Don't you find just a tiny bit of irony in that statement?
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.
More like the 20th, but repetition doesn't make it correct. The passage isn't talking about a man's soul, but about the work he did in this life that is tested.
If you build a chair, and it breaks when I sit on it, your soul isn't purified. Furthermore, as I've pointed out more than 20 times, a Christian is made perfect by Christ, and it has already happened. According to scripture, Jesus HAS MADE us PERFECT FOREVER. It also says "it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment" - not 'it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes a period of refinement to pay for temporal sins and make us good enough for heaven'.
I don't care if you want to believe Mary remained a virgin forever. It is silly, but not particularly harmful. But Purgatory contradicts darn near the entire NT. It is the Anti-Gospel.
"Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions."
But Scripture says, "But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast."
and "he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy."
and "13For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
Our sufferings do not cleanse us from sin - "...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
But St. Paul did not use the broken chair allegory. He instead chose the allegory of wood and straw being burned off and gold and precious stone remaining. Therefore, I read what is written and you spin your own theories. That is what makes me a Bible believing Catholic Christian.
“And the words of the prophet must be tested against Scripture...”
“13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them...25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.”
Jesus, immediately after His resurrection, used Scripture for authority. I suppose he could have said, “Dimwits! I just rose from the dead!”
But instead, He used scripture. He showed that what He experienced was true by scripture.
If Jesus used Scripture to prove His words, then we obviously should use scriptures to prove - test - the words of men. And the Popes fall terribly short.
“He instead chose the allegory of wood and straw being burned off and gold and precious stone remaining.”
And did he say we carry the remains of the building into Heaven with us, once purified? Did he say it purifies the man’s soul, and makes him ready for heaven?
Nope. You shove your false theology (that Jesus isn’t sufficient) into a passage that even Catholic theologians agree wasn’t about Purgatory.
“I read what is written and you spin your own theories.”
Here is what is written: “the fire will test the quality of each man’s work.”
Paul tells you the meaning of the allegory. You don’t need traditions to understand. Instead, your traditions take you away from the obvious truth.
But St. Paul also wrote “If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss”. Here is the part you wish he didn’t write, but the fact is, he wrote it. This provides both the purification of gold from straw, and the link to the believer’s suffering as a result.
Who said that Jesus isn't sufficient? Spin the scripture all you want but do not impute to us the theologies we don't have.
Very good response, Kosta.
I would like to add that Catholics are not discouraged from studying Scripture. Is there anything Mr Rogers can add to show that we are?
***I have no idea what you are trying to show by the quote from Acts. All I see is that the lost need a preacher of the Word. Someone who has never heard of Jesus isn’t likely to fully understand the passages that refer to Him.
The church has the truth, of course. That is why the church has preachers and teachers, and I don’t devalue their ministry. I substitute teach often in church, and there is nothing improper about that. But in the end, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth...” - John 16***
Line up all the Protestants from Luther through Osteen and tell me that this passage means that every milkmaid is authorized to interpret Scripture.
***I find the refusal of Catholics to trust the Holy Spirit to do what Jesus says He will do blasphemous.***
I find that the rejection of the Church of Jesus the Christ in favour of personal theologies to be damaging to the soul.
***You responded, “Misinterpreting it is evil and taking on authority that you do not have is evil. The Church is authorized. Individuals are not.”
False claim. Jesus taught the Holy Spirit would “guide you into all the truth”. There isn’t a single passage in scripture teaching that we should leave interpretation to a church body of fallible men. There are multiple passages teaching us to study the scriptures ourselves. I take no authority for myself, but I will not deny the ministry of the Holy Spirit, as taught by Jesus Christ.***
I have posted many of the verses which spell out the authorization of the Church. Why do you reject them? I do not recognize the version of God and His commandements to men that you hint at in your posts.
***PS - Luther regretted the proliferation of interpretations, but he never pulled his German translation off the market...***
Just like Augustine, Luther recognized his folly in rejecting the Church for personal interpretation. The difference is that Augustine was not addicted to wealth and comfort.
Paul: "If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?"
Peter: "In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time."
John: "But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
The Catholic Church: "Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions."
“I do not recognize the version of God and His commandements [sic] to men that you hint at in your posts.”
I’m not surprised.
******Can a person read the Bible and reach a different conclusion than the Church, and not be considered to hold a heretical position?***
I don’t know of any example.
Can I read the Bible, reach a conclusion that Mary had other children after Jesus, and not be a heretic? ***
Well, let us look at it. Mary is declared ever virgin, the Theotokos. Unless we have in vitro being practiced back then, then Mary had no other children. Is your salvation dependent upon your belief in Mary’s other children existing?
***I would not take evil names upon myself and I do not recommend it for any man who wishes to follow Christ.
I do not take the names; I wear the names you gave me. You have labeled me as an illegitimate, evil person; it was not my claim.***
Either prove it or take it back. I have never called you personally illegitimate or evil. Prove it or take it back.
***I believe that we have only two of the scandal bishops left and they are due to go in the next couple of years.
Yes, let the evil reside and live within the Church. Better to let them die off naturally rather than actually bring them through redemption. ***
How do I bring anyone else to redemption? Please let me in on the process.
***Meanwhile, keep offering mass and communion to the Kennedys, the Kerrys, the Pelosis all because it’s the politically expedient thing to do.***
The statement would have some merit except for the example of Jesus allowing evil and sin to exist in His Church for some time; as well you must remember that Jesus came for the sinners - Mark 2, for instance. Romans 3:23 is another example.
If you cannot minister to sinners, as Jesus did, then who are you ministering to? Are you perfect and without sin? Is there evil within your church? If I visited your church and talked with the elders or whomever runs your church, would I find entirely blameless people?
***“***Perhaps you need to meet the Shepherd...***
I have not doubt that I will.”
Pity you put it in the future tense...***
I trust that you have already met Him, then. Can you provide the details, a video record, and perhaps some sort of assurance that it was indeed Him.
***“The majority of Christians in the world accept the Deuterocanonicals. Going with the majority here?”
Nope - I’ll go with Jesus and the Apostles. They cited the Old Testament nearly 300 times in the New.
Apocryphal citation is limited to an illustration mentioned in Jude...” 14It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”***
A pity that you’ve managed to miss the numerous postings that Septuagint (including the Deuterocanonicals) were directly attributed to NT quotes, and not the Hebrew Bible - at least not more than 10%).
***Paul quotes a pagan prophecies as well: “One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons”, so I wouldn’t put a lot of stock on the single quote from the Apocrypha.***
Pity. Jesus and the Apostles did. Is this another Reformation improvement upon Jesus?
***At best, you have a 295:1 vote on the Apocryphal books. How is your majority doing now?***
Since I only claimed a 90% majority and you are giving me 98% majority, very good indeed. Thank you for the figures.
***If a book exists, does that make it all true, some true, or untrue? For example we have fragments of some 60 Gospels; and references only to 20 more. That does not prove their worth
Mark, Mr. Rogers’s own link shows it wasn’t 80% but 54%. Hardly something “complete.” besides, that figure inbckludes the 4th century, post Nicene sources, which is wrong to lump together with the 3rd century pre-Nicene sources. When one factors out the 4th century mnuscirpts, the percentage of “complete” Bible books is even less than 54%! But, we knew all that already!***
Mr Rogers just gave us 98%. Very sporting of him
***The various canons reflected individual bishop’s beliefs. Origen, for example, had many gnostic books in his repertoire, beside the pretty much same NT books as _Irenaeus of Lyons. But their theology was like night and day.
While Origen did come up with many orthodox teachings and is even credited to be the first to call Mary the Theotokos, his nearly complete collection of NT books didn’t stop him from advancing the gnostic ideas of universal salvation or the pre existence of the souls. Those gnostic books in his canon were not there by accident or a collector’s items, as Mr. Rogers seems to suggest. They reflected what Origen believed.
Likewise, Eusebius, the first Church historian and a bishop of Cesarea, advance (together with Orgien) a three-tier approach to scripture which was rejected by +Athansius of Alexandria and the rest of the Church.***
That is because there is confusion on the Protestant side about opinion versus the consensus patrem. Individuals may hold beliefs (which are then bruited about at odd times during various debates) which are then ruled upon by the Church. Anti Catholic debaters often use this tactic. The Augustinian appeal is often used when quoting his non Catholic periods.
***How do we know Mark 16 of a church in Asia Minor, and a church in Iberia said the same thing in ever verse? We don’t! But we do know that same-name books existed with different verses in them.
Biblical criticism isn’t really criticism at all. In most cases, it is an attempt by religious researches to create a rosy picture of a harmonized scripture so as to increase confidence in it through scientific method.
In reality, these biblical “scientists” invent methods to obfuscate the real picture by drawing up misleading charts and lists, and leaving out crucial information, not to talk about exaggerating percentage, etc.
In short: highly unreliable and always wearing blinders.***
The Bible study practiced by those without Magisterial understanding come up with increasingly novel theologies based upon exactly the minor disagreements exhibited going from Scripture to Scripture. It took the Church to harmonize the Bible; else we wind up with such as the JWs, using quite a lot of Scriptural reference, taken out of the Church context, of course.
***“I do not recognize the version of God and His commandements [sic] to men that you hint at in your posts.”
I’m not surprised.***
Neither would many of the Reformers and nearly all of the Restorationists. The discarding of the Church Fathers increasingly invalidates the personal theology then concocted.
You just hit the nail on the head,dear brother!
Humility is the sign of a true Christian,not wealth and comfort without a cross.
From Thomas Kempis Imitation of Christ
"If you wish to be truly delighted and more abundantly comforted by Me, behold, in contempt of all worldly things and in the cutting off of all base pleasures shall your blessing be, and great consolation shall be given you. Further, the more you withdraw yourself from any solace of creatures, the sweeter and stronger comfort will you find in Me.
At first you will not gain these blessings without sadness and toil and conflict. Habit already formed will resist you, but it shall be overcome by a better habit. The flesh will murmur against you, but it will be bridled by fervor of spirit. The old serpent will sting and trouble you, but prayer will put him to flight and by steadfast, useful toil the way will be closed to him."
In other words ... if we are living a life without a cross it means we are not sacrificing and we are selfish because we are not willing to suffer for others,thus not being anything like Christ.
What a confused post!
Yes, I’ve met Jesus. Can I prove it to you? No.
“27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
“A pity that you’ve managed to miss the numerous postings that Septuagint (including the Deuterocanonicals) were directly attributed to NT quotes...”
Utter blindness. Quoting the Greek translation of Scripture is not the same thing as quoting the Apocrypha, which was found in it but NOT quoted. Odd isn’t it, that Jesus and the Apostles HAD access to the Apocrypha, but chose not to use it for teaching.
“Since I only claimed a 90% majority and you are giving me 98% majority, very good indeed. Thank you for the figures.”
I have no idea what you are referring to here. What are you claiming has a 90% majority? I said the ancient texts of the NT show 98% agreement with each other and modern texts - and I cited the sources for that figure.
But in quoting the Apocrypha, the NT writers would be 295:1 - 295 quotes of the Old Testament, and 1 of the Apocrypha. And that ONE quote is used for illustration, not doctrine - something Paul did with pagan texts as well. That would make it at least 99.66% Old Testament quotes to 0.34% Apocrypha...and 100% to ZERO for teaching doctrine.
Maybe that doesn’t bother you. It would bother me greatly if I believed the Apocrypha was Scripture.
Don't you find just a tiny bit of irony in that statement?
No!
Perhaps you should direct that same attitude towards the temple mount in Jerusalem than.
I wrote...
“No matter what is in the passage, the thinking was done
before you read it and you accept it lock stock and barrel.
I very sincerely wish you the best.”
“I simply prefer what it actually says.”
best,
ampu
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.