What Do You Think of the Eastern Churches?

[Christy74]

1. The Eastern Churches have maintained the purity of the Christian Faith as handed down by Jesus and the Apostles.
2. The Eastern Churches…what are they?
3. The Eastern Churches fell away from the truth handed down by Christ just like the Roman Church did.
4. The Eastern Churches are the “Other Lung” of the Roman Catholic Church without which it is difficult for Rome to breathe.

 

[anon52328184]

i don’t know very much about the Eastern churches since i have not even been a Roman Catholic for very long. i have done some reading and have been curious. it is all so confusing. if we could only ALL be ONE true faith. i do like the analogy of the 2 lungs and it is easier to breathe with 2 lungs than just 1.

hopefully, someone knowledgable about the eastern churches will post here.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

I think we should make a note that there is a schism within the Eastern Church.

Some bishops in the Eastern Church support the Papal Office and are still considered Catholic.

Other bishops reject the Papal Office; They are known as Orthodox.

 

[inJESUS]

1. The Eastern Churches…what are they?

we Maronites are Catholics from the East…we’ve been there since, mmm, the fourth century.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I respect our Eastern Bretheren and their theological understandings. I would like to see the Eastern Bishops begin to play a larger role in Church governance, and I would also like to see more Eastern theology within the Catechism.

I think that the Eastern Catholics have a unique identity which should be protected. Their liturgies, history, theology, and practices are just as valid as ours, and while they are free to accept latinizations, they should endeavor to protect their own culture.

I see no contradiction between latin and eastern theology; I appreciate that there are different understandings of the same belief, however. I view Latin and Eastern theological understandings as two sides of the same coin.

For example, here is my opinion of the Dormition V. the Assumption, taken from another thread:

The Dormition of the BVM is a beautiful understanding of what happened at the end of the Virgin’s life. The belief is that Mary experienced a natural death, and that her soul was received by Christ. Three days after this event, her body was resurrected and she was taken up, body and soul into heaven.

The Dormition and the Assumption are basically different explanations of the same event, and I see no contradiction between the two. They both state that the BVM was taken bodily up to heaven, but the diffence is that the Orthodox view also states that she first died and was then ressurected. Many Catholics also believe that she experienced natural death, while others do not. Pope Pius XII did not comment on this aspect of the dogma when he infallably defined the Assumption. Here is what he stated:

1. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:** that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.**

He states that the BVM, “having completed the course of her earthly life”, was assumed body and soul into heaven." I take this to mean that she died, because that is what happens when anyone completes the course of their earthly life. Therefore, I would state that I also believe in the Dormition, although I refer to it as the Assumption.

The Catechism also explicitly mentions the Dormition, as seen below:

. . . also in her Assumption

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.509

The Orthodox view and the Catholic view are essentially the same, although the Orthodox view goes into more detail regarding what happened at the end of her life.

Note: In the previous thread I was disussing the Orthodox Christians. However, it is my understanding that the Eastern Catholics also believe in the Dormition as opposed to the Assumption.

 

[inJESUS]

it is my understanding that the Eastern Catholics also believe in the Dormition as opposed to the Assumption.

Maronites celebrate the Assumption.

 

[Aramis]

There are several groups of “Eastern Churches”…

Group 1: The Assyrians (Non-Ephesians)
Split off, rejecting the council of Ephesus. (EC#3)
Sometimes inaccurately called Nestorians; some of them were, most were not; they later rejected Nestorian Heresy internally. 1 Rite. 2 churches, plus 2 more who joined other groups

Group 2: The Non-Chalcedonians
This group split off due to disagreement with the Christological definitions in the council of Chalcedon. (EC#5)
These include the Oriental Orthodox. At least 2 rites, 5 or more churches, most in union with the Coptic Orthodox Pope.

Group 3: The Eastern Orthodox
These split in 850 over a variety of issues. They count 9 Ecumenical Councils, but EC#8 and EC#9 are not the same as the ones Rome counts, despite both calling EC#8 Fourth Constantinople.
at least 2 Rites, in 20+ Churches. One of those Rites is non-hierarchical, to wit, the Western Rite, which is always under the local Eastern Orthodox bishop.

Group 4: Armenian Orthodox Church
Another non-chalcedonian group, but one with several sporadic localized reunions with rome over the centuries, one of which is now in group 5…
1 Rite, several churches.

Group 5: The Catholics
Romans, Maronites, and Italo-albanians have existed in the East for a long time. They are in Union with Rome. Some splinters from groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 are now in this. Really, this is 6 Rites, in 23 churches, united under the Pope.

Group 6: “Independent Orthodox” and “Independent Catholic”… looking like groups 1, 2, 3, or 4, these fall into Vagante groups (valid episcopal ordination at one point, but left and founded a counter church), surviving heretical groups (who preserved the line), Schismatic Groups (like the Old Catholic movement, some of whom use the Byzantine Rite), and independent rediscovery of orthopraxis groups (like the Evangelical Orthodox used to be, before being brought into the Antiochian Orthodox), and some just plane nutters.

Group 7: Gnostic Christianity
Does not look like any of the above; generally thought to have been eradicated, survives in small insular communities, often nomadic. Praxis and Doxis is massively heretical… anathematized before 100AD… Surviving groups reticent to talk to outsiders about praxis or doxis.

I think I missed a couple groups… Note that there are only 6 rites amongst groups 1-5… but some 50+ churches, each using one of those rites. Many of the churchs falling into goup 6 (which is not properly a group, but a clade) use one of the 6 rites, or a close variation.

For example, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East, the Chaldean Catholic Church, and the Maronite Catholic Church all share the Syriac Rite.

8 Catholic Churches and most* of the Eastern Orthodox Churches share the same Byzantine Rite. Also, a number of independent groups also use the Byzantine rite.

But this shows the diversity of the “Eastern Churches.”

As far as I care and can tell, groups 1-4 are considered valid and licit, but merely in formal schism, by group 5, the Catholics.

The Assyrian Church of the East is in limited communion but not in union with the Chaldean Catholic Church, which is the splinter that joined the Catholic communion…

The Syrian Orthodox and Syrian Catholic churches have a common pastoral care agreement; shy of a proper communion agreement, it recognizes the validity of each side’s sacraments and clergy, and provides protocols for mixed families.

 

[anon52328184]

aramis – i am very impressed with what you know.

you certainly are an expert on all things Catholic! LOL

i wish i could retain knowledge like that!

 

[dzheremi]

You’ve got that right, deborahaz! That is probably the clearest explanation I’ve ever seen of the different groups, and that’s even considering that I’ve asked Armenian Orthodox, Assyrian, and Ethiopian Orthodox friends about their respective churches.

(The Armenians and Ethiopians were sooooo shocked that I even knew they were Christians. Hahaha. “You know about us?! YOU? A foreigner?” )

 

[Nicholas82]

I respect our Eastern Bretheren and their theological understandings. I would like to see the Eastern Bishops begin to play a larger role in Church governance, and I would also like to see more Eastern theology within the Catechism.

I think that the Eastern Catholics have a unique identity which should be protected. Their liturgies, history, theology, and practices are just as valid as ours, and while they are free to accept latinizations, they should endeavor to protect their own culture.

I see no contradiction between latin and eastern theology; I appreciate that there are different understandings of the same belief, however. I view Latin and Eastern theological understandings as two sides of the same coin.

For example, here is my opinion of the Dormition V. the Assumption, taken from another thread:

The Dormition of the BVM is a beautiful understanding of what happened at the end of the Virgin’s life. The belief is that Mary experienced a natural death, and that her soul was received by Christ. Three days after this event, her body was resurrected and she was taken up, body and soul into heaven.

The Dormition and the Assumption are basically different explanations of the same event, and I see no contradiction between the two. They both state that the BVM was taken bodily up to heaven, but the diffence is that the Orthodox view also states that she first died and was then ressurected. Many Catholics also believe that she experienced natural death, while others do not. Pope Pius XII did not comment on this aspect of the dogma when he infallably defined the Assumption. Here is what he stated:

He states that the BVM, “having completed the course of her earthly life”, was assumed body and soul into heaven." I take this to mean that she died, because that is what happens when anyone completes the course of their earthly life. Therefore, I would state that I also believe in the Dormition, although I refer to it as the Assumption.

The Catechism also explicitly mentions the Dormition, as seen below:

The Orthodox view and the Catholic view are essentially the same, although the Orthodox view goes into more detail regarding what happened at the end of her life.

Note: In the previous thread I was disussing the Orthodox Christians. However, it is my understanding that the Eastern Catholics also believe in the Dormition as opposed to the Assumption.

There really is no opposition between the Catholic dogma of the assumption and the Orthodox belief in the Dormition. The document defining the Assuption could not be more clear that the Theotokos experienced bodily death. Read the whole thing… I mean if you feel you’re bound only to this “infallible portion” of the document, and are at liberty to cast aside the rest of it as well as the tradition it is based upon (the Dormition and Assumption of the Theotokos) then alright- why anyone would do that is beyond me.

 

[Hesychios]

…and I would also like to see more Eastern theology within the Catechism.

While still basicaly formed in the tradition of the west, it is apparent that the modern CCC of Pope John Paul II is a bit of a hamonization between easten theology and the western, at least on some points.

On needs to look back a little further to see it more clearly.