OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 10:17:12 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Who are you calling "Protestant"?  (Read 1854 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« on: May 09, 2012, 02:53:10 PM »

The fact that Orthodox like to label almost anyone they disagree with as "Protestant" came up recently on the thread Hands up in the air during the Our Father? (which is a thread in the "Liturgy" forum, so don't start saying that I "went off the handle and started yet another thread").

Then today I read something on the internet, that's an interesting reminder that Catholics as well as Orthodox can play that card or put that shoe on the other foot ...

Quote from: Mark of Ephesus
Theosis does not make one infallible for several reasons. The knowledge bestowed by the Divine Light is beyond human words. It is inexpressible, so the saint must try his best to explain it within the limits of our language. This can be very difficult, but nonetheless, the fathers of the Church decided on terminology that best (but imperfectly) reflects God (natures, persons, processions, etc.). An individual may fail at describing a doctrine so that we may interpret it accurately. Secondly, there are various degrees of theosis. The fullness revealed to the Apostles at Pentecost is not given to everyone. Some receive shorter and less revealing experiences. Thirdly, not everything the fathers wrote was written from theosis. Many times, people do not receive theosis until late in life, so everything written before cannot entirely be described as "inspired" Finally, not all saints were Glorified (some received only Illumination).

Yes, look to the bishop for guidance, but only if he is teaching correctly. If not, he is, as the eight Ecumenical Council says, a "pseudo-bishop" and a "false teacher". To supply the Church with holy and grace-filled bishops, it was later decided to take them entirely from the ranks of the monastics. This worked wonderfully for a time, but alas, even our monasteries have begun to neglect the importance of noetic prayer and theoria.

Quote from: rciadan
Please don't take this wrong, but the above statement sounds very, well, Protestant....

Quote from: Nine_Two
Is this by virtue of the fact that it doesn't sound Catholic?

Only those whom God has deemed worthy have seen the Uncreated Light. This is Orthodoxy.

Quote from: rciadan
More in the sense that, if I decide it does not agree with what I think, then I label it as "unenlightened" and therefore uninspired. Also in the sense that, if someone I hold up as infallible is later proven wrong I can just say, "Oh, that is from when he was only partially enlightened, etc.": like saying a person is obviously saved and has absolute assurance of Heaven, except when he commits a triple murder and then all of a sudden he was not really saved the whole time....
I don't mean that Protestants even know what theosis is.

Kind of like saying...
"This saint had theosis and therefore all he says is infallible, except when proven wrong about something: Then he did not actually have full theosis, except for those times when I quoted him..."

I find this a fundamentally Protestant way of debating, not theology: if proven wrong, just say your source was of course fallible, except for the times you cite him...
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 03:01:48 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Paisius
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional
Posts: 816


Reframed


« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2012, 03:05:51 PM »

The fact that Orthodox like to label almost anyone they disagree with as "Protestant" came up recently on the thread Hands up in the air during the Our Father? (which is a thread in the "Liturgy" forum, so don't start saying that I "went off the handle and started yet another thread").

Then today I read something on the internet, that's an interesting reminder that Catholics as well as Orthodox can play that card or put that shoe on the other foot ...

Quote from: Mark of Ephesus
Theosis does not make one infallible for several reasons. The knowledge bestowed by the Divine Light is beyond human words. It is inexpressible, so the saint must try his best to explain it within the limits of our language. This can be very difficult, but nonetheless, the fathers of the Church decided on terminology that best (but imperfectly) reflects God (natures, persons, processions, etc.). An individual may fail at describing a doctrine so that we may interpret it accurately. Secondly, there are various degrees of theosis. The fullness revealed to the Apostles at Pentecost is not given to everyone. Some receive shorter and less revealing experiences. Thirdly, not everything the fathers wrote was written from theosis. Many times, people do not receive theosis until late in life, so everything written before cannot entirely be described as "inspired" Finally, not all saints were Glorified (some received only Illumination).

Yes, look to the bishop for guidance, but only if he is teaching correctly. If not, he is, as the eight Ecumenical Council says, a "pseudo-bishop" and a "false teacher". To supply the Church with holy and grace-filled bishops, it was later decided to take them entirely from the ranks of the monastics. This worked wonderfully for a time, but alas, even our monasteries have begun to neglect the importance of noetic prayer and theoria.

Quote from: rciadan
Please don't take this wrong, but the above statement sounds very, well, Protestant....

Quote from: Nine_Two
Is this by virtue of the fact that it doesn't sound Catholic?

Only those whom God has deemed worthy have seen the Uncreated Light. This is Orthodoxy.

Quote from: rciadan
More in the sense that, if I decide it does not agree with what I think, then I label it as "unenlightened" and therefore uninspired. Also in the sense that, if someone I hold up as infallible is later proven wrong I can just say, "Oh, that is from when he was only partially enlightened, etc.": like saying a person is obviously saved and has absolute assurance of Heaven, except when he commits a triple murder and then all of a sudden he was not really saved the whole time....
I don't mean that Protestants even know what theosis is.

Kind of like saying...
"This saint had theosis and therefore all he says is infallible, except when proven wrong about something: Then he did not actually have full theosis, except for those times when I quoted him..."

I find this a fundamentally Protestant way of debating, not theology: if proven wrong, just say your source was of course fallible, except for the times you cite him...




I've commented on that before. I often feel sorry for Protestants being used a a pejorative any time Catholics and Orthodox want to insult each other. Whenever you want to discredit the other person just play the "Protestant card" and the discussion is over.  laugh
Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2012, 03:51:02 PM »

This thread is so Protestant  police
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
alanscott
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant
Jurisdiction: Wesleyan
Posts: 309



« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2012, 04:01:56 PM »

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Protestantism is one of the major groupings within Christianity that believe in the Trinity. It has been defined as "any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth" and, more broadly, to mean Christianity outside "of a Catholic or Eastern church"

Uh-oh!!  I thought I was ‘Protestant’ because I am neither Orthodox nor Catholic. The definition above however includes solo-scriptura and solo-fide as qualifiers. Thats just great!  Now I have no idea what I am. Thanks to Wikipedia I am now in a spiritual crisis. This post and definition have created a spiritual personality disorder within me. Thanks a lot Peter!  Wink

Am I allowed to simply call myself Christian??

I certainly do not wish to get caught up between my Orthodox and Catholic brethren.  Sad

« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 04:03:25 PM by alanscott » Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,200



« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2012, 04:22:16 PM »

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Protestantism is one of the major groupings within Christianity that believe in the Trinity. It has been defined as "any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth" and, more broadly, to mean Christianity outside "of a Catholic or Eastern church"

Uh-oh!!  I thought I was ‘Protestant’ because I am neither Orthodox nor Catholic. The definition above however includes solo-scriptura and solo-fide as qualifiers. Thats just great!  Now I have no idea what I am. Thanks to Wikipedia I am now in a spiritual crisis. This post and definition have created a spiritual personality disorder within me. Thanks a lot Peter!  Wink

Am I allowed to simply call myself Christian??

I certainly do not wish to get caught up between my Orthodox and Catholic brethren.  Sad



You can call yourself Marie of Roumania, if you wish.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
jewish voice
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414



« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2012, 04:57:41 PM »

When I do research on christian numbers and stats Orthodox and I know they don't like this are counted in the numbers and stats as Protestant and some not all will say old Catholic but the normal is as stated above in a post anyone out side the Rome Catholic church is considered Protestant. That an no ways stops people from call them self whatever they wish.
Logged
alanscott
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant
Jurisdiction: Wesleyan
Posts: 309



« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2012, 06:05:20 PM »

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Protestantism is one of the major groupings within Christianity that believe in the Trinity. It has been defined as "any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth" and, more broadly, to mean Christianity outside "of a Catholic or Eastern church"

Uh-oh!!  I thought I was ‘Protestant’ because I am neither Orthodox nor Catholic. The definition above however includes solo-scriptura and solo-fide as qualifiers. Thats just great!  Now I have no idea what I am. Thanks to Wikipedia I am now in a spiritual crisis. This post and definition have created a spiritual personality disorder within me. Thanks a lot Peter!  Wink

Am I allowed to simply call myself Christian??

I certainly do not wish to get caught up between my Orthodox and Catholic brethren.  Sad



You can call yourself Marie of Roumania, if you wish.

Ouch! Just googled her name. I have too many past indiscretions as it is.

Thanks anyway!  Smiley
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 06:05:52 PM by alanscott » Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2012, 09:24:03 PM »

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Protestantism is one of the major groupings within Christianity that believe in the Trinity. It has been defined as "any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth" and, more broadly, to mean Christianity outside "of a Catholic or Eastern church"

Uh-oh!!  I thought I was ‘Protestant’ because I am neither Orthodox nor Catholic. The definition above however includes solo-scriptura and solo-fide as qualifiers. Thats just great!  Now I have no idea what I am. Thanks to Wikipedia I am now in a spiritual crisis. This post and definition have created a spiritual personality disorder within me. Thanks a lot Peter!  Wink

Am I allowed to simply call myself Christian??

I certainly do not wish to get caught up between my Orthodox and Catholic brethren.  Sad



You can call yourself Marie of Roumania, if you wish.

Ouch! Just googled her name. I have too many past indiscretions as it is.

Thanks anyway!  Smiley

Some on this forum offered to call me "The English Catholic Church", but I don't believe anyone has actually done so thus far.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 10, 2012, 03:32:22 AM »

Every Christian that is nor EO, OO, RC, Old Catholic or Sede-something.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #9 on: May 10, 2012, 06:56:45 AM »

This thread is so Protestant  police
This whole subforum is nothing but a break-away sect from the Catholic Church.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Nicene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 575


« Reply #10 on: May 10, 2012, 07:26:55 AM »

I have always thought that those who hold to the principles of the reformation, normally sola fide and Sola scriptura and the rejection of the papacy are to be called protestant. Alot would deny this name, for what reason I don't know but it seems perfectly right and historically consistent under this defintion to say certain people are protestant.
Logged

Thank you.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 10, 2012, 07:43:44 AM »

Every Christian that is nor EO, OO, RC, Old Catholic or Sede-something.

I forgot Nestorians.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #12 on: May 10, 2012, 07:53:01 AM »

Alot would deny this name, for what reason I don't know but it seems perfectly right and historically consistent under this defintion to say certain people are protestant.

Oh I quite agree. However, (some) Orthodox apply the term "protestant" much too freely.

As dzheremi said in his (hopefully Grin) tongue-in-cheek post ...

With all due respect, Mina, it's possible that the *way* you do it is influenced by Protestants in Egypt.

Really? What then is the Orthodox *way* of holding one's arms at one's side, hands out?  Roll Eyes Apparently your holy EO bodies must work differently than ours, since we're so influenced by Protestants. But then, we wouldn't be the first ones. After all...



Look at this Protestant, hanging out in the 2nd century catacombs in Rome. It's disgraceful!



Another early Protestant, St. Agnes. Thank goodness we don't have such people around us today, Protestanting up our churches with their examples of martyrdom and improper limb arrangement.



Not you too, Theotokos! Is there no one these Protestants can't get to with their Protestantly Protestant Protestantizing influences?!



Hey, St. Apollinaris of Ravenna! Put down the "Left Behind" books I know you're hiding somewhere in your robes and get back to tending those sheep! They're looking at you because they're disgusted by your clearly heretical posture.



Is Christ really blessing Alexander Nevskiy? Lord, can't you see that he's imitating the Protestants?!

That's it, I give up! There are just too many Protestants around...

Or just consider how often we hear that Roman Catholics are "Protestant".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #13 on: May 10, 2012, 11:24:39 AM »

Alot would deny this name, for what reason I don't know but it seems perfectly right and historically consistent under this defintion to say certain people are protestant.

The more extreme 'sola scriptura' types I know, reject it because it's not a Biblical term.

Some contemporary types also reject it for the same reason people argue that we (Orthodox) shouldn't call Romans or Protestants 'schismatics' since the modern ones didn't actually schism from anything (whatever the origin of their church). The argument being that Protestantism as such may have started as a 'protest' against Rome, but that doesn't characterize the nature of their existence now (particularly modern "non-denominational" types which are obviously born out of the Protestant milieu, but don't trace back to any specific group of Reformers).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2012, 10:07:55 PM »

I often feel sorry for Protestants being used a a pejorative any time Catholics and Orthodox want to insult each other.

True, but "Roman" and "papal" are also used as pejoratives. Also "Byzantine" if I'm not mistaken.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Malina
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Patriarchate
Posts: 51


« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2012, 10:36:43 AM »

In my opinion, the biggest protestant mistake that they refused Holy Tradition instead of “to find real root of Christianity. There are a lot of denominations with various Protestants views, but I think, God has made One catholic, Apostolic and evangelical Church.
In the beginning of Christian history Orthodox Church really looks like current protestant church in some aspects, but the external side was changed.
I think that priest of Protestants and orthodox Christians could make a mistakes but every believers must look inside yourself first, and finding real answer, where is the real church.
As we see, protestant was appeared from root protest, I think that every believers could be named protestant if he/she refuse old church and starts to create something new.
As we know, Our Lord Jesus Christ said: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it”.
So the church was made in the beginning of Christian history in 51 year A.D. but not in 1501- 1600 years (when was the beginning reformation).
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2012, 11:32:31 AM »

In my opinion, the biggest protestant mistake that they refused Holy Tradition instead of “to find real root of Christianity. There are a lot of denominations with various Protestants views, but I think, God has made One catholic, Apostolic and evangelical Church.
In the beginning of Christian history Orthodox Church really looks like current protestant church in some aspects, but the external side was changed.
I think that priest of Protestants and orthodox Christians could make a mistakes but every believers must look inside yourself first, and finding real answer, where is the real church.
As we see, protestant was appeared from root protest, I think that every believers could be named protestant if he/she refuse old church and starts to create something new.
As we know, Our Lord Jesus Christ said: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it”.
So the church was made in the beginning of Christian history in 51 year A.D. but not in 1501- 1600 years (when was the beginning reformation).

"51 year AD"?
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,270


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2012, 11:35:51 AM »

In my opinion, the biggest protestant mistake that they refused Holy Tradition instead of “to find real root of Christianity. There are a lot of denominations with various Protestants views, but I think, God has made One catholic, Apostolic and evangelical Church.
In the beginning of Christian history Orthodox Church really looks like current protestant church in some aspects, but the external side was changed.
I think that priest of Protestants and orthodox Christians could make a mistakes but every believers must look inside yourself first, and finding real answer, where is the real church.
As we see, protestant was appeared from root protest, I think that every believers could be named protestant if he/she refuse old church and starts to create something new.
As we know, Our Lord Jesus Christ said: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it”.
So the church was made in the beginning of Christian history in 51 year A.D. but not in 1501- 1600 years (when was the beginning reformation).

"51 year AD"?

It's very likely English is not Malina's first language. The phrase sounds like a direct translation of Russian usage.
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #18 on: May 30, 2012, 11:39:50 AM »

In my opinion, the biggest protestant mistake that they refused Holy Tradition instead of “to find real root of Christianity. There are a lot of denominations with various Protestants views, but I think, God has made One catholic, Apostolic and evangelical Church.
In the beginning of Christian history Orthodox Church really looks like current protestant church in some aspects, but the external side was changed.
I think that priest of Protestants and orthodox Christians could make a mistakes but every believers must look inside yourself first, and finding real answer, where is the real church.
As we see, protestant was appeared from root protest, I think that every believers could be named protestant if he/she refuse old church and starts to create something new.
As we know, Our Lord Jesus Christ said: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it”.
So the church was made in the beginning of Christian history in 51 year A.D. but not in 1501- 1600 years (when was the beginning reformation).

"51 year AD"?

It's very likely English is not Malina's first language. The phrase sounds like a direct translation of Russian usage.

Although 51AD is a peculiar date for the founding of the Church in any language. I suspect that's what Doubting Thomas was actually getting at. I'd guess it was just a typo, though.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2012, 11:51:38 AM »

In my opinion, the biggest protestant mistake that they refused Holy Tradition instead of “to find real root of Christianity. There are a lot of denominations with various Protestants views, but I think, God has made One catholic, Apostolic and evangelical Church.
In the beginning of Christian history Orthodox Church really looks like current protestant church in some aspects, but the external side was changed.
I think that priest of Protestants and orthodox Christians could make a mistakes but every believers must look inside yourself first, and finding real answer, where is the real church.
As we see, protestant was appeared from root protest, I think that every believers could be named protestant if he/she refuse old church and starts to create something new.
As we know, Our Lord Jesus Christ said: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it”.
So the church was made in the beginning of Christian history in 51 year A.D. but not in 1501- 1600 years (when was the beginning reformation).

"51 year AD"?

It's very likely English is not Malina's first language. The phrase sounds like a direct translation of Russian usage.

Although 51AD is a peculiar date for the founding of the Church in any language. I suspect that's what Doubting Thomas was actually getting at. I'd guess it was just a typo, though.

James

Correct. I didn't know if 51 AD could have some significance I was unaware of.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2012, 06:14:26 PM »

Every Christian that is nor EO, OO, RC, Old Catholic or Sede-something.

I forgot Nestorians.

You mean rank and file evangelicals?
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,269


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2012, 06:46:11 PM »

"So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself." -Shakespeare

"The lady dost protest too much..." -ibid
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 06:48:08 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,269


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2012, 06:57:38 PM »

Or just consider how often we hear that Roman Catholics are "Protestant".
I think I've heard that one a few times...

"'All Protestants are Crypto-Papists,' wrote the Russian theologian Alexis Khomiakov to an English friend in the year 1846.'... To use the concise language of algebra, all the West knows but one datum a; whether it be preceded by the positive sign +, as with the Romanists, or with the negative -, as with the Protestants, the a remains the same. Now a passage to Orthodoxy seems indeed like an apostasy from the past, from its science, creed, and life. It is rushing into a new and unknown world.' [From a letter printed in W.J. Birkbeck, Russia and the English Church, p. 67.]

"Khomiakov, when he spoke of the datum a, had in mind the fact that western Christians, whether Free Churchmen, Anglicans, or Roman Catholics, have a common background in the past. All alike (although they may not always care to admit it) have been profoundly influenced by the same events: by the Papal centralization and the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, by the Renaissance, by the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. But behind members of the Orthodox Church -Greeks, Russians, and the rest - there lies a very different background. They have known no Middle Ages (in the western sense) and have undergone no Reformations or Counter-Reformations; they have only been affected in an oblique way by the cultural and religious upheaval which transformed western Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Christians in the west, both Roman and Reformed, generally start by asking the same questions, although they may disagree about the answers. In Orthodoxy, however, it is not merely the answers that are different - the questions themselves are not the same as in the west.

"Orthodox see history in another perspective. Consider, for example, the Orthodox attitude towards western religious disputes. In the west it is usual to think of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as opposite extremes; but to an Orthodox they appear as two sides of the same coin. Khomiakov calls the Pope ' the first Protestant', 'the father of German rationalism'; and by the same token he would doubtless have considered the Christian Scientist an eccentric Roman Catholic. 'How are we to arrest the pernicious effects of Protestantism?' he was asked by a High Church Anglican when visiting Oxford in 1847; to which he replied:' Shake off your Roman Catholicism.' In the eyes of the Russian theologian, the two things went hand in hand; both alike share the same assumptions, for Protestantism was hatched from the egg which Rome had laid.

'A new and unknown world': Khomiakov was right to speak of Orthodoxy in this way. Orthodoxy is not just a kind of Roman Catholicism without the Pope, but something quite distinct from any religious system in the west."

-Bishop Kallistos Ware (then Timothy Ware, PhD, Oxford), The Orthodox Church (NY, Penguin), from the Introduction.  http://www.amazon.com/The-Orthodox-Church-New-Edition/dp/0140146563

*Ducks head to avoid flying shoe*
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 07:04:39 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #23 on: May 31, 2012, 01:55:52 AM »

The fact that Orthodox like to label almost anyone they disagree with as "Protestant"
Don't you think that an unfair generalization? I've seen some posters do this, but ISTM that the majority of Orthodox I know are really more careful about what they call Protestant.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #24 on: May 31, 2012, 06:39:43 AM »

Certainly you are right in saying that not every Orthodox poster does it. (Nor does every Catholic poster.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #25 on: May 31, 2012, 10:17:43 AM »

Certainly you are right in saying that not every Orthodox poster does it. (Nor does every Catholic poster.)
Yeah, it annoys me to no end when I see someone attaching the "Protestant" label to something they don't like. Sometimes I want to shake them and say, "Do you really know what 'Protestant' means?"
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #26 on: May 31, 2012, 11:36:46 AM »

Certainly you are right in saying that not every Orthodox poster does it. (Nor does every Catholic poster.)
Yeah, it annoys me to no end when I see someone attaching the "Protestant" label to something they don't like. Sometimes I want to shake them and say, "Do you really know what 'Protestant' means?"

I would assume the word is derived from "protest".  Typically that would mean a person or group that isn't in agreement with the aforementioned. In this case that would be the RCC. I believe they have also included the Orthodox churches as well in there protest. The word itself shouldn't be used because it can be misused in a branch theory and give the Protestants a linage to the church that otherwise shouldn't exist "or vice verse". I'm sure these words were carefully chosen to not completely cut oneself off from a vine just in case of any hopes of a reunion of some kind.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.119 seconds with 54 queries.