Usually, the main reason for the division of the Churches is considered to be dogmatic, ritual and spiritual differences. But historically we see the following. The final break between the Churches occurred in 1054. The first appearance of the Catholic addition to the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit dates back to the sixth century; At the same time, the ritual difference in church life was discussed. Consequently, for five hundred years, the two parts of the one Church have existed, despite such differences. From this we can conclude that it was not dogmatic differences that were the cause of the division; they began to rely on them when this division had to be justified. The real, and very deep, reason for the schism of the Church is rooted in the difference in mentality (which has led to different understandings of dogmas), culture, social skills, political circumstances, and much more between the eastern and western parts of Christendom. For the first ten centuries, the Church covered this difference with the action of the Holy Spirit. But with the weakening of the life of the Spirit in Christians, these natural things began to get out of spiritual control, and over time, gaining strength, they led to the rupture of the one body of Christ's Church. And now the same reasons, only further strengthened in the course of centuries, impede the unification of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Under no circumstances should it be said that dogmatics is a thing of little importance ("petty digging"); Without agreement in dogmas, it is impossible to achieve unity. But this agreement itself is unlikely because of the above-mentioned difference in mentality. I think that unification will be possible only at the end of time, when, under the influence of apocalyptic events, the life of mankind will cease to flow in the usual historical stream, when, in the face of the end of the world, the socio-cultural barrier separating us will be abolished. Until then, cultural differences will remain and have their significance for both Orthodox and Catholics. But of course you are right that in the face of today's weakening of Christianity, the de-Christianization of the world, our division is becoming more and more counterproductive.

32. Is the difference between the main world religions (in particular, Islam, Judaism, Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, especially the latter) insurmountable? Is unification possible?

Christianity will never be able to unite with Judaism and Islam – these religions do not confess Jesus Christ as God. As for the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, I set forth some considerations about their unification in the answer to the previous question.

33. Tell me, what is the main difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism and Protestantism?

Orthodoxy and Catholicism differ from each other, firstly, dogmatically. In Catholicism, there are "more" dogmas. There are two main dogmatic differences: the first is the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Orthodoxy confesses the teaching received from the Gospel and the Early Church that the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father; Catholicism, on the other hand, since the second half of the first millennium, believes that it is not only from the Father, but also from the Son. The second divergence is the teaching on the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome and his primacy in the Church. Such a teaching was also alien to early Christian times. It was officially accepted by the Roman Church only in the 19th century, along with two more dogmas unknown to Orthodoxy – about the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God and about Her bodily assumption into heaven. Second, there are important differences in ways of thinking that affect religious practice. Thus, Catholicism views original sin in terms of "guilt," and the overcoming of sin by each of us in terms of "merits" that propitiate God, who is infinitely angry with fallen man. Orthodoxy understands original sin differently – as a hereditary disease, and the relationship with God – as with the Physician who selflessly heals us. Thirdly, the teaching on the spiritual life, in particular, on prayer, differs: in Orthodoxy it is based on repentant sobriety and humility, in Catholicism prayer is more exalted. It must be said that Orthodoxy is not always free from Catholic influence; although we try to defend the dogmatic purity of our Church, in practical life we have Catholic painting instead of iconography, and a certain tendency of the juridical approach in theology and spiritual practice, and so on.

In the sixteenth century, Protestantism arose in the depths of the Roman Church. His initial impulse was to free church life from the abuses and incorrectness of Latinism and to return to the teaching and life of the Early Church. But rejecting the real errors of Catholicism, Protestantism "threw out the child along with the water," namely, it rejected the Holy Tradition of the Church. The main principle of Protestantism is "Scripture alone." However, in the Church, Scripture is contained in the channel of Holy Tradition, that is, the practical spiritual experience of life with God. The main thing that constitutes the essence of Tradition is the Sacraments; it was they that Protestantism eventually rejected (in early Protestant times, in the Lutheran Church, the teaching on the Sacraments was still preserved, although it was subject to modernization). The practical consequence of this was the fragmentation of Protestantism into a huge number of movements and even sects: having the same Holy Scriptures, Protestant denominations do not have a single core that allows them to be properly maintained, which leads to great differences in teaching and practice not only with traditional churches, but even within Protestantism itself.

34. An acquaintance of mine says that the Orthodox consider the Catholic Church to be apostates unjustifiably, since it is said by Christ: "You are Peter, and in you I will build my Church..." and so on. And Peter was the bishop of Rome, and now Rome is the throne of St. Peter, and hence of the Universal Church. "Is Moscow the third Rome?" says my friend.  From this he concludes that the Russian Orthodox Church is schismatic and, moreover, uncanonical. What should he say to this?

First, the words of the Gospel quoted must a) be read as they appear in the text, and b) the entire Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, as well as the Tradition of the Church, should be considered in their entirety, but not taken out of context. The Lord did not tell Peter that He would build His Church on him. Peter confessed Jesus to be God, and on the rock of that confession, not on a man named Simon, Christ promised to build up the Church. Elsewhere in the New Testament we see that the Lord gave exactly the same authority as Peter and the other Apostles. Peter was one of the first and most respected leaders of the Church, but he was never the head of the Apostles. From the Holy Scriptures. In the Scriptures, we see that Peter founded the Church of Antioch (and there is not a word in the New Testament about the founding of the Church of Rome, by the way); however, it has never claimed to be of exceptional importance in the Universal Church, for the reason that it is, like Rome, "the throne of St. Peter." Finally, the teaching about the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of the Apostle Peter was absent in the Ancient Church.

Secondly, it is not clear what "Moscow – the Third Rome" has to do with it. This ideologeme is nothing more than a historiosophical myth; From agreement or disagreement with this myth it is impossible to draw the conclusions of the Church

It is best to answer your acquaintance so that he takes the trouble to familiarize himself with the Holy Scriptures, the Tradition of the Church and church history; Then he will be able to judge the topic much more competently.

35. Reading Orthodox literature, I come across the fact that in Orthodoxy the Apostle Paul is more revered. But he became an apostle much later than all the others. And in Catholicism, on the contrary, greater preference is given to the Apostle Peter. Why? Isn't the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism in the choice of the presiding apostles in fact only politics?

I don't know what kind of literature you have read. If we take the teaching of our Church, then St. Peter and Paul are revered equally, with the highest honor, as chief apostles, neither of them is given special preference; even the feast day was established by him on the same day. As for Orthodox practice, alas, the apostles enjoy the lowest possible veneration among the Orthodox. Most of all we revere St. Seraphim of Sarov, Blessed Matrona and Tsar Nicholas II, of the ancient saints – St. Nicholas... but by no means the Apostles. The prayer to the Apostles, the mention of their names at prayer services and in Orthodox conversations testify to the fact that there is much less interest in them than in the above-mentioned saints. We will not enter here into an examination of the causes of this phenomenon... As for the Catholic Church, their special attitude towards the Apostle Peter, which follows from the doctrine of this Church, is quite natural. The political factor undoubtedly played a significant role in the division of the Churches; however, he has nothing to do with the "choice of the apostles" for their greater or lesser veneration (at least in the Orthodox Church).

36. Why is it customary to sit in Catholic cathedrals, and to stand in Orthodox churches? After all, when you stand for several hours and, as a rule, do not have the opportunity to sit down, your thoughts are far from selflessly offering prayers to God.

Catholics do not always sit; they listen to the Mass (our Liturgy) standing or on their knees. In Orthodox worship there are parts where the Ustav directly prescribes to sit; This is about half of the service. In Greek Orthodox churches, the so-called "stasidia" are always made along the walls - high wooden chairs in which the seats can be raised and lowered. It is customary to stand for the entire service only in Russian Orthodoxy; This is due to two reasons. Firstly, our ancestors treated divine services as an ascetic feat, as a sacrifice to God, so Russian churches were built without stationary seats; However, benches were always placed along the walls so that the sick and infirm could rest. Secondly, in Soviet times, there were very few churches; There are not many of them even now. On great holidays they do not accommodate even half of those who want to attend the service; If you make seats or even stasidia in churches, it will take up a lot of space, and even fewer people will get to the service. If you are present in church not on a holiday, then there is always an opportunity to sit down on the benches still available in most churches. Experienced parishioners carry small folding chairs with them for long (especially Lenten) services, so that they can sit quietly and pray at the time prescribed by the Ustav, thinking, in the words of St. Philaret of Moscow, "not about their feet, but about God."