Why did Eastern Orthodoxy never have a Reformation?

[tomarin]

Anyone have a theory about this?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Anyone have a theory about this?

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…

 

[tomarin]

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…

When did they take on a new name to distance themselves from heretical churches?

 

[Hesychios]

When did they take on a new name to distance themselves from heretical churches?

It’s a good question, I’d like to know myself.

I am sure that our brother Gabriel can point to a canon or something as proof of his contention.

Waiting with bated breath …

 

[Warrenton]

It’s a good question, I’d like to know myself.

It did, in a way, and in some places. Peter the Great “reformed” the Russian Church, but was able to “perfect” the Reformation model. He got power over the Church, but without plunging his country into fratricidal conflict. Peter basically “denatured” the Reformation by removing much of the theological content while focusing the political aspects of it more carefully.

Greece and Greek speaking provinces did not have a reformation because they did not have the luxury of debating what praxis was best. When Luther posted his thesis, the Greeks were entering into the second full genetion after the fall of Constantinople. They were fully engaged in a struggle for their very existence against an invader who was prepared to extinguish their existence as a people. It was hardly the time to overturn all their institutions over the interpretation of grace.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Maybe since the Orthodox didn’t have a clear doctrine of purgatory with indulgences there was no subject matter for an eastern 95 theses to deal with. Most of Luther’s theses had to do with indulgences and purgatory.

Also perhaps the east hadn’t drifted into an excessive emphasis on works and penance which had to be corrected with a reformation.

Just a couple of guesses!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

They didn’t need to be reformed because they weren’t selling indulgences and other questionable practices that the western Catholic Church was partaking in.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It did, in a way, and in some places. Peter the Great “reformed” the Russian Church, but was able to “perfect” the Reformation model. He got power over the Church, but without plunging his country into fratricidal conflict. Peter basically “denatured” the Reformation by removing much of the theological content while focusing the political aspects of it more carefully.

Greece and Greek speaking provinces did not have a reformation because they did not have the luxury of debating what praxis was best. When Luther posted his thesis, the Greeks were entering into the second full genetion after the fall of Constantinople. They were fully engaged in a struggle for their very existence against an invader who was prepared to extinguish their existence as a people. It was hardly the time to overturn all their institutions over the interpretation of grace.

I don’t know if I can agree. Peter’s abolition of the patriarchal office was obviously a power grab, but it wasn’t really like the reformation, where political powers took advantage of religious conflicts in order to distance themselves from the Catholic Church. The reformation honestly seems to be a one-time politico-religious event without a good parallel in history.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It did, in a way, and in some places. Peter the Great “reformed” the Russian Church, but was able to “perfect” the Reformation model.

Yes, but that’s politics intruding in the life of the Church - something very different than the Protestant Reformation, which stemmed from within the Church.

Sure, there are probably examples of similar, smaller scale instances in Orthodoxy. In fairness and with great respect for Hesychios and some of the other learned Orthodox contributors to this Forum, I’m sure they might point to my forefathers who broke with Orthodoxy, leading to the formation of what now are some of the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome. There are likely other less obvious (and perhaps less prominent) examples which I could not speak to as intelligently as others.

That said, Eastern Catholics are to a large degree Orthodox at heart. With great love for our Orthodox brothers and sisters, I would speculate that the Orthodox never experienced anything on the scale of the Reformation because of the strength of their beliefs and convictions, as the moniker Orthodox infers. It is easy to cling to one’s believes when one knows with all mind, heart and soul that such beliefs are Truth!

 

[tomarin]

That said, Eastern Catholics are to a large degree Orthodox at heart. With great love for our Orthodox brothers and sisters, I would speculate that the Orthodox never experienced anything on the scale of the Reformation because of the strength of their beliefs and convictions, as the moniker Orthodox infers. It is easy to cling to one’s believes when one knows with all mind, heart and soul that such beliefs are Truth!

Could it not also be the ecclesiology of the Orthodox which is less centralized both laterally and vertically than that of the Catholic Church? That is, the Orthodox Church established national “churches” (I’m sure there’s a more diplomatic way to put it but I can’t think of the preferred word right at the moment) as it spread from Greece outward, and I know in the case of Bulgaria which was the first Slavic nation to convert, one of the impetuses for this was the desire on the part of the Bulgarians for native Bulgarian priests. So as a consequence this diffused the anti-centralization, almost anti-colonial tendencies and resentments of the Reformers in the West, should any of these tendencies have arisen in the East.

I’m also thinking that the anti-clerical nature of the Reformation which interesting enough outlasted the Reformation as a discrete historical period and led to the Protestant counter-Reformation and beyond, would have been a much less potent force in the East because of the historic responsiveness of the clergy in Orthodoxy to the laity in Orthodoxy, which is also a feature of this decentralized eccelesiology in the East and seems lacking in the West. This might be too “pneumatic” a view of social change in history, but I’m thinking that in the East reform took the form of many small battles between laity and clergy rather than an enormous war which it seems to me the Reformation and (Counter-Reformations) were.

So if I’m right it’s not only the “strength of their beliefs and convictions” which mattered but the content of their beliefs about the proper structure of their Church.

 

[tomarin]

They didn’t need to be reformed because they weren’t selling indulgences and other questionable practices that the western Catholic Church was partaking in.

Even if that’s a good and correct answer it doesn’t seem quite adequate to account for the breadth of the appeal of the Reformation in Western Europe. My impression is that the Reformers such as Luther were angry at the selling of indulgences but that that wasn’t all they were angry about: they also didn’t like the fact that the money went back to Rome, the clubbiness of the Italian cardinals in the Curia, etc. but most importantly that the life of the Church no longer seemed to be in keeping with the message of the Gospels.

 

[Mirza19]

Anyone have a theory about this?

Western intellectual tradition is naturally more individualist and admires more simple understandings of theory rather than complex (i.e., look at the scientific method: when choosing between a simple explanation for an hypothesis and a complex one, you always go with the simplest, and gradually build up to the complex and facts begin to support it). Thus, the intricate Holy Tradition of the Catholic Church, its centralized nature and office of the Pope, and it’s desire to tell adherents what the Bible really says all stand in contrast to the stark individualist spirit of the nations it spread to.

In a sense, Organized Christianity in Western Europe was always on a collision course toward "individualist’ Christianity.

Eastern Europe and Central Asia seem to strike a balance between Western Individualism and Eastern Collectivism. Orthodox adherents had no reason or want to challenge the structure. That, and all of the minor sectarian splits that did occur seem to have revolved around a strong desire to maintain tradition, rather than institute radical reforms (such as the Greek Old Calendarists and Russian Old Believers).

On the other hand, Orthodoxy almost had to respond to Reformation theology. When the Anglicans split from the Catholics, they initially thought of communing with the Greek Orthodox Church, both to have resources for self-support and to tick off the Catholics. However, they decided at last minute to remain independent. History, especially American history, would probably have been quite a bit different had the Anglicans become the “English Orthodox Church.” And had that been, they probably would have had to of responded to various aspects of Reformation theology.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Could it not also be the ecclesiology of the Orthodox which is less centralized both laterally and vertically than that of the Catholic Church? That is, the Orthodox Church established national “churches” (I’m sure there’s a more diplomatic way to put it but I can’t think of the preferred word right at the moment) as it spread from Greece outward, and I know in the case of Bulgaria which was the first Slavic nation to convert, one of the impetuses for this was the desire on the part of the Bulgarians for native Bulgarian priests. So as a consequence this diffused the anti-centralization, almost anti-colonial tendencies and resentments of the Reformers in the West, should any of these tendencies have arisen in the East.

I’m also thinking that the anti-clerical nature of the Reformation which interesting enough outlasted the Reformation as a discrete historical period and led to the Protestant counter-Reformation and beyond, would have been a much less potent force in the East because of the historic responsiveness of the clergy in Orthodoxy to the laity in Orthodoxy, which is also a feature of this decentralized eccelesiology in the East and seems lacking in the West. This might be too “pneumatic” a view of social change in history, but I’m thinking that in the East reform took the form of many small battles between laity and clergy rather than an enormous war which it seems to me the Reformation and (Counter-Reformations) were.

So if I’m right it’s not only the “strength of their beliefs and convictions” which mattered but the content of their beliefs about the proper structure of their Church.

You raise some interesting points and questions, but a bit of the history to which you alluded is somewhat confused. For example, Christianity was first brought to the Slavs in the 9th century, by the brothers Sts. Cyril and Methodius, to the Khazar Empire to the north or Constantinople. But Christianity was not yet known to these peoples, so it would have had nothing to do with a desire for national priests. “Nationalization” of churches as you’ve alluded to occurred much later.

And yes, one may speculate that the centralized nature of the Church of Rome’s hierarchical structure might have made it more susceptible to rebellion from within, but by the same token, it was the decentralized nature of Orthodox organization that made it less able to cope with geopolitical change than the Church of Rome, especially as it spread globally. For example, it is ironic in a way that reunion was once again attempted in the 15th century via the Council of Florence, but failed as Constantinople (the heart of Eastern Christianity) fell to the Turks. The localization of centers of Orthodoxy and the decentralization of teh Orthodox churches was a distinct disadvantage in this regard.

I’ll leave it to those more learned than I to attempt to address your complex question!

Peace!

 

[couponfit]

Anyone have a theory about this?

It did…an orthodox spin off probably spawned Islam in the 7th century.because the Quran refers to the gospel of Thomas. In 1924 romania had it’s own reformation led by popescue.

 

[traillius]

I think that at least part of the reason that they didn’t challenge the eastern churches is because the associated nations were at the time the only defense against the muslim threat from the east. It made sense not to try and break the back of the front line, at a time when peril existed. To their ( the protestant reformers ) minds, the western church wasn’t part of the defense against islamic expansion overruning christian Europe, so they didn’t consider it dangerous to weaken them.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It did…an orthodox spin off probably spawned Islam in the 7th century.because the Quran refers to the gospel of Thomas.

… and all this time I thought it all started when Ishmael was banished from the house of Abraham …

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Western intellectual tradition is naturally more individualist and admires more simple understandings of theory rather than complex (i.e., look at the scientific method: when choosing between a simple explanation for an hypothesis and a complex one, you always go with the simplest, and gradually build up to the complex and facts begin to support it). Thus, the intricate Holy Tradition of the Catholic Church, its centralized nature and office of the Pope, and it’s desire to tell adherents what the Bible really says all stand in contrast to the stark individualist spirit of the nations it spread to.

In a sense, Organized Christianity in Western Europe was always on a collision course toward "individualist’ Christianity.

Eastern Europe and Central Asia seem to strike a balance between Western Individualism and Eastern Collectivism. Orthodox adherents had no reason or want to challenge the structure. That, and all of the minor sectarian splits that did occur seem to have revolved around a strong desire to maintain tradition, rather than institute radical reforms (such as the Greek Old Calendarists and Russian Old Believers).

On the other hand, Orthodoxy almost had to respond to Reformation theology. When the Anglicans split from the Catholics, they initially thought of communing with the Greek Orthodox Church, both to have resources for self-support and to tick off the Catholics. However, they decided at last minute to remain independent. History, especially American history, would probably have been quite a bit different had the Anglicans become the “English Orthodox Church.” And had that been, they probably would have had to of responded to various aspects of Reformation theology.

Interesting. Also Western religion was built on the Greek/Augustine/Aquinas form of thought, which involves a lot of arguments and dialogues.

Whereas Eastern Orthodoxy has always been more mysterious and built on the energies of God, such as their icons. They are not as argumentive as western culture.

It was natural for the Reformation to happen, because of the nature of westen thought. That’s also the reason there are so many forms of Protestants: they argued over predestination, grace, dipensationalism, etc. and continue to do so today!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Whereas Eastern Orthodoxy has always been more mysterious and built on the energies of God, such as their icons.

They are not as argumentive as western culture.

Yes, but in the East when our icons start to argue with us, we tend to listen!

 

[SmallCcatholic]

I look at it in a simplistic sense, sin begats more sin. Rome was going astray before the schism. They caused the splintering and reaped what they sowed with more splintering. In spite of it all the gospel gets spread to the uttermost and people come to Christ daily.

 

[Mirza19]

Interesting. Also Western religion was built on the Greek/Augustine/Aquinas form of thought, which involves a lot of arguments and dialogues.

Whereas Eastern Orthodoxy has always been more mysterious and built on the energies of God, such as their icons. They are not as argumentive as western culture.

It was natural for the Reformation to happen, because of the nature of westen thought. That’s also the reason there are so many forms of Protestants: they argued over predestination, grace, dipensationalism, etc. and continue to do so today!

Pretty much, yeah.