www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Why aren't Orthodox considered Protestant?

Herb wrote:

I suppose TECHNICALLY only those Churches which are Lutheran and Calvinist (so maybe a third of the Anglican Churches) tradition are technically Protestant. Anabaptists are not protestant


Dear Herb,

Sorry, but I disagree. Protestants are any folk who profess to be Christian, while rejecting Apostolic Christianity. Protestants include high church believers with some form of liturgy but who have at some historical point broken the Apostolic chain, or they can be people who claim to be Christian while not believing in the Trinity. There is a historical link to all of them. Proof of their Protestantism is that they cannot sustain their faith over time - they splinter into new subgroups & their doctrines are transformed. There is a historical link between Anglicans, Lutherans, seventh Day Adventists, Appalachian snake handlers, and Baptists.

The Apostolic faith is sustained across the ages, as Christ promised. Protestantism is not.

Stojgniev

Dan, I was responding mainly to Pani Rose's post about the difference was that the Catholics and Orthodox had sacraments but the Protestants didn't. It has to do with defining what the term "Protestant" means, that's all.

But, I do believe that the Protestant sacrament of Baptism is generally recognized as valid and this is why converts are not rebaptised in the Catholic Church. Of course that is in the R.C. church. I am not sure whether it is recognized by Byzantines or not. Are all Protestant converts to the Byzantine Church baptised in the Byzantine Church? Or do they make a profession of faith?

A friend of mine just received Confirmation in the Episcopal church. She called it a sacrament,
and so did the deacon who gave the Confirmation class before their bishop came to confirm them. So they do consider their Confirmation to be a sacrament, but like you say, that is not the issue here.

Mary Jo

Mary Jo,

The whole issue is quite a kettle of fish. As a Methodist pastor I used to confirm children all of the time and on special occasions the bishop would even come in and do it. Nevertheless, though it looked like a sacrament, we never called it that though I suspect many of our people did. Invaribly when I ask my Comparative Religion classes what are the two sacraments recognized by a majority of Protestants they will say either BAPTISM AND MARRIAGE OR BAPTISM AND CONFIRMATION. Baptism is correct but neither of the two other options are.

Still the issue is are any sacraments beyond baptism valid in Churches outside of Orthodoxy or Catholicism? I can't imagine how.

Dan L

Dan,

Yes, a kettle of fish for sure. I don't think Protestant sacraments are valid in the sense we consider valid, but what about my question about the Byzantines--do they baptise Protestant converts who were baptised before in mainline Protestant churches?

Interesting because the woman I just mentioned who just got confirmed in the Episcopal Church said, as she, like you was also a former Methodist, that she considered the Methodists to have sacraments just like, evidentally, the people you mention. I really don't think she and I were on the same page in that. She finally said, "Well, the Catholic Church just doesn't recognize our sacraments and that is all there is to it?"

Guess so and for good reason.

All in all you and I are on the same page here.

Your sister in Christ,

Mary Jo..where the sun does shine in AZ.

Mary Jo,

I was a convert from Lutheranism and I was not rebaptized when I became Byzantine Catholic.

Baptism by other denominations is considered valid by the Catholic Church - East and West - if it is performed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and with the intention of bringing the person into the covenant of the Christian faith.

I simply had to provide my baptism certificate to the priest, and he asked if my baptism had been in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Since I could answer affirmatively I did not need to be rebaptized.

However, I did not just make a profession of faith. I received the sacrament of Chrismation when I was received into the Byzantine Catholic Church. Then my husband and I received the sacrament of Marriage, as our marriage was not recognized as a sacrament since it had not been performed in the Catholic Church.

Tammy

oops, double post

Trinitarian Baptism is a sacrament no matter who does it. As for the rest of the sacraments in a Protestant church they are not valid.

The Byzantine Church and The Orthodox Church accept baptisms from other groups as long as it was done correctly, and in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spiit. If there is some question about the way it was done they may do a conditional baptism, and say 'if so and so has not been baptized I baptize them in the name of...' That is because as St. Paul put it there is only one baptism, so to do another baptism would be a sacrilege.

...
As a Byzantine Catholic I don't debate Roman Catholics concerning Vatican I (or any other council) because I accept it as being authoritative

I take it to mean exactly what it says. I am not going to sit in judgement of the council, but I do agree with all the posts that have said to use Vatican II to help the understanding.

Isn't there a canon which states that Grace is conferred even if the minister is in error? I think it was in response to the Donatist heresy.

The teaching that a sacrament is valid regardless of the internal dispositions, heretical teaching, bad morals and so on which may afflict the minister is correct, but presumes that the minister is otherwise qualified - a man of the best good will in the world, impeccable orthodoxy and outstanding moral character is nevertheless incapable of ordaining a deacon or priest if he himself is not a bishop. Nor can a layman or deacon with all those wonderful characteristics validly celebrate the Eucharist.
However, the Roman Catholics teach that two baptized Protestants who get married by the appropriate minister of their Church are indeed validly married and have received the Sacrament of Matrimony (whether their ecclesial community recognizes that sacrament or not!). Hence if such a couple should become Catholics, the marriage is not repeated, merely accepted - and (this is the more usual situation) if the couple should get divorced and one of them wishes to marry a Catholic, this involves them in a Catholic annulment procedure.

Incognitus

Incognitus

" . . . the Roman Catholics teach that two baptized Protestants who get married by the appropriate minister of their Church are indeed validly married and have received the Sacrament of Matrimony (whether their ecclesial community recognizes that sacrament or not!)."

Incognitus:

Is it not the case that Latin teaching is that the couple confer the sacrament on each other and the Church's minister is merely the official witness to this? I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that this area presumes that the two are baptized. I was taught in the Latin theological tradition that the baptized confer the sacrament of marriage on each other. The Church's minister is merely the official witness of the Church to this conferring. The minister then gives a Nuptial Blessing after the sacrament is conferred.

That's why an ecclesial community that has retained no other sacraments can have these two: baptism and marriage. Baptism may be conferred by a layman as long as he intends to do what the Church does (initiate a new person into Christ with the Trintarian formula) and, once baptized, a layman can confer marriage on his/her spouse.

There is also the presumption that all the baptised are somehow united to Christ and to His Church by virtue of their baptism. If that is so, the logic of a required annulment follows, although I've been told that this is rank arrogance to pretend to have jurisdiction over those who reject that jurisdiction.

This may also show the answer--in the negative--to the question posed at the start of this thread. Orthodox Christians retain the fullness of the Apostolic Faith, sacramental life(mysteries), and practice. They have done away with nothing that would identify them as particular Churches within the Universal Church. There are many good explanations of the Catholic Church's position in this area that are available.

In Christ,

BOB

Theophan wrote: �... Is it not the case that Latin teaching is that the couple confer the sacrament on each other and the Church's minister is merely the official witness to this? ...�

This is also my understanding of the Roman Catholic dogma.

So, why are Orthodox Christian marriages accepted as valid by Rome? Orthodox theology says the priest is the minister. The priest is clearly performing the marriage and those entering into matrimony say nothing. I note that Byzantine Catholics have greatly modified the Orthodox order of matrimony by, among other things, adding vows; this seems to reflect the R.C. theology of marriage.

Dear Photius,

Rome has every reason to accept Orthodox marriage as valid especially since it IS conferred sacramentally through the priest or bishop - as all the other Mysteries are.

If anything, Orthodoxy might deem RC marriages as being invalid (which I believe ROCOR does, if I'm not mistaken)

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Byzantine-bob:
"The Byzantine Church and The Orthodox Church accept baptisms from other groups as long as it was done correctly, and in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spiit. If there is some question about the way it was done they may do a conditional baptism, and say 'if so and so has not been baptized I baptize them in the name of...'"

There is a wide variety of practices extant in the Orthodox Church! I have never heard of �conditional Baptism� in the Orthodox Church. In many places, all converts are Baptized. I personally know several former Roman catholic priests who were received into the Orthodox Church as catacumens, baptized, and ordained as Orthodox priests. On Mount Athos, most communities will not give communion to someone who has not been baptized in the Othodox Church; I have personally seen a convert to Orthodoxy, a former Roman catholic received by Chrismation, asked to leave the Liturgy at the dismissal of the catacumens. (and, this was in the Patriarchiate of Constantinople. Lest anyone think this was an oddball backwoods Church.)

On the other hand, most places today accept anyone with a Trinitarian Baptism, either through Ecomonia (whereby the Baptism becomes a sacrament upon accepting the Orthodox Faith) or (probably less often) because they have the Roman Catholic understanding that the sacrament can be performed by those outside the Church.