Why didn't Luther consider Orthodoxy? Why didn't the

>>509077

IIRC, it was considered at one point early on, but rejected for some reason.

>>509086
Why? I know Protestants hate fasting, but that doesn't seem like the substance of their faith.

>>509086

The protestants contacted the Orthodox Church in order to determine whether they might merge together, but the Orthodox felt the need to "correct" the protestants on some of their theology, which the protestants didn't take too kindly to.

>>509093
Why not? Did the Protestants think they were infallible?

>>509077
Luther himself was a reactionary in temperament, disliking the spirit of the Renaissance. But his leading disciples were children of the Renaissance. The most distinguished of them, Philip Melanchthon, had been professor of Greek at Wittenberg and was deeply interested in Hellenism. His interest extended to the contemporary Greeks; and he thought that it would be valuable to establish a friendly understanding with the Greek Church.

The difficulty was to find out how to make contact with the Greeks. The only European powers in diplomatic relations with the Ottoman Empire were Catholic: Venice, France, and the Habsburg dominions. It was, he thought, through Venice, with its colony of Greek scholars, its Greek possessions and its lack of religious intolerance that an approach could best be made, particularly if a Greek scholar could be found there who was in touch with the East and had not joined the Roman faith.

But rather more than a year earlier he had received at Wittenberg an elderly Serbian cleric from Montenegro called Demetrius, who came with an introduction from James Basilicus. Nothing is known of Demetrius' early history. He was already an old man when he met James in Moldavia in 1558. Demetrius made an excellent impression in Lutheran circles. Melanchthon liked him; and Nicholas Hemmingius wrote in a letter that he was an old man of exemplary piety and admirable morals, whose claim to be a deacon was undoubtedly genuine, though the Lutherans could not check up on this; he was certainly full of erudition about his Church.

[1]

>>509092

It's not really about fasting, it's about more fundamental theological questions. The Protestant movement was about figuring the Bible out for yourself and finding meaning in it to personally develop a relationship with God. Orthodoxy, well, as the patriarch said:

> And if any controversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not interpret it otherwise than as the luminaries and doctors of the Church have expounded it. And in these let them glory rather than in composing things out of their own heads lest, through their lack of skill, they may depart from what is fitting.

In other words, "We've figured out all this shit already. If you have questions, ask us. Don't try to figure things out for yourself."

Here was a heaven-sent agent for achieving the desired contact with Constantinople. In order that the Orthodox might be properly informed about the Reformed religion, the Confession of Augsburg, which summarized Lutheran belief, was hastily but ably translated into Greek by a learned Hellenist, Paul Dolscius of Plauen, and a copy was given to Demetrius to deliver to the Patriarch together with a personal letter from Melanchthon, which barely touched upon doctrine but suggested that the Lutheran and Greek Churches had much in common.

Demetrius left on his journey late in 1559. Melanchthon died before an answer could have easily been returned, but his fellow-divines waited for many more months for news from Constantinople. At last they decided that Demetrius could not have delivered the letter. In fact he arrived at Constantinople at the end of 1559 and was received by the Patriarch, but the documents that he brought embarrassed Joasaph and the Holy Synod. A brief glance at the Confession of Augsburg showed that much of its doctrine was frankly heretical, but it would be undesirable to spoil relations with a potential friend. The Patriarch and his advisers took refuge in the favorite device of oriental diplomacy. They behaved as if they had never received the communication, which they carefully mislaid.

Demetrius waited for two or three months for a reply to carry back to Wittenberg. When none was forthcoming he did not venture to return to Germany. He moved to Transylvania, where he spent three years trying to introduce Lutheranism into its villages, encouraged by James Basilicus. After James' fall he carried on his propaganda in the Slav dominions of the Habsburg Emperor. The date of his death is unknown.

[2]

>>509077
>Why didn't Luther consider Orthodoxy?

Luther was a reformist, Orthodox are well, orthodox.

>>509113
But the NT itself says you can't figure the Bible out for yourself (2 Peter 1:20). So shouldn't they have at least been open to the possibility you need the Church, or did they consider Sola Scriptura to be infallible?

>>509149
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
-Matthew 4:4 KJV

As ordinary bread sustains the physical body, only the words of God (Scripture) sustain the soul and spirit. Now do you want to tell the Lord that Sola Scriptura is NOT biblical?

>>509149
>Peter 1:20

Not the guy you were arguing with, but holy fuck, was this book literally just written to create a herd-mentality? What kind of philosophy says "don't figure this shit out for yourself?"

>>509077
I guess that Mariology and venetration of the saints would still have been problematic. And the language.

>>509173
The NT wasn't even written when Christ said that, though.

Also, don't conflate ῥήματι (the word used here) with λόγος. There's a significant difference.

>>509174
Philosophy that doesn't want people using the Bible to justify whatever they want by taking things out of context (context including time, place and cultural significance, as well as purpose and genre of writing).

>>509190
Luther liked veneration of Mary, though.

>>509199
Yeah at some level, but most other reformists definitely not.

>>509196
>Philosophy that doesn't want people using the Bible to justify whatever they want by taking things out of context (context including time, place and cultural significance, as well as purpose and genre of writing).

Sounds more like a philosophy that doesn't want people critically examining it for themselves. I'll have no part in something that can't be entirely my own belief, so thanks for bringing that passage to my attention and putting another nail in that coffin.

>>509209
Why not? They venerated their mothers, did't they?

>>509211
If God is imparting something, do you want that something to be understood exactly as God wanted it be understood, or to be understood according to subjective interpretation?

>>509077
>Why would someone who denies veneration of saints not join a schismatic sect that venerates saints
Come on

>>509224
>If God is imparting something, do you want that something to be understood exactly as God wanted it be understood, or to be understood according to subjective interpretation?

If God, an all powerful being, was imparting something, he'd make it objectively understood to all. Since he didn't the only reasonable conclusion is that it wasn't imparted by God.

>>509224

>If God is imparting something, do you want that something to be understood exactly as God wanted it be understood, or to be understood according to subjective interpretation?

Every single interpretation is subjective, including that of any Church. Saying "no, my interpretation is the right one" is itself subjective.

>>509232
>>509199
>>509211

They objected to the Latin Church largely because Latins fell for the Third Temptation of Satan, which the Body of Christ did not. So that's kind of why I'm asking.

>>509248
>They objected to the Latin Church largely because Latins fell for the Third Temptation of Satan, which the Body of Christ did not.
Says the iconoclast

>>509240
Human language doesn't work like that.

>>509241
If the Orthodox's Church's interpretation were subjective, then they couldn't resume contact with the Coptic Church after 1,600 years of separation, and then find they still have the exact same interpretation.

>>509256
m8, Latins don't even have icons anymore.

>>509248

In the end, the Orthodox church was just too different from what they thought "true" Christianity should be.

>>509264
Did they think their thought on this matter was infallible?

>>509270

Every human in history considers their own opinions to have some degree of infallibility, Church or no Church.

>>509277
Then what was their objection to the Pope being infallible, exactly?

>>509258
>Human language doesn't work like that.

God is omnipotent, he can make it work like that.

>>509259
m8 you have no clue what you're talking about

>>509285
That would be pretty sad, it would destroy the nuance of human language. Which is kind of important, seeing as there are double, triple, quadruple and even more meanings to a lot of the Bible.

>>509284

Because he was a prick and did things that made a lot of people upset.

>>509292
But you don't. You have religious art (so do Protestants), but you don't have iconography, which is Liturgical art. You used to, but you don't anymore

OP:
>Orthodoxy is the correct form of Christianity; why didn't Protestants just become Orthodox?

>>509302
>only my definition of icons is valid

>>509294
Can't gainsay you there, but so was Martin "marriage is a wholly secular matter" Luther.

>>509311
Whatever, the point is that Roman Catholics don't have Liturgical Art anymore, which is really what the whole iconoclast movement was about.

Protestants didn't really want an "authentic" Christianity, they just invented some historical myth to justify themselves. No Christian in the early days of the Church would follow Protestant theology.

Catholics were much closer to Orthodox, whatever they thought about their practices.

>>509211
You don't have a part in much, then

Orthodox believer in a works based salvation. Thats why

>>509092
>I know Protestants hate fasting
No we don't

>>509431
>responding to an orthodox memer

>>509431
So you observe the original Christian fast days of Wednesday and Friday?

https://youtu.be/4ztOV2wrrkY?t=79

Here you go my friend

>>509467
What was the worse thing to happen to the world and why was it Germanic peoples.

>>509458
>Not fasting ritually on a particular 2 days a week means we hate fasting
Certainly something Christ would say

>>509469
They are a pseudo-race with a hopelessly muddled gene pool and a massive inferiority complex. Of course they would ruin everything.

>>509469
When you say shit like that, you make Orthodoxists look like assholes. You gotta represent.

Also secure tripcodes are for fags. The fact you use conclusively proves that you're a fag.

File: 1451883010659.png (9KB, 804x777px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 804x777px

>>509467
>cringy fingols with their shitty threads again

>>509470
Christ advocating observing fast days.

>>509479
It's banters from a banters video, I'm 100% Germanic myself, calm down.

>>509490
You missing the point

Protestants don't hate fasting, and you know that. You're only saying it to blatantly misrepresent us. Please stop.

>>509485
t. Adolf Müller

>>509498
Shakespeare joked about it at all. In King Lear, the guy calls himself virtuous because he "does not eat fish" (a joke because Catholics ate fish during their fast days, whereas Protestants didn't observe fast days). That was also the joke about Falstaff being a glutton.

>>509077
I was under the impression that Luther only wanted to turn the Catholic church rather than leave it.

>>509808
Well, he thought Purgatory was bullshit and the Pope was the antichrist.

>>509110
>>509120
That was actually really interesting, thank you Anon.

>>509077
Ignorance

>>509077
Why don't you fuck off back to /lit/, you Memethodox hack?

>>509149
You can't figure out the bible yourself, because you require the Holy Spirit to allow you to read it with a heart unhardened. That's what the verse is talking about, and it is made clear in context. It is not "you need to do exactly as this man in a silly hat tells you."

Because he didnt buy into Orthodoxy

Also, Orthodoxy didnt like Latin theology, so they were hostile to everything that wasnt written in Greek

>>510154
What are you talking about. Coptic, Ethiopian, and Russian Orthodox don't use Greek Liturgy and don't write their theology in Greek, just to name a few.

>>510150
It's the job of the man in the silly hat to safeguard the orthodox exegesis, so you people who think the Holy Spirit is working through them alone (which they might actually believe) can't come up with wrong interpretations and spread them as authoritative.

>>509120
>>509110
>When you're so heretical people pretend they didn't get your letters.

>>510231
>spread them as authoritative.
There is no such thing as authoritative spreading, because there is no central authority to be authoritative (again, note the lack of silly hats) in the first place. At most, a bad interpretation can become temporarily popular by being appealing, but anyone truly connected to the Holy Spirit will quickly see the error, not partake, and repent if need be.

>>510246
Makes sense, I guess that's why I converted to Christ's Church.

>>509077
Because Lutherans, and Protestants in general, are Crypto-Sunnis.

>>510297
Go home Leo.

>>510246
Without authoritative intepretations or at least mechanisms to detect heretical or Orthodox ones, you practically created a landscape where we don't even know what the Divine Revelation is saying.

>>509077
Because Luther wanted to reform the Church, not create a new offshoot or join one

>>511651
Acknowledging you aren't sure what the divine revelation is saying is much preferable to being sure you are correct while actually being wrong. The early church(es) had pluralites of interpretations, which the later Catholic and Orthodox churches deemed as "heresies" rather than the reality of "people who disagreed with our own interpretation."

>>509520
>le Anglicans are protestants may may

GTFO

>>509350
t. Paganism Lite.

>>512291
The Early Church are quite consistent on what scriptures say. It is only the heterodox sects that squabble and have differing beliefs. Important issues of Faith such as the Eucharist, free will and the deity of Christ are pretty much agreed upon by the Church at the time. In contrast, we find different in Protestantism where squabblings over doctrine

File: image.jpg (305KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 640x1136px

>>512284
He failed

>>509077
SEX

LUTHER MARRIED A NUN.

PROTESTANTS ARE DEGENERATES

>>512717
>The Early Church are quite consistent on what scriptures say. It is only the heterodox sects that squabble and have differing beliefs.
Yes, because you define "the early church" as whichever one you personally believe in and classify all the other ones as heterodox or heresies, whereas in reality whatever you believe in was one of many "early churchES" whose beliefs got reclassified as heterodox or heresies by your church.

>>512738
as a priest you can marry in orthodoxy