Which Church is closer to Orthodoxy?

[nikephoros_spatharios]

Of the various denominations, which one do you think is closer to the Orthodox Church? It is often assumed that we are closer to the so-called Roman Catholics, but I am not that convinced, given the substantial differences in ecclesiology, and also the numerous theological innovations introduced by the Latins post-1054.

Don't limit yourselves to one denomination if you can think of more than one which is closer. I don't know much about the various branches of Protestants to give my own opinion.

PS: The Oriental Orthodox are probably closer to us in general; my question is more about the western Churches.

[Orthodox Andrew]

None are too close. However, here's the ones I think are the closest in order from first to last.

1. Roman Catholicism
2. Lutheranism
3. Anglicanism

[Orthodox Andrew]

BTW, Orthodox Roman?:scratch: :)

[Lotar]

Probably the conservative branch of the Anglo-Catholic movement. Though not Anglicans as a whole, as their beliefs are as varied as can be, a Bishop can even openly deny the Creed.

Maybe orthodox Lutherans, though the pietists are closer to Catholics, but we declared them "not orthodox," which is PC for heretical. :P

Other than those two, you are probably much closer to Rome than any of the other Protestants.

[nikephoros_spatharios]

BTW, Orthodox Roman?:scratch: :)
I wanted to use Roman Catholic, but it is taken...


http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Byzantine-Empire

The state now commonly referred to as the Byzantine Empire was never known by that name in its own time. It was called the Roman Empire or, in later centuries, Romania. Its people, who were mostly Greek-speaking, called themselves Romans (in Greek (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Greek-language): Romaioi). The term Byzantine Empire was invented and popularised by the 18th century French historian Montesquieu (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Charles-de-Secondat,-Baron-de-Montesquieu). Like many classicists of his time, Montesquieu regarded the Empire after the 5th century AD as corrupt and decadent, and not worthy of the name "Roman." So he coined a new name, taken from Byzantion, the original Greek name of the city of Constantinople.

[Orthodox Andrew]

I wanted to use Roman Catholic, but it is taken...
Next time call it sooner.:D

[Moros]

Moravians.

[Kripost]

For purpose of discussion I will leave out Non-Latin rite Catholics.

In terms of Liturgy, I would say the Roman Catholics. But that is open to debate, since Novus Ordo is quite different in form. In which case, the Tridentine mass or the Anglican liturgy may be more similar.
In terms of eccelsiological organization, probably closer to the Anglicans, although the question of Apostolic Succession is in doubt.
In terms of Marian devotion, definitely Roman Catholics, although there exist important differences in dogma. Anglo-catholics may be included as well.
In terms of the use of calendar, I would say none, since nobody else uses the Modified Gregorian Calendar or the Julian Calendar.
In terms of theology in general, I can't really say. The approach to theology is too different to compare. The difference in the doctrine of Original Sin affects soteriology profoundly, for example.

Regarding the Sacraments, I don't know enough about how the Anglican and Lutheran Church sees them.

I think many people assume that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are similar, because of the superficial similarities, such as observation of feast day, and the use of sacramants.

[Edit]: I forgot to mention priests.

[prodromos]

I wanted to use Roman Catholic, but it is taken...

Even the Turks know that it was Romans they conquered. Has anyone noticed the mailing address of the Constantinople Patriarchate?

Rum Patrikhanesi*
34220 Fener
Halic Istanbul, Turkey

* (Rum = Roman)

[TomUK]

Probably the conservative branch of the Anglo-Catholic movement. Though not Anglicans as a whole, as their beliefs are as varied as can be

Exactly- in issues like this the Anglican church can't be viewed from just one perspective. Though there are members of the Anglican church who could hardly be further from Orthodoxy, there others who share much with you. I believe that a couple of weeks ago, an Orthodox Christian said if faced with choosing going to either a Catholic church or one of the more traditional Anglican ones, he would go Anglican.

[The Prokeimenon!]

I was reading a letter by St Theophan the Recluse to a person who inquired about an evangelical preacher who had come to town. He identified "four degrees of the fall into falsehood and darkness." The first was Roman Catholic (the Latin Church, if you will), the second was Protestant, the third was Anglican, and the fourth was those who sprang forth from the Anglicans (i.e. "English Seperatists", what we might call Baptists or Evangelicals in the USA).

As for who is closest to Orthodoxy, there was a time when relations were very warm between the Orthodox and the Anglicans. This is no longer the case, because despite the devout and very conservative Anglicans, their Church has drifted too far. There are women priests and homosexual bishops. (This is in no way an attack on the Anglican Faithful.) I don't know if the Anglican situation is as bad in the rest of the world, but in the USA it's pretty bad.

Kripost summed up our differences with Catholics quite well.

As for Protestants, there's just too many to even compare.

I'm not sure I answered the question, but I enjoyed writing :)

Moses

[countrymousenc]

In terms of soteriology, the Methodists and various Wesleyans might qualify. Their soteriology is less Western than the other Western churches. They recognize the necessity of good works and discipline (at least theoretically), and emphasize Christ's resurrection (being "Easter people"), and believe that all people, by God's grace, have both the opportunity and responsibility to respond to God with "yes." They also do not view Original Sin as a passing on of guilt, but more similar to us, as passing on of the effects.

[NewToLife]

Probably the conservative branch of the Anglo-Catholic movement. Though not Anglicans as a whole, as their beliefs are as varied as can be, a Bishop can even openly deny the Creed.


As an ex Anglican I would definitely agree with the above, conservative Anglo catholics believe essentially the same things as Orthodox but this cannot be said of Anglicanism as a whole, I know of a number of Orthodox who have found Orthodoxy from the Anglo Catholic wing of Anglicanism. Aside of this Roman catholics seem closest.

[Kripost]

In terms of soteriology, the Methodists and various Wesleyans might qualify. Their soteriology is less Western than the other Western churches. They recognize the necessity of good works and discipline (at least theoretically), and emphasize Christ's resurrection (being "Easter people"), and believe that all people, by God's grace, have both the opportunity and responsibility to respond to God with "yes." They also do not view Original Sin as a passing on of guilt, but more similar to us, as passing on of the effects.

Speaking of which, didn't Wesley have some interaction with the Orthodox?

[isshinwhat]

They also do not view Original Sin as a passing on of guilt, but more similar to us, as passing on of the effects.

As I hope can be seen from the following paragraphs from the Catechism of the Cathoilc Church, this, too, is our view of Original Sin.


404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". 293 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=404&FNoteNum=293) By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. 294 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=404&FNoteNum=294) It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.
405 Although it is proper to each individual, 295 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=405&FNoteNum=295) original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".
May the Good Lord give us patience and wisdom as we seek reconciliation and healing in Chirst's Church.

St. Michael protect us, Mary pray for us, Christ be our light and guide.

God Bless,

Neal

[Rilian]

Probably the best way to ascertain which is closest is to look at how converts, both laity and clergy, are received into the Orthodox Church. Despite many of the things I’ve read on this board and other places, I have a hard time believing the Catholic Church is not the closest. In the mission I’ve been attending there are several intermarried Orthodox/Catholic couples and when I’ve spoken to the non-Orthodox spouses they have all stated that they feel very much at home in the liturgy of the church even though they don’t receive communion.

There are similarities with parts of Anglicanism, especially in terms of the general ecclesial model of the church as an autonomous entity under a bishop standing in equality with all other bishops. However, though the English Reformation began as a political movement, it quickly gained religious significance and often became highly iconoclastic as was noted by Eamon Duffy in his book “The Stripping of the Altars”. It should be remembered though that between the time of Cranmer and the Tractarian movement in the 19th century, the Church of England was essentially Protestant in nature. The church still holds on to elements of both aspects of this past. Generally I believe the real presence is accepted in Anglicanism, but I have been in churches that replaced the altar with a holy table and I would not be surprised to find the congregation for the most part viewed the Eucharist solely as a memorial. Even the highest of Anglicans in my experience also have a conception of church authority which is frankly very Protestant.

Kripost, there was a recent meeting (http://gbgm-umc.org/mission/news/methorth.html) between Orthodox and Methodist scholars and a book (http://www.reporterinteractive.org/news/011404/bk011404.htm) came out after it. Wesley was versed in the church fathers and one of the many similarities was his view of Christian Perfection which mirrors Orthodox deification in many respects.

[countrymousenc]

Speaking of which, didn't Wesley have some interaction with the Orthodox?

I haven't run across any references to that effect. However, he did have significant interaction with the Moravians, whose roots go back to Orthodoxy. Their soteriology is most likely very similar.

[ufonium2]

I'm gonna throw this one out and immediately run away.....get ready for it. I know the theology is about as different as it gets, but as far as attitude....Southern Baptist. *ufonium2 runs for the hills, but then comes back to explain*

The SBC is not worried about appearing "tolerant" and they aren't going to change their doctrine because someone might call them bigots. They realize that God doesn't play by our rules, and that trying to remake His church in our image is wrong. They understand that while God loves sinners, He expects us to try and avoid sin as much as possible. They may have crazy ideas about what constitutes a sin, but at least they understand it's to be avoided and not embraced.

They believe their church is the church of the New Testament and most SBC members will tell you that theirs is the true church. Of course, they are wrong, but at least they believe it and stick to their guns. None of this "every denomination is flawed, go to the church that feels most comfortable" business.

When I decided to become Orthodox, my Southern Baptist and "fundie" friends were actually way more supportive than the Episcopal and Presbyterian ones. I think they appreciate the hard line that Orthodoxy takes, even though it's basically a totally different line.

It could just be because I live in the south, but most of the converts at my church were Southern Baptist, as were my priest and my bishop.

[Rilian]

I wanted to use Roman Catholic, but it is taken...

Oddly, I actually believe that term is regarded as being offensive by our Catholic brothers and sisters.

I've found the history surrounding the eastern half of the Roman empire to be an almost complete black hole in my knowledge. I looked through the Romanides site linked on your web page Nikephoros and found it interesting, do you know of any other good English language sources?

[Eusebios]

Interestingly enough Ufonium, I don't think you're crazy on your assertion. There are similarities as Terry MATTINGLY POINTS OUT IN HIS OP-ED (caps lock stuck again!:mad: ) piece in Again Magazine.
Every time I take th on-line fait quizz though LCMS is what comes up second, hmm.. :scratch:
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.
:bow:

[isshinwhat]

Hmmm... My Southern Baptist ex-fiancee left me because I converted to the Catholic Church, and I have a gentleman at work who brought in his pastor to talk with me and try to "bring me back into the fold." I think it just depends on the person.

I am very happy that you had a good experience with your conversion.

God Bless,

Neal

[The Prokeimenon!]

I have to agree with isshinwhat on this one. My Baptist ex-pastor attended my Orthodox wedding and said it was a "stench in the nose of God."

Moses

[Lilac]

Nike:

The closest churches to Orthodox I think are Anglican and Catholic.

But in reality, there is no other like the Orthodox. It's very unique.

God Bless You in your journey of the faith~~

[DjHurricane]

hello friends,
The Roman Catholic and Nestorian Churches without a glimmer of a doubt! These are both Apostolic churches with lines as valid as our own. Yes, SBs are very socially conservative, but when it comes to theology and most importantly valid lines from Christ, The Roman Catholic and Nestorian Churches are one and the same as us in christ's One only holy catholic and apostolic church (btw i am new and expect the "only holy catholic and apostolic church" church thing form me a lot, i believe very strongly in it :) ). High Church Anglicans are also close, but there are questions about their apostolic lines not to mention the low churches within their communion. But as Far as Protestants Go Anglicans are leaps and bounds ahead of the others, although still clearly behind The RC and nestorian Churches.

-DJ Hurricane

[Lotar]

Nestorian? Do you mean non-chaldean?

[nikephoros_spatharios]

Oddly, I actually believe that term is regarded as being offensive by our Catholic brothers and sisters.

I've found the history surrounding the eastern half of the Roman empire to be an almost complete black hole in my knowledge. I looked through the Romanides site linked on your web page Nikephoros and found it interesting, do you know of any other good English language sources?
(1) Words are used both because of what they mean and what they identify. "Catholic" for example is used to signify wholeness and universality, but also to identify a particular Christian denomination. In my opinion the Orthodox Church is Catholic, but if I said "I'm Catholic", then 99% of the people would infer that I follow the Bishop of Rome.

I wonder why Catholics think that "Roman Catholic" is offensive. Is there a thread somewhere in CF where they explain this?

(2) John Julius Norwich has written a history of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire in three volumes; there is also a single-volume concise version. There are also several books by the late Sir Steven Runciman; I particularly liked his "Byzantine Civilisation".

In general the Byzantines called themselves Romans and the westerners Latins or sometimes Franks. "Frank" was a general name for western Europeans in the Eastern Mediterranean, and it continues to be used to a certain degree.

[Rilian]

(1) Words are used both because of what they mean and what they identify. "Catholic" for example is used to signify wholeness and universality, but also to identify a particular Christian denomination. In my opinion the Orthodox Church is Catholic, but if I said "I'm Catholic", then 99% of the people would infer that I follow the Bishop of Rome.


I actually just finished reading Metropolitan John of Pergamon's book on the Eucharist and bishops in the early church. He gave me a whole new perspective on the meaning and history of the word catholic in the context of the church up to the fourth century.

I don't have anymore info on using the term Roman Catholic, but I'm pretty sure most Catholics don't care for it.

Thanks for the book recommendations, I'll take a look at those.

[Photini]

I wonder why Catholics think that "Roman Catholic" is offensive. Is there a thread somewhere in CF where they explain this?

There is a thread in OBOB started by KennySe: www.christianforums.com/t85280 (http://www.christianforums.com/t85280)

[DjHurricane]

to clarify, nestorian=Assyrian Church of the East separated (actually for a theological reason ie heretical christology unline the political splits in 451 and 1054) in 325.

[Michael the Iconographer]

In my view, or atleast the view which I have developed since being Chrismated 5 years ago, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are two sides of the same coin. There are some aspects of Rome (Marian Devotion, Liturgy, Apostolic Succession of the Bishops, honor given to the Saints, Reverence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, etc.) where Rome is so very like Orthodox Christianity. However, there are some areas of Rome (Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction, Papal Infallibility, some of the stronger Marian Devotions which border on adoration, the Iconoclasm which has struck many of Romes churches after Vat 2, the influence of Scholasticism in Roman Theology, etc.) which differ greatly from the way we Orthodox view things. There are also some things which some of the more traditional Protestants understand which come much more close to Orthodoxy than Rome does. The High Anglicans get the idea that Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction and Infallibility are not ideas which could be easily defeneded from the point of view of the early church, and they also seem to understand our reverence for the Eucharist and reverence for the Saints. But in the end, to me they are both just different sides of the same coin, and much more alike each other than like Orthodoxy. Again, that is just my humble opinion.

[Matthias]

Hmmm, I think the exact opposite of most here. I believe Orthodoxy is 99% identical to Catholicism, but those 1% minor differences are worth a conversion.