r/OrthodoxChristianity
Reddit
I am a Protestant and the differences between the two of you look minimal to me, but I want to leave Protestantism and join one of you.
Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.
Log in Log in or sign up to join the discussion.
If you consider something like the papacy to be a minor issue, I'd honestly love to hear what you'd count as big enough to justify churches splitting over lol.
Being few in number doesn't mean the differences are small.
Cradle catholic convert here. From the outside the differences can look tiny. I used to think that too, and I was so wrong! Come and see, Orthodoxy is a faith you live.
What drew you to convert?
Sorry for the slow reply, but honestly I don't think I had a choice once I made peace with my faith. Like a lot of young guys I drifted away when I was younger, then came back and actually examined the faith handed down to me. I only knew about the Vatican 2 changes from my grandparents and great aunts and uncles talking about that era, and I never realized we'd somehow lost reverence for the Eucharist when the novus ordo came in, until I did some digging into those "Latin masses" they remembered so fondly. That was the first thread I pulled, and the more I learned about Rome walking away from the ancient faith, the more I wanted to know what happened to the rest of the Church. Bless my priest for putting up with me lol. The whole approach to Christ, to other people, and to yourself is radically different, and parish life (in my case anyway, your mileage may vary) is too. If you have questions feel free to DM, I'll try to answer fast.
What led to your conversion? Were you taught the faith properly as a kid?
Answered this same question below, but on catechesis: yes, I'd say I was taught well, went to CCD and grew up in a house where faith mattered. My dad was a Protestant who converted to Catholicism on his own when I was a kid.
History proves the Church. She has held to right worship and right practice for two thousand years. But Rome split off in 1054 and has been "developing" doctrine ever since, things like papal infallibility (July 18 1870) and indulgences (starting around 1095 with the crusades, and being sold for money by 1517). Orthodoxy comes from ortho (right) and doxan (worship): correct worship. Orthopraxis comes from praxis (practice): correct practice.
To build on what OP said: when we talk about praxis, we don't just mean keeping the commandments and the ancient canons. We mean the psychosomatic therapeutic healing method of the Orthodox Church, which matches what the saints of the first millennium taught. Look into ancient texts like the Philokalia, then newer ones like the Counsels of the Holy Mountain, and you'll see which spirituality stayed true to itself. Hint: it's Orthodoxy.
Catholic legalism is the biggest thing for me. For example, a guy recently posted in the Catholic sub about fertility trouble, and because of Catholic teaching on sex he couldn't just go to a clinic and "give a sample". He had to use a special condom with tiny holes so the sample could be collected during intercourse. He was frustrated because it felt like a loophole God obviously wouldn't be fooled by. Same with divorce and annulment. Catholics do all these mental gymnastics to prove they were "never REALLY married" and get an annulment, instead of just saying, like the orthodox do, that divorce is a sin but we're all sinners, so repent and move on. It blows my mind that you can divorce an abusive spouse, remarry, and be denied communion for life and told you're in mortal sin, while a murderer who repents is welcomed. I get the logic behind it. But that's exactly the problem: they're so focused on building an airtight logical argument, and meanwhile God sees the heart.
I'm a catechumen getting baptized and chrismated on New Year's Day. I looked into Catholicism and picked Orthodoxy mostly because of Catholic legalism, and how they've turned away from the Latin mass with the pope's blessing. I think the Catholic Church is in apostasy now and the current pope is leading his flock deeper into the wilderness. Orthodoxy has stayed true to its tradition and scripture. They don't change. The liturgy is in English (here in America) and yet it's 1600 years old. Attend a service at each and decide for yourself.
As a former Catholic this always bothered me, and it's why the apophatic theology of mystery is just... correct. Who are we to define God and how he separates the sheep from the goats? He knows us down to every hair on our head, but how arrogant is it to squeeze God into a box the size of a confessional? The Catechism gives lip service to apophatic theology, but nobody actually practices it.
Because Rome invented a bunch of things and bolted them onto the faith where they don't belong. Only in Orthodoxy is the Christian faith received from the Apostles with nothing added and nothing taken away.
Not really. There are some additions compared to what the early church did. Icon veneration, Mary veneration, venerating saints, none of that was in the early church. The early church fasted 104 days a year; modern EO fast around 200. The early church had no Eucharistic fast, to name a few. The Eastern Orthodox can legitimately claim to be the successor of the early Church, but they're not an exact copy running everything the way the early church did.
From a Protestant view I get why it might look minimal, but some differences are significant. If you want the Faith of the Fathers and the Patristics, look at these: Filioque, Papal Supremacy, Purgatory, denial of the formal distinction between essence and energies, Unconditional election, Immaculate Conception. Those are Catholic errors Orthodoxy formally rejects and Catholicism formally holds. Other issues matter in practice, though less doctrinally: leavened vs unleavened bread, communion under both kinds vs one, fasting rules, clerical celibacy and beards, divorce vs absolution. There may be more I haven't listed, but these are probably the big ones. For a clear cut answer, research Conditional vs Unconditional Predestination. We're clearly right there: all of East and West taught Conditional before Augustine, and even during and after Augustine the Conditional view was the majority in the West, up to the 9th century when Frankish synods split, like Valence 855 teaching Unconditional and Quierzy 853 teaching Conditional. Rome and Catholic Tradition sided with Valence 855, and that's now dogma, it's in Denzinger. Also research the Immaculate Conception, where we're clearly right too, and I'd even say Chalcedon settled it ecumenically. Pope St. Leo the Great wrote that Christ was born "by a new kind of birth", that the inviolate virgin did not know lust yet furnished the…
Wow... I had no idea Chalcedon actually dogmatized the opposite of the IC.
Yeah, if you read it in its historical context it really does. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics for Catholics to get around the Tome of Leo.
I knew St. Athanasius explicitly called Mary our sister in Adam, and that the Cappadocians rejected the IC, and even some Dominicans, but without a council behind them they could just wave those off. This is on another level.
Well, you can arguably find it elsewhere too: "If iron, once joined to fire, immediately expels the impurities extraneous to its nature and swiftly acquires a likeness to the powerful flame that heats it... how much more did the Virgin burn when the divine fire (the Holy Spirit) rushed in? She was purified from earthly impurities, and from whatever might be against her nature, and was restored to her original beauty, so as to become inaccessible, untouchable, and irreconcilable to carnal things." That's St. Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily 4, 6; Gambero, 264. This one got approval at Ephesus too. Not identical to Leo's Tome, but still significant.
Some of the rituals may look alike, but the theology is a whole different world. For instance, as a Protestant you probably hold to Substitutionary Atonement: Christ died to take the punishment for your sins so you don't have to if you trust in Him. That's close to the Catholic notion of vicarious atonement, since in both cases Christ suffers for the sins of the world. The Orthodox reject this. Christ lived and died so you could reach theosis, basically deification by grace. Punishment just isn't part of Orthodox theology. In Catholicism and Protestantism, Christianity is a legal system of crimes, punishments, and ways to escape punishment. In Orthodoxy it's a healing process: sin is a disease, Christ is the cure, and the Church is the hospital where you get treated. It's a night and day difference in outlook.
Catholics believe Christ is the divine physician. Human nature being what it is, we do need rules to follow, or the world slides into sin. You see that in natural law, secular governments, etc. You see it all through the Old Testament too, the 10 commandments being one example. Roman Catholics also hold that God's law is written on our hearts. Christ came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. True repentance matters, and amending our life from sin by God's grace is what keeps us united to Him through our mediator, His Son, Jesus Christ.
Catholicism isn't as far out there as Protestantism, but Catholics still hold that Christ satisfied the demands of divine justice by suffering for our sins. Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't go in for that crime-and-justice view of sin.
I trust the Greek-speaking churches to interpret the New Testament better than the Latin-speaking one. Besides, most of the New Testament churches were historically Orthodox (Rome being the obvious exception).
The Orthodox Church is the oldest and first church of Christ. Everything is done the way it was in 1066, when the pope of Rome split the original church in two. Most people don't understand the Orthodox faith because it's seen as more of an Eastern Europe religion. And I disagree that it resembles the Catholic Church. No way, they are completely different. Even the Divine Liturgy is different. I was Catholic my whole life: Catholic grade school, Catholic high school, and a degree from a Catholic university. The Catholic Church today is not the church I grew up in. That's why I converted to Orthodoxy. Plus my wife is Eastern Orthodox and shares my values, which makes for a very strong marriage. Marriage in the United States is in trouble.
Are most of the NT churches still Orthodox today, or Coptic, Armenian, and so on?
The Church of Jerusalem is historically Orthodox (though the Latins and Armenians later set up their own dioceses there). The Church of Rome is historically Catholic (there was obviously no distinction for a thousand years, but from the 11th century on they've been unambiguously Catholic). Every other church in the New Testament, whether it still exists (Athens, Thessaloniki...) or not (the churches of Galatia), is historically Orthodox, which is no surprise since they're all in Turkey and Greece. Antioch is also claimed by the Syriacs, though, so there's that.
Orthodoxy is the Church, and RC is not.
I'd be really grateful if you could prove this to me. I want to leave the RCC, but I can't unless I can somehow be absolutely certain it is not the true Church. Because if it is, leaving would be a very grave sin. I want the EO to be true. But I need to know for sure. Can you help me?
There are dozens of ways to approach this. Here's one. Say you look out a window and see five people walking down the street together. Later you look again and see the same group, but now only four of them. Which of the two, the four who remain or the one who left, kept continuity with the group? Put another way, which is actually the group, the four or the one? Clearly the four. I admit the analogy is oversimplified, but that's basically the story of Church history. From the beginning there was One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church made up of five major patriarchates: Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome, and Alexandria. Then there were four, with Rome off on its own. Which is the group, the four patriarchs or Rome alone? It's one clear illustration that Rome apostatized and EO is the Church.
I like this explanation, it really helps put things in perspective.
The RCC would see this totally differently. They'd picture it like... say five guys walking down the street with one out front. Then the four ditch the leader and wander off together with no idea where they're going, while the guy out front keeps going alone and has zero trouble finding his way. Yeah, it's an overly simple analogy too. But that's how the RCC sees the Great Schism -> the four Patriarchates walked away from Rome, and now they can't even hold an Ecumenical Council because they can't do it without Rome.
I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this. May God bless you on your journey, have mercy on us, and save us.
The problem with "the four leaving the leader" is that it's just bad history. Compare how the church ran itself for the first 1000 years with how the RCC ran itself after the great schism. They're simply not the same. Rome changed, its theology changed along with it, and it's kept changing right up to today. The stuff coming out of the Vatican the last 50 years is so crazy it can't even be explained away.
As a former RCC/Byzantine Catholic, it was a class on Christianity in Late Antiquity that did it, really digging into how the creed was worked out by a synod of bishops, and then Rome later added the Filioque outside any council. As a Byzantine Catholic I didn't have to recite the creed or hold to the immaculate conception, since we didn't believe in original sin as that's a later western addition, and that phrase "Orthodox in communion with Rome" we said all the time kept nagging me next to the Filioque. If we didn't have to say it but the west did, what did that actually mean for unity of faith and communion with Rome? Once I got into the history around the creed and the unilateral addition, "in communion with Rome" felt so logically inconsistent I couldn't stay in it, and if that had fallen, papal primacy and Vatican I fell with it. In that class I asked myself which post-schism church looked more like the one we were studying, and that's when I stopped receiving sacraments in any church in communion with Rome, while working my way out of the EF Mass community where I was organist, cantor and assistant choirmaster for a couple years before I finally jumped. The homily that pushed me to become an Orthodox catechumen was at an EF Mass where the priest said ALL faithful Catholics MUST accept the Filioque, and as a Byzantine Catholic of years, I knew he didn't know his own…
Orthodoxy is the only sect that has kept the Tradition (not just the cool hats, incense and chanting) of the historical Christian church as it has always existed. It's plainly the only Church keeping the full praxis of the faith. It's the only one with a fully comprehensive, cohesive systematic theology that doesn't fall apart immediately [most Protestantism] or under closer digging [Catholicism], and that lines up with what the historical Church believed. Or put another way: which Church do I *know* has true sacraments? (*Orthodoxy*). Which one do I merely hope has some sacramental grace, only by the benevolence of our loving God, the same way grace would count for baptisms in Protestant sects? (*Catholicism...and Protestantism*) FWIW I'm an ex-Catholic who went every week, did CCD and got confirmed.
Howdy! So I'm actually becoming a catechumen along with my fiancée on Nov 8th, coming from a Baptist upbringing, and I'm happy to share why I'm coming to Holy Orthodoxy... I fell away from my faith in my 20s, and near the end of them I just felt lost; some things happened that revealed God to me again, and I decided to bring God back into my life so I could live up to my potential, if that makes sense? Anyway, if I was going to devote my life to Christ I wanted to do it the right way. So back to the Bible I went, mostly the Gospels and epistles, plus early church history and fathers, especially the first 300+ years of Christianity existing WITHOUT any scripture. That immediately broke 'sola scriptura' for me - how did those people make it to heaven when scripture didn't even exist yet? They had to rely on the church fathers, the bishops, priests and deacons who kept the worship as the original Apostles, whom Christ commissioned to baptize all nations and spread the Gospel, instructed. Then there's the denominations problem. St. Paul wrote in Corinthians that Christ DOES NOT want the church split into factions; the church is the body of Christ and can't be broken or split, there's only one TRUE church. So why so many Protestant denominations? Because everyone reads the Bible their own way - by whose authority? Isn't that just pride and ego? Thinking you've read it and suddenly…
You're right that the two are much closer to each other than either is to Protestantism. Both have apostolic succession, the sacraments, the real presence in the Eucharist, the Fathers and early councils, and both honor Mary and the saints. What separates them is mostly things the West developed on its own, and that's the main reason I'd point you to Orthodoxy. The usual differences raised are the papacy and the filioque. Orthodoxy still governs itself like the early church did, by bishops in council, with no single bishop ruling the rest. Rome's claims of universal jurisdiction and infallibility weren't dogma until Vatican I in 1870, and the filioque was added to the Nicene Creed in the West without an ecumenical council. Coming from Protestantism, though, the difference I'd weigh hardest is how each side understands the fall, since a lot of doctrine hangs on it. Much goes back to Romans 5:12. The Greek ending (eph' hō pantes hēmarton) is usually rendered "because all sinned." The Latin Vulgate made it "in whom all sinned," meaning in Adam. Augustine worked from the Latin, and the Western idea that we're born sharing Adam's guilt grew from that reading, even though most modern scholars, Catholic ones included, agree the Greek doesn't support it. The Orthodox reading, found in Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret, is that we inherit death and corruption from Adam, and sin flows…
The differences are bigger than they'll seem to you right now, down to what sin itself means. I'd say the biggest one to think about is the papacy. Peter founded 3 different patriarchates: Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria. Rome claims theirs is the only one that counts because he died there. If that sounds convincing and you think the Church rests only on Peter's last see, fine; Roman Catholicism it is. If you think the Church is where 2 or 3 of them gathered (Peter still included), consider that the other 4 Apostolic sees, the Orthodox Catholic Church, might have been right. I'd argue modern Roman Catholicism is a direct product of Charlemagne co-opting the papacy to build a new Roman empire. Hence their obsession with worldly power from then on.
Nah they are very different. We (Orthodoxy) are 1,504 years older than the proclaimed schism of Catholic ideas and theology. They really watered things down, basically lost most of the Apostolic succession over the years; in reality we don't know who's legitimate and who isn't. These aren't my opinions, these are facts. Orthodox Christians also believe the Trinity existed at the same time, Catholics separate them, making the Trinity in essence not equal, which you see in the filioque that's in the Apostles Creed. In Orthodoxy we use the original Nicene creed, the one the rest of Christianity uses. The pros, if any, of being Roman church is you'll get away with a lot; they are our brothers in Christ, but we will never bend from the true original Christian Church. Hope that helps some. My biggest suggestion is go to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and go to a Roman Mass... within 10 minutes or less you'll see some major differences. Best wishes!! God bless you.
I'm converting from the Catholic Church. The main thing is that the Catholic Church is in schism. Pretty plain and simple; the rest of Catholicism's issues flow from that. A quick look at how the Catholic Church runs itself ecclesially now and you can see it's not the early church. Pre schism, two churches could be out of communion with each other and still in communion with the rest of the Orthodox churches. Now in Rome, say the Melkites broke communion with the Ruthenian Catholics, that would be seen as schism from Rome, because breaking with anyone Rome is in communion with means breaking with Rome and leaving the church. That's foreign to early church ecclesiology, a clear innovation. Partly why I think the Constantinople-Moscow schism is huge proof Orthodoxy still works the way the early church did. Beyond that, children are more or less excommunicated until age 7. Definitely an innovation; separating Chrismation from baptism and making a child wait until 12-15 for the sacrament is wrong and an innovation. Because of that split you have children "communing" at 7 before they're even full members, which makes no theological sense. They claim communion isn't essential to salvation, but Christ was clear: if you don't eat his body and drink his blood you have no life in you, and I won't deprive my child of the life giving sacraments. Also the Catholic Church has basically…
I was in your shoes a long time ago. A former Protestant looking for the truth, and I figured it had to be RCC or EO. Why? Those two could be traced straight back to the Apostles and early Christianity while Protestantism got invented 1500 years later. But my obvious problem was RCC and EO weren't united anymore. How to decide which one teaches rightly? I searched for a while, and RCC apologists convinced me the RCC was the True Church. So I joined. Now, over a decade later, I'm inquiring into EO, attending Divine Liturgy instead of RCC Mass and joining catechumen lessons. Maybe one day I'll be an Eastern Orthodox Christian. If it's God's will. How did this happen? Well... life as a Roman Catholic is pretty hard with all the rules and legalism. I suffered from scrupulosity and felt the rigid rules put people in unreasonable spots. For example, per the RCC a woman can't get her tubes tied even if pregnancy could kill her. Or if someone flees an abusive marriage that's sacramental and valid, they can't remarry while the previous spouse lives. So... I'm currently standing at the exit door of the RCC but haven't walked out yet. Before I do, I need to be sure the EO is right and the RCC wrong. That's what's holding me back, but I'm working on it. I want EO to be true, but I'm scared what if RCC is the truth instead.
On a somewhat related note, can someone clarify where something like "Byzantine Catholic" churches would fall on the spectrum of RC and EO? And what about oriental orthodoxy?
Eastern Catholic churches are in full communion with Rome. Each has its own Bishops, but the Pope is their ultimate leader. All 23 share the same RCC doctrine but have different liturgies, and most allow married men to be ordained priests. Oriental Orthodoxy split from the Church after the Council of Chalcedon in 451. They recognize only the first three Councils and are in full communion with each other but not with the EO (or Rome). They reject the doctrine of the two natures of Christ.
For me it really came down to 2 main things: The filioque: When I was inquiring, it wasn't really about whether it was theologically wrong (though now I understand it is), since I was already reciting it at the Anglican church I attended; it was more that, as I understood it, Rome and the East had both agreed some 200+ years before the schism that nothing could be added to the creed without a council. Vatican II/Nostra Aetate: I was looking for something ancient and unchanging, and since the reforms of the 19th and 20th centuries Rome keeps moving more modern (though the vast majority of RC parishes don't do the things I found and find problematic, like modern instruments at Mass or worse like priests in clown makeup during Mass, it still bothers me that those things are even allowed)
The Vatican calls us Orthodox a true Church, a sister Church, agrees we have valid holy orders and sacraments, and even lets their own faithful commune in our churches if needed. We don't return the favor. Logically, that should make the decision easy. As a former RC, the lived experience is night and day. Your average RC parish feels nothing like what you've probably read about the ancient Christian faith. Read Michael Whelton's little book Two Paths.
I only really grasped the differences once I became Catholic. At first I asked myself why God brought me there before the Orthodox Church, but later I saw it as part of my Christian formation, especially coming to Christ from atheism. It's hard to compare something as different as some Protestant denominations to the Orthodox or (yes) Catholic Church without a grounding in key ideas like the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Apostolic succession, the Saints, the role of the Virgin Mary, and structured prayer around the psalms, among others. The Catholic Church gave me a good, though incomplete, education in this. With that Catholic background, the contrast between the Churches became clear, especially in how the Orthodox Church understands God compared to the Western churches... through an apophatic approach... since it's impossible to know the boundaries of God. But we know what He isn't. For instance, we know God isn't unmerciful, yet we can't claim to define the limits and "rules" of that mercy. The Catholic Church often tries to define, rigidly, where some of those boundaries lie (e.g., Purgatory). I wouldn't dare go deeper into theology since I'm not trained. But that's my personal experience of my journey so far.
