www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Is the Orthodox Church Apostolic?

Hello fellow humans,

My name is Dr. Bob, and well I'm quite new here on this board. I'd figure I'd briefly introduce myself, not because anyone cares, but to give background to the small story I am about to tell.

I am a professor of astrophysics, and have been atheist my entire life, mainly because of the intellectual circle I am a member of. As such, I have never really given much thought to God...until recently.

Anyways to make a long story short, I have begun attending an OCA church, and am feeling at home. I believe I have found the true believing church. Yet there is a strong arrogance and cold shoulder attitude among many of the parishoners. As such, I am really not enjoying going to church.

Talking to a Roman Catholic about my new found fervor for the Orthodox faith, I was handed this URL to a web site that he told me to visit to discover the 'real' truth.

Since I am still learning much about Orthodoxy, I was wondering if anyone could check out this article and let me know of its validity if any.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/orthodox.htm


Toodles.
Dr. Bob

Dear Dr. Bob,

The short answer to your question is that the Orthodox Churches are indeed apostolic. Both the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Churches are apostolic and are "the Church", at least as far as Catholicism is concerned. Per my understanding, Orthodoxy says that it is "the Church" and won't say anything definitive about others. I think...I could be wrong. There are others here more qualified to answer your question. I'm just the resident 20 year old Indian.

The kind of stuff on the website you included in your post is apologetical propaganda. There are those Roman Catholics who would like people to think that only they are the true Church, all others, including Eastern Catholics, being heretics, schismatics, or "rites". Such people also profess a staunch loyalty to the Pope, and attribute at least by their actions and attitudes a quasi-divinity to him and to his words.

Such people would do well to imitate the Pope's actions and attitudes and respect the Eastern Churches, Orthodox and Catholic, for who they are.

Dear Mr. Ephrem,

Thanks for your honest answer. The article came across as repulsive. But I need to ask, forgive my nievity, what is apologetics? Are the people who wrote that article some kind of religious fundamentalist? If that is the case, are they really Roman Catholic?

Toodles
Dr. Bob

Welcome, Dr. Bob, to The Byzantine Forum!

The athiest Madeline O'Hare loved to quote Psalm 13 (14 in Western Bibles) (or maybe 52/53), telling people that the Bible itself states that: "There is no God." The problem was that Mrs. O'Hare was quoting out of context, since the entire verse is: “The fool has said in his heart: "There is no God above.'" Many apologists, be they Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant or non-Christian, often do the same thing. It is my opinion that the article in the link you have provided is poorly written and should not be used as a prooftext for anything. One of the classic defenses of many who have simply not done the research or who do not have a full understanding of a particular issue is to intentionally misrepresent another's opinion or teaching and then to attack it with quotes.

Dear Dr. Bob,

Apologetics, roughly defined, is a way of defending the faith by presenting evidences for this or that to prove the point being made. When I was into it (my interest has now moved here), it was basically taking a question/doubt about an article of the faith, and citing all the bases for it, scriptural, historical, logical, etc. It's a useful thing in its own right...after a while, it stumps the Protestants, and I get a kick out of making them think.

There's been a lot of interest in apologetics in recent years among Roman Catholics, in order to combat the errors of Protestantism. One focus of Roman Catholics' apologetical approach has been "proving" the primacy of Peter as Roman Catholics believe it. Since Protestants don't accept it and call it an abomination, it is the task of RC apologetics to prove that it is the exact opposite...a necessity, and a Church institution from the very beginning. If you can prove this, then that's one more point in favour of the Catholic Church as the true Church of Christ.

However, there are Protestants out there who come to accept a lot of Catholic teachings, but can't accept the notion of a Pope. Some of these go on to discover Orthodoxy and join the Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy teaches that it is the true Church.

This presents a problem to Roman Catholic apologists, who used to (and still sometimes) claim that "no other church dares to call itself the true Church but the Roman Catholic Church". Now there are two claimants.

Now the following is my educated opinion. Having two claimants, it would take quite an effort to explain away the Great Schism. It's easier to write the kind of stuff written in that website. Makes the Catholic Church stand out as the only legitimate claimant, making even the attractive Orthodox Churches to be less than the best.

Make of it what you will...

Gee, Dr. Bob:

I'm not a theologian or a church historian , so I'll probably say this poorly. Here goes anwyay:

I think the page you provided a link to wasn't particularly well-written.

The website strikes me as kind of hostile and uncharitable toward Orthodox Christians and surely nothing is more contrary to the type of tone our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II (God grant him many years!) has taught us to take with our Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ.

It is true that we differ on the issue presented on the page: the primacy and infallibility of the Pope of Rome. We who are Catholics are in union with Rome.

But the truth is that Orthodox Christians believe many of the core truths that we believe, including, most notably, the True Presence of Christ in Holy Communion. If Protestants are our Christian cousins, the Orthodox are surely our Christian brothers and sisters who share this sacred belief.

Rather than point fingers at each other or bicker over our differences, we should continue to work toward two-way dialogue and treat our fellow apostolic Christians (and the Orthodox are indeed our fellow apostolic Christians) and all people of good will and noble intention with the love and respect they deserve.

Like I said, I'm not an expert. Just a regular person. I'm just calling it as I see it.

Annie

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Annie_SFO ]

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Annie_SFO ]

Annie,

I think you are very articulate. Below is a report from the Holy See issued for the current Week of Prayer for Christian Unity on the increasing cooperation in Europe between the 'Council of European Churches' (CEC), which includes our Protestant and Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters, and the 'Council of Episcopal Conference of Europe'(CCEE), which represents the Catholic Church. It is quite hopefull towards continued progress in our ecumencial endeavors and witnesses the efforts of our Holy Father and his co-workers on this initiative.
********************************

From the Holy See:

ECUMENICAL SITUATION IN EUROPE


For many long centuries, European culture has been marked by Christianity. But, on the other hand, the different national cultures have also influenced the churches. The schism of the churches at the end of the first millennium, between the occidental and the Byzantine Christianity of Eastern Europe, as well as the separation in the 16th century between the Roman Catholic church and the Protestant churches, had theological origins as well as ethic and cultural ones. It resulted in an ecclesial situation
marked by deep differences between the diverse regions of the continent. Churches, which in one
country may be an absolute majority, constitute a small minority in another.

Since the 16th century these divisions have also been exported towards other continents by means
of missionary activity. The modern ecumenical movement has resulted in all European churches
feeling a responsibility towards allowing for change and for a progression towards fuller communion.

Instead of simple coexistence or opposition of the churches, where the differences in the area of
faith brought into doubt even those things they still had in common, the communion given in Christ by the Triune God is underlined today and it is in this light that ancient theological differences are illumined and judged.

Ecumenical experiences

The communion between churches of the East and churches of the West has been deepened by
numerous encounters and dialogues, not only between the Catholic Church and the
Orthodox churches, but also between Reformed churches and Eastern Orthodox churches.

From an ecumenical point of view, the Declaration on the Christological Differences between
Orthodox churches and Pre-Chalcedonian churches (1993) is extremely significant.

The Orthodox churches and the Reformed churches founded, in 1959, the Conference of European
Churches (CEC) in order to promote common witness and service in European society. It was
precisely in Europe eleven years earlier that the World Council of Churches was founded.

Catholic-Protestant relations have changed fundamentally over the last few years. At the jubilee of the Augsbourg Confession - since 1530 the most significant Lutheran confession of faith - a joint document was drawn up "All Under One Christ". Almost everywhere in Europe, regular exchanges take place by means of ecumenical worship services and collaboration at many levels. The countries of central Europe, where confessional diversity is considerable, play a pioneering role in this. The �Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification� signed by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church, in 1999, deserves particular attention.

Protestantism, broken up between different churches, seeks and increasingly finds its unity within the ecumenical movement. In the Leuenberg Agreement, signed in 1973, the Lutheran, Reformed and United churches of Europe declare common recognition and "pulpit and altar/table fellowship". The Methodist churches have since joined the Leuenberg ecclesial communion. The Anglican churches have concluded agreements of reciprocal recognition with the Protestant church of Germany (Meissen, 1988), with the Scandinavian and Baltic Lutheran churches (Porvoo, 1994) and with the Protestant churches of France (Reuilly, 1999).

Ecumenical Structures

These ecumenical approaches, significant from the point of view of the history of the churches, must
now be received and experienced amongst all God�s people. For that to happen European ecclesial
institutions must work more together on an ecumenical level (diaconia and social work, peace work, ministries for women, for men, for young people, etc.) The close relations which exist since the missionary era with churches outside Europe give food for thought to European churches. The partnerships between churches and, also between parishes, stimulate ecumenism.

In almost all European countries national councils of churches exist with an increasing participation
of the Catholic Church. At the level of local ecumenism, and above all in numerous confessionally-mixed homes, there exists a spirituality which encourages the ecumenical movement.

There are obvious brakes put on the ecumenical movement as well! Many Christians and churches
frequently exist in a situation where they make do with little. "Ecumenism is all very fine and good.
But is it so much better when we are alone". This remark, captured after an ecumenical worship,
shows that ecumenical openness and spirituality are more necessary than ever.

The churches faced with a new commitment

Europe must face up to enormous tasks which necessitate moving forward with more ardour
towards reconciliation between churches.

Since 1989, the political crisis which Europe experienced opened a new stage in the relations
between churches of the East and churches of the West. For the fact that previously the churches
had lived through quite different histories has resulted in a wealth of ignorance, incomprehension and suspicion on all sides.

The European churches are conscious of having a new responsibility in the face of the great
problems of our times, such as: community life comprising a diversity of cultures, peoples and
religions and in particular the encounter with Islam; the meaning of life; the encounter with new
groups or religious movements which spring up outside the churches; the exchange of gifts between world religions; questions concerning human rights, from the possibilities offered by genetic engineering to cloning, and new dilemmas concerning the nature of the family unit, and the
environment, etc.

The formation of the European Union demands the vigilance of the churches, especially concerning
questions of ethics and culture. The churches must make sure that the unity of Europe is brought
about in the perspective of equitable exchanges with other continents.

It is only together that the European churches can face up the these great challenges.


Collaboration between CEC and the CCEE

The Conference of European Churches brings together 126 Anglican, Protestant, Orthodox and
Old Catholic churches. The Council of Episcopal Conferences of Europe groups together the 34
[Catholic] episcopal conferences of the continent. The CEC and the CCEE each represent about half the
Christians in Europe.

The collaboration between the two bodies constitutes a true ecumenical reality in Europe. It started in 1971 and has led to many common encounters such as those of Chantilly, Riva del Garda/Trente, Erfurt, Santiago de Compostela, Assisi and at summits such as the two European ecumenical assemblies (EEAs).

The European ecumenical assembly of 1989 in Basle, Switzerland, brought together all Christians
for the first time in our continent around the theme "Peace with Justice for the Whole Creation".

In 1997, in the Austrian city of Graz, more than 10,000 delegates from all the churches of Europe
and around 200 churches and episcopal conferences met to consider the theme: "Reconciliation -
Gift of God and Source of New Life".

The joint committee "Islam in Europe" has established a network of meetings with Islam ;
reciprocity, mixed marriages, relations between religion and state, prayer within religions and
between religions.

The commission on "Church and Society" of CEC and the commission of Catholic episcopates in
the European community (COMECE) both hold their sessions in Brussels and accompany the work
of the European political institutions.

In the Easter week of 2001, 100 leaders and delegates of churches and ecumenical movements and
100 young people will meet, in Strasbourg, France, for exchanges between generations and to
define guidelines for the beginning of the third millennium.

The churches of Europe have been engaged for many years in a demanding project with great
potential: The Charta Ecumenica [Ecumenical Charter] for Europe. This will allow the churches to define the goals they wish to reach and determine the rules to travel the way together.

Prospects for the future

The Ecumenical Assembly of Graz has described the challenges before the churches that they may
go forward to visible unity:

- The necessity for an ecumenical spirituality and culture which lead the faithful to the heart of the Gospel;

- The enlargement of this ecumenical culture to include all believers;

- The opening of a new ecumenical space which can welcome confessional families in their
particularity, but also the new churches of the east and west of Europe, from the north and south of the world. This space must be free of the obstacles linked to history, culture, psychology and law, in order to allow for a true theological dialogue;

- The deepening of dialogue, in order that there is no contradiction between the concept of dialogue and the concept of truth;

- The development of a living ecumenism which is evidenced by acts of love, encounter and humble
service, that each may have a share in the gifts of all.

Sad and interesting that two extremes, "right' (as in the case of that website) and "left', try either overtly (as on that site) or subtly to equate the Orthodox with Protestants*: a sort of caricature of Catholic belief. A fair reading of Catholicism shows that neither represents its stance towards the Orthodox. The simple answer, both objectively (I am Orthodox) and according to Catholic teaching, is "yes' — Orthodoxy is apostolic. To new members: if you haven't been yet, please visit my website. My Q&A and Orthodoxy pages cover this ground and have helpful articles linked, such as the Balamand statement wherein Catholicism drops the policy of soliciting born Orthodox to switch to Byzantine Catholic, and an article by Fr Aidan Nichols, a sound small-o orthodox Roman Catholic, in which he explains not only does Catholicism consider Orthodox bishops' orders "valid' but also regards them as governing their sees with real apostolic authority: they are not viewed as somehow illegitimate. Having said that, yes, Catholicism does hold that being in communion with the Pope is essential for being fully the Church, and the Orthodox, while fully Churches themselves, lack that.

Corporate reunion — restoration of communion between bishops, not the absorption of one Church into another — is entirely possible and indeed desirable between apostolic Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Churches once considered Monophysite and the Church once considered Nestorian), says Catholicism.

This is impossible with Protestant groups because while they are made up of baptized Christians, Catholicism holds, they are not Churches with bishops and the Eucharist. (Colloquially such are called churches, but a handy way to distinguish meanings is to capitalize the C when writing about apostolic groups.) The way to go with Protestants, including Anglicans, is individual conversions. Of course, born Protestants do have the benefit of the doubt, and of course Catholicism does not teach such are hellbound. (In the 1950s a priest, Fr Leonard Feeney, was excommunicated partly for teaching they are.) It really isn't accurate to call someone BORN into heresy a heretic, since heresein means to pick and choose, and such Protestants didn't choose to be born Protestants. But they are not in the Church fully like the Orthodox.

Proof from Catholic belief: in some circumstances Catholics may ask the Orthodox for Communion. They may not ask such from Protestant (again, including Anglican) ministers, because objectively they have no Eucharist.

The Church (according to Orthodoxy): where the local community gathered round its bishop (who is in communion with all other Orthodox bishops) or his ordained deputy, a priest, celebrates the Eucharist. Catholicism largely agrees.

*A dig, perhaps, not only at the Eastern Orthodox but at the Orthodox-minded among Byzantine Catholics, who along with refugee conservative Romans or former Romans are resented by, ahem, some liberal-minded "born' Byzantine Catholics as unwelcome "interlopers'.

http://oldworldrus.com

Thanks Kurt for the report from the Holy See. I hadn't seen it yet.

It does contain what seems to be a pretty thorough sampling of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant ecumenical meetings and agreements.

Dr. Bob,

Yes the Orthodox have apostolic succession. As has been stated by Serge, both Catholics and Orthodox can recieve communion from one another Churches under limited circumstance and with the appropriate permission. Infact Orthodox can be considered catholic. The early Church very early on adopted the name "Catholic" and in principle had always been catholic, which means *universal* in Greek. But I think without indepth study into the matter it becomes a hinderance to concentrate to much on the words "Orthodox" and "Catholic". I know some about the roots and direction of all of this (I would say more then your average catholic) but I still know very little on it and it can tend to get my mind spinning at times concentrating to hard on the titles. For now know that the only real on going historical roots of Christianity - that which has the line of laying on of hands by the Bishops that goes directly back to the Apostles (literaly not figuratively) - exists within in the institutions of Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

I am Latin Catholic or better known as Roman Catholic. You will quickly find that the Thomas Christians in India and the Greek Orthodox and the Catholic Church, all resemble each other very closely... to closely not to share some of the same blood. But we have things to work out, one of which is the role of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), The Orthodox I believe are correct that the role of the Bishop of Rome is not to rule like a monarch as the Papacy is today and has been for quite some time. But on the other hand I fully support the Catholic position that the last words rests with the Bishop of Rome. I also think that a Papacy that ruled like a monarch was needed in much of the past and is needed today with all of the fractured varities of Christianity. I think the world understands this too, that is why the media always refers to the office of the Papacy for global matters that ask of Christian response or reflection. It is also why the world ask the office of the Papacy and Vatican: what happened in Germany and what happened in Rawanda, we never much want to obey you or see the Chair of Peter as our moral Augustus, but we will always come to you in our hour of darkness - and please be perfect at that moment as we command you to be.

Dear Dr. Bob,

The term "Orthodox Catholic" was once universal to both East and West (e.g. St Benedict's use of the term in his monastic Rule).

There are numerous religious "camps" in both the Catholic and Orthodox worlds.

As an Astrophysicist, you'll have no problem relating to them all. Sometimes, giving them some Space is the thing to do . . .

And in your line of work, you've been closer to Heaven than we for some time.

There are Orthodox groups who regard Rome as outside the Church, period. The same holds true for certain RC groups vis a vis Orthodoxy who are a close encounter of the wrong kind.

Somehow, Catholics and Orthodox are friendlier to each other than ever before.

I do my part. I smile a lot, for one thing . . .

C.S. Lewis, another famous atheist-turned-believer reflected on the RC and Anglican churches of his day and didn't come to any mind-shattering conclusions about either.

Ultimately, once you settle in to the faith community and parish in which you are at home, your life in and walk with God will take over.

I think of you as a Star already!

Alex

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

There are Orthodox groups who regard Rome as outside the Church, period.

Obnoxious and hurtful, but allowable Orthodox opinion, not dogma, even though they want to make like it is dogma.

The same holds true for certain RC groups vis a vis Orthodoxy who are a close encounter of the wrong kind.

However, unlike Orthodoxy, which exercises a right to remain silent* on the matter, Catholicism dogmatically teaches Orthodox ARE the Church yet paradoxically also a little less than the Church owing to being out of communion with the Pope. So any RC group, like the author of that website, who claim Orthodox are entirely outside the Church, are really opposed to Catholic teaching! The magisterium is clear on affirming Orthodoxy's Churchness, however with the paradox (or is it just a contradiction?) mentioned above.

C.S. Lewis, another famous atheist-turned-believer, reflected on the RC and Anglican churches of his day and didn't come to any mind-shattering conclusions about either.

Ultimately, once you settle in to the faith community and parish in which you are at home, your life in and walk with God will take over.

That's pretty much what Lewis sincerely taught. The Anglicanism he settled into wasn't as liberal as today's, and he may have had some residual Ulster** revulsion to Rome that kept him from considering joining the Catholic communion. (His brother Warnie was cared for at a hospital run by Catholic nuns and nearly switched but he talked him out of it.)

A saintly man, to be sure — and, though he never identified with Anglo-Catholicism, more Catholic than I'm sure most of his evangelical Protestant admirers realize. In the last two decades of his life, he went to Confession. He happened to worship at one of Oxford's Anglo-Catholic churches, solemn Mass and all, not out of any identification with that movement but out of obedience — Headington was the geographical parish in which he lived.

There is some speculation whether, had "Jack' Lewis lived to see Anglicanism disintegrate today, he would have got over his no-popery and converted. I can't call that one.

*An American expression related to the right to a fair trial — another Americanism for this is "taking the Fifth', referring to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution protecting people on trial from being forced to testify against themselves.

**Clive Staples Lewis seemed English in many ways, after many years at Oxford and then Cambridge, but was a native of Northern Ireland. He died quietly the same day JFK was assassinated.

http://oldworldrus.com

Bless me a sinner, Reader Sergius!

To have one's post responded to by you is always a privilege and an honour!

Let me be the first to wish you a happy King Charles the Martyr's Day tomorrow, which Anglican martyr C.S.Lewis had a particular fondness for, as did Ronald Knox.

I know several converts to Western Rite Orthodoxy who hold his feast dear still.

Interestingly enough, it was Tsar Alexis IV, the father of Peter the Great, who first called the beheaded King, "Charles the Martyr" in a letter of condolence to his widow.

I again ask for your blessing,

Alex

Dear Alex and Reader Serge,

Just an aside...like in another thread...I beg your pardon.

I don't know how it is in your Churches, but in ours, the minor orders (singer, reader, subdeacon) are regarded as parts of the diaconate, at least in practice, and so ordained readers and subdeacons are called "Reverend Deacon First Last Name", and then for clarification referred to as Reader or Subdeacon. Singers are just Mr. Whatever, since these can either go on to the other minor orders or stay in their rank, and then end up referred to as acolytes.

So, if I remember Alex's question in another thread right, from our perspective anyway, Reader Serge can be referred to as Reverend Deacon Serge I-don't-know-his-last-name, Reader, although in referring to someone of another Church, we'd use their term.

Have a blast, Alex. :p

Dear Catholicos,

Thanks, I think I will . . .

Reader Sergius has confirmed that the Russian usage would preclude our referring to him as "Reverend Deacon," but that we can ask for his blessing, without kissing his hand.

When I get together with my clerical friends and I start kissing their hands, they kiss my hand back (I must remember to wash it more frequently) and it all becomes a real kiss-off in more ways than one.

Now, in the Oriental Orthodox Churches, Catholicos, (are you falling asleep on me?)youz guyz do a number of interesting things, such as you said.

In the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, they used to (I don't think they do this anymore) ordain 12 year old boys priests. The patriarch would come by and choose a number which he would ordain right away.

But not all of these would go for the necessary priestly training at the schools run by the Scribes (the Old Testament rank, no less) or "Debteras."

Readers in the East Slavic Orthodox Churches were crucial in the Underground Church in soviet times.

But when one doesn't have a Reader or anyone else in Orders, one may serve the Hours or the Readers' Horologion oneself or with a group, as was the case in times of oppression.

I myself have served a Reader's horologion with family and friends, following Fr. John Whiteford's translation.

During the Typika, we kissed the Cross, partook of Blessed Bread and Holy Water.

God bless, Catholicos!

Alex