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.
placemarker
He came to be the savior for Israel, and also for the Gentiles. The Jew first, and also the Greek.
Irrelevant if you believe that Gentiles have no place in the plan of salvation.
I didn't say that. You are making it up. You are worse than the state-run media! :)
Essentially you are saying, Jewish perspective is wrong, Christian is right. The only right interpretation of the OT is the Christian one, isn't that what you are saying? An do you think God is pleased by those who say they believe in him but do not follow his commandments?.
Read Matthew 25 about the Last Judgment (end of chapter) and see that, contrary to the myth Paul and John created, the "goats" being sent to the Lake of Fire were all believers! The reason they are going to everlasting hell is because of what they have DONE that was not pleasing to God.
This flies in the face of the sola fide Pauline-Johanine-Protestant myth that we are saved by faith alone. How do you reconcile Matthew 25 with the idea that you are saved by faith alone except by cutting out the Gospel of Matthew and calling his quoting of Jesus a lie so Paul and John can set the stage for what is right!?
Where does God say (in his own name, and in his own words) "you are saved by faith alone?" Nowhere! Only Paul and John. And last time I checked they were ordinary men.
Where does Jesus (not Paul) say (in his own words, as witnessed by those hwo were with him) that he was sent for the Gentiles as well? He doesn't. He is quoted as saying he was sent ONLY (I repeat, only) for the lost tribes of Israel, and he defines what that means when he tells (in his own words, again) to his disicples not to go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans ("apostate" Jews), but ONLY to the lost tribes of Israel.
What you are preaching is Paulianity, not Christianity.
I can’t speak for the Baptists, as I am not one (I’m a Free Methodist). We baptize with the apostle’s creed.
But it doesn’t matter, we’re just illegitimate Christians anyway...
I don’t know if these other two differences were posted simply because I’m not inclined to read all 246.
I”ve noticed that the Orthodox cross has equal arms as opposed to the Latin and the Orthodox cross themselves right to left with three fingers and the Latin left to right with two fingers. Right?
...then you're going to project chr*stianity into the Hebrew Bible
But I can't resist commenting on it.
It is quite arrogant for Christians to attempt to superimpose the NT on the Hebrew Bible. Christians should instead strive to understand the NT after FIRST understanding the Hebrew Bible. After all, the Jewish writers of the New Testament books and letters were steeped in the Hebrew scriptures, as were their Jewish readers.
When one does this, one comes up with a completely different version of Christianity than that of the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches. One begins to understand that, as Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well, "Salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22).
Ah the ole "Paul vs. Jesus" allegation. I won't even address that one, except to say that Christ crucified is indeed quite a stumbling block.
But regarding the "...only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" passage is Matthew 22, when the Savior healed a Canaanite woman... a gentile.. whom he called a dog, and then praised her for her faith.
Yes, we Gentiles are the "lost dogs." And the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is pleased with us when we believe in Him and in His Son.
And as we have seen, some have a different understanding... ie.. that God is only pleased with a person if he is of the right blood... ie, a Jew... even an atheistic Jew.
Healing a gentile woman is consistent with his message of compassion. Would you not help a dog too? Do we not praise dogs for their faithfulness? But that's not the same as the reason he said he was sent. He made it very clear why he was sent and where he he didn't want his disciples to go, and it wasn't for gnetiles.
Was it not Paul of all people who reinterpreted the Jewish Scriptures by insisting that works count for naught, that one is not saved by the Law? Are you calling Paul "arrogant?" Did Paul not use his newly discovered faith to reinterpret, indeed call false, what Judaism taught?
When one does this, one comes up with a completely different version of Christianity than that of the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches. One begins to understand that, as Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well, "Salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22).
LOL! This is pathetic. of all the people John is the one who makes Christianity and Judaism completely incompatible by making Jesus more divine than any other NT writer. In fact, divinity of Jesus is really not very clear in the other three Gospels, or in Paul's writings.
How can you pretend here that the Old Testament is compatible with the New Testament except trough the prism of the NT and archetypes of Christ 'hidden' in the raw text through allegorical interpretations? In other words, except through complete reworking of the entire Jewish Scripture?
The Christian argument (no different than LDS rationalizations) is that if the Jews knew their God they would have recognized Jesus as God. In other words the Christians have been saying since the beginning that the Jews got it all wrong!
Even Paul quotes not from the Hebrew Bible but form the Septuagint. It was not until Jerome (6th century), that anyone even bothered looking into the Hebrew Bible, and then he was told to lay off that idea. And if you think you are reading the "Hebrew" Bible in the Old Testament of your KJV or some other English Bible, you better think again.
But I know where you're coming from. I've been there. May G-d guide you always.
Of course, you know I agree with you, kosta (however uncomfortable that feels!).
I read the entire encyclical and found nothing in it that teaches anything regarding the nature of the Original Sin, let alone anything that would "fly in the face" of its definition in canons 404-405.
Veneration of saints is by its very nature something that required time to develop, and therefore is not int he scope of the inspired scripture. However, we do have the commandment to love one another, pray for one another, and to be light to one another, and that is what veneration of saints is all about. Specifically about the Blessed Virgin Mary, we have an assurance that "all generations will call her blessed" (Lk 1), she leads the Church in her battle with Satan (Rev. 12) and she is given us as our mother (Jn 19) and advocate before Christ (Lk 2:35). An instance of such veneration is recorded int he Scripture (Lk 11:27). We know much more about veneration of Mary from the Gospels that we do about, for example, how to conduct marriage or funeral ceremonies, or do confessions, or even baptisms.
I am generally of the opinion that mankind lost its way at some point following the excesses of the absolute monarchies, the Black Death, and the Reformation. I would also consider the First World War to be the mortal blow to the Western culture. The Second one, as well as the Cold War were after effects of the First.
What you are preaching is Paulianity, not Christianity.
Interesting take you have on the scriptures...Jesus was a Jew...Jesus came to the Jews only...Jesus told the Jew NOT to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles...
While I agree with you since the scriptures are very clear on that, I am surprised at the number of folks here who DO NOT attack you for that belief while they rabidly attack others for the same belief...
Apparently you accept the idea that Peter and Paul were legitimately given the Post Resurrection instruction to take the Gospel to the Gentiles then discredit Paul's ministry because he may have made most of it up since his preaching didn't come directly from the mouth of Jesus...
Most people it seems try to shove the two together (Jesus and Paul) making a big mess of the whole deal but you just eliminate Paul to solve the problem...
Like I said, interesting...
That's where WE Dispensationalists come in...We accept the teaching of Paul as coming from the mouth of the Risen Savior but some of us can see it doesn't mesh so well with the Gospels where Jesus came to the Jews only...
***The theology of Christianity in this aspect is an ‘also’. We ‘also’ get to share in everlasting salvation, albeit as ‘adopted sons’ rather than as true sons
That doesn’t follow from Christian theology, Mark. How can Jews be saved if they rejected Christ?***
We can go to the Catechism.
The Church and non-Christians
839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”[325]
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,[326] “the first to hear the Word of God.”[327] The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,[328] “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”[329]
840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
***And why are Christians “adopted sons?” Is God not their creator as well? Or were they made by someone else and had to be “adopted?”***
Adopted into the promises of God to the Jews. We kinda elbowed our way in - Paul writes much about that.
***Is Christian God not God of all people? Are not all humans his creation? If they are, how can they be “adopted?”***
Through baptism. The Jews are not baptized; they don’t need to be.
***We Catholics look on the Jews as ‘elder brethren’ who knew God first, and we’re just the second string, or perhaps Act II.
That’s good for Judeo-Christian relations, but I don’t think I have ever heard a Jews refer to Christians as their “younger brothers.” More like something they mention daily in their prayers by the name of minim, but can you blame them?!? Let’s be honest, this “brotherhood” is a one-way affair, Mark.***
No question.
***And the Jews did know their God first and they say that we don’t know their God at all. On the other hand, the One we call our God they say was an impostor.
We not only stole and then “adopted” their scripture and their God, but we even redefined their own vocabulary and concepts involved, including God. Comparing what we did to them and what the LDS did vis-a-vis Christianity is a joke.***
From their perspective, reasonably accurate.
***And now we call them our elder brothers? Do you really think they see watered-down Judaism mixed with Platonism and Aristotelianism as something they can “relate” to, even consider it “adopted?”***
I am writing from the Christian perspective, not the Jewish one. They are miles apart; obviously one cannot hold both at the same time.
***Evangelicals go one step farther than that. Ann Coulter suggested that the Jews need to be “perfected” by becoming Christians (so they, too, can be saved)!***
Is Ann Coulter a Christian? Some days I’m not sure what she really believes; she thrives more on public notice than on consistency.
***So, how is that better than what the LDS say about us? How would you feel if the Mormons arrogated that we are their elder “brethren” and that there is “hope” for us if we get “perfected” by eventually morphing into one of them?***
Umm, that is what they do arrogate. I just happen to disbelieve them. They don’t bug me overly much, except when they lie to me in person about their beliefs.
***As a Catholic, i’d like to agree with you, but the fact is that church attendance has dropped since the second world war — since that event. The next generation after that was the Baby boomers
and THEY, single-handedly, made the West godless. I suspect it was because they saw the effects of WWII and the carnage, yet didn’t have the discipline and the perseverence their parents had. A greedy generation (with many notable exceptions of course, but I talk in generalities here)***
Tom Brokaw wrote about the greatest generation - who made great sacrifices for this nation and Western civilization and then procreated the Baby Boomers who did their damndest (and still are) to completely eliminate Western civilization. How does one generation to the next undergo this complete reversal?
The keys, I think, come out of the Restoration Movement, in the 1850s and the next wave in the early 1900s, which saw the creation of ever more bizarre religions, and then the Great Depression hit.
WWII was a rallying point; after that, there were no more rallies.
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.