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.
Not to mention who has the True structure and understanding of Church heirarchy, and who has the true Christlike attitude about us "illegitimate" Protestants...
Thanks for the post. I’m Baptist, but the more I learn about the Orthodox Church, the more I respect it. It used to be that ‘other church no one understands’...
***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?***
Any baptized Christian can teach.
***And where was the Apostle who commissioned Paul? They were at Antioch with prophets and teachers, not Apostles.***
Did I say Apostle? No. I said bishop. There was a bishop at Antioch, as there were in all the NT churches.
Don’t worry. Jesus left us His Apostolic Church; and He will be with us and it until the end. We’re okay with that.
***How about playing “Whose hierarchs have the better hats.” Of course, we’d win hands down....***
Now, you’re getting nasty.
All right. All cards on the table. Latin versus Greek. Bet?
For later read
This should be an interesting thread.
Please read back in the thread; the issue was about apostolic succession. Unless your position is that each bishop must be commissioned by the Apostles (or their direct line-of-decent successors)?
Except that it is a fairly recent thing. While the Reformation did open things up more, the loosy goosey approach here in the US came about in the last 100 years. And not just in the Roman Catholics either.
BK, Belloc certainly viewed it that way in the 20th century, and if you take a close look you can see why.
***Did I say Apostle? No. I said bishop. There was a bishop at Antioch, as there were in all the NT churches.
Please read back in the thread; the issue was about apostolic succession. Unless your position is that each bishop must be commissioned by the Apostles (or their direct line-of-decent successors)?***
That is precisely the position of the Church. The episcopate is the collective body of all bishops of a church. In the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Rite Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Old-Catholic,Moravian Church, and Independent Catholic churches as well as in the Assyrian Church of the East, it is held that only a person in Apostolic Succession, a line of succession of bishops dating back to the Apostles, can be a bishop, and only such a person can validly ordain Christian clergy. The succession must be transmitted from each bishop to a successor by the rite of Holy Orders. Bishops in valid Apostolic Succession compose the historical episcopate.
Paul had to be validly ordained by a bishop in the Apostolic Succession.
Oh, we still kiss the right hand (that holds the Eucharist) f or priests anbd bishops (and rightfully so), and deacons and alter boys do so every time a priests hands them something during the liturgy (as in TLM). There is a lot of hierarchical "authority" least of which is pure agape.
However, many of the doctrines and traditions of the Church are arbitrary, based upon the best judgements of the hierarchs
Tell me about it! Fasting rules come to mind, which is not a prominent issue in the West, but a huge issue in the East (the Orthodox fast probably 180 days out of a year and from midnight until the Communion, like the Catholics used to). I could not, for the life of me, find anything on how the Church decided what is fasting and what is not. It's not Biblical for sure, since the OT rules don't apply. And not one bishop of archpriest (monsignor) would tell me "we made them up" for some good reason. That munch honesty is way too much to ask for.
Reading the creed, I believe in an Apostolic church not because the Apostles lead the church, but because the Apostles founded the church.
Later I'll reread some key passages, but the role of the Apostles seem pretty clear to me.
“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.”
FWIW - I believe what Jesus said. However, the point He was making was that the Law is spiritual, and no one keeps it fully. To achieve salvation by obedience, you WOULD need to cut off your hands, pluck out your eyes (better do that while you still have a hand!), etc. Therefor, to be saved by the Law is impossible - you would have to cut our your human nature.
But that is what Christ does - why we must be born again - we must die with Christ, and be raised to a new life with Him.
***We still maintain equivalent hierarchical rules
Oh, we still kiss the right hand (that holds the Eucharist) f or priests anbd bishops (and rightfully so), and deacons and alter boys do so every time a priests hands them something during the liturgy (as in TLM). There is a lot of hierarchical “authority” least of which is pure agape.***
:)
***However, many of the doctrines and traditions of the Church are arbitrary, based upon the best judgements of the hierarchs
Tell me about it! Fasting rules come to mind, which is not a prominent issue in the West, but a huge issue in the East (the Orthodox fast probably 180 days out of a year and from midnight until the Communion, like the Catholics used to). I could not, for the life of me, find anything on how the Church decided what is fasting and what is not. It’s not Biblical for sure, since the OT rules don’t apply. And not one bishop of archpriest (monsignor) would tell me “we made them up” for some good reason. That munch honesty is way too much to ask for.***
In many cases, the rationale is simply lost over time. The Church, just as it selected Scripture, came up with an arbitrary set of rules based on the Holy Spirit guiding it. But what those actual reasons were, in many cases, we will never know.
***“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.”
FWIW - I believe what Jesus said. However, the point He was making was that the Law is spiritual, and no one keeps it fully. ***
That’s quite a stretch.
***To achieve salvation by obedience, you WOULD need to cut off your hands, pluck out your eyes (better do that while you still have a hand!), etc. Therefor, to be saved by the Law is impossible - you would have to cut our your human nature.***
There are various sorts of Bible believers. Some are literalists (and they like to wave it around like a flag until faced with verses such as this) and we both know that Scripture is largely metaphoric.
Some are part literal and part metaphorical. That requires an authority to determine which is which and then to determine what the metaphorical verses mean. Scripture says that Christ left His Church to be that authority. Throughout Church history, there have been individual men who have taken that authority upon themselves. Most of them up until the Reformation were Church officials, almost all of them ordained. The result of the Reformation was that heretical interpretations became not only the purview of lost hierarchs, but also the laity. In the course of personal interpretation, many of the interpreters became not only heretical, but apostate - that is not Christian.
I will not address those who consider Scripture to be entirely metaphoric.
***But that is what Christ does - why we must be born again - we must die with Christ, and be raised to a new life with Him.***
We must accept His Grace in the hope of eternal salvation, but not for the reasons that you state. Salvation by obedience is not and never has been taught by the Church. It is a heresy condemned for 1500 years.
“That requires an authority to determine which is which and then to determine what the metaphorical verses mean. Scripture says that Christ left His Church to be that authority.”
Jesus: “13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.”
And based on the examples of Scripture, He’ll do it BY teaching us Scripture. I don’t deny the role of teachers in the Church, but we should listen to the Author first. There is no indication in Scripture that anyone besides the Holy Spirit is infallible...
***“That requires an authority to determine which is which and then to determine what the metaphorical verses mean. Scripture says that Christ left His Church to be that authority.”
Jesus: “13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.”
And based on the examples of Scripture, He’ll do it BY teaching us Scripture. I don’t deny the role of teachers in the Church, but we should listen to the Author first. There is no indication in Scripture that anyone besides the Holy Spirit is infallible...***
Teaching does guarantee learning. Leading does not guarantee following. Lucifer is the father of lies and leads everyone astray. He masquerades as an angel of light. How do you know that the voices you are hearing are those of God?
The simple examination of the tens of thousands of Protestant beliefs littering the theological landscape should make it clear that with individual humans at any rate, this claim does not work.
Origen was a great theologian, and a great Father of the Church, yet he wandered into heresy and was excommunicated in disgrace. Tertullian also, and was disgraced. Augustine came back from heresy but was never able to completely shed his Manichaean taint and as a result, some of his non Church approved writings formed much of the basis of the Reformed theology from the pen of Calvin.
Let us then ask HOW the Holy Spirit will teach you (personally) Scripture. How do you know it? Is it the Gnostic claim that many Protestants will bruit about? The indwelling knowledge that the non saved do not have? How do you listen to God? And how do you know it is Him?
Teaching does NOT guarantee learning. Sorry about that.
Thanks. I think of the Orthodox Church as less adulterated by man.
Nope, two different roles. Leadership is different than foundation. The Apostles served in both roles. They passed on the leadership roles, but not the foundational roles. Others can build on that foundation, but what they build is not foundation. To laugh at the idea that the Apostles completed the foundation is small minded and not Biblical: the prophets and apostles, with Jesus as the corner stone.
Instead we should be praying for that happy reunion which will be so pleasing to Our Lord. What form that reunion will take should be of no concern to us as it will be as He wills. Pray mightily that the wounds which have divided Christendom for a millenium be healed.
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.