S
SavedbyHisBlood
Guest
What are the main differences? The only one that i know of is that the Orthodox do not subscribe to the Pope. Other then that i remain pretty ignorant about it… 
- Status
S
Skeptic92
Guest
The basic Theology of both Catholics and Orthodox is the same, pretty scarily similar when you consider we are in Schism, the main differences are political rather then Theological, doctrinal differences are minimal, and generally come down to a difference in understanding rather then a fundamental difference, plus if i remember correctly there is a slightly different Canon of the OT, however i can’t say for sure.What are the main differences? The only one that i know of is that the Orthodox do not subscribe to the Pope. Other then that i remain pretty ignorant about it…
The main difference is the main authority, the Ecumenical Patriarch (HH Bartholomew I) is the first among equals, and the main authority in the Eastern Orthodox, and the Pope is the main authority in the Catholic Church
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
If you compare Byzantine Catholics with Eastern Orthodox, then ideally that should be the only difference. The tradition of East and West has many differences, and this is true even when comparing Byzantine Catholics with Roman Catholics. So in a general sense what you say is the simple difference Orthodox and Catholics. Basically Catholics believe in the Supremacy of the Pope who is the Supreme Pontiff of the entire Church. The Orthodox see him as the Patriarch of the Church of Rome, a first among equals. They would accept the Pope in a way that there is honor in his position, but not actual universal power over any Church besides Rome.What are the main differences? The only one that i know of is that the Orthodox do not subscribe to the Pope. Other then that i remain pretty ignorant about it…
P
Publisher
Guest
From my own reading and discussions…the differences are quite profound and not as simple as “who is the head of the church”.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Wet Blanket Alert:
Other people here will and have told you that the differences between Catholics and Orthodox Christians are mainly political or otherwise not theological. This is not what the Orthodox themselves say, so I’d be wary if I were you because you’re only getting one half of the story, and it’s pretty biased towards one particular understanding (as it would also be if this were an Orthodox message board). More than any one big, obvious doctrinal difference (the role of the Pope, the understanding of the Trinity re: the “filioque”, etc.), I would say that the more you dig into the Orthodox perspective the more you’ll find that there are very real and fundamental differences in the approach to the faith that have precipitated the schism in which we have found ourselves for the past ~1000 years (or ~1600 years, depending on which schism we’re talking about). It is a bit too easy perhaps to say it’s all about “scholasticism” vs. “mysticism” as though both sides don’t have aspects of both, or “apophatic” vs. “cataphatic” theology, but these are good concepts to look into if you want to understand what really separates the Catholics and the Orthodox. If it were as simple as Orthodox being “Catholics without a Pope” (which isn’t even true; the See of Alexandria was the first to use that title!), then we’d see the same or at least complimentary theological and liturgical understandings held between Catholics and Orthodox, but we don’t. So that’s not right, either.
Basically, Catholics practice a particular understanding of the faith, and Orthodox practice a particular understanding of the faith. Depending on who you ask, they may or may not be practicing the same faith. Certain Byzantine Catholics, for instance, stick very closely to the practices of their Orthodox counterparts, but of course can’t be Orthodox because the understanding of the faith is not the same even if its external manifestations are.
Other people here will and have told you that the differences between Catholics and Orthodox Christians are mainly political or otherwise not theological. This is not what the Orthodox themselves say, so I’d be wary if I were you because you’re only getting one half of the story, and it’s pretty biased towards one particular understanding (as it would also be if this were an Orthodox message board). More than any one big, obvious doctrinal difference (the role of the Pope, the understanding of the Trinity re: the “filioque”, etc.), I would say that the more you dig into the Orthodox perspective the more you’ll find that there are very real and fundamental differences in the approach to the faith that have precipitated the schism in which we have found ourselves for the past ~1000 years (or ~1600 years, depending on which schism we’re talking about). It is a bit too easy perhaps to say it’s all about “scholasticism” vs. “mysticism” as though both sides don’t have aspects of both, or “apophatic” vs. “cataphatic” theology, but these are good concepts to look into if you want to understand what really separates the Catholics and the Orthodox. If it were as simple as Orthodox being “Catholics without a Pope” (which isn’t even true; the See of Alexandria was the first to use that title!), then we’d see the same or at least complimentary theological and liturgical understandings held between Catholics and Orthodox, but we don’t. So that’s not right, either.
Basically, Catholics practice a particular understanding of the faith, and Orthodox practice a particular understanding of the faith. Depending on who you ask, they may or may not be practicing the same faith. Certain Byzantine Catholics, for instance, stick very closely to the practices of their Orthodox counterparts, but of course can’t be Orthodox because the understanding of the faith is not the same even if its external manifestations are.
S
svid
Guest
Don’t the Orthodox have additional books in their canon? I’m thinking of 1 & 2 Esdras and The Prayer of Manasseh. Are their clergy celibate?
They also use more incense, so they smell better.
They also use more incense, so they smell better.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Only the Bishops are celibate across the board. But again, this tradition belongs to the East as a whole and shared on both sides of the fence, Catholics and Orthodox. My priest is married, I go to a Ukrainian Catholic parish (Byzantine Rite).
I read somewhere that the Chaldean Catholic Church prefers celibate priests, but is not totally against married men becoming priests.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
But everything you described can be found in a Byzantine Catholic Church. What you compared is East and West and the same differences can be found within the Catholic Church herself.
Of course there is also difference of opinion. Byzantine Catholics do not reject for example the Immaculate Conception, and would reconcile the Western view with the Eastern view. I don’t think any Eastern Catholic or Orthodox will deny that Mary is unblemished from conception 'til death. But an Orthodox will insist that the Immaculate Conception is completely different from their own understanding and view of Mary. Although I’ve heard some Orthodox on this board accept the basic concepts of the Immaculate Conception as well.
So it depends on the perspective. East and West certainly is very different and this is true within the Catholic Church herself, without taking the Orthodox into account. But if you compare the Byzantine Catholics with Eastern Orthodox, how much differences are there? Latinizations aside, it should only be the view of the Pope. And I use the word “should” hear because that is the ideal. The reality is that many Eastern Catholics do have many Latinizations that they would appear to be closer to Roman Catholics than to Orthodox. But even Ven. and soon to be Blessed Pope John Paul II asks that Eastern Catholics be “Orthodox in communion with Rome,” in the sense that they carry all the traditions and practices of the Orthodox, but in communion with Rome.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Indeed. From where do you think you inherited your theology? It wasn’t Rome, that’s for sure.
You would believe them to be reconcilable. From what I have experienced, the Orthodox do not. At best, it is not something that should have been elevated to the level of dogmatic pronouncement; At worst, it introduces a foreign concept regarding original sin into Orthodox thought that does not belong there.
Well, yes. The Eastern theology you are discussing is inherited from the Orthodox Church that your particular Eastern Catholic Church came from, so of course it is true without taking the Orthodox into account, because their view is implicit in your view so long as the two match. Because they don’t always match and/or aren’t always complimentary, you are not Orthodox.
I have a little bit of experience with the Byzantines and I found them to be quite different than the worship I have experienced, for example, in the Russian Orthodox Church. I suppose each parish is different, and there are some Byzantine Catholic parishes that go to great lengths to preserve their roots (theologically and otherwise), and good for them. It doesn’t change the fact that they are not Orthodox, though.
So JPII asks for something impossibly schizophrenic. If your experience is that it is not impossibly schizophrenic, then more power to you, I really do hope that you can live your faith completely within your tradition, and urge you to do so. But this does not change the fact that because you have split from the Orthodox Church, you are no longer Orthodox. It is not really possible to say “We’re Orthodox, ____ aside” when “______” is what makes you not Orthodox. My personal feeling is that it is more than just the role of the Pope (and you’ve alluded to what some more is with your mention of the IC), but I won’t belabor the point. I’m not in communion with any of you, anyway.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I am not a good person to ask this question as I lived my life mostly as a Roman Catholic
Well, its the Western way to dogmatize everything because of their very legalistic view. But Eastern Catholics have been allowed to not accept the dogma as defined by the West, but rather accept a teaching compatible with the dogma without being exactly like the dogma.
Like I said, ideally it should be the same. Its a process to get there.
That is not true. Even some Orthodox parishes themselves have practices that have changed a bit. Inculturation is part of the Eastern faith and many Orthodox parishes around the world has incorporated local practices that are not practiced in their mother lands.
The point was to bring the traditions, practices and theology that the Church has in its Orthodox counterpart into the Catholic counterpart. The Pope isn’t asking the Eastern Catholics to be schizo, they shouldn’t be bearing Western traditions.
M
Mickey
Guest
I do not believe this. When I was Byzantine Catholic, I was told the same thing. Statements were offered to me by clergy such as:
"We have a different understanding of purgatory and IC than the Latins. We do not say the Filioque in the Creed (although some Byz Cath Churches recited it). We are under the Pope–but not really."
Others told me that the doctrines and teachings of the Latin Church must be adhered to as defined by the Latin Church. Many more things were said to me that caused confusion. In the end, I profoundly felt an identity crisis and was compelled to worship in the Holy Orthodox Church.
- Status