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.
First biblical numerical claims are often exaggerated, contradictory or even impossible. They simply cannot be taken on their face value. We have one instance where Peter was addressing thousands of people without a microphone or a megaphone. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that not all these people could have heard what he was saying.
Second, the Jerusalem church was pretty much routed after the stoning of James c. AD 64. We also know that followers of Jesus were being thrown out of synagogues (as Jesus told them they would be) in Israel, and actively persecuted by the Jews (Paul being a witness to that), as well as the Romans.
Third, even if 3,000 converts did exist, how does that number stack against those who rejected Christianity? Judaism even officially rejected Christianity and Christian books in Jamnia, so—as such—Christianity never took any roots in Israel as long as it was in Jewish hands. The Church was effectively dead. It's only chance of surviving was for Paul to sell the story to the pagan Greeks.
Acts records “1Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews...
I am not sure what this is supposed to prove. Thessaloniki is in Greece, not Israel. And if Paul was allegedly reasoning from the scriptures in the synagogue there that “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ” I really wonder what passages was he using to show them that this is who claimed Jesus was. Of the seven biblically established requirements for a Jewish messiah, Jesus fulfilled one—being Jewish!
And what is "great many?" How many Jews lived in Thessaloniki and how many could fit into the synagogue? And what were the "devout" Greeks doing in Jewish synagogues, and since when did Jewish women count form much in those days? The whole story is so blatantly naïve that it's almost comical, let alone believable.
More important, “15As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning...And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
How did he know the Holy Spirit fell on them? Was he hallucinating in another trance as in verse 5, or seeing an angel standing in his house, as in verse 11, combining visual with auditory hallucinations? So I am sure he also "saw" the Holy Spirit "fall on them" too.
Obviously, when the Book of Acts was written it was written not for the Jews but for the Greeks, with the express purpose to convince the Greeks that they were included in God's plan as well, because Jesus surely never, ever taught anything even remotely close, or hinted at such a ridiculous aspect of his mission on earth!
The question wasn’t number of converts, but who was first in line.
The question was who was left in line. The Church was catering to them and Acts in particular makes sure the story reflects that necessity.
How about the human understanding of murder, theft, adultery, etc. prior to the Noachide laws and the Ten Commandments? Were these not sins until formalized by God? That is that from Adam to Noah no man could be condemned for these sins.
Are you saying that Noah and Moses received new revelation not previously known to mankind? How would this affect the sinning by those outside of the Israelite context, i.e. Chinese, Egyptians, the whole rest of the world. Are they not under condemnation for sin?
If tradition controls interpretation of scripture, then tradition rules scripture.
Isn't there Protestant tradition partly borrowed from existing Catholic tradition?
Also, do any of the founders of Protestantism (is that insulting, do you prefer Reformers?) claim to be prophets, that is do Luther, Calvin, Smyth, Zwingli, et al claim to have received revelation for God applicable beyond themselves to the entire world?
Some from the pre-schism Church (when the Latin Catholics split from the Orthodox), such as the Trinity. But not really too many beyond that stated in the Nicene Creed.
Also, do any of the founders of Protestantism (is that insulting, do you prefer Reformers?) claim to be prophets, that is do Luther, Calvin, Smyth, Zwingli, et al claim to have received revelation for God applicable beyond themselves to the entire world?
Nope. The Bible claims that it is sufficient for all understanding needed for salvation and how to live a Godly life. We take that to heart.
I think that I explained the Natural Law very badly if you ask this.
Yes, any form of offending God, including murder, theft and adultery are violations of Natural Law and so are sins and have been even before the flood. The cause of the flood is God's regret of making man in the face of the sins of man (Gen 6:5f).
It is because Natural Law is sufficiently clear that the Chinese, Egyptians, the whole rest of the world indeed are under condemnation for sin.
The role of written revelations of biblical laws is to shape a Kingdom of God, step by step, starting with the Jews and then including the Christian Gentiles. It builds upon the Natural Law. It doesn't excuse anyone who did not receive the written revelation (again, Romans 2, especially 12-15).
The Bible doesn't.
On the broader issue, indeed neither of the original leaders of the Reformation styled themselves prophets (from 19c onward, there were some offshoots of Protestantism like that, but we don't need to focus on them).
However, not only some foundational traditions but also the Christian Scripture itself was received by the Reformation from the Catholic Church. While not claiming prophetic powers, the leaders of the Reformation introduced to their flock a particular interpretation of some verses, and they explained away some other verses, and denied some teaching of the Church in the manner contrary to the Catholic and Orthodox doctrines, and so they most certainly established new traditions. For example, replacing sacramental priests with ministers, explaining some sacraments as mere manifestation of inner acts of faith, and doing away with other sacraments, the very teaching that Bible alone is sufficient for all spiritual matters, the multiplication of denominations -- all these are traditions introduced by the reformers.
14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Seems that the Bible states that it is inspired by God and is all you need to be equipped for teaching, righteousness, in fact every good work.
That passage says that the scripture is, of course, inspired and “profitable”; some translate that as “useful”. St. Paul did not say that the scripture is also sufficient. Indeed, the letter several times also mentions oral teaching, including in verse 14. In that context, it is clear that the scripture adds to other schooling, and this combination of tradition and scripture produces a fully equipped clergy.
Verses 16 and 17 plainly state that Scripture is adequate to be equipped for every good work, to be a Christian.
And note that 14 also states plainly that what Timothy had learned since childhood is all sufficient for salvation.
Anything added beyond the Scriptures may HELP you reach salvation, and can help you understand Scripture. But - per Scripture (verse 14-17)- it is not necessary. It is extra-Scriptural and not required for salvation.
I do not deny that many of the writings of the early church fathers, or even modern theologians are beneficial and wholesome to read! However, they add nothing more, and cannot offer any additional information required for salvation. The Scriptures are all-sufficient, per the Scriptures themselves.
You just cited it. It doesn't say "adequate". It says "profitable".
See verse 17; I see the word adequate right there.
Yes, but that describes the clergyman, not the scripture.
See verse 16; Scripture equips the man of God (not necessarily a preacher, but anyone who spreads the Good News). He is adequate and prepared by Scripture.
I know, you won’t accept this, that’s fine. It’s in the Catechism to deny sola scriptura, thus you cannot accept the words in the Bible stating as much. That’s fine. I’ll just leave it there for you to consider.
But it doesn’t say the scripture is sufficient to thus equip the man of God. It says it is profitable or useful to that end. The passage doesn’t say that the scripture is the only thing useful, and the rest of the letter likewise reminds Timothy of the oral teaching he received. The Catholic Church teaches exactly what this passage says.
This passage says the teachings and writings known to Timothy are sufficient; anything since then is not needed, according to the Scriptures.
***The Bible claims that it is sufficient for all understanding needed for salvation and how to live a Godly life.***
Where? The Bible claims that the Church is the foundation and pillar of Truth, not itself. Jesus tells us to go to the Church; the example of the eunuch tells that Scripture is insufficient for men not taught by the Church.
What passages do you have that claim Biblical sufficiency?
Read post 667. I’ve shown you this dozens of times and each time you simply ignore it. No surprise...
Correct, the oral teaching and the scripture are together sufficient to perfect the clergyman, exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.
At the time of Timothy; no more teaching and Scripture is required...
to perfect the clergyman
And where is that found? I see man of God, we are all men of God, we are all called to spread His Word. I do not see a restriction in that verse to clergy!
exactly what the Catholic Church teaches
Except the Catholic Church has added theology and teachings beyond that which existed for Timothy, and claims that it must be accepted as inerrant.
***Read post 667. I’ve shown you this dozens of times and each time you simply ignore it. No surprise...***
You have not shown me this dozens of times. I don’t remember you showing me this more than once and I showed you the error of it then. If you wish, let us go through the lesson again:
14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Let us make note of the point that the sacred writings here are the OT and that the OT is there to give wisdom. Paul is trying to sell the new religion to the Gentiles in Ephesus. And, he is also trying to convince Timothy to set up succession for himself, as he set Timothy up to replace himself. Paul is writing from imprisonment in Rome, to set the stage.
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
All Scripture is inspired by God. As the Councils decreed. So that every man may be adequate, equipped for every good work. But the Reformation has denied the importance of good works. Therefore, with nothing referencing salvation, one’s soul, or eternal life with God, where is your basis now? Good works are minimized in the Reformers’ eyes. Where is Biblical sufficiency for other than the filthy rags?
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.