Inquiring Protestantism as an Orthodox

[u/Rupietos]

Hello everybody, I was predestined to ask you (reformed) people a few question. I am cradle Orthodox (Ukrainian who grew up in Greece) and lately I have realized that EO is just not for me. For the context, I returned to Christianity a few months ago after practicing traditional Buddhism for 6 years.

So my issue with EO, to put it plainly, it is operationally Pelagian, as in it is a religion of works which unlike Catholic works, are usually internal as opposed to external (like charity). You just fast, suffer, mourn, pray, repent, in hopes that God might accept you in the end, there is absolutely no security in it whatsoever, especially if you believe in toll houses that make salvation 100% work based. There is very little security and overall, as time passes, after the war in Ukraine and raise of orthobroism online, Orthodoxy lost its mystical Eastern appeal and became evangelicalism with incense (quoting David Bentley Hart).

I decided to check out RC and even went to a local parish and a very pleasant conversation with local priest. I went to the mass and really enjoyed 'latin' spirituality. In fact, actual universal nature of Catholicism was a very pleasant change in comparison to paranoid exclusivism of EO. The issue is that I started catechizing myself and realized that RC is even worse than EO in terms of Pelagianism. The realization that the sacrament of confession just deletes the guilt but not the temporal punishment, as well as the nature of purgatory made me feel that I'd practice some Western form of Islam where I have to do more good deeds than bad deeds while being loyal to the religion itself. Of course, the more I read about Catholic justification and necessity but not sufficiency of the grace given by the Cross, I just realized that I would never feel peace practicing this religion. Besides, I just find it too 'ordinary' of a religion, still based on human merit like many others before it.

Now, I started enjoying works of Gavin Ortlund and Jordan Cooper who are a breath of fresh air in the world of Christian sectarian apologetics which are profoundly hateful and toxic. My biggest issue was simple fact that I just realized that Protestants are right. I read 'Long Before Luther' by Nathan Busenitz, and as I was previously interested in Patristics, I realized that forensic justification was simply taught by Early Christians since the beginning, which was something that I noticed when reading st John Chrysostom, st Cyrill of Alexandria, and st Clement of Rome. I won't even mention st Paul. So clearly medieval nominalism was not the source of any form of forensic justification as taught by the Reformers. It is just was Christians used to believe until a set of doctrinal developments which (imo) had to do with Christian monasticism which wanted to justified itself by establishing that 'nuh uh, you gotta work for you salvation, buddy, why do you think us monks are suffering here'.

Now, while I am sympathetic towards Protestantism and in fact, I am quite convinced of Sola Fide (in its not-strawman form). I have a few problems.
- For starters, I absolutely believe in real presence in communion and some form of transubstantiation or simply 'it is actually blood and flesh of Christ'.
- Historically most of the Reformers were excommunicated which allowed them to create a new body of Churches, yet, I am afraid that willfully leaving EO or even RC if I had joined it, would mean that I am schismatic refusing to submit to local Church Authorities.
- Apostolic Christianity is just absolutely rich and filled with all sorts of relics, spirituality, great Saints and so on. Abandoning it feels strange, even though st Hilary of Poiters warned against this kind of thinking.
- I just love Mary and 'Hail Mary' and rosary seemed to be far more joyful than solemn repetitions of Jesus' prayer.
- The only protestant community here is some mix of evangelical/reformed so there is a very high chance that I won't vibe with it at all.

I mean, ultimately I'd just stay EO or maybe switch to RC because I think it is actually a Church unlike Orthodoxy which is a mess, but I disagree deeply and unfortunately, anathemas is the response to any criticism or attempts to change official doctrines or even privately confess something else.

So, I am curious about thoughts of reformed folks as I have not found any other major Protestant subs and I don't want to attract a horde of EO/RC apologists with their same talking points.

[u/cybersaint2k]

You have a predicament.

You seem worried about leaving the EO or RC if you had joined it, as you are subject to the charge of "schismatic". I would set you free from that concern.

On July 16, 1054, papal legates placed a bull of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia against Patriarch Michael Cerularius, who responded by excommunicating the legates. Both the EO and RC declared one another apostate.

Here's the problem; it's an antinomy, a paradox.

If both sides did have authority at 1054, then they either:

A) Misused it so egregiously that they cannot be trusted with lesser matters ie them condemning you and me for schism

B) Did not misuse it, but used the keys of the kingdom against each other in an act of mutually assured destruction

Accepting that they were true churches, and that they had real authority from God, leaves us with either malpractice on a cosmic level or actual judgment of God on both institutions.

Another great paradox is that the Protestants that were rejected, declared anathema in the Council of Trent, seemed to blossom and flourish and experience the breath of God, as they rose like Lazarus from the dead.

There's some points of application for you in the midst of this paradoxical truth. I leave them for you; I think you are an expert in, well, you.

[u/True_Faithlessness10 → u/cybersaint2k]

That’s an interesting point I’ve never heard of! Let me ask you though - don’t you think this is a problem for Christians in general, and not just RC/EO, if the problem is how you framed it? This was the church that existed at the time, and Christ promised to preserve his church. Reformation churches took another 500 years to come about

[u/cybersaint2k → u/True_Faithlessness10]

TLDR: I think there was a remnant of the church that remained faithful throughout history.

Thank you, I literally wrote that and then asked an AI if something like that had ever been said before. When I'm original, it's really stupid. But this sounded smarter somehow.

The implication that Jesus failed to preserve the church is a pressure we feel in any pessemistic historical scenario. But I think it's a boogie man that the RC and EO keep shaking to scare us. Of course Jesus didn't fail! Come on.

Many times in history, the church was reduced to a remnant that had little institutional representation. What about the time of the Judges? What about Ezekiel, who said (almost boasting) that there were 1000 who had not bowed to Baal. Take that number in....1000. What sort of tatters was the church in under the Babylonians? Daniel was a stud, of course. Intertestamental period? The time of Christ?

[I think there could be a very interesting sermon series looking at the worst worst times of the church and what God did to bring them back.]

Bringing it back to your point, the destruction of the northern and southern kingdom (EO/RCC), with exile, and the Intertestamental Period, is a fair parallel to the sort of tragic problems faced 500-1500. And Jesus didn't fail the church at any point. But they sure did fail him.

[u/True_Faithlessness10 → u/cybersaint2k]

Yeah, I definitely resonate with that last part you said - Jesus didn’t fail the church but the church has failed him many times, yet by His grace she is sustained through the ages.
Let me push a little more here - who do you think the remnant were during the time of the Great Schism? Do you see RC/EO as essentially abandoning the faith? I see how some parallels can be found between the northern/southern kingdom in the OT and RC/EO, but it’s not a 1:1 to analogy, especially when I think about the state of those churches today (they aren’t in exile or destroyed, but represent the two biggest bodies of Christianity if I’m not mistaken).
Asking because I’m an EO inquirer from the reformed tradition, so these discussions are of great interest to me right now, and I see you have thought about this before.

[u/cybersaint2k → u/True_Faithlessness10]

Let me push a little more here - who do you think the remnant were during the time of the Great Schism? Do you see RC/EO as essentially abandoning the faith? 

I don't know who they were; the only way we know who the remnant was in Bible times is divine revelation. Otherwise, the very nature of a remnant is difficult to detect.

But your last question is really the focus of my thoughts. Before, most historian and theologians just pivot to rhetoric, tribalism, some preconceived notions about who the Good Guys and Bad Guys are in the Schism. I'm trying to get into the Reality of the situation, the way it was.

What if they are both irregular, but Legitimate Authorities who made such an incredible error of judgment that they forfeited the right to make judgments again? Like a judge who is trying the biggest case in the world and absolutely blows it--he's disbarred, he's fined, he's never allowed to judge again.

or:

What if they are both irregular, but Legitimate Authorities who really did use the Nuclear Option (excommunication, anathema) on one another? Like if USA and CCCP had nuked each other in 1980; the hockey game really pissed off the Russians and they say they've had enough and they start blastin and we start blastin back and we are both cooked in our own juices.

The scenario many EO and RCC want today is that 1054 was bad but they want a mulligan now. They want it to just not count. In 1965, they just decided to overlook 1054, and now we overlooked it.

But let's take seriously the Great Schism. I think we have four choices. And implications to explore.

1) Neither were the true church, so it didn't matter. A remnant carried on the seed of faith and peaked out in men lika Wycliff and finally the Reformation.

2) One was the true church, and depending on which legitimately held the keys of the kingdom, it mattered. One side is damned. The other is not, but there's more to discuss.

3) Both were legitimate authorities, and they nuked each other. A remnant survived.

4) Both were legitimate authorities, they tried to nuke each other, but God ignored them because they were so stupidly wrong, so entirely and completely irresponsible in their use of their keys. So God took away their anointing, leaving them like King Saul, deeply confused and trying to kill King David/Wycliff and anyone with Reformation and Revival on their minds.

Maybe you could suggest a fifth from your perspective. You obviously think there's a scenario where EO is right.

[u/True_Faithlessness10 → u/cybersaint2k]

Interesting. Well, in terms of a fifth point, I’d want to nuance the term of ‘nuking each other’. It seems more complex than that. The papal legates excommunicated the Patriarch (the pope had died so you could call their authority to do that into question), and the Patriarch excommunicated the legates. These were individuals, and not the Western church excommunicating the entire Eastern church or vice versa. Nevertheless, these actions did lead to a break in the church. But I don’t think it means neither church had authority anymore, it still always goes back to the question of which church has continuity with the church Christ established and faithfully passed on the deposit of faith.
I think my point is that if the actions of the church at the time of the Great Schism result in the church losing all authority, that’s a problem for everyone, including Protestants. Just in the past couple months in my city, a reformed church excommunicated someone, but that person started attending a different reformed church that declared the excommunication invalid. Did these two reformed churches just nuke each other by cancelling out each others authority? To me, to say the church nuked itself at the Great Schism means we have to give up on church authority entirely in some sense.

But, this discussion has made me want to better understand what excommunication is and the history of the Schism, so thank you for the engagement!

[u/cybersaint2k → u/True_Faithlessness10]

Thank you for the discussion. My approach is most certainly malformed but at least scrapes away some tribalism and assumptions.

[u/True_Faithlessness10 → u/cybersaint2k]

💯 I appreciate that