Is the Eastern Orthodox Church more acceptable to those who criticise Roman Catholics
Some of the usual responses to the question: what is wrong with Roman Catholicism? Are points regarding: having one man as the Vicar of Christ, and venerated as such, Celibate Clergy and the idolatry of statues, or graven images if you prefer.
As the Eastern Orthodox have no Pope, just Bishops for each area, their priests can be married, though the Bishops are celibate, and have a ruling that images are acceptable for religious institutions but not statues etc, does this make them more acceptable as a Church.
I am neither Roman or Orthodox Catholic, nor am I of the opinion that Roman Catholics do worship idols. I find the Orthodox more interesting historically as they seem to have changed very little compared to other churches etc.
The Orthodox also have one man in charge. They teach the same doctrinal truths as the Catholic Church. Same sacraments, same Mass, same priesthood, same Eucharist. Both churches avoid the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism. The Catholic Church has many married clergy, just like the Orthodox. Neither church idolizes statues and other images, but both use them, the Orthodox even more so. The only thing the Orthodox lack is foundation by Jesus Christ.
I guess if they believe in everything the Catholic Church does but reject the Immaculate Conception and the Primacy of Peter and Papal Infallibility, than most likely.
After the western Roman Empire collapsed in A.D. 476, the eastern half continued under the title of the Byzantine Empire and was headquartered in Constantinople. The patriarch of that city had jurisdiction over the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and served under the emperor, who ruled those lands with military might. In the East, the emperor wielded tremendous influence in church affairs. Some emperors even claimed to be equal in authority to the twelve apostles, and as such claimed to have the power to appoint the patriarch of Constantinople. Although the two offices were legally autonomous, in practice the patriarch served at the emperor?s pleasure. Many patriarchs of Constantinople were good and holy bishops who ruled well and resisted imperial encroachments on church matters, but it is difficult to withstand the designs of power-hungry or meddlesome emperors with armed soldiers at their disposal.
The patriarch often attempted to bolster his position in the universal Church to give himself more leverage in dealing with the emperor, and this usually brought him into conflict with Rome.
During the years of conflict between East and West, the Roman pontiff remained firm, defending the Catholic faith against heresies and unruly or immoral secular powers, especially the Byzantine emperor. The first conflict came when Emperor Constantius appointed an Arian heretic as patriarch. Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398.
Ironically, in the Church?s eighth-century struggle against the Iconoclastic heresy (which sought to eliminate all sacred images), it was the pope and the Western bishops mainly who fought for the Catholic practice of venerating icons, which is still very much a part of Orthodox liturgy and spirituality. The patriarch of Constantinople sided with the heretical, iconoclastic emperors.
Is the Eastern Orthodox Church more acceptable to those who criticise Roman Catholics
