Hi :)

I'm an Eastern Catholic who attends a Roman Catholic parish.. I have a couple questions that I've been wondering about for a while.

I don't really understand the differences between Eastern and Latin Catholics. I know there are differences in terms of liturgy and some customs/traditions. I also understand that both are in communion with Rome - the Holy Father. But are they doctrinally the same?

I believe in the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, and Transubstantiation. Do other Eastern Catholics believe this as well? Or do they take the Orthodox view? If so...do they still believe the Pope is infallible?

thanks :)

Wow! You've been thinking about this!

I'm off to get some sleep. They're good questions (and I'm personally delighted that I specialize more in addressing the how to, where to, and why ).

Many years,

Neil

There seems to be some grey areas which Eastern Catholics prefer to leave grey.

But I see that the EWTN website, speaking about Catholic Melkites, laments that they hold to Orthodox teaching on some important doctrinal matters which place them in conflict with Catholic teaching

"Other sources of disagreement are the Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, Purgatory, and the Filioque, and to a lesser extent remarriage after divorce; in short, all the matters that remain primary points of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics..."

Source :: http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT

I would refer you again to the wonderful, I think, interviews with the monks from Holy Resurrection Romanian Catholic Monastery. In "Eastern Catholic Theology PART 2" Fr. Abbot Nicholas is asked:

(In any of these interview segments you can see a list of all the questions Catherine Alexander asks the monks by clicking on "more info" link directly below the video.)

Bless, Father,


I don't want to get in over my head... but this piece from the EWTN website, if I'm reading it right, was published by Bruce Publishing Company, 1935-1937-1947. I don't know how scholarly a piece it was back then but it does precede the Second Vatican Council in which reforms were called forth for and in the ECCs, directing them away from so-called Latinizations and reconfirming their status of equal dignity with the Latin Church.

ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM is a primary document from the Second Council concerning the Eastern Churches. The Holy Fathers from Paul VI, up to Benedict XVI have pursued this direction with the ECCs. Venerable John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen of course built on this support for the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The ways in which at least some Eastern Catholics understand our relationship to certain doctrine and dogmas is I think better articulated in the interview with Fr. Abbot Nicholas I suggested LittleFlower listen to.

And I don't know of any ECCs that recite the Filioque, nor are we required to. I think this has already be brought up at other times here.

Mary Louise,

The 1935-37-47 reference is to Donald Attwater's work on the Eastern Churches, from which the piece is not excerpted.

Witness the reference (following the section on the Armenian Church) to Father Allen (Maloof), of blessed memory. Father Allen was the first American-born Melkite to be ordained to the presbyterate and was only 45 at his untimely death in 1969.

The data, as noted, was from a piece written by Father Allen for The Sunday Visitor; the comments were not ('comments excepted, in most cases'). Those are the work of EWTN staff (possibly Colin Donovan, its VP) and, generally, leave much to be desired in terms of the quality and accuracy of the information presented.

A response to the piece on the Melkites was penned by Mitred Archimandrite John (Mowatt), of blessed memory, a priest of the Russian Greek-Catholic Church, and can be read here

Many years,

Neil

Neil-
Thanks for that clarification. I found the piece difficult to read thru visually. And the Melkites reference/comment got me rather hot under the collar. As you know we are blessed with strong Melkite connections in the RGC Church.
-ML

Thanks for the replies :)

I'll watch the Youtube link and do some more research..

I don't know if I can remain Eastern Catholic if Eastern Catholics don't believe in the Immaculate Conception, Infallibility of the Pope, Purgatory, etc, because I believe those things... I wish there was more unity, in a way :( maybe I'm just missing something! So I'll keep on looking.

God bless

I wouldn't go dismissing Eastern Catholicism based on the views of individuals here, which do not represent the views of the Universal Church, but are in reality individual viewpoints. And of course individual viewpoints also dominate latin Catholicism; from what I gather the debate between traditionalists and liberals is at least as polarised in the USA as elsewhere in the latin rite. I guess I am saying going to the latin rite is not a solution; you will find as much dispute there as anywhere else. Whilst unanimity is a nice thought, it is unfortunately not something you will ever find; just observe that I do not always agree with my Orthodox brethren on this forum!

You will find as many Eastern Catholic clergy and laity who believe as you do as you will those who don't (though perhaps not on this forum). Most of the Russian Catholic clergy (Frs peter Knowles OP, Andrei Katkov (Bishop), George Brianchininoff MIC and the Franciscan whose name escapes me at present). I know from Australia would believe as you do, and despite what some might say, managed to believe thus without their theology or liturgy becoming "Latinized".

The important thing to understand is that the Eastern Catholic rites, while they preserve a traditional liturgy (mostly) are not traditionalist Catholics in the sense that Catholics in the TLM community are, which some make the mistake of thinking they are. The Eastern Catholics have been very much affected by Vatican II, including concepts of liberty of conscience etc. Therefore they do have a variety of opinions as does the wider Catholic church outside of the TLM niche.

I'm a Greek Catholic and I believe the Pope of Rome is infallible only when what he says is true.

Shlomo Littleflower,

First, I would tell you to research how YOUR Eastern Catholic Church adresses each of those issues that you bring up. For example, educated Maronites will tell you that they do not believe in the Immacuate Conception (which is true for nearly all Eastern Christians) since the concept of Original Sin is different. The same goes for Purgatory etc.

A couple of things that you also must remember, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have said that Eastern Catholic Churches are equal in all ways to the Western Church; that includes theologically.

I would also point out that there is full unity between Eastern and Latin Catholicism, otherwise we could not be in Communion. But unity does not mean uniformity. I would suggest that you consult with learned members of your Church (ie the Eastern Catholic Church you are a member of) to learn about their Catholic beliefs and how they fit into the full Church.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

May I posit rhetorically that then that makes the person who determines if what he says is true infallible, be they a lay person, a nun, or whatever?

This is my main concern with the positions sometimes taken by Eastern Catholics on these issues, and why I say they are not a traditional church in the sense the TLM community is. Can someone explain how taking individual positions on issues differs from relativism?

Check out "Light of the East" podcasts...
http://www.byzantinecatholic.com/radio.htm I don't remember which podcast # it was but if you look through the summaries you'll find several that discuss many of theitems you're concerned with...

From what I've gathered so far in my brief dabble in understanding Eastern doctrine is:

The Eastern Catholic church believes the same as Latin Catholic... they just have a different emphasis or articulation... many of the beliefs that we consider Roman actually started in the East....

Another item... inspecting a Church's doctrine is good, but it is also very Western... take heart that the Eastern Catholic church's are in complete Communion with the Roman Catholic Church and go Experience the Eastern church...

My understanding of the characteristic proper to the petrine ministry exercized by the Pope of Rome is primarily negative - it prevents the Pope from proclaiming a false dogma and enables him (in consultation with others) to discover and proclaim dogmas already true but not yet formally so declared.

I'm sure there's more to this than I just said.

I'd say that its purpose is to prevent articles of faith from being attacked or undermined.

Dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of the First Vatican Council:

The underlined fragment means that there must be an explicit intention of being infallible.

An example of a solemn infallible statement (Pius XII in 1950, "Munificentissimus Deus"):
That was the last infallible statement of the Pope. Note that the whole constitution provides a long explanation http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM

Actually, Papal statements don't need to be solemn to be infallible, they're always infallible when the Pope repeats immemorial teaching of the Church, but that's an entirely different story. And no definition of whatever solemnity can be infallible when it contradicts previous Magisterium of the Church (hence the "faithfully adhering to the tradition received" in Pastor Aeternus).

So, unlike to what some Protestants or Orthodox think, Papal infallibility is actually very limited. When the Pope says "it's very cold today" it's not an infallible statement every Catholic should believe in. But anyway, many Catholics think they should.