Regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church…

[Battlehymn Republic]

I’m wondering why there’s never any atheist or any other bashing of that church. I’ve never ever heard of that church having extremist hardliners, though they’ve probably had at least one inquisition or minor crusade in the past. Is it because the church, at least compared to the RCC, has some less-than-stringent policies? Is it because the church is so much in the east that few of us in the west bother to actually think about it? Is it because none of the patriarchs of the church claim to have infallibility or power over all others? Or is it because that church has been under the dominion of Turks, Tsars, and Communists since 1453, and has never exercised as much control and influence as Catholics and other churches?

I'm wondering because I doubt that the entire branch is so open-minded that it has gotten almost no criticisms at all.

[Superman]

Most people lump them in with the Catholics. I think that's a big part of it. I think I've met one person from that church in the last 5 years. They're not that big in the states.

[Mayabird]

Lumped with the Catholics? Are you serious? I've never thought of them as Catholic.

I'm figuring its the same reason why most of us here don't bash extremist Hindus. We don't see many of them around our areas, so we don't have to put up with them and live with them and deal with them trying to screw with our legal systems. If we had more Indian Rationalists here, we'd hear a lot more about them. If we had more Russians aside from our one token drunken Ruski fgalkin, there'd probably be a lot more talk about hardline Orthodox churches and their leaders.

[Aaron]

Lumped with the Catholics? Are you serious? I've never thought of them as Catholic.

I'm figuring its the same reason why most of us here don't bash extremist Hindus. We don't see many of them around our areas, so we don't have to put up with them and live with them and deal with them trying to screw with our legal systems. If we had more Indian Rationalists here, we'd hear a lot more about them. If we had more Russians aside from our one token drunken Ruski fgalkin, there'd probably be a lot more talk about hardline Orthodox churches and their leaders.

There's a fair number of extremeist Hindu's in Vancouver (where I'm originally from) but no one says anything about it because if you do your automatically labelled as a racist. So despite the fact that they stab moderates over stupid shit like having tables and chairs in temples or having services in English, or firebomb moderates homes. Anyone who calls them out over it or demands police action is a racist, right that makes sense.

[Elheru Aran]

Quite simply, it's because of what everybody has said here... they're not around to be bashed for the most part, and those that are, keep a fairly low profile. They don't proselytize extensively, they don't preach on street corners, etc-- they just basically build a church where there are enough members to warrant one, pretty much. That's why you never see that much criticism of them.

That, and they're also fairly liberal, as far as I know. While some monasteries still prohibit women (notably Mount Athos, in Greece), many Eastern Orthodox priests marry and have children. Not real sure what their basic doctrines are, but I'm aware they're more flexible upon them than the Catholics and most Protestants are.

[Imperial Overlord]

So despite the fact that they stab moderates over stupid shit like having tables and chairs in temples or having services in English, or firebomb moderates homes.

Those incidents were Sihks, not Hindus. The issue getting more attention and more criticism is being directed that way in the last couple of years.

[StarshipTitanic]

Or is it because that church has been under the dominion of Turks, Tsars, and Communists since 1453, and has never exercised as much control and influence as Catholics and other churches?

Orthodoxy just happened to be on the wrong side of Europe. All the major urban areas of the Middle East were ripped from them by the Muslims and their only significant expansion was into the sparsely-populated steppes. Catholics got the majority of Europe and the New World.

[Aaron]

Those incidents were Sihks, not Hindus. The issue getting more attention and more criticism is being directed that way in the last couple of years.

And so they were. I tend to confuse the too. But regardless my points still stand.

[Kuroneko]

I’m wondering why there’s never any atheist or any other bashing of that church. I’ve never ever heard of that church having extremist hardliners, though they’ve probably had at least one inquisition or minor crusade in the past. Is it because the church, at least compared to the RCC, has some less-than-stringent policies?

Actually, they have not, as far as I am aware of, any kind of crusade, minor or otherwise. However, contrary to some of the opinions expressed in this thread, the Russian Orthodox Church is not all that liberal--it has a history anti-semitism and general xenophobia (they're anti-everyone, really). The difference, however, is that unlike the Catholics and the Protestants, their xenophobia leads them to a strong attitude of isolationism. In the case of Catholicism, the RCC has historically been been superior to the local monarchs, and has been politicking heavily because of that. The church had never involved itself with `wordly matters' until Peter the Great, who made the church subordinate to the czar rather than the reverse as it was in Europe. Since then, the ROC has simply backed the existing government at all times (except when Lenin was around, of course, but the KGB didn't mind having them around), and had done so fairly quietly.

Or is it because that church has been under the dominion of Turks, Tsars, and Communists since 1453, and has never exercised as much control and influence as Catholics and other churches?

This is a fair assessment--the Russian government (whether by the czars or by the communists) has been aggressive enough all by itself, so the influece of the church fades into the background.

I'm wondering because I doubt that the entire branch is so open-minded that it has gotten almost no criticisms at all.

The ROC is not all that open-minded, particularly racist, but more tolerably so than the western churches. The ROC has a history of distaste for government affairs, and this attitude changed little over the centuries. In other words, they tend to quietly hate other peoples' guts instead of pushing legislation or calling for crusades against them.

[irishmick79]

The Orthodox Church also was heavily persecuted during the Communist era in Russia. They're still a pretty powerful force in Russia, but they're not nearly as powerful as they once were. They still have a lot of influence in mostly slavic countries, like in the Balkans, Greece, and in Russia.

The Russian Orthodox Church in terms of tradition is probably the most conservative church in the world, or close to it. In the 1600, when it was realized that several biblical and ecuminical passages had been translated from Greek into Russian incorrectly, the Patriarch at the time refused to follow the changes because he felt they were a bastardization of God's word.

[Crown]

In the case of Catholicism, the RCC has historically been been superior to the local monarchs, and has been politicking heavily because of that.

Sorry to snip just this small part from your excellent post Kuroneko, but you pretty much hit the nail over the head with that one. And it dates back to the fall of the West Roman Empire, when the last Emperor was deposed, the Emperor at Constitinople basically gave the Patrairch of Rome a hell of a lot more power, to try and save some of his territories in the West.

The Partriarch of Rome, became the Pope, to whom the Western Kings of Europe would defer to (in essense he became a defacto Roman Emperor in a sense), while in the East, the Patriarch of Constantinople achieved a lot of primacy over the other Patriarchs; Rome (before schism), Antioch, Jerusalm, but he wasn't superior to the Emperor. So even after the Schism in the Church, the Emperor had more power than the Church and the Church never really had a chance to achieve primacy, like the Catholic Church in the West.*

Then the Ottomans captured Constantinople, Orthodoxy moved to Russia (well Ukraine first, if you catch my meaning), and eventually we have with what we have ended up with today.

As to the liberalism of the Orthodox Church, I'm sorry it's not true. There are a number of issues that it disagrees with the Catholic Church (celebacy for Priests, the Virgin Mary, other such dogma), but of all the Churches in the world, the Catholic and Orthodox are the most similar to each other.



*If anyone wants sources for the above (or has corrections) let me know 'cause I'm posting from memory here.

[Crayz9000]

In the case of Catholicism, the RCC has historically been been superior to the local monarchs, and has been politicking heavily because of that.

Sorry to snip just this small part from your excellent post Kuroneko, but you pretty much hit the nail over the head with that one. And it dates back to the fall of the West Roman Empire, when the last Emperor was deposed, the Emperor at Constitinople basically gave the Patrairch of Rome a hell of a lot more power, to try and save some of his territories in the West.

The Partriarch of Rome, became the Pope, to whom the Western Kings of Europe would defer to (in essense he became a defacto Roman Emperor in a sense), while in the East, the Patriarch of Constantinople achieved a lot of primacy over the other Patriarchs; Rome (before schism), Antioch, Jerusalm, but he wasn't superior to the Emperor. So even after the Schism in the Church, the Emperor had more power than the Church and the Church never really had a chance to achieve primacy, like the Catholic Church in the West.*

Then the Ottomans captured Constantinople, Orthodoxy moved to Russia (well Ukraine first, if you catch my meaning), and eventually we have with what we have ended up with today.

As to the liberalism of the Orthodox Church, I'm sorry it's not true. There are a number of issues that it disagrees with the Catholic Church (celebacy for Priests, the Virgin Mary, other such dogma), but of all the Churches in the world, the Catholic and Orthodox are the most similar to each other.

Well, Orthodoxy didn't exactly move to Russia with the capturing of Constantinople. Russia's been Orthodox for pretty much a thousand years already, dating back to when Prince Vladimir adopted it as the official religion. But while they did become more important with the fall of Constantinople, Moscow didn't become the new Rome or Constantinople (although they like to say that, it's just national pride). After all, the Patriarchate of Constantinople did survive after a fashion.

About liberalism... it all depends on where you are. Many Greek Orthodox in America are surprisingly liberal. But if you meet old-country Greeks, typically the older ones, then they're usually extremely conservative and highly superstitious (the latter is very annoying, the former can be dealt with).

The Russians are certainly more conservative at the moment in some respects. But there are some small fragments of the Russian church, and the situation is a bit muddled. In America, the "official" Russian church is the Orthodox Church of America, which is autonomous from the Patriarch of Russia. The OCA is usually fairly lax about cosmetic issues such as dress code. Then you have other Russian groups like the Russian Church outside of Russia, and I have to say, I'm really not sure what the heck their status is. They are more conservative, usually have older congregations, and are typically very strict on what you wear in church (women are required to cover their heads in church). They also like doing services in Slavonic rather than English.

At any rate, what I think makes the Orthodox seem more liberal is that the mainstream groups have a more laissez-faire attitude toward society. I know a number of Greek priests who feel that evolution is the best explanation and that the Bible doesn't necessarily contradict it. I also know ones who are very strict on their interpretation of the Bible. But the fact is, there's no hard ruling on which is more correct. If a dispute arises, they usually turn to the writings of historical figures in the Church and resolve it that way.

[Kuroneko]

Then the Ottomans captured Constantinople, Orthodoxy moved to Russia (well Ukraine first, if you catch my meaning), and eventually we have with what we have ended up with today.

As a nitpick, the land that was Ukraine was Russia, or rather a substantial chunk of it. Ukraine literally means "[land] near the border" (U-near, krai-edge/border), and was not a separate entity at the time; its capital, Kiev was even once the capital of Russia. As a side note that doesn't really relate to anything, in Edinburgh, which I visited once, there is a little plaque (the hill at the end of Princess St--I forgot the name of the place, but David Hume and Admiral Nelson are buried there, if that rings a bell to any Brits here) proclaiming "A Thousand Years of Christianity in Ukraine", which many Russians find particularly amusing.

Well, Orthodoxy didn't exactly move to Russia with the capturing of Constantinople. Russia's been Orthodox for pretty much a thousand years already, dating back to when Prince Vladimir adopted it as the official religion.

Your dates are off by about half a millenium. In 998, Vladimir considered at least three religions--judaism, from a southern state that doesn't exist anymore, orthodox christianity from Byzantium, and Islam from the Muslims around Volga river. The rejection of Islam was particuarly amusing, since Vladimir's main reason was that Islam did not allow the consuption of alcoholic drinks. This serves as a starting point for my pet theory that the history of Russia is best understood in terms of Vodka, from Vladimir to Rasputin and the end of the Romanovs to the Prohibition near the end of the USSR (ironically enough, initiated in 1984, if I recall correctly) that hastened economic collapse. (Nevermind that there was no Vodka in 998 and it is not originally Russian in the first place, and that this greatly oversimplifies matters; it's a fun way to look at Russian history, e.g., USSR fell because of a deficiency of Vodka [but capitalism is still responsible, since Gorbachev actually took Bush Sr's advice to enforce this silliness].)

At any rate, what I think makes the Orthodox seem more liberal is that the mainstream groups have a more laissez-faire attitude toward society. ... But the fact is, there's no hard ruling on which is more correct. If a dispute arises, they usually turn to the writings of historical figures in the Church and resolve it that way.

I'm not very knowledgable of orthodoxy in other countries, but the Russian orthodox church has a doctrine and tradition that is virtually immutable. Even when compared to the Catholics, it seems like neither the doctrine or church protocol (which Catholicism does occasionally modify--e.g., baptism) ever change. However, I fully agree with your first sentence, in that the ROC has never been a powerful secular influence, and centuries of being controlled by the secular government has further suppressed the impulse to meddle. I wonder in which direction it will turn this century, however.

[Darth Wong]

I’m wondering why there’s never any atheist or any other bashing of that church. I’ve never ever heard of that church having extremist hardliners, though they’ve probably had at least one inquisition or minor crusade in the past. Is it because the church, at least compared to the RCC, has some less-than-stringent policies? Is it because the church is so much in the east that few of us in the west bother to actually think about it? Is it because none of the patriarchs of the church claim to have infallibility or power over all others? Or is it because that church has been under the dominion of Turks, Tsars, and Communists since 1453, and has never exercised as much control and influence as Catholics and other churches?

I'm wondering because I doubt that the entire branch is so open-minded that it has gotten almost no criticisms at all.

Why is it necessary to specifically criticize every individual sect, when most atheist criticism of Christianity is directed at the base propositions of the entire belief system rather than the specific rules and conduct of any given individual church? The Catholics are only singled out for criticism because they keep making a point of getting their faces in the news.

[Draxle]

For the most part, I'd have to agree that the Orthodox get lumped in with Catholic, as that seems to be a 'catch-all' phrase, just as Protestant is. It'd get really tedious to get bogged down in the semantics of listing every sect and off-shoot, especially when new ones seem to spring up almost every day.

Also, and this may be more of an opinion on my part, it seems that because the Orthodox churches eschew the idea of a "supreme church head" such as the pope, they have a decidedly less visible face to be attributed to them publicly. Though, in an effort to pre-emptively defend myself against 'lurker hubris,' my knowledge of Orthodox institutions is somewhat limited (somehow, the RC private school I'm attending doesn't seem to want to cover that very much *evil grin*).

Even if you do consider the Orthodox version of the Pope (Patriarch of the Church, I believe), you cannot deny that the Pope is just a wee bit more, shall we say, visible, what with the See of Peter being a hundred feet tall, carved from gold, etc. etc.

[Castor Troy]

The Eastern Orthodox Church has also been keeping a low profile. I haven't heard too much from them, lately. That's probably one of the reasons.

[Crayz9000]

Also, and this may be more of an opinion on my part, it seems that because the Orthodox churches eschew the idea of a "supreme church head" such as the pope, they have a decidedly less visible face to be attributed to them publicly. Though, in an effort to pre-emptively defend myself against 'lurker hubris,' my knowledge of Orthodox institutions is somewhat limited (somehow, the RC private school I'm attending doesn't seem to want to cover that very much *evil grin*).

The Orthodox take the phrase "he who would be first shall be last" literally. Each Patriarch is an equal, and the same *should* hold for the Pope. But when they split, he was the only one and so the whole thing about equals kind of got thrown out the window, leading to all the "Vicar of Christ" and "Papal Infallibility" bullshit.

Oh, and by the way, when it comes to defining the doctrine of the church, the only authority is an ecumenical council, ie a meeting of all the bishops of the church. The Pope was never supposed to have the sole say as to what is and isn't doctrine, because he is fallible.

[Draxle]

The Orthodox take the phrase "he who would be first shall be last" literally. Each Patriarch is an equal, and the same *should* hold for the Pope. But when they split, he was the only one and so the whole thing about equals kind of got thrown out the window, leading to all the "Vicar of Christ" and "Papal Infallibility" bullshit.

Agreed... and of course, we all know what that led to. Hell, what that's STILL leading to.

I've found it fascinating that if you consider all the political positions ever devised, from feudal lords to kings to prime ministers, no institutional power ever became more distorted from its original "purpose" than the Roman Pontificate. Julius II, the "warrior pope" happens to be my favorite exampe, though certainly not the only one...

[Crayz9000]

Your dates are off by about half a millenium. In 998, Vladimir considered at least three religions-

1998-998 = 1000

You'll note that I said that Russia has been Orthodox for around a thousand years already. Not ~six hundred as Crown said.

I'm not very knowledgable of orthodoxy in other countries, but the Russian orthodox church has a doctrine and tradition that is virtually immutable. Even when compared to the Catholics, it seems like neither the doctrine or church protocol (which Catholicism does occasionally modify--e.g., baptism) ever change. However, I fully agree with your first sentence, in that the ROC has never been a powerful secular influence, and centuries of being controlled by the secular government has further suppressed the impulse to meddle. I wonder in which direction it will turn this century, however.

Yes,I know that doctrine is immutable (except by ecumenical council), and tradition is held very highly. The Bible is usually taken in the context of Church tradition, which is why I mentioned the Church Fathers -- they're pretty much the basis of said tradition. Then again, the Church Fathers weren't lawyers and what they wrote is often vague. (Translations didn't help.)

[Kuroneko]

1998-998 = 1000 You'll note that I said that Russia has been Orthodox for around a thousand years already. Not ~six hundred as Crown said.

Ah, that's what you meant. Crown compared Russian's christianization with the Ottoman capture of Constantinople, which was somewhat less than five hundred years since 998, so when you corrected him, I assumed that was still what you were talking about. A misunderstanding, mea culpa.

[wolveraptor]

No one criticizes them because they've been around since Byzantium, and Romans are by default uber-cool.

[Crown]

1998-998 = 1000 You'll note that I said that Russia has been Orthodox for around a thousand years already. Not ~six hundred as Crown said.

Ah, that's what you meant. Crown compared Russian's christianization with the Ottoman capture of Constantinople, which was somewhat less than five hundred years since 998, so when you corrected him, I assumed that was still what you were talking about. A misunderstanding, mea culpa.

Also sorry for not being clear, what I meant by 'Orthodoxy moving to Russia', was that the Russian Patriarch (and the Tzars) saw themselves as the next evolution/or carying on of the tradition of Byzantanium - their heirs - after Constantinople fell.

[Kuroneko]

Also sorry for not being clear, what I meant by 'Orthodoxy moving to Russia', was that the Russian Patriarch (and the Tzars) saw themselves as the next evolution/or carying on of the tradition of Byzantanium - their heirs - after Constantinople fell.

Well, yes, although portions of the last Byzantian dynasty were actually the ascendants many Russian czars due to intermarriage, up to and including the Romanovs, so the claim of continuation is not entirely religious. Nevertheless, having a common religion was probable the primary reason.