Somewhat offbeat religious traditions

[libertarianjim]

I come from an Eastern Christian tradition, and on my calendar yesterday was the feast of the Beheading of John the Baptist. According to tradition:

"In some Orthodox cultures pious people will not eat food from a flat plate, use a knife, or eat food that is round in shape on this day."

Anyone else know of anything similar (outside of Lent).

[file cabinet]

whoa dude.. that's fucked up. I wouldn't mind celebrating the beheading the CEO / presidents of numerous corporations..

[jimkopelli]

Regular Christianity has symbolic cannibalism, if you think about it...

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

I have read alot about Dostoevsky trashing Catholicism and Protestants, and this led me to be curious about Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Could someone explain to me the fundamental differences?

Thanks

[libertarianjim]

I'm not sure there's a short answer to that question. There are many cosmetic differences between Roman Catholocism and Eastern Orthodoxy: liturgical practices, iconography, the martyrological calendar, and fasting practices all sharply differ. Essentially, though, the differences between the two and the reasons the two Churches split boil down to two semi-related reasons: Papal supremacy and the filioque.

Originally, there were five major patriarch in the early (pre-1054) church: one each in Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople. Peter, of course, was the first Pope of Rome. What happened, basically, was that over time, Popes, seeing themselves as superior to the rest of the patriarchs as the descendants of Peter ("Peter, you are rock, and upon this rock I shall build my church"), began asserting more and more authority over the other patriarchates. The other four patriarchs, interpreting the above passage differently (seeing "Peter's Confession" that Jesus was the Son of God rather than Peter himself as the foundation of the church) resisted this authority in favor of the traditional "collegial" relationship between patriarchs.

The struggle over Papal supremacy sort of came to a head in the controversy over the Filioque: the words "and the son." The foundation of faith for any Catholic or Orthodox is the Nicene Creed, drafted by the Council of Nicaea sometime in the 4th century. All major decisions stattements of doctrine in the Church were made though councils consisting of all the Patriarchs and bishops and dignitaries. The western Church, at the Pope's directive, however, eventually insterted, without a council's approval, the words "and the son" to the section of the Creed dealing with the Holy Spirit. The split deepened and eventually the Pope excommunicated the other patriarchs and the other patriarchs responded by excommunicating the Pope. And it's been that way for 950 years, although there has been an immense thaw in the relationships between the two churches since the 1960s or so, and even some talk of reunification, as the churches both beleive in the same fundamental things: the dual nature of Jesus, the transubstatiation of the Eucharist, the Trinity, the Virgin birth, etc.

And, for the record, there are a small amount of Eastern Catholics who submit to the Pope but follow Orthodox traditions (I'm one) and an even smaller number of Western Orthodox who reject Papal authority but follow essential Roman Catholic traditions.

That's a bit long. Here's a good site if you wish to learn more or ignore my convoluted explanation: http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

I thought there was a night and day difference b/w how they view Christ and salvation. Maybe I just misunderstood what I read.

[libertarianjim]

That's not really the case between the Catholics and the Orthodox, but definately so between Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants. I know some basic arguments but am largely out of my depth when it comes to Protestantism -- the area I grew up in is 90% Catholic.