www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Greatest Error of Protestantism

Orthodoxy is not a multi-ritual Church. Aspects of the practice of our faith are cultural and human, other aspects are divine. But (I am aware of the contraversial asterisk of the WRV) it is not our traditon to say "Come to the Orthodox faith but if you have a preference for some externals of your former faith over the externals of Orthodoxy, feel free to keep them."

By Western Christianity I mean the "Protolic" Churches - Catholic and Protestant.

Yes, the Protolic churches are not uniform. We Orthodox in some situations might be a help in bringing Catholics and Protestants together. For example, we can offer Orthodox counciliar episcopalianism as a 'via media' between papal monarchism and presbyterianism/congregationalism.

Axios

Once again, Alex, I think you are mixing apples and oranges. I agree that we may find a common ground on certain issues and we may learn something valuable from each other, but externals do not replace theology. For us, "liturgy" and "theology" are not so separate. Many who hold beliefs we would consider heretical may well adopt many Roman Catholic or Orthodox externals, and these externals may lead them closer to our understading or even the processes we used to receive that understanding. The adoption of "liturgy" or other externals does not vindicate or validate theology.

Now, concerning Evangelicals who have "jettisoned" their traditions, I have this to say. John Wesley was, as you have presented him, "catholic." He could also be accruately portrayed as a schismatic, teaching against the doctrine of apostolic succession and breaking with almost every movement in which he became involved (Anglicanism, Moravianism, etc.) until he formed his own group to teach his own personal interpretation of the Bible and tradition. Many of these personal interpretations may be well founded. What he did,however, led to other groups within his group to have the same problems he had, i.e., the "church" was "out of touch" and in need of reform since it did not concur with their own private interpretations. They did what he did and formed their own groups (one being the Nazarenes of which my Great-Grandfather was a minister). Other groups within that group followed the same procedure (one being the Assemblies of God of which my father was a minister).

In this way and in many others the Wesleyan tradition stands opposed to our own. In fact your "radicals" stand firm in the traditions of Protestantism, not apart from it. I think that most Evangelicals (as Wesley was called in his own time) would agree with me on that point and I think you do them a disservice by claiming they are not faithful to their own traditions. I would argue that your "good Protestants" are absolutely horrible Protestants in taking on the "trappings of the Papists." If they want to be Roman Catholic or Orthodox, then let them come! If you ask my family, Methodist, Nazarene, and AG (we have all three), they would agree with me. I suspect you would find that the case from most in this tradition.

Axios, the difference is not just in papal monarchism and presbyterianism/congregationalism. There is a real difference in the understanding of revelation, Holy Scripture, salvation, grace, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, etc.

Everyone,

I understand that those on this thread are trying to be ecumenical and gracious. I do not believe it is appropriate to misrepresent Protestantism in order to achieve this.

I also do not believe it is appropriate to acclaim one group of Protestants as "going back to their tradition" at the expense of another group of Protestants who have "rejected" theirs when there are so few, if any, of those Protestants on this board to make their case.

I get the impression that some here believe these "new Protestants" are a bunch of idiots that just don't get their tradition. There are many Evangelicals who know the history of the Christian Faith as well as those on this board, including certain things that do not appear to help their case. These Evangelicals have deftly maneuvered around these issues and have even made some of these issues their strongpoints. With the people in Texas, they are winning the argument for the hearts, minds and souls of disaffected Roman Catholics and poor Hispanics, not us.

Yes, they teach things we would and should call heretical, but they are not fools. They know how we work much better than we know them. They know our penchant for "ecumenism." They smile and tell you all the things you wnat to hear, get your children in their youth group a couple of times, and the next thing you know you are joining the friendly church and discovering all the horrible things about Catholics.

And for those of you who think that information on the original post was irritating, you should read what the Protestants teach about you in their writings.

So you don't like proselytising, eh? The Protestants don't mind. Just read some of the posts here and see the effectiveness of their techniques.

If we who are Orthodox do not like evangelization by the Protolic Churches, the best think for us to do it to re-evangelize ourselves. Not to sit and moan or ask that the civil authorities repress Protolic missionaries as the Russian Church does.

I have never known an active, faith filled Orthodox Christian to be wrongly drawn away from Orthodoxy. I know of many 'cultural Orthodox' who have ended up coming to know Christ in the Protolic churches.

Axios

Axios,

I agree that it is silly to ask for repression of churches. I also agree that we must first educate our own about their faith.

But I think it is equally important to share that faith, unchanged and unashamed, with others. If that means proselytising Protestants and disaffected Roman Catholics of whatever background, so be it. They deserve to have their souls nurtured, even at the expense of a little ecumenism with Protestants.

I don't see why we can have both ecumenism with the Protolic churches and also welcome all to Orthodoxy.

Having said that, I have much more joy when I met someone for whom Orthodoxy has freed them from a life that lacks prayer, grace, Christian love, the Gospel, and a relationship with Jesus Christ, than when I met someone for whom Orthodoxy has only freed them from mistaken theories about papalism or presbyterianism.

Axios

This is not an accurate statement. Surely you have heard of the Western Rite, the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, etc.? These are definitely 'western' rites within Orthodoxy, not at all of Byzantine origin.

Another major area, where I see Protestant sects really lacking, is that there worship houses seem to be practically devoid of what is Holy and Sacred. While the same could definitely be said of modern Catholic churches, I can't say I've ever been in any Protestant church in my life, where I felt like was on the threshold of Heaven.

The reason I feel so strongly in this matter, or should I say, have such a deep appreciation for religious art, is because I was brought up with no religious education of any kind. And despite this handicap, I can still vividly remember, being not more than 4 years old, and going into a beautiful Gothic Catholic church down the street from me. Once inside it was like entering into another world, I had absolutely no doubt in my mind that I was in a Holy place. I could barely read, and I certainly had never opened a Bible. Yet here, right before my eyes in a dark church was the Gospel revealed. I could look at the large Crucifix in the vestibule, and the Stations of the Cross, and it all told me that Jesus Christ had been nailed to a cross to die for the sins of the world.

When I hear some fundamentalists go off on a tirade about what they're convinced is 'idolatry', all I can think of, is the comparetive emptyness of there worship services.

I completely understand your point. Some new-fangled (or rather 35 year old) Catholic churches are absolutely repulsive, inside and out. But what every Catholic church does have is the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This simple fact in and of itself makes every Catholic church, no matter how architecturally or aesthetically unattractive, a Holy Temple of God.

Logos Teen

Dear Cizinec,

Well, I don't agree that I'm mixing apples and oranges - once again (?).

You give a subjective understanding of Protestants who follow Catholic ritual that is one that is not shared by those Protestants themselves. I'm not passing judgement on them, I'm just saying that they exist.

And Protestants who do follow Catholic ritual do indeed come closer theologically to Catholicism than Protestantism.

I'm also simply saying what these Protestants are telling me they believe and how they consider themselves - Protestants who are closer to the tradition of many Reformers than today's Protestants are.

That is, again, not me, but they who speak.

As for the argument that if "it walks like a Catholic, talks like a Catholic - then why doesn't it come home to Rome?" - both Catholic and Orthodox Churches may say the same about each other.

I think the key here is to look at how the original Protestants saw themselves as opposed to the later Protestants.

At the turn of the century, Anglicans rediscovered their Catholic heritage as did the Lutherans and today other Protestant groups are following suit.

Roman Catholic theologians are also looking into things like papal claims and are coming to similar conclusions such as that they are largely based on an exaggerated interpretation of the Petrine New Testament passages. And this applies to some other later RC doctrinal definitions as well.

Doctrine and ecclesial praxis doesn't exist in a vaccum, as you well know. Critical self-assessment among the Churches has produced much good ecumenical fruit and does lead to a convergence of varying kinds with respect to the practices and beliefs of the undivided Church of the first millennium.

As for John Wesley, his tradition didn't exclude the possibility of "schisms" and the Anglican Church from which he came out of was itself a Church that separated from Rome. We cannot blame him on the basis of our own standards.

The apples and oranges are in your basket, Big Guy!

Alex

I hate having to discuss things this way . . .


Alex said, Alex went on to say, (It is the last statement I object to most).

In this argument you appear to be saying that truly �traditional� Protestants are much closer to Catholicism and Orthodoxy in faith and theology than are less traditional Protestants. You appear to go on to define a �Traditional Protestant� as one who is closer to Catholicism or Orthodoxy in faith and theology, in which case I would agree that a �Traditional Protestant� is certainly closer to Catholic and Orthodox faith and theology. It is made so by your definition. You also claim outright that the Protestantism �we decry� (most likely certain forms, if not all forms, of Evangelical Protestantism) is a later development by radicals who rejected �Traditional Protestantism� for something else.

You provide four examples as proof, one of which you claim proves your case.

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

I am rejecting your definition of a �traditional Protestant� and am demonstrating that your examples of �traditional-close-to-Catholic Protestants� are not examples of the definition you have suggested.

Example 1

That is a conclusion whose case is not even begun to be made, let alone proven, by the existence of a single society. I disagreed with you on that point when I stated In other words, just because an individual�s convictions leads him into a devotion to the Theotokos does not mean that the individual necessarily has �theologies and faith commitments that are quite similar to that of the Catholic and Orthodox churches.� I believe that conclusion is much too broad based on the evidence provided by the existence of this society.

One should also ask whether or not that is really what Traditional Protestants (the original reformers like Hus, Luther and their �forefathers�) thought.

Example 2

I believe I disproved your interpretation of this example when I said You attempted to dismiss this by playing down his schismatic nature. That was not the only issue I raised. The other was his belief that he could interpret the Bible for himself. He did, in certain instances, use the Eastern Fathers, especially in those cases where I believe his opinions were �well founded�. He used the Eastern fathers only, however, when they agreed with him. Otherwise, they were ignored because they did not fit into what was the ultimate truth: John Wesley�s personal interpretation of the Bible.

If you would like to debate Wesley�s life, I would enjoy it. I�ve grown up with the stories and teachings of the �great� Wesley. In college I separated myself from his teachings, at great cost from my family. I find it quite odd that you find his teachings so Orthodox while my family and I do not.


Examples 3 and 4

My objections to these are as the objections to Example 1. I must point out a much different definition of �Traditional Protestantism.� This is the definition most likely to be used by Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists. Traditional Protestants, aside from other basic Christian beliefs shared by Catholics and Orthodox, hold three beliefs in common: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and the universal priesthood of believers. They also generally share the opinion that one or more of the Sacraments are not sacraments at all. They have other issues they squabble about here and there.

As Traditional Protestants� understanding of these three issues is flawed, their adherence to other theologies concerning other issues fails to address these three peculiarities.

SO WHY DO I CARE???????

Misrepresenting Traditional Protestantism to better fit our beliefs is not ecumenism.

Dear Cizinec,

I never said I have all the answers and this is my take on the subject in conjunction with my own experiences with Protestants and my own reading of Protestant history.

As for Jan Hus, he was, in every way, a Catholic and a Priest. He was "Protestantized" later and the Pope has allowed for a "rehabilitation" process of him to begin.

We Ukies have always esteemed Hus and our poet, Shevchenko, mentions him in his poem "The Heretic."

There is not one single aspect of Hus' teaching that is "Protestant" in any sense.

I personally venerate him as a saint and have even written an Akathist to him - which has been translated into German and is currently being used in some High Church Lutheran parishes in southern Germany.

Luther himself prayed the Rosary throughout his life - something that the Swedish and Finnish Lutheran Churches have always realized and many of them do have devotion to the Virgin Mary, including the saying of the Rosary. The book, "A Protestant Pastor looks at Mary" discusses this with great references etc.

Many of the early Lutheran reformers were portrayed holding rosary beads . . .

I think we do a disservice to Wesley if we think of him as a Catholic who fell from the Church.

He was born and raised a Protestant, to be sure, and no one is questioning that.

Was all of his theology sound? Not from the Catholic/Orthodox perspective, no. No one is saying that it was.

But there were many Catholic elements in his teachings and especially in his devotional life and it is with these that we feel a kinship, in the spirit of Vatican II.

The Methodist way of life with its emphasis on prayer, fasting, reading, Communion etc. - these are all Catholic and Orthodox elements that we share!

And because we cannot canonize ALL of Wesley that there is, doesn't mean that we cannot canonize him period.

There were Fathers and Popes who are saints in the calendar who espoused heresy and schism - see Holweck's "Dictionary of Saints."

Wesley was no heretic - he was true to his Protestant tradition.

He was more true to it than his Anglican detractors who chided him for breaking away from Anglicanism (!). What was it the Catholics in England use to tell Anglicans, "Where were you this morning before you washed your face?"

Heresy can only be imputed to Catholics or Orthodox who start their own line of thinking that then turns into a separate Church.

The children spawned of heretical Churches are not heretics, according to, oh, all right I'll mention him, St. Augustine!

(Do you see how you've provoked me? ).

One Catholic writer once said this about Martin Luther: "Had he remained faithful to the Catholic Church, he would have been one of our greatest Reformers and Doctors, another St Boniface!"

And, sorry to come under the wire, a lot of what Luther has said has been agreed to by Catholic theologs today.

Most of what Jan Hus had to say was adopted at the Vatican II Council and while he was not canonized (yet), the cult of the Jesuit-concocted cult of St John Nepomucene Neumann was removed from the universal calendar.

I take some offence at being charged with misrepresenting traditional Protestantism - which is not a homogeneous tradition in any event.

I would ask you to kindly engage in civil conversation - disagree with me, fine. But just because I don't agree with you is no reason to say I'm misrepresenting anything. It could be, but I don't think we know for sure .

Alex

I think that Protestants "rediscovering" traditional forms of Christian worship and veneration is a great thing. Still, I don't see why it matters much. You can be the most "Catholic" Protestant out there and, guess what? You're still a Protestant!

There's no such thing as "close enough" when it comes to undeniable Truths of the Faith. Perhaps the really "Catholic" Protestants are very close to being correct, but that doesn't make them so. They (we! I'm still a Methodist) are heretics.

So, in short, I just don't understand why it really matters how Catholic some Protestants are.

Logos Teen

Teen,

Your post seems reasonable from a Catholic standpoint.

From an Orthodox standpoint it might be said that Catholics "rediscovering" traditional forms of Counciliarism and episcopalianism is a great thing. Still, I don't see why it matters much. You can be the most "Orthodox" Catholic out there and, guess what? You're still a Catholic and not Orthodox!

There's no such thing as "close enough" when it comes to undeniable Truths of the Faith. Perhaps the really "Orthodox" Catholics are very close to being correct, but that doesn't make them so. They are heretics.

So, in short, I just don't understand why it really matters how Orthodox some Catholics are.

Axios

Indeed, Alex, I thought I was being civil. I did not engage in any ad hominem attacks, I simply discussed your assertions made in earlier posts. I made my own assertions, primarily I proposed a definition of "classical" or "traditional" Protestantism and that some of the most decried Protestants, even the most decried by many of the older and established Protestant churches, are in fact "classical" or "traditional" Prostestants. I believe that is the case even where more settled Protestant churches disagree.

Protestantism has always been about protest, change, and individual relevance. I'm not going to quote citations or put up links to web sites. I will simply point you to Pelikan's fourth and fifth books in his series on the history of Christian Doctrine. I think you will find that, when all the facts are taken together, my view of "Traditional Protestantism" is the one that remains true to events. To be certain, it is not my view at all, but the view of many others, Protestant and Catholic, Atheist and Christian.

It is the way things developed and no matter how many little bits can be extracted to provide anecdotal evidence to the contrary, when one looks at and understands what these traditional or classical Protestants were teaching, you will find that most modern Protestant movements have remained more true to these ideals than some of the original Protestant churches.

What I was trying to address more specifically is this statement. As I have stated in this thread many times, I think this statement is factually incorrect and unfair to Protestants who follow the classical Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and the Universal Priesthood of Believers and have practices which are "much decried" by the most established churches. That part of what Protestantism is!

They may not fit into your view pr personal experiences of what a classical Protestant is, but they seem to meet the definition as discussed in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, and in almost every other respected discussion of Protestantism.

My brother is one of these Protestants with many much decried practices. He could and would do a much better job of defending himself and his church if he were here. He has a commanding knowledge of church history that surprises most of my Orthodox friends and puts Roman Catholics to shame. He is not, however, here to defend his church as being a member of classical or traditional Protestantism. I, incapable as I may be, am here and, although I disagree with his conclusions, will defend his church's right to be called true to its Protestant heritage when someone calls it into question.

I am not angry. I'm simply responding to some statments and assertions you made. It's not that I don't like you, and I certainly didn't intend to anger you so much as to quote St. Augustine! I just don't think your statement was correct.

I guess I'm a bit Teutonic about my discussions. I like everything in order. State your opinion, provide your proofs, and discuss objections.

Since this has turned into an entirely different subject (what did Hus, Luther, and other Protestant leaders teach, what did they have in common, on what did they disagree) then I suggest we move it to another thread.

I would prefer, though, that members of the discussed churches might be a little bit involved to answer allegations against them and their practices.