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.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Genesis wasn’t written in Greek; it was translated into Greek.

Show me an original Greek writing, or something from the NT where the word “brother” means cousin or kin.

[Mr. Lucky]

Genesis 3:8?

[kosta50]

And a fact doesn’t cease to be simply because kosta50 doubts

You are right, facts are facts, with or without you or me, but claims of facts require proof. Until then, doubt is both called for and justified.

You don’t believe me, but God knows

How do you know that?

And your doubts won’t change that fact

What fact?

Doubt away. If you wish to doubt your way to hell, I cannot stop you.

So, doubt is a way to hell? This is how we get people to "believe?" We try to scare them with "love?"

[kosta50]

Show me an original Greek writing, or something from the NT where the word “brother” means cousin or kin.

It's a custom to this day in the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern culutres to call first couisns and relatives "brothers" and "sisters."

The Hebrew word 'ach is defined as brother, brother of same parents, half-brother (same father) relative, kinship, same tribe, each to the other (reciprocal relationship), (fig.) of resemblance.

The word for sister is 'achowth, defined as sister, sister (same parents), half-sister (same father), relative, (metaph) of Israel's and Judah"s relationship, beloved bride, (fig.) of intimate connection, another

[kosta50]

Greek word for borther is adelphos, defined as a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother, having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman, any fellow or man, a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection, an associate in employment or office

[Mr Rogers]

The English word for brother can also be used in an extended manner. Context determines. So when it says, ‘Your mother and brothers are here...’, that would indicate blood relatives.

And as I’ve pointed out multiple times before, the words for kin and cousin exist and are used by the same NT writers.

Hence we read, “36And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son...” and even “16You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death.”

And that is why I won’t answer kosta50’s ‘doubt’ stuff, although I did at length a few weeks back. Doubts that are self-induced must be self-corrected.

Some more examples:

“Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother”

How do we know Andrew is the brother of Peter? Because it says so.

“Going on from there He saw two other brothers, James the {son} of Zebedee, and John his brother...”

How do we know James and John were brothers? Because it says so.

“For when Herod had John arrested, he bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip.”

Herod and Philip brothers? Yes, it says so.

Here is my challenge to you: Find a passage in the NT where it says ‘X the brother of Y’, where X & Y are cousins.

Here is a hint - I just reviewed about 120 references, and I didn’t see any like that. Maybe I missed it, so let those who claim the Greeks didn’t know how to say brother or cousin or kin prove it. I’ve listed before 14 passages where cousin or kin means cousin or kin. I’ve reviewed over 100 passages trying to find a place where X the brother of Y means cousin, or someone from the same nation.

We read Paul writing, “19But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”

Here is another challenge - find a place where Paul calls Peter, or John whom Jesus loved, the brother of the Lord.

[getoffmylawn]

There can be no faith without doubt.

[Mr Rogers]

I agree. I think God provides us with enough evidence that a reasonable person can feel comfortable, but I don’t believe He FORCES us to believe by incontrovertible evidence. I also believe that human reason is utterly inadequate to knowing an infinite God. I don’t think the wildest imagination of man can comprehend 1% of God - for God is infinite, and 1% of infinity is still infinity.

I also believe that, just as it takes a leap of faith to move forward to God, it also requires a leap of faith to go BACK away from God. Most of those I’ve met who rejected God did so not because belief is unreasonable, but because they were not willing to live with the implications.

[kosta50]

And that is why I won’t answer kosta50’s ‘doubt’ stuff, although I did at length a few weeks back. Doubts that are self-induced must be self-corrected

First, appealing to the length of your repy, as if that were relevant, is another straw man of yours. Lengthy answers don't necessarily mean they are exhaustive or true.

Second, doubt is not 'self-induced.' Doubt is a reasonable, some may even say natural reaction to extraordinary situations and claims, and ceases naturally when such claims are proven.

Doubt can't correct itself, as your straw man suggests. Evidence is required. When something is proven, doubt ceases naturally. Only evidence "corrects" doubt.

Finally, you don't need a Bible to prove that Middle Eastern and Mediterranean cultures use "brother" to refer to biological brothers, cousins, close friends, or even members of the same tribe/nation."

[Mr Rogers]

I take it then, you can’t meet my challenge: “Find a passage in the NT where it says ‘X the brother of Y’, where X & Y are cousins” or “find a place where Paul calls Peter, or John whom Jesus loved, the brother of the Lord”...

[Mr Rogers]

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2318

[kosta50]

I take it then, you can’t meet my challenge

Don't flatter yourself. I didn't even look. I think the context of my answer made it perfectly clear I was focusing on a faulty conclusion that doubt has to "correct" itself.

Clearly no biblical evidence is needed to establish the broad meaning of the terms used in the area. I will leave biblical cherry-picking to others.

[kosta50]

“find a place where Paul calls Peter, or John whom Jesus loved, the brother of the Lord”...

Where does it say that John is the disciple whom Jesus loved?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Then I would say we should consider that the vast majority of Jewish families did NOT practice chastity. If we are to refer to cultural norms in evaluating language, then we should also refer to cultural norms regarding behavior.

Since there isn’t a statement of fact that Mary was an eternal virgin (rather, she and Joseph were quite devout Jews), wouldn’t the default assumption would be towards multiple children and not eternal chastity?

At best I would think the claim could be made that “we don’t know”, because the Bible is either ambiguous or contrary to the eternal virginity of Mary. Thus it would be a position based on faith and faith alone, correct?

Of course, ALL of Christianity - and really, all religions - ultimately are on faith and faith alone, so this isn’t a big issue for me. Other than the “single interpretation allowed only” position of the Catholic Church.

[annalex]

the saved are rescued.

Yes. Often the Purgatory is the last stage of the rescue operation.

(Post 498): The spirit of a Christian HAS BEEN perfected. We battle with sin because of our flesh, but we await that Day, when our spirits receive a new body, and the battle is over.

That is why JUSTIFICATION is past tense, and SANCTIFICATION is ongoing.

I could take issue with the justification being solely past tense, but they might be terminological. My point here is simply, that on sanctification I agree with you: sanctification is ongoing, and Purgatory is a stage in that process. The souls in Purgatory have already been justified, that is, in their case, found worthy of eventually entering heaven. Let us return to 1 Cor. 3. The builder there is building on the right foundation. While his works are uneven, he is a worker in good faith. When he puts in sraw and wood, that is out of poverty of his spirit, but he is not tearing down, he is trying to build up. That is, his faith is good but not perfect. He receives mercy. This is why he is in Purgatory. Had he been a worker against the Church he would not have a way to enter heaven at all; as he is, he is "saved as if through fire".

[annalex]

Show me an original Greek writing, or something from the NT where the word “brother” means cousin or kin.

First, I apologize, the OT reference was meant to be Gen 13:8. I do not see why only original Greek texts should matter. The fact is that both in Hebrew and Greek "brother" is sometimes used expansively. The Nazarene speaker who identified James and Joseph as "brothers" of Jesus was most likely using Aramaic, language close to Hebrew but not Greek. When the Greek author translated Genesis he chose to translate the Hebrew "akhim" as "adelphoi":

Genesis
	English: Douay-Rheims	Hebrew OT: WLC (Consonants Only)	Greek OT: LXX [A] Unaccented
	Genesis 13
8.	Abram therefore said to Lot: Let there be no quarrel, I beseech thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen: for we are brethren.	ויאמר אברם אל־לוט אל־נא תהי מריבה ביני וביניך ובין רעי ובין רעיך כי־אנשים אחים אנחנו׃	ειπεν δε αβραμ τω λωτ μη εστω μαχη ανα μεσον εμου και σου και ανα μεσον των ποιμενων μου και ανα μεσον των ποιμενων σου οτι ανθρωποι αδελφοι ημεις εσμεν	.8

But, of course, Lot was Abram's nephew, not brother as is clear from Gen. 11:27,31.

Here is, however, another expansive usage in the Greek new testament:

Matthew
	English: Douay-Rheims	Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)
	Matthew 13 [similar Mark 6:3]
55.	Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:	ουχ ουτος εστιν ο του τεκτονος υιος ουχι η μητηρ αυτου λεγεται μαριαμ και οι αδελφοι αυτου ιακωβος και ιωσης και σιμων και ιουδας

Well, the same Evangelist identifies the mother of James and Joseph as another Mary in Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40.

[Mr. Lucky]

Thank you.

[annalex]

Thank you.

[annalex]

See previous examples of provenly extended usage both in Hebrew and Greek.

You might find it interesting that James the Less often is called "James the brother of the Lord" in Russian usage to this day. You would hear it often because of the need to somehow distinguish the two Jameses. Obviously, no Orthodox Christian would think for a minute that Mary the Blessed Virgin had other biological children.

Iakov brat gospoden (Cyrillic may not show in your browser)

Pravoslavie.rui, the first link in the search, explains:

Apostle Iakov (James) brother of the Lord is son of Joseph, fellow traveler of his and of the Most Holy Virgin Mary to Egypt. He is also James the Less or Lesser. Upon His resurrection the Lord honored him with his special appearance (1 Cor. 15:7) and by the Lord Himself in ad 34 (or, according to Eusebius, elected fromt he Apostles and consecrated the first bishop of the Jerusalem Church, the mother of Christian Churches...

Link

It is hard to imagine the notion of ever-virgin Mary ever develop given such a prominent figure being a biological son of hers.

[kosta50]

At best I would think the claim could be made that “we don’t know”, because the Bible is either ambiguous or contrary to the eternal virginity of Mary. Thus it would be a position based on faith and faith alone, correct?

The Church believed it based on a culturally influenced view that anything else would have desecrated her body after Jesus. Her body became a temple that was to remain God's and God's only.

No one ever challenged this belief for 1500 years. Even those Churches that broke off early on (Coptic and Oriental) retained their Marian belief because it was cultural and devotional. 

In that mindset, they cannot imagine Mary wanting to start "normal" relations. Nothing can top God and nothing can change her state of being "full of grace."

Of course, ALL of Christianity - and really, all religions - ultimately are on faith and faith alone, so this isn’t a big issue for me. Other than the “single interpretation allowed only” position of the Catholic Church.

Of course it is a belief. The single interpretation is an unbroken tradition from the start based on the reasons outlined above.  It's a dispistion of honor.