Difference between Orthodoxs and Catholics

[Bulldog]

Please forgive my ignorance, but what are the differences between Orthodoxs and Roman Catholics?

 

[Matrona]

Nothing wrong with questions--welcome to The Ancient Way!

We Orthodox do not believe in papal infallibility. Catholics believe in what's called the Magisterium--Rome's power to discern doctrine. Orthodox do not believe that--we believe that the Church is the Body of Christ and therefore the whole Body of Christ is what must determine doctrine.

The Catholic Church has a tendency to try to explain things, while the Orthodox Church prefers to regard things as holy Mysteries, and not try to explain them. For instance, we both believe that communion is truly the Body and Blood of our Lord. The Catholic Church has a whole dogma called transubstantiation to explain how the wine and wafers become the Body and Blood. The Orthodox, however, do not try to explain this process.

The Eucharistic service for the Orthodox is called the Divine Liturgy. We take communion out of a common spoon. It looks like a small piece of wine-soaked bread (but of course it's truly the Body and Blood of Christ). Our communion bread is leavened--that is, it has yeast in it so it's risen and puffy like regular bread.

In Orthodox churches, you will see a lot of images on the walls of Christ and the saints. These are called icons. You will see Orthodox faithful kissing them and occasionally prostrating (crouching down on your hands and knees in reverence) before them. Please understand, we are not worshipping the icons themselves--the icons are there to symbolize the presence of Christ and His saints joining us in heavenly worship. Kissing and prostrating before icons shows the kind of reverence we would give them if they were present in a bodily form. Since we cannot kiss the saint's hands (or Christ's feet), we show our reverence to the icons instead.

Also, please understand that Orthodox do not worship Mary or the saints. God is the only one due worship. We venerate (show reverence for) the saints because God's eternal uncreated Light shines through them. They are the holy ones who served God well while on Earth, and because of their faith and righteousness, God chose them for martyrdom, or chose to work miracles through them, or chose them to defend the Holy Orthodox faith against the onslaughts of the heretics. We respect the saints for their faith and righteousness, but they are not gods and therefore we do not worship them. When we ask Mary and the saints to "save us", we don't mean "save" in the eternal sense, we are asking for their prayers to help us on Earth. I can ask for Mary to pray that I finish my tax return on time, but only God can allow me to go to heaven when I die.

I hope this has answered some of your questions adequately--if you need any more answered, feel free to ask.

 

[Montalban]

Further, Orthodoxy follows the collegiate system of Church government as practiced by the Aposltes. God (Jesus) is the head of our church, not some earthly prince/pontiff.

We can appear to be disunited; Greek, Macedonian, Russian, Antiochian, etc, but we are united in what we believe, not by a common rule by someone in power.

My understanding of the split in the two systems stems from the fall of the Roman Empire. The great Sees, Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem had always been equal. With political power in the west collapsed, all the churches there looked back to Rome as the head, as it was the oldest, most prestigious See there. In the east, we continued along as normal, uninterupted, with the collegiate system.

In the west, as they began to rebuild Christianity there, most looked back to Rome, a notable exception being in the Celtic lands which; centred in Ireland, escaped Barbarian invasions - thus the Celtic Church continued on as an isolated pocket of Orthodoxy.

Rome mistook its political power for religious power and as it directed the rebuilding of Christendom, quickly took over the reigns of all local churches.

Thus, when Orthodoxy spread into new lands, we handed the reigns over to the locals, whereas in the west, Rome never let go.

Thus for instance, in Bulgaria, Orthodoxy was preached in Bulgarian, and run by Bulgars.

In Germany, the Romans controlled local church government, and had the Mass said in Latin; a language foreign to the indigenous population, and to a point further stengthening dependence on the centre; Rome.

Rome then ignored Church Councils by changing the Nicene Creed, and also began to take a more legalistic approach as touched upon by the previous poster; an affinity with setting everything out in dogma - which is the same mistake the Jews made. When the Jews were given the law, they wanted finer and finer details. So if you said "Thou shalt not work on a Sabbath", they'd ask "Define work" etc, and the Roman church kept doing this, and soon got bogged down in the law.

This also lead them into errors such as the Immaculate Conception (which many think is the conception of Jesus inside Mary, the Theotokos, but is in fact the conception of Mary inside Anna), and on Papal Infalibility, which even Pope John XXII argued against.

 

[MattMMMan17]

The OP did NOT ask your opinion of the Catholic Church under the Roman See. I suggest you stay on topic and leave personal biases out of posts like these, as they have a tendency to offend.

 

[Bulldog]

Thanks for the answers, it certainly changes what I thought of orthodox christianity.

 

[ChoirDir]

MattMMMan17:
Sorry you are offended but a lot of what he stated is true. For instance did you know that Crusaders when sent to free Constantinople from the Moslim rule they sacked the city and robbed the churches instead. This was just another instance that helped the divide grow wider between the Churches.
As far as the Nicene Creed, the Church of Rome changed the wording "filioque" because of problems in Spain. Now the Pope at the time refused to use this version of the Creed but as time went on it just stuck. In addition any changes in the Creed must be done thru an Eccumenical Council, which has never been held since the Latin version of the Creed was changed

 

[Moros]

The OP did NOT ask your opinion of the Catholic Church under the Roman See. I suggest you stay on topic and leave personal biases out of posts like these, as they have a tendency to offend.

Welcome to the Orthodox Christian section, where we tend to talk down about Roman Catholicism as it conflicts with our faith. Have a good day though. Perhaps you could start a thread in OBOB similar to this one and see how many of us invade your forum complaining about offenses.

Here's a brief list from this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t86231

What separates the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is not only the Primacy of the Pope also known as the Infallibility, but also the following innovations of the Roman Catholic Church: The Procession of the Holy Spirit. Purgatory and indulgences. The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Assumption of the Virgin Mary. Invocation of the epiclesis. Unleavened Bread. Holy Communion. Divorce. Clergy's Martal Status.

 

[Oblio]

Welcome to the Orthodox Christian section, where we tend to talk down about Roman Catholicism as it conflicts with our faith. Have a good day though. Perhaps you could start a thread in OBOB similar to this one and see how many of us invade your forum complaining about offenses.

No, it is you and a few others in the (thankfully) minority that talk down to our Catholic friends about their faith. We may disagree on doctrine and praxis, but that is NO excuse to disobey the commandments of our Lord.

 

[Moros]

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

 

[MattMMMan17]

So being Catholic is a sin now? I don't see what else you could mean that post to imply. Please elaborate, as I'm sure that wasn't the message you intended to convey.

 

[Bushido216]

Hmm... perhaps it would be unwise to waken the latent anger hidden inside of the Irish Catholic community for so long.

We may be wildly drunk but we're sorta used to that state of affairs.

 

[MariaRegina]

Welcome to TAW Bushido216, I'm fighting Irish also!

St. Patrick is honored by the Orthodox Church as one of its many saints.

There are many Irish among the Orthodox.

 

[Montalban]

Dia dhuit, a'Chanter

 

[Montalban]

The OP did NOT ask your opinion of the Catholic Church under the Roman See. I suggest you stay on topic and leave personal biases out of posts like these, as they have a tendency to offend.

Are you replying to my post?


Assuming you are, I must say that I was responding to a question of the differences betwixt our two denominations.

Whilst I have a great respect for Catholicism and Catholics (having been one myself), I must state the differences, where they exist.

The question from Bulldog was

Please forgive my ignorance, but what are the differences between Orthodoxs (sic) and Roman Catholics?

These were stated by myself, and Matrona

This also lead them into errors such as the Immaculate Conception (which many think is the conception of Jesus inside Mary, the Theotokos, but is in fact the conception of Mary inside Anna), and on Papal Infallibility, which even Pope John XXII argued against.

You don't believe that these are errors, but Orthodox do, and this answers part of the differences between us. If you believe that this is not a difference between us, please let me know. If you think my facts are opinion - please be more specific, rather than post a generalist rubbishing.

Rome then ignored Church Councils by changing the Nicene Creed, and also began to take a more legalistic approach as touched upon by the previous poster; an affinity with setting everything out in dogma

The first part is categorically true, and further illustrates differences between the two denominations. The inclusion of the filioque went against the tenet of the Councils which said only another Council could change it. And some Popes argued against the flioque too! It is my understanding that the current pontiff, when he hears mass in a Uniat church, says the original version of the Nicene Creed (sans filioque).

 

[MattMMMan17]

Further, Orthodoxy follows the collegiate system of Church government as practiced by the Aposltes. God (Jesus) is the head of our church, not some earthly prince/pontiff.

Here you imply that Christ is not the head of the Catholic Church. This is in complete error. Just as the Mystical Body of Christ( all believers= the 'invisible' Church) has a head, Jesus Christ, so does the 'visible' Church, The Pope. This is why he is the Vicar of Christ, in no way putting him 'equal to' or a 'replacement of' Him.

Rome mistook its political power for religious power and as it directed the rebuilding of Christendom, quickly took over the reigns of all local churches.

Words without foundation. Of course Rome was looked to by the Churches, they submitted to the authority due to the Papacy and the Roman See.

Rome then ignored Church Councils by changing the Nicene Creed, and also began to take a more legalistic approach as touched upon by the previous poster; an affinity with setting everything out in dogma - which is the same mistake the Jews made. When the Jews were given the law, they wanted finer and finer details. So if you said "Thou shalt not work on a Sabbath", they'd ask "Define work" etc, and the Roman church kept doing this, and soon got bogged down in the law.

This also lead them into errors such as the Immaculate Conception (which many think is the conception of Jesus inside Mary, the Theotokos, but is in fact the conception of Mary inside Anna), and on Papal Infalibility, which even Pope John XXII argued against.

Ignored the councils? I won't even go there.

The Catholic Church has made dogmatic decrees and put forth doctrine for the benefit of all within the Church to lead lives alongside that of Christ. If a matter would be in question, they can turn to the Church for clarification in moral teachings or matter of Faith. I don't recall any encyclical demanding that all Catholics must wash their hands before meals. If you have one, please do provide it. These are not laws of men to be placed before God's law. These are the teachings and laws of the Church that respectively can be looked to in times of question and must be obeyed as they are seen as being made under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Yes we do believe in what you refer to as the 'error' of the Immaculate conception of the Mother of God. How you could fathom that the Son of God would take His form through and unclean vessel is beyond my belief.

Lastly, neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic Churches are "denominations" of Christianity.

The OP was asking the differences, which you did list. However adding what you did that required my commenting is why I bothered to comment. This post might be taken as inappropriate preaching of Catholic belief in TAW, but this is why I do not buy into your response of "responding to a question of the differences betwixt our two denominations."

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Montalban

"This also lead them into errors such as the Immaculate Conception (which many think is the conception of Jesus inside Mary, the Theotokos, but is in fact the conception of Mary inside Anna), and on Papal Infalibility, which even Pope John XXII argued against."

I was interested in you comments here about Pope John's argument of the infalliblity of the Pope. It is my understanding the prior to the 4 TH (Pope Stephen) century this was unheard of in the world of Christianity? Would you know the basis of the argument made by John XXII and the year in which his argument was made.

Thank you,

BBAS

 

[prodromos]

Just as the Mystical Body of Christ( all believers= the 'invisible' Church) has a head, Jesus Christ, so does the 'visible' Church, The Pope. This is why he is the Vicar of Christ, in no way putting him 'equal to' or a 'replacement of' Him.

You've already run into a problem here as Orthodox do not separate the Church Triumphant from the Church Militant. The Church is one body with Christ as the head. Christ is represented in every Bishop, from Patriarch to Metropolitan to Bishop of Woop Woop in Uppacumbuktawest. Where the Bishop is, there is the fullness of the church, just as in the smallest crumb of bread in the Eucharist there is the whole body of Christ.

Yes we do believe in what you refer to as the 'error' of the Immaculate conception of the Mother of God. How you could fathom that the Son of God would take His form through an unclean vessel is beyond my belief.

Why you think we believe Mary was unclean is beyond mine .

There are two main problems Orthodoxy has with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
First, is takes away all merit from Mary. We praise and honour Mary because she willingly obeyed God in everything. If God had formed her in Anna's womb incapable of sinning then there would be no value to her efforts at all as she would need to make none. She would not be worthy of praise and adoration since all the work was done by God. Mary becomes little more than a vessel which is not unlike how many Protestants view her (mostly out of their desire to be not-Catholic, ironic isn't it). It also makes God out to be rather arbitrary. After all, if Mary could have been kept from sinning, why not the rest of us? Why does God allow the rest of humanity to wallow in sin when it is obviously within His power to keep us pure?
Second, Orthodoxy believes none are born with sin but that we all inherit the consequences of our father Adam's sin, our fallen human nature and its consequent tendancy towards sin. As such there is no need for an immaculate conception since in a sense, all are thus conceived.

And of course Mary was pure. Just as those, who in repentance partake of the Eucharist are cleansed, so too was Mary at the time of the annunciation. It was Christ in her that made her a pure vessel.

John

 

[Reader Nilus]

The Immaculate Conception calls into question the Incarnation itself, by seperating The Blessed Theotokos from the rest of humanity, for that reason Orthodox can not accept that teaching ever.
Jeff the Finn

 

[ChoirDir]

Words without foundation. Of course Rome was looked to by the Churches, they submitted to the authority due to the Papacy and the Roman See.

This a total fabrication. The Eastern churches always treated Rome as the greater among equals. They never "submitted to authority of Rome"

Ignored the councils? I won't even go there.

Again, when Rome added the Filioque, they were told by the Eastern Churches that any change to the Creed must occur through an Ecumenical Council of all the Churches. Rome refused. It should be interesting to note that an agreement between the 2 churches regarding the Filioque was recently agreed to. It states that the Catholic Church should refrain from using the Filioque and using the version adopted at Nicea www.usccb.org/seia/dialogues.htm

 

[Suzannah]

Hmm... perhaps it would be unwise to waken the latent anger hidden inside of the Irish Catholic community for so long.

We may be wildly drunk but we're sorta used to that state of affairs.

Let's not be angry. Let's have a drink instead! Bushmills or Jamesons, my friend? I'm buying this round.