Discussing relations with other Christian confessions, Metropolitan Kirill said: “unfortunately, differences in religious doctrines and practices have increased between orthodoxy and other confessions.”
“With some Protestant communities, such as the Lutheran Church of Sweden and the Episcopal Church of the United States, we have come to a complete break, due to the official recognition of homosexual relations,” he continued.
I read the article in full, and while the metropolitan reiterated that there were “a great number of differences in doctrine” — differences so striking that “there could be no room for compromise” — between the East and Rome, the article didn’t give any examples of what these might be.
I assume one is the enduring problem of the Filioque clause in the Nicene creed (the West typically says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the son, whereas the East omits that italized phrase). I was intrigued to see Wikipedia mention that Rome has taken many steps recently towards not using the Filioque in various services.
Aside from the Filioque, however, can anyone describe what these great number of major differences might be? I ask as a person who knows a good bit about Roman doctrine but far less about that of the East.
Does A-O have any thoughts?
I suppose I can think immediately of a few more, which are those dogmas associated with the pope himself: e.g. his infallibility when speaks ex Cathedra on issues of doctrine, his status as the Vicar of Christ, etc. Obviously these are dogmas that the East might well describe as dealbreakers. But aside from those, what others? (And again remember I am thinking not about minor points of doctrine, but major doctrinal chasms.)
The Assumption is not accepted by Eastern Orthodoxy, which refers to the Dormition of the Virgin. But surely jurisdiction is going to be the real one – remember the inter-jurisdictional disputes within Orthodoxy, and you will realise how unlikely they are to accept to the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. And yet within the Catholic Church patriarchs have great autonomy eg the freedom to choose bishops for their own rite.
I believe that the Orthodox do not accept the Immaculate Conception (this refers to Mary, not Jesus, remember) as dogma.
My first post seems to have disappeared. As for Protestants, the greatest difference stems from the power that has accrued to the Pope. Rome indeed went out on a limb here. The East follows a concilliar model of governance and the Ecumenical Patriarch has little local authority. Not that it is perfect, but think of it as if the Anglican model with the AbC, as first among equals, actually worked (ha ha).
I think the authority issue is especially dicey for the Russians on several levels. First, they are on the front line of the uniate issue more than any other Orthodox jurisdiction. They have objected the loudest to the presence of Rome in their “territory.” Also, many Russians hold to the belief that it is the Patriarch of Moscow who leads Orthodoxy and not the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople.
The Assumption is not that great an issue. Yes, the Orthodox prefer the “Dormition” but there are many, many Orthodox parishes that have the name “Assumption.” The Immaculate Conception is an obstacle because the Orthodox do not share the western notion of Original Sin. Perhaps more than specific doctrines it boils down to a difference in spiritual perspective. Eastern theology is heavily influenced by Augustine while the West (even Protestantism) was shaped by Aquinas.
The main point of contention, and one which often underlies the by-comparison subtler doctrinal differences, is the scope of the Roman Pope’s authority. The Orthodox would never accept the Pope of Rome as more than first among equals.
It sounds like what people are saying so far is that the Metropolitan was refering to issues of papal authority.
That’s fine. I guess that struck me as so obvious that I figured he must be talking about something else. I mean, of course it’s a deal breaker if communion with Rome involves the Metropolitan kissing the ring and promising obedience (etc.). When he refered to doctrinal differences I figured he meant something else.
And then, there’s the proclivity of the individual national Orthodox
churches to remain hopelessly mired in their near-tribalistic ethnocentrism.
Western Christianity long ago forsook notions of blood trumps all. Although
much smaller in numbers than the Western Rite, the 20+ [i]sui juris
[/i] Churches ( many of them based along ethnic lines ) in communion with Rome,
underscore that broad embrace of humanity which is so glaringly absent in the churches
of Orthodoxy.
I just can’t remember right now but isn’t the word [i]homousios[/i] contended between East and West? Can someone elucidate the issue for me please?
The Assumption/Dormition isn’t an issue between the Churches beyond Rome’s definition of it as dogma: the basic teaching is the same- unlike the Immaculate Conception. Russian attitude towards the West has varied- for a while Latin was even the language of the seminaries! For the deeper problem now, look to the issue of the Eastern Rite Catholics, particularly in Ukraine. There’s a lot of national pride involved.
#5 Nikolaus wrote:
[i]Eastern theology is heavily influenced by [b]Augustine[/b][/i].
I’m sure you didn’t mean to write “Augustine”. In any event, Orthodox perspective on Augustine [url=http://orthodoxwiki.org/Augustine_of_Hippo#Reception_of_Augustine_in_the_Orthodox_Church]cannot be characterized as “heavily influenced”[/url], to say the least:
[blockquote]Some Orthodox Christians identify errors in his theology—especially those in his Triadology which gave rise to the Filioque addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed—and regard him as being one of the major factors in the Great Schism between the Church in the East and in the West. Thus, there are those among the Orthodox who regard Augustine as a heretic, although there has never been any conciliar condemnation of either him or his writings.
More moderate views regard Augustine as (1) a theological writer who made too many mistakes to be included among the Church Fathers but still a saint, (2) a theological writer among many in the early Church (but not a saint), and (3) a theological writer with, perhaps, the title “Blessed” before his name. It should be noted, however, that the Orthodox Church has not traditionally ranked saints in terms of “blessed” or “saint” (i.e., suggesting that the latter has a greater degree of holiness than the former). Saint “rankings” are usually only differences in kind (e.g., monastics, married, bishops, martyrs, etc.), not in degree.[/blockquote]
“underscore that broad embrace of humanity which is so glaringly absent in the churches of Orthodoxy.”
Your typical Episcopal Church on Sunday morning–reasserter and reappraiser alike–is whiter than most country clubs. Do not cast stones. And the Lebanese, Greeks, Anglos, etc. in my parish would beg to differ.
Yikes, you are right NTO. I did not check my facts when I wrote that and new that I should have at least added a caveat. I posted in haste and apologize.
Since I am here I will also add the historical / political aspect of the East / West relationship. The Crusades were not limited to Muslims, but did considerable damage to Orthodoxy as well. Many of Europes great relics were taken out of the hands of the Orthodox. When Constantinople was under siege, the Pope ignored the plea for help from the EP.
Re # 1
Jon,
There are a wide range of differences which divide Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic Church. Although many people tend to focus on the papacy (that’s certainly a major issue) there are others. Most of these are pretty hard to see significant room for compromise on.
First and foremost as already alluded to, we do not recite the same Creed. The Orthodox Church recites the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed while the Roman Church (and most confessional Protestants) recite the Creed of the Council of Lyons. The latter contains the much debated [i]Filioque [/i] which in its literal reading radically alters the Orthodox understanding of the God Head. Thus implicitly we do not worship the same Trinity.
Modern day Roman Catholics (most notably Dr Liccione) have written extensively in an effort to defend the orthodoxy of this unilateral alteration of the ancient Creed. The customary explanation is based on the Catholic belief in “development of doctrine.” This is not the place for a serious discussion of this topic it is sufficient to note that it is viewed with great suspicion in Orthodoxy.
And of course there is the fact that alterations in the Creed were expressly forbidden by the canons of the third and eighth OEcumneical Councils with anathemas attached. Even if however the Roman Catholics are correct in their claim that the filioque was not intended to subvert the monarchy of the Father and proclaim a double procession (their explanation is very convoluted) the fact remains that a literal reading of the phrase in both English and Latin does exactly that. Since Orthodoxy subscribes to the concept of Lex Orandi Lex Credandi this is unacceptable as the literal meaning of the phrase is heretical.
Then there is the issue of our differences on the subject of Grace which are very serious. Western Christians subscribe generally to the Augustinian views which has permitted among other things the development of dualistic understanding of the nature of the Church and has impacted all sorts of things. It is one of the primary reasons for Rome’s development of the doctrine’s of Purgatory and the Immaculate conception. And it also colors the Roman Catholic understanding of Original Sin, all of which we do not accept.
Then there is the Roman Catholic approach to ecclesiology which can not be reconciled with the Church of the First Millennium. Over a period of many centuries the RCC has evolved from a somewhat synodal body into a theological divine right absolute monarchy with all power vested in a single bishop. I recommend reading [url=http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/episkopos1/perieh.htm]Met. + John (Zizioulas)[/url] for a more Orthodox approach to this subject. It goes without saying that the dogmas of the First Vatican Council are viewed as inconsistent with the consensus patrum by the Orthodox and thus theologically heterodox. On this point I can not believe there would be any compromise.
Many of these unilateral doctrinal innovations are the product of two very powerful ingredients. The first is Blessed Augustin’s heretical teachings, especially on created grace (as opposed to uncreated) already mentioned above. And the second one being the development of scholasticism which attempted to rationalize theology. This lead directly to the concept of development of doctrine which as already noted is the well spring of Rome’s periodic additions to the Deposit of the Faith.
This is not by any means a comprehensive discussion of our differences and I am deliberately being rather short in details in an effort to keep this post from becoming a small book. That said I think it identifies a few of the more serious points of difference between Orthodoxy and Rome. In writing this I have made a conscious effort to avoid the use of polemics (too common IMO in Orthodox Catholic debates) and present our differences as respectfully as possible without compromising on essential points. I used to be Roman Catholic and have great respect for the Roman Church and Pope Benedict in particular. But I also think there is a tendency among many ecumenically minded persons to try to minimize the very serious differences which divide us. Any fruitful dialogue must be based on truth. And therefor the best place to begin is an honest and forthright statement of differences sans sugar coating.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Thanks AO. I knew you’d come through.
I think the so-called primacy of Rome would be the biggie. What about:
-Mandatory priestly celibacy.
-The Western mind wants to explain everything. The Eastern mind is willing to accept that certain things are mysteries. Eastern Orthodoxy did not get polluted (or enhanced) by scholastic theology.
-(I don’t know the answer to this.) Among the clerics, is there a substantial subculture of homosexual practice in Eastern Orthodoxy the way that there is in the Roman Catholic church?
Re # 16,
Just a couple quick points. The Latin discipline of celibacy would not I think be a big sticking point. It’s not a matter of doctrine. While many Orthodox are inclined to think it a bit weird most just shrug and say “whatever floats their boat.” I know some Catholics who chuckle at our insistence on bearded clergy. The only point of possible collision I could think of is that Rome claims absolute universal jurisdiction and has at times used that power abusively in its relationship with the Uniate Catholics. One must recall that Rome has on various occasions forced Latin discipline and liturgical practices on the Uniate Churches including compulsory clerical celibacy. All of which brings us back to Vatican I which is a nonstarter with us.
As for a homosexual subculture I would have to say the answer is a qualified no. To be sure we have had occasional problem clergy. But the instance of clergy abuse, especially homosexual, in the Orthodox Churches here in N. America is significantly lower than in the Roman Church.
The obvious reason for this is that the priesthood in the Orthodox Church being non-celibate does not offer the attraction that many homosexuals saw in the Roman Catholic priesthood, namely a place to hide in plain site without questions being asked like “how come you don’t have a girlfriend?” Too many persons with serious inclinations to that vice in the past became priests out of a sense of guilt and or the just mentioned blend in motive. Many no doubt believed that donning a cassock would have the effect of throwing an “off switch” on their sexuality.
To the extent that this problem exists in Orthodoxy I think it is largely confined to monasteries where once in a while some monks struggling with particular passions have had problems. Most bishops and abbots are generally careful and keep an eye out for signs of any brewing trouble. That said there have been two notable scandals that I know of in the last thirty years or so. Both involved schismatic Old Calendarist monastic groups, one in Boston in the late 70’s and early 80’s and one more recently in Texas. Both were quite horrible and involved systemic abuse by homosexual “monks” of young boys and novices.
The one in Boston was originally affiliated with the Russian Church Abroad. When the word reached the higher ups about what was going on an investigation was ordered. This ended with the swift suspension of those involved and the suppression of the monastery. The monks however broke off from the Russian Church and went into schism founding the so called Holy Orthodox Church of North America (HOCNA). This group is not recognized by any canonical Orthodox Church.
The more recent one in Texas involved an already schismatic sect. Those involved have been prosecuted and jailed.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
#17, I wish things like sexual scandal (any stripe) were confined to monasteries, but I think those temptations are confined only to anyone in a skin. The canons addressing such things are as old as Christendom, no distinction of east or west, lay or ordained. I hope having the universal ancient fact of married clergy has saved the Orthodox from *some* of the difficulties of the Roman Catholics. However, there is the sad fact that some gay men get married then ordained in the Orthodox world. This used to happen more in the Episcopal Church years ago (Gene Robinson the most visible example) when, as one such cleric told me “That was how you got a suburban parish; you got married whether you felt like it or not”.
The Pope will still be a sticking point as long as he is Bishop of Earth in the Roman reckoning. In the Roman world, there is one vote and one vote only. His. There are no other bishops, just vicars of him.
How that can be fit into the rest of the history of the Church only they can tell. As disorganized and sadly bumbling around the Orthodox are, they haven’t got one bishop who thinks he’s the *only* one.
The Assumption is the settled belief of the Orthodox; many of their churches bear this dedicatory title. The Immaculate Conception, on the other hand, is a real sticking point. Not that Orthodox believe Mary sinnned, but they do not accept the model of original sin which the dogma presupposes. Part of the non-Augustinian stream of Eastern theology.
IIRC, Orthodox priests can be married at the time of ordination. If not, they remain celibate, and cannot progress to the status of Bishop.
If a married Orthodox priest’s marriage ends, even if by the death of their spouse, they cannot re-marry.
#19… Thanks Austin. It sounds like you are saying the Eastern church believes that the Virgin Mary never sinned. It goes without saying of course that Jesus lived without sin.
Does the East believe this to be true about anyone else? E.g. St. Joseph? Mary’s mother? Any other sinless people in human history?
#20, Just because Orthodox parishes carry the name “Assumption” it doesn’t mean what you may think. In at least one case I know of, a Greek parish held it’s earliest organization meeting on August 15, so decided to name the parish in memory of the *Falling Asleep* of the Theotokos. The term (roughly) “Kimesis” wasn’t too easy to get across in English when incorporating, so they used the Catholic term. Same reason that Orthodox congregations sometimes (alas) have pews and organs. It was what people did in the US. It is a little deceptive to use the Catholic term “Assumption” as that is unique to them. The Orthodox refer to the feast as Dormition.
Jon,
This is from the website for the [url=http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038]Greek Orthodox Diocese of America[/url]:
[blockquote]5) The case of Mary, the Mother of God
Does the Mother of God, Virgin Mary, participate in the “ancestral sin?” The question does not make much sense for the Orthodox, for it is obvious that Mary, being part of the common human race issued of the first man (Adam), automatically participates in the fallen status and in the “spiritual death” introduced by the sin of the first man.
The Fathers of the Church speculate on Luke 1:35, concluding that Mary was purified by the Holy Spirit the day of Annunciation, in order for her to become the “worthy Mother of God.” However, even after she gave birth to the Son of God, Mary was not exempted of less serious (“venial”) sins. St. John Chrysostom attributes to Mary the sin of vanity, in the context of the first miracle of Christ in Cana of Galilee.
Mary was also saved by her Son, for God is her Savior (Luke 1: 47) as well. It is unfortunate that the Roman Catholic Church promulgated the doctrine of the so-called “Immaculate Conception” in 1854, which contradicts the traditional doctrine of the Church concerning Mary. [/blockquote]
nwlayman,
This is from the website for [url=http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsLife.asp?FSID=102302]”The Orthodox Church in America”[/url]:
[blockquote]The circumstances of the Dormition of the Mother of God were known in the Orthodox Church from apostolic times. Already in the first century, the Hieromartyr Dionysius the Areopagite wrote about Her “Falling-Asleep.” In the second century, the account of the bodily ascent of the Most Holy Virgin Mary to Heaven is found in the works of Meliton, Bishop of Sardis. In the fourth century, St Epiphanius of Cyprus refers to the tradition about the “Falling Asleep” of the Mother of God. In the fifth century, St Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem, told the holy Byzantine Empress Pulcheria: “Although there is no account of the circumstances of Her death in Holy Scripture, we know about them from the most ancient and credible Tradition.” This tradition was gathered and expounded in the Church History of Nicephorus Callistus during the fourteenth century.
…(after her death) For three days they (the Apostles) did not depart from the place of burial, praying and chanting Psalms. Through the wise providence of God, the Apostle Thomas was not to be present at the burial of the Mother of God. Arriving late on the third day at Gethsemane, he lay down at the tomb and with bitter tears asked that l he might be permitted to look once more upon the Mother of God and bid her farewell. The Apostles out of heartfelt pity for him decided to open the grave and permit him the comfort of venerating the holy relics of the Ever-Virgin Mary. Having opened the grave, they found in it only the grave wrappings and were thus convinced of the bodily ascent of the Most Holy Virgin Mary to Heaven. [/blockquote]
Another Orthodox Church web site. [url=http://www.theologic.com/oflweb/feasts/08-15.htm]Theologic[/url] reads:
[blockquote]The Feast of the Dormition or FallingAsleep of the Theotokos commemorates the death, resurrection, and glorification of Christ’s mother. To help us in our preparation of the feast, it is preceded by a two week fast. As with the Nativity of the Virgin (September 8/21) and the feast of her Entrance to the Temple (November 21/December 4), the Feast of the Dormition also comes from the Tradition of the Church.
There we learn that Mary died as all people die because she had a mortal human nature affected by the corruption of this world. The Church proclaims that Mary needed to be saved by Christ just as all of us are saved from trials, sufferings, and death of this world. Having truly died, she was raised by her Son as the “Mother of Life” and already participates in the eternal life of paradise which is prepared and promised to all who “hear the word of God and keep it.” (Luke 11:27-28) Finally, we celebrate the fact that what happens to Mary happens to all who imitate her holy life of humility, obedience and love.
[i]Adapted from The Orthodox Church, Volume II: Worship, by Fr. Thomas Hopko. [/i][/blockquote]
So it seems that at least a large group of Orthodox believers DO believe in the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven.
With respect to the Assumption of the Most Blessed and Holy Theotokos, this falls under the heading of theologumen rather than defined doctrine. Which is to say that it is a pious opinion. While it is true that it is not universally subscribed to, it’s acceptance is sufficiently widespread that it is not considered controversial.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
A useful compendium of the difference from an Orthodox perspective.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php
This article convinced me that reunion of the Catholic and the Orthodox Church’s will not occur, at least in my lifetime. Of course, I’m at a pretty low pay grade wrt that sort of thing, so maybe I’m wrong, but dialogue seems, to me, a waste of time.
#20 libraryjim wrote:
[i]IIRC, Orthodox priests can be married at the time of ordination. If not, they remain celibate, and cannot progress to the status of Bishop.[/i]
I think you meant to write “If the priest isn’t married at the time of ordination, he remains celibate, and [i]can[/i] progress to the status of Bishop.
Right. That’s what I meant.