Nothing equivalent to the Reformation in Orthodoxy?

[“Paisios”]

(I am most interested in Orthodox replies here, though am also willing to hear responses from the non-Orthodox. I posted it here in St. Justin’s in case the discussion gets heated.)

I have heard it said several times that the East has had nothing similar to the Reformation that occurred in the West.

On the surface, it appears to me that many of the schismatic groups claiming themselves to be the “True” or “Genuine” Orthodox Churches and the Old Calenderists would seem to be the Eastern equivalent of Protestantism. For my understanding, can someone please explain to me why these two things are substantively different?

Thanks for your insights.

 

[RobNJ]

There WAS a time, I considered the schismatic "orthodox" groups to be the equivalent of protestants. Then I came to realize they are MUCH worse. Protestants don't try to pass themselves off as Roman Catholics, and, in fact, pride themselves as NOT being RC's. Where the schismatic "orthodox" sects, TRY their best to pass themselves off as legitimate Orthodox jurisdictions.

 

[AMM]

Could it be said that there have been reformations of sorts at times when heresy crept in to the church and became the predominant belief for a period of time? I’m thinking of Arius (whose views were quite popular prior to nicea) or Iconoclasm, both of which were defeated by saints such as Athanasius, or John of Damascus.

 

[Not David]

There WAS a time, I considered the schismatic "orthodox" groups to be the equivalent of protestants. Then I came to realize they are MUCH worse. Protestants don't try to pass themselves off as Roman Catholics, and, in fact, pride themselves as NOT being RC's. Where the schismatic "orthodox" sects, TRY their best to pass themselves off as legitimate Orthodox jurisdictions.

Those are the Evangelicals. If you hear a Lutheran, Anglican or even Reformed, they will say they are Catholic or "Reformed Catholic".

 

[Not David]

I don't know if the Old Believers could be considered kind of Protestant but I believe "True Orthodoxy" to be more in line with the Sedevacantists.

What's interesting is that I found articles on Protestant Eastern Christianity and Evangelical Orthodox Church.

Protestant Eastern Christianity - Wikipedia
Evangelical Orthodox Church - Wikipedia

 

[RobNJ]

Those are the Evangelicals. If you hear a Lutheran, Anglican or even Reformed, they will say they are Catholic or "Reformed Catholic".

Maybe on the neenernet, but in REAL LIFE,,,,,,Those are ALL protestants... Trust me on this,,, 9 years of Lutheran school, former Reformed Elder, and spent 2 years as an Anglican, before becoming Orthodox

 

[Lukaris]

There was a reply by 16th c. Patriarch Jeremias to Lutheran inquiry:

The Three Answers of Patriarch Jeremiah II

 

[AMM]

Those are the Evangelicals. If you hear a Lutheran, Anglican or even Reformed, they will say they are Catholic or "Reformed Catholic".

good point, but would a better comparison perhaps be the sedevacantists?

Edit: oh wait, you said that... I guess I need to read the whole thread before responding haha

 

[Paidiske]

Those are the Evangelicals. If you hear a Lutheran, Anglican or even Reformed, they will say they are Catholic or "Reformed Catholic".

Yes and no. We would say we are catholic (small c), but we don't try to claim that we're the "real and true Roman Catholic church" or the like, nor do we attempt to obfuscate the differences.

It's an interesting question. I would lean in the direction of saying that in many ways the Protestant reformation was the product of particular historical circumstances, and that the east has no exact parallel because its history has been profoundly different.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would say a big difference is Luther was kicked out. the Old Calendarists willingly left.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

The Reformation was not only a theological movement against papal abuses, starting with indulgences, but also a political movement as rulers opposed papal involvement in their internal politics, primarily in the Holy Roman Empire.

 

[“Paisios”]

Thank you everyone for your thoughts and insight.

 

[buzuxi02]

(I am most interested in Orthodox replies here, though am also willing to hear responses from the non-Orthodox. I posted it here in St. Justin’s in case the discussion gets heated.)

I have heard it said several times that the East has had nothing similar to the Reformation that occurred in the West.

On the surface, it appears to me that many of the schismatic groups claiming themselves to be the “True” or “Genuine” Orthodox Churches and the Old Calenderists would seem to be the Eastern equivalent of Protestantism. For my understanding, can someone please explain to me why these two things are substantively different?

Thanks for your insights.

No, these groups are still the same religion and can even cite canons for their seperation.
Protestantism morphs into a whole new religion and then continue to splinter hence their own terminology of denominations and branches and are considered a positive development (diversity and continual reform). Protestantism abandons previous traditions held by their christian ancestors.. By doing that it creates a new culture detached from the society before them.
Old calendarists or old believers even non- chalcedonians (regardless of what you think of their doctrine) are not looking to change but to preserve what came before them.

 

[Not David]

No, these groups are still the same religion and can even cite canons for their seperation.
Protestantism morphs into a whole new religion and then continue to splinter hence their own terminology of denominations and branches and are considered a positive development (diversity and continual reform). Protestantism abandons previous traditions held by their christian ancestors.. By doing that it creates a new culture detached from the society before them.
Old calendarists or old believers even non- chalcedonians (regardless of what you think of their doctrine) are not looking to change but to preserve what came before them.

What about the Roman Church?

 

[dzheremi]

What about the Roman Church?

I guess you'd have to ask yourself how much of that description also applies to the Roman Church. Seems pretty spot on to me in some respects ('diversity' and 'continual reform', though the RC itself probably wouldn't put it in exactly those terms -- they prefer 'breathing with both lungs' and 'development of doctrine', but I don't really see how those are all that different). But what do I know. (Except for the part where I was RC myself...but even then I couldn't say I know all that much, since my RC friends always told me that if I really understood XYZ problem thing, then I never would have left. Strange how that works. )

 

[buzuxi02]

Protestantism is a direct offshoot of RC but since they accepted the novelty of sola scripture they no longer look nor smell like RC.. The closest thing RC has are the SSPX and Sedavacanist. You cannot even make the case for the old catholics as they no longer hold the ethos of latin Catholicism. They have abandoned traditional morals though certain things may look alike on the exterior.

 

[AMM]

my RC friends always told me that if I really understood XYZ problem thing, then I never would have left. Strange how that works.

Reminds me of some of the extreme calvinists, who will say “the Elect will never fall from the faith, so if you leave Christianity that means you were never Christian to begin with”