'Orthodox' Church

[Alex Haig]

Where does the title "Orthodox" come from? When was it first used? Why do we call ourselves 'Orthodox' and not 'Catholic and Apostolic Church' like we say in the Creed?

With love in Christ

Alex

[Justin]

I'm not sure when exactly Orthodox was first used as an actual name, but the term being applied to the Church goes back to the fourth century and before (e.g., the Synodal Letter to Alexandria written by the First Ecumenical Council begins: "To the Church of Alexandria, by the grace of God, holy and great; and to our well-beloved brethren, the orthodox clergy and laity throughout Egypt..."). Even well into the 20th century the Orthodox Church was called Catholic, though it was often a combination like "Greek Orthodox Catholic Church" or something like that. As to why the change, I am not sure, and can only guess that it was to set the Orthodox apart from Roman Catholics and Eastern ("Greek" or "Byzantine") Catholics, and avoid confusion. Interestingly, this issue is apparently not a new one, as people seemed to consider Catholic an innovative name as well:


"But under the Apostles, you will say, no one was called Catholic. Be it thus. It shall have been so. Allow even that. When after the Apostles heresies had burst forth, and were striving under various names to tear piecemeal and divide the Dove and the Queen of God, did not the Apostolic people require a name of their own, whereby to mark the unity of the people that were uncorrupted, lest the error of some should rend limb by limb the undefiled virgin of God? ..." - Pacian of Barcelona, Epistle 1

[M.C. Steenberg]

As with many things, some are quite firm on this. I recall a Cathedral in the USA, the entrance to which is emblazened with a bronze plaque reading 'Holy Greek Catholic Apostolic Church', though it is by heritage Russian Orthodox.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I'm no expert on this but my sense of it is that the word 'Orthodox' came into general usage when Herman refers to specifically in regards to heresies.

I think we can understand this better if we keep in mind that the word Orthodox is actually an adjective- something which comes out more let's say in Russian. So the word is meant to describe a true or correctly believing Christian in distinction from false or heretical types of Christianity.

The word Catholic is more ancient than Orthodox and describes simply how within the Church is the fullness of Faith.

In Christ- Fr Raphael
PS: talking about titles for the Church. I remember when I was first visiting an Orthodox parish I received in the mail a large envelope with their calendar. On this envelope it said "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of..." I kept looking at this long and mysterious name. Which was it-Russian or Greek, Orthodox or Catholic?

[Orthodoc]

[PS: talking about titles for the Church. I remember when I was first visiting an Orthodox parish I received in the mail a large envelope with their calendar. On this envelope it said "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of..." I kept looking at this long and mysterious name. Which was it-Russian or Greek, Orthodox or Catholic?]

Here in the USA many churches that were formed as a result of former Uniates returning to the Holy Orthodox Catholic faith have in their official title the words 'Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic' for various reasons. Probably the two most obvious are -

1) The words Greek Catholic were retained to try and dimish the various court cases that were a result of those leaving the Unia and returning to Orthodoxy.

2) Many of the immigrants were familiar with the words 'Greek Catholic' but still had an allegiance to Orthodoxy. To them they were the original Greek Catholics (therefore, Orthodox Greek Catholic) because their mother church was still the Greek Church rather than the Roman Church.

The parish I was baptised and brought up in is one such parish. When I was younger many of the older people would tell me they had no idea that they were in fact, not Orthodox but under Rome until they immigrated to the US. The word 'Pravoslavnie' was still used in the Liturgy even though the words 'Greek Catholic' was on the church title. To them they were Orthodox who recognized the Greek Church as their mother rather than the Roman. They were therefore, the Greek part of that 'One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church' they paid allegiance to in the Creed.

I know it may be confusing to some who didn't suffer from the Unia and the confusion and strife it brought our people. But many of those like my grandparents had to once again start over and take out a second motgage on their houses once they lost the court case of the original 'Greek Catholic Church' their hard earned dollars built when they found out that either they weren't really Orthodox or that the Roman Church was trying to latinize them or relegate them to second class Roman Catholics.

Things never change because now the decendents of those that remained within Rome are being told they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome'. All the whole thing proves is how our people who remained Uniate were not only decived but after 400+ years still suffer an identity crisis.

When I asked my Baba (grandmother) why she returned to Orthodoxy she stated in her broken English - "Because dose people don't know vat dey are or vat they vant be. Dey neider vant be Provalslavnie (Orthodox) but dey not vant be Roamin Catolic eider!" She was a wise old woman.

Orthodox

[Mina Soliman]

Lately, putting together the words "Orthodox Catholic" and in many cases "Apostolic" all in one, although all true names of what a Church should be, has become something vagante churches adopted to fool people into some sort of legitimate "Orthodoxy." Just already googling the phrase "Orthodox Catholic Church" will give you a website of a false misleading church that's even considered quite heretical in some of their beliefs.

God bless.

[Rick H.]

Who Owns Truth?




Lately, putting together the words "Orthodox Catholic" and in many cases "Apostolic" all in one, although all true names of what a Church should be, has become something vagante churches adopted to fool people into some sort of legitimate "Orthodoxy." Just already googling the phrase "Orthodox Catholic Church" will give you a website of a false misleading church that's even considered quite heretical in some of their beliefs.

God bless.

Dear Mina,

What you have said is correct as it relates to agenda driven vs. Christ driven 'movements.' As the Apostle Peter said, we must be alert, vigilant/watchful. In your post above, we clearly see, discernment is required on all fronts. We know who the 'pillar' and 'ground' of truth is; but, who owns truth?

As Father David said in another thread yesterday:




It is an absolute Truth that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Thus do we confess every day when we pray the Nicene Creed. It does not matter where you stand, what perspective you take or how you want to perceive it - this is an unchanging and absolute Truth.



. . . I am reminded of a phrase that I have 'borrowed' ;) from the thinking of M.C. Steenberg, which is "truth leading reason." In context, these words strung together in this phrase speak volumes. And, now I am thinking of another more common phrase which is invoked by idealists and activists of many stripes, "speaking truth to power." As another has said, the latter "rests on the assurance that truth is owned by no one, is rejected at one's peril and contains a dynamic greater than any error." Nomenclature or otherwise, Who 'determines' truth? Who 'owns' truth?

In Christ,
Rick

1 Pet 5:8

[Herman Blaydoe]

Nomenclature or otherwise, Who 'determines' truth? Who 'owns' truth?

Nobody. Truth is not a series of data, a string of facts, nor a well-reasoned opinion. Truth is a Person. Truth is Christ the Lord. We don't own or determine "truth", we have a relationship with Christ. As we get "closer" to Christ we get closer to Truth.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Rick H.]

Not System, but Christ?


Nobody. Truth is not a series of data, a string of facts, nor a well-reasoned opinion. Truth is a Person. Truth is Christ the Lord. We don't own or determine "truth", we have a relationship with Christ. As we get "closer" to Christ we get closer to Truth.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Okay Herman, I'll bite :) . . . so from here as we consider, what Mina has illustrated today, and Alex's original question, asked about a year ago, regarding the "title," Orthodoxy, it would appear that you are saying Truth is not a system, but Truth is "a person."

I wonder what others here in monachoiland may think about this proposition that Truth is not data, facts, and reason, but "a person?"

In Christ,
Rick

"Truth leading reason"

[Orthodoc]

Lately, putting together the words "Orthodox Catholic" and in many cases "Apostolic" all in one, although all true names of what a Church should be, has become something vagante churches adopted to fool people into some sort of legitimate "Orthodoxy." Just already googling the phrase "Orthodox Catholic Church" will give you a website of a false misleading church that's even considered quite heretical in some of their beliefs.

God bless.

Whenever someone asks me what my religion is I proudly say "I am an Orthodox Catholic'! Why? Because that is exactly what I am. And I'm not about to deny it so it can be used by the Roman Church to rewrite history by claimimg that - 'We Orthodox didn't come into existence until 1054 when we left the Catholic Church.'

One of the biggest mistakes we who hold the Orthodox Catholic faith made is by putting too much emphasis on what came before the word Orthodox (Greek, Russian, Arabic, etc.) than what came after. Because of this we enabled the Roman Church take what is rightfully ours (the Catholic identity) and use it to make claims that they are both the original church as well as the true church. All while we stand around and agrue about ethnic identities and local traditions, etc. because we put more emphasis on the word before 'Orthodox' than we do after the word 'Orthodox'.

I have been sanctioned in more than one discussion group for defending my rights as an Orthodox to be identified as being a member of the 'One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church' I profess belief in at every Divine Liturgy. And will continue to defend my identity as such.

Usually the response I get (especially from those within the Roman Church) is - If you asked the average person on the street where the nearest 'Catholic Church' is, where do you think he/she would send you? To which I reply - "Ask that same person if Mormons are Christians and they will probably say 'yes'. Ending with my religious identity is not based on the opinions of the average person on the street but on hsitorical truths and facts.

Now more and more people within the Roman Church suddenly do not want to be called ROMAN Catholics. They just want to be identified as 'Catholics' which to me means they want sole posession of the identity. Its notthere's to take.

Once again, I have seen too many times where the Roman Church has used this word to rewrite history to consider it as a small issue.

Just my 2cents worth.

Orthodoc

[Antonios]

Taken from "St. Silouan the Athonite" by Archimandrite Sophrony" (pgs 111-113)

The Lord said to Pontius Pilate, 'I came into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth', to which Pilate replied sceptically, 'What is truth?' and convinced that there could be no answer to the query, did not look for one, even from Christ, but went out to the Jews.

Pilate was right. There is no answer to the question WHAT is truth? if we have in mind the ultimate truth at the root of the whole existence of the world.

But if Pilate, meaning Primal or Axiomatic Truth, had phrased his question as it should have been phrased - if he had asked WHO is truth? he would have received the answer that, a little while previously, Christ, foreseeing Pilate's query, gave at the Last Supper to his beloved disciples, and through them to the whole world" 'I am the truth.'

Science and philosophy set themselves the question, WHAT is truth?, whereas Christian religious perception always considers truth as 'WHO'.

Scientists and philosophers not infrequently look upon Christians as unsound day-dreamers, whereas they themselves stand on firm ground and so label themselves positivists. In a curious way they do not realise all the negativeness of truth as WHAT. They do not understand that authentic Truth, absolute Truth, can be only 'WHO', never 'WHAT', since Truth is not some abstract formula, some abstract idea, but life itself.

In fact, what could be more abstract, more negative than truth as WHAT? And we notice this tremendous paradox throughout the history of the human race, starting with Adam's fall. Enchanted by his reasoning mind, man lives intoxicated as it were, so that not only 'positive' science and philosophy, like Pilate, pose the question, 'WHAT is truth?' but even in the religious life of mankind we find the same great delusion, with people continually seeking truth as 'WHAT'.;

They reason that if they can arrive at the truth they seek as WHAT, they will be possessed of magic power and become unrestrained masters of being.

If man in his religous life adopts the course of rational research, his approach to the world will inevitably be pantheistic. Every time the theologising mind essays of its own strength to know the truth about God, whether or not it understands, fatally it falls into the same error in which science and philosophy and pantheism are sunk - intuiting truth as 'WHAT'.

Truth as 'WHO' is never arrived at through reason. God as 'WHO' can be known only through communion in being - that is, only by the Holy Spirit. Staretz Silouan constantly emphasised this.

The Lord Himself spoke of it thus:
'If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him... The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things.'

Orthodox ascetic experience rejects the course of abstract contemplation. Whoever restricts his thinking about God to abstract contemplation of Good, Beauty, Eternity, Love and so on, is on the wrong road. The one who only strips himself of all empirical forms and conceptions has also not found the true path.

Orthodox contemplation of God is not abstract contemplation of Good, Love and the like. Nor is it a simple withdrawal of the mind form all empirical forms and conceptions. True contemplation is given by God through His coming into the soul. The soul then contemplates God and beholds that He loves, that He is good, magnificent, eternal; sees Him celestial, ineffable. But in the abstract nothing can be contemplated.

Imagination plays no part in true spiritual life, which is wholly concrete and positive. Genuine concourse with God is to be sought solely through personal prayer to the Personal God. Real spiritual Christian experience is communion with God absolutely free, and so does not depend only on man's efforts and will, as is possible in non-Christian (pantheistic) experience.

[Rick H.]

Who is the Church?

Dear Antonios,

Thanks very much for this excellent piece. Yes! This clearly demonstrates pronouns *do* matter with regard to studies in personhood (viz being as communion). I want to look at this closer, could you please provide a date/year of publication now, if possible, as well as publisher or ISBN that you have quoted from. I am especially interested in the following:




God as 'WHO' can be known only through communion in being - that is, only by the Holy Spirit.



Now we are getting somewhere. Thanks again very much.

In Christ,
Rick

"Truth leading reason"

[Antonios]

Dear Rick,

Your very welcome. The book is called "St. Silouan the Athonite" by Archimandrite Sophrony, published in 1991 by SVS Press. This is a very well written book about the life and teachings of a modern day Orthodox saint.

-Antonios

[Anthony]

I also call myself Orthodox Catholic by preference (and originally did so on this site). I am always very careful (I hope) not to let the word "Catholic" without qualification refer to the Roman Church.

On a different tack, I would be interested to know more about the understanding of "orthodox" as "right glory". I know that the Greek word can mean both, but I have been wondering in what circumstances this second meaning became prominent for the Church - to the extent that in translation to Slavonic and some other languages, it was the one that was carried over.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I also call myself Orthodox Catholic by preference (and originally did so on this site). I am always very careful (I hope) not to let the word "Catholic" without qualification refer to the Roman Church.

On a different tack, I would be interested to know more about the understanding of "orthodox" as "right glory". I know that the Greek word can mean both, but I have been wondering in what circumstances this second meaning became prominent for the Church - to the extent that in translation to Slavonic and some other languages, it was the one that was carried over.


The word Orthodox is often given the interpretation of "right glory" but originally this was meant more in the sense of right belief.

'Orthodox' was not the first word used in a descriptive way of the Church: rather "catholic" was used to express the fullness of the Church's belief and faith.

Later on however the word orthodox came into use to refer to correct or true belief as opposed to what is false. This arose in the context of dogmatic dispute.

In English we use the word Orthodox almost like a noun while in Slavic languages the original intent of an adjective comes through more clearly.

When in Russian a person says, Я Православний (I am Orthodox) the connotation is much more a descriptive adjective than when we say this in English where it often comes across like a noun.

Again in Russian when someone refers to православная церков (the Orthodox Church) this is to describe the church with the use of a descriptive adjective.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

There is in fact something quite revealing about the fact that doxa means properly both 'belief' and 'worship'; not as separate meanings, but as interrelated concepts. To believe rightly is to worship rightly, and there is no right worship without right belief. They are united.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Okay Herman, I'll bite :) . . . so from here as we consider, what Mina has illustrated today, and Alex's original question, asked about a year ago, regarding the "title," Orthodoxy, it would appear that you are saying Truth is not a system, but Truth is "a person."

I wonder what others here in monachoiland may think about this proposition that Truth is not data, facts, and reason, but "a person?"

Dear Rick and others,

If memory serves, I believe we once had a very long and involved conversation on this subject elsewhere in the Community. I haven't done a search yet, but it strikes me there is a thread somewhere that takes this as its main focus. It might be helpful to start there to re-kindle the flame, as it were.

INXC, Matthew

[Anthony]

Thank you for these replies, and I certainly agree. Nonetheless I think that Greek is unusual in having one word (or root) for both meanings (or for the whole range of meaning).

I just find it linguistically interesting that in translating to Slavonic (and Georgian) they selected roots which in themselves bring out the "glorification" side of the term "orthodox" and outside this context do not have connotations of doctrine or belief (or do they?).

(this was in reply primarily to post #16)