The Eastern Orthodox Church routinely uses extra-biblical sources (such as the Apocrypha) to justify doctrines 1) found nowhere in the Bible and 2) which contradict the teachings & doctrines of the Bible.

The Eastern Orthodox Church believes in communication with the Dead, and in their [supposed] ability to intercede for us or on our behalf to God the Father. 

The Eastern Orthodox Church believes that its members can pray to Mary and that she can intervene or talk to Jesus Christ on our Behalf. Most Eastern Orthodox pray to Mary routinely as a Mediator between themselves and either God or Jesus Christ. 

Eternal Salvation Actually Re-Defined

The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects Eternal Security and believes that Christians can loose their salvation. More specifically, they believe that salvation is never assured since they are always having to partake of the physical body of Jesus in order to consider themselves to have "Union in Christ".

SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE OF PRIESTLY CASTE (Priestly Class) ALWAYS IMPLIED BUT NEVER AUTHENTICATED

The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the doctrine of the Priesthood of Believers, and believes that the Priests in its hierarchy stand spiritually on a level which is superior to laymen, giving priests the ability to understand the Bible in ways that Orthodox Church goers cannot understand as a result of their own study of the Bible. 

Many Eastern Orthodox find this doctrine very appealing, one of the principle reasons being that they rest their own Eternal destiny in the Faith and Security which they place in their Priest. However, the Bible  - a source rather older than the priests  - accurately states that each one of us, on a personal and individual basis will be held personally accountable by Almighty God not for either our effort OR our good works, but rather for our own choice of our personal belief about Jesus Christ, and the validity of his Death and Resurrection and the resting of our personal Faith SOLELY in Him and Him Alone. The Orthodox, like the rest of us, will find Confirmation of this about Three Seconds after their own Demise towards their already-decided  Fate-for-Eternity. 

[Some Eastern Orthodox simply do not get this point: they quote back to us either passages from books or personal experiences where they were "tonsured a priest", and somehow think that this addresses our concern. That particular response fails to grasp the point. Notice - for the record - how that specific response to our concern is rooted in the "Externality" the exterior human features - of the particular individual. 

When we assert that the Eastern Orthodox LAYMEN are not treated as though they are part of the Priesthood of the Believer, we are referring to a position of Ecclesiastical authority, and all that comes with that position. This would mean that the LAYMAN - in order for this to be the case - would have JUST AS MUCH right to get up and conduct the Sunday morning service, and liturgies, and prayer, and everything else that the Formal priest does, in his Formal capacity.  But full equality with the priest means Equality of Credibility.  To be Equal to the Priest means to be able to act as an active substitute for him. This would mean that not only that the other Orthodox present would treat that particular laymen as THE priest, but that they would show and demonstrate the same predisposition to credibility which is given to the Priest who regularly officiates. 

The Doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer does not refer to the FORM of the Priesthood, but rather to his function within the local church congregation/parish. IF the other laymen were to treat each other the same as if ALL or EACH of them were a Formal Priest, then and only then, would they have the same Actual credibility.  This next point is obvious to many, but in order for this to be able to happen, the one requirement is that the LAYMEN would have to possess at least the SAME level of knowledge as the Priest. 

The Doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer supposes that the one who is the Pastor is simply chosen from the Congregation, but he remains accountable to the congregation as a result of his position. This means that the congregation can question him, question the basis for his statements, ask him to demonstrate what he is actually saying is from a Biblical point of view: it is the process of holding a priest accountable, but actually more: It is the process of holding the Priest/Pastor/Bishop accountable, AS IF you were His Equal, because you are.  THAT is what the Priesthood of Believers mean.  

The fact that some people are "Tonsured as a Priest" where they go through a little ceremony has nothing to do with the fulfilling of the function of what that actually entails, which means asking the Priest to demonstrate the source and basis for his teachings, on all occasions where a member of the audience believes it is appropriate to do so.  This is one of the larger differences between Protestant Churches and Eastern Orthodox: The Protestant Church have institutionalized personal accountability from the Bishop/Pastor to his congregation, directly and locally. 

In the structure of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Priest is accountable to his Hierarch, his superior, but rarely to the congregation. And when pressed for answers, many Eastern Orthodox Priests demonstrate that they find the process of being held accountable, or even being asked to account or to explain, something which vexes them and their sense that they are entitled to their own presumption of being above account, above reproach and above difficult questions. It is the difference between a local congregation that actually believes and practices true Equality and a Caste of Priests who have no intention of treating congregants as their "Ecclesiastical Equals". ]

What the Orthodox believe about the Early Christians - The Academic

The Eastern Orthodox accept the fiction that Peter was the first Pope. They cannot either find this in Bible, and this in addition to the fact that the Bible plainly states that it is PAUL who was the Apostles to the Gentiles and that Peter was an Apostle to the Jews.  

When readers of the Bible point out that there were Hundreds of churches established by the Apostles, the claims of the Eastern Orthodox are principally to the "Official" centers of Christianity, which they claim as their own. 

The Problem is that most orthodox know just about nothing about the history of the   geographical  locations that they are claiming to have derived ancestry from. 

Most Orthodox claim descent from the Church in Jerusalem, but they do not know the history of the city of Jerusalem, let alone the history of the Church of Jerusalem. There is no line of continuity, and they cannot demonstrate that 1) there was an Un-Broken continuous line, or 2) what the teachings were, of that supposed continuous line. 

The same is true for Antioch, about which Most Eastern Orthodox know even less. Questions occur to the Truth-seeking and to the objective mind, such as: Do you know the history of Antioch, or the history of its Patriarchate ? Do you know how old the records which could be proven are ? Do you have any explanation for what happened prior to those records ? Do you know about Antioch in the Middle Ages ? Do you know when those in Antioch started speaking one language or stopped speaking another ? When did the Christians in Antioch speak Greek or Coptic ? What language were the documents written in ? When did the change to the Arabic of Today take place ? Which Arabic dialect was the primary one ? What do Arabic Christians today who are Eastern Orthodox use for their Bibles ? What is the origin of THAT Bible ? or what is the origin of THAT Liturgy ? All of these kinds of questions need to be asked and answered for every Patriarchate. After all, the claim is that they go "back to the time of Christ"... 

Constantinople did not even exist for the first Three-Hundred years of Christianity, and most Eastern Orthodox also know almost nothing about the Bishopric of Thrace, which was destroyed in order to make room for the New Old Patriarchate of Constantinople. 

What the Orthodox believe about the Early Christians - The Practical

The main point about the Early Christians is what the Eastern Orthodox do not know about them. To hear most Eastern Orthodox in the U.S., most of them are under the impression that 

a) Jesus appointed Apostles

b) the Apostles established Church (but not in the West) 

[The Eastern Orthodox Church does not deal with the Western Churches established by the Apostles of Jesus in the West, outside of Rome]

c) The Apostles establish Church Buildings, and THAT is what is meant by the term "Church"

d) The Apostles established a formal church hierarchy, not internal to the church, but EXTERNAL to the local church, establishing a Hierarchy among the various Churches

e) The Apostles established the Church Building and the Censors, the Altar, the Pictures of the saints, and the Liturgy. 

Unfortunately, most of those events did not occur. The Apostles established local congregations, but NOT Church buildings. Church Buildings did NOT exist for the first 350 years of Christianity. The Christians met in homes when they could and often in Forest clearings. They could preach in the open until Christianity was outlawed. But persecution of Christians was very active and intense thanks to the Roman Emperors starting by the decade of the 60s A.D. and continuing almost unbroken until the year that Constantine suspended the practice in 312 A.D. with his Edict of Toleration. 

The Apostles did not establish a Church Hierarchy of local Congregations where one Church had jurisdiction over others. This did not take place until this practice was instituted by Constantine when he appointed Eusebius to set up his Imperial Roman Church of the East and the West. 

What is sad about all of this is that most Eastern Orthodox do not know about the Early Persecutions of Christians. They know that some were persecuted occasionally. But most do not know that there were TEN Persecutions of Christians (by the Roman Empire) from the time of Christ until the year 312, and that those Persecutions were by Roman Imperial Edict and lasted Decades and Decades. 

Most Christians in Europe know these facts, not as a consequence of studying Eastern Orthodoxy, but as a result of studying the Roman Empire in depth. 

The idea therefore of a Corporation Church, establishing itself in a Fixed geographical location, with buildings, assets, censers (incense), altars, and statues or paintings is simply absurd. And scholars who study the origins of Christianity never make the claims to the contrary, the one exception being the Vatican. The Christians were constantly under threat, constantly on the run, and constantly in fear for their lives.  

The catacombs provided occasional rest for some. But most of the catacombs are first of all small, and cannot accommodate very many [which means that even the catacombs that could accomodate thousands were still small when compared to the populations that live above-ground]. The Catacombs were very simple. Their occasional decorations are depictions of Bible stories, but never with saints that they prayed to. Most Christians did not live in the Catacombs nor find them, but were kept on the run. In addition, by 90 A.D, the Jews outlawed the use of all Synagogues to Christians, so this only increased the pressure on Christians. Those who became Christians instantly lost all rights as Roman Citizens. 

As we will see, the Early Church Fathers DID speak out about both Idols, Statues AND Images and Pictures, and the statues and pictures were all condemned by the Early Church Fathers, until Seven Hundred Years AFTER Christ. The earliest Picture of Christ dates to the Fourth Century (and it hardly does justice to him).

The Patriarchate of Constantinople

The Patriarchate of Constantinople claims "ancient roots", but those ancient roots DIE about the year 400 since the city did not exist prior to its founding by Constantine. Therefore, there is no link between itself and the Christian Church which existed prior to the year 400. 

But even dealing with this issue, most Eastern Orthodox know nothing about the condition of Christians prior to the Conquest of Constantinople by the Moslems, and they also do not know about how the Eastern Orthodox (the Byzantines) were the administrators of the empire of the Moslems, nor what implications this had or how this altered and changed Eastern Orthodox Practice or theology. 

Most Eastern Orthodox have not studied the Ottoman (Islamic) Empire, and the place of the Eastern Orthodox and its co-opted Patriarchate for hundreds and hundreds of years. Not having learned about the Massacre of the Armenian Church in 1895/96 and 1915 also explains why Eastern Orthodox laymen in the U.S. are generally clueless. 

What the Eastern Orthodox Church believes about Protestants

The Eastern Orthodox Church fosters the impression that the Orthodox Church of American is independent or "autocephalous" (their term - not ours), without disclosing the fact that the Orthodox Church of America is little more than a rubber-stamp of the Greek Orthodox Church ruled as an Autarchy from Mt. Athos and from the Patriarchate in Constantinople.

A High View of Liturgy - Minus the Scholarship 

The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that its rituals are handed down from eons past, in holy reverence with great care taken to preserve the original and authentic liturgy of the past. The historical record constantly contradicts this, and continues to demonstrate that most of the Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church dates to not earlier than the 1600, even after the time of the Protestant Reformation. We say this because a lot of the liturgy comes from Theophane. He established many New forms of Liturgy, claiming older descent but never actually establishing it. 

Let us dispense with both the Menaion and the Philocalia (since these are either after the year 1100 or fake). Now what other examples are there of Liturgies that can be Proven to descend from those whose names are on them ? Even the Orthodox Church admits its own confusion about who wrote them or when they were in existence... How then can they be demonstrated to be authentic ? 

The Roman Catholic Church took steps to preserve the history of its formulations of doctrine. Protestants use that same RCC historic record (in addition to their own independent sources) to demonstrate that the Roman Catholic Church made most of its doctrines up...as it went along, and most of it contradicting its earlier doctrines and teachings. The Protestants took care to preserve their heritage also, long before the 1600s. Much of the Protestant records goes back to the time BEFORE Wycliff and Tyndale, and is in several European languages, which serve to independently verify the elements of the histories. IN addition, the Church in England has one of the most documented histories in the world. The Eastern Orthodox Church however, either did not care or could not preserve its historic lineage. 

What it has preserved testifies to a multitude of Schisms, Great Debates and Constant fights (and NOT the Idealistic picture of everyone in agreement which is presented to Americans) WITHIN the Patriarchates. When it comes to sources, and Commentaries, or works, the Eastern Orthodox Church can be thankful to have Bible Manuscripts, - copies of the New Testament in Ancient Greek -  thousands of them. That is their real heritage. 

Other than this, the Eastern Orthodox Heritage on a documentary basis, is very weak. But its own documentary record works against the teaching it upholds today, most of these having been invented due to accommodation to Islamic teachings when its patriarchates became absorbed in the Ottoman Empire.  But the small point should not be missed, that if those church had spread the gospel and the words of the Bible PRIOR to that, the Ottoman Empire would not have occured.

The Eastern Orthodox Church fosters the concept that it is the Church of the Seven Councils, suggesting that it agrees with the first 6 historical worldwide Ecumenical Church councils which took place in Early Church History. Yet the historical facts are clear: The Teachings of the 7th council - to which the Eastern Orthodox Church subscribes - are clear and direct contradictions to the teachings of the 6 Church Councils which preceded the 7th.

The ones most deeply impacted by this are the Eastern Orthodox who are American. Most Americans have not given history much thought, and fewer have studied it. While that is surprising to others around the world, the U.S. is barely 400 years old and most younger Americans only think of it as being around 200 yrs old (since in their minds, the U.S. starts in 1776).  The ideas of what is Ancient history, how to study it, how to learn about ancient documents, how to authenticate them forensically, are not thoughts that the Eastern Orthodox church likes to encourage.

 Those American orthodox who have studied history, have mostly studied material written recently and only in English. The percentage of Eastern Orthodox laymen who know foreign languages fluently enough to read in those languages is very very small.  Most Europeans have years of practice in many foreign languages. Americans have no such practice.  

The Supposition by many Eastern Orthodox is that most of the Church documents have been translated into English. That is first of all NOT the case, and second most laymen and most priests do not have access to those documents. In other words, priests follow what they are TOLD is correct, not what they Know is correct, not what they have read for themselves is correct, and not what they have verified or established as authentic. As priests, they simply agree to follow the "Party Line", and reinforce whatever the Eastern Orthodox Hierarchs tell them is Historical.  That is an immense amount of SUBJECTIVITY for a person to hang their own eternal destiny on. After all, eternity is for a very long time. It is only the decisions made BEFORE physical death that count.  

The Question then becomes one of credibility. It is for that reason that we usually ask those who are Eastern Orthodox just what they know about their own church, - not referring to the official history - but what do they actually know about the DETAILS of that history.  

For example, What did the Eastern Orthodox Church teach in the year 1400 ? Who was the Patriarch ? What did he personally believe ? What documents or works were produced at that time ? What was the jurisdiction of the Patriarchates ? How did the Patriarchate of the Coptic Church work alongside the Patriarchate of Greece, or the Patriarch in Constantinople ? And where are the documents and sources that provide verification of the answers ? 

If the Eastern Orthodox Church cares about History, the historical Record, and the lines of succession that they claim to, then answering these issues should not be difficult. But simply TRY and get the answers from your local priests. 99% of them do not know, because it is not important. They TELL you that they are historical. They ALLEGE historical continuity, but being able to demonstrate it is something entirely different. 

What many orthodox do not like to hear is the concept that what they are really seeking are not the authentic roots of the church, but rather simply the comfort of the "fast-food" moment, where they simply accept by blind faith, what they have been told. 

When laymen live this way, it produces instability within the local church or parish. But when Leaders also live in ignorance of History, it can produce problems with many implications. 

This means that many Orthodox priests in the U.S. cannot read the church documents of the earlier centuries. It also means that they cannot assure for themselves that the documents are accurately translated. The Translations of Philip Schaff (which are among the more popular and the one that CCEL documents are based on) - are known for their small but significant changes between the ancient Greek and the English text that have Immense Doctrinal implications. (Schaff was also tried for Heresy). But if most of the priests do not read Ancient Greek and if the laymen do not study it, then how would they know what the actual contents are ???

Myth of No Schism in eastern Orthodox Church - one more example

Police eject Bulgarian priests from churches
Independent, The (London), July 2005 by Michael Winfrey in Sofia


London Independent - Jul 23/05 - DISSIDENT BULGARIAN priests protested and complained of brutality yesterday after police forced them out of hundreds of churches to try to end a decade-long schism dividing the Balkan state's Orthodox Christians. 

Dozens of bearded, black-robed clerics and their supporters held a protest vigil in Sofia after the sweep, which was condemned by human rights activists as an attack on religious freedom. 

Prosecutors defended the operation, saying the priests had illegally occupied property owned by Bulgaria's Orthodox Church, but those ousted said they would pursue criminal charges against police. 

"At four o'clock this morning, police broke down the doors of Our Lady of the Assumption in Sofia. They beat up a priest, broke his nose and arrested him," Bishop Inokentii, the leader of the dissenters, said. "We have been shut out of 220 churches, monasteries, chapels and other places of worship." 

Police would not comment on the accusations of brutality. But officials said one priest and four civilians had been arrested in Sofia and at least 49 churches had been seized. 

The rebel priests split from the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in 1992 in opposition to its patriarch, Maxim, who they say was not elected. The Holy Synod, led by Maxim, had asked prosecutors to help them take back the churches in accordance with a law that gives them a right to the property.


htp://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20040723/ai_n12800951

Free PDF - INSTANT DOWNLOAD - Registration NOT Required

WREADY FOR DOWNLOAD : COMPLETE EDITION

CLICK HERE to be taken to Easy Download Page for This Free Ebook- IMAGE WORSHIP EARLY CHURCH FATHERS - PDF - COMPLETE  

PDF Ebook Instant Download - [16.8 MB]





WREADY FOR DOWNLOAD : PART A

RIGHT CLICK HERE to be taken to Easy Download Page - THIS FREE EBOOK - IMAGE WORSHIP EARLY CHURCH FATHERS - PART A

Part A - Alternate Download 

PDF Ebook Instant Download - [10.1 MB]





READY FOR DOWNLOAD : PART A (REDUCED SIZE - Under 10 MB)

PDF Ebook Instant Download - [9.7 MB]

CLICK HERE to be taken to Easy Download Page -  REDUCED SIZE - IMAGE WORSHIP EARLY CHURCH FATHERS - PART A(Red) 





WREADY FOR DOWNLOAD : PART B

CLICK HERE to be taken to Easy Download Page - THIS FREE EBOOK - IMAGE WORSHIP EARLY CHURCH FATHERS - PART B

PDF Ebook Instant Download - [8.6 MB]

Part B - Alternate Download

 

Questions ? write to us at xofcbooks2@yahoo.com