The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How close is the EOC to the historical Church?

How important is tradition to be faithful to Jesus?

It’s all about faithfulness to Jesus–to the living Jesus.

In a word, they are identical.

What we know about the liturgy of the early Church (up to, say, A. D. 165) is in conformity with the liturgy you find in an Eastern Orthodox Church today. The basic liturgical structure is the same.

The earliest Christians worshipping in the catacombs had icons, even as today’s Orthodox Church has icons.

The early Christians worshipped the Trinity, believed that God the Son is incarnate, and experienced deification through participation in the uncreated Energies of the Trinity–all like the Orthodox Church today.

The earliest Christians baptized babies, celebrated the Eucharist every Sunday, and gave Holy Communion even to little infants–all just like the Orthodox Church today.

The earliest Christians recognized that each of their liturgies was a participation in the Heavenly Liturgy with the saints in Heaven, even as recognized today.

Etc.

Nothing of substance has been changed. Only terminology has been developed. Why? Because heretics periodically come and attack the Church. In defending and rightly defining the Faith of Peter, the Church has unavoidably made use of terms that were never uttered by the Apostles. The word “Trinity” is one such example. This is necessary because the heretics pervert the very writings of the Apostles. Thus, quoting Scriptures to the heretics is ineffective because they understand the Apostles’ words wrongly. To distinguish heresy from Orthodoxy, the Church has to use non-Biblical terminology.

As I see it, the EOC is similar to the early church in much of its theology.

As for liturgy, I don’t find any in the second-century church.

In the second century disciples of Christ gathered in the name of Jesus alone, and there was a body ministry. That is, even disciple who gathered with them ministered to the others in terms of singing, prophesying, giving a short discourse, etc. There were overseers and deacons, but these did not take upon themselves the lion’s share of the ministry. The function of the overseers was precisely what the name implies, and the deacons were servants, or more accurately servers, of the church.

An afternoon reading the seven epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch would be time well spent. He was:

  1. the second bishop of Antioch
  2. martyred in Rome circa A. D. 110
  3. a disciple of St. John the Apostle

:open_mouth:

Seriously, if this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about, who does?

We have seven of his epistles that he wrote at the end of his life on his way to Rome to be martyred:

Epistle to the Ephesians
Epistle to the Magnesians
Epistle to the Trallians
Epistle to the Romans
Epistle to the Philadelphians
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans
Epistle to Polycarp (bishop of Smyrna and also a disciple of St. John the Apostle)

Each of these epistles is short, and the collection can be read in an afternoon. They were one of the things that first got my attention regarding Orthodoxy. I read them and thought, “This doesn’t feel like Protestantism. Nor does it feel like Roman Catholicism, though that’s a bit closer.” Shortly thereafter I became acquainted with Orthodoxy and thought, “Aha! These feel Orthodox.”

A good volume (which includes the above seven epistles) to study is this book:
amazon.com/Apostolic-Fathers … ic+fathers

It is basically a collection of all the Christian writings we have (outside of the New Testament) that were written in the 1st century or in the first half of the 2nd century. These are THE primary sources for a study of second-generation Christianity (i. e., the generation of Christians after the Apostles). It also has the original Greek texts on facing pages, so one can easily check the translations.

I should also mention that the Shepherd of Hermas (included), which was written sometime between A. D. 85 and 150, is one of the most intriguing Christian writings I’ve ever read from any century.

I think what Paidion was saying was that the (surviving) writings from the early first couple of centuries don’t give us liturgy; the liturgy on the other hand is sometimes drawn from them.

On the other hand, Ignatius comes from the 2nd century and certainly has a high regard for overseers/shepherds/bishops/episkipoi.

Dani, Geoffrey and Father Kimel are both correct that the Eastern Orthodox practices and beliefs go back a long way, with roots in the 2nd and even 1st centuries (since they do respect and transmit the “faithful deposit”).

Another somewhat different primitive option would be Messianic Jewish Christianity, which works hard to pattern on synagogue worship forms. (The EOx and RCs do, too, in their own way(s) – which explains a lot of what we Protestants tend to complain about as “accretions” – but the various “Catholic” forms look a little too different now, so they’re hard to recognize. Part of that is due to reaching out more to Gentiles where they were at.)

I’m not sure if I was misunderstood, so let me explain. :slight_smile: My post about Ignatius and his contemporaries was not meant as a response to Paidion’s post about liturgy. Rather, my post was directed to Dani’s OP.

As regards to liturgy, probably the earliest texts we have are from St. Justin Martyr (slain in 165), the Didache (written between 60 and 125), and St. John’s Apocalypse (1st century). The glimpses (and only glimpses, alas) of the early Church’s worship are consonant with the liturgies of Orthodoxy.

Another consideration is the liturgical form of worship of the pre-Christian Jews. It would be odd to assume that the early Church, with its Jewish Apostles and Jewish core of members, abandoned a liturgical form of worship, only to resume liturgy a century or two later.

One more thought: A old Southern Baptist minister friend of mine once told me that the Southern Baptists have a liturgy (though I don’t believe he used that word) no different in principle from that of Roman Catholics. He basically said something like this: “Just look at how we conduct our Sunday worship: We start with a hymn, then we have a prayer, then we have several hymns led by the music leader, then another prayer, then a Scripture reading, then a sermon, then an altar call, and finally a hymn. Just watch what would happen if I were to alter that! I’d get admonished from many members for changing things up. I one time tried moving a hymn, and you can believe that plenty of people told me about their problems with that!”

The point is that it is difficult to NOT have a liturgy. I would submit that my old Southern Baptist church (just described) in fact had a set liturgy that we followed each and every Sunday. It was NOT free-form worship. Things were done in a certain way, in a certain order, and not otherwise.

I think it practically unavoidable that the Apostles also conducted worship in a certain way, in a certain order, and not otherwise. We Orthodox believe that our liturgies today follow the basics of how the Apostles worshipped. We believe our services are Apostolic in the sense of A) being based on the practices of the Apostles and B) being part of the Apostles’ own Heavenly worship in Heaven. :slight_smile:

And I didn’t mean liturgical forms developed later, just that we don’t have examples of them (except in arguable snippets) surviving in the first couple of centuries. If it comes to snippets after all, there are some in the New Testament canon scattered around – maybe, we think. (Quite a few kergymatic hymns referenced in Paul’s letters, according to some prevalent source theories, for example. Which I happen to agree with.)

But yes, liturgical forms of some kind date back super-far, and the older Catholic groups have more call than anyone (even the Messianic Jewish movement, which uses more restricted versions) to be preserving the oldest forms even along with developments over time. And we agree the forms tend to go back to synagogal worship.

There are of course equally ancient Christian groups, though much smaller, whom Dani might be in more contact with, like the Church of the East – their services will have some differences but again pretty similar in the core. (This is aside from the legitimate question of proper legitimate hierarchical sanction for worship practices and content.)

  1. The 1st and 2nd century Christians baptized babys? What source do we have for that?
    And that little children took part at the Lord’s Supper?
  2. Did there not happen a change under Emperor Constantine?
  3. Did the 1st and 2nd century Christian honor Mother Mary and the Saints as the EOC does today?
  4. The icons made today are they like the ones we find from the earliest centuries?
  5. Is it important that we have a certain way in how we worship God?
    Love
    Dani

1a.) Not sure when baptism of babies started; I’ll have to defer to other students on that.

1b.) I’ve never heard of any children simply taking Mass / Lord’s Supper per se, though, no matter how old the Christian group is. Not without a clear profession and confirmation of faith – my seven-year-old niece was baptized a few Sundays ago and so can take the Lord’s Supper now, for example, but she had made a profession of faith at 5 and we held off to make sure she knew what she was doing. The old Catholic groups (up to and including the Anglicans), so far as I’ve ever understood, are far more regimented than that about when and under what conditions children are confirmed and so officially permitted to partake in the Mass. Maybe this is a local thing where you are?

2.) Constantine didn’t change much. Constantine per se didn’t make many changes at all, though he acted as executor for the college of bishops. He introduced some trivial things like changing and regulating the holidays, notably Christmas. (The evidence from the time is that Christians before then celebrated it in the autumn around the time of the Feast of Tabernacles, but we don’t have a lot of evidence when exactly Christians celebrated it.) He found ways to integrate the church hierarchy into the officially civil cultic life, which tended to involve helping ease people into accepting the newly legalized religion by assigning parallel titles they were already familiar with (like “pontifex maximus”, greatest bridge builder).

Becoming a legally protected religion with preferential treatment at Imperial levels tended to change the tone of Christianity, but again for most of the 4th century the Arians were in the driver’s seat. I’m not blaming them for what happened either, but they show that the 4th century mostly wasn’t when a particular kind of Christianity latched permanently into an Imperial form. (Otherwise the Arians would have never been able to overtake orthodoxy at the Imperial level, and orthodoxy would never have been able to re-overtake Arianism and neo-Arianism at the Imperial level.)

3.) I do think Marian honors picked up substantially in the 2nd century – not sure about the 1st in the extra-canonical docs. Obviously there isn’t much of that sort of thing in the canonical texts, but there are hints of it in RevJohn and in the technical language used by the angel at the Annunciation in GosLuke. The term “God-bearer” goes back a long way, too. Praying religiously to Mary and the Saints seems to start rather later; there’s nothing about that in the canon, and I don’t think anything about that for a few centuries afterward. A lot of it comes from the expectation that the servants chosen by God continue helping even more after death, which is a respectably cooperative belief (even if I don’t agree at all with the religious venerations that were developed along the way.)

4.) Icon-making has progressed as an art form. I’m sort of doubtful they existed in more primitive forms – I know Christian art existed, but I haven’t seen evidence they were treated as icons are religiously treated. But I wouldn’t be upset to learn otherwise. :slight_smile:

5.) On one hand, so long as we’re worshiping in spirit and in truth, I’m not sure God cares overmuch about the details. On the other hand, God seems to care a lot about some details in the scriptures, even if not to the degree of detail found in advanced liturgicals. And if worshiping in spirit and in truth is important (which it is), then details which help a person do that would be proportionately important, even though not strictly necessary. Liturgy helps get across fine points of doctrinal truth (or what is believed to be doctrinal truth anyway) to people who don’t have the time, opportunity, and/or talent to work on the theological math for themselves. That’s true about icon usage, too. I may protest about iconic veneration, but I appreciate the basic concept. :slight_smile:

Paedocommunion (i. e., the giving of communion even to infants) has always and everywhere been practiced by the Orthodox Church. This Wikipedia article is pretty good: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedocommunion

Sorry that I don’t have time for more right now. Bedtime!

Oh. Huh. Literally the first time I’ve ever heard of it. Doubtless this comes of being too hyper-Protestant (i.e. Baptist :laughing: ), since a lot of post-Catholic congregations not only allow but encourage it (though the RCs themselves are currently spotty on it and strongly rejected it in the past). Cyprian in the 3rd century seems the earliest surviving testimony to it, but he wasn’t innovating it so the practice must precede him substantially at the very least.

Thanks for the link, Geoffrey!

Thank you Jason for your detailed answer.
I do know that children are baptised and take the Lord’s Supper even in evangelical churches like your niece.
I actually wanted to know when it started with the unconscious baby baptism.
Do we find any hints in the Scripture for it?

Is this passage for instance not a little bit to farfetched?

What is the response of the EOC to that kind of verses?
Dosen’t that sound like Jesus oposing Marian honors?

A very great help for me was an EO explenation of hell:
God is the source of a fire for the faithfull it is a blessing for the unfaithfull it causes pain (in my words).
Even if the EOC is very close to universal reconciliation why did the EOC oppose it by agreeing with the Council of Constantinople II?
**
How do I know if I worship God in Spirit and Truth?**

I do not want to criticise. I just want to understand :slight_smile: .
Thank you all for your help.
Shalom and Love
Dani

It is questionable whether ANY of the letters ascribed to Ignatius are genuine. There are 15 Ignatian letters althogether, and 8 of them are known to be spurious. Even the 7 which MAY be genuine are heavily interpolated, for particular parts, especially those in connection with the “bishop” of each church. Such statements, found in the letters, are not characteristic of the age in which Ignatius lived. There are also two different recensions of these 7 letters, a longer one and a shorter one. It is certain that not BOTH can be the genuine writings of Ignatius. In my opinion, all 15 are forgeries, though I cannot prove it.

Those who wish to know more about the letters of Ignatius may want to look at the sites below:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xv.vii.html

historical-jesus.info/ignatius.html

Hello Paidion,
what do ou know about the Didache?
It is a very interesting writting.
Is there historical evidence that it is written during the first 2 centuries?
Thank you very much.
Love
Dani

A very early book. Probably the late first century or the early second. The word “didache” means “teaching” or “instruction”.

It’s a fascinating book. The injunctions seem to be in accord with the teachings of Christ and the apostles.
I think it is the first early Christian writing I ever read. It seems to give very precise instructions in Christian living.

I have been fascinated with the prayer of thanksgiving for the eucharistic bread:

" Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom."

This is a prayer for the coming together of the Body of Christ into the unity for which Christ prayed.

I am also deeply impressed with the test for an apostle or prophet who may visit your home:

Every thing about the Orthodox Church that is not explicitly in the Scriptures has an ancient pedigree.

For example, no Biblical verse unmistakably says, “Baptize babies.” Neither does a Biblical verse say, “Don’t baptize babies.” Thus we have to use our noggin. Of course, plausible arguments can be made either way. I like to look to history to cut the Gordian knot, since exegetical arguments are endless. We have pre-Constantinian writers mentioning the baptism of babies, and none of them that I’m aware of say, “Don’t baptize babies!” or “We recently started baptizing babies.” On the contrary, it is presented as something correct and of long use. If infant baptism was an innovation, where was the controversy? Where was the debate over its merits?

The same goes for icons, infant communion, and all the rest. Whenever a controversy did arise over something, it was usually someone in a position of authority saying, “I think the Church should STOP doing X.” For example, Arius saying that the Church should stop regarding Jesus as God, or Nestorius saying that the Church should stop describing Mary as the Theotokos, or the Emperor (I forget his name) saying that the Church should stop venerating icons, or Barlaam saying that the Church should stop believing in God’s uncreated Energies, etc. In other words, the heretics are always innovators. They want to change what has always been done.

The question of the veneration of Mary and all the saints is an interesting one. It is vital to remember that the early Church kept most of its liturgy secret from non-members. Even to this day there is a part of the Sunday liturgy that proclaims, “All catechumens, depart. Depart catechumens. All that are catechumens depart. Let no catechumen remain. Let us, the faithful, again and again in peace pray unto the Lord.” This happens rather near the beginning of the liturgy, after only A) some prayers and psalms, B) the Scripture readings, and C) a homily. In other words, the “open to all” part of the liturgy contains only stuff that could have been read by anybody without even attending a liturgy. The rest of the liturgy was for baptized members only. (This, BTW, helps explain the paucity of surviving liturgical materials from the early Church. That stuff was secret! It was for members only.)

Whenever I go to liturgy, I am surrounded by icons of Christ, Mary, and the saints. An icon is not a picture of someone who is absent. It is a divine sign of that person’s presence. We believe that when we perform the liturgy, we are joining the Liturgy in Heaven. We are literally worshipping alongside the Virgin Mary, and the Apostle Peter, and the Apostle Paul, and all the saints and all the angels and all those in Heaven. We are in their presence no less surely and literally than we are in the presence of those physically standing next to us in the church–such as my neighbor Frank, the old Slavic guy (Robert), the guy who teaches ballet (Misha), the new member (Ian), the priest’s wife (Natalia), etc. When I see Frank, Robert, Misha, and all the rest, do I ignore them? No! I bow to them. They bow to me. We bow to the priest. The priest bows to us. Every single person acknowledges every other single person. Why? Because each of us is the Image of God. How could we ignore God’s Image?

For the same reason that we all bow to each other, we bow to the icons. The Apostle Peter is really there, worshipping along with us. It would be the height of insanity to ignore the Apostle in our midst! And if he weren’t there, then I just would not be interested. I’ll either go to Church with all the Apostles and all the rest of the heroes of the Bible, or I won’t go at all.

We talk to Mary and to all the angels and saints during our liturgy. How could we not? They are present with us! After all, the Psalmist even talks to inanimate nature. If the Psalmist can talk to and make requests of hills, waters, etc., then how much more so is it good to talk to and make requests of Mary, Peter, Paul, John, etc.

Further, we praise those in Heaven because they have been thoroughly deified. They utterly participate in the Divine Nature (as Peter wrote). They are utterly sinless. They are now perfect Images of Christ. Or, as St. Irenaeus wrote: “God became man so that man might become God.” Everything God is by nature, they are by grace. One day it will be so with us.

The experience of the saints in the Church is unavoidable. The only alternative would be to pretend that Mary, Paul, John, etc. are not there:

“Look! There’s Mary!”

“Shhhhhhh! Pretend she isn’t here.”

“Huh?”

We aren’t in Church to pretend, but to rejoice, and to rejoice in God with all creation. :smiley:

You’re very welcome. :slight_smile:

I have never understood those church bodies that A) practice infant baptism but B) do not practice infant communion. The only logically consistent practices are to do both or to do neither. Consider:

Inconsistent Christian: “Yes, of course we baptize babies. They are just as much members of the church as the adults. Who cares if they do not intellectually grasp the significance of their baptism? After all baptism is a great mystery, and even we adults grasp so very little of it. Besides, baptism isn’t an intellectual thing, but rather a spiritual one.”

Inquirer: “Oh, so you must give the babies communion, too.”

Inconsistent Christian: “Heavens, no! What would be the point of giving communion to babies? They wouldn’t intellectually grasp the significance of taking communion. They simply aren’t smart enough, unlike we smart adults.”

(Yes, I’ve had conversations with Roman Catholics that basically went just like that.)

Actually, if I were to put an age limit on receiving Communion, I’d put it the other way. I’d prohibit people over a certain age from taking Communion because they are too sinful, unlike little babies.

Further, if babies are excommunicated (in the literal sense of the term), then what about those who are severely retarded? Are they to be given life-long excommunications? “Sorry, but you’re just too stupid to take communion.” I shudder at the very thought. For that matter, what of someone who has received severe brain damage later in life? Is he to be excommunicated because he’s now not smart enough to take communion?

Infant communion was one of the things that initially attracted me to Orthodoxy. It makes sense historically, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually. I can’t bear the thought of excommunicated little babies.

Dear Geoffrey,
but let us assume that the dead are dead. I mean that “soul sleep” is true and that all the saints are not present in a litural way.
Maybe just in our mind and heart for we remember them but if I pray to them and they are dead they cannot hear me.
I do not mean to ignore them but I think it is very hipothetical that they are actually “spiritually” present.

Can I be an Orthodox believer and not honor the saints in the way of praying to/with them?
Is it all right just to pray to God the Father and His Son Jesus?
Can I be an Orthodox believer and having a strong inclination toward Universal Salvation?
Can I be an Orthodox believer without affirming the doctrin of the Trinity?
Can I be an Orthodox believer and rejecting the icon adoration?

Love and Shalom
Dani

  1. No, to be Orthodox you must participate in the liturgy. Every single liturgy includes prayers to/with the saints.

  2. No. We worship all three Persons of the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

  3. Yes. St. Gregory of Nyssa, who was the president of the Second Ecumenical Council, and who was called “the Father of the Fathers” by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, believed in universal salvation. There are many examples of Orthodox believers who believe in universal salvation.

  4. No. The Trinity is central and essential to Orthodox theology.

  5. No. Iconoclasm (i. e., rejecting the veneration of icons) is recognized as a heresy in Orthodoxy.