Apostolic authenticity

[Alan Asquith]

Peace to you!
How do you know that the traditions of the Orthodox church are the same as what was taught by the apostles? What is the evidence that Orthodox traditions have not been added to or modified (deliberately or unconsciously) over the last 2000 years?
And if Orthodox traditions are authentic, original, and unchanged, why do different branches of the Orthodox church have different traditions, such as different liturgies, different rules of fasting, different roles for female deacons, etc.?
Thank you.

 

[GoatsandRoses]

Yes, I have a similar question and will follow this thread. I ask this in all honesty and heart-searching, as I've been studying the ancient forms of Christianity. (And I have the same question for Catholics.) The simple church as portrayed in the New Testament looks NOTHING like the complexity, ritual, robes, incense, and liturgy that I see in either Orthodoxy or Catholicism. It's as if the early Church decided to take on some of the trappings of Jewish Temple-worship, perhaps after the destruction of the Temple. Since the Church was behind the recognition of the Canon of Scripture, if so much of this ceremony, repeated prayers, and ritual was necessary, then why was it not even mentioned in Scripture?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Peace to you!
How do you know that the traditions of the Orthodox church are the same as what was taught by the apostles? What is the evidence that Orthodox traditions have not been added to or modified (deliberately or unconsciously) over the last 2000 years?
And if Orthodox traditions are authentic, original, and unchanged, why do different branches of the Orthodox church have different traditions, such as different liturgies, different rules of fasting, different roles for female deacons, etc.?
Thank you.

Hello and welcome to CF, and to TAW!

Cute kitty.

That's a huge subject. It's best to break it down little by little and ask what we know about this aspect or that.

For example, the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom of course wasn't written during the period of the Apostles - but it is very similar to the Liturgy of St. James and we know that the early Church emerged out of liturgical Jewish worship, and would have needed to make changes in order to be Christian.

And the days of fasting (Wed and Fri) were "inherited" as a practice from the Jewish roots, but changed in the days in order to distinguish themselves from Judaism as well as to commemorate new events - the betrayal and crucifixion.

We have various direct information of different kinds of questions.

The Church today is not identical to the first meeting that happened after Pentecost - of course details had to shift from Judaism but that was the basis they were all accustomed to.

As to minor differences in custom, it can be necessary in different cultures that already have differences in typical diet how to approach fasting. Also arms crossed over the chest in some jurisdictions is a person prepared and expecting to receive the Eucharist - in others that means they only wish a blessing. Our priest adjusts based on the background of the person approaching so you get both on the same line. But such customs don't affect the core of the faith, any more than using the local language of the people does.

It's a good question. But to fully explore will take time.

Again, welcome!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, I have a similar question and will follow this thread. I ask this in all honesty and heart-searching, as I've been studying the ancient forms of Christianity. (And I have the same question for Catholics.) The simple church as portrayed in the New Testament looks NOTHING like the complexity, ritual, robes, incense, and liturgy that I see in either Orthodoxy or Catholicism. It's as if the early Church decided to take on some of the trappings of Jewish Temple-worship, perhaps after the destruction of the Temple. Since the Church was behind the recognition of the Canon of Scripture, if so much of this ceremony, repeated prayers, and ritual was necessary, then why was it not even mentioned in Scripture?

Welcome to TAW! Good to see you again.

Yes, by all means feel free to ask any questions as well.

A good deal of what the Church does IS rooted in Jewish temple worship, which was instituted and approved by God Himself. I had asked the same questions at one time.

I will say that - comparison of a developing Church in a poor country with an established one can be enlightening, as you see the essential aspects. I've seen Churches that didn't even have walls and the icons were only paper. There will still be some elements that are as nice as possible (such as the communion chalice) - usually donated by other Churches. The usual reason for the Church being so beautiful is that people love God very much and as they are able, they freely donate in love to have an icon painted, etc. After a few hundred years of such gifts, you can have a very beautiful Church. It is out of love for God and befitting His majesty. But it is not essential for the Liturgy. A very humble setting can be sufficient - a cloth that is blessed by the Bishop and gives the priest his authority to hold the Liturgy, and serves as a table, is all that is really needed.

Everything is there for a significant reason too, so that in a fully appointed parish there is meaning to each aspect, and most of it is directly mentioned in Scripture. (Not necessarily the thing itself but what it signifies.)

Many will ask why do we spend money to make Churches beautiful while there are people who need food and help. The answer is that almsgiving to the poor is absolutely built into our faith. It's not a question of either/or. Rather it's both/and. People will already have been fed and cared for before improvements to the Church are seen. So you can count on both going on. And remember that Jesus praised the woman who broke into a valuable jar of ointment to do what was fitting for Him instead of giving it to the poor. Both have the approval of God, and that is what we do.

Again, this is an item by item question, if you really want to know. So feel free to ask.

God be with you.

 

[FenderTL5]

The simple church as portrayed in the New Testament looks NOTHING like the complexity, ritual, robes, incense, and liturgy that I see in either Orthodoxy or Catholicism. It's as if the early Church decided to take on some of the trappings of Jewish Temple-worship, perhaps after the destruction of the Temple. Since the Church was behind the recognition of the Canon of Scripture, if so much of this ceremony, repeated prayers, and ritual was necessary, then why was it not even mentioned in Scripture?

Welcome! Your info says you are 'Baptist.'
I grew up in an Independent Baptist Church, became Southern Baptist during my college years. I was Charismated Orthodox in 2015.

The New Testament church began in Temple worship. The first meetings were literally IN the synagogues. It shifted to house worship later on but the customs were carried over. Even the early house worship was set-up to mirror the local synagogue in appearances/customs and were often nearby.
The idea that the NT worship was 'simple church' like a modern gathering around a coffee table is not correct historically.
You can see evidence of this in archeology:
Dura-Europos church in wikipedia

 

[FenderTL5]

The early church was without a doubt Eucharistic in nature.

After the Apostle Paul (Corinthians) the later writings reveal the Eucharistic nature of Christian worship, examples:
Writing around the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr gives the oldest description of something that can be recognised as the rite that is in use today. Earlier sources, the Didache, 1 Clement andIgnatius of Antioch provide glimpses of what Christians were doing in their eucharists. Later sources,Tertullian and the Apostolic Tradition, offer some details from around the year 200.

These early documents show the practices before Constantine allowed the church to see daylight.

 

[ArmyMatt]

St Justin Martyr details the early services, and Orthodoxy follows to the T. but the expression did develop in history. but the belief never has.

 

[LizaMarie]

Subscribing to this thread.

 

[prodromos]

The Orthodox Tradition is genuine because it heals and produces Saints.

http://silouanthompson.net/2011/06/on-the-therapeutic-nature-of-orthodoxy/

 

[Alan Asquith]

Thank you everyone for your warm welcome! To clarify where I am coming from, I am not here to criticize anyone or to assert my existing beliefs. I approach this subject in a spirit of enquiry. I am very grateful to read your responses to my questions to help me think these issues through.

Even if Orthodox rituals could be traced back to the earliest Christians (and it seems to me that that is only true in broad outline and not in many of the details insisted upon today), I am not persuaded that the earliest church rituals should be mandatory for all churches in later generations where different contexts/cultures may make it desirable to modify those rituals. I certainly believe that apostolic theology, doctrine, morality, and ethics (enshrined in the New Testament) are binding on all Christians everywhere for all time. But I don't think it necessarily follows that kissing an icon or crossing oneself or dipping a baby 3 times in baptism water should necessarily be mandatory for the church today.

Do you believe the Church Fathers had the same authority as the Apostles? If a Church Father such as Ignatius or Justin Martyr or Chrysostom described a particular pattern of church practice, I don't think that invests the practice with an apostolic stamp of approval. Anastasia, you said that the Liturgy of Chrysostom is very similar to the Liturgy of James, but the fact that it is only similar and not identical implies that Chrysostom felt at liberty to modify an apostolic prescription. So in principle you cannot be against the idea of modifying apostolic instructions about church practice? Furthermore, anonymous authors of ancient documents sometimes falsely alleged that their works were written by prominent theologians in order to gain greater recognition for their works (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas), so what evidence is there that the author of the Liturgy of James is either James the brother of John or James the son of Alphaeus?

Taking the veneration of icons as an example, I don't think icons are wrong per se because venerating an icon is definitely not the same thing as, for example, worshipping a golden calf. But due to man's propensity to idolize anything, I think it is very dangerous to venerate a picture of a saint when you are trying to worship God. I think it is very easy to unconsciously slide from acceptable worship of God into idolatry. In the same way, I would not recommend a man struggling with alcoholism to visit a pub for a glass of orange juice. If you can kiss an icon and still worship God purely, then good for you. But if for me such a practice would cause blasphemous and idolatrous thoughts to arise in my heart, would I be looked down on if I became an Orthodox Christian but abstained from kissing icons?

FenderTL5, you said that the first church meetings held in people's houses carried over some customs they inherited from the temple worship and synagogue prayers. Did Old Testament Jews use icons? I know Solomon's temple had statues of cherubim over the mercy seat and engravings of palm trees and lions on the walls, but did the Jewish priests kiss pictures of Abraham, Moses, and Samuel? In Acts chapter 15 where the apostles wrote a letter to the Gentile believers about what rituals they were required to follow, the list was extremely short, it did not include any of the distinctive Orthodox rituals of today, and was apparently designed to avoid putting a stumbling block in the way of Jewish non-believers living amongst Gentile believers rather than being ordained by God for the worldwide church of all time.

Prodromos, you said that the Orthodox tradition is genuine because it produces saints. However, I don’t think modified behaviour is the best way to decide whether a particular tradition is genuine. I suspect there are reformed sinners in every religion. You won’t have to search long before you will find Buddhists, Muslims, New Agers, Mormons, etc. who chalk up their reformed lives to the power of Chinese wisdom, Allah, psychotherapy, or whatever higher power they submit to. Catholics and Protestants also have their fair share of transformed lives, such as persecuted Christians sustained while being tortured; drunkards and drug addicts being liberated from the habit; wife-beaters made loving husbands and fathers; adulterers and murderers finding a sense of forgiveness, etc.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thank you everyone for your warm welcome! To clarify where I am coming from, I am not here to criticize anyone or to assert my existing beliefs. I approach this subject in a spirit of enquiry. I am very grateful to read your responses to my questions to help me think these issues through.

Even if Orthodox rituals could be traced back to the earliest Christians (and it seems to me that that is only true in broad outline and not in many of the details insisted upon today), I am not persuaded that the earliest church rituals should be mandatory for all churches in later generations where different contexts/cultures may make it desirable to modify those rituals. I certainly believe that apostolic theology, doctrine, morality, and ethics (enshrined in the New Testament) are binding on all Christians everywhere for all time. But I don't think it necessarily follows that kissing an icon or crossing oneself or dipping a baby 3 times in baptism water should necessarily be mandatory for the church today.

Do you believe the Church Fathers had the same authority as the Apostles? If a Church Father such as Ignatius or Justin Martyr or Chrysostom described a particular pattern of church practice, I don't think that invests the practice with an apostolic stamp of approval. Anastasia, you said that the Liturgy of Chrysostom is very similar to the Liturgy of James, but the fact that it is only similar and not identical implies that Chrysostom felt at liberty to modify an apostolic prescription. So in principle you cannot be against the idea of modifying apostolic instructions about church practice? Furthermore, anonymous authors of ancient documents sometimes falsely alleged that their works were written by prominent theologians in order to gain greater recognition for their works (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas), so what evidence is there that the author of the Liturgy of James is either James the brother of John or James the son of Alphaeus?

Taking the veneration of icons as an example, I don't think icons are wrong per se because venerating an icon is definitely not the same thing as, for example, worshipping a golden calf. But due to man's propensity to idolize anything, I think it is very dangerous to venerate a picture of a saint when you are trying to worship God. I think it is very easy to unconsciously slide from acceptable worship of God into idolatry. In the same way, I would not recommend a man struggling with alcoholism to visit a pub for a glass of orange juice. If you can kiss an icon and still worship God purely, then good for you. But if for me such a practice would cause blasphemous and idolatrous thoughts to arise in my heart, would I be looked down on if I became an Orthodox Christian but abstained from kissing icons?

FenderTL5, you said that the first church meetings held in people's houses carried over some customs they inherited from the temple worship and synagogue prayers. Did Old Testament Jews use icons? I know Solomon's temple had statues of cherubim over the mercy seat and engravings of palm trees and lions on the walls, but did the Jewish priests kiss pictures of Abraham, Moses, and Samuel? In Acts chapter 15 where the apostles wrote a letter to the Gentile believers about what rituals they were required to follow, the list was extremely short, it did not include any of the distinctive Orthodox rituals of today, and was apparently designed to avoid putting a stumbling block in the way of Jewish non-believers living amongst Gentile believers rather than being ordained by God for the worldwide church of all time.

Prodromos, you said that the Orthodox tradition is genuine because it produces saints. However, I don’t think modified behaviour is the best way to decide whether a particular tradition is genuine. I suspect there are reformed sinners in every religion. You won’t have to search long before you will find Buddhists, Muslims, New Agers, Mormons, etc. who chalk up their reformed lives to the power of Chinese wisdom, Allah, psychotherapy, or whatever higher power they submit to. Catholics and Protestants also have their fair share of transformed lives, such as persecuted Christians sustained while being tortured; drunkards and drug addicts being liberated from the habit; wife-beaters made loving husbands and fathers; adulterers and murderers finding a sense of forgiveness, etc.

the Church Fathers are the Church Fathers precisely because they preserved what was given to them by the Apostles. plus, the earliest ones such as St Ignatius were taught directly by the Apostles, lived with them, were persecuted with them, etc. do we really think we would know what the Apostles viewed as important more than their own spiritual children?

 

[FenderTL5]

Did Old Testament Jews use icons? I know Solomon's temple had statues of cherubim over the mercy seat and engravings of palm trees and lions on the walls, but did the Jewish priests kiss pictures of Abraham, Moses, and Samuel?

This photo is from the synagogue at Dura-Europa, which was nearby the house church mentioned earlier.

These paintings are now displayed in the National Museum of Damascus.
The scenes depicted are drawn from the Hebrew Bible and include many narrative scenes, and some single figure "portraits"—58 scenes in total, probably representing about 60% of the original number. They include the Sacrifice of Isaac and other Genesis stories, Moses receiving the Tablets of the Law, Moses leading the Hebrews out of Egypt, the visions of Ezekiel, and many others.

Ancient Jewish symbolism, art, icons etc are not something I know a lot about but if you search, there is quite a bit to be discovered.
The Incarnation itself is a major reason why the Church encourages the use of icons. The central point of the Christian faith is that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" and that "we have beheld His glory" (Jn 1:14). The Seventh Ecumenical Council, held in Nicea in 787, officially declared that the faith is to be proclaimed "in words and images," this was after two relatively short periods of iconoclasm influenced by Islam.

In Acts chapter 15 where the apostles wrote a letter to the Gentile believers about what rituals they were required to follow, the list was extremely short, it did not include any of the distinctive Orthodox rituals of today, and was apparently designed to avoid putting a stumbling block in the way of Jewish non-believers living amongst Gentile believers rather than being ordained by God for the worldwide church of all time.

Yes but many distinctive Orthodox rituals of worship, such as the vestments, incense, the Psalter etc which would have already existed in the Jewish synagogues were not disputed practices in either faith nor by the Gentiles. The prayer offices were in practice and we know from the epistles that the Apostles kept those. The Didache' instructs to pray the Our Father 3x a day, to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays..

 

[prodromos]

Prodromos, you said that the Orthodox tradition is genuine because it produces saints. However, I don’t think modified behaviour is the best way to decide whether a particular tradition is genuine.

I suspect that you have a different understanding of Saints. I'm not simply speaking of modified behaviour, but rather completely transformed. For these men and women who the Orthodox Church recognises as Saints, they have put on the divine nature to the extent that the supernatural is their normal mode of existence.
We are instructed to be holy, and the Church provides an abundance of tools and resources which help us towards that end, if we avail ourselves of them. Through exercises in humility we root out pride, by practicing obedience we conform our will with God's, by fasting we learn to master our passions. Everything we do in the Orthodox Church has a purpose and nothing is done without reason. For those of us who were converts to Orthodoxy, as time has passed and we have grown deeper in the faith, we have come to appreciate the wisdom and purpose behind what initially seemed unnecessary practices. We would abandon the established wisdom of the Church at our peril.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Dipping three times in baptism IS a teaching of the early Church - along with other instructions (see the Didache).

The Liturgy does make some changes. In our Liturgy we pray for those who travel "by land, sea, and air" so I'm sure the "air" part is s recent addition. And for s long time we prayed every Liturgy for the bishops who had been kidnapped. But that doesn't change the basic form that we pray for travelers, and for captives. One of the major differences is that the Liturgy of St. James has rubrics concerning the receiving of the Eucharist in the hand. The exact manner of the delivery of the Eucharist had undergone some minor and necessary changes over time. But it is still the Eucharist and has used the same words of institution as Christ spoke at the Mystical Supper.

Not everything is completely identical, but it's important to consider what can change and what cannot, and what the significance is.

Again, each point could be its own question.


As to the possible questionable authorship of a writing, that's a good question to ask. But in understanding how the Church worked, we find the answer. The Apostles went out and established a Church, and stayed with them for quite some time, teaching them how to do everything, and all doctrine they should know. They weren't handed a Bible. Later, letters would come, even from an Apostle they did not personally know (forwarded letters) and the faithful could immediately know if they were consistent with what they had already been taught. There were as many fake documents as real ones, but the people could recognize them. That's the only way we can trust the Bible we have today - because they knew what to accept and what to reject. A letter that came along, even if it was supposed to be from St. Paul, or St. Peter, or St. John - if it didn't agree with what they'd already been taught - wouldn't be accepted by the faithful. So there is no worry that they were tricked by fake letters to introduce new practices.



And as to actually venerating icons, no one is expected to go against their conscience. It would be necessary before becoming Orthodox to acknowledge that the Church has her reasons and her wisdom and that our own ideas are not greater. But it is right to have proper understanding before doing anything that violates one's conscience or puts one in spiritual danger. This would be something a person could talk to their priest about. I myself prayed about it a great deal, and I still remember the moment that the understanding came to me like a door being opened and suddenly letting sunlight in (it was as I walked out of the Church into the sunlight in fact) - after a great deal of struggling and prayer over months, I just suddenly understood all at once. Thanks be to God.

But no one would be asked to go against their conscience.

 

[Northbrook]

Hello, Alan, this is Northbrook, but my real name is Lambrini (Greek girl's name). With a name like Lambrini you can probably guess that I was born into the Greek Orthodox Church, and I was (baptized at age one). I was talking to an Orthodox priest only yesterday, and asking him, "How do we know the Orthodox Church is the True Church?" And he referred me to two books--here are the titles:
1. The Faith by Clark Carlton;
And 2. Becoming Orthodox by Peter E. Gillquist
With names like Carlton and Gillquist, you can probably guess that those two authors are CONVERTS to Orthodoxy, which is what you will be if their arguments convince you. Good luck in your search for the True Church!

Lambrini
Northbrook, IL
USA

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Coming as an Enquirer and soon (God willing), a Catechumen, I can highly recommend all of Prof. Carlton's books. I've "The Faith" and "The Truth"; both are excellent. I've ordered "The Truth" and will order "The Way" whenever I next can set the money aside for it.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

.

 

[Alan Asquith]

the Church Fathers are the Church Fathers precisely because they preserved what was given to them by the Apostles. plus, the earliest ones such as St Ignatius were taught directly by the Apostles, lived with them, were persecuted with them, etc. do we really think we would know what the Apostles viewed as important more than their own spiritual children?

I haven't read the Church Fathers extensively but I'm curious to know, did any Church Father before 300 AD advocate venerating images/icons? And praying to dead saints? If so, can you cite the relevant passages please. Thank you.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I haven't read the Church Fathers extensively but I'm curious to know, did any Church Father before 300 AD advocate venerating images/icons? And praying to dead saints? If so, can you cite the relevant passages please. Thank you.

Hello and welcome to CF and to TAW!

I'll let Fr. Matt answer that question as I don't know any answer from the writings - only that the early Churches HAD icons (as did the Jewish predecessors and Christ was never recorded as speaking against them), and that requests for prayers from the reposed were carved into their markers in the early Church.

But I did want to welcome you.

God be with you.

 

[Alan Asquith]

This photo is from the synagogue at Dura-Europa, which was nearby the house church mentioned earlier.

That synagogue was built long after the time of Christ and not in the Old Testament period. Its unique images were so surprising to the archaeologists who discovered it that they initially mistook it for a Greek temple. This one example does not demonstrate that venerating icons was a widespread and mainstream practice in the Jewish milieu from which the earliest Christians emerged.