Differences between Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox

[Traditional_Ang]

Dear Maronites:

Sorry you haven’t been posting here much, which means you’ve been talking to people in Roman parishes (or Protestants), and most of them don’t know about the variety of Churches in union with His Holiness or the richness of their spirituality and their Liturgies and traditions. Stay around Catholic answers - You’ll find many of the posters here aren’t so ignorant. You’ll find many come from Catholic Churches in union with the Pope and others who’ve taken the time to learn about some of those Churches…

Greetings,

We are Maronite Catholics, one of the 23 rites within the Catholic Church. We are in union with the Pope/Rome. When people see my crucifix and ask if I am Catholic, I answer yes, I am Maronite…then they think I am “Maryonite” “Marianist” or “Orthodox”. I have never heard of the first one and think people just did not hear me and I think they are not ready for me to go into, the first Maronite was St. Maron, a monk born in the middle of the 4th century etc. What I do get from people is “I did not know there were Catholics who were not Latin Rite.” and then we can give them information and set them on the path to finding out more about our large Catholic family.

My husband is a sub deacon and some of the parishioners want him to become a deacon and are hinting that he would be a good priest for the parish. In our rite, he could become a deacon or priest but could not remarry when I die. A married man may become a priest but a priest cannot marry (as previously stated) in any Rite. One is many times in a quandry about God’s calling but at this time my husband would not be a priest. The married Maronite priests are mostly in Lebanon not in the USA (I think about 1/2 are married clergy) and we do not speak Lebanese/Arabic so we would not fare well in Lebanon. Some Latin Rite priests think that by changing “rites” to an Eastern Rite, they can marry…this is not so. No priest can marry after ordination.

We have a few Orthodox Lebanese in our parish but from what I gather, they do not even know they are not in union/communion with the Pope. Like so many, including myself, we are far from knowing the fullness of our Faith.

I am a convert who is still on the path of learning and hope to do so until I leave this world.

…Regarding your husband and his call to the priesthood, that’s up to his bishop to decide. I know the Western bishops in this country have made that virtually impossible, but if your parish wants it, let them help present the case to your Bishop.

Just a general word to all new members, giving your geographic area can be SO HELPFUL, as in situations such as these.You don’t have to say, “This is my address”, But you won’t believe how much letting us know what County, City or even State you live in can help us to advise you, direct you to resources or help us to even make phone calls and send emails on your behalf depending on your situation. Please don’t leave that black bank.

It won’t destroy your privacy or your anonymity.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

MathewJoseph:

I don’t know where you got what you wrote below, but it’s simply mistaken. In Catholic Doctrine, per Vatican II & the CCC, the Jewish AUTHORITIES were responsible for handing our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ over to the Romans to be tortured and crucified. St. Augustine was and is a Doctor of the Church, but his teaching on this Matter is NOT the Official Teaching of the Catholic Church.

What we have to remember is that the Official Teaching of BOTH the Catholic & Orthodox Churches is that Our LGS Jesus Christ GAVE HIMSELF UP to be sacrificed for our sins and the sins of the whole world.

Orthodox Priests grow beards because that was and is the historic fashion in the East. Catholic Priests shave theirs off because that’s been the fashion of men in the West, and when it wasn’t, they didn’t. Eastern Orthodox may NOW attach some theological significance to the wearing of beards by their priests, but Western Catholics don’t - Some do & some don’t - It’s up to the priest or to his order.

Regarding the “Council of Laymen”, you’re forgetting how the “Conclave” developed…

I noted a lot of differences between orthodox and catholic churches.

The main point is that as per the catholic theology, Jews are responsible for the death of our Lord.
As per the orthodox theology, high priests are responsible for the death of our Lord.

Read the bible and find out who is responsible for the crucification of our Lord.

After this you can see why orthodox bishops are growing beards and use black dresses. This is because bishops are basically high priests, they are apologising by living like this. Also a bishop in an orthodox church has no powers. It is the council of laymen who decides things.
Since Roman catholic church believes that Jews, not high priests are responsible for the death of Jesus, the high priests or bishops in the catholic church lead a good life. They are clean shaved and have absolute powers. A bishop in catholic church is like a king. The properties of the diocese are under him.

But orthodox church teaches that high priests plotted the death of Jesus and Romans crucified our Lord. Note that crucification is the practice of Romans. Jews normally stone people to death.
But now the catholic bishops (high priests) are like kings and Roman catholic church is saying that it is the universal christian church. Is it true?

If we go to the 5th centuries, it is seen that at one time Byzantine church claimed superiority and one time Roman church claimed superiority. It can be found that rome was the capital of Emperor Constantine and he wanted political influence in the church. So he or the council of Nichea declared Rome as a patriarchate.
Later when the capital of Roman empire became Constantinople and emperor there wanted political control, bishop of constantinople became patriarch and ity was declared superior.
Thus we can find that the roman church and Byzantine church evolved because of the Roman empire’s political significance. The first bishop of Constantinople is specified as St Andrew, the Apostle; It is only a legend. As also the case with Rome.

Roman cartholic church became the largest church only because priests do not marry. They live for the prosperity of the church.

… and, you’re forgetting that is how most CATHOLIC BISHOPS, including St. Ambrose of Milan & St. Augustine of Hypo, were elected until SECULAR RULERS DEMANDED THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE the bishops in their kingdoms!

You also seem to forget that Constantine the Great MOVED HIS CAPITAL to Constantinople in 330 A.D., 5 years after he united the Empire under one Emperor. After the death of Constantine in 337 A.D., Constantinople became the Capital of the MORE PROSPEROUS Eastern Roman Empire, while first Rome, then Milan (382) & then Ravenna (402) became the Capital of the Less Prosperous and failing Western Empire.

And, You’re also forgetting that the Catholic Church was pretty much the only functioning organization around in the West after the Fall of the Western Empire, and the East wasn’t doing much, if anything, to help alleviate the suffering of their brothers & sisters in Christ in the West. Meanwhile, Government in the East functioned for another 850 years.

A lot of stuff evolves, not from Theology, but from the situation people find themselves in. I think you need to pay attention to that and stop making assumptions about why people do what they do, esp. when those assumptions seem to be as pejorative as the ones you made.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[bobzills]

To further clarify, the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are almost identical, but there are a few differences that sadly still keep us apart.

1. As mentioned above, the Eastern Orthodox recognize the pope as a “first among equals”, but not as a supreme, infallible head of the church.
2. The Eastern Orthodox do not recognize the addition of the “filoque” to the Nicene Creed. The filoque is the part that states that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Father “and the Son”. They reject the “and the Son” part for theological reasons.
3. The Eastern Orthodox do not believe in original sin, at least not by the Catholic definition. This also renders the Immaculate Conception theologically problematic (although they DO recognize the Assumption of Mary).
4. The Eastern Orthodox do not, for the most part, have a belief in Purgatory.
5. The Eastern Orthodox only recognize the first seven ecumenical church councils.

Further, there are also the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which broke off from the Catholic Church in the fifth century because they only recognized the first three ecumenical church councils. The Oriental Orthodox are also not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox, with a very few exceptions.

I think that you have given a pretty good summary of the main differences.
In addition to what you have mentioned here, I think that there may be other differences:

1. Generally, Catholics minimise the differences between RC and EO and view them as complementary, whereas, Orthodox tend to see them as a much bigger problem.
2. Many Orthodox do not recognise the Catholic Sacreaments, although Catholics do recognise the EO Sacraments.
3. Catholics allow profane music and musical instruments such as guitars during Church services, whereas Orthodox do not, relying on the human voice.
4. In the Orthodox tradition, Mary is pictured as holidng the Christ child in her arms, whereas in Roman Catholicism it is acceptable to portray Mary alone and without the Christ child.
5. Catholicism does not embrace hesychasm as fully as does Orthodoxy.
6. Orthodoxy generally does not accept the category of mortal and venial sins.
7. The date of Easter is calculated differently.
8. Catholics have been pushing the idea of Sister Churches or the two lung theory, whereas the Orthodox maintain that they are the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church and that the Roman Church has fallen into serious error and as such cannot be viewed as a Sister Church or another lung of their Church.

 

[JohnVIII]

1. In the Orthodox tradition, Mary is pictured as holidng the Christ child in her arms, whereas in Roman Catholicism it is acceptable to portray Mary alone and without the Christ child.

One major exception to this is the Orthodox icon of “The Joy of All Who Sorrow”!

View attachment 6080

 

[bobzills]

One major exception to this is the Orthodox icon of “The Joy of All Who Sorrow”!

View attachment 6080

Yes. But the portrayal of Mary alone is more widespread in Roman Catholicism than in Eastern Orthodoxy. And speaking of icons and representations of Holy figures, take a look at how Christ is portrayed at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, and compare that with how He is portrayed in the Orthodox tradition:
Catholic:
smugmug.com/gallery/2400331_jVrFW/1/125771254_R3zGB/Large

Orthodox:
comeandseeicons.com/icxc/ygo12.htm
[comeandseeicons.com/icxc/(name removed by moderator)106.htm](http://www.comeandseeicons.com/icxc/(name removed by moderator)106.htm)
comeandseeicons.com/icxc/cst05.htm
comeandseeicons.com/icxc/cap12.htm
comeandseeicons.com/icxc/ftj13.htm
orthodoxphotos.com/Icons_and_Frescoes/index.shtml
orthodoxphotos.com/Icons_and_Frescoes/Icons/Jesus_Christ/34.shtml
orthodoxphotos.com/Icons_and_Frescoes/Icons/Jesus_Christ/3.shtml

 

[JohnVIII]

Yes. But the portrayal of Mary alone is more widespread in Roman Catholicism than in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Probably true, but here’s a few more:

All Saints of Russia
Mary stands front and center by herself
View attachment 6083

The Ascension
Mary stands with the Apostles
View attachment 6081

The Dormition
In this case Jesus is holding Mary (that is her soul)
View attachment 6082

 

[Hesychios]

Hi,

Good points here. I am not getting into the depth of your discussion but I wanted to reaffirm these points because they are often overlooked by us.

…most CATHOLIC BISHOPS, including St. Ambrose of Milan & St. Augustine of Hypo, were elected until SECULAR RULERS DEMANDED THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE the bishops in their kingdoms!

This is quite correct.

It is also one of the reasons three bishops were ordinarily required. This was the control mechanism, to assure a competent and suitable candidate was installed.

Other bishops around the world would be notified of the choice.

Kings and princes often demanded, and got, the right to choose the candidates. As the leading citizens and fathers of the nations they symbolically ‘represented’ the people in their areas. This right and power seems to have been conceded by the local churches when the pagan and Arian kings were considering conversion.

…Constantine the Great MOVED HIS CAPITAL to Constantinople in 330 A.D., 5 years after he united the Empire under one Emperor. After the death of Constantine in 337 A.D., Constantinople became the Capital of the MORE PROSPEROUS Eastern Roman Empire, while first Rome, then Milan (382) & then Ravenna (402) became the Capital of the Less Prosperous and failing Western Empire.

And, You’re also forgetting that the Catholic Church was pretty much the only functioning organization around in the West after the Fall of the Western Empire, and the East wasn’t doing much, if anything, to help alleviate the suffering of their brothers & sisters in Christ in the West. Meanwhile, Government in the East functioned for another 850 years.

Again, quite correct.

Interestingly, the first Council Constantine called was at Arles (an important city in Gaul). Constantine only controlled the west at the time, so this is a General Council of the West. Meaning essentially that it concerned itself with more than one synod. Among other things it addressed Donatism (rampant in north Africa) as a problem.

Much later, Constantine won the civil war which gave him control of the East, and he called his next Council, which we know as the first Ecumenical Council. From Oikos and meni: *oikouménē *“the abode of life” which is how the empire was perceived. Everything imperial was ecumenical. Constantinople became the Ecumenical City.

The new capital city was not finished, so Constantine loaned his own palace at Nicea over to the assembled bishops. He fed them, housed them and helped with their travel arrangements.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi,

Good points here. I am not getting into the depth of your discussion but I wanted to reaffirm these points because they are often overlooked by us.

…most CATHOLIC BISHOPS, including St. Ambrose of Milan & St. Augustine of Hypo, were elected until SECULAR RULERS DEMANDED THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE the bishops in their kingdoms!

This is quite correct.

It is also one of the reasons three bishops were ordinarily required. This was the control mechanism, to assure a competent and suitable candidate was installed.

Other bishops around the world would be notified of the choice.

Kings and princes often demanded, and got, the right to choose the candidates. As the leading citizens and fathers of the nations they symbolically ‘represented’ the people in their areas. This right and power seems to have been conceded by the local churches when the pagan and Arian kings were considering conversion.

…Constantine the Great MOVED HIS CAPITAL to Constantinople in 330 A.D., 5 years after he united the Empire under one Emperor. After the death of Constantine in 337 A.D., Constantinople became the Capital of the MORE PROSPEROUS Eastern Roman Empire, while first Rome, then Milan (382) & then Ravenna (402) became the Capital of the Less Prosperous and failing Western Empire.

And, You’re also forgetting that the Catholic Church was pretty much the only functioning organization around in the West after the Fall of the Western Empire, and the East wasn’t doing much, if anything, to help alleviate the suffering of their brothers & sisters in Christ in the West. Meanwhile, Government in the East functioned for another 850 years.

Again, quite correct.

Interestingly, the first Council Constantine called was at Arles (an important city in Gaul). Constantine only controlled the west at the time, so this is a General Council of the West. Meaning essentially that it concerned itself with more than one synod. Among other things it addressed Donatism (rampant in north Africa) as a problem.

Much later, Constantine won the civil war which gave him control of the East, and he called his next Council, which we know as the first Ecumenical Council. From Oikos and meni: *oikouménē *“the abode of life” which is how the empire was perceived. Everything imperial was ecumenical. Constantinople became the Ecumenical City.

The new capital city was not finished, so Constantine loaned his own palace at Nicea over to the assembled bishops. He fed them, housed them and helped with their travel arrangements.

 

[bobzills]

Probably true, but here’s a few more:

Yes, you are right.
But do you agree that in the East it is more usual to portray Mary with the Christ child, while in the West the portrayal of Mary alone is more common than in the East ?
And what do you think of how Christ is portrayed in the West versus the East ? For example the western icon at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception?
smugmug.com/gallery/2400331_jVrFW/1/125771254_R3zGB/Large

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think that you have given a pretty good summary of the main differences.
In addition to what you have mentioned here, I think that there may be other differences:

1. Generally, Catholics minimise the differences between RC and EO and view them as complementary, whereas, Orthodox tend to see them as a much bigger problem.
2. Many Orthodox do not recognise the Catholic Sacreaments, although Catholics do recognise the EO Sacraments.
3. Catholics allow profane music and musical instruments such as guitars during Church services, whereas Orthodox do not, relying on the human voice.
4. In the Orthodox tradition, Mary is pictured as holidng the Christ child in her arms, whereas in Roman Catholicism it is acceptable to portray Mary alone and without the Christ child.
5. Catholicism does not embrace hesychasm as fully as does Orthodoxy.
6. Orthodoxy generally does not accept the category of mortal and venial sins.
7. The date of Easter is calculated differently.
8. Catholics have been pushing the idea of Sister Churches or the two lung theory, whereas the Orthodox maintain that they are the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church and that the Roman Church has fallen into serious error and as such cannot be viewed as a Sister Church or another lung of their Church.

This is an outstanding post! It always seems to me that EWTN priest and hosts as well as folks on Catholic Answers radio, etc. all try to “suck up” to put it colloquially, to the Eastern Orthodox acting like Orthodoxy is just a milimeter away from Roman Catholicism. They always act like there’s so much in common that there’s practically no difference. But the Orthodox, like you said, always seem quick to denounce the papacy’s claims and as I’ve studied more about the Orthodox, they seem miles away from Catholicism. As you pointed out, the venial vs. mortal sin belief is huge to Roman Catholicism. It’s the heart of their entire penitential system. Disagreeing with that is no small thing. Also, transubstantiation isn’t accepted by Orthodoxy either. They look at original sin differently, church polity in a different light, and they view the entirety of what makes up “The Church” to exist in each diocese. Catholicism sees the entirety of “The Church” to be all churches in line with the pope. The Orthodox see each bishop as containing the authority and charism of all the apostles where the RCC sees the pope as inheriting a superior bishopric. Each bishop in the OC contains Peter, all of them, in their view. They don’t believe in purgatory in the OC either.

Add all that together and I can’t imagine a reunion?

 

[mardukm]

Everything that bobzills stated is false. Not all Orthodox maintain the views that he laid out.

This is an outstanding post! It always seems to me that EWTN priest and hosts as well as folks on Catholic Answers radio, etc. all try to “suck up” to put it colloquially, to the Eastern Orthodox acting like Orthodoxy is just a milimeter away from Roman Catholicism. They always act like there’s so much in common that there’s practically no difference.

Most of the differences are over terminologies and different understandings of those terminologies, but St. Paul taught us a different way (see my signature line below)/

But the Orthodox, like you said, always seem quick to denounce the papacy’s claims and as I’ve studied more about the Orthodox, they seem miles away from Catholicism.

What you’ve studied is polemic Eastern Orthodoxy, and not historic Eastern Orthodoxy. Historic Eastern Orthodoxy has a lot more in common with Catholicism than modern, polemic Eastern Orthodox tries to pretend. And please be careful to distinguish between Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy. Oriental Orthodoxy has even more in common with Catholicism than Eastern Orthodoxy. You read the Church Fathers more than what modern EO polemicists are saying. Go back to the sources.

As you pointed out, the venial vs. mortal sin belief is huge to Roman Catholicism.
It’s the heart of their entire penitential system. Disagreeing with that is no small thing.

This is only a matter of terminology. Orthodoxy (both Oriental and Eastern) recognizes that there are degrees of seriousness to sin, and a parallel system of penances which reflects that seriousness. This is the HISTORIC teaching of the Church (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Church of the East). As I suggested, go to the sources, not to modern EO polemics.

Also, transubstantiation isn’t accepted by Orthodoxy either.

False.

They look at original sin differently,

False. MODERN polemic EO’xy looks at Original Sin differently. There is no difference on the teaching of Original Sin between Catholicism, HISTORIC EO’xy. Oriental Orthodoxy, and the Church of the East.

church polity in a different light, and they view the entirety of what makes up “The Church” to exist in each diocese.

This is also the teaching of the Catholic Church. Read your Catechism.

Catholicism sees the entirety of “The Church” to be all churches in line with the pope.

That is one interpretation of it, most popular primarily (if not only) among Traditionalist Catholics. Other Catholics believe that the standard is being in line with Sacred Tradition, to which even the Pope must adhere.

The Orthodox see each bishop as containing the authority and charism of all the apostles where the RCC sees the pope as inheriting a superior bishopric. Each bishop in the OC contains Peter, all of them, in their view.

This would be true only of the Eastern Orthodox. The Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East also have a “high Petrine” view of the Church (i.e., that Peter had a special and unique ministry among the Apostles, and that his is handed down - by virtue of apostolic succession - to the “head bishop” of each Church).

They don’t believe in purgatory in the OC either.

Again, merely a matter of terminology. Easterns and Orientals don’t use the term “Purgatory,” but the essential teaching of it is present in all apostolic Churches.

Add all that together and I can’t imagine a reunion?

Add that all together, and there is a lot of hope for reunion, especially with the Holy Spirit on our side.

Blessings

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Everything that bobzills stated is false. Not all Orthodox maintain the views that he laid out.

Most of the differences are over terminologies and different understandings of those terminologies, but St. Paul taught us a different way (see my signature line below)/

What you’ve studied is polemic Eastern Orthodoxy, and not historic Eastern Orthodoxy. Historic Eastern Orthodoxy has a lot more in common with Catholicism than modern, polemic Eastern Orthodox tries to pretend. And please be careful to distinguish between Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy. Oriental Orthodoxy has even more in common with Catholicism than Eastern Orthodoxy. You read the Church Fathers more than what modern EO polemicists are saying. Go back to the sources.

This is only a matter of terminology. Orthodoxy (both Oriental and Eastern) recognizes that there are degrees of seriousness to sin, and a parallel system of penances which reflects that seriousness. This is the HISTORIC teaching of the Church (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Church of the East). As I suggested, go to the sources, not to modern EO polemics.

False.

False. MODERN polemic EO’xy looks at Original Sin differently. There is no difference on the teaching of Original Sin between Catholicism, HISTORIC EO’xy. Oriental Orthodoxy, and the Church of the East.

This is also the teaching of the Catholic Church. Read your Catechism.

That is one interpretation of it, most popular primarily (if not only) among Traditionalist Catholics. Other Catholics believe that the standard is being in line with Sacred Tradition, to which even the Pope must adhere.

This would be true only of the Eastern Orthodox. The Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East also have a “high Petrine” view of the Church (i.e., that Peter had a special and unique ministry among the Apostles, and that his is handed down - by virtue of apostolic succession - to the “head bishop” of each Church).

Again, merely a matter of terminology. Easterns and Orientals don’t use the term “Purgatory,” but the essential teaching of it is present in all apostolic Churches.

Add that all together, and there is a lot of hope for reunion, especially with the Holy Spirit on our side.

Blessings

Mardakum,

Hey buddy, if you’re going to say rude things like “read your catechism” and shooting down everything I say, don’t end the blasting with “blessings!” LOL

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Everything that bobzills stated is false. Not all Orthodox maintain the views that he laid out.

Most of the differences are over terminologies and different understandings of those terminologies, but St. Paul taught us a different way (see my signature line below)/

What you’ve studied is polemic Eastern Orthodoxy, and not historic Eastern Orthodoxy. Historic Eastern Orthodoxy has a lot more in common with Catholicism than modern, polemic Eastern Orthodox tries to pretend. And please be careful to distinguish between Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy. Oriental Orthodoxy has even more in common with Catholicism than Eastern Orthodoxy. You read the Church Fathers more than what modern EO polemicists are saying. Go back to the sources.

I read the Fathers constantly and can come to my own conclusions. I do know the differences between Coptic Orthodox and Greek, Russian, etc. I’m not really interested in Coptic Orthodoxy at all.

This is only a matter of terminology. Orthodoxy (both Oriental and Eastern) recognizes that there are degrees of seriousness to sin, and a parallel system of penances which reflects that seriousness. This is the HISTORIC teaching of the Church (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Church of the East). As I suggested, go to the sources, not to modern EO polemics.
I have read a great deal of Orthodox literature that says otherwise and they might disagree with your “polemics” comment. I’m only going on what I read and hear from Orthodox I know.

False.

False. MODERN polemic EO’xy looks at Original Sin differently. There is no difference on the teaching of Original Sin between Catholicism, HISTORIC EO’xy. Oriental Orthodoxy, and the Church of the East.
**Every single source I’ve ever read says you’re wrong and that Original Sin is indeed viewed differently. **

This is also the teaching of the Catholic Church. Read your Catechism.
Thanks for the admonition. Gee, I never thought of reading the Catechism…

That is one interpretation of it, most popular primarily (if not only) among Traditionalist Catholics. Other Catholics believe that the standard is being in line with Sacred Tradition, to which even the Pope must adhere.

This would be true only of the Eastern Orthodox. The Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East also have a “high Petrine” view of the Church (i.e., that Peter had a special and unique ministry among the Apostles, and that his is handed down - by virtue of apostolic succession - to the “head bishop” of each Church).

Again, merely a matter of terminology. Easterns and Orientals don’t use the term “Purgatory,” but the essential teaching of it is present in all apostolic Churches.
Again, I can’t tell you how many times I have read that Orthodox don’t believe in purgatory and there are a myriad of Orthodox that have told me the same thing. I’ll take their word over one person telling me otherwise.

Add that all together, and there is a lot of hope for reunion, especially with the Holy Spirit on our side.
I don’t think so. Don’t hold your breath!
Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Hey buddy, if you’re going to say rude things like “read your catechism” and shooting down everything I say, don’t end the blasting with “blessings!” LOL

You were obviously wrong in attempting to claim that the teaching on the Church being fully present in any particular Church is a merely Orthodox teaching. Why are you so insulted that I pointed you to the Catechism to correct yourself on the matter?
You should also check out V2.

Blessings

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Originally Posted by **mardukm **
Again, merely a matter of terminology. Easterns and Orientals don’t use the term “Purgatory,” but the essential teaching of it is present in all apostolic Churches.

Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1
Again, I can’t tell you how many times I have read that Orthodox don’t believe in purgatory and there are a myriad of Orthodox that have told me the same thing. I’ll take their word over one person telling me otherwise.

Yeah whatever man, they pray for the dead, there is no point if they don’t believe in the essence of what is known as Purgatory.

 

[mardukm]

I read the Fathers constantly and can come to my own conclusions. I do know the differences between Coptic Orthodox and Greek, Russian, etc. I’m not really interested in Coptic Orthodoxy at all.

Then you have not read enough. A lot of Eastern Orthodox are actively seeking reunion with the Coptic Orthodox (and the OO in general). A lot do so through a false ecumenism by simply overlooking the differences, but there are those who recognize the differences while sincerely engaging in dialogue to understand and accept each other.

Mardukm:

This is only a matter of terminology. Orthodoxy (both Oriental and Eastern) recognizes that there are degrees of seriousness to sin, and a parallel system of penances which reflects that seriousness. This is the HISTORIC teaching of the Church (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Church of the East). As I suggested, go to the sources, not to modern EO polemics.

I have read a great deal of Orthodox literature that says otherwise and they might disagree with your “polemics” comment. I’m only going on what I read and hear from Orthodox I know.

You should pay closer attention to what you are reading. These polemics have absolutely no rationale for making the mortal.venial sin distinction a matter of separation, except the fact that the Eastern (nor Oriental) Orthodox Churches don’t use the terminology. What such polemicsts do is normally jump to another, related issue that may have a more substantial claim for differentiation - e.g., claiming that the source of the issue is in the different approach to theology. That leaves the impression (to those not more discerning) that there is actually something substantial about the “difference” on the issue of venial/mortal sin, when in fact it is just about the terminology, and nothing more.

mardukm:

False. MODERN polemic EO’xy looks at Original Sin differently. There is no difference on the teaching of Original Sin between Catholicism, HISTORIC EO’xy. Oriental Orthodoxy, and the Church of the East.

Every single source I’ve ever read says you’re wrong and that Original Sin is indeed viewed differently.

Then you have not read enough. Here are two EO sources that manifest this tension between modern EO’xy, on the one hand, and historic EO’xy, on the other:
razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-vs-original-sin-false.html

orthodoxchristianbooks.com/books/ Click on the link towards the bottom of the page to the book entitled “The New Soteriology.”

Mardukm:

Again, merely a matter of terminology. Easterns and Orientals don’t use the term “Purgatory,” but the essential teaching of it is present in all apostolic Churches.

Again, I can’t tell you how many times I have read that Orthodox don’t believe in purgatory and there are a myriad of Orthodox that have told me the same thing. I’ll take their word over one person telling me otherwise.

It doesn’t seem you really know the difference between the Catholic Church’s DOGMATIC teaching on Purgatory, on the one hand, and the many Latin theologoumena that surrounds that teaching. If you knew the difference, you would not give heed to the Orthodox polemics on the matter, since it is only a matter of terminology (i.e., the word “Purgatory”). If you want to give a proper response, do you mind pointing out for us here what the CC’s DOGMATIC teaching on Purgatory is? I would direct you to the teaching of both the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. Please do some research (if you need to) and let us know the results here.

mardukm:

Add that all together, and there is a lot of hope for reunion, especially with the Holy Spirit on our side.

I don’t think so. Don’t hold your breath!

Your opinion on the matter does not really affect the hope that the Holy Spirit inspires in me for the cause of unity, which is Christ’s desire and command for His Church.

Blessings

 

[Ignatios]

… They always act like there’s so much in common that there’s practically no difference. But the Orthodox, like you said, always seem quick to denounce the papacy’s claims and as I’ve studied more about the Orthodox, they seem miles away from Catholicism…

True that is precisely what we the Orthodox see, that your church drifted far from its own roots, to a point that we now can hardly recognize eachothers.

… As you pointed out, the venial vs. mortal sin belief is huge to Roman Catholicism. It’s the heart of their entire penitential system. Disagreeing with that is no small thing.

True, however we beleive although there is a diffrence between killing and steeling, but both still a sin and a sin needs to be confessed so it can be absolved.

… Also, transubstantiation isn’t accepted by Orthodoxy either.

Not exactly,
We reject to give an explanation ( transubstantiation or consubstantiation) we simply beleive that it is a Mystery, Now how can you explain a mystery?

They look at original sin differently, church polity in a different light, and they view the entirety of what makes up “The Church” to exist in each diocese. Catholicism sees the entirety of “The Church” to be all churches in line with the pope. The Orthodox see each bishop as containing the authority and charism of all the apostles where the RCC sees the pope as inheriting a superior bishopric. Each bishop in the OC contains Peter, all of them, in their view. They don’t believe in purgatory in the OC either.

Add all that together and I can’t imagine a reunion?

What can I say… you spoke the truth in all the above.

Peace to you †††

 

[Ignatios]

…And what do you think of how Christ is portrayed in the West versus the East ? For example the western icon at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception?
smugmug.com/gallery/2400331_jVrFW/1/125771254_R3zGB/Large

Hmmm… yes the western Icon was of great imagination, they portrayed HIM as an Anglo-sexon, blonde and blue eyes where the Eastern Icon … well… as the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD said it is a window to Heaven .
GOD bless †††

 

[Marat]

I haven’t read all the responses, so forgive me if I repeat anything already posted.

There are not 23 Catholic Churches united under the pope or however that was stated. There is only ONE Catholic Church. There may be divisions within the church but that does not mean there is a collection of different churches.

Also too, another difference is that the Orthodox like to argue and divide over seemingly everything. Which calendar to use, which books belong in the bible, how to receive converts (such as whether or not to “rebaptize” Catholics who join), and the list goes on. They have a completely different understand of ONE, as in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[trophybearer]

I haven’t read all the responses, so forgive me if I repeat anything already posted.

There are not 23 Catholic Churches united under the pope or however that was stated. There is only ONE Catholic Church. There may be divisions within the church but that does not mean there is a collection of different churches.

Also too, another difference is that the Orthodox like to argue and divide over seemingly everything. Which calendar to use, which books belong in the bible, how to receive converts (such as whether or not to “rebaptize” Catholics who join), and the list goes on. They have a completely different understand of ONE, as in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Yes, the correct one.