Book of Concord, Catechism of the Catholic Church

[Sword of the Lord]

Does the EOC have something equivalent? The BoC is to Lutherans, what the CCC is to RC's, what the...blank blank blank? is to the EO's...

 

[GreekOrthodox]

There are some catechisms but nothing like what western churches developed. St. John of Damascus wrote An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith might be the only one that everyone agrees with. There have been attempts to write one but generally they have been from just one group (the Russians have a decent one I think) but they never took off.

It has been a little bit of personal frustration that we dont have a really good catechism like my treasured blue copy of the Small Catechism with Explanation ... I can still rattle off quite a bit of "What is 'this'? What does 'this' mean?" off the top of my head. Pastor Roschke would be proud

Brian

 

[Joseph Hazen]

No. There are Catechisms, but they're not authoritative.

Orthodoxy isn't supposed to be something you learn form a book. You're supposed to learn it from a community and experience. I've spoken with many who've felt that God has kept us from developing such a book for very specific reasons. I think I'm inclined to agree with them.

It's a journey, experience, practice, faith, tradition and belief. It's not a definition, word, pat answer, one-size-fits-all explanation, or canon. There are benefits to that approach, and to ours, and both have their weaknesses too, but that's the way Orthodoxy is.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well-said. I think anyone coming to Orthodoxy looking for fundamentalism, a manual for every moral precept and conundrum, a constitution, a "system," or a well-defined linear approach to salvation...well, they're barking up the wrong tree to be sure!

No. There are Catechisms, but they're not authoritative.

Orthodoxy isn't supposed to be something you learn form a book. You're supposed to learn it from a community and experience. I've spoken with many who've felt that God has kept us from developing such a book for very specific reasons. I think I'm inclined to agree with them.

It's a journey, experience, practice, faith, tradition and belief. It's not a definition, word, pat answer, one-size-fits-all explanation, or canon. There are benefits to that approach, and to ours, and both have their weaknesses too, but that's the way Orthodoxy is.

 

[Nephi]

There aren't any authoritative go-to texts to learn what Orthodoxy teaches on any given subject. Although that doesn't stop people from attempting to make such items.

Rather, one must look through the dogmatic definitions and theological anathemas of the 7 Ecumenical/Imperial Councils, the Fourth and Fifth Councils of Constantinople (called by some the 8th and 9th Ecumenical Councils), and to a lesser degree the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem. Further understanding of our theology and spirituality almost must be gleamed from our liturgical texts and hymnography, iconography, hagiography, and writings of Church Fathers (ancient and modern).

Orthodoxy is called the most disorganized organized religion after all.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Orthodoxy is meant to be lived (so yes, that means read, just not ONLY read). we cannot cram all of our beliefs into one book or document, because man can always delve deeper into the mystery of God and salvation. just like how at the end of John's Gospel, he writes that no book could account for all the works of Christ.

if you really wanna know, come and see

 

[InnerPhyre]

Western idea: Understand something so that you can experience it.

Eastern Idea: Experience something so that you can understand it.

To understand Orthodoxy, we must worship. As we worship, so do we believe. Worship with the Orthodox and you will begin to understand .

 

[Nephi]

As we worship, so do we believe.

I think, while not necessarily what the OP was wanting, this is an important point for people who want to understand Orthodoxy. The entire deposit of our prayers and hymns truly explain the Orthodox faith, and we live them.

 

[Gnarwhal]

As my priest said "In the west, mysteries are something to be figured out. In the east, mysteries are something to be entered into."

That's really stuck with me.

 

[ArmyMatt]

As my priest said "In the west, mysteries are something to be figured out. In the east, mysteries are something to be entered into."

That's really stuck with me.

awesome quote. gonna save that one.

 

[RobNJ]

As my priest said "In the west, mysteries are something to be figured out. In the east, mysteries are something to be entered into."

That's really stuck with me.

 

[27B6]

...

 

[Shane R]

There were many catechisms in the ancient church. They were prepared by bishop and used regionally. The regional approach is probably the best approach to that sort of document. Having a one size fits all document set in stone lends to a mindset which perceives irrelevancy in the history of the church, and rejects the faith of one's forefathers (I am speaking specifically of liberal Lutherans and Episcopals here). When a catechism is localized it can better adress the customs, manner of thinking, and struggles of a community - thus becoming all things to all men to win some.

This is the strength of Orthodoxy, it's ability to adapt. I believe this comes from the focus on practice, the realization that the Christian must be ever-growing in faith, and the understanding that for the mortal mind God is a mystery that cannot be fully unraveled until one's consummation through the resurrection.

Of the ancient catechisms those which immediately come to my mind are the Didache, and the catechism's of Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose of Milan.

 

[Fotina]

Fr John Fenton, a former Lutheran pastor, did a presentation on this very topic. This is in 2007 shortly after his conversion.

See: Creeds & Confessions of Faith in Orthodoxy
Presented at “Faith of Our Fathers: A Colloquium on Orthodoxy for Lutherans”.

excerpt
A Lutheran who sincerely and fairly examines Orthodoxy will find commonality in
more areas than not; he will be intrigued by many ceremonies and not a few doctrinal
nuances; he will bump up against some things that are flatly contradicted in Lutheranism;
he will be surprised by what he learns about his own faith; he will cry out for a lexicon as he
attempts to navigate his way through new or similar sounding terms; and he will scratch his
head in bewilderment at several points. But my experience has taught me that a Lutheran’s
greatest frustration will be attempting to make adequate comparisons. For the first instinct a
Lutheran has is to look for a document or a series of documents in Orthodoxy which
resemble the 1580 Book of Concord. Perhaps, in his investigation, a Lutheran will come
across a list of “Orthodox confessional documents” such as those provided by Bishop
Kallistos Ware in his book, The Orthodox Church. And perhaps in his search the Lutheran
will come across a multitude of Orthodox catechisms, which differ widely in format and
arrangement and which are quite unlike the concise, well conceived Small Catechism of
Martin Luther. And then perhaps he will be cheered by the systematic manner in which
Patriarch Jeremias responds to the Tübingen theologians—a pattern that closely resembles
the outline of the Augsburg Confession. Nevertheless his frustration will remain and, like not a
few, he will conclude in despair that Orthodoxy has no doctrinal standard, or that its
doctrinal standard is similar to nailing jello to a wall.

Let me state plainly and bluntly from the start that Orthodoxy does have a doctrinal
standard. That standard, which like much in Orthodoxy does not measure up to postreformational standards, is the Tradition of the Church. What that means I shall describe in
this presentation, as well as how it relates to Orthodoxy’s understanding of creeds and
confessions of faith. Let it suffice, however, that the Tradition of the Church can be most
easily accessed in the Church’s Liturgy. In the words of Anastasios Kallis, “The identity of
Orthodoxy consists neither in a doctrine nor in an organizational system, but in the correct
praise of the Triune God, which has its center in the celebration of the Eucharist, or simply
in the Liturgy, through which the one congregation assembled in the name of Christ
becomes his body, his church.”1
According to Jaroslav Pelikan (a former Lutheran),
Orthodoxy’s particular view of liturgy as prayed creed indicates “a principal reason for [the]
ambivalent position of ‘symbolical books’ within…Orthodoxy.” Let us understand,
however, that Orthodoxy sees the liturgy as of the Spirit; and that for Orthodoxy liturgy is
within the matrix called Tradition. While the comparison is not precise, the frustrated
Lutheran might consider Tradition comparable to his Book of Concord. Therefore, to
compare apples to apples, he might want to examine Orthodoxy’s liturgy alongside
Lutheranism’s confessional documents.

While Orthodoxy’s liturgy may be the easiest way for a Lutheran both to compare
doctrinal content and to access the Church’s Tradition, one must understand the overall
place, use and purpose of creeds and confessions of faith in Orthodoxy.