Is Eastern Orthodoxy stuck in the past?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
FIRST: I mean no disrespect. I had to figure out a way to express my question in as a direct way as possible. I appreciate Eastern Orthodoxy so much. I love their devotion to ancient Christianity as well as their spiritual patrimony and liturgical expressions. Personally, I don’t see Orthodoxy wrong as much as I do see them as lacking a certain fullness or catholicity.

QUESTION: Again, this is hard for me to express in a concise question. So let me throw out a few things and see if you guys can help me out. Eastern Orthodoxy is directly related to the liturgical and theological traditions of the early centuries of the church, especially the third and fourth onward, with particular liturgical foundation in Constantinople (and so on). Yes, these are ancient and beautiful expressions, but they are not identical to “early Christianity.” As in, if you were Christian in the second century, you wouldn’t have the same liturgical or artistic expressions as Orthodoxy now does. There probably wasn’t incense or vestments or icons or the same prayers and so forth. So yes, Eastern Orthodox liturgy is very old, but it is not equivalent to “apostolic” Christianity.

This is true enough for Catholic practices as well, but I don’t think Catholicism is stuck in the past. It seems our liturgies have developed over time, as have our artistic styles, and so on. But there is no inherent reason why a Catholic Mass ought to have the same embellishments as a fourth century liturgy. Catholics uphold and look to the church fathers, but we don’t only emphasize them. Catholicism has developed theology in the form of councils and papal teaching since the schism, and so on.

I guess my main point could be described like this: Orthodoxy gives an impression of being ancient and different, when really it seems to be stuck in a certain era. Whereas, I would argue, Catholicism includes this “era” but has continued to develop.

Can you guys help me to better understand my own thoughts?
 
Some would say that the EO tendency to stay close to those ancient customs is what makes them more attractive, so some don’t see it as a negative. Anyway, yeah it’s so sad that Catholicism and EO are split right now. Lets Just keep working on unification and praying for it. I keep thinking how amazing it will be, how much territory and people it would encompase, all under 1 church. Boy!
 
Some would say that the EO tendency to stay close to those ancient customs is what makes them more attractive, so some don’t see it as a negative.
Click to expand...
Oh yes it’s definitely beautiful and attractive and enriching. But I think some may confuse these maintained practices as equivalent to being 100% faithful to the “original church,” when actually it’s more like a snapshot of 500+ years (AD300-800 and so on) that’s been carried over to today. In other words, it could almost be argued to be a church that kinda just stopped developing and has hunkered down on particular liturgical expressions that developed in Byzantium.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
other words, it could almost be argued to be a church that kinda just stopped developing and has hunkered down on particular liturgical expressions that developed in Byzantium.
Click to expand...
The orthodox church has not stuck in the past just because old hymns are sung. It’s changing every time there is a need for change, and especially after the soviet diaspora many changes were made to keep the spirit alive. I feel hold by tradition and guided, not forced.
 
Last edited:
Are those liturgical expressions somehow wrong, or deficient? If so, the Catholic Church shares that problem, since they are the liturgical expressions of a number of Eastern Catholic Churches.
 
I don’t really understand what you are asking. You are talking about the Liturgy, but are defining the whole faith based on the specific liturgy. Before the West left the Church, there was a Liturgy attributed to St. Gregory the Great that was seen as completely Holy by the Eastern Churches. Most Catholics agree that the Eastern Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is perfectly fine. So I do not see how this has anything to do with being “stuck in the past”. There are many pious Roman Catholics that are not happy with the innovations and changes to the RCC liturgy and prefer to go back to the Latin Mass that is similar to the old way. Do you consider them “stuck in the past?”

Also, most people that convert to the Orthodox Church do so because they believe the Church to be the only Church and the only Faithful continuer of the Ancient Faith, not because they love the way the Liturgy looks. It makes sense that Christ’s Church will have a beautiful Liturgy, but like you said, it developed and took different forms in the early Church, so it is not as rigid as the Faith of the Orthodox Church. This is were in reality, the Orthodox Faith shines in comparison to the RCC. We hold to the Fathers and continue to call Holy men in the recent centuries Fathers of the Church. The RCC follows all kinds of things as you have mentioned and this is what helps many to come to the Orthodox Church. A few things that sparked my conversion were the innovations that the RCC has made with regard to the Sacraments and the incorporation of the Protestant Pentecostal movement into many parts of the RCC. Triple Immersion virtually does not exist, communion of the Christ’s Blood is frowned upon or not done, celibacy is forced on clergy, confirmation and communion are withheld from baptized infants for no good reason until much later, null marriages for any reason, etc.
 
catholic1seeks said:
I guess my main point could be described like this: Orthodoxy gives an impression of being ancient and different, when really it seems to be stuck in a certain era
Click to expand...
That’s not totally accurate. Orthodoxy has had schisms as well. “Old believers” are Orthodox who follow the liturgical books previous to the 17th C., and didn’t follow the changes that came down then.

The Orthodox definitely move forward and change, and they get some kick back when they do, as you know the Catholic Church has “old believer” Latin Mass types too, some of whom are schismatic.
 
As the old joke goes:

How many Orthodox does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: The Orthodox DO NOT change!

🙂

hawk
 
No they are not wrong.

But I think it’s a mistake to see these ancient practices as somehow equivalent to the “original” church. Like, it wasn’y necessary to develop icons, and yet Orthodoxy makes that an almost essential part of their liturgical tradition.
 
There has been more liturgical and doctrinal development in Eastern Orthodoxy than some Orthodox Christians would like to let on…
 
Before the West left the Church
Click to expand...
You’re on a Catholic forum 😉 At least be a little more objective if you’re going to expect dialogue – just my opinion. West and East grew apart.
 
That’s because, we as Catholics, view the liturgy as a living, breathing plant. Over the years we’ve changed things in order for this organism to grow slowly more alive, adding and taking away things that might damage the plant. Eastern Orthodoxy I think actually has a better view of this than we do. They don’t need to look outside to the world to see what needs to be changed. Trends come and go.
 
I thought I tried to make clear in my OP about my respect for Orthodoxy so that people wouldn’t become so defensive. I also admitted to having trouble with clarifying my exact question.

So let me reiterate: I think Orthodoxy is beautiful, and I don’t see it as “wrong” so much as lacking.

That being said, part of what led to this question is that I feel as though my Protestant friends who are being attracted to Orthodoxy see it as utterly different and ancient, so as perhaps giving a false impression that Christianity must be this way: must have icons and certain liturgical styles. To me, it seems Orthodoxy developed a certain liturgical flavor that was not essential, and it is marked by this Byzantine flavor. Whereas Catholicism continues to embrace East and West and multiple approaches to liturgy and spirituality that have developed over the years.

Also, don’t make this an East-West debate about the schism or who “left” the true church.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
Also, don’t make this an East-West debate about the schism or who “left” the true church.
Click to expand...
I get what you’re saying in the OP - the Eastern Orthodox, by and large, have a serious problem where ANYTHING that did not develop and take route within the Byzantine Empire is viewed with intense suspicion. So called “Western Rite” Orthodox, who use a Byzantinized form of the Tridentine Mass, are viewed by many Orthodox as an embarrassment or even as heretical. This is a huge issue.

Another thing I should add is this: I look at both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, not as if they are “rival” Churches, but as they are particular Churches within the Catholic Church, which for various reasons are not in full Communion with the rest of the Catholic Church.

When you look at the numbers of Orthodox populations, you can clearly see this - the Eastern Orthodox are NOT a Universal Church - they are the Greco-Slavic Catholic Churches. The vast, VAST majority of Eastern Orthodox believers either live in, or are ethnically from just a handful of Countries; namely, Russia, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece. Over 90% of all EO in the world either live in these countries or are one of these nationalities. The remainder live in various other Slavic or Middle Eastern nations, particularly in the Balkans and the area around Palestine - a very tiny minority (maybe 5-10% overall) neither live in these areas nor are ethnic members of these groups.

The same goes for the Oriental Orthodox. The OO I generally refer to as the Afro-Asiatic Catholic Churches. The vast, VAST majority of OO either live in, or are ethnically members of the Ethiopian, Coptic(Egyptian), or Armenian Churches. The remainder are of various other Middle Eastern and Indian groups, with a small minority being people who neither live in nor are ethnic members of these groups.

My point is the EO/OO are not rival Churches. I view them similarly to the SSPX - they are a part of the Catholic Church whose canonical status is irregular and full Communion is lacking.
 
My point is the EO/OO are not rival Churches. I view them similarly to the SSPX - they are a part of the Catholic Church whose canonical status is irregular and full Communion is lacking.
Click to expand...
I like this perspective and I think many informed Catholics, and also members of the hierarchy, understand it like this. I’m unsure if many Orthodox think as kindly though.
 
Funny it’s the same thing I keep hearing some people say about Catholic church.

When it comes to traditional music and hymns I wish Catholic church would have stayed with them. Some of this new music at Mass is not my idea of church music, to put it mildly.
 
Well you messed up by asking if “Orthodoxy” is stuck in the past, not it’s liturgy and practices. Also, why you would use protestant’s opinions about what they think about the Orthodox Church to condemn Orthodox customs makes no sense. And for clarity, it is perfectly fine to explain the Orthodox Church’s view of “The Church” by saying that the Roman Churches left the Church. This is also a teaching that helps many to join the Orthodox Church, that we do not believe in a branch theory or that other groups are part of The Church. This does not mean that all are condemned to hell or anything, but that it makes no sense to define the Church any different than it was defined since it’s beginning. Clarity is a little more important in the East than in the West, as seen by many forms that a RC can take. You can be pretty much an Orthodox Christian not in communion with the Orthodox Church, or you can be pretty much a Pentecostal Protestant in communion with Rome. This is too much ambiguity.
 
catholic1seeks said:
I’m unsure if many Orthodox think as kindly though.
Click to expand...
The Orthodox hierarchy, especially the Ecumenical Patriarchate, does.

The EP refers to the Roman Church as a “sister Church” and His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew I refers to His Holiness Pope Francis as a brother.

So at the highest level, the EO do view the Catholic Church in this way.

Unfortunately, due to a lack of central authority in the Greco-Slavic Churches, there is no way of ensuring everyone is on the same page.

Some EO - even some Monks on the Holy Mt. Athos - refuse to even pray for the Ecumenical Patriarch and despise him as an “ecumenist heretic.”

I’ve come to the conclusions I have after years of study, particularly 9 months as a Russian Orthodox catechumen, and then lots of studying of the documents of VII. Also, from studying some of the documents of the Ecumenical Patriarchchate of Constantinople.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top