Thank you for this. I'm a bit confused as some of this does disagree with what the priest I have been in contact with has told me and what I've read, particularly re original sin. I'm curious how the Orthodox view of Mary as being sinless by her own efforts squares with the idea that she was born steeped in original sin. How does that work? I believe man needs God to save him and that only God can do this and I trust Him to do that. As such, this isn't something that keeps me awake at night but it just seems more likely to me that man is born in dire need by virtue of an impairment than due to inborn wickedness. Anyway, I accept I don't know much but my point is that in terms of redemption or God's intervention I don't see any disagreement there with what I've been told and the need for either of these. I might be missing your point? I don't wish to offend any sensibilities but the satisfaction theory has never really made any sense to me and in fact was a reason I became disenchanted with Christianity in the early days. Is this theory of atonement generally accepted amongst the orthodox or are these counterparts simply some groups within the orthodox church? Talking of differing beliefs, my reservation about icons is that I can't help seeing them as being clearly an innovation adopted by superstition and enforced ( pretty brutally ) by political power before being theorised into something sacred by later theologians. If this can become such a pillar of orthodoxy in such manner, then it gives me pause to believe the rest of the claims made about any unbroken line of tradition. In your experience would you say orthodoxy is actually as divided and married to political power as any other church? I am visiting another priest on Tuesday so I will clarify further with him but in the meantime I'm grateful for your experience.
Hi. Oh yes, I get it. I was responding to Rexilion asking me "I would like to hear what parts of their theology you refer to. What portions are making you feel warm and comfortable? I'd like to see how those bits compare to Anglican theology and see if (or where) they differ. " and chose my expressions when replying in that vein. Obviously I would suck up what I didn't "like" but ( surely like everyone else ?) only if I believed them, in conscience, to be true, of course. I
This is a very recent misunderstanding. If you read any major Orthodox saint on the subject, including Photius, Gregory Palamas, and George Scholarius, they all believed that the Virgin Mary was cleansed of sin at some point - either at her own conception, or at the annunciation. It's important to bear in mind that Satisfaction Theory is not the same thing as Penal Substitution. The intuition behind the former is an essentialist (rather than voluntarist) conception of God's justice, meaning that God cannot dispense with his own justice in order to act with mercy, and that human beings' debt to God must be satisfied in order for that mercy (which God also wills antecedently) to be possible. Human beings cannot repay that debt on their own, so God became incarnate and paid it himself for us, thus enabling himself to offer mercy to all. Penal Substitution is rather different, making human beings - and by extension the Son of God - the object of God's wrath, with the Son receiving that wrath in our place. (Electing to suffer and die in order to pay a debt for us isn't the same thing as being made to endure divine wrath instead of us.) Although one doesn't find the fully worked out Anselmian theory in the Eastern Fathers, one does find them echoing the intuitions held in common with Anselm. The notion that sin creates a debt, that God's justice is eternal, and that the crucifixion (and not just the resurrection) accomplished something in its own right, are all things one finds affirmed throughout the liturgy, the iconography of the crucifixion, and the writings of the saints, etc. One also does not find in the polemical writings directed against Rome the charge that Rome had a different or faulty understanding of the atonement or original sin. The notion that anyone thought this at the time is to read contemporary controversies back into history. Orthodoxy is a straightforwardly Asiatic religion with Christian content. The emphasis on ritual, iconography, saints, etc., are all perfectly normal religious intuitions from the Old World. The important thing to remember is that these things are all means to an end: achieving union with God. Orthodoxy has blessed all of these means as conducive to that end. Orthodoxy had to be state-supported because the fullness of Orthodox life is only realized in monasticism, and monasticism in turn was held in high regard by the laity and acted as a firm support of the State. It's hardly unique in that regard. The same thing happened with Buddhism in medieval China and Japan, with the Roman Church in the West, and with the various Protestant Churches in northern Europe (and, of course, in England). I wish you well as you work your way through these issues. Take your time. There's no rush.
Thank you for your informed reply @Invictus I have a lot to learn and as you can tell I'm confused on many points. Sometimes I get discouraged and feel like packing it in as it all seems so difficult to get to grips with and I can't see where I will end up. Then I try to step back, take it easy, and just rely on Jesus to get me through. I have to believe God doesn't require me to get every theological point right
Yes, indeed! If God required perfect theological understanding, none of us mortals would make the cut! The essence of Christianity is: Trust God with a childlike faith, and follow Him. Love God with all your being, and love others as you love yourself. Don't sweat the details.
Orthodox theological education for the clergy is generally quite poor, especially in the West. Clergy go to seminary to learn how to perform liturgies, hear confessions, run parishes, etc., which is all well and good, as far as it goes. Whatever philosophical, theological, or biblical studies curricula they’re exposed to are quite minimal. (Name all the Orthodox biblical scholars you can think of in 60 seconds...) There are no Orthodox Bible commentaries. There are no Orthodox systematic theologies. The one Bible out there claiming to be a complete Orthodox Bible in English is iffy at best (for personal study, in my opinion you’re better off using the NETS Septuagint alongside an NRSV New Testament…it’s not a perfect match with the Byzantine canon but it’s probably the most satisfactory combination overall, plus the scholarship is impeccable). As far as theological writing is concerned, my advice is to ignore almost everything published since 1900, with some exceptions, as much of it is based on outdated scholarship. On the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Saints, the Church, the Sacraments, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Holy Life, Sin and Redemption, etc., the Orthodox believe the exact same things as the Roman Catholics, and for the same reasons. The only 2 real differences - one (mostly) verbal, one institutional - is that the Orthodox deny that the Son plays a role in the Spirit’s procession from the Father, and that the Pope has ordinary universal jurisdiction. The remainder of the apparent differences are more a matter of ethos and pathos than logos. Lengthy, elaborate liturgies are very important in Eastern Christian praxis, as are the various rituals that accompany them. Those things are not optional, or incidental to Orthodox practice; they are the core. Orthodox piety is not individualistic (as much piety in the West has become, especially those traditions rooted in revivalism); what the corporate body does matters enormously, and it is only with and as a part of that corporate body that one can experience or attain union with God, in Eastern Christian understanding. I would not discourage anyone from exploring or adopting Eastern Christianity. It is a venerable tradition and an authentic representation of proper Christian piety. One just needs to have a firm idea of what it is, and what it isn’t. No form of Christianity is perfect, and Orthodoxy is no exception. Hope this helps.
Thinking about it, I guess my interest in Orthodoxy was fanned by meeting a Priest a few years back. We had a lot of personal similarities in our life experiences and he showed me a very attractive version of living the Christian life. As I read books in the next few years, I took on board the idea that the unbroken traditions of the early Christians lay in orthodoxy; I also was given to understand that the stuff I mentioned above was Orthodox theology. Subsequently, I read a lot which suggested the early Christians were not protestants ( in the sense of my own experience of Protestantism as a Baptist ) and I began to believe that the Church had been fragmented by Catholic abuses and the Reformation's over- reaction against these. Talking to Orthodox I also came to believe that the True Church had been promised that it would not be led into error and so it should be believed and so the idea that Tradition taught by the Church was as important as Scripture - that Tradition had informed Scripture and so should be respected as much. However, then I started to read a bit more and the whole Icon thing opened a can of worms. I love the Liturgy and the incense and all the stuff that I never have participated in before and I really love the grandeur and sense of awe it brings but I'm just not sure about where I am now. Bear in mind I've not been studying this for years, but only started really looking in the last few months. Anyway, I'm glad I found this forum. Thank you all for your help
One thing you need to realize is that Anglicanism is not really Protestant unless you just understand Protestantism as not in communion with Rome.
A rather puzzling assertion, given Anglicanism’s historic teaching and practice. How do you define Protestantism?
I am really talking about in the colloquial American sense of Evangelicalism and Baptist type thought and church. In that regard Anglicanism is not Protestant.
You might be surprised ( or not ) to hear that until today I had no idea what an Anglo-Catholic position was I still don’t really have a lot of knowledge but I’ve read a bit this morning and I’ve contacted a Priest to see if we can meet.
Not so surprising, really. Good idea to go and have a talk; it might be a good fit for you. I think Anglo-Catholics are on the "high church" end of the Anglican spectrum: plenty of bells and smells, and a Carolinian-type emphasis on bringing people into the visible church in the thought that they will hear, absorb, and become Christians. Whereas the "low church" Anglicans may have somewhat less incense and chanting, shorter processional trains, less elaborate vestments, and sometimes (unfortunately) modern music instead of traditional hymns, as well as a bit more (though not enough IMO) emphasis on evangelism. That's a generalization; there are many variations across the spectrum.
Well I have been to a couple of services now. In one church it was Anglo Liberal-Catholic ( as far as I recall ) and the other traditional Anglo-Catholic. I enjoyed both but felt more at home in the latter. I am now wondering what my standing is in the Orthodox Church given my being a catachumen there. I was blessed and they might not take kindly to me attending another church. I need to talk to them. Honestly, I'm not 100% sure what obligations being a catachumen carries @Invictus, are you able to give any information about this?
Once you are a catechumen the expectation is that you will attend the Orthodox Liturgy unless you are prevented from doing so. Orthodox are generally not supposed to attend non-Orthodox services (though there are exceptions to this in practice), and are forbidden from partaking in other churches’ sacraments.
Thank you @Invictus I have managed to speak with the priest and he told me this too. It seems I’m at a bit of a crossroads. I feel that I rushed into being a Catechumen too quickly. I obviously haven’t a clear understanding of Orthodox basics I was under the impression it was a blessing to aid me on my journey in finding the truth wherever it might lead me Obviously the hope was that I would join the Orthodox Church but I don’t feel that I hid my doubts before the blessing. I do regret getting into this situation in which I feel I’ve been pinned down more than I want at this point. I’m very new and I’m kind of stuck with little contact with Orthodox Christians due to my location and I’ve put myself in a difficult position for having contact with non- Orthodox ones I am not sure what to do next
Pray. Pray for guidance. You may wish to speak to the priest that you spoke of and make your valid concerns known to him.
Thank you @Br. Thomas I am doing, and spoke with the priest yesterday. It's hard as he's far from me geographically but I've been in touch with one else nearer to me and will see him today.
The important thing is your relationship with God. Orthodox Church rules are their rules, not God's rules on your life. Take whatever time you need, and relax about the whole process. That's my advice.