Changes in the Eastern Orthodox Church

[xixxvmcm85]

I often hear Orthodox Christians claim that the EO church has never ever changed (even in the most mundane of qualities).

I find this claim a little hard to believe and was wondering if there exists and evidentiary corroboration out there.

Has the EO Church ever changed any of its practices, doctrines, and/or dogmas?

 

[wynd]

I often hear Orthodox Christians claim that the EO church has never ever changed (even in the most mundane of qualities).

I find this claim a little hard to believe and was wondering if there exists and evidentiary corroboration out there.

Has the EO Church ever changed any of its practices, doctrines, and/or dogmas?

Yes.

Prayers are now offered for those who travel “by land, sea and air” instead of just “by land and sea.”

 

[johnnykins]

well, in the earliest church no incense was used, nor the crowns and current vestments nor the liturgies used today in place - seems like changes to me. They will say there has been no change in doctrine, but the 7 (or is it 8 or 9?) councils certainly defined matters that were disputed by bishops in the early centuries and clearly represent change. The introduction of Hesychasm and the entire panoply of thought attributable to the Fathers was rife with constant change in the early church, the changes by Peter the Great in Russia, the coming and going of ceasaro-papism in Byzantium and Russia, et al., the introduction of a western rite by St Tikhon. It’s a myth that the EO church has never changed. By the same token, and to be fair, since the schism of the EO from the Catholic Church they do seem to be stuck in certain theology and practices (Hesychasm and the Petrine reforms being notable exceptions). Of course, the early church changed - adopted anaphora, liturgies, defined the faith, called councils, etc., etc. Catholicism claims the ability and right to do that- just as the early church did. The EO seem to claim they can’t. You decide.

 

[Harpazo]

well, in the earliest church no incense was used, nor the crowns and current vestments nor the liturgies used today in place - seems like changes to me. They will say there has been no change in doctrine, but the 7 (or is it 8 or 9?) councils certainly defined matters that were disputed by bishops in the early centuries and clearly represent change. The introduction of Hesychasm and the entire panoply of thought attributable to the Fathers was rife with constant change in the early church, the changes by Peter the Great in Russia, the coming and going of ceasaro-papism in Byzantium and Russia, et al., the introduction of a western rite by St Tikhon. It’s a myth that the EO church has never changed. By the same token, and to be fair, since the schism of the EO from the Catholic Church they do seem to be stuck in certain theology and practices (Hesychasm and the Petrine reforms being notable exceptions). Of course, the early church changed - adopted anaphora, liturgies, defined the faith, called councils, etc., etc. Catholicism claims the ability and right to do that- just as the early church did. The EO seem to claim they can’t. You decide.

What about the usage of nationalistic/state churches? That seems foreign to the concept of the Early Church and an addition.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[Hesychios]

I often hear Orthodox Christians claim that the EO church has never ever changed (even in the most mundane of qualities).

I find this claim a little hard to believe and was wondering if there exists and evidentiary corroboration out there.

Has the EO Church ever changed any of its practices, doctrines, and/or dogmas?

Of course things change.

We know this, you are misinterpreting what we say about Holy Orthodoxy. Much of this is organic, and usually it was in the order of discipline, not theology.

As for the advancements in theological understanding, they were not change for changes sake. The early councils were engaged in paring back, pruning away the developments of heretics who were the innovative thinkers using logic and philosophy in their teachings.

For us sometimes that means positively affirming beliefs that were always assumed by the core orthodox Christian community. These ideas are usually found in the prayer life of the community, directly in the liturgical practices.

Remember what “define” actually means: it is the establishing of limits. A very apophatic concept.

We have not needed to make any major declarations since we all (your church was involved in this too) affirmed the Holy Spirit was God and Christ had two natures. These were inherited wisdom, not exercises in logic.

Christianity is a Faith of revelation. We only wish to know what Jesus passed on to the Apostles, there is evidence of that in the community. Beyond that can only be educated guesswork by fallible human creatures.

We do not glorify development, and do not pursue it. We do not use the tools of philosophy or logic to extend or stretch our understanding and when that is attempted by others we do not think of it as wonderful. This is a major difference between us.

What organic changes in practice we have experienced have been very slow in coming. If you read the writings of St. John Damascene (a Doctor of your church 7th-8th century) you will find that he very clearly describes Orthodoxy as we know it today. He is not just an example of an earlier phase of Christianity, as he might seem to you.

We still follow the ancient canons of the seven councils. They are in full force and applied in the same manner as they were when composed. These were superceded long ago under the Popes by an edited and redacted Code of Canon Law.

Respectfully, I think there is an entirely different attitude and approach to change between our two churches, yours embraces change much more readily, even eagerly, feeling confident in doing so. Ours embraces the formal decisions of the early Fathers much more strongly and stubbornly, we are not convinced of the value of further changes.

Michael

 

[johnnykins]

Of course things change.

We know this, you are misinterpreting what we say about Holy Orthodoxy. Much of this is organic, and usually it was in the order of discipline, not theology.

As for the advancements in theological understanding, they were not change for changes sake. The early councils were engaged in paring back, pruning away the developments of heretics who were the innovative thinkers using logic and philosophy in their teachings.

For us sometimes that means positively affirming beliefs that were always assumed by the core orthodox Christian community. These ideas are usually found in the prayer life of the community, directly in the liturgical practices.

Remember what “define” actually means: it is the establishing of limits. A very apophatic concept.

We have not needed to make any major declarations since we all (your church was involved in this too) affirmed the Holy Spirit was God and Christ had two natures. These were inherited wisdom, not exercises in logic.

Christianity is a Faith of revelation. We only wish to know what Jesus passed on to the Apostles, there is evidence of that in the community. Beyond that can only be educated guesswork by fallible human creatures.

We do not glorify development, and do not pursue it. We do not use the tools of philosophy or logic to extend or stretch our understanding and when that is attempted by others we do not think of it as wonderful. This is a major difference between us.

What organic changes in practice we have experienced have been very slow in coming. If you read the writings of St. John Damascene (a Doctor of your church 7th-8th century) you will find that he very clearly describes Orthodoxy as we know it today. He is not just an example of an earlier phase of Christianity, as he might seem to you.

We still follow the ancient canons of the seven councils. They are in full force and applied in the same manner as they were when composed. These were superceded long ago under the Popes by an edited and redacted Code of Canon Law.

Respectfully, I think there is an entirely different attitude and approach to change between our two churches, yours embraces change much more readily, even eagerly, feeling confident in doing so. Ours embraces the formal decisions of the early Fathers much more strongly and stubbornly, we are not convinced of the value of further changes.

Michael

Very nice to see an admission that the Orthodox Church has changed over time. From many comments by Orthodox posters over the years on this forum you would never guess it. The clear import of such posts very very often was that Christ died and the current EO Church sprang up complete and unchanging. An utter absurdity, of course. The key with your post is that you acknowledge that we have a difference of emphasis - degree might be a better word - rather than substance. No doubt a significant difference in degree, but essentially only that.

One myth down…

 

[Hesychios]

Hello my brother Johnnykins,

I see that you do not address the (what I consider) most important point of my post. That the changes Orthodoxy has experienced over time are primarily of discipline, and that Conciliar definitions of the dogma of the early church were used to limit, not endorse expansion of the church teachings.

Why anyone would deny the historical reality of changing liturgies and traditions is beyond me. We have missions in the Orthodox church in various places and one can observe slight variations of style developing in each new community. It is part of the larger process of all the world embracing a Faith in Christ. The Apostle himself was a considerable part of this process from the beginning as he brought the Faith to multiple various Gentile communities.

Very nice to see an admission that the Orthodox Church has changed over time. From many comments by Orthodox posters over the years on this forum you would never guess it. The clear import of such posts very very often was that Christ died and the current EO Church sprang up complete and unchanging.

Unfortunately for you, this is how you have been reading Orthodox posts. Not what I observe has been stated.

I have been here quite a long time and I never read an Orthodox poster actually claim that the Orthodox church sprang out of the cenacle complete and unchanged to the present day.

One myth down…

Indeed. But I think you are polemically erecting a straw man, and that is the myth you are knocking around.

An utter absurdity, of course. The key with your post is that you acknowledge that we have a difference of emphasis - degree might be a better word - rather than substance. No doubt a significant difference in degree, but essentially only that.

I agree with this. The degree is extraordinarily different, from where I sit. It is one of the things that has attracted me to Holy Orthodoxy, and holds me. We do not institutionally endorse or encourage additions or change to beliefs, we are suspicious of apparitions which presume to tell us things and thus do not allow such messages to influence our beliefs or introduce new devotions.

I will state that…

• anyone who is not comfortable with the extreme conservatism of Holy Orthodoxy,
• and anyone who cannot wrap their minds around the concept that the Truth is unchanging…
• and anyone who cannot accept the Orthodox notion that the Truth does not need a specially ordained single person to reinterpret it over time…
  Should just give Holy Orthodoxy a wide berth, avoid it and bloom where they are planted.
  1. We do not search the scriptures for hidden or “lost” meanings, the scriptures are there to support the received Faith, not the other way around.
  2. We do not propose and politic for the pronouncement of new dogmas, the dogmas are set, and out of necessity were defined to excise heretical notions from the church, we go no further and don’t respect a process that does.
     That should knock out a whole bunch of -1- Protestant and -2- Catholic inquirers. If one cannot accept these principles, the individual should simply forget about Holy Orthodoxy.
  Johnnykins, these people are all yours, they will not be happy as Orthodox Christians. Orthodoxy will not change to accommodate them.
  
  And we do not share communion, nor concelebrate with priests and bishops who do not agree with the beliefs and principles of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Christian Faith.
  
  Michael

 

[MementoMori3283]

Those who do not know history often come off as idiots

Beautiful, definitely Biblical; corroborated in the Book of Wisdom .

Someone told me on another thread that I was wrong to post that only a very few people during the travels of Columbus viewed the earth as round.

 

[MementoMori3283]

We do not propose and politic for the pronouncement of new dogmas, the dogmas are set, and out of necessity were defined to excise heretical notions from the church, we go no further and don’t respect a process that does.

When did you define Mary’s role within your Church?

 

[Hesychios]

When did you define Mary’s role within your Church?

Jesus Christ is fully human and fully Divine, to be fully human he had to have a mother.

She is Theotokos. Not merely the mother of an ordinary man, but the God bearer. All of the early exaltations of Mary were in support of the incarnation against those who would deny this truth. This is more properly thought of as a supporting element of the incarnation of Christ. The dogma is the incarnation of Christ. We believe that God the Word was born man, and his mother was Mary of Nazareth.

So I guess the answer to your question would be Apostolic times, before the composition of the Gospels which relate Jesus birth.

The idea of her sinlessness is traditional, so we commonly embrace it as a received traditional theological opinion. I cannot trace it to a formal point of declaration. We know that she died, so this state of purity we hold about her did not separate her from us.

 

[MementoMori3283]

Jesus Christ is fully human and fully Divine, to be fully human he had to have a mother.

She is Theotokos. Not merely the mother of an ordinary man, but the God bearer. All of the early exaltations of Mary were in support of the incarnation against those who would deny this truth. This is more properly thought of as a supporting element of the incarnation of Christ. The dogma is the incarnation of Christ. We believe that God the Word was born man, and his mother was Mary of Nazareth.

So I guess the answer to your question would be Apostolic times, before the composition of the Gospels which relate Jesus birth.

The idea of her sinlessness is traditional, so we commonly embrace it as a received traditional theological opinion. I cannot trace it to a formal point of declaration. We know that she died, so this state of purity we hold about her did not separate her from us.

So you have nothing, on the books, so to speak?

 

[johnnykins]

Hello my brother Johnnykins,

I see that you do not address the (what I consider) most important point of my post. That the changes Orthodoxy has experienced over time are primarily of discipline, and that Conciliar definitions of the dogma of the early church were used to limit, not endorse expansion of the church teachings.

No I didn’t because I did not see it as apt to the OP. I agree with you that most changes certainly have been primarily discipline - though not exclusively. The changes of the early councils are what they are - certainly one can claim that they restrict, but one can also say they expand. Theotokos, e.g., - Mother of God - you believe to be a limitation and not an expansion? Another myth to address, I guess.

Why anyone would deny the historical reality of changing liturgies and traditions is beyond me. We have missions in the Orthodox church in various places and one can observe slight variations of style developing in each new community. It is part of the larger process of all the world embracing a Faith in Christ. The Apostle himself was a considerable part of this process from the beginning as he brought the Faith to multiple various Gentile communities. Unfortunately for you, this is how you have been reading Orthodox posts. Not what I observe has been stated.

Not unfortunate at all - just strange that the OP and I read things the same way - and different from you. Perhaps the posters have not meant specifically what is alleged, but in general the tenor of many posts have been in that vein.

I have been here quite a long time and I never read an Orthodox poster actually claim that the Orthodox church sprang out of the cenacle complete and unchanged to the present day. Indeed. But I think you are polemically erecting a straw man, and that is the myth you are knocking around.

perhaps you are looking only for a direct quote when the general statement is all you’ll see?

I agree with this. The degree is extraordinarily different, from where I sit. It is one of the things that has attracted me to Holy Orthodoxy, and holds me.obviously - I do not deny differences of degree.

We do not institutionally endorse or encourage additions or change to beliefs, we are suspicious of apparitions which presume to tell us things and thus do not allow such messages to influence our beliefs or introduce new devotions.

This takes us back to the councils - true you haven’t had one in 1200 years or so. That has other implications. As to apparitions, etc., guess I’ll have to review wonderworking icons and the like soon.

I will state that…

• anyone who is not comfortable with the extreme conservatism of Holy Orthodoxy,
• and anyone who cannot wrap their minds around the concept that the Truth is unchanging…

(or, alternatively, wrap their mind around that the depths of revealed Truth are still revealed by a living Church through the Holy Spirit today - and not limited to ancestors of 1200 years and more ago)

• and anyone who cannot accept the Orthodox notion that the Truth does not need a specially ordained single person to reinterpret it over time…

(well a living Church needs that authority, but I will agree one that has closed itself to the present living voice of the Holy Spirit wouldn’t)

Should just give Holy Orthodoxy a wide berth, avoid it and bloom where they are planted.

1. 
   Ok with limits
   

   • We do not search the scriptures for hidden or “lost” meanings, the scriptures are there to support the received Faith, not the other way around.

   The misunderstanding by many Orthodox of the development of doctrine constantly amazes me. What has happened in Catholicism since the 7th council - and not happened in Orthodoxy since then - is exactly the same as what took place through the 7th council. The living tradition of the early Church lives in unbroken vitality in Catholicism and has somehow been lost to Orthodoxy in a petrification of doctrine.
   

   • We do not propose and politic for the pronouncement of new dogmas, the dogmas are set, and out of necessity were defined to excise heretical notions from the church, we go no further and don’t respect a process that does. see above

   That should knock out a whole bunch of -1- Protestant and -2- Catholic inquirers. If one cannot accept these principles, the individual should simply forget about Holy Orthodoxy.

   OK
   

   Johnnykins, these people are all yours, they will not be happy as Orthodox Christians. Orthodoxy will not change to accommodate them.

   I fear the issue is that Orthodoxy is unchanging now though it was not so in the early church with all the negative implications related thereto. A Church alive for 800 years suddenly finding the inability to do those things that it did before is an issue.
   

   And we do not share communion, nor concelebrate with priests and bishops who do not agree with the beliefs and principles of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Christian Faith.

   actually the Canons say you shouldn’t “pray” with priests, etc who disagree - but I’ve noticed that the Canons are fluid when you want them to be, but not when you don’t.Perhaps there is fluidity with other beliefs and principles as well?

 

[Mickey]

But I think you are polemically erecting a straw man, and that is the myth you are knocking around.

Yes.

It is one of the things that has attracted me to Holy Orthodoxy, and holds me.

Ditto

Hesychios:

• anyone who is not comfortable with the extreme conservatism of Holy Orthodoxy,
• and anyone who cannot wrap their minds around the concept that the Truth is unchanging…
• and anyone who cannot accept the Orthodox notion that the Truth does not need a specially ordained single person to reinterpret it over time…
  Should just give Holy Orthodoxy a wide berth, avoid it and bloom where they are planted.
  1. We do not search the scriptures for hidden or “lost” meanings, the scriptures are there to support the received Faith, not the other way around.
  2. We do not propose and politic for the pronouncement of new dogmas, the dogmas are set, and out of necessity were defined to excise heretical notions from the church, we go no further and don’t respect a process that does.
     That should knock out a whole bunch of -1- Protestant and -2- Catholic inquirers. If one cannot accept these principles, the individual should simply forget about Holy Orthodoxy.
  Johnnykins, these people are all yours, they will not be happy as Orthodox Christians. Orthodoxy will not change to accommodate them.
  
  And we do not share communion, nor concelebrate with priests and bishops who do not agree with the beliefs and principles of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Christian Faith.
  
  MichaelAmen, Michael.

 

[ralphinal]

I know this will come across the wrong way, but something in the Eastern Orthodox church reminds me of the parable of the servents with the talents. The one that kept his one talent safe and gave it back just like he found it…

I am not saying that they will be punished for it at all, it just rings a bell to me.

 

[Milliardo]

I know this will come across the wrong way, but something in the Eastern Orthodox church reminds me of the parable of the servents with the talents. The one that kept his one talent safe and gave it back just like he found it…

I am not saying that they will be punished for it at all, it just rings a bell to me.

Does not apply to Orthodoxy at all; does keeping the Apostolic Tradition then like burying the talent and still finding it the way it is? If so, then one must also accuse the Catholic Church of that as well, since it also claims to keep the Apostolic Tradition the way it was. Should it then be that we must accept innovations just to be “updated”, even if such innovations cannot be found in Holy Tradition?

 

[ralphinal]

Does not apply to Orthodoxy at all; does keeping the Apostolic Tradition then like burying the talent and still finding it the way it is? If so, then one must also accuse the Catholic Church of that as well, since it also claims to keep the Apostolic Tradition the way it was. Should it then be that we must accept innovations just to be “updated”, even if such innovations cannot be found in Holy Tradition?

No. I am saying that the servent was proud that he kept it just like he found it. I see the same attitude in the Orthodox. It does not matter if any of the Latin changes were good, the fact is that many EO refuse to accept them because they were CHANGES.

 

[Milliardo]

No. I am saying that the servent was proud that he kept it just like he found it. I see the same attitude in the Orthodox. It does not matter if any of the Latin changes were good, the fact is that many EO refuse to accept them because they were CHANGES.

They were changes made not in accord with Holy Tradition, and worse, they were not deliberated by the Church as a whole. How can one Patriarchate then say this should apply to the whole Church when not all of its bishops are in attendance, as it should be? That it should then be that Apostolic Tradition should be kept is the call of Orthodoxy. If one wants the Church as it was, and should be, then it should be that one must adhere to this Tradition very closely, and in my study and research I have found this to be true for Orthodoxy than the Catholic Church.

 

[ralphinal]

They were changes made not in accord with Holy Tradition, and worse, they were not deliberated by the Church as a whole. How can one Patriarchate then say this should apply to the whole Church when not all of its bishops are in attendance, as it should be? That it should then be that Apostolic Tradition should be kept is the call of Orthodoxy. If one wants the Church as it was, and should be, then it should be that one must adhere to this Tradition very closely, and in my study and research I have found this to be true for Orthodoxy than the Catholic Church.

So 100% of the changes made by Rome have been bad?

 

[MementoMori3283]

Does not apply to Orthodoxy at all; does keeping the Apostolic Tradition then like burying the talent and still finding it the way it is? If so, then one must also accuse the Catholic Church of that as well, since it also claims to keep the Apostolic Tradition the way it was. Should it then be that we must accept innovations just to be “updated”, even if such innovations cannot be found in Holy Tradition?

No, but if you are the True Church of Jesus Christ, go tell it on the mountain, over the hill and in the countryside…

BTW, these two statements confuse me:

Hesychios:

and anyone who cannot accept the Orthodox notion that the Truth does not need a specially ordained single person to reinterpret it over time…

Hesychios:

We do not search the scriptures for hidden or “lost” meanings, the scriptures are there to support the received Faith, not the other way around.

Why reinterpret what has been revealed as the Truth in the Scriptures from the received Faith?

 

[Milliardo]

So 100% of the changes made by Rome have been bad?

Some yes, some no. There is no such thing as 100%, or else one will have to say nothing good came out of it. But certainly not all of the changes were for the better, either.