Orthodoxy

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

WesWoodell directed me to start a new thread in which Orthodoxy vs RM could be discussed.

Ok Wes, what is heretical about Orthodoxy?

[WesWoodell]

Hmmm ... let's see.


Personally, the biggest problem I have with the Catholic Church is the belief in papal infallibility.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, papal infallibility refers to the Catholic belief that the pope's words in regards to spirituality or Christianity are infallible. I've also spoken with many Catholics who believe the Bible is not infallible and full of errors, but the teachings and doctrines of the "Church" are perfect and without error.

In other words, the teachings of the "Church" take priority over the Word of God - even if those teachings bend or even contradict the Word of God.

[Kripost]

Hmmm ... let's see.

Personally, the biggest problem I have with the Catholic Church is the belief in papal infallibility.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, papal infallibility refers to the Catholic belief that the pope's words in regards to spirituality or Christianity are infallible. I've also spoken with many Catholics who believe the Bible is not infallible and full of errors, but the teachings and doctrines of the "Church" are perfect and without error.

In other words, the teachings of the "Church" take priority over the Word of God - even if those teachings bend or even contradict the Word of God.


Urm... What does Papal Infallability have to do with Eastern Orthodox doctrine?

On another note, the description above about Papal Infallability is incorrect.

[Stinker]

Kripost: How does the Eastern Orthodox church differ from the churches of the RM in respect to the mode and reason for baptism, the frequency and elements of the Lord's Supper, and the autonomy and structure of government of the local congregation?

[WesWoodell]

Urm... What does Papal Infallability have to do with Eastern Orthodox doctrine?

On another note, the description above about Papal Infallability is incorrect.

I'm sorry, but what is the difference?

And what is your understanding of Papil Infallibility?

[Freedom&Light]

Wes, part of the problem with your reasoning is that EO doesn't have a pope. ;) They do have bishops, and I believe the Most Reverend is the "first among equals," right Bizzy?

Actually, Bizzle, there are several things that are in common between RM and EO. However, the big differences are communion of saints, communion/Eucharist, and the hierarchy in general (although EO churches are autonomous, their structure is very different).

For example, Main Street Church of Christ in Anywhere, USA hierarchy might look like this:

Elders (a group of men in the congregation shepherding the church)
|
Deacons (typically a group of men who do work in the church- usually men who have younger children, as those with older believing children become elders ;) )

The Ministry team has input into the church, but the elders are usually the final authority.

Communion- Eucharist
RM does not teach transubstantiation- which I believe EO teaches, yes? Correct me if I'm wrong here. :) Communion/the Lord's Supper represents Christ's body and blood.

Those are just some at the top of my head.


:thumbsup:

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

And what is your understanding of Papil Infallibility?
We don't believe in it.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Wes, part of the problem with your reasoning is that EO doesn't have a pope. ;) They do have bishops, and I believe the Most Reverend is the "first among equals," right Bizzy?

Actually, Bizzle, there are several things that are in common between RM and EO. However, the big differences are communion of saints, communion/Eucharist, and the hierarchy in general (although EO churches are autonomous, their structure is very different).

For example, Main Street Church of Christ in Anywhere, USA hierarchy might look like this:

Elders (a group of men in the congregation shepherding the church)
|
Deacons (typically a group of men who do work in the church- usually men who have younger children, as those with older believing children become elders ;) )

The Ministry team has input into the church, but the elders are usually the final authority.

Communion- Eucharist
RM does not teach transubstantiation- which I believe EO teaches, yes? Correct me if I'm wrong here. :) Communion/the Lord's Supper represents Christ's body and blood.

Those are just some at the top of my head.


:thumbsup:
Hierarchy is fairly similar. Our elders and deacons are married as well. We simply have a hierarchy beyond the local Church, not for control, but for unity (as after 2000 years we all agree on the same doctrine).

Transubstantiation? No. That the bread and wine are Jesus' body and blood in some mystical way? Yes.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

In other words, the teachings of the "Church" take priority over the Word of God - even if those teachings bend or even contradict the Word of God.
Our teachings do no such thing. Actually, if it weren't for us, you would have no Bible :P

[WesWoodell]

We don't believe in it.

Hrmm ok.

I really thought the Orthodox Church was just another branch of the Catholics.

Could you outline the main points of your doctrine please?

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Could you outline the main points of your doctrine please?
The Nicene Creed was developed by us, so I think that's the simplist outline readily available. Even today it is practically the universal standard for Chrisitianity vs heretics. We believe in the Seven Ecumenical Councils (where all the congregations in the world met and discussed doctrine), the Ever-Virginity of Mary, are Amillenialists, and believe that the gates of Hades have never an will never overcome the visible Church. Hmm, we also use icons as windows to heaven, as when we worship, we worship with the entire Church, living and dead. Also, we strongly believe we should be in the world but not of it.

Can't think of much else right off the top of my head except that we allow priests to marry.

[WesWoodell]

Hrmm.


Do you pray to the Virgin Mary? Do you require sins be confessed to a priest? What do you mean when you say that the icons are windows to heaven?

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

We ask the Virgin Mary and Saints to pray for us as Protestants ask the living to pray for them.

Sins should be confessed to someone, as scripture calls for. Usually it is the priest that witnesses, but sins are confessed to Jesus, for only He can forgive.

When we worship, all of the Church worships with us. I'm sure one of the more mature Orthodox could better explain that one.

[WesWoodell]

I would have a hard time feeling comfortable praying to anyone besides God. Jesus says that when and go to heaven we become like the angels, and the Bible tells us not to pray to the angels. How would you speak to a dead person except through prayer?
I agree confession is a must. I was just wondering if it was handled the same way as the Catholics do it.

When you say the whole church worships with you - living and dead - I like that idea. :) Do you know where that part of your doctrine comes from? I do not remember it being supported in Scripture, but I could be wrong.

[brother daniel]

Jesus instructs us to pray to OUR FATHER. Nothing else works. When we speak to OUR FATHER as Jesus himself has instructed we get answers.
That is if we repent of our sins, forgive those who have sinned against us or bug us. Then we pray and OUR FATHER hears us and acts on our prayers

[Suffolk Sean]

WesWoodell directed me to start a new thread in which Orthodoxy vs RM could be discussed.

Ok Wes, what is heretical about Orthodoxy?
Some would say the veneration of icons/relics is.

[gtsecc]

Prayer is not the best word to use, and may sound to some like worshiping the dead.

In the Apostle's creed, you hear the term, the Communion of Saints.

We are all bound together in Christ, and even death does not separate us. Therefore, we can pray to God with our deceased loved ones. We may ask them to pray for us, just like asking living people to pray for us.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I would have a hard time feeling comfortable praying to anyone besides God. Jesus says that when and go to heaven we become like the angels, and the Bible tells us not to pray to the angels. How would you speak to a dead person except through prayer?
I agree confession is a must. I was just wondering if it was handled the same way as the Catholics do it.

When you say the whole church worships with you - living and dead - I like that idea. :) Do you know where that part of your doctrine comes from? I do not remember it being supported in Scripture, but I could be wrong.
It is praying in the sense of asking for help, the same as we "pray" to the living for them to ask for help for us.

Confession is usually done directly to the Bible, with the priest off to the side witnessing and offering advice if you wish it.

I'm not sure exactly where it is supported in scripture, if it is. We do not believe that scripture is to be the only tool used, although it is certainly one of the most valuable.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Some would say the veneration of icons/relics is.
Showing respect to icons is simply a way to show respect to the people on the icons. In the same way one respects elders, we also respect our elders who live with Jesus.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Prayer is not the best word to use, and may sound to some like worshiping the dead.

In the Apostle's creed, you hear the term, the Communion of Saints.

We are all bound together in Christ, and even death does not separate us. Therefore, we can pray to God with our deceased loved ones. We may ask them to pray for us, just like asking living people to pray for us.



Thanks, you reminded me of a scripture :)

Ephesians 1:9-10

And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

[Kripost]

I'm sorry, but what is the difference?

And what is your understanding of Papil Infallibility?

Papal infallibility refers to the dogma that there is no possibility of error when the Pope defines a matter of faith and morals ex cathedra.

The Pope cannot simply invoke Infallibility at whim. Certain condtitions must be present, which are given below.

The conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

* The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as spiritual head of the Church universal, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian.

* He must be teaching some doctrine of faith or morals in a manner that explicitly and solemnly defines an issue.

* His teaching cannot contradict anything the Church has taught officially and previously.

* It must be evident that he intends to teach with his supreme Apostolic authority. In other words, he must convey his wish to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way. There are well-recognized formulas that are used to express this intention, such as "We declare, decree and define, . . .".

* It must be clear that the Pope intends to bind the whole Church. Unless the Pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he is assumed to not intend his teaching to be ex cathedra and infallible (unless he is reiterating what has always been taught).

* There will be an anathema attached to the definition that outlines consequences for not assenting to it. For example, in Pope Pius XII's infallible definition regarding the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, there are attached these words: "Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."



Papal infallibility refers to the Catholic belief that the pope's words in regards to spirituality or Christianity are infallible.


The first part is somewhat correct but incomplete. Explaination is given above.


I've also spoken with many Catholics who believe the Bible is not infallible and full of errors, but the teachings and doctrines of the "Church" are perfect and without error.


One mistake here is that the Catholic Church does not each that the Bible is fallible and full of errors, on the contrary:
"Since therefore all that the authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Srcipture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures". (Cathechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 3, 107)

[gtsecc]

I believe the Pope has only declared 3 things in this capacity:
Mary's Immaculate Conception
Mary's Assumption
Pope's infalibility as described above

[Kripost]

Kripost: How does the Eastern Orthodox church differ from the churches of the RM in respect to the mode and reason for baptism, the frequency and elements of the Lord's Supper, and the autonomy and structure of government of the local congregation?

Church government has already been dalt with, so I wil do the rest. Since I am not familiar with RM, so I can only give the Orthodox Church's side:

Regarding Baptism
The mode of baptism is always performed with tripple immersion, in the name of "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", except in emergencies with the permission of the priest/bishop. Although chrismation is a seperate sacrament, it is performed immediately after (as in together with) baptism, except in certain cases with permission from the bishop (e.g. the candidate already has a Trinitarian baptism)

The purposes of Baptism are:
1. for identifying oneself with Christ death and resurrection.
2. dying to the old ways of sin and being born to a new life in Christ.
3. for the forgiveness of sins committed before the time of baptism if the person is no longer an infant.
4. to remove the consequences of the 'original sin'.
5. for the purpose of theosis, through uniting the person to "The Body of Christ" (i.e. the Church).

Regarding Holy Communion
Holy Communion is the most important sacrament, and the eucharist is celebrated every Sunday and other Holy Days (e.g. Nativity).

The central elements of Holy Communion are the consecrated bread and wine, which is the body and blood of Christ (literally). This is why it is called the "Sacrament of sacraments". At the same time, the sacred meal also refers to the act of gathering and praying as well. The bread used is leaven bread and is distributed with the wine by the priest using a spoon.

Edited to add: Only baptised Orthodox who have properly prepared themselves are allowed to receive Holy Communion.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Thanks Kripost! Good explanations of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy :thumbsup:

[Theophorus]

The prayers of departed saints for the living can be found in the example of the 24 elders offering up prayers to the throne of God in Revelation. Also numerous OT examples of Moses, Abraham, Job and others interceding or petitioning God for another.

The OT examples must also be viewed in the context of the Nicene creed stating that Christ is uncreated. His sacrfice goes back to the OT faithful, who are considered members of the Church (the transfiguration being an example). Orthodox teaches that Christ had several preincarnate appearances, one being a representation of the Trinity, when the three angels appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre. It is also believed that no man could see God's face and live, so the prophets' visions are taken to be visions of the Son preincarnate.

Also that Elijah (Enoch as well) was translated to heaven and the nature of heaven, also seen in Revelation, as being in communion with God, and that this communion exists regardless of physical death, having started in this life; so the earthly Church sees worship as communion with God, and also a state of the faithful. Plus, the teachings of our true death taking place at baptism and our resurection takes place, in a sense, in this life.

These all contribute to the doctrine of the Church in heaven being one with the Church on earth. They are described as the Church triumphant (having already conquered the evil one), and the Church militant (still waging the battle). There are a few other theological views that support this belief, but this is from the top of my head.

[WesWoodell]

Interesting

[Tetzel]

Transubstantiation? No. That the bread and wine are Jesus' body and blood in some mystical way? Yes.
Lutherans believe similarlyt. True blood, true body are received in the eucharist, but to try to explain exactly how it happens is asserting things that are not backed up.