Eastern Catholic vs Roman

[EyesClosed]

So true. I remember when I first saw this poster at the Ukrainian Catholic National Shrine in Washington, D.C., I was very unsettled precisely because, as you point out, it presents a caricature of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite contrasted with the ideal form of the Byzantine Rite. That would be akin to a Roman Church posting a similar poster with the ideal form of the Roman Rite contrasted with a highly Latinized Byzantine Liturgy. Not a fair comparison.

Very well said. Thank you. The saddest part is that information like this tends to turn people off. It truly does make me wonder why its creators felt the need to take a shot at the Western Church? To suggest they were only trying to be accurate only compounds the attack.

It bothers me to think that this veiled attack was likely a product of an inferiority complex. Not of the Eastern Catholic churches, but of those that created and display/distribute the document. Worst of all, the product of their affliction then tarnishes not only their reputations, but the churches they speak of.

Very sad and very divisive.

 

[EyesClosed]

Please be specific about what is offensive.

On Page 3 the comments regarding: “CHURCH” and “THINKING” are more or less accurate. All the rest are garbage. Some are inflammatory.

 

[EyesClosed]

To be fair, it does say the “Roman Rite Today” and the vast majority of Roman Rite Churches in the US are minimalist. There are exceptions.

You have no proof of this. All you have is your opinion.

The document also doesn’t confine its comments to the US.

 

[SyroMalankara]

You have no proof of this. All you have is your opinion.

as do we all

The document also doesn’t confine its comments to the US.

true, I’m not defending it, only attempting to show you their possible perspective but you haven’t specifically stated your objection.

 

[EyesClosed]

as do we all
true, I’m not defending it, only attempting to show you their possible perspective but you haven’t specifically stated your objection.

This one’s not even close. This document takes a shot (veiled or not) at the Western Church. It makes me think about what’s wrong with the people that created and approved it?

My guess would be inferiority complexes. That’s terribly sad. Someone could come along and make a chart demeaning of the ECs. That would be equally as bad.

 

[malphono]

 

[Wandile]

The major problem with asking whether Eastern Catholic Churches accept all the “ecumenical” councils of the Roman Church is that there is actually no definitive list of ecumenical councils. Even Pope Paul VI referred to the post-Schism councils as “general synods of the West.” We would have to hash out what he actually meant by those words.

There are a good number of Eastern Catholics - including bishops and Patriarchs - who hold that there are only 7 truly ecumenical councils, but that the “general synods of the West” are still orthodox in their teaching. There are others who hold that there have been more than 7 but less than the usual 21. Some will say that, in addition to the 7, Florence, Vatican I and Vatican II are likewise ecumenical. Again, there is no definitive list of ecumenical councils, nor is there universal agreement, even within the Catholic Church, on what constitutes and ecumenical council and what doesn’t.

Wrong. There have been 21 ecumenical/general councils. The Byzantine catechism linked in this thread on page 174 explicitly says as much. Further Vatican II, in the opening address of Pope John XXIII, explicitly called it the 21st ecumenical council. All eastern bishops signed the acts of the council this affirming Pope Johns statement.

Lastly it is due to modemrin that many easterners reject the latter councils as ecumenical . There is a worrying and erroneous idea that one can be Eastern Orthodox in faith (Denying Catholic Dogmas) and still be Catholic. Further When Pope Paul said “general councils of the west” he was highlighting the general/ecumenical councils held in the west to distinguish them from those held in the east (in the first millenium)

 

[Peter_J]

Actually, I found a good thread comparing the two. Post #2 has illustrations with explanations, and it explains major theological doctrines as well as more cultural ideas: read here.

Ah yes I remember that. Hard to believe it has been 6 years, but that’s beside the point. It is definitely sense (or non-nonsense, if you accept that as a word ).

Which, needless to say, is not to suggest that one should accept just anything because it appears on a forum on the web.

 

[steve_b]

I am new on this Forum, and I joined it in order to better understand my religion.

Welcome aboard :tiphat:
m:

So, I have this one question which has bother me for 1 year now.

Am I correct that both eastern and roman catholics** have to follow “catechism of the catholic church” **

I was happy to see an E Catholic Catechism mentioned in this post #[3 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14171101&postcount=3) . .

Re: The CCC, vs any other official Catechism from another Catholic rite, you’re free to follow that Catechism, because there should be no contradictions to worry about.

In extension, the CCC it’s a huge library of teaching, easy to read and navigate through by search function, and collect any particular teaching in progression of thought. And it’s accessible to read online

For example:

Let’s say you’re interested in "mortal sin also called “grave sin”

You can search by each term

• Mortal sin ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=mortal+sin&xsubmit=Search&s=SS
• Grave sin ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=grave+sin&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

at the bottom of each paragraph, you have these options as well

» Enter the Catechism at this paragraph
» Table of Contents
» Index
» St. Charles Borromeo Home

Not meant as a sales pitch, just giving information

That said, while it’s a universal Catechism, meaning for the Catholic Church worldwide, and it’s massively thorough and easy to use, it’s not meant to replace another official Catechism from another Catholic rite.

So as I understand it, don’t worry.
m:

and the eastern catholic churches do recognize all the councils and creeds (First seven ecumenical councils and Further councils recognised as ecumenical in the Roman Catholic Church) (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council)??)

for example:- Coptic Orthodox Church do not recognize some(most) of the councils and creeds, but Coptic Catholic Church do recognize all the councils and creeds.

Furthermore, the only difference which exists between the eastern and roman is traditions, cultures, languages.

Is this 100% correct?

We Catholics believe in these [Ecumenical Councils (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm)

 

[MorEphrem]

I am going to point to Patriarch Sviatoslav’s recent remarks about being Orthodox in communion with Rome. Though it’s an old trope, it has gained higher credibility now that a patriarch has used it with deliberation. Frankly, the insistence of identical theology but different language between Eastern and Western Catholicism is, in essence, false. There are irreconcilable discrepancies that both cannot be right - a Latin Thomist will say the bread becoming body is transubstantiation and the particular moment occurs at the institution narrative whereas a Syriac would say it’s the singular unit of the anaphora completed either at the epiclesis or fraction. Both cannot be right, nor would it make sense to claim different cosmic/metaphysical rules govern the different liturgies.

An example more firmly related to your issue of ecumenical councils is the Maronite Church uses the Anaphora of Sharrar (and, by the extension, the Signing of the Chalice is only an adaptation of this anaphora’s text) which explicitly states what the Syriac Orthodox anaphorae do as well - we profess three ecumenical councils (Nicea, Ephesus, Constantinople). Polemically, it was edited to add Chalcedon after the missal was printed in Rome but nonetheless unless one uses a ridiculous reading that that’s an inclusive profession of councils (i.e. we are only stating we profess four, despite being an arbitrary number, but we actually believe in seventeen more).

Now to disagree with how many ecumenical councils exist is not to necessarily disagree with their content. There was a Syriac Orthodox synod last year, I believe, that chastised priests who give out antidoron if they run out of communion. No one would dispute that - antidoron is not the Body of Christ. Simply because it is a local synod doesn’t mean it’s any less true. In the same fashion, the distinction “ecumenical council” pertains to applicability and reception (if one reads the book “Fire from Heaven” by Sebastian Brock, the foremost Syriacist, the Assyrians were literally precluded from the Roman oikoumene by existing outside the Roman empire and therefore did not participate in the councils despite their Apostolic faith).

 

[Herculees]

Eastern Catholic have their own Canon Laws separate for the Roman Rite.