What is the difference between Orthodox Church Roman Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Redrose13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Redrose13 said:
Hi,

I would like to ask if the Catholic Church is the true Church then why is it divided into Orthodox and Roman Catholic?

I don’t want to create a debate here but this question bothers me for a long time. Btw, I’m a young Roman Catholic and Im not familiar with the differences of the two Catholic Churches. I appreciate your thoughts on this.

Thanks and God bless!
Click to expand...
The answers to your title question are long and varied, but the biggest issue (to me) is the papacy. Is the pope merely a “first among equals” (“equals” being other bishops) as the Orthodox would proclaim? Or is he infallible, supreme and bearing of immediate jurisdiction as the Catholic Church would proclaim?
Exactly how much power over Christendom is Peter’s heir supposed to have? 🤔

To the question posed in your op; the Orthodox are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, but the Catholics do recognize Orthodox sacraments. Orthodox reciprocation is limited. They both claim visible apostolic succession back to the original apostles and as such, they both claim to be the “catholic” (full, unlacking) Church.
 
Ecclesia Dei by Pope John Paul II.

He disagrees with your opinion and definitively states SSPX is schismatic.

Extracts from it:
  1. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)
  2. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, “comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.(5)
Pope Benedict XVI removed the excommunications on certain individuals but did NOT make any statement or declaration that SSPX was no longer schismatic. They remain schismatic.

The Orthodox are also in schism.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. With the Eastern Catholic (and I think Orthodox?) understanding I thought the Priest was the minister of the Sacrament so I assumed that you would have had to remarry unless you had been married by a Priest.
 
Elf01 said:
Interesting. With the Eastern Catholic (and I think Orthodox?) understanding I thought the Priest was the minister of the Sacrament so I assumed that you would have had to remarry unless you had been married by a Priest.
Click to expand...
Not always. In the catholic church, there´s the concept of the natural marriage. This natural marriage would become sacramental after my baptism in my understanding (?), but this is not the case in the orthodox church - I´m still in what you would maybe call “natural marriage”. I have not a crowned marriage, but this doesn´t mean invalid. Some priests want the couple to remarry, but other refer to apostle paul´s passage about the women or men who sanctify their unbelieving spouses. In the russian church, generally the second is often - kat Oikonmia - the practice, as many peple were only in a civil marriage becase of the soviet oppression of the church. Often only one spouse returned to church after maybe 20 years of marriage, and to protect those marriages the practice is often found here.
 
Last edited:
Redrose13 said:
like to ask if the Catholic Church is the true Church then why is it divided into Orthodox and Roman Catholic?

I don’t want to create a debate here but this question bothers me for a long time. Btw, I’m a young Roman Catholic and Im not familiar with the differences of the two Catholic Churches. I appreciate your thoughts on this.

Thanks and God bless
Click to expand...
As far as I know, traditionally the Orthodox did not accept the Filioque clause of the Nicene Creed. That is, the part of the Nicene Creed which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

However, I have read (I forget where) that more than half of all Orthodox now accept the Filioque.

I hope someone will correct me if I’m wrong.
 
MockSock said:
However, I have read (I forget where) that more than half of all Orthodox now accept the Filioque.

I hope someone will correct me if I’m wrong.
Click to expand...
This has been hashed out in detail in the Filioque threads, but the short version is that no, no Orthodox accept the Filioque as such, while practically all would absolutely agree on temporal procession from the Son while rejecting procession in origin from the Son, while most Western theologians would also reject the notion of the Spirit originating in the Son as heretical. It comes down to linguistic differences between Greek and that new-fangled Latin.

However, i you want to discuss Filioque, please give it it’s own thread after you look at the others.

hawk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top