OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 08:36:40 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: Protestants  (Read 1280 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
arrow prayer
formily isus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 117



« on: February 24, 2014, 07:38:10 PM »

when the reformation happened why did those separating from RC church not go to orthdoxy, why did they invent new sects.
prodestants what are your objections to the orthodox faith.
Logged

grace given you in christ jesus
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,636



« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2014, 07:40:11 PM »

you managed to misspell "protestant" twice.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2014, 07:42:42 PM »

you managed to misspell "protestant" twice.
That's easy to fix. Wink
Logged
arrow prayer
formily isus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 117



« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2014, 07:44:23 PM »

you managed to misspell "protestant" twice.

oh well
back on topic
prodestants?
Logged

grace given you in christ jesus
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,635



« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2014, 07:50:11 PM »

Because they were ignorant. Most Protestants still are.

They rejected the tradition of the Church for Sola Scriptura. To them, if it isn't in the Bible, then it isn't Christian. If all you need is the Bible, why do you need the Church?

Some Protestants did know about Orthodoxy, but by then it was too late.

Protestantism was sectarian since it's inception, this is evident from the disagreements between Zwingli and Martin Luther.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 07:52:22 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2014, 07:53:38 PM »

you managed to misspell "protestant" twice.

oh well
back on topic
prodestants?
Protestant, as in protest-ant, as in one who protests
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,502


« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2014, 08:20:48 PM »

when the reformation happened why did those separating from RC church not go to orthdoxy, why did they invent new sects.

Disagreements happened throughout Church history. Many people seem to think that things like denying the real presence in the Eucharist came out of nowhere in the 16th century, or that the rejection of papal claims was absent in the west until the Protestant Reformation. They weren't absent, they were just sporadic and ignored, because the ideas couldn't gain traction and momentum. Eventually culture changed, values changed, governments changed, and an environment was created in which something like the Reformation could indeed take place. For a time people were still persecuted for their beliefs, people were still excommunicated, people were sometimes even put to death. But now there was sufficient backing, in at least some pockets of Europe, to make for more than one group wielding the club.

There was little contact with Orthodoxy, and what little contact there was probably wasn't very helpful. There were no ecumenical discussions, no attempts to see what was agreed upon. Whatever problems the Eastern Churches were having at this point (largely due to secular powers) they could all agree that they weren't going to accept various notions of that the Reformers would have put forward. And the Reformers weren't about to give up what they thought was right either. Such was always the way of things, but again, there simply wasn't a context to pull it off until then.

Well, but I suppose I am overstating things here, speaking as I was mostly of Europe. If we consider the bigger picture there were indeed times when groups split from one another, and those groups maintained their own identity, sometimes to the present day. Why was that though, why were they able to? Why were the Oriental Orthodox groups (plural) able to be separate in a sense from other groups (plural), yet maintain orthodoxy? Why were the other non-OO groups abel to maintain orthodoxy? The Oriental Orthodox (to focus on them a moment) could leave* because they were out of the reach of the groups we today call the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Sure, the Copts, Armenians, etc. were influenced by others (everyone is), but the thing is that they weren't secured in place, they were kept by force of arms or culture to stay put. And when they felt it right to move in a different direction, they did so. And yet they also maintained their orthodoxy.

So I guess, the thing is, humans like to disagree, so splits happen. Sometimes, despite breaks in communication, communion, or administration, orthodox values and beliefs and practices continue, though at other times they morph, or even are abandoned. Just part of life I guess.


*To clarify, by "leave" I do not mean to say "break off". Various groups essentially left each other, so far as I can tell. Or if someone left, it was not because of schismatic inclinations, but out of a sincere desire to do the godly thing.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 08:24:25 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,881


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2014, 08:44:19 PM »

when the reformation happened why did those separating from RC church not go to orthdoxy, why did they invent new sects.

Disagreements happened throughout Church history. Many people seem to think that things like denying the real presence in the Eucharist came out of nowhere in the 16th century, or that the rejection of papal claims was absent in the west until the Protestant Reformation. They weren't absent, they were just sporadic and ignored, because the ideas couldn't gain traction and momentum. Eventually culture changed, values changed, governments changed, and an environment was created in which something like the Reformation could indeed take place. For a time people were still persecuted for their beliefs, people were still excommunicated, people were sometimes even put to death. But now there was sufficient backing, in at least some pockets of Europe, to make for more than one group wielding the club.

There was little contact with Orthodoxy, and what little contact there was probably wasn't very helpful. There were no ecumenical discussions, no attempts to see what was agreed upon. Whatever problems the Eastern Churches were having at this point (largely due to secular powers) they could all agree that they weren't going to accept various notions of that the Reformers would have put forward. And the Reformers weren't about to give up what they thought was right either. Such was always the way of things, but again, there simply wasn't a context to pull it off until then.

Well, but I suppose I am overstating things here, speaking as I was mostly of Europe. If we consider the bigger picture there were indeed times when groups split from one another, and those groups maintained their own identity, sometimes to the present day. Why was that though, why were they able to? Why were the Oriental Orthodox groups (plural) able to be separate in a sense from other groups (plural), yet maintain orthodoxy? Why were the other non-OO groups abel to maintain orthodoxy? The Oriental Orthodox (to focus on them a moment) could leave* because they were out of the reach of the groups we today call the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Sure, the Copts, Armenians, etc. were influenced by others (everyone is), but the thing is that they weren't secured in place, they were kept by force of arms or culture to stay put. And when they felt it right to move in a different direction, they did so. And yet they also maintained their orthodoxy.

So I guess, the thing is, humans like to disagree, so splits happen. Sometimes, despite breaks in communication, communion, or administration, orthodox values and beliefs and practices continue, though at other times they morph, or even are abandoned. Just part of life I guess.


*To clarify, by "leave" I do not mean to say "break off". Various groups essentially left each other, so far as I can tell. Or if someone left, it was not because of schismatic inclinations, but out of a sincere desire to do the godly thing.

Yes, it  is amazing how many still think that everyone in a faith such as Orthodox all agree, as if they never noticed the debates here for one thing, but most will go along as long as the debate never comes up.

This was a issue that came up long before there were internet forums, I was attending Bible study groups after Paraklesis service with our priest, and it was amazing how many simply do not understand what we believe, never really went into the issues, and how many would leave and I would hear them grumbling about how they do not agree with what the priest was saying. That that was not what they believe and they would never agree with him.

This goes on in every Church in the world every day, and Jesus also saw it with his own disciples on many occasions (MK 9:19,10:37).

We cannot always agree on details but God is more interested in what is in our Hearts.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 08:59:38 PM by Sinful Hypocrite » Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,623


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2014, 09:50:13 PM »

you managed to misspell "protestant" twice.

It's rather obvious English is not isus's native language. Give him a break.  Angry
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,193


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2014, 11:06:23 PM »

you managed to misspell "protestant" twice.

oh well
back on topic
prodestants?

Maybe it was pedestrians   Roll Eyes
Logged
DeniseDenise
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,696


Pre-heating the Oven!


« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2014, 11:58:54 PM »

Prodestants works too...those who prod people about Jesus.   Grin
Logged
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox church
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 298


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2014, 12:18:51 AM »

when the reformation happened why did those separating from RC church not go to orthdoxy, why did they invent new sects.
prodestants what are your objections to the orthodox faith.

I think the Reformers were aware of the Orthodox Church, and even praised it in light of Rome's corruptions, but ultimately, they went their own way. Some Lutherans did have a correspondence with Patriarch Jeremias II, but that ended in agreeing to disagree.

Protestant's objections to Orthodoxy are Scripture + Tradition, the deuterocanonicals, faith + works, prayers for the dead, praying to saints, veneration of icons, saints, and relics, sacraments, Real Presence, infant Baptism, and ecclesial hierarchy.
Logged

"Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life if you have not tried to find it in this present world." - Theophanis the Monk

*Taking a break from this forum to sort out my spiritual life and to start taking school and other stuff seriously
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,635



« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2014, 12:21:41 AM »

when the reformation happened why did those separating from RC church not go to orthdoxy, why did they invent new sects.
prodestants what are your objections to the orthodox faith.

I think the Reformers were aware of the Orthodox Church, and even praised it in light of Rome's corruptions, but ultimately, they went their own way. Some Lutherans did have a correspondence with Patriarch Jeremias II, but that ended in agreeing to disagree.

Protestant's objections to Orthodoxy are Scripture + Tradition, the deuterocanonicals, faith + works, prayers for the dead, praying to saints, veneration of icons, saints, and relics, sacraments, Real Presence, infant Baptism, and ecclesial hierarchy.

Monasticism was also condemned.

The problem I have is that all of those practices can be proven to have existed in the first 500 years of Christianity, so if those are 'problems' why isn't the Nicene creed a 'problem'? It seems inconsistent to me, like cherry-picking.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 12:23:10 AM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #13 on: February 25, 2014, 01:14:06 AM »

you managed to misspell "protestant" twice.

It's rather obvious English is not isus's native language. Give him a break.  Angry
Chill, LBK. Cool Nobody died and made you augustin's mother.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,623


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2014, 01:21:00 AM »

you managed to misspell "protestant" twice.

It's rather obvious English is not isus's native language. Give him a break.  Angry
Chill, LBK. Cool Nobody died and made you augustin's mother.

So you think the brusque reception of a newbie is a gesture of welcome?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2014, 01:26:34 AM »

you managed to misspell "protestant" twice.

It's rather obvious English is not isus's native language. Give him a break.  Angry
Chill, LBK. Cool Nobody died and made you augustin's mother.

So you think the brusque reception of a newbie is a gesture of welcome?
You think scolding augustin is a gesture that is welcome?
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,623


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #16 on: February 25, 2014, 01:31:01 AM »

you managed to misspell "protestant" twice.

It's rather obvious English is not isus's native language. Give him a break.  Angry
Chill, LBK. Cool Nobody died and made you augustin's mother.

So you think the brusque reception of a newbie is a gesture of welcome?
You think scolding augustin is a gesture that is welcome?

Augustin has been a member, with thousands of posts under his belt, for eight years. isus has been a member here for less than a month.  police
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #17 on: February 25, 2014, 01:37:32 AM »

you managed to misspell "protestant" twice.

It's rather obvious English is not isus's native language. Give him a break.  Angry
Chill, LBK. Cool Nobody died and made you augustin's mother.

So you think the brusque reception of a newbie is a gesture of welcome?
You think scolding augustin is a gesture that is welcome?

Augustin has been a member, with thousands of posts under his belt, for eight years. isus has been a member here for less than a month.  police
Yes, I know that, but you are neither augustin's mother, nor are you a moderator of this forum. Therefore, I ask that you cease this thread-derailing vigilanteism and let me, this section's moderator, decide what needs to be done here. Thank you.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 01:38:49 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Nicene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 615


« Reply #18 on: February 25, 2014, 02:14:57 AM »

In rejecting the sacraments (in general except for baptism and the Eucharist), the importance of an ecclesiology which does not relegate the tradition or the episcopate to helpful at best and the authority of councils, the reformers blocked any attempt to enter or even consider orthodoxy with their presuppositions. Quite simply it didn't come down to just the authority of the pope, but the whole Christian way of doing things until that point. It was a radical departure from what the church had done up until that point and protestants could only insist everything got corrupt as many insist to this day.

Logged

Thank you.
wainscottbl
Aspie weirdo of the forum
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 2,109



« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2014, 03:15:12 AM »

Interesting question. I wonder if to some degree it was Western thinking about sin, confession and all that. I know Martin Luther had a problem with the Sacrament of Penance in the Catholic Church, regarding indulgences and penance for sins. I also understand he was scrupulous. Now my Missouri-Synod type Lutheran friend tells me they actually have confession in Lutheranism but most do not use it. I also heard the Orthodox did approach Luther. And I am sure they approached Henry VIII or Elizabeth I. But I think the West was just set in certain principles about the nature of sin, like Original Sin, and our fallen nature as a punishment needing redeemed, rather than healed. Also I think there was a desire to get away from what certain Protestants saw as papalism or anything like it. Thus in England and the English Civil Wars the High Church of Charles I vs the Purtians and so forth. And other break off groups, like Methodists. Even though Orthodoxy was clearly not papist, they clearly had all the looks of it, sort of like Charles I's High Church Anglicanism did in England. And even though Luther kept a liturgical service, I think he was trying to rebel as much as he could against Rome's indulgence thing and the priest absolving sin. The East may not have had indulgences, but they did have priests who absolved in confession, though maybe absolve is too Latin a term?
Logged

"To love someone means to see him as God intended him."
                                                                   --Fyodor Dostoevsky
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,485



« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2014, 10:17:03 AM »

when the reformation happened why did those separating from RC church not go to orthdoxy, why did they invent new sects.
prodestants what are your objections to the orthodox faith.

I think the Reformers were aware of the Orthodox Church, and even praised it in light of Rome's corruptions, but ultimately, they went their own way. Some Lutherans did have a correspondence with Patriarch Jeremias II, but that ended in agreeing to disagree.

Protestant's objections to Orthodoxy are Scripture + Tradition, the deuterocanonicals, faith + works, prayers for the dead, praying to saints, veneration of icons, saints, and relics, sacraments, Real Presence, infant Baptism, and ecclesial hierarchy.

Perhaps more accurate to say "some Protestant's objections" since IIRC Lutherans and CoE believe in sacraments (though they only have 2), the Real Presence and infant baptism.
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
Hinterlander
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 516


« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2014, 10:49:09 AM »

when the reformation happened why did those separating from RC church not go to orthdoxy, why did they invent new sects.
prodestants what are your objections to the orthodox faith.

I think the Reformers were aware of the Orthodox Church, and even praised it in light of Rome's corruptions, but ultimately, they went their own way. Some Lutherans did have a correspondence with Patriarch Jeremias II, but that ended in agreeing to disagree.

Protestant's objections to Orthodoxy are Scripture + Tradition, the deuterocanonicals, faith + works, prayers for the dead, praying to saints, veneration of icons, saints, and relics, sacraments, Real Presence, infant Baptism, and ecclesial hierarchy.

Perhaps more accurate to say "some Protestant's objections" since IIRC Lutherans and CoE believe in sacraments (though they only have 2), the Real Presence and infant baptism.

Many Reformed Protestant denominations also practice infant baptism.
Logged
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,925


« Reply #22 on: February 25, 2014, 11:23:08 AM »

The thing is Protestants were more literate overall. Sola sciptura emerged from this & I do not think there were any church hierarchies that could come to grips with conveying tradition from their own handicaps alongside the anarchy of half baked theologies.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Hinterlander
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 516


« Reply #23 on: February 25, 2014, 11:53:06 AM »

You also have to acknowledge that at the time of the Reformation politics and religion were intertwined.  Luther would have been executed if not for German Princes.  Holy Russia was under the rule of Tsar Ivan IV who was fighting long running wars against Catholic "infidels" on his western border.  The creation of the Anglican Church was politically motivated, etc.

For the Reformers to side with Orthodoxy would have been politically untenable and preposterous.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,440



« Reply #24 on: February 25, 2014, 02:00:59 PM »

Interesting question. I wonder if to some degree it was Western thinking about sin, confession and all that. I know Martin Luther had a problem with the Sacrament of Penance in the Catholic Church, regarding indulgences and penance for sins. I also understand he was scrupulous.

The sale of indulgences was the crux of the issue, not repentance or penance for ones sins.  The objection was to the idea that for a bit (or a lot) of money a person was released from Purgatory for example. 

Quote
And I am sure they approached Henry VIII or Elizabeth I.

I beg your pardon, but where did you get this idea? Why would this have happened?
There are threads here on the history of the start of the Anglican Church, if you're interested. The situation was concerned about political situations and the question of a male heir. There was no great theological differences and certainly not on the nature of sin.

Quote
Thus in England and the English Civil Wars the High Church of Charles I vs the Purtians and so forth. And other break off groups, like Methodists. Even though Orthodoxy was clearly not papist, they clearly had all the looks of it, sort of like Charles I's High Church Anglicanism did in England. 

The history of the English Civil War and the conflicts are rather complicated and not a simple case of High/Low Church practice.  Charles I did a number of things that were politically and economically dubious not so say high-handed at times.  He shut own Parliament, arrested MPs and others who did not support his wishes and enacted taxes/financial processes to get money for his favourite and failed military actions in Europe.

The Methodists came about as an 18th century movement within the Church of England for personal piety, charity and missionary works.

Could you please explain a bit more of your thoughts on this?   
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
wainscottbl
Aspie weirdo of the forum
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 2,109



« Reply #25 on: February 25, 2014, 02:19:55 PM »

Interesting question. I wonder if to some degree it was Western thinking about sin, confession and all that. I know Martin Luther had a problem with the Sacrament of Penance in the Catholic Church, regarding indulgences and penance for sins. I also understand he was scrupulous.

The sale of indulgences was the crux of the issue, not repentance or penance for ones sins.  The objection was to the idea that for a bit (or a lot) of money a person was released from Purgatory for example. 

Quote
And I am sure they approached Henry VIII or Elizabeth I.

I beg your pardon, but where did you get this idea? Why would this have happened?
There are threads here on the history of the start of the Anglican Church, if you're interested. The situation was concerned about political situations and the question of a male heir. There was no great theological differences and certainly not on the nature of sin.

Quote
Thus in England and the English Civil Wars the High Church of Charles I vs the Purtians and so forth. And other break off groups, like Methodists. Even though Orthodoxy was clearly not papist, they clearly had all the looks of it, sort of like Charles I's High Church Anglicanism did in England. 

The history of the English Civil War and the conflicts are rather complicated and not a simple case of High/Low Church practice.  Charles I did a number of things that were politically and economically dubious not so say high-handed at times.  He shut own Parliament, arrested MPs and others who did not support his wishes and enacted taxes/financial processes to get money for his favourite and failed military actions in Europe.

The Methodists came about as an 18th century movement within the Church of England for personal piety, charity and missionary works.

Could you please explain a bit more of your thoughts on this?   

Indulgences. Yes, a big issue for Luther, and however the RCs try to convey it as an abuse, it was scandalous, sort of like the sex scandals today. Better to admit it happened sadly rather than cover it up. It's one thing to show that Protestants misunderstand the proper RC idea of indulgences for sin.

Repentance for sin seems to have been a problem and had to be addressed. I am pretty sure the original Protestants had some idea that you had to repent of certain sins after baptism. I am trying to see when "once saved, always saved" came in. To me that is a very modern, recent development or at least a later Protestant development. "Once saved, always saved" may be a natural result of the Protestant principles, but I am not sure it became as big until modern mainstream Evangelicalism and the "Sinner's Prayer" thing. My experience with the so called Baptist church in my youth was this. They pretty much preached on us getting "saved" and very little on overcoming our sins after being "saved". So I am not sure. I think Catholics tend to generalize Protestantism too much and I am trying to avoid doing this now.

Regarding Anglicanism and the monarchs I thought Henry VIII at the very least may have gotten letters from the Orthodox once he broke from Rome. I do understand that he would not have been very interested given the political reasons behind it, especially following Henry. Henry was more or less of the opinion that he was still a Catholic, I think, and that the Pope was just wrong. Politics made the English schism more Protestant from what I can tell.

As for the Civil War I mentioned it to show that there was likely a desire among the Protestants to avoid any looks of papalism. Charles I tended to look like a Roman Catholic, though he was far from one. He made war against Catholics in France despite having a French Catholic wife. His wife thinks he died a Roman Catholic, but it seems clear he died a zealous Anglican and zealous defender of his erroneous Divine Right theory. Yes, he was deeply flawed, though perhaps zealous in his principles. He handled the whole situation before him very imprudently I must say, even as one who sees him as a hero and something of a martyr. He was very pious, but it got in the way of his ability to rule. But that's a whole different matter. A more prudent king might have kept England out of civil war.

Logged

"To love someone means to see him as God intended him."
                                                                   --Fyodor Dostoevsky
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox church
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 298


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #26 on: February 25, 2014, 02:25:58 PM »

when the reformation happened why did those separating from RC church not go to orthdoxy, why did they invent new sects.
prodestants what are your objections to the orthodox faith.

I think the Reformers were aware of the Orthodox Church, and even praised it in light of Rome's corruptions, but ultimately, they went their own way. Some Lutherans did have a correspondence with Patriarch Jeremias II, but that ended in agreeing to disagree.

Protestant's objections to Orthodoxy are Scripture + Tradition, the deuterocanonicals, faith + works, prayers for the dead, praying to saints, veneration of icons, saints, and relics, sacraments, Real Presence, infant Baptism, and ecclesial hierarchy.

Perhaps more accurate to say "some Protestant's objections" since IIRC Lutherans and CoE believe in sacraments (though they only have 2), the Real Presence and infant baptism.

Yeah. Got a little lazy. But I thought Lutherans rejected the Real Presence? Don't they believe in "sacramental union"? And Anglicans are diverse in belief, some believing in the Real Presence, some a "sacramental union", and some a "spiritual or figurative" Presence.
Logged

"Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life if you have not tried to find it in this present world." - Theophanis the Monk

*Taking a break from this forum to sort out my spiritual life and to start taking school and other stuff seriously
wainscottbl
Aspie weirdo of the forum
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 2,109



« Reply #27 on: February 25, 2014, 02:28:12 PM »

PS...My point is that Charles I, to low church eyes, looked like a Roman Catholic. It did not help he married a Catholic princess and tried to limit the rights of those who opposed his idea of Anglo-catholicism. He was seen as a papist trying to take England back to Roman Catholicism. I would say no Protestants really wanted to unite with the Orthodox, even the German and Scandanavian princes. Lutheranism was too far implanted in their hearts as we see with the later Tsar Peter III of Russia. He was not only very pro-German, he was also really Lutheran. Protestanism as a whole became very political and only was not crushed by Rome because it had political support. Luther would have burned at the stake in different times and Henry VIII would have likely been deposed had this happened a couple hundred years earlier. The Pope would excommunicate him, declare him a pretender, and Spain would have quickly avenged the insult on Queen Katherine with full papal support. Just imagine it! For the German and English princes I think Protestantism became more of a political thing. There was not political interest in Orthodoxy.

EDIT: Actually Spain would not only declare war on England with a papal blessing, but the nobility and people would have likely made war on Henry. Remember Pius V gave the RCs that right when he declared Elizabeth I a pretender. Catholics did not at that time have enough ability to really overthrow the monarchy because they were a minority, at least politically. Mary of Scots, one of my heroes, tired. All of this sort of stuff would have worked in different times. Just look how King John repented when the pope excommunicated him and declared him a pretender. He knew what would happen if he did not bow to the power of Rome. Monarchs did not get such absolute power until Henry VIII. Earlier they had to not only submit to the Church but had to maintain decency with their nobility. Someone with a royal claim could overthrow them with the blessing of the pope. Henry VIII, like Luther, just came at the right time. And to bring this back to subject, Orthodoxy was just not politically useful.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 02:33:19 PM by wainscottbl » Logged

"To love someone means to see him as God intended him."
                                                                   --Fyodor Dostoevsky
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox church
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 298


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #28 on: February 25, 2014, 02:34:52 PM »

Interesting question. I wonder if to some degree it was Western thinking about sin, confession and all that. I know Martin Luther had a problem with the Sacrament of Penance in the Catholic Church, regarding indulgences and penance for sins. I also understand he was scrupulous.

The sale of indulgences was the crux of the issue, not repentance or penance for ones sins.  The objection was to the idea that for a bit (or a lot) of money a person was released from Purgatory for example. 

Quote
And I am sure they approached Henry VIII or Elizabeth I.

I beg your pardon, but where did you get this idea? Why would this have happened?
There are threads here on the history of the start of the Anglican Church, if you're interested. The situation was concerned about political situations and the question of a male heir. There was no great theological differences and certainly not on the nature of sin.

Quote
Thus in England and the English Civil Wars the High Church of Charles I vs the Purtians and so forth. And other break off groups, like Methodists. Even though Orthodoxy was clearly not papist, they clearly had all the looks of it, sort of like Charles I's High Church Anglicanism did in England. 

The history of the English Civil War and the conflicts are rather complicated and not a simple case of High/Low Church practice.  Charles I did a number of things that were politically and economically dubious not so say high-handed at times.  He shut own Parliament, arrested MPs and others who did not support his wishes and enacted taxes/financial processes to get money for his favourite and failed military actions in Europe.

The Methodists came about as an 18th century movement within the Church of England for personal piety, charity and missionary works.

Could you please explain a bit more of your thoughts on this?   
Repentance for sin seems to have been a problem and had to be addressed. I am pretty sure the original Protestants had some idea that you had to repent of certain sins after baptism. I am trying to see when "once saved, always saved" came in. To me that is a very modern, recent development or at least a later Protestant development. "Once saved, always saved" may be a natural result of the Protestant principles, but I am not sure it became as big until modern mainstream Evangelicalism and the "Sinner's Prayer" thing. My experience with the so called Baptist church in my youth was this. They pretty much preached on us getting "saved" and very little on overcoming our sins after being "saved". So I am not sure. I think Catholics tend to generalize Protestantism too much and I am trying to avoid doing this now.


Calvin believed in the perseverance of the saints. "Once saved, always saved" is a distorted Evangelical form of what Calvin believed, which is a recent development.
Logged

"Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life if you have not tried to find it in this present world." - Theophanis the Monk

*Taking a break from this forum to sort out my spiritual life and to start taking school and other stuff seriously
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,925


« Reply #29 on: February 25, 2014, 02:38:22 PM »

I think Charles I was done in, to a large extent, by regional interests who did not want to share a mutual burden:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/540944/ship-money




1 Timothy 6:10
New King James Version (NKJV)

10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 02:47:44 PM by recent convert » Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,485



« Reply #30 on: February 25, 2014, 02:41:00 PM »

when the reformation happened why did those separating from RC church not go to orthdoxy, why did they invent new sects.
prodestants what are your objections to the orthodox faith.

I think the Reformers were aware of the Orthodox Church, and even praised it in light of Rome's corruptions, but ultimately, they went their own way. Some Lutherans did have a correspondence with Patriarch Jeremias II, but that ended in agreeing to disagree.

Protestant's objections to Orthodoxy are Scripture + Tradition, the deuterocanonicals, faith + works, prayers for the dead, praying to saints, veneration of icons, saints, and relics, sacraments, Real Presence, infant Baptism, and ecclesial hierarchy.

Perhaps more accurate to say "some Protestant's objections" since IIRC Lutherans and CoE believe in sacraments (though they only have 2), the Real Presence and infant baptism.

Yeah. Got a little lazy. But I thought Lutherans rejected the Real Presence? Don't they believe in "sacramental union"? And Anglicans are diverse in belief, some believing in the Real Presence, some a "sacramental union", and some a "spiritual or figurative" Presence.


"Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms" of the consecrated bread and wine (the elements), so that communicants orally eat and drink the holy body and blood of Christ Himself as well as the bread and wine (cf. Augsburg Confession, Article 10) in this Sacrament."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist
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
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox church
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 298


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #31 on: February 25, 2014, 02:52:48 PM »

when the reformation happened why did those separating from RC church not go to orthdoxy, why did they invent new sects.
prodestants what are your objections to the orthodox faith.

I think the Reformers were aware of the Orthodox Church, and even praised it in light of Rome's corruptions, but ultimately, they went their own way. Some Lutherans did have a correspondence with Patriarch Jeremias II, but that ended in agreeing to disagree.

Protestant's objections to Orthodoxy are Scripture + Tradition, the deuterocanonicals, faith + works, prayers for the dead, praying to saints, veneration of icons, saints, and relics, sacraments, Real Presence, infant Baptism, and ecclesial hierarchy.

Monasticism was also condemned.

The problem I have is that all of those practices can be proven to have existed in the first 500 years of Christianity, so if those are 'problems' why isn't the Nicene creed a 'problem'? It seems inconsistent to me, like cherry-picking.

Why was monasticism condemned?
Logged

"Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life if you have not tried to find it in this present world." - Theophanis the Monk

*Taking a break from this forum to sort out my spiritual life and to start taking school and other stuff seriously
Hinterlander
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 516


« Reply #32 on: February 25, 2014, 03:06:27 PM »

when the reformation happened why did those separating from RC church not go to orthdoxy, why did they invent new sects.
prodestants what are your objections to the orthodox faith.

I think the Reformers were aware of the Orthodox Church, and even praised it in light of Rome's corruptions, but ultimately, they went their own way. Some Lutherans did have a correspondence with Patriarch Jeremias II, but that ended in agreeing to disagree.

Protestant's objections to Orthodoxy are Scripture + Tradition, the deuterocanonicals, faith + works, prayers for the dead, praying to saints, veneration of icons, saints, and relics, sacraments, Real Presence, infant Baptism, and ecclesial hierarchy.

Monasticism was also condemned.

The problem I have is that all of those practices can be proven to have existed in the first 500 years of Christianity, so if those are 'problems' why isn't the Nicene creed a 'problem'? It seems inconsistent to me, like cherry-picking.

Why was monasticism condemned?

Luther made a bogus commitment to monasticism in the midst of a lightning storm then lived to rue the day.
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,635



« Reply #33 on: February 25, 2014, 03:07:36 PM »

when the reformation happened why did those separating from RC church not go to orthdoxy, why did they invent new sects.
prodestants what are your objections to the orthodox faith.

I think the Reformers were aware of the Orthodox Church, and even praised it in light of Rome's corruptions, but ultimately, they went their own way. Some Lutherans did have a correspondence with Patriarch Jeremias II, but that ended in agreeing to disagree.

Protestant's objections to Orthodoxy are Scripture + Tradition, the deuterocanonicals, faith + works, prayers for the dead, praying to saints, veneration of icons, saints, and relics, sacraments, Real Presence, infant Baptism, and ecclesial hierarchy.

Monasticism was also condemned.

The problem I have is that all of those practices can be proven to have existed in the first 500 years of Christianity, so if those are 'problems' why isn't the Nicene creed a 'problem'? It seems inconsistent to me, like cherry-picking.

Why was monasticism condemned?

I thought it had to do with 'faith alone' doctrine. Monasticism assumes works are important.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,925


« Reply #34 on: February 25, 2014, 03:10:03 PM »

The english monasteries were basically looted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/why-did-henry-viii-dissolve-the-monasteries/165.html


1 Timothy 6:10
New King James Version (NKJV)

10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,440



« Reply #35 on: February 25, 2014, 03:26:42 PM »

when the reformation happened why did those separating from RC church not go to orthdoxy, why did they invent new sects.
prodestants what are your objections to the orthodox faith.

I think the Reformers were aware of the Orthodox Church, and even praised it in light of Rome's corruptions, but ultimately, they went their own way. Some Lutherans did have a correspondence with Patriarch Jeremias II, but that ended in agreeing to disagree.

Protestant's objections to Orthodoxy are Scripture + Tradition, the deuterocanonicals, faith + works, prayers for the dead, praying to saints, veneration of icons, saints, and relics, sacraments, Real Presence, infant Baptism, and ecclesial hierarchy.

Monasticism was also condemned.

The problem I have is that all of those practices can be proven to have existed in the first 500 years of Christianity, so if those are 'problems' why isn't the Nicene creed a 'problem'? It seems inconsistent to me, like cherry-picking.

Why was monasticism condemned?

I thought it had to do with 'faith alone' doctrine. Monasticism assumes works are important.

In some places monastic establishments owned large tracts of land and/or were otherwise quite wealthy.  They weren't all small and poor but some were landlords and powers to be reckoned with.  Sometime they could be parties to conflict as well. 
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,539



« Reply #36 on: February 25, 2014, 05:00:06 PM »

PS...My point is that Charles I, to low church eyes, looked like a Roman Catholic. It did not help he married a Catholic princess and tried to limit the rights of those who opposed his idea of Anglo-catholicism. He was seen as a papist trying to take England back to Roman Catholicism. I would say no Protestants really wanted to unite with the Orthodox, even the German and Scandanavian princes. Lutheranism was too far implanted in their hearts as we see with the later Tsar Peter III of Russia. He was not only very pro-German, he was also really Lutheran. Protestanism as a whole became very political and only was not crushed by Rome because it had political support. Luther would have burned at the stake in different times and Henry VIII would have likely been deposed had this happened a couple hundred years earlier. The Pope would excommunicate him, declare him a pretender, and Spain would have quickly avenged the insult on Queen Katherine with full papal support. Just imagine it! For the German and English princes I think Protestantism became more of a political thing. There was not political interest in Orthodoxy.

EDIT: Actually Spain would not only declare war on England with a papal blessing, but the nobility and people would have likely made war on Henry. Remember Pius V gave the RCs that right when he declared Elizabeth I a pretender. Catholics did not at that time have enough ability to really overthrow the monarchy because they were a minority, at least politically. Mary of Scots, one of my heroes, tired. All of this sort of stuff would have worked in different times. Just look how King John repented when the pope excommunicated him and declared him a pretender. He knew what would happen if he did not bow to the power of Rome. Monarchs did not get such absolute power until Henry VIII. Earlier they had to not only submit to the Church but had to maintain decency with their nobility. Someone with a royal claim could overthrow them with the blessing of the pope. Henry VIII, like Luther, just came at the right time. And to bring this back to subject, Orthodoxy was just not politically useful.
I think you're quite right about the political motivations for the Protestant Reformation. It started with a theological bent, but became a reality only with the support of kings and princes.

It also has to be remembered that "reformation" would not likely have meant so much reforming that reunion with Constantinople and the rest of Orthodoxy would be in the picture.

You made an assertion in an earlier post that you thought that the Orthodox had reached out to Luther (and perhaps others). Please feel free to correct me, but I find that somewhat unlikely. The Orthodox had fallen under Turkish domination only a few decades earlier. It would seem unlikely that the means and the will to expand into Western Europe would have been there. The Orthodox would have been unlikely to interfere with Western Christianity for fear of incurring the wrath of Rome, with the Crusades, and even more so, the Council of Florence, as relatively recent memories.
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,464


« Reply #37 on: February 25, 2014, 05:37:04 PM »

PS...My point is that Charles I, to low church eyes, looked like a Roman Catholic. It did not help he married a Catholic princess and tried to limit the rights of those who opposed his idea of Anglo-catholicism. He was seen as a papist trying to take England back to Roman Catholicism. I would say no Protestants really wanted to unite with the Orthodox, even the German and Scandanavian princes. Lutheranism was too far implanted in their hearts as we see with the later Tsar Peter III of Russia. He was not only very pro-German, he was also really Lutheran. Protestanism as a whole became very political and only was not crushed by Rome because it had political support. Luther would have burned at the stake in different times and Henry VIII would have likely been deposed had this happened a couple hundred years earlier. The Pope would excommunicate him, declare him a pretender, and Spain would have quickly avenged the insult on Queen Katherine with full papal support. Just imagine it! For the German and English princes I think Protestantism became more of a political thing. There was not political interest in Orthodoxy.

EDIT: Actually Spain would not only declare war on England with a papal blessing, but the nobility and people would have likely made war on Henry. Remember Pius V gave the RCs that right when he declared Elizabeth I a pretender. Catholics did not at that time have enough ability to really overthrow the monarchy because they were a minority, at least politically. Mary of Scots, one of my heroes, tired. All of this sort of stuff would have worked in different times. Just look how King John repented when the pope excommunicated him and declared him a pretender. He knew what would happen if he did not bow to the power of Rome. Monarchs did not get such absolute power until Henry VIII. Earlier they had to not only submit to the Church but had to maintain decency with their nobility. Someone with a royal claim could overthrow them with the blessing of the pope. Henry VIII, like Luther, just came at the right time. And to bring this back to subject, Orthodoxy was just not politically useful.
I think you're quite right about the political motivations for the Protestant Reformation. It started with a theological bent, but became a reality only with the support of kings and princes.

It also has to be remembered that "reformation" would not likely have meant so much reforming that reunion with Constantinople and the rest of Orthodoxy would be in the picture.

You made an assertion in an earlier post that you thought that the Orthodox had reached out to Luther (and perhaps others). Please feel free to correct me, but I find that somewhat unlikely. The Orthodox had fallen under Turkish domination only a few decades earlier. It would seem unlikely that the means and the will to expand into Western Europe would have been there. The Orthodox would have been unlikely to interfere with Western Christianity for fear of incurring the wrath of Rome, with the Crusades, and even more so, the Council of Florence, as relatively recent memories.

Yes, it was the Lutheran's that reached out to Pat. JEREMIAH II and not vice versa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Jeremias_II_of_Constantinople#The_Greek_Augsburg_Confession
Logged
wainscottbl
Aspie weirdo of the forum
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 2,109



« Reply #38 on: February 25, 2014, 05:58:36 PM »

Yeah, it may have been Luther reached out. Luther gets a really bad rap among Catholics so sometimes the facts get twisted. I guess my own view is trained that Luther would never reach out to the Orthodox. But having a Missouri-Synod type Lutheran friend I have learned the Protestants are quite complex and my friend has shared some quite interesting stuff by Luther. Of course on the whole Luther was wrong, but looking to Orthodoxy now I can be more sympathetic to him.
Logged

"To love someone means to see him as God intended him."
                                                                   --Fyodor Dostoevsky
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,279



« Reply #39 on: February 26, 2014, 01:50:47 AM »

when the reformation happened why did those separating from RC church not go to orthdoxy, why did they invent new sects.
prodestants what are your objections to the orthodox faith.

I recommend Sir Steven Runciman's work, The Great Church in Captivity.  There is a chapter on Luther's followers to contact and dialogue with the Greek Church.  You can also check into the correspondence between the Patriarch, Jeremias II and the Lutheran professors at Tuebingen.  That correspondence is contained in the book, Augsburg and Constantinople.. For all their faults, there was some attempt at reconciliation, but the Latin west as a whole was ignorant of the practices and doctrine of the Greek Church so it should not be surprising that the Lutherans did not automatically come to the conclusion to "head east."
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
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 0.161 seconds with 68 queries.