It is not possible at the moment to be simultaneously Orthodox and in communion with the Patriarch of Rome. Rome is in schism away from Orthodoxy.
There are “Byzantine rite” groups that are in communion with Rome, but they are not Orthodox. Orthodoxy is not just a collection of practices. Indeed, there are Orthodox parishes that use Western rites and practices.
This is a lie. An outright and utter lie. Whomsoever believes it is a fool. Whomsoever spreads it is a greater fool or a filthy dog.
Here are the real stories:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/what_they_said.html
You are in error again. The Oriental Orthodox (Coptic, Ethiopian Tawahedo, Armenian, etc.) communion distinctly identifies itself from the Eastern Orthodox. The “Church of the East” (aka “Assyrian”) is likewise distinct.
Dogface, on at least a couple of the religion threads, I’ve found it valuable to present what I understand as the Orthodox perspective, with a request that you correct my misperceptions. I’m hoping that I did not misrepresent your beliefs in any way, but I’d strongly welcome feedback on them.
Dear Dogface:
Know of any widely and generally accepted nomenclature of Christian bodies, or even official one worked out by some kind of Christian convention of churches?
To add to the variety and diversity of Christian bodies challenging people interested in identifying which group is which, and which in communion with others like the Vatifcan group, consider that the Vatican has an office dealing with churches of the East presumably in communion with Rome, namely, the Congregation for Oriental Churches.
I suspect that these Oriental Churches must have parallel bodies not in communion with the Roman papacy, with which they have some commonality as in liturgy or discipline or calendar of religious holidays.
Regards,
Susma Rio Sep
I’m not Dogface, but I can offer some help on this:
First, there is no “official” listing by anyone – even the Woirld Council of Churches does not presume to speak officially on this sort of thing.
In rough, overall categories, though:
Separatist Eastern Churches: Loose category of churches who do not adhere to even the first four Ecumenical Councils, being Nestorian, Monarchist, etc. All are very small and principally in the Middle East. Groups called the Assyrian and Chaldean Churches are among these.
Monophysite Eastern Churches: Includes the Coptic Churches of Egypt and Ethiopia, which are in communion with each other, and the Syrian Jacobite Church. Google “monophysite” for the theological distinction.
Eastern Orthodox Church: Large group in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantionople and each other, organized into national churches but united in one doctrinal and polity stance (note the singular in the heading). Ex: Serbian Orthodox Church, Antiochan Orthodox Church, Armenian Gregorian Church (the only one which does not use “Orthodox” as a part of its name). American churches are mostly organized on national-origin lines affiliated with the Old World national church, though the majority of the former Russian Orthodox are now the autonomous Orthodox Church in America and mostly shedding the ethnic connection. There is also a miniscule Western Orthodox Church using the Liturgy of St. Gregory (Pope Gregory the Great) but in communion with the other Orthodox churches.
Roman Catholic Church: Churches acknowledging the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium taught by him and the Roman Curia. Overwhelmingly Roman Rite, but with numerous small Eastern Rites affiliated.
Old Catholic Churches: National churches adhering to most of Catholic doctrine and practice but not acknoweldging Papal authority. Resulted from the Jansenist schism and separations relating to the Papal infallibility doctrine. The Polish National Catholic Church in America is one member of this group.
Anglican Communion: Autonomous national churches in communion with the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Episcopal Church (ECUSA) and the Anglican Church of Canada are members.
Protestant Churches: Massively splintered group of churches deriving from the Reformation. The Anglicans are sometimes included in this group. Long and detailed breakdown follows in a separate post.
Protestant Churches, as noted in my previous post, are derived from the Reformation, and are characterized by doctrines of salvation by faith alone and by a focus on the Bible as the sole source of doctrine. They vary immensely. Many are in communion with each other; some are determinedly independent of any affiliations.
Lutherans: Founded by Martin Luther. Liturgical, adhering to his teachings, celebrate the two sacraments commanded by Christ in the Gospels: Baptism and the Holy Eucharist. Strong preaching tradition (as do most Protestant churches). Adherence to what they regard as the Apostolic faith. National church of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, and very strong in Germany. Two main American Lutheran churches: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (also a smaller Wisconsin Synod). (Note that “evangelical” is a term used by Lutherans to describe their special views and also by conservative Christians to describe their focus on “salvation by personal experience” style of evangelism – two distinct meanings.)
Reformed Churches: In the tradition of John Calvin, teaching predestination and laying focus on the sovereignty of God. Christian Reformed Church and Reformed Church in America are large churches in this tradition. Strong in South Africa, the Netherlands, and parts of Germany.
Presbyterian Churches: Loosely Calvinistic, and based on John Knox’s reformation of the Church of Scotland. Principal distinguishing feature is the idea that the presbyteroi and episkopoi of the New Testament are the same order – the elders who rule over the churches and preach. They ordain “teaching elders” as clergy and “lay elders” as governors of congregations, and hold that the assembly of the elders is the ruling body of the church, with all the authority that Catholics and Anglicans consider placed in bishops.
Methodism: Breakaway group from the original Church of England based on John Wesley’s efforts to reform the worship and lives of those who followed him. United Methodist Church is the largest group here; also representative are the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Wesleyan Church, and a number of others. Strong in England, Wales, Tonga, and throughout the English-speaking world.
Baptists: Every Baptist church is a separate entity, an autonomous local congregation. Emphasis is on individual morality and salvation, and on baptism of adult and older-child believers only as a response to entering into a personal relationship with Christ. Organized into “conventions” which are groups of like-thinking churches banded together for support of seminaries and evangelism, and for speaking out on issues. Southern Baptist Convention is the largest of these by far, with the American Baptist Churches, the black National Baptist Convention and National Missionary Baptist Convention, and the Progressive National Baptist Convention as other large groups.
Disciples of Christ: Date from a frontier revival, focus on adhering solely to what the Bible says: “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where they are silent, we are silent.” Communion weekly.
United Church of Christ: Merger of Congregational and Evangelical and Reformed Churches. Theologically liberal.
Holiness Churches: Separatists from the Methodist tradition. Emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctification of the believer. Strict moral codes. Typical large groups are the Church of the Nazarene and the Church of God (headquartered at Anderson, Indiana, as opposed to another group mentioned below).
Pentecostal churches: Focus on the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” as a second conversion-experience phenomenon after baptism, and on the gifts of the Holy Spirit as described in I Corinthians 12 and 14. Tongues, prophecy, free-form and highly emotional style of worship. The Assemblies of God and the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) are the two largest churches in this group.
There are literally thousands of separate churches, many defying easy definition. The Seventh Day Adventist, the Church of the Brethren, the Mennonites, the Moravian Church in America, the Evangelical Covenant Church, the Salvation Army, the Church of Christ Scientist, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Plymouth Brethren are samples of this breadth.
Latter Day Saints: Founded in the 1830s by Joseph Smith, Jr., their teaching is that after Jesus’s Resurrection he came to the New World and preached to a group of escaped Israelites called the Nephites, who had a civilization here which has vanished without a trace. The Nephite Scriptures are the Book of Mormon (after the prophet who compiled it); Joseph Smith found records of these and translated them into King James English. There are numerous complex theological differences between Mormon belief and that of most of the rest of Christianity.
Many of them tend to disagree with the “monophysite” label, as they consider “monophysitism” to be the heresy of Eutyches (Christ’s humanity was essentially obliterated). Instead, they refer to themselves as “miaphysites”, meaning that the nature is of a “joined” form. It is possible to formulate a Christology that is acceptable to at least some Eastern Orthodox and some Oriental Orthodox if one stresses that the “union” of miaphysitism is not one wherein the human and Divin natures were in any way admixed, destroyed, diminished, etc. and if one likewise specifies that the purity and completeness of the human and Divine natures is not to be taken that they are without separation, without division, etc. In other words, the formulation of St. Cyril, who is recognized by both Communions.
Unfortunately, there are those within the miaphysite community who sometimes go further and insist that some sort of hybrid nature appeared. Likewise, there are those within the Orthodox community whose doctrine sounds scandalously Nestorian to a miaphysite. Indeed, while the Orthodox hurl “monophysites” eastward, the Orientals hurl “nestorians” to the west.
Mistake in the previous.
The acceptable formulation is that one is to not mean that the purity and completeness of the human and divine natures is not to be taken that they were in any way divded or separated.
Dogface, if this is a hijack, I appologize, but I read about a sect or offshoot of Russian Orthodoxy who wanted to canonize Rasputin-what was all that about?
Guin, as far as I know (and this was from a deacon at my old church who travelled to Russia frequently), the movement to canonize Rasputin mainly consists of ultra-Nationalist, heavily anti-Semitic groups (Russian neo-Nazis, essentially, or the Orthodox version of Fred Phelps, if you prefer) who believe that Rasputin was a holy man who was assassinated and subsequently vilified by the mythical InternationalJewishCabal that neo-Nazis are always railing against. Needless to say, the vast majority of Orthodox think they are nuts, and the Russian Hierarchy is actively trying to stamp out veneration of Rasputin.
I’d say that yBeayf’s appraisal is probably on the mark. While they like to make hay off of Rasputin’s closeness to the late Tsarina, who is now a Saint, they can’t seem to convince anybody else of their claims. If one must put down some sort of religious significance to Rasputin, I’d say that “agent of the devil whose machinations damaged the popularity of the Tsar” could fit just as easily. I tend to prefer “selfish bastard who could spin a good yarn” myself.
Okay, thanks, I was just curious.
“…the late Tsarina, who is now a saint…”
In conformity with the thread title, to keep this from turning into a religious debate (:)), Dogface, would you care to explain how Orthodox go about recognizing (new) saints. I know the impetus always comes from the people, but that there’s another step, which is not similar to the formal Roman Catholic canonization process. Would you be willing to fill in the blanks?
You know, guys, I wished Bush and Blair and Saddam were into this kind of posting to each other and to the whole world, instead of shooting – sad to say, from the part of Bush and Blair. Now, both of them appear to be in very hot water.
Pardon the hijack. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the extensive learning of our good brother, Polycarp, and also Dogface.
Susma Rio Sep
There are Christians and then there are Catholics, Christianity was formed from Catholicism. the main difference and i do speak from an atheist point of view is the way in which each sect goes about its business.
Christians unlike Catholics are not as strict in ritual, i have many friends that consider themselves and the congregation they attend as Christian not Catholic, for the simple reasons, instead of 24K gold leaf ceilings and idols in a church, they prefer an open community hall where they have instead of a sermen more like a group discussion on moral and community issues, they do refer to the bible, and yes the do pray and their children are Christened. (not baptised though they are practically one in the same thing), Christians do not hold the rituals of Catholics very high, and are more active in communty awareness and the ten commandments, then rituals.
Apart from that my personal opinion is rather based on the fact that Catholicism is rather a sham, where their churches in under-developed countries to have the 24K gold leafing, and gold plated ornaments, where they poor sit on the stairs at the entrance, but cannot go inside, and i have seen these myself!!!
Where money goes to delaying the death of the pope for a few more months, where in the vatican’s volt lies millions of dollars of ‘treasures’, scupltures, paintings and other precious artifacts. these are the differences!!!
Um, no, Kaz_Jel, a LOT of these churches in the third world are as impoverished as the people themselves.