Was the Protestant Reformation necessary?

[kx9]

From an Eastern Orthodox viewpoint, was the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century necessary?

Please write yes or no, along with any comments.

[Kerdy]

Well, reformation was needed, but I don't think Protestantism was the answer.  I suppose it was good in the sense it resulted in the counter reformation within the Roman Catholic Church, but not much else, IMO.

[jmbejdl]

I agree with Kerdy. A reformation was needed, and still is. The Reformation, however, was more deformation than the required remedy. It certainly wasn't desirable from an Orthodox viewpoint as it resulted in a plethora of heretical sects.

James

[Michał Kalina]

I suppose it was good in the sense it resulted in the counter reformation within the Roman Catholic Church

Like Union of Brest? Persecuting the Orthodox?

[Doubting Thomas]

The Reformation was not uniform--perhaps ReformationS would be more accurate. The three classical versions are 'Reformed', Lutheran, and Anglican; and then there were various versions of the Radical Reformation.  Some forms were more conservative than others; and some threw more baby out with the bath water so to speak.  To that extent, certain aspects associated with the Protestant Reformation can be considered 'Deformations' (as another poster called it). 

I can't recall who said it, but someone once called the Reformation a "tragic necessity"--Romanists too often don't recognize the necessity, and Protestants too often don't recognize the tragedy.

[choy]

Well, reformation was needed, but I don't think Protestantism was the answer.  I suppose it was good in the sense it resulted in the counter reformation within the Roman Catholic Church, but not much else, IMO.

My opinion is that the counter Reformation did more damage than the Reformation itself.  I believe this is where the Roman Catholic Church significantly left the ancient traditions of the Church (which is why I find it funny that RC traditionalists cling to Trent, rather than an older tradition).  I feel that Rome starting having "Reformation-phobia" and when presented with a choice of clinging to an older tradition that has either been attacked or embraced by Reformationists, or to do something new, they chose to do something new.  So the Church didn't stay true to herself, and instead started redefining ancient Christian belief in a non-Protestant way to separate herself from the Reformationists.

[choy]

From an Eastern Orthodox viewpoint, was the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century necessary?

Please write yes or no, along with any comments.

I say "yes", but that the way the Protestants did it is completely wrong.

[Cyrillic]

The Reformation was a missed opportunity. What if the Lutherans and Anglicans would have gone Orthodox instead?

[sheenj]

The Reformation was a missed opportunity. What if the Lutherans and Anglicans would have gone Orthodox instead?

Considering some of Martin Luther's views, I'd say that would have been unlikely.

If someone else started the Reformation, then that might have been a possibility.

[Cyrillic]

The Reformation was a missed opportunity. What if the Lutherans and Anglicans would have gone Orthodox instead?

Considering some of Martin Luther's views, I'd say that would have been unlikely.

Melanchton was the true leader of the Lutherans and he was much closer to the Orthodox.

[choy]

The Reformation was a missed opportunity. What if the Lutherans and Anglicans would have gone Orthodox instead?

I read that they tried.  Luther was in contact if I am not mistaken, with the Patriarch of Antioch.  Eventually the Patriarch was so frustrated with Luther's insistence on his theology that in his final letter, he asked Luther not to write back to him again.

[simplygermain]

The Reformation was not uniform--perhaps ReformationS would be more accurate. The three classical versions are 'Reformed', Lutheran, and Anglican; and then there were various versions of the Radical Reformation.  Some forms were more conservative than others; and some threw more baby out with the bath water so to speak.  To that extent, certain aspects associated with the Protestant Reformation can be considered 'Deformations' (as another poster called it). 

I can't recall who said it, but someone once called the Reformation a "tragic necessity"--Romanists too often don't recognize the necessity, and Protestants too often don't recognize the tragedy.

agreed. "The Reformation" is an historical misnomer for an unending happening. All those involved have been reforming ever since.

[Cyrillic]

The Reformation was a missed opportunity. What if the Lutherans and Anglicans would have gone Orthodox instead?

I read that they tried.  Luther was in contact if I am not mistaken, with the Patriarch of Antioch.  Eventually the Patriarch was so frustrated with Luther's insistence on his theology that in his final letter, he asked Luther not to write back to him again.

The Tubingen Lutherans contacted Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II. Small correction 

[simplygermain]

The Reformation was a missed opportunity. What if the Lutherans and Anglicans would have gone Orthodox instead?

I read that they tried.  Luther was in contact if I am not mistaken, with the Patriarch of Antioch.  Eventually the Patriarch was so frustrated with Luther's insistence on his theology that in his final letter, he asked Luther not to write back to him again.

Close but no cigar... According to Fr. Damick The second generation Lutherans approached the EP and wrote over the course of several years before said happened.

[simplygermain]

The Reformation was a missed opportunity. What if the Lutherans and Anglicans would have gone Orthodox instead?

I read that they tried.  Luther was in contact if I am not mistaken, with the Patriarch of Antioch.  Eventually the Patriarch was so frustrated with Luther's insistence on his theology that in his final letter, he asked Luther not to write back to him again.

The Tubingen Lutherans contacted Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II. Small correction 

Awe! Ya beat me to it! 

[Cyrillic]

[

The Reformation was a missed opportunity. What if the Lutherans and Anglicans would have gone Orthodox instead?

I read that they tried.  Luther was in contact if I am not mistaken, with the Patriarch of Antioch.  Eventually the Patriarch was so frustrated with Luther's insistence on his theology that in his final letter, he asked Luther not to write back to him again.

The Tubingen Lutherans contacted Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II. Small correction 

Awe! Ya beat me to it! 

[choy]

The Reformation was a missed opportunity. What if the Lutherans and Anglicans would have gone Orthodox instead?

I read that they tried.  Luther was in contact if I am not mistaken, with the Patriarch of Antioch.  Eventually the Patriarch was so frustrated with Luther's insistence on his theology that in his final letter, he asked Luther not to write back to him again.

The Tubingen Lutherans contacted Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II. Small correction 

Oh, okay, thanks.  I read this in a book like ages ago (I'm reading the same book for 3 months now.  I know, slow reader).

[Sleeper]

The Reformation was a missed opportunity. What if the Lutherans and Anglicans would have gone Orthodox instead?

Some Anglicans tried.

[pmpn8rGPT]

in my opinion, the reformation was not the problem but the reformers

it is important to remember that MLs intentions were to REFORM (hence, reformation) the CC.  And the origin of "protestant" comes from "protesting-catholic.  Unfortunately, MLs followers decided to just pick up a Bible and start their own church because they considered themselves to be infallible.  Pope Leo X should not have excommunicated Luther but rather think about it and pray and fast over the 95 thesis, ML made some GREAT points. 

in short, he should have kept the rulings of all seven Ecumenical Councils and not just the first four and done more (as well as Anglicans) to re-communicate with Holy Orthodoxy, but I'm glad Jeremiah II didn't get into the pan-heresy/offspring of all heresies

[kx9]

Since many of you feel that the Refomation was necessary, but not done correctly, how would it have been if the EOC had carried out the Reformation against the Roman Catholic Church instead of the Protestants in the 16th Century?

Would the EOC have succeeded? (Resulting in reunification of the two Churches?)

[Michał Kalina]

Since many of you feel that the Refomation was necessary, but not done correctly, how would it have been if the EOC had carried out the Reformation against the Roman Catholic Church instead of the Protestants in the 16th Century?

What do you mean by that? How one can reform something from the outside?

[kx9]

Since many of you feel that the Refomation was necessary, but not done correctly, how would it have been if the EOC had carried out the Reformation against the Roman Catholic Church instead of the Protestants in the 16th Century?

What do you mean by that? How one can reform something from the outside?

As far as I see, a Reformation can be carried out from inside or outside. It doesn't make a difference.

[Michał Kalina]

What point would have the Orthodox Church have had in reforming Roman Church?

[kx9]

What point would have the Orthodox Church have had in reforming Roman Church?

Some Orthodox posters on this thread think the Reformation was needed, but you think it wasn't needed at all.

Remember, the EOC and the RCC were One Church before 1054 A.D.
A reunification is required because the Word of God speaks out against divisions in the Body of Christ.

If the Orthodox Church had carried out the Reformation instead, it might have prevented the splitting of several denominations in Christianity.

[Cyrillic]

What point would have the Orthodox Church have had in reforming Roman Church?

Some Orthodox posters on this thread think the Reformation was needed, but you think it wasn't needed at all.

Remember, the EOC and the RCC were One Church before 1054 A.D.
A reunification is required because the Word of God speaks out against divisions in the Body of Christ.

If the Orthodox Church had carried out the Reformation instead, it might have prevented the splitting of several denominations in Christianity.

Ever heard of the Tourkokratia?

[kx9]

What point would have the Orthodox Church have had in reforming Roman Church?

Some Orthodox posters on this thread think the Reformation was needed, but you think it wasn't needed at all.

Remember, the EOC and the RCC were One Church before 1054 A.D.
A reunification is required because the Word of God speaks out against divisions in the Body of Christ.

If the Orthodox Church had carried out the Reformation instead, it might have prevented the splitting of several denominations in Christianity.

Ever heard of the Tourkokratia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourkokratia

It is a lengthy topic. I was expecting a definition there in a couple of sentences.

Anyway it doesn't look relevant to this thread.

[Arachne]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourkokratia

It is a lengthy topic. I was expecting a definition there in a couple of sentences.

Anyway it doesn't look relevant to this thread.

It is quite relevant, actually.

At the time of the Reformation, the traditional Orthodox lands were under Ottoman occupation and the Church was dealing with various levels of suppression and persecution. Add to that the bad blood between East and West since the sack of Constantinople (1204 CE), and the chance of overtures towards the West was nil.

There's your two sentences; hope they help.

[Michał Kalina]

At the time of the Reformation, the traditional Orthodox lands were under Ottoman occupation

Like Muscovia, GDL...

[Cyrillic]

At the time of the Reformation, the traditional Orthodox lands were under Ottoman occupation

Like Muscovia, GDL...

Very much controlled by RC Poland. Of all people here you should know that.

[Michał Kalina]

At the time of the Reformation, the traditional Orthodox lands were under Ottoman occupation

Like Muscovia, GDL...

Very much controlled by RC Poland. Of all people here you should know that.

Majority of the people were Orthodox then.

[Arachne]

At the time of the Reformation, the traditional Orthodox lands were under Ottoman occupation

Like Muscovia, GDL...

Too busy fighting Tatars, Lithuanians and other local dukes to expand its borders eastwards.

[kx9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourkokratia

It is a lengthy topic. I was expecting a definition there in a couple of sentences.

Anyway it doesn't look relevant to this thread.

It is quite relevant, actually.

At the time of the Reformation, the traditional Orthodox lands were under Ottoman occupation and the Church was dealing with various levels of suppression and persecution. Add to that the bad blood between East and West since the sack of Constantinople (1204 CE), and the chance of overtures towards the West was nil.

There's your two sentences; hope they help.

Thanks for pointing it out.

However, I'd like some clarification.

When you said "Church" You were referring to the EOC ?

[Asteriktos]

From an Eastern Orthodox viewpoint, was the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century necessary?

Please write yes or no, along with any comments.

I would say no. That is, there were problems, but the route that was taken wasn't a solution, and actually just created more problems. There had already been theological disagreements about things like papal supremacy in the west (e.g. at Basel in the 15th century), this route could have been pursued further.

[Cyrillic]

When you said "Church" You were referring to the EOC ?

Yes. That's quite clear from the context of this thread.

[PeterTheAleut]

The tangent discussing the impossibility of division within the Body of Christ has been split off and moved to Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=48961.0

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Protestant Discussion (Moderator: PeterTheAleut) > Topic: Was the Protestant Reformation necessary?