Balenced Description of What Eastern Orthodox is and is not.

[holdencaulfield]

Hello I am Roman Catholic, however I have been wondering many things about the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Could some please point out the major differences between the two churches?

1. How is the Church governed.
2. What are major doctrinal differences.
3. Why are there so many?
4. How are doctrines defined?

Thanks.

 

[Volodymyr]

Orthodox Church governed by bishops.

No doctrinal differences among Orthodox believers.

Many by the grace and providence or God.

Not sure “defined” - but are stated in ecumenical councils.

Major difference from Catolic church - it is different. That is often quite confounding to Catolics who believe Orthodox are praying rosary beads in Greek and attending Russian “Masses”. Orthodoxy is itself. You must read about it.

You can also get book by Father Aleksandr Shmeman called Historical Path of Orthodoxy. Good introduction to Holy Orthodoxy.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Orthodox Church governed by bishops.

So how do they agree on things? With Counsels?

No doctrinal differences among Orthodox believers.

I meant between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

Many by the grace and providence or God.

How many are there and what does autonomous mean?

Not sure “defined” - but are stated in ecumenical councils.

So is there like a Catechism?

 

[josephdaniel29]

So how do they agree on things? With Counsels?

We share on common deposit of faith. The faith is passed on through Tradition and practice. The Church is conciliar with the Ecumenical Councils holding a special significance.

I meant between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

That’s a really complex question. We hold somewhat different beliefs on the nature of the Church, salvation, the Mysteries, episcopal authority, how God operates in the world and how the faith is defined.

How many are there and what does autonomous mean?

14 or 15 according to who you ask. Whether a Church is autonomous, autocephalous, or self governing for the most part doesn’t have an effect on it’s canonical status. Take the Orthodox Church in America (of which I’m a member) for example. Our autocephaly (complete independence) is recognized by the Russian Church and others and is not recognized by Constantinople and all of the other ancient patriarchates. But that recognition, or lack thereof, has no effect on our canonicity. OCA clergy may concelebrate with clergy from all other jurisdictions and I can receive the Eucharist in any Orthodox Church on the planet.

The important thing to understand is for the Orthodox the Eucharist is what defines our unity far more than our submission to a hierarch. Given you have to be in communion with a canonical Orthodox hierarch to be considered Orthodox but our unity is assured by our fidelity to a common faith and Eucharist.

So is there like a Catechism?

There’s no official Church wide catechism although there are a number of good ones. Although I’m sure others here can recommend better The Orthodox Way by Metropolitan Kallistos is a great intro to Orthodoxy. If you’re interested in more in depth reading Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky is a great resource. Here’s a link to an on-line version of the book.

 

[holdencaulfield]

14 or 15 according to who you ask. Whether a Church is autonomous, autocephalous, or self governing for the most part doesn’t have an effect on it’s canonical status. Take the Orthodox Church in America (of which I’m a member) for example. Our autocephaly (complete independence) is recognized by the Russian Church and others and is not recognized by Constantinople and all of the other ancient patriarchates. But that recognition, or lack thereof, has no effect on our canonicity. OCA clergy may concelebrate with clergy from all other jurisdictions and I can receive the Eucharist in any Orthodox Church on the planet.

Define: Autonomous, Autocephalous, and Self Governing please?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Define: Autonomous, Autocephalous, and Self Governing please?

An autocephalous Church is completely independent from other Churches as far as it’s government is concerned with such rights as to elect it’s own primate and to consecrate it’s own Holy Chrism. An autocephalous Church’s primate is commemorated in the diptych’s of the other autocephalous Churches.

An autonomous Church is independent in almost every respect except it’s ruling hierarch has to be confirmed by an autocephalous Church.

A self-governing Church is a part of an autocephalous Church that has governing rights granted to it by it’s Mother Church. The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is a good example of this.

 

[holdencaulfield]

An autocephalous Church is completely independent from other Churches as far as it’s government is concerned with such rights as to elect it’s own primate and to consecrate it’s own Holy Chrism. An autocephalous Church’s primate is commemorated in the diptych’s of the other autocephalous Churches.

An autonomous Church is independent in almost every respect except it’s ruling hierarch has to be confirmed by an autocephalous Church.

A self-governing Church is a part of an autocephalous Church that has governing rights granted to it by it’s Mother Church. The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is a good example of this.

Thanks.

 

[Hesychios]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello Holden,

I see you have already received an answer to this from Joseph, but I typed it so I guess I’ll post anyway.

Define: Autonomous, Autocephalous, and Self Governing please?

Autonomy means that something has it’s own name, your Eastern catholic churches are like that. Mission countries will generally require guidance and support from outside, thus they might be known by a name like “Orthodox church of Patagonia” or something like that but ultimately are guided and financially aided by a mother church. The goal is to build up the church until it can support itself and launch missions itself, opportunity permitting.

Autocephalous means something is self headed, in other words self governing. Your Papacy is autocephalous.

It may escape a lot of people, but the early church was simply a collection of autocephalous churches. The cohesion came from mutual recognition. Synods and councils (generally local) received their practical authority from the bishops who participated in them. The bishops themselves are developed through the local synod and consecrated by the local synod.

Councils were a regular occurrence at the local level, and still are. In between these, the business of running a diocese (or synod of dioceses) was in the hands of the particular bishops. There is no magic to it, bishops often wrote each other letters for advice and continuity of policies. Today they can (and do) pick up the phone.

If you are wondering how the whole thing continues to hang together, it is worth considering the mania Orthodox have about consistency. The church is essentially conservative to the extreme, but I believe that is the essence of preserving the received Faith.

Somewhere in the liturgical cycle, everything essential about the Faith is expressed clearly. To be a theologian is to be a person of prayer. The Faithful are continually re-catechised in this process, which is one good reason to encourage the participation in Vespers and Orthros (LOTH, in other words). One possible way to damage the orthodoxy of the community is to neglect or suppress these, so every attempt is made to sustain the practices, even in the smallest of communities.

Peace, and all good things*
Michael*

 

[Henry_Cornejo]

If Eastern Catholics are in full union with Rome, their bishops may become Cardinals and eventually possible to be elected as Pope. Am I saying it correctly?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello Holden,

I see you have already received an answer to this from Joseph, but I typed it so I guess I’ll post anyway.
Autonomy means that something has it’s own name, your Eastern catholic churches are like that. Mission countries will generally require guidance and support from outside, thus they might be known by a name like “Orthodox church of Patagonia” or something like that but ultimately are guided and financially aided by a mother church. The goal is to build up the church until it can support itself and launch missions itself, opportunity permitting.

Autocephalous means something is self headed, in other words self governing. Your Papacy is autocephalous.

It may escape a lot of people, but the early church was simply a collection of autocephalous churches. The cohesion came from mutual recognition. Synods and councils (generally local) received their practical authority from the bishops who participated in them. The bishops themselves are developed through the local synod and consecrated by the local synod.

Councils were a regular occurrence at the local level, and still are. In between these, the business of running a diocese (or synod of dioceses) was in the hands of the particular bishops. There is no magic to it, bishops often wrote each other letters for advice and continuity of policies. Today they can (and do) pick up the phone.

If you are wondering how the whole thing continues to hang together, it is worth considering the mania Orthodox have about consistency. The church is essentially conservative to the extreme, but I believe that is the essence of preserving the received Faith.

Somewhere in the liturgical cycle, everything essential about the Faith is expressed clearly. To be a theologian is to be a person of prayer. The Faithful are continually re-catechised in this process, which is one good reason to encourage the participation in Vespers and Orthros (LOTH, in other words). One possible way to damage the orthodoxy of the community is to neglect or suppress these, so every attempt is made to sustain the practices, even in the smallest of communities.

Peace, and all good things*
Michael*

What is “LOTH”?

 

[Hesychios]

What is “LOTH”?

Roman Catholics call the modern Divine Praises the Liturgy of the Hours, which seems to be getting more popular among them (finally).

 

[Hesychios]

If Eastern Catholics are in full union with Rome, their bishops may become Cardinals and eventually possible to be elected as Pope. Am I saying it correctly?

It is a possibility. But if elected they are attached to the diocese of Roma, which is Latin rite, so they become Latins.

Actually one does not need to be a Cardinal to be elected Pope, but it helps enormously!

Many Eastern Catholics would not think it necessary or desireable to be a Cardinal, that being an office of another Sui Iuris church. Obviously others feel differently about it.

Michael

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Roman Catholics call the modern Divine Praises the Liturgy of the Hours, which seems to be getting more popular among them (finally).

Thanks.

This Sunday I attended a Lauds service at a Western Rite Orthodox Church (Holy Incarnation in Taylor, near Detroit), along with Divine Liturgy. I don’t think the TLM can do it better.

 

[zagjames]

If Eastern Catholics are in full union with Rome, their bishops may become Cardinals and eventually possible to be elected as Pope. Am I saying it correctly?

Yes, but they would be the Latin Bishop of Rome then though…
Eastern Catholic Bishops have come in the runnerup slot in elections for the Pope before. Including in the last 100 years. I would think a E. Catholic Bishop would be very honored to become a Cardinal, and it gives them more voice in the direction of their church. Like the Patriarch of the Chaldean Catholic Church

 

[Hesychios]

… I would think a E. Catholic Bishop would be very honored to become a Cardinal, and it gives them more voice in the direction of their church. Like the Patriarch of the Chaldean Catholic Church

Which is (on the flip side) like acknowledging that they do not have enough voice in the affairs of their own church. You are implying that without a presence in the Curia their situation can be assumed to be worse to some degree.

A pity that they would have to resort to politics in Rome to compensate for what self control they should have, and was once theirs by right.

That is how Orthodox would readily see the predicament.

Michael

 

[zagjames]

That predicament exists because most e. christians are not in the catholic church. When the Church is 98% latin and 2% all of the 22 other E. Churches it is hard to have much voice just because of pure numbers. Within there own sui juris Churches they run the show with for the most part little interference. But on the Curia level there is not a ton of influence simply because of the numbers although that seems to be changing, the last few Popes have addressed the East more.

If E Orthodox, and O. Orthdox were in the Church, then the E. Catholic Bishops would have alot more influence on the Whole of the Catholic Church.

As it stands now Ruthanian Bishops have self control of the Ruthanian Church, Chaldean Bishops have control of the Chaldean Church, etc. They are sui juris, and even the ones that are not sui juris still have quite a bit of autonmy.

 

[holdencaulfield]

If you are wondering how the whole thing continues to hang together, it is worth considering the mania Orthodox have about consistency. The church is essentially conservative to the extreme, but I believe that is the essence of preserving the received Faith.

That’s one of the things I have been wondering, because one of the reasons I think the Catholic Church (Feel free to disagree) has stayed pretty much the same over time, at least in doctrine is because it has a centralized supreme authority. With so many Churches I wondered how they all stayed the same. Purely out of curiosity, what is the Armenian Orthodox Church under?

 

[holdencaulfield]

That predicament exists because most e. christians are not in the catholic church. When the Church is 98% latin and 2% all of the 22 other E. Churches it is hard to have much voice just because of pure numbers. Within there own sui juris Churches they run the show with for the most part little interference. But on the Curia level there is not a ton of influence simply because of the numbers although that seems to be changing, the last few Popes have addressed the East more.

If E Orthodox, and O. Orthdox were in the Church, then the E. Catholic Bishops would have alot more influence on the Whole of the Catholic Church.

As it stands now Ruthanian Bishops have self control of the Ruthanian Church, Chaldean Bishops have control of the Chaldean Church, etc. They are sui juris, and even the ones that are not sui juris still have quite a bit of autonmy.

Do you think there is any chance that the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church will reunite again? I honestly think it would be an amazing example to the world.

 

[zagjames]

I certainly hope so.

I would feel privlidged to say that I belong to “one Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church”

Such unity would certainly be a testament to the truth of Sacramental Christianity. And serve as an example of Christian truth to those who truely need it.

 

[Hesychios]

If E Orthodox, and O. Orthdox were in the Church, then the E. Catholic Bishops would have alot more influence on the Whole of the Catholic Church.

This should not be necessary.

The Eastern Catholic churches should be respected regardless of their size, and govern their own affairs with absolute autocephaly. The fact that this is not possible does not bode well for future reconciliation with Orthodox churches, who see the possibility of the same thing happening to themselves.

As it stands now Ruthanian Bishops have self control of the Ruthanian Church, Chaldean Bishops have control of the Chaldean Church, etc. They are sui juris, and even the ones that are not sui juris still have quite a bit of autonmy.

Sui Iuris means that they are governed under a different particular law, not that it has independence to act upon it’s own volition. The Ruthenian Catholic church is among the least able to govern itself, was mishandled by Rome for centuries and in North America (Pittsburgh Metropolia) is in serious decline.

It has a long way to go to restore it’s own traditional liturgical services, it’s distinct spirituality was seriously damaged in times past, and the nash have largely forgotten it in favor of Latin spirituality. Now, it’s Roman trained and appointed bishops have introduced a revised liturgy in the USA which some say is worse than the one it replaces. It is a very poor example to show other Christians, it stuns Orthodox who consider joining with Rome.

In Europe it’s prospects for the future are better because there are many more of them, but it has been shattered into several smaller churches which have all of their bishops appointed by Rome, so all bets are off.

Michael