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.
Unless we are talking about Orthodox mission lands, the Diocesan Presbytery chooses the Bishop, same as the Presbytery of Rome - the Cardinals - choose the Pope.
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?
None of the above. The Orthodox simply reject any general episcopal assembly called, presided, and dismissed by the Bishop of Rome after the schism.
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?
No, they conceive Original Sin in another way, the way in which I explained it.
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.
Well, you are correct. The expression I used here comes from Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr's famous "Serenity Prayer":
But it is a sentiment that both Orthodox and Catholics can also share. It's not incompatible with this teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; Taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it; Trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His Will; That I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with Him Forever in the next. Amen.
CCC #1718: The Beatitudes respond to the natural desire for happiness. This desire is of divine origin: God has placed it in the human heart in order to draw man to the One who alone can fulfill it: We all want to live happily; in the whole human race there is no one who does not assent to this proposition, even before it is fully articulated. How is it, then, that I seek you, Lord? Since in seeking you, my God, I seek a happy life, let me seek you so that my soul may live, for my body draws life from my soul and my soul draws life from you. God alone satisfies.It it my considered opinion that it's permitted to ask from God reasonable happiness in this life as a prelude to eternal happiness in the next.
Those whose vocation is to undergo redemptive suffering often find happiness in their suffering so they too are "reasonably happy" in this world.
-Theo
Do you comprehend what you write?
“Why would you believe in the passing of the power to bind and loose....?”
ONE of the things they “bound on earth” WAS the passing of the power!!!!!!!
Why would Christ waste his time conferring this power, only to have it pass away with the Apostles that were present?
I don't think the Catholic and Orthodox churches "claim to revere" the Hebrew Bible the way you do. The Catholic Church, however scandalous its current anti-Biblicist modernism, at least has it written down in a musty old decree somewhere that scripture is absolutely inerrant on all subjects but the Orthodox have never paid it much attention.
So the clergy choose their own bishop, rather than have him appointed from above. A "bottom up" model in other words.
The comparison to the election of the Pope is inappropriate because there is no human authority above the Pope who can appoint him. He must be elected. In all other respects, Catholics use a "top down" model.
No, they conceive Original Sin in another way, the way in which I explained it.
The way you explained it was there is no actual sin. You said that Orthodox believe that there is no actual guilt, just a predisposition to sin; "they hold that the sin of Adam did not transmit an intrinsic, “guilt” to his descendants."
Again, in the absence of any inherited guilt, it's not clear why Baptism would be necessary.
Ancestral sin (Greek: προπατορική αμαρτία or προπατορικό αμάρτημα, more rarely προγονική αμαρτία) is the object of a Christian doctrine taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Some identify it as "inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors".[1] But most distinguish it from this tendency that remains even in baptized persons, since ancestral sin "is removed through baptism".[2]If you want to have further clarification I suggest you talk to the Residents Orthodox Freepers.St Gregory Palamas taught that, as a result of ancestral sin (called "original sin" in the West), man's image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam's disobedience.[3]
The Greek theologian John Karmiris writes that "the sin of the first man, together with all of its consequences and penalties, is transferred by means of natural heredity to the entire human race. Since every human being is a descendant of the first man, 'no one of us is free from the spot of sin, even if he should manage to live a completely sinless day.' ... Original Sin not only constitutes 'an accident' of the soul; but its results, together with its penalties, are transplanted by natural heredity to the generations to come ... And thus, from the one historical event of the first sin of the first-born man, came the present situation of sin being imparted, together with all of the consequences thereof, to all natural descendants of Adam."[4]
The doctrine of ancestral sin focuses on human death as an inheritance from Adam.
It is sometimes claimed that the Eastern Orthodox Church doctrine of ancestral sin differs from the Roman Catholic Church doctrine of what is called in the West "original sin" in the latter is said to speak of inheritance of the guilt of Adam. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Greek translation of which uses "προπατορική αμαρτία" (literally, "ancestral sin") where the Latin text has "peccatum originale", excludes this, stating explicitly: "Original sin is called 'sin' only in an analogical sense: it is a sin 'contracted' and not 'committed' - a state and not an act. Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants".[5]
Eastern Orthodox teaching also says: "It can be said that while we have not inherited the guilt of Adam's personal sin, because his sin is also of a generic nature, and because the entire human race is possessed of an essential, ontological unity, we participate in it by virtue of our participation in the human race. 'The imparting of Original Sin by means of natural heredity should be understood in terms of the unity of the entire human nature, and of the homoousiotitos of all men, who, connected by nature, constitute one mystic whole. Inasmuch as human nature is indeed unique and unbreakable, the imparting of sin from the first-born to the entire human race descended from him is rendered explicable: "Explicitly, as from the root, the sickness proceeded to the rest of the tree, Adam being the root who had suffered corruption" (St Cyril of Alexandria)'".[6]
No need to shout, just tell me why you believe this. I guess you could mention Matthias, but that passing includes a strict requirement of being with Jesus from the beginning.
Why would Christ waste his time conferring this power, only to have it pass away with the Apostles that were present?
Pseudo logic and rationalization for earthly power, but I'll bite. Christ personally gave the power to the Apostles so that they could lay the foundation. Once the Apostles were done, they foundation was finished and everything else is just building on that foundation.
The foundation is finished and done. There is nothing left that needs to be bound or loosed.
I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
Orthodox priests are NOT allowed to marry. There is no Orthodox priest dating service! The Orthodox Church allows married priests, who had to be married before they became priests. If widowed, after their ordination, they cannot re-marry. Bishops cannot be married. Most of the bishops are drawn from the monastic ranks, with some widowers notwithstanding.
The Orthodox do not consider the Bible to be free of human error no matter which Testament. But, unlike the Cathoic Church, the Orthodox Church does not read from the OT in the Divine Liturgy. Rather it is done during Vespers (Evening Prayers), and suually only Pslams. During Great Lent, the Orthodox read all of the OT as a matter of historical progression. The OT is understood and interpreted through the prism of the New Testament and treated as prefiguring Christ arch-types, in an allegorical way. Thus, the story of Jonah is understood to prefigure a Christ arch-type rather tha a literal narrative.
Very well done, Teófilo. The Orthodox Church also beieves, and has apparently aleways believed, that Mary died and was asssmed to heaven on the third day, body and soul. The Eastern Church even has the ancient Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos. The Catholic Church is silent on whether she died or not. The dogma of the IC complicates that issue immensly. From the Orthodox point of view, her death is a manifestation that she was not created a pre-fall human.
Ta-da!
The OT is understood and interpreted through the prism of the New Testament and treated as prefiguring Christ arch-types, in an allegorical way. Thus, the story of Jonah is understood to prefigure a Christ arch-type rather tha a literal narrative.
Naturally, since the Hebrew Bible accepted on its face teaches Judaism, not chr*stianity. Now if you could only convince my fellow rednecks of that so they'd leave chr*stianity and join me!
Yes it was my mistake. I meant to say that Orthodox priests are are allowed to be married. Thank you for the correction.
Teo: None of the above. The Orthodox simply reject any general episcopal assembly called, presided, and dismissed by the Bishop of Rome after the schism
If the Orthodox did not attend then the Church as a whole did not attend and therefore no Council is considered general after the first Seven (number Eight is disputed anyway).
The Pan-Orthodox Councils held since then are not considered Ecumenical by the Orthodox either, for the same reason, except in reverse—because the Latin Church did not attend. At least we are consistent! :)
marshmallow: 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?
Teo: No, they conceive Original Sin in another way, the way in which I explained it.
Baptism removes any sins you actually committed in order to enter the Church (Body of Christ). As for infants, they are washed and presneted to Christ wihtout sins. Christ taught that the Kingdom of God belings to those like them; he considered them innocent and suggested that unless we become like them, we might as well forget it.
Judaism never looked at what happened in the Garden as transmittable sin. That is the Augustinian 4th centuriy innovation. Christ never taught it as such. That was more +Paul's idea. Also the way Romans 5 is written, it can be read two different ways. The Greeks read it differently from the Latins and I think the Greeks have a slight edge given that it was written in their language. :)
You and she should both visit any one of the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches. There you can enjoy the Catholic liturgy with an 'eastern' flavor.
***From a RC point of view, does this
comparison seem accurate to you?
best,
ampu***
Thank you for the ping.
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.
Not strictly true; the Church was divided into Patriarchal Sees with five holding particular prominence, one in the West (Rome), and the rest in the East (Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria). The bishops of these five would become the Patriarchs of the Church. There is a schism, not a refounding. Both Latin and Orthodox are one; the hierarchs were merely exhibiting a millennium of stubbornness.
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.
Both agree.
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.
Within their own sees, yes. Within the Church hierarchy, there is rank in both.
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.
True. The Latins held their own councils which are binding upon them, but not upon the Orthodox. This is a matter of discussion in reunification.
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.
True (see #4).
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.
I shall defer to my Orthodox brethren on this one.
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.
True to a certain extent. But I would state that St. Augustine’s work in his heterodox points in life have been adopted to a certain extent by some elements of the Latin Church and much more so by some elements of the Protestant Churches.
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.
To my understanding, true.
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.
I shall defer to my Orthodox brethren on this.
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.”
I shall defer to my Orthodox brethren on this.
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.
I shall defer to my Orthodox brethren on this.
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.
A little bit of slur, here, and completely unnecessary. Overall, not too bad, from what I understand. We have Kosta and Kolo both weighing in here; their commentary is more accurate from an Orthodox point of view than mine is.
ZC: Naturally, since the Hebrew Bible accepted on its face teaches Judaism, not chr*stianity.
Thank you! I have been trying to tell that to literalistic, fundamentalist Protestants.
Now if you could only convince my fellow rednecks of that so they'd leave chr*stianity and join me!
Leave it up to me, and they will leave everything...so I doubt you want me to deal with them! :)
***Kosta: Thus, the story of Jonah is understood to prefigure a Christ arch-type rather than a literal narrative.
ZC: Naturally, since the Hebrew Bible accepted on its face teaches Judaism, not chr*stianity.
Thank you! I have been trying to tell that to literalistic, fundamentalist Protestants.***
I haven’t run across any, Kosta. When I am posting to the literalists and mention the verses about cutting off limbs and plucking out eyes if they cause people to sin, the backpedalling resembles that in the old Merrie Melodies Warner Brothers cartoons.
No biggie. :) I was reviewing posts backwards and didn't realize some have already clarified it. Sorry for being repetitive.
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.
I shall defer to my Orthodox brethren on this one.
It is not a legalistic authority for sure, although in practical terms, Church officials and the "dignity" they hold in the Church amounts to the same. The lower clergy are held to the vow of obedience. Let me just say that I have heard of and witnessed some rather uncharitable excesses of particular bishops.
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
I shall defer to my Orthodox brethren on this.
Teofilo is spot on. The central aspect of the life of Orthodoxy is the Divine Liturgy, but there are Q&A spiritual sessions, and each Orthodox believer should have a spiritual elsder and his confessor who, along with absolution explains what was done and why. Orthodox catechisms exist as something copied form the West, but are not used in a scholastic or institutional manner. Although every convert must be catechized, he or she is given a book to read and above all, to participate in the Divine Liturgy (where the Catechumens are still blessed before they are dismissed).
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
More like Right Praise or Right Glory.
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.
It is true that the Seven are fixed in an artifical manner.
That is true, unless one considers Islam to be a (quasi-)Christian heresy.
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.