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.
I certainly hope, for the sake of the Bible, that the Holy Spirit would have guided the Church, but for fasting rules, making eggs non-fasting and lobster fasting, I seriously doubt that!
Christ is the foundation.
It is small minded to believe that Christ gave the power to bind and loose for half a generation.
On a quick skim this jumped out...
12: “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...””
It looks like something a kid made up.
Catholic Catechism:
460 - The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”
1129 - “The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. **The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.**”
“The consequences of such a view are rich, unfathomable, and rarely studied by Catholic Christians.”
That’s news to me...
HOLY MASS:
The Offertory at Mass, in both the old and the new Roman rite, contains the prayer:
“By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.”
If we did not share in his divinity, then there would be only actual grace. But from Baptism onwards we receive Supernatural Graces—graces above our human nature.
If we did not share in his divinity, then we would be capable of only human faith, hope and charity as a result of our own strength of character. But we receive Supernatural Virtues— Faith, Hope and Charity by the power of God.
If we did not share in his divinity, then we would receive only his humanity in Holy Communion. But we receive the whole Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
1 Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Symeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who was a close friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
3 Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off.
In order to become bishops, only another bishop can consecrate them.
You don't make a bishop out of an apostle...That would be like you guys making a cardinal out of your pope...
Act 12:25 And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.
Paul was aleady doing the work in Jerusalem that you are claiming was the work of a consecrated bishop...So your theoretical argument doesn't fly...
Act 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Prophets and teachers...No bishop or apostle layed their hands on Paul and consecrated him...Prophets and teachers...It could have been youth ministers and the youth...
You're missing the point and twisting it into something else...The confirmation (not to be a bishop but to proceed on another mission) was the witness of third parties receiving the message of the Holy Spirit as it pertained to Paul and Barnabas...
Act 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Act 13:3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Act 13:4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.
In other words, don't confuse the issue with God's word, the scripture...We've got our minds made up regardless of the facts...Ha....
Thanks! I’ve been there several times!
It looks like something a kid made up.
Actually, it was Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr.
I did clarify that on another post on the thread.
Thank you for the quote from the CCC. I don't think that it denies my assertion though. Whether the Orthodox say it, or we say it, the truth of the matter is that we don't reflect on what this "partaking of the divine nature" means as much as we ought to.
-Theo
***I certainly hope, for the sake of the Bible, that the Holy Spirit would have guided the Church, but for fasting rules, making eggs non-fasting and lobster fasting, I seriously doubt that!***
Hard to say. The Church is the Church.
***In order to become bishops, only another bishop can consecrate them.
You don’t make a bishop out of an apostle...That would be like you guys making a cardinal out of your pope...***
Two statements and two errors. About par for the course.
The Apostles were the first bishops. The Pope is not a cardinal, although he may have been prior to his selection.
***Act 12:25 And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.
Paul was aleady doing the work in Jerusalem that you are claiming was the work of a consecrated bishop...So your theoretical argument doesn’t fly...***
What work? Preaching does not require ordination to the rank of bishop. No theory here.
***Act 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Prophets and teachers...No bishop or apostle layed their hands on Paul and consecrated him...Prophets and teachers...It could have been youth ministers and the youth...***
Do you really know so little about the early Church? Youth ministers and the youth? What are you talking about?
***You’re missing the point and twisting it into something else...The confirmation (not to be a bishop but to proceed on another mission) was the witness of third parties receiving the message of the Holy Spirit as it pertained to Paul and Barnabas...
Act 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Act 13:3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Act 13:4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.***
Very good. You at least have Scripture. Now if only you could understand what it means. Ananais baptized Paul with a dry baptism. Barnabas was a bishop of the Church and he laid hands on Paul to ordain him as bishop.
***Don’t worry. Jesus left us His Apostolic Church; and He will be with us and it until the end. We’re okay with that.
In other words, don’t confuse the issue with God’s word, the scripture...We’ve got our minds made up regardless of the facts...Ha....***
Iscool, you’ve proven over and over again that your perception of Scripture is out of the year 2009 in the little Church that you attend in the culture that you exist in. The early Church in the first century AD did not have all those things that you take for granted and expect as a part of everyday life. The early Christians, mostly drawn from the lower classes were nearly 99% illiterate. Journeys of more than 50 miles per day did not exist except for the military messengers going from post to post for fresh horses. The few literates took months to copy out any literature by hand, including Scripture.
In this time, there were as many as 80 Gospels (for instance) floating around. Many of the individual churches did not have the entire package of what we consider Scripture for decades or centuries.
But even with Scripture settled for 1600 years, you repeatedly post a reasonable misunderstanding of Scripture on a regular basis.
They were rejected by the Orthodox laity.
So the theological decisions of the bishops are subject to the approval of the laity? In the Catholic Church it is the other way round! This is a notable difference.
I find the way the article says that the west has been too influenced by St. Augustine to be quite interesting. Perhaps Augustine’s legalistic bent of mind has influenced the western church a bit too much, I don’t know, but it bears learning more about.
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.