Catholics or Orthodox: How do we know which church is "better"? (No protestants, please)

[prodromos]

I hear you. I have also heard, though, that opinions on various things from one branch of Orthodoxy to another may not match up. A Russian Orthodox priest may say one thing. A Greek Orthodox priest may say another. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. For example, must a former Anglican who has been baptized in a Triune manner as an infant be re-baptized into Orthodoxy? From what I have heard, it may depend on whom you ask. Many family and personal issues seem to be up to the discretion of individual priests. Things that, for a Catholic Christian, would be pretty black and white. Not claiming that all Catholics would care or agree, or put those things into practice. But it seems to me that the unity is more obvious within the Catholic Church.

How the canons are applied is up to the discretion of the Bishop. What is for the spiritual betterment of one individual may be harmful to another. Canon law is an oxymoron.

 

[prodromos]

I know that, Ma'am. True. But my point was, that both Churches likely lay claim to many of the same Church Fathers and share Apostolic roots. One gives one answer, the others gives an answer that is utterly different. Coptic Orthodox Christians will argue patristics one way, perhaps, and Eastern Orthodox another. Both can not be right, so there is a disunity there.

And Rome gives yet another answer. There is no end to the disunity there. Your point is as damaging to Catholicism as you imagine it is to Orthodoxy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

And Rome gives yet another answer. There is no end to the disunity there. Your point is as damaging to Catholicism as you imagine it is to Orthodoxy.

plus it's not actually damaging to the group that has maintained her Apostolic roots. all it means is that some groups are claiming something they are not.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm not going to be able to articulate this well, and I don't think it's something someone can appreciate until they have BEEN Orthodox, living the faith - but I'm glad to see it brought out that we are ontologically different. We EXPERIENCE our Christianity differently. And in that way, even our process toward salvation is different. (This is NOT a comment about whether or not anyone is "saved" - that is God's judgement alone.)

I was a Protestant for decades. I had a certain approach to the faith, which to be honest, is no different from the Catholic approach - just with some different doctrines really. When I first started looking into Orthodoxy, I tried to approach it in the same way. And ran into the same wall that many Protestants do. I kept being told I was asking the wrong questions (and not receiving answers). Frankly it was frustrating. But I did try to understand why that should be the case. And slowly I began to see that I was trying the same systematized, intellectual approach to theology that I had always used. If you want to learn facts and have theological discussions ad infinitum... Catholicism pioneered the way, and Protestantism picked up on it.

The depths of Orthodoxy aren't reached that way. (Not that I have reached the depths - the best I can say is that I know now in what direction they lie.) And this is not something I even began to grasp until after I was baptized into the Church and started living all of what we do. I just don't think it's possible to explain.

So Catholics will examine the theology we refer to, sometimes in depth, and decide that we really say the same things in different ways. But not BEING Orthodox, they can't seem to understand, and so won't agree, that our different fundamental approaches - not only to theology, but to living the Christian life, our concept of mystery, of God, of man, of sin, salvation, prayer - all of these things, make for a very different experience.

I'm speaking broadly of course. There may be some Catholics who pick up something of our way of spirituality. Particularly eastern Catholics, though I don't envy them at all what seems to me to be an uncomfortable position of being in communion and subjected to leadership that they fundamentally disagree with on some important points. And some Orthodox may well have nothing but an intellectual approach to their faith. No religion ever is a perfect definition for every person that practices it. But as to the fundamental difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy - this is very stark to me.

It usually shows in all such debates, where Catholics invariably dispute the facts of theology on which we disagree and/or dispute that there is any real factual difference on theologies on which they believe we essentially do agree. The Orthodox understanding lends itself less well to rational debate. It's more about experience, practice, and ethos.

 

[~Anastasia~]

One thing that came to mind earlier when Crucifixes were being discussed ... we differ a little here too.

In Orthodoxy, Christ is properly shown on the Cross with His arms spread in victory, showing the understanding that He willingly allowed Himself to be crucified, and in dying He defeated death.

While Catholics often focus on Christ as a victim, and meditate more on His suffering for us. Being aware of His suffering is not a bad thing, but it's not our primary focus.

And another thing about the images we tend to prefer ... as a Protestant I enjoyed "religious art" but I didn't actually like iconography. I preferred the realism and beauty of more realistic and especially renaissance style paintings. They appeal to the senses, after all. Orthodox iconography is specifically NOT supposed to do this. It is meant to teach spiritual truths, call us to pray, not excite the passions.

It was really driven home to me when I visited a somewhat historic Orthodox Church. It had been covered inside with beautiful iconography, but was damaged during a hurricane. They hired an iconographers to replace what had been damaged, but traditional iconographers were in short supply. The one they found was very Latin-influenced. The paintings ARE beautiful, but they are very realistic and sensual. I discovered the difference when I was attending a service, trying to pray, and in front of my eyes was a soldier maybe 14 feet tall, his bare bulging thighs dominating my field of vision. It represented a distraction and something of an embarrassment, not a call to prayer.

The painting also brings to mind the "ecstasies" often portrayed, which some Catholic mystics seem to frequently experience. These are not the kind of spirituality we are taught. Emotional highs, even manipulation is something I'm familiar with from some parts of Protestantism, and the concern is that it is self-centered, focuses on pleasures. There is certainly delight to be found in Christ, but it is of a different nature, not fleshly, according to Orthodox Saints.

 

[dzheremi]

It's not only in iconography, either. The hymns are quite different, too, even from one era within the Western church and another. Hence you have a hymn like "Crucem Sanctam Subiit" from the 12th century which is quite focused on Christ's sacrifice (as is fitting), with no emotionalism or focus on fleshly preoccupations:

He bore the holy cross who broke the power of hell
He was girded with power he rose again the third day
Alleluia

Christ has risen And shone upon his people whom he has bought back with his own blood
Alleluia

Christ has risen; Death will not master Him
Alleluia

Christ has risen; The stone that the architects rejected has become the chief cornerstone

Then, only a little while later (13th century), we find things like the famous "Stabat Mater", which contains things like this:

Make me feel as thou hast felt;
make my soul to glow and melt
with the love of Christ my Lord.

Holy Mother! pierce me through,
in my heart each wound renew
of my Savior crucified:

Let me share with thee His pain,
who for all my sins was slain,
who for me in torments died.

Let me mingle tears with thee,
mourning Him who mourned for me,
all the days that I may live

Now I don't really want to sit here and knock another church's theology or hymns, but it's hard not to notice how the latter hymn is focused on feelings, and crying and all this. In other words, emotion and physical sensation/reaction. I don't think it's appropriate to say that there's something "wrong" with having emotions (we all do), but I am uncomfortable on a personal level with the idea that our devotion and worship should be turned to them and focused on them, as people of all different communions have different emotional temperaments, and hence may be more or less given to emotional reactions such as those wished for in "Stabat Mater". Whereas focusing on what Christ has done does not depend on such things.

Furthermore, I find it very interesting that it was not until the 13th century that Catholic-specific physical phenomenon in this area developed. Francis of Asisi is the first known stigmatic in Christian history, having experienced the phenomenon in 1224, two years before his death. From Wiki's citation of his biographer, Thomas of Celano:

"When the blessed servant of God saw these things he was filled with wonder, but he did not know what the vision meant. He rejoiced greatly in the benign and gracious expression with which he saw himself regarded by the seraph, whose beauty was indescribable; yet he was alarmed by the fact that the seraph was affixed to the cross and was suffering terribly. Thus Francis rose, one might say, sad and happy, joy and grief alternating in him. He wondered anxiously what this vision could mean, and his soul was uneasy as it searched for understanding. And as his understanding sought in vain for an explanation and his heart was filled with perplexity at the great novelty of this vision, the marks of nails began to appear in his hands and feet, just as he had seen them slightly earlier in the crucified man above him.

His wrists and feet seemed to be pierced by nails, with the heads of the nails appearing on his wrists and on the upper sides of his feet, the points appearing on the other side. The marks were round on the palm of each hand but elongated on the other side, and small pieces of flesh jutting out from the rest took on the appearance of the nail-ends, bent and driven back. In the same way the marks of nails were impressed on his feet and projected beyond the rest of the flesh. Moreover, his right side had a large wound as if it had been pierced with a spear, and it often bled so that his tunic and trousers were soaked with his sacred blood."

I do not see in this any kind of reflection of the spirituality or even approach to spirituality I have found in my own church. Crucified seraphim suffering terribly, being thrown this way and that way by varying emotions, spontaneously appearing wounds, etc. This is all alien.

Looked at in this way, I wonder if Roman Catholics will still say that differences between their church and others' is minor, and on what basis. Often recourse is made to differences in practice, which may be acceptable in any given communion according to its own standards, but things like stigmata are not "practice" -- they're claimed miraculous, God-manifesting physical phenomena to one, and alien (or delusion?) to another. And that one takes as miraculous what another would flee from is only further evidence of the great difference in ontology between RCism and others; or if you prefer, of phronema.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It's not only in iconography, either. The hymns are quite different, too, even from one era within the Western church and another. Hence you have a hymn like "Crucem Sanctam Subiit" from the 12th century which is quite focused on Christ's sacrifice (as is fitting), with no emotionalism or focus on fleshly preoccupations:

He bore the holy cross who broke the power of hell
He was girded with power he rose again the third day
Alleluia

Christ has risen And shone upon his people whom he has bought back with his own blood
Alleluia

Christ has risen; Death will not master Him
Alleluia

Christ has risen; The stone that the architects rejected has become the chief cornerstone

Then, only a little while later (13th century), we find things like the famous "Stabat Mater", which contains things like this:

Make me feel as thou hast felt;
make my soul to glow and melt
with the love of Christ my Lord.

Holy Mother! pierce me through,
in my heart each wound renew
of my Savior crucified:

Let me share with thee His pain,
who for all my sins was slain,
who for me in torments died.

Let me mingle tears with thee,
mourning Him who mourned for me,
all the days that I may live

Now I don't really want to sit here and knock another church's theology or hymns, but it's hard not to notice how the latter hymn is focused on feelings, and crying and all this. In other words, emotion and physical sensation/reaction. I don't think it's appropriate to say that there's something "wrong" with having emotions (we all do), but I am uncomfortable on a personal level with the idea that our devotion and worship should be turned to them and focused on them, as people of all different communions have different emotional temperaments, and hence may be more or less given to emotional reactions such as those wished for in "Stabat Mater". Whereas focusing on what Christ has done does not depend on such things.

Furthermore, I find it very interesting that it was not until the 13th century that Catholic-specific physical phenomenon in this area developed. Francis of Asisi is the first known stigmatic in Christian history, having experienced the phenomenon in 1224, two years before his death. From Wiki's citation of his biographer, Thomas of Celano:

"When the blessed servant of God saw these things he was filled with wonder, but he did not know what the vision meant. He rejoiced greatly in the benign and gracious expression with which he saw himself regarded by the seraph, whose beauty was indescribable; yet he was alarmed by the fact that the seraph was affixed to the cross and was suffering terribly. Thus Francis rose, one might say, sad and happy, joy and grief alternating in him. He wondered anxiously what this vision could mean, and his soul was uneasy as it searched for understanding. And as his understanding sought in vain for an explanation and his heart was filled with perplexity at the great novelty of this vision, the marks of nails began to appear in his hands and feet, just as he had seen them slightly earlier in the crucified man above him.

His wrists and feet seemed to be pierced by nails, with the heads of the nails appearing on his wrists and on the upper sides of his feet, the points appearing on the other side. The marks were round on the palm of each hand but elongated on the other side, and small pieces of flesh jutting out from the rest took on the appearance of the nail-ends, bent and driven back. In the same way the marks of nails were impressed on his feet and projected beyond the rest of the flesh. Moreover, his right side had a large wound as if it had been pierced with a spear, and it often bled so that his tunic and trousers were soaked with his sacred blood."

I do not see in this any kind of reflection of the spirituality or even approach to spirituality I have found in my own church. Crucified seraphim suffering terribly, being thrown this way and that way by varying emotions, spontaneously appearing wounds, etc. This is all alien.

Looked at in this way, I wonder if Roman Catholics will still say that differences between their church and others' is minor, and on what basis. Often recourse is made to differences in practice, which may be acceptable in any given communion according to its own standards, but things like stigmata are not "practice" -- they're claimed miraculous, God-manifesting physical phenomena to one, and alien (or delusion?) to another. And that one takes as miraculous what another would flee from is only further evidence of the great difference in ontology between RCism and others; or if you prefer, of phronema.

right, the whole point of the Fathers of the ancient Egyptian and Palestinian deserts was to gain control of the emotions and subject them to the heart, NOT let them run freely. the emotions are meant to be subdued and controlled through prayer and ascetic discipline.

even our (Chalcedonian, not sure about our Non-Chalcedonian brothers) certain saints who were influenced by Latin expression (St Dmitri of Rostov comes to mind) were very rare and never took it this far.

 

[dzheremi]

right, the whole point of the Fathers of the ancient Egyptian and Palestinian deserts was to gain control of the emotions and subject them to the heart, NOT let them run freely. the emotions are meant to be subdued and controlled through prayer and ascetic discipline.

Exactly. It's not an accident or whatever that we don't have that, like maybe we just haven't read enough or something. It's 'on purpose' (though not designed in opposition to anyone; cf. my earlier post about the Coptic approach to marriage and divorce, and why it's wrong to put it in opposition to your own approach), because that entire approach is foreign to our very way of being Christian.

even our (Chalcedonian, not sure about our Non-Chalcedonian brothers) certain saints who were influenced by Latin expression (St Dmitri of Rostov comes to mind) were very rare and never took it this far.

We have some of that now, but it's quite new, and is not taken to that level in their case, either.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Exactly. It's not an accident or whatever that we don't have that, like maybe we just haven't read enough or something. It's 'on purpose' (though not designed in opposition to anyone; cf. my earlier post about the Coptic approach to marriage and divorce, and why it's wrong to put it in opposition to your own approach), because that entire approach is foreign to our very way of being Christian.

the whole point of salvation is to participate in the Divine Life, that was why the Word became flesh. and the Divine Life we are called to is above and beyond emotions. so it doesn't make sense for prayer to call us into a mystical experience, only to have that experience be sensual.

 

[prodromos]

I'm reminded of Frederica Mathewes Green and her critique of Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" which contrasts the very different approach Catholics (and their offspring, the Protestants) have with Orthodox on depiction of the crucifixion.

www.virtueonline.org/mel-gibsons-passion-frederica-mathewes-green

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

I am an outsider here, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I was a practicing Roman Catholic for years before converting to the Coptic Orthodox Church beginning in 2009 (baptized in 2012). So I think I have something of an idea regarding how the RCC and its communicants tend to see the division (at least regards how it was taught to me by leaders within the RCC when I was within it), and it is portrayed as you say: Minor differences, resulting from different ideas about the development of doctrine. The RCC will also mention ecclesiastical differences re: the place of the Roman Pontiff/universal jurisdiction, since it's kind of impossible to avoid, and from that maybe some differences re: the Filioque or the use of leavened vs. unleavened bread, etc.

Here's the thing, though: I have not seen anyone on the EO side who agrees that the differences are 'minor'. Maybe there are differences about how important issue X is (if it ought to be or is a church-dividing issue), but it seems that the EO view things much more holistically than that.

To that end, here is the standard reference I like to point people to when they ask about this topic. It is an address given by HAH Patriarch Bartholomew regarding the ontological differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. It is not just a matter of XYZ; it is a matter of how people live. The way of being Christian is very different if one is EO or RC. They're ontologically different.

A sample (since I'm not sure what the rules are regarding posting complete texts, but I'm pretty sure it's bad form to just copy and paste the entire thing):



You can read the full address here.

It seems to me (as someone who is in communion with neither of you, and hence has no dog in this fight) that the differences that are noticed by Roman Catholics are true and real, regardless of whether or not RCs or the RCC sees them as substantial or not, but the underlying ontological difference that explains the divergence is more or less completely missed. The RCC doesn't delve into ontological issues when looking at the Great Schism (or any other schism, for that matter). Maybe some of its high-level theologians might, but I never heard that kind of talk until I started investigating Orthodoxy. It is sad if this is in fact the case, because it's very important to understand so as to start appreciating why difference which may seem minor from a bird's eye view are actually quite deep and important to the people you're talking to.

I have certainly observed this as well. Roman Catholics tend to whitewash the differences with Orthodoxy, whereas Orthodox consider the differences with Rome to be vast.

Why is this? Perhaps because fundamentally being Roman Catholic means submitting to Rome. If Orthodox were to recognise the Pope to have universal jurisdiction, even if we did not change our theology, many Roman Catholics would be happy to consider us to be Catholic.

For Orthodox Christians, I think unity depends more on unity of faith.

 

[Cis.jd]

This is the true church, that is the true church.

At this time, the true church is with in you. Sure one church probably has more of checkmarks on the historical level, and one or both churches have a superior theolgocial/biblical understanding than other denominations.. but in the end, does having alignment in which church has it's history and academics matter as to who you are as a person because of Christ? If you believe in Jesus, the trinity, and just do your best to represent this loving God as best as you know/can then isn't that closer to "the true church"?

 

[ArmyMatt]

This is the true church, that is the true church.

At this time, the true church is with in you. Sure one church probably has more of checkmarks on the historical level, and one or both churches have a superior theolgocial/biblical understanding than other denominations.. but in the end, does having alignment in which church has it's history and academics matter as to who you are as a person because of Christ? If you believe in Jesus, the trinity, and just do your best to represent this loving God as best as you know/can then isn't that closer to "the true church"?

God is Truth, you cannot separate Him from the Truth He is.

 

[Cis.jd]

God is Truth, you cannot separate Him from the Truth He is.

I never said otherwise. Being aligned to a doctrine/church doesn't make a christian it's his/her relationship with God and others that means more. Have you ever noticed that it is more common to find apatheists in RCC and EO? It's because regardless of both churches having all the academic/theological support, most of their churches do not focus on what God cares the most. The heart.

Let me ask you this. You have this Catholic or Orthodoxy guy.. he studied theology, he knows the history yet he treats others poorly, engages in all sorts of vices and pleasure (we've had people like this) then you have this protestant guy, who obviously holds the poorer/weaker theological understanding but he is actually a good person; loves God, does his best to help out others, he shares (not forces) the gospel with others doesn't judge.. he isn't perfect but he tries. Between the two, who do you think deserves God's favor?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I never said otherwise. Being aligned to a doctrine/church doesn't make a christian it's his/her relationship with God and others that means more. Have you ever noticed that it is more common to find apatheists in RCC and EO? It's because regardless of both churches having all the academic/theological support, most of their churches do not focus on what God cares the most. The heart.

Let me ask you this. You have this Catholic or Orthodoxy guy.. he studied theology, he knows the history yet he treats others poorly, engages in all sorts of vices and pleasure (we've had people like this) then you have this protestant guy, who obviously holds the poorer/weaker theological understanding but he is actually a good person; loves God, does his best to help out others, he shares (not forces) the gospel with others doesn't judge.. he isn't perfect but he tries. Between the two, who do you think deserves God's favor?

you really don't know much about Orthodox Christian thought as for your first paragraph.

as for your second, the Protestant in your scenario is closer to Orthodoxy than the other two nominal believers. but the basis is still Orthodoxy.

 

[Cis.jd]

you really don't know much about Orthodox Christian thought as for your first paragraph.

as for your second, the Protestant in your scenario is closer to Orthodoxy than the other two nominal believers. but the basis is still Orthodoxy.

Not at all. There are many EO's who i've met that are apathetic. Also, you've missed the point of what i was saying: being a specific denomination isn't the point in my post; i can even switch it around by making the Orthodoxy the protestant guy... the point of that was to show you that being a "real" christian isn't just about being aligned to the right doctrine/church.


At the end of the day, even if the church you are aligned too is theologically, historically, and biblically right, if a specific person of that denomination does not grow and live the way the "protestant in my example" does... then how can he still be more of a christian over the "protestant" because of going to "the right church" during sundays (or saturday)?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Not at all. There are many EO's who are apathetic.. their only reason for church seems to be based on cultural reasons but they really don't care if they are wrong or right. Also, being a specific denomination isn't the point in my post, i can even switch it around by making the Orthodoxy the protestant guy.. the point of that was that "person" two is the right church.. spiritually.

At the end of the day, even if the church you are aligned too is theologically, historically, and biblically right, if a specific person of that denomination does not grow and live the way the "protestant in my example" does... then how can he still be more of a christian over the "protestant" because of going to "the right church" during sundays (or saturday)?

there are many in every faith who are apathetic. that's not the point. person 2 is only in the right Church spirituality if he is Orthodox. the devout Protestant might be closer to God, but IF he is saved in the end it will be because he will see God revealed in His Church, the Orthodox Church, as the True God.

plus you said most of our Churches don't focus on the heart, which means you have not read much of our modern saints and theologians.

the nominal Orthodox is more of a Christian in the sense that he is in the one body Christ founded and NOT a heretical body like Rome or a Protestant confession. and if he does not use the grace he is given by being in the true Church, it will be to his judgment.

but the idea that the right Church spiritually is not necessarily the correct historic Church is false, and not supported by anything historic or Biblical.

 

[Cis.jd]

there are many in every faith who are apathetic. that's not the point. person 2 is only in the right Church spirituality if he is Orthodox. the devout Protestant might be closer to God, but IF he is saved in the end it will be because he will see God revealed in His Church, the Orthodox Church, as the True God.

plus you said most of our Churches don't focus on the heart, which means you have not read much of our modern saints and theologians.

the nominal Orthodox is more of a Christian in the sense that he is in the one body Christ founded and NOT a heretical body like Rome or a Protestant confession. and if he does not use the grace he is given by being in the true Church, it will be to his judgment.

but the idea that the right Church spiritually is not necessarily the correct historic Church is false, and not supported by anything historic or Biblical.

yeah, you really missed the point again.

 

[ArmyMatt]

yeah, you really missed the point again.

not based off your original post. you said that representing the loving God as best you can is closer to the true Church, which shows a lack of understanding of traditional ecclesiology and what that means.

 

[Cis.jd]

not based off your original post. you said that representing the loving God as best you can is closer to the true Church, which shows a lack of understanding of traditional ecclesiology and what that means.

So tell me. Who is more of the christian.. person A who is aligned to the "right church" but doesn't exhibit any form of positive lifestyle or relationships or person b a person who isn't aligned to the right church yet acknowledges the Trinity and is all that i described?

Is Archimandrite Iakovos Giosakis more of a christian over those Hillsong singers because he aligns to the church whose traditions/teachings "are accurate to the ways of Jesus' 12"?