The difference?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ctbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ctbird

Guest
I assume that eastern catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox church are the same thing but I could very well be mistaken.

Is the Eastern Orthodox Church considered catholic? I have always been under the impression that their beliefs and ours are quite similar.

Are there many significant differences?
 
I assume that eastern catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox church are the same thing but I could very well be mistaken.

Is the Eastern Orthodox Church considered catholic? I have always been under the impression that their beliefs and ours are quite similar.

Are there many significant differences?
Some may disagree, but most will tell you that the most significant difference (and, ideally, the only difference) is Communion with Rome. Of course this applies to the Eastern Catholics who fall within the “Byzantine” tradition, which is the spiritual, liturgical, and theological tradition of the Eastern Orthodox. Eastern Catholics within this over-arching tradition are typically difficult to distinguish from Eastern Orthodox, aside from the aforementioned relationship with Rome and the Pope. Some have a bit more Latin influences than others, but in many cases this is in the eye of the beholder. You can attend Eastern Catholic parishes for the Sacraments, and it is considered equal to attending a Latin parish.

There are Eastern Catholics who are not so much like the Eastern Orthodox, and this is because they are from Churches that follow non-Byzantine traditions, such as the Armenian, the Coptic, the Maronite, the Chaldean-Assyrian, ect. Often these will seem as different from the Byzantine/Eastern Orthodox as the Latins, or might seem more like one or the other (I’m using Latins and Eastern Orthodox as reference points because you seem to be most familiar with them). Again, ideally the major difference between them and their non-Catholic counterparts is Communion with Rome and the Papacy. Perhaps the best Western example of the relationship between the various Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Catholics would be that of the SSPX and the Latin Catholic Church (if you’re familiar with the SSPX)

As for theological beliefs, you are correct that the Orthodox beliefs are very similar to the Latin Catholics (again, this is often in the eye of the beholder). In fact, their beliefs, aside from rejecting the Petrine Authority, are considered entirely orthodox and accepted in the Catholic Church so long as they are properly understood in a manner that is consistant with the rest of the Catholic traditions (for example, it is one thing to say that praying for the dead is approached from a different angle in the Byzantine tradition, another entirely to say that the Latins are heretics for believing in Purgatory). Many Eastern Catholics, especially clergy, study in Orthodox schools and seminaries for their theological education precisely because the theology is identical, and it allows them to focus on their own tradition rather than simply adopting the foreign (but also fully orthodox) Latin tradition which is taught in most seminaries.

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!
 
The terminology is a bit out of date, and the Maronite are now/again considered to be of the Syriac Rite (Along with the Chaldeans, Syro-Malabar, and Syro-Malankar). The CCEO (Codex Canonici Ecclesiam Orientalis, which is the Catholic canon law for the Eastern Churches) explicitly lists 5 rites, and implies the Roman/Latin Rite as the 6th.
 
The terminology is a bit out of date, and the Maronite are now/again considered to be of the Syriac Rite (Along with the Chaldeans, Syro-Malabar, and Syro-Malankar). The CCEO (Codex Canonici Ecclesiam Orientalis, which is the Catholic canon law for the Eastern Churches) explicitly lists 5 rites, and implies the Roman/Latin Rite as the 6th.
Irrespective of the CCEO, it seems to me the previously posted link is rather accurate. Insofar as the Maronite Church is concerned, it is considered (and considers itself) separate from the Syriac Church, despite common origin and many liturgical commonalities. As well, the Chaldeans are separate from the Syriac Church, despite what is really considered there, too, a common liturgical origin.

One thing that I noticed on the link that is a little “off” has to do with language: There are 2 (actually 3) surviving dialects of Aramaic: Syriac (aka West Syriac) is the western dialect (called “western” because it’s was the language on that side of the Roman-Persian imperial boundary) and that is what should show for both the Maronite and Syriac Churches. (Odd that they got it right for Syro-Malenkara. Go figure.) Chaldean or Assyrian (aka East Syriac) is the eastern dialect (“eastern” because it was used on that side of the of Roman-Persian imperial boundary), and that is what should show for both the Chaldean and Syro-Malabar Churches. (The other dialect is often called “Palestinian Jewish Aramaic,” and oddly enough is used liturgically only by the Greek Orthodox in a few very small towns in south-western Syria.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top