Greek Orthodox here, grandson of a late great priest (in Orthodoxy, a man studying for the priesthood may marry prior to ordination).
In addition to the Timothy Ware/Archbishop Kallistos collection of The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Faith, a more recent book called iirc The Faith by (again iirc) Clark Charlton is an informative read. He grew up Baptist, went to a Baptist college (Carson-Newman), and then converted to Greek Orthodoxy while in a doctoral program. It’s a rather accessible primer to the Orthodox faith written with a much more even hand than, say, the works of Frank Schaffer (son of noted Protestant Francis Schaffer), who leans more toward social commentary with an (imho) uncomfortable scorched earth tone.
Dogface, thank you for starting this thread. Please remember that Orthodoxy is still not all that well-known generally, and while we certainly are not Protestants (of any stripe, though closest in some ways to high Episcopalianism) or Roman Catholics, the starting point for these discussions is usually to outline the differences, not to assume they are or should be known.
Hell, my best friend growing up went to Liberty University (Falwell’s school…no, he’s not Orthodox). The first time I visited some chucklehead asked me if I prayed to Zeus.
good heavens, the orthodox are coming out of the woodwork!
nice to see a fellow roca on the boards. welcome to dogface and ybeayf.
the orthodox church in america is a bit of a quandry. alaska and parts of the west coast and a bit of western canada had russian missionaries. the orthodox church usually would go into a country and “spread the word”, the churches that would spring out of a mission would try to follow the language of the country. the services of the church would be translated into the language of the country it was in. in alaska that meant that aleut was used in churches for the native people and churches that were for immigrants from russia would be in church slavic.
while this was going on in the west, the east coast was dealing with the rev. war and getting a country started. as people began flowing in from other countries the orthodox church came in as an immigrant church not a mission church. so greek churchs were under greek hierarchs, romanians under romania etc.
this situation has been bartered about for quite a bit but no satisfactory solution has been found. to be true to canon law the u.s. should have one orthodox voice with one hierarchy.
even though most of alaska’s churches are within the oca fold, they have almost an automony with in it. when the oca made the decision to go to the “new calendar” only alaska was allowed to say no and stay with the “old calendar.”
the, i guess founders is the best way to say it, of the othodox church in alaska were amazing men. i find it very interesting to compare what was going on at the same time on either side of the states. quite a few “great thinkers” happening.
as for the differences between the eastern and western churches.
i think that the eastern church is a bit gentler, very much into the idea of free will.
for example fasting, the church puts up the rules for fasting. then gives you the choice to adhere to them or not. here are the days, here is what you can and can’t eat, here is what happens if you do or don’t. up to you now.
in a very interesting way the orthodox church holds onto it’s “jewish” roots a bit more than the western church. many of the canon laws are very close to or mirror jewish laws.
Nevertheless, your synopsis is very informative, and I really appreciate it. Saw the subject line, dropped in here to learn something, and am happy to say that’s already happening thanks to you and Dogface.
Just to clarify where I’m coming from while hopefully avoiding TMItis: I’m a religiously conservative Catholic layman, but not from birth; in fact, I came into the RCC via a path too long and occasionally bizarre to go into here.
From a few Orthodox sources on the Web, I think I’ve got a pretty clear picture of some of the more significant doctrinal differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy; however, for many reasons, I have zero inclination to debate same.
From the same sources, I’ve gained a great deal of respect for the Orthodox Church.
For one thing, it’s quite clear that y’all haven’t committed widespread defacement of your traditional liturgies …
Anyway:
Wow. Nice summary. That’s one of the things that kinda threw me for a loop, trying to figure out who was whom and which acronyms were attached where.
I think the Orthodox congregation geographically closest to here is part of GOA. Getting there requires an airplane ride, for starters. And there’s an Antiochian congregation in my home county (an airplane ride, plus a five-hour drive).
Any general pointers for a non-Orthodox Church member who might be interested in attending an Orthodox Liturgy as a visitor? I already know not to take Communion there, but other than that … um, would it be easier just to email the priest and ask directly?
Which would be something Orthodoxy does have in common with Catholicism–only more so, from what I gather. BTW, I tend to see that as a good thing.
Ah, thank you. I’ll have to pick that up, then.
Duly noted, and appreciated.
I notice you refer to Fr. Seraphim by the title of Blessed. Does this term imply the same thing as it would in the Catholic Church, i.e., that he’s well on the way to being recognized formally as a saint?
Is there anything in Orthodoxy analogous to the canonization process in Catholicism?
Again, thanks to you, Dogface, AmbulanceChaser, and whomever else will have contributed by the time this posts.
Well, you’ve already mentioned the main thing, which is not to take Communion. Other than that, there aren’t really any hard-and-fast rules. There might be pews, there might not; if there aren’t, you stand, unless you get tired, in which case you can sit on one of the benches along the walls. Depending on if you’re male or female, you might be expected to stand on the right / left, or uncover / cover your head. If you’re male, you can’t go wrong standing on the right and uncovering your head, and vice-versa for females. Orthodox congregations usually aren’t very externally active, so just find a good place to stand / sit, and do what everybody else does.
“Blessed” is basically a synonym for “Saint.” The majority of saints are called Saint <whoever>, but many of them are traditionally referred to as Blessed <whoever> or Holy Mother / Father <whoever>.
Canonization in the Orthodox Church is a lot more decentralized and organic than in the Catholic Church. What usually happens is that a local community will recognize the sanctity of one of their members who has passed on, and begin local veneration. They will begin asking their intercession, venerating their relics, painting icons of them, etc. Eventually, the veneration of the saint spreads, until one or more of the local Churches holds an official glorification service, wherein the saint is formally recognized as such. One local Church’s glorification of a saint will almost always be recognized by the rest of the local Churches.
One advantage of the Orthodox canonization process is that individuals who are obviously saints are canonized very quickly, compared to the decades that are often required in the Catholic Church. Fr. Seraphim Rose reposed in 1982, and it would not surprise me if he were officially glorified in the next few years. The flip side of this is occasionally you get some wingnuts who try to start local veneration of some rather… odd choices (I am mainly thinking of certain ultra-Nationalists in Russia who are trying to have Rasputin (!) canonized). But the nature of the process is such that veneration of individuals of questionable sanctity will not tend to spread, while veneration of those who are holy will.
I think a lot of the problem is they equate it with Orthodox Judaism, the strictest branch of the Jewish religion. Orthodox Christianity, however, is simply another denomination, like Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, etc.
I was raised Roman Catholic, but I find the Orthodox church to be especially beautiful. I am very interested, especially because of my obsession with the Romanovs.
I have to ask-have you heard about the extremist fringe movement that wants to canonize Rasputin? How does that make you feel? (I’m horrified, myself)
My own Archdiocese uses a calendar that is rather close to the Civil (“Gregorian”) calendar, as does the Church of Greece. The major difference is that we still use the old-style Paschalion.
That being said, the majority of Orthodox use the old-style calendar. There are several reasons, the major one being that there has not been any compelling reason found to switch. “Accuracy” is not as big a reason as one might think. After all, the point of an ecclesiastic calendar is to time the feasts and events of the Church. Except for the Paschalion, there is no mention of season in the Church calendar nor reference to seasons. That is, while Christmas has always been a winter festival in the northern hemisphere, there is no ecclesiastic need that it must be.
There are rigorist Orthodox who get quite adamant about the old calendar as a matter of doctrine, but they are known as “Old Calendrists” for so doing.
There is also an issue of “We are not Roman Catholics” to deal with. However, it should be noted that the Russian Synod was planning to change the calendar within Russia before the Bolsheviks got into the mix and messed everything up. The Bolsheviks set up their “Living Church”, which was an attempt of the Soviet Government to set up a state-sanctioned church that laid claim to all Russian Orthodox property and insisted that the Church be subservient to the state. Once that happened, any thought of revising the calendar further was essentially doomed, as “new calendar” and “communists” became identified as one by many refugees.
The general practice in the Greek Archdiocese is to mix Liturgical Greek (which most modern Greeks don’t quite speak) with English. In all-convert parishes, it’s almost all English except for a few chants that just don’t scan in English. Greek use is maintained mostly because of pressure from first-generation Greeks in the USA, especially around New York.
In the Antiochean Archdiocese, it’s pretty much all English, especially in the Western Rite Vicariate, which uses a Liturgy based on the Book of Common Prayer.
Most of the Russian-descended parishes that I’m familiar with use a lot of English, including the Old Believers who have re-joined mainstream Orthodoxy over here.
Major differences? As I understand it, and I’m no theologian, there are several. We do not recognize Purgatory. We do not believe that priests have some kind of irrevocable grace-related status. In Orthodoxy, a priest can lose his status as a priest, not merely be prohibited from serving a Liturgy. Even a Bishop can theoretically lose all clerical status in Orthodoxy. Our soteriology is less juridicial than in the West. We do not concentrate all that heavily upon “justification” in a legal sense. Instead, our emphasis is upon internal transformation–on turning towards God. “Justification” is that journey–we cannot bridge the gap without Christ, and it is He who pointed us in the right direction, thus we are “justified”–turned towards “justness” rather than “justified” as “have a legal decision in our favor”.
For us, “salvation” is not an event. It is a process. I was saved at my Chrismation. I am to work to be saved every day. I hope to be saved at the last judgment. There is no point at which I was “saved”, instead, it is a process, always ongoing.
Our view of the Mysteries (“Sacraments”) is also different. We do not have an official list of seven, nine, or some other number of Sacraments. Instead, we have some Mysteries that are considered to be very important, like Baptism/Chrismation, Communion, Marriage, etc. Then there is an enormous set of acts that are also Sacramental in nature. Likewise, while we consider all Mysteries to be necessary, we do not consider them to be so in a juridicial manner. That is, they are necessary when they are possible. They are the means whereby God transmits Grace to us, but God is not limited by them. He can pour out His Grace as he sees fit.
We do not have the Augustinian view of Original Sin. There is no idea of transmitted culpability. Only Adam is personally responsible for his acts. The rest of us are personally responsible for our acts.
We do not have “created Grace”. For us, all Divine Grace is uncreated. We also hold that the Essence of God cannot be directly apprehended by mortals. Instead, we can perceive Divine Energy–essentially Grace.
We use the un-modified Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. That is, we reject the “filioque”. For us, the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
There are other differences that crop up from time to time.
There is a parish in Indianapolis that entered Orthodoxy in a New Calendar jurisdiction along a very convoluted path (they began as a 1960s easter mysticism group). As they had adopted the Julian Calendar along their journey, the group that accepted them has permitted them to maintain it.
We are not a denomination, since to be a denomination would mean that we accept denominationalism. Denominationalism is the (mostly Protestant) doctrine that all the differences among Christian groups are merely de nomina, a matter of labels, but that all are part of one “church invisible”. That doesn’t fit into Orthodox ecclesiology.
We don’t adhere to the “branch theory” of Christian ecclesiology.
HOWEVER, one of the Romanovs, the sister of the Empress, married the Tsar’s uncle. (that’s how Nicholas and Alexandra met, as adolescents at the wedding). This sister, Grand Duchess Elizabeth, became a nun after the assassination of her husband in 1905. She started a convent, the Order of Mary and Martha, I believe. Dedicated to charity and missionary work. She’s buried in Jerusalem.
She is recognized as a saint by both churches, if I’m not mistaken.
Sorry, Dogface, I didn’t know any other way to explain.
How does this work? I’m used to thinking in Western terms. In the Catholics, the Pope would set up a new branch, and select a leader. In the Protestants, the parishoners would break away and elect a leader. What would it take to get the U.S. its own Patriarch? Or am I grotesquely oversimplifying the matter?
You speak of differences in Western and Eastern theology. What differences, if any, exist between the Eastern Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic churches? Inasmuch as every Orthodox church has a corresponding Catholic rite, what are the doctrinal differences between any particular two?
What do you see as the role of the Orthodox Church in the new Century? (eg do you expect it to prosper/expand significantly, and also do you see the Orthodox church ever healing the schism or rather, moving to set out a more seperate and distinct identity?)
Eastern Catholic churches, aka “Uniates” have Roman Catholic doctrine. They have Western doctrine but are permitted to use Eastern Liturgical practices. For example, they are permitted to not say the “filioque” in Liturgy but they have to teach it as doctrine.
If the USA had been missionized by only one Orthodox jurisdiction, the matter would simply resolve to whenever the parent jurisdiction felt that US Orthodox were ready. The other major jurisdictions would pretty much recognize this automatically.
Breaking away in Protestant fashion is not an option, since to do so essentially means that one has left Orthodoxy.
The three major quarreling groups in the USA are the OCA (Russian ancestry, recognized as autocephalous by Moscow), GOA (Greek ancestry, under the Patriarchate of Constantinople), and ROCOR (Russian ancestry, does not recognize Moscow as being canonical. They consider themselves to be the true Russian Orthodox Church).
Before the Bolshevik coup in Russia, the (unoccupied) Patriarchate of Moscow was recognized as being the official “parent” jurisdiction for the USA because Russia had the first formal missions in the Americas. However, things were run rather loosely, with each ethnic group permitted to pretty much run their own affairs. There were some local Greek groups who were so offended at the idea of being “under” Russians that they disguised their Orthodox parishes as social clubs, but these were probably not the rule.
The Bolshevik coup upset everything. When it became plain that the Bolsheviks wanted to control the Church, the Patriarch of Moscow issued a “tomos” instructing all of the groups abroad that had reported to Russian hierarchs to seek local protection. Greeks looked to Athens and Constantinople. Syrians looked to Antioch. Serbs looked to Serbia. You get the picture.
The Russians were left out in the cold. Some attached themselves to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Some in the USA remained attached to Moscow but did so with great caution. They became the OCA when they were recognized as independent by Moscow. Many Russians worldwide attached themselves to a Synod of Russian refugee and exile Bishops. These Russians became ROCOR/ROCA, and immediately denounced the OCA since the OCA maintained relations with Moscow. (ROCOR still maintains that it is the only Russian Orthodox Church, although rapproachment talks seem to be beginning.)
However, Constantinople (which had managed to get all the American Greek Orthodox parishes from Athens in return for recognizing Athens as autocephalous), refused and refuses to recognize the OCA as autocephalous, preferring to act as if they are still subservient to Moscow. Since GOA is under Constantinople, this is technically GOA policy. Since ROCOR does not recognize Moscow, GOA cannot recognize ROCOR. It should be noted that Serbia recognizes ROCOR, Moscow, and Constantinople, and all three recognize Serbia.
Now, to complicate matters further, the current Patriarch of Constantinople has stated that it is Constantinople that automatically has jurisdiction over the Americas due to an Ecumenical Council that granted Constantinople jurisdiction over the “provinces of the barbarians”. Opponents of this view hold that the canon in question makes it quite plain that the provinces in question are explicitly spelled out with no automatic proviso for extension. Likewise, BARTHOLOMEW claims some sort of automatic jurisdiction due to Constantinople’s assertion of jurisdiction over the entirety of the “Greek disapora”. However, this argument is even weaker, since the agreement in this case is only between Constantinople and Athens and it presumes that all Orthodox in the Americas are part of the “Greek diaspora”–they aren’t.
So, there are three major Orthodox jurisdictions claiming canonical precedence in the USA. ROCOR and OCA claim it through the old Russian primacy. GOA claims it through the arguments made by the current Patriarch of Constantinople.
Essentially, only an Ecumenical Council could conclusively settle the deal over the heads of individual hierarchs, and that would require first settling the status of ROCOR and OCA in such a way as to allow both of them to participate in the same council.
Since there are still relatively few Orthodox in the USA, the matter is far from crisis level. So matters are allowed to move on at their own rate.
All the above being said, it should be noted that GOA, OCA, the Serbs, the Bulgars, the Syrians (Antiochians), the Rumanians, and many others are all members of SCOBA (Standing Council of Orthodox Bishops in America). ROCOR is not a member.
Now, some years ago, a GOA Archbishop who was president of SCOBA delivered a ringing speech that stated “We are not the diaspora.” He was recalled by Constantinople.
I really can’t say for certain. I do know that Orthodox missionary organizations claim great success, and in the USA there seems to be an influx of Christians from other traditions who have grown disenchanted with what they see as excess “trendiness” in their own groups. The former, if as positive as is claimed, is good for Orthodoxy. The latter worries me. I am, myself, a convert, but I did not enter Orthodoxy because it was more rigorous. I entered Orthodoxy from examining Orthodox theology on my own and seeing that, although practices were more rigorous than my lazy, hedonistic self would have liked, it made the most sense to me.
I fear that not a few of the current crop of converts in the USA are “church shoppers”, and they may have unrealistic expectations of Orthodoxy. It’s very rigorous in the ideal but willing to cut individuals a bit of slack when rubber meets the road. Thus, many folks who come to the Church seeking a “community of purity” will be disappointed when what they actually find is a “hospital for sinners”.
As for healing schism, Orthodox ecclesiology seems to present a situation that many outside the Church see as insurmountable barriers. First, we see ourselves as the Church, complete and whole. Thus, we would not be able to accept the Pope back on terms that would grant him any more authority than would be expected among a “first among equals” with no jurisdiction outside his own flock. Likewise, the monarchical way in which Rome deals with her Bishops doesn’t sit well with the Orthodox. With a few exceptions, Orthodox bishops are not subject to recall, removal, or reassignment by a Patriarch. They can be deposed, but only by decision of their Synod, of whom a Patriarch is presiding officer but not monarch. Likewise, certain Roman theological innovations (created Grace, the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos, transferrable Merit) simply do not fit within Orthodox theology. These are issues in which the Church has stood firm before.
In regards to Reformed Christianity, we likewise stand firm on matters of our understanding of Communion (it is not merely symbolic), the status of Presvyters/Priests, and the efficacy of Mysteries. Some “high church” Reformed groups come closer to us, but they are still very different in their understanding of sin and salvation. Again, Orthodoxy has not been known to bend in basic understanding of these issues. We have a saint known as “The New Theologian” (St. Symeon). He lived several centuries ago. We also have the bad taste of the pseudo-council of Florence still in our mouths.
One sticking point for us is the ordination of women. We just don’t do it. Why? Well, unlike Rome, we don’t have reams of theological justification. We simply say “We haven’t done it that way.” For the Orthodox, that’s a very weighty argument. We are very cautious about innovation.
Now, that being said, if some hermit who is well acknowledged as a “living saint” comes out of the desert and says “We’ve been in error all along.” AND that living saint can go to the oldest known documents of the Church Fathers and point out how they taught differently from what we have been doing AND that holds up to scrutiny by Bishops, Synods, and an Ecumenical Council, change might occur.
We call ourselves the “Orthodox Catholic Church”. For us, the “Catholic” means “universal” in the sense of “according to the whole”. That is, we believe that what we believe is how the Church has believed as a whole from the Pentecost. Thus, any changes require that one would have to show that the primary hermeneutic of the Church was actually in the direction of the proposed change. A few isolated examples are insufficient to convince, and examples taken out of historical context can harden opposition.
One example of matters taken out of context is a claim that some make that there were women bishops among the Orthodox. The title “Episcopa” does exist in old inscriptions. To someone without context, that could be evidence of Bishopesses. However, it is long-standing Orthodox practice to refer to the living mother of a Bishop by the honorary title “Episcopa” (among the Greeks, at least), essentially honoring her for having raised such a son (he didn’t make the grade in a vacuum, after all). Likewise, the word “Presvytera” is the feminine form of the word most often translated as “Priest”, but in Orthodoxy, that’s used to refer to the wife of a priest, not to a priestess. Even if one accepts that St. Brigid of Kildare (the historical one–an Irish abbess) was consecrated a Bishop, that is a lone example in the hinterland of the Church, and the records that mention this also mention that the consecrating Priest was disciplined for his error. (One legend is that the Priest was overly fond of tipple and read the wrong consecration by mistake. Another is that the consecration was done as an extraordinary measure to allow her some authority over priests in a remote area where a Bishop might not be available for her to call upon.)
However, we are always willing to talk. But we seem to keep saying the same things. We are supposed to say them charitably.
