Comparing Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism (Jesus Christ, rituals, tradition, incarnation)

[Squirt]

I am starting this thread primarily for the purpose of understanding the difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. I'm afraid that my knowledge of Eastern Orthodoxy is almost nil, and my understanding of Roman Catholicism is not a great deal better. I don't even know exactly what questions to ask, since I tend to think of these two groups of Christians almost as a single denomination. But if some members of both faiths wouldn't mind trying to clarify for me what their primary differences are, I would be most grateful. I am primarily thinking in terms of such things as:

1. The Trinity.
2. Various Marian doctrines.
3. Baptism -- method of baptism, need for baptism, age of baptism, etc.
4. Eucharist/Lord's Supper.
5. Other sacraments or rituals
6. Church leadership.
7. Theosis.
8. Saints.

I'm sure there are many more topics, but hopefully this will get you started. I may wish to ask questions as they arise, and it is not my intention to debate either denomination. I am just looking for information.

So Scott, Victor, James (and anyone else who is qualified to post accurate information)... I'm all ears!

(By the way, somebody one told me that neither of you like the word "denomination." Sorry, it was the best word I could come up with to convey my meaning.)

[Polaris]

Good question. I'm also curious to hear a detailed comparison between the two.

[Scott1]

Short version: The Papacy

Long version: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/orthodoxy.html

James will be sure to be more forthcoming on RCC errors in theology... as for me, I consider Orthodox members to be just as Catholic as I am... no difference even worth mentioning... certainly no reason not to be united as one Church.

In Christ,
Scott

[James the Persian]

Squirt,

I will try to just explain our beliefs and not harp on about RC errors (though it will be impossible not to mention the odd one in passing) for the sakes of Scott and Victor. I do not want yet another argument with them. I respect them both despite our diferences and hope this can remain amicable. As such I will just briefly answer each of your points below for the moment.

Originally Posted by Squirt

1. The Trinity.

In this we are almost identical in belief to the RCs. Unfortunately the area in which we disagree was also the major theological cause of the Great Schism. This is the filioque, which is the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son. In our view that is a heresy. For the sakes of clarity I should point out that we do have something (and some RCs believe their filioque is the same, whilst others do not) that sounds similar to the filioque. This is that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone but temporally through the Son. This basically means that whilst He proceeds in His nature from the Father he is sent in time by the Son. If this is what RCs mean then we have no objection to their belief, but their alteration of the Creed and the decree of one of their councils effectively are (for us at least) heretical as both talk of eternal procession from two Hypostases. We can never accept that.

2. Various Marian doctrines.

We have no Marian doctrines. We have certain beliefs which are universally or very commonly held about her, but none have been dogmatised (note that the title Theotokos is a Christological doctrine, not Marian). In most respects our beliefs are the same as the RC doctrines but we do not accept the idea of the Immaculate Conception. There may be other differences, but that is certainly the major one.

3. Baptism -- method of baptism, need for baptism, age of baptism, etc.

Baptism must be (except under exceptional circumstances when economy is applied) performed by triple immersion in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Sprinkling is not allowed. It is performed in infancy and immediately followed by Chrismation (annointing - the Orthodox equivalent of confirmation) and first Communion. Baptism is not absolutely necessary in the sense that those who are not baptised may be saved (for instance those martyred for the faith before baptism), but refusal to be baptised would be considered a denial of God.

4. Eucharist/Lord's Supper.

We believe in the Real Presence as a Mystery which we do not seek to explain or analyse. We don't use the term transsubstantiation, but basically agree with the RCC in the essentials. All baptised members of the Church (and only those) may take communion if they are sufficiently prepared (by confession prayer and fasting) to partake worthily, including children. The Eucharist is always administered in both kinds (except by economy, for instance with infants who can't take the Body and get a spoon of the Blood) and leavened bread is always used in accordance with the Greek scriptures which clearly state the bread was leavened and not unleavened.

5. Other sacraments or rituals

I think in this we are very similar to the RCs. We don't formally number the sacraments at 7 and consider there to be several more than this but I see no real difference between us other than in details of practice.

6. Church leadership.

The only real difference between us here is that we have no equivalent to the Vatican or the Papacy. There is no temporal head of the Church and all bishops are considered equal, though some have different jobs. Basically, each local Church is governed by a Patriarch (or equivalent) through the Holy Synod. The Ecumenical Patriarch is first in honour and has the right to chair a Pan-Orthodox Synod, which would include members of each local church's Holy Synod.

7. Theosis.

Sorry, but this needs a thread in its own right and I can't do it justice here. All I would suggest is that you read St. Athanasios' On the Incarnation, which you can find on the web. That sums up our view pretty well.

8. Saints.

Other than that we don't recognise some RC saints and nor do they recognise some of ours, I see little difference here. They have a canonisation process that is markedly different (more forensic as opposed to organic) than ours but that really does seem like a very minor issue.

Hope this helps and feel free to ask further questions.

James

[Victor]

Well Scott did provide a link with what I wanted to specifically cover (Development of Doctrine). But I'm going to expound on it and give my two cents....

I think the difficulties that some Eastern Orthodox have with Catholic doctrine on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Papal Infallibility, purgatory, the two Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, and in fact, even some other teachings, stem from a profound miscomprehension of the development of dogma that has taken place in the history of the Church. From the conversations I've had and reading on this matter Eastern Orthodoxinterpret the immutability of Christian dogma in the sense that every defined dogma or traditional doctrine of the Church must have been explicitly believed as such by the faithful from the beginning of its history.

It is true that every dogma proclaimed by the Church for belief is true, always has been true, and its meaning can not be altered or changed so that it bears a different meaning than that held by the Church in previous times. But it is not true that every dogma or doctrine contained in the “deposit of faith” confided to the Apostles has been the object of explicit believe in every age, and only subject to new technical language in the definitions of Ecumenical Councils.

**Highly recommend John Henry Newman who mastered the meaning of Develpment of Doctrine***

Those who deny dogmatic progress in the life of the Church only manifest once again their adherence to a “non-historical orthodoxy”. For an authentic “development of doctrine” has taken place in the life of the Church, and it involves not only new philosophico-theological expression for the revealed truths that were always explicitly believed (say, the divinity of Christ) but also the folding of aspects of doctrine(e.g., the canon of Scripture, the number of the sacraments, the hypostatic union, the immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, the particular judgement, et.) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit leading the faithful to a greater understanding of the supernatural mysteries revealed in Jesus Christ.

This is the crux of our differences. It all stems from this misunderstanding.

In prayer that all may be One in Christ,
~Victor

[James the Persian]

Victor,

I disagree with you about your ideas on development of doctrine. We do not object to development per se but development of novel doctrine. All of the faith was delivered to the Apostles. That's not to say that the Church hasn't gained greater understanding of it over time nor to say that She has not developed the language used to define and explain doctrine. You seem to misunderstand our objection to RC development of doctrine by oversimplifying what we mean by this. As an example, the sort of development (which is one of explanation and definition) produced by the Christological debates of the early Councils is perfectly acceptable - all of their beliefs can be demonstrated in various pre-Nicene etc. Fathers. What is not acceptable is the development of something new that is not found in the historical beliefs of the the Church. Two such would be Papal Infallibility (which no RC has yet shown me any evidence for in the early Church, though they've tried with Supremacy) and the Immaculate Conception. You also confuse two different issues by bringing up the dogma of the Assumption. That has nothing to do with doctrinal development and is a belief we share and always have. Our objection with this is purely the RCC's tendancy to dogmatise things that are not essential to the faith. I'm sure that there's some historical reason for the difference, probably ecclesiological, but we wouldn't expect everyone to have the exact same beliefs on the non-essentials that RC over-dogmatisation tends to lead to (or would if everyone actually followed all the dogmas of their church).

The misunderstanding cuts both ways. RCs frequently misunderstand the Orthodox position, too, but I certainly do not believe that our objection to doctrines such as the IC are in any way founded on misunderstandings, but rather genuine differences in belief.

James

[Victor]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersion

Victor,
I disagree with you about your ideas on development of doctrine. We do not object to development per se but development of novel doctrine. All of the faith was delivered to the Apostles. That's not to say that the Church hasn't gained greater understanding of it over time nor to say that She has not developed the language used to define and explain doctrine. You seem to misunderstand our objection to RC development of doctrine by oversimplifying what we mean by this. As an example, the sort of development (which is one of explanation and definition) produced by the Christological debates of the early Councils is perfectly acceptable - all of their beliefs can be demonstrated in various pre-Nicene etc. Fathers. What is not acceptable is the development of something new that is not found in the historical beliefs of the the Church. Two such would be Papal Infallibility (which no RC has yet shown me any evidence for in the early Church, though they've tried with Supremacy) and the Immaculate Conception. You also confuse two different issues by bringing up the dogma of the Assumption. That has nothing to do with doctrinal development and is a belief we share and always have. Our objection with this is purely the RCC's tendancy to dogmatise things that are not essential to the faith. I'm sure that there's some historical reason for the difference, probably ecclesiological, but we wouldn't expect everyone to have the exact same beliefs on the non-essentials that RC over-dogmatisation tends to lead to (or would if everyone actually followed all the dogmas of their church).

The misunderstanding cuts both ways. RCs frequently misunderstand the Orthodox position, too, but I certainly do not believe that our objection to doctrines such as the IC are in any way founded on misunderstandings, but rather genuine differences in belief.

James

Actually I understood just fine James. Your post really does confirm what I had already noted in my post. No where in my OP did I say that EO's don't believe in development of doctrine. In fact, I have in the past mentioned to you the notion of the energies of God in the 14th century by St. Gregory Palamas. Why is that development of theology proper allowable and perfectly acceptable, while the filioque is not? One might submit that this is a double standard, but I am well aware as to how you determine what is and what isn’t.

I’m either doing a poor job of explaining or you may have gone over the main point that I was trying to make about our differences. Note what I bolded above (your words) vs. what I noted in my OP:
From the conversations I've had and reading on this matter Eastern Orthodox interpret the immutability of Christian dogma in the sense that every defined dogma or traditional doctrine of the Church must have been explicitly believed as such by the faithful from the beginning of its history.
<snip>
but also the folding of aspects of doctrine

Maybe you did catch that but I just wanted to get your thoughts on it. Answering these questions will help.

If doctrines developed, does that mean that they were clear throughout the unfolding of the Church?

If they weren’t, where could you and I to find them? As an example, the Iconoclasm…..

And if this is so, why would you expect a clear explanation of the Papacy or infallibility and not for others?

As for there not being any historical evidence showing infallibility, I would look to ECF’s like this:
http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm
and even an Eastern Saint notes:
St Maximus the Confessor[580-662] spoke of:
... Rome, that is, the Apostolic See, which from God the Incarnate Word Himself as well as all the holy Councils, according to the sacred canons and definitions, has received and possesses supreme power in all things and for all things, over all the holy churches of God throughout the world, as well as power and authority of binding and loosing. For with this church, the Word, who commands the powers of heaven, binds and looses in heaven.

And I certainly see implicitly in what was always believed. I certainly didn’t expect every detail of my faith to be in the Bible, nor in historical writings. Although most all of it is in my opinion. Anyways, I wasn’t intending for this to turn into a debate language and if you wish to debate me on it you’re more then welcome to address the points raised in this thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29237

Peace be with you,
~Victor