[NOTE: I'll use the word "Reformed" instead of "Protestant" from now on (the label "Protestant" is reductive IMO), but understand that I'm just using it as a synonym for the way most people use the word Protestant. "Reformed", in turn, is short for "Reformed Catholic", meaning, someone in the Western church who rejects the papacy as a legitimate apostolic seat.]
Fair enough - when I was a Lutheran I didn't like the term "protestant" either. That's what Henry was. As you said, Luther didn't want to break from Rome.
I'm all for holy traditions, as long as they go all the way back to the apostles. If something is a later accretion to the faith, it may well be a valuable and worthwhile thing for Christians and churches to practice, and I may well be won over to it, but it can never be an essential to the faith. And if a church treats any of these later accretions as essentials, saying, "If anyone does not join us in affirming and doing such-and-such and in condemning those who differ from us on this, let him be anathema." then while that tradition itself may have been of value, this extra step of calling it an essential, so as to disqualify the apostles themselves from what is declared to be the sole true catholic and orthodox Church cannot possibly be right. And this alone is proof that the Church that does it cannot be the sole true catholic and orthodox Church.
I think the most important division though, and the one I focus on, is that there are three entities that believe in the Church as a physical entity - the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox, and Rome. Scripture mentions the Church a lot. If you subscribe to a tradition that interprets that as something more than an invisible entity, you have those three choices. If you subscribe to a holy tradition that doesn't believe the Church is something concrete, then you have everybody else.
I never found evidence that the latter of those traditions existed prior to the 1500s.
For me that clearly puts this teaching into the category that the reformed Christians are constantly trying to shove the historic churches into.
As a Reformed Christian, the filioque is a little bit like when your parents are fighting, and they're both wrong. Rome says, "The Scriptures teach the filioque!" and they're right. Orthodoxy says, "We don't agree. We still love you anyway, but you're being a jerk about it!" and they're right. So, Reformed tend to disagree with both sides, on different points. We disagree with Rome for being a jerk about the filioque. We disagree with Orthodoxy because their doctrine on this point is simply in error.
I think if there was a competition to find a modern slogan for Orthodoxy it would be "Would you people please stop making me defend Rome". Our divorce was finalized a thousand years ago.
So, bearing in mind I'm not really arguing with you and moreso explaining how I got where I am FBO the OP...
There was a whole council about this. Councils are such a big deal that once you get into theological fine print, which councils you accept as valid becomes a yardstick for where a Christian entity is theologically. There is a point at which Christians start to disagree on what was decided in council -
but what we're talking about is before that point. The Nicene Creed was written down with the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Period.
I'm not going to get into the Scriptural evidence of the Filioque for two reasons. First because it's above my pay grade, just as the split at Chalcedon is above my pay grade.
Second, because it's a waste of my time. For these reasons, and in this order.
1) The argument about the Filioque is to me similar to the argument about the American "Civil War". Ok, yeah, there's this main topic that everyone wants to talk about and the conversation just drives straight into it. But in both cases the thing everyone wants to talk about isn't the point: the point is
you didn't have the authority to do that. People who came before us clearly and unanimously decided things and when they were changed they were just changed. No running it through anyone, no discussion.
318 bishops and as many as 1900 total attendees were in concert about the Nicene Creed. Some of them showed up in support of Arius but then backtracked when they heard the counterarguments.
In the end, the verbiage of the Nicene Creed was not something that was handed down from on top. It happened by discovery after everyone prayerfully hashed it out. It was only after that when the Filioque showed up and it was, for a second example in this post, exactly the thing that reformed Christians complain about: theological novelty that became a tradition that became a non-negotiable.
2) I judge these entities by their fruits. As I had children I realized that if there was one thing I would want for them, it would be not to go through what I went through as a child in my faith. I spent the first eight years of my life as a rock-solid confessional Lutheran, which I still commend to this day as better than most. The trouble is, the seeds for theological change were sewn prior to my birth - and so I got to grow up through the stages of Lutheranism when the trappings of confessional Lutheranism were being removed. It started with the music changing, and nobody noticed that the new music wasn't as good, and if they did, they were told it didn't matter. Then the words in the music started changing, and more people noticed, but they'd already been told the music didn't matter, so then of course the words didn't matter. Then when I was in high school, that's when they started monkeying with the creeds. It's when they got the artsy altar paraments that incorporated window screen as design elements. It's when they started having women serve as communion assistants.
And that's when some of the old timers finally piped up and said that was a bridge too far. They played right into the narrative - they got upset, and some of them yelled, and ultimately they didn't have an argument. Because the theological fight they were having was started before
they were born. The 50+ crowd knew it wasn't right but they had never been told why. And I still clearly remember the 30-something who stood up in that assembly and said 'hey wait a second, there are people here who are clearly upset about this and it seems to me there's an alternate position that isn't getting adequately presented here. Everyone has 3 minutes to speak and it's not enough time to address this, so I don't think we should push forward with women lay assistants until we understand the issue.'
And he was summarily ignored, and the vote continued, and they democratically decided the theology of who serves communion that day.
And this was the 'conservative' bunch of Lutherans. And the 30-something who piped up against making the decision was a guy I sang in a contemporary choir with, so it's not like he was the old guard. But it was unequivocally pointed out that day that we were absolutely not to look into what the historic faith has to teach on topics of doctrine - we were to decide it ourselves under the guidance of a single clegyman who was clearly not allowing actual dissent.
Microcosm, macrocosm.
Several of these doctrinal problems cropped up and by the time I was 35 I was just done with it. The egalitarian theology method has serious problems. So does the hierarchical method. But the egalitarian method is a high speed motorcycle accident from 500 years ago and a billion people all think that hammering the bits of rider into the pavement is the answer.
I want my theological change to be absent. In cases where it might actually be required, I want it to be so slow as to not even notice and I want it to be deliberate.
If Orthodoxy has changed something that it doesn't openly admit, then I haven't noticed yet.
I do concede that there have been changes. For instance, the office of deaconess no longer exists. And Orthodoxy admits this - and responds that the only reason why it existed is because so many adults were being baptized and at the time baptisms were done nude, so they existed pretty much strictly to perform baptisms on adult women. In every instance of this I've seen it's similar - 'Yeah we did change that. This is why. Go work on yourself instead of worrying about this.' The problems with hierarchical theology are comparatively manageable.
It was a Lutheran pastor - Todd Wilken of Issues, Etc - who taught me that you can't divorce practice from doctrine. You do the things you do because of what you believe. Some people innately understand this. They don't get huffy about window screen paraments because they're just old timers who can't update their thinking. They get upset because doing that makes a public statement that bumps into the historic teachings of the Church specifically about respect. If you take advantage of their lack of theological training and skills in rhetoric to push a theological agenda, well, then, that's what you're doing.
Just yesterday my BIL showed me a photo of Zelensky giving a talk at a dinner. The dinner was quite obviously set up inside an Orthodox church. They had put up a big screen behind him so you couldn't see the altar, and there were round conference tables with diners all throughout the nave. There are tons of reformed Christians reading that and thinking "yeah, so what we do that all the time" but that's my point - this was a profound and intentional disrespect, and Christians of the East know this and feel this way.
I don't want to raise children who have to get embroiled in arguments about this sort of thing. I want my children to see the photo and think "ok, yeah, not even looking into what that guy had to say there. That's wrong and if he didn't know that then he can learn it's wrong and apologize and then I might listen." Life is too short and there's too much to learn to waste our time on such people's ideas, whether they are corrupt dictators, simple Lutheran pastors, or popes. I admit that the hierarchical method has many of the same problems. But I don't see it as often or as severely.
Apostolic Succession means different things to different people. This is what it means to me. It's the best shot I have at having children who will raise their children to believe the same things I do. I'm willing to budge on relics if that's what I'm getting for it, and particularly if the arguments in favor of them are at least present.
Yep, I'm familiar with the Orthodox view of the Schism and, again, if I had to choose between the two at gunpoint, I'd choose Orthodox because, "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." (1 Cor. 13:2) The Truth is of utmost importance, but it's still better to have love than to be right.
What is Truth?
"I am the way and the Truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me." John 14:6
This was another selling point for me. Western Christianity teaches that Jesus died for you. Oh yeah there was a resurrection but that really only happened to prove who he said he was. You need to believe in that. Here's a book. Good luck.
Orthodoxy's main point is that you can have a personal relationship with Christ. And though we're not going to say you can't have that relationship outside of the Church (in fact there are plenty of hagiographies that dissuade us of that notion) our position is "here is what works".
I mean, I get it. I've been that guy a lot in my life.
Forget the hello world nonsense, I want to know how to handle function pointers in Python.
Forget the plywood stitch and glue, I want to jump straight to a fiberglass monocoque boat.
Forget the barrel helm, I want to jump straight to making Maximillian harness.
Anyone who is recognized as doing those things well will say to the beginner "woah back up there and start simple, prove you can do that, learn what you don't know, and then continue". But when the topic shifts to Christianity everyone outside of those aforementioned 3 entities seems to agree that there's no need for basics and no need for shepherding.
If you go to confession, and you keep going, you might learn what it's for. You might get introduced to the idea of having a spiritual father - someone who will take you under his wing and guide you in how to grow in your relationship with Christ. You might get advice in other things that you can do that will help, too. And yes, almost none of it is going to be specifically prescribed in Scripture.
But the point is, it stands as good a chance of working as it always has. It's a practice that matches the belief. I can admit that there are exceptions where people didn't do it and turned out saved. I can also probably find someone who owned a car that drove for 200000 miles without changing the brake pads. That doesn't do anything to invalidate the axiom that
you have to change your brake pads. It's the exception that proves the rule.
I'm referring to the apostolic succession. I find it ironic that Orthodoxy has always agreed with Rome that Reformed Christians of the West are schismatics/heretics. Why does a scepter, a mitre, a throne and papal robes make them (Rome) non-schismatic, and we schismatic? I never understood that.
See that's where you lost me. I don't know any Orthodox who consider Rome non-schismatic. I mean it's called "The Great Schism" for a reason.
I think of it this way. We consider Rome to be our estranged cousins. There's bad blood between us and we've openly fought more than once.
But they're still our cousins. That puts them on better footing with us than the reformed Christians are on. But they're still very much in error.
The best example I can think of is my vote I cast for Trump last month. I'm not with him, I don't agree with him, I can instantly enumerate several ways I vehemently oppose him, but
if you force me to take sides, I gotta go with him.
If the bishops descend into debauchery and blunt heresy, there is no "non-schismatic" solution except that they publicly repent of their sins and cleanse the church of the wickedness they have brought into it.
You've inspired me to go watch
Man of God again. Orthodox are constantly admonished to take the long view, and I think this film really elegantly and poignantly drove that home.
Failing that, the only option is to leave, because the body of Christ cannot be joined to a prostitute. Luther had no intention of dividing the church of Rome, he sincerely believed that it could be reformed (hence, "the Reformation"). And when Rome dug its heels in and refused the correction of the Holy Spirit not only through Luther, but through a great assembly of witnesses to Rome's error and corruption, that is when the break occurred in the West. This is what I mean by comparing the Reformation to parental abandonment. Those who hold the Reformed to be schismatics are accusing the abandoned children of being disobedient and dishonoring their parents (Rome). We did not disobey or dishonor anyone, they simply abandoned the Faith. What makes the Orthodox position on the Reformation particularly puzzling to me is that Orthodoxy itself had already removed the bishop of Rome from communion, so Orthodoxy itself recognizes the very same problem in the church of Rome that the Reformers would later be forced into schism over! To quote one of the Reformers (can't remember which off the top of my head): "We did not leave Rome. Rome left us." I have often speculated that if the Reformers had been located on the border of the Eastern empire, they would have just joined Orthodoxy. There are some serious doctrinal differences, but those doctrinal differences happen to be exactly the same issues that Rome has with Orthodox, sans the papacy -- the filioque being one notable example. I hope that makes sense.
So, I don't recommend people read this normally, but you brought it up.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_luther.aspx
I ran into this prior to becoming Orthodox, and to be perfectly honest, it probably delayed my Chrismation by at least a year.
On first read I thought "hang on, the Lutheran reformers seemed like they were really interested in forming a relationship with the Church in the East and they basically got knocked back. That ain't right."
My view has evolved a lot since then. The TL;DR is that I don't subscribe to the same thought as you do, about parents and children.
Reading between the lines a bit, and knowing how things work in Orthodoxy, Patriarch Jeremias kinda went out of his way to lovingly illustrate the ways in which the Augsburg Confession would absolutely not be accepted in the East. Was he harsh by not bending a whole lot? I originally thought so.
But he wasn't treating them like children. He was treating them like adults, by taking a whole lot more time and words to basically say "here I stand, I can do no other".
How many times do you have to explain something to an adult before you expect it to sink in? After the third time, unless the person in question has a legitimate disability, the expectation is you either get it or we're done.
If you're addressing children then the amount of expected patience with misunderstanding is actually less. But with adults, there are going to be two dynamics, generally: one where the assumption is an authority is speaking to a non-authority, and one where the assumption is there are equals in discussion. And I think the problem with this discussion between the Lutherans and Patriarch Jeremias boils down to that the Lutherans assumed it was a discussion of equals, and Jeremias assumed he was the authority.
I haven't gone and read through the original correspondence, and it does seem like this was written from the Orthodox perspective without considering what the Lutheran perspective would have been - but I still believe there was more that could have been done and discussed in order to try to bring the Lutherans to a more Orthodox position. Especially since it hadn't been that long since they believed some of the things Jeremias was saying. But the thing I understand now like 14 years after reading this the first time, is that this kind of boils down to the same problem they had with the Filioque: some Franks invented some novel theology and weren't really interested in hearing the counterarguments.
To hopefully make an ounce of sense out of all of this, I've lived two Christian lives. One where I had to point to the Augsburg Confession and say "what we're doing 500 years later bears no resemblance to this", and one where I point to the same confession and say "Think of how much world history would have been completely different if Jeremias had sent a whole team to go try to humbly point out their errors". I can see the wrong on both sides. But the overarching point is, there's nothing Jeremias said in that exchange that I can't find still taught in Orthodox churches, and there's very little of the Augsburg Confession that I can find still taught in Lutheran churches. I know them by their fruits.
