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.
For me?
“17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” - Jesus
“28Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”...35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” - Jesus
“4But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” - Paul
“According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” - Peter
AMEN.
If any Muslims are converted and saved, it is through Jesus, of course. Didn't I explain that everyone in Heaven is Catholic?
But, as regards an eternal God, a "plan," is an oxymoron
Kosta, you are not familiar with the term "plan" (or "economy" of salvation, are you? The Catechism has a whole section on it: Paragraph 2. Jesus Died Crucified , scroll down to "II. CHRIST'S REDEMPTIVE DEATH IN GOD'S PLAN OF SALVATION". At the end of it there is another reference to the universality of God's plan:
God takes the initiative of universal redeeming love604 By giving up his own Son for our sins, God manifests that his plan for us is one of benevolent love, prior to any merit on our part: "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins."408 God "shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."409
605 At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God's love excludes no one: "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."410 He affirms that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many"; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us.411 The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer."412
408 I John 4:10; 4:19.
409 Rom 5:8. 410 Mt 18:14.
411 Mt 20:28; cf. Rom 5:18-19.
412 Council of Quiercy (853): DS 624; cf. 2 Cor 5:15; I Jn 2:2.
Of course I am familiar with the economy of salvation. The Orthodox know better than to confuse that with planning. Economy is not planning; it's managing. Plan is a draft.
We’ll be sure to edit the Catechism as you suggest then.
Why shoud I edit Catholic Catechism, Alex? You know very well what oikonomnia means. Why preted it means something else? Besides, the way the Bible is written God doesn't even manage.
oikonomnia = oikonomia
I don't see what is so good about "economy", it is an awkward term, at least given the modern connotations.
I am not sure I follow you, Alex. What does consilium have to do with God "planning?"
I don't see what is so good about "economy", it is an awkward term, at least given the modern connotations
The "economy of our salvation," in short, is how God revealed himself to man, namey as three different Hypostatic realities, and how each reality revealed what man should do to be saved. That's all. That's not "planning"; that's doing.
Needless to say, the economy of man's salvation is about as much a corruption of Judaism as Mormonism is of Christianity.
Why can't the Catholic Church just cut through the fluff and simply say something like this: "Through the teaching of Christ, we believe that the Church is a sure way to heaven. How others fare in that respect has not been revealed to the Church"?
I fully agree, and I'm sure theologically that is what the Catholic Church wants to say. However, I also believe during its history - especially when it was a significant political power - that it used the current wording to maintain control. "Once you've been exposed to the Catholic Church, you better not step outside the bounds of the Catholic Church or you're not saved. Why, even those Muslims we're fighting will be saved, but YOU won't because you left!" Powerful words of control, indeed!
Your summary gives a tacit "approval" to searching God via other ways. Other branches of Christianity, or even other religions could be considered as an acceptable path to salvation, and thus why stick with obedience to the words and dictates of the Catholic Church?
A lot of the Catechism is, I believe, a result of the Church's previous interest in being more of a worldly power than a spiritual one. And unfortunately, because of the Church's position that its teachings are infallible (again, I believe this stemmed from its desire to maintain worldly control over recalcitrant princes and kings), it is awfully hard to change without blowing its own credibility. Pride stops the Church from correcting its previous errors.
I am sure some Catholics would say that, but not all, and certainly not the Magisterium. I also find that, on the one hand, they say Muslims are included in the plan of salvation, but on the other hand they add a stipulation—rather, a rationalization—that a Muslim who was saved actually, consciously or not, "converted" in his heart, and died a "Catholic!" As they say: everyone in heaven is a Catholic.
As far as the Protestants are concerned, as long as they have been baptized in what is perceived to be a Catholic baptism, they are actually "Catholics" even if they don't exclude yourself form the visible Church by being rebellious.
There is also way too much "legalese" involved, but, hey, that is understandable considering how Christianity was put together: you had to make sense of things that were stitched together from things that had nothing to do with each other. Expecting it to be straight forward is simply not realistic.
This apparent open minded approach of the Cathoic Church on closer scrutiny reveals that all "true" religions are really closet Catholic faiths, and that those who are saved are "Catholic" even if they never heard of Catholic or know what Catholic means. That way the Church can insist that only "Catholics: go to heaven without appearing hegemonistic or chauvinsitic.
But, in all fairness, the Evangelicals are no different. They go all over the world to convert people to Christ because they believe one is saved only through him. What differs between the Catholics and the Evangelicals is just the label. Instead of calling the "saved" Catholics, they are called Christians!
How can I give approval to anyone I have no control over? People believe whatever they want to believe. My only objection is how do you search for something you don't know? What is God? How can you recognize God in a form, or word, or occurrence if you can't tell me what God is in his nature or essence?
We know that children are humans because we know what constitutes the essence of humanity (human nature). Once we know what is characteristic of human nature, what makes humans human, we can apply that quality to different forms and call them human. Essence before form!
If we cannot know what makes God God, and we cannot know that, then how can you tell what is from or of God, what is divine? Well, that's easy: people make up a definition and go from there. In other words, they make a "leap of faith."
But, just as Evangelicals are going to "save" infidels by making sure they die Christians, and as Catholics preach that all who are in heaven knowingly or not knowingly "became" Catholics in this lifetime, and as Muslims will either convert or kill those who refuse, it all comes to the same thing: those in heaven will be just like you!
consilium: A conclusion made with consideration, a determination, resolution, measure, plan, purpose, intention
But the Catechism doesn't say a Muslim has to convert
Because formal conversion may or may not happen. We believe in sovereignty of God, who, in His mercy can act in non-ritualistic ways.
When something is built on a premise that it cannot err, because God either dictated it, wrote it, ordained it from freen form any error, or protects it from straying into error, expecting an admission of error in matters of faith is simply a non-starter. No religion will admit error of faith. Every religion in its own eyes is the "true" one. It's much more than pride. It's a matter of survival.
Ok, how can that apply to (our notion) of God? At what "time" did God make that "conclusion" if he, by definition, knew it from all eternity? God, by definition, exists and works outside of time. God, by necessity, simply acts in "eternal present," as "in the beginning God said "Let there be light!' And there was light."
[Kosta: But the Catechism doesn't say a Muslim has to convert]
Alex: Because formal conversion may or may not happen. We believe in sovereignty of God, who, in His mercy can act in non-ritualistic ways.
So what the catechism is really saying is that, by virtue of their Abrahamic faith, the Muslims are also "included in the plan of salvation" which really means that some of them may come to accept Christ and die "Catholic."
That's just a roundabout, politically correct way of saying "there is no salvation outside the Church," isn't it? Like I said, why can't the Catholic Church just cut through the fluff and either state openly what it is saying sub rosa, or just say "We believe that you can be saved if you are Catholic, but God is not limited to choose other options at his disposal which are not revealed to us"?
from freen form = free from
I see your point. First, I need to iterate that all these problematic cases: the ex-Catholics, the Protestants, the Muslims, the Jews, other non-Christians receive in principle the same treatment: their salvation is possible according to their works, uncertain, and extraordinary; whereas the salvation of Catholics, Orthodox, and some others who have access to the valid sacraments of the Church is sure to the extent that they avail themselves of them.
But we know something else: rejection of the truth once received is a serious sin (connected to the cardinal sin of pride). This speaks to your remark: indeed, someone who once was Catholic and fell away has endangered his salvation much more than, for example, some Muslim goat herder who never knew anything outside of his village, and has lead a moral, clean, charitable life the way his mullah taught him.
He did that timelessly, of course. For God, to plan is to act. He is the Word, isn't He?
virtue of their Abrahamic faith
Let us be clear what that virtue is. It is an incomplete revelation of God through the ancient prophets, that the Jews received most directly and the Muslims received in some form as well (they, too, read the Old Testament). That is the plan, apparently, to have these concentric circles of truth around the Word fully revealed to the Church.
That's just a roundabout, politically correct way of saying "there is no salvation outside the Church," isn't it?
I often wish they indeed stayed with the simple formula, "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" and did not tinker with it. However, the elaboration of the Catechism that is under discussion has merits for the changed world. It more clearly explains that all nations and faiths are called to virtue, and everyone will receive a reward for virtue from Christ, often to his greatest surprise.
Please accept my apologies; I didn't mean to say that you were giving tacit approval! Rather, if the Church took the ecumenical position to heart, it would grant such approval implicitly. Thereby releasing its control over its adherents.
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.