What would you like to know about the Eastern Orthodox Christian faith? Submit your question.
Did the Orthodox Church support killing heretics? Has the Orthodox Church ever committed atrocities in the name of faith as has the Romans Catholic Church?
Throughout history, you will find many people, who in the name of the church have committed heinous offenses. To the best of my knowledge, it was not the Eastern Orthodox Church, as an institution who has done these things. There were incidents of Roman emperors, Russian tzars and Byzantine emperors who have done things “in the name of the church” that were motivated by economic or political circumstances and the church spoke out against them, however not in every situation.
There were events when heretics and nonheretics held secular positions of power and ended up expelling, persecuting, exiling, or killing those that did not agree with them, but the truth of Christ eventually prevailed as evidence in the seven Ecumenical Councils. These councils were held by all of Christendom (the Orthodox Church) in the first 1,000 years before the great schism in 1054 AD the inception of the Roman Catholic Church.
In the council of Nicea in 325 AD, there was a heretical teaching that was made popular by the priest Arius of Christ created by the father. It was challenged by the church and determined to be heretical, and that teaching was condemned. However in the years that past, there probably were confrontations of individuals with those that still believed this heretical doctrine.
In the Council of Chalcedon 451 AD the heresy of the single nature of Christ who were also persecuted Orthodox Christians for their Cyrillian view of Christology.
The Seventh Ecumenical Council took place in Nicea in 787 AD, where there was controversy in the Byzantine Empire over the use of religious icons. Known as the Iconoclastic Controversy, the iconoclasts persecuted those who were in favor of the existence of icons. Those who rejected images, the Iconoclasts, objected to icon worship for several reasons. In the Old Testament, the prohibition against images was in Exodus 20:4, the Ten Commandments and the inclination of idolatry.
But, for the most part, the Orthodox Church has largely been the victim of persecution, from Communists in Russia, to conquering Muslims during the Byzantine Empire, to other Christian sects as in the 4th crusade of the 13th century and the events in Alaska in the last century. The Eastern Orthodox Church has never supported killing anyone. Although there were instances of persecution of heretics, they were never condoned or by the EOC as an institution.
Some excerpts drawn from my own chapter on the theme of religious history (sources in the citations for the text at http://www.tortucan.wordpress.com) illustrate that there was much more politics and grudge settling than religious doctrine being defended in a lot of the religious violence, starting wWhen Constantine’s Edict of Milan legalized the practice of Christianity in 313, the millennialist Donatist sect from Carthage was out to exterminate those “invalid” priests who had handed over Scripture during the preceding Great Persecution of Diocletian. To root out these dangerous quislings, bands of shock troops called Circumcellions attacked Catholic churches, beating priests and killing some, and robbed travelers who could not prove they were Donatists. (ISIS comes to mind as recent counterparts.)
The Montanists and Donatists held rabblerousing mass meetings, and were not averse
to bribing conversions when there was enough money. Given the politics of the Republic and Empire (the capital moved east to Constantinople by that wacky puritanical megalomanic), this sort of thing was quintessentially Roman—though regional and
political rivalries also played a part. Founded in the 2nd century, the Carthaginian church resisted Roman authority (secular as well as religious) with just as much vigor as Hannibal centuries before. Not unlike Ireland in more modern times, their resentment was aggravated by the many absentee Roman landlords who owned latifundia in the
region (where some took up residence after the fall of Rome). The Donatists were an especially dogmatic bunch of separatists, even writing in Punic rather than Latin.
The Donatists overconfidently appealed to Constantine to help their rampaging spree of
revenge, which he did for awhile. But in the end the emperor decided things had gone far enough, arresting their leaders and confiscating their churches. Whereupon Roman soldiers and Christian mobs representing the winning side massacred many of the remaining Donatists … tit for tat. Constantine didn’t press too far with persecution, knowing how ineffective that could be (Donatists were often quite avid for martyrdom). While the Donatists outlasted Constantine, in 347 they ran into a murderous government commission of “state violence” under Count Macarius.
The unsettling Iconoclasm controversy that convulsed Orthodoxy for over a century,
from 726 to 843 began when Byzantine Emperor Leo III decided icons of saints
were detestable “pagan idols” and would have to go, along with the artists who
perversely insisted on painting them and the faithful who stubbornly persisted
in venerating them. There is a background to this, in climate. The effects of a 6th century Sumatran volcanic eruption caused Romans to feel they were suffering the punishment of God, and new forms of Jewish and Islamic messianism arose (while the Buddhist Left Way engendered its own form of escapism farther east). Leo’s empire may be thought a continuation of this fallout: the Middle Eastern and African provinces were being rapidly devoured by the Islamic expansion, and a volcanic eruption in the Aegean in 726 may have been seen as a further bad omen. Once a superstitious mind comes to think God had forsaken Orthodoxy, it was only a matter of time before something like the
icons fell into the crosshairs as a source of trouble you could at least get
your hands on.
But the Iconoclast controversy illustrated more than just why “Byzantine” has the
connotation it does. The degree of animosity on both sides was so intense that historians have found it difficult to sort the facts from the propaganda. For example, non-Iconoclasts nursed a variety of horror tales about icon makers having their hands chopped off or eyes put out. Another of those strong imperial women played
a pivotal role in the cycle of intolerance. Irene, the wife of Leo IV, was a devout protector of the icons and their makers. Her Lady Macbeth side manifested after her dissolute son sided with the Iconoclasts in order to become emperor as Constantine VI in 790: when Irene later regained the upper hand she had Constantine blinded. But even after the
restoration of icon veneration, the institutional mayhem didn’t stop: Orthodoxy kept up with all the latest fashions in heretic disposal, such as burning Basil (head of the Bogomil sect) late in the 11th century.
Hi Jim you said that “””the Edict of Milan legalized the practice of Christianity””” Edict of Milan, was a proclamation that permanently established religious TOLERATION for Christianity within the Roman Empire. It was the outcome of a political agreement concluded in Milan between the Roman emperors Constantine I and Licinius in February 313. The edict did not legalize the practice of Christianity.
Also there was a misprint in the publication of this article which I requested to be corrected (first paragraph). “””” To the best of my knowledge, it was NOT the Eastern Orthodox Church as an institution who has done these things.
I would agree the Orthodox Church took a while to institutionalize, as the Roman Empire shrank and the western Catholics went their own way. On Edict of Milan, though, how does one “tolerate” a religion without allowing its practice? Seems semantic hairsplitting. It was the case that it took a later emperor to make Christianity the only legal religion (a notion that should be troubling in principle to all lovers of freedom of individual conscience).
I’ve been reading a lot of articles lately on church history. While I don’t know a lot about it I think most of what I’ve read has been influenced by Catholicism thus pointing istory towards their version of true Christianity. I’ve only recently started to look into EO Christianity. I found this article helpful as one big problem for me with Rome’s claim to be the true original church was all the murderous persecutions of those who didn’t agree with them. Also the torturing & burning at the stake of those who tried to make the Bible available to the common people. It’s hard to see the love of Christ in a church that has committed such heinous crimes, especially with Papal approval. I haven’t learned much about Eastern Orthodoxy yet but for me Rome’s seeming obsession with wealth & power seems just wrong for a church claiming to represent Christ Jesus. Although it’s caused so much division & conflict in Christianity resulting in so much disunity I can’t help but see the Protestant’s split with Catholicism as being highly justified.
I have recently started a web site, the information you provide on this site has helped me greatly. Thank you for all of your time & work.
Thank you for the info you supply on the Orthodox Church. I’m a Catholic who has recently become interested in Orthodoxy.
Wonderful, if you have any questions, how can I help?