I've got a number of questions I was wondering if someone could help me with. I was told that Byzantine Catholics were not Eastern Orthodox yet I see the terms both used here. What is the difference? Also, I was under the impression that the 'priest' at the Byzantine Catholic church I have been visiting isn't called a priest? I'm confused on that term as I've seen it used here also. Thank you

byzantines are Catholics (in communion with rome) that use the Byzantine rite which is a predominantly eastern one and so we have that in common with many orthodox churches. Most byzantine rite churches are ones whom after the great schism continued to be in communion with rome or re established it after a while. Most byzantine churches are Orthodox in their teachings and liturgies. And there are some who say that their churches never really broke from the eastern orthodox churches. This being said however communion is no longer in place

What does "orthodox in their teachings and liturgies" mean? Thanks

I mean simply that the two Churches follow the same tradition. The churches view the sacraments similarly or identically as their Orthodox counterparts do. A good example is the teaching of the immaculate conception, The Orthodox teaching is that Mary was not born free of the inherited sin of adam, however was free of sin in her life ( romans believe that she was free of original sin) orthodox believe that she was truly human as only a truly human woman could allow god to be born "fully man". The orthodox teaching on original sin is different to that of the roman church. As far as I am aware all eastern Catholic churches adhere to the Orthodox teaching of the conception of the Theotokos .

what church are you attending? if the service is held in another language it is quite possible he is given another name by the faithful . He is a priest tho :p
since you have been attending a byzantine church you have encountered the liturgy of st john. how do you like it?

Thank you. I've only attended four or five times now. The service is in English. I am still trying to get a grasp of how the liturgy is arranged and what is different week to week. I have to say though I am so drawn to everything I've experienced so far. I drive by at least five or six Roman Catholic churches on the way there. I plan to continue attending for a few months more before I make any final decision to change.

Julia,

Welcome to the forum. As Dewi noted, the parishioners might be addressing the priest by the equivalent term in whatever their historic language might be. For instance, in a parish of the Melkite Church (one of the Churches that use the Byzantine Rite), a priest might be addressed as "Abouna _____"

Many years,

Neil

"Orthodox" is a term which goes back to the early Christian centuries and is found, among other places, in the Roman Canon of the Mass. It has never passed out of use, either in the East or in the West.

In general, parishioners would seldom refer to their particular priest in that way - they would say "Father John" or whatever his name is. But he is a priest and they know it - if the church you are attending offers a printed English text of the Divine Liturgy have a look at it.

Fr. Serge

In terms of teaching, Byzantine Catholics teach the exact same faith as the Roman Catholic Church, although they may use more Eastern language in explaining that faith.

The same differences in faith that exist between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church also exist between the Orthodox Church and the Byzantine Catholics.

In terms of outward ceremony, Byzantine Catholics resemble the Orthodox, but in terms of inward faith, they are identical to the faith proclaimed by the Patriarch of Rome.

Grace and peace,
Rd John

Thank you! This is helping me a lot. Were the Orthodox church and the Eastern Catholic variations ever one church? I'm thinking how the protestant churches split away from the Roman Catholic church.

You raise an interesting question. The answer to your question depends on your perspective. Generally, most of the the Orthodox theologians I know would argue that Rome broke away from the Orthodox Church, while the Roman Church argues that Eastern Orthodoxy broke away from her. You pays your money and makes your choice!

julia, I can only answer for the melkite church and say yes indeed we were one church, The church of Antioch. The church split in two.

Pilgrim, Your statements astonish me. In my parish we do not espouse latin theology in eastern wording, we espouse eastern theology in eastern wording, and though I know this has been discussed...frequently, we do not differ from Orthodox in the same manner as the roman church, at least not in my parish. Inwardly we are not identical to Rome.Perhaps you attend a thoroughly latinized parish, or maybe there's a misunderstanding based on the usage of the word 'faith.'

I respectfully disagree wholly


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

Since I am eastern Orthodox, I can honestly say I follow the EOC party line.

To be in communion with Rome, you must hold to the same faith as Rome, even if you express that in different words.

For example, does the Roman Patriarch have the charisma of infallibility? Does the Pope have universal jurisdiction over the entire Church? Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son? Was the Theotokos immaculately conceived?

All of these things are matters of dogma within the Catholic Church. Whatever rite you follow, you cannot disagree with those statements and yet remain in communion with Rome.

We, the Orthodox, do disagree with those issues.

Our theology is different.

Grace and peace,
Rd John

1) If you're in communion with Rome, you must acknowledge the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, and also not disagree with any dogmas of the Catholic Church. Thus, you do not believe everything that Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2) No, to be in communion with Rome, you must acknowledge his authority beyond what the Orthodox believe to be the limits recognized in the first millennium.

You cannot be Catholic and deny the filioque or the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. You cannot be Orthodox and accept either teaching.

The Scriptures speak of "one Lord, **one faith**, one baptism." If you are in communion with someone, you share one faith with them. You are in communion with Rome. You are not in communion with us.

This isn't to be harsh, but merely to acknowledge reality.

Eastern Catholics have the same or similar outward rites and services as the Orthodox, but they differ in matters of faith and internal theology.

Grace and peace,
Rd John

we share the same view of the theotokos as orthodox as I have already stated in this thread. The filioque is not added in the creed I recite, nor might I add in a few of the roman churches I have attended.I never said that I am in communion with orthodox. However I would like to add I do acnowledge one baptism and that means I acnowledge yours too.

in peace.

David

ThePilgrim has spoken volumes in a few short posts.

If I hear "Orthodox in communion with Rome" one more time, I think my head will explode! (Monomakh and Stephanie, get the duct tape ready!)

A Ford and a Chevy do the same thing, but nothing is exactly the same between the two, other than they are both cars. Nothing will interchange.

Until East and West roll off the same assembly line and agree on matters of faith, there will be a world of difference.

i never said that perhaps you can use the duct tape to stop yourself from jumping the gun

this thread has been taken totally out of context. I was only trying to help someone out by letting her know to the best of my ability the practice of the byzantine church.

C. I. X.

In John 17:11, if I may be evangelical did not Christ pray to His Father that we be one, as They are one? Was He praying for clones? Do not the four evangelists report the same thing but in different (and even conflicting) perspectives? If these are Holy Mysteries, who is so arrogant to understand them with human limitations? Can God make a void He cannot fill?

Are papal pronouncements not local unless he is proclaiming that agreed by a full assembly of an Ecumenical Council? When was the last ECUMENICAL Council? When did the papacy ADD dogma (not a Latin clarification) to the Creed? In what language is the Creed definitive, pig-Latin? When are the theological arguments the dogma?

The Holy Trinity is the dogma, how It works is the mystery. The pristine human mother is the dogma, how she got that way is the mystery. We must believe the reality but how can we understand the Mystery? We may have a human perspectives but who is so presumptuous to claim Divine Understanding?

Armchair theologians have waged enough crusades, inquisitions and wars. Stop the arrogance and let the major archbishops meet and ponder these various perspective to tell us what, not how. Or agree not to agree in our time, in our limitations of understanding. Christ taught us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, bury the dead and visit the imprisoned not understand the Mystical. Or is this only a Christian teaching not a Catholic or (radical) orthodox one?

Greek is the definitive language of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Fr. Serge

Dewimelkite, the thread's not out of context because this is what a latin rite visitor needs to know about eastern catholic churches instead of joining an eastern catholic church and spending the next 20 years believing that this is just a primitive version of the latin church.

Pilgrim, I suggest you take the time to visit an eastern catholic seminary or talk to an eastern catholic priest. You'd be surprised to find that your assumptions are invalid. This is not to say that we are not catholic, but we are not roman catholic and don't necessarily hold to all the roman catholic dogma. Respect it as valid, yes, but practice and believe it no.

This post might prove helpful
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/63902/1/How_to_become_a_Byzantine_prie

Demimelkite, I didn't mean to come off as judging you; I simply meant to assure you that the thread hasn't gone off course.(Though that no one but me has replied makes me think it may be dead!)

thanks, I only meant that it was off topic in the sense that it became less about information and more about assumption.

From what I've read, it sure seems to me that Rome broke away from the original Catholic Church. Is what remained behind what is called 'Orthodox'? I was under the impression that the original Eastern church was still really 'Catholic'.

Thank you.

Catholic with a small c. I was taught in Catholic parochial school ( I'm a convert) that the Corporate title of the Church of Rome became the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Council of Trent, although the nun who said this may have been wrong. BTW, Julia, I will not disagree with your comments. I would like to ask you a question. what is the implication you are making with your last positing on the issue?

C. I. X.
Just a local observation. Cradle Easterners chanting repetitive services here usually don’t use the books. One reason may be a personal absence of upper or lower cases in memorization. Are we what we pray while we study (question) what we read?

From what I've read, BOTH East and West share the blame in the Great Schism. Are you reading ONLY Eastern Orthodox books on the matter? Have you read any Catholic books on the matter? Perhaps you can read both to get a more balanced view of the matter. I hope this does not offend, but to blame the episode on one side is not a balanced view, IMHO.

Blessings,
Marduk

Whoops. Sorry, I didn't mean to sound opinionated on that. I'm not knowledgeable on the subject at all. I read a basic book about the history of the Roman Catholic church and it struck me that way for some reason. I didn't realize there was an overall opinion on either side. All the things I never learned after all those years of catechism:)

Julia,

What book did you read? Usually, a book written from a Catholic perspective will give the impression that Constantinople broke away, while a book written from an Orthodox perspective will give the impression that it was Rome who broke away.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

It is called "The Everything Catholicism Book" By Keeler and Grimbly. It tracks the history of the church and continues with the Roman church after the split. I'm leaving on vacation today so I'll take it with me and re-read that part when I get a chance.

Dear sister Julia,


Just to let you know, Keeler is normally regarded as a liberal Catholic - i.e., those Catholics who don't adhere to all the teachings of the Catholic Church and have some kind of complaint against the papacy.

If you've ever read the works of other liberal Catholics - e.g. Gary Wills, John Cornwell, Maureen Fiedler, etc. - you will discover they have a definite axe to grind against the historic Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, is there something wrong with being a liberal member of the Catholic or Orthodox Church? Is the implication of your comments that any set of individuals who think for themselves and don't buy the entire party line of a particular church should be faulted? If I have misinterpreted your comments, please feel free to take me to task!

John,

Leaving aside the rather uncharitable and provocatory tone of your comment, I think what Marduk is defining as "liberal" is a person who does not assent to all of the dogmatic teaching of the Church. In that case, there's something quite wrong.

Giving intellectual assent to the dogmatic teachings of Christ's Church doesn't imply that a person doesn't think for himself, just as those who do not "buy the entire part line," as you put it, do not necessarily think for themselves. In fact I've often found the exact opposite is true.

Alexis

I don't think johnzonoras' comments are at all uncharitable. Following something blindly without asking questions is simply not smart.

I have no axe to grind; however, Popes have apologized in the past for actions of the church. What does that in itself lead one to believe?

Dear brother John,


Thanks for the question.

Yes, I believe there is something wrong with being a liberal Catholic or Orthodox. If you do not adhere to the official dogmatic teachings of your Church, which defines the character of that Church, then you should not be going around claiming to represent it. In other words, you should not be calling yourself "Catholic" or "Orthodox." On the other hand, if they honestly presented themselves as "liberal Catholic" or "liberal Orthodox," I wouldn't mind. At least at that point, one can expect that what the person espouses may not truly represent what Catholicism or Orthodoxy teaches.

If you want further clarification, feel free to ask.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, thanks for answering the question. Stormshadow noted, "Following something blindly without asking questions is simply not smart." I agree with this statement. In all honesty, I personally feel that long gone are the days when every member of each church walk in lockstep with their leadership. People think for themselves and do not need the church to think for them. I am thankful for this. This my opinion and only is one person's view. I am of the opinion that Marduk's view does not realistically deal with the fact that there are many different flavors of both faiths among the laity. With this being said, I can agree with Marduk when he says, "On the other hand, if they honestly presented themselves
as "liberal Catholic" or "liberal Orthodox," I wouldn't mind. At least at that point, one can expect that what the person espouses may not truly represent what Catholicism or Orthodoxy teaches.'

I wonder does everyone agree with every single thing their Church espouses or has done? Even Arch conservatives have also been wrong, wrong, wrong-like the priests who told people that women were evil because of original sin resulting in a deepseated blank/madonna complex in some cultures. St. Seraphim of Sarov, true saint that he is, believed that only in the Orthodox church was there salvation. I guess, what I'm saying is that you have to be careful taking anyone's word without doing some studying on your own and running things by a few definitively authoritative people for interpretation. Am I painting myself into a corner here? Marduk, I'm just wondering out loud, not arguing with you.

Logos, remember my previous pm to you, please, it still stands.

Indigo, the answer to the first question you raise is No! If every one agreed with every jot and tittle of dogma, there would be no need for free will. I could expand on the last statement, but I do not want to bring the umbrage of the more dogmatic members around here on my head. Boy, would the world be boring!!! I remember reading some where that Mark Twain once said, when offered the choice of going to heaven or hell, he would chose hell without thinking about it because that was where all the interesting people were. I hate talking to boring people. As for every one being yes men, well...'Nuf said.

Indigo,

I forgot what a little ray of sunshine you are, but a quick perusal of our private message conversations was a needed reminder. My post was not addressed to you.

Alexis

johnzonaras:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

May I propose another way of looking at the dogmatic positions of one's respective Church?

It seems to me that, as with prayer where one begins by memorizing prayers and, with practice, has them sink into one's being and become one's own, dogma is the same in one's pilgrimage.

The first task is to learn the dogmatic positions. It is later that one begins to ask the "Why?" behind the dogmatic positions and allow them to become one's own as one understands the wisdom and inspiration that is behind them. Finally they become one's own. It's well to remember that dogma comes from inspiration by the Holy Spirit, constantly working in the Church.

The two go together, too. As one source I once read put it, theology that is not prayed is the theology of the Enemy.

In Christ,

BOB

C. I. X.

As an Eastern Catholic Forum I will approach this from an Eastern form: “AS WE PRAY SO WE BELIEVE” (or “lex orandi, lex credendi”). Corinthians 14:1-20; prayer simply can be made complicated. In times of trouble... let it be (amen)(P. McCartney). Urgency simplifies and may be why life’s troubles are lessons. Christianity needs to be relevant to us who live it before academia who works it.

Orthodoxy from the Slavic form is true glory. I complained: if God wanted His Liturgy read why did He make song doubly prayerful (St. Augustine), then the silent became audible and the audible chanted and the chanted sung. When it took longer to dress and commute than attend church I complained, now I review speech class 101’s lesson during the sermon, the audience can only retain what their seat can endure. In our time-scheduled lives liturgical starting and ending schedule is now an abstract “God’s time”, a puzzlement many can no longer rationalize with their commitments. In the good old days we prayed in Slavonic, preached in Ukrainian and explained in English, now it doesn’t matter because our mysticism is thought incomprehensible for the (American) peasant. Faith’s relevance is no longer sought as our lives are to reflect the mystics. We now question papal infallibility but not the parish despot.

I sometimes followed the liturgical books like a school primmer, other times I floated from the music to the pealing walls to what side dish I wanted for dinner. Then comes that wonder when the Royal Doors were closing while unaware of their opening, feeling spiritually invigorated. I understand we are not an audience but the cast and crew. Sometimes we have to work at it and other times we simply stand in the presence of the Superstars. We still deserve relevance, when it becomes laborious waning into indifference the Lord’s due praise is diluted not enhanced. He is an audience of One, or Three depending on tandem perspectives.

Sunday we had a substitute due to vacation. Yes a priest is a priest is a priest... Here was a man who’s reputation did not claim being a crooner, just one who simply did his best. If he remembered the Slavonic he sang it, or chanted short reading in Ukrainian and when in doubt used English. The Slavonic choir used their entire English repertoire: “Lord have mercy”, “To You O Lord”, “Amen”, and “Alleluia” whenever they could. Being true and not manipulatively forced the Liturgy naturally flowed. I haven’t heard this choir sing so melodically (they do proficiency regularly) in years. The sermon was simple; “focus on Jesus and trust His way so He can help”, everyone understood its simple reality. Make it relevant, keep it real, do your best and let the people commune with God. Toys and laborious formulas should not replace God’s people. It has taken me a half century to learn this lesson.

John,

A few things here.

1. I question your premise here: "If every one agreed with every jot and tittle of dogma, there would be no need for free will." Freedom is ultimately linked to truth (As Christ taught, "The Truth will set you free.") Assenting to dogmatic truths, therefore, does not somehow limit my freedom (which is limited by many things anyway...the modern idol of "limitless choices") but rather fulfills it since truth ultimately is a Person, that is the Eternal Word spoken definitively by the Father, and the truth of revelation defines much of the form and content of my relationship with God who is love. It is in this context that truth, particularly revealed truth, finds its salvific meaning. Truth delivers souls from the bondage to sin and death because it is full of divine power and is ultimately what is REAL, unlike the idols of the age which are largely based upon the unreal individual passions and fantasy.

2. That said, problems arise in my opinion when people either REDUCE dogmatic truths simply to formulas or REDUCE the Truth to official dogmas that are definitively taught by the Church. Dogmas have a living reality that the formulas can only approximate, infallibly defined but never fully contained. The proclamation of the Truth of the Gospel is also as much a proclamation of the common life of the Church and her "living tradition," rooted as it is on certain dogmatic anchor points, while possessing the full freedom to grow in its full realization in the life of the faithful.

3. This leads to the notion of great diversity of form and content (without violating the principle of non-contradiction) abiding in great unity - an aspect of the Church's life that is an image of the Holy Trinity. As the Gospel has been inculturated historically, wonderful and diverse expressions of the same saving truths of the faith developed. If anyone doubts the importance of diversity to the mind of God, consider the great diversity of the visible created universe! Yet these diverse expressions of Faith must always adhere to certain well defined dogmatic "roots". Where one cuts oneself off from the roots, one severs a lifeline to saving truth.

As to the Mark Twain quote (and I am a fan of Twain), personally I think hell is quite a boring place with very little true creativity. Love alone creates, as a saint once said. Hell, which is the rejection of love, distorts, disfigures and ultimately retards, but never creates. If one reads the great doctors and fathers of the Church you can see the witness of creative love, as the same saving dogmatic truth of Christ's love is proclaimed in a myriad of ways.

Just a few thoughts...

In ICXC,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

1)To seek the Truth, one must ask questions. I think this even applies to the Bible. Surely there has been no one on this planet (other than perhaps the Trinity and the Apostles) that understands everything the Bible says. If you don't understand something, how do you come to understand it? Do you believe everything people tell you if people are subject to misinterpretation, lies, and sin?

2)...something that is NOT spelled out (as in a formula) is subject to interpretation. I think that's just a human limitation.

3)You're right--very true.

RE Twain---how many books, art pieces, and songs have been written/influenced by druggies, lunatics, and alcoholics?
It doesn't mean they're good--just out of touch with reality, and original. I don't believe creative = love

Although----the Devil quoted Jesus scripture in the desert. Couldn't he have tried something more original?

As usual, Father dan, your comments are thought provoking. I do stand by my comments, but as i said your comments always provoke thought and thank you for that!

Julia,
I just came across this helpful link which may be of interest to you and others:

My first visit to an Orthodox Church: 12 things I wish I'd known - by Frederica Mathewes-Green

Here's where the link appeared:

http://www.ocacharleston.org/newcomer.html

May God bless you!

-Pustinik
---------------------
"Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved." –St. Serafim of Sarov