11 Practical Reasons To Be Orthodox Instead of Roman Catholic

Theological differences have been expounded upon by many between the Holy Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic church, I seek to give examples of the difference in actual practice of day to day life between the two. I would like to emphasize it is not my intent to attack Roman Catholics, but to answer the question I get of “what’s the difference?”and to showcase the beauty of Holy Orthodoxy. Either way, my intentions will not matter to some who will draw ire regardless. There are good things within Roman Catholicism, but it is incomplete, it is missing the fullness of the Faith in Holy Orthodoxy. I’m sure Catholics would advocate for the same thing in reverse. Please forgive my offense as I will be direct in my assessment of what the varying differences mean from my perspective. May God grace these words in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Preface

The deferment towards Eastern Rite Catholicism will be a go-to explanation of trying to get around what I present here by Catholics. However, of the 1.3 billion Catholics worldwide, 18 million are Eastern Rite Catholics. That means 0.01% of Catholics are Eastern Rite, so my critiques I will present here are fully valid to 99% of Roman Catholics even if you may disagree with them. Secondly, the concept of Eastern Rite Catholicism (sometimes called Uniatism) enforces relative truth within Catholicism. That problem I have already addressed in a previous article I will link here.

1 - The Eucharist

In both the Orthodox Church and the Catholic church, the Eucharist is the central aspect of worship. Both believe it is truly the Body & the Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, following the very words of Christ Himself when He said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” - John 6:53. Christ is the incarnational aspect of worship in the Eucharist, but I contend the Roman Catholic practice doesn’t bear this out.

In the vast majority of both Latin Mass & Novus Ordo, the wine is not given to the laity. This practice died out in the Middle Ages, and the door was opened again by Vatican II, but its implementation is rare being generous, and generally completely absent. For an Orthodox Christian, this practice of not giving the laity wine is to deny giving the blood of Christ and to deny Christ’s words. In this respect, the practice of the Roman church essentially says there is no actual life in it. It does not live out what it proclaims.

I’m aware the response will be about defining that the blood is present in the body. From the Baltimore Catechism it states, “Q. 900. Why does not the Church give Holy Communion to the people as it does to the priest under the appearance of wine also?

A. The Church does not give Holy Communion to the people as it does to the priest under the appearance of wine also, to avoid the danger of spilling the Precious Blood; to prevent the irreverence some might show if compelled to drink out of a chalice used by all, and lastly, to refute those who denied that Our Lord's blood is present under the appearance of bread also.”

My response to this is; 1) only the priest partaking of the wine for the East is akin to saying Christ withholds Himself from those who approach worthily with attention and devotion. We know that’s not how God operates. 2) the same explanation could be applied for the Body, you could drop the Body on the floor and have people accidentally step on it, yet this is not hindered? So why even give the Body? 3) anyone’s irreverence could never be equal to the power and reverence of Christ; a chalice used by all emphasizes the communal aspect of the Faith and the Body of the Church. Reducing it to individualism “it’s just about me and Christ” reflects the lack of unity of the Body; which in turn showcases it is not the Body. 4) the issue of denying the Lord’s Blood is present in the Body could be a separate article of itself, but to keep it brief, the Council of Trent in the Roman church proclaimed that Christ is fully present in both species (bread and wine), we accept that Christ is present in both species as well, but we do not admit that both species exist within one another. If we did, or the Early Church did, Communion would not have been offered intincture for the first millenium in both the East & West. The very fact of intincture communion being the norm contradicts this, as they are never considered to be offered separately &, therefore, they are never consumed separately.

As St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16 clearly indicates both wine and bread being used in the Eucharist. In the early Church again, both the laity and the clergy, everyone partook of both the bread and the wine. The fact that the Roman church does not practice this today declares itself not to be the church of the first 1,000 years of Christianity.

2 - Infant Communion/Chrismation

Another massive practical difference is infant communion, 99% of Catholics around the world do not give communion to children. The Orthodox Church gives communion to them, as if they have been baptized in Christ, they have put on Christ. Jesus says do not deny the little ones to come to Him, yet this seems to be what the Roman Church does.

Catholics have no problem baptizing infants as Orthodox do, but defer to when they’re older to consciously accept the Lord before they are chrismated (confirmed) and start receiving communion. The natural outgrowth of this from Protestantism was to include baptism too leading to a denial of infant baptism, they’re just adding one more sacrament restriction than Roman Catholics do.

Concerning the age for confirmation, the Code of Canon Law in the Roman Catholic Church states: “The sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion, unless the episcopal conference has decided on a different age; or there is a danger of death; or, in the judgment of the minister, a grave reason suggests otherwise.” (CIC 891). This can vary from seven to thirteen years of age in their practice, but the problem is the same as with many Protestant beliefs today; a gnostic undercurrent that a child must “have sufficient knowledge” in order to partake of Christ (in Catholicism) or be baptized with Christ (in Protestantism).

No one will ever have “sufficient knowledge” of God, because He’s God. It doesn’t mean we don’t know Him, children certainly know their mother and their father when they see them, even brothers, sisters, other family, etc. Do you think they can’t know Christ? They can’t recognize Him? Children know their father, they know his care for them, even if they don’t fully understand all the intricacies of a father-son relationship that they will in the years to come. They know Dad, even if they don’t know Dad’s name. Same is true for the Heavenly Father.

3 - Cremation

A stark departure in practice is cremation, the Roman Catholic Church allows cremation while the Orthodox Church forbids it. You cannot have an Orthodox funeral service if you are cremated willingly, because choosing cremation is essentially denying the bodily Resurrection. Exceptions exist such as in Japan where the state enforces cremation, therefore there is no option for an Orthodox to be buried. Thus, an Orthodox funeral is allowed because they did not have a choice, those who choose to be cremated when they have the option to be buried are denied an Orthodox funeral.

The Roman church held to this same position until 1963 when they lifted the ban on cremation, “provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body” (no. 2301). Cremation demonstrates exactly this though, it’s like saying you’re allowed to cheat on your wife so long as it doesn’t demonstrate infidelity.

The argument for cremation is “well God is going to give us new bodies either way so it doesn’t really matter.” Surely, God can refashion someone whether they’re buried or cremated, however God has the capability to save those who are not baptized, does that mean we say “it doesn’t matter” if you’re baptized or not? Funeral services for being Catholic rather than Orthodox are different. All Christians should be buried, cremation denies the value of the human body and of material creation in general leading it to be a gnostic practice of destroying and lowering the physical as valueless. It also shows we are not practicing what we believe if we choose cremation and still say “I believe in the Resurrection of the dead” every Sunday.

4 - Iconography

Iconography is another key practical departure between East and West, the foremost example of this is the Sistine Chapel. The fresco titled “the Creation of Adam” famously depicts God and Adam with their hands reaching to one another, yet not touching. Iconography depicts a reality, sends a message; and the message of that is “I am close but not actually communing with you.” To emphasize this point, comparing traditional western saints depicted vs Eastern Orthodox saints you will see the halo difference.

In the West the halo is above their head, in the East, the uncreated light is depicted emanating from them directly. The iconography in the East displays communion with God, the iconography in the West portrays an impersonal relationship. It’s not to say Roman Catholics don’t experience God to some degree, but the imagery very much paints that picture of not actually entering into God.

The Renaissance marked a further departure from East and West with the new styles of artwork allowed. In the East, rules have been maintained for how iconography is permitted, you cannot create images however you want. The Renaissance introduced this concept in the West; such as allowing Jesus to be depicted as a balding child; completely naked, with six-pack abs and cankles. No I’m not kidding, to say the least this is distasteful. Therefore practically speaking, entering into an Orthodox worship space sends a very different message every Sunday compared to a Roman Catholic one.

I know the quip back will be that Uniates practice the same type of iconography style as the Orthodox. To which I reply the same as before, Uniates are less than 1% of Catholics, and Uniates prove relative truth within Catholicism. I also know not every Catholic Church will have a balding Jesus with cankles, but the fact that it’s even permitted shows a practical difference.

5 - Confession

It is very much impersonal in Roman Catholicism to confess to a priest behind a screen, with no real working relationship with him. In the Orthodox Church you have face to face communication in your confession (usually at the beginning/end). All priests are celibate in the Roman church, while the Orthodox Church allows married priests. It’s more likely to find a priest who has experience in family issues, raising children, relating to your spouse, etc in the Orthodox Church. Confession is ideally with the same priest and after a period of time it becomes more and more personal to where he can pick out what is going on in your spiritual life.

There is a degree of anonymity within the confessional booth in the Catholic Church, while in the Orthodox Church it is extremely relational and personal as God is with us. Confession is not a legalistic box to check off so you can have communion, it’s a therapeutic asceticism to enter into God not a systematic thing you do just because. There is a tendency to view confession as something you have to do vs. a real emphasis on healing in confession. It is a sacrament. Ultimately, in my perspective, Orthodox Confession gives you actual healing and guidance with the sins that afflict you, not just absolving you with no personal relation, advice, or communion.

6 - Annulment/Divorce

Many e-Catholics love to pride themselves on saying that Orthodox allow divorce therefore it’s invalid. But the concept of annulment is the same at best, and totally egregious at worst.

The Orthodox Church does permit divorce in certain circumstances, usually only with either adultery (as Christ Himself said) or with abuse/abandonment. Divorce is allowed as a concession to human weakness just as Christ told the Pharisees when they asked Him about the woman who was married seven times.

A second marriage is rarely allowed in the Orthodox Church, and if it is, the service is sorrowful and repentant. An acknowledgement of the failure of the previous marriage, of the previous people involved, this is different than the original joyous ceremony. Despite the entire tangent I could go on about divorce, I turn to the Roman Catholic concept of annulments.

In an annulment, the marriage itself is declared to have never been valid in the first place, which begs the obvious question of how can you actually know if the marriage you’re in with the Catholic Church is even real? It could be void the entire time, which is even worse than divorce as it prevents actual marriage to exist in the first place.

7 - Liturgical Differences

There is a significant distinction between walking into an Orthodox Liturgy vs. a Roman Catholic one, especially if it is a Novus Ordo, Latin Mass, etc. there are many variation styles in the Roman church. While generally in the Orthodox Church it is mainly the Liturgy of St. John. Chrysostom. Practically, I can walk into an Orthodox Church anywhere in the world and know what is going on, because it’s universal. However, the same cannot be applied to the Catholic Church, due to their many variations it’s not certain what you’ll get when walking into their church.

Depending upon such churches, another difference liturgically is you hear the Trinity; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit much more often in an Orthodox Church than a Catholic one. This isn’t to say Catholics reject the Trinity, but I would argue the incarnational calling upon God as Triune is exemplified more in Holy Orthodoxy.

Liturgies have developed in the history of both East & West, that’s not the argument lest it be misconstrued. However the liturgical reforms of Vatican II mark a succinct change, you can find Catholic Churches which function much like mega churches in worship, or you could find a reverent Mass you don’t really know for sure. In Orthodoxy it’s a more concrete standard for Divine Liturgy and worship, of which many Roman Catholic apologists have openly conceded is a better practice in the Orthodox Church.

8 - Faith & Reason

In Orthodoxy reason is good, it’s a tool to help you grow faith. But Faith does not depend upon reason, while in the Roman Catholic Church especially in Scholasticism reason becomes the criterion for truth. Intellectual ascent is the focus, and “if it doesn’t make sense to me in my head then it’s not true” is very much the sentiment. God is not relegated to what makes sense to you. Practically an emphasis is found more on the mind in Catholicism and more on the heart in Orthodoxy.

This can be observed in the framework of people wanting to learn x y z doctrines first, once it clicks in the head they think this will then influence their practice to apply what they’ve learned. When it’s exactly the opposite in Orthodoxy, you are called to live, to act, and by doing said actions this then influences your intellectual beliefs. Because you know it experientially and not just intellectually.

God calls us to do things that make no reasonable sense, such as Abraham being promised to be the father of many nations yet God tells him to kill his only son. Thats not reasonable, that makes no logical sense, but Abraham is remembered for his faith. Reason said no but faith said yes. It’s good to contemplate God, but in practical standards the Roman church emphasizes contemplation over communion. We have to enter into God, not just think about him. As St. Silouan says we can’t just know about God we have to know Him.

9 - Authority Structure

Obviously in the Catholic Church, the Pope is the head. In the Orthodox Church, Christ is the head. I know many Catholics find this as a misrepresentation so I truly do apologize if it offends. In Catholicism, the Pope is the ultimate authority, but in Orthodoxy in the first 1,000 years of Christianity he was simply like any other bishop.

In every day life, the authority most relevant to you is your priest and your bishop. While in Catholicism, the Pope is always the most relevant and important authority. Hence, even in authority structure; Catholicism is less personal and Orthodoxy is more personal. Just like the first millennium Church, it is conciliar unlike the Catholic Church. As Lumen Gentium 22 clearly states, “the body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head.”

The Roman Pontiff having supreme authority is not how the early church operated. Having the Pope as supreme destroys the communal aspect of the body of Christ and thus; Catholicism falls into the same individualism as the Protestant Reformation. The only difference is the one man as the final authority is either the Pope (Catholicism) or yourself (Protestantism).

Orthodoxy is truly communal, in the life of the Church you are formed, no one can do anything of themselves. We must submit to the Church, not to one man’s interpretation. In Catholicism you give your individual authority to another individual. In Orthodoxy you relinquish your individual authority to the communal whole.

This can be summed up in Apostolic Canon 34 which proves the local bishop is the authority, “The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."

10 - Doctrinal Development

A major flaw in Catholicism is doctrinal development, as they only originally accepted it as “further/deeper explanation of doctrine” but it has now evolved (ironically enough) to something akin to “a fleshing out to encompass conclusions that are drawn.” Simply this means how we practically give account for things are different, and the room for innovation is distinct.

In the example of venerating iconography, due to the development of doctrine, Catholics will openly say this practice didn’t happen in the early Church, and that the doctrine of venerating icons developed throughout the centuries. For the Orthodox, we reject doctrinal development and assert the early Church did in fact venerate icons as the Seventh Ecumenical Council proclaimed.

With Catholics, any doctrine can develop into something else, such as Catholics “developing” their position on the death penalty as once supported to now completely inadmissible. Practically, you can’t know what might develop next in practice, which excludes any consistency in what you believe as it could be ever-changing. Therefore in practice, Orthodoxy brings consistency that Catholicism does not in a world that seeks to innovate and impose itself upon the Church.

Bonus (11) - Fasting

East & West had some variations in fasting but was majority the same up until the 1300’s when relaxing of fasts began. Even up until Vatican II the fasting at least resembled each other, but since Vatican II it’s become almost symbolic with no real obligations to fast at all, the discipline is much more emphasized in the East than it is in the West. In Orthodoxy you are called to fast to some degree for half of the year, this is another marked distinction in every day life between the two. Christ emphasizes the importance of fasting not saying “if” you fast, but “when” you fast.