www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology How Many Eastern Churches?

How many autonomous ritual Eastern Churches does the Catholic Church have?

I'm currently OCA Orthodox and am strongly considering conversion to Catholicism.

I thought there were 32 Eastern Churches, but now I hear that the Byzantine Catholic Church in America (Metropalia of Pitsburg) is an autonomous Church. Is the Byzantine Catholic Church of America the same as the Ruthenian Catholic Church, or is it a "spin-of" in the same way the OCA is a spin-off of the Russian Orthodox Church?

Also, why do I came hearing of the "Byzantine Church"? I thought there was only a Byzantine RITE, and that many Churches used it (Ukranians, Ruthenians, etc.) I'm a bit confused.

Thank you for your help.

Dear Orthodox Convert?,

There are about 20 Churches in the Catholic communion, of which the Roman, the largest and best known, is only one. In addition to being first hierarch of the whole communion, the Pope usually is also patriarch of the West — head of the Roman Church. You're right that the Byzantine Rite is used by the Orthodox and several Catholic Churches. (There are about five other Eastern rites.) "Byzantine Church', depending on the context, can mean the Ruthenian Catholic Church (of which the Byzantine Catholic metropolia of Pittsburgh is part), the Catholic Churches including the Ruthenian that use the Byzantine Rite or as a catchall to include these and the Orthodox.

Ruthenian Catholic churches in the world are a loose grouping of Slavic Byzantine Catholic Churches not under the Ukrainian Catholic Church or the tiny Russian and Bulgarian Catholic Churches. The one in the US is the only one with a metropolitan as its head, but I think the ones in the old country — far northeastern Slovakia and far southwestern Ukraine — aren't under him but answer directly to the Vatican somehow.

Catholicism no longer solicits born or former Protestant members of the Orthodox Churches to leave them.

Please visit my site.

http://oldworldrus.com

[Linked Image]

The web site link below may be of some help.


http://www.byzantinecatholic.org/history/index.html


Joe Prokopchak
archsinner

SERGGE, thank you for your information, except for your last sentence.

I find this very hard to believe. Obviously, there can be only one true Faith. If it is Catholicism, then by all means I want to be told of it, and told why it is the true Faith, and not Orthodoxy!

I have a copy of the Catechism and what you state is not in there, explictly or implicitly. In fact, it says that the Church is called to oneness and unity, that the fullness of the Church subsists in the CatholicvChurch, governed by Peter's successor (although the Orthodox Churches are in close communion with the Catholic Church), and that Catholics have a missionary endeavor to bring all into the Church.

Granted, the way this is done has been changed. I do't need to have my door knocked on by Catholic missionaries, soving anti-Orthodox tracts down my throats, but certainly I don't need to be told "It's OK. Stay where you are. It doesn't matter." It is my understanding that Orthodox are called to become Catholics, but through ecumenical dialogue and not proselytization.

I probably won't convert, due to the difficulties I have accepting papal authority, but on the other hand, I don't apporve of many of the permissions given by Orthodox bishops to what I believe are wicked practices (contraception, and sometimes even abortion). Also, the Orthodox view of ecclesiastical divorces kinda bugs me. Still, I have a feeling that, should I come to know the Catholic Church as Christ's Church, and then refuse to enter it, I might not be in God's graces. (I also think your Catechism teaches this.)

In any case, thank you, JOE, for your information.

Hello!

I'm a Byzantine Catholic, but I'm a very good of the Orthodox Church even though I disagree with their teachings like you do on contraception, abortion, etc.

Yes, there is a Byzantine Rite and Byzantine Church. In the Catholic Church, there are 7 or 8 rites but has 20 some churches. For example, there are several churches that use Byzantine Rite, which are: Melkites, Russian, Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Slovakian, etc.

They are self governing churches that are in communion with Pope of Rome. So you shouldn't be confused. There aren't much differences between Orthodox Churches and Byzantine Catholic Churches...in regards to self governing, etc. The only difference is the Byzantine Catholic Churches are in communion with Pope of Rome.

As far as papal authority goes...it's not like the pope tells Byzantine Churches what to do, because he's not our patriarch...we have our own patriarches and bishops who tell us what to do. The pope just intervenes only if necessary, like for example if there were some disputes between bishops or etc...the pope would come in and solve the problem like daddy. I guess the main role of the pope is to maintain UNITY which I believe the Orthodox is lacking.

From I understand..the pope of Rome only function as a Pope 5 % of the time and he functions as Patriarch of the West 95 % of the time...so his main focus is the Church of Rome. So typically, I don't understand why the Orthodox are making such a big deal out of papacy. In fact, it would help them a great deal if they're in communion with him. He's not in to destroy the Byzantine faith, spirituality, etc.

Granted, there were problems in the past...but were mainly due to ignorance, fear, politics, etc.

And as for you "converting" to the Catholic Church...you are welcome to join the Catholic Church....but don't think of it as "converting" because really you're more like "transferring" to another Church. TO convert means to change Church because due to different faith. But you see, the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches share the same faith, sacraments, apostolic sucession and are TRUE Churches established by Christ.

The Catholic Church do see the Orthodox as a true Church as the Catholic Church is.

What matters the most is...that you are called to be a true and genuine Christian. Helping the poor, soothe the ill, feed the hungry, spread God's Word, etc. Whatever that Christ expects us to do. Pray, go to confession, receive His Precious Body and Blood as food for your body and soul, and live a good life.

Perhaps you can help the Orthodox Church become more vocal against abortion, euthanisia and of course contraception.

God bless.

spdundas

Glory be to Jesus Christ!

Dear Orthodox friend:

There are 22 sui juris Ritual Churches in union with the Pope of Rome. And I really would not say that you would be converting you would rather be registering and just living the Eastern Christian faith in the context of being both Catholic and Orthodox - united with Rome and yet being fully Eastern Orthodox (some would have beef with the "Orthodox in union with Rome" phrase, but really having become OCA and come back to the Byzantine Catholic Church I KNOW that phrase has a rightful use in regard to the Byzantine Churches and those of the Latin Church who also are true to the Faith)

The Byzantine Catholic Church has many names such as the Ruthenian-Greek Catholic Church or the Ruthenian Catholic Church. The Byzantine Catholic Church in America is our legal name here in America. We call ourselves "Byzantines" or members of the "Byzantine Church" not that we are the only Byzantine Church, but we are a Byzantine Church. And yes, there is only one Byzantine Rite, but there are many ethnic recensions of that Rite.

There is only one true Faith and the Orthodox have it as we do; they have the True Faith of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, BUT Catholics have the absolute pleroma or fulness; we have the continued Guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Councils convened by the Pontiffs after the Seventh as well as the charism of Papal Infallibility and Headship . We have the completeness, so to speak, of the Magisterium. The "loose federation" concept of Ecclesiology doesn't work as many in Orthodoxy are beginning to see. I think the next wave is going to be Orthodox, especially the Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox type, coming into union with Rome. There is more support from Scripture to substatiate the Petrine Authority and Gift then there is that Christianity is a loose federation of Churches that just have a "Bishop, the Mysteries and the Faith." Now mind you many Fathers of the Early Church have taught this, and they are not wrong, but the Holy Spirit has developed His Catholic Church to full stature and maturity under the Visible Head the Pope. Did the early Church teach the Papacy, no, but the seed was there for the Dogma to grow just as the deposit or seed of faith was there in the beginning, but there was a needed growth and clarification which is why, aside from the political ramifications of uniting the Roman Empire, Councils were needed. There is this admission that doctrinal developement occured throughout Church history by Orthodox people, but the argument comes when Catholics ask: why would God stop at the seventh Ecumenical Council to guide His Holy Catholic Church infallibly? The Catholic contention is that the Holy Spirit continues to guide His Church not only through Ecumenical Councils, but also through a Visible Head who is Christ's Visible Representative, the Most Perfect Ikon of Christ the Priest on Earth.

Regarding your need to belong to the true Church, let me just put it this way you will only be accountable for what you know when you stand before God, as the Universal Catechism teaches, but when you come to a revelation by the Grace of the Holy Spirit (It is a gift from God to KNOW the Pope is who He says He is and that the Catholic Church is the fulness of the Church) that the Catholic Church contains the fulness of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith and do not enter full communion with Her you are committing a grave sin, but if through some roadblock you do not enter whether that block is theological or otherwise God will not hold you accountable for your ignorance. So I recommend that you PRAY and pour your heart out to God and commune with His presence to KNOW that His Catholic Church is the Fulness of the Faith. You could read books upon books forever and still be convinced of a different argument every day; as you might be aware in the East a theologian is one who prays, so get praying

Your friend in Christ and the Theotokos:


Robert, Chief Among Sinners

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Robert Horwath ]

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Robert Horwath ]

I am Orthodox.

The Church is one, her mysteries are one, despite the surface disturbances, even small schisms, owing to damaged human nature. For example, our bishops don't concelebrate (yet?) but I know that my church and the other Russian one are the same faith. (The split was a practical result of the Russian Revolution and has nothing to do with faith.) Liturgically we are identical. I worship at both.

The Church is not proabortion. Like Catholicism, Orthodoxy allows indirect or therapeutic abortion to save the mother's life. (Western theology calls this double effect: the intent is not to kill the child but the child may die in order to save the mother.)

Holy Tradition is, AFAIK, unanimous against artificial birth control, witnessing to the reality of and responsibility that comes with sex, and the Pope is holding to HT on this, but you're right that many modern Orthodox seem to have erred here. There are dissenters doing damage in the Catholic communion too and seeming to get away with it in many places.

The Church includes but is bigger than "Byzantium' — in my opinion of course traditional western Catholicism has grace, as the many, many lives of the western Catholic saints shows — but Orthodoxy is the Church.

Doctrinal development? Some Episcopalians claim the ordination of women and gay marriage are applications of development in doctrine. (A perversion of the true belief about the teaching Church — which doesn't contradict its earlier teachings.) Perhaps Orthodoxy is right to stick with the Fathers (now if only the contraceptionists among us would).

Orthodox Convert?, yes, Catholicism will take you as a member — for the reasons you give, owing to its belief to be the complete one true Church — but no longer solicits such changes from Orthodox. Its goal now is corporate reunion with the Orthodox Churches, which it does regard as also true yet not quite complete without the Pope, and not the poaching of their members to hurt them.

The descriptions here of Byzantine Catholicism being nearly exactly like the Orthodox in practice are more an ideal aimed at by people here than the reality in most places. A lot of the culture has eroded — for example, Orthodox givens like Vespers the night before Sundays and holydays are unknown in lots of Ruthenian churches — and been replaced with copies of Roman practice. (Western devotions are great, but a complete Church tradition like the Byzantine doesn't need redundant add-ons from another Church.) But the goal described here actually has been reached in a few places (I've seen it!) and more are heading closer to it. In the past the Roman Church did interfere with the Byzantine Churches — banning the ordination of married men in the US and Canada, for example — and to an extent still does.

For more of my take on the matters discussed by SPdundas and Robert, read the Q&A page on my site, linked to the Orthodox page.

http://oldworldrus.com

Slava Isusu Christu!

I must say that your website is rather impressive. It is an wonderful witness to Eastern Christianity Thank you for offering it. I am sure that it took you alot of time to build it. Many Years to you my brother in the Lord Serge!

In Christ and the Theotokos:


Robert, Chief Among Sinners

Serge,

As always I LOVE your website. I always learn a lot from it. Thank you for reminding me to check into it.

I was very interested to see you got an icon posted on your site...of the Creation. It shows the God the Father? I've never seen an Icon of the Father as in some ways kind of forbidden in writing Icons.

Please don't get me wrong...I'm a close friend of the Orthodox Church. I love everything about her being true Byzantine Church. Yes, you're right...the Byzantine Catholic Church have lost some "culture" if you will. But thankfully we are coming a long way back to our true heritage. Of course...the Ukrainians are doing good job! My mission...we do vespers, but not every week...since Divine Liturgy isn't every week either. I hope and pray to make it more permanent mission with more Divine services every week. I still attend to the Orthodox Church every Sundays...even if we have Catholic Divine Litury that evening.

God bless always.

spdundas

Thanks, spdundas and Robert.

I was very interested to see you got an icon posted on your site...of the Creation. It shows the God the Father?

That's not from an icon but is a drawing or painting by the famous English poet William Blake, who wrote "The Tyger' and "Jerusalem'. It does look a little iconic in its coloring and use of shapes.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

GLORY TO JESUS CHRIST!
GLORY TO HIM FOREVER!

Thank you all for your responses!

SERGE, what you had to say about doctrinal development is interesting.

To me, it seems that there HAD to be some doctrinal development SOMEWHERE.

You say we should stick with "just the Fathers". But this just begs the question: Who are the Fathers? In what year did God say "There are no more Fathers?" Try finding pre-Nicene Fathers who spoke of the Veneration of Icons. You won't find one. Find one pre-Nicene Father who spoke of the Glorification of the Body of the Theotokos. You won't find one.

Either these are true developments, or they are curroptions. The same goes for the veneration of Theotokos and the Saints and many other beliefs, which I believe to be implicit in the Scriptures and more explicit in the writings of the Fathers.

My point? Todays systematic theologians and teachers are tomorrow's Fathers. If the world is still around 10,000 from now, the Orthodox may come to see Saint Gregory Palamas or Sergius Bulgakov as “Church Fathers.”

Now, does the fact that I accept doctrinal development mean I am ready to become Catholic? No, not so far. As I said, I still have “beef” with papal supremacy, and besides, Saint Vincent (the first to give doctrinal development any kind of a basis) lived before the Great Schism, and so is considered to be an Orthodox Christian by the Holy Orthodox Church. Therefore, the notion of doctrinal development can't be TOO FOREIGN to the mind of Orthodoxy, can it?

The issue I need to work out is which side of the East-West schism underwent authentic development: Papal or Orthodox.

SERGE, glad to hear I'm not the only Orthodox here.I'm sure you can help me out with some of my questions. For example, right now I'm doing research on the issue of divorce/remarriage. Before Byzantine times, I can find a single reference to “ecclesiastical divorces” and my understanding is that Catholics (and before the Schism, the Latin West) holds an attitude consistent with the doctrine of the early Church. Are there any pre-Byzantine references to the practice of ecclesiastical divorces?

Also, to all the Uniates, are the Uniate Churches still practicing ecclesiastical divorces?

Orthodox Convert?,

Good point about pre-Nicene Fathers. A friend once made a crack about the Orthodox as he seemed to consider the attempts at rapprochement with "Monophysites' (Copts, Ethiopians, Armenians and Malankarese, who may not be Monophysites after all) a betrayal of the Council of Chalcedon: he said we attempt periodically to do away with Chalcedon and "What next? Will Muslims be called “pre-Nicene Orthodox”?'

Actually I think Monophysitism — doing away with Christ's humanity — is a perennial theological temptation for us Orthodox as I believe Arianism — doing away with His divinity — is for western Christians. As the same friend says, there is a tension in o/Orthodoxy; such heresies are attempts at easy outs.

About Orthodox ecclesiastical divorces: such existed pre-Schism as Catholic apologists will admit (see the EWTN site's Q&A on Eastern Catholic Churches) and were not an issue in the Schism.

As to your second question, the Byzantine Catholics (the term "Uniate' is now considered offensive, kind of like the way "colored' would sound to blacks today) kept the Orthodox discipline on this until the early 1900s (at least in the Melkite Church in the Middle East) and, after centuries of communion with this difference, changed probably due to ever-encroaching "latinization', a manifestation of a false belief among Catholics that the Eastern Churches have to conform to the Roman Church's ways in order to be non-suspect and "really Catholic'.

According to EWTN's website, the Catholic authorities today seem to want the Orthodox to latinize in this regard as a condition of ending the Schism, which seems horribly wrong. The difference is and always was a nonissue when it comes to communion between the Churches.

Church divorces aren't easy to get (I once dated someone who had one) — they must go through the Church much like Catholic annulments, but the theory behind them is different. Rather than prove a marriage never really existed, the Church out of mercy for the wronged person in a marriage gone bad will allow that person to remarry, and I understand even then the service for the second marriage has penitential prayers instead of some of the usual joyful ceremonies.

http://oldworldrus.com

SERGE, very interesting.

I spoke with a Roman Catholic priest, and he told me that, to the best of his knowledge, such divorces existed in pre-Schism times, but were not approved by the Pope of Rome, and thus were (at least in the Roman view) not valid practices. He compared it to the ceasero-papism of the East, a tendency officially rejected by the West, but practiced nevertheless in the East.

I'm curious as to whether or not this issue is a doctrinal one or a disciplinary one. If disciplinary, I assume it could, and probably would, be changed. If not, then I think it's unlikely.

I think perhaps it might be allowed if the possible reasons for getting one were trimmed down. Originally, in the Byzantine Tradition, adultery was the only grounds for such a divorce. Now, from what I understand, we Orthodox allow several other reasons (I need to ask my priest). Perhaps if we stuck to a “divorce-only” grounds, we could be accommodated.

But this would pose another dilemma. Is it fair to Latin Catholics? Why should a Latin Catholic, a victim of adultery, be forced into celibacy after a divorce, but not a Byzantine of her same religion?

I understand that East and West differ on other issues (clerical celibacy), but even in clerical celibacy, the priest-candidate chooses to be celibate, since he know what conditions his duty as a Latin priest entails. Not so for a Latin woman who was cheated on by her husband.

Thus, I think that, if there is ever to be a reunion between our Churches, either the East would have to give in to the Western practice, or the West give in to the East. I can't see both practices existing side-by-side. At least not in today's world, which is so culturally integrated.

Lastly, I wish to apologize if my use of the word "Uniate" was offensive. May I ask why it is so?

Now first of all, about the divorces....one CANNOT get divorce...even if there were adultry or whatever. Jesus Christ HIMSELF said NO divorces are to be tolerated or accepted for whatever reason. He said so in the Bible. I'm just glad that the Catholic Church holds true to His word on that.

Now, if you have a "beef" with papacy, then I best advice for you to remain Orthodox. Don't bother joining the Byzantine Catholic Church. That's what makes us different: Catholic and Orthodox. To be a Catholic, one must accept leadership of the Pope (not ruler of the Church mind you). So, don't try to stress yourself out of whether or not you should "transfer" to Catholic Church if you can't accept papacy. Enjoy your life, your faith, etc. Do not worry.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

This is for serge and others who mentioned earlier in the post about contraception.

I have been informed by "orthodox" seminarians and from instituions of higher learing that contraception is allowed in the Eastern Chruches so long as it occurs before conception; that the marriage is trinitarian and between husband, wife, and God. The priest is not supposed to be in the bedroom with them.

It seems as though you say this is not "real" Eastern teaching. Can you elaborate? Do you have any reference I can look into about this topic, as I have not found anything that addresses it , but only heard of such teaching through word of mouth.

In ICXC,
ALity