I should have clarified that I meant that the theological differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are
greater then the differences between Catholicism and the Protestantism. This is logically expected, considering that Orthodoxy and Catholicism have had more than a thousand years to deviant, whereas the Protestants have only had a few centuries to diverge from Catholicism. The link I gave you is a cursory and manly historical account of the Great Schism, which gives a nice overview but doesn't really address the theological differences - nor their magnitude.
Arturia wrote:But while we worship different saints and overally have different points of view on certain aspects, we are not that different. It's not an ocean that separates us, but a river.
This is simply not true.
The main differences historically and practically are the filiqoque, which concerns the nature of the Trinity and is mainly theological, and the Papacy, which has very real impacts.
The Filioque is the Catholic addition of the words "and the Son" to the Nicene creed, regarding the Trinity. Specifically, it revolves around whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, or only from the Father. This is important because the Trinity is the foundation of Christianity. The Catholic view is generally;
Eastern Orthodox often refer to the Holy Spirit proceeding from "the Father through the Son," which can be equivalent to the Catholic formula "from the Father and the Son." Since everything the Son has is from the Father, if the Spirit proceeds from the Son, then the Son can only be spoken of as one through whom the Spirit received what he has from the Father, the ultimate principle of the Godhead. Because the formulas are equivalent, the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes: "This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed" (CCC 248).
Today there is every hope that the equivalence of the two formulas can be formally recognized by all parties and that the filioque controversy can be resolved.
1But the Orthodox do not agree. Possibly the best documentation of the Orthodox position on this is found in a series of letters from the the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremias II to Lutherans - as the Lutheran Protestants had the same attitudes of the Catholics. Tellingly,
Jeremias... considered that the Lutherans were following the errors of the Latins
2which places them closer to the Catholics than the Orthodox are. Anyway, Jeremias refutes the claim that the professions are "equivalent," and goes on to say
Jeremias II, Patriarch of Constantinople wrote:How then and why do you innovate and say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the son? If the Spirit did not proceed from the Father alone, then the Lord would have said concerning the Paraclete, whom I and the Father sent forth just as He frequently said "whom I shall send" [Jn 15:26]. To begin with, then, the undeceiving mouth of Christ declares that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father [cf. Jn 15:26]. Second, even Paul himself in the Epistle to Titus reiterates: "Not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior" [3:5-6]. What is more explicit than this?
3In addition to listing four Popes - Gregory, Zacharias, Leo III, and Benedict III - who affirmed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, Jeremias notes:
Jeremias II, Patriarch of Constantinople wrote:If the Son was the emitter and the cause of the Spirit, how could the Ecumenical Synods have remained silent concerning such a most necessary dogma? It is very clear, therefore, from this that some persons gave way to their own wills and affixed this addition after the holy synods had made their definition. For if this had not happened, there would not have been a consensus of all present, since the most reverend primates of Rome were present in the seven holy Synods...
This, however, is a fact, as we have said, that the two thousand participants of the seven [Ecumenical] Synods did not formulate the opinion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, also. Among these, indeed, were the primates and luminaries of the Roman Church, who without contradiction voted in support of the definition of the faith [i.e., that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone]. And I believe that the three, whom we mentioned above, had also truly acquiesced. But also, a mutual doctrinaire agreement was adopted by them to neither eliminate from the definitions of the faith, nor, indeed, to add to them And this definition, that is, the Creed proclaims: [I believe] "and in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father," etc.
3The Catholic response is;
Edicts of an ecumenical council are binding on Christians, but they are not binding on another ecumenical council unless they are pronouncing a matter of faith or morals. Later ecumenical councils can revise or modify disciplinary policies of their predecessors. Since the prohibition on making a new creed was a disciplinary matter, it could be changed by later ecumenical councils.
At the ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-45), it was changed, and the council ruled that the words "and the Son" had been validly added to the Creed. The Eastern Orthodox originally accepted the authority of the Council of Florence, but later rejected it.
4and
The Eastern Orthodox communion bases its teachings on Scripture and "the seven ecumenical councils"—I Nicaea (325), I Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), II Constantinople (553), III Constantinople (680), and II Nicaea (787). Catholics recognize these as the first seven ecumenical councils, but not the only seven.
While Catholics recognize an ensuing series of ecumenical councils, leading up to Vatican II, which closed in 1965, the Eastern Orthodox say there have been no ecumenical councils since 787, and no teaching after II Nicaea is accepted as of universal authority.
1But these statements about the Council of Florence are rejected by the leader of the Orthodox delegation to the council himself - Mark of Ephesus. A central tenant of ecumenical councils is not only that they consist of all representatives of the Church, but also that they achieve unison in opinion. The Orthodox rejection of all later councils is because none reached any sort of absolute consensus. Note that this means that Catholicism, accepting every council after the Second Council of Nicaea, now have 1300 years of theological differences, instead of just 1000!
Moving on, probably the most important is the Papacy. Coincidentally, this is one of the only times Protestants take the Orthodox view rather than the Catholic view.
Catholics argue that Jesus, by treating Peter differently than the other apostles, ordained him as his successor to lead the Church. From here, the succession of Popes can be traced. The Bishops/Patriarchs are the successors of the other apostles, so the Pope's authority over them stems from his position as
first among men.The Catholic view is thus:
Since the Eastern schism began, the Orthodox have generally claimed that the pope has only a primacy of honor among the bishops of the world, not a primacy of authority. But the concept of a primacy of honor without a corresponding authority cannot be derived from the Bible. At every juncture where Jesus speaks of Peter’s relation to the other apostles, he emphasizes Peter’s special mission to them and not simply his place of honor among them.
In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the kingdom" and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not. In Luke 22:28–32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32).
In John 21:15–17, with only the other disciples present (cf. John 21:2), Jesus asks Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?"—in other words, is Peter more devoted to him than the other disciples? When Peter responds that he is, Jesus instructs him: "Feed my lambs" (22:15). Thus we see Jesus describing the other disciples, the only other people who are present, the ones whom Jesus refers to as "these," as part of the lambs that he instructs Peter to feed, giving him the role of pastor (shepherd) over them. Again, a reference to Peter having more than merely a primacy of honor with respect to the other apostles, but a primacy of pastoral discipline as well.
1The Orthodox response is:
The Orthodox Church declares Peter’s person is not the rock of the Church, but the faith that he confessed and bore witness to when he said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” [Mt. 16:16]. It is precisely upon this confession and faith that the saving preaching of the Gospel by all the Apostles and their successors rests unshaken. Moreover, the Greek words tauth th petra (“this rock”), are feminine; they cannot refer to the person of Peter.
When the Apostle Peter received the “keys,” or spiritual authority, it was for the same reason, by virtue of his confession. Let us also direct our attention to our Saviour’s words, “I will build my Church.” The word “build” (oikodomhsw) is a verb in the future tense which refers to the establishment of the Church after the Resurrection and Descent of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, to say, “I will build” means that new members would be added to the present company, with Peter and his confession being only the first “rock” in the building of the Church.
According to the divine Paul, the members of the body of Christ, who are the Church [Col. 1:24], “are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” [Eph. 2:20]. It is therefore a novel doctrine to heap excessive privileges upon the Bishop of Rome as a successor of the Apostle Peter.
...
Saint John commented that the Apostles were equal in dignity. Peter and Paul were alike, first among the Apostles: the one for the Jews, and the other for the nations. “Christ did certainly divide His army in two parts, and entrusted the Jews to Peter and the Gentiles to Paul. The divisions of the army are indeed several, but the General is one.”[xxxv] Thus, Peter never received any exclusive supremacy over all Christendom. In fact, when the Apostles met in Synod at Jerusalem, it was not Peter who presided, but Iakovos (James) the brother of the Lord, and it was his decision which was accepted by all [Acts 15:19]. Moreover, where was St. Peter’s supremacy when St. Paul “withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” [Gal. 2:11]?
At the First Œcumenical Synod, 318 holy Fathers determined the canonical books of the New Testament and their sequence. Far from thinking that St. Peter had any supremacy, the Synod did not place his epistles first, but in their proper position, and after the Epistle of St. James.
The only Chief of the Church was, is, and ever shall be, Jesus Christ Himself. The Orthodox believe and acclaim with the Apostle Paul that Christ is the Head [Eph. 4:15] and, elsewhere, that Jesus is “the Head of the body, the Church, Who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He might have the preeminence” [Col. 1:18].[xxxvi]
Pope Gregory I, the Great (590-604), the fourth and last of the traditional Latin “Doctors of the Church,” addressed a letter to Patriarch John IV, the Faster of Constantinople (585-595), protesting the title of “Œcumenical Patriarch.”[xxxvii] It is a famous letter which absolutely condemns the modern papacy. Here are some pertinent extracts: “Peter the first of the Apostles, was a member of the holy and universal Church. Paul, Andrew, John–were they not the chiefs of certain nations? Yet, all are members under only one Head. In a word, the saints before the law, the saints under the law, and the saints under grace–do they not all constitute the body of the Lord? Are they not members of the Church?”[xxxviii]
Rome may glory that St. Peter made her illustrious when he martyred in Rome, but not that he made her Head of the Church instead of Christ.
Pope Gregory continues: “The title of ‘universal’ was offered by the holy Synod of Chalcedon to the Bishop of the Apostolic see (Rome), which, by God’s grace, I (Gregory) serve.[xxxix] Nevertheless, none of my predecessors would use this impious word, because, in reality, if a Patriarch is called ‘universal,’ he takes from all the others the title of Patriarch.” Saint Gregory considered himself a Patriarch equal to the other Patriarchs.[xl] The title “Supreme Bishop of the Universal Church,” he considered blasphemous, though it is now one of the official titles of the Pope of Rome.[xli]
5A more detailed commentary
can be found here. As you might imagine, the question of a Pope is one of grave importance, and is not in any way trivial.
The other major differences regard the immaculate conception of Mary, forced celibacy of priests, the concept of last rites, the existence of purgatory, leavened bread in the Eucharist, and, of course, the spiritual role of Icons.
The point is that, on the vast majority of these issues, the Protestants agree with Catholicism! In other words, the theological differences between the East and West are greater then the differences between the Protestants and Catholics in the West. A good way of looking at this is:
{ Orthodox * Catholicism (Protestantism) }
to emphasize that Protestantism is a branch of Catholicism. A historical outline of the splits in Christianity also helps:
Here we can clearly see that Protestantism would logically be closer to Catholicism than Orthodoxy would be.
Let us glance at the detailed Orthodox responses to the Papal ecumenism of the 1800s. In addition to their long refutations of numerous Catholic positions, they are quite informative of the theological stances of all parties involved. For instance;
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848: A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns wrote:Hence have arisen manifold and monstrous heresies, which the [Orthodox] Catholic Church, even from her infancy, taking unto her the whole armor of God, and assuming the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. vi. 13-17), has been compelled to combat. She has triumphed over all unto this day, and she will triumph for ever, being manifested as mightier and more illustrious after each struggle.
...
Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy [and the Roman Catholic Church]. This, too, as the former has become extinct, although now flourishing, shall not endure, but pass away and be cast down, and a great voice from heaven shall cry: It is cast down (Rev. xii. 10).
6This was composed in 1848, when the Protestants were clearly well known, acknowledged, and a majority in many countries. Identifying the most significant heresy as Roman Catholicism very clearly implies that the most significant differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and other Christians were to be found between Constantinople and Rome. If Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy were similar, as compared to Protestantism, surely the Eastern Patriarchs would have regarded the Protestants as the greater heresy. Instead, they ignored it - if anything, they simply implied that Protestantism falls under the branch of Catholicism.
Finally, when the Pope and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople agreed to renounce the original ex-communications of 1054 (though by no means ending the Schism), the Patriarchs responded with a declaration of protest, saying:
A Protest to Patriarch Athenagoras: On the Lifting of the Anathemas of 1054 wrote:We declare firmly and categorically:
No union of the Roman Church with us is possible until it renounces its new doctrines, and no communion in prayer can be restored with it without a decision of all churches...
The Tradition of the Church and the example of the Holy Fathers teach us that the Church holds no dialogue with those who have separated themselves from Orthodoxy. Rather than that, the Church addresses to them a monologue inviting them to return to its fold through rejection of any dissenting doctrines.
A true dialogue implies an exchange of views with a possibility of persuading the participants to attain an agreement. As one can perceive from the Encyclical "Ecclesiam Suam," Pope Paul VI understands the dialogue as a plan for our union with Rome with the help of some formula which would, however, leave unaltered its doctrines, and particularly its dogmatic doctrine about the position of the Pope in the Church. However, any compromise with error is foreign to the history of the Orthodox Church and to the essence of the Church. It could not bring a harmony in the confessions of the Faith, but only an illusory outward unity similar to the conciliation of dissident Protestant communities in the ecumenical movement.
May such treason against Orthodoxy not enter between us.
7I hope you can see the scope of these differences, and that the Protestant denominations are merely offshoots of Catholicism compared to the differences between Rome and Constantinople.
Regardless, these aspects of religion are fascinating, and I'd encourage you to read the sources I've linked.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1Catholic Answers, "Eastern Orthodoxy" 2Orthodox Christian Information Center, "Luther Had His Chance"3Orthodox Christian Information Center, "The Three Answers of Patriarch Jeremiah II"4Catholic Answers, "How do we counter the charge that the addition of "filioque" was an illicit alteration of the Creed?"5True Orthodox Christianity, "Brief Orthodox Replies to the Innovations of the Papacy"6Orthodox Christian Information Center, "Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848"7Orthodox Christian Information Center, "A Protest to Patriarch Athenagoras"
Posted: January 16th, 2016, 8:32 am