Why doesn't Protestantism look like Eastern Orthodoxy?

[Isaiah45_9]

Perhaps it is a broad brushstroke, but not outside the realm of reality. As I’ve said over and over, Protestantism came from the Roman Catholic Church. The elements are there albeit distorted. They may reject a number of things, but those things they reject are those understood from Roman Catholicism, not from Orthodoxy.

It is a really broad brushstroke. On the other hand, and sadly, it is from us that most of them come out of… whether they/we want to admit it or not.

 

[elizaveta01]

How interesting,but to bad I do not believe that Bishop. Sounds like nothing but pure prejudices…plain and simple.

Perhaps, but having read a goodly amount of Bishop Ware’s writings it would be hard for me to dismiss him that easily. His writings never come off as “prejudiced…plain and simple”, but as the product of a lifetime of deep thought and study.

I’m not saying he’s right. And, of course, he could be prejudiced - many people are to a lesser or greater extent. But I am not comfortable with the idea of dismissing him out of hand without pondering his reasoning for his point of view. Especially since a large number of Orthodox agree with him.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It is a really broad brushstroke. On the other hand, and sadly, it is from us that most of them come out of… whether they/we want to admit it or not.

The difference really is quite huge between East and West. The thing is more Catholics believe they are closer to the Orthodox, but while the externals are similar, the core beliefs aren’t. Whereas with Protestants the externals are radically different, but the core beliefs are the same especially with soteriology, that is the understanding of salvation. The West (Catholics and Protestants) believe that sin is an offense, while the East sees sin as corruption. That is a huge difference.

 

[manualman]

…
I think going back to the old way of election [of bishops] might be feasible nowadays for much the same reasons, now that the government (hopefully) will keep its ugly mitts out of the Church’s hair.

I humbly suggest that you read more news. Here in the USA the government is beginning to seriously intrude on religious liberty and the integrity of doctrinal teaching. And we’ve got it downright easy compared to places like China.

The only places in which secular rulers will NOT attempt to manipulate the leadership of the church are those places that have become so secularized that few care about church leaders in any case.

IMO, the method of bishop selection changed because the church’s identity changed from a group that existed on the margins of the larger culture to becoming a body so large that it played a role in defining the larger culture. Anybody who thinks that the church can have locally selected leaders without getting leaders dominated by local secular powers hasn’t studied history. And history in EO lands only bolsters this argument (IMO, of course).

Naturally, the EO can and do make arguments about the dangers of centralizing bishop selection at the papal level as well. Abuses can and have happened in that system. Humans all need a Savior, after all. Still, my conclusion from the history I’ve read is that the ability to select bishops independently of local politics was an important check and balance that helped catholicism be the light on the hill that Jesus called us to be.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I humbly suggest that you read more news. Here in the USA the government is beginning to seriously intrude on religious liberty and the integrity of doctrinal teaching. And we’ve got it downright easy compared to places like China.

The only places in which secular rulers will NOT attempt to manipulate the leadership of the church are those places that have become so secularized that few care about church leaders in any case.

IMO, the method of bishop selection changed because the church’s identity changed from a group that existed on the margins of the larger culture to becoming a body so large that it played a role in defining the larger culture. Anybody who thinks that the church can have locally selected leaders without getting leaders dominated by local secular powers hasn’t studied history. And history in EO lands only bolsters this argument (IMO, of course).

Naturally, the EO can and do make arguments about the dangers of centralizing bishop selection at the papal level as well. Abuses can and have happened in that system. Humans all need a Savior, after all. Still, my conclusion from the history I’ve read is that the ability to select bishops independently of local politics was an important check and balance that helped catholicism be the light on the hill that Jesus called us to be.

The importance of local leadership is clear. You don’t want to elect a congressman to represent you if that congressman lives on the other side of the country. Bishops are local because they know the local issues, they know the issues of people there. A bishop from France, for example, may not know what the issues are of people in Canada or the US. So unless there is a really pressing need (like there are no local qualified candidates), bishops should be locals. And even the approval should be by those who know the bishop better. The Pope wouldn’t know the track record of a certain priest from Asia, except what has been provided to him.

 

[manualman]

The importance of local leadership is clear. You don’t want to elect a congressman to represent you if that congressman lives on the other side of the country. Bishops are local because they know the local issues, they know the issues of people there. A bishop from France, for example, may not know what the issues are of people in Canada or the US. So unless there is a really pressing need (like there are no local qualified candidates), bishops should be locals. And even the approval should be by those who know the bishop better. The Pope wouldn’t know the track record of a certain priest from Asia, except what has been provided to him.

Which is why there is an extensive system of local recommendations and a papal nuncio in each nation to assist in identifying qualified and holy priests to ordain to the episcopacy. You’re probably aware of that, so I’m not sure what point you’re going towards. The final step of having the pope name bishops functions as a final line of correction and a capability to restore integrity in the event that a local populace and its bishops are dominated by local rulers or by local heresies (no shortage of that in our joint history, is there?).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Which is why there is an extensive system of local recommendations and a papal nuncio in each nation to assist in identifying qualified and holy priests to ordain to the episcopacy. You’re probably aware of that, so I’m not sure what point you’re going towards. The final step of having the pope name bishops functions as a final line of correction and a capability to restore integrity in the event that a local populace and its bishops are dominated by local rulers or by local heresies (no shortage of that in our joint history, is there?).

That is why I said that the Pope cannot no more than what he is told. In the ancient canons of the Church, it is the neighboring bishops (note the plural) that affirm the election of a bishop, not someone half a world away.

I don’t see how a Pope can correct something he has no other information than what is given to him about. Or maybe the Pope today does Google searches and looks into the Facebook account of the candidate?

 

[Nicea325]

Perhaps, but having read a goodly amount of Bishop Ware’s writings it would be hard for me to dismiss him that easily. His writings never come off as “prejudiced…plain and simple”, but as the product of a lifetime of deep thought and study.

I’m not saying he’s right. And, of course, he could be prejudiced - many people are to a lesser or greater extent. But I am not comfortable with the idea of dismissing him out of hand without pondering his reasoning for his point of view.** Especially since a large number of Orthodox agree with him**.

Of course they would agree with him,why wouldn’t they? Many Germans agreed with Hitler,does not mean it is correct-right?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Of course they would agree with him,why wouldn’t they? Many Germans agreed with Hitler,does not mean it is correct-right?

Funny you brought that up, because we’re not the Church who is headed by one human being with the power over all others

Other bishops can disagree with Met. Kallistos or any other bishop. And if they belong to the same synod, they can depose him if there is just cause. Or if they belong to another synod, they can excommunicate (sever communion) with him or the entire synod he belongs to, if there is just cause.

We don’t agree for the sake of agreeing. None of our bishops are infallible and requires assent of faith blindly from us.

 

[Nicea325]

The difference really is quite huge between East and West. The thing is more Catholics believe they are closer to the Orthodox, but while the externals are similar, the core beliefs aren’t. Whereas with Protestants the externals are radically different, but the core beliefs are the same especially with soteriology, that is the understanding of salvation. The West (Catholics and Protestants) believe that sin is an offense, while the East sees sin as corruption. That is a huge difference.

But my brother in Christ, sin is sin and sin is evil. Evil is merely a lack (or privation) of a good that should be present in a being (i.e., humans, angels).

How are the core beliefs different? By core beliefs do you refer to orthodox doctrines or practices?

 

[Nicea325]

Funny you brought that up, because we’re not the Church who is headed by one human being with the power over all others

Other bishops can disagree with Met. Kallistos or any other bishop. And if they belong to the same synod, they can depose him if there is just cause. Or if they belong to another synod, they can excommunicate (sever communion) with him or the entire synod he belongs to, if there is just cause.

We don’t agree for the sake of agreeing. None of our bishops are infallible and requires assent of faith blindly from us.

My brother, hiearchies exist and for a reason. Are not angels set-up in hiearchies? Someone is always going to be on top and that is way God set it up. God is the Head,then angels, humans, animals, plants, and minerals,etc,etc. Humans are at the top of the material world/animal kingdom and yet at the bottom of the spiritual beings.

God Bless

 

[ConstantineTG]

But my brother in Christ, sin is sin and sin is evil. Evil is merely a lack (or privation) of a good that should be present in a being (i.e., humans, angels).

How the core beliefs different? By core beliefs do you refer to orthodox doctrines or practices?

Core meaning the basics. Like I said, our basic understanding of the fall and salvation itself is different. Sin isn’t sin if you understand it differently. I’m afraid I am incapable to explain the whole thing here because it is such a huge issue and so many thing about it must be said to explain it even just to give a basic clear picture.

Basically, the RC understanding of sin is an offense, and that we need to pay for this offense through what we do in our faith. In Orthodoxy we see sin as a corruption, basically God made something very good and sin is corrupting that being, making it into something that it is not and totally opposite from God. That may not sound like much, but the entire attitude behind it fuels each of our spiritual lives.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My brother, hiearchies exist and for a reason. Are not angels set-up in hiearchies? Someone is always going to be on top and that is way God set it up. God is the Head,then angels, humans, animals, plants, and minerals,etc,etc. Humans are at the top of the material world/animal kingdom and yet at the bottom of the spiritual beings.

God Bless

My point there was, our agreement with someone is based on our own understanding of the Orthodox faith. We agree with someone because they are Orthodox, not because of where they are in the hierarchy. Actually the Orthodox hierarchy was exaggerated during the Turkish Yoke when bishops literally became temporal rulers and judges over the Christians in their land.

So don’t think that we agree with Met. Kallistos because he is a Metropolitan, or he is the author of a generally received book in the Orthodox Church. If he preaches heresy, we’ll drop him like a hot potato. And Orthodox is only Orthodox if they are orthodox

 

[Nicea325]

My point there was, our agreement with someone is based on our own understanding of the Orthodox faith. We agree with someone because they are Orthodox, not because of where they are in the hierarchy. Actually the Orthodox hierarchy was exaggerated during the Turkish Yoke when bishops literally became temporal rulers and judges over the Christians in their land.

So don’t think that we agree with Met. Kallistos because he is a Metropolitan, or he is the author of a generally received book in the Orthodox Church. If he preaches heresy, we’ll drop him like a hot potato. And Orthodox is only Orthodox if they are orthodox

Well understood and I agree. One should never be something they were intended to be…

 

[steido01]

Who, then, was the first Lutheran “bishop”, and what non-schismatic bishop gave approval of his election?

I’m not sure how to answer your question. We Lutherans consider ourselves catholic, so we have a long history. If we are defining Lutheran according to historical terms, I suppose it would be whomever was a bishop in Scandinavia at the time of the Reformation.

And although this is definitely true, that bishops once were elected by democratic vote with the approval of other bishops, this changed in the sixth century… So, long, long before Lutheranism revived the old form of electing bishops, 300 to 900 years, the form of electing bishops was changed, and for good reason. Princes and kings used to interfere a lot in the popular elections of bishops (which, while not rendering succession invalid, was a nuisance for the Church).

And princes and kings continue to interfere to this day, despite the removal of popular election. Just look at the struggles of the church in places like China. The church catholic will always have trouble governing itself because we all suffer the same illness - sin.

How do Lutherans account for the 300 to 900 year gap between popular elections?

Well, we simply note -just as you have- that the early church did things differently than today. As the world’s princes and kings found ways to stifle, pervert and destroy the church, she necessarily established a system of governance that allowed it to maintain the teachings of the Apostles. It just so happened that the new way did not rely on popular consent.

Because, I assume, it’s not only the temporal power of1 the bishops, but also the election of the bishops in the RCC, that Lutherans object to.

Not necessarily. We really aren’t rubbed either way when it comes to the selection/election of bishops at all. How the church chooses to govern itself (i.e. what “polity” or system it uses to protect sound doctrine as taught by the Apostles) can vary. So long as the teachings of the Apostles are maintained and we recognize that the bishoprics are man-made institutions, the church may govern as is best for her in that time.

For the record, I don’t object to the popular election method. In fact, the Polish National Catholic Church, with which Roman Catholics are in partial communion, elect their bishops, so we don’t object to it as a Church.

Precisely. We have much more in common than it would appear.

I think going back to the old way of election might be feasible nowadays for much the same reasons, now that the government (hopefully) will keep its ugly mitts out of the Church’s hair.

We can only pray that it will! Though this may require much, much more prayer!

 

[Nicea325]

Core meaning the basics. Like I said, our basic understanding of the fall and salvation itself is different. Sin isn’t sin if you understand it differently. I’m afraid I am incapable to explain the whole thing here because it is such a huge issue and so many thing about it must be said to explain it even just to give a basic clear picture.

Basically, the RC understanding of sin is an offense, and that we need to pay for this offense through what we do in our faith. In Orthodoxy we see sin as a corruption, basically God made something very good and sin is corrupting that being, making it into something that it is not and totally opposite from God. That may not sound like much, but the entire attitude behind it fuels each of our spiritual lives.

Sin is because of free-will my brother. God gave us the gift of freedom and free-will should lead to love.

Regardless of variations of definitions or comprehension sin results in a separation from God.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sin is because of free-will my brother. God gave us the gift of freedom and free-will should lead to love.

Regardless of variations of definitions or comprehension sin results in a separation from God.

Free will doesn’t mean we can just arbitrarily choose one thing over another. If it were that easy, why can’t we just stop sinning? Especially for people like you and me who understand our faith and do want to stop sinning.

There is more to salvation than free will. I myself have ADD, so I know what it is like to be captive of something that you can’t do much about. Sometimes you’re just there for the ride. I still have my choices, but they are severely compromised because of my condition. Like right now, I should be working but I’ve hyperfocused on CAF, again, for the Nth time.

 

[manualman]

That is why I said that the Pope cannot no more than what he is told. In the ancient canons of the Church, it is the neighboring bishops (note the plural) that affirm the election of a bishop, not someone half a world away.

I don’t see how a Pope can correct something he has no other information than what is given to him about. Or maybe the Pope today does Google searches and looks into the Facebook account of the candidate?

You’re a strange contradiction. On the one hand your argument sounds like you view the world in terms of sailing ships and months long communications gaps and on the other you refer to Google. Odd.

I find it hard to imagine that news of persistant local heresy could occur in today’s world and news of it NOT reach Rome rather quickly. Even in the days of the Arian heresy news could travel to Rome and back fast enough for Rome to participate in the fight. You assert it is no longer possible today?? Bizarre.

 

[Nicea325]

Free will doesn’t mean we can just arbitrarily choose one thing over another. If it were that easy, why can’t we just stop sinning? Especially for people like you and me who understand our faith and do want to stop sinning.

There is more to salvation than free will. I myself have ADD, so I know what it is like to be captive of something that you can’t do much about. Sometimes you’re just there for the ride. I still have my choices, but they are severely compromised because of my condition. Like right now, I should be working but I’ve hyperfocused on CAF, again, for the Nth time.

I understand what you are saying,but I am simply saying sin keeps us away from God-correct?

God Bless

 

[ConstantineTG]

You’re a strange contradiction. On the one hand your argument sounds like you view the world in terms of sailing ships and months long communications gaps and on the other you refer to Google. Odd.

I find it hard to imagine that news of persistant local heresy could occur in today’s world and news of it NOT reach Rome rather quickly. Even in the days of the Arian heresy news could travel to Rome and back fast enough for Rome to participate in the fight. You assert it is no longer possible today?? Bizarre.

Even if it takes a mere seconds to send messages to the Vatican, the Pope cannot know more about a man he doesn’t know much about. It’s like interviewing for a job, can you base the hireability of someone just by their resume? That is why you get them into an interview and ask for references. Even then, there is no guarantee they’d be a good fit. There’s value if you actually know the person and actually have worked with them. Nothing can replace the personal touch.