Differences between Byzantine and Roman

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brigh111
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brigh111

Guest
Hello, my boyfriend was born and raised Byzantine Ruthenian and I was born and raised in the Roman Rite. I am interested in understanding the differences between the two rites. For instance, my boyfriend told me that in the Byzantine rite, the notion of venial and mortal sins doesn’t really exist. He didn’t learn about that distinction till he was in his teens. And I went to a Byzantine confession but was told that the way I know to do things (bless me Father for I have sinned) is very much not how the byzantines do things. Sadly, because of quarantine I haven’t been able to immerse myself in Byzantine liturgy as I would like to. Any info you have for me would be appreciated. I’m just so curious since it seems like there are differences I didn’t even realize we were allowed to have 😂
 
Brigh111 said:
I’m just so curious since it seems like there are differences I didn’t even realize we were allowed to have 😂
Click to expand...
Faith is the same. Approach is not. Officially Byzantines do not recognize difference between mortal and venial sin (though their theologians certainly do to some extent 😃 ). There are minor things about approach and emphasis on different things of the Faith but generally core beliefs and all dogmas are same. Byzantine Divine Liturgy is different than our Mass. Byzantines have different law they must follow (but even if you attend their Liturgy you are still Roman Catholics so you are bound by your own law even there).

Minor differences are that they cross themselves in different way, they use different type of bread for Eucharist, their marriages are blessed by Priests only (ours just need someone to witness… even Deacons can do that), they usually baptize and confirm infants at the same time (as well as give them Eucharist, so even little kids receive our Lord in Byzantine Churches).

We are One Church with Byzantines though. They are in communion with the Pope. What is Sin in the East is Sin in the West and what is Holy in the East is Holy in the West. Church has variety and it is very rich with very different Rites and Traditions but it is perfectly united through communion of it’s members, Primacy of Pope Francis as Her visible head and Apostolic Faith.

By the way, when I was at university for my first semester I attended almost exclusively Byzantine Liturgies. They fulfill your Sunday Obligation, they are completely and perfectly valid and you can also receive Eucharist as you would be able to in Roman Catholic Church. If you get far with your boyfriend, during marriage either of you can (but does not have to!) transfer to Byzantine/Roman (and in untimely death of one of you, other one can return back but also doesn’t have to). You can choose whether your kids would be Byzantine or Roman, you can choose in which Church you want to marry and you can attend either Church (you can even alternate between them). My friend is Byzantine Catholic with Roman Catholic mother and Byzantine Catholic father and they alternate between Mass and Byzantine Divine Liturgy. I think norm is that Marriage is done in Church of Wife and kids take Rite from their father but that is norm- if you would wish to change that, all power to you. I know that’s probably getting ahead of everything but I would want to know this if I got into relationship so I’m just leaving it there 😃

And lastly, may God guide you on journey with your boyfriend and also in your journey through Byzantine Rite. I found it very beautiful, although I will probably always stay Roman Catholic at heart.
 
Last edited:
The only thing I would add to what @OrbisNonSufficit has said, is that a married priesthood is a part of Byzantine Tradition, which as a Roman Catholic unfamiliar with Eastern Catholicism, can be a bit jarring.

The following video is a great introduction to Eastern Catholicism.
It has a brief introduction/history about Ukrainian Catholicism in the USA (Ukrainian Catholics & Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics both use the same Divine Liturgy Of St John Chrysostom) and as the Liturgy is said, the priest explains the the meaning behind everything during the video so this is very informative.


I am a Roman Catholic but I absolutely love Eastern Catholicism and I would exclusively attend an Eastern Byzantine Catholic Church if only I could get the wife to agree lol.
My personal favorite liturgy is the Divine Liturgy Of St John Chrysostom, my wife’s favorite liturgy is the Mass of the Ordinariate, which of the western Mass’s it is probably my favorite, but I digress, the Eastern Divine Liturgy Of St John Chrysostom is my favorite, it’s beauty can knock you off your feet.
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Officially Byzantines do not recognize difference between mortal and venial sin (though their theologians certainly do to some extent 😃 ).
Click to expand...
It’s a Byzantine thing. You wouldn’t understand.

:crazy_face: 🤔 🤣

OK, couldn’t resist. (which I suppose would be venial . . . :roll_eyes:)

More seriously, it’s a very byzantine thing. There is no distinction between mortal an venial sin, yet both EO and EC theologians mange to write volumes on it.

Byzantine thinking doesn’t have a problem with answers not being nailed down, and is quite comfortable with answering either/or questions with “yes.”

For all of these, both present both east and west, but the focus is different.

Speaking very broadly, the western church focuses more on the Crucification, and the East on the Resurrection.

The Mass is more a re-enactment of the Last Supper, while the Divine Liturgy is our effort join the Celestial liturgy.

The West approaches sin in a legal manner, while the East in a medical manner (as a disease).

You are likely to be run down in the parking lot in a RC church while you try to walk to your car, but not in a BC church. 😱 🤔 :crazy_face: (OK, that’s not a real difference, and likely comes more from the size of the group leaving anyway).

The West sees the Sunday obligation as being under penalty of sin, while the east sees the obligation to attend more like the obligation to breathe–you just can;'t live without it.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
They are in communion with the Pope.
Click to expand...
Thank you for avoiding “under” . . .
 
dochawk said:
It’s a Byzantine thing. You wouldn’t understand.

:crazy_face: 🤔 🤣

OK, couldn’t resist. (which I suppose would be venial . . . :roll_eyes:)
Click to expand...
😃
dochawk said:
Thank you for avoiding “under” . . .
Click to expand...
It doesn’t quite express the reality I would wish to see. Don’t get me wrong, I am not into primus inter pares idea… but that doesn’t mean I’ll go to other extreme of Pope being Patriarch of Patriarchs either.
 
dochawk said:
Byzantine thinking doesn’t have a problem with answers not being nailed down, and is quite comfortable with answering either/or questions with “yes.”
Click to expand...
I love this aspect of Eastern Christianity. Sometimes the Latin Church can seem obsessed with having a neat legal proof for everything and it can be a bummer.
 
The mass is not a re-enactment of the last supper. If it could be called a re-enactment of anything, it would be of Christ’s sacrifice at the calvary.
 
tuffsmurf said:
The mass is not a re-enactment of the last supper. If it could be called a re-enactment of anything, it would be of Christ’s sacrifice at the calvary.
Click to expand...
I think here the distinction is not so much between East/West, but changes in how things were often presented in the West.

In the EF there is an explicit focus on Calvary. In the OF it is present but more subdued, especially when liturgical abuses were common a few decades ago.
 
Last edited:
dochawk said:
The Mass is more a re-enactment of the Last Supper,
Click to expand...
No, this is incorrect. The Mass is a re-enactment of the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
There have been many articles written, especially in recent years, dispelling the idea that it is a re-creation of the Last Supper. The Last Supper was a part of the passion narrative, but it is not the focus of the Mass.

Sadly, there are a lot of RC parishes even today who didn’t get the memo and still continue to focus on the Mass as some sort of communal meal/ reenactment of the Last Supper. You see this crop up in bulletins from time to time.

As tuffsmurf said, if the Mass has a focus on anything, it’s on the sacrifice of Christ at the crucifixion. Growing up, I was taught in the traditional manner that the Mass was “the unbloody sacrifice of Jesus”. I was certainly not taught that it was commemorating the Last Supper.
commenter said:
In the EF there is an explicit focus on Calvary. In the OF it is present but more subdued, especially when liturgical abuses were common a few decades ago.
Click to expand...
I agree. My impression was that post-Vatican II, a cadre of RCs were trying to get away from everything that might be scary or gory or uncomfortable about the Mass and the Church, and focus more on its being a communal, friendly place where neighbors break bread together and celebrate Christ’s resurrection…just like many Protestant churches where you never saw a Jesus corpus on the cross, anywhere.

However, the Mass is still the Mass and it’s still the sacrifice of Jesus, no matter how the modernists tried to soft-pedal that.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
As tuffsmurf said, if the Mass has a focus on anything, it’s on the sacrifice of Christ at the crucifixion. Growing up, I was taught in the traditional manner that the Mass was “the unbloody sacrifice of Jesus”. I was certainly not taught that it was commemorating the Last Supper.
Click to expand...
I think what confuses people is the phrase “do this in memory of me.” People hear that and think, “oh, ok, we’re doing this to commemorate the Last Supper” since that’s the context for Jesus saying that.
 
I understand the confusion. That’s why it’s really important to give RC’s good catechesis on what’s actually going on in the Mass. Which unfortunately doesn’t seem to happen much nowadays outside of the traditionalist parishes and info channels. I honestly think most RC’s don’t understand what the Mass is. I know that I didn’t “get it” as a kid and my mother had to repeat the lesson about 1000 times to the point where I would just roll my eyes but around about age 50 something I finally “Got it”.
 
Last edited:
tuffsmurf said:
The mass is not a re-enactment of the last supper. If it could be called a re-enactment of anything, it would be of Christ’s sacrifice at the calvary.
Click to expand...
heard a priest say, the Mass [Eucharist] is a temporal version of the same sacrifice from 2000 years ago. we leave time and space when we join a Mass.
 
Last edited:
“Re-presentation” is the word we usually use. I do not know if “re-enactment” is accurate; never heard it that way before. The sacrifice of Calvary is made present, in an unbloody manner on the altar. It is the Heavenly liturgy brought to Earth, as echoed in the “Holy, Holy, Holy!” cry of angels in the Book of Revelation. The sanctuary recapitulates the Garden of Eden, with the Tree of Life in a prominent position. The Burning Bush is on or near the altar. The Holy of Holies reserves the Eucharist.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
I think norm is that Marriage is done in Church of Wife and kids take Rite from their father but that is norm- if you would wish to change that, all power to you.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can get married in the Church of the bride but afaik the ceremony has to be according to the particular Church of the groom.
 
As @OrbisNonSufficit said:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
I think norm is that Marriage is done in Church of Wife and kids take Rite from their father but that is norm- if you would wish to change that, all power to you.
Click to expand...
My BIL is RC so my sister & BIL’s wedding was in the Roman rite.

If you do get married, please consider a Byzantine wedding. Depending on which Byzantine Catholic parish it is, you will either get crowned with flowers or with real crowns 👑 👑!

In the Byzantine Tradition, the bride and groom are crowned so the Sacrament of Matrimony is called the “Mystery of Crowning.” In fact, the traditional Latin wedding ceremony and Mass used to have the crowning of the bride and groom too but it fell into disuse after the fall of Constantinople (1453). However, afaik the TLM still has the verse from Psalm 8 in it (which is what we use too).

Since the groom and bride are now king and queen, their home is a castle as in the old saying: “A man’s home is his castle.”
 
Last edited:
Margaret_Ann said:
Yes, you can get married in the Church of the bride but afaik the ceremony has to be according to the particular Church of the groom.
Click to expand...
Oh really? I wasn’t aware. Is it customary or is it literal “has to” ?
 
Afaik, officially you have to but unfortunately most people ignore it because here in the U.S. our practice has been influenced by RC & Protestant practice (e.g. giving the bride away when in the Byzantine Tradition both bride & groom walk down the aisle together).
 
I see. Thanks for letting me know, it’s very interesting.
Margaret_Ann said:
in the Byzantine Tradition both bride & groom walk down the aisle together
Click to expand...
I think that better symbolizes what marriage is. Of course that is my subjective notion, not to disrespect my own Latin Rite 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top