How is Catholicism different from Orthodoxy? How is the Catholic Church different from the Orthodox?

30.09.2019

The question of how Christians differ from Orthodox is not in front of people who understand the history of religion or just general history. After all, it already contains the initially incorrect assertion that the Orthodox are not Christians. Where did this problem statement come from? Let's take a closer look.

A brief excursion into history

Christianity during the Edict of Milan of the Roman Emperor Constantine on religious tolerance (313) was relatively unified. No, of course, heresiarch truth-seekers have always existed, but at that time the number of their followers was insignificant. The first schism occurred at the third Ecumenical Council, held in the city of Ephesus in 431. Then part of the Christians did not accept the dogmas established at the council and decided to "go the other way." This is how the Assyrian Church appeared, and 20 years later, at the Council of Chalcedon, there was a division again: those who disagreed later received the name “Ancient Eastern Churches”.

And, finally, after another 700 years - the Great Schism, which took place in 1054. the Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople anathematize each other, and this date is considered the point of separation of Eastern and Western Christianity. The Western was called Catholicism, the Eastern - Orthodoxy. The reasons for the Great Schism were more political than religious: the Byzantine Empire considered itself the heir of Rome and claimed to be the unifier of all Christian lands, but Rome did not agree with this. Political disagreements gradually, from the time of the division of the united Roman Empire into Western and Eastern (395), accumulated, transforming into religious and dogmatic disagreements, until an official break occurred.

Later, the Catholic Church experienced the Reformation, which gave rise to a new direction in Christianity - Protestantism. The Orthodox Church, however, has maintained relative unity. Today, there is the following provision: the Roman Catholic Church is a single organism, governed from a common center - the Vatican. There are several Orthodox churches, the largest of which is the Russian one, and among most of them there is Eucharistic communion - mutual recognition and the possibility of performing joint liturgies. As for the Protestants, this is the most motley branch of Christianity, consisting of a large number independent denominations of varying numbers and varying degrees of recognition by other Christian denominations and each other.

The difference between Orthodoxy and other areas of Christianity

The question - what is the difference between Orthodox and Christians - is initially incorrect, since Orthodoxy is one of the main branches of the common Christian tree. How do Orthodox Christians differ from Christians of other denominations? It seems that many will agree that the laity (that is, those who do not have a church education and dignity) are unlikely to be able to clearly explain what the essence of the differences is. Religion in everyday life plays rather the role of a marker that allows you to separate "us" from "strangers".

As for the theological differences, they will not tell an inexperienced person about anything. For example, according to Catholic doctrine, the Holy Spirit is love between God the Father and God the Son, and in Orthodoxy the Holy Spirit is interpreted as the common energy of the Holy Trinity. Agree, such nuances are few people understand and interesting. Much more important are political differences, such as the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith. Naturally, the acceptance of this dogma automatically subordinates to the Pope all those who have accepted it.

Protestantism, which appeared and gained strength in the 16th century, denies many postulates of the Catholic Church. And although theologically, Catholics have more in common with the Orthodox, mentally they are closer to Protestants, since both of these religions often exist among the same people. There are Catholic Germans and Protestant Germans (of various denominations), Catholic French and Protestant French (Huguenots). Yes, and in the historical fate of the Christian European peoples, regardless of religion, there is much in common, which over time smoothed out confessional conflicts. Although during the height of passions, the Protestants declared: “Better a turban than a tiara”, thus recognizing that they are more tolerant of Muslims than Catholics, and the famous St. Bartholomew's Night became the apogee of the confrontation.

Protestantism has lost its protest meaning over time. The notorious Protestant "business ethic" is perceived by many not as a religious ideology, but as a manual for doing business. Therefore, Orthodoxy seems to most representatives of this religion to be something wild: of course, because there is no practical benefit from it! Modern Protestants seem to be unaware of the sacred meaning of religion.

Pseudo-Christian teachings

Starting from the 16th century, a large number of diverse sects have been formed among Protestants, which, of course, call themselves not sects, but Churches. Gradually, some of them depart from traditional Christianity very far, considering, however, only themselves as bearers of divine truth. Interestingly, in Catholicism and Orthodoxy there are very few such sects in comparison with Protestantism. Some of the pseudo-Christian teachings are quite big number adherents, such as the Mormons - about 15 million people.

The largest and most famous pseudo-Christian religious organizations are:

Mormons (15 million);
Jehovah's Witnesses (8 million);
Moon Unification Church (7 million).

The remaining pseudo-Christian cults are much smaller in number and their distribution is either highly localized or limited to certain social groups. An example of the first is some local Protestant or Orthodox Old Believer sects, while a classic example of the second case are groups of followers of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (theosophists), consisting mainly of representatives of the intelligentsia. Of course, all of them consider only themselves true Christians, denying this right to others, including the Orthodox.

Summing up, we can say that the difference between Orthodox and Christians is a phenomenon of approximately the same order as the difference between trees and plants, cows from herbivores, or the Volga region from Russia. Orthodoxy is part of modern Christianity. It lives, develops and thrives. And, in general, it has always been the spiritual core that saved our country in the most difficult years. And you can't forget about it.

It is very important for a believing Christian to accurately represent the main provisions of his own faith. The difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, which manifested itself during the period of the church schism in the middle of the 11th century, developed over the years and centuries and created practically different branches of Christianity.

In short, what distinguishes Orthodoxy is that it is a more canonical teaching. No wonder the church is also called Eastern Orthodoxy. Here they try to adhere to the original traditions with high accuracy.

Consider the main milestones of history:

Until the 11th century, Christianity develops as a single doctrine (of course, the statement is largely arbitrary, since for a whole millennium various heresies and new schools that deviated from the canon appeared), which is actively progressing, spreading in the world, so-called Ecumenical Councils are held, designed to solve some of the dogmatic features of the doctrine;
The Great Schism, that is, the Church Schism of the 11th century, which separates the Western Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox Church, in fact, the Patriarch of Constantinople (Eastern Church) and the Roman Pontiff Leo the Ninth quarreled, as a result, they betrayed each other to mutual anathema, that is, excommunication from churches;
the separate path of the two churches: in the West, in Catholicism, the institution of pontiffs flourishes and various additions are made to the dogma; in the East, the original tradition is honored. Russia becomes in fact the successor of Byzantium, although the Greek Church remained the guardian of the Orthodox tradition to a greater extent;
1965 - the formal lifting of mutual anathemas after the meeting in Jerusalem and the signing of the corresponding declaration.

Over the course of almost a thousand years, Catholicism has undergone a huge number of changes. In turn, in Orthodoxy, even minor innovations that concerned only the ritual side were not always accepted.

The main differences between traditions

Initially, the Catholic Church was formally closer to the basis of the doctrine, since the Apostle Peter was the first pontiff in this particular church.

In fact, the tradition of the transmission of the Catholic ordination of the apostles comes from Peter himself.

Although consecration (that is, ordination to the priesthood) also exists in Orthodoxy, and every priest who becomes a partaker of the Holy Gifts in Orthodoxy also becomes the bearer of the original tradition coming from Christ himself and the apostles.

Note! It will take a significant amount of time to indicate each difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, this material sets out the most basic details and provides an opportunity to develop a conceptual understanding of the difference in traditions.

After the split, Catholics and Orthodox gradually became carriers of very different views. We will try to consider the most significant differences that relate to both dogmatics, and the ritual side, and other aspects.

Perhaps the main difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is contained in the text of the “Symbol of Faith” prayer, which should be regularly recited by the believer.

Such a prayer is, as it were, a super-compressed summary of the entire teaching, describes the main postulates. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the Holy Spirit comes from God the Father, each Catholic in turn reads about the descent of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son.

Before the split various solutions regarding dogmatism, they were accepted conciliarly, that is, representatives of all regional churches at a common council. This tradition still remains in Orthodoxy, but it is not this that is essential, but the dogma of the infallibility of the pontiff of the Roman Church.

This fact is one of the most significant, what is the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholic tradition, since the figure of the patriarch does not have such powers and has a completely different function. The pontiff, in turn, is a vicar (that is, as if an official representative with all the powers) of Christ on earth. Of course, the scriptures say nothing about this, and this dogma was adopted by the church itself much later than the crucifixion of Christ.

Even the first pontiff Peter, whom Jesus himself appointed "the stone on which he will build the church," was not endowed with such powers, he was an apostle, but no more.

However, the modern pontiff, to some extent, is no different from Christ himself (before His coming at the end of time) and can independently make any additions to the dogma. From this arise differences in dogma, which in a significant way lead away from the original Christianity.

A typical example is the virginity of the conception of the Virgin Mary, which we will discuss in more detail below. This is not indicated in the scriptures (even the exact opposite is indicated), but Catholics relatively recently (in the 19th century) accepted the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, accepted the current pontiff for that period, that is, this decision was infallible and dogmatically correct, in agreement with the will of Christ himself .

Quite rightly, it is the Orthodox and Catholic Churches that deserve more attention and detailed consideration, since only these Christian traditions have the rite of consecration, which actually comes directly from Christ through the apostles, whom He provided on the day of Pentecost with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. The apostles, in turn, passed on the Holy Gifts through the ordination of priests. Other movements, such as, for example, Protestants or Lutherans, do not have the rite of transmission of the Holy Gifts, that is, priests in these movements are outside the direct transmission of doctrine and sacraments.

Icon painting traditions

Only Orthodoxy differs from other Christian traditions in the veneration of icons. In fact, this has not only a cultural aspect, but also a religious one.

Catholics have icons, but they do not have the exact traditions of creating images that convey the events of the spiritual world and allow one to ascend into the spiritual world. To understand the difference between the perception in the two directions of Christianity, just look at the images in the temples:

in Orthodoxy and nowhere else (if Christianity is considered), an icon-painting image is always created using a special perspective building technique, in addition to this, deep and multifaceted religious symbols are used, those present on the icon never express earthly emotions;
if you look in a Catholic church, you can immediately see that these are mostly paintings painted by simple artists, they convey beauty, they can be symbolic, but they focus on the earthly, saturated with human emotions;
characteristic is the difference in the image of the cross with the Savior, because Orthodoxy differs from other traditions in the image of Christ without naturalistic details, there is no emphasis on the body, He is an example of the dominance of the spirit over the body, and Catholics most often in the crucifixion focus on the sufferings of Christ, carefully depict the details the wounds that He had, consider the feat precisely in suffering.

Note! There are separate branches of Catholic mysticism that represent an in-depth concentration on the suffering of Christ. The believer seeks to fully identify himself with the Savior and experience his full suffering. By the way, in connection with this, there are phenomena of stigmata.

In short, the orthodox church shifts the focus to the spiritual side of things, even art is used here as part of a special technique that changes the perception of a person so that he can better enter into a prayerful mood and perception of the heavenly world.

Catholics, in turn, do not use art in this way, they can emphasize beauty (Madonna and Child) or suffering (Crucifixion), but these phenomena are transmitted purely as attributes of the earthly order. As the wise saying goes, to understand religion, you need to look at the images in the temples.

Immaculate Conception of the Virgin

In the modern Western church, there is a kind of cult of the Virgin Mary, which was formed purely historically and also largely due to the adoption of the previously noted dogma about Her Immaculate Conception.

If we remember the scripture, then it clearly speaks of Joachim and Anna, who conceived quite viciously, in a normal human way. Of course, this was also a miracle, since they were elderly people, and the archangel Gabriel appeared to everyone before, but the conception was human.

Therefore, for Orthodox Mother of God is not a representative of the divine nature from the very beginning. Although she subsequently ascended in the body and was taken by Christ to Heaven. Catholics now consider Her to be something like the personification of the Lord. After all, if the conception was immaculate, that is, from the Holy Spirit, then the Virgin Mary, like Christ, combined both divine and human nature.

Good to know!

Orthodoxy is not Christianity. How historical myths appeared

The Greek Catholic Orthodox (Right Faithful) Church (now the Russian Orthodox Church) began to be called Orthodox only on September 8, 1943 (approved by Stalin's decree in 1945). What, then, was called Orthodoxy for several millennia?

“In our time, in modern Russian vernacular, in the official, scientific and religious designation, the term “Orthodoxy” is applied to anything related to the ethno-cultural tradition and it is necessarily associated with the Russian Orthodox Church and the Christian religion ( Judeo-Christian Religion - ed.).

To a simple question: "What is Orthodoxy" any modern man, without hesitation, will answer that Orthodoxy is the Christian faith that was adopted by Kievan Rus during the reign of Prince Vladimir the Red Sun from the Byzantine Empire in 988 AD. And that Orthodoxy, i.e. The Christian faith has existed on Russian soil for more than a thousand years. Scientists from historical science and Christian theologians, in confirmation of their words, declare that the earliest use of the word Orthodoxy in the territory of Russia is recorded in the “Sermon on Law and Grace” of 1037-1050 by Metropolitan Hilarion.

But was it really so?

We advise you to carefully read the preamble to the federal law on freedom of conscience and on religious associations, adopted on September 26, 1997. Note the following points in the preamble: “Recognizing the special role orthodoxy in Russia...and further respecting Christianity , Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and other religions…”

Thus, the concepts of Orthodoxy and Christianity are not identical and carry completely different concepts and meanings.

Orthodoxy. How historical myths appeared

It is worth considering who participated in the seven councils of the Christian ( Judeo-Christian - ed.) churches? Orthodox holy fathers or still Orthodox holy fathers, as indicated in the original Word on Law and Grace? By whom and when was it decided to replace one concept with another? And was there ever any mention of Orthodoxy in the past?

The answer to this question was given by the Byzantine monk Belisarius in 532 AD. Long before the baptism of Russia, this is what he wrote in his Chronicles about the Slavs and their rite of visiting the bath: “Orthodox Slovenes and Rusyns are wild people, and their life is wild and godless, men and girls lock themselves together in a hot, overheated hut and exhaust their bodies .... »

We will not pay attention to the fact that for the monk Belisarius the usual visit by the Slavs to the bath seemed something wild and incomprehensible, this is quite natural. For us, something else is important. Pay attention to how he called the Slavs: Orthodox Slovenes and Rusyns.

For this one phrase alone, we must express our gratitude to him. Since with this phrase the Byzantine monk Belisarius confirms that the Slavs were Orthodox for many hundreds ( thousands - ed.) years before their conversion to Christianity ( Judeo-Christian - ed..) faith.

The Slavs were called Orthodox, because they RIGHT praised.

What is "RIGHT"?

Our ancestors believed that reality, the cosmos, is divided into three levels. And it is also very similar to the Indian division system: upper world, Middle World and lower world.

In Russia, these three levels were called like this:

>The highest level is the level of Rule orrule.

>Second, middle levelReality.

>And lowest level- itNav. Nav or Non-reveal, unmanifested.

>World governis a world where everything is right orideal upper world.This is a world where ideal beings with higher consciousness live.

> Reality- this is our manifest, obvious world, the world of people.

>And the world Navi or Not-reveal, unmanifested, it is the negative, unmanifested or lower or posthumous world.

The Indian Vedas also speak of the existence of three worlds:

>Upper world is a world dominated by energy goodness.

>Middle world covered passion.

>Lower world is immersed in ignorance.

There is no such division among Christians. The Bible is silent on this.

Such a similar understanding of the world also gives a similar motivation in life, i.e. it is necessary to aspire to the world of Rule or Goodness. And in order to get into the world of Rule, you need to do everything right, i.e. by the law of God.

Words such as "truth" come from the root "right". Truth- that which gives right. “Yes” is “to give”, and “rule” is “higher”. So, the "truth" is what gives the right. Control. Correction. Government. Right. Not right. Those. the roots of all these words is this "right". “Right” or “right”, i.e. the highest beginning. Those. the meaning is that the concept of the Rule or the higher reality should underlie the real management. And real management should spiritually elevate those who follow the ruler, leading his wards on the paths of rule.

>Details in the article:Philosophical and cultural similarities of Ancient Russia and Ancient India" .

The substitution of the name "orthodoxy" is not "orthodoxy"

The question is, who and when on Russian soil decided to replace the terms Orthodoxy with Orthodoxy?

It happened in the 17th century, when the Moscow Patriarch Nikon initiated a church reform. The main goal of this reform by Nikon was not to change the rites of the Christian church, as it is now interpreted, where it all comes down to supposedly replacing the sign of the cross with a two-fingered one with a three-fingered one and walking the procession in the other direction. The main goal of the reform was the destruction of dual faith on Russian soil.

In our time, few people know that before the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in Muscovy, there was dual faith in the Russian lands. In other words, the common people professed not only orthodoxy, i.e. Greek Rite Christianity that came from Byzantium, but also the old pre-Christian faith of their ancestors ORTHODOXY. This is what worried Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov and his spiritual mentor, the Christian Patriarch Nikon, most of all, for Orthodox Old Believers lived by their foundations and did not recognize any power over themselves.

Patriarch Nikon decided to put an end to dual faith original way. To do this, under the guise of a reform in the church, allegedly due to the inconsistency of the Greek and Slavic texts, he ordered to rewrite all liturgical books, replacing the phrases "orthodox Christian faith" with " Orthodox faith Christian." In the Chetiah Menaia that have survived to our times, we can see old version records "Orthodox Christian faith". This was Nikon's very interesting approach to reform.

Firstly, it was not necessary to rewrite many ancient Slavic, as they said then charaty books, or chronicles, which described the victories and achievements of pre-Christian Orthodoxy.

Secondly, life during the time of dual faith and the very original meaning of Orthodoxy were erased from the memory of the people, because after such a church reform, any text from liturgical books or ancient chronicles could be interpreted as the beneficial influence of Christianity on Russian lands. In addition, the patriarch sent a memo to the Moscow churches about the use of the sign of the cross with three fingers instead of the two-fingered one.

Thus began the reform, as well as the protest against it, which led to a schism in the Church. The protest against Nikon's church reforms was organized by the former comrades of the patriarch, archpriests Avvakum Petrov and Ivan Neronov. They pointed out to the patriarch the arbitrariness of actions, and then in 1654 he arranged a Council at which, as a result of pressure on the participants, he sought to hold a book right on ancient Greek and Slavic manuscripts. However, Nikon's alignment was not with the old rites, but with the modern Greek practice of that time. All the actions of Patriarch Nikon led to the fact that the church split into two warring parts.

Supporters of the old traditions accused Nikon of trilingual heresy and pandering to paganism, as Christians called Orthodoxy, that is, the old pre-Christian faith. The split engulfed the entire country. This led to the fact that in 1667 the great Moscow cathedral condemned and deposed Nikon, and anathematized all opponents of the reforms. From that time on, adherents of the new liturgical traditions began to be called Nikonians, and adherents of the old rites and traditions began to be called schismatics and persecuted. The confrontation between the Nikonians and the schismatics at times reached the point of armed clashes until the royal troops came out on the side of the Nikonians. In order to avoid a large-scale religious war, part of the higher clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate condemned some of the provisions of Nikon's reforms.

In liturgical practices and state documents, the term Orthodoxy began to be used again. For example, let's turn to the spiritual regulations of Peter the Great: “... And like a Christian Sovereign, orthodoxy and everyone in the church, the Holy Guardian of piety ...”

As we can see, even in the 18th century, Peter the Great is called the Christian sovereign, guardian of orthodoxy and piety. But there is not a word about Orthodoxy in this document. Nor is it in the editions of the Spiritual Regulations of 1776-1856.

Education of the ROC

Based on this, the question arises, when did the term Orthodoxy begin to be officially used by the Christian Church?

The fact is that v Russian Empire did not have Russian Orthodox Church. The Christian church existed under a different name - "Russian Greek Catholic Church". Or as it was also called "Russian Orthodox Church of the Greek Rite".

Christian church called The Russian Orthodox Church appeared during the reign of the Bolsheviks.

At the beginning of 1945, by decree of Joseph Stalin, a local council of the Russian church was held in Moscow under the leadership of responsible persons from the State Security of the USSR and a new Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia was elected.

It should be mentioned that many Christian priests, who did not recognize the power of the Bolsheviks, left Russia and abroad continue to profess Christianity of the Eastern Rite and call their church none other than Russian Orthodox Church or Russian Orthodox Church.

In order to finally move away from well crafted historical myth and to find out what the word Orthodoxy really meant in ancient times, let's turn to those people who still keep the old faith of their ancestors.

Having received his education in Soviet time, these pundits either do not know, or carefully try to hide from ordinary people that even in ancient times, long before the birth of Christianity, Orthodoxy existed in the Slavic lands. It covered not only the basic concept when our wise ancestors praised the Rule. And the deep essence of Orthodoxy was much larger and more voluminous than it seems today.

The figurative meaning of this word included the concepts when our ancestors Right praised. That's just it was not Roman law and not Greek, but our own, native Slavic.

It included:

>Clan Law, based on the ancient traditions of culture, horses and foundations of the Family;

>Community law, creating mutual understanding between various Slavic families living together in one small settlement;

>Mine law that regulated the interaction between communities living in large settlements, which were cities;

> Weight law, which determined the relationship between communities living in different cities and towns within the same Vesey, i.e. within the same area of settlement and residence;

>Veche law, which was adopted at a general meeting of all the people and observed by all clans of the Slavic community.

Any Law from Generic to Veche was arranged on the basis of the ancient Konov, the culture and foundations of the Family, as well as on the basis of the commandments of the ancient Slavic gods and the instructions of the ancestors. It was our native Slavic Law.

Our wise ancestors commanded to preserve it, and we are preserving it. From ancient times, our ancestors praised the Rule and we continue to praise the Law, and we keep our Slavic Law and pass it on from generation to generation.

Therefore, we and our ancestors were, are and will be Orthodox.

change on wikipedia

Modern interpretation of the term ORTHODOX = Orthodox, appeared on Wikipedia only after this resource was funded by the UK government. In fact, Orthodoxy translates as rightBelieve, Orthodox translates as orthodox.

Either Wikipedia, continuing the idea of the “identity” Orthodoxy=Orthodoxy, should call Muslims and Jews Orthodox (because the terms orthodox Muslim or Orthodox Jew are found in all world literature), or still recognize that Orthodoxy=Orthodoxy and in no way refers to Orthodoxy, as well as the Christian Church of the Eastern Rite, called since 1945 - the Russian Orthodox Church.

Orthodoxy is not a religion, not Christianity, but a faith

Any Indian follower Vedanta knows that his religion, together with the Aryans, came from Russia. And the modern Russian language is their ancient Sanskrit. It's just that in India it changed to Hindi, but in Russia it remained the same. Therefore, Indian Vedism is not fully Russian Vedism.

Russian nicknames for gods Vyshen (Rod) and Roof (Yar, Christ) became the names of Indian gods Vishnu and krishna. The encyclopedia is slyly silent about this.

Witchcraft is the everyday understanding of Russian Vedism, which includes the elementary skills of magic and mysticism. "Fight against witches" in Western Europe in the XV-XVI centuries. was a struggle with the Slavs, who prayed to the Vedic gods.

The Russian god corresponds to the Christian god-father Genus, not at all Jehovah-Yahweh-Sabaoth, which among the Masons is the god of darkness and death of Russia Mary. Myself Jesus Christ on many Christian icons is designated as Yar and his mother Maria- how Mara.

The word "devil" is of the same root as Virgo. This is the prince of darkness, Masonic Sabaoth, which is otherwise called Satan. There are no "servants of God" in the Vedic religion either. And only the desire of the West to belittle Russian Vedism and force the Russians to abandon their gods, in which the Russians believed for hundreds of thousands of years, led to the fact that Russian Christianity became more and more pro-Western, and the followers of Russian Vedism began to be considered "servants of the devil." In other words, in the West, all Russian concepts have been turned inside out.

After all, the concept "Orthodoxy" originally belonged to Russian Vedism and meant: "Right glorified".

Therefore, primitive Christianity began to call itself "orthodox", but the term then passed to Islam. As you know, Christianity has the epithet "Orthodox" only in Russian; on the rest, it calls itself "orthodox", that is, precisely "orthodox".

In other words, today's Christianity has secretly appropriated a Vedic name that is deeply rooted in the Russian mind.

The functions of Veles, to a much greater extent than St. Blaise, were inherited by St. Nicholas of Myra, nicknamed Nicholas the Wonderworker. (See the result of the research published in the book: Uspensky B.A.. Philological research in the field of Slavic antiquities .. - M .: MGU, 1982 .)

By the way, on many of his icons it is inscribed in implicit letters: MARY LIK. Hence the original name of the area in honor of the face of Mary: Marlikian. So actually this bishop was Nicholas of Marlic. And his city, which was originally called " Mary"(that is, the city of Mary), now called Bari. There was a phonetic change of sounds.

Bishop Nicholas of Myra - Nicholas the Wonderworker

However, now Christians do not remember these details, hushing up the Vedic roots of Christianity. For now Jesus in Christianity is interpreted as the God of Israel, although Judaism does not consider him a god. And Christianity does not say anything about the fact that Jesus Christ, as well as his apostles, are different faces of Yar, although this is read on many icons. The name of the god Yar is also read on Shroud of Turin .

At one time, Vedism reacted very calmly and fraternally to Christianity, seeing in it just a local growth of Vedism, for which there is a name: paganism (that is, an ethnic variety), like Greek paganism with another name Yara - Ares, or Roman, with the name Yar - Mars, or with Egyptian, where the name Yar or Ar was read in reverse side, Ra. In Christianity, Yar became Christ, and Vedic temples made icons and crosses of Christ.

And only over time, under the influence of political, or rather, geopolitical reasons, Christianity was opposed to Vedism, and then Christianity everywhere saw manifestations of "paganism" and led a fight with him not to the stomach, but to the death. In other words, she betrayed her parents, her heavenly patrons, and began to preach humility and humility.

>Details in the article:V.A. Chudinov - Proper education .

Secret writing on Russian and modern Christian icons

In this way Christianity within the framework of ALL RUSSIA was adopted not in 988, but between 1630 and 1635.

The study of Christian icons made it possible to identify sacred texts on them. Explicit inscriptions cannot be attributed to their number. But they absolutely include implicit inscriptions associated with Russian Vedic gods, temples and priests (mims).

On the old Christian icons of the Mother of God with baby Jesus there are Russian inscriptions in runes, saying that these are the Slavic Goddess Makosh with the baby God Yar. Jesus Christ was also called CHORUS or HORUS. Moreover, the name CHORUS on the mosaic depicting Christ in the Church of Christ Hora in Istanbul is written like this: “NHOR”, that is, ICHORS. The letter I used to be written as N. The name IGOR is almost identical to the name IKHOR OR KHOR, since the sounds X and G could pass into each other. By the way, it is possible that the respectful name HERO also came from here, which later entered many languages practically unchanged.

And then the necessity of masking the Vedic inscriptions becomes clear: their discovery on the icons could lead to the accusation of the icon painter of belonging to the Old Believers, and for this, according to Nikon's reform, could be punished by exile or the death penalty.

On the other hand, as it now becomes clear, the absence of Vedic inscriptions made the icon a non-sacred artifact. In other words, it was not so much the presence of narrow noses, thin lips and large eyes that made the image sacred, but just the connection with the god Yar in the first place and with the goddess Mara in the second place, through implicit reference inscriptions, added magic and miraculous properties to the icon. Therefore, icon painters, if they wanted to make an icon miraculous, and not simple art product, were OBLIGED to supply any image with the words: FACE OF YAR, MIM OF YAR AND MARY, TEMPLE OF MARY, YARA TEMPLE, YARA RUSSIA, etc.

Nowadays, when the persecution on religious charges has ceased, the icon painter no longer risks his life and property by making implicit inscriptions on modern icon paintings. Therefore, in a number of cases, namely in the cases of mosaic icons, he no longer tries to hide such inscriptions as much as possible, but transfers them to the category of semi-explicit ones.

Thus, the Russian material revealed the reason why explicit inscriptions on icons moved into the category of semi-explicit and implicit ones: a ban on Russian Vedism, which followed from reforms of Patriarch Nikon . However, this example gives grounds for speculating about the same motives for masking obvious inscriptions on coins.

In more detail, this idea can be expressed as follows: once the body of a deceased priest (mime) was accompanied by a funeral golden mask, on which there were all the relevant inscriptions, but made not very large and not very contrasting, so as not to destroy the aesthetic perception of the mask. Later, instead of a mask, they began to use smaller objects - pendants and plaques, which also depicted the face of a deceased mime with corresponding discreet inscriptions. Even later, portraits of mimes migrated to coins. And such images were preserved as long as the spiritual power was considered the most significant in society.

However, when power became secular, passing to military leaders - princes, leaders, kings, emperors, images of authorities, and not mimes, began to be minted on coins, while images of mimes migrated to icons. At the same time, the secular authorities, as more rude, began to mint their own inscriptions weightily, rudely, visibly, and obvious legends appeared on the coins. With the advent of Christianity, such explicit inscriptions began to appear on icons, but they were no longer made with the runes of the Family, but with the Old Slavonic Cyrillic font. In the West, a Latin script was used for this.

Thus, in the West there was a similar, but still somewhat different motive, according to which the implicit inscriptions of mimes did not become explicit: on the one hand, the aesthetic tradition, on the other hand, the secularization of power, that is, the transfer of the function of governing society from priests to military leaders and officials.

This allows us to consider icons, as well as sacred sculptures of gods and saints, as substitutes for those artifacts that previously acted as carriers of sacred properties: golden masks and plaques. On the other hand, icons existed before, but did not affect the sphere of finance, remaining entirely within religion. Therefore, their production has experienced a new heyday.

What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Christianity?

In Orthodoxy, the Commandments are violated, and they are based on icons and relics, in fact, Orthodoxy was created on this.
in that Orthodoxy is a religion and faith based on knowledge. Christianity is a religion based on Jewish traditions and laws. At the head of Christianity there is always a chief godfather, he is also a shepherd who grazes a flock of sheep. In Orthodoxy, a man is himself and a shepherd and a sheep. ROC-Orthodox Christians hide behind the guise of Orthodoxy
Christians are Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, etc. There are many currents within Christianity, Orthodoxy is one of the oldest.
Orthodoxy is currently a branch of Christianity, but initially it was the only Christian religion. The Catholic and Protestant branches appeared already in the Middle Ages and since then everything has changed there many times.
Orthodoxy in Greek sounds like "orthodoxy". And indeed, for 2 thousand years, no canons of Orthodoxy have changed. The texts of prayers that sound today were approved at the First Ecumenical Council. Divine services, temples, vestments of priests, sacraments and rituals, rules have not changed since those times. The most enduring of the branches of Christianity.
Christianity lives as Jesus commanded. But Orthodoxy does not do this, they only call Christ their Lord, but they do not live by his law.
Christianity can only be Christianity. Not everyone who calls himself a Christian is one. Read the New Testament and understand everything for yourself.
The Lord Jesus Christ created the One Ecumenical Apostolic Church, in which Christ was and remains the High Priest (Heb. 4:14-15). The word Orthodoxy began to be used in the 3rd century to distinguish the true Church from heresies. Thus, from the 3rd century, the Church of Christ began to be called Orthodox in Greek orthodox. It is from her that the ROC originates. In 1054 there was a split, the Catholics separated, Protestantism arose after the 16th century. That is, Christ did not create all these "Christian" confessions and denominations, they are impostors, that's why there are so many of them, each with its own doctrinal system and cult practice.
Orthodoxy is an offshoot of Christianity
Orthodoxy is true Christianity and Christianity is Orthodoxy, namely when people correctly praise God.
Christianity in its three main forms Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism recognizes one God in three Persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. According to Christian doctrine, this is not the recognition of three gods, but the recognition that these three Persons are one (New British Encyclopedia). Jesus, the Son of God, never claimed to be equal or consubstantial with his Father. On the contrary, he said: I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I (John 14:28). Jesus also told one of his disciples: I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God (John 20:17). The Holy Spirit is not a person. The Bible says that the early Christians were filled with holy spirit. In addition, God promised: I will pour out my spirit on all flesh (Acts 2:14, 17). The Holy Spirit is not part of the Trinity. It is the active power of God.
Knowledge is needed, not religion. Full, harmonious knowledge, like our ancient ancestors. "Religion is the opium of the people." Faith - I know Ra, it means bright KNOWLEDGE.
Orthodoxy - glorifying Rule, by definition, has nothing to do with any religion. This is the Slavic-Aryan, Vedic worldview. The concept of Orthodoxy was transferred from the Slavic-Aryan, Vedic worldview, only to apply such a concept to religions is not only incompatible, but unacceptable. It is contrary to any religious world view. And it was taken because at the time of the emergence of religions, people believed in Orthodoxy, and they could not have imposed a different worldview, except by deception and forced by force. In the future, deception and the imposition of religions by force (Christianity incl.) under the guise of Orthodoxy are no longer mentioned, disorienting people.
in the name and origin ... and the same .... d
Christianity has many faces. In the modern world, it is represented by three generally recognized areas of Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as numerous movements that do not belong to any of the above. There are serious disagreements between these branches of one religion. Orthodox consider Catholics and Protestants to be heterodox associations of people, that is, those who glorify God in a different way. However, they do not see them as completely devoid of grace. But the Orthodox do not recognize sectarian organizations that position themselves as Christian, but have only an indirect relation to Christianity.
Who are Christians and Orthodox
Christians are followers of the Christian denomination, belonging to any Christian stream of Orthodoxy, Catholicism or Protestantism with its various denominations, often of a sectarian nature.

Orthodox Christians whose worldview corresponds to the ethno-cultural tradition associated with the Orthodox Church.

Comparison of Christians and Orthodox
What is the difference between Christians and Orthodox?

Orthodoxy is an established dogma, having its own dogmas, values, centuries-old history. Christianity is often passed off as something that, in fact, is not. For example, the White Brotherhood movement, active in Kiev in the early 90s of the last century.

Orthodox believe that their main goal is the fulfillment of the Gospel commandments, their own salvation and the salvation of their neighbor from the spiritual slavery of passions. World Christianity at its congresses declares salvation on a purely material plane from poverty, disease, war, drugs, etc., which is external piety.

For the Orthodox, the spiritual holiness of a person is important. Evidence of this is the saints, canonized by the Orthodox Church, who have shown the Christian ideal in their lives. In Christianity as a whole, the spiritual and sensual prevail over the spiritual.

Orthodox consider themselves co-workers with God in the matter of their own salvation. In world Christianity, in particular, in Protestantism, a person is likened to a pillar who does not have to do anything, because Christ did the work of salvation for him on Golgotha.

At the heart of the doctrine of world Christianity lies the Holy Scripture record of Divine Revelation. It teaches how to live. The Orthodox, like the Catholics, believe that Scripture is separated from Holy Tradition, which clarifies the forms of this life and is also an unconditional authority. Protestant currents have rejected this claim.

A summary of the foundations of the Christian faith is given in the Creed. For the Orthodox, this is the Niceno-Tsaregrad Creed. The Catholics introduced into the wording of the Symbol the concept of filioque, according to which the Holy Spirit proceeds both from God the Father and from God the Son. Protestants do not deny the Nicene Creed, but the Ancient, Apostolic Creed is generally accepted among them.

Orthodox especially revere the Mother of God. They believe that she did not have personal sin, but was not deprived of original sin, like all people. After the ascension, the Mother of God bodily ascended into heaven. However, there is no dogma about it. Catholics believe that the Mother of God was also deprived of original sin. One of the dogmas catholic faith the dogma of the bodily ascension to heaven of the Virgin Mary. Protestants and numerous sectarians do not have a cult of the Theotokos.

TheDifference.ru determined that the difference between Christians and Orthodox is as follows:
Orthodox Christianity is contained in the dogmas of the Church. Not all movements that pose as Christians are, in fact, so.
For the Orthodox, inner piety is the basis right life. Outward piety is much more important for contemporary Christianity in the bulk of it.
The Orthodox are trying to achieve spiritual holiness.

How is Catholicism different from Orthodoxy? When did the division of the Churches occur and why did it happen? How should the Orthodox approach all this? Let's talk about the most important thing.

The separation of Orthodoxy and Catholicism is a great tragedy in the history of the Church

The division of the One Christian Church into Orthodoxy and Catholicism happened almost a thousand years ago - in 1054.

The One Church consisted, as the Orthodox Church does now, of many local Churches. This means that the Churches - for example, Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox - have some external differences(in the architecture of temples; in singing; in the language of worship; and even in how certain parts of worship are conducted), but they are united in the main doctrinal issues, and there is Eucharistic communion between them. That is, a Russian Orthodox can take communion and confess in a Greek Orthodox church and vice versa.

According to the Creed, the Church is one, because at the head of the Church is Christ. This means that there cannot be several Churches on earth that would have different dogma. And it was precisely because of disagreements in doctrinal matters that in the 11th century there was a division into Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As a consequence of this, Catholics cannot take communion and confess in Orthodox churches and vice versa.

Catholic cathedral Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Moscow. Photo: catedra.ru

What are the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism?

Today there are a lot of them. And conditionally they are divided into three types.

Doctrine differences- because of which, in fact, there was a split. For example, the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope among Catholics.
Ritual differences. For example, a form of Communion that is different from us among Catholics or a vow of celibacy (celibacy), which is obligatory for Catholic priests. That is, we have fundamentally different approaches to certain aspects of the Sacraments and Church life, and they can complicate the hypothetical reunification of Catholics and Orthodox. But they did not become the reason for the split, and they did not prevent us from reuniting again.
Conditional differences in traditions. For example - org a us in temples; benches in the middle of the church; priests with or without beards; various shape priestly vestments. In other words, external features that do not affect the unity of the Church at all - since some similar differences are found even within the Orthodox Church in different countries. In general, if the difference between Orthodox and Catholics consisted only in them, the One Church would never be divided.

The division into Orthodoxy and Catholicism that occurred in the 11th century was, first of all, a tragedy for the Church, which was and is being acutely experienced by both “us” and the Catholics. Reunification attempts have been made several times over the course of a thousand years. However, none of them turned out to be truly viable - and we will also talk about this below.

What is the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy - because of what the Church was actually divided?

Western and Eastern Christian Churches This division has always existed. The Western Church is conditionally the territory of modern Western Europe, and later - all the colonized countries of Latin America. The Eastern Church is the territory of modern Greece, Palestine, Syria, and Eastern Europe.

However, the division we are talking about has been conditional for many centuries. Too much different nations and civilizations inhabit the Earth, therefore it is natural that the same teaching in different parts of the Earth and countries could have some characteristic external forms and traditions. For example, the Eastern Church (the one that became Orthodox) has always practiced a more contemplative and mystical way of life. It was in the East in the III century that such a phenomenon as monasticism arose, which then spread to the whole world. The Latin (Western) Church - has always had the image of Christianity outwardly more active and "social".

In the main doctrinal truths, they remained common.

Saint Anthony the Great, founder of monasticism

Perhaps the differences, which later became insurmountable, could have been noticed much earlier and “agreed”. But in those days there was no Internet, there were no trains and cars. Churches (not only Western and Eastern, but simply - separate dioceses) sometimes existed for decades on their own and rooted in themselves certain views. Therefore, the differences that caused the division of the Church into Catholicism and Orthodoxy, at the time of the “decision” turned out to be too ingrained.

This is what the Orthodox cannot accept in Catholic teaching.

the infallibility of the Pope and the doctrine of the primacy of the See of Rome
changing the text of the Creed
doctrine of purgatory

Pope Infallibility in Catholicism

Each church has its own primate - the head. In the Orthodox Churches, this is the patriarch. The primate of the Western Church (or the Latin Chair, as it is also called) was the pope, who is now the head of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church believes that the pope is infallible. This means that any judgment, decision or opinion that he voices before the flock is the truth and law for the entire Church.

The current Pope is Francis

According to Orthodox teaching, no person can be higher than the Church. For example, an Orthodox patriarch - if his decisions go against the teachings of the Church or deep-rooted traditions - may well be deprived of his rank by the decision of a bishops' council (as happened, for example, with Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century).

In addition to the infallibility of the pope in Catholicism, there is a doctrine of the primacy of the See of Rome (the Church). Catholics base this teaching on an incorrect interpretation of the words of the Lord in a conversation with the apostles in Caesarea Philipova - about the alleged superiority of the Apostle Peter (who later "founded" the Latin Church) over the other apostles.

(Matthew 16:15-19) “He says to them: And who do you say that I am? Simon Peter, answering, said: You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Then Jesus answered and said to him: Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonas, because it was not flesh and blood that revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven; and I say to you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”.

You can read more about the dogma of papal infallibility and the primacy of the Roman throne.

The difference between Orthodox and Catholics: the text of the Creed

The different text of the Creed is another reason for disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics - although the difference is only in one word.

The Creed is a prayer that was formulated in the 4th century on the first and second Ecumenical Councils, and she put an end to many doctrinal disputes. It articulates everything that Christians believe.

What is the difference between Catholic and Orthodox texts? We say that we believe "And in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father", and Catholics add: "... from the "Father and the Son proceeding ...".

In fact, the addition of just this one word "And the Son ..." (Filioque) significantly distorts the image of the entire Christian teaching.

The topic is theological, difficult, it is immediately better to read about it at least on Wikipedia.

The doctrine of purgatory is another difference between Catholics and Orthodox

Catholics believe in the existence of purgatory, and the Orthodox say that nowhere - not in any of the books Holy Scripture There is no mention of purgatory in the Old or New Testaments, and even in none of the books of the Holy Fathers of the first centuries.

It is difficult to say how this doctrine arose among the Catholics. However, now Catholic Church fundamentally proceeds from the fact that after death there is not only the Kingdom of Heaven and hell, but also a place (or rather, a state) in which the soul of a person who died in peace with God finds himself, but not holy enough to end up in Paradise. These souls, apparently, will certainly come to the Kingdom of Heaven, but first they need to undergo purification.

Orthodox see the afterlife differently than Catholics. There is Heaven, there is Hell. There are ordeals after death in order to be strengthened in peace with God (or fall away from Him). There is a need to pray for the dead. But there is no purgatory.

These are the three reasons why the difference between Catholics and Orthodox is so fundamental that a division of the Churches arose a thousand years ago.

At the same time, over 1000 years of separate existence, a number of other differences arose (or took root), which are also considered to be what distinguishes us from each other. Something about external rites - and it may seem a fairly serious difference - and something about the external traditions that Christianity acquired here and there.

Orthodoxy and Catholicism: Differences That Don't Really Divide Us

Catholics don't take communion the way we do - is that true?

Orthodox partake of the Body and Blood of Christ from the chalice. Until recently, Catholics took communion not with leavened bread, but with unleavened bread - that is, unleavened bread. Moreover, ordinary parishioners, unlike the clergy, communed only with the Body of Christ.

Before saying why it happened so, it should be noted that this form of Catholic Communion has recently ceased to be the only one. Now other forms of this Sacrament appear in Catholic churches, including the “familiar” one for us: the Body and Blood from the chalice.

And the tradition of Communion, which is different from us, arose in Catholicism for two reasons:

Regarding the use of unleavened bread: Catholics proceed from the fact that at the time of Christ, Jews at Easter broke not leavened, but unleavened bread. (The Orthodox come from the Greek texts of the New Testament, where when describing the Last Supper that the Lord performed with the disciples, the word “artos” is used, which means leavened bread)
Regarding communion of parishioners only with the Body: Catholics proceed from the fact that Christ abides in equal and full measure in any of the parts of the Holy Gifts, and not only when they are combined together. (The Orthodox are guided by the text of the New Testament, where Christ directly speaks of His Body and Blood. Mt 26:26–28: “ And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, and having blessed it, broke it, and giving it to the disciples, said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, and said, Drink all of you from it, for this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.»).

They sit in Catholic churches

Generally speaking, this is not even a difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, since in some Orthodox countries- for example, in Bulgaria - it is also customary to sit, and in many temples you can also see many benches and chairs there.

Lots of benches, but it's not catholic, but Orthodox church- in New York City.

Catholic churches have a n

The organ is part of the musical accompaniment of the service. Music is one of the integral parts of the service, because if it were otherwise, there would be no choir, and the entire service would be read. Another thing is that we, the Orthodox, are now accustomed to singing alone.

In many Latin countries, an organ was also installed in temples, since they considered it a divine instrument - they found its sound so sublime and unearthly.

(At the same time, the possibility of using the organ in Orthodox worship was also discussed in Russia at the Local Council of 1917-1918. The well-known church composer Alexander Grechaninov was a supporter of this instrument.)

Vow of celibacy among Catholic priests (celibacy)

In Orthodoxy, both a monk and a married priest can be a priest. We are quite detailed.

In Catholicism, any clergyman is bound by a vow of celibacy.

Catholic priests shave their beards

This is another example of different traditions, and not some fundamental differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Whether a person has a beard or not does not in any way affect his holiness and does not say anything about him as a good or bad Christian. It’s just that in Western countries it has been customary to shave a beard for some time (most likely, this is the influence of the Latin culture of Ancient Rome).

Now no one forbids shaving beards and Orthodox priests. It’s just that a priest or monk’s beard is a tradition so deeply rooted in us that breaking it can become a “temptation” for others, and therefore few priests decide on it or even think about it.

Metropolitan Anthony of Surozh is one of the most famous Orthodox pastors of the 20th century. For a time he served without a beard.

The duration of worship and the severity of fasting

It so happened that over the past 100 years, the Church life of Catholics has been significantly "simplified" - if I may say so. The duration of divine services has been reduced, the fasts have become simpler and shorter (for example, before taking communion, it is enough not to eat food for only a few hours). Thus, the Catholic Church tried to reduce the gap between itself and the secular part of society - fearing that excessive strictness of the rules could scare away modern people. Whether it helped or not is hard to say.

The Orthodox Church, in her views on the severity of fasting and external rites, proceeds from the following:

Of course, the world has changed a lot and it will be impossible for most people to live in all severity now. However, the memory of the Rules and a strict ascetic life is still important. "By mortifying the flesh, we free the spirit." And you can’t forget about it - at least as an ideal, which you need to strive for in the depths of your soul. And if this "measure" disappears, then how to maintain the desired "bar"?

This is only a small part of the external traditional differences that have developed between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

However, it is important to know what unites our Churches:

the presence of Church Sacraments (communion, confession, baptism, etc.)
veneration of the Holy Trinity
veneration of the Mother of God
veneration of icons
veneration of saints and their relics
common saints for the first ten centuries of the Church's existence
Holy Bible

In February 2016, the first ever meeting between the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Pope of Rome (Francis) took place in Cuba. An event of historical scale, but there was no talk of the unification of the Churches at it.

Orthodoxy and Catholicism - attempts to unite (Unia)

The separation of Orthodoxy and Catholicism is a great tragedy in the history of the Church, which is acutely experienced by both Orthodox and Catholics.

Several times in 1000 years attempts have been made to bridge the schism. The so-called Unias were concluded three times - between the Catholic Church and representatives of the Orthodox Church. All of them had the following in common:

They were concluded primarily for political, and not for religious purposes.
Each time, these were “concessions” on the part of the Orthodox. As a rule, in the following form: the external form and language of worship remained familiar to the Orthodox, however, in all dogmatic disagreements, the Catholic interpretation was taken.
Being signed by some bishops, as a rule, they were rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Church - the clergy and the people, and therefore turned out to be, in fact, unviable. The exception is the last Union of Brest.

Here are the three Unions:

Union of Lyons (1274)

She was supported by the emperor of Orthodox Byzantium, since the unification with the Catholics was supposed to help restore the shaken financial position of the empire. The union was signed, but the people of Byzantium and the rest of the Orthodox clergy did not support it.

Ferrara-Florence Union (1439)

In this Union, both sides were equally politically interested, since the Christian states were weakened by wars and enemies (Latin states - crusades, Byzantium - confrontation with the Turks, Russia - with the Tatar-Mongols) and the unification of states on religious grounds would probably help everyone.

The situation repeated itself: the Union was signed (although not by all representatives of the Orthodox Church who were present at the council), but it remained, in fact, on paper - the people did not support the union on such conditions.

Suffice it to say that the first "Uniate" service was performed in the capital of Byzantium in Constantinople only in 1452. And less than a year later, the Turks captured it ...

Union of Brest (1596)

This Union was concluded between the Catholics and the Orthodox Church of the Commonwealth (the state that then united the Lithuanian and Polish principalities).

The only example when the union of Churches turned out to be viable - albeit within the framework of just one state. The rules are the same: all divine services, rituals and language remain familiar to the Orthodox, however, not the patriarch, but the pope is commemorated at the services; the text of the Creed is changed and the doctrine of purgatory is adopted.

After the division of the Commonwealth, part of its territories ceded to Russia - and with it a number of Uniate parishes also departed. Despite the persecution, they continued to exist until the middle of the 20th century, until they were officially banned by the Soviet authorities.

Today, there are Uniate parishes on the territory of Western Ukraine, the Baltic states and Belarus.

Separation of Orthodoxy and Catholicism: how to relate to this?

We would like to bring a short quote from the letters of the Orthodox Bishop Hilarion (Troitsky), who died in the first half of the 20th century. Being a zealous defender of Orthodox dogmas, he nevertheless writes:

“Unfortunate historical circumstances tore the West away from the Church. Over the centuries, the church perception of Christianity was gradually distorted in the West. Teaching has changed, life has changed, the very understanding of life has departed from the Church. We [Orthodox] have preserved church wealth. But instead of lending to others from this unexpected wealth, we ourselves in some areas have come under the influence of the West with its theology alien to the Church.” (Letter 5. Orthodoxy in the West)

And here is what St. Theophan the Recluse answered to one woman a century earlier when she asked: “Father, explain to me: none of the Catholics will be saved?”

The saint replied: “I don’t know if the Catholics will be saved, but I know one thing for sure: that I myself will not be saved without Orthodoxy.”

This answer and the quotation of Hilarion (Troitsky) may very accurately indicate the correct attitude of an Orthodox person towards such a misfortune as the division of the Churches.

Read this and other posts in our group in