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 is written down. The dogmas of the Church are explained very well in patristic literature, consiliar documents, papal encyclicals, the Catechism and other magisterial documents. However, one cannot convert all teaching to paper, just like one cannot replace school with a reading room with manuals. More often that not the Church teaches like Christ taught, through question and answer, homilies at Mass, and personal witness.
This is not unlike the Free Republic, the value of which is in the live exchange rather than in the collection of documents that FR has, not matter how great these documents are in themselves.
“Tradition, according to Roman Catholicism, is therefore as much “the Word of God” as Scripture. According to the Catechism, Tradition and Scripture “are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well- spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal” (CCC 80). The “sacred deposit of faith” — this admixture of Scripture and tradition — was supposedly entrusted by the apostles to their successors (CCC 84), and “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone.... This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome” (CCC 85).
The Catechism is quick to deny that this makes the Church’s teaching authority (called the magisterium) in any way superior to the Word of God itself (CCC 86). But it then goes on to warn the faithful that they must “read the Scripture within ‘the living tradition of the whole Church’ “ (CCC 113). The Catechism at this point quotes “a saying of the Fathers[:] Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word” (CCC 113).
So in effect, tradition is not only made equal to Scripture, but it becomes the true Scripture, written not in documents, but mystically within the Church herself. And when the Church speaks, her voice is heard as if it were the voice of God, giving the only true meaning to the words of the “documents and records.” Thus tradition utterly supplants and supersedes Scripture.
In other words, the official Catholic position on Scripture is that Scripture does not and cannot speak for itself. It must be interpreted by the Church’s teaching authority and in light of “living tradition.” De facto this says that Scripture has no inherent authority, but like all spiritual truth, it derives its authority from the Church. Only what the Church says is deemed the true Word of God, the “Sacred Scripture... written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records.”
This position obviously emasculates Scripture.”
http://www.mbrem123.com/bible/sufficn.php
It is true that the Holy Tradition contains the entirety of the apostolic knowledge and then the Holy Scripture is derived from it, as well as the living magisterial teaching is derived from it.
Let me quickly add that the Holy Tradition is not to be confused with things that are traditional in the trivial sense, and have a later, often human, origin.
But why does this state of affairs emasculate the Scripture? The Catholic hermeneutics do not take away from the Scripture anything it contains, but it prevents charlatans from injecting their own opinions and traditions into the Scripture.
If you are suggesting that other Christians are at this time burning or killing people for not converting, please point them out. If your point is that other Christians did this in the past, that is true, and was unfortunately true of essentially all Christian groups that had power in a national state.
“The Catholic hermeneutics do not take away from the Scripture anything it contains...”
Would that it was true! But Catholic hermeneutics add Purgatory, and take away the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. It turns “have been made perfect forever” (Heb 10) into ‘forgiven for pre-baptismal sins, but needing punishment to cleanse from those that follow’.
It turns what God has done into what the ‘Christian’ will yet do.
Purgatory, penances, priests, indulgences, the Pope - all contrary to scripture, but safely ignored since scripture has been neutered. If you cannot read scripture for yourself and know what it means, then the church has no constraint.
But you at best object to traditional things that are outside of the historical scope of the scripture, and at worst, like here, object to imaginary doctrines.
It is thanks to the one sacrifice of Christ that people are made perfect forever, through the sacraments of the Church, penance (one of the frequently repeated calls of the New Testament) and purgatorial cleansing.
Thaty you interpret some verses differently than I do is granted. But nothing that the Church reveals to us contradicts the Scripture properly understood: both the Scripture and the magisterial teaching have the same source. “The house divided against itself cannot stand”. The house of Peter stands.
And thus scripture places no limit on Catholicism. Nor is penance and purgatorial cleansing to be found in scripture - on the contrary, we are taught forgiveness comes without works (although works will follow the new birth, it is the new birth that counts for salvation).
If tradition controls interpretation of scripture, then tradition rules scripture.
I am not doing so, but admit that many Christian denominations did so in the past. However, we do know that Muslims and Hindus have - and continue to - killed Christians simply for being Christian, and refusing to convert. Yet these are the very people who will be in Heaven with you, according to the Catechism.
Thus you take it on belief - by faith. Thank you.
The only way Scripture can be interpreted is how the Church dictates; new revelations and truths from the Scripture cannot come without "approval" of Rome. The Bible becomes a resource for the Church's list of dogmas that make a true believer; it is a supporting document for the final word, which is the word written by the Church.
Thus you end up in situations where Jesus says He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that the only way to the Father is through Him, but the Church countermands that and states those who reject Christ or have never heard of Christ can be in Heaven (Muslims - every Muslim is aware of Jesus). You also end up with situations where you pray to others beyond Jesus, for their intercession with God. Both are in direct contrast to the actual words of Christ!
If the Pope mentally broke down, and tomorrow issued an ex cathedra writ stating that we were to consider Allah as the new god, then that would be that. It would be impossible to reject, it would be impossible to attempt to counter Biblically. In the eyes of the Church, that would be the new truth, regardless of what the Bible states. You cannot interpret Scripture outside the teachings of the Church, so if the Church teaches incorrectly, well tough.
Fundamentally, the Church has placed itself as god, and its writings above the Bible. Pride does not allow it to repent, and thus it continues on in error and sin.
If they truly repent their evil deeds and are otherwise fit, yes they will. I have to say that personally I think that this is highly unlikely in these cases,
That is not what the Catechism states. All they have to do is acknowledge the Creator. Nothing about repenting from killing others. Just acknowledge the Creator (or, in the case of Muslims, Allah).
Based on previous comments I fear that the statement ‘All they have to do is acknowledge the Creator’ is not true. If the acknowledge the Creator they are not thereby damned, but they must live, without knowing it, a Christian life.
So Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews live Christian lives? They live according to the Words of Christ, accepting Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind?
What is the Biblical basis for this? Or the tradition of the early church which led to such a position?
Suppose - and I hope it is unlikely, although I don’t know - the Pope explained tomorrow that, like the ELCA, he ‘understood’ that the teaching of scripture is that our love for each other supports homosexual behavior/ordination. After all, didn’t Jesus say, “1 Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?”
After all, who are we to condemn love, when we are sometimes unloving?
But, you say, scripture condemns homosexuality as sin!
Not to a faithful Catholic! Not if the Catholic Church interprets it in the way I describe. It is Sola Ecclesia - if the Church is the infallible interpreter of scripture, then scripture ‘says’ anything the church wants it to say.
And is my scenario any more far-fetched than Mariology, based on one verse in Luke using a past perfect participle before grace, and Eve in Genesis? Frankly, there is more scriptural basis for promoting homosexuality than there is for Mariology - although both are beyond believing for anyone who cares what scripture says.
Fair enough, but Jesus did not say I need to acknowledge him, let alone that both of us do. :)
Do you not evangelize and share the Word of God with others?
I do not evangelize. If asked, I will try to present, as objectively as possible, the basic tenants of the traditional Christian faith, and try to dispels any misconceptions that the other person may have, or at least offer plausible explanations, or defend it against false accusations.
Explain the Great Commission, then.
Which version?
How do you spread the Word of God to everyone?
I have no clue.
Faith. Pure and simple.
That's fine. I will never argue with that.
However, I will not burn or kill people for not converting to my religion.
I am glad burning is not an option any more. I hope you do realize that Protestants used to burn people as well.
I will tell them about it, and why I believe it, but ultimately it is their decision.
Is that what the Great Commission says?
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.
God told you personally to tell others? I believe he told a group of eleven, some of whom still doubted! How do you know he included you to tell others how to receive salvation..salvation from what?
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?
I would imagine the Orthodox Church view is the same as yours. But the alleged Matthew's Great Commission is contrary to other parts of his Gospel where Jesus states that he was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, never advocates teaching Gentiles or even Samaritans, and states that one should pray not in public, like the hypocrites, but in a corner of a dark private room.
Evangelism was never a major policy of native Orthodox Churches, which is curious.
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.
The Creed says nothing about prohibiting others from worshiping their God/gods. It states what "we" believe God is.
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...
How do you know those are his words? Indirect evidence shows that they may not be. They are certainly not in line with his statement that he was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel...
Do you advocate not following the last words of our Savior in the Gospel of Matthew? Is that the view of the Orthodox Church?
That depends on what an individual is willing to believe. That is not the view of the Orthodox Church and I am not her representative.
Words like, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you"?
“If the[y] acknowledge the Creator they are not thereby damned, but they must live, without knowing it, a Christian life.”
Except that, apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and creation of a new man - being born again - NO ONE lives a ‘christian life’.
“14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” - Romans 2
If I’m to be judged on my works, my own heart accuses me far more often than it can excuse me. There is NO HOPE for man, apart from Jesus Christ.
Here is the full passage on the ‘lost sheep’:
“21 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” 23But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” 24He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.” - Matthew 15
There is no doubt that the ministry of Jesus focused on the Jews. Acts explains how that was broadened to include the rest of us.
And this accords with what Jesus said in John 10:
“14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
Of course, if one picks and chooses which verses to trust, then all of it becomes meaningless. I choose to accept both Matthew and John and Acts...
Do you doubt those words, or the interpretation Jesus gives them:
“35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
38For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.””
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.