Christian Discussion Thread V

[Diopolis]

In fact, I hope no one will mind if I repost my explanation of Catholic-Orthodox differences in full, given the fact that it was originally posted in the previous incarnation of the Christian thread after all... So, without further ado:

--- Const's list of doctrinal differences between Catholic and Orthodox Christians ---

First of all, I have to mention that this list is unofficial (obviously), and written from an Orthodox point of view. Catholics tend to claim that the theological differences are extremely small, or maybe even just a matter of misunderstanding (because, in general, the Catholic view is that the two Churches could reunite tomorrow if only the Orthodox weren't so nitpicky and stuborn). The Orthodox claim that the theological differences are more significant, and our view is that they represent a major barrier to any kind of reunification at the moment. But at the same time, obviously, we recognize that we have far more in common with the Catholics than with any Protestant group.

And now for the list itself. The differences are as follows:

1. The Filioque - Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Orthodox say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, although we also accept the phrase "from the Father through the Son". The original Creed stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mentioning the Son, and the Orthodox strictly adhere to the Creed as originally written. The phrase "and the Son" (which in Latin is one word: "filioque") was added in later centuries in the West. Catholics argue that this phrase makes no difference one way or the other, and that the Orthodox are just splitting hairs. The Orthodox argue that it makes a big difference, and that you can't just change the Creed willy-nilly like that.

2. Papal primacy - Catholics believe that one bishop (the bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope) is the head of the Church and has universal jurisdiction over other bishops and over all Christians. They also ascribe certain other unique roles to the Pope which no other bishop has. The Orthodox have no such "super-bishop". All bishops are equal. We do have Patriarchs, but they're just regular bishops who happen to be in charge of administrative matters over a certain area (i.e. what gets built and where, which priest gets appointed to which parish, and so on). They don't have any power to decide what Orthodox Christians believe.

3. Development of doctrine - the Catholic Church considers it acceptable to declare new doctrines which were not believed by Catholics in previous times. The Orthodox Church considers this idea to be insulting to God, since it implies that Jesus Christ did not tell us everything we need to know for salvation, but left it up to us to discover new requirements later. In the Orthodox view, while it's certainly possible to develop new opinions (= personal views about non-essential topics, which are not mandatory for all Christians), it is not possible to discover new doctrines (= beliefs that are mandatory for Christians). In other words, you can't impose new rules that weren't around before. All that is essential for salvation was known by the Church from the beginning. The Church may clarify doctrines or rephrase them in words that modern people can understand, but it cannot declare that something which was considered false in the past is to be considered true in the future.

The Orthodox don't just take issue with the Pope having the power to decide new doctrines; we take issue with anyone having that power.

Technically speaking, the pope does not have the power to decide new doctrines; he has the power to define doctrines. Catholic dogma is just as unchanging as orthodox dogma.

[Constantinopolis]

Ok, wow, I see a lot of responses to my list of Catholic-Orthodox differences, so please bear with me while I try to go through them. I'm certainly not going to be able to respond to all of them today. Also, I will not go in strict chronological order - newer comments that I can answer quickly will get priority over older comments that require longer responses.

3. Development of doctrine - the Catholic Church considers it acceptable to declare new doctrines which were not believed by Catholics in previous times. [...]

I am no expert, but I do not believe it is permissible in Catholicism to create a new doctrine from thin air. All Catholic doctrines are defined from pre-existing teachings and scriptural sources. Ergo, I don't think it's possible within Catholic teaching for something that was once wrong to become dogmatically right, or vice versa.

Yes, you're right about that. I see that I need to clarify what I meant.

The Catholic Church has, on several occasions, declared that an opinion which used to be held only by some parts of the Church, shall henceforth be considered official doctrine to be held by the entire Church, under pain of excommunication. So no, the Catholic magisterium did not make up new doctrines out of thin air. But they did elevate what used to be merely opinion (and not necessarily widespread opinion) to the status of official doctrine. This raises the question, what about Catholics in good standing who opposed these opinions long before they were granted the status of official doctrine?

For example, what about Catholics who opposed the ideas of the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility before the 19th century? They died Catholics in good standing, since these ideas - although they were already floating around - had not yet been codified as official doctrine, so it was possible to be a Catholic in good standing and oppose them. So, are there a bunch of people who died as Catholics in good standing but are now heretics in retrospect?

The Catholic Church has never outright contradicted its own past rulings when elevating new doctrines, but it has made the criteria for a "good Catholic" narrower than they used to be, meaning that some people who were considered good Catholics when they lived would no longer be considered good Catholics today, because they disagreed with certain ideas that were codified as doctrines in the mean time.

Papal Supremacy is another example of this, by the way. For centuries, the Pope of Rome was in communion with Eastern bishops who flatly denied his supremacy. The Pope and the Eastern bishops argued about it, but they did not break communion over it. Papal-Supremacy-deniers were in communion with the Catholic Church! Then the Great Schism came in the 11th century, and today such people would not be admitted to communion with the Catholic Church. So it was possible to be a Catholic in the 10th century and deny Papal Supremacy, but it is no longer possible today.

3. Development of doctrine - the Catholic Church considers it acceptable to declare new doctrines which were not believed by Catholics in previous times. [...]

Why were the councils regarded as capable of forming new doctrine? After all their exclusion of various parties is a historical fact, so it cannot be that it was a complete incidence of Christian unity. I suppose this is more in regards to the concepts of infallibilty, which I find odd that the Eastern Orthodox reject whilst speaking of the sacred tradition in similar language. This is what I admit I am most interested in finding out, wherever I look for a satisfactory answer it is usually vague and given the rather vacillating concerning later councils validity, as a understandable hesitation too make committal statements concerning the matter.

The Ecumenical Councils did not form new doctrine, nor did they elevate what was previously opinion to the status of doctrine. The Orthodox view of the Ecumenical Councils is that they were all called in response to a recent heresy that had been gaining momentum over the previous few decades, and they all re-affirmed and restored the status quo ante from before that heresy began.

In other words, we essentially believe that the purpose of an Ecumenical Council is to decide which of the parties is the traditionalist party, and then uphold the traditionalist position. When new wording is introduced, that is simply for the purpose of clarifying the traditional faith so that no one can get confused about it again in the future, after we noticed that many people got confused in the recent past.

Ecumenical Councils are a last resort, to make a final and binding ruling when the Church is faced with a major controversy that inflames passions and threatens to tear the Church apart, as the opposing sides accuse each other of heresy. You cannot call an Ecumenical Council because "hey, there's this opinion that has been held by some parts of the Church but not by others for several centuries, and I think we need to decide whether it's a matter of doctrine or not". If different parts of the Church have peacefully and respectfully disagreed on a given issue for a long time, with neither side accusing the other of heresy, then there's no problem, and no Council needs to be called.

For this reason, by the way, any summary of Orthodox doctrine is a lot shorter than a similar summary of Catholic doctrine, because the Orthodox Church only makes official and binding definitions of doctrine when she absolutely has to. And there has been no need to do this for over a thousand years now. The rule of thumb is, "if no one is making a huge fuss about it, the Church doesn't need to take a single official stance on it".

5. There are also certain differences in the understanding of Original Sin. The Orthodox Church generally views Original Sin (or "Ancestral Sin", as we sometimes call it) as a corrupting influence that made human beings predisposed to sin, but not as something carrying guilt for anyone alive today. Some Catholic and Protestant interpretations argue that present-day humans are guilty of Original Sin (but then again, certain Catholic posters in this thread have occasionally stated that this is not the official Catholic view).

I believe one of those Catholic posters was me, in my education at a Catholic high school, what I was taught much more closely mirrored the Orthodox position on Original Sin than the supposed Catholic / Protestant one. I'm not sure if this could be because my school was atypical among Catholic schools or not. It is notable that where I live has a fairly sizable Ukrainian Orthodox population, as well as Eastern Rite Catholics. The bishop at my graduation ceremony actually appeared to be an Eastern Rite bishop.

I've had different Catholics tell me entirely opposite things on this issue - some, like you, basically endorsing the Orthodox view, while others called it heretical - so I honestly don't know what the Catholic view on Original Sin is any more.

In this very thread (or, rather, the previous incarnation of it, CDT IV), there were Catholics on opposite sides on this issue.

7. "Satisfaction soteriology", or the view of salvation as a type of satisfaction of debt - ..... The Orthodox Church does not outright reject it, but we prefer to view sin more like an addiction or a disease, God more like a doctor, and the sacrifice of Christ more like the medicine that will cure you.

Again, in this case, my education resembled the Orthodox position moreso than the described Catholic one. Sometimes I wonder if my school was Eastern Rite, without my knowing? But would that make a difference? It also seems unlikely because the mass always seemed very western, and pretty informal.

I suspect that in recent times - perhaps after Vatican II? - certain parts of the Catholic Church have moved closer to the Orthodox view on a number of issues where there is no official Catholic doctrine or dogma explicitly denying the Orthodox view.

This is one of those issues where the difference is not officially codified as doctrine by either side, so there's nothing to stop Catholics moving closer to the Orthodox view (or vice versa, Orthodox moving closer to the Catholic view, for that matter) if they feel compelled to do so. I'd assume that having a large Eastern Rite presence in your area would make a difference in this regard, yes, even among Latin Rite Catholics. The more Orthodox-leaning ideas would be bouncing around in the Church culture, so to speak.

8. Indulgences - [...]

I don't think indulgences are said to be dispensed by the Church in modern times, but rather that earthly virtues can earn one a form of indulgence, in the form of shortening one's time in purgatory by their good deeds. It is also taught that purgatory can be endured during life, that those who suffer more in this life will have a shorter time spent in purgatory.

I knew about that last part (the Catholic view that suffering in this life can shorten one's time in purgatory), and that is also something rejected by the Orthodox Church, together with the notion of purgatory in general. Although, as I said, there are opinions - not doctrines - held by some individual Orthodox Christians who come close to the idea of purgatory.

However, whether or not indulgences can be dispensed or earned in modern times is another one of those topics where I get different answers from different Catholics. Again, in the previous edition of this thread some Catholics said that indulgences no longer exist, while Bari is insisting very strongly now that they do.

10. Papal infallibility - the idea that, under certain very strict conditions, the Pope has the power to make infallible statements. Obviously, the Orthodox reject any claim of infallibility attached to any one man.

Do the Orthodox at large have a proper understanding of how Papal Infallibility works? I know it is very common for the concept to be misunderstood.

Yes, it is very common to be misunderstood. And yes, I'd say that most Orthodox Christians - like most Protestants, and even a good chunk of Catholics - misunderstand the concept and assume it means "the Pope is always right" or something like that.

However, Orthodox theologians do know exactly what Papal infallibility actually means, and so do the better-informed Orthodox laymen at large. I specifically added the words "under certain very strict conditions" to my description of Papal infallibility precisely in order to make it clear that we reject it with full knowledge of what it means. We know it only applies under very specific conditions (the Pope must be speaking ex cathedra on issues of faith or morals concerning all Christians), and that it's extremely rare for a Pope to actually use this power. Still, we reject it, because no single bishop of the Church or any other individual human being can make infallible statements under any conditions.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Yes, I firmly believe that some of the claims are true. Or, at the very least, there are real splinters of the cross that St. Helena found being held by various churches around the world.

It is a matter of historical record that St. Helena, the mother of St. Constantine, found a cross during her pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the 320s, which was proclaimed to be the True Cross because miracles were witnessed in its presence. Now, you may deny that it was the True Cross if you wish, but in any case, some cross was found. Part of this cross remained in Jerusalem, and other parts were dispersed across the Roman world as gifts. They were treated with great reverence as precious relics, and over the centuries they were moved around, divided up into ever-smaller pieces, inherited, re-gifted, and occasionally stolen. No doubt many forgeries were made as well, especially in the High Middle Ages, when there was an outright relic-craze in Western Europe. But the important thing is, unless you believe that all of the original pieces systematically disappeared and were entirely replaced by forgeries - a highly unlikely scenario - then some of them must still be around. Some of the fragments currently believed to be of the True Cross must really be fragments of the True Cross; or, like I said, at least the cross that St. Helena originally found.

I don't know the story of St. Helena finding the True Cross, is there any historical record linking it to Christ's crucifixion? My main question is how that cross came to be preserved, given that the Romans did not revere it at the time of Christ's death and resurrection.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Yes, you're right about that. I see that I need to clarify what I meant.
The Catholic Church has, on several occasions, declared that an opinion which used to be held only by some parts of the Church, shall henceforth be considered official doctrine to be held by the entire Church, under pain of excommunication. So no, the Catholic magisterium did not make up new doctrines out of thin air. But they did elevate what used to be merely opinion (and not necessarily widespread opinion) to the status of official doctrine. This raises the question, what about Catholics in good standing who opposed these opinions long before they were granted the status of official doctrine?

For example, what about Catholics who opposed the ideas of the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility before the 19th century? They died Catholics in good standing, since these ideas - although they were already floating around - had not yet been codified as official doctrine, so it was possible to be a Catholic in good standing and oppose them. So, are there a bunch of people who died as Catholics in good standing but are now heretics in retrospect?

The Catholic Church has never outright contradicted its own past rulings when elevating new doctrines, but it has made the criteria for a "good Catholic" narrower than they used to be, meaning that some people who were considered good Catholics when they lived would no longer be considered good Catholics today, because they disagreed with certain ideas that were codified as doctrines in the mean time.

Papal Supremacy is another example of this, by the way. For centuries, the Pope of Rome was in communion with Eastern bishops who flatly denied his supremacy. The Pope and the Eastern bishops argued about it, but they did not break communion over it. Papal-Supremacy-deniers were in communion with the Catholic Church! Then the Great Schism came in the 11th century, and today such people would not be admitted to communion with the Catholic Church. So it was possible to be a Catholic in the 10th century and deny Papal Supremacy, but it is no longer possible today.

Hmm... I see your point here, and I don't really have an answer, I lack sufficient historical knowledge. Hopefully someone else here can say something on this topic.

I've had different Catholics tell me entirely opposite things on this issue - some, like you, basically endorsing the Orthodox view, while others called it heretical - so I honestly don't know what the Catholic view on Original Sin is any more.

In this very thread (or, rather, the previous incarnation of it, CDT IV), there were Catholics on opposite sides on this issue.

I'm about 60% comfortable saying that the Orthodox position you described is the official Catholic teaching on the matter.

I suspect that in recent times - perhaps after Vatican II? - certain parts of the Catholic Church have moved closer to the Orthodox view on a number of issues where there is no official Catholic doctrine or dogma explicitly denying the Orthodox view.

This is one of those issues where the difference is not officially codified as doctrine by either side, so there's nothing to stop Catholics moving closer to the Orthodox view (or vice versa, Orthodox moving closer to the Catholic view, for that matter) if they feel compelled to do so. I'd assume that having a large Eastern Rite presence in your area would make a difference in this regard, yes, even among Latin Rite Catholics. The more Orthodox-leaning ideas would be bouncing around in the Church culture, so to speak.

I would have expected it would have some effect. I know there is a framed portrait of an Eastern Rite Bishop on display in the high school I went to. At least, I'm pretty sure that dude's not Latin Rite

I knew about that last part (the Catholic view that suffering in this life can shorten one's time in purgatory), and that is also something rejected by the Orthodox Church, together with the notion of purgatory in general. Although, as I said, there are opinions - not doctrines - held by some individual Orthodox Christians who come close to the idea of purgatory.

However, whether or not indulgences can be dispensed or earned in modern times is another one of those topics where I get different answers from different Catholics. Again, in the previous edition of this thread some Catholics said that indulgences no longer exist, while Bari is insisting very strongly now that they do.

I think indulgences are pretty official, I'm not very knowledgeable upon how they work though. My Bible had a bonus section at the front before the table of contents that mentioned indulgences. Specifically something like reading the Bible for x amount of time would grant an indulgence. However, it is a rather old Bible, it's at least 50 years old.

[Coulee Croche]

I've had different Catholics tell me entirely opposite things on this issue - some, like you, basically endorsing the Orthodox view, while others called it heretical - so I honestly don't know what the Catholic view on Original Sin is any more.

From the Catechism:
405 Although it is proper to each individual,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". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

I knew about that last part (the Catholic view that suffering in this life can shorten one's time in purgatory), and that is also something rejected by the Orthodox Church, together with the notion of purgatory in general. Although, as I said, there are opinions - not doctrines - held by some individual Orthodox Christians who come close to the idea of purgatory.

However, whether or not indulgences can be dispensed or earned in modern times is another one of those topics where I get different answers from different Catholics. Again, in the previous edition of this thread some Catholics said that indulgences no longer exist, while Bari is insisting very strongly now that they do.

Indulgences arent about purgatory. When you sin, you go to confession, your sins are forgiven if you have a contrite heart. However, even though your sins are forgiven, you still sufer the "effects" of sin. Indulgences are used to remove these effects.
To put it best: an indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment of sins already forgiven. aka Contrite Penance

The indulgences did have number of days on them but it wasnt about purgatory. The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth. The Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less in a specific person’s case.

And yes indulgences are still in use. As a matter of fact, during the Youth Day in Brazil, the Pope issued a new set of indulgences.

[Bari]

Ok, wow, I see a lot of responses to my list of Catholic-Orthodox differences, so please bear with me while I try to go through them. I'm certainly not going to be able to respond to all of them today. Also, I will not go in strict chronological order - newer comments that I can answer quickly will get priority over older comments that require longer responses.

I am no expert, but I do not believe it is permissible in Catholicism to create a new doctrine from thin air. All Catholic doctrines are defined from pre-existing teachings and scriptural sources. Ergo, I don't think it's possible within Catholic teaching for something that was once wrong to become dogmatically right, or vice versa.

Yes, you're right about that. I see that I need to clarify what I meant.

The Catholic Church has, on several occasions, declared that an opinion which used to be held only by some parts of the Church, shall henceforth be considered official doctrine to be held by the entire Church, under pain of excommunication. So no, the Catholic magisterium did not make up new doctrines out of thin air. But they did elevate what used to be merely opinion (and not necessarily widespread opinion) to the status of official doctrine. This raises the question, what about Catholics in good standing who opposed these opinions long before they were granted the status of official doctrine?

For example, what about Catholics who opposed the ideas of the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility before the 19th century? They died Catholics in good standing, since these ideas - although they were already floating around - had not yet been codified as official doctrine, so it was possible to be a Catholic in good standing and oppose them. So, are there a bunch of people who died as Catholics in good standing but are now heretics in retrospect?

The Catholic Church has never outright contradicted its own past rulings when elevating new doctrines, but it has made the criteria for a "good Catholic" narrower than they used to be, meaning that some people who were considered good Catholics when they lived would no longer be considered good Catholics today, because they disagreed with certain ideas that were codified as doctrines in the mean time.

Papal Supremacy is another example of this, by the way. For centuries, the Pope of Rome was in communion with Eastern bishops who flatly denied his supremacy. The Pope and the Eastern bishops argued about it, but they did not break communion over it. Papal-Supremacy-deniers were in communion with the Catholic Church! Then the Great Schism came in the 11th century, and today such people would not be admitted to communion with the Catholic Church. So it was possible to be a Catholic in the 10th century and deny Papal Supremacy, but it is no longer possible today.

Why were the councils regarded as capable of forming new doctrine? After all their exclusion of various parties is a historical fact, so it cannot be that it was a complete incidence of Christian unity. I suppose this is more in regards to the concepts of infallibilty, which I find odd that the Eastern Orthodox reject whilst speaking of the sacred tradition in similar language. This is what I admit I am most interested in finding out, wherever I look for a satisfactory answer it is usually vague and given the rather vacillating concerning later councils validity, as a understandable hesitation too make committal statements concerning the matter.

The Ecumenical Councils did not form new doctrine, nor did they elevate what was previously opinion to the status of doctrine. The Orthodox view of the Ecumenical Councils is that they were all called in response to a recent heresy that had been gaining momentum over the previous few decades, and they all re-affirmed and restored the status quo ante from before that heresy began.

In other words, we essentially believe that the purpose of an Ecumenical Council is to decide which of the parties is the traditionalist party, and then uphold the traditionalist position. When new wording is introduced, that is simply for the purpose of clarifying the traditional faith so that no one can get confused about it again in the future, after we noticed that many people got confused in the recent past.

Ecumenical Councils are a last resort, to make a final and binding ruling when the Church is faced with a major controversy that inflames passions and threatens to tear the Church apart, as the opposing sides accuse each other of heresy. You cannot call an Ecumenical Council because "hey, there's this opinion that has been held by some parts of the Church but not by others for several centuries, and I think we need to decide whether it's a matter of doctrine or not". If different parts of the Church have peacefully and respectfully disagreed on a given issue for a long time, with neither side accusing the other of heresy, then there's no problem, and no Council needs to be called.

For this reason, by the way, any summary of Orthodox doctrine is a lot shorter than a similar summary of Catholic doctrine, because the Orthodox Church only makes official and binding definitions of doctrine when she absolutely has to. And there has been no need to do this for over a thousand years now. The rule of thumb is, "if no one is making a huge fuss about it, the Church doesn't need to take a single official stance on it".

I believe one of those Catholic posters was me, in my education at a Catholic high school, what I was taught much more closely mirrored the Orthodox position on Original Sin than the supposed Catholic / Protestant one. I'm not sure if this could be because my school was atypical among Catholic schools or not. It is notable that where I live has a fairly sizable Ukrainian Orthodox population, as well as Eastern Rite Catholics. The bishop at my graduation ceremony actually appeared to be an Eastern Rite bishop.

I've had different Catholics tell me entirely opposite things on this issue - some, like you, basically endorsing the Orthodox view, while others called it heretical - so I honestly don't know what the Catholic view on Original Sin is any more.

In this very thread (or, rather, the previous incarnation of it, CDT IV), there were Catholics on opposite sides on this issue.

Again, in this case, my education resembled the Orthodox position moreso than the described Catholic one. Sometimes I wonder if my school was Eastern Rite, without my knowing? But would that make a difference? It also seems unlikely because the mass always seemed very western, and pretty informal.

I suspect that in recent times - perhaps after Vatican II? - certain parts of the Catholic Church have moved closer to the Orthodox view on a number of issues where there is no official Catholic doctrine or dogma explicitly denying the Orthodox view.

This is one of those issues where the difference is not officially codified as doctrine by either side, so there's nothing to stop Catholics moving closer to the Orthodox view (or vice versa, Orthodox moving closer to the Catholic view, for that matter) if they feel compelled to do so. I'd assume that having a large Eastern Rite presence in your area would make a difference in this regard, yes, even among Latin Rite Catholics. The more Orthodox-leaning ideas would be bouncing around in the Church culture, so to speak.

I don't think indulgences are said to be dispensed by the Church in modern times, but rather that earthly virtues can earn one a form of indulgence, in the form of shortening one's time in purgatory by their good deeds. It is also taught that purgatory can be endured during life, that those who suffer more in this life will have a shorter time spent in purgatory.

I knew about that last part (the Catholic view that suffering in this life can shorten one's time in purgatory), and that is also something rejected by the Orthodox Church, together with the notion of purgatory in general. Although, as I said, there are opinions - not doctrines - held by some individual Orthodox Christians who come close to the idea of purgatory.

However, whether or not indulgences can be dispensed or earned in modern times is another one of those topics where I get different answers from different Catholics. Again, in the previous edition of this thread some Catholics said that indulgences no longer exist, while Bari is insisting very strongly now that they do.

Do the Orthodox at large have a proper understanding of how Papal Infallibility works? I know it is very common for the concept to be misunderstood.

Yes, it is very common to be misunderstood. And yes, I'd say that most Orthodox Christians - like most Protestants, and even a good chunk of Catholics - misunderstand the concept and assume it means "the Pope is always right" or something like that.

However, Orthodox theologians do know exactly what Papal infallibility actually means, and so do the better-informed Orthodox laymen at large. I specifically added the words "under certain very strict conditions" to my description of Papal infallibility precisely in order to make it clear that we reject it with full knowledge of what it means. We know it only applies under very specific conditions (the Pope must be speaking ex cathedra on issues of faith or morals concerning all Christians), and that it's extremely rare for a Pope to actually use this power. Still, we reject it, because no single bishop of the Church or any other individual human being can make infallible statements under any conditions.

I won't respond to all of this, just the section concerning indulgences. If you are ever in doubt as to what the proper, official teaching of the Catholic Church is, talk to a Catholic cleric, who would be more qualified to answer your question than a layman. If a clergyman is not available, seek out your answer in documents produced by the Church (in this case, the apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum doctrina would be most resourceful). If you do not know where to begin conducting research into such ecclesiastic documents, then look into texts of any kind produced by a reputable Catholic theologian, whether lay or clerical (such as this online article about indulgences). It is very important that these texts have with them at least an imprimatur; most, if not all, should ask have a nihil obstat. If it is a text written by a cleric, it will commonly also carry an imprimi potest. The first two of these three declarations mean the content of the text is free of doctrinal and moral error. You will notice that that online article about indulgences has been granted the nihil obstat and the imprimatur; you can see this at the very bottom of the article.

[Salus Maior]

I agree, I find that most Orthodox doctrines are more agreeable with general Protestant theology and doctrine than that of Catholicism.

As far as I understand, I believe that as well. If I ever were to give up on Protestantism (which is highly unlikely), I'd join up with the Orthodox Church.

[Bari]

I agree, I find that most Orthodox doctrines are more agreeable with general Protestant theology and doctrine than that of Catholicism.

As far as I understand, I believe that as well. If I ever were to give up on Protestantism (which is highly unlikely), I'd join up with the Orthodox Church.

Except the Orthodox Church has said so itself that it's closer to Catholicism than it is to Protestantism. And, also, when you compare the doctrine and theology, Orthodoxy is closer to Catholicism by a long shot. Then, some Orthodox say Protestantism is closer to Islam than it is to Orthodoxy.

[Herskerstad]

As far as I understand, I believe that as well. If I ever were to give up on Protestantism (which is highly unlikely), I'd join up with the Orthodox Church.

Except the Orthodox Church has said so itself that it's closer to Catholicism than it is to Protestantism. And, also, when you compare the doctrine and theology, Orthodoxy is closer to Catholicism by a long shot. Then, some Orthodox say Protestantism is closer to Islam than it is to Orthodoxy.

In which case they have checked their brains at the door and are trying to be sensationalist. Again, despite significant differences in particular in regards to Ecclesiology, the nature of the church and the state and Christian anthropology, are those same Orthodox going to state the creeds of Islam as closer to biblical Christianity than mainstream protestant sects? Imagine if you will a 3-tired list stressing all the core points of Reformed, Orthodox, and Islamic theology. Ranging from the most vital to the important aspects. Be it Trinitarianism, on the nature the persons of the Godhead, if Christ indeed did sacrifice himself for our sins, on the theological validity of the quran and prophethood of Muhammad. On the issue on God, man and salvation, the church or the ummah, ect, ect. Equating the majority of said to hold Islam closer to Orthodox Christianity is not simply something one could hold ones nose in and do if one's going to remain honest to that standard even if one would consider protestantism to be anathema.

I got no issues with Orthodox saying that they align closer to Catholicism than Protestantism, albeit in my experience that varies greatly as one has to distinguish between say the desire and the scopes of the differences, but if they are going to say that Islam lies closer to biblical Christianity than say, Scottish Presbyterianism? Then chances are high one's dealing with someone who's not really considered the implications of such to the side they support to any serious degree.

[Bari]

Except the Orthodox Church has said so itself that it's closer to Catholicism than it is to Protestantism. And, also, when you compare the doctrine and theology, Orthodoxy is closer to Catholicism by a long shot. Then, some Orthodox say Protestantism is closer to Islam than it is to Orthodoxy.

In which case they have checked their brains at the door and are trying to be sensationalist. Again, despite significant differences in particular in regards to Ecclesiology, the nature of the church and the state and Christian anthropology, are those same Orthodox going to state the creeds of Islam as closer to biblical Christianity than mainstream protestant sects? Imagine if you will a 3-tired list stressing all the core points of Reformed, Orthodox, and Islamic theology. Ranging from the most vital to the important aspects. Be it Trinitarianism, on the nature the persons of the Godhead, if Christ indeed did sacrifice himself for our sins, on the theological validity of the quran and prophethood of Muhammad. On the issue on God, man and salvation, the church or the ummah, ect, ect. Equating the majority of said to hold Islam closer to Orthodox Christianity is not simply something one could hold ones nose in and do if one's going to remain honest to that standard even if one would consider protestantism to be anathema.

I got no issues with Orthodox saying that they align closer to Catholicism than Protestantism, albeit in my experience that varies greatly as one has to distinguish between say the desire and the scopes of the differences, but if they are going to say that Islam lies closer to biblical Christianity than say, Scottish Presbyterianism? Then chances are high one's dealing with someone who's not really considered the implications of such to the side they support to any serious degree.

Whether it was meant literally or metaphorically, the point is Orthodoxy and Protestantism have very little in common.

Regardless, your post here does not address the fact that Protestantism is so unlike Orthodoxy, and if you honestly believe Orthodoxy is closer to Protestantism than it is to Catholicism, then you know little about Orthodoxy and Catholicism and likely little about Protestantism.

[Herskerstad]

In which case they have checked their brains at the door and are trying to be sensationalist. Again, despite significant differences in particular in regards to Ecclesiology, the nature of the church and the state and Christian anthropology, are those same Orthodox going to state the creeds of Islam as closer to biblical Christianity than mainstream protestant sects? Imagine if you will a 3-tired list stressing all the core points of Reformed, Orthodox, and Islamic theology. Ranging from the most vital to the important aspects. Be it Trinitarianism, on the nature the persons of the Godhead, if Christ indeed did sacrifice himself for our sins, on the theological validity of the quran and prophethood of Muhammad. On the issue on God, man and salvation, the church or the ummah, ect, ect. Equating the majority of said to hold Islam closer to Orthodox Christianity is not simply something one could hold ones nose in and do if one's going to remain honest to that standard even if one would consider protestantism to be anathema.

I got no issues with Orthodox saying that they align closer to Catholicism than Protestantism, albeit in my experience that varies greatly as one has to distinguish between say the desire and the scopes of the differences, but if they are going to say that Islam lies closer to biblical Christianity than say, Scottish Presbyterianism? Then chances are high one's dealing with someone who's not really considered the implications of such to the side they support to any serious degree.

Whether it was meant literally or metaphorically, the point is Orthodoxy and Protestantism have very little in common.

Regardless, your post here does not address the fact that Protestantism is so unlike Orthodoxy, and if you honestly believe Orthodoxy is closer to Protestantism than it is to Catholicism, then you know little about Orthodoxy and Catholicism and likely little about Protestantism.

I addressed the point that in this instance Orthodox individuals who hand over heart believes Islam is closer to Orthodox Christianity compromise their own theology rather than successfully attack the other which was the main gist of it. To those that are simply being sensationalist I give generally little credence.

And I did not address in depth because, again, in my experience Orthodox have a VERY varied relationship to the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants in general. Most Orthodox and I would equate these as perhaps the most junior counterpart hold at least the desire of Catholic/Orthodox reunification despite the pragmatic problems such would entail. I very rarely come across anyone who even contemplates an Orthodox/Protestant reunion and the last serious attempt was ironically, at least from high-west representation by Luther himself with a cordial, but firm Patriarch, who was then replaced by something of a coup and the most significant ecumenism ended there which should speak some levels to the communications that were going on. I'd hardly consider the large council held in Jerusalem to be the most structured and again, most Orthodox I know would not off the top of their heads know what I would be referring towards and even then the tone varies on it. I know somee Orthodox who are quite taken with Calvin's study of the patristic age and others who think Luther was the essential reincarnation of Arius. My general experience is that most Orthodox do not have an intimate understanding on the differences of Lutheranism and Calvinism, they've not read into say the bondage of the will or the Institutes and as such rely on second-hand references which is not a great idea when it comes to the subject of deep theology, but rather go by ecclesiastical principle on certain matters which is kind of odd given in their mind it would be a schism of a schism. To my experience the great west-east political divide play into it as in general Orthodox churches tend to be more aligned to the state than most protestant churches with certain exceptions and this does play a great deal into the west/east influence that some bring into their theology into which I find to be a cardinal error. Then again there are some Orthodox who're not too happy with a papal bull essentially denying salvation to those not under the Catholic church 'something which even pre-reformation Luther saw as abominable' and stand not too fond of the fourth crusade to put it like that which is why I caution against making blanket statements. In terms of official capacity of the major Orthodox Churches in regards to the relations between various I would ask Arch to give his two cents on the situation and the intricacies.

But what do you desire me to do? To create a chart between Protestant, let's say Lutheran, Calvinist, and then Orthodox and Islamic arguments on core doctrines to further illustrate the point on how self-defeatist it would be for any Orthodox to proclaim that Islam comes closer to true religion than the former? I am not denying and did if you would re-read the rather short post make some notion of the differences between Protestantism and the major Orthodox Churches.

[Constantinopolis]

I won't respond to all of this, just the section concerning indulgences. If you are ever in doubt as to what the proper, official teaching of the Catholic Church is, talk to a Catholic cleric, who would be more qualified to answer your question than a layman. If a clergyman is not available, seek out your answer in documents produced by the Church (in this case, the apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum doctrina would be most resourceful). If you do not know where to begin conducting research into such ecclesiastic documents, then look into texts of any kind produced by a reputable Catholic theologian, whether lay or clerical (such as this online article about indulgences). It is very important that these texts have with them at least an imprimatur; most, if not all, should ask have a nihil obstat. If it is a text written by a cleric, it will commonly also carry an imprimi potest. The first two of these three declarations mean the content of the text is free of doctrinal and moral error. You will notice that that online article about indulgences has been granted the nihil obstat and the imprimatur; you can see this at the very bottom of the article.

I do not know any Catholic clergy in real life. I've been relying on the Catechism of the Catholic Church for most of my information on official Catholic teaching, but its wording is often quite vague, in my opinion. Also, the online version is divided up in such a way that it's annoyingly difficult to search for key words.

So, thank you for all these pointers! I'm going to poke around on google and see if I can find some appropriately-endorsed documents that answer these questions on Catholic doctrine where I keep getting conflicting statements from lay Catholics.

Somewhat on a tangent, however, I will note that the wording of the document you linked seems to imply very strongly that Satisfaction Soteriology is the official Catholic view of salvation.

I know there is a framed portrait of an Eastern Rite Bishop on display in the high school I went to. At least, I'm pretty sure that dude's not Latin Rite

Oh wow, that guy's vestments just scream Eastern Catholic. They are very very specifically Eastern Catholic (not Orthodox, and not Latin Rite of course).

As far as I understand, I believe that as well. If I ever were to give up on Protestantism (which is highly unlikely), I'd join up with the Orthodox Church.

Except the Orthodox Church has said so itself that it's closer to Catholicism than it is to Protestantism. And, also, when you compare the doctrine and theology, Orthodoxy is closer to Catholicism by a long shot.

Correct, pretty much all of the Orthodox agree on this.

However, I can see why a Protestant would be more attracted to Orthodoxy than to Catholicism. As far as the Protestants are concerned, pretty much all of the "bad" things about Orthodoxy are also found in Catholicism (Church hierarchy, veneration of the saints, "visible Church" theology, importance of the sacraments, rejection of Sola Scriptura, etc); but some of the "bad" things about Catholicism are not found in Orthodoxy (the Orthodox Church has no Pope, and has fewer codified dogmas and doctrines that one is required to adhere to). So Orthodoxy is, overall, "less bad".

Some Orthodox have occasionally flirted with the idea that we are closer to the Anglicans than to the Catholics. At least, that was a somewhat popular idea in the early 20th century. Today, not so much.

Then, some Orthodox say Protestantism is closer to Islam than it is to Orthodoxy.

That's a very extreme view, but yes, I also heard it is held by some. Largely on the grounds that both Protestant Christianity and (Sunni) Islam adhere to Sola Scriptura, stress the idea of a personal connection to God, are radically decentralized, reject clerical hierarchies, consider veneration of saints to be idolatry, and tend to be iconoclastic (extremely iconoclastic in the case of Islam, moderately so in the case of Protestantism).

So yes, there are those similarities. But they're all just on the surface. A whale isn't a fish, no matter how much it may vaguely resemble one.

I got no issues with Orthodox saying that they align closer to Catholicism than Protestantism, albeit in my experience that varies greatly as one has to distinguish between say the desire and the scopes of the differences, but if they are going to say that Islam lies closer to biblical Christianity than say, Scottish Presbyterianism? Then chances are high one's dealing with someone who's not really considered the implications of such to the side they support to any serious degree.

You won't get any argument from me. And in any case, saying that Protestantism is closer to Islam than to Orthodox Christianity is a weird extremist view, held by a tiny minority (actually I've never met anyone who believes this, I only heard they exist). It's based on a few surface similarities, as I described above. But I can understand how some uninformed people might have been led to believe it. You should know that in Muslim vs. Orthodox Christian debates, the Muslim side typically stresses the idea that you don't need priests, you don't need sacraments, you should have a personal relationship with God, and it's idolatry to venerate icons or the saints. Those are important Muslim talking points. So if you just heard Muslims say those things and then you hear Protestants say something similar, and you don't really know anything about either group's theology or beliefs beyond that... you can see how people might draw some very wrong conclusions.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Oh wow, that guy's vestments just scream Eastern Catholic. They are very very specifically Eastern Catholic (not Orthodox, and not Latin Rite of course).

Strangely enough, my graduation mass was performed by an Eastern Rite bishop, but I'm fairly certain the mass itself was quite ordinary. Is that normal for the mass to not match the Rite of the bishop?

Also, I was under the impression that Eastern Rite bishops looked very similar to Orthodox bishops (some of them that is, I know a lot of them wear a more simple black robe and a sort of hooded hat... I wouldn't know what to call it), is that not so?

[Constantinopolis]

Oh wow, that guy's vestments just scream Eastern Catholic. They are very very specifically Eastern Catholic (not Orthodox, and not Latin Rite of course).

Strangely enough, my graduation mass was performed by an Eastern Rite bishop, but I'm fairly certain the mass itself was quite ordinary. Is that normal for the mass to not match the Rite of the bishop?

Ah... I have no idea. Perhaps one of our Catholic friends can answer this?

Also, I was under the impression that Eastern Rite bishops looked very similar to Orthodox bishops (some of them that is, I know a lot of them wear a more simple black robe and a sort of hooded hat... I wouldn't know what to call it), is that not so?

They do look very similar, yes, and I suppose if you're not used to seeing pictures of bishops of one kind or the other you wouldn't really notice the difference. But it's really obvious. After you notice it one time you notice it every time.

So, let's play... Spot the difference!

Orthodox bishops

Eastern Catholic bishops

(hint: it's one specific, and very obvious, piece of clothing)

I know a lot of them wear a more simple black robe and a sort of hooded hat.

Those are just their regular everyday clothes, the cassock. At least, if you're talking about bishops dressed like this, then it's the cassock. That is what they wear when not actively performing a church service or otherwise representing the Church in an official capacity.

The elaborate colourful clothes and crowns - the vestments - are liturgical clothes, intended to be worn specifically when serving at the altar. They sometimes wear them outside of church services too, such as when posing for official pictures or otherwise officially representing the Church. I am not entirely sure about the rules regarding the wearing of vestments (i.e. when they may or may not be worn).

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

However, I can see why a Protestant would be more attracted to Orthodoxy than to Catholicism. As far as the Protestants are concerned, pretty much all of the "bad" things about Orthodoxy are also found in Catholicism (Church hierarchy, veneration of the saints, "visible Church" theology, importance of the sacraments, rejection of Sola Scriptura, etc); but some of the "bad" things about Catholicism are not found in Orthodoxy (the Orthodox Church has no Pope, and has fewer codified dogmas and doctrines that one is required to adhere to). So Orthodoxy is, overall, "less bad".

Or that, I'm not really a 100% stereotypical Protestant, as a lot of the things Protestants would make a fuss about Catholic and Orthodox doctrine and practice I don't really see wrong. I don't see in myself theological or doctrinal opposition to a church hierarchy, and I do not really believe it is theologically wrong to pray to saints, albeit it is just impractical and unnecessary, so I found it easy to say that the doctrines of Eastern Orthodoxy, are in general more agreeable with my own personal beliefs than that of Catholicism.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

They do look very similar, yes, and I suppose if you're not used to seeing pictures of bishops of one kind or the other you wouldn't really notice the difference. But it's really obvious. After you notice it one time you notice it every time.

So, let's play... Spot the difference!

Orthodox bishops

Eastern Catholic bishops

(hint: it's one specific, and very obvious, piece of clothing)

I take it you're referring to the... I forget what you call it now, the fabric thingy with the crosses on it over the shoulders? Normally I know what those are called but I can't remember at the moment.

Those are just their regular everyday clothes, the cassock. At least, if you're talking about bishops dressed like this, then it's the cassock. That is what they wear when not actively performing a church service or otherwise representing the Church in an official capacity.

The elaborate colourful clothes and crowns - the vestments - are liturgical clothes, intended to be worn specifically when serving at the altar. They sometimes wear them outside of church services too, such as when posing for official pictures or otherwise officially representing the Church. I am not entirely sure about the rules regarding the wearing of vestments (i.e. when they may or may not be worn).

Ah, so it's like when a Catholic priest wears the black dress shirt and dress pants with the white collar sort of?

Also, a bit of an unrelated question I was wondering about; why does the Catholic Church not have Patriarchs? Is an Arch-Bishop the western equivalent, or do we just not have them?

[The Archregimancy]

To my experience the great west-east political divide play into it as in general Orthodox churches tend to be more aligned to the state than most protestant churches with certain exceptions and this does play a great deal into the west/east influence that some bring into their theology into which I find to be a cardinal error. Then again there are some Orthodox who're not too happy with a papal bull essentially denying salvation to those not under the Catholic church 'something which even pre-reformation Luther saw as abominable' and stand not too fond of the fourth crusade to put it like that which is why I caution against making blanket statements. In terms of official capacity of the major Orthodox Churches in regards to the relations between various I would ask Arch to give his two cents on the situation and the intricacies.

But what do you desire me to do? To create a chart between Protestant, let's say Lutheran, Calvinist, and then Orthodox and Islamic arguments on core doctrines to further illustrate the point on how self-defeatist it would be for any Orthodox to proclaim that Islam comes closer to true religion than the former? I am not denying and did if you would re-read the rather short post make some notion of the differences between Protestantism and the major Orthodox Churches.

This is a more difficult point to address than you might think, but I can offer some brief initial outline thoughts.

First of all, discussions between Protestants and Catholics over whether Orthodoxy is closer or further away from either are essentially a purely Western Christian discussion; they rest on assumptions that Orthodoxy doesn't necessarily share. There are two problems here from the Orthodox perspective: 1) as far as we're concerned you're all part of the same basic schism, and Protestantism is essentially an outgrowth of Catholicism; Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, and the other significant figures in the development of the Western European Reformation were primarily concerned with issues in Catholic doctrine. The underlying assumptions of mainstream Protestant theology are therefore based on Catholic theology, whether pro or contra; Orthodoxy has had little role in defining the doctrinal disputes internal to post-1054 Western Christianity. 2) As participants in this thread will likely more freely acknowledge, 'Protestantism' isn't a single church, but is rather a catch-all term for thousands of individual movements stemming from the Western Reformation, with often highly variant theologies. When we talk about Orthodoxy being 'closer' or 'further' from Protestantism, are we talking about an independent snake-handling church in Appalachia, Korean Prosperity Gospel Pentecostalists, or the a traditional Lutheran state church in Scandinavia?

That said, from a historical perspective - as opposed to a contemporary theological perspective - there were Orthodox Christians, some of them undoubtedly significant, who were fascinated by Reformation movements, and saw grounds for reaching out to Lutherans and Calvinists once some detailed awareness of the latter reached the Eastern Mediterranean in the 17th century. This outreach between Orthodoxy and early Protestantism foundered fairly quickly, but it was briefly highly influential. The most famous example was the brilliant but ill-fated Cyril Lucaris (Pope of Alexandria as Cyril III from 1601-1620; Patriarch of Constantinople on six separate occasions as Cyril I between 1612 and 1638). Lucaris seems to have wanted to reform the Orthodox Church along Calvinist lines - though maintaining Episcopacy - and sent young priests to train at Protestant institutions in northwestern Europe. He also engaged in a warm exchange of letters with the Anglican Church. Cyril's famous Confession (published in the Calvinist centre of Geneva, in Latin, in 1629) was a serious attempt to merge Calvinism with Orthodoxy, and is undoubtedly the most Calvinist document ever produced by a senior hierarch of the Orthodox Church. Cyril was strongly supported in his ongoing disputes with both his own church and the Ottoman government by the Dutch and English ambassadors to the Sublime Porte, both of whom saw him as leaning towards the theology of their home churches.

It didn't last, of course. Cyril was strangled on the orders of the Ottoman Sultan in 1638, and the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem definitively condemned Calvinist doctrine, with Patriarch Dositheus II of Jerusalem writing a point by point refutation of the Confession of Cyril Lucaris (the Synod also took care to distinguish Orthodox doctrine from both the new Protestant movements and Catholicism), though via the face-saving formula of declaring the Confession to be a forgery rather than a genuine statement by an Orthodox patriarch.

Nonetheless, in the 17th century, serious and substantive figures within the Orthodox Church did make an attempt to reconcile Orthodoxy and Calvinism in opposition to Roman Catholicism. Most of the subsequent attempts to argue for some form of doctrinal link between Orthodoxy and Protestantism to some degree rest on the precedent originally supplied by Cyril Lucaris.

Despite the condemnation of the Synod of Jerusalem, Cyril has been considered a saint since shortly after his death, and was officially glorified as a Hieromartyr by the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 2009; but then Alexandria has a long tradition of producing brilliant, provocative but ultimately problematic theologians called Cyril.


For reference and curiosity, I've found an English translation of the Confession of Cyril Lucaris here: http://www.crivoice.org/creedcyril.html

Edit:
Also potentially of interest is the Patriarchate of Constantinople's official biography of Cyril Lucaris: http://www.ec-patr.org/list/index.php?lang=en&id=202

[Herskerstad]

To my experience the great west-east political divide play into it as in general Orthodox churches tend to be more aligned to the state than most protestant churches with certain exceptions and this does play a great deal into the west/east influence that some bring into their theology into which I find to be a cardinal error. Then again there are some Orthodox who're not too happy with a papal bull essentially denying salvation to those not under the Catholic church 'something which even pre-reformation Luther saw as abominable' and stand not too fond of the fourth crusade to put it like that which is why I caution against making blanket statements. In terms of official capacity of the major Orthodox Churches in regards to the relations between various I would ask Arch to give his two cents on the situation and the intricacies.

But what do you desire me to do? To create a chart between Protestant, let's say Lutheran, Calvinist, and then Orthodox and Islamic arguments on core doctrines to further illustrate the point on how self-defeatist it would be for any Orthodox to proclaim that Islam comes closer to true religion than the former? I am not denying and did if you would re-read the rather short post make some notion of the differences between Protestantism and the major Orthodox Churches.

This is a more difficult point to address than you might think, but I can offer some brief initial outline thoughts.

First of all, discussions between Protestants and Catholics over whether Orthodoxy is closer or further away from either are essentially a purely Western Christian discussion; they rest on assumptions that Orthodoxy doesn't necessarily share. There are two problems here from the Orthodox perspective: 1) as far as we're concerned you're all part of the same basic schism, and Protestantism is essentially an outgrowth of Catholicism; Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, and the other significant figures in the development of the Western European Reformation were primarily concerned with issues in Catholic doctrine. The underlying assumptions of mainstream Protestant theology are therefore based on Catholic theology, whether pro or contra; Orthodoxy has had little role in defining the doctrinal disputes internal to post-1054 Western Christianity. 2) As participants in this thread will likely more freely acknowledge, 'Protestantism' isn't a single church, but is rather a catch-all term for thousands of individual movements stemming from the Western Reformation, with often highly variant theologies. When we talk about Orthodoxy being 'closer' or 'further' from Protestantism, are we talking about an independent snake-handling church in Appalachia, Korean Prosperity Gospel Pentecostalists, or the a traditional Lutheran state church in Scandinavia?

That said, from a historical perspective - as opposed to a contemporary theological perspective - there were Orthodox Christians, some of them undoubtedly significant, who were fascinated by Reformation movements, and saw grounds for reaching out to Lutherans and Calvinists once some detailed awareness of the latter reached the Eastern Mediterranean in the 17th century. This outreach between Orthodoxy and early Protestantism foundered fairly quickly, but it was briefly highly influential. The most famous example was the brilliant but ill-fated Cyril Lucaris (Pope of Alexandria as Cyril III from 1601-1620; Patriarch of Constantinople on six separate occasions as Cyril I between 1612 and 1638). Lucaris seems to have wanted to reform the Orthodox Church along Calvinist lines - though maintaining Episcopacy - and sent young priests to train at Protestant institutions in northwestern Europe. He also engaged in a warm exchange of letters with the Anglican Church. Cyril's famous Confession (published in the Calvinist centre of Geneva, in Latin, in 1629) was a serious attempt to merge Calvinism with Orthodoxy, and is undoubtedly the most Calvinist document ever produced by a senior hierarch of the Orthodox Church. Cyril was strongly supported in his ongoing disputes with both his own church and the Ottoman government by the Dutch and English ambassadors to the Sublime Porte, both of whom saw him as leaning towards the theology of their home churches.

It didn't last, of course. Cyril was strangled on the orders of the Ottoman Sultan in 1638, and the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem definitively condemned Calvinist doctrine, with Patriarch Dositheus II of Jerusalem writing a point by point refutation of the Confession of Cyril Lucaris (the Synod also took care to distinguish Orthodox doctrine from both the new Protestant movements and Catholicism), though via the face-saving formula of declaring the Confession to be a forgery rather than a genuine statement by an Orthodox patriarch.

Nonetheless, in the 17th century, serious and substantive figures within the Orthodox Church did make an attempt to reconcile Orthodoxy and Calvinism in opposition to Roman Catholicism. Most of the subsequent attempts to argue for some form of doctrinal link between Orthodoxy and Protestantism to some degree rest on the precedent originally supplied by Cyril Lucaris.

Despite the condemnation of the Synod of Jerusalem, Cyril has been considered a saint since shortly after his death, and was officially glorified as a Hieromartyr by the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 2009; but then Alexandria has a long tradition of producing brilliant, provocative but ultimately problematic theologians called Cyril.


For reference and curiosity, I've found an English translation of the Confession of Cyril Lucaris here: http://www.crivoice.org/creedcyril.html

Edit:
Also potentially of interest is the Patriarchate of Constantinople's official biography of Cyril Lucaris: http://www.ec-patr.org/list/index.php?lang=en&id=202

Thank you for taking the time to post this. Also, TG coming your way.

[Diopolis]

Oh wow, that guy's vestments just scream Eastern Catholic. They are very very specifically Eastern Catholic (not Orthodox, and not Latin Rite of course).

Strangely enough, my graduation mass was performed by an Eastern Rite bishop, but I'm fairly certain the mass itself was quite ordinary. Is that normal for the mass to not match the Rite of the bishop?

It's not normal, but also not unheard of. There are certain specific circumstances in which a priest(or bishop) is allowed to perform mass in a rite other than the one he was ordained in; I don't know exactly what they are.

[Herskerstad]

You won't get any argument from me. And in any case, saying that Protestantism is closer to Islam than to Orthodox Christianity is a weird extremist view, held by a tiny minority (actually I've never met anyone who believes this, I only heard they exist). It's based on a few surface similarities, as I described above. But I can understand how some uninformed people might have been led to believe it. You should know that in Muslim vs. Orthodox Christian debates, the Muslim side typically stresses the idea that you don't need priests, you don't need sacraments, you should have a personal relationship with God, and it's idolatry to venerate icons or the saints. Those are important Muslim talking points. So if you just heard Muslims say those things and then you hear Protestants say something similar, and you don't really know anything about either group's theology or beliefs beyond that... you can see how people might draw some very wrong conclusions.

At this point even the prefix falls apart in it's ignorance. Again, Muslims are called if capable to go around a certain monument a few times and kiss it. If that's not veneration, what is? Not to mention with all the general ritualistic aspects of the trip that any knowledgeable sunni guide would take them through. There are no lack of 'spiritualized' pagan practices that are taken in that ceremony specifically.

A knowledgeable Christian would also stress that to a degree 'sacraments' to the degree it can be called such has taken place in Islamic theology. Muhammad's sucking on the tongue of certain children was said to be something that in Islamic core sources would prevent them from ever going into hellfire. There are furthermore call it entrenched lore such as the Caliph enjoying favour from God, or to an essential points. Now, obviously most of these will no longer be available to the average Muslim, but they do engage certainly in ritualistic precepts that has a hierarchy towards it in the five pillars, but given that they do believe in an intercessor for sins, being Muhammad, which will on the last day intercede for man, learn a new form of worship that somehow will remove sins and lead them into paradise, it would be entirely wrong to say that that they go without certain sacraments or hierarchies too them. While fairly decentralized in practice, the Ummah and the aspects of it are still quite profound. Anyone knowledgeable about Islam would stress this. Not that it's hard to show the general holes in Islamic sotierology if one has a notion of their concept of sin that runs entirely counter to any previous understanding by a long shot.

Furthermore Allah's not going to have a personal relationship with mankind. He's for the most part going to sit on his throne and every now and then show favour. He's certainly not going to have the same kind of personal relationship a Christian gains through the Holy Spirit with God or the person of Christ who's fully human and divine. Islam is in essence and even in name about submission, not so much regeneration.

The double-disfavour of the individual who'd proport this would also fall flat on the side of the reformed. It would require a monumental amount of ignorance to associate Protestant or Reformed theology as somehow anti-sacrementerial, not even Anabaptists would go there. To furthermore think that Lutheranism or Presbyterianism would be anti-Ecclesiology is of the kind of ignorance that that holds a collective danger to the thought process of any considerate man. It's entirely fair to point towards the Patristic studies of Luther and especially Calvin as to holding a more decentralized concept of elders to councils like the early church. Now, there are indeed differences in regards to the sacraments and rites, their interpretations and indeed the justification behind them, but it would say a lot about what kind of protestant it would be if he'd come up and say. " We do not need sacraments, priesthood amounts to nothing, any kind of image including the cross is bad because God told me so." because such a thing amounts to no major protestant denomination or certainly the understanding of any reformed father. And while the issues of Ecclessiology tends to be dominant on any serious debate it has a tendency to sadly overshadows the debates on justification, sanctification, anthropology, ontology and the list goes on.

Either way, anyone who'd be as in this case the hypothetical orthodox THAT ignorant on both I could hardly imagine to be very well versed on even Orthodoxy itself. At best he'd be in the cage stage. "The humoristic term of the stage of early enthusiastic conversion where one should stay in a cage with study so one does not harm oneself or others.'

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

This is a more difficult point to address than you might think, but I can offer some brief initial outline thoughts.

First of all, discussions between Protestants and Catholics over whether Orthodoxy is closer or further away from either are essentially a purely Western Christian discussion; they rest on assumptions that Orthodoxy doesn't necessarily share. There are two problems here from the Orthodox perspective: 1) as far as we're concerned you're all part of the same basic schism, and Protestantism is essentially an outgrowth of Catholicism; Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, and the other significant figures in the development of the Western European Reformation were primarily concerned with issues in Catholic doctrine. The underlying assumptions of mainstream Protestant theology are therefore based on Catholic theology, whether pro or contra; Orthodoxy has had little role in defining the doctrinal disputes internal to post-1054 Western Christianity. 2) As participants in this thread will likely more freely acknowledge, 'Protestantism' isn't a single church, but is rather a catch-all term for thousands of individual movements stemming from the Western Reformation, with often highly variant theologies. When we talk about Orthodoxy being 'closer' or 'further' from Protestantism, are we talking about an independent snake-handling church in Appalachia, Korean Prosperity Gospel Pentecostalists, or the a traditional Lutheran state church in Scandinavia?

That said, from a historical perspective - as opposed to a contemporary theological perspective - there were Orthodox Christians, some of them undoubtedly significant, who were fascinated by Reformation movements, and saw grounds for reaching out to Lutherans and Calvinists once some detailed awareness of the latter reached the Eastern Mediterranean in the 17th century. This outreach between Orthodoxy and early Protestantism foundered fairly quickly, but it was briefly highly influential. The most famous example was the brilliant but ill-fated Cyril Lucaris (Pope of Alexandria as Cyril III from 1601-1620; Patriarch of Constantinople on six separate occasions as Cyril I between 1612 and 1638). Lucaris seems to have wanted to reform the Orthodox Church along Calvinist lines - though maintaining Episcopacy - and sent young priests to train at Protestant institutions in northwestern Europe. He also engaged in a warm exchange of letters with the Anglican Church. Cyril's famous Confession (published in the Calvinist centre of Geneva, in Latin, in 1629) was a serious attempt to merge Calvinism with Orthodoxy, and is undoubtedly the most Calvinist document ever produced by a senior hierarch of the Orthodox Church. Cyril was strongly supported in his ongoing disputes with both his own church and the Ottoman government by the Dutch and English ambassadors to the Sublime Porte, both of whom saw him as leaning towards the theology of their home churches.

It didn't last, of course. Cyril was strangled on the orders of the Ottoman Sultan in 1638, and the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem definitively condemned Calvinist doctrine, with Patriarch Dositheus II of Jerusalem writing a point by point refutation of the Confession of Cyril Lucaris (the Synod also took care to distinguish Orthodox doctrine from both the new Protestant movements and Catholicism), though via the face-saving formula of declaring the Confession to be a forgery rather than a genuine statement by an Orthodox patriarch.

Nonetheless, in the 17th century, serious and substantive figures within the Orthodox Church did make an attempt to reconcile Orthodoxy and Calvinism in opposition to Roman Catholicism. Most of the subsequent attempts to argue for some form of doctrinal link between Orthodoxy and Protestantism to some degree rest on the precedent originally supplied by Cyril Lucaris.

Despite the condemnation of the Synod of Jerusalem, Cyril has been considered a saint since shortly after his death, and was officially glorified as a Hieromartyr by the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 2009; but then Alexandria has a long tradition of producing brilliant, provocative but ultimately problematic theologians called Cyril.


For reference and curiosity, I've found an English translation of the Confession of Cyril Lucaris here: http://www.crivoice.org/creedcyril.html

Edit:
Also potentially of interest is the Patriarchate of Constantinople's official biography of Cyril Lucaris: http://www.ec-patr.org/list/index.php?lang=en&id=202

The idea of serious attempts to reconcile Orthodoxy and Calvinism really fascinated me, as someone limited in knowledge of ecclesiastical history. It's the kind of things I don't really expect to see. One, from a purely historical perspective can wonder what developments might arise if the Ottoman Sultan did not strangle Cyris. ~

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

Can an adherent of eastern orthodoxy explain the orthodox understanding of the redemption to me? I desire education. (Christus Victor is way cool.)

[Salus Maior]

A knowledgeable Christian would also stress that to a degree 'sacraments' to the degree it can be called such has taken place in Islamic theology. Muhammad's sucking on the tongue of certain children....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXzEcwYs8Eo

[Prussia-Steinbach]

A knowledgeable Christian would also stress that to a degree 'sacraments' to the degree it can be called such has taken place in Islamic theology. Muhammad's sucking on the tongue of certain children....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXzEcwYs8Eo

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140729 ... pedophilia

[Constantinopolis]

Can an adherent of eastern orthodoxy explain the orthodox understanding of the redemption to me? I desire education. (Christus Victor is way cool.)

Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!

Oh, you want a more detailed version? Well, the absolute best summary of the Orthodox understanding of redemption through Christ is the Paschal homily of St. John Chrysostom, which we read aloud every year on Pascha (Easter). It's brief, uplifting, and to the point:

If any man be devout and love God, let him enjoy this fair and radiant triumphal feast. If any man be a wise servant, let him rejoicing enter into the joy of his Lord. If any have labored long in fasting, let him now receive his recompense. If any have wrought from the first hour, let him today receive his just reward. If any have come at the third hour, let him with thankfulness keep the feast. If any have arrived at the sixth hour, let him have no misgivings; because he shall in nowise be deprived thereof. If any have delayed until the ninth hour, let him draw near, fearing nothing. If any have tarried even until the eleventh hour, let him, also, be not alarmed at his tardiness; for the Lord, who is jealous of his honor, will accept the last even as the first; he gives rest unto him who comes at the eleventh hour, even as unto him who has wrought from the first hour.

And he shows mercy upon the last, and cares for the first; and to the one he gives, and upon the other he bestows gifts. And he both accepts the deeds, and welcomes the intention, and honors the acts and praises the offering. Therefore, enter you all into the joy of your Lord; and receive your reward, both the first, and likewise the second. You rich and poor together, hold high festival. You sober and you heedless, honor the day. Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast. The table is full-laden; feast sumptuously, all of you. The calf is fatted; let no one go hungry away.

Enjoy ye all the feast of faith: Receive ye all the riches of loving-kindness. Let no one bewail his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one weep for his iniquities, for pardon has shown forth from the tomb. Let no one fear death, for the Savior’s death has set us free. He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it. By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive. He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh. And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry: Hell, said he, was embittered, when it encountered Thee in the lower regions. It was embittered, for it was abolished. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It was embittered, for it was overthrown. It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains. It took a body, and met God face to face. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.

O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your victory?
Christ is risen, and you are overthrown!
Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen!
Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen, and life reigns!
Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the tombs!
For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen.

Or would you like the long version? Hmm, there are several good long expositions of the Orthodox teachings on salvation. Here is one of the best that I know.