I’d like to begin by thanking JohnDave Medina for his courteous response in “Why I am a Catholic” as well as those who commented for participating in a cordial discussion. As I noted in the introductory post we agreed to begin our dialogue by explaining why we have chosen to affiliate with the particular expressions of Christianity that we do. Now we will state our negative reasons for not identifying with the other’s tradition. While we may shift our focus I hope that our posture remains the same. In other words, readers, remember that we are friends and that this chat is to be understood as one based on mutual respect in spite of our differences.
I noticed something in our first posts. I did not present my Evangelicalism by defending what may be considered key markers of Evangelical identity and JohnDave did not present his Catholicism as a defense of the key markers of Catholic identity. In other words, it is not the core aspects of these traditions that attracted us, but something else. It will be interesting to observe how that impacts our discussion. Now I must move to the main point of this post: Why I am not a Catholic.
The Papacy:
Honestly, I like the idea of a Pope, sometimes. As an Evangelical I see thousands of Popes proclaiming ex catherdra all the time. There is something assuring about the Pope’s role as a unifying figure. It removes the overwhelming anxiety that sometimes engulfs us Protestants who do not know how to say “this is what the Church teaches” because our tradition demands we begin with “this is what I believe.” Likewise, I like the current Pope. I think Pope Francis is an amazing person. In fact, I had great respect for Pope Benedict XVI and John Paul II as well.
My contention does not have anything to do with Bishops. I have pondered the ecclesiology of the Orthodox and Anglicans. I think there is a lot to be said in favor of the episcopate. What I cannot accept as the Pope as the singular head of the Church. In theory the “first among equals” is an idea that doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is the assertion that the Bishop of Rome may declare something and it must be settled as authoritative doctrine.
If the Pope’s office is to be traced back to the Apostle Peter (and I am skeptical of this direct connection) how does that result in papal infallibility? Peter was not infallible. Peter was part of a council in Jerusalem where it appears that James, the brother of Jesus, had the most authority (Acts 15). Paul told the Galatians that Peter was wrong and he withstood him. Could any modern Bishops–whether from Istanbul or Canterbury, Moscow or Los Angeles–do this? I don’t quite understand how the role of ecumenical councils can be subsumed by the role of the Bishop of Rome.
When I considered whether I could be a Roman Catholic I asked myself whether or not I could affirm that the Pope’s excommunication of Martin Luther which damned Luther (correct me if this is not something taught) and I could not affirm this. Luther wasn’t perfect, but he was right about a lot of things, and I expect to see him in the age to come, no matter what a Pope may suggest.
Various Doctrines:
Similarly, while I am attracted to the Papacy as the defender of Apostolic Doctrine, it doesn’t appear to me that this has been the case. The Papacy has advocated a Mariology which to me seems incompatible with the early Christian confession that Jesus is the Savior of the world, the only one. Doctrines such as purgatory, various forms of penance, and even smaller matters such as the use of contraceptives concerns me. I am interested in hearing people discuss the metaphysical relaties regarding Christ’s presence at the Eucharist, but the very black-and-white Catholic teaching on this matter doesn’t make sense to me. Now, there are aspects of Catholic doctrine that I don’t affirm, but they don’t bother me either, such as paedobaptism and praying to the saints–these traditions can be found amongst Protestants in different forms. What does bother me is that it is asserted that shared understanding on these matters is a necessity for fellowship.
That leads me to one of my greatest discomforts with the Catholic Church: Eucharist is meant to bring us together around our shared need for the broken and bloody Christ. Why is it that it has become a symbol of disunity? What does Eucharist have to do with the Bishop of Rome? It seems to me that the very act that ought to depict catholicity for all does the exact opposite.
Participation/Ordination:
Another question I have had to ask myself: if I became Catholic could I look a brother or sister in Christ in the eye then tell them that their lack of affiliation with Rome prevents me from sharing the Lord’s table with them? The answer is “no.” I cannot do that. Likewise, I have pondered the priesthood and the role of women. Currently, I am pastored by a woman. I have been pastored by a couple of amazing married men. Can I say in honestly that Jeff Garner or Rachel Epp-Miller are not called and qualified by the Spirit to lead my community because of marital status or gender? Again, the answer is “no.”
Now, this is not a polemical attack on Catholicism. It is an explanation of why I am not Catholic. I think there is a difference. I embrace JohnDave as a brother in Christ and his choice to be a Catholic doesn’t bother me. A more pressing question is whether being a Catholic allows him to embrace me as a brother in Christ or does my lack of loyalty to Rome prevent it? I think there is one who is the head of the Church, Jesus Christ, the resurrected and ascended Lord. I think he governs through his Spirit. Does that deny that Bishops have had a role or should continue to have a role? No, I don’t think so, though I don’t have a settled position on Bishops. I do not think that allegiance to the Bishop of Rome is a bad thing. I do think that the universal claim of the Papacy and the side effects of that claim are damaging to Christ’s Church.
This may seem like a brief list. It is, but that is because I want to avoid mischaracterization (I hope I did so in this post). I fear that I may create a list of objections that include things I retract later. I welcome clarification from JohnDave and others if it is felt that I have misrepresented the Catholic position. As our conversation moves forward I am sure other differences will arise.
Now, let me reiterate: there have been many times when I have found myself attracted to Catholicism. Therefore, it would be hypocritical for me to act as if I cannot find good in the tradition. There is much good. I want the Church to be one, visibly, not merely invisibly. I hope that as our discussion progresses we will be able to discuss further those things about the other’s tradition that we find to be beautiful and worthwhile.
In the next post JohnDave will explain why he is not an Evangelical. I’m sympathetic to his critique and he hasn’t written it yet!
__________
Previous posts:
the archives near Emmaus 
I theoretically can agree with the Pope as a head of the church, and I think the official explanation of the church’s understanding of Papal infallibility is one that I can theoretically accept. But I feel it is just an unnecessary doctrine. It, (like some of the Marion doctrines) seem to be driven more by a desire to follow other doctrines to logical conclusions than actual need.
Also with the closed eucharist and male celibate priesthood, I understand the reasons for them, but I also don’t think that they are necessary positions.
For me, style probably means more. As part of my pro-evangelical position, I value the need of the church to reach out to those that are not part of the church. I fully support those that are currently Catholic celebrating the mass and upholding the liturgy. In many ways I wish I could be Catholic. But I feel like the liturgy can be at time a hindrance to actually reaching people that are far from the church. All of it is good and has real theological meaning. But when you have to spend so much time explaining it before you can really draw people to worship, I think I have to continue to participate in a low church evangelical world that is more culturally malleable and that has less cultural hindrances to worship.
That being said, I appreciate the Catholic mass and I wish I could participate in a daily mass and eucharist. I think that my church undervalues the eucharist as a regular event (although baptism is the central part of our church worship.) I just wish that the eucharist was a central part of our worship as well
I agree with your dis-allowance of papal infallibility.
Of all of the reasons people have given for rejecting this doctrine – I must say – I like your rationale best (which I’ve not seen before), that James exercised more authority than Peter, and that the Bishopric of Rome has subsumed the authority of the ecumenical councils, It’s the most biblical and appeals the most to common sense; so hard to argue with. I also reject the basis upon which this doctrine is founded, namely ‘Vicarius Christi’. Christ has no proxy. Christ needs no proxy.
However, I find no issue with gender distinctions within a priesthood. Males and famales are distinct, and may be treated as such (biblically). Having said that, I would likely agree that such a regulation should likely not be absolute and universal in nature. Still, it’s not core doctrine (meaning necessary for salvation).
Adam:
I sympathize with you regarding weekly Eucharist. I don’t think my local fellowship does Communion enough. Though this is important it isn’t necessarily Catholic. Anglicans, Orthodox, and others may do weekly Eucharist events, though their understanding of the nature of the event is different.
I am less prone to see the nature of worship as a major matter as it relates to evangelism, but I understand your point there, and I’d prefer to invite someone to worship with me in a place that doesn’t seem as foreign as the Catholic mass.
Andrew:
I know that gender equality in the leadership of the Church isn’t necessarily a Protestant idea, since many Protestants don’t allow it either, but I think the difference is that there are places where it is possible whereas in the RCC it is unlikely to happen any time soon if at all. In other words, one cannot be lead by their conscience on this matter in the RCC.
If one believes in a Holy Ghost, the argument about being lead by one’s conscience is also a compelling one. Each one should be fully persuaded in their own mind [Rom 14:5].
I have to say, the point there about the Apostolic succession and Peter is a good point.
While I see the eucharist as symbolic myself, what is odd to me is that the Catholic hermeneutic traditionally has done a better job of seeing nuances and not too much crass literalism, yet, on this they take it literally and the text itself states Jesus almost always spoke in metaphorical lingo (in Matthew it does literally say that and in John it is inferred).
I share your concern with the tendency for a Catholic to say, “no, you can’t share in the eucharist here”. I for one do not care what tradition you are in, if you believe Jesus is The Son of God, I’m here to share my time and space with you and to worship The Lord with you, we don’t have to agree on anything else.
In fairness, I’m sure some others say the same thing. I would add that there is a whole lot more we agree on as well than disagree.
Brian, you think there is a lot to be said in favor of the episcopate but cannot accept as the Pope as the singular head of the Church. Are you familiar with Conciliarism. This movement began in the fourteenth century to resolve the problem of having two Popes. It promoted the view that the highest authority in the Church is the Ecumenical Council and not the Pope . It was around for awhile but the Popes were able to get the power back. Although it is a good idea, I think that in actual practice if the bishops were in control the RCC would become like the Episcopal Church today.
Thomas:
I have heard a bit about it from classes on ecclesial history, but I don’t know a whole lot about it.
Brian,
Excellent post. The papal thing is probably my biggest reason for not becoming Catholic myself (and I did consider becoming Catholic for a brief time). I wholly understand this objection and agree with it. Like I said to JohnDave on his last post (a point which you also raised), the issues raised by the Jerusalem Council were settled by an council, not by a declaration of Peter.
I don’t exactly understand your other objections which you listed, but did not explain further. If you have time, could you perhaps write a few sentences in a comment about what specifically bothers you about penance and the Catholic teaching on contraception?
As far as the Eucharist, note the early Church. The early Church severed communion with other Christian groups over all sorts of rather arcane heresies. There is no Tradition in the Church of leaving theological matters alone for it to be settled by individuals in their conscience. This is related to your objection that to be Catholic it seems you have to accept many doctrines as opposed to just the essentials. And I suppose this is the mark of Protestantism: that very fundamental theological differences don’t matter. I can’t see why they wouldn’t matter. To give an example, if one person believes that there is real presence and another does not, this is not an example of some matter of preference – it is a fundamental disagreement about who Christ is and about the work of the Holy Spirit. And most other Church doctrines (at least in my Church tradition) are similarly important matters. I suppose the main question is this: If a Church believes they are the Church founded by the Apostles, why should they share the Eucharist with any and everyone who denies most of its teachings?
Furthermore, why would one being unable to ‘follow his/her own conscience’ on these matters be a negative thing? Did Christ establish His Church so that everyone can go their own way within it? What did Paul mean when he spoke of ecclesiastic authority? Maybe I just don’t see how this can be ignored, because Paul did not seem to think that everyone should just follow their own conscience. Should everyone look to their own conscience in deciding whether or not there was a time when the Son was not? Is not the existence of more than one opinion on any topic in Christianity a sign that ‘one’s own conscience’ is insufficient?
As a recent convert—is that the right word?—to the Anglican tradition from a non-denom/baptist background, I can say that I’ve grown in my respect and appreciation of the RCC. However, similar to you, the reasons that keep me from becoming RC are the following: (1) closed table and the doctrine of transubstantiation that is closely tied with this; (2) papal infallibility; and (3) not only no women priests, but also no married priests (though there are a few exceptions to that now). Thanks for your post and generous spirit.
John M:
Contraceptives: I think this should be a matter of conscience. I don’t affirm the idea that “at conception” there is a human, yet I’m quite conservative when it comes to abortion. Currently, one of our great dilemmas is not to “fill the earth,” but population control. I don’t think in my society, at this point in history, with my particular goals in life the wisest or even more moral thing to do is have a bunch of children. I don’t think that a decision like this should be made top down by a man living in the Vatican.
Penance: I don’t get the ritual. I don’t understand repeating words like “Hail Mary” when we have examples of people falling down before Jesus asking for forgiveness of sins or we have people like King David expressing great remorse and being heard by God. This would be connected with the idea that the person to whom I should confess sins is a priest. Why not any Christian?
As far as the early Church’s use of Eucharist is concerned I think they got it wrong. Jesus gave us a meal, not a metaphysic. Jesus said to do it in remembrance of him. Jesus didn’t act as a pre-Thomistic philosopher deciding who could be in fellowship with one another over how they understood the nature of his presence. Neither do the Evangelists convey that this is how we should understand Jesus’ words. When Paul talks to the Corinthians he is concerned with abuse of the marginalized: using a meal to reinforce social structures, haves and have not, not whether someone argued that the elements have Christ in them or around them or the presence is mysterious or the ritual is mere symbol.
It isn’t the idea of accepting “many doctrines as opposed to just the essentials” that bothers me. It is the assertion that everything from the confession “Jesus is Lord” down to the denial of woman as priest is essential for the RCC. Now, I understand that not everyone is excommunicated for saying or doing things contrary to the Vatican’s teaching, but if you do cross the line and get noticed, a Nun in the U.S. could be excommunicated for her social views as if she had denied the resurrection. I don’t think one man in Rome should have this power.
You are correct that conscience can be a bad thing. Dictating every aspect of people’s lives can be as bad. Paul spoke where it mattered. Where he felt he had a teaching from the Lord he spoke boldly. Where he did not he made decisions. I don’t deny that. On many matters, even something as controversial as eating meat offered to idols, Paul left it to Christians to learn in the Spirit how to live at times. There is a difference between authority that knows when it is essential to step in to use one’s position and authority that mico-mangages people’s life as if the Spirit is unable to guide and sanctify without them. Also, I think we are at a very different stage in the history of Christianity, but that is another topic for another day.
Wes
That is why the Anglican tradition has appealed to me, at times. It seems to preserve the best of the RCC while allowing for more freedom. I don’t deny that this approach has negative consequences sometimes, e.g., John Shelby Spong as a Bishop or the current identity crisis of the Episcopal Church, but I find these risks are worth taking. I don’t find that the Pope’s role has prevented errant doctrine either. Error is always possible; therefore, we must have grace, a well-developed Pneumatology, and an eschatological hope that our King will sort us out someday.
Good post, Brian. I agree with you on the pope – the lack of centralization and “everyone is his own pope” philosophy in Protestantism is a problem, but letting one single person be infallible doesn’t seem like the solution either. I like the Orthodox approach to leadership and tradition (as far as I understand it).
And the Mary stuff makes me uncomfortable. I realize the propor doctrine is that praying to Mary is not worshipping her but asking her to pray for you. But it seems like some of the popular devotion and relatively recent Marian dogmas like the Assumption come awfully close to crossing the line.
Mary and the Pope are my biggest hangups. I have other disagreements, but I could probably get over them.
I think those two are the biggest things, but I don’t know that those are the only things for me.
The Mary thing was a big hangup up for me as well, but now I’m on board with it that I understand it better. I also think Catholics might take this stuff a little bit ‘further’ than the Orthodox but I’m not sure. The Mary thing isn’t exactly subtle with us, but we don’t have the idea of an Immaculate Conception, for one example.
John M:
Do Orthodox argue that Mary was sinless? I thought this was the case.
Yes, Mary is believed to be sinless. The deal with the immaculate conception is actually that the dogma solves a problem that doesn’t exist in Orthodoxy. The Augustinian idea of inherited guilt is not accepted by the Orthodox, nor is the general notion that sin is some genetic thing passed down biologically. We believe in free will and reject an inherited sin. Affirming that sort of understanding of original sin along with the all-purity of the Mother of God requires some sort of explanation, so I guess the Catholic Church has decided that the birth of Mary must have been some exception. Since we don’t share the Western view of humanity, we don’t need to invent anything special about Mary’s conception to affirm her purity.
What is the reason for this profession in Orthodox thought? If I understand RCC doctrine Jesus’ human nature cannot have been from a sinful person, so Mary couldn’t be sinful. Is that correct?
That I’m not actually sure. That’s very interesting because I don’t see why that should be a problem for us. Since we don’t affirm this ‘stain’ view of original sin, I don’t think that is the reason. It may simply have its origins in her finding favor and all that. We interpret that as actual praise of her righteousness, not some Calvinist sovereign choosing based on whatever. So that’s probably it.
Also, it should be noted that Mary’s purity is not something theoretically impossible for any human aided by the grace of god. But alas we choose otherwise.
Brian: Thanks for the well thought out post! Of course, you are always thoughtful and cordial and no less so here. I don’t know if I should respond here or perhaps we can do response posts. Of course, I don’t have highly thought out responses for everything but there are few things I wrestle with in the Catholic church as a Catholic, though they might not necessarily be anything you’ve said in this post. Just those last couple of sentences might be something we could incorporate in the series.
Adam: You’re correct that a male celibate priesthood isn’t something necessary, although it is in some ways practical (more so, I think, for bishops or religious than for diocesan clergy). I don’t know your familiarity with the Eastern Catholic churches, but like the Orthodox, the Eastern Catholic churches have married clergy. There are also some imports from the Anglican church into the Western Catholic church so you will find married priests who are Roman Catholic; in fact, up until hundreds of years ago, the Western Catholic church had married clergy!
As to the liturgy and reaching the world, let me offer a different perspective. The Mass is supposed to be about reaching the world. The final words are usually something like “The Mass has ended. Go in peace glorifying the Lord through your lives” (there are a few variations). Those like Mother Teresa found their strength by celebrating the Mass daily. From a practical perspective, a uniform Mass means I can participate in it anywhere I go. When I go to Italy, the Philippines, or the United Arab Emirates, I know exactly what to expect and my worship isn’t impeded by having to anticipate what’s going to happen next as has been the case in some churches I’ve been. I don’t think explaining the Mass is too lengthy; I was able to explain it to my Oneness Pentecostal classmate in about 20 minutes. 🙂 He has had interest in visiting both the Catholic and Orthodox churches.
John M:
Evangelicals make a big deal of Jesus’ sinlessness as it relates to his ability to atone for sins. Does Jesus’ sinlessness play the same role in Orthodox thought? In other words, if Mary and Jesus were sinless what would it be that qualifies Jesus die for our sins, but not Mary? Deity?
JohnDave:
Thank you! I don’t expect you to be able to explain everything taught or advocated by the RCC. I think the future posts will be more enjoyable to write because they won’t be “setting the stage” as much. As you are aware, there are many aspects of Evangelical thought where I won’t have good answers, e.g., how we can maintain a canon of authoritative books while rejecting the authority structures that gave space for canon formation. I’m sure that there will be many occasions when both of us give our best answer, even if it is unsatisfying or incomplete.
Brian,
I really enjoy the blog, and I’ve especially enjoyed this series.
I will chime in with John M regarding the Orthodox position. John’s been doing an excellent job providing a voice for the Orthodox in his comments. My family and I were received into the Orthodox Church a year ago after inquiring for a number of years, so I very much still know very little, so take what I say with a grain of salt. 🙂 We were Protestant Evangelicals prior to becoming Orthodox.
Regarding the sinlessness of Mary, I would just echo what John M said: theoretically any human being aided by the grace of God could live sinlessly, but we choose not to. I think, Brian, that your intuition that it is Jesus’ Godhood that qualifies him to die for our sins is pretty close to the answer. Jesus is absolutely the only mediator between God and man. It is in his God-Manhood that we, in our humanity, are reconciled and joined to the divine nature. It is through adoption in Him that we become children of the Father.
Also, in regards to a brief understanding on the nature of Jesus’ atoning death, I would highly recommend this recent article from Fr. Stephen Freeman at Glory to God for All Things: http://glory2godforallthings.com/2013/04/19/therapeutic-substitutionary-atonement/
Again, thanks for the conversation, and blessings,
Shane
Brian,
I believe the answer to your question is deity. That is what Jesus has that Mary and other possible sinless people lack. We place huge emphasis on the Incarnation.
Interestingly, and I didn’t know this coming in, but there is definitely a much smaller emphasis on the atonement in a way. The focus is much more on the resurrection and defeat of death than the crucifixion and taking of sins. The Easterners seem to avoid juridical language in the gospel story.
Brian,
Also, relating to your response to JohnDave, that is one of my biggest questions I always have for evangelicals. How can Scripture have authority if the Church councils that formed it do not? I don’t know where you stand on councils, but I know many Protestants accept the Nicene-Constantinople Creed and many other doctrines of the councils, with the obvious exception of the Second Council of Nicaea (icons), although I believe most accept the Christological claims from there. Of course, modern evangelicalism regularly entertains notions considered heretical by the early church, or at least coming close to. But how they could do that while accepting the Scriptures (which rests on the authority of the Church plus the authority of the Reformation to remove some books).
One question I have about Orthodoxy relates to the ‘evangelization’ of Christianity (I don’t mean this in a protestant sense, though it could be argued this began with the Reformation). As background, the reformation did in some sense, start a dialogue about important issues within Christianity, in its critique of the Roman church.
It addressed issues of the mistakes of the church, abuses, false (meaning unbiblical claims) etc. In response to this the Roman church engaged in a counter-reformation where it made yet more mistakes, which it tried to rectify in Vatican 2. Vatican 2, was also a change in some sense, to address the mistakes not only of the Counter-Reformation, but the original ‘mistakes’ (if you can call it that) which led to the Reformation in the first space.
If you look at some elements of Roman Catholicism (especially evangelical Catholicism responding to the success of Pentcostalism in central America) Catholicism has much to credit to the Reformation and has been influenced by it. (Someone commented recently, that in parts of the US, it is difficult to distinguish between some Catholics churches and some Protestant churches, save for the obvious liturgical differences).
So when I ponder Orthodoxy (especially as it has migrated into Western Europe, and N. America – I wonder has Orthodoxy also become somewhat more evangelical. Has the Reformation influenced it (for the better or worse)?
Shane and John M:
Thank you for the clarification. I can see how the incarnation matters more than the sinlessness, though I don’t think that minimizes sinlessness in our Christology, rather it emphasizes a sinless God-Human. As regards the canon, I am sure that will be something JohnDave and I will address, sooner than later. I admit that I am working through my own thoughts on this matter, not quite settled or satisfied yet, so we’ll see how this dialogue contributes to my thinking.
Andrew,
I don’t think Orthodoxy changed much to become more ‘evangelical,’ but that would really depend on what you mean by the term. the Orthodox Church and the RCC had been parted for centuries before the Reformation, and many of the issues of the Reformation may have been uniquely Western. the Orthodox Church had nor Reformation and therefore no Counter-Reformation.
Of course, Orthodoxy always gains new flavors as it integrates with other cultures, nd the American OCA is likely no exception.
Brian,
Looking forward to your future posts as always, esp as regards to canon and ecclesiastic authority. I’ve read your blog for a while and enjoy almost every post, but this series is particularly interesting to me. As I said on Facebook a while back, I also really enjoyed your Read the Fathers stuff, I’m still reading that site. Clement of Alexandria is hilarious.
John M, true – the orthodox church did not experience directly either the reformation or counter reformation. The Reformation in Europe achieved at least two note-worth effects with respect to Christianity against Rome. It de-emphasized ‘ritualism’, and it emphasis ‘evangelism’.
The Reformation admittedly was against the Roman church abuses (selling of ‘indulgences’ etc), but that doesn’t mean Christiandom hasn’t felt its effect. So for example, the Orthodox church in some sense prior to the Reformation, distanced itself from Rome. Did it not see parallels with the Reformation then?
Surely the Orthodox church (in the West at least) could not have missed the successful evangelical efforts protestantism has exhibited since, look at Latin America today or China! The Orthodox church, like the Roman church, is still pretty heavily ritualistic. I see it doing very little evangelistic work anywhere in the world, and many of its converts have come to it from other Christian traditions, so is it un-evangelistic and dis-interested the the spread of the Gospel?
Either the Orthodox church operates in a vacuum or it doesn’t . I’m trying to figure out which.
Andrew T:
Regarding your question about evangelization and the Orthodox – Orthodoxy in most parts of the world is currently under a lot of persecution, which means the evangelistic impulse (as in the Protestant sense of groing out and preaching the Gospel) is subsumed under trying to survive. I think the greatest preaching of the Gospel by the Orthodox right now is seen in the martyrdom and persecution taking place in the Orthodox parts of the world.
There are unique situations in those areas where there is less or little persecution, too. Currently Russia is experiencing a new flourshing of Church life, however, that is after a century of near extinguishment under communism. Much of Russia’s current focus is re-evangelizing their own people. It is similar in many Orthodox, Eastern-bloc countries.
Here in America, there is no persecution, but American Orthodoxy is really just learning what it is and how to be the Church in this context.
That said, there are missionary activities throughout the world, for instance in Kenya and a huge surge in South America, Guatemal in particular. The Orthodox also have a rich history of evangelization. One need think only of Sts. Cyril and Methodius evangelizing the Slavs and writing and translating the Gospels and more into the Slavic language. Similar are Sts. Herman, Innocent, and others in their mission to the American, particularly Alaskan, people around the 17th century. These saints were known for their proclamation of the Gospel along with the translation of the Scriptures and defense of the native peoples of North America against big business extortion.
In general, the Orthodox have a little different approach to evangelization, too. Not that there is never proclamation, but St. Seraphim of Sarov’s saying accurately sums it up: “Acquire a peaceful spirit and thousands around you will be saved.” For the Orthodox, the Gospel is proclaimed the loudest and cleareast through the example of the life deeply submitted to and transformed by Christ.
As an aside, relating to the Orthodox and its interaction with the Reformation, this article provides a nice summary of the correspondence between the Reformers and the Orthodox Church: http://onbehalfofall.org/2013/03/03/how-the-german-orthodox-church-alm/
Also, in regards to American Orthodoxy, there is mission work being done, but there is acknowledgment that the Church in America needs to learn to do this better, and there are initiatives to make that happen.
Well there can be parallels with the Reformation. Long before the Reformation came along, the East and the West had grown apart (see later). Since the Reformation was in opposition to the Catholic Church, certainly they have some criticisms of Rome that the Orthodox share with them (criticism of the authority of the Pope and the selling of indulgences). However, the Reformation also kept many Catholic ideas foreign to the East (the double procession of the Holy Spirit, Augustinian ideas about will and original sin), so there’s a difference there.
Of course, modern evangelicals aren’t Protestant. At least in my evangelical background, there was no coherent ecclesiology about the Church as a whole and no deep understanding of the sacraments.
The OC does not see ritual and evangelism as opposed, I can’t even imagine why there would be a dichotomy there. I would say that the evangelical tradition (which is just as ritual as any other church) seems to me to emphasize evangelism at the cost of almost any tradition, but I see that as a problem, not a plus. But this does not mean ritual and evangelism are opposed. You can cite Latin America and China, and overlook the entire nation of Russia if you choose. The Orthodox Church is very evangelistic, so if you don’t see that, you’re not looking. It’s not surprising to that, since the entire Western Hemisphere was colonized by Western Christians, Western Christianity is bigger in the West than Eastern Christianity. It’s also not surprising that evangelicals are more successful when so many things are negotiable. But to answer the question: no, the Orthodox Church is decidedly not disinterested in the spread of the Gospel.
With all due respect in my opinion this author does not understand the true tenets which separate Catholicism from historical biblical Christianity.
Ron:
Please explain. I’m open to being corrected if I have misrepresented something.
John M. writes: “Yes, Mary is believed to be sinless. The deal with the immaculate conception is actually that the dogma solves a problem that doesn’t exist in Orthodoxy.”
This belief does not solve a problem in that it creates a level of unbelievabel complexity. Immaculate conception = Mary was sinlees and had to be in order to bear a sinless being (Christ). This assumes that God preformed a miracle in Mary’s mother so that Mary would be sinless. If God would do that for an unnamed person so that the child of natural procreation (100% sinful X 100% sinful = sinless) would be sinnless why did He not just do it in Mary who would be overcome by the God Most High and the Holy Spirit would come upon her. Occam’s Razor suggest the simplest answer is more likely correct than a complex or involved answer. The RCC creats a complex answer that places the miracle of a sinless birth a generation removed form the event we as Christiand believe, Jesus was born sinless.