The differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholics

[dmar198]

1. Christ
   Why did God become man? The Roman Catholic answer to this question differs from the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church.

In this matter, I think you are overstating the difference.

Following the holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that Christ, on the Cross, gave “His life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28). “For even the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). The “ransom” is paid to the grave. As the Lord revealed to the Prophet Hosea (Hosea 13:14), “I will ransom them (us) from the power of the grave, I will redeem them from death.” In a sense, He pays the ransom to the devil who has the keeper of the grave and holds the power of death (Heb. 2:14).

The man Christ voluntarily gave Himself on the Cross. He died for all (“a ransom for many” or “the many”). But He rose from the dead in His crucified body. Death had no power to hold Him. It has no power over anyone. The human race is redeemed from the grave, from the devil. Free of the devil is to be free of death and sin. To be free of these, we become like God (deification) and may live with Him forever.

No difference here.

According to Roman Catholic theology, God became man in order to satisfy the divine Justice which was offended by the sin of Adam. In other words, by his sin Adam offended the infinite God and, therefore, his sin had infinite consequences. It was not within the power of sinful and finite man to make amends, for the sin of Adam (“original sin”) passed to us; but it is our obligation to do so. Only Christ, Who was God and man, could pay this “debt of honor.”

He pays the debt by dying on the Cross. His death makes up for what Adam had done; the offense is removed. God is no longer angry with man. Christ rises from the dead, the promise or “earnest” of the believing man’s future.

I wonder which part of this they object to, and for what reason?

For a long time, the Latins, whether among ordinary Catholics or intellectuals, little attention was given to the idea of deification. Not much attention was devoted to the concepts necessary to understanding this doctrine.

I do not think it is true that we paid no attention to the idea of deification; it was always present in our doctrine, and we focused on a particular aspect of it called “sanctification,” which is the aspect of deification most commonly taught about in Scripture. But even if it was true that we didn’t pay much attention to it, it does not follow that it is not present in our doctrine, nor that we teach falsehood about it.

Roman Catholic theology is customarily legalistic and philosophical. For example, a “valid” (legal term) baptism into Christ is the result of the right intention (having the same understanding of baptism as the Church) and using the correct formula or words during the ceremony or rite. Thus, even an atheist, under certain conditions, could baptize a person. “Sprinkling” of water (effusion) over the head of the baptized is reasonable and sufficient.

That hardly equals legalism. It is true that baptism requires a particular matter and form; that’s just being faithful to divine revelation. Try baptizing someone in the Orthodox church with Coca-Cola and a simple blessing, why don’t you, and see how “legalistic” they become. If we have attached the term “valid” to describe what God has revealed, and “invalid” to severe departures from it, then what is your objection? Do you object to the term? That is semantics. Do you object to the theology? Then there is a problem. But you haven’t pointed out a difference in theology so far.

Lately, some Latin theologians are rethinking the Christian teaching of salvation (soteriology). They are beginning to take the idea of deification (baptism as the first step) very seriously. They rightly insist that it belongs to Christian tradition, including “St. Augustine” and other Latin Fathers. In point of fact, a revolution in its theology is necessary if it is to become Scriptural and patristic; if it ever hopes to achieve the right understanding of Christ and His salvation.

This is bogus. Emphasizing our tradition equals departing from it now? And what part of our theology needs to be “revolutionized”? Where have we gone wrong? You haven’t called anything we teach in this matter false because you can’t. It’s all true, you just don’t want to admit it.

 

[dmar198]

1. The Church
   The Roman Catholic view of the Church (ecclesiology) differs from the Orthodox teaching on this subject in several ways.

The Latins teach that the visible head of the Church is the Pope, the successor to St. Peter, who was appointed to that sacred position by the Lord Himself with the words, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church …” (Matt. 16:18).

The Pope is, then, “the Bishop of the Catholic Church,” her teacher, the vicar (agent, deputy) of Christ on earth. He is the interpreter of the Christian Tradition. When he speaks for the whole Church (ex cathedra), the Holy Spirit does not permit him to err. He is, therefore, infallible on matters of morals and doctrine.

All good so far.

Other bishops are his lieutenants.

Nope. From the Catechism: “The bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops.” (CCC 895)

He is the symbol of the episcopate’s unity.

Yep.

The Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops are equal. To be sure, there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop. Such differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop. The president of a synod of bishops is called archbishop (Greek custom) or metropolitan (Russian custom).

All true in the Catholic Church as well. The pope is not greater in nature than the bishop; he is only superior in administrative rank, for his power extends over the whole Church, while the bishop’s extends only over his particular diocese.

According to Latin ecclesiology, each local parish is part of the universal or whole Church. The totality of Catholic parishes form the Body of Christ on earth. This visible Body has a visible head, the Pope. This idea of the Church implies that the local parish has two heads: the Pope and the local bishop.

Only if you abuse the term “head” beyond what is meant. Every priest is the head of his parish, in a certain sense, because he is the leader; and every bishop is the head of his diocese; and the pope is the head of the whole Church. These uses of the term head do not make the body have more than one head. The “smaller” bodies of Christians have one head; the “larger” bodies of Christians another; the “entire” body of Christians has another.

But a body with two visible heads is a monster.

Only if you lose the distinction between “part” and “whole” do you get the monster that scares away the Orthodox.

Also, the local bishop seems stripped of his apostolic authority if the Pope may contradict his orders.

The pope can contradict his orders without stripping him of his authority. In fact, if he was truly stripped of authority, it wouldn’t take the Pope to override him. The bishop has authority, but the Pope has greater authority.

Indeed, he cannot become a bishop unless the Pope allows it.

That is a matter of legislation, legislation which is wise for the modern age, and it can be changed whenever necessary. But it makes sense, so why change it? A bishop of the Latin rite should not try to do something so important as consecrating a new bishop without the consent of the Latin rite’s patriarch. That is common sense. So it’s been codified into law. If you want to prove it wrong, prove it; no one is stopping you. But you can’t, so you just rail against the legislation and defy common sense.

Orthodoxy teaches that every bishop, “the living icon of Christ,” and his flock constitute the Church in a certain place; or, as St. Ignatius the God-bearer says, the Church of Christ is in the bishop, his priests and deacons, with the people, surrounding the Eucharist in the true faith. All bishops and their flocks so constituted, together composing the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In other words, there can be no Church without a bishop, no bishop without the Eucharist, and no bishop or Eucharist without the true faith, the Apostolic Faith, “the faith once delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3) “The Church is in the bishop and the bishop in the Church,” wrote St. Cyprian of Carthage.

Put another way, there is no Church where there is no bishop, and there is no bishop where there is no succession of bishops from the Apostles (apostolic succession); and there can be no succession from the bishops without the faith of the Apostles.

Also, there can be no Church without the Eucharist, the Sacrament of unity, because the Church is formed through it. The Body and Blood of Christ unites the Faithful to God: This fellowship or koinonia is the whole purpose of Christianity. At the same time, there can be no Eucharist - and no other Mysteries - without a bishop who teaches the true faith to the baptized.

No differences here.

 

[dmar198]

1. The Holy Canons
   A canon is a “rule” or “guide” for governing The Church. Canons were composed by the Apostles, the Fathers, the local or regional and general or ecumenical Councils (in Latin) or Synods (in Greek). Only the bishop, as head of the church, applies them. He may use them “strictly” (akreveia) or “leniently” (economia). “Strictness” is the norm. Unlike the Latins, the Orthodox Church does not think of canons as laws, that is, as regulating human relationships or securing human rights; rather, Orthodoxy views canons as the means of forging the “new man” or “new creature” through obedience. They are training in virtue. They are meant to produce holiness.

First, if you admit that canons are “rules” for governing the Church, why do you object to the term “laws”? Is “law” so evil that the term must be avoided? Second, the nature of the Church is a group of persons related by common creed; if it is true that canons are meant for governing the Church, then by the very nature of the Church, canons regulate human relationships. Third, yes, our canons guard human rights from being violated – if you do not think that this is their purpose, what about marriage? That is an external ritual involving rights and responsibilities, and at the same time marriage is a matter of divine revelation; there must be canons about it so that people know what is out of accord with divine revelation; but such canons necessarily have to do with human rights, for marriage is part of human rights as well as being part of divine revelation.

The Latins continue to change their canons, ignoring the old for the new. Not more than two decades ago, Rome revised its Canon Law. It composes new canons to keep up with the times. On the other hand, Orthodoxy, albeit adding canons from time to time and place to place, never discards the old ones, for they, too, are inspired by the Holy Spirit. In any case, human problems and spiritual needs do not really change. New canons are generally simple refinements of old canons.

First, the Church has authority, from God, both to bind and to loose, and the matter will be bound or loosed in heaven. (Matt. 18:18) That grants authority to “loose,” not just to bind. “Loosed in heaven” means something previously bound in heaven is loosed. So we have authority from God to do this; and you want to presume to say we cannot? Talk about presumption! Orthodoxy wants to take away the rights that God gave to the Church!

Second, saying that canons are inspired by the Holy Spirit sounds radically heretical. That term reflects the status of the Word of God. And the canons are not the Word of God. It is blasphemy to attribute to God what did not come from Him: “Woe to them who say, God has said it, when He has not!” (Jeremiah 23:31)

And finally, even if canons are from the Holy Spirit in some sense, that doesn’t mean they can’t be changed; it would depend on if He wanted them to be changeable or not. The Holy Spirit might command something to be done for a time, but not necessarily forever. Old Testament law was inspired by the Holy Spirit but it was changed. So there’s a total logical fallacy in your argument.

 

[dmar198]

1. The Mysteries
   Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics recognize at least seven Sacraments or Mysteries: The Eucharist, Baptism, Chrismation, Ordination, Penance, Marriage and Holy Oil for the sick (which the Latins have traditionally called “Extreme Unction” and reserved for the dying).

We don’t reserve it for the dying alone. Anyone who is quite sick may receive the Sacrament.

Concerning the Sacraments in general, the Orthodox teach that their material elements (bread, wine, water, chrism, etc.) become grace-filled by the calling of the Holy Spirit (epiklesis).

No difference here.

Roman Catholicism believes that the Sacraments are effective on account of the priest who acts “in the person of Christ.”

There is no contradiction between those two things. Something can be grace-filled and still need a priest to perform the ceremony. You can have a pool filled with holy water, and dunk yourself in it all day long, but it’s not a Baptism if someone isn’t baptizing you (not necessarily a priest, but someone).

At the same time, the Latins interpret the Sacraments in a legal and philosophical way. Hence, in the Eucharist, using the right material things (bread and wine) and pronouncing the correct formula, changes their substance (transubstantiation) into the Body and Blood of Christ. The visible elements or this and all Sacraments are merely “signs” of the presence of God. The Orthodox call the Eucharist “the mystical Supper.” What the priest and the faithful consume is mysteriously the Body and Blood of Christ. We receive Him under the forms of bread and wine, because it would be wholly repugnant to eat “real” human flesh and drink “real” human blood.

I’m not seeing a difference here, just a bias against law and philosophy. Does Orthodoxy deny that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ? I don’t think so. Would the change happen if bread and wine were not used, or if a different blessing was used? No it wouldn’t, and I hope Orthodoxy wouldn’t say otherwise. So why does he criticize this? Because there’s a legal sounding idea involved? That’s hardly a big deal.

According to Roman Catholic teachings about the Sacraments (mystagogy), a person becomes a member of the Church through Baptism. “Original sin” is washed away. Orthodoxy teaches the same, but the idea of an “original sin” or “inherited guilt” (from Adam) has no part in her thinking.

“Inherited guilt” has no part in our thinking either. Original sin doesn’t transmit the guilt of Adam’s sin, it transmits to his descendants a nature (1) with disordered passions (2) headed toward death (3) without the divine life of grace present in it, until Baptism washes it over with the Holy Spirit.

More will be said later on this matter. Roman Catholics speak of “Confirmation” and the Orthodox of “Chrismation.” “Confirmation” is separated from the Baptism and is performed by the bishop and not the priest; but “Chrismation” is performed with Baptism by a priest who has received “chrism” from the bishop. The Sacrament of “Confirmation” and “Chrismation” both mean the giving of the Holy Spirit. The Latins delay “confirming” (with “first communion”) baptized infants not more than seven years, that is, until the time they have some appreciation of the gift of God. The Orthodox Church links Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion, first the threefold immersion into sanctified water, the “new Christian” rising from the water into the fellowship of the Holy Spirit which leads to union with God. Such is the purpose of membership in the Church.

No huge differences here. Confirmation and Communion at birth is perfectly valid (shucks, there’s that word again), it’s just not customary; if the baby is in danger of death we do it though, precisely because these Sacraments grant full entry into the Church, and we do not want to deny that to anyone, least of all someone in danger of death. But for those who aren’t in danger of dying, it is customary that their maturation should accompany their initiation into the Church, so that they know what the gift is that they’re being given.

Ordination is the ceremony which, by the grace and calling of God, elevates a man to the priesthood. The sacerdotal priesthood has three orders: Bishop, presbyter (elder) and deacon. All Christians are priests by virtue of the baptism into Christ Who is priest, prophet and king - for which reason St. Peter refers to the Church as a “royal priesthood” (I Pet. 2:9). The bishop is the “high priest,” the "president of the Eucharist and all the Mysteries. Presbyters and deacons are his assistants.

Deacons aren’t priests. They can’t do the functions of a priest, like forgiving sins through Sacramental Confession, nor can they offer the Sacrifice of the Mass. So they aren’t priests. I don’t know if this Orthodox writer’s opinion to the contrary is reflective of actual Orthodox teaching; I hope it is not.

The Latins hold that the presbyter acts “in the person of Christ” when, in fact, he does no more than represent the bishop who is “the living icon of Christ.”

A priest does represent the bishop, but also acts in the person of Christ. This can be proved not only from Scripture and Tradition, but simple logic: since the actions of the priest in Confession result in the grace of forgiveness, and the actions of the priest in consecrating the bread and wine result in a change of the matter of the bread and wine; and since only God can do such things, it follows that the priest’s actions are not his own, but are divine. That equals acting in the person of Christ. [Cont’d next]

 

[dmar198]

[Cont’d from last]

Strictly speaking, Penance - sometimes called “Confession” - should only be received by the believer as a means of re-admission to the Church.

Wrong. Confession should be sought very often, because the graces it gives for strengthening the will against temptation, and for forgiveness of both venial and mortal sins, are very great.

For a long time, Penance, or confession of sins, prayer and fasting was employed only for those who had been expelled from the Church (“excommunication”) or who had voluntarily departed (apostasy). The present practice is to receive Penance from a bishop or presbyter for some serious sin before receiving Holy Communion. Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics consider Penance as a Sacrament. Each has different customs surrounding it, such as the confessional booth so common among the latter.

No difference here, except that, from the beginning, private confession of sins to a priest has been quite an ordinary thing. We see it in the New Testament, in the Didache, and in all sorts of Church Fathers writings after that.

For Roman Catholics, Holy Matrimony is a binding, ostensibly an unbreakable, contract. The man and the woman marry each other with the “church” (bishop or priest) standing as a witness to it. Hence, no divorce under any conditions - no divorce but annulment of the marriage contract if some canonical defect in it may be found which renders it null and void (as if it never took place).

First, there is no “as if” here – a canonical annulment doesn’t “render” the marriage anything, it is just a way recognizing when a “marriage” wasn’t done properly and was never validly consecrated. An annulment cannot be given if the marriage was valid – only invalid marriages can be annulled. Second, divorce from a Sacramental marriage can happen for serious reasons, but never remarriage. A divorce from a Sacramental marriage is just a way of separating from your partner for some serious reason, it does not dissolve the marriage.

In Orthodoxy, Holy Matrimony is not a contract; it is the mysterious or mystical union of a man and woman - in imitation of Christ and the Church - in the presence of “the whole People of God” through her bishop or his presbyter.

No difference here.

Divorce is likewise forbidden, but, as a concession to human weakness, it is allowed for adultery.

A concession to human weakness, and a rejection of Christian doctrine! A divorce, in Orthodoxy, dissolves a marriage up to three times; and that is a rejection of God’s teaching. And if they reply that Jesus allows divorce in the case of marital unchastity (Matt. 5:32), I answer that this is not the same, since the kind of divorce He allows is not the kind that allows for remarriage afterwards (Matt. 5:32).

Second and third marriages are permitted - not as a legal matter - out of mercy, a further concession to human weakness (e.g., after the death of a spouse).

After the death nothing – that is not part of this discussion, since marriage is “til death.” We are talking about divorce and remarriage, and, regarding that, Jesus said that “WHOEVER” remarries after a divorce commits adultery. Your “concession to human weakness” is only a capitulation to human sinfulness and a license to sin. It is absolutely wicked – not only does it allow people to commit adultery, but it does this in defiance of the teaching of Jesus in all four Gospels, and of St. Paul, who said, “To the married I give this charge, not I but the Lord: that the wife should not separate from her husband; but if she does, let her remain single, or else be reconciled to her husband–and that the husband should not divorce his wife.” (1 Cor. 7:10-11) There are ZERO exceptions to the law of Christian marriage, commanded directly by Jesus: no remarriage after a divorce. Ever. Til death. It is a sin, and Orthodoxy needs to repent for calling holy what God calls adultery.

This Sacrament, as all Sacraments or Mysteries, is completed by the Eucharist, as St. Dionysius the Areopagite says. As already mentioned, the Latins conceive Extreme Unction as the final Sacrament, the Sacrament which prepares the believer for death, purgatory and the Age to Come. In Orthodoxy, Holy Oil is received for healing. Often sickness is caused by sin; therefore, Holy Oil or Unction involved Confession of sins. At the end of the rite, the anointed receives Holy Communion.

No difference here.

The Orthodox Church also recognizes kingship, monasticism, blessings of the water, etc. as Mysteries.

All right, that’s fine as long as they aren’t thought of as Mysteries in the same way as the 7.

 

[dmar198]

1. The Nature of Man
   Human nature was created good, even in communion with the blessed Trinity which made “him.” Male and female were created “in the likeness and image of God” (Gen. 1:26): “likeness” in virtue; “image” meaning to rule the earth rationally, to act wisely and freely. The woman was made as a “help-meet” to the man (Gen. 2:18; I Cor. 11:8-9). They were to live together in harmony and mutual respect.

So far Roman Catholicism agrees with the Church;

Correct.

it differs with Orthodoxy on the nature of man’s fall and the human condition. Following Augustine of Hippo, the Latins teach that Adam and Eve sinned against God. The guilt of their sin has been inherited by every man, woman and child after them. All humanity is liable for their “original sin.”

There is a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine here. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 405, states that Original Sin is not a personal fault on anyone’s souls but Adam’s and Eve’s; what we inherit from them is only called “sin” by analogy, for it is actually just this: we inherit from Adam and Eve a nature (1) with disordered passions (2) headed toward death (3) without the divine life of grace present in it, until Baptism washes it over with the Holy Spirit. I do not think there is a difference from Orthodoxy on this at all.

Following the Holy Fathers, the Orthodox Church holds that when Adam sinned against God, he introduced death to the world. Since all men are born of the same human stock as Adam, all men inherit death. Death means that the life of every human being comes to an end (mortality); but also that death generates in us the passions (anger, hate, lust, greed, etc.), disease and aging. Roman Catholicism has ordinarily paid little attention to the Orthodox conception of man as slave to death through his passions as manipulated by the devil.

All good til the last sentence. Catholicism pays very much attention to that; not only by codifying it into our dogmas, but by relating it to the need for redemption in Christ; by the Sacraments, especially Baptism and Confession, through which sin is obliterated; also by all our writings which constantly teach people how to be strong in the struggle against our disordered passions, and in all our saints who we glorify for overcoming sin. Every single part of Catholicism speaks out against sin and shows how to defeat it in Christ. As we always say, the Church is a hospital for sinners; sin is the first reality the Church exists to fight against.

In fact, the devil has been pushed to the background. Thus, the Crucifixion has been understood by the Latins as Christ suffering punishment for the human race (“vicarious atonement”), when, in truth, Christ suffered and died on the Cross to conquer the devil and destroy his power, death.

First, there is no incompatibility between those two things; Christ can vicariously atone for all men and destroy the devil’s power at the same time. Second, Catholicism does teach precisely that: “Jesus did really die and through his death for us conquered death and the devil who has the power of death.” (CCC 636)

In any case, Orthodoxy has always put great stress on “mastery of the passions” through prayer (public worship and private devotions), fasting (self-denial) and voluntary obedience and regular participation in the Eucharist (sometimes called “the Mysteries”). Thus, the highest form of Christian living (“the supreme philosophy”) is monasticism. Here all human energy is devoted to struggle for perfection.

No difference here.

Monasticism, in this sense, among Roman Catholics has all but disappeared. As a “supernatural religion” so-called, it has become increasingly “this-worldly.” Therefore, it has abandoned its medieval heritage, and its understanding of man, his nature and destiny has become increasingly secular.

WHAT?? You would think the author has NEVER been to a Catholic monastic community. They regularly manifest the struggle for the perfection present in the next life, they regularly fast, they regularly spend long hours in prayer – certainly not “this-worldly” actions. (When was the last time you saw Brittney Spears at a Holy Hour?) The author has proceeded from the biased and wrong to the absurd and offensive. Our monastic communities share a rich spiritual heritage drawing back all the way to the 3rd and 4th centuries; monasticism is not “this-worldly,” it is the highest expression of “other-worldliness” we can get in “this world.”

 

[dmar198]

1. The Mother of God
   The doctrine of the place and person of the Virgin Mary in the Church is called “mariology.” Both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism believe she is “Mother of God” (Theotokos, Deipare) and “the Ever-Virgin Mary.” However, the Orthodox reject the Roman Catholic “dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary,” which was defined as “of the faith” by Pope Pius IX, on the 8th of December 1854.

In rejecting this, you spurn both Scripture and Tradition, which point to the dogma and reveal it to be of God.

This dogma holds that from the first instant of her conception, the Blessed Virgin Mary was, by a most singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the human race, preserved from all stain of Original Sin. It is a doctrine revealed by God, and therefore to be firmly and steadfastly believed by all the faithful (from the Bull Ineffabilis Deus). Such a theory has no basis in the Scriptures nor the Fathers.

You only say this, I think, because you reject the idea of Original Sin and the idea of Christ’s merits. Grant those, and how could you deny her at any moment from the merits of her Son, and how could you confess the sin of the Old Eve was transmitted to the New One? Certainly you could not deny it, if you were to accept the testimony of Scripture or Tradition. Tradition clearly tells us, in the words of the Eastern Father Proclus of Constantinople (Homily 1): “As he formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” And many others say this also: scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-II

And as for Scripture, does it not teach that Mary was the New Eve, promising, through Eve, the woman who would bear the Messiah (Gen. 3:15)? Well, Eve was not under the dominion of sin until the Fall. If Mary is the New Eve, how can she been under the same dominion she was prepared by God to cancel out? She cannot have. Mary’s immaculate conception is made necessary by the doctrine that she is the New Eve; new, meaning not like the Old, who was fallen and sinful, but new, and sprouting fresh like the dew of the Creator from the new creation. She has to have been all good from conception, or she is not really new.

It contains many ideas (such as “the merits of Christ”) likewise without apostolic foundation.

Merit equals good actions that acquire a heavenly reward. All salvation exists because Christ wrought a good work that acquires a heavenly reward. All salvation depends on Christ’s merit, by definition of merit.

The idea that the Lord and His Saints produced more grace than necessary.

As he made more wine than was necessary in Cana (John 2:1-11), so He gave far more grace than we needed. “The gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!” (Romans 5:15) “But where sin increased, grace increased all the more.” (Romans 5:20)

This excess may be applied to others, even those in purgatory (see below).

Yes indeed; for the Church has power to release men from the penalties due to their sins, but these penalties must be paid; and, if they are not paid in purgatory by the person released, then they can be paid by the merits already accrued by the vicarious sufferings of the Saints and Jesus Christ. [Cont’d next]

 

[dmar198]

[Cont’d from last]

But to return: the Church does not accept the idea that the Mother of God was born with the (inherited) guilt of Adam; no one is.

Great, and Catholics don’t say anyone is! The transmission of original sin is simply the transmission of a fallen nature; a nature inclined to sin, inclined to return to dust, and deprived of divine life until Baptism washes it over and fills it with grace. Mary was preserved from all this, precisely because she was preserved from original sin.

She did, however, inherit the mortality which comes to all on account of Adam’s Fall.

The kind of mortality we received from Adam results in returning to dust. The fact that Mary did not inherit this kind of mortality is not only proved by Scripture and Tradition, as faithfully expounded by the Magisterium, but it is also confirmed by her Assumption: she was, by nature, incorruptible, like the Holy Ark; like a New Eve, not like the old one. And her body, which is not here, must be in heaven, for it certainly did not return to dust.

Therefore, there is no need to do what Latin theologians have done. There is no reason to invent a theory to support the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Nobody needed to invented a theory to support the dogma; Scripture and Tradition were sufficient supports, without any added theories.

There is no need to teach that, on account of “the merits of Christ,” the Holy Spirit was able to prevent her from inheriting the guilt of Adam.

No one teaches that she would have inherited the guilt of Adam, for that is not what Original Sin transmits; Original Sin consists in the transmission of Adam’s nature, which was fallen, not his guilt, which was personal.

In fact, she was born like every other human being. The Holy Spirit prepared the Virgin Mary for her role as the Mother of God.

A proper preparation for her role would preserve her from anything incompatible with that role. Introduce anything to put Mary’s faith at risk, and you put all salvation history at risk with her: “she believed, that the thing which was spoken to her from the Lord would be fulfilled.” (Luke 1:42) Mary needed to be immaculate to be prepared for her necessary cooperation.

She was filled with the Uncreated Energy of the Holy Spirit of God in order that she might be a worthy vessel for the birth of Christ. Nevertheless, several of the Fathers observed that before the Resurrection of her Son, she had sinned. St. John Chrysostom mentions the Wedding at Cana where she presumed to instruct Him (John 2:3-4). Here was proof of her mortality. Receiving the Holy Spirit once more at Pentecost, she was able to die without sin.

First, there is no evidence in Mary’s words “They have no wine,” nor in Jesus’ response, “What is that to me and to thee,” that indicates that she “presumed to instruct Him.” Second, even if she had been instructing Him, that would not have been a sin, or He would never have done the action (John 2:6-11). Third, Mary’s words to the servants, “Do whatever He tells you” (John 2:5), shows that her will was aligned to Jesus’ will in this matter; she was completely submitted to His will, unconditionally (notice the “whatever”). That demonstrates profound humility and holiness, the opposite of the sin you attribute to her.

Because of her special role in the Divine Plan (“economy” or “dispensation”), she was taken into the heavens, body and soul. She now sits at the foot of her Son, making intercession for all those who implore her mercy. The Orthodox Church honors the miracle of her “assumption” with a feast on 15 August; likewise, the followers of the Pope. Both also believe in the intercessions of the Virgin Mary and all the Saints. Such intercessions reflect the unity of the Church in heaven and the Church on earth. Both also believe that there is a sense in which the Mother of God is the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. Those who belong to the Church are identified with Him. But He is also our “brother” (Rom. 8:29). If Christ is our brother, then, the Virgin Mary is our mother. But the Church is our mother through Baptism. Therefore, the Virgin Mary is the Church.

No difference here.

 

[dmar198]

1. Icons
   The icon is an artistic depiction of Christ, the Mother of God and the Saints. God the Father cannot be painted, because He has never been seen.

That does not prove that He cannot be painted in any sense; only that He cannot be painted as He is. He has given us certain imagery to associate with Him, such as the Ancient of Days, and He can be painted analogously, by means of that approved imagery.

God the Holy Spirit has appeared as a dove and as “tongues of fire.” He may be shown in this way. God the Son became a man, and He may be painted in His human form. Icons are more than sacred pictures. Everything about them is theological. For example, they are always flat, flat so that we who inhabit the physical world will understand that the world of the spirit where Christ, His Mother, the angels, the saints, and the departed dwell, is a world of mystery which cannot be penetrated by our five senses. Customarily, Roman Catholicism has historically employed statues in its worship. The statues are life-like and three-dimensional. They seem to imitate the art of ancient Greece. Both arts are naturalistic. The Latins portray Christ, the Mother of God, the saints, even the angels, as if they were in a state of nature. This “naturalism” stems from the medieval idea that “grace perfects nature.” The person or persons are represented on the icon as deified. He or she is not a perfect human being, but much more: They are transfigured and glorified. They have a new and grace-filled humanity.

No difference here. His comments on statues do not seem to be very negative; but in case he intends that his explanation about the flatness of icons should undermine statue use, I must say this: the conclusion, “statues are bad,” would not follow from the premise, “flatness reminds us that heaven cannot be penetrated by our five senses.” Moreover, a statue does nothing more or less with our five senses than an icon. In fact, if we could contrast their suitability, it would seem that icons were somewhat worse than statues at reminding us of the glorified state; for icons constrain the Saints to two dimensions, and statues give them three, whereas the Saints, in reality, are far beyond all the dimensions we can portray them with.

Important to remember is the Latin theory of grace: It is created by God for man. Orthodoxy teaches, as we recall, that grace is uncreated, and impacts all creation. It is a mysterious extension of the Divine Nature. Orthodox iconography reflects this truth, even as Roman Catholic statues reflect its idea of grace.

Neither statues nor icons automatically reflect the Catholic or Orthodox doctrines of grace better or worse than the other. It would depend on how they were made, I suppose, but I really can’t see how they would do it even then. I do not see where he gets this idea.

Again, icons are a necessary part of Orthodox piety. The Orthodox honor and kiss icons, a devotion which passes from the icon to the person or persons represented in them. Icons are not idols and the Orthodox do not worship them. Worship is reserved for God alone. The statues set up in Roman Catholic temples are not commonly venerated; they are visual aids and decorations.

No comment.

 

[dmar198]

1. Purgatory
   Purgatory is a condition of the departed before the final judgment. According to Roman Catholic theology, those souls destined for heaven (with a few exceptions) must endure a state of purgation, or purification. They must be cleansed of the sins committed on earth.

And/or the temporal effects of those sins.

The rest go to hell for eternal punishment. Moreover, from a “treasury” of merits or extra grace accumulated by the virtue of Christ, the Virgin Mary and the saints, “indulgences” may be granted. The grace is applied to those in purgatory in order to shorten their time there.

No huge difference here.

Orthodoxy teaches that, after the soul leaves the body, it journeys to the abode of the dead (Hades). There are exceptions, such as the Theotokos, who was borne by the angels directly into heaven. As for the rest, we must remain in this condition of waiting. Because some have a prevision of the glory to come and others foretaste their suffering, the state of waiting is called “Particular Judgment.”

What is done for those who need purification from sin? Where is the fire that purifies those who need it before they enter heaven? (as in 1 Cor. 3:13-15) If you do not deny that fire, then you are orthodox indeed. But you haven’t mentioned it, and that is worrying.

When Christ returns, the soul rejoins its risen body to be judged by Him. The “good and faithful servant” will inherit eternal life, the unfaithful with the unbeliever will spend eternity in hell. Their sins and their unbelief will torture them as fire.

No differences here.

 

[dmar198]

1. Other Differences
   There are other minor differences between the Orthodox Church and Roman Catholicism. The Orthodox do not fast on Saturday (except Holy Saturday) or Sunday. Roman Catholics experience no such restriction. Orthodox do not kneel on Sunday; Roman Catholics do. Orthodox have no “Stations of The Cross;” Roman Catholics do. Orthodox presbyters and deacons may marry before ordination; Roman Catholic clergy are celibate. Orthodox worship towards the East; Roman Catholics, not necessarily. In the Orthodox Liturgy, the “bread” of the Eucharist is “leavened” (zyme); in the Roman Catholic Mass it is “unleavened” (azyme). The Orthodox faithful receive both the “body” and “blood of Christ” in Holy Communion; Roman Catholics receive only the “bread,” a wafer. There are no orders of Orthodox monks (male and female) as there is among Roman Catholics (Jesuits, Dominicans, Benedictines, Cistericans, etc.). More recently, many Roman Catholic monks and nuns have put away their traditional habits. Orthodox clergy wear beards; Papist clergy are generally beardless. There are many other differences, often the product of culture. Also, it is noteworthy that many of these differences, whether profound or not, do not apply to the contemporary religious situation.

No difference here.

Ecumenism has brought great confusion, so that it is not always easy to say with any precision what Roman Catholics believe, while so-called Orthodox have abandoned the traditional teachings of the Church.

First, authentic Ecumenism brings understanding, not confusion; so if what he says here is true, then that is to be lamented. Second, these remarks, if they are intended to disparage Ecumenism, must be corrected; Ecumenism is an effort to bring understanding, and, with that, to hasten Christ-centered unity. Christ prayed that all be one (John 17), united in truth, united in Him; that should be encouraged, and mutual understanding of the beliefs and practices of various religions cannot harm that goal, it can only help it. There are not a thousand people who hate the Catholic Church; but thousands hate what they wrongly think the Catholic Church to be. Ecumenism can help correct that imbalance. Discussing our differences is also Ecumenism; I hope that, with this effort to compare and contrast the teachings of Orthodoxy with the teachings of Catholicism, and with a close examination of Scripture and Tradition, we can approach unity. Let that be the only profitability of this essay, if God wills it, or else, something greater.

 

[paul_c]

dmar198.
I applaud your efforts to answer all those critiques. It must have taken a considerable amount of time and effort. Good job.

 

[GraceDK]

dmar198.
I applaud your efforts to answer all those critiques. It must have taken a considerable amount of time and effort. Good job.

I second that.
Good job.

I was so sad when I read that they dont believe we have the same God.

And the part where they think our doctrine has unfolded like a seed into a three but theirs has not… well thats of course bogus.
A former protestant I can say that Orthodox are just as invested in extrabibliocal traditions as is the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, they might not like the seed-tree analogy, but they have practiced it all the same.