Orthodox Christianity

Post Reply New Topic

I have been curious about Orthodox Christianity for the longest time.

I am curious as to what the basic doctrine of it is, what kind of liturgies, etc., and how it is similar to or different from Catholicism and mainline Protestantism.

*Mainline Protestantism = Episcopal/Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.

This is something that is extremely broad. One good source to look could be http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/ Likewise, the Orthodox Wiki seems to be fairly useful. Part of the difficulty of explaining Orthodox doctrine and practices to the non-Orthodox is that it's all of a whole. Where does one start? I'm no exegete, myself.

PM hurricaneseye, he's our local Orthodox Christian. I don't know much about it, except that they claim to be the one true Christian faith preserved in the original tradition.

Basically, this goes back to the Schism in 1054 AD, where Christianity had essentially developed two popes-the Pope in Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople. The situation simply couldn't be handled-each pontiff wanted to rule and wouldn't budge-so the Roman Pope excommunicated the Constantinople Patriarch and his followers, all in Eastern Europe. Thus, you got the Roman Christian Church, which eventually became Catholicism, and the Orthodox Christian Church, in eastern Europe. Orthodoxy is divided along national lines, with Russian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Romanian, Greek, etc. In Orthodox countries nationalism and faith are practically one. This is why thousands of Protestant Christian converts have been forced out of the old Soviet Bloc since the fall of communism.

Catholicism is far more missionary than Orthodoxy, with major strides being made in Africa, and going strong in Latin America, while declining in Europe. Protestantism, rooted in the rebellion of Martin Luther, is the most missionary of all. Protestantism is rooted in Germany and England. This is why America has always been a Protestant society. In America, Protestant denominations had to compete for followers from day one, and this gave birth to "witnessing", which has evolved into the annoying tendency of some Americans to shove their religion in your face at every opportunity.

First mistake: THE PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE HAS NEVER HAD OR CLAIMED PAPAL-STYLE POWERS OR AUTHORITY. Constantinople's patriarch did NOT "want to rule". It would have been a monstrous arrogation of illegitimate authority for any patriarch (including the Pope of Rome) to have tried this.

Second mistake: There has never been any excommunication of followers, only the personal anathemization of a single Pope and a single Patriarch of Constantinople. However, over the intervening centuries, Romanist doctrine has come to deviate strongly from the Orthodox faith, making intercommunion not possible at this time.

Third mistake: Even as early as the 11th century, the majority of Orthodox were not "followers" of the Patriarch of Constantinople. There were and are other Patriarchates, all of whom are Ecclesiastially equal to Constantinople (and to Rome, for that matter). Thus, even excommunication of Constantinople and of Rome by each other did NOT require the other Orthodox to follow suit. However, Rome had been going off on its own in several issues by this time. Many of these issues amounted to taking a purely local practice and inflating it to some kind of theological issue. Said issues included the following:

Celibate clergy: While the Church had always permitted celibate clergy, it left the question of mandatory celibacy up to individual jurisdictions. Rome arrogated authority and invented theological rationalizations for demanding that clerical celibacy be imposed over all Christianity.

Leavening of the Host: While the Church had always permitted local jurisdictions to determine whether or not the bread used at Communion was to be leavened, Rome had invented rationalizations to demand that unleavened bread be imposed throughout the Church. It just so happened that the Papal Legate who issued the anathema against Constantinople's Patriarch had recently received a slap-down from a council that had determined the leavening status to be a matter of permissible local variation.

The status of the Holy Spirit: The text of the Nicene Creed had been set by Ecumanical (all-Church) council. Rome took it upon itself to alter this text within its jurisdiction and then turn around and claim that its altered text was the theologically correct text.

There were several other issues, as well, some of them more cultural than theological.



The accurate statement is that Roman Catholicism was living in cultures that were far more actively imperialist. As these cultures spread their political and economic influence, the religion followed as part of the package.

But it is still all considered "one church," except for the Coptic Orthodox Church.

Tim, I attended Orthodox Churches for a number of years. Feel free to PM me any questions or just ask here. The liturgy is very long, but is usually chanted and sung in a beautiful way-- there are lots of lovely icons in the churches and candles (real ones, not the electric ones that are in a lot of Catholic churches). People stand during the liturgy as opposed to kneeling or sitting, and usually the liturgy is at least half in the native language of the church (Greek for Greek Orthodox, etc.). There is an American Orthodox Church.

Oh that's a big one! Most Orthodox priests (all that I have encountered) are married and have children. I think this is much better than forced celibacy. The Catholic Church has a serious problem with pedophilia and suppressed (or not so suppressed, lol) gays in the clergy, and I don't think it's healthy to require celibacy in any case. You'll get a larger and mentally healthier crop of clerical candidates if you dont require celibacy. As it is, the Catholic church is struggling to find men of any ilk to be priests.

"Deliver Us From Evil" is a good documentary about the pedophilia scandals in the Catholic Church, if anyone is interested.

Last edited by Apatura on 06 Aug 2008, 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It is also an unfortunate truth within the Orthodox Church that when there is a sex scandal, it will far more often involve a monk than a married priest.

IMU, in Eastern Orthodoxy, priests are generally allowed to marry, but only before entering the seminary.

Men who are undertaking study for ordination as Priests are usually permitted to marry so long as they have not gone beyond Deacon. However, it should be noted that an individual Bishop (who has jurisdiction) can exercise ekonomia and grant permission on a case-by-case basis.

Theologically/Doctrinally, there is no difference between Orthodox Catholicism and Roman Catholicism (with one exception ... the source of "Original Sin"). Consequently, the teachings of Orthodox Catholicism are accepted within Roman Catholicism and are considered to be part of the greater body of Christian and Catholic Theology.

The duty of every Catholic to attend Mass can be fulfilled by Attending either a Western (Roman) Catholic or Eastern Catholic ("Orthodox") liturgy.

Many RC churchgoers find the Eastern liturgy to be a very beautiful and spiritual experience.

Note that the wording of the Nicene Creed includes the words "Catholic Church", but this term does not mean the Roman church - but rather the broader Catholic and Orthodox faith. Explicitly stating "Roman Catholic" when praying the Nicene creed is theologically and liturgically incorrect (but commonly done by people who do not understand the difference).

The Episcopalian/Anglican traditions - particularly the "high-church" Episcopalian traditions - are actually far closer to Catholicism than they are to the Presbyterian or Baptist traditions. However, my knowledge of the various protestant traditions is weak so I do not wish to expand on that discussion.

Obviously, there are many functional differences between the Orthodox and Western Religious structures ... but these differences are focused more on the organisational structures rather than the doctrinal or theological differences.

1. As stated above, the use of leavened or unleavened bread is one of tradition rather than absolute theology.
2. The issue of Original Sin is really complicated and difficult to explain.
3. Day to day organisational issues make up the other items - celibate or married priests; the presence of an active deaconate; the role of monks within the heirachy; the actual structure of the Bishopric and Patriarchy ... and then the most obvious difference, the primacy of the patriarch of Rome.

The idea of communion is one very close to the hearts of many in both communities - the most difficult issue is more of a Geopolitical one than one of Theology or Doctrine.

In Eastern Europe, many Russian Orthodox churches are seeing members of their congregation switch to Churches that are in commune with Rome (often co-opting the actual churches themselves) - one of the factors triggering this is that to some in those areas, the Orthodox hierarchy is seen as having been too cooperative with the former communist regimes.

In the Balkans, the division between Serb and Croat is one that draws much of it's identity from the difference between western Catholicism in Croatia and Orthodox Catholicism in Serbia. Such historical divisions go back centuries ... the split in the churches was a division that geopolitics has always played a large role in. Look at the sack of Constantinople by the Roman crusaders only a couple of centuries after the division began ... something that copper-fastened a division that might otherwise have been healed before the reformation had even been thought of! This division continued - Venetian vs. Byzantine power (and the creation of the division between the Croatian and Serbian peoples) lasted right up until the fall of the Byzantine empire and the absorption of much of that area by the succession of Islamic empires that lasted until the fall of the Ottoman empire during WW1.

Since well before the 2nd Vatican Council (in the 1960's), the establishment of a closer communion between the Eastern and Western churches has been a priority in both East and West. Some leaders have focused on this goal more than others, and given the millenia of distrust, it is something that is not going to happen overnight. However, from a theological or Doctrinal POV, they effectively are the same church.

When I attended an Orthodox Church in St. Louis a few times, there was a group of people from North African that sat in one section to the back - not sure if they were Ethiopian Copts or something else. All the women were dressed similarly, in white.

Maybe the Greek church was the closest liturgy available, even though they were not part of the Eastern Orthodox communion you describe??

We Orthodox do not necessarily adhere to this position, which is very obviously a Roman Catholic position. There are several points of difference between us and the romanists.

We do not promulgate the "Immaculate Conception" of the Theotokos.
We have a different understanding of sin in general.
We have a different ontological view when it comes to the status of priests.
We deny and REJECT the "filioque" addition the romanists have made to the Nicene Creed.
We deny and REJECT the possibility that any person can be a "Vicar of Christ".
We have the doctrine of theosis (deification), which does not seem to be taught by the romanists.
There are other differences as well.




An Orthodox priest would not necessarily see things that way.




Many Orthodox would beg to differ.

Also, the Roman Church has sacerdotalism - roughly stated, the church and only the church (their church) is the path to truth/salvation. Whereas in Greek belief, reason and the conscience of the individual are given high status in a way not usually seen in the Roman Church.

The issue of the definition of Sin, and thus the concepts of Original Sin and Immaculate Conception (obviously impossible if Original Sin does not exist as a possibility) are all tightly interrelated. Theosis is also tightly bound to these issues ... as I said above, it's a complex element of theological/doctrinal debate.

the status and role of priests, and the designation of a single "vicar of Christ" were also items I readily acknowledged ... however, I do not consider these elements to truly be theological differences

The issue of the filioque can be seen in two ways - one view is to see it as being close to heretical, but this is a view not held by all Orthodox theologians; the other is to see it as a cannonical error - in that it should not have been added to the Creed. To address the issue in reverse order; the cannonical dispute over the addition of the filioque to the creed is something that is not consistent even within the Western tradition, and is something that is rarely seen as an impediment to Communion, as such a cannonical error can be easily modified.

The second issue - that of Heresy - is more important, but may actually be rooted in linguistic rather than doctrinal differences ...

Eastern theologians have said that, for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son, there would have to be two sources in the deity, whereas in the one God there can only be one source of divinity.

Western theologians counter by saying that, since both East and West agree in attributing everything as common to the Father and the Son except the relation of Fatherhood and Sonship, the Spiration (breathing forth) of the Holy Spirit, which does not involve this relation, must also be common to both Father and Son.

Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia (the renowned Eastern Theologian) concluded that "the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences": "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone" and "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" may both have orthodox meanings if the words translated "proceeds" actually have different meanings.

Latin does not have two words, one of which corresponds to the precise meaning of ἐκπόρευσθαι and the other to the broader meaning of προϊέναι. Procedere has to be used for both these Greek verbs.

This unfortunate conflation of two different concepts within the one term is something that can lead to alot of confusion, and may be at the heart of any rapproachment on this topic.

In part, this also derives from the teachings on Sin and Original Sin. However, modern teaching does not enforce a narrow conceptualisation of sacerdotalism - in part because of the doctrine of theosis IS an accepted part of Western thought, even if the promulgation of the belief might be conveyed in a different manner.

Note that theosis is typically vehemently rejected by many of the more Evangelical groups, both within the Protestant tradition and among some of the more "fundamentalist" groupings within the Eastern and Western churches ... how can you justify aggressive Evangelicanism, if theosis can encompass those who have not actually embraced christianity?