Orthodox

Members of the Orthodox (Eastern) Christian churches, distinguished from the Latin/Western church by doctrinal differences (such as rejection of the filioque clause and papal authority) and historical ties to the Byzantine world.

Claims that use this term

• The Orthodox church retained virtually all the traditional apparatus of their administration without having to compromise and alter a part of their beliefs or practice. As the millet system was a contractual relationship, the Orthodox only had to pay a tax in order to have their right to independence and practice Christianity the way they wished. No papal authorities would monitor or censor Orthodox doctrines; in this regard the Ottomans were a convenient buffer against Latin interference.
• In regards to the doctrinal differences of the Latins, some Orthodox had particularly staunch views. Patriarch Michael I Cerularius would state that Latin interpolations in the doctrine of the filioque constituted, ‘an evil and even the worst of evils.’ While the Orthodox did see the Muslims as a threat, the danger posed by them could never be enough to require a compromise in doctrine. The Orthodox held so firmly on to their sense and definition of Christianity, despite the presence of a ‘common enemy,’ the Orthodox refused to yield to the conditions of the Latin West for military aid. While some Orthodox clergy did make way for union with the Latin church at the Council of Florence, when they arrived back to Constantinople, most reneged their signatures.