How do Orthodox view Protestants/Catholics?

[Stefan Davidovich]

I've been thinking about the Orthodox church a lot lately (i'm not Orthodox) as I've been trying to formulate my own theology (what seems true to me...maybe this is inappropriate language in the Orthodox church - feel free to help me out where i go wrong) and approach to worship (i'm training to be a minister in the Protestant church at this time).

Interestingly enough i have found tremendous help from tradition as i've been sorting this through (i mentioned this once before on another thread) and i continue to struggle with which tradition to follow (at this point i have tried to go back to the earliest church and to the great men and women of faith or saints).

In any case, i have a great deal of respect for the Orthodox church and there are many elements that strongly appeal to me (your understanding of Transubstantiation in particular - perhaps you would not use this term). I am wondering if someone (or persons) could tell me how the Orthodox church views the non-Orthodox Christian (maybe it wouldn't even be called Christian) church (Protestant and Catholic)...

Among Protestants there are major points and minor points (at least in my mind) and i guess there is variability on what these are and many Protestant churches have gone 'astray' even on the major points (i think because of a lack of rooting in tradition)...are there major and minor points in the Orthodox church? We all have different definitions of heresy - where does that line fall for the Orthodox church? What are your major concerns (if this is an acceptable question) with the Protestant church. Where would you say we have gone very wrong. Are there areas where you would allow difference and others where you think that we are close to heresy or are all points equally important?

This is not meant to be divisive...i'm genuinely interested and hoping to learn the truth. I have profound respect for the Orthodox church.

thank you for your time

Stephen

[Dust and Ashes]

I would recommend the book Thirsting for God in a Land of Shallow Wells (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1888212284/103-7005415-5000642?v=glance) by Matthew Gallatin to help clarify most of the differences. It is a very well written book and is easy to understand as it is written from the perspective of a Protestant minister who systematically studies the theologies of the various Protestant movements he was involved in before coming to Orthodoxy. He basically recounts his journey and covers all the reasons he was unsatisfied with Protestant doctrines and theology and how he came to be Orthodox.

[MariaRegina]

Dear Stefan:

Actually a Greek Council did use the word Transubstantiation (Maximus mentioned this in a post somewhere here). It's just that we don't define things the way the Roman Catholic church does. Our Church tends to be more mystical and that aspect is seen in the two books that were recommended above.

I'll let the others complete the rest of the answers.

ysic
Elizabeth

[MariaRegina]

I would recommend the book Thirsting for God in a Land of Shallow Wells (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1888212284/103-7005415-5000642?v=glance) by Matthew Gallatin to help clarify most of the differences. It is a very well written book and is easy to understand as it is written from the perspective of a Protestant minister who systematically studies the theologies of the various Protestant movements he was involved in before coming to Orthodoxy. He basically recounts his journey and covers all the reasons he was unsatisfied with Protestant doctrines and theology and how he came to be Orthodox.

This is a very excellent book. Another good one by Clark Carlton (The Way) is available through Regina Press which is having their annual Lenten Sale at www.reginaorthodoxpress.com or your may call them toll free at 1-800-636-2470.

ysic
Elizabeth

[Philip]

In any case, i have a great deal of respect for the Orthodox church and there are many elements that strongly appeal to me (your understanding of Transubstantiation in particular - perhaps you would not use this term).

You are correct. We would not use that term.

I am wondering if someone (or persons) could tell me how the Orthodox church views the non-Orthodox Christian (maybe it wouldn't even be called Christian) church (Protestant and Catholic)...

In general, we see them as separated Christian brothers. We do not spend too much time discussing the fate of their souls since we do not presume to know God's judgement. We are certain that we are Christians -- we believe that Orthodoxy is The Church. We know where the Church is. We do not know where it is not.

Among Protestants there are major points and minor points (at least in my mind) and i guess there is variability on what these are and many Protestant churches have gone 'astray' even on the major points (i think because of a lack of rooting in tradition)...are there major and minor points in the Orthodox church? We all have different definitions of heresy - where does that line fall for the Orthodox church?

We have few dogmas that must be believe. The Creed states them wonderfully. The focus of Orthodoxy is the celebration of the Incarnation and the worship of the Holy Trinity.

What are your major concerns (if this is an acceptable question) with the Protestant church. Where would you say we have gone very wrong.

My personal 'concerns' apply to the West in general (both Catholicism and Protestantm). First is the western understanding of justification. The second is the way Scriptures are read. We believe that Scripture is not interpreted by a single person or a group of persons -- not the individual believer, and not the pope. It is only interpretted by the life of the Church.

Are there areas where you would allow difference and others where you think that we are close to heresy or are all points equally important?


We are not legalistic.

[Aymn27]

You are correct. We would not use that term.



In general, we see them as separated Christian brothers. We do not spend too much time discussing the fate of their souls since we do not presume to know God's judgement. We are certain that we are Christians -- we believe that Orthodoxy is The Church. We know where the Church is. We do not know where it is not.



We have few dogmas that must be believe. The Creed states them wonderfully. The focus of Orthodoxy is the celebration of the Incarnation and the worship of the Holy Trinity.



My personal 'concerns' apply to the West in general (both Catholicism and Protestantm). First is the western understanding of justification. The second is the way Scriptures are read. We believe that Scripture is not interpreted by a single person or a group of persons -- not the individual believer, and not the pope. It is only interpretted by the life of the Church.



We are not legalistic.
Philip,
I too am very interested in Orthodoxy and was wondering about your justification comment. Could you please elaborate or give me a good book/website that goes into this further. Your help would be much appreciated!!

Blessings and peace,
Aaron

[Eusebios]

Stefan,
Nice to have you here at TAW! :)
In regard to the question regarding the view of Orthodox towards Protestabts abd Roman Catholics, most of us here are converts to Orthodoxy from one of these two traditions. (I know there are exceptions :) )
I came to Orthodoxy from the Protestant tradition, and I feel a great debt of gratitude toward the various strains that I experienced (there were several).Each provided me with a sliver of truth, in Orthodoxy I have found the fulness and completion of the faith. So, I view Protestants with a great deal of respect, and as my separated brothers and sisters in Christ.
My favorite Aunt and Uncle are devout Roman Catholics. They are some of the most genuine people I know, and they attend a beautiful old parish (St. Hedwigs in Toledo, OH). My uncle has been active there since he was a boy and attended morning mass every day from the time he was 6 until he was 18. That is the kind of devotion that one can only admire. So I view sincere RC's as I do Protestants.
Again, nice to have you with us, and your questions are always welcome.
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.
:bow:

[Philip]

Philip,
I too am very interested in Orthodoxy and was wondering about your justification comment. Could you please elaborate or give me a good book/website that goes into this further. Your help would be much appreciated!!

Blessings and peace,
Aaron

In short, we do not have a forensic view of justification. We see justification and sanctification as an on-going process that is more closely described with medical terms rather than legal ones.

I think this article is helpful. (Thanks, Marjorie)
http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/Justification.htm

I will right more when I have a chance.

[Stefan Davidovich]

As a guest i am permitted only to ask questions (and trust me i have no desire to debate) but if i am permitted I would like to say that I love the Orthodox view of justification. I think the forensic model in the Western churches is a misunderstanding (I think i'm allowed to say that cause I am from the west) and it continues to get us into trouble! Thanks all for your insight.

[Monica, child of God]

:wave: Hi Stephan,
I would encourage you to visit an Orthodox Church. I am not saying this because I think you should convert (though that would be fine by me :). I think that Protestants should experience how scripture is handled in our Tradition. Though Protestants generally hold to sola scriptura and spend a lot of time studying and preaching from scripture, there is a richness and reverence in the way the Orthodox handle the Bible. I believe in your original post that you mentioned that you were looking into the right approach to worship. Visiting an Orthodox church may help in your research.

Blessings!
Monica

[Maximus]

You might want to read the article, The River of Fire (http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/riveroffire.html), by Alexander Kalomiros. It explains some of the differences in the Orthodox and Latin viewpoints.

A good book on the Orthodox doctrine of salvation is Clark Carlton's The Life: The Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation.

[Vasya Davidovich]

In any case, i have a great deal of respect for the Orthodox church and there are many elements that strongly appeal to me (your understanding of Transubstantiation in particular - perhaps you would not use this term).
Most Orthodox do not. I have heard it said that Orthodoxy is like a corral - there is room for a range of private belief within the Traditions of the Church. Thus a person may privately belief in the specific doctrine of Transubstantiation, while the Church only asks that they belief that the bread and the wine are the real and actual Body and Blood of Christ.
I am wondering if someone (or persons) could tell me how the Orthodox church views the non-Orthodox Christian (maybe it wouldn't even be called Christian) church (Protestant and Catholic)...
We know where the Church is, but not where it is not. Again, if the Church is a corral, it is safer in the corral. The shepherd guards his sheep, and there are fences to prevent the sheep from straying. (Some slip out anyway.) Now, just because a sheep is outside the corral does not mean that it will necessarily be consumed the ravening wolf. However, it is riskier to be outside the corral, and for that reason the Orthodox Church urges all to enter within her fold.
Among Protestants there are major points and minor points (at least in my mind) and i guess there is variability on what these are and many Protestant churches have gone 'astray' even on the major points (i think because of a lack of rooting in tradition)...are there major and minor points in the Orthodox church? We all have different definitions of heresy - where does that line fall for the Orthodox church?
The major points? Tradition. The minor points? traditions. That would be the easiest way of characterizing it. For an understanding of Church Tradition, I recommend looking at the seven Ecumenical Councils, the Hesychastic Controversy (ref. St. Gregory Palamas), and the writings of the Church Fathers. There are more modern Saints and theologians who have packaged Church Tradition a trifle more neatly... more accessible, perhaps, to the modern mind. I am sure that my brothers and sisters in TAW may have some good recommendations for you, both on these latter writers as well as the Church Fathers.
What are your major concerns (if this is an acceptable question) with the Protestant church. Where would you say we have gone very wrong.
The Protestant church, to the Orthodox mind, is but the other side of the intellectual and theological coin minted by the Catholic church. As such, there are concerns that we have common to both Catholics and Protestants. Personally, I would point to the over-emphasis on Augustinian thought and the devastating effects of Scholasticism as being key to all later Protestant and Catholic theology.
Are there areas where you would allow difference and others where you think that we are close to heresy or are all points equally important?
Most things are important. Liturgy is important, for example, as it too teaches us. Music is important, as it can be so easily abused.

As far as doctrine goes? Not everything has been pronounced heretical in a council, although it may clearly be a heresy. I doubt that Orthodox have condemned the Name It and Claim It heresy of the so-called Prosperity Gospel. If you are interested in what constitutes a heresy, I refer you back to Church Tradition and the writings of the Church's great Saints and theologians.

Hope this helps,
Your brother Vasya.

[Orthosdoxa]

I thought about recommending the River of Fire, too, but it's pretty meaty. Not that it's a bad recommendation, just warning you in advance - please bring any questions on it here and we can help. :) Then again, maybe I'm just a slowpoke in thinking so. All I know is that when I first tried to read it, I was only ready for milk at that time and choked on some parts.

Do let us know what you decide to read and what you think of them. I'm esp all for reading ANYTHING by Clark Carlton - he's da bomb. And I happen to know Matthew Gallatin, who wrote "Thirsting for God in a land of shallow wells" (Well, don't know him WELL - he attends our sister parish and I've just met him a time or two. But still, that gives me license to give a special recommendation on his book! :D)

[Xpycoctomos]

... but it's pretty meaty...

mmmm.....

[Aymn27]

I thought about recommending the River of Fire, too, but it's pretty meaty. Not that it's a bad recommendation, just warning you in advance - please bring any questions on it here and we can help. :) Then again, maybe I'm just a slowpoke in thinking so. All I know is that when I first tried to read it, I was only ready for milk at that time and choked on some parts.

Do let us know what you decide to read and what you think of them. I'm esp all for reading ANYTHING by Clark Carlton - he's da bomb. And I happen to know Matthew Gallatin, who wrote "Thirsting for God in a land of shallow wells" (Well, don't know him WELL - he attends our sister parish and I've just met him a time or two. But still, that gives me license to give a special recommendation on his book! :D)
LOL..ok, I printed out the text from the link above and am having some trouble getting my mind around Eastern concepts ...of course, I am trained in Western thought (I almost have a Master's in Pastoral Studies in a RC program). Actually, the more "liberal" theologians refer to Eastern thought quite a bit so I do have some knowledge - I think since Vatican II theologians are rediscovering Eastern theology and saints and Roman theology is beginning to benefit from it (my class on Christology actually presents the Eastern view as superior to the Western - as well as a "new" (at least to us Westerners) understanding of Baptism (it more closely resembles your theology). Thanks for book recommendations and offers to help!

Blessings and peace,
Aaron

[Maximus]

There is an extremely important difference between Orthodox and Latins on the subject of authority.

Latins believe that the current hierarchy of their Church, in communion with and subject to the Pope, comprises an infallible "magisterium."

That magisterium cannot err in its dogmatic and moral pronouncements, even when they appear to contradict the teachings of past magisteriums.

If someone, especially a lay person, were to believe that the current hierarchy was teaching something inimical and contradictory to the historic faith, that person could not possibly be right, because it is impossible for the magisterium to do that sort of thing.

The Orthodox view is very different.

For us, the Church is the whole Body of Christ, all the people of God.

Our clergy are our shepherds, but they can err and have erred grievously in the past.

Sometimes only a handful of faithful clerics and/or lay persons have stood up for the faith against the vast majority of the hierarchy, as in the days when the Arians gained the upper hand in the mid-4th century, or when the Monothelites were ascendant in the mid-7th century and killed Pope St. Martin I and St. Maximus and his companions. St. Maximus was a simple monk and not even ordained.

We Orthodox believe the faith can be known and understood and ought to be. When and if hierarchs begin preaching heresy, we are under no obligation to obey or follow them, even if they form a majority of the clergy.

In fact, it is our duty to oppose heresy.

This is not the same thing as "private interpretation" a la Sola Scriptura.

It is the life of the Holy Spirit in His Church and rests upon the whole of the Apostolic Tradition stretching back to our Lord and His Apostles and even to the Prophets and Patriarchs of the Old Testament.

[Aymn27]

There is an extremely important difference between Orthodox and Latins on the subject of authority.

Latins believe that the current hierarchy of their Church, in communion with and subject to the Pope, comprises an infallible "magisterium."

That magisterium cannot err in its dogmatic and moral pronouncements, even when they appear to contradict the teachings of past magisteriums.

If someone, especially a lay person, were to believe that the current hierarchy was teaching something inimical and contradictory to the historic faith, that person could not possibly be right, because it is impossible for the magisterium to do that sort of thing.

The Orthodox view is very different.

For us, the Church is the whole Body of Christ, all the people of God.

Our clergy are our shepherds, but they can err and have erred grievously in the past.

Sometimes only a handful of faithful clerics and/or lay persons have stood up for the faith against the vast majority of the hierarchy, as in the days when the Arians gained the upper hand in the mid-4th century, or when the Monothelites were ascendant in the mid-7th century and killed Pope St. Martin I and St. Maximus and his companions. St. Maximus was a simple monk and not even ordained.

We Orthodox believe the faith can be known and understood and ought to be. When and if hierarchs begin preaching heresy, we are under no obligation to obey or follow them, even if they form a majority of the clergy.

In fact, it is our duty to oppose heresy.

This is not the same thing as "private interpretation" a la Sola Scriptura.

It is the life of the Holy Spirit in His Church and rests upon the whole of the Apostolic Tradition stretching back to our Lord and His Apostles and even to the Prophets and Patriarchs of the Old Testament.
Which is exactly why I'm looking elsewhere! I have been having some trouble (at least by Roman standards) of agreeing with the doctrines of infallibility of the Pope and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. I also don't like the fact that they treat transubstantiation like an absolute truth (although I believe in the doctrine) - I fail to see how one is a heretic if he/she believes that it occurs differently, as long as they believe that Jesus is truly present, I believe that is enough (not entering into the validity argument though).

Blessings and peace,
Aaron

[Maximus]

Which is exactly why I'm looking elsewhere! I have been having some trouble (at least by Roman standards) of agreeing with the doctrines of infallibility of the Pope and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. I also don't like the fact that they treat transubstantiation like an absolute truth (although I believe in the doctrine) - I fail to see how one is a heretic if he/she believes that it occurs differently, as long as they believe that Jesus is truly present, I believe that is enough (not entering into the validity argument though).

Blessings and peace,
Aaron

Of course, we Orthodox do believe in transubstantiation, as long as that word is taken to mean only that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist are completely transformed into the true Body and Blood of Christ. In other words, there is no place in Orthodoxy for consubstantiation, for a merely spiritual presence, or for symbolism alone.

The reason some Orthodox are reluctant to use the word transubstantiation is because of its association, in their minds, with medieval Scholasticism. That is a shame, because transubstantiation is a perfectly good word and was used in several Orthodox confessions of faith, like those of Dositheus and Peter Moghila.

[Aymn27]

Of course, we Orthodox do believe in transubstantiation, as long as that word is taken to mean only that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist are completely transformed into the true Body and Blood of Christ. In other words, there is no place in Orthodoxy for consubstantiation, for a merely spiritual presence, or for symbolism alone.

The reason some Orthodox are reluctant to use the word transubstantiation is because of its association, in their minds, with medieval Scholasticism. That is a shame, because transubstantiation is a perfectly good word and was used in several Orthodox confessions of faith, like those of Dositheus and Peter Moghila.
Yes, I totally agree...thanks for insight.

Aaron

[blakesto]

Of course, we Orthodox do believe in transubstantiation, as long as that word is taken to mean only that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist are completely transformed into the true Body and Blood of Christ. In other words, there is no place in Orthodoxy for consubstantiation, for a merely spiritual presence, or for symbolism alone.

The reason some Orthodox are reluctant to use the word transubstantiation is because of its association, in their minds, with medieval Scholasticism. That is a shame, because transubstantiation is a perfectly good word and was used in several Orthodox confessions of faith, like those of Dositheus and Peter Moghila.

I was asking my priest about this, and I was under the impression that the Orthodox stance is more similar to consubstantiation than transubstantiation. Consubstantiation does not mean it's just spiritual or symbolic. I thought that transubstantiation to the Catholics, besides taking away the mystery, also says that it is bread and wine no longer, whereas consubstantiation says that it is the body and blood of Christ, but it is also still bread and wine.

[Rilian]

Consubstantiation is a heretical belief. One of the most important Orthodox councils after the seven ecumenical councils was the Synod of Jerusalem (http://users.stargate.net/~elcore/ConfessionOfDositheus.htm) in 1672. I'll quote one section of Decree XVII which covers the Eucharist

truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, <145> transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin {Mary ELC}, was baptised in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sitteth at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

Further, that the all-pure Body Itself, and Blood of the Lord is imparted, and entereth into the mouths and stomachs of the communicants, <146> whether pious or impious. Nevertheless, they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and life eternal; but to the impious and unworthy involve condemnation and eternal punishment.

What they were really refuting here was the belief floating around in Lutheranism in consubstantiation and the idea that the efficacy of the sacrament was dependent on the belief of the recipient. They pretty much agreed with what had been formulated at Trent.

We believe that the elements become the true body and blood of Christ. They do not coexist with the bread and wine once the epiklesis takes place. What we haven't done is speculate to the extent some theologians did in the West about what is going on, but frankly we pretty much believe the same thing when all is said and done.

[blakesto]

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

Interesting. What do they mean by "species" and "form"? And how is saying that it is no longer bread in its substance, but the accidents of bread remain, any different from Aquinas' explanation that was considered to be "explaining away" a mystery? I was always under the impression that there was no attempt to explain it in terms such as this in the Orthodox Church.

[Stefan Davidovich]

This is great stuff. Thank you all. As questions come up I will continue to ask as you have all been very helpful.

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

This is great stuff. Thank you all. As questions come up I will continue to ask as you have all been very helpful.

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen
That's a very nice icon of St. Stephen (your picture thing). He's the patron saint of the parish I attend.:)

[Stefan Davidovich]

I do have another question. How do Orthodox feel about sharing in communion with those who do not believe in Transubstantiation? At this point I am unhappy with how my church conducts communion. To me it seems to casual and even irreverant. The possibility of Transubstantiation (as it has been described by those of you who understand it better) certainly doesn't seem impossible (after all we serve the God of the impossible) to me (and of course how i feel is really irrelevant - what's true is true regardless of my particular feelings) and I have appreciated so much what i have witnessed in churches that have taught Transubstantiation...so for this reason and a couple other I have been seriously considering my theology.

But I'm curious whether or not you would feel comfortable communing with those who treat it differently. As i write this I think I know the answer - even I feel uncomfortable in settings where the attitude is less than reverent, so perhaps you would feel the same.

Well thank you for putting up with my questions. I am hungry for truth! By the way, if my questions ever get redundant please forgive me. My ignorance is embarassing at times.

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen

[Rilian]

I do have another question. How do Orthodox feel about sharing in communion with those who do not believe in Transubstantiation?

Eucharistic union does not extend beyond the boundaries of the church in Orthodoxy, in fact it is one of the markers of where the church is and isn't. Receiving communion is a privelage and not a right within the church. Normally one is in good standing, has confessed, fasted and is prepared to receive. The church strongly believes St. Paul's admonition that those who partake unworthily eat and drink condemnation unto themselves.

Basically there is really nothing taken more seriously in the church than communion. I believe when an Orthodox priest is ordained he is presented with the Lamb by the bishop and told something to the effect that how he guards the Lamb is how he will be judged.

[Rilian]

Interesting. What do they mean by "species" and "form"? And how is saying that it is no longer bread in its substance, but the accidents of bread remain, any different from Aquinas' explanation that was considered to be "explaining away" a mystery? I was always under the impression that there was no attempt to explain it in terms such as this in the Orthodox Church.

I think they're just explaining the same thing, the mystery of how the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ. Transubstantiation itself is a word from Greek roots, and these ideas have their basis in Greek thought. At least as far is it goes in trying to put in to words the mystery of what's happening, just as the Cappadocians used words like hypostatis and ousia to put in to words the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

I think there is some historical amnesia (odd for the Orthodox eh?) that certain modern Orthodox theologians have succumbed to regarding what the church has said about itself in the past. I think in large part it's unfortunately an effort to show how unlike the West we are. No doubt there are differences, but creating ones that don't exist I don't think is wise.

[Vasya Davidovich]

I do have another question. How do Orthodox feel about sharing in communion with those who do not believe in Transubstantiation?
You need to believe it to commune. There may be some who commune who do not believe - we cannot know the state of every man's heart, after all - but that is something that they have to square with God. It is, however, in direct prohibition to the rules. And I cannot see how anyone could commune with a clear conscience knowing that.

Most of the excommunication that goes on in the Orthodox Church is self-directed. If I have not fasted and prayed prior to DL, I am to excommunicate myself. If I am in a state of sin, I am to excommunicate myself. Rarely does this need to be stated expressly by a priest. Now, we are always in a state of sin, but Orthodox try to cut this down as much as possible by confessing before Communion and then praying and fasting in the interval.