A couple of questions(I'm totally ignorant on Eastern Catholicism /Orthodoxy)

[jayk15]

Hi there, I’m a Latin-Rite Catholic with very little knowledge on Eastern Catholicism/Orthodoxy. Can you please help me with some questions?

(1) Am I correct in saying that since the age of the Early Church Fathers there were five patriarchates. Namely Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch with the Bishop of Rome (The Pope) having supremacy and preserving unity between the five patriarchates?

(2) Did the schism happen immediately in 1054 or was it a gradual process. How and why did the schism happen?

(3) Why did the Eastern Church reject the Filloque. Why was it an issue for them?

(4) Why does the Orthodox say that the bishop of Rome merely has the supremacy of honour?

(5)When did portions of the Orthodox Churches came back into union with Rome, then becoming known as the Eastern Catholic Churches?

(6)What authority does the Pope have over the Eastern Catholic Churches?

(7) Do the Eastern Catholic Churches accept as true all the doctrines of the Roman Church?

(8) Does the Catechism of the Catholic Church also apply to the Eastern Catholic Churches?

Thanks a lot

 

[WetCatechumen]

Hi there, I’m a Latin-Rite Catholic with very little knowledge on Eastern Catholicism/Orthodoxy. Can you please help me with some questions?

(1) Am I correct in saying that since the age of the Early Church Fathers there were five patriarchates. Namely Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch with the Bishop of Rome (The Pope) having supremacy and preserving unity between the five patriarchates?

Incorrect. Whilst Byzantine propaganda would have it that St. Andrew founded the See of Constantinople, its bishops did not gain prominence in Christianity until Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium. While they tried to sneak in that they were the second in place of honor after Rome at Chalcedon, the Pope line item vetoed it, and later sources refer to only 27, rather than 28 canons of Chalcedon. Of course, the present day Orthodox have resurrected the 28th canon, and put Constantinople as first in honor in modern day Orthodoxy.

The first three patriarchates were Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, in that order of honor. Jerusalem and Constantinople were assigned patriarchates, not by virtue of them having been founded by an apostle, but because of their pre-eminence and influence in fact. The three Sees were understood to have been founded by St. Peter, Alexandria being through his disciple Mark. Rome attained highest prominence because that is where Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred, and their bishops, from the earliest, had primacy in the church because of its founding by St. Peter.

In short: 3, not five, and Byzantium was not one of them.

(2) Did the schism happen immediately in 1054 or was it a gradual process. How and why did the schism happen?

That’s the million dollar question. Lots of issues; the Filioque, leavened bread vs. unleavened bread, authority of the Pope. It was gradual, taking place from the late ninth century to the 15th century. Finally, the isolation caused by the fall of Constantinople to the Turks sealed the split for good.

(3) Why did the Eastern Church reject the Filloque. Why was it an issue for them?

Lots of reasons. The primary being that it isn’t in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of AD 381. The Westerners added it ca. the 6th Century and mistakenly thought centuries later that the Creed had had it originally, and attempted to force the Easterners to re-insert it. It did not go over well. Another issue is that there was confusion over what “procedit ex Patre Filioque” meant in Latin. Easterners misunderstood it to mean that the Spirit has its ultimate origin in both of them, which would remove the Father’s place as the sole source of everything in the Blessed Trinity. I’m not very educated on this and more people can enlighten you.

(4) Why does the Orthodox say that the bishop of Rome merely has the supremacy of honour?

That primacy of honor. You’ll have to ask them. One, they don’t feel like universal jurisdiction and infallibility are supported by the Scriptures or by the Fathers. Secondly, I think they have a legitimate fear of having one bishop wield as much authority over them as the Pope does over the Western Church right now.

(5)When did portions of the Orthodox Churches came back into union with Rome, then becoming known as the Eastern Catholic Churches?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches#List_of_Eastern_Catholic_Churches

This gives a list of all the dates of reunification of the sui iuris churches in the Catholic Church. You’ll note that the Maronite Church states that the union was merely re-affirmed. There is no corresponding Orthodox (Oriental or Eastern) to this church.

(6)What authority does the Pope have over the Eastern Catholic Churches?

Universal and immediate jurisdiction. Ask an Eastern Catholic what that means.

(7) Do the Eastern Catholic Churches accept as true all the doctrines of the Roman Church?

Yup. Dogmatically. The takes on the dogmas are different, though.

(8) Does the Catechism of the Catholic Church also apply to the Eastern Catholic Churches?

Yes, but the majority of the teachings are not cast in the tradition of Eastern Christianity.

Thanks a lot

You’re welcome. Sorry, I’m not terribly educated but I try to share what I do know.

 

[ByzCath89]

WetCatechuman, your responses are a bit flippant. The Filioque and papal authority were only part of the problem, and “tradition” is probably more appropriate terminology to describe the beliefs of our church particular than “propaganda”. Political warmongering had a lot to do with it. In the case of some of the churches, specifically the maronite and chaldeans, the schisms arose simply from a breakdown of communication with rome due to wars. In the Ukrainian Church, the Church was forcibly seperated by the Communist Party.

JayK15:

A few more answers for you. The Orthodox view the pope as a “first among equals”. This is because the bishops of the particular churches can nullify, in the case of their churches, decisions as they relate to the particular church. Remember that the “Orthodox Church” as a singular body does not exist. Rather, Orthodoxy and Orthodox Churches are very loosely connected by complicated treaties. Therefore, the decisions of the Russian Orthodox church, theologically and dogmatically do not effect the actions of the Greek Orthodox Church. Contrary to popular opinion, the Orthodox are not bound by the teachings of the Patriarch of Constantinople, nor of Alexandria or Antioch. Essentially, the Orthodox see Rome in that same light, and that the teachings of Rome should be respected as the first among equals, but should be allowed to be rejected by the people if they are unpopular.

In regards to Papal Supremacy, the answer is yes. The decisions of the pope are completely applicable to the Eastern Churches. It is the job of the patriarchs or the major archbishops to interpret and apply them to the Eastern Churches. One thing that is a little different is the way that bishops are chosen. They are chosen by synodial election and that candidate is then appointed by the pope.

In regards to the Catechism, the UGCC is writing its own version of the catechism. In my parish (UGCC), the Sunday School does use the RC catechism. In fact they recommend the Baltimore Catechism.

Hope this clarifies things a little more.

 

[dcointin]

Incorrect. Whilst Byzantine propaganda would have it that St. Andrew founded the See of Constantinople, its bishops did not gain prominence in Christianity until Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium. While they tried to sneak in that they were the second in place of honor after Rome at Chalcedon, the Pope line item vetoed it, and later sources refer to only 27, rather than 28 canons of Chalcedon. Of course, the present day Orthodox have resurrected the 28th canon, and put Constantinople as first in honor in modern day Orthodoxy.

The first three patriarchates were Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, in that order of honor. Jerusalem and Constantinople were assigned patriarchates, not by virtue of them having been founded by an apostle, but because of their pre-eminence and influence in fact. The three Sees were understood to have been founded by St. Peter, Alexandria being through his disciple Mark. Rome attained highest prominence because that is where Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred, and their bishops, from the earliest, had primacy in the church because of its founding by St. Peter.

In short: 3, not five, and Byzantium was not one of them.

That’s the million dollar question. Lots of issues; the Filioque, leavened bread vs. unleavened bread, authority of the Pope. It was gradual, taking place from the late ninth century to the 15th century. Finally, the isolation caused by the fall of Constantinople to the Turks sealed the split for good.

Lots of reasons. The primary being that it isn’t in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of AD 381. The Westerners added it ca. the 6th Century and mistakenly thought centuries later that the Creed had had it originally, and attempted to force the Easterners to re-insert it. It did not go over well. Another issue is that there was confusion over what “procedit ex Patre Filioque” meant in Latin. Easterners misunderstood it to mean that the Spirit has its ultimate origin in both of them, which would remove the Father’s place as the sole source of everything in the Blessed Trinity. I’m not very educated on this and more people can enlighten you.

That primacy of honor. You’ll have to ask them. One, they don’t feel like universal jurisdiction and infallibility are supported by the Scriptures or by the Fathers. Secondly, I think they have a legitimate fear of having one bishop wield as much authority over them as the Pope does over the Western Church right now.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches#List_of_Eastern_Catholic_Churches

This gives a list of all the dates of reunification of the sui iuris churches in the Catholic Church. You’ll note that the Maronite Church states that the union was merely re-affirmed. There is no corresponding Orthodox (Oriental or Eastern) to this church.

Universal and immediate jurisdiction. Ask an Eastern Catholic what that means.

Yup. Dogmatically. The takes on the dogmas are different, though.

Yes, but the majority of the teachings are not cast in the tradition of Eastern Christianity.

You’re welcome. Sorry, I’m not terribly educated but I try to share what I do know.

Rome was considered the most important patriarchate because of several factors, including those you gave, but also including it being the capital, the largest city, and the most influential city of the empire. The Byzantines did not try to “sneak” the elevation of the see of Constantinople into the canons, it was a reflection of the eastern belief that the secular influence of the city was a factor in its ecclesiastical ranking. The capital of the Eastern Roman Empire was moved to Constantinople, and that naturally made it the most significant patriarchate in the east.

I would also point out that the early Church believed the see of Rome to be founded by St. Peter and St. Paul, as Irenaeus states in his famous quotation in “Against Heresies”:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul…” [bold mine]

It was only when later Catholic apologetics focused on the supremacy of St. Peter that you began to see St. Paul omitted from mention of its founding.

 

[joandarc2008]

WetCatechuman, your responses are a bit flippant. The Filioque and papal authority were only part of the problem, and “tradition” is probably more appropriate terminology to describe the beliefs of our church particular than “propaganda”. Political warmongering had a lot to do with it. In the case of some of the churches, specifically the maronite and chaldeans, the schisms arose simply from a breakdown of communication with rome due to wars. In the Ukrainian Church, the Church was forcibly seperated by the Communist Party.

JayK15:

A few more answers for you. The Orthodox view the pope as a “first among equals”. This is because the bishops of the particular churches can nullify, in the case of their churches, decisions as they relate to the particular church. Remember that the “Orthodox Church” as a singular body does not exist. Rather, Orthodoxy and Orthodox Churches are very loosely connected by complicated treaties. Therefore, the decisions of the Russian Orthodox church, theologically and dogmatically do not effect the actions of the Greek Orthodox Church. Contrary to popular opinion, the Orthodox are not bound by the teachings of the Patriarch of Constantinople, nor of Alexandria or Antioch. Essentially, the Orthodox see Rome in that same light, and that the teachings of Rome should be respected as the first among equals, but should be allowed to be rejected by the people if they are unpopular.

In regards to Papal Supremacy, the answer is yes. The decisions of the pope are completely applicable to the Eastern Churches. It is the job of the patriarchs or the major archbishops to interpret and apply them to the Eastern Churches. One thing that is a little different is the way that bishops are chosen. They are chosen by synodial election and that candidate is then appointed by the pope.

In regards to the Catechism, the UGCC is writing its own version of the catechism. In my parish (UGCC), the Sunday School does use the RC catechism. In fact they recommend the Baltimore Catechism.

Hope this clarifies things a little more.

Thank you ByzCath - I have learned so much about the Estern Catholic Church from you on these forums.

 

[Allyson]

I am going to answer these questions independently of the answers you have already received, only because that will make things easier. I hope these answers help to add to what you have already read. I may repeat parts of previous answers because I am doing this without reference.

Hi there, I’m a Latin-Rite Catholic with very little knowledge on Eastern Catholicism/Orthodoxy. Can you please help me with some questions?

(1) Am I correct in saying that since the age of the Early Church Fathers there were five patriarchates. Namely Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch with the Bishop of Rome (The Pope) having supremacy and preserving unity between the five patriarchates?

The Early/First Millennium Church did not have a Latin Catholic understanding of supremacy. Rome was given primacy of honor for among other things, it was the secular capital of the Empire. Peter and Paul both went there, and were martyred there. Primacy of honor is not the same as supremacy. This was a Latin development in late first early second millennium.

Constantinople was a later addition to the list of Patriarchates, but that does not make it a lesser patriarchate. This was simply following protocol. Rome had been a capital and a patriarchate, and so Constantinople became a patriarchate, but it DID NOT RECEIVE the same primacy of honor as Rome. It was seen as second to Rome because of its importance as the empire capital. It even called itself the second Rome. There was not a strict a division between secular and Church authority post Constantine. It was the religious center of the Empire. Many of the early heresies were fought on its streets.

The idea of the Moscow patriarchate follows this same model. Because Constantinople fell to the Turks, and Russia is in many way the cultural and religious heir of the Byzantine Roman empire - without the Byzantine Empire there would not have been Russia as we know it, the idea developed in Moscow that they were the third/new Rome. This is interesting because of what it tells you about the secular and religious culture in the Byzantine tradition. There was little divide between them. It was only logical that as the center of religious-political power moved, so did a particular idea of “Rome.”

(2) Did the schism happen immediately in 1054 or was it a gradual process. How and why did the schism happen?

It’s roots go back to the 800’s and the time of St. Photius whose defense of the creed without the use of the filioque caused some great conflict and division with Rome. Some of the Popes of Rome were beginning to flex their muscles as they were beginning to read into their position the idea of supremacy. Some of them were greatly influenced by the enemies of Photius who went to Rome from Constantinople. The premier work on this is “The Photian Schism” by Francis Dvornick - an excellent read.

Anyway, everything came to a head in 1054, hence from there we date the schism, but you could safely say that it took another 100-200 years to solidify itself into the consciousness of Catholic and Orthodox Christians.

(3) Why did the Eastern Church reject the Filloque. Why was it an issue for them?

One, it was not originally part of the Nicene creed. Two, when translated from the less precise philosophical language of Latin into the more philosophical language of Greek, it gained a meaning that was contradictory to the doctrine of the Trinity, that the Father alone is the font of the Godhead. Only he gives rise to the other two persons in the Trinity. The Latin phrase was ambiguous enough to allow for an orthodox reading, but the Greek equivalent was not.

That’s the short answer.

(4) Why does the Orthodox say that the bishop of Rome merely has the supremacy of honour?

Because that is what it was in the first millennium as per the Ecumenical councils. Better to say primacy of honor, not supremacy. They mean different things.

(5)When did portions of the Orthodox Churches came back into union with Rome, then becoming known as the Eastern Catholic Churches?

This depends on the Rite. It starts as early as the 16th century fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1595brest.html I do not know about all the the dates.

(6)What authority does the Pope have over the Eastern Catholic Churches?

Oooo muddy question. He does appoint the Bishops of at least some of the Eastern Eparchies, however, traditionally Bishops are elected synodally. Yes, you can say in matters of doctrine, although the Latin expression of a doctrine can be different from that of the Eastern. It is safe to say that opinions vary on his prudential authority over the East, but for my part I would say very little to none.

(7) Do the Eastern Catholic Churches accept as true all the doctrines of the Roman Church?

Are we on Church or not one Church, that is the question Which doctrines? Certainly those essential to being of the Christian faith such as the Divinity of Christ and the nature of the Trinity - that God is one and three - yes, but there are differences of opinion on many issues. For example, the Latin definition of Purgatory is not the Eastern view of life after death, but you may run into many Easterners who have learned about purgatory, and do not know otherwise.

 

[Allyson]

(8) Does the Catechism of the Catholic Church also apply to the Eastern Catholic Churches?

That depends on what you mean by apply. Insofar as the fundamental doctrine existing, yes. However, it is not an Eastern text, and in that respect does not apply. The intention of the catechism is to be a reference for those who teach or learn about the faith, but it only approached this form the Latin perspective by and large. The Eastern view is more of a footnote when it appears. It is not a good resource for an Eastern Catholic catechist unless they are looking to do some comparative work/explanation.

The short answer is that it is a Latin text for Latin Catholics. This is not to say the East disregards it. It just means that it does not exhibit the full diversity of theological expression in the Church. An Eastern Catholic Catechism of the same sort would be a great thing. There are some texts that do fill this need. I think the Ukrainian Church was working on a similar sort of project.

Thanks a lot

I hope this helps.

R.

 

[5Loaves]

(8) Does the Catechism of the Catholic Church also apply to the Eastern Catholic Churches?

As others have indicated the CCC is a very Latin approach, and is valuable as such, but limited for Eastern and Oriental Catholics. In addition to the much anticipated “first worldwide catechism for the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church” we already have the Eastern Catholic Catechism, Commissioned by U.S. Eastern Catholic Bishops: Light for Life Part One — The Mystery Believed , Light for Life Part Two — The Mystery Celebrated, Light for Life Part Three — The Mystery Lived. There are many other excellent resources such as A Primer on Church and Eucharist: “It relates the Eucharist to an understanding of the Church, Icons, the Trinity, the Holy Mysteries, and Christian Unity.”

 

[jayk15]

But to say that the Pope merely had the primacy of honor is incompatible with Scripture and the writings of the Early Church Fathers. If I recall correctly the Eastern Churches fell into heresy many times during the first millenium and it was always the Pope who had to correct the Eastern Church. That demonstrates Papal Supremacy.

 

[Aramis]

the first ECC is the Italo-Albanians… who have never been out of communion in any real formal way, tho’ one anti-pope holding Rome suppressed them, for all of about 5 years.

Next comes the Maronites, in the 11th C. They had never formally schismed, but a practical schism had occurred due to distance and civil warfare cutting communications.

Some of the indians came into union in the 15th century. They were literally “permitted” to retain their rite, but under roman supervision. THeir formal church sui iuris status came later.

The Ruthenians and Ukrainians in the 16th and 17th centuries come into union as well.

Most of the churches came into union in the 19th C, tho a few came in in the 20th.

 

[josephdaniel29]

But to say that the Pope merely had the primacy of honor is incompatible with Scripture and the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

Incompatible because of the way you choose to interpret them. Everything is colored by our modern world view. You can read practically anything you want back into Scripture and patristic writing. Just look at the Protestants. They read their biases back into Scripture and say that your beliefs are incompatible.

If I recall correctly the Eastern Churches fell into heresy many times during the first millenium and it was always the Pope who had to correct the Eastern Church. That demonstrates Papal Supremacy.

Well you don’t recall correctly my friend. Some Catholic apologist are notorious for taking quotes completely out of context and parsing them to make them say what they want them to say. Step out and read some non-Catholic sources, you might be surprised.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[RyanBlack]

If I recall correctly the Eastern Churches fell into heresy many times during the first millenium and it was always the Pope who had to correct the Eastern Church. That demonstrates Papal Supremacy.

I’m almost in laughter over this statement. Sure, there were many heresies that arose in the East, but it’s not fair to state that they amount to the Eastern Churches falling into heresy, or that these heresies were corrected by the Pope of Rome (who wasn’t present at any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (most of the bishops who were present and condemned the heresies were Eastern, BTW). The great defenders against the heresy of Arianism during the fourth century were St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers (all Eastern bishops). The great champion of orthodoxy against the heresy of Apollinaris was St. Gregory the Theologian (one of the Cappadocians, and an Eastern bishop). The Cappadocian Fathers and St. Athanaius were also the great defenders of the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the heresy of the pneumatomachi. The heresy of Nestorius was opposed most strongly by St. Cyril of Alexandria (Eastern). In the case of the monophysite heresy, which was refuted at Chalcedon, I’ll give the nod to Pope St. Leo the Great, but don’t overlook the importance of Eusebius of Dorylaeum (another Eastern bishop). Then, at the Second Council of Constantinople, the bishops who reaffirmed the condemnation of Nestorianism and condemned some of the errors of Origen were overwhelmingly Eastern. The great champion of orthodoxy against the error of monothelitism, which was condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople, was St. Maximus the Confessor, an Eastern monk. Finally, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (The Second Council of Nicea), the bishops who condemned the iconoclastic heresy were overwhelmingly Eastern. So I’m at a bit of a loss as to exactly how it was that the Popes of Rome who constantly had to correct the Eastern Churches when they fell into heresy during the first millenium, since all of the Seven Ecumenical Councils occurred in the East, were presided over by Eastern bishops, and were composed mainly of Eastern bishops.

 

[jayk15]

I see. I didn’t mean to be offensive or anything. I was asking for clarification on what I thought.Thanks

 

[Hesychios]

I’m almost in laughter over this statement. Sure, there were many heresies that arose in the East, but it’s not fair to state that they amount to the Eastern Churches falling into heresy, or that these heresies were corrected by the Pope of Rome (who wasn’t present at any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (most of the bishops who were present and condemned the heresies were Eastern, BTW). The great defenders against the heresy of Arianism during the fourth century were St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers (all Eastern bishops). The great champion of orthodoxy against the heresy of Apollinaris was St. Gregory the Theologian (one of the Cappadocians, and an Eastern bishop). The Cappadocian Fathers and St. Athanaius were also the great defenders of the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the heresy of the pneumatomachi. The heresy of Nestorius was opposed most strongly by St. Cyril of Alexandria (Eastern). In the case of the monophysite heresy, which was refuted at Chalcedon, I’ll give the nod to Pope St. Leo the Great, but don’t overlook the importance of Eusebius of Dorylaeum (another Eastern bishop). Then, at the Second Council of Constantinople, the bishops who reaffirmed the condemnation of Nestorianism and condemned some of the errors of Origen were overwhelmingly Eastern. The great champion of orthodoxy against the error of monothelitism, which was condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople, was St. Maximus the Confessor, an Eastern monk. Finally, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (The Second Council of Nicea), the bishops who condemned the iconoclastic heresy were overwhelmingly Eastern. So I’m at a bit of a loss as to exactly how it was that the Popes of Rome who constantly had to correct the Eastern Churches when they fell into heresy during the first millenium, since all of the Seven Ecumenical Councils occurred in the East, were presided over by Eastern bishops, and were composed mainly of Eastern bishops.

In the main this is a well thought out and presented post.

I appreciate the effort you put into that.

 

[Hesychios]

I see. I didn’t mean to be offensive or anything. I was asking for clarification on what I thought.Thanks

I for one felt exactly the same as the opinion you posted for probably 30 years, since a young adult interested in all things Christian (from a Latin Catholic perspective normally using Latin Catholic sources), so I understand how one can inadvertently come to these conclusions.

I am sure no one is really offended, it’s the nature of the beast.

 

[Alex_Luciano]

(6)What authority does the Pope have over the Eastern Catholic Churches?
Oooo muddy question. He does appoint the Bishops of at least some of the Eastern Eparchies, however, traditionally Bishops are elected synodally. Yes, you can say in matters of doctrine, although the Latin expression of a doctrine can be different from that of the Eastern. It is safe to say that opinions vary on his prudential authority over the East, but for my part I would say very little to none.

So what is the point of Eastern Churches “reuniting” with Rome if they don’t recognize the Pope’s supremacy? I’ve been learning more about the Eastern churches but I must admit that the more I read the more confused I get. They are almost indistinguishable from their Orthodox counterparts (which I understand for obvious reasons) but I expected that the similarities would end when discussing the Pope but I’m getting different answers everywhere. The EC even have different canon law and everything. I respect and appreciate the Eastern tradition and will be attending a Byzantine (Ruthenian) parish frequently but I want to understand their relationship to the Pope a bit better. Any “official” sources?

 

[Hesychios]

So what is the point of Eastern Churches “reuniting” with Rome if they don’t recognize the Pope’s supremacy?

Good question.

I’ve been learning more about the Eastern churches but I must admit that the more I read the more confused I get. They are almost indistinguishable from their Orthodox counterparts (which I understand for obvious reasons)

I will have to disagree here, but not emphatically.

… but I expected that the similarities would end when discussing the Pope but I’m getting different answers everywhere. The EC even have different canon law and everything.

It is a different code, but from the same source, it was issued for them by the Vatican under the Pope’s authority.

Many of the canons are parallel to the Latin, and the code emphasizes the Pope’s authority over the eastern Catholic churches.

It is not what the Orthodox follow, which can be seen here. Notice that it is a pretty sloppy, ramshackle affair slap dashed together over time.

For comparison, you may read the Code issued by Pope John Paul II for the eastern churches here. One can readily see all the Latin precision that went into it

I respect and appreciate the Eastern tradition and will be attending a Byzantine (Ruthenian) parish frequently but I want to understand their relationship to the Pope a bit better. Any “official” sources?

I think you should just read the code, it is almost self explanatory.

Start with Canon 43.

 

[ciero]

It is not what the Orthodox follow, which can be seen here. Notice that it is a pretty sloppy, ramshackle affair slap dashed together over time.

And you can find a contradictory canon for almost any canon you find!

It is a great read though!!

 

[Allyson]

But to say that the Pope merely had the primacy of honor is incompatible with Scripture and the writings of the Early Church Fathers. If I recall correctly the Eastern Churches fell into heresy many times during the first millenium and it was always the Pope who had to correct the Eastern Church. That demonstrates Papal Supremacy.

I see. I didn’t mean to be offensive or anything. I was asking for clarification on what I thought.Thanks

No offense taken, this is a common misconception. Especially that part about the role of the Popes in resolving the early heresies.

There have been some good responses to your question already, so I will just give you my immediate thoughts on the statement.

As for Scripture and the Early Church Fathers, you need to avoid anachronism in reading anything abou Papal authority into them. The predominant view of the first millenium was that of ‘primacy of honor’ NOT supremacy. That is the direct translation of how it was transcribed in the early Ecumenical Councils. Hence, it is incorrect that the Church Fathers would think of supremacy in their writings.

As for the role of the Pope in the resolution of those heresies dealt with in the first seven councils. It was minimal at most. The Tome of Leo was the only really significant contribution by a Pope of Rome that we can point to in history. Those who work out the philosophical and theological language used were Eastern theologians. All the Popes did whether directly or most often through their legates was to give their assent to what was decided at these councils that were so geographically distant and that they did not themselves attend. The idea that any pope was laying the smack-down on any of the early heresies is far from the reality of the actual role of the Pope in the first millennium.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Not all of the Eastern churches left with the Schism. Many continued to follow the leadership of Rome. Unfortunately, with the myriad of wars and conflicts, some of those churches were lost for long periods of time, and in effect had to be reconciled with Rome at a later date.

Others, for various reason, chose to return to the fold, accepting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

They do however have their own religious practices, and they are often quite different from what is accepted by the Latin Rite.

The most commonly cited example of that is that none of the Eastern Roman Catholic churches require priestly celibacy. If a man is content with being a simple parish priest, he commonly marries before his first ordination. No married man can become a Bishop however, so if a man wants to move up, he can not marry, or he must be a widower or “put his wife aside”, providing for her welfare but no longer living with her.

Eastern churches also make much more use of Icons than the Western church does.

They were using the vernacular long before the Latin Rite even considered doing so.

I vividly remember growing up in the old pre-Vatican II Latin Church. I had never heard of the Eastern Churches, until I went to seminary. There, I was exposed to a great deal of information concerning them. I was, to put it mildly, simply amazed that such churches existed, and that they were in fact considered an integral part of the Roman Catholic Church.

We in the Latin Rite could learn a great deal from our Eastern brothers. Not the least is that there is absolutely no reason why priests should not be married, with families. If the Eastern Churches can successfully do this, why can’t the Latin Rite Priests?

The primary reason is that the old men of the Vatican simply can’t see anything but the way they were trained and raised. If married men were good enough for Jesus (and all of the Apostles were married0, they darn well should be good enough for our church.

I grew up a Protestant. My grandfather was a Minister for 55 years, and he had no problem dealing with his religious duties and his family. In fact, they revolved around each other.