eastern orthodox?

[original3]

I am really interested in this particular denomination and I was just wondering if anyone of this faith could just breifly explain their beliefs and the main differences between this and protestantism for me please?
thanks in advance God bless xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[ScottF]

Eastern Orthodox is protestantism. It used to be part of the Catholic church . It was cast off from the Catholic Church in 1054 because the Catholic Church claims that they "offended God". Whatever that means.

Eastern Orthodox churches are kind of few and far between so you might want to look in your phone book to see if you even have one in your local area first. If you do, then go ahead and read up on them (well, heck, go ahead and read up on them anyway :)).
`
That's what happened to me. I got all excited about Eastern Orthodox, did all the research about it and all the reading up on it only to find out that the closest Eastern Orthodox church was almost 40 miles away from me. :(

In the mean time, you can check this (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/orthodoxy.aspx) article out.

[original3]

Eastern Orthodox is protestantism. It used to be part of the Catholic church . It was cast off from the Catholic Church in 1054 because the Catholic Church claims that they "offended God". Whatever that means.

Eastern Orthodox churches are kind of few and far between so you might want to look in your phone book to see if you even have one in your local area first. If you do, then go ahead and read up on them (well, heck, go ahead and read up on them anyway :)).
`
That's what happened to me. I got all excited about Eastern Orthodox, did all the research about it and all the reading up on it only to find out that the closest Eastern Orthodox church was almost 40 miles away from me. :(

In the mean time, you can check this (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/orthodoxy.aspx) article out.
Thanks for replying!! no there isn't one in my area but there is one where I am going to go to university next year so I'm going to check that one out
God bless xxx

[Epiphanygirl]

Have you visited their forum here called TAW? I'm sure everyone there would be more then happy to give you any information that you are looking for!

[InnerPhyre]

Eastern Orthodox are most certainly NOT protestants. We are the Church established by Jesus Christ in 33 AD who have preserved the faith through a clear line of succession from the apostles themselves. Rome parted ways with the Orthodox Church in 1054, but the schism with Rome traces back all the way to around the 5th century when the Eastern and Western churches started to drift apart on matters of Ecclesial authority.

If you would like to know more please come visit us in our congregational forum, The Ancient Way!

http://www.christianforums.com/f145-the-ancient-way-eastern-orthodox.html

[INRI2]

Eastern Orthodox are most certainly NOT protestants. We are the Church established by Jesus Christ in 33 AD who have preserved the faith through a clear line of succession from the apostles themselves. Rome parted ways with the Orthodox Church in 1054, but the schism with Rome traces back all the way to around the 5th century when the Eastern and Western churches started to drift apart on matters of Ecclesial authority.

I agree the Eastern Orthodox are a part of the Church established by Christ but both parts are in schism and we need to work it out if we are to be a light to the protestants and to the world.

[AJB4]

According to history, the Church of Rome (Roman Catholic church) separated from the churches of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandra, during the great schism in 1054. One church can't 'cast out' four. The Church of Rome willfully separated from the others because the others wouldn't recognise the Papacy (if I'm not mistaken). Roman Catholicism is a break-off of Eastern Orthodoxy it seems - not the other way around
Eastern Orthodox people, am I correct?

[InnerPhyre]

According to history, the Church of Rome (Roman Catholic church) separated from the churches of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandra, during the great schism in 1054. One church can't 'cast out' four. The Church of Rome willfully separated from the others because the others wouldn't recognise the Papacy (if I'm not mistaken). Roman Catholicism is a break-off of Eastern Orthodoxy it seems - not the other way around
Eastern Orthodox people, am I correct?
More or less. That is a greatly simplified version of what happened though. The roots of the schism trace all the way back to the days of Augustine. The whole thing came to a head in 1054 though and wasn't completely set in stone until the Roman Church sent mercenaries to sack Constantinople and install their own bishop there.

[thereselittleflower]

Thanks for replying!! no there isn't one in my area but there is one where I am going to go to university next year so I'm going to check that one out
God bless xxxAlso, take some time to learn the historical facts regarding the Great Schism . . it has not been properly represented to you in this thread.

Also, you might be very interested to learn about the Eastern Rite Churches which help make up the Catholic Church, and in fact not all Eastern Church split with Latin Church. The Maronite Church has always been in communion with the See of Peter. The Eastern Rite Churches are very similar to the EO churches. :)

.

[Ravenonthecross]

;)I am really interested in this particular denomination and I was just wondering if anyone of this faith could just breifly explain their beliefs and the main differences between this and protestantism for me please?
thanks in advance God bless xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Take a stop in at the One Bread, One Body Catholic forum aka. OBOB. Do not worry we do not bite!;) If you got questions about Catholicism Come on over to OBOB and ask away!, ---or PM me if you would like to! In any case, please free feel to do either!:wave:
sincerly,
Ravenonthecross

[zhilan]

Eastern Orthodox are most certainly NOT protestants. We are the Church established by Jesus Christ in 33 AD who have preserved the faith through a clear line of succession from the apostles themselves. Rome parted ways with the Orthodox Church in 1054, but the schism with Rome traces back all the way to around the 5th century when the Eastern and Western churches started to drift apart on matters of Ecclesial authority.

If you would like to know more please come visit us in our congregational forum, The Ancient Way!

http://www.christianforums.com/f145-the-ancient-way-eastern-orthodox.html
What he said.

The Marionite claim is somewhat dubious. While they and the Catholic Church claim that they have "always been in communion" its more along the lines of they weren't in communion with the Eastern churches, but at times fully embraced the Monothelite heresy. They came under communion with Rome because Rome could offer them protection from the Muslims. Most, if not all, of the Eastern Rite Catholic churches came under Rome for political, not theological, reasons.

[prodromos]

wasn't completely set in stone until the Roman Church sent mercenaries to sack Constantinople and install their own bishop there.The Roman church didn't send mercenaries to sack Constantinople. The merceneries were diverted from their original course through political intrigues which took advantage of their not having enough funds to pay for their shipping. Venice is primarily at fault for the sack of Constantinople and certainly profited most from the sorry events. There are some who say Venice is sinking under the weight of their ill-gotten gains.

John

[EmperorConstantine]

There are some who say Venice is sinking under the weight of their ill-gotten gains.
God's Justice, I'd say.

However, Rome did took a stab at redemption by giving relics back to Constantinople. I don't think they gave all of them back, but it would be nice.

[thereselittleflower]

More or less. That is a greatly simplified version of what happened though. The roots of the schism trace all the way back to the days of Augustine. The whole thing came to a head in 1054 though and wasn't completely set in stone until the Roman Church sent mercenaries to sack Constantinople and install their own bishop there.

I was not going to enter this thread, but I cannot stand by and allow this lie to be perpetuated another momment! :mad:

I cannot believe that we have EO brethern here who perpetuate this lie to turn people away from the Catholic Church by perpetuating this 'evil Rome' image, and generate sympathy for the Orthodox Church.

The Catholic Church did NO SUCH THING!

The EAST DIVERTED these crusaders, (who were stuck in Venice for the past year, short on cash and food, waiting for resupply from Rome to continue to the Holy Land), with promises of great wealth if they would help LIBERATE Constantinople from her enemies . . .

The crusaders agreed, WITHOUT the involvement of Rome in any way shape or form, and when these men did as they were asked, the EAST REFUSED to live up to their promises, which enraged these soldiers (so long without decent food or provisions), and they sacked the city. . . .

You ever hear of Beserkers? Well, that is exactly what happened . . it was the straw that broke the camel's back . . . .

That does not excuse the men who did this, but it shows clearly Rome had nothing to do with it whatsoever . . this situation was set up by the East and the East alone!

The sack of Constantinople falls squarely on the shoulders of the EAST and here they are trying to blame us!


Unbelievable! To blame the Catholic Church for this is attrocious, especially from one who has already been informed of the facts and should know better!


:mad:



.

[thereselittleflower]

The Roman church didn't send mercenaries to sack Constantinople. The merceneries were diverted from their original course through political intrigues which took advantage of their not having enough funds to pay for their shipping. Venice is primarily at fault for the sack of Constantinople and certainly profited most from the sorry events. There are some who say Venice is sinking under the weight of their ill-gotten gains.

John

Why didn't the East honor their promises to the crusaders after they had done as they were asked?

when is the East going to apologize for blaming Rome all these centuries, even to this day as we see in this thread?


.



.

[thereselittleflower]

What he said.

The Marionite claim is somewhat dubious. While they and the Catholic Church claim that they have "always been in communion" its more along the lines of they weren't in communion with the Eastern churches, but at times fully embraced the Monothelite heresy. They came under communion with Rome because Rome could offer them protection from the Muslims. Most, if not all, of the Eastern Rite Catholic churches came under Rome for political, not theological, reasons.

I don't find the Maronite claim dubious at all! In fact, I find your claims quite dubious.


.

[thereselittleflower]

According to history, the Church of Rome (Roman Catholic church) separated from the churches of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandra, during the great schism in 1054. One church can't 'cast out' four. The Church of Rome willfully separated from the others because the others wouldn't recognise the Papacy (if I'm not mistaken). Roman Catholicism is a break-off of Eastern Orthodoxy it seems - not the other way around
Eastern Orthodox people, am I correct?

Nope!

That's according to the Orthodox polemic version of history . . that doesn't make it correct. :)


.

[prodromos]

I was not going to enter this thread, but I cannot stand by and allow this lie to be perpetuated another momment! :mad:

I cannot believe that we have EO brethern here who perpetuate this lie to turn people away from the Catholic Church by perpetuating this 'evil Rome' image, and generate sympathy for the Orthodox Church.

The Catholic Church did NO SUCH THING!

The EAST DIVERTED these crusaders, (who were stuck in Venice for the past year, short on cash and food, waiting for resupply from Rome to continue to the Holy Land), with promises of great wealth if they would help LIBERATE Constantinople from her enemies . . .False. The EAST did no such thing. It was one young man, Alexius (the Younger), son of the deposed emperor Isaac who sought the support of the crusaders to wrest the throne from his uncle Alexius III and made rash promises he was unable or unwilling to keep. The doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo, was more than happy to pursuade the mercenaries to help as he hated Constantinople and was jealous of its wealth and success in commerce.
The crusaders agreed, WITHOUT the involvement of Rome in any way shape or formwhat about the clergy who accompanied the crusaders on their mission, particularly the ones who gave the crusaders absolution before they attacked the city. Under who's authority were they?
and when these men did as they were asked, the EAST REFUSED to live up to their promisesAlexius (the younger) did not honour his promises. The EAST had nothing to do with it.
That does not excuse the men who did this, but it shows clearly Rome had nothing to do with it whatsoever . . this situation was set up by the East and the East alone!

The sack of Constantinople falls squarely on the shoulders of the EAST and here they are trying to blame us!1. There were Latin clergy involved who were under the authority of Rome. The crusaders did not consist solely of mercenaries.
2. One man, Alexius (the younger) does not equal the EAST. This misrepresentation is worse than what you accuse us of (which I had already posted to correct)
3. Rome may not have been explicitly involved, but became so implicitely when they took full advantage of the situation, trying to force a union of the churches, receiving untold amounts of wealth and priceless relics looted from the city and her churches, and by placing a Latin bishop on the throne of the Patriarchate.

[Mankin]

It was still a crusade which meant that Rome was involved and if you can find evidence that supports that Rome withdrew their support of the crusade when they found out it was to sack Constantinople and take it for themselves then I will believe you. And may I mention the Teutonic Crusades, Northern Crusades, where Knights invaded the Orthodox government of Novogrod? Note: I am not attacking Roman Catholicism.
Question for Eastern Orthodox members, Do you think that Isantbul should be given back to Greece? It was their possession before the Turks captured it.

[prodromos]

Question for Eastern Orthodox members, Do you think that Isantbul should be given back to Greece? It was their possession before the Turks captured it.If it comes back into Greece's hands it will be God's doing. Wars occur and borders change. Do you think most of Europe should be put under Rome's control since it once belonged to the Roman Empire?

[Mankin]

If it comes back into Greece's hands it will be God's doing. Wars occur and borders change. Do you think most of Europe should be put under Rome's control since it once belonged to the Roman Empire?
No, but Constantinople was more a part of the Byzantine's empire's national border. It is regrettable that now most of the people in Thrace are Muslim because of the long standing Turkish command there. (I am not saying that Turkey's government is bad.)