Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism; Does it matter?


If you want the liturgy of the orthodox but the fullness of the faith try a Byzantine mass


I would suggest there are degrees of subtle difference, but they’re big differences that really affect how our salvation is viewed. Not to say they are not being saved, of course not, but I believe the RCC has the fuller truth. One doctrine that I find hard to believe without is purgatory; what a beautiful and salvific place it is! Also I find the mystical theology behind Christ himself is pretty different from the Mother Church. To extend the olive branch, I love orthodoxy, I love iconograohy, Byzantine chant, etc. So, for me, the RCC is and contains the immutable truth. God bless, brothers and sisters!


No, you are right: it doesn’t divide and separate in that manner. It is an ecclesiastical schism. This can be contrasted to denominations that have recently separated from Rome (and others from Constantinople) who claim to still be Catholic and part of the One Church, but which do not in fact have valid sacraments at all.


You are treading on thin ice with respect to RCC teaching here . . .

Do you really mean that you haven’t??? . . . they left a pretty clear historic record . . .

That is incorrect.

The EO teach that the authority is not to the level taken in the Western Church in the second millennium. All or almost all grant the authority Rome held in the first millennium (most notably, as the court of final appeal when bishops/churches differed).



Care to substantiate that?


How so? …


There also is the issue of the Filioque. While many Western Catholics dont see the issue, to many Eastern Christians this is a serious heresy. It also relates to the authority of the Pope, who added it to the Creed in 1014 without permission of the Eastern Patriarchs.


It depends on who you ask. Catholics will say choose us and Orthodox will say likewise. Personally I’ve come to believe that no it doesn’t matter. Both have the Eucharist and Apostolic Succession…that’s the bottom line for me.

Not quite…Orthodox will typically not allow Catholics to receive (again there are exceptions. I personally know someone who has.) Catholics do extend the invitation to the Orthodox but also urge them to respect their own bishops and tradition.

Join the club…sad to say, but I am as well.


I love my EO brothers and sisters. But, it just saddens me to see bona fide (seemingly) Catholics displaying this sense of indifferentism when it comes to choosing between the EO and the Catholic Church. Should we just all join the EO?


I suppose I’d start with the various councils of the church in which they participated . . .

Calling the EO Eucharist illicit directly contradicts the teachings of at least Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II; I don’t recall statements offhand from others.

close, but not quite: not the patriarchs, but that the creed came from a council and that one patriarch unilaterally changed it.



Name one!

Aside from EO canon law, please provide statements.


I think the Filioque is only a problem because of how it’s worded. We know the Spirit comes from the Father and through the Son (the Spirit does not originate from the Son but comes through Him), and that is what is meant by “and the Son”.


At this point, either pay me tuition, or do your own homework. It would have been pretty hard to pay any attention these last twenty years and not know this. It’s not subtle; it’s basic knowledge for any Catholic concerned with the unity of the Church.



Does this argument usually work for you? The time it took you to type this answer you could have easily provided a statement from either Pope you ascribed your theory to.


The unilateral imposition contradicting a council is an even bigger issue.

Yes, that formulation is not heretical and most EO theologians agree. The problem is that the original greek of the creed uses a verb which means “in origin” (there are something like six verbs in greek that translate to the single latin and english verb proceed). Translate the creed back to greek with the same verb, and RC theologians will call it heresy, too . . .



Yes, because people usually stop and think.

Stop looking at single statements, and look at all of what the RCC has said and done in dialogs with and discussions about the EO and OO.

I’m not going to narrow down a broad body of work into a single statement from someone to nitpick and proofquote apart. The position of the RCC is clear; go learn it.



Hello team,

I highly recommend you check out this book Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church

This book from Steve Ray has helped many understand the differences between Catholics and Orthodox, and why to choose the Catholic Church.

This book helped Lizzy Reezay on her journey to the Catholic Church (according to her)

God bless


Perhaps you can pull one of those books off that shelf behind you in your avatar and quote something for me. :wink:

I am aware of the EO sacraments being licit as it pertains to their canon law. What I am asking is for you to simply give me just one bone for your attempt at correcting my initial statement.


Yet Catholic canon law permits Orthodox Christians to receive Catholic communion.


While those books run the gamut of law, quantum physics, advanced math, and economics, they don’t have theology . . . those are next to mea and in the next room :slight_smile:

I am aware of the EO sacraments being licit as it pertains to their canon law. What I am asking is for you to simply give me just one bone for your attempt at correcting my initial statement.

A good search term to start would be “Ravenna”. You will spend a couple of days digesting. Another interesting one might be “pope patriarch Constantinople recite creed”

Or the phrase "very grave sin against ecumenism” which will lead you to Pope Frances.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.