Differences between Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox

[AdriannaJean]

Hello everyone,

I’m a Roman Catholic, but I am sorry to say that I am completely lacking in knowledge of the differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Catholicism and the difference between the two of them and Orthodox christianity. I know that Orthodox christians split from catholicism around 500 years before the Reformation and don’t have the pope as the head of their church, but anything other than that I am ignorant about. Could someone be so kind as to enlighten me? Also, who can receive the Eucharist with whom? I think Orthodox christians can receive Catholic communion, does it go the other way as well? Are all the sacraments present in all the above churches?

 

[Cluny]

I think Orthodox christians can receive Catholic communion, does it go the other way as well?

While Orthodox can receive the mysteries from Catholic priests, they are considered by this act to have become Catholic from the Orthodox viewpoint.

Orthodox will give the mysteries to Catholics only if they formally convert, which is handled in different ways.

Are all the sacraments present in all the above churches?

Yes.

 

[Aramis]

While Orthodox can receive the mysteries from Catholic priests, they are considered by this act to have become Catholic from the Orthodox viewpoint.

Orthodox will give the mysteries to Catholics only if they formally convert, which is handled in different ways.

At least until the early 1990’s, this was not true of the OCA in Alaska.

It can be said to be generally true of the Eastern Orthodox Communion.

It is explicitly not true of the Syrian Orthodox Church (which has by treaty limited communion with the Syrian Catholic Church), either. But then, the SOC isn’t part of the EOC, from what I gather.

The practice on the ground in Melkite and Antiochean Orthodox parishes is to commune members of the other.

Likewise the ACROD have not made issues of Pittsburgh Metropolia Ruthenians. We’ve had members of the ACROD attend St. Nick, KNOWING it was in union with Rome, and in one case with their Pastor’s recommendation! (In writing, on parish letterhead!)

On the other hand, we’ve one little old Ukrainian baba who receives the sacramentals, but not communion.

 

[Ghosty]

Are all the sacraments present in all the above churches?

Yes, they are present and valid, and under certain circumstances a Catholic is allowed to receive the Sacraments from the Orthodox (allowed on the Catholic side as a rule, not always permitted by the Orthodox; it varies from Church to Church and by location and pastor).

I myself have received Communion several times from a Syriac Orthodox priest who concelebrated with our Melkite priest, and one of these concelebrations occured when our Bishop was celebrating.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Rolltide]

Most people are not aware that the “Catholic Church” is actually comprised of twenty-three independent Catholic Churches, all in union with the pope. The Western, or Latin Catholic Church, is so large, however, that many people, even Catholics, are completely unaware of the other twenty-two churches, which make up the Eastern Branch. (Some have from only a few thousand members to a few million.)

Originally, there was only one denomination… the Catholic Church (the word Catholic meaning “universal”). However, there were five cities that were singled out as being important centers of Christianity. They were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and of course, Rome. Each developed its own unique traditions and liturgy, but ALL shared a common theology and were in communion with each other and the Bishop of Rome, known as the Pope. However, about 1054 AD, as a result of a variety of unfortunate problems, the other four cities, allied with the Byzantine Empire, mutually broke off from Rome, forming the various Eastern Orthodox Churches. Although doctrinally, they are virtually identical to Catholics, they refuse to acknowledge that the pope is more than a “first among equals”. (A couple groups broke of much earlier in the 400s AD also, to form what are known as the Oriental Orthodox Churches).

What has happened is that over time, some portions of each of the various Orthodox groups have decided to reconcile with the Catholic Church and come back into communion with Rome. When they do, they are allowed to keep all of their traditions and much of their independence, although they acknowledge the authority of the Pope. They become truly Catholic, in that anyone from ANY branch of the Catholic Church can participate in the liturgy and ceremonies of any OTHER branch of the Catholic Church. The only two Eastern groups that never fell out of communion with the Catholic Church were the Maronite Catholic Church, and the Italo-Albanian Catholic Church. So… for every branch of the Orthodox Churches that are NOT in communion with Rome, there is a corresponding and virtually identical branch of the Eastern Catholic Church that IS in communion with Rome. Since their customs and liturgies date from before the Council of Trent, they are allowed to remain. In other words, these Eastern Churches have ceremonies, liturgies, traditions, and ways of expressing theology that are different, but still united, with the Latin branch of the Catholic Church.

The following liturgies are used by the Eastern Catholic Churches:

• The Liturgy of St. Basil
• The Chaldean Mass
• The Order of the Divine and Holy Liturgy of Our Father Among the Saints Gregory the Theologian (or Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts)
• The Liturgy of St. James
• The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
• The Liturgy of St. Mark
• The Holy Qorbono

The Latin branch of the Catholic Church generally uses just the “Ordinary Form of the Mass”, although it has some variants, (some of which are substantially different, like the Extraordinary Form). The different versions are listed under the Latin tradition in the post below. Note that these are really considered different forms of the SAME Mass.

continued…

 

[Rolltide]

Here is a listing that includes EACH of the twenty-three Catholic Churches in union with the Pope. Do not confuse “churches” with “rites”. A rite is a series of traditions, that includes different customs and liturgies. Several different churches may use the exact same rite. A Church has its own rules and separate line of authority to the Pope. It may also have a figure in charge, like a Metropolitan or a Patriarch (like an Archbishop), since these churches are generally very small and work very hard to preserve their unique traditions. The major rites are the Latin, Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, Chaldean, and Byzantine.
**
The Western (Latin) Catholic Church**

Latin liturgical tradition

1. Ordinary Form
2. Extraordinary Form
3. Ambrosian Rite (Only permitted in the Archdiocese of Milan)
4. Mozarabic Rite (Only permitted in the Cathedral of Toledo, Spain and a few surrounding churches of the diocese)
5. Bragan Rite (Only permitted in the Archdiocese of Braga, Portugal)
6. Anglican-Use Mass (This form is permitted in the extremely rare circumstance in which an Anglican priest converts to Catholicism and brings his entire parish with him. In that event, a parish may continue to use the Anglican liturgy, with corrections to make it conform with Catholic teachings This is currently meant as a transitional liturgy, and upon the death of the pastor, the church reverts to the Ordinary Form.)

Rites of Religious Orders (These are not technically rites per se, but rather small variants of the Roman liturgy. The Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Bragan Rites fall into this category too.):

1. Dominican Rite
2. Carthusian Rite
3. Carmelite Rite
4. Cisternian Rite

**
The Eastern Catholic Churches**
**

1. Alexandrian liturgical tradition**
2. Coptic Catholic Church (patriarchate): Egypt (1741)
3. Ethiopian Catholic Church (metropolia): Ethiopia, Eritrea (1846)
   2. Antiochian (Antiochene or West-Syrian) liturgical tradition
4. Maronite Church (patriarchate): Lebanon, Cyprus, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Argentina, Brazil, United States, Australia, Canada, Mexico (union re-affirmed 1182)
5. Syriac Catholic Church (patriarchate): Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Palestine, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United States and Canada, Venezuela (1781)
6. Syro-Malankara Catholic Church (major archiepiscopate): India, United States (1930)
   3. Armenian liturgical tradition:
7. Armenian Catholic Church (patriarchate): Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Palestine, Ukraine, France, Greece, Latin America, Argentina, Romania, United States, Canada, Eastern Europe (1742)
   4. Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition:
8. Chaldean Catholic Church (patriarchate): Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, United States (1692)
9. Syro-Malabar Church (major archiepiscopate): India, Middle East, Europe and America.
   5. Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) liturgical tradition:
10. Albanian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic administration): Albania (1628)
11. Belarusian Greek Catholic Church (no established hierarchy at present): Belarus (1596)
12. Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic exarchate): Bulgaria (1861)
13. Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro (1611)
14. Greek Byzantine Catholic Church (two apostolic exarchates): Greece, Turkey (1829)
15. Hungarian Greek Catholic Church (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Hungary (1646)
16. Italo-Albanian Catholic Church (two eparchies and a territorial abbacy): Italy (Never separated)
17. Macedonian Greek Catholic Church (an apostolic exarchate): Republic of Macedonia (1918)
18. Melkite Greek Catholic Church (patriarchate): Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Jerusalem, Brazil, United States, Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Egypt and Sudan, Kuwait, Australia, Venezuela, Argentina (1726)
19. Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic (major archiepiscopate): Romania, United States (1697)
20. Russian Catholic Church: (two apostolic exarchates, at present with no published hierarchs): Russia, China (1905); currently about 20 parishes and communities scattered around the world, including five in Russia itself, answering to bishops of other jurisdictions
21. Ruthenian Catholic Church (a sui juris metropolia, an eparchy, and an apostolic exarchate): United States, Ukraine, Czech Republic (1646)
22. Slovak Greek Catholic Church (metropolia): Slovak Republic, Canada (1646)
23. Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (major archiepiscopate): Ukraine, Poland, United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany and Scandinavia, France, Brazil, Argentina (1595)

 

[Rolltide]

Hello everyone,

I’m a Roman Catholic, but I am sorry to say that I am completely lacking in knowledge of the differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Catholicism and the difference between the two of them and Orthodox christianity. I know that Orthodox christians split from catholicism around 500 years before the Reformation and don’t have the pope as the head of their church, but anything other than that I am ignorant about. Could someone be so kind as to enlighten me? Also, who can receive the Eucharist with whom? I think Orthodox christians can receive Catholic communion, does it go the other way as well? Are all the sacraments present in all the above churches?

To further clarify, the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are almost identical, but there are a few differences that sadly still keep us apart.

1. As mentioned above, the Eastern Orthodox recognize the pope as a “first among equals”, but not as a supreme, infallible head of the church.
2. The Eastern Orthodox do not recognize the addition of the “filoque” to the Nicene Creed. The filoque is the part that states that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Father “and the Son”. They reject the “and the Son” part for theological reasons.
3. The Eastern Orthodox do not believe in original sin, at least not by the Catholic definition. This also renders the Immaculate Conception theologically problematic (although they DO recognize the Assumption of Mary).
4. The Eastern Orthodox do not, for the most part, have a belief in Purgatory.
5. The Eastern Orthodox only recognize the first seven ecumenical church councils.

Further, there are also the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which broke off from the Catholic Church in the fifth century because they only recognized the first three ecumenical church councils. The Oriental Orthodox are also not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox, with a very few exceptions.

 

[bluecake]

Thank you, Adrianna, for asking that question, and Rolltide, for answering it. I’ve learned so much, I’m printiing the replies to study them!

 

[Aramis]

It should be noted that many EO do NOT accept the pope even as first amongst equals, since they consider the entire Roman Church, and in many cases, the entire Catholic Church, to be heretical. The Eastern Orthodox Communion, however, is most notable for not being able to effectively define much of anything other than whether or not they are in communion with another church, and make little if any distinction between dogma and doctrine; they believe as they “always have” and pray the same liturgy as they “always have.” Innovation is in fact often anathematized immediately by the Synod and/or Sobor. Likewise, little distinction is made between sacraments and sacramentals (tho the distinction is taught to clerics for certain, and interested laymen); it’s not hidden by any means, but it’s just not important since both are roads to grace.

Seriously, the EOC is more a coalition that agrees they are all in communion with each other than a true unified group, and for the EOC, that is the way they generally feel it should be‡. When a member church gets too “far from orthodoxy” for the hierarchs of another EO church, they simple stop commemorating the primate of that other church in the Hierarchical Divine Liturgy, and stop allowing concelebration with/by their priests and communion to their faithful.

(‡ The Russian Orthodox Church at various times has tried to unify the Slavic-speaking Orthodox Churches under one patriarchate with a more imperial/papal model, almost cyclically… currently, its in a conciliar mode, not an autocratic one… but it still hangs on to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church with a tenacity that is interesting.)

They are all remarkably alike in faith, and diverse in disciplines and ecclesiology.

The Russian Orthodox (and their cadet branches, the OCA, the ROCA, and the ROCOR) are constantly swinging on an ecclesiological pendulum between central autocratic &/or imperialistic ecclesiology (very much like Papal systems at times) and more conciliar even democratic* rule. (The recent brouhaha in Alaska is neither unique nor atypical of Russian Orthodox history… It is not atypical for an unpopular bishop to be asked to resign by the diocesan presbyteraty or even the diocesan sobor, and to go above his head if he refuses.)

*more properly, Sobornitskoi “in the manner of those who engage in Sobor”, or councils; the term implies laymen participation in church councils in Russian history. The OCA itself has a Sobor regularly, with select laymen, select presbyters, and all the bishops; it is the real power of the OCA. The Synod has vast power, but the Sobor has much as well.

The Antiochian Orthodox have seldom had diocesan bishops in the same sense as the other EO and EC churches; they have metropolitan archbishops, with many auxiliary bishops who act as locum tenens for the Metropolitan in one of the dioceses, but without the actual authority (or vote in council) of a fully enthroned bishop. They recently ended their period of having a few select diocesan bishops.

The lack of central authority means that the EOC as a whole will react very slowly to most things, or will react on a local level surprisingly quickly, and often in subtly different ways.

Theologically and liturgically, the differences between Byzantine Rite Catholics of the various ethnic churches and their EO counterpart is very slim. So slim that some Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Catholics can’t tell the difference until the litanies.

The Oriental Orthodox Communion are a whole 'nother matter… the majority are the so-called monophysite churches. Properly, they are miaphysite, which is subtly different, and from the catholic perspective, monophysitism is heresy, and miaphysitism isn’t, but to the casual examiner they are likely to be mistaken for interchangeable with each other. I’m not so well versed in the OOC as the EOC, since I live in a state where active catholics are outnumbered by active EO (mostly OCA).

The OOC tends towards more central ecclesiology; the Coptic Orthodox Pope is the head of that communion, and while not considered infallible in the same sense as the Catholic Pope, he still is the defacto authority within the OOC, and especially in the Coptic Orthodox Church. The Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church is a member of this communion, and is in limited communion with the Armenian Catholic Church as well… And for every member church I’ve heard of in the OOC, there is a parallel Catholic Church.

It’s a rich tapesty, the various eastern churches Catholic and Orthodox.

 

[ziapueblo]

Orthodox will give the mysteries to Catholics only if they formally convert, which is handled in different ways.

Let’s say that a Catholic was traveling in Greece or Egypt and there was no Catholic Church in the town (Eastern or Roman). Would said Catholic be able to receive Holy Communion under this sercumssance?

Thanks and God bless,
ZP

 

[Hesychios]

Let’s say that a Catholic was traveling in Greece or Egypt and there was no Catholic Church in the town (Eastern or Roman). Would said Catholic be able to receive Holy Communion under this circumstance?

Thanks and God bless,
ZP

Not normally.

There could be exceptions, but it is best not to plan on it.
*
Michael*

 

[Hesychios]

To further clarify, the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are almost identical, but there are a few differences that sadly still keep us apart.

1. As mentioned above, the Eastern Orthodox recognize the pope as a “first among equals”, but not as a supreme, infallible head of the church.

The Pope could be recognized as “First among equals”, but currently we do not share a common theology and we are not in communion. So that is a possibility for the future, not for the present.

At the present time the EP would be the first among equals, and he has functioned in this capacity.

 

[Rolltide]

The Pope could be recognized as “First among equals”, but currently we do not share a common theology and we are not in communion. So that is a possibility for the future, not for the present.

At the present time the EP would be the first among equals, and he has functioned in this capacity.

Of course, you are correct, and that’s an important distinction. I had meant to imply that this was the Orthodox perspective prior to the Great Schism.

 

[narrowpath]

As far as I can tell, the modern first-among-equals is the Patriarch of Constantinople-New Rome (today Patriarch Bartholomew), as the Patriarch of Rome an all the West (yes, I realize that His Holiness has dropped this title. I still use it and find it sadly ironic that he dropped for ecumenical purposes one of the few titles that the Orthodox accept), is today is schism, and not in communion with the other Bishops.

 

[Ghosty]

As far as I can tell, the modern first-among-equals is the Patriarch of Constantinople-New Rome (today Patriarch Bartholomew), as the Patriarch of Rome an all the West (yes, I realize that His Holiness has dropped this title. I still use it and find it sadly ironic that he dropped for ecumenical purposes one of the few titles that the Orthodox accept), is today is schism, and not in communion with the other Bishops.

One thing to keep in mind, of course, is that Constantinople “stands alone” just as much as Rome; the other Patriarchates of the Eastern Orthodox Communion are all splinters from Constantinople itself, not the original Churches.

The “original lines” of Alexandria and Antioch, for example, remain seperate from the Eastern Orthodox, and the EO Patriarchates of those Sees were created by Constantinople after they seperated. Antioch has a double split, in fact, because the original line split with the Council of Chalcedon, and then in 1724 the Byzantine Antiochian Patriarch and most of the Synod joined with Rome; the modern Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate was made by Constantinople to fill that gap, and in fact was under the control of the Patriarch of Constantinople until a century ago.

So the Melkite Catholic Church was the Imperial replacement for the Church of Antioch, and the Antiochian Orthodox Church was the replacement for the replacement.

As for Constantinople being the “first among equals”, that is disputed by the Church of Moscow (which is by far the largest Church of Eastern Orthodoxy, containing perhaps more members than all the other EO Churches combined), and even when it’s not disputed directly, the meaning of it certainly is. Just look at Moscow’s response to the last joint-declaration between the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Communions (Moscow walked out at the beginning of the meetings over an issue directly related to Constantinople’s authority).

Welcome to the sorted history of the Apostolic Churches. :whacky:

Peace and God bless!

 

[Aramis]

As for Constantinople being the “first among equals”, that is disputed by the Church of Moscow (which is by far the largest Church of Eastern Orthodoxy, containing perhaps more members than all the other EO Churches combined), and even when it’s not disputed directly, the meaning of it certainly is. Just look at Moscow’s response to the last joint-declaration between the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Communions (Moscow walked out at the beginning of the meetings over an issue directly related to Constantinople’s authority).

It boils down to the autocephaly of Moscow. Moscow’s claim is that Constantinople fell as the prime church when Byzantium became occupied by the Muslim Turks, and that Rome was heretical, and the other great patriarchates occupied by Muslims, so the 1st City of Orthodoxy became Moscow, the New New Rome, even as Byzantium had claimed to be the New Rome with the break from communion with Rome.

Welcome to the sorted history of the Apostolic Churches. :whacky:

Peace and God bless!

Don’t you mean sordid, brother?

Peace!

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Ghosty:

One thing to keep in mind, of course, is that Constantinople “stands alone” just as much as Rome; the other Patriarchates of the Eastern Orthodox Communion are all splinters from Constantinople itself, not the original Churches.

Huh?

The “original lines” of Alexandria and Antioch, for example, remain seperate from the Eastern Orthodox, and the EO Patriarchates of those Sees were created by Constantinople after they seperated. Antioch has a double split, in fact, because the original line split with the Council of Chalcedon, and then in 1724 the Byzantine Antiochian Patriarch and most of the Synod joined with Rome; the modern Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate was made by Constantinople to fill that gap, and in fact was under the control of the Patriarch of Constantinople until a century ago.

In which document, council or imperial decision does Constantinople create new Patriarchates of Alexandria and/or Antioch. My understanding is that Proterius was chosen at Chalcedon, or close on the heels of it at least, as new Patriarch of Alexandria–whom the non-Chalcedonians rejected and subsequently elected Timothy the Cat as successor to Dioscoros (deposed according to Chacledon).

What makes you think the resulting non-Chalcedonian line as original, the Chalcedonian one as created?

So the Melkite Catholic Church was the Imperial replacement for the Church of Antioch, and the Antiochian Orthodox Church was the replacement for he replacement.

And why not think of the Melkites as the remnant? The early Melkites were, in any case, members of the Church of Alexandria…Antioch…etc., before Chalcedon.

 

[Aramis]

And why not think of the Melkites as the remnant? The early Melkites were, in any case, members of the Church of Alexandria…Antioch…etc., before Chalcedon.

Simply put, the entirety of the Syro-Byzantine Antiochian church came into union. Some years later, a group splits off, and the Contantinopolitan Patriarch appoints a Patriarch unto them, creating the lineage which is the Antiochian Orthodox. For clarity, the ones in union called themselves Melkites.

When Byzantium was created a patriarchate by the council, it’s placement after Rome was due to being both the center of the liturgical praxis, as well as the capital of the Roman Empire… it was civilly referred to as New Rome, as well as “The City” and Byzantium, and Constantinople (“Constantine’s City”).

 

[Madaglan]

It boils down to the autocephaly of Moscow. Moscow’s claim is that Constantinople fell as the prime church when Byzantium became occupied by the Muslim Turks, and that Rome was heretical, and the other great patriarchates occupied by Muslims, so the 1st City of Orthodoxy became Moscow, the New New Rome, even as Byzantium had claimed to be the New Rome with the break from communion with Rome.

Don’t you mean sordid, brother?

Peace!

Constantinople (Byzantium) claimed to be the New Rome centuries before 1054.
(ex. Canon 3 of The Council of Constantinople (381)).

 

[Hesychios]

It boils down to the autocephaly of Moscow. Moscow’s claim is that Constantinople fell as the prime church when Byzantium became occupied by the Muslim Turks,

Well I think that was a major concern a long time ago and the Tsars made some hay out of it too. Russia was the only Orthodox state still standing free for a long time. The Ottoman domination happens to be a primary reason some Orthodox in the Hungarian kingdom opted for the Papacy in the same time frame. (They certainly couldn’t align with Moscow, that was just not an option in Hungary.)

However the EP did not actually become heretical or embrace Islam. It was something of a “Babylonian Captivity” like the Avignon episode in the west.

That era is over now, and no one seriously questions the Orthodoxy of the EP.

and that Rome was heretical, and the other great patriarchates occupied by Muslims, so the 1st City of Orthodoxy became Moscow, the New New Rome, even as Byzantium had claimed to be the New Rome with the break from communion with Rome.

It happens to be the case that the Metropolitan province of the EP is rather small now, especially since the Greco-Turkish wars (there were more than one) and particularly the war of 1919, which resulted in a large population exchange. This seems to have caused the EP to take extreme positions looking for funding. It’s behavior has been noted to be “Papal” by some of it’s harsher critics.

In the eyes of many, the EP has “gone to seed” and there is some justification in seeing that. It’s hold on the American Greek Orthodox church is one of the biggest reasons American Orthodox are having difficulty forging a new united church. There is a lot of resentment over that. If the GOA became independent the EP’s resources would dry up considerably.

Some people just think the old boy’s time is up. There could be a reordering of the patriarchates, it has happened before. I am not predicting such a thing, just pointing that out.

Now I happen to like Patriarch Bartholomew, I think he is all right. But many Catholics look at him like the favorite poster child and view the Patriarch of Moscow like an arch-enemy. It’s funny to see Roman Catholics having favorites, as if this were a horse race.

The facts are these:

If the EP were to reconcile in some fashion with Rome, he could potentially bring something on the order of 10,000 people with him (possibly more, but I am not sure). That seems to be the limit of his actual Synod now, unless one includes an area of northern Greece which was in the Ottoman empire until about 1922. This population is smaller than most single RC parishes in my area today.

If the MP were to reconcile in some fashion with Rome, he could bring something on the order of tens of millions of people with him, if not hundreds of millions.

Like it or not, Rome has to deal constructively with Moscow. If Moscow was willing to make a move toward better relations, even intercommunion, I don’t see the EP realistically standing in it’s way.