Differences Between Orthodoxy & Catholicism
Orthodoxy & Catholicism
It is not uncommon for people to assume that Orthodoxy is basically the same as Catholicism only based in different countries or of a particular ethnic expression. But the differences between these two faiths are significant and include very specific doctrinal differences as well as general theological frameworks.
To understand these differences, it’s important to understand that there was only one Christian Church for about 1,000 years of Church history. Of course, during that time period there were disagreements within the Church and heresies to combat, but the Church remained one. Until around 1054 AD. Then, the Great Schism occurred. This was precipitated by many things over a long period of time but there were some specific issues that finally caused the split.
These included:
To understand this better, it’s important to remember how the Church functioned from its very beginning. From the New Testament, we can see the very first church council met in Jerusalem to discuss what Gentile converts must do with regard to keeping Jewish circumcision and the law (Acts 15). And in this council, we see the way in which the Church handled issues. The leaders came to common agreement together. Certainly no one person single-handedly made the decision or had absolute authority to decree a decision.
Over time the church grew and eventually, the cities of greatest importance in the Roman Empire came to be recognized as the primary bishoprics in the early Church. Eventually, there were five preeminent cities – Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. And, the bishops of these cities worked through issues in a conciliar manner, as had been done from the beginning of the Church. Because Rome was the capital city of the Roman empire, the bishop of Rome was considered “first among equals” but still was “equal” to the other bishops. There was not a single bishop exercising ultimate authority over the other bishops.
However, over time, the Roman bishop began to try to exercise such an authority over other bishops’ jurisdictions. Eventually, the Roman Catholic church developed the idea of papal primacy and authority. This has been justified by assuming Jesus made Peter the primary leader over everyone else (Matthew 16). And, since Peter was the bishop of Rome, this mantle passed down to the next Roman Bishop and so on. But, while Peter was given the “keys to the Kingdom” in Matthew 16, all the disciples were given the same authority to “bind and loose” in John 20:23. In addition, historically speaking, Peter was the bishop of Antioch before he was bishop of Rome.
In contrast, the Orthodox have always maintained the conciliar approach to working through issues. And, no bishop is considered the ultimate, absolute authority. There are bishops in Orthodoxy – patriarch, metropolitans, archbishops -that enjoy a special status among their brother bishops but not above them. They lead other bishops by forming consensus not decrees. And, no bishop has the right to impose his will on another bishop’s territory.
The filioque refers to an addition that the Roman Church made unilaterally, in the late 6th century, to the Nicene Creed. There were two objections that the other bishops (the Eastern Orthodox bishops) had.
First, the filioque, a Latin word, meaning “and the Son”, was not a theologically justified addition to the creed. The creed originally read, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father.” This is specifically taught in John 15:26, “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.” But, the Roman church added the filioque to the creed so that it read “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” This addition was not in alignment with Holy Scripture nor the Fathers of the church nor Tradition.
Second, the filioque was added by Rome with no input from the other jurisdictions and bishops of the church by means of an ecumenical council. The ecumenical councils, prior to this, had spent much time and effort writing the creed and had forbidden any additions to or subtractions from it. In order to make any changes, another ecumenical council would have needed to be called.
After the Great Schism, the Roman Church continued to develop additional doctrines and frameworks that increased the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. These include the doctrines of purgatory, indulgences, original sin, papal infallibility, and the Immaculate Conception among others.
Several of these new doctrines were directly a result of the Roman focus on applying a Scholastic rationalism to Christian theology. Especially with an emphasis on a forensic/legal view of sin and salvation.
Sin became a breaking of “rules” that deserved punishment from God. Salvation, likewise, was explained in legal terms; in dying, Christ paid the sentence that had been justly imposed on the human race as a result of sin – death and condemnation. This way of viewing sin and salvation in legal terms eventually led to the doctrine of purgatory and indulgences. And, of course, overall, this view leads to seeing God as angry and petty, lacking in compassion and mercy, concerned more about our breaking rules than about our struggles as human beings.
In contrast, the Orthodox understand sin more as a disease of which we need to be healed not punished. God does not need to punish humans. Sin is its own punishment and in fact, God came to save us from the punishment and death that sin, of itself, brings to us. Salvation is about making us whole human beings again – reflecting the image and likeness of God as we were originally created to do. This happens through union with God.
The doctrine of original sin was the result of the faulty Latin translation of Romans 5:12. When the original Greek of the verse is properly translated it reads, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and death spread to all in that (eph ho) all sinned…”. But the faulty Latin translation rendered “eph ho” (“in that”) as “in quo” (“in whom”), meaning “in Adam”. So, the verse was misconstrued as saying that all sinned in Adam, that all shared in the guilt of his original disobedience.
The Orthodox don’t believe that we personally share guilt from Adam’s sin. But instead understand that sin introduces pain, suffering, and sickness into the world and that we inherit a world that has been shaped and altered by sin. This is sometimes called “ancestral sin”. It means that we are born into, grow up and live in a world that affects us and such an environment entices us to sin and add more sin into the world. So, we are affected by the sin around us and we contribute to the sin in the world ourselves by our own choices (not by being born with Adam’s guilt).
The doctrine of original sin led to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Since, it was thought at the time, that original sin was passed down from parents to children, then how was Jesus not stained with the original sin of Mary? Thus the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was needed in order to insure Mary did not have original sin.
Since the Orthodox don’t believe in the doctrine of original sin, they have no need for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.