What is the difference between Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My apologies if I came off as confusing in my terminology. I grouped all Eastern Catholics together instead of naming them separately. Granted I only have experience with the UGCC and a little with the Ruthenian.

And I stand by what I said before…the Eastern Catholic churches are merely existing at this point…I don’t think they are growing at all. There may be specific parishes which are thriving but overall they don’t get many converts…mostly disgruntled Latins or Latins curious about the East(Byzantine) who are too afraid to look into Orthodoxy. Eastern Catholicism is akin to having your cake and eating it too…reality is quite different for some of us.
 
Angel_Gabriel said:
My apologies if I came off as confusing in my terminology.
Click to expand...
I was ok with how you said it. I knew where you were going
A:
I grouped all Eastern Catholics together instead of naming them separately. Granted I only have experience with the UGCC and a little with the Ruthenian.

And I stand by what I said before…the Eastern Catholic churches are merely existing at this point…I don’t think they are growing at all.
Click to expand...
Why do you think they are not growing?
A:
There may be specific parishes which are thriving but overall they don’t get many converts…mostly disgruntled Latins or Latins curious about the East(Byzantine) who are too afraid to look into Orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
Re: that direction

Orthodox = schism, therefore, ≠ orthodox

Schism has always been a condemned direction from the beginning.

Can you imagine Jesus allowing any apostle to leave Peter after He gave Peter a new name, said He would build His Church on Peter, the keys to the kingdom of God went to Peter, and Jesus told Him to feed and rule Our Lord’s Church? It goes without saying, the apostles were to give their allegiance to Jesus plan.

There was an argument however, by the apostles over this. Jesus settled their argument

for space, here’s a link describing what happened #4 ]
So we know the answer. We don;t have to guess.

as an aside, we hear 1st among equals by the Orthodox when it comes to Peter against the authority we know Jesus gave Peter.

An Orthodox priest I used to converse with said this about 1st among equals #129 ]
A:
Eastern Catholicism is akin to having your cake and eating it too…reality is quite different for some of us.
Click to expand...
then I have to ask, why isn’t it growing? Why are parishes stagnant?
 
Angel_Gabriel said:
My apologies if I came off as confusing in my terminology. I grouped all Eastern Catholics together instead of naming them separately. Granted I only have experience with the UGCC and a little with the Ruthenian.

And I stand by what I said before…the Eastern Catholic churches are merely existing at this point…I don’t think they are growing at all. There may be specific parishes which are thriving but overall they don’t get many converts…mostly disgruntled Latins or Latins curious about the East(Byzantine) who are too afraid to look into Orthodoxy. Eastern Catholicism is akin to having your cake and eating it too…reality is quite different for some of us.
Click to expand...
You must mean within the US. The Ukrainian, Syro-Malabar, Malankara Syrian Churches are growing worldwide, as are Chaldeans, Melkites, . There are annual stats released by Rome on each diocese/eparchy worldwide.https://s20.postimg.org/gzdbk8pzh/IMG_2931.jpg

cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-pie15.pdf

Yearly stats are here:
cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=125&pagetypeID=1&sitecode=jer&pageno=1
 
steve_b said:
I was ok with how you said it. I knew where you were going

Why do you think they are not growing?

Re: that direction

Orthodox = schism, therefore, ≠ orthodox

Schism has always been a condemned direction from the beginning.

Can you imagine Jesus allowing any apostle to leave Peter after He gave Peter a new name, said He would build His Church on Peter, the keys to the kingdom of God went to Peter, and Jesus told Him to feed and rule Our Lord’s Church? It goes without saying, the apostles were to give their allegiance to Jesus plan.

There was an argument however, by the apostles over this. Jesus settled their argument

for space, here’s a link describing what happened #4 ]
So we know the answer. We don;t have to guess.

as an aside, we hear 1st among equals by the Orthodox when it comes to Peter against the authority we know Jesus gave Peter.

An Orthodox priest I used to converse with said this about 1st among equals #129 ]

then I have to ask, why isn’t it growing? Why are parishes stagnant?
Click to expand...
Yes I was referring to the growth in the US.

Truly I don’t know why they aren’t growing. They are tiny and several parishes/missions that I know of are only surviving because of the influx of former Latins. So I guess my question is how can we grow and NOT rely on Latins? I’m not biased against them…I used to be one and there are things about the Roman rite that I miss, a lot of it cultural.

I think a lot of people who end up going to Eastern Catholicism eventually move on to Orthodoxy. There were several posters on CAF that did that eventually. There’s a sort of spirtual schizophrenia in Eastern Catholicism…trying to unite the various dogmas and doctrines of both East and West is a difficult thing to do and I don’t think all of us can understand and make sense of it. At least I don’t think we can understand it enough to be at peace with it. I know I’m struggling and I know others who struggled with it as well.

With a few exceptions (Melkites mainly) there are a ridiculous amount of latinizations in the various Eastern Churches. I was interested in authentic Byzantine spirituality and I’m not finding that here…which of course is sad and I have been struggling with what I should do and where I should go for a few years now. My situation is rather complicated and I’m still not sure where I’ll end up. In retrospect I think I should have just stayed Latin and made the best of things but I was drawn Eastward and it was hard to resist the pull. What’s done is done and I can’t go back but I do hope to be at peace spiritually soon.

FWIW I think the Bishop of Rome should be the final authority to go to if there is a dispute…he shouldn’t barge in. So yeah I have issues with some of the papal claims but again I have no problem praying for the Pope of Rome and would continue to do so even if I became Orthodox. May God bless him in his mission!

ETA: People tend to either convert to the Latin Church or to the Orthodox Churches…not a lot from Protestantism or other faiths to the Eastern Catholic Churches although I do know of a few people. So again, the question is why? I think that most protestants would go Orthodox b/c of the Pope issues or would go Latin b/c of the similar traditions.
 
In a couple of earlier posts it seemed that while there is a difference in the various Rites of the Catholic Church and the understanding thereof, in the end we are all Catholic’s no matter which Rite one belongs to. I see more an lack of education and understanding between Western and Eastern Rite Catholic’s; the Dogmas’s in how it is understood, this on top of doctrines that evolve as a way of trying to understand what it is we believe…

I see no earthly reason for any of the Eastern Rites to be Latinized now do I see Eastern Rites incorporated into the Latin Rite. Each has its own beauty and its spirituality in expressing our love of God through Christ and the Holy Spirit. it also seems to me that there is more in common between the Eastern and Latin Rites then what is not. It also seems to me that each has its particular way of expressing that belief we profess. While it id fair to ask what we do not understand about a particular Rite, its unfair to criticize one Rite over another. But this is my opinion as a Catholic in the Latin Rite.
 
prodromos said:
There are only three theologians in the Orthodox Church, St John the Theologian, St Gregory (Nazianzus) the Theologian an St Symeon the New Theologian. To which of these are you referring?
Click to expand...
Ok, sorry brother, but that’s a little persnickety, isn’t it? I took the poster as referring to “theologians” in the generic sense, not theologians the Church has given the title “Theologian” to.

To address the OP’s point, there is a little bit of diversity among Orthodox “theologians” with regard to the eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit, but I am not aware of any Orthodox theologian of any repute who does not agree that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone, or the from the Father through the Son, but not from the Father and the Son “equally” and in one “action” as defined in the post-schism western councils.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
Ok, sorry brother, but that’s a little persnickety, isn’t it? I took the poster as referring to “theologians” in the generic sense, not theologians the Church has given the title “Theologian” to.

To address the OP’s point, there is a little bit of diversity among Orthodox “theologians” with regard to the eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit, but I am not aware of any Orthodox theologian of any repute who does not agree that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone, or the from the Father through the Son, but not from the Father and the Son “equally” and in one “action” as defined in the post-schism western councils.
Click to expand...
catholic.com/qa/how-do-we-counter-the-charge-that-the-addition-of-filioque-was-an-illicit-alteration-of-the
 
Expatreprocedit said:
That has nothing to do with what I posted.
Click to expand...
It’s how the Orthodox define “proceeds” that is different than how Catholics define proceeds…

Proceed for us doesn’t mean origin/source, it means sent

Therefore

the Father sending the Holy Spirit John 14: 26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things,a] and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

the Son sending the Holy Spirit John 20: 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
That has nothing to do with what I posted.
Click to expand...
I was responding to your statement

“the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone, or the from the Father through the Son, but not from the Father and the Son “equally” and in one “action” as defined in the post-schism western councils.”
 
In extension, to post #31 ,

from the CCC

Re: Proceeds & filioque

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.” By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as “the source and origin of the whole divinity”. But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son’s origin: “The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.” The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: “With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified.”

246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256
 
steve_b said:
I was responding to your statement

“the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone, or the from the Father through the Son, but not from the Father and the Son “equally” and in one “action” as defined in the post-schism western councils.”
Click to expand...
But what you posted concerned an entirely different issue, whether it was licit to add to the creed without a council.
 
It is NOT a simple answer. Eastern Catholicism is made up of many rites, and NOT all have an Orthodox church matching it. For example I worship in the Maronite rite (an Eastern Rite Catholic Church) and has never had a rite in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. The Maronite have ALWAYS been a part of the Roman Catholic Church.
 
The issue is further complicated by the fact that not all “Eastern” theology is Byzantine theology - a reality that most people tend to miss.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
But what you posted concerned an entirely different issue, whether it was** licit to add to the creed without a council**.
Click to expand...
By council I presume you mean an ecumenical council. It was done in an ecumenical council. Florence

Also

JPII explains Greek vs Latin expression of “proceeds” ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

If I can summarize it like this,

Dual procession ≠ dual source

The filioque in Catholic Church teaching, does not change the Monarchy of the Father.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top