Why doesn't Protestantism look like Eastern Orthodoxy?

[Anthony_V]

It isn’t about one expression. There is a concept of “State of Grace” in the Catholic Church that doesn’t exist in the Orthodox Church. This is a clear statement of what the soteriology of the Catholic Church is. Also, Beatific Vision vs. Theosis, again, two different things based on two different understandings of Salvation.

Do you remember this thread?

I’m fairly sure it’s about expression, though the soteriological systems are obviously of a different emphasis. That thread lead me to the conclusion that the differences could be considered nominal, but that it was also like trying to compare apples to oranges. Trying to cross-contextualize and draw strict parallels is essentially fruitless, because we are speaking of different things in different worlds of thought.

EDIT: This is an interesting article I just found.

 

[dzheremi]

I’m fairly sure it’s about expression, though the soteriological systems are obviously of a different emphasis. That thread lead me to the conclusion that the differences could be considered nominal, but that it was also like trying to compare apples to oranges. Trying to cross-contextualize and draw strict parallels is essentially fruitless, because we are speaking of different things in different worlds of thought.

If we’re dealing with two different worlds of thought (which I think is a good way to put it), then it what way could the differences be considered nominal? Generally things that are conceived of as springing from entirely different ways of being are not considered the same, even if people who have not done the necessary research might conclude that it’s all the same, we’re just giving it all different names. I think that’s a dishonest way of looking at the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy that does violence to both of our religious systems and as such ought to be rejected by all people of both camps. We are supposed to be serious about our faith, and not given to a pietistic world view (i.e., “it’s all the same, but we just call it X while you call it Y”).

 

[Surnaturel]

If we’re dealing with two different worlds of thought (which I think is a good way to put it), then it what way could the differences be considered nominal? Generally things that are conceived of as springing from entirely different ways of being are not considered the same, even if people who have not done the necessary research might conclude that it’s all the same, we’re just giving it all different names. I think that’s a dishonest way of looking at the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy that does violence to both of our religious systems and as such ought to be rejected by all people of both camps. We are supposed to be serious about our faith, and not given to a pietistic world view (i.e., “it’s all the same, but we just call it X while you call it Y”).

The realistic and truthful understanding is that the Scriptures have different emphases on soteriology as well. It would be exponentially naive to think that an Incarnational Logos model is the only way to discuss or express atonement and salvation. There are extremes that can be taken with either side whether it be overly juridical models that deal exclusively with debt rather than elevation or what ‘Constantine’ from this forum asserted which was ‘salvation with no atonement’ which is equally unacceptable.

Furthermore, theological views on soteriology are not uniform in the RCC, some RCs prefer different expressions, some closer to Anselm and others closer to Irenaeus, but the truth that Christ atones for sins to save us and bring us to participstion in the divine life remains.

 

[Surnaturel]

It isn’t about one expression. There is a concept of “State of Grace” in the Catholic Church that doesn’t exist in the Orthodox Church. This is a clear statement of what the soteriology of the Catholic Church is. Also, Beatific Vision vs. Theosis, again, two different things based on two different understandings of Salvation.

I don’t think they are ‘two entirely separate things.’ Explain to me what you think a state of grace is in RC theology and then, if you can, explain what theosis is in your understanding.

 

[GaryTaylor]

13 pages insisting there is this oh so significant difference. Yet no one has articulated this blatant difference yet.

Here’s Bishop Ware on the Original Sin. Same love story, no different.

blessedisthekingdom.com/2010/09/18/bishop-kallistos-ware-on-original-sin/

orthodoxchristian.info/pages/original.htm

Same story? You guys are funny. You’d think you have a new market on Christianity over there after reading this thread, that’s after the 1000-years in communion.

 

[dzheremi]

The realistic and truthful understanding is that the Scriptures have different emphases on soteriology as well. It would be exponentially naive to think that an Incarnational Logos model is the only way to discuss or express atonement and salvation. There are extremes that can be taken with either side whether it be overly juridical models that deal exclusively with debt rather than elevation or what ‘Constantine’ from this forum asserted which was ‘salvation with no atonement’ which is equally unacceptable.

I don’t think anyone here is arguing that the scriptures only express one understanding of soteriology (or at least that’s not what I mean to say in my posts). It is, as I believe I have written already, a matter of emphasis. The West and the East (broadly speaking) have different emphases and so conceptualize what exactly “atonement” and “salvation” mean in very different ways. In some ways, the juridical understanding of the Latin West is unacceptable to the East, but again, it is a matter of emphasis, rather than the presence of absence of a particular understanding.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t think they are ‘two entirely separate things.’ Explain to me what you think a state of grace is in RC theology and then, if you can, explain what theosis is in your understanding.

They are two different things. Beatific Vision is the end of a process where one is cleansed of all stains of sin and receives this vision of God. Theosis is a never ending process, we are forever approaching the unapproachable light. We are forever increasing in the participation in God’s divine energies. But because God is infinite, the process is infinite. We can never be equal to God also, so our increasing divinity doesn’t mean we are approaching God’s own divinity and will be eventually equal to him.

Belief in Beatific Vision necessitates belief in purgatory, because one needs to be completely purified to receive it. Theosis necessitates that there is no such thing as purgatory. Sin is not a stain that needs to be cleansed by purgatory, Theosis as a process increases one’s participation in the divine energies, growing that ontological change within oneself in an ever increasing way.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t think anyone here is arguing that the scriptures only express one understanding of soteriology (or at least that’s not what I mean to say in my posts). It is, as I believe I have written already, a matter of emphasis. The West and the East (broadly speaking) have different emphases and so conceptualize what exactly “atonement” and “salvation” mean in very different ways. In some ways, the juridical understanding of the Latin West is unacceptable to the East, but again, it is a matter of emphasis, rather than the presence of absence of a particular understanding.

But the conclusions derived from the divergent understanding shows two completely different beliefs in soteriology, not just merely one of semantics or emphasis. Which is why the Latins believe in the necessity of Purgatory and the East does not. That itself is a biggie.

And that also, in relation to the OP, is why RCs and Protestants resemble each other more. While Protestants reject the notion of a Purgatory, it is not because they accept Eastern soteriology. They agree with Catholic soteriology, only that Purgatory is not a necessary step to get to heaven.

 

[dzheremi]

But the conclusions derived from the divergent understanding shows two completely different beliefs in soteriology, not just merely one of semantics or emphasis. Which is why the Latins believe in the necessity of Purgatory and the East does not. That itself is a biggie.

I agree. The differences in Eastern and Western soteriology are not merely a matter of emphasis. Within the context of the post I was responding to, however, my point was that by virtue of having a non-Latin soteriology, we are not denying that there are concepts of atonement in the scriptures, The poster I was responding to seemed to see it as an “all or nothing” proposition, and I just wanted to point out that this is not the case, not that we are both saying the same thing or what have you. I don’t believe we are. I’ve never heard any Orthodox person talk about this “beatific vision” thing, for instance. That seems to be an entirely RC concept.

 

[Anthony_V]

If we’re dealing with two different worlds of thought (which I think is a good way to put it), then it what way could the differences be considered nominal? Generally things that are conceived of as springing from entirely different ways of being are not considered the same, even if people who have not done the necessary research might conclude that it’s all the same, we’re just giving it all different names. I think that’s a dishonest way of looking at the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy that does violence to both of our religious systems and as such ought to be rejected by all people of both camps. We are supposed to be serious about our faith, and not given to a pietistic world view (i.e., “it’s all the same, but we just call it X while you call it Y”).

Point taken. But are we to jump to the conclusion that the questions being asked in the different frameworks are mutually exclusive (on the other extreme)?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Point taken. But are we to jump to the conclusion that the questions being asked in the different frameworks are mutually exclusive (on the other extreme)?

Not entirely, there are some overlaps but the ultimate conclusions are mutually exclusive, that is the soteriology is entirely different even though some of the understanding pointing to it are the same or similar. I guess its kind of like a Canadian and an American, while there are similarities, ultimately there are big differences between the two which may not be so obvious to most people.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Salvation starts with “For God so loved the world”. There’s no doubt been much said and documented with atonement from Adam and Eve. In this sense the variation with evangelical, OSOS, Calvinist’s, for example is a matter of taking specifics of the Saints/Biblical content/context and frankly arriving at various conclusions contrary to Church teaching, this is stemming from the reformation. In this sense it is true and a reality. That in itself doesn’t indicate where this issue is in the theology of salvation which is proposed as a whole in difference, Trent followed the Creed/St Paul. This has been greatly expanded on through the centuries, and depending on who there are variations, its noted in St. Irenæus, Origen, Augustine for example, though I believe much with Augustine is misunderstanding. Even the Pelagians admitted the transmission of death, concupiscence is a reality though greatly misinterpreted, Augustine is speaking specifically on Adam and Eves re-action to temptation which he concludes is pride. City of God covers his thinking. Nevertheless Augustine didn’t start anything new since his understanding relied on Greek and Latin fathers. For sure he would have read Origen.

newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

As far as the Beatific Vision. That’s another you say potato and we say patato story.

Thomas said; “If I do not see and do not touch, I will not believe.”

“blessed are those who do not see and yet believe,”

I believe there’s a misunderstanding of comprehending the infinite.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Origen Fundamental Doctrines,

“This too I think should be investigated in a suitable manner; what are the reasons why a human soul is sometimes moved by good spirits, and at other times, by evil? …Seems to me it cannot be answered otherwise, if we are to show divine providence is without any guilty injustice, than by holding that their were certain prior cause’s acting upon souls, in consequence of which, before they were born into bodies, they contacted some kind of guilt in their feelings or movements. on account of which they have been judged by divine providence as deserving of suffering. For indeed a soul always has a free-will, certainly when it is in the body, no, even when it is outside the body”

“it is taught also that the soul, having a substance of life proper to itself, shall, after its departure from this world, be rewarded according to its merits”

Anyway you see the nuance in thinking.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Salvation starts with “For God so loved the world”. There’s no doubt been much said and documented with atonement from Adam and Eve. In this sense the variation with evangelical, OSOS, Calvinist’s, for example is a matter of taking specifics of the Saints/Biblical content/context and frankly arriving at various conclusions contrary to Church teaching, this is stemming from the reformation. In this sense it is true and a reality. That in itself doesn’t indicate where this issue is in the theology of salvation which is proposed as a whole in difference, Trent followed the Creed/St Paul. This has been greatly expanded on through the centuries, and depending on who there are variations, its noted in St. Irenæus, Origen, Augustine for example, though I believe much with Augustine is misunderstanding. Even the Pelagians admitted the transmission of death, concupiscence is a reality though greatly misinterpreted, Augustine is speaking specifically on Adam and Eves re-action to temptation which he concludes is pride. City of God covers his thinking. Nevertheless Augustine didn’t start anything new since his understanding relied on Greek and Latin fathers. For sure he would have read Origen.

newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

As far as the Beatific Vision. That’s another you say potato and we say patato story.

Thomas said; “If I do not see and do not touch, I will not believe.”

“blessed are those who do not see and yet believe,”

I believe there’s a misunderstanding of comprehending the infinite.

Whether St. Augustine started something new or not, the difference between East and West is his teachings grew in the West while it never took root in the East.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Whether St. Augustine started something new or not, the difference between East and West is his teachings grew in the West while it never took root in the East.

Contingent of what was indeed understood from his teachings. What I do not see is a developed dogma, which makes God into someone other than the God of love who redeems out of love. Close observation of Augustine reveals this.

Its no different for example with Origen. You can view many JW and Mormon sights which promote other understanding of what indeed the Professor taught. Nevertheless I understand sola reading of the fathers odes create an issue.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Contingent of what was indeed understood from his teachings. What I do not see is a developed dogma, which makes God into someone other than the God of love who redeems out of love. Close observation of Augustine reveals this.

But that is not what is taught and practiced today in the West. The understanding of salvation is overtly legalistic and dependent on someone’s own actions and choices and being in the “state of grace”, rather than one who lets go of everything knowing that one is unworthy and undeserving of salvation, but puts everything in the hands of God in total surrender to His love and mercy.

For example, the concept of mortal vs. venial sin already discounts that. Because one is lead to believe that committing a mortal sin already dooms one’s own soul. God’s mercy is already out of the equation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You have a couple different thoughts there CTG. A State of Grace centers around confession/communion, a perfect act of contrition. This forgives sin and restores sanctifying grace.

I’ve had the conversation here with Vico fairly recent about the legalistic aspect of venial/mortal. I see how it can be misunderstood in leaving one to determine for themselves. Yet this is true to a degree regardless. That’s part of imperfect and perfect contrition. This is no different than one who sins, be it stealing for example, then determines they didn’t really steal and need not confess.

 

[Surnaturel]

They are two different things. Beatific Vision is the end of a process where one is cleansed of all stains of sin and receives this vision of God. Theosis is a never ending process, we are forever approaching the unapproachable light. We are forever increasing in the participation in God’s divine energies. But because God is infinite, the process is infinite. We can never be equal to God also, so our increasing divinity doesn’t mean we are approaching God’s own divinity and will be eventually equal to him.

Belief in Beatific Vision necessitates belief in purgatory, because one needs to be completely purified to receive it. Theosis necessitates that there is no such thing as purgatory. Sin is not a stain that needs to be cleansed by purgatory, Theosis as a process increases one’s participation in the divine energies, growing that ontological change within oneself in an ever increasing way.

Let me correct on you RC theology. The Beatific Vision is to see God face-to-face; it is the final end of the human person and all of the actions in one’s life are directed towards it. Purgatory precedes the Beatific. Vision. The Vision is also a never ending process as we delve further into the of infinity of God’s essence (in contrast to EO ‘divine energies’). You are presenting a straw man with all of this legal terminology. St. Aquinas did not see the BV as the removal of sin; he saw it as the deification of the human creature in eternal union with God. Epekstasis is applicable in the West, too, precisely because God is infinite.

Let me know if I can clarify Catholic doctrine for you any further.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

ConstantineTG;10775121]I’m not ranting, just stating the obvious truth.

You are ranting and have ranted your position and objections to what you falsely believe Catholics believe, without giving any credence to the OP subject matter, just your ranting of what Orthodox believe is somehow “radically different” than Catholics and Protestants.

There is no merit or truth to your opinions to object to anothers faith expression.

Thus far you have wrongly defined purgatory here the way Catholics and the scriptures have always revealed this presentation before entering eternal heaven, in God’s eternal presence. You falsely claim that purgatory is a get out of jail free card.

When I was Roman Catholic I couldn’t see things this way too. As they say, you can’t see all the trees when you are standing inside the forest, or something like that.
Only when you have shifted your mind to a different paradigm do you start to see what those in the other paradigm are so the same.

Here is your simple answer to your mystery that may reveal to you what you have confused about Catholicism.

What you are presenting from Orthodoxy which Catholicism also maintains from it’s foundation. Deals with philosophical “Soteriology”, not “radical” differences. When you thought you were Catholic, you did not find the deep concepts of our faith that St.Paul perfected the Greek Philosopher Plato’s understanding of anamnesis, for one example.

Orthodoxy is generally expressed by scholars and theologians as being stimied, it is reasoned due to your heretical sister church’s and ruling Emperors over your church’s.

This stagnation of Orthodoxy remains grounded in Greek pagan philosophies that pointed to a mystery. What Christ did was reveal these mysteries which the Great Greek philosophers contemplated, and revealed them in Truth. Thus we have St.Paul taking the pagan philosophical study of “Anamnesis” and raised it’s Greek understanding to the divine Truth of St.Paul’s Eucharistic biblical writing.

What you negelct here Constantine, is that the Roman Catholic Church was there in every century since the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Secondly Roman Catholicism remains in these apostolic truths, Orthodoxy does well never to remove herself from them as her sister church’s did in heterodoxy.

The Roman Catholic Church never left these concepts which you speak of in her heart. Yet the Catholic Church never became stagnant, she went on to evangelize the West which has a different philosophical concept of understanding. But these differences never negate 1+1=2. You appear to disagree, because Orthodoxy believes 1+1=2 through the eyes of the Greek philosophers Plato and Sacrates, is a radically different sum than St.Augustine and St.Thomas Aquianas.

I am not surprised that you did not neglect to attack these great minds in the West. What you failed to realize is that these great Catholic Saints attributed greatly to humanity. These two great Saints do not speak for the Whole Catholic Church. Secondly no Orthodox or Roman Catholic Saint speaks alone for the Catholic Church from ones own philosophical teaching. So long as it does not contradict or conflict with the Apostolic teachings and Christ’s revelations.

You think because you reject the philosophies of the west because you do not understand them, then you never accepted Catholicism for what she is. But you became enlightened by the simple Pagan Greek philosophical minds that helped you gage your faith in understanding. That is great, Iam happy for you. I take all these in my faith also, but in the West we did not become stimied, Catholicism raised this ancient philosophical understandings and raised them and introduced them to the West on another level of understanding without changing them, or adding to them, but these grew in knowledge and understanding so that both East and West hemispheres can know and here the Gospel so that each can reach the mysteries in our mystical faith’s.

As I mentioned, soteriology is the same. How that is interpreted may externally be different, but the essence of what and the hows of salvation is coming from a common source.

In summary; You have not addressed any radical differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. You have only introduced different philosophical concepts that recieve salvation from the " common source".

Orthodoxy has more bells in whistles in Liturgical settings, Catholicism has more bells and whistles to reveal the same Gospel message to an ever changing world, and new philosophies, understandings, languages and peoples. Catholicism is never stagnant, her growth reveals the same gospel in every age to different peoples, nations and tongues.So that every, nation, people and tongue recieves Jesus Christ and His Gospel message in every age that has changed in language and understanding.

**This is what you are objecting too Constantine, philosophy, not our Catholic faith.

Peace be with you**

 

[ConstantineTG]

Let me correct on you RC theology. The Beatific Vision is to see God face-to-face; it is the final end of the human person and all of the actions in one’s life are directed towards it. Purgatory precedes the Beatific. Vision. The Vision is also a never ending process as we delve further into the of infinity of God’s essence (in contrast to EO ‘divine energies’). You are presenting a straw man with all of this legal terminology. St. Aquinas did not see the BV as the removal of sin; he saw it as the deification of the human creature in eternal union with God. Epekstasis is applicable in the West, too, precisely because God is infinite.

Let me know if I can clarify Catholic doctrine for you any further.

I never said Beatific Vision is the removal of sin. I said you only get to receive Beatific Vision upon the removal of all stain of sin, which you get either by achieving the State of Grace through the Sacraments, or once you paid your dues in Purgatory.