Who are you calling "Protestant"?

[Peter J]

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 ...

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.

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

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.

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...

[Paisius]

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 ...

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.

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

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.

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. 

[dcommini]

This thread is so Protestant 

[alanscott]

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!  

Am I allowed to simply call myself Christian??

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

[katherineofdixie]

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!  

Am I allowed to simply call myself Christian??

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

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

[jewish voice]

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.

[alanscott]

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!  

Am I allowed to simply call myself Christian??

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

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!  

[Peter J]

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!  

Am I allowed to simply call myself Christian??

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

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!  

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

[Michał Kalina]

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

[Shiny]

This thread is so Protestant 

This whole subforum is nothing but a break-away sect from the Catholic Church.

[Nicene]

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.

[Michał Kalina]

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

I forgot Nestorians.

[Peter J]

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 ) 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?  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".

[witega]

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).

[Peter J]

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.

[Malina]

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).

[Doubting Thomas]

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"?

[LBK]

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.

[jmbejdl]

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

[Doubting Thomas]

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.

[akimori makoto]

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

I forgot Nestorians.

You mean rank and file evangelicals?

[xariskai]

"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

[xariskai]

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*

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[Peter J]

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

[PeterTheAleut]

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?"

[Tzimis]

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.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Topic: Who are you calling "Protestant"?