I'm becoming Orthodox

Maybe if I had seen it on TV instead of actually being there.

A lot of incense - by that I mean "a lot" of incense and a lot of liturgical reading - and by that I mean "a lot" of standing and sitting in responsive reading where the reading was so wrote that pretty much the entire group knew the whole thing by heart.

Of course - I am not saying that such a service is not right up your alley... I am just asking if there is some "other" kind of Orthodox service.

I would not of course be asking Mioque about anything Catholic as Mioque is not a Catholic or even an Orthodox source. But nice of you to volunteer.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You were baptized into the EOC, but somehow without joining? (I though catchumen was someone going theough ght perocess leading to baptism). Or are you counting your baptism as whatever you were before? (does the EOC recognize that?)

 

Actualy the Metropolitians
of the Eastern Catholic (AKA: Orthodox) churches
were only about 1/4 of Christendom,
the Roman Catholic Church about 1/4.
The Egyptian Copytic (those south of Egypt
in Africa) and the Nestorian (AKA: East Syrian)
were also each a quarter
of Christendom, back in 1054 when the
Metropolitian Sees excommunicated the
Bishop of Rome and the Pope excommunicated
the Metropolitian Sees.
Unfortunatly, the Protestants get their
history from RCC books

I compiled the following from a varity of
book and internet (maybe proto-internet?)
sources without carefully documenting where
i got each portion of information. Sorry...

---------------------------
Thessalonian: "Isn't it odd that before the deformation (reformation)
there was the Catholic Church, the Orthodox (which split
off from the Catholic Church in about 1350) and an odd
come and go sect or three for 1500 years?"

Actually that is revisionist history.

In the year 1001 there were numerous pilgrimages to the
Holy Land from Europe, Africa, and India to
celbrate the start of the second Millinnium.
That year the largest Christian Church was the
East Syrian (Nestorian).
This church, the Catholic Apostolic Church of the East,
had over 250 dioceses across Asia and
12 million adhernets. More saints were commanded by this
chruch than the Bishop of Rome (Pope, the Roman
Catholic CHurch or the
Bishop of Conistanople/Patriarch of Antioch (Orthodox
Catholic Apostolic Church, AKA: Easter Orthodox). By 1051 the
Patriarch of Antioch and the Bishop of Rome excommunicated
the bishops, priests, and members each of the group.

During the next 200 years the Catholic Apostolic Church
of the East was crushed between the Mongols of the
East and the Muslim from the Southwest.

Needless to say, it is NOT in the best interests of
the Papists to have that information be of general knowledge.

(this data is quoted from:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/eastern.htm)

NESTORIANS:

The Nestorians are now only a pitiful remnant of what was once a great Church. Long before the heresy from which they have their name, there was a flourishing Christian community in Chaldea and Mesopotamia. According to their tradition it was founded by Addai and Mari (Addeus and Maris), two of the seventy-two Disciples. The present Nestorians count Mar Mari as the first Bishop of Ctesiphon and predecessor of their patriarch. In any case this community was originally subject to the Patriarch of Antioch. As his vicar, the metropolitan of the twin-cities of Seleucia and Ctesiphon (on either side of the Tigris, north-east of Babylon) bore the title of catholicos. One of these metropolitans was present at the Council of Nicaea in 325. The great distance of this Church from Antioch led in early times to a state of semi-independence that prepared the way for the later schism. Already in the fourth century the Patriarch of Antioch waived his right of ordaining the catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and allowed him to be ordained by his own suffragans. In view of the great importance of the right of ordaining, as a sign of jurisdiction throughout the East, this fact is important. But it does not seem that real independence of Antioch was acknowledged or even claimed till after the schism. In the fifth century the influence of the famous Theodore of Mopsuestia and that of his school of Edessa spread the heresy of Nestorius throughout this extreme Eastern Church. Naturally, the later Nestorians deny that their fathers accepted any new doctrine at that time, and they claim that Nestorius learned from them rather than they from him ("Nestorius eos secutus est, non ipsi Nestorium", Ebed-Jesu of Nisibis, about 1300. Assemani, "Bibli. Orient.", III, 1, 355). There may be truth in this. Theodore and his school had certainly prepared the way for Nestorius. In any case the rejection of the Council of Ephesus (431) by these Christians in Chaldea and Mesopotamia produced a schism between them and the rest of Christendom. When Babaeus, himself a Nestorian, became catholicos, in 498, there were practically no more Catholics in those parts. From Ctesiphon the Faith had spread across the frontier into Persia, even before that city was conquered bythe Persian king (244). The Persian Church, then, always depended on Ctesiphon and shared its heresy. From the fifth century this most remote of the Eastern Churches has been cut off from the rest of Christendom, and till modern times was the most separate and forgotten community of all. Shut out from the Roman Empire (Zeno closed the school of Edessa in 489), but, for a time at least, protected by the Persian kings, the Nestorian Church flourished around Ctesiphon, Nisibis (where the school was reorganized), and throughout Persia. Since the schism the catholicos occasionally assumed the title of patriarch. The Church then spread towards the East and sent missionaries to India and even China. A Nestorian inscription of the year 781 has been found at Singan Fu in China (J. Heller, S.J., "Prolegomena zu einer neuen Ausgabe der nestorianischen Inschrift von Singan Fu", in the "Verhandlungen des VII. internationalen Orientalistencongresses", Vienna, 1886, pp. 37 sp.). Its greatest extent was in the eleventh century, when twenty-five metropolitans obeyed the Nestorian patriarch. But since the end of the fourteenth century it has gradually sunk to a very small sect, first, because of a fierce persecution by the Mongols (Timur Leng), and then through internal disputes and schisms. Two great schisms as to the patriarchal succession in the sixteenth century led to a reunion of part of the Nestorian Church with Rome, forming the Catholic Chaldean Church. At present there are about 150,000 Nestorians living chiefly in highlands west of Lake Urumiah. They speak a modern dialect of Syriac. The patriarchate descends from uncle to nephew, or to younger brothers, in the family of Mama; each patriarch bears the name Simon (Mar Shimun) as a title. Ignoring the Second General Council, and of course strongly opposed to the Third (Ephesus), they only acknowledge the First Nicene (325). They have a Creed of their own, formed from an old Antiochene Creed, which does not contain any trace of the particular heresy from which their Church is named. In deed it is difficult to say how far any Nestorians now are conscious of the particular teaching condemned by the Council of Ephesus, though they still honour Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and other undoubted heretics as saints and doctors. The patriarch rules over twelve other bishops (the list in Silbernagl, "Verfassung", p. 267). Their hierarchy consists of the patriarch, metropolitans, bishops, chorepiscopi, archdeacons, priests, deacons, subdeacons, and readers. There are also many monasteries. They use Syriac liturgically written in their own (Nestorian) form of the alphabet. The patriarch, who now generally calls himself "Patriarch of the East", resides at Kochanes, a remote valley of the Kurdish mountains by the Zab, on the frontier between Persia and Turkey. He has an undefined political jurisdiction over his people, though he does not receive a berat from the Sultan. In any ways this most remote Church stands alone; it has kept a number of curious and archaic customs (such as the perpetual abstinence of the patriarch, etc.) that separate it from other Eastern Churches almost as much as from those of the West. Lately the Archbishop of Canterbury's mission to the Nestorians has aroused a certain interest about them in England.

 

You guys who are thinking of joining an Orthodox church are not bothered by the beliefs of Eastern Orthodoxy that I posted on page 1 and that D28 posted in part again on page 2?

You don't mind kissing icons of saints and thinking you are being linked to them through an image?

You're okay with no one being saved unless he is baptized?

Sure, the Orthodox may have beautiful services but is that enough reason to accept these doctrines? Can you go along with all this with no problem?

 

Ed, you actually forgot the fifth division; the Jerusalem patriarchate. So they were all fifths.

 

miogue,

That would certainly explain it.

Sadly,

Mike

 

Marcia,

Its baffling, isnt it?

I havent had as much experience with folks from the orthodox faith as I have with Catholics. But regarding the catholics I am coming closer and closer to the view that its some kind of very subtle type of brainwashing that goes on.

Of course, its not any kind of drastic...and very literal...brainwashing like some hard core cults employ, but the level of complete blindness to plain simple truth that is so clear is nothing less than stunning.

And the blind acceptance of complete absurdities as well as clearly seen idolatries is equally stunning.

Incredibly sad beyond comprehension in both cases, particularly in light of how clearly...crystal clearly...the scriptures exposes the falsehoods and idolatries. But then, to these dear ones it doesnt matter because, in their mind...

"It doesnt matter what the scriptures say! Because our tradition says these things are so, and so...they are so!"

And of course tradition is nothing but...whatever happens to pop up...and they decide they like...through the centuries.

Very VERY sad,

Mike

 

Ed Edwards
I should have been clearer.
The Copts and the Nestorians seperated from the 'Catholic Church' (Eastern-Orthodoxy + Roman Catholicism) during it's formation period.
I only referred to the denomination from which the RCC and EO sprang not Christendom in general.

BOB
"I am just asking if there is some "other" kind of Orthodox service."
"
NO. Previous attempts to Introduce tiny changes in the liturgy have caused huge strife in EO circles in the past.

"Maybe if I had seen it on TV instead of actually being there."
"I mean "a lot" of standing and sitting"
"
How strange, Eastern-Orthodox churches don't have seating arrangements....

 

This is the same claim the pagan make when worshipping the family gods and praying to ancestors.

But other than that icon-worship and praying to the dead - and possibly magic powers to change the souls of infants at baptism via magic mantras, the list did not have some of the other radical statements of heresy like you find within the RCC for Purgatory.

What about extermination of heretics as you find in Lateran IV?

How "Baptists" could be jumping onto that list of errors is mystifying.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ed - it appears that almost "one half" of all Christians were not of the Roman or Eastern Orthodox flavor in 1000 A.D.

Was this purely a political factioning within Catholicism or were there actual doctrinal differences?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Some of both. The following by necessity is oversimplified, but here goes...

The "Nestorians" (Church of the East, Assyrian Church, etc.) generally followed the lead (at least the terminology) of Nestorius who separated the divine and human in Christ to such an extent as to speak of two hypostases in Christ. His views were condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in AD 431 since his views seemed to divide Christ into two subjects, and thus two sons. Most of those folks termed "Nestorians" lived outside the frontiers of the Roman empire (as Ed pointed out) and for whatever reason (linguistic, philosophical) adopted the Nestorian way of speaking of Christology. They did so many years after Ephesus since communication was more problematic when crossing from Roman boundaries into the domain of Persia.

The "monophysites" ("one nature") followed the formula of "one incarnate nature of God the Word" used chiefly by Cyril of Alexandria, who thought it was from Athanasius, but the origins of which turned out to be Apollinarian (Apollinarius basically believed the Christ had human flesh but the Word functioned as the soul/mind to the body). Later correspondence between Cyril and John of Antioch (and others) after Ephesus proved that Cyril did not in fact use that formula in an Apollinarian or true "monophysitic" fashion. The worry from the orthodox regarding this formula was, given its Apollinarian origins, it could not adequately guard against diminishing the complete humanity (body/mind/soul) of Christ. In 451 AD, the Chaldedonian definition affirmed the two natures (Divine and Human) in one hypostasis and person, thus affirming the unity of the subject without diminishing either the full divinity or complete humanity of the One Christ, the Word Incarnate. The view of Eutyches, which was very confused and would not affirm that Christ was consubstantial with us men, raised the spectre of Apollinarius and was condemned as heresy. The Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, who had already defended Eutyches (for perhaps political reasons) refused to attend the council despite being summoned thrice, and he clung to the "one nature" formula and was condemned as a schismatic. Thus began the separation of the Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians, and (Jacobite) Syrians from the Orthodox church. (Although there remained a minority in Alexandria who remained in communion with the Orthodox Catholic Church, and Syria was divided among Nestorians, monophysite, and Orthodox) Whether members of these jurisdications can actually be called truly "monophysite" in the Apollinarian and Eutychian sense is very doubtful (since they condemn both of these view points). It seems to be more of an issue of "Cyrillian" fundamentalism (or Alexandrian chauvenism) in clinging at all costs to the "one nature" formula that the majority of the church felt inadequate in protecting the true humanity of Christ.

So to sum up the different "christologies"..
Nestorian: two natures, two hypostases, one persona (eg. outward "mask")
Monophysite: one nature, one hypostasis, one persona
Orthodox: two natures, one hypostasis (God the Word), one persona

(Keep in mind that the Trinitarian language affirmed at Constantinople in AD 381 was that God was three hypostases--subsistances/"persons"--and one ousia, or "being")

So "Nestorianism" and "monophysitism" tend towards opposite extremes in speaking of Christ. The former tends to keep the human and divine so separate as to severely weaken the Unity of the Subject, while the latter emphasizes the unity to the point of confusion of the human and divine or towards diminishing the true humanity of Christ. The Orthodox Catholic view made explicit in the Definition of Chalcedon guards against either extreme. So today, while it's certainly arguable whether or not those who fall into either the "Nestorian" or "monophysite" camps actually hold to the extreme versions of the "christologies" that the Church was guarding against at the 3rd and 4th (and 5th and 6th for that matter) ecumenical councils, there still remains division.


(Hope this wasn't too confusing)

[ July 06, 2005, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Doubting Thomas ]

 

The East Syrian Church was vitrualy destroyed
chrushed between the rise of Islam in the Middle
East (what is now Iraq and Iran and Afganastan)
and the Mongol horde (what is now Georgia and
the area east of the Caspian sea.)

 

I am thinking about becoming Orthodox because it seems closer to the New Testament Church.

BobRyan,

God demanded sacred images be made. I am not sure why you have a problem with God's command?

 

Good answers, Tauf

Beware, however....based on past experience, I predict a certain poster will likely respond that sola Scriptura and justification by faith alone are true since they are both (allegedly) "thundered forth from the Scriptures".

 

In that case, I now canonize the Book of James, the Reed.

You can't be serious about this, can you?


2 Timothy 3:
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


Hebrews 1:
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


Our first article of faith is:

The scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired written word of God. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” They are written to and for the use and benefit of the children of God and are the only rule of faith and practice. In the days of the prophets, God inspired them to write about His holy counsel. In these latter days God has spoken to us by His Son and inspired the Apostles to write about things which God revealed to them.

Without this belief, then we open ourselves to any interpretation and any "new" gospel that could come along.

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men , after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

I'll stick with Christ and his Holy Word, rather than with men.

 

The "tradition of men" is one thing. The "tradition of the apostles" (which has the authority of Christ) is quite another....

"Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you." 1 Corinthians 11:2

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle." 2 Thessalonians 2:15

"But we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." 2 Thess 3:6

So you see, Christ's authority is present in the Apostolic Tradition whether delivered orally or written.