www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Oriental Catholic vs. Oriental Orthodox

Peace to you, Anastasia.

Well, both Churches are apostolic, and are sacramental - so that's good. In the Oriental Orthodox, we baptise children 40 days after birth (minimum) - according to the Mosaic laws.

We have chrismation (or confirmation) on the same day as the Baptism and Holy Communion. Hence, babies have the Eucharist , and small Children.

We have both the Holy Body and the Honoured Blood during the Holy Communion. (Both are given). I think in the RC, they give only the Body (in most Churches).

Our Patriarch and Pope is the See of Saint Mark, whilst the Catholics is the See of Saint Peter.

The Oriental Orthodox do not subscribe to the dogma of the Filoque. We believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. The Catholics believe that He proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

The Oriental Orthodox do not believe in purgatory. The Catholics have an elaborate theology on purgatory.

The Oriental Orthodox do not believe that being Orthodox saves them. However, a great many Catholics believe that being Catholic (identifying yourself as Catholic) somehow saves you.

We do not believe in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. St Mary is indeed full of Grace. It does not mean, for us, that she was born without the effects of the original sin. She indeed needed salvation. She even said it:

"My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed"

If she did not need salvation, she would not have seen God as "her savior". Yet the Catholics seem to understand it as if she's immune from the consequences of the original sin.

St Mary appeared to Bernadette in Lourdes, and that was great. However, she appeared to MILLIONS in Egypt, and the pictures are even on the internet.

We believe that Christ's Divinity did not depart His Humanity for an instant NOR a twinkle of an eye, that His Divine nature and Human nature were miaphysitically united in the person of Christ. A perfect union of 2 natures, no mixing, no interchanging. One nature did not consume the other.

The Catholics seem to believe (as far as I know) in this 2 natures, but the wording of it is more along the lines that one nature appeared when it needed to appear, and the nature appeared when it needed to appear. For example:Christ was hungry: so that's the human nature showing. Christ rose lazarus from the dead - well then His Divine nature came into effect.

The Orthodox do not separate them, even in dialog. Christ had both human and Godly properties, united in Him. The example the Orthodox Church fathers use is that of Fire and Iron. The Iron remains Iron when placed in fire, and the fire remains fire when the iron is placed in it. You maybe able to get a mallet/hammer and beat the iron how you wish, yet the fire does not leave the iron when you do this, no does the properties of the iron change when the iron is moulded into any given shape.

The Catholics believe in the Supremacy of Saint peter. I think this is a dogma in itself. The Orthodox Church does not have a problem with this, but the Orthodox Church is SO old and was given SO much that it is generally cautious on innvoting new things.

For example: in the Catholic Church, the soteriological framework used to express why Christ died was given by St Anselm: That the 'punishment is proportional to the status of the offended party". i.e. that God is eternal and requires an eternal sacrifice. We do not subscribe to this way of looking at God. Its quite medieval (in fact). For us, Christ's death on the cross is viewed as an offering to the Divine Justice. That simply means, in the greater scheme of things, that the price of sin IS death. God being just and love at the same time, can solve this dilemma through the Cross.

Not just that, but we view the Eucharist as the essential element that we need in order to replenish in us the Graces we received during baptism and confirmation in order to live in Holiness.

Perhaps the Catholics are similar to us in this, and perhaps some Oriental Orthodox still subscribe to Anselm, but this is the crux of it.

Dear brother Thanos888,

Thanks for your input, though I think sister Anastasia was asking for differences between Coptic Catholics and Coptic Orthodox, not between Latin Catholics and Coptic Orthodox.

Permit me some comments on your post:

I think this is the same in the Latin Catholic Church for children at "the age of reason" and above, which can be as young as 4 or 5 years old in some Latin Catholic jurisdictions.

That should be read as "the Patriarch and Pope of the LATIN Catholics is the See of Saint Peter."


Actually, the dogma of the filioque teaches one thing and one thing only -- that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father "and the Son" (i.e., filioque). I'm confident that Oriental Orthodox also believe and teach that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Because of the difference in language between Greek and Latin, the term that is translated into English as "proceeds" meant something different to Greeks as it did to Latins. To Greeks, the term meant that the Holy Spirit ORIGINATES from the Father, whereas to the Latins, it only ever meant that the Holy Spirit IS CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH the Father. That is why filioque ("and the Son") is orthodox when Latins use it (i.e., it is orthodox to say that "the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father AND THE SON"), but heterodox if Greeks use it (i.e., it is heterodox to say that "the Holy Spirit originates from the Father AND THE SON"). But both expressions (whether according to the Greeks or the Latins) uphold the original intention of the Second Ecumenical Council in adding the phrase at issue - namely, to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

To be more concise, the Latin Catholics have an elaborate theology on Purgatory, a theology that non-Latin Catholics are not required to believe. The only things ALL Catholics are required to believe about Purgatory (i.e., the dogma) are: (1) There is a spiritual state after death and before Final Judgment (which Latins call "Purgatory") that is not "Heaven" or "Hell"; (2) That souls that still need spiritual cleansing through (an undefined) suffering can undergo such cleansing for the sake of spiritual perfection; (3) The prayers and suffrages of the faithful on earth, especially the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, are efficacious for the spiritual perfection of these souls in this state. Aside from the name "purgatory," can one say that these three points are denied by any Oriental Orthodox?

I guarantee you this is not what the Latin Catholic Church teaches. Their teaching is identical to that of the other Churches - the necessity to be in the Catholic/Orthodox Church. I suppose that can easily be mistaken to mean that if one were Catholic/Orthodox, one automatically is saved.

The official explanation of the dogma of the IC (called the "Apostolic Constitution") explicitly states that it is God who saved Mary - i.e., God saved Mary at the moment of conception.

Unfortunately, I agree with you that many Latin Catholics believe that. However, it must be stated that the dogma itself does not teach that she was immune from physical death or the usual physical ailments associated with a fallen human nature. It does teach that she was saved by God from spiritual death (i.e., separation from God, as we all are at baptism) - in other words, she was filled with the Holy Spirit by God throughout her life, from the first moment of her existence until the end of her earthly life (and beyond). And despite this constant Grace from God, she still needed to use her free will to respond to the Grace like any other human being.

Actually, what diophysites believe is that these incidents merely demonstrate the natures, not that they were specifically or separately active only during those times.

I don't think it is the idea of St. Peter's supremacy (read as "primacy" to an Oriental, but as "tyrannical rule" to an Eastern Byzantine or "monarchy" to many Latins) that is regarded as an innovation, nor the idea that this is a perpetual office in the Church. Rather, I think it is more about how the supremacy is seen to have been practiced wrongly by the bishop of Rome throughout the ages.

Not 100% sure on this one, but I believe that Anselm only represents ONE of the soteriological models within the Latin Catholic Church. Our Latin Catholic members can correct me if I'm wrong.

On the whole, a fair analysis, IMO.

Agreed. Aside from a few differences in commemorations, etc., there aren't many differences. I think this is the same all across the board, pretty much, for all the EO and OO Catholic flavors.

Read on a Facebook for Oriental Orthodox which seems to be mainly all converts from protestantism where one person remarked that he knew nothing about Coptic Catholics and thought they only used the Roman Mass. Shows total ignorance of this history. I have no idea how these westerners end up as Oriental Orthodox. Been seeing a lot of such remarks by converts who have only a superficial knowledge but think they are experts on theology.