Christian Forums

I know that the Eastern Orthodox Church by and large is heavier on experience and the Catholic Church is less experientianal and more rational in their approach to God.  I also know that the Eastern Orhtodox Church refused to accept the authority of the Pope in Rome.  But what I'm wondering is what are the main differences theologically between the two groups.  Any takers?

pope/patriarch
greek bibles with maybe a different acceptance of apocrypha on the orthodox side.

dj

They both love money! Not much of a difference between the two.

Quote from: spurly on Sat Sep 29, 2007 - 18:02:31
I know that the Eastern Orthodox Church by and large is heavier on experience and the Catholic Church is less experientianal and more rational in their approach to God.  I also know that the Eastern Orhtodox Church refused to accept the authority of the Pope in Rome.  But what I'm wondering is what are the main differences theologically between the two groups.  Any takers?

The original Nicene Creed stated that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father.  The Roman Catholic Church decided that it was more accurate to state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.  Eastern Orthodox really got angry about this change and it was one of the reasons that they decided to break with the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 AD.

The fact is the two churches - defined by two different cultures was drifting apart long before 1054 AD.  The Greek culture was considered to be cultured and educated - the Latin culture in the West was considered to be fairly backwater - uneducated and unsophisticated.  They spoke different languages and they led different lifestyles.  In the end, the Greeks got tired of the unsophisticated West claiming leadership over them.  The official reason for the break between the two churches was for three reasons:

1.  The Nicene Creed incident - the RC believed that the East interpretation resulted in an unnatural hierarchy within the Godhead.

2.  The RC believed that the office of Pope was ordained by God and was in place to protect the Tradition of the Church.

3.  The Eastern Churches claimed that Rome was too liberal in it's understanding of concepts like Mary, the use of icons in worship, etc.

Both Churches claim to be the original church and both believe the other to have left the true church, but the fact is we are so similar that we are practically the same church.

I am afraid our differences are really boiled down to ego at this point and in my opinion the split is quite sad.

blessings

Let me give the Orthodox perspective . . .

The major differences are:

1) The authority of the Pope -- The RCC believe that the Pope is the single universal leader of the earthly church.  Since the 1870s, the RCC has believed that the Pope is infallible when speaking "from the chair of Peter.

Quote from: trifecta on Sat Sep 29, 2007 - 23:21:02
Let me give the Orthodox perspective . . .

Great thread - I appreciate your point of view and I share your hope for the future of Christianity.

blessings

architecture?   

not saying it's the most important....

QuoteIn fairness, the RCC say this as well, but Pope has created new doctrine he expects the universal church to accept. Examples include:
purgatory, indulgences, changing the Nicaean creed, mandatory priestly celibacy, the immaculate conception of Mary, and papal infallibility.

Just to be clear, we believe these things were more clearly defined, but not created out of the blue.

The Orthodox have their own understanding of what happens before we get to Heaven which is quite similar to the idea of purgatory, they just don't call it that.

And as has been mentioned elsewhere, priestly celibacy is a discipline, NOT a doctrine. There are Catholic priests who are married out there. 

Quote from: spurly on Sat Sep 29, 2007 - 18:02:31
I know that the Eastern Orthodox Church by and large is heavier on experience and the Catholic Church is less experientianal and more rational in their approach to God.  I also know that the Eastern Orhtodox Church refused to accept the authority of the Pope in Rome.  But what I'm wondering is what are the main differences theologically between the two groups.  Any takers?

Great question "Sir – Spurly

Why did these churches split off from The Coptic Church?

A misunderstanding on terminology.  The Alexandrian Churches understood Christ's "nature" as hypostatic (i.e., personal), and thus taught one nature (mono-physis).  The Chalcedonian Churches understood "nature" as an aspect of hypostasis and therefore taught two natures (dy-physis).  Personalities and politics exacerbated the terminological understandings, but recent rapprochement between the Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian Churches now agree that the substance of the two Churches' belief on the Person and work of Christ is the same.  I maybe overly optimistic but expect to see reunion between the two Churches in my lifetime.

Quote from: mllevaleur on Mon Oct 01, 2007 - 13:07:07Just to be clear, we believe these things were more clearly defined, but not created out of the blue.

Greetings, Stephanie.

Orthodox do not believe the Development of Doctrine is the creation of doctrine out of the blue.  Hopefully we're more fair than that!

However, we do believe that Newman-like DoD is misguided.  I'm glad that you used the terminology "more clearly defined."  As my priest (a former Trappist who was a novice under Thomas Merton) points out: Please explain to me more clearly the Person of Christ by using the Chalcedonian definition.

In other words, except by God's revelation, no amount of human rational work will ever get us to more "clearly" understand the Person of Christ.  All such dogma is ultimately mystery.  So, DoD in the sense of "more clearly defined" is a misnomer at best and hubristic at worst--as though we who come later in time somehow know more than those simpleton Apostles!

Now, for the record, Orthodox *do* believe in a "development" of doctrine--of sorts.  That is to say, due to the heresy controversies in the Church, the Church was forced to more clearly articulate what could *not* be believed (that Christ was two Persons, say).  That is why, to return to the Chalcedonian definition, all the descriptors of his Person are alpha-privatives (undivided, unconfused, unmixed, inseparable)--they say what we can*not* believe, they do not more carefully articulate precisely *what* Jesus' natures are all about.

Of course, not all dogmatic statements are negatives (the Creed states what we *do* believe, obviously), but the point, for Orthodox believers, is that God was fully revealed in Jesus Christ.  Nothing more needs to be added or said.  All we can do is more carefully say what we know, not add any understanding to it.  God is not known by rational understanding, but by the experience of the intellect in the human heart.

Quote from: mllevaleur on Mon Oct 01, 2007 - 13:07:07The Orthodox have their own understanding of what happens before we get to Heaven which is quite similar to the idea of purgatory, they just don't call it that.

Ehhhh, not quite.  We have some significant distinctions, not the least of which is the underlaying rationale: whereas the RC doctrine of Purgatory relies heavily on the notion of merit, when Orthodox speak of the intermediate state they speak in terms of theosis (the participation, by grace, in the energies of God), and for Orthodox theosis is all about synergy.  Or to say it another way, the Orthodox understanding of the intermediate state is not about satisfaction or payment but all about the unmerited grace of God who condescends in love to bring the person into paradise.