Being considered unorthodox by people outside of your faith is offensive?

[Zekariya]

You also called me “unorthodox,” which to an Orthodox person is the same as calling them a heretic.

I do realize that this is a really old post, however, it is presented as being the Eastern Orthodox peoples’ view and it makes no sense to me. Is the above quote accurate? If so, do you know when a Catholic is called “unorthodox,” we consider it the same as being called a heretic? It is true.

Most who are traditional Eastern/Oriental Orthodox, consider Catholics to be “unorthodox” and therefore not “Catholic”. Only one of us is “orthodox” because we both teach doctrine contrary to the other. Now, I don’t go around calling Eastern/Oriental Orthodox people, unorthodox. The fact still remains that most of you consider me to be unorthodox and this is fine. If you considered me orthodox and I considered you orthodox, we’d be ONE Faith, not three faiths.

An example… The Catholic Church accepts all baptisms as valid as long as the have the proper form and intent. The Antiochian Orthodox Church accepts (via “economia”) Catholic and protestant baptisms that are “filled” or “made actual” by Chrismation. The Russian Orthodox accept (via “economia”) Catholic baptisms that are “filled” or “made actual” by Chrismation. The Greek Orthodox Church accepts NO baptisms done outside of the Orthodox Church. All Eastern Orthodox Churches accept the “practices” of the other jurisdictions. Does anyone know why the Greek bishops forbid applying what they accept as a perfectly valid form of “economia”?

The Catholic Church accepts even a baptism done by an atheist as valid and true as long as there is the correct form and intent. I am sure that under most (if not all) circumstances that the Eastern Orthodox Church (and certainly the Oriental Orthodox Church) would not accept a person, via Chrismation, who was baptized by a professing atheist. We both differ in doctrine concerning the validity of baptisms.

Ergo, we all consider the others as having unorthodox doctrine (and this is only one example of many).

In Christ,
Zekariya

 

[Cavaradossi]

I do realize that this is a really old post, however, it is presented as being the Eastern Orthodox peoples’ view and it makes no sense to me. Is the above quote accurate? If so, do you know when a Catholic is called “unorthodox,” we consider it the same as being called a heretic? It is true.

Most who are traditional Eastern/Oriental Orthodox, consider Catholics to be “unorthodox” and therefore not “Catholic”. Only one of us is “orthodox” because we both teach doctrine contrary to the other. Now, I don’t go around calling Eastern/Oriental Orthodox people, unorthodox. The fact still remains that most of you consider me to be unorthodox and this is fine. If you considered me orthodox and I considered you orthodox, we’d be ONE Faith, not three faiths.

An example… The Catholic Church accepts all baptisms as valid as long as the have the proper form and intent. The Antiochian Orthodox Church accepts (via “economia”) Catholic and protestant baptisms that are “filled” or “made actual” by Chrismation. The Russian Orthodox accept (via “economia”) Catholic baptisms that are “filled” or “made actual” by Chrismation. The Greek Orthodox Church accepts NO baptisms done outside of the Orthodox Church. All Eastern Orthodox Churches accept the “practices” of the other jurisdictions. Does anyone know why the Greek bishops forbid applying what they accept as a perfectly valid form of “economia”?

The Catholic Church accepts even a baptism done by an atheist as valid and true as long as there is the correct form and intent. I am sure that under most (if not all) circumstances that the Eastern Orthodox Church (and certainly the Oriental Orthodox Church) would not accept a person, via Chrismation, who was baptized by a professing atheist. We both differ in doctrine concerning the validity of baptisms.

Ergo, we all consider the others as having unorthodox doctrine (and this is only one example of many).

In Christ,
Zekariya

You are mistaken. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America receives people who have been baptized by certain groups (including Catholics and most Protestants) through chrismation.

 

[Zekariya]

You are mistaken. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America receives people who have been baptized by certain groups (including Catholics and most Protestants) through chrismation.

Please forgive my misinformation. Perhaps I mistakenly applied the belief of one of the fake “true” “genuine” Greek parishes. Again, I apologize.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Please forgive my misinformation. Perhaps I mistakenly applied the belief of one of the fake “true” “genuine” Greek parishes. Again, I apologize.

Those ‘genuine’ folks would probably rebaptize anything, including me.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I like the word “heterodox.” It doesn’t have the alternative, milder meaning “unorthodox” has and it, in my perception at least, doesn’t carry as personally judgemental a connotation as “heretical” tends to.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I like the word “heterodox.” It doesn’t have the alternative, milder meaning “unorthodox” has and it, in my perception at least, doesn’t carry as personally judgemental a connotation as “heretical” tends to.

Yes, I think heterodox has become the normative polite term to call those of other faiths, especially since calling one ‘unorthodox’ carries the implication of being entirely outside of what is considered to be Christian orthodoxy at its broadest (that is to say denying fundamental beliefs like the trinity, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, etc.).

 

[Zekariya]

Those ‘genuine’ folks would probably rebaptize anything, including me.

My Godfather joined one of those “genuine” churches so that he could become a priest after he was rejected as a candidate by several actual Orthodox Churches. His Orthodox baptism was accepted, however, he had to be re-Chrismated.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Yes, I think heterodox has become the normative polite term to call those of other faiths, especially since calling one ‘unorthodox’ carries the implication of being entirely outside of what is considered to be Christian orthodoxy at its broadest (that is to say denying fundamental beliefs like the trinity, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, etc.).

I wasn’t conscious of this extreme implication of the word “unorthodox”, though it is understandable. Personally, when I hear the word I usually think of it in its milder, perhaps more secular meaning. For example, installing bubblegum pink stained glass windows in your church would be highly unorthodox, but not heterodox/heretical. Thus, to me calling something like Calvinism (I’m intentionally using an example I expect we can both agree is an error) “unorthodox” would strike me as an understatement rather than an overstatement.

 

[Zekariya]

Honestly, I think of Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc; when I here the term heterodox. Unorthodox makes me think of different Christian (specifically ones that are Trinitarian and have Cyrillian/Chalcedonian Christology) denominations. But that’s just me.

Of course I don’t think one should call anyone unorthodox/heterodox (unless he at least doesn’t mind himself being called the same by the other group).

 

[Cavaradossi]

I wasn’t conscious of this extreme implication of the word “unorthodox”, though it is understandable. Personally, when I hear the word I usually think of it in its milder, perhaps more secular meaning. For example, installing bubblegum pink stained glass windows in your church would be highly unorthodox, but not heterodox/heretical. Thus, to me calling something like Calvinism (I’m intentionally using an example I expect we can both agree is an error) “unorthodox” would strike me as an understatement rather than an overstatement.

Perhaps it is more of a Protestant thing. One will often see Protestants, like the Reformed, talk about others, like say the Lutherans, as if they are perhaps misguided but not completely unorthodox.

 

[dzheremi]

Doesn’t bother me in the least. We know we’re Orthodox, no matter what anyone says.

 

[Peter_J]

I do realize that this is a really old post, however, it is presented as being the Eastern Orthodox peoples’ view and it makes no sense to me. Is the above quote accurate? If so, do you know when a Catholic is called “unorthodox,” we consider it the same as being called a heretic? It is true.

Most who are traditional Eastern/Oriental Orthodox, consider Catholics to be “unorthodox” and therefore not “Catholic”. Only one of us is “orthodox” because we both teach doctrine contrary to the other. Now, I don’t go around calling Eastern/Oriental Orthodox people, unorthodox. The fact still remains that most of you consider me to be unorthodox and this is fine. If you considered me orthodox and I considered you orthodox, we’d be ONE Faith, not three faiths.

I think you make a good point, Zekariya. But to be fair, Catholics can act strangely as well. For example, I’ve noticed that, sometimes, certain questions about Orthodoxy get asked over and over by Catholics who already know that they aren’t ever going to become Orthodox regardless of the answers. (Not trying to generalize of course – note that I qualified that with “sometimes”.)

It reminds me a little of the question that the man born blind asked: “Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?” (John 9:27)

 

[Rawb]

Doesn’t bother me in the least. We know we’re Orthodox, no matter what anyone says.

Depends. If a non-Orthodox told me I wasn’t orthodox I doubt it would offend me. If a fellow Orthodox said it, it would be a very harsh insult.

 

[dzheremi]

I’m not so bothered. It comes with the territory of being OO. Correct what is a matter of misunderstanding, but I prefer to leave polemics alone if I can help it.

 

[Zekariya]

I think you make a good point, Zekariya. But to be fair, Catholics can act strangely as well. For example, I’ve noticed that, sometimes, certain questions about Orthodoxy get asked over and over by Catholics who already know that they aren’t ever going to become Orthodox regardless of the answers. (Not trying to generalize of course – note that I qualified that with “sometimes”.)

It reminds me a little of the question that the man born blind asked: “Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?” (John 9:27)

I agree. Both sides should avoid any sort of essentially baiting the other. We ask and discuss to learn, not to lead someone to what one thinks will blow their view out of the park.

I’m not so bothered. It comes with the territory of being OO. Correct what is a matter of misunderstanding, but I prefer to leave polemics alone if I can help it.

I am not bothered either. I was called all sorts when I left the OCA for the Coptic Church (in my past). I am against any sort of double standard. Those who don’t want to be called “unorthodox” should not be calling others “unorthodox”. And face the fact that technically only one can be, logically, considered “orthodox” even if one doesn’t frankly say it.