Twelve Differences Between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches

Vivificat - News, Opinion, Commentary, Reflections and Prayer from a Personal Catholic Perspective ^ | 7 August 2009 | TDJ

[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.

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.

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.

Thank you Elizabeth for motivating me to write these, and may the Lord continue to bless you richly.

[1010RD]

The truth is they have no leaders. The leadership is only nominal and can be refuted or denied whenever someone disagrees with them or any of their doctrines. There is no leadership, other than scripture and reason, in the Protestant/Reform churches.

[1010RD]

First, sorry for replying so late. Second, I am sorry you've been called non-Christians or other names. That is not right and shouldn't be part of the discussion. I have a deep respect for conscience and assume that you've both come to where you are out of intellectual curiosity and resounding faith. The goal isn't to rip each other down, but to build up our faith in Jesus Christ. If at any time we want to stop or feel uncomfortable, let's just stop without any recriminations. That said...

Mr. Rogers use of and specific choice of Scripture is ideal. Clearly we'd agree that Jesus is not speaking about the Scriptures we have today. They did not exist. Jewish illiteracy at the time was high and the oral tradition was the rule, outside the Tanakh. Jesus therefore is using the Scriptures meaning the oral tradition and starts with Moses - thus the Septuagint is referred to as well.

Implicit in Christ's own words are Prophets = Scriptures. Without Prophets we cannot have Scriptures orally or in written form. Scriptural reference is Prophetic reference.

Additionally, we don't have all the Scriptures referenced in the Bible. The modern Protestant (which do you prefer - Protestant or Reformer. I've seen both and mean no insult in using either. It is your preference) Bible ignores the Apocrypha. Luther hated and wished to purge the Book of James. Men obviously have influenced what we call Scripture. The Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) was written in reaction to the Christian Bible (Old and New Testaments).

Clearly, the Scriptures Jesus is referring to were open to interpretation and study, hence the existence of and acceptance of rabbis and rabbinical work at the time of Jesus. (if you are a Biblical literalist then we should quit now)

Furthermore, Jesus is the authority. The Scriptures are stories that illustrate the ongoing battle between false Gods and true. Without Jesus, the Great I AM, what need do Christians have for Scripture at all?

The statement, “Jesus, immediately after His resurrection, used Scripture for authority.” isn't exactly accurate. Jesus really is saying, “Look, here are the words of God as you understand them and accept them as authority. Given that, let me show you how they point to me and how I fulfill them.” Jesus isn't using them authoritatively in the same sense that we are in this thread. Jesus is reasoning with them.

PSS’s contention that any milkmaid can receive revelation is on its face true and Biblical, except that revelation is individual and specific. The Bible doesn't have women receiving revelation for the entire Church. Prophetesses are mentioned, although it is not clear as to whether the term “prophetess” is an honorific, referring to the wife of a prophet, or to one who receives God's word applicable to all people.

So women as Prophets of God - no. But, there is no special authority needed to received Divine answers is implicit in the meaning of the word “pray” - to ask. That is we can each individually receive answers from God.

The only certain conclusion we can draw from our Bibles is that men have been ordained by God from time to time to speak globally in His name to all people and especially His Church.

Therefore we need Scriptures and Prophets to have God's Church on earth. There is no statement by Jesus that the Scriptures are closed, that He will not speak again, that Prophets are no longer needed/necessary or that we are all prophets.

[1010RD]

The Church believed it based on a culturally influenced view that anything else would have desecrated her body after Jesus.

When you say culturally influenced belief, which culture are you referring to? Among Jews sex between husband and wife is normal and good and not having sex would be a cause for divorce.

Would it be right to say that this view that sex would "have desecrated her [Mary's] body" based on the view that sex is bad or dirty?

Also, why is Mary venerated and not Joseph? Under the view that Mary remained a virgin Joseph did too by default. They remained married from what we can conclude in the Bible.

Can you tell me if the belief that Mary is virgin, immaculate or "full of grace" are one and the same definitions and on virginity is it based on having a hymen in place or on not having had sex with a human man?

I am not looking to contend, just to understand your and the Church's (I assume Eastern and Western treat Mary the same) views on this issue. Thanks.

[John Leland 1789]

“The RCC and Orthodox and any other largely predominately gentile Christian organizations need to get off their high horses and realize that they aren’t central ... Israel is...at least according to the holy, inspired scriptures we all claim to revere.”

---

Yep.

And Matthew chapter 16, along with the entire Gospel According to Matthew is Israelocentric. Too many have taken selfish advantage of the word “church” in Matthew 16:13-19. That word could just as easily be speaking about the Kingdom Assembly (Israel dominant over the Gentile nations) when Israle’s King, Jesus Christ, rules on this earth, than anything else.

But church denominations as well as cults see the word “church” and say, “See there, that’s us!”

I have yet to have it Scripturally proved to me by anyone, even (excuse me, especially by) Landmark Baptists, that the “church” in Matthew ch. 16 refers to anything we see in this age at all.

[Guyin4Os]

But church denominations as well as cults see the word “church” and say, “See there, that’s us!”

Exactly!!! The "Church" (Capital C, Qahal, ekklesia) is resurrected, restored, refreshed, revitalized ISRAEL. And we lost dog goyiim shall stand in that assembly ONLY because of our faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.

Unfortunately, most Christian churches (small c) think they are the center of God's plan for the ages. They are part of it, to be sure, but Israel is the center.

[John Leland 1789]

But church denominations as well as cults see the word “church” and say, “See there, that’s us!” (JL)

Exactly!!! The “Church” (Capital C, Qahal, ekklesia) is resurrected, restored, refreshed, revitalized ISRAEL. And we lost dog goyiim shall stand in that assembly ONLY because of our faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel. (Guyin40s)

---

It can be a real source of amusement to read all of the circular reasoning “churches” use trying to insert their own organizations into Matthew 16 !! You know, “We’re the true church, and since Matthew 16 says, ‘church,’ it must be talking about us.” So we ask how they know they are the true church. “Why . . .,” they answer, “Don’t you know Jesus said, “Upon this Rock I will build my church . . . . . there we are, Buddy.”

I’ve been on this Merry-Go-Round with Landmark Baptists for 30 years!

A lot of the Bible editions first published in the 19th century were edited by post-millennial people who would put the word “Church” (implying a church of our present dispensation) in the headings above OT passages that were dealing with nobody but Israel. This thing kind of stuck in people’s minds, I think.

Yes, Qahal and ecclesia have identical meanings. I do not criticize the translation of the word “church” as translated from Greek NT texts, but insist that the word itself must be interpreted inside the context where it is found, not merely by its general deifinition and then applied uniformly across the NT as referring to the same entity every time it shows up . . . which is what Landmark Baptists (”Baptist-Briders”) tend to do.

[annalex]

Good questions. The Orthodox view on Mary will be somewhat different as the Orthodox don't have the dogma of immaculate conception of Mary. They agree with us Catholics that she never committed a sin of any kind, but since the Orthodox do not have the same understanding of original sin, the doctrine of immaculate conception seems to them innecessary and speculative. Moreover, the Orthodox generally disapprove of dogmatic development done in councils in which the Orthodox did not participate, or even more so, dogmas established by papal decree.

Just to be clear, immaculacy is not a word normaly used (it means "without stain"). You probably mean Immaculate Conception of Mary. That is the doctrine that Mary was conceived without originall sin. Sinlessness is a separate doctrine, that Mary never committed an actual or personal sin. Virginity is absence of carnal relations with a man. It is believed that God opened the Blessed Mother's hymen to allow for the birth of Jesus, and then he closed it, but that is not a dogma of the Church, just a common belief.

Fullness of Grace is a state incompatible with actual or personal sin. St. Stephen is described as full of grace at the time prior to his martyrdom, although the Greek word describing Mary is different and used uniquely in application to her. The fact that the Angel calls her already filled with grace as he meets her is sometimes used to give a biblical prooftext of her sinlessness as well as her immaculate conception. But we believe that fullness of grace is not something unique to Mary; it is a sanctified condition that pious people achieve with divine help.

The Catholic understanding is that a wife does not sin if she has normal, loving and non-contracepted carnal relations with her husband (and vice versa). On that score alone, Mary would not have sinned if she did the same either. Catholicism never viewed legitimate sex as "dirty". Perpetual virginity of Mary was fitting for her not because she avoided sin, but because she already fulfilled abundantly the union with God by carrying Him, raising Him, serving Him, and believing in Him, thanks to her unique role as the Mother of God.

Let us step back for a while and understand that spousal sex, to a Catholic Christian, is a model and a prefigurement of creative power of God and his love for us. Sex is pleasurable because it is a foretaste of Heaven. We are given spouses to love, and love carnally, so that we can understand and experience loving on the divine level, which through the Incarnation is carnal also. (I trust the good taste of the reader not to make silly caricatures of this). So for that reason sex for Mary would have been superfluous, akin to someone in the middle of a sumptuous dinner dashing off for a quick hamburger.

Joseph is venerated alongside Mary by the Church, as are all the saints, but his role in the Incarnation is secondary compared to Mary. It is Mary and not Joseph who gave Christ his humanity and it is Mary who accompanied Jesus through His minitry and witnessed the birth of the Christian Church at the Pentecost. (It is believed that Joseph was much older than Mary and died at some point before Jesus began his public ministry).

Lastly, what I outlined is Catholic theology. The popular belief through the ages was probably less precise. It is entirely possible that millions of Catholics held some jumbled "culturally influenced view" that a sexual act alone and regardless of context is tainted with sin and therefore incompatible with Mary.

[kosta50]

When you say culturally influenced belief, which culture are you referring to?

The Jewish culture, of course, but also the early Christian culture as well, especially Pauline morality regarding virginity.

Among Jews sex between husband and wife is normal and good and not having sex would be a cause for divorce

Indeed, but not with what has been set aside for God. The idea that what is God's is untouchable is very much part of the Jewish culture (Holy of Holies, the Ark of Covenant, which when touched kills an Israeli soldier). Secondly, Mary's purpose was fulfilled; anything else would be second fiddle in the eyes of the Church.  The mother of God cannot now be also the mother of fallen humans, spiritually or physically. Her purpose would otherwise be lost and made meaningless.

We don't think like the Jews and the early Christians did. We don't stone our misbehaving children, or cheating spouses to death. Yet in the ancient world, that was culturally acceptable and a part of the justice system. We can't apply modern social standards in 21st century America and say it's silly. 

Jewish approach to holiness was also anything resembling ours. They couldn't even pronounce sacred names. Earliest Christian manuscripts never spell out God or Christ or other sacred names but always use ligatures. The reverence of the ancients cannot even be fathomed by modern-day Christians.

Naturally, Mariology evolved along with the rest of the Church beliefs, and in order for that to take place a cultural environment that made it possible had to exist. Obviously, it would not have happened in the 21st century America. But in those days such a culture did exist, no one objected to it.

[annalex]

Perpetual virginity of Mary was fitting for her not because she avoided sin, but because she already fulfilled abundantly the union with God

Kosta's spot-on post reminded me that in Mary we see the Tabernacle of the Word, -- or rather, the tabernacle is a prefigurement of Mary. And God had severe punishment in store for anyone touching the tabernacle, -- hence Mary's lifelong virginity.

[Guyin4Os]

I do not criticize the translation of the word “church” as translated from Greek NT texts, but insist that the word itself must be interpreted inside the context where it is found, not merely by its general deifinition and then applied uniformly across the NT as referring to the same entity every time it shows up

I don't criticize it either. The word "church" comes from the word, "kuriokon," which means "The Lord's" ... or "belonging to The Lord." Who can argue with that. Each congregation that gathers together to worship God and to do His will belongs to Him!

But a better translation for "ekklesia" is of course "assembly."

[1010RD]

Thank you very much for the insights and clarifying explanations. So it is logical to conclude based on the Catholic beliefs you've outlined that:

1. Mary never needed to participate in the Atonement or Grace of Christ.

2. This is a unique human experience outside of Christ Himself in all human existence.

3. Joseph, who died before Christ's ministry began (I've come to agree with this belief), died a failed Jew (no off-spring, no consummated marriage) and outside of the saving Grace of Jesus Christ.

Are all three of those correct/accepted conclusions for Catholics?

[1010RD]

Q: When you say culturally influenced belief, which culture are you referring to?

A: The Jewish culture, of course, but also the early Christian culture as well, especially Pauline morality regarding virginity.

Is there a strong teaching in Judaism in favor of permanent virginity as an achievement? Marriage was the highest achievement for both men and women and an unmarried man of thirty would be unusual in Jewish culture. The culture would strongly discourage a never-married man from remaining in that state along with the pressure to bear children, no? I don't see the Jewish connection unless you are referring to the concept of Korban. This though refers to the sacrifice of male animals (a symbol of the Christ yet to come) and later the setting apart of a son for permanent temple service - e.g. Samuel.

The manipulative practice of Korban is criticized by Jesus. I don't see a Jewish tradition of setting aside a woman as Korban. Can you expound on the Jewish connection further?

By early Christian culture (which incidentally is Christianized Jewish culture) you are wholly referring to Paul's teachings in 1 Corinthians 7, correct? We don't find any veneration of Mary as sinless or Immaculate in the NT. She is venerated as a chosen vessel (but, to that point she was observant as a Jew only), but rarely mentioned afterward in any important capacity for the early church, using the NT as the historical record. If Paul is the example of abstention from sex aren't his writings duplicitous on the subject, that is does post marital chastity or perpetual human virginity connote any real positive spiritual effect? That is does your sexual status (within a lawful and God-recognized marriage) have any affect on your salvation?

My thinking is that Paul's discourse is at best contradictory, neither proposing one or the other state as best, but predicating your choice on personal preference within the bounds the Lord has set for marriage. I would like to understand this better, especially in the face of secular attacks on Christian morality which I presume we all agree on; i.e. sex within legal, lawful, God-approved marriage is good, outside that context it is bad. Mary creates a subtext for the attack by making celibacy, post marriage superior to sex within marriage.

Also, I am interested to know if believing in Mary as stated in either the Orthodox or Catholic traditions is considered a saving doctrine, that is if I don't believe in Mary as described am I still eligible for Heaven?

[1010RD]

Kosta's spot-on post reminded me that in Mary we see the Tabernacle of the Word, -- or rather, the tabernacle is a prefigurement of Mary. And God had severe punishment in store for anyone touching the tabernacle, -- hence Mary's lifelong virginity.

This is an eye-opening statement, although I don't agree with the interpretation it clarifies the veneration of Mary by Catholics and the Orthodox.

For me I don't see sex as bad or lifelong virginity as good, unless they come outside of marriage.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss your beliefs and find the insights fruitful for understanding your perspective and how you got there.

Best regards to you.

[annalex]

1. Mary never needed to participate in the Atonement or Grace of Christ.

No, that is completely wrong. Christ is her Savior as well as yours and mine (Lk 1:47). The difference is that Christ saved her by way or preventing her from committing a sin, whereas He saved me and you by atoning the sins we have committed. Nor is that preventive atonement of Mary uniquely applicable to Mary. We, too, pray "Lord, forgive me my sin ___ and with your help I will not sin again". Compare 1 Pe. 1:10.

2. This is a unique human experience outside of Christ Himself in all human existence.

Immaculate conception of Mary is unique. The state of grace and sinlessness is not unique. The Church never pronounced that absolutely every one beside Mary and Jesus has committed a personal sin. For one thing, children before the age of reason and mentally ill are not capable of sinning. Further, the Scripture from time to time refers to people in a way that suggests sinlessness. Noah, for example, is described as "perfect in every way". The popular belief is that St. John the Baptist never sinned; the Church never discouraged this belief. Anticipating your response, the passage in Romans 3, where "all have sinned" cannot be read as literal condemnation of everyone, because of its context: it also says that all are quick to murder, no one seeks God, etc., which is a broad characterization allowing for exceptions. Also, that passage is a quote from Psalm 13 (KJV 14; it omits a good portion of verse 3, but St. Paul quotes it), but both the end of that psalm and the next psalm also speak of righteousness.

3. Joseph, who died before Christ's ministry began (I've come to agree with this belief), died a failed Jew (no off-spring, no consummated marriage) and outside of the saving Grace of Jesus Christ.

The Church venerates St. Joseph as a major saint, patron of working men, and names churches after him, -- I go to a St. Joseph Church myself. Very far from "failed Jew". All righteous Jews were saved by Christ. The icon of the Resurrection (also known as Descent to Hades or Descent to Limbo) shows Jesus rescuing those who had died before him, starting with Adam:

It is also believed (not dogmatically, but rather universally) that St. Joseph had been married before, had children, and his wife died. He then married Mary, a dedicated temple virgin, in order to take care of her as she could no longer serve at the temple, having reached maturity. This explains the references to "brothers of the Lord" in the scripture, as well as Mary's apparent intention not to "know man" (Lk 1:34). See The Protoevangelium of James, chapters 7-9:

7. And her months were added to the child. And the child was two years old, and Joachim said: Let us take her up to the temple of the Lord, that we may pay the vow that we have vowed, lest perchance the Lord send to us, and our offering be not received. And Anna said: Let us wait for the third year, in order that the child may not seek for father or mother. And Joachim said: So let us wait. And the child was three years old, and Joachim said: Invite the daughters of the Hebrews that are undefiled, and let them take each a lamp, and let them stand with the lamps burning, that the child may not turn back, and her heart be captivated from the temple of the Lord. And they did so until they went up into the temple of the Lord. And the priest received her, and kissed her, and blessed her, saying: The Lord has magnified thy name in all generations. In thee, on the last of the days, the Lord will manifest His redemption to the sons of Israel. And he set her down upon the third step of the altar, and the Lord God sent grace upon her; and she danced with her feet, and all the house of Israel loved her.

8. And her parents went down marvelling, and praising the Lord God, because the child had not turned back. And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, test perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: Thou standest by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto thee, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran.

9. And Joseph, throwing away his axe, went out to meet them; and when they had assembled, they went away to the high priest, taking with them their rods. And he, taking the rods of all of them, entered into the temple, and prayed; and having ended his prayer, he took the rods and came out, and gave them to them: but there was no sign in them, and Joseph took his rod last; and, behold, a dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph's head. And the priest said to Joseph, Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord thy God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in thy house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received thee from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave thee in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to thee. The Lord will protect thee.

[annalex]

She is venerated as a chosen vessel (but, to that point she was observant as a Jew only), but rarely mentioned afterward in any important capacity for the early church, using the NT as the historical record

She is venerated in rather physiological terms indeed (Lk 11:27f) "Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck"; however, this manner of veneration is immediately corrected by Jesus: "Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it". We venerate Mary not as a physiological vessel, but as a conscious, willing, obedient bearer and protector of the Word, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Mary is mentioned several times after the childhood of Jesus at the critical juntures in the history of the Church. We already discussed her evident, venerated presence during Christ's ministry; she also was at the very initiation of that ministry at the feast at Cana. But she was also at the foot of the Cross, where she was told to adopt the disciple Jesus loves, and through him, all the Christian believers (John 19:25f). After the Ascention, Mary was in the Upper Room as the Holy Ghost illuminated the Church (Acts 1:14f). Finally, it is hard to see anyone other than Mary in the image of Queen of Heaven in Acts 12, where Mary continues her struggle with Satan on behalf of her Christian children even today. That role is consistent with the promise given in Genesis 3: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (KJV)".

[annalex]

if I don't believe in Mary as described am I still eligible for Heaven?

This is a question that is difficult to answer briefly, because it comes from a non-Catholic belief system. The Church teaches that people are not saved by faith alone. The scripture clearly teaches in many places that we are judged by our works (see Romans 2:6-10, Matthew 25:31-46). That means, someone with very coarse belief may be saved if he has works of love in him, and a theology professor may be condemned if his life does not imitate Christ.

However, faith is important. One who is not interested in perfecting his faith has already failed a major test, as he is then lukewarm about his faith. Works of love are not likely to come out of that disposition. Worse even, is one who is really defiant about the faith as taught by the Church: someone who knows the teaching but defies it (that is a definition of a heretic).

So, in that light... The Creed of the Church only mentions Mary in her historical role as the Mother of Jesus ("He was born of the virgin Mary and became man"). She is mentioned along with the entire communion of saints in the liturgy as the saints join us in prayer. Often, prayers to Mary (Hail Mary and Hail Holy Queen) are offered at the conclusion of the Mass, and many hymns are dedicated to Mary. This is it as regards the mandatory prayer life of the Catholic Church. The sacraments of the Church do not invoke Mary.

Hail Mary is often given as penitential work. Rosary (consisting of repeated Hail Marys, Our Fathers and Glory Be) is a popular devotion, but of course not everyone does it.

The Catechism mentions Mary as second Eve and as having a mystical connection with the Church. Immaculate conception, perpetural virginity and sinlessness of Mary are defined dogmas of the Catholic Church. As with any dogma, it is fine to experience doubts or puzzlement about them, but it is an act of heretical defiance to reject them.

Special devotion to Mary is usually a spontaneous expression of faith. Some people experience it more than others. I doubt that the mystery of the Incarnation can be approached without a very serious and loving devotion to Mary, and the Incarnation is one of the two pillars of our faith (the Resurrection is the other).

[kosta50]

Marriage was the highest achievement for both men and women and an unmarried man of thirty would be unusual in Jewish culture

I suppose Jesus would have been a dismal failure in that regard. Yet, as far as I know, he was never publicly criticized by his opponents for that according to the Bible.

Christian morality is an amalgam of several factors that influenced it over time, and from different cultural realities. Mariology is a reflection of a belief that developed in the early Church, rather than something that was there, clearly defined, from the beginning.

Mary's virginity finds parallels in the concepts rather than practices of the Jewish culture within the context of early Christian beliefs (i.e. that she is the Tabernacle, and the Tabernacle is pure, and inviolate), just as the Catholic/Orthodox interpretation of the Jewish scriptures finds acceptance through the prism of the Christian faith (i.e. as a foreshadowing of Jesus), which is not to be found in the Jewish interpretation.

Outside of that Christian mindset, Mary is a failure as a Jewish woman, as much as Jesus, being a 30 year old single male virgin, is a failure according Jewish cultural norms of manhood.

That doesn't mean that asceticism was unknown or unpracticed by some segments of the Jewish society, such as the Essenes or, later on, the Ebionites. If you are asking for an example of Jewish vestal virgins,  or temple priestesses, you won't find any, but that's because the question would be missing the point.

The culture would strongly discourage a never-married man from remaining in that state along with the pressure to bear children, no?

Was John the Baptist faulted for being one? People who appeared as prophets and things considered set aside by God were not judged according to everyday standards because they were doing things concerning "higher authority." Again, here, Mary is believed by Christians, and that includes early Jewish Christians,  to have been set aside by God as a suitable vessel, and that purpose overrode the social norms by which she would have been judged. In other words, she had a "higher purpose" in life than to be a good mother and a wife to man.

By early Christian culture (which incidentally is Christianized Jewish culture) you are wholly referring to Paul's teachings in 1 Corinthians 7, correct?

Not exactly, although Paul is the oldest source we have on that subject. Whether it was something that was uniformly practiced across the nascent Christendom is highly doubtful (as some of his own Epistles attest to). But it is reasonable to think that most Christians saw Jesus was their role model to follow, and that it was obvious his life was one of celibacy rather than one of seeking a wife and a family.

In fact his teaching pretty much makes it clear that following him, at the price of leaving your loved ones, was the way to go. His disciples and the women who followed him apparently assumed celibate life style and Peter, who was married, basically abandoned his family (which, according to modern standards of our society, would be prosecutable!). So, there is no doubt what the Christian priorities were when it comes to this topic.

In fact, the Gospels were brutally clear about what comes first. "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." [Luke 14:26] Everything else took on secondary importance.

Early Christians firmly believed, and the Apostles taught, as evidenced from Paul's letters and the Gospels, that the Second Coming was expected within their lifetime which would render all material blessings on earth meaningless. To assure your way into heaven was to sell everything, give to the poor, and follow Jesus, for it would be easier, as Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us,  for "a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Self-sacrifice, self-denial, as well as purity of internal and external life became an important factor, and virginity was a "certificate of authenticity" of total devotion to Christ. Paul's own morality is a critique of pagan practices. By the second century, morality also became an issue vis-a-vis Gnostic beliefs which pointed in the opposite direction, and by the third century, asceticism and monasticism become very prominent aspects of Christian righteousness, and are seen as such to this day in both Orthodox and Catholic communities, although in Orthodoxy it is much more pronounced.

In the same time period, a book called the Protoevangelium of James becomes the leading source of reference for Christians about Mary's perpetual virginity as well as details of Jesus' childhood. Although the Church never considered it inspired, it was taken into account as some kind of witness worthy of consideration.

In such mental milieu, Mary assumes an ever increasingly pure image that goes beyond being just a "suitable vessel" (Ignatius), or the Second Eve (Justin Martyr), or even Eve's advocata (Irenaeus),  in the Church. It becomes inconceivable to the Church that she would lower her priorities and serve an ordinary man when her purpose was set aside providentially only to serve God. Having carnal relations after giving birth to her divine Son would have been seen as tantamount to infidelity (in more than one meaning of the word) and a desecration of her body, a Tabernacle.

Origen (early 3rd century)  is credited with the title Theotokos (Birthgiver of God), who also asserts perpetual virginity along with other 3rd century writers. By the 4th century, Mary is firmly established in the Church as the most pure, ever-virgin Mother of God.

Notably, this de fide doctrine was universally accepted by the Christian community until today, and was not questioned until the Reformation, some 1,200 years later.

[kosta50]

Also, I am interested to know if believing in Mary as stated in either the Orthodox or Catholic traditions is considered a saving doctrine, that is if I don't believe in Mary as described am I still eligible for Heaven?

The only dogmatic aspect of Mary that is considered essential to the Orthodox faith is that she is the Holy Virgin Mother of God (Theotokos), (Canon I, Council of Ephesus, AD 431). Note that it doesn't say "ever-virgin." However, in the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) Pope St. Leo I refers to her as 'ever virgin Mary' in his letter to the Council.

This dogmatic requirement was in response to those (such as Nestorius) who taught that she was Christotokos (Mother of Christ), denying Jesus' divinity. As such Theotokos is intimately related to the Christiological dogma of the Church, namely that Christ is fully God and fully man, one person in two natures. Denying one is also dneying the other. And denying any of the basic pilalrs of chrisianity (Trinity, Chrisotlogy, Theotokos) is essential aspecy of the Christian faith.

The Orthodox do not judge who goes to hell and who doesn't. That is up to God. However, they would tell you that denying that Mary is the Holy Virgin Theotokos would disqualify you as a Christian, as per the Council of Ephesus.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Christian morality is an amalgam of several factors that influenced it over time, and from different cultural realities. Mariology is a reflection of a belief that developed in the early Church, rather than something that was there, clearly defined, from the beginning.

...

The only dogmatic aspect of Mary that is considered essential to the Orthodox faith is that she is the Holy Virgin Mother of God (Theotokos), (Canon I, Council of Ephesus, AD 431). Note that it doesn't say "ever-virgin."

Thank you, Kosta50, for the words. On these points I think you will find zero disagreement with Protestants; we agree that Mariology developed over time, and that the only Biblical reference we have is to Mary being a virgin up to the point the birth of Jesus. Beyond that it is a belief that has evolved over 500+ years, at a minimum.

And I think we would find common ground on a statement that belief (or lack thereof) in the eternal virginity of Mary is not grounds for sacrificing your salvation.

Tradition is well and good as long as it is positive and correct, and does not retard from future learning and growth, spiritually. When tradition becomes the limiting factor, or when a body of writings outside the Bible become the true "guidebook to salvation" then we have entered into idolatry - we have something higher than the Word of God that we answer to.

This, I think, is the concern most Protestants have with Mariology, in that it may lead to idolatry accidentally. If you take a survey of US Catholics, I think you'll find a high percentage who do not understand the subtle difference between praying to Mary to ask her to ask Jesus to save us, and praying TO Mary to ask HER to save us. Based on my 12+ years as a Catholic student (and having family who are Catholics), I would say more US Catholics believe the latter than the former.

So most Protestants take the stance of trying not to trip our brothers up; remove the potential stumbling blocks in the first place, so that the focus of our attention is unequivocal.

Anyway, your statements are why I as a Protestant have always found much more kinship with the Orthodox, rather than Catholic churches. Orthodoxy, to me, seems to be much more up-front about the realities of its own dogmas (and believe me, I have plenty of my own!), and unwilling to condemn a man as a heretic (essentially condemning to hell) for not following a purely traditionally-based dogma.

Essentially, the Orthodox - to me - focus on the big fundamentals (the virginity of Mary at the time of Jesus' birth, the Trinity, salvation by faith, etc.) and say "this is also what we believe based upon tradition and 1500 years of research, but it's not needed to be saved". And I find that on the big fundamentals we have 100% agreement - truly "catholic" in our beliefs, Protestant and Orthodox.

As a Protestant, though, I find a much greater stand-off with Roman Catholicism in that they demand you must accept everything said, everything based on that tradition and 1500 years of research, or you are a heretic (denying the Catechism) and will not be saved.

I guess I think Christianity is a pretty simple set of ideas and beliefs, not a 2000+ list of rules and regulations to be followed. Christ set us free from the legalities of the Old Testament; to this Protestant the Catholic Church is attempting to take us back to those thousands and thousands of rules and regulations.

[1010RD]

Thanks for your detailed responses. In reverse order, your #3 is utterly fascinating. I'd never heard or read The Protoevangelium of James. I also read your and the other comments from that thread.

I agree completely regarding children before the age of reason and the mentally ill. Noah is an interesting example as I would argue he was perfect in his use of the Law, that is he used the atonement as understood and designed for Israel. I don't really think Moses was introducing new commandments, just reiterating the originals (although Passover was new and Prophets of God can introduce new doctrine per God).

You flatter me by anticipating a reply (Romans 3) that I never intended. I really am interested in learning your beliefs. Even though we may not agree, my motive is curiosity and understanding. It is the height of intellectual immaturity to demand that we must agree to be friends or to discuss any idea. Please believe me when I say that I am not interested in disputing your beliefs, just understanding them. My questions, if probing, are just that and not argumentative. What I find most interesting are the facts you find and use to reinforce your beliefs in a logical way. It is delightful.

I do like your #1 and agree that we can work to not sin again with the help of Christ. Would you elaborate on how Christ prevented Mary from sinning after his birth?