That meeting by letter did not go well - The Lutherans wanted to advocate for their theological understandings with the Patriarch, who offered to disciple them in the Faith of Christ… The Lutherans were not interested… The Patriarch ended it there…
If I had to take a whack at that, I would say IMHO that it mostly has to do with the fact that Protestantism developed out of Roman Catholicism (and not out of EO), weather or not some protestants care to admit that or not it is simply an objective fact of history.
That’s easy. Proximity and familiarity. A lot of Prostestants in the US have never even heard of Orthodox Christianity, never mind formed an opinion about it. There is also competitiveness. Protestants in the US do not see Orthodox Christianity as a serious rival. It’s too small and too niche in their view, if it’s in their view at all.
Can you provide any links for further reading on this subject, I find it fascinating.
Oops, apparently I deleted a paragraph here before I posted.
Yes, in our and Orthodox view that is true… but in their view, 5 Solas are the truth and Orthodoxy does not respect them- therefore Orthodoxy is somewhat heretical in itself. Or that was issue of reformers at least.
No, not to my knowledge. Henry VIII needed to be perceived as Catholic. He made a great effort to be perceived as Catholic but not in communion with Rome. “Not Roman Catholic, but Anglican Catholic”. If Henry converted to Protestantism or Orthodoxy, not only would he possibly face rebellion from his own nobility… but France and Holy Roman Empire (= Germany + Spain at the time I believe) would practically have more reasons to attack him. He feared that and that is why he did not want to be anything but Catholic.
I don’t think they do. I saw anti-Orthodox articles too. They are not as prevalent, but in the end they do exist.
Let me rephrase. While Filioque in the Creed is surely NOT Eastern, through the Son theology is. It’s on another thread but basically Capacodian Fathers had that in their theology. First Eastern Father who would be against “through the Son” theology was Photius… and from Photius onwards many others adopted that. It is worth to note that Photius had that theology when he was opposed to Latin Church because they wouldn’t recognize him as Patriarch. Alexandrian tradition basically always subscribed to “through the Son” theology. It is highly probably West adopted that from them. Antiochian School and Capacodian Fathers did so less, but one would be able to find references from Greek Saints such as Gregory the Wondermaker, Epiphanius of Salamis, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, John Damascene and even Patriarch Tarasios and his profession of faith during Second Ecumenical Council of Nicea. Professing it in the Creed is surely not Eastern, but believing in “through the Son” theology is.
For them. Vatican I was ended by Pope St. John XXIII afaik… they do not accept it, but we do. Just pointing out for clarity.
An interesting aside in this is the case of the Ethiopian Church… She sort of “disappeared” from the face of the earth for about a thousand years, only then to be “rediscovered” (by the British??)…
Many sedevacantists believe that a pope would need to return the church to as it was prior to Vatican II. If Pope Francis, for example, came out and said Vatican II was a false council and took the church back to that, most sedevacantists would immediately say he’s come back and is now valid, just as St. Peter came back after denying Christ.HomeschoolDad:
But how do they see the papacy being restored?
Also I get that they (SV) claim that they are carrying on the RCC of before Vatican II, but simply by denying Vatican II they also deny their belief in Vatican I, it logically follows that any Catholic that denies Vatican I ratifies the EO pov (weather intentionally or not) as I’ve shown in an above post.
It seems to me that if the SV’s stand back and take an honest look at themselves, they belong with the EO because they’ve only proven the EO pov correct.
To say that they are much closer to High Church Anglicans also seems wrong, because they hold to the RC belief in The Real Presence, as such the only churches that hold a valid Eucharist outside of the Catholic Church is the various churches of the east, so logically they would be suited to joining Orthodoxy.
Furthermore those that originally disagreed with Vatican I (Old Catholics) again weather intentionally or not, also have proven the EO correct in their schism, because denial of Vatican I denies a RC ecumenical council (as do EO), denies the supremacy of the papacy (as do EO) and it denies papal infallibility (as do EO) and again to say that they are much closer to High Church Anglicans seems wrong too, because they hold to the RC belief in The Real Presence, as such the only churches that hold a valid Eucharist outside of the Catholic Church is the various churches of the east, so logically they would be suited to joining Orthodoxy vs Anglicanism.
Well, at first it is because they do not know the Orthodox Church… And we have a very different phronema of understanding Church matters… When I first started posting it was on a Jack Chick kind of site, and I was getting attacked regularly for being a Roman Catholic, and when I would distance myself from their caricature, I would get lumped back into it and smacked around some more!
. But I did not only take fire… Us old Vietnam vets are known to return fire as well… And I gave as well as I got - That whole site had never heard of the EOC and Her Christian Faith, and by the time I left, the Orthodox there, all converts from the site save one or two, were THE dominant theological presence there, and the Jack Chick types had pretty much been marginalized… It was an amazing walk, that… Never got angry - Used attacks as openings to show a whole 'other way of thinking about and talking about and dealing with the subject matter of the attack… At least one of them is now a Priest with wife and kids - I met him online as a high school senior…I highly doubt that. You vastly underestimate how strong centrifugal forces are among Traditionalists, especially those extreme enough to engage in outright schism. And how much they detest the thought of being in the same Church as “modernists”, which they define as just about anyone they don’t like or agree with.
Same could be said by Arians about Nicea. Church defines doctrines when they are threatened. There is no development nor evolution, nor improvement of any kind. They are simply defined.
Yes, sadly as more and more Protestants convert to Orthodoxy in America the backlash is beginning to be very real and very nasty, dividing families, and causing many fruitless fights. Of course, a bad case of convertitis never helps matters.
This by an ex-Lutheran pastor of 16 years now an Orthodox Priest:
The current Supreme Roman Pontiff frequently gives the impression of being in schism with other Supreme Roman Pontiffs, such as JPII and Benedict. This makes the Orthodox option more appealing (to some)
We like to say that they were always ‘built in’ to the Faith but not yet well articulated, which is much that you suggest… However the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin and many other doctrines are in fact “new and improved”… For they were never a part of the early Church, and are rejected by the EOC…
That is a matter of opinion I guess.
Arians would reject Trinity. Changes nothing about the doctrine.
I do not consider EOC Churches as equivalent to consensus of Early Church. It makes sense that you do, but we basically do the same with Catholic Church. If Catholic Church(es) affirms this, then Early Church would too. It’s same principle applied from different perspectives. Palamite doctrine of Essence-Energy distinction would only be applied without real distinction, as Ecumenical Council of Nicea anathemizes any other form of it.
Sissies, I say!!
I’m sure there are groups such as Most Holy Family Monastery and others I’ve not yet heard of who would never come back, but I believe a good number would. CMRI, SSPV, Catholic Restoration and definitely SSPX (no, they’re not sedevacantist) I believe would all be in alignment to return. Especially because the church would be working on fighting modernism rather than seemingly promoting it.Bataar:
I highly doubt that. You vastly underestimate how strong centrifugal forces are among Traditionalists, especially those extreme enough to engage in outright schism. And how much they detest the thought of being in the same Church as “modernists”, which they define as just about anyone they don’t like or agree with.
By far the overwhelming majority of sedevacantists will never, ever return to the Church, no matter what any Pope does.
