Do Eastern Catholics and Western Catholics have the same beliefs?

[Windfish]

I always though they did, but I have heard from others that they do not. If that is the case, how is that possible? Shouldn’t all Catholics profess the same beliefs?

 

[gmcbroom]

I think it is more accurate to say we have the same core dogmas, ie 7 sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and union with the Chair of Peter. However, there are differences in traditions, and yes even in theology.

 

[Windfish]

I think it is more accurate to say we have the same core dogmas, ie 7 sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and union with the Chair of Peter. However, there are differences in traditions, and yes even in theology.

But how could there be any real difference? Take Original Sin, for instance. Eastern Catholic take a different view of it as far as I understand, but how is that possible if it is a dogma of the Magisterium?

 

[IHSpetros]

Windfish,

This is a very confusing topic. I used to think that both western and eastern Catholics held the same dogmas but expressed them differently through their traditions. But from what I read on this thread from eastern Catholics, that may not be the case. For example, I used to think that the 21 Ecumenical councils were binding on all Catholics. However, some eastern Catholics have stated that they believe in only 7 Ecumenical councils, while the rest were just local western councils. Very confusing indeed. Of course, those eastern Catholics may have been mistaken but who knows? I don’t. I really wish someone knowledgeable could clarify this issue, perhaps with official Church documents. Sometimes, both western and eastern Catholics give their opinions on this matter, but unfortunately, many times, its just that, opinions. I’m glad you are asking this because this is something I myself would like to see clarified.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

The core doctrines are the same, but the emphasis, praxis, and explanations are thoroughly different in pure Latin and pure Byzantine Catholicism.

 

[BVM_1221]

I always though they did, but I have heard from others that they do not. If that is the case, how is that possible? Shouldn’t all Catholics profess the same beliefs?

Both groups recite the creed the same, with the trivial exception that most Eastern Churches omit the “filoque”

 

[mardukm]

But how could there be any real difference? Take Original Sin, for instance. Eastern Catholic take a different view of it as far as I understand, but how is that possible if it is a dogma of the Magisterium?

On the matter of Original Sin, may I humbly suggest you read through Trent and see if there is anything in its anathemas that can be applied to the Eastern teaching on Original Sin? You may want to ask yourself, “what exactly is the DOGMA of Original Sin that is defined by the Magisterium?”

It is an eye-opener to do a study on what the Church is ACTUALLY trying to teach in the dogmas she presents. A thorough, well-intentioned study on the matter will reveal that the differences between Easterns, Orientals and Westerns is not of a dogmatic nature, but really depends on a difference in theological emphases and theological terminology.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[smad0142]

Windfish,

This is a very confusing topic. I used to think that both western and eastern Catholics held the same dogmas but expressed them differently through their traditions. But from what I read on this thread from eastern Catholics, that may not be the case. For example, I used to think that the 21 Ecumenical councils were binding on all Catholics. However, some eastern Catholics have stated that they believe in only 7 Ecumenical councils, while the rest were just local western councils. Very confusing indeed. Of course, those eastern Catholics may have been mistaken but who knows? I don’t. I really wish someone knowledgeable could clarify this issue, perhaps with official Church documents. Sometimes, both western and eastern Catholics give their opinions on this matter, but unfortunately, many times, its just that, opinions. I’m glad you are asking this because this is something I myself would like to see clarified.

Eastern Catholics, at least those who are truly Catholic, i.e. in full and complete union with the Pope, ought to believe everything the Church teaches. For example the 7 Sacraments, all 21 Ecumenical Councils, all Dogmas and Doctrines. The legitimate differences that are allowed to arise are differences in explanation/understanding i.e. theology. Anyone who claims to be Catholic yet denies, not struggles with but denies, the Dogmas, Doctrines, or Ecumenical Councils is really not in full and perfect communion with Rome and is therefore not Catholic.

 

[bkovacs]

Both groups recite the creed the same, with the trivial exception that most Eastern Churches omit the “filoque”

Omitting the filoque is far from trivial. The Roman church added the filioque, whereas Byzantine Catholics as well as Eastern Orthodox recite the creed as it was originally written. It also has theological implications as well. Hence why the Eastern Orthodox consider it far from trivial.

 

[mardukm]

Eastern Catholics, at least those who are truly Catholic, i.e. in full and complete union with the Pope, ought to believe everything the Church teaches. For example the 7 Sacraments, all 21 Ecumenical Councils, all Dogmas and Doctrines. The legitimate differences that are allowed to arise are differences in explanation/understanding i.e. theology. Anyone who claims to be Catholic yet denies, not struggles with but denies, the Dogmas, Doctrines, or Ecumenical Councils is really not in full and perfect communion with Rome and is therefore not Catholic.

When I came into the Catholic Church about 6 years ago, I was not required to profess that there are 21 Ecumenical Councils. Have things changed since then?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

ECs do not use the filioque, for example----at least in the Melkite CHurch I attend.
They also tend to not believe in Purgatory—some do, some don’t, at least. And most Melkites I know do not do the rosary and hail marys----they tend to emphasize prayer ropes and the Jesus prayer. I do, too.
Melkites and ECs do not, like the Orthodox, have “venial” and “capital” sins. They’re just sins.
Our saints go back quite a ways (Desert Fathers, Fathers of the Church, basically anybody pre-10th century, post-schism Eastern Orthodox saints), so most WC “stars” we do not pray to.
That is some stuff off the top of my head.

 

[bkovacs]

The Ruthenians and UGCC (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) doesn’t use it either.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

I don’t think we can deny the general councils of the western church, because they are of greater importance than say local synods like the synod of whitby for the English Church or the Conucil of Trullo for the Byzantine Church. But I don’t think they have the sweeping, dogmatic authority of the first seven councils, which are celebrated liturgically. I don’t know if the topic has come up, but how does the Latin Church deal with our “General Councils” Fourth and Fifth Constantinople and Jerusalem? I don’t think they should be imposed upon on either the Western Church or our fellow Oriental Catholics.

 

[mardukm]

I don’t think we can deny the general councils of the western church, because they are of greater importance than say local synods like the synod of whitby for the English Church or the Conucil of Trullo for the Byzantine Church. But I don’t think they have the sweeping, dogmatic authority of the first seven councils, which are celebrated liturgically. I don’t know if the topic has come up, but how does the Latin Church deal with our “General Councils” Fourth and Fifth Constantinople and Jerusalem? I don’t think they should be imposed upon on either the Western Church or our fellow Oriental Catholics.

I think it would be great if (in lieu of reunion), the Councils of Trent and Jerusalem came to be regarded conjointly (i.e., the Ecumenical Council of Trent-Jerusalem ), since they both served the same purpose.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I always though they did, but I have heard from others that they do not. If that is the case, how is that possible? Shouldn’t all Catholics profess the same beliefs?

No, not all Catholics have to have the exact same beliefs. Christian truth is often complex and paradoxical, and it’s entirely possible for Catholics in full communion with each other to approach differently the same mysteries of God and His relationship to us.

Obviously, all Catholic churches necessarily share certain things: we all profess the Nicene Creed (the eastern churches don’t use the filioque, though), we all have the seven Sacraments and the same basic structure of Church hierarchy (i.e. at the most basic level, a particular church of whatever kind is by definition united under a valid ordinary), and we’re all united under the bishop of Rome as head of the universal Church.

Most things can be very different, though. There’s nothing wrong with that, since no earthly understanding exhaustively comprehends the mysteries of God. Christianity has always been a faith of great paradox, and this truth is reflected even in the unity of the 23 Catholic churches throughout the world.

The core doctrines are the same, but the emphasis, praxis, and explanations are thoroughly different in pure Latin and pure Byzantine Catholicism.

Well said!

But how could there be any real difference? Take Original Sin, for instance. Eastern Catholic take a different view of it as far as I understand, but how is that possible if it is a dogma of the Magisterium?

That doesn’t mean that the Latin understanding of that spiritual reality is the only valid way of describing it. It doesn’t even prohibit alternative explanations that seem to be in tension with our way of understanding it. As Marduk said, Catholic teaching on what we Latins call “original sin” is compatible with the understanding of the eastern churches.

Other examples from this thread of legitimate differences:

How many ecumenical councils? As Marduk pointed out on another thread, the Catholic Church has not infallibly defined the number of ecumenical councils. And in light of the existence of the eastern Catholic churches (and particularly the Maronites and Italo-Albanians who have always been in communion with the pope), it’s highly unlikely that the number of ecumenical councils can be considered infallible by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

That technically means it’s not heretical for eastern Catholics to disagree with the Latin Church on this. I personally think it’s inconceivable that Vatican II (and a few others) are anything but ecumenical, but that’s just my opinion. Marduk explained on another thread why he thinks there have been eleven, not twenty-one, ecumenical councils.

The filioque

Eastern Catholic churches do not use it - I know for sure that at least the Melkites don’t. That’s perfectly okay. It’s not like the Nicene Creed is heretical without it, and Latin theologians have acknowledged that for linguistic reasons, the clause carries different connotations in different languages. My understanding is that what the Latin Church means by the filioque is essentially believed by the east, and that the east’s reservations about its addition are not altogether unjustified.

Purgatory

I’m a bit more ignorant on this one. I know that the eastern Orthodox claim not to believe in it, yet they pray for the dead. OrdinaryMelkite, do Melkite Catholics pray for the dead? If they do, the Latin Church is probably of the opinion that you believe in what we mean by “purgatory” even if your understanding of it is significantly different.

Heck, the way C.S. Lewis represents purgatory fictionally in The Great Divorce is pretty different from the stereotypical Latin concept of it, yet ultimately his portrayal is fully orthodox. I’d guess the same is true for the east’s concept of purification after death, though at the moment, I admit that is just a guess.

 

[bkovacs]

I think it would be great if (in lieu of reunion), the Councils of Trent and Jerusalem came to be regarded conjointly (i.e., the Ecumenical Council of Trent-Jerusalem ), since they both served the same purpose.

Blessings,
Marduk

It would be nice. But the only council that concerns many mainstream Roman Catholics today is Vatican 2. And the “spirit” of that council. That’s all they know and care to know. The “council to end all councils” as someone put it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Ruthenians and UGCC (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) doesn’t use it either.

Interestingly, the older books we have in the parish have the Filioque, which has been promptly crossed off. Our newer books do not have the Filioque.

 

[Hesychios]

Interestingly, the older books we have in the parish have the Filioque, which has been promptly crossed off. Our newer books do not have the Filioque.

I recall that you attend the UGCC in Canada.

This is also true of the Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh (USA). The filioque was taken, but no longer. I think the change can be attributed to the “spirit of Vatican II”.]

Books are expensive for a little parish to replace

 

[ConstantineTG]

I recall that you attend the UGCC in Canada.

This is also true of the Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh (USA). The filioque was taken, but no longer. I think the change can be attributed to the “spirit of Vatican II”.]

Books are expensive for a little parish to replace

True. The old books are still there. But since the Met. Sheptytsky Institute came out with the “Divine Liturgy, an Anthology for Worship,” we use that new book now for English Liturgy. Still there are limited copies in the parish although there never really is that many people attending. I did buy my own copy so I can read over the words at home and learn the Divine Liturgy better.

 

[Aquinas62]

what is “filoque”?