Why did Eastern Orthodoxy never have a Reformation?

[FabiusMaximus]

To JohnnyKins,

Aside from Russia, the EOC was already overrun by Islam by 1515. Many Orthodox indeed died as martyrs, and many more over the years simply apostatized. Scholarius opted to be the toady of the Ottomans for the Patriarchal crown. Perhaps that was prudent; perhaps cowardly? Islam was the great reformation of the EOC, as it were.

I’m not so sure it would be correct to say that Islam was the Orthodox Church’s “Reformation.” A brutal conquest by a barbaric enemy isn’t such of a Reformation to me.

or capitulation, which was the overwhelming response.

Agreed, and I can’t fault them. The Ottomans were brutal. After conquering Constantinople, they massacred many in the city, Mehmet II raped one of the potential heirs to the throne, and killed off the imperial family.

The great irony is that despite stating “Better the Ottoman turban than the Latin mitre,” one vestige of Byzantine Orthodox civilization survived - under Latin rule, on the island of Corfù, owned by the Venetian Republic.

Actually the civil powers simply were willing to support the reformers against the established church - money, power, etc., all playing their part.

Agreed. It was a huge political opportunity to break away from the Pope’s influence. In the Byzantine Empire, the Church and the government were united by Caesaropapism, so there was no incentive to accept any form of “Reformation.”

Not sure of the point, but OK

Well think about it. The Catholic Church took a long time to effectively respond to the Protestant Reformation. Only by Trent do we see formal pronouncements against the Reformation’s ideas, against Sola Scriptura for instance, and the Catholic Counter-Reformation didn’t start until even later.

Corruption was a problem - a serious widespread problem long before the Reformation and independent of the Black Death. See the note above on Scholarius - it applies, too, to Catholic Bishops.

The problem was made much worse by the devastation of the Black Death. The Church had periods of corruption and reigning in, but post-Black Death it was most serious.

The reforms of Peter the Great were more than minor issues. The success of the Western reformers in the East were indeed limited. Even Ivan the Terrible debated them. The fact is in Russia the state controlled the Church - even before the Petrine reforms made the Church a department of the government. The Western reformers who went East simply did not have the support of the state to protect and impose their ideas. BTW the reformers indeed went to the East besides Russia.

What doctrinal changes were instituted by Peter?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

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.

Sorry perhaps I am confused here, feel free to clarify for me.
Are you suggesting that Arianism wasn’t removed until after the Reconquista?

Because the whole thing with the filioque occurred in 589 AD, still quite a bit before the Islamic conquest.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Aside from Russia, the EOC was already overrun by Islam by 1515. Many Orthodox indeed died as martyrs, and many more over the years simply apostatized. Scholarius opted to be the toady of the Ottomans for the Patriarchal crown. Perhaps that was prudent; perhaps cowardly? Islam was the great reformation of the EOC, as it were.

Nonsense. Scholarius was as much a ‘toady’ of the Ottomans as the popes, who payed a hefty thank you gift to the Exarch of Ravenna, were toadies of the Eastern Roman Emperors. Sometimes, you have to play politics in order to protect the Orthodoxy of the Church (see what St. Cyril did in the aftermath of Ephesus for proof of that).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Sorry perhaps I am confused here, feel free to clarify for me.
Are you suggesting that Arianism wasn’t removed until after the Reconquista?

Because the whole thing with the filioque occurred in 589 AD, still quite a bit before the Islamic conquest.

What are you talking about? Arianism is still around today, but in different forms. This heresy does not exist in the Catholic Church, but it is still around in Islam, and non-catholic christian sects.

Arianism was defeated by the “filioque” in Spain. From 867 a.d to 1050 the filioque is still a topic of discussion between east and west;

Photius, the brilliant but illegally-elected Patriarch of Constantinople, conflicts with Pope Nicholas I and Pope Adrian II over his election to the see of Constantinople. He challenges the authority of the Papacy, and bashes the “Filioque clause.”

1050 a.d Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, launches an anti-Latin campaign. He closes all the Latin churches in Constantinople and attacks the “Filioque clause” and Papal authority, claiming that the Pope has no authority to adapt the Creed. His army enters latin Churches in Constantinople and throws Eucharists into the street.

I really think this history takes us way off topic. My point is Islam possesses the characteristics of Arianism an Eastern heresy that came from the Eastern branch of the Catholic Church. later to dubb themselves “Orthodox”. Historians trace Arianism that infected the Arabs later to begin a new Christian heresy called “Muhammadism”.

The Arian heresy, when it came to Spain, how Arianism came in two forms and how the Catholic church defeated Arianism. Do you want the history account for this Arian history. Start a new thread the lesson is free.

Peace be with you