Ask an Orthodox Christian

[CDHealy]

I understand what "begging the question" means and have studied presuppositional apologetics as well as logic.

Very good.  Van Tillian or Clarkian?

You're begging the question by assuming you're modern apostles do not need continuing revelation to be apostles, this discontinuity with the past [Biblical] practice [and example] of prophets and apostles receiving revelation causes many problems...that I won't get into since this is a thread about the Eastern Orthodox denomination.

Since you're so well-versed in presuppositional apologetics and in logic, then you'll rightly recognize that my critique of your argument on grounds of informal fallacy does not presuppose or otherwise necessitate an articulated argument.  And, in fact, although I have made an assertion (i.e., the historical and present bishops of the Orthodox Church are legitimate successors to the apostles), my critique of your argument does not rest on that assertion, but on, rather, my demonstration of your fallacy.  So, no, to defeat your argument, I am not begging the question.  My defeat of your argument rests on the demonstration of your fallacy.  It is up to you to repair the logic of your argument.  By switching gears and moving to my assertion, you are simply practicing diversion (another fallacy, as, of course, you know).

I've seen arguments for lots of things.  It doesn't mean such arguments are true.

Now I could respond with, "I'm rubber you're glue!

[JM]

I've read both, VanTil and Clark as well as Robbins and Cheung.  Of course that doesn't make me well versed just familiar with.  As for the rest...you're reasoning from your assertion, you presuppose your assertion is true and working your argument based on it.  When you write, "authority is not the same

[CDHealy]

As for the rest...you're reasoning from your assertion, you presuppose your assertion is true and working your argument based on it.  When you write, "authority is not the same

[trifecta]

Thought that I would point out here something about our view of what a church is . . .

Yes, I understand your position on the denomination issue and it's fine that we have a different understanding of Church history.  When I use the term denomination I would be referring to, "3. A class, society or collection of individuals, called by the same name; as a denomination of christians.

[stevehut]

1- The church in the early days became known as the Catholic Church

2- and the faith was called the Orthodox Faith. 

3- The Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches were united until 1054,

when the issue of the Pope having universal authority over the church split the church.  Rome supporting universal papal authority, the Orthodox churches opposing it. 

Much of this is half-true, trifecta.

1- The early church was catholic (small c), meaning "universal."  This was not the name of the church, simply a description.

2- From what I've seen, this name came along much later.  I'd be interested to see your source.

3- Not really.  The Eastern churches were already going their own way for centuries.  The excommunication from the Pope was little more than a formality.

[trifecta]

Stevehut,

Greetings and welcome to the little corner of the board that Grace-centered graciously allows a few others and me to maintain!

Much of this is half-true, trifecta.

three-quarters true, at least 

1- The early church was catholic (small c), meaning "universal."  This was not the name of the church, simply a description.

The first reference is, as you may know, by St. Ignatius in 110 A.D.  Actually, I believe you may be  right there.  It may be refering to small c catholic.  The quote is an important one:
"Whereever  the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as whereever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church." 

Rome's interpretation of the word "catholic" was universal.  But in reality, the word meant "completeness or wholeness." (This is the Greek interpretation, and you know, the Greeks knew Greek better than the Romans).  Read the quote with that meaning and it makes more sense.  (To confuse things further, even some Greek writers use the term meaning universal, but that was because that is what the word came to mean over time).

Now if this would the only time the words catholic and church were used together, you would have a point.  But we see it in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (155) and it is in common use by the Council of Nicea (305)   I think the term was used to contrast it with Gnostnicism and Montanism (not sure about Marcionism). 

2- From what I've seen, this name came along much later.  I'd be interested to see your source.

Now, this term, you are right, was not in as wide use as catholic, but it does come from the scripture "rightly dividing (orthotomounta) the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15).  So early on it meant "right truth" or "right faith" Can't tell you the first reference, but in Ignatius does use its opposite (heterodox) in his letters.   My Orthodox textbook says it was in wide use before the Ecumenical Councils.  Gregory of Elvira wrote a book called "The Orthodox Faith" in the early 360s, so it must have been in wide use by then.

3- Not really.  The Eastern churches were already going their own way for centuries.  The excommunication from the Pope was little more than a formality.

I'm right and you are right.  The official split was in 1054, when we were excommunicated.
(we returned the favor). That was more than a formality.  The churches were united until then (so I am right) but they indeed were going in different directions for about 250 years up to that point.

My orginal statement was a short summary; it was not meant to be exhaustive.  Even so, I think it is still largely accurate.

I do want to use this opportunity to clear up something about claims of some in the Roman Catholic Church.   Some Catholic propaganda claims that they are the only church that goes back to the original.   This is untrue.  The Orthodox churches, Coptic churches, and Assyrian Churches also go back to when Jesus established his church on the rock (Matt 16:18).   The RCCs say this because they are they are the ones with the word "Catholic" in their title.  That is not the same thing.  Names have significance, but a name is still  just a name.  ( I love our RCC and Protestant brethren, but this claims drives me nuts).

Hope you are still awake.  Thanks for reading.

[CDHealy]

Regarding the 1054 split:

It was not the universal schism that many attribute to it.  When we refer to the "Great Schism" of 1054, it is more a sympbolic shorthand than an historic reality.

The historic reality is that the Pope removed the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople from the diptychs in Rome, and shortly after the Patriarch of Constantinople did the same.  But this was not a sundering of the entire Church into two bodies.  These were local excommunications.  The Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and any other bishops were under no canonical necessity to recognize the schism--indeed, one might suggest that all were under obligation to heal the schism.

Further, while it is true that the Latin-speaking Romans and the Greek-speaking Byzantines were growing further apart in various ways in the centuries leading up to 1054, the fact of the matter is that on 1 January 1055, and on 31 July 1200 and so forth, there were still shared Liturgies, shared canons, shared saints and so forth among all the Churches, east and west.  The divergence of the so-called West and East did not really begin to take hold until the Gregorian reforms in the "Western" Church of Rome in about the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

In fact, it will likely surprise many on these boards, that, as recently as the mid-1800s the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch (Pope) of Rome, were still in communion.

So, the "Great Schism" isn't so neat and simple as it appears.  It is helpful as a sort of symbolic date, and it is a fact that Rome and Orthodoxy are certainly presently in schism from one another, but it is not the case that the Church split in half in the mid-eleventh century.  It's a little more complicated than that.

[DCR]

1- The early church was catholic (small c), meaning "universal."  This was not the name of the church, simply a description.

The first reference is, as you may know, by St. Ignatius in 110 A.D.  Actually, I believe you may be  right there.  It may be refering to small c catholic. 

I suspect our characterization of this tends to be anachronistic.  In other words we're approaching this from a centuries-later perspective where there are now distinctions made such as "Big C" Catholics and "Big O" Orthodox... along with a host of other denominations.  But, there was no concept of that in the beginning (aside from the various heterodox groups that were teaching Gnostic heresies and the like).

In the beginning, there was simply the Church.  When they spoke of the universal or "catholic" church, I suspect they were speaking of the church as a whole, wherever she existed in the world, as opposed to individual congregations of the Church (which were referred to as "churches").  There was no concept of Catholic versus Orthodox verses Protestant back then.

[stevehut]

In the beginning, there was simply the Church.  When they spoke of the universal or "catholic" church, I suspect they were speaking of the church as a whole, wherever she existed in the world,

Yup   

[CDHealy]

In the beginning, there was simply the Church.  When they spoke of the universal or "catholic" church, I suspect they were speaking of the church as a whole, wherever she existed in the world, as opposed to individual congregations of the Church (which were referred to as "churches").  There was no concept of Catholic versus Orthodox verses Protestant back then.

I wholeheartedly agree with the first sentence.

I also agree with the caution of reading, anachronistically, back into the early centuries the present-day schisms which obtain in the Christian world.

But there is an equal, and just as egregrious, anachronism: to read the state of the Church in the early centuries into the present-day schisms which obtain in the Christian world.

That is to say, not all present-day churches are the one Church that obtained in the pre-schism centuries.  To assume that they are is to say something about the Church of the pre-schism centuries that isn't true.

[zoonance]

In the beginning, there was simply the Church.  When they spoke of the universal or "catholic" church, I suspect they were speaking of the church as a whole, wherever she existed in the world, as opposed to individual congregations of the Church (which were referred to as "churches").  There was no concept of Catholic versus Orthodox verses Protestant back then.

I wholeheartedly agree with the first sentence.

I also agree with the caution of reading, anachronistically, back into the early centuries the present-day schisms which obtain in the Christian world.

But there is an equal, and just as egregrious, anachronism: to read the state of the Church in the early centuries into the present-day schisms which obtain in the Christian world.

That is to say, not all present-day churches are the one Church that obtained in the pre-schism centuries.  To assume that they are is to say something about the Church of the pre-schism centuries that isn't true.

Very true.  The pre-schism centuries would not have tolerated much of the teaching and practices seen today.  That is telling.

[ole Jake]

Regarding the 1054 split:

It was not the universal schism that many attribute to it.  When we refer to the "Great Schism" of 1054, it is more a sympbolic shorthand than an historic reality.

The historic reality is that the Pope removed the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople from the diptychs in Rome, and shortly after the Patriarch of Constantinople did the same.  But this was not a sundering of the entire Church into two bodies.  These were local excommunications.  The Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and any other bishops were under no canonical necessity to recognize the schism--indeed, one might suggest that all were under obligation to heal the schism.

Further, while it is true that the Latin-speaking Romans and the Greek-speaking Byzantines were growing further apart in various ways in the centuries leading up to 1054, the fact of the matter is that on 1 January 1055, and on 31 July 1200 and so forth, there were still shared Liturgies, shared canons, shared saints and so forth among all the Churches, east and west.  The divergence of the so-called West and East did not really begin to take hold until the Gregorian reforms in the "Western" Church of Rome in about the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

In fact, it will likely surprise many on these boards, that, as recently as the mid-1800s the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch (Pope) of Rome, were still in communion.

So, the "Great Schism" isn't so neat and simple as it appears.  It is helpful as a sort of symbolic date, and it is a fact that Rome and Orthodoxy are certainly presently in schism from one another, but it is not the case that the Church split in half in the mid-eleventh century.  It's a little more complicated than that.

Correct.

And that split must end for Christianity to be able to save the world from the looming horrors of reviving Islam and Zionism armed to the gills and backed 100% by the USA and emerging paganisms (some of which are evidencing child sacrifice and sexual slavery) from Africa and parts of southeast Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean.

[extranos]

But if by continuing revelation you are affirming that somehow we know something more about God today that the Apostles did not know, or the Christians of the Nicene era, or the Christians of the eighth century, and the Seventh Council, and so on--that Orthodox firmly reject.  We don't know anything new that the Apostles themselves didn't know.  If so, then the Apostles cannot be the foundation upon which Christ's Church is built, for no one builds on a partial and incomplete foundation.

CD is spot on with this argument.  Now, I realize that the Orthodox AND the Catholics will jump on me, being a Lutheran, and accuse my ilk of being the main perpetrators of "innovation", but naturally I will reject such charges. 
I will confess that I think that Luther was a bold and radical Reformer, but the guiding principle among the Lutherans was that "innovation" was prohibited.  Of course, it is easy to see how the Catholics would accuse the Lutherans of being "innovative", but that is such an easy charge to lay against them (as CD has noted from the Orthodox angle), that it is meaningless to be accused of innovation by the Catholics.
Only the Orthodox accusation of innovation bothers me - and it is only their challenges to Lutheranism that I take seriously.  Naturally, they have a few problems with Lutheranism.  There was an interesting correspondence between the early Lutherans and the Patriarch Jeremias II in the mid-1500s.  Luther himself noted that the Greeks believed, preached, baptized and lived as did the Lutherans.  Sadly, these two groups were not able to reconcile the differences.  Their ability to work out the differences could have caused the RCC to fall back into authentic Christian teachings and much dissension could have been avoided, but it was not to be.

But, as first noted, CD is dead on with his comment.  It is the idea of "continuing revelation" which makes doctrinal innovation possible and it leads to all kinds of shenanigans, such as pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and "spirituality" factions within the so-called Christian churches.  It has lead to "Christian" churches which deny that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist! An abomination, to be sure.
Dan

PS.  Steelers rule.

[katholikos]

....CD is dead on with his comment.  It is the idea of "continuing revelation" which makes doctrinal innovation possible....

I'm sorry for not having read all the posts, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but does this refer to the Catholic Church? Because, if it does, it is totally incorrect.

It is Catholc DOGMA that all revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. Period. The legitimate "development" of doctrine is merely further articulation and finer definition of the once-for-all depostit of faith handed down to us by Christ and the apostles.

[trifecta]

Katholikos,

Firstly, greetings and thanks for your contributions on these boards.

To answer your question, the answer is yes, but not as bad as many others.

The good thing about Catholic Church is that is does reject the idea of
continuing revelation unlike many -but not all- Protestant groups. 

But we don't
agree with the "development of doctrine" as it has developed in the RCC.

We go by the principle--what is believed everywhere, in every time, by everybody.  (St. Vincent of Lerin). 
Without going into why on this thread, we believe that the RCC doesn't hold to this standard.

Dan, you Lutheran folk don't make the standard either because of those solas.

But you guys are closer to the target than many others.  (Well, that's my opinion
anyway, not all Orthodox).

[katholikos]

....we don't agree with the "development of doctrine" as it has developed in the RCC....

You should try reading:
AN ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
by
JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN

Its acually online, here:
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/

[viviana66]

Could you tell me what it is (or what it takes) to be a true Orthodox Christian?

[CDHealy]

On the sacramental level, one would need to be received into the Orthodox Church by baptism and chrismation (sacramental anointing with oil), or, if one's baptism has been accepted, then only by chrismation.

On the daily life level, it would be a continual trusting in God's grace by faith and a working out of one's salvation with fear and trembling by that grace.

This would include the observance of the times of prayer (minimally morning and evening), reading of Scripture, observance of fasting disciplines, the doing of works of mercy, and so forth.

That, at least, is a general sketch.

[viviana66]

I've heard a story about a man who has been doing crime everyday of his life. He never believed. When someone preached to him, he believed, then that night he prayed. He also died in his sleep that night Would he go to Heaven?

[Memucan]

I've heard a story about a man who has been doing crime everyday of his life. He never believed. When someone preached to him, he believed, then that night he prayed. He also died in his sleep that night Would he go to Heaven?

                Yes, If he believed by faith. I think of the thief on the cross.

                                                         Memucan

[CDHealy]

Given the simple details noted, I would agree.

[viviana66]

Can someone help me make a speech format for the topic "Should Catholic priests marry?"
Some good information sites would be good too. Thanks!!!

[CDHealy]

Orthodox deacons and priests do marry.  You should ask your question in the Catholic forum.

[desertknight]

Can someone help me make a speech format for the topic "Should Catholic priests marry?"
Some good information sites would be good too. Thanks!!!

Eastern Rite Catholic priest are under the same discipline as Eastern Orthodox clergy.  There are thousands and thousands of married Catholic Priest, just not in the Latin, (Western), Rite.  There are, however, 22 other Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church that have rules identical to our Eastern Orthodox brothers.  It is a common misconception that there are no married priest in the Catholic Church.

[ex cathedra]

So is the pope the head of your  church to as he claimes?

or is he The Antichrist as many of your pastors claim?

And what are the main reasons they claim that?

[ex cathedra]

So is the pope the head of your  church to as he claimes?

or is he The Antichrist as many of your pastors claim?

And what are the main reasons they claim that?
what are the marks of him being the Antichrist.

[ex cathedra]

Is their a  difference of beliefs between Greek and Russian orthodox
and what are the differences  if there is?

[trifecta]

So is the pope the head of your  church to as he claimes?

No.  The Pope (or the Bishop of Rome) has no authority over the other 4 patriarchical seats (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem) and didn't claim it for some 400 years. 

or is he The Antichrist as many of your pastors claim?

We actually don't use the term "pastor" in the Orthodox Church.  Perhaps you are confusing us with another church.  I have never heard the term Anti-Christ applied to the Pope (or the Bishop of Rome) and certainly don't think he is.

And what are the main reasons they claim that?

Again, we don't use that bad term to describe the Bishop of Rome, although doubtless over history someone has.     BTW, we don't call the Bishop of Rome  the Pope officially because the term is confusing.  The Coptic Church call their leader the "Pope."   There is good historic reason for this:  The first man to be called Pope is not the Bishop of Rome but the Bishop of Alexandria (Saint Anathasus).

[trifecta]

Is their a  difference of beliefs between Greek and Russian orthodox
and what are the differences  if there is?

The Orthodox churches are named by location, as in the Bible.   Are the Greek and Russian church identical?  Not really.  Vestiment colors are different  and theological seminaries are in different locations.  So, there are some minor theological differences, but in core beliefs, we are the same.  Those core beliefs are spelled out in the Seven Ecumenical Councils, to which the RCC also hold.

Thanks for asking

[ex cathedra]

So is the pope the head of your  church to as he claimes?

No.  The Pope (or the Bishop of Rome) has no authority over the other 4 patriarchical seats (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem) and didn't claim it for some 400 years. 

or is he The Antichrist as many of your pastors claim?

We actually don't use the term "pastor" in the Orthodox Church.  Perhaps you are confusing us with another church.  I have never heard the term Anti-Christ applied to the Pope (or the Bishop of Rome) and certainly don't think he is.

And what are the main reasons they claim that?

Again, we don't use that bad term to describe the Bishop of Rome, although doubtless over history someone has.     BTW, we don't call the Bishop of Rome  the Pope officially because the term is confusing.  The Coptic Church call their leader the "Pope."   There is good historic reason for this:  The first man to be called Pope is not the Bishop of Rome but the Bishop of Alexandria (Saint Anathasus).

I read orthodox priests using the term for  the pope .They seemed very familar with the prophesies about him Including him being from the 7 hills of rome and sitting right in the middle of the christian church proclaiming to be its head.
this has been several years ago now in some of the Lutheran and orthodox dialogue's between confessing lutherans and greek orthodox.
perhaps the view of him as Anti Christ has changed? or perhaps its just not taught amoung the members? of the orthodox church. And is  just taught the priests in seminary.
or perhaps i misunderstood the dialogue


any way i am not sure this is the same dialogue website as it was a long time ago .

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Orthodox-Lutheran_Dialogue/summary

[CDHealy]

ex cathedra:

As with any group, you will find a variety of personal opinions on the Pope.  But the core teaching, the consensus of the Orthodox Church is that the Bishop of Rome is in schism (and on some points is in heresy) with the other four main Churches of the East.  When the Bishop of Rome repents of his schism and certain of his heresies (and similarly those under him), then the communion of the worldwide Church will be restored.

The consensus of the Orthodox Church is *not* that the Pope is the anti-Christ.

As trifecta has noted the differences between the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox (and, for that matter, the Albanian Orthodox, the Serbian Orthodox, the Bulgarian Orthodox, the Romanian Orthodox, the American Orthodox, the . . .) Churches are matters superficial (vestments, minor liturgical differences, some local customs, and so forth) and not essential to the Faith.

Any Orthodox Christian of any other Orthodox Church, with appropriate communication, may partake of the Holy Gifts in any Church (slight disciplinary differences aside).  I am in communion with all the Orthodox of the world, though I belong to the American archdiocese of the Church of Antioch (yes, the one from Acts 11).

[desertknight]

The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church fully and completely recognizes the validity and the truth of the Holy Orders and the Sacraments of our Eastern brothers.  This is a point of Cannon law.

[trifecta]

The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church fully and completely recognizes the validity and the truth of the Holy Orders and the Sacraments of our Eastern brothers.  This is a point of Cannon law.

Of course, we accept the sacraments of our own church.  Oh, you meant the RCC! 

Yeah, you guys have this more clearly defined than we do.  We accept the RCC baptism (I was baptised in the RCC) because it is done the right way (Trinitarian).  We do not accept RCC communion, even though you guys accept ours.  We feel that the communion has to come from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  But since you all were once part of the OHCACC, we do make exceptions at times.  We accept the Marriage of Catholics as well.  As for Holy Orders, this one confuses me.  We have an ex-RCC priest in our church.  I think the rule is Catholic Holy Orders are accepted if they convert to the Holy Orthodox Church.  Usually though they have to do some seminary work.  This varies across jurisdiction. 

I hope in our lifetimes, the Bishop of Rome renounces universal jurisdiction and we can commune in all the sacraments together!

[extranos]

I hope in our lifetimes, the Bishop of Rome renounces universal jurisdiction and we can commune in all the sacraments together!

Trifecta,
That would be like pulling on a loose thread in your sweater......soon the whole Catholic house would come crashing down.  However, I agree.......I hope it happens in our lifetimes.  I seriously believe that such an event would be a catalyst which could bring together the EO, the RCC (in its new incarnation), the Anglicans, Episcopals and the Lutherans. 
It would clearly mark the false teachings of the Evangelicals with regard to Baptism and the Eucharist!

Dan

[trifecta]

I hope in our lifetimes, the Bishop of Rome renounces universal jurisdiction and we can commune in all the sacraments together!

Trifecta,
That would be like pulling on a loose thread in your sweater......soon the whole Catholic house would come crashing down. 

I dunno.  When I was a kid (I was RCC), I was shocked how my Protestant friends thought that we thought that the Pope was so important.  I think the average garden-variety Catholic in America thinks the same.  On the other hand, our Latino friends have a much higher opinion of the Pope than other Catholics do, and they're the ones that are growing in population.

However, I agree.......I hope it happens in our lifetimes. 

Cardinal Ratsinger wrote some very positive things about the O church, so you never know.

I seriously believe that such an event would be a catalyst which could bring together the EO, the RCC (in its new incarnation), the Anglicans, Episcopals and the Lutherans. 

I've thought (dreamed?) about this too.   It would be harder for you all than for us because the Bishop of Rome was The Patriarchate of the West. So, you would be under him.   But within a few generations, all the churches you mentioned would unite.

It would clearly mark the false teachings of the Evangelicals with regard to Baptism and the Eucharist!

That's for sure.  It would also draw attention to issues of 1) real presence and 2) trinitarian baptism -- which are more important than many issues Protestants currently argue about.    I think most of them would see the light and unite with the Church, but there would be some out on their own.