Beginner question- Greek Orthodoxy

[Nine_Two]

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”.

Miaphysite is the term we tend to use. They agree that Monophysitism is also a heresy.

 

[Nine_Two]

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?

This will be an issue of terminology. We use the term autocephalous (meaning self-headed) for the distinct churches, while within these churches there are often autonomous units (self-governing). I’m not familiar with the relationship between the USCCB and the Vatican, but I would be surprised if it was even autonomous.

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

No broader hierarchy. We are united by faith.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

Do not worry, there are plenty of Roman Catholics who return the favor.

 

[dzheremi]

But either way we don’t want to focus on that in this thread about the Greek Orthodox…

 

[vluvski]

This will be an issue of terminology. We use the term autocephalous (meaning self-headed) for the distinct churches, while within these churches there are often autonomous units (self-governing). I’m not familiar with the relationship between the USCCB and the Vatican, but I would be surprised if it was even autonomous.

My (admittedly very weak) understanding of the relationship between USCCB and Vatican is that no, autonomous is not the right word to describe it. And from what little I’ve been reading about the Orthodox Churches, they appear considerably more autonomous than USCCB or any other regional grouping within the Roman Catholic Rite.

No broader hierarchy. We are united by faith.

How does the Orthodox Church as a whole ensure that no particular Orthodox Church diverges from that faith? Does someone or some group have the authority/responsibility to step in if a group begins propagating an Orthodox heresy while claiming to be Orthodox? Is it considered to be a matter of divine intervention to keep the Orthodox Churches unified?

It is both fascinating and heartbreaking to me that such a small number of very specific nuances (I won’t call them trivial, because I don’t believe that they are, not at all) have given rise to such conflict and hatred.

 

[louisak]

How does the Orthodox Church as a whole ensure that no particular Orthodox Church diverges from that faith? Does someone or some group have the authority/responsibility to step in if a group begins propagating an Orthodox heresy while claiming to be Orthodox? Is it considered to be a matter of divine intervention to keep the Orthodox Churches unified?

There is nothing in Orthodoxy that corresponds to the Holy Office - the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as it is now called. In other words there is no single person or entity that has the duty of ensuring doctrinal integrity. It is the Holy Spirit acting through the Church, especially in the divine liturgy, that maintains the Church in her faith. I am Catholic myself but I am doing my best to present the Orthodox understanding.

It is worth while to analyze the semantics of the very word ‘orthodox’. We tend to use it meaning “doctrinally correct” as opposed to the ‘heterodox’ which is doctrinally incorrect. However in its etymology, the word orthodox actually means “worshipping rightly” rather than “believing rightly”. The word element ‘-dox’ is also the root of the word ‘doxology’ which is a type of hymn in praise of God.

If I understand correctly, it is Orthodox belief that the integrity of the Church’s faith is maintained in her life of prayer and worship, specifically the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, in which God comes down to meet man. Of course this idea is not incompatible with Catholicism although the emphasis for us tends to be different.

 

[vluvski]

…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. .

Is there not a different word or phrase in Greek to state the filioque?

I don’t quite understand, though, why Eastern Catholics are not supposed to use it when their liturgy is celebrated in English.

Was this done perhaps to promote good will between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics?

 

[vluvski]

Miaphysite is the term we tend to use. They agree that Monophysitism is also a heresy.

Now that all of this is jogging my memory, I was probably misinformed at some point that the Coptic Church ascribed to the monophysite heresy, and that is why I have always thought of the [Eastern] Orthodox as close cousins and the Coptics (which I now know are also Orthodox) as much more distant.

 

[vluvski]

So, what else besides the filioque brought about the split?

I’m sure I’ll get different answers from different folks, and that’s OK. At the time of the split, was the filioque in and of itself an issue, or that the pope put it in there without consultation, or a bit of both? Has the filioque grown into more of an issue for some Orthodox theologians just because it was the defining moment in the split?

It seems to me, and I am no theologian, that (pardon the double negative) not misunderstanding the nature of God and the Trinity is far more important than understanding the nature of God and the Trinity. While I personally prefer the Catholic view now that the difference has been explained (not just because I am Catholic), I would quite joyfully leave that part out if it meant being one step closer to unifying Christ’s Church. I’d like to think our current pope shares my view since he apparently left the phrase out when he recited the creed in Greek.

 

[vluvski]

Actually it seems like a bit of a missed opportunity not to have taken it out of the English version of the creed with the recent changes. They already changed it up on us, let’s do it all at once, you know?
I mean, if it’s not critical enough for the pope to say it in Greek, and it is deliberately excluded in the Eastern Rite English creed with whom we remain in communion, why is it important enough to include in English for Roman Catholics?

 

[dzheremi]

That is an excellent, excellent question. Far more excellent than any of the answers to it I’ve ever heard, in fact.

 

[vluvski]

That is an excellent, excellent question. Far more excellent than any of the answers to it I’ve ever heard, in fact.

Quick! Reprint all those pew cards with the revised creed! (I’m joking, and don’t intend to undermine the authority of Mother Church.)
Don’t stroke my ego too much, haha.

 

[dzheremi]

Hahaha. Heavens no. I’m not meaning to challenge or undermine Rome’s authority to teach its own flock according to its own doctrine, only to echo that this is something I have also asked (when I was Roman Catholic; now such questions don’t concern me), but was very disappointed by the answers. Generally, people will say that the interpolation was necessary to fight Arianism in Spain, and as such is still necessary in so far as there are still essentially Arian groups out there, such as Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses. One might then wonder why there is not an explosion of SDA and JW congregations in the traditional Christian lands of the East, but I guess that could be a whole different discussion.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There is nothing in Orthodoxy that corresponds to the Holy Office - the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as it is now called. In other words there is no single person or entity that has the duty of ensuring doctrinal integrity. It is the Holy Spirit acting through the Church, especially in the divine liturgy, that maintains the Church in her faith. I am Catholic myself but I am doing my best to present the Orthodox understanding.

It is worth while to analyze the semantics of the very word ‘orthodox’. We tend to use it meaning “doctrinally correct” as opposed to the ‘heterodox’ which is doctrinally incorrect. However in its etymology, the word orthodox actually means “worshipping rightly” rather than “believing rightly”. The word element ‘-dox’ is also the root of the word ‘doxology’ which is a type of hymn in praise of God.

If I understand correctly, it is Orthodox belief that the integrity of the Church’s faith is maintained in her life of prayer and worship, specifically the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, in which God comes down to meet man. Of course this idea is not incompatible with Catholicism although the emphasis for us tends to be different.

It is also the responsibility of the other Chruches to ensure the other Churches are Orthodox. If a doctrinal matter comes up and they can’t agree, they would sever communion and then work out the differences via council. Once the orthodoxy of the matter is revealed and accepted, they would resume communion. This is in line with Scripture where we are told to hold one another accounable. The will of God is revealed not through one person, but by consensus of all believers. This is why a council isn’t called an Ecumenical Council until years later when its teachings are finally understood and accepted by all. If a council’s teachings isn’t accepted by all, it does not become Ecumenical. By acceptance by all it means those who are still within the Church. If anyone was excluded in the process (excommunicated or anathemized), then they do not count. And it doesn’t matter if there are those who object to the council at the time it was convened, if at some point in the life of the Church all Christians of the orthodox faith accept a council fully, then it is deemed Ecumenical. This might be decades later after all those with objections would have died.

 

[vluvski]

Generally, people will say that the interpolation was necessary to fight Arianism in Spain, and as such is still necessary in so far as there are still essentially Arian groups out there, such as Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

This deserves its own thread, I think.

 

[louisak]

Actually it seems like a bit of a missed opportunity not to have taken it out of the English version of the creed with the recent changes. They already changed it up on us, let’s do it all at once, you know?
I mean, if it’s not critical enough for the pope to say it in Greek, and it is deliberately excluded in the Eastern Rite English creed with whom we remain in communion, why is it important enough to include in English for Roman Catholics?

The purpose of the recent changes was to bring the English text closer to the Latin on which it is based - removing the phrase “and from the Son” from the English text would do the opposite.

 

[ThatOrthodoxGuy]

The Russian Orthodox Church, by far the largest Orthodox Church, is closely tied to the Russian government.

This has not always been the case. After the revolution in Russia the Russian church outside of Russia setup the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (R.O.C.O.R) Which was not in communion with the church in the homeland until 2005

 

[ThatOrthodoxGuy]

The state and the church work together to get closer to God and The church is protected by the state. What is wrong with this?

 

[ThatOrthodoxGuy]

Forgive me I miss read your post:blush:

 

[ThatOrthodoxGuy]

People think that the Russian Church and the state are to close. I dont, they live in harmony.
This has allowed Orthodoxy in Russia to come back to life.