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

[tractor]

Father Josiah Trenham sais that the proof of the Orthodoxy being the true Church are the Saints, especially the martyrs. Totally absent in the protestant world. Protestant seem to follow the never-ending cycle of cucking to the zeitgeist and reacting to it by forming new "fundamental" denominations (which either cuck or disappear).

My wife's church is the case in point. It was formed in the 1970s in reaction to the Evangelical Church of Germany (the one that Luther created) becoming to worldly and heretical. So far so good. But what they do? They go "back to the roots", back to Looooother, and don't realize that they build on the same shaky ground.

I was thinking that Martin Luther would have been certainly canonized for standing up to the Papal heresies, had he embraced martyrdom. I'm sure all of the Church Fathers would be happy to die for what Martin Luther called out. Why dind't Luther?

 

[SimpleMan]

Bringing the focus onto fruits, how do Orthodox think Protestants fail in their duty to follow the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in their every day life?

 

[Viktor Zeegelaar]

As it happens I was researching Protestantism today. To be honest, my mind is torn apart after clicking through and through for hours: the list of denominations, personal cults and different interpretations is endless. From the obvious scammers/charlatans/entrepreneurs like Osteen and (especially) Kenneth Copeland (it's unreal that people follow this men), to more Orthodox-Protestant denominations, to liberal Protestantism, to the Amish/mennonites, speaking in tongues, the book of Mormon, it's just endless. If anybody can start a denomination I see a strong tendency for entrepreneurs to step in and/or personality cults to develop. It's very weird to research this and see the unbelievable scope of different attitudes within ''protestantism'', if you could even label it in one mainline umbrella.

If there is one objective and universal truth, how can it be one of the 40.000 protestant denominations? It's so fragmented it's unreal. Is there is one objective and universal truth that means there's one way to go and one Church, for any fragmentation would mean that one party would have the truth and one party would have part of the truth or no truth at all (usually part of the truth I'd say).

 

[OrthoSerb]

Yes, apostasy is something negative, are we not to expect repentance from apostasy? The Russian Church gave countless martyrs, we agree on this statement, though we have a disagreement who the Russian Church consists of, the apostates are not included with them. Those who willingly worked with the state in the persecution of the faithful are not Orthodox. The priests/bishops who were appointed because of their loyalty to the state, are not Orthodox.

Again the way you phrase the question is loaded. It's obvious that if an individual committed sin then they should repent. But your question implicitly identifies the Russian Church with those that apostatised. Your entire argument relies on taking individuals that broke or were compromised, and extrapolating that onto the whole local Church. Despite the fact that the Russian Church commemorates the martyrs and has an unambiguously negative stance towards the atheist regime. The other implication, although you don't state it explicitly, is that the Russian Church became graceless. This is a view that Father Seraphim Rose condemned, despite the fact that ROCOR and the MP were not in formal communion at the time.

The other thing I'd mention is that we should be quite slow to condemn those that outwardly succumbed under pressures we can only imagine. To give you an example from another Communist regime, listen to this recent talk about Fr. George Calciu. What went on in Pitești Prison defies belief and Fr. George says everyone broke. And every day those that had the strength repented. I can easily imagine that many of those who were pressured into issuing statements that scandalised the faithful during the Soviet times bitterly repented of doing so and in secret acted in opposition to those statements.

Sergius' declaration was in 1927, he and the others, and the later state appointed clergy proceeded to work with the state in the persecution of the faithful, and you want to say that everything is fine, because his successors canonized the people they had a hand in persecuting. Am I understanding you correctly?

No I don't think you are understanding me correctly. You seem to see everything as black and white. As if the state and clergy were on one side and the faithful were on the other. There were many faithful clergy. Likewise you imply that those that canonized the martyrs were guilty of persecuting them. Even if the latter were true (which its not), would that not be an example of the repentance you are demanding? No one, including the Russian Church, is saying that Sergius' declaration was fine. These are all straw men. There are practically innumerable straw men one can find if we want to justify indefinite separation from each other.

I'm unfamiliar with the situation in Serbia, but if the situation was identical, then yes, I would follow the leaders that separated, but I'm not you, nor am I in your shoes to judge. I cannot say that a state puppet is a legitimate church. The Church must safeguard it's autonomy.

It's easy to come up with these black and white statements to justify anything we want. The Church is always under pressure to conform to the will of the state - whether that be under the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the modern Turkish state or Western "democracies". Only the degree varies. You're right in so far as the Church should struggle to safeguard its autonomy, but your logic doesn't safeguard autonomy - it leads to schism and then endless justifications for why schism should never be overcome. The atheist regime no longer rules Russia and no one in the Church wants it back. Instead there are new problems and challenges that the faithful face in Russia and across the world that have nothing to do with Sergius' declaration in 1927.

 

[vraph]

It is an objective, historical fact that this sort of internal discord simply didn't exist before the reformation, and still doesn't exist in Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Non-Chalcedonian churches. That's not to say there's never any sort of internal controversy about anything in Orthodoxy, but the scope is quite miniscule in comparison because an obligation to follow the Holy Tradition - the teachings and practice of the Christian faith, handed down by the Apostles, and interpretation of the Scriptures as expounded by the Fathers - is the most powerful safeguard against theological liberalism and innovation. The protestant hermeneutic has not achieved the same results and seems rather to be in centuries-long theological stalemate, with arbitrary and subjective distinctions between "essential" and "nonessential" beliefs.

A typical Protestant denomination has more theological agreement than a typical Orthodox church. The reason there are so many "United" Prot denominations is because of this.

 

[Aboulia]

But your question implicitly identifies the Russian Church with those that apostatised

I'm not doing that, you're assuming all in Russia, who claim to be Orthodox, is the Russian church. By your logic, The Russian Church started to persecute the Russian Church, so the Russian Church walled itself off from the Russian Church officials that were obedient to Moscow, so that the faith of the Russian Church would not be compromised by the Russian Church, then about a century later, the Russian Church canonized the martyrs the Russian Church was already honoring, and since the Russian Church canonized the martyrs, it's shown repentance for persecuting the Russian Church.

By your logic, the church never went underground either. The church flees into the wilderness in times of persecution, those who remained after they knew the MP apostasized and became a political institution, abandoned the church. This is why I brought up the declaration, it was the beginning of the MP's transformation from a church into a political institution.

It's easy to come up with these black and white statements to justify anything we want. The Church is always under pressure to conform to the will of the state

There's a difference between "being under pressure" and total obesience to the point of praising the persecutors, like "Patriarch" Alexei, on the death of Stalin

“His death is a heavy grief for our Fatherland and for all the people who inhabit it. The whole Russian Orthodox Church, which will never forget his benevolent attitude to Church needs, feels great sorrow at his death. The bright memory of him will live ineradicably in our hearts. Our Church proclaims eternal memory to him with a special feeling of abiding love”.

What do you think people like Archbishop Averky, and St Philaret the New Confessor, or Metropolitan Vitaly would think of ROCOR currently, being in communion with those participating in the WCC?

Likewise you imply that those that canonized the martyrs were guilty of persecuting them. Even if the latter were true (which its not), would that not be an example of the repentance you are demanding?

Repentance consists of more than putting something on paper, just like being a priest consists of more than putting on robes. What actions were taken by the MP to show it's repentance from being a state puppet?

You're right in so far as the Church should struggle to safeguard its autonomy, but your logic doesn't safeguard autonomy - it leads to schism and then endless justifications for why schism should never be overcome.

Schism can be overcome, but requires repentance of the guilty party, which I haven't seen evidence of.

 

[MichaelWitcoff]

A typical Protestant denomination has more theological agreement than a typical Orthodox church. The reason there are so many "United" Prot denominations is because of this.

This is silly to the point of being nonsensical.

 

[Prores]

A typical Protestant denomination has more theological agreement than a typical Orthodox church. The reason there are so many "United" Prot denominations is because of this.

Based and insanitypilled

 

[vraph]

This is silly to the point of being nonsensical.

Based and insanitypilled

It's actually been said more than once on this forum.

 

[Hermetic Seal]

A typical Protestant denomination has more theological agreement than a typical Orthodox church. The reason there are so many "United" Prot denominations is because of this.

This is a simply absurd statement. In my previous post, I posted a long list of areas of protestant theological dispute, which anybody who has spent much time in the protestant world (such as myself, in the first 30+ years of my life) can corroborate. Where's the unity in the Southern Baptist convention, which is currently being torn apart? The "United" Methodists and their gay mafia? Presbyterians who can't agree about infant baptism? The countless life boat denominations from the sinking ship of Anglicanism/Episcopalianism? And on and on and on. Rather, there's a consistent pattern, as Tractor pointed out above, of protestant denominations capitulating to the cultural narrative, a conservative minority offshoot that objects to the change, and the process repeating in the conservative denomination years later.

Now, perhaps you'll find congregants in an Orthodox parish who believe the wrong things, but this is a completely different matter and usually a result of poor catechesis (most notably, parents not catechizing their children like they ought to.) This is not the same as educated protestants disagree over various issues because they have differing private interpretations of Bible verses. It's also not the same as Orthodox disagreeing over contemporary issues like masks and vaccines for which there isn't Scriptural or patristic precedent, or internal political issues like with Old Calendarists. Protestants have division over this kind of thing and also manifold theological disunity. That's the point. You won't find Orthodox bickering over the Trinity, or ecclesiology, or debate over praying to the Saints.

 

[vraph]

This is a simply absurd statement. In my previous post, I posted a long list of areas of protestant theological dispute, which anybody who has spent much time in the protestant world (such as myself, in the first 30+ years of my life) can corroborate. Where's the unity in the Southern Baptist convention, which is currently being torn apart? The "United" Methodists and their gay mafia? Presbyterians who can't agree about infant baptism? The countless life boat denominations from the sinking ship of Anglicanism/Episcopalianism? And on and on and on. Rather, there's a consistent pattern, as Tractor pointed out above, of protestant denominations capitulating to the cultural narrative, a conservative minority offshoot that objects to the change, and the process repeating in the conservative denomination years later.

Plenty of Catholics have been collapsing into this process as well. Plenty of Catholic universities accepting gays. This might not be a Protestant thing specifically. Mark my words, it'll probably happen to Orthodoxy too.

Seems more like a societal issue and a masonic-usury issue than a religious one.

 

[OrthoSerb]

I'm not doing that, you're assuming all in Russia, who claim to be Orthodox, is the Russian church. By your logic, The Russian Church started to persecute the Russian Church, so the Russian Church walled itself off from the Russian Church officials that were obedient to Moscow, so that the faith of the Russian Church would not be compromised by the Russian Church, then about a century later, the Russian Church canonized the martyrs the Russian Church was already honoring, and since the Russian Church canonized the martyrs, it's shown repentance for persecuting the Russian Church.

By your logic, the church never went underground either. The church flees into the wilderness in times of persecution, those who remained after they knew the MP apostasized and became a political institution, abandoned the church. This is why I brought up the declaration, it was the beginning of the MP's transformation from a church into a political institution.

I have very little understanding of what you're implying that I said. If you want to understand my position then have a read of the following archive of articles that Father John Whiteford put together on the topic:

Voices of Reason: Responses in Support of the Synod of Bishops to those who are creating a Schism

www.saintjonah.org

There's a difference between "being under pressure" and total obesience to the point of praising the persecutors, like "Patriarch" Alexei, on the death of Stalin

Different levels of pressure lead to different levels of obeisance. That can happen when the lives of many people are on the line. When St Peter denied Christ he was fearful for his life. But you're not comprehending what I said, you keep asking me to try to justify things that I don't support. What you don't seem to recognise is that you can't point to a single person in the hierarchy that would justify that citation relating to Stalin now that the persecution has been removed. You keep demanding that those who never said such a thing, that condemn the Soviet state and glorify the martyrs, provide you with evidence of repentance before you decide to come out of schism. At some point you have to consider whether perhaps the impediment is on your side and that maybe you don't want to come out of schism.

What do you think people like Archbishop Averky, and St Philaret the New Confessor, or Metropolitan Vitaly would think of ROCOR currently, being in communion with those participating in the WCC?

We don't have to imagine, we have a concrete example. You do realise that all those you mentioned were in communion with the Serbian Patriarchate even though it was a member of the WCC? I am also against WCC membership but there is very little activity in relation to that organisation these days. The current hierarchs of ROCOR have voiced their disapproval of continuing membership of the WCC and it remains to be seen what will happen.

Repentance consists of more than putting something on paper, just like being a priest consists of more than putting on robes. What actions were taken by the MP to show it's repentance from being a state puppet?

Schism can be overcome, but requires repentance of the guilty party, which I haven't seen evidence of.

You keep repeating that you would like to see repentance as if its understood that the Moscow Patriarchate is guilty of something. Can you be more specific - which currently living individuals are you expecting to see more repentance from, what are you expecting them to repent for and what would you accept as a sufficient sign of their repentance?

 

[El Toro]

Yes. But I didn’t use the term because to be honest my whole life until recently I thought it was a reference to the conception of Jesus. So I wanted to avoid ambiguity.

Wait...you claim you were a "Traditional Catholic" but yet you didn't even know what the Immaculate Conception was??? Explain THAT one for me. And calling it the "Virgin Birth of Mary" isn't "avoiding ambiguity", by the way. You were obviously never a Traditional Catholic at any point in your life.

 

[Cavalier]

Wait...you claim you were a "Traditional Catholic" but yet you didn't even know what the Immaculate Conception was??? Explain THAT one for me. And calling it the "Virgin Birth of Mary" isn't "avoiding ambiguity", by the way. You were obviously never a Traditional Catholic at any point in your life.

No you are wrong. I heard the term Immaculate Conception and just assumed it referred to Jesus. So yes calling it the Virgin birth of Mary avoids ambiguity if someone was mistaken as I was. Traditional or not how would you know? But that is irrelevant now since I found the True Church, unchanging since Pentecost 33AD.

 

[lskdfjldsf]

Wait...you claim you were a "Traditional Catholic" but yet you didn't even know what the Immaculate Conception was??? Explain THAT one for me. And calling it the "Virgin Birth of Mary" isn't "avoiding ambiguity", by the way. You were obviously never a Traditional Catholic at any point in your life.

Cleotis sockpuppet account, just joined 40 minutes ago and comes out swinging with the same aggression (even grammar/punctuation are the same).

 

[El Toro]

No you are wrong. I heard the term Immaculate Conception and just assumed it referred to Jesus. So yes calling it the Virgin birth of Mary avoids ambiguity if someone was mistaken as I was. Traditional or not how would you know? But that is irrelevant now since I found the True Church, unchanging since Pentecost 33AD.

Because the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception doesn't teach that Mary was born of a Virgin. So no, calling it Virgin Birth of Mary doesn't avoid ambiguity at all. You are profoundly ignorant.

 

[DanielH]

Because the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception doesn't teach that Mary was born of a Virgin. So no, calling it Virgin Birth of Mary doesn't avoid ambiguity at all. You are profoundly ignorant.

It's Sunday.

 

[Cavalier]

Because the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception doesn't teach that Mary was born of a Virgin. So no, calling it Virgin Birth of Mary doesn't avoid ambiguity at all. You are profoundly ignorant.

Yes of course I am sorry. You are technically right. Anna and Joachim were married for a long time and childless and hoping to conceive. So Anna was not a virgin. However the term immaculate states that she conceived without sex therefore Joachim would not be the father. But once again I used the term I used so as to not confuse it with the conception and birth of Jesus. But the doctrine did not become official until 1854 so was not a doctrine of the original Church. It was adopted because of the doctrine of original sin which was also not a doctrine of the original Church but adopted by the Latins much earlier though not by the other Patriarchates.

 

[El Toro]

It's Sunday.

No, it's Wednesday (December 8).

 

[MichaelWitcoff]

Yes of course I am sorry. You are technically right. Anna and Joachim were married for a long time and childless and hoping to conceive. So Anna was not a virgin. However the term immaculate states that she conceived without sex therefore Joachim would not be the father. But once again I used the term I used so as to not confuse it with the conception and birth of Jesus. But the doctrine did not become official until 1854 so was not a doctrine of the original Church. It was adopted because of the doctrine of original sin which was also not a doctrine of the original Church but adopted by the Latins much earlier though not by the other Patriarchates.

That’s not what “immaculate” means in this context, it means preserved from concupiscence (or temptation).