Twelve Differences Between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches

Vivificat - News, Opinion, Commentary, Reflections and Prayer from a Personal Catholic Perspective ^ | 7 August 2009 | TDJ

[Teófilo]

Folks, Elizabeth Mahlou, my fellow blogger from Blest Atheist, asked me one of those “big questions” which necessitate its own blog post. Here is the question:

I am a Catholic who upon occasion attends Orthodox services because of my frequent travels in Eastern European countries. The differences in the masses are obvious, but I wonder what the differences in the theology are. I don't see much. Is that something that you can elucidate?

I welcome this question because, as many of you know, I belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church for about four years and in many ways, I still am “Orthodox” (please, don’t ask me elucidate the seeming contradiction at this time, thank you). This question allows me to wear my “Orthodox hat” which still fits me, I think. If you are an Orthodox Christian and find error or lack of clarity in what I am about to say, feel free to add your own correction in the Comments Section.

Orthodox Christians consider the differences between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches as both substantial and substantive, and resent when Catholics trivialize them. Though they recognize that both communions share a common “Tradition” or Deposit of Faith, they will point out that the Roman Catholic Church has been more inconsistently faithful – or more consistently unfaithful – to Tradition than the Orthodox Church has been in 2000 years of Christian history. Generally, all Orthodox Christians would agree, with various nuances, with the following 12 differences between their Church and the Catholic Church. I want to limit them to 12 because of its symbolic character and also because it is convenient and brief:

1. The Orthodox Church of the East is the Church that Christ founded in 33 AD. She is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. All other churches are separated from by schism, heresy, or both, including the Roman Catholic Church.

2. Jesus Christ, as Son of God is divine by nature, as born of the Virgin Mary, True Man by nature, alone is the head of the Church. No hierarch, no bishop, no matter how exalted, is the earthly head of the Church, since Jesus Christ’s headship is enough.

3. All bishops are equal in their power and jurisdiction. Precedence between bishops is a matter of canonical and therefore of human, not divine law. “Primacies” of honor or even jurisdiction of one bishop over many is a matter of ecclesiastical law, and dependent bishops need to give their consent to such subordination in synod assembled.

4. The Church is a communion of churches conciliar in nature; it is not a “perfect society” arranged as a pyramid with a single monarchical hierarch on top. As such, the Orthodox Church gives priority to the first Seven Ecumenical Councils as having precedent in defining the nature of Christian belief, the nature and structure of the Church, and the relationship between the Church and secular government, as well as the continuation of synodal government throughout their churches to this day.

5. Outside of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Church receives with veneration various other regional synods and councils as authoritative, but these are all of various national churches, and always secondary in authority to the first seven. They do not hold the other 14 Western Councils as having ecumenical authority.

6. Orthodox Christians do not define “authority” in quite the same way the Catholic Church would define it in terms of powers, jurisdictions, prerogatives and their interrelationships. Orthodox Christian would say that “authority” is inimical to Love and in this sense, only agape is the one firm criterion to delimit rights and responsibilities within the Church. Under this scheme, not even God himself is to be considered an “authority” even though, if there was a need of one, it would be that of God in Christ.

7. The Orthodox Church holds an anthropology different from that of the Catholic Church. This is because the Orthodox Church does not hold a forensic view of Original Sin, that is, they hold that the sin of Adam did not transmit an intrinsic, “guilt” to his descendants. “Ancestral Sin,” as they would call it, transmitted what may be termed as a “genetic predisposition” to sin, but not a juridical declaration from God that such-a-one is “born in sin.” Hyper-Augustinianism, Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed, is impossible in Orthodox anthropology because according to the Orthodox, man is still essentially good, despite his propensity to sin. By the way, even what Catholics would consider a “healthy Augustinianism” would be looked at with suspicion by most Orthodox authorities. Many trace “the fall” of the Latin Church to the adoption of St. Augustine as the West’s foremost theological authority for 1,000 years prior to St. Thomas Aquinas. The best evaluations of St. Augustine in the Orthodox Church see him as holy, well-meaning, but “heterodox” in many important details, starting with his anthropology.

8. Since no “forensic guilt” is transmitted genetically through “Original Sin,” the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Mother is considered superfluous. She had no need for such an exception because there was nothing to exempt her from in the first place. Of course, Mary is Theotokos (“God-bearer”), Panagia (“All-Holy”) and proclaimed in every Liturgy as “more honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim,” but her sanctification is spoken about more in terms of a special, unique, total, and gratuitous bestowing and subsequent indwelling of the Spirit in her, without the need of “applying the merits of the atonement” of Christ to her at the moment of conception, in order to remove a non-existent forensic guilt from her soul, as the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception would have it. If pressed, Orthodox authorities would point at the Annunciation as the “moment” in which this utter experience of redemption and sanctification took place in the life of the Blessed Theotokos. Although the Orthodox believe in her Assumption, they deny that any individual hierarch has any power to singly and unilaterally define it as a dogma binding on the whole Church, and that only Councils would have such power if and when they were to proclaim it and its proclamations received as such by the entire Church.

9. Although Orthodox Christians have at their disposal various institutions of learning such as schools, universities, and seminaries, and do hold “Sunday Schools,” at least in the USA, it is fair to say that the main catechetical vehicle for all Orthodox peoples is the Divine Liturgy. All the liturgical prayers are self-contained: they enshrine the history, the story, the meaning, and the practical application of what is celebrated every Sunday, major feast, and commemoration of angels, saints, and prophets. If one pays attention – and “Be attentive” is a common invitation made throughout the Divine Liturgy – the worshipper catches all that he or she needs to know and live the Orthodox faith without need for further specialized education. For this very reason, the Divine Liturgy, more than any other focus of “power and authority,” is the true locus of Orthodox unity and the principal explanation for Orthodox unity and resiliency throughout history.

10. Since the celebration of the Divine Liturgy is overwhelmingly important and indispensable as the vehicle for True Christian Worship – one of the possible translations of “orthodoxy” is “True Worship – and as a teaching vehicle – since another possible translation of “orthodoxy” is “True Teaching” – all the ecclesiastical arts are aimed at sustaining the worthy celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Iconography in the Eastern Church is a mode of worship and a window into heaven; the canons governing this art are strict and quite unchanging and the use of two-dimensional iconography in temples and chapels is mandatory and often profuse. For them, church architecture exists to serve the Liturgy: you will not find in the East “modernistic” temples resembling auditoriums. Same thing applies to music which is either plain chant, or is organically derived from the tones found in plain chant. This allows for “national expressions” of church music that nevertheless do not stray too far away from the set conventions. Organ music exists but is rare; forget guitars or any other instrument for that matter. Choral arrangements are common in Russia – except in the Old Calendarist churches – the Orthodox counterparts to Catholic “traditionalists.”

11. There are Seven Sacraments in the Orthodox Church, but that’s more a matter of informal consensus based on the perfection of the number “seven” than on a formal dogmatic declaration. Various Orthodox authorities would also argue that the tonsure of a monk or the consecration of an Emperor or other Orthodox secular monarch is also a sacramental act. Opinion in this instance is divided and the issue for them still open and susceptible to a final dogmatic definition in the future, if one is ever needed.

12. The end of man in this life and the next is similar between the Orthodox and the Catholics but I believe the Orthodox “sing it in a higher key.” While Catholics would say that the “end of man is to serve God in this life to be reasonably happy in this life and completely happy in the next,” a rather succinct explanation of what being “holy” entails, the Orthodox Church would say that the end of man is “deification.” They will say that God became man so that man may become “god” in the order of grace, not of nature of course. Men – in the Greek the word for “man” still includes “womankind” – are called to partake fully of the divine nature. There is no “taxonomy” of grace in the Orthodox Church, no “quantification” between “Sanctifying Grace” and actual grace, enabling grace, etc. Every grace is “Sanctifying Grace,” who – in this Catholic and Orthodox agree – is a Person, rather than a created power or effect geared to our sanctification. Grace is a continuum, rather than a set of discreet episodes interspersed through a Christian’s life; for an Orthodox Christian, every Grace is Uncreated. The consequences of such a view are rich, unfathomable, and rarely studied by Catholic Christians.

I think this will do it for now. I invite my Orthodox Christian brethren to agree, disagree, or add your own. Without a doubt, - I am speaking as a Catholic again - what we have in common with the Orthodox Church is immense, but what keeps us apart is important, challenging, and not to be underestimated.

Thank you Elizabeth for motivating me to write these, and may the Lord continue to bless you richly.

[kosta50]

find that the major teachings are in fact, in holy Scripture.

Which ones?

Major doctrines are there. Major practice, there.

Which ones?

When something that has been major is not there, it seems peculiar. That is all.

Most of Christian dogmas is not in the Scripture.

[bronxville]

“Thank you for posting a very good collection of
quotes that seems to indicate that the Early Church
believed Mary remained a virgin (earliest I see in
your list is 248).”

You’re welcome.

St. Ignatius: On Venerating the Virgin Mary and the Saints
(AD 35-100)

“Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence, but have been revealed to us.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Ephesians; Ch 19)

“Our Lord Jesus Christ...was the Son of God, “the first-born of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, by the Virgin Mary” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 1)

“Attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Magnesians; Ch 11)

“Ye are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, inasmuch as he was “a chosen vessel; “ at whose feet may I be found, and at the feet of the rest of the saints, when I shall attain to Jesus Christ” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Ephesians; Ch 12)

St. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding Evodius around 68 AD. Ignatius, and Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna were fellow-disciples under St. Peter and St. John. It is a tradition consistent with the Epistles.

Tradition was before all Scripture, since a good part of Scripture itself is only Tradition reduced to writing, with an infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit.

[Uri’el-2012]

Nobody in the Hebrew Bible "got SAVED!!!" as you understand it.

How do you read the following verses ?

Gen. 49:18; Exod. 14:13; 15:2; Deut. 32:15; 1 Sam. 2:1; 2 Sam. 22:3, 36, 47; 23:5; 1 Chr. 16:23, 35; 2 Chr. 6:41; 20:17; Job 13:16; Ps. 3:8; 9:14; 13:5; 14:7; 18:2, 35, 46; 21:1, 5; 24:5; 25:5; 27:1, 9; 35:3, 9; 37:39; 38:22; 40:10, 16; 50:23; 51:12, 14; 53:6; 62:1f, 6; 65:5; 67:2; 68:19; 69:29; 70:4; 71:15; 78:22; 79:9; 85:4, 7, 9; 88:1; 89:26; 91:16; 95:1; 96:2; 98:2f; 106:4; 116:13; 118:14f, 21; 119:41, 81, 123, 155, 166, 174; 132:16; 140:7; 144:10; 146:3; 149:4; Isa. 12:2f; 17:10; 25:9; 33:2, 6; 45:8, 17; 46:13; 49:6, 8; 51:5f, 8; 52:7, 10; 56:1; 59:11, 16; 60:18; 61:10; 62:1, 11; 63:5; Jer. 3:23; Lam. 3:26; Jon. 2:9; Mic. 7:7; Hab. 3:8, 13, 18; Zech. 9:9;

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Iscool]

Yes, I misspoke. However, the first bishop of Antioch was Peter, followed by Evodius. One of these would have ordained Paul. We don’t have Scripture saying which one. Presumably Peter.

Sorry, Jesus ordained Paul...Peter had absolutely zero to do with it...

Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Act 9:16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Paul was ordained from the get-go to be the apostle to the Gentiles...He was ordained by God just as Peter was ordained by God...

Paul never saw another apostle for 3 years after God ordained him...

A little scripture will clear up every fable you can come up with...

[Iscool]

And, since it is primarily about King David, I believe the specific verse you quoted is about him.

As another example, 69:5 says “You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you,” and it is clearly not about Christ.

Every one is entitled to believe what ever they want...

Joh 2:17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Psa 69:9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

This is definately, without a doubt, Jesus Christ...

Apparently the apostles didn't have too much trouble believing it...Neither do I...

[Iscool]

“There are many things Jesus did that God did not see fit to record. Who knows why?”

I do...Because John told us why...

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Be kind of tough with a bible that big...But John clarified it with;

Joh 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Jesus likely performed hundreds or thousands of miracles with hundreds or thousands of different people...And many of the miracles would have been repetitious with no need to record all of them...

So John clarifies it by telling us that what was written is sufficient for us to be able to believe in Jesus, and by believing we will have eternal life...

[Iscool]

The flip side of sola scriptura is sola traditio...except the latter is biblical.

Tradition only, is scriptural...Now that's a good one...

[Iscool]

“Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence, but have been revealed to us.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Ephesians; Ch 19)

Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

I have a feeling Jesus was not considering Judas Iscariot to be a 'Dennis the Menace' type of a devil...

Jesus knew Judas was connected to Satan...And you can bet Satan knew exactly what was going on at the Crucifixion of Jesus...

Where do you guys come up with these stories???

“Ye are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, inasmuch as he was “a chosen vessel; “ at whose feet may I be found, and at the feet of the rest of the saints, when I shall attain to Jesus Christ” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Ephesians; Ch 12)

We as Christians do not get initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel...We hear the Gospel and we believe it...

At the feet of the apostles and saints???

If I'm kneeling when I get there, it will be at the feet of God Almighty...Right along side the apostles...

“Our Lord Jesus Christ...was the Son of God, “the first-born of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, by the Virgin Mary” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 1)<.i>

Jesus WAS the Son of God??? I got news for Iggy, Jesus is STILL the Son of God and He IS God...

I've got serious doubts that Ignatius was a bishop at Ephesis...The Ephesians would have quickly straightened out Ignatius in his faulty theology...

But then we all know there are two accounts of the same events attributed to Ignatius...One is extremely Catholic while the other mentions nothing Catholic within it's content...One is forged...

I wonder which one you are quoting from...

[RJR_fan]

The RCC and Orthodox and any other largely predominately gentile Christian organizations need to get off their high horses and realize that they aren't central ... Israel is...at least according to the holy, inspired scriptures we all claim to revere.

So Jesus is irrelevant. Jesus is not the center point in history, and God has something more important than His Son on His agenda. Wow! Whoda thunk it? I guess we'd better adopt the Jewish customer of using "CE" and "BCE" for dates, instead of AD and BC. After all, Jesus really isn't all that important. No need to summon all men into the King's ranks, especially if they're maintaining a millennia-long pout!

[Guyin4Os]

you want me to comment on each and every verse you listed? Naw.. not here. But how about this one? Genesis 15:6 "Abraham believed God and He reckoned it to him as righteousness." If Abraham wasn't "saved," then I don't know what salvation is.

In the Hebrew bible, it is quite clear that God reckons faith as righteousness. Same as in the New Testament, which was also written by Jews, btw as an aside.

[Guyin4Os]

So Jesus is irrelevant. Jesus is not the center point in history

He is relevant as the King of Israel. In fact, Israel will not be able to enjoy its status as the premier nation on earth without the King of the Jews taking his rightful place on the throne at the place of the name of YHWH Tsabaoth.

Sorry...the gentilish "church" is not the center of God's plan. It is clear from the scriptures, Old Testament and New, that Jesus was sent for the lost sheep of Israel. We gentiles received blessing because the Jews rejected Messiah. If their rejection meant blessing for us, imagine what their acceptance will be.

[Guyin4Os]

ZC: And btw, the entire TaNa"KH is about G-d and the Jewish People. It wasn't even given to non-Jews. Non-Jews who read it are reading someone else's mail.

This statement ignores the central thrust of the Abrahamic Covenant, which is summarized in Genesis 12:1,2. It promises that the entire world will be blessed by Abraham and his descendants. If God's holy inspired word is meant to be read only by descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, how is it that that very book says Gentiles are to be blessed through those very descendants?

We goyiim who love the Hebrew bible will go on reading and studying it, regardless of the exclusivity the poster expressed.

[RJR_fan]

He is relevant as the King of Israel. In fact, Israel will not be able to enjoy its status as the premier nation on earth without the King of the Jews taking his rightful place on the throne at the place of the name of YHWH Tsabaoth.

I am sorry to discover that the tail continues to wag the dog in your universe -- or should I say, in your deranged imagination, the God. Jesus matters less than an ethnic group whose existence is defined by their denial of Him. So, of course, this ethic group matters more to God than His Beloved Son. The creation must be revered, honored, abased before, and worshipped, in deference to the Creator.

Folks, this is where Scofield's dispensationalism will take you if you push it far enough -- clear out of the center of God's Will, which is -- the Seed to whom, and through whom, all of the earth, all the tribes of the earth, or should I say, all the FAITHFUL tribes of the earth, inherit the blessings promised Abraham.

It's a dangerous thing to deny / denigrate / belittle Jesus before men. Dishonoring the Son is not something you do if you want God's blessings on your life.

[BlackElk]

That sounds like something from the Obammunist State Department

[BlackElk]

That would be Pope St. Pius X’s encyclical Pascendi Domenici Gregis (8/1907) and his syllabus of errors: Lamentabili Sane (7/1907). In Church terms thee are relatively recent documents and well worth reading.

[Kolokotronis]

“Greek in seminary :-)”

Bravo! Comes in handy doesn’t it!

[Kolokotronis]

“I kind of like the official flat Cardinal’s hats. Sort of a late classical Roman feel to them.”

I’d forgotten about them. I always though they were “sleek”! No doubt they look far better hanging from the ceiling of an apse than our guys’ crowns would!

[Kolokotronis]

“I do...Because John told us why...

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”

Um, I...that’s what the Greek I posted said. It was John 21:25 in the original as both ampu and Kosta, both knowing Greek, understood.

You ought to try to learn it; marvelous language, especially for Christian theology.

[Iscool]

You ought to try to learn it; marvelous language, especially for Christian theology.

Why would I want to??? First off, whose Greek is it???? I'm sure you're not pulling out manuscripts from 100 A.D. and reading those...I suspect you are reading out of a book which it's authors tell you it is the original Greek...

And secondly, if you have the 'original' Greek, you have the true word of God right in front of you...Why don't you guys, after all these centuries, translate the whole thing into English so we poor ignorants can read the actual words of God for ourselves???

The 'original' Greek has been translated into English in over 250 editions but apparently no one has gotten it right yet...Help the world out...Don't correct the bibles with a Greek word here and there...Translate all of it so we can have the real deal...

[Kolokotronis]

“But then we all know there are two accounts of the same events attributed to Ignatius...One is extremely Catholic while the other mentions nothing Catholic within it’s content...One is forged...

I wonder which one you are quoting from...”

Both the original Greek and the longer, later Latin versions of the Letter are quite clear on the virginity of the Most Holy Theotokos even if they do seem at odds in other areas and the Letter to the Ephesians is generally credited with being authentic, unlike some others. Are you using the abridged Syriac version? Frankly, while interesting, it isn’t the one you want to be using for a serious discussion of Ignatian theology or ecclesiology.