Topic: Differences

[Fire From Heaven]

Hello. I'm a catholic and was wondering what exactly the differences are between our respective churches? I know we disagree on the pope but what else?

[Iconodule]

The Pope and the filioque are the big ones. Some Orthodox will give you a huge list of differences they think are important but really those are the only two.

[JamesR]

The biggest one is probably the different theological directions that the western and eastern fathers went into. The Roman Catholic Church is more influenced by a view of Augustinianism formulated by Anselm, known for its legalistic tendencies and deification being almost non-existent. I think that this is perhaps the greatest difference between the two Churches and one that is the most overlooked.

[jmbejdl]

The biggest one is probably the different theological directions that the western and eastern fathers went into. The Roman Catholic Church is more influenced by a view of Augustinianism formulated by Anselm, known for its legalistic tendencies and deification being almost non-existent. I think that this is perhaps the greatest difference between the two Churches and one that is the most overlooked.

I agree with Iconodule and disagree with your post. We always had differences in theological views without it dividing the Church. The problem is not caused by the mere existence of these differing approaches otherwise we'd have been divided much earlier - there's room for both the legal and the medical metaphor in the Church. The problem comes when one dogmatises a particular approach, hence the big issue is the Papacy. All the others (even the filioque - if he doesn't have the authority he claims to trump an ecumenical council then it's clear who's in the wrong) stem from that.

James

[username!]

One difference that is huge is the Orthodox are taught a sort of path of enlightenment if you will... theosis, that is to become like Jesus.  We are only called to be one thing and that is we are called to be like God. 

What else... our churches are held in communion by belief and the Eucharist.  We pray during Sunday church for our bishop and that he may rightfully divide the Word of Truth.  That means if a group in the church or a bishop, priest, etc... isn't following the Word of Truth (Deposit of Faith) then they are not part of the church until that would be reconciled properly.

In the States Orthodox parishes are ran by parish councils that have way more power than any Catholic parish council ever would have.
Many Orthodox parishes pay the priest out of their own budget and the most or many parishes are owned by the parish not the diocese, at least in the USA.
The Orthodox like social hour after Sunday Church.  With smaller parishes there is usually a better report with the priest than in a larger Roman Catholic parish. 
The priest will often be involved in anything that pertains to education of the people.  Rather than having say, lay people teach the baptism class the priest will actually meet with the people and instruct them on the meaning and the actual service, etc..

[montalban]

Hello. I'm a catholic and was wondering what exactly the differences are between our respective churches? I know we disagree on the pope but what else?

It is true we disagree on the Pope, but there's an important reason for that.

The structure of the church is not merely one of administration and power. The church is a reflection of the Trinity here on earth; it is how we commune with God, through the church

Any changes to the church would mean a change in the concept of God, and how we interact with him.

God the Father is the origin/source of all things and in that sense he has a primacy, however each member of the Trinity is fully God.

So too in the church. We can have a person who has primacy, and is a source of unity, but each church must be fully Catholic/complete. None can be less than the other.

[Sinful Hypocrite]

Whenever I think of this , my mind goes back to what Jesus did and said, and then I think the whole differences thing is about what Christ predicted of us , being evil.

[stanley123]

The Pope and the filioque are the big ones. Some Orthodox will give you a huge list of differences they think are important but really those are the only two.

I honestly don’t understand what you are saying.  We see a whole lot of contention here on many other Catholic teachings.  For example,  do you say that the following are not important differences?
Purgatory
Indulgences
The difference in Catholicism between mortal and venial sin
The use of statues instead of icons
The Immaculate Conception
Baptism by sprinkling, not triple immersion
Reception of Holy Communion by unleavened bread, without the wine.
The devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
The devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
The shrines at Fatima and Lourdes to Mary
The Roman  modern “icons”, so that Mary  is pictured in modern terms, not in the traditional Byzantine icon way.
The Catholic teaching on divorce and birth control.
The Catholic teaching that once you are in hell, there is no way anyone can pray you out of it.
The use of guitars, drums, electric organs, clowns, puppets,  modern music, dancing,  clapping, laughing and swaying to and fro  at Catholic Liturgy.
The Catholic use of pagan aborigine traditions, such as sacred smoking, at Catholic Mass.

[lovesupreme]

Fire from Heaven, I will attempt to answer your question based on my limited understanding of a very complex conflict that has lasted for over a millennium...

The Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Catholic Church were originally One. In its first thousand years of existence, the Church was united in doctrine but "divided" (I say "divided" because there was no schism at this time, nor should there have been) by theological approach. The Latin West tended to be more legalistic, while the Greek East tended to be more mystical. There are many reasons for why these divergences occurred (different influential figures, political circumstances, language). As time went on and the two became increasingly distant, certain differences became irreconcilable. Although we can point to an exact year when the "Great Schism" divided our Church, 1054, the tension between East and West began much earlier; I think we have the hindsight now to view the mutual excommunications as a formal recognition of a division that had been in the Church for many years (those who excommunicated probably didn't see their actions in this way, though).

We in the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church (also called the Eastern Orthodox Church) believe that schism with Rome was justified primarily because of two disagreements: papal supremacy and the filioque clause in the Creed (Rome believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, "filioque"). We cannot determine exactly how these ideas came to be accepted in the Roman Church, but I would argue that they are at least partially a result of the more rational and juridical approach that Rome takes (hence the need for a supreme pontiff or "head" of the Church, or the need to explain that everything that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son).

Since the Schism, many more differences have arisen, as a natural result of the East and West continuing their respective theological evolutions, unhindered by the other. Stanley123 has posted a good list.

We proclaim that the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church, while developing a uniquely "Eastern" approach to spirituality, has NOT in any way deviated from the original teachings of the apostles. This is why we are in communion with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church, and not with the Roman Catholic Church.

Speaking for myself, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the "Western" approach, but it should never divorce itself from the Faith of the Apostles.

[ConfusedRC]

Not to derail too much, but why does one Church use leavened bread and the other doesn't?

[Pharaoh714]

Not to derail too much, but why does one Church use leavened bread and the other doesn't?

The Leavened bread is not an issue, at least for us O.O.

The Armenian Orthodox Church uses unleavened bread. As long as the Sacrament is done it doesn't matter it is the Body of Christ.

What I have a problem though with the Roman Catholics is that they don't give out the blood but only the body. 
I also Dislike they way the worship, I feel like I'm in a protestant church and not an Apostolic Church. At least here in America.
I also dislike that they don't Christmate the Baptized child after the baptism.


And also the Dogma of Mary not born with Original Sin. That is a Heresy!

Here is why:

Original sin or the separation from God when Adam and Eve sinned. After the fall all who were born are separated from God because of Adams sin. So we all need Salvation. Now when the Virgin St. Mary is born she was separated from God, because she is Human. Although we believe she was perserved from Sin but nevertheless she is separated from God as a result of Adam.

Saying she was not born with Original Sin - is saying that She is not Human , or a son of Adam , or that She is Divine or from Heaven because All of Mankind have fallen short of the Glory of God.

Only Christ is born from Above and was not and is not or ever separated from God. His Divinity always was united with His humanity, thus not only did He not sin He was not born with that Separation or scar.

Saying that the Virgin St. Mary is born without the Separation of God is Heresy because of the above.

[Cyrillic]

The Pope and the filioque are the big ones. Some Orthodox will give you a huge list of differences they think are important but really those are the only two.

I honestly don’t understand what you are saying.  We see a whole lot of contention here on many other Catholic teachings.  For example,  do you say that the following are not important differences?
Purgatory
Indulgences
The difference in Catholicism between mortal and venial sin
The use of statues instead of icons
The Immaculate Conception
Baptism by sprinkling, not triple immersion
Reception of Holy Communion by unleavened bread, without the wine.
The devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
The devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
The shrines at Fatima and Lourdes to Mary
The Roman  modern “icons”, so that Mary  is pictured in modern terms, not in the traditional Byzantine icon way.
The Catholic teaching on divorce and birth control.
The Catholic teaching that once you are in hell, there is no way anyone can pray you out of it.
The use of guitars, drums, electric organs, clowns, puppets,  modern music, dancing,  clapping, laughing and swaying to and fro  at Catholic Liturgy.
The Catholic use of pagan aborigine traditions, such as sacred smoking, at Catholic Mass.

You might keep the statues if you ditch the rest 

[ConfusedRC]

Not to derail too much, but why does one Church use leavened bread and the other doesn't?

The Leavened bread is not an issue, at least for us O.O.

The Armenian Orthodox Church uses unleavened bread. As long as the Sacrament is done it doesn't matter it is the Body of Christ.

What I have a problem though with the Roman Catholics is that they don't give out the blood but only the body. 
I also Dislike they way the worship, I feel like I'm in a protestant church and not an Apostolic Church. At least here in America.
I also dislike that they don't Christmate the Baptized child after the baptism.


And also the Dogma of Mary not born with Original Sin. That is a Heresy!

Here is why:

Original sin or the separation from God when Adam and Eve sinned. After the fall all who were born are separated from God because of Adams sin. So we all need Salvation. Now when the Virgin St. Mary is born she was separated from God, because she is Human. Although we believe she was perserved from Sin but nevertheless she is separated from God as a result of Adam.

Saying she was not born with Original Sin - is saying that She is not Human , or a son of Adam , or that She is Divine or from Heaven because All of Mankind have fallen short of the Glory of God.

Only Christ is born from Above and was not and is not or ever separated from God. His Divinity always was united with His humanity, thus not only did He not sin He was not born with that Separation or scar.

Saying that the Virgin St. Mary is born without the Separation of God is Heresy because of the above.

Thanks for the explanation.

I've also struggled with The Immaculate Conception.

[Romaios]

Not to derail too much, but why does one Church use leavened bread and the other doesn't?

(Matza = the unleavened bread used by the Jews on Passover; the rhetoric is rampantly anti-Judaic)

1. The True Lamb rose and broke his body
for the perfect ones who ate the Passover Lamb.

                  Refrain: Glory to Christ who by his body
                             Brought an end to the People’s matza along with the People.

                  ........................

5. The wicked People who desire our death
enticingly offer us death through food.

6. The tree that Eve saw was desirable
And matza is just as desirable.

7. But from that lovely tree was revealed death:
death is concealed in fine matza.

8. Although the dead lion was very unclean
its bitterness offered sweetness (Judges 14.9)

9. In a bitter lion there was fine honey (Judges 14.9)
In sweet matza, a deadly poison!

10. Angels longed for that unleavened bread
that  Sarah baked, because it symbolised [Christ] (Genesis 18.6).
                  .................

11. Loathe matza, brethren!
It signifies Iscariot.

12. Again, flee from matza, brethren!
Its purity harbours a stench.

13. For the ‘putrid name’ that Moses wrote   (Exodus. 32.25 in Syriac)
lies in matza’s wholesomeness

14. The People craved garlic and onions (Numeri 11.5)
their matza reeks along with their food.

15. Elijah took bread from unclean ravens (1 Kings 17.6)
Because he knew that it was pure.

16. Don't take that matza, brethren,
from the People with blood-spattered hands
                 
17. Lest some of that filth in which their hands are steeped
should cling to that unleavened bread.

18. Even if meat is clean, no one eats
from what’s been sacrificed, since it's defiled.

19. How much more unclean is matza,
kneaded by hands that killed the Son!

20. It's an abomination to take food
from a hand defiled with animal blood.

21. Who would take anything from the hand
utterly defiled with the prophets’ blood?

22. My brethren, don’t eat the matza of the People
– deadly poison – together with the elixir of life
                 
23. For the blood of the Messiah is present, mixed into
the People's matza and our Eucharist
                   
24. Anyone who takes it in the Eucharist takes the elixir of life:
Anyone who eats it with the People takes a lethal drug
                 
25. For that blood of which they cried, ‘Let it be upon us!’ (Matthew 27.25)
is mixed into their feasts and their Sabbaths.
                 
26. Whoever joins in their feasts
he too becomes spattered with the blood.
                 
27. The People that did not eat pork
is a blood-stained pig.
                 
28. Flee from it, keep your distance as it shakes itself
lest it stain you with a spattering of the blood.

Source

[Tikhon29605]

The Pope and the filioque are the big ones. Some Orthodox will give you a huge list of differences they think are important but really those are the only two.

I honestly don’t understand what you are saying.  We see a whole lot of contention here on many other Catholic teachings.  For example,  do you say that the following are not important differences?
Purgatory
Indulgences
The difference in Catholicism between mortal and venial sin
The use of statues instead of icons
The Immaculate Conception
Baptism by sprinkling, not triple immersion
Reception of Holy Communion by unleavened bread, without the wine.
The devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
The devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
The shrines at Fatima and Lourdes to Mary
The Roman  modern “icons”, so that Mary  is pictured in modern terms, not in the traditional Byzantine icon way.
The Catholic teaching on divorce and birth control.
The Catholic teaching that once you are in hell, there is no way anyone can pray you out of it.
The use of guitars, drums, electric organs, clowns, puppets,  modern music, dancing,  clapping, laughing and swaying to and fro  at Catholic Liturgy.
The Catholic use of pagan aborigine traditions, such as sacred smoking, at Catholic Mass.

The highlighted portions are more nuanced differences than you might think at first.  Saying that we differ from Rome on the distinction between mortal and venial sins is a bit of a stretch.  Orthodox actually do accept that idea in principle, although we usually don't phrase it that way.  If have made confession to Orthodox priests who taught a distinction between mortal and venial sins.  I actually found it helpful.  The idea is in the Bible too.  My priest showed me.  Actually, the idea that all sin is somehow "equal" ignores degrees of sin and wickedness. People intrinsically know the difference between mortal and venial sins simply by the conscience God has written on our hearts.  Here's an example:

The Scriptures tell us to obey the Civil Authorities.  The Civil Authorities have set the speed limit at 55 mph.  You regularly drive 57 mph.  Technically, you are breaking the law. In some sense, you are sinning, since you are deliberately or carelessly disobeying the Civil Authorities. This is a venial sin.  It doesn't cut you off from God immediately, but it could lead to mortal sin (such as killing someone with your vehicle) if it were left unchecked or you gave into the passion to break the speed limit more violently.

Now compare the above to the infamous killer Ted Bundy.  Bundy regularly stalked young co-eds in Florida and systematically planned to kill them.  He did this numerous times.  Every single time he did it, it was deliberate pre-meditated, cold-blooded, first degree murder.  The women Bundy killed had done nothing to him.  They had not injured him or caused him any harm.  In fact, all of them were minding their own business and living their own lives.  They were completely innocent. Murder is one of those sins that cries out to God for justice. It immediately cuts you off from communion with God, until it is confessed and repented of. It is a prime example of a mortal (deathly) sin.  Its called "mortal" because it kills our spiritual life and communion with God immediately when it is committed.  

Would anyone seriously say that the sin of driving one mile over the speed limit is equal to the sin of murder?  That's all that the mortal versus venial sin thing is trying to answer.  It isn't something evil that the Roman Church dreamed up. Its also a way for you to keep your perspective when you go to confession and not become overly scrupulous.

[ConfusedRC]

The Pope and the filioque are the big ones. Some Orthodox will give you a huge list of differences they think are important but really those are the only two.

I honestly don’t understand what you are saying.  We see a whole lot of contention here on many other Catholic teachings.  For example,  do you say that the following are not important differences?
Purgatory
Indulgences
The difference in Catholicism between mortal and venial sin
The use of statues instead of icons
The Immaculate Conception
Baptism by sprinkling, not triple immersion
Reception of Holy Communion by unleavened bread, without the wine.
The devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
The devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
The shrines at Fatima and Lourdes to Mary
The Roman  modern “icons”, so that Mary  is pictured in modern terms, not in the traditional Byzantine icon way.
The Catholic teaching on divorce and birth control.
The Catholic teaching that once you are in hell, there is no way anyone can pray you out of it.
The use of guitars, drums, electric organs, clowns, puppets,  modern music, dancing,  clapping, laughing and swaying to and fro  at Catholic Liturgy.
The Catholic use of pagan aborigine traditions, such as sacred smoking, at Catholic Mass.

The highlighted portions are more nuanced differences than you might think at first.  Saying that we differ from Rome on the distinction between mortal and venial sins is a bit of a stretch.  Orthodox actually do accept that idea in principle, although we usually don't phrase it that way.  If have made confession to Orthodox priests who taught a distinction between mortal and venial sins.  I actually found it helpful.  The idea is in the Bible too.  My priest showed me.  Actually, the idea that all sin is somehow "equal" ignores degrees of sin and wickedness. People intrinsically know the difference between mortal and venial sins simply by the conscience God has written on our hearts.  Here's an example:

The Scriptures tell us to obey the Civil Authorities.  The Civil Authorities have set the speed limit at 55 mph.  You regularly drive 57 mph.  Technically, you are breaking the law. In some sense, you are sinning, since you are deliberately or carelessly disobeying the Civil Authorities. This is a venial sin.  It doesn't cut you off from God immediately, but it could lead to mortal sin (such as killing someone with your vehicle) if it were left unchecked or you gave into the passion to break the speed limit more violently.

Now compare the above to the infamous killer Ted Bundy.  Bundy regularly stalked young co-eds in Florida and systematically planned to kill them.  He did this numerous times.  Every single time he did it, it was deliberate pre-meditated, cold-blooded, first degree murder.  The women Bundy killed had done nothing to him.  They had not injured him or caused him any harm.  In fact, all of them were minding their own business and living their own lives.  They were completely innocent. Murder is one of those sins that cries out to God for justice. It immediately cuts you off from communion with God, until it is confessed and repented of. It is a prime example of a mortal (deathly) sin.  Its called "mortal" because it kills our spiritual life and communion with God immediately when it is committed.  

Would anyone seriously say that the sin of driving one mile over the speed limit is equal to the sin of murder?  That's all that the mortal versus venial sin thing is trying to answer.  It isn't something evil that the Roman Church dreamed up. Its also a way for you to keep your perspective when you go to confession and not become overly scrupulous.

What about Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception?

quoting tags editted - MK

[Sinful Hypocrite]

The Pope and the filioque are the big ones. Some Orthodox will give you a huge list of differences they think are important but really those are the only two.

I honestly don’t understand what you are saying.  We see a whole lot of contention here on many other Catholic teachings.  For example,  do you say that the following are not important differences?
Purgatory
Indulgences
The difference in Catholicism between mortal and venial sin
The use of statues instead of icons
The Immaculate Conception
Baptism by sprinkling, not triple immersion
Reception of Holy Communion by unleavened bread, without the wine.
The devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
The devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
The shrines at Fatima and Lourdes to Mary
The Roman  modern “icons”, so that Mary  is pictured in modern terms, not in the traditional Byzantine icon way.
The Catholic teaching on divorce and birth control.
The Catholic teaching that once you are in hell, there is no way anyone can pray you out of it.
The use of guitars, drums, electric organs, clowns, puppets,  modern music, dancing,  clapping, laughing and swaying to and fro  at Catholic Liturgy.
The Catholic use of pagan aborigine traditions, such as sacred smoking, at Catholic Mass.

Do you Think Jesus would be impressed with either one in view of his admonition of his disciples and his own religious leaders, No his instruction stands for us as then, do what they say, not what they do.

◄  Matthew 23:3  ►

New International Version (©2011)
So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

[Rufus]

The Pope and the filioque are the big ones. Some Orthodox will give you a huge list of differences they think are important but really those are the only two.

I honestly don’t understand what you are saying.  We see a whole lot of contention here on many other Catholic teachings.  For example,  do you say that the following are not important differences?
Purgatory
Indulgences
The difference in Catholicism between mortal and venial sin
The use of statues instead of icons
The Immaculate Conception
Baptism by sprinkling, not triple immersion
Reception of Holy Communion by unleavened bread, without the wine.
The devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
The devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
The shrines at Fatima and Lourdes to Mary
The Roman  modern “icons”, so that Mary  is pictured in modern terms, not in the traditional Byzantine icon way.
The Catholic teaching on divorce and birth control.
The Catholic teaching that once you are in hell, there is no way anyone can pray you out of it.
The use of guitars, drums, electric organs, clowns, puppets,  modern music, dancing,  clapping, laughing and swaying to and fro  at Catholic Liturgy.
The Catholic use of pagan aborigine traditions, such as sacred smoking, at Catholic Mass.

As in the other thread, you have taken the weird views of people on this forum as representative of the Orthodox Church.

Iconodule is essentially right. Historically, it has been the Papacy and the Filioque and maybe a couple other things.

Some of the things you've listed are obviously not even differences.

Of course, there are many differences. But there are only a handful that have ever caused much contention.

[truthseeker32]

In my search I have found that there are more differences between the two Churches than most Roman Catholics think there are, and there are fewer differences than Orthodox Christians think there are. The few actual differences that come to mind are the view of Hell and Purgatory, Papal Infallibility and Supremacy, the Filioque, the Immaculate Conception, and Original Sin.

[stanley123]

The Pope and the filioque are the big ones. Some Orthodox will give you a huge list of differences they think are important but really those are the only two.

I honestly don’t understand what you are saying.  We see a whole lot of contention here on many other Catholic teachings.  For example,  do you say that the following are not important differences?
Purgatory
Indulgences
The difference in Catholicism between mortal and venial sin
The use of statues instead of icons
The Immaculate Conception
Baptism by sprinkling, not triple immersion
Reception of Holy Communion by unleavened bread, without the wine.
The devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
The devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
The shrines at Fatima and Lourdes to Mary
The Roman  modern “icons”, so that Mary  is pictured in modern terms, not in the traditional Byzantine icon way.
The Catholic teaching on divorce and birth control.
The Catholic teaching that once you are in hell, there is no way anyone can pray you out of it.
The use of guitars, drums, electric organs, clowns, puppets,  modern music, dancing,  clapping, laughing and swaying to and fro  at Catholic Liturgy.
The Catholic use of pagan aborigine traditions, such as sacred smoking, at Catholic Mass.

The highlighted portions are more nuanced differences than you might think at first.  Saying that we differ from Rome on the distinction between mortal and venial sins is a bit of a stretch.  Orthodox actually do accept that idea in principle, although we usually don't phrase it that way.  If have made confession to Orthodox priests who taught a distinction between mortal and venial sins.  I actually found it helpful.  The idea is in the Bible too.  My priest showed me.  Actually, the idea that all sin is somehow "equal" ignores degrees of sin and wickedness. People intrinsically know the difference between mortal and venial sins simply by the conscience God has written on our hearts.  Here's an example:

The Scriptures tell us to obey the Civil Authorities.  The Civil Authorities have set the speed limit at 55 mph.  You regularly drive 57 mph.  Technically, you are breaking the law. In some sense, you are sinning, since you are deliberately or carelessly disobeying the Civil Authorities. This is a venial sin.  It doesn't cut you off from God immediately, but it could lead to mortal sin (such as killing someone with your vehicle) if it were left unchecked or you gave into the passion to break the speed limit more violently.

Now compare the above to the infamous killer Ted Bundy.  Bundy regularly stalked young co-eds in Florida and systematically planned to kill them.  He did this numerous times.  Every single time he did it, it was deliberate pre-meditated, cold-blooded, first degree murder.  The women Bundy killed had done nothing to him.  They had not injured him or caused him any harm.  In fact, all of them were minding their own business and living their own lives.  They were completely innocent. Murder is one of those sins that cries out to God for justice. It immediately cuts you off from communion with God, until it is confessed and repented of. It is a prime example of a mortal (deathly) sin.  Its called "mortal" because it kills our spiritual life and communion with God immediately when it is committed.  

Would anyone seriously say that the sin of driving one mile over the speed limit is equal to the sin of murder?  That's all that the mortal versus venial sin thing is trying to answer.  It isn't something evil that the Roman Church dreamed up. Its also a way for you to keep your perspective when you go to confession and not become overly scrupulous.

I agree that there is a distinction between mortal and venial sin. It seems pretty obvious to me, as your example shows.  However, I have been told that some Orthodox do not agree with this. When I brought up a similar example of someone picking a flower in a park, where there is a do not pick the flowers sign, but there are millions of flowers around,  there were objections to my contention that this was a venial sin. I don't think that you would go to eternal fire in hell if you picked a flower in such a circumstance. But now let's go one step further, if there are indeed mortal and venial sins, then does that imply the existence of Purgatory for those with unforgiven venial sins? 

[stanley123]

The Pope and the filioque are the big ones. Some Orthodox will give you a huge list of differences they think are important but really those are the only two.

I honestly don’t understand what you are saying.  We see a whole lot of contention here on many other Catholic teachings.  For example,  do you say that the following are not important differences?
Purgatory
Indulgences
The difference in Catholicism between mortal and venial sin
The use of statues instead of icons
The Immaculate Conception
Baptism by sprinkling, not triple immersion
Reception of Holy Communion by unleavened bread, without the wine.
The devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
The devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
The shrines at Fatima and Lourdes to Mary
The Roman  modern “icons”, so that Mary  is pictured in modern terms, not in the traditional Byzantine icon way.
The Catholic teaching on divorce and birth control.
The Catholic teaching that once you are in hell, there is no way anyone can pray you out of it.
The use of guitars, drums, electric organs, clowns, puppets,  modern music, dancing,  clapping, laughing and swaying to and fro  at Catholic Liturgy.
The Catholic use of pagan aborigine traditions, such as sacred smoking, at Catholic Mass.

As in the other thread, you have taken the weird views of people on this forum as representative of the Orthodox Church.

Iconodule is essentially right. Historically, it has been the Papacy and the Filioque and maybe a couple other things.

Some of the things you've listed are obviously not even differences.

Of course, there are many differences. But there are only a handful that have ever caused much contention.

Would it be possible  to elaborate on which are the weird views of people on this forum and which are serious differences between the two Churches, in your opinion?

[Rufus]

The Pope and the filioque are the big ones. Some Orthodox will give you a huge list of differences they think are important but really those are the only two.

I honestly don’t understand what you are saying.  We see a whole lot of contention here on many other Catholic teachings.  For example,  do you say that the following are not important differences?
Purgatory
Indulgences
The difference in Catholicism between mortal and venial sin
The use of statues instead of icons
The Immaculate Conception
Baptism by sprinkling, not triple immersion
Reception of Holy Communion by unleavened bread, without the wine.
The devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
The devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
The shrines at Fatima and Lourdes to Mary
The Roman  modern “icons”, so that Mary  is pictured in modern terms, not in the traditional Byzantine icon way.
The Catholic teaching on divorce and birth control.
The Catholic teaching that once you are in hell, there is no way anyone can pray you out of it.
The use of guitars, drums, electric organs, clowns, puppets,  modern music, dancing,  clapping, laughing and swaying to and fro  at Catholic Liturgy.
The Catholic use of pagan aborigine traditions, such as sacred smoking, at Catholic Mass.

As in the other thread, you have taken the weird views of people on this forum as representative of the Orthodox Church.

Iconodule is essentially right. Historically, it has been the Papacy and the Filioque and maybe a couple other things.

Some of the things you've listed are obviously not even differences.

Of course, there are many differences. But there are only a handful that have ever caused much contention.

Would it be possible  to elaborate on which are the weird views of people on this forum and which are serious differences between the two Churches, in your opinion?

Sure. I'll go down the list.

Purgatory--This is a legitimate point of discussion. Although some here have pointed out the nuances of this issue, I've never met an Orthodox face-to-face who, to my knowledge, believed in Purgatory.

Indulgences--these were formerly sold in the Orthodox Church. The whole Idea seems dumb to me, but that's not the point.

The difference in Catholicism between mortal and venial sin--Most people don't even understand what this distinction is...

The use of statues instead of icons--It's my understanding that statues are not used instead of icons, i.e. they do not fulfill the same functions. A long time ago I had a discussion with ElijahMaria on whether the veneration of images as such even takes place in Catholicism.

The Immaculate Conception--For many Orthodox, this is certainly perceived as a difference. More subtle thinkers have realized that different perspectives on original sin cloud any attempts to compare this doctrine with any corresponding Orthodox belief.

Baptism by sprinkling, not triple immersion--OK, this is a difference.

Reception of Holy Communion by unleavened bread, without the wine.--Historically, this has definitely been a big deal.

OK, now I think you're starting to get carried away:

The devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, The devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, The shrines at Fatima and Lourdes to Mary
Anyone who thinks these sorts of things are a big deal is just not thinking very clearly, or else is way over my head...in RL, I have never, ever heard Orthodox criticize things like this. I'm pretty sure most Orthodox would be uncomfortable with Catholic devotionals, and wouldn't practice them, but this can't reasonably be attributed to doctrine. Prayer practices are, after all, something extremely personal...one typically does not casually try something new, especially borrowing from other religions.

The Roman  modern “icons”, so that Mary  is pictured in modern terms, not in the traditional Byzantine icon way.--Miss. Lots of icons have been painted in modern styles, especially among the Greeks, even following Western types (e.g. the Western depiction of Christ rising from the tomb vs. the old Eastern image of Him trampling the doors of Hades). These images are treated just like any icon in the OC. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge this fact needs to break out of their bubble.

Frankly, I prefer these images to the New Retro-Byzantine icons, but that's just me.

The Catholic teaching on divorce and birth control.--It's my understanding that at least in some places, there is division among the Orthodox on birth control.

The Catholic teaching that once you are in hell, there is no way anyone can pray you out of it.--Yes, the idea that you can pray people out of hell is weird indeed.

The use of guitars, drums, electric organs, clowns, puppets,  modern music, dancing,  clapping, laughing and swaying to and fro  at Catholic Liturgy.--OK, I am terribly confused about the Clown Masses. Too many conflicting messages. Is it a hoax or not?

The Catholic use of pagan aborigine traditions, such as sacred smoking, at Catholic Mass.--time for a nap.

To take a different approach, you're right that "weird views on the forum" is an exaggeration, but on how many of the above points can you produce serious theological literature?

PS--Orthodox use electric organs too.

PPS--You forgot the Assumption. Orthodox have managed to believe in it and reject it for being Catholic at the same time. Miracles happen.

PPPS--You forgot the calendar, duh! It's probably a more important difference in most people's eyes than anything you mentioned above. I hope you enjoyed Orthodox Palm Sunday...God showed his favor by giving us nice weather...at least here...He always does.

[stanley123]

PPS--You forgot the Assumption. Orthodox have managed to believe in it and reject it for being Catholic at the same time. Miracles happen.

PPPS--You forgot the calendar, duh! It's probably a more important difference in most people's eyes than anything you mentioned above. I hope you enjoyed Orthodox Palm Sunday...God showed his favor by giving us nice weather...at least here...He always does.

I didn't mention the Assumption because the Orthodox have the teaching of the falling asleep of Mary.
I didn't mention the calendar issue because first of all, I don't understand it, and secondly, some Orthodox go by the "Reformed Julian" calendar, which really isn't a reform of  the Julian, but is more like a reform of the Gregorian. In fact, it really is the Gregorian calendar, although some Orthodox make a big deal about the fact that it will be one or two days off 1000 years from now. Actually, it won't be, because they will figure out a way to realign the two calendars way before then.

[Apotheoun]

The following is a Ukrainian Greek Catholic handout highlighting some of the differences between Roman Rite and Byzantine Rite Catholics:

[Cyrillic]

Those images make Latin Traditionalists go berserk.

[J Michael]

Those images make Latin Traditionalists go berserk.

Which, and why?

[Cyrillic]

Those images make Latin Traditionalists go berserk.

Which, and why?

The ones Apotheoun posted. The  "we like things that are new and modern and use them in worship" and "the priest faces across the altar" usually does it.

[Rufus]

Hey Apotheoun, is there a link to these images?

Thanks!

[Apotheoun]

Hey Apotheoun, is there a link to these images?

Thanks!

I do not remember the original site I downloaded the images from, but I think the site was affiliated with the Sheptytsky Institute (n.b., they - as the images indicate - produced the pamphlet).

Here is a link to a pdf of the pamphlet from the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of New Westminster Canada:

Two Different Traditions - One Catholic Church

[stanley123]

Hey Apotheoun, is there a link to these images?

Thanks!

I do not remember the original site I downloaded the images from, but I think the site was affiliated with the Sheptytsky Institute (n.b., they - as the images indicate - produced the pamphlet).

Here is a link to a pdf of the pamphlet from the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of New Westminster Canada:

Two Different Traditions - One Catholic Church

I like what the pamphlet is saying about two different traditions coexisting in harmony, but I am not so sure that the Eastern  Orthodox are buying that message.

[Romaios]

I like what the pamphlet is saying about two different traditions coexisting in harmony, but I am not so sure that the Eastern  Orthodox are buying that message.

I don't know about other ECs, but the stuff on the right-hand side doesn't apply much to Romanian Greek Catholics these days.

[Deacon Lance]

Baptism by sprinkling, not triple immersion--OK, this is a difference.

There are three ways to baptize, immersion(dunking), affusion(pouring), and aspersion(sprinkling).  The East has always maintained immersion as nomative while allowing for affusion depending on circumstance, and not recognizing aspersion at all.  The West adopted affusion as normative while never surpressing immersion.  Aspersion was viewed as illicit or invalid depending on the commentator.  Currently aspersion is viewed as illicit and is considered a grave abuse if used outside of life/death circumstances.  Of course that does not mean it doesn't occur and I mysef have witnessed such a baptism at an Easter Vigil of all places.

I often see the normative Roman Rite form of baptism described here as sprinkling which it is not.

[Sinful Hypocrite]

The Pope and the filioque are the big ones. Some Orthodox will give you a huge list of differences they think are important but really those are the only two.

I honestly don’t understand what you are saying.  We see a whole lot of contention here on many other Catholic teachings.  For example,  do you say that the following are not important differences?
Purgatory
Indulgences
The difference in Catholicism between mortal and venial sin
The use of statues instead of icons
The Immaculate Conception
Baptism by sprinkling, not triple immersion
Reception of Holy Communion by unleavened bread, without the wine.
The devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
The devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
The shrines at Fatima and Lourdes to Mary
The Roman  modern “icons”, so that Mary  is pictured in modern terms, not in the traditional Byzantine icon way.
The Catholic teaching on divorce and birth control.
The Catholic teaching that once you are in hell, there is no way anyone can pray you out of it.
The use of guitars, drums, electric organs, clowns, puppets,  modern music, dancing,  clapping, laughing and swaying to and fro  at Catholic Liturgy.
The Catholic use of pagan aborigine traditions, such as sacred smoking, at Catholic Mass.

The highlighted portions are more nuanced differences than you might think at first.  Saying that we differ from Rome on the distinction between mortal and venial sins is a bit of a stretch.  Orthodox actually do accept that idea in principle, although we usually don't phrase it that way.  If have made confession to Orthodox priests who taught a distinction between mortal and venial sins.  I actually found it helpful.  The idea is in the Bible too.  My priest showed me.  Actually, the idea that all sin is somehow "equal" ignores degrees of sin and wickedness. People intrinsically know the difference between mortal and venial sins simply by the conscience God has written on our hearts.  Here's an example:

The Scriptures tell us to obey the Civil Authorities.  The Civil Authorities have set the speed limit at 55 mph.  You regularly drive 57 mph.  Technically, you are breaking the law. In some sense, you are sinning, since you are deliberately or carelessly disobeying the Civil Authorities. This is a venial sin.  It doesn't cut you off from God immediately, but it could lead to mortal sin (such as killing someone with your vehicle) if it were left unchecked or you gave into the passion to break the speed limit more violently.

Now compare the above to the infamous killer Ted Bundy.  Bundy regularly stalked young co-eds in Florida and systematically planned to kill them.  He did this numerous times.  Every single time he did it, it was deliberate pre-meditated, cold-blooded, first degree murder.  The women Bundy killed had done nothing to him.  They had not injured him or caused him any harm.  In fact, all of them were minding their own business and living their own lives.  They were completely innocent. Murder is one of those sins that cries out to God for justice. It immediately cuts you off from communion with God, until it is confessed and repented of. It is a prime example of a mortal (deathly) sin.  Its called "mortal" because it kills our spiritual life and communion with God immediately when it is committed.  

Would anyone seriously say that the sin of driving one mile over the speed limit is equal to the sin of murder?  That's all that the mortal versus venial sin thing is trying to answer.  It isn't something evil that the Roman Church dreamed up. Its also a way for you to keep your perspective when you go to confession and not become overly scrupulous.

This is not what Jesus taught in the Gospels, he said that all sin can be forgiven, that the one without sin should cast the stone, he did not attempt to categorize sin, but he said all sins are forgivable. Where in the Gospel does Christ teach what you are saying?

The issue is really a different one, it is that in God's eyes we are all lacking, no matter what you did, we are told to forgive so we can be forgiven, that is what Jesus taught.

People want to judge the Ted Bundies of the world, as if you are Good and he is Bad. Jesus said we are all evil. The Epistles tell us there is no one who does good , no not one.
God wants us to admit our sins and he will forgive based on your willingness to forgive others as well as your attitude towards your own sin. It is more important to acknowledge our own sin than to say well I never did this or that, as if we do not need a saviour, because we
never did what Bundy did.

In the Greek Orthodox prayer before Holy Communion, there is a part where we say I count myself among the sinners , Of Which I am the worst. we are taught to say we are the worst sinner, not that we did not murder or anything real bad like him.

 All sin can be forgiven, so what determines our salvation is our repentance, not the sin.

Luke 18
9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

[Rufus]

Baptism by sprinkling, not triple immersion--OK, this is a difference.

There are three ways to baptize, immersion(dunking), affusion(pouring), and aspersion(sprinkling).  The East has always maintained immersion as nomative while allowing for affusion depending on circumstance, and not recognizing aspersion at all.  The West adopted affusion as normative while never surpressing immersion.  Aspersion was viewed as illicit or invalid depending on the commentator.  Currently aspersion is viewed as illicit and is considered a grave abuse if used outside of life/death circumstances.  Of course that does not mean it doesn't occur and I mysef have witnessed such a baptism at an Easter Vigil of all places.

I often see the normative Roman Rite form of baptism described here as sprinkling which it is not.

Thanks for the catch on the sprinkling. Don't know if this is to your point or not, but it's still a difference, since although pouring is legitimate in the OC, it's only reserved for extraordinary circumstances.

[Rufus]

Hey Apotheoun, is there a link to these images?

Thanks!

I do not remember the original site I downloaded the images from, but I think the site was affiliated with the Sheptytsky Institute (n.b., they - as the images indicate - produced the pamphlet).

Here is a link to a pdf of the pamphlet from the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of New Westminster Canada:

Two Different Traditions - One Catholic Church

I like what the pamphlet is saying about two different traditions coexisting in harmony, but I am not so sure that the Eastern  Orthodox are buying that message.

It's talking about Eastern Rite Catholics, though, not Orthodox. I nonetheless liked the liturgical comparisons very much.

[stanley123]

Hey Apotheoun, is there a link to these images?

Thanks!

I do not remember the original site I downloaded the images from, but I think the site was affiliated with the Sheptytsky Institute (n.b., they - as the images indicate - produced the pamphlet).

Here is a link to a pdf of the pamphlet from the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of New Westminster Canada:

Two Different Traditions - One Catholic Church

I like what the pamphlet is saying about two different traditions coexisting in harmony, but I am not so sure that the Eastern  Orthodox are buying that message.

It's talking about Eastern Rite Catholics, though, not Orthodox. I nonetheless liked the liturgical comparisons very much.

You are right about the comparison in the pamphlet  being between EC and RC, of course. But taking the comparison one step further, would you find many Orthodox who would say that the Roman Catholic tradition as we know it to be today, is equally good with the Eastern Orthodox tradition?

[stanley123]

The Catholic use of pagan aborigine traditions, such as sacred smoking, at Catholic Mass.--time for a nap.

I agree  with the nap idea. But two posters, made a big deal about sacred smoking here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50510.0.html

[jmbejdl]

Hey Apotheoun, is there a link to these images?

Thanks!

I do not remember the original site I downloaded the images from, but I think the site was affiliated with the Sheptytsky Institute (n.b., they - as the images indicate - produced the pamphlet).

Here is a link to a pdf of the pamphlet from the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of New Westminster Canada:

Two Different Traditions - One Catholic Church

I like what the pamphlet is saying about two different traditions coexisting in harmony, but I am not so sure that the Eastern  Orthodox are buying that message.

It's talking about Eastern Rite Catholics, though, not Orthodox. I nonetheless liked the liturgical comparisons very much.

You are right about the comparison in the pamphlet  being between EC and RC, of course. But taking the comparison one step further, would you find many Orthodox who would say that the Roman Catholic tradition as we know it to be today, is equally good with the Eastern Orthodox tradition?

If the Roman Catholic faith were to be Orthodox, yes - that's why we have the Western Rite. Of course the RC faith is not Orthodox so interesting as Apotheoun's post is for ascertaining what are non-essential differences it's not all that relevant with regards to the essential differences between the Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Admittedly there are some Orthodox who seem to see the Western Rite as wrong (but I know Latin Rite Catholics who have very similar views about Greek Catholics - in fact I know quite a few who are far more anti the Greek Catholics than Orthodox in the same town are), but I'd say such a view is relatively uncommon.

James

[TheTrisagion]

The biggest one is probably the different theological directions that the western and eastern fathers went into. The Roman Catholic Church is more influenced by a view of Augustinianism formulated by Anselm, known for its legalistic tendencies and deification being almost non-existent. I think that this is perhaps the greatest difference between the two Churches and one that is the most overlooked.

I agree with Iconodule and disagree with your post. We always had differences in theological views without it dividing the Church. The problem is not caused by the mere existence of these differing approaches otherwise we'd have been divided much earlier - there's room for both the legal and the medical metaphor in the Church. The problem comes when one dogmatises a particular approach, hence the big issue is the Papacy. All the others (even the filioque - if he doesn't have the authority he claims to trump an ecumenical council then it's clear who's in the wrong) stem from that.

James

I actually agree with JamesR on this.  The OP asked what are the main differences, not what divides us.  Those are two different things.  The Pope and the Filioque is what divides us, but the metaphorical approaches that each tradition takes are very different from each other.

[jmbejdl]

The biggest one is probably the different theological directions that the western and eastern fathers went into. The Roman Catholic Church is more influenced by a view of Augustinianism formulated by Anselm, known for its legalistic tendencies and deification being almost non-existent. I think that this is perhaps the greatest difference between the two Churches and one that is the most overlooked.

I agree with Iconodule and disagree with your post. We always had differences in theological views without it dividing the Church. The problem is not caused by the mere existence of these differing approaches otherwise we'd have been divided much earlier - there's room for both the legal and the medical metaphor in the Church. The problem comes when one dogmatises a particular approach, hence the big issue is the Papacy. All the others (even the filioque - if he doesn't have the authority he claims to trump an ecumenical council then it's clear who's in the wrong) stem from that.

James

I actually agree with JamesR on this.  The OP asked what are the main differences, not what divides us.  Those are two different things.  The Pope and the Filioque is what divides us, but the metaphorical approaches that each tradition takes are very different from each other.

You agree with JamesR that this difference is the main one? That's what he said in the post with which I disagreed and that's what I disagreed with. I didn't claim that the difference did not exist (clearly as I mentioned that it had even existed before the Schism) but disagreed with his mischaracterisation of it as the 'main difference'. As I wrote, I agreed much more closely with Iconodule's assessment, but I wasn't trying to cover all the differences as requested in the OP.

James

[TheTrisagion]

The biggest one is probably the different theological directions that the western and eastern fathers went into. The Roman Catholic Church is more influenced by a view of Augustinianism formulated by Anselm, known for its legalistic tendencies and deification being almost non-existent. I think that this is perhaps the greatest difference between the two Churches and one that is the most overlooked.

I agree with Iconodule and disagree with your post. We always had differences in theological views without it dividing the Church. The problem is not caused by the mere existence of these differing approaches otherwise we'd have been divided much earlier - there's room for both the legal and the medical metaphor in the Church. The problem comes when one dogmatises a particular approach, hence the big issue is the Papacy. All the others (even the filioque - if he doesn't have the authority he claims to trump an ecumenical council then it's clear who's in the wrong) stem from that.

James

I actually agree with JamesR on this.  The OP asked what are the main differences, not what divides us.  Those are two different things.  The Pope and the Filioque is what divides us, but the metaphorical approaches that each tradition takes are very different from each other.

You agree with JamesR that this difference is the main one? That's what he said in the post with which I disagreed and that's what I disagreed with. I didn't claim that the difference did not exist (clearly as I mentioned that it had even existed before the Schism) but disagreed with his mischaracterisation of it as the 'main difference'. As I wrote, I agreed much more closely with Iconodule's assessment, but I wasn't trying to cover all the differences as requested in the OP.

James

I think it is the biggest difference.  I think the RC theological thought on the Pope and the Filioque stems from the difference in perspective.  It is because of this difference that different issues have grown into divisions.  If the western and eastern Churches were approaching it from a common viewpoint,  I think the divisions would not have arose.

[jmbejdl]

I think it is the biggest difference.  I think the RC theological thought on the Pope and the Filioque stems from the difference in perspective.  It is because of this difference that different issues have grown into divisions.  If the western and eastern Churches were approaching it from a common viewpoint,  I think the divisions would not have arose.

Fair enough. I disagree completely but you are entitled to your opinion. So far as I can see, the development of Rome's idiosyncratic view of what its primacy entailed is not dependent on such differences of approach at all, and it's not difficult to imagine circumstances that might have led an eastern Patriarchate to a similar position despite holding to a more 'eastern' approach. Once the primacy of Rome had morphed, in the minds of the Romans alone, into a Papal monarchy, the schism was inevitable.

I find it very hard to see how the sort of difference JamesR describes must have inevitably led to the Papacy, and without the Papacy I see no reason that they would have inevitably led to schism.

James

[TheTrisagion]

I think it is the biggest difference.  I think the RC theological thought on the Pope and the Filioque stems from the difference in perspective.  It is because of this difference that different issues have grown into divisions.  If the western and eastern Churches were approaching it from a common viewpoint,  I think the divisions would not have arose.

Fair enough. I disagree completely but you are entitled to your opinion. So far as I can see, the development of Rome's idiosyncratic view of what its primacy entailed is not dependent on such differences of approach at all, and it's not difficult to imagine circumstances that might have led an eastern Patriarchate to a similar position despite holding to a more 'eastern' approach. Once the primacy of Rome had morphed, in the minds of the Romans alone, into a Papal monarchy, the schism was inevitable.

I find it very hard to see how the sort of difference JamesR describes must have inevitably led to the Papacy, and without the Papacy I see no reason that they would have inevitably led to schism.

James

I of course could be very wrong, but I think when looking at the Church as a hospital, Christ is the Great Physician, but there are many doctors.  When looking at the Church from a legal sense, there is one judge.  RC will say that is Christ, and the Pope is his proxy.

[Rufus]

The biggest one is probably the different theological directions that the western and eastern fathers went into. The Roman Catholic Church is more influenced by a view of Augustinianism formulated by Anselm, known for its legalistic tendencies and deification being almost non-existent. I think that this is perhaps the greatest difference between the two Churches and one that is the most overlooked.

I agree with Iconodule and disagree with your post. We always had differences in theological views without it dividing the Church. The problem is not caused by the mere existence of these differing approaches otherwise we'd have been divided much earlier - there's room for both the legal and the medical metaphor in the Church. The problem comes when one dogmatises a particular approach, hence the big issue is the Papacy. All the others (even the filioque - if he doesn't have the authority he claims to trump an ecumenical council then it's clear who's in the wrong) stem from that.

James

I actually agree with JamesR on this.  The OP asked what are the main differences, not what divides us.  Those are two different things.  The Pope and the Filioque is what divides us, but the metaphorical approaches that each tradition takes are very different from each other.

Good point. Although there are numerous differences, especially in practice, it's really only a few things that have played an appreciable historical role in the schism.

[Rufus]

Hey Apotheoun, is there a link to these images?

Thanks!

I do not remember the original site I downloaded the images from, but I think the site was affiliated with the Sheptytsky Institute (n.b., they - as the images indicate - produced the pamphlet).

Here is a link to a pdf of the pamphlet from the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of New Westminster Canada:

Two Different Traditions - One Catholic Church

I like what the pamphlet is saying about two different traditions coexisting in harmony, but I am not so sure that the Eastern  Orthodox are buying that message.

It's talking about Eastern Rite Catholics, though, not Orthodox. I nonetheless liked the liturgical comparisons very much.

You are right about the comparison in the pamphlet  being between EC and RC, of course. But taking the comparison one step further, would you find many Orthodox who would say that the Roman Catholic tradition as we know it to be today, is equally good with the Eastern Orthodox tradition?

Among the informed, no.