Posted on 08/07/2009 9:00:03 AM PDT by Teófilo
Folks, Elizabeth Mahlou, my fellow blogger from Blest Atheist, asked me one of those “big questions” which necessitate its own blog post. Here is the question:
I am a Catholic who upon occasion attends Orthodox services because of my frequent travels in Eastern European countries. The differences in the masses are obvious, but I wonder what the differences in the theology are. I don't see much. Is that something that you can elucidate?
I welcome this question because, as many of you know, I belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church for about four years and in many ways, I still am “Orthodox” (please, don’t ask me elucidate the seeming contradiction at this time, thank you). This question allows me to wear my “Orthodox hat” which still fits me, I think. If you are an Orthodox Christian and find error or lack of clarity in what I am about to say, feel free to add your own correction in the Comments Section.
Orthodox Christians consider the differences between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches as both substantial and substantive, and resent when Catholics trivialize them. Though they recognize that both communions share a common “Tradition” or Deposit of Faith, they will point out that the Roman Catholic Church has been more inconsistently faithful – or more consistently unfaithful – to Tradition than the Orthodox Church has been in 2000 years of Christian history. Generally, all Orthodox Christians would agree, with various nuances, with the following 12 differences between their Church and the Catholic Church. I want to limit them to 12 because of its symbolic character and also because it is convenient and brief:
1. The Orthodox Church of the East is the Church that Christ founded in 33 AD. She is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. All other churches are separated from by schism, heresy, or both, including the Roman Catholic Church.I think this will do it for now. I invite my Orthodox Christian brethren to agree, disagree, or add your own. Without a doubt, - I am speaking as a Catholic again - what we have in common with the Orthodox Church is immense, but what keeps us apart is important, challenging, and not to be underestimated.
2. Jesus Christ, as Son of God is divine by nature, as born of the Virgin Mary, True Man by nature, alone is the head of the Church. No hierarch, no bishop, no matter how exalted, is the earthly head of the Church, since Jesus Christ’s headship is enough.
3. All bishops are equal in their power and jurisdiction. Precedence between bishops is a matter of canonical and therefore of human, not divine law. “Primacies” of honor or even jurisdiction of one bishop over many is a matter of ecclesiastical law, and dependent bishops need to give their consent to such subordination in synod assembled.
4. The Church is a communion of churches conciliar in nature; it is not a “perfect society” arranged as a pyramid with a single monarchical hierarch on top. As such, the Orthodox Church gives priority to the first Seven Ecumenical Councils as having precedent in defining the nature of Christian belief, the nature and structure of the Church, and the relationship between the Church and secular government, as well as the continuation of synodal government throughout their churches to this day.
5. Outside of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Church receives with veneration various other regional synods and councils as authoritative, but these are all of various national churches, and always secondary in authority to the first seven. They do not hold the other 14 Western Councils as having ecumenical authority.
6. Orthodox Christians do not define “authority” in quite the same way the Catholic Church would define it in terms of powers, jurisdictions, prerogatives and their interrelationships. Orthodox Christian would say that “authority” is inimical to Love and in this sense, only agape is the one firm criterion to delimit rights and responsibilities within the Church. Under this scheme, not even God himself is to be considered an “authority” even though, if there was a need of one, it would be that of God in Christ.
7. The Orthodox Church holds an anthropology different from that of the Catholic Church. This is because the Orthodox Church does not hold a forensic view of Original Sin, that is, they hold that the sin of Adam did not transmit an intrinsic, “guilt” to his descendants. “Ancestral Sin,” as they would call it, transmitted what may be termed as a “genetic predisposition” to sin, but not a juridical declaration from God that such-a-one is “born in sin.” Hyper-Augustinianism, Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed, is impossible in Orthodox anthropology because according to the Orthodox, man is still essentially good, despite his propensity to sin. By the way, even what Catholics would consider a “healthy Augustinianism” would be looked at with suspicion by most Orthodox authorities. Many trace “the fall” of the Latin Church to the adoption of St. Augustine as the West’s foremost theological authority for 1,000 years prior to St. Thomas Aquinas. The best evaluations of St. Augustine in the Orthodox Church see him as holy, well-meaning, but “heterodox” in many important details, starting with his anthropology.
8. Since no “forensic guilt” is transmitted genetically through “Original Sin,” the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Mother is considered superfluous. She had no need for such an exception because there was nothing to exempt her from in the first place. Of course, Mary is Theotokos (“God-bearer”), Panagia (“All-Holy”) and proclaimed in every Liturgy as “more honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim,” but her sanctification is spoken about more in terms of a special, unique, total, and gratuitous bestowing and subsequent indwelling of the Spirit in her, without the need of “applying the merits of the atonement” of Christ to her at the moment of conception, in order to remove a non-existent forensic guilt from her soul, as the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception would have it. If pressed, Orthodox authorities would point at the Annunciation as the “moment” in which this utter experience of redemption and sanctification took place in the life of the Blessed Theotokos. Although the Orthodox believe in her Assumption, they deny that any individual hierarch has any power to singly and unilaterally define it as a dogma binding on the whole Church, and that only Councils would have such power if and when they were to proclaim it and its proclamations received as such by the entire Church.
9. Although Orthodox Christians have at their disposal various institutions of learning such as schools, universities, and seminaries, and do hold “Sunday Schools,” at least in the USA, it is fair to say that the main catechetical vehicle for all Orthodox peoples is the Divine Liturgy. All the liturgical prayers are self-contained: they enshrine the history, the story, the meaning, and the practical application of what is celebrated every Sunday, major feast, and commemoration of angels, saints, and prophets. If one pays attention – and “Be attentive” is a common invitation made throughout the Divine Liturgy – the worshipper catches all that he or she needs to know and live the Orthodox faith without need for further specialized education. For this very reason, the Divine Liturgy, more than any other focus of “power and authority,” is the true locus of Orthodox unity and the principal explanation for Orthodox unity and resiliency throughout history.
10. Since the celebration of the Divine Liturgy is overwhelmingly important and indispensable as the vehicle for True Christian Worship – one of the possible translations of “orthodoxy” is “True Worship – and as a teaching vehicle – since another possible translation of “orthodoxy” is “True Teaching” – all the ecclesiastical arts are aimed at sustaining the worthy celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Iconography in the Eastern Church is a mode of worship and a window into heaven; the canons governing this art are strict and quite unchanging and the use of two-dimensional iconography in temples and chapels is mandatory and often profuse. For them, church architecture exists to serve the Liturgy: you will not find in the East “modernistic” temples resembling auditoriums. Same thing applies to music which is either plain chant, or is organically derived from the tones found in plain chant. This allows for “national expressions” of church music that nevertheless do not stray too far away from the set conventions. Organ music exists but is rare; forget guitars or any other instrument for that matter. Choral arrangements are common in Russia – except in the Old Calendarist churches – the Orthodox counterparts to Catholic “traditionalists.”
11. There are Seven Sacraments in the Orthodox Church, but that’s more a matter of informal consensus based on the perfection of the number “seven” than on a formal dogmatic declaration. Various Orthodox authorities would also argue that the tonsure of a monk or the consecration of an Emperor or other Orthodox secular monarch is also a sacramental act. Opinion in this instance is divided and the issue for them still open and susceptible to a final dogmatic definition in the future, if one is ever needed.
12. The end of man in this life and the next is similar between the Orthodox and the Catholics but I believe the Orthodox “sing it in a higher key.” While Catholics would say that the “end of man is to serve God in this life to be reasonably happy in this life and completely happy in the next,” a rather succinct explanation of what being “holy” entails, the Orthodox Church would say that the end of man is “deification.” They will say that God became man so that man may become “god” in the order of grace, not of nature of course. Men – in the Greek the word for “man” still includes “womankind” – are called to partake fully of the divine nature. There is no “taxonomy” of grace in the Orthodox Church, no “quantification” between “Sanctifying Grace” and actual grace, enabling grace, etc. Every grace is “Sanctifying Grace,” who – in this Catholic and Orthodox agree – is a Person, rather than a created power or effect geared to our sanctification. Grace is a continuum, rather than a set of discreet episodes interspersed through a Christian’s life; for an Orthodox Christian, every Grace is Uncreated. The consequences of such a view are rich, unfathomable, and rarely studied by Catholic Christians.
Thank you Elizabeth for motivating me to write these, and may the Lord continue to bless you richly.
PING!
I intend no debate, just exposition. Others may and will debate. I can't stop that.
-Theo
I don’t have a deg in this fight, but I like the Eastern types simply because their outfits are so neat, with those funny black hat things that the priests wear.
Ignoring “Thou art Peter” etc. as though it were meaningless and died with Peter is typical protestant blather that does NOT withstand the test of logic.
Matthew 16 discusses building on the rock. Matthew 7 had already defined that rock. There’s self serving logic, truth, and God’s Truth.
Matthew 7:24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.”
You wrote:
“I can’t stop that.”
Oh, come on now Theo! You posted it. I’m not trying to pick on you, but you can control what you post even if you can’t control what others post.
:)
Very well organized and written!
Another key difference among the priesthood is that Orthodox priests are allowed to marry and have families whereas Orthodox Monks are not. You may explain separately in a life contrasts section how this affects living among orthodox and roman catholic.
You may want to expound on differences of how divorce is treated.
You may also point out differences in how orthodox and roman catholics view and treat jewish history and people.
Your list does include human anthropology such as icons, chants/music, so I would think the items above would find relevance.
Although you wanted to limit your list to 12 items for the symbolism (which I think is a great idea), I would think to organize along philosophical differences, anthropological differences, and make lists according to these categories so that you are not ‘boxed’ in to 12 items.
Thank you for your expose’, it is very revealing.
Which is EXACTLY what I meant...I am debating no one in my post, just exposing to compare and contrast to the best of my ability 12 differences between the OCC and the RCC from an OCC perspective. But I am well aware that many will debate it and that the debate will progress through hitherto unknown - and unintended - channels. And I can't stop that, nor do I want to stop it.
And this is what makes this hobby "fun."
-Theo
Those garments and vestments originate from the traditions of the Levitical priests of the Old Testament. Hence, the Orthodoxy claim they are ‘closest’ to the birth of Christianity to the time of Jesus among the Jews. In other words, many of the Orthodox priests early on were Jewish and preserved Jewish traditions of dress and authority.
We must remember that Christianity came about from a schism among Jews. Christian orthodox are the first organized Christians and have not changed in nearly 2000 years. Many Episcopal are joining the Orthodox Church for that very reason, they want a faith is unchanging, as close to the original witness as possible.
The Orthodox Church is said to have been founded by the Apostle Paul, and also Apostle Peter before Peter went to Rome.
When I write my book, tentatively titled "Confessions of a Guilty Ortho-Catholic Bystander," I might include your concerns and perhaps follow that pattern. For I do have things to say on those issues too.
When, oh when would I be able to write my book! Lord?
-Theo
The Orthodox counter is that Peter was in the East before he was in Rome. That Peter’s church in Rome is an extension of his churches in the East. We remember they were united before and there was no hierarchy bestowing more authority to the Bishop of Rome, now known as the roman catholic pope.
To me it has always been sad that Rome has always demanded subservience from others on this point. Why do they not bend and ask for forgiveness of this pride? It is not that ther traditions are shunned or avoided, in fact they are admired, but they have created division of ‘them versus others’. To me they should bow down asking for forgiveness, pledging servitude. This act would exalt them and make them true leaders of Orthodox. By bending and surrendering they would be blessed with authority because they would regain trust.
Just my thoughts.
The first time I ever saw it was at my uncle's wedding: He had a friend who was/is an Orthodox priest, which was odd, seeing as how my uncle is an Episcopalian priest.
Now, with the passage of time, I acknowledge the Orthodox guy as being closer to true Christianity than my uncle.
Considering the fact that the Orthodox have been around longer than you, perhaps the Catholics have it wrong....you think????
I think Episcopalian traditions are wonderful and valuable. But there are more and more Episcopalians now attending the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox because of a schism in the Epioscopalian community, and an accurate sense that the Orthodox provide a sanctuary.
The value of Orthodoxy, and all Orthodox know this, is they never change. And it easier for them to adhere to this never changing nature because the Divine Liturgy seldom requires anyting more than love. Even obedience is secondary to love.
But the problems of the Orthodox are as the problems in other Christian sects, that of personal problems among priests and bishops, problems of budgets, of decisions of who is promoted etc.
So Orthodoxy is not and can never be Utopia. But its adherence to the Divine Liturgy is its center, as our thread author wrote so well. The Divine Liturgy focuses each of us before the Eternal, we stand before Eternity for a few hours and come away humbled.
Bingo! When RCCers are challenged on their own Romish claims, they respond with chauvinism, not humility.
MarkBsnr,
From a RC point of view, does this
comparison seem accurate to you?
best,
ampu
When Messiah returns, he will take His place as King of the Jews and reside in Jerusalem; and rule from his throne on Mount Zion, in the temple, in the holy of holies on the place of the name of YHWH Tsabaoth. Israel will finally recognize Messiah and will be exalted. And we Gentile Christians will have the glorious privelege of participating in that grand kingdom.
The RCC and Orthodox and any other largely predominately gentile Christian organizations need to get off their high horses and realize that they aren't central ... Israel is...at least according to the holy, inspired scriptures we all claim to revere.
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.