The difference between Orthodoxy and Catholics. What is the difference between the Orthodox faith and the Catholic faith? Reception of new members into the Church
This year, the entire Christian world simultaneously celebrates the main holiday of the Church - the Resurrection of Christ. This again reminds us of the common root from which the main Christian denominations originate, of the once existing unity of all Christians. However, for almost a thousand years this unity has been broken between Eastern and Western Christianity. If many are familiar with the date of 1054 as the year of separation of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches officially recognized by historians, then perhaps not everyone knows that it was preceded by a long process of gradual divergence.
In this publication, the reader is offered a shortened version of the article by Archimandrite Plakida (Dezei) “The History of a Schism.” This is a brief exploration of the causes and history of the break between Western and Eastern Christianity. Without examining in detail the dogmatic subtleties, focusing only on the origins of theological disagreements in the teachings of Blessed Augustine of Hippo, Father Placidas provides a historical and cultural overview of the events that preceded the mentioned date of 1054 and followed it. He shows that the division did not occur overnight or suddenly, but was the result of “a long historical process influenced by doctrinal differences as well as political and cultural factors.”
The main work of translation from the French original was carried out by students of Sretensky Theological Seminary under the leadership of T.A. Buffoon. Editorial editing and preparation of the text was carried out by V.G. Massalitina. The full text of the article was published on the website “Orthodox France. A view from Russia".
Harbingers of a split
The teaching of bishops and church writers whose works were written in Latin - Saints Hilary of Pictavia (315-367), Ambrose of Milan (340-397), Saint John Cassian the Roman (360-435) and many others - was completely in tune with the teaching Greek holy fathers: Saints Basil the Great (329–379), Gregory the Theologian (330–390), John Chrysostom (344–407) and others. The Western fathers sometimes differed from the Eastern ones only in that they placed more emphasis on the moralizing component than on deep theological analysis.
The first attempt on this doctrinal harmony occurred with the advent of the teachings of Blessed Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354–430). Here we encounter one of the most exciting mysteries of Christian history. In Blessed Augustine, who had the highest degree of feeling for the unity of the Church and love for it, there was nothing of a heresiarch. And yet, in many directions, Augustine opened up new paths for Christian thought, which left a deep imprint on the history of the West, but at the same time turned out to be almost completely alien to the non-Latin Churches.
On the one hand, Augustine, the most “philosophical” of the Church Fathers, is inclined to extol the abilities of the human mind in the field of knowledge of God. He developed the theological doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which formed the basis of the Latin doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son(in Latin - Filioque). According to an older tradition, the Holy Spirit originates, just like the Son, only from the Father. The Eastern Fathers always adhered to this formula contained in the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament (see: John 15:26), and saw in Filioque distortion of the apostolic faith. They noted that as a result of this teaching in the Western Church there was a certain belittling of the Hypostasis Itself and the role of the Holy Spirit, which, in their opinion, led to a certain strengthening of institutional and legal aspects in the life of the Church. From the 5th century Filioque was universally accepted in the West, almost without the knowledge of the non-Latin Churches, but it was added later to the Creed.
In regard to the inner life, Augustine so emphasized human weakness and the omnipotence of Divine grace that it seemed as if he belittled human freedom in the face of Divine predestination.
Augustine's genius and supremely attractive personality even during his lifetime aroused admiration in the West, where he was soon considered the greatest of the Church Fathers and focused almost entirely on his school. To a large extent, Roman Catholicism and its breakaway Jansenism and Protestantism will differ from Orthodoxy in that they owe to St. Augustine. The medieval conflicts between the priesthood and the empire, the introduction of the scholastic method in the medieval universities, clericalism and anti-clericalism in Western society are, to varying degrees and in different forms, either the legacy or consequences of Augustinianism.
In the IV–V centuries. Another disagreement appears between Rome and other Churches. For all the Churches of East and West, the primacy recognized by the Roman Church stemmed, on the one hand, from the fact that it was the Church of the former capital of the empire, and on the other, from the fact that it was glorified by the preaching and martyrdom of the two supreme apostles Peter and Paul . But this is championship inter pares(“among equals”) did not mean that the Roman Church is the seat of centralized government of the Universal Church.
However, starting from the second half of the 4th century, a different understanding emerged in Rome. The Roman Church and its bishop demand for themselves the dominant power, which would make it the governing body of the government of the Universal Church. According to Roman doctrine, this primacy is based on the clearly expressed will of Christ, who, in their opinion, endowed this authority with Peter, telling him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18). The Pope no longer considered himself simply the successor of Peter, who has since been recognized as the first bishop of Rome, but also his vicar, in whom the supreme apostle, as it were, continues to live and through him to rule the Universal Church.
Despite some resistance, this position of primacy was gradually accepted by the entire West. The remaining Churches generally adhered to the ancient understanding of primacy, often allowing some ambiguity in their relations with the Roman See.
Crisis in the Late Middle Ages
VII century witnessed the birth of Islam, which began to spread at lightning speed, helped jihad- a holy war that allowed the Arabs to conquer the Persian Empire, which had long been a formidable rival to the Roman Empire, as well as the territories of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Beginning from this period, the patriarchs of the mentioned cities were often forced to entrust the management of the remaining Christian flock to their representatives, who stayed locally, while they themselves had to live in Constantinople. The result of this was a relative decrease in the importance of these patriarchs, and the patriarch of the capital of the empire, whose see already at the time of the Council of Chalcedon (451) was placed in second place after Rome, thus became, to some extent, the supreme judge of the Churches of the East.
With the emergence of the Isaurian dynasty (717), an iconoclastic crisis broke out (726). Emperors Leo III (717–741), Constantine V (741–775) and their successors prohibited the depiction of Christ and saints and the veneration of icons. Opponents of the imperial doctrine, mainly monks, were thrown into prison, tortured, and killed, as in the days of the pagan emperors.
The popes supported the opponents of iconoclasm and broke off communication with the iconoclast emperors. And they, in response to this, annexed Calabria, Sicily and Illyria (the western part of the Balkans and northern Greece), which until that time were under the jurisdiction of the Pope, to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
At the same time, in order to more successfully resist the advance of the Arabs, the iconoclast emperors proclaimed themselves adherents of Greek patriotism, very far from the previously dominant universalist “Roman” idea, and lost interest in the non-Greek regions of the empire, in particular in northern and central Italy, which the Lombards claimed.
The legality of the veneration of icons was restored at the VII Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (787). After a new round of iconoclasm, which began in 813, Orthodox teaching finally triumphed in Constantinople in 843.
Communication between Rome and the empire was thereby restored. But the fact that the iconoclast emperors limited their foreign policy interests to the Greek part of the empire led to the fact that the popes began to look for other patrons for themselves. Previously, popes who did not have territorial sovereignty were loyal subjects of the empire. Now, stung by the annexation of Illyria to Constantinople and left unprotected in the face of the invasion of the Lombards, they turned to the Franks and, to the detriment of the Merovingians, who had always maintained relations with Constantinople, began to promote the arrival of the new Carolingian dynasty, bearers of other ambitions.
In 739, Pope Gregory III, seeking to prevent the Lombard king Luitprand from uniting Italy under his rule, turned to Majordomo Charles Martel, who tried to use the death of Theodoric IV to eliminate the Merovingians. In exchange for his help, he promised to renounce all loyalty to the Emperor of Constantinople and benefit exclusively from the protection of the Frankish king. Gregory III was the last pope to ask the emperor for approval of his election. His successors will already be approved by the Frankish court.
Charles Martel could not live up to the hopes of Gregory III. However, in 754, Pope Stephen II personally went to France to meet with Pepin the Short. He recaptured Ravenna from the Lombards in 756, but instead of returning it to Constantinople, he handed it over to the pope, laying the foundation for the soon-to-be-formed Papal States, which turned the popes into independent secular rulers. In order to provide a legal basis for the current situation, the famous forgery was developed in Rome - the “Donation of Constantine”, according to which Emperor Constantine allegedly transferred imperial powers over the West to Pope Sylvester (314–335).
On September 25, 800, Pope Leo III, without any participation from Constantinople, placed the imperial crown on the head of Charlemagne and named him emperor. Neither Charlemagne nor later other German emperors, who to some extent restored the empire he had created, became co-rulers of the Emperor of Constantinople, in accordance with the code adopted shortly after the death of Emperor Theodosius (395). Constantinople repeatedly proposed a compromise solution of this kind, which would preserve the unity of Romania. But the Carolingian empire wanted to be the only legitimate Christian empire and sought to take the place of the Constantinople empire, considering it obsolete. That is why theologians from Charlemagne’s entourage allowed themselves to condemn the decisions of the VII Ecumenical Council on the veneration of icons as tainted by idolatry and introduce Filioque in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. However, the popes soberly opposed these imprudent measures aimed at degrading the Greek faith.
However, the political break between the Frankish world and the papacy on the one hand and the ancient Roman Empire of Constantinople on the other was a foregone conclusion. And such a gap could not but lead to a religious schism itself, if we take into account the special theological significance that Christian thought attached to the unity of the empire, considering it as an expression of the unity of the people of God.
In the second half of the 9th century. The antagonism between Rome and Constantinople appeared on a new basis: the question arose of which jurisdiction to include the Slavic peoples, who were embarking on the path of Christianity at that time. This new conflict also left a deep mark on the history of Europe.
At that time, Nicholas I (858–867) became pope, an energetic man who sought to establish the Roman concept of papal supremacy in the Universal Church, limit the interference of secular authorities in church affairs, and also fought against the centrifugal tendencies manifested in part of the Western episcopate. He supported his actions with fake decretals that had recently circulated, allegedly issued by previous popes.
In Constantinople, Photius became patriarch (858–867 and 877–886). As modern historians have convincingly established, the personality of Saint Photius and the events of his reign were greatly denigrated by his opponents. He was a very educated man, deeply devoted to the Orthodox faith, and a zealous servant of the Church. He understood well the great importance of educating the Slavs. It was on his initiative that Saints Cyril and Methodius set out to enlighten the Great Moravian lands. Their mission in Moravia was ultimately strangled and supplanted by the machinations of German preachers. Nevertheless, they managed to translate liturgical and most important biblical texts into Slavic, creating an alphabet for this, and thus laid the foundation for the culture of the Slavic lands. Photius was also involved in educating the peoples of the Balkans and Rus'. In 864 he baptized Boris, Prince of Bulgaria.
But Boris, disappointed that he did not receive from Constantinople an autonomous church hierarchy for his people, turned for a time to Rome, receiving Latin missionaries. Photius learned that they preached the Latin doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and seemed to use the Creed with the addition Filioque.
At the same time, Pope Nicholas I intervened in the internal affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, seeking the removal of Photius in order, with the help of church intrigues, to restore to the see the former Patriarch Ignatius, deposed in 861. In response to this, Emperor Michael III and Saint Photius convened a council in Constantinople (867) , whose regulations were subsequently destroyed. This council apparently accepted the doctrine of Filioque heretical, declared the pope’s intervention in the affairs of the Church of Constantinople unlawful and broke off liturgical communion with him. And since complaints from Western bishops to Constantinople about the “tyranny” of Nicholas I, the council suggested that Emperor Louis of Germany depose the pope.
As a result of a palace coup, Photius was deposed, and a new council (869–870), convened in Constantinople, condemned him. This cathedral is still considered in the West to be the VIII Ecumenical Council. Then, under Emperor Basil I, Saint Photius was returned from disgrace. In 879, a council was again convened in Constantinople, which, in the presence of the legates of the new Pope John VIII (872–882), restored Photius to the see. At the same time, concessions were made regarding Bulgaria, which returned to the jurisdiction of Rome, while retaining the Greek clergy. However, Bulgaria soon achieved church independence and remained in the orbit of the interests of Constantinople. Pope John VIII wrote a letter to Patriarch Photius condemning the addition Filioque into the Creed, without condemning the doctrine itself. Photius, probably not noticing this subtlety, decided that he had won. Contrary to persistent misconceptions, it can be argued that there was no so-called second Photius schism, and liturgical communication between Rome and Constantinople continued for more than a century.
Break in the 11th century
XI century for the Byzantine Empire was truly “golden”. The power of the Arabs was completely undermined, Antioch returned to the empire, a little more - and Jerusalem would have been liberated. The Bulgarian Tsar Simeon (893–927), who tried to create a Romano-Bulgarian empire that was profitable for him, was defeated, the same fate befell Samuel, who rebelled to form a Macedonian state, after which Bulgaria returned to the empire. Kievan Rus, having adopted Christianity, quickly became part of the Byzantine civilization. The rapid cultural and spiritual rise that began immediately after the triumph of Orthodoxy in 843 was accompanied by the political and economic prosperity of the empire.
Oddly enough, the victories of Byzantium, including over Islam, were also beneficial to the West, creating favorable conditions for the emergence of Western Europe in the form in which it would exist for many centuries. And the starting point of this process can be considered the formation in 962 of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation and in 987 of Capetian France. However, it was in the 11th century, which seemed so promising, that a spiritual rupture occurred between the new Western world and the Roman Empire of Constantinople, an irreparable schism, the consequences of which were tragic for Europe.
From the beginning of the 11th century. the name of the pope was no longer mentioned in the diptychs of Constantinople, which meant that communication with him was interrupted. This is the completion of a long process that we are studying. It is not known exactly what was the immediate cause of this gap. Perhaps the reason was the inclusion Filioque in the confession of faith sent by Pope Sergius IV to Constantinople in 1009 along with the notification of his accession to the Roman throne. Be that as it may, during the coronation of the German Emperor Henry II (1014), the Creed was sung in Rome with Filioque.
Besides the introduction Filioque There were also a number of Latin customs that outraged the Byzantines and increased the grounds for disagreement. Among them, the use of unleavened bread to celebrate the Eucharist was especially serious. If in the first centuries leavened bread was used everywhere, then from the 7th–8th centuries the Eucharist began to be celebrated in the West using wafers made from unleavened bread, that is, without leaven, as the ancient Jews did for their Passover. Symbolic language was given great importance at that time, which is why the use of unleavened bread was perceived by the Greeks as a return to Judaism. They saw in this a denial of the novelty and the spiritual nature of the Savior’s sacrifice, which He offered in exchange for the Old Testament rites. In their eyes, the use of “dead” bread meant that the Savior in the incarnation took only a human body, but not a soul...
In the 11th century The strengthening of papal power, which began during the time of Pope Nicholas I, continued with greater force. The fact is that in the 10th century. The power of the papacy was weakened as never before, being a victim of the actions of various factions of the Roman aristocracy or experiencing pressure from the German emperors. Various abuses spread in the Roman Church: the sale of church positions and the awarding of them by the laity, marriages or cohabitation among the priesthood... But during the pontificate of Leo XI (1047–1054), a real reform of the Western Church began. The new pope surrounded himself with worthy people, mainly natives of Lorraine, among whom Cardinal Humbert, Bishop of Bela Silva, stood out. The reformers saw no other means to correct the disastrous state of Latin Christianity other than strengthening the power and authority of the pope. In their view, papal power, as they understood it, should extend to the Universal Church, both Latin and Greek.
In 1054, an event occurred that could remain insignificant, but served as the occasion for a dramatic clash between the ecclesiastical tradition of Constantinople and the Western reform movement.
In an effort to obtain the help of the pope in the face of the threat of the Normans, who were encroaching on the Byzantine possessions of southern Italy, Emperor Constantine Monomachos, at the instigation of the Latin Argyrus, whom he appointed ruler of these possessions, took a conciliatory position towards Rome and wished to restore the unity that, as we have seen, was interrupted at the beginning of the century . But the actions of Latin reformers in southern Italy, which infringed on Byzantine religious customs, worried the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cyrularius. The papal legates, among whom was the inflexible bishop of Bela Silva, Cardinal Humbert, who arrived in Constantinople to negotiate unification, plotted to remove the intractable patriarch with the hands of the emperor. The matter ended with the legates placing a bull on the throne of Hagia Sophia for the excommunication of Michael Kirularius and his supporters. And a few days later, in response to this, the patriarch and the council he convened excommunicated the legates themselves from the Church.
Two circumstances gave significance to the hasty and rash act of the legates, which could not be appreciated at that time. First, they again raised the issue of Filioque, wrongfully reproaching the Greeks for excluding it from the Creed, although non-Latin Christianity has always considered this teaching as contrary to the apostolic tradition. In addition, the intentions of the reformers to extend the absolute and direct power of the pope to all bishops and believers, even in Constantinople itself, became clear to the Byzantines. Ecclesiology presented in this form seemed completely new to them and, in their eyes, also could not help but contradict the apostolic tradition. Having become familiar with the situation, the rest of the Eastern Patriarchs joined the position of Constantinople.
1054 should be considered not so much as the date of the schism, but as the year of the first failed attempt at reunification. No one then could have imagined that the division that occurred between those Churches that would soon be called Orthodox and Roman Catholic would last for centuries.
After the split
The schism was based mainly on doctrinal factors relating to different ideas about the mystery of the Holy Trinity and the structure of the Church. To these were also added differences in less important issues related to church customs and rituals.
During the Middle Ages, the Latin West continued to develop in a direction that further removed it from the Orthodox world and its spirit.<…>
On the other hand, serious events occurred that further complicated understanding between Orthodox peoples and the Latin West. Probably the most tragic of them was the IV Crusade, which deviated from the main path and ended with the destruction of Constantinople, the proclamation of a Latin emperor and the establishment of the rule of the Frankish lords, who arbitrarily carved out the land holdings of the former Roman Empire. Many Orthodox monks were expelled from their monasteries and replaced by Latin monks. All this was probably unintentional, but it was nevertheless a logical consequence of the creation of the Western Empire and the evolution of the Latin Church from the beginning of the Middle Ages.<…>
Archimandrite Placida (Dezei) was born in France in 1926 into a Catholic family. In 1942, at the age of sixteen, he entered the Cistercian Abbey of Bellefontaine. In 1966, in search of the true roots of Christianity and monasticism, he founded, together with like-minded monks, a monastery of the Byzantine rite in Aubazine (Corrèze department). In 1977, the monks of the monastery decided to convert to Orthodoxy. The transition took place on June 19, 1977; in February of the following year they became monks of the Mount Athos monastery of Simonopetra. Returning some time later to France, Fr. Placidas, together with the brethren who converted to Orthodoxy, founded four metochions of the Simonopetra monastery, the main one of which was the monastery of St. Anthony the Great in Saint-Laurent-en-Royan (Drôme department), in the Vercors mountain range. Archimandrite Plakida is an associate professor of patrolology in Paris. He is the founder of the series “Spiritualité orientale” (“Eastern Spirituality”), published since 1966 by the publishing house of Bellefontaine Abbey. Author and translator of many books on Orthodox spirituality and monasticism, the most important of which are: “The Spirit of Pachomius Monasticism” (1968), “We See the True Light: Monastic Life, Its Spirit and Fundamental Texts” (1990), “The Philokalia and Orthodox Spirituality "(1997), "The Gospel in the Wilderness" (1999), "The Cave of Babylon: A Spiritual Guide" (2001), "The Basics of the Catechism" (in 2 volumes 2001), "The Confidence of the Unseen" (2002), "The Body - soul - spirit in the Orthodox understanding" (2004). In 2006, a translation of the book “Philokalia and Orthodox Spirituality” was published for the first time at the publishing house of the Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University. Those wishing to get to know the biography of Fr. Plakida recommends turning to the appendix in this book - the autobiographical note “Stages of a Spiritual Journey.” (Note per.)
Pepin III the Short ( lat. Pippinus Brevis, 714–768) - French king (751–768), founder of the Carolingian dynasty. The son of Charles Martel and hereditary mayor, Pepin overthrew the last king of the Merovingian dynasty and achieved his election to the royal throne, receiving the sanction of the Pope. (Note per.)
Saint Theodosius I the Great (c. 346–395) - Roman emperor from 379. Commemorated on January 17. The son of a commander, originally from Spain. After the death of the emperor, Valens was proclaimed by Emperor Gratian as his co-ruler in the eastern part of the empire. Under him, Christianity finally became the dominant religion, and the state pagan cult was banned (392). (Note per.)
Those whom we call “Byzantines” called their empire Romania.
See especially: Janitor Frantisek. Photius schism: History and legends. (Col. “Unam Sanctam”. No. 19). Paris, 1950; It's him. Byzantium and Roman primacy. (Col. “Unam Sanctam”. No. 49). Paris, 1964. pp. 93–110.
Christianity is one of the world religions along with Buddhism and Judaism. Over a thousand-year history, it has undergone changes that led to branches from a single religion. The main ones are Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Catholicism. Christianity also has other movements, but usually they are classified as sectarian and are condemned by representatives of generally recognized movements.
Differences between Orthodoxy and Christianity
What is the difference between these two concepts? Everything is very simple. All Orthodox are Christians, but not all Christians are Orthodox. Followers, united by the confession of this world religion, are divided by belonging to a separate direction, one of which is Orthodoxy. To understand how Orthodoxy differs from Christianity, you need to turn to the history of the emergence of world religion.
Origins of religions
It is believed that Christianity arose in the 1st century. from the birth of Christ in Palestine, although some sources claim that it became known two centuries earlier. People who preached the faith were waiting for God to come to earth. The doctrine absorbed the foundations of Judaism and philosophical trends of that time; it was greatly influenced by the political situation.
The spread of this religion was greatly facilitated by the preaching of the apostles, especially Paul. Many pagans were converted to the new faith, and this process continued for a long time. Currently, Christianity has the largest number of followers compared to other world religions.
Orthodox Christianity began to stand out only in Rome in the 10th century. AD, and was officially approved in 1054. Although its origins can be dated back to the 1st century. from the birth of Christ. The Orthodox believe that the history of their religion began immediately after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, when the apostles preached a new creed and attracted more and more people to religion.
By the 2nd-3rd centuries. Orthodoxy opposed Gnosticism, which rejected the authenticity of the history of the Old Testament and interpreted the New Testament in a different way that did not correspond to the generally accepted one. Also, confrontation was observed in relations with the followers of the presbyter Arius, who formed a new movement - Arianism. According to their ideas, Christ did not have a divine nature and was only a mediator between God and people.
On the doctrine of the emerging Orthodoxy The Ecumenical Councils had a great influence, supported by a number of Byzantine emperors. Seven Councils, convened over five centuries, established the basic axioms subsequently accepted in modern Orthodoxy, in particular, they confirmed the divine origin of Jesus, which was disputed in a number of teachings. This strengthened the Orthodox faith and allowed more and more people to join it.
In addition to Orthodoxy and small heretical teachings, which quickly faded in the process of developing stronger trends, Catholicism emerged from Christianity. This was facilitated by the split of the Roman Empire into Western and Eastern. Huge differences in social, political and religious views led to the collapse of a single religion into the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, which at first was called Eastern Catholic. The head of the first church was the Pope, the second - the patriarch. Their mutual separation of each other from the common faith led to a split in Christianity. The process began in 1054 and ended in 1204 with the fall of Constantinople.
Although Christianity was adopted in Rus' back in 988, it was not affected by the schism process. The official division of the church occurred only several decades later, but At the baptism of Rus', Orthodox customs were immediately introduced, formed in Byzantium and borrowed from there.
Strictly speaking, the term Orthodoxy was practically never found in ancient sources; instead, the word Orthodoxy was used. According to a number of researchers, previously these concepts were given different meanings (orthodoxy meant one of the Christian directions, and Orthodoxy was almost a pagan faith). Subsequently, they began to be given a similar meaning, made synonyms and replaced one with another.
Fundamentals of Orthodoxy
Faith in Orthodoxy is the essence of all divine teaching. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, compiled during the convening of the Second Ecumenical Council, is the basis of the doctrine. The ban on changing any provisions in this system of dogmas has been in effect since the Fourth Council.
Based on the Creed, Orthodoxy is based on the following dogmas:
The desire to earn eternal life in heaven after death is the main goal of those who profess the religion in question. A true Orthodox Christian must throughout his life follow the commandments handed down to Moses and confirmed by Christ. According to them, you need to be kind and merciful, love God and your neighbors. The commandments indicate that all hardships and hardships must be endured resignedly and even joyfully; despondency is one of the deadly sins.
Differences from other Christian denominations
Compare Orthodoxy with Christianity possible by comparing its main directions. They are closely related to each other, since they are united in one world religion. However, there are huge differences between them on a number of issues:
Thus, the differences between the directions are not always contradictory. There are more similarities between Catholicism and Protestantism, since the latter emerged as a result of the schism of the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century. If desired, the currents could be reconciled. But this has not happened for many years and is not expected in the future.
Attitudes towards other religions
Orthodoxy is tolerant of confessors of other religions. However, without condemning and peacefully coexisting with them, this movement recognizes them as heretical. It is believed that of all religions, only one is true; its confession leads to the inheritance of the Kingdom of God. This dogma is contained in the very name of the movement, indicating that this religion is correct and opposite to other movements. Nevertheless, Orthodoxy recognizes that Catholics and Protestants are also not deprived of the grace of God, since, although they glorify Him differently, the essence of their faith is the same.
By comparison, Catholics consider the only possibility of salvation to be the practice of their religion, while others, including Orthodoxy, are false. The task of this church is to convince all dissenters. The Pope is the head of the Christian church, although this thesis is refuted in Orthodoxy.
The support of the Orthodox Church by secular authorities and their close cooperation led to an increase in the number of followers of the religion and its development. In a number of countries, Orthodoxy is practiced by the majority of the population. These include:
In these countries, a large number of churches and Sunday schools are being built, and subjects dedicated to the study of Orthodoxy are being introduced in secular educational institutions. Popularization also has a downside: often people who consider themselves Orthodox have a superficial attitude towards performing rituals and do not comply with the prescribed moral principles.
You can perform rituals and treat shrines differently, have different views on the purpose of your own stay on earth, but ultimately, everyone who professes Christianity, united by faith in one God. The concept of Christianity is not identical to Orthodoxy, but includes it. Maintaining moral principles and being sincere in your relationships with Higher Powers is the basis of any religion.
It is very important for a Christian believer to accurately represent the main tenets of his own faith. The difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, which appeared during the period of church schism in the mid-11th century, developed over the years and centuries and created practically different branches of Christianity.
In short, what makes Orthodoxy different is that it is a more canonical teaching. It is not for nothing that the church is also called Eastern Orthodoxy. Here they try to adhere to the original traditions with high precision.
Let's consider the main milestones of history:
- Until the 11th century, Christianity developed as a single teaching (of course, the statement is largely conditional, since over the course of thousands of years various heresies and new schools appeared that deviated from the canon), which was actively progressing, spreading throughout the world, so-called Ecumenical Councils were held, designed to resolve some dogmatic features of the teaching;
- The Great Schism, that is, the Church Schism of the 11th century, which separates the Western Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox Church, in fact, the Patriarch of Constantinople (Eastern Church) and the Roman Pontiff Leo the Ninth quarreled, as a result they betrayed each other to mutual anathema, that is, excommunication churches;
- the separate path of the two churches: in the West, the institution of pontiffs flourishes in Catholicism and various additions are made to the doctrine; in the East, the original tradition is revered. Rus' actually becomes the successor of Byzantium, although the Greek Church remained the custodian of the Orthodox tradition to a greater extent;
- 1965 - formal lifting of mutual anathemas after a meeting in Jerusalem and signing of the corresponding declaration.
Throughout the almost thousand-year period, Catholicism has undergone a huge number of changes. In turn, in Orthodoxy, minor innovations that concerned only the ritual aspect were not always accepted.
Main differences between traditions
Initially, the Catholic Church was formally closer to the basis of the teaching, since the Apostle Peter was the first pontiff in this church.
In fact, the tradition of transmitting the Catholic ordination of the apostles comes from Peter himself.
Although ordination (that is, ordination to the priesthood) exists in Orthodoxy, and every priest who becomes involved in the Holy Gifts in Orthodoxy also becomes the bearer of the original tradition coming from Christ himself and the apostles.
Note! In order to indicate each difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, a significant amount of time will be required, this material sets out the most basic details and provides an opportunity to develop a conceptual understanding of the differences in traditions.
After the schism, Catholics and Orthodox Christians gradually became bearers of very different views. We will try to consider the most significant differences that relate to dogma, the ritual side, and other aspects.
Perhaps the main difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is contained in the text of the “Creed” prayer, which should be recited regularly by the believer.
Such a prayer is like a super-condensed summary of the entire teaching, describing the main postulates. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the Holy Spirit comes from God the Father, and every Catholic, in turn, reads about the descent of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son.
Before the schism, various decisions regarding dogma were made conciliarly, that is, by representatives of all regional churches at a general council. This tradition still remains in Orthodoxy, but what is significant is not this, but the dogma of the infallibility of the pontiff of the Roman Church.
This fact is one of the most significant differences between Orthodoxy and the Catholic tradition, since the figure of the patriarch does not have such powers and has a completely different function. The pontiff, in turn, is a vicar (that is, as it were, an official representative with all powers) of Christ on earth. Of course, the scriptures say nothing about this, and this dogma was accepted by the church itself much later than the crucifixion of Christ.
Even the first pontiff Peter, whom Jesus himself appointed “the rock on which to build the church,” was not endowed with such powers; he was an apostle, but nothing more.
However, the modern pontiff is to some extent no different from Christ himself (before His coming at the end of time) and can independently make any additions to the doctrine. This gives rise to differences in dogma that significantly lead away from original Christianity.
A typical example is the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, which we will discuss in more detail later. This is not indicated in the scriptures (even the exact opposite is indicated), but Catholics relatively recently (in the 19th century) accepted the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, accepted by the current pontiff at that time, that is, this decision was infallible and dogmatically correct, in agreement with the will of Christ himself .
Quite rightly, it is the Orthodox and Catholic churches that deserve more attention and detailed consideration, since only these Christian traditions have the rite of ordination, which actually comes directly from Christ through the apostles, whom He provided with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. The Apostles, in turn, passed on the Holy Gifts through the ordination of priests. Other movements, such as, for example, Protestants or Lutherans, do not have a rite of transmission of the Holy Gifts, that is, priests in these movements are outside the direct transmission of teachings and sacraments.
Traditions of icon painting
Only Orthodoxy differs from other Christian traditions in the veneration of icons. In fact, there is not only a cultural aspect to this, but also a religious one.
Catholics have icons, but do not have precise traditions of creating images that convey the events of the spiritual world and allow one to ascend into the spiritual world. To understand the difference between the perception of Christianity in the two directions, just look at the images in churches:
- in Orthodoxy and nowhere else (if Christianity is considered), the iconographic image is always created using a special technique of constructing perspective; in addition, deep and multifaceted religious symbolism is used; those present on the icon never express earthly emotions;
- if you look in a Catholic church, you can immediately see that these are mostly paintings written by simple artists, they convey beauty, can be symbolic, but focus on the earthly, are full of human emotions;
- characteristic is the difference in the depiction of the cross with the Savior, because Orthodoxy differs from other traditions in the depiction of Christ without naturalistic details, there is no emphasis on the body, He is an example of the triumph of the spirit over the body, and Catholics most often in the crucifixion focus on the suffering of Christ, carefully depicting the details the wounds that He had, they consider the feat precisely in suffering.
Note! There are distinct branches of Catholic mysticism that represent an in-depth focus on the suffering of Christ. The believer strives to fully identify himself with the Savior and fully feel his suffering. By the way, in this regard, there are also the phenomena of stigmata.
In short, the Orthodox Church shifts the emphasis to the spiritual side of things; even art is used here as part of a special technique that changes a person’s perception so that he can better enter into a prayerful mood and perception of the heavenly world.
Catholics, in turn, do not use art in this way; they can emphasize beauty (Madonna and Child) or suffering (Crucifixion), but these phenomena are conveyed purely as attributes of the earthly order. As the wise saying goes, to understand religion, you need to look at the images in temples.
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary
In the modern Western church there is a unique cult of the Virgin Mary, which was formed purely historically and also largely due to the acceptance of the previously noted dogma of Her immaculate conception.
If we remember the scripture, then it clearly speaks of Joachim and Anna, who conceived in a completely vicious way, in a normal human way. Of course, this was also a miracle, since they were elderly people and the Archangel Gabriel appeared to each of them first, but the conception was human.
Therefore, for the Orthodox, the Mother of God does not initially represent a representative of the divine nature. Although she subsequently ascended in the body and was taken by Christ to Heaven. Catholics now consider Her to be something like a personification of the Lord. After all, if the conception was immaculate, that is, from the Holy Spirit, then the Virgin Mary, like Christ, combined both divine and human nature.
Good to know!
How is Catholicism different from Orthodoxy? When did the division of the Churches occur and why did this happen? How should an Orthodox person react to all this correctly? We tell you the most important things.
The separation of Orthodoxy and Catholicism is a great tragedy in the history of the Church
The division of the United Christian Church into Orthodoxy and Catholicism happened almost a thousand years ago - in 1054.
The One Church consisted, as the Orthodox Church still does, of many local Churches. This means that the Churches, for example, the Russian Orthodox or the Greek Orthodox, have some external differences in themselves (in the architecture of churches; singing; the language of services; and even in how certain parts of the services are conducted), but they are united in the main doctrinal issues, and there is Eucharistic communion between them. That is, a Russian Orthodox can receive communion and confess in a Greek Orthodox church and vice versa.
According to the Creed, the Church is one, because the head of the Church is Christ. This means that there cannot be several Churches on earth that would have different creed. And it was precisely because of disagreements in doctrinal issues that in the 11th century there was a division into Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As a consequence of this, Catholics cannot receive communion and confession in Orthodox churches and vice versa.
Catholic Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Moscow. Photo: catedra.ru
What are the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism?
Today there are a lot of them. And they are conventionally divided into three types.
- Doctrinal differences- because of which, in fact, the split occurred. For example, the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope among Catholics.
- Ritual differences. For example, Catholics have a different form of Communion from us or the vow of celibacy (celibacy) that is obligatory for Catholic priests. That is, we have fundamentally different approaches to some aspects of the Sacraments and Church life, and they can complicate the hypothetical reunification of Catholics and Orthodox. But they were not the reason for the split and they are not the ones preventing us from reuniting again.
- Conditional differences in traditions. For example - org A we are in temples; benches in the middle of the church; priests with or without beards; different forms of vestments for priests. In other words, external features that do not at all affect the unity of the Church - since some similar differences are found even within the Orthodox Church in different countries. In general, if the difference between Orthodox and Catholics were only in them, the United Church would never have been divided.
The division between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, which occurred in the 11th century, became for the Church, first of all, a tragedy, which was and is acutely experienced by both “us” and Catholics. Over the course of a thousand years, attempts at reunification were made several times. However, none of them turned out to be truly viable - and we will also talk about this below.
What is the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy - why did the Church actually divide?
Western and Eastern Christian Churches - such a division has always existed. The Western Church is conditionally the territory of modern Western Europe, and later - all the colonized countries of Latin America. The Eastern Church is the territory of modern Greece, Palestine, Syria, and Eastern Europe.
However, the division we are talking about was conditional for many centuries. Too different peoples and civilizations inhabit the Earth, so it is natural that the same teaching in different parts of the Earth and countries could have some characteristic external forms and traditions. For example, the Eastern Church (the one that became Orthodox) has always practiced a more contemplative and mystical lifestyle. It was in the East in the 3rd century that the phenomenon of monasticism arose, which then spread throughout the world. The Latin (Western) Church has always had an image of Christianity that is outwardly more active and “social.”
In the main doctrinal truths they remained common.
Venerable Anthony the Great, founder of monasticism
Perhaps disagreements that later became insurmountable could have been noticed much earlier and “agreeed upon.” But in those days there was no Internet, there were no trains and cars. Churches (not only Western and Eastern, but simply separate dioceses) sometimes existed on their own for decades and rooted certain views within themselves. Therefore, the differences that caused the division of the Church into Catholicism and Orthodoxy turned out to be too deep-rooted at the time of the “decision making”.
This is what the Orthodox cannot accept in Catholic teaching.
- the infallibility of the Pope and the doctrine of the primacy of the Roman throne
- changing the text of the Creed
- doctrine of purgatory
Papal infallibility in Catholicism
Each church has its own primate - head. In Orthodox Churches this is the patriarch. The head of the Western Church (or the Latin Cathedra, as it is also called) was the pope, who now presides over the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church believes that the Pope is infallible. This means that any judgment, decision or opinion that he voices before the flock is the truth and law for the entire Church.
The current Pope is Francis
According to Orthodox teaching, no person can be higher than the Church. For example, an Orthodox patriarch, if his decisions go against the teachings of the Church or deep-rooted traditions, may well be deprived of his rank by decision of a council of bishops (as happened, for example, with Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century).
In addition to the infallibility of the pope, in Catholicism there is a doctrine of the primacy of the Roman throne (Church). Catholics base this teaching on an incorrect interpretation of the words of the Lord in a conversation with the apostles in Caesarea Philippi - about the alleged superiority of the Apostle Peter (who later “founded” the Latin Church) over the other apostles.
(Matthew 16:15–19) “He says to them: Who do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Then Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven; and I say to you: you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”.
You can read more about the dogma of papal infallibility and the primacy of the Roman throne.
The difference between Orthodox and Catholics: the text of the Creed
The different text of the Creed is another reason for disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics - although the difference is only one word.
The Creed is a prayer that was formulated in the 4th century at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, and it put an end to many doctrinal disputes. It states everything that Christians believe.
What is the difference between the texts of Catholics and Orthodox? We say that we believe “And in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father,” and Catholics add: “...from “the Father and the Son who proceeds...”.”
In fact, the addition of just this one word “And the Son...” (Filioque) significantly distorts the image of the entire Christian teaching.
The topic is theological, difficult, and it’s better to read about it right away, at least on Wikipedia.
The doctrine of purgatory is another difference between Catholics and Orthodox
Catholics believe in the existence of purgatory, but Orthodox Christians say that nowhere - not in any of the books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old or New Testaments, and even in none of the books of the Holy Fathers of the first centuries - is there any mention of purgatory.
It is difficult to say how this teaching arose among Catholics. However, now the Catholic Church fundamentally proceeds from the fact that after death there is not only the Kingdom of Heaven and hell, but also a place (or rather, a state) in which the soul of a person who died in peace with God finds himself, but is not holy enough to find himself in Paradise. These souls, apparently, will definitely come to the Kingdom of Heaven, but first they need to undergo purification.
Orthodox Christians view the afterlife differently than Catholics. There is Heaven, there is hell. There are ordeals after death in order to strengthen oneself in peace with God (or to fall away from Him). There is a need to pray for the dead. But there is no purgatory.
These are the three reasons why the difference between Catholics and Orthodox is so fundamental that a division of the Churches arose a thousand years ago.
At the same time, over 1000 years of separate existence, a number of other differences arose (or took root), which are also considered to be what distinguishes us from each other. Something concerns external rituals - and this may seem to be quite a serious difference - and something concerns external traditions that Christianity acquired here and there.
Orthodoxy and Catholicism: differences that don't really separate us
Catholics receive communion differently than we do - is that true?
Orthodox Christians partake of the Body and Blood of Christ from the chalice. Until recently, Catholics received communion not with leavened bread, but with unleavened bread - that is, unleavened bread. Moreover, ordinary parishioners, unlike clergy, received communion only with the Body of Christ.
Before we talk about why this happened, it should be noted that this form of Catholic Communion has recently ceased to be the only one. Now other forms of this Sacrament appear in Catholic churches - including the “familiar” one for us: Body and Blood from the Chalice.
And the tradition of Communion, different from ours, arose in Catholicism for two reasons:
- Regarding the use of unleavened bread: Catholics proceed from the fact that in the time of Christ, Jews at Easter did not break leavened bread, but unleavened bread. (The Orthodox proceed from the Greek texts of the New Testament, where, when describing the Last Supper, which the Lord celebrated with his disciples, the word “artos” is used, meaning leavened bread)
- Regarding parishioners receiving Communion only with the Body: Catholics proceed from the fact that Christ abides equally and fully in any of the parts of the Blessed Sacrament, and not only when they are united. (The Orthodox are guided by the text of the New Testament, where Christ directly speaks about His Body and Blood. Matthew 26:26–28: “ And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take, eat: this is My Body.” And taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them and said, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”»).
They sit in Catholic churches
Generally speaking, this is not even a difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, since in some Orthodox countries - for example, in Bulgaria - it is also customary to sit, and in many churches there you can also see many benches and chairs.
There are many benches, but this is not a Catholic, but an Orthodox church - in New York.
There is an org in Catholic churches A n
The organ is part of the musical accompaniment of the service. Music is one of the integral parts of the service, because if it were otherwise, there would be no choir, and the entire service would be read. Another thing is that we Orthodox Christians are now accustomed to just singing.
In many Latin countries, an organ was also installed in churches, because it was considered a divine instrument - its sound was so sublime and unearthly.
(At the same time, the possibility of using the organ in Orthodox worship was also discussed in Russia at the Local Council of 1917-1918. A supporter of this instrument was the famous church composer Alexander Grechaninov.)
Vow of celibacy among Catholic priests (Celibacy)
In Orthodoxy, a priest can be either a monk or a married priest. We are quite detailed.
In Catholicism, any clergyman is bound by a vow of celibacy.
Catholic priests shave their beards
This is another example of different traditions, and not of any fundamental differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Whether a person has a beard or not does not in any way affect his holiness and does not say anything about him as a good or bad Christian. It’s just that in Western countries it has been common for some time to shave the beard (most likely, this is the influence of the Latin culture of Ancient Rome).
Nowadays no one forbids Orthodox priests from shaving their beards. It’s just that a beard on a priest or monk is such an ingrained tradition among us that breaking it can become a “temptation” for others, and therefore few priests decide to do it or even think about it.
Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh is one of the most famous Orthodox pastors of the 20th century. For some time he served without a beard.
Duration of services and severity of fasts
It so happens that over the past 100 years, the Church life of Catholics has become significantly “simplified” - so to speak. The duration of services has been shortened, fasts have become simpler and shorter (for example, before communion it is enough not to eat food for only a few hours). Thus, the Catholic Church tried to reduce the gap between itself and the secular part of society - fearing that excessive strictness of the rules might scare away modern people. Whether this helped or not is difficult to say.
The Orthodox Church, in its views on the severity of fasts and external rituals, proceeds from the following:
Of course, the world has changed a lot and it will now be impossible for most people to live as strictly as possible. However, the memory of the Rules and strict ascetic life is still important. “By mortifying the flesh, we free the spirit.” And we must not forget about this - at least as an ideal to which we must strive in the depths of our souls. And if this “measure” disappears, then how to maintain the required “bar”?
This is only a small part of the external traditional differences that have developed between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
However, it is important to know what unites our Churches:
- presence of Church Sacraments (communion, confession, baptism, etc.)
- veneration of the Holy Trinity
- veneration of the Mother of God
- veneration of icons
- veneration of holy saints and their relics
- common saints for the first ten centuries of the Church's existence
- Holy Bible
In February 2016, the first ever meeting between the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Pope (Francis) took place in Cuba. An event of historical proportions, but there was no talk of the unification of the Churches.
Orthodoxy and Catholicism - attempts to unite (Union)
The separation of Orthodoxy and Catholicism is a great tragedy in the history of the Church, which is acutely experienced by both Orthodox and Catholics.
Several times over 1000 years, attempts were made to overcome the schism. The so-called Unions were concluded three times - between the Catholic Church and representatives of the Orthodox Church. They all had the following in common:
- They were concluded primarily for political rather than religious reasons.
- Each time these were “concessions” on the part of the Orthodox. As a rule, in the following form: the external form and language of the services remained familiar to the Orthodox, but in all dogmatic disagreements the Catholic interpretation was taken.
- Having been signed by some bishops, they were, as a rule, rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Church - the clergy and the people, and therefore turned out to be essentially unviable. The exception is the last Union of Brest-Litovsk.
These are the three Unions:
Union of Lyons (1274)
She was supported by the emperor of Orthodox Byzantium, since unification with Catholics was supposed to help restore the shaky financial position of the empire. The union was signed, but the people of Byzantium and the rest of the Orthodox clergy did not support it.
Ferraro-Florentine Union (1439)
Both sides were equally politically interested in this Union, since the Christian states were weakened by wars and enemies (the Latin states - by the crusades, Byzantium - by the confrontation with the Turks, Rus' - by the Tatar-Mongols) and the unification of states on religious grounds would probably help , everyone.
The situation repeated itself: the Union was signed (although not by all representatives of the Orthodox Church who were present at the council), but it remained, in fact, on paper - the people did not support the unification on such conditions.
Suffice it to say that the first “Uniate” service was performed in the capital of Byzantium in Constantinople only in 1452. And less than a year later it was captured by the Turks...
Union of Brest (1596)
This Union was concluded between Catholics and the Orthodox Church of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (the state that then united the Lithuanian and Polish principalities).
The only example where the union of Churches turned out to be viable - albeit within the framework of just one state. The rules are the same: all services, rituals and language remain familiar to the Orthodox, however, at the services it is not the patriarch who is commemorated, but the pope; The text of the Creed is changed and the doctrine of purgatory is accepted.
After the division of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, part of its territories was ceded to Russia - and along with it a number of Uniate parishes were ceded. Despite the persecution, they continued to exist until the middle of the 20th century, until they were officially banned by the Soviet government.
Today there are Uniate parishes on the territory of Western Ukraine, the Baltic states and Belarus.
The separation of Orthodoxy and Catholicism: how to deal with this?
We would like to give a short quote from the letters of Orthodox Bishop Hilarion (Troitsky), who died in the first half of the 20th century. Being a zealous defender of Orthodox dogmas, he nevertheless writes:
“Unfortunate historical circumstances tore the West away from the Church. Over the centuries, the church's perception of Christianity has gradually become distorted in the West. The teaching has changed, life has changed, the very understanding of life has retreated from the Church. We [the Orthodox] have preserved the church's wealth. But instead of lending to others from this unexpendable wealth, we ourselves in some areas still fell under the influence of the West with its theology alien to the Church.” (Letter five. Orthodoxy in the West)
And here is what Saint Theophan the Recluse answered to one woman a century earlier when she asked: “Father, explain to me: none of the Catholics will be saved?”
The saint replied: “I don’t know whether Catholics will be saved, but I know one thing for sure: that without Orthodoxy I myself will not be saved.”
This answer and the quote from Hilarion (Troitsky) perhaps very accurately indicate the correct attitude of an Orthodox person towards such a misfortune as the division of the Churches.
Read this and other posts in our group at
In the CIS countries, most people are familiar with Orthodoxy, but know little about other Christian denominations and non-Christian religions. Therefore the question is: “ How does the Catholic Church differ from the Orthodox Church?“or, to put it more simply, “the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy” - Catholics are asked very often. Let's try to answer it.
First of all, Catholics are also Christians. Christianity is divided into three main directions: Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism. But there is no single Protestant Church (there are several thousand Protestant denominations in the world), and the Orthodox Church includes several Churches independent of each other.
Besides the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), there is the Georgian Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox Church, Romanian Orthodox Church, etc. The Orthodox Churches are governed by patriarchs, metropolitans and archbishops. Not all Orthodox Churches have communion with each other in prayers and sacraments (which is necessary for individual Churches to be part of the one Ecumenical Church according to the catechism of Metropolitan Philaret) and recognize each other as true churches.
Even in Russia itself there are several Orthodox Churches (the Russian Orthodox Church itself, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, etc.). It follows from this that world Orthodoxy does not have a single leadership. But the Orthodox believe that the unity of the Orthodox Church is manifested in a single doctrine and in mutual communication in the sacraments.
Catholicism is one Universal Church. All its parts in different countries of the world are in communication with each other, share a single creed and recognize the Pope as their head. In the Catholic Church there is a division into rites (communities within the Catholic Church, differing from each other in forms of liturgical worship and church discipline): Roman, Byzantine, etc. Therefore, there are Catholics of the Roman rite, Catholics of the Byzantine rite, etc., but they are all members of the same Church.
Now we can talk about the differences:
1) So, the first difference between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is in different understandings of the unity of the Church. For the Orthodox it is enough to share one faith and sacraments; Catholics, in addition to this, see the need for a single head of the Church - the Pope;
2) The Catholic Church differs from the Orthodox Church in its understanding of universality or catholicity. The Orthodox claim that the Universal Church is “embodied” in each local Church, headed by a bishop. Catholics add that this local Church must have communion with the local Roman Catholic Church in order to belong to the Universal Church.
3) The Catholic Church in that The Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son (“filioque”). The Orthodox Church confesses the Holy Spirit emanating only from the Father. Some Orthodox saints spoke about the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, which does not contradict Catholic dogma.
4) The Catholic Church confesses that the sacrament of marriage is for life and prohibits divorce, The Orthodox Church allows divorce in some cases;
5)The Catholic Church proclaimed the dogma of purgatory. This is the state of souls after death, destined for heaven, but not yet ready for it. There is no purgatory in Orthodox teaching (although there is something similar - ordeal). But the prayers of the Orthodox for the dead suggest that there are souls in an intermediate state for whom there is still hope of going to heaven after the Last Judgment;
6) The Catholic Church accepted the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. This means that even original sin did not touch the Mother of the Savior. Orthodox Christians glorify the holiness of the Mother of God, but believe that she was born with original sin, like all people;
7)Catholic dogma of Mary's assumption to heaven body and soul is a logical continuation of the previous dogma. The Orthodox also believe that Mary resides in Heaven in body and soul, but this is not dogmatically enshrined in Orthodox teaching.
8) The Catholic Church accepted the dogma of the primacy of the Pope over the entire Church in matters of faith and morals, discipline and government. The Orthodox do not recognize the primacy of the Pope;
9) In the Orthodox Church one rite predominates. In the Catholic Church this a ritual that originated in Byzantium is called Byzantine and is one of several.
In Russia, the Roman (Latin) rite of the Catholic Church is better known. Therefore, the differences between the liturgical practice and church discipline of the Byzantine and Roman rites of the Catholic Church are often mistaken for differences between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. But if the Orthodox liturgy is very different from the Roman rite mass, then the Catholic liturgy of the Byzantine rite is very similar. And the presence of married priests in the Russian Orthodox Church is also not a difference, since they are also in the Byzantine rite of the Catholic Church;
10) The Catholic Church proclaimed the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope o in matters of faith and morals in those cases where he, in agreement with all the bishops, affirms what the Catholic Church has already believed for many centuries. Orthodox believers believe that only the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are infallible;
11) The Orthodox Church accepts the decisions of only the first seven Ecumenical Councils, while The Catholic Church is guided by the decisions of the 21st Ecumenical Council, the last of which was the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).
It should be noted that the Catholic Church recognizes that local Orthodox Churches are true Churches, preserving apostolic succession and true sacraments. Both Catholics and Orthodox Christians have the same Creed.
Despite their differences, Catholics and Orthodox Christians throughout the world profess one faith and one teaching of Jesus Christ. Once upon a time, human mistakes and prejudices separated us, but still faith in one God unites us.
Jesus prayed for the unity of His disciples. His disciples are all of us, both Catholics and Orthodox. Let us join in His prayer: “That they all may be one, just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me” (John 17:21). The unbelieving world needs our common witness for Christ.
Video lectures on the Dogmas of the Catholic Church