Orthodox, let's talk about our differences. (RCC)

[Dominic Korozya]

If you read the link I provided originally, you would have these answers.

Read first, ask questions later.

(>_<) Okay...

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

This explains the schism, and some of your other questions.

 

[Dominic Korozya]

Where's the link!? (got it)

 

[Macarius]

Hi Dominic! Welcome to TAW.

Sorry if this thread got off on a rocky start... there is a history of RCC / EO conflict over "posting rights" on our respective boards here at Christian Forums, and at times posters who are unaware of those prior conflicts walk into a hornets nest, so to speak.

Please forgive us if we offend; we are struggling to be more like Christ, but frequently fail. Thank you for your honest questions and inquiry.

Why do you reject the theology of purgatory?

An excellent question. It gets back to the basics of how we do theology. We want to adhere as closely as possible to the theology of the early Church - to Holy Tradition: that which is critical to Christianity and which has been present from the beginning, in all places, affirmed by all.

In short, we want tradition to be... well... traditional. Handed down. Not developed or made up, but recieved.

Purgatory just doesn't pass that test. It doesn't show up as a consistent doctrinal teaching until the middle ages, and its presence in the church is spotty before that. In the earliest church (pre-Nicaea / Constantine) it doesn't show up at all (to my knowledge) in the writings of the saints.

The earliest reference that Catholics often cite is of someone praying for the departed. But we DO pray for the departed, yet we don't believe in purgatory. One does not, by necessity, follow the other. We pray for the departed because a) we love them, and pray for those we love; b) we grieve for them, and we express what we feel in our prayers before God; c) all things are possible with God - who knows what effect our prayers may have? d) God is outside of time; our prayers after their departure may have effected them prior to their death through God's timelessness and mercy.

Without the early references to prayers for the departed (as those don't imply purgatory), there is no reason whatsoever to believe that it was even concieved of in the early church - let alone universally believed. Therefore, it isn't Holy Tradition; and so when Rome demands that we accept it as dogma, we must object and say no. To dogmatize that which is not Holy Tradition is to needlessly schism the Body of Christ. Rather, we should, as St. Clement of Rome (97 AD) put it "clothe ourselves in mutual toleration," and that means only dogmatizing that which is truly essential to our faith.

Why do you reject the immaculate conception of Mary?

Because we reject St. Augustine's understanding of original sin. The immaculate conception of Mary is entirely dependent on that understanding of original sin.

....and why do you reject the Pope.

Same reasons as we reject purgatory. There is no evidence of it in the early church. Therefore, it is not Holy Tradition and it was wrong of Rome (under the Gregorian Reformers of the 11th c.) to attempt to command the East as if Rome had authority over it.

Hope that helps.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Joshua G.]

Hey Dominic, I appreciate you sincerity in this and another thread I saw you start in OBOB on Vatican II.

If you come back with more specific questions after having read for a while, I am sure that people will jump to answer you questions. We just know that usually Catholic/Orthodox threads get... heated quickly. However, there is nothing wrong about you asking. Be forewarned, though: you will get differing answers from different Orthodox on this, but you will also begin to see a trend as well (kind of like the VII thread )

Josh

 

[Lukaris]

I think a big core difference is works "meriting" salvation of which I assume is commonly known but I confess an ignorance of until recently. This is unknown in Orthodoxy; works must express our faith in Jesus Christ, love of God & neighbor but we are unworthy servants (per Luke 17:5-10, Ephesians 2:8-10 etc.) who are saved by grace. The teachings of St. Mark the Ascetc (5th c) warn against any righteousness by works so he affirms an apostolic doctrine devoid of merits. In the west it seems that works are overemphasized (RCC) or neglected or misunderstood (to varying degrees in Protestantism). Of course, the integrity of any Christian is seen by God & it is only theology being discussed here.

 

[Dominic Korozya]

Hey Dominic, I appreciate you sincerity in this and another thread I saw you start in OBOB on Vatican II.

If you come back with more specific questions after having read for a while, I am sure that people will jump to answer you questions. We just know that usually Catholic/Orthodox threads get... heated quickly. However, there is nothing wrong about you asking. Be forewarned, though: you will get differing answers from different Orthodox on this, but you will also begin to see a trend as well (kind of like the VII thread )

Josh

How kind of you.

I think everything will be alright. After all this is finished, I might poke my nose around your forum more often.

Hi Dominic! Welcome to TAW.

Thankyou. (n_n)

Sorry if this thread got off on a rocky start... there is a history of RCC / EO conflict over "posting rights" on our respective boards here at Christian Forums, and at times posters who are unaware of those prior conflicts walk into a hornets nest, so to speak.

Please forgive us if we offend; we are struggling to be more like Christ, but frequently fail. Thank you for your honest questions and inquiry.

It's all good.

An excellent question. It gets back to the basics of how we do theology. We want to adhere as closely as possible to the theology of the early Church - to Holy Tradition: that which is critical to Christianity and which has been present from the beginning, in all places, affirmed by all

Okay, have I got this right, the Orthodox church teaches that there is no authority given to any church, not even it's own? What do you think about Peter and the famous words Jesus said to him? Did it only count while the church was being established back then in Peters life time?

In short, we want tradition to be... well... traditional. Handed down. Not developed or made up, but recieved.

Yes, yes, the Catholic Church does develope doctrines, that is a cold fact. Because it believes it has the authority to do so. That's why they had to write the Catechism.

Purgatory just doesn't pass that test. It doesn't show up as a consistent doctrinal teaching until the middle ages, and its presence in the church is spotty before that. In the earliest church (pre-Nicaea / Constantine) it doesn't show up at all (to my knowledge) in the writings of the saints.

The earliest reference that Catholics often cite is of someone praying for the departed. But we DO pray for the departed, yet we don't believe in purgatory. One does not, by necessity, follow the other. We pray for the departed because a) we love them, and pray for those we love; b) we grieve for them, and we express what we feel in our prayers before God; c) all things are possible with God - who knows what effect our prayers may have? d) God is outside of time; our prayers after their departure may have effected them prior to their death through God's timelessness and mercy

Without the early references to prayers for the departed (as those don't imply purgatory), there is no reason whatsoever to believe that it was even concieved of in the early church - let alone universally believed. Therefore, it isn't Holy Tradition; and so when Rome demands that we accept it as dogma, we must object and say no. To dogmatize that which is not Holy Tradition is to needlessly schism the Body of Christ. Rather, we should, as St. Clement of Rome (97 AD) put it "clothe ourselves in mutual toleration," and that means only dogmatizing that which is truly essential to our faith.

.

Okay.

Because we reject St. Augustine's understanding of original sin. The immaculate conception of Mary is entirely dependent on that understanding of original sin.

Hmm, I didn't know your church never believed in Original Sin.

Same reasons as we reject purgatory. There is no evidence of it in the early church. Therefore, it is not Holy Tradition and it was wrong of Rome (under the Gregorian Reformers of the 11th c.) to attempt to command the East as if Rome had authority over it.

Hope that helps.

In Christ,
Macarius

The input was good and clear, thank you.

 

[Dominic Korozya]

This explains the schism, and some of your other questions.

What!? I only just started to read this. It's all new to me...

 

[E.C.]

Okay, have I got this right, the Orthodox church teaches that there is no authority given to any church, not even it's own? What do you think about Peter and the famous words Jesus said to him? Did it only count while the church was being established back then in Peters life time?

A couple of verses before the whole "this is the rock on which I'll build my Church" bit, Christ had asked Peter "Who am I?" to which Peter said "You are the Son of the Living God".

That "You are the Son of the Living God" line is the rock which Christ was referring to. Belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, i.e. God the Son, is the pinnacle of the Christian faith. Christ was referring to what Peter said as the rock, not Peter himself.

 

[Dominic Korozya]

Sorry about that reaction....

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

What!? I only just started to read this. It's all new to me...

I understand, that's why I'm trying to provide you with reliable resources.

I am posting these links for you so that you see that this stuff isn't just opinions on a forum, but rather actual history and beliefs of the Church.

It's okay if you need to take your time reading, we'll still be here.

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Some helpful links:

An Outline of the Orthodox Faith

Saint Augustine in the Orthodox Tradition

An Introduction to Orthodox Spirituality

 

[Macarius]

It's all good.

Thank you for understanding

Okay, have I got this right, the Orthodox church teaches that there is no authority given to any church, not even it's own?

The question is not is there authority, but authority to do what. Authority to teach the gospel, hand it on, and safeguard it from heresy (via excommunication from the chalice)? You bet ya. Authority to invent new doctrines? Not at all. The faith was, as St. Jude puts it, once delivered to all the saints. The word tradition doesn't mean magisterium, it means "to hand on" - not to add to.

The church has the authority to clarify doctrines, but not develop them into whole new ones. We are not the masters of the house, but rather its butlers - we keep it clean until the master returns (or we try to).

What do you think about Peter and the famous words Jesus said to him?

The vast majority of early christians did not believe that Peter was the rock referred to in Matt 16. But even if he is the rock in that passage, it does not follow that Rome is exclusively the successor of Peter (in fact, most early theologians felt that all bishops who also confessed Christ to be the Son of God were successors of Peter). There is excellent evidence that there wasn't even a monarchial-bishop IN Rome until the late 2nd century. It also doesn't follow that if the bishop of Rome succeeds from Peter, that the passage in Matt 16 guarantees that bishop any sort of infallibility, nor that the bishop succeeds directly from Peter (that wasn't even dreamed of before the 5th c. AD), nor that the exclusive possession of Peter's seat guarantees a Monarchial form of Church government (wherein the Pope acts as prince), because it isn't at all clear from Matt 16 that Peter was the prince of the Apostles in an "I rule over you" sense - far from it; the Book of Acts reveals a more conciliar form of Church government, as do several early stories of the Church (and the early form of Church decision making at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon).

Did it only count while the church was being established back then in Peters life time?

I would say that the interpretation you implied was not present at the time in the Church, but that Rome self-proclaimed the right to rulership much much later. Then, once it became clear that many of the texts it had used to justify that proclamation were forgeries, Rome declared the right to develop doctrine.

Yes, yes, the Catholic Church does develope doctrines, that is a cold fact. Because it believes it has the authority to do so. That's why they had to write the Catechism.

Which means it isn't the faith of the Apostles, but some other faith which it has self-proclaimed. We would rather follow the Apostolic faith then the traditions of men.

Hmm, I didn't know your church never believed in Original Sin.

We believe in it, just not St. Augustine's version of it. St. Augustine believed that sin became part of human nature after the fall, and so was literally passed on as the rest of human nature (via procreation). We believe that we are born separated from God (into death), due to our parent's sin, but that we are innocent of any sin of our own (we arne't born guilty). Sin isn't a part of our nature; its something we each chose. Since sin isn't passed on via procreation, there isn't any need for an immaculate conception in Orthodox theology. We profess Mary to be all-holy, but we believe that she (and Christ!) have the same nature as us as-we-are. For that to be true, sin must not be a part of our nature, even after the fall. Yet we all do still sin - there is no way in which Orthodoxy denies that. And there was a first (original sin) which separated Adam and Eve from God and thereby introduced death into the world (the world into which we are born). We are born into those consequences of the original sin - that's what we believe.

Hope the clarification helped!

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Dominic Korozya]

A couple of verses before the whole "this is the rock on which I'll build my Church" bit, Christ had asked Peter "Who am I?" to which Peter said "You are the Son of the Living God".

That "You are the Son of the Living God" line is the rock which Christ was referring to. Belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, i.e. God the Son, is the pinnacle of the Christian faith. Christ was referring to what Peter said as the rock, not Peter himself.

Ah, I see. Because Peter confessed Jesus as his Lord!

I understand, that's why I'm trying to provide you with reliable resources.

I am posting these links for you so that you see that this stuff isn't just opinions on a forum, but rather actual history and beliefs of the Church.

It's okay if you need to take your time reading, we'll still be here.

Are you still here? I read some of it. Where is your proof.

Some helpful links:

An Outline of the Orthodox Faith

Saint Augustine in the Orthodox Tradition

An Introduction to Orthodox Spirituality

I will have fun here won't I? (n_n)

Thank you for understanding



The question is not is there authority, but authority to do what. Authority to teach the gospel, hand it on, and safeguard it from heresy (via excommunication from the chalice)? You bet ya. Authority to invent new doctrines? Not at all. The faith was, as St. Jude puts it, once delivered to all the saints. The word tradition doesn't mean magisterium, it means "to hand on" - not to add to.

The church has the authority to clarify doctrines, but not develop them into whole new ones. We are not the masters of the house, but rather its butlers - we keep it clean until the master returns (or we try to).



The vast majority of early christians did not believe that Peter was the rock referred to in Matt 16. But even if he is the rock in that passage, it does not follow that Rome is exclusively the successor of Peter (in fact, most early theologians felt that all bishops who also confessed Christ to be the Son of God were successors of Peter). There is excellent evidence that there wasn't even a monarchial-bishop IN Rome until the late 2nd century. It also doesn't follow that if the bishop of Rome succeeds from Peter, that the passage in Matt 16 guarantees that bishop any sort of infallibility, nor that the bishop succeeds directly from Peter (that wasn't even dreamed of before the 5th c. AD), nor that the exclusive possession of Peter's seat guarantees a Monarchial form of Church government (wherein the Pope acts as prince), because it isn't at all clear from Matt 16 that Peter was the prince of the Apostles in an "I rule over you" sense - far from it; the Book of Acts reveals a more conciliar form of Church government, as do several early stories of the Church (and the early form of Church decision making at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon).



I would say that the interpretation you implied was not present at the time in the Church, but that Rome self-proclaimed the right to rulership much much later. Then, once it became clear that many of the texts it had used to justify that proclamation were forgeries, Rome declared the right to develop doctrine.



Which means it isn't the faith of the Apostles, but some other faith which it has self-proclaimed. We would rather follow the Apostolic faith then the traditions of men.



We believe in it, just not St. Augustine's version of it. St. Augustine believed that sin became part of human nature after the fall, and so was literally passed on as the rest of human nature (via procreation). We believe that we are born separated from God (into death), due to our parent's sin, but that we are innocent of any sin of our own (we arne't born guilty). Sin isn't a part of our nature; its something we each chose. Since sin isn't passed on via procreation, there isn't any need for an immaculate conception in Orthodox theology. We profess Mary to be all-holy, but we believe that she (and Christ!) have the same nature as us as-we-are. For that to be true, sin must not be a part of our nature, even after the fall. Yet we all do still sin - there is no way in which Orthodoxy denies that. And there was a first (original sin) which separated Adam and Eve from God and thereby introduced death into the world (the world into which we are born). We are born into those consequences of the original sin - that's what we believe.

Hope the clarification helped!

In Christ,
Macarius

There is so much to go on. I will start with the following; what about transubstantiation?

 

[Macarius]

There is so much to go on. I will start with the following; what about transubstantiation?

We believe the Eucharist to be Christ's true body and blood, but believe it to be a profound mystery beyond explanation, and therefore do not dogmatically affirm a particular way of describing it. So, trans-substantiation / con-substantiation is too detailed for our view of it, but we definitely reject any "purely symbolic" view.

 

[Dominic Korozya]

We believe the Eucharist to be Christ's true body and blood, but believe it to be a profound mystery beyond explanation, and therefore do not dogmatically affirm a particular way of describing it. So, trans-substantiation / con-substantiation is too detailed for our view of it, but we definitely reject any "purely symbolic" view.

Good, good, this I like.

But if there was no authority to create or build the church and its christian beliefs and sacraments, how did we become so different from the Jewish way of life? Surely it is not just faith in Christ and the trinity that makes us christian? If that makes any sense.

 

[Macarius]

Good, good, this I like.

But if there was no authority to create or build the church and its christian beliefs and sacraments, how did we become so different from the Jewish way of life? Surely it is not just faith in Christ and the trinity that makes us christian? If that makes any sense.

Oh not at all. It is unity to Christ that makes us Christian. Mere beliefs / doctrines / teachings can only make an intellectual pseudo-Christian. If those truths do not unite us to the Truth (through asceticism, prayer, and sacrament) then we will have the greater condemnation, having been given many talents and having squandered them.

And again - the Apostles were taught by Christ. The faith they expressed at the council of Jerusalem (where the judaizers were rejected) wasn't a new development in the faith. It was a clarification of Christ's teachings.

Every time that a new issue or heresy pops up, the Church does need to respond to that. And this is what I mean by "clarifying the faith." But it doesn't respond to that by changing Christianity. It responds to it from within Christianity. It must, in other words, remain fundamentally the same.

So at the time of Christ, all His followers were Jewish. Yet Christ taught many things (and met / associated with some faithful gentiles) that led the Apostles to know that His Kingdom and New Covenant were open to all. In particular, Christ's parables about the Kingdom in the late chapters of Matthew indicate this. When Sts. Peter and Paul began to have successful ministry among Gentiles, and win real converts, the question came up as to whether or not Gentiles had to become Jewish first.

The apostles, clarifying what they had already recieved, proclaimed no. And we know that this isn't a developed / new / innovative doctrine. Rather it is a clarification of what was taught by the Messiah.

Similarly, the exact wording of the Trinity or Incarnation was not formalized until Nicaea and Chalcedon, but those teachings were definitely believed in the early church.

Purgatory and the current Roman Catholic papacy, however, do not pass this same test from our perspective. There is good evidence the early church believed Christ to be fully God. There is no evidence they believed the bishop of Rome to be the unique successer to St. Peter and to enjoy, by that succession, complete authority over the church and limited infallibility. The papal dogmas aren't clarifications - they are a whole new set of teachings.

Now, there are teachings that come and go and do no harm. Not every tradition of men contradicts Holy Tradition. For example, the fasting of the church has changed dramatically over time. But that is ok, as the essentials (that we do, in fact, fast; as Christ commanded) are the same. Yet Rome claims its powers are Holy Tradition, and excommunicates (or historically has) those who doubt it.

 

[zhilan]

To present a slightly different view but still coming to the same conclusion, I actually believe it's possible Peter was the rock. I mean, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, to me it's not clear either way. Regardless, it seems to me that Jesus thought Peter was pretty special, his "right hand man" so to speak. The thing is, how do you get from, "Peter, you're my man! I'm leaving you in charge, you have been listening, you know who I am, you've been with me through think and thin, take care of my sheep." to "Pope are infallible and supreme over all of Christianity and can develop doctrines, etc, etc." Do you see where that little jump came in? The problem with many protestant arguments is they are so "ahhhhhh CATHOLICS ARE WRONG" that they try to convince you and themselves that Peter didn't have any special mission. But he did have a special mission. Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep! But primacy is not supremacy. That's why even in Acts and the later books of the Bible, you see that the other apostles look to Peter and often defer to him, but they also challenge him (especially Paul!) when they think he's wrong. But somewhere along the line, Rome went from being the wise and respected elder to thinking it was the dictator..and that's where the problem comes in.

 

[Dark_Lite]

To present a slightly different view but still coming to the same conclusion, I actually believe it's possible Peter was the rock. I mean, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, to me it's not clear either way. Regardless, it seems to me that Jesus thought Peter was pretty special, his "right hand man" so to speak. The thing is, how do you get from, "Peter, you're my man! I'm leaving you in charge, you have been listening, you know who I am, you've been with me through think and thin, take care of my sheep." to "Pope are infallible and supreme over all of Christianity and can develop doctrines, etc, etc." Do you see where that little jump came in? The problem with many protestant arguments is they are so "ahhhhhh CATHOLICS ARE WRONG" that they try to convince you and themselves that Peter didn't have any special mission. But he did have a special mission. Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep! But primacy is not supremacy. That's why even in Acts and the later books of the Bible, you see that the other apostles look to Peter and often defer to him, but they also challenge him (especially Paul!) when they think he's wrong. But somewhere along the line, Rome went from being the wise and respected elder to thinking it was the dictator..and that's where the problem comes in.

That is an interesting view from the Orthodox position (the part about Peter being the rock). Most Orthodox that I am aware of would not say that he is.

So if the hypothesis that Peter was the rock up until the Great Schism, then where did the rock go after that? Did the current Ecumenical Patriarch become the rock and first among equals? Did it stay with Rome, albeit its authority negated due to supposedly heretical teachings?

 

[zhilan]

In Catholicism, the litmus test for being a good Catholic is adherence to the Pope. If you are in line with the teachings of the Pope, then you are a good Catholic. Unity comes from being united under one man. What the Pope says goes, so if he declares something, then it is up to all Catholics to fall in line.

In Orthodoxy, the litmus test is adherence to Orthodoxy. I know that sounds a little circular, but it is what has held the church together for centuries. Orthodoxy is the body of Christ and the body of the church and it is the responsibility of every believer to test any "new idea" against the Traditions of the church. This is why for a council to be valid it must be accepted by the people. Because we aren't united under any one man, it's possible that any church leader or any person could fall out of line with Orthodoxy, but that wouldn't matter because as soon as they stop holding the traditions of the church, they stop being Orthodox. So let's say all the patriarchs come together and they declare that all icons should be removed from the church. Every Orthodox believer would then ask themselves, "is this in line with the traditions of our church and the teachings of the fathers?" and if the answer to that is a solid NO, then the people would reject the council and it would thus not be a valid council. But let's say, I don't know, Mormonism became a huge threat and super popular, and even a lot of Orthodox priests and starting to teach ideas from Mormon theology in their churches, so there is a council and that council says, "this is heresy, this must stop, anyone who teaches this is a heretic" and the people would again ask themselves "is this in line with our church fathers" and this time they would say YES, and thus the council would be valid.