What is Eastern Catholicism?

[dvdjs]

As an Eastern Catholic I can pretty much tell you that the Eastern Catholic Churches look like anything BUT pre-schism Orthodoxy.

As an Eastern Catholic, probably a lot older than you, I am can tell you that I am curious: where do you get this stuff?

This is actually one of the points of contention in modern Catholic-Orthodox dialogue. Many Orthodox fear that should communion with Rome be reestablished, then they’ll go the way of the “uniates;” much of their traditional theology will be replaced by “Catholic” (read “Roman”) theology, much of their liturgical outlook will be replace by the “Catholic” liturgical outlook, many of the traditional practices and devotions will be replaced by “Catholic” practices and devotions

Your experience is totally different than mine. What you described may be a point of contention on the internet - among polemicists who are trying to score points and push buttons. But it is not a point of contention among serious people who are working on issues of ecclesiology and theology. Nor is it an issue among decent people at the grass roots level who are more like the Publican, full of fear and trembling, than Pharisees who talk of their superior practice.

If you want a great illustration of this, just look into the celibate vs. married clergy debates that rage between Eastern Catholics and Rome. The law, from what I understand, is that married clergy are not permitted outside the traditional patriarchal territories. This makes married clergy for Eastern Catholics in the U.S. contrary to Church law. It’s ridiculous.

Your understanding is not really correct; if you are going to speak about what is “ridiculous” then you should get your facts in order first. I am happy to discuss the history of celibacy among Eastern Christians in the US, if that is what you want. It is an interesting story, but in no way is it a ridiculous one.

We have a long way to go and much work to do before all the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches are fully what they were prior to the Schism.

What are you talking about? One could of course, in the strictest sense, make that same statement about all of the Orthodox churches. Of course, I don’t think they have any real interest in being, in that strict sense, fully what they were at that time. They are, instead, being what they are. Perhaps then you might be looking for that courage that enables fidelity to one’s own patrimony. But that vision must not imply an dead antiquarian traditionalism, but something organic and vital that is informed by the lived life of the church. It is a way of life, not a programmed “way to go”.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

As an Eastern Catholic, probably a lot older than you, I am can tell you that I am curious: where do you get this stuff?

Your experience is totally different than mine. What you described may be a point of contention on the internet - among polemicists who are trying to score points and push buttons. But it is not a point of contention among serious people who are working on issues of ecclesiology and theology. Nor is it an issue among decent people at the grass roots level who are more like the Publican, full of fear and trembling, than Pharisees who talk of their superior practice.

Your understanding is not really correct; if you are going to speak about what is “ridiculous” then you should get your facts in order first. I am happy to discuss the history of celibacy among Eastern Christians in the US, if that is what you want. It is an interesting story, but in no way is it a ridiculous one.

What are you talking about? One could of course, in the strictest sense, make that same statement about all of the Orthodox churches. Of course, I don’t think they have any real interest in being, in that strict sense, fully what they were at that time. They are, instead, being what they are. Perhaps then you might be looking for that courage that enables fidelity to one’s own patrimony. But that vision must not imply an dead antiquarian traditionalism, but something organic and vital that is informed by the lived life of the church. It is a way of life, not a programmed “way to go”.

I’m glad that our experiences are totally different. My own home parish is actually very wonderful, and in many ways more Orthodox than many Orthodox parishes (and has been proclaimed so by Orthodox who have attended). But I do know that the things that I’ve mentioned in previous posts are a widespread problem. I work for a company that deals primarily with Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy, as well as Catholic-Orthodox relations. I deal with this stuff day-in and day-out. So I am well aware of what I am speaking. I’m not basing anything off of internet polemicists, but on conversations with extremely prominent Catholic and Orthodox theologians and ecumenists, as well as a great deal of research into the area.

I would be most interested in any further details on the history of Eastern Catholic clerical celibacy in the U.S. Please send me a message or an e-mail. I always love learning more.

 

[JohnVIII]

Alveus Lacuna;6876984:

If you want a good look at what the Eastern Orthodox Churches looked like before the Schism, look at the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Not quite. Pre-schism Orthodoxy = in Full Communion with St. Peter. Post-schism Orthodoxy = out of Communion with St. Peter. Modern day Eastern Catholic Churches = Orthodox in Communion with St. Peter, ergo Eastern Catholics look like pre-schism Orthodoxy.

The key words are “looked like”. Neither Eastern Catholics, nor Eastern Orthodox are the same thing as Pre-schism Orthodoxy. Pre-schism Orthodoxy didn’t tend to become somewhat Latinized by being in communion with Rome as Eastern Catholics are. So Eastern Orthodoxy ‘looks’ more like Pre-schism Orthodoxy because they have not been Latinized. The reason Pre-schism Orthodoxy didn’t tend to be Latinized is because they were only ‘in communion with’ Rome not under the rule of Rome. Rome was referred to sometimes by the Pre-schism Eastern Churches as the head of the whole Catholic Church, but this was not then understood to mean the same thing as what V1 would define it. Rome did not ‘rule’ over the East. But whatever Rome did effected the East, so if the East was happy with something Rome did they were happy to use Romes support to further their cause, but if Rome acted against the wishes of the Eastern Churches they still did what they thought was best even if it was harder to do since Rome didn’t back them up. The difference being that the Eastern Churches were autocephalous, they saw Rome as the visible head of the whole Church, but the rule of Rome did not go beyond Rome; the East could decide for themselves, hence they didn’t become Latinized.

I have come to believe that the Eastern Orthodox would be better off if they could return to communion with Rome, but if they do not it will not make them schismatic. They are still autocephalous so they can still choose, right or wrong, how to rule themselves. They don’t appear to be a part of the Catholic Church because they have walled themselves off from St Peter and they therefore cannot have the benefit showing forth the unity of the Church in St Peter, but they are in fact a part of the Catholic Church nevertheless. The only way they can become no longer a part of the Church is if the become manifest heretics. They are not manifest heretics and they have started to realize the they were wrong to once say that Rome is a manifest heretic church. So they are ready to return to communion with Rome so long as they don’t loose their independent rule. And they shouldn’t have to give up their liberty to gain unity.

 

[JohnVIII]

Orthodox have always been in communion with Peter.

He attends every liturgy, all the angels and saints are there.

Of course you are right, but that’s a different sense of the meaning of being in communion with St Peter.

Now with Old Rome outside of the Orthodox communion your unity is centered around New Rome (Constantinople) or the 3rd Rome (Moscow). The problem is that there is a very strong consensus of the Church Fathers that unity be based on St Peter. Both Constantinople & Moscow were founded by the 1st ‘called’ (Andrew) not the 1st ‘Apostle’ (Peter). There has also been a tendency for unity in the Orthodox Church by looking to the ‘Mother Church’ (Jerusalem); but Jerusalem was founded by St James. Of course you do have Alexandria & Antioch both of which were founded by St Peter, but oddly enough none of (or at least very few of) the Orthodox look to them for the unity of the Church! It’s almost as if where once you did look to St Peter for the unity of the Church, you now look everywhere except St Peter for the unity of the Church! But I will admit that this has worked out for you fairly well now for a 1000 years!

To me this is a testament to the fact that autocephalous liberty is a greater virtue than Petrine unity. So, being put into a position were you could not have both and had to choose between one or the other the liberty would be the best choice. Petrine unity comes from Tradition, there is no canon that requires it, but autocephalous liberty is ordered by a canon of the Church; that would be canon 8 of the 3rd Ecumenical! I will only quote the part of that canon that alludes to scripture were it says, “…lest imperceptibly and little by little we lose the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men, has given us a free gift by His own blood”.

 

[bkovacs]

Not quite. Pre-schism Orthodoxy = in Full Communion with St. Peter. Post-schism Orthodoxy = out of Communion with St. Peter. Modern day Eastern Catholic Churches = Orthodox in Communion with St. Peter, ergo Eastern Catholics look like pre-schism Orthodoxy.

Not quite. Pre-schism Catholicism = in Full Communion with St. Andrew (Constantinople). Post-schism Catholicism = out of Communion with St. Andrew (Constantinople). Modern day Eastern Orthodox Churches = Orthodox in Communion with St. Andrew, ergo Eastern Orthodox look like pre-schism Orthodox Catholicism

 

[rben20]

**The Western (Latin) Catholic Church

Latin liturgical tradition**

1. Ordinary Form (This is the form of the Mass that you will find in virtually every Latin Catholic Church almost every day of the week. This Mass has existed since the mid-1960s, ever since reforms were made following the Second Vatican Council.)
2. Extraordinary Form (This is the form of the Mass that was used in virtually every Latin Catholic Church from the Middle Ages until the mid-1960s. It may still be said in Catholic Churches should a priest choose to use it. Some of the differences from the Ordinary Form include the exclusive use of the Latin language (except for the homily), the receipt of Communion exclusively on the tongue and kneeling, the priest facing the same direction as the people (toward the altar and God) so he can lead the people in prayer, no lay participation on the altar, and usually, no responses by lay people.)
3. Ambrosian Rite (Only permitted in the Archdiocese of Milan)
4. Mozarabic Rite (Only permitted in the Cathedral of Toledo, Spain and a few surrounding churches of the diocese)
5. Bragan Rite (Only permitted in the Archdiocese of Braga, Portugal)
6. Anglican-Use Mass (This form was once only permitted in the extremely rare circumstance in which an Anglican priest converted to Catholicism and brings his entire parish with him. In that event, a parish could continue to use the Anglican liturgy, with corrections to make it conform with Catholic teachings. It was originally meant as a transitional liturgy, and upon the death of the pastor, the church would revert to the Ordinary Form. With the recent provisions announced by the Vatican to allow Anglicans into the Catholic Church and keep their traditions, it seems that the Anglican-Use will now become both far more widespread AND permanent.)

)

Alright so if I fall under the Latin liturgies and specifically attend the extraordinary form, what kind of Catholic am I then? Am I a Roman Catholic, Catholic - Roman Rite, Catholic -Latin Rite or do all mean the same thing provided that I am a Catholic who worships according to the Diocese of Rome?

 

[dcointin]

Does anyone know what percentage of world-wide Catholics are Roman Rite vs various eastern rites?

 

[Vico]

Does anyone know what percentage of world-wide Catholics are Roman Rite vs various eastern rites?

In 2008, 1.166 billion baptized Catholics total.

Annuario Pontifico 2008 statistics show 17,020,718 Eastern Catholics.

98.54 % Latin Church sui iuris
1.46 % Eastern Churches sui iuris

Breakdown of Eastern Catholics:

4,284,082 Ukrainian *
3,947,396 Syro-Malabar #
3,090,509 Maronite %
1,598,304 Melkite *
776,529 Romanian *
646,569 Ruthenian *
539,806 Armenian @
452,488 Chaldean #
413,513 Syro-Malankara %
290,000 Hungarian *
246,060 Slovak *
208,093 Ethiopian/Eritrean $
163,849 Coptic $
161,780 Syrian %
– Balkans under 100,000 each —
61,598 Italo-Albanian *
44,042 Krizevci (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia-Kosovo and Montenegro) *
15,175 Macedonia *
10,000 Bulgarian *
3,600 Albanian *
2,325 Greek *​

65,000 Eastern Rite without proper Ordinary (Argentina, Austria, Brazil, France, Poland)

• Byzantine (Ukrainian, Melkite, Romanian, Ruthenian, …)

Chaldean (Syro-Malabar, Chaldean)​

% Antiochian (Maronite, Syro-Malankara, Syrian)
@ Armenian (Armenian)
$ Alexandrian (Coptic, Ethiopian/Eritrean)

 

[5Loaves]

Alright so if I fall under the Latin liturgies and specifically attend the extraordinary form, what kind of Catholic am I then? Am I a Roman Catholic, Catholic - Roman Rite, Catholic -Latin Rite or do all mean the same thing provided that I am a Catholic who worships according to the Diocese of Rome?

There is no Latin Rite. The is the Roman Rite from the Roman Missal in the Ordinary form both in Latin and in English, and the Roman Rite of the Extraordinary form in Latin only. You’re a Catholic of the Latin Church who assists in the Roman Rite liturgy of the 1962 Roman Missal, the forma extraordinaria,as HH Benedict XVI refers to it in his July 7 2007 Motu Proprio paragraph 5. The Roman Rite either in the Forma ordinaria ot the Forma extraordinaria is the form of worship of the Diocese of Rome and both forms may be celebrated in Latin. The Diocese of Rome is in the Latin Church.

Latin is the formal Language of the Latin Church thus its name. All formal documents of the Latin Church are first published in Latin. The Canon Law of the “Roman” Church calls it “the Latin Church” when saying in Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.

Does that help?

 

[pinctor]

What is the difference between Latin and Eastern churches in the matter of divorce and re-marriage? I believe the Orthodox churches permit this, but only up to four attempts!

 

[Vico]

What is the difference between Latin and Eastern churches in the matter of divorce and re-marriage? I believe the Orthodox churches permit this, but only up to four attempts!

Same as the Latin Church, no divorce, but there may be separation without remarriage.

For a Catholic, a declaration of nullity (through a tribunal) can be made if it is determined that the covenant was not valid. Also for a Catholic, if there was no permission of the Catholic Church then it was only an attempted marriage, and matrimony is possible upon verification of documentation of lack of form and civil divorce. There are also unusual conditions for disolution of a non-consummated ratified marriage (between the baptised), and of a natural marriage between two unbaptised spouses, or of only one baptised spouse.

 

[rben20]

Does that help?

Thank you! Yes it does help…I just got so confused with trying to be proper.

 

[dcointin]

In 2008, 1.166 billion baptized Catholics total.

Annuario Pontifico 2008 statistics show 17,020,718 Eastern Catholics.

98.54 % Latin Church sui iuris
1.46 % Eastern Churches sui iuris

Breakdown of Eastern Catholics:

4,284,082 Ukrainian *
3,947,396 Syro-Malabar #
3,090,509 Maronite %
1,598,304 Melkite *
776,529 Romanian *
646,569 Ruthenian *
539,806 Armenian @
452,488 Chaldean #
413,513 Syro-Malankara %
290,000 Hungarian *
246,060 Slovak *
208,093 Ethiopian/Eritrean $
163,849 Coptic $
161,780 Syrian %
– Balkans under 100,000 each —
61,598 Italo-Albanian *
44,042 Krizevci (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia-Kosovo and Montenegro) *
15,175 Macedonia *
10,000 Bulgarian *
3,600 Albanian *
2,325 Greek *​

65,000 Eastern Rite without proper Ordinary (Argentina, Austria, Brazil, France, Poland)

• Byzantine (Ukrainian, Melkite, Romanian, Ruthenian, …)

Chaldean (Syro-Malabar, Chaldean)​

% Antiochian (Maronite, Syro-Malankara, Syrian)
@ Armenian (Armenian)
$ Alexandrian (Coptic, Ethiopian/Eritrean)

Many thanks!

 

[JohnVIII]

Same as the Latin Church, no divorce, but there may be separation without remarriage.

Which is enough proof right there that Eastern Catholics are not the same thing as pre-schism Orthodox! :yup:

 

[Vico]

Which is enough proof right there that Eastern Catholics are not the same thing as pre-schism Orthodox! :yup:

The older Catholic Church had a different marriage law than today allowing dissolution due to adultery. The Latin Church eventually prohibited that.

The Council of Trent was able to teach the doctine of the indissolubility of marriage without anathematizing the Greek Orthodox for following a contrary practice by stating that:
People who assert that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved on account of adultery are not declared anathema, rather those who teach that the church has erred in teaching that marriage cannot be dissolved on account of adultery, are declared anathema.

Council of Trent:

“CANON VlI.-If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.”

history.hanover.edu/texts/Trent/ct24matt.htm

 

[JohnVIII]

…People who assert that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved on account of adultery are not declared anathema, rather those who teach that the church has erred in teaching that marriage cannot be dissolved on account of adultery, are declared anathema…]

I take it back that ‘The Church erred’. I went too far. I think that in the case of adultery there MUST be a divorce, or else the innocent one shares the guilt of the other. But I will not anymore say the church erred for teaching otherwise.

 

[Vico]

I take it back that ‘The Church erred’. I went too far. I think that in the case of adultery there MUST be a divorce, or else the innocent one shares the guilt of the other. But I will not anymore say the church erred for teaching otherwise.

JohnVIII I am suprised at you comment. I did not even think you were opposing anything the Church taught, rather that this information had bearing on the pre-schism Orthodox.

It it interesting that the Latin Canon Law encourages pardon of the guilty spouse by the spouse wronged by the adultery:

CIC 1152
§ 1. It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by Christian charity and solicitous for the good of the family, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. Nevertheless, if that spouse has not either expressly or tacitly condoned the other’s fault, he or she has the right to sever tho common conjugal life, provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery.
§ 2. Tacit condonation occurs if the innocent spouse, after becoming aware of the adultery, has willingly engaged in a marital relationship with the other spouse; it is presumed, however, if the innocent spouse has maintained the common conjugal life for six months, and has not had recourse to ecclesiastical or to civil authority.
§ 3. Within six months of having spontaneously terminated the common conjugal life, the innocent spouse is to bring a case for separation to the competent ecclesiastical authority. Having examined all the circumstances, this authority is to consider whether the innocent spouse can be brought to condone the fault and not prolong the separation permanently.

 

[TP2]

The key words are “looked like”. Neither Eastern Catholics, nor Eastern Orthodox are the same thing as Pre-schism Orthodoxy. Pre-schism Orthodoxy didn’t tend to become somewhat Latinized by being in communion with Rome as Eastern Catholics are. So Eastern Orthodoxy ‘looks’ more like Pre-schism Orthodoxy because they have not been Latinized. The reason Pre-schism Orthodoxy didn’t tend to be Latinized is because they were only ‘in communion with’ Rome not under the rule of Rome. Rome was referred to sometimes by the Pre-schism Eastern Churches as the head of the whole Catholic Church, but this was not then understood to mean the same thing as what V1 would define it. Rome did not ‘rule’ over the East. But whatever Rome did effected the East, so if the East was happy with something Rome did they were happy to use Romes support to further their cause, but if Rome acted against the wishes of the Eastern Churches they still did what they thought was best even if it was harder to do since Rome didn’t back them up. The difference being that the Eastern Churches were autocephalous, they saw Rome as the visible head of the whole Church, but the rule of Rome did not go beyond Rome; the East could decide for themselves, hence they didn’t become Latinized.

I have come to believe that the Eastern Orthodox would be better off if they could return to communion with Rome, but if they do not it will not make them schismatic. They are still autocephalous so they can still choose, right or wrong, how to rule themselves. They don’t appear to be a part of the Catholic Church because they have walled themselves off from St Peter and they therefore cannot have the benefit showing forth the unity of the Church in St Peter, but they are in fact a part of the Catholic Church nevertheless. The only way they can become no longer a part of the Church is if the become manifest heretics. They are not manifest heretics and they have started to realize the they were wrong to once say that Rome is a manifest heretic church. So they are ready to return to communion with Rome so long as they don’t loose their independent rule. And they shouldn’t have to give up their liberty to gain unity.

Eastern RITE Catholics in Union with Rome are not LATINIZED. They are in UNION with ROME. They carry their own partuclular Traditions and their priests marry as do the Orthodox before Ordination ONLY…NOTHING is changed.

INDEPENDANT RULE? What is that? Unity with Peter means Visible Unity of Faith and Morals. Peter has the Privilege by God to intervene across the Tiber to any Jurisdiction that falls short on those 2 areas of doctrine! Read the letter of Clement of Rome, the 3rd Bishop of Rome to the Corinthian Church in ONLY 80 AD. And tell me he was not Intervening…

 

[JohnVIII]

…Read the letter of Clement of Rome, the 3rd Bishop of Rome to the Corinthian Church in ONLY 80 AD. And tell me he was not Intervening…

From newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm :

There is absolutely no mention of a bishop at Corinth, and the ecclesiastical authorities there are always spoken of in the. plural. R. Sohm thinks there was as yet no bishop at Corinth when Clement wrote (so Michiels and many other Catholic writers; Lightfoot leaves the question open), but that a bishop must have been appointed in consequence of the letter

“tell me he was not Intervening” - Ok, he was not intervening. There was no bishop in Corinth yet. You can’t intervene in another bishops jurisdiction if there no bishop, can you?

 

[TP2]

From newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm :

“tell me he was not Intervening” - Ok, he was not intervening. There was no bishop in Corinth yet. You can’t intervene in another bishops jurisdiction if there no bishop, can you?

Excuse me. Clement was interveing in a Local Church’s Affairs. Please. Stay on issue. We are speaking of early 80 AD, not the 2nd or 3rd centuries. You are slicing and dicing. There was a Church in Corinth under which were called a “Bishop” or else there would be no Church… Why isn’t their a “Bishop” named in the Acts or the rest of the NT mentioned, except the KJV? Cuz there was none? Not so.

Corinth had a Jurisdiction or else there would be no need to write a Letter to them. They would have been heretics, hence, why bother exhorting them to reconstitute?

The FACT is Clement of Rome Intervened outside his Local Church of Rome to Settle a Dispute. And remember, no Bishop, no Priest, no Eucharist, no Church…

What do you call what he did other than an intervention? A Hail Mary pass?