What's the difference between EOC & RCC?

[ladodgers6]

A great deal could be said about this. But it is based on the tendency of where we get our beliefs and how we define them.

Rome added the Filioque to the Nicene Creed, and so most or all Protestants also use it (being descended from Catholicism).

The authority of the Roman Pope over everyone else is another change from early understanding that we do not follow. The result is that Catholics have an ecclesiastical authority different from ours, resting in one man. While Orthodoxy is a synod of head bishops who (in a voting situation) do not have more voice than any other bishop, and everything is essentially ratified by the monastics and laity, so it is impossible for one man (or even a group of men) to make changes all else recognize as error.

Papal infallibility is a much later addition, as is the belief in the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary herself.

The Immaculate Conception is made necessary in Catholic theology by an understanding of original guilt for Adam's sin carried to all (babies born guilty) rather than an understanding in Orthodoxy that we are born into a sin-infected world, with a bent (fallen) nature that tends toward sin, causing all to sin, at which point we become guilty of our own sins.

That understanding of sin has very far-reaching effects in how we view God (Catholics tend to take a more punitive view), mankind, and sin (Catholics tend to take a more legalistic view). Catholics believe there is both an eternal and a temporal punishment for all sin - the temporal must be "paid for" in some way - through suffering, or offset by good deeds of charity or mercy, or bought with indulgences, etc.

Because of this, purgatory (the means of punishment/suffering "paying for" sins not yet paid for by the time a person dies) and indulgences are part of historic Catholic beliefs, though I keep hearing that these are falling out of favor with modern Catholics?

They also define the Eucharist much more - to Orthodox it is simply a mystery, and it is what Christ says it is (His Body and Blood) but it is also wine (and water) and bread. Catholics have a detailed theology concerning when it happens and what it is.

I think our understanding and descriptions of hell would differ.

We have some differences in our Sacraments - Orthodoxy fully admits a person into the Church with Baptism, Chrismation, and receiving the Eucharist happening all at once, while Catholics hold off on the Eucharist until after Confirmation for their youngest members (I'm not sure but I think Confirmation replaces Chrismation, and I think these are different.) Orthodox do not have Last Rites - we don't anoint for death, but rather annoint for healing up until a person's death.

Those are what I would consider some of the major differences.

There are others as well. Catholics practice adoration of the reserved Eucharist, while we do not. Catholics have more changes - many more actually - brought into their Liturgy while ours essentially does not change. Catholics usually have statues, while they are not really done in Orthodoxy.

That's all I can remember offhand. I may be forgetting some, and be unaware of others.

Despite these, we DO have a certain core of faith and practice that make us appear to be very similar (though sometimes there are differences in those similar-appearing things that people may not realize) - and we also have a great deal of shared theology in many things that has not changed in either of us dating back to the first 1000 years of the Church.

appreciate your time and insight.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

It's a very generalized perspective.
We too have a mystical tradition though it's mostly monastic, but still it's there.

It's not really anything like Orthodox mysticism.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

OP, the differences can't really be summed up in one post. Our focus in, and approach to, theology is completely different. Our mindsets are completely different. It's something you have to spend years learning to fully grasp. So I'll just list a handful of the differences.

The Orthodox believe that God as acting and sustaining creation, can be actually seen. You can literally see him doing and permeating things with your own eyes. He's generally described as light or fire (but obviously it's not material light or fire). Halos and Hellfire as some example depictions of this.

Serious practice of Orthodoxy requires fasting. If dietary fasting is impossible for one reason or another, you still have to fast from something that makes a big difference. You are not going to spiritually improve in Orthodoxy if you don't bother to do this. Catholics, in contrast, see fasting as unimportant.

The Orthodox understanding of the Trinity has God the Father's will and activity as the only will and activity of the Trinity. Therefore, since the Son and the Spirit have this will and activity, the Son must be begotten of the Father alone, and the Spirit must ultimately come from the Father alone. Catholics believe that the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son as one principle, which we cannot abide since the Spirit's will and activity is the Father's, and the Son cannot be the source of the Father's will and activity. This why the Filioque was so controversial and a major cause of the schism between the East and West, leading to Catholics being separated from the Orthodox.

The Orthodox aesthetic tradition is not just about depictions of a holy subject, it's about adhering to a holy style. This is why our hymns and our icons are so ancient in characteristic. This might seem like a superficial difference, but that very notion is part of the difference: for the Orthodox, religious aesthetics are never just cosmetic, they must be spiritually nourishing, not simply artistically pleasing in a worldly sense.

As per Lumen gentium, Catholics see each diocese as a "portion" of the Catholic Church. The Orthodox see each diocese AS the Catholic Church, just as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not each "portions" of God, but each is God himself. The template for the Church is the one Christ used: each bishop performs the office Christ did, and the priests take up the part of his Apostles; each diocese is a mystical manifestation of Christ's Body, not simply a portion of his Body.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Could you please tell me a little more about this? What is meant by 'visualization' and why is it supposed to be avoided?

Visualization means a mental image. It's to be avoided, because it's very easy for it to become a figment, and religious figments are idols by definition. So if you want to use an image to pray, use a physical icon, since there is no possibility of you getting mixed up and thinking that the icon of Christ is literally Christ himself.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks for your time and insight. I am not here to debate, but to seek answers. Anything you can tell me about "THEOSIS"?

No problem. You always ask the easy questions.


(LOL I am teasing you, by all means, ask away! But I hope you are seeing that even with our efforts, you are getting a sort of superficial slice - there is such depth to the questions you ask - and they are all good questions! - but it takes years to dig into them fully. Which is one of the things I find very satisfying for myself in this process. )

 

[~Anastasia~]

appreciate your time and insight.

No problem. I'm glad others are contributing too. What I gave you was, at best, a partial laundry list with a tiny bit of historical and theological interconnection. A tiny bit.

 

[ladodgers6]

No problem. You always ask the easy questions.


(LOL I am teasing you, by all means, ask away! But I hope you are seeing that even with our efforts, you are getting a sort of superficial slice - there is such depth to the questions you ask - and they are all good questions! - but it takes years to dig into them fully. Which is one of the things I find very satisfying for myself in this process. )

Lol....I am glad I can bring a smile to your face. Not like others I have encountered on this site, and other sites. They are so crude, mean, belittling, and pompous. I really like you and your attitude. I am glad we can ask questions and discuss theology with love, not hate. Hope we can be friends and continue to discuss theology.

 

[ladodgers6]

No problem. I'm glad others are contributing too. What I gave you was, at best, a partial laundry list with a tiny bit of historical and theological interconnection. A tiny bit.

It was great, and I welcome all the information I can get. Don't worry about being long winded. Because it helps my research in seeking the truth. Though I am a convinced Calvinist. I am researching Calvin on "Theosis", and He also to a extent believes in "Theosis". But not exactly in the same context, but does hold to a form of it. Which I am studying. Interesting reading for sure.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Lol....I am glad I can bring a smile to your face. Not like others I have encountered on this site, and other sites. They are so crude, mean, belittling, and pompous. I really like you and your attitude. I am glad we can ask questions and discuss theology with love, not hate. Hope we can be friends and continue to discuss theology.

You are too kind. And I'm sorry you have run into some who were less than kind in their communications.

But I never see a reason in being hateful about it. Especially not when seeking to understand others. After all, that isn't what our Lord called us to.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It's not really anything like Orthodox mysticism.

indeed, there is that famous contrast of the mysticism of St Seraphim of Sarov with that of Francis of Assisi. between the two, St Seraphim was the one whose experience was in line with the ancient Fathers.

 

[ladodgers6]

You are too kind. And I'm sorry you have run into some who were less than kind in their communications.

But I never see a reason in being hateful about it. Especially not when seeking to understand others. After all, that isn't what our Lord called us to.

Amen!

 

[~Anastasia~]

indeed, there is that famous contrast of the mysticism of St Seraphim of Sarov with that of Francis of Assisi. between the two, St Seraphim was the one whose experience was in line with the ancient Fathers.

A new member is asking about the mysticism of St. Francis of Assisi in Traditional Theology. I don't have anything really to say about it though.

 

[ArmyMatt]

A new member is asking about the mysticism of St. Francis of Assisi in Traditional Theology. I don't have anything really to say about it though.

orthodoxinfo has a good contrast of their experiences, but watch out because that site can be a tad polemical at times. although the article isn't too bad if memory serves.

 

[~Anastasia~]

orthodoxinfo has a good contrast of their experiences, but watch out because that site can be a tad polemical at times. although the article isn't too bad if memory serves.

Thank you!