What is the Orthodox Church?

[Arduinna]

Can someone explain to me what the orthodox church is? And how are say the Greek Orthodox different from the other Orthodox churches??

Is a blending of Catholocism and cultural beliefs?

[DaryLLL]

One shot at an answer.

It goes back to Constantine, 4th cent CE. He moved the capital of the Roman Empire to the east (better situated for trade) and named the city after himself, Constantinopolis.

At one time, there were 2 competing popes of the church (and a gnostic pope of the non-orthodox church system as well).

Whole there are religious differences, I think the split was more political.

[Arduinna]

What are the differences between the modern Orthodox churches.

[Bekka]

nak

I studied Russian Orthodoxy in some detail in college...in 1054 was a major schism that produced eastern Orthodoxy centered in Constantinople and western Christianity that recognized the pope. While there were several reasons for the schism, a lot of it had to do with icons and their place in worship (whether they qualified as "graven images"). The eastern church had refined iconography to a religious art, and the western church very much believed the people were worshipping pictures.

As far as I know, the major differences in the churches are that each is done it its own language, i.e., Russian Orthodoxy (Pravoslavie) is performed in Old Church Slavonic, which is an old Slavic language. I don't know about Greek, but I know there are Greek Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, etc.

They don't recognize the Pope in Rome, but I think the cohesiveness of the Orthodox church fell when Constantinople did (became Istanbul, now a Turkish, mostly Muslim city, I believe). That's when each of the national church groups took on their own leadership etc.

Russian history, identity and culture developed parallel to the Russian Orthodox church--i.e., the national church. I've read it's similar with Greek, for example.

To make this all very interesting and bring it into perspective, I attended a catholic mass when I was doing comparative analysis, and their little spiritual thought for the day was to give information about the icon used in the Orthodox church and how it could be a focus for spiritual devotional time ...

[Arduinna]

Thanks Bekka. So there is one organizing body (not sure how to say that) for all the different Orthodox Churches but the biggest difference is the language they use in worship.

ok, interesting.

[Bekka]

yes, I think that's right.

Although it may be like Baptist isn't always equivalent. I don't know about the highest level of church leadership, i.e., who they recognize.

[kama'aina mama]

I want to say some/ all the Orthodox churches follow a different worship calender than the Roman church. They don't use the Gregorian Calender, they use an older one. I remember a woman I worked with a number of years ago was Orthodox (don't know any more than that, she was from Bosnia if that means anything) and she celebrated Easter a few weeks after I did.

[Arduinna]

interesting Kama, so do they follow the Julian calendar or a different one?

hmmmmm

[merpk]

This is totally off the top of my head, could be wrong, but I think their calendar is more lunar. Heard once that Orthodox Easter always always falls in or around Passover. Which goes by the Jewish/lunar calendar.

Or something along those lines.

[kama'aina mama]

If they do it that way merpk, it would make a lot of sense. I have never understood the rather pagan seeming way that Easter is designated. How do you know when Passover is?

[DaryLLL]

Dating Easter Sunday--Paschal full moons, ecclesiastical full moons, Gregorian and Julian calendars, leap yrs, etc.

You'd need a calculator!

http://www.assa.org.au/edm.html#List20

or

http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/BillInfo/ReligiousCalendars.html

A whole lot of mathematical calculations, followed by:


If you pay attention to the dates of Easter and Passover from year to year, you will notice that although they usually fall within a week or so of each other, on occasion Passover falls about a month after (Gregorian) Easter. At the present time, this happens in in the 3rd, 11th, and 14th years of the Metonoic Cycle (i.e., when the Golden Number equals 3, 11, or 14). The reason for this discrepancy is the fact that although the Metonic Cycle is very good, it is not perfect (as we've seen in this course). In particular, it is a little off if you use it to predict the length of the tropical year. So, over the centuries the date of the vernal equinox, as predicted by the Metonic Cycle, has been drifting to later and later dates. So, the rule for Passover, which was originally intended to track the vernal equinox, has gotten a few days off. In ancient times this was never a problem since Passover was set by actual observations of the Moon and of the vernal equinox. However, after Hillel II standardized the Hebrew calendar in the 4th century, actual observations of celestial events no longer played a part in the determination of the date of Passover. The Gregorian calendar reform of 1582 brought the Western Church back into conformity with astronomical events, hence the discrepancy.

Similarly, you will notice that in many years Gregorian Easter (the one marked on all calendars) differs from Julian (Orthodox) Easter, sometimes by a week, sometimes by a month. Again, this is due to the different rules of calculation. A major difference is that Orthodox Easter uses the old Julian calendar for calculation, and the date of the Vernal Equinox is slipping later and later on the Julian calendar relative to the Gregorian calendar (and to astronomical fact). Also, the date of Paschal Full Moon for the Julian calculation is about 4 days later than that for the Gregorian calculation. At present, in 5 out of 19 years in the Metonic Cycle--the years when the Golden Number equals 3, 8, 11, 14 and 19--Orthodox Easter occurs a month after Gregorian Easter. In three of these years, Passover also falls a month after Gregorian Easter (see above).

If you are still with me, this year the orthodox and catholic Easters fell on the same date. Just coincidently.

[asherah]

OT:
I've been reading a whopping two-volume biography of the Medicis.
It spans the time of the fall of Constantinople...

And at one point.. there were actually THREE popes.

They ALL got deposed during inter-city fighting in Italy.. and a new one was appointed.

[kama'aina mama]

Go Darylll! Thank you.

[Arduinna]

very interesting.

anyone have anything else to share?

[DaryLLL]

Hey Ard, this thread is exactly one year old. You can't fool me!

[Arduinna]

:LOL I wasn't trying to fool anyone

I noticed we had another thread about Greek Orthodox and thought I could attract some action here.

[Unagidon]

Here is a link that lays out the basic differences in excruciating detail. (But note the cute little dig at the end).

http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

Theologically the Roman Church is pretty close to the others. The main theological differences are in the subtle idea of whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (Orthodox) or the Father and the Son (Catholic) and the concept of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which is rejected by the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox don’t like the idea of papal infallibility in that they think that big decisions need to be decided in a synod. The stuff about icons, vestments, and even married priests is not considered relevant to the theological dispute and in fact, for the “Uniate” churches, which are former Orthodox parishes now aligned with Rome, the rites and customs are almost identical to Orthodox rites and customs down to married priests.

On the other hand, there is a lot of history between the two that will be harder to overcome than the theology. Greeks blame Rome for the sack of Constantinople in the 13th century, which they feel so weakened the Byzantine state that it never recovered. Russians are suspicious of Catholics through their historical relations with Poland (especially), where Poles established Uniate churches in any formerly Orthodox areas (such as western Ukraine and Byelorussia) that they controlled.

There is a commission that has been set up to try to bring the churches into communion. Right now they are not, which means that Catholics can’t take Communion at Orthodox Churches and vice versa. But it could come.

Interestingly, there is also a movement for the Anglican Church to join the Orthodox churches as an Orthodox congregation.

[Arduinna]

Thanks for the link, very interesting.

[Persephone]

Well, I'm glad this thread was brought up, I was wondering this exact thing yesterday! :)

[applejuice]

Dating Easter Sunday--Paschal full moons, ....If you are still with me, this year the orthodox and catholic Easters fell on the same date. Just coincidently.

Yes, and this year they do not.

I was raised Catholic, converted to Judaism and teach now in a Greek Orthodox Church School...I love this place!!

The Western Easter is the first Sunday of the first full moon after the Vernal Equinox. (Sounds kind of pagan to me, JMHO)

The Eastern/Orthodox Easter is the first Sunday after the Jewish Passover Festival, the idea being that Jesus celebrated the Passover Seder before his cruxifixion, being the observant Jew that he was...

-or-

As my Orthodox teaching partner said to me,"He had to eat before they could kill him...."

[applejuice]

Regarding icons, I always liked the idea that an icon was used - something two dimensional - for focusing thoughts during devotions. That way no "graven image" was used.

The Catholic Church has outright statues and lifesized figures in their churches for their devotions...in the Catholic School High School my son attended, the chapel had a life-sized, three-dimensional Jesus hanging on the cross, over the altar; I thought it was extremely imposing and kind of scary, even though I was raised in this religion.

How is this not idol worship or graven images?

I guess it is all in the eyes/mind/soul of the worshipper.

[Unagidon]

How is this not idol worship or graven images?

Catholics aren't worshipping the image, that's why it is not idol worship.

[calpurnia]

Don't forget the Armenian Orthodox Church!

There were quite a few Armenian Orthodox girls at my school, & their Christmas always seemed to fall in early January, when we were back at school, so they would get a few extra days off.

[applejuice]

I do believe that Armenia was the very first Christian nation.

[applejuice]

Catholics aren't worshipping the image, that's why it is not idol worship.

I am talking about two- -vs- three-dimensional representations of a saint or diety.

The pp (#4) said there was a controversy between the Eastern and Western Churches over the icons and their place in worship and whether or not they were graven images.

I simply stated that the statue, IMHO, was more of an "idol" than a picture.

[Unagidon]

I am talking about two- -vs- three-dimensional representations of a saint or diety.

The pp (#4) said there was a controversy between the Eastern and Western Churches over the icons and their place in worship and whether or not they were graven images.

I simply stated that the statue, IMHO, was more of an "idol" than a picture.

I think that you are talking about two different things. There is a convention for religious images in the Orthodox East and you can read about it in the link I posted above.

The controversy you are referring to regarding images as idolatry was the iconoclast controversy within the Eastern Orthodox Churches in the eighth and ninth centuries. Iconoclasm was a demand that ALL images, including icons, be destroyed. The Catholic Pope defended the creation of images at this time, but if you are familiar with Western religious art of this period, it is also usually two-dimensional.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm

[AngelBee]

:notes:

[lilyka]

HI

I am currently converting to the Orthodox church.

there is a lot of misinformation, misunderstanding, superstition etc about the Eastern Orthodox church. Most of it spread by people who only have an axe to grind against it but have never really studied it, worshiped with it, or sought to understand the cultures and history that it came form. i have seen a lot of that inthis thread already and it saddens but doesn't surprise me.

i am by no means an expert.

but I do have a lot of resources and can clear up some of the confusion.

first here are some web sites that will answer a million questions:
for inquirers (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/default.aspx)
promartyr (http://www.protomartyr.org/links.html)
OCA (http://www.oca.org/OCIndex.asp?SID=2) (the question and answer section is great. If you have questions that don't get answered here I have heard he is very good about answering them)
Compare and contrast (http://www.orthodoxfaith.com/spirituality_difference.html)
The Russian Orthodox church (http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/info/russian_church.htm)
Church History in a nut shell (http://www.saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.html#timechart)
Orthodox info (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/)
We even have our own Wiki (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Main_Page)
Giving the Greeks a fair share (http://www.goarch.org/)
If you want to find a church to visit (http://orthodoxyinamerica.org/sr/geo_gate.php)
Just because I love these guys (http://www.deathtotheworld.com/)
You can talk to a convert (http://www.antiochian.org/missions/investigating_orthodoxy.htm) if you want to know why they left thier church for the Orthodox faith

and that should get you started . . .

there are also some great books i would recommend.
The best though is The Orthodox Church by Bishop Ware (http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Church-New-Timothy-Ware/dp/0140146563/ref=sr_1_1/103-9938837-4321430?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187287624&sr=8-1)

[lilyka]

Can someone explain to me what the orthodox church is? And how are say the Greek Orthodox different from the other Orthodox churches??

Is a blending of Catholocism and cultural beliefs?

Ok I was trying to do this all in one post but I give up. please forgive the million posts that are about to follow. If I lose my response one more time I am going to snap . . .

the different churches vary mostly by culture. The big stuff (and a lot of it is big stuff) is all the same.

it is not Catholicism. The Catholic church broke off from the One church when the pope claimed authority he didn't have and started changing doctrine. You will see a lot of new RC doctrines introduced and or canonized right after the RC broke off. interestingly enough they are the ones people seem to have the most trouble with including papal infallibility and immaculate conception . I would say the RC has more in common with protestantism the Orthodoxy as RC and the protestant church are two sides of the same coin.

[lilyka]

What are the differences between the modern Orthodox churches.

there is little difference between eastern Orthodox churches. I know we are not in communion with the Oriental orthodox church but i haven't got a clue why (although a google search should quickly bring it up).

it looks crazy in America because we didn't follow the trend. usually the Orthodox would come into an area and th population would begin to worship with them. it was always important that it was their faith and their church. everything would be done in their language, and as soon as they were stable they would break from their mother church and form their own overseeing body. It was a very natural growth process and mostly went smoothly.

Missionary parishes in the US went the same way and we do have the Orthodox Church of America (which was released from the Russian church but not all Russian churches wanted to break from the Russian church so then what was once under the leader ship of one is now under the leadership of two but it is kinda a wash now because the ROCOR is back in communion and i believe under the Russian church so now what was two is 1 so it all balances out. except for a lot of people are upset by this. but I still think the good outweighs the bad). but we also have all the others . . . . why? because we are a nation made of of immigrants. The immigrant parishes obviously wanted to worship in their language and retain their traditions and cultures. they looked to their fathers for help and were more than happy to be under them. and before you know it we have a mall geographical area with a bunch of Orthodox churches all under different leadership. This seems to be hugely controversial but I personally don't have a problem with it. i just wish everyone would work together more.

[lilyka]

nak

While there were several reasons for the schism, a lot of it had to do with icons and their place in worship

actually this had nothing to do with the great schism between Rome in the west and the churches in the East. the two major factors were the filoque (saying the fSpirit issues from the father and the son rather than just the father. it seems like a small thing but it was changing doctrine without approval of the church as well as changes the nature of the trinity. it really is a big deal.) and the Popes claims that he is special and infallible. while the pope was first in honor among bishops he was still just a bishop with no more power than any other bishop in the church.

[lilyka]

So there is one organizing body (not sure how to say that) for all the different Orthodox Churches but the biggest difference is the language they use in worship.

ok, interesting.


there is no governing body. the only thing holding us together is sharing right belief and right worship. (crazy huh. . . its down right miraculous if you ask me :lol) however that right belief and right worship is very defined.

originally there were 5 Arch Bishops, one of them being the church of Rome and her Bishop. the other four churches were in the east. Once the pope was excommunicated Constantinople became the first in honor. He still is.

here is a list of the churches as it stands:
There are 15 self-ruling Churches:

* Patriarchate of Constantinople, His All-Holiness, Bartholomew I
Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch

* Patriarchate of Alexandria, His Beatitude Theodoros II
Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa

* Patriarchate of Antioch, His Beatitude Ignatius IV
Patriarch of Antioch and All the East

* Patriarchate of Jerusalem, His Holiness, Theophilos III
Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem and All Palestine

* Patriarchate of Moscow, His Holiness Aleksy II
Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia

* Patriarchate of Serbia, His Holiness Pavle
Archbishop of Pech, Metropolitan of Belgrade-Karlovci and Serbian Patriarch

* Patriarchate of Romania, His Beatitude Teoctist
Archbishop of Bucharest, Metropolitan of Hungro-Vlachia,
Locum Tenens of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Patriarch of Romania

* Patriarchate of Bulgaria, His Holiness Maksim
Metropolitan of Sofia, Patriarch of Bulgaria

* Patriarchate of Georgia, His Holiness and Beatitude Ilia II
Archbishop of Mtskheta and Tbilisi, Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia

* Church of Cyprus, His Beatitude Chrysostomos II
Archbishop of New Justiniana and All Cyprus

* Church of Greece, His Beatitude Christodoulos
Archbishop of Athens and All Greece

* Church of Poland, His Beatitude Sawa
Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland

* Church of Albania, His Beatitude Anastasios
Archbishop of Tirana, Durres, and All Albania

* Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, His Beatitude, Metropolitan Christopher Primate of the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia

* Orthodox Church in America, His Beatitude, Herman
Archbishop of Washington and New York, Metropolitan of All America and Canada

There are also some Autonomous Churches, they are self-ruling Churches, but under the watch on a mother Church:

* Church of Sinai, His Beatitude Damian
Archbishop of Sinai, Farum and Raithu

* Church of Finland, His Eminence Leo
Archbishop of Karelia and All Finland

* The Church of Ukraine, His Beatitude Volodymyr
Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine

* Church of Japan, His Eminence Daniel
Archbishop of Tokyo, Metropolitan of All Japan

[lilyka]

I want to say some/ all the Orthodox churches follow a different worship calender than the Roman church. .

Some churches use the old calendar and some use the new. Some that use the new still go by old calendar dates for Pashal celebration because it just makes more sense. Me personally i prefer old calendar because I don't think we should just be changing things willy nilly for no good reason. I don't know what my parish uses as this was my first easter there and wouldn't you know, this year was the very rare occurrence that everything lined up for everyone :lol

(ETA: my parish uses the new calender. not sure what we do for Pasha though)

[lilyka]

Catholics aren't worshiping the image, that's why it is not idol worship.

exactly we aren't worshiping. we venerate or pay respect or show our love to the people in the icons. The icons help us connect with them since we have never met them personally (in most cases - there are some recently sainted individuals who may well have friends and aquintences still alive ). EO are very specific in how icons can be painted, who can paint them, what each aspect of the picture means (you should be able to identify who is in the icon and what is happening regardless of who wrote it and how much skill they have). There is no room for artistic liscence. They are not art and are not meant for decoration (despite being quite beautiful).

They have been described as windows to heaven. Something that draws our mind past this world and into a heavenly one.

[gossamer]

Thanks Bekka. So there is one organizing body (not sure how to say that) for all the different Orthodox Churches but the biggest difference is the language they use in worship.

ok, interesting.

Um, no. Each orthodox church has it's own "organizing body" Orthodox actually means "Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion. " So anybody who split off from their cultural/national religion was then declared unorthodox. THe Koptic church in Egypt split off because of a disagreement over whether or not Jesus was fully god or part god and part human. They now have their own pope, church, church officials etc. Minor disagreements of this type are usually what led to a split and after a split, one or both of the denominations would declare themselves orthodox as in "We are the one true church. If you worship over there you are going to hell."

For several years in Europe there were two popes, the elected pope and the "anti pope" each backed by a different family in power. The pope was even relocated to Avignon France for a time. The anti-vatican? :)

So there is Russion Orthodox, Armenian Arthodox, Greek Orthodox, Byzantine Orthodoxetc. Orthodox itself is not a religion, but describes a denomination. You can have Orthodox Judaism, Orthodox Anglican or Roman Orthadox.
Gossamer

[Kidzaplenty]

:notes2:

[mtiger]

Oy. I only read a few responses and am already late for work, but the ones I read are all off base. Seriously so. If no one's corrected the misconceptions by the time I get home and have a chance to read the entire thread, I'll do so.

[lilyka]

I know . . all the misinformation gave me a little panic attack. it makes me feel better that it is a very old thread.

just wanted to post a coupe more links.

the first one (http://www.antiochian.org/orthodox-prayers) is a link to a prayer book. if you look under the red book you will see links. In the end, when it came right down to it was through the prayers that I learned the most about the Church and finally surrendered to it. You should read them. they are absolutely beautiful and extremely powerful and truly give the clearest picture of the Orthodox church. as you read them imagine millions of Christians all day long reciting the same praises continuously. Here (http://www.transchurch.org/sguide/prayerbook.asp#The%20Jesus%20Prayer)is another one. and one more (http://troparion.com/morning.htm).

this site is a good one for reading about various saints. www.comeandseeicons.com. of course there seems to be a server issue at the moment . . . .

and just as a matter of explanation . . .
Theotokos means "God Bearer" and it Mary's official title in the church.

[mtiger]

Ya done good, lilyka. Whew!

The Orthodox Church is very unique. Of all Christian churches, it is the one that has changed the least over the centuries. When I was married, I had several friends attend who had never been in an Orthodox Church, let alone to a service of any (Orthodox) type. They all said to me that it was like being let in on a secret.

[Tradd]

Um, no. Each orthodox church has it's own "organizing body" Orthodox actually means "Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion. " So anybody who split off from their cultural/national religion was then declared unorthodox. THe Koptic church in Egypt split off because of a disagreement over whether or not Jesus was fully god or part god and part human. They now have their own pope, church, church officials etc. Minor disagreements of this type are usually what led to a split and after a split, one or both of the denominations would declare themselves orthodox as in "We are the one true church. If you worship over there you are going to hell."

So there is Russion Orthodox, Armenian Arthodox, Greek Orthodox, Byzantine Orthodoxetc. Orthodox itself is not a religion, but describes a denomination. You can have Orthodox Judaism, Orthodox Anglican or Roman Orthadox.
Gossamer


The Orthodox Church is not a denomination. It's the true faith. As we sing at the end of each Divine Liturgy, "We seen the true light." Orthodox Christianity is the Christianity that developed in the Eastern half of the old Roman Empire. It's original orientation was Greek (Constantinople - while this changed after the 9th Century with the beginnings of the conversion of the Slavs), while in the West, the orientation was Latin (Rome).

Orthodox has the double meaning of "right [correct] worship/glory." There is a BIG difference between "big O" Orthodox (which is the proper name of the Eastern Orthodox Churches) and "small o" orthodox, used as a description of someone's adherence to traditional religious forms (Orthodox Judaism, for example).

The Armenian Orthodox are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches (the Greeks, Russians, Antiochians, etc.) because they are non-Chalcedonian. They do not accept the decrees of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in Chalcedon, in 451 (while Christ is a single, undivided person, He is not only from two natures, but in two natures).

Orthodox has the double meaning of "right [correct] worship/glory."

There is no such thing as Byzantine Orthodox. "Byzantine" comes from the name of the old Greek settlement on the Bosphorus, Byzantium, which Constantine the Great (an Orthodox saint, btw) restablished as Constantinople about 330. Orthodox follow the "Byzantine rite" to differentiate our liturgical practices from the Western church, which has the "Latin Rite." In Catholicism, you have the Latin Rite (the Roman Catholic Mass) and the Byzantine (or Eastern Rite). I'm not even going to get into the small "Western Rite" in the Antiochian Archdiocese here in North American (think of Eastern Rite Catholicism in reverse, and you have the idea).

With all the misinformation about Orthodoxy out there, I'd suggest a reading of the basic introduction in English to the Orthodox Church. Written by an Englishman (Anglican) who became Orthodox in 1958 (when such a thing wasn't done), it describes both the history and the practice of the Church. The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware (written when he was an Orthodox layman as Timothy Ware). Your library will have it. In fact, it's such a standard text now, that it's one of the few Orthodox books the major bookstores (Borders/B&N) will carry.

The original 1964 version used to be online, but I can't find it.

A basic intro to Orthodox, found online, are the four books comprising The Orthodox Faith written by Fr. Thomas Hopko, published by the OCA (Orthodox Church in America).

http://www.oca.org/OCorthfaith.asp?SID=2

[lilyka]

:bump:

[angelpie545]

This is a very interesting thread. I've never bothered to look into what the difference between the Orthodox churches are, theologically or governing-body wise. It's all so confusing! :shy

[meowee]

I love the Orthodox Church... I used to live in Astoria (Queens) that had many OCs. I remember just walking into one, one day, and nearly falling down it was so amazing. It was like I had walked into heaven. I had never seen anything like it. before, in a church. It was a completely different feeling/ experience from any other church I've been in.

[Tradd]

I love the Orthodox Church... I used to live in Astoria (Queens) that had many OCs. I remember just walking into one, one day, and nearly falling down it was so amazing. It was like I had walked into heaven. I had never seen anything like it. before, in a church. It was a completely different feeling/ experience from any other church I've been in.

The Orthodox actually believe that our Divine Liturgy is "heaven on earth.":D

[mamabadger]

This is a very interesting thread. I've never bothered to look into what the difference between the Orthodox churches are, theologically or governing-body wise. It's all so confusing! :shy
I'll take a crack at it, and others can correct me if they find something misleading.

It is not as complicated as it looks at first.
1) There is just one Orthodox Church. The Russian, Greek, etc churches are not different religions. The Orthodox in Russia have one bishop established to oversee and administer the church in that country. There are also other bishops in Russia which take care of their own district (diocese or see) and each nation has at least several different districts. No matter how many bishops a nation has, all the bishops and all the people are members of the one worldwide Orthodox Church.

2) All Orthodox bishops are equal. There is no single leader who is head of the entire church, like a Pope. Sometimes people call one of our bishops the "head of the Orthodox church." Usually it is the Patriarch of Constantinople, sometimes Patriarch of Jerusalem. That is not accurate.

3) In places where there are very few Orthodox, like North America, there seem to be countless different kinds of Orthodox bishops. What happens here is that most of the Orthodox people were immigrants. People from Greece would come to the U.S. or Canada and build Greek language churches, and Greece would send over a bishop for the Greek immigrant churches. The Russian, Serbian, and other immigrants would do the same, and have a bishop to manage their churches. Therefore, nowadays, even when you have a parish in which the members are no longer "ethnic" they are still under their "foreign" bishops, technically. For example, I have visited a parish in which every single member is an American born convert, including the priest and his wife; the services are all in English; yet they are technically a "Russian" church, because they are under a Russian bishop. There is even a small parish of mostly Sioux converts, which holds services in English and Lakota, but which is under a Greek bishop. I hope this makes sense to you.

4) As for theological differences, the Orthodox Church remained very unified until the twentieth century. Since around 1920, there have been differences between some of the national churches over matters of belief and practice. They are not what some religions would consider major, divisive issues, but they cause a separation; people from one jurisdiction would not want to attend parishes of another jurisdiction, and so forth. I suppose the closest comparison would be that of the Jewish categories of Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. They are all Jewish, but some keep the kosher laws, refuse to work on Saturday, and so forth, while others do not keep most of those practices. In the same way, some Orthodox Christian churches are very traditional as to belief, liturgics (the way services are conducted), and rules of behavior. Others are more liberal (by Orthodox standards, which is not all that liberal!) and have made some changes over the past few decades. Sometimes the traditional and the modernist camps are referred to as the "Old Calendarists" and the "New Calendarists," referring to the fact that some churches adopted the western calendar (the one we all have hanging on our wall) instead of the ancient Julian calendar that the Orthodox church has used for many centuries (which is why we celebrate Christmas on January 7, for example). This is not because the calendar is all that significant. The "calendar" thing is a kind of shorthand, since most of the "modernist" Orthodox churches do, in fact, use the standard western calendar, and most of the more "traditional" ones use the old calendar. There is some overlap, but usually the calendar is an easy way to establish which "side" a particular Orthodox church is on.
It is not a hostile disagreement, usually, and only extremists would suggest that either camp is not truly Orthodox or without Grace, but it involves issues that are taken very seriously, and the dispute continues.

[lilyka]

I found a really good article that some of you might be interested in that gives a really clear picture of some of the basic tenants of the Orthodox church.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/clendenin_response.aspx

It is a rebuttal to an article that isn't nearly as good. but since it references it here is the original article:
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1997/january6/7t1032.html

[meowee]

I'm also fascinated by their fasting traditions... the strict version is about 70% vegan, isn't it?

Sometimes I wish I could believe in Jesus, so I could be an Orthodox Christian!

[lilyka]

fasting is actually 100% vegan plus oil (some people fast oly from olive oil but some fast from all oil) and alcohol. I guess you can have shrimp, crab and lobster in small amounts, so not 100% vegan for everyone. I guess you really can't put a percentage on it. If a feast day falls on some fasting days we are allowed fish and wine and oil. You have no idea how exciting fish and olive oil can be :lol

The church fasts 40 days before Easter and Christmas, every Wednesday and Friday except for a few, and then a week here and there and another fast shortly after easter that can be anywhere from about 6 weeks to not there at all depending on what calendar you are using and when easter fell etc. There may be some other big ones I am forgetting. . . .it adds up to about half the year.

[Tradd]

My bits are bolded below.

I'll take a crack at it, and others can correct me if they find something misleading.

It is not as complicated as it looks at first.
1) There is just one Orthodox Church. The Russian, Greek, etc churches are not different religions. The Orthodox in Russia have one bishop established to oversee and administer the church in that country. There are also other bishops in Russia which take care of their own district (diocese or see) and each nation has at least several different districts. No matter how many bishops a nation has, all the bishops and all the people are members of the one worldwide Orthodox Church.

2) All Orthodox bishops are equal. There is no single leader who is head of the entire church, like a Pope. Sometimes people call one of our bishops the "head of the Orthodox church." Usually it is the Patriarch of Constantinople, sometimes Patriarch of Jerusalem. That is not accurate.

3) In places where there are very few Orthodox, like North America, there seem to be countless different kinds of Orthodox bishops. What happens here is that most of the Orthodox people were immigrants. People from Greece would come to the U.S. or Canada and build Greek language churches, and Greece would send over a bishop for the Greek immigrant churches. The Russian, Serbian, and other immigrants would do the same, and have a bishop to manage their churches. Therefore, nowadays, even when you have a parish in which the members are no longer "ethnic" they are still under their "foreign" bishops, technically. For example, I have visited a parish in which every single member is an American born convert, including the priest and his wife; the services are all in English; yet they are technically a "Russian" church, because they are under a Russian bishop. There is even a small parish of mostly Sioux converts, which holds services in English and Lakota, but which is under a Greek bishop. I hope this makes sense to you.

The Orthodox Church in America (American descendent of the Russian Orthodox Church, independent from Moscow since 1970) is a "separate entity" - it's American, has its own American bishops, most American-born. Also, there are AMERICAN-BORN bishops for the Antiochians (Bishop Mark of Toledo & the Midwest, Bishop Basil of Wichita & Mid-America). Bishop Mark is the only Antiochian convert bishop. The OCA has two convert bishops I know of, one of which is retired (Bishop Dmitri of Dallas and the South is still an active bishop, while Bishop Tikhon of San Francisco and the West retired last year).

Also, the Russian Orthodox Church is truly the "mother church" for the Orthodox in North America. The ROC, following the path of fur traders in Alaska (which was Russian territory until 1867, remember!), evangelized the Native peoples. Many folks are astonished to find out that large numbers of the Alaskan Native peoples are Orthodox, complete with Russian last names/first names from intermarriage with the fur traders! The Russians were "in charge" until the Russian Revolution in 1917, when all financial support from Russia collapsed. Before that, there were auxiliary bishops under the Russians for the Arab Orthodox, and plans for others. Then the other bishops started coming in. The Greeks organized their Archdiocese in 1922, and the other ethnic groups followed.

4) As for theological differences, the Orthodox Church remained very unified until the twentieth century. Since around 1920, there have been differences between some of the national churches over matters of belief and practice. They are not what some religions would consider major, divisive issues, but they cause a separation; people from one jurisdiction would not want to attend parishes of another jurisdiction, and so forth. I suppose the closest comparison would be that of the Jewish categories of Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. They are all Jewish, but some keep the kosher laws, refuse to work on Saturday, and so forth, while others do not keep most of those practices. In the same way, some Orthodox Christian churches are very traditional as to belief, liturgics (the way services are conducted), and rules of behavior. Others are more liberal (by Orthodox standards, which is not all that liberal!) and have made some changes over the past few decades. Sometimes the traditional and the modernist camps are referred to as the "Old Calendarists" and the "New Calendarists," referring to the fact that some churches adopted the western calendar (the one we all have hanging on our wall) instead of the ancient Julian calendar that the Orthodox church has used for many centuries (which is why we celebrate Christmas on January 7, for example). This is not because the calendar is all that significant. The "calendar" thing is a kind of shorthand, since most of the "modernist" Orthodox churches do, in fact, use the standard western calendar, and most of the more "traditional" ones use the old calendar. There is some overlap, but usually the calendar is an easy way to establish which "side" a particular Orthodox church is on.
It is not a hostile disagreement, usually, and only extremists would suggest that either camp is not truly Orthodox or without Grace, but it involves issues that are taken very seriously, and the dispute continues.

Some Old Calendar folks I know of always say "New Calendar" like it's a four-letter word. Not saying you do that, but it does get tiring.

[lilyka]

Bump :)

[kmeyrick]

Bear in mind the Coptic Orthodox Church is very, very different from all Orthodox Churches. They have the Coptic Language, and their own pope.

[Tradd]

Bear in mind the Coptic Orthodox Church is very, very different from all Orthodox Churches. They have the Coptic Language, and their own pope.

The Coptic Orthodox Church is NOT in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. They broke away very early (fifth century, I believe) over the decisions of one of the ecumenical councils (too lazy right now to dig through my books).

[Alana]

We converted to Orthodoxy 3 yrs ago as a family.

[Charbeau]

subbing

[Tradd]

Forgot to mention this earlier, but Fr. Thomas Hopko, who is the retired dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary in New York (and the author of The Orthodox Faith series of books, also on line on the OCA website mentioned a bit up in this thread), does a very regular podcast for Ancient Faith Radio (an online Orthodox radio station). You can find his podcasts here:

http://ancientfaith.com/?podcasts/hopko

He started doing this around the first pre-Lenten Sunday and does 1-2 a week most of the time. Very good, simple and thoughtful. Not complicated at all! You can listen at your computer, as well as downloading to an mp3 player.

To get the daily lectionary Scripture readings (M-F), along with commentary from the Church Fathers, check out this podcast, called The Path:

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/thepath

The priest who does it, Fr. Thomas Soroka, has become something of a friend of mine since he spoke last fall at an event sponsored by an Orthodox organization I'm on the board of. He's excellent. Puts his own sermons on his parish's website. About 50 by last count. Simple, thoughtful, not complicated. Can also listen online or download. His father and several uncles were also priests, as well as going back generations (Russian background). Last fall when I was in the process of thinking about switching to my new parish from the old one - Fr. Tom's sermons really helped me. My old priest suddenly was giving very complicated, difficult to understand sermons (they'd always been very intellectual, but got even more so). I was beginning to think about leaving the parish (variety of reasons - see my thread under Spirituality and losing friends when changing churches), and I would come home from church after a sermon I couldn't understand and listen to Fr. Tom's sermons.

Check out the other podcasts. Some good, others I've not heard. But lots to choose from.

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/

http://www.stnicholas-oca.org/Audio/audio.htm

[Tradd]

Another resource - an excellent blog by Fr. Stephen Freeman, an OCA priest in TN, "Glory to God for All Things."

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/

[Bekka]

4) As for theological differences, the Orthodox Church remained very unified until the twentieth century. Since around 1920, there have been differences between some of the national churches over matters of belief and practice.

While I am the first to admit that there are many who know more about the Orthodox church than I do, I will say that in my Slavic studies I came across a group of Old Believers that have been present in Russia for a few hundred years. It seems to be differences like what came out of Vatican II in the 60s (like I know anything about it) and the Old Believers cling to the previous traditions. There are references to them in Russian literature, and one of the "clues" is that they cross themselves with 2 fingers instead of 3. I think. It was several years ago and mommy brain is between that time and now...

[angelpie545]

Bump! I'm learning so much! :shy So....I hope this hasn't been addressed before...are the services, robes, and art in the Orthodox Church much like it was in the Middle Ages? I was looking at pictures and they are very beautiful but very pre-Renaissance looking.

[Tradd]

Bump! I'm learning so much! :shy So....I hope this hasn't been addressed before...are the services, robes, and art in the Orthodox Church much like it was in the Middle Ages? I was looking at pictures and they are very beautiful but very pre-Renaissance looking.

Angelpie, the Orthodox Church is VERY theologically/liturgically conservative and changes very slowly!

The Orthodox did not have a "Middle Ages" like the Western Europe did. "Medieval" has a meaning to it that is not related to Orthodoxy.

However, our services are pretty much at the point they were about 1300. There have been some changes here or there, and some things are done differently among the Greek liturgical tradition vs. the Slav tradition, but it's not much difference.

We have English now in North America, but that is really only about 30-40 years old.

As for our iconography (what you call "art" - but it's more than just "art"), in the 18th Century, primarily in Russia, there was the influence of Western European art, which influenced Orthodox iconography - and not for the better! It went away from the long-held Byzantine liturgical tradition and became more like the overly-emotional, "soft-style" Italian art. Some examples:

Theotokos of Vladmir (Russian, very old) - this is very within the Orthodox iconographic tradition:

http://www.skete.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=161&Category_ID=27

Our Lady of Sitka (19th Century Russian, brought to Sitka, Alaska):
http://outdooricons.com/our-icons/images/M001-SHMSI.jpg

In this icon, it's very "western" looking, plus God the Father is displayed at the top - BIG no-no in traditional Orthodox iconography. Christ can be pictured because he WAS incarnate.

Vestments have probably changed a bit - but NOT much!

[lilyka]

A note on the icons -

as Tradd said these are mnore than Art. They are cannonizedm uch like scripture and cannot be changed. there is not much room for artistic variation (although of course each iconographer will have their own style). things such as the color and hand positions and size of the forhead (I don't know why that sticks out to me it just does) what they are holdingin there hand are all dictated and set in stone. They are not to meant to be literal pictures or interpreted from person o person but are to be read a certain way. thechnicallythey are written and not drawn/painted.

this is why even the newer ones seem so ancient. and some of them are ancient. No need for an update.

Here are some books on the topic . . .
http://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Language-Icons-Solrunn-Nes/dp/0802829163/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212355680&sr=1-3



same with the liturgy. Very little has changed over time. what has changed or been refined is still rooted in the ancient traditions. A really good book on is "Let Us Attend" (http://www.amazon.com/Attend-Journey-Through-Orthodox-Liturgy/dp/188821287X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212355642&sr=8-1) it walks you through the litergy step by step, explains some of the . . um . . .less obvious traditions and how they grew out of the early church traditions (they are more obvious and logical than they seem when illuminated by the past).

and I think that it says a lot about the church that so little has changed. It is one of the main things that drew me (through the Holy Spirit) to the Orthodox Church. I just couldn't trust a church that revamped itself every few years.

[lilyka]

:bump: