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.
It's rather confusing; in the Catechism, if I never heard of Jesus I could be saved, but since I have heard of Jesus and am not Catholic my salvation is in doubt. In this thread I'm being told by Catholics that they will not sit in judgment of my relationship with God, yet they will deny me the sacrament of communion in their Church because I don't have a relationship with God.
Essentially, if you are to be saved, you better be Catholic or be a lost-tribesman in the Amazon - those are your only choices!
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!
To a large extent, I would agree. But I'd also say that Evangelicals are unequivocal about this: the only way to salvation is through Jesus. Just believing in God isn't enough. You must accept Jesus as the Savior. That's what Jesus said, and it's good enough for me.
Additionally, I don't know too many evangelicals, and I don't know ANY doctrine, that says Catholics or Orthodox or other evangelical churches aren't saved because they are in a different church. We may disagree on how to worship, and some of the smaller doctrines, but your faith and your salvation are up to you and God, not some church and it's doctrines.
We're glad to call you Christian whether Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Methodist, or Lutheran! Unfortunately, one "Church" on that list doesn't see things the same way...
“”one “Church” on that list doesn’t see things the same way””
I don’t know where you getting this idea from,dear friend.
The Catholic Church recognizes protestants as Christians,we just don;t accept them being called a churches,we accept them as Christian communities. There can only be one true Church,not many.
The following is an excerpt from Blessed Pope John Paul 2 encyclical Dominus Iesus. I suggest you read the whole thing because it should help you understand the Church’s position on some of the questions you’re posting.
Excerpt...
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63
“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66
The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history
That's sophistry, Alex.
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
Alex, the Catechism clearly says all who "acknowledge" the Creator are in Gods plan of salvation. That's a much broader brush than just those who read the Old Testament.
However, the elaboration of the Catechism that is under discussion has merits for the changed world.
The elaboration of the Catechism is simply a roundabout way of saying everyone is called but only those who show up and become Catholic in will be saved.
and everyone will receive a reward for virtue from Christ, often to his greatest surprise
And if not? Who do we go after? You? It's easy for you to promise things you can't deliver, knowing you cannot be held accountable for your claims. So, I say prove it, or stop spreading rumors! I do understand that this is what you believe, and that's fine with me, but you are presenting your beliefs not as your faith but as fact.
Well, the Catholics say that too, except they say that when that happens you become Catholic. I image they probably think Jesus was "Catholic" by definition, even though we think he was an observant Jew!
Either side is out there convincing people that they must believe something to be saved or else all hell breaks loose.
So, your side says all who are in heaven are Jesus believing Christians and the Catholic side says all those in heaven are Jesus believing Catholics. What's the difference? Both sides are selling their brand of salvation.
That is the accurate description of the nature of God.
all who "acknowledge" the Creator are in Gods plan of salvation
Everyone is in the plan of salvation, even those who don't acknowledge God.
only those who show up and become Catholic in will be saved.
Yes, however, no formal conversion might take place. This is something that, with the mercy of Christ, might happen in a twinkling of an eye. I had made that clear before, didn't I?
you are presenting your beliefs not as your faith but as fact
These are facts I believe in. You are free to disbelieve me.
That is man's definition of God, not an "accurate description" of his nature. God is even to Catholic scholars (except you, apaprently) an unknoable secret (mystery). You may wish to educate the Vatican with your discovery.
Everyone is in the plan of salvation, even those who don't acknowledge God
That's not what the Catechism says, Alex.
These are facts I believe in. You are free to disbelieve me.
You will have to prove that what you believe in are "facts." So far you have merely made statements of faith presneted as statements of fact, along with promises you can't deliver and are not repsonible for, without offering a shred of evidence other than your belief that there is anything factual about them.
unknoable=unknowable
presneted=presented
Something about those facts and descriptions is compelling you to keep responding with inanities. Reflect about it.
The difference is that "Christian" includes Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Messianic Jews, anyone who professes Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. Catholic is pretty narrow in terms of "Church".
Evangelicals don't expect we'll all be in high mass every day with the Latin Rite. We don't know what form the praise will take, but it will be praise, and it will be for the Glory of God.
You don't have to "convert" from Orthodoxy to reach Heaven; I don't have to "convert" from Free Methodism to reach Heaven with you. We both just need to acknowledge that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and follow His lead!
I'd say that's a pretty big difference between Evangelicals and Catholics, right there... We don't claim to be the "one true Church" and that everyone will "become like us" when we reach Heaven... All we stick to is what Jesus claimed, and let it be at that.
Those aren't facts, they are - as Kosta points out - simply statements of faith. Prove any of them, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Prove that we will all become "Catholic" when we get to Heaven.
You can't. It's impossible. It is simply a statement of faith. This is the biggest problem with the Catholic Church - because the Church has concluded that it is inerrant, it confuses its own dogma for facts, and in the process ends up superceding the Bible with the Catechism.
Yes, other people's persistent claims that they are facts and having nothing to offer as credible evidence. What do you call someone who keeps making false claims? I call them liars.
I understand the difference, PSS. It is a difference in degree and not in kind. Both sides are doing the same thing; it's just that one is more exclusive than the other. It's like a yacht club. The Catholic club allows only yachts and insists on being the "true" yacht club. The Protestant club allows yachts and other boats, and insists that sailing is more important than what you call your boat; after all thyeare all boats! The Catholic Church claims universal jurisdictional authority and high exclusiveness. Protestant groups claim no universal jurisdictional authority and high inclusiveness.
But both sides are selling a retirement lot in heaven with nothing more than a comforting hope as a collateral.
We don't know what form the praise will take, but it will be praise, and it will be for the Glory of God.
What is (in theory) not for the glory of God? Even the devil.
We both just need to acknowledge that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and follow His lead!
Why?
I'd say that's a pretty big difference between Evangelicals and Catholics, right there... We don't claim to be the "one true Church" and that everyone will "become like us" when we reach Heaven...
But of course you claim that everyone will be like you in heaven—a Christian, right? Do you anticipate finding unrepentant Jews and Muslims, and chaste Hindus and devout Buddhists there too? Of course not. So, they have to be like you in order to be saved. That's just a different label and a different contract agreement, PSS. :)
Faith, based on the Words of Jesus in the Bible.
PSS: Faith, based on the Words of Jesus in the Bible
Dear friend, in #609 you wrote
I will not only ask you why again, but also what gives you the right to tell me what I need to acknowledge?
It's this kind of (sometimes unintentional) arrogance and self-righteousness that makes self-professed Christians as un-Christian as it gets.
What makes your book holier than other so-called sacred books? What proof do you have to offer that this is indeed the "true" scripture, so much so that you can tell someone he or she "needs to acknowledge it" as such, other than your personal conviction? And I am supposed to entrust my life, indeed all my hopes, on this "witness?"
And if it is not true, do I get my money back? Who should I sue for false advertising? You? You can neither guarantee nor prove that what you are selling as truth is indeed truth.
Why can't people just believe what they want to believe and and let others do the same? Isn't a belief supposed to be a private matter?
Selling salvation is no different then selling indulgences, my friend. Ironic, isn't it? The whole Protestant movement was started because Luther was scandalized over the Church selling indulgences, yet selling salvation by Protestants is okay? What got reformed? A label?
My statements come from the divinely revealed knowledge that the Catholic Church possesses and reveals. That you do not believe them, doesn't make them any less facts.
PING!
Why? Because I believe God - through Jesus - told me as much. And what gives me the right? The commands of Jesus. I will state as much; I will not force you to any religion, however.
Do you not evangelize and share the Word of God with others?
It's this kind of (sometimes unintentional) arrogance and self-righteousness that makes self-professed Christians as un-Christian as it gets.
Explain the Great Commission, then. How do you spread the Word of God to everyone?
What makes your book holier than other so-called sacred books?
Faith. Pure and simple. However, I will not burn or kill people for not converting to my religion. I will tell them about it, and why I believe it, but ultimately it is their decision.
You can neither guarantee nor prove that what you are selling as truth is indeed truth.
I do neither. I never will. If you do not want to hear, then simply say as much and I will be quiet. But I believe my God told me to tell others about how to receive salvation, and that is what I intend to do.
Why can't people just believe what they want to believe and and let others do the same? Isn't a belief supposed to be a private matter?
Then tell me the Orthodox view on the Great Commission. If evangelism is to be avoided, then how do you reconcile that with the words of the Savior you are supposed to follow?
It comes down to faith. I cannot prove anything, I can share what I believe, and why I believe it. But ultimately it comes down to my belief and faith.
Selling salvation is no different then selling indulgences, my friend. Ironic, isn't it?
No. You have claimed the Nicene Creed as your own; please explain how you can believe in one God and let others worship their own gods. Explain how you can deny the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, when he tells us:
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.
Do you advocate not following the last words of our Savior in the Gospel of Matthew? Is that the view of the Orthodox Church?
Prove they are divinely revealed. It is only by your belief and faith that you accept them.
But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. (John 16:13)
“...come from the divinely revealed knowledge that the Catholic Church possesses and reveals.”
Where would one find the divinely revealed knowledge of the Catholic Church? Why not write it down?
It would look nice along side the divine interpretation of scripture.
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.