Questions regarding the Eastern Catholic Church

[Eric_Peter]

Just want to clear my own confusion with the short answers, rather then reading a long articles from websites.

So here comes a few questions.

From wikipedia, I understand that there are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches. How accurate is this claim?
Do they all have different rites?
Are they in communion with the Roman Catholic’s Pope?
Do they have different set of doctrines and Traditions regarding the Faith?

Edit: Are Eastern Catholic Church and Orthodox Church the same? Or they are different?
If they are the same, then I think I know the differences. But I’m not very familiar with what the term ‘Eastern Catholic Church’ means.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Just want to clear my own confusion with the short answers, rather then reading a long articles from websites.

So here comes a few questions.

From wikipedia, I understand that there are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches. How accurate is this claim?

Very accurate

Do they all have different rites?

There are 5 Rites among the 22 Eastern Churches

Are they in communion with the Roman Catholic’s Pope?

Yes, to be Catholic you have to be in Communion with the Pope of Rome.

Do they have different set of doctrines and Traditions regarding the Faith?

Doctrines are the same, traditions are different.

 

[Eric_Peter]

Thanks for the answer, ConstantineTG.
Very short and straight to the point.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thanks for the answer, ConstantineTG.
Very short and straight to the point.

I can expound on the Rites. But the last question requires an entire book to be answered.
The traditions are quite different and very distinct, to name a few:

Icons vs. Statues - Eastern Rites, notably Byzantine Catholics do not use 3D images
leavened vs. unleavened bread - the Byzantine Rite uses leavened bread. other Eastern Rites may use leavened or unleavened. I know the Chaldeans use unleavened.
standing vs. kneeling - Eastern Catholics do not kneel during Liturgies on Sunday

Just to name a few. And I mostly speak from the perspective of Byzantine Rite Catholics. The Oriental Catholics and Syriac Rites and Armenian Rites may have different practices.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

Doctrines are the same, traditions are different.

I would say we have distinctive doctrines and Traditions, but the same dogmas - i.e, the same Faith.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Doctrines are the same, traditions are different.

Not quite, Con, not quite. The Dogmas are the same. The Doctrines often differ slightly from the Roman.
The doctrine of purgatorial fire, for example, is NOT accepted by most of the ECCs nor many of their faithful; that doctrine is counter to the Doctrine of Theosis as taught in the byzantine churches.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Okay, I may have it the other way around. Isn’t doctrine a set teaching that cannot be changed. While dogma is a development of doctrine to explain it. Am I getting it right? So prayers for the dead and purification is a doctrine, while purgatorial fire is a dogma.

 

[RyanBlack]

Okay, I may have it the other way around. Isn’t doctrine a set teaching that cannot be changed. While dogma is a development of doctrine to explain it. Am I getting it right? So prayers for the dead and purification is a doctrine, while purgatorial fire is a dogma.

Your terminology is confused. Dogma is teaching that is binding on all the faithful. It is not a term that refers to a development of doctrine for the purpose of explaining it. Purgatory is dogma, while purgatorial fire is not.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Your terminology is confused. Dogma is teaching that is binding on all the faithful. It is not a term that refers to a development of doctrine for the purpose of explaining it. Purgatory is dogma, while purgatorial fire is not.

Then my understanding is reversed

 

[TheChaldean]

Edit: Are Eastern Catholic Church and Orthodox Church the same? Or they are different?
If they are the same, then I think I know the differences. But I’m not very familiar with what the term ‘Eastern Catholic Church’ means.

The Eastern Catholic Churches are a part of the Church, and are different from the Orthodox church in that Eastern Catholics are in communion with the pope while the Orthodox are not. We may differ with the Orthodox a bit in terms of Theology and Doctrines, but to my understanding, there isn’t that much of a difference.

The Eastern Catholic Church is just an Eastern Church that is in communion with the pope of Rome, following St Peter’s authority. Many Eastern Churches split up from the Church of the East to come into communion with Rome, still keeping our hierarchy and traditions.

 

[Vico]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=601&pictureid=7066

 

[Aramis]

Okay, I may have it the other way around. Isn’t doctrine a set teaching that cannot be changed. While dogma is a development of doctrine to explain it. Am I getting it right? So prayers for the dead and purification is a doctrine, while purgatorial fire is a dogma.

You have it backwards.

Dogma is required belief, and is universal.
Doctrine is not required to be believed, and varies from Church to Church within the Communion.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

Doctrine is not required to be believed, and varies from Church to Church within the Communion.

I assume you wrote this line in direct reference to the previous line, but that what you actually meant was “Doctrine is not required to be believed universally.”

For example, I’m sure the doctrine of Essence and Energy is required belief for Byzantine Catholics, though not required belief for Latins or Orientals.

I categorize it this way:

Theologoumena: acceptable but not required at all.
Doctrine: Required according to particular Tradition or Church.
Dogma: Required for the universal Church.

For others who may not be aware, I would also like to make the following point:

Though Dogma indicates the universal Faith of the Church, it is sometimes the case, and possibly often, that each Church or Tradition expresses the Dogma differently according to particular doctrines or theological language. I will give three examples:

(1) The consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is a dogma of the Church universal. Only the Latin Catholic Church gives a particularly unique expression of this dogma in the filioque.

(2) The Atonement - the principle of God reconciling the world to Himself - is a dogma of the Church universal. Whereas Easterns express this dogma in the language of Theosis, Latins and Orientals would express this dogma in the language of Divine Justice.

(3) The continuing perfection of the soul in the afterlife is a dogma of the Church universal. Latins express it in the language of “Purgatory.” Easterns express it as simply another manifestation of Theosis. Orientals are more apt to use the language of “Hades.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Dear brother Aramis,

I assume you wrote this line in direct reference to the previous line, but that what you actually meant was “Doctrine is not required to be believed universally.”

No. Doctrine requires assent of will, not belief. That is, you have to obey it even if you don’t believe it, but you are not actually required to believe it.

It’s also generally required to be taught within its scope.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

For example, I’m sure the doctrine of Essence and Energy is required belief for Byzantine Catholics, though not required belief for Latins or Orientals.

I know this is off topic but could someone point me to a book that discusses the doctrine of Essence and Energy?

What is the counter doctrine to this in the Latin Church?

Thanks (and once again, sorry).

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

No. Doctrine requires assent of will, not belief. That is, you have to obey it even if you don’t believe it, but you are not actually required to believe it.

It’s also generally required to be taught within its scope.

Thank you for the clarification. Indeed, as Vatican 2 taught, our obedience to our bishops is characterized as “an assent of will,” while our obedience to dogma is described as “religious assent.”

So there is no justification for Latins who attempt to impose the Latin peculiarites of Purgatory on Easterns and Orientals, Easterns who attempt to impose the Essence/Energy distinction on Westerns and Orientals, or Orientals who attempt to impose a miaphysite understanding of the Two Natures on Easterns and Westerns, etc., etc. None of this is justified in the Catholic communion.

Only Dogma - the essence of our Faith - requires “religious assent.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ByzCath,

I know this is off topic but could someone point me to a book that discusses the doctrine of Essence and Energy?

What is the counter doctrine to this in the Latin Church?

Thanks (and once again, sorry).

The usual “counter” - or what is perceived as a “counter” - to the doctrine of Essence/Energy in the Latin Church is the Unity of God.

Orientals will also generally use the language of Essence/Energy, but do not believe Essence/Energy is in the nature of God, but merely an epistemological distinction to help humans in their understanding of God, Who we can always only see “through a glass darkly” in this mortal coil. Orientals also adhere to the belief in the Unity of God.

The purpose of the Essence/Energy distinction is to help humans understand how a God who is totally “other” can communicate or relate to His Creation, or (to put it another way), how it is this creature called man can share in the divinity of God Who is totally “other” as Scripture teaches us. There are those who would style the doctrine of Essence/Energy as “counter” to the doctrine of the Unity of God. But that would be a rash assessment.

In fact, the Latins do believe that (1) God is totally “other” and that (2) humanity somehow shares in the divinity of God. Easterns and Orientals would explain this quandary in the language of “Eassence/Energy.” Latins (and many Orientals as well) would explain this in the language of “Grace.”

I’ve met Easterns who assign a host of errors, and even heterodoxy, to Latins because they don’t have a formal belief in Essence/Energy. And I’ve met Latins who assign a host of errors, and even heterodoxy, to Easterns because they don’t have a formal belief in the Unity of God. Such attitudes are unjustified. We all (Westerns, Easterns and Orientals) share the same DOGMA on the matter - namely, the two points mentioned above: (1) God is totally “other”, and (2) humanity somehow shares in the divinity of God. Just because we have different expressions in our respective explanations of the “somehow” does not give anyone the right to hurl accusations of heterodoxy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cecilianus]

I know this is off topic but could someone point me to a book that discusses the doctrine of Essence and Energy?

What is the counter doctrine to this in the Latin Church?

Thanks (and once again, sorry).

Vladimir Lossky’s “The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church” is the best book on the topic. George Maloney’s “A Theology of Uncreated Energies” is another one. I would start with the Hagioretic Tome, found here:

sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/hagioretic

Since Latin theology has no real counterpart to the word “energy”, usually any equivalent discussion would involve divine grace. Strictly speaking divine grace (including gratia increata) is the effect of the divine energies. Most of the Latin critiques of Palamism - by people like Martin Jugie - have been crude misunderstandings.

Hans Urs von Balthasar adopts what is really the accurate interpretation of the distinction although he is critical of Palamas for supposedly making God unknowable and un-revealable (which is precisely the opposite of what his theology actually does - it explains how we can live in personal communion and intimate union with Him because He is revealable to our soul without impinging on His transcendence). Von Balthasar says “To speak with and against Gregory Palamas: God’s “essence” is not identical with His “energies”, although it really manifests itself in them.” (Theo-Drama II:195)

 

[JW55]

Thank you for excellent explanations of “doctrine” vs. “dogma” and the Latin interpretation of “essence” and “energy”. I had basically the same inquiries on the latter subject elsewhere with little or no response. The explanation of doctrine and dogma makes the differences very clear when explained in the above manner.