What're the differences between the Latin Rite and the various Eastern Rites?

[LatinCat]

Traditional Ang:

Kielbasi:

Some of the Eastern Rite Priests on EWTN do NOT have beards. That being said, I believe the beard is a sign of Fatherhood, and the leavening a sign of Christ’s Resurrection.

Although Married men in the Eastern Rites are allowed to Be Ordained as Priests, only men who have taken a vow of celebacy and are thereby 'dedicated to the Lord" may be Consecrated as Bishops or Metropolitans.

Eastern Rite Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) do kneel Monday through Saturday, but “Prostration” (Kneeling) is forbidden on Sundays to Commemorate our Lord’s Resurrection…

…Eastern Rite Catholics would claim we westerners do the Sign of the Cross backwards - They do it three times, once for the Father, once for the Son and once for the Holy Spirit. (we have an Eastern Orthodox who occasionally takes his communion at St. Mary’s - He has some sort of dispensation from his Bishop)

Confirmation (Chrismation) is not regarded as given an indellible Mark on the soul and can be given multiple times. That’s why converts or those who have been apostate can simply be Re-Chrismated.

Icons and their veneration are described in the canons of the same councel (Chalcedon) which defined the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Theotokos. Eastern Christians believe the Saint represented in the Icon mystically resides in that Icon. This is based on the Eastern concept described by the Greek word “Symbol”. So, if the Icon is one of the Theotokos, Eastern Catholics would say that the Theotokos resides, not only in heaven with her Son, but in that Icon.

That’s why an Eastern Catholic would fall on his knees (except on Sunday) and gently kiss the statue to demonstrate his love of the Theotokos.

We do the same with the cross on Good Friday.

Fr. Ambrose and many of the Eastern Rite Catholics can describe this better than I can.

In Christ, Michael

You are mistaken on the confirmation issue. It does leave and indelible mark and can only be recieved once.

 

[Amadeus]

Not ALL Eastern Christians cross themselves from right to left!

If I recall it right, the Armenians (the first as a nation to become Christian) and the Copts, both Orthodox and Catholic, and the Maronites cross themselves from left to right like we Latins do!

 

[Hesychios]

LatinCat:

You are mistaken on the confirmation issue. It does leave and indelible mark and can only be recieved once.

Confirmation is a repeatable sacrament in Orthodoxy, this was the practice in the East long before the Great Schism.

I have never seen the issue addressed in modern Eastern Catholicism.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Joe Monahan:

After discussion between myself and Marian Carroll, the Moderator of L&S, we have decided that the question posed here would by the OP would get more thoroughly and appropriately addressed in the Eastern Christianity forum, to which I’m moving it.

Joe

Joe, you have greatly saddened by this decision.

But then I should not be surprised after seeing the treatment we Byzantine Catholics recieve from Catholic Answers. We are either ignored or treated as an after thought.

We are Catholics regradless of what you think.

I have ventured into this Ghetto but I will no longer do so and the first time a thread of mind gets moved to this Ghetto will most likely be the last time I post here.

Again, this is a very sad day.

I suggest a name change to this forum, from Cathoic Answers Forum to Roman Catholic Answers Forum.

 

[TobyLue]

Eastern rite folks do the sign of the cross backwards.

I would not say that the Eastern rite folks do the sign of the cross backwards. To them** WE** do it backwards. They just go from right to left. What I like about the Eastern method of the sign of the cross, and I started doing it many years ago, is to bring the little and ring fingers together to the middle of the palm of the hand and then bring the thumb, fore and middle fingers together and then make the sign of the cross. I started doing that some time back and it makes me think of what I’m doing rather that just without any thought make the sign of the cross.

In case some are wondering, this is what I heard from an Eastern priest of the reason for it. The bringing of the little and ring fingers to the middle is to signify the two natures of Christ; human and Divine. The bringing of the three fingers together signifies the Trinity. Try it. I personally think that gives the sign of the cross more significance.

 

[Josephene]

Traditional Ang:

Kielbasi:
Icons and their veneration are described in the canons of the same councel (Chalcedon) which defined the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Theotokos. Eastern Christians believe the Saint represented in the Icon mystically resides in that Icon. This is based on the Eastern concept described by the Greek word “Symbol”. So, if the Icon is one of the Theotokos, Eastern Catholics would say that the Theotokos resides, not only in heaven with her Son, but in that Icon.

That’s why an Eastern Catholic would fall on his knees (except on Sunday) and gently kiss the statue to demonstrate his love of the Theotokos.

We do the same with the cross on Good Friday.

…

In Christ, Michael

Really surprised about the idea of icons being believed to have the presence of the saint in there - has been my undersatnding that that would be considered as bordering on ( if not actually) a form of idoatry- not trying to be critical, just wanting clarification !

Kissing The Cross or giving revernce to statues etc: would be more like giving respect to the person represented there , like a picture of a beloved family member ; and since holy objects have been blessed, that also make it special .

Would think, The presence of The Presence would only be in The Eucharist , as willed by The Lord Himself !

True , occasionally , we hear of statues weeping etc; but that again is a special incident ( in OT. the sun moved back too ).

Is this a major issue that separate both sides ?

There are Eastern rites that do not have this type of belief , to the best of my knowledge !

Hope Eucharistic Adoration would satisfy the hunger and thirst to be in The Presence, this side of the world !

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Josephene:

Really surprised about the idea of icons being believed to have the presence of the saint in there - has been my undersatnding that that would be considered as bordering on ( if not actually) a form of idoatry- not trying to be critical, just wanting clarification!

The presence of the Saints can be found in both their icons and their relics. Both are suffused with grace.

 

[Apotheoun]

Fr Ambrose:

The presence of the Saints can be found in both their icons and their relics. Both are suffused with grace.

Yes, icons are a theophany of grace (divine energy). There is a great book on the iconic theology of the Eastern Church entitled, “Images of the Divine: The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council,” by Ambrosias Giakalis, it is a great read, and I recommend it to anyone interested in knowing more about the importance of icons in Christian faith and worship.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Apotheoun:

Yes, icons are a theophany of grace (divine energy). There is a great book on the iconic theology of the Eastern Church entitled, “Images of the Divine: The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council,” by Ambrosias Giakalis, it is a great read, and I recommend it to anyone interested in knowing more about the importance of icons in Christian faith and worship.

“In the case of icons there is a hypostatic relation between the icon and its prototype, which means that the icon manifests the person depicted in it, and more than this, it contains the divine energies and can bestow the illuminating, purifying, and sanctifying energies (but not the deifying energies) upon the man who venerates it.”

Apotheoun, I would be very interested to hear more about the hypostatic relationship spoken of here, either from yourself or from any reference you recommend. Thanks.

 

[Josephene]

While it is understandable how The Eastern Church has love of tradition and icons and grateful for the graces recieved, in the ‘economy’ of ways , it would seem Eucharistic Adoration would be’ the source and summitt!’

Presence of The Risen Lord , heaven itself - and so many instances of healings and miracles related to The Eucharist , even in these days !

It is truly wonderful to see how Eucharistic Adoration is spreading more in The Church - the Shepherd who listened to The Voice , calling the faithful to deeper Marian devotion and intercession of Our Lady of The Eucharist , now blessed with more love for The Living Lord, more chapels with perpetual Eucharisitic Adoration !

All so simple, available wherever The Church is and the Blessings , so very great!

No wonder ,heaven sends The angel of Peace , at Fatima , with The Host and The Chalice !

 

[Josephene]

P.S - can see God’s Mercy in icon veneration , in the sense that even those who may not be in a state of grace who venerate an icon would not bring down any condemnation whereas ,as St. Paul warns as , this is not so for The Eucharist - how many get sick and die , from recieving The Body and Blood , unworthily !

The Church calling the faithful to be true to the marriage covenant , of total giving of self to each other, that in turn keep us from having sworn a false oath , while receiving The Eucharist !

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Josephene:

The Church calling the faithful to be true to the marriage covenant , of total giving of self to each other, that in turn keep us from having sworn a false oath , while receiving The Eucharist !

Dear Jospehene, You have come back on topic with this since it is one of the significant differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the other Catholic Churches, Melkite Catholic, Maronite Catholic, Ukrainian Greek Catholic, etc.

Apart from the Roman Catholic Church none of the Catholic Churches have any oath taking or covenant making in the Sacrament of Marriage. There is no exchange of vows*, no oath.

Instead God works mysteriously with His blessing to create the oneness of flesh and the unity of love.

PS: Would this invalidate Eastern Catholic marriages in terms of Roman Catholic theology?

• I should point out that in some countries where the civil law reruires that consent be given verbally by both spouses, there is sometimes an exchange of such consent inserted into the marriage ceremony to satisfy the civil law. But this is an insertion and is not part of the Sacrament. It is usually inserted before the beginning of the wedding proper.

 

[Hesychios]

Josephene:

While it is understandable how The Eastern Church has love of tradition and icons and grateful for the graces recieved, in the ‘economy’ of ways , it would seem Eucharistic Adoration would be’ the source and summitt!’

You probably haven’t experienced eucharistic adoration at it’s zenith unless you have experienced a ‘Great Entrance’.

Nevertheless, eucharist is a verb not a noun. The ultimate adoration involves the partaking, it is something dynamic not static.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Hesychios:

Nevertheless, eucharist is a verb not a noun. The ultimate adoration involves the partaking, it is something dynamic not static.

You’re right of course. It is analogous to the love between a man and a woman. The man may take great pleasure in gazing on his beloved and she on him, but it is the consummation of that love in the marriage bed which is the pinnacle of their love.

I wonder if this difference in emphasis could derive from our different ideas as to the nature of man’s eternal happiness?

For Roman Catholics this is summed up in the Beatific Vision. It is a gazing and it is passive.

For Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox it is divinisation. This is an activity, an eternal process, and it is active.

 

[Josephene]

Fr Ambrose:

Dear Jospehene, You have come back on topic with this since it is one of the significant differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the other Catholic Churches, Melkite Catholic, Maronite Catholic, Ukrainian Greek Catholic, etc.

Apart from the Roman Catholic Church none of the Catholic Churches have any oath taking or covenant making in the Sacrament of Marriage. There is no exchange of vows*, no oath.

Instead God works mysteriously with His blessing to create the oneness of flesh and the unity of love.

PS: Would this invalidate Eastern Catholic marriages in terms of Roman Catholic theology?

• I should point out that in some countries where the civil law reruires that consent be given verbally by both spouses, there is sometimes an exchange of such consent inserted into the marriage ceremony to satisfy the civil law. But this is an insertion and is not part of the Sacrament. It is usually inserted before the beginning of the wedding proper.

Thank you dear Fr. Ambrose , in trying to kindly answer with the Eastern Ortodox perspective on these matters .

Well, too deep waters for my depth!

Yet , would think marriage is marriage and a covenant - based on biblical concepts and may be this is an area Peter is to tend the sheep - of the other churches ,on to!

As far as Eucharist, like word love ,would think that from common use , it could be a noun as well!

And as far as gazing , it is also spiritual communion,and this is in adddition to recieving The Sacrament itself during The Holy Mass - (in case any from Prot. churches on The Forum ,wondering !)!