What is the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

[Ad_Gentes]

While there are many doctrinal differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (Filioque, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, among others), I’ve found that the main difference and obstacle to reunification between our Churches is the role and view of the papacy. In fact, many of the doctrinal differences discussed in previous posts are somewhat linked to the authority and infallibility of the Pope. For example, I’ve seen different views among Orthodox Christians with regards to the Immaculate Conception. Some could actually accept this if defined by an Ecumenical Council of both East and West. But it was a Roman Pope who defined this Catholic dogma and that makes it unacceptable to Eastern Orthodox. The same goes for the Filioque; the explanation of the procession of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father through the Son could be acceptable to some Orthodox Christians. However, the Councils were clear that no changes would be made to the Nicene Creed. From the Orthodox perspective, only a “real” Ecumenical Council could revisit the Creed and rule on the Filoque. Other apparent doctrinal differences could potentially be reconciled. I don’t believe Papal Supremacy and Infallibility falls under this category. While Eastern Orthodox would accept a primacy of honor for the Bishop of Rome, and even some (maybe a minority) a degree of authority in administrative matters, I see it difficult for the Orthodox Churches as a whole to accept that the Roman Pontiff has supreme and immediate jurisdiction over all the Churches and that he enjoys infallibility when speaking Ex Cathedra.

 

[crazzeto]

The Filioque is 100% theological difference as is each of the issues I’ve mentioned. If you choose to ignore the theological differences behind each of these differences then there’s no point to this thread.

You are not alone. I do see this attitude from Catholics a lot that try to sweep under the rug the very heart of the theological differences.

I thought by your post that you wanted to understand them. My apologies for misunderstanding your intentions.

Not really, the Spirit does proceed from the Father and the Son this is supported in Scripture. The Filoque was added because the problems with Arianism didn’t end with the council of Nicea / Constantinople. It continued in full force, particularly in Spain where it was first added. The problem is that the creed used the term Homoousios, which was rejected by many as it was previously condemed by the Church, and in fact Arianism it’s self was originally started (in the view of the heritics) as fighting this very heresy. ’

The Filioque helps clarify the creed, making it clear it rejects both Heresies.

 

[scapularkid8]

…you will get your chance to comment on the rest as they are posted in succession (as opposed to procession) LOL

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Leavened (regular) bread was used for the Eucharist from the time of Jesus at His Last Supper and used by the entire Church until 1053 when, for the first time, Pope Leo IX began substituting Leavened (regular) bread for Unleavened (azymes) in the Patriarchate of Rome.

Today the Eastern Catholics continue to use Leavened bread, but the Roman Catholic Church uses Unleavened (azymes) bread.

John 18:28 confirms that the Last Supper was not The Passover meal inwhich unleavened (azymes) bread was used. There are other Scriptures that also make this clear, but I’ve got to be somewhere in 3 mins.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

The Filioque helps clarify the creed, making it clear it rejects both Heresies.

Even if your previous statement is correct (and I’m not saying is not), it still doesn’t change the fact (at least within Orthodoxy) that the Creed was changed unilaterally by the Roman Church (I say ‘Roman’ because this change happened before the Great Schism, when Catholics and Orthodox were ONE Church). When it was first introduced in the local Third Council of Toledo (589), the Church in Rome had not accepted the addition of the Filioque. Pope Leo III, while accepting the doctrine, rejected adding “Filioque” to the Creed. He also made two silver shields containing the original Creed in both Latin and Greek, stating: “I, Leo, have placed these for love and protection of the orthodox faith.” That being said, even with the insertion of the Filioque into the Creed, the Churches in the West and East continued to be in communion for centuries after the Filioque was inserted in the Latin Rite. Unfortunate as it was, the Great Schism of 1054 was driven more for political, geographical, and cultural differences than for doctrinal or liturgical differences. Most of the so called “developments” of the Roman Church have evolved in the later millennium, which has intensified the differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

 

[John_Larocque]

I don’t think there’s any evidence that unleavened or leavened bread was used at the Last Supper. The problem for the historians is that the Greek text of the New Testament used “artous”, not “azymos” to delineate the bread. If you follow the Johannine Gospel, the Last Supper took place on 14 Nisan and was not an actual PassoverSeder. Passover would have taken place on the same day as the crucifiction, with Jesus as the paschal sacrifice.

There’s an interesting bit in that when the Latins translated the words of institution, they chose to refer it to the future, not the present, thus prefiguring the cruficition. “This is my blood, which will be shed for you.” This is the wording of the Vulgate, a large chunk, I think, of the Old Latin, plus the Latin-rite Canon as well. Only recently has the Latin Vulgate been re-aligned back to the Greek (starting with the Stuttgart and the Nova Vulgata).

Even if the Last Supper was NOT a Passover Seder, it definittely fell within the period when observant Jews removed leaven from their households. Thus, although the gospels used “artous” (the word for ordinary bread), there’s no guarantee that it had leaven in it, and given the above, it might have not.

In any case, the bread used at the Last Supper - whether or not it was leavened - should have no bearing on the liturgical decision to use leavened bread for the Eucharist. And in fact, leavened bread was the practice of the united Catholic/Orthodox church of the first millenium, until the Latins rather late in the game began copying the practice of the Armenians. When they did this, all the old arguments against the “Azymite” Armenians were dusted off and levelled against the Latins.

 

[crazzeto]

Even if your previous statement is correct (and I’m not saying is not), it still doesn’t change the fact (at least within Orthodoxy) that the Creed was changed unilaterally by the Roman Church (I say ‘Roman’ because this change happened before the Great Schism, when Catholics and Orthodox were ONE Church). When it was first introduced in the local Third Council of Toledo (589), the Church in Rome had not accepted the addition of the Filioque. Pope Leo III, while accepting the doctrine, rejected adding “Filioque” to the Creed. He also made two silver shields containing the original Creed in both Latin and Greek, stating: “I, Leo, have placed these for love and protection of the orthodox faith.” That being said, even with the insertion of the Filioque into the Creed, the Churches in the West and East continued to be in communion for centuries after the Filioque was inserted in the Latin Rite. Unfortunate as it was, the Great Schism of 1054 was driven more for political, geographical, and cultural differences than for doctrinal or liturgical differences. Most of the so called “developments” of the Roman Church have evolved in the later millennium, which has intensified the differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

It’s correct, you can verify this here alabamacatholicresources.com/ as well as I believe last wednessday’s EWTN with Father Mitch Pacwa. An E. Orthodox really can’t argue that the Filoque repersents good Orthodox Theology. The Spirit does in fact proceed from the Father and the Son, you can find that directly in scripture. So as stated before (on page one in fact), the only subsedive difference between us on this issue an E. Orthodox poster claims is a “great and vast difference between our churches” boils down to the papucy, period.

The Eastern Church, or at least certainly the Eastern Layity here on this forum (obviously I can’t make broad statements about the church it’s self) seems intent on simply not accepting the papucy. I wonder, at times, if part of this is due to the numbers of Protestants accepting the Orthodox Christian arguments being made by Catholics (and Orthodox), but still being unable to accept the Western Church.

 

[John_Larocque]

There’s a bit more on the unleavened/leavened controversy in a church history book published by St. Vladimir’s Press by Fr. Andrew Louth. This blog discusses the book and the controversy.

avowofconversation.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/on-leavened-and-unleavened-bread/

Some commentary is interesting.

We should also note that in following the timing presented in the Gospel of John, which is that followed by the Eastern Church in its liturgical cycle of Holy Week and Pascha, the Last Supper was not a Passover meal. Rather, our Lord died at the time the Passover lambs were being sacrificed. He was the antitype of the Passover lamb. The bread at the Last Supper may have been unleavened, though it would have been early for that. Unleavened bread was only required for the seven days beginning with the sunset after the sacrifice of the Paschal lambs. The Last Supper occurred before this, according to John

and…

Father Louth notes the divergent traditions in which the Greeks appealed to the Johannine account and the Latins to the Synoptic ones. He suggests that these divergent traditions may even lie behind the Quartodeciman controversy in the second century. (Although this did not relate to the question of leavened or unleavened bread as the latter was introduced later).

.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

H
I think they do this because they don’t like to admit their own changes, innovations and deviations from the beliefs and practices of the unified Christian Church pre-schism (the first 1000 years) and why 1000 years after that - their teachings and practices continue to deviate further from the Eastern Orthodox fidelity with ancient Church teaching and practice.

I think it is the Orthodox that have deviated from traditional teachings and is the one that has the innovations. Like allowing Divorce and allowing Birth Control. Both are human innovations.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

It’s correct, you can verify this here alabamacatholicresources.com/ as well as I believe last wednessday’s EWTN with Father Mitch Pacwa. An E. Orthodox really can’t argue that the Filoque repersents good Orthodox Theology. The Spirit does in fact proceed from the Father and the Son, you can find that directly in scripture. So as stated before (on page one in fact), the only subsedive difference between us on this issue an E. Orthodox poster claims is a “great and vast difference between our churches” boils down to the papucy, period.

The Eastern Church, or at least certainly the Eastern Layity here on this forum (obviously I can’t make broad statements about the church it’s self) seems intent on simply not accepting the papucy. I wonder, at times, if part of this is due to the numbers of Protestants accepting the Orthodox Christian arguments being made by Catholics (and Orthodox), but still being unable to accept the Western Church.

As I stated previously, I’m not saying you’re incorrect, but there are obviously differences in interpretation between our two Churches. I do agree with you that the main difference between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches “boils down to the papacy”. In fact, the point I was trying to make with my previous statement was not against the Filioque, but the fact that the Roman Church added the Filioque without a proper Ecumenical Council. Since the Catholic Church considers the Pope infallible, the Pope then has the authority within the Catholic Church to add this or any other changes to the Creed. Since the Orthodox Churches do not consider the Pope to be infallible, then only an Ecumenical Council can change the Creed which represents the faith of the entire Church, not just the West. Also, since the addition of the Filioque happened prior to the Great Schism, it was reasonable to expect that such a change (if necessary) would happen within the context of an Ecumenical Council. The Councils of Lyon (1274) and Florence (1439) occurred after the schism, so these are not considered ‘ecumenical’ by the Orthodox Churches. The same is true of the First Vatican Council (1869-70). Since Papal Infallibility was not even defined as dogma when the Filioque was inserted, then is reasonable to believe that the best vehicle to make such a change to the Creed should have been an Ecumenical Council of East and West.

 

[CMatt25]

Sorry for jumping in here. But I have what I’m certain will seem to be a juvenile questions to some.

But both churches say they trace back to the Apostles, correct? So do they just do this by breaking off into 2 different hierarchies at the point of schism? Anglicans say they have apostolic succession too. So for all 3 is it simply how they define apostolic succession from the point of schism? How do we know which of the apostolic successions is the correct one then?

How do we know which of the sees was correct about the Papacy? Did Peter lead the early councils? Is this simply a matter of interpretation?

How did Eastern rite Catholics get with Rome?

It was Rome who decided what books made it into the the NT, correct? Why was it Rome and not the EO? Or was this done prior to schism? I admit I’m not certain of dates. Sorry.

 

[crazzeto]

Sorry for jumping in here. But I have what I’m certain will seem to be a juvenile questions to some.

But both churches say they trace back to the Apostles, correct? So do they just do this by breaking off into 2 different hierarchies at the point of schism? Anglicans say they have apostolic succession too. So for all 3 is it simply how they define apostolic succession from the point of schism? How do we know which of the apstolic successions is the correct one then?

How do we know which of the sees was correct about the Papacy? Did Peter lead the early councils? Is this simply a matter of interpretation?

There’s a world of difference between the East / West Schism and the products of the Reformation including the Anglican Church. The Protestants fundamentally reject long held Orthodox Teaching. The Eastern Church didn’t do this when they broke off, with exception of the Primacy of Rome which they do reject, and the fundamental structure of the Church.

Other than that, I really do hand it to the Easterners for doing a beatiful job holding on to most of the traditions.

 

[crazzeto]

OK, well I think you did a good job putting the Eastern View on display. But the thing is scriptually speaking, Jesus gave the Keys to Peter, more over he gave the authority to bind and lose to Peter (alone) before giving it to the rest of the Apostles (Fr. Pacwa discusses this). Because he gave this authority to Peter, alone, first it is a clear statement on the part of our Lord that Peter (thus his successors) have the authority to bind and lose. This, among many other arguments are why we follow the pope.

Ultimatitly though, more on topic with this thread… What we’re both saying is pretty much exactly the same thing. The teaching isn’t the problem, the structure of the church is the problem.

As I stated previously, I’m not saying you’re incorrect, but there are obviously differences in interpretation between our two Churches. I do agree with you that the main difference between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches “boils down to the papacy”. In fact, the point I was trying to make with my previous statement was not against the Filioque, but the fact that the Roman Church added the Filioque without a proper Ecumenical Council. Since the Catholic Church considers the Pope infallible, the Pope then has the authority within the Catholic Church to add this or any other changes to the Creed. Since the Orthodox Churches do not consider the Pope to be infallible, then only an Ecumenical Council can change the Creed which represents the faith of the entire Church, not just the West. Also, since the addition of the Filioque happened prior to the Great Schism, it was reasonable to expect that such a change (if necessary) would happen within the context of an Ecumenical Council. The Councils of Lyon (1274) and Florence (1439) occurred after the schism, so these are not considered ‘ecumenical’ by the Orthodox Churches. The same is true of the First Vatican Council (1869-70). Since Papal Infallibility was not even defined as dogma when the Filioque was inserted, then is reasonable to believe that the best vehicle to make such a change to the Creed should have been an Ecumenical Council of East and West.

 

[CMatt25]

There’s a world of difference between the East / West Schism and the products of the Reformation including the Anglican Church. The Protestants fundamentally reject long held Orthodox Teaching. The Eastern Church didn’t do this when they broke off, with exception of the Primacy of Rome which they do reject, and the fundamental structure of the Church.

Other than that, I really do hand it to the Easterners for doing a beatiful job holding on to most of the traditions.

Perhaps but the Papacy is a huge difference. I don’t understand why it wouldn’t have already been clear to all in early times whether Peter led the councils or whether he didn’t.

 

[crazzeto]

Perhaps but the Papacy is a huge difference. I don’t understand why it wouldn’t have already been clear to all in early times whether Peter led the councils or whether he didn’t.

Well I can only exort you to read the fathers, upon my own personal reading of them I feel like it is pretty clear that Peter and his Seat always had the kind of Primacy it has now.

 

[CMatt25]

OK, well I think you did a good job putting the Eastern View on display. But the thing is scriptually speaking, Jesus gave the Keys to Peter, more over he gave the authority to bind and lose to Peter (alone) before giving it to the rest of the Apostles (Fr. Pacwa discusses this). Because he gave this authority to Peter, alone, first it is a clear statement on the part of our Lord that Peter (thus his successors) have the authority to bind and lose. This, among many other arguments are why we follow the pope.

Ultimatitly though, more on topic with this thread… What we’re both saying is pretty much exactly the same thing. The teaching isn’t the problem, the structure of the church is the problem.

Crazzeto, so having keys and the power to bind and loose are not the same? I know Peter would get up and speak at the early councils But do we have proof Peter and other Roman bishops led the early ecumenical councils?

 

[CMatt25]

Well I can only exort you to read the fathers, upon my own personal reading of them I feel like it is pretty clear that Peter and his Seat always had the kind of Primacy it has now.

Thanks. Your answer beat my question.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

The First Ecumenical Synod (Council) at Nicaea in A.D. 325, was concerned with defending the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ against the heresy of the Arians. As such, the Symbol of Faith formulated by its fathers said little about the Church’s belief about the Holy Spirit. It stated:

        ***We believe in one God, the Father, almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, will come to judge the living and the dead;  And in the Holy Spirit.***

        ***But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or is subject to alteration or change — these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematises.***

        [trans. from Early Christian Creeds by J.N.D. Kelly]

**The Second Ecumenical Synod, at Constantinople in A.D. 381 (also known as the first Synod (or Council) of Constantinople) was again concerned with defending the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was also concerned with defending the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. For that reason, it expanded the Symbol of Faith formulated by the previous Ecumenical Synod in the section pertaining to the Church’s belief regarding the Holy Spirit. This section then read:
**
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

        [Orthodox Church in America translation]

**The Symbol of Faith, as formulated by the Synod of Constantinople, is commonly known in the West as the “Nicene Creed” and more technically known as the “Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed” or sometimes the “Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed”. Since then, Orthodox Christians have steadfastly refused to modify the Symbol in any way. The faith of Orthodox Christians today is identical to the faith of the Second Ecumenical Synod. Unfortunately, there were some who chose to follow a different faith.

In A.D. 587, the local council of Toledo (Spain), attempting to combat Arianism by emphasising the Son’s equality with the Father, added Filioque to the Symbol. (The Latin word Filioque is translated into English as “and the Son”.) This changed the Symbol of Faith to:**

        ***And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified;***

**From Spain, the Filioque spread to the Germanic tribe of the Franks (in present-day France). It was embraced by Charlemagne who went so far as to accuse the East of having deliberately omitted it from the ancient Symbol. Pope Leo III (795-816) intervened, and forbade any interpolations or alterations in the Second Ecumenical Synod’s Symbol of Faith. He ordered the Symbol — without Filioque — to be engraved in Latin and Greek on two silver plates and mounted on a wall of St. Peter’s in Rome. The Franks ignored the pope and continued to use the Filioque. Many historians think Charlemagne used the Filioque in an attempt to justify his claim to be emperor in opposition to the Roman Empire (located in New Rome, also known as Constantinople). The dispute between East and West grew and became the focus of the Synod of Constantinople which met A.D. 879-880. This synod (recognised as the Eighth Ecumenical Synod by Orthodox Christians) reaffirmed the Symbol of A.D. 381 and declared any and all additions to the creed invalid. This synod’s teaching was affirmed by the patriarchs of Old Rome (John VIII), New Rome [Constantinople] (Photius), Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria and by Emperor Basil I.

Still, the Filioque continued to be used by the Franks and even spread to other Germanic tribes. Eventually, even Rome began to use the Filioque — at the coronation of Henry II in 1014 as emperor of the so-called Holy Roman Empire. Most historians agree the pope (Benedict VIII), due to his dependence on the Holy Roman Empire for military protection, acquiesed to its use. But from that point, Rome continued using the Filioque. In time, belief in the Filioque became dogma in Roman Catholicism.**

• Source: OODE - full article linked above in my previous post.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

** .**

If you believe that Jesus is God, then why is this so divisive?

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Good question. This excerpt explains the reaction of the early Church.

***WHAT LAWFULLY JUSTIFIES THE EASTERN ORTHODOX REJECTION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC INNOVATION?

The insertion of the “filioque” in the sacred Symbol of Faith (Creed) is arbitrary and coup-like. The Oroi (conditions) of the Ecumenical Synods are authentic, infallible and irremovable monuments. No individual and no local synods have the right to change them or amend them, not even in the least. Only another Ecumenical Synod can attempt something like that. This view has been officially consolidated by the 3rd Ecumenical Synod, when it opined with the following statement: “One cannot pronounce any other faith - that is, to author or to compose any – except the one stipulated by the Holy Fathers who convened in Nice, in the Holy Spirit.” (Μηδενί εξείναι ετέραν πίστιν προφέρειν, ήγουν συγγράφειν ή συντιθέναι παρά την ορισθείσαν παρά των Αγίων Πατέρων των εν Νικαία συνελθόντων εν Αγίω Πνεύματι). This is also how Cyril, who had presided over the Synod, saw the matter and had stated in an epistle to John of Antioch, that it was not permitted “to change a single word of those found in there, or to even omit any syllable.” (λέξιν αμείψαι των εγκειμένων εκείσε ή μίαν γούν παραβήναι συλλαβήν) [1].

The abuse of the Oros of the 3rd Ecumenical Synod by the Papists, which was both outrageous and impermissible, caused immense turmoil in the ecumenical (worldwide) Church and eventually succeeded in tearing it apart.***

Source: OODE full article linked in previous post.