Differences in Religions

What are the major differences in Latin Rite Catholics, Eastern Rite Catholics, and Orthodox? What can each member do in each other Rite/religion? Sorry for the vagueness of the question, I’m just rather uncertain. :shrug:

For one thing eastern rite (I assume you mean by that those in communion with the Roman church) can have married priests, take of the Eucharist in both kinds and also have a different liturgy called the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. Eastern Orthodox also have the same practice but are not in communion with the Pope of Rome nor accept the Pope’s universal jurisdiction.

There are many more to list but these seem the most prominent in my mind.

The creed said at Mass is different. The Latin rite Roman Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. The Eastern rite Catholics and the Orthodox say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Yes, how can they say that if they believe in ONE GOD? How can the Father proceed without the Son if they are one?:confused:

How can the Father alone be without cause if they are one?

How can the Spirit not be involved in the begetting of the Son if they are one?

How can the Son not beget himself if they are are one?

How can the the Father and the Son spirate the Spirit and the Spirit not spirate himself together with them if they are one?

The Creeds are never different; What you relate to differences are expressions of the one same holy Catholic and Apostolic faith. These differences are minor, not major.

There are no major differences between the Latin Rite, Eastern Rite’s and or Orthodox, when it comes to those things that belong to God in the sacramental economy. It is here where no man can put asunder what God has joined together.

Schism is not a separation or a dividing wall that permanently creates a separation or differences of what is believed in faith from Apostolic Sacred Tradition and what is divinely inspired.

The differences remain in how each ones Apostolic faith is expressed in Liturgy from language, culture and understanding. Neither one faith expression is superior to the other. We have to come to the Truth of each owns Apostolic faith as it was given to each community without change for all ages.

The Eastern Church’s (Catholic) have defended their Apostolic faith against heresies and heretics from their theological understanding that does not change the Apostolic faith. The Popes have approved such clarifications of the Apostolic faith from councils.

The Western Catholic Church has defended her Apostolic faith against heresies, heretics, and secular powers from her theological understanding that never changes the Apostolic faith. Although our Latin faith expression in the filioque = Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Never changes or adds to the Apostolic faith expressed from both Orthodox Church’s and the Latin Catholic Church.

Contrary to some Orthodox opinions who have engaged and maintain a schism against the bishop of Rome and the Chair of Peter, who would dare to try and make Latin Catholics into Greek Catholics, and in the past Latins have tried to make Greek Catholics into Latin Catholics.

Vatican II has spoken, the Latin Catholics are not to make Greek Orthodox into Latin Catholics. Vatican II’s goal is to acknowledge everything in Orthodoxy to remain Orthodox and not change into Latin Catholics, vice versa.

All other related minor differences of faith expression remains a cause of schism not differences in religion.

The Major subjects relating to schism deals with authority and jurisdiction, not differences of our Christian Catholic faith, which is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.

Opinions relating to the schism; no matter how fierce the language that appears to maintain the schism that introduce differences. These opinions never have the power to divide or separate what God has joined together.

Once we get over the hurdle of respecting and acknowledge each ones expression of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith, without prejudices and false judgments, we can begin the course of Vatican II of not trying to make Latin’s into Greek and Greeks into Latin. Authority and jurisdiction can be ecumenically dialogued to reach a correct biblical and Apostolic Sacred Tradition expressed from each faith community in full communion.

For with God, all things are possible.

Peace be with you

That is your opinion, but it is not shared by the Eastern Orthodox who view the addition of the filioque to the creed to be a serious heresy. The Roman Catholics say the creed with the filioque, but the Eastern Catholics say the creed without the filioque.

The Orthodox autocephalous Church’s do not all share the opinion of objecting to the filioque. Because these Church’s are independent of each other without a head. There is no universal objection by the whole Church of the filioque.

To generalize all Orthodox Church’s in the East objecting to the filioque is not a fair assumption or opinion that views a true reality…:slight_smile:

I must be blind then because we have talked about this many, many times, I don’t see any difference with the homooúsios clan. Lets put it this way, how do you gauge progress? To me this has only been a 50 year conversation, and seeing how that went, I’d say in all fairness this is gonna be awhile longer and all prayers are welcome. :slight_smile: Unless you have another B plan to speed up progress?

The Catholics believe in more councils and dogmas than the Orthodox. The Catholics cannot receive communion in the Orthodox churches, and the Orthodox cannot receive communion in the Catholic churches. Doing so excommunicates an Orthodox Christian from his church, and there have also been priests that have been disciplined for giving communion to Catholics because it is against church law. We are friendly, but that is all. (This is not so much an issue in Egypt, for the Coptic Orthodox Church, because there are hardly any Catholic Coptic people…their church is very new and small. There are more Greeks, but even they aren’t very many. Most Copts are Orthodox.)

There are differences in liturgy. The Catholics don’t sing their liturgies, right? Or maybe the Melkites do, but the Western Catholics don’t, and there are a lot more of them than the Melkites. And they use a different liturgical text. So the liturgy is very different. Here is an Orthodox liturgy in English from Sharm el Sheikh (Egypt), so that you can compare: youtube.com/watch?v=aVFgnHHOWHc

If you are Catholic, you can come to Orthodox liturgy and the people will welcome you, but please do not try to receive communion. Communion is for Orthodox only. But you can receive the orban bread after liturgy instead, because that is for everyone (it is not communion, but it is blessed for distribution to everyone after the liturgy is completed).

Efnouti Nai Nan;12587241]The Catholics believe in more councils and dogmas than the Orthodox.

The additional councils and dogmas in later history defeat heresies and heretics which the seven ecumenical councils do not address from antiquity.

The Catholics cannot receive communion in the Orthodox churches,

A discipline mandated by men not by God.

and the Orthodox cannot receive communion in the Catholic churches.

That is a false statement from the Latin faith practice. When ALL are welcome to receive communion at the table of the Lord when no one is turned away, who hold to the Apostolic faith of discernment of the true and real presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity in Eucharist. We Latin never make no attempt to separate or divide anything what God has joined together via the sacraments.

Doing so excommunicates an Orthodox Christian from his church, and there have also been priests that have been disciplined for giving communion to Catholics because it is against church law.

That is a law of discipline made by men which is subject to change, practiced by the few who are in and out of full communion to their own sister Orthodox Church’s. It is never a law ordained by God.

We are friendly, but that is all. (This is not so much an issue in Egypt, for the Coptic Orthodox Church, because there are hardly any Catholic Coptic people…their church is very new and small. There are more Greeks, but even they aren’t very many. Most Copts are Orthodox.)

Coptic’s have adopted the term Orthodox, no Church council officially gives the Coptic Church the title of Orthodox.

There are differences in liturgy. The Catholics don’t sing their liturgies, right? Or maybe the Melkites do, but the Western Catholics don’t, and there are a lot more of them than the Melkites. And they use a different liturgical text. So the liturgy is very different.

Disciplines and Liturgical practices of faith expression from each Apostolic liturgy is never different in substance and faith. Singing, Latin chants, silence, language, culture are expressed within each Apostolic liturgy that do not reveal a difference of religion, but a diverse and beautiful universal expression from all peoples of the earth who worship God in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.

Here is an Orthodox liturgy in English from Sharm el Sheikh (Egypt), so that you can compare: youtube.com/watch?v=aVFgnHHOWHc

This comparison only reveals a beauty and diversity of the Catholic faith never a “major” difference of religion.

If you are Catholic, you can come to Orthodox liturgy and the people will welcome you, but please do not try to receive communion. Communion is for Orthodox only. But you can receive the orban bread after liturgy instead, because that is for everyone (it is not communion, but it is blessed for distribution to everyone after the liturgy is completed).

In case of emergency of life and death, a Catholic (without access to a Latin priest) can ask permission from his Catholic bishop to ask an Orthodox bishop to receive anointing of the sick, confession, viaticum. I do not think a real Catholic Orthodox bishop would reject a die-ing parishioner from receiving his last rites?
Communion disciplines are enacted by men to reject or refuse holy communion to a practicing believer that is not of an Orthodox community is not a law or discipline ordained by God. This lack of full communion does not reflect a different religion but a difference of opinions and disciplines that objects or rejects the Latin Expression of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.

Peace be with you

It is not a 50 year conversation. It is a 1000 year conversation. The Plan B is to have the Roman Church replace the filioque with per filium.

The Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965 was read out on 7 December 1965 simultaneously at a public meeting of the Second Vatican Council in Rome and at a special ceremony in Istanbul. It withdrew the exchange of excommunications between prominent ecclesiastics in the Holy See and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, commonly known as the Great Schism of 1054. It did not end the schism but showed a desire for greater reconciliation between the two churches, represented by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCatholic%25E2%2580%2593Orthodox_Joint_Declaration_of_1965&ei=1ZSUVLHMOImuggTsnIDoDw&usg=AFQjCNFPSe6AUK5wwb98cpFC0b0BI2K-ug

We don’t know what they are talking about, just check any thread. I’m talking about this and frankly the silence is rather scary. As I said there is no difference. Can you actually articulate one? No-one else has been able to?

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHomoousian&ei=e5mUVITdGMehgwTc8IPwBw&usg=AFQjCNHpdTgP5Nxkg-p8WJxnawdzIJZ4TA&bvm=bv.82001339,d.eXY

The several distinct branches of Arianism which sometimes conflicted with each other as well as with the pro-Nicene homoousian creed can be roughly broken down into the following classification:
Homoiousianism (from ὅμοιος, hómoios, “similar” – as opposed to homós, “same”) which maintained that the Son was “like in substance” but not necessarily to be identified with the essence of the Father.
Homoeanism (also from hómoios) which declared that the Son was similar to God the Father, without reference to substance or essence. Some supporters of Homoian formulae also supported one of the other descriptions. Other Homoians declared that God the father was so incomparable and ineffably transcendent that even the ideas of likeness, similarity or identity in substance or essence with the subordinate Son and the Holy Spirit were heretical and not justified by the Gospels. They held that the Father was like the Son in some sense but that even to speak of ousia was impertinent speculation.
Heteroousianism (including Anomoeanism) which held that God the Father and the Son were different in substance and/or attributes.
All of these positions and the almost innumerable variations on them which developed in the 4th century AD were strongly and tenaciously opposed by Athanasius and other pro-Nicenes who insisted on the doctrine of the homoousian (or as it is called in modern terms consubstantiality), eventually prevailing in the struggle to define the dogma of the Orthodox Church for the next two millennia when its use was confirmed by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 or 383. The struggle over the definition of the nature of Christ’s divinity was not solely a matter for the Church. The Emperor Theodosius had published an edict, prior to the Council of Constantinople, declaring that the Nicene Creed was the legitimate doctrine and that those opposed to it were heretics.[18]
It has also been noted that this Greek term “homoousian”, which Athanasius of Alexandria favored, and was ratified in the Nicene Council and Creed, was actually a term reported to also be used and favored by the Sabellians in their Christology. And it was a term that many followers of Athanasius were actually uneasy about. And the “Semi-Arians”, in particular, objected to the word “homoousian”. Their objection to this term was that it was considered to be “un-Scriptural, suspicious, and of a Sabellian tendency.”[19] This was because Sabellius also considered the Father and the Son to be “one substance,” meaning that, to Sabellius, the Father and Son were “one essential Person”, though operating as different faces, roles, or modes. This notion, however, was also rejected at the Council of Nicaea, in favor of the Athanasian formulation and creed, of the Father and Son being distinct yet also co-equal, co-eternal, and con-substantial Persons.

“The description of the filioque as a heresy was iterated most clearly and definitively by the great Father and Pillar of the Church, St. Photius the Great, in his On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. He describes it as a heresy of Triadology, striking at the very heart of what the Church believes about God.”
orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque

The inclusion of the filioque in the Creed is “a violation of the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431, which forbade and anathematized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the Eighth Ecumenical Council in 879-880.”

See:
orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque

Gabriel of 12,

Hello, friend. I am afraid your post quotes me for reasons I don’t understand. I am writing only about the Orthodox faith and its rules, not the Roman Catholic rules or faith. Of course there are things that are different between the two, so I take your comments to be true about the Roman Catholic faith, just like mine are true about the Orthodox faith as it is practiced in the church. It is true that no Orthodox can receive from Roman Catholics and no Catholic can receive from Orthodox. Maybe you have seen otherwise, but the rules are what they are even when people break them. That’s why I put in that part about some priests being disciplined for giving communion to Roman Catholics, because it is against the rules of our church. It is the same if I went to a Greek church. Coptic Orthodox cannot receive the sacraments there, so I would get in trouble even if they said it was okay for me to take their eucharist. This would be immediate excommunication for me (and maybe for them? I don’t know the laws of the Greeks.) Because we only share the sacraments with the people in our communion, because we only agree with that faith, that is the Orthodox faith of three councils, not seven of the Greeks (but personally I think we are one in almost everything; I went to a Greek church once just to see and even though the music and the customs were different, it still “felt” like Orthodoxy to me…we did not debate about the differences). And not however many councils the Roman Catholics have. I don’t know how many, but I know it is more than the seven of the Greeks and other Melkites.

And the video I posted is a Coptic Orthodox liturgy, not Roman Catholic, so I don’t know what your comment about that means. Sorry. It is not Roman Catholic, so it doesn’t say anything about Roman Catholics.

Ryan-

If I recall correctly, you have a two master’s degrees, and you wrote your Master’s thesis on the Trinity, correct?

Those are great accomplishments, and we’re lucky to have a great resource like you in the forum to help those of us who have not had that education understand a central doctrine of our faith.

I’m stumped, and it appears no one else can answer, either…what are the answers to the questions that you have asked?

Thanks in advance!

I did see, and from my understanding above,

There has never been a specific conciliar statement in the Orthodox Church which defined the filioque as heresy.

Which is because there is no issue with the Homoousian group but for their “objections” which go on to explain what was discussed as in the points above, and below in the so named thread.

However, as the conversation in the Church has slowly picked up the past century, then we should be past this point…

the Eastern Orthodox who view the addition of the filioque to the creed to be a serious heresy.

Which comes back to your link.

Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?, provides an extensive review of Scripture, history, and theology. Especially critical are the recommendations of this consultation, for example:

That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.

That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received dogma of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.

And finally my point…

distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received dogma of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.

p.s. to Gabriel of 12: You say “Coptics have adopted the term Orthodox, not church council has given it to them”. I don’t know…are you serious about this? It is our church, so we call it Orthodox because its faith is ORTHODOX. No council ever gave the Greek church “Orthodox” either because Orthodox is faith, not a name. Did some councils give the Roman Catholic church “Catholic”, or do you call it that because that is what you say you are? Because we also say that, too, in the Creed written by our father St. Athanasius the Apostolic that all the churches use. So I think you are mistaken about these matters of how a church gets its name. Sorry.

My Master’s thesis was not on the Trinity per se, but it did incorporate Trinitarian theology.

First of all, there is not an entirely adequate answer to these questions for the reason that the Trinity is the greatest of all mysteries that remains eternally impenetrable. However, I will attempt to address the matter to the extent I am able.

I think it is a mistake to conflate the matter of the consubstantiality of the divine hypostases with the matter of the relationships among them. In my opinion, when one does so, it ultimately leads to the obliteration of the doctrine of the Trinity by leading to any one of several positions that are incompatible with Christian teaching. I’ll discuss three.

If one were to say that the Father alone cannot be without cause because to say so means that the three are not one, then the monarchy of the Father is destroyed. This is unacceptable, because the tradition is unanimous in maintaining the monarchy of the Father.

Another potential problem with conflating consubstantiality with the relations among the divine hypostases is that of reducing the Trinity to a monad by destroying any differentiation among the relations. In other words, once you insist that the consubstantiality of the three means that both the Father and the Son must share in the spiration of the Spirit, then, on the basis of that same consubstantiality one also should say that the Father and the Spirit must share in the begetting of the Son (a heresy), and that the Son and the Spirit somehow must share in the “unbegetting” (a heresy as well as an impossible absurdity as I’m sure you can see) of the Father. Such a construction a (setting aside the absurdity in how the Son and Spirit could somehow share in generating the Father, who alone is ungenerate) of insisting on each of the possible pairs from among the three divine hypostases sharing in the generation of the third hypostasis exactly on the basis of consubstantiality seems to me to obliterate any real distinction among the relations.

Next, if one says that the filioque must be true exactly because of the teaching of consubstantiality while not admitting the heretical position of the Spirit sharing in the begetting of the Son, then ultimately, one faces the problem of subordinationism. If the Son–exactly because of his consubstantiality with the Father–must share in the spiration of the Spirit, then how is the Spirit, who does not share in the begetting of the Son, also consubstantial with the Father? One could conclude that the Spirit is not consubstantial with the Father (a heresy), which reduces the Spirit either to a lesser divinity, or a creature. On the other hand, if you insist on the filioque exactly on the basis of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son while still insisting that the Spirit does not share in the begetting of the Son (and rightly so), but that the Spirit is also consubstantial with the Father (again, rightly so), one then could say that the Spirit is somehow “more consubstantial” with the Father than the Son, which is absurd and heretically reduces the Son to a lesser divinity than the Father and the Spirit.

Finally, as I’ve stated in the past, it is not my intent to deny the filioque. I am Catholic and I accept the filioque as an authoritative teaching of the Church. However, I oppose explanations of the filioque that insist that the filioque is necessitated exactly on the basis of the consubstantiality of the Father with the Son, because of all of the potential problems I see.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.