Shadowing Practice: Roman Catholic vs Eastern Orthodox: 60 Differences - Learn English Speaking with Video

Let's begin looking into 60 differences between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

If you didn't know, there are also Eastern Catholics, which are about 1.5% of Catholics worldwide, and there are also Western Rite Orthodox,

which make less than 1% of Orthodoxy.

Though I will mention these some of the time, the comparison here is between Roman Catholics, that is, those who use the Church's Roman Rite,

over a billion people, and Eastern Orthodox, not the Western Rite.

More than ever, people in these traditions are looking at each other to understand their differences, and people from the outside are investigating them as they consider conversion or just better knowledge of their positions.

This video should help you, at the least, understand what's up for debate.

So let's get started.

Certainly, one of the more well-known differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is that of the Filioque.

The word Filioque is a Latin word that means, and the sun, and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, more commonly known as the Nicene Creed, did not contain this word originally.

The original line from the Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but with the filioque clause added, it says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Orthodox churches reject the addition while Catholics accept it.

There are multiple points of disagreement here.

For one, Orthodox will often challenge the right

that Catholics had to unilaterally change the Creed without an ecumenical council or at least some common agreement.

Then there is the question of whether the change is accurate, That is the doctrinal question of the procession of the Spirit.

Some Orthodox Christians say that the Filioque makes the Catholic view of the Trinity incorrect.

Although Eastern Catholics will omit the Filioque from the Creed, they doctrinally affirm it.

For a lesser known difference, we have what is called the essence-energies distinction in Eastern Orthodoxy.

God's essence is who he is, his usia in Greek, something beyond us, incomprehensible.

God's energies are his working in this world, his activity, his operation, what we can see him doing.

Essence and energies are uncreated and common to the three persons of the Trinity.

That this distinction is not commonly made or even denied by many in the Catholic Church is in itself a difference, but some in Orthodoxy believe the issue is more than this.

The doctrine of divine simplicity, taught for example by Catholic theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas, teaches that God is not made of any parts parts.

Though Orthodox Christians would agree with this basic definition, Orthodox would often say that the Catholic view goes further into absolute divine simplicity,

which is in their view incompatible with the essence-energies distinction.

That being said, some Catholics have said that the essence-energies distinction is an acceptable view, but there is still dispute over this issue, and a difference remains, at the very least,

in the way that the Orthodox focus on this aspect of God, and the Catholics generally do not.

Catholics speak of original sin, and Orthodox speak of ancestral sin.

How do these differ?

The Orthodox view is that everyone bears the consequences of the first sin of Adam and Eve, but only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin.

What the Orthodox Church in America's website says is the Catholic original sin position is

that everyone bears the guilt of the first sin.

However, most Catholics deny this.

Some translations of the Council of Trent have their first decree on original sin saying

that the guilt of original sin is remitted in baptism, but there are claims that this is not a correct translation

or that the meaning of the word guilt in English has changed over time.

At the same time, some Catholic parishes continue to teach the idea of individuals having the guilt of original sin.

Father John Daly of St. Joseph's Catholic Church, Leicester, says that he was taught as a Catholic that we are born guilty of original sin,

but that a new understanding was suggested in the 1960s

that guilt only begins with our first Eastern Catholic deacon Anthony Dragani says

that the Catholic Church has adopted a much more Eastern understanding in recent years.

Meanwhile, other Catholics say that the Catholic view is compatible with the Orthodox view

and that it's not a new understanding at all.

All of this is to say that if you debate this issue in real life, you're going to very likely run up against claims of misrepresentation

of the other side unless you carefully find out what your interlocutor believes.

Otherwise, the discussion may go nowhere.

That some people claim there is a difference here and others say, no, we believe the same thing,

is itself an indication of different thinking about what the other side believes on this issue.

Another difference between Catholics and Orthodox on sin is the categorization into mortal and venial sin.

For Catholics, to commit a mortal sin results in the death of hell unless taken care of through confession, but venial sin does not do this.

The Orthodox Church in America's website says, In the Orthodox Church, there are no categories of sin as found in the Christian West.

The same article says that having a list of deadly sins could become an obstacle to genuine repentance.

This difference leads us into another one.

In the Catholic view, dying with a mortal sin makes it impossible to go to heaven, but if you die with venial sins, you'll have them purified in purgatory.

Catholics have taught that certain sins can be forgiven after death.

More recently, the Catholic Church has clarified that purgatory is not a location, but a condition.

The Catholic Answers website says that the nature of the cleansing has traditionally been assumed to mean a literal fire, but that's not part of the dogmatic definition.

Catholic theologian Robert Stackpole reiterates this, but also notes that many preachers in some catechisms have looked that way.

The Catholic position also teaches that people on earth can assist those in purgatory through masses, prayers, indulgences, and so forth.

In contrast, one Russian Orthodox parish says that purgatory is one of the classic differences between the two churches.

As an example, they say that Catholics view the fire as literal, while Orthodox don't accept the idea of fiery torments.

It's important to remember that many Catholics today also reject the idea of literal physical fire.

Another Orthodox website says,

tells all about it in the article, The Way of All Flesh, What Happens to the Soul After Death, saying that the first three days after earthly death,

a person's soul is on the earth to walk where it wishes, transported at the speed of thought.

On the third day, the soul goes to heaven to worship God, where it does so until the ninth day after death, at which point it goes through the aerial toll houses until the 40th day.

These toll houses are obstacles put in the way of rising souls after death in the space under heaven, and demons wait there.

People may pass through and ascend to heaven or possibly be cast down.

Only martyrs and great saints go to heaven without passing through the toll houses, such as the Virgin Mary.

The demons try to detain people as they pass through, and for those guilty of sins, they are dragged away by the demons to their side.

For those who are holy, the angels protect them.

People will be confronted with their own actions in their life at the toll houses.

For example, at the first toll house, they are presented with their own idle talk, blasphemous words, idle laughter, and so forth.

Whether the soul is finally seized by the demons

or taken to heaven depends on the state of the soul at death and the intercession, that is, prayers of the living.

In one view, there are 20 tollhouses in total.

After the tollhouses, the soul is judged and sent to the place it will abide until Christ's second coming.

Tollhouses are somewhat controversial today, especially in whether teaching on them should be taken literally, allegorically, or discarded altogether.

In some parishes, the view is condemned.

In others, they may never be discussed, and some are unaware of this teaching.

However, it is still quite common for Orthodox churches to have special prayers for the dead on the third, ninth, and fortieth days after their death.

So where is the place that a soul abides until the second coming?

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America does affirm an intermediate state.

They say, A partial judgment is instituted immediately after our physical death, which places us in an intermediate condition of partial blessedness,

for the righteous, or partial suffering, for the unrighteous.

Disavowing a belief in the Western purgatory, our church believes that a change is possible during this intermediate state and stage.

The church militant and triumphant is still one, which means that we can still influence one another with our prayers in our saintly or ungodly life.

This is the reason why we pray for our dead.

Also, almsgiving on behalf of the dead may be of some help to them, without implying, of course, that those who provide the alms are in some fashion buying anybody's salvation.

One Orthodox parish says that we have an inability to know much about life after death, and so the Church refrains from both speculation and definite declaration.

However, what is affirmed includes prayers for the dead, certainty of eternal life, and the communion of saints.

Catholics may make the claim that the Catholic and Orthodox position on purgatory is essentially the same.

Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin says that although Orthodox don't use the word purgatory,

they still acknowledge purification after death and use the teaching about toll houses as a claim to similarity.

Another reason that some Orthodox Christians have rejected the Catholic view of purgatory

is because they believe the Catholic view incorporates into purgatory the idea of indulgences and satisfactionism.

The next two differences we'll investigate.

Indulgences are linked to purgatory because an indulgence is the remission of temporal punishment, which is what purgatory is.

100

According to Catholic theology, a person can obtain a plenary indulgence, one that cleanses from all temporal punishment due to sin once per day, and must have met several requirements.

101

They must do certain things like make certain pilgrimages, visit people in need, fast for a whole day, or other such things, and as a result,

102

the indulgence is applied to oneself or to someone deceased.

103

Partial indulgences also exist which only remove part of the temporary punishment due to sin.

104

Indulgences cannot be bought with money, nor can one obtain one for a sin they have not committed.

105

Similar practices have for limited times existed in Orthodoxy.

106

The sale of absolution certificates, for example, was a practice of some Orthodox churches in the past.

107

Today, Orthodox churches say that there is no such practice, making this another difference between the two.

108

Like indulgences, the difference of satisfactionism and atonement theory can stand alone, but it is also a reason why some in Orthodoxy reject the Catholic view of purgatory.

109

Orthodox Metropolitan Callistos Ware said, According to the normal Roman teaching, souls in purgatory undergo expiratory suffering,

110

and so render satisfaction or atonement for their sins.

111

When asked, what is the Church's teaching on atonement, the Q&A response from Catholic Answers is to quote Ludwig Ott in saying,

112

By atonement in general is understood the satisfaction of a demand.

113

In the narrower sense, it is taken to mean the reparation of an insult.

114

This occurs through a voluntary performance which outweighs the injustice done.

115

The idea that either a soul in purgatory or even

116

that Jesus Christ must provide satisfaction for sin is something that many Orthodox disagree with.

117

Clark Carlton in his book The Life, The Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation said that many metaphors are used to describe salvation in the scripture,

118

but Anselm sought to reduce this down to one idea, the satisfaction theory.

119

Anselm argued that by sinning, man committed an offense against God, and the offense against God demanded satisfaction.

120

According to Carlton, about everyone accepted Anselm's argument, including Catholics and Protestants both, who didn't question whether God's justice, honor, and wrath needed to be satisfied,

121

but about whether man could add anything to the satisfaction.

122

Carlton says that the doctrine of satisfactionism has at least three problems.

123

It is predicated on the assumption that God has human characteristics, it makes sin to be God's problem rather than man's,

124

and it turns salvation into something wholly external to man, leaving him essentially unchanged.

125

Carlton's argument in the book leads to this concluding statement.

126

Orthodox Christianity, therefore, must reject the satisfaction theory of the atonement

127

because it violates the most fundamental principles of Christian theology and because it leaves man fundamentally unchanged.

128

For the orthodox, to be saved is to be restored to true spiritual health.

129

It is not God's attitude towards man that needs to be changed, but rather man's state.

130

Many in orthodoxy would come alongside Carlton in rejection of the satisfaction theory of the atonement.

131

Deacon Kevin Kalish from the Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia writes, For the Orthodox, dogma clearly does not develop.

132

For Roman Catholics, the answer is certainly different.

133

He goes on to say that forms of expression change over time, and the branch of learning that deals with dogma does develop.

134

So what is doctrinal development?

135

Father Thomas Winandy writes on the Catholic Answers website that church teachings have changed over time, but have never contradicted past doctrines.

136

And the Catholic Answers tract, Can Dogma Develop, says, it's important to understand that the church does not, indeed cannot, change the doctrines God has given it,

137

nor can it invent new ones and add them to the deposit of faith

138

that has been once for all delivered to the saints.

139

New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up.

140

For the Orthodox, many of the things that make Catholics and Orthodox different are viewed as unacceptable doctrinal developments that need reversed.

141

An article on the website of St. Barnabas Orthodox Church and Antiochian Orthodox Church in California says, ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empire,

142

both the Orthodox Church and Rome have worked towards emotional healing and fruitful dialogue.

143

But there are centuries worth of doctrinal development in the West, not to mention pastoral and practical concerns, varied commemorations of saints, political confrontations in Ukraine and Eastern Europe,

144

etc., yet to be overcome.

145

Father Christopher Clitu of the Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus says on the subject

146

that the Orthodox Church has been unchanged since the time of Christ, And also, the Roman Catholic Church thus believes that the Holy Spirit through the popes develops,

147

changes, adds, and subtracts various aspects of scriptural interpretation, early Christian analyses, and apostolic tradition.

148

They believe that each new system of doctrines and replacements of previous beliefs, such as Vatican I, Vatican II,

149

etc., are superior in intellect and spiritual enlightenment to the previously accepted church traditions and papal decisions.

150

What Father Clitu says would probably not be accepted by Catholics as a proper description of their position.

151

The Catholic view does not deny development, but often proposes that the developments are not as radical as they are claimed to be, and that Orthodoxy has developed itself in similar ways.

152

At this point, you've probably noticed two things.

153

First, we haven't made it to 60 differences.

154

That's because for that, you'll have to watch part two.

155

Secondly, I made a video on the differences between Catholics and Orthodox, and didn't talk about the Pope until the last quote.

156

So there's definitely more on that subject in the coming videos on this topic.

157

A few clarifications at the end here.

158

As I discussed in the video, what do Catholics and Orthodox think of each other?

159

Catholics generally claim that Orthodox are very similar to Catholics, while many Orthodox claim to be very different from Catholics.

160

That will, of course, shine through in the topics mentioned in this video and in the ones to come.

161

In fact, you could consider this itself to be another difference.

162

Catholics and Orthodox have a difference in how serious or how large they think the differences are between themselves.

163

Finally, as is always mentioned when this topic comes up, Eastern Catholics may look more like the Orthodox on some of these issues.

164

However, keeping things in balance, literally 98% of Catholics are not Eastern Catholics, and those experience these differences more fully.

165

If you are in America and have an Orthodox and a Catholic Church in your town, the odds are strong that the Catholic Church is not an Eastern Rite Church,

166

and the Orthodox Church is not Western Rite.

167

This most common situation is really what I'm aiming to compare here.

168

Don't forget to watch part 2 and subscribe to Ready to Harvest for more videos on Christian denominations.

✨ Recommend Video

50 sentences

(Almost) Everything About Catholicism in 10 Minutes

University StudentsWorking Adults

327 sentences

Language Review: Romanian

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

287 sentences

Brad Pitt & Damson Idris Argue Over The Internet’s Biggest Debates | Agree To Disagree | LADbible

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

27 sentences

About This Lesson

Ready to boost your English speaking skills while learning about fascinating cultural differences? In this lesson, you’ll practice shadowing a video that explores key distinctions between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. You’ll follow along with clear, conversational explanations, improving your pronunciation, rhythm, and comprehension. Plus, you’ll pick up new vocabulary related to religion and debate—perfect for real-world conversations! Whether you’re using a shadowing app or just repeating aloud, this lesson will help you sound more natural in English.

Key Vocabulary & Phrases

Filioque: A Latin term meaning "and the Son," central to a theological debate about the Holy Spirit.
Ecumenical council: A global meeting of religious leaders to decide doctrine.
Essence-energies distinction: An Orthodox concept separating God’s unknowable nature from his visible actions.
Ancestral sin: The Orthodox belief that humans inherit consequences, not guilt, from Adam and Eve’s first sin.
Mortal sin: A serious sin thought to separate a person from God (Catholic teaching).

Practice Tips

The video’s tone is friendly and informative, with a moderate speed—great for shadowing! Here’s how to practice: First, listen to a 10-second clip and repeat it immediately, copying the speaker’s intonation and pauses. Focus on words like "Filioque" or "ecumenical council"—break them into syllables if needed. Use a shadowing app to record yourself and compare it to the original. If the speed feels tricky, slow the video down at first, then gradually match the natural pace. Remember, shadowspeaks practice is about progress, not perfection! Keep going, and you’ll notice your English fluency improve in no time. Happy shadowing!

Grammar in this video

The structures the speaker uses most, with the exact words from the video:

Structure	In the video
Present perfect have/has + past participle — a past action that still matters now	have said · has changed · has adopted
Passive voice be + past participle — the focus is on what happens, not who does it	is called · are uncreated · is not made
Relative clauses who / which + clause — extra information about a person or thing	Catholics, which are · those who use · those who are

What is the Shadowing Technique?

Shadowing is a science-backed language learning technique originally developed for professional interpreter training and popularized by polyglot Dr. Alexander Arguelles. The method is simple but powerful: you listen to native English audio and immediately repeat it out loud — like a shadow following the speaker with just a 1–2 second delay. Unlike passive listening or grammar drills, shadowing forces your brain and mouth muscles to simultaneously process and reproduce real speech patterns. Research shows it significantly improves pronunciation accuracy, intonation, rhythm, connected speech, listening comprehension, and speaking fluency — making it one of the most effective methods for IELTS Speaking preparation and real-world English communication.

Shadowing technique: read the full step-by-step guide →

Shadowing Practice: Roman Catholic vs Eastern Orthodox: 60 Differences - Learn English Speaking with Video

(Almost) Everything About Catholicism in 10 Minutes

Language Review: Romanian

Brad Pitt & Damson Idris Argue Over The Internet’s Biggest Debates | Agree To Disagree | LADbible

Morals vs Ethics (Explained in 3 Minutes)

Lesson Eight: Placement of the Orchestra, Leonard Slatkin's Conducting School

Behold His Glorious Light | Divine Guidance - Thursday, August 6, 2026

She tried to Disprove the CRUCIFIXION of Jesus - She Fails Miserably

The Challenges of Cultural Diversity

Spotting the shared values #shorts

Russell Crowe Faces the Vatican’s Dark Side | THE POPE'S EXORCIST

“No Other Gods” - What’s the 1st Commandment Really Asking Us To Do?

Catholic Priest Heart-Melting Moment Goes Viral

About This Lesson

Key Vocabulary & Phrases

Practice Tips

Grammar in this video

What is the Shadowing Technique?