The Various Orthodox Churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter In_Hoc_Signo312
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

In_Hoc_Signo312

Guest
This is probably going to come off as a “messy” post since I’m asking about something I know almost nothing about.

There are a lot of Churches with the word “Orthodox” in them. When I see anything related to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, a lot of them appear to be “categorized” by nationality. You have Greek, Russian, Georgian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, and I’m sure there are more than that. Then you have even further distinctions, such as the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, or something like that?

Then even further than that you have the so-called Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Armenian Apostolic Church, which I asked about once on this forum.

Are all of these Churches in union with each other in the sense that say, a Greek Orthodox could receive Communion from a Bulgarian Orthodox Church? Is there anywhere I can learn if there’s a hierarchy within the Orthodox Community?

And there probably isn’t any simple answer to this but, what will it take for all three of these Churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox) to be in full Communion with each other? I think many of the eastern countries (and by extension, the respective Churches of each country) have a fascinating history and would love to be able attend any one of them and actually be able to receive Communion from them.
 
Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are closer to reunion than are Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.
In 1054, rather than trying to solve their differences peacefully, a Roman Catholic papal legate Humbertus, left a letter of excommunication on the altar of the Orthodox Church, the Hagia Sophia. Some of the reasons given for the excommunication were:

Married Orthodox clergy.
They did not add the filioque to the creed: " cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son;"
" they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church."
 
In_Hoc_Signo312 said:
This is probably going to come off as a “messy” post since I’m asking about something I know almost nothing about.

There are a lot of Churches with the word “Orthodox” in them. When I see anything related to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, a lot of them appear to be “categorized” by nationality. You have Greek, Russian, Georgian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, and I’m sure there are more than that. Then you have even further distinctions, such as the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, or something like that?

Then even further than that you have the so-called Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Armenian Apostolic Church, which I asked about once on this forum.

Are all of these Churches in union with each other in the sense that say, a Greek Orthodox could receive Communion from a Bulgarian Orthodox Church? Is there anywhere I can learn if there’s a hierarchy within the Orthodox Community?

And there probably isn’t any simple answer to this but, what will it take for all three of these Churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox) to be in full Communion with each other? I think many of the eastern countries (and by extension, the respective Churches of each country) have a fascinating history and would love to be able attend any one of them and actually be able to receive Communion from them.
Click to expand...
Well, first we must make a distinction between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox Church (Russian Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox etc.) are not in communion with the Oriental Orthodox Church (Coptic Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox etc.). This is because the Oriental Orthodox were accused by the Eastern Orthodox of being Miaphysites (the belief that Jesus human nature and divine nature are united as one nature). However, there seems to be a misunderstanding since Oriental Orthodox don’t really seem to teach Miaphysitism but rather teach the orthodox doctrine that Christ has two natures united as one person. It’s just that in the wake of the Nestorian issue, the Alexandrian school of thought was putting a lot of emphasis on the divinity of Christ which caused the Antiochian school to accuse the Alexandrians of teaching that Christ had one nature leading to the whole Monophysite issue and the Council of Chalcedon. Alexandria rejected the council accusing it of teaching Arianism and broke from the rest of the Church. Today, those who reject this council are known as Oriental Orthodox.

Both Churches are a communion of multiple different Churches and most are categorized by nationality. So, yes a Greek Orthodox could take communion in a Bulgarian Orthodox Church. However, he could not take communion in a Coptic Orthodox Church. Though, I do think the Oriental Orthodox would allow Eastern Orthodox to take their communion. But I’m not totally sure since I don’t know all the rules of the Oriental Orthodox.

As for union between all three Churches? Well, the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox could easily unite. There is no real theological difference separating them besides their misunderstanding of each other. For the Catholic Church to unite with them they would have to accept the universal authority of the Pope. Though that’s really it. Western theology on things such as purgatory and original sin would not be imposed on the Eastern Churches. Indeed, Eastern Catholics theology on these issues is the same as Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. The issue of the Pope is really the only thing separating us. I hope this helped! 🙂
 
thephilosopher6 said:
Well, first we must make a distinction between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox Church (Russian Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox etc.) are not in communion with the Oriental Orthodox Church (Coptic Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox etc.). This is because the Oriental Orthodox were accuse by the Eastern Orthodox of being Miaphysites (the belief that Jesus human nature and divine nature are united as one nature). However, there seems to be a misunderstanding since Oriental Orthodox don’t really seem to teach Miaphysitism but rather teach the orthodox doctrine that Christ has two natures united as one person. It’s just that in the wake of the Nestorian issue, the Alexandrian school of thought was putting a lot of emphasis on the divinity of Christ which caused the Antiochian school to accuse the Alexandrians of teaching that Christ had one nature leading to the whole Monophysite issue and the Council of Chalcedon. Alexandria rejected the council accusing it of teaching Arianism and broke from the rest of the Church. Today, those who reject this council are known as Oriental Orthodox.

Both Churches are a communion of multiple different Churches and most are categorized by nationality. So, yes a Greek Orthodox could take communion in a Bulgarian Orthodox Church. However, he could not take communion in a Coptic Orthodox Church. Though, I do think the Oriental Orthodox would allow Eastern Orthodox to take their communion. But I’m not totally sure since I don’t know all the rules of the Oriental Orthodox.

As for union between all three Churches? Well, the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox could easily unite. There is no real theological difference separating them besides their misunderstanding of each other. For the Catholic Church to unite with them they would have to accept the universal authority of the Pope. Though that’s really it. Western theology on things such as purgatory and original sin would not be imposed on the Eastern Churches. Indeed, Eastern Catholics theology on these issues is the same as Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. The issue of the Pope is really the only thing separating us. I hope this helped! 🙂
Click to expand...
Some of it has and at the same presents other issues I’d like to know about. Does this mean that the infamous “filioque dispute” is meaningless now? Do the Greek Orthodox Churches throughout the world recite their Liturgies in Greek?

With regards to the Pope, did the phrase “first among equals” come the West or East? Do the Eastern Churches (be they Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, etc.) have any sort of figurehead equivalent to the Pope? Does the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople have any kind of special authority within the Eastern Orthodox Church, or does he act more or less as a spokesman for the Church?

If it’s a mere misunderstanding preventing Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy from reuniting, what’s stopping them? Is there more to it than that?
 
In_Hoc_Signo312 said:
Some of it has and at the same presents other issues I’d like to know about. Does this mean that the infamous “filioque dispute” is meaningless now? Do the Greek Orthodox Churches throughout the world recite their Liturgies in Greek?

With regards to the Pope, did the phrase “first among equals” come the West or East? Do the Eastern Churches (be they Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, etc.) have any sort of figurehead equivalent to the Pope? Does the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople have any kind of special authority within the Eastern Orthodox Church, or does he act more or less as a spokesman for the Church?

If it’s a mere misunderstanding preventing Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy from reuniting, what’s stopping them? Is there more to it than that?
Click to expand...
The filioque clause is not theological issue. It’s an issue over whether or not we should add to the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or whether we should just leave it be. Some have tried to make it a theological issue but it’s not. The east and the west believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The western Church has added the filioque to the Creed. The eastern Church (including Eastern Catholics) do not want to add it. So it is meaningless and a stupid contention of disagreement.

It is clear from the earliest days of the Church that the Bishop of Rome was the center of the Christian world. Now, it can be debated as to what exactly the authority of the Bishop of Rome was but it is clear that Rome was the center of Christendom and regulated doctrine and unity. We can see this in the quotes of early Church fathers.

The Eastern Orthodox Church has the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as its spiritual leader. Though, he cannot exercise his authority like the Pope and is not considered above the other bishops. His position is similar to the Anglican Communions Archbishop of Canterbury. The Oriental Orthodox, on the other hand, don’t really have any spiritual leader. There is the Coptic Pope of Alexandria who leads the Coptic Orthodox Church but he is usually not looked to as the spiritual leader of the entire communion of Oriental Orthodox.

As to why the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox will not unite… I don’t know. It is stupid. But they just haven’t reunited yet.

Also, Eastern Orthodox typically recite their liturgy in the vernacular.
 
In_Hoc_Signo312 said:
Does this mean that the infamous “filioque dispute” is meaningless now?
Click to expand...
I would say no. For a discussion of this and other issues please see:
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, “to the Easterns”
"…The new doctrine, that “the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son,” is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering “which proceedeth from the Father.” (Symbol of Faith).

i. This novel opinion destroys the oneness from the One cause, and the diverse origin of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, both of which are witnessed to in the Gospel.

ii. Even into the divine Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity, of equal power and equally to be adored, it introduces diverse and unequal relations, with a confusion or commingling of them.

iii. It reproaches as imperfect, dark, and difficult to be understood, the previous Confession of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

iv. It censures the holy Fathers of the first Ecumenical Synod of Nicea and of the second Ecumenical Synod at Constantinople, as imperfectly expressing what relates to the Son and Holy Ghost, as if they had been silent respecting the peculiar property of each Person of the Godhead, when it was necessary that all their divine properties should be expressed against the Arians and Macedonians.

v. It reproaches the Fathers of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Ecumenical Councils, which had published over the world a divine Creed, perfect and complete, and interdicted under dread anathemas and penalties not removed, all addition, or diminution, or alteration, or variation in the smallest particular of it, by themselves or any whomsoever. …" etc.
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
 
thephilosopher6 said:
It is clear from the earliest days of the Church that the Bishop of Rome was the center of the Christian world…
Click to expand...
No. It is not clear to the Eastern Orthodox who say that the Church of Antioch " is therefore witnessed by the great Basil (Ep. 48 Athan.) to be “the most venerable of all the Churches in the world.” Still more, the second Ecumenical Council, writing to a Council of the West (to the most honorable and religious brethren and fellow-servants, Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerian, and others), witnesseth, saying: “The oldest and truly Apostolic Church of Antioch, in Syria, where first the honored name of Christians was used.” "
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
 
Tomdstone said:
No. It is not clear to the Eastern Orthodox who say that the Church of Antioch " is therefore witnessed by the great Basil (Ep. 48 Athan.) to be “the most venerable of all the Churches in the world.” Still more, the second Ecumenical Council, writing to a Council of the West (to the most honorable and religious brethren and fellow-servants, Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerian, and others), witnesseth, saying: “The oldest and truly Apostolic Church of Antioch, in Syria, where first the honored name of Christians was used.” "
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
Click to expand...
All Sees of the Church are honored, but not like Rome was.

“You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).” - Ignatius of Antioch

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252])." - Saint Cyprian (note that this is coming from Cyprian who had contention with Pope Stephen)
 
thephilosopher6 said:
He is not undermining the authority of Rome though. It’s also mainly his opinion.
Click to expand...
In any case, the Orthodox do not accept the doctrine of papal infallibility. And they believe it was wrong for Rome to excommunicate them in 1054. Take a look at the reasons for the excommunications. Many of them seem trivial things that could have been resolved peacefully in a spirit of kindness, charity and good will. Instead Rome accused them of committing the worst of crimes and condemned them to anathema maranatha with the devil.
“Michael,…and with him Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of this Michael, … and all their followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of presumption: Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.”
 
Tomdstone said:
In any case, the Orthodox do not accept the doctrine of papal infallibility. And they believe it was wrong for Rome to excommunicate them in 1054. Take a look at the reasons for the excommunications. Many of them seem trivial things that could have been resolved peacefully in a spirit of kindness, charity and good will. Instead Rome accused them of committing the worst of crimes and condemned them to anathema maranatha with the devil.
“Michael,…and with him Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of this Michael, … and all their followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of presumption: Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.”
Click to expand...
The Latin rite Normans were transforming the Byzantine churches into Latin rite churches in southern Italy. This angered Patriarch Michael who claimed the Latin’s Eucharist was invalid and started persecuting Latin Christians in the east. The Pope sent delegates to Constantinople to try and get Michael under control but he was very hostile to the delegates. Michael could not be controlled and was basically going on a rampage, so the Pope had him excommunicated. Michael excommunicated him back. However, many have called into question the validity of these excommunications and both the eastern and western Church were still on good term for another 150 years. Neither the east or the west saw each other as separate Churches even after the events of the “Great Schism.” What really caused the break in the two Churches was the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 A.D by Latin rite crusaders making their way to the holy land.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
What really caused the break in the two Churches was the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 A.D by Latin rite crusaders making their way to the holy land.
Click to expand...
True. The Roman Catholic crusaders raped nuns, drove horses into holy churches, smashed altars and stole priceless artifacts from these churches, and other unspeakable profanities inside these churches such as " a certain harlot, a sharer in their guilt, a minister of the furies, a servant of the demons, a worker of incantations and poisonings, insulting Christ, sat in the patriarch’s seat, singing an obscene song and dancing frequently." And there were Roman Catholic bishops who gave them a blessing before their invasion. “Then the bishops preached to the army, the bishop of Soissons, the bishop of Troyes, the bishop of Havestaist master Jean Faicette and the abbot of Loos, and they showed to the pilgrims that the war was a righteous one; for the Greeks were traitors and murderers, and also disloyal, since they had murdered their rightful lord, and were worse than Jews. Moreover, the bishops said that, by the authority of God and in the name of the pope, they would absolve all who attacked the Greeks. Then the bishops commanded the pilgrims to confess their sins and receive the communion devoutly; and said that they ought not to hesitate to attack the Greeks, for the latter were enemies of God.”
shsu.edu/~his_ncp/1204.html
 
Tomdstone said:
True. The Roman Catholic crusaders raped nuns, drove horses into holy churches, smashed altars and stole priceless artifacts from these churches, and other unspeakable profanities inside these churches such as " a certain harlot, a sharer in their guilt, a minister of the furies, a servant of the demons, a worker of incantations and poisonings, insulting Christ, sat in the patriarch’s seat, singing an obscene song and dancing frequently." And there were Roman Catholic bishops who gave them a blessing before their invasion. “Then the bishops preached to the army, the bishop of Soissons, the bishop of Troyes, the bishop of Havestaist master Jean Faicette and the abbot of Loos, and they showed to the pilgrims that the war was a righteous one; for the Greeks were traitors and murderers, and also disloyal, since they had murdered their rightful lord, and were worse than Jews. Moreover, the bishops said that, by the authority of God and in the name of the pope, they would absolve all who attacked the Greeks. Then the bishops commanded the pilgrims to confess their sins and receive the communion devoutly; and said that they ought not to hesitate to attack the Greeks, for the latter were enemies of God.”
shsu.edu/~his_ncp/1204.html
Click to expand...
People in the Church sin, but the Church is still the Church and does not condone such actions. When the Pope at the time found out about what happened, he excommunicated those who took part in the sacking.

Also, if you continue to attack the Church because of actions of some individuals centuries ago, I’m pretty sure you’re breaking the forum rules. Just warning you.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
The filioque clause is not theological issue. It’s an issue over whether or not we should add to the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or whether we should just leave it be. Some have tried to make it a theological issue but it’s not. The east and the west believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The western Church has added the filioque to the Creed. The eastern Church (including Eastern Catholics) do not want to add it. So it is meaningless and a stupid contention of disagreement.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but that is misleading. While the Filioque Clause in and of itself can be understood in an orthodox way, Rome has added dogmatic glosses on it since the schism which are definitely a problem theologically. In particular, Lateran IV “defined” that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “equally”. That contradicts any notion of procession from the Father “through” the Son. Similarly, the teaching of Lyons II and Florence that the Spirit proceeds “eternally” from the Father and the Son “as from one principle” is incompatible with “through the Son”. These are legitimate theological issues that must be dealt with.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
I’m sorry, but that is misleading. While the Filioque Clause in and of itself can be understood in an orthodox way, Rome has added dogmatic glosses on it since the schism which are definitely a problem theologically. In particular, Lateran IV “defined” that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “equally”. That contradicts any notion of procession from the Father “through” the Son. Similarly, the teaching of Lyons II and Florence that the Spirit proceeds “eternally” from the Father and the Son “as from one principle” is incompatible with “through the Son”. These are legitimate theological issues that must be dealt with.
Click to expand...
I would like to echo this statement and add further that any hope for compromise on the Filioque clause with the Orthodox and Catholics was dashed when the Catholics rejected the Orthodox’ proposal to accept Maximus the Confessor’s interpretation of the clause at the Council of Florence. Maximus offered an understanding that was acceptable to all parties at his time. But Catholics many centuries later rejected that at Florence when Orthodox were prepared to accept it. Instead, they were forced to swallow everything and only allowed to keep their liturgical rites. Additionally, Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople was quite willing to accept some moderate wiggle room for how people said the Creed. He himself used the phrase “per Filium” during the Second Council of Nicaea in order to be inclusive to the Latins. However, the Carolingians rejected that phrase as well and insisted on “Filioque.” There is much more details I can go into, but the insistence that there is no theological issue with regards to “Filioque” is historically ignorant at least, and delusional at worst.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
When the Pope at the time found out about what happened, he excommunicated those who took part in the sacking.
Click to expand...
“While Pope Innocent III excommunicated the Crusaders after their sack of the catholic city of Zara (Zadar in Croatia), he later lifted the bull of excommunication and justified the capture of Constantinople…”
shsu.edu/~his_ncp/1204.html
 
Expatreprocedit said:
I’m sorry, but that is misleading. While the Filioque Clause in and of itself can be understood in an orthodox way, Rome has added dogmatic glosses on it since the schism which are definitely a problem theologically. In particular, Lateran IV “defined” that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “equally”. That contradicts any notion of procession from the Father “through” the Son. Similarly, the teaching of Lyons II and Florence that the Spirit proceeds “eternally” from the Father and the Son “as from one principle” is incompatible with “through the Son”. These are legitimate theological issues that must be dealt with.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The filioque can be found among even the earliest Latin Fathers and possibly among some of the Greek Fathers. Clearly the plurality of language concerning the issue of procession of the Holy Spirit was in the early Church. Later though, many in the east tried making this a theological issue when it’s really not. Today some eastern Christians still try to make it a a huge issue. But it’s not.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
I disagree. The filioque can be found among even the earliest Latin Fathers and possibly among some of the Greek Fathers. Clearly the theological plurality concerning the issue of procession of the Holy Spirit was in the early Church. Later though, many in the east tried making this a theological issue when it’s really not. Today some eastern Christians still try to make it a a huge issue. But it’s not.
Click to expand...
You say you disagree, but you didn’t address my post at all. My post was concerned with the post-schism Roman declarations on the Clause.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top