Topic: Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition

[Gyllynn]

Greetings!  My name is Josh, and I am an inquirer of the Greek Orthodox faith.  I am under the impression that the Church not only recognizes every book of the Tanakh (with certain additions) as canon, but that it also recognizes several other books (namely, the First (or Third) Book of Ezra, the Book of Tobit, the Book of Judith, the First, Second, and Third Books of the Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Joshua (the Son of Sirach), the Book of Baruch, and the Epistle of Jeremiah) as canonical parts of the Old Testament.  If so, are the Second (or Fourth) Book of Ezra and the Fourth Book of the Maccabees also considered canon?  Also, what do you believe about the Protoevangelium of Saint James?  As for Holy Tradition, what constitutes it?  I am familiar with the Ecumenical Councils, but I want to know if there are any other sources.

[genesisone]

Welcome, Josh!
You'll find answers to the questions about OT Canonical books here. It's not an official site, but it does seem to be well researched.

As for the Protoevangelium of St James: never considered canonical as far as I know, but it is probably the earliest written record of many events in the life of the Theotokos, St Joseph the Betrothed, and of our Lord Himself. My own personal take on the book is that around the middle of the second century, someone decided it was time to write down "the story that St James, the brother of our Lord, told to my grandfather". It has that sort of feel to it.

It might be difficult to list everything that constitutes Holy Tradition, but it does include the Scriptures, hymnography, iconography, the liturgies and lots more. Think of how your parents and grandparents have handed down to you your family heritage - you have pictures, stories, artifacts, etc. Holy Tradition is the collective memory of the Church.

[Shanghaiski]

There are many ancient books which, while not in the Bible, are not heretical and from which the Church has derived teaching--the letters of St. Ignatius and the collection known as the Apostolic Fathers, the Gospel of Nicodemus (from whence we get some of our Paschal liturgical dialogue), the Didache, the books of Enoch, etc. What books went into Scripture were not just those thought to be true and inspired--much else was thought to be true and even read in some churches as Scripture for awhile, but they were not universally regarded as Scripture.

[Maximum Bob]

What books went into Scripture were not just those thought to be true and inspired--much else was thought to be true and even read in some churches as Scripture for awhile, but they were not universally regarded as Scripture.

Slightly confused I'm thinking this could put "The books that went into Scripture were not the only ones thought to be true and inspired -- much else was thought to be true and ..." am I getting that right?


Welcome Josh.

[Gyllynn]

Thank you, everyone!

I'm especially thankful for the link which Genesisone provided.  So, the Greek and Russian traditions (should I capitalize this?) are different? If the former includes IV Maccabees in the Appendix of the Old Testament but excludes III (or IV) Ezra while the latter includes III (or IV) Ezra in the Old Testament proper while excluding IV Maccabees entirely, which should I accept?  Both?  I'm sorry that I have many questions, but I sincerely want to know.

[IoanC]

As far as what constitutes Holy Tradition, The Bible itself is considered to have originated within the Tradition of the Church and it is Tradition. After all, it is about the life of the people of God. You could try this article for more info: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Tradition

[genesisone]

Thank you, everyone!

I'm especially thankful for the link which Genesisone provided.  So, the Greek and Russian traditions (should I capitalize this?) are different? If the former includes IV Maccabees in the Appendix of the Old Testament but excludes III (or IV) Ezra while the latter includes III (or IV) Ezra in the Old Testament proper while excluding IV Maccabees entirely, which should I accept?  Both?  I'm sorry that I have many questions, but I sincerely want to know.

I suppose "both" is the best answer. You'll find that Orthodoxy really doesn't get too hung up on some specifics. All of the books make good reading and have their purpose. What is important is to see what books are used in the services you attend - services where you will see how the faith is fleshed out.

You describe yourself as an inquirer. Does that mean you have begun to attend services on a regular basis? Or are you just browsing?

[Cyrillic]

  As for Holy Tradition, what constitutes it? 

Are you looking for an officially approved list of what Holy Tradition constitutes?

[Gyllynn]

I suppose "both" is the best answer. You'll find that Orthodoxy really doesn't get too hung up on some specifics. All of the books make good reading and have their purpose. What is important is to see what books are used in the services you attend - services where you will see how the faith is fleshed out.

You describe yourself as an inquirer. Does that mean you have begun to attend services on a regular basis? Or are you just browsing?

I've been attending services with some consistency for more than a month and I have spoken with the parish Priest, but not very much.  I will be going to the Divine Liturgy and Vespers (w/ catechism class) every week, if possible, from now on until I decide if I want to become a catechumen or not.

Are you looking for an officially approved list of what Holy Tradition constitutes?

I'm under the impression that Holy Tradition is not as static as I initially thought.

[Asteriktos]

Indeed, it is a living thing. The actions and words of today are as much a part of tradition as those from a thousand years ago (though it takes time to burn the impurities out so that we are left with pure gold)

[Shanghaiski]

What books went into Scripture were not just those thought to be true and inspired--much else was thought to be true and even read in some churches as Scripture for awhile, but they were not universally regarded as Scripture.

Slightly confused I'm thinking this could put "The books that went into Scripture were not the only ones thought to be true and inspired -- much else was thought to be true and ..." am I getting that right?


Welcome Josh.

Yes. True, inspired, universally read as Scripture--those seem to have been basic requirements. Also, Apostolic authority (for the New Testament). The Septuagint books were already received.

[Gyllynn]

I am certain that the Church teaches that Scripture is inspired by God, but do you also believe that it was inspired verbally (i.e. word-for-word)?  Do you believe that it is infallible and inerrant?  I will also ask my spiritual father for clarification.

[Maximum Bob]

Anyone correct me if I'm remembering this wrong, but it seems to me I remember reading something, just recently even, to the effect that the kind of word to word inspiration your asking about is not an Orthodox position on account of the idea that it would make a man into a mere writing machine and negate the idea of man cooperating with God.

[TheTrisagion]

I am certain that the Church teaches that Scripture is inspired by God, but do you also believe that it was inspired verbally (i.e. word-for-word)?  Do you believe that it is infallible and inerrant?  I will also ask my spiritual father for clarification.

I believe it would best be stated that Scripture is infallible when understood through the lens of the teachings of the Church.  We do not teach that God dictated word-for-word the Scripture, but rather that He worked synergistically with the authors. As far as inerrancy is concerned, the way the Church looks at Scripture kind of renders that term inapplicable.  There are "errors" in Scripture.  Some are grammatical, some are historical, some are scientific, some are contradictory facts.  It does not take anything away from the text as the point of Scripture is not to teach grammar, history or science.  It is to direct us to God.  In that respect, as long as we follow it in the light of the Church's teachings, it is infallible and does not "err" in it's purpose.

[Gyllynn]

Anyone correct me if I'm remembering this wrong, but it seems to me I remember reading something, just recently even, to the effect that the kind of word to word inspiration your asking about is not an Orthodox position on account of the idea that it would make a man into a mere writing machine and negate the idea of man cooperating with God.

I recently read, if I recall correctly, that Holy Scripture is the result of a cooperation (or synergy) between God and Man.

I believe it would best be stated that Scripture is infallible when understood through the lens of the teachings of the Church.  We do not teach that God dictated word-for-word the Scripture, but rather that He worked synergistically with the authors. As far as inerrancy is concerned, the way the Church looks at Scripture kind of renders that term inapplicable.  There are "errors" in Scripture.  Some are grammatical, some are historical, some are scientific, some are contradictory facts.  It does not take anything away from the text as the point of Scripture is not to teach grammar, history or science.  It is to direct us to God.  In that respect, as long as we follow it in the light of the Church's teachings, it is infallible and does not "err" in it's purpose.

Does the Orthodox Church actually acknowledge that Scripture is erroneous from a historical and scientific perspective?  Or does she simply acknowledge that Scripture is not necessarily without error and, as a result, should never be interpreted apart from Tradition? 

[mike]

What do you mean by "without error"?

[Gyllynn]

Is the Bible historically and scientifically accurate?

[Shanghaiski]

Is the Bible historically and scientifically accurate?

The Holy Fathers took it as historically accurate. But your question, and its premise, is coming from another place. That is, many ask certain questions, and the Orthodox say, "Huh?" because the question comes out of a totally different mileu, and is sort of irrelevant.

[genesisone]

Is the Bible historically and scientifically accurate?

The Holy Fathers took it as historically accurate. But your question, and its premise, is coming from another place. That is, many ask certain questions, and the Orthodox say, "Huh?" because the question comes out of a totally different mileu, and is sort of irrelevant.

Would the Holy Fathers understand "historically accurate" in the same way that we (i.e. our culture generally) understand the term?

[Shanghaiski]

Is the Bible historically and scientifically accurate?

The Holy Fathers took it as historically accurate. But your question, and its premise, is coming from another place. That is, many ask certain questions, and the Orthodox say, "Huh?" because the question comes out of a totally different mileu, and is sort of irrelevant.

Would the Holy Fathers understand "historically accurate" in the same way that we (i.e. our culture generally) understand the term?

Well, how does our culture generally define "historically accurate?" Especially when our understanding of historical events changes--as it is wont to do since history is not a complete record, and not without bias. (Likewise, modern historians have biases as well, so there's no greater sense of accuracy just because one lives in the modern world. In fact, we are more likely to be mistaken, being further removed from the historical events.)

[genesisone]

Is the Bible historically and scientifically accurate?

The Holy Fathers took it as historically accurate. But your question, and its premise, is coming from another place. That is, many ask certain questions, and the Orthodox say, "Huh?" because the question comes out of a totally different mileu, and is sort of irrelevant.

Would the Holy Fathers understand "historically accurate" in the same way that we (i.e. our culture generally) understand the term?

Well, how does our culture generally define "historically accurate?" Especially when our understanding of historical events changes--as it is wont to do since history is not a complete record, and not without bias. (Likewise, modern historians have biases as well, so there's no greater sense of accuracy just because one lives in the modern world. In fact, we are more likely to be mistaken, being further removed from the historical events.)

So I see that you are referring primarily to the interpretation of historical events rather than strictly factual accuracy. Example: "Under Napoleon's leadership the French armed forces conquered much of Europe" vs "Napoleon was the greatest military genius ever known to Europe".

My own thinking went first to the factual accounts, but I can easily accept and understand your usage in this context.

So are we trying to tell Gyllynn that "historically and scientifically accurate" needs some sort of framework?

[Maximum Bob]

Is the Bible historically and scientifically accurate?

The Holy Fathers took it as historically accurate. But your question, and its premise, is coming from another place. That is, many ask certain questions, and the Orthodox say, "Huh?" because the question comes out of a totally different mileu, and is sort of irrelevant.

Would the Holy Fathers understand "historically accurate" in the same way that we (i.e. our culture generally) understand the term?

Well, how does our culture generally define "historically accurate?" Especially when our understanding of historical events changes--as it is wont to do since history is not a complete record, and not without bias. (Likewise, modern historians have biases as well, so there's no greater sense of accuracy just because one lives in the modern world. In fact, we are more likely to be mistaken, being further removed from the historical events.)

So I see that you are referring primarily to the interpretation of historical events rather than strictly factual accuracy. Example: "Under Napoleon's leadership the French armed forces conquered much of Europe" vs "Napoleon was the greatest military genius ever known to Europe".

My own thinking went first to the factual accounts, but I can easily accept and understand your usage in this context.

So are we trying to tell Gyllynn that "historically and scientifically accurate" needs some sort of framework?

I would say so. That was one of the early harder things to grasp for me.  But it is important to grasp not just that words have multiple meanings but that even the way we think about them is different.

[Gyllynn]

I'm having a hard time following everyone...

[Maximum Bob]

Sorry about that.  If no one else does first I"ll try to come back tonight and make some sense of this. I can't claim to have the best answers but I've struggled with some of the same things not too long ago and made it through enough to keep going. So, while I'm by no means authoritative, I'll try to pass along what helped me and whatever I get wrong we'll both learn. 

[Maximum Bob]

You asked:

Is the Bible historically and scientifically accurate?

That was a follow up to asking "Does the Orthodox Church actually acknowledge that Scripture is erroneous from a historical and scientific perspective?  Or does she simply acknowledge that Scripture is not necessarily without error and, as a result, should never be interpreted apart from Tradition? "

I believe the short answer would be the Orthodox don't worry about that and the Orthodox Church may not even have an official stance on it.


One reason may be the Orthodox don't feel the need to define everything to the nth degree. If scripture is doing what it's intended to do, guide us spiritually, we would be content to stop there and find no need to go on to ask other questions like the above.

Alternately, another potential problem you will encounter is that not only do we use similar words differently, but almost all questions have assumptions built into them and frequently the assumptions made by Orthodox and Protestants are not the same. So even when you ask a question and we answer it the answer doesn't make sense until you understand the underlying assumptions.

This means many times you ask a question and then have to ask several more and take those answers back to answer the first one. I think this is why converting to Orthodoxy is not something done quickly. It may be a long process but it's worth it.

Well I don't know if I helped or made it worse, but keep asking questions. I'll help where I can but there's a lot of people on here much better at helping than I.

[Gyllynn]

I believe the short answer would be the Orthodox don't worry about that and the Orthodox Church may not even have an official stance on it.


One reason may be the Orthodox don't feel the need to define everything to the nth degree. If scripture is doing what it's intended to do, guide us spiritually, we would be content to stop there and find no need to go on to ask other questions like the above.

Alternately, another potential problem you will encounter is that not only do we use similar words differently, but almost all questions have assumptions built into them and frequently the assumptions made by Orthodox and Protestants are not the same. So even when you ask a question and we answer it the answer doesn't make sense until you understand the underlying assumptions.

This means many times you ask a question and then have to ask several more and take those answers back to answer the first one. I think this is why converting to Orthodoxy is not something done quickly. It may be a long process but it's worth it.

Well I don't know if I helped or made it worse, but keep asking questions. I'll help where I can but there's a lot of people on here much better at helping than I.

I think that you've helped me to understand, so thanks!  Also, I'll keep your advice in mind when inquiring in the future.

[genesisone]

Max Bob's answer is well worded. Thanks.

[Shanghaiski]

I am certain that the Church teaches that Scripture is inspired by God, but do you also believe that it was inspired verbally (i.e. word-for-word)?  Do you believe that it is infallible and inerrant?  I will also ask my spiritual father for clarification.

I haven't really seen an explanation of what exactly the Orthodox believe about Scripture vis a vis the Protestant questions. But if you were to read, say, St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil, as well as the liturgical texts of the Church, you will find a great reverence for Scripture. The Scriptures aren't just this set of important writings. They're more than that. They are an inexhaustible well.

[edati]

I am certain that the Church teaches that Scripture is inspired by God, but do you also believe that it was inspired verbally (i.e. word-for-word)?  Do you believe that it is infallible and inerrant?  I will also ask my spiritual father for clarification.

I believe it would best be stated that Scripture is infallible when understood through the lens of the teachings of the Church.  We do not teach that God dictated word-for-word the Scripture, but rather that He worked synergistically with the authors. As far as inerrancy is concerned, the way the Church looks at Scripture kind of renders that term inapplicable.

IMHO, the Scripture is the word of God, not because it is word-for-word dictated by God, but because the Scripture has God's message as read through the lens of Church Tradition. This is specially applied to the non-canonical books of the LXX.

And it won't matter whether there are different books in received OT in different places since the Church did just fine with an "incomplete" compilations of the bible. And through Tradition they have no lack in their understanding of God's word.

With Tradition and the Spirit's guidance, the Church survived, and on the way completed the canon through Tradition, which they now handed over to us!   

Many years.

[Cyrillic]

This is specially applied to the non-canonical books of the LXX.

 

[LBK]

This is specially applied to the non-canonical books of the LXX.

 

I think he means the books which the west calls "apocrypha".

[Peacemaker]

Greetings!  My name is Josh, and I am an inquirer of the Greek Orthodox faith.  

Sorry to try and correct you Josh, bugs the heck out of me when people word it like that. Whether you are Greek, Russian, Serbian, Antiochian, Jerusalem ect it's all the same Orthodox Church. For example, you wouldn't say "I have a Greek Orthodox friend." you say, "I have a friend who is Orthodox and happens to be Greek."  We are all Orthodox, it's all the same, the traditions change a little bit. Leave ethnicity at home and don't bring it to the Church.

[TheTrisagion]

Greetings!  My name is Josh, and I am an inquirer of the Greek Orthodox faith.  

Sorry to try and correct you Josh, bugs the heck out of me when people word it like that. Whether you are Greek, Russian, Serbian, Antiochian, Jerusalem ect it's all the same Orthodox Church. For example, you wouldn't say "I have a Greek Orthodox friend." you say, "I have a friend who is Orthodox and happens to be Greek."  We are all Orthodox, it's all the same, the traditions change a little bit. Leave ethnicity at home and don't bring it to the Church.

I dunno, this looks pretty Greek to me...

[Asteriktos]

Back in the old days it was like they were trying to confuse people...

"The Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America"

[Peacemaker]

Greetings!  My name is Josh, and I am an inquirer of the Greek Orthodox faith.  

Sorry to try and correct you Josh, bugs the heck out of me when people word it like that. Whether you are Greek, Russian, Serbian, Antiochian, Jerusalem ect it's all the same Orthodox Church. For example, you wouldn't say "I have a Greek Orthodox friend." you say, "I have a friend who is Orthodox and happens to be Greek."  We are all Orthodox, it's all the same, the traditions change a little bit. Leave ethnicity at home and don't bring it to the Church.

I dunno, this looks pretty Greek to me...

Sounds like a separation of the Church to me. We have Orthodox who are Greek, speak Greek, practice Greek tradition and live in Greece, but they are still Orthodox. Ask a Russian, American, African, Chinese, Serbian, etc if they are "Greek Orthodox" and they'll say no, I'm Orthodox.

[DeniseDenise]

Welcome to you Josh!

First lesson of oc.net:   

They get rather carried away with arguing with each other over the tiniest things. Learn to ignore it, and if they contradict each other and even when they don't, ask the Priest where you are attending. 

If you go to a large parish, he might be so busy that is impossible for smaller questions.  I suggest you make friends with a Deacon, or failing that a Reader, and spend time with them at coffee hour each week, they will also help you.

This will get you much further than listening to all the yokels (sorry guys, i mean that kindly!) here, who will each argue from their own cultural perspective since Holy Tradition varies in different places and oc.net is international.

This will leave you feeling 100% confused about it all.

[TheTrisagion]

Welcome to you Josh!

First lesson of oc.net:   

They get rather carried away with arguing with each other over the tiniest things. Learn to ignore it, and if they contradict each other and even when they don't, ask the Priest where you are attending. 

If you go to a large parish, he might be so busy that is impossible for smaller questions.  I suggest you make friends with a Deacon, or failing that a Reader, and spend time with them at coffee hour each week, they will also help you.

This will get you much further than listening to all the yokels (sorry guys, i mean that kindly!) here, who will each argue from their own cultural perspective since Holy Tradition varies in different places and oc.net is international.

This will leave you feeling 100% confused about it all.

+1

[TheTrisagion]

Greetings!  My name is Josh, and I am an inquirer of the Greek Orthodox faith.  

Sorry to try and correct you Josh, bugs the heck out of me when people word it like that. Whether you are Greek, Russian, Serbian, Antiochian, Jerusalem ect it's all the same Orthodox Church. For example, you wouldn't say "I have a Greek Orthodox friend." you say, "I have a friend who is Orthodox and happens to be Greek."  We are all Orthodox, it's all the same, the traditions change a little bit. Leave ethnicity at home and don't bring it to the Church.

I dunno, this looks pretty Greek to me...

Sounds like a separation of the Church to me. We have Orthodox who are Greek, speak Greek, practice Greek tradition and live in Greece, but they are still Orthodox. Ask a Russian, American, African, Chinese, Serbian, etc if they are "Greek Orthodox" and they'll say no, I'm Orthodox.

If you ask a Russian, he will tell you he is Russian Orthodox.  If you ask a Serb, he will tell you he is Serbian Orthodox, If you ask a Greek, he will tell you he is Greek Orthodox.  If you ask any of the others, he will tell you whatever Patriarchate he is under.  I am Antiochian Orthodox, that doesn't mean I'm Antiochian by ethnicity, but it does identify the succession that i am with.

[Shanghaiski]

"Antiochian" is not an ethnicity.

"Greek" does not exclusively refer to ethnicity in the context, either.

[Peacemaker]

Greetings!  My name is Josh, and I am an inquirer of the Greek Orthodox faith.  

Sorry to try and correct you Josh, bugs the heck out of me when people word it like that. Whether you are Greek, Russian, Serbian, Antiochian, Jerusalem ect it's all the same Orthodox Church. For example, you wouldn't say "I have a Greek Orthodox friend." you say, "I have a friend who is Orthodox and happens to be Greek."  We are all Orthodox, it's all the same, the traditions change a little bit. Leave ethnicity at home and don't bring it to the Church.

I dunno, this looks pretty Greek to me...

Sounds like a separation of the Church to me. We have Orthodox who are Greek, speak Greek, practice Greek tradition and live in Greece, but they are still Orthodox. Ask a Russian, American, African, Chinese, Serbian, etc if they are "Greek Orthodox" and they'll say no, I'm Orthodox.

If you ask a Russian, he will tell you he is Russian Orthodox.  If you ask a Serb, he will tell you he is Serbian Orthodox, If you ask a Greek, he will tell you he is Greek Orthodox.  If you ask any of the others, he will tell you whatever Patriarchate he is under.  I am Antiochian Orthodox, that doesn't mean I'm Antiochian by ethnicity, but it does identify the succession that i am with.

Well excuse me, I didn't realize you have the authority to speak on everyone's behalf. So sorry masta, won't happen again masta, please don't beat me masta.

[Asteriktos]

*

[Gyllynn]

Greetings!  My name is Josh, and I am an inquirer of the Greek Orthodox faith. 

Sorry to try and correct you Josh, bugs the heck out of me when people word it like that. Whether you are Greek, Russian, Serbian, Antiochian, Jerusalem ect it's all the same Orthodox Church. For example, you wouldn't say "I have a Greek Orthodox friend." you say, "I have a friend who is Orthodox and happens to be Greek."  We are all Orthodox, it's all the same, the traditions change a little bit. Leave ethnicity at home and don't bring it to the Church.

I was talking about the Orthodox Church as a whole when I said "Greek Orthodox" (I have actually been attending services at an Antiochian parish).

[mike]

Greetings!  My name is Josh, and I am an inquirer of the Greek Orthodox faith. 

Sorry to try and correct you Josh, bugs the heck out of me when people word it like that. Whether you are Greek, Russian, Serbian, Antiochian, Jerusalem ect it's all the same Orthodox Church. For example, you wouldn't say "I have a Greek Orthodox friend." you say, "I have a friend who is Orthodox and happens to be Greek."  We are all Orthodox, it's all the same, the traditions change a little bit. Leave ethnicity at home and don't bring it to the Church.

I dunno, this looks pretty Greek to me...

Sounds like a separation of the Church to me. We have Orthodox who are Greek, speak Greek, practice Greek tradition and live in Greece, but they are still Orthodox. Ask a Russian, American, African, Chinese, Serbian, etc if they are "Greek Orthodox" and they'll say no, I'm Orthodox.

If you ask a Russian, he will tell you he is Russian Orthodox.  If you ask a Serb, he will tell you he is Serbian Orthodox, If you ask a Greek, he will tell you he is Greek Orthodox.  If you ask any of the others, he will tell you whatever Patriarchate he is under.  I am Antiochian Orthodox, that doesn't mean I'm Antiochian by ethnicity, but it does identify the succession that i am with.

No, not.

[TheTrisagion]

Greetings!  My name is Josh, and I am an inquirer of the Greek Orthodox faith. 

Sorry to try and correct you Josh, bugs the heck out of me when people word it like that. Whether you are Greek, Russian, Serbian, Antiochian, Jerusalem ect it's all the same Orthodox Church. For example, you wouldn't say "I have a Greek Orthodox friend." you say, "I have a friend who is Orthodox and happens to be Greek."  We are all Orthodox, it's all the same, the traditions change a little bit. Leave ethnicity at home and don't bring it to the Church.

I dunno, this looks pretty Greek to me...

Sounds like a separation of the Church to me. We have Orthodox who are Greek, speak Greek, practice Greek tradition and live in Greece, but they are still Orthodox. Ask a Russian, American, African, Chinese, Serbian, etc if they are "Greek Orthodox" and they'll say no, I'm Orthodox.

If you ask a Russian, he will tell you he is Russian Orthodox.  If you ask a Serb, he will tell you he is Serbian Orthodox, If you ask a Greek, he will tell you he is Greek Orthodox.  If you ask any of the others, he will tell you whatever Patriarchate he is under.  I am Antiochian Orthodox, that doesn't mean I'm Antiochian by ethnicity, but it does identify the succession that i am with.

No, not.

Perhaps not in Poland, but in the US most people I know will say they are (fill in the blank) Orthodox.  Heck, the Serbian priest in our area goes by the name "Fr. Serb" to people from other parishes. 

[Asteriktos]

Heck, the Serbian priest in our area goes by the name "Fr. Serb" to people from other parishes. 

Nice. One of the admins here is a priest who kept his old username: "serb1389"