Orthodoxy (Jesus, priests, ritual, reject, salvation)

[No*s]

Well, here we go Scott .

Also, be forewarned. I'm informed about a lot of things, but I'm still in the process of converting. It's going to take a while, because I haven't transportation, and the closest church is far away, and I haven't got a car. It's a difficult thing, believe me.

Before I even go too far, the key reason I chose Orthodoxy over Catholicism is that I felt Catholicism was heavily developed. Many things had changed, and this is an important thing to me. In many ways, Catholicism is actually closer to Protestantism than Orthodoxy, but obviously, there are many places where this isn't the case.

I stuck this here because it makes sense, and I didn't want a free-for-all. If it needs to be moved, I understand. I just
stuck it here. I also discovered it's too long, so I'm splitting it in half.

1). Energy.

This is going to sound odd, but Orthodoxy has a developed theology of energy. Normally this is something that is saved for the more advanced learners, and I've been informed not to inquire too much into it yet. However, it made a big difference to me. When I learned NT Greek, I found a whole class of words and usages that weren't translated. When I first spotted and learned these, I thought I was going crazy. They were never translated, and no church seemed to believe in them. I was still a Baptist at the time, obviously. However, my professor confirmed for me one day that it was true, and I found some scholars that referenced it. Now, I've found Orthodoxy teaches it, and she has always used Greek. That means I wasn't out of my mind...at least on that issue.

It basically goes like this. In Greek, the basic word for work is "ergon" with "ergo" as the verb form (I'm treating omegas and omikrons both as "o"). On tope of these, though, several words were built. First, we have synergeo. This means "cooperate." It's really a near-exact equivalent. Where it fails is that it doesn't catch the interplay of the other erg- words, not so much in definition. The word, though, that everything spins on is "energeo" with the noun form "energeia." I think you can guess what it means, but I'll state it anyway: "energy." In fact, "energy" is the very word transliterated into English for use in science, and it means roughly the same thing. Objects have a potential (dynamis, which is used for many words, i.e. "strength"), and energy is a force that works within the object (hence it is etymologically in-work) to activate that potential. If you light a fuse on dynamite, you have energized its dynamis, and you had better run .

That gives you the basic idea, and the term in the NT refers to spiritual power, but that's not all. I was releaved not just to find that scholars will occasionally mention it, but that it forms a doctrine in Orthodoxy, just not one often expounded on. It meant that I wasn't nuts. It is God's working in the world to accomplish His plans (separate from Spirit, literally God's presence emanating like light from the sun, as the ancients understood it). For a couple of verses where it is found (my translation, obviously), "For God is the one who is energizing in yall both to wish and to energize for His god will" (Phil. 2.13). It changes the meaning just a little, and I always ignored them, because I don't like to believe that I'm the only person with enough sense to see something, but now I've learned there is a very large Church, and a very old one, that has many people who look at it just as I do. The adversary also energizes: "whose [the lawless one's] appearing is according to the energizing of the Adversary in every potential and sign and wonder according to lies" (2 Thess. 2.9). In this one, energeia is juxtaposed against dynamis making it more clear what is meant. For a last one, Galatians 3.7, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumsition nor noncircumcision is any strength, but faith energizing through love." In essence, the faith activates our potential, and doesn't just work through us, but makes us workers also and makes things inert from the fall function as well.

While the above isn't required for Christianiy, it certainly puts an altogether different spin on things, and I think we can see the doctrine still in place (God's power works everywhere for instance), but the loss of the terminology and the nuances changes the spin just a little. It's ot a bunch, but enough to make me take note. We even consider grace more this energy than the favor of God, though I see no reason why it can't be both. Still, that will be clear in a second. That is a big difference.

2). Original sin.

Orthodoxy doesn't hold that we inherited Adam's guilt. His guilt died with him. Instead, the image of God was broken. The faulty image, with its proclivity towards sin and the corruption that ensues. From this, we sin (as an action). Sin encompasses everything from actively breaking a command to acting in an imperfect manner in any way, and on that part we agree. There are also several nouns (excluding the verb) for sin. Amartia is the concept of sin, inherited sin, and an action. Nouns with a -ia ending are often concepts or the thing in a classification. Amartima (the i is an eta, not an iota), however, can only refer to action. We inherit imperfection (amartia) from our parents, but we stand guilty only of amartima. God forgives readily...it's who we are that's the problem.

Since inherited guilt doesn't exist in Orthodoxy, the system changes somewhat. There is no Immaculate Conception, for instance, because there is no need for it. Some leaders regard it as simply an opinion, others consider it misguided, and still others condemn it outright. I'd probably fit in the middle. It's not an ancient tradition, and it's an answer to a problem we don't see existing. Mary could inherit amartia, and still with the grace of God, not commit amartima and be free from any stain of guilt. This difference, though, extends from a differance on the original/inherited sin.

3. Christ's work.

Orthodoxy doesn't really hold penal substitution. Christ's sacrifice wasn't there to remove our guilt for sins, but to take care of what had become inert. Sin, here, is a disease that is killing us, and it has dimmed our capacities. Christ came to bring the divine down to man. To paraphrase St. Athanasius (I can't remember the exact quote): God became man so that men might become God. Thomas Acquinas, I believe, used the analogy of the Fathers, that we are like inert iron, but when placed in the fire, we glow and share the fires heat, but if removed, we become inert again. This is salvation in Orthodoxy.

Again, this explains some of our differences elsewhere. There are no indulgances in Orthodoxy, on account of this difference. There isn't really a purgatory, though there is something similar, and I don't fully understand it. Simply that our perfections aren't all done away with at death. Some of them will be "burned" away by the presence of God as it purifies us. This is similar, but its spin is different. The theology here is more primative, since the modern theology in the West is heavily influenced by Anslem. I've tried to explain this difference to people who ridicule Christianity as the religion "where God has to hit God just so God can forgive someone else." It never gets far.

I'd already been moving theologically in this direction. I'd begun believing that salvation is some sort of reconstruction of what we are supposed to be...but this wasn't so much about pen-sub as about repairing what had went wrong. The sentiment made Orthodoxy a very logical choice.

4. Papal Supremacy

Orthodoxy rejects it, obviously. Well, it doesn't reject it, just what it grew into. Prior to the Schism, and the disputes between Photios and Nicholas, every bishop had been independant with the Pope being the first among equals and an arbitor of disputes. However, the first time it was invoked, it resulted in a schism. At the Great Schism, it caused more problems. I think it's a root of Protestantism, because the princes didn't like being subject to a foreign power, so they supported the Reformers. Thus, I think that the change hasn't really done any good, and many of the different doctrines came about after the Schism .

5. The Filioque

This, obviously, is a point of contention. The doctrine changes the Trinity subtly. I know there's a way to interpret it in an Orthodox manner (namely that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and comes to the world on account of the Son's work), but we feel it will inevitablly tilt theology, and any change on the Trinity cannot help but be bad, and everytime it left the West it caused problems. Both 4 and 5 go hand in hand to me, and they are major reasons why I chose Orthodoxy. It is, as an aside, the only Christian Church that still recites the Creed as it was in Constantinople.

To be concluded...

[No*s]

Lastly...

6. The Holy Fire

This may not sound like much...but the Holy Fire made a differance to me. That this miracle recurs, and that only the Ecumenical Patriarch can bring it forward simply made an impact on me. It's not a rational thing here, but it is a factor.

7. Primitiveness

Orthodoxy is largely the same as it was 1000 years ago. At that time, it was still very similar to the West, though the drift had already begun. Both were largely the same as they were before that. Now after the Schism, changes came in quick, rapid succession, but Orthodoxy remained the same. It may be largely due to persecution, but it still means much to me. Especially when doctrines disappear or are transformed over time. I understand there must be development...it's just how it developed.

8. Disorganization

Orthodoxy is very, very organized...but at the same time it is very very disorganized. There is no real authority, and there isn't any single place I can go to besides a priest, the Councils, or the Fathers. There isn't a Catechism. However, despite the lack of organization in that respect, it is very unified. I could go to Russia, and ask a priest about the doctrines of the faith and get virtually the exact answer as I would here. There are issues, of course, but when that is the reality, it simply is appealing to me.

Now, there are issues, but with the exception of ecumenism, they would seem trivial to an outsider. That's a good sign to me.

9. The LXX

The Orthodox Church still uses it, and I have an affinity for it. It's not the most rational reason...but it still factors in.

10. How I tend to view conflicts.

I tend to view conflicts in regard to where the problem originates. For instance, with the Non-Chalcedonians, there was on one hand, a new opinion that arose that caused massive dispute. On the other, there was dirty politics that took advantage of it. How did I decide there in my studies of history? Well, the conflict originated with one party. That normally is indicative of the problem. Where does the new teaching/practice come from? In the conflicts between East/West, the problems that led to the Schism were practically all developed in the West. There is where the innovation (supremacy/filioque and a few others that really didn't matter to me) lay.

11. The Eucharist

We both believe in the Eucharist, but the adoration of the Gift always was a bit spooky to me. I understood the logic behind it, but it was always a bit unnerving. However, in Orthodoxy the same thing began, and the priests responded by beginning a tradition of putting it in the altar so that it couldn't be adored. It's that reverance the physical things...but don't adore. I know it isn't idolotrous, but the Orthodox practice just makes more sense to me.

I think I can collapse everything into those categories. It gives a taste of some of the reasons that I chose Orthodoxy.

[Scott1]

Very well said..... thank you my friend.

I would have to disagre with your interpretation of Roman Catholic teaching on original sin.... from what I read in your post (if I understand you correctly) we believe in the same thing.

Thanks again No*s

Anyone else out there interested in learning more about the Orthodox Church, I found a great website.... (No*s, take a look at it and make sure)

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/

[No*s]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Very well said..... thank you my friend.

I would have to disagre with your interpretation of Roman Catholic teaching on original sin.... from what I read in your post (if I understand you correctly) we believe in the same thing.

Thanks again No*s

Anyone else out there interested in learning more about the Orthodox Church, I found a great website.... (No*s, take a look at it and make sure)

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/

Welcome.

I'm sorry for a misunderstanding . I try to avoid those, I'll have a close look at the CCC now to correct myself .

Your site is good. orthodoxinfo.com is one of the best, if not the best, standalone site I know of.

[SK2005]

it is so interesting learning about something that is close to me but not, (understand?) This was very interesting No*s, thankyou.
By the way, No*s, I love your quote!

[No*s]

Originally Posted by SK2005

it is so interesting learning about something that is close to me but not, (understand?) This was very interesting No*s, thankyou.
By the way, No*s, I love your quote!

Thank you on both counts. I pulled the sig from a bumper-sticker I heard quoted one time. Given all the discussions on Sola Scriptura, I felt it would fit in well .

[SK2005]

You are very welcome!
There are some good bumper stickers out there but I'd have to say this is one of my fav's.