Posted on 09/07/2002 10:40:27 AM PDT by MarMema
Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Christianity (including its Protestant and Catholic branches) can be compared to twins separated shortly after birth. Eastern Orthodox representatives participated in the first seven ecumenical councils ending with Second Council of Nicaea in 787 at which they defended what is now accepted as orthodox Christology with vigor. Following this council differences grew between East and West and lead to an official split in 1054 when the Pope excommunicated the Eastern Orthodox city of Constantinople. The primary areas of difference were the issues of papal authority and the Filoque clause in the creed of the Second Council of Nicaea which asserted that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as well as from the Father. Eastern Orthodox theologians assert that there is no way for finite humans to understand or even to think of God as He actually is because He is infinite. Orthodox theologians distinguish between the "apophatic," (or negative way of knowing God by asserting what He is not) and the positive or "cataphatic" means of knowing Him. More comfortable with the mystical than most in the West, the paradox of the infinite revealing Himself to the finite and the tension between apophatic and cataphatic knowledge is, for Orthodox theologians, a cause for worship, not scholastic contemplation and examination.
The center of Orthodox theology is the concept of "theosis": participation in God's nature while maintaining a distinct human nature. Theosis is at the center of the Orthodox understandings of humanity, sin, and redemption. Humanity was created to participate in theosis but the Fall brought mortality which led to individual sin. Redemption is God's provision of divine life in Christ, the beginning of theosis. The concept of theosis has also influenced the Eastern ecclesiastical practice of the use of icons and the Orthodox understanding of the Lord's Supper.
Introduction
The Eastern Orthodox church came into existence as an independent entity in the eleventh century. Prior to that, its history was the same as the branch of Christianity which would evolve into Western Catholicism and Protestantism. The beliefs and practices of Eastern Orthodoxy vary greatly from Western Christendom in many respects, but its Christological roots are the same. Like twins separated shortly after birth, the two branches of orthodox Christianity are at once radically different and significantly similar. This paper will examine the development of Eastern Orthodoxy as well as some of its major tenets. Special attention will be given to those areas where the differences between it and Western theology seem to be especially important.
Historical Development
The Eastern Orthodox church, though not identical in its culture or methodology, was an integral part of the universal Christian church for approximately one thousand years. It not only shares an orthodox view of Christology with the Western church, but it was an integral part of the development of that orthodoxy through its participation in the first seven ecumenical councils. Eastern Orthodox representatives defended what is now accepted as orthodox Christology with vigor. Unfortunately, solidarity between the Western church and the Eastern church did not last, and the Second Council of Nicaea, held in 787, was the last council attended by members of the Eastern Orthodox church. After it, the differences between the East and the West became more pronounced and eventually irreconcilable [1]. It is important to note that prior to the split with Rome and its ecclesiastical allies, the Eastern Orthodox church played an important role in defending orthodox Christology against the heresy of monophysitism. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 set forth as orthodox the belief that in the person of Christ there are two complete natures, not one. At this point, a group of churches continuing to hold to the belief that Christ had only one nature, split from the still united Eastern and Western churches. They refer to themselves as Orthodox, but they are not a part of the Eastern Orthodox church [2].
Following the Council of Chalcedon, differences between the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity grew, but the two did not officially split until 1054 when a papal bull of excommunication was delivered to Eastern Orthodoxy's leading city, Constantinople (Istanbul) [3]. The two most grievous points of conflict which precipitated the split were the issues of papal authority and the Filoque clause. The Eastern churches attributed much greater authority to the decrees of the church councils than did the Roman Church, which honored the Pope at the same level as the councils and thought it appropriate for the Pope to have authority over creedal statements made in the past [4]. When the Latin church adapted the creed established at the second Council of Nicaea by adding the Filoque clause, the Eastern Orthodox church took a stand against both the content of the clause as well as the liberty taken with an established doctrine of the church. The Filoque clause essentially asserted that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as well as from the Father. The Eastern Orthodox conception of the Trinity did not allow for this addition. Both sides of the controversy took a series of steps away from one another, and the schism was unmistakably completed when Pope Leo IX excommunicated the Eastern Christians. Thus, from the eleventh century continuing through the present, Eastern Orthodoxy has developed as a theological system separate from Western Catholicism and Protestantism.
Because of the monophysite controversy and the radical split with Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy was geographically constrained on both the East and West. Thus, it's expansion was primarily to the North as Eastern Orthodox missionaries took Christianity into the Slavic countries [5]. Today, Eastern Orthodoxy is prominant in Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Russia, and Georgia are all Eastern Orthodox, and there continues to be a Patriarchate of Constantinople (Istanbul).
Key Theologians
The development of Eastern Orthodox theology can be divided into five stages. The fundamental ideas of Orthodoxy's system of thought were established during the period prior to the Council of Chalcedon by the Greek fathers and men such as Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. Following in their footsteps in the years between Chalcedon and the second Council of Nicaea were John of Damascus and Maximus the Confessor. Gregory Palamas and Symeon the New were the most prominent of Eastern Orthodox theologians in the years following the second Council of Nicaea. Between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries, many Orthodox theologians studied in the west, and through them, Western thought had a great, and since then unequaled, influence on Eastern theology. The years between 1821 and the present have been years of struggle for the Orthodox Church. It has had to resist the territorial influx of both Communism and Islam. The early part of these years of struggle were theologically dominated by German Protestant liberalism, but the twentieth century has brought about a revival of Byzantine thought which has resulted in a fight for prominence between liberal and conservative branches of Orthodoxy [6].
Methodology
It is imperative to examine a critical difference in the general approach to theology taken by the Eastern Orthodox church and Western Christendom. Orthodoxy asserts that there is no way for finite humans to understand or even to think of God as He actually is because He is infinite. In this sense they affirm the neo-Platonic conception that God is completely transcendent and that man is incapable of knowing Him. In answer to this problem, the Greek Fathers proposed the negative, or "apophatic," way of knowing God. Essentially, the apophatic way refers to knowing God by recognizing and asserting what He is not [7]. The Chalcedonian Creed reflects apophatic thought in the language it employs to describe the nature of Christ. The Creed is couched in negative terms and offers little explanation of the exact nature of the incarnation [8].
Additionally, the Orthodox church understands the nature of theology to be paradoxical: an unknowable God chooses to reveal Himself. The content of His revelation is the incarnation, and through it the distance between the finite and the infinite is in some sense bridged. Thus, they assert that in tension with the apophatic way of knowing God is the positive or "cataphatic" means of knowing Him. The paradox of the infinite revealing Himself to the finite and the tension between apophatic and cataphatic knowledge is that any understanding gained cataphatically serves only to point to the immensity of the gulf remaining between the man with newfound understanding and the actual reality of God. For the Orthodox, any knowledge of God is grounds not for the cessation of contemplation, but continued hunger for more [9].
The Orthodox approach to God is therefore much more tolerant of the mystical and the mysterious aspects of the God-head than is Western theology. Theology in the West tends to emphasize the rational pursuit of information about God and the systematic elimination of all that is mysterious about Him. In contrast, Orthodoxy views the mysterious as cause for worship, not scholastic contemplation and examination. While Eastern Orthodox theologians value the mysterious, they are not proponents of the irrational or intellectually inconsistent. They think the intellect is important, but they do not believe that it is the only criteria by which truth should be judged. They assert instead that the highest form of theology is experiential, not intellectual [10].
Humanity, Sin, and Redemption
Eastern Orthodox theological thought regarding humanity, sin, and redemption is closely linked and revolves around the concept of theosis. The doctrine is also called deification or divinization, and though it is a hallmark of Eastern Orthodoxy it is shrouded in mystery which the Orthodox are hesitant to analyze. Simply put, theosis means being deified or becoming like God. Theosis connotes participation in God's nature while maintaining a distinct human nature. Orthodox thinkers consistently deny that theosis is a pantheistic worldview on the grounds that theosis does not involve the destruction of the human nature as part of the process. Theosis is held by the Orthodox to be the chief end of Humanity. Humans were created for deification [11].
Eastern Orthodoxy's assertion that humanity's ultimate goal is theosis, or participation in the Divine life, has informed and shaped their doctrine of the Fall. Their understanding of original sin differs from that of Western theologians in that Adam and Eve are not responsible, through their sin, for universal guilt, but for universal mortality. Adam's personal sin did not bring condemnation upon all people, it brought death upon all people. The experience of mortality leads otherwise guiltless individuals to sinful acts [12], but the Orthodox maintain that each person's sin is the result of his or her own choice and not the choice of Adam [13].
Given this idea that humanity's basic problem is mortality, the Orthodox view of redemption is much broader than that of the Western church. Western theological tradition emphasizes the judicial aspect of salvation, asserting that in salvation, God is primarily concerned with the remission of sin [14]. The Orthodox view is that the gospel is not primarily the solution to man's problem with personal sin. It is God's provision of divine life in Christ, the beginning of theosis. A residual benefit of beginning the process of deification is the remission of sins. Baptism is the means by which the believer enters into this new life. John Meyendorff summarizes the idea of redemption in Eastern Orthodox theology well. He says,
Communion in the risen body of Christ; participation in divine life; sanctification through the energy of God, which penetrates the humanity and restores it to its "natural" state, rather than justification, or remission of inherited guilt--these are at the center of Byzantine understanding of the Christian Gospel [15].
The Trinity
As is evident from the discussion of the development of the Eastern Orthodox church, differing understandings of the role of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the other parts of the Trinity figured prominently in the schism between East and West. The West accepted the addition of the Filoque clause to the Nicaean Creed, giving assent to the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. In opposition to this, Eastern Orthodoxy asserts that while both Son and Spirit are divine and one in nature with God the Father, they each have a unique relationship with and to Him. This difference of relationship may be expressed in the statement that the Son is eternally generated by the Father, while the Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father [16]. In the Eastern Orthodox conception of the Trinity, the emphasis is on the distinct personalities within the God-head. The West has tended to emphasize the unity within the God-head. It is imperative to keep in mind that neither side has denied that the Trinity is one divine nature expressed in three persons. The difference between the two is one of emphasis and not of content [17].
Ecclesiastical Practice The use of icons in worship is an area of sharp divergence between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Protestantism. The Eastern and Western churches, which were still united at the time, defined and clarified the role of icons in worship at the second Council of Nicaea. The Council rejected the iconoclastic movement's attempt to eliminate sacred images from worship and decided in favor of their inclusion in worship services. The council drew a distinction between the worship to be offered to God and the veneration offered to icons. However, the theoretical difference implied by the two words has not always been distinguishable in practice [18].
Western Christianity, beginning with Augustine, has exhibited a preference for the written word over pictorial or representative articles, while the East has gravitated toward the pictorial. The Protestant Reformers firmly rejected the use of icons and in so doing took one step further away from Eastern Orthodoxy than the Roman church had previously done [19].
The central role which icons play in Eastern Orthodox worship demands a note of explanation here. An icon is a picture of a saint, of God, or of angels painted on a piece of wood which, when completed, is blessed by the church. The painting is not technically considered an icon until it has been blessed because the blessing establishes a link between the icon and the actual subject which it portrays. Once blessed, icons are placed in churches, homes, and various public places. The first action of an Orthodox worshipper when entering the church would be to acknowledge and honor the icons displayed there. The Orthodox believe that when they contemplate the icon with the right attitude of heart, they are mystically brought into the presence of the one portrayed by the icon [20].
The argument against the use of icons in worship is that they are inherently idolatrous. Eastern Orthodox theologians deny that any deity is ascribed to the icons and justify their inclusion in worship largely on the basis of Christ's incarnation. The Orthodox think that God's use of an image, Christ's body, sanctions other uses of images as vehicles for the communication of divine truth. They cite the pictorial representation of the cherubim over the ark as another example of divinely sanctioned imaging [21].
Another practice of the Eastern Orthodox church which distinguishes it from its Western counterparts is the celebration of the Eucharist. In some ways, Eastern Orthodoxy appears to be standing between the Protestant and Catholic understanding of the Lord's Supper and its meaning. Eastern Orthodox thought understands the elements of communion to be actual types of Christ's glorified humanity, which in some mystical way, comes to the believer as he or she partakes of the bread and wine. Orthodox theologians deny that they have simply renamed the doctrine of transubstantiation. The crux of the issue and the distinction they see between what they teach and the idea of transubstantiation is that the bread and wine are representative of Christ's humanity.
On the other hand, they resist the idea that the wine and the bread are mere symbols. The Orthodox Church believes that the elements are more than a pictorial representation of Christ. There is definitely a mystical element in the Eastern Orthodox celebration of the Eucharist that is not present in Protestantism. In light of this, it is best not to categorize Eastern Orthodox thought about the Eucharist with either predominant Catholic or Protestant teaching. It is a distinct doctrine with a different flavor than either of its counterparts [22].
Conclusion
A distinct flavor, different than both of its Western counterparts, would be an apt description of the Eastern Orthodox Church as a whole. The distinction is naturally not so great as that between various non- Christian religions and those rooted in the person and work of Jesus. Eastern Orthodoxy shares the root of Biblical Christology with both Western Catholicism and Protestantism. It is, however, a vastly different school of theology from either traditions in the West. These theological twins, separated at birth, have blossomed in remarkably distinct ways, but the genetic resemblance has not been destroyed. The question for theologians and church leaders on both sides remains, should an effort be made to reconcile the two?
You can see why, perhaps, it surprised me, though. Having read this repeatedly, over and over again, that it i disctinctly eastern trait. ( I can provide links if you like).
I am a bit confused though about the presentation of the Eastern Orthodox views on the Eucharist. Could you give me a link to an article that would explain it more fully. Is it that the essence of the bread and wine is seen as changing into the essence of Christ's body and blood? My Ukrainian Orthodox friend has tried to explain this to me several times, and I confess that I am a slow learner at times.
for later reading
One Eucharistic theology claims that the elements are metaphysically just bread and wine and that they symbolize Christ's body and blood, making this a straight memorial of Christ's death. This view is commonly taught in Baptist and Baptist-influenced churches. And the Baptists are right about the elements in their churches -- they are a straight memorial (since if one is not seeking grace in communion one is not likely to get much of it), and it is a noble thing to commemorate Christ's death.
Another Eucharistic theology claims that the elements are metaphysically just bread and wine and that they symbolize Christ's body and blood but that they serve as channels of God's grace in some sense. This was Calvin's view and is commonly taught in Presbyterian churches in other countries, though in this country many Presbyterian churches have been influenced by Baptistic tendencies in their theology on this point. And Presbyterians are right about the elements in their churches -- they are means of grace since Presbyterians do not seek merely to commemorate Christ's death in communion but also to gain grace from him, and it is a noble thing to commemorate Christ's death and seek his grace in the act.
The third Eucharistic theology claims that the elements are metaphysically bread and wine and that, in addition to this, they contain Christ's body and blood (and presumably his soul and divinity since these infuse his body and blood). This is the view taught in Lutheran and Anglican (/Episcopalian) churches, though they use different language to express it.
The fourth Eucharistic theology claims that the elements are metaphysically Christ's body and blood (because he said "This is my body -- This is my blood," not "This contains my body -- This contains my blood"). This is the view taught by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and the other ancient Christian churches, such as the Abyssinian church, the Armenian church, the Coptic church, etc.
Before the Great Schism there were five patriarchs: Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome. They were considered co-equal leaders of the Church. Rome was not "more equal" than the rest...they shared in the leadership of the Church. It was only with the growing political power of Rome, and the Roman patriarch, that the patriarch of Rome began to believe that he was the supreme patriarch. There is no justification in Scripture for this, and the Orthodox Church (represented by the other four patriarchs) resented his usurpation of power.
Therefore, the Orthodox Church has no problem denying the supremacy of the Pope...he is the one that broke fellowship with the other four, not the other way around.
It is late, and I don't intend to go any further right now. I hope you receive this in the spirit in which I have intended it - as mere explanation, and not condemnation.
grace and peace to you
The Holy Eucharist is called the "sacrament of sacraments" in the Orthodox tradition. It is also called the "sacrament of the Church." The eucharist is the center of the Church's life. Everything in the Church leads to the eucharist, and all things flow from it. It is the completion of all of the Church's sacraments -- the source and the goal of all of the Church's doctrines and institutions.
As with baptism, it must be noted that the eucharistic meal was not invented by Christ. Such holy ritual meals existed in the Old Testament and in pagan religions. Generally speaking the "dinner" remains even today as one of the main ritual and symbolic events in the life of man. The Christian eucharist is a meal specifically connected with the Passover meal of the Old Testament. At the end of his life Christ, the Jewish Messiah, ate the Passover meal with his disciples. Originally a ritual supper in commemoration of the liberation of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, the Passover meal was transformed by Christ into an act done in remembrance of him: of his life, death and resurrection as the new and eternal Passover Lamb who frees men from the slavery of evil, ignorance and death and transfers them into the everlasting life of the Kingdom of God.
At the supper Christ took the bread and the wine and ordered his disciples to eat and drink it as his own Body and Blood. This action thus became the center of the Christian life, the experience of the presence of the Risen Christ in the midst of his People (see Mt 26; Mk 14; Lk 22; Jn 6 and 13; Acts 2:41-47; 1 Cor 10-11).
As a word, the term eucharist means thanksgiving. This name is given to the sacred meal-not only to the elements of bread and wine, but to the whole act of gathering, praying, reading the Holy Scriptures and proclaiming God's Word, remembering Christ and eating and drinking his Body and Blood in communion with him and with God the Father, by the Holy Spirit. The word eucharist is used because the all-embracing meaning of the Lord's Banquet is that of thanksgiving to God in Christ and the Holy Spirit for all that he has done in making, saving and glorifying the world.
The sacrament of the eucharist is also called holy communion since it is the mystical communion of men with God, with each other, and with all men and all things in him through Christ and the Spirit. The eucharistic liturgy is celebrated in the Church every Sunday, the Day of the Lord, as well as on feast days. Except in monasteries, it is rarely celebrated daily. Holy Communion is forbidden to all Orthodox Christians on the week days of Great Lent except in the special communion of the Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified Gifts (see below) because of its joyful and resurrectional character. The eucharist is always given to all members of the Church, including infants who are baptized and confirmed. It is always given in both forms -- bread and wine. It is strictly understood as being the real presence of Christ, his true Body and Blood mystically present in the bread and wine which are offered to the Father in his name and consecrated by the divine Spirit of God.
In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistic liturgy. Quite unfortunately, these explanations often became too rationalistic and too closely connected with certain human philosophies.
One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.
The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ's Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him "in their hearts." In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord's last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.
On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term "symbols" for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a "mystery" and the sacrifice of the liturgy a "spiritual and bloodless sacrifice." These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.
The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality -- the world and man himself -- is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God's true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself "the bread of life" (Jn 6:34, 41).
I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6:51).
Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ's flesh, and Christ's flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word "symbolical" in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: "to bring together into one."
Thus we read the words of the Apostle Paul:
"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death, until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:23-26).
The mystery of the holy eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the eucharist -- and Christ himself -- is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is "not of this world." The eucharist -- because it belongs to God's Kingdom -- is truly free from the earth-born "logic" of fallen humanity.
Communion is a special spiritual meeting ...more than a memorial..but not the a "actually body " more of a spiritual " union" with Christ
The article is correct on the meaning of a meal to the Jews and why Jesus used the Last supper to give us this symbol of our union with him
There is one thing I do not believe the author mentioned which is of interest...when "cutting " a covenant in the OT the agreement was sealed with a meal..and what happened at the last supper? A New Covenant..eating that meal is our spiritual inclusion and acceptance into that covenant IMHO
An interesting way to look at it, I think. I'm sure you know that some Orthodox see the RC as the first protestants. My opinion is not worth much, of course, but I don't think it is the protestantism of it, the breaking away, that is as significant. Rather, to me, it is the photo of those nuns doing whatever they were doing, in a nutshell. I can't really put it into words any better than this. The clergy at church would say it is the spirit of the worship which concerns me, I think. And many protestants seem to have tremendous holiness in their worship, from my lowly knowledge of it.
I thought so too, when I read your first post. Do you give both bread and wine and do children commune in your church?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.