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.
“And secondly, if you have the ‘original’ Greek, you have the true word of God right in front of you.”
I, I believe most even protestant scholars will tell you that the NT which the Orthodox Church uses, the Byzantine Text, is the nearest to the original Greek any of us have.
“Why don’t you guys, after all these centuries, translate the whole thing into English so we poor ignorants can read the actual words of God for ourselves???”
Actually, we have. It was finished quite recently but that doesn’t solve your problem. English just isn’t a good language for Christian theology and even our translation really isn’t very good. God had the NT written in Greek. I’d say its best you learn to read it in the language God thought best.
C'mon now...Seem at odds??? And the LATER Latin versions agree with some of the corrupted letters and some do not??? And that's your authority???
and the Letter to the Ephesians is generally credited with being authentic, unlike some others. Are you using the abridged Syriac version? Frankly, while interesting, it isn’t the one you want to be using for a serious discussion of Ignatian theology or ecclesiology.
I'm not interested in discussing Ignatius...You have two copies of Ignatius' writings of the same event which completely disagree with each other and one obviously is a forgery...Maybe then, the other is also...
I can't believe you guys use Ignatius' writings as as source material when it is known that his writings were corrupted...
“I’m not interested in discussing Ignatius.”
OK, but without understanding +Ignatius, what he wrote and how those writings have been received, you will have at best a deficient understanding of Holy Tradition. And a deficient understanding of Holy Tradition inevitably means that your use of the various English versions of the NT is based solely and completely on the fact that Latin and Greek speaking bishops of The Church told you it is the written Word of God...without knowing why they said that. I can’t imagine why a protestant would want to be in that position
“...You have two copies of Ignatius’ writings of the same event which completely disagree with each other and one obviously is a forgery.”
“Completely disagree” as in “Behold the sun” “Behold the moon”? What are you reading, I? The Latin version adds phrases and concepts not found in the Greek. The Syriac version is later and an abridgment. That’s why its best to stick with the Greek...which speaks to the virginity of the Most Holy Theotokos. And the bishops who canonized the NT you use believed in that virginity just as I do.
As for any of the extant versions of the Letter to the Ephesians being a forgery, well of course that’s possible. Its possible that 3 of the Gospels are forgeries if the standard is whether or not they were actually written by men named Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Now that makes no sense at all...If you can't write a good translation in English, how can you possibly 'think' a good translation in English...If you can think it, you can write it...
So what good would it do for me to understand and read/write Greek??? I would then automatically translate it to English in my mind...And in that translation and learning process, I and you of course would rely on what someone else told us those Greek words mean...
It all comes down to whose Greek are you reading and what Lexicon are you using to translate it...
That has already been done by so many people the process is worn out...
If a Greek who knows Greek and English can not effectively translate a Greek word into English, what business do you or I have doing it for him??? Do you guys ever say, 'This word can not be translated correctly so we will leave the space blank??? How about your new version??? Are there any blank spaces where the words could not be translated correctly???
I'd say your argument for learning Greek has no merit whatsoever
“So what good would it do for me to understand and read/write Greek??? I would then automatically translate it to English in my mind..”
Let me guess...you’re not fluent in any language other than English, right?
Surely you jest...
Here's one place to start...There are many...
http://www.bible.ca/history-ignatius-forgeries-250AD.htm
No need to...We're living in an English speaking world...
“http://www.bible.ca/history-ignatius-forgeries-250AD.htm";
That’s your source? Oh, come on. Surely you can do better than that bunch! As the Orthodox say, “Bring out your Diptychs!” But no matter. You might actually want to read even your source carefully if you refuse to do read any original source material.
“No need to...We’re living in an English speaking world...”
Ah, I see. Shame for you that God decided that the NT would be written in the 1st century Greek speaking world...in Greek.
Oh, I agree on verse 9. It is quoted and applied in the
NT to Christ. Verse 8, not there. Verse 5, would never be
there.
“God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee.”
If verse 5 is not about Christ, and it is not, then you
cannot claim the whole Psalm is about Christ.
Finding verse 9 quoted does not mean verse 8 is also
about Christ.
As you said, you can believe whatever you wish.
Best,
ampu
No shame for me...It's already been translated countless times...There's nothing you or I will add to it...
See Post #21.
I believe humility wins over chauvinism. The former establishes trust, the latter fear.
It is confusing that Rome would put themselves first, when so many churches preceded them. In my simplistic view none is first within Orthodox and Roman Catholic administrations. Hence, that is why I made the comment. But I am aware that both sides have their reasons as reflected in Post #21.
I am glad to see those more educated than I from both sides, East and West, are carrying on this thread a civil and humorous exhange. Perhaps in my lifetime there will be substantive progress towards unification. The import of unification is crucial as can be easily seen in the Balkans.
Of course, if you absolutely insist on accepting the "new testament" and the claims of chr*stianity, then you're going to project chr*stianity into the Hebrew Bible.
Unfortunately, none of the clergy, theologians, or apologists read these documents, and if they do they "reinterpret" them.
But my point is that the Orthodox Church doesn't have any such position. I don't even know if they've ever formally accepted a "canon."
In the Hebrew bible, it is quite clear that God reckons faith as righteousness. Same as in the New Testament, which was also written by Jews, btw as an aside.
YHvH is become my salvation ==> Yah'shua ===> Jesus
2Sa 23:5 "Truly is not my house so with God? For He has made an everlasting covenant with me, Ordered in all things, and secured; For all my salvation and all {my} desire, Will He not indeed make {it} grow? Psa 62:2 He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be greatly shaken. Psa 62:6 He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be shaken. Psa 118:14 The LORD is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation. Isa 12:2 "Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; For the LORD GOD is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation." Isa 49:6 He says, "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth." His NAME is YHvH is my salvation Each verse cited from the Tanach spells our YHvH's salvation.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Exd 15:2 "The LORD is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation; This is my God, and I will praise Him; My father's God, and I will extol Him.
This is why we are commanded to call on His NAME
Gen 12:2 says God will make of him a great nation. The word used is "goy" which, in the OT, is translated no less than 143 times also as heathen, 30 times as non-Jews and 11 times as people.
It was not until Paul that the Greek term "nations" or better yet "tribe/tribes" (ethnos/ethne), the Greek translation of goy/goyim, began to be used exclusively for non-Jews.
Christians have fabricated a myth on top of a myth, claiming that not only was the OT written for them as well, but that somehow they have been "grafted" onto the Abraham's family tree and represent the "true" Israel.
When ZC told you the fact that reading the Tanakh by non-Jews is like someone reading someone else's mail, he was spot on: the Old Testament was written by the Jews, about the Jews and for the Jews only. There is nothing in the OT that says it was intended for the non-Jews.
And biblical manuscripts were not?
Of course, if you absolutely insist on accepting the "new testament" and the claims of chr*stianity, then you're going to project chr*stianity into the Hebrew Bible.
They all speak of YHvH's salvation ( Yah'shua ) All the verses are from the Tanach
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Again, thank you for your insight on this matter (however we may disagree otherwise), kosta.
They all speak of YHvH's salvation ( Yah'shua )
You are hallucinating. They do no such thing, any more than they speak of Mohammed or Joseph Smith. But you believe that they speak of J*sus, so that is how you read them. Let's look at a few.
YHvH is become my salvation ==> Yah'shua ===> Jesus
That is an utterly ridiculous argument because it applies to each and every person who has ever carried the name Joshua, Jesus, 'Issa, etc. Good gravy, Yehoshu`a Bin Nun carried the same name a thousand years before the Nazarene was born!
Exd 15:2 "The LORD is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation; This is my God, and I will praise Him; My father's God, and I will extol Him.
Where is your Nazarene in this verse? Nowhere. You read him into it because you already believe in him; you don't believe in him because the Hebrew Bible tells you to!
Every time a chr*stian reads the word "salvation" in the Hebrew Bible, he forces an alien chr*stian soteriological meaning onto it. "Salvation" means "rescue from any dangerous situation." The Israelites were rescued from Egypt and the Egyptians. David was rescued numerous times from Saul and his other enemies. Of course it was HaShem Who saved them and of course they call Him their savior! But to impose the chr*stian meaning of the word onto it is a logical fallacy called "affirmation of the consequent"--ie, "proving" your conclusion by arguing from it!
2Sa 23:5 "Truly is not my house so with God? For He has made an everlasting covenant with me, Ordered in all things, and secured; For all my salvation and all {my} desire, Will He not indeed make {it} grow?
Psa 62:2 He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be greatly shaken.
Psa 62:6 He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be shaken.
Psa 118:14 The LORD is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation.
Isa 12:2 "Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; For the LORD GOD is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation."
See above where I answered this.
Isa 49:6 He says, "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth."
And the salvation of HaShem will reach to the ends of the earth when He is vindicated over all false "gxds" and all mankind acknowledges Him and Him Alone!
This is why we are commanded to call on His NAME
His NAME is YHvH is my salvation
That's the name of everyone in history who ever carried that name.
I won't argue with you if you'll admit that you believe what you do because the "new testament" tells you to. It's the ridiculous idea that apart from the "new testament" chr*stianity just "obviously" leaps from the pages of the Hebrew Bible that I find indefensible.
This statement ignores the central thrust of the Abrahamic Covenant, which is summarized in Genesis 12:1,2. It promises that the entire world will be blessed by Abraham and his descendants. If God's holy inspired word is meant to be read only by descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, how is it that that very book says Gentiles are to be blessed through those very descendants?
And the world has been (the spread of the knowledge about the G-d of Israel, however adulterated) and will be blessed by the seed of Abraham in the future when the real Mashiach comes and compels all mankind to forsake its idols and turn to HaShem.
As I said to 'Uri'el, if you will just admit that your beliefs are based on the "new testament" we will have no quarrel. But you're insisting that this verse in Genesis teaches chr*stianity apart from what the "new tesament" says is patently and obviously ridiculous. Notice how you assume that this future blessing of the nations by Abraham's seed must refer to J*sus? That's because you're a chr*stian already, not because the text is objectively saying anything about J*sus. Why in the world would the traditional Jewish understanding of Mashiach not fit this verse every bit as well as chr*stianity's interpretation?
We goyiim who love the Hebrew bible will go on reading and studying it, regardless of the exclusivity the poster expressed.
I'm a "goy" too, you know, and I was very glad to learn in my recent Noachide studies that not only are we permitted to read the text of the TaNa"KH but even to read the classical commentaries that give its plain sense.
However, that doesn't change the fact that every word in the Hebrew Bible is addressed to Jews. The Torah was given to Israel on Sinai and the bulk of the prophecies were addressed to Israel and deal with its restoration under the literal Davidic King. Your claim to it is based solely on the fact that you have grown up with a "bible" that combines the TaNa"KH with the "new testament" as a "single book" and the "new testament" tells you that the Hebrew Bible was written for you.
Mechanically printed Bibles, even of the original Hebrew text, are not the purest form of the Word of G-d. The purest form of the Word of G-d is the kosher Torah Scroll, which is hand-written by Jewish scribes on scrolls made from the hides of kosher animals and stitched together with the tendons of kosher animals. These Torah Scrolls are written according to very exacting rules (which are part of the Oral Torah) that assures that each and every kosher Torah Scroll is an exact replica of the one written by Moses at G-d's dictation. Every letter has a designated size and shape. Some letters are larger than usual, some smaller. There are "crowns" attached to the letters which have nothing to do with the literal meaning but which must be there for the Scroll to be kosher because that is how G-d dictated it! Even the spaces between the letters and the names and numerical values of the letters are loaded with meaning that you can never translate into another language. It is only because of the Scribal Tradition, based on the Oral Torah given by G-d to Moses at Sinai, that the Written Torah could have survived the first generation. Furthermore, the Written Torah has no vowels and no punctuation. These come from the Oral Torah, and every printed Bible in the world, regardless of language, is based on the assumption that this original non-vocalized text is correctly hand-written and that it is correctly vocalized in the Unwritten Tradition. In other words, every other "biblical" culture is a parasite living off Israel's Oral and well as Written Torah.
I'm not trying to stop you from reading the TaNa"KH at all. I advise you to learn Biblical Hebrew and read the original traditional text which is available online.
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.