www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Need a plain English answer ... East V West

Are there any doctrinal/theological differences between the beliefs held by the Latin/Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches?

I am becoming familiar with some of the differences in traditions and practices. But I was wondering if there are any theological or doctrinal differences.

I assume that all of the major dogmatic statements by the Roman Catholic Church are agreed to and believed by the Eastern Catholic Churches (I would assume that would be necessary to be in communion with Rome). Is this a correct assumption?

I am trying to explain to a RC friend that even though I attend a Byzantine Rite parish I am still Catholic. She seems to doubt that this is possible. We've discussed some of the differences and she insists that she has heard that there are doctrinal differences that mean I'm not Catholic.

Though she cannot name them and I cannot for the life of my figure out what she's talking about.

So a plain English - "Eastern Catholicism for Idiots" or "Dummy Proof Eastern Catholicsm" type answer is needed.

Thanks,

Carole

Tell your friend to write the Vatican and ask if Eastern Catholics are in communion with Rome. Shy of that their are several websites she could visit to find information on Eastern Catholics. She could go to http://www.usccb.org/index.shtml and verify there are Eastern Catholic Eparchies listed. She could also order Eastern Catholic in the USA from their site and dispel her ignorance on the subect. http://www.usccbpublishing.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=163

A question I'd like to ask you is: which specific Eastern Catholic Church do you belong to (i.e., not the parish, but the over-arching Church)? The reason I ask is that a good thing to show your friend might be the declarations of union that were declared by the Eastern and Western Catholic churches when they reunited. That really ought to settle the issue without getting into the nitty-gritty details. Your friend will probably be sympathetic to something like a Roma locuta, causa est finita (Rome has spoken, the cause is finished; i.e., there is no room for discussion on the matter, you're Catholic).

For example, if you are Ruthenian, here is the text of the Union of Brest: Union of Brest [ewtn.com]

More later, perhaps.

Maximos

Thank you both for your answers.

I do just want to clarify one thing ... are there any matter of theologic different between the EC and RC?

I know that there are things that are different. Such as not using the Filioque and that that may seem to be a theological/doctrinal difference (even though it isn't). But I was just wondering if all fo the differences are purely a matter of spiritual practice, tradition and liturgy? Or are there some theological/doctrinal issues on which the EC and the RC diverge?

No... otherwise, they wouldn't be in union with each other would they?

No need to be snide.

As I said I understand that on dogmatic issues there can be no deviation. However, there could well be matters of theological opinion where the East and the West have differing opinions/definitions.

I shall assume then that there are none.

Thank you,

Carole

Carole:

The Catholic Catechism explains the two formulae for the Holy Spirit and the procession of the Holy Spirit. Specifically, paragraphs 247 and 248 provide the teaching of the Catholic Church and relates it to the history of this point of disagreement with the Christian East.

I find the last sentence of paragraph 248 to be a door to reconciliation:

"This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed."

I find it interesting that Rome did not "receive the Symbol of 381" until 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. It may be that this is another example of approaching the same mystery within the context of two distinct languages--something that seems to be the case when recent dialogues with some of the Oriental Orthodox Churches seem to point to the fact that much of what we have disagreed over so violently in the past may have more to do with language than theology.

But let's leave this to the theologians and proper authorities. Let's look at what we can agree on now and pray that the rest can be reconciled as the Father wills.

In Christ,

BOB

Carole, you can point your friend towards three specific documents of the Magesterium: Orientale Dignitas by Leo XIII, Orientalium Ecclesiarum from Vatican II; and Orientale Lumen by Pope John Paul II. All are available on-line in English.

As Bob pointed out, the Catechism specifically mentions us as well, and the document "Eastern Catholics in the USA" is available from the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops.
DD

Yes, the doctrinal differences are there. The EC are identical to the Orthodox...at least 90% of it I'd say.

Yes, just because there are doctrinal difference doesn't mean that we shouldn't be in communion with each other.

That's like saying that EC shouldn't be in communion with Rome because we disagree that the glass is half empty because we see the glass as half full. (I'm speaking in analogy, mind you all).

I mean, half empty and half full are BOTH correct. So, both facts compliment each other.

Same holds true for a coin...the heads side and the tail side. Different sides...but the ONE SAME COIN. Both sides hold true for a coin.

So,in the same way with the RC and EC theological and doctrinal approaches. Both compliment each other and both hold true.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

How else could we be in communion with the Pope of Rome if we had differences in belief with him. I mean he apoints our bishops outside the Patriarchates and Major Archbishoprics.

Your friend has heard things...well it is she who needs to tell you what it is she has heard, so you can correct the details of this misinformation. There is no shortage of basic info on Eastern Rite Catholics. The Catholic Encylopedia has clear info on the topic.

Good luck!

ICXC
NIKA

According to Vatican II, there are four areas in which the Eastern Churches and Western Church are distinct: theology, liturgy, spirituality and discipline (and please don't ask me what else could possibly exist!). So it is not surprising that one can find distinct (or "different" if you prefer that word) theological expression in the various Churches who abide, nevertheless, in full communion with one another.

Incognitus

Dear Carole,

I have an RC friend who has been to a Ukrainian Catholic Church and has heard the choir sing the "Filioque" in the Creed et al.

And she still believes we are a different Church that is "outside" Rome ie. not in full communion with Rome.

If we really were in union with Rome, then we would be . . . Roman Catholic.

She's a case where EVERYTHING including the liturgy has to be identical for there to be real "union."

Dogmatically, however, there is NO difference. But we express ourselves differently on the dogmas.

We are distinct Catholic cultures where the one Faith is held by all, but each holds it in their own spiritual-culturally specific way.

But I the important thing is that we hold to the same Faith, period.

Viva il Papa!

Alex

Dear Alex,

The truth, of course, is that we Easterners make them "Catholic". If not for us, they would be just "Roman".

Tell her her opinion is, well,
schismatic?
heretical?
protestant? :p

You certainly can't say she's Orthodox, can you?

... Viva il Papa!

Amin!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

John makes a good point - without the Eastern Catholics the Catholic Church would only be Roman...and not "catholic" in the universal sense of embracing other Apostolic ritual traditions.
DD

As far as the filioque is concerned, I think it is interesting that Rome itself has formally recognized the "conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as the expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council," and then went on to point out that, "No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition [e.g., Latin, Armenian, etc.] can contradict this expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church." [Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, "Clarification on the Filioque," section 1]

This new outlook on the part of Rome is even evident in the document Dominus Iesus [vatican.va] , which took the daring step of using the creed without the filioque back in August of 2000. Now, I think that the actions of the Holy See over the past decade should be seen as a positive step forward in ecumenical relations. That being said, it would probably be best if the Western Church as a whole removed the filioque from the creed as the Vatican itself has done on several occasions, and as the North American Orthodox / Catholic Theological Consultation itself has recommended in its "agreed statement" on this issue, because as that document puts it, the Catholic Church should ". . . as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text [i.e., without the filioque] alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use." [North American Orthodox / Catholic Theological Consultation, " The Filioque[/i]: A Church Dividing Issue? [usccb.org] ," section 4]

Thus, in my humble opinion, the removal of the [i]filioque from the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed would greatly advance ecumenical relations between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, because the restoration of the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable version of the creed by the Roman Church would be a sign of its renewed commitment to the faith of the undivided Church of the first Christian millennium.