Beginner question- Greek Orthodoxy

[vluvski]

Is there some kind of distinction between patriarchs and hierarchy? Just wondering why patriarchs is gender-specific while hierarchy is not, or if hierarchy implies a ‘branch’ (for lack of a better way to describe it) of the apostolic tradition that was created post-schism, kind of similar to the Anglican church. Or maybe my understanding is wrong altogether

Prior to the schism (which seems to be some sort of nebulous non-dateable event), were all the patriarchs considered equals to the pope? I’m coming across this ‘first among equals’ concept frequently, wondering to whom that applies, and to whom it has applied in the past.

To what extent is this idea of first among equals generally accepted/embraced among other Catholic rites? Is there any validity today to apply that concept to the Orthodox hierarchies and/or patriarchs? It seems easy that someone might look to take offense or create unnecessary conflict by emphasizing one part or the other of that phrase.

 

[louisak]

I think you would get a good answer on an Orthodox Christian website.

There is a Non-Catholic Religions forum here on CAF and the Orthodox churches are discussed there. I believe there are a few Orthodox believers who help answer those questions and keep things accurate

 

[Nine_Two]

Do the Orthodox Churches generally consider themselves to be in communion with one another, or is that also a point of contention among the Orthodox Churches?

Complex question. There are two major, and ancient, Communions that call themselves “Orthodox”, in English they are known as Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox. They are not in Communion with each other. There are also churches that pop up from time to time claiming to be Orthodox but which aren’t, or which are schismatics - issues that the Catholic Church has as well. Generally speaking those who identify as Eastern Orthodox are all in Communion, and those who identify as Oriental Orthodox are all in Communion. The Eastern Orthodox consists of the Greek and Russian Churches (as well as many others), while the Oriental Orthodox consist of the Coptic and Ethiopian (as well as many others).

What is meant by the statement about the Patriarch of Constantinople not offending the Turks? I don’t follow.

A lack of understanding of the current situation by the poster. It may once have been the case, under the Ottomans, but not so much now.

And with respect to the Patriarch of Moscow’s ties to the Russian government, is it being implied that the government has inappropriate influence over the Patriarch, or the Patriarch has influence over the government, or more generally that the political issues of being tied to the government would prevent unification per se, or something else altogether? Another way to ask, In what way is the patriarch tied to the government? I hope none of that sounds offensive; it is not intended that way at all. I’m just trying to understand the statement, because the first thing that popped into my head was the Russian mob. I don’t think that was the point, but that’s the first thing I thought of.

I think the point was that the Russian Church is an arm of the state. While the Church has allied itself to the state, the situation is certainly nothing compared to the Avignon Papacy, and is rather comparable to the state of affairs in 17th-18th century Europe when several states had veto power in Papal elections (of course the Russian government doesn’t have veto power).

Isn’t the issue of married priests another difference (aside from the liturgy, obviously)?

No, but the ability of the Papacy to tell us whether or not that is allowed (as has been done on many occasions) is an issue we have.

And, stupid question, is the Patriarch of Constantinople the authority figure for the Greek Orthodox? I thought the Greeks and Turks didn’t get along? My world history and international political knowledge is also very weak, if you can’t tell. (I’m an engineer- science and technology are more my thing.)

On a political level they dislike each other, but each country has a sizable minority of the opposite ethnicity. The Turks persecute their Greeks from time to time.

There’s Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox… no others come to my mind, but are there? And are there Catholic counterparts to both of those, like Greek Catholic and Russian Catholic (even if they have some other name), and what is the status of relations within those pairings, if that is even a valid way to describe the situation. Would those pairings, assuming they do exist, be called more contentious or less than those between the Orthodox and Catholics?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Churches#Eastern_Orthodox_churches_in_communion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodox_Churches#Oriental_Orthodox_Communion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches#List_of_Churches

By the way, you should be careful taking information from people on this subject who don’t identify as “Eastern”, as there is a lot of misinformation around on this topic.

 

[Nine_Two]

Is there some kind of distinction between patriarchs and hierarchy? Just wondering why patriarchs is gender-specific while hierarchy is not, or if hierarchy implies a ‘branch’ (for lack of a better way to describe it) of the apostolic tradition that was created post-schism, kind of similar to the Anglican church. Or maybe my understanding is wrong altogether

A Patriarch is the Chair of the Holy Synod. A Hierarch is a bishop, and though the term is gender neutral, is always male.

Prior to the schism (which seems to be some sort of nebulous non-dateable event), were all the patriarchs considered equals to the pope? I’m coming across this ‘first among equals’ concept frequently, wondering to whom that applies, and to whom it has applied in the past.

The Pope (a patriarch) was acknowledged as special and having certain rights the other Patriarchs did not have (taken over by Constantinople in the time since), but they held no power over other patriarchs.

To what extent is this idea of first among equals generally accepted/embraced among other Catholic rites? Is there any validity today to apply that concept to the Orthodox hierarchies and/or patriarchs? It seems easy that someone might look to take offense or create unnecessary conflict by emphasizing one part or the other of that phrase.

Some Eastern Catholics accept it, some don’t.

 

[Nine_Two]

There is a Non-Catholic Religions forum here on CAF and the Orthodox churches are discussed there. I believe there are a few Orthodox believers who help answer those questions and keep things accurate

Yes, a Latin recently complained about the presence of non-Catholics there.

 

[vluvski]

There is a Non-Catholic Religions forum here on CAF and the Orthodox churches are discussed there. I believe there are a few Orthodox believers who help answer those questions and keep things accurate

Mods feel free to move my post if appropriate

 

[vluvski]

Yes, a Latin recently complained about the presence of non-Catholics there.

That is unfortunate, and rather silly, to put it charitably. I wish there was a rolling eyes emoticon that didn’t look so darn happy. I am sorry someone made that comment.

 

[vluvski]

Complex question. There are two major, and ancient, Communions that call themselves “Orthodox”, in English they are known as Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox. They are not in Communion with each other. There are also churches that pop up from time to time claiming to be Orthodox but which aren’t, or which are schismatics - issues that the Catholic Church has as well. Generally speaking those who identify as Eastern Orthodox are all in Communion, and those who identify as Oriental Orthodox are all in Communion. The Eastern Orthodox consists of the Greek and Russian Churches (as well as many others), while the Oriental Orthodox consist of the Coptic and Ethiopian (as well as many others).

Interesting. I don’t recall ever having heard of the Oriental Orthodox Church before today, especially with respect to being the governing body, so to speak, of the Coptic Church. Maybe it is the terminology “Eastern” Orthodox and the widely held yet inaccurate view that the “Eastern” Catholic Rites are closely related to “Eastern” Orthodox, or maybe it is just because my personal relationship with my Greek Orthodox friend was always so respectful and that we tended to be in agreement on just about every issue that came up, but for some reason I always held the impression that Orthodoxy was much closer to being in communion with the Catholic Church and Rome than the Coptics or Ethiopians. It sounds like this view is probably inaccurate, right?

(And yes, I do understand closer is a relative term, and that there is likely little potential for unification of Orthodoxy and Catholicism within our lifetime, which I consider unfortunate.)

 

[RyanBlack]

Interesting. I don’t recall ever having heard of the Oriental Orthodox Church before today, especially with respect to being the governing body, so to speak, of the Coptic Church. Maybe it is the terminology “Eastern” Orthodox and the widely held yet inaccurate view that the “Eastern” Catholic Rites are closely related to “Eastern” Orthodox, or maybe it is just because my personal relationship with my Greek Orthodox friend was always so respectful and that we tended to be in agreement on just about every issue that came up, but for some reason I always held the impression that Orthodoxy was much closer to being in communion with the Catholic Church and Rome than the Coptics or Ethiopians. It sounds like this view is probably inaccurate, right?

(And yes, I do understand closer is a relative term, and that there is likely little potential for unification of Orthodoxy and Catholicism within our lifetime, which I consider unfortunate.)

The term “Oriental Orthodox” does not refer to the governing body of the Coptic Church. The Coptic Church is one of several churches that rejected the Council of Chalcedon, and it has its own hierarchy of bishops, like any other particular church. They are in communion with each other and share the same faith. Those churches as a group are given the label “Oriental Orthodox” so as to distinguish them from the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches, which are generally labeled “Eastern Orthodox.”

 

[louisak]

Interesting. I don’t recall ever having heard of the Oriental Orthodox Church before today, especially with respect to being the governing body, so to speak, of the Coptic Church. Maybe it is the terminology “Eastern” Orthodox and the widely held yet inaccurate view that the “Eastern” Catholic Rites are closely related to “Eastern” Orthodox, or maybe it is just because my personal relationship with my Greek Orthodox friend was always so respectful and that we tended to be in agreement on just about every issue that came up, but for some reason I always held the impression that Orthodoxy was much closer to being in communion with the Catholic Church and Rome than the Coptics or Ethiopians. It sounds like this view is probably inaccurate, right?

(And yes, I do understand closer is a relative term, and that there is likely little potential for unification of Orthodoxy and Catholicism within our lifetime, which I consider unfortunate.)

I believe the Oriental Orthodox churches are the same ones which are also known as the Monophysite churches. This is a delicate issue and one on which it is hard to find neutral terminology that everyone can agree on. It seems to be consensus among Catholic (and maybe the [Eastern] Orthodox as well) theologians and historians that the Oriental churches never really embraced the Monophysite heresy at the time of the Council of Chalcedon, that it was really a confusion over terminology, driven by a political situation which made it necessary for the Christians of northern Africa to differentiate themselves from the “Romans”.

 

[vluvski]

The term “Oriental Orthodox” does not refer to the governing body of the Coptic Church. The Coptic Church is one of several churches that rejected the Council of Chalcedon, and it has its own hierarchy of bishops, like any other particular church. They are in communion with each other and share the same faith. Those churches as a group are given the label “Oriental Orthodox” so as to distinguish them from the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches, which are generally labeled “Eastern Orthodox.”

So the Oriental Orthodox Churches diverged before the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Maybe that’s where I got the idea that Eastern Orthodox are “closer to Catholic” than Coptic (because, like I said, prior to today, I had no knowledge that the Coptic Church was part of a larger grouping called the Oriental Orthodox Church. That’s what I meant by governing body. Poor choice of words on my part.)

But, regardless of where that idea came from, are the differences between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox more grave or less grave than the differences between Oriental Orthodox and Catholic? Admittedly, my question is Catholic-centric because I am Roman Catholic, and I am mainly interested in how these different divisions relate to the Catholic Church. I know, I know, we Latins have such huge egos…

Can someone summarize the Monophysite heresy?

 

[vluvski]

Quite a few - there is a Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Romanian Orthodox, and others. Basically any country that has a sufficiently large population of Orthodox Christians will have its own Orthodox hierarchy.

Is each hierarchy autonomous and separate while maintaining communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church as a whole? Is this similar to USCCB’s relationship with the Vatican?

Is there are broader hierarchy (probably the wrong word) that unifies these various Eastern Orthodox Churches? Is that the role of the Patriarchs?

Honestly in this area I’m pretty weak when it even comes to the Roman Catholic Rite. Hard to compare the Orthodox setup to the Catholic setup (for the purpose of understanding it better, not for the purpose of making an actual comparison or debate) when I don’t really have a clear picture of the Catholic setup, especially when we start including the Eastern Catholic Rites.

 

[DorthyBlueBird]

A Beginner Answer! Fortunately I do know a thing or to about ancient heresies.

IF I recall correctly, Monophysite means, “of one substance”. Basically, the idea is, God is God. Jesus may have looked human, but he always was and ever shall be God and God only. They object strongly to the idea that Jesus was both God and Man.

This drastically affects the entire natural philosophy derived from it, and Nature is generally viewed as evil, and irredeemable. We are only saved because our souls are immaterial. This was true for the ancient heresies; I don’t know about the extant Monophysite churches.

Here’s what little I know about the Eastern Orthodox:

When I was in high school, I thought seriously about converting to the Eastern Orthodox.
I read an beautiful encyclopedia (cover to cover) which covered the entire faith. This was a while ago. Unfortunately, I don’t remember much, except that one of the big (or small, depending on who you ask) contentions with the Roman Catholics involves the nature of God. They believe that the Holy Spirit only comes from the Father, and descended on the Son during his baptism in the Jordan. Whereas, in the Catholic Church, we believe that the Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son. For me, this is a critical issue, so when the time came I converted to Catholicism.

I talked to a Greek Orthodox believer at one point and he said that one priest he talked to said it “wasn’t a big deal,” and suggested it was more of a historical issue. The other priest gave him an hour lecture on the vital importance of it. I have also talked to an Eastern Orthodox priest who resided in the USA and he thought that the issue was overblown for historical reasons. I’m told that this divergence of attitude is common throughout the Eastern Church. But this is third hand information.

There is a nice Greek word for this phenomenon, which is a phrase from the Creed, that covers it. * Filioque*, I think? This phrase is the part of the Nicene Creed where the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox differ. Historians Iv’e talked to use this as the tipping point for when the two churches split. Or so says a historian specializing in the medieval period I studied under in college.

 

[vluvski]

filioque: the “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” part, right?

Now I can’t remember without the pew card in front of me. Did that part get modified with the new Mass?

Very enlightening. Without the Catholic understanding of the filioque, some of the newer teachings like Theology of the Body are not quite so elegantly tied to the idea that the love between the Father and the Son brought about the Spirit being analogous to the love between a husband and wife cooperating with God in creating a new life.

 

[RyanBlack]

Can someone summarize the Monophysite heresy?

The heresy of monophysitism is the teaching that Christ has only one nature. There is a common misconception that the Oriental Orthodox are monophysites. They are not, and never have been. They believe that Christ is both fully human and fully divine. They speak of “one nature of the Incarnate Logos” following St. Cyril of Alexandria. It’s basically just a difference in terminology. However, they were unable to accept the Definition of Chalcedon and were suspicious of the Tome of Leo, so they did not agree to the Council of Chalcedon. Their position, which was based in the orthodox christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, is not what prompted the Council of Chalcedon. Rather, it was the christology of the monk Eutyches, who actually taught that Christ did not have a human nature consubstantial with ours. This heretical teaching of Eutyches is what is that actual heresy of monophysitism or Eutychianism, but the Oriental Orthodox never have taught Eutychianism.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

As you can see, some who identify as Eastern Orthodox show personal hostility to Catholics that is not shown to Protestants or Muslims. This is rather inexplicable, especially as Muslims are the chief persecutors of the Eastern Orthodox.

This does not apply to the current Patriarch of Constantinople, who has had friendly relations with the last two Popes.

 

[andrewstx]

Do the Orthodox Churches generally consider themselves to be in communion with one another, or is that also a point of contention among the Orthodox Churches?

What is meant by the statement about the Patriarch of Constantinople not offending the Turks? I don’t follow.

And with respect to the Patriarch of Moscow’s ties to the Russian government, is it being implied that the government has inappropriate influence over the Patriarch, or the Patriarch has influence over the government, or more generally that the political issues of being tied to the government would prevent unification per se, or something else altogether? Another way to ask, In what way is the patriarch tied to the government? I hope none of that sounds offensive; it is not intended that way at all. I’m just trying to understand the statement, because the first thing that popped into my head was the Russian mob. I don’t think that was the point, but that’s the first thing I thought of.

Isn’t the issue of married priests another difference (aside from the liturgy, obviously)?

In general Orthodox churches are in communion with each other, the rare exceptions being a handfull of Old Calendar jurisdictions who are sometimes with each other and other times in communion with no one.

The married priest issue is not so much an issue anymore. Eastern Rite Catholic priests have always been allowed to marry before ordination.

It is becoming less an issue now in the West with married men formerly Protestants being ordained to the priest hood.

 

[dzheremi]

There is a nice Greek word for this phenomenon, which is a phrase from the Creed, that covers it. * Filioque*, I think? This phrase is the part of the Nicene Creed where the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox differ. Historians Iv’e talked to use this as the tipping point for when the two churches split. Or so says a historian specializing in the medieval period I studied under in college.

‘Filioque’ is a Latin word, not Greek. This is a more important distinction than many realize, as the ‘filioque’ clause in Greek, according to EO I’ve talked to, would definitely be heretical, because the verb used to describe the procession of the Holy Spirit in the Greek, ἐκπορευόμενον, cannot be ascribed to the Son (I do not speak Greek, but this is the explanation I have most often heard, and I believe it is an objection that is quite old, going back to at least St. Gregory of Nazianzus). It is perhaps important to note that when Pope Benedict XVI has recited the Creed in Greek, it has been without the clause. As far as I understand, Eastern Catholics are not to include the clause in their recitation of the Creed (though the Eastern Catholic Church I attended when I lived in Oregon included it, in private conversation after the liturgy the priest admitted to me that it is not supposed to be there).

We do not include it in our liturgies in the Coptic Orthodox Church, of course. We were out of communion with the Chalcedonians by 589, when the Third Council of Toledo added it, so it has never been an issue for us.

 

[louisak]

The heresy of monophysitism is the teaching that Christ has only one nature. There is a common misconception that the Oriental Orthodox are monophysites. They are not, and never have been. They believe that Christ is both fully human and fully divine. They speak of “one nature of the Incarnate Logos” following St. Cyril of Alexandria. It’s basically just a difference in terminology. However, they were unable to accept the Definition of Chalcedon and were suspicious of the Tome of Leo, so they did not agree to the Council of Chalcedon.

That was the source of the trouble - they could not accept the formula stating that Christ has two natures, which gave rise to the misconception that they did not believe Christ to be fully God and fully man. It was because of this they were labelled as Monophysite by the other churches, well by Catholics anyway. As I mentioned earlier, I don’t think any theologians today whether Catholic or Orthodox regard this as a real doctrinal disagreement.

 

[louisak]

'As far as I understand, Eastern Catholics are not to include the clause in their recitation of the Creed

There was a clarification issued by the Holy See, some ten or fifteen years ago, which made this explicit. I couldn’t follow the linguistic niceties of it, as I don’t know any Greek either; but it stated essentially what you have said, that the different nuances of the words in question mean that the Greek equivalent of the Latin word ‘filioque’ is not to be used in the Greek text of the creed. I don’t quite understand, though, why Eastern Catholics are not supposed to use it when their liturgy is celebrated in English.