www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox!

The media and the pundits are very frequently referring to Pope Benedict XVI as "orthodox" - which is, of course, an accurate description and a welcome one. Is it possible that one of the very first fruits of the new pontificate will be the restoration of this word to honor among Byzantine Catholics?

Incognitus

Well...it's not a new term. People even described John Paul II as orthodox.

If you go back to the Tridentine Latin missal, you'll find the word "orthodox" in there.

So, yes, the Catholic Church contains orthodoxy just as the Orthodox Church contain catholicism. (note how I capitalize and undercaptitalize the words).

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Actually you will also find the word orthodox in the latin text of the current liturgy.
It is contained in the Roman Canon. I would qoute it but the Latin text is in the Church and it is rather late!
More tomorrow.
Stephanos I

The word "orthodox" was coined by the Christian Church to distinguish herself from Arians and other heretics who are "heterodox" or, to be more emphatic, "cacodox".

Shortly thereafter, two heresies were promulgated that have adherents to this day, and those two groups also style themselves as some manner of "Orthodox Church"; these are the Nestorians and Monophysites (or whatever is the politically correct term de'jour for them).

So, three eastern Christian religions call themselves "Orthodox" as part of their names; all three also consider themselves the "Catholic Church". Of course, the Roman Catholic Church, while not using the word "Orthodox" in her name, certainly reckons herself as orthodox.

While traveling, I've oft looked in the yellow pages for Orthodox Churches, only to find in some places (especially the southeastern USA) that some non-denominational fundamentalist "Christian" groups are sometimes listed as "Orthodox"; they are either unaware of the etymology of the word or the existence of the eastern Churches, or simply are so certain that they have the Truth to arrogantly usurp the ancient name of the eastern Churches. While a generally mild mannered man, I am sufficiently offended by this to call them up asking for the time of Vespers or Liturgy, and begin a "How dare you ..." argument when they admit that they are not Orthodox.

Because of the last group's existence, methinks it muddles the whole matter for the Roman Church to increase the instances where she refers to herself as "orthodox", just as if one of the Orthodox Churches were to start referring to herself, outside of theological and liturgical literature, as "catholic". Not only would such an action generate confusion, but it likely would offend some significant number of believers who use the word officially. As an Orthodox Christian, I tell people that I am not a Catholic, and that is understood as meaning I am not in communion with Rome; however, in the divine services, I profess belief in "One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church", and saying I am not a Catholic does in no way contradict that because the word has more than one meaning and the contexts are clearly different. Likewise, I would expect a Roman Catholic to claim to not be "Orthodox" in the same context (i.e., "in answer to, "What is your religion?") even though that person believes that the Roman Church is orthodox.

Also, I've noted that Byzantine Catholic translations of the divine services into English tend to translate "Orthodox Christians" to "Christians of the True Faith", presumably to avoid confusion. And, I recall a professor in seminary who attended the funeral of a Byzantine Catholic (a kin of an Orthodox Bishop to whom he was the cell attendant) which was in Slavonic, and remarking, in class the next day, in utter astonishment, that they called themselves "Provoslavnie Khistian'i" ("Orthodox Christians") and wondered why they would do such a thing when clearly they were not ... they commiserated the Pope of Rome! He thought it was intentional deception or confusion, and he is a very educated person raised in the USA.

These are my thoughts, I think,
Photius

Fr. Stephanos,

I think it goes:

"haec sancta sacrificia . . . quae tibi offerimus pro ecclesia tua sancta catholica, quam pacificare, custodire, adunare, et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum, una cum famulo tuo papa nostro Benedicto:), et Antistite nostro N., et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae and apostolicae fidei cultoribus."

Be careful with that statement brother! The Oriental Orthodox are just as "Orthodox" as the Eatern...that is a matter that has been discussed at great length with the leaders in BOTH churches coming to agreement. It is a great thing of this forum that we respect other Christians, something that your post does not do.

The Oriental Orthodox or "Monophysits" as you incorrectly call them deserve their title of Oriental Orthodox. The "Nestorians" go by the title "Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East." Nestorian is also a derogotory term for that church with a mavelous history.

Your post is not charitable and I am sure it is offensive to the people of those churches that have suffered greatly through their history.

In His Name,
Stephen

Dear Stephen,

> The Oriental Orthodox or "Monophysits" as you incorrectly call
> them deserve their title of Oriental Orthodox.

Which is why I wrote "Monophysites (or whatever is the politically correct term de'jour for them)"; I knew that some people do not like referring to them by their historical name.

> Nestorian is also a derogotory term for that church with a
> mavelous history.

Sorry, that's totally new to me; they are followers of Nestorius, and I find it hard to believe that calling them after that name is offensive. What is the politically correct name for them this year?

Many times on this forum have I apologized for using nomenclature that is standard in the Church and in textbooks, et cetera. At first, I was happy to conform silently. While I'm still willing to conform, I must say that I am growing weary of having to constantly be called uncharitable and other such adjectives to the point that I spend a great deal of time and energy worrying about offending someone.

I give up! Call me uncharitable because I don't ask a member of each and every world religion what names might offend some member of his denomination! I have things to say and I wish to simply be able to communicate ideas!

> ... The Oriental Orthodox are just as "Orthodox" as the
> Eatern...that is a matter that has been discussed at great
> length with the leaders in BOTH churches coming to agreement...

This I'm unaware of. I profess Seven Ecumenical Councils. The "Oriental Orthodox" reject 4 of them; then followers of Nestorius reject 5 of them. On the Sunday of Orthodoxy, those of us in communion with Constantinople solemnly anathematize Nestorius and Dioscorus, and sing "Many Years" to the Holy Fathers of the Councils of Ephesus and Calcedon.

I certainly am happy to respect the sundry creeds of all posters on this forum, but I will not abandon my own Faith because someone whines about my use of a word found in any dictionary or encyclopedia without any indication that it is derogatory.

Photius

Photius,

Answering you point by point (leaving the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East out of this right now):

Calling their name the "politcally correct term de'jour" is just saying 'or whatever is the politically correct term for the day" which is to say as if they change their name and we should not take the time to heal the past. Oriental Orthodox is the term that is long standing, Monophysite is a term that is long standing of the strife and degrgation that the Orientals have suffered.

I have read and admitidly own texts and books that refer to people of dark skin as n**er...does that mean it is ok for me to keep calling them that? I think not. Things change, drop the derogatory names. I think that you will find it easy after a few days.
For that I refer you to the website Orthodox Unity [orthodoxunity.org] where the pertinent articles and statements can be found.

In His Name,
Stephen

Dear Steve,

Thank you for posting that website, however, as even a brief perusal would suggest, the Eastern Orthodox are still not in Communion with the Oriental Orthodox. It is, however, a fascinating collection of documents, and I look forward to checking back with them frequently.

Gaudior, who wishes that particular schism to be healed.

Dear Stephan,
> I have read and admittedly own texts and books that refer to
> people of dark skin as n**er...does that mean it is ok for me to > keep calling them that?

That's an asinine analogy! N----r has been a term of derision in literate English as long as that word existed there; Monophysite is the word used in my Byzantine History text, the Encyclopedia Britanicca, et cetera, and until recently, was the only word in the English language that describes that flavor of Christianity.

>For that I refer you to the website
> Orthodox Unity [orthodoxunity.org]
> where the pertinent articles and statements can be found.

So, bishops of both denominations have met several times, and have issued in common the "Statement of Convergence on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide" and a statement that "should not be regarded as a final document sufficient for the restoration of full communion between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches as it contains ambiguities in some Christological formulations."

This is good. And it is good that "people of both communities to know each other better."

But there is no agreement yet. I cannot partake of the Holy Mysteries from a Coptic or Armenian priest, and members of those groups can not partake of the Holy Mysteries from an Orthodox priest in communion with Constantinople.

And converts to my Faith must profess the Synodica of seven Ecumenical Councils, holding them in the same esteem as the Holy Gospels.

And in Orthodox Churches that recognize seven Ecumenical Councils, we use the word "Monophysite" in Church, for example, in the reading of the Lausaic History during Great Lent, when we read how two hermits who were priests, one Diophysite, and one Monophysite, took pieces of the Holy Bread that they had consecrated and threw them into a boiling cauldron; those of the Monophysite priest disintegrated, while those of the Diophysite priest did not, and the Monophysite priest converted ... This still being part of our liturgy (along with the anathemas proclaimed in our cathedrals, mentioned in my previous post), we clearly are two separate denominations, even if we both call ourselves "Orthodox" and even if we are friendly to one another (which is not especially new, at least not in Egypt).

Photius

Photius,

I think the point is that Monophysite referes to the heresy of Eutyches whom the Orientals anathematize as we do. They do not hold to Monophysitism but Miaphysitism which is the term St. Cyril of ALexandria used. Now while this is not the same as the Diophysitism as we profess, I believe the encyclopedias do the Orientals a great disservice. They do not profess that Christ's humanity was swallowed by his divinity, but that after the Incarnation, Christ had one composite nature (miaphysis) that was fully human and fully divine.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Deacon Lance,
That is exactly correct and is far better (and cool headed) than I could have put it.

Photius,

I take back my analogy of n****r - perhaps that was a bit over the top. Maybe the analogy of "indian" when refering to native americans would suit you better? While it is not a "bad" word it is offensive to many people when refering to the people of those nations. Do people use it? Yes. Is is in history books, text books, and other media? Yes. Is it better to use nicer descriptors? Yes. The fact is that when there is a better, more correct term to use we should use it, I really cannot seee how you could fight that point.

About what you seem to see as my claim that there is union between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox church....I know there is not, all I said is that there is an agreement that both are Orthodox.

The Bishops that have signed agreements that are available to see on Orthodoxunity.org are no less than the Coptic Pope Shenouda III and the Pope and Patriarch of ALexandria and all Africa, Petros VII. The statements go MUCH further than you posted. There is an agreement on the sacrament of Marriage for the people in these jurisdictions - certainly that is nothing less than a miracle.

And to certainly not be ignored is the statement from the joint commission from 1989: The anathemas are still a part of the liturgy and they are something that the time has come to be taken out. Honestly it is attitudes such as these that keep the church apart and will not let wounds heal. You are right, they are clearly two seperate churches.....now, but that is healing, that is all that I am trying to get across.

In His Name,
Stephen

PS
Denominations is a word that is generally only used to diferentiate between Protestant groups, not Orthodox or Catholic churches.

Some of our terms do get changed over time for both descriptive reasons, and for political correctness. We have African-Americans who wouldn't know Africa if it bit them, and who probably wouldn't last 3 days in the place. We have Native-Americans who are descendants of earlier immigrants, but those immigrants came from somewhere else, just like our own ancestors did. And the term "Indian" was a case of mistaken identity. Most of us don't set out to deliberately offend anyone. But there are those who live to be offended - some have made profitable careers out of it - and take offense at every opportunity. And then there are those who still have difficulty with the correct English spelling, "Kiev." Some days, you just can't win. Keep in mind that even though there is no unity in the Churches yet, we are in many respects closer to it than in centuries. I am praying for our new Pope in his efforts to unite the Churches, realizing that some Patriarchs desire unity just as much.

Shlomo ByzanTN,
I think though that you do own African-Americans an apology, since unlike you and me, their forebears came over here in chains, their history language, and faith was forcefully stripped of them.

Many members here do not like to be called Unitates by members of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, is that political correctness? People should be addressed how they like, not how you like.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

My word. I think this is the most succesful topic I've ever posted on the forum. My thanks to all the contributors; please keep it up!

A couple of comments of my own:

a) it's only one particular jurisdiction in the USA that doesn't accept the word "Orthodox" in liturgical texts - you'll find that the Ukrainians, the Melkites and the Romanians use the dread word without batting an eyelash.

b) "Monophysite" is indeed the usual name of the Churches thus designated, and "Nestorian" is indeed the usual name of the Church thus designated. On the other hand, both the "Oriental Orthodox" family and the Assyrian Church of the East are not altogether comfortable with those two usual names. But I would add that since our brother Photius has made it clear that he is using those words as technical terms, not as epithets, and that the words in themselves are not particularly offensive (any more than "Mozarabic" is offensive, even though nobody believes that the Moors had anything to do with the Liturgy so designated) that there is no need to infer unworthy motives as the cause of the use of those terms.

I'll take it further and suggest that it is strange, to say the least, to assert that Eastern Orthodoxy is closer to a group of Churches which rejects a majority of the Seven Councils, than she is to a Church which fully accepts the Seven Councils.

Meanwhile I'm still basking in the radiance of Pope Benedict the Orthodox. I'm also re-reading his published writings, which demonstrate that in his case "Orthodox" is no mere epithet.

By the way, the capital letter isn't all that important - I've yet to learn how one might make this distinction when pronouncing the word.

Utverdi, Bozhe . . .

Incognitus