I've read things implying that Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy aren't synonymous, but it's all rather vague.

From what I understand Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are in disagreement on many issues.

I can't really say how Biblical or unBiblical Orthodoxy is, because I really know very little about it.

As far as I know, having a few friends in the Orthodox churches, Eastern Orthodox and Orthodox are broad terms. They are used to talk in general terms about the various Orthodox churches. There are many different Orthodox churches such as, the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Rominian Orthodox, Buligarian Orthodox, the Church of Alexandria, the Church of Jersualem, and the Orthodox Church in America. These are just a few of the major ones. The Patriarch of Constantinople has the honor of primacy, I believe it is stated as he is the first among many bishops. Very different than the Pope in the RCC.

The way I see it the RCC and Orthodox churches biggest disagreement now is that the West (RCC) took the mysteries of the holy catholic Church (not the RCC but the Church as a whole) and explained them using theology and philosophy. The Orthodox churches do not explain the mysteries except to say they are mysteries and are unexplainable. For example the Eucharist is a mystery in the Eastern church, yet in the RCC church they explain it as transubstantiation. The Eastern church also has a problem with the role of the Pope.

I would say that they are pretty Biblical. They also have a lot of tradition which is totally fine in their church and in pretty much any church other than the evangelical churches.

I've read things implying that Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy aren't synonymous, but it's all rather vague.

From what I understand Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are in disagreement on many issues.

I can't really say how Biblical or unBiblical Orthodoxy is, because I really know very little about it.

They're synonymous in some contexts, and not synonymous in other contexts. Typically, the two mean the same thing. In some cases, "Orthodoxy" can refer to the "Eastern" Orthodox or the "Oriental" Orthodox. The "Oriental Orthodox" can also be called the "Non-Chalcedonian" (they didn't accept the council of Chalcedon, for various reasons).

How "biblical" Orthodoxy is might depend on how you understand the Scriptures.

As far as "issues" where the RCC and EOC disagree, there are a handful. In other cases, it's not so much about the "issues" as it is about a general way of seeing things, as Uriel pointed out.

For example, the two big issues that were the primary cause for division were the change to the Creed and the view of the Pope of Rome (the Coptic church calls the Patriarch of Alexandria their "Pope"). Most other points of contention came about after the split.

I don't like to speak for the RCC, as I'm not part of it, so I'll stop my commentary there. Should you have any other questions about specifically about Orthodoxy, feel free to ask. I haven't posted here for a while, but I plan to keep up a bit more regularly.

Some of the Eastern Rites are in union with Rome, and as such form part of the Roman Catholic Church as a whole, while other of the Eatern Rites are not in union with Rome. Those in union with Rome are generally refered to as Eastern Rite Catholics, while those not in union with Rome are referred to as Eastern Orthodox.

The differences between the Orthodox, and the Roman Catholic Church (including those Eastern Rites in union with Rome) are very slight; while the similarities are very great.

In fact, the entire East was reunited with the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Florence in the year 1441. The slight differences were worked out at this council. Unfortunately, the unity was fragile and did not remain very long.

The point is, the differences are extremely slight. The biggest difference is the office of the Pope, who they consider "the first among equals" with the other Patriarchs. The "filioque" is another point of disagreeement, but this is actually a pretty slight difference - almost a matter of semantics.

Also, since many of the Eastern Churches split from Rome in the 9th century (I think it was the 9th century), they do not accept the teachings of the General Councils that followed. At General Councils, certain doctrines are defined and clarified. When doctrines are defined and clarified, it removes much ambiguity and adds much precision to the doctrine.
Since they do not accept these councils, some of their theology is a little more obscure than that of the Catholic Church. However, the two Churches are extremely similar.

I can't really say how Biblical or unBiblical Orthodoxy is, because I really know very little about it.

The Church itself is the other leg of the two biggest monolithic Christian churches (at least in terms of "official" doctrine).

Much of their theology is appealing to me (they beat the reformers to it!), although I am troubled by many of their non-biblical practices.

The Church itself is the other leg of the two biggest monolithic Christian churches (at least in terms of "official" doctrine).

Much of their theology is appealing to me (they beat the reformers to it!), although I am troubled by many of their non-biblical practices.

Hello there, decrumpit. If I may ask, by which practices are you troubled?

From what I've been reading Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are different, even though the terms "Eastern" and "Oriental" mean literally the same thing.

From what I've been reading Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are different, even though the terms "Eastern" and "Oriental" mean literally the same thing.

Yes, they are different groups. The Oriental Orthodox broke away from the rest of the church back when we were still in union with Rome, due to the Council of Chalcedon. Over time, neither the Eastern nor the Oriental Orthodox have changed. Also, over the past many decades, the two groups have been involved in theological discussions, and the majority of both sides believe that there are no true doctrinal disagreements. We hope that a 1500 year long squabble will soon be drawing to a close.

There's a lot of history behind why the non-Chalcedonian churches (Oriental) broke away. You're better off finding a good article about it than me trying to hash it all out from memory.

Orthodoxy

It is a dental practice :cool:

Orthodoxy

It is a dental practice :cool:

But it's the "right" dental practice ;)

The Church itself is the other leg of the two biggest monolithic Christian churches (at least in terms of "official" doctrine).

Much of their theology is appealing to me (they beat the reformers to it!), although I am troubled by many of their non-biblical practices.
I would agree with that. I think that their understandings about the Lord are correct and I love the book "On The Incarnation" by Athanasius.
If you read some of the actual theology of the RCC, they have some very good theology as well. For both groups, it is their practices though and the teachings that are not related to God Himself directly that are troubling. (These include the use of idols and icons and praying to "Saints".)
In addition, the Orthodox seem to know and understand their correct theology concerning the Lord whereas, in general, the Catholics seem more unfamiliar with the actual teachings of their own religion.

I would agree with that. I think that their understandings about the Lord are correct and I love the book "On The Incarnation" by Athanasius.
If you read some of the actual theology of the RCC, they have some very good theology as well. For both groups, it is their practices though and the teachings that are not related to God Himself directly that are troubling. (These include the use of idols and icons and praying to "Saints".)

In addition, the Orthodox seem to know and understand their correct theology concerning the Lord whereas, in general, the Catholics seem more unfamiliar with the actual teachings of their own religion.

Let me respond briefly to the two underlined parts. Regarding the last, it is true that many Catholics today are ignorant of what the Church teaches. I won't go into why, but I did want to confirm that your impression is correct. It didn't used to be this way. Those who grew up in the 1950's (such as my father-in-law who has been away from the Church for over 40 years) knew the faith well. In fact, the teachings of the Church were drilled into my father-in-law so well by the nuns that he still remembers them.

Regarding the "idols" and praying to the saints. I grew up Protestant so I understand the concern over these issues. For myself, I had a misunderstanding of what was taking pace. I thought they were worshipping the statues, and treating the saints as demi-gods.

Regarding the "idols". Catholics don't worship statues. They are just there for the same reason that you might have a picture of Jesus in your house; namely for devotional purposes. Seeing a picture of Jesus makes you think of Him. It is the same with a statue of Jesus, or one of the saints. But why a statue of a saint, you may be thinking? Well the saints were canonized for a reason: They lived an extraordinary life and as such are examples for us. St. Paul himself said "be ye followers of me, as I am a follower of Christ". In other words, he was telling them to use his life as an example on how to follow Christ. The same is true with the saints. So, if there is a statue of a saint in Church, it is simply to recall to mind their life and how they served God in such a heroic manner.

Now, you may be thinking of several verses in the old Testament that speak of not having "graven images". In context, these verses mean not to worship a graven image; they don't mean not to have graven images. How can I be sure of that? Because in the old Testament God commands the Jews to make "graven images" and to put them in the Temple, and over the Ark of the Covenant. God did not command what he forbade, since the commandment not of make graven images was in the context of not worshipping graven images. In fact, the same book of the Bible that forbids graven images, is the one in which God - only 5 chapters later - tells Israel to make graven images (Exodus 20,25)

Regarding "praying to the saints". This phrase is a little misleading - at least it was in the way I used to understand it. Since I only prayed to God, and only worshipped God, I always associated "prayer" with worship - two sides of the same coin. So, if I heard of someone "praying to a saint", I would understand it to mean worshipping a saint. In reality, all that "praying to a saint" means is asking a saint who is in heaven to pray for you. It is no different than asking someone on earth to pray for you, except that those in heaven are now perfect and see God "face to face".

Thank you for that explanation RSiscoe, but I have heard it before and so I imagine, have many of the members of this board.

As for the praying to the "Saints" concept - most protestants do not agree with the concept that dead people are "not really dead", but in heaven listening to people's prayers and passing them on to God and also most protestants do not believe we can know for sure who was a Christian and who was not especially if it is someone we don't know who died hundreds of years ago so they may or may not have been saved. In addition, some of the "Saints" are known to be fictional characters or non-Christians and we see no reason to try to contact dead people to ask them to pray for us when we can pray to God ourselves and ask living saints to pray with us and for us.

As far as the icon (painting) and statue issue - I personally don't have pictures of Jesus because we don't really know what He looked like and the renaissance era white guy with the long hair is most likely not an accurate image.
I see no need to use statues and paintings of imaginary people who may or may not have looked like Jesus, Mary or other dead Christians in my prayer.
And many people do attach superstitious feelings to their pictures and statues that they use in prayer, which is not proper.

Thank you for that explanation RSiscoe, but I have heard it before and so I imagine, have many of the members of this board.

As for the praying to the "Saints" concept - most protestants do not agree with the concept that dead people are "not really dead", but in heaven listening to people's prayers and passing them on to God and also most protestants do not believe we can know for sure who was a Christian and who was not especially if it is someone we don't know who died hundreds of years ago so they may or may not have been saved. In addition, some of the "Saints" are known to be fictional characters or non-Christians and we see no reason to try to contact dead people to ask them to pray for us when we can pray to God ourselves and ask living saints to pray with us and for us.

As far as the icon (painting) and statue issue - I personally don't have pictures of Jesus because we don't really know what He looked like and the renaissance era white guy with the long hair is most likely not an accurate image.
I see no need to use statues and paintings of imaginary people who may or may not have looked like Jesus, Mary or other dead Christians in my prayer.
And many people do attach superstitious feelings to their pictures and statues that they use in prayer, which is not proper.


That is why the Orthodox and the RCC make requirements for one to be a saint, such as an extraordinary life while on earth and they must have miracles attributed to them after their death. They also have living people makes cases for and against the "blessed" becoming a saint. It is not an easy process to become a saint. In fact the RCC not too long ago declared that some people they thought to be saints may in fact not be saints and stripped the title form them, because there was not good evidence of them being universally recognized but only locally recognized.

Can we get some proof that some of the saints are fictional characters?

Can we get some proof that some of the saints are fictional characters?
Saint Veronica is one who is a fictional character
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Veronica
But, that is not the main point. The main point is that most protestants do not accept the Orthodox and RCC methods of determining who is a "Saint", nor do they accept their reasons for praying to them as valid or necessary or useful or biblical.