Most of this article is revisionist nonsense. +Athanasius the Great was NOT a proto-protestant of any kind and what he was fighting was the theology of probably the then majority of the Church of Antioch, not of the “Established Church”.
That said, from an Orthodox perspective, it is even more nonsensical to say that the reformers had no right to attempt to reform the Latin Church in the 16th century. The “laos tou Theou”, the People of God, the laity, ALWAYS are the guardians of orthodox Christianity and it is their duty and role within The Church to keep hierarchs and clergy on an orthodox path. To say otherwise is to turn The Church over to hierarchs, some of whose skulls, we are taught, pave the floor of Hell, and reduce the laity to the status of pay, pray and obey serfs.
Another issue would be, “Were the “Reformers” trying to improve the Church or impose false doctrines on it?”
Clearly the answer is both. They wanted legitimate reforms and illegitimate ones at the same time.
Also, did the “Reformers” truly represent the faithful?
No. Although the “Reformers” tapped into popular anger over discipline issues, they did not have wide-spread support to change doctrines, dispense with the Mass and so on. That’s why the princes had to support the “Reformers” for them to succeed. Eamon Duffy has made this abundantly clear in Stripping of the Altars.
Much agreed, Kolo.
I largely agree with you, but the REASON that St. John Crysostom wrote that the floor of Hell was paved with the is that the bishops bear moral responsibility to establish orthodoxy in their instruction of the laity, and for the reproof of sin and heresy. St. John condemned them because they failed to exercise proper authority.
When a Christian believes an instruction from a hierarchical authority to be incorrect, it is better to restlessly seek out the truth, than to blindly conform. Freedom of conscience gets a bad name in some corners, because it is confused with license to be willfully ignorant. When a bishop appeals to simple authority, rather than a sound argument, he forces his flock to choose between blind and oppressive submission or the commission of sin; both are wretched states. Thus, a bishop is responsible not only to uphold orthodox doctrine, but to be a responsive and effective instructor. So St. John’s condemnation also serves as a warning to ambitious priests not to covet authority they cannot properly wield.
>Most of this article is revisionist nonsense. +Athanasius the Great was NOT a proto-protestant of any kind and what he was fighting was the theology of probably the then majority of the Church of Antioch, not of the “Established Church”.
Proto-protestant? He was a protestor against what he saw as heresy in the church. As such, he was a protestant.
Did he hold to what I hold? No. Do all the church fathers agree on everything? No, there is a cacophony of voices from the fathers, and there is little agreement on anything, just as in the Protestant church. Hmmm.
Does that matter that he does not agree with me? No, he is not the authority for faith, but as he said to the Arian, (I paraphrase) it is to the scriptures we must turn, since we do not hold to the same traditions. And I agree whole-heartedly with him. Do you?
So what is meant by Athanasius Contra Mundum if it was only his diocese that was turned away from orthodoxy? Why was is the Emperors that repeatedly banished him if it was only a local phenomenon? Why did Nicea need to happen if it was only Antioch? Why was there STILL Arians about after Nicea, or was Antioch the only bad seed? Or is that just a bunch of revisionist double-talk?
>That said, from an Orthodox perspective, it is even more nonsensical to say that the reformers had no right to attempt to reform the Latin Church in the 16th century. The “laos tou Theou”, the People of God, the laity, ALWAYS are the guardians of orthodox Christianity and it is their duty and role within The Church to keep hierarchs and clergy on an orthodox path. To say otherwise is to turn The Church over to hierarchs, some of whose skulls, we are taught, pave the floor of Hell, and reduce the laity to the status of pay, pray and obey serfs.
Interesting! So the church is held on it path by the laity, not those that teach the laity? That the hierarchs and clergy, those that know the sacred traditions, and pass them from generation to generation, are the source of heresy?
That is, as I could easily hear a Catholic say, is a blueprint for anarchy! Where is the authority, if it does not come from the Apostolic Succession, if those that are OF the succession are the ones we need to keep our eyes on for apostasy? Search your doctrine with fear and trembling! :o) You are sounding downright protestant there, Koloktronis! (I feel the protestant rising within you! Turn to the Dark Side! Bwah-ha-ha-HA!)
(Darth Kolokotronis? Hmmm. A bit long I think....)