What is the difference between Eastern, Greek, and Oriental Orthodox?

[buzuxi02]

so EO ("1+1") is a kind of middle ground between the CotE ("2") and the OOC ("1") ?

Yes. After the council of Ephesus, Antuoch severed communion for 2 years. Antioch and Alexandria reconciled in 433 where Cyril of Alexandria wrote a letter acknowledging that certain theologians (meaning antiochan teachers) attributed the higher acts of Christ in the gospel to His divinity, while the lower acts were attributed to His humanity. That letter was admitted into the council of Chalcedon. Ephesus was against Nestorios who held to an extreme Antiochan view that Christ was 2 persons. Chalcedon was against Eutyches who held to an extreme Alexandrian view that in Christ the natures were done away with.

If I have time later I will look up the Christological agreements on the vatican website that the RC made with the Church of the East and one with the Syrian non-chalcedonians. They sound so similiar yet emphasize the exact opposite.

 

[All4Christ]

These are fairly accurate, though it is a bit sparse on the list of the jurisdictions in the Eastern Orthodox Church and the development of Protestant churches



It’s different than the Protestant Churches. It may be like the Reformation Churches...the initial churches that split off, like Anglicans or Lutherans. Thinking about it though, perhaps it is more like the schism with Old Catholics.

ETA: I don’t know what they are referring to when the dotted arrow comes from the Renewal movement to Orthodoxy. There isn’t a “charismatic” sect of Orthodoxy.

 

[buzuxi02]

so in short, they are the orthodox version of "protestants"?

Not really. In the east there are no reformers. When one separates it's in order to preserve the faith from error and innovation. The oriental were not looking to reform anything they simply thought Chalcedon was in error and was meant to scale back the anathema of Ephesus held 20 years earlier. This is why the Coptic Church still looks the same as an Eastern Orthodox Church right down to church architecture even though separated by 1500 years.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm sorry, but I'm completely new on all of this info so forgive me if my question is silly.
- But these other Orthodox churches such as the Orientals, Chalcedonies, and Malankar.. are they like "your protestants"? Meaning to say, do these denominations originate from the EO or did they just originate by themselves?
-Where they there during the schism?

It will take a little while to understand and sort it out but you're on the right track.

The OO aren't really like "our Protestants" ... they didn't set out to reform the Church. There was a disagreement about the nature(s) of Christ and the language of Chalcedon, and some disagreement about whose teachings should be followed. Despite this (and the fact that we haven't been officially in communion for such a long time) ... we are very similar - almost identical - in probably 95%+ of our theology, and quite similar in practices. I often read books and watch podcasts from OO teachers - the spirituality is pretty much identical. But in the earliest centuries, they were all one with us. The separation was a schism, like the later one between the EO and Rome.

Catholics split off officially in 1054 but had some disagreements for centuries prior (and there were efforts to reunite). They believe doctrine can develop, and we believe we should hold fast to the Traditions as delivered once for all to the Saints, so we have diverged. Most Catholics tend to see our differences as nothing, but I really believe this is because they don't really understand exactly what we believe.

Eastern Catholics are in communion with Rome. Some used to be Orthodox and were absorbed into Catholicism and might retain Orthodox beliefs and practices. Or some might be heavily influenced by Rome and have more in common doctrine-wise with Rome. Officially they are supposed to accept all Catholic dogmas, but I can tell you that many don't, including priests sometimes.

Orthodoxy has different rites. I'm not sure of the percentages, but it seems the Eastern rite must be by far the most widespread. But the "flavor" can vary by nation. The chant sounds different between a Greek parish, a Russian parish, and an African parish. Even if they all conduct the same Divine Liturgy.

There is a legitimate western rite within Eastern Orthodoxy as well. I don't know much about it. I have a good friend online who is a WR priest - everything he says about doctrine, advice, etc. is perfectly in line with everything I've learned in my own (Eastern rite) parish. But the Liturgy itself would be different. All of our beliefs would be the same.

Some little practices, like particular fasting rules, or how often we tend to go to Confession, or the particular Saints we are most likely to commemorate, might vary a little between rites and jurisdictions. (Jurisdictions would be like the Russian Church, the Greek Church, Antiochians, the Orthodox Church of America.) But our actual beliefs should always be the same, and we are all generally in communion with one another (barring unfortunate temporary issues at the hierarchical level sometimes).

Just a bunch of rambling info. I hope some of it helps.

 

[~Anastasia~]

ETA: I don’t know what they are referring to when the dotted arrow comes from the Renewal movement to Orthodoxy. There isn’t a “charismatic” sect of Orthodoxy.

That's exactly what I was going to ask you about, lol. I know there's a "charismatic Catholicism". I hear them on my radio sometimes and it's odd - difficult to distinguish between them and charismatic Protestants in how they talk, pray, etc.

Orthodoxy of course has never abandoned the action of the Holy Spirit. We fully expect Him to remain active, and He is. It just doesn't translate into disorder in Church services.

 

[buzuxi02]

Vatican Christological agreement with the Assyrian Church of the East:

...."Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity, consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us in all things but sin. His divinity and his humanity are united in one person, without confusion or change, without division or separation. In him has been preserved the difference of the natures of divinity and humanity, with all their properties, faculties and operations. But far from constituting "one and another", the divinity and humanity are united in the person of the same and unique Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is the object of a single adoration.
The Holy See - Vatican web site


Christological confession used with the dialogue with Oriental non- chalcedon:

...:We confess that our Lord and our God, our Saviour and the King of all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God as to His divinity and perfect man as to His humanity. In Him His divinity is united to His humanity. This Union is real, perfect, without blending or mingling, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without the least separation. He who is God eternal and indivisible, became visible in the flesh and took the form of servant. In him are united, in a real, perfect indivisible and inseparable way, divinity and humanity, and in him all their properties are present and active
Common Declaration of His Holiness John Paul II and His Holiness Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas.

You see from the above what the Assyrians like to emphasize and what the Orientals like to emphasize.

 

[Cis.jd]

How about the recent news of the split between the The Russian Orthodox Church and Ukraine Orthodox Church? Does this effect the Easter orthodox?

 

[Cis.jd]

Could you reformulate that last question a little?

I'm not sure quite what you mean. Are you asking if our faith is different from that of Roman Catholics due to location and politics? Or did you mean something else?

I mean the different Orthodox church. Are they different due to location and politics.

 

[Cis.jd]

It will take a little while to understand and sort it out but you're on the right track.

The OO aren't really like "our Protestants" ... they didn't set out to reform the Church. There was a disagreement about the nature(s) of Christ and the language of Chalcedon, and some disagreement about whose teachings should be followed. Despite this (and the fact that we haven't been officially in communion for such a long time) ... we are very similar - almost identical - in probably 95%+ of our theology, and quite similar in practices. I often read books and watch podcasts from OO teachers - the spirituality is pretty much identical. But in the earliest centuries, they were all one with us. The separation was a schism, like the later one between the EO and Rome.

Catholics split off officially in 1054 but had some disagreements for centuries prior (and there were efforts to reunite). They believe doctrine can develop, and we believe we should hold fast to the Traditions as delivered once for all to the Saints, so we have diverged. Most Catholics tend to see our differences as nothing, but I really believe this is because they don't really understand exactly what we believe.

Eastern Catholics are in communion with Rome. Some used to be Orthodox and were absorbed into Catholicism and might retain Orthodox beliefs and practices. Or some might be heavily influenced by Rome and have more in common doctrine-wise with Rome. Officially they are supposed to accept all Catholic dogmas, but I can tell you that many don't, including priests sometimes.

Orthodoxy has different rites. I'm not sure of the percentages, but it seems the Eastern rite must be by far the most widespread. But the "flavor" can vary by nation. The chant sounds different between a Greek parish, a Russian parish, and an African parish. Even if they all conduct the same Divine Liturgy.

It is interesting but very hard. i have to be honest i'm still trying to gather as much to understand in terms of differences. I always under the impression that "Eastern Catholics" was just another word for "Eastern Orthodox. Then i'm reading rites, which sounds to me that the differences is more based on cultural/locational reasons. It is hard to get but very interesting indeed.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It is interesting but very hard. i have to be honest i'm still trying to gather as much to understand in terms of differences. I always under the impression that "Eastern Catholics" was just another word for "Eastern Orthodox. Then i'm reading rites, which sounds to me that the differences is more based on cultural/locational reasons. It is hard to get but very interesting indeed.

Eastern Catholics are Catholics - with an Eastern rite (Liturgy) and perhaps Eastern beliefs.

Eastern Orthodox is all of our communion - Russians, Greeks, Ukrainians, Romanians, Antiochian, Serbian, OCA, etc. We mostly have eastern rite Liturgy, some few western rite Liturgy. We all have Eastern beliefs.

 

[buzuxi02]

How about the recent news of the split between the The Russian Orthodox Church and Ukraine Orthodox Church? Does this effect the Easter orthodox?

Unfortunately it affects the Russian church and the Greek Churches under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Inspite of how certain outlets are reporting, there has been no split between the Russian Church and Ukranian Orthodox church. The Archbishop of Constantinople has recognized a dissident non-canonical Orrhodox Church parallel to the canonical Ukranian Church in the country. This has caused strain between Russia and those under the patriarchate of Constantinople.

 

[~Anastasia~]

How about the recent news of the split between the The Russian Orthodox Church and Ukraine Orthodox Church? Does this effect the Easter orthodox?

Unfortunately those are two of our hierarchs so yes, it affects us. There have been such little bumps since the time of the Apostles. They don't normally affect the laity - it's usually a matter of one hierarch stops commemorating another, and the priests under them can't celebrate the Liturgy together until they work out whatever they disagree about.

Not sure yet how this one will resolve. Men are imperfect - that's one reason we disagree with universal jurisdiction or infallibility invested in one bishop.

Thankfully God is in control. It will work out. Hopefully quickly. Lord have mercy.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Laura, our resident tech guru, is also a flow chart specialist!

These are fairly accurate, though it is a bit sparse on the list of the jurisdictions in the Eastern Orthodox Church and the development of Protestant churches

View attachment 243966 View attachment 243967

It’s different than the Protestant Churches. It may be like the Reformation Churches...the initial churches that split off, like Anglicans or Lutherans. Thinking about it though, perhaps it is more like the schism with Old Catholics.

ETA: I don’t know what they are referring to when the dotted arrow comes from the Renewal movement to Orthodoxy. There isn’t a “charismatic” sect of Orthodoxy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm sorry, but I'm completely new on all of this info so forgive me if my question is silly.
- But these other Orthodox churches such as the Orientals, Chalcedonies, and Malankar.. are they like "your protestants"? Meaning to say, do these denominations originate from the EO or did they just originate by themselves?
-Where they there during the schism?

we are Chalcedonians, as are Rome and Protestants. the Malankar are the non-Chalcedonians in India.

 

[E.C.]

These are fairly accurate, though it is a bit sparse on the list of the jurisdictions in the Eastern Orthodox Church and the development of Protestant churches

View attachment 243966 View attachment 243967

It’s different than the Protestant Churches. It may be like the Reformation Churches...the initial churches that split off, like Anglicans or Lutherans. Thinking about it though, perhaps it is more like the schism with Old Catholics.

ETA: I don’t know what they are referring to when the dotted arrow comes from the Renewal movement to Orthodoxy. There isn’t a “charismatic” sect of Orthodoxy.

I think the dotted line for the Charismatics would refer to the fact that there are many Charismatic groups that try to claim they're restarting Christianity based on Pastor Bob's personal interpretation of the Bible *eye roll*

It is interesting but very hard. i have to be honest i'm still trying to gather as much to understand in terms of differences. I always under the impression that "Eastern Catholics" was just another word for "Eastern Orthodox. Then i'm reading rites, which sounds to me that the differences is more based on cultural/locational reasons. It is hard to get but very interesting indeed.

Welcome to TAW!

A great book in English about the Orthodox would be "The Orthodox Church" by Timothy Ware. Most of the time it's less than $15.

The Eastern Catholics are made up of I think about almost two dozen separate groups who all joined the Roman Catholic Church at various times in their history. Usually for political reasons. For example, the Maronite Catholic Church in Lebanon wanted military support to defend against the Muslims and the Ruthenian Catholics were originally Eastern Orthodox who were part of the Kingdom of Hungary way back when, and, Hungary had a law at one point which stated in order to be a "legal" Christian you had to be under the Pope in Rome. So to avoid persecution a group of Eastern Orthodox left the Church to be under Rome.

Think of the Eastern Catholics as the sister who married that one guy whom everyone in the family questions why she married him.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have to say as well, that the reason that the split with Chalcedon is complicated, it because the Church was together even after the council. it's not like there was an immediate severing of all communion right away.

the Orientals were even willing to accept Chalcedon because of the 5th Council and the henotikon of Justin II, but it really was the 6th Council which was the nail in the coffin, as that was the Council that condemned Severus of Antioch (one of the Orientals most beloved and important theologians) for monothelitism and monoenergism.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I have to say as well, that the reason that the split with Chalcedon is complicated, it because the Church was together even after the council. it's not like there was an immediate severing of all communion right away.

the Orientals were even willing to accept Chalcedon because of the 5th Council and the henotikon of Justin II, but it really was the 6th Council which was the nail in the coffin, as that was the Council that condemned Severus of Antioch (one of the Orientals most beloved and important theologians) for monothelitism and monoenergism.

is the Church capable of censuring someone on one point of doctrine without condemning the individual wholesale?

or must we always surrender the baby to get rid of any dirty bathwater?

 

[ArmyMatt]

is the Church capable of censuring someone on one point of doctrine without condemning the individual wholesale?

or must we always surrender the baby to get rid of any dirty bathwater?

sure the Church can. the issue is when confronted, does the person repent or not.

 

[prodromos]

It is interesting but very hard. i have to be honest i'm still trying to gather as much to understand in terms of differences. I always under the impression that "Eastern Catholics" was just another word for "Eastern Orthodox. Then i'm reading rites, which sounds to me that the differences is more based on cultural/locational reasons. It is hard to get but very interesting indeed.

Just to put things in perspective, all of the eastern rites in the Catholic Church make up less than half of one percent of the Catholic Church. The other 99.5% is all Latin rite. Most Catholics don't even know they exist.

 

[All4Christ]

I think the dotted line for the Charismatics would refer to the fact that there are many Charismatic groups that try to claim they're restarting Christianity based on Pastor Bob's personal interpretation of the Bible *eye roll*

Maybe...except that it didn’t point back to the Church before the split or the Oriental or Nestorian Churches. And wouldn’t the arrow be the other way? A dotted line from the beginning to the renewal movement?

agreed on the eye roll