WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM?

This question has been asked many times. Most Orthodox, in attempting to distinguish between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, usually mention the Pope or Purgatory, sometimes the filioque. Historically, the differences, however, are far more numerous and quite profound.

Also, in modern times, since Vatican II of thirty years ago, that major, if not tragic attempt, to "update" Roman Catholicism (e.g., the revision of canon law), the differences between Orthodoxy and the followers of the Pope have widened.

In our present discussion, however, the concern will be those differences which have grown since Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism separated almost a thousand years ago.

Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy uses science and philosophy to defend and explain her Faith. Unlike Roman Catholicism, she does not build on the results of philosophy and science. The Church does not seek to reconcile faith and reason. She makes no effort to prove by logic or science what Christ gave His followers to believe. If physics or biology or chemistry or philosophy lends support to the teachings of the Church, she does not refuse them. However, Orthodoxy is not intimidated by man's intellectual accomplishments. She does not bow to them and change the Christian Faith to make it consistent with the results of human thought and science.

St. Basil the Great advised young monks to use Greek philosophy as a bee uses the flower. Take only the "honey," ---- the truth --- which God has planted in the world to prepare men for the Coming of the Lord.

For example, the Greeks had a doctrine of the Logos. The Gospel of John opens, "In the beginning was the Word (Logos, in Greek). For the pagans, the Logos was not God, as He is for Christians; rather he is a principle, a power or force by which "God: formed and governs the world. The Fathers pointed to the similarity between the Logos or Word of the Bible and the Logos of Greek philosophy as a sign of Providence. The difference between them, they attributed to the sinfulness of men and the weakness of the human intellect. They remembered the words of the Apostle Paul, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Col. 2: 8).

Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, places a high value on human reason. Its history shows the consequence of that trust. For example, in the Latin Middle Ages, the 13th century, the theologian-philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, joined "Christianity" with the philosophy of Aristotle. From that period til now, the Latins have never wavered in their respect for human wisdom; and it has radically altered the theology, mysteries and institutions of the Christian religion.

The Orthodox Church does not endorse the view that the teachings of Christ have changed from time to time; rather that Christianity has remained unaltered from the moment that the Lord delivered the Faith to the Apostles (Matt. 28: 18-20). She affirms that "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) is now what it was in the beginning. Orthodox of the twentieth century believe precisely what was believed by Orthodox of the first, the fifth, the tenth, the fifteenth centuries.

To be sure, Orthodoxy recognizes external changes (e.g., vestments of clergy, monastic habits, new feasts, canons of ecumenical and regional councils, etc.), but nothing has been added or subtracted from her Faith. The external changes have a single purpose: To express that Faith under new circumstances. For example, the Bible and divine Services were translated from Hebrew and Greek into the language of new lands; or new religious customs arose to express the ethnic sensibilities of the converted peoples, etc.; nevertheless, their has always been "one faith, one Lord, one baptism" (Eph. 4: 4).

The fundamental witness to the Christian Tradition is the holy Scriptures; and the supreme expositors of the Scriptures are the divinely inspired Fathers of the Church, whether the Greek Fathers or Latin Fathers, Syriac Fathers or Slavic Fathers. Their place in the Orthodox religion cannot be challenged. Their authority cannot be superseded, altered or ignored.

On the other hand, Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."

Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs.

Consequently, Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as growing in stages, to higher and more clearly defined levels of knowledge. The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they are, belong to a stage or level below the theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and that theology lower than the new ideas which have come after it, such as Vatican II.

All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer.

On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation.

In any case, the truth of these dogmas have always belonged to the Christian Tradition. They have been present from the beginning of that Tradition as "hints," seeds that only waited for the right time to bloom.

Roman Catholicism teaches that human reason can prove that God is; and, even infer that He is eternal, infinite, good, bodiless, almighty, all-knowing, etc. He is "most real being," "true being." Humans are like Him (analogous), but we are imperfect being. The God of Roman Catholicism, born in the Latin Middle Ages, is not " the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but the God of the savants and the philosohers," to adapt the celebratted phrase of Blaise Pascal.

Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that the knowledge of God is planted in human nature and that is how we know Him to exist. Otherwise, unless God speaks to us, human reason cannot know more. The saving knowledge of God comes by the Savior. Speaking to His Father, He said, "And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou has sent" (John 17: 3).

Roman Catholicism teaches, also, that, in the Age to Come, man will, with his intellect and with the assistance of grace, behold the Essence of God. The Fathers declare that it is impossible to behold God in Himself. Not even divine grace, will give us such power. The saved will see, however, God as the glorified flesh of Christ.

Historically, the Roman Catholic theology never made the distinction between God's Essence (what He is) and His Uncreated Energies (by what means He acts). St. Gregory Palamas tried to explain this distinction through a comparison between God and the Sun. The sun has its rays, God has His Energies (among them, Grace and Light). By His Energies, God created, sustains and governs the universe. By His Energies, He will transform the creation and deify it, that is, He will fill the new creation with His Energies as water fills a sponge.

Finally, Roman Catholicism teaches that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son" (filioque). In so doing, it spurned the Apostolic Tradition which always taught that God the Father is the single Source ("monarchy") of the Son and the Spirit. Thus, the Latins added words to the Nicean Creed

"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son . . .

They made this change on the authority of the Pope, in the 11th century, not any Council of the whole Church (Ecumenical Council).

Why did God become man? The Roman Catholic answer to this question differs from the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church.

Following the holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that Christ, on the Cross, gave "His life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28). "For even the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). The "ransom" is paid to the grave. As the Lord revealed to the Prophet Hosea (Hosea 13:14), "I will ransom them (us) from the power of the grave, I will redeem them from death." In a sense, He pays the ransom to the devil who has the keeper of the grave and holds the power of death (Heb. 2:14).

The man Christ voluntarily gave Himself on the Cross. He died for all ("a ransom for many" or "the many"). But He rose from the dead in His crucified body. Death had no power to hold Him. It has no power over anyone. The human race is redeemed from the grave, from the devil. Free of the devil is to be free of death and sin. To be free of these, we become like God (deification) and may live with Him forever.

According to Roman Catholic theology, God became man in order to satisfy the divine Justice which was offended by the sin of Adam. In other words, by his sin Adam offended the infinite God and, therefore, his sin had infinite consequences. It was not within the power of sinful and finite man to make amends, for the sin of Adam ("original sin") passed to us; but it is our obligation to do so. Only Christ, Who was God and man, could pay this "debt of honor."

He pays the debt by dying on the Cross. His death makes up for what Adam had done; the offense is removed. God is no longer angry with man. Christ rises from the dead, the promise or "earnest" of the believing man's future. For a long time, the Latins, whether among ordinary Catholics or intellectuals, little attention was given to the idea of deification. Not much attention was devoted to the concepts necessary to understanding this doctrine.

Roman Catholic theology is customarily legalistic and philosophical. For example, a "valid" (legal term) baptism into Christ is the result of the right intention (having the same understanding of baptism as the Church) and using the correct formula or words during the ceremony or rite. Thus, even an atheist, under certain conditions, could baptize a person. "Sprinkling" of water (effusion) over the head of the baptized is reasonable and sufficient.

Lately, some Latin theologians are rethinking the Christian teaching of salvation (soteriology). They are beginning to take the idea of deification (baptism as the first step) very seriously. They rightly insist that it belongs to Christian tradition, including "St. Augustine" and other Latin Fathers. In point of fact, a revolution in its theology is necessary if it is to become Scriptural and patristic; if it ever hopes to achieve the right understanding of Christ and His salvation.

The Roman Catholic view of the Church (ecclesiology) differs from the Orthodox teaching on this subject in several ways.

The Latins teach that the visible head of the Church is the Pope, the successor to St. Peter, who was appointed to that sacred position by the Lord Himself with the words, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church . . . " (Matt. 16:18).

The Pope is, then, "the Bishop of the Catholic Church," her teacher, the vicar (agent, deputy) of Christ on earth. He is the interpreter of the Christian Tradition. When he speaks for the whole Church (ex cathedra), the Holy Spirit does not permit him to err. He is, therefore, infallible on matters of morals and doctrine. Other bishops are his lieutenants. He is the symbol of the episcopate's unity.

The Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops are equal. To be sure, there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop. Such differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop. The president of a synod of bishops is called archbishop (Greek custom) or metropolitan (Russian custom).

According to Latin ecclesiology, each local parish is part of the universal or whole Church. The totality of Catholic parishes form the Body of Christ on earth. This visible Body has a visible head, the Pope. This idea of the Church implies that the local parish has two heads: the Pope and the local bishop. But a body with two visible heads is a monster. Also, the local bishop seems stripped of his apostolic authority if the Pope may contradict his orders. Indeed, he cannot become a bishop unless the Pope allows it.

Orthodoxy teaches that every bishop, "the living icon of Christ," and his flock constitute the Church in a certain place; or, as St. Ignatius the God-bearer says, the Church of Christ is in the bishop, his priests and deacons, with the people, surrounding the Eucharist in the true faith. All bishops and their flocks so constituted, together composing the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In other words, there can be no Church without a bishop, no bishop without the Eucharist, and no bishop or Eucharist without the true faith, the Apostolic Faith, "the faith once delivered to the saints." (Jude 3) "The Church is in the bishop and the bishop in the Church," wrote St. Cyprian of Carthage.

Put another way, there is no Church where there is no bishop, and there is no bishop where there is no succession of bishops from the Apostles (apostolic succession); and there can be no succession from the bishops without the faith of the Apostles.

Also, there can be no Church without the Eucharist, the Sacrament of unity, because the Church is formed through it. The Body and Blood of Christ unites the Faithful to God: This fellowship or koinonia is the whole purpose of Christianity. At the same time, there can be no Eucharist - and no other Mysteries - without a bishop who teaches the true faith to the baptized.

A canon is a "rule" or "guide" for governing The Church. Canons were composed by the Apostles, the Fathers, the local or regional and general or ecumenical Councils (in Latin) or Synods (in Greek). Only the bishop, as head of the church, applies them. He may use them "strictly" (akreveia) or "leniently" (economia). "Strictness" is the norm.

Unlike the Latins, the Orthodox Church does not think of canons as laws, that is, as regulating human relationships or securing human rights; rather, Orthodoxy views canons as the means of forging the "new man" or "new creature" through obedience. They are training in virtue. They are meant to produce holiness.

The Latins continue to change their canons, ignoring the old for the new. Not more than two decades ago, Rome revised its Canon Law. It composes new canons to keep up with the times. On the other hand, Orthodoxy, albeit adding canons from time to time and place to place, never discards the old ones, for they, too, are inspired by the Holy Spirit. In any case, human problems and spiritual needs do not really change. New canons are generally simple refinements of old canons.

Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics recognize at least seven Sacraments or Mysteries: The Eucharist, Baptism, Chrismation, Ordination, Penance, Marriage and Holy Oil for the sick (which the Latins have traditionally called "Extreme Unction" and reserved for the dying).

Concerning the Sacraments in general, the Orthodox teach that their material elements (bread, wine, water, chrism, etc.) become grace-filled by the calling of the Holy Spirit (epiklesis). Roman Catholicism believes that the Sacraments are effective on account of the priest who acts "in the person of Christ."

At the same time, the Latins interpret the Sacraments in a legal and philosophical way. Hence, in the Eucharist, using the right material things (bread and wine) and pronouncing the correct formula, changes their substance (transubstantiation) into the Body and Blood of Christ. The visible elements or this and all Sacraments are merely "signs" of the presence of God.

The Orthodox call the Eucharist "the mystical Supper." What the priest and the faithful consume is mysteriously the Body and Blood of Christ. We receive Him under the forms of bread and wine, because it would be wholly repugnant to eat "real" human flesh and drink "real" human blood.

According to Roman Catholic teachings about the Sacraments (mystagogy), a person becomes a member of the Church through Baptism. "Original sin" is washed away. Orthodoxy teaches the same, but the idea of an "original sin" or "inherited guilt" (from Adam) has no part in her thinking. More will be said later on this matter.

Roman Catholics speak of "Confirmation" and the Orthodox of "Chrismation." "Confirmation" is separated from the Baptism and is performed by the bishop and not the priest; but "Chrismation" is performed with Baptism by a priest who has received "chrism" from the bishop. The Sacrament of "Confirmation" and "Chrismation" both mean the giving of the Holy Spirit. The Latins delay "confirming" (with "first communion") baptized infants not more than seven years, that is, until the time they have some appreciation of the gift of God.

The Orthodox Church links Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion, first the threefold immersion into sanctified water, the "new Christian" rising from the water into the fellowship of the Holy Spirit which leads to union with God. Such is the purpose of membership in the Church.

Ordination is the ceremony which, by the grace and calling of God, elevates a man to the priesthood. The sacerdotal priesthood has three orders: Bishop, presbyter (elder) and deacon. All Christians are priests by virtue of the baptism into Christ Who is priest, prophet and king - for which reason St. Peter refers to the Church as a "royal priesthood" (I Pet. 2:9). The bishop is the "high priest," the "president of the Eucharist and all the Mysteries. Presbyters and deacons are his assistants. The Latins hold that the presbyter acts "in the person of Christ" when, in fact, he does no more than represent the bishop who is "the living icon of Christ."

Strictly speaking, Penance - sometimes called "Confession" - should only be received by the believer as a means of re-admission to the Church. For a long time, Penance, or confession of sins, prayer and fasting was employed only for those who had been expelled from the Church ("excommunication") or who had voluntarily departed (apostasy). The present practice is to receive Penance from a bishop or presbyter for some serious sin before receiving Holy Communion.

Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics consider Penance as a Sacrament. Each has different customs surrounding it, such as the confessional booth so common among the latter.

For Roman Catholics, Holy Matrimony is a binding, ostensibly an unbreakable, contract. The man and the woman marry each other with the "church" (bishop or priest) standing as a witness to it. Hence, no divorce under any conditions - no divorce but annulment of the marriage contract if some canonical defect in it may be found which renders it null and void (as if it never took place).

In Orthodoxy, Holy Matrimony is not a contract; it is the mysterious or mystical union of a man and woman - in imitation of Christ and the Church - in the presence of "the whole People of God" through her bishop or his presbyter. Divorce is likewise forbidden, but, as a concession to human weakness, it is allowed for adultery. Second and third marriages are permitted - not as a legal matter - out of mercy, a further concession to human weakness (e.g., after the death of a spouse). This Sacrament, as all Sacraments or Mysteries, is completed by the Eucharist, as St. Dionysius the Areopagite says.

As already mentioned, the Latins conceive Extreme Unction as the final Sacrament, the Sacrament which prepares the believer for death, purgatory and the Age to Come. In Orthodoxy, Holy Oil is received for healing. Often sickness is caused by sin; therefore, Holy Oil or Unction involved Confession of sins. At the end of the rite, the anointed receives Holy Communion.

The Orthodox Church also recognizes kingship, monasticism, blessings of the water, etc. as Mysteries.

Human nature was created good, even in communion with the blessed Trinity which made "him." Male and female were created "in the likeness and image of God" (Gen. 1:26): "likeness" in virtue; "image" meaning to rule the earth rationally, to act wisely and freely. The woman was made as a "help-meet" to the man (Gen. 2:18; I Cor. 11:8-9). They were to live together in harmony and mutual respect.

So far Roman Catholicism agrees with the Church; it differs with Orthodoxy on the nature of man's fall and the human condition. Following Augustine of Hippo, the Latins teach that Adam and Eve sinned against God. The guilt of their sin has been inherited by every man, woman and child after them. All humanity is liable for their "original sin."

Following the Holy Fathers, the Orthodox Church holds that when Adam sinned against God, he introduced death to the world. Since all men are born of the same human stock as Adam, all men inherit death. Death means that the life of every human being comes to an end (mortality); but also that death generates in us the passions (anger, hate, lust, greed, etc.), disease and aging.

Roman Catholicism has ordinarily paid little attention to the Orthodox conception of man as slave to death through his passions as manipulated by the devil. In fact, the devil has been pushed to the background. Thus, the Crucifixion has been understood by the Latins as Christ suffering punishment for the human race ("vicarious atonement"), when, in truth, Christ suffered and died on the Cross to conquer the devil and destroy his power, death.

In any case, Orthodoxy has always put great stress on "mastery of the passions" through prayer (public worship and private devotions), fasting (self-denial) and voluntary obedience and regular participation in the Eucharist (sometimes called "the Mysteries"). Thus, the highest form of Christian living ("the supreme philosophy") is monasticism. Here all human energy is devoted to struggle for perfection.

Monasticism, in this sense, among Roman Catholics has all but disappeared. As a "supernatural religion" so-called, it has become increasingly "this-worldly." Therefore, it has abandoned its medieval heritage, and its understanding of man, his nature and destiny has become increasingly secular.

The doctrine of the place and person of the Virgin Mary in the Church is called "mariology." Both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism believe she is "Mother of God" (Theotokos, Deipare) and "the Ever-Virgin Mary."

However, the Orthodox reject the Roman Catholic "dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary," which was defined as "of the faith" by Pope Pius IX, on the 8th of December 1854. This dogma holds that from the first instant of her conception, the Blessed Virgin Mary was, by a most singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the human race, preserved from all stain of Original Sin. It is a doctrine revealed by God, and therefore to be firmly and steadfastly believed by all the faithful (from the Bull Ineffabilis Deus).

Such a theory has no basis in the Scriptures nor the Fathers. It contains many ideas (such as "the merits of Christ") likewise without apostolic foundation. The idea that the Lord and His Saints produced more grace than necessary. This excess may be applied to others, even those in purgatory (see below).

But to return: the Church does not accept the idea that the Mother of God was born with the (inherited) guilt of Adam; no one is. She did, however, inherit the mortality which comes to all on account of Adam's Fall.

Therefore, there is no need to do what Latin theologians have done. There is no reason to invent a theory to support the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. There is no need to teach that, on account of "the merits of Christ," the Holy Spirit was able to prevent her from inheriting the guilt of Adam.

In fact, she was born like every other human being. The Holy Spirit prepared the Virgin Mary for her role as the Mother of God. She was filled with the Uncreated Energy of the Holy Spirit of God in order that she might be a worthy vessel for the birth of Christ. Nevertheless, several of the Fathers observed that before the Resurrection of her Son, she had sinned. St. John Chrysostom mentions the Wedding at Cana where she presumed to instruct Him (John 2:3-4). Here was proof of her mortality.

Receiving the Holy Spirit once more at Pentecost, she was able to die without sin. Because of her special role in the Divine Plan ("economy" or "dispensation"), she was taken into the heavens, body and soul. She now sits at the foot of her Son, making intercession for all those who implore her mercy. The Orthodox Church honors the miracle of her "assumption" with a feast on 15 August; likewise, the followers of the Pope.

Both also believe in the intercessions of the Virgin Mary and all the Saints. Such intercessions reflect the unity of the Church in heaven and the Church on earth.

Both also believe that there is a sense in which the Mother of God is the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. Those who belong to the Church are identified with Him. But He is also our "brother" (Rom. 8:29). If Christ is our brother, then, the Virgin Mary is our mother. But the Church is our mother through Baptism. Therefore, the Virgin Mary is the Church.

The icon is an artistic depiction of Christ, the Mother of God and the Saints. God the Father cannot be painted, because He has never been seen. God the Holy Spirit has appeared as a dove and as "tongues of fire." He may be shown in this way. God the Son became a man, and He may be painted in His human form.

Icons are more than sacred pictures. Everything about them is theological. For example, they are always flat, flat so that we who inhabit the physical world will understand that the world of the spirit where Christ, His Mother, the angels, the saints, and the departed dwell, is a world of mystery which cannot be penetrated by our five senses.

Customarily, Roman Catholicism has historically employed statues in its worship. The statues are life-like and three-dimensional. They seem to imitate the art of ancient Greece. Both arts are naturalistic. The Latins portray Christ, the Mother of God, the saints, even the angels, as if they were in a state of nature. This "naturalism" stems from the medieval idea that "grace perfects nature."

The person or persons are represented on the icon as deified. He or she is not a perfect human being, but much more: They are transfigured and glorified. They have a new and grace-filled humanity.

Important to remember is the Latin theory of grace: It is created by God for man. Orthodoxy teaches, as we recall, that grace is uncreated, and impacts all creation. It is a mysterious extension of the Divine Nature. Orthodox iconography reflects this truth, even as Roman Catholic statues reflect its idea of grace.

Again, icons are a necessary part of Orthodox piety. The Orthodox honor and kiss icons, a devotion which passes from the icon to the person or persons represented in them. Icons are not idols and the Orthodox do not worship them. Worship is reserved for God alone. The statues set up in Roman Catholic temples are not commonly venerated; they are visual aids and decorations.

Purgatory is a condition of the departed before the final judgment. According to Roman Catholic theology, those souls destined for heaven (with a few exceptions) must endure a state of purgation, or purification. They must be cleansed of the sins committed on earth. The rest go to hell for eternal punishment.

Moreover, from a "treasury" of merits or extra grace accumulated by the virtue of Christ, the Virgin Mary and the saints, "indulgences" may be granted. The grace is applied to those in purgatory in order to shorten their time there.

Orthodoxy teaches that, after the soul leaves the body, it journeys to the abode of the dead (Hades). There are exceptions, such as the Theotokos, who was borne by the angels directly into heaven. As for the rest, we must remain in this condition of waiting. Because some have a prevision of the glory to come and others foretaste their suffering, the state of waiting is called "Particular Judgment."

When Christ returns, the soul rejoins its risen body to be judged by Him. The "good and faithful servant" will inherit eternal life, the unfaithful with the unbeliever will spend eternity in hell. Their sins and their unbelief will torture them as fire.

There are other minor differences between the Orthodox Church and Roman Catholicism.

The Orthodox do not fast on Saturday (except Holy Saturday) or Sunday. Roman Catholics experience no such restriction.

Orthodox do not kneel on Sunday; Roman Catholics do. Orthodox have no "Stations of The Cross;" Roman Catholics do.

Orthodox presbyters and deacons may marry before ordination; Roman Catholic clergy are celibate.

In the Orthodox Liturgy, the "bread" of the Eucharist is "leavened" (zyme); in the Roman Catholic Mass it is "unleavened" (azyme).

The Orthodox faithful receive both the "body" and "blood of Christ" in Holy Communion; Roman Catholics receive only the "bread," a wafer {though this does vary within liberal Roman Catholic Churches}.

There are no orders of Orthodox monks (male and female) as there is among Roman Catholics (Jesuits, Dominicans, Benedictines, Cistericans, etc.). More recently, many Roman Catholic monks and nuns have put away their traditional habits.

There are many other differences, often the product of culture. Also, it is noteworthy that many of these differences, whether profound or not, do not apply to the contemporary religious situation. Ecumenism has brought great confusion, so that it is not always easy to say with any precision what Roman Catholics believe, while so-called Orthodox have abandoned the traditional teachings of the Church.

THINKING THEOLOGICALLY: `THE MYSTIC’ AND `THE LAWYER'

PROLOGUE The Ecumenist idea that the differences between Orthodox Christianity and Western Christianity are the result of historical circumstances and cultural differences is both simplistic and false. Such a notion begs the question: what is the cause of these "circumstances"? Events are shaped by God and man. Therefore, let us not deny in the name of Ecumenistic pluralism or Masonic universalism,that God acts within history, nor let us excuse the folly of man. God is Source of Truth. He established that Truth among men, that is to say — His own Faith among us. Yes, one Faith for all men as there is one God for all, a Faith which He manifested personally, a Church which He founded personally: God became the man Jesus Christ that the human race might enter into fellowship with Him. The Faith which He established and manifested, the Church which He founded, all this is both the revelation of, and the framework for, our relationship with God.

If we believe that Christ manifested His Faith, a Church "against which the gates of Hades would not prevail," a Church of "one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling: one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all" (Eph.4:4-6), then, we acknowledge the existence of true and false religion and the difference between them is not circumstantial, not cultural. Neither is what we are to believe attributable to temperament or geography.

Since what the Church espouses is from God, her teachings cannot be false: and, indeed, they offend Him who espouse a faith which is contrary to revelation, if the words of the Prophets and the Apostles mean anything. Nor is it incidental to recognize that history shows the differences in religious faith to have produced differences in cultures — even if that faith and that culture call themselves "Christian." So ultimately, what we think about man and his destiny depends on what we believe about God or, in other words, on the way we "theologize."

INTENT

I am not going to re-examine the already familiar list of conflicting beliefs that separate the Western creeds from the Orthodox Christian Church, but rather speak of the way so many people think and talk about God — the way they "theologize" about Him. Roman Catholicism and Protestantism have essentially the same mind — the same culture and history — and, in the final analysis, the same religion; hence, it is not difficult to delineate both together as "Western" in their theological approach and trace this fact to the idea and method of law or what we would call the "juridical concept" of religion, begun in the universities of the Latin Middle Ages.

The theology, or rather the approach to theologizing, in the Orthodox Christian Church, is sharply different from the Western approach. Her theologizing is different because her Christianity is different — and it is this, more than any other factor, which accounts for the so-called "separation of the Churches" — or, more precisely, the schism of the old Roman Patriarchate from the Eastern patriarchates of the Christian Church, and ultimately the creation of the Roman Catholic Church by Charlemagne.

Thus, if our evidence has any meaning, we may characterize the Western approach to "theologizing" as "legal" and its theologians as "lawyers." Their aim has been the achievement of universal "righteousness" through juridical justice, an approach that makes the concept of righteousness moralistic in a way that many Eastern theologians would perceive as a kind of "moral fascism." The process had been toward the rational elucidation of faith – ordinarily defined as "assent without knowledge" — to "the certainty of rational knowledge" actually produced by reflective reasoning within the realm of the legal concept. Even for fundamentalists (who claim not to theologize), the "sola scriptura" interpretations of the Bible have been clearly shaped and formed by the juridical legal concept.

THE "MYSTIC"
Orthodox Christian Theology

The authentic patristic theologizing of the Orthodox Church is not an intellectual enterprise, but the struggle for the acquisition of the Holy Spirit, as the Holy New Testament Prophet St Seraphim of Sarov reminds us. This acquisition of the Holy Spirit leads to union with God in Christ (theosis); thus, Orthodox theologians have been neither academicians nor lawyers but "mystics," though in an Orthodox Christian understanding of the word. In the West, theology has been primarily a dialectical exercise, while in the East, it has been perceived primarily as an ontological process, an existential experience, that is, the theology must be shaped by a living encounter, an actual experiencing in contemplative prayer (theoria) of the object of the theologizing.

One of the greatest of the authentic Church fathers, St Gregory the Theologian (328-390) presents us with a typical example of "mystical" theologizing in his Theological Orations. In the first Oration (I, 1-2), he spoke against "the proud ones" who "delight in profane rhetoric, and oppositions of science falsely so-called, and strive about words which have no profit (1Tm.6:20; 2Tm.2:14)."The proud ones [who theologize rationalistically]" cheapen the faith and thereby put "our great mystery" in danger of becoming of "little moment." Then, he declares:

Not to everyone, my friends, does it belong to theologize about God; not to everyone — the subject is not so cheap and low; and also, not before every audience, nor at all times, nor on all points; but only on certain occasions, and before some people, and within certain limits.

Not by all or to all men, because it is permitted only to those who have been examined and are masters of contemplation, and who have been previously purified in soul and body, or, at the very least, are being purified. For the impure to touch the pure is, we may say, perilous, just as it is unsafe to fix weak eyes on the rays of the sun.

We are permitted to theologize only when we are free from all external defilement or disturbances, and when that which rules within us is neither confused by vexatious images.¼For it is necessary to be dispassionate to know God¼ to whom the subject is of genuine concern, and not those who make theology a matter of pleasant gossip, like any other thing, after the races or the theatre or dinner.¼To such men as these, idle jests and petty contradictions about this subject is part of their amusement (I, 3).

What, according to St Gregory the Theologian and the other fathers, may we know about God? A summary of their theology is found in Concise Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St John the Damascene:

We, therefore, both know and confess that God is without beginning, endless, eternal and everlasting, uncreated, unchangeable, invariable, simple, immaterial, invisible, uncircumscribable, infinite, beyond knowledge and definition, incomprehensible, good, just, creator, almighty, omniscient, sovereign judge¼of one essence in three persons: the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all one in every respect save that the Father is, the Son is begotten, the Holy Spirit proceeds¼. (I, 2).

Perhaps nothing could more clearly reveal the mystical quality of Orthodox Christian theology than these words of Saint Gregory of Nyssa:

Seeing that you have stretched forth that which is before you with a great desire, and you never experience complete satiation in your progress, nor are you aware of any limit to the good, as your longing calls you on to ever more and more: here is a place that is so vast that he who runs in it will never be able to reach the end of his course. And yet from another point of view, this course has stability; for God said, `I will set you on the rock' (Ex.33:22). But here we have a very great paradox: motion and stability are identical. For usually speaking, one who is rising is not standing still, and the one who is standing still is not rising. But here, one arises precisely because he is stationary.

I think this idea quite fills all that we have already said. When God speaks of a place, He does not mean a space which can be quantitatively measured, but rather by using the analogy of a measurable surface, He is guiding the reader to a reality which is infinite and without limit. (St Gregory of Nyssa)

Moreover, St Gregory the Theologian says of his contemplation of the Holy Trinity:

So soon as I conceive the One I am illumined by the splendour of the Three: As soon as I distinguish Three, I am carried back into the One. When I consider any of the Three, I think of Him as the whole....I cannot grasp the greatness of the One so as to attribute a greater greatness to the rest. When I contemplate the Three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the undivided light.

It may be that much of the difficulty the West has with the dogma of the Trinity arises from their desire to explain things which cannot be explained, but can only be experienced in theoria.

ESSENCE AND ENERGY
A major break between Orthodox and heretical Christianity

In describing God with apophatic or negative language, St John tells that "the hidden God" may be compared to nothing created, hence there can be no analogia such as Augustine of Hippo erroneously taught. There can be absolutely no analogy between God and created things, and any attempt to make such an analogy is, without fail, idolatry. We can only say what He is not, hedge ourselves about to keep us from falling into idolatry or heresy. Because He has made Himself known to the world as the Holy Trinity, we may make references to Him in kataphatic language as "good" or "just" or "merciful," and so forth., but such terms have no reference to His essence and offer no analogies. As St John Damascene observes in another passage, "It is not within our capacity to say anything about God or even to think of Him, beyond the things which have been divinely revealed to us, whether by the Word or by some manifestation, or by the divine oracles, whether of the Old or New Testaments."

This "theologizing" will gain more significance for us when we understand that St John Damascene and both the holy fathers before him and those after him do not come to these conclusions about God through speculation. Speculation, incidentally, is the source of post-Orthodox Western innovations, which led to the tampering with the Apostolic Tradition and, consequently, to a theory of doctrinal development among the Scholastics — a theory whose fine-tuning climaxed in Cardinal John Henry Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845). For this reason, too, the West felt they had much more to say about God’s nature and so-called "attributes" than is found in the either Scipture or the authentic holy fathers. The East would not accept as holy fathers such writers as Origin, Tertullian, Lactanius or Augustine of Hippo, whose theologizing introduces neo-platonism and seeks to explore the essence and inner nature of God, even if only by pantheistic analogies. Their theology is the child of law and Hellenistic philosophy (even that of Tertullian who declared the philosophers to be the "patriarchs of heretics"). It is this same theologizing that led to the production of the filioque — the idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, a model of the Trinity nowhere found in Scripture or the fathers .

Western theologians also pictured God in almost human, anthropomorphic terms, not in relation to the Incarnation of the Son, but in relation to the Father also, and to the Essence of God, on account of their "legal theology"(as we shall see); and, because following Augustine, they did not distinguish between God in Himself (apart from the creation); and the arrangement of Hypostases ("Persons") upon His entering time in His Plan for the Divine ekonomy (dispensation; providence and salvation), for the creature — in which the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

The Western lack of distinction between the Essence and Energy of God is of singular importance. Like so many of the heresies and errors in the West, this one also arose from Augustine of Hippo.

The lack of an awareness of the distinction between God's Essence and His Energy led to a dry and rigid theology of "Essence," which was empty of every real notion of freedom. So little can be said of the Essence of God that no vital and valid concept of the interaction between God and man could be elucidated. This theology must, therefore, be formed in legal terms that express "laws" of theology, just as science lays down the "laws of nature." This will help explain the West's thoroughly heretical doctrine of atonement. Essence based theology (or "Essential theology") is subject to necessity, just as natural philosophy is subject to natural necessity. Thus Western theology is never "ontology" but is always a phenomenology of Essence. In this way, Western theology is an exposition of rational arguments, a sort of legal mathematics rather than a quest for meaning.

Meaning presupposes an interaction between man and God, between the cosmos and God. If, however, one does not theologize in terms of the Energy of God, but only in terms of His Essence, then there can be no such interaction. Rather, the world is filled by an absence of God, as in Bergman's films, an absence which is the source of cosmic absurdity.

Evangelical Protestants, unable to comprehend or cope with this problem reduced the interaction between man and God to a sentimental, pietistic slogan, and meaningless, emotionalistic "relationship with Jesus" and an egoistic "Christ as my own personal Saviour." The real and immediate both personal and collective "relationship" between man and God would remain both incomprehensible and unattainable under such circumstances and every effort to substitute such pietistic emotionalism for the truth can lead only to delusion and perhaps pantheism.

Finally, the West in its "theologizing" failed to maintain the patristic witness to the Uncreated Energies of God. This is the "mystical theology" which reveals that in Himself God is forever hidden while through His Energies (e.g., divine grace) He guides and protects the world. It is by virtue of these Energies that the saved shall participate in God, that is, the Uncreated Energy of grace, a gift of the Holy Spirit through God the Son Who became man.

The Uncreated Energies of God were clearly understood, though not regularly discussed in much detail in the Church until this "mystical theology" was challenged by the Augustinian West in the 14th century. Our holy and God-bearing father, St Gregory Palamas (1296-1359) stepped forward to defend it at that time. In the process of this defence, all the ancient manifestations and expressions of the Uncreated Energy, from the Burning Bush of Moses to the manifestations of divine grace always at work in the Church, were given exposition in a more concrete form. Again, St Gregory’s reasoning was not legal or rationalistic, not "scientific." Moreover, the God preached by St Gregory was not "the most real Being" of Western rational categories as, for example, the classification of God as the "Primal Cause." His God was beyond rational knowledge; He is not "Being" at all. As St Gregory Palamas mentions, God Himself presented His Person as "The One Who Is." He did not refer to Himself as actus purus as the West does. God is beyond any understanding of His Being, but He is still the Source of all beings and personal hypostases.

Saint Gregory did not claim to have discovered the distinction between "Essence" and "Energy" in God. He was not in search of "objectivity" through methodical doubt and logic. Neither should we forget that St Gregory was a monk and a holy man whose success as a defender of the Faith came from God — from his vital encounter with the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Unlike Anselm of Canterbury, for example, who sought to prove, whenever possible, all aspects of his religion "by reason alone," without revelation or faith, St Gregory’s theology rested upon the divine and immutable Tradition of the Church, upon faith grounded in experiential encounter.

THE LAWYER AND THE LAWS OF NECESSITY
The Theology of the non-Orthodox West

"Theologizing" in the West has been described as "legal" (and philosophical), its theologians as "lawyers." Can this assertion be justified? Something else must be said before we address this question. By the 12th century, medieval law, civil and ecclesiastical, had not only become a "science," but the exemplar for all other intellectual disciplines, including "theology." The connection between law and theology can be seen, for instance, in their common technique.

Both practised the art of posing questions, followed by objections to it. A contrary statement is made which favours the position implicit in the question. Often beginning with the response, "I answer that" the complete argument for the affirmative position is made, appealing to logic, to more ecclesiastical and secular authorities, Scriptures, ending with a "solution" or "conclusion" to the question. The writer, then, answers the initial objections to his position. There is no better use of this technique in the Latin Middle Ages than the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274).

This way of reasoning was borrowed from the canon and civil lawyers in the universities. They adapted Roman and Germanic law and customs; and, at the same time, they were probably inspired by thinkers of the 11th and 12th century, such as Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) and Abelard of Paris (1079-1143), who did not hesitate to subject the aspects of the Christian Faith to criticism. They were the pioneers of a new era, an era which began with the development of a new concept of the Church as a legal, corporate entity alongside her own definition of herself as "the mystical body of Christ."

Anselm provides us with the perfect example of legal-juridical theologizing. In his famous Why God Became Man (Cur Deus Homo), he hoped to provide those who implored him to write such a work with the understanding of something in which they already believe — that Christ is God incarnate. "Although what ought to be sufficient," he explains, "has been said by the holy fathers and their successors, yet I will take pains to disclose to the inquirers what God has seen fit to lay open to me." Anselm states that he will proceed "by questions and answers," "objections and replies," inasmuch as this method makes the subject "more plain to many." "Therefore, the rational existence of the truth must first be shown, I mean the necessity, which proves that God ought to or could have condescended to those things which we affirm".

Why God Became Man is Anselm’s "doctrine of the Atonement" — a term unfamiliar and alien to the Church fathers — the reason why God had to save man through the Cross. We ought to be aware that his teaching on this matter is an innovation, unknown to the Christian world until his time. The theory of "the Atonement" was indeed an attempt to interpret the Scriptures differently from the witness delivered to the Church by the holy fathers, and, therefore, tacit in Anselm’s theologizing is a view of the Church and her doctrine as evolving and that previously non-existent doctrine could be created, even when it radically altered the previously existing doctrine of the Church.

Anselm abandoned the ancient belief of the Church that Christ was our "ransom." He gave Himself as a victim to the grave in order to accomplish the liberation of man (Mk.10:45; 1Tm.2:16). Before we go any further, we must strongly point out that the Greek word, lytron being used here refers to something of value being given; it does not bear the connotation of "blackmail," but as something completely voluntary given without constraint. In the Book of Hosea, which we are about to quote, the term for ransom is padah which means to "set free." As the Lord revealed to the Prophet, "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death" (Hos. 13:14). Dying and rising voluntarily from the dead, Christ destroyed the tyranny of the devil who controlled the human race through the power and fear of death, "Man was all his lifetime held in bondage to him who held the power of death" (Hb.2:14-15). Thus, having freed the race of Adam from death and sin, Christ offered a "new creation" to God the Father. We can redeem or ransom something only from the one who holds it in bondage or captivity. Mankind had sold himself into bondage through sin (Rm.7:14).

It is clear that man was "ransomed" out of bondage to Satan by being freed from the power and fear of death (Hb.2:14-15; 1Tm.2:5-6), whereas the Western doctrine of atonement clearly states that man was redeemed from God the Father, and that this was acccomplished by a legal fiction. It requires the notion that God Himself is subject to immutable laws which require a juridical justice before He is allowed to offer a fiction of forgiveness ( a fiction since punishment and forgiveness are mutually exclusive).

The ambition of Anslem was to provide the Church with a rationalized legal explanation of Christ’s death "by necessary reasons." To summarize, He depicted God in terms of the current legal system, as a feudal Lord who demanded "satisfaction" for the offence done to His honour by man. Formerly, sin was understood as an act of the passions which alienated man from God (not God from man). In the hands of Anslem and his Scholastic colleagues, sin was now a wrongful, that is, illegal or illicit act, desire or thought which violated God’s Justice (justitia) — a breach of law. The "original sin" of the first man, in particular, had everlasting consequences because it dishonoured the eternal Judge. This also provided a novel Doctrine of Original Sin, also unheard of by the Church fathers, who spoke of the Ancestral Sin, as a poisoning of the stream, but never conceived of Original Sin as inherited guilt, as the West defined it.

God’s justice, Anselm shockingly asserts, demands a "satisfaction" which no mortal can make. Man must be punished and forfeit the blessedness for which he was created. But this would frustrate God’s purpose once again so God had to do something about it. Who, then, could "atone" or "make up for," "pay the price for" the offence to God’s honour or, what is the same thing, the violation of His justice? From his legalistic point of view, Anselm could not conceive that God could simply dismiss man’s guilt and its consequences; it would be contrary to Anselm’s (and the West’s) concept of His juridical justice. Only God could make satisfaction and only man was required to do so. The answer was the God-man. He alone could atone for the offence and fulfil the demands of divine justice. The Incarnation of Jesus Christ is necessary, Anselm asserted, and His Cross was necessary, if God was to be compensated. Since only the Son is equal to the Father, only the Son of God could pay the price of sin, reconciling man to God and thereby restore the creation to its original purpose. In such a legal system, the reality is that what is asserted here is that Christ redeemed man from God.

Anselm’s speculation on the Atonement (among other things) laid the foundation for a new jurisprudence. He answered all the questions in relation to Christ’s redemption in terms of legalistic, juridical justice, legal justice, justice as "the right order of things," or, in this case, "the order of creation" formed by God. Anselm argued that sin, left to itself, would constitute a deficiency in the justice of God. To be sure, God is merciful, but from a legalistic point of view, His mercy could not be allowed to trump His justice. In the words of Professor Berman, Anselm’s theology is a "theology of law."

Unlike this Western theory of Atonement, the teaching of the Orthodox Church on the purpose of the Incarnation or "God become man" is a doctrine of divine condescension and co-suffering love. Man’s salvation is not the result of a legal transaction, but of God’s co-suffering love. He looked upon man not only as a sinner, but as a victim of the devil, a slave to death, suffering from a sinful condition not entirely of his own making. Unlike the Western theory of Atonement in which the Son is punished in our place on the Cross to compensate God for His offended majesty, in the doctrine of the Orthodox Church, Christ goes voluntarily to Calvary to "destroying death by [His] Death and upon those in the grave bestowing life" (Paschal Troparion).

That the doctrine of Atonement should have been shaped in the medieval West by concepts of legal juridicalism, while in the East, the doctrine remained an ontological process of union with God through the Holy Spirit, made possible by the victory of Jesus Christ and His recapitulation of creation, is perhaps the most vivid example of the difference between the Eastern and Western processes and approaches to theology.

Of course, religious doctrines and liturgical forms changed with the Protestant Reformation, but not the manner of theologizing. Not without reason did Alexander Herzen call it "the final stage of the Middle Ages." In fact, Western theologizing did not really change until the 19th century when all the intellectual disciplines were overwhelmed by a new "historical consciousness" initiated by the German philosoper Georg Hegel (1770-1831). The ideas of "changes" and "development" came to dominate the thinking of the West. History explained the existence of everything explainable. Karl Marx is the most famous example of this attitude.

From this "philosophy of history" grew "Protestant liberalism" — the father of which was Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834). Differentiating "liberalism" and "conservativism," Protestantism re-examined the divinity of Christ and the inerrant Bible as the inspired word. The former questioned and often rejected both, following rather the lead of modern science and philosophy. Liberals held that Christianity must now, as it has before, change to accommodate the times.

Having subjected the Old and New Testaments to brutal analysis, liberal theologians went in quest of the "true Jesus," "the historical Christ" as opposed to the what they considered to be the "mythical Christ of Faith" found in the Bible. Not a few 19th century thinkers argued that Christianity is a religion of purely naturalistic origin which, in some instances, depended on fraud to establish and spread its message. Necessarily, then, these theologians and Biblical critics changed, if they did not simply reject, everything in Christianity which they viewed as "traditional." Yet, theologizing remained ever the same. Theologians were still lawyers and "Christianity" was on trial (as it still is by such essentially liberal Protestant forces as the "Jesus Seminar" and the Ecumenical Movement.

Take up any text on the "principles of systematic theology" and the reader (with any knowledge of Western theology and its history) will discover no fundamental change of spirit and method.

As a paradigm of modern theologizing, we turn to the eminent Lutheran theologian, Bishop Gustav Aulen (1879-1977), former Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Lund (Sweden). He writes that "theology" is a "science" (albeit some deny it). Whatever the case, theologians customarily view theology as an intellectual discipline whose only purpose is to understand the Faith. He makes no mention of holiness as the precondition of theologizing — whether understood as the study of anything pertaining to religion or as only the "knowledge of God." In his The Faith of the Christian Church, Aulen delineates "the function of systematic theology."

First, this theology "has as its object of study the Christian faith. The intention of the discipline is to clarify the significance and meaning of the Christian faith with all the means at its disposal." The task is not to prove or defend the Faith, but to offer a critical analysis of it. "Theology" must not pretend to tell people what they ought to believe. "Everything is concentrated on the attempt to understand the faith and to present the ideas and viewpoints of faith itself with the greatest possible clarity."

Furthermore, since the Christian Church is divided, theology is not bound by confessional limitations. Looked at this way, "the function of systematic theology is purely scientific insofar as its task is to clarify the significance of the Christian faith. It can serve the Christian life only by performing this scientific study without any secondary purpose."

We have read such words before: "study" means to be "scientific" (as Aulen admits); and to be "scientific" is to discover, record, verify, formulate, unafraid to use the results of other science and philosophy, even as Aquinas used Aristotle. As the Scholastics before him, Aulen sought to "understand the faith." He wanted more than what the Scriptures (which rest on faith) and the Church fathers (who have been superseded) have to offer. Reason is his tool in the achievement of this end. His use of reason differs in no fundamental way from Scholastic and Reform theologians, although he would have furiously denied that his modern philosophizing was "legal." Aulen’s mind was shaped by his Western religion and culture which never dispelled the power of law.

CONCLUSION

If the theologizing of the authentic Church fathers and the Orthodox theologians who followed them is "mystical," it is precisely because they never abandoned "the tradition of the Apostles." They recognize that "theology" (knowledge of God) and the other teachings (economy) of the Church constitute "the Faith" of the Church. What they have delivered to us by way of their writings, hymns, and icons comes from Christ, certified in the Holy Spirit.

The saving Truth of the Church never changes. It is today what it was when it was first delivered to the believing community. Of course, from time to time, when confronted with heresy, her Councils placed the Faith in words (formulas) — such as the Symbol of Faith (the Nicean Creed) which was recited at baptism and during the Divine Liturgy. If theologians express theology using a vocabulary developed by earlier philosophers, it is not with the purpose of transforming what we believe into something we can know scientifically, but to defend, to explain, to give it form in order to instruct her children and to let the world know where she stands.

There is a "ladder of knowledge" even as there is a "ladder of virtues." Some things the Church professes must be held on faith, others human reason can prove or explain, while the highest things are grasped only by a special knowledge — one bestowed by the Holy Spirit. This kind of knowledge is not cognitive, but comes by uncreated grace to the holy ones among God’s Own. These are the dispassionate (apatheia), the strugglers, men and women who, like St Mary of Egypt, live in this world as if without being in this world. In their contemplation of things divine, the Holy Spirit rewards them with a vision of heavenly realms and another age; and sometime, as with St Arsenios of Constantinople or St Symeon the New Theologian, they are visited by God’s Uncreated Light, a revelation of the future Glory which is the destiny of His elect.

To conclude, the purpose of Christian theologizing is not "faith becoming rational knowledge" (fides quaerens intellectum), nor even the rational or beatific vision of God; but "the acquisition of the Holy Spirit" Who gives "to us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge (epignoseos) of Him that has called us to glory and virtue: whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these you might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust" (2Pet.1:3-4).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.