Over the course of this year, I have come across several references to people in England joining the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is not something that I recall seeing in previous years. I this a new trend? If so, what is behind it?
Eastern Orthodox Church in England
- Thread starter rocala
- Start date
That's interesting, I didn't know ...
Personally I dance between West and East most of the time, and at the present moment am more Eastern inclined than Western, but that's from a Western perspective.
Personally I dance between West and East most of the time, and at the present moment am more Eastern inclined than Western, but that's from a Western perspective.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,358
- Reaction score
- 1,273
- Points
- 108
I think there's even something called Anglo-Orthodox and the British Orthodox Church.
I learned of these things a few years ago back when Beliefnet was something.
OK ... let me begin by saying I looked on the web for a concise answer to this ... and am still looking.
There are the 'classic' differences which everybody makes a big deal about, but which I regard as surface and superficial to the spiritual life, and can be settled quite amicably and reasonably if both sides wanted to.
Such as:
The Orthodox (Or) do not recognise the Catholic (Ca) supremacy of the Pope.
The Or argue the 'filioque clause' – a word inserted into a Creed in the West for clarity's sake, is an error inserted into the Creed.
One common Or argument is that Ca doctrine declares doctrines and dogmas that carry no Apostolic or Scriptural support – and I can agree that the Latin tendency to 'legalism' has led the Ca church to continue to make statements where the Or hesitate – they might believe as we do, but they do not declare it as such.
The Ca declared four dogmas concerning the Virgin Mary. One is to do with when how her sinless natures arises, the other to do with the Assumption bodily into heaven.
My point is we both believe in different things, but neither the Ca nor the Or can defend their position by Scripture or Apostolic Tradition. We believe Mary died and was assumed bodily into heaven. Or believe she fell asleep and was assumed (Dormition) – but neither are attested to by any source other than popular tradition.
+++
But all these are, I think, asides ... I'm trying for the serious stuff.
There are the 'classic' differences which everybody makes a big deal about, but which I regard as surface and superficial to the spiritual life, and can be settled quite amicably and reasonably if both sides wanted to.
Such as:
The Orthodox (Or) do not recognise the Catholic (Ca) supremacy of the Pope.
The Or argue the 'filioque clause' – a word inserted into a Creed in the West for clarity's sake, is an error inserted into the Creed.
One common Or argument is that Ca doctrine declares doctrines and dogmas that carry no Apostolic or Scriptural support – and I can agree that the Latin tendency to 'legalism' has led the Ca church to continue to make statements where the Or hesitate – they might believe as we do, but they do not declare it as such.
The Ca declared four dogmas concerning the Virgin Mary. One is to do with when how her sinless natures arises, the other to do with the Assumption bodily into heaven.
My point is we both believe in different things, but neither the Ca nor the Or can defend their position by Scripture or Apostolic Tradition. We believe Mary died and was assumed bodily into heaven. Or believe she fell asleep and was assumed (Dormition) – but neither are attested to by any source other than popular tradition.
+++
But all these are, I think, asides ... I'm trying for the serious stuff.
The Ca/Or view of sin is very different.
Original Sin as inherited guilt, something derived primarily from Augustine, although his view was actually more negative than the church's position, but it is still largely Augustinian.
Bluntly, the Ca teaches that sin is a 'crime' against God, and the sinner is going to have to pay for it.
Or treats sin as an illness of soul, so rather than Original Sin, there was an Original Tendency to commit sin, and that – the tendency, not the sin – has been transmitted to humanity via Adam and Eve.
To the Ca seeks forgiveness of sin, the Or seeks a cure for our ills.
The Or prefer to say no one is guilty nor culpable for the sin of Adam and Eve, rather, everyone inherits the consequences of this act; the foremost of this is physical death in this world. The preferred term is ancestral sin.
+++
Another is the theology of grace.
The Ca speaks of grace and nature almost in opposition. Grace as a principle over against nature.
The Or do not see such a distinct opposition. Grace is the way God deals with creatures, and is seen as continuous with nature: that we are naturally oriented to union with God (rtather than, by sin, oriented away from God), and that it’s an unnatural impediment that separates us from God rather than a failure to receive Him.
Hart sees our view of grace as 'a very extraordinary gift', whereas the Or see it as an ordinary reality from which we were extraordinarily separated by a tragic history that had to be overcome.
+++
There's a start ... hope it's useful ...
Original Sin as inherited guilt, something derived primarily from Augustine, although his view was actually more negative than the church's position, but it is still largely Augustinian.
Bluntly, the Ca teaches that sin is a 'crime' against God, and the sinner is going to have to pay for it.
Or treats sin as an illness of soul, so rather than Original Sin, there was an Original Tendency to commit sin, and that – the tendency, not the sin – has been transmitted to humanity via Adam and Eve.
To the Ca seeks forgiveness of sin, the Or seeks a cure for our ills.
The Or prefer to say no one is guilty nor culpable for the sin of Adam and Eve, rather, everyone inherits the consequences of this act; the foremost of this is physical death in this world. The preferred term is ancestral sin.
+++
Another is the theology of grace.
The Ca speaks of grace and nature almost in opposition. Grace as a principle over against nature.
The Or do not see such a distinct opposition. Grace is the way God deals with creatures, and is seen as continuous with nature: that we are naturally oriented to union with God (rtather than, by sin, oriented away from God), and that it’s an unnatural impediment that separates us from God rather than a failure to receive Him.
Hart sees our view of grace as 'a very extraordinary gift', whereas the Or see it as an ordinary reality from which we were extraordinarily separated by a tragic history that had to be overcome.
+++
There's a start ... hope it's useful ...
Hi @Leveller –
I referred to the 'classic' differences – the most well-known being the Orthodox do not recognise the authority of the pope.
The 'filioque clause' was inserted into a Creed, defined in Council, at a later date. The Eastern Church naturally took umbrage that the Western Church should change something – and in their view quite significantly – that had been previously agreed and regarded as binding.
The Orthodox Patriarchates do not require priests to be celibate. Bishops, yes. The understanding being that celibacy is a 'grace' or 'spiritual gift' and is not de facto applied, as it were, at the consecration of a priest.
Orthodox art employ 'icons' which are painted under particular rules. They rather frown on Western figurative art and sculpture.
Orthodox churches tend not to have pews – the Westyerners do a lot of kneeling, they don't.
In a Western Church the nave is where the pews are, and the laity gather for mass. There's usually three steps up to the sanctuary, in which stands the altar. In the Old Rite Latin Mass, the celebrating priest stands with his back to the congregation, facing the altar. This signifies he is performing the mass on our behalf, as one of us ...
In an Orthodox Church the altar is screened off from the nave by an 'iconostasis' – a screen covered in icons. Thus the 'high point' of the Mass, the consecration of the bread and wine, takes place hidden from the clergy.
+++
The question of the pope's authority and the filioque clause are no longer seen as a stumbling block to unification. An agreement can be reached. The Catholic Church has taken in Orthodox and Anglican married clergy and regard their ordinations as valid.
So the outward differences are not really problematic.
+++
The theological differences are quite significant, but again that should not prevent full union between the two – most laity are not theologians and aren't really bothered about the nuance of theological distinctions.
+++
I referred to the 'classic' differences – the most well-known being the Orthodox do not recognise the authority of the pope.
The 'filioque clause' was inserted into a Creed, defined in Council, at a later date. The Eastern Church naturally took umbrage that the Western Church should change something – and in their view quite significantly – that had been previously agreed and regarded as binding.
The Orthodox Patriarchates do not require priests to be celibate. Bishops, yes. The understanding being that celibacy is a 'grace' or 'spiritual gift' and is not de facto applied, as it were, at the consecration of a priest.
Orthodox art employ 'icons' which are painted under particular rules. They rather frown on Western figurative art and sculpture.
Orthodox churches tend not to have pews – the Westyerners do a lot of kneeling, they don't.
In a Western Church the nave is where the pews are, and the laity gather for mass. There's usually three steps up to the sanctuary, in which stands the altar. In the Old Rite Latin Mass, the celebrating priest stands with his back to the congregation, facing the altar. This signifies he is performing the mass on our behalf, as one of us ...
In an Orthodox Church the altar is screened off from the nave by an 'iconostasis' – a screen covered in icons. Thus the 'high point' of the Mass, the consecration of the bread and wine, takes place hidden from the clergy.
+++
The question of the pope's authority and the filioque clause are no longer seen as a stumbling block to unification. An agreement can be reached. The Catholic Church has taken in Orthodox and Anglican married clergy and regard their ordinations as valid.
So the outward differences are not really problematic.
+++
The theological differences are quite significant, but again that should not prevent full union between the two – most laity are not theologians and aren't really bothered about the nuance of theological distinctions.
+++
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,358
- Reaction score
- 1,273
- Points
- 108
Why would significant theological differences NOT prevent a full union?
What would the advantages be of a full union?
If there is an allowance for 'theological opinion' and actual dogma or doctrines ...
There is a long-running difference in that the Orthodox distinguishes between God in His essence, which is unknowable, and His energies/ divine activity, which is knowable, whereas the Catholic says God is knowable in both His essence and his activities ... from our pov that's a pretty fundamental difference ... but we also declare that God is unknowable in the sense that the human mind could never encompass the entirety of the Divine.
At the Council of Trent, the pope put the The Summa Theologiae of St Thomas Aquinas on the altar next to the Bible, as a symbol of the Catholic Church's reliance on both as sources of truth.
That's too much. The Orthodox would not put a work of theology on a par with the bible. Nor, I think, would St Thomas. I think they and he would it intemperate and somewhat triumphalist.
When we look at the Fathers of the Church, it's a given that none are infallible. It's a rule of thumb that where they all agree on something, you can bank on that. Only one Father, as far as I know, has never been questioned as dubious on theological grounds, and that was St John of Damascus, who wrote "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith – so to hold such a title, having produced such an all-inclusive work, is pretty awesome!
I can think of a few ... the most advantageous would be the Orthodox synaxis – the Mass.
Currently we are experiencing a battle going on behind closed doors between Liberals and Conservatives (ever since VII in 1963). A victim of this is the Latin Mass. The 'curia' – the institutional church, tries to stop it, as they see it as a gateway to backward-looking Catholic fundamentalism. They might be right. I attended the latin Mass Society and it was all older white men of a certain class.
But I have no love of the mass in the vernacular. I think the language is trite and too much reverential symbolism is missing. It's become more and more mundane and commonplace. happy-clappy in a white European Christian context drives me up the wall.
(The vociferous Afro-Caribbean types – singing, dancing, vocalisings etc., is fine by me because it's an authentic cultural expression. For me, the white European version is too self-congratulatory.)
So I like the Latin Mass. I like the 'bells and smells' because it becomes a whole-body experience.
The Mass in the vernacular, rather than a text decided by a committee, should have been a text decided by a committee, then given to a poet or lyricist, or someone with an ear for language, rather than a nit-picking translation of Latin into English.
Here's something for the psychologists to get hold of:
The Christian West has stigmatics (the wounds of Christ). The East doesn't.
The Christian East has visions of the Light of Mount Tabor – heysychasm.
We have the Rosary
They have the Prayer of Jesus
(actually we share these)
It's to do with emphasis: The West emphasises more the physical person of Christ, the East more the Spiritual.
That shapes the phenomena that occurs within the Traditions
The Christian West has stigmatics (the wounds of Christ). The East doesn't.
The Christian East has visions of the Light of Mount Tabor – heysychasm.
We have the Rosary
They have the Prayer of Jesus
(actually we share these)
It's to do with emphasis: The West emphasises more the physical person of Christ, the East more the Spiritual.
That shapes the phenomena that occurs within the Traditions
And to come down hard:
Again, my man-of-the-moment, DBH:
my last remark is only this: reunion of the Orthodox and Roman Churches has become an imperative, and time is growing short. I say this because I often suffer from bleak premonitions of the ultimate cultural triumph in the West of a consumerism so devoid of transcendent values as to be, inevitably, nothing but a pervasive and pitiless nihilism. And it is, I think, a particularly soothing and saccharine nihilism, possessing a singular power for absorbing the native energies of the civilization it is displacing without prompting any extravagant alarm at its vacuous barbarisms. And I suspect that the only tools at Christianity’s disposal, as it confronts the rapid and seemingly inexorable advance of this nihilism, will be evangelical zeal and internal unity. I like to think—call it the Sophiologist in me—that the tribulations that Eastern Christianity has suffered under Islamic and communist rule have insulated it from some of the more corrosive pathologies of modernity for a purpose, and endowed it with a special mission to bring its liturgical, intellectual, and spiritual strengths to the aid of the Western Christian world in its struggle with the nihilism that the post-Christian West has long incubated and that now surrounds us all, while yet drawing on the strengths and charisms of the Western church to preserve Orthodoxy from the political and cultural frailty that still afflicts Eastern Christianity. Whatever the case, though, we are more in need of one another now than ever. To turn away from ecumenism now may be to turn towards the darkness that is deepening all about us. We are called to be children of light, and I do not think that we will walk very far in the light hereafter except together
Again, my man-of-the-moment, DBH:
my last remark is only this: reunion of the Orthodox and Roman Churches has become an imperative, and time is growing short. I say this because I often suffer from bleak premonitions of the ultimate cultural triumph in the West of a consumerism so devoid of transcendent values as to be, inevitably, nothing but a pervasive and pitiless nihilism. And it is, I think, a particularly soothing and saccharine nihilism, possessing a singular power for absorbing the native energies of the civilization it is displacing without prompting any extravagant alarm at its vacuous barbarisms. And I suspect that the only tools at Christianity’s disposal, as it confronts the rapid and seemingly inexorable advance of this nihilism, will be evangelical zeal and internal unity. I like to think—call it the Sophiologist in me—that the tribulations that Eastern Christianity has suffered under Islamic and communist rule have insulated it from some of the more corrosive pathologies of modernity for a purpose, and endowed it with a special mission to bring its liturgical, intellectual, and spiritual strengths to the aid of the Western Christian world in its struggle with the nihilism that the post-Christian West has long incubated and that now surrounds us all, while yet drawing on the strengths and charisms of the Western church to preserve Orthodoxy from the political and cultural frailty that still afflicts Eastern Christianity. Whatever the case, though, we are more in need of one another now than ever. To turn away from ecumenism now may be to turn towards the darkness that is deepening all about us. We are called to be children of light, and I do not think that we will walk very far in the light hereafter except together
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,358
- Reaction score
- 1,273
- Points
- 108
That would be wonderful. However there are always disputes and always the accusation of "schismatic" or "heretic" and some denominations today are regarded as cults merely for being non-trinitarian.
I always objected to the idea of the Pope being infallible. How is that even a thing if it is a given that none of the Fathers are infallible?
Great! I just bought it on Amazon for 0.58! (58¢)
Hi Thomas thanks for your efforts here. Sorry for not contributing, but I am working away from home and internet is very limited. I look forward to going throughout everything when I return at the end of next week.
There are disputes even within denominations, between different theological 'schools', such is the way of the world.
But as West and East share the same Fathers, there are no fundamental grounds for schism.
The East regard Augustine as working from a Latin (mis-)translation of the Greek text of the Bible, they also cast a wary eye at what they call overt subjectivity present in many Western saints ... but then again the Russian royal family was beatified by the Russian Orthodox church ...
Ah ... the pope is not himself infallible, rather it's when the Pope makes statements 'from the Chair of St Peter' – usually a definitive teaching or dogma, that is considered infallible ... Catholic theologians have argued the number of times the Pope has declared something dogmatically that is not underpinned by Scripture or Tradition, and while there is no clear-cut certainty, I think the number of clear cases can be counted on the fingers of one hand – certainly, I think, not more than both hands.
I looked on a couple of discussion forums (fora?) about East-West reunification, and there was a large amount of tribalism and vitriol, so no ... we're not anywhere near a grass-roots desire for unity (yet).
And those same would probably declare the Russian Orthodox theolopian DBH a heretic, because he's scathing about the dreadful state of Christianity as professed in America today – both Catholic, Orthodox and Ecumenical – as being unChristian and a reflection of a nationalist ideology and ambition.
Aw, heck ... you're gonna start asking me questions now ... I need to dig out my copy ...