Orthodoxy Versus Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter rsmaxwell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rsmaxwell

Guest
I am hoping to receive a concise explanation of substantive differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Like many Papists who have scratched the surface, I see identical doctrines couched in different terminology. Yet I hear assurances that Catholicism – according to Orthodox believers – is both schismatic AND heretical. From my Catholic view, see Orthodoxy as being schismatic but not really heretical. I’d like to hear a concised list of differences, if that is possible.

I have heard that Purgatory is one of the beliefs, but I have read (I do not remember the book) a book by an Orthodox priest that spoke that some of those destined to heaven will spend time in Hell. I may very well have mis interpreted that.

I have also heard that “sprinkling” during baptism is not acceptable instead immersion is required or, at least, “pouring” – I guess that there is an assumed volume required for the baptism to count. So that Orthodox does not recognize Catholic Baptisms.

I’m sure that there are others, and I’d love to learn the differences. Orthodoxy has always intrigued me and I love a lot of the art and liturgy of orthodoxy, and I would love to learn more.

Yours in Christ,

Scott
 
rsmaxwell said:
I am hoping to receive a concise explanation of substantive differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Like many Papists who have scratched the surface, I see identical doctrines couched in different terminology. Yet I hear assurances that Catholicism – according to Orthodox believers – is both schismatic AND heretical. From my Catholic view, see Orthodoxy as being schismatic but not really heretical. I’d like to hear a concised list of differences, if that is possible.

I have heard that Purgatory is one of the beliefs, but I have read (I do not remember the book) a book by an Orthodox priest that spoke that some of those destined to heaven will spend time in Hell. I may very well have mis interpreted that.

I have also heard that “sprinkling” during baptism is not acceptable instead immersion is required or, at least, “pouring” – I guess that there is an assumed volume required for the baptism to count. So that Orthodox does not recognize Catholic Baptisms.

I’m sure that there are others, and I’d love to learn the differences. Orthodoxy has always intrigued me and I love a lot of the art and liturgy of orthodoxy, and I would love to learn more.

Yours in Christ,

Scott
Click to expand...
I know that the Orthodox reject the filioque, the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son. They reject it because in the West it was approved by a local council, instead of a Church-wide Ecumenical Council like those at Nicaea and Constantinople which brought us the Nicene Creed.

Purgatory is rejected, though a small number of Orthodox believe in a theory of “Toll Houses” that the soul must go through before entering heaven, but it is by no means a doctrine nor widely believed.

The Orthodox I think generally recognize Catholic baptisms unless the priest is exceptionally strict.

The Eucharist is another source of division. The Orthodox do not accept the Catholic practice of giving only the host, and not the wine.
 
rsmaxwell said:
I have also heard that “sprinkling” during baptism is not acceptable instead immersion is required or, at least, “pouring” – I guess that there is an assumed volume required for the baptism to count. So that Orthodox does not recognize Catholic Baptisms.
Click to expand...
Catholics do not practice “sprinkling” either. In both Churches, it is either pouring or immersion. The difference is that, in Roman Catholicism, pouring seems to be the norm. In the East, immersion seems to be the norm. Both are seen as “valid”.
 
First off, the traditional way of administering baptism in the Latin Church is by POURING, not sprinkling. But any theologian or Church history book will assure you that immersion is preferred in all cases.

Even the Orthodox Church admits that there are some times when immersion is impossible. The idea is to come as close to it as possible.

Next, the idea of the “validity” or “invalidity” of Sacraments administered outside of Orthodoxy is a total non-issue. Non-Orthodox mysteries are just that: non-Orthodox mysteries. Baptism, Chrismation, and Ordination only become issues when a non-Orthodox Christian wishes to reconcile with Orthodoxy. This is handled strictly as a local and pastoral matter. The main consideration is not only what is best for the prospective convert, but best for the Church. There are many ways of handling these matters. Every case is considered individually, and NOTHING creates a precedent.

Some Roman Catholics would be received by simple profession of Orthodox faith, confession, and communion.

Others (especially Protestants) by confession, Chrismation, and Communion.

Still others might received canonical Orthodox baptism (triple immersion and emersion)–either absolutely or conditionally–followed by Chrismation.

Roman Catholic clergy might be received by Baptism, or Chrismation, or merely being granting faculties, or by Vesting, or Ordination.

Again, it’s a strictly pastoral matter.

So, as you see, it’s not simply a case of “not recognizing” Catholic baptism.
 
Sword_Brethren said:
"pa·pist (ppst) KEY

NOUN:
Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a Roman Catholic."

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/papist

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/papist
Click to expand...
I do believe it was an attempt at self depricating humour to lighten the mood and insure this is a friendly discussion.

Regarding the OP:
The general Orthodox consensus is that Catholics are schismics, not necessarily heretics. There are those who hold the Catholic Church is heretical, usually over the issues of Papal Supremacy and the filioque. I’ll warn you if you get your information from orthodoxinfo.com it tends to be extreme in most of its views, so your not really getting a good gauge of Orthodox thought.
 
rsmaxwell said:
I am hoping to receive a concise explanation of substantive differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Like many Papists who have scratched the surface, I see identical doctrines couched in different terminology. Yet I hear assurances that Catholicism – according to Orthodox believers – is both schismatic AND heretical. From my Catholic view, see Orthodoxy as being schismatic but not really heretical. I’d like to hear a concised list of differences, if that is possible.

I have heard that Purgatory is one of the beliefs, but I have read (I do not remember the book) a book by an Orthodox priest that spoke that some of those destined to heaven will spend time in Hell. I may very well have mis interpreted that.

I have also heard that “sprinkling” during baptism is not acceptable instead immersion is required or, at least, “pouring” – I guess that there is an assumed volume required for the baptism to count. So that Orthodox does not recognize Catholic Baptisms.

I’m sure that there are others, and I’d love to learn the differences. Orthodoxy has always intrigued me and I love a lot of the art and liturgy of orthodoxy, and I would love to learn more.

Yours in Christ,

Scott
Click to expand...
Hello rsmaxwell,
Code: 
  It may come as a suprise to some that the differences in doctrine didn't bother the Roman Catholic Church as much as it did the Orthodox. 
  The differances in doctrine was a Greek problem not a Roman one. The RCC never pushed its understanding on anyone until the Filiogue. The fighting was mostly among Orthodox themselves of which ecumenical counsels were call to solve the issue between two patriarchs or synods in dispute. Constantinople was at times one of the synods in conflict not with Rome but others. The counsel was for those in dispute and was called for their bennefit. Hellenization was a greek cultural derivative and often insited debate among the greek culture. Unity was as important as the truth in Rome and always has been. 

   The Problem was others pushed their view not unlike what we see in Protestantism today and the Jew in the time of Christ that were suffering internal diversity about doctrine at times. 

   Cultural differeances between greek democracy and Roman republic had their issues in the churches beginning much like the religious/political turmoil today. 

   In Rome Jesus CHrist is God and Lord and that was what the Filiogue was about. Many differences today are what happen when two grow apart and with Romes development of Doctrine it refines how to say the truth for the Church it leads..
Peace and Godbless
 
…and now we take you for an update in this evenings forecast pertaining to this thread.

Hurricane Catholic will meet up with hurricane Orthodox and when these two powerful storms meet up, we will see Typhon Christianity hit the shores.

😦 :mad:
**“ People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?
Click to expand...
Can we get along? …
Click to expand...
Please, we can get along here.
Click to expand...
We all can get along.
Click to expand...
I mean, we’re all stuck here for a while.
Click to expand...
Let’s try to work it out.
Click to expand...
Let’s try to beat it.
Click to expand...
Let’s try to beat it.
Click to expand...
Let’s try to work it out."**
Click to expand...
Rodney King
Click to expand...
 
Ok, here are the main differences:

The Orthodox do not believe in the universal authority or infallibility of the Pope
The Orthodox disagree with regard to the use of the filoque
The Orthodox do not believe in Purgatory
The Orthodox do not share the Catholic belief in original sin. As a result, they do not believe in the Immaculate Conception.
The Orthodox do not generally use any images aside from icons, although this point would not likely preclude a possible unification, since they would not necessarily be opposed to the Latin use of imagery.
 
Nine_Two said:
Given that neither existed by that time, yes.
Click to expand...
Hello nine_two

Well actually, if you know where to look? And know what to look for, it becomes more of a did and does kind of thingy.

I think It wasn’t getting the Israel out of egypt that was hard… But it took fouty years wandering in a desert to get the Egypt out of the Israel. Greek and Roman culture still thrive today. The difference was the new Israel was planted in the modern Egypt not taken out.

The problem is most people don’t want to admitt that they are influenced by things other that which is acknowledged.

Peace and Godbless,
 
Rolltide said:
Ok, here are the main differences:
The Orthodox do not believe in the universal authority or infallibility of the Pope
Click to expand...
It’s funny you should mention this, because it was the Orthodox Catholics who wanted Icons destroyed in the Universal “Catholic Church”, while Roman Catholics and the Popes defended Icons in the Church including Candles. Schismatics Orthodox church’s should thank the Popes for defending Icons from being banished forever from their own Orthodox Church’s.

One item that you missed is the defended term for the Apostolic faith in the Eucharistic true presence of Jesus that the Pope used to defend against heretics “Transubstantiation”. Schismatic Orthodox Church’s also rebel against the Pope defending the apostolic Eucharistic faith with this term that defends the True presence not define the mystery as some falsely accuse the pope of doing among many other things.

The Roman Catholic Rite adminsters baptisms by immersion, pouring and or sprinkling, all are valid baptisms, sprinkling is the less excercised but if it is used it is a valid baptism. To say other than what the CCC states is a misrepresentation of the Roman Catholic Rite.
Click to expand...
 
jakasaki said:
…and now we take you for an update in this evenings forecast pertaining to this thread.

Hurricane Catholic will meet up with hurricane Orthodox and when these two powerful storms meet up, we will see Typhon Christianity hit the shores.

😦 :mad:
Click to expand...
Prophetic.😦
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
It’s funny you should mention this, because it was the Orthodox Catholics who wanted Icons destroyed in the Universal “Catholic Church”, while Roman Catholics and the Popes defended Icons in the Church including Candles. Schismatics Orthodox church’s should thank the Popes for defending Icons from being banished forever from their own Orthodox Church’s.
Click to expand...
  • Iconoclasts are not Orthodox. Iconodules are Orthodox.
  • Alcuin composes the Quatuor Libri Carolini (790) under the sponsorship of his king.
  • The Synod of Frankfort (794AD), with two Papal legates in attendance endorsed the theology of the Libri Carolini and condemned the restoration of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. All the Frankish and German bishops were represented, and the English church later approved.
  • The Synod of Paris (825AD) renewed the Frankfort condemnation of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the restoration of images.
Now as a matter of fact, Pope Hadrian approved of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the restoration of images, but the church in the north did not. After the news of what had happened in Frankfort arrived in Rome none of his (Pope Hadrian’s) efforts could change the position of the Frankish church.

This brings out two important points:

    • The church in the west was divided theologically from region to region, especially the Latin/Mediterranean church from the Germanic/Gothic church.
    • Popes did not always have the authority that has been claimed for them in recent times, even within their own patriarchate.
    Be careful of the assertions you make. Perhaps it is not your fault, there is a lot of Latin triumphalistic garbage available from Catholic sources, which tend to skim lightly over important historical information that might embarrass the church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top