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.
No, we have Mary being a virgin when bearing Jesus, but we have clear and uniquivocal references to Jesus' brothers and sisters (not cousins or kin).
She is not declared the ever Virgin; listen to your Orthodox fathers and learn that it is inferred but is not an explicit statement. Inferred means that your Church makes assumptions. To believe Mary was an eternal virgin is a statement of faith; it is not a forgone or clear Biblical conclusion.
Please point to the exact verse that declares Mary as eternal virgin; I have asked you before, and you could never answer. And like annalex and other Catholics, you will declare that the Greek used in the Bible does not mean what it means (brother and sister meaning brother and sister, not cousin as you assert).
Is your salvation dependent upon your belief in Mary’s other children existing?
If I were a Catholic it would; refusing to believe that Mary was an eternal virgin is a heretical position, and would excommunicate me from the Church.
I know you don't want to face up to that reality, but ultimately the Catholic Church has declared that unless you believe an inferred claim (one that is not explicit and leaves quite a bit to interpretation), they cannot be a member of the Church, and risk their salvation.
Obedience to the Catechism is the requirement for salvation, not the Bible.
Either prove it or take it back. I have never called you personally illegitimate or evil. Prove it or take it back.
See post 77 where Protestants are the illegitimate offspring; bastards. See post 275 where Protestants - and Luther in particular - are considered evil and damaging.
I am a Protestant. I am what you consider the illegitimate offspring, and I am a "follower" of a man you consider evil. How is that not calling me a bastard demon spawn?
You didn't just call me by name an illegitimate, evil person. You called every Protestant those names. And in the spirit of Christ, we thank you for your insults, and will wear them as badges of honor, a burden we continue to carry in our persecution by the Catholic Church.
Better yet, go to your local evangelical church and ask. Sit down with the pastor, and learn how to lead someone to Christ. We are called to do, to be fishers of men, to be witnesses and proclaim Him to the world. It's what Christians do.
Do you mean to tell me the Catholic Church does not teach you how to evangelize?
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.
Yet your own Catechism says that a person who has not gone through true confession cannot take part in Communion. Is it the Catholic Church's position to deny it's own Catechism?
If you cannot minister to sinners, as Jesus did, then who are you ministering to?
We minister to sinners, we are sinners, our church is not perfect. We admit our faults and failures; does the Catholic Church do so?
Are you perfect and without sin? Is there evil within your church?
NO and YES. We'll be the first to say so. And we've never claimed as much. And if charged, we won't just take a defensive position and try to disparage and attack the accuser.
If I visited your church and talked with the elders or whomever runs your church, would I find entirely blameless people?
Absolutely not. In fact, I have told you some of the sordid past within my own Church. And how we dealt with it. Would you like more laid bare for you?
Yet you still have not owned up to the complicity of your own Church's leadership in the well-known sexual scandal, and freely admit that those involved are still within the leadership of the Church.
How you handle brothers and sisters who sin is most telling...
I belief it's referencing the thousands of denominations, NOT the individuals in them.
...we continue to carry in our persecution by the Catholic Church.
That's a bit beyond hyperbolic.
Oh, I'm sorry, I've been referencing the Catholic Church, not the people who attend them...
Makes it all well and good, doesn't it?
***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.
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.***
Yes. The very individuals who complain about Church wealth have leaders like Swaggart and Bakker and Osteen and Warren whose opulent lifestyles completely overshadow even such as the Papal apartments. The Catholic/Orthodox leaders live in church property; even little tinpot single church leaders like Jeremiah Wright live in multimillion dollar luxury homes that are titled to themselves.
How many of our leaders own property like even Jeremiah Wright?
***What a confused post!
Yes, I’ve met Jesus. Can I prove it to you? No.***
It may seem confused to you. You have met Jesus. I asked you for evidence; in reply you say that you cannot prove it and leave it at that. You state things as fact and cannot prove them. Interesting state of confusion.
***“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.”***
More confusion. I suppose that you ‘know’ that you are one of His sheep.
***“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.***
I see that you have managed to miss not only the fact that the Septuagint (not the Hebrew Bible) was used by Jesus and the Apostles, but that there are approximately 87 quotes of the Deuterocanonicals in the NT.
Would it be might be too much to ask you to call them by their real name, as as not to confuse them with the NT Apocrypha, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Acts of Paul.
***“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.***
This alternate universe has things reversed from the real. The Septuagint including the Deuterocanonicals was the OT Scripture of Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church.
***Maybe that doesn’t bother you. It would bother me greatly if I believed the Apocrypha was Scripture.***
Understand it and call it by its real name and the blinders will fall off.
You ask someone on the internet for proof they know Jesus...but it is by their fruit that you will know them. What ‘fruit’ would constitute evidence over the Internet?
I also spent 25 years in the military. It is a fact. How do you suggest I prove it to you? What if I produce Obama’s birth certificate? Would that be proof? (Maybe...it WOULD border on miraculous...)
Yes, I know I am one of His sheep. We are supposed to know stuff like that - see 1 John 5.
“...you have managed to miss not only the fact that the Septuagint (not the Hebrew Bible) was used by Jesus and the Apostles”
Nope. You are simply wrong. I WROTE that they DID use the Septuagint, and simply didn’t quote from the Apocrypha. Now you claim that “...there are approximately 87 quotes of the Deuterocanonicals in the NT.” First time I’ve seen that claim. What are they?
“Would it be might be too much to ask you to call them by their real name, as as not to confuse them with the NT Apocrypha, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Acts of Paul.”
Actually, “Apocrypha - 1. a group of 14 books, not considered canonical, included in the Septuagint and the Vulgate as part of the Old Testament, but usually omitted from Protestant editions of the Bible.”
“This alternate universe has things reversed from the real. The Septuagint including the Deuterocanonicals was the OT Scripture of Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church.”
As I wrote, the Septuagint was used by Jesus and the Apostles, but not the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals...with the exception of one reference used for illustration. If a Jew quotes from the Old Testament, does that mean he accepts the New? I think not. If Jesus quotes from the Old Testament, but not the Apocrypha, which He had access to - maybe there is a reason?
BTW - found this on the Internet: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm
Note it uses Matthew 4.4 (””It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”) to show a reference to Wisdom 16:26...but it is actually from Dt 8.3 “He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.”
I’m sure there are a LOT of double references possible, if the Apocrypha repeats enough of the OT - but that doesn’t indicate a quote from the Apocrypha.
The souls of some are in Purgatory for the same reason I pay for my groceries at Safeway, rather than steal them and then repent of the sin of theft.
You know, earlier you said something interesting: that the belief in Purgatory is a more cardinal perceived error than the belief in the eternal virginity of Mary. This is a strange take on the relevant importance of doctrines. Catholics rarely think of purgatory; the doctrine is not defined with any precision. All we know is that in the love of God for us there is also justice, and therefore God will provide for us to give satisfaction for everything, for our own sanctification. We pray for the dead, to be sure, -- why wouldn't anyone -- but it is not at the center of our faith. The Orthodox, for example, do not have a doctrine of Purgatory at all, and stay with a vague belief that some transitional state fo the soul awaits most of us after we die. That is fine by us Catholics. I would not spend much effort in convincing a convert in the entire doctrine of Purgatory; it is a required belief but it is not a central belief.
The Catholic central beliefs are the Incarnation and the Resurrection. This is when the knee bends and the mind is in awe. Get the Incarnation wrong and you don't know Christ. Get Mary wrong and you've got the Incarnation wrong. The desire to calumniate Mary is the cornerstone Satan's strategy:
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away by the river.16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
(Apoc. 12)
Why is purity of Mary inseparable from the Incarnation? For the same reason the salvation history of the Jews began with the cleansing waters of the flood and the Hebrew laws of purity. Deny her purity and you have denied, basically, the entire economy of salvation that the Old Testament contains: you become a Marcionite.
1 Cor 3:1:15 is incomprehensible without the doctrine of Purgatory. I, too, prefer what the Scripture says.
a-x,
you can continue to post whatever you wish.
I simply disagree that the text actually
says what you are claiming it says. There
you have it. Do you think by continuing to
post everyone will finally roll over and
start to repeat after you?
It’s been a lot of years since the
Roman Church left the Orthodox Church and
a lot of years since the Reformation...
And yet, in hundreds of years, you have
not convinced the rest of Christianity that
this is correct.
I’m not thinking that repeating it will
bridge the gap. The horse is out of the
barn already.
And still, I wish you the best with
your chosen beliefs.
All the best,
ampu
The point of my posts on this topic is to illustrate that the Catholic reading of the scripture is the only one correct, and the rest ignore or misrepresent what the scripture actually says. It is particularly shameful when having ignored, redacted, mistranslated and lied about the scripture, the Protestnat claim that they have it as a rule of their faith.
ax,
First, I am not Protestant. I am Catholic. :-)
I don’t think the Catholic view on this is
even close to correct - like many other areas
where beliefs have been accrued over the
centuries and made into doctrines.
Personally, I don’t think you even came
close to your stated goal, but others can
decide what they think.
And as always, I certainly continue to wish
you every blessing.
Best,
ampu
“The souls of some are in Purgatory for the same reason I pay for my groceries at Safeway, rather than steal them and then repent of the sin of theft.”
It seems you believe the blood of Jesus isn’t entirely sufficient for forgiveness - or do you believe in a forgiveness that means your sins are removed as far as the east is from 089 degrees, instead of as the east is from the west...
Since your faith is not conformed to the mind of the Catholic Church, you are not Catholic.
Read the scripture and you will become one.
God bless.
The sins of those suffering in Purgatory had been completely forgiven before they entered the Purgatory.
ax,
Sorry, but I am a Confirmed Catholic,
former Alter Boy. The Church considers
me a Catholic. Your opinion doesn’t count
for anything in this regard. :-) It is
simply your opinion.
THAT does not mean the Church is correct
in everything it does at all times, does
it? Or do you like Vatican II? If it was
correct, why is there movement to change
it. And when it changes, will you stick
with Vatican II or will you change?
In this instance, the Church is wrong.
I accept that.
Best,
ampu
Excellent observation! Theologoumena (hypothesis) was always allowed , but was not taken for dogma. Dogmatic pronouncements had to meet the consensus patrum standard, i.e. the consent of the Church as a whole.
It took the Church to harmonize the Bible
Yes, and it took the Church 292 years after Christ to codify what it did not believe and to reject it as heresy. And it took another 71 years for the Church (in the West) to agree on which books of various codices used by different churches were inspired and which profane. We are talking 363 years in all, and even then the East listed the Book of Revelation as questionable (along with Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas) into the 9th century!
All evidence shows that the Church had a myriad of beliefs up until the First Nicene Council and even beyond. And evidence also shows that either not all Gospels of Matthew were identical, and doctrinally acceptable, or that much of the New Testament had to be brought into doctrinal compliance of the post-Nicene period.
The fact that all surviving copies are "dcotrinaslly agreeable" doesn't mean such agreement miraculously existed across the spectrum. Indirect evidence shows that not all book of the NT met doctrinal standard and that for unknown reasons such books no longer exist.
Worth repeating, sfa. The only thing that makes sense and makes a real difference is imitation of Christ.
Oh no, since you do not accept every word of the Catholic Church as inerrant and supra-Scriptural, you cannot be Catholic! You can be one of us bastard demon spawn known as Protestants.
We’ll all burn in purgatory and hell together, for the evil and illegitimacy of our “faith”... I’ll save a whipping post right next to me, and will gladly share in our sorrows together, wistfully pining for the “true” interpretation which only the Catholic Church can provide.
How ignorant - how self-serving! - of us to think we could actually read verses and reach a conclusion not dictated from Rome, as recorded in the true font of all that is Christian and Holy, the Catechism!
So come, brother, accept your cross and prepare for the scourge, we shall be the bastard demon spawn of Free Republic together...
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.