Why doesn't Protestantism look like Eastern Orthodoxy?

[ConstantineTG]

A few pan-Orthodox councils, not one œcumenical. Hm, interesting.

We don’t obsess over what we name the council. Obviously Catholics think of councils called “Ecumenical” as something else than Orthodox. A name is just a name.

We can only if they didn’t think of it, but it is a logical conclusion of their teaching and the realities taught in Scripture and Tradition. Trinitarianism was one of those (Nicaea I). The denial of iconoclasm was, also (Nicaea II). As was the rejection of monphysitism and Nestorianism (Chalcedon).

The true faith would have been there. Remember that it is not like people did not know. The councils had opposing side, those who supported what would be accepted as the orthodox faith, and those who would be declared heretics. It’s not like they go into a council with no one knowing what the answer to the question is.

Without the an authority - the bishops - to define and refine the teachings of the Apostles, in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, we would be as badly off as the Protestants. That is why Tradition is not a dead thing found only in the Fathers, but also a living thing found in our bishops to this day. Living things stay alive; they also grow. Dead things wither and crumble.

Very, very true. We see all things in our tradition as living. Including our Liturgy. That is why we think the concept of a fixed Liturgy as silly. Of course we don’t go just arbitrarily modifying our Liturgy at our whims, but if there is a good theological reason to change something, some experimentation happens. I think currently the biggest debate is whether or not to close the Royal Doors during the Anaphora.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Trans doesn’t disagree with your above statement. The Bread and Wine do not cease, why would the symbol cease. I already mentioned the physical properties of bread and wine remain. In fact after the consecration you could take the bread and wine directly to a lab and it will most certainly test and return as bread and wine. Its a repeatable scientific experiment.

His point I believe starts from a false assumption.

The Catholic Church put a dichotomy between symbol and real. And we are not talking about merely the physical properties as symbolism, but the symbolism of bread as food and wine as drink. The symbolism that bread and wine are both “processed” foods, that they are the work of our hands and not just food that you harvest and consume as is. I can go on and on.

 

[ConstantineTG]

.

Really Constantine? From a Catholic point of view as you stated in your first page post Protestantism mirrors Orthodoxy because it objects to the authority of Peter and the magesterium.

Where do you get “exactly like Catholicism”? The Sola scriptura, Sola fide protestant doctrine totally sets them apart from Catholicism and the apostolic faith.

The Protestant faith’s mirror Orthodoxy in their own Church authority, and they are autocephalous based church faiths, just like the Orthodox.

Theology? both protestants and Orthodoxy reject the Catholic terminology used to defeat heretics and heresies, such as Transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Infallibility of Peter (Popes) speaking ex-cathedra from the chair of Peter on faith and morals. Both protestants and Orthodox also agree to invent a new idea of infallibility as if the Popes are some sort of supreme human being with super heroe powers and authority over people by himself.

These are some of the similarities between Protestants and Orthodoxy.

Really. 100% positive. As noted over and over in this thread, Protestants came out of Catholicism. The theology is the same. Even in matters that they reject, they reject those from the Roman Catholic understanding, not Eastern Orthodox. The whole subject of salvation, soteriology, is the same. Both focus on forgiveness of sins, paying of debt, rather than the acquisition of the Holy Spirit and becoming deified, which is the Orthodox belief.

 

[steido01]

Oh, and a question I still have from an earlier post, if our Lutheran friends are still here:

What differs between the minister ordained by the bishop and the ordinary man-in-the-pew? Would it still be valid (but illicit, that is, not approved by the bishop) for any man to celebrate a Lutheran service?

Furthermore, what differentiates a Lutheran bishop from a Lutheran minister, or any ordinary Lutheran?

I don’t know the answer to the hypothetical you posed, but the Augsburg Confession explains the Lutheran understanding of clergy in Articles V and XXVIII. In a nutshell, Lutherans typically do not differentiate between bishops or local ministers. While the extent of their jurisdiction may vary, they hold essentially the same office. The Office of Public Ministry is separate from the laity and should not be confused with the concept of “Priesthood of all Believers.” Pastor Gary, Jon, etc. please feel free to jump in if this explanation is too simple.

Other relevant links:
cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=m&word=MINISTERIALOFFICE

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=c&word=CHURCHANDMINISTRY.WALTHERSTHESESON

Only slightly related, but the final paragraph is relevant. An Aussie’s interesting take on Bishops: acroamaticus.blogspot.com/2013/05/evangelical-lutheran-bishops.html

 

[Nicea325]

From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, Protestantism looks exactly like Catholicism.

Some of the early Reformers did try to make allies with the Orthodox. The Reformers thought that because the Orthodox do not agree with the Catholics, they can simply just join forces. At some point the Patriarch of Constantinople gave up because the Reformers (I forgot the name, there was one guy) wasn’t interested in learning Orthodoxy. They want to keep their beliefs and just want an ally against Rome.

Sorry my brother, but I cannot believe you honestly believe Protestanism looks exactly like Catholicism.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Really. 100% positive. As noted over and over in this thread, Protestants came out of Catholicism. The theology is the same. Even in matters that they reject, they reject those from the Roman Catholic understanding, not Eastern Orthodox. The whole subject of salvation, soteriology, is the same. Both focus on forgiveness of sins, paying of debt, rather than the acquisition of the Holy Spirit and becoming deified, which is the Orthodox belief.

I don’t follow your reasoning here. Protestants are not like the Catholics in the way your trying to fit a square into a circle. It’s one thing to share your faith here Constantine, but to rant about other faith’s and generalizing them the way you have here is very condescending and shows no merit of Truth. You have just crossed mystical borders and twisted them with your personal and bias views of objection.

I cannot justify attacking another’s faith and claiming my faith is better. How you can possess such a disposition? especially one that should not be entertained here, among so many different faith’s.

You have introduced an encyclopedia set of subjects that cannot be anwered in one thread. That is an unfair dialogue and exchange that deserves a response.

Suffice it to say; The Orthodox you present here possesses shapes and objects that help you with your faith. You falsely conclude that the multi-cultural Catholic communities and protestant communities do not express their faith’s in the same way you do, thus you judge them to be wrong? I miss your point in your exchange here and your purpose?

**How one expresses one faith’s from his/her cultural, language and customs should not come into question, because you do not understand how these expressions work, does not make them inadequate or wrong.
**
Example; We can have two persons speaking two distinct languages, but from these differences the faith is believed the same, both in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. No matter how much Orthodoxy rant’s and rave, Orthodoxy never has the power to separate what God has joined together via His Sacraments, the Orthodox Church does not own or make the sacraments, they are God’s not yours.

It’s ok for Orthodoxy to have bells and whistles, in Catholicism we don’t require or need them for our Faith to believe, that is not to say we don’t have them.

I disagree with you on how the mysteries are reached and practiced in each one’s faith. Protestants do not excercise these mysteries to which you and I practice them from our faith expressed in Liturgical settings and understanding.

The protestant faith expression is via scripture and faith only, they reach a mysticism and understanding from emotions, affections, celebrations and song. Catholic’s possess these and more, but we ourselves do not enter the mysteries by ourselves, but in communion with God’s presence. You appear to be objecting to something that you don’t understand fully because it does not fit your shape of faith expression.

I cannot generalize over an immense subject, as you have introduced, without taking one item at a time so that clarification can be processed clearly. Your generalization has too many holes in it and lacks support that cannot prove what is believed in one’s faith expression.

peace be with you

 

[JonNC]

I don’t know the answer to the hypothetical you posed, but the Augsburg Confession explains the Lutheran understanding of clergy in Articles V and XXVIII. In a nutshell, Lutherans typically do not differentiate between bishops or local ministers. While the extent of their jurisdiction may vary, they hold essentially the same office. The Office of Public Ministry is separate from the laity and should not be confused with the concept of “Priesthood of all Believers.” Pastor Gary, Jon, etc. please feel free to jump in if this explanation is too simple.

Other relevant links:
cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=m&word=MINISTERIALOFFICE

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=c&word=CHURCHANDMINISTRY.WALTHERSTHESESON

Only slightly related, but the final paragraph is relevant. An Aussie’s interesting take on Bishops: acroamaticus.blogspot.com/2013/05/evangelical-lutheran-bishops.html

I would add Augsburg XIV:

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.

Based on the Confessions, I would consider any attempt to celebrate the Eucharist or grant Holy Absolution by someone not called and ordained to be not only illicit but invalid.
I wouldn’t stay in the pew during the attempt.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Catholic Church put a dichotomy between symbol and real…

I’m not seeing, where?

And we are not talking about merely the physical properties as symbolism, but the symbolism of bread as food and wine as drink…

Could you elaborate?

The symbolism that bread and wine are both “processed” foods, that they are the work of our hands and not just food that you harvest and consume as is. I can go on and on.

I’m sorry I would have to ask you to elaborate again here. I don’t want to assume. Seems to me you are talking about many things aside from the RP and Consecration.

 

[manualman]

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)?

The question seems to come from an honest chain of thought progression:

1. The east/west schism culminated in a 1054 split.
2. EO often accuse catholics of extrapolating beyond the true deposit of faith.
3. Protestantism claims to be an attempt to recapture the faith of the early church stripped of later accretions and add-ons in catholicism
4. Why wouldn’t protestants go to the EO to see if they at least had 500 years fewer accretions?

The above all rests on the assumption that the reformers really did believe their own PR and wanted to recapture the pure early faith. But few to no human endeavors are completely what they claim to be. Luther clearly had a scrupulosity problem which he attempted to resolve by creating his own interpretation of Scripture which came to be called Sola Fide. When the church attempted to correct him, he tossed them out by creating Sola Scriptura. These were his real primary drives. He may have really believed that he was restoring lost christian teaching, but he was truly driven by his own motives. Henry VIII and Calvin had other issues (that I personally understand far less). None of them looked to Eastern Orthodoxy because none of them were actually motivated by their own PR.

That’s overly simplified to the point of being possibly offensive to some of our protestant brothers, but its the best I can do in a paragraph!

In fairness, the proto-protestants may also have considered 1,000 years far too long to be a reliable indicator of faithful preservation of christian teaching. Still, one must suspect their claimed motives for not really trying very hard to see what differences 500 years of “aggregated corruption” had really made in differences. It’s too bad, really, because the real differences in doctrine are pretty minor compared to the ideas the Luther and Calvin came up with (EO sniping aside).

 

[Anthony_V]

Here’s an example. Both Protestants and Catholics believe that salvation is about forgiveness of sin. They don’t agree how, but they agree that the aim of life is to be cleansed from the stain of sin through forgiveness.

I must disagree with this in the way you are suggesting. I do not know where you’ve gotten your information, but eschatology blatantly points to union with God. Catholics, as well as many Protestants who aren’t inhibited by their view of grace, believe this. In Catholic theology, we certainly speak of being cleansed from the stain of sin, but it is a process essentially deferential (in terminological and nominal priority) to theosis. It is the moving, as many RC theologians have pointed out, from one state of justice, or justification, to a higher one; from one state of sanctification to higher one; from one level of participation in God’s life to a deeper one.

But just to show my point, let me explain what “justice” means in Catholic theology. No, it doesn’t have anything to do with some dry and decrepit legalism. You seem to grossly misunderstand Thomistic scholasticism as well (it has a bad reputation because of 19th to mid-20th century neo-scholasticism’s interpretation of it) but I will simply leave that as it is:

Divine justice is love. God loves the human race as his chosen people. When that relationship of love is ruptured, that is an offense against God, inasmuch as we are speaking in human terms. Divine justice is in healing and repairing that relationship. It was both just and merciful (as they are the same in God) that Christ die for us, in light of God’s total self-giving. In fact God, who could have bridged the gap without dying by virtue of being omnipotent, chose to die only for the sake of expressing his love for us. This total self-donation, love, is divine justice. We participate in this justice through the grace of justification which, in Catholic theology, is also called sanctifying grace (Catholics do not separate justification and sanctification). Participating in that grace of justification, which is to be “cleansed of the stain of sin”, is the “aim” inasmuch as it is also participation in God’s love, and therefore his life, and therefore his sanctity and justice.

 

[elizaveta01]

I cannot take such a statement seriously.

Actually, you should.

Bishop Kallistos Ware in his book “The Orthodox Church” said the same basic thing. And he is a very highly respected Orthodox Bishop, historian, and author.

I don’t have the book in front of me but he said basically that as far as the Orthodox are concerned the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church are “two sides of a very thin coin”

It’s been years since I’ve read that book, but I still remember the line since I was very shocked by it at the time.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that it’s true. But it is a very commonly held belief among Orthodox, from what I understand.

 

[Nicea325]

Actually, you should.

Bishop Kallistos Ware in his book “The Orthodox Church” said the same basic thing. And he is a very highly respected Orthodox Bishop, historian, and author.

I don’t have the book in front of me but he said basically that as far as the Orthodox are concerned the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church are “two sides of a very thin coin”

It’s been years since I’ve read that book, but I still remember the line since I was very shocked by it at the time.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that it’s true. But it is a very commonly held belief among Orthodox, from what I understand.

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

 

[TarkanAttila]

We don’t obsess over what we name the council. Obviously Catholics think of councils called “Ecumenical” as something else than Orthodox. A name is just a name.

Well, is a Pan-Orthodox council binding on all Orthodox Christians (in communion with Constantinople, I assume)? That is, are all Christians bound to believe the conclusions of these councils? If so, it is by definition an œcumenical council (at least as I understood it).

The true faith would have been there. Remember that it is not like people did not know. The councils had opposing side, those who supported what would be accepted as the orthodox faith, and those who would be declared heretics. It’s not like they go into a council with no one knowing what the answer to the question is.

I agree that the Truth was known by some.

But let’s take a question such as… contraception. Now in both the Catholic (up until Humanae Vitae) and Orthodox Churches had no set position on contraception. It was assumed that you don’t use it, AFAIK, but both Rome and Constantinople have pondered the question. Now, we know Rome has given her answer on it, but I want to concentrate on Constantinople. Is, or is there not, a consensus on the use of contraception?

If there is not, as there has not been for many issues in the past, then the Church of Constantinople does not know for sure what the Apostles taught about contraception. There is a variance of opinion among their successors.

When the Church has declared “This, this is what the Apostles taught”, or “this, this is reality in light of what the Apostles taught”, she has developed doctrine. More properly, one could say the Church knows for certain where the Apostles stood and where the Holy Ghost stands. It doesn’t change the eternal Truth or add to it. It’s simply declaring that we finally can know it with certainty.

Very, very true. We see all things in our tradition as living. Including our Liturgy. That is why we think the concept of a fixed Liturgy as silly. Of course we don’t go just arbitrarily modifying our Liturgy at our whims, but if there is a good theological reason to change something, some experimentation happens. I think currently the biggest debate is whether or not to close the Royal Doors during the Anaphora.

This is why we depend on the Bishops to be the Magisterium - to teach us and lead us to Truth in its fullness. The Truth has been fully given to us in the Resurrection and the Apostolic teaching. But it is such a rich thing, such a Divine thing, I think it would be shortsighted to say we have reached the limits of this Divine Revelation (not that I think you are saying that). The Deposit of Faith, as it is called, while it cannot be added to, I wonder if we have, if you will, mined all of it out. You take my meaning?

The Catholic Church put a dichotomy between symbol and real. And we are not talking about merely the physical properties as symbolism, but the symbolism of bread as food and wine as drink. The symbolism that bread and wine are both “processed” foods, that they are the work of our hands and not just food that you harvest and consume as is. I can go on and on.

"Blessed be the LORD God, who gives us this bread we offer, work of our hands. For us it will become the Bread of Life.

Blessed be the LORD God, who gives us this wine we offer, fruit of the vine. For us it will become our spiritual Drink."

The symbolism of the Blessed Sacrament, the bread and wine, the Vine and the Grain, is not completely lost on us. (A lot of the tracts from the 70s and 80s could tell you that. ) But it is true we place a much greater emphasis on the Real Presence.

 

[Surnaturel]

No. See, you demonstrate the problem that the Orthodox reject. You do not differentiate between the Eucharist being the real body and blood of Christ, and Transubstantiation. To the RC, that is one and the same thing. It is not. The mystery of the Eucharist is not transubstantiation.

It doesn’t seem that you understand transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is merely the preferred, albeit intrinsically limited, way to explain the mystery of the transformation of the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of the risen Lord. The Orthodox, to my knowledge, agree with this fundamental point although many may reject defining the mystery in Aristotelian language/categories.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I would add Augsburg XIV:

Based on the Confessions, I would consider any attempt to celebrate the Eucharist or grant Holy Absolution by someone not called and ordained to be not only illicit but invalid.
I wouldn’t stay in the pew during the attempt.

Jon

Now, this is very interesting, steido and Jon. Thank you for the reading. It is very interesting, and I think, while I don’t completely agree with XXVIII, I can understand the rationale for not wanting the bishop to be a temporal authority, and I think it is very much like the Catholic position on the preliminary look of it - although something is skewed about it, namely the question of Apostolic Succession.

I mean, I agree a priest should receive the “calling” to become a priest. Same with a bishop. And again, while I don’t think a bishop’s temporal power necessarily invalidates his authority, I agree a bishop should aspire to Heavenly rewards.

But what do Lutherans make of the historical line of bishops centuries before Luther, such as the Liber Pontificalis? Why would such records be kept if the original form of Christianity had no bishops, or apostolic succession, but only “ministers”? The bishops serve a very important purpose, as we see it: preserving orthodoxy. They are and ought to be like your ministers. But they are something more.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Church addressed the “process” with Trans due to heresy, which is all Trans does. The process isn’t discussed in Church, you never hear the Trans in Church. What you will hear is the Real Presence.

While one may have an issue with “when” the RP takes place, this shouldn’t be an issue within Orthodoxy. They follow and believe in the their elect and the consecration of the Eucharist. So what are we saying here?

As far as the rest while it may well be a point of conversation, Responding to false unclear accusations based on inaccurate personal belief, and non-existing support does little to interest me. The history of the Eucharist can be read most recent with Scott Hahn and the Lambs Supper.

Here’s a link for excerpts.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc3.htm

There in no dichotomy, process I would have to “assume” refers to yeast and that old worn out tired, kick the tire debate. Passover.-Exodus forward …that’s what the Catholic Church follows. First Christians were Jews. The Passover marks the beginning of the Days of Unleavened Bread. Through this understanding the historic, scriptural and reality remain intact. Did Christians continue to practice this?

1 Corinthians 5:7-8 “Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”

Acts 20:6 “But we sailed from Philippi after the Festival of Unleavened Bread, and five days later joined the others at Troas, where we stayed seven days”.

As far as Bishop Ware, I would have to read the particulars. The, “he said”, without supporting evidence is a paraphrase at best and misrepresentation at worst. Here is a link from the former Anglican.

johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2011/07/bishop-kallistos-ware-the-center-of-the-christian-message.html

The Lord’s Supper of Communion or Eucharist

Well, that brings us back to the Eucharist. If one is to believe “Absolution by someone not called and ordained to be not only illicit but invalid” then it does become pretty apparent there is a process which of course is what Trans explains. And from what I see here in truth no-one denies this, but only the fact its documented.

“My most revelatory moment upon hearing this speech by Metropolitan Ware was when I realized the prayer Jesus prayed for unity prior to His death was actually prayed during the Passover Supper. This is from whence the Communion meal was derived (i.e., the “Eucharist” as celebrated by Orthodox and Catholics)”

thespotlessbride.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/bishop-kallistos-ware-unity-discussed-by/

“Efforts towards Christian unity are ongoing and, in some cases, quite successful. For example, the main issue causing the bloody split in the 1500′s between Protestants and Catholics, i.e., “justification by faith,” was resolved after thirty years of discussion. In 1999 unity regarding that doctrine was finally reached in agreement with the Protestant interpretation of salvation. This resulted in the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the leaders of the Catholic Church and Evangelical Lutheran Church.[2] Former condemnations (excommunications) of one group against the other were retracted on this issue.[3] Methodists also signed the document in 2006.”

As far as language in philosophy, its historic in the Church. Metaphysics is a known in the philosophical realm with the existence of God, and from the early Church forward. There is “no” time where Plato doesn’t enter historically.

 

[steido01]

Now, this is very interesting, steido and Jon. Thank you for the reading. It is very interesting, and I think, while I don’t completely agree with XXVIII, I can understand the rationale for not wanting the bishop to be a temporal authority, and I think it is very much like the Catholic position on the preliminary look of it - although something is skewed about it, namely the question of Apostolic Succession.

I mean, I agree a priest should receive the “calling” to become a priest. Same with a bishop. And again, while I don’t think a bishop’s temporal power necessarily invalidates his authority, I agree a bishop should aspire to Heavenly rewards.

But what do Lutherans make of the historical line of bishops centuries before Luther, such as the Liber Pontificalis? Why would such records be kept if the original form of Christianity had no bishops, or apostolic succession, but only “ministers”? The bishops serve a very important purpose, as we see it: preserving orthodoxy. They are and ought to be like your ministers. But they are something more.

I like how you’ve described the purpose of a bishop - “preserving orthodoxy.” This is how many Lutherans understand AS - as the process of preserving orthodoxy, rather than “who put whose hands on whom” to pass the ‘bishop baton.’ This is also how Lutherans justify still being part of the OHcAC without keeping documents like the Liber Pontificalis. I’m not sure the accuracy of Liber Pontificalis can be guaranteed much past Jerome’s contributions, anyway… (Don’t get me wrong, documents like Liber Pontificalis do serve a purpose! They provide us with wonderful Christian examples and confidence that the ECFs kept the right doctrine that had been taught to them by the Apostles.)

But let’s take a look at how those early bishops were selected: by popular consent of the people and ministers in the local diocese. The election was followed by a laying on of hands by the surrounding bishops/ministers, just as Lutherans practice today. I think the Lutheran “return” to that sort of congregational polity is simply echoing the practices of historic Catholicism.

That said, there are some Lutherans who do favor a more modern Roman understanding of AS (particularly in Scandinavia). I see logic in that view, too. As we’ve noted, the Lutheran return to congregational polity was a reaction to crooked bishops who were engrossed in temporal riches and power. Personally, I’d be willing to concede that the correction is anachronistic in today’s world (state and church are largely separate now, so the temptation for the bishops isn’t nearly as great), and may even have been an over-correction at the time. I think many Lutherans would admit the same if it were a condition for future unity.

To summarize in a sentence, so long as sound doctrine is passed on, “who touched whom” is adiaphora to Lutherans.

 

[TarkanAttila]

But let’s take a look at how those early bishops were selected: by popular consent of the people and ministers in the local diocese. The election was followed by a laying on of hands by the surrounding bishops/ministers, just as Lutherans practice today. I think the Lutheran “return” to that sort of congregational polity is simply echoing the practices of historic Catholicism.

That’s nice. Very sentimental.

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

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.
Catholic Encyclopaedia:

Until the sixth century the clergy and the people elected the bishop on condition that the election should be approved by the neighbouring bishops. … But from the beginning of the sixth century, this attitude was modified. In the East the clergy and the primates, or chief citizens, nominated three candidates from whom the metropolitan chose the bishop. At a later date, the bishops of the ecclesiastical province assumed the exclusive right of nominating the candidates. … [In the West,] the Second Lateran Council (1139) handed over to the chapter of the cathedral church the sole right of choosing the bishop, and this legislation was sanctioned by the Decretals.

newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm

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).

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

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. We simply don’t use it anymore - and in light of the objections of prior centuries, I understand why we didn’t.

That said, there are some Lutherans who do favor a more modern Roman understanding of AS (particularly in Scandinavia). I see logic in that view, too. As we’ve noted, the Lutheran return to congregational polity was a reaction to crooked bishops who were engrossed in temporal riches and power.

Hm. Also interesting, because I’ve read (on Wikipedia, so I don’t know how much salt to take with it) that some Lutherans are congregational (i.e, each “parish” is autonomous), while some are episcopal (i.e, top-down, bishop-over-minister-over-parish) in polity. This disparity interests me, who is part of a Church with one episcopal polity, individua.

Personally, I’d be willing to concede that the correction is anachronistic in today’s world (state and church are largely separate now, so the temptation for the bishops isn’t nearly as great), and may even have been an over-correction at the time. I think many Lutherans would admit the same if it were a condition for future unity.

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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sorry my brother, but I cannot believe you honestly believe Protestanism looks exactly like Catholicism.

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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t follow your reasoning here. Protestants are not like the Catholics in the way your trying to fit a square into a circle. It’s one thing to share your faith here Constantine, but to rant about other faith’s and generalizing them the way you have here is very condescending and shows no merit of Truth. You have just crossed mystical borders and twisted them with your personal and bias views of objection.

I cannot justify attacking another’s faith and claiming my faith is better. How you can possess such a disposition? especially one that should not be entertained here, among so many different faith’s.

You have introduced an encyclopedia set of subjects that cannot be anwered in one thread. That is an unfair dialogue and exchange that deserves a response.

Suffice it to say; The Orthodox you present here possesses shapes and objects that help you with your faith. You falsely conclude that the multi-cultural Catholic communities and protestant communities do not express their faith’s in the same way you do, thus you judge them to be wrong? I miss your point in your exchange here and your purpose?

**How one expresses one faith’s from his/her cultural, language and customs should not come into question, because you do not understand how these expressions work, does not make them inadequate or wrong.
**
Example; We can have two persons speaking two distinct languages, but from these differences the faith is believed the same, both in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. No matter how much Orthodoxy rant’s and rave, Orthodoxy never has the power to separate what God has joined together via His Sacraments, the Orthodox Church does not own or make the sacraments, they are God’s not yours.

It’s ok for Orthodoxy to have bells and whistles, in Catholicism we don’t require or need them for our Faith to believe, that is not to say we don’t have them.

I disagree with you on how the mysteries are reached and practiced in each one’s faith. Protestants do not excercise these mysteries to which you and I practice them from our faith expressed in Liturgical settings and understanding.

The protestant faith expression is via scripture and faith only, they reach a mysticism and understanding from emotions, affections, celebrations and song. Catholic’s possess these and more, but we ourselves do not enter the mysteries by ourselves, but in communion with God’s presence. You appear to be objecting to something that you don’t understand fully because it does not fit your shape of faith expression.

I cannot generalize over an immense subject, as you have introduced, without taking one item at a time so that clarification can be processed clearly. Your generalization has too many holes in it and lacks support that cannot prove what is believed in one’s faith expression.

peace be with you

I’m not ranting, just stating the obvious truth. When I was Roman Catholic I couldn’t see things this way too. As they say, you can’t see all the trees when you are standing inside the forest, or something like that. Only when you have shifted your mind to a different paradigm do you start to see what those in the other paradigm are so the same. As I mentioned, soteriology is the same. How that is interpreted may externally be different, but the essence of what and the hows of salvation is coming from a common source. It’s like two sibilings or a parent and a child, they do not look exactly alike (save for identical twins) but you always see the resemblance. Because there is a common source of genes. Orthodoxy is just so radically different.