Is Eastern Orthodoxy stuck in the past?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah I’m unsure of what it means for Orthodox to consider the “true church.” Do all Orthodox churches have to be in communion with each other as a marker for who consists of the “Orthodox Church”?
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
each other
Click to expand...
On paper, yes.

But there have been certain situations in recent history where Church A is in communion with Church B, and Church C is in communion with Church B, but Churches A and C are not in communion with each other.

These issues sometimes take years to fix, again going back to the lack of a central authority in Holy Orthodoxy.

Then there’s the issue of autocephaly and autonomy - Ukraine is an absolute mess right now.

Do a quick google of “Christianity in Ukraine” and prepare to be mind boggled.
 
Last edited:
@Spyridon Then by this definition, it doesn’t make sense to say West left East. Even in the Orthodox perspective, it’s not as if every single church other than Rome cut off communion with Rome all at once. I just find it rather confusing. I guess that’s one reason for the need for a central unifying figure, the See of Peter. #Cyprian

Or at least the need to be historically objective and fair…
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
The EP refers to the Roman Church as a “sister Church”
Click to expand...
Can you please cite where this was said. I know it is okay to speak of the RCC as a sister Church in the sense that she is like a sister that has left and could return, whereas churches that are pretty much modern innovations could not be described in this way.
 
From my understanding, this was common throughout history even before the schism so Rome was involved in these types of scenarios. It’s unfortunate, but does not really mean a lack of unity.
 
@pacloc

"This dialogue – through the Joint International Commission – has proved fruitful and has made substantial progress. A common sacramental conception of the Church has emerged, sustained and passed on in time by apostolic succession. In our Churches, the apostolic succession is fundamental to the sanctification and unity of the People of God. Considering that in every local Church the mystery of divine love is realized and that this is how the Church of Christ shows forth its active presence in each one of them, the Joint Commission has been able to declare that our Churches recognize one another as Sister Churches, responsible together for safeguarding the one Church of God, in fidelity to the divine plan, and in an altogether special way with regard to unity."

Paragraph #2 of the Common Declaration Signed in the Vatican by Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew (29 June, 1995).

Read in full at the website of the Ecumenical Patriarchate: Οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο

Like I said, this is coming from THE highest authority in Eastern Orthodoxy. According to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Ecumenical Patriarch himself, we are Sister Churches.

Other similar statements can be found in other documents from the EP. It is clear that the EP does not view Rome as some fallen den of heretics, but rather as a sister Church in Christ. And Rome views the Church of Constantinople in the same way, and embraces on her with filial love.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
it wasn’y necessary to develop icons, and yet Orthodoxy makes that an almost essential part of their liturgical tradition.
Click to expand...
It is an essential part of our tradition. That it is not in the RCC is yet another reason to side with the Orthodox Church. Could you explain how it wasn’t necessary to develop icons. What is necessary to you? Are you influenced by the Protestant movement of bare bones necessary essentials? Do you believe the tradition that St. Luke painted the first Icon of the Holy Virgin and Christ? Do you not believe that Icons are worthy of veneration and are proof of the Incarnation and teach the Gospel?
 
Icons are beautiful and uplifting but are not essential to liturgy or faith, and there is no one style of icons. I believe statues, stained glass, and other art mediums potentially have the same effect.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in an incarnational and sacramental church.

And I have no idea if the tradition about St. Luke is true or not. I believe icons are totally consistent with the Christian faith. Entire ecumenical councils have dealt with them. But I find it hard to believe first century Jewish Christians would so easily jump to depicting the faith in this way. Although there is early evidence of artistic depictions of Christ, say in the Roman catacombs.
 
Last edited:
I’ll read the whole thing in a while, but it does sound a little strange in the piece that you quoted. I would not say that the Orthodox Church views RC like a fallen den of heretics. I think most Orthodox Priests have very strong belief that many pious RC will be in heaven, but that we can’t just call groups that are in schism or heresy part of The Church. The pious people that were not part of The Church will join the Church after death it seems. I would rather people be RC than anything else beside Orthodox and I defend RC all of the time because we share much in common.
 
Now would be a good time to invoke some of the greatest Saints of East and West.

St. Andrew the first-called Apostle, pray for us
Sts. Peter and Paul the Apostles, pray for us

St. Athanasius the Great, pray for us
St. Ambrose of Milan, pray for us
St. Basil the Great, pray for us
St. Pope Gregory the Great, pray for us
St. John Chrysostom, pray for us
St. Jerome of Stridon, pray for us
St. Gregory the Theologian, pray for us
St. Blessed Augustine of Hippo, pray for us

St. Hilary of Poitiers, pray for us
St. John of Damascus, pray for us

St. Abba Anthony the Great, pray for us
St. Benedict of Nursia, pray for us

St. Hildegaard of Bingen, pray for us
St. Gregory of Narek, pray for us

St. Symeon the New Theologian, pray for us
St. Peter Damian, pray for us

St. Photius the Great, pray for us
St. Pope Nicholas the Great, pray for us

St. Gregory Palamas, pray for us
St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us

St. Mark of Ephesus, pray for us
St. Robert Bellarmine, pray for us

St. Basil the fool for Christ, pray for us
St. Francis of Assisi, pray for us

St. Seraphim of Sarov, pray for us
St. Therese of Lisieux, pray for us

St. John of San Francisco and Shanghai, pray for us
St. Padre Pio, pray for us

St. John of Krondstadt, pray for us
St. Pope Pius X, pray for us

St. Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow, pray for us
St. Pope John Paul II the Great, pray for us

All you holy Saints of the Orient, pray for us
All you holy Saints of the Occident, pray for us
 
I prefer to think that bishops make liturgical rules about things that can vary with an eye to what is best for their particular church. If the Eastern Orthodox bishops strictly avoid any liturgical changes, surely they have pastoral reasons for it. Latin Rite bishops, likewise, have had their reasons to make liturgical changes. They have pastoral care of churches with different needs. It isn’t as if one way is “right” and the other is “wrong.” Each bishop handles his duty and authority within certain boundaries necessary considering who his flock is, what the history of their church is and who his closest brother bishops are and the precedents their predecessors set, that is all.

Even human fathers and mothers within a given extended family have different rules for their own nuclear families, yet all turn out splendid children from their homes, but not necessarily with 100% “success” because their children all have their own free will. It is like that, I think.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I made the mistake of highlighting liturgy, but it’s not the only piece of the puzzle. It’s hard for me to explain what I mean.
 
pacloc said:
I would rather people be RC than anything else beside Orthodox and I defend RC all of the time because we share much in common.
Click to expand...
Likewise.

If someone would not be a Roman or Eastern Catholic, and I had to choose another Church for them to be in communion with, I’d first choose one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Next would be the Oriental Orthodox.

I’d really like to see the division between the OO and EO be fully healed and for there to be just one large Communion of Orthodox Churches.

It would make reestablishing full communion with the the Orthodox and Catholic Churches one step closer to fruition.

Sadly, at the present moment, too many OO regard the EO as Byzantine schismatics and EO regard OO as monophysite heretics, when in truth neither is the case.
 
If someone would not be a Roman or Eastern Catholic, and I had to choose another Church for them to be in communion with, I’d first choose one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Click to expand...
Question.

Even if communion with the Catholic Church and certain other individual non-Catholic Eastern churches is possible, wouldn’t there end up being a duplicate church that maintained the previous tradition?

Say if Ecumenical Patriarch became Catholic and brought with him many Orthodox in his fold. Wouldn’t there just be a new Ecumenical Patriarch to continue on the Byzantine Orthodox tradition? Or is this not how it would work?
 
Last edited:
From what I see, the OO are usually communed in EO Church’s. I don’t think it is good if they don’t at least tell these OO that they need to accept the EO Bishops and the Councils that have been rejected by the OO before communing. Speaking to a few OO, they are not even aware of the difference in Churches. I don’t think there are any theological differences today, but I am not certain that this has always been the case, but for sure they reject councils and our Bishops and have their own. So this reunion should happen, but the OO will have to accept the Ecumenical Councils I am pretty sure. My view of the only way that the RCC and Orthodox Church will unite is if many RC start joining the Orthodox Church, proving to the RCC Bishops and Pope that the RCC wants a more traditional Church, and rejects all of the modernism and Protestant influences. I know that this is probably a big hang up from the Orthodox view, bands in Mass, all the sacrament innovations I mentioned earlier, alter girls, etc. that many traditional Catholics already want stop. And if the RCC doesn’t want to make these changes, well at least all of these pious people from the RCC are in communion with the Orthodox Church. I think the Western rite sounds like an awesome way for this to be done. I have not been to one of their liturgies, but would really like to. I have never heard an Orthodox Christian question their validity as was mentioned earlier.
 
that the RCC wants a more traditional Church, and rejects all of the modernism and Protestant influences
Click to expand...
This gets back to this thread’s topic. What is a more “traditional church?” A church of the fourth century? Eighth? Why the first millennium? Why do these customs have priority, if they are not even inherently connected to the Apostles? Why not altar girls? Why not newer musical instruments? Doesn’t music evolve? What is a “Protestant” influence? And is all Protestant influence bad?

Focusing in more on the original question: It seems that “orthodoxy” for many Eastern Orthodox is equated to mean a certain stream of liturgical traditions that arose out of Byzantium, including everything from a certain artistic style of icons to liturgy to theological approaches. But the Apostles were not Byzantines.

Nothing is wrong with the Byzantine expression of the faith. Or the Roman one, for that matter. Or the Syriac. But my impression is that Catholicism better embraces the fullness of Christian expression and does not see the necessity of fixating on one way of doing liturgy or approaching the faith.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
What is a more “traditional church?”
Click to expand...
All of this can be answered by RC. That you like Protestantism’s influence is a reason for the proposed idea of reconciliation that I mentioned. Try actually reading full homilies of Fathers of the Church, Sts. Ambrose, Gregory the Great, Jerome, Augustine and see if their way of thinking, practice, teaching, asceticism, etc. matches the Orthodox or the Protestant Churches.
 
catholic1seeks said:
It seems that “orthodoxy” for many Eastern Orthodox is equated to mean a certain stream of liturgical traditions that arose out of Byzantium, including everything from a certain artistic style of icons to liturgy to theological approaches. But the Apostles were not Byzantines
Click to expand...
This is blasphemous to consider the Fathers of the Church as not having the same “mind” of Christ and of the Apostles. Thinking that Byzantine Fathers have their own theological approaches and not that of God is heretical. The West I think technically still believes this, but I don’t think that it is being taught anymore. Their names and writings have infallibly been regarded as Inspired and faithful summaries and explanations of the Gospel.

You seem to want to have the possibility of coming up with alternative views of things that came from heretics. This is fine I guess, but I would try leaving the RCC alone in doing so.
 
pacloc said:
All of this can be answered by RC. That you like Protestantism’s influence is a reason for the proposed idea of reconciliation that I mentioned. Try actually reading full homilies of Fathers of the Church, Sts. Ambrose, Gregory the Great, Jerome, Augustine and see if their way of thinking, practice, teaching, asceticism, etc. matches the Orthodox or the Protestant Churches.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the difference goes back to Rome being willing to translate the Mass out of Greek and into Latin.
(I am told the Greek Kyrie was not preserved, but rather re-introduced.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top