Questions about the Eastern Orthodox faith (Jesus Christ, Creator, Earth, crucified)

[James the Persian]

I was inspired by Scott's efforts over on the Roman Catholic forum to do something similar for our faith. If you have any questions about Orthodoxy I will do my best to answer them, though I have no intention of this thread becoming a debate.

I hope that this might be valuable to the many people here who are unfamiliar with Orthodoxy and would wish that thios might contribute to people understanding my faith better and a reduction in the number of misconceptions I see that people hold about us. Feel free to ask me absolutely anything (on this topic ) and I'll try to respond promptly.

James

[No*s]

*bump*

What with all the other such threads, I figured I'd bump James' thread to see if it gets more responses .

[michel]

I do remember a thread in which I posted the Nicene Creed, which I got from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and mistakenly and unfortunately upset you.

Could you explain the difference between the Creed that you use, and the one used by the Catholic, and Anglican Churc ? (I am sorry, I am not knowledgeable)

[Victor]

Alright I have one.
As Scott and James may have noticed that I have an irrational desire to bring our Churches back together. I post in OC.net from time to time to come to a fuller understanding of both sides. Reading a book by Micheal Whelton and things of that nature. Anywho, my question that of collegiality. How does it work? More specifically is how did it work during Iconoclasm where most bishops were teaching error?

Peace In Christ
~Victor

[No*s]

Originally Posted by michel

I do remember a thread in which I posted the Nicene Creed, which I got from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and mistakenly and unfortunately upset you.

Could you explain the difference between the Creed that you use, and the one used by the Catholic, and Anglican Churc ? (I am sorry, I am not knowledgeable)

I probably more corrected and objected. I doubt it upset me very badly .

Here is the Creed in its final form from 381:

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages.
Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not created, of one essence with the Father through whom all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and he suffered and was buried.
On the third day he rose according to the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and dead. His kingdom will have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father,
who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets.
In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I expect the resurrection of the dead.
And the life of the ages to come. Amen.

The chief objection arises from the clause "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father." In the Western version, it adds the words "and the Son" so that it reads "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son"

The addition changes the workings of the Trinity slightly, but I don't pretend to understand it all that well, but Eastern theologians have attacked it as being semi-sabellian. Basically, the Father is the source of all being, and the Son is begotten from Him and the Spirit proceeds from Him. Changing the creed makes the mechanics so that they all proceed from each other and blurs the distinctions.

That said, I don't think those problems are insurmountable. Perhaps the biggest problem is linked to papal supremacy. All claims for its legitimacy require a sort of papal supremacy, and the ecclessiology is not compatible with Orthodoxy. Moreover, we perceive the additions to have been made official by a power grab, so that makes it even more troublesome.

When the theological problems are coupled with the political, it creates a pretty hostile climate. Reactions range from benign (only objecting to the political portion) to vehemently hostile, condemning it as a heresy. St. Photios took the latter approach.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Victor

Alright I have one.
As Scott and James may have noticed that I have an irrational desire to bring our Churches back together. I post in OC.net from time to time to come to a fuller understanding of both sides. Reading a book by Micheal Whelton and things of that nature. Anywho, my question that of collegiality. How does it work? More specifically is how did it work during Iconoclasm where most bishops were teaching error?

Peace In Christ
~Victor

Short answer: Very messily .

Long answer: Basically, it spread like a virus and infected most of the bishops. It was, in many ways, like Arianism. At one time Arianism dominated the Church in the East, and after Constantine, the Emperors supported it. The faithful laity opposed it most effectively (In Orthodoxy, the laity also have a role in defending the faith, even if their bishop goes into heresy), and then great men of God in the clergy defeated it. After everything was said and done, the disease healed organically.

The same thing happened with Iconoclasm. The emperors began to force it on the people, and it came to dominate the episcopacy, but it did not do so outside the Emperor's reign, and the changes never took full force even there (exile and persecution couldn't stope the iconodules). When the saints beyond the borders' material got published within it, it set the stage for Empress Theodora's call to a council. Once the Imperial support was gained, the heresy subsided, because unlike the iconodules, it could not survive without it.

In the end, collegiality works (thanks to the Spirit), but it is a very messy process that can take a while.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by No*s

Short answer: Very messily .

Long answer: Basically, it spread like a virus and infected most of the bishops. It was, in many ways, like Arianism. At one time Arianism dominated the Church in the East, and after Constantine, the Emperors supported it. The faithful laity opposed it most effectively (In Orthodoxy, the laity also have a role in defending the faith, even if their bishop goes into heresy), and then great men of God in the clergy defeated it. After everything was said and done, the disease healed organically.

The same thing happened with Iconoclasm. The emperors began to force it on the people, and it came to dominate the episcopacy, but it did not do so outside the Emperor's reign, and the changes never took full force even there (exile and persecution couldn't stope the iconodules). When the saints beyond the borders' material got published within it, it set the stage for Empress Theodora's call to a council. Once the Imperial support was gained, the heresy subsided, because unlike the iconodules, it could not survive without it.

In the end, collegiality works (thanks to the Spirit), but it is a very messy process that can take a while.

Thanks. So collegiality isn't power by numbers, right?
And I completely agree that the laity is responsible for defending the faith, I do not believe it is any source for knowing the faith definitively. In other words, one does not look to the flock to know what is and what isn't, correct? Or is there a different perspective you will bring forth?

[Polaris]

I have a few questions.

First of all I'm new to the forum. I've read through several threads before deciding to join and I have been impressed with the Orthodox representatives in this forum. Obviously, being LDS, I believe that priesthood authority and all that comes with it - general (not personal) revelation, pure doctrinal truths, etc - were taken from the earth after the Apostles were killed. However, I have complete respect for your positions on those issues.

Let me preface by stating that my question are in no way meant to be attacking of the Orthodox Church. They are honest questions that I have.

My first question deals with the organizational hierarchy of the Orthodox church. It appears that when Christ and subsequently the 12 Apostles organized the church, it was done so with a very top-down hierarchy:

1. Christ as the head
2. The Apostles as the general leadership
3. The Seventy, Elders, and Bishops as more localized leadership

In my admittedly little understanding of the Orthodox church it appears to have a much more horizontal hierarchy. Is it true that there is no leadership above that of the local bishops? To me this seems like a difficult way to avoid curruption within the various Orthodox branches. How do they prevent doctrinal drifting at a local level? I also understand that the main Orthodox groups don't agree on which groups are actually part of the valid Orthodox Church. Doesn't this discord call for a higher level of authority, as was present at the time of the Apostles, so that such matters can be adequately resolved? In my opinion this is one of the few areas where the Roman Catholic church makes more sense than the Orthodox.

Question number two. Now I realize that the Bible is understood with many subjective interpretations by all different religions, and any religion could be presented a scripture that "appears" to be contradictory to that church's teachings. With this in mind I am interested in hearing your explanation for the scriptures that seem to imply that God the Father and Jesus Christ are indeed Father and Son, two separate persons. In particular why does Jesus constantly refer to God as his Father, and how do you explain Stephens vision in which he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God?

I have several other questions, but to keep the size of this post down I'll present just one more. One of the Orthodox practices that simply surprises me is your use of idols. This is something that is condemned over and over in the Old Testament. What is your justification for the use of idols in the Orthodox church?

Again, I'm not attacking. I have a great deal of respect for you and your beliefs, I'm just curious.