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.
The problem is the other side feels the same way.
Ping to read later
Ya, that’s why Christ said “What soever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what soever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
That was just for Peter’s lifetime, right?
Give up on the big rock, little rock nonsense.
It’s too easy to obliterate.
NO!
I don’t accept your assertion!
What is “longer than” Christ’s conferance on Peter?
That’s really quite good, T.
Yes, as a Catholic vividly interested in the Eastern Orthodox matters, I think you listed important fundamental distinctions with great lucidity. Even better, you managed to steer clear from superficial differences of praxis that often cloud the discussion.
You posted 2 min sooner but I wrote 2 sentences more.
Much of the difference between Orthodoxy and the Latin Church comes down to phronema, which manifests itself in both praxis and dogma. On the other hand, certainly by today its fair to say that Orthodox Christianity is the major determinant of the Eastern Christian religious and secular mindset and likely to a greater extent than Latin Christianity is today the determinant of the Western religious and secular mindset.
I'm sorry. Have you ever seen this?
Association of Hebrew Catholics
-Theo
Thank you. Coming from you, I am honored!
-Theo
“...Orthodox priests are allowed to marry...”
Do you mean that Orthodox priests can marry after they are ordained or that married men can become Orthodox priests (that’s the way it is in some of the Catholic rites I think)? Can Orthodox priests re-marry if they are widowed?
Freegards
Iesus Christus Vincit! ICXC NIKA!
-Theo
The Latin Church is far more engaged in culture and politics, as is evident in the arena of medical ethics. But I agree that in terms of everyday guidance, the Catholic are scandalously disobedient. I blame the Reformation for that.
:)
“Do you mean that Orthodox priests can marry after they are ordained or that married men can become Orthodox priests (that’s the way it is in some of the Catholic rites I think)? Can Orthodox priests re-marry if they are widowed?”
No marriage at all under any circumstances is allowed after ordination.
Someone earlier remarked that monastics can never marry. That’s not correct. Married men and women can enter a monastery, separately of course, and become monastics but it means the end of the marriage as a practical matter. It is sometimes seen among old married people in Orthodox countries.
My understanding is as follows. That there are priests and there are monks, and various stages inbetween.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_Eastern_Orthodox_monasticism
Priests are not allowed to marry after they have been ordained. But married persons are allowed to be ordained. It depends on the needs of a region and its liturgical members. The idea is I believe that once ordained, the priest is devoted to Christ and Christ’s community.
If a priest was previously married, then the priest is allowed to continue in the marriage and to continue producing children. Personally I have seen the benefit of married priest and their children to the Orthodox Church. Often children of priests go on to become monastics.
However, monastics can be ordained as priests if there is a need for a priest. These monastics who are then ordained as priests continue their celibacy.
I hope this presents an accurate explanation. Some of the other thread posters can certainly correct or expound on it.
Thank you.
To answer Ransomed’s question about a priest widower remarrying. I think it follows that remarriage is not allowed.
Thanks for the info, that is what I thought but I reckon it doesn’t hurt to ask the experts.
Freegards
I'm always confused when people try to bring pseudo logic into theology. Why would you believe in the passing of the power to bind and loose when it is mentioned neither in the Bible nor the creeds?
The Apostles founded the church. The foundation is finished. Paul said "like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it."
The church has no claim to the powers nor authority of the Apostles. All we can do is build on what was founded. What we build will be judged, but the foundation can not be judged because it is without flaw.
Point #5: Why stop at the Seven Ecumenical Councils and ignore the Western ones? Is this a similar line of thinking to that attached to Scripture which says that revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle? Did the authority of councils cease with the end of the last of the seven?
Point #7: The Orthodox deny that we are born in Original sin? Really? This is heresy, no? Then what's the point of Baptism? What sin is being removed from the soul with the sacrament? None? Then why bother?
Point #12: While Catholics would say that the “end of man is to serve God in this life to be reasonably happy in this life and completely happy in the next,......
"Be reasonably happy in this life"?? I'm not sure which Catholics would say this is an "end of man". The Church doesn't.
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.