Eastern Catholic vs Orthodox, Differences

[THE_ENCORE]

Hello, I know the main difference between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have very similiar if not identical liturgical practices but what is the differences in theology other than the Eastern Catholics being in union with rome.

 

[Nine_Two]

Generally just Eastern Catholics being in union with Rome and all that flows from that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ideally the only difference should be that one is in communion with Rome, and the other is not.

 

[THE_ENCORE]

Ideally the only difference should be that one is in communion with Rome, and the other is not.

So I have been hearing about how the orthodox church is the one true church, I know about the great schism in 1054 and all that and I can`t figure out who split from who but lots of the Orthodox articles and videos I read and watched were very convincing to me that orthodoxy is quite possible a more preserved version of the original church, what I understand the is that my church(Ukrainian Catholic) believes in all of the same doctrine and traditions so really if being in communion with the pope is the only difference than even considering to convert is just really a waste of time(Insert Question Mark)- keyboards broken

 

[Hesychios]

Ideally the only difference should be that one is in communion with Rome, and the other is not.

Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world.

Might I add that ideally Rome would be in communion with the Orthodox and the Orthodox would be in communion with Rome. I do wish for this, in spite of appearances to the contrary.

This is where the Zoghby Initiative can be so helpful…

1. 
   *]I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
   *]I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
   
   If only this were actually possible.
   
   I would say that if the UGCC, the Coptic Catholic church and the Syro-Malabar Catholic church could subscribe to this along with the Melkites we would see a significant movement taking place and the EC could possibly fulfill their hoped for role of uniting us.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So I have been hearing about how the orthodox church is the one true church, I know about the great schism in 1054 and all that and I can`t figure out who split from who but lots of the Orthodox articles and videos I read and watched were very convincing to me that orthodoxy is quite possible a more preserved version of the original church, what I understand the is that my church(Ukrainian Catholic) believes in all of the same doctrine and traditions so really if being in communion with the pope is the only difference than even considering to convert is just really a waste of time(Insert Question Mark)- keyboards broken

The Eastern Catholic Churches together with the Roman Church should resemble the Church prior to the schisms (The Great Schism and following the second and fourth Ecumenical Councils when various Churches left the communion). That is the intention. Admittedly its a work in progress as for a time the Eastern Catholic Churches were seen as nothing more than transitional Churches for converting the Orthodox into Roman Catholics.

I don’t see why its a waster of time for converts. Believing the place of the Pope in the entire Church is a pretty big issue. Not only his place but what his actual role is. Because it affects the entirety of the faith, especially from the Catholic point of view where the Pope has a louder voice in matters of faith than the other bishops.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world.

Well, we are at least trying

Might I add that ideally Rome would be in communion with the Orthodox and the Orthodox would be in communion with Rome. I do wish for this, in spite of appearances to the contrary.

This is where the Zoghby Initiative can be so helpful…

1. 
   *]I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
   *]I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
   
   If only this were actually possible.
   
   I would say that if the UGCC, the Coptic Catholic church and the Syro-Malabar Catholic church could subscribe to this along with the Melkites we would see a significant movement taking place and the EC could possibly fulfill their hoped for role of uniting us.

1. 
   Its a work in progress. In the UGCC, its a snail’s pace to get back to our true Eastern roots. I mean, you would you really fight with the Babas who grew up with their Latinized tradition for the last 60-90 years and tell them that this thing they were never used to is the actual Ukrainian tradition? I can tell you in our Eparchy our Bishop is doing his best to restore tradition, but he too recognizes these things must be accepted with open arms by the laity for it to become successful. If it becomes forced, the people might leave the parishes and either go to the Ukrainian Orthodox or Roman Catholic, thus nullifying any effort to restore the true traditions.

 

[twf]

In addition to the nature of papal primacy, aren’t there a few other issues on which the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics must differ? For example, divorce and remarriage… though it has been argued previously on this board that the modern Eastern Orthodox position, at least as presented by some Orthodox Christians, that the second marriage is a sacrament, as the first is, is a novelty and not the original Eastern understanding. Another example would be the objectively disordered nature of artificial birth control which some Orthodox seem to agree with but others don’t. On the whole, however, I would assume that Eastern Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox should share 99.9% of theology, if not more…

 

[THE_ENCORE]

The Eastern Catholic Churches together with the Roman Church should resemble the Church prior to the schisms (The Great Schism and following the second and fourth Ecumenical Councils when various Churches left the communion). That is the intention. Admittedly its a work in progress as for a time the Eastern Catholic Churches were seen as nothing more than transitional Churches for converting the Orthodox into Roman Catholics.

I don’t see why its a waster of time for converts. Believing the place of the Pope in the entire Church is a pretty big issue. Not only his place but what his actual role is. Because it affects the entirety of the faith, especially from the Catholic point of view where the Pope has a louder voice in matters of faith than the other bishops.

ya, Peter is referred to as the rock as everyone knows, and he is mentioned at least 70-80 times more than any other apostle, which makes me believe he did have a bigger role than that of the other apostles and the pope is a direct successor of peter so I do see the pope of having a bigger role than the other bishops; I am uncertain(I am aware what it is, and am leaning towards it) on infallibility as I haven`t really looked into it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

ya, Peter is referred to as the rock as everyone knows, and he is mentioned at least 70-80 times more than any other apostle, which makes me believe he did have a bigger role than that of the other apostles and the pope is a direct successor of peter so I do see the pope of having a bigger role than the other bishops; I am uncertain(I am aware what it is, and am leaning towards it) on infallibility as I haven`t really looked into it.

The Orthodox isn’t contesting that. I wish Catholics would educate themselves more about the position of the Orthodox on the issue so we can have a better dialogue with them rather than heated discussions that begins with “you don’t believe in Peter.” They believe Peter and Rome has primacy. The battle really is what primacy really means. From the Orthodox it means either primacy of honor only, to having influence over the bishops but not in a way that he commands the other bishops. The issue is not really about Primacy but Supremacy. One of our Orthodox brethren commented in another thread (forgot who, sorry) that Primacy can suggest Supremacy, but not always. Its a pretty loose term. I think the Orthodox all agree that the Pope of Rome does not control the Eastern Churches at any time in history. Peter is not the “boss” of the Apostles.

 

[THE_ENCORE]

The Orthodox isn’t contesting that. I wish Catholics would educate themselves more about the position of the Orthodox on the issue so we can have a better dialogue with them rather than heated discussions that begins with “you don’t believe in Peter.” They believe Peter and Rome has primacy. The battle really is what primacy really means. From the Orthodox it means either primacy of honor only, to having influence over the bishops but not in a way that he commands the other bishops. The issue is not really about Primacy but Supremacy. One of our Orthodox brethren commented in another thread (forgot who, sorry) that Primacy can suggest Supremacy, but not always. Its a pretty loose term. I think the Orthodox all agree that the Pope of Rome does not control the Eastern Churches at any time in history. Peter is not the “boss” of the Apostles.

Ya I wasn’t stating that the Orthodox don’t believe in Peter as being important, they don’t believe in him being infallible and he is more of a mediator between than the vicar of christ, where I stand on this issue though is hard because both sides make good points.

 

[Nine_Two]

Ya I wasn’t stating that the Orthodox don’t believe in Peter as being important, they don’t believe in him being infallible and he is more of a mediator between than the vicar of christ, where I stand on this issue though is hard because both sides make good points.

No. That isn’t what we believe.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Well, we are at least trying

Its a work in progress. In the UGCC, its a snail’s pace to get back to our true Eastern roots. I mean, you would you really fight with the Babas who grew up with their Latinized tradition for the last 60-90 years and tell them that this thing they were never used to is the actual Ukrainian tradition?

This is so very true. As much as my grandmother was a fervent, faithful supporter of our church, as was my dad, I think they would both be surprised by some of the things that have been “restored”.

As the parish cantor, I’ve also had many conversations with some of the elders of our church when I “sing something new” (which is always something “old” that they unfortunately are not used to hearing).

We still have younger parents who fondly remember their own First Holy Communion, and cringe when other parents bring their very young children (who have been fully initiated) with them to receive the Holy Eucharist. I will even admit to having similar concerns, despite my deeper appreciation for the tradition.

It’s going to take a steady persistent approach, and likely another generation before the faithful simply think of the “new” as the “old”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is so very true. As much as my grandmother was a fervent, faithful supporter of our church, as was my dad, I think they would both be surprised by some of the things that have been “restored”.

As the parish cantor, I’ve also had many conversations with some of the elders of our church when I “sing something new” (which is always something “old” that they unfortunately are not used to hearing).

We still have younger parents who fondly remember their own First Holy Communion, and cringe when other parents bring their very young children (who have been fully initiated) with them to receive the Holy Eucharist. I will even admit to having similar concerns, despite my deeper appreciation for the tradition.

It’s going to take a steady persistent approach, and likely another generation before the faithful simply think of the “new” as the “old”.

Tell me about it. There is much resistance in our entire Eparchy in adopting the Anthology. “Why do we have to learn something new? Why can’t we sing the hymns we have always sung?”

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Tell me about it. There is much resistance in our entire Eparchy in adopting the Anthology. “Why do we have to learn something new? Why can’t we sing the hymns we have always sung?”

… even the hymns from the Latin Church and other Christian demoninations.

I still get requests from families (irrespective of instructions from our priest to the contrary) to sing Ave Maria at weddings (yes, during the ceremony, not before or after).

 

[rdorseyhsd]

There are a number of significant differences between the dogmas of the Catholic Church which Eastern Catholics are required to accept and Orthodox beliefs. Among these are the position of Mary. Catholics accept the Immaculate Conception, the Orthodox do not. Many Orthodox believe that Mary was cleansed of Original Sin at the Annunciation. There are other differences concerning the role of Mary. Catholics have a tendency of being overly precise. The Orthodox have a tendency to be vague and mystical.
Also, what follows death? Everyone believes in the final judgment, but what happens between the time of death and the final judgment. Catholics believe in an immediate particular judgment and the concept of Purgatory. Orthodox do not. Many Orthodox say they don’t know what happens immediately after death. Maybe the deceased receives a foretaste of heaven or hell. Some even believe in the concept of toll houses, which to me are cruel and barbaric.
Interestingly, a number of young American Ruthenian priests were sent to Europe recently to see how the Church operated in the old country. I believe that one purpose was to overcome the latinization that has occured in this country. I have seen Ruthenian Churches that have Holy Water at the Door and Ash Wednesday observance.

 

[rdorseyhsd]

I have seen many arguments for and against the filioque. I believe this issue is a matter of appearance rather than substance. I believe that the filioque may have been introduced as a matter of politics. Pope Leo III fled to Charlemagne because the people of Rome wanted to kill him. Charlemagne had accepted the filioque perhaps because of some heresy in Spain. Charlemagne and Leo III were allies if not friends. I believe this was the time the Roman Church accepted the flioque. There is a silver plaque in St Peter’s that contains the Nicene Creed without the filioque. Rome has not required the Eastern Catholic Churches to adopt the filioque.
I believe that Rome should drop the filioque, not because it is wrong, but because it is not worth fighting over. This would be more in accord with Nicea 2 and would remove one item of contention between Rome and the Orthodox.

 

[Art321]

There are a number of significant differences between the dogmas of the Catholic Church which Eastern Catholics are required to accept and Orthodox beliefs. Among these are the position of Mary. Catholics accept the Immaculate Conception, the Orthodox do not. Many Orthodox believe that Mary was cleansed of Original Sin at the Annunciation. There are other differences concerning the role of Mary. **Catholics have a tendency of being overly precise. The Orthodox have a tendency to be vague and mystical.**Also, what follows death? Everyone believes in the final judgment, but what happens between the time of death and the final judgment. Catholics believe in an immediate particular judgment and the concept of Purgatory. Orthodox do not. Many Orthodox say they don’t know what happens immediately after death. Maybe the deceased receives a foretaste of heaven or hell. Some even believe in the concept of toll houses, which to me are cruel and barbaric.
Interestingly, a number of young American Ruthenian priests were sent to Europe recently to see how the Church operated in the old country. I believe that one purpose was to overcome the latinization that has occured in this country. I have seen Ruthenian Churches that have Holy Water at the Door and Ash Wednesday observance.

Do you mind giving some examples on this?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I have seen many arguments for and against the filioque. I believe this issue is a matter of appearance rather than substance. I believe that the filioque may have been introduced as a matter of politics. Pope Leo III fled to Charlemagne because the people of Rome wanted to kill him. Charlemagne had accepted the filioque perhaps because of some heresy in Spain. Charlemagne and Leo III were allies if not friends. I believe this was the time the Roman Church accepted the flioque. There is a silver plaque in St Peter’s that contains the Nicene Creed without the filioque. Rome has not required the Eastern Catholic Churches to adopt the filioque.
I believe that Rome should drop the filioque, not because it is wrong, but because it is not worth fighting over. This would be more in accord with Nicea 2 and would remove one item of contention between Rome and the Orthodox.

The “other lung” of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Catholic churches, profess their faith using the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, sans filioque, to this day. Your conclusion may be the practical one in the medium run (and the one consistent with the workings of the early Church, which would have required greater consensus before changing the language of the Creed). At this point, IMO, it is only important as a point in ecumenical dialogue, as an example of how the Apostolic Churches could have gone in different directions on such an essential element without the broad consensus of an ecumenical council, at which the profession of faith was approved and settled.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Do you mind giving some examples on this?

I’m not a fan of that generalization. In the studies I’ve done it seems that such a generalization is a fairly recent development started by Vladimir Lossky in his book “Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church” (although I’m open to correction). Such a generalization completely ignores the very deep mystical tradition of the West, and the deep mystical theology as well.

For example, people tend to thing of Aquinas as being this uber rational, precise theologian. What they ignore is his mysticism, which shows through in the prayers and hymns that he composed. Same goes for St. Bonaventure.