www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Roman Catholics have more in common with Protestants then Orthodox?

Friends-

I recently had a lengthy discussion with an Orthodox priest. While the conversation was very friendly and informative, he said something that bothered me. I also know that other Orthodox think the same way this priest does.

He is of the opinion that Roman Catholics have more in common with protestants than they do with the Orthodox. I must strongly disagree. Allow me to present my thoughts on the matter.

Catholic and Orthodox church structure is very similiar(with the exception of the pope, of course). We look to our bishops to shepherd us. We ordain priests to celebrate the Mysteries. We believe that the Church is the "pillar and ground of Truth." Excluding the Anglicans and perhaps the Lutherans, Protestants see each believer as their own teaching authority, interpreting Scripture at will. The Councils are considered to be error-ridden and open for rejection. Each church building is its own "eparchy" if you will.

Catholics and Orthodox celebrate the same seven Mysteries; although the understanding of them differs somewhat. We believe in the True Presence in the Eucharist. We maintain confession to/through a priest to be necessary. Baptismal regeneration...etc. Protestants have (2) "sacraments" which are simply symbolic in nature.

Catholics and Orthodox seek the intercession of saints, especially the Theotokos. Protestants see this as borderline Pagan.

I'm sure I don't have to spell out all the differences to the people here, who are much more astute than I in these matters. I'm also not seeking to ignore the real differences that do exist between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Is this perhaps a case of some Orthodox wanting to distant themselves as far from Roman Catholicism as possible?

Please discuss and offer your opinions.

Thank you,

Columcille

Columcille,

I have an opinion... you want to hear it

As noted in another thread this is a Byzantine Forum not a Byzantine Catholic Forum per se. It is geared to Orthodox method of thought, spirituality. You sound as if your a Roman Catholic (note: if your not I apologize to you my comment only has to do with how I percieved you to be in your post. It is not an attempt to latinize you) in which case I understand your thought process and understand that you mean no harm to anyone on here of Eastern Christianity.

But I think you should just leave this alone. That is my opinion. But then it is only my opinion

**************************************************

You have e-mail your way.

Colm --

The underlying basis for that kind of viewpoint is that both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are *western* Christianity, whereas Orthodoxy is not. It has been noted, for example, that Protestantism and Roman Catholicism often bicker, in terms of theology, about the answers to the same questions (justification, redemption, etc.) -- ie, the categories of the questions are all Western -- whereas Orthodoxy asks different questions than either Protestantism or Catholicism. Protestantism is an offshoot from Roman Catholicism, historically and theologically.

Often this is a question of perspective, and who one defines as "other". In the aftermath of the Reformation, the Catholic perspective has often defined itself over and against Protestantism -- there were two poles, Catholic and Protestant, such that the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism became very heavily emphasized by both Catholics and Protestants. When Catholics look to the Eastern Churches, they see many similarities on the surface, and therefore in that polar view tend to place us more in the "Catholic" pole (albeit eccentric, perhaps recalcitrant on some issues) than in the "Protestant" pole. This tendency is exacerbated by the fact that those theological points on which Protestantism and Catholicism differ most bitterly are -- with the exception of the Papacy -- often viewed by Catholics as not being problematic with the Orthodox -- and so the tendency is to say "look, the problems we have the Protestants are much more important than the problems we have with the Orthodox (at least in our Catholic eyes), and therefore we're closer to the Orthodox". Your own post is an example of this -- all of things you have mentioned there you mention specifically because they are issues between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism -- therefore they "matter" more than some other significant issues (from the Orthodox perspective) that are shared by both Catholicism and Reformation Protestantism, like the filioque. For RCs, the filioque is not a big deal, and it's importance is routinely discounted, and therefore this difference is seen as less important from the Catholic perspective, whereas from the Orthodox perspective it is a very important issue and one that the Protestants share with the Catholics precisely because they are an offshoot of the Catholics.

Orthodoxy, by contrast, often defines itself over and against Western Christianity -- for us, Western Christianity is the other, and we see very real similarities amongst the various kinds of Western Christians. Our perspective, therefore, is that the Western Church experienced its own schism about 500 years ago, but that Catholics and Protestants, the product of that schism, are both Western in outlook and orientation and therefore share more in common with each other, on a very significant level, than either of them does with us. We, for our part, share more in common with the Pre-Chalcedonian Churches than we do with the Roman Catholics or the Protestants, precisely because the Pre-Chalcedonians are also *Eastern* Christians. Orthodoxy perceives that the greatest break in the Church was the break of the Western Church from Orthodoxy, not the subsequent schism in the Western Church, whereas Catholicism tends to see the Protestant Reformation as the greater disaster.

When Orthodox say this, they do not mean ill by it. When I was a Catholic I also used to be puzzled by statements like this, and reacted in a way not so different to the way you seem to have. But as I delved deeper into Eastern Christianity, even as an Eastern Catholic, I gradually began to see the truth in this perspective.

Brendan

[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: Brendan ]

[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: Brendan ]

Actually, I DO practice Eastern Christianity. I am still "technically" Roman Catholic, but I attend a Byzantine church. I practice a Byzantine prayer and devotional life.

And I think my questions are valid, thank you.

Columcille

Dear Brendan,

"filioque not a bog deal."

Perhaps I'm reading into it - is this a Freudian slip?

The idea of "bog" having to do with swamp-like philosophical arguments where things are mucky and where one can sink?

I thought it was interesting ... Have a great day, Big Guy!

Alex

Brenden,

Thank you. That is what I was looking for. Thank you for explaining it. You bring things up that I had not thought of.

Columcille

Dear Columcille,

Kallistos Ware would probably respond "Yes" and "No" here.

He himself notes that Catholics and Orthodox have a great many things in common, as you've stated.

But there are issues that characterize a specifically "Western Christianity" of which Roman Catholics and Protestants are both heirs and which makes them closer to each other than to the East.

This was brought home to me personally in a recent post with OneHoly over the issue of Christ's Redemption.

When I objected to what seemed to me as the Latin Legalism inherent in the Soteriology of St Anselm, my learned friend called into question whether I was a Catholic or not.

I perceived he took especial exception to my linking Augustinianism with Extreme Calvinism. And yet, there is just such a connection, discussed by my theological betters elsewhere.

On the issue of the Redemption, Western Catholicism and Protestantism do indeed share the same theological "a prioris" as Brendan the Theologian said, even though they don't share the same conclusions.

The same is true about the Augustinian view of Original Sin and its impact on human nature, another point of sharing between Western Catholicism and Protestantism.

Where Latin Catholics argue the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion, the Protestants say, "No, it is symbolic."

And yet, the East would say that it is both, as Alexander Schmemann wrote. Holy Communion symbolizes the Body and Blood of Christ which is why the wine must always be red or the colour of real blood. The Bread must always be leavened bread or "Bread that has risen."

And Holy Communion is Christ since for the symbol to truly Re-present the reality of what it points to, it must participate in the nature of that Reality.

The West's approach to God is altogether similar for both Western Catholics and Protestants, the emphasis being on the One God, or the One Lord Jesus Christ since the unity of God is something that can be attained to through human reason.

The East's approach is mystical, what is revealed, which is why the emphasis exists with us on the Holy Trinity, something the human mind could never have aspired to conceiving.

The West thinks about God and then, when it is relatively secure in its understanding of Him, embraces Him.

The East first embraces God, and then thinks about Him.

I prefer to do the latter - don't you?

God bless, Dove of the Church, God bless!

Alex

I think Brendan makes a good point in that while Roman Catholicism and Protestantism might offer some different answers, Orthodoxy asks some different questions.

But, of course, we can create catagories many different ways. yes, their is a Catholic-Protestant sharing that is not present with the Orthodox, a Catholic-Orthodox sharing, a Protestant-Orthodox sharing, and a Chalcedonian sharing.

It all depends what facet one is emphasizing.

K.

Alex-

I thank you for post. As Brenden did earlier, you have provided me with true spiritual insight into the mind of an Eastern Christian.

Be patient with me people, I still have much to learn about Eastern Christendom

But I'm trying...

Columcille

Dear Columcille,

Actually, since I'm a "Latinized Ukrainian Catholic" , such a statement from an Orthodox priest would shock me too.

Again, the "Yes and No" approach by Ware is probably the best one.

And no patience is required for you, my Friend, as you take to all this like a thirsty cat takes to milk .

I'm keeping my Latinizations, though, and with your kind permission!

I'm not asking it of Brendan - I know what he might just say . . .

Alex

Dear Columcille:

To broaden your perspective on this topic, you may want to revisit "Dominus Iesus" and related documents/critiques, in which the Catholic Church defines herself officially at:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/DOMIESIN.HTM

You may also want to re-read "Ut Unum Sint" at
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ419.HTM and some comparison between Catholicism and Orthodoxy at http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ23.HTM

Dear Columcille:

While meaning no disrespect to Amado Guerrero, I would suggest you tread cautiously with Dave Armstrong's site that he recommends; Mr. Armstrong is super-polemical and has virtually no idea what Eastern Christians really believe. His "dialogues" are basically his cut-and-paste jobs where the opponent asks questions or makes comments, and Dave critiques them--without usually letting said person respond. it is really quite humorous actually. But sad, too.

In Christ,

anastasios

The Vatican II accepted a lot of protestant influence in the liturgy and sometimes this influence affected the doctrine. The Novus Ordo is close to the protestant liturgies (if they can be called liturgies) and the orthodoxy of this new mass has been discussed several times. The supression of the Divine Ofice is seen as herethical by some traditionalists.

The modification of the cannon of the mass affects the meaning of the sacrifice (according to some traditionalist christians, some of them Lefevbrites, but most of them are not schismatics). They say that the new liturgy was created by some Italian priests and 6 protestant ministers, invited by Pope Paul VI.

http://credo.stormloader.com/Liturgy/liturgy1.htm

[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: Remie ]

Before this thread strays into dangerous water, let me state for the record that the Orthodox idea that Rome and Protestantism are closer to each other than either is to Orthodoxy has nothing at all to do with the post-Vatican II liturgical reform in the Latin Church -- the view was expressed long before then, perhaps most famously by Alexei Khomiakov in the middle of the 19th C.

Brendan

Dear Remie,

Please pay special attention to what OUR Orthodox brother, Brendan, has said in this respect.

What Orthodox Patriarch has ever formally pronounced censure against the Novus Ordo Liturgy of the Roman Church?

You cite RC schismatics, but I don't think you would like it if we cited breakaway Orthodox groups, such as the Old Calendarists, who regard Orthodoxy as being in heresy and schism from the truth.

I find that I must call on the Moderator here to examine Remie's post to see if some rules of discourse accepted by all participants on this Forum have not been broken with respect to the Roman Church - with the view to rectifying the situation.

Alex