The Orthodox Church

Icon of Christ's Crucifixion
Icon of Christ's Crucifixion

Only so many of us have even heard of the Orthodox Church in the west. Really, it should be Orthodox Churches.

Let's start at the beginning.

Bishops …

As I explain in Bishops, Elders, and Deacons, Paul and Peter's churches were led by a group of elders who were all episkopoi: overseers or bishops. John, however, started churches with one bishop over the group of elders.

John's form of leadership prevailed universally by the mid to late 2nd century.

Then Metropolitans …

The churches grew in size. As Tertullian put it to the Roman emperor at the beginning of the 3rd century, "The oftener you mow us down, the more of us there are. The blood of Christians is seed" (Apology 50). As the churches grew larger, more and more small towns had churches in them.

These little churches did not need their own bishop, so the bishop of the nearest large town would serve the surrounding small towns. Such a bishop was known in the 3rd century as a "metropolitan."

And Finally Patriarchs …

This progressed so far that by the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, the metropolitans of Alexandria, Rome and Antioch were ruling over large areas. Canon VI of the Nicaean Council specifies the extent of Alexandria's rule, which included all of Egypt. Rome's rule is said to be something similar. (Thus eliminating the possibility that there was a pope in the first century.)

After Nicea, these three bishops were known as patriarchs. After Constantine built Constantinople and it became the capital of the Roman empire, its bishop also became a patriarch.

At the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, there was a rift between the patriarch of Alexandria and the others over the dual natures (human and divine) of Christ. As a result, the patriarch of Alexandria and his churches have been out of communion with the others ever since. Nonetheless, he appeared or sent a representative to all the later ecumenical councils (see below).

The metropolitan of Jerusalem was elevated to patriarch at the Council of Chalcedon. That made five total.

Another major patriarch that needs to be mentioned is the one in Moscow that was added in 1589. The Russian Orthodox Church is the largest of the eastern Orthodox churches today.

The Great Schism

The western half of the Roman empire fell in A.D. 476. The eastern half continued as the Holy Roman Empire for a thousand years.

The political separation brought a breach in communications between the patriarchs as well. Unfortunately, only the patriarch of Rome was in the west. The other four patriarchs were all in the East.

During that time of political separation between east and west, the Roman church added a short phrase to the Nicene Creed. The eastern version of the creed said that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father, while the western version said that he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

That phrase in Latin is all one word: filioque, and it has become famous as "the filioque."

The patriarchs in the east felt that it was inappropriate for the bishop of Rome to act alone in changing such a major creed of the Church, no matter how accurate that change might be. They explained to the bishop—who by now could appropriately be called the pope, as he was now ruling alone—that he was not a lone ruler. He was the leading patriarch, but he was "first among equals." They were required to act together.

The Roman Patriarch as "Pope"

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage in north Africa from A.D. 249 to 258, is considered a saint by the Roman Catholic Church. He is often (mis)quoted by the RCC as supporting the papacy because he believed that the keys of the kingdom of heaven, given to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:19, were passed on to the bishops in general.

Yet when Stephen, bishop and patriarch of Rome, decided that the Church should accept baptisms performed by the Novatian schismatics, Cyprian called a council specifically to override him. That council, composed of 82 bishops, determined, "None of us may set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor … compel his fellow bishop to the necessity of obedience" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. V, "The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian").

The bishop of Rome was given the authority of a patriarch by the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. He assigned himself papal authority only later, during the political separation of the eastern and western Roman empire. He did this without affirmation of any of the other patriarchs, and without any precedent in the apostolic churches.

The debate raged for centuries before it came to a head. In 1054 Pope Leo IX send a delegation to patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople to remove his title of patriarch and to demand his submission to Rome. Cerularius refused, and the two patriarchs excommunicated each other.

The breach has never been healed.

The Orthodox Churches

The patriarchs of the east still consider themselves the rightful leaders of the universal church along with the pope in Rome. In fact, they consider themselves to be prevented from holding any more authoritative general ecumenical councils because they do not have the Roman patriarch among them.

To the Orthodox churches there are seven ecumenical councils (listed below) that are the authoritative councils of history. No others can be held until the rift is reconciled. (Note: The Coptic Orthodox Church and some other small Orthodox Churches only receive the first three ecumenical councils, even though Alexandria was represented at later ones. Having been condemned and excommunicated at the 4th ecumenical council, it is not surprising that they do not hold later ones as authoritative.)

The patriarch of Rome, as we all know, is under no such restraints. He has never backed off from espousing his own authority. An ecumenical council is not required for important changes to tradition in his opinion. The Roman church believes it is possible for the pope to speak ex cathedra, which means "from the chair" or "from the throne", and that such a pronouncement is infallible.

You can probably tell I think this is ridiculous. Sorry if that offends any Roman Catholics reading this. Please see my sidebar or my video teaching on the papacy in the early church for the reasons behind my position.

The Orthodox Church Today

The four eastern patriarchs are the heads of the Orthodox Churches today. Their respective Churches are as follows:

  • Patriarch of Constantinople: Eastern Orthodox Church
  • Patriarch of Antioch: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
  • Patriarch of Moscow: Russian Orthodox Church
  • Patriarch of Jerusalem: Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem

As I mentioned,the patriarch of Alexandria has been out of communion with the others since A.D. 451 over a dispute about the dual natures (human and divine) of Christ. He is the head of the Coptic Orthodox Church.

The Coptic Orthodox Church has also given Ethiopia a patriarch, in 1959, so that now there is a Ethiopian Orthodox church as well.

The Alexandrian bishop goes by the title of pope as does the bishop of Rome. That's something we Americans are not familiar with, but in Egypt, of course, "the pope" is the Alexandrian patriarch, not the Roman one. The Alexandrian bishop was actually called pope long before the Roman bishop had such a title. Bishop Heraclas of Alexandria was addressed as pope during his rule from A.D. 232 to 249.

The Seven Ecumenical Councils According to the Orthodox Churches

  1. First Council of Nicea: A.D. 325
  2. First Council of Constantinople: A.D. 381
  3. Council of Ephesus: A.D. 431
  4. Council of Chalcedon: A.D. 451
  5. Second Council of Constantinople: A.D. 553
  6. Third Council of Constantinople: A.D. 680-681
  7. Second Council of Nicea: A.D. 787

Doctrines of the Orthodox Churches

Icon of "Our Lady of Vladimir"

Icon of "Our Lady of Vladimir"

The Orthodox Churches—to a modern Protestant mind—bear a lot of resemblances to the Roman Catholic Church. They have liturgy, they call their leaders priests, they have sacraments that communicate grace, and they do not emphasize being experientially born again the way Evangelicals do.

There are differences. Obviously the greatest one is that they are not subject to the bishop of Rome, though if fellowship were restored, he would be the "first among equals."

I have told Roman Catholics that they do not believe the Nicene view of the Trinity. The Orthodox do. The best way I can think of to describe it is that they have a much more mystical view of Divinity.

I read a blog recently (from an Orthodox man) that describes their approach to Christianity this way:

Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are both primarily based on a legalistic, rationalistic cosmology. To the Orthodox, this is heresy and flies in the face of what the true Christian Church has always taught – that Salvation and the Sacraments are Holy Mysteries.

Icons

The Orthodox Churches—at least the ones I'm (slightly) familiar with—put a lot of emphasis on icons, which are images of saints. They are careful not to make exact representations of the saints, and thus the images almost look like cartoons. They call them "windows to heaven," and they keep them in their houses and their church buildings. They bow to them as they enter and leave.

The seventh ecumenical council, the Second Council of Nicea, concerned the subject of these icons. That council confirmed that icons could be used and, well, worshiped. I better discuss this briefly.

Is the Veneration of Icons Idolatry?

The second Council of Nicea (A.D. 787) affirmed the "veneration" of icons. The word used in Greek is proskuneo, and they said it was different than true worship which could only be given to God. For that true worship, they used the word latreia. (From "The Decree of the Holy, Great, Ecumenical Synod, the Second of Nice," in Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 14).

I'm not sure exactly how to be nice about this. Jesus told the devil in Matthew 4:10, "Go away, satan, because it is written, 'You shall worship [proskuneo] the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.'" Do the Orthodox really want us to believe that we are to only serve God, but it's okay to worship—in the sense of Matthew 4:10—others besides God?

In Acts 10:25, Cornelius fell at Peter's feet to worship [proskuneo] Peter. Peter rejected this worship, and he told Cornelius, "I am just a man.". Should we begin to worship a picture of Peter now that he has died, when he rejected such worship when he was alive?

The word proskuneo appears in the NT 60 times, and the KJV translates it as worship … 60 times. Latreia, on the other hand, is used just five times, and it's translated service or divine service each time. Almost every reference to worship in the NT is proskuneo.

I'm sorry. I can't be nice. The veneration of icons is idolatry, no matter what the "7th ecumenical council of the Church" says about it.

There are numerous quotes from 2nd century Christians establishing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they held the same opinion I do.

The viewpoint I just espoused would make me an iconoclast. There were many of them in the early church. In fact, 33 years before the Second Council of Nicea, a council had been held in Constantinople rejecting icons as idolatry. The 787 council overrode the one from 754.