Orthodox Christianity

[ad_orientem]

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.

The oriental churches, that is if we understand the term the same, are monophysites because the reject the fourth ecumenical council. Some steps have been made but there's still some way to go.

[Brownie]

I had to look that up, Ad_o.

Here it is for anyone else who didn't know the meaning of monophysitism:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Monophysitism

[Dicky Underpants]

The oriental churches, that is if we understand the term the same, are monophysites because the reject the fourth ecumenical council. Some steps have been made but there's still some way to go.

Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

[Brownie]

Eek!

[Brownie]

Off topic but HAPPY BIRTHDAY Ad_Orientum and many more.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

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,

Did you see the TV programne about ten years ago about a young British black man who went to Ethiopia to meet the Rastafarians? He briefly met an Ethiopian Orthodox monk, who told him "Of course Haile Selassie is dead, we have his bones here what more proof do you want?"

[jeremyp]

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.

Perhaps you would like to say a little bit about what happened in 1054 and why you (and presumably all Orthodox Christians) believe yours is the church that Jesus began and not the Catholic Church - or even both.

[Anchorman]

Did you see the TV programne about ten years ago about a young British black man who went to Ethiopia to meet the Rastafarians? He briefly met an Ethiopian Orthodox monk, who told him "Of course Haile Selassie is dead, we have his bones here what more proof do you want?"
[/quote



To be fair, though, HWB, some of the beliefs of the Ethiopian Church are as strange as those of the Rastafarians.
The African and pre-Christian influence is very strong there. Even the illustrations in their great book are very reminiscent of stuff dating from Hellenistic Egypt.
The Rastas seem to be a neo;Gnostic ofshoot, just as the LDS are a pseudoChristian neo-Gnostic offshoot from mainstream doctrine.

[Dicky Underpants]

The Rastas seem to be a neo;Gnostic ofshoot, just as the LDS are a pseudoChristian neo-Gnostic offshoot from mainstream doctrine.

This could lead to off-topic stuff. The distinguished American critic Harold Bloom also thinks the LDS are a kind of modern Gnostic group. I'd say this is only true if you're thinking of "Gnostic" in etymological terms - "one who knows" (rather than has faith - pistis).
However, LDS are very distinct from the Christian Gnostics of history in that they totally embrace the physical world as good (indeed they think that God and Jesus still have physical bodies), whereas the ancient Gnostics mostly regarded the material world as totally evil.
Don't know about the Rastas attitude to the material world - given their predilection to get out of their heads on dope, it doesn't suggest that they hold the physical world in too high a regard.

[Anchorman]

That's why I referred to the LDS as "pseudo-Christian meoGnostic", DU. The term wasn't coined by me, but refers to the quasi-masonic roots of LDS structure and mysticism.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Perhaps you would like to say a little bit about what happened in 1054 and why you (and presumably all Orthodox Christians) believe yours is the church that Jesus began and not the Catholic Church - or even both.

The stock answer would be Apostolic Succession. But we have done that before, so to make things more interesting I would draw attention to the RC doctrine of "Purgatory". That is an RC invention, which has no place in Orthodoxy, because it is a medieval invention of man, not present within scripture. As far as we are concerned, it is a heresy.

[Brownie]

I wondered about purgatory, Humph, and was once told that there was a reference to something that could be described as 'purgatory' somewhere in the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books.

Not being one to take such teachings literally, I believe we can experience purgatory here on earth, but that is for another time and thread.

[Anchorman]

I experience purgatory every month, regular as clockwork. Oh, sorry....I meant Presbytery.....blasted spellchecker screen reader thingy.....or not....!

[Brownie]

Oh, you have time of the month problems then, Anchor?

I wish Ad_o and Humph would come back to this thread and tell us more, especially as we've recently touched on the Sacraments - Traditional Mysteries.  (Well I have anyway.)

[Anchorman]

Oh, you have time of the month problems then, Anchor?

I wish Ad_o and Humph would come back to this thread and tell us more, especially as we've recently touched on the Sacraments - Traditional Mysteries.  (Well I have anyway.)
[/quote


Oh, yes....unfortunately.
Regular periods of enforced insomnia AKA Presbytery.
As for the sacrements?
I'm interested inother churches approach to them as well.....being Presbyterian, we don't accept transubstantiation, but still reverence the elements.

[Hope]

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.

The problem is often related to people, of belief and no belief having other things to do, ad_o
I woul dhave to agree with you regarding the Pontiff; there is no scriptural support for the idea - as it was Peter who was given the job of being the rock, not any - at the time - non-existent ecclesiastical position.

However, I would have to disagreee on thew Filioque issue - as I understand the Bible to teach that the idea pre-dates the establishment of the church by Peter and the apostles.

[Brownie]

The current pontiff is causing some controversy atm by rejecting legalism and wanting to bring people in 'from the cold' (eg divorced and remarried), meeting them where they are now.   The Traditionalists don't like it but I think he is trying to emulate Christ who showed love and compassion for all and didn't stick to the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit. 

I am cautiously impressed.

This doesn't directly affect the Orthodox churches but I have come across Orthodox who feel he is bending the rules - though he hasn't abolished them.

[ad_orientem]

The problem is often related to people, of belief and no belief having other things to do, ad_o
I woul dhave to agree with you regarding the Pontiff; there is no scriptural support for the idea - as it was Peter who was given the job of being the rock, not any - at the time - non-existent ecclesiastical position.

However, I would have to disagreee on thew Filioque issue - as I understand the Bible to teach that the idea pre-dates the establishment of the church by Peter and the apostles.

In English?

[Anchorman]

Merry Christmas to those Orthodox believers today! I've already spent time sharing with some Copts - who (with some justification) claim to have the purest form of Orthodoxy.

[Brownie]

I just said the same over on Thads to the one Russian Orthodox person.  He's not Russian but he worships in Russian Orthodox.

Ad_o celebrated Christmas on Dec 25th, his branch follow the Gregorian calendar.  I made a mistake saying he would celebrate on January 4th, remember a Greek Orthodox colleague saying that was their Christmas day.  She was Greek but, living and married in England, she did Christmas twice.

It was the Epiphany yesterday for many of us.  Must admit I've only just remembered as I no longer attend church.

[Spud]

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).

I'd be interested in how orthodox churches explain the burning of incense to icons, in the light of 2 Kings 18:4 which says, in context:

1In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, Hezekiah son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. 2He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother’s name was Abijaha daughter of Zechariah. 3He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father David had done. 4He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.b )

[ad_orientem]

I'd be interested in how orthodox churches explain the burning of incense to icons, in the light of 2 Kings 18:4 which says, in context:

1In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, Hezekiah son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. 2He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother’s name was Abijaha daughter of Zechariah. 3He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father David had done. 4He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.b )

The seventh ecumenical council against the Iconoclasts deals with this subject. Firstly, concerning representational art it says "this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another's message".

Secondly, concerning veneration of icons depicting "our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men" the council also says "The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects. Further, people are drawn to honour these images with the offering of incense and lights, as was piously established by ancient custom. Indeed, the honour paid to an image traverses it, reaching the model, and he who venerates the image, venerates the person represented in that image".

In other words it acknowledges that the Incarnation was real. That God actually became flesh. Or to put it another way, iconoclasm is a denial of the Incarnation which is why the council goes on to say "If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema. If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema. If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema. If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema".

In the Orthodox Church we celebrate this council especially on the first Sunday of Great Lent in the Feast of Orthodoxy, that is the victory of the Church of Christ over its enemies the Iconoclasts and all the other heretics.

[Spud]

In other words it acknowledges that the Incarnation was real. That God actually became flesh.

As Aaron used the golden calf to acknowledge that Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt!

[ad_orientem]

As Aaron used the golden calf to acknowledge that Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt!

Everything changed with the Incarnation, which is exactly the point. God became one of us. That is why are able to depict him and his saints. We are not gnostics.

[trippymonkey]

Can anyone here point out verses where Jesus says he is God Himself Incarnate - directly & not in any way cryptic, please

Nick