Are Eastern Catholic Churches really Eastern?

[GregoryPalamas]

This is the question that Ung-Sertez actually proposed. He did not question whether Eastern Catholics were Catholics. It is a legitimate question.

The Orthodox who are not in communion with Rome tend to be convinced that we are not truly Eastern or Orthodox. This would be sad if true. It does seem to be somewhat true in some situations but it is not true that we are not Eastern. To the extent that we are not Eastern and Catholic is to the extent that we have failed in our prime directive.

What does interest me is to what extent have we retained our Eastern patrimony and witness? Some areas lost more than others, so I’m told, but how much have we regained? Finally, how effective is our witness to the West of a powerful Eastern Spirituality? What more needs doing?

CDL

 

[Deacon_Ed]

I would say that many of the Eastern Catholic Churches are truly Eastern and some are an amalgam of Eastern and Western traditions. If, however, the question refers to teachings, then there are, and will always be, those teachings found in the Eastern Catholic Churches that are not present in the Orthodox traditions (mostly dealing with the dogmatic/doctrinal teachings of the West that, by virtue of communion with Rome, are incorporated into the Eastern Churches).

Deacon Ed

 

[invocation]

i can think of some very positive joint statements from, e.g., the melkites and antioch that made clear that neither saw the difference between the two sides as very great.

on the other hand, the relationship between Catholics and Orthodox in Ukraine are often ugly, but how much of that has anything to do with the faith?

so, it really does seem to depend on where you are.

of course, crossing the great Pope-chasm that divides the Catholic from the Orthodx has not proved to be a very easy matter no matter the locale.

 

[dessert]

This is the question that Ung-Sertez actually proposed. He did not question whether Eastern Catholics were Catholics. It is a legitimate question.

The Orthodox who are not in communion with Rome tend to be convinced that we are not truly Eastern or Orthodox. This would be sad if true. It does seem to be somewhat true in some situations but it is not true that we are not Eastern. To the extent that we are not Eastern and Catholic is to the extent that we have failed in our prime directive.

What does interest me is to what extent have we retained our Eastern patrimony and witness? Some areas lost more than others, so I’m told, but how much have we regained? Finally, how effective is our witness to the West of a powerful Eastern Spirituality? What more needs doing?

CDL

Then did the Eastern separate themselves from the Orthodox and how much did they lose or doctrines they now don’t acknowledge from the Orthodox. What do the Orthodox consider the Eastern to be? It seems the West lost a lot of their tradition.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is the question that Ung-Sertez actually proposed. He did not question whether Eastern Catholics were Catholics. It is a legitimate question.

I disagree. Ungcsertez question the Easterness of a priest who happened to hold to actual dogmas and teachings of the Catholic Church. Just as Father Deacon Ed pointed out when he said;

If, however, the question refers to teachings, then there are, and will always be, those teachings found in the Eastern Catholic Churches that are not present in the Orthodox traditions (mostly dealing with the dogmatic/doctrinal teachings of the West that, by virtue of communion with Rome, are incorporated into the Eastern Churches).

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Aren’t you on an important retreat?

 

[Alethiaphile]

From several years of attending a Ruthenian Byzantine community, here is my answer:

Eastern Catholics are Eastern in rite, including liturgy, with the excpetion of being on western calendar in celebrating Christmas and Pascha.

Many Eastern Catholics are also compeltely Eastern in theology, which effectively puts them at odds with much western theology and some of the current Catechims. They recognize that, but try to downplay it.

Many others are western in theology, and Eastern only in the liturgy. In effect, I have tentatively concluded, there is no unified theology among Eastern Catholics. Joe

 

[ronyodish]

Alethiaphile,

Church documents officially recognize and allow a multiplicity of theological expressions:

Vatican II - Decree on Ecumenism​

All in the Church must preserve unity in essentials. But let all, according to the gifts they have received enjoy a proper freedom, in their various forms of spiritual life and discipline, in their different liturgical rites, and even in their theological elaborations of revealed truth. In all things let charity prevail. If they are true to this course of action, they will be giving ever better expression to the authentic catholicity and apostolicity of the Church.​

Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches - Canon 28​

1. A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and

disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a

distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is

manifested in each Church sui iuris. 2. The rites treated in

this code, unless otherwise stated, are those which arise from

the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions.​

God bless,

Rony

 

[dessert]

I know that at Easter we also openly renewed our baptismal vows as when accepting adults into the Church for their baptism. In the old days this didn’t used to be done. And there are some Churches that have confession before Mass. I can see the eastern affect even if others can not. One of the biggest influences are the icons and so the ones that have been in the Church don’t see this as much as me having come back after a long time away.
paulturner.org/eastern_theology.htm
If the eastern are to be a bridge, there will be some unity or if there will still be a river inbetween or a wall, then it will be because people put up or build that wall themselves. Catholic Churches of the eastern rites are not western that is for sure.

 

[Formosus]

From several years of attending a Ruthenian Byzantine community, here is my answer:

Eastern Catholics are Eastern in rite, including liturgy, with the excpetion of being on western calendar in celebrating Christmas and Pascha.

Many Eastern Catholics are also compeltely Eastern in theology, which effectively puts them at odds with much western theology and some of the current Catechims. They recognize that, but try to downplay it.

Many others are western in theology, and Eastern only in the liturgy. In effect, I have tentatively concluded, there is no unified theology among Eastern Catholics. Joe

Thats because not every Eastern Catholic is of the greek theological tradition. Many people think Byzantine is the only eastern strain of though, but they are just one of the many theological traditions found within Eastern Christianity. Its inaccurate to expect Easterners to all be unified theologically. Heck, even the Roman church has legitimate different theological traditions within itself (Augustinian, Thomist, etc) so its a big expectation to expect 22 separate Sui irus churches to hold the exact same unified theology

 

[Alethiaphile]

Thats because not every Eastern Catholic is of the greek theological tradition. Many people think Byzantine is the only eastern strain of though, but they are just one of the many theological traditions found within Eastern Christianity. Its inaccurate to expect Easterners to all be unified theologically. Heck, even the Roman church has legitimate different theological traditions within itself (Augustinian, Thomist, etc) so its a big expectation to expect 22 separate Sui irus churches to hold the exact same unified theology

There are different theological approaches in the Roman church, but, as you know, there is a definite set of dogmas which Roman Catholics are obligated to hold, and that imposes a common minimal theology. In my experience, many Eastern Catholics do not hold all the post-schism teachings of the Roman church. Joe

 

[Formosus]

Eastern Churches do , but their theological language is very very different from the Roman Church and the Augustinian/thomistic principles that guide the Roman theological tradition do not fit into Eastern theologies. The DL of St. John calls Mary the Immaculate Theotokos, more honorable then the seraphim, etc etc. yet Byzantines do not hold the western view of the Immaculate conception because it rests upon an augustinian/thomistic understanding of original sin.

 

[Hesychios]

Thats because not every Eastern Catholic is of the greek theological tradition. Many people think Byzantine is the only eastern strain of though, but they are just one of the many theological traditions found within Eastern Christianity. Its inaccurate to expect Easterners to all be unified theologically. Heck, even the Roman church has legitimate different theological traditions within itself (Augustinian, Thomist, etc) so its a big expectation to expect 22 separate Sui irus churches to hold the exact same unified theology

This is why I have issue with the “Two Lung” analogy, and the CCEO designed as a “one size fits all” collection of documents. The Latin church is not somehow equivalent to all the non-Latin churches combined, it is one element of many. An argument could be made for three or four Codes of Canons.

Not that this “two lung” idea isn’t an improvement over what came before, but it is a distortion. As a result, we occasionally see criticism of “the East” as somehow disunified.

Some of these traditional churches are only “Eastern” from a Rome-centric point of view. Why are the Copts eastern? They are (for the most part) south and west of where Jesus walked, and a fair assessment would be to associate the Byzantines more closely to the Romans (as many Syriac, Coptic and Armenians will attest) because historically and culturally they really are.

To a Syrian, “the West” (meaning Constantinople and Rome) can really seem disunified too.

The whole “easten churches” terminology for non-Latin also unfortunately obscures the interesting past of the western church. Many people do not have a clear understanding of the origin of the various local churches of western Europe. Some people actually assume (I have read individuals claim this in places) that the whole of western Europe was evangelized from Rome. Seemingly such people have not given much thought to it.

The story is much more complex, and a good strong argument can be made for the actual separate standing of the churches in Gaul, North Africa and other places before the era of the Merovingian Franks and the consolidation.

So now all “non-Latin” churches must be “eastern”.

Michael

 

[GregoryPalamas]

This is why I have issue with the “Two Lung” analogy, and the CCEO designed as a “one size fits all” collection of documents. The Latin church is not somehow equivalent to all the non-Latin churches combined, it is one element of many. An argument could be made for three or four Codes of Canons.

Not that this “two lung” idea isn’t an improvement over what came before, but it is a distortion. As a result, we occasionally see criticism of “the East” as somehow disunified.

Some of these traditional churches are only “Eastern” from a Rome-centric point of view. Why are the Copts eastern? They are (for the most part) south and west of where Jesus walked, and a fair assessment would be to associate the Byzantines more closely to the Romans (as many Syriac, Coptic and Armenians will attest) because historically and culturally they really are.

To a Syrian, “the West” (meaning Constantinople and Rome) can really seem disunified too.

The whole “easten churches” terminology for non-Latin also unfortunately obscures the interesting past of the western church. Many people do not have a clear understanding of the origin of the various local churches of western Europe. Some people actually assume (I have read individuals claim this in places) that the whole of western Europe was evangelized from Rome. Seemingly such people have not given much thought to it.

The story is much more complex, and a good strong argument can be made for the actual separate standing of the churches in Gaul, North Africa and other places before the era of the Merovingian Franks and the consolidation.

So now all “non-Latin” churches must be “eastern”.

Michael

Michael,

I recognize your point. The West has sought unity in different ways from the East. That is certainly true. All things being equal I’m drawn to the Eastern way of a common/similar liturgy is the primary model for unity. Yet, I find there is much to give pause in the Orthodox model when applied to real life. Is it really better to have a Church so subservient to the State that it consistently needs help from the dreaded Catholics just to survive?

There, I’ve said it. I remember Father Loya’s comment after a discussion in Rome with a prominent Orthodox divine who said, “The only thing we Orthodox lack is a pope.”

We may blame the merovigians or even Charlemagne for the unified Roman stamp upon Catholicism but it’s hard to say that it was a bad thing.

CDL

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Dan,

Michael,

I recognize your point. The West has sought unity in different ways from the East. That is certainly true. All things being equal I’m drawn to the Eastern way of a common/similar liturgy is the primary model for unity. Yet, I find there is much to give pause in the Orthodox model when applied to real life. Is it really better to have a Church so subservient to the State that it consistently needs help from the dreaded Catholics just to survive?

There, I’ve said it. I remember Father Loya’s comment after a discussion in Rome with a prominent Orthodox divine who said, “The only thing we Orthodox lack is a pope.”

Father Loya related the same story to me once, the day I told him I was leaving. Except he told me the man said “we need something like a Pope” which may be true, I don’t argue the point.

It isn’t clear to me what kind of Pope he had in mind, because obviously there was one for the asking right there in Rome where they had the conversation. But he didn’t bite on that one, he left Rome Orthodox like so many other Orthodox scholars who visit Rome to study, and he went to his grave Orthodox.

So what does that tell us?

You say that the Orthodox church “needs help” from the state to survive? So are you going to imply that the Catholic church never did such a thing? Can you be serious? The Orthodox church is a church that survived in spite of the state. Whatever politicking the ROC-MP (I presume that is what you refer to) has done is not really any different that the RC has done when it has had the chance in various circumstances across the known world. I don’t like it and I am not excusing any of it, from your church or mine or anyone else’s.

We may blame the merovigians or even Charlemagne for the unified Roman stamp upon Catholicism but it’s hard to say that it was a bad thing.

Did I say it was a bad thing? Uniformity was the ideal of the age. Of course if they had really succeeded in this your spirituality (and mine) would be gone now. Everyone wanted uniformity, including the Greeks, it seems everyone naturally wanted their own way over everyone else.

Appreciation of diversity is a pretty modern attitude. It may actually reflect the first century Christian reality (or perhaps not), but certainly in the long interlude since intolerance has been the general rule of the game.

My only point is that people are ignorant of the facts. They often don’t know their own history, to their own loss, actually.

But where I was actually leading in my comments above was that it might be more appropriate to call the CCEO the Code for non-Latin churches, since the fact that all of these diverse traditions all appear to be east of Rome is a pure accident of circumstances. It is really unfair to categorize the entire panoply of ancient Apostolic Christian traditions as some kind of single but disunified (and by extension inferior) grouping.

Your brother in Christ,
Michael

 

[GregoryPalamas]

You say that the Orthodox church “needs help” from the state to survive?

Dear Brother,

You misunderstood my comment. Orthodoxy does not need help from the state to survive. Orthodoxy has often needed help to survive against the onslaught of the state under which they operated. They often sought and received help from the Catholc Church. That help was often appreciated and often resented but it was still often requested.

CDL

 

[Hesychios]

Dear Brother,

You misunderstood my comment. Orthodoxy does not need help from the state to survive. Orthodoxy has often needed help to survive against the onslaught of the state under which they operated. They often sought and received help from the Catholc Church. That help was often appreciated and often resented but it was still often requested.

CDL

Thank you my friend.

You are right, I misread your comments

Mea Culpa

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Thank you my friend.

You are right, I misread your comments

Mea Culpa

BTW I pretty much concur with everything else you wrote.

Will you be in Homer Glen anytime this summer. Perhaps, if I knew where you worship now, we could come visit your Church some Sunday as well.

CDL

 

[Hesychios]

BTW I pretty much concur with everything else you wrote.

Will you be in Homer Glen anytime this summer. Perhaps, if I knew where you worship now, we could come visit your Church some Sunday as well.

CDL

I will be around, I would love to meet with you once again.

Mike

 

[Peter_J]

This is why I have issue with the “Two Lung” analogy, and the CCEO designed as a “one size fits all” collection of documents. The Latin church is not somehow equivalent to all the non-Latin churches combined, it is one element of many. An argument could be made for three or four Codes of Canons.

We have to allow for different ways of looking at it. Yes, there are 23 sui iuris Catholic Churches, one of which is the Latin Church, and in that light “two lungs” is an over-emphasis on the “western lung”.

On the other hand, the Latin Church is much larger than all the other Churches combined, so in that light “two lungs” is an over-emphasis on the “eastern lung”.

Something else that’s come up recently is that the Catholic Q&A page on EWTN’s website is comprised of 13 sections, one of which is on the Eastern Catholic Churches. The other 12 sections are: Spirituality, Liturgy, Pro-Life Issues, Doctrine, Canon Law, NFP, Apologetics, Moral Law, General Questions, Scripture, History, and Philosophy. (Of course, none of those 12 are exclusively western, so obviously there’s some overlap.)

God bless,
Peter.