Eastern vs Western Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chrisrieom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Eastern Catholicism is comprised of twenty-two other rites of Catholicism that believe everything that Latin, or,Roman Catholics believe in. They have different emphases, but we believe in the same things. They are different from Orthodox Christians, which believe in many of the things Catholics (both Eastern and Latin) believe in, but they differ in terms of some doctrines regarding the Pope, namely, papal infallibility. Some Eastern Catholics have always been in communion with Rome, which means they never separated like the Orthodox did in the Great Schism, but most were once in schism but are now back in communion with Rome.
An interesting fact about Eastern Catholics is that they do not believe in Purgatory like Western Catholics do. They believe in a purification process called Final Theosis, which is different (someone else can fill this). They use leavened bread for communion, whereas Latin Catholics do not. They focus more on the Divinity of Christ. They are one-hundred percent Catholic, and they are not any less Catholic than Roman Catholics.
 
Purgatory/purification process

Same thing in my understanding. Purging of ones sin is a purification process.
 
There’s some issues with Eastern Catholics over a part of the Creed known as the Filioque that Western Catholics don’t.
 
SandwichOrder said:
An interesting fact about Eastern Catholics is that they do not believe in Purgatory like Western Catholics do. They believe in a purification process called Final Theosis, which is different…
Click to expand...
The doctrines of Eastern Catholicism and Latin Catholicism are the same, they are just expressed and emphasized differently. One of our Marks as the True Church is our doctrinal Unity.
 
It is important to note that the “East” (whatever that term means other than “not the Latin Church”) is not composite of twenty two rites but full Churches in the same sense that the Latin Church is (and the Latin Church cannot be used interchangeably with rite since the Latin Church governs multiple rites, such as Ambrosian, etc.).

Furthermore, when people think “Eastern” they think exclusively Byzantine, which is inaccurate. Each patrimony is unique, like the Copts, Armenians and Syriacs. Often a main “East-West” comparison is that the East uses leavened and the West does not, as though that’s a definitely characteristic. However, Armenians have historically used unleavened bread, as well as Maronites (depending on if they had enough yeast or not). And again, if you look at the versions of creeds it cannot be just reduced to those who have added the filioque (i.e. the West) and those who have not; if you reads the Syriac and Greek creeds one would see that the Syriac creed, for instance, expresses that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets and apostles. These minor characteristics cannot be given as classifications as East v. West because, as demonstrated above, the different patrimonies are wide in variation (and I’ve always held that, for instance, there is less distance between the Latin Church and the Syriac and Armenian Churches in certain regards than with the Greek Churches). The simplest it can be reduced to is, again, there are twenty-two full sui iuris Churches, which are not exclusively Byzantine.
 
MorEphrem said:
It is important to note that the “East” (whatever that term means other than “not the Latin Church”) is not composite of twenty two rites but full Churches in the same sense that the Latin Church is (and the Latin Church cannot be used interchangeably with rite since the Latin Church governs multiple rites, such as Ambrosian, etc.).

Furthermore, when people think “Eastern” they think exclusively Byzantine, which is inaccurate. Each patrimony is unique, like the Copts, Armenians and Syriacs. Often a main “East-West” comparison is that the East uses leavened and the West does not, as though that’s a definitely characteristic. However, Armenians have historically used unleavened bread, as well as Maronites (depending on if they had enough yeast or not). And again, if you look at the versions of creeds it cannot be just reduced to those who have added the filioque (i.e. the West) and those who have not; if you reads the Syriac and Greek creeds one would see that the Syriac creed, for instance, expresses that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets and apostles. These minor characteristics cannot be given as classifications as East v. West because, as demonstrated above, the different patrimonies are wide in variation (and I’ve always held that, for instance, there is less distance between the Latin Church and the Syriac and Armenian Churches in certain regards than with the Greek Churches). The simplest it can be reduced to is, again, there are twenty-two full sui iuris Churches, which are not exclusively Byzantine.
Click to expand...
This.
 
VanSensei said:
There’s some issues with Eastern Catholics over a part of the Creed known as the Filioque that Western Catholics don’t.
Click to expand...
The thing is, the Latin Credo is different from the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed…

The Latin Credo speaks (via the verb procedit) of the “flowing out of” the Spirit from both the Father and the son.

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed speaks of the origination of the spirit in the Father using a particular greek term that literally means “flows out of it’s origin”…

The west uses the Credo - the East the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Rome altered the creed slightly when it first translated it to “procedit ex patre”… adding the filioque (“procedit ex patre filioque” in the roman, procedit ex patre et filios" in the Mozarabic).
 
MorEphrem said:
It is important to note that the “East” (whatever that term means other than “not the Latin Church”) is not composite of twenty two rites but full Churches in the same sense that the Latin Church is (and the Latin Church cannot be used interchangeably with rite since the Latin Church governs multiple rites, such as Ambrosian, etc.).

Furthermore, when people think “Eastern” they think exclusively Byzantine, which is inaccurate. Each patrimony is unique, like the Copts, Armenians and Syriacs. Often a main “East-West” comparison is that the East uses leavened and the West does not, as though that’s a definitely characteristic. However, Armenians have historically used unleavened bread, as well as Maronites (depending on if they had enough yeast or not). And again, if you look at the versions of creeds it cannot be just reduced to those who have added the filioque (i.e. the West) and those who have not; if you reads the Syriac and Greek creeds one would see that the Syriac creed, for instance, expresses that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets and apostles. These minor characteristics cannot be given as classifications as East v. West because, as demonstrated above, the different patrimonies are wide in variation (and I’ve always held that, for instance, there is less distance between the Latin Church and the Syriac and Armenian Churches in certain regards than with the Greek Churches). The simplest it can be reduced to is, again, there are twenty-two full sui iuris Churches, which are not exclusively Byzantine.
Click to expand...
👍

The idea that “East” does not only mean Byzantine really must be understood. I have seen numerous posts where users have rambled on about how all twenty two Eastern Churches can be grouped as one.
 
Well said, brother. I’ve read some Magisterial documents from the 18th and 19th centuries that refer to the Easterns as “Greeks” and to those from the Middle East regions as “Orientals.” I think that “Orientals” (as distinct from “Easterns”) is a good designation for non-Byzantines (notwithstanding its connection with the Oriental Orthodox Churches :)).

Blessings,
Marduk
MorEphrem said:
It is important to note that the “East” (whatever that term means other than “not the Latin Church”) is not composite of twenty two rites but full Churches in the same sense that the Latin Church is (and the Latin Church cannot be used interchangeably with rite since the Latin Church governs multiple rites, such as Ambrosian, etc.).

Furthermore, when people think “Eastern” they think exclusively Byzantine, which is inaccurate. Each patrimony is unique, like the Copts, Armenians and Syriacs. Often a main “East-West” comparison is that the East uses leavened and the West does not, as though that’s a definitely characteristic. However, Armenians have historically used unleavened bread, as well as Maronites (depending on if they had enough yeast or not). And again, if you look at the versions of creeds it cannot be just reduced to those who have added the filioque (i.e. the West) and those who have not; if you reads the Syriac and Greek creeds one would see that the Syriac creed, for instance, expresses that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets and apostles. These minor characteristics cannot be given as classifications as East v. West because, as demonstrated above, the different patrimonies are wide in variation (and I’ve always held that, for instance, there is less distance between the Latin Church and the Syriac and Armenian Churches in certain regards than with the Greek Churches). The simplest it can be reduced to is, again, there are twenty-two full sui iuris Churches, which are not exclusively Byzantine.
Click to expand...
 
Cannonically and terminological wise I am oriental catholic. Particularly the church of alexandria. However as there isnt a coptic parish here, im attending the ugcc church. Us eastern and oriental catholics believe 100% the same,
 
Thomas48 said:
👍

The idea that “East” does not only mean Byzantine really must be understood. I have seen numerous posts where users have rambled on about how all twenty two Eastern Churches can be grouped as one.
Click to expand...
True, although things are further complicated by the fact that “Byzantine Catholic” is often used to mean just the Ruthenian Catholics.

I think the best term, if you want to refer to all of the 14 Catholic Churches of Byzantine Rite, is “Greek Catholics” (even if it may raise some eyebrows ;)).
 
JamesTheJust said:
The doctrines of Eastern Catholicism and Latin Catholicism are the same, they are just expressed and emphasized differently. One of our Marks as the True Church is our doctrinal Unity.
Click to expand...
Slava Isusu Christu!!! (Glory to Jesus Christ)
I think the better verbiage is that we are in communion with one another however; that does not mean that our doctrines are the same as there are many areas in which there are doctrinal issues still in active reconciliation. The great hope is that we come together in joy and respect of each other’s doctrine(s) and understand that "unity" does not mean "the same." Too many people falsely believe that when the Ukrainian Church returned to unity with the Holy Sea (Treaty of Brest, and the Ruthenians: Treaty of Uzorhod) that we simply accepted the theology and dogmas of the Latin Church and that is simply not true.
Very generally speaking, we hold to the traditions and theologies of the first seven ecumenical councils but there are differences in theology and dogmas that came to pass in the Latin Church after that time and during the schism that simply did not have any effect upon the eastern churches nor are they dogmas in the eastern churches. … My comments relate directly to the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Churches and not the remaining Eastern Rites as I am not familiar enough with their traditions and theologies and I can only speak from what I am, know and have studied.
 
docnerves said:
Slava Isusu Christu!!! (Glory to Jesus Christ)
I think the better verbiage is that we are in communion with one another however; that does not mean that our doctrines are the same as there are many areas in which there are doctrinal issues still in active reconciliation. The great hope is that we come together in joy and respect of each other’s doctrine(s) and understand that "unity" does not mean "the same." Too many people falsely believe that when the Ukrainian Church returned to unity with the Holy Sea (Treaty of Brest, and the Ruthenians: Treaty of Uzorhod) that we simply accepted the theology and dogmas of the Latin Church and that is simply not true.
Very generally speaking, we hold to the traditions and theologies of the first seven ecumenical councils but there are differences in theology and dogmas that came to pass in the Latin Church after that time and during the schism that simply did not have any effect upon the eastern churches nor are they dogmas in the eastern churches. … My comments relate directly to the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Churches and not the remaining Eastern Rites as I am not familiar enough with their traditions and theologies and I can only speak from what I am, know and have studied.
Click to expand...
At the risk of opening a can of worms (or perhaps that should be"widening a worm can already partly open"?) I’d like to chime in here: it’s no problem if GCs/OCs say “We agree with such-and-such teaching, but it isn’t a dogma (and, likewise, the council that defined it was a local council and not an ecumenical council)” but it is questionable whether we can go a step further and say “We don’t even agree with the teaching.”
 
docnerves said:
Slava Isusu Christu!!! (Glory to Jesus Christ)
I think the better verbiage is that we are in communion with one another however; that does not mean that our doctrines are the same as there are many areas in which there are doctrinal issues still in active reconciliation. The great hope is that we come together in joy and respect of each other’s doctrine(s) and understand that "unity" does not mean "the same." Too many people falsely believe that when the Ukrainian Church returned to unity with the Holy Sea (Treaty of Brest, and the Ruthenians: Treaty of Uzorhod) that we simply accepted the theology and dogmas of the Latin Church and that is simply not true.
Very generally speaking, we hold to the traditions and theologies of the first seven ecumenical councils but there are differences in theology and dogmas that came to pass in the Latin Church after that time and during the schism that simply did not have any effect upon the eastern churches nor are they dogmas in the eastern churches. … My comments relate directly to the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Churches and not the remaining Eastern Rites as I am not familiar enough with their traditions and theologies and I can only speak from what I am, know and have studied.
Click to expand...
Those Churches with which we are dialoguing and “actively reconciling” are Churches which are not yet in union with us (such as the Assyrian Church of the East, the Coptic Orthodox, etc.). However, all the Rites of the Church (22 Eastern and 1 Latin) are in full communion in terms of doctrine, though differing verbiage and terminology are sometimes used. Unity, which is one of the Four Marks expressed in the Creed, means that we are completely the same in doctrine, yet we may differentiate in discipline (sameness in discipline is called uniformity).
 
As a Latin Catholic, who has also spent years attending a Byzantine church, I don’t find any disagreement in dogma. For myself, I am more inclined to the Eastern expressions rather than the Latin ones. I see them as the same but from different vantage points.
 
UbiCaritas15 said:
As a Latin Catholic, who has also spent years attending a Byzantine church, I don’t find any disagreement in dogma. For myself, I am more inclined to the Eastern expressions rather than the Latin ones. I see them as the same but from different vantage points.
Click to expand...
Exactly. 👍
 
UbiCaritas15 said:
As a Latin Catholic, who has also spent years attending a Byzantine church, I don’t find any disagreement in dogma.
Click to expand...
I fear this statement could be misleading for some. We ECs don’t reject any of the teachings that Rome considers dogmas … for example, Vatican I’s teaching on “Papal Iinfallibilty”, but we *would *say that it isn’t a dogma, since Vatican I was not an ecumenical council.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top