What is Orthodox Christianity?

[benmaarof]

I'm know about Catholic & Protestant Churches. But could anyone tell me about Orthodox Christianity, how is it different from Catholic and protestant beliefs. Any difference between Greek, Russian etc churches?

 

[WashedClean]

I'm not Orthodox, so I can't tell you to much. But I do know that the Orthodox church does not acknowledge the Pope's authority. I believe they may also have some differences in their theology with Communion/Eucharist.

There is a forum under "congregation" here at CF that's for Orthodoxy. You could check it out, or wait for someone else to respond who knows more. Sorry, I probably didn't help!

 

[InnerPhyre]

You should check out www.oca.org and click on Q&A section. It answers a lot of questions about Orthodox beliefs.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

You should check out www.oca.org and click on Q&A section. It answers a lot of questions about Orthodox beliefs.

Thanks! I'm finding that useful too.

 

[elizabethevangeline]

"The Ancient Way" is the Orthodox congregational forum. You will be welcome to ask questions there and will receive good answers. The oca.org site is very good.

Oh...are you able to post there? I know anyone can read thru the threads and that might be of help too.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I'm know about Catholic & Protestant Churches. But could anyone tell me about Orthodox Christianity, how is it different from Catholic and protestant beliefs. Any difference between Greek, Russian etc churches?

The Greek/Russian/etc Orthodox Churches are essentially the same, just different names to distiguish country really. They all believe the same thing and are in full communion with each other.

You are probably familiar with the architecture of our churches, as Islam uses many of the same key elements (such as the domes.) As for theology, I can really only say some general things, besides that, I need a specific question.

Anyways, we are not under the pope or any part of the Roman Catholic Church; all are decisions are made in council. No immaculate conception, co-repemdrix, or any other of those Marian dogmas.

As for main differences with Protestants, we believe in a single Church in the classic sense, not a church made up of all denominations everywhere. Also, we do not believe in Sola Scriptura, but rather use the Bible and the rest of Holy Tradition hand in hand.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I'm know about Catholic & Protestant Churches. But could anyone tell me about Orthodox Christianity, how is it different from Catholic and protestant beliefs. Any difference between Greek, Russian etc churches?

Put simply.. it is 1st century Christianity as handed down by the Apostles without changes.

My homepage has several links you may find usefull. www.oca.org is among the best at Q&A....

You would also be welcome to ask specific questions in TAW... http://www.christianforums.com/f145-the-ancient-way-eastern-orthodox.html

Christ is Risen!

Forgive me....

 

[benmaarof]

Thanks everybody.

Now, can anyone tell me how and when did it split from the Catholic Church?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

http://home.comcast.net/~psudduth

Christ is Risen!

Forgive me...

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Now, can anyone tell me how and when did it split from the Catholic Church?

http://home.comcast.net/~psudduth

Forgive me, but as usual I feel obliged to play devil's advocate and offer an alternative point of view...

http://www.catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

Pax tecum!

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Forgive me, but as usual I feel obliged to play devil's advocate and offer an alternative point of view...

http://www.catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

Pax tecum!

You, of course have every right to express your point of view...

However I will remind the reader that it is not the Orthodox view... it is the Catholic view of the Orthodox.

Four out of five Churches compose the Orthodox Church, one out of five became the Catholic Church.

Christ is Risen!

Forgive me...

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

You, of course have every right to express your point of view...

However I will remind the reader that it is not the Orthodox view... it is the Catholic view of the Orthodox.

Ah yes of course ...I apologise for not pointing that out earlier. But my faith icon and the name of the site hopefully gave it away anyway.

Pax

 

[Alchemist]

Thanks everybody.

Now, can anyone tell me how and when did it split from the Catholic Church?

Hi benmaarof,

The split between the Roman see (geographical jurisdiction) and the other sees of the Christian church was a rather complicated series of events. Depending on who you talk to (Catholic or Orthodox) you are likely to get different opinions on the 'Great Schism' as it is generally known in the English speaking world, but basically it came down to theological and political differences.

Basically, during the first thousand years of Christianity, many changes occured in the political climate of Asia Minor. As a result of this, the common language of the different areas diverged; in Rome, Latin was primarily used by the Church, while in Constantinople, Cyprus, etc. Greek was the vernicular. From my understanding, this caused problems, whereby theological thought by scholars in the "West" (i.e. Rome) did not reach the "East" (i.e. non-Roman churches), and vice versa. This meant as time went on, the theology of the two areas diverged. For instance, in the East (what is now the Orthodox Church), sin was seen as being brought into the world by Adam and Eve, and as a consequence we as humans are prone to sin. In the West, however, this was further elaborated on; in Western theological thought, sin is also seen as a kind of "stain", caused by Adam's sin, that is present inside us from birth (something foreign to Eastern theology). Although these differences may seem trivial, added up over time they led to conflict between the two schools of thought.

One of the "breaking points", so to speak, was around the issue of the "filioque" clause of the Nicean Creed. As you may know, the Nicean Creed was a statement of faith for the Christian church, developed at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325AD, in response to Arianism. In its original form, the creed reads;

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father..."
​

However, later in church history, the Creed was expanded upon by a group of theologians in Spain, so that the same passage now read;

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son..."
​

This change was initially rejected by the Roman see (as well as the other sees), but later was accepted by the Roman church, who saw the addition as essential to guard against further Christological heresy. Constantinople, however, saw the filioque clause itself as heretical, and refused to accept it. On its own, this misunderstanding could perhaps have been resolved, but due to the other theological differences that had emerged, the issue just divided the church instead. This was further alleviated by political conflict - the Eastern sees traditionally saw Rome as a sister church, specially honored (Peter resided there) but equal in status to any other Patriarchate. Rome, meanwhile, saw itself as the "head" of the Church, to a certain extent believing that the Roman see itself, and not the other sees, was the true "rock" upon which the Church was built (refer to Matthew 16:18).

So, in 1054 AD, the Bishop of Rome (the "Pope") excommunicated the Bishop of Constantinople. In the events that followed, the other sees in the East sided with Constantinople in excommunicating Rome (which was returned), forming what is essentially nowadays the Orthodox Church. As I mentioned before, it is a controversial subject; both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church today both claim to be the 'One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" mentioned in the Nicean Creed, and as such, there will be differing opinions of the matter depending which church you get your material from! But essentially, due to geographical and linguistic seperation, the two theological schools drifted apart over time, nd it is this which resulted in the seperation of what is now the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Sorry for the length, I hope this helps .

Peace,
Nick

 

[Alchemist]

Forgive me, but as usual I feel obliged to play devil's advocate and offer an alternative point of view...

Hey Robbie,

Don't apologise, as a Catholic it is your perrogative to offer the Catholic perspective . Orthodox would certainly disagree with you though. Reading the Catholic Encyclopedia, it is quite intriguing how different the two sides of the story are...

Peace,
Nick

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Alchemist-

Great post! Not too long at all, it was concise and informative.

"You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice."

Pax tecum

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Hi benmaarof,

The split between the Roman see (geographical jurisdiction) and the other sees of the Christian church was a rather complicated series of events. Depending on who you talk to (Catholic or Orthodox) you are likely to get different opinions on the 'Great Schism' as it is generally known in the English speaking world, but basically it came down to theological and political differences.

Basically, during the first thousand years of Christianity, many changes occured in the political climate of Asia Minor. As a result of this, the common language of the different areas diverged; in Rome, Latin was primarily used by the Church, while in Constantinople, Cyprus, etc. Greek was the vernicular. From my understanding, this caused problems, whereby theological thought by scholars in the "West" (i.e. Rome) did not reach the "East" (i.e. non-Roman churches), and vice versa. This meant as time went on, the theology of the two areas diverged. For instance, in the East (what is now the Orthodox Church), sin was seen as being brought into the world by Adam and Eve, and as a consequence we as humans are prone to sin. In the West, however, this was further elaborated on; in Western theological thought, sin is also seen as a kind of "stain", caused by Adam's sin, that is present inside us from birth (something foreign to Eastern theology). Although these differences may seem trivial, added up over time they led to conflict between the two schools of thought.



One of the "breaking points", so to speak, was around the issue of the "filioque" clause of the Nicean Creed. As you may know, the Nicean Creed was a statement of faith for the Christian church, developed at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325AD, in response to Arianism. In its original form, the creed reads;

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father..."

​

However, later in church history, the Creed was expanded upon by a group of theologians in Spain, so that the same passage now read;

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son..."

​

This change was initially rejected by the Roman see (as well as the other sees), but later was accepted by the Roman church, who saw the addition as essential to guard against further Christological heresy. Constantinople, however, saw the filioque clause itself as heretical, and refused to accept it. On its own, this misunderstanding could perhaps have been resolved, but due to the other theological differences that had emerged, the issue just divided the church instead. This was further alleviated by political conflict - the Eastern sees traditionally saw Rome as a sister church, specially honored (Peter resided there) but equal in status to any other Patriarchate. Rome, meanwhile, saw itself as the "head" of the Church, to a certain extent believing that the Roman see itself, and not the other sees, was the true "rock" upon which the Church was built (refer to Matthew 16:18).


So, in 1054 AD, the Bishop of Rome (the "Pope") excommunicated the Bishop of Constantinople. In the events that followed, the other sees in the East sided with Constantinople in excommunicating Rome (which was returned), forming what is essentially nowadays the Orthodox Church. As I mentioned before, it is a controversial subject; both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church today both claim to be the 'One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" mentioned in the Nicean Creed, and as such, there will be differing opinions of the matter depending which church you get your material from! But essentially, due to geographical and linguistic seperation, the two theological schools drifted apart over time, nd it is this which resulted in the seperation of what is now the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Sorry for the length, I hope this helps .

Peace,
Nick

Very well written, however you have the view of Sin backwards.

I would suggest reading "On the Incarnation" by St. Athanasius... for the Eastern view... http://www.ccel.org/a/athanasius/incarnation/0content.html and compare that with the western view of St. Augustine.

The "stain of original sin", but not the guilt, is of Eastern origin.

Christ is Risen!

Forgive me....

 

[benmaarof]

Thanks again everybody.

Another question. Is the Patriarch the equivalent of the Pope? What are the similarities and differences?

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Is the Patriarch the equivalent of the Pope? What are the similarities and differences?

There were originally, I believe, 5 Patriarchates (though I may be wrong). These were Rome, Antioch (in Greece), Jerusalem, Constantinople (now Istanbul in Turkey) and Alexandria (not sure about the last one, though). The Bishop of Rome (Pope--which is really an honourary title given to a number of Patriarchs in different denominations meaning "father") is the Patriarch of the Catholic Church's Latin Rite. He is also the Universal earthly head (beneath Christ and His representative) in Catholic thought.

The EO believe that from the beginning all 5 were equal, but Rome had primacy of honour as it's Bishop was "the first among equals"--that primacy being the only difference between the Patriarch in Rome and the other 4. Catholics believe that from the beginning the Pope (Bishop of Rome and Patriarch) was supreme to the others, because we believe he was also chosen to "Feed My sheep" as Christ says and was made "the rock on which I will build My Church".

The EO accept these passages with a similar interpretation but say Peter is primary in honour but not supreme or infallible on official declarations. Catholics believe the Pope alone has the charism of infallibility meaning that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra (in his role as sucessor of Peter and vicarius Christi in teaching all of Christ's faithful) on matters of faith and morality, he cannot err. The EO see this as an addition to the deposit of Faith and an abuse of Petrine (of Peter) primacy.

Clear as mud? Basically the Eastern Orthodox say the successor of Peter and Patriarch of the West (i.e. the Bishop of Rome) deserves special honour but has no authoritative or adminstartive power over the other Patriarchs, nor is he the universal pastor and shepherd. He is only the first among equals with all other Patriarchs. They believe it was so since the beginning but Rome tried to exert unwarranted power over others and this was a departure from the intentions of Christ and the real meaning of Petrine primacy

Catholics say he is infallible (cannot be wrong) on matters of faith and morality when speaking in his role as Petrine successor. They belive he is the vicar (representative) of Christ, and as universal pastor and shepherd (under Christ, we're talking earthly here) has authority over all human beings on the face of the earth...no earthly power is greater than his. This includes all Patriarchs. We believe it has been so since Peter and still is so for Benedict.

Now, as to who is right...well, it's clearly the Catholics. Not that I'm biased or anything...

Rant over. You can wake up.

Peace
Rob

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Thanks again everybody.

Another question. Is the Patriarch the equivalent of the Pope? What are the similarities and differences?

A Patriarch is a Bishop who oversees a specific Church....such as Antioch (I am Antiochian), or Russia, or Alexandrea. The Orthodox consider the Pope of Rome to be the Patriarch of the Roman Church.... and has alway been viewed, until 1054, to be 1st among equals.

The difference is (from the Orthodox view): The Roman Church says that it has authority over the other Churches..... and the Pope of Rome does not act as a Bishop in equality with the other Patriarch's.

A Patriarch supports and enforces what has been decided by councils of Bishops (Patriarch's) acting as equals, led by the Holy Spirit and ratified by the whole Church as be Ecumenical. (That is to say, what has been believed by all Christians, everywhere, from the beginning.)

A Patriarch is not allowed to make changes, nor to define anything for clarity's sake without the approval of the whole Church.

The Church has always been run by councils of Bishops (Patriarch's) acting as equals, as can be seen from the seven Ecumenical councils and the first council in the book of ACTS chapter 15. It is clear in ACTS that all the Apostles are acting as equals and in one accord... with James acting as head of council. (James was the frist Bishop of Jerusalem, so this was proper as they were in Jerusalem.)

Hope this helps

Christ is Risen!

Forgive me...

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Excellent post Orthodoxyusa...much clearer and more concise than mine, too!