J
jpk1313
Guest
Aside from the issues of the pope and priests being married what are the major differences between the catholic and orthodox churchs? where do they differ in theology?
- Status
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Many priests in the Catholic Church, even the Latin Church, are married, and many Orthodox priests are not, so this is a non-difference.
J
jpjd
Guest
The main difference is in regards to the “filioque” clause in the Creed (I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son.).
You can do a search and find more in-depth info, but basically the Catholic view is “The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Spirit from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not from the Son.”
You can do a search and find more in-depth info, but basically the Catholic view is “The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Spirit from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not from the Son.”
I
Ignatius
Guest
That is incorrect. The filioque is actually not part of the original Creed as instituted at Nicea and Constantinople. The filioque is not required and is not said in Eastern Catholic Churches and even in some Western Catholic Churches. The Catholic Church has no requirement that anyone adopt the filioque.
J
jpjd
Guest
This is referring to Catholic vs Orthodox, not Western vs Eastern Catholic. The filioque is in the Nicene Creed as recited by Catholics. The Catholic Church considers believing that procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and not the Father and the Son to be an error.
R
Rolltide
Guest
Ok, here are the main differences:
The Orthodox do not believe in the universal authority or infallibility of the Pope
The Orthodox disagree with regard to the use of the filoque
The Orthodox do not believe in Purgatory
The Orthodox do not share the Catholic belief in original sin. As a result, they do not believe in the Immaculate Conception.
The Orthodox do not generally use any images aside from icons, although this point would not likely preclude a possible unification, since they would not necessarily be opposed to the Latin use of imagery.
The Orthodox do not believe in the universal authority or infallibility of the Pope
The Orthodox disagree with regard to the use of the filoque
The Orthodox do not believe in Purgatory
The Orthodox do not share the Catholic belief in original sin. As a result, they do not believe in the Immaculate Conception.
The Orthodox do not generally use any images aside from icons, although this point would not likely preclude a possible unification, since they would not necessarily be opposed to the Latin use of imagery.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Actually this does not refer to Catholic vs. Orthodox. I’ve never been to an Eastern (Byzantine) Catholic parish that recites the filioque in the Creed. My own parish does not use it, nor is it in the official liturgical books put out by the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, either those Melkites in the United States and other English speaking countries, or the Melkites in the Middle East.
The whole issue of the filioque is much more complicated, even within a purely Latin theology. The Byzantine and other Eastern Catholics are not required to believe in it, especially following the principle “lex orandi lex credendi.” That being said, however, many Orthodox theologians do not see the filioque as a big deal. Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia himself has said that he doesn’t believe it to be a divisive issue, so long as it is understood in a certain way and that it is left out of the Creed.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
At the risk of being denounced as a heretic or schismatic I posit that there are no differences in theology between the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic Churches. Indeed one of the conditions of reunion when the Church of Kiev entered into communion with Rome at the Union of Brest was that they would be permitted to keep their theological, liturgical, and spiritual expressions of the faith (in other words, that they would not be proselitized [forgive the spelling]). Rome itself has repeatedly called the Eastern Catholics to return to their authentic liturgical, theological and spiritual expressions. Some Eastern Catholic theologians have gone so far as to state that Eastern Catholics must guard their authentic expressions of the faith “to the point of schism.” This has probably been lived out the most in the Melkite Church. The Melkite Synod, as a nuance of the Zoghby Initiative, has stated that as Melkites we “Believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches; and we are in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.”
Obviously, the major issue is the role of the Bishop of Rome. This issue, from what I’ve gathered, actually is more of a difference of Ecclesiology than anything else. Most Roman Catholics tend to think of the Church’s structure like a pyramid, with the pope at the top as the source of unity and the “laity” at the bottom doing what they’re told. This is not an authentic Byzantine (Catholic or Orthodox) Ecclesiology. For the Eastern Churches the pope is not the source of unity in the Church, rather the Eucharist is the source of unity (cf. Kallistos Ware’s “Orthodox Church”). To use a phrase that has become almost cliche “The Eucharist makes the Church and the Church makes the Eucharist.” Roman Catholicism itself has been moving in this direction since the “Resourcement” movement, and especially since Vatican II and Lumen Gentium.
Hope this helps!
A
Aramis
Guest
Most of the Orthodox Theologumenia have parallels in the Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches; many Catholic Theologumenia are not present in the Eastern Orthodox church.
Almost all orthodox doctrine and dogma is present in the Catholic Church; Several elements of Catholic doctrine and most of the post 1066 declarations of Dogma are not.
The Catholic side does not hesitate to define new dogma when the pope and/or a council deem it to the benefit of the faithful. The Orthodox don’t seem to be able to call a legitimate council that can declare dogma, nor do they seem to feel any need to do so anyway.
So theology differs widely, but that’s because theology itself is not obligatory, merely explanatory for the doctrine and dogma.
Almost all orthodox doctrine and dogma is present in the Catholic Church; Several elements of Catholic doctrine and most of the post 1066 declarations of Dogma are not.
The Catholic side does not hesitate to define new dogma when the pope and/or a council deem it to the benefit of the faithful. The Orthodox don’t seem to be able to call a legitimate council that can declare dogma, nor do they seem to feel any need to do so anyway.
So theology differs widely, but that’s because theology itself is not obligatory, merely explanatory for the doctrine and dogma.
P
Patchunky
Guest
Actually, the Filioque was chanted in the Byzantine Ruthenian churches until the adoption of the “new” music and translation of the Divine Liturgy a couple of years ago.
I have been to several Ukrainian Catholic parishes where the Filioque is still chanted at the Ukrainian Divine Liturgy.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
You are right. I stand corrected. I forgot that in the official Ruthenian Recension, mandated by Rome in the 1940s under the influence of Cyril Korolevsky for use in all the Slav Churches and even utilized by the Orthodox because of the accuracy and clarity of the text, the filioque remains in the Creed, although in parenthesis. Thank you for reminding me. 
I do believe, however, that Rome has since discouraged its use by Eastern Catholics, especially since the Second Vatican Council. Historically it was left in as a concession becuase so many Ukrainians, Ruthenians, etc. had died defending its use to “prove their Catholicity” and distinction from their Orthodox counterparts. That being said, I don’t believe the other Byzantine Churches use it. I know it’s not used among the Melkites, even though it may have been once by the Melkites in America as an attempt to “prove their Catholicity.” Today, however, its use is discouraged. The Ruthenians typically do not use it anymore. Despite all the things that the RDL got wrong, this was probably one thing it got right. I can’t speak for the Ukrainians at large, but I do know that the Apostolic Exarch to Great Britain, Bishop Hlib Lonchyna, whom I know personally, does not use it when he celebrates the Divine Liturgy. It is possible that the use of the filioque in Eastern Catholic Churches varies from parish to parish according to how “Latinized” the community is.
Thank you for reminding me. I do believe, however, that Rome has since discouraged its use by Eastern Catholics, especially since the Second Vatican Council. Historically it was left in as a concession becuase so many Ukrainians, Ruthenians, etc. had died defending its use to “prove their Catholicity” and distinction from their Orthodox counterparts. That being said, I don’t believe the other Byzantine Churches use it. I know it’s not used among the Melkites, even though it may have been once by the Melkites in America as an attempt to “prove their Catholicity.” Today, however, its use is discouraged. The Ruthenians typically do not use it anymore. Despite all the things that the RDL got wrong, this was probably one thing it got right. I can’t speak for the Ukrainians at large, but I do know that the Apostolic Exarch to Great Britain, Bishop Hlib Lonchyna, whom I know personally, does not use it when he celebrates the Divine Liturgy. It is possible that the use of the filioque in Eastern Catholic Churches varies from parish to parish according to how “Latinized” the community is.
D
Diak
Guest
That is an accurate statement. No Ukrainian Catholic bishop should be taking the insertion as the Synod has asked them not to.
Several Eastern Catholic Churches (not just Byzantine, but also Maronite, Malabar, etc.) continue to use the insertion in spite of directives from Rome and their respective synods to the contrary.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
This is both completely wrong, and somewhat correct.
The Orthodox Church believes doctrine is unchanging, all an ecumenical council can do (which we are perfectly capable of calling should we desire) is clarify doctrine. This is only done if there is good reason to do so.
I might also add that the opposition to the filioque is summed up in the third post in this thread, which every time the subject has been broached, I have been assured is not the teaching of the Latin Church, and has in fact been condemned, yet here it persists.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Nine_Two,
Blessings,
Marduk
What the Latin Church rejects and condemns (at Lyons and Florence) is the idea that there are two Sources of the Spirit. The Latin doctrine of Filioque does not teach that, though a misunderstanding of the teaching might force one to believe otherwise.
Blessings,
Marduk
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Then the error in the third post should be corrected.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
You can do a search and find more in-depth info, but basically the Orthodox view is “The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Spirit from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the Orthodox truth that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not from the Son.”
5
5Loaves
Guest
It’s not part of the Creed in my Eastern (Byzantine) Catholic parish either. The oldest printed copy of the Liturgy for my parish I’ve seen is 1955 (the church property was purchased that year). There is no filioque in the Creed in that 1955 edition of the DL. (Note this parish was a Byzantine Rite Jesuit mission, from the Russians/Jesuits refugees from Russian to China and then as refugees from China to San Francisco.)
Nor is the filioque in the Creed when recited by anyone, including the Pope, when spoken in Greek.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Again, That is incorrect. The filioque is actually not part of the original Creed as instituted at Nicea and Constantinople. The filioque is not required and is not said in either Eastern Catholic nor in Orthordox Churches either. The Catholic Church has no requirement that anyone adopt the filioque.
You need to do some homework my brother.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Do you belong to one of the Russian Catholic parishes in the U.S.? I’d love to go to a Russian Catholic Church some day, just to check it out. Sadly there’s only three in the U.S.
I forgot that the Pope doesn’t recite the Creed with the filioque when he recites it in Greek. Thanks for reminding me.
From what I’ve gathered, the popes were at first very much against its insertion into the Creed, and one of the popes (one of the Leos I believe) had the Creed engraved in bronze in Greek and Latin without the filioque and hung from the Lateran doors. How it was eventually adopted is beyond my current knowledge. I do know that it originated in Spain as a way of combating an Arian/pseudo-Arian heresy that was creeping in.
5
5Loaves
Guest
Yes, I do. There are four parishes in the US.
You’ll appreciate this clip of the Nicene Creed in its original Greek text proclaimed by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I together with His Holiness Pope Bendict of Rome.I forgot that the Pope doesn’t recite the Creed with the filioque when he recites it in Greek. Thanks for reminding me.
- Status