the past 1300 years, Orthodox have not had to look far for alternatives, if they sought them. They could convert to Islam, they could go Catholic, they could change churches. Numbers of them did so, as the present populations of Turkey and (by analogy) Egypt bear witness. In the West, there were no sizeable alternatives to the Church, except in Spain, which gave negligible consideration of the Protestant thesis.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

He certainly wasn’t a monk par excellence, since he married a nun.

While he was in the monastery?

 

[Warrenton]

For most of that time, in both cases, the Muslims did not do much forcing of conversions of Christians and Jews, in fact the authorities often discouraged it. The reason was that there were punitive taxes and discrimination against “people of the Book”. If the people converted, they did not pay these taxes (and I think there was something about a ban on the forced conscription of Muslims, but I am having a hard time remembering what I read on these points).

This is a good point, and it dovetails with another fact of the post classical world. The people of the Eastern and African Roman Empire were heavily burdened with taxation. The expenses of attempting to defend civilisation from the near constant onslaught of barbarians and usurpers was tremendous, and led to crushing taxes. The society that the Arabs attacked was already stretched to the limit. The Parthians had been more or less continually at war with the Empire for nearly half a millenium.

The Arabs, being themselves invaders, were able to sweep away the Byzantine structure at a blow. The dhimmitude replaced it for non Muslims, which was still easier to live under than the preexisting tax structure. The benefits for conversion were more attractive still. Hence the conversions between the years 700 and 1400.

Another thing I remember reading (I have no stats for this) was that Christianity in Egypt, Palestine, Anatolia and Syria was actually still the majority religion (declining, but …) until the time of the crusades, after which there was a heightened amount of retribution on the local Christians, and the numbers started to decline more rapidly. We are seeing this kind of accelerated decline among Christians in Iraq again these days.

There were sizeable minorities of Greek Orthodox in Turkey into the 1920s, at the time of the “population exchange.” Constantinople was half Greek into the 1800s.

It is noted that north African church completely disappeared.

It was still holding out into the middle ages, nearly 700 years after being totally cut off.

Under such circumstances, is it really any wonder that Orthodox Christians eschewed the Reformation? Those who new about it (and it’s highly doubtful whether an Arcadian from 1500 even knew about Luther) correctly perceived the Reformation as a destructive tendency.

 

[Warrenton]

While he was in the monastery?

No.

 

[GaryTaylor]

While he was in the monastery?

Theres an overlooked point here also, and that is Luthers monastic life. God only knows what that man was subjected to. I would be the first to admit he didn’t seem like a great fit for monastic life anyway. So its not hard to see issues arrising. However there were problems in the monestarys during this specific period. All you have to do is compare the issue’s with St Theresa of Avila and St John of the Cross encountered to understand another truth here. There was a reform in the Catholic monastic life at this same time also.

Geez they locked St John of the Cross up in closet for 9-months in the dark while feeding him bread and water Mighty Christian of them eh:thumbsup:

As you read Luther and his take on monastic life, not hard to figure out what he thought about it. Its easy to say well he had an attitude, and was this or that. Little more to the story in all fairness. They had some pretty extreme ideas of santification through mortification and all kinds of eye brow raising theorys.

Just Saying,

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Theres an overlooked point here also, and that is Luthers monastic life. God only knows what that man was subjected to. I would be the first to admit he didn’t seem like a great fit for monastic life anyway. So its not hard to see issues arrising. However there were problems in the monestarys during this specific period. All you have to do is compare the issue’s with St Theresa of Avila and St John of the Cross encountered to understand another truth here. There was a reform in the Catholic monastic life at this same time also.

Geez they locked St John of the Cross up in closet for 9-months in the dark while feeding him bread and water Mighty Christian of them eh:thumbsup:

As you read Luther and his take on monastic life, not hard to figure out what he thought about it. Its easy to say well he had an attitude, and was this or that. Little more to the story in all fairness. They had some pretty extreme ideas of santification through mortification and all kinds of eye brow raising theorys.

Just Saying,

All fair points! By many accounts, as a monk, Luther had a self-imposed regimine of discipline that was considered extreme even by his fellow monastics. And, given the conditions of monastic life at that time as you point out, that’s quite a statement. His desire for rigid self-discipline has been attributed partly to his strict upbringing, speculating that he was conditioned to believe that nothing he could do would ever please his earthly father, now projecting the same on his Heavenly Father. The more he disciplined himself, the more he actually fell into depression and despair. He is quoted as saying: “I lost touch with Christ the Savior and Comforter, and made of him the jailor and hangman of my poor soul.”

It was his superior who recognized both his condition and his intellect, pulling him from this cycle of despair by placing him in academia. The rest, as they say, is history …

 

[theidler]

No theory, Orthodoxy continued to reform because she kept getting infected with multiple heresies and heretics throughout the centuries.

In fact the Eastern Church took on a new reformed name of “Orthodoxy” to separate herself from other Eastern Church’s which mirrored them in language, culture, and liturgy who fell into heresy teaching heterodoxy.

I don’t know if “Church councils” are considered taking on reform when they defined a teaching such a “theotokos”, “Trinity” etc…

Whoa whoa whoa…not quite sure what you are saying here, but I’m not sure I agree with it. The Eastern Church has had just as much problems with heresy as the Western Church, just in different forms. We had Jansenism, they had Nestorianism, the list goes on.

 

[tomarin]

Why do People accept new teaching’s even today:shrug: Maybe because they had their own sins that they didn’t want to own up to?

And you will get no argument with me that many Priests and a Pope or 2 have alot to answer for to God for their personal conduct.

But the fact still remains and what I was trying to drive home was even when Jesus walked this earth he had many Apostles who betrayed him.

But why do you think people left the Church and followed Luther? I mean do you feel he was a pilar of the Community; I mean lets face it the Man had Big problems. He was tormented with voices etc That surely does not come from God. God torments no-one.

But my answer is the reason they left then is why they leave today. They did not want to obey the Church. Why do you think they left?

In short because the moral authority of the Church collapsed in the eyes of the northerners, due to 1. the Western Schism, which created religious confusion and diminished the office of the Pope by making it seem like a political football and 2. the venal and cynical conduct of the clergy which after the Black Death which resulted in a lowering of standards in clergy recruitment.

A third factor was the Pope at the time of Luther, who was not the right person to deal with or even recognize until it was too late the magnitude of the crisis Christianity was embroiled in at that time.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’m sure Muhammed was familiar to an extent with several sects of Christianity and took some of their ideas…Jesus according to Islam is not a “god” but a prophet…I believe Arianism saw Jesus as “divine”… but God’s First Creation whom He adopted as His Son…some of the Gnostic sects taught Jesus never died…just appeared to die…OR…Simon was crucified in his place by accident…or Judas in some cases…so when the Holy Qur’an says Jesus didn’t die…it is assumed they came from various Christian sects in the Arabian desert isolated from the dominant version in Rome.

I fiind your post reasonable to the extent that these Eastern heresies were still existing in small pockets in the East.** History reveals not to under estimate the power and influence of the Arian heresy.** The Arian heresy keeps finding its way into societies. Today a form of Arain heresy is found among the JW’s, and Mormon religions. Don’t under estimate this heresy.

So much so that it influenced Emperors to its teachings who placed Arian bishops to rule the Eastern Church for a time. From these powerful influences the Arian heresy flourished. When it was removed from power in the East, history finds Arianism reaching into the realms of the Arabs, while the Nestorian heresy made headway with the Persians which later dwindeled in numbers.

The Eastern heretical sects you mentioned did not gain much powerful support as did the Arian heresy, which ultimately reached Spain, but the “Filiogue” defeated the Arian heresy from infected the West.

The original Islam reveals Jesus as a prophet of God who ranks above all the Old testament prophets, and Jesus will be the one who judges the earth on the last day.

In fairness to your post, one of the strengths of Islam was it’s “simplicity”, by reducing any number of beliefs to a minimum removing the arguments of the day to simplicity that God cannot become human.

Another Arian flavor that Islam took was that Jesus had already ascended into heaven before his passion, death and resurrection and not afterward as the Christians taught. Because Arianism had the flavor of monasticism from its founder, Islam also takes on strict disciplines in prayer rituals, strict fasting, and forbidding strong (alcohol) drink.

One can speculate other Eastern heresies existing at the time and their origin and activity can be traced, but history records Arianism made headway into the Arab territories and continued.

Peace be with you

 

[rinnie]

In short because the moral authority of the Church collapsed in the eyes of the northerners, due to 1. the Western Schism, which created religious confusion and diminished the office of the Pope by making it seem like a political football and 2. the venal and cynical conduct of the clergy which after the Black Death which resulted in a lowering of standards in clergy recruitment.

A third factor was the Pope at the time of Luther, who was not the right person to deal with or even recognize until it was too late the magnitude of the crisis Christianity was embroiled in at that time.

With the exception of the Pope its kind of like history repeating itself would you not agree.

As I agree and it was stated earlier many mistakes on both sides. but its such a shame that the mistakes seem to take on more of an effect then what was right. Again history repeating itself.

And its the mistakes and the sins of humans that people dwell on more, then the word of God Itself. Sad but true.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Whoa whoa whoa…not quite sure what you are saying here, but I’m not sure I agree with it. The Eastern Church has had just as much problems with heresy as the Western Church, just in different forms. We had Jansenism, they had Nestorianism, the list goes on.

In relation to this thread. Orthodoxy blames the Catholic Church for the protestant reformation and their “self break away” from the Catholic Church. History records many Eastern Church’s not breakaway but being excommunicated from the Eastern Orthodox Church’s. So what’s the problem regarding reformation? Your heresy proves my point, that both sides of the Church suffered reformation due to her fallen away members or excommunicated members.

Let us be clear here; The Western Latin Church never reformed any of her Apostolic teachings as the word “reformation” is sometimes falesly implied. The Western Latin Church reformed in “disciplines, language and culture” but the Rock never reformed.

The Same could be said of the Eastern Church. Although the apostolic teachings came undertake by their own members, what reformed was not the doctrine but the doctrine was made doctrine in the form of the Creed and doctrine defined by the early Church councils which included the Popes to hold to the “Orthodox” Apostolic teachings that got developed into doctrine (binding) and defined.

What is confusing is that some make the protestant reformation as being the Catholic Church going through the same reformations. The Catholic Church never reformed her Apostolic teachings as did the protestant Church’s who reformed by rejecting the Catholic Church’s teachings and invented new man made doctrines beginnning in the form of the “Sola’s” faith’s. Grant it that the Catholic Church defined her teachings with clarity such as the real presence, Immaculate conception etc… but these are not reformed doctrine, they are defined doctrines, Just as Trinity, the two natures of Christ etc… when they came under attack including the books of the bible, which the protestants both removed 7 books and or relabled 7 divine books as “apochryphal” not inspired. This is protestant reformation in my opinion in the diabolical form.

We can’t deny the fact that the protestants were first Catholics obedient to their divine appointed Monarchy and the Church’s Magisterium. Because these fallen away Catholics turned Protestant never negates the Holiness and Authenticity of the Catholic Church. Some have mistakenly and falsely accuse the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as needing reform or changing, when it is the members that need to be addressed from the protestant reformation.

The Catholic Church did reform, but in disciplines. Protestants reformed in rejecting apostolic Catholic doctrine and introduced man made doctrines in their reformation.

In summary both the East and Western Catholic Church are always going under reform, from her members in disciplines, language, culture including the arts and sciences. But never will the Catholic Church ever reform her divine revelations from God, because the Catholic Church is never needing reform, only her members.

Thus to deny that the East never went through a reformation, is deceiving oneself and others.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’m sure Muhammed was familiar to an extent with several sects of Christianity and took some of their ideas…Jesus according to Islam is not a “god” but a prophet…I believe Arianism saw Jesus as “divine”… but God’s First Creation whom He adopted as His Son…some of the Gnostic sects taught Jesus never died…just appeared to die…OR…Simon was crucified in his place by accident…or Judas in some cases…so when the Holy Qur’an says Jesus didn’t die…it is assumed they came from various Christian sects in the Arabian desert isolated from the dominant version in Rome.

Dear friend, I wanted to mention that I support those historians who also hold to this view of Arianism infected Islam. What convinced me, was when the Turks conquered Spain and introduced Islam, and it was from Spain when Arianism was introduced into the West, although, that’s another history.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Turks never conquered Spain, and Arianism had already been introduced and crushed by the time the Turks left their homeland in Central Asia and made their way West.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Turks never conquered Spain, and Arianism had already been introduced and crushed by the time the Turks left their homeland in Central Asia and made their way West.

Islam conquered all of Spain by 715 a.d. Was it not the Franks that defeated the Muslims at the Battle of Tours in 732 a.d? Did’nt mean to come across as stereotyping.

Islam brought with them to Spain what the Christians gave them long before they began their conquest, “Greek philosophy and the arts”. Arianism, and filioque is still a topic of discussion here.

Arianism may have moved into the desert from the East but it was never crushed. The Filioque is what crushed Arianism from the West, later to resurface again in the new world discovery from Spain.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Islam conquered all of Spain by 715 a.d. Was it not the Franks that defeated the Muslims at the Battle of Tours in 732 a.d? Did’nt mean to come across as stereotyping.

Islam brought with them to Spain what the Christians gave them long before they began their conquest, “Greek philosophy and the arts”. Arianism, and filioque is still a topic of discussion here.

Arianism may have moved into the desert from the East but it was never crushed. The Filioque is what crushed Arianism from the West, later to resurface again in the new world discovery from Spain.

Islam does not equal Turks. The Muslims in Spain were Moors, not Turks.