www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Difference between Orthodox and Byz Catholic

Hello,
I know this must have been asked before but I could not find the thread: Aside from ecclisiastic issues (union w/Pope) what are some essential differences between Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Orthodox? I don't mean to minimalize either with my naive question but I can't find a real difference.
BTW, Thanks for providing such a valuable resource to learn on this forum.

I think both groups have different perspectives on the historical experiences of their respective traditions. In my own personal experience I noticed numerous differences in praxis, and some things I would say are harder to define but felt different.

The principle difference is the Orthodox do not ascribe to any Roman Catholic dogma formulated after the schism and do not recognize the post schism councils as valid (including Lyons and Florence).

Andrew

After nearly 17 years as a Latin Catholic, I became officially Eastern Catholic in 1995, and I made the change of sui juris Churches for many reasons, liturgical, theological, and spiritual. Thus, I agree with much of what Rilian posts on this forum, because I see myself as an Orthodox Christian who just happens to be in communion with the Pope. But I would say that Rilian's most recent post does show where there are, at least at the present time, some real differences between Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians.

First, I grant that there are differences of praxis between the two groups, although there really should not be any, but Latinizations have heavily affected the Eastern Catholic Churches over the last few hundred years, and it will take a long time to restore fully the Orthodox heritage of those Churches.

Second, Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox disagree on the importance of the acceptance of Papal primacy, but it should be noted that the meaning of Papal primacy in the Eastern Catholic Churches is not identical with the way in which that idea is understood in the Latin Church, and this no doubt reflects the nature of the Pope's office as Patriarch of the West. In other words, in the West there has been some confusion as it concerns the Pope's role as primate of the whole Church, with his patriarchal role in the Latin Church, and this confusion of offices requires further clarification. In this area I tend to agree with the comments made by Met. Zizioulas in an interview that he gave, and that I read a few weeks ago, where he attached primacy and synodality, seeing both as divinely instituted and accepting the inseparability of both realities within the Church. On this issue I believe that Met. Zizioulas' comments can be used in order to bring about a real rapprochement between East and West on the issue of the Papacy.

Finally, I would simply nuance Rilian's comments in the last paragraph of his post by saying that as an Eastern Catholic I do not accept the formulations of the fourteen Latin Church councils, and I do not believe that I have to accept them, nor will the Eastern Orthodox ever be required to accept them. Clearly, the general councils of the Western Church do not reflect the theological and spiritual tradition of the Byzantine Church, and as a consequence the formulations made by those councils cannot be imposed upon Eastern Christians.

Nevertheless, as I said above, I believe that Latin Catholics are obliged to accept the decisions of their Church's particular synods; and so, unlike my Eastern Orthodox brothers, I refuse to call those Latin councils heretical; instead, I simply see them as expressions of the Latin theological tradition.

Blessings to you,
Todd

P.S. - To read Met. Zizioulas' comments click the link below:

Where the Eucharist is, there is the Catholic Church [30giorni.it]

The fact that Eastern Catholics are not immune from 'latinization' is probably irreversable given it's organic nature, which is, in my puny opinion, proof of the completely different cultural mind sets involved. I think I'm trying to say that the break was inevitable given the utter foreign-ness of Byzantine to Latins and vice-versa. It's amazing that they stayed together for a millenium! I think we are globally more savvy these days to recognise this kind of thing for what it is. It's like the odd couple. 'Where two or three are gathered there I am.' I think it's a hidden blessing for us westerners that the east is still east.

Familyman,

I agree that there seems to be a certain sense that the latinizations (and even americanizations) of the Eastern churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) may seem irreversible and organic.

An extensive study of the History of the Eastern Catholic Churches in America would provide that in the larger picture, the various Eparchies have been established for a relkatively short period of time. It is unfortunate that the establishment of the Eparchies came at a time when the Eastern Catholic Churches were embracing or incorporating latinizations (for various reasons; to fit in, they were coerced by the Latin Hierarchy, etc.).

Now, that being said, I am hopeful for several of the various Byzantine Sui Iuris Churches that have expressed and implemented de-latinization processes. I'd have to say, that among the first are the Melkites and the Romanians. In some function, the Ukrainians and the Ruthenians (some temples more than others) have not wholly neglected de-latinization, though in some places, many latinizations persist.

I am hopeful of the situation overall. I pray that the Eastern Churches will continue to recover thier traditions, now that the time of "fitting-in" is over.

I note with interest your comment about "Americanizations". from what I know about Church and American history, let me proffer the following. there was a time when the Latins here in the USA were accused of "heresy" when they did the unthinkable thing of establishing trustees in their parishes. the fact of the matter is that Americans, unlike Europeans, are more open to democratic and participatory forms of government, and are not content to have someone lord it over them while they are docile little sheep. it deoesn't work here. in the SWouth, the Baptists with their congregational and indivdualistic form of relationship between a person and God has found its way into an episcopal and corporate Catholicism, which is why the charismatic movement was so popular down here. I still recall (and admittedly a pleasant memory) when a lector at a Latin Mass noted the need for a relationship with Jesus Christ in his welcoming remarks. the good padre nodded approval (the same padre mentioned such a concept in a sermon one time, and if that was not enough, the pastor of the Church also said the same thing, and soon was elevated to the episcopacy). when I was excommunicated from the Mormon Church, when I said "church" the Ward Bishop thought I meant the congregation. In New York, where episcopal forms of church government prevail, "church" means the denomination per se. so the real question here is this: what exactly do you mean by "Americanisms"? wherever a faith community enters, it is bound to be influenced by the already established cultural/relgious situation. it is neither bad nor good intrinsically, but a fact of life.
Much Love,
Jonn

In general, Apotheoun�s comments have been quite excellent. I think, however, that the above paragraph needs to be developed a bit. I have often explained our position of these later councils with a food analogy. Say that the Chefs in Rome have a problem with the recipe for spaghetti sauce. They call a council of the Chefs de Roma to address the issue and this council issues a normative recipe for Roma. The Chefs de Byzantium look at this new recipe and may critique it. But they are in no way bound to make changes to their own recipe which they have used for a thousand years. They can call this Latin theology poor, they can say it still needs clarification. They only thing they cannot say is that is not true.

JohnNightwatcher,

what exactly do you mean by "Americanisms"?
There are many things which are specific to the traditions of each church. In America, there was a sense of adaptation of the Church to the lack of fixed culture of America, so, too this greatly influenced the Church in culture. When ever you walk into a Roman Catholic Church, this qucikly becomes obvious.

Now, this is a complex issue with many layers worth explaning individually.

Here, I have to note that there is not an American Catholic Church in the specific cultural sense. There is no traditions that the Roman Catholic Church in America celebrates as a church.

This of course is not true when it comes to the various Eastern Churches (whether Orthodox or Catholic).

Now, some might say that this is unimportant. They are mistaken. The closest Church that ever came is the OCA and the Byzantine Catholic Church in America (though both really are tied to the Ruthenians [excuse my simple summation on this point]).

America really is a counrty of immigrants, so it is difficult to say what American culture is. Irregardless, the American Catholic Church refers to the Catholic Church in America and not (from a specifically cultural perspective) of America.

Here, an Americanization could be something (for the Orthodox) like pews and stained glass windows. These things, generally speaking, were common to mainstream American Church archeticture.
You do wee Orthodox temples with these things. Now, I don't know if I would call this a Latinization. My referrence to Latinization was in the contex of the situation of the Orthodox churches who are in Communion with Rome and those things which crept in that were not in thier tradition.


Wherever a faith community enters, it is bound to be influenced by the already established cultural/relgious situation. it is neither bad nor good intrinsically, but a fact of life.

I am not sure what you mean here. In the context of America, the only influeneces that I have experienced have been negative ones. the experience has been one of loss and alienation to ancient tradition and practice.

Americans are about time: What is done in 30 minutes can be done in 15, so we do it in 15. This translates poorly into a Church tradition.
Why have Orthros when no one is going to show up?
Why have Vespers unless you have too? We don't need an Iconostasis or Icons all over.

Americans are practical: so lets have pews. I need to sit down, I'm tired (now this is a legitmate concern for the lederly and thos with physical impediments).

Americans are about doing: We want to create worship, not live it. We only go to Chruch on Sunday.


Now, to be sure, these are not a list on complaints. These are very relly americanisms that have profoundly influenced the Catholic Church in America.

In regards to the Roman Catholic Church, there are many that are capable and qualified to do God's work within thier Church, so I won't dwell on anything there.

In regards to the Eastern Churches, now is the time to recover what has been lost; traditions, mindset, Theology and lifestyle.

Perhaps the American experience itself is recognizing all of the cultures that exist in the parish.

Pyrohy,
That is certainly a significant point.

Boldly intruding into this conversation:

my sense is that American Catholicism is different from European Catholicism because of the Calvinist/Charismatic cultural influences which are so pervasive in U.S. culture. And I'm sure it's bleeding into the Eastern services too, as converts come in and people *of* the US culture become its priests and leaders.


"I am not sure what you mean here. In the context of America, the only influeneces that I have experienced have been negative ones. the experience has been one of loss and alienation to ancient tradition and practice.

Americans are about time: What is done in 30 minutes can be done in 15, so we do it in 15. This translates poorly into a Church tradition.
Why have Orthros when no one is going to show up?
Why have Vespers unless you have too? We don't need an Iconostasis or Icons all over.

Americans are practical: so lets have pews. I need to sit down, I'm tired (now this is a legitmate concern for the lederly and thos with physical impediments)."

I attended the ROCOR as a child growing up -- no pews, nothing eliminated (took me a while to understand who the catechumens were) service entirely in Old Slavonic. And man, when the bishop was visiting, the service seemed to go *forever*

But, I have never experienced the reverence, the mystery, the other worldliness, the humility in the Lutheran, Episcopal or Catholic services. And the Slavonic music is so profound. A truly melismatic language if there ever was one. I even went to a Methodist Christmas eve service and was surprised by the focus on "baby Jesus" rather than the "Christ child" -- can you see the distinction? I'm not sure how to put it into words.

well just running on here. Unfortunately where I live now there is no Orthodox church, I have gone a few times to the Byzantine Catholic church (St.s Cyril and Methodosius that one poster mentioned somewhere that they attend.)

And in the Western churches, catholic and protestant, the services are so truncated, one cannot get into a spiritual, contemplative state, before the whole thing is over. there's something about "in peace let us pray to the lord" that is wonderfully orienting. And to ask that the day be "holy perfect,peaceful and sinless" -- again how grounding, how powerful...

At the Lutheran Christmas eve service, I could feel the excitement from all the people when they got to light a candle for only a few minutes. In the orthodox service candles burn the whole time, the air is filled with the scent of beeswax ( and at times the smell of singed bangs, when I'd lean too close to the candle I was holding) I knew the Lutherans really were missing something.

I guess I'm wandering here. BUt your comment about losing something ancient touched me. The Russians chose orthodoxy (back in 990 A.D. or so) because they found value in having a bit of heaven on earth -- which is what the Orthodox church and service was -- a window onto that other place -- that can inspire one and provide one with the stamina to be a better person. As humans we need those reminders and reinforcements.

by the way: Pirohy?
do you like to eat Pirohy? Ever buy Mrs. T's? I had homemade ones for Svati Vecher this year.
;-)

Re-reading my post it occurred to me that I might be giving the wrong impression (as I often do.) By saying 'we should be glad east is still east' I mean that if Rome had had it's way in 1054 then maybe the rich tradition of the east would have been comprimised. I'm glad there is still an eastern tradition to look toward. Thanks.

Mrts T's do not deserve to bear the name pyrohy. ANATHEMA! :p

يا ربي يسوع المسيح،يا ابن الله،ارحمنا نحن الخطأة

Agreed...ghastly things, they are....

Gaudior, saying "never again"
:p