Why are there two Churches?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FOFEBA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FOFEBA

Guest
I don’t really understand much about the history of the Roman Catholic Church vs the Eastern Catholic Church. As someone ignorant of the history, I rather suspect that it is simply a story of politics, and perhaps there is no TRUE Church.

Would anyone care to enlighten me?
 
You mention that you’re asking about the Eastern Catholic Church, but did you perhaps mean to say the Eastern Orthodox Church? The reason I ask is because the two branches of the Catholic Church, Western and Eastern, are unified with each other already under the umbrella of the papacy and the Catholic Church as a whole. The Orthodox, however, are NOT in communion with the church. The terms Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox are both correct, but they refer to two completely different things, so I just wanted to make sure, because your very last statement about there being no true church makes your question a bit confusing.
 
Here’s a statement I posted a while back about the Eastern Catholic Churches:

Most people are not aware that the “Catholic Church” is actually comprised of twenty-three independent Catholic Churches, all in union with the pope. The Western, or Latin Catholic Church, is so large, however, that many people, even Catholics, are completely unaware of the other twenty-two churches, which make up the Eastern Branch. (Some have from only a few thousand members to a few million.)

Originally, there was only one denomination… the Catholic Church (the word Catholic meaning “universal”). However, there were five cities that early on were singled out as being important centers of Christianity. They were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and of course, Rome. Each developed its own unique traditions and liturgy, but ALL shared a common theology and were in communion with each other and the Bishop of Rome, known as the Pope. However, about 1000 years ago, due to a variety of unfortunate problems, the other four cities, allied with the Byzantine Empire, mutually broke off from Rome, forming the various Eastern Orthodox Churches. Although doctrinally, they are virtually identical to Catholics, they refuse to acknowledge that the pope is more than a “first among equals”. (A couple groups broke of much earlier in the 400s AD also, to form what are known as the Oriental Orthodox Churches).

What has happened is that over time, some portions of each of the various Orthodox groups have decided to reconcile with the Catholic Church and come back into communion with Rome. When they do, they are allowed to keep all of their traditions and much of their independence, although they acknowledge the authority of the Pope. They become truly Catholic, in that anyone from ANY branch of the Catholic Church can participate in the liturgy and ceremonies of any OTHER branch of the Catholic Church. The only two Eastern groups that never fell out of communion with the Catholic Church were the Maronite Catholic Church, and the Italo-Albanian Catholic Church. So… for every branch of the Orthodox Churches that are NOT in communion with Rome, there is a corresponding and virtually identical branch of the Eastern Catholic Church that IS in communion with Rome. Since their customs and liturgies date from before the Council of Trent, they are allowed to remain.

The following liturgies are used by the Eastern Catholic Churches:
  • The Liturgy of St. Basil
  • The Chaldean Mass
  • The Order of the Divine and Holy Liturgy of Our Father Among the Saints Gregory the Theologian (or Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts)
  • The Liturgy of St. James
  • The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
  • The Liturgy of St. Mark
  • The Holy Qorbono
 
Here is a listing that includes EACH of the twenty-three Catholic Churches in union with the Pope. Do not confuse “churches” with “rites”. A rite is a series of traditions, that includes different customs and liturgies. Several different churches may use the exact same rite. A Church has its own rules and separate line of authority to the Pope. It may also have a figure in charge, like a Metropolitan or a Patriarch (like an Archbishop), since these churches are generally very small and work very hard to preserve their unique traditions. The major rites are the Latin, Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, Chaldean, and Byzantine.

**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.)
**Rites of Religious Orders **
  1. Dominican Rite
  2. Carthusian Rite
  3. Carmelite Rite
  4. Cisternian Rite
Note: Technically, the forms of the Latin liturgy listed above are NOT different rites, but variations of the SAME rite, although people do tend to commonly use the term somewhat erroneously in this context. The differences between the Latin “rites” are FAR less than those between the Latin liturgy and any of the Eastern Rites.)

**The Eastern Catholic Churches
  1. Alexandrian liturgical tradition**
  2. Coptic Catholic Church (patriarchate): Egypt (1741)
  3. Ethiopian Catholic Church (metropolia): Ethiopia, Eritrea (1846)
    2. Antiochian (Antiochene or West-Syrian) liturgical tradition
  4. Maronite Church (patriarchate): Lebanon, Cyprus, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Argentina, Brazil, United States, Australia, Canada, Mexico (union re-affirmed 1182)
  5. Syriac Catholic Church (patriarchate): Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Palestine, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United States and Canada, Venezuela (1781)
  6. Syro-Malankara Catholic Church (major archiepiscopate): India, United States (1930)
    3. Armenian liturgical tradition:
  7. Armenian Catholic Church (patriarchate): Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Palestine, Ukraine, France, Greece, Latin America, Argentina, Romania, United States, Canada, Eastern Europe (1742)
    4. Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition:
  8. Chaldean Catholic Church (patriarchate): Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, United States (1692)
  9. Syro-Malabar Church (major archiepiscopate): India, Middle East, Europe and America.
    5. Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) liturgical tradition:
  10. Albanian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic administration): Albania (1628)
  11. Belarusian Greek Catholic Church (no established hierarchy at present): Belarus (1596)
  12. Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic exarchate): Bulgaria (1861)
  13. Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro (1611)
  14. Greek Byzantine Catholic Church (two apostolic exarchates): Greece, Turkey (1829)
  15. Hungarian Greek Catholic Church (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Hungary (1646)
  16. Italo-Albanian Catholic Church (two eparchies and a territorial abbacy): Italy (Never separated)
  17. Macedonian Greek Catholic Church (an apostolic exarchate): Republic of Macedonia (1918)
  18. Melkite Greek Catholic Church (patriarchate): Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Jerusalem, Brazil, United States, Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Egypt and Sudan, Kuwait, Australia, Venezuela, Argentina (1726)
  19. Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic (major archiepiscopate): Romania, United States (1697)
  20. Russian Catholic Church: (two apostolic exarchates, at present with no published hierarchs): Russia, China (1905); currently about 20 parishes and communities scattered around the world, including five in Russia itself, answering to bishops of other jurisdictions
  21. Ruthenian Catholic Church (a sui juris metropolia, an eparchy, and an apostolic exarchate): United States, Ukraine, Czech Republic (1646)
  22. Slovak Greek Catholic Church (metropolia): Slovak Republic, Canada (1646)
  23. Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (major archiepiscopate): Ukraine, Poland, United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany and Scandinavia, France, Brazil, Argentina (1595)
 
ConstantineTG said:
Isn’t the Holy Qurbono the Chaldean Mass?
Click to expand...
From what I understand, the Holy Qorbono is the liturgy used by the Maronite Catholic Church, whereas the Chaldean Mass is used by the Chaldean and Syro-Malabar Catholic Churches. I believe they are somewhat different, but related.
 
So that’s how it works!

If I may expand this a bit, I know that there are different canons of scripture out there for some of these churches. Are those different canons part of the Eastern Orthodox, or Eastern Catholic, or both?
 
There are two churches because of original sin. Because original sin men are easily inclined to do their own will instead of God’s. There was one Church for the first 1,000 years after Christ. It can only be because of human sin that there are now two. I can only hope that the two will become one again. Though I am a Catholic, I believe both have great worthiness.
 
Rolltide said:
From what I understand, the Holy Qorbono is the liturgy used by the Maronite Catholic Church, whereas the Chaldean Mass is used by the Chaldean and Syro-Malabar Catholic Churches. I believe they are somewhat different, but related.
Click to expand...
I’ve been to Chaldean Catholic sites and even to Wikipedia that calls the liturgy as The Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari. Of course we can surmise that Qurbana and Qurbobo as the same because its a different language being spelled in English.
 
fermat said:
So that’s how it works!

If I may expand this a bit, I know that there are different canons of scripture out there for some of these churches. Are those different canons part of the Eastern Orthodox, or Eastern Catholic, or both?
Click to expand...
The Orthodox use a slightly different canon that varies from Orthodox group to Orthodox group. It varies from group to group, but generally adds onto the Catholic deuterocanonicals 1 and 2 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees (and 4 Maccabees as an appendix). Most of these additions are rarely used liturgically, if they’re used liturgically at all. The Ethiopian Orthodox have a different canon yet, and it’s vastly larger (81 books I believe for the “Narrower Canon”, and substantially more yet for the so-called “Broader Canon”).

As far as the Eastern Catholic canon goes, it’s the same as in the West, but the point is moot, since none of the additional books would have been used in a liturgical sense anyway. So, you will sometimes see Catholic Bibles that include the books for reading anyway. (At least, that’s my understanding of the situation. Others are free to correct me or elaborate as necessary.)
 
ConstantineTG said:
I’ve been to Chaldean Catholic sites and even to Wikipedia that calls the liturgy as The Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari. Of course we can surmise that Qurbana and Qurbobo as the same because its a different language being spelled in English.
Click to expand...
Qorbono is a Syriac (Aramaic) word that means, simultaneously:
  1. the offering of Christ on the Cross
  2. Holy Mass, and
  3. the Eucharist
As such, it’s a word used in several Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. In the West, we would simply say “Mass”, and in most other Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches, they would use “Divine Liturgy”. It stands to reason that since this is a generic term, the Qorbono of the Maronites could very well be a different rite than the “Chaldean Mass”, which they ALSO might refer to as a Qorbono.
 
Rolltide said:
Qorbono is a Syriac (Aramaic) word that means, simultaneously:
  1. the offering of Christ on the Cross
  2. Holy Mass, and
  3. the Eucharist
As such, it’s a word used in several Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. In the West, we would simply say “Mass”, and in most other Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches, they would use “Divine Liturgy”. It stands to reason that since this is a generic term, the Qorbono of the Maronites could very well be a different rite than the “Chaldean Mass”, which they ALSO might refer to as a Qorbono.
Click to expand...
That is my guess. Although the Chaldean priest in our area refers to it as Mass when he speaks with me. But its because he may be saying it in a way he thinks I would understand.
 
Rolltide said:
The Orthodox use a slightly different canon that varies from Orthodox group to Orthodox group. It varies from group to group, but generally adds onto the Catholic deuterocanonicals 1 and 2 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees (and 4 Maccabees as an appendix). Most of these additions are rarely used liturgically, if they’re used liturgically at all. The Ethiopian Orthodox have a different canon yet, and it’s vastly larger (81 books I believe for the “Narrower Canon”, and substantially more yet for the so-called “Broader Canon”).

As far as the Eastern Catholic canon goes, it’s the same as in the West, but the point is moot, since none of the additional books would have been used in a liturgical sense anyway. So, you will sometimes see Catholic Bibles that include the books for reading anyway. (At least, that’s my understanding of the situation. Others are free to correct me or elaborate as necessary.)
Click to expand...
My Russian Catholic Bible has the Orthodox canon, but not 4 Maccabees.

Psalm 151 is a numbering issue; it’s actually not an addition, per se.

Some books are named differently:
The pentateuch is named as numbered books of moses, eg “First book of Moses”.
“Knigi Tsarstv” (books of Tsars) is four “books”: 1st Tsars is 1st Book of Samuel, 2nd Tsars is 2nd Samuel, 3rd Tsars is 1st Kings, 4th Tsars is 2nd Kings

It includes an OT appendix containing 1-3 Maccabes, 3 Esdras,

The Prayer of Manasses is included at the end of 2 Chronicles.

Wikipedia actually as a good table at the bottom of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
 
Rolltide said:
Here’s a statement I posted a while back about the Eastern Catholic Churches:

Most people are not aware that the “Catholic Church” is actually comprised of twenty-three independent Catholic Churches, all in union with the pope. The Western, or Latin Catholic Church, is so large, however, that many people, even Catholics, are completely unaware of the other twenty-two churches, which make up the Eastern Branch. (Some have from only a few thousand members to a few million.)

Originally, there was only one denomination… the Catholic Church (the word Catholic meaning “universal”). However, there were five cities that early on were singled out as being important centers of Christianity. They were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and of course, Rome. Each developed its own unique traditions and liturgy, but ALL shared a common theology and were in communion with each other and the Bishop of Rome, known as the Pope. However, about 1000 years ago, due to a variety of unfortunate problems, the other four cities, allied with the Byzantine Empire, mutually broke off from Rome, forming the various Eastern Orthodox Churches. Although doctrinally, they are virtually identical to Catholics, they refuse to acknowledge that the pope is more than a “first among equals”. (A couple groups broke of much earlier in the 400s AD also, to form what are known as the Oriental Orthodox Churches).

What has happened is that over time, some portions of each of the various Orthodox groups have decided to reconcile with the Catholic Church and come back into communion with Rome. When they do, they are allowed to keep all of their traditions and much of their independence, although they acknowledge the authority of the Pope. They become truly Catholic, in that anyone from ANY branch of the Catholic Church can participate in the liturgy and ceremonies of any OTHER branch of the Catholic Church. The only two Eastern groups that never fell out of communion with the Catholic Church were the Maronite Catholic Church, and the Italo-Albanian Catholic Church. So… for every branch of the Orthodox Churches that are NOT in communion with Rome, there is a corresponding and virtually identical branch of the Eastern Catholic Church that IS in communion with Rome. Since their customs and liturgies date from before the Council of Trent, they are allowed to remain.

The following liturgies are used by the Eastern Catholic Churches:
  • The Liturgy of St. Basil
  • The Chaldean Mass
  • The Order of the Divine and Holy Liturgy of Our Father Among the Saints Gregory the Theologian (or Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts)
  • The Liturgy of St. James
  • The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
  • The Liturgy of St. Mark
  • The Holy Qorbono
Click to expand...
What proofs did the Roman Church use to substantiate that the Pontiff in Rome is indeed Supreme Pontiff over all those churches descending directly from Christ? Sometimes I wonder if it was a political grab for power rather than a truly spiritual endeavor. Thanks.
 
So, if someone from one of the Orthodox churches decided to come over to it’s Eastern Catholic counterpart, would they then cease to recognize as scripture the additional books?

And when JPII spoke about the ‘left and right lungs’ of the church, was he then referring to the Eastern and Western Catholic churches, or the Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox? (if you are unfamiliar with the east west comment, I can dig up the reference.)

This is really helpful.
 
fermat said:
So, if someone from one of the Orthodox churches decided to come over to it’s Eastern Catholic counterpart, would they then cease to recognize as scripture the additional books?

And when JPII spoke about the ‘left and right lungs’ of the church, was he then referring to the Eastern and Western Catholic churches, or the Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox? (if you are unfamiliar with the east west comment, I can dig up the reference.)

This is really helpful.
Click to expand...
No, they mightn’t, but personally might… it varies. The additional books are not used in the divine worship service (Quorbono/Qurbana/DivineLiturgy/Mass/Badarak), but some are used in some paraliturgical services, such as vespers or matins.

The two popes using the “two lungs” phrase used it differently… JP II seemed to be saying RC/EC, and in some occasions, explicitly referred to the UGCC as part of the Eastern Lung; B XVI clearly means RC/Orthodox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top