Areas of agreement and differences between Eastern Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholic Christians

ziapueblo

Active member
What do Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree on?
  • The first 7 Ecumenical Councils
  • Christ's divine and human nature
  • Apostolic succession
  • Bishops, presbyters, deacons and their ministries
  • The broad structure of the visible Church
  • Invocation of the saints
  • Honor due to the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos
  • Acceptance of the 7 sacraments (although the Orthodox doesn't put a limit on the number of sacramnets)
  • Confession in the presence of a presbyter
  • Use of icons in worship
  • Celebration of the Eucharist and affirmation of its sacrificial nature as identical with the sacrifice of Christ
  • The Eucharistic bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ
I like this analogy which I read about when speaking of the differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholics. It goes like this, "Imagine for a moment: an American travels to Europe and sees a European there. He looks at the European, and after assessing him for a moment, says to himself, 'We are so similar'. But the European looks back at the American, studying him deeply, and thinks, 'He could not be more different from me'. In this scenario, the European is the Eastern Orthodox and the American the Roman Catholic. What are we trying to say here? The differences between our churches are far more numerous from an Orthodox perspective than they are from a Catholic perspective.

Many Catholics believe our churches are closer in beliefs and practice. To an extent, this is true, because we certainly share more in common with one another than we do with the Protestant world. However, there are several differences between our churches, and those inquiring into either of them deserve to know what those differences are."

Differences between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians:
  • Development of doctrine
    • The catechism of the Catholic Church states in paragraph 94 that the Holy Spirit causes, "the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of the faith is able to grow in the life of the Church.” As Orthodox we would see the Immaculate Conception or Papal infallibility as developments of doctrine.
    • The Orthodox Church practices the development of the expression of doctrine. When the early Church declared a dogma, it's purpose was to respond to a heresy at the time. "Orthodox dogma never claims to expound the whole truth about anything. Instead, it only delineates the borders of the mystery, which God Himself revealed to us in the way He chose to reveal it."
  • Liturgical reform
    • I am not saying that the Orthodox Church has not has not gone through changes in the Liturgy. It has, which can be seen in the liturgical manuscripts. I am also not saying that Vatican II is the reason for bad Liturgy in some Catholic Churches. However, as Orthodox Christians, if we were in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, we would want to go into a Roman Catholic Church, celebrate Mass, and feel at home. I have been to a NO Mass that stuck to the rubrics, which was a sung Mass with Gregorian chant, the priest facing the same direction as the people and the use of incense. But unfortunately, this is few and far between.
  • Papal Supremacy (the BIG one)
    • The Orthodox do not hold to the ideas that the Pope of Rome has immediate, supreme and universal jurisdiction over the entire Church.
  • Papal infallibility
    • This dogma of the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Pope of Rome, when teaching on questions that have to do with faith and morals, due to his office, cannot err.
  • The filioque
    • This added phrase to the Nicene Creed. Speaking about the Holy Spirit, "who proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque).
  • Absolute divine simplicity
  • Created Grace
  • The Immaculate Conception
  • Purgatory
    • Orthodox do believe in purification of the soul, however, the Orthodox have not defined it any further.
Something for non-Orthodox and non-Catholic Christians to chew on. I know that many see the Orthodox as Roman Catholics without the Pope.
 
It's kind of an interesting issue as to where an EO would attend if there was no EO CHurch near him/her, or which institution he/she would try to use for starting an EO parish - a Catholic, Anglican, or Lutheran Church? Maybe it would even more likely be an Old Catholic or OO Church that he/she would use. Each of these have similarities and differences with EOs that they may or may not share with each other. So, in the case of the Catholic Church, you as an EO would find a line of apostolic succession, full-valued commitment to Tradition, and belief in the literal presence in the Elements of the Eucharist. And you don't find all of these things in the Anglican or Lutheran Churches. Anglicans for instance are divided on the issue of the direct presence. As a result, it seems nice for an EO seeking a place with all of these features to attend Catholic institutions.

However, in the Catholic Church, you would also find a very top-down organization (eg. Papal Infallibility) to an extent that you don't find it in the other denominations. And so in comparison, Anglicans have been more welcoming to helping EOs set up their own parishes, and the chance of reconciliation has at times felt closer with Anglicans than with Catholics. Anglicans for instance don't have a dogma of Papal Supremacy that would require them to be the head over the EO Church.
 
The Number 1 issue of division between EOs and RCs seems to me to be in practice the issue of Papal Supremacy, and in particular the Catholic version of it. Under Papal Supremacy, the Pope is basically the bishop over all bishops and clergy in Christendom, and he can agree to allow the EOs to do their own thing, or he can unilaterally command them. It is not really an administratively workable situation when there are so many other differences, particularly in light of the RC Church's internal rigidity relative to EOs. The Pope could tell the EOs to change something, like to stop using leavened bread in Church, and the EOs would have to comply. EOs who agree to this teaching of Papal Supremacy basically become "Eastern Catholics", as they have for the last 500+ years in cases when some EOs accepted Papal Supremacy and reconciliation with Rome, as with the Council of Florence.

There are other issues where RC dogmaticisim and rigidity could cause a problem, as the RC Church has had many "Ecumenical Councils" after its Schism with the EOs, and these have made decisions that sometimes disagree with Orthodoxy. So the RCs would basically have to stop considering them "ecumenical" for all Christians, and only consider the first 7 or 8 RC-EO Councils as Ecumenical. So for instance, the RC Church has a dogmatic position that RC Transubstantiation is the one and only allowable view on the mode of the Eucharistic presence, whereas the EO Church does not have a dogmatic mandatory view collectively that this particular understanding of the direct presence in the Eucharist is the right one, as opposed to the Lutheran understanding. Synod of Dositheus in the 17th century accepted the RC view, but that Synod was not ecumenical. Probably in the course of debates, many EOs would and have accepted the Catholic view for the sake of getting along, but this is not really the best way to do theology, IMO.
 
I think that you are pointing to a real issue in your development of doctrine section (The RC invention of Papal Infallibility contradicts or was absent in 1st century teachings), but the issue could probably be explained better. It's not as if Catholics teach, "We grow our faith in ways that the apostles rejected", and it's not as if in contrast, Orthodoxy always teaches exactly the same thing on every single kind of issue (like how to cross yourself) that is always has. The Catholic statement about the growth of "understanding" of faith on one hand is not necessarily wrong from an EO POV (like whether EOs have grown to understand the Christian concept of Theosis).
 
The Number 1 issue of division between EOs and RCs seems to me to be in practice the issue of Papal Supremacy, and in particular the Catholic version of it.
I agree that this is the number one issue (the Immaculate Conception being the second).
 
The Number 1 issue of division between EOs and RCs seems to me to be in practice the issue of Papal Supremacy
Do you see Peter as the 'chief' Apostle? or is it more of a challenge to believe his successor would be the next Chamberlain. Thanks
 
Do you see Peter as the 'chief' Apostle? or is it more of a challenge to believe his successor would be the next Chamberlain. Thanks
The problem is that Biblical-based and Apostolic-Era-based arguments for the Catholic version of Papal Supremacy get increasingly tenuous as their run from their starting point to their conclusion.

The starting point can be a verse, like in Matthew 16:19 when Jesus says to Peter,
"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven..."

The pro-Supremacy reasoning goes that since Peter said this to Peter, therefore Peter must be the only one who has this power. Then the Catholic reasoning says that since Peter had this power, his immediate successors alone possess it. Next, it uses more logic steps and concludes with concepts like Papal Supremacy.

But in reality, even of these steps of logic is arguable, and the more unstated logic steps that are needed to get from the starting point to the conclusion, the more tenuous the Papal Supremacy argument becomes.

For instance, a chapters later in Matthew 18:18, Matthew tells all the apostles,
“Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
That is, just because Jesus gave Peter keys, or gave Peter a power to bind and loose doesn't mean that Peter is the doctrinally infallible sole possessor of the only copy of the keys, the only one who can bind and loose, etc. Even if we agreed Jesus gave Peter the keys, it doesn't prove that he is the only possessor of the keys, and even if he is the only possessor, it doesn't mean he is a permanent possessor, and even if he is a permanent possessor, it doesn't mean he is infallible, and even if he is the permanent infallible possessor, it doesn't mean that he passes this permanent possession and infallibility to his sole direct successor, and even if it did mean that, then it still wouldn't prove that he passed it only to his successor in Rome, and not, say, his disciple Mark in Alexandria, or the bishop of Antioch.

Actually, Catholics would probably agree with me that bishops or clergy in general, not just Peter, can bind and loose. But Supremacy arguments have focused on the giving of the keys verse as one of their bases for Supremacy claims.
 
Do you see Peter as the 'chief' Apostle? or is it more of a challenge to believe his successor would be the next Chamberlain. Thanks
So to answer you more directly, the Bible doesn't give a clear picture that Peter alone was the chief apostle. In one epistle, Paul writes that he saw Jacob, Peter, and John as three pillars of the Church. For me personally, it's arguable whether Jacob or Peter were the chief leader before their deaths in c. 63-66 AD.

EO Tradition sees the Roman Pope, of all the Patriarchal leaders, as the first in honor, but doesn't see this as entailing the extreme supremacy powers that the Catholic Church gives to it. This EO position makes sense to me.

The Catholic position looks much too tenuous to me. It feels like a natural, practical, unplanned outgrowth and result of the city of Rome's power within the Roman empire of the first couple centuries AD, instead of a teaching that is consciously, theologically ingrained in Biblical, 1st century Apostolic Christianity. In the framework of Biblical Christian theology, it's really arguable whether the city of Rome has some inherent right to be the universal director of all Christians. On one hand, Peter left a good legacy there. But on the other hand in Revelation, Rome is metaphorized as "Babylon", which some Protestants later read or misread as an allusion to the Vatican. So in conclusion, the problem with the Catholic claim of Papal Supremacy is the same kind of problem that some Protestants' claims about the Vatican being Babylon have - they are both tenuous arguments with multiple steps that rely on steps that the proponents see the Biblical verses implicitly, indirectly entailing.
 
The starting point can be a verse, like in Matthew 16:19 when Jesus says to Peter,
"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven..."

The pro-Supremacy reasoning goes that since Peter said this to Peter, therefore Peter must be the only one who has this power. Then the Catholic reasoning says that since Peter had this power, his immediate successors alone possess it. Next, it uses more logic steps and concludes with concepts like Papal Supremacy.
Peter was the only Apostle who received the keys.
For instance, a chapters later in Matthew 18:18, Matthew tells all the apostles,
“Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
That is, just because Jesus gave Peter keys, or gave Peter a power to bind and loose doesn't mean that Peter is the doctrinally infallible sole possessor of the only copy of the keys, the only one who can bind and loose, etc.
Both Mt 16 and Mt 18 include binding/loosing, but Mt 16 also shows Christ promising keys to Peter.
Even if we agreed Jesus gave Peter the keys, it doesn't prove that he is the only possessor of the keys,
Do you see any other verses where the other Apostles received the keys?
 
So to answer you more directly, the Bible doesn't give a clear picture that Peter alone was the chief apostle.
I would disagree, starting with [feed my sheep, strengthen your brethren, Peter making his rounds to the Church throughout, etc.
In one epistle, Paul writes that he saw Jacob, Peter, and John as three pillars of the Church. For me personally, it's arguable whether Jacob or Peter were the chief leader before their deaths in c. 63-66 AD.
In Galatians, look back at chapters 1 and 2 and tell me what you observe. Thanks
EO Tradition sees the Roman Pope, of all the Patriarchal leaders, as the first in honor,
Never understood 'first in honor'.... doesn't 'first' mean first for a reason?
The Catholic position looks much too tenuous to me. It feels like a natural, practical, unplanned outgrowth and result of the city of Rome's power within the Roman empire of the first couple centuries AD, instead of a teaching that is consciously, theologically ingrained in Biblical, 1st century Apostolic Christianity. In the framework of Biblical Christian theology, it's really arguable whether the city of Rome has some inherent right to be the universal director of all Christians.
It could just as easily have been Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc.
On one hand, Peter left a good legacy there.
?
But on the other hand in Revelation, Rome is metaphorized as "Babylon", which some Protestants later read or misread as an allusion to the Vatican.
Seven hills are required --

[Rome] Aventine Hill, Caelian Hill, Capitoline Hill, Esquiline Hill, Palatine Hill, Quirinal Hill, and Viminal Hill.

Vatican Hill sits across the Tiber River from ancient Rome.
 
Peter was the only Apostle who received the keys.
Latin Fathers, such as St Augustine, St Jerome and St Ambrose taught that the keys were given to all the Apostles.
Never understood 'first in honor'.... doesn't 'first' mean first for a reason?
Actually, according to canon 28 from the Council of Chalcedon, " . . . the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome . . ." Of course, St Leo the Great rejected the resolution but the East kept it. If the early Church believed in Papal Supremacy as defined by Vatican I, would not the Eastern Churches have known this? Even the theological dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Church, in the Chieti docuement, agree that the Pope of Rome had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the East and that the see of Constantinople
 
Latin Fathers, such as St Augustine, St Jerome and St Ambrose taught that the keys were given to all the Apostles.

Actually, according to canon 28 from the Council of Chalcedon, " . . . the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome . . ." Of course, St Leo the Great rejected the resolution but the East kept it. If the early Church believed in Papal Supremacy as defined by Vatican I, would not the Eastern Churches have known this? Even the theological dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Church, in the Chieti docuement, agree that the Pope of Rome had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the East and that the see of Constantinople
Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

John should have handled this or another Bishop in the east.
 
@Arch Stanton

From the Orthodox perspective, is there a Petrine Ministry which is given to the Pope of Rome? Yes, there is. This issue is what that Ministry entails.

I believe that former Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict XVI Pope of Rome, may his memory be eternal, had a plan toward communion between the two Churches which is worth looking at:

"Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in the context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the from she has always had."

- Joseph Ratzinger, "Principles of Catholic Theology" (San Francisico), Ignatius, 1987, p.199

Easier said than done of course.
 
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Consider this, Clement wasn't even Pope (Rome at the time was governed by a council of presbyters, of which, St Clement was one), and in any case, Corinth considered itself a suffragan Church of Rome since it was founded by St Paul. Also note that the Corinthians wrote TO Rome, asking for assistance in settling its internal disputes; Rome did not intervene unilaterally. The appellate jurisditicion of Rome was long recognized and was codified by the Council of Serdica in 342. Rome thereafter served as the final ecclesiastical court of appeal, but had not formal jurisdiction outside of its own metropolitan province and the Suburbicanian dioceses.

Here is something else to consider. Eusebius, in his history book, quotes St Dionysius the Great's letter to the ROMAN presbyter Philemon:

~ "Then after saying some things concerning all the heresies he adds: I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed father, Heraclas. For those who came over from heresies, although they had apostatized from the Church—or rather had not apostatized, but seemed to meet with them, yet were charged with resorting to some false teacher—when he had expelled them from the Church he did not receive them back, though they entreated for it, until they had publicly reported all things which they had heard from their adversaries; but then he received them without requiring of them another baptism. For they had formerly received the Holy Spirit from him."

St Dionysius the Great would write to another presbyter, St Dionysius of Rome, who would of course become Pope of Rome. Why did these Roman presbyters send a letter to Alexandria for guidance and not the Bishop of Rome? Alexandria was did not have jurisdiction in Rome.

Just because a bishop of Rome counseled Corinth does not mean they're papally infallible, anymore than St. Dionysius of Alexandria was infallible over Rome in his time.
 
Last edited:
Consider this, Clement wasn't even Pope (Rome at the time was governed by a council of presbyters, of which, St Clement was one), and in any case, Corinth considered itself a suffragan Church of Rome since it was founded by St Paul. Also note that the Corinthians wrote TO Rome, asking for assistance in settling its internal disputes; Rome did not intervene unilaterally. The appellate jurisditicion of Rome was long recognized and was codified by the Council of Serdica in 342. Rome thereafter served as the final ecclesiastical court of appeal, but had not formal jurisdiction outside of its own metropolitan province and the Suburbicanian dioceses.
Final court of appeals is telling, no?

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
 
The Number 1 issue of division between EOs and RCs seems to me to be in practice the issue of Papal Supremacy,
That's the BIG ONE!!! since ROme tossed the EO under the bus, and created their own phony supremacy and their "Pope thing", the separation will continue (which is a good thing since the EO has remained closer to the Biblical truth).
 
Final court of appeals is telling, no?

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
The Orthodox have no issue with any of this because it does not mean that the Pope of Rome has supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church. Some of the early Western Fathers understood that all the Apostles were given the keys:

St Augustine
~ "For these keys not one man but the unity of the Church received. Hereby, then, is the excellence of Peter set forth that he was an emblem of the Church in its universality and unity, when it was said to him, I give to thee what was given to all. For that ye may know that the Church did receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven hear in another place what the Lord said to all Aposltes. "Receive the Holy Ghost," and then instantly, "whoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained" [St. John xx. 22,23].

St Jerome
~ "But you say that the Church is founded on Peter, although the same thing is done in another place upon all the Apostles, and all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the solidity of the Church is established equally upon all." [see: S. Hieron, Adv. Jovin. i. cap. xxvi.' P.L. xxiii. 247].

St Ambrose
~ "therefore the Lord gave the Apostles that which was previously part of his own juridical authority. Hear Him saying I will give the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, to thee he says, I will give the keys to the Kingdom of heaven, that you may bind and loose. What he said to peter is said to the Apostles." [St Ambrose, Enarratio in Psalm. xxxviii. 37; P.L. xiv. 1037].

Theophylact
~ "They who have obtained the grace of the Episcopate as Peter had, have authority to remit and bind, for though "I will give thee" was spoken to Peter alone, yet the gift has been given to all the Apostles. When? When he said, whoever sins ye remit they are remitted for this I will give thee indicates a future time, the time, that is after the resurrection," [Theophylact, Enarratio in Matthew cap. xiv. 19; P.G. cxxiii. 302].

St Peter is/was an emblem or archetype for all bishops. This fits perfectly with what St Cyprian of Carthage says, that all bishops who profess the faith of Peter are Peter's successors, not just the Bishop in Rome.
 
The Number 1 issue of division between EOs and RCs seems to me to be in practice the issue of Papal Supremacy, and in particular the Catholic version of it.
Yes, church governance has always been a driving issue.

Back in 451 AD, the Egyptian Church split with the Roman/Greek Church. The split came after the Chalcedon council created a new patriarchy in Constantinople with greater authority than the existing one in Alexandria, Egypt. I suspect that change was far more important in the split than theological fine points.

As far as the question of papal primacy, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches produced the Declaration of Ravena in 2007. Here is a link:


Sadly recent events have become less promising for reconciliation. In 2019, a schism developed between Moscow and Constantinople over governance of the church in Ukraine, and the current proxy war between Russia and NATO makes in any further progress unlikely.

Politics matter in real life.
 
Back
Top