N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
Can someone tell me the true doctrinal differences between the Orthodox and the Catholic faiths?
- Status
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
Sorry to bump my own thread, but I want to know.
C
ComeHome2Rome
Guest
It all boils down to the Pope. Catholics believe the pope has supremacy over the entire Church. The basis for that belief can be found in the Bible, the Church Fathers & the Councils of the Church.
Catholics believe that Jesus established the See of St. Peter to continue in New Testament times just as the See of Moses had in Old Testament times. There is one visible head of the Church on earth. St. Peter, and his successors in Rome, is the chief steward of Jesus the King just as Joseph was the chief steward of the Pharaoh. The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were taken away from Caiaphas the High Priest sitting on the “seat of Moses” and given to St. Peter by Jesus just as the keys were taken away from Shebna and given to Eliakim.
Recommended reading: The Biblical Basis for the Papacy by John Salza
S
Shiranui117
Guest
^That is excellent for a Catholic PoV, and I’m sure some of our Orthodox members will be along shortly to give the proper Orthodox PoV. I’ll give a rudimentary and probably oversimplified and perhaps partially exaggerated rundown on the differences between the two:
The Papacy: The Roman Catholics have dogmatized this part of their ecclesiology in the last 150 or so years, claiming that the Pope has always possessed infallibility in matters of faith and morals. They also claim that the Pope was always the head honcho of the Church, having readily-apparent universal jurisdiction over the entire Church from the get-go. The Orthodox, on the other hand, see in Church history a much more modest role for the Pope as being first among equals. The Pope can be called on to mediate in certain circumstances between other bishops, but overall, the Pope was limited in jurisdiction to the West. The Orthodox say the Pope is as infallible as any other bishop, and his word is not equal to an Ecumenical Council, but the Pope has the same vote as every other bishop.
Purgatory: The devil is in the details on this one. The Roman Catholics look at Purgatory oftentimes legalistically, saying that we still need to be “punished” or “purged” of the sins that we committed on Earth. The Orthodox view on “Purgatory” is more medicinal; we are healed of the stain of sin that still remains on us. Both believe prayers for the dead help this purification process along, and can contribute in some tiny way to their salvation. One major difference is that the Orthodox believe everyone (except, perhaps, the Saints) is in “Purgatory” until the Last Judgement, when everyone is sentenced to either Heaven or Hell.
Soteriology: The West employs a very legalistic model on this. Sin is like breaking the law, and we deserve punishment. Following the law and not sinning brings about merit, and that merit can be redistributed to other people through what is called the “treasury of merit,” and this treasury of merit is why Roman Catholics have indulgences. Essentially, you take the merit that a Saint contributed to the treasury, and you give it over to a sinner who is in need of forgiveness for some sin or another. Christ’s death on the Cross is partially viewed as a way to appease God, so that He might forgive our sins through the suffering of an innocent Man.
The East, on the other hand, again employs medical terminology. Sin isn’t viewed so much as unlawful actions, but as a disease that needs to be cured. The process of curing oneself of the disease of sin and growing closer to God, and more like Him, is called “theosis.” Christ’s death on the Cross is seen not as appeasing God, but destroying Death by death. Christ takes on our human nature in the Incarnation, bears the weight of sin on the Cross, dies to go the full length of the human journey with us, then resurrects, destroying Death’s power over mankind, and by extension, sin. We are ransomed from sin, and we share in Christ’s victory over Death.
Various traditions: Roman Catholic priests are always celibate. Eastern Orthodoxy ordains married men to the priesthood/diaconate, but clergy cannot marry after being ordained. Romans use the Latin Rite, and the Orthodox use the Byzantine Rite in services. The Orthodox and Roman Catholics for the most part use different calendars in their churches.
As far as history goes, there’s a lot out there. ccel.org is a great site if you want to get the straight, primary sources without any Catholic or Orthodox skew. In the Church Fathers section, at the bottom, it will give you the Seven Ecumenical Councils for free to read online, with good analysis by a respected historian on the early Church. You’ll also find a huge collection of apocryphal works, and writings by some of the earliest and most influential Christians.
M
Mickey
Guest
You are catholic…so you know the catholic doctrine. If you want to know the differences, I strongly suggest you sit down and speak with an Orthodox priest.
L
Legal_Eagle
Guest
L
Legal_Eagle
Guest
The problem for me is that there’s not an Orthodox priest within 100 miles of me. So, please be so kind as to share what–in your own understanding–are the doctrinal differences between us.
Peace,
C
Cider
Guest
I’d suggest the book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy ( or the podcast).
M
Mickey
Guest
It is best not to get your information from an internet forum. Perhaps you could locate an Orthodox Church and start an e-mail correspondence with the priest. The differences are many and varied. There are thousands of threads on this issue that have garnered tens of thousands of posts. It usually deteriorates into a lack of charity at some point.
S
Shiranui117
Guest
^I’ll heartily second that. They have two episodes devoted to Roman Catholicism, and the info in there’s all good. Excellent Orthodox perspective to be had there. The OP may also want to look into getting the book “The Orthodox Church” by Metr. Kallistos Ware.
I
Invictus_88
Guest
To be clear, those differences are not doctrinal, but traditional.
It is both theoretically and practically possible for a Catholic Priest to be married, and it is both theoretically and practically possible for a Catholic to be in good standing and to take a more Eastern Christian health/sickness metaphor in lieu of the transgression one that prevails in the Catholic Church.
(NB. I’m not a priest, I’m not a graduate in these subjects, but I think I’m still correct in stating the above. Happy to be corrected if not though.)
It is both theoretically and practically possible for a Catholic Priest to be married, and it is both theoretically and practically possible for a Catholic to be in good standing and to take a more Eastern Christian health/sickness metaphor in lieu of the transgression one that prevails in the Catholic Church.
(NB. I’m not a priest, I’m not a graduate in these subjects, but I think I’m still correct in stating the above. Happy to be corrected if not though.)
S
Shiranui117
Guest
Yes, it is possible to do as you have said. The problem, however, comes when you have dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception and Original Sin that are based off the legalistic Latin framework, as well as Substitutionary Atonement and Penal Substitution. Allow me to explain for the OP.
The common understanding of Original Sin is different between East and West; in the West, it carries the connotation of being in the state of Adam’s guilt, meaning, we don’t personally bear his guilt, but humanity carries with it as a state of guilt. Original Sin also results in the deprivation of sanctifying grace. In the East, however, there is no connotation of guilt. Original Sin, or more aptly, Ancestral Sin, is the end result of what Adam did; the image of God inside of us is distorted, and we are subject to death, disease and sin. If you say that Mary is free of the stain of Original Sin as in the Latin framework, it works out fine, but if you apply an Eastern understanding of Original Sin, then Mary doesn’t need saving, since she is already free from sin and death. When the Latins elevate Latin theology to the level of dogma, and demand that every other theological tradition hold to the same thing, even though the theology behind it is foreign to, say, a Russian, that undoubtedly creates friction. Yes, this did arise after the Schism, but it’s one of those things that keep the two churches divided.
Briefly touching on the two theories of atonement I listed above, a common complaint by the Orthodox of those two is this: It makes God the bad guy. In other words, God is saving us from Himself, from His own anger and offendedness(if that ain’t a word, it is now). That, and the Substitution theories only arose after the schism; Anselm of Canterbury didn’t dream up Substitutionary Atonement until the early 1100’s, IIRC, some 50 years after the Schism. Again, this is foreign to the Orthodox, who continue to exclusively hold to the Ransom theory of atonement, and Christus Victor. The Orthodox would argue that we aren’t being saved from God, but rather from death and sin.
I know everyone hates Wikipedia, but it does have a nice summary of each view of atonement here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_Atonement
- Status