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.
“You can use your method, from scripture to faith, up to a point, but you need to read the scripture as written and ignore the commentary that tends to explain the scripture away. Anyone who reads the scripture without a preconceived theology will end up either Catholic or Orthodox.”
Really annalex! There are over 800 million non-Roman/Orthodox
Christians in the world. Me thinks you have over-reached
by light years!
:-)
Best,
ampu
***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.
Yet the Pope can speak ex cathedra where his word is literally law, and cannot be questioned. No absolute authority there! And that is one of the biggest contentions between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches - the absolute infallibility of the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra.***
List for me the infallible pronouncements, if you would, please.
***In this case, I believe the Protestant and Orthodox churches get it right - NO MAN has authority to speak without error, without question. It’s not Biblical, and it has led - and will lead again - to evil being ensconced in the Church.***
If the Holy Spirit were not involved, then yes, I’d agree.
***Some of those in Germany in the Church were corrupt; they were rooted out.
And the other parts of Catholicism? Spain, Italy, France, all were blameless and pure? Just those evil Germans? The selling of indulgences, the purchase of bishoprics, the graft and corruption certainly didn’t stem from Rome... Wait, isn’t a major part of this thread how bishops must be approved by other bishops of their higher ups (like cardinals, or the Pope)?
To try to insinuate that the Vatican was blissfully unaware of hundreds of years of corruption is simply not a tenable position.***
There is a difference between generalized corruption and specific corruption. If a postal clerk in Bozeman is corrupt, is the Postmaster General expected to be immediately aware of that corruption? The PG is responsible, yet he may not be ever made aware.
***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?
In fact, I think it is the arrogance and willful unrepentance of the Catholic Church that has continued hundreds of years of evil. Look at the loathing of your own Church to own up to its complicity in the sexual abuse of thousands of children. ***
You may wish to take a look at the timing of the various events. Luther was around for 450 years before this horrific affair.
***My own church - the very place I worship - had a pastor 10 years ago who was caught in adultery. Rather than shuffle him off to another church to offend again, he was called out, confronted (as we are told to do in Acts), stripped of his commission (defrocked), and until he completed a restoration process was barred from being a member of any church in our denomination. ***
Very responsible. You guys are to be commended if indeed the restoration process was of utility. Was it?
***That’s how you deal with evil; you don’t simply say “it was over there” and go about your merry, hypocritical ways... ***
Agree.
***But what do I know, I’m just an illegitimate Christian, now apparently a bastard child of evil, too!***
By what inference do you not infer that the consequences of Luther’s actions were evil?
***No, it was an ELCA service.***
Was there mud or jello wrestling at the service?
***My friend was studying to be an ECLA pastor, till he realized that was an incompatible posistion to be as a Christian.
Not that there isn’t some rock and roll LCMS services..***
A friend of mine was a very young and devout LCMS pastor and posted to Orlando Fla. in the shadow of the Shrine of Mary. It was interesting talking to him about the experience. :)
***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.
Thew Jews pretty much know what messiah will be like: he will be mortal, human being, a warrior-king who will defeat Israeli’s enemies and establish world peace and all the nations of the world will through him know (of) the God of Abraham.
A cursory search on Jewish messiah will yield biblical references to any of these and more knownfeaturesof him, such as that he must be of the David’s line, that he must be Jewish, etc. Nothing much hidden about him except the date of his coming.
Again, the Jews don’t consider the Christians anything even resembling family. The “elder brethren” is a one-way family affair, Mark.***
Of course it is. We have attached ourselves to the Jews, not vice versa.
***And it’s not that the Jews don’t know or understand Christ (who understands Christ!?). They reject him! As they did for the last 2,000 years. >[? If there is anything all mainstream Jews have in common, no matter how liberal or orthodox they may be, it is their unequivocal and conscious rejection of Christ. Through baptism. The Jews are not baptized; they don’t need to be.
John the Forerunner (Baptist) would disagree with you! But, Mark, the original baptism wasn’t anything close to that. Only Jews were called to be baptized.***
By John, not by any devout and practicing Jew. This is a Christian thing, not a Jewish one.
***Is Ann Coulter a Christian? Some days I’m not sure what she really believes; she thrives more on public notice than on consistency
Personally I think she is a recombinant android in need of some new software.***
Perhaps. I do not look at her as Christian, at least not how I understand Christianity. She may galvanize the anti Democrat movement, which right now is not a bad thing, but although the enemy of my enemy may be an ally, I do not consider her a friend.
***From a certain perspective one may say that the Christians did to the Jews what the LDS does to the Christians
I think that’s not giving Christians full “credit.” The Christians did some really nasty things to the Jews. May God never give LDS such an opportunity!***
Agreed. Our actions toward the Jews have not been the most Christian, as it were. Given the history of the LDS, I suspect that they would be every bit as opportunistic as any Christians were in dealing with their identified enemies.
***Since I am Christian, I do not see it that way. And I sometimes disturb different rabbles than Kosta, anyway
Right on, Mark!***
Very good. Not all of my rabbles are your rabbles and vice versa...
***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.
I must add in that we never state that the OT is false or in any way wrong or in error. We do say that the NT is a continuation of the OT and that WE are a continuation of God’s expanding plan to save the peoples of the universe.
Unlike theMuslimms who say that the ones before were wrong, we don’t say that the Jews who came before were wrong and we’ve come to correct them or revert them.***
A lot of Christians say that they are. The OT is considered the third level as it were of Scriptural relevancy by the Church. The first is the four Gospels; the second is the rest of the NT.
***I must add in that we never state that the OT is false or in any way wrong or in error. We do say that the NT is a continuation of the OT and that WE are a continuation of God’s expanding plan to save the peoples of the universe.
Then why is the OT not sitting on the altar together with the Gospels? Rather it is read only in the post Vatican II Church. For at least 1,700 years, the Catholic Church read Epistles 9by lay people) and Gospels (by priests and deacons) in that order during Mass, only to introduce the OT in 1964 (for politically correct reasons)!
Perhaps the Church doesn’t consider the OT not in spiritual error, but not on the par with the Gospels either (and yet both are supposed to be the words of the very same God).***
Even more interesting; we regard the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude as more relevant than the OT, some at least of which was considered to be dictated by God.
***The Church is not a continuation of Judaism but something that did NOT exist until 33 AD (remember, Christ established the Church?), based on what is believed to have been taught by Jesus and recorded in the Gospels.
The OT is to be read allegorically, as Phylo (a hellenized Jews) taught (I believe Eusebius even refers to him as “St.” Phylo because of the influence he had on the way Christians interpreted the OT), through the prism of the Gospels, in other words looking for Jesus archetypes and prefiguring of his birth.
That’s not how the Jews read it. There is no doubt that the Church thinks that the Jews got it all wrong or else we would all be Jews! How can they be right as far as Christians are concerned if they rejected, and still reject Christ form the get go?
And why did the NT writers use Septuagint and not the Hebrew Scriptures in over 90% of the cases when making references to the OT if the Hebrew Scriptures are never wrong?***
The changes to the beliefs were more supported by the Hellenistic Septuagint, obviously.
“...why did the NT writers use Septuagint and not the Hebrew Scriptures in over 90% of the cases when making references to the OT if the Hebrew Scriptures are never wrong?”
Because the NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew?
***Their theology is often more about “What God can do for you in this world!”. It is more pop culture than actually religion.
yes, but they DO fulfil a need. This IS a failing on the part of us conservatives. We should NOT water down or “liberalise” our theology to suit the flavour of the moment. We should state proudly — we’ve been this way since 33 AD and we intend to remain this way, in accordance with God’s plan***
The Latin Church, to our everlasting shame, did just that after Vatican II. I had some conversation with one of my Baby Boomer friends last Sunday and needled him about the excesses of Vatican II finally being reversed and he got all red and indignant saying that we did not go anywhere near far enough.
The irrelevant generation is slowly making itself, well, more irrelevant all the time. The fascinating chess game that BXVI is playing with the American bishops is soooo entertaining.
mr. Rogers: Because the NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew?
I thought Mark, Matthew, and John were Palestinian Jews and Paul was a Pharisee who studied Judaism in Hebrew. Why would they be using the Septuagint (especially if, as some Protestants claim, the Septuagint was written by Christians after the fact)?
***“...why did the NT writers use Septuagint and not the Hebrew Scriptures in over 90% of the cases when making references to the OT if the Hebrew Scriptures are never wrong?”
Because the NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew?***
Well, yes, it is relevant but not precisely because the NT was written in Hebrew. It is not a cause. Important detail: The NT was written in Greek by Jewish writers. This is relevant. Do you have any thoughts on this?
Yes, the woman gives birth to a child (v.2) Who is with God (v 5) and hated by Satan (v.4), the son Whose angles defeat Satan (v.9) and Whose name is Christ (v.10). I wonder who this woman might be.
But the Protestants don’t read the scripture without the preconceived theology. Just watch my arguments over any scripture on this thread: I stay close tot he text, and the Protestnat opponents offer ways not to read the passage as all that meaningful and offer theories out of their own head. Or theor pastor’s head, or some commentator.
Many, by the way, after studying in Protestant seminaries, convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, because they sense that their reading of the scripture cannot explain the entirety of it. Some become very visible in converting others, check out, for example, Stephen Ray, Scott Hahn, James Akin, Frank Shea for starters.
“I stay close tot he text, and the Protestnat opponents offer ways not to read the passage as all that meaningful and offer theories out of their own head.”
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here are our exchanges on 1 Corinthians 3 & Purgatory.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2303075/posts?page=222#222
Let anyone read the text, and derive Purgatory if they can - but it is NOT there, as even the commentators on the NAB have allowed.
For quick reference, here is the passage ‘on Purgatory’:
“For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God given to me, 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. 11For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”
What about Mary and other children? Repeatedly, the Scripture references the bothers and sisters of Jesus, which the Catholics claim are cousins - even tho Greek had words for cousin and kin, and used them 14 times in the NT, including the Gospels.
What about the sinless Mary, taught NO WHERE in Scripture, and contradicted repeatedly?
Then there are the passages on the veneration of Stephen...or are there? The passages on going to your Priest for penance. Indulgences. Etc.
And of course, the solid documentation of Purgatory.
Sorry, annalex, but Catholics don’t even try to approach Scripture with an open mind. Nor, according to your doctrine, should they - since the Catholic Church has the only true interpretation, only a heretic would approach Scripture with an open mind.
***Well, yes, it is relevant but not precisely because the NT was written in Hebrew.***
Haste, haste, haste. Not precisely because the NT was NOT written in Hebrew. Very important point, this.
And following the council of Florence, Byzantium feared Rome more than they feared the Turks. “Better the turbans than the mitres”.
“The NT was written in Greek by Jewish writers. This is relevant. Do you have any thoughts on this?”
Actually, it isn’t particularly relevant. For example, Catholics claim that the writers of the NT used ‘brother’ to mean ‘cousin’, because Hebrew didn’t have any word for cousin or kin. Yet in reality, the NT writers used the Greek work for cousin or kin 14 times in the NT, including the Gospels.
I think the Holy Spirit knew Greek just fine, and when He “breathed” the Scripture, He knew which words were needed.
***“The NT was written in Greek by Jewish writers. This is relevant. Do you have any thoughts on this?”
Actually, it isn’t particularly relevant.***
Not particularly relevant? Jewish writers writing in a foreign language initially to Jews? I think that this is very important moment. It signifies that the communication from God to man had been shifted from the Jews to the Gentiles via the Greeks. If the language had merely been Hebrew or Aramaic, then so what?
***I think the Holy Spirit knew Greek just fine, and when He “breathed” the Scripture, He knew which words were needed.***
You haven’t explained your opinion as to why Greek was suddenly utilized instead of Hebrew, which all Scripture was written in. Or what your ‘breathing’ of Scripture to, for example, Luke means. You may wish to read 1 Luke before you reply.
***“The NT was written in Greek by Jewish writers. This is relevant. Do you have any thoughts on this?”
Actually, it isn’t particularly relevant.***
Not particularly relevant? Jewish writers writing in a foreign language initially to Jews? I think that this is very important moment. It signifies that the communication from God to man had been shifted from the Jews to the Gentiles via the Greeks. If the language had merely been Hebrew or Aramaic, then so what?
***I think the Holy Spirit knew Greek just fine, and when He “breathed” the Scripture, He knew which words were needed.***
You haven’t explained your opinion as to why Greek was suddenly utilized instead of Hebrew, which all Scripture was written in. Or what your ‘breathing’ of Scripture to, for example, Luke means. You may wish to read Luke 1 before you reply.
Yes, the argument on 1 Cor. 3 is a good example. A fire that cleanses inferior works at the time of judgement in order to prepare man to be saved — is it Purgatory or should we just skip this passage because it sounds too Catholic?
Or, should we ignore the Greek usage of “adelphos” as any kin and instead consider Mary the mother of James and Joseph despite their mother explicitely identified in the scripture as another woman?
Or do we have a reason to think that St. Stephen who prayed for his murderers while alive, who was sanctified by the Holy Ghost onto perfection in his life time, would stop praying for us in heaven?
Read the Scripture. Don’t explain it away; read it. It has a lot to say.
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.