So from what I’ve gathered so far is that the EC is very similar to the EO. The only knock against the EO is the primacy of Rome, but are there any other theological issues?
Are there difficulties in being EC and being in a large RC country (U.S.)… i.e. say I am listening to a Catholic radio station (meaning RC radio station) what types of items would I not agree with that I might hear being talked about?
You are correct in saying that the Eastern Catholic Churches are very similar to the Eastern Orthodox Churches. In fact, at the original (re)unions that took place between the Church of Rome and the Church of Kiev in the mid 16th Century, one of the conditions that the Church of Kiev placed on the Church of Rome was that she (Kiev) would maintain all her theological, liturgical and disciplinary differences. One could argue, therefore, that the Eastern Catholic Churches are identical to their Orthodox Mother Churches, minus the fact of being in communion with Rome. This hasn’t always worked out in practice, mainly due to ignorance among all of the particular churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and even Eastern Catholic). But the official policy is that the Eastern Catholic Churches are to be “Orthodox” in all things, save that they are in communion with Rome.
There are many difficulties in being an Eastern Catholic in a predominantly Roman Catholic/Western Christian country. The main difficulty is ignorance. Most Roman Catholics equate the word “Catholic” with the word “Roman.” When they hear of another tradition within the Catholic Communion they think primarily in terms of liturgical tradition, thus giving rise to the idea that Eastern Catholics are Roman Catholics who “celebrate Mass funny.” However, the Roman Catholic Church is not the fullness of the Catholic Church. The fullness of the Catholic Church consists in the 20+ particular churches (Roman, Ruthenian, Assyrian, Melkite, Coptic, Armenian, Ukrainian, etc.) being in communion with each other. Eastern Catholics have their own identity that is very different, and often seemingly contradictory, to the Latin identity, especially that identity stemming from Scholasticism and the Post-Reformation response. Eastern Catholics are not Thomistic, Scholastic, Bonaventurian, Tridentine, etc. They have their own Fathers and theologians. It is just as wrong to force Eastern Catholics to “dogmatize” Thomistic principles as it is for Eastern Catholics to force Roman Catholics to “dogmatize” the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas. I’m sorry, I realize that I’ve gone off on a bit of a tangent. It’s early in the morning and I tend to be a bit verbose at this time of day.
I do think that what was said above is necessary to understand what I’m about to say now. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is a very sensitive issue among Eastern Catholics, just as it is among Eastern Orthodox. Why? Because it is steeped in Latin theology and thus foreign to the Eastern Catholic tradition. Does that mean that Eastern Christians (Catholic and Orthodox) believe Mary sinned? No. We do call her “all holy,” “most pure,” “most highly blessed,” “spotless,” etc. But our conception of “original sin” and the fall is very different from the typical Latin conception. However, it’s interesting to note that with the increase in biblical scholarship in the last century, the Latin conception of original sin is starting to more and more reflect the Greek/Byzantine perception of it. A good example would be Dr. Scott Hahn’s “First Comes Love” as well as his “Father Who Keeps His Promises.”
I think any Orthodox Christian could read these books and truly say, “He’s one of us.”
{tongue in cheek} I’d hope you’d know it if you’d heard it. No pun intended.
But no more. My wife and I have found our true home among the Melkites. We love the parish life, the liturgies, the theology… in short everything!