What is Eastern Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aball1035
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aball1035

Guest
Forgive me for asking such a (possibly) stupid question, but are Eastern Catholics the same as Eastern or Greek Orthodox? Do they accept the pope as head of the Church? Did they ever break away?
 
aball1035 said:
are Eastern Catholics the same as Eastern or Greek Orthodox? Do they accept the pope as head of the Church?
Click to expand...
Yes, Eastern Catholics accept the Pope as Head of the Church, unlike the Eastern Orthodox. The Divine Liturgies of Eastern Catholics are akin to their Eastern Orthodox counterparts but our sui juris Churches are in communion with Rome, unlike the Orthodox.

🙂

p.s. edit by way of intro. wikipedia is not bad

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches

my Eastern Catholic particular Church, the Ukrainian:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Greek_Catholic_Church
(the wikipedia entry however has some mistakes)

p.s.s. there are no dumb questions in Eastern Catholicism. 😃 The more we all learn, the stronger the Body of Christ!
 
Oh and as I mentioned in another thread, the danger in wikipedia is anyone can post info., and I believe this short article is more clear and factual than the entry in wikipedia on the Ukrainian Catholic Church, and it is shorter, so maybe easier to understand the historical situation of an Eastern Catholic Church between East and West.
ugcc.org.ua/31.0.html?&L=2#c160
 
So, they rejoined with Rome for political reasons. Do you agree with that?
 
jbm0117 said:
So, they rejoined with Rome for political reasons. Do you agree with that?
Click to expand...
Some individuals did. The corporate reunions of the Sui Iuris churches, no. Most were, in point of fact, persecuted for coming into union.
 
jbm0117 said:
So, they rejoined with Rome for political reasons. Do you agree with that?
Click to expand...
Further to my short response earlier when I was busy, I think it behooves us to be very careful in using the word “politics” to 16th century European life and religion. In Western Europe during this time of the Reformation, state and national relations and religion were all intermixed in local disputes. Eastern Europe and Ukraine were no different. “Politics” is a loaded term, especially if one uses it in its modern form to describe events 400-500 years ago.

For example, in 1588 Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople traveled to Muscovy. Whilst there, his Russian Orthodox brethren put him under house arrest for 6 months until he finally acquiesced to elevate the Metropolitan of Moscow to the status of Patriarch. So was the decision to create a Moscow Patriarchate political or religious? He passed through Ukraine and Belarus’ (then called Ruthenia) thoroughly chastened according to Borys Gudziak.

Or in 1686: the Russian Tsar applied pressure to have the Ukrainian Orthodox Church removed from the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople and placed under the Patriarch of Moscow, (which was created as above). The Ukrainian clergy “vehemently opposed” in Orest Subtelny’s words being subordinated to the Muscovite Church “which it regarded as being culturally inferior” but it capitulated under force. So jbm0017, would you describe the transfer of the Church in then left-bank Ukraine to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow a “political” or “religious” event?

I don’t want to seem to be picking on the Russian Church but am merely using it as an example that the sword cuts both ways. It is easy to say the Union of Brest was strictly done for “political” reasons under Catholic Poland, but this is a gross-oversimplification of the multifarious factors involved. There were truly sincere concerns for the health of the faithful and their religious life involved.

The Ruthenian (Ukraine, Belarus) Church in the 1590s could not defend itself from the inroads of Protestantism or Latin Catholicism without doing something about theological education. Neither Constantinople nor Moscow at the time were of any great benefit in this regard. With the Union of Brest, education in the Ruthenian Church increased and the prospect of conversion of the Ruthenians to Latin Catholicism decreased substantially.

Plus spiritual questions were thoroughly involved in Brest as well. In 1415 the Kyivan Metropolitan said:
How long will the one Christian Church be divided into two confessions, and how can the Church be called Christian if it lacks Christ’s unity?
The Ruthenian Metropolitan was not discussing politics.

In 1396 the Metropolitan of Kyivan-Rus, Cyprian, wrote to the Patriarch of Constantinople that an ecumenical council be held to resolve the differences between Greeks and Latins.

It may be under-emphasized at times, but many clergy and bishops in Europe truly cared about Christ and the faithful and not just “politics”.

If one wants to understand what the Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy were hoping to achieve in the Union of Brest, look to their goals as listed here:
archeparchy.ca/documents/history/Union%20of%20Brest.pdf
 
KyivAndrew said:
Further to my short response earlier when I was busy, I think it behooves us to be very careful in using the word “politics” to 16th century European life and religion. In Western Europe during this time of the Reformation, state and national relations and religion were all intermixed in local disputes. Eastern Europe and Ukraine were no different. “Politics” is a loaded term, especially if one uses it in its modern form to describe events 400-500 years ago.

For example, in 1588 Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople traveled to Muscovy. Whilst there, his Russian Orthodox brethren put him under house arrest for 6 months until he finally acquiesced to elevate the Metropolitan of Moscow to the status of Patriarch. So was the decision to create a Moscow Patriarchate political or religious? He passed through Ukraine and Belarus’ (then called Ruthenia) thoroughly chastened according to Borys Gudziak.

Or in 1686: the Russian Tsar applied pressure to have the Ukrainian Orthodox Church removed from the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople and placed under the Patriarch of Moscow, (which was created as above). The Ukrainian clergy “vehemently opposed” in Orest Subtelny’s words being subordinated to the Muscovite Church “which it regarded as being culturally inferior” but it capitulated under force. So jbm0017, would you describe the transfer of the Church in then left-bank Ukraine to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow a “political” or “religious” event?

I don’t want to seem to be picking on the Russian Church, a sister Church, but am merely using it as an example that the sword cuts both ways. It is easy to say the Union of Brest was strictly done for “political” reasons under Catholic Poland, but this is a gross-oversimplification of the multifarious factors involved. There were truly sincere concerns for the health of the faithful and their religious life involved.

The Ruthenian (Ukraine, Belarus) Church in the 1590s could not defend itself from the inroads of Protestantism or Latin Catholicism without doing something about theological education. Neither Constantinople nor Moscow at the time were of any great benefit in this regard. With the Union of Brest, education in the Ruthenian Church increased and the prospect of conversion of the Ruthenians to Latin Catholicism decreased substantially.

Plus spiritual questions were thoroughly involved in Brest as well. In 1415 the Kyivan Metropolitan said:
How long will the one Christian Church be divided into two confessions, and how can the Church be called Christian if it lacks Christ’s unity?
The Ruthenian Metropolitan was not discussing politics.

In 1396 the Metropolitan of Kyivan-Rus, Cyprian, wrote to the Patriarch of Constantinople that an ecumenical council be held to resolve the differences between Greeks and Latins.

It may be under-emphasized at times, but many clergy and bishops in Europe truly cared about Christ and the faithful and not just “politics”.

If one wants to understand what the Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy were hoping to achieve in the Union of Brest, look to their goals as listed here:
archeparchy.ca/documents/history/Union%20of%20Brest.pdf
Click to expand...
 
KyivAndrew said:
In 1396 the Metropolitan of Kyivan-Rus, Cyprian, wrote to the Patriarch of Constantinople that an ecumenical council be held to resolve the differences between Greeks and Latins.
Click to expand...
Boy!..What a nice post…Thank you… and God Bless You…👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top