What is the difference between Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant and beliefs?
"What separates us as believers in Christ is much less than what unites us." (Pope John XXIII)
Almost all important doctrine is completely agreed upon between Catholic Christians and other Christians.
Here is the joint declaration of justification by Catholics (1999), Lutherans (1999), and Methodists (2006):
Only by grace, faith in Christ in the saving work and not for any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping us and calling us to good works . http:/ / www. vatican.va / roman_curia / pontificated …
There are many minor doctrine issues and some major cultural traditional differences which, in my opinion, it does not matter much.
A Catholic worships and follows Christ in the tradition of Catholicism which, among other things, recognizes that Christ made Peter the leader of his Church and Pope Benedict XVI is Peter's direct successor.
For more information, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/inde …
With love in Christ.
- What is the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant?
- What is the difference the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church?
- What exactly is the difference between Catholic Christians and Protestant?
- I need to know the difference between Catholics and Protestants?
- What is the Eastern Orthodox Church and what are the beliefs of Orthodox Christians?
Catholicism is a pagan Babylonian religion that has a false gospel of works that leads to eternal hell.
Anyone can be saved by believing that Jesus is God, died for our sins on the cross and resurrected.
Joining a group of no savings, no matter what they call themselves.
This can not be answered in one post. However, the website explains much of the orthodox view: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/
And contrary to what many people without direct experience with Orthodoxy may claim, are not significant and profound differences in beliefs between the Orthodox and those who follow the Pope of Rome.
That's a lot to cover. Essentially, Orthodox Christians believe in the collegiality of their patriarchs, Catholics accept the primacy of the Pope and Protestants believe in the supremacy of Christ.
They all have basically the same theological beliefs, but there are some significant differences. The Orthodox Church has a different understanding of relations in the Holy Trinity Church of the West. Catholics and Orthodox believe in the efficacy of the intercession of the saints and the sacraments, while Protestants do not. So each has much in common with one or more of the others. But, of course, are the differences that divide.
But there are deep cultural differences as well. Orthodox Christianity is still an "eastern" model that emphasizes the unfathomability of God. Not decipher a mystery as immersed in it. The experience is more important than understanding. Orthodox liturgies are very elaborate and full of icons and incense, chanting and postures, all designed to enhance the sensory experience of the ritual.
The Church follows the Western model of reason and Roman encoding. Its aim is to understand and explain all aspects of divinity and salvation. The medieval Scholastics were a natural outgrowth of this mentality, the application of the tools of Aristotelian logic of faith, to eliminate any ambiguity about what they believe.
These spiritual approaches are not mutually exclusive, of course. An Orthodox theologian who argue a theological point as finely as a Jesuit, and Catholicism is well known for the cultivation of the mystics. In fact, an exclusive emphasis on intellectual approach tends to eventually generate a pietistic reaction, while a "heart" of the sprituality can leave some "bosses" hunger for rationality.
The early church was based in the community. Support themselves Christians, because their outlook on life was radically
unconventional. Came to be viewed with suspicion by outsiders, despite their good intentions. The isolation was overcome by communication with other Christian communities through letters and visits missionary. Over time, the towns grew to become important parts of cities and their leaders developed a reputation in other parts of the world. Several "churches" developed in major cities like Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, etc., and each was represented by his bishop or patriarch. They share their ideas and understandings between the churches, but there were also disagreements.
When a new social question arises, not encountered by Jesus or his apostles, the community had to make decisions about how to handle it. This developed in the Tradition of the Church, but also determines how authority is structured. Originally it was a matter of the bishop and the elders of the community make an informed decision, but as church grew and became the delegation of power is necessary, a hierarchy began to develop. Bishops appointed "priests" to their local representatives in the areas of their territory, adminstratively away from the people. Major theological disputes arose when the bishops met in council to deal with it, but every bishop is essentially autonomous.
Problems arose after the disintegration of the Roman Empire. The Greek-speaking churches and the Latin-speaking churches began to drift apart. There was concern for the unity of Christians. Then Western Empire collapsed and the church was required to fill the administrative vacuum. Communities in the reaches of the former empire lost touch with others. With its headquarters in the former imperial capital, the bishop of Rome, he felt the need to establish a single authority to ensure a common understanding of faith and practice. It became the "Pope", Pope, and all the Western Churches were called to be subordinate to his authority.
This does not play at all and in the East. His empire was well and did not see the need for an administrative approach or protector. Grew slowly friction between East and West, politically as well as doctrine, until the two sides broke irrevocable except in 1054, each pursuing his own version of the church.
The hierarchical model Western continued unchanged for another 500 years. In addition to the standardization of doctrine and practice regulating the Church of Rome, interpreted the meaning of Scripture for the people who no longer understood Latin and could not read anyway. There was confusion in the Bible passages that needed clarification, so the Church did its best to ensure that the entire world unified doctrine.
With the emergence of intellectuals, educated people began to bother what they saw as a big part of faith. A tenuous contact with the East was formed and the Greek Bible was rediscovered. People who read I wanted to be able to read Scripture for themselves. There were some tentative attempts to "free" of the Bible and the faith of Roman control, notes John Wycliffe in the 14th century and John Hus in the 15th. But Rome had a considerable investment in its structure of authority and of any brand dissenters as heretics before, which leads to excommunication, exile, and / or implementation.
The Renaissance had an effect on the Church as well. Science and art were in the movement and the Church needs to keep abreast of these things to avoid potential problems. Moreover, the Italian Renaissance painters and sculptors, some really cool illustration of biblical and Christian history. But all this costs money. The normal tithes and taxes is not directed at new buildings and renovations. Therefore, some began to rationalize the dogma.
The reasoning was, if the prayer to God on behalf of a departed soul to be cleansed in purgatory (a lot of assumptions and doctrinal), no matter who made the prayer, a loved one, a stranger, a saint or a priest. Could induce others to help with prayer, and there was nothing wrong with showing gratitude for the help. Therefore, to simplify, it could be paid directly to the church to pray on behalf of the suffering of the soul. That would make a great work, the soul enter into the sky and some buildings would be in Rome.
It makes sense, but some people saw it as something more: the salvation to the highest bidder. They were outraged by this blatant exploitation of people's faith and concern for their loved ones. And he took action.
Protestantism began as an attempt to reform the abuses which had crept into the Church. Obviously there can be only one true Church, so the reforms need to be careful to maintain the highest moral standard. When Martin Luther posted his complaints, he hoped honest introspection of Rome. He was disappointed. At best ignored, at worst demonized, Luther was led down the path of Wycliffe and Hus. How can you claim the authority to establish a government of the Church who did not want to be fixed?
The solution was to delegitimize its authority. But claimed an uninterrupted succession of ordinations back to the top. What could triumph? Luther found the solution in two new doctrines: "Sola fide and sola scriptura." Luther was concerned with his own sin until he found a verse in Romans (ironically?) Stated that Abraham was saved by his faith in God, I had not done anything. Luther extrapolated from this and said it was impossible to win the way to heaven, only faith in Christ the power to save mattered. This effectively cancels the power of intercessory prayer, the sacraments, the mass, and almost anything the Church had to offer. Everything was between the individual and God.
The other authorities use another Bible verse to distinguish between the "word of God" and "traditions of men." Luther chose to interpret the "word" as the Bible. Every answer, every decision that is Biblically basa or was illegitimate. This overrides all the adjustments to the historical church has done to survive in the world. The Bible, which would replace the Church as the authority for the Christian life. A few biblical books were problematic, but Luther was able to exclude most of them for technical reasons and explain the rest.
The next challenge was to sell the idea. But Luther found support from a lot of resentment among intellectuals, merchants, politicians and others eager to overthrow the chains of the Church's control over all aspects of their lives. He was really able to establish Christian communities are independent of what is known as the Catholic Church. His cult was marked, largely stripped of the symbols, the sacraments and prelates, but found a way to live the simpler and more sincere faith. He also began a wave of imitators, each eager to establish and promote their own vision of Christianity. Calvinists, Zwingliites, Anabaptists and emerged, to develop their own biblically based doctrines and practices.
Since then, Protestantism continued to divide increasingly nominal, over even the smallest differences in biblical interpretation. Catholics are more or less unified, but to manage change and dissent with difficulty. The Orthodox Church maintains that never "left" anything.
Orthodox Christians follow the teaching of the apostles. We keep close to the Holy Tradition. The biggest difference between Protestants and the Orthodox is the cornerstone is Christ and the apostles and prophets are the foundation of the Orthodox Church. The Protestant Church of Christ is the cornerstone and the Holy Scriptures are the foundation. The Holy Scriptures are part of our foundation since they are part of the teaching of the apostles.
There are many differences - between East and Roman least (with the exception of the rituals common to each, one big difference is that the Eastern church services are characterized by what is called the "bells and smells") that any of these groups and Protestants. But there can be big differences even between the various Protestant groups. If you are serious about learning about these things, contact me and I will try to help.
If you can not find Catholics are control freaks. They were created by people who wanted to control the world like the Roman Empire. Why do you think Catholics are called not just Catholics. They want governments to do what they want. Watch and Central and South American countries.
Eastern Orthodox have the right doctrine, but of support in practice the traditions that continue to rely on the people and the icons and images of Mary instead of the truth of what they believe.
Protestants are a combination that really can not answer that without splitting between good and evil right and wrong.
If you want the truth of all that is necessary to go to the original ideals and practices. Go to the early church.
See what they believed and how it is practiced. Jesus said that are my disciples, if you obey what I taught you …
Not if you do a good job of adding to it ….
This is too big a question to answer fully here. I would start investigating yourself to learn what each church and cree where they tend to disagree.http: / / foru.ms/f145-the-ancient-way-east … http://www.protomartyr.org/believe. htmlhttp: / / en.wikipedia.org / wiki / East-West_S …
This is actually very smart:
Let's start with the Roman Catholic.
The early church was very diverse and fluid in their structure and theology. Was Jewish in style. They worshiped on the Sabbath is Saturday today and structurally in the government group's very Jewish.
As the Roman Empire was the collapse of the Roman Church was assumed by a group of priests of the ancient Babylonian religion that was created in secret exile in Asia. With the help of Constantine took over the Roman and then I started to obey others. It is estimated that killed 100 church leaders are not present.
Augustine lay the groundwork for his control in his book "City of God." It is suggested that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church and all others are false.
Their fight over free Pelagian etc lead to divisions. The eastern part of the church 17 times Pelagian said he had a certain view of the doctrine of the hands free will and accountability.
Augustine said that everything was predetermined by God.
The eastern part of the church in their theological concepts is more Biblical and early church. From the outside, that the practice similar to the Catholics of Rome.
When you say there are two Protestant groups.
True believers of the Bible in the reform were called Anabaptists. Re-baptizers is what it means.
Not that they then used this term. Today the largest group is the Mennonite.
The others were reformers Martin Luther, a former Augustinian monk, and John Calvin, a selfish crazy murderer who killed people who agree with him. He plagiarized the theology of Augustine and it changed very little in the false concepts already in the church.
Most people who call themselves Protestants, a word meaning protester against the Roma, are the followers of Calvin in theology. Evangelicals today are the base of the fund and consider him a hero of faith. It is like saying that Osama is Benladin had the good idea.
The destruction of the biblical nature of God for this group is still today.
Rick Warren in his "Purpose Driven Life" book, in chapter two, God made the devil in causing all evils and all good by removing the freedom and responsibility.
People who do not read the Bible are gullible to such blind leading the blind mistaken.
Does this help you …
Let me add a thanks to the Orthodox Christians, whose church saved the lives of our ancestors, as they fled from persecution by those who hated in Europe. There is more in common with the Mennonites and cherish.
Much, but you could try to start the hat and facial fungus.