Is Eastern Orthodoxy stuck in the past?

[pacloc]

Oh, THIS is apostolic. THIS is the original church. I NEED icons, and all Byzantine embellishments, in order to be in communion with the ORIGINAL church.”

I am pretty sure I am understanding you, but I think you are misunderstanding people that enter into the Orthodox Church and adopt what you keep calling byzantine traditions. The tradition of “Icons” period is not byzantine now or maybe never was, it is part of “The Church’s” tradition. What other byzantine embellishments you are speaking about, I don’t know, but the fact that you are calling them embellishments also means that you do not consider them “The Church’s” tradition, which seems that you are saying you can remove all of these things just because. The Orthodox Church is not a minimalist Church, we have been given Holy practices from Holy men and we cherish them. What you see as The Orthodox Church is a group of Holy Practices that heal the souls of it’s members. Other than styles, these things have BECOME the Church’s Tradition no matter where they came from, because they came from the Mind of Christ. So “A Liturgy” that re-presents the life/death/sacrifice/resurrection of Christ is NECESSARY. Icons are NECESSARY. Prayer Rules are NECESSARY. A reverent Liturgy is NECESSARY. Reading the Fathers and the Lives of the Saints is NECESSARY. Practicing the Sacraments in the way that the Fathers described is NECESSARY. Etc.

 

[pacloc]

Good! Now I only hope Orthodox can see legitimacy in the Roman rite

Also, did you know that during the weekdays in Holy Lent we do presanctified Divine Liturgies that are credited to Gregory the Great? Now, they seem to have also been “Easternized”, but the idea Is still there that there was nothing wrong with the western liturgy.

 

[Spyridon]

So “A Liturgy” that re-presents the life/death/sacrifice/resurrection of Christ is NECESSARY. Icons are NECESSARY. Prayer Rules are NECESSARY. A reverent Liturgy is NECESSARY. Reading the Fathers and the Lives of the Saints is NECESSARY. Practicing the Sacraments in the way that the Fathers described is NECESSARY. Etc

I’m not sure why he would disagree with any of this.

This is 100% Catholic teaching as well as Orthodox.

 

[PetraG]

Icons are necessary? Do you mean these are saramentals instituted by Christ Himself? I am confused.

 

[Spyridon]

I think by necessary he means an integral part of our Holy Faith, not that they are literally necessary for a Liturgy to take place.

 

[pacloc]

In a way yes. They are inspired by God and many have had miracles proving God’s approval. Councils have ruled on their necessity and Saints have died for their use. It is something that can never be done away with. They are required for Liturgy as well.

 

[guanophore]

So yes, Eastern Orthodox liturgy is very old, but it is not equivalent to “apostolic” Christianity.

There is a distinction between “apostolic Christianity” and liturgy. When you put it like this, one has to wonder if you are referring to doctrine?

I agree with you, liturgy in the first three centuries was much more austere. Christianity was illegal, and often practiced in catacombs, private homes and desolate locations to prevent persecution. That would make the “bells and smells” we love so much contraindicated.

The doctrines are apostolic, if the liturgical practices have grown around them, but in both Latin and Eastern traditions, the Church believes as she prays.

 

[Spyridon]

They aren’t absolutely necessary for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy.

Here’s Metropolitan Hilarion celebrating in the Catacombs. (Note the similarity between this setup and the way the OF Roman Mass is celebrated in some places)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PetraG]

That makes sense. Rosary only more so.

 

[tad]

This is why I can’t be Orthodox, I can’t grow a beard.

 

[dochawk]

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.

There is nothing irregular about their canonical status it is exactly the same same as before. It’s Communion that is lacking.

I like this perspective and I think many informed Catholics, and also members of the hierarchy, understand it like this.

+Benedict would be one of those hierarchs . . .

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

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church itself is fine–it entered Communion with Rome centuries ago, and has largely recovered from the Communist suppression. However, the new church created by the NVK/KGB during the suppression (they gathered some UC priests under gunpoint, but no bishops, and some RO bishops, and purported to act as the church . . .), the church raised by the EP, and the other one thrown in for good measure to be separate from those two, can fairly be described as “chaos”.

On the bright side, these four potentially merging into a church with at least partial communion with Rome and some EO is what of the bright spots . . .

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.

This is wrong in a number of ways. I don’t want to be contentious, but it can fairly be described as “ignorant”.

Unlike statues and stained glass, icons are prayers that we seek to join, not art.

Also, while literacy was the exception, not the norm, Icons were the “textbooks”, the primary instructional materials.

They weren’t an affectation, or something beautiful (most stained glass are far more beautiful), but instructional material critical to the early church.

I could go on, but that’s for another thread.

and I defend RC all of the time because we share much in common.

When my son in law was in an apprenticeship program, it was the RO on the site that stuck up for him and “took care of” those pushing him around for being (Eastern) Catholic . . . as it happens, about the same time, a RO client of mine noticed my tribal cross and asked if I was Orthodox. To my “Eastern Cathtolic” response, he shrugged and said “same thing.”

hawk

 

[dochawk]

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

when the entire Ukrainian church entered communion with Rome, another Orthodox church was raised–albeit centuries later. I think the entire Ruthenian church also moved, but I’m not sure.

And the same thing happened when the Church of Antioch entered Communion with Rome (without repudiating Communion with Constantinople)–the EP raised the Antioch Orthodox Church for the dissenting clergy (And for the record, both the election of the new Patriarch [two bishops consecrated a third so they could have an election] and the EP’s synod [with only his own bishops, and none from the Antioch church] were quite irregular).

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.

Aside from the fact that they always had their own, just like the various EO . . . their bishops came to Chalcedon, but didn’t get there by the time the issues were covered, and the others wouldn’t reopen to discuss. A millennium and a half later, the Catholic/OO dialog basically came out, blushed, and said, "err, never mind; we were saying the same thing all along, just using different words, and neither of us was saying what the other said we were saying. "

At the moment, OO and RC are probably closer than eO and either of the others.

Perhaps the difference goes back to Rome being willing to translate the Mass out of Greek and into Latin.

Gosh, they were just following the eastern tradition of the vernacular (and it kind of got out of control!)

hawk

 

[catholic1seeks]

He’s pre-schism by quite a few centuries But this is definitely something to build on and celebrate!

 

[catholic1seeks]

Apostolic Tradition is different from “traditions.” I don’t think the latter is bad. I’m just saying we can’t equate it to the apostolic teaching as such.

So it depends on what was meant by necessary. To get back to icons: I don’t think icons are dispensable, but I don’t think they are necessary in the same way Baptism, or the Eucharist, or the Creed, or Apostolic Succession are necessary.

I once went to a talk held at the local Orthodox church. It was on icons. And the speaker asked a rhetorical question: “Are icons necessary for salvation? Well, in that case, is the Bible necessary for salvation?” I didn’t think it was good of him to equate the written Word of God with icons in the same sense of “salvation,” which seemed to be his point.

But I want you and me to have common ground. I LOVE icons, and I think they are enriching, whether in the Byzantine form, or in some other 2-dimensional painting, or a statue, or stained glass. In order to connect this all back to the original post, I would still maintain that many may mistake culture for the substance of the faith. This can happen in Catholicism too, or in any faith. But when I say Orthodoxy “stuck in the past,” there seems to be an unbalanced exaltation of a certain era of the church. Yes, this era was early. But think of it like this. In 10,000 years, our current era will be seen as “early Christian” in some way. Will it still be necessary to adhere to the practices of 300AD-800AD (for example) in 10,000 years? I hope that illustrates my point.

 

[catholic1seeks]

This is wrong in a number of ways. I don’t want to be contentious, but it can fairly be described as “ignorant”.

Unlike statues and stained glass, icons are prayers that we seek to join, not art.

Also, while literacy was the exception, not the norm, Icons were the “textbooks”, the primary instructional materials.

They weren’t an affectation, or something beautiful (most stained glass are far more beautiful), but instructional material critical to the early church.

I could go on, but that’s for another thread.

But I’m not talking about Christian art that is merely art.

I still maintain there is nothing intrinsic to a Byzantine-style icon that makes it particular; all of the detailed stylistic features were made by man over time in particular cultures: For example, that blue means this, that this halo means that, that these initials stand for this. Again, my point is icons of whatever style are not intrinsic to the Christian faith.

If anyone maintains that icons have to have certain inherent stylistic features in order to be prayerful encounters with God, Christ, and the saints, I would demand evidence from Christ or the Apostles and their successors that this was indeed part of the deposit of faith.

 

[Spyridon]

If anyone maintains that icons have to have certain inherent stylistic features in order to be prayerful encounters with God, Christ, and the saints, I would demand evidence from Christ or the Apostles and their successors that this was indeed part of the deposit of faith.

I see what you’re saying and agree fully.

Icons and religious imagery, in substance, are part of the Deposit of Faith due to the Incarnation.

But the particular forms those icons take - whether drawings in the catacombs, Byzantine style icons, Coptic iconography, Roman statuary, medieval Western religious art, etc. can change and vary with the time and culture.

I too have seen some Eastern Orthodox say that any iconography not in the strict Byzantine style is useless or somehow wrong - many of these types will even condemn statuary, even though statuary is seen in many Orthodox Churches. They say “oh that’s just a Latin corruption, not a legitimate Orthodox thing” - of course, because it’s not strictly Byzantine.

I’m with ya 100% on everything you’re saying, and I’ve definitely witnessed it myself. It’s a sort of Byzantine romanticism, sometimes bordering on Byzantine idolatry, where everything not strictly Byzantine is condemned outright. This thinking is very problematic, and is widespread in Holy Orthodoxy.

And again, there exists also a sort of Latin romanticism or even Latin idolatry amongst some Roman Catholics where anything not strictly Roman Catholic is viewed with suspicion, or even denigrated, but in my experience this type of attitude is not as widespread in the Roman Church as it is in the Greco-Slavic Churches, and it’s usually an attitude which is rooted in ignorance and unfamiliarity rather than hostility as it is in the Orthodox world.

 

[dochawk]

I still maintain there is nothing intrinsic to a Byzantine-style icon that makes it particular;

Neither am I. There are actually a couple of distinct styles.

The issue here is that icons, unlike statutes and windows, are prayers, not art. They are “written”, not painted. If Michelangelo were to sit down at a canvas and render something with the same visual elements, it would still be a painting (probably beautiful and awe-inspiring) but it would not be an icon.

While there are specific rules about them, these relate to theology and instructional roles. Where a figure is looking, for example, has meaning;it is not stylistic.

While they’re associated primarily with byzantine, they go back to the very early church.

If anyone maintains that icons have to have certain inherent stylistic features in order to be prayerful encounters with God, Christ, and the saints,

I’m not aware of anyone having said that. That,however, doesn’t make anything that leads to a prayerful encounter into an icon.

If you cook a patty of ground pork and put it in a bun, it may well be tasty and nutritious, but it isn’t a hamburger.

hawk