What is the difference between Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic?


yes that is the one thing I can’t find on Google but very important…


Bear in mind I am not a theologian and may not explain this well. This is my understanding. The Orthodox are the ones who make the claim that there is a difference. It partly links back to how they see original sin in a different way from Catholics. Their claim is Catholics believed that on the cross Christ atoned for the sins of Adam. His death freed us from original sin; something we could not do for ourselves but had to be done by God incarnate.

The Orthodox have a belief called deification. They believe that we humans have the ability to become god-like. Their belief is that Christ’s death was not to stop God being angry with us anymore. They claimed it frees us from the power of the Devil and better enables our deification.

Personally, I see little difference and it is the Orthodox who claim this difference exists.


Is he also currently Russian Orthodox? I didn’t see in your posts that it was even mentioned.


He is Presbyterian.


Thanks for your response.

Just curious, can you briefly describe why he is leaving Presbyterianism, & converting to Catholicism?


Here is a great article about the differences between the Catholic and Russian Orthodox Church:


I think because he wants to join a true church, and he likes the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, but mainly because I’ve been telling him a lot about it. I thought Catholics and Orthodox are very similar and since it is too far to go to an Orthodox church, then Catholic is fine to become a part of. I also love the Rosary, and he does too, and we have been praying it.


:sunglasses: :+1: The Blessed Mother always takes us to her Son.


I was going to read your cited article. I decided against it when I saw it was on a Kremlin propaganda machine’s website. I don’t believe I could hope to get an objective view from them about one of the Eastern Orthodox churches that has sadly become very politicised and supports Putin’s regime.


Newflash, Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has always been this way. the ROC for all intents and purposes is a ethnic and national state church. During Tsarist times the ROC was the power arm of the Tsar and propped up the regime.

One reason the Soviets persecuted the ROC after the October Revolution was because of the ROC’s association with the Tsarist regime. And despite the Communists tearing down so many churches in the USSR, the ROC swore an allegiance to the Communist Party.

In the modern post-Soviet Russia, the ROC swears an allegiance to the President of Russia.

In other words, the Russian Orthodox Church will always be a political tool of the Russian government. This will not change until Russian Orthodox Church is brought back into Catholic Church.

And I speak Russian, I’ve studied Russia most of my adult life, I know what I am talking about here.


As an Orthodox Christian, I don’t disagree that the Russian church is unhealthily close to the Russian government, but I would love to see a source for what seems to me to be a wild assertion that the church actually swears allegiance to the government.


Formally the ROC has not signed any treaty or document that explicitly swears their allegiance to the President, but it is implicit at this point by their actions.

Even by your own admission the “Church is unhealthily close to the Russian government”. That essentially and implicitly implies where their loyalty lies.

Not to mention the ROC has never criticized the ruling party while they were in power, only after they were already gone. Perhaps the only exception being Patriarch Alexei II, who only criticized the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) during the 1991 August Coup.

They don’t need to sign any document at this point, their actions speak for themselves.

But if you want to play lawyer, let’s play. You can say the ROC has formally sworn allegiance to the USSR, and since the Russian Federation is the successor state of the Soviet Union, thereby assuming all its obligations. it is also correct to assume the pledge has remained valid to the present day, as the ROC never renounced it

After Nazi Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, Joseph Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. On September 4, 1943, Metropolitans Sergius (Stragorodsky), Alexius (Simansky) and Nicholas (Yarushevich) had a meeting with Stalin and received a permission to convene a council on September 8, 1943, which elected Sergius Patriarch of Moscow and all the Rus’. This is considered by some as violation of the XXX Apostolic canon, as no church hierarch could be consecrated by secular authorities.

Also in 1946, Patriarch Alexius called on all Catholics in the Soviet Union to reject all allegiance to the Pope: “Liberate yourself! You must break the Vatican chains, which throw you into the abyss of error, darkness and spiritual decay. Hurry, return to your true mother, the Russian Orthodox Church!”

Not to mention, on July 29, 1927, Metropolitan Sergei Stragorodsky, acting as de facto head of the Russian Orthodox Church, signed a statement of unconditional loyalty to the Soviet State. The statement was co-signed by all members of the Holy Synod, and Archbishop Alexy of Khutyn."

Source: Walter Kolarz (1966), Religion in the Soviet Union, St. Martin’s Press, New York. Pages 42-43.

Just connect the dots there and you have it.


So why did you state that they do?

Why is it correct to make that assumption? I could assert that an agreement signed when the other party’s boot is on your neck is invalid. While I can’t claim your extensive knowledge of Russian history, I rather suspect the option for the Russian bishops was sign the document or be killed. Not all of us are blessed with an infinite ability to resist such evil.

I’m sure I could play the same game and connect a bunch of “dots” to justify saying all sorts of vile things about the Catholic Church, but I find that sort of game disgusting and frankly un-Christlike.

I’m much more interested in working for the reestablishment of communion between our churches.


Christmas is December 25 in all cases. It’s just that if you use the Julian calendar, December 25 lands when corrected calendars are into January. .


I am torn and I am scared of making the wrong decision. But the Catholic Church has been changing too many things. And the pope keeps talking about respecting other viewpoints. Orthodox spit at the devil and are more confident I think when it comes to saying what is right and what isn’t. They seem to be more bold and less caring about being pleasing to sinners. You know?


These must be trying times for you but just remember, Christ is risen! Continue to pray with your husband. You’ve found a devotion to the rosary together and that is a good thing, something you can pray together. If you stay Russian Orthodox and he is Catholic, find peace in the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox as “True Churches” and having apostolic succession, therefore, valid sacraments.

You may have answered this, is he looking into the Latin rite or Byzantine rite?



Didn’t Scott ultimately prove his point though? The ROC has historically been, de facto, Russia’s puppet church, for all intents and purpouses.

“But the patriarchs didn’t have a choice with the Soviets”

Funny, because I could swear early Christians dies by the thousands, in all possible ways (burned alive, skinned, tortured), because they would rather die than to give up their faith on Christ. And I’m not even getting into Pius XII, who despite being surrounded by anti-Christian regimes, never bended the knee to them in any way. This only further proves how the ROC is a state church, wholly subject to whoever is in power, not unlike the Church of England.

And here’s some food for thought: Calling out on heresy isn’t anti-Christian, but not stepping down from your pedestal of pride over the state mingling in church affairs is, because that is how the ROC came to be in a nutshell.


No - he claimed to “connect the dots”. While I’m disappointed in the actions of some of the Hierarchs, that in no way should impute anything negative on the faith of millions of laity and clergy.

As Needy5 pointed out, many more clergy and laity were martyred by the communists. Sad as it is, I have no business condemning those who cracked under torture and threat of death.


“While I’m disappointed in the actions of some of the Hierarchs, that in no way should impute anything negative on the faith of millions of laity and clergy.”

So why condemning Catholicism as a whole by some subjective actions of the Pope (mostly), who’s got as much authority to speak and preach about things like global warming and open borders as your local store’s clerk counter, is valid, as you pointed out earlier (I’m sure I could play the same game and connect a bunch of “dots” to justify saying all sorts of vile things about the Catholic Church, …)?

“As Needy5 pointed out, many more clergy and laity were martyred by the communists. Sad as it is, I have no business condemning those who cracked under torture and threat of death.”

Many more clergy in comparsion to who? If you’re refering to See of Peter, I’m quite sure the Catholic Church has had more martyrs worldwide since its foundation in 1 AD than the ROC in 600 years in Eastern Europe. And a quick note, Catholic nations have also been the target of religious persecutions worldwide, such as in Spain and Mexico, including in communist regimes, such as Poland and Croatia. And in several of those cases, the persecuted clergy and the common citizen chose to die than to give up their belief on Our Savior, such as Saint Jose Luis Sanchez del Rio.


The point of my post was not the political nature of the Russian Orthodox Church. It was that I would not rely on getting an objective view from the source of the article, namely RT. That is a mouthpiece for the Kremlin.

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.