Difference between Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox -- answers or links please

Status
Not open for further replies.
The_Reginator

The_Reginator

Active member
Can someone give a simple explanation of the difference between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Eastern Orthodox?
I’m guessing that this has been covered before, so links to other threads or to external sites, as long as the info isn’t too involved, would be helpful. (I’m just curious.)

To start, here’s what I thought the difference was:
Eastern Catholics still follow the Pope and accept the Churches infallibility. The difference, as far as I know, lies in their history and their rites.
Eastern Orthodox Christians, on the other hand, have rejected the supremacy of the Pope since the Schism but have never lost Apostolic Succession.

When you have a chance you can clear my foggy brain.
  • Thanks, Reg.
 
I’d like one of these as well. I can never get a simple explanation out of someone. It always ends up dragging out to long paragraphs or even books.
 
Short answer, this guy…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
That is WAY too short of an answer, considering it is more than just the Pope.
 
Hi Reg,
The_Reginator said:
… Eastern Orthodox Christians, on the other hand, have rejected the supremacy of the Pope since the Schism but have never lost Apostolic Succession …
.
Click to expand...
If I may make a slight correction … Orthodox Christians do not have a theory of supremacy of the Pope because there never was supremacy of the Pope of Rome. It was not something that has been rejected ‘since the schism’. The term ‘since’ is not quite correct here.

I realize some Papal supporters will call him the Supreme Pontiff, and his authority has been called ‘supreme power’ in some documents, and this phrase appears in the catechism of your church: "“the Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” but this has never been the case for the Eastern church of Orthodox Christians. Not before the schism of Humbertus any more than afterward.

🙂
 
Farmer88 said:
Like the rejection of certain theological concepts like Original Sin and Purgatory, among others?
Click to expand...
The Orthodox do not deny the theological understandings of original sin, just the Roman explanations of it. The various Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches (aka Greek Catholic Churches) share the orthodox understanding, but don’t reject out of hand the Roman explanation.

Purgatory is complimentary to Theosis; different terminology and explanations for the same process of post-corporeal purification in preparation for the beatific vision. The Orthodox essentially hold to Purgatory, rejecting the Roman term and it’s associated legalism, but still believing in theosis, which actually meets the dogmatic definition for Purgatory.
 
Yes, the Eastern Orthodox are in schism and have been since 1054. They reject the past 14 ecumenical councils.

Eastern Catholics are in full Communion with the Holy Church, while retaining Eastern Rite practices,
 
Aramis said:
The Orthodox do not deny the theological understandings of original sin, just the Roman explanations of it. The various Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches (aka Greek Catholic Churches) share the orthodox understanding, but don’t reject out of hand the Roman explanation.

Purgatory is complimentary to Theosis; different terminology and explanations for the same process of post-corporeal purification in preparation for the beatific vision. The Orthodox essentially hold to Purgatory, rejecting the Roman term and it’s associated legalism, but still believing in theosis, which actually meets the dogmatic definition for Purgatory.
Click to expand...
That was kind of my point. Once again, I didn’t state it correctly. Should have probably said “deny the Roman explanation of…”
 
The Orthodox also reject the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception because it is premised on a certain understanding of original sin that they reject. However they do believe in the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary.
 
MartyrForJesus said:
The Orthodox also reject the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception because it is premised on a certain understanding of original sin that they reject. However they do believe in the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary.
Click to expand...
That as well.

Also, as to my earlier post, I shouldn’t have to explain “they reject the Roman definition of Purgatory or Original Sin.” Those are very “Catholic” terms as to which I hold the Catholic definitions of. If I say, for example, “Purgatory”, I mean the Catholic idea of Purgatory. Not the “Orthodox idea of Purgatory” which I can only assume will get raised eyebrows from any Orthodox that I said that to.
 
MartyrForJesus said:
Yes, the Eastern Orthodox are in schism and have been since 1054. They reject the past 14 ecumenical councils.

Eastern Catholics are in full Communion with the Holy Church, while retaining Eastern Rite practices,
Click to expand...
If I am not mistaken, some Eastern Catholics don’t really feel that the post 1054 councils should be called ecumenical either.
 
Farmer88 said:
That was kind of my point. Once again, I didn’t state it correctly. Should have probably said “deny the Roman explanation of…”
Click to expand...
Well, the Eastern Catholics “deny” it as well. Deny in the sense that we cannot use it in our own theology because its incompatible. We agree with the Roman Catholics that what we believe and what they believe are essentially the same, even though explained differently. But true and pure Eastern praxis do not have Original Sin, Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Indulgences, etc.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Well, the Eastern Catholics “deny” it as well. Deny in the sense that we cannot use it in our own theology because its incompatible. We agree with the Roman Catholics that what we believe and what they believe are essentially the same, even though explained differently. But true and pure Eastern praxis do not have Original Sin, Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Indulgences, etc.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s my point. This is getting frustrating. One person is like “believe this”, another is “no, believe that” when it all boils down to the SAME thing explained differently. Good grief.
 
Farmer88 said:
Well, that’s my point. This is getting frustrating. One person is like “believe this”, another is “no, believe that” when it all boils down to the SAME thing explained differently. Good grief.
Click to expand...
You have to understand the entire theology to know why there is a difference. Its two completely different understanding of the same thing. Its like two houses. Both are houses, both are built on the same ground (Christ), but the construction, design, architecture, electrical, plumbing, etc, is different. You can’t force the living room of one into the other, it just won’t fit with everything else.
 
ConstantineTG said:
You have to understand the entire theology to know why there is a difference. Its two completely different understanding of the same thing. Its like two houses. Both are houses, both are built on the same ground (Christ), but the construction, design, architecture, electrical, plumbing, etc, is different. You can’t force the living room of one into the other, it just won’t fit with everything else.
Click to expand...
I know there is a difference though. I was never really argung that they are both the same exact thing.
 
Hesychios said:
Actually, it is too limited, it could never be complimentary.
Click to expand...
It would be more accurate to say that theosis and divinization/sanctification are complimentary. As the priest prays at every Latin mass…“May we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity…” or again “Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life…”

Deification is a huge component of Latin theology… it pops up in the liturgy (both the mass - EF and OF - and the Liturgy of the Hours) again and again and again and again… it always annoys me when people try to present deification as a strictly Eastern belief, when the concept is clearly fundamental to the Gospel.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
460
The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”
Click to expand...
If we are to find an Eastern “equivalent” for purgatory, perhaps it would be Hades? The East prays for the souls of the deceased, who, as I understand it, whether in bliss or suffering, experience a state that is less than heaven and can benefit from our prayers.
 
The_Reginator said:
Eastern Catholics still follow the Pope and accept the Churches infallibility. The difference, as far as I know, lies in their history and their rites.
Eastern Orthodox Christians, on the other hand, have rejected the supremacy of the Pope -]since the Schism /-]but have never lost Apostolic Succession.
Click to expand...
MartyrForJesus said:
Yes, the Eastern Orthodox are in schism and have been since 1054. They reject the past 14 ecumenical councils.

Eastern Catholics are in full Communion with the Holy Church, while retaining Eastern Rite practices,
Click to expand...
Could it be said that the above sums up the situation … in a simplified way at least?
Any clarifications, or is that the basic difference?
  • Reg.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top