An Overview of Eastern Orthodoxy

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?

A New Covenant

Yes, these are words used by us as well. And it is my understanding that the partaking of bread and wine is symbolic of this.

However, I would think, again from my limited time as an EO, that it is Grace we hope for and the mystical communion with Christ. Everything centers around theosis, and communing is one of the ways we get help with that.

And finally, for us, the Eucharist is a way to become united spiritually with not only Christ, but also the other church members present. The sobornost .

These are just my understandings and I welcome correction from others with stronger understanding than my own.

Calvin's Eucharistic theology is closer to Orthodox Eucharistic theology than it is to the Eucharistic theology of most Calvinists I've met. Most who call themselves Calvinists are Zwinglians in regard to the Eucharist: the Eucharist is mere symbol, a rememberance and nothing more. It is clear that Calvin believed it is more, though whether his doctrine was some sort of "Real Presence" doctrine or a symbolic doctrine with symbol understood in a Semitic senses where symbols participate in the reality they symbolize rather than the usual Western rationalistic sense in which symbols are mere signifiers is unclear to me.

No one responed so I found this. It sounds closer to the EO position than to the Baptists:>)

Protestant view differs. Within Protestant denominations, some believe Jesus is present in the Communion event, but not in the sense that the bread and wine literally are changed.

The Rev. W. Eugene March, a professor at Louisville Presbyterian Seminary, said Presbyterian teaching espouses the view of John Calvin, a 16th-century Reformation leader, called real presence.

"The real presence is an insistence there's really something happening here, that Christ is truly present," he said. "But not in the sense of transubstantiation." March spent 15 years as a representative for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the nation's largest Presbyterian denomination, in talks with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the country's largest Lutheran group, on forging closer ties.

A major sticking point, he said, was differing views of Communion. Presbyterians celebrate Communion on a table, not an altar, because it is not viewed as a sacrificial event, he said. While they do not believe the taking of Communion is essential to salvation, it plays an important role in the faith.

"To participate in this meal is to be drawn nearer to Christ," March said. "It is to self-consciously put oneself in touch with the real presence and to reflect more seriously on who Jesus is, what he has done and what that means for our lives." Despite the official teaching, he said, Presbyterians in the pews likely have varied views about Communion. The same can be said of Lutherans, said Baird Tipson, president of Wittenberg University in Springfield and a scholar of Christian history.

That is interesting...I do think Table is a better term ..but to be honest I had never considered it before

Is the sacred area called "the Temple"? I did not know that ...

I had a very special night at a Serbian Orthodox Church last year when Wordsmith got me to go to a service. I went to vespers. It was beautiful

Have you seen "My Great Big Fat Greek Wedding"?(I think that is what it is called) It is worth it..very heartwarming...

It is a bit of an attempt to make the family look "foolish" at points..but it shows a stong sense of community and family

I am not too sure that is true of all calvinists it might be denomination specific..that is why I asked input for the Orthodox Calvinists..I will try again..( remember alot of the Calvinists here on FR are Baptists..so they carry some Baptist doctrine too...the Orthodox Calvinists baptize babies etc...very different than the reformed Baptists)

Broadly speaking, Calvinist Baptists tend towards Zwingli's view ("Symbolic Remembrance") whereas Calvinist Presbyterians tend towards Calvin's view ("Spiritual Presence").

Regarding Calvinist Baptists -- This is not to say that "Baptists are Zwinglian" in their Eucharistic theology, however... it would be more correct to say that Zwingli was Baptistic in his Eucharistic theology. Unfortunately, some medieval Swiss Baptists interpreted this to mean that Zwingli was a "friend" to the Medieval Baptists. Sadly, Zwingli gave the lie to this amicable notion by taking it upon himself to drown quite a few Baptists. Calvin, by contrast, married an (ex)Baptist. (She had renounced her Baptistic theology prior to their marriage... but at least Calvin did not at any time attempt to drown her during their courtship!!)
Regarding Calvinist Presbyterians -- "Spiritual Presence" is not to be confused with Carnal Presence. Calvinist Presbyterians affirm that Jesus Christ is every bit as present in Spirit at a properly-administered Supper as He was present in Body at the "Last" Supper. As Jesus is bodily present in Heaven at the present time, we look forward to supping with Him again in bodily presence upon His Return.... but we do not affirm that the Elements are composed of the carnal meat of his arterial blood and fleshly organs.
This is one difficulty I have with the Terminology "Real Presence". Do I affirm that Jesus Christ is Really Present at a properly-conducted Supper? Yes, I affirm indeed that Jesus Christ is Really Present at a properly-conducted Supper!! Do I affirm the carnal presence of his arterial blood and fleshly organs in the constitution of the Elements? No, I affirm that Jesus is really present at the Supper -- in spirit. His Body is even now at the Right Hand of the Father, in Heaven, and by the grace of God I will sup with Him in body upon His Return.

First, let me say that this is the first time I've posted since last Spring! This thread is amazing. Orthodox, Catholics, Calvinists, and others talking civily and starting to understand each other.

I think it's wonderful.

Now as to the subject at hand. I think we are drifting into some confusion but for a very understandable reason. We are trying to fit the Eastern view of the Eucharist into a Western framework like this:

ZWINGLIANS <- - - - Lutherans - - - Calvinists - - -> Roman Catholics

Maybe I should switch Lutherans and Calvinists but you get the idea. It seems logical to sort things according to how literally one understands "this is My Body" and "Presence".

The problem is that we Orthodox don't do it that way. My Roman Catholic friends, because of the work of Thomas Aquinas, have it all figured out in trems of Aristotelian< philosophical terms like essence and accidents. And Zwinglians / Evangelicals are confortable with "mere" symbols.

In the Eastern Church, we are much more comfortable with Mystery. We don't define how the bread and Cup are the Body and Blood of Christ, we just affirm that they are.
Not because the topic is unimportant but because the Eucharist is beyond our ability to grasp with our finite minds.

That's one reason why we practice infant communion. If we wait til a person understands no one will ever partake!

So we don't say that the bread stays bread.

And we don't say that it looks like bread but isn't.

To quote the Divine Liturgy:

1. After the consecration, the priest prays "And make this Bread the precious Body of Thy Christ. And that which is in this Cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ. Amen. Making the change by Thy
Holy Spirit.

2. Just before receiving the Body and Blood, we all pray together "I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners of whom I am first. I believe also that this is truly Thine own most pure Body and this is truly Thine own precious Blood . . .".

Notice that the word "truly" occurs three times in that prayer. Just as the Lord Jesus is truly the Christ, so also the Bread is truly His Body and the Cup is truly His Blood.

How, I don't know! But it is!

Newberger

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.