Orthodox Christianity

[Dicky Underpants]

This is for the benefit of ad_orientem, to allow him at least to correct the misapprehensions of boneheads who think it's the same thing as Catholicism. From my own point of view, I think the doctrines are just as little defensible and absurd as those of any other Christian variety. It has however produced some distinctively moving music and some remarkable iconography.

The division between it and Catholicism all started with the mind-boggling anal-retentive nonsense which precipitated the Great Schism, of course. Who would have thought that the interpretation of a Latin phrase - an ablative and a conjunctive particle (Filioque) - could cause such a stir! That, and the question of the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, of course.

And, specifically for ad_orientem, just how does one determine whether that Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father and the Son, or from the Father only?

PS
I have been to just one Orthodox service - a wedding in Cardiff. I have to confess, I was bored to death, and just hoping we might have a chance to sing a good old Protestant hymn (but that would probably have defiled the authentic purity of the event).

[ad_orientem]

Regarding the Filioque we would argue that it is much more than a matter of translation. Firstly it is an addition which was never authorised by any ecumenical council and therefore it already falls under the anathemas. Secondly, it has major theological implications. It attributes two sources to the Godhead: two sources, two gods.

As for the bishop of Rome, we would also argue that he never had universal jurisdiction and that any honour he had above the other patriarchs was one only of honour on account of the Chruch in Rome having been founded by the Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul and them having been martyred there. The First Vatican Council, which defines the role of the bishop of Rome, is an abomination as far as the orthodox are concerned and is something we could never be reconciled to. The same goes for the Filioque.

[ippy]

Regarding the Filioque we would argue that it is much more than a matter of translation. Firstly it is an addition which was never authorised by any ecumenical council and therefore it already falls under the anathemas. Secondly, it has major theological implications. It attributes to sources to the Godhead: two sources, two gods.

As for the bishop of Rome, we would also argue that he never had universal jurisdiction and that any honour he had above the other patriarchs was one only of honour on account of the Chruch in Rome having been founded by the Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul and them having been martyred there. The First Vatican, which defines the role of the bishop of Rome, is an abomination as far as the orthodox are concerned and is something we could never be reconciled to. The same goes for the Filioque.

The tone of your post hints that this is of some importance?

ippy

[ad_orientem]

Aye! How did you guess?

[ippy]

[quote author=ad_orientem link=topic=12844.msg644370#m

I'm very quick like that, I'll give you it looks important, but there? I suppose it would seem that way to your goodself.

ippy

[Humph Warden Bennett]

This is for the benefit of ad_orientem,
PS
I have been to just one Orthodox service - a wedding in Cardiff. I have to confess, I was bored to death, and just hoping we might have a chance to sing a good old Protestant hymn (but that would probably have defiled the authentic purity of the event).

I am Orthodox too. I am happy to debate with you.

Ok let's play....

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I will kick off. A Methodist friend of mine stated that he thought that Orthodoxy was just another form of Catholicism. Since the Methodists began their dreary mission in the eighteenth century perhaps he can be forgiven for not knowing about 1054.

As far as I am concerned, one either follows the church which Jesus began whilst he was on earth, or one does not.

And just for Dicky, I have been to just one Pentecostal service. It dragged on for hours and was very boring indeed.

[Brownie]

There is seductive, wondrous beauty in the Orthodox Church which I haven't come across anywhere else.  I loved the atmosphere.

I too thought there was little or no difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism at one time but they are markedly different (I liked both).   

It's obviously not everyone's cup of tea. 

Churches that have hymn, prayer, hymn, prayer, reading, long sermon, hymn, prayer etc, are extremely tedious to me.  They never seem to get to the point!  That's my oninion, fine for those who like them.

[ad_orientem]

No more? This is what vexes me about this forum. Christisns here don't care about these things but rather concentrate on lost causes such as christian versus atheist.

Thank you, Dicky. I appreciate it but no one here is bothered.

[Anchorman]

ad_o: There are no lost causes where Christ is concerned.

[Brownie]

Ad_o, Dicky asked:
"just how does one determine whether that Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father and the Son, or from the Father only?"

Would like to know your answer to that question.

(I was taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Jesus told his followers that he would leave them his spirit so that he would always be with them.  The spirit came upon them at Pentecost.)

Dicky, this might interest you (if you haven't already read it):
https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine-scripture/the-symbol-of-faith/holy-spirit

[ad_orientem]

ad_o: There are no lost causes where Christ is concerned.

What is the success rate on this forum?

[Anchorman]

What is the success rate on this forum?

What is the success rate on this forum?

What is the success rate on this forum?

Dunno about you, but the Christ I serve never gives up on love.

[ad_orientem]

Yeah. But that's not the samething as trying to convince the unbelievers on this forum. How many have you or anyone else managed to convert? This is what I find frustrating. Why would anyone waste their time?

[Brownie]

I didn't know you came here to convert people, Ad_o.  I'm sure you are the only poster who does.
 
Some try to explain their faith and dispel misconceptions, with varying results, and to show sceptical non believers that Christians aren't all bad  , but does anyone really expect to convert anyone else? 

Discussion can spark interest of course and lead posters to delve into a subject more deeply than hitherto but would have thought it would take more than an internet forum to effect conversion.

[ad_orientem]

I didn't know you came here to convert people, Ad_o.

I don't, which is why the believer versus unbeliever discussion every thread inevitably falls into  bores me to death. I just don't understand why anyone would waste their time on such a pointless exercise.

[Brownie]

I don't, which is why the believer versus unbeliever discussion every thread inevitably falls into bores me to death. I just don't understand why anyone would waste their time on such a pointless exercise.

Such discussions do go round in circles. 
However answering questions about points of faith is useful because people often have odd ideas about what others believe and how they put their beliefs into practice
The other thing is putting forward differing interpretations of religious texts, sources etc.
Well I find that interesting anyway.

[Brownie]

Perhaps it could be accepted that most of us don't indoctrinate children and then discussion can proceed.  We could preface a debate with the words, "I (insert name) do declare that I do not force my beliefs on children or anyone else".

Even if people do think we believe in a mythological character, it is still interesting to find out exactly what others believe, why, and how they put their faith into practice.

It is amazing what ideas are held about different belief systems.  There are so many stereotypes.

Owlswing has started a thread in the Faith Sharing section to dispel some of the myths surrounding paganism and is answering questions. It's complex but quite fascinating. 

Christians from different traditions can do the same.

Not many know much about the Orthodox in this country.  It's often confused with Catholicism but is quite distinct from that.  Ad_o started the thread so we could find out more.

[ad_orientem]

Dicky started the thread, for which I was grateful, but it seems no one else is interested in discussing these things. They'd rather argue with atheists. Sigh!

[Brownie]

I am interested, Ad_o, so is Humph and probably Anchorman.  Not forgetting Dicky who started it!  He is always interested in academic discussion of religion.

I've just had a thought - why not put this thread in the faith sharing area?  That seems more appropriate.
In theory, it should be straightforward, information given, questions asked and answered, no contentious posts.  May not always be like that but the mods are pretty good at stepping in and reminding us of the purpose of that section.

Don't give up just yet.

[Gordon]

Moderator:

Good idea, Brownie.

To allow serious discussion of this subject we'll move this thread to the Faith Sharing Area after first removing some posts that would be unacceptable there.

Temporarily locking thread this and will unlock it after the move.

[Dicky Underpants]

And just for Dicky, I have been to just one Pentecostal service. It dragged on for hours and was very boring indeed.

I'm sure I would have been bored by all that happy-clappiness too. I have to say that I wouldn't just dismiss all Orthodox ritual on the basis of my experience just one service. The choral music I have heard via the media has been extremely inspiring (and Rachmaninov's setting of the Vespers comes to mind - no doubt there are musical wonders in the Greek Orthodox tradition too).

As for the iconography - that image of the Christos Pantocrator in the Hagia Sophia is surely one of the marvels of art.

[Brownie]

I'd like to know the differences between the different (sorry to use same word) Orthodox churches.

I saw a programme on TV, set in Africa, about the Eastern Ethiopian Tewahedo (?) Orthodox Church which was extremely thought provoking at the time, I knew nothing about them at all.  Then there's the Armenian Apostolic Church whom, I believe, considers itself to be the most ancient of all the oriental churches.

 

[Anchorman]

I've worshipped in an Orthodox church - in Ayrshire, of all places, and enjoyed the experience whilst not really feeling coomfortable with liturgical worship. (It's a Presbyterian thing). I've visited a few Orthodox (Coptic) churches in Egypt, and have a couple of good Coptic friends, and there are a fair few differences in both liturgy and doctrine, as well as church structure (and, of course, language and literature) The Ethiopan Orthodox Church is a whole different kettle of fish, and many of their practices and books are unique to that nation, and are actually throwbacks to the  Kushite civilisation, an amalgum of Ancient Egyptian and African culture which existed from around the eighth century BC untill the third century AD,

[Anchorman]

For anyone interested in the Greek Orthodox community in Glasgow, this http://www.greekcommunitystluke.scot/ is worth a look. As an outreach and gesture toward ecumanism, they take over the auld Kirk of Ayr (Church of Scotland) once or twice a year and hold services which I've found quite moving.