Why did Eastern Orthodoxy never have a Reformation?

[ConstantineTG]

The problem in the East is more about authority rather than faith. We have many break-away groups who otherwise, from the viewpoint of an outsider, looks very Orthodox. But they are not in communion with anyone.

I do agree that in the West things can be argued to mean something. In the East the measuring stick is not reason, but the teachings of the Fathers. If a Church Father or Saint did not teach it, then its not Orthodox. Authority in the Catholic Church is central, therefore the leadership is always in line. If you are not in communion with the Pope, then you’re not Catholic. In the East we’ve seen quarrels between Patriarchs where some Churches will not be in communion with one another for some time until the issue is resolved. I’ve known of someone excommunicated from one Church and ordained in another in Orthodoxy. That won’t happen in the Catholic Church, especially that Canonical Transfers need approval by the Vatican.

 

[Hesychios]

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.

You have completely confused the issue.

Orthodoxy does not have (and never did use) the Gospel of Thomas. It is a gnostic work. It was people who wanted nothing to do with Holy Orthodox Christianity who used it.

Secondly, new religions ‘spawned’ wherever are not reforms, they are new things. This is especially true of new religions founded by pagans.

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

Except that at the time of the Reformation, Hungary was on the front lines, a hotbed of Protestantism.

 

[mardukm]

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.

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.

This is absolutely incorrect. ALL apostolic Churches have a doctrine of purgatory and indulgences. It’s just that Easterns and Orientals don’t use the same theological terminologies or premises to explain those dogmas. There are, of course, certain Latin theologoumena about these dogmas which are not accepted by Easterns or Orientals, but we all share the same basic belief - that there is a state of cleansing or perfection for souls after death, and that the prayers and suffrages of the Church are beneficial for these souls in the afterlife.

The Eastern Orthodox Church in particular “sold” indulgences well into the 20th century. They were called synchorochartia. EO Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem during the years of the Reformation argued that indulgences were an ancient discipline of the Church.

So it is not these doctrines that differentiate Orthodoxy and Catholicism (despite the wails of Orthodox polemicists), and it is not the answer to the question.

I believe another has already answered the question - it is because the value of free thinking and independence was more prevalent in the West than in the traditionally Orthodox lands. Another possible answer that no one has touched upon yet is the nature of monarchy. In the West, there were secular monarchs who supported the Protestants. There was no comparable support in the traditionally Orthodox lands for Protestants to gain a foothold.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Christine,

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.

I guess you’ve never read the early Church Fathers, who constantly used the weapon of reason/rational argument against the heretics.

Of the apostolic Churches, Eastern Orthodoxy has evolved the furthest from the early Church Fathers on the appreciation of the principle of Reason.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

 

[CopticChristian]

Anyone have a theory about this?

Two different plagues. The plage of the East is Islam. The plage of the West is Protestant thought. The real reformation was the Counter-Reformation that was truly reform. The so called Reformation should be called the counter-reformation since it produced new doctrine that soon became a sea of confusion.

Islam and Protestant thought have similar patterns in that they are divided among those that believe they have heritage of some sort to the originator and those that adhere to just the book.

 

[Tridentinum]

Dear sister Christine,

I guess you’ve never read the early Church Fathers, who constantly used the weapon of reason/rational argument against the heretics.

Of the apostolic Churches, Eastern Orthodoxy has evolved the furthest from the early Church Fathers on the appreciation of the principle of Reason.

Blessings,
Marduk

That’s interesting. May I ask you two questions:

Do the Eastern Orthodox use the Early Church Fathers in their arguments against Catholicism, or is that mainly a Catholic tactic?

What do the Eastern Orthodox think of the Early Church Fathers who emphasize that unity with Peter is incredibly important? For example, my emphasis added:

1. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (St. Matthew 16:18). And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep” (St. John 21:16). It is on him that He builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” (St. John 20:21, 22) yet, He founded a single Chair. That He might set forth unity, He established by His authority the origin of that unity, as having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord.** If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith?** If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he confidence that he is in the Church?

• ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE
  ON THE UNITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think sometimes there is a tendency to over-emphasize blind “historical movements”, as if they somehow had a will of their own, and under-emphasize the role individual men and circumstances have had.

For instance, would protestantism be anything like it is but for Luther and the north German princes who had their own, non-theological, motives for supporting him, and the weakness of the Emperor? Would Anglicanism and its offshoots exist, but for Henry VIII and his motivations? It may be noted that the German princes had sufficient wealth and power to make their decision stick in their regions. Henry VIII had the wealth and power to make his decision stick within his scope of authority. Anglicanism did not cross over into Germany and Lutheranism did not have any appreciable effect on England. It wasn’t really a theological dispute, but had to do with power and wealth and political objectives of individuals.

The “Old Believers” did not prevail in Russia, despite the fact that we could, in retrospect, view them as more “Orthodox” than the Orthodoxy that prevailed. Why? Well, for one thing they did not have anything like the power the Tsar had. He could make his “heretical views” stick. Nor did the Bogomils, who arose from the Orthodox region, prevail. They were “reformers” every bit as much as the Lutherans were. It was big for awhile, but was effectively suppressed by superior political power.

In the West as well, there were plenty of them that didn’t make it; the the Cathars, the Waldensians, the Arians, on and on and on.

 

[tomarin]

I think sometimes there is a tendency to over-emphasize blind “historical movements”, as if they somehow had a will of their own, and under-emphasize the role individual men and circumstances have had.

For instance, would protestantism be anything like it is but for Luther and the north German princes who had their own, non-theological, motives for supporting him, and the weakness of the Emperor? Would Anglicanism and its offshoots exist, but for Henry VIII and his motivations? It may be noted that the German princes had sufficient wealth and power to make their decision stick in their regions. Henry VIII had the wealth and power to make his decision stick within his scope of authority. Anglicanism did not cross over into Germany and Lutheranism did not have any appreciable effect on England. It wasn’t really a theological dispute, but had to do with power and wealth and political objectives of individuals.

I’m just taking a fresh look at some of these things, but it seems to me there’s merit in taking almost the opposite view of what I think you’re saying. That is, the Reformation would not have been such a whopping success – and ultimately a victim of its own success – if it were only the hobbyhorse of a few kings and rogue theologians; that is, it was a popular movement as much as an opportunity for certain members of the powers-that-be (and would-be members). The fact that the Reformation in England did not simply stop when Henry VIII brought his country out of communion with Rome and in fact actually led to a civil war in which the king lost his head is I think evidence of this popular, revolutionary side of the Reformation.

The “Old Believers” did not prevail in Russia, despite the fact that we could, in retrospect, view them as more “Orthodox” than the Orthodoxy that prevailed. Why? Well, for one thing they did not have anything like the power the Tsar had. He could make his “heretical views” stick. Nor did the Bogomils, who arose from the Orthodox region, prevail. They were “reformers” every bit as much as the Lutherans were. It was big for awhile, but was effectively suppressed by superior political power.

In the West as well, there were plenty of them that didn’t make it; the the Cathars, the Waldensians, the Arians, on and on and on.

Who were the Old Believers?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Anglicanism did not cross over into Germany and Lutheranism did not have any appreciable effect on England. It wasn’t really a theological dispute, but had to do with power and wealth and political objectives of individuals.

Lest we forget that Henry VIII, before separating from Rome, was actually recognized by the Pope for his staunch defense of the Church and opposition of Reformationism, for which he was awarded the title Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith) by Pope Leo X. Of course, it is speculated that he had alterior motives for doing so, yet it is generally recognized that he was a firm believer in core Catholic teachings, even after his excommunication.

BTW - there is a very well produced two-part series on Martin Luther airing on PBS. I caught the first episode late last night - I’d recommend it.

The “Old Believers” did not prevail in Russia, despite the fact that we could, in retrospect, view them as more “Orthodox” than the Orthodoxy that prevailed.

The “Old Believers” are a group of Russian Orthodox faithful whom, in 1666, split from the Russian Orthodox Church in protest over liturgical and other church reforms introduced by then Patriarch Nikon. To this day, they use a form of Divine Liturgy and worship that was in use in “pre-Nikonian” times.

 

[tomarin]

Henry VIII had the wealth and power to make his decision stick within his scope of authority. Anglicanism did not cross over into Germany and Lutheranism did not have any appreciable effect on England. It wasn’t really a theological dispute, but had to do with power and wealth and political objectives of individuals.

Both countries presented different scenarios, but in both cases I think there was a desire to set up state churches, perfected by what the reformers believed was correct doctrine (that’s theological), gleaned from vernacular translations of the Bible (so here we have a completely new idea which is that the Bible should be the sole rule of faith – that’s theological again). There was also an expectation that these new state churches would be free of the corruption and oppression that made Catholicism intolerable, an expectation that would be disappointed. But I agree that Henry VIII’s decision was primarily political and regarded as just a beginning by the English reformers.

 

[rinnie]

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.

Huh, the life of the Church no longer seemed to be in keeping with the message of the Gospels. That is quite a statement to make is it not?

Guess it depends what the life of the Church means to you.

To me the life of the Church is the truth that has been taught and passed to us from the Holy Spirit from the beginning of Pentecost.

So lets see, then we can say because of Judas the words of Jesus got lost then also? How can anyone believe and trust the promise of Christ that the Advocate is leading the Catholic Church, but then blame his Church for the mistakes of human sin.

Sorry I do not agree with you.

See in the Roman Catholic Church we do not look to our leaders to be without sin. We know they have sin the same as us. But what we do look to them for is the Truth given to them by God to lead us in this world. The same today as the day of Pentecost.

I guess by your standards St Peter never made a mistake, nor any Apostle.

We remember the words of Christ I will send the ADVOCATE the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth. But I don’t remember Christ saying that while they are leading us into all truth they will quite becoming human and lose all free will to sin or reject sin.

 

[tomarin]

Huh, the life of the Church no longer seemed to be in keeping with the message of the Gospels. That is quite a statement to make is it not?

Guess it depends what the life of the Church means to you.

To me the life of the Church is the truth that has been taught and passed to us from the Holy Spirit from the beginning of Pentecost.

So lets see, then we can say because of Judas the words of Jesus got lost then also? How can anyone believe and trust the promise of Christ that the Advocate is leading the Catholic Church, but then blame his Church for the mistakes of human sin.

Sorry I do not agree with you.

See in the Roman Catholic Church we do not look to our leaders to be without sin. We know they have sin the same as us. But what we do look to them for is the Truth given to them by God to lead us in this world. The same today as the day of Pentecost.

I guess by your standards St Peter never made a mistake, nor any Apostle.

We remember the words of Christ I will send the ADVOCATE the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth. But I don’t remember Christ saying that while they are leading us into all truth they will quite becoming human and lose all free will to sin or reject sin.

I did say seemed to be. I think this accurately described what happened for many people, and that it’s pretty plainly in the historical record. How do you account for the reason why masses of people enthusiastically accepted these new teachings, if you reject the notion that they had lost faith in the Church? Even if you contend they were brainwashed by their leaders, it isn’t any less a case of how reality seemed to them.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m just taking a fresh look at some of these things, but it seems to me there’s merit in taking almost the opposite view of what I think you’re saying. That is, the Reformation would not have been such a whopping success – and ultimately a victim of its own success – if it were only the hobbyhorse of a few kings and rogue theologians; that is, it was a popular movement as much as an opportunity for certain members of the powers-that-be (and would-be members). The fact that the Reformation in England did not simply stop when Henry VIII brought his country out of communion with Rome and in fact actually led to a civil war in which the king lost his head is I think evidence of this popular, revolutionary side of the Reformation.

I’m not sure we disagree on a fundamental level, but we do in part. Initially, protestantism was very much a “top down” thing. The north German princes had very major financial and political interests in separating themselves from both the Empire and from tithing to the Church. It was the beginning of “mercantilism” in which it was believed that the economic goal of any political entity was to take in more gold than left the sovereign’s territory. The flow of gold to Italy was massively resented by north German and Scandinavian heads of state. Protestantism solved it.

Henry VIII and his supporters among the nobility profited very handsomely from the confiscations of Church land and moveables and, ultimately (as under Elizabeth I) the lands and moveables of recalcitrant “Romish” adherents. It may be noted that some of Luther’s early supporters never even became Lutheran adherents themselves. But they did separate themselves more and more from the Empire and stopped the outflow of gold.

Since the sovereign’s ability to impose his religion on the people was a more or less accepted thing at the time, that’s what they did. In England it was a relatively peaceful transition, (though not in Ireland or Scotland) though it did take awhile. In Germany and in Central Europe, it was far from peaceful.

Once accomplished, of course, there really was no going back because it would lead to claims of restitution for which there would be no effective legal defense.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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

First of all this “reformation” that you relate to deserves some defining and clearing up.

In the West the reformation dealt with disciplines and abuses, such as “abuse” by Luther’s own German priest abusing indulgences. The Church reformed these abuses, and reformed the disciplines of the priest hood to live and follow the gospel, as St.Francis of Assisi, St.Ignatius of loyola etc…

What resulted from the protestant reformation came bodily divisions such as Lutheranism, Anglican Church, Anabaptist etc…

Early on in the Eastern Church went through radical reforms in doctrine and disciplines. Disciplines in the form of “Monasticism”, when the Eastern Church Fathers refused to incorporate the Roman Emperor rule on Church matters, much so that these Fathers left their positions into monasticism.

Then the East encounters reform from “discipline of thought” stemming from the Alexandrian way of thinking from the Antiochene way of thinking, although both agreed on Jesus divinity and humanity, their differences was in understanding this union.

The Eastern Church reformed in matters of doctrine when she came under attack by her own bishops such as Arian, Nestorius and the Eastern Monk Eutyches.

From these came their excommunications and heretical teachings of Arianism, Nestorianism, and Docetism. From these the East takes on more heterodoxical teachings from “Monophysites” branched into the Jacobites which conflicted with the Chalcedonian definition of Christ nature. This is huge as far as reformation is concerned in regards to doctrine from the Eastern Church’s.

The Western Church did not have these “doctrinal” difficulties in regards to Christ’s nature. Tertullian in the West was able to almost single handedly bring the great intellectual tradition of the East to the West, who did not have a problem with Jesus divinity and humanity.

What hardly gets mentioned from this Eastern Church history is that from their Arian heresy continued and infected the Arabs (the founder of Islam) to recieve a heretical view of Christ as not being God which continues today.

Orthodox was a title taken from the Early Church councils who ruled between what was Orthodox “right teaching” from the Eastern counter parts who refused to obedience to the Councils findings who remained and taught Heterodox “wrong teaching”.

It should be noted here that the title “Orthodox” was never put in place to separate the Eastern Church’s from the Popes. This title Orthodox used today has taken on a new “unorthodox” shaded meaning to divide the Orthodox from the Popes. The problem is that many of their sister heterodox Church’s have also taken on the Orthodox title today.

From the council of Ephesus 431 a.d St.Cyrils second letter to the heretic Nestorius was declared to be harmony with the Council of Nicea and thus “Orthodox” made its way into the Eastern Church’s who held to the Nicea/Constantinople councils hold to the Orthodox teaching of the Church, while those Church’s in the East who refused the early Church councils findings such as Nicea were distinguished from one another by Heterodox.

I believe in one of these councils a Popes letter of decree also announces what is held in the title “Orthodox”. Sorry can’t pin point it off the top of my head at this moment. But the title Orthodox begins to be taken on from these early councils to identify themselves from the Eastern heterodox Church’s who mirriored them in liturgy, language, culture.

What is interesting to note here is that “indulgences” are still practiced in the Catholic Church what was reformed was the abuse of indulgences. From these matters resulted in protestants leaving the Catholic Church.

In the East, Jesus nature came undertack because other Eastern Church’s were teaching multiple different natures of Jesus, which also caused division among the Eastern Church’s ranks. In the West we call them who left the Church Protestants or separated brethren, in the East originally disciphered one another (not separated from the popes) as Orthodox and heterodox.

Peace be with you

 

[tomarin]

I’m not sure we disagree on a fundamental level, but we do in part. Initially, protestantism was very much a “top down” thing. The north German princes had very major financial and political interests in separating themselves from both the Empire and from tithing to the Church. It was the beginning of “mercantilism” in which it was believed that the economic goal of any political entity was to take in more gold than left the sovereign’s territory. The flow of gold to Italy was massively resented by north German and Scandinavian heads of state. Protestantism solved it.

Henry VIII and his supporters among the nobility profited very handsomely from the confiscations of Church land and moveables and, ultimately (as under Elizabeth I) the lands and moveables of recalcitrant “Romish” adherents. It may be noted that some of Luther’s early supporters never even became Lutheran adherents themselves. But they did separate themselves more and more from the Empire and stopped the outflow of gold.

Since the sovereign’s ability to impose his religion on the people was a more or less accepted thing at the time, that’s what they did. In England it was a relatively peaceful transition, (though not in Ireland or Scotland) though it did take awhile. In Germany and in Central Europe, it was far from peaceful.

Once accomplished, of course, there really was no going back because it would lead to claims of restitution for which there would be no effective legal defense.

I’m no expert on the Reformation (or anything else for that matter!) but I have been surprised to learn lately how much of an anti-clerical and almost materialist popular tradition existed in England from the time of the Lollards on (I’m reading “The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the English Revolution” by Christopher Hill at the moment so that’s the source of my claim).

The problem I have with saying “it’s all or mostly politics” is that I don’t believe the Reformation would have been successful if it was simply imposed from above on a faithful population. The Irish didn’t convert from Catholicism even though they were persecuted by the English for it (it may have even made them cling even more tightly to their faith). As I said above, I think that in northern Europe various factors eroded the faith of “the people” in the Church before they would accept any thing as radical as a new church with new doctrines. I think national self-assertion and disgust at blatant corruption played a role, but also the translation of the Bible into vernacular languages seemed to have caused a desire among laity to think for themselves, interpret for themselves and reconfigure the priorities of what it meant to be a Christian community. In other words, just saying “it was politics” doesn’t account for the willingness of ordinary people to go along with the sweeping changes the Reformation entailed.

That willingness may have been misguided, it may have been an overreaction (that’s what I tend to believe, although since I wasn’t alive at the time maybe that’s not for me to say) and/or it may have done more harm than good in the long run (I would agree with that proposition as well), but I think there’s abundant evidence for it in the historical record.

 

[Warrenton]

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.

The Reformation did not stem from within the Church. It stemmed from the German princelings’ perception that by disestablishing the Church, they could loot it. Without political agression, the Reformation would have ended as other doctrinal disputes have ended.

To say that the average Slav or Greek of the 1490s was better catechized than the average German, Frenchman or Englishman would be a stretch. However, the average Slav or Greek knew that being a Christian was different from being a Tatar, or a Mongol, or Turk, and that they were enemies. The average Slav or Greek also knew that the Church was a bulwark against the pagans and infidels who were just over the border. Therefore, the average Slav or Greek had a greater appreciation of the interdependence of the Church and the political community, and therefore did not fall into the error of attacking the Church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

tomarin;8781264]
The problem I have with saying “it’s all or mostly politics” is that I don’t believe the Reformation would have been successful if it was simply imposed from above on a faithful population. The Irish didn’t convert from Catholicism even though they were persecuted by the English for it (it may have even made them cling even more tightly to their faith). As I said above, I think that in northern Europe various factors eroded the faith of “the people” in the Church before they would accept any thing as radical as a new church with new doctrines. I think national self-assertion and disgust at blatant corruption played a role, but also the translation of the Bible into vernacular languages seemed to have caused a desire among laity to think for themselves, interpret for themselves and reconfigure the priorities of what it meant to be a Christian community. In other words, just saying “it was politics” doesn’t account for the willingness of ordinary people to go along with the sweeping changes the Reformation entailed.

I would’nt be quick to discredit politics here; We have to remember it was only the nobles, princess, Kings who were able to read and write and were Catholics among the common wealth who were the masters over the common poor and illiterate part of society.

These learned “Catholics” of nobility introduced a new heresy called “humanism”. These re-introduced Greek pagaon philosophies, which lead to another heresy involving “individualism” which is man-centered removing the faithful from Christ centered teachings of the Catholic Church. These heresies introduced other diabolical teachings such as “communism” and theories such as Darwinism.

In short this new founded protestantism begins in “trickle down economics” from the nobles to the poor.

Protestantism with it’s new founded “freedom” in individualism began introducing “age old heresies” into their new freedom Christian teachings in Valentinianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, Iconoclasm, Berengarianism (which denies the real presence in the Eucharist), Albigensianism and Waldensiansim. Grant it that some of these have a new identity name attached to them, but these are not new heresies that the Church had already defeated, but resurfaced under a new name.

The Catholic Church is the entity which began to educate the poor, but it was the nobles who took them into another enlightement of freedom that lead them away from Christ, into (new) man made theologies in “sola fide, sola scriptura, deny the real presence” to name a few, instead of what God revealed through His Son Jesus revealed in the Catholic Church (body of Christ).

When the nobles gained popular support from the populace in these heretical views, they became wealthy by confiscating Church properties and stealing the Church’s flock. When they got their people to reject the Catholic church from the new freedoms they have been enlightened with.

Ultimately it was NOT man that the Catholic church was fighting. The Catholic Church has always been under persecution while fighting not flesh and blood but the evil powers and principalities that infect (the flesh) man. Not surprising Protestantism released a “Pandoras box” of age old diabolical heresies which the Catholic church had already defeated, but from her own members these heresies resurface from a new heresy called “humanism” (which replaces Christ centered Catholic teachings with man-centered theologies).

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

You are correct, I agree with you that Islam’s heretical view of Jesus Christ which denies Jesus divinity, comes from the Orthodox Church which taught and held to a heterodox view of Jesus divinity.

Mohammed (founder of Islam) learned Christianity from teachings from an Eastern Orthodox Bishop named Arius who was excommunicated 2x’s by the Church and labeled his teachings heterodox.

Islam never new a real Catholic Bishop to learn the Orthodox teachings of Jesus Christ held in the Catholic Church.

Islam to this day denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. No wonder Mohammed the founder of Islam invented his new religion to correct Christianity, because he was never taught the Truth of Christianity only a heresy.

Now that the world is smaller, it would do much progress for followers of Islam to learn Christianity from real Catholic bishops who have apostolic succession to the original apostles instead of what their founder of Islam got introduced to a heretical form of Christianity.