What is wrong with Protestantism as a Christian denomination according to Orthodoxy?

vraph

 
Banned
Other Christian
One of my previous threads on why Protestantism is incorrect and Orthodoxy is the opposite attracted a significant degree of links to the thoughts of Fr. Josiah Trenham as well as a link to monstrously long video on the matter.

Can someone give me a much shorter much more to the point discussion on the matter?
 

DanielH

Ostrich
Orthodox
I know that video you're referencing. The entire video series is meat and potatoes. I encourage you to block out the time and pay attention to it, because even I who have been Orthodox for years learned a lot and had many questions answered. Any reduction in that video series which in itself is an abbreviated history would mean losing out on a lot.
 

vraph

 
Banned
Other Christian
I know that video you're referencing. The entire video series is meat and potatoes. I encourage you to block out the time and pay attention to it, because even I who have been Orthodox for years learned a lot and had many questions answered. Any reduction in that video series which in itself is an abbreviated history would mean losing out on a lot.

Point taken.

Those are the short, to-the-point versions of the answer.

Ditto
 

Joseph-Schumpeter

Pigeon
Other Christian
Shortest answer is there are no denominations

Would EO say no denoms, only schisms?

The problem I'm running into is EO schismatic group(s) who say that everyone else is the schismatic and only THEY are the true Church.

What are we looking for here?
* 7 ecumenical councils adhered to / believed, this would make it "cannonical" I believe
* non-globo_skittles.. ( this can vary parish to parish, I believe and the Greek Patriarch Bartholomew seems to be doing/saying some interesting things)

Or what are your qualifications for being EO?.. Obviously those not adhering to the 4th council (aka Chalcedon) sometimes referred to as "Oriental Orthodox" or "Non-Chalcedonians" wouldn't qualify for the 7 ecumenical council adherence mentioned above
 

Hermetic Seal

Pelican
Orthodox
Gold Member
Would EO say no denoms, only schisms?

The problem I'm running into is EO schismatic group(s) who say that everyone else is the schismatic and only THEY are the true Church.

That's right. These schismatic groups, like Old Calendarists, as far as I can tell have the same theology as the rest of the Church, but separate over what could be called political issues - disputes with bishops, the calendar, beliefs the rest of the church has compromised through ecumenical meetings, that sort of thing. They don't have a different view of the Trinity or salvation or anything like that.

But what I've noticed in my experience is that there seems to be a lot of pride amongst these groups, what Father Seraphim Rose called the "super-correct faction." A lot of internal arguments and disputing that's not very Christlike. I just haven't seen much good fruit from these groups, or sufficient evidence to take their claims seriously. The exception might be publications - Holy Transfiguration Monastery has produced excellent liturgical texts that I don't hesitate to recommend and many people like the Scriptures and Synaxarion from Holy Apostles Convent.

Another good thing to keep in mind is that some of these schismatic groups are extremely "online." These aren't things you'd ever really run into in real life, normal Orthodox practice. The internet can give outsize visibility to some schismatic ROCOR spinoff in Australia that really only has a handful of members. It's really straining credulity to think this little group or that is the "real" Orthodox Church. It's not that different from when Independent Fundamentalist Baptists insist that Pastor Jim with his Baptist congregation in the Swiss Alps was keeping the real church alive for 1500 years, or that Most Holy Family Basketball Court is preserving the Real Catholic Church.
 

Godward

Robin
Does someone know a good scientific study on why there has never been a “Protestant” schism (the Reformation) in Eastern Christianity compared to Western Christianity?
 

MichaelWitcoff

Hummingbird
Orthodox
Does someone know a good scientific study on why there has never been a “Protestant” schism (the Reformation) in Eastern Christianity compared to Western Christianity?
No “science” needed, the East kept the Apostolic Faith and the West did not. They’d already uprooted the ancient Tradition so why not take it a step further? The East hasn’t done that.
 

donovan

Sparrow
Orthodox Inquirer
As someone who is in the process of leaving Protestantism for Orthodoxy thanks primarily to the work of Father Josiah Trenham, let me tell you that his book Rock and Sand answers pretty much every question you could have.
I have a Bachelor of Theology through a prestigious Protestant college, and what struck me back then was that when we studied Church history, we 'brushed over' 1500 years of history and focused almost exclusively on Reformation and post-Reformation history. It was as if the Holy Spirit took a vacation.
And when you stand back and look at the absolute and utter clusterf**k of denominations, sub-denominations, cults, sub-cults, branches, etc. of Protestantism today, it all makes sense. Protestant Evangelicals are convinced that they're not bound by tradition or top-down authority, but they are absolutely are. Protestant churches are like mini-papacies.
As for the modern-day Evangelical "rock concert" churches, I can't stand them anymore. I find the services incredibly disrespectful toward God.
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
Orthodox
That's right. These schismatic groups, like Old Calendarists, as far as I can tell have the same theology as the rest of the Church, but separate over what could be called political issues - disputes with bishops, the calendar, beliefs the rest of the church has compromised through ecumenical meetings, that sort of thing. They don't have a different view of the Trinity or salvation or anything like that.

But what I've noticed in my experience is that there seems to be a lot of pride amongst these groups, what Father Seraphim Rose called the "super-correct faction." A lot of internal arguments and disputing that's not very Christlike. I just haven't seen much good fruit from these groups, or sufficient evidence to take their claims seriously. The exception might be publications - Holy Transfiguration Monastery has produced excellent liturgical texts that I don't hesitate to recommend and many people like the Scriptures and Synaxarion from Holy Apostles Convent.

Another good thing to keep in mind is that some of these schismatic groups are extremely "online." These aren't things you'd ever really run into in real life, normal Orthodox practice. The internet can give outsize visibility to some schismatic ROCOR spinoff in Australia that really only has a handful of members. It's really straining credulity to think this little group or that is the "real" Orthodox Church. It's not that different from when Independent Fundamentalist Baptists insist that Pastor Jim with his Baptist congregation in the Swiss Alps was keeping the real church alive for 1500 years, or that Most Holy Family Basketball Court is preserving the Real Catholic Church.

I'm an Old Calendarist, and I've made no secret of it. I see no good reason not to be (list below), I do not disparage others for being in a group other than my own.. I'm happy enough for people to come to the light of Orthodoxy. I'm comfortable being in a "schismatic" group for the God I worship would not cast me out, if all things were identitical for the sake of a bishop. I can't imagine God saying to me "Since you were baptized and took communion with this "schismatic" group, you're damned forever, you should have sought out Archbishop Elpidophorus, or one from a priestly line that cooperated with the Soviet persecutors for then I would have accepted you." It's rather silly when you think about it.

My sentiments resonate with this monk in ROCOR/MP who wrote this article. Other reasons I remain with the Old Calendarists are:

1) I see no good reason for the Calendar change. There is as much reason to adopt the Papal Calendar as there is to use Daylight Savings Time. (I may be forced to use the latter while I function in the world, but will not be forced to use the former)

2) The "schismatic" group I'm with does full english services, which aren't available elsewhere. I view it as foolish to attend foreign language services you don't understand. (1 Corinthians 14:6-19). As someone who does some of the reading/chanting, I understand how much instruction is in there. It's not surprising that people like Georges Florovsky learned theology just by listening to the services. With that in mind, I view it as a huge problem to not have services in the main language of the host country. Orthodoxy has been around long enough in NA that it shouldn't be an issue, especially now that a lot of the heavy lifting in translating is done.

3) I have a problem with the MP, I don't see how it's changed from the Soviet days, what repentance has been shown? Leaving Ecumenism aside for now, if strict interpretations of canons are so very important, how was the Apostolic Canon 30(31) resolved? (
If any bishop obtain possession of a church by the aid of the temporal powers, let him be deposed and excommunicated, and all who communicate with him.
)
 

Lawrence87

Woodpecker
Orthodox
Protestantism by and large was a reaction to the errors of Rome. Many of the things that the Reformers took issue with were innovations within the Roman church that occurred after the schism. In that regard I can sympathize with the Reformation, however the problem is that they responded to these innovations with further innovations. "Correcting" error with further error rather than returning to the true church.

Essentially their position requires a belief that the church almost immediately fell into error after the death of the Apostles, and that the "real church" only began at some point after the Reformation. This is further compounded by the fact that the Reformation did not establish a singular church, but instead was the starting point of countless churches, all with different doctrines and all claiming to be correct. The Orthodox position is much simpler; the Orthodox church is the Apostolic church and all other churches are the result of falling into error. Christ said that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His church. They didn't. This is apparent when you look at the Orthodox church and it's history. To be Protestant is to say that Christ lied, that the church was almost immediately prevailed against.
 

OrthoSerb

Robin
Orthodox
I'm an Old Calendarist, and I've made no secret of it. I see no good reason not to be (list below), I do not disparage others for being in a group other than my own.. I'm happy enough for people to come to the light of Orthodoxy. I'm comfortable being in a "schismatic" group for the God I worship would not cast me out, if all things were identitical for the sake of a bishop. I can't imagine God saying to me "Since you were baptized and took communion with this "schismatic" group, you're damned forever, you should have sought out Archbishop Elpidophorus, or one from a priestly line that cooperated with the Soviet persecutors for then I would have accepted you." It's rather silly when you think about it.
That's not the way it works. Countless Patriarchs of Contantinople were heretics, we don't separate ourselves from the Church using the logic that we don't want to be associated with a priestly line of heretics.

My sentiments resonate with this monk in ROCOR/MP who wrote this article. Other reasons I remain with the Old Calendarists are:

1) I see no good reason for the Calendar change. There is as much reason to adopt the Papal Calendar as there is to use Daylight Savings Time. (I may be forced to use the latter while I function in the world, but will not be forced to use the former)
The calendar change was completely unnecessary and has proven to be catastrophic. That said, its not a reason for schism. Most canonical Orthodox are on the old calendar so its not the case that you have to go with a schismatic group to be on the old calendar. It's also worth mentioning that the Old Calendarists are not a singular body, they have themselves split into multiple groups.

2) The "schismatic" group I'm with does full english services, which aren't available elsewhere. I view it as foolish to attend foreign language services you don't understand. (1 Corinthians 14:6-19). As someone who does some of the reading/chanting, I understand how much instruction is in there. It's not surprising that people like Georges Florovsky learned theology just by listening to the services. With that in mind, I view it as a huge problem to not have services in the main language of the host country. Orthodoxy has been around long enough in NA that it shouldn't be an issue, especially now that a lot of the heavy lifting in translating is done.
English is used in the Liturgy of many canonical parishes. Obviously you can find examples where it isn't, such as in your local area. But its far from the case that you need to leave the confines of the Church to find use of the English language.

3) I have a problem with the MP, I don't see how it's changed from the Soviet days, what repentance has been shown?
The way you phrase the question pre-supposes something negative from the Soviet days. The Russian Church gave countless martyrs during the Soviet period. Were there those in the Church that succumbed to temptation. Sure there were, just like there are in all persecutions. But the Church commemorates the martyrs and not the persecutors. You make it sound like the Russian Church is an apologist for the persecutions. You can tell a lot by looking at who the Saints are that the Russian Church has canonised (The Royal Family, Patriarch Tikhon etc). Also I'm not sure how the Russian Church differs from any of the other local Churches that found themselves under a Communist Regime. Based on your logic I should have separated from the Serbian Patriarchate.
 

Hermetic Seal

Pelican
Orthodox
Gold Member
I'm an Old Calendarist, and I've made no secret of it. I see no good reason not to be (list below), I do not disparage others for being in a group other than my own.

I actually didn't know this, maybe you said something about it before but I must've missed it.

Anyway, my response would pretty much be what OrthoSerb said above, I don't have much to add.
 
Top