Differences between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches

[Moros]

I just kind of threw this together from random thoughts. What I'd like here are corrections to any misinformation. Help me learn.

Use of the term "invalid" is strictly speaking from the Orthodox P.O.V. and is not there to inflame or provoke any Catholics who happen to read this. If I missed anything, feel free to add that too. I want to make a definitive list of differences.

------

As is common knowledge, the Church founded on Pentecost 33AD was united and ONE until 1054 AD, when the Patriarchates of Constantinople (East Rome) and Rome (West) split, (known today as "The Great Schism of 1054) by way of mutual excommunication over theological disputes.

Church doctrine was defined by Ecumenical Councils, which means all the Bishops of the Church convened to discuss the Christian theology and set the foundations for the Church to build itself upon.

Since the Church was now split, no Ecumenical Councils could be convened because the Patriarchate of Rome was no longer in Communion with the rest of the jurisdictions. Therefore, the Church has been in Schism for the last 950 years. The Orthodox Church regards the Seat of the Bishop of Rome to be empty and cannot hold another council to re-unite the Church until this seat is again occupied.

Now, Roman Catholics were part of the Original Church until the schism. This means that they followed the exact same practices as the Orthodox Church today, with a few differences. (Rome was first among equals, now the primacy of honor of first among equals first goes to New Rome, or the Patriarchate of Constantinople.)

Orthodoxy follows the first 7 (pre-schism) Ecumenical Councils. After the schism, Rome began creating their own doctrines (and still, to this day, hold invalid councils), futher alienating Ecumenical relations between the two sects and further preventing any reunification.

Recently, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constanipole (First Among Equals) BARTHOLOMEW I has been sending heavy overtones of unification to Rome, angering the Orthodox community.

However, the Church can not be doctrinally re-united until the Catholic Church completely revokes all doctrine from 1054 to present day, or, until the Orthodox Church accepts 950 years of invalid council and doctrine. Neither are very likely to happen any time soon.

Here are the Catholic innovations which validify them as a seperate sect of Christianity.

Papal Infallibility and Language - Before the schism, the Patriarch of Rome (NOT to be confused with the "Pope") held the primacy of honor as first among equals. This is because each Patriarchate has apostolic succession. The Patriarch of Rome is apostolic successor to St. Peter, Constantinople - Apostle Andrew, Alexandria - Apostle Mark, Antioch - Apostle Peter, Jerusalem - James, the Brother of the Lord, Moscow - Apostle Andrew, through Constantinople. Perhaps THE most divisive issue of the schism is the Papal Infallibilty. Jesus said that St. Peter is the "rock on which I shall build my church" and gave him "the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Hence, primacy of first among equals. The Roman schismatics took this literally and believed this to be a direct command to center all of the church's power in the "Pope," as he was successor to St. Peter. Before that, there were many different Churches, but all were bound by the same Canons. They were all in communion. Each served Liturgy in their mother tongues. After this, the Churches that sided with Rome were only permitted to serve Liturgy in Latin. Rome and the Pope became the sole authority. Christianity essentially became a dictatorship. The Pope would go on to become the most powerful landlord on earth, as virtually all of the land of Europe was owned by Rome. Orthodoxy has always stood to serve Liturgy in the language of your people. Rome (up until Vatican II) only permitted Latin.

Purgatory - The "purifying fire." Another Roman innovation. Orthodox Christians do not believe in repentance in the afterlife, but rather in a state of "repose" until judgement. Purgatory has been supported by a few Orthodox Church fathers in the form of "toll houses," most notorousily by Blessed Seraphim Rose of Platina.

"Toll houses" are generally condemned by Orthodoxy as a gnostic belief. Purgatory is usually written off as a result of invalid council and minimal Bibical support.

Immaculate Conception - Orthodox Christians believe the Theotokos (Mother of God) to have been born of normal procreation. Catholics believe Mary was forged of the Holy Spirit as her Son was. This is not supported by the Bible and is a result of Roman innovation.

Filoque - Roman Catholic belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son. Orthodox do not believe this. We believe in subordination within the Godhead.

Clergy Marriage - A hot issue in current events. Orthodox clergy are allowed to be married. Catholic are not. Orthodox are also allowed to live and work outside of the Church with their family whereas Catholics must live in the sanctuary. This is perhaps the most saddening and dangerous of Catholic doctrine. Sexual molestation in the Catholic Church is a very serious issue, and while these things sadly also happen in the Orthodox Church, they do not happen with such alarming frequency as in the Catholic. What is even more alarming and shocking is that these priests are being protected at even the highest levels of Roman Catholic hierarchy. Both Orthodox and Catholics condemn fornication outside of marriage.

Divorce and Re-Marriage - Catholics have been allowing divorce since Vatican II. You can divorce and re-marry all you like. At an Orthodox wedding, you get a "crowning ceremony." This joins you and your spouse in spirit. You can get divorced and remarry, but you only get one crowning ceremony.

Statues and Crucifixes - Orthodox use "Icons" for prayer, which are two-dimensional, painted and blessed "windows into heaven." Catholics use 3D statuettes of Christ, the Theotokos, and the Saints. This is forbidden by Lev. 26:1. 3D renderings of Christ are strictly forbidden. Thus, Orthodox do not wear crucifixes. We also have jewelry depictions of the Crucifixion, but the Corpus is two dimensional and flat.

Liturgy - As mentioned earlier, Catholic "Mass" was in Latin only until V-II. Orthodoxy, from 33AD to present day, has always served it's flock in their own language. The usual Sunday service is the Divine Liturgy St. John Chrysostom. The Latin Mass has undergone many changes over the years and varies greatly from our own.

Prayer Positions - The preferred method of Orthodox prayer is standing. We also bow from the hip, and prostrate. (Bow our foreheads to the floor.) This may look surprising at first, because the Muslims stole this method from the Church. Also like Muslims, Orthodox face the East to pray. Orthodox only kneel on occasion for certain Holy Days.

Saints - Orthodox and Catholics share the same pre-schism Saints and Doctors. Today our common Saints are few and far between.

Holy Days - Catholics have their own Feasts and Fasts which are not shared by Orthodox. We share the same pre-schism Holy Days.

Assumption of the Virgin Mary - The Biblically unsupported Catholic Doctrine that the Theotokos ascended to Heaven whilst alive. Orthodox believe in the Dormition - or "falling asleep" of the Theotokos, and then Her ascent.

Unleavened Bread - AKA Matzo. Orthodox do not use unleavened bread, Catholics do.

Triclavianism - Orthodox believe 4 nails were used to affix the Lord to His Cross. One in each hand, one in each foot. Catholics believe 3 nails were used. One in each hand, and one through both feet, with no foot-board, or, failing that, a small block at the bottom. We believe in a 3 bar Cross. The first being the sign which was hung over His head (depicted in Catholic imagery as saying Jesus Christ, King of the Jews. Orthodox Iconography says "King of Glory"), the horizontal beam which His arms were attached to, and a tilted foot-board which His feet were nailed to.

Holy Tradition says that at the moment of Christ's death, His legs went into spasm causing the board to be forced up on the right and down on the left, creating a diagonal direction of the foot board and, at the same time, showing the judgement of the two thieves, the one on the right inheriting Paradise and the one on the left condemning himself to hell. Hence, the tilted foot-board in Orthodox Iconography. Eastern-Rite Catholics also have a three-piece Cross, but the foot-board is horizontal. These horizontal foot board depictions appeared much later.

Skullcaps - Catholic Cardinals wear "yarmulka" style skullcaps. Orthodox do not.

[Rilian]

The Orthodox Church regards the Seat of the Bishop of Rome to be empty and cannot hold another council to re-unite the Church until this seat is again occupied.

Are you absolutely sure the Orthodox Church regards this seat to be empty?

[Moros]

Pretty sure. If anyone can prove it wrong I'll change it. The patriarch of Rome was first among equals before the schism, correct? Now BARTHOLOMEW I is first among equals in "New Rome."

I would imagine if the Roman Church re-joins us, the patriarch would reclaim his seat as first among equals from constantinople.

[Philip]

As is common knowledge, the Church founded on Pentecost 33AD was united and ONE until 1054 AD, when the Patriarchates of Constantinople (East Rome) and Rome (West) split, (known today as "The Great Schism of 1054) by way of mutual excommunication over theological disputes.

It is important not to cast the Schism as Rome v. Constantinople. There are three other Patriarchs (Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem) who remained in union with Constantinople. Casting it as Rome v. Constaninople mistakenly forces a Roman ecclesiology onto the East.



Since the Church was now split, no Ecumenical Councils could be convened because the Patriarchate of Rome was no longer in Communion with the rest of the jurisdictions. Therefore, the Church has been in Schism for the last 950 years.

This is not quite the Orthodox belief. We do not believe that the Church can be in schism/split.

The Orthodox Church regards the Seat of the Bishop of Rome to be empty

Are you sure?

and cannot hold another council to re-unite the Church until this seat is again occupied.

I am fairly certain that this is not the Orthodox belief. I think that Orthodoxy could hold an Ecumenical Council without Rome.



Immaculate Conception - Orthodox Christians believe the Theotokos (Mother of God) to have been born of normal procreation. Catholics believe Mary was forged of the Holy Spirit as her Son was. This is not supported by the Bible and is a result of Roman innovation.

It is important to remember that this doctrine is a result of the flawed teaching of Original Sin.


Clergy Marriage - A hot issue in current events. Orthodox clergy are allowed to be married. Catholic are not.

Not exactly.

Sexual molestation in the Catholic Church is a very serious issue, and while these things sadly also happen in the Orthodox Church, they do not happen with such alarming frequency as in the Catholic.

Be careful here. Sexual deviancy is not a product of celibacy. Further, the "alarming frequency" is largely due to intensive media coverage.


Divorce and Re-Marriage - Catholics have been allowing divorce since Vatican II. You can divorce and re-marry all you like.

Not exactly.

Liturgy - As mentioned earlier, Catholic "Mass" was in Latin only until V-II. Orthodoxy, from 33AD to present day, has always served it's flock in their own language. The usual Sunday service is the Divine Liturgy St. John Chrysostom.

This is a cultural difference.

Prayer Positions - The preferred method of Orthodox prayer is standing. We also bow from the hip, and prostrate. (Bow our foreheads to the floor.) This may look surprising at first, because the Muslims stole this method from the Church. Also like Muslims, Orthodox face the East to pray. Orthodox only kneel on occasion for certain Holy Days.

Again, cultural differences.

the same pre-schism Holy Days.

Assumption of the Virgin Mary - The Biblically unsupported Catholic Doctrine that the Theotokos ascended to Heaven whilst alive. Orthodox believe in the Dormition - or "falling asleep" of the Theotokos, and then Her ascent.

Are you certain that is the Catholic dogma? The Orthodox objection is more to the fact that the belief has been declared dogma.

Triclavianism - Orthodox believe 4 nails were used to affix the Lord to His Cross. One in each hand, one in each foot. Catholics believe 3 nails were used. One in each hand, and one through both feet, with no foot-board, or, failing that, a small block at the bottom. We believe in a 3 bar Cross. The first being the sign which was hung over His head (depicted in Catholic imagery as saying Jesus Christ, King of the Jews. Orthodox Iconography says "King of Glory"), the horizontal beam which His arms were attached to, and a tilted foot-board which His feet were nailed to.

Does this matter?

Holy Tradition says that at the moment of Christ's death, His legs went into spasm causing the board to be forced up on the right and down on the left, creating a diagonal direction of the foot board and, at the same time, showing the judgement of the two thieves, the one on the right inheriting Paradise and the one on the left condemning himself to hell.

Are you sure this isn't small 't' tradition?


Skullcaps - Catholic Cardinals wear "yarmulka" style skullcaps. Orthodox do not.

Cultural difference.

[Philip]

I would imagine if the Roman Church re-joins us, the patriarch would reclaim his seat as first among equals from constantinople.

Maybe. Maybe not. The position of honor is granted by Council canons. It is not absolute.

[Oblio]

This is forbidden by Lev. 26:1. 3D renderings of Christ are strictly forbidden. Thus, Orthodox do not wear crucifixes. We also have jewelry depictions of the Crucifixion, but the Corpus is two dimensional and flat.


I was under the impression that they are two dimensional because icons are to portray spiritual truths and not to focus on the physical. IOW, they are more theological rather than historical or physically accurate (though they do perform that function as well) e.g. large foreheads for wisdom, large eyes for spiritual sight etc.

This Orthodox Christian wears a 3-bar Russian Crucifix, though from what I understand it is 3-D because that allows the image to be clearly seen with its small size.

Lev 26:1 Is also incorrectly applied by Protestants agains Icons. The verse addresses idolatry. There is the danger that the realism of statues can lead to this, but they are not forbidden because of idolatry of objects which is what Lev 26:1 is addressing.

[Rilian]

Pretty sure. If anyone can prove it wrong I'll change it.

I would probably venture to guess there are multiple views on the status of the seat of Peter within Orthodoxy.

I think this article is an interesting one, The Pope Among Orthodox (http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol4No2/Pope%20Among%20Orthodox.htm), it talks about some of the recent history surrounding the Pope. I would guess, as the article seems to point out, that the issues surrounding relations between the churches don't have a lot to do with leavened vs. unleavened bread or about icons.

[Photini]

I am fairly certain that this is not the Orthodox belief. I think that Orthodoxy could hold an Ecumenical Council without Rome.


As do I. There are some who believe we have in fact had an Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Council.
From what I understand, the Church has been hesitant to declare them officially as Ecumenical Councils because it may widen the gulf and further damage our relationship with the Roman Catholic Church. Interestingly, the RCC has not been shy in declaring it's councils as Ecumenical. This may or may not be absolutely true though.

[Moros]

The whole point of writing that and posting it is that I am not sure. :)

It's a learning tool.

[Cradle]

Also note that the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy has Her seat in the San Giorgio dei Greci in Venice. I've always thought it's Venice and not Rome in order not to explicitly declare that the seat of Rome is empty and thus

widen the gulf and further damage our relationship with the Roman Catholic Church

couldn't think of a better way to phrase this :)

Unfortunately, Rome did not take the same approach (Latin bishop in Jerusalem and I think Constantinople, at least during certain historical periods) but that's a different thread :D .

[Moros]

It is important not to cast the Schism as Rome v. Constantinople. There are three other Patriarchs (Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem) who remained in union with Constantinople. Casting it as Rome v. Constaninople mistakenly forces a Roman ecclesiology onto the East.

Thank you. I have added this to my paragraph in the text file.

This is not quite the Orthodox belief. We do not believe that the Church can be in schism/split.

Please explain further. In light of this statement, what IS the Orthodox belief regarding the seperation of Rome from the Church?

Are you sure?

No. I just read it once. That's why I posted asking for clarification.

I am fairly certain that this is not the Orthodox belief. I think that Orthodoxy could hold an Ecumenical Council without Rome.

Why, in 950 years, hasn't it?

It is important to remember that this doctrine is a result of the flawed teaching of Original Sin.

Added and re-worded.

Not exactly.

Expand on this please.

Be careful here. Sexual deviancy is not a product of celibacy. Further, the "alarming frequency" is largely due to intensive media coverage.

Second point ceded. I never said sexual deviency was a result of celibacy. I think the problem here is that boys are an easy target and these rogue priests know then can persuade them into not talking about it. However, let's drop this as I want this thread to stay on topic and open.

Not exactly.

Expand, please.

This is a cultural difference.

Explain.

Again, cultural differences.

How is kneeling vs. standing a cultural difference? I have read, on this very site, that kneeling is reserved for certain holy days.

Are you certain that is the Catholic dogma? The Orthodox objection is more to the fact that the belief has been declared dogma.

Nope. That's what I want to know. A Catholic on another forum said RC believe that Mary was assumed at the end of Her earthly life. Do Orthodox believe the same? I'm fairly sure there is a difference in EO and RC on this issue...

Does this matter?

Does tradition matter?

Are you sure this isn't small 't' tradition?

Does this matter? :p

Cultural difference.

How are skullcaps vs. no skullcaps a cultural difference outside of Judaism?

-------

was under the impression that they are two dimensional because icons are to portray spiritual truths and not to focus on the physical.

That too. I will add this.

[Philip]

Please explain further. In light of this statement, what IS the Orthodox belief regarding the seperation of Rome from the Church?

The Church, the Body of Christ, can not be divided. The Church of Rome did not split the Church. She left it.

Why, in 950 years, hasn't it?

Two things:
1. Some people say She had. Photini is the local expert.
2. She does not call Councils for the fun of it or even at regular intervals. It is only when there is a great heresy within the Church that a Council is called.

Expand on this please.

Non-Latin Rite Catholic priests may be married. Ordained, married priests who convert to Catholicism may remained married (I think).


Expand, please.

With the Catholic Church, one cannot marry and divorce willy-nilly. Catholics who divorce and re-marry without observing the Church's canons are denied the Communion.


Explain.

The way a liturgy is conducted is decided by the bishop. There are Orthodox parishes within the US who use the Liturgy of St Tikhon. That is acceptable. Some Greek parishes in the US use English. Some use Greek. Some use a mix. Each is acceptable if it done with the bishop's blessing. If the Church of Rome wants to hold the Liturgy in Latin, that is her business. I think doing so is short-sighted, but I will not presume to tell the Bishop of Rome how to run his Church.

How is kneeling vs. standing a cultural difference? I have read, on this very site, that kneeling is reserved for certain holy days.

See above. As long as

Does tradition matter?

Holy Tradition certainly matters. Pious stories are not reason for denying someone the Eucharist. The matter of Triclavianism has never been addressed by a Council.


Does this matter? :p

Absolutely. See above.

How are skullcaps vs. no skullcaps a cultural difference outside of Judaism?


How a person dresses is a matter of culture. To the best of my knowledge, neither Scripture nor a Council has spoken on the matter of skullcaps.

[Moros]

The Church, the Body of Christ, can not be divided. The Church of Rome did not split the Church. She left it.

Added and revised my introduction.

Two things:
1. Some people say She had. Photini is the local expert.

I'd like some more information on this.

Non-Latin Rite Catholic priests may be married.

Added.

With the Catholic Church, one cannot marry and divorce willy-nilly. Catholics who divorce and re-marry without observing the Church's canons are denied the Communion.

Okay. Added.

How a person dresses is a matter of culture.

All of the Cardinals and Pope wear a skullcap. Therefore, it's a Catholic thing.

Thank you for your information, all. Keep it coming.

[Cradle]

All of the Cardinals and Pope wear a skullcap. Therefore, it's a Catholic thing.

Just one sentence to help you see the difference : on the blessed day that the roman church returns to Orthodoxy, nobody will demand that their bishops remove their skullcaps. However, they will be expected to denounce e.g. papal infallibility. The former is a specific of the western rite, which the roman church happens to practice and there is nothing doctrinally wrong with (AFAIK). The latter is another story :).

Same goes for 3-bared crosses IMHO by the way. The cross hanging from my neck is a plain one, I hope this does not make me a schismatic :D :D :D.

Thank you for your information, all. Keep it coming.

Thank you for creating the topic in the first place, I think it's useful for all of us.

[Moros]

Just one sentence to help you see the difference : on the blessed day that the roman church returns to Orthodoxy, nobody will demand that their bishops remove their skullcaps. However, they will be expected to denounce e.g. papal infallibility. The former is a specific of the western rite, which the roman church happens to practice and there is nothing doctrinally wrong with (AFAIK). The latter is another story :).

I am aware. I was just citing it as a difference. :)


Okay, here is the revised and edited article. Tear this one apart and tell me if anything is still wrong or if anything needs added.

I'd also like to settle the Assumption issue and add that, if anybody knows the story behind that.

As is common knowledge, the Church founded on Pentecost 33 AD was united and ONE until 1054 AD, when the Patriarchates of Constantinople (East Rome) and Rome (West) parted ways, (known today as "The Great Schism of 1054) by way of mutual excommunication over theological disputes. However, there are three other Patriarchates (Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem) who remained in union with Constantinople. However, the Church, the Body of Christ, can not be divided. The Church of Rome did not split the Church. She left it.

Now, Roman Catholics were part of the Original Church until the schism. This means that they followed the exact same practices as the Orthodox Church today, with a few differences. (Rome was first among equals, now the primacy of honor of first among equals goes to New Rome, or the Patriarchate of Constantinople.)

Church doctrine is defined by Ecumenical Councils, which means all the Bishops of the Church convene to discuss the Christian theology and set the foundations for the Church to build itself upon.

Orthodoxy follows the first 7 (pre-schism) Ecumenical Councils. Some say there have been an 8th and 9th, but the Church does not officially address them as such. After the schism, Rome began creating their own doctrines, further alienating Ecumenical relations between the two sects and further preventing any reunification.

Recently, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (First Among Equals) BARTHOLOMEW I has been sending heavy overtones of unification to Rome, angering the Orthodox community.

However, the Church can not be doctrinally re-united until the Catholic Church completely revokes all doctrine from 1054 to present day, or, until the Orthodox Church accepts 950 years of invalid council and doctrine. Neither are very likely to happen any time soon.

Here are the Catholic innovations which validify them as a separate sect of Christianity.

Papal Infallibility and Language - Before the schism, the Patriarch of Rome (NOT to be confused with the "Pope") held the primacy of honor as first among equals. This is because each Patriarchate has apostolic succession. The Patriarch of Rome is apostolic successor to St. Peter, Constantinople - Apostle Andrew, Alexandria - Apostle Mark, Antioch - Apostle Peter, Jerusalem - James, the Brother of the Lord, Moscow - Apostle Andrew, through Constantinople. Perhaps THE most divisive issue of the schism is the Papal Infallibility. Jesus said that St. Peter is the "rock on which I shall build my church" and gave him "the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Hence, primacy of first among equals. The Roman schismatics took this literally and believed this to be a direct command to center all of the church's power in the "Pope," as he was successor to St. Peter. Before that, there were many different Churches, but all were bound by the same Canons. They were all in communion. Each served Liturgy in their mother tongues. After this, the Churches that sided with Rome were only permitted to serve Liturgy in Latin.

Purgatory - The "purifying fire." Another Roman innovation. Orthodox Christians do not believe in repentance in the afterlife, but rather in a state of "repose" until judgment. Purgatory has been supported by a few Orthodox Church fathers in the form of "toll houses," most notoriously by Blessed Seraphim Rose of Platina.

"Toll houses" are generally condemned by Orthodoxy as a Gnostic belief. Purgatory is usually written off as a result of invalid council and minimal Biblical support.

Immaculate Conception - This is a result of the flawed teaching of Original Sin.*Catholics believe Mary to have been born protected by God from the soul stain of "Original Sin." Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin.

Filioque - Roman Catholic belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son. Orthodox do not believe this. We believe in subordination within the Godhead.

Clergy Marriage - Orthodox clergy are allowed to be married. Catholic are not. Non-Latin Rite Catholic priests may be married. Orthodox are also allowed to live and work outside of the Church with their family whereas Catholics must live in the sanctuary. Sexual molestation in the Catholic Church is a very serious issue, and while these things sadly also happen in the Orthodox Church, they do not happen with such alarming frequency as in the Catholic. What is even more alarming and shocking is that these priests are being protected at even the highest levels of Roman Catholic hierarchy. Both Orthodox and Catholics condemn fornication outside of marriage.

Divorce and Re-Marriage - Catholics have been allowing divorce since Vatican II. However, Catholics who divorce and re-marry without observing the Church's canons are denied the Communion. At an Orthodox wedding, you get a "crowning ceremony." This joins you and your spouse in spirit. You can get divorced and remarry, but you only get one crowning ceremony. Re-marriages, as I understand it, are just a formality to allow procreation.

Statues and Crucifixes - Orthodox use "Icons" for prayer, which are two-dimensional, painted and blessed "windows into heaven." They are also two dimensional because icons are to portray spiritual truths and not to focus on the physical. Catholics use 3D statuettes of Christ, the Theotokos, and the Saints. This is forbidden by Lev. 26:1.

3-D renderings of Christ are strictly forbidden. Thus, Orthodox do not wear crucifixes. We also have jewelry depictions of the Crucifixion, but the Corpus is generally two dimensional and flat.

Liturgy - As mentioned earlier, Latin-Rite Mass was in Latin only until V-II. Orthodoxy, from 33 AD to present day, has always served it's flock in their own language. However, the language and liturgy served in a Church can vary, depending on the choices and blessing*of the Bishop. The usual Sunday service is the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

Prayer Positions - The preferred method of Orthodox prayer is standing. We also bow from the hip, and prostrate. (Bow our foreheads to the floor.) This may look surprising at first, because the Muslims stole this method from the Church. Also like Muslims, Orthodox face the East to pray. Orthodox only kneel on occasion for certain Holy Days.

Saints - Orthodox and Catholics share the same pre-schism Saints and Doctors. Today our common Saints are few and far between.

Holy Days - Catholics have their own Feasts and Fasts which are not shared by Orthodox. We share the same pre-schism Holy Days.

Triclavianism - Orthodox believe 4 nails were used to affix the Lord to His Cross. One in each hand, one in each foot. Catholics believe 3 nails were used. One in each hand, and one through both feet, with no foot-board, or, failing that; a small block at the bottom. We believe in a 3 bar Cross. The first being the sign which was hung over His head (depicted in Catholic imagery as saying Jesus Christ, King of the Jews. Orthodox Iconography says "King of Glory"), the horizontal beam which His arms were attached to, and a tilted foot-board which His feet were nailed to.

Holy tradition says that at the moment of Christ's death, His legs went into spasm causing the board to be forced up on the right and down on the left, creating a diagonal direction of the foot board and, at the same time, showing the judgment of the two thieves, the one on the right inheriting Paradise and the one on the left condemning himself to hell. Hence, the tilted foot-board in Orthodox Iconography. Eastern-Rite Catholics also have a three-piece Cross, but the foot-board is horizontal. These horizontal foot board depictions appeared much later.

This would not be much of a big deal if Tradition did not play such a huge part in the Church.

Minor Differences -

Catholic Cardinals wear "yarmulke" style skullcaps. Orthodox do not.
Orthodox tend to glorify the Resurrection rather than the Crucifixion. Catholics tend to focus on the torture and execution of Christ.
Unleavened Bread - AKA Matzo. Orthodox do not use unleavened bread, Catholics do.

[Moros]

Sorted the minor differences to a "footnote."

[Oblio]

Bruncvik,

Thanks for doing this. We tend to see the question posed by your OP come up often and it will be good to have a concise FAQ response to present to those who ask the question.

[nikephoros_spatharios]

The seat of the Bishop of Rome is not empty, but in the Orthodox view it is occupied by a non-Orthodox (*) The Bishop of Rome can -in principle- return to the Church if he starts to teach and act rightly (orthôs). Heretics have (for some time) also occupied some of the eastern Apostolic seats as well (during the various theological controversies of the first millennium), but thankfully they were reclaimed by Orthodox bishops in a short period of time. Unfortunately, the apostasy of the Bishop of Rome has continued for almost 1,000 years now, and it seems unlikely that it will end any time soon.

(*) A schismatic, or according to many a heretic.

[Photini]

Philip: Some people say She had.

Bruncvik: I'd like some more information on this.

I've mentioned several times how I love Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos)'s books. Especially this one:

The Mind of the Orthodox Church (http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b12.en.the_mind_of_the_orthodox_church.09.htm)

He addresses the subject of Councils near the end when he is speaking about the Synodikon of Orthodoxy.





However, before proceeding to analyse the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy”, I think it well to examine briefly the large subject of the relationship of the Church with the Synod.

When some heresy springs up, the holy Fathers confront it at the place where it appears. Arios, who proclaimed that Christ is the first creature of God and essentially denied the divinity of Christ, was confronted by the Council of Alexandria. But then, when his heretical opinions began to be disseminated beyond the borders of Alexandria as well, the subject was confronted by the First Ecumenical Council. The holy Fathers were called together to make a common decision about the formulation of the orthodox teaching. In the Councils the holy Fathers did not seek to find the truth, making conjectures by reasoning and imagination, but in order to confront the heretics they attempted to formulate in words the already existing revealed Truth, of which they also had their own personal experience.

St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite divides the Councils into Ecumenical, Local and Rural. This division is not according to subjects, but according to the persons who brought them together, for it is possible that the subjects of the Local Councils can refer to serious dogmatic questions.

A Rural Council is a meeting which is convoked by the Bishop, Metropolitan or Patriarch alone with his own Clergy, without the presence of other Bishops.

A Local Council is a meeting in which the Metropolitan or Patriarch joins with his own Bishops or Metropolitans. This takes place when the Bishop of a district or the Bishops of two districts come together to confront various burning questions of the Church.

An Ecumenical Council is the assembly of many Bishops from all districts in order to discuss and decide about a question of the Church. The Ecumenical Council has four distinguishing marks according to St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite. The first is that it is convened “by order, not of the Pope nor of such and such a Patriarch, but by Royal orders”. The second is that there should be discussion of topics of faith “and afterwards a decision and a dogmatic definition should be published in each one of the Patriarchates”. The third is that the dogmas must be correct in their orthodoxy and in agreement with the divine Scriptures, or the previous Ecumenical councils”. The words of Maximos the Confessor are characteristic: “The right faith validates the meetings that have taken place, and again, the correctness of the dogmas judges the meetings”. And the fourth is that it must have universal recognition. All the orthodox Patriarchs and Archbishops of the catholic Church must “agree and accept the decisions and canonisings by the Ecumenical Councils, either through their personal presence or through their own delegates, and in their absence, through their letters”.

These characteristic marks mentioned by St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite are noteworthy. But I must clarify two of them, the first and fourth, which are those most characteristic of the Ecumenical Councils and distinguish them from the other, Local Councils.

One is that the Ecumenical council was convened by the emperors, when Christianity had become an official religion of the Empire, and the emperor wanted to make the definition of the Ecumenical Council a law of the Empire for the peace of the Citizens. Fr. George Florovsky observes: “In a certain sense the General Councils as inaugurated at Nicaea, may be described as “Imperial Councils”, die Reichskonzile, and this was probably the first and original meaning of the term ‘Ecumenical’, as applied to the Councils”.

The other was that the authenticity of the Ecumenical Councils as well as that of the other Councils was given chiefly by the deified and god-bearing Fathers. Fr. Georges Florovsky observes also at this point: “the ultimate authority –and the ability to discern the truth in faith– is vested in the Church which is indeed a ‘Divine institution’ in the proper and strict sense of the word, whereas no Council and no ‘Conciliar institution’ is ‘de jure divino’, except in so far as it happens to be a true image or manifestation of the Church herself”. Then he says: “The claims of the Councils were be accepted or rejected in the Church not on formal or ‘canonical’ grounds. And the verdict of the Church has been highly selective. The Council is not above the Church, this was the attitude of the ancient Church”.

In the foregoing chapters we explained in brief who are the true members of the Church, who are the living and who the dead members of the Church. So we can say that the mind of the Church is expressed by its deified saints. Therefore, finally, all the Ecumenical Councils rest upon the teaching of the saints of the past. The reader can find this view developed in an earlier study of mine. Here I want only to mention Georges Florovsky’s opinion that “both a few and solitary confessors of the faith were able to express this experience, and this is enough... the holy worthiness of the meeting does not depend on the number of members who represent their church. A great “general” synod would be able to be proven a synod of thieves (latrocinium) or even of apostates... But it is possible in a synod for the minority to express the truth. And most significant, the truth could be revealed even without a synod. The opinions of the Fathers and ecumenical Teachers of the Church often have greater spiritual value and explicitness than the definite decisions of synods. These opinions are not necessary to confirm and to be demonstrated by “ecumenical agreement”.

Likewise, I would also like to mention the opinion of Fr. John Romanides, that all the holy Fathers followed the same method and had personal experience of the truths of the Faith. Their meeting in an Ecumenical Council gave them the opportunity to agree on the same terminology for the same revealed experience. He writes characteristically: “Neither illumination nor glorification can be institutionalised. The sameness of this experience of illumination and glorification among those having the gifts of grace, who have these states, does not necessarily require sameness of dogmatic expression, especially when those gifted are geographically far apart over long periods of time. In any case when they meet, they easily agree about the same form of dogmatic formulation of their identical experiences. A great impetus towards identical dogmatic expression was given at the time when Christianity became an official religion of the Roman Empire and satisfied the Empire’s need to distinguish the genuine healers from the pseudo-physicians, in the same way in which the governing officials are responsible for distinguishing genuine members of the medical profession from the quacks and embezzlers of medical science, for the protection of their citizens”.

With these basic preconditions the Ecumenical Councils are unerring and express the consciousness and the life of the Church. And of course the terms of the Ecumenical Councils have value, because, on the one hand, they assure the possibility of salvation, and on the other hand they indicate the true way for man’s cure, for attaining deification. We can say that the terms of the Ecumenical Councils are not philosophical nor do they serve philosophy, but they are theological, that is to say therapeutic, and they aim at the cure of man. Therefore we owe great thanks to the Fathers who formed the Ecumenical Councils and acted as ecclesiastic personalities.

[Photini]

From the same book above mentioned, on the Ninth Ecumenical Council:



The Ninth Ecumenical Council in the time of St. Gregory Palamas was concerned with another doctrinal topic, which is a sequel to the topics that concerned the early Church. In the fourth century the holy Fathers confronted the heresy of Areios, who taught that the Word of God is a creature. St. Gregory Palamas in his time confronted the heresy of Barlaam, who said that God’s energy is created. Furthermore, as we said, the Council “justified” hesychasm, which is the only method that leads man to deification.

We must say that everything in the Ninth Ecumenical Council has all the elements and hallmarks which we cited above to qualify it as an Ecumenical Council.

First, it is convoked by emperors. In the synodical tome of 1341 A.D. it is said, among other things: “Then when the meeting had gathered, also in the presence of the eternal and blessed ruler... of the convocation and not a few of the most worthy archimandrites and abbots and assembled members of the government...”. All three Councils which were convoked in this period on the doctrinal topic which was concerning the Church at that time, were convoked by order and in the presence of the emperors.

Then, as we said before, the subject of the uncreated energy of God, as well as what was called hesychasm were serious theological questions. That is to say, they are not subjects that refer to a few canonistic questions, but serious dogmatic themes that refer to man’s salvation. For if God’s energy is created, then we end either in agnosticism or pantheism. We cannot attain communion with God. And if hesychasm, the way of the orthodox tradition by which we are cured and attain deification, is replaced by philosophy, this too destroys the true preconditions for man’s salvation. Therefore these subjects are most serious.

Many contemporary theologians believe that the Councils of St. Gregory Palamas’s time should be considered to constitute and compose the Ninth Ecumenical Council. And this is because they were called together by the emperors, were concerned with a doctrinal topic of great importance, and St. Gregory Palamas, who has attained deification and therefore had personal experience of deification, was battling in them. I would like to refer to the opinion of Father Athanasios Gievtits, who says: “But we think that the Council of Constantinople at the time of St. Gregory Palamas in 1351, judging at least from its great theological work, can be, and deserves to be counted among the Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church, lacking in nothing as to the soteriological significance of its theology. This Council constitutes the proof of the conciliarity of the Orthodox Church and of the living experience and theology concerning salvation in Christ”.

This is also the conscience of the Church. That is why in the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy” which existed already and was read in the Churches, about the victory and triumph of the Orthodox, they added also “the chapters against Barlaam and Akindynos”, from what is called the Ninth Ecumenical Council. Emperor Kantakuzinos, at the last Council which was concerned with this topic, that is to say in the Council of 1351 A.D., summarised the conclusions of the meetings and decisions, while St. Philotheos Kokkinos, then Metropolitan of Heraklia, assisted by George Galisiotis and the wise Maximos put together the synodical tome from the records. Finally, the hesychastic teaching entered into the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy” for the first time, on the Sunday of Orthodoxy in 1352 A.D. in order for the heretics to be anathematised and all who expressed the orthodox teaching to be acclaimed. After the death of St. Gregory Palamas acclaim for him was added.

[twosid]

I'd like to ask a favor as I will follow this thread. If you are going to cast doubt on something someone has said would you please refute it clearly and not just cast doubt. It doesn't help but only confuses those of us further who are trying to learn about both beliefs. Thanks. ;)

[MariaRegina]

Sexual molestation in the Catholic Church is a very serious issue, and while these things sadly also happen in the Orthodox Church, they do not happen with such alarming frequency as in the Catholic.

Maybe, maybe not.


Christ said that certain demons (lust especially) can only be cast out by prayer and fasting. With the reduction of fasting in the Latin Catholic Church, it is obvious that people who don't fast may be powerless to control the demons in their lives. Several Catholic periodicals recently stated that exorcists in Rome and elsewhere have a much heaver load of demonic possession now than previously. Has any hierarch in the Latin Catholic Church made the connection between the dramatic reduction in fasting and an increase in iniquity?

The important thing to remember is this: fasting has become optional in the Catholic Church over the last 130 years. Sadly, the Latin Catholics are only required to fast on TWO DAYS of the entire year:

Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

From what I read in an ancient book written shortly after Vatican I by Archbishop Gibbons, the Latin Catholic Bishops of Vatican I wanted to reduce the mandatory fasting days supposedly due to the increased hardships of modern times. In those days, Latin Catholics apparently still had the Orthodox fast and the Bishops were afraid that the Latin Catholics were converting to Protestantism to get away from the burden of the mandatory fast. So the Advent Fast, the Apostles Fast, and the Fast of the Theotokos were abolished and 4 ember days (Wednesday, Friday and Saturday) were established to sanctify the four seasons. Sometime later on, the fast on Wednesday (commemorating the betrayal of Judas) was abolished. This left only the Lenten Fast, the Friday fast and the new ember days. With Vatican II, the Lenten Fast was abolished along with the ember days as the Latins realized that the Saturday fast of the ember days was a source of irritation to the Byzantines. A Byzantine Priest told me that in the name of ecumenism, these ember days were abolished during Vatican II, because they were a modern invention and not an apostolic fast.

Hopefully, from what I have read in the CCC, Catholics will once again realize the need for a rule of prayer which includes regular times of prayer and fasting.

Hopefully, we Orthodox will not abandon fasting and abstinence but will be a good example to all of love and forgiveness. What good is fasting if we do it out of pride when the whole purpose of fasting is to repent.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us and save us.

[prodromos]

Why, in 950 years, hasn't it?

Here is an excerpt from a letter written by Archimadrite Justin Popovic to Bishop Jovan of Sabac in 1977.

On Summoning of the GREAT COUNCIL Of the Orthodox Church (http://www.decani.yunet.com/stjustin_council.html)

Historical reality is perfectly clear: the holy Councils of the Holy Fathers, summoned by God, always, always had before them one, or at the most two or three questions set before them by the extreme gravity of great heresies and schisms that distorted the Orthodox Faith, tore asunder the Church and seriously placed in danger the salvation of human souls, the salvation of the
Orthodox people of God, and of the entire creation of God. Therefore, the ecumenical councils always had a Christological, soteriological, ecclesiological character, which means that their sole and central topic - their Good News - was always the God-Man Jesus Christ and our salvation in Him, our deification in Him. Yes, He - the Son of God, only-begotten and consubstantial, incarnate; He - the eternal Head of the Body of the Church for the salvation and deification of man; He - wholly in the Church by the grace of the Holy Spirit, by true faith in Him, by the Orthodox Faith.

This is the truly Orthodox, apostolic and patristic theme, the immortal theme of the Church of the God-Man, for all times, past, present and future. This alone can be the subject of any future possible ecumenical council of the Orthodox Church, and not some scholastic-protestant catalogue of topics having no essential relation to the spiritual life and experience of apostolic
Orthodoxy down the ages, since it is nothing more than a series of anemic, humanistic theorems. The eternal catholicity of the Orthodox Church and of all her ecumenical councils consists in the all-embracing Person of the God-Man, the Lord Christ. This is the central and universal reality, the theme of Orthodox Councils, this is the unique mystery and reality of the God-Man,
upon which the Orthodox Church of Christ is built and sustained with all ecumenical councils and all her historical reality. Upon this foundation we are to build, even today, in the sight of heaven and earth, and not upon the scholastic-protestant and humanistic topics employed by the ecclesiastical delegates or delegations of Constantinople or Moscow, who at this bitter and
critical moment of history present themselves as the "leaders and representatives" of the Orthodox Church in the world.

I guess there hasn't been a serious enough issue.

John.

[Moros]

Okay, thanks all. I'll do a final touch up.

[Kripost]

If I am not wrong, the disagreement about the fillioque is not purely a theological issue. The other reason for the rejection of fillioque is that the Creed that was defined in an ecumenical council cannot be changed, at least not without another ecumenical council.

[Oblio]

If I am not wrong, the disagreement about the fillioque is not purely a theological issue. The other reason for the rejection of fillioque is that the Creed that was defined in an ecumenical council cannot be changed, at least not without another ecumenical council.


Very true. It was not only what was changed, but how it was changed. Both were wrong.

[Moros]

I will add that as well.

[Rilian]

There's also this page (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/orth_cath_diff.aspx) which you could use as a reference. Most of it seems pretty good, but there's also some silly comments at the bottom like his one about beards. I also really dislike the use of the word "Papist".

[Sergius_Lucius]

Hello, Bruncvik. My two copecks:

Purgatory has been supported by a few Orthodox Church fathers in the form of "toll houses," most notoriously by Blessed Seraphim Rose of Platina.

"Toll houses" are generally condemned by Orthodoxy as a Gnostic belief. Purgatory is usually written off as a result of invalid council and minimal Biblical support.

Toll houses is not a form of Purgatory. Ideas behind these two doctrines are totally different. And teaching of toll houses was not condemned, as I know.

Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin.

I think this is too strong expression. We don't believe in inherited guilt of Adam's sin.

We believe in subordination within the Godhead.

Subordination is a wrong term. It means, if I'm not mistaken, that the Son is subjected to the Father, which is heresy.

Sexual molestation in the Catholic Church is a very serious issue, and while these things sadly also happen in the Orthodox Church, they do not happen with such alarming frequency as in the Catholic. What is even more alarming and shocking is that these priests are being protected at even the highest levels of Roman Catholic hierarchy. Both Orthodox and Catholics condemn fornication outside of marriage.

That is their problem and I think we shouldn't discuss this.

Catholic Cardinals wear "yarmulke" style skullcaps. Orthodox do not.

Does difference in caps mean anything?

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/sykon/database/imagebase/270.jpg http://www.mospat.ru/img/mospat/sys/pa2.jpg http://www.pravoslavie.ru/sykon/database/imagebase/81.jpg http://www.pravoslavie.ru/sykon/database/imagebase/887.jpg

[Rilian]

I think this is too strong expression. We don't believe in inherited guilt of Adam's sin.

That is my understanding as well. Original Sin in Orthodoxy is seen in different terms, but it's still the Original Sin tied to the Fall.

Subordination is a wrong term. It means, if I'm not mistaken, that the Son is subjected to the Father, which is heresy.

My understanding as well. I seem to remember Fr. Florovsky saying the essential unity of the church is mirrored in the unity and consubstantiality of the Trinity.

[Matthias]

There's so many differences, it's not funny.

[Moros]

I posted 4.0 but it was locked by a scarcely appearing moderator as "trolling."

[Photini]

In regards to infallibility:

It is not only statements proclaimed in ex cathedra that are irreformable, but all statements concerning faith and morals made by the Pope, even when not speaking ex cathedra. He does not need consent by the conscience of the Church or agreement from any other bishop. There is such a sharp contrast between clergy and laity that does not exist in Orthodoxy.
Also the criterion for unity of the Church as known by the Catholics is the Pope, whereas, in Orthodoxy, our unity is in the Image of the Most Holy Trinity.

Dogmatic Constitution in the Church (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)


This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.


And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.

23. This collegial union is apparent also m the mutual relations of the individual bishops with particular churches and with the universal Church. The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.(

[twosid]

In regards to infallibility:

It is not only statements proclaimed in ex cathedra that are irreformable, but all statements concerning faith and morals made by the Pope, even when not speaking ex cathedra. He does not need consent by the conscience of the Church or agreement from any other bishop. There is such a sharp contrast between clergy and laity that does not exist in Orthodoxy.
Also the criterion for unity of the Church as known by the Catholics is the Pope, whereas, in Orthodoxy, our unity is in the Image of the Most Holy Trinity.

Dogmatic Constitution in the Church (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)
Does that mean that if the Pope said that the best thing to put on vanilla ice cream is 30wt motor oil that nobody could question it?

[Photini]

Does that mean that if the Pope said that the best thing to put on vanilla ice cream is 30wt motor oil that nobody could question it?
If he thought it was pertinent to faith or morals, then yes.

[Sergius_Lucius]

Does that mean that if the Pope said that the best thing to put on vanilla ice cream is 30wt motor oil that nobody could question it?

It doesn't look like a question of faith or morals. :)

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra

But don't Catholics acknowledge that at least one Pope taught heresy, although not ex cathedra: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm?

It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned

[twosid]

If he thought it was pertinent to faith or morals, then yes.
:P Your being legalistic :P If the Pope says Quaker State instead of Hershey's then I'm making the move. Besides.....it will be less fattening.

[Photini]

:P Your being legalistic :P .
It's hard for this Western mind not to be. :P

[Oblio]

It's hard for this Western mind not to be.


[yoda voice]

Face East, yes this you must ...

[/voice]

[Photini]

(Rome was first among equals, now the primacy of honor of first among equals first goes to New Rome, or the Patriarchate of Constantinople.)

.
I was looking for something else, and happened upon this Canon from the Council of Trullo: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-133.htm#TopOfPage



Canon XXXVI.
Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.


I just thought this was significant. In regards to the phrase "shall be second after it.." ...that phrase is understood as meaning second in time and not second in honour or priviledge. I would appreciate help in finding support for that point.

[KennySe]

Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.

I just thought this was significant. In regards to the phrase "shall be second after it.." ...that phrase is understood as meaning second in time and not second in honour or priviledge. I would appreciate help in finding support for that point.


Like this?
1st in Time: Old Rome
2nd in Time: Constantinople
3rd in Time: Alexandria
4th in Time: Antioch
5th in Time: Jerusalem

[Michael the Iconographer]

Like this?
1st in Time: Old Rome
2nd in Time: Constantinople
3rd in Time: Alexandria
4th in Time: Antioch
5th in Time: Jerusalem

Yes, but since then Moscow has come into being, and Moscow would have themselves be #1, even over Constantinople and Rome. So Moscow comes in at #3 on that list. Mind you, this is not a list of who has more say over who, but who gets what seat at an Ecumenical Council. Each Patriarch is supreme in his own diocese alone because no Bishop has jurisdiction over any other Bishop except when called together in a council (local or ecumenical) to deal with matters of faith and morals.