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.
"subservient?" Do you think Jesus should have been "subservient" to the Romans? If you wish to be great in God's Kingdom, you must learn to be the servant of all. An alternative, if you wish to find a place where you will not have to be "subservient," would be to read Milton.
That's true...But ALL Christians are baptized with a dry baptism...
You have very admirably demonstrated that you have no idea what it says.
Well let's try again then...
***Barnabas was a bishop of the Church and he laid hands on Paul to ordain him as bishop
You keep insisting this is what it says...
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.
This is what God said to the prophets and teachers...
Act 13:3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
The prophets and teachers layed hands on Barnabas AND Paul...You'll notice Barnabas didn't lay his hands on anyone...He didn't make Paul a bishop...The prophets and teachers layed their hands on Barnabas...
Pretty simple, ain't it...
***Most Christians are baptized with a water baptism.
That’s true...But ALL Christians are baptized with a dry baptism...***
Explain.
******Barnabas was a bishop of the Church and he laid hands on Paul to ordain him as bishop
You keep insisting this is what it says...
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.
This is what God said to the prophets and teachers...
Act 13:3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
The prophets and teachers layed hands on Barnabas AND Paul...You’ll notice Barnabas didn’t lay his hands on anyone...He didn’t make Paul a bishop...The prophets and teachers layed their hands on Barnabas...***
Yes, I misspoke. However, the first bishop of Antioch was Peter, followed by Evodius. One of these would have ordained Paul. We don’t have Scripture saying which one. Presumably Peter.
***Pretty simple, ain’t it...***
Given your novel interpretations of Scripture, not really.
Vera Lex,
First, thank you for responding.
Given the command that married couples are not
to withhold themselves from each other except
at certain times, which are to be limited,
is no argument from silence.
Unfortunately, the passage you quote in Luke
does not state she remained a virgin - only
that she was at the time.
Please do not take that as a criticism of your
belief, just my attempt to explore this issue
from the Scriptures. Nor is it a denial of
Tradition. I’m just asking.
And I appreciate your response.
Best,
ampu
“She is second only to St. Peter and of course Jesus himself in the frequency of her appearance in the scripture.”
I’m not so sure about that, but it is a separate issue
from the one I am pursuing now, so I am going to put
it aside.
“That several doctrines of the Church do not have a direct scriptural prooftext, indeed, as Kolokotronis explained, is not an obstacle for venerating Mary. The Scripture generally does not inform us of lives of even the early saints, yet we venerate them all.”
I understand the position of the Roman and Eastern Church
on Tradition. Yet that is not the issue I was searching
to find. I will set that aside for now - and I do not
deny it.
“You are applying the wrong standard, according to both the Orthodox and the Catholic: you think that if the scripture is silent about something then it should not be believed.”
Actually, I do not.
“We do not hold that standard, and in fact, for you to be consistent,. that standard should then be spelled in the Bible, and it is not.”
I find that the major teachings are in fact, in holy
Scripture. Major doctrines are there. Major practice,
there. When something that has been major is not there,
it seems peculiar. That is all.
Thanks,
ampu
Kolo,
There are many things Jesus did that God did not
see fit to record. Who knows why?
ampu
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Sorry but Jesus disagrees with you...
Psa 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.
Jesus talked about his brothers and sisters long before Mary even showed up...
Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3)
But John 7 is written in Greek, not Hebrew...And the Greek word there for brethren means brother...
Luk 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
And the word cousin means, cousin...An extended relative; kin...
But what does it prove that your church fathers (for the most part) believed Mary was a perpetual virgin??? All it proves is that the one following copied the one before...Without any initial evidence or later evidence...
bronxville,
Thank you for posting a very good collection of
quotes that seems to indicate that the Early Church
believed Mary remained a virgin (earliest I see in
your list is 248).
I appreciate it.
Best,
ampu
Iscool,
I know J. Vernon McGee would agree with you
in applying every verse in Psalm 69 to Christ
(and I like him), but not every verse in Psalm
69 is quoted in the NT and certainly not this
one.
Most would consider the Psalm “indirectly Messianic.”
And, since it is primarily about King David, I
believe the specific verse you quoted is about
him.
As another example, 69:5 says “You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you,” and it is clearly not
about Christ.
Best,
ampu, non-Roman, non-Orthodox
“There are many things Jesus did that God did not
see fit to record. Who knows why?”
Precisely! :)
Greek in seminary :-)
ZC: Naturally, since the Hebrew Bible accepted on its face teaches Judaism, not chr*stianity.
Thank you! I have been trying to tell that to literalistic, fundamentalist Protestants.
Hey, I'm "literalistic." And I have far fewer problems without the "new testament" messing up things.
For some reason chr*stians seem almost congenitally unable to imagine a Hebrew Bible standing on its own rather than being a relatively minor and unimportant prologue to chr*stianity. It's the one thing that they all seem to have in common. You're an exception, of course, and though I applaud you for it, I sort of lament the price you have had to pay.
Seeing that Judaism is basically the Torah, that's nonsense.
It teaches that the God who created the Heavens and the Earth is to be glorified above all else, and that He is pleased most of all with people who simply believe Him.
And who obey His commandments. And btw, the entire TaNa"KH is about G-d and the Jewish People. It wasn't even given to non-Jews. Non-Jews who read it are reading someone else's mail.
As a gentile lover of the TaNaK,I find it to be full of comparisons between those who believed God and experienced the sweet freedom of a right relationship with their Creator, and those who didn't believe Him, and thus were consigned to legalistic confines that could not set free, but could only place boundaries on their behavior.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Nobody in the Hebrew Bible "got SAVED!!!" as you understand it. You're projecting your chr*stian beliefs into the Hebrew Bible exactly the way mormons project "the book of mormon" into the chr*stian bible.
It hurts me when I see Christian organizations in the same light. There are those who preach faith in Christ, and thus freedom; and there are those who preach religiosity and practice ritual and impose rules 'n regs, resulting in toxic bondage.
There's an awful lot of ritual commanded in the Torah.
I kind of like the official flat Cardinal's hats. Sort of a late classical Roman feel to them.
Actually they say it is ALL important yet only the Gospels sit on the altar in Orthodox/Catholic churches. Not even the New Testament, only the Gospels. The Protestants, on the other hand, tend to overemphasize the Hebrew Bible and Paul and minimize the Gospels.
Both communities of the ecclesial divide do this because of inherent difficulties in creating a "seamless" union of the two Testaments (because they are inherently incompatible), the Tanakh and the Gospels in particular.
It's the one thing that they all seem to have in common. You're an exception, of course, and though I applaud you for it, I sort of lament the price you have had to pay.
Well, I would ask Orthodox priests about some passages in the Old Testament and would often get an angry reaction from them (especially the OCA ex-protestant converts), or a patronizing reply along with "you need to read more," but never a really sensible answer.
Looking for archtypes and prefeguring of Chirst in some passages of the OT really stretrches one's imagination. But the Church says "it's there..." I guess that's why we call it faith. :)
As for the price, my pay is the same and when I look at myself in the mirror, I know I have not been a hypocrite. I see no connectin between those two books, but that's not the "official truth."
Couldn't be clearer.
ZC: And btw, the entire TaNa"KH is about G-d and the Jewish People. It wasn't even given to non-Jews. Non-Jews who read it are reading someone else's mail.
LOL! So true. But even the Gospels are intended only "for the lost sheep of Israel." Jesus never even hints to go and preach to the Gentiles. That comes only later (Acts) when the Church was dying in Israel and had to go to pagan Greeks to get a life.
CZ: Sorry, but you're wrong. Nobody in the Hebrew Bible "got SAVED!!!"
Now here is an epiphany!
The flip side of sola scriptura is sola traditio...except the latter is biblical.
In words of John Dryden (1631- 1700)
The Hind and the Panther
What weight of ancient witness can prevail
If private reason holds the public scale?
‘As long as words a different sense will bear,
Our airy faith will no foundation find.
The Word’s weathercock for ev’ry wind.
:)
I wonder -- do the lutherans or Anglicans or others have a priest dating service? chuckle!
I am sure there are social and Internet church networks for lonely pastors and pastoresses (?). I used to know a colleague of mine in Japan, and a Presbyterian "lay minister" on occasion, who was looking for a wife on various Christian Internet sites. They are certainly not precluded from dating after their 'ordination.'
LOL! So true and so funny...because it's so true.
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.