Why was there no Protestant Revolution in Orthodox Christian Realms?

[Romano-Dacis]

It's a simple question but one whose answers would be a profound illumination on the differences between Western and Eastern Christian Europe. Now I am of course excluding the Bogomils who were not too successful anyway (are there even Bogomils today?), but it seems interesting that Orthodox Christianity, being a less centralized institution, in many ways was more cohesive than Catholic Europe, which saw much bloodshed as a result of Protestantism. Here's a list of possible motives I came up with:
-The Orthodox Church was not as fiscally demanding as the Catholic Church, so the commoners and lay clergy did not have something to "protest" against.

-The Orthodox Church was distinctly separate from the administrative body, ever since the Byzantine Empire when the Patriarch and Emperor fulfilled different roles. Due to this the princes and tsars of Eastern Europe never felt reason to "stoke the fires" of dissent as the church never encroached on their domains.

-The threat of Islam was more direct in Orthodox domains and thus these countries were "spiritually unified" by the appearance of a new and powerful enemy. It is interesting that the Protestant Revolution did not have any success in lands which were directly threatened by Islam, those being Southern Italy, Spain, and Austria. EDIT: In retrospect this argument is kind of defeated by the spread of protestantism in Hungary. Still, I believe the reason why it spread into Hungary was because it had been isolated from the rest of Catholicism by the Ottomans.

-The Orthodox Church was less restrictive of its clergy. By allowing priests to marry the Orthodox Church was not alienated from the locals.

So far these are the only possible motives I could come up with. I notice there is a correlation between the rise of Protestantism and the spread of the Renaissance, but I'm not sure how one could see causality between the two. While there was a "Uniate" movement in Orthodox lands caused by the Pope I doubt one could say this was similar to the spread of Protestantism.

So, any thoughts?

[Exarch]

simple answer: because indulgences werent a big problem for orthodox churches
u dont get that hypocrisy tere

[Romano-Dacis]

simple answer: because indulgences werent a big problem for orthodox churches
u dont get that hypocrisy tere

Doh!
I can't believe I forgot the obvious...

[Their Law]

simple answer: because indulgences werent a big problem for orthodox churches
u dont get that hypocrisy tere

That's not strictly true on the hypocrisy front but the jist of this response is the reason. There were numerous 'minor' revolutions within the orthodox church but not to the degree of protestantism.

It's worth noting that protestantism is itself a general opposition to catholism rather than an attempt to start a new religion per se. Whilst it's not true to say that protestants were ok with orthodox Christians(they were probably as tolerant of them as catholics.) there main focus was towards the perceived unfairness of the catholic church, thus there's no reason to spread it in a region that was not catholic.

[wearycelt]

Just a thought, but perhaps the ecumenical nature of orthodoxy provided a redress of grievances as they arose, as opposed to the dictatorial nature of the papacy at the time.

[Dracula]

Protestantism did not protest against christianity. It protested again the Roman Catholic Church , against what unnaturall and ill organism it had become. Where there is no cause there is no sequence. What caused the protestantism in roman lands could not cause it in orthodox lands. Moreover where protestantism went dogmatically was not a serious achievement of theology, it was an outburst of anger and bad feelings against everything that could be associated with the roman church. They had later to deal with this problem, revise its teaching and go back and forth many times. It could not occur without the despotism and evils of the roman see. Contrary to this the Orthodox Church has always been loved, therefore even if something didn't look alright for the masses, they just waved a hand and left it careless.

[Watchman]

From what I've gathered much of the junk that accumulated in the Catholic Church and cost it so much popular credibility stemmed from the running power struggle the Papacy had with diverse temporal rulers, above all the Holy Roman Emperors. Not that the way the French kings at times treated the Popes particularly helped its authority either...

The Eastern church didn't have that kind of thing going on, did it ?

[clandestino]

This is a very complex issue and it can't be leveled down to

because indulgences werent a big problem for orthodox churches

or

-The Orthodox Church was less restrictive of its clergy. By allowing priests to marry the Orthodox Church was not alienated from the locals.

.

Now, Reformation was very complex process and there are many circumstances and reasons for it's aperance in first place. There are whole libraries written about reasons of Reformation and yet we don't have final answer to that question altough generaly we can mark several reasons for Reformation: moral corruption of some ( most? ) catholic priestes with Pope at head, fiscalism of Pope's Curia and turning catholic Church into giant corporation more concerned about profite than religion, emerging of capitalism,expansion of literacy and education,printing press, strengthening of national states on expense of Pope's universalism etc etc and all this in the time of unprecedent economical development of Western Europe, progess of manufactures, banking, geographical discoveries, creating new trade lines with Asia, discoveries of golden mines in S.America...in a word West became reach, progressive, open for new ideas. On the other hand the Orthodox world is at it's lowest point in history, Byzantium is subdued by the Turks, as well as Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria, Romanian principalities are between Turks and Hungarians, Russia have just overthrown Tatar domination but it's poor, conservative and cut of from the rest of the Europe. In this situation Orthodox people are not very interested for reformation, in Balkans they are more concerned to save their skin from Turks, there are no capitalism, litteracy and education, their culture is declining, ruling class is destroyed, 99% of people are illiterate peasants etc. In this situation Orthodox people don't seek reformation of their Church, on contrary they become more and more conservative as their Church is only thing that keeps their national and cultural identity under foreign rule.

[Carpathian Wolf]

This is a very complex issue and it can't be leveled down to

or
.

Now, Reformation was very complex process and there are many circumstances and reasons for it's aperance in first place. There are whole libraries written about reasons of Reformation and yet we don't have final answer to that question altough generaly we can mark several reasons for Reformation: moral corruption of some ( most? ) catholic priestes with Pope at head, fiscalism of Pope's Curia and turning catholic Church into giant corporation more concerned about profite than religion, emerging of capitalism,expansion of literacy and education,printing press, strengthening of national states on expense of Pope's universalism etc etc and all this in the time of unprecedent economical development of Western Europe, progess of manufactures, banking, geographical discoveries, creating new trade lines with Asia, discoveries of golden mines in S.America...in a word West became reach, progressive, open for new ideas. On the other hand the Orthodox world is at it's lowest point in history, Byzantium is subdued by the Turks, as well as Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria, Romanian principalities are between Turks and Hungarians, Russia have just overthrown Tatar domination but it's poor, conservative and cut of from the rest of the Europe. In this situation Orthodox people are not very interested for reformation, in Balkans they are more concerned to save their skin from Turks, there are no capitalism, litteracy and education, their culture is declining, ruling class is destroyed, 99% of people are illiterate peasants etc. In this situation Orthodox people don't seek reformation of their Church, on contrary they become more and more conservative as their Church is only thing that keeps their national and cultural identity under foreign rule.

I think it makes more sense to consider the reasons above mentioned such as the over all corruption of the vatican rather than people not being smart enough to protest. They really had no reason to protest. The Orthodox Church isn't as centralized, it doesn't have some strange hang ups about certain things in daily life. Also the clergy was over all different. A priest wasn't someone who talked down to you, they were a family member. To me when I meet a catholic priest i feel like they're trying to tell me how things are, and a protestant one is like a car salesman + fire and brim stone. But an Orthodox priest always came off to me as a grand father, a friend, a teacher. The plastic smiles I got from protestant pastors always bothered me in high school.

[Dracula]

I think it makes more sense to consider the reasons above mentioned such as the over all corruption of the vatican rather than people not being smart enough to protest. They really had no reason to protest. The Orthodox Church isn't as centralized, it doesn't have some strange hang ups about certain things in daily life. Also the clergy was over all different. A priest wasn't someone who talked down to you, they were a family member. To me when I meet a catholic priest i feel like they're trying to tell me how things are, and a protestant one is like a car salesman + fire and brim stone. But an Orthodox priest always came off to me as a grand father, a friend, a teacher. The plastic smiles I got from protestant pastors always bothered me in high school.

The best example of the popularity of the Orthodox Church is old Russia. From the novels of Dostoevski and Co. It was the people's religion. Peasants confessing publicly on the crossroads and stuff like that. It was uninposed. An expression of themselves.

[Odovacar]

Reformation was intended to reform the catholic church and thus preserve it. (The very concept already appears in the 13th century, and laters at the synod of Trident) The underlining principle is Saint Paul's- Tertullians idea about "reforming from the old pagan, unbeliever man into the christian, new man, who lives in Christ.

The pope and the leading elite of the church didnt want to admit that they are botched up the church -again. So far church was reformed when it was needed and the unity preserved (apart from the obvious 1054 issue, the schism between west and east.)
Now the italian papacy, backed up by the imperial wish to preserve unity stumbled into the nobles, the cities and princes.

The indulgence business was just one -albeit infamous-reason.
Reformation suggested a more rational, more clear religion, based on local principles, and on a new approach to the world. This 'offer' was sympathic enough for most commoners who were not attached to catholic religion. Not to mention the reformed church was cheaper and could cooperate with the state. It was essentially the beginning of national church. (Although the church is somewhat intenational ever, but now it was not an international hierarchy which ruled over the local affairs.)

The popes reacted without any understanding about how far things were gone. Also the italian high priests since centuries looked down on the "barbarian" germans. They had an attitude which made them frequently to be unpopular since centuries.

No, in the east church was always under state, more or less. The priests-although being essentially more catholic than the catholics from protestant eyes- could marry, and maybe their property was not as high as much the western roman church posessed.
Also the newly emerging cities with their developed consiousness and rationality did not exist.


The real question is for me..how could be that the reformation was not enough powerful in latin countries?
What stands behind this? Spirituality? Opression? Economy?

[Dracula]

The real question is for me..how could be that the reformation was not enough powerful in latin countries?
What stands behind this? Spirituality? Opression? Economy?

I read a famous author, Adam Smith if remember correct who says : "In the beginning of the Reformation, the Popes made sure they will win the situation by winning the richest and strongest monarchies of the time on their side. That was at that time -those of Austria, Spain and France" Dunno how they achieved it but probably with concessions. With their help they have hoped to quell the resistance in time. And in fact what remained out of this sphere seemed at 1522 less important. England was still poorer and none of the northern countries was strong or could have been a real threat. If the situation kept that way, probably the Reformation would have been choked or reduced to insignificant provincial problem of the north. And once the deal has been made, the kings could not revert it back, as there were much important stuff at the time, chivalry, reputation, honour. So later on the catholic monarchs had to continue the deed of the early reformation popes willingly or unwillingly, it was their word and the deed of their fathers.

Besides the border catholic/protestant lied roughly on the old roman empire northern border. The countries that weren't used to the roman order of the old created independant systems less centrallised than the Papacy. And Austria and Bavaria were won earlier with the imperialistic concession given to the Habsburgs. So where the ties with Rome had not been tight, they were easier ripped.

[SigniferOne]

The indulgence business was just one -albeit infamous-reason.
Reformation suggested a more rational, more clear religion, based on local principles, and on a new approach to the world.
[...]

No, in the east church was always under state, more or less. The priests-although being essentially more catholic than the catholics from protestant eyes- could marry, and maybe their property was not as high as much the western roman church posessed.

Also the newly emerging cities with their developed consiousness and rationality did not exist.

This basically says everything that needs to be said on the issue. Reformation was basically a Renaissance phenomenon which demanded rationality in a way that Eastern Europe didn't.

[iksterminator]

Actually first breaks-up in christian history happened in Orthodox world. There were many, like diofisites, arians, but the most significant movement was Iconoclasm.
Not to mention that Catholicism also broke off from Orthodox rite...

[Carpathian Wolf]

Actually first breaks-up in christian history happened in Orthodox world. There were many, like diofisites, arians, but the most significant movement was Iconoclasm.
Not to mention that Catholicism also broke off from Orthodox rite...

Even so these weren't anything like the reformation. Heresies were prevelant but not in this extent. I think the democratic like way of rule and the finality on certain issues has kept the Orthodox Church much stronger. It isn't the pope saying this and that, it's hundreds and thousands of church fathers. There is no going back and forth or contradiction, there simply is what is.

[Stavroforos]

Because the true Body of Christ cannot be separated.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Because the true Body of Christ cannot be separated.

[Stavroforos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfhYMmx-ySQ

I still can't get posting youtube links, lawl.

[Dracula]

I still can't get posting youtube links, lawl.

You choose "You tube" button on your posting panel click it and this must appear: Between the two you paste the link from the video.

[clandestino]

I still stand by my oppinion that Reformation was much more complicated thing and that it can't be leveled down to personal qualities of catholic priests or Pope's lust for secular power.As Jean Delimaux nicely said - Catholic church wasn't more corrupted in 16. then it was in 13. century and priests weren't any better then they were in 10th century but yet there wasn't Reformation in 13. or 10. century. Why? Why reformation didn't happen in 10th century or maybe in early 14th century when Popal monarchy was at it's peak? Priests were the same, some of them were sinfull, uneducated, greedy etc but yet there wasn't reformation, Popes were saling bishop's seats, indulgences, crowns... but still there wasn't reformation then. And as Odovacar said, why didn't Latin countries embraced Reformation, were the priests in France, Spain and Italy any better then the ones in Germany and Netherlands or the Pope was taking less money from them then from the Germans? Or it's all to blame on one man's ( Luther's ) doubts and internal strugles?