What is the Orthodox Church?

[trifecta]

In another thread a poster asked is the Orthodox Church protestant.

The answer is no.  Protestantism is considered to be an outgrowth of the Reformation.   Orthodox left the Roman Catholic church more than 400 years earlier, in the approriately named Great Schism (1054).

Nevertheless, Orthodoxy is more similiar to Catholicism than Protestantism.  Both churches are 1) old -we both go back to the beginning (Matt 16:18) 2) hierarchical - bishop outrank priests  3) and sacramental.  This is also the pattern of the early church.

On the other hand, we do not have a Pope.  Decisions in the Orthodox Church are made by councils.  The last great council was in 787, although we have had a few smaller councils since then.   Our theology doesn't change because God doesn't change.
We never dealt with the induligence thing because we never had them. 

A big difference between both Catholics and Protestants  is our lack of emphasis on legalism and more of an emphasis on mystery.  Don't get me wrong, we have thought about every theological issue and IMHO interpret the Bible better than both Catholics and Protestants.  We think, however, reason only goes so far in understanding God.  Mystery and mysticism take over after that.   We have little respect for the views of Augustine and Thomas Acquinas, who, we think, tried to explain too many unexplainable things.

Therefore, we think of Orthodoxy as the third branch of Christianity.  If I had to compare among Protestant denominations, I would say we are most similiar to Anglican (the conservative version) and then Lutheran or Methodists.    Since Augustine had such a great influence on the western church and none in the eastern church, we don't view the difference between Catholic and Protestant thought as great as the difference between eastern and western Christian thought. 

Finally, Orthodoxy is not a small religion; it has more than 250 million adherrents.  It is not so popular in America, but is big especially in Greece and Russia.  Sometimes we call ourselves "the best kept secret in America."  But it is my desire for more people to know about this wonderful and important church.

[CDHealy]

Dear brother, some quibbles:

Orthodox left the Roman Catholic church more than 400 years earlier, in the approriately named Great Schism (1054).

While my Orthodox heart wants to say, "No, it was Rome that left the Orthodox!" it is probably more fair to say that the fall of Rome to the Goths et al, the different core languages (Greek vs Latin), and the removal of the capital of the empire to the East, all contributed to a distancing between Rome and the Five Patriarchates.   Once political and theological differences arose, there was less and less common ground on which to stand.  Rome's bull of excommunication placed on the altar in Constantinople during the Christmas Liturgy was hardly something to be ignored, but there were precedents on both sides.

Indeed, the 1054 date is more a symbol of convenience than it is accurate, as the Great Schism at that time was only between Rome and Constantinople, the remainder of the Patriarchates were still in communion with Rome.  Indeed, Antioch--I have this on good authority from a former priest and scholar--was in communion with Rome until the nineteenth century.

The leaving was hardly unilateral.

That said, over time, Rome did introduce innovations that were unheard of in the East: the filioque, priestly celibacy (episcopal celibacy had been long established), and so forth.

Nevertheless, Orthodoxy is more similiar to Catholicism than Protestantism.  Both churches are 1) old -we both go back to the beginning (Matt 16:18) 2) hierarchical - bishop outrank priests  3) and sacramental.  This is also the pattern of the early church.

More similar in externals, sure.  But there is a methodology in theology and approach to morality that Rome is more similar to Protestantism (and you allude to this below relative to the rationalist elements).

We have little respect for the views of Augustine . . . .

This is simply in error.  Augustine was unequivocally called a Father of the Church by one of the Ecumenical Councils (my memory fails).  That said, some of his teaching (on original sin) has not been accepted by the East.  But his Confessions are unparalleled among the early fathers.

Therefore, we think of Orthodoxy as the third branch of Christianity.

No.  Orthodoxy is the Church.  Full stop.  We do not deny that Protestants and Roman Catholics are Christians, but we do not shy away from saying that they are not part of the Church, because the Orthodox Church is that Church.

Orthodox do not at all subscribe to any "branch" theory or terminology.

If I had to compare among Protestant denominations, I would say we are most similiar to Anglican (the conservative version) and then Lutheran or Methodists.

Again, the similarities here are small and minor compared to the differences.

[p.rehbein]

Thanks for the info Tri, guys, really, thanks...... God bless........

[p.rehbein]

One other question, if it isn't out of line, not sure, but if it is excuse me of my ignorance of the Orthodox Church.

Question:  Would I be correct in believing that the Orthodox Church is full of "tradition".  By that I mean is there a great deal of tradition in your worship services?  Are they very rigid in how they are conducted?



(sidebar for Tri;  not for nothing but I wasn't too far off with my question about the similarities between the Orthodox and Methodist Churches?  Yes, I know there are probably many differences, but there are similarities as well?  I have attended services at a Methodist Church, and, as I stated, our Church broke away from the Methodist Church)

[CDHealy]

Question:  Would I be correct in believing that the Orthodox Church is full of "tradition".  By that I mean is there a great deal of tradition in your worship services?  Are they very rigid in how they are conducted?

Some of these are "loaded" terms.  Tradition, rigidity.  Tradition is actually a very beautiful term, which is wonderfully described in 2 Timothy 2:1-2, and is used by Paul in three places in the NT to speak of the Christian faith and practice which is to be preserved and passed on.  Some Bible translations, like the NIV, have a bias against tradition, and so whenever tradition (Greek: paradosis) is spoken about negatively, it is translated "tradition," but when it is spoken of positive (as in Paul's letters) the same Greek word (paradosis) is translated "teaching."  In other words, tradition in and of itself isn't bad, in fact, it's both necessary and inescapable.  The question that we all must ask is: are our traditions Gospel-conforming or Gospel-transgressing?

Sorry for the long wind-up there, but I wanted to be sure you understood the Orthodox view.

Now, as to our worship services, yes, they follow a very formal liturgy with vestments, incense, bells, candles, icons, and Holy Communion.  All five senses are continuously engaged to assist our hearts and minds in the focus on and contemplation of the Gospel story as it is enacted before us, preached to us, and proclaimed from the Scriptures among us.  And yes, there are explicit and detailed instructions (rubrics) which proscribe how such worship is to take place.

However, I would not characterize such as "rigid."  Is it "rigid" when a basketball player is confined to a set limit of the basketball court, the hoops are a proscribed height, and he is not allowed to double dribble?  No, there is actually a great amount of variety within all this rigidity.  In fact, by following the rules, the limits of team plays/coach's offense, the individual team members find a great freedom of personal expression as they all move toward one object: to win the game.

Similarly, within all the "rules" and "limits" of Orthodox worship, we individual worshippers are freed to let go of our selves and to focus more fully on God and the worship of the Holy Trinity, to contemplate the great mercy shown us in the Cross and Resurrection, and to experience the power and vitality of that Resurrection by being incorporated into Christ.

Does that help?  Feel free to follow up with more questions.

[p.rehbein]

CD:  Thank you, and be certain I meant no criticism of tradition with the word rigid.  What I meant was that to me/us (those in my Church) the rigid aspect of worship is as you have described it and I fully agree that it is necessary and can be a real blessing to the Church Service.  We (in our Church) have traditions as well, but they may not be as many as in other Churches.  I supose I could try to say it this way.  Yes, we have a certain way in which our Services are conducted and this is a traditional thing in our Church.  However, in our Church, one never knows when the Holy Spirit may move upon someone's heart and that person will stand and Praise God in "witness" and/or "testimony", or, may go down to the Alter right in the middle of the Service to pray and seek the Holy Spirit's instruction for whatever reason they may have need of.  There have even been times (a few) when we may begin a Service and the Holy Spirit moves upon all of those in attendance and suddenly the traditional way we conduct our Services is cast aside and the Service becomes one Led by the Holy Spirit.  There will be praise reports, testimonies, prayer requests, shouts of joy and love for God (maybe exclimations would be a better word) much singing of Hymns, a real "fellowship" of the Congregation in the Spirit and of the Spirit.  Now, remember, we are Holiness and not Pentacostal......just so you understand......

It may seem that these kinds of Services would result in chaos, but, in Truth, the opposite is far more correct.  There becomes such a "unity of Spirit" among the congregation that these types of Services become a great joy for the congregation and serve to strengthen us and encourage us and help us all to grow in the Spirit.

I, my Church, do/does not see "tradition" in a negative light..............just saying................

from your comment:

Similarly, within all the "rules" and "limits" of Orthodox worship, we individual worshippers are freed to let go of our selves and to focus more fully on God and the worship of the Holy Trinity, to contemplate the great mercy shown us in the Cross and Resurrection, and to experience the power and vitality of that Resurrection by being incorporated into Christ.

I like this, because it seems to say that in the Orthodox Church you also allow for the movement of the Holy Spirit?

I see differences between our two Churches, but I also see similarities and that is an encouraging thing for me.

We affirm that there is ONLY One Church (as I understand youall do?) and that is the Church of God as Jesus established it.
The Bride of Christ.  We believe that anyone who professes to believe in Jesus Christ and lives their lives in a manner which reflects that profession (which would include of necessity being obedient to the teachings of Jesus) are members of this One Church.

Again thanks for your comment/info, it is appreciated.  Yes I will have further questions if it is not too much to impose upon you........

Thank you and may God bless and keep you and yours.

[CDHealy]

Forgive me brother (? sister?), sometimes my more formal writing style (from my years in academia) comes across more stern than I intend it.  I was only intending to clarify terms, and I hope I did not come across as offended (because I wasn't at all).

We most certainly affirm the work of the Holy Spirit!  But we also require every spirit to be tested: not all impulses are of the Spirit however good they feel, or whatever the intention of the worshipper.  The way that we might prefer to put it is that in general personal impulses toward specific pious acts are usually encouraged, especially at home or outside of the Liturgy.  But even within the Liturgy we make room for personal pious actions which are not disruptive to the service and the intention of the community to worship God.  Orthodox normally stand at worship and throughout the entire service (except for the homily/sermon), but I have seen several instances of individual worshippers, moved by deep feeling, kneel or prostrate themselves during the service.  It is done quietly, reverently, and in a nondisruptive way.

In the same manner, we generally don't pay much attention to the more spectacular of the charismatic gifts within the context of the worship services.  But we have our holy elders who practice discernment, and prophecy.  We define the gift of tongues as the ability to speak in a human language that the speaker has not learned--and we have instances of that within our recorded histories and within the lives of present-day Christians.  (We do not see the gift of tongues as an ecstatic utterance of sounds which do not correspond to a human language.)

Of course, I'm painting with a  broad brush here, but hopefully you can get the flavor of it.

As to Orthodox ecclesiology: we do not subscribe to the notion of a spiritualized, or invisible, Church.  If the Church is that which was founded by Christ, then, like Christ, it is incarnate: it has visible boundaries and limits, it has organization (just as Christ's incarnate body was organized in good health), and so on.  Now, being incarnate, and being the creation of our Incarnate Lord, it also is divine, and so there are invisible aspects to it (things not seen by the human eye).

This does not contradict our affirmation that there are Christians outside the known boundaries of the Orthodox Church, after all the Church is sustained and enlivened and illumined by the Holy Spirit, and there is no circumscription to his work.  Like the wind, he blows where he will.

The typical Orthodox view of non-Orthodox Christians--at least here in America--is that non-Orthodox Christians outside the Church are saved, are Christian, but they lack the fullness of the life given by Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Orthodox reserve any judgments about the ultimate destinies of anyone.  As per the parables of the wheat and the tares, there will be Orthodox who go to hell.  Church membership alone does not guarantee final salvation.

[p.rehbein]

Forgive me brother (? sister?), sometimes my more formal writing style (from my years in academia) comes across more stern than I intend it.  I was only intending to clarify terms, and I hope I did not come across as offended (because I wasn't at all).

We most certainly affirm the work of the Holy Spirit!  But we also require every spirit to be tested: not all impulses are of the Spirit however good they feel, or whatever the intention of the worshipper.  The way that we might prefer to put it is that in general personal impulses toward specific pious acts are usually encouraged, especially at home or outside of the Liturgy.  But even within the Liturgy we make room for personal pious actions which are not disruptive to the service and the intention of the community to worship God.  Orthodox normally stand at worship and throughout the entire service (except for the homily/sermon), but I have seen several instances of individual worshippers, moved by deep feeling, kneel or prostrate themselves during the service.  It is done quietly, reverently, and in a nondisruptive way.

In the same manner, we generally don't pay much attention to the more spectacular of the charismatic gifts within the context of the worship services.  But we have our holy elders who practice discernment, and prophecy.  We define the gift of tongues as the ability to speak in a human language that the speaker has not learned--and we have instances of that within our recorded histories and within the lives of present-day Christians.  (We do not see the gift of tongues as an ecstatic utterance of sounds which do not correspond to a human language.)

Of course, I'm painting with a  broad brush here, but hopefully you can get the flavor of it.

As to Orthodox ecclesiology: we do not subscribe to the notion of a spiritualized, or invisible, Church.  If the Church is that which was founded by Christ, then, like Christ, it is incarnate: it has visible boundaries and limits, it has organization (just as Christ's incarnate body was organized in good health), and so on.  Now, being incarnate, and being the creation of our Incarnate Lord, it also is divine, and so there are invisible aspects to it (things not seen by the human eye).

This does not contradict our affirmation that there are Christians outside the known boundaries of the Orthodox Church, after all the Church is sustained and enlivened and illumined by the Holy Spirit, and there is no circumscription to his work.  Like the wind, he blows where he will.

The typical Orthodox view of non-Orthodox Christians--at least here in America--is that non-Orthodox Christians outside the Church are saved, are Christian, but they lack the fullness of the life given by Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Orthodox reserve any judgments about the ultimate destinies of anyone.  As per the parables of the wheat and the tares, there will be Orthodox who go to hell.  Church membership alone does not guarantee final salvation.

CD.  I am finding it hard to see anything that our Church would disagree with here.  But, fear not, I will keep trying 
It's Brother, FYI, thanks.  There may be some small differences, but for the most part of your comment quoted here, I/my Church would have no dispute with.

Should this concern me?     I am going to study your comment much more and delve into the deeper aspects of it, but that will take time, so please be patient with me, for I'm afarid I am still a work in progress as they say.

Thank you........

[trifecta]

Hello P.  and belated Welcome to the eastern corner of the Forums here!

By how you described your church, here is where we disagree:

As to Orthodox ecclesiology: we do not subscribe to the notion of a spiritualized, or invisible, Church.  If the Church is that which was founded by Christ, then, like Christ, it is incarnate: it has visible boundaries and limits, it has organization (just as Christ's incarnate body was organized in good health), and so on.  Now, being incarnate, and being the creation of our Incarnate Lord, it also is divine, and so there are invisible aspects to it (things not seen by the human eye).

No one believed in the invisible church in the old days.  Luther and Calvin promoted the idea.  I think the reasons are practical, not theological.  In the old days, each side contended hard to claim the banner of the one church.  People didn't say--go your way and I'll go mine and we'll see who's right in heaven.  The early Protestants were not united enough to make the claim that they were the only church, so they invented this invisible church idea.

Like CD said, this doesn't mean that those outside the church are not going to make it in the afterlife, but we don't think Jesus (the head) can lead a divided body.  Jesus is one; the church must be one.

Hope this helps.

[Ladonia]

Question:  Would I be correct in believing that the Orthodox Church is full of "tradition".  By that I mean is there a great deal of tradition in your worship services?  Are they very rigid in how they are conducted?

Some of these are "loaded" terms.  Tradition, rigidity.  Tradition is actually a very beautiful term, which is wonderfully described in 2 Timothy 2:1-2, and is used by Paul in three places in the NT to speak of the Christian faith and practice which is to be preserved and passed on.  Some Bible translations, like the NIV, have a bias against tradition, and so whenever tradition (Greek: paradosis) is spoken about negatively, it is translated "tradition," but when it is spoken of positive (as in Paul's letters) the same Greek word (paradosis) is translated "teaching."  In other words, tradition in and of itself isn't bad, in fact, it's both necessary and inescapable.  The question that we all must ask is: are our traditions Gospel-conforming or Gospel-transgressing?

Sorry for the long wind-up there, but I wanted to be sure you understood the Orthodox view.

Now, as to our worship services, yes, they follow a very formal liturgy with vestments, incense, bells, candles, icons, and Holy Communion.  All five senses are continuously engaged to assist our hearts and minds in the focus on and contemplation of the Gospel story as it is enacted before us, preached to us, and proclaimed from the Scriptures among us.  And yes, there are explicit and detailed instructions (rubrics) which proscribe how such worship is to take place.

However, I would not characterize such as "rigid."  Is it "rigid" when a basketball player is confined to a set limit of the basketball court, the hoops are a proscribed height, and he is not allowed to double dribble?  No, there is actually a great amount of variety within all this rigidity.  In fact, by following the rules, the limits of team plays/coach's offense, the individual team members find a great freedom of personal expression as they all move toward one object: to win the game.

Similarly, within all the "rules" and "limits" of Orthodox worship, we individual worshippers are freed to let go of our selves and to focus more fully on God and the worship of the Holy Trinity, to contemplate the great mercy shown us in the Cross and Resurrection, and to experience the power and vitality of that Resurrection by being incorporated into Christ.

Does that help?  Feel free to follow up with more questions.

Very nicely said! I always say, if I wasn't of the Roman Rite, I would be Orthodox.

[Anastasiya]

I am Russian Orthodox

[LightHammer]

I am Russian Orthodox

I knew it!lol I mean man I knew it.

I've never met a Russian Orthodox. Well hey.

Now I have.

[Anastasiya]

Privet! Lighthammer :)