S
Sebas123
Guest
What are the difference between the 2. So far they seem to be pretty much the same. Can some please help me understand the difference?
- Status
C
Cider
Guest
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Catholic Church: Pope is head. Has Papal infallibility. Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium are equal in authority. Is united. Immaculate conception and assumption to heaven are dogmas. Is more often than not in the Western part of Europe/world. Church Christ established. Filioque clause accepted.
Eastern Orthodox Churches: Patriarch of Moscow/Constantinople is head (first among equals). Tradition and Scripture are equal in authority. Is divided nationally. Is usually in Eastern Europe. Broke from CC in 1054. Filioque clause not accepted (but an unbiased person would see that the CC and EOC’s believe the same thing I think). Don’t usual define things as what they are (example: Transubstantiation).
Besides that they are about the same.
H
Hesychios
Guest
For a non-Catholic or non-Orthodox Christian they do seem similar in outward appearences.
However I believe that the two are very different theologically, very different. In fact as Patriarch Bartholomew has stated ontologically different.
The best way to compare is to ask each group to explain their own theology. Don’t ask Roman Catholics to explain the Orthodox and don’t ask Orthodox Catholics to explain the Roman Catholic. Invariably there will be misrepresentations. Usually they are innocent assumptions.
Like this for instance …
“Broke from CC in 1054.”
Actually, it was the Roman Catholic church which formally severed relations in 1054AD, but most Roman Catholics don’t even realize that, so they usually get it wrong. In other words, the RC broke from the OC in 1054AD.
The reason this innocent error keeps getting repeated seems to be that it fits in nicely with their worldview by saying “everyone leaves Rome because of …”. But Orthodox do not accept that.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Sorry about that. I meant “excommunicated by CC.”
C
Cider
Guest
IMO, the differences between the two hinge on the Catholic belief in doctrinal development. The results of which have brought us, the teachings on sanctifying grace, purgatory, indulgences, mortal and venial sin, the immaculate conception, papal infallibility ect ect
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
How so?
I agree.
It depends on how you view the word break.
Well, from a Catholic perspective the Orthodox did leave Rome because they got excommunicated. But I understand what you are saying.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Which means that the Roman Catholic Cardinals took it upon themselves to break relations with the Eastern patriarch and his church, something they did not have the ability nor the authority to do. This was during the Gregorian Reformation in the Roman Catholic church, and changes were in the wind. Leaving the Orthodox communion did leave the way open for big changes in the western church teachings, since the conservative Orthodox in the east would have been a big obstacle to the innovations.Sorry about that. I meant “excommunicated by CC.”
Big mistake on the cardinals part from the Orthodox perspective, especially since these Cardinals had no authority (the Pope was dead and they essentially had no portfolio). But I am of the opinion that they knew exactly what they were up to … “dumb like a fox”. They had an agenda and the Greeks were in the way, so they separated themselves from the rest of the church and carried on.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
There’s some history to read there. No doubt there are two different versions. CC would tell it that Theodahad terrorized the Roman clergy into electing St Silverius. The election was unprecedented in that Silverius was then only a sub-deacon.
In any event the pontiff soon fell victim to his eventual sucessor, Vigilius and the Byzantine reconquest of Rome. From there the papacy was forced to wait for imperial authorization for the authorization from Constantinople to arrive from Narse’s.
Bonifice V 625 waited 13-mths for the imperial confirmation to arrive as Emperior Hercaclius was dealing with the Persians.
The Lombard capture of Ravenna bought this to an end in the 8th century. This bought the papacy to it own once again after increasing interventions of the Imperial Authorities in the selection of incumbents to the papal office.
St Zacharia’s was the last Greek elected to the papacy 741-752 and he did not need Imperial ratification.
Stephen IV was the first elected after the re-establishment of the empire of the west. Of course Charlemagne comes into play here.
From here Rome had issues with muslim’s for a few centuries etc.
In any event the pontiff soon fell victim to his eventual sucessor, Vigilius and the Byzantine reconquest of Rome. From there the papacy was forced to wait for imperial authorization for the authorization from Constantinople to arrive from Narse’s.
Bonifice V 625 waited 13-mths for the imperial confirmation to arrive as Emperior Hercaclius was dealing with the Persians.
The Lombard capture of Ravenna bought this to an end in the 8th century. This bought the papacy to it own once again after increasing interventions of the Imperial Authorities in the selection of incumbents to the papal office.
St Zacharia’s was the last Greek elected to the papacy 741-752 and he did not need Imperial ratification.
Stephen IV was the first elected after the re-establishment of the empire of the west. Of course Charlemagne comes into play here.
From here Rome had issues with muslim’s for a few centuries etc.
K
kun21
Guest
J
jam070406
Guest
This is a very serious accusation. Please share your grand conspiracy theory.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
“everyone leaves Rome because of …”.
One simple fact…Their Empire Fell.
The Mystical Body of Jesus Christ “prevailed”. 
Really no surprize its Scripture. 
Gary
One simple fact…Their Empire Fell.
The Mystical Body of Jesus Christ “prevailed”. Really no surprize its Scripture. Gary
H
Hesychios
Guest
Yes, it is serious.
I have already shared my thoughts on the matter.
You (if anyone) should know that a cardinal is an assistant to the bishop of Rome, and a legate is empowered to speak for a bishop. neither a cardinal nor a legate has authority to act on behalf of a Pope who is dead, and by the time the Bull of excommunication was presented the news was all over that the Pope was dead.
This is why when the Cardinals Humbert and Frederic excommunicated the patriarch “and all who follow him” the patriarch responded by excommunicating only the Cardinals involved. They were not acting on behalf of their Pope or on behalf of the Roman Catholic church (they had no authority), they were acting cpompletely on their own for their own purposes, while attempting to excommunicate a person who was actually their superior in ranking in the church: an Eastern Catholic Patriarch. The situation reveals either a profound ignorance on their part, or exceptional cleverness.
The Gregorian Reformation was underway, and there was a movement afoot to strengthen the Papacy in new ways, these men were part of that movement, so that would likely explain some of their actions.
The next Pope had a chance to undo the damage, but he was preoccupied and short-lived so that may be why he did not. In any case the following Pope elected was none other than the same Cardinal Frederic, and that sealed the schism.
I think that the cardinals were acting to cut the Greeks out for their own purposes, because they would have been too large a bloc of bishops against the Gregorian Reforms being planned. One strategy could be to eliminate opponents when it is obvious one will not be able to control them.
Serious indeed, fomenting schism is a serious sin.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Actually after Leos death it was another “year” before the papacy was filled. And the papacy was under “Control” of the “German Imperial family” during this period. “Henry III” named Victor II to the papacy. Of course he was pre-occupied with German affairs.
Matter of fact the Four Popes who preceeded Nicolas in 1059 all were nominated by the German Imperial Family.
Finally the Bull “In nomine Domini” restricted the actual voting to the college of Cardinals for the “first time”.
It been a LONG struggle for freedom as I mentioned above. And it still wasn’t over at this point. After Nicholas II died the Cardinals elected Alexander II in 1061. And of course Henry IV elects a rival Pope. Matter of fact after this was resolved the next Pope’s name was shouted out during the Funeral Procession who was to be…St. Gregory VII. And finally for a period the Church has a sense of Freedom, at least for the moment. And he writes “Dictatus Papea”… basically “No synod was legitimately gathered unless the Pope summoned it. No legislation was exempt from his Authority, and the Church has never fallen into error and never would.” Which indicates “why” these Bulls came into play. Through the very authority and control the Church sought to be Free from.
Of course from here we get into the whole struggle with Gregory VII and Henry IV over the question of lay investiture.
Freedom has never been Free.
I’ll just fill in the blanks as we go along here.
God Bless, Gary
Matter of fact the Four Popes who preceeded Nicolas in 1059 all were nominated by the German Imperial Family.
Finally the Bull “In nomine Domini” restricted the actual voting to the college of Cardinals for the “first time”.
It been a LONG struggle for freedom as I mentioned above.
And it still wasn’t over at this point. After Nicholas II died the Cardinals elected Alexander II in 1061. And of course Henry IV elects a rival Pope. Matter of fact after this was resolved the next Pope’s name was shouted out during the Funeral Procession who was to be…St. Gregory VII. And finally for a period the Church has a sense of Freedom, at least for the moment. And he writes “Dictatus Papea”… basically “No synod was legitimately gathered unless the Pope summoned it. No legislation was exempt from his Authority, and the Church has never fallen into error and never would.” Which indicates “why” these Bulls came into play. Through the very authority and control the Church sought to be Free from.Of course from here we get into the whole struggle with Gregory VII and Henry IV over the question of lay investiture.
Freedom has never been Free.
I’ll just fill in the blanks as we go along here.
God Bless, Gary
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Love to hear it too
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
The biggest difference for me, from the outside looking in, is that one is undivided and universal, and one is divided nationally. Now, there are bigger and more differences, but that’s the one that stands out to me. And personally, I think the Catholic Church has history and Jesus on its side. but that’s just me.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Well here’s the thing, when we speak Theology and the Liturgy. There seems to be a difference of opinion here.
What is the Liturgy of the Church???
The Lithurgy must “always” celebrate and make present the Paschal Sacrifice of Christ and His Saving Passion, His Death, Resurrection, and Ascension.
How do changes occur? For example by adding Prayers for recently canonized Saints, or adding texts which reflect the needs the People of God wish to bring to God in prayer.
The National question is resolved this Advent. All the nationwide churchs will use a new Third Missal which is re-translated into Latin and then again to english. So in essense everyone in the US will be learning the Mass over again. Every prayer in the Mass thus spoken by the priest and those spoken by the people, has been re-translated.
The Mass will conform more closely to the Latin originals. And with a better translation into english. This actually started with JP-II and is just now ready to be established.
Peace.
What is the Liturgy of the Church???
The Lithurgy must “always” celebrate and make present the Paschal Sacrifice of Christ and His Saving Passion, His Death, Resurrection, and Ascension.
How do changes occur? For example by adding Prayers for recently canonized Saints, or adding texts which reflect the needs the People of God wish to bring to God in prayer.
The National question is resolved this Advent. All the nationwide churchs will use a new Third Missal which is re-translated into Latin and then again to english. So in essense everyone in the US will be learning the Mass over again. Every prayer in the Mass thus spoken by the priest and those spoken by the people, has been re-translated.
The Mass will conform more closely to the Latin originals. And with a better translation into english. This actually started with JP-II and is just now ready to be established.
Peace.
H
Hesychios
Guest
That’s kind of a strange comment.Love to hear it too
H
Hesychios
Guest
This is quite correct.
The date 1059 is significant, as we see there were a lot of changes in the background at this time.
I noticed elsewhere that Pope Steven (Cardinal Frederic) reappointeded (former) Cardinal Humbert as one of his own Cardinals, which seems to indicate that Cardinals were not permanent appointments at that time as is usual these days, at least not in his case.
Obviously reforms were needed in the western church. Popes were nominated by emperors of Byzantium for a few centuries, then western kings and emperors. Even after the Gregorian Reformation the interference of monarchs from Europe did not cease, and they had a lot of influence over the selection of Cardinals.
It is noteworthy that at the time the college of Cardinals became a permanent electoral body (for the selection of the Pope) the traditional role of the local synod was bypassed. This had long reaching affects (some good - some bad) over the church.
Regardless of the need to reform the western church, the schism with the east should never have happened, it was completely unnecessary and detrimental to the long term health of Christianity in Europe.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I do not say this with any ill-will, but you are gravely mistaken, and I should hope that you shall soon be done spreading misinformation about Orthodoxy. Firstly, the Patriarch of Moscow and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople are two different people; only the Patriarch of Constantinople is granted the title of “first among equals”, and as some of my Orthodox brethren and I have explained in some recent threads on this forum, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople’s role of leadership in the Orthodox Church is rather different from the Pope’s role of leadership in the Roman Catholic Church.
Secondly, Tradition and Scripture are not viewed as being separate sources of authority within Orthodoxy. The Scriptures are part of the Holy Tradition, and we Orthodox firmly believe that divorcing the Sacred Scriptures from the Holy Tradition is a grave error which can lead to heretical misinterpretations of the Scriptures. Furthermore, you neglect to mention that ecumenical councils as well as synods are given authority in Orthodoxy, and that ecumenical councils alone are given infallibility when it comes to doctrinal definitions.
Thirdly, you portray the divisions along national lines in Orthodoxy as if there’s something exceptionally divisive about them. We Orthodox, no matter if we are Greeks, Serbs, Russians, Arabs, Bulgarians, Poles, or Japanese (yes, there is an autonomous Church of Japan which is currently under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow) are united by the one Orthodox Faith. Just as Texans and New-Englanders still consider themselves united as Americans despite differences in local dialects, food, politics, customs and traditions, so to do we Orthodox Christians consider ourselves one in Faith despite variances in local languages, food, politics, customs and traditions. Complete homogeneity is not a prerequisite for unity.
- Status