Catholic or Orthodox, which is worse?

[Bill The Baptist]

While the issues with Catholicism are well known and catalogued, the more I look into Eastern Orthodoxy the more I can see serious errors in their doctrines as well. While the Orthodox tend to venerate Mary to a lesser degree and would reject the concept of papal infallibility, they also have a much more mystical view of the incarnation, the atonement, and even salvation itself than would Catholics. I know that the reformers addressed Catholicism much more than they did Orthodoxy, but that was most likely due to their greater familiarity. I honestly am not sure which one is worse, and I wanted to get some additional input.

 

[Lux]

I don't really know which one is worse but I think the fact there are so many similarities and almost a kinship between the two says enough by itself.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

It's amazing how similar they are even today, considering that they formally split in the 11th century.

One thing that's interesting to me is that the Orthodox Church baptizes by full immersion, and claims that the church has always done that, going back to the Apostles.

It's simply a curiosity to me, nothing else.

 

[Philip]

While the Orthodox tend to venerate Mary to a lesser degree and would reject the concept of papal infallibility, they also have a much more mystical view of the incarnation, the atonement, and even salvation itself than would Catholics.

It's better to say that they tend (as did the early fathers) to emphasize the ontological dimensions of salvation as opposed to the legal-familial dimensions with which we are familiar in the West. True, the essence-engergies distinction, which Palamas made, muddies the waters quite a bit, but you'll find most of the same points in Gregory of Nazianzus.

Theosis as a concept, can be found in Calvin and (arguably) John Owen.

Therefore this consideration alone ought to be abundantly sufficient to make us to renounce the world and to carry us aloft to heaven. Let us then mark, that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us. ~Calvin's commentary on 2 Peter 1:4

It's probably best to say, in this regard, that the lack of Calvin's careful distinctions (which he goes on to make) is what makes the EO understanding of salvation problematic with regard to the creator-creature distinction. In addition, the ontological side of things, while Scriptural, is not the only or even the main focus of Scriptural teaching on Salvation.

 

[Justified]

The problem for both, as already noted, is that salvation becomes an ascent up the chain-of-being; salvation becomes all about metaphysics. The gospel says, "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners," not, "Jesus Christ came into the world to save metaphysics."

 

[arapahoepark]

I have wondered this for awhile as well. Even from those inside the Orthodox church after conversion feel as if they are second class citizens in a cultural and ethnic club.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

One of the things that I learned in dealing with Mormons out in Utah was that you can often best see the errors in false religion by considering their overall worldview. The Biblical worldview consists of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. When examined in this light, the Orthodox worldview is significantly different from this.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Orthodoxy also has a "Folk" and/or "Nationalistic" component that RC'ism lacks.

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

I wouldn't say one is worse than the other. They both preach a false gospel so they are accursed by God and are both deserving of His righteous judgment.

 

[Philip]

The Biblical worldview consists of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. When examined in this light, the Orthodox worldview is significantly different from this.

What are you basing this on? I've read a number of works by contemporary EO theologians and most would concur that the narrative you describe is the Biblical one and the one to which they adhere.

Orthodoxy also has a "Folk" and/or "Nationalistic" component that RC'ism lacks.

That depends on the sector of the RC. In Eastern Europe, Catholicism is just as tied up with ethnicity as the Eastern Church is.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

True, but that is more related to Eastern Europe than Catholicism itself. In other words it is endemic to EO in a way that it is not to RC.

 

[yeutter]

My grievous concerns about Eastern Orthodoxy are:
1. She does not share our understanding of original sin. I am not saying that she is Pelagian, just that she has a deficient understanding of the sinfulness of man.
2. She does not share our understanding of substitutionary blood atonement.

 

[yeutter]

My grievous concerns with the Church of Rome are:
1. She tolerates the teaching that the Blessed Virgin Mary is a co-redemptrix.
2. She officially denies the truth of sola fides.
3. She officially teaches the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
4. She officially denies sola scriptura. She teaches that the Church is the author of Scripture.
5. She believes that the official doctrinal teachings of the Archbishop of Rome are infallible.
6. She officially teaches that their is a purgatory.

I would say that the Church of Rome is the more apostate of the two.

 

[earl40]

My grievous concerns with the Church of Rome are:
1. She tolerates the teaching that the Blessed Virgin Mary is a co-redemptrix.
2. She officially denies the truth of sola fides.
3. She officially teaches the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
4. She officially denies sola scriptura. She teaches that the Church is the author of Scripture.
5. She believes that the official doctrinal teachings of the Archbishop of Rome are infallible.
6. She officially teaches that their is a purgatory.

I would say that the Church of Rome is the more apostate of the two.

I would seriously consider what (East or West) The Reformation grew out of.

 

[yeutter]

My grievous concerns with the Church of Rome are:
1. She tolerates the teaching that the Blessed Virgin Mary is a co-redemptrix.
2. She officially denies the truth of sola fides.
3. She officially teaches the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
4. She officially denies sola scriptura. She teaches that the Church is the author of Scripture.
5. She believes that the official doctrinal teachings of the Archbishop of Rome are infallible.
6. She officially teaches that their is a purgatory.

I would say that the Church of Rome is the more apostate of the two.

I would seriously consider what (East or West) The Reformation grew out of.

It may be that the Church of Rome became so hostile to the Gospel that they forced reformers into the Reformation.
In the Eastern Church Gospel preaching has been inconsistently tolerated

 

[earl40]

It may be that the Church of Rome became so hostile to the Gospel that they forced reformers into the Reformation.
In the Eastern Church Gospel preaching has been inconsistently tolerated

Not sure what you mean by the above. Are you saying the EO church is a valid church?

 

[yeutter]

Church of Rome is formally Apostate.

The Church of Rome formally apostatized from the Church Catholic. She doubled down on her error at Vatican I.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches adhere to many errors but have not formally apostatized from the Church Catholic.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

The Biblical worldview consists of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. When examined in this light, the Orthodox worldview is significantly different from this.



What are you basing this on? I've read a number of works by contemporary EO theologians and most would concur that the narrative you describe is the Biblical one and the one to which they adhere.

Its not that they don't believe in these things, its just that they have a seriously deficient and distorted understanding of those things. In my estimation, the Roman Catholic church is very wrong about many things, but also fairly correct on some other things, while the Eastern Orthodox church seems to be not nearly as wrong as the Catholics, but wrong on almost every point of doctrine.

 

[Philip]

Its not that they don't believe in these things, its just that they have a seriously deficient and distorted understanding of those things.

In what specific ways? My estimation is that most Eastern distinctives are incomplete or one-sided, but that it's usually due to the fact that the issues in question (atonement, sola fide, etc) are usually the product of debates that simply didn't happen in the East.

 

[arapahoepark]

Its not that they don't believe in these things, its just that they have a seriously deficient and distorted understanding of those things.

In what specific ways? My estimation is that most Eastern distinctives are incomplete or one-sided, but that it's usually due to the fact that the issues in question (atonement, sola fide, etc) are usually the product of debates that simply didn't happen in the East.

Thus they haven't considered the whole counsel of God.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Its not that they don't believe in these things, its just that they have a seriously deficient and distorted understanding of those things.

In what specific ways? My estimation is that most Eastern distinctives are incomplete or one-sided, but that it's usually due to the fact that the issues in question (atonement, sola fide, etc) are usually the product of debates that simply didn't happen in the East.

Thus they haven't considered the whole counsel of God.

I recall a well known EO theologian admitted at one point that the EO tradition has never really interacted with Paul's theology of justification as presented in his epistles. Wish I could find the quote, perhaps someone else recalls, but he was acknowledging that the doctrine is there in Scripture but that it has had little relevance to the development of EO thought. I have some good friends that are EO, one the son of a priest, and it's such a different mindset. It's almost like a theology of the esthetic--they don't deny forensic categories outright but they just don't ever cross their mind.

I think in some ways many of the EO churches are like pre-Tridentine Rome. The errors are widespread and serious but are not formalized or institutionalized in such a way as to represent clear apostasy.

 

[Mason]

My grievous concerns about Eastern Orthodoxy are:
1. She does not share our understanding of original sin. I am not saying that she is Pelagian, just that she has a deficient understanding of the sinfulness of man.
2. She does not share our understanding of substitutionary blood atonement.

In my discussions with the EO in Israel, and in particular the Russian Orthodox, I came to understand that they view the sinfulness of man and his native estrangement from God to be based upon ignorance, and thereby an implicit vestige and capacity for goodness and righteousness, rather than the legal/covenantal concept that we developed in the West (and what is clearly taught in scripture- in Adam, all are covenantally bound to sin, rebellion, and eternal punishment save those who are joined to Christ's covenant). The notion of an inherent goodness to man is at least semi-pelagian in nature- to say that the Orthodox have a "deficient understanding" is a bit of an understatement.

Lacking a legal/covenantal understanding for anthropology, and when challenged with clear passages about man's native inability to be righteous before God, the Orthodox tend towards throwing their hands in the air and saying "It's a mystery!" That the EO would fall back upon the mystery of doctrines rather than rely upon what is clearly stated in the text of scripture, and that they reject substitutionary blood atonement, is to further drive the point.

 

[TheOldCourse]

My grievous concerns about Eastern Orthodoxy are:
1. She does not share our understanding of original sin. I am not saying that she is Pelagian, just that she has a deficient understanding of the sinfulness of man.
2. She does not share our understanding of substitutionary blood atonement.

In my discussions with the EO in Israel, and in particular the Russian Orthodox, I came to understand that they view the sinfulness of man and his native estrangement from God to be based upon ignorance, and thereby an implicit vestige and capacity for goodness and righteousness, rather than the legal/covenantal concept that we developed in the West (and what is clearly taught in scripture- in Adam, all are covenantally bound to sin, rebellion, and eternal punishment save those who are joined to Christ's covenant). The notion of an inherent goodness to man is at least semi-pelagian in nature- to say that the Orthodox have a "deficient understanding" is a bit of an understatement.

Lacking a legal/covenantal understanding for anthropology, and when challenged with clear passages about man's native inability to be righteous before God, the Orthodox tend towards throwing their hands in the air and saying "It's a mystery!" That the EO would fall back upon the mystery of doctrines rather than rely upon what is clearly stated in the text of scripture, and that they reject substitutionary blood atonement, is to further drive the point.

Mystery is actually an important aspect of their theology, not merely a fallback defense. They expect paradoxes and aspects of theology to be somewhat illogical (or, perhaps, "metalogical"). It can make it difficult to have a meaningful debate with them over doctrine if that's what you're trying to do.

 

[Philip]

I recall a well known EO theologian admitted at one point that the EO tradition has never really interacted with Paul's theology of justification as presented in his epistles.

And a lot of this is due to the fact that most of their interactions with Western Christianity are in dialogue with Catholicism, with which they have very longstanding and specific disagreements on other points (ecclesiology, Pneumatology, and sacramentology, mostly). In their own seminaries (of which there are two in the States), I am informed, most of the instruction is in Eastern Theology, with very little attention given to Western Christianity at all, much less Protestant distinctives. Theologically, apart from Gregory Palamas, very little has occured since the 8th century.

 

[Irish Presbyterian]

A helpful resource on this might be:

Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective by Robert Letham

One thing that's interesting to me is that the Orthodox Church baptizes by full immersion, and claims that the church has always done that, going back to the Apostles.

It's simply a curiosity to me, nothing else.

It's also worth noting that they baptise infants by full immersion!

 

[Philip]

A helpful resource on this might be:

Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective by Robert Letham

I would concur with this and add Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism (one of the better books in the series--Michael Horton writes one of the "no" answers) as well as For the Life of the World by Alexander Schmemann as an introduction to modern Orthodox theology (note: the book is a polemic against neoliberal theology).

 

[Pilgrim]

A helpful resource on this might be:

Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective by Robert Letham

One thing that's interesting to me is that the Orthodox Church baptizes by full immersion, and claims that the church has always done that, going back to the Apostles.

It's simply a curiosity to me, nothing else.

It's also worth noting that they baptise infants by full immersion!

My understanding is their "full immersion" often, if not always, falls short of what most Baptists would consider to be full immersion. I've seen depictions of a baby being seated in some water with water poured over its head, with the baby never completely going under the water at any time. (Perhaps it is different with adult baptism.) Baptists tend to say baptism is invalid if any part of the body is out of the water.

 

[Pilgrim]

Could it be said that Rome more often gets the questions or issues right (i.e. original sin) but gets the answers wrong?

As for sola scriptura, EO certainly denies it, and also raises the same questions about the canon, even including some books that Rome does not accept.

On the atonement, etc., EO is not dissimilar to mainline Protestants in rejecting the idea that penal substitution is necessary for God to forgive sins. In other words, the loving God can forgive sin without it being punished.

 

[Philip]

On the atonement, etc., EO is not dissimilar to mainline Protestants in rejecting the idea that penal substitution is necessary for God to forgive sins. In other words, the loving God can forgive sin without it being punished.

They would say that this way of framing things primarily in terms of individuals, sin as offense, and forgiveness is a very Western approach to things. The East looks at it as Christ coming to restore the image of God through the incarnation and resurrection of Christ. No, this isn't the way Paul frames things, but it's not wrong, just incomplete.

It's not accurate to say that EO denies penal substitution, given that it has never given a statement on the subject. Rather, they would see it as an innovation which would need to be affirmed or rejected at a council. And there hasn't been one since the 8th century.

 

[Mason]

Mystery is actually an important aspect of their theology, not merely a fallback defense. They expect paradoxes and aspects of theology to be somewhat illogical (or, perhaps, "metalogical"). It can make it difficult to have a meaningful debate with them over doctrine if that's what you're trying to do.

All quite anecdotal on my part, but it seems to me that with regard to those areas of doctrine that they haven't really ever examined or interacted with (such as justification/atonement) they are quick to do exactly that- fallback on the mystery. The Russian Orthodox I spent some time with in the Church of the Sepulcher in Jerusalem were just as happy to argue with me that Protestantism was too rational and too dependent upon clear-cut points of doctrine derived from scripture (because this removed the emotional component, I believe?). In particular they criticized Protestantism for ignoring the Church fathers and for putting our own tradition (The Reformation) over the more ancient forms of Christianity.