What are the major differences between Roman and Eastern churches?

[Balcerhouse]

My thread is a two-fold question. Well, no it’s not, it’s just two separate questions. I’m Roman Catholic. I converted four months ago from Judaism. My questions are these: What are the distinct differences between Roman teachings and Eastern teachings? I want to ask instead of Wikipedia it because I’d like the direct opinions of Eastern Catholics.
Secondly, why is it that in the event that I ever considered becoming an Eastern Catholic that I could only transfer my membership once in my life time to an eastern church? I’m assuming that’s true because the woman who lead my RCIA class told me you may only switch once if ever you do.

 

[mardukm]

My thread is a two-fold question. Well, no it’s not, it’s just two separate questions. I’m Roman Catholic. I converted four months ago from Judaism. My questions are these: What are the distinct differences between Roman teachings and Eastern teachings? I want to ask instead of Wikipedia it because I’d like the direct opinions of Eastern Catholics.

Theology is the human expression of God’s truth, so there are bound to be differences in expressing (and thus teaching) God’s Truth. The beauty of the Catholic Faith is that despite these differences in expression, all Catholics share the same Faith. The difference is basically in theological emphasis and theological language. I’ll give you 4 examples.

(1) Oriental and Eastern Catholics have a theology on the Essence and Energy of God, but Latins don’t. The purpose of this theology is to express the Faith that God is wholly other from His Creation, yet can somehow interact with His creation. Latins have the same belief (i.e. Faith), but they don’t express it in the theological terms of Essence and Energy.

(2) Oriental and Western Catholics have a theology on the Justice of God, but Easterns don’t. Dogmatically, the Justice of God is equated to holiness itself. However, Easterns seem to connote the term “justice” with notions of vengeance and “pay-back,” so they don’t (often) express God’s demand for holiness in terms of “Justice.”

(3) Eastern Catholics understand “original sin” differently from Western Catholics. To Eastern Catholics, “original sin” is understood in terms of the physical consequences of the Fall (i.e., physical death and corrruption); to Western Catholics, “original sin” is understood in terms of the spiritual consequences of the Fall (i.e., separation from God, absence of holiness). All Catholics have a common Faith that Mary was not separated from God (i.e. holy) at any point in her existence. Because of this spiritual purity, Latin Catholics say that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin (again, because Latin catholics understand original sin according to its spiritual consequences). However, though Eastern Catholics have the same belief as Latin Catholics regarding the constant spiritual purity of Mary, it can seem strange to them to say that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin, since original sin to Easterns is understood in terms of the physical consequences of the Fall, and Mary died a physical death (though death could not hold her).

(4) All Catholics have the same Faith about the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Latin Catholics express it by asserting that the Holy Spirit is of the same Substance as the Father and the Son. Eastern Catholics express it by asserting that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father (by Procession), just as the Son originates from the Father (by Generation). Eastern Catholics do not deny for one instant that the Holy Spirit is of the same Substance as the Father and the Son. Latin Catholics do not deny for one instant that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father.

The examples can be multiplied. To repeat, ALL Catholics have the SAME Faith, even though there may be different theological expressions and emphases of that same Faith.

Secondly, why is it that in the event that I ever considered becoming an Eastern Catholic that I could only transfer my membership once in my life time to an eastern church? I’m assuming that’s true because the woman who lead my RCIA class told me you may only switch once if ever you do.

Not sure about this one. But there are definitely some here who can answer your question.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Secondly, why is it that in the event that I ever considered becoming an Eastern Catholic that I could only transfer my membership once in my life time to an eastern church? I’m assuming that’s true because the woman who lead my RCIA class told me you may only switch once if ever you do.

It’s false - Canon Law explicitly has provisions for multiple transfers. There are restrictions, however.

The conditions for transfer of ascription multiple times involve marriage or children. A woman who transfers to her husband’s ritual church may return to her original church when the marriage ends (by death or annullment) or to a second husband’s church upon marriage. A man may transfer to his wife’s enrollment per the VII documentation if she’s eastern rite, even tho’ current canon law doesn’t require same, even if he’s previously transferred, for the good of the marriage.

A child under 14 is transferred automatically when their parent transfers. They may, at any point after 14, revert to the ascription of their baptism. They may transfer to any other church sui iuris as a personal choice as an adult, and if female, again at marriage and again at end of marriage.

 

[malphono]

Secondly, why is it that in the event that I ever considered becoming an Eastern Catholic that I could only transfer my membership once in my life time to an eastern church? I’m assuming that’s true because the woman who lead my RCIA class told me you may only switch once if ever you do.

Theoretically it’s possible to transfer more than once, but in practical terms, once it is. The idea of transferring Churches is not something to be taken lightly. Also, a person does not transfer Churches easily. At minimum, a person would have to spend some time with a community and only then would a petition for transfer be entertained by the respective bishops. It’s not like changing socks (“oh, I think I’ll wear argyles now” or something like that). It involves a serious spiritual commitment.

OTOH, a person is always free to assist at, and receive, the Eucharist in any of the so-called sui juris (“self-governing”) Churches. So, for example, a Latin may go to (and in doing so fulfill any attached “obligation”) a Ukrainian church. The same for an Armenian going to a Coptic church.

One exception to the “once” rule is for a woman who adopts the Church of her husband. If she is the surviving spouse, she may, once widowed, revert to her original Church if she so wishes. There are a few other similar exceptions, but beyond that, a person who has transferred Churches would have to convince both bishops that a second transfer is not a frivolous undertaking.

 

[Balcerhouse]

(4) All Catholics have the same Faith about the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Latin Catholics express it by asserting that the Holy Spirit is of the same Substance as the Father and the Son. Eastern Catholics express it by asserting that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father (by Procession), just as the Son originates from the Father (by Generation). Eastern Catholics do not deny for one instant that the Holy Spirit is of the same Substance as the Father and the Son. Latin Catholics do not deny for one instant that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father.

Isn’t this the issue with the filioque that we have with the orthodox church? I’ve read that the pope actually has discouraged the use of the filioque in the eastern rite.

It’s not like changing socks (“oh, I think I’ll wear argyles now” or something like that). It involves a serious spiritual commitment.

Why is it so serious when changing churches if we believe the same thing?

 

[Vico]

My thread is a two-fold question. Well, no it’s not, it’s just two separate questions. I’m Roman Catholic. I converted four months ago from Judaism. My questions are these: What are the distinct differences between Roman teachings and Eastern teachings? I want to ask instead of Wikipedia it because I’d like the direct opinions of Eastern Catholics.
Secondly, why is it that in the event that I ever considered becoming an Eastern Catholic that I could only transfer my membership once in my life time to an eastern church? I’m assuming that’s true because the woman who lead my RCIA class told me you may only switch once if ever you do.

Normally, the change of ritual Church enrollment is once, unless it is due to the reversion at the death of a spouse, after transfer during marriage. Also reversion is allowed for those that switched under age fourteen. A change of enrollment is not always granted.

CIC Can. 112
§1 After the reception of baptism, the following become members of another autonomous ritual Church:
1° those who have obtained permission from the Apostolic See;
2° a spouse who, on entering marriage or during its course, has declared that he or she is transferring to the autonomous ritual
Church of the other spouse; on the dissolution of the marriage, however, that person may freely return to the latin Church;
3° the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 who have not completed their fourteenth year, and likewise in a mixed marriage the children of a catholic party who has lawfully transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they may return to the latin Church.
§2 The practice, however long standing, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of an autonomous ritual Church, does not bring with it membership of that Church.

Canon 112 (NCCCL, Beal, Coriden, Green)"… because ascription to a ritual church is definitive, it belongs to the status of persons."
“In effect, the canon distinguishes membership from liturgical practice. This means that change of ritual church membership occurs in one of the three ways provided for in paragraph one.”

 

[mardukm]

Isn’t this the issue with the filioque that we have with the orthodox church? I’ve read that the pope actually has discouraged the use of the filioque in the eastern rite.

Yes, it is an issue. We have discussed this matter diligently here in the ECF. One EO poster assesses that the gist of the issue is the Latin belief that the Son can be Cause of the Holy Spirit in the same way the Father is Cause. I think I can agree with that - at least that this is the way an EO understands it. But the dogmatic document of Florence does not actually say that the Son is Cause of the Holy Spirit. What Florence stated was that the Son is “cause” according to the Greeks, and “principle” according to the Latins. But “principle” is not equivalent to “cause” in the Latin understanding. In the Latin understanding, there can be two philosophical causes within a principle. As it applies to the filioque issue, within the one principle of the Holy Spirit, there is the source (the Father). and an agency (the Son). So while the Latins say that the Son is principle in the same way that the Father is principle, they do not actually say that the Son is Cause in the same way that the Father is Cause.

Why is it so serious when changing churches if we believe the same thing?

The common Faith is a sublime reality. It is not immediately obvious according to our lived experiences. Let me offer an analogy: My neighbor in the U.S. is of Mexican heritage, while I am of Persian-Egyptian heritage. He thinks and does things according to his Mexican culture. I think and do things according to my Persian-Egyptian culture. It is great during Christmas when we invite each other to our family gatherings and we both enjoy each other’s different cultural expressions of the blessed event. But we are BOTH Americans, and if there was a war, we would be both fighting as Americans. Neither of us would deny, but rather live out, our respective heritages in our everyday lives. I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Crescentinus]

The Byzantine Rite tends to have communion using the liturgical spoon. :3

 

[fordhamstudent]

Could you share why you converted to the Catholic Church from Judaism? Did you consider the Orthodox Church? Thanks!

 

[Balcerhouse]

Could you share why you converted to the Catholic Church from Judaism? Did you consider the Orthodox Church? Thanks!

The story is a long one but the short version goes like this: I’ve always been very interested in religion as a concept and I studied Christianity from an apologetic perspective, always with the intent to argue with my Christian friends. I started to read a book about a jew who xonverted to orthodoxy called surprised by Christ and then I started just searching the internet daily for Christian articles. I saw the correlations of Jesus and the messiah and i attended a messianic synagogue. The Jews for Jesus type Jewish Christians. I really liked it but the nature of the synagogue was very protestant and many protestants that ivspoke to saw the synagogue as a first step into attending a Baptist or evangelical church. After atudying theor beliefs Nd the origin of what they believed and the way they spoke of Catholics it seemed mean spirited. I didn’t see Christ in their church or in their behaviors. I wondered what about the Catholics they were so afraid of because it definitely seemed like they wanted you to be afraid of them. I started attending a few orthodox churches in the area with an orthodox friend of mine and long story short the supremacy of the papacy and the filioque(sp?) Issue brought me to the Roman rite.

 

[Balcerhouse]

Could you share why you converted to the Catholic Church from Judaism? Did you consider the Orthodox Church? Thanks!

The story is a long one but the short version goes like this: I’ve always been very interested in religion as a concept and I studied Christianity from an apologetic perspective, always with the intent to argue with my Christian friends. I started to read a book about a jew who xonverted to orthodoxy called surprised by Christ and then I started just searching the internet daily for Christian articles. I saw the correlations of Jesus and the messiah and i attended a messianic synagogue. The Jews for Jesus type Jewish Christians. I really liked it but the nature of the synagogue was very protestant and many protestants that ivspoke to saw the synagogue as a first step into attending a Baptist or evangelical church. After atudying theor beliefs Nd the origin of what they believed and the way they spoke of Catholics it seemed mean spirited. I didn’t see Christ in their church or in their behaviors. I wondered what about the Catholics they were so afraid of because it definitely seemed like they wanted you to be afraid of them. I started attending a few orthodox churches in the area with an orthodox friend of mine and long story short the supremacy of the papacy and the filioque(sp?) Issue brought me to the Roman rite.

 

[fordhamstudent]

Thank you so much for sharing your story! Have a blessed Christmas!