Why Orthodoxy?

[JMC309]

I've read many bits and pieces about you, but I'm very interested to know more. I myself am a curious blend of Anglicanism, Charismaticism, Calvinism and Neo-Orthodoxy (I can explain this a bit more clearly if you want). So why is Orthodoxy the sounder denomination?

[ma2000]

There was one Church until 1054 AD. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. (Catholic=Universal, here).
The (Eastern) Orthodox church is the same Church. The only difference is that now there are many Christians who are not Orthodox.

[JMC309]

Won't the Catholics say exactly the same on behalf of their own denomination?

[buzuxi02]

Won't the Catholics say exactly the same on behalf of their own denomination?
Yes the roman catholics will say the same, as will the non-chalcedon churches.

The best is to read the writings we both have in common (in there entire context) to reach a logical conclusion.

Also its best to go directly to the acts and canons of the Ecumenical Councils and read those directly.

Also make sure what your reading is like i reiterated above; "in context" and those sources we both agree on, (becareful because there are many forgeries, spurious texts and intentional mistranslations). Search using neutral and impartial sources or sources from both sides.

We also reject the concept of "denomination". All the churches which hold to atleast the first 2 ecumenical councils reject the branch theory, this would be the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox(non chalcedon), Roman Catholic, Assyrian Church of the East.

When Christ was put to death it was by crucifixion and not beheading like Paul and John the Baptist, the Body of Christ is intact, One and visible. Likewise "not a bone of him was broken" so the church is not fragmented into various sections (sects or denominations).

May God guide you in your search!

[JMC309]

The best is to read the writings we both have in common (in there entire context) to reach a logical conclusion.

Also its best to go directly to the acts and canons of the Ecumenical Councils and read those directly.

Where do I find these documents?

[Rowan]

The biggest sticking point for me is Scripture. I asked myself, "Why be a Bible-believing Christian outside of the Church that canonized the Bible?"

...and then it went from there.

[buzuxi02]

The canons of the church laid down the proper governance of each church in a given juridiction. There emerged ecclesiastical centers, in the big cities, these have their jurisdiction and cannot overstep there boundaries into the another juridiction.

The canons dealt with these issues as they came up. If a particular church sends missionaries into another jurisdiction the proper and canonical way of handling is first recieve permission from the bishop of that juridiction. Any churches established will be handed over to the bishop of that juriddiction, "so they maybe one".

Having churches even of the same Faith but with a multitude of differing leaders is condemned in scripture, where it says ,"a house divided against itself cannot stand".

The early church say how Peter and Paul clashed so the church decided Peter will be the apostle to the jews and Paul the apostle to the gentiles.

This is where the problem of papal supremacy comes in. He is the head over all the jurisdictions. In the east he is only the first in honor given to the fact that he was in the "first city" of the empire, Rome. This honor is based on the secular importance of the city and these priveleges have limits.

This is what the canons have established not papal supremacy.

Council of Nicea- Canon 6
Council of Constantinople- Canon 2 & 3
Council of Ephesus- Canon 7 (where the adiition of the filioque is condemned) Canon 8 (Church of Cyprus officially becomes autocephalous, no one else has juridiction over the cypriot church)

This council also elevated Jerusalem to a Patriarchate in the fifth place and for the first time gave to jerusalem the title, "Mother of all the Churches".

Council of Chalcedon- Canon 9, 17, 28, (especially 28)


you can find many sources on ccel.org

[Akathist]

Here is a direct link to ccel.org: http://www.ccel.org/

I challenge you to go and visit an Eastern Orthodox Church in your local community. It is impossible to understand our faith by reading texts alone. You need to experience it in real life.

The first service I attended was remarkable. I had never seen such deep awe for the Lord. That was the first thing I noticed. Go and see for yourself.

[JMC309]

The biggest sticking point for me is Scripture. I asked myself, "Why be a Bible-believing Christian outside of the Church that canonized the Bible?"

Would you not say that the Biblical texts were selected by the church because they stood out from the others as having true authority?

I challenge you to go and visit an Eastern Orthodox Church in your local community. It is impossible to understand our faith by reading texts alone. You need to experience it in real life.

The first service I attended was remarkable. I had never seen such deep awe for the Lord. That was the first thing I noticed. Go and see for yourself.

I will bear this in mind. Thank you.

I'll probably have a lot of questions, given that you people seem to have been airbrushed out of many books that are normally comprehensive on the subject of Christian Theology. The library theology dictionary, for example will give me multiple pages of discussion on the five points of Calvinism or feminist theology, but very little on Orthodoxy (know of any decent introductions?).

So I may be around quite a bit. I will try not to be too irksome!


:wave:
BTW Is there any difference between Greek and Russian Orthodox (bar the language)? And who are the Oriental Orthodox?

[Rowan]

Would you not say that the Biblical texts were selected by the church because they stood out from the others as having true authority?


Kind of. If you've ever looked at the texts that were rejected though, some of them aren't all that different from the texts chosen for the Bible. I'd say that the Church must have been guided by the Holy Spirit to properly discern what was Scripture and what was not.

[Heorhij]

Would you not say that the Biblical texts were selected by the church because they stood out from the others as having true authority?



I will bear this in mind. Thank you.

I'll probably have a lot of questions, given that you people seem to have been airbrushed out of many books that are normally comprehensive on the subject of Christian Theology. The library theology dictionary, for example will give me multiple pages of discussion on the five points of Calvinism or feminist theology, but very little on Orthodoxy (know of any decent introductions?).

So I may be around quite a bit. I will try not to be too irksome!


:wave:
BTW Is there any difference between Greek and Russian Orthodox (bar the language)? And who are the Oriental Orthodox?
No. There is no difference between the ROC and the Greek or Romanian or Georgian or Estonian or Ukrainian Orthodox Church, as far as faith is concerned. It's just that historically, within Orthodoxy there existed, and continue to exist, many autonomous or "autocephalous" regional or national churches (or jurisdictions), each with its own presiding bishop (who is sometimes called Metropolitan and sometimes Patriarch). Yet, once you are Orthodox, you are Orthodox; the teaching of the Orthodox Church is one.

Oriental Orthodox Churches are those who did not concur with the decisions of the Ecumenical Counsil of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) about the two natures of Christ, one divine and one human. Currently, the biggest "Oriental" or Non-Chalcedon churches are Coptic (in Egypt), Ethiopian, and Armenian. Sometimes they are called "maiphysites" (from the Greek "mia fisis sintetos," the term offered by Severus of Antioch to define one nature of Christ that has two manifestations, the divine and the human - as opposed to the Chalcedon definition of two natures). Currently, there is an extensive dialogue going on between the Oriental Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Church.