Why doesn't Protestantism look like Eastern Orthodoxy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter snarflemike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TarkanAttila said:
Maybe this was a bad example.

What I mean is, does Orthodoxy, then, have no interest in doctrinal development - the logical, spiritual, or other implications of particular teachings (such as the Catholic understanding of the Immaculate Conception)? What I mean is not why don’t you believe in the IC, that is not my point.

But since II Nicaea, the Orthodox have never held a council and, I presume, never further chiseled out what is or is not true in the Christian faith. That is, their doctrinal development ceased after 787. Is this correct? If it is, why is this a good reason to eschew Catholicism or Protestantism if Christian doctrine had been developing for the first 800 years of our history (denying monophysitism, monothelitism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Semipelagianism, Nestorianism, and affirming the Trinune God, the double-nature of the one Christ, and the efficacy of icons and statues?

Or am I misunderstanding the doctrinal development of the Orthodox?
Click to expand...
Just to add before you get a response, the Orthodox still hold synods about doctrinal matters that can what seems to similar to the infallible authority of the Ecumenical Councils. There have been quite a few of these IIRC.
 
snarflemike said:
If, as we are told, the Protestant Reformation was just about reforming a Catholic Church that had developed some problems, why does Protestantism not look like Eastern Orthodoxy (Or Catholicism, for that matter)?
Click to expand...
The protestant practice of sola scriptura changed the theological landscape in a major way.
 
TarkanAttila said:
Maybe this was a bad example.

What I mean is, does Orthodoxy, then, have no interest in doctrinal development - the logical, spiritual, or other implications of particular teachings (such as the Catholic understanding of the Immaculate Conception)? What I mean is not why don’t you believe in the IC, that is not my point.

But since II Nicaea, the Orthodox have never held a council and, I presume, never further chiseled out what is or is not true in the Christian faith. That is, their doctrinal development ceased after 787. Is this correct? If it is, why is this a good reason to eschew Catholicism or Protestantism if Christian doctrine had been developing for the first 800 years of our history (denying monophysitism, monothelitism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Semipelagianism, Nestorianism, and affirming the Trinune God, the double-nature of the one Christ, and the efficacy of icons and statues?

Or am I misunderstanding the doctrinal development of the Orthodox?
Click to expand...
There have been other Pan-Orthodox councils that has happened in the Second Millennium. A couple of definitive ones are the ones that defended the orthodoxy of Hesychasm, and the one that condemned Philetism. I forgot the names of those councils. They are not Ecumenical since they did not discuss Christology.

No, we do not believe in Doctrinal Development. If there is something that the Apostles did not know, how come we would know more than them? Both Catholics and Orthodox believe that revelation ended after the First Century with the death of St. John the Evangelist. So if there are no more revelations, how can we know more than the Apostles?

And Doctrinal Development is something Cardinal Newman invented to enable him to swallow Pastor Aeternus. The Roman Catholic Church didn’t even believe in Doctrinal Development until the doctrinal development of Doctrinal Development. 😉
 
Surnaturel said:
The Aristotelian language categories are not normative for Orthodox and some may reject the concept in that they believe that the mystery of the Eucharist should stand as such without trying to work it out. That’s fine with me too. Personally, I prefer an explanation without the Aristotelian language such as the ‘the sacrament effectuated the very thing being signified.’

What I take offense with, however, is your straightaway rejection of transubstantiation and polemical comment that ‘neo-platonic philosophy’ has no place in Christianity which is especially problematic for anyone who draws on, say, the Cappadocian Fathers.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between using philosophical language (and I misspoke about it being Platonic, it is Aristotelian) and integrating the philosophy itself into Christian dogma. That is the main issue the Orthodox have against transubstantiation, that is is dogmatized at Trent (those who don’t believe in transubstantiation is anathemized). Note that in the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, the language was never that true Christians must accept the terminology used to explain the Christology of the Church. The philosophical language was only used to clarify the technical details of our belief, but those philosophical concepts are never part of our beliefs. We can reject using “nature” and “essence” and “energies” tomorrow without altering our faith. Our faith is not limited to the usage of that language. Transubstantiation isn’t that, read the canons of Trent.
Surnaturel said:
I think that is a mature Christian way to handle it. I would never expect a non-Catholic to have to conform to the language that we use so long as the teaching itself aboutthe flesh and blood of the Lord ks preserved. There is no need for us members of different denominations to further drive the wedge of division over matters that we have an essential agreement on.
Click to expand...
No, a mature Christian way is to be honest and upfront about the truth. Just because we try to accommodate someone else’s beliefs that doesn’t mean it is mature. False ecumenism is a heresy. What I shared is my opinion. Overall, transubstantiation is not accepted in Orthodoxy.
 
TarkanAttila said:
Maybe this was a bad example.

What I mean is, does Orthodoxy, then, have no interest in doctrinal development - the logical, spiritual, or other implications of particular teachings (such as the Catholic understanding of the Immaculate Conception)? What I mean is not why don’t you believe in the IC, that is not my point.

But since II Nicaea, the Orthodox have never held a council and, I presume, never further chiseled out what is or is not true in the Christian faith. That is, their doctrinal development ceased after 787. Is this correct? If it is, why is this a good reason to eschew Catholicism or Protestantism if Christian doctrine had been developing for the first 800 years of our history (denying monophysitism, monothelitism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Semipelagianism, Nestorianism, and affirming the Trinune God, the double-nature of the one Christ, and the efficacy of icons and statues?

Or am I misunderstanding the doctrinal development of the Orthodox?
Click to expand...
I’m going to take a stab at this, even though I didn’t do so well with the economy thing.

There may be a difference in how Catholics and Orthodox tend to look at ecumenical councils. In my mind, I imagine that Catholics imagine it as an upgrade from the Xbox 360 to the Xbox 720. You can play the new Halo games on there, do amazing things, and pwn heretic n00bs. It’s fun and exciting.

Whereas I imagine that Orthodox Christians look at it like major surgery. You’re eventually going to be ok and it will save your life, but you will be hurting for awhile and maybe you could have avoided it with regular screenings, checkups, and healthy living. It’s not something you look forward to- it’s something you try to avoid.

And there’s one other thing. I also imagine that if there was a fairly major problem, the EO churches would share a bit of reluctance toward making major decisions as a group with Rome being absent from the table. I have to admit I see a different attitude from Rome.

Thought I’d run that up and see how my imagination’s doing.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
The ancient liturgy and chants would be a confusing but beautiful experience for both Catholics and Lutherans.
Click to expand...
Why is it confusing? It is so easy to learn, and natural. Music is timeless, people still appreciate the Classics to this day.
 
ConstantineTG said:
No, we do not believe in Atonement. Here is what I think a good explanation of it: orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=Salvation-The%20Atonement
Click to expand...
Statements like this make me cringe. Even the very link you provided plainly states that it will investigate three theories of atonement from an Orthodox perspective (considering it unnecessary to investigate the recapitulation theory and the moral influence theory, since the former is considered to be the most complete theory of atonement, and the latter is considered incomplete without some other theory to accompany it). And rather predictably, it only rejects one of the three, satisfaction, because satisfaction theories of the atonement threaten to change our understanding of God’s relation to man.

We do not reject atonement outright, but we reject the satisfaction theory of atonement and the related penal substitution theory of atonement for the very specific reason that we view them to be blasphemous. Please, however, do not let your zeal for Orthodoxy (which I know is great) cause you to make hasty and imprecise statements like, “we do not believe in Atonement.” Surely we do, simply rejecting a subset of the many theories of atonement which are not in accordance with the teachings of the Fathers.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Good points though some misunderstandings.

Replacing “Holy Christian” for “Holy Catholic” church a uniquely latent anti-catholic silliness. I think the LCMS hymnal still offers a choice of words.
Click to expand...
The ‘Christian’ in our creed comes from the 700 hear old German version of our creed - there was no word for ‘Catholic’ back then. Remember the work ‘Catholic’ come from the greek.

Historically, our surge of anti-Catholic sentiment came from the American side in the late 1800’s when many Catholic immegrents came to these shores. The European branch didn’t suffer from this as much though many of them are really ‘reformed’ and not evangelical catholics.

That said, we’re getting better - we still have our altar rails, our pastors are now hearing confessions, there’s crusifixes everywhere now and were even rediscovering the Theotokos.
 
Cavaradossi said:
Statements like this make me cringe. Even the very link you provided plainly states that it will investigate three theories of atonement from an Orthodox perspective (considering it unnecessary to investigate the recapitulation theory and the moral influence theory, since the former is considered to be the most complete theory of atonement, and the latter is considered incomplete without some other theory to accompany it). And rather predictably, it only rejects one of the three, satisfaction, because satisfaction theories of the atonement threaten to change our understanding of God’s relation to man.

We do not reject atonement outright, but we reject the satisfaction theory of atonement and the related penal substitution theory of atonement for the very specific reason that we view them to be blasphemous. Please, however, do not let your zeal for Orthodoxy (which I know is great) cause you to make hasty and imprecise statements like, “we do not believe in Atonement.” Surely we do, simply rejecting a subset of the many theories of atonement which are not in accordance with the teachings of the Fathers.
Click to expand...
My apologies. You are right, I was thinking of “satisfaction”. It’s hard to keep up with all the technical terminologies.
 
joe371 said:
The protestant practice of sola scriptura changed the theological landscape in a major way.
Click to expand...
But if the goal was just to purify the Catholic Church, why did this practice enter into the picture at all? If one says the problems with the Church are A, B and C, why not fix A, B and C rather than invent a new form of Christianity?
 
snarflemike said:
But if the goal was just to purify the Catholic Church, why did this practice enter into the picture at all? If one says the problems with the Church are A, B and C, why not fix A, B and C rather than invent a new form of Christianity?
Click to expand...
Good point. The reformers went another way…🤷
 
ConstantineTG said:
There have been other Pan-Orthodox councils that has happened in the Second Millennium. A couple of definitive ones are the ones that defended the orthodoxy of Hesychasm, and the one that condemned Philetism. I forgot the names of those councils. They are not Ecumenical since they did not discuss Christology.

No, we do not believe in Doctrinal Development. If there is something that the Apostles did not know, how come we would know more than them? Both Catholics and Orthodox believe that revelation ended after the First Century with the death of St. John the Evangelist. So if there are no more revelations, how can we know more than the Apostles?

And Doctrinal Development is something Cardinal Newman invented to enable him to swallow Pastor Aeternus. The Roman Catholic Church didn’t even believe in Doctrinal Development until the doctrinal development of Doctrinal Development. 😉
Click to expand...
Right. So the Holy Spirt didn’t work through the councils to elucidate the Trinitarian truths? How about the two wills of Christ? Do you think that Christ taught Palamos’ divine energies doctrine or was that a development of doctrine that grew from contemating the sacred Mystery in light of neo-platonic philosophy?
 
ConstantineTG said:
There is a difference between using philosophical language (and I misspoke about it being Platonic, it is Aristotelian) and integrating the philosophy itself into Christian dogma. That is the main issue the Orthodox have against transubstantiation, that is is dogmatized at Trent (those who don’t believe in transubstantiation is anathemized). Note that in the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, the language was never that true Christians must accept the terminology used to explain the Christology of the Church. The philosophical language was only used to clarify the technical details of our belief, but those philosophical concepts are never part of our beliefs. We can reject using “nature” and “essence” and “energies” tomorrow without altering our faith. Our faith is not limited to the usage of that language. Transubstantiation isn’t that, read the canons of Trent.
Click to expand...
The language itself is not dogmatized, it’s the concept; hence, why Eastern Catholics don’t have to consent to the language, but the point that the language conveys.
No, a mature Christian way is to be honest and upfront about the truth. Just because we try to accommodate someone else’s beliefs that doesn’t mean it is mature. False ecumenism is a heresy. What I shared is my opinion. Overall, transubstantiation is not accepted in Orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
I agree. I was being sincere by saying that that part of your post was mature.
 
joe371 said:
Good point. The reformers went another way…🤷
Click to expand...
But why? Have we been lied to about the history (the victors write the history, etc)? Or what caused them to abandon their stated goals so quickly and so completely?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top