1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Questions about the Eastern Orthodox faith

Discussion in 'Orthodox Christian DIR' started by James the Persian, Jun 27, 2005.

  1. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    Just bumping this thread so that Buttercup (and anyone else with questions about Orthodoxy) can see it more easily.

    James
     
  2. bible truth

    bible truth Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    665
    Ratings:
    +11
    Hey James,

    I think I have been on this site for about a week. It's a great site! I need to restate my comment about the visible church because I made a mistake on my posting.

    I believe the visible church consists of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Church, and legitimate protestant rooted churches. I believe the visible church consists of converted and unconverted professing Christians. Some are united to Christ and some remain united to Adam in the visible church (sheep and goats; wheat and tears inside the visible church). I believe there are converted individuals who are united to Christ that do not belong to the visible church.

    The invisible church is only known by God consisting of all believers that have been granted saving faith in Christ and have been united to Christ. Ephesians 4 is a key chapter to verify that the invisible church is catholic (universal in nature). Could you please comment one more time about my understanding of the visible and invisible church? - BT

     
  3. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    Sure. For us your ecclesiology is heresy. In our view the Body of Christ cannot be divided and so the Church must be one. That means that anyone who creates schism or follows heresy does not divide the Church but put themselves outside of Her. As, in our view the Patriarch of Rome unilaterally accepted heretical teachings and walked away from the rest of the Church (the four other Patriarchs remaining with us to this day), that puts the See of Rome, and any of herdescendants outside the Church Militant (the visible Church here on earth).

    The invisible Church is not, for us, that Protestant idea of all believers being invisibly united but is the Church Triumphant. This is all those people who have attained salvation (which can only happen after death - OSAS and similar ideas are heresy for us), the cloud of witnesses, the saints. Being outside the Church Militant does not condemn one to damnation but does deprive one of the fullness of the Truth. Being inside the Church is similarly no guarantee of salvation, though we believe it offers the best medicine for your soul. As God is not limited by time and there are, then, people who will be saved outside the Church, there is a tenuous way in which people outside are part of the Church by dint of the fact that they will be in the future. Not sure that made much sense. What I mean is, while from man's perspective, bound by time, they are not in the Church, from God's perspective, which we can never share but which is unbound by anything in creation, they are. Did that make more sense?

    Of course, God saves whomsoever He wills and pours His grace out on all equally. Taking all this into account, this is why you'll often hear Orthodox say that we know where the Church is but we do not know where it is not. I think part of the reason Protestants sometimes have a problem with this view is that because they have an idea of an earthly invisible Church, they see salvation and the Church as oinextricably linked, as in 'There is no salvation outside the Church'. For us if by that you mean Church Militant, we are unable to agree and if you mean Church Triumphant it's tautological.

    Hope that helps and please feel free to ask any more questions as you have them. I'll generally reply quickly but if you post at the weekend there will be a short delay as I don't visit RF then.

    James
     
  4. Mathematician

    Mathematician Reason, and reason again

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,718
    Ratings:
    +609
    Hello! Hopefully someone is still around to answer my questions. They pertain moreso to a project I'm working on than anything else. I'm warning you just because they might sound out *** odd if no context is brought forward.

    My questions are:

    - Is the equivalent of a priest in the Roman Catholic church a priest in Russian Orthodox?
    - Can you be excommunicated?

    Thank you for your time.
     
  5. nawab

    nawab Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Messages:
    497
    Ratings:
    +28
    Peace, Mercy and blessings of God Almighty be on you, I am a muslim, a comparitive religious student, i have a few questions regarding your sect/denomination

    1) are you trinitarians or unitarians
    2) which version of the bible to you take oath on
    3) what are the main differences from other Christians like Catholics and Protestants
    4) do you further divide into eastern and western
    5) what do you believe Jesus PBUH was (God, son of God, a prophet)
    6) do you have to stick to the laws of the old testaments

    If you have free time please answer my questions so that we can have a better understanding
     
  6. theonepaladin

    theonepaladin Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2
    Orthodoxy: Unchanged Formula For 1900 Years!

    I am an Orthodox Christian who is an angelologist and a Paladin of the Order of True Christianity. I feel it is my Heavenly Duty to spread His Wisdom with an optional legallistic view on preventing corruption. I might as well ask a question while I'm here for respect:

    What is the Orthodox View on angelology (the study of angels, behaviors, and modern day influence on life)?
     
  7. hindupridemn

    hindupridemn Defender of the Truth

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    341
    Ratings:
    +9
    Religion:
    Baha'i/Hindu/Jain (very eclectic)
    At the Great Schism of 1054, did the Orthodox Church break away from the Catholic, the Catholic from the Orthodox, or, as I understand it, two sister churches broke apart and ceased to be in communion with each other?
    What is the significance of the filioque. As a non-trinitarian I don't see the difference between the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son or from the Father alone.?
    How do Orthodox Christians differ from Western Christians?
    Are the Doukhobors Orthodox?
    How do the Eastern Orthodox differ from the Oriental Orthodox?
    Is the Assyrian Church of the East Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox?
     
  8. Smoke

    Smoke Done here.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,892
    Ratings:
    +3,252
    The Roman Catholic view is that Rome has jurisdiction over the entire Church, so from the RC perspective, the Orthodox patriarchates broke away from Rome.

    The Orthodox view is that Rome does not have and never did have jurisdiction over the entire Church. Some Orthodox would say the schism was the result of a "perfect storm" of misunderstandings; others would say -- and this is the more traditional view -- that Rome fell away from the Orthodox Faith.

    There are several objections to the filioque, the most notable of which are these:
    1) Its addition to the Creed is an impermissible novelty. Even if the doctrine itself were not objectionable, it would not be permissible to insert it into the Creed.

    2) In the Orthodox view, the Father is the origin and fount of the Godhead. The Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, both in an ineffable manner. All three Persons are believed to exist together, and when the Orthodox speak of the Son being begotten and the Spirit proceeding, they do not mean that there was ever a time when either the Son or the Spirit did not exist. The Father is ontologically the origin of both the Son and the Spirit, in a manner which is beyond human ken. To say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son denies this divine "monarchy" of the Father.

    3) The Orthodox also see the filioque as a heretical subordination of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity.

    4) The Orthodox are prepared to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in time; that is, they can say that the Son "sends" the Comforter. However, they cannot be reconciled to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, which is official RC doctrine.

    Nevertheless, the Orthodox do venerate as saints some Christians who used the filioque -- Sts. Ludmila, Wenceslas, and Edward the Martyr, for instance -- and it is generally accepted that the use of the filioque was an understandable and excusable error before later councils clarified the issue.

    In many ways. The Orthodox are less legalistic in their dogma, making far fewer dogmatic statements and allowing a much greater role for Mystery in their religion. They do not have a central authority. They are bound more by the traditions of the Church than by the authority of bishops or scriptures; Orthodoxy is generally much more traditional than any form of Western Christianity. There are a multitude of minor ways in which they differ from Western Christians, and quite a few ways in which they differ dogmatically. The Russian Church, more than 100 years ago, prescribed specific heresies that had to be renounced by the former members of particular Western churches upon being received into the Orthodox Church. I'd have to go into the other room to look them up, but they were things like sola scriptura for Lutherans and the whole scheme of Calvinism for Reformed Christians.

    No.

    Although they split more than 1500 years ago, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox are more similar to each other than either is to any other church. The main difference is dogmatic. The Oriental Orthodox reject the Council of Chalcedon and all subsequent councils of the Orthodox Church. It was held at Chalcedon that Jesus Christ, being fully god and fully man, has both a divine nature and a human nature. This is the teaching of both the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. The Oriental Orthodox hold that in Christ the human and divine are united into one nature.

    No. The Church of the East is the church that has traditionally been called the "Nestorian" Church by other Christians, though they themselves reject the label. They rejected the Council of Ephesus in 431, which upheld the practice of calling the Virgin Mary Theotokos, or Birthgiver of God. Nestorios held that since Christ derived his human nature from Mary but not his divine nature, it was not proper to call her Theotokos; rather, she should be called Christotokos, or Birthgiver of Christ.

    The Church of the East has been subject to relentless proselytizing by Rome and persecution by Muslims. The parallel Chaldean Church is the church set up by Rome for Assyrians who accept the rule of the Pope of Rome. In the 19th and (maybe) the early 20th centuries, groups of Assyrians were received into the Russian Orthodox Church. The Church of the East is now avidly ecumenist, and strives to improve its relations with Rome and with the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, possibly at least in part in the hope that the other churches will stop trying to win the Assyrians over to their churches.
     
    #28 Smoke, Sep 20, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2009
  9. hindupridemn

    hindupridemn Defender of the Truth

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    341
    Ratings:
    +9
    Religion:
    Baha'i/Hindu/Jain (very eclectic)
    Who are the Doukhobors? Are they Protestant?
     
  10. Smoke

    Smoke Done here.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,892
    Ratings:
    +3,252
    Not in the usual sense. They're a Russian sect similar in some ways to the Quakers, but they come from a very different background than the Quakers. They were persecuted in Russia under the Tsars, and most if not all of them are in Canada now

    Edit: I was mistaken; there are more Doukhobors in Russia than in the U.S., and more in the U.S. than in Canada. I tend to associate them with the Canadian groups, but a quick google showed me I was wrong.
     
    #30 Smoke, Sep 20, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2009
  11. nucklepunche

    nucklepunche New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    2
    Ratings:
    +0
    I have a few questions about Eastern Orthodoxy.

    1) Do the Orthodox believe we are saved through the substitution of Christ on the cross for our sins?

    2) Do the Orthodox believe that works are included in salvation.

    3) What is the Orthodox view on baptism.

    4) Do the Orthodox believe in transubstantiation?
     
  12. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,866
    Ratings:
    +1,395
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I'm not EO but their soteriological doctrines are almost identical to Catholics....sooo.

    1. Yes, but had Christ died a natural death...it would have sufficed.

    2. Yes they do.

    3. They believe it has salvific efficacy and therefore is a normative necessity.

    4. Yes they do.
     
  13. Jordan St. Francis

    Jordan St. Francis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,028
    Ratings:
    +102
    The Orthodox place far more emphasis on the salvific effects of the incarnation, from my understanding. The Cross is the culminating act of God's outpouring of himself in his Son that begins at the Annunciation. Human beings can share in God's divinity by sharing in Christ. (All of these are present in Catholic tradition with different emphases).

    I understand they see the Anselmian articulation of atonement as problematically legalistic (as do I), leading Western Christianity astray.
     
  14. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    14
    Ratings:
    +0
    Interesting posts. I, too, have thought that it doesn't make sense that we had to murder Jesus in order to be atoned. I understand that most Orthodox believe that hell is man-made, and that hell is, so to speak, a consuming fire of love rather than a specific place? Is this right?
     
  15. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    5,083
    Ratings:
    +2,265
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christian
    Yes, this is correct. St. Isaac of Syria said this:

    . . .those who find themselves in hell will be chastised by the scourge of love. How cruel and bitter this torment of love will be! For those who understand that they have sinned against love, undergo no greater suffering than those produced by the most fearful tortures. The sorrow which takes hold of the heart, which has sinned against love, is more piercing than any other pain. It is not right to say that the sinners in hell are deprived of the love of God… But love acts in two ways, as suffering of the reproved, and as joy in the blessed! (St. Isaac of Syria, Mystic Treatises)
    You can read more here.
     
  16. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    5,083
    Ratings:
    +2,265
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christian
    Since I got a request to resurrect this thread, resurrected shall this thread be! :D

    If anyone has questions about Orthodox Christianity (Eastern or Oriental), then make ready, aim, fire!
     
  17. Rainbow Mage

    Rainbow Mage Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,210
    Ratings:
    +867
    Religion:
    UU/Atheist
    Technically the Orthodox Church views the sacrament through the lens of real presence like Anglicans right, leaving the mystery for the most part a mystery?
     
  18. Philomath

    Philomath Sadhaka

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,184
    Ratings:
    +109
    So there's no eternal lake or burning fire in Eastern Orthodox?
     
  19. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    5,083
    Ratings:
    +2,265
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christian
    Yes. We believe that the Eucharist becomes the true Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ. We don't try to explain how this happens, as it is, you said, a mystery that we cannot explain. Some posit the Roman Catholic view of Transubstantiation, but such an explanation arose within Western Scholasticism, which is completely foreign to our Tradition. Typically those who do put forth that explanation have been influenced by Catholic teaching, and do not accurately reflect Orthodox teaching on the matter.

    Not in the sense that Western Christians think of it, no. The eternal lake of burning fire is God Himself; it is His Presence and Love. Hebrews 12:29 says, "For our God is a consuming fire."
     
    #39 Shiranui117, Jun 23, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2013
  20. Rainbow Mage

    Rainbow Mage Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,210
    Ratings:
    +867
    Religion:
    UU/Atheist
    Doesn't the Orthodox Church kind of have an afterlife view of Hades? I'm sure its not identical to the pagan view
     
Loading...