Differences between Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox

[trophybearer]

I haven’t read all the responses, so forgive me if I repeat anything already posted.

There are not 23 Catholic Churches united under the pope or however that was stated. There is only ONE Catholic Church. There may be divisions within the church but that does not mean there is a collection of different churches.

Also too, another difference is that the Orthodox like to argue and divide over seemingly everything. Which calendar to use, which books belong in the bible, how to receive converts (such as whether or not to “rebaptize” Catholics who join), and the list goes on. They have a completely different understand of ONE, as in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

None of the things you mentioned divide us. If there are slight differences regarding how things are done and theological opinion look at your own Church. Why are you guys so divided? Ask the Melkites how many Ecumenical Councils there are…

 

[bobzills]

There are not 23 Catholic Churches united under the pope or however that was stated. There is only ONE Catholic Church…

Actually the Catholic Church is divided on whether or not to say the filioque in the creed. In the West, it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
However, in many of the Eastern Catholic Churches, they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. They uised to say the filioque in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church for example, but that was changed, and now they do not say it.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Actually the Catholic Church is divided on whether or not to say the filioque in the creed. In the West, it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
However, in many of the Eastern Catholic Churches, they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. They uised to say the filioque in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church for example, but that was changed, and now they do not say it.

It is said differently in various Churches but this does not take away from the fact that, theologically, is it true, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

 

[Ghosty]

Actually the Catholic Church is divided on whether or not to say the filioque in the creed. In the West, it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
However, in many of the Eastern Catholic Churches, they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. They uised to say the filioque in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church for example, but that was changed, and now they do not say it.

We aren’t divided over this at all, any more than we’re divided over whether or not to use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, or the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite.

Peace and God bless!

 

[hienieboo]

wow i didnt even know they had any real differences… something i have learned.

 

[trophybearer]

It is said differently in various Churches but this does not take away from the fact that, theologically, is it true, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

You wish. Are you actually Chaldean by the way? It seems strange that a chaldean these days would call his ‘Church’ a ‘rite’?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

You wish. Are you actually Chaldean by the way? It seems strange that a chaldean these days would call his ‘Church’ a ‘rite’?

Yes, it was my mistake back when I didn’t have a clear understanding of what distinguishes rites vs churches.

 

[trophybearer]

Yes, it was my mistake back when I didn’t have a clear understanding of what distinguishes rites vs churches.

Ahhhh… what else are you still learning? One might think you were an authority on Eastern Christianity from your tone, but that seems unlikely to be the case given your mistaken understanding in such a basic matter. Good luck on your journey.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Ahhhh… what else are you still learning? One might think you were an authority on Eastern Christianity from your tone, but that seems unlikely to be the case given your mistaken understanding in such a basic matter. Good luck on your journey.

Sounds like you got some issues my friend. Good luck on your growth as well.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Trophybearer,
"ChaldeanRite:

It is said differently in various Churches but this does not take away from the fact that, theologically, is it true, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son

You wish. Are you actually Chaldean by the way? It seems strange that a chaldean these days would call his ‘Church’ a ‘rite’?

What brother ChaldeanRite is literally true. The English proceeds is directly derived from the Latin procedere which is equivalent to the Greek proienai. Using those terms, it is perfectly orthodox to assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

On the other hand, it is perfectly heterodox to assert that the Holy Spirit ekporeusai from the Father and the Son.

Do you understand the difference between procedit/proienai, on the one hand, and ekporeusai, on the other?

Blessings

 

[Aramis]

It is said differently in various Churches but this does not take away from the fact that, theologically, is it true, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

More correctly, the Spirit originates in the Father, and comes forth through the Father and the Son.

 

[josethomas2005]

As an Eastern catholic, I believe that the holy spirit now is with the Roman catholic church. The canon laws and the laws governing the administration of the church in the catholic church are very good for the existence and survival of the church. Otherwise a lot of problems and schisms will emerge as in the case of orthodox churches.
But I cannot accept the fact that the see of apostle Peter is in Rome. Most of the Eastern catholic churches have sincerity towards Rome only by name. It is evident from my experiences with the events occurred in Syro malabar and Syro malankara catholic churches. They just keep connections with Rome only for growth. From the quotes made by many scholars in these churches, they do not at all accept the Petrine see in Rome.
I feel that Rome is dominant only because of the European and American supremacy in world economy and politics. Europeans exploited the resources in eastern parts of the world beginning from 14th century. All these eastern catholic churches were transformed from orthodox by force by these colonialists. Now things are changing. China, India and Persia will emerge in the future. Also I find a very few people attending the churches of Europe, normally all who come to churches are old people.

 

[trophybearer]

As an Eastern catholic, I believe that the holy spirit now is with the Roman catholic church. The canon laws and the laws governing the administration of the church in the catholic church are very good for the existence and survival of the church. Otherwise a lot of problems and schisms will emerge as in the case of orthodox churches.
But I cannot accept the fact that the see of apostle Peter is in Rome. Most of the Eastern catholic churches have sincerity towards Rome only by name. It is evident from my experiences with the events occurred in Syro malabar and Syro malankara catholic churches. They just keep connections with Rome only for growth. From the quotes made by many scholars in these churches, they do not at all accept the Petrine see in Rome.
I feel that Rome is dominant only because of the European and American supremacy in world economy and politics. Europeans exploited the resources in eastern parts of the world beginning from 14th century. All these eastern catholic churches were transformed from orthodox by force by these colonialists. Now things are changing. China, India and Persia will emerge in the future. Also I find a very few people attending the churches of Europe, normally all who come to churches are old people.

Maybe you should change your “Religion:” to “Eastern Catholic” instead of “Orthodox” to avoid confusion. If you must call yourself “orthodox” do it with a lower-case ‘o’.

 

[w_stewart]

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)

How were these rites developed and why did the Church have all these rites?

What I am asking is the history of the individual rites, who were responsible for their developments and what were the reasons they had to develop so that different churches had different rites. Why does the Church have no common rite?

 

[ronyodish]

There are not 23 Catholic Churches united under the pope or however that was stated. There is only ONE Catholic Church. There may be divisions within the church but that does not mean there is a collection of different churches.

Marat,

This is a case of misunderstanding terminology.

There is only one universal Church, called the Catholic Church, or as the Creed says: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

However, there are 23 particular Catholic Churches, known in the Code of Canons as Sui Iuris Churches, that is, Churches of their own law.

In other words: In the one universal Catholic Church, there are 23 particular Sui Iuris Catholic Churches in full communion with the Pope of Rome and with each other.

This particularity is further down on the local level, with each diocese (or eparchy) as a particular Church. We can then say that in the one universal Catholic Church, there are many particular local Churches in full communion with the Pope or Bishop of Rome, and with each other. We can also say that in each Sui Iuris Church, there are several local Churches in full communion with the Patriarch or chief hierarch of that Church, and with each other. Some Sui Iuris Churches have more dioceses than others, the Latin Church (or Roman Catholic Church) having the most.

Now, the question: Are these Sui Iuris Churches different from each other? Yes they are, though they are grouped along major traditions. There are six such major traditions: Latin or Roman, Constantinopolitan or Greek or Byzantine, Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, and Chaldean or Assyrian. Each major tradition has its own theology, liturgy, spirituality, and disciplines. The 23 Sui Iuris Churches share these 6 major traditions, with most of the 23 Churches utilizing the Constantinopolitan tradition. Only one of the 23 Churches uses the Latin tradition, that is, the Latin Church; Also, only one of the 23 Churches uses the Armenian tradition, that is, the Armenian Catholic Church.

Further, each Sui Iuris Church has her own recession or adaptation of the major tradition which she utilizes. For example, the Maronite Church and the Syriac Catholic Church both use the Antiochene tradition, but the Maronite Church has her own adaptation of this tradition slightly different from the adaptation of the Syriac Catholic Church.

Now, the question: Are they so different from one another that they in fact contradict each other and contradict the one faith spoken of in Eph. 4:5? No. These traditions are complementary with one another. Sometimes it’s hard to see how one tradition complements another, but with study and a correct understanding of terminology, language, cultural concepts, and other factors, the various traditions can be seen to be harmonious with one another, and as valid and authentic expressions of the one deposit of faith received from the Apostles.

The one Catholic Communion of Catholic Churches is not a uniformed communion. We are not one on the forms, we are many on the forms or expressions. However, we are one on the essentials. Though we use many different wordings, we are all one on the meaning, the underlying essence, of the apostolic faith. We reject both relativism (which destroys the one faith), and uniformity (which destroys the multiplicity and variety of gifts that God has given to each culture).

God bless,

Rony

 

[Hesychios]

How were these rites developed and why did the Church have all these rites?

What I am asking is the history of the individual rites, who were responsible for their developments and what were the reasons they had to develop so that different churches had different rites. Why does the Church have no common rite?

There never was a common liturgical rite, actually.

Some of the best speculation on the subject that I have found (Father Louis Bouyar) suggested that the original differences are due to a variance in synagog practices from place to place. That can only be part of it, because the Eucharistic prayers derive from table blessings (in the home), but should at least be fairly common.

The church grew very organically at first, dying out in some places and sprouting new growth in others, over and over again.

It seems the oldest liturgical rite is that of the liturgy of St James, but that only means it was a regional version that was standardized the earliest, it does not mean all other rites derive exclusively from it (although some do).

 

[josethomas2005]

How were these rites developed and why did the Church have all these rites?

What I am asking is the history of the individual rites, who were responsible for their developments and what were the reasons they had to develop so that different churches had different rites. Why does the Church have no common rite?

Colonialisation began in 14th century. Almost all of the eastern catholic churches were fromed by forceful conversion of orthodox people to be under the Pope of Rome by colonialists, namely Portuguese, Dutch and French.
For example Portuguese came to India in 14th century. They found christians there following Syriac tradition. Portuguese burned all the documents in the Indian church and made the people there to be under Rome. Portuguese destroyed all the churches in India and constructed churches in Portuguese style. They also went to Iraq.
Iraq and Syria were under French. Their games led to the creation of Caldean catholic church.
All these colonialists did these acts by influencing the local rulers. For example Portuguese influenced the Hindu local rulers in India and put force on Christians there. French influences the muslim rulers in Iraq and carried out all these acts.

 

[malphono]

Colonialisation began in 14th century. Almost all of the eastern catholic churches were fromed by forceful conversion of orthodox people to be under the Pope of Rome by colonialists, namely Portuguese, Dutch and French.
For example Portuguese came to India in 14th century. They found christians there following Syriac tradition. Portuguese burned all the documents in the Indian church and made the people there to be under Rome. Portuguese destroyed all the churches in India and constructed churches in Portuguese style. They also went to Iraq.
Iraq and Syria were under French. Their games led to the creation of Caldean catholic church.
All these colonialists did these acts by influencing the local rulers. For example Portuguese influenced the Hindu local rulers in India and put force on Christians there. French influences the muslim rulers in Iraq and carried out all these acts.

That is, as we say, a lot of hogwash.

The French in the Middle East did nothing of the kind. There were no “forced conversions” or whatever. Period.

As for India, admittedly the Portuguese were perhaps a bit overzealous, but had it been as you say, there would not even be a Syro-Malabar Church. Think about that.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

They also went to Iraq.
Iraq and Syria were under French. Their games led to the creation of Caldean catholic church.

haha get a life.

 

[trophybearer]

haha get a life.

…says the person with 1300 posts.