Catholic vs Orthodox: What's the difference?

Obviously there are some very distinct and obvious differences between the two largest Christian Churches, but I'm starting this thread because this is a topic that has always interested me, and currently I have a need to have a deeper knowledge of the basic theological doctrines of the two churches, both today and throughout history, and how they view each other both now and historically.

If I understand correctly, the primary difference is that in Catholicism the Pope is held as the supreme authority, where in Orthodoxy there is no central authority?

I don't know much about the Orthodox church, but they do have some sort of person of authority. I am not sure if it's an equivalent position to the pope, but here are some interesting links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Patriarch_of_Constantinople
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_of_the_Coptic_Orthodox_Church_of_Alexandria

The Ecumenical Patriarchate holds no authority outside of it's own Church, I believe. The title simply equates to "first among equals."

Well obviously one of the main differences is the precise role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church. In the Catholic Chuch papal primacy is that the pope has a universal jurisdiction, whereas in the Eastern Orthodox Church, they do recognise the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but hold that it is only a first amongst equals thing, and iirc that if the two Churches were unified the pope should only hold that position held currently by the ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople.

Another difference is the insertion of the Filioque into the credo. In the west the filioque is inserted into the latin (and vernacular) versions of the creed (never the greek). There is a whole debate theologically around this about whether the insertion of "and from the son" in the creed in regards to the procession of the Holy Spirit is in error. The Catholic argument is ofc that it is not, when it is in the latin or vernacular with the greek word having a different emphasis that would indeed make it erroneous if inserted. That said I am not going to go through the whole slew of theological debate around this or the other things I will mention, Im just going to give an overview.

Now, another difference is the energy-essence distinction of God that exists in Eastern Orthodoxy. That is that the essence (ousia) of God is wholly transcendant, yet that he engages in the world through his uncreated energies (energeia) that can indeed be known to men on Earth (through the practice of heyschasm for example). The analogy often used is that the essence of God is the sun, where his energies are the rays from the sun that reach the Earth. Many Catholic theologians have problems with this (although some think it is not insurmountably problematic) and say it introduces division in the trinity and is suggestive of polytheism with one transcendant god, and a "demiurge" figure who can engage on Earth. They also argue that it is contradictory with the first council of Nicaea's teachings on divine unity with the most generally accepted schools of Catholic theology insisting that God is actus purus.

MusicLord said:

The Ecumenical Patriarchate holds no authority outside of it's own Church, I believe. The title simply equates to "first among equals."

Click to expand...

That's correct. Here's the text of a PM I sent when asked about some significant differences:

1) The Orthodox Church has no one authority figure above all the others, besides God. The closest thing the EO have to a Pope is the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, who's seen as the first among equals, but he doesn't have any more actual authority than any other bishop.
2) The Orthodox don't hold to the notion of hereditary guilt common among Western Christians.
3) In terms of Triadology, the Catholic Church mostly asks "How is one God three persons?" while the Orthodox asks "How are three persons one God?" They're both valid questions, but they often lead to different answers, so some of the nuances of Trinitarian theology have some discrepancy.
4) The Catholic mindset seems more "legalistic" in the sense that sin is most often viewed as a legal transgression rather than an illness. Again, both perspectives are useful, but the different emphases lead to different views.
5) Orthodox view divorce as permissible in extreme circumstances. I had trouble thinking of a good fifth one, but this is probably significant.

Click to expand...

Hope this helps. Let me know if you want any more detail about any of these. The energy-essence thing Jehoshua mentioned is really significant too. Not sure why I didn't talk about it there.

Since you mentioned divorce, what is the EOC's stance on contraceptives, homosexuality, and abortion?

MusicLord said:

Since you mentioned divorce, what is the EOC's stance on contraceptives, homosexuality, and abortion?

Click to expand...

Some contraceptions are held to be okay in some circumstances maybe. It's typically a matter between a couple and their pastor, and you will find some who oppose them unilaterally.

Beliefs on homosexuality and abortion are pretty much the same as Catholics' as far as I can tell.

The "Hereditary Guilt" thing, excluding the possibility your referring to original sin, I think is far more common amongst protestants than Catholics. Indeed the only place I have heard mentioned the possibility that ones sins could pass from father to son down some family line is at a protestant service I was obliged to go to at one point.

As to sin, it is seen as a legal transgression (an offense against God), but at the same time it is also seen as an illness, an infection of the human soul which is to be purified through regular reception of the sacraments and cultivation of the interior life. As such I wouldn't say that the Eastern Orthodox have one view, the Catholics another is entirely accurate, rather that the Catholic view tends to place more emphasis on the "legal" aspect while still retaining the view of sin as a spiritual sickness.

All of the differences mentioned above are important, but I think they are not the fundamental differences between Catholic and Orthodox. The fundamental differences are harder to articulate because they are really about tone and culture. Perhaps the simplest way of putting it (probably an over-simplistic way) is to say that Catholicism is about reason while Orthodoxy is about mystery. Catholicism is, at least in theory, a very rationalist religion. The whole notion of natural theology and the analogia entis is premised on this. Its scholastic heritage means that it sees philosophy and science as, at least in theory, its allies.

In Orthodoxy, by contrast, there is a much greater emphasis on what cannot be known. The apophatic school of mysticism - where one focuses on the unknowability of God rather than on anything that can be known about him - is very important to Orthodoxy, which ranks Gregory of Nyssa (the founder of this tradition in Christianity) as a major saint, not to mention Pseudo-Dionysius and Gregory Palamas. Of course there is also a strong cataphatic tradition in Orthodoxy (e.g. Symeon the New Theologian), and there is also a strong apophatic tradition in Catholicism (the Cloud of Unknowing, the Rhineland mystics), but it seems to me that despite this it's more central to Orthodoxy. In Catholicism, apophatic and cataphatic mystics alike seek to understand. In Orthodoxy, they seek to experience. It's all about mystery, devotion, liturgy, art, and beauty. One can only really understand it by taking part.

Also, remember that tradition is far more important for Orthodoxy than for Catholicism. It's important for Catholicism, of course, but not to the same degree. This is one reason why there has been much less theological creativity in the Orthodox churches than in the Catholic and Protestant ones.

I think I'm right in saying that the Orthodox churches take a less positive approach to modern science than Catholics typically do. Creationism is rife in eastern Europe, for example.

But as far as actual doctrines go, I don't believe there is a great deal of difference between Catholics and Orthodox. Obviously they have different understandings of the Trinity, which go beyond just the filioque, but I'm not convinced that that's more significant than the more general differences in approach outlined above.

Maybe a dumb question (I don't know much about religions), but does the Catholic bible and the Orthodox bible contain the same books?
(I haven't seen it mentioned yet, so I assume they are identical?)

anandus said:

Maybe a dumb question (I don't know much about religions), but does the Catholic bible and the Orthodox bible contain the same books?
(I haven't seen it mentioned yet, so I assume they are identical?)

Click to expand...

Nope. The Eastern Orthodox bible contains a few extra books in the Old Testament - Greek Ezra, 3 and 4 Maccabees (actually not about the Maqabim, but earlier Jewish repression by the Ptolemaioi), the Prayer of Manasseh, and the Letter of Jeremiah. They also have an extra psalm.

The New Testament is basically the same in most Orthodox traditions, but I think the Syrians have a slightly rejiggered epistolary section.

Thanks

Orthodox priests look like mighty wizards. Catholics priests just like old men in dresses.

Well that kind of cleric which often chooses crappy vestments do at any rate!

That said you could be referencing the fact that latin rite (eastern Catholic clerics have the same style as Eastern Orthodox clerics) clerics tend not to go about with a beard unless they are from certain mendicant orders. This was due to the fact canon law forbade beards in clerics at a point when it was seen as decadent to have such facial hair, and also for symbolic reasons iirc. In the east a beard was seen as essential to manliness, and so clean shaven priests never became normative.

The hats.

I visited an Orthodox website and was amused to find them referring to the Catholics as breakaway heretics. I asked an Orthodox person I knew who had converted to Catholicism, and he said it began in part over a disagreement over the inclusion of one phrase in the creed. According to him, Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the father and son", and the Orthodox say that it proceeds from the "father and from the son". I assume the distinction has something to do with beliefs about the unity of the trinity, and subordination of son to father, or something like that.

You mean the [wiki]filioque[/wiki] controversy, which is basically the reason behind the split, otherwise the two churches are nearly identical in doctrine.

classical_hero said:

You mean the [wiki]filioque[/wiki] controversy, which is basically the reason behind the split, otherwise the two churches are nearly identical in doctrine.

Click to expand...

No, they're not. There's a lot in common, but they're really not. Plot summarized it pretty nicely.

Aight, lads, all this theological stuff is interesting and all, but we all know that it's really about the outfits:

Late to the party, chief.