At what point can Protestants say the early/medieval church is not our church?

[~Anastasia~]

One could easily argue the Orthodox Church has as many denominations as the West: Greek Orthodox, Bulgarian, Georgian, Serbian, etc.

People do make that argument, but I'm surprised it stands up.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that things like language used, musical preferences, and so on are generally a matter of embracing the culture and language of the people. The failure of Catholicism to move into the vernacular was a criticism on the other hand.

But Orthodoxy maintains a common theology and a common communion, as it always has (minus the petty issues that unfortunately come up due to fallen people making up the Church, which is also nothing new since the time of the Apostles, and which gets resolved just as the Apostles did).

 

[Albion]

What event or series of events do you have in mind when you write here about the Papacy being created 300+ years after Christ?

Asking for a friend in Alexandria...

Well, there was no papacy--not by any name--in the first centuries of Christian history. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church makes claims today, often citing the doings of some of the early bishops of Rome or even of other persons concerning the church at Rome, but the fact is that there was nothing then that amounted to a Papacy or Pope as we understand those terms.

Gradually, however, the bishops of Rome asserted themselves until we reach the point that a Papacy can be said to have evolved into existence through the success of those efforts.

Leo the Great is the one most often identified as the first Pope in reality. Some historians opt for one or another of his immediate predecessors. So that sets the time at least approximately.

It is mainly a matter of putting one's finger on the significance of the bishop's doings and the reaction of the church to them.

 

[Resha Caner]

But Orthodoxy maintains a common theology and a common communion, as it always has ...

Granted there is a closer connection than between many of the Protestant denominations. However, my personal experience is that the national divisions are more than simple cultural/language differences. I know some Orthodox who adamantly refuse to participate with those of other patriarchates.

 

[dzheremi]

I see. Thank you for clarifying what you meant by that post, Albion.

As you might guess, a Christian of the Alexandrian tradition will have a very different take on this issue of "(the) papacy", so I was just curious as to what that means to another type of Christian who is not a Roman Catholic. (I already know what they think, since I was one before converting to Orthodoxy.)

 

[Willie T]

Since Protestantism is known as "the Priesthood of Believers", it would seem that it would be at any point you feel that priests took a center-stage role... considering themselves to be superior to ordinary Believers.

 

[dzheremi]

When in the historical timeline did that happen, Willie T?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Granted there is a closer connection than between many of the Protestant denominations. However, my personal experience is that the national divisions are more than simple cultural/language differences. I know some Orthodox who adamantly refuse to participate with those of other patriarchates.

There may be national grudges between individuals. But they are in error according to the beliefs of the Church itself.

That (or something similar) happens in any kind of fellowship.

 

[Albion]

Since Protestantism is known as "the Priesthood of Believers", it would seem that it would be at any point you feel that priests took a center-stage role... considering themselves to be superior to ordinary Believers.

Protestantism is not known as the priesthood of believers, Willie. That Bible verse refers to the whole body of Christ, all believers, as having the commission to run the churches/assemblies, rather than have a special class of priests like the Hebrew priests who came from one tribe.

To the extent that this connects with Protestantism, it is that the people in most denominations choose their pastors and run the congregations by congregational vote or by convention or something like that involving input from the lay members, unlike the process in the Catholic Church for instance.

 

[Willie T]

When in the historical timeline did that happen, Willie T?

I think I told the OP when that would have been... "that it would be at any point you feel that priests took a center-stage role... considering themselves to be superior to ordinary Believers."

 

[Willie T]

Protestantism is not known as the priesthood of believers, Willie. That Bible verse refers to the whole body of Christ, all believers, as having the commission to run the churches/assemblies, rather than have a special class of priests like the Hebrew priests who came from one tribe.

To the extent that this connects with Protestantism, it is that the people in most denominations choose their pastors and run the congregations by congregational vote or by convention or something like that involving input from the lay members, unlike the process in the Catholic Church for instance.

I think that's pretty much what I said.

 

[Resha Caner]

There may be national grudges between individuals. But they are in error according to the beliefs of the Church itself.

That (or something similar) happens in any kind of fellowship.

Well ... I almost let this go. I would agree with you the Orthodox church has a higher level of unity than much of the rest of Christendom. There is much I admire about it.

But in truth this stems somewhat from a "No True Scotsman" approach. When someone doesn't agree they're simply ejected and then voila! the Orthodox church is and always will be in perfect unity. I sometimes wonder if that really counts. If there are continuing attempts to reconcile with the apostates, that would seem the proper thing, but that also seems to acknowledge they're still part of the body and as such can you really say there is unity between the opposing groups? If no attempt to reconcile is made ... well ... any denomination could claim unity under those conditions.

As an example: Two-headed hydra of Ukrainian schism and the world Orthodoxy

 

[Albion]

I think that's pretty much what I said.

Since Protestantism is known as "the Priesthood of Believers"....

Protestantism isn't known as the priesthood of believers. But Protestants do refer to that verse when it comes to their beliefs concerning church government.

However, I appreciate the follow-up about what you meant there.

 

[Willie T]

Just a little bit on "The Priesthood of All Believers" and Protestantism:
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=hts&oq=&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS810US810&q=Protestantism+is+known+as+"the+Priesthood+of+Believers

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...WlwFkKHWBmAXYQ1QIoAXoECAsQAg&biw=1120&bih=515

 

[Willie T]

dp

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well ... I almost let this go. I would agree with you the Orthodox church has a higher level of unity than much of the rest of Christendom. There is much I admire about it.

But in truth this stems somewhat from a "No True Scotsman" approach. When someone doesn't agree they're simply ejected and then voila! the Orthodox church is and always will be in perfect unity. I sometimes wonder if that really counts. If there are continuing attempts to reconcile with the apostates, that would seem the proper thing, but that also seems to acknowledge they're still part of the body and as such can you really say there is unity between the opposing groups? If no attempt to reconcile is made ... well ... any denomination could claim unity under those conditions.

As an example: Two-headed hydra of Ukrainian schism and the world Orthodoxy

This is indeed a very unfortunate situation you cite. It is probably the greatest cause for concern in the Church since 1054.

And it stems from the issue of authority. Which is the main issue that caused Rome to schism.

It's not accurate to say this kind of thing happens regularly. There are little squabbles yes - as I said, fallen people are involved to make up the Church. The same was true among the Apostles. It seems we as humans cannot completely get away from that.

By the way, the Church does not excommunicate people under ordinary circumstances. (What that means in practice is that ordinary laypeople can leave the Church or excommunicate themselves, but the Church does not put people out.) However, if someone is a position of authority presumes to teach great error, and refuses to be corrected or to stop teaching wrong things, the Church will officially reject their teaching and may eventually reject them as well. It seems to me that would be the responsible response of any body to someone set on leading the flock astray.

 

[Resha Caner]

It's not accurate to say this kind of thing happens regularly. There are little squabbles yes - as I said, fallen people are involved to make up the Church. The same was true among the Apostles. It seems we as humans cannot completely get away from that.

Sure.

It seems to me that would be the responsible response of any body to someone set on leading the flock astray.

In the Lutheran church excommunication is extremely rare, and is considered church discipline, not a judgement of one's eternal condition. The hope is it will lead to reconciliation; the person is not abandoned to a hellish fate. Maybe that view is a consequence of Lutheran history.

But you are right. There is a need to protect the church from false teachers as well.

 

[~Anastasia~]

In the Lutheran church excommunication is extremely rare, and is considered church discipline, not a judgement of one's eternal condition. The hope is it will lead to reconciliation; the person is not abandoned to a hellish fate.

That's good.

We sometimes temporarily ask a person to abstain from receiving Communion. It can be a form of discipline, but better thought of as (a) a form of medicine aimed at reconciling them to the Body and/or (b) protecting them from receiving in an unworthy manner. This would be for very serious sins or while a person had serious doubts regarding faith.

It is never to condemn them or cut them off though. Always the desire should be to make the way for them to be restored.

It sounds like we agree essentially on this.

 

[Resha Caner]

That's good.

We sometimes temporarily ask a person to abstain from receiving Communion. It can be a form of discipline, but better thought of as (a) a form of medicine aimed at reconciling them to the Body and/or (b) protecting them from receiving in an unworthy manner. This would be for very serious sins or while a person had serious doubts regarding faith.

It is never to condemn them or cut them off though. Always the desire should be to make the way for them to be restored.

It sounds like we agree essentially on this.

Yes, we teach "Close Communion", which means people can be asked to abstain. However, given the rise of Western liberalism and its effect on the church, it's not always adhered to. I understand why. I had to have that conversation with someone once, and it was not pleasant. Thankfully, reconciliation was the eventual outcome.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The seeds of the Reformation were sown long before, as proto-Reformation groups clearly show. The situation was merely more amenable to it in the 16th century.

I would think the anti-clericalism due to corrupt churchmen was a big factor, so I would see the Reformation as merely another example of ongoing process - just different from the Cluniac Reforms or Franciscans say, in that the Church did not remain united. Human institutions decay, so periodic reformation is always inevitable as people rediscover the roots of the Faith (such as Chesterton's Five Deaths of the Faith), the Protestant Reformation only became inevitable when Luther faced the Diet of Worms and Frederick of Saxony decided to protect him. Its success or failure thereafter could have been very different, and depends very much on National histories. I mean, the Huguenots 'won' in France, but their guy had to convert to gain Paris, ultimately dooming the French Reformation there; or the Spanish reformation was stillborn; or the Polish Socinian one reversed succesfully.

When is the early Church no longer the Protestant's one, as some interpret the OP? Never. Protestantism arose from, and in reaction to, Mediaeval Christianity. Elements within it are clear Protestant antecedents, such as debate on Canon. I would say that there is only Western Christianity which then split into Protestant denominations and Roman Catholicism during the Reformation - both equally hold that prior as theirs, even if one repudiates it and the other not so much.

That said, many of the Protestant talking points are raised by Augustine, so he should be given special mention. His influence is strong here.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I'm going to suggest the early second century. A Protestant theology of what the Church is, salvation by faith alone, Sola Scriptura and Church leadership do not fit easily or especially well into that context. It's hard to imagine Ignatius or Clement approving of people placing themselves in authority like Luther or Calvin did. Nor do certain of the Fathers statements about salvation add up to a clean or strict version of Sola Fide. They suggest at multiple times, works do matter in the context of our salvation.