Fundamental and ritual differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The main differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism The difference between Catholicism and Christianity briefly

Having got acquainted in Europe with the traditions of the Catholic Church and after talking with the priest upon her return, she discovered that there is much in common between the two areas of Christianity, but there are also fundamental differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, which, among other things, influenced the split of the once united Christian Church.

In my article, I decided to tell in an accessible language about the differences between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church and their common features.

Although churchmen argue that the matter is in "irreconcilable religious differences", scientists are sure that it was, first of all, a political decision. The tension between Constantinople and Rome forced the confessors to look for a reason to clarify the relationship and ways to resolve the conflict that had arisen.

It was difficult not to notice the features that were already entrenched in the West, where Rome dominated, that were different from those adopted in Constantinople, which is why they got hooked on it: a different arrangement in matters of hierarchy, aspects of dogma, the conduct of the sacraments - everything was used.

Due to political tension, the existing difference between the two traditions that exist in different parts of the collapsed Roman Empire was revealed. The reason for the existing originality was the difference in culture, mentality of the western and eastern parts.

And, if the existence of one strong large state made the church one, with its disappearance the connection between Rome and Constantinople weakened, contributing to the creation and rooting in the western part of the country of some traditions unusual for the East.

The division of the once united Christian church on a territorial basis did not happen at one moment. East and West have been moving towards this for years, culminating in the 11th century. In 1054, during the Council, the Patriarch of Constantinople was deposed by the envoys of the Pope.

In response, he anathematized the envoys of the Pope. The heads of the other patriarchates shared the position of Patriarch Michael, and the split deepened. The final break is attributed to the time of the 4th Crusade, which sacked Constantinople. Thus, the united Christian Church split into Catholic and Orthodox.

Now Christianity combines three different directions: the Orthodox and Catholic churches, Protestantism. There is no single church that unites Protestants: there are hundreds of denominations. The Catholic Church is monolithic, it is led by the Pope, to whom all believers and dioceses are subject.

15 independent and mutually recognizing churches constitute the asset of Orthodoxy. Both directions are religious systems that include their own hierarchy and internal rules, dogma and worship, cultural traditions.

Common features of Catholicism and Orthodoxy

The followers of both churches believe in Christ, consider Him an example to follow, and try to follow His commandments. Holy Scripture for them is the Bible.

At the foundation of the traditions of Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the apostles-disciples of Christ, who founded Christian centers in major world cities (the Christian world relied on these communities). Thanks to them, both directions have sacraments, similar creeds, exalt the same saints, have the same Creed.

The followers of both churches believe in the power of the Holy Trinity.

The view of family formation converges in both directions. Marriage between a man and a woman occurs with the blessing of the church, being considered a sacrament. Same-sex marriages are not recognized. Entering into an intimate relationship before marriage is unworthy of a Christian and is considered a sin, and same-sex people are considered a serious fall into sin.

Followers of both directions agree that both the Catholic and Orthodox branches of the church represent Christianity, albeit in different ways. The difference for them is significant and irreconcilable, that for more than a thousand years there has been no unity in the way of worship and communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, therefore they do not take communion together.

Orthodox and Catholics: What's the difference?

The result of deep religious differences between East and West was the schism that took place in 1054. Representatives of both directions declare striking differences between them in the religious worldview. Such contradictions will be discussed later. For ease of understanding, I compiled a special table of differences.

Summing up

Despite the centuries-old schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, which is not expected to be overcome in the near future, there are many similarities that testify to common origins.

There are many differences, so significant that the unification of the two directions is not possible. However, regardless of the differences, Catholics and Orthodox believe in Jesus Christ, carry His teachings and values ​​around the world. Human error has divided Christians, but faith in the Lord brings the unity for which Christ prayed.

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 people are familiar with the date 1054 as the year officially recognized by historians as the year of the separation of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, then perhaps not everyone knows that it was preceded by a long process of gradual divergence.

In this publication, the reader is offered an abbreviated version of the article by Archimandrite Plakida (Dezey) "The History of a Schism". This is a brief study of the causes and history of the gap between Western and Eastern Christianity. Without examining dogmatic subtleties in detail, dwelling only on the sources of theological disagreements in the teachings of Blessed Augustine of Hippo, Father Plakida gives 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 happen overnight or suddenly, but was the result of "a long historical process, which was influenced by both doctrinal differences and political and cultural factors."

The main translation work from the French original was carried out by students of the Sretensky Theological Seminary under the guidance of T.A. Shutova. Editorial correction and preparation of the text was carried out by V.G. Massalitina. The full text of the article is published on the website “Orthodox France. View from Russia".

Harbingers of a split

The teaching of the bishops and church writers whose works were written in Latin - St. Hilary of Pictavia (315-367), Ambrose of Milan (340-397), St. 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 emphasized more on the moralizing component than on a deep theological analysis.

The first attempt at this doctrinal harmony occurred with the appearance of the teachings of Blessed Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430). Here we meet with one of the most disturbing mysteries of Christian history. In Blessed Augustine, to whom the feeling of the unity of the Church and love for it were inherent in the highest degree, there was nothing of a heresiarch. And yet, in many ways, 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 "philosophizing" of the Fathers of the Church, is inclined to exalt 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, like the Son, originates 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 the institutional and legal aspects in the life of the Church. From the 5th century filioque was universally allowed in the West, almost without the knowledge of the non-Latin Churches, but it was added to the Creed later.

As far as the inner life is concerned, Augustine emphasized human weakness and the omnipotence of Divine grace to such an extent that it appeared that he diminished human freedom in the face of Divine predestination.

Augustine's brilliant and highly attractive personality, even during his lifetime, was admired in the West, where he was soon considered the greatest of the Fathers of the Church and almost completely focused only on his school. To a large extent, Roman Catholicism and the Jansenism and Protestantism that splintered from it will differ from Orthodoxy in that which they owe to St. Augustine. Medieval conflicts between priesthood and empire, the introduction of the scholastic method in medieval universities, clericalism and anti-clericalism in Western society are, in varying degrees and forms, either a legacy or a consequence of Augustinism.

In the IV-V centuries. there is another disagreement between Rome and other Churches. For all the Churches of East and West, the primacy recognized for 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 hand, from the fact that it was glorified by the preaching and martyrdom of the two supreme apostles Peter and Paul . But it's superior inter pares("between equals") did not mean that the Church of Rome was the seat of central government for the Universal Church.

However, starting from the second half of the 4th century, a different understanding was emerging in Rome. The Roman Church and its bishop demand for themselves a dominant authority that would make it the governing organ of the universal Church. According to Roman doctrine, this primacy is based on the clearly expressed will of Christ, who, in their opinion, gave this authority to Peter, saying to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16, 18). The Pope of Rome considered himself not just the successor of Peter, who has since been recognized as the first bishop of Rome, but also his vicar, in whom, as it were, the supreme apostle continues to live and through him to rule the Universal Church.

Despite some resistance, this position of primacy was gradually accepted by the whole West. The rest of the Churches generally adhered to the ancient understanding of primacy, often allowing some ambiguity in their relationship with the See of Rome.

Crisis in the Late Middle Ages

7th century witnessed the birth of Islam, which began to spread at lightning speed, which was facilitated by jihad- a holy war that allowed the Arabs to conquer the Persian Empire, which for a long time was a formidable rival of the Roman Empire, as well as the territories of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Starting from this period, the patriarchs of the cities mentioned were often forced to entrust the management of the remaining Christian flock to their representatives, who stayed on the ground, while they themselves had to live in Constantinople. As a result of this, there 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 highest judge of the Churches of the East.

With the advent of the Isaurian dynasty (717), an iconoclastic crisis broke out (726). The emperors Leo III (717–741), Constantine V (741–775) and their successors forbade the depiction of Christ and the saints and the veneration of icons. Opponents of the imperial doctrine, mostly monks, were thrown into prison, tortured, and killed, as in the time of 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 of Rome, to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

At the same time, in order to more successfully resist the offensive of the Arabs, the iconoclast emperors proclaimed themselves adherents of Greek patriotism, very far from the universalist "Roman" idea that had prevailed before, and lost interest in non-Greek areas of the empire, in particular, in northern and central Italy, claimed by the Lombards.

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 thus restored. But the fact that the iconoclast emperors limited their foreign policy interests to the Greek part of the empire led the popes to look for other patrons for themselves. Previously, the popes, who had no 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 contribute to the arrival of a new dynasty of Carolingians, bearers of other ambitions.

In 739, Pope Gregory III, seeking to prevent the Lombard king Luitprand from uniting Italy under his rule, turned to Major Charles Martel, who tried to use the death of Theodoric IV in order to eliminate the Merovingians. In exchange for his help, he promised to renounce all loyalty to the Emperor of Constantinople and take advantage of the patronage exclusively of the King of the Franks. 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.

Karl Martel could not justify the hopes of Gregory III. However, in 754, Pope Stephen II personally went to France to meet Pepin the Short. In 756, he conquered Ravenna from the Lombards, but instead of returning Constantinople, he handed it over to the pope, laying the foundation for the soon formed Papal States, which turned the popes into independent secular rulers. In order to give a legal justification for the current situation, a famous forgery was developed in Rome - the Gift 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 of Constantinople, laid 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 that would preserve the unity of Romagna. But the Carolingian Empire wanted to be the only legitimate Christian empire and sought to take the place of the Constantinopolitan Empire, considering it obsolete. That is why the theologians from Charlemagne's entourage took the liberty of condemning the decrees of the 7th Ecumenical Council on the veneration of icons as tainted with idolatry and introducing filioque in the Nicene-Tsaregrad Creed. However, the popes soberly opposed these careless measures aimed at belittling 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 sealed. And such a break could not but lead to a proper religious schism, 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 ninth century the antagonism between Rome and Constantinople manifested itself on a new basis: the question arose of what jurisdiction to include the Slavic peoples, who at that time were embarking on the path of Christianity. 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 the dominance of the pope in the Universal Church, limit the interference of secular authorities in church affairs, and also fought against the centrifugal tendencies that manifested themselves among part of the Western episcopate. He backed up his actions with counterfeit decretals circulating shortly before, allegedly issued by previous popes.

In Constantinople, Photius (858-867 and 877-886) became patriarch. As modern historians have convincingly established, the personality of St. Photius and the events of the time of his reign were strongly vilified by his opponents. He was a very educated man, deeply devoted to the Orthodox faith, a zealous servant of the Church. He was well aware of the great importance of the enlightenment of the Slavs. It was on his initiative that Saints Cyril and Methodius went to enlighten the Great Moravian lands. Their mission in Moravia was eventually stifled and driven out by the intrigues of the 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 the education of the peoples of the Balkans and Russia. 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 while to Rome, receiving Latin missionaries. It became known to Photius that they preach the Latin doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and seem 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 to restore the former Patriarch Ignatius, who was deposed in 861, to the throne with the help of church intrigues. In response to this, Emperor Michael III and Saint Photius convened a council in Constantinople (867) , whose regulations were subsequently destroyed. This council, apparently, recognized the doctrine of filioque heretical, declared unlawful the intervention of the pope in the affairs of the Church of Constantinople and severed liturgical communion with him. And since Western bishops complained to Constantinople about the "tyranny" of Nicholas I, the council proposed to Emperor Louis the German to 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 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 throne. 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 ecclesiastical independence and remained in the orbit of Constantinople's interests. 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 communion between Rome and Constantinople continued for more than a century.

Gap in the 11th century

11th century for the Byzantine Empire was truly "golden". The power of the Arabs was finally 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 beneficial to him, was defeated, the same fate befell Samuil, who raised an uprising 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 upsurge that began immediately after the triumph of Orthodoxy in 843 was accompanied by the political and economic flourishing 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 - France of the Capetians. Nevertheless, 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 split, the consequences of which were tragic for Europe.

From the beginning of the XI 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 the long process 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 notice of his accession to the throne of Rome. Be that as it may, but during the coronation of the German emperor Henry II (1014), the Creed was sung in Rome with filioque.

In addition to the introduction filioque there were also a number of Latin customs that revolted the Byzantines and increased the occasion for disagreement. Among them, the use of unleavened bread for the celebration of 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 on their Passover. Symbolic language was of great importance at that time, which is why the use of unleavened bread by the Greeks was perceived as a return to Judaism. They saw in this a denial of that novelty and that spiritual nature of the Savior's sacrifice, which were offered by Him instead of the Old Testament rites. In their eyes, the use of "dead" bread meant that the Savior in incarnation took only a human body, but not a soul...

In the XI century. the strengthening of papal power continued with greater force, which began as early as the time of Pope Nicholas I. The fact is that in the 10th century. the power of the papacy was weakened as never before, being the victim of the actions of various factions of the Roman aristocracy or being pressured by the German emperors. Various abuses spread in the Roman Church: the sale of church positions and the award of them to 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, mostly natives of Lorraine, among whom stood out Cardinal Humbert, Bishop of White Silva. The reformers saw no other means to remedy the disastrous state of Latin Christianity than to increase the power and authority of the pope. In their view, the papal power, as they understood it, should extend to the universal Church, both Latin and Greek.

In 1054, an event occurred that might have remained insignificant, but served as a pretext for a dramatic clash between the ecclesiastical tradition of Constantinople and the Western reformist movement.

In an effort to get help from the pope in the face of the threat of the Normans, who encroached on the Byzantine possessions of southern Italy, Emperor Constantine Monomachus, at the instigation of the Latin Argyrus, who was appointed by him as the ruler of these possessions, took a conciliatory position towards Rome and wished to restore unity, interrupted, as we have seen, at the beginning of the century . But the actions of the Latin reformers in southern Italy, infringing on Byzantine religious customs, worried the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cirularius. The papal legates, among whom was the adamant Bishop of White Silva, Cardinal Humbert, who arrived in Constantinople for negotiations on unification, planned 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 excommunicating Michael Cirularius 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 the hasty and thoughtless act of the legates a significance that they could not appreciate 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 regarded this teaching as contrary to the apostolic tradition. In addition, the Byzantines became clear about the plans of the reformers to extend the absolute and direct authority of the pope to all bishops and believers, even in Constantinople itself. Presented in this form, ecclesiology seemed completely new to them and also could not but contradict the apostolic tradition in their eyes. Having familiarized themselves with the situation, the rest of the eastern patriarchs joined the position of Constantinople.

1054 should be seen less as the date of the split than 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 about the structure of the Church. Differences were also added to them in less important matters relating 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, there were serious events that further complicated the understanding between the 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 ruin of Constantinople, the proclamation of the Latin emperor and the establishment of the rule of the Frankish lords, who arbitrarily cut the land holdings of the former Roman Empire. Many Orthodox monks were expelled from their monasteries and replaced by Latin monks. All this probably happened unintentionally, yet this turn of events was a logical consequence of the creation of the western empire and the evolution of the Latin Church since the beginning of the Middle Ages.<…>

Archimandrite Placida (Deseus) was born in France in 1926 into a Catholic family. In 1942, at the age of sixteen, he entered the Cistercian abbey of Belfontaine. 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 accept Orthodoxy. The transition took place on June 19, 1977; in February of the following year, they became monks at the Simonopetra monastery at Athos. Returning some time later to France, Fr. Plakida, together with the brethren who converted to Orthodoxy, founded four courtyards of the monastery of Simonopetra, the main of which was the monastery of St. Anthony the Great in Saint-Laurent-en-Royan (Drome department), in the Vercors mountain range. Archimandrite Plakida is an assistant professor of patrology in Paris. He is the founder of the series "Spiritualitй orientale" ("Oriental Spirituality"), published since 1966 by the publishing house of the abbey of Belfontaine. Author and translator of many books on Orthodox spirituality and monasticism, the most important of which are: “The Spirit of Pahomiev Monasticism” (1968), “We Have Seen the True Light: Monastic Life, Its Spirit and Fundamental Texts” (1990), “The Philokalia” and Orthodox Spirituality "(1997), "Gospel in the Desert" (1999), "Babylonian Cave: Spiritual Guide" (2001), "Fundamentals of the Catechism" (in 2 volumes 2001), "Confidence in the Invisible" (2002), "Body - soul - spirit in the Orthodox sense" (2004). In 2006, the publishing house of the Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University for the first time saw the publication of a translation of the book "Philokalia" and Orthodox Spirituality ". Those wishing to get acquainted with the biography of Fr. Plakidy recommend referring to the application in this book - an autobiographical note "Stages of Spiritual Journey". (Note per.)

Pepin III Short ( lat. Pippinus Brevis, 714-768) - French king (751-768), founder of the Carolingian dynasty. The son of Charles Martel and hereditary major, Pepin overthrew the last king of the Merovingian dynasty and achieved his election to the royal throne, having received the sanction of the Pope. (Note per.)

Saint Theodosius I the Great (c. 346–395) – Roman emperor from 379. Commemorated 17 January The son of a commander, originally from Spain. After the death of Emperor Valens, he was proclaimed 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.)

Romagna called their empire those whom we call "Byzantines".

See especially: Janitor Frantisek. Photius Schism: History and Legends. (Coll. Unam Sanctam. No. 19). Paris, 1950; He is. Byzantium and Roman primacy. (Coll. Unam Sanctam. No. 49). Paris, 1964, pp. 93–110.

“The great spiritual and political upheaval of our planet is Christianity. In this sacred element, the world disappeared and was renewed. "The Greek religion, separate from all others, gives us a special national character." “Russia has never had anything in common with the rest of Europe”, “its history requires a different thought, a different formula”...

And now, when our generations are experiencing a great state, economic, moral, spiritual and creative failure in the history of Russia, and when we see her enemies everywhere (religious and political), preparing a campaign against her originality and integrity, we must firmly and accurately pronounce: do we value our Russian identity and are we ready to defend it? And further: what is this originality, what are its foundations, and what are the attacks on it that we must foresee?

The originality of the Russian people is expressed in its special and original spiritual act. Under the "act" one must understand the internal structure and way of a person: his way of feeling, contemplating, thinking, desiring and acting. Each of the Russians, having gone abroad, had, and still has, the full opportunity to be convinced by experience that other peoples have a different way of life and spirituality from ours; we experience it at every step and hardly get used to it; sometimes we see their superiority, sometimes we acutely feel their dissatisfaction, but we always experience their foreignness and begin to languish and yearn for the “homeland”. This is due to the originality of our everyday and spiritual way of life, or, to put it in the shortest word, we have a different act.

The Russian national act was formed under the influence of four great factors: nature (continentality, plain, climate, soil), the Slavic soul, a special faith and historical development (statehood, wars, territorial dimensions, multinationality, economy, education, technology, culture). It is impossible to cover all this at once. There are books about this, sometimes precious (N. Gogol “What, finally, is the essence of Russian poetry”; N. Danilevsky “Russia and Europe”; I. Zabelin “The History of Russian Life”; F. Dostoevsky “The Diary of a Writer”; V. Klyuchevsky “Essays and Speeches”), then stillborn (P. Chaadaev “Philosophical Letters”; P. Milyukov “Essays on the History of Russian Culture”). In understanding and interpreting these factors and the Russian creative act itself, it is important to remain objective and fair, without turning into either a fanatical “Slavophile” or a “Westernizer” blind to Russia. And this is especially important in the main question that we are raising here - about Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Among the enemies of Russia, who do not accept her entire culture and condemn her entire history, Roman Catholics occupy a very special place. They proceed from the fact that there is “good” and “truth” in the world only where the Catholic Church “leads” and where people unquestioningly recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Everything else goes (so they understand) on the wrong path, is in darkness or heresy and must sooner or later be converted to their faith. This constitutes not only the "directive" of Catholicism, but the self-evident basis or premise of all its doctrines, books, evaluations, organizations, decisions and actions. The non-Catholic in the world must disappear: either as a result of propaganda and conversion, or by the destruction of God.

How many times in recent years have Catholic prelates taken it upon themselves to explain to me personally that “the Lord is sweeping the Orthodox East with an iron broom so that the united Catholic Church may reign”... How many times I shuddered at the bitterness that their speeches breathed and their eyes sparkled. And listening to these speeches, I began to understand how the prelate Michel d "Herbigny, head of Eastern Catholic propaganda, could go to Moscow twice (in 1926 and in 1928) to establish a union with the "Renovation Church" and, accordingly, the "Concordat "with the Bolsheviks, and how could he, returning from there, reprint without reservation the vile articles of the communists, calling the martyr, Orthodox, patriarchal Church (literally) "syphilitic" and "depraved." The International has not been realized until now, not because the Vatican "rejected" and "condemned" such an agreement, but because the Communists themselves did not want it. I understood the destruction of Orthodox cathedrals, churches and parishes in Poland, which was carried out by Catholics in the thirties of the current (twentieth. - Note ed.) of the century ... I finally understood what the true meaning of the Catholic "prayers for the salvation of Russia": both the original, brief, and the one that was compiled in 1926 by Pope Benedict XV and for reading to to which they are granted (by announcement) "three hundred days of indulgence" ...

And now, when we see how the Vatican has been preparing for a campaign against Russia for years, carrying out a massive purchase of Russian religious literature, Orthodox icons and entire iconostases, mass training of the Catholic clergy to simulate Orthodox worship in Russian (“Eastern Rite Catholicism”), close study Orthodox thought and soul for the sake of proving their historical inconsistency - all of us, Russian people, must put before ourselves the question of what is the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and try to answer this question for ourselves with all objectivity, directness and historical fidelity.

This is a dogmatic, church-organizational, ritual, missionary, political, moral and act difference. The last difference is vital and primary: it gives the key to understanding all the others.

The dogmatic difference is known to every Orthodox: firstly, contrary to the decisions of the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople,381) and the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431, Rule 7), Catholics introduced into the 8th member of the Creed an addition about the descent of the Holy Spirit not only from the Father, but also from the Son (“filioque”); secondly, in the 19th century, a new Catholic dogma was added to this that the Virgin Mary was conceived immaculate (“de immaculata conceptione”); thirdly, in 1870, a new dogma was established on the infallibility of the pope in the affairs of the Church and doctrine (“ex cathedra”); fourthly, in 1950, another dogma was established on the posthumous bodily ascension of the Virgin Mary. These dogmas are not recognized by the Orthodox Church. These are the most important dogmatic differences.

The church-organizational difference lies in the fact that Catholics recognize the Roman pontiff as the head of the Church and Christ's substitute on earth, while the Orthodox recognize the single head of the Church - Jesus Christ and consider it the only correct thing for the Church to be built by the Ecumenical and Local Councils. Orthodoxy also does not recognize secular authority for bishops and does not honor Catholic order organizations (especially the Jesuits). These are the most important differences.

Ritual distinctions are as follows. Orthodoxy does not recognize worship in Latin; it observes the liturgies composed by Basil the Great and John Chrysostom and does not recognize Western models; it observes the communion bequeathed by the Savior under the guise of bread and wine and rejects the "communion" introduced by the Catholics for the laity with only "consecrated wafers"; it recognizes icons, but does not allow sculptures in churches; it elevates confession to the invisibly present Christ and denies the confessional as an organ of earthly power in the hands of a priest. Orthodoxy has created a completely different culture of church singing, prayer and ringing; he has a different outfit; he has a different sign of the cross; a different arrangement of the altar; it knows kneeling, but rejects the Catholic "crouching"; it does not know the rattling bell during prayers and many other things. These are the most important ritual distinctions.

Missionary distinctions are as follows. Orthodoxy recognizes freedom of confession and rejects the entire spirit of the Inquisition; extermination of heretics, torture, bonfires and forced baptism (Charlemagne). It observes, when converting, the purity of religious contemplation and its freedom from any extraneous motives, especially from intimidation, political calculation and material assistance (“charity”); it does not consider that earthly help to a brother in Christ proves the “orthodox faith” of the benefactor. It, according to the words of Gregory the Theologian, seeks "not to conquer, but to win brothers" in faith. It does not seek power on earth at any cost. These are the most important missionary distinctions.

These are the political differences. The Orthodox Church has never claimed either secular domination or the struggle for state power in the form of a political party. The original Russian-Orthodox solution of the question is as follows: Church and state have special and different tasks, but help each other in the struggle for the good; the state rules, but does not command the Church and does not engage in forced missionary work; The Church organizes its work freely and independently, observes secular loyalty, but judges everything by its own Christian yardstick and gives good advice, and perhaps denunciations to the rulers and good teaching to the laity (remember Philip the Metropolitan and Patriarch Tikhon). Her weapon is not a sword, not party politics, and not order intrigue, but conscience, instruction, denunciation and excommunication. Byzantine and post-Petrine deviations from this order were unhealthy phenomena.

Catholicism, on the contrary, seeks always and in everything and in all ways - power (secular, clerical, property and personally suggestive).

The moral difference is this. Orthodoxy appeals to the free human heart. Catholicism appeals to the blindly obedient will. Orthodoxy seeks to awaken in man a living, creative love and a Christian conscience. Catholicism requires from a person obedience and observance of the prescription (legalism). Orthodoxy asks for the very best and calls for evangelical perfection. Catholicism asks about what is prescribed, what is forbidden, what is permitted, what is forgivable, and what is unforgivable. Orthodoxy goes deep into the soul, looking for sincere faith and sincere kindness. Catholicism disciplines the outer man, seeks outward piety, and is satisfied with the formal semblance of good deeds.

And all this is most closely connected with the initial and deepest act difference, which must be thought through to the end, and, moreover, once and for all.

Confession differs from confession in its basic religious act and its structure. It is important not only what you believe in, but also what, that is, what forces of the soul, your faith is carried out. Ever since Christ the Savior established faith on living love (see Mark 12:30-33; Luke 10:27; cf. 1 John 4:7-8:16), we know where to look for faith and how find her. This is the most important thing for understanding not only one's own faith, but especially someone else's faith and the entire history of religion. This is how we should understand both Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

There are religions that are born out of fear and feed on fear; thus, African Negroes in their mass are primarily afraid of darkness and night, evil spirits, witchcraft, death. It is in the struggle against this fear and in the exploitation of it by others that their religion is formed.

There are religions that are born out of lust; and feed on eroticism taken as "inspiration"; such is the religion of Dionysus-Bacchus; such is "left-hand Shaivism" in India; such is Russian Khlystism.

There are religions that live in fantasy and imagination; their supporters are content with mythical legends and chimeras, poetry, sacrifices and rituals, neglecting love, will and thought. This is Indian Brahmanism.

Buddhism was created as a religion of life-giving and austerity. Confucianism arose as a religion of historically suffered and sincerely felt moral doctrine. The religious act of Egypt was dedicated to overcoming death. The Jewish religion was looking primarily for national self-affirmation on earth, putting forward henotheism (the god of national exclusivity) and moral legalism. The Greeks created a religion of the family hearth and visible beauty. The Romans - the religion of the magical rite. What about Christians?

Orthodoxy and Catholicism alike elevate their faith to Christ, the Son of God, and to the gospel gospel. And yet their religious acts are not only different, but incompatible in their opposites. It is precisely this that determines all the differences that I indicated in the previous article (“On Russian Nationalism.” - Approx. ed.).

The primary and fundamental awakening of faith for the Orthodox is the movement of the heart, contemplating love, which sees the Son of God in all His goodness, in all His perfection and spiritual strength, bows down and accepts Him as the real truth of God, as its main life treasure. In the light of this perfection, the Orthodox recognizes his sinfulness, strengthens and purifies his conscience by it, and embarks on the path of repentance and purification.

On the contrary, in a Catholic, “faith” awakens from a volitional decision: to trust such and such (Catholic-Church) authority, to submit and submit to it, and to force oneself to accept everything that this authority decides and prescribes, including the question of good and evil, sin and its admissibility.

Why does an Orthodox soul come to life from free tenderness, from kindness, from heartfelt joy - and then it blooms with faith and voluntary deeds corresponding to it. Here the gospel of Christ evokes sincere love for God, and free love awakens the Christian will and conscience in the soul.

On the contrary, the Catholic, by constant efforts of the will, forces himself to the faith that his authority prescribes to him.

However, in reality, only external bodily movements are completely subordinated to the will, conscious thought is subordinated to it to a much lesser extent; even less is the life of imagination and everyday feelings (emotions and affects). Neither love, nor faith, nor conscience is subject to the will and may not respond at all to its “compulsions”. One can force oneself to stand and prostrate, but it is impossible to force reverence, prayer, love and thanksgiving in oneself. Only external "piety" obeys the will, and this is nothing more than an external appearance or just a pretense. You can force yourself to make a property "donation"; but the gift of love, compassion, mercy is not compelled by will or authority. For love - both earthly and spiritual - thought and imagination follow by themselves, naturally and willingly, but the will can beat over them all their lives and not subject them to its pressure. From an open and loving heart, conscience, like the voice of God, will speak independently and authoritatively. But the discipline of the will does not lead to conscience, and obedience to external authority completely stifles personal conscience.

This is how this opposition and irreconcilability of the two confessions unfolds, and we, the Russian people, need to think it through to the end.

He who builds religion on will and on obedience to authority will inevitably have to limit faith to mental and verbal "recognition", leaving his heart cold and callous, replacing living love with legalism and discipline, and Christian kindness with "commendable", but dead deeds. . And prayer itself will turn into soulless words and insincere gestures. Anyone who knows the religion of ancient pagan Rome will immediately recognize its tradition in all this. It is precisely these features of Catholic religiosity that have always been experienced by the Russian soul as alien, strange, artificially strained and insincere. And when we hear from Orthodox people that in Catholic worship there is external solemnity, sometimes brought to grandeur and “beauty”, but there is no sincerity and warmth, there is no humility and burning, there is no real prayer, and therefore spiritual beauty, then we know where to look for an explanation for this.

This opposition between the two confessions is found in everything. Thus, the first task of an Orthodox missionary is to give people the Holy Gospel and divine service in their own language and in full text; Catholics adhere to the Latin language, which is incomprehensible to most nations, and forbid believers to read the Bible on their own. The Orthodox soul seeks a direct approach to Christ in everything: from inward solitary prayer to the communion of the Holy Mysteries. A Catholic dares to think and feel about Christ only what the authoritative mediator between him and God will allow him to do, and in the very communion he remains deprived and insane, not accepting transubstantiated wine and receiving instead of transubstantiated bread - a kind of "wafer" that replaces it.

Further, if faith depends on the will and decision, then obviously the unbeliever does not believe because he does not want to believe, and the heretic is a heretic because he decided to believe in his own way; and the "witch" serves the devil because she is possessed by an evil will. Naturally, they are all criminals against the Law of God and that they should be punished. Hence the Inquisition and all those cruel deeds that filled the medieval history of Catholic Europe: crusades against heretics, bonfires, torture, the extermination of entire cities (for example, the city of Steding in Germany in 1234); in 1568 all the inhabitants of the Netherlands, except those named by name, were sentenced to death as heretics.

In Spain, the Inquisition finally disappeared only in 1834. The rationale for these executions is clear: an unbeliever is one who does not want to believe, he is a villain and a criminal in the face of God, hell awaits him; and behold, the short-lived fire of an earthly fire is better than the eternal fire of hell. It is natural that people who forced faith by their own will, try to force it from others as well, and see in unbelief or heterodoxy not a delusion, not misfortune, not blindness, not spiritual poverty, but an evil will.

On the contrary, an Orthodox priest follows the Apostle Paul: not to strive to "take power over another's will", but to "promote joy" in the hearts of people (see 2 Cor. 1, 24) and firmly remember Christ's commandment about "tares" that are not subject to premature weeding (see Matt. 13:25-36). He recognizes the guiding wisdom of Athanasius the Great and Gregory the Theologian: “What is done by force against desire is not only forced, not free and not glorious, but simply did not even take place” (Word 2, 15). Hence the instruction of Metropolitan Macarius, given by him in 1555 to the first Kazan archbishop Guriy: “With all sorts of customs, as possible, accustom the Tatars to him and bring them to baptism with love, but do not lead them to baptism with fear.” The Orthodox Church from time immemorial has believed in the freedom of faith, in its independence from earthly interests and calculations, in its heartfelt sincerity. Hence the words of Cyril of Jerusalem: "Simon the sorcerer in the font dip the body with water, but do not enlighten the heart with the spirit, and go down, and go out with the body, but do not bury the soul and do not rise."

Further, the will of earthly man seeks power. And the Church, building faith on the will, will certainly seek power. So it was with the Mohammedans; this has been the case with Catholics throughout their history. They were always looking for power in the world, as if the Kingdom of God were of this world - any power: independent secular power for the pope and cardinals, as well as power over kings and emperors (recall the Middle Ages); power over souls and especially over the will of his followers (confessional as a tool); party power in a modern "democratic" state; secret order power, totalitarian-cultural over everything and in all matters (Jesuits). They regard power as an instrument for establishing the Kingdom of God on earth. And this idea has always been alien to both the Gospel teaching and the Orthodox Church.

Power on earth requires dexterity, compromise, cunning, pretense, lies, deceit, intrigue and betrayal, and often crime. Hence the doctrine that the end resolves the means. It is in vain that the opponents expound this teaching of the Jesuits as if the end "justifies" or "sanctifies" bad means; in this way they only make it easier for the Jesuits to object and refute. Here we are not talking about “righteousness” or “holiness” at all, but either about church permission - about permissibility or about moral “good quality”. It is in this connection that the most prominent Jesuit Fathers, such as: Escobar-a-Mendoza, Soth, Tholet, Vascotz, Lessius, Sanquez and some others, assert that "actions are made good or bad depending on a good or bad goal" . However, the goal of a person is known only to him alone, it is a private matter, secret and easily amenable to simulation. Closely connected with this is the Catholic teaching on the permissibility and even innocence of lies and deceit: you just need to interpret the spoken words “differently” to yourself, or use an ambiguous expression, or silently limit the amount of what was said, or remain silent about the truth - then a lie is not a lie, and deceit is not deceit, and a false oath in court is not sinful (for this, see the Jesuits Lemkull, Suarets, Buzenbaum, Layman, Sanquez, Alagona, Lessia, Escobar and others).

But the Jesuits also have another teaching, which finally unties their hands for their order and their church leaders. This is the doctrine of evil deeds allegedly committed "by the command of God." So, in the Jesuit Peter Alagona (also in Buzenbaum) we read: “According to the command of God, you can kill the innocent, steal, debauchery, for He is the Lord of life and death, and therefore one must fulfill His command.” It goes without saying that the presence of such a monstrous and impossible "command" of God is decided by the Catholic Church authority, obedience to which is the very essence of the Catholic faith.

Anyone who, having thought through these features of Catholicism, turns to the Orthodox Church, will see and understand once and for all that the deepest traditions of both confessions are opposite and incompatible. Moreover, he will also understand that the entire Russian culture was formed, strengthened and flourished in the spirit of Orthodoxy and became what it was at the beginning of the 20th century, primarily because it was not Catholic. The Russian man believed and believes with love, prays with his heart, freely reads the Gospel; and the authority of the Church helps him in his freedom and teaches him freedom, opening his spiritual eye to him, and not frightening him with earthly executions in order to “avoid” the other worlds. Russian charity and the "poverty" of the Russian tsars always came from the heart and kindness. Russian art has entirely grown out of free contemplation of the heart: the soaring of Russian poetry, and the dreams of Russian prose, and the depth of Russian painting, and the sincere lyricism of Russian music, and the expressiveness of Russian sculpture, and the spirituality of Russian architecture, and the feeling of Russian theater. The spirit of Christian love also penetrated into Russian medicine with its spirit of service, disinterestedness, intuitive and holistic diagnosis, individualization of the patient, brotherly attitude towards the suffering; and into Russian jurisprudence with its search for justice; and in Russian mathematics with its objective contemplation. He created the traditions of Solovyov, Klyuchevsky and Zabelin in Russian historiography. He created the tradition of Suvorov in the Russian army, and the tradition of Ushinsky and Pirogov in the Russian school. One must see with one's heart that deep connection that connects Russian Orthodox saints and elders with the way of life of the Russian, common people and educated soul. The whole Russian life is different and special, because the Slavic soul has strengthened its heart in the precepts of Orthodoxy. And the most Russian non-Orthodox confessions (with the exception of Catholicism) have taken into themselves the rays of this freedom, simplicity, cordiality and sincerity.

Let us also remember that our white movement, with all its loyalty to the state, with its patriotic fervor and sacrifice, arose from free and faithful hearts and has been maintained by them to this day. A living conscience, sincere prayer and personal “volunteering” are among the best gifts of Orthodoxy, and we have not the slightest reason to replace these gifts with the traditions of Catholicism.

Hence our attitude towards the "Catholicism of the Eastern Rite", which is now being prepared in the Vatican and in many Catholic monasteries. The very idea of ​​subjugating the soul of the Russian people by means of a feigned imitation of their worship and of establishing Catholicism in Russia by this deceitful operation - we experience as religiously false, godless and immoral. So in war, ships sail under a false flag. This is how smuggling is carried across the border. So in Shakespeare's "Hamlet" a brother pours a deadly poison into his brother-king's ear during his sleep.

And if anyone needed to prove what Catholicism is and by what means it seizes power on earth, then this last enterprise makes all other proofs superfluous.

03 / 08 / 2006

God is one, God is love - these statements are familiar to us from childhood. Why then is the Church of God divided into Catholic and Orthodox? And within each direction there are many more confessions? All questions have their historical and religious answers. We will get to know some of them now.

History of Catholicism

It is clear that a Catholic is a person who professes Christianity in its offshoot called Catholicism. The name goes back to Latin and ancient Roman roots and is translated as “corresponding to everything”, “consistent with everything”, “cathedral”. That is, universal. The meaning of the name emphasizes that a Catholic is a believer belonging to that religious movement, the founder of which was Jesus Christ himself. When it originated and spread across the Earth, its followers considered each other to be spiritual brothers and sisters. Then there was one opposition: a Christian - a non-Christian (pagan, orthodox, etc.).

The western part of the Ancient Roman Empire is considered the birthplace of confessions. It was there that the words themselves appeared: This direction was formed during the entire first millennium. During this period, both spiritual texts, chants and services were the same for everyone who venerates Christ and the Trinity. And only around 1054 was the Eastern one, with its center in Constantinople, and the Catholic proper, the Western one, whose center was Rome. Since then, it has been considered that a Catholic is not just a Christian, but an adherent of precisely the Western religious tradition.

Reasons for the split

How to explain the causes of discord, which has become so deep and irreconcilable? After all, what is interesting: for a long time after the schism, both Churches continued to call themselves catholic (the same as “Catholic”), that is, universal, ecumenical. The Greek-Byzantine branch as a spiritual platform relies on the "Revelations" of John the Theologian, the Roman - "On the Epistle to the Hebrews." The first is characterized by asceticism, moral quest, "the life of the soul." For the second - the formation of iron discipline, a strict hierarchy, the concentration of power in the hands of priests of the highest ranks. Differences in the interpretation of many dogmas, rituals, church administration and other important areas of church life became the watershed that separated Catholicism and Orthodoxy on different sides. Thus, if before the schism the meaning of the word Catholic was equal to the concept of "Christian", then after it it began to indicate the Western direction of religion.

Catholicism and the Reformation

Over time, the Catholic clergy so departed from the norms that the Bible affirmed and preached that this served as the basis for the organization within the Church of such a direction as Protestantism. The spiritual and ideological basis of it was the teaching and its supporters. The Reformation gave birth to Calvinism, Anbaptism, Anglicanism and other Protestant denominations. Thus, Lutherans are Catholics, or, in other words, evangelical Christians who were against the church actively interfering in worldly affairs, so that papal prelates would go hand in hand with secular power. The sale of indulgences, the advantages of the Roman Church over the Eastern one, the abolition of monasticism - this is not a complete list of those phenomena that the followers of the Great Reformer actively criticized. In their faith, the Lutherans rely on the Holy Trinity, especially worshiping Jesus, recognizing his divine-human nature. Their main criterion of faith is the Bible. A distinctive feature of Lutheranism, as well as others, is a critical approach to various theological books and authorities.

On the question of the unity of the Church

However, in the light of the materials under consideration, it is not completely clear: are Catholics Orthodox or not? This question is asked by many who are not too deeply versed in theology and all sorts of religious subtleties. The answer is both simple and difficult at the same time. As already mentioned above, initially - yes. While the Church was One Christian, all those who were part of it prayed the same way, and worshiped God according to the same rules, and used common rituals. But even after the separation, each - both Catholic and Orthodox - consider themselves the main successors of the heritage of Christ.

Interchurch relations

At the same time, they treat each other with sufficient respect. Thus, the Decree of the Second Vatican Council notes that those people who accept Christ as their God, believe in him and were baptized, are considered Catholics as brothers in faith. It also has its own documents, also confirming that Catholicism is a phenomenon whose nature is related to the nature of Orthodoxy. And the differences in dogmatic postulates are not so fundamental that both Churches are at enmity with each other. On the contrary, relations between them should be built in such a way as to serve the common cause together.

On July 16, 1054, at the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, official representatives of the Pope announced the deposition of Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople. In response, the patriarch anathematized the papal envoys. Since then, there have been churches that we today call Catholic and Orthodox.

Let's define concepts

Three main directions in Christianity - Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism. There is no single Protestant church, because there are many hundreds of Protestant churches (denominations) in the world. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are churches with a hierarchical structure, with their own doctrine, worship, their own internal legislation and their own religious and cultural traditions inherent in each of them.

Catholicism is an integral church, all components and all members of which are subject to the Pope as their head. The Orthodox Church is not so monolithic. At the moment it consists of 15 independent, but mutually recognizing and fundamentally identical churches. Among them are Russian, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Georgian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Greek, etc.

What do Orthodoxy and Catholicism have in common?

Both Orthodox and Catholics are Christians who believe in Christ and striving to live according to His commandments. Both of them have one Holy Scripture - the Bible. No matter what we say about the differences, the Christian everyday life of both Catholics and Orthodox is built, first of all, according to the Gospel. The true role model, the basis of all life for any Christian is the Lord Jesus Christ, and He is one and only. Therefore, despite differences, Catholics and Orthodox profess and preach faith in Jesus Christ all over the world, proclaim the same Gospel to the world.

The history and traditions of the Catholic and Orthodox Church go back to the apostles. Peter, Paul, Mark and other disciples of Jesus founded Christian communities in significant cities of the ancient world - Jerusalem, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, etc. Those churches were formed around these centers that became the basis of the Christian world. That is why Orthodox and Catholics have sacraments (baptism, weddings, ordination of priests,), similar dogma, venerate common saints (who lived before the 11th century), and proclaim the same Nikeo-Tsaregradsky. Despite certain differences, both churches profess faith in the Holy Trinity.

For our time, it is important that both Orthodox and Catholics have a very similar view of the Christian family. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Marriage is blessed by the church and is considered a sacrament. Divorce is always a tragedy. Sexual relations before marriage are unworthy of the title of Christian, they are sinful. It is important to emphasize that both Orthodox and Catholics generally do not recognize homosexual marriages. Homosexual relationships themselves are considered a grave sin.

It should be especially noted that both Catholics and Orthodox recognize that they are not the same thing, that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are different churches, but Christian churches. This difference is so significant for both sides that for a thousand years there has been no mutual unity in the most important thing - in worship and communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. Catholics and Orthodox do not receive communion together.

At the same time, which is very important, both Catholics and Orthodox look at the mutual division with bitterness and repentance. All Christians are convinced that the unbelieving world needs a common Christian witness for Christ.

About division

It is not possible to describe the development of the gap and the formation of the separated Catholic and Orthodox churches in this note. I will only note that the tense political situation of a thousand years ago between Rome and Constantinople prompted both sides to look for a reason to sort things out. Attention was drawn to the peculiarities of the hierarchical church structure, which were fixed in the Western tradition, the peculiarities of dogma, ritual and disciplinary customs, which are not characteristic of the East.

In other words, it was the political tension that revealed the already existing and strengthened originality of the religious life of the two parts of the former Roman Empire. In many ways, the current situation was due to the difference in cultures, mentalities, national characteristics of the West and East. With the disappearance of the empire uniting the Christian churches, Rome and Western tradition stood apart from Byzantium for several centuries. With weak communication and an almost complete absence of mutual interest, their own traditions took root.

It is clear that the division of a single church into Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Catholic) is a long and rather complicated process, which at the beginning of the 11th century only had its culmination. The until then united church, represented by five local or territorial churches, the so-called patriarchates, split. In July 1054, a mutual anathematization was proclaimed by the plenipotentiaries of the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople. A few months later, all the remaining patriarchates joined the position of Constantinople. The gap has only grown stronger and deeper over time. Finally, the Churches of the East and the Roman Church were divided after 1204 - the time of the destruction of Constantinople by the participants of the Fourth Crusade.

What is the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

Here are the main points, mutually recognized by both parties, that divide churches today:

The first important difference is the different understanding of the church. For Orthodox Christians, the one, so-called Universal Church, is manifested in specific independent, but mutually recognizing local churches. A person can belong to any of the existing Orthodox churches, thereby belonging to Orthodoxy in general. It is enough to share the same faith and sacraments with other churches. Catholics recognize one and only church as an organizational structure - Catholic, subordinate to the Pope. To belong to Catholicism, it is necessary to belong to the one and only Catholic Church, to have its faith and participate in its sacraments, and it is imperative to recognize the primacy of the pope.

In practice, this moment is revealed, first of all, in the fact that the Catholic Church has a dogma (obligatory doctrinal provision) about the primacy of the pope over the entire church and his infallibility in official teaching on matters of faith and morality, discipline and government. Orthodox do not recognize the primacy of the pope and believe that only the decisions of the Ecumenical (that is, universal) Councils are infallible and most authoritative. On the difference between the Pope and the Patriarch. In the context of what has been said, the imaginary situation of submission to the Pope of Rome of the now independent Orthodox patriarchs, and with them all bishops, priests and laity, looks absurd.

Second. There are differences in some important doctrinal matters. Let's point out one of them. It concerns the doctrine of God - the Holy Trinity. The Catholic Church professes in that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Orthodox Church confesses the Holy Spirit, which proceeds only from the Father. These seemingly “philosophical” subtleties of dogma have quite serious consequences in the theological doctrinal systems of each of the churches, sometimes contradicting each other. The unification and unification of the Orthodox and Catholic faiths at the moment seems to be an unsolvable task.

Third. Over the past centuries, many cultural, disciplinary, liturgical, legislative, mental, national features of the religious life of Orthodox and Catholics have not only strengthened, but also developed, which can sometimes contradict each other. First of all, it is about the language and style of prayer (memorized texts, or prayer in one's own words, or to music), about accents in prayer, about a special understanding of holiness and veneration of saints. But we must not forget about the benches in churches, scarves and skirts, the features of temple architecture or the styles of icon painting, the calendar, the language of worship, etc.

Both Orthodox and Catholic traditions have a fairly large degree of freedom in these quite secondary issues. This is clear. However, unfortunately, overcoming differences in this plane is unlikely, since it is this plane that represents the real life of ordinary believers. And, as you know, it is easier for them to give up some kind of “speculative” philosophizing than from their usual way of life and everyday understanding of it.

In addition, in Catholicism there is a practice of exclusively unmarried clergy, while in the Orthodox tradition the priesthood can be either married or monastic.

The Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church have different views on the topic of intimate relations between spouses. Orthodoxy condescendingly looks at the use of non-abortive contraceptives. And in general, the issues of the sexual life of the spouses are provided by them themselves and are not regulated by doctrine. Catholics, in turn, are categorically against any contraceptives.

In conclusion, I will say that these differences do not prevent the Orthodox and Catholic Churches from conducting a constructive dialogue, jointly opposing the massive departure from traditional and Christian values; jointly implement various social projects and peacekeeping actions.