What separates Eastern Catholicism from Eastern Orthodoxy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TrueLight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TrueLight

Guest
ConstantineTG said:
This is really where the difference of the Eastern mind and Latin legalism comes out. Latin legalism says, “you do this, you get this, you need to do this before you can do this.” It all deals with absolutes. You commit a sin, you have that marked on your soul. And before you can receive Communion you need to go to Confession. No ifs, no buts.

In the Eastern mind, repentance is not entirely contained in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. It is an aid to it, but not its entirety. If you commit a sin and you are trully repentant and resolved to reform your life, then you can approach and receive. It doesn’t mean one who is actively a sinner can approach and receive. But if you are repentant, there is no requirement. Of course your spiritual father will tell you, “make a confession, pray, fast, do penance.” But as long as you are indeed contrite, Sacramental Confession is not mandatory. If you are an active sinner, like you sleep around and have no intention to repent, then of course you cannot approach.
Click to expand...
As I said in the other thread, we need to differentiate between Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic. Do you agree?
Note from Moderator:
Click to expand...
This discussion on the difference between Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy was sufficiently off-topic to create a new thread from it. It also, sadly, did not maintain our expectations for charitable discussion in places, but I expect that will be amended as the conversation continues.
Click to expand...
Please see here for the original discussion asking if one may receive Communion in the Eastern Catholic Churches with a serious sin on the soul.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator
Click to expand...
 
TrueLight said:
As I said in the other thread, we need to differentiate between Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic. Do you agree?
Click to expand...
There is no differentiation. Have you heard of the Zoghby Initiative?

Two point profession of faith:
  1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
  2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoghby_Initiative
 
Here is a conundrum right here. When someone says “I want to become Orthodox,” our knee jerk reaction is, “why don’t you become Eastern Catholic? It is the same thing but you do not leave the Pope.” Then when we put forward an Orthodox teaching that we think conflicts with Roman Catholic teaching, we say there is a difference between Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism. So what is it? Are Eastern Catholics really the Orthodox in communion with the Pope? Or are they Roman Catholics with an Eastern Orthodox Mass?
 
ConstantineTG said:
There is no differentiation. Have you heard of the Zoghby Initiative?

Two point profession of faith:
  1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
  2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoghby_Initiative
Click to expand...
No I haven’t.

You cannot believe EVERYTHING that the Orthodox teaches. If the Orthodox believed everything Catholics believe, they would be in communion right now.
 
TrueLight said:
No I haven’t.

You cannot believe EVERYTHING that the Orthodox teaches. If the Orthodox believed everything Catholics believe, they would be in communion right now.
Click to expand...
You’ve misrepresented it. The Zoghby Initiative says that the Melkites believe everything the Eastern Orthodox believe. It does not say what the Eastern Orthodox should believe about the Catholics. The point is that they want a truly “Orthodox in communion with Rome” faith which will make reunion possible. The Orthodox do not want to change their faith, and it seems Rome is willing to accept the Orthodox as they are (as pointed out in another thread, different thoughts do already exist in the Catholic Communion today).
 
ConstantineTG said:
You’ve misrepresented it. The Zoghby Initiative says that the Melkites believe everything the Eastern Orthodox believe. It does not say what the Eastern Orthodox should believe about the Catholics. The point is that they want a truly “Orthodox in communion with Rome” faith which will make reunion possible. The Orthodox do not want to change their faith, and it seems Rome is willing to accept the Orthodox as they are (as pointed out in another thread, different thoughts do already exist in the Catholic Communion today).
Click to expand...
Okay. I hadn’t read the link before commenting. I responded to your comment that there is no differentiation and also to the two points you posted.

This initiative was neither accepted by the Orthodox nor Rome according to that article, in an case.

I wish I had made this a poll because I’m getting answers here and there. I suspect that some ECs feel under pressure either to:
  • not say anything that contradicts Orthodox teaching or
  • not say anything that contradicts Catholic teaching
And so the answers are sort of umm “careful”.
 
TrueLight said:
Okay. I hadn’t read the link before commenting. I responded to your comment that there is no differentiation and also to the two points you posted.

This initiative was neither accepted by the Orthodox nor Rome according to that article, in an case.

I wish I had made this a poll because I’m getting answers here and there. I suspect that some ECs feel under pressure either to:
  • not say anything that contradicts Orthodox teaching or
  • not say anything that contradicts Catholic teaching
And so the answers are sort of umm “careful”.
Click to expand...
The initiative is in practice by the Melkites regardless of what Rome thinks or says. So the Melkites at least practice that. One of the priests in the UGCC I regularly speak with also tells me the same thing, that we have what the Orthodox have. So if that is not agreeable with Rome, better excommunicate us all now.
 
ConstantineTG said:
There is no differentiation. Have you heard of the Zoghby Initiative?

Two point profession of faith:
  1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
  2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoghby_Initiative
Click to expand...
Are yo saying that all the eastern Orthodox churches adhere tot he Zohby initiative? If the answer is not then your statement is false.

There is also the implied logical fallacy that the shared professions of faith are not just a common subset but that they also are a complete overlap.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Here is a conundrum right here. When someone says “I want to become Orthodox,” our knee jerk reaction is, “why don’t you become Eastern Catholic? It is the same thing but you do not leave the Pope.” Then when we put forward an Orthodox teaching that we think conflicts with Roman Catholic teaching, we say there is a difference between Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism. ** So what is it? Are Eastern Catholics really the Orthodox in communion with the Pope? Or are they Roman Catholics with an Eastern Orthodox Mass?**
Click to expand...
I think that here you are confusing things here, Easter Catholics are not Orthodox in communion with Rome, because that would imply that all the orthodox Churches are in communion with each other and that is not true. Second to imply that they are Roman Catholics with an Eastern Orthodox Mass just indicates basic ignorance of Church history and fundamental ignorance of the Eastern catholic Churches and the Latin Church.
 
You’ve misrepresented it. The Zoghby Initiative says that the Melkites believe everything the Eastern Orthodox believe. It does not say what the Eastern Orthodox should believe about the Catholics. The point is that they want a truly “Orthodox in communion with Rome” faith which will make reunion possible. The Orthodox do not want to change their faith, and it seems Rome is willing to accept the Orthodox as they are (as pointed out in another thread, different thoughts do already exist in the Catholic Communion today).
Click to expand...
I agree with the above.

Even Pope Benedict XVI, as a Cardinal wrote, and I am paraphrasing: “We (Roman Catholics) cannot expect the Orthodox to accept the papacy as anything more than it was in the first thousand years.”

If you read the actual Union of Brest ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTM
you will note that the faith is full protected. Those coming into communion with Rome were and are allow to maintain their beliefs, customs, ceremonies, ect without having to adopt any Western beliefs. The way the East had understood sin, confession, Eucharist, and the subjects we are hear discussing is the way the EC continue to understand it. There is no article discussing a change in faith that the Eastern members had to make. The issue of the filioque is specifically named as being protected in the Eastern understanding. When the laypeople were informed of the union, they were told “The Pope has become Orthodox” (which was an awfule, subversive method that has been renounced), but it also demonstrates how nothing changed in the faith.

In fact, the treaty frequently makes reference to those of the “Greek Religion” in reference to themselves as being different from the Western. For example, it says in article 30,
“And if someone has been excommunicated by his bishops for any offense, let him not be received into the Roman Church but, on the contrary, let his excommunication be proclaimed there also. And we shall do the same with regard to those excommunicated from the Roman Church, for this is a joint concern.” They were two ancient churches who came into communion with one another. They viewed themselves as two entities in communion with one another. The Zoghby Initiative fits perfectly into this idea.
 
ConstantineTG said:
You’ve misrepresented it. The Zoghby Initiative says that the Melkites believe everything the Eastern Orthodox believe…
Click to expand...
What about the validity of the Holy Orders, quite a few Eastern Orthodox have a very different take from the Eastern Catholics?
 
newlywed8 said:
I agree with the above.

Even Pope Benedict XVI, as a Cardinal wrote, and I am paraphrasing: “We (Roman Catholics) cannot expect the Orthodox to accept the papacy as anything more than it was in the first thousand years.”

If you read the actual Union of Brest ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTM
you will note that the faith is full protected. Those coming into communion with Rome were and are allow to maintain their beliefs, customs, ceremonies, ect without having to adopt any Western beliefs. The way the East had understood sin, confession, Eucharist, and the subjects we are hear discussing is the way the EC continue to understand it. There is no article discussing a change in faith that the Eastern members had to make. The issue of the filioque is specifically named as being protected in the Eastern understanding. When the laypeople were informed of the union, they were told “The Pope has become Orthodox” (which was an awfule, subversive method that has been renounced), but it also demonstrates how nothing changed in the faith.

In fact, the treaty frequently makes reference to those of the “Greek Religion” in reference to themselves as being different from the Western. For example, it says in article 30,
“And if someone has been excommunicated by his bishops for any offense, let him not be received into the Roman Church but, on the contrary, let his excommunication be proclaimed there also. And we shall do the same with regard to those excommunicated from the Roman Church, for this is a joint concern.” They were two ancient churches who came into communion with one another. They viewed themselves as two entities in communion with one another. The Zoghby Initiative fits perfectly into this idea.
Click to expand...
I skimmed through the Union of Brest document. It lists specific big doctrinal disagreements that can be reconciled. For example, the East may not have a doctrine on purgatory, but they pray for the dead. That’s an area that can be reconciled.

But then again I skimmed it. I probably did not catch everything.

How does that apply to my question?
 
I mentioned it to demonstrate that the Eastern Catholics are truly meant to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. I didn’t want it to seem as though it is just us ECs saying so, it is actually how the union was formed. Obviously a number of the articles were violated over teh years, including those on priestly celibacy, those on the Eastern form of baptism, and those on not changing the traditions, but we are heading back in the right direction, getting back on track.

I truly am sorry you find it damaging to your faith. I confess that at times I once struggled with the union as well, as I didn’t understand some Latin beliefs.

I understand it as this: the apostolic churches (all four) have been around since the times of the apostles. They have protected and preseved their fath and have passed it on to their children. Each church is entrusted with helping its spiritual children get to heaven. It does this by teaching in a way that it finds to be the most beneficial for the people. Think Christ “my yoke is easy, my burden light”. The various traditions are incredibly intertwined with each church’s understanding of the world re: sin, death, church, salvation, ect. When you try to mix and match them, you will end up with confusion.

As I have said before. These differences are not new. They have been around since the earliest days of the church. For over a thousand years, however, we all managed to get along.
 
newlywed8 said:
I mentioned it to demonstrate that the Eastern Catholics are truly meant to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. I didn’t want it to seem as though it is just us ECs saying so, it is actually how the union was formed. Obviously a number of the articles were violated over teh years, including those on priestly celibacy, those on the Eastern form of baptism, and those on not changing the traditions, but we are heading back in the right direction, getting back on track.

I truly am sorry you find it damaging to your faith. I confess that at times I once struggled with the union as well, as I didn’t understand some Latin beliefs.

I understand it as this: the apostolic churches (all four) have been around since the times of the apostles. They have protected and preseved their fath and have passed it on to their children. Each church is entrusted with helping its spiritual children get to heaven. It does this by teaching in a way that it finds to be the most beneficial for the people. Think Christ “my yoke is easy, my burden light”. The various traditions are incredibly intertwined with each church’s understanding of the world re: sin, death, church, salvation, ect. When you try to mix and match them, you will end up with confusion.

As I have said before. These differences are not new. They have been around since the earliest days of the church. For over a thousand years, however, we all managed to get along.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your intentions in making the above post. 🙂
 
Cristiano said:
Are yo saying that all the eastern Orthodox churches adhere tot he Zohby initiative? If the answer is not then your statement is false.

There is also the implied logical fallacy that the shared professions of faith are not just a common subset but that they also are a complete overlap.
Click to expand...
That is a very good point - ecumenically, it can be seen how the proposition of the Zoghby Initiative could be viewed as problematic by the Orthodox Churches as well as Rome, for the reason (among others) articulated in your final point.
 
Cristiano said:
What about the validity of the Holy Orders, quite a few Eastern Orthodox have a very different take from the Eastern Catholics?
Click to expand...
I’m not an expert on the Melkite Church, however a statement that says “we believe everything,” is pretty easy to interpret.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
I was not aware that the Zoghby Initiative had become the official position of the Melkite Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Congregation for the Eastern Churches responded:“In summary, the fraternal dialogue undertaken by the Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarchate will be better able to serve the ecumenical dialogue to the degree that it strives to involve the entire Catholic Church to which it belongs in the maturing of new sensitivities. There is good reason to believe that the Orthodox in general so share the same worry, due also to the obligations of communion within their own body.”
About it:
cin.org/east/melkite.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top