Are these Catholic Church categories the same church or are they branches?
Or do they have different names because of the region?
Do they all follow the same Pope?
Orthodox Eastern Oriental and Roman Catholic Churches
What are the main differences in these if any? Are there some I am missing?
Sorry for my ignorance probably sounds silly…
Before I just assumed that they all followed the same Pope and had different names because of the the region and maybe minor differences in cultural practices… but then I ran into this
Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_of_the_Coptic_Orthodox_Church_of_Alexandria
Also would this link be an example of still being part of the true church by roman catholic definition or not because the Roman Pope is not being followed??
We tend not to think of it in terms of “following” the Pope but rather being in union with the Pope. There are several Churches that are not in union with the Pope, currently Pope Francis. Many of those Churches are identified with the word “Orthodox” somewhere in their name. Many of those are also Eastern Churches. But there are also many (I think it’s 23) Eastern Churches that ARE in union with the Pope.
This is a handy list of the Eastern Churches that are in union with the Pope and part of the Catholic Church.
The term “Roman Catholic” was originally a slur used by reformation Christians but has now come to be used for any Catholic in union with the Bishop of Rome - the Pope. But the proper term, and the one the Church virtually always uses herself, is just Catholic. This includes all of those Churches in the link above as well as the “regular” Catholic parishes that most North Americans are most familiar with.
Many of the orthodox churches remain in schism and have been that way for a very long time. In short they broke away from the Catholic church. Ask them and they will say the opposite lol.
However they do (most at least) still have valid apostolic succession and confect a valid Eucharist because of this.
When we say apostolic succession we mean quite literally that their bishops have a direct line going back to the apostles through ordination and the laying on of hands. This is true on both sides of the field.
The big difference in the catholic and orthodox is the nature of the holy spirit. while Catholic believe that the holy spirit precedes from the father AND the son the orthodox believe it is just from the father. Its a big theological nail! there are many others as well such as they only recognize the first 7 ecumenical councils. Way to much to talk about on this thread and very controversial.
They are technically not considered Catholic since they are not un union with the holy father. they do maintain apostolic succession. If you really get into apostolic succession you will understand its impact. A short explanation is Jesus sent his apostles, his apostles sent the first bishops, and they sent their successors, this continues to this day. If you study the early church you will find that this was a huge deal since there was no bible for the first 4 centuries of Christian history and well if you read your bible this is how the faith was passed on. Point is one must be SENT by Christ to teach in his name. This is understood by apostolic succession. this is generally in direct conflict with protestant thinking as their ministers are not sent. Also since not everything is contained in the bible. The teachings of the apostles was passed on orally and through writings. The Catholic church is the only institution who continues ALL of what Christ taught through his apostles. this is also biblical.
I found this as a brief explanation…
As far as the One theological disagreement has to do with the Latin compound word filioque (“and the Son”) which was added to the Nicene Creed by Spanish Catholic bishops around the end of the sixth century. With this addition, the creed says that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” Without the addition, it says the Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Eastern Orthodox have traditionally challenged this, either saying that the doctrine is inaccurate or, for those who believe that it is accurate, that the pope had no authority to insert this word into the creed (though it was later affirmed by an ecumenical council).
Many today, both Orthodox and Catholics, believe this controversy was a tempest in a teapot. The doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father is intimated in Scripture and present in the earliest Church Fathers. Controversy over it only arose again after the Eastern churches repudiated their union with Rome under pressure from the Muslims.
Eastern Orthodox often refer to the Holy Spirit proceeding from “the Father through the Son,” which can be equivalent to the Catholic formula “from the Father and the Son.” Since everything the Son has is from the Father, if the Spirit proceeds from the Son, then the Son can only be spoken of as one through whom the Spirit received what he has from the Father, the ultimate principle of the Godhead. Because the formulas are equivalent, the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes: “This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed” (CCC 248).
Today there is every hope that the equivalence of the two formulas can be formally recognized by all parties and that the filioque controversy can be resolved.
Oh, a lot of the issues look trivial or explainable to us right now, but for Christians back then, a single word or even a minute gesture or even a difference in the temperature of water are so important that even the slightest deviance from whatever a given side considers to be the ‘proper’ way to do things can cause schism.
Did you know the Byzantines, the Latins and the Armenians feuded over the so-called zeon? The zeon was this hot water that was added to the wine/Blood of Christ just before Communion in the Byzantine liturgy with the words: “The warmth of the Holy Spirit.” (Water is also added to the wine much earlier, when the priest prepares the gifts before the Liturgy begins.)
Now the Armenians in their Liturgy use pure wine (whereas all the other churches have the custom of adding water to the Eucharistic wine). And like the Latins, they use unleavened bread for the Eucharist. There’s a whole lot of speculation why only the Armenians out of all Christendom use pure wine, but this was apparently enough to cause friction between the Armenians and the Byzantines. Byzantines say the Armenians are wrong in using pure wine, while the Armenians said the Byzantines were wrong in adding water to the wine.
By the time of the Great Schism, the Latins in turn criticized the Byzantine zeon. The Latins thought the Byzantines were denying the death of Jesus by pouring warm water into the Blood: are they implying that even after Jesus died, His body was kept ‘warm’ by the Spirit? If so, wouldn’t that be tantamount to denying the reality of Christ’s death - because no corpse stays warm? On the Byzantine side meanwhile, no water was considered to be a denial of Jesus’ humanity or the reality of His death (hence their opposition to the Armenians - “You don’t add water? Are you denying Jesus really died?”), while normal, ‘cold’ water was seen as implying a theological error regarding the role of the Holy Spirit in the Resurrection. (Another interpretation of the zeon links it with the Resurrection: the addition of the warm water to the Blood symbolizes the Holy Spirit reviving - giving life to - Jesus.)
And then there’s also the Byzantine attack on the Latin and Armenian practice of using unleavened bread, and the Latin and Armenian attack on the Byzantines for using leavened bread.
Eastren Orthodox are not Catholic, they refuse to be associated with our Church. They do not admit that the Pope has any authority. Coptics are another story and they have their own Pope, I honestly do not know what the CC says about them.
The first replay you got has a website of churches belonging to the Catholic Church. This one is correct.
That’s just what they call their patriarch - papa. It’s a very early title: Pope St. Dionysius (259-268) in the 3rd century already referred to bishop Heraclas of Alexandria (232-246) as “our blessed pope (papa), Heraclas.” In fact, the bishop of Carthage in the 2nd-3rd century was also called papa. ‘Pope’ wasn’t a title specific only to the bishop of Rome. In fact, the bishop of Rome was probably one of the last to be called papa (some say it was Pope St. Marcellinus (296-304) who was the first Roman bishop to be called ‘pope’, while others say that it was Pope John I (470-526). Either way, you would notice that the bishop of Alexandria was called ‘papa’ first.)
The Coptic Pope is the leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church and the head of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria (the highest authority within the Coptic Church), but just because he is called ‘pope’ doesn’t necessarily mean that Copts consider him to have the same functions or the same level of authority as Catholics consider the Pope of Rome to have within the Catholic Church. The Coptic Pope’s position within the Holy Synod is that of ‘first among equals’: he is simply the most senior bishop; he doesn’t have an office above that of the other bishops.
That’s just my take on things - I believe an actual Coptic Christian might be able to answer your question better (and more accurately). There are quite a number in CAF.