What are the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism?

[TBolt1000T]

I’d like to hear answers from both Orthodox an Catholic forum members about this. What are the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, besides the pope or lack there of, and the litergies used? What do Catholicism and Orthodoxy have in common?

 

[Alethiaphile]

I’d like to hear answers from both Orthodox an Catholic forum members about this. What are the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, besides the pope or lack there of, and the litergies used? What do Catholicism and Orthodoxy have in common?

If you want the specifics, there are any number of previous threads and websites which discuss this indepth. Try googling “Orthodoxy and Catholicism”. I don’t have it in me to go down the familiar list again.

Instead, I’ll try to boil it down to its essence, as I see it. I see it as a difference of emphasis. Western Catholicism tends to empahsize the Word, the material, the institutional. For it, the Spirit tends to issue from the Word.
For Orthodoxy, the Spirit has the primacy. It emphasizes the immaterial, the mystical. The Spirit flows where it wills and recreates the Word.
I know that’s pretty airy, and may not be that helpful. Joe

 

[StMarina303ad]

I am a Greek Orthodox Christian.

What are the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism?

There are many differences:

1. The understanding of the Church as either Concilliar or as a Monarchy. Orthodox understands the former and Catholics the latter. Acts 15 supports the Orthodox view of the Church.
2. The role of the Pope. History shows us that the Patriarch of Rome was not the only and was not the first Patriarch of the Ancient Church. The 5 original Patriarchates (there are now more) were: Jeruselem - founded by St. James the Apostle, Antioch - founded by St. Peter the Apostle, Alexandria - founded by St. Mark the Apostle, Byzantium/Constantinople - founded by St. Andrew the Apostle and Rome - founded by Sts. Peter and Paul the Apostles. The Orthodox Church has never believed nor taught that the Pope (of Rome) is Infallible in matters of Faith and Morals.
3. The change to the Creed which was originally given to all Christians by the Holy Spirit through two Church Councils: Nicea and Constantinople. The parts about the Father and Son were given to us at the Council of Nicea and the part about the Holy Spirit in the Council of Constantinople. At the Council of Constantinople (and after at later Councils) it was decreed that anyone who adds or takes away from that Creed was Anathama.Then in a Synod in Toledo, Spain some Roman Catholics decided to add the clause, “Filioque” changing the Creed to read that the “Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father 'and the Son’”. In doing this, they were Anathama just like the Councils said - even the Pope of Rome of at that time condemned the addition - going so far as having the Creed written in its original form (without the addition) in both Latin and Greek in precious medal and hung up in Rome. A later Pope agreed to add it so he could obtain the secular power of ‘crowning’ kings in Europe. It wasn’t a century later after the addition that the Orthodox Church was actually accused of removing that clause from the Creed - riduculous! So you see not only was it condemned by the Creeds to add or remove any part of the Creed as Anathama, it is also like a slap in the face of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit - Jesus because He promised that the Church would be lead in all Truth by the Holy Spirit so we’re calling him a lier and to the Holy Spirit because we’re then calling Him a lier for not leading us in all truth, but in half truths. Personally, I’m not very interested in calling Jesus and the Holy Spirit liers so I’m in the Church that uses the Creed the way it was orignal given to us by the Holy Spirit in the Church Councils.
4. The understanding of Original Sin and its affects on people. Roman Catholics have for centuries understood that the guilt of Original Sin passes down to each individual born after the Fall of Adam and Eve. Orthodox Christians on the other hand have always, since the inception of the Church, understood that every individual born into this world since the Fall of Adam and Eve are born, not with the guilt, but the affects of Original Sin: Namely: sickness and death - women have painful childbirths, men have to work hard. In Orthodoxy we understand that both Jesus and Mary were each subject to the affects of Original Sin - both suffered (Jesus physically & Mary in her heart) and both died. Orthodox to be sure believe whole heartedly that Mary was born without guilt of sin - just like every other person born - and we believe that she, by choice (not a different or special grace) same as we all have, remained without sin for her entire life!

There are more differences - like our view of Salvation as Theosis. We are called to be like God. St. Athanasius said, “God became Man, so that man could become god”. Orthodox believe in a positive salvation - we are not so much saved “from” something as we are save “for” something. I don’t have much room to continue, so I’ll leave the rest for another Orthodox Christian to finish.

 

[StMarina303ad]

What do Catholicism and Orthodoxy have in common?

Orthodoxy and Catholicism have some things in common:

1. Our love, honor and respect for Mary as she is the Theotokos (Mother of God/God Bearer). She is Ever-Virgin. Orthodox pray to her: Iperagia Theotoke Soson Imas - Most Holy Mother of God Save us! She is Immaculate - she has never sinned against the Most Holy Trinity. She is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Convenant as revealed in the end of Revelation 11 and Revelation 12. She is Queen of Heaven and Earth and Mother of all who are followers of Christ.
2. The Mysteries/Sacraments like:
   Holy Eucharist. We both believe that John 6 reveals that truth that Jesus literally gives us His Body to eat and His Blood to drink in Holy Eucharist. It is the Food of Immortality by it we are nurished and deified.Priesthood. We both have priests which are the helpers of the Bishops. Orthodox follow the ancient tradition of having both married an unmarried priests the example give us from St. Peter the Apostle who was married & St. Paul the Apostle who was not. Catholics centuries after the Church was established decided to only allow unmarried men into the priesthood - I think it had something to do with inheritance rights of their children that posed a problem for Catholics somehow, but I’m not sure.
   Marriage. Baptism. Holy Unction. Chrismation/Confirmation.
3. We both maintain a Liturgical format of public Worship which loosely follows the same pattern: reading of Sacred Scripture, Preaching and Celebration of Holy Eucharist. This has been the same since the first public Worship Liturgy was created in Jeruselem by St. James the Apostle - still used by Orthodox Christians on the Feast Day of St. James. Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have been more faithful to the original Liturgy than modern day Roman Catholics, but the point is there is a similarity of Liturgical Format./COLOR]
4. Use of Images in Worship - Orthodox have always used Icons since St. Luke created the first one - it was an image of Mary holding Jesus - he created it when Mary was still alive. Orthodox consider Icons as “Windows of Heaven” - Icons are used on a much smaller scale, but still used by Catholics. Catholics have also introduced statues in later times, Orthodox do not recognize statues as being accepted practice by the Church because it is not part of the ancient Christian Tradition, but crept up centuries later and only in the West. However, the similarity is in the use of Images to remind us that we are not alone in our journey to Christ - that we have a “Cloud of Witnesses” all around us encouraging us to finish the race.

I’m sure there are other things similar between our two Faiths, but these are what have come to my mind at this moment.

 

[Genesis315]

I think the Catholic Church is more and/both than the Eastern Orthodox Church as the above posts indicate.

For example, the Catholic Church is both concilliar and monarchical (even each EO bishop governs as one head over his particular Church, but his particular Church is also subject to synodal decisions.)

Likewise, we see the Creed with or without the Filioque as expressing the same truth–the Filioque being used to re-enforce that meaning. On the other hand, the EO accuse us of giving it a meaning we do not (we do not intend two spirations or two principles; and we do not accuse you of making the Son and Holy Spirit the same person, since the persons are distinguished by their relationship to the others–saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father without any reference to the Son could be wrongly interpreted to give the Son and Holy Spirit the exact same relationship to the Father and to each other–it also can be falsely interpreted as rupturing the unity of the Godhead).

Further, the Catholic Catechism expresses Athanasius’ view of salvation and even gives the quote Monica gives, citing both Athanasius and Thomas Aquinas.

In regards to original sin, the CCC shows that the EO accusations are not proper characterizations of the Catholic position.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

Even EO will admit there is a difference between a Baptized infant and an unbaptized one (they will say they become members of the Church, but then the question becomes, what is the difference between a member and non-member?). Even St. Gregory Nazienzen, the great Eastern theologian, wrote of what is lacking in the unbaptized and the necessity of Baptism for salvation. If Baptism is necessary for salvation (as Christ declares), then it must supply something that is lacking.

The biggest difference, however, is in regards to teaching authority. Catholics believe this authority resides with the Bishop of Rome and the bishops in union with him. The EO do not have a teaching authority at all. Even the great Councils they venerate have no authority of themselves–they must be judged “by the whole Church.” (which of course begs the question, if the “whole Church” already knows the orthodoxy necessary to judge the Council and receive it or not, then what is the point of the Council?)

Now, a Catholic would respond that the praxis of the Church at those Councils did not allow the laity, etc. to judge them, but rather those who rejected there decrees were excommunicated forthwith. Rather this idea of councils not having binding authority came when segments (often very large) of the EO Church did not want to accept the decrees of Councils their bishops had agreed to because they affirmed disputed points with the Catholics (namely Lyons II, Florence, and pan-Orthodox councils which affirmed indulgences, original sin, etc.).

I guess the second major difference is that in the EO, we see doctrinal development up until about St. Gregory Palamas, and then after Florence we see a stop, with even some regression under the banner of anti-Latin purging.

Anyway, it bears pointing out that the Catholic Church is more accepting of the “Eastern” theological approach, praxis, etc. seeing it as valid along side the “Western” approaches (Athanasius and Anselm are equally Doctors of the Church )whereas the Latin approach is almost universally rejected by the EO.

 

[TBolt1000T]

I do have some more questions. What does the EO Church believe about things like mortal sin, holy days of obligation, and masterbation? Also, would the EO Church have a problem with any orthodox Christian praying the Rosary, or any other Latin based prayer or devotion? Another question I have is, can Orthodox and Catholics take Communion and other sacraments in each other’s churches? Does the EO have anything like Eucharistic adoration?

 

[StMarina303ad]

I do have some more questions. What does the EO Church believe about things like mortal sin, holy days of obligation, and masterbation? Also, would the EO Church have a problem with any orthodox Christian praying the Rosary, or any other Latin based prayer or devotion? Another question I have is, can Orthodox and Catholics take Communion and other sacraments in each other’s churches? Does the EO have anything like Eucharistic adoration?

Holy Days of Obligation? God is love and He wants us to use our free will to love Him back. Obligation does not reconcile with love. To be sure there are plenty of Holy/Feast Days, but no such thing as Obligation. If someone truly loves God and they are able to, they will go to Church from their love not from any obligation.

Masterbation? It’s a sin. Sin literally means missing the mark. What is the mark? The mark (our goal) is theosis/deification. Anything less than full union with God is missing the mark. Masterbation is a sexual sin which means more than likely those who particpate in that sin have fallen past habit/addition into passion. It is very difficult to get out of a passionate sin, but with God all things are possible. The best spiritual defense for a passion is a great spiritual offense. Frequenting of the Mysteries: Confession/Eucharist help, as does practicing the Fastings of the Church (just over 50% of the year), practicing praxis, watchfulness, menatoia, etc., reading Sacred Scripture and lives of Saints, keeping the Prayer Rule assigned to you by your Spiritual Father, etc.

E.O. Church does not have an official stance on the Rosary since it is not an Orthodox Tradition. Because prayer is a personal matter of communication between yourself and the Most Holy Trinity, so an Orthodox Christian would need to speak to their Spiritual Father or Spiritual Mother to get permission to use a Prayer that is not a part of the Orthodox Tradition. I have and I know others who have received permission to pray the Rosary - example a Pro-Life Rosary in front of an abortion clinic (although I prefer the Akathist of Repentence on behalf of women who’ve had abortions).

The Church of Rome, according to the current Code of Canon Law (which can be found on www.vatican.va) allows Orthodox Christians to receive Eucharist in Catholic Churches; however, since the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are not in communion with one another, the Orthodox Churches forbid this.

Eucharistic Adoration has been unknown in both the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Churches through out history. The Roman Catholic (no other Catholic Particular Churches do this) began doing Eucharistic Adoration around the turn of the century (1800’s into 1900’s). This is an extremely new practice. Jesus in Sacred Scripture (John 6) commanded us to eat and drink Him, not stare at Him for an hour. I did go to Adoration before - one of the first times I went, I was bored and looked around the room and I noticed a video camera aimed at the Eucharist and I wondered about why…next thing you know, Jesus said, “Yeah, their watching my every move.” - I nearly busted up laughing.