What is the difference between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthadox Catholic Religions?

Answer 1

None! Sunday service is not the Sabbath.

Jesus fulfilled the law. So exactly what did Jesus fulfill. If Jesus kept God's law, what part of the law is deemed absolute?

The weekly Sabbath! And annual Sabbaths! Not the resurrection. First observe the weekly Sabbath and annual Sabbath's, then the rest will be put into it's proper place.

The weekly Sabbath is not Sunday the first day of the week, rather it is the last day of the week and starts at sundown on Friday and ends at sundown on Saturday. Not midnight to midnight under the current theme of thinking of time.

Answer 2

The split happened over the correct date for the celebration of Easter and other religious holidays in the early 2nd century. The pope was anxious to assert his authority and Excommunicated the Eastern church. Other changes going on in the 2nd century include translation of religious and history texts from Greek into Latin, and defining exactly what made pagan worship different from holy worship.

The Greek Orthodox has such differences as no pope, marriage is allowed if a man takes up priesthood after he is married and their Bible has retained the Greek text. Icons are venerated much the same as Relics are in the Roman practice.

Answer 3

There were small differences in the beginning (1054) but in time, it seems that lots of things changed in the Roman Catholic church ( things that were not told by the Apostles) I am an Orthodox and I know that even the holy communion is not as it has to be; we take bread and wine, catholics take only bread...Find out more here:

http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/


Have a good day!

Answer 4

the observe catholic quite skill some thing alongside the lines of conformity people who adjust to the suggestions of the church based in Rome are regularly called catholics and this confuses the subject .. at one time say have been catholic in basic terms meant you observed the pope and werent in another team .. immediately the observe is catholic is used as a noun fairly than an adjective followers of the greek college of theory is additionally caled Greek catholics.. yet in some unspecified time sooner or later in time thre arose confusion in the minds of persons so the Greeks began to be called Greek orthodox.. Orthodox additionally skill conformist however the seperate use of catholic and orthodox for the greek and roman church homes helped make certain confusions there is likewise.... a Russian orthodox church yet I dont comprehend plenty approximately thier ideals shop that it too is going back many hundreds of years

Answer 5

The rites are a bit different: celebration of mass, time of holidays etc... but the dogmas are similar except that Orthodox church does not follow the Pope.
To be more clear, I have to add that there are also Greek catholics who follow the rites as the Orthodox Church, but are under the Catholic church and follow the Pope.

Answer 6

Now, a history lesson first so you can understand the why there are differences. Bear with me, okay?

In history the "Latins" (Roman Catholics generally) have behaved too often, too rude. In the 13th century the Crusaders sacked Constantinople, and forced upon all the Latin rite forbidding the Eastern rites. That´s a bad event of history. The sacking, the stealing of relics, the murders, the rapes and the occuI believe the proper orthodox answer would be this: that the keys were given first to Peter and then to the other Apostles, and that this should support that the Bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, is to be "first among equals", then of course the Bishop of the New Rome, the Patriarch of Constantinople, would be second of equals, et cetera. The Pope, in their ideal reunion of the east and west, would have a special place but could not be said to have a total final say in eastern matters, nor would they want to accept his infallibility et cetera.

On the other hand, since Photius the Easterners had already become a difficult party to appease and to statisfy and the Eastern "Orthodox" in the 9th and the 11th century often desecrated Latin churches, for they thought unleavened bread was invalidating and the Latin rite was invalid for the "lack of an explicit Epiclesis" too.

Crimes came from both sides, but it was not like we Roman rite Latin Catholics have always behaved perfectly towards our then still Catholic Orthodox brethren of the Eastern lung of the Church. Remind yourself of that. We must admit that, even if the Easterners don't admit their own crimes against Latin clergymen and their sacrilege against the Most Blessed Sacrament consecrated in a Latin rite Mass.

I've noticed that people are piping in about 1054, not so.
The schism was not consummated up until after 1442, though of course many Princes and Bishops in the East were already schismatical before that. From the 11th century up until the 15th century there were many contacts and some clergymen were ordained by the Orthodox and still received as prelates by the Holy See. Without abjuration, I think.

Before 1442 things were more or less political. Of course schism was approximate during the time always, but it was not as explicit as it became after about 1600.

So with this long winded history lesson you can already begin to see the Eastern Orthodoxy which Greeks are a part of is tenenious, fraught with anxiety and old feelings of dislike. Now to the crux of your question:

I believe the proper orthodox answer would be this: that the keys were given first to Peter and then to the other Apostles, and that this should support that the Bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, is to be "first among equals", then of course the Bishop of the New Rome, the Patriarch of Constantinople, would be second of equals, et cetera. The Pope, in their ideal reunion of the east and west, would have a special place but could not be said to have a total final say in eastern matters, nor would they want to accept his infallibility et cetera.

The idea of Peter as rock; now that's something I think orthodox theology of merely placing the successor of Peter as 'first among equals' (the way they understand it) does not deal with. We could accept an equality of patriarchs placing the pope as first among equals, but we must also insist (which they will not accept, thus sustaining the schism) that the pope is also the rock of unity who has ultimate doctrinal decisive power. the erection of a "Latin Kingdom" in place of the Eastern Roman Empire were really offensive and scandalous, and they cut deep wounds in the soul of the Greeks there. The Crusaders should instead have allied with Constantinople instead. In the 13th century unity was still possible, more open. More realistic than now, as we see in the 15th century of the Council of Florence and Ferrara and its near Union of East and West.

Now, LOL the Orthodox will chime in and say something like they would never accept Papal Infalibility, since it directly sprouts from doctrine of Papal Supremacy (over all other Bishops and Patriarchs). Also, ultimate doctrinal decisive power is essentialy infailibility. The Pope would definetly be the 'rock' of unity should union be achieved, and first among equals. He esentially has 1/6 of humanity under his jurisdiction (but sadly, in reality, the number is far less).

But regardless, I believe that union is now nearly impossible- as much as I (and all others want it). Esentially, Roman Catholics would never drop one of their infallible doctrines, whereas Orthodox would never accept 'new' dogmas.

Hope this helped and not confused you more!! Take care and blessings!

Answer 7

Their views on Easter, the trinity doctrine, and the pope differ.

Answer 8

Money. The Vatican has most of it. However they are both just as corrupt and manipulating. Just yesterday I saw on the news (I'm currently in Greece) a Orthodox priest running a brothel. Their sins just keep piling up...

Answer 9

there is no such thing as Greek orthodox catholics...Ur either orthodox or catholic

Answer 10

هاى مكن نتعرف