Are there two Catholic faiths as in the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Church of the East but only differ on the way they do things (such as baptism, holy euchirist, and confirmation at the same time)?

The split happened in 1054AD I hear. And it also built up during the years before that date. So what are these differences and are they really "Catholic?" After all, there is to be one church with a fullness of truth.

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), May 11, 2004

Answers

There are the Roman and Eastern rites, which are both in communion with the Catholic Church. They are identical in doctrine, but differ in discipline.

The split to which you refer is that of the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches, not of the Roman and Eastern rite Catholics.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this. My knowledge is not extensive on this, but this is my understanding of it.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

You are absolutely correct Emily. My understanding of the great schism in 1054 is that it was over the "filoque" (the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son) and the authority of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

My understanding is that most of the other doctrines (such as regarding Mary, baptism, and the Eucharist) are the same.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 11, 2004.

Most of the differences between Catholic and Orthodox appear, to the average person, to be cultural. There are, however, a few differences worth noting in addition to the Apostles Creed and authority (Pope) issues that have already been mentioned.

Eucharist - Catholics view the elements of the Eucharist as changing their substance (transubstantiation) into the Body and Blood of Christ. Orthodox call the Eucharist "the mystical Supper", which is mysteriously the Body and Blood of Christ but which maintain the form of bread and wine. Also, Catholics believe that this sacrament is performed by the priest alone in accordance with the right belonging to him at the time when he pronounces the "words of institution". In the Orthodox understanding, these words also have a great significance, but the sacrament of the changing of the bread and wine into the Lord's Body and Blood is performed by the prayer of the whole Church, in the course of the whole Liturgy, and is only completed by the invocation of the Holy Spirit.

Baptism - Catholics teach that a person becomes a member of the Church through Baptism and "Original sin" is washed away. Orthodoxy teaches the same, but the idea of an "original sin" or "inherited guilt" (from Adam) has no part in it since they consider "original sin" to be the fallen state, rather than specific guilt.

Marriage - For Catholics, Holy Matrimony is a binding, ostensibly an unbreakable, contract. The man and the woman marry each other with the "church" (bishop or priest) standing as a witness to it. Hence, no divorce under any conditions - no divorce but annulment of the marriage contract if some canonical defect in it may be found which renders it null and void (as if it never took place). In Orthodoxy, Holy Matrimony is not a contract; it is the mysterious or mystical union of a man and woman - in imitation of Christ and the Church - in the presence of "the whole People of God" through her bishop or his presbyter. Divorce is likewise forbidden, but, as a concession to human weakness, it is allowed for adultery. Second and third marriages are permitted - not as a legal matter - out of mercy, a further concession to human weakness (e.g., after the death of a spouse).

Orthodox reject the "dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary" because they do not believe in the guilt of original sin and therefore, no special work of grace was needed.

Orthodox priests may marry before ordination and, if so, are not celebate.

Orthodox allow birth control.

Hope that helps.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), May 12, 2004.

Is it the Eastern Church where, although priests may marry prior to taking vows, Bishops actually have to be unmarried and celibate?

Pax et Bonum

-- Thomas (psalm23@catholic.org), May 12, 2004.

Dave,

That certainly helped me out. Thanks for that clear and concise comparison.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 12, 2004.

Thomas,

True. Orthodox bishops are celibate according to a long standing practice. So if a priest ever hopes to be a bishop, he needs to be unmarried and celibate.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), May 12, 2004.

Andy,

You're welcome.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), May 12, 2004.

For Thomas,

Yes, they bishops in the Orthodox Churches are always drawn from the celebate.

Dave,

Really good, just one thing I want to point out. Catholics don't believe in 'inherited guilt' in original sin either. Original sin is a deprivation of the life of grace and a fallen nature. We are not 'guilty'. As this pertains to the immaculate conception, I wasn't aware that the orthodox objected to this. Also, since we don't believe in inherited guilt, that is not what would separate us on this issue. (As a side note, immaculate conception means Mary didn't suffer the effects of original sin, thereby no depravation of graces and no fallen nature.) Otherwise, great post.

On the final schism in 1054. It is not 100% accurate. The East was in and out of communion for centuries, 1054 is just kind of the culmination of it all. Filioque was an issue for centuries as well, but it was an internal fight. I could envision a return to perfect communion between east and west without this issue being resolved.

The real thing that triggered the final break was the issue of leavened vs unleavened bread. Not even a doctrinal issue really, just a matter of practice. In the end it was more a matter of both sides getting a little snippity.

For a more detailed account of all this go here.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.

Sorry wrong link. here.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.

Thanks, Dano.

Perhaps the better way of phrasing the Orthodox objection to Catholic theology of original sin involves the belief that man is born with a "hereditary stain" that needs to be cleansed (the phrase I got from the Catholic Encyclopedia). I realize there are nuances and various understandings in the definitions of original sin, but that seems to be what the Ortholodx object to. They believe that Mary was born like every other person, free from needing any cleansing from original sin.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), May 12, 2004.

Gee, I'm going to have to look into this more. It really sounds as if the Orthodox are 'Pelagians'. I have to wonder, if they don't believe in the effects of original sin (that is they don't believe we inherit the deprivation from grace or a fallen nature), why do they, like us, baptize infants?

I guess I'm off to the library!

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.

Okay, I just did some hasty research.

The Orthodox are not Pelagians. They believe that we inherit from Adam a fallen nature. In fact, every where I look the Orthodox profess a faith in original sin identical to that of Catholics. Transmition of: No spiritual life, concupesence, dimmed intellect and weakend will.

What seems to be the problem is that they don't actually understand the Western position. They attribute to us beliefs that we don't actually have. Essentially, they think that we say that we inherit guilt for Adam's sin. Thus they objenct to our version of original sin. I think a little dialogue can clear this right up! In the end they are disagreeing with a phantom.

In regards to the immaculate conception, the problem is again one of them not understanding our position. They think the immaculate conception teaches that Mary did not contract this 'guilt'. They disagree, because they think the doctrine is redundant. From their view, why say she didn't inherit the guilt when nobody does. In describing what they do believe about Mary, they profess exactly what we actually mean by the immaculate conception. "The Most Holy Theotokos and St. John the Baptist were, according to Orthodox tradition and because of their closeness to the work of the Incarnation of our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, born sanctified by the Holy Spirit which is why the Orthodox Church celerates their Birthdays", and "The Orthodox Church never believed that the Most Holy Mother of God ever had any sin, due to Her special relationship with God in the work of the Incarnation." And one more, "However, the Orthodox Church has always affirmed that the Mother of God was sanctified by the Holy Spirit even at her Conception in the womb of her mother, St Anne - and this is owing, of course, to her high calling as the Mother of God the Word Incarnate, our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ."

So in the end the Orthodox and Catholics are in complete agreement. The Orthodox just don't realize it. How often is this true? Not so many disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches as disagree with what they think the Catholic Church teaches.

This was fun.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.

Dave says flatly "Orthodox allow birth control."

My understanding is that the Orthodox position on contraception is in principle identical to the Catholic position. However they consider it inapproprate to issue a universal and absolute blanket condemnation. They consider that a married couple should discuss the morality of contraception in their own situation with their priest, considering whether further children would place too much strain on their health and their ability to care for and educate their current children. They condemn abortion, fornication, adultery, and "contraceptive" methods which in effect kill a young embryo. They would not approve a married couple deliberately deciding to never have children, nor use of contraception by a couple who were well able to bring up more children.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 12, 2004.

Ok, so if we are to be one people as Christ says in the gospel of John, then when did these things happen with the Orthodox church?

We believe that the "Roman" Catholic Church has the fullness of the truth, but how did this Orthodox develop? And why does the Catholic church of the east differ in disiplne? Did God not guide them fully? God guides in fullness of truth and disiplne the "Roman" church, as Roman Catholics believe since it's tracable in history back to the apostles.

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), May 12, 2004.

God guides His Church in matters of doctrinal and moral truth. While one would hope that the Church also follows the lead of the Spirit in making other decisions, such as those regarding disciplines, there is no objective "right" or "wrong" involved here. Disciplines change and evolve over time and from place to place. Some disciplines - those over which the local bishop is given authority - can vary from one diocese to the next. There is nothing "wrong" with this. Nor is there anything wrong with the differences in disciplines between the Eastern and Latin Rites of the Holy Catholic Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 12, 2004.

Jason, you are confusing the Orthodox churches with the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The Orthodox churches are in schism. Although their sacraments are valid, they deny the Pope has authority over themselves. They also have some (minor) doctrinal and moral differences to the Catholic church.

The Eastern catholic churches (Melkite catholic, Maronite Catholic, Chaldean catholic, Ukrainian Catholic etc.) are in full communion with the Pope and are just as Catholic as are Catholics of the Roman rite. Their bishops take part in Catholic bishops conferences, synods and Councils, and some of them are members of the College of Cardinals. They differ from Catholics of the Roman rite (who comprise about 98% of Catholics) only in disciplines (eg some allow married men to become priests). Their rites and liturgies are often similar to those of the Orthodox churches existing among the same ethnic group.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 12, 2004.

Maybe it's time to ask Father Mike to join in the conversation. His time might be limited to answering tribunal questions though. Just a thought.

God Bless,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), May 12, 2004.

Vincent,

Actually, I've been "lurking" on this thread since its inception. Some of the early answers were quite good, quite concise.

I find it interesting that the differences in Catholic/Orthodox theology were remedied in a few days here when our theologians who have been working for 40 years (more or less) have been unable to do so. I cannot imagine full reconciliation without the filioque issue being resolved. The Orthodox have said as much. The filioque issue is really a two-fold issue. First, is the addition to the Creed theologically accurate? Second, does one Church have the right to change a common declaration of faith agreed to by all the Churches gathered in an Ecumenical Council? To this the Orthodox answer with a resounding "No." Also, I wonder if the earlier post-er on original sin was giving a full picture of the Catholic position. It is the Augustinian position on original sin that the Orthodox reject.

Remember too that unity does not mean uniformity. Our disciplines, customs, etc., may differ. Our theological positions have different emphases. But they are still bringing forth the one faith in Jesus Christ.

Also please remember that things in the east that don't look like they're "theologically significant" often are for the Orthodox since everything, down to the color of the paint, often has some theological meaning. For instance the leavened vs. unleavened bread issue. First, we know from reading the Gospels in the original Greek that Christ used LEAVENED bread at the Last Supper. So the first question is, why change that? But in the East the leavening of the bread took on a reference to the incarnation, the work of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin birth. To the Orthodox mindset to then start doing the opposite is to deny these ideas.

Well, I suppose that's enough for now. That should "churn the water" for a bit.

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki JCD (cand) (abounamike@aol.com), May 13, 2004.

Also, it should be mentioned that there are in fact 21 different Eastern Catholic Churches. They can be grouped into about 5 liturgical families (Alexandrian, Armenian, Antiochian, Byzantine & Chaldean).

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki , JCD (cand) (abounamike@aol.com), May 13, 2004.

Father Mike,

In my mind, I see two main underlying issues that continue, perhaps indefinitely, to divide Orthodox from Catholic.

First, the view of the church or ecclesiology. Not just the authority of the Pope and the doctrine of infallibility, which are the most easily identified aspects of ecclesiatical differences, but even down to how the "Church" is defined. Catholic teaching is that each local parish is a part of the whole Church with the totality of all the parishes comprising the Body of Christ with local bishops functioning as head of the local church and the Pope functioning as the visible Head over all the entire Church. Orthodox teaching is that all bishops are equal (even among the different ranks) and that every local church and it's bishop constitute the Church in a certain place, not just a part of the Church - and then all of the bishops and their flocks together constitute the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Second, the view of doctrine. Orthodox believe that the substance and understanding of the Faith never changes and has remained the same since it was passed down from Jesus to the Apostles. Catholics believe that the Faith, as passed down from Jesus to the Apostles, is the original deposit of faith which, like a seed, has grown and matured over the centuries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, a concept referred to as doctrinal development.

The reason I find these two fundamental differences so profound, is that they seem to be at the root of all of the rest of the specific differences, and that these are the real issues that would need to be addressed before true reconciliation could occur.

If I haven't correctly stated either the Catholic or Orthodox positions, please forgive me. I'm trying my best to understand both and am not trying to paint either picture inaccurately.

Dave

P.S. I am a member of the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC) which respects and honors both the Catholic and Orthodox heritage. In fact, our official doctrines are those that existed in the unified Church prior to the schism.

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), May 13, 2004.

so....

....does the term "greek catholic" the same as "byzantine catholic" and the same as "eastern catholic"?????

thanks

-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), May 13, 2004.

Fr. Mike asked of me.

"Also, I wonder if the earlier post-er on original sin was giving a full picture of the Catholic position. It is the Augustinian position on original sin that the Orthodox reject."

Actually, my research yesterday was primarily into the Orthodox position. I was taking the Catholic position from my head. Last night I was asking myself the same question Fr. Mike asked me. Have I got the details of the Catholic position exactly right? So I went back to the land of research . . .

Grace, free will, and original sin were an issue Augustain had to deal with his whole life. He was constantly saying things that people would take to the extreme and he had to reel them back in. Then folks would go the otherway. And he would have to reel them back in again. It would seem that there are passages in Augustain that could be interpreted to say that man inherits the guilt or fault for Adam's sin. However, there are other passages that go the other way. I have not done enough investigation to say 100% that Augustain didn't teach guilt transmission. If he did the Orthodox are right in rejecting that.

It is extremely important to note, however, that no matter what Augustain taught on the issue, the Catholic Church does not teach the transmission of guilt or fault. St. Thomas was extremely clear on this as is the Catechism.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,[295] original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.

From the Catholic encyclopedia:

Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam.

Most recently this point has been taken up by the wonderful theologan Scott Hahn. He too, asserts that there is no transmission of personal guilt in original sin.

This issue obiously has more depth than can be covered in this thread. (For example the discussion on the volunaryness of corperate fault. This is where I started to shake my head.)

On to other issues. I think that all these theological issues, though extremely important, do not capture the total of the disagreement here. I think that there is at some level a question of grudge and emotions. I would wager that the Orthodox have a sense of communal memory (as we do) that looks back to such things as the sacking of Constantinople and raises emotional barriers (perhaps rightly so) to good dialogue.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), May 13, 2004.

Dano,

In reading the language used to discuss original sin from the Catholic Encyclopedia, it's difficult to be clear on some issues because of the nuances of the words used in the text. Just what is the "hereditary stain" that is part of the definition of original sin, as defined by Catholics? And what is effected by baptism with regards to original sin? If there's no guilt to be remitted, then why is infant baptism necessary with respect to original sin. Yes - it's necessary in order to fulfill God's command and to enter into the covenant, but is original sin washed away. If so, then there must be some sort of implied guilt.

So I researched in the Catholic Encyclopedia from the baptism angle, and located the following texts in the section entitled "Effects of Baptism: The Remission of All Sin, Original and Actual". From the section title alone, it appears that the remission of original sin, which indicates that the "hereitary stain" is seen as being some version of "guilt" even if the sin is not considered "voluntary". But the text itself is een more clear, it says:

"In the profession of faith prescribed by Pope Innocent III for the Waldensians in 1210, we read: We believe that all sins are remitted in baptism, both original sin and those sins which have been voluntarily committed." The Council of Trent (Sess. V., can. v) anathematizes whomsoever denies that the grace of Christ which is conferred in baptism does not remit the guilt of original sin; or asserts that everything which can truly and properly be called sin is not thereby taken away."

I suspect that it is this is aspect of original sin that the Orthodox object to. Am I correct that if this is stated as doctrine by the Council of Trent and since it carries the threat of anathema, that it is a doctrine which must remain unchanged and is therefore still in effect today?

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), May 13, 2004.

Dave, you are an absolute joy! I feel like Gandalf in the ancient library digging up the answer to the mystery of the ring. I never would have thought this to go on so long. How could something that seemed so simple at first have gotten so complex? Man you are pushing the edges of my knowledge and ability. I haven't done this much legwork for ages. I also haven't had this much fun. I'll get to your post later, I just wanted to thank you in the mean time.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), May 13, 2004.

In answer to someone above...

Greek-Catholics or Byzantine-Catholics are the same thing. They follow the Byzantine or Constantinopolitan liturgical/theological tradition.

They are two types of Eastern-Catholics (and again there are about 5 different Greek-Catholic Churches - the Ukrainian, the Ruthenian, the Romanian, the Melkite and the Greek (there are also small Russian Greek-Catholic and Hellenic Greek-Catholic Churches).

But there are many other types of Eastern Catholics as well. The Maronites, the Syro-Malabar, the Copts, the Syriacs, the Armenians, the Chaldeans, etc. All of these are Eastern-Catholics as well but they are not Byzantine or Greek-Catholics.

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCD (cand) (abounamike@aol.com), May 13, 2004.

Dave,

The Caholic position would indeed hold that we don't inherit the fault of Adam's sin but we do inherit the effects. As 404 of the Cathechism says "by the unity of the human race all men are implicated in Adam's sin..."

But on the more specific point... for the Orthodox to say that Mary is conceived without sin is ultimately to say that she isn't human. That they're not willing to accept. As someone once asked me "if God could "snap his fingers" and take away the sin in Mary why didn't He just do it for the rest of us? Whey did we need the incarnation and the passion of Jesus?"

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCD (cand) (abounamike@aol.com), May 13, 2004.

Father Mike,

Are Copts in communion with Rome? If so, will you please clarify how primacy is resolved between Copts, Melkites, and Rome? I'm really puzzled now. Thanks ahead and God Bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), May 13, 2004.

Thanks Paul and Steve! It's cleared up!

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.con), May 13, 2004.

"if God could "snap his fingers" and take away the sin in Mary why didn't He just do it for the rest of us? Whey did we need the incarnation and the passion of Jesus?"

The Catholic answer is that Mary was preserved from original sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Just as He saved the millions of good people who died before He was born. God is not limited to a particular time.

There are two types of Copts. The Coptic Orthodox church is in schism from Rome. The Coptic Catholic church is in communion with Rome. A similar situation applies in most of the other eastern groups.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 13, 2004.

Thanks Steve. I was skipping ahead of myself. That clears things up a bit. Nevermind the full question now.

God Bless,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), May 13, 2004.

Steve,

But then how do you explain the dogma of the Immaculate Conception to the Orthodox?

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCD (cand) (abounamike@aol.com), May 14, 2004.

All of the Eastern Catholic Churches have an Orthodox counterpart (or at least one) with one exception: The Maronite Church. There is no Orthodox counterpart.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCD (cand) (abounamike@aol.com), May 14, 2004.

Father Mike,

Am I interpreting your statement correctly to say that the Orthodox don't believe that Mary was sinless?

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), May 14, 2004.

Dave,

No, they object to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception for the reasons I have stated above.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCD (cand) (abounamike@aol.com), May 15, 2004.

wonderful discussion. Dano, that link is not to what you said it was to. Joke: 404 catacism: line not found. Explain how a jew on the pasover supper would want to use leavened bread?? and how you know it is so? Thank all of you, Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.