What are the differences between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Western Catholic?

[ConstantineTG]

So, the next time your parish celebrates an anniversary, or there is an ordination in your church, the Pope will be there presiding? Forgiveness - not really trying to be argumentative, but it is difficult to understand exactly what is truly being asserted here.

Especially given the hierarchical structure of the UGCC, and its demonstated ability to exercise a fair degree of discretion in its own affairs (and to exert a fair amount of influence in Rome), its difficult to comprehend how a member of the UGCC can conclude (as it seems here - please correct otherwise) that the Pope is everyone’s bishop, and the UGCC is nothing more than a ritual chuch within the Roman Catholic world.

The dogma says so. And if we don’t agree, we’re anathemized. Can’t be Catholic if you don’t accept that the Pope has universal, ordinary jurisdiction in ALL Churches.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well said. I would just like to chime in, with regard to “ritual church”, that the change of terms is quite recent (and perhaps is not yet felt everywhere): the 1990 Code of Canon Law avoids that phrase, simply using “Ecclesia sui iuris”, but the previous (1983) Code of Canon Law did use it (“Ecclesia ritualis sui iuris”).

Even today it’s common for people to speak of, for example, a “canonical change of rite”.

Sui juris is not the equivalent of autocephallous. It doesn’t mean that the Pope does not have immediate and ordinary jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Sui juris is not the equivalent of autocephallous. It doesn’t mean that the Pope does not have immediate and ordinary jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches.

But it also doesn’t mean that he has sole jurisdiction, which has been somewhat implied here.

 

[Peter_J]

Sui juris is not the equivalent of autocephallous.

Definitely agree.

Wikipedia uses “autonomous” as a translation of “sui iuris”, but I wouldn’t even give too much weight to that (although it would certainly be a better translation than “autocephalous”) – actual translations of the code, such as here don’t translate “sui iuris” but just keep it as “sui iuris”.

 

[Peter_J]

Can’t be Catholic if you don’t accept that the Pope has universal, ordinary jurisdiction in ALL Churches.

The thing is, does Rome maintain that consistently?

 

[Vico]

“Ecclesia rituali sui iuris” is translated to “autonomous ritual Church”. Sui iuris means of its own laws. These laws are approved by the Holy See.

Can. 111
§1 Through the reception of baptism a child becomes a member of the latin Church if the parents belong to that Church or, should one of them not belong to it, if they have both by common consent chosen that the child be baptised in the latin Church: if that common consent is lacking, the child becomes a member of the ritual Church to which the father belongs.
§2 Any candidate for baptism who has completed the fourteenth year of age may freely choose to be baptised either in the latin Church or in another autonomous ritual Church; in which case the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.

Can. 111
§ 1. Ecclesiae latinae per receptum baptismum adscribitur filius parentum, qui ad eam pertineant vel, si alteruter ad eam nonpertineat, ambo concordi voluntate optaverint ut proles in Ecclesia latina baptizaretur; quodsi concors voluntas desit, Ecclesiae rituali ad quam pater petinet adscribitur.
§ 2. Quilibet baptizandus qui partum decimum aetatis annum expleverit, libere potest eligere ut in Ecclesia latina vel in alia Ecclesia rituali sui iuris baptizetur; quo in casu, ipse ad eam Ecclesiam pertinet quam elegerit.

 

[Peter_J]

translations of the code, such as here don’t translate “sui iuris” but just keep it as “sui iuris”.

“Ecclesia rituali sui iuris” is translated to “autonomous ritual Church”. Sui iuris means of its own laws. These laws are approved by the Holy See.

Oh yes, I see. www.intratext.com does that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Definitely agree.

Wikipedia uses “autonomous” as a translation of “sui iuris”, but I wouldn’t even give too much weight to that (although it would certainly be a better translation than “autocephalous”) – actual translations of the code, such as here don’t translate “sui iuris” but just keep it as “sui iuris”.

Autonomous is quite accurate. In the Philippines the government designated two regions as autonomous, meaning they have their own government and their own laws. One was an Islamic region, so they have laws separate from Philippine law such as the allowance for multiple wives in accordance with Islamic Law. But that doesn’t mean they are a separate nation, and that doesn’t mean they are not under the Philippine President. So an Eastern Church can have their own canons apart from the Church’s Canon Law, which every Eastern Church has. But still these laws must be in accordance with the CCEO, and they are still under the Pope.

The thing is, does Rome maintain that consistently?

Rome did make it a dogma.

 

[Vico]

Oh yes, I see. www.intratext.com does that.

Also the Vatican uses* autonome* in their French translation. In the German it is eigenen Rechtes, and in Russian «своего права» (own rights).

Can. 111
§ 1. Par la réception du baptême, les enfants dont les parents relèvent de l’Église latine sont inscrits à cette Église; il en est de même si l’un des parents n’en relève pas, mais qu’ils aient choisi tous les deux d’un commun accord de faire baptiser leur enfant dans l’Église latine; en cas de désaccord, l’enfant est inscrit à l’Église rituelle dont relève le père.
§ 2. Après quatorze ans accomplis, tout candidat au baptême peut librement choisir d’être baptisé dans l’Église latine ou dans une autre Église rituelle autonome; en ce cas, il relève de l’Église qu’il a choisie.

Can. 111
§ 1. In die lateinische Kirche wird durch den Taufempfang aufgenommen ein Kind von Eltern, die zu ihr gehören oder die, falls ein Elternteil nicht zu ihr gehört, beide übereinstimmend gewünscht haben, daß ihr Kind in der lateinischen Kirche getauft wird; wenn aber diese Übereinstimmung fehlt, wird es der Rituskirche zugeschrieben, zu welcher der Vater gehört.
§ 2. Jeder Taufbewerber, der das vierzehnte Lebensjahr vollendet hat, kann frei wählen, ob er in der lateinischen Kirche oder in einer anderen Rituskirche eigenen Rechtes getauft werden soll; in diesem Falle gehört er zu der Kirche, die er gewählt hat.

Кан. 111
§ 1. С принятием крещения к Латинской Церкви причисляется ребёнок родителей, к ней принадлежащих. Если же один из них не принадлежит к Латинской Церкви, но оба родителя по обоюдному согласию выразили желание, чтобы их дитя приняло крещение в Латинской Церкви, то ребёнок причисляется к ней. Если же такое обоюдное желание отсутствует, то ребёнок причисляется к той обрядовой Церкви, к которой принадлежит его отец.
§ 2. Всякий крещаемый, которому исполнилось четырнадцать лет, может свободно выбирать, где ему креститься: в Латинской Церкви или в другой обрядовой Церкви «своего права»; в последнем случае он принадлежит к избранной им Церк ви.

 

[Peter_J]

the 1990 Code of Canon Law avoids that phrase

Pardon my sloppy posting. That should have said “1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches”.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

When I say Western I’m referring to the Latin Church (In Europe and South America mainly).
Do Eastern Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope?

Yes.

In Filioque?

Yes, but they don’t use it as part of the Creed, and they interpret it in a way that harmonizes with Orthodox beliefs.

In the Immaculate conception of Mary?

Essentially, yes, though they express it very differently.

How Eastern Catholics cross themselves?

The way eastern Orthodox do.

So,it’s kind of a mix;Western doctrines (because Eastern Catholics belong to Catholic Church) and Eastern rites (because they belong in the East).Right?

Eastern Catholics profess all Catholic dogmas, and thus they share the same faith as their western counterparts.

But their theology, their way of interpreting, understanding, and living the faith - is eastern; it is the theology of their Orthodox brethren.

Thank you all for your replies.I was just considering conversion to an Eastern Catholic because being a Latin Catholic feels like…betraying our traditions,as I belong to the Orthodox East.

Check with your diocese, Vasilis: I could easily be wrong, but I think you already are canonically Eastern Catholic. What you canonically “count” as is not determined by where you go to Mass or Divine Liturgy:

When a person enters the Catholic Church, he is enrolled by default in whatever Catholic church corresponds most closely to the church of his upbringing. For you, that would be the Greek Byzantine Catholic Church. Even if there aren’t any where you live, that still doesn’t change the fact.

But I’m no expert; you should check with your diocese.

Is it? I’m not trying to bad mouth here, just brutally honest. My intention is not to use that expression as something derogatory. I know many Eastern Catholics touts that we have “Orthodox praxis but in communion with Rome”. But honestly, more often than not, that is not the reality in our parishes. So why not say what it really is? It is not a bad thing. Honesty is not a bad thing. We don’t believe Roman Catholics are heretical, so why are we offended if people say we share their spirituality? I am not pretending to be an expert of the Eastern praxis here. I’m just calling it as I see it.

I agree with you that we should be honest. Part of that very honesty, however, is admitting that the standard, the ideal, is indeed for eastern Catholics to be de facto “Orthodox in communion with Rome.”

I don’t think anyone would or should claim that this is the reality as is.

I never said we are simpletons, I never said that we are spiritually inferior. In fact I said if this is who we are then we should not be afraid to let the world know that this is the case. Why are you acting as if this is a bad thing? Again, as with my last post, is Latin faith heretic? Traditions evolve over time. Do you think that Eastern traditions today is exactly the same as they were at the time of St. John Chrysostom? Why can’t the Ukrainian tradition and identity evolve from the Union of Brest to where it is today? We are not in heresy, why be mad about it? Its not like the UGCC turned into a Charismatic Movement.

Maybe its time to look in the mirror and ask, why are we so intent on being “Orthodox in communion with Rome”? Is being Catholic a bad thing? … This is a natural evolution of the faith, a cross pollination. Latin theology is also being Easternized. Theology of the Body has elements of Theosis in it. This is not a bad thing, this is not inferiority.

Interesting reflections, Constantine, and I find your questions to be quite valid. I will leave it to wiser and holier men than I to attempt to answer them.

The dogma says so. And if we don’t agree, we’re anathemized. Can’t be Catholic if you don’t accept that the Pope has universal, ordinary jurisdiction in ALL Churches.

The dogma does not say that the pope is your proper Ordinary - or mine, for that matter. In fact, he emphatically is not. Just sayin’.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree with you that we should be honest. Part of that very honesty, however, is admitting that the standard, the ideal, is indeed for eastern Catholics to be de facto “Orthodox in communion with Rome.”

But then we bring up the fact that many Orthodox jurisdictions have adopted pews and other Latinized practices. That is why I am saying, why are we so overly defensive when people say our respective Eastern Catholic Churches are Latinized? If the Orthodox can organically develop their traditions and practices, why can’t we? Why do we have to resemble the Orthodox which our Church was way back in the past when we were still part of the Orthodox Church? Its been centuries for some, our traditions have organically evolved. We should embrace what we are right now. Unless we are heretic, but I don’t think any of us are.

I don’t think anyone would or should claim that this is the reality as is.

But reality is what it is right now. Do they want to change? Sure. But why? Why is what we have right now a bad thing? I’ve met many good people who grew up in Latinized parishes. The traditions we speak of on online forums are totally alien to them. They will tell you that those are not the traditions. So who is correct?

Interesting reflections, Constantine, and I find your questions to be quite valid. I will leave it to wiser and holier men than I to attempt to answer them.

Often the best answers are the simplest ones. Often it will come not from those who appear to know more, but from those who only know enough.

The dogma does not say that the pope is your proper Ordinary - or mine, for that matter. In fact, he emphatically is not. Just sayin’.

That is not what is in Vatican I. And Pastor Aeternus is clear with that. I’m just saying here, if we deny what Vatican I said then we should rethink if we are in the proper communion.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

But then we bring up the fact that many Orthodox jurisdictions have adopted pews and other Latinized practices. That is why I am saying, why are we so overly defensive when people say our respective Eastern Catholic Churches are Latinized? If the Orthodox can organically develop their traditions and practices, why can’t we? Why do we have to resemble the Orthodox which our Church was way back in the past when we were still part of the Orthodox Church? Its been centuries for some, our traditions have organically evolved. We should embrace what we are right now. Unless we are heretic, but I don’t think any of us are.

I have to admit, this is a great point, and it does make a lot of sense.

But reality is what it is right now. Do they want to change? Sure. But why? Why is what we have right now a bad thing? I’ve met many good people who grew up in Latinized parishes. The traditions we speak of on online forums are totally alien to them. They will tell you that those are not the traditions. So who is correct?

Well, I think the matter here is that both the eastern and western (and oriental, for that matter) ways of living the faith are, in the eyes of our Magisterium, deeply good and true. Thus per Vatican II it is actually a responsibility for the eastern Catholic churches to genuinely preserve and practice inside the Catholic communion the whole eastern Christian praxis.

This is not to deny that even today’s Latin bishops make it difficult for you guys by, say, provoking Roman reluctance to encourage married clergy for the eastern churches, etc.

That is not what is in Vatican I. And Pastor Aeternus is clear with that. I’m just saying here, if we deny what Vatican I said then we should rethink if we are in the proper communion.

Very true. But I do believe that the pope can exercise the supreme authority of the Church, and that his ordinary authority extends over the whole Church and every part of it. But we absolutely cannot ignore the fact that even Pastor Aeternus says things like, “This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: ‘My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due’.” Likewise, our current Holy Father, while still prefect of the CDF, wrote, “The ministry of Peter’s Successor, therefore, is not a service that reaches each Church from outside, but is inscribed in the heart of each particular Church, in which ‘the Church of Christ is truly present and active,’ and for this reason it includes openness to the ministry of unity. This interiority of the Bishop of Rome’s ministry to each particular Church is also an expression of the mutual interiority between universal Church and particular Church”.

The pope is not nor has ever been conceived to be, even by Vatican I, some kind of dictator or top-down authority. His mission is to strengthen his brothers, not boss them around - just as it was Saint Peter’s mission to strengthen his brothers.

 

[Peter_J]

But then we bring up the fact that many Orthodox jurisdictions have adopted pews and other Latinized practices. That is why I am saying, why are we so overly defensive when people say our respective Eastern Catholic Churches are Latinized? If the Orthodox can organically develop their traditions and practices, why can’t we? Why do we have to resemble the Orthodox which our Church was way back in the past when we were still part of the Orthodox Church? Its been centuries for some, our traditions have organically evolved. We should embrace what we are right now. Unless we are heretic, but I don’t think any of us are.

Not an easy question, but I’ll give it a shot.

“Unlatinized Eastern Catholic Churches” is the way it has been supposed to be (say that 10 times) since Orientalium Dignitas (1894) at least, maybe even going back earlier. So, you might say, it’s a promise from the popes that has gone unfulfilled until recently.

Having said that, I suppose theoretically that still leaves open the option for the EC Churches themselves to say to the Pope “It’s alright, we don’t want to hold you to that promise”, but I don’t see that happening.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have to admit, this is a great point, and it does make a lot of sense.

Well, I think the matter here is that both the eastern and western (and oriental, for that matter) ways of living the faith are, in the eyes of our Magisterium, deeply good and true. Thus per Vatican II it is actually a responsibility for the eastern Catholic churches to genuinely preserve and practice inside the Catholic communion the whole eastern Christian praxis.

This is not to deny that even today’s Latin bishops make it difficult for you guys by, say, provoking Roman reluctance to encourage married clergy for the eastern churches, etc.

Yes, there are challenges. Of course I understand the Roman position on the matter, they are afraid that their own seminarians will jump ship when they find out there are Catholic Churches out there who will let them marry before they are ordained. But the overall picture I can see is that the tradition is what we have today. Who will tell these people otherwise? I was thinking about it long and hard. I can do it. I can teach the children, I teach catechism anyway. But is it right that an interloper like myself tells born-and-raised Ukrainian Catholics what the real tradition is? Do I tell the kids that the traditions of their parents and their babas are wrong?

Very true. But I do believe that the pope can exercise the supreme authority of the Church, and that his ordinary authority extends over the whole Church and every part of it. But we absolutely cannot ignore the fact that even Pastor Aeternus says things like, “This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: ‘My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due’.” Likewise, our current Holy Father, while still prefect of the CDF, wrote, “The ministry of Peter’s Successor, therefore, is not a service that reaches each Church from outside, but is inscribed in the heart of each particular Church, in which ‘the Church of Christ is truly present and active,’ and for this reason it includes openness to the ministry of unity. This interiority of the Bishop of Rome’s ministry to each particular Church is also an expression of the mutual interiority between universal Church and particular Church”.

The pope is not nor has ever been conceived to be, even by Vatican I, some kind of dictator or top-down authority. His mission is to strengthen his brothers, not boss them around - just as it was Saint Peter’s mission to strengthen his brothers.

I don’t think of the Pope as a dictator. The very problem is that if such an authority actually ever existed. Did the Pope make the Papacy more than itself? That is the question which the book I am reading right now is trying to answer. If it was clear from Apostolic times that St. Peter had such authority over the 11, we wouldn’t have this problem we have today. The Orthodox doesn’t think so, Eastern Catholics also doesn’t completely agree with the Roman Catholic position, though they also do not agree with the “First Among Equals” being touted by the Orthodox.

Not an easy question, but I’ll give it a shot.

“Unlatinized Eastern Catholic Churches” is the way it has been supposed to be (say that 10 times) since Orientalium Dignitas (1894) at least, maybe even going back earlier. So, you might say, it’s a promise from the popes that has gone unfulfilled until recently.

Having said that, I suppose theoretically that still leaves open the option for the EC Churches themselves to say to the Pope “It’s alright, we don’t want to hold you to that promise”, but I don’t see that happening.

It is really up to the Churches to decide what their tradition is supposed to be today. The real reason the Pope wants a restoration of Orthodox tradition is to entice the Orthodox to a reunion. I personally do not think Latinization is a bad thing. It is how the people I know today grew up and worshiped, and it is how the continue to worship today. They are very good people. So I cannot say Latinization is a bad thing if it produces good people. The whole point of tradition is to bring us closer to God, and these people I know are close to God, at least by my very limited point of view.

 

[Peter_J]

But their theology, their way of interpreting, understanding, and living the faith - is eastern; it is the theology of their Orthodox brethren.

I don’t think of the Pope as a dictator. The very problem is that if such an authority actually ever existed. Did the Pope make the Papacy more than itself? That is the question which the book I am reading right now is trying to answer. If it was clear from Apostolic times that St. Peter had such authority over the 11, we wouldn’t have this problem we have today. The Orthodox doesn’t think so, Eastern Catholics also doesn’t completely agree with the Roman Catholic position, though they also do not agree with the “First Among Equals” being touted by the Orthodox.

You both have good arguments, but a larger perspective may be helpful.

There’s a school within Catholicism that says that there can’t be differences between the thinking of different churches (sui iuris); there’s also another school that says that there can be differences between the thinking of different churches (sui iuris) but only if they are not the same rite. Hence according the second school there can be differences, for example, between the thinking of the Latin Church and the Melkite Church (because they’re not the same rite); but not between the Melkite Church and the UGCC (because they are the same rite).

I think Fone Bone’s statement just takes this one step further: not only is the thinking in the Melkite Catholic Church, the UGCC, the Romanian Catholic Church, etc all the same b/c they all use the Byzantine Rite, but it is the same as the theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church which also uses the Byzantine Rite.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There’s a school within Catholicism that says that there can’t be differences between the thinking of different churches (sui iuris); there’s also another school that says that there can be differences between the thinking of different churches (sui iuris) but only if they are not the same rite. Hence according the second school there can be differences, for example, between the thinking of the Latin Church and the Melkite Church (because they’re not the same rite); but not between the Melkite Church and the UGCC (because they are the same rite).

I think Fone Bone’s statement just takes this one step further: not only is the thinking in the Melkite Catholic Church, the UGCC, the Romanian Catholic Church, etc all the same b/c they all use the Byzantine Rite, but it is the same as the theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church which also uses the Byzantine Rite.

The Orthodox will not say they are using the Byzantine Rite. That term is totally foreign to them. At least that is what I have been told.

As for the schools of thought, I believe there should be one school of thought as to what the Pope is to the entire Catholic Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches I believe are working with the Pope towards redefining the Papacy to what is palatable to the Orthodox and to the Eastern Churches as well. But they know what the Papacy is today and do know what to expect from Rome. Will the Pope actually relent and make changes? That we do not know. But ultimately we must follow what the Pope teaches, and encourage and pray for change in humble submission to what the current situation is.

 

[Diak]

The Orthodox will not say they are using the Byzantine Rite. That term is totally foreign to them. At least that is what I have been told.

Not necessarily - in liturgical scholarly works the term is sometimes used. The Orthodox do, however, use the term “Western Rite” for their parishes using those liturgies.

 

[Vico]

You both have good arguments, but a larger perspective may be helpful.

There’s a school within Catholicism that says that there can’t be differences between the thinking of different churches (sui iuris); there’s also another school that says that there can be differences between the thinking of different churches (sui iuris) but only if they are not the same rite. Hence according the second school there can be differences, for example, between the thinking of the Latin Church and the Melkite Church (because they’re not the same rite); but not between the Melkite Church and the UGCC (because they are the same rite).

I think Fone Bone’s statement just takes this one step further: not only is the thinking in the Melkite Catholic Church, the UGCC, the Romanian Catholic Church, etc all the same b/c they all use the Byzantine Rite, but it is the same as the theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church which also uses the Byzantine Rite.

CCEO states that each Church sui iuris may have a different theology.

CCEO Canon 28

1. A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.
2. The rites treated in this code, unless otherwise stated, are those which arise from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions.

CCEO Canon 12

1. The Christian faithful are bound by an obligation in their own patterns of activity always to maintain communion with the Church.
2. They are to fulfill with great diligence the duties which they owe to the universal Church and to their own Church sui iuris.

CCEO Canon 17
The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescriptions of their own Church sui iuris, and to follow their own form of spiritual life consonant with the teaching of the Church.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Yes, there are challenges. Of course I understand the Roman position on the matter, they are afraid that their own seminarians will jump ship when they find out there are Catholic Churches out there who will let them marry before they are ordained. But the overall picture I can see is that the tradition is what we have today. Who will tell these people otherwise? I was thinking about it long and hard. I can do it. I can teach the children, I teach catechism anyway. But is it right that an interloper like myself tells born-and-raised Ukrainian Catholics what the real tradition is? Do I tell the kids that the traditions of their parents and their babas are wrong?

A hard question, to be sure.

I personally do not think Latinization is a bad thing. It is how the people I know today grew up and worshiped, and it is how the continue to worship today. They are very good people. So I cannot say Latinization is a bad thing if it produces good people. The whole point of tradition is to bring us closer to God, and these people I know are close to God, at least by my very limited point of view.

Well, of course Latin Christianity’s theology and developed traditions aren’t “bad.” The Latin Church certainly produces great saints and mystics. But I don’t think we should lose sight of the fact that they are out-of-place in an eastern Christian community…

You both have good arguments, but a larger perspective may be helpful.

There’s a school within Catholicism that says that there can’t be differences between the thinking of different churches (sui iuris); there’s also another school that says that there can be differences between the thinking of different churches (sui iuris) but only if they are not the same rite. Hence according the second school there can be differences, for example, between the thinking of the Latin Church and the Melkite Church (because they’re not the same rite); but not between the Melkite Church and the UGCC (because they are the same rite).

I think Fone Bone’s statement just takes this one step further: not only is the thinking in the Melkite Catholic Church, the UGCC, the Romanian Catholic Church, etc all the same b/c they all use the Byzantine Rite, but it is the same as the theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church which also uses the Byzantine Rite.

Hmm… shouldn’t we acknowledge, though, that there are differences between different forms of Byzantine Christianity? i.e. in its Middle Eastern variety, Greek variety, Slavic variety, etc.?