Examining Orthodox Theology

[ByzCathCantor]

s noted earlier, access to daily Divine Liturgy would vary depending on the congregation itself of a parish. Besides, there is more to daily spiritual life than Mass. To tell you the truth, I find Roman Catholicism here in North America very lacking for lack of any religious activity besides Mass. No wonder priests have been experimenting left and right with the Masses here.

That’s a really interesting thought …

Thread-worthy, perhaps?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Many Orthodox parishes have services throughout the week for the laity to attend. At my parish, we have daily vespers every Wednesday, great vespers on Saturday, and akathist on Thursday morning, in addition to Divine Liturgy every Sunday. During the fasts, additional services are added. Presanctified Liturgy is served Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent. The 3rd and 6th hours are read before the Divine Liturgy every Sunday.

In Orthodoxy, many services are offered before a culminating feast (e.g. Pascha) as preparation. So, the emphasis is different in the East: whereas in the Latin Church today pious lay people go to “Mass” several times per week and perhaps pray the rosary daily, in the Eastern Churches, the pious lay people attend various liturgical services at church (e.g. vespers, akathists, canons, presanctified liturgies,etc.)–in addition to praying morning and evening prayers privately at home. Orthodox who live close to a monastery often have more opportunities to partake in the full liturgical life of the Church.

Very clear answer “THANK YOU” my that was like pulling teeth.

This here “the pious lay people attend various liturgical services at church (e.g. vespers, akathists, canons, presanctified liturgies etc” Do you have links to these so I can read up on them. Your very kind and to the point, seriously an issue here.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Very clear answer “THANK YOU” my that was like pulling teeth.

This here “the pious lay people attend various liturgical services at church (e.g. vespers, akathists, canons, presanctified liturgies etc” Do you have links to these so I can read up on them. Your very kind and to the point, seriously an issue here.

Sorry my friend, but it wasn’t clear at first where you were heading with this at first.

It did appear as if your were taking a swipe at the EO for not having daily DL, but as is now clear (i) that is not the only form of worship (nor is it in the West) and (ii) the EO/EC praxis is different for a number of reasons, and does not rely exclusively on their form of Mass for spiritual enrichment.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Sorry my friend, but it wasn’t clear at first where you were heading with this at first.

It did appear as if your were taking a swipe at the EO for not having daily DL, but as is now clear (i) that is not the only form of worship (nor is it in the West) and (ii) the EO/EC praxis is different for a number of reasons, and does not rely exclusively on their form of Mass for spiritual enrichment.

We really should get a thread together on this. Most attending the CC Latin Mass I would assume have no idea and it would be of value. I’m much more interested in this aspect than debating the Ecumenical Counicls. I like to read but at the the end of the day the Spiritual aspect is my life.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

We really should get a thread together on this. Most attending the CC Latin Mass I would assume have no idea and it would be of value. I’m much more interested in this aspect than debating the Ecumnical Counicls. I like to read but at the the end of the day the Spiritual aspect is my life.

I agree for many reasons!

CTG has also postulated above that the reliance on Mass alone may also be a contributing factor to what have become “variations” seen in the celebration of the OF.

However, I like your “angle of entry” a lot (sorry - I watched Apollo 13 again last night). If we thirst for spiritual enrichment, how do we get it? How can this quest tell us more about who we are and how our rich traditions, in their fullness, can guide us in our spiritual journey?

I hope you and/or CTG will start us off with a new thread.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

There are many beautiful things about Eastern Orthodoxy and I have always respect them for their ability to retain tradition (I’m sorry but I have not heard one incident of liturgical abuse in an Eastern Orthodox church). However there are unresolved differences. First let be clear we understand and acknowledge the patriarch of each rite, as we have done thousands of years ago in the early church. However as the Church back then we understand the importance of recognizing Roman primacy, that the Roman pontiff is Primus Inter Pares. But he is still just a bishop and a priest, and serves the same function as his Eastern brethren (most notably his Eastern Catholic patriarchs.). In fact the Roman pontiff role isn’t too different from the role of the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople who also claim to be primus inter pares in the Eastern Orthodox communion.

Another notorious problem is the creed. Currently the theory is that the Western bishops altered the creed in Latin to allow the faithful to understand it more. However you’ll have to forgive my ignorance in this matter.

Most of the problems left to me are nuisances. For example both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics believe in an intermediate state between life and death but Eastern Orthodox does not believe in purgatory or immediate heaven or hell and instead believe both the blessed and the damned will go to a limbo where the blessed will enjoy foretaste of bliss til the last judgement. Interesting narrative, but both Catholics and Orthodox basically believe in the same things: there’s redemption and damnation, there’s an intermediate state between life and death, it is important to pray for departed souls.

In addiction Eastern Orthodox often rejects scholasticism where as Roman Catholics embrace it. This probably stems from the difference in understanding where Latin rite Catholics tends to intellectualize the faith and Eastern Orthodox tends toward the more mystical side of the faith. However I must say that Roman Catholics do not believe philosophy is greater than theology or faith, but like St.Paul we use philosophy to understand the faith better and to preach the faith better as well.

 

[Madaglan]

Very clear answer “THANK YOU” my that was like pulling teeth.

This here “the pious lay people attend various liturgical services at church (e.g. vespers, akathists, canons, presanctified liturgies etc” Do you have links to these so I can read up on them. Your very kind and to the point, seriously an issue here.

This book, although some 100 years old, does a good job in giving descriptions of the major services of the Orthodox Church.

archive.org/stream/amanualoftheorth00sokouoft/amanualoftheorth00sokouoft_djvu.txt

The whole book is worthwhile to read (especially in print, which includes pictures of what is described), but for the section on public worship, you can start around p 32.

The book does not explain everything, but the site www.orthodoxwiki.org also provides decent information. For example, the article on “Akathist”: orthodoxwiki.org/Akathist

 

[Marybeloved]

The “confusion” is uniquely Catholic in that the Church has made the definitive and exceptional gesture of unilaterally allowing Orthodox Christians to receive the Holy Eucharist in the Catholic Church, which is the ultimate expression of unity. It is clear at this time that Orthodoxy does not accept the role and functional authority of the Papacy as it exists today. No other Church evolved the Papacy other than the Roman Catholic Church. We as Catholics must strive to understand this both in light of Catholic teaching and in light of the views of recent Pontiffs themselves, including Pope Benedict XVI.

Cavaradossi has said that he does not understand how rejection of the papacy is not considered heresy but only schism, which I find to be a perfectly reasonable query. I said that the confusion is similar for any church that believes in the one true church… necessary for salvation etc, yet recognizes non-heretical schismatic bodies outside communion with itself. That remains true-regardless of whether communion is received or not, the fact is that the body having broken communion is considered schismatic, not heretical, while membership in the OHCAC is affirmed as central. I also don’t know what you mean that no other church evolved the papacy but the Roman- The papacy is Roman, always has been, and it is only one, the Roman Pontiff. If you mean that other churches not in communion with Rome rejected it, then sure! If you mean that the pre-schism church did not have the unique and authoritative role of the papacy, then of course I’ll politely but strongly disagree- Many threads discuss that, I’m sure, not about to start that here.

Also, the CCC clearly defines schismatics in a manner that includes all the Orthodox outside communion with the Roman pontiff. That’s just the way it is. If we start with terms like “imperfect communion” then I’m afraid that includes all the baptized Trinitarian Christians, many of whom we consider heretical in no uncertain terms. I’m hoping that we can achieve a full communion with all our separated brethren one day. The magisterium is doing all it can humanly do to achieve it. But certain things are the way they are, including the doctrinal place of the papacy in the church.

 

[Lucky7]

The “confusion” is uniquely Catholic in that the Church has made the definitive and exceptional gesture of unilaterally allowing Orthodox Christians to receive the Holy Eucharist in the Catholic Church, which is the ultimate expression of unity. It is clear at this time that Orthodoxy does not accept the role and functional authority of the Papacy as it exists today. No other Church evolved the Papacy other than the Roman Catholic Church. We as Catholics must strive to understand this both in light of Catholic teaching and in light of the views of recent Pontiffs themselves, including Pope Benedict XVI.

A good point indeed. Was this always allowed? Or is this post-vatican II? Because it seems to me that if you are not in communion with the Pope, then you should not receive communion in a RCC.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Cavaradossi has said that he does not understand how rejection of the papacy is not considered heresy but only schism, which I find to be a perfectly reasonable query.

As do I, and it is clear that many Catholics (myself included) would have a hard time crafting such an explanation.

I said that the confusion is similar for any church that believes in the one true church… necessary for salvation etc, yet recognizes non-heretical schismatic bodies outside communion with itself.

Well, that presupposes that other Churches or ecclesiastical communities believe that they are indeed the one true church, to the exclusion of all others.

I’m sure Cavaradossi would confirm that Orthodoxy doesn’t necessarily concern itself which what it does not know to be the True Church. It tends to focus on that which can be known, and logically that means the focus is on their own faith and Church.

I also don’t know what you mean that no other church evolved the papacy but the Roman

The dogma of Pastor Aeternus was exclusively expressed by the Roman Catholic Church in relatively recent history. It was not a declaration of ecumenical council (nor the early Church) with all of the Apostolic Churches represented.

The papacy is Roman, always has been, and it is only one, the Roman Pontiff. If you mean that other churches not in communion with Rome rejected it, then sure! If you mean that the pre-schism church did not have the unique and authoritative role of the papacy, then of course I’ll politely but strongly disagree- Many threads discuss that, I’m sure, not about to start that here.

I’m Catholic, so arguing with me about whether or not the Catholic Church is right or true would be like us arguing over the color of my eyes. You might simply say “brown”, whereas my mother might describe the color as “almond”, the latter being more descriptive but equally correct. As an Eastern Catholic, I have no choice but to see “almond” first, because we must strive to understand all of the Church’s teachings from the perspective of Eastern theology and experience. Simply knowing “we are right” from faithful witness is not enough from our side, which straddles both traditions.

Also, the CCC clearly defines schismatics in a manner that includes all the Orthodox outside communion with the Roman pontiff.

But does the Church currently refer to the Orthodox as schismatic?

At the end of the day, I now understand you were making a more general statement, but in earlier context, it seemed to directly tie to the discussion of unilateral admission of Communion to the Orthodox faithful. By permitting this before a full communion is jointly restored, the Catholic Church did indeed create a situation that is confusing to many. That said, I have come to understand why it did so, and it is because She believes so clearly in the unique Petrine ministry entrusted to Her. In that regard, this is indeed an ecumenical situation unique to the Catholic Church, but for the staunchest of supporters, it should with proper understanding and context be a source of great joy.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I would like to know what the most important thing is for someone examining Orthodoxy to consider.

I had a really great experience at a local Orthodox Church this past Sunday and am very intrigued.

As my name on here suggests “Come Home to Rome”, I am very partial to my Catholic Church.

After my shockingly positive experience, at the very least I will examine the Orthodox Churches.

In the process, don’t want to leave a single rock unturned.

This thread seems to have strayed off topic from your original question. I hope to try and respond to your question itself and thereby pull at least part of this conversation back on topic.

As an Eastern Catholic who has worked for a number of years in Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical relation, I would echo more-or-less what our brother, Constantine, has said. Do not attempt to compare Orthodox (or Eastern Catholic) theology to Roman/Latin Catholic theology. As someone else has so wisely pointed out, we not only go about theology in different ways, but we even ask different questions. This is due primarily because of differences in the historical and cultural developments that conditioned the Churches of the East and West (to say nothing of the Oriental Churches). So while we do hold to one and the same essential Faith, we express that Faith very differently to the point that, on the surface, we often seem to be contradicting one another.

Pope John Paul II encouraged all Catholics, and Roman Catholics in particular, to become familiar with, and to develop a deep love of, the traditions, spirituality, theology, and history of the Eastern Churches. Here he was speaking not so much of the Eastern Catholic Churches - although they are certainly implied - but of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches who are the Mother Churches of all the Eastern Catholic Churches (save the Maronites). So as an Eastern Catholic I would certainly encourage you to study both Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism.

To that end there are a number of things you can do. First, attend Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox parish at least on regular occasions (not necessarily every Sunday). Implied in such an attendance would also be attendance at the other liturgical (Liturgy of the Hours) and para-liturgical (akathists, molebens, paraklesis) services offered in most Eastern Catholic and Orthodox parishes. To really understand Eastern thought, theology, and spirituality, one has to be intimately familiar with the full liturgical life of the East, not just the Divine Liturgy.

There are also some wonderful books out there that you could read. The books The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way by Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia are considered by many to be essential introductory reading for inquirers into Orthodoxy (and Eastern Catholicism). I would agree and add to it his wonderful The Inner Kingdom as a basic introductory text to Eastern/Byzantine spirituality as well. Also, the Light for Life catechetical series published by the Byzantine Catholic company “God With Us” publications, is excellent and well worth the money. Finally, my personal all-time favorite is Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop Joseph Raya’s book Face of God. You can’t go wrong with any of these books.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

That’s a really interesting thought …

Thread-worthy, perhaps?

I agree. The question is, where to start the thread.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I agree. The question is, where to start the thread.

I would imagine Liturgy and Sacraments

 

[dzheremi]

The question of the OP is best asked and answered in an Orthodox environment, not Roman Catholic. All of the suggestions that the OP instead look into Eastern Catholic Churches instead, while completely in line with Roman Catholic teaching, do nothing to answer her question on the basics of Eastern Orthodox theology.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The question of the OP is best asked and answered in an Orthodox environment, not Roman Catholic. All of the suggestions that the OP instead look into Eastern Catholic Churches instead, while completely in line with Roman Catholic teaching, do nothing to answer her question on the basics of Eastern Orthodox theology.

Hence my suggestions to participate as much as possible in the Orthodox liturgical life as well as reading the suggested books by Met. Kallistos Ware. The thing is, these same principles could be equally applied to Roman Catholics looking into Eastern Catholicism.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I would imagine Liturgy and Sacraments

Let’s do it. I’ll send you a PM.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I agree. The question is, where to start the thread.

For anyone interested, a new thread has been started in “Liturgy and Sacraments” for discussing any possible connection between liturgical abuse in the Latin Church and the lack of a broader liturgical life at the popular level outside of the Mass.

 

[5Loaves]

Very clear answer “THANK YOU” my that was like pulling teeth.

And preparation for Eucharist for Orthodox and Eastern Catholics includes abstaining from marital relations. So for parish priests who are typically married men, and for us married lay folks that preparation for daily Eucharist would be a problem. Monasteries are populated with celibate monastics, and cathedrals often have attached to them either a number of married priests who can take turns or/and some celibate monks which helps account for the ability to have daily Eucharist. Maybe that helps explain this to you.

This here “the pious lay people attend various liturgical services at church (e.g. vespers, akathists, canons, presanctified liturgies etc” Do you have links to these so I can read up on them. Your very kind and to the point, seriously an issue here.

I find the wikipedia and orthodoxwiki are both good sources for basic information and often, as with this about Presanctified Liturgy if you then click on links within the text you can get a very expensive amount of helpful information.

The daily office in the East is a vastly complicated thing to put together. Various jurisdictions provide daily limited materials from the Horologion on line, like the daily scripture, the daily Troparion and Kontakion, and readings on the saints of the day. Greek Orthodox and the Melkite are a couple of examples that come as daily emails. I don’t know if the OCA has an app or daily email like those two do.

I know Jack Figel at Eastern Christian Publications was offering “Byzantine Daily Office” by subscription all the readings for the daily office. I don’t know if that is happening or not. It seemed like a really good idea.

I think most of us have a couple of favorite prayer books we use for daily prayers, with the addition of the readily available readings on the saints and scripture for the day. Someone did a really good review of various prayer books on their site. I’m thinking it was Adam DeVille but I’m not finding it. There are threads in the EC section of CAF on prayer books. Some that come to mind which I have used are Publican’s Prayer Book from the Melkites, A Prayer Book for Orthodox Christians, from Holy Transfiguration Monastery, and the Jordanville Prayerbook from Holy Trinity Monastery which text is also on line

 

[Nicea325]

It is true that Orthodox do not teach that there is any one single human person who is ‘head’ of the church. This is a teaching unique to Roman Catholicism and no other Apostolic church.

The Orthodox belief is that Christ is head of the church, and that is what is taught.

Of what Orthodox do teach, what is not true?

Unique only to the Roman Catholic Church? Not true! What about the other 22 Eastern Rites in communion with Rome?

And what makes you believe the CC does not teach Christ is the Head of Church? Apparently he chose to 12 men for a reason and they in turn had successors.

 

[Nicea325]

Orthodox don’t only have different answers ; they ask different questions.

Also, theology itself is understood differently. Theology is not something one learns through intellectual study so much as experientially through the ascetic life. The true theologians are those illumined by the Holy Spirit and who are experiencing theosis (being divinized by grace) .

There are Orthodox "theologians " according to the Western understanding of educated professionals, and these oftentimes are respected bishops and monks, but Orthodox theology also possesses a strong Patristic and monastic character which is in my view less common in Roman Catholic theology.

Less common in Roman Catholic theology? Not necessarily true. Look at the number of monastic orders under Catholicism. Some of the great minds were from monastic orders.