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.
Ok, I back up off of the floor now.
Thanks for the laugh.
He didn’t need them for that!
You really believe He conferred that power only for their lifetime? Quite the waste I’d say. But then anti-Catholics have to have some warpped process to explain away the truth.
So just what did they bind and loose during their lifetimes that was so important?
“That is true, unless one considers Islam to be a (quasi-)Christian heresy.”
Well, I have no doubt at all that Mohammedanism is a sort of Christian (really Nestorian) heresy. I suspect I am missing your point. That Mohammedanism is a Christian heresy doesn’t have much if anything to do with the religious and secular phronemai of Eastern Christians in my experience.
Besides, if Christ meant for the Apostles to bind and loose on His behalf, but NOT pass that authority on to their successors, then that constraint should be in the New Testament somewhere. But it isn’t. Instead, we read how Apostle Paul ordained Timothy and Titus, and instructed them to ordain others, and Peter endeavored his “tabernacle” to survive through generations.
It teaches neither. It teaches that the God who created the Heavens and the Earth is to be glorified above all else, and that He is pleased most of all with people who simply believe Him.
As a gentile lover of the TaNaK,I find it to be full of comparisons between those who believed God and experienced the sweet freedom of a right relationship with their Creator, and those who didn't believe Him, and thus were consigned to legalistic confines that could not set free, but could only place boundaries on their behavior.
It hurts me when I see Christian organizations in the same light. There are those who preach faith in Christ, and thus freedom; and there are those who preach religiosity and practice ritual and impose rules 'n regs, resulting in toxic bondage.
But no Apostle gave authority to Paul; in fact, Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit when Ananais laid his hands on Paul; in fact, Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized.
We have no Apostolic "succession" for Paul's being given power and authority, yet you rely on that succession in justifying the passing of authority. In fact, the story of Paul (Acts 9) is very explicit that Jesus grants authority by the infilling of the Holy Spirit OUTSIDE the actions of the Apostles!
Jesus and the Holy Spirit gives each of us the power and authority; there is no apostolic succession of power and authority, for the story of Paul shows it to be from God, no need for man-to-man transfer.
I’m not seriously suggesting it, necessarily, but one could argue that your heretics merely got more out of hand. :-)
This is in regard to your pointing out that Orthodox are more influential among Eastern Christians.
It was, perhaps, a superfluous point.
But yet, 'my flesh is real food' is strictly literal...How are you at pedaling backwards???
But no Apostle gave authority to Paul
That is doubtful; St. Paul himself writes that he had sought, and obtained, apostolic rank from Sts Peter, James and John. However, Paul was also called by Christ much the same as the other Apostles. Either way, that does not take away from the fact that Paul ordained Titus and Timothy and told them to ordain others.
No one here said that nothing is literal.
***But no Apostle gave authority to Paul; in fact, Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit when Ananais laid his hands on Paul; in fact, Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized. ***
There is a difference between baptism and consecration. Paul was baptized by Ananais. Acts 13:
Chapter 13
1
1 Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Symeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who was a close friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2
While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
3
Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off.
In order to become bishops, only another bishop can consecrate them.
*** Jesus and the Holy Spirit gives each of us the power and authority; there is no apostolic succession of power and authority, for the story of Paul shows it to be from God, no need for man-to-man transfer.***
Acts says that your interpretation is wrong.
“...one could argue that your heretics merely got more out of hand.”
Oh, for the first 900 odd years of The Church, that’s absolutely true; no doubt about it!
***I haven’t run across any, Kosta. When I am posting to the literalists and mention the verses about cutting off limbs and plucking out eyes if they cause people to sin, the backpedalling resembles that in the old Merrie Melodies Warner Brothers cartoons.
But yet, ‘my flesh is real food’ is strictly literal...How are you at pedaling backwards???***
The Host is real food; the wine is real food. Physically. Jesus’ Body and Blood is spiritual real food. No backpedalling. Only Scriptural and Church Father accuracy. We get it right in both realms. How are you doing?
***“...one could argue that your heretics merely got more out of hand.”
Oh, for the first 900 odd years of The Church, that’s absolutely true; no doubt about it!***
I’d rather that this does not devolve into a discussion of who had the better heretics...
***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.
I shall defer to my Orthodox brethren on this one.
It is not a legalistic authority for sure, although in practical terms, Church officials and the “dignity” they hold in the Church amounts to the same. The lower clergy are held to the vow of obedience. Let me just say that I have heard of and witnessed some rather uncharitable excesses of particular bishops.***
Fair enough. We still maintain equivalent hierarchical rules.
***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.
It is true that the Seven are fixed in an artifical manner.***
However, many of the doctrines and traditions of the Church are arbitrary, based upon the best judgements of the hierarchs.
“I’d rather that this does not devolve into a discussion of who had the better heretics...”
We only held that distinction for 900 years or so. Since then you guys have far surpassed our simple, peasant-like efforts at apostacy! :)
***“I’d rather that this does not devolve into a discussion of who had the better heretics...”
We only held that distinction for 900 years or so. Since then you guys have far surpassed our simple, peasant-like efforts at apostacy! :)***
Snort.
I know that you’re going to lay the responsbility for the Reformation and all of its illegitimate offspring at our feet. But the quality and the specifics of the heresies of the Reformation came from the East, right? :)
Arggh. You’re sucking me into that who had the better heretics discussion...
“You’re sucking me into that who had the better heretics discussion...”
How about playing “Whose hierarchs have the better hats.” Of course, we’d win hands down....
So in Acts 9 until 13:3, we assume Paul did not have the power and authority of Jesus? His teachings in Acts 9 were in vain?
And where was the Apostle who commissioned Paul? They were at Antioch with prophets and teachers, not Apostles.
I'm sorry, I'm just trying to learn more about how the Roman Catholic Church fell away from the Orthodox Church, and how each is similar or different from Protestantism. I didn't realize that only Orthodox or Catholics could participate.
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.