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.
annalex,
Thank you for your detailed post. I appreciate the time
you took as a favor to me.
I certainly don’t mean any of my posts as a criticism
of “the way” other churches practice their faith. I am,
as I’ve mentioned, simply doing a study for my own
benefit and spiritual walk.
I will reflect back to you where I am coming from when
I read you points...
“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.”
As a believer, I am open to the concept of things the
Apostles passed on to the Church that are not recorded
in Scripture. Clearly, logic would say that many things
fell into that category.
Where I run into difficulty is the expansion of those
things over the centuries. Your sentence above falls
into the category of things that “took time to develop”.
If it was an important truth that should be a major
doctrine, it should have been there from the beginning.
Now on to your other points.
“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.”
We do have the command to love one another. I can accept
that we can apply that to departed Christians. Christians
are to be a light, sure. Perhaps you are applying this in
the sense of departed saints being a light to us? OK, I
can accept that. These two points do not, in my mind, lead
to your conclusion that veneration is about those two things. Perhaps you might want to elaborate?
What I do not see is anything from Scripture or EARLY
writings of the Church that shows me the Church got
this directly from the Apostles. And, of course, if
you have such citations, I would very much like to
see them.
“Specifically about the Blessed Virgin Mary, we have an assurance that “all generations will call her blessed” (Lk 1),”
Absolutely. And of course, there are many ways to call
her blessed that don’t involve talking directly to her.
I find nothing that supports the concept that departed
Christians can hear whatever someone says to them.
“she leads the Church in her battle with Satan (Rev. 12)”
Here, I would not agree. I will post some work from a
friend of mine (a teacher at seminary) who summarizes
the issues well...
“In view of Old Testament imagery (cf. Isa. 54:1–6; Jer. 3:20; Ezek. 16:8–14; Hos. 2:19–20) and the following reasons, the “woman” seems to symbolize the nation of Israel.395 She wears a crown (Gr. stephanos) with the sun, moon, and stars, as God pictured Israel in one of the nation’s early symbolic representations (Gen. 37:9–11; cf. Isa. 26:17–18; 60:1–3, 20). There are many figurative references to Israel as a travailing woman in the Old Testament (Is. 26:17–18; 66:7–9; Jer. 4:31; 13:21; Mic. 4:10; 5:3). She eventually gave birth to Christ (v. 5). In Genesis 37:9–10, the sun corresponds to Jacob, the moon to Rachel, and the 12 stars to Israel’s 12 sons (cf. 7:5–8; 21:12).”
“and she is given us as our mother (Jn 19)”
I believe Christ gave Mary to the disciple here - not
to us.
“and advocate before Christ (Lk 2:35).”
Mary may fulfill the role of advocate, but this passage
does not say she does.
“An instance of such veneration is recorded in the Scripture (Lk 11:27).”
Sort of. Certainly the voice that cried out honored Mary
in fulfilling the prophecy of Luke 1. Just as we should do.
I would add that Mary was actually there at the time to
hear it.
“We know much more about veneration of Mary from the Gospels”
Not sure we know much at all.
“that we do about, for example, how to conduct marriage or funeral ceremonies, or do confessions, or even baptisms.”
True enough, which is why I wouldn’t place the actual words
and actions of these things as doctrines - except the form
of the actual baptism.
Again, thanks.
“***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.
Plus, of course, the cult of mormonism would never
accept the Nicene Creed... as such, it doesn’t really
matter what they claim.
best,
ampu
***“***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.
Plus, of course, the cult of mormonism would never
accept the Nicene Creed... as such, it doesn’t really
matter what they claim.***
Very good point. I think Kosta’s point though is that we added a whole bunch of writings to the Hebrew Bible and called it the Christian Bible and that this is really what God meant, so Jews, let’s get off the stick and get on with these new beliefs.
Same thing with the LDS. They added a whole bunch of writings to the Christian bible and say that this is really what God meant, so you Christians let’s get off the stick and get on with these new beliefs.
From a certain perspective one may say that the Christians did to the Jews what the LDS does to the Christians. From a certain perspective, that is. Since I am Christian, I do not see it that way. And I sometimes disturb different rabbles than Kosta, anyway. :)
The general principles rooted in the love and mutual prayer are major scriptural doctrines. In addition, we have example of Jesus talking to Elijah and Moses in the Transfiguration. We also have people picking up articles of clothing of the Apostles apparently as relics. However, the age of martyrdom was just beginning, and therefore we don't have veneration of saints spelled out in the Acts. The foundation of it is there, but the martyrs themselves came later with the persecutions.
These two points do not, in my mind, lead to your conclusion that veneration is about those two things
To venerate a saint is to love him, and receive his love for you. It often takes a form of soliciting his prayer; as a righteous person his prayer "accomplishes much" (James 5:16). Another aspect of venerating a saint is to take his example, that is, allow him to be a light to you. They are depicted with light around their heads for a reason...
Regarding patristic sources for praying to saints, consider The Intercession of the Saints
I find nothing that supports the concept that departed Christians can hear whatever someone says to them.
They are described as a "cloud of witnesses" in Heb. 12:1 and in several places in Revelation angels bring their prayers to God. So I feel conmfortable assuming that since the scripture teaches that they observe us and pray for us, then they also hear us. Becides, Christ did converse with Moses and Elijah, did He not?
the “woman” seems to symbolize the nation of Israel
I don't know how anyone can state that categorically when she is specifically described as mother of Christ, and it is her seed that will crucsh Satan according to Genesis 3:15. If we are to take scripture seriouslty, we should not dismiss scripture so easily when it does not suit the Protestant tradition. It is, indeed, true that in the person of Mary we have the high point and utmost accomplishment of the Jewish race, so Israel of the Hebrew scripture does typify Mary.
Christ gave Mary to the disciple here - not to us.
Well, you are entitled to your interpretation and we Catholics are entitled to ours. Note, however, that the last words of Christ are all of monumental significance to us, and your interpretation would insert an economic arrangement for the aging mother in the middle of the sublime moment when we all receive redemption. Note the language, too: the Disciple took her "eis ta idia", "with his own", that is with other disciples.
Mary may fulfill the role of advocate, but [Lk 2:35] does not say she does.
It says, most accurately, that thoughts of many will be revealed by Mary to her Son, with Whose suffering she participates in a unique way. Again, if the Simeon's prophecy were not of importance, why would the scripture preserve this unusual wording? How often do you hear of someone suffering a wound and as a result getting an insight into other people's thoughts?
Thank you for the questions, and for your thoughful attitude.
MarkBsnr,
Jesus Christ came as the promised Messiah to
the Jewish Nation. He was prophesied. He
fulfilled those prophecies.
He also came to do something that had never
before been revealed in Holy Scripture -
The Church!
There is certainly a link. The Hebrew Scriptures
reveal the history, the promises and the
prophecies that gave us salvation through
a Savior. Great news!
The Church is not the Jews, nor do we claim
to be. We claim to be Christians.
The mormons claim to be the Church, while denying
the doctrines and the person of God as revealed
in Scripture. They steal the words of the
Church, while infusing them with meanings that
are not there.
So while there is a kind of similarity, it
is also different.
In the end, all will be set right. :-)
best,
ampu
Yes, it was us illegitimate Christians (protestants) who caused it; it had nothing to do with the Catholic Church being irrelevant to the majority of people, and responding too late - with Vatican II, it's attempt to become more culturally relevant and accessible - to save the Boomers.
Attendance in the evangelical branches of Christianity has been growing steadily for 100+ years; the traditional, "High Church" denominations (Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and the like) have stagnated or shrunk. But that's OK, it's us illegitimate, misguided, heretical protestants who are the cause of the US turning from Christ!
“we have example of Jesus talking to Elijah and Moses in the Transfiguration. “
They were there together.
“It often takes a form of soliciting his prayer; as a righteous person his prayer “accomplishes much” (James 5:16).”
I agree entirely with this passage. It doesn’t say, however,
that departed Christians can hear us when we talk to them.
“They are described as a “cloud of witnesses” in Heb. 12:1”
These witnesses were specified by name in Hebrews 11. They
were not physically watching.
“and in several places in Revelation angels bring their prayers to God.”
Yes, but I’m going to set aside Revelation for now. If I
open that book, we will never get past it.
“I don’t know how anyone can state that categorically when she is specifically described as mother of Christ, and it is her seed that will crucsh Satan according to Genesis 3:15.”
Mary is the source of that seed, certainly. Her Seed,
Christ, will crush Satan’s head. Not Mary.
“If we are to take scripture seriouslty, we should not dismiss scripture so easily when it does not suit the Protestant tradition.”
I do not care one whit (is that how you spell whit?)
about Protestant tradition. I only care whether something
is true. I would extend that statement to include all
traditions of any denomination
“your interpretation would insert an economic arrangement for the aging mother in the middle of the sublime moment when we all receive redemption. Note the language, too: the Disciple took her “eis ta idia”, “with his own”, that is with other disciples.”
I don’t interpret this passage. I observe what it actually
says. Christ speaks to his disciple. Christ speaks to his
Mother. It is no “economic arrangement”. The disciple took
her as his mother. Mary took the disciple as his son. The
disciples “own” is his family. Not the other disciples. I only
wrote earlier that Christ did not give her to all Christians
as their mother, as you wrote.
“It says, most accurately, that thoughts of many will be revealed by Mary to her Son”
I don’t think that is close to what is said in that verse.
“Thank you for the questions, and for your thoughful attitude.”
Thank you for your insight, and for your thoughful attitude!
Blessings to you,
ampu
***Jesus Christ came as the promised Messiah to
the Jewish Nation. He was prophesied. He
fulfilled those prophecies.
He also came to do something that had never
before been revealed in Holy Scripture -
The Church!***
Jesus, the Messiah, gave us His Church and promise to be with us always.
***There is certainly a link. The Hebrew Scriptures
reveal the history, the promises and the
prophecies that gave us salvation through
a Savior. Great news!***
The problem with the prophecies and promises are that they were not definitive or specific enough for the Jews when Jesus walked the earth.
***The Church is not the Jews, nor do we claim
to be. We claim to be Christians.***
We claim to be adopted or grafted into the Jewish promise from God. St. Paul was very explicit in a number of different epistles.
***The mormons claim to be the Church, while denying
the doctrines and the person of God as revealed
in Scripture. They steal the words of the
Church, while infusing them with meanings that
are not there.***
True. Yet, we essentially remade the meanings of the Hebrew Bible for Christianity; the Synoptic Gospels do not explicitly call Jesus Divine. but John does. Paul, rather interestingly, does not call Jesus Divine either. We do not exactly stick to all of Scripture; we have the Church who has given us the Tradition. Remember that much of what is considered NT apocrocrypha had some recognition as Scripture at some point and some of our Tradition comes from those texts.
***In the end, all will be set right. :-)***
The Lord will Judge us all. Let us put our trust in Him.
At the start most of the countries in Europe were Christian kingdoms. At the end they were either secular republics or moving that way. Same way with the great unification wars of the mid 1800’s.
It is real hard to pin point where the thread was lost. So hard that I sometimes wonder if the “ideal” ever really existed.
***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.
Yes, it was us illegitimate Christians (protestants) who caused it***
Given the theologies of much of the Restoration and subsequent movements, I find it rather far fetched to call many of them Christian. The JWs and the LDS come to mind. The departure from Church teachings and the adherence to the ever more bizarre theologies that came out of the waves of religious movements essentially removed Jesus’ teachings from their religions and substituted His Name for a rationalization for any development of doctrine.
***it had nothing to do with the Catholic Church being irrelevant to the majority of people, and responding too late - with Vatican II, it’s attempt to become more culturally relevant and accessible ***
The Church’s rather odd attempt to be relevant has led many of its clergy and laity away from God. God does not become relevant to man; any attempt from the Church to be relevant to man by definition leads people away from God.
***Attendance in the evangelical branches of Christianity has been growing steadily for 100+ years;***
The increasingly bizarre theologies have driven people to church shop like wandering along a large mall looking into the windows. The churches of the evangelical branch have largely devolved into cults of personality. Unless you consider such as Joel Osteen and Rick Warren and Jimmy Swaggart to be men of God. People wandering along a crowded mall looking for the next church are hardly attending church.
***the traditional, “High Church” denominations (Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and the like) have stagnated or shrunk. ***
Actually no. Check Catholic and Orthodox figures from a realistic source.
***But that’s OK, it’s us illegitimate, misguided, heretical protestants who are the cause of the US turning from Christ!***
If you say so. I’ve been in a number of churches that have evolved from the Campbellian and later movements. I see lots of swaying and emotionalism and little girls’ “praise” music that sounds like nothing more than sucking up to the third grade teacher. But still; the issue stands. By moving away from the Church of the Christ Jesus, the watering down of theology and the cult of personality, their “Christianity” is unrecognizable. Go to a Latin or Orthodox Church for Sunday Mass for comparison. The Evangelical Sunday morning fellowship and Bible study sessions are as McDonald’s chicken nuggets when a Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse is on the next block.
Somewhere along the line Christianity became less a faith than a political force. The early Progressives were outwardly very devout Christians, and came from all sorts of churches. The problem is that they wanted to build a heaven on earth at the cost of focusing on the world to come.
From Bismark to the Charlists in Spain, to Teddy Roosevelt, leaders who were at least nominally Christian thought it would be just bully to move the world closer to what they wanted it to be. Never mind the old fallen nature of things, we can beat that out of people!
Such romanticism brought some of the darkest horrors.
In short the problem isn't one that can be layed to blame on the Lutherans or Anglicans or Baptists or Catholics, but on the people. They wanted to trade a heaven to come for one on earth.
***The problem isn’t’ with the Protestants or the Catholics, it is much deeper than that.
Somewhere along the line Christianity became less a faith than a political force. The early Progressives were outwardly very devout Christians, and came from all sorts of churches. The problem is that they wanted to build a heaven on earth at the cost of focusing on the world to come.***
I’d say it was simpler than that. They discovered personal power and wealth.
***From Bismark to the Charlists in Spain, to Teddy Roosevelt, leaders who were at least nominally Christian thought it would be just bully to move the world closer to what they wanted it to be. Never mind the old fallen nature of things, we can beat that out of people!
Such romanticism brought some of the darkest horrors.***
I dispute the idea of romanticism. I point to the examples of the Reformation - Luther and Calvin.
***In short the problem isn’t one that can be layed to blame on the Lutherans or Anglicans or Baptists or Catholics, but on the people. They wanted to trade a heaven to come for one on earth.***
If that were even remotely true, how do you explain Swaggart and Baker and Roberts and Osteen and Hagee and....
...hundreds of Catholic priests...
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any institution run by men who are given absolute authority WILL fall. That is not just Biblical, that has been known since pre-Christ times. And it includes churches.
When an institution becomes more important than the people whom it serves, when it becomes your master, then it has become corrupt. This is the fundamental point of Luther; the Catholic Church at that time existed not for the benefit of the Christians, but for the benefit of the priesthood. That lesson, alas, still has not been learned.
Easy, they are selling what people want to hear. Their theology is often more about "What God can do for you in this world!". It is more pop culture than actually religion.
***If that were even remotely true, how do you explain Swaggart and Baker and Roberts and Osteen and Hagee and....
...hundreds of Catholic priests...
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any institution run by men who are given absolute authority WILL fall. That is not just Biblical, that has been known since pre-Christ times. And it includes churches.***
That is why we consider the Catholic (including Orthodox) Churches to be apart from this statement. They are not given absolutely authority. The Pope, for instance, is considered the steward; he does not have absolutely authority.
***When an institution becomes more important than the people whom it serves, when it becomes your master, then it has become corrupt. This is the fundamental point of Luther; the Catholic Church at that time existed not for the benefit of the Christians, but for the benefit of the priesthood. That lesson, alas, still has not been learned.***
Well, not by most of the people that consider themselves followers or those who consider themselves influenced by Luther.
Some of those in Germany in the Church were corrupt; they were rooted out. Did Luther contribute to it? Certainly, he did. But, given the damage that he has caused to Christianity, was it worth the evil he did?
***If that were even remotely true, how do you explain Swaggart and Baker and Roberts and Osteen and Hagee and....
Easy, they are selling what people want to hear. Their theology is often more about “What God can do for you in this world!”. It is more pop culture than actually religion.***
Ever been to a new wave Christianity meeting? The swaying and cheering and the enrapted crowd and the other mob aspects do not differentiate them with any great distance from such as Santaria or the early Nazi meetings.
And yes, it does look like a concert or Nazi rally at times, for a reason. They are using the same sort of crowd control that many others have used. Get a good beat going, power words, and if you hit the cadence right you have the crowd eating out of your hand. To call it scary is an understatement.
I gently suggest you read it again, paying particular attention to words like “taint” “infected” “stained”, etc.
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.