Отличие православия от католицизма кратко: Православие и католицизм — Схемы и пособия

Чем православие отличается от католичества: различия

Католицизм имеет от православия достаточно много отличий, описать которые сразу не выйдет ввиду необходимости ссылок на многие религиозные источники и проведения исторических параллелей. Разбор основных отличий и небольшой исторический экскурс — читайте в статье.

Отличительные черты католицизма

Фото: Flickr.com

Католицизм является первым по численности последователей (более 1,2 млрд). Во главе стоит Папа Римский, который фактически является верховным правителем святого престола, а не Патриарх. Тем не менее еще не так давно все епископы в католицизме также назывались папами.

Нужно также учитывать, что несмотря на обширное мнение касательно того, что Папа полностью непогрешим — это не так. Непогрешимыми являются исключительно его религиозные высказывания и принимаемые в рамках управления церковью решения.

Основные догматы

Фото: Flickr.com

У католицизма также существуют догматы, которые кардинально отличаются от Евангельской истины, преобладающей в православии. В числе таковых можно отметить:

1. Филиокве — утверждает, что Святой Дух исходит из Богов Отца и Сына.
2. Целибат — фиксирует безбрачие духовенства.
3. Чистилище — принимает существование такого места, в котором можно искупить свои грехи. Попадают в него после смерти и до попадания в ад или рай.
4. Догма об исключительно непорочном зачатии девы Марии.
5. Причастие мирян только Телом Христовым, духовенства – Телом и Кровью.
6. Включение в Священное Предание тех решений, что принимались после семи вселенских соборов.

И хотя это не все догматические различия, но те основы, которые должен знать каждый, неверующий человек в том числе.

Обоюдное влияние

Фото: Flickr.com

И несмотря на наличие отличий, существует обоюдное влияние православия на католическое учение, и наоборот. К таковым относят:

1. Тяга католиков к православным иконам, образы которых до сих пор можно встретить в церквях.
2. Католиков также привлекают работы богословов из православия. Они не отрицают их и изучают, в полной мере поддерживая культурный уровень.
3. До 19 века православная иконопись частично была подвержена влиянию католиков. Все это было частично, а не повсеместно и только до тех пор, пока православными мастерами не был совершен полноценный переход на академическую манеру.
4. Перенятие богослужения из католицизма — пассии.
5. Обоюдное влияние на архитектуру зданий друг друга. Православные архитекторы брали что-то из католических церквей, а католики от православных. При этом конфликтов на этой почве не возникало.

Православие и католицизм до сих пор продолжают заимствовать друг у друга культурные аспекты. Это наглядно подтверждает встреча Папа Римского с Патриархом в 2016 году. Именно в рамках этой встречи было произведено обсуждение важных для обоих направлений вопросов.

Рекомендуем прочитать: Различия между православием и протестантизмом

Главные отличия от православия

Фото: ru.wikipedia.org

Итак, теперь что касается той фундаментальной разницы между католицизмом и православием. Она заключается в следующем:

1. Соблюдение целибата в православии осуществляется только в монашестве. Все прочее духовенство имеет полное право вступить в брак.
2. В православии Священное Предание не содержит в себе постановления из семи Вселенских соборов. Оно также не включает в себя решения всех тех соборов, что были после, и послания папы.
3. Догмат о чистилище в православии отсутствует и никогда не существовал.
4. Учение о том, что существует переизбыток добрых дел Христа, апостолов и других важных для церкви личностей отсутствует. В католицизме же он есть и переизбыток трактуется как «емкость», откуда верующий может черпать свое спасение. Если смотреть на это учение глубже, то только благодаря ему было допущено существование индульгенций, которые стали причиной конфликтов между католиками и протестантами. Более того, индульгенция была тем явлением, что возмутила Лютера, ведь изначально была цель не создать новое направление в христианстве, а «исправить» католицизм.
5. Латинский культ сердца Иисуса не признается в православии. Причина, по которой он существует в католицизме, — видения монахини Маргариты Алякок. Она утверждала, что Иисус приснился ей и во сне показывал собственное сердце, попутно обучая почитанию сердца и давая наставления на распространение этого среди всех верующих. Никаких оснований признавать эти видения настоящими у православия нет.
6. Православие во время литургии использует квасный хлеб, в то время как католики используют пресный.
7. Католики принимают страсть и считают ее естественным для человека. Они верят, что именно страсть заставляет человека либо действовать, либо бездействовать. В православии же страсть приравнивается к греху и даже находит католический термин для обозначения — «порок».
8. Точная дата Пасхи утверждена согласно александрийской пасхалии, а в католицизме по григорианской.
9. Святой Дух в православии исходит только от Бога Отца, а в католицизме он исходит и от Бога Отца и от Бога Сына.

Однако несмотря на все эти различия не стоит принимать католиков за людей, которые «неправильно» верят. Вера не может быть правильной или неправильной. Именно ввиду того, что есть расхождения с православием, нужно при возможности продемонстрировать и аргументировать неправильность учений. Это позволит найти в душе католиков путь к истине.

Как показывает история, католики и православные особо не конфликтуют друг с другом и зачастую даже заимствовали друг от друга некоторые аспекты учения. Связано это с тем, что несмотря на наличие большего количества отличий, все они не настолько кардинальны, как в том же протестантстве. А встреча Папы Римского с Патриархом РПЦ лишний раз подтверждает то, что проблема гонения христиан общая для всех направлений религиозного учения, вне зависимости от любых различий между ними.

Загрузка… 90000 Orthodoxy’s Official Response to Calvinism — The Confession of Dositheus (1673) 90001 90002 Cyril Lucaris 90003 90004 90003 The Orthodox Church has made two major responses to the Protestant Reformation. The first response was to Lutheranism when the Lutheran theologians of Tübingen and Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople exchanged letters from 1573 to 1581. The exchange ended in an impasse due to irreconcilable theological differences. See the «Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue in the Sixteenth Century.»The second response was to the Reformed tradition almost a century later in тисячі шістсот сімдесят дві when a synod of bishops gathered in Jerusalem to respond to Cyril Lucaris ‘Calvinistic 90006 1629 Confession 90007. The council resoundingly rejected Reformed theology and drafted a formal statement known as the 90006 Confession of Dositheus 90007. It soon acquired the status of being Orthodoxy’s definitive stance on Reformed theology. 90004 90003 In this article, I will be examining the 90006 Confession of Dositheus 90007 to understand why Calvinism was rejected and the rationale for these rejections.The Jerusalem Synod made lengthy responses to three issues: (1) 90006 sola scriptura 90007, (2) double predestination, and (3) icons and praying to the saints. In addition, it made shorter responses: (1) 90006 sola fide 90007, (2) church government, (3) the sacraments, and (4) prayers for the dead. To assist the reader, certain parts of the quoted excerpts have been emphasized. 90004 90003 90004 90003 90022 Cyril Lucaris 90023 90004 90003 Cyril Lucaris (1572-1638) was born in Crete, which at the time was occupied by the Venetian Republic.His education was far ranging. He studied in Venice, Padua, Wittenberg, and Geneva, where he encountered the Reformed faith. For a brief period of time he was a professor at the Orthodox academy in Vilnus, Lithuania. He was ordained to the priesthood under the patriarchate of Alexandria. He later served as Patriarch of Alexandria from тисячу шістсот один to 1620. Then from 1620 to his death in 1638 році, he served as Patriarch of Constantinople. Cyril’s tenure as Patriarch of Constantinople was a tumultuous one marked by his being deposed and reelected to the patriarchate several times.His unstable tenure reflects the intrigues of Turkish rule and Roman Catholicism’s efforts to extend its influence into Russia and the Ottoman Empire. In 1638 році, the Sultan ordered Cyril’s execution out of fear that he would stir up the Cossacks against him. 90004 90003 90004 90003 90022 Cyril’s 90006 Confession 90007 90023 90004 90003 In тисячу шістсот двадцять дев’ять, Cyril’s 90006 Confession 90007 was published in Latin in Geneva. In the next several years, it would be translated into French, German, and English.Cyril’s 90006 Confession 90007 generated considerable controversy among the Orthodox. Between тисяча шістсот тридцять вісім and тисячу шістсот дев’яносто один six local councils condemned it (Ware p. 96). In 1638 році, a synod in Constantinople declared: «Anathema to Cyril, the wicked new iconoclast!» (Pelikan p. 285) Cyril’s embrace of Calvinism can be attributed to three factors: (1) the appeal of Reformed theology, (2) the lack of precision up till then on certain points of Orthodox theology (Pelikan p. 283), and (3) the advantage of currying the support of Protestants against Roman Catholicism.90004 90003 Cyril’s 90006 Confession 90007 was controversial in other ways as well. There were some who believe that Cyril’s 90006 Confession 90007 was a forgery. It should be noted, however, that the 90006 Confession 90007 had been in circulation for about nine years prior to Cyril’s death in 1638. Furthermore, there is no evidence of Cyril having disavowed his 90006 Confession 90007 in writing. In his favor was the fact that Cyril was not deposed by a synod of bishops but by the Turkish Sultan.90004 90003 A recent assessment of Cyril Lucaris can be found in Fr. Josiah Trenham’s 90006 Rock and Sand 90007 (2015). As a graduate of Westminster Seminary (Escondido, CA), Reformed Theological Seminary (Jackson, MS; Orlando, FL), and having received his doctorate under the supervision of Andrew Louth at University of Durham, England, Fr. Josiah is in a good position to assess the controversy about Cyril Lucaris ‘theological leanings. He wrote: 90004 90055 90003 Historians have differed on the authenticity of this confession, some affirming the authorship of Lucaris, and others noting that we have a large body of books and letters from the Patriarch in which he does not advocate Calvinist positions and is a defender of Holy Orthodoxy .There is no doubt that the Jesuits were seeking to undermine Lucaris and to brand him as a Calvinist and a betrayer to Holy Orthodoxy so that his valiant opposition to Latin intrigues would be weakened. . . . Though Patriarch Lucaris is said to have disavowed authorship of the Confession orally on several occasions, this was never done in writing. 90004 90058 90003 There is some ambivalence as to Cyril’s posthumous status in Orthodoxy. The Patriarchate of Alexandria recognized him as a saint and martyr, but the other Orthodox jurisdictions have yet to accept this judgment of Cyril.I found several convoluted attempts to prove that Cyril was falsely accused of being a Protestant. In light of the absence of evidence that Cyril’s 90006 Confession 90007 was a forgery along with the absence of any evidence of Cyril disavowing the 90006 Confession 90007, I lean towards Cyril’s 1629 90006 Confession 90007 as a genuine evidence of Cyril’s having embraced the Reformed faith. I also find it noteworthy that two prominent scholars-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and Yale professor Jaroslav Pelikan-assumed Cyril to be the author of the 1629 90006 Confession 90007.However, the main focus of this article will be the 1672 Synod’s response to Reformed theology rather than the status of Cyril Lucaris ‘beliefs. 90004 90003 90004 90003 90022 The Confession of Dositheus 90023 90004 90003 The Jerusalem Synod was convened in тисячі шістсот сімдесят дві to respond to the controversy generated by Cyril’s 90006 Confession 90007. It met 108 years after Calvin’s death and not long after the Reformed tradition had drawn up two major doctrinal statements: the 90006 Canons of Dort 90007 (1619) and the 90006 Westminster Confession 90007 (1646).In other words, the Synod was addressing Calvinism at a time when it had attained mature expression. The Jerusalem Synod issued the 90006 Confession of Dositheus 90007 which explicitly condemned the teachings of John Calvin. The document took its name from Dositheus Notaras, the Patriarch of Jerusalem who presided over the Synod. 90004 90003 The 90006 Confession of Dositheus 90007 consists of: an opening paragraph, eighteen decrees, four questions, and an epilogue. The 90006 Confession 90007 in no uncertain terms denounced John Calvin and the Reformed tradition.90004 90055 90003. . . but would be the Church of the malignant {Psalm 25: 5} as it is obvious the church of the heretics undoubtedly is, and especially that of Calvin, who are not ashamed to learn from the Church, and then to wickedly repudiate her. (Decree 2; Leith p. 487) 90004 90058 90003 Here the Orthodox synod recognized Calvin’s acquaintance with the Church Fathers then it criticized him for abandoning the patristic consensus. Even more striking is the strong language used to describe the Reformed tradition as the «church of the heretics.»Also notable is the specificity of the document’s language. Cyril Lucaris is mentioned by name three times: in Decree 10 (Leith p. 492), Question 4 (Leith p. 515), and the Epilogue (Leith p. 516). Calvin is mentioned by name once in Decree 2 (Leith p. 487), and the Calvinists twice: in Decree 10 (Leith p. 492) and in Question 4 (Leith p. 513). 90004 90003 90004 90003 90022 90006 Sola Scriptura 90007 90023 90004 90003 Conservative Protestants and Evangelicals will be happy to find that in Decree 2, the Orthodox Church affirms the divine inspiration and infallibility of Scripture.However, they will find that the Synod repudiated the Protestant tenet of 90006 sola scriptura 90007 (the Bible alone), insisting that the Bible must be understood in light of how the Church interpreted the Bible. 90004 90055 90003 We believe the Divine and Sacred Scriptures to be God-taught; and, therefore, we ought to believe the same without doubting; yet not otherwise than as the Catholic Church has interpreted and delivered the same. (Leith p. 486) 90004 90058 90003 The Synod warned that without the Church’s teaching authority, the consequences will be men interpreting the Bible from their own standpoint, thereby opening the way for heresy, theological fragmentation, and denominationalism.90004 90055 90003 For if [we were to accept Scriptures] otherwise, each man holding every day a different sense concerning them, the Catholic Church [ie, the Orthodox Church] would not by the grace of Christ continue to be the Church until this day, holding the same doctrine of faith, and always identically and steadfastly believing. But rather she would be torn into innumerable parties, and subject to heresies. (Leith p. 486) 90004 90058 90003 As mentioned earlier, conservative Protestants and Evangelicals will be happy to learn that Orthodoxy affirms the infallibility of Scripture.However, they will need to wrestle with the claim that just as the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, so likewise He inspired the Church. The concluding sentence of Decree 2 affirms that both the Bible and the Orthodox Church are infallible. 90004 90055 90003. . . it is impossible for her [the Church] to in any wise err, or to at all deceive, or be deceived; but like the Divine Scriptures, is infallible, and has perpetual authority. 90004 90058 90003 Unlike Roman Catholicism which situates infallibility within the papacy, Orthodoxy understands infallibility to be the result of the Holy Spirit guiding the entire Orthodox Church into truth (see John 16:13).The magisterium (teaching authority) of the Orthodox Church is framed by Holy Tradition, e.g., the Nicene Creed, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Divine Liturgy, the Church Fathers, etc. Decree 12 explains in greater detail how the Holy Spirit through the Church Fathers keeps the Orthodox Church free from error. (Leith p. 496) 90004 90003 The Synod encouraged all Orthodox Christians to hear the Bible, a reference to the Scripture reading during the Liturgy. However in Question 1, it discouraged private reading of Scripture unless one had been properly trained in the interpretation and meaning of Scripture.(Leith pp. 506-507) Question 2 refutes the Protestant doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture asserting that certain parts of Scripture are difficult to understand. (Leith p. 507) In Question 3, the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books (aka Apocrypha) -which many Protestants do not recognize-is upheld. All these point to how Orthodoxy understands and approaches Scripture differently from Protestantism. (Leith pp. 507-508) 90004 90003 90004 90003 90022 Double Predestination 90023 90004 90003 Reformed theology is well known for its doctrine of double predestination.We find that the Orthodox Church holds a different understanding of predestination. The opening sentence of Decree 3 affirmed that God predestines people, but explicitly rejects the doctrine of double predestination. 90004 90055 90003 We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other 90022 without cause 90023.(Decree 3) 90004 90058 90003 One might wonder how Orthodoxy can affirm God’s eternal decrees while rejecting double predestination. The answer is that unlike Calvinism which teaches unconditional election, Orthodoxy believes that humanity retained the capacity for free will after the Fall and that God in his omniscience foreknew how each person would exercise their free will. 90004 90055 90003 But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other.(Decree 3) 90004 90003 So [he still has] the same nature in which he was created, and the same power of his nature, that is free-will, living and operating, so that he is by nature able to choose and do what is good, and to avoid and hate what is evil. (Decree 14) 90004 90058 90003 Decree 3’s statement that God would not justify or condemn «without cause» -a reference to the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election-can be understood to teach conditional election, that is, dependent on the moral choices one makes.90004 90003 It is highly instructive to note how the Jerusalem Synod understood human free will to be the basis for the doctrine of synergy (human cooperation with divine grace). Furthermore, synergy is at work in all people with two different outcomes: salvation or condemnation. 90004 90055 90003 And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing [or, prevenient] grace, being, as a light to those in darkness, by the Divine goodness 90022 imparted to all 90023, to 90022 those that are willing to obey 90023 this — for it is of use only to the willing, not to the unwilling — and 90022 co-operate 90023 with it, in what it requires as necessary to salvation, there is consequently granted particular grace.This grace 90022 co-operates 90023 with us, and enables us, and makes us to persevere in the love of God, that is to say, in performing those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonishes us that we should do, justifies us, and makes us predestinated. But 90022 those who will not obey 90023, and 90022 co-operate 90023 with grace; and, therefore, will not observe those things that God would have us perform, and that abuse in the service of Satan the free-will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good, are consigned to eternal condemnation.(Decree 3) 90004 90058 90003 The Orthodox understanding is that even after the Fall man retains free will and that God bestows prevenient grace on all peoples: «by the Divine goodness 90022 imparted 90023 90022 to all 90023.» Furthermore, it understands that prevenient grace «co-operates with us» pointing to the synergistic understanding of salvation in Christ. The application of the doctrine of synergy to the saved and the unsaved can be seen in the two parallel phrases «those that are willing to obey» and «those who will not obey, and co-operate with grace.»Thus, all humanity have received in some measure God’s grace, and have chosen either to respond positively to God’s grace or refuse it. 90004 90003 Decree 3’s affirmation of free will challenges one of the foundational premises of Reformed soteriology: monergism, the teaching that God is the sole source and determiner of our salvation. That is, if we are saved, it is because God so chose to save us, and if we are damned, it is because God in his inscrutable wisdom has chosen this fate for us.There is no room for free will or synergism in the monergistic paradigm of salvation found in Reformed theology. 90004 90003 Reading further into Decree 3, we find the tone of outrage and dismay by the fathers of the Jerusalem Synod at the heartless cruelty implicit in the Reformed doctrine of double predestination. In no uncertain terms, they condemned this teaching as impious and blasphemous. 90004 90055 90003 But then to affirm that the Divine Will is thus solely and without cause the author of their condemnation, what greater defamation can be fixed upon God? and what greater injury and blasphemy can be offered to the Most High? 90004 90003 But of eternal punishment, of cruelty, of pitilessness, and of inhumanity, we never, never say God is the author, who tells us that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents.90004 90003 90004 90058 90003 90006 90022 Sola Fide 90023 90007 90004 90003 In Decree 13, the 90006 Confession of Dositheus 90007 rejects the core Protestant doctrine 90006 sola fide 90007 (justification by faith alone): 90004 90055 90003 We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which works through love, that is to say, through faith and works. (Leith p. 496) 90004 90058 90003 They explained that good works is a manifestation or fruit of faith, something quite different from the medieval Roman Catholic understanding of good works as meritorious.90004 90055 90003 But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becomes efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises {cf. 2 Corinthians 5:10} that each of the Faithful may receive what is done through his own body, whether it be good or bad. 90004 90058 90003 The Jerusalem Synod’s brief response to 90006 sola fide 90007 here most likely reflects the Lutherans giving greater emphasis on 90006 sola fide 90007 than the Calvinists.90004 90003 90004 90003 90022 Icons and the Veneration of the Saints 90023 90004 90003 In Question 4, the Jerusalem Synod made a lengthy rebuttal to Reformed iconoclasm. (Leith pp. 508-516). In response to the Calvinists citing the Second Commandment as grounds for the rejection of images, the Jerusalem Synod noted that the Second Commandment was later followed by God instructing Moses to make representations of the cherubim, oxen, and lions that were to be placed in the Temple. By placing the Second Commandment in the broader context, the Jerusalem synod did something Calvinists then and even today fail to do.90004 90055 90003 Therefore, when we contemplate God Himself saying at one time, «You shall not make for yourself any idol, or likeness; neither shall you adore them, nor serve them; » {Exodus 20: 4,5; Deuteronomy 5: 8,9} and at another, commanding that Cherubim should be made; {Exodus 25:18} and further, that oxen and lions {1 Kings 7:29} were placed in the Temple, we do not rashly consider the seriousness of these things. For faith is not in assurance; but, as has been said, considering the occasion and other circumstances we arrive at the right interpretation of the same; and we conclude that, «You shall not make for yourself any idol, or likeness,» is the same as saying, «You shall not adore strange Gods,» {Exodus 20: 4} or rather, «You shall not commit idolatry.»(Leith p. 510) 90004 90058 90003 The Synod concluded that the Second Commandment is best understood, not as condemning visual representations in places of worship, but rather the worship of false gods. 90004 90003 The Jerusalem Synod defended the veneration of icons by noting that it was an ancient practice going back to the time of the Apostles and that it has been affirmed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea 787). 90004 90055 90003 And as to the Saints whom they [the Calvinists] bring forward as saying that it is not lawful to adore Icons, we conclude that they [icons] rather help us since they in their sharp disputations inveighed both against those that adore the holy Icons with latria [Gk: adoration], as well as against those that bring the icons of their deceased relatives into the Church.They [the Calvinists] subjected to anathema those that so that, but not against the right adoration, either of the Saints, or of the holy Icons, or of the precious Cross, or of the other things that have been mentioned, especially since the holy Icons have been in the Church, and have been adored by the Faithful even from the times of the Apostles. This is recorded and proclaimed by very many with whom and after whom the Seventh Holy Ecumenical Synod puts to shame all heretical impudence. (Leith p.510) 90004 90058 90003 Related to the veneration of icons is the veneration of saints. 90004 90055 90003 Since the Saints are and are acknowledged to be intercessors by the Catholic Church, as has been said in the Eighth Decree, it is time to say that we honor them as friends of God, and as praying for us to the God of all . 90004 90058 90003 The Orthodox understanding of Christ’s resurrection strongly influenced its understanding that some kind of fellowship exists between the Church Militant on earth and the Church Triumphant in heaven, and that the saints are present before the throne of God.This contrasts sharply with the general practice of Calvinists and other Protestants of barely giving attention to the dead after their burial. 90004 90003 90004 90003 90022 Other Differences 90023 90004 90003 The Reformed tradition favored the presbyterian polity, a form of church government typified by the rule of assemblies of presbyters (elders). This is contrary to historic episcopacy in which the bishop’s authority rested in his being part of the chain of apostolic succession. For this reason the Jerusalem Synod felt obliged to defend the historic episcopacy (Decree 10).90004 90003 Decrees 15 to 17 cover the sacraments in general, and baptism and the Eucharist in particular. The Jerusalem synod affirmed the necessity of infant baptism and rejected the notion of rebaptism. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is affirmed. What is interesting to note is that Luther’s doctrine of consubstantiation is rejected and the real presence defined in terms very much like the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantation. This resemblance can be seen in the use of Aristotelian categories of substance and accidents.(Decree 17, Leith p. 503; see also Ware p. 97) The 90006 Confession 90007 stressed that the real presence is not something that can be explained. (Leith p. 504) It goes on to insist that the only valid Eucharist are those celebrated by an Orthodox priest authorized by a canonical Orthodox bishop. (Leith p. 505) 90004 90003 With respect to the afterlife, the Jerusalem Synod taught that upon death the soul departs either to joy or sorrow and that this is a temporary state until the resurrection, when the soul shall be reunited with the body (Decree 18; Leith p.505). It also affirmed the efficacy of praying for the dead — a practice most Protestants avoid. 90004 90003 90004 90003 90022 Summary and Conclusion 90023 90004 90003 Whether or not Cyril Lucaris was in fact a Calvinist, the 90006 Confession of Dositheus 90007 makes it clear in no uncertain terms that it rejected Reformed theology. It repudiated the heart of Reformed soteriology through its rejection of double predestination, unconditional election, and by its affirmation of human free will after the Fall along with the synergistic understanding of salvation (Decree 3).Furthermore, it rejected other core Protestant doctrines: 90006 sola fide 90007 (Decree 13), 90006 sola scriptura 90007 (Decree 2). With respect to worship practices, Reformed iconoclasm is rejected (Question 4). 90004 90003 In light of its universal reception by Orthodoxy, the 90006 Confession of Dositheus 90007 can be considered the definitive dogmatic response by the Orthodox Church to Reformed theology. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware in 90006 The Orthodox Church 90007 noted: 90004 90055 90003 While the doctrinal decisions of general councils are infallible, those of a local council or an individual bishop are always liable to error; but if such decisions are accepted by the rest of the Church, then they come to acquire Ecumenical authority (i.e. a universal authority similar to that possessed by the doctrinal statements of an Ecumenical Council). (Pp. 202-203) 90004 90058 90003 Thus, the 90006 Confession of Dositheus 90007 represents Orthodoxy’s official and definitive response to Calvinism. The Jerusalem Council’s rejection of so many of Protestantism’s core doctrines (90006 sola fide 90007 and 90006 sola scriptura 90007), as well as the Reformed tradition’s distinctive soteriology and ecclesiology, means that irreconcilable differences exist between the two traditions.So while the two traditions may share common ground with respect to the Trinity and Christology, they are far apart on so many other doctrines. 90004 90003 Cyril Lucaris ‘pro-Reformed sympathies in the тисяча шістсот двадцять дев’ять 90006 Confession 90007 had a positive influence on Orthodoxy. It forced the Orthodox Church to grapple with many of its implicitly held beliefs leading it to restate them with greater clarity and precision. Jaroslav Pelikan notes: 90004 90055 90003 When Cyril Lucaris composed his Eastern Confession of the Christian Faith, he strove to adhere to official orthodoxy on the two basic dogmas and to use the official silence of the church on other questions as a warrant to graft Protestantism onto his Eastern Orthodoxy.The outcome of the controversy over his confession showed that the East in fact believed and taught much more than it confessed, but it was forced to make its teachings confessionally explicit in response to the challenge. (P. 283) 90004 90058 90003 Thus, the 90006 Confession of Dositheus 90007 is immensely helpful for people who wish to compare and contrast Orthodoxy against Calvinism (the Reformed tradition). It is also very useful for Orthodox Christians who wish to defend their religion against their Reformed critics.90004 90003 90006 90022 Robert Arakaki 90023 90007 90004 90003 90004 90003 90022 Primary Sources 90023 90004 90003 «Confession of Cyril Lucaris» (1629) at 90006 The Voice 90007 by Christian Research Institute. David Brachter, ed. 90318 «The Confession of Dositheus (Eastern Orthodox, 1672)» at 90006 The Voice 90007 by Christian Research Institute. David Brachter, ed. 90318 Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue in the Sixteenth Century 90004 90003 90022 Secondary Sources 90023 90004 90003 Anthony J.Khokhar. «The ‘Calvinist Patriarch’ Cyril Lucaris and his Bible translations.» 90318 John H. Leith, ed. 90006 Creeds of the Churches 90007. «The Confession of Dositheus (1673),» pp. 485-517. 90318 Jaroslav Pelikan. 90006 The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700) 90007. The Christian Tradition Volume 2. 90318 Josiah Trenham. 90006 Rock and Sand 90007. 90318 Timothy (Kallistos) Ware. 90006 The Orthodox Church 90007. 90004 90003 90004 90003 90004 90003 90346 90006 Related Articles 90007 90349 90004.90000 Eastern Orthodoxy | Definition, Origin, History, & Facts 90001 90002 Nature and significance 90003 90004 Eastern Orthodoxy is the large body of Christians who follow the faith and practices that were defined by the first seven ecumenical councils. The word 90005 orthodox 90006 ( «right believing») has traditionally been used in the Greek-speaking Christian world to designate communities or individuals who preserved the true faith (as defined by those councils), as opposed to those who were declared heretical.The official designation of the church in Eastern Orthodox liturgical or canonical texts is «the Orthodox Catholic Church.» Because of the historical links of Eastern Orthodoxy with the Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantium (Constantinople), however, in English usage it is referred to as the «Eastern» or «Greek Orthodox» Church. These terms are sometimes misleading, especially when applied to Russian or Slavic churches and to the Orthodox communities in western Europe and America. 90007 90004 It should also be noted that the Eastern Orthodox Church constitutes a separate tradition from the churches of the so-called Oriental Orthodox Communion, now including the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, the Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church , the Syriac Orthodox Partriarchate of Antioch and All the East, and the Malankara Orthodox Church of India.From the time of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 to the late 20th century, the Oriental Orthodox churches were out of communion with the Roman Catholic Church and later the Eastern Orthodox Church because of a perceived difference in doctrine regarding the divine and human natures of Jesus . This changed in the 1950s, when both churches independently began dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox churches and resolved many of the ancient Christological disputes. 90007 90002 The cultural context 90003 90004 The Schism of 1054 between the churches of the East and the West was the culmination of a gradual process of estrangement that began in the first centuries of the Christian era and continued through the Middle Ages.Linguistic and cultural differences, as well as political events, contributed to the estrangement. From the 4th to the 11th century, Constantinople (now Istanbul), the centre of Eastern Christianity, was also the capital of the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, Empire, while Rome, after the barbarian invasions, fell under the influence of the Holy Roman Empire of the West, a political rival. In the West theology remained under the influence of St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), while in the East doctrinal thought was shaped by the Greek Fathers.Theological differences could have been settled if the two areas had not simultaneously developed different concepts of church authority. The growth of Roman primacy, based on the concept of the apostolic origin of the church of Rome, was incompatible with the Eastern idea that the importance of certain local churches-Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and, later, Constantinople-could be determined only by their numerical and political significance. For the East, the highest authority in settling doctrinal disputes was the ecumenical council.90007 Get exclusive access to content from our тисяча сімсот шістьдесят вісім First Edition with your subscription. Subscribe today 90004 At the time of the Schism of 1054 between Rome and Constantinople, the membership of the Eastern Orthodox Church was spread throughout the Middle East, the Balkans, and Russia, with its centre in Constantinople, which was also called «New Rome.» The vicissitudes of history have greatly modified the internal structures of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but even today the bulk of its members live in the same geographic areas.Missionary expansion toward Asia and emigration toward the West, however, have helped to maintain the importance of Orthodoxy worldwide. 90007 90002 The norm of church organization 90003 90004 The Orthodox church is a fellowship of «autocephalous» churches (canonically and administratively independent), with the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople holding titular or honorary primacy. The number of autocephalous churches has varied in history. In the early 21st century there were many: the Church of Constantinople (Istanbul), the Church of Alexandria (Africa), the Church of Antioch (with headquarters in Damascus, Syria), and the churches of Jerusalem, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Albania, Poland, the Czech and Slovak republics, and America.90007 90020 Baranavichy 90021 Orthodox church in Baranavichy, Brest province, Belarus. 90022 User1963 90023 90004 There are also «autonomous» churches (retaining a token canonical dependence upon a mother see) in Crete, Finland, and Japan. The first nine autocephalous churches are headed by «patriarchs,» the others by archbishops or metropolitans. These titles are strictly honorary. 90007 90004 The order of precedence in which the autocephalous churches are listed does not reflect their actual influence or numerical importance.The patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, for example, present only shadows of their past glory. Yet there remains a consensus that Constantinople’s primacy of honour, recognized by the ancient canons because it was the capital of the ancient empire, should remain as a symbol and tool of church unity and cooperation. The modern pan-Orthodox conferences were thus convoked by the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople. Several of the autocephalous churches are de facto national churches, the Russian church being by far the largest.However, it is not the criterion of nationality but rather the territorial principle that is the norm of organization in the Orthodox church. 90007 90004 Since the Russian Revolution there has been much turmoil and administrative conflict within the Orthodox church. In western Europe and in the Americas, in particular, overlapping jurisdictions have been set up, and political passions have led to the formation of ecclesiastical organizations without clear canonical status. Although it has provoked controversy, the establishment of the autocephalous Orthodox Church in America (1970) by the patriarch of Moscow has as its stated goal the resumption of normal territorial unity in the Western Hemisphere.In October 2018 the Russian Orthodox Church severed its ties with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople after the latter approved the independence of an autocephalous church of Ukraine; Bartholomew I, the ecumenical patriarch, formally recognized the independence of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine from the Russian Orthodox Church in January 2019. 90007.90000 What is the difference between strict merit, condign merit and congruent merit in Roman Catholicism? 90001 90002 by Matt Slick 90003 4/18/2014 90003 90005 90002 Roman Catholicism has defined various aspects of merit. Merit is the «property of a good work which entitles the doer to receive a reward.» In the Catholic system of rewards for works accomplished, rewards contribute to a person’s salvation. Three main categories of merit have been defined below. 90005 90008 90009 90010 Strict Merit 90011 would be a reward to a person for an action that he performed.The reward is directly related, and also necessarily owed, to that person because of the work he has accomplished. An example would be a specific wage that is owed to a person for a specific amount of work. If the reward is not given, then that is wrong. 90012 90009 90010 Condign Merit 90011 is God’s reward for a work accomplished by a person who does His will. God has bound himself to reward the person for work that is accomplished with the help of the Holy Spirit. This reward is owed because God has bound himself to reward those who do his will, not that they deserve it or have earned it in a strict sense.Instead, God has promised to reward certain actions, and when those actions are performed the reward is required on God’s part. Therefore, the person should receive the reward, and if it is withheld then that is wrong. 90012 90009 90010 Congruent Merit 90011 depends on the kindness and desire of the one giving the merit. It is a reward that is undeserved, not owed. An example would be if my daughter cleaned up the living room and I took her out to get ice cream as a reward. The ice cream is not owed to her, but she «merited» the reward by her effort.If I do not take her out for ice cream, I’ve done nothing wrong. 90012 90021 90002 In order to help understand this better, consider the following chart. 90005 90024 90025 90026 90027 90010 Type of Merit 90011 90030 90027 90010 Definition 90011 90030 90027 90010 Example 90011 90030 90027 90010 Is the person obligated to reward? 90011 90030 90027 90010 Owed / 90003 Earned 90011 90030 90027 90010 If the reward is not given, then it is 90011 90030 90052 90026 90027 90010 Strict 90003 Merit 90011 90030 90059 Reward due to an agreement or necessary and exact recompense due to a work.90030 90059 Working for a wage at an hourly rate gets you an exact reward, a paycheck. 90030 90027 Yes 90003 Obligated 90030 90027 Reward 90003 is strictly earned and owed 90030 90027 Not Just 90030 90052 90026 90027 90010 Condign 90003 Merit 90011 90030 90059 Reward for an action because of God’s promise to reward good works performed by a person who is in God’s grace and is also accomplishing God’s will. 90030 90059 Honoring your parents so you have the reward of a blessing from God since God said you’d be blessed for honoring your parents.Therefore, God must give the reward. 90030 90027 Yes 90003 Obligated 90030 90027 Reward 90003 is not strictly earned, but it is owed 90030 90027 Not Just 90030 90052 90026 90027 90010 Congruent 90003 Merit 90011 90030 90059 Reward for an action based on the kindness and desire of the one giving the merit. It is a reward that is not owed. It is based on the kindness of the one who gives the reward. 90030 90059 You clean your parent’s house though it was not required, and they reward you with ice cream.90010 90011 90030 90027 Not Obligated 90030 90027 Reward is not strictly earned or owed 90030 90027 Just 90030 90052 90110 90111 90002 90005 90002 In Roman Catholicism, salvation is achieved through participation in the sacraments where grace is infused into the person. This infused grace makes the person «more» righteous with God because it is the amount of grace in a person that results in his righteousness before God. Therefore, in order to remain in a state of grace, the Catholics are taught to perform works which contribute to salvation.However, the works are not said to be a strict merit, but rather a condign merit where God grants salvation / grace / righteousness out of the kindness of his own heart that is manifested through the faithful works of the believing Roman Catholic. 90005 90002 The problem with this is that it has led Roman Catholic theology to teach that salvation is attained and maintained by obedience to commandments — which are works. 90005 90008 90009 «The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains:» For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God. «(Catechism of the Catholic Church 816). 90012 90009 «The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; 28 the Second Vatican Council confirms:» The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord.. . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments, «(CCC, par 2068, http://www.vatican.va /archive/catechism/p3s2.htm) 90012 90009 «The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God, «(CCC 2036).90012 90009 The Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law. It is made known to us by divine revelation and by human reason, «(CCC 2080). 90012 90021 90128 Conclusion 90129 90002 The differentiation between strict, condign, and congruent merit in Roman Catholic theology does not alleviate the problem of their seeking to achieve salvation through the keeping of the commandments, which is the Roman Catholic position as is verified in the quotes above. In contrast to this, the Scriptures clearly teach that justification (our right standing with God) is by faith only and not by any works.90005 90008 90009 Romans 3:28, «For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.» 90012 90009 Romans 4: 1-5 «What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? «And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.» 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due.5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. «90012 90021 90002 90005 90002 90005 90002 90005 90002 90005 .