A reader wrote the following question to me back in December:
Most Reformed believers tend to write off most Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians as unsaved, but there is starting to be a rise (as you no doubt know) of thought from the Federal Vision that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox should be considered Christian, based on their baptism. What are your thoughts on what the evangelical view of RCs and EOs should be? Do you think their sacramental system encourages nominalism?
Those are some really good questions. If you don't mind, I am not going to address the question of nominalism right now and instead focus on your other question. Should Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox be considered Christians based on their baptisms?
First off, I am always cautious when lumping RC and EO in the same camp, as this question implicitly does. From the EO perspective, RC and Protestantism are two sides of the same coin, and from the RC perspective, Protestantism and EO are two sides of the same coin. Which is correct, or whether they are three sides of the same coin or three completely separate coins, is a very sophisticated theological and historical question. Having made that disclaimer, I will try to address your question, making appropriate distinctions between RC and EO as they may arise.
My view (which I will shortly defend) is that evangelicals ought to view Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as part of the true church and that members of these groups are therefore to be considered Christians.
Regardless of their view on RC and EO, many evangelicals will have a problem with this statement on the grounds that membership to any group (even evangelical groups they may consider legitimate) is insufficient to consider anyone a Christian since God takes everyone as an individual. As they would be quick to point out, God doesn’t see Baptists, Presbyterians or Methodists, he only sees Christians. It follows, according to this line of thought, that you cannot say that a Roman Catholic is a Christian any more than you can say that a Baptist is a Christian, since in both of these groups there is necessarily a mixture (some Christians and some non-Christians).
The problem with such a position is that if it is carried to its logical extension then you could never say that anyone is a Christian because only God can discern an individual's heart with certainty. There have been people who have seemed, to an outside fallible observer, to manifest all the fruit of being a Christian but then apostatized later in life. To call someone a Christian only after making an assessment of their eternal condition before God is to place on man an unrealistic burden and it leads to perfectionist, elitist churches.
The solution is to take every person’s baptism or confession at face value unless a person belongs to a heretical sect or has been excommunicated. So the question, “Are RC and EO Christians” is essentially, Do we consider the baptisms of RC and EO to be valid? Or is a RC and EO baptism invalid like a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness baptism?
Beloved of God: Rom. 1:7
Saints: Rom. 1:7; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1
Saints and faithful brethren: Col. 1:2
Holy brethren: Heb. 3:1
Those sanctified in Jesus and called saints: I Cor. 1:2
The body of Christ: Rom. 12:4, 5; I Cor. 12:27
The Church of God: I Cor. 1:2; II Cor. 1:1; I Thess. 2:14
Church in God and Jesus: I Thess. 1:1
The holy, Spirit-indwelt temple of God: I Cor. 3:16, 17; II Cor. 6:16
Sons of God: Gal. 3:26; 4:6; Heb. 12:5-7
Abraham’s seed: Rom. 4:1; Gal. 3:29 w/ v. 27
Children of the (Abrahamic) promise: Gal. 4:28
Members of the household of faith: Gal. 6:10
Followers of the apostles and of the Lord: I Thess. 1:6
Spiritual house and holy priesthood: I Pet. 2:5
Chosen generation, holy nation, and special people of God: I Pet. 2:9, 10
Paul and the other Biblical writers are quite comfortable using this kind of language for the entire visible covenant community rather than restricting these labels merely to those individuals who have true saving faith. Hence, in keeping with this Biblical pattern we should do the same with the label “Christian.” (For more about this, see Derrick Olliff’s excellent article All in the Family)
So are RC and EO part of the visible covenant community? Or should we think of these groups as heretical sects? (Again, keep in mind that I am uncomfortable lumping RC and EO together but am doing so only in an attempt to deal with the question on its own terms) When a RC or EO gets baptized, is it part of the ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” of Ephesians 4? Or is this happening outside of the people of God?
In answering yes to the first question of the last paragraph, no to the second, yes to the third and no to the fourth, I do not actually have to positively establish these points since the burden of proof rests squarely with those who would deny anyone membership to the visible church. This is based on the operative principle that we must take all baptisms at face value unless there is some compelling reason to assume that the baptisms are taking place in the context of a non-Christian sect. In the case of RC and EO, no such compelling reason exists. There is no reason to think of the Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox as heretical sects and therefore to dismiss the efficacy of their baptisms.
Consider, both these groups affirm the deity of Christ and the necessity for faith. Both these groups have a robust understanding of the blessed Trinity (in the case of EO, a more robust understanding than Protestantism). Both these groups practice church discipline to contend for the purity of the church (more so, on a whole, than most evangelical denominations). And both these groups contain innumerable individuals showing signs of regeneration and the fruit of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be said of heretical sects like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons.
Rome’s denial of Sola Fide does not constitute a sufficient case against her being part of the universal church. If a person can be saved without believing in justification by faith alone (which can happen, for we are saved by faith, not by our theology about faith – to deny this actually amounts to a functional rejection of Sola Fide), then it seems unreasonable to say that a religious institution is outside the visible church simply because it doesn’t affirm Sola Fide. Nor should it be overlooked that there are many Protestant churches which functionally deny Sola Fide. (As for EO, their approach to justification is ambiguous and arguably more in line with Protestantism than Rome.)
The papacy does not constitute a sufficiently strong case for Rome being outside the universal church. If it did, then Protestantism would be out too since Protestantism, at least in the modern evangelical variety, encourages every person to be his own mini-Pope. Frankly, I believe that the Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy is a lot closer to the truth than the modern evangelical idea that the interpretation of scripture is an individualistic free-for-all. The subjective hermeneutic of evangelicalism (the individual as Pope), with all the gnostic overtones that so often accompany it, is far more offensive than the present state of the Papacy.
Those who would deny Rome a place in the visible church must deal with the fact that Rome vigorously affirms the Nicene Creed. In his article “Is The Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church?” Charles Hodge comments on the fact that Rome affirms the Nicene Creed:
If this creed were submitted to any intelligent Christian without his knowing whence it came, could he hesitate to say that it was the creed of a Christian church? Could he deny that these are the very terms in which for ages the general faith of Christendom has been expressed? Could he, without renouncing the Bible, say that the sincere belief of those doctrines would not secure eternal life? Can any man take it upon himself in the sight of God, to assert that there is not truth enough in the above summary [Nicene creed] to save the soul? If not, then a society which professing that creed professes the true religion...
Apart from Hodge’s implication that we are saved by our doctrine, I think his words are quite sound and should caution all those evangelicals who are quick to pronounce anathemas on our RC and EO brethren.
It is true that both RC and EO have perversions and corruptions in both practice and doctrine, but the same can be said of almost all established churches, not least Protestant churches. In fact, if one considers that the liberal, mainline, sodomite-kissing churches are all the heirs of reformation movements, then present day Protestantism is arguably even more corrupt than present day Roman Catholics and present day Eastern Orthodox. The words of Hodge are again relevant on this point (he is talking only of Rome here and not EO):
Secondly, it is objected that Rome Professes fundamental errors. To this we answer, 1. That we acknowledge that the teaching of many of her most authoritative authors is fatally erroneous. 2. That the decisions of the Council of Trent, as understood by one class of Romish theologians, are not less at variance with the truth; but not as they are in fact explained by another class of her doctors. 3. That these decisions and explanations are not incorporated into the creed professed by the people. 4. That the profession of fundamental error by a society retains with such error the essential truths of religion. The Jewish church at the time of Christ, by her officers, in the synagogues and in the sanhedrim [sic], and by all her great parties professed fundamental error justification by the law, for example; and yet retained its being as a church, in the bosom of which the elect of God still lived.
Thirdly, Rome is idolatrous, and therefore in no sense a church. To this we answer, 1. That the practice of the great body of the church of Rome is beyond doubt idolatrous. 2. That the avowed principles of the majority of her teachers are also justly liable to the same charge. 3. That the principles of another class of her doctors, who say they worship neither the images themselves, nor through them, but simply in the presence of them, are not idolatrous in the ordinary meaning of the term. 4. That it is not necessary that every man should be, in the fatal sense of that word, an idolater in order to remain in that church; otherwise there could be not true children of God within its pale. But the contrary is, as a fact, on all hands conceded. 5. We know that the Jewish church, though often overrun with idolatry, never ceased to exist.
Anyone wishing to study this question in more depth should consult Charles Hodge’s entire article.
Finally, to deny RC and EO place in the visible church leads either to radical subjectivity or viciously circular argumentation. For this final argument I am going to quote at length from Keith Mathison’s book The Shape of Sola Scriptura where he develops this particular argument a lot better than I could do.
One could argue that his branch is the one true branch because it is the closest to the teaching of Scripture (a Protestant denomination), or to the fathers (Rome and Orthodoxy). But according to whose interpretation of the Scripture or the fathers? A person could say it is according to his own interpretation of the Scripture or the fathers but then he is once again trapped in radical subjectivity. The person would have to say that Rome is the true branch (or Orthodoxy, or a Protestant denomination) because it comes closest to his interpretation of what the Scriptures (or the fathers) teach.
Instead of appealing to his own individual interpretation, a person could say that according to the interpretation of one branch (Rome, Orthodoxy, or a Protestant denomination), only that one branch is the true visible Church. But then he is caught in an untenable circular argument. Rome would be the one true Church because Rome adheres to the teaching of Scripture and/or tradition, as those are interpreted by Rome. Orthodoxy would be the one true Church because Orthodoxy adheres to Scripture and/or tradition, as those are interpreted by Orthodoxy. One Protestant denomination or another would be the one true Church because that denomination adhere to the teaching of Scripture, as it is interpreted by that denomination. The question-begging circularity of the argument is vicious.
If we cannot assert that only one branch is the only true visible Church without falling into one form of arbitrariness or another, what is our other choice? The remaining choice is to assert that the one invisible Church is found scattered throughout numerous visible ‘fragments’ or ‘branches.’ This would allow an appeal to the corporate witness of the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit bears a remarkably unanimous witness to the common confession of faith that has been handed down over the centuries. If we are not to fall into relativistic subjectivity or viciously circular arguments we must examine the idea of the corporate witness of the Spirit as it relates to the identification of the true branches of the Church.
In a sense the issue we are addressing is similar to the question of the canon of Scripture. With the New Testament canon believers were faced with the existence of genuine apostolic books mingled with non-Christian sects. The same criterion is applicable to both situations in a similar, not identical, way.
In the case of the canon, we observed that the criterion was the witness of the Holy Spirit given corporately to God’s people and made manifest by a nearly unanimous acceptance of the New Testament canon in Christian churches. But this criterion assumes that we know what the ‘Christians churches’ are. One way in which we identify the Christian churches is their adherence to the apostolic regula fidei. But what does this mean? It means that we can identify the fragments of the true visible Church by their acceptance of the common testimony of the Holy Spirit in the rule of faith, especially as expressed in written form in the ecumenical creeds of Nicea and Chalcedon. The Holy Spirit has born a miraculously unanimous witness to the same twenty-seven books of the New Testament throughout a confessing Christendom, and the Holy Spirit has born miraculously unanimous witness to a common fundamental creed throughout this same Christendom. This means that ultimately the Holy Spirit is the criterion of truth. But His testimony is made manifest through the corporate witness He bears in the hearts and minds of Christ’s people. The Holy Spirit bears witness corporately to the canon; He also bears witness corporately to the essential truths of Christianity – the rule of faith. Christ’s sheep hear their Shepherd’s voice in the true books of Scripture, and they hear His voice when His truth is confessed in the churches.
Read my writings at Alfred the Great Society
To join my mailing list, send a blank email to robin (at sign) atgsociety.com with “Blog Me” in the subject heading.
Click Here to friend-request me on Facebook and get news feeds every time new articles are added to this blog.
Click Here to follow me on Twitter.
Thank you for a thoughtful, reasoned, well stated post.
ReplyDeleteIf you accept the Vatican´s position, RC and EU are two sides of the same coin. In fact, all bariars to intercommunion have been lifted by them. Peter Kreeft once wrote that, ¨The differences remaining between EU and RC are much smaller than those between RC and Evangelicalism.¨ Of course this is not the EU position, but it is the position of the Vatican which actually encourages sharing of sacraments. Here in Lima Peru the RC archbishops come to our parish and receive communion as illustration of the Vatican´s stance.
ReplyDeleteIt is usally protestants who are said to be nominalists because they believe sacraments are at the end of the day mostly symbolic. I know you would say differently, but more symbolic than the EU view them.
Douglas Wilson had to start his own church because he broke away from the Prsbyterian church after they threw him out. The Eastern Orthodox would say this represents the scismatic mentality of protestantim working at its best. The irony is that Doulgas Wilson is very orthodox in his theology. But you say that we can call people non-Christians only if they have been excommunicated, so where does that leave Pastor Wilson?
http://shaderenegade.blogspot.
com/2002/04/presbytery-of-
dakotas-takes-on-doug.html
One more question, You say that Rome denies sole fide. This would be denied by Rome. In Peter Kreefts book about Catholicism to Evangelicals, he says, in discovering sole fide, Martin Luther discovered a Catholic doctrine from a Catholic book in a catholic country. Kreeft says that Rome has always beleived in sole fide. I think any catholic priest would affirm their belief in sole fide. But even protestants don´t believe that it is only faith to the exclusion of everything else, because they also believe in the bible...so in the end it is not really only faith is it? The same as the RC position.
A "Presbyterian church" simply means a denomination with a Presbyterian form of government. Doug Wilson's church is Presbyterian in that sense, so you will have to clarify your comments. Further,
ReplyDeleteDoug Wilson started his church in his garage and they have been meeting ever since. It was never, as far as I am aware, a member of any denomination from which he was ejected. Wilson's church and some other churches eventually organized into a denomination, which the church we attend is part of. And praise God that they did start another denomination because in doing so they caused the number of denominations in America to go down, since every independent church is its own denomination.
The RC and EO have denominations they just don't call them denominations. Your other points (some good points actually and some legitimate questions) will have to wait until later.
Patrick, I would challenge you to cite one authoritative RC document or decree affirming the reformation doctrine of Sola Fide.
ReplyDeleteRead what Trent had to say about the doctrine.
I don´t have my theological library with me since I am in Peru, it is somewhere stored in the many houses of my parents. But in that library I had several books by popes, both Pope John Paul called Crossing the Threshold of Pope and some books by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. I can´t be sure, but I believed they may have touched on the sola fide issue. Protestans don´t believe in just faith because they also believe in the authority of the bible. So it is the same. I have heard many catholics over the years argue that the protestant reformers set up a false dichotomy (this is what Peter Kreeft says is the book I tried to reference). Trent was all about trying to reach a compromise and addressing these reactions to catholic excesses. But many catholics admit that Trent went overboard, like throwing out infant communion. The Catholic church has come full circle on many things. According to them doctrine can evolve and develop. Gregory would probably be a very good source on this question of sola fide, why don´t you ask him. I think the Catholic position on this issue is the same as the Orthodox one. But I´ve sat through enough masses, here in Peru, and heard the priests preach on the importance of faith that I can´t just authomatically accept that the Catholic church doesn´t affirm sola fide. Remember, the words sola fide, just like sola scriptura, are protestant catigories. The Catholic chuch could accept the ideas while not embracing the catigories and implications. For this reason, some Orthodox say sola fide is a heresy and others say it is their own doctrine, it is because of the implications and the fact that these are protestant catigories to begin with.
ReplyDeleteBut our brother Gregory could probably bring to bear authoritative catholic sources on the question of sola fide.
I´m not sure Doulgas Wilson was excommunicated. I just remember reading that once (from a non-authoritative source).
How can you say the EU churches have denominations? There are scismatic groups but they are usually formally excommunicated or declared heretical. This issue came up in the debate we had with Patrick Barns when you quoted Douglas Wilson and you didn´t explain then, even though I asked you to ellaborate on what he meant by denomination. The Orthodox have parishes. It is simply the Christian church in Greece, or the Christian church in Russia. The situation in the United States is unique because of immigrants, but it is not an example of Orthodoxy as a whole but something highly irregular (maybe it is good, but it is highly irregular).
ReplyDeleteAnother reason they can´t be called denominations is because they are in communion and agreement with each other. They are simply whatever parishes are in whatever city. But because of linguistic needs, they often divide themselves according to language.
Patrick your points may be good, but your history is mistaken when you wrote, "Douglas Wilson had to start his own church because he broke away from the Prsbyterian church after they threw him out."
ReplyDeleteDouglas Wilson has been the pastor of the same independent baptist church that he started in Mosco in the 1980's. As he and the elders of that church have grown more reformed in their understanding of the Bible, they have moved toward reformed doctrine and practice that is essentially Presbyterian in character.
The CREC started as an aggregation of independent credo and paedobaptist churches that were convicted of the need for accountability.
So, Wilson was never in a Presbyterian denomination, much less did he get kicked out of one. Rather, he has led this aggregation of formerly independent churches in the Presbyterian direction. Even though it has presbyteries, the CREC today is not strictly Presbyterian in polity. The pastors and elders are not members of presbytery, they are members of their church.
Patrick, I don't know what the EU view is that you reference several times in your post. Did you mean the EO view?
ReplyDeleteBy denominations in the EO (not EU!) I meant all the infighting and bickering and theological disagreements between and among the British Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Orthodox Church of Finland, Russian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, the Church of Alexandria, the Church of Jerusalem, and the Orthodox Church in America. These are more than just geographical distinctions like "the Church at Ephesus" or "the church at Corinth" since among these groups there is real and substantial disagreements and bickering. Ergo, denominations even though they don't call it that.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so I was wrong on my facts about Douglas Wilson. Hopefully I can meet him someday. The videos that I have seen of him on youtube are very inspiring.
ReplyDeleteThe lengthly quote from The Shape Of Sola Scriptura seems very circular in itself. It is a question of what comes first, the chicken or the egg. It always comes back to this doesn´t it. This is what you and Patrick Barns went round and round on. When I was becoming Orthodox, I was able to set these questions aside for the first time because I realized it was faith (just like Christianity is presented in the New Testiment) and that there was no final authority, that it was scripture, the Holy Spirit, Church Authority all together and so questions of begging the question essentially fell on deaf ears. It is also unfortunate that he sees the historical record of the true church as just ¨fragments¨. I thought that ¨The Shape of Sola Scriptura¨ was an Orthodox book.
I would like to take you up on your challenge to read the Councel of Trent. Maybe you can send it to me (ha ha). Even if I could find it in Spanish I would read it.
Thank you for clarifying what you meant by denominations. I tend to laugh off the disagreements between these different jurisdictions, which are miniscule compared with the disagreements among other churches and usually ahve to do with some being more conservative than others. In some countries the jurisdictions overlap, like in the U.S, South America and the Holy Land, but mostly it is just the people of God in whatever country or city they are in. Because they are divided linguistically does not mean they are so different in other respects. Excuse me for saying this, Robin, but in all honesty I think this is a cheap shot that is often levelled against the Orthodox but at the end of the day doesn't hold water.
Patrick, I think you misunderstood the quote from The Shape Of Sola Scriptura. He was identifying the opposing position as a circular argument by way of a Reduction ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum). The circular part of his argument was meant to be circular because he was summarizing a position that HE DID NOT AGREE WITH. In other words, he was arguing for his position because the alternative is circular. But his argument is very linear.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Council of Trent, see
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html
The man that led me to Christ as my Saviour was a devout Protestant at that particular time. Another one of my other dearest friends, developed spiritually as a protestant but "switched" and eventually became a Catholic Deacon in the last few years as he "drew nearer". It is interesting that both "switched" to the Catholic faith. Pope John was quoted as saying, "We need to evangelize...... within the church". Although I think of myself more along the lines of "non-denominational" after having been raised a Catholic, falling away, and coming back as "non-denominational", it is evident that the Catholic Church has more going on than many Protestants are led to believe.
ReplyDeletePaul Nicklas
I agree that the Catholic Church has more going on than many Protestants are led to believe. They've also got some pretty bad problem but then so do Protestants.
ReplyDeleteA very interesting post indeed! I comment as an evangelical in the English Puritan/Baptist stream, who has spent some time in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I have no doubt that the E.O. are Christian, as are the R.C. 1054 AD marked the dividing point, but it was Rome that went it's own way and created schism. At present there are negotiations to eventually bring both together, but there is a long way to go. Doctrinally, the Orthodox Church is rooted in the historic early councils and creeds and the Early Fathers of the Church. The liturgy of St John Chrysostom goes back to the very early days of the church. The deep spirituality and clear doctrinal teaching of the Eastern Church in all its branches is amazing. There is so much we can learn from them as we as evangelicals continue to divide and develop new "flavors" of the church to satisfy everyone's whim and desire. I would recommend anyone interested to read Bishop Kallistos Ware's two books, "The Orthodox Church" and "The Orthodox Way". They are available from B&N, Amazon.com and other large book stores. Both are real eye-openers.
ReplyDeleteAs a Roman Catholic I have a question: Fogbound said, "Doctrinally, the EO is deeply rooted in the historical early Councils .... etc." Question: Has the EO, since the Schism in the 11th Century, iniated or been involved in any Councils? If not .... why not? With respect: LostOar
ReplyDeleteAs an Eastern Orthodox, I find it hilarious that heretics, aka protestants, question the Christianity of the oldest Christian denomination.
ReplyDeleteI'm one of those former Calvinists, now Orthodox.
ReplyDeleteI just stumbled onto your writings (via 8 Gnostic Myths) and am enjoying them quite a lot.
After you attended an RP Church but finding Calvinism shot through with Gnosticism (your identification of the Docetist tendencies was great, with quotes new to me), I'd hope you could make room within the faith for us EO. The alternative, it seems to me, would come close to "I'm the only real Christian because Catholics and EO aren't, Calvinism's Gnostic, etc."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks John. I do think EO has much to offer, and it seems that all traditions have certain inherent strengths and weaknesses. Recognizing the weaknesses in every tradition does not mean I have to think or feel that I am the only real Christian. You might want to check out my debate with Perry Robinson (under the EO label on this blog). But mind you that was when I was less sympathetic than I now am to EO.
ReplyDeleteOops, sorry the debate was not with Perry Robinson but with Patrick Barnes.
ReplyDeleteYour remark stating that the different particular churches within Eastern Orthodoxy are analogous to Protestant denominations is somewhat inaccurate. First of all, between the majority of Eastern Orthodox churches, there is no bickering or disagreement on any theological matter. The only controversy among Eastern Orthodox churches involves questions of territorial jurisdiction in the US and other traditionally non-Orthodox countries that have a substantial diaspora. Not all EO churches are a party to this; the Patriarch of Alexandria, the Church of Greece and the Church of Bulgaria exist in a state of complete harmony with their neighbors and do not operate directly in the new world, but rather through exarchates operated by other churches, if at all (for example, Greek Orthodox parishes in North America are part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople rather than the Church of Greece).
ReplyDeleteThe British Orthodox Church is a very small diocese of the Coptic Orthodox Church which operates in the UK, under the supervision of the larger Coptic episcopate. The Syriac Orthodox Church, along with the Coptic Orthodox Church (and by extension, the British Orthodox Church), the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Eritrean Orthodox Church and the Armenian Orthodox Church, is Oriental Orthodox. There are no theological disagreements at all within the Oriental Orthodox communion, although there are a few schismatic groups which are not recognized by the Patriarchates.
The liturgies used by the Oriental Orthodox (West Syriac Rite, Coptic Rite, Armenian Rite) are far more diverse than those used by the Eastern Orthodox, which at present universally use the Byzantine Rite. There is no theological dispute underpinning these divisions however. Each rite is analogous to the different liturgical traditions of the Uniate churches in Roman Catholicism (which use rites other than the Latin Rite).
There is a theological rift between the Eastern Orthodox communion and the Oriental Orthodox communion, as the Oriental Orthodox reject the Council of Chalcedon and are not parties to subsequent councils. However, aside from embracing miaphysitism, and not sharing the EO enthusiasm for Palamist ascetic practice, the theologies of the two churches are extremely similiar; both venerate icons and the saints and subscribe to a doctrine of transubstantiation (although they don't call it that, deeming the term to be an unhelpful product of Roman Catholic scholasticism).
What is more, the EO and OO enjoy very cordial ecumenical relations. The Oriental Orthodox are the only other body of believers that are considered by a reasonable portion of the Eastern Orthodox hierarchy to be "orthodox". There is a very warm relationship between the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church, and between the Greek Orthodox Patriach of Alexandria and the Coptic Orthodox. These churches have agreements in place which recognize the validity of each other's sacraments, and there are protocols to facilitate intermarriage, and substantial cooperation on humanitarian efforts.