Ecclesiastical differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For theological differences between the two churches, see Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem – a centre of pilgrimage long shared and disputed between the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches.

Several differences exist within the organizational structures and governance of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. These are distinguished from theological differences which are differences in dogma and doctrine. A number of disagreements over matters of ecclesiology developed slowly between the Western and Eastern wings of the State church of the Roman Empire centered upon the cities of Rome (considered to have fallen in 476) and New Rome/Constantinople (also considered to have "fallen" in 1453) respectively. The disputes were a major factor in the formal East-West Schism between Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael I in 1054 and are largely still unresolved between the churches today.

Papal authority[edit]

1881 illustration depicting papal infallibility

Many of the issues that currently separate the two churches are ecclesiastical. Principal among them is the meaning of papal primacy within any future unified church. The Orthodox insist that it should be a "primacy of honor", as in the ancient church and not a "primacy of authority",[1] whereas the Catholic Church sees the pontiff's role as requiring for its exercise power and authority the exact form of which is open to discussion with other Christians.[2]

The declaration of Ravenna in 2007 re-asserted these beliefs and re-stated the notion that the bishop of Rome is indeed the protos ("first" in Greek), although future discussions are to be held on the concrete ecclesiastical exercise of papal primacy. Hierarchs within the Russian Church have condemned the document and reassert that Papal authority as is held in the West is not historically valid.[3][4] The Orthodox view of the Papacy would be Primus inter pares without power of jurisdiction.[5][6]

Canonical territory[edit]

Main article: Canonical territory

A canonical territory is a geographical area seen as belonging to a particular patriarchate or autocephalous Church as its own. The concept is found not only in the Eastern Orthodox Church, but also in the Catholic Church, and is mentioned extensively in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.[7]

The issue of canonical territory has proven to be a significant point of dispute in Russia, with the Moscow Patriarchate being opposed on one hand to the influence of the Patriarch of Constantinople in Ukraine, and on the other to perceived Catholic influence within Russia itself.[8]

Ecclesiological economy[edit]

See also: Eastern Orthodox Church organization

A major point of difference is with the style of church government. The Orthodox Church has always maintained the position of collegiality of the bishops. The Orthodox Church has also emphasised 'economia', or a certain amount of flexibility in the rules depending upon the exigencies of a particular situation. The administrative structure of the Orthodox church is closer to a confederacy in structure, with no functioning centralization as a constant.

In the synods of the Orthodox Church, the highest authorities in each Church community are brought together. Unlike the pope in the Catholic Church, no central individual or figure has the absolute (and "infallible") last word on church doctrine and administration. In practice, this has sometimes led to divisions among Greek, Russian, Bulgarian and Ukrainian Orthodox churches, as no central authority can serve as a rallying point for various internal disputes.

However, in contrast with the picture presented by the Russian religious poet Aleksey Khomyakov more than a century earlier,[9] the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council reasserted the importance of collegiality, clarifying that "primatial authority is inseparable from collegiality and synodality" and that "the Bishop of Rome is a brother among brothers who are sacramentally all equal in the episcopate.[10]

Rejection of Eastern Catholic Churches[edit]

At a meeting in Balamand, Lebanon in June 1993, the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church[11] declared that these initiatives that "led to the union of certain communities with the See of Rome and brought with them, as a consequence, the breaking of communion with their Mother Churches of the East ... took place not without the interference of extra-ecclesial interests";[12] and that:

  • What has been called "uniatism" "can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking".[13]

At the same time, the Commission stated:

  • Concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches, it is clear that they, as part of the Catholic Communion, have the right to exist and to act in response to the spiritual needs of their faithful.
  • The Oriental Catholic Churches who have desired to re-establish full communion with the See of Rome and have remained faithful to it, have the rights and obligations which are connected with this communion.

Apostolic succession and sacraments[edit]

Some Orthodox Churches do not require baptism of a convert already baptized in the Catholic Church. Most Orthodox Churches allow marriages between members of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. For example, the Church of Greece would allow an Orthodox man to marry a Catholic bride in its church, providing the wife vows the children will be baptized Orthodox.[citation needed]

Because the Catholic Church respects their celebration of the Mass as a true sacrament, intercommunion with the Eastern Orthodox in "suitable circumstances and with Church authority" is both possible and encouraged.[14]

The Catholic Church allows its clergy to administer the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick to members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, if these spontaneously ask for the sacraments and are properly disposed.[15] It also allows Catholics who cannot approach a Catholic minister to receive these three sacraments from clergy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided.[16] Catholic canon law allows marriage between a Catholic and an Orthodox only if permission is obtained from the Catholic bishop.[17] However Holy sacraments in the Catholic Church and Syrian Orthodox Church are treated as same and accepted each other as identified by His Holiness John Paul II, Bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic Church, and His Holiness Moran Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East and Supreme head of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church Vatican announced Agreement between Catholic Pope and Syrian Orthodox Partiarch

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches authorizes the local Catholic bishop to permit a Catholic priest, of whatever rite, to bless the marriage of Orthodox faithful who being unable without great difficulty to approach a priest of their own Church, ask for this spontaneously.[18] In exceptional circumstances Catholics may, in the absence of an authorized priest, marry before witnesses. If a priest who is not authorized for the celebration of the marriage is available, he should be called in, although the marriage is valid even without his presence.[19] The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches specifies that, in those exceptional circumstances, even a "non-Catholic" priest (and so not necessarily one belonging to an Eastern Church) may be called in.[20]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ as can be seen in the words of Archbishop Nicetas of Nicomedia of the 12th century: "My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy among the five sister patriarchates and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at the Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office... How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman pontiff seated on the lofty throne of his glory wished to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves not the sons, of such a church and the Roman see would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.”The Orthodox Church London by Ware, Kallistos St. Vladimir's Seminary Press 1995 ISBN 978-0-913836-58-3
  2. ^ In 1995 Pope John Paul II wrote: "With the power and the authority without which such an office would be illusory, the Bishop of Rome must ensure the communion of all the Churches." He invited "Church leaders and their theologians to examine with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea 'that they may all be one ... so that the world may believe that you have sent me' (Encyclical Ut unum sint section 96). The Ravenna document of 13 October 2007 is one response to this invitation.
  3. ^ "Christ is the Head of the Church, not the Pope". oodegr.com. Retrieved 25 December 2019.
  4. ^ is a more correct translation of the document
  5. ^ "Papal Primacy – Theology – Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America". goarch.org. Retrieved 25 December 2019.
  6. ^ Eastern Orthodoxy in a global age: tradition faces the twenty-first century By Victor Roudometof, Alexander Agadjanian ISBN 978-0-7591-0537-9
  7. ^ Examples of canons of this code that speak of the canonical territory of an autonomous Church are 57, 78, 86, 102, 132, 133, 138-140, 143, 146-150, ...
  8. ^ "Canonical Territory in the Russian Orthodox Tradition". Archived from the original on 2 October 2013. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  9. ^ Quoting Aleksey Khomyakov p. 87 The legal formalism and logical rationalism of the Catholic Church have their roots in the Roman State. These features developed in it more strongly than ever when the Western Church without consent of the Eastern introduced into the Nicean Creed the filioque clause. Such arbitrary change of the creed is an expression of pride and lack of love for one's brethren in the faith. "In order not to be regarded as a schism by the Church, Romanism was forced to ascribe to the bishop of Rome absolute infallibility." In this way Catholicism broke away from the Church as a whole and became an organization based upon external authority. Its unity is similar to the unity of the state: it is not super-rational but rationalistic and legally formal. Rationalism has led to the doctrine of the works of superarogation, established a balance of duties and merits between God and man, weighing in the scales sins and prayers, trespasses and deeds of expiation; it adopted the idea of transferring one person's debts or credits to another and legalized the exchange of assumed merits; in short, it introduced into the sanctuary of faith the mechanism of a banking house. History of Russian Philosophy by Nikolai Lossky ISBN 978-0-8236-8074-0 p. 87
  10. ^ James F. Puglisi (editor), Petrine Ministry and the Unity of the Church (Liturgical Press 2005 ISBN 0-8146-5936-5), p. 190 (emphasis in the original).
  11. ^ "A Response of the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Consultation in the United States to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church Regarding the Balamand Document U.S. Theo. Cons., 1994 | Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas". Archived from the original on 22 July 2011. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  12. ^ "Orthodox Christian Information Center – Full text of the Balamand Statement (section 8)".
  13. ^ "Orthodox Christian Information Center – Full text of the Balamand Statement (section 12)".
  14. ^ Paragraph numbers 1399–1401 (1994). "Catechism of the Catholic Church". Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Retrieved 12 May 2008.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  15. ^ Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 125; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844 §3 and Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 671 §3
  16. ^ Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 123; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844 §2 and Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 671 §2
  17. ^ Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 813 and Code of Canon Law, canon 1124
  18. ^ Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 833
  19. ^ Code of Canon Law, canon 1116 and Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 832
  20. ^ Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 832
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecclesiastical_differences_between_the_Catholic_Church_and_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church&oldid=1208244525"