Could you please explain Eastern Catholicism?

[bpbasilphx]

A stole is a stole even if its called a sticharion.

**The stole is the orarion.

The alb is the sticharion.**

 

[mullenpm]

A number of months ago I viewed a program on EWTN wherein Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople co-celebrated (may I use that term here)a Mass.

Is Bartholomew I the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church or does he have some connection with the Eastern Orthodox Church?

I think I am confused with the Eastern Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic churches.

 

[Aramis]

A cloak is a cloak whether its called a chasuble or omophorion

A stole is a stole even if its called a sticharion.

Same goes for the pallium and the omophorion.

You quite obviously do not know the terminology you are attempting to use.

The cloak-equivalents are chasuble and pheolonion. They do have the same liturgical meaning.

Stoles are orarion (deacons) and/or epitrachelion (Bishops and Priests). Again, same liturgical meaning.

The pallium is not the same as the omophorion, even tho’ they both originate in the same item. They have VERY different liturgical meanings, sufficiently so that eastern catholic church bishops of the Metropolitan and Patriarchal ranks may have both.

The symbols of the episcopacy in the roman church are the Rochet, the Zuchetto, the Crozier, and the Miter. The Pallium is specific to an Archbishop or Patriarch within his province.

The symbols of the episcopacy in the east are the Miter, the Omophorion, Saccos, and onglopion. Within their see, they bear their staff, as well. Again, the Pallium is specific to an Archbishop or Patriarch within his province.

And in both cases, the miter isn’t exclusive to bishops. (Roman Abbots wear small miters; ECC Archpriests and Archimandrites also may be granted the Mitre)

 

[belgianwaffles9]

You quite obviously do not know the terminology you are attempting to use.

The cloak-equivalents are chasuble and pheolonion. They do have the same liturgical meaning.

Stoles are orarion (deacons) and/or epitrachelion (Bishops and Priests). Again, same liturgical meaning.

The pallium is not the same as the omophorion, even tho’ they both originate in the same item. They have VERY different liturgical meanings, sufficiently so that eastern catholic church bishops of the Metropolitan and Patriarchal ranks may have both.

The symbols of the episcopacy in the roman church are the Rochet, the Zuchetto, the Crozier, and the Miter. The Pallium is specific to an Archbishop or Patriarch within his province.

The symbols of the episcopacy in the east are the Miter, the Omophorion, Saccos, and onglopion. Within their see, they bear their staff, as well. Again, the Pallium is specific to an Archbishop or Patriarch within his province.

And in both cases, the miter isn’t exclusive to bishops. (Roman Abbots wear small miters; ECC Archpriests and Archimandrites also may be granted the Mitre)

You’re right; i used the wrong term - get over it.

However, i must continue to affirm that the pallium and omophorion are analogous. Of course there are some differences in their usage in the two rites. However, that does not mean they are completely different vestments.

They should be considered analogous in the same way that the byzantine and latin styles of Mitres are considered analogous; even though they look different and are worn at different times by different people at different times, they are still equivalent vestments.

The fact that Eastern Catholic Bishops can be awarded the pallium in addition to their omophorion is a historical idiosyncracy, and one that i have pointed out on this forum before. As noted recently when an eastern bishop WAS given a pallium by the Pope, it looked horrendously akward, and i immediately called into question the practice, seing as it was a redundant step and the pallium is a distinctly LATIN form of a vestment they already posess in their byzantine rite.

As was mentioned in that thread, Eastern Bishops used to NOT be included in the ceremony, and were not formally invested with palliums. In the past, they were just given them outside of any formal ceremony as sort of an acknowledgement on a job well done.

 

[bpbasilphx]

A number of months ago I viewed a program on EWTN wherein Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople co-celebrated (may I use that term here)a Mass.

**They did NOT concelebrate Mass, as that requires total unity in faith between those concelebrating, which does not as yet exist.

It might have been a prayer service of some kind, but it was NOT the Eucharistic Liturgy.**

Is Bartholomew I the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church or does he have some connection with the Eastern Orthodox Church?

**“Greek Orthodox” properly refers to Orthodox of Greek descent, though the Church of Greece is separate in its administration from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The primate of the Church of Greece is the Archbishop of Athens.

His All-Holiness Bartholomew is Archbishop of New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch [of Constantinople].

“Eastern Orthodox” is a generic term that includes Greeks, Russians, Serbs, Japanese (yes, there is a Japanese Orthodox Church) and others.**

I think I am confused with the Eastern Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic churches.

Once you pull yourself out of the Catholic/Protestant dichotomy of Christianity (which most Western Christians think in), it’s a whole lot easier.

 

[rinnie]

Distracted I like you never quite understood this, I just asked Father about a week or so ago. I believe this is the way he told me.

I like things short and easy to understand, and could never get a short and easy answer.

Here is the best I can do. Father told me Jesus made Andrew and Peter the first two Apostles, You can remember that in the bible. He told them BOTH follow me I will make you fisherman of Men. They were brothers.

Peter and Andrew separated. One went east one went west. They both had the power of the Holy Spirit, etc. Except Father said they didnt have phones, e-mail etc. which is common sense, But they had like the pony express or whatever in those days.

Peter started the Roman Catholic Church in Rome, that is who we follow. Andrew started the other church. Its kind of like (and i know im gonna get in alot of trouble for this) but its like 2 Popes in a way.

But remember Jesus sent Andrew off, and Peter to stay. so the big difference is customs, little things Father said. He said that as long as a Church is Catholic and they have the 7 sacraments they are a Catholic Church. They are all one. He said they just didnt communicate then, like today because they couldnt so things are exact. But the things that arent exact are not real important things. They still have the fullness of the truth, Its just the way they went about things that are different.

I like you have tried and tried to get an easy answer but always failed, or arguments seemed to happen.

But thats the easiest way i can tell you. Hope it helps. But bottom line is one went east one west to start the Church. They both knew the same as far as teachings went. Both had same teachings, and the teachings should not differ. Again just more or less customs, or like man made rules. like maybe one could wear this in one, not the other. Just like how different Parish’s are run certain way, like one Priest may not want alot of flowers or decorations, one may. Just little things, but again father said as long as they have the 7 sacraments thats what counts.

 

[sushierror]

As a Roman Catholic, I am interested in finding out how fasting is different for Eastern-rite Catholics?

 

[DD2007]

I went to Eucaristic adoration in a Maronite Church once. It was very memorable.

I would like to do that again some time.

 

[Formosus]

As a Roman Catholic, I am interested in finding out how fasting is different for Eastern-rite Catholics?

Well it depends on which eastern church. Generally though the fasting is much stricter and more often then the general requirements in the Roman church.

 

[Peter_J]

A number of months ago I viewed a program on EWTN wherein Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople co-celebrated (may I use that term here)a Mass.

**They did NOT concelebrate Mass, as that requires total unity in faith between those concelebrating, which does not as yet exist.

It might have been a prayer service of some kind, but it was NOT the Eucharistic Liturgy.**

Either that, or else what mullenpm saw was a concelebration, but it wasn’t between Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I (e.g. maybe it was Pope Benedict XVI and the Melkite Catholic Patriarch, Gregory III).

 

[distracted]

We have a tradition of married AND celibate clergy both, and of monastics being a diocesan asset, not independent from the local bishop, and of monastic priests being the ideal for bishops.

The 17th century saw the Ukrainians and the Ruthenians both come to union with Rome. The Melkites were somewhat earlier.

thanks for this info…

so those 3 are the only ones to come to Rome?

Also: What do you think of the Roman Catholic clergy being alwys celibate?

Didn’t priests used to be able to marry - until about the 12th century??

 

[distracted]

Priest may not want alot of flowers or decorations, one may. Just little things, but again father said as long as they have the 7 sacraments thats what counts.

thanks… that does help…

 

[Peter_J]

Distracted I like you never quite understood this, I just asked Father about a week or so ago. I believe this is the way he told me.

I like things short and easy to understand, and could never get a short and easy answer.

One thing that complicates it is that there isn’t any one date that we can point to for when the schism began. The date most commonly given is 1054, which is the year that Cardinal Humbert excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius. But some would say that excommunication wasn’t valid, and that the schism didn’t actually begin until the Council of Florence in the 15th century. Others would say that Rome and Constantinople weren’t in full communion for a century or so before 1054, so that’s when the schism should be dated from.

I have also seen (a number of times, on the internet) the claim that prior to the Protestant reformation, all Christians were Catholic. This, to me, is at best a misleading statement – in order for it to be true, you have to define “Catholic” to mean “all Christians who aren’t Protestant” (i.e. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics, etc.) but that just isn’t the way we usually define the term.

 

[Formosus]

I would argue that the schism was finalized after the fall of Constantinople. At least before that point there were serious efforts(whether made for the right reason or not) at reconciliation between the two sides. After the fall, the new patriarch ended all attempts and finalized it. Though perhaps the schism could be dated to the 1200s with the fourth crusade’s sacking of the great city.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, I think a number of events (in different centuries) actually widened the split: the Fourth Crusade, the Second Council of Lyons dogmatically defining the “filioque”, the adoption of scholasticism in the West, etc.

(Contrast this with, e.g., the division between Roman Catholics and Lutherans, which all took place in just a couple decades.)

 

[Aramis]

thanks for this info…

so those 3 are the only ones to come to Rome?

Also: What do you think of the Roman Catholic clergy being alwys celibate?

Didn’t priests used to be able to marry - until about the 12th century??

No; only of of the Byantine Rite churches didn’t have “Orthodox Not In Union with Rome” time.

Understand: I was raised Roman Rite.

I strongly considered going Russian Orthodox. But the last couple chapters of the Gospel according to St. John, and timelining the events after the crucifiction lead me to the same conclusion that Mar Bawai quoted from Assyrian theology: The Pope is to patriarchs as patriarchs are to bishops.

My dad is a Roman Church Deacon, who happens to also have a love of the eastern churches. I know a married Roman Priest.

I understand the rationale behind Roman traditional clerical (now priestly) celibacy; in the 12th C, several property disputes involving parish assets were recorded. Further, married Roman priests were expected to be continent (that is, having no sex) once ordained to the priesthood; their children were supposed to predate this.

I approve of those who wish becoming celibate clerics. In any of the Churches in union. It would not bother me if Rome were to open the Roman priesthood to non-converts; I suspect some of the permanent deacons might be ordained after being widowed.

Everything which is not dogma is subject to change.

 

[sushierror]

Well it depends on which eastern church. Generally though the fasting is much stricter and more often then the general requirements in the Roman church.

That’s what I figured.

How is it different (i.e what are some of your traditions)?

 

[Formosus]

stnicholaschurch.ca/content_pages/ourfaith/art_faith010.FAQ.htm

Here is an FAQ for the Ukrainian Catholic Church. It appears even I was a little mis informed on what the regulations were I was under the impression that they were more akin to these practices. abbamoses.com/fasting.html. Though I can’t say I am currently capable of following the latter practices : p .

 

[Rolltide]

thanks for this info…

so those 3 are the only ones to come to Rome?

If you look at my list on post #2, it shows when each of the various Orthodox groups entered reunion with Rome. Of the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches, the Maronite Catholic Church never left union with Rome, the Italo-Albanians don’t have an Orthodox equivalent, and the other 20 came to Rome from various Orthodox churches. So, 20 came to Rome.

Didn’t priests used to be able to marry - until about the 12th century??

Yes, the discipline only became universal in the Latin Catholic Church as part of the Cluny Reform Movement, around the 11th century.

 

[Patchunky]

Didn’t priests used to be able to marry - until about the 12th century??

Priests were never permitted to marry.

Married men are ordained to the Holy Priesthood.

Hope this helps…