Why Orthodoxy?

[JoeV]

I am a little curious about Orthodoxy. Could you answer my questions?

Why should a Christian follow the Orthodox Church as opposed to the Catholic Church? Why is it the one, true, Church?

Why does the Orthodox Church reject the primacy of Peter?

What is the origin of the word "orthodoxy"?

Thank you :)

[Breaking Babylon]

I'll answer briefly. More educated people will follow I assure you. :)

Why Orthodoxy?

Because according to Jude we are to 'earnestly contend for the faith once delivered by the Apostles.'

Because it's the perfect roadmap of faith, the Church which Christ founded on earth at Pentecost. It's the Church of the Apostles and Martyrs, it's the hospital of all sinners and the factory of Saints.

Why do Orthodox reject the 'primacy' of Peter?

The faith of St. Peter is the rock on which the Church was built, not Peter himself. There's a lot more to this, but I don't feel comfortable answering as I don't consider myself learned enough in that area.

Why should one follow the Orthodox Church instead of the Roman Church?

Rome was originally one of the 5 Patriarchates of the Orthodox Church. They left in 1054 AD.

There is much to elaborate on here, but as I said, more educated answers will follow.

[Seeker of the Truth]

I'll answer briefly. More educated people will follow I assure you. :)

Why Orthodoxy?

Because according to Jude we are to 'earnestly contend for the faith once delivered by the Apostles.'

Because it's the perfect roadmap of faith, the Church which Christ founded on earth at Pentecost. It's the Church of the Apostles and Martyrs, it's the hospital of all sinners and the factory of Saints.

Why do Orthodox reject the 'primacy' of Peter?

The faith of St. Peter is the rock on which the Church was built, not Peter himself. There's a lot more to this, but I don't feel comfortable answering as I don't consider myself learned enough in that area.

Why should one follow the Orthodox Church instead of the Roman Church?

Rome was originally one of the 5 Patriarchates of the Orthodox Church. They left in 1054 AD.

There is much to elaborate on here, but as I said, more educated answers will follow.
I thought those answers were well enough!

Rest assured, once you delve into the history of the Church, you're answer will most certainly lead you to the EO church.

[JoeV]

Rome was originally one of the 5 Patriarchates of the Orthodox Church. They left in 1054 AD.

I understand that you believe this, but can you prove that they left you and that you didn't leave them?

[Eusebios]

I understand that you believe this, but can you prove that they left you and that you didn't leave them?
Joe,
All I can say in response to this is that the other 4 Sees remained in communion, Rome did not, so who left whom?
We do not necessarily reject the primacy of Peter. Most Orthodox believe that Peter and his confession constitute the rock on which Christ builds His Holy Church. The problem comes in when Rome claims, not primacy (the other Sees were always happy to acknowledge the primacy of the Roman Bishop), rather the problem (or one of the problems) has to do with The declaration of Papal Supremacy, there is a difference. Primacy intimates that the Roman Pontiff was First amongst Equals (due deference being given to St. Peter), but declarations of supremacy, moving decision making outside of a conciliar setting) as well as declaration of ex-cathedra infallibility, simply step outside traditional Orthodox polity.
Hope this is helpful.
Peace,
Don

[Breaking Babylon]

As Eusebios said, in the beginning there were the 5 Patriarchates: Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople. In 1054, Rome left the others.

[Kristos]

I understand that you believe this, but can you prove that they left you and that you didn't leave them?
Prove? Much too subjective.

Regardless of who left whom, or more appropriately, who anathamized whom first, it happened. In the thousand or so years since the schism, the two have stayed very similar in some respects but also diverge significantly in others. My biased opinion is that if you look at the areas of diversion, mostly innovation in the Latin sector, you will see that the EO has indeed stayed truest to it's Apostolic roots. Another biased opinion is that if you look at the fruit of the two, on the Latin side you have the Reformation, corruption, and other abuses, while in the East I don't see these things (I'm not trying to claim that we are perfect, just that the East didn't experience these major pitfalls). Never the less, we do seek reconciliation and reunion - God Willing, one day we will share Communion.

[nestoj]

I understand that you believe this, but can you prove that they left you and that you didn't leave them?
Four leave one or one leaves four - try to find infability of the Pope, filoque, imaculate conception... in period prior to 1054.

nestoj
God helps

[JoeV]

Joe,
All I can say in response to this is that the other 4 Sees remained in communion, Rome did not, so who left whom?
We do not necessarily reject the primacy of Peter. Most Orthodox believe that Peter and his confession constitute the rock on which Christ builds His Holy Church. The problem comes in when Rome claims, not primacy (the other Sees were always happy to acknowledge the primacy of the Roman Bishop), rather the problem (or one of the problems) has to do with The declaration of Papal Supremacy, there is a difference. Primacy intimates that the Roman Pontiff was First amongst Equals (due deference being given to St. Peter), but declarations of supremacy, moving decision making outside of a conciliar setting) as well as declaration of ex-cathedra infallibility, simply step outside traditional Orthodox polity.
Hope this is helpful.
Peace,
Don
Yes, this is helpful. Thank you all!

[Breaking Babylon]

Orthodox: Greek: ortho ('right', 'correct') and doxa ('thought', 'teaching')

[Shubunkin]

As someone once here said, "Rome added to the faith, and the Reformation subtracted from it." It ended up being broken and splintered from then on.

I like Othodoxy because it is original. :)

[EmperorConstantine]

Why Orthodoxy? Two good reasons.

-Never changes (serious answer)

-Better food (not serious answer :))

[Macarius]

A few (pot-shot sound-bite esque) "evidences" of Rome's innovation:

-- Rome claims an ecumenical council must be called by a Pope and that the canons of a council must be affirmed / ratified by Rome. During the first millenia, not one of the mutually recognized councils was called by the Pope, and many canons which Rome did not approve (ie canon 28 of the council of Chalcedon) functioned and were utilized anyway without any break in communion.

-- Rome claims the right of a Pope to legislate canon law via encyclical / decretal. All canon law that was universal to the church was arrived at in council (the individual patriarchates could determine and interpret the application of that canon law without synod, however).

-- Rome claims that the Pope is infallible in public declarations of faith and doctrine intended to be binding on the Church. Two popes, one in the 6th c and one in the 7th, were condemned by mutually recognized ecumenical councils for public declarations of faith and morals (one for supporting Nestorian writings, the other for professing - in support of the likewise condemned Patriarch of Constantinople - the heresy of monothelitism).

-- Rome, during the schism, accused the East of "removing" the filioque from the creed. All historical evidence points to the opposite (and both sides recognize this fully) - the West added it, and without a council (prior to that all changes to the creed were discussed in ecumenical councils).

-- Since the time of the schism, the West has shifted its soteriology from "Christus Victor" (Christ conquering death - the demonstratably most ancient model, not only from scripture but from all second c. theologians) to satisfactionalism or juridicialism (Christ paying the penalty of our sins). This shift lead directly to the addition of purgatory (which lead to the doctrine of indulgences and the abuses there-of), which lead directly to the Reformation. Orthodoxy did not follow Rome in these innovations - we maintain the apostolic understanding of the cross.

-- Many many forgeries and falseifications (ie the Donation of Constantine) were instrumental in Rome's opinion of itself and its rights during the second half of the first millenium. The Popes were as much victims of these as anyone (they probably didn't know they were forgeries) - but the fact remains that the West at least partly made its decision to excommunicate the East on false information, leading me to question whether the same decision would have been made with accurate information.

In contrast, the East has not changed its approach - like the Apostles and Elders of Jerusalem, we meet in council to make major decisions and write canon law, and while we have bishops who act as mouthpieces and honorary leaders, no bishop actually possesses any additional authority over another bishop. We are a communion of the college of bishops - pure Cyprianic (early 3rd c) ecclesiology. We are much more conservative when it comes to declaring doctrines or more refined definitions, generally prefering to wait until an internal heresy or conflict requires us to improve / more clearly define our doctrines.

Doctrine doesn't change - what was revealed as true in the first century is true today - the only "change" is to more clearly define that revelation (as in the articulation of the incarnation and trinity) when we need to, to ensure that heresy can find no room to spread it's falsehood within the Church.

That's not nearly detailed enough - but hopefully it gives some indication of the Orthodox perspective. The Catholic church proclaims much truth, and does much good. This is to be celebrated and respected. We don't hate them, nor do we judge them (God alone may judge). We can only say that they believe differently from us on issues that they felt the need to excommunicate us over, and issues which, since the schism, have been shown to have far reaching consequences. That means we are not one with them. We are not in communion. Beyond that... God alone may judge.

In Christ,
Macarius

[icedtea]

I want to get a t shirt made which has the orthodox cross and the words Eastern Orthodoxy, worshipping since 33 A.D. (and not tired yet) :D

[Knowledge3]

Orthodoxy did not follow Rome in these innovations - we maintain the apostolic understanding of the cross.



Will you explain this specific claim?

[Chacci]

As a former Roman Catholic it really all boils down to the question of Papal Supremacy - all differences between Rome and the Orthodox World stem from that one thing.

[Lukaris]

In

[Lukaris]

In a modern contemporary sense, the Roman Catholic church does not disavow the validity of the Holy Orthodox Church despite their misconception of our "separation." Our worship remains, the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Roman & other Orthodox bishops defended & maintained the true scriptures prior to 1054) remains, the Apostolic faith (despite some bad upheavals) remains, true sacraments have remained; we worship our Lord "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). There have been virtuous and bad Orthodox, Roman Catholic, & Protestants in history. Look at the situation of Christianity today though what type of faith is being proclaimed today? The Holy Church needs evengelicals (badly) but evengelicals need the true faith.

[EmperorConstantine]

The Holy Church needs evengelicals (badly) but evengelicals need the true faith.
Don't you mean evangelists?:scratch:

[Lukaris]

Don't you mean evangelists?:scratch:
Yes and I am trying to state this with all humility as in praying to the Lord of the harvest to send laborers into the harvest.

[Michael the Iconographer]

The word Orthodox means "correct in teaching."

[Mary of Bethany]

I want to get a t shirt made which has the orthodox cross and the words Eastern Orthodoxy, worshipping since 33 A.D. (and not tired yet) :D


HaHa! I like it. :cool:

Mary

[EmperorConstantine]

Yes and I am trying to state this with all humility as in praying to the Lord of the harvest to send laborers into the harvest.
Ah ok. Whenever I see the word "Evangelical" I'm reminded of that film "Jesus Camp".:sick:

[TrueHope]

Ah ok. Whenever I see the word "Evangelical" I'm reminded of that film "Jesus Camp".:sick:
I watched 5 minutes and shut it off....I agree....:sick:

Lord have mercy!:liturgy:

[JoeV]

The word Orthodox means "correct in teaching."I guess I should clarify: When was the first time the phrase "Holy Orthodox Church" was used, or something similar?

[buzuxi02]

I understand that you believe this, but can you prove that they left you and that you didn't leave them?
This is easily proveable.

In the ninth century Rome began spreading a body of writings known as the Decretals of (Pseudo)Isidore. The most popular was a forgery known as "The Donation of Constantine". It was this document that spread the papal supremacy theory. This document was considered legitimate for nearly 300 years by many and was the most influentual document for the spread of the innovation.
Another way to demonstrate this is to actually read the canons which established the patriarchates. Before canon 6 of Nicea ,patriarchates did not exist.

This canon recognized certain ecclesial centers of authority which were soley based upon the secular importance and prestige of the city within the empire.
Thus canon 3 of Constantinople refers to this as "presveia tis timeis" literally primacy of honor . Since Constantinople became the new rome and the newest city of prestige within the empire and a new center of ecclesiastical authority it eclipsed Alexandria and took the second place.
Once Jerusalem was established as a place for pilgrimage among the newly converted christians of the empire, the Council of Ephesus accorded it the fifth place in the ranking, The council for the first time ever bestowed the Jerusalem See with the title of 'Mother of all the Churches" because all the events of Christ took place their and St Helena established the first christian temples over the actual biblical places . This demonstrates that apostolic primacy has nothing to do with episcopal ranking, for if it did Jerusalem would hold the first place since it is the most apostolic.
Ironically it was this council that proclaimed the Church of Cyprus as autocephalous, There is no superior heirarch for the church of Cyprus except for the Cypriot Synod of Bishops. By this rendering no other juridiction can annex it regardless of political circumstances, its 'irrevocable; if you will.

After the fall of Constantinople, the new center of ecclesiastical authority became Moscow, so it too was elevated to a patriarchate.

There has never been a belief in Orthodoxy of a reincarnation similar to that of the dalai Lama in buddhism where the successor of a local church takes on the spirit of the Apostle Peter, as Rome seems to imply.